CAR_Public/180511.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, May 11, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 95



                            Headlines


160 EAST 48TH: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. New York
ABSA: VEB Mulls Class Action Over Steinhoff Scandal
ACCELERATED FINANCIAL: Faces "Zimri" Suit in M.D. Florida
ADAM'S APPLE: Faces "Alvarez" Suit in E.D. New York
AFNI INC: $44,574 Settlement in "Heerema" Suit Okayed

AGILITY ENERGY: "Burton" Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
AGL: Liddell Power Station Closure May Prompt Class Action
AIR INDIA: Lokhandwala Sues over Open Luggage, Lost Items
ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces Class Suit in D. Arizona
AMEDISYS HOLDING: "Benco" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois

APPLE INC: Grace & Potter Seek to Certify iPhone Users Class
ASHBURN CORP: Judge Rejects Approval of Class Action Settlement
ATL NIGHT: Underpays Waitresses, "Karettis" Suit Claims
AUTOBAHN INC: July 10 Hearing on Ferrari, et al. Case Accord
AXA EQUITABLE: 2d Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Class Action

BARRICK GOLDSTRIKE: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Shaffmaster Says
BAYVIEW LOAN: "Hackett" Suit Moved to District of Maryland
BLUE CROSS: Faces "LP" Suit in D. Minnesota
BOOZ ALLEN: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
C.L. WILLIAMS: Court Certifies Class in "Barber" Suit

CANADA: Class Action Over Excessive Trudeau Airport Noise Okayed
CAPITAL ASSESSMENT: Kristensen Sues over Robocalls
CAPREIT INC: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Dominique Claims
CATERPILLAR: Class Members Get Less Money Than Expected
CENTRAL CAL: Settles Truck Drivers' Class Action for $9.25MM

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Misrepresents Dog Foods, "Hodge" Suit Alleges
CHEWPOD USA: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Tolos Says
CIBA INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged "Ponzi Scheme"
CITY WINERY: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
CONNECTIONS COMMUNITY: Faces "Nash" Suit in D. Delaware

CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Straczynski Sues over Spam Calls and Texts
COURAGE TEAM: Underpays Delivery Workers, Tornado et al. Claim
DAVE & BUSTER'S: Simpson Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
DC TRANSPORT: Faces "Bykov" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
DE VILLE ASSSET: Faces "Johnson" Suit in E.D. New York

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Metcalf Sues over Debt Collection Practices
EAZE SOLUTIONS: Williams Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
EDISON BALLROOM: Dawson-Wainer Sues over Mandatory Charge
EOG RESOURCES: Faces Little Land Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
ERICSSON: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action

EVANS TIRE: Ledergerber Sues over Product Warranty
FACEBOOK INC: Admits Tracking Users Off-Site Amid Class Action
FAIR COLLECTIONS: Faces "Ayuba" Suit in S.D. Texas
FENG XING CORP: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Under FLSA
FITNESS INT'L: Faces "Portis" Suit in S.D. New York

FLOYD STANLEY: Faces Nationwide Mutual Suit in South Carolina
FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Vesely" Suit in E.D. New York
FRAN & SALS: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
G&G TOWING: Payouts in Towing Class Action Commence
GALLIARD HOMES: Class Action Mulled Over Grenfell-Style Cladding

GARDNER TRUCKING: Accused by Cuevas of Violating FCRA, Labor Code
GLENN S. LYON: Martinez Balks at JD Sports Merger Deal
GLOBAL SINKHOLE: "Rooney" Suit Seeks Overtimes Wages under FLSA
GOOD GUYS: "Chagray" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
GOORIN BROS: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York

GRANT CAFFE: Faces "Lopez" Suit in E.D. New York
HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Denied in "Smith" Case
HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action for Mismanaging Retirement Funds
HOPE FOUND: Washington Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
HUMANA INC: Kinkead Seeks to Certify 4 Classes

KALOBIOS PHARMA: Aug. 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
KELLER WILLIAMS: Koppel Sues over Spam Text Messages
KELLER WILLIAMS: Wright Sues over Unsolicited, Autodialed Calls
KIRSCHENBAUM PHILLIPS: Faces "Campagna" Suit in E.D. New York
LDCM INTERNATIONAL: Reynozo Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA

LIVE NATION: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
LIVE NATION: Seeks Third Circuit Review of Ruling in "Egan" Suit
M & A PROJECTS: Faces "Cuxulic" Suit in E.D. New York
M.L. ZAGER: Faces "Woo" Suit in E.D. New York
MAGNUM SITEWORK: Orozco Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA

MAURY COBB: Faces "Dash" Suit in E.D. New York
MDL 2804: Williamstown City Joins Opioid Crisis Class Action
MERCK & CO: Schwartz Pediatrics Sues over Rotavirus Vaccine Sales
MERCK & CO: Electrical Workers' Plan Sues over Ezetimibe Sales
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Morris Sues over "Reduced Pay at 65" Scheme

MICHAEL REITER: "Chun" Suit Brought Before N.Y. Supreme Court
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Loalbo" Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania
MONAT GLOBAL: "Botallico" Suit Moved to S.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Klodzinski Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MRS BPO: Faces "Louis" Suit in E.D. New York

NATIONAL RECOVERY: "Zirogiannis" Settlement Has Initial Approval
NEW JADE FOUNTAIN: Faces "Lui" Suit in E.D. New York
NOHO HOSPITALITY: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
OCWEN LOAN: TCPA Class Action Settlement Delayed
P & M MANAGEMENT: Deceived Nursing Home Residents, Parsa Says

PRIMESOURCE HEALTH: Certification of Collective Action Sought
PRINCIPAL GLOBAL: Faces ERISA Class Action in Iowa
PURDUE PHARMA: Rivers Sues over Health Insurance Premium Hike
PURDUE PHARMA: Sardella Sues over Health Insurance Premium Hike
RESOURCE CAPITAL: Aug. 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

RIPPLE LABS: Faces "Coffey" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
ROCKAWAY CARS: "Gochez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA
RSP PERMIAN: Rosenblatt Balks at Concho Resources Merger Deal
RUSHMORE LOAN: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Sellers" Suit
SAN GABRIEL TRANSIT: Fails to Pay All Wages Due, Garcia Says

SAVANNAH LAW: "Dickens" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Georgia
SHENANDOAH VALLEY JUVENILE: Class Action Certification Sought
SLIDE FIRE: Faces Class Action Over Bump Stocks
SENIOR HEALTHCARE: Faces "Ziegler" Suit in Wyoming
ST. LOUIS RAMS: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Decision in "Pudlowski"

SYSTEM ONE: Hobbs Seeks to Certify Collective Action
TENET HEALTHCARE: 11th Cir. Upholds Class Action Dismissal
TIRE CLUB: Trujillo Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Faces "Hardy" Suit in N.D. Alabama
TWILIO CLOUD: Faces "Jozami" Suit in California Superior Court

U.S. AVIATION: Haralson Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
US BANCORP: Removes "Leeson" Class Suit to N.D. West Virginia
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fowler Backs Bill to End Forced Arbitration
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Set to Receive Settlement Payout
UNITED STATES: Faces "Nwaorie" Suit in S.D. Texas

UNITED STATES: Seeks Appeals Ct. Review of "Garza" Suit Ruling
VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Upson" Suit in E.D. New York
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Emission-Cheating Class Actions in Austria
WALMART INC: Faces "Doe" Suit Alleging Extortion Under RICO Act
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Sales Tax Discrepancy

* DOJ, FTC Continue to Scrutinize Class Action Settlements
* EU Commission Presents Directive on Representative Actions
* Existence of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements on the Rise


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $105.6MM Reserve at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had US$877.2MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 20 Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Still Defends Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has US$21.2MM A&E Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 31,660 Claims Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Unit Still Defends Talc Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. Sealed Air's Canadian Units Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Super. Ct. Affirms ConRail Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. Fryer-Knowles Dismissed in "Varney"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Metalcad Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser Bid to Junk "Kilty" Claims Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies Weyerhaeuser Bid to Dismiss "Kappel"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Warning for Empty C & H Mineral Bldg
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brunel School Accused of Asbestos Cover-Up

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Academy Closes After Asbestos Disturbance
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Another Take-Home Asbestos Exposure in Calif.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Rips Through Asbestos-Containing House
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fragments Found at Nairn Academy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dump Found on West Coast Beach

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConRail Off Hook for Asbestos Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Scheduled in Reinsurance Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tests Find Asbestos in Apartment Complex
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Disease Severity Highlighted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Clair County Asbestos Trial Underway

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Clean-Up Resumes at Wonderland
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYC Asbestos Court Still Plaintiff's Playground
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Causes Problems on Apartment Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Fined EUR50K Over Worker's Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bowling Club Site Fenced Off for Asbestos



                            *********


160 EAST 48TH: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 160 East 48th
Street Owner II LLC doing business as: The Buchanan. The case is
styled Lucia Marett, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. 160 East 48th
Street Owner II LLC doing business as: The Buchanan, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04072 (S.D. N.Y., May 7, 2018).

The Buchanan is an apartment building in Arlington, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ABSA: VEB Mulls Class Action Over Steinhoff Scandal
---------------------------------------------------
Dewald van Rensburg, writing for City Press, reports that Absa is
being targeted for damages in the Steinhoff scandal due to its
involvement in the production of the disgraced company's 2015
prospectus to shareholders.

VEB, the Dutch nonprofit organisation that has launched a class
action against Stainhoff in the Netherlands, gave Absa, Barclays
and Commerzbank notices on April 18.

The notice "is an invitation to them to consult with VEB about an
amicable settlement, failing which VEB may file a class action
lawsuit under Dutch process law against the banks," VEB said.

The banks all provided services to Steinhoff when it was
producing two prospectuses in 2015 that preceded its listing in
Frankfurt.

"The prospectuses were misleading -- VEB questions whether the
prospectuses properly represent Steinhoff's financial position.
VEB concludes that the banks have -- in their respective roles
and capacities -- acted wrongfully in respect of Steinhoff
investors," the Dutch group said in a statement.

VEB had earlier told City Press that it might target large firms
that provided Steinhoff with services as it seeks to recoup some
part of the billions which shareholders lost when the retail
company's share price collapsed in December.

It specifically mentioned auditor Deloitte as a possible source
of funds due to its apparent failure to catch the misstatements
in the Steinhoff books.

The damage to shareholders was in the region of R200 billion
after it was revealed in December that Steinhoff management had
cooked the company's books. [GN]


ACCELERATED FINANCIAL: Faces "Zimri" Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accelerated
Financial Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Zimri Tapia, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Accelerated Financial Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-
cv-00613-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla., May 7, 2018).

Accelerated Financial Solutions, LLC is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Taylor King, Esq.
   Mickler & Mickler
   5452 Arlington Expy
   Jacksonville, FL 32211
   Tel: (904) 725-0822
   Fax: (904) 725-0855
   Email: tjking@planlaw.com


ADAM'S APPLE: Faces "Alvarez" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adam's Apple Fruits
& Vegetables, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Alvarez, on behalf
of himself and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
Adam's Apple Fruits & Vegetables, LLC and John Doe, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02623 (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2018).

Adam's Apple Fruits and Vegetables, LLC is in the Fruits
business.  It is a wholly owned business since 1989 and have
cumulative produce industry business experience of over 55
years.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


AFNI INC: $44,574 Settlement in "Heerema" Suit Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GEORGE F. HEEREMA, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AFNI, INC. and JOHN
DOES 1 to 10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00244-JBC
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge James B. Clark, III entered an order
certifying a settlement class consisting of:

   "all persons who reside in the State of New Jersey to whom
   AFNI, Inc. mailed a written communication, in connection with
   its attempt to collect a debt owed to Sprint, which included a
   statement that "[p]ayments made electronically to AFNI may be
   subject to a $4.95 processing fee" during the period beginning
   January 14, 2015, and ending January 14, 2016."

In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, AFNI
shall make the following payments:

   (a) AFNI will create the following two class settlement funds:

       Actual Damage Fund.

       AFNI will create an Actual Damage Fund of $499.95. Each
       Class Member who paid the $495 processing fee, and who
       timely returned a claim form will be entitled to receive a
       payment from the Actual Damage Fund in an amount equal to
       $4.95, the amount of the "processing fee" collected.

       Statutory Damage Fund.

       AFNI will also create a Statutory Damage Fund of
       $44,574.00, which will be distributed pro rata among those
       Class Members who did not exclude themselves and who
       timely returned a claim form.

       Claimants will receive a pro rata share of the Class
       Recovery by check. Checks issued to Claimants will be void
       60 days from the date of issuance. Any portion of the
       Class Recovery remains unclaimed after the void date on
       the Claimants' checks, these remaining funds will be
       distributed as follows: i) first to pay the costs
       associated with providing notice to the Settlement Class
       and administering the Class Recovery up to $6,000.00; and
       (ii) any remainder thereafter shall be donated as a cy
       Pres award to Northeast New jersey Legal Services.

   (b) AFNI shall pay Plaintiff 4,000.00.

   (c) AFNI shall pay Class Counsel $71,000.00 for their
       attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the action. Class
       Counsel shall not request additional fees or costs from
       AFNI or the Class Members

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rsQU7hd9


AGILITY ENERGY: "Burton" Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ALEX BURTON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AGILITY ENERGY,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-00204-DC (W.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge David Counts entered an order on May 4, 2018, granting
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of:

   "all current and former sand coordinators employed by Agility
   Energy, Inc., during the last three years who were paid a
   salary and shift rate."

The Court further orders the Parties to confer in an attempt to
agree upon the content and form of notice as well as an
appropriate manner of distribution. Upon reaching an agreement,
the Parties shall file a joint proposed notice for approval by
the Court. If the Parties cannot agree on the form of the notice
and method of distribution, Defendant shall file its objections
to the proposed notice on or before May 18, 2018, and Plaintiff
shall file his response to Defendant's objections on or before
May 25, 2017.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5UhjMFd7


AGL: Liddell Power Station Closure May Prompt Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Kelly, writing for The Australian, reports that liberal MP
Craig Kelly has challenged competition chief Rod Sims to act
against AGL for planning to close the Liddell coal-fired power
station in NSW, arguing it could expose the company to "one of
the largest class-action claims our nation has seen".

Mr Kelly, the chairman of the Coalition's backbench committee on
energy and the environment, said there was scope to take action
against AGL under revamped misuse of market power provisions at
section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act.

In a letter to the chairman of the Australian Competition &
Consumer Commission, Mr Kelly said he disagreed with Mr Sims'
argument that competition laws could not force a company to sell
an asset.

Mr Kelly, one of the leading members of the Monash Forum pushing
for the government to build a new coal-fired power-station, said
there was a precedent to take legal action.

He cited a case in the late 1980s in which Queensland Wire -- a
barbed wire producer -- had successfully constructed a case of
misuse of market power against BHP after the mining giant refused
to sell its "Y-bar", a product used to make picket fences.

Mr Kelly warned Mr Sims there was a provision under section 82 of
the act allowing consumers to form a class action if the closure
of the coal-fired power station resulted in an increase in
electricity prices.

"AGL are playing a game of Russian roulette with the competition
laws," Mr Kelly told The Australian.  "It's not the ACCC that's
their biggest concern, but a private class action from every
consumer, business and industry in the nation that could suffer a
loss through increased electricity prices from Liddell closing.''

Liberal Eric Abetz backed the push, saying the competition
watchdog should do "everything within its power to deal with what
is clearly a misuse of market power".

Senator Abetz said the government should either reform
competition law or nationalise Liddell if the ACCC did not have
the power to force a sale.

Competition law expert Hank Spier said it would be difficult to
penalise AGL for not wanting to sell one of its assets.

He said it would be "almost impossible" to prove the company was
taking Liddell offline with the intention of reducing competition
and increasing energy prices. [GN]


AIR INDIA: Lokhandwala Sues over Open Luggage, Lost Items
---------------------------------------------------------
TAYABALI LOKHANDWALA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AIR INDIA LTD. and AIR
INDIA, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-05715 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May
2, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendant's failure
to compensate Lokhandwala for the loss of his bag for over a
month and for the permanent loss of his Personal Items.

According to the complaint, in fiscal year 2014-2015 Air India
generated worldwide revenues of 2.9 billion USD, with a net
income of 86 million USD. As of July 2016, Air India flies to a
total of 84 destinations including 48 domestic destinations
within India and 36 international destinations including many
cities in the United States. The Defendants operate flights to
and from Chicago O'Hare International Airport ("O'Hare).

On December 13, 2015 Lokhandwala purchased an airline ticket from
Defendants. The ticket was for travel on an Air India-operated
flight, which departing from Mumbai on January 13, 2016 and
arrived at O'Hare on January 14, 2016, with a short layover in
Delhi (the "Flight"). On January 13, 2016, Lokhandwala arrived at
the airport in Mumbai and checked his luggage (Tag No. BK27HXX)
pursuant to his free bag allowance (the "Luggage"). Later that
day, Lokhandwala boarded the Flight. Once the Flight arrived in
Chicago, Lokhandwala deplaned, went to the appropriate baggage
claim area, and determined that his Luggage had been lost.

Lokhandwala immediately reported the missing Luggage to
representatives for Defendants. Representatives for Defendants
began sending missing luggage reports to Lokhandwala via e-mail
(the "Missing Luggage Reports") in an effort to locate his
luggage. The Missing Luggage Reports contained pictures and other
information about luggage lost on Air India operated flights
arriving at O'Hare on particular days. The Missing Luggage
Reports demonstrate that Defendants are losing Air India
passengers' luggage at an alarming rate. Accordingly, Missing
Luggage Reports evince Defendants' systemic failure to handle
passenger's luggage with appropriate care. More than three weeks
after his Flight, Lokhandwala's Luggage was found. Thereafter,
when Lokhandwala arrived at O'Hare to claim his lost Luggage, he
found the bag open. Lokhandwala became immediately concerned that
his open bag -- which had been out of his possession for over a
month -- was missing items. While at O'Hare, Lokhandwala asked
Defendant's representatives to allow him to weigh the bag in
order to compare that weight to the bag's weight at check-in.
While at O'Hare, Lokhandwala weighed the bags three different
times in seriatim, with the scale used by Defendants' showing a
different weight each time.

Lokhandwala complained to Defendants' representatives at O'Hare
that the scales were unreliable. Lokhandwala checked his Luggage
by hand and determined that a pair of pants and a jacket were
missing (the "Personal Items"). On February 23, Lokhandwala
followed-up with an email to ordbagstatus@airindiausa regarding
his Personal Items, which addressed the issue with the weights.
On March 4, 2016, Defendants sent an email to Lokhandwala denying
his request for compensation for the lost items, stating that
"[s]ince there is no loss of weight, we are unable to entertain
you [sic] claim for compensation."

Air India Limited is a company that was incorporated under the
Companies Act of 1956. It owns Air India. Air India is the flag
carrier airline of India and the third largest airline in India
in terms of passengers carried.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam S. Tracy, Esq.
          THE TRACY FIRM, LTD.
          141 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 2172
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: 312 754 9499
          Facsimile: 630 689 9471
          E-mail: at@tracyfirm.com


ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces Class Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alcon Laboratories
Incorporated. The case is styled as America's Health and Resource
Center Limited and Affiliated Health Group Limited named as
Illinois Corporation, individually and as the representatives of
a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs v. Alcon
Laboratories Incorporated, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
and Unknown Parties named as John Does 1-12, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-mc-00006-JGZ (D. Ariz., May 4, 2018).

Alcon Laboratories, Inc. markets and distributes eye care
products. The company offers ophthalmic pharmaceuticals, surgical
equipment, and contact lenses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel J Cohen, Esq.
   Bock Hatch Lewis & Oppenheim LLC
   134 N LaSalle St., Ste. 1000
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 658-5500
   Fax: (312) 658-0000
   Email: danieljaycohen209@gmail.com

      - and -

   Molly Stemper Gantman, Esq.
   Bock Hatch Lewis & Oppenheim LLC
   134 N LaSalle St., Ste. 1000
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 658-5500
   Fax: (312) 658-5555
   Email: molly@classlawyers.com

      - and -

   Phillip A Bock, Esq.
   Bock & Hatch LLC
   134 N LaSalle St., Ste. 1000
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 658-5500
   Fax: (312) 658-5555
   Email: phil@bockhatchllc.com


AMEDISYS HOLDING: "Benco" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kathy Benco, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Amedisys
Holding, LLC and Amedisys Illinois, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
2018-L-000266, was removed from the Circuit Court of Dupage
County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois - (Chicago) on May 2, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-03150 to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sharon Johnson
Coleman.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ethan G Zelizer, Esq.
          HR LAW COUNSEL, LLC
          3108 State Route 59, Suite 124-205
          Naperville, IL 60565
          Telephone: (630) 551 8374
          E-mail: ethan@hrlawcounsel.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Craig Robert Annunziata, Esq.
          Jason D Keck, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          10 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3450
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 346 8061
          E-mail: cannunziata@laborlawyers.com
                  jkeck@laborlawyers.com


APPLE INC: Grace & Potter Seek to Certify iPhone Users Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHRISTINA GRACE and KEN POTTER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00551-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an
order on August 2, 2018:

   1. granting certification of a nationwide class of:

      "all owners of Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices in
      the United States who on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or
      earlier operating systems on their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S
      devices";

   2. appointing Christina Grace and Ken Potter as Class
      Representatives;

   3. appointing Jill M. Manning of Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas
      Alvarez & Smith LLP, Daniel L. Warshaw of Pearson, Simon &
      Warshaw LLP, John Austin Curry of Caldwell Cassady & Curry
      LLP, and David F.E. Tejtel of Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC,
      as Class Counsel; and

   4. In the alternative, certifying a California state class
      defined as:

      "all owners of Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices in
      California who on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or earlier
      operating systems on their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S devices."

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1rKbylDW

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Counsel for the Class:

          Allan Steyer, Esq.
          Jill M. Manning, Esq.
          D. Scott Macrae, Esq.
          STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS
          ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
          One California Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 421 3400
          Facsimile: (415) 421 2234
          E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
                  jmanning@steyerlaw.com
                  smacrae@steyerlaw.com

               - and -

          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          Alexander L. Simon, Esq.
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433 9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433 9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
                  dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
                  asimon@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
          240 East 79th Street, Suite A
          New York, NY 10075
          Telephone: (646) 661 5881
          E-mail: dtejtel@fotpllc.com

               - and -

          Bradley W. Caldwell, Esq.
          Jason D. Cassady, Esq.
          John Austin Curry, Esq.
          CALDWELL CASSADY & CURRY
          2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1000
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 888 4848
          E-mail: bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com
                  jcassady@caldwellcc.com
                  acurry@caldwellcc.com


ASHBURN CORP: Judge Rejects Approval of Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal
judge has rejected approval of a class action settlement that
drew an unusual objection from the U.S. Justice Department, but
one that it withdrew.

U.S. District Judge Renee Bumb in New Jersey found on April 17
that "many fundamental and important questions remain unanswered"
about the settlement, which gave credits to customers of an
online wine retailer while awarding $1.2 million to plaintiffs
lawyers.  Her ruling comes even as the Justice Department, which
challenged the deal along with 10 other individual objectors and
19 attorneys general, did "an about-face" in supporting the
settlement after lawyers made several changes.

"How can a court determine, with a reasonable amount of
certainty, that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 23(e), when it
has many unanswered questions?" Judge Bumb wrote.  "It cannot,
and must not."

"In sum," she concluded, "too many questions remain, and without
answers, the Court is unequipped to approve the parties'
settlement."

A DOJ spokeswoman declined to comment.

"The Court's decision is unfortunate since this was an excellent
settlement as evidenced by the huge class participation rate and
by the fact that DOJ, the AGs, and even the majority of the
professional objectors, could find no fault in the deal as
presented for Final Approval," plaintiffs attorney James Cecchi,
of Roseland, New Jersey-based Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein,
Brody & Agnello, wrote in an email.

Suzanne Schiller, a partner at Manko Gold Katcher Fox in Bala
Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, who represented the defendant, Ashburn
Corp., which does business as Wines 'Til Sold Out, declined to
comment.

Three plaintiffs sued in 2016, claiming to represent a class of
consumers who alleged that Wines 'Til Sold Out falsely advertised
wine at discounted prices based on original prices that never
existed or that the retailer inflated.  Judge Bumb dismissed most
of the claims.  She granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on Nov. 16.

Under the original deal, class members would get credits toward
future wine purchases of between 20 cents to $2.25 per bottle for
a total settlement value of $10.8 million.  Lawyers, on the other
hand, would get $1.7 million.

After lawyers filed a motion for final approval, the DOJ filed a
statement of interest on Feb. 16 in the case, claiming the
settlement provided "extremely limited value" while giving a
"windfall payment" to class counsel.  The statement, filed by
Joshua Rothman, a trial attorney at the Consumer Protection
Branch in the DOJ's Civil Division in Washington, D.C., said the
credits were akin to coupons that the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005 discouraged.

The move came days after former Associate Attorney General Rachel
Brand suggested in a speech at a Federalist Society luncheon in
Washington, D.C., that the department would ramp up its review of
fairness in class action settlements.  CAFA requires that certain
officials, including the U.S. attorney general, get notifications
of class action settlements.  Although the DOJ has intervened in
settlements only a handful of times, Attorney General Jeff
Sessions has taken a stronger stance against class actions.

The state attorneys general, which included Arizona and Texas,
filed an amicus brief outlining similar concerns about the
credits.  They noted that the settlement required class members
to purchase large amounts of wine within a year in order to use
credits applied per bottle.

Plaintiffs lawyers made some changes: They added a $500,000 cash
fund for unused credits, reduced their fee request to $1.2
million and lengthened the period of time in which credits could
be used to 18 months.

On March 27, the DOJ notified the court that it had changed its
mind about its objection because plaintiffs lawyers, with whom
its representatives had met earlier that month, "substantially
improved the overall structure and value of the proposed
settlement in response to the United States' and others'
concerns."

"Each of these revisions represents a material improvement to the
proposed settlement -- providing more actual value to class
consumers," Rothman wrote.

In the April 17 order, Judge Bumb wrote that the DOJ's "about-
face" had no "helpful explanation (indeed, none at all)."

Burt Rublin -- rublin@ballardspahr.com -- of Ballard Spahr said
that while the federal government's renewed involvement in class
action settlements was notable, so was the court's ultimate
decision.

"While DOJ's participation in the class settlement approval
process is guaranteed to shine a bright spotlight on the
challenged settlement and lead to increased scrutiny by the
Court, the Wines case demonstrates that courts will not
necessarily rubber-stamp the position taken by DOJ," he said.

Among Judge Bumb's concerns: The cash fund was possibly
insufficient, the settlement was "largely devoice of any numbers"
and many class members had purchased wine that was different from
that of the plaintiffs who brought the case.  When asked to
explain, lawyers said both sides said they wanted to have those
claims released as part of the settlement.

"This answer is not only inadequate, but unsettling to the
Court," Judge Bumb wrote.  "Without such explanation, the Court
is deprived of the opportunity to probe the reason for doing so:
do the lawyers win, and the class loses, nor not?" [GN]


ATL NIGHT: Underpays Waitresses, "Karettis" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
BRIANA KARETTIS, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ATL NIGHT LIFE GROUP, LLC and ANWAR
SHARIF, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01921-MLB (N.D. Ga., May
2, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory damages for all unpaid
wages at the minimum rate, award of liquidated damages in an
equal amount, interest, and award of fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly forced
Plaintiff and similarly situated waitresses to make telephone
solicitations to clients and to attend events for the benefit of
Defendants off the clock and without compensation. The Defendants
also failed to maintain proper time records for hours worked by
Plaintiff and other waitresses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ainsworth Dudley, Esq.
          DUDLEY LAW, LLC
          Suite 200, Building One
          4200 Northside Parkway
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 687 8205
          E-mail: adudleylaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Vincent M. Tilley, Esq.
          VINCE TILLEY, P.C.
          1870 The Exchange, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30330
          Telephone: (770) 989 7334
          E-mail: vtilley@lawnet.org


AUTOBAHN INC: July 10 Hearing on Ferrari, et al. Case Accord
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEVE FERRARI, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
AUTOBAHN, INC. dba AUTOBAHN MOTORS, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 4:17-cv-00018-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Steve Ferrari, Michael
Keynejad, Patricia Rubin, John Diaz, Ray Gapasin, and Harold
Fethe will move the court on July 10, 2018, for an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement they have
      reached with Defendants Sonic Automotive, Inc. and
      Autobahn, Inc. in this matter;

   2. providing minor alterations to the settlement
      administration procedure suggested during consultations
      with a potential settlement administrator. The proposed
      changes would improve the efficiency of the administration
      process and ensure that the cost of administration remains
      within the limits agreed by the Parties in the Settlement
      Agreement, thereby maximizing the benefit to the Class;

   3. granting provisional certification of the Class for
      purposes of settlement only;

   4. appointing Plaintiffs Steve Ferrari, Michael Keynejad,
      Patricia Rubin, John Diaz, Ray Gapasin, and Harold Fethe to
      serve as Class Representatives;

   5. appointing Varnell & Warwick, P.A. and Franck & Associates
      as Class Counsel;

   6. approving the Parties' proposed notice program as set forth
      in the Settlement and directing that notice be disseminated
      to the Class pursuant to the notice program provided in the
      Settlement;

   7. approving the Parties' proposed Claim Form, and approving
      the procedures set forth in the Settlement for Class
      Members to submit claims, receive vouchers, redeem
      vouchers, receive redemption checks, exclude themselves
      from the Class, and object to the Settlement;

   8. setting a schedule for the final approval process and for
      Plaintiffs' motion for service Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion
      and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
      Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class awards to
      the named plaintiffs and attorneys' fees and costs; and

   9. staying all non-settlement related proceedings in this case
      against the Autobahn Defendants, pending final approval of
      the proposed Settlement.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ETUCzJWA

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          Herman Franck, Esq.
          Elizabeth Betowski, Esq.
          FRANCK & ASSOCIATES
          910 Florin Road, Suite 212
          Sacramento, CA 95831
          Telephone: (916) 447 8400
          Facsimile: (916) 447 0720

               - and -

          Janet Varnell, Esq.
          Brian Warwick, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A
          COMPLEX CONSUMER LITIGATION
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753 8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504 3301
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  ivarnell@varnellandwarwiek.com


AXA EQUITABLE: 2d Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Bosch, Esq. -- cbosch@sheppardmullin.com -- and
John Stigi, Esq. -- jstigi@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote
that in O'Donnell v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co., No. 17-cv-
1085, 2018 WL 1720808 (2d Cir. Apr. 10, 2018), the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed an order
dismissing a variable annuity policyholder's putative class
action against AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company ("AXA") as
precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of
1998 ("SLUSA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78bb(f).  Plaintiff alleged that
AXA breached its contractual duties by employing a new strategy
for its variable annuity policies without obtaining proper
approval from the New York State Department of Financial Services
("DFS"). AXA allegedly misled the regulator by failing to
adequately inform and explain the significance of the changes to
its insurance product in documentation submitted to DFS.  The
Court held that because the plaintiff and putative class members
were unaware of the defendant's alleged misrepresentation to DFS,
the misrepresentation could not have been "in connection with" a
purchase or sale of securities, and thus could not be governed by
SLUSA.  This decision establishes important limits on SLUSA
preclusion and the scope of the United States Supreme Court's
seminal SLUSA decision, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71 (2006).

In November 2008, plaintiff purchased a variable deferred annuity
policy from AXA, which provided that AXA could invest assets at
its discretion and make certain material changes to the
policyholder's account as permitted by law.  New York Insurance
Law Section 4240(e) required that AXA provide DFS with
information about the proposed changes and await approval.

AXA filed the required documentation, which DFS approved, and AXA
subsequently introduced the AXA Tactical Manager Strategy ("ATM
Strategy"), a volatility management strategy that allowed AXA to
limit its own equity exposure to market volatility while
potentially limiting policyholders' gains.  In 2011, DFS entered
into a Consent Order finding that "[t]he absence of detail and
discussion in the filings regarding the significance of the
implementation of the ATM Strategy had the effect of misleading
the Department regarding the scope and potential effects of the
ATM Strategy."  Had DFS been properly informed, it may have
required that existing policyholders affirmatively opt into the
new approach.

Following entry of the Consent Order, plaintiff brought a
putative class action in Connecticut state court alleging that
AXA breached its contractual duties when it implemented the ATM
Strategy without obtaining the required approval from DFS.  AXA
removed the action to federal court, where O'Donnell moved to
remand the action to state court and AXA cross-moved to dismiss
the complaint as precluded by SLUSA.

Under SLUSA, a class action is properly removed to federal court
and dismissed where the state action (1) is a "covered class
action," (2) based on state statutory or common law, (3)
concerning a covered security, and (4) alleges that defendants
made a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in
connection with the purchase or sale of the security. The
question in O'Donnell was whether the fourth requirement had been
satisfied.

The Court explained that "[h]ere, AXA invites us to conclude that
O'Donnell has pled a [SLUSA-covered] claim in a context where the
alleged misrepresentation was made to a regulator and unknown to
the holders of the securities.  We decline this invitation." The
Court concluded that the misrepresentation could not have been
made "in connection with" the decision to buy or sell a covered
security "for the simple reason that it was unknown to the
[securityholders]."  Citing Dabit, AXA argued that "it is enough
that the alleged fraud coincide' with a securities transaction --
whether by the plaintiff or by someone else." However, the Second
Circuit refused to extend Dabit to reach a situation where, as
here, no link could be drawn between the misrepresentation and
the inaction of a securityholder.

The Second Circuit took a limiting view of the broad language of
Dabit in determining that the mere temporal overlap of a holder's
passive retention of a security and an alleged misrepresentation
unknown to the holder fails the "in connection with" requirement
for SLUSA preclusion.  The decision appears poised to foreclose
certain defendants from invoking SLUSA preclusion to achieve
dismissal of actions, while creating a corresponding opportunity
for plaintiffs to pursue class action suits that might have
seemed dubious under pre-O'Donnell precedent. [GN]


BARRICK GOLDSTRIKE: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Shaffmaster Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
GREG SHAFFMASTER on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BARRICK GOLDSTRIKE MINES INC.;
BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION; and DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00205 (D. Nev., May 3, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and overtime pay, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff and
all other similarly situated non-exempt hourly employees pursuant
to a uniform policy and agreement, expressed in writing and
imposed by law, to comply with all state and federal laws,
including payment of overtime premiums to employees at the
correct overtime rate. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
overtime premium pay of one and one-half his regular rate of pay
for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. Plaintiff's
situation is similar to those he seeks to represent because
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and all other Class Members
overtime premiums at the correct rate.

The Defendants employ, and have employed, in excess of 1,000
Class Members within the applicable statute of limitations
periods. By failing to include bonuses and other non-
discretionary payments in the total sum earned before dividing by
hours worked, Defendants failed to pay the correct hourly rate
for overtime hours worked. Defendants' unlawful conduct has been
widespread, repeated, and willful. Defendants knew or should have
known that its policies and practices have been unlawful and
unfair.

The Defendants also discriminated against Plaintiff in violation
of the FMLA by refusing to provide Plaintiff with any information
regarding his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, by
refusing to provide Plaintiff with FMLA-protected leave to care
for his father, and by ultimately terminating Plaintiff for
taking such leave.  The Defendants' actions were intentional,
willful, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights under
the FMLA.

Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc. provides gold mining operations. It
produces gold. The company was incorporated in 1976 and is based
in Elko, Nevada. Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Barrick Gold Corporation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NE 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284 1500
          Facsimile. (775) 703 5027
          E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
                  josh@thiermabuck.com
                  joshh@thiermanlaw.com


BAYVIEW LOAN: "Hackett" Suit Moved to District of Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Richard Hackett and Megan
Hackett, on their behalf and on behalf of three classes of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. Bayview Loan
Servicing, LLC; and The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee for
the Certificate Holders of the CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan
Trust 2006-OA19, the Defendants, Case No. 444494-V, was removed
from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt) on
May 2, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-
01286-PX to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Paula Xinis.

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC operates as a mortgage loan servicer
and debt collector in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip R Robinson, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC
          8737 Colesville Road, Suite 308
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 448 1304
          E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Andrew North Cook, Esq.
          K AND L GATES LLP
          1601 K St NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 778 9106
          Facsimile: (202) 778 9100
          E-mail: andrew.cook@klgates.com


BLUE CROSS: Faces "LP" Suit in D. Minnesota
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Minnesota. The case is styled L.P. by and through her
father, J.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota,
Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-01241-MJD-DTS (D. Minn., May 3,
2018).

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota offers health care plans
and resources in the state of Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Charles N Nauen, Esq.
   Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
   100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
   Minneapolis, MN 55401
   Tel: (612) 339-6900
   Fax: (612) 339-0981
   Email: cnnauen@locklaw.com

      - and -

   David W Asp, Esq.
   Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP
   100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200
   Mpls, MN 55401-2179
   Tel: (612) 339-6900
   Fax: (612) 339-0981
   Email: dwasp@locklaw.com

      - and -

   Susan E Ellingstad, Esq.
   Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP
   100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200
   Mpls, MN 55401-2179
   Tel: (612) 339-6900
   Fax: (612) 339-0981
   Email: seellingstad@locklaw.com


BOOZ ALLEN: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Harris, St. Laurent & Chaudhry LLP and Mark Kelly, Esq. on
April 18 disclosed that on April 9, 2018, they filed a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of Paul Kocourek, in his
individual capacity and as trustee for The Paul Kocourek Trust
("Kocourek") against Booz Allen Hamilton ("BAH" or the "Company")
and certain former BAH executives.  The action, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserts
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all
those who sold or exchanged BAH securities in connection with the
sale of BAH's Government Division to The Carlyle Group
("Carlyle") in 2008 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
engaged in a fraudulent plan to sell the Government Division to
Carlyle at a significant discount.  To implement this scheme,
Defendants made false and misleading statements to BAH
shareholders about the sales process and the value of the
Government Division, many of which were included in an
Information Circular distributed to BAH shareholders on May 22,
2008.  Defendants intended to deceive BAH's shareholders so that
they would vote to tender their stock at $763 per share, far
below its actual value.

The sale to Carlyle closed on July 31, 2008. Nearly two years
later, on June 21, 2010, Carlyle published a Form S-1 filing in
connection with its planned IPO of the Government Division, which
disclosed new information demonstrating that certain of the
statements contained in the Information Circular were false and
misleading, that BAH shareholders received consideration for
their shares that Defendants knew was insufficient, and that
Defendants personally benefitted from the sale at the expense of
BAH's shareholders.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from April 18,
2018.  Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion for
appointment as Lead Plaintiff is June 18, 2018.  Any member of
the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this lawsuit or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact Yonaton Aronoff, Esq. by telephone at 917-512-9488, or by
email at yaronoff@sc-harris.com.

Harris, St. Laurent & Chaudhry LLP is a boutique trial law firm
that routinely handles investor rights cases.  Mr. Kelly
regularly represents clients in securities litigation. [GN]


C.L. WILLIAMS: Court Certifies Class in "Barber" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Carlton Barber, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. C.L. Williams
Enterprises, Inc., and Charles Williams, the Defendants, Case No.
5:17-cv-12429-JEL-SDD (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Judith E. Levy
entered an order on May 4, 2018, conditionally certifying a
class.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=91WsNBgh


CANADA: Class Action Over Excessive Trudeau Airport Noise Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Woodhouse, writing for The Suburban, reports that residents
living adjacent to the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Airport, namely
those in Dorval, Saint-Laurent, Ahuntsic-Cartierville and Mont-
Royal and find the night flight schedule trying, might be able to
sleep a little easier soon as the advocacy group LPDMT has been
authorized by the Superior Court of Quebec to continue a class
action suit against the airport.

"This is good news for the rights of citizens who are subjected
to excessive noise, day and night," said LPDMT (Les Pollues de
Montreal-Trudeau) Board President Pierre Lachapelle.

Mr. Lacahapelle highlighted part of Judge Chantal Tremblay's
recent comments noting that "The allegations of the request for
authorization and the supporting documentation are sufficient to
justify a case against Montreal-Trudeau Airport.

"The suit seeks a decrease in the noise created by airplanes
overflying Montreal and reasonable compensation for the
population affected by it," noted the board president.

"Are faults occurring with the management of the soundscape as
well as the procedures for approaching and taking off from
Montreal-Trudeau Airport?" asked the group's lawyer,
Gerard Samet.

"Should the norms that apply to airplane noise be public, and if
so, who is to make them public? If they are not public, is it a
fault to not make them public?" [GN]


CAPITAL ASSESSMENT: Kristensen Sues over Robocalls
--------------------------------------------------
JOHN KRISTENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ASSESSMENT GROUP
INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-21752-KMW (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2018),
seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, around December 2017, the Defendant
contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
ending in -9711, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase
Defendant's services. There was a significant pause prior to the
Defendant trying to solicit its services to Plaintiff. The
Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined
by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services.

The Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from
telephone number (786) 540-3862 confirmed to be Defendant's
number. Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for
emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).
The Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to
a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge
for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1).

During all relevant times, the Defendant did not possess
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
section 227(b)(1)(A).

The Plaintiff is not a customer of Defendant's services and has
never provided any personal information, including his cellular
telephone number, to Defendant for any purpose whatsoever. Such
calls constitute solicitation calls pursuant to 47 C.F.R. section
64.1200(c)(2) as they were attempts to promote or sell
Defendant's services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
          FLORIDA LEGAL LLC
          14 NE First Ave, Suite 1001
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 901 2209
          E-mail: Ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law


CAPREIT INC: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Dominique Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
STUART FRITZ DOMINIQUE, an individual, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. CAPREIT, INC., a Maryland
corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00231-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla., April 9,
2018), alleges violation of the (1) Fair Labor Standards Act
relating to unpaid wages and overtime, and (2) Florida
Constitution relating to unpaid overtime.

CAPREIT, Inc., is a Maryland corporation headquartered in
Rockville, Maryland.  CAPREIT owns and manages multifamily
housing communities.  CAPREIT operates rental and condominium
apartment homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq.
          YORMAK EMPLOYMENT & DISABILITY LAW
          9990 Coconut Road
          Bonita Springs, FL 34135
          Telephone: (239) 985-9691
          Facsimile: (239) 288-2534
          E-mail: byormak@yormaklaw.com

               - and -

          David M. Buckner, Esq.,
          Seth E. Miles, Esq.
          Brett E. von Borke, Esq.
          BUCKNER + MILES
          3350 Mary Street
          Coconut Grove, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 964-8003
          E-mail: david@bucknermiles.com
                  seth@bucknermiles.com
                  vonborke@bucknermiles.com


CATERPILLAR: Class Members Get Less Money Than Expected
-------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Fisher, writing for Land Line, reports that even after
winning a large class action lawsuit against Caterpillar for its
failed C13 and C15 engines, class members eventually walked away
with significantly less than expected.

An administrative error underestimated the number of claims,
drastically reducing the amount of money each class member will
receive in the $60 million settlement.

Epiq Class Actions & Claims Solutions, the court-appointed
settlement administrator, made significant errors in its
calculations, according to court documents.

In June 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Caterpillar for installing defective C13 and C15 engines in
trucks and buses.  According to the suit, the anti-pollution
system called Caterpillar Regeneration System failed under normal
conditions.  Engines lost horsepower or completely shut down.

Owners of affected systems sued Caterpillar for costs of
continuous repair and the expenses incurred as a result of the
failures.

With the first case filed in 2012 before being consolidated into
a class action suit in 2014, the legal battle continued for
approximately four years.  In June 2017, a settlement of $60
million was reached.

Of that $60 million, attorneys took $20 million for attorney fees
and expenses, leaving $40 million for a general fund to be
distributed to the class members.  According to court documents,
class members would receive anywhere from $500 to $10,000 per
affected engine.  An option for reimbursement for up to $15,000
for consequential losses also was available.

More than 35,000 engines were known to be part of the settlement.
When the settlement terms were submitted to the court in August
2016, approximately 1,368 engine claims had been filed.  More
were expected as the claims deadline ran until March 20, 2017.

According to a letter submitted to the court on April 17 from
Epiq Vice President Michael O'Connor, more than 3,000 claimants
filed more than 4,000 total claims covering 16,811 engines.
Payments were approved for 2,083 claimants covering 11,685
engines.

Settlement woes
On March 30, Epiq issued payments to those 2,083 claimants.
Checks were attached with a note informing class members that due
to approved claims exceeding available funds, payment amounts
were reduced to 45.8 percent of the claimed amounts.

Less than a week later, Class Action Capital, a third-party filer
that filed claims on behalf of 27 entities, told Epiq the
payments were inaccurate and too low, prompting an internal
review.  Epiq concluded it had likely committed an error when
Class Action Capital's claims were reviewed.

According to the explanation submitted to the court, an error had
occurred when reviewing online submissions.

"For CAC's claims, it listed one or more engines in the fields
provided," the letter explains.  "It then uploaded a spreadsheet
of additional engines that it wished to include as part of its
claims via the supporting documents portal (the 'Spreadsheet
Engines').  There were no cover letters for the spreadsheets
indicating that this was CAC's intent."

Consequently, Epiq analysts overlooked the "spreadsheet engines"
as part of its claim.  For example, one claim included one engine
listed on the claim form and 99 additional engines listed on a
spreadsheet uploaded to "supporting documents."  Epiq only
approved one engine for payment, not knowing the other 99 engines
were part of the claim.

Class Action Capital filed 28 claims in this manner, according to
Mr. O'Connor.  Epiq suspected other claimants not part of Class
Action Capital may have filed in a similar way.  In total, 173
claims were filed using this method.

After doing the math, Epiq determined that Class Action Capital
clients could have been underpaid by more than $1 million.  Epiq
decided to stop payment on all checks sent out on March 30 to
correct the error.

Although the vast majority of the original 2,083 claimants
received checks, 14 received wire transfers totaling nearly $13
million.  Those claimants were told it was likely some of that
money would need to be reclaimed.  For those who already cashed
their checks, Epiq will ask those claimants to return any portion
that exceeds the amount they will ultimately be entitled to in
the final calculation.

Epiq is now conducting a "Round 2 Claims," which it expects to be
completed in approximately 60 days.  The second round of claims
will include recalculation of the amounts due to successful
claimants.  As of press time, Epiq said it didn't know the
difference between the initial award calculations and the
corrected calculations.

"Once the dust has settled, and claimants are paid correctly, we
can turn our focus inward," Mr. O'Connor said.  "We need to very
carefully examine how we are handling and reviewing incoming
documents and the resources we are utilizing to look at those
materials.  In every case I have been a part of with Epiq, no
matter how clear your instructions to claimants are that claims
can only be submitted via method X and must include materials Y,
there will be many claimants who submit claims via methods R, T
and Z and include every material except Y." [GN]


CENTRAL CAL: Settles Truck Drivers' Class Action for $9.25MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schremmer, writing for Land Line, reports that three
trucking companies have agreed to pay a total of $9.25 million to
settle a class action lawsuit that claimed hundreds of California
truck drivers were misclassified as independent contractors.

The proposed agreement with Roadrunner Intermodal Services,
Central Cal Transportation, and Morgan Southern was filed
April 16 in the U.S. District Court of Eastern California.

"After hard fought litigation, we're pleased to have reached a
resolution that allows drivers to recoup the financial losses
they've endured from years of lost wages," Brian S. Kabateck, the
plaintiffs' attorney with the law firm Kabateck Brown Kellner
LLP, said in an email to Land Line.

A hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement will be
May 1 in U.S. District Court.

According to court documents, at least $5.85 million would go to
participating class members.  A class of 796 truck drivers would
receive an average of about $7,355.  The 18 named plaintiffs
would receive a $7,500 enhancement payment for a total of
$135,000.  The other $3.26 million would go to attorney fees,
administrative costs, and penalties.

The lawsuit alleged that the drivers were misclassified as
independent contractors.  According to the lawsuit, the
defendants failed to provide meal and rest breaks.  They also
alleged that the defendants didn't pay overtime, minimum wages,
and all wages upon separation.

Plaintiffs' allegations include that defendants provided drivers
with trucks though a lease arrangement with preferred third-party
leasing companies and that they "directed and controlled the way
drivers performed their work."

Each of the trucking companies denied the claims.

The settlement was reached after three mediation sessions. [GN]


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Misrepresents Dog Foods, "Hodge" Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hodge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc. and Champion Petfoods LP,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00248-TSB (S.D. Ohio, April 9, 2018), alleges
that as a result of Champion's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff
and other putative class members were harmed by paying for
Champion's advertised products and receiving only an inferior and
contaminated product.

Champion sells a variety of premium-priced dog foods throughout
the United States.  Champion's dry dog food products ("Products")
are sold under the "Orijen" and "Acana" brand names.  Champion's
packaging prominently states that the Products are "Biologically
Appropriate" and contain "fresh, regional ingredients."

Contrary to Champion's representations regarding the Products,
the Products contain excessive levels of harmful heavy metals,
including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury, Ms. Hodge alleges.

Champion Petfoods USA Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Auburn, Kentucky.  Champion Petfoods LP is a
Canadian limited partnership with its headquarters and principal
place of business located in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.  Champion
Petfoods LP owns, operates, and controls Champion Petfoods USA
Inc.  The Defendants formulate, develop, manufacture, market, and
distribute dry dog food products under the brand names Orijen and
Acana throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
          Joseph J. Braun, Esq.
          Christopher S. Houston, Esq.
          STRAUSS TROY
          150 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Telephone: (513) 621-2120
          Facsimile: (513) 629-9426
          E-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com
                  jjbraun@strausstroy.com
                  cshouston@strausstroy.com

               - and -

          Phyllis E. Brown, Esq.
          Adam S. Brown, Esq.
          BROWN LAW FIRM LLC
          250 East 5th Street, Suite 1500
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 878-2700
          Facsimile: (513) 241-6464
          E-mail: pbrown@blfohio.com
                  abrown@blfohio.com

               - and -

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  e.schork@barnowlaw.com


CHEWPOD USA: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Tolos Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER TOLOS, an Individual, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHEWPOD USA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, CHEWPOD USA, LLC, a Delaware LLC, JOEY THIFFAULT, an
Individual, and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC704751 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 2, 2018), seeks to
recover minimum Wages and overtime wages under the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants on February 22, 2016 to
work as the director of Business Development at Chewpod USA, Inc.
located at 5850 Canoga Ave. Suite No. 400, Woodland Hills, CA
91367 until July 17, 2017, when his employment was terminated.

On July 9, 2017, Plaintiff sent an e-mail to Defendant Joey, a
managing agent of Chewpod USA, Inc. and Marie Eve Cote of Chewpod
USA, Inc. requesting to be reimbursed on expenses he had incurred
on behalf of the Defendants. The Plaintiff was terminated by
Defendants on July 17 in retaliation for requesting
reimbursement.  From at least four years prior to the filing of
this action and continuing to on or about July 17, the Plaintiff
has not been provided rest periods for work periods in excess of
four hours and was not compensated one hour's wages in lieu
thereof, as required by California wage and hour laws. From at
least three years prior to the filing of this action, the
Defendants willfully failed to provide all wages to Plaintiff at
the termination of his employment with Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eli M. Kantor, Esq.
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 405
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 274 821S


CIBA INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged "Ponzi Scheme"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for PropertyCasualty360, reports that a
putative class action filed in federal court in San Francisco
accuses California-based CIBA Insurance of operating as an
illegal "Ponzi scheme" in collaboration with a number of
insurance company partners, including co-defendant Great Lakes
Insurance SE.

Circumventing insurance laws

According to the complaint, CIBA -- which operates in 48 states
-- rakes in tens of millions of dollars in premiums annually
while circumventing insurance laws in California and nationally.

CIBA and its insurance company partners have issued coverage for
more than $50 billion in property, but only have $1 billion
available in coverage per occurrence for the entire pool of
insureds, the complaint said.

By working with companies that are legally registered insurers,
but conceal CIBA's role in covering the first million dollars of
smaller claims, the lawsuit claims CIBA can "illegally engage in
the business of insurance in California (and across the country)
while avoiding compliance with statutory requirements for
insurance carriers and evading scrutiny from state insurance
regulators."

A "single catastrophic occurrence could deplete the entire shared
limit of available coverage, i.e., property owners could be stuck
for footing the bill for repairs and replacements despite paying
thousands of dollars for insurance coverage," the complaint said.

The arrangements not only jeopardizes those carrying CIBA
policies, but also impact the way claims are handled, according
to the complaint.  Plaintiff Sage Apts LLC, a Wyoming apartment
complex, canceled the CIBA program policy it purchased through
Great Lakes "due to poor claims handling" after paying "tens of
thousands of dollars in premiums and property assessments for
property and liability insurance."

Great Lakes is based in Munich, Germany.

Investigating for over a year

The complaint was filed in California's Northern District by a
group of lawyers including William Levin, Laurel Simes and
Rachel Abrams of San Francisco's Levin Simes; William Merlin and
Michael Poli of Los Angeles' Merlin Law Group; Adam Moskowitz,
Howard Bushman and Adam Schwartzbaum of Coral Gables, Florida's
Moskowitz Law Firm; and Andrew Friedman of Phoenix, Arizona's
Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint.

"Our team has been investigating these Ponzi scheme claims for
over a year with some of the best experts in the country," said
Mr. Moskowitz, and "will all continue to meet with consumers that
have policies with CIBA, especially those in California where
CIBA is based."

The complaint said CIBA has been providing commercial property
insurance since 1993, but has expanded rapidly over the past 10
years.

'Not being regulated as an insurance company'

"The reason this is scary is because they're not being regulated
as an insurance company, and the result are these precarious
policies," said Mr. Moskowitz.

Asked how CIBA has avoided scrutiny all these years,
Mr. Moskowitz said "they've been able to skirt the insurance
regulators, so there are no regulators checking their books every
month.  If they were following the law someone would have picked
this up."

'Completely without merit'

A response statement from CIBA attorney Michael Kennick of
Fullerton, Calif.'s Kennick & Associates said the complaint's
allegations are "completely without merit.  The lawsuit is being
spearheaded by an attorney who has been making similar
allegations against CIBA for many years without success."

Mr. Kennick said a similar suit in DeKalb County, Ga. was thrown
out last year when the court "summarily dismissed with prejudice
all claims against CIBA (and its carriers) stating that the
allegations were void of any legal merit."

"The lawsuit falsely states that exhaustion of the $1 billion
limit of coverage can occur by a single natural disaster thereby
exposing CIBA and its member for all amounts above that limit,"
Mr. Kennick said.  "As a fact, the CIBA program provides a
dedicated limit of coverage above $1 billion that is not subject
to a group aggregate and applies up to the limits stated on the
Declaration Page of a member's policy, up to $150 million for
each insured."

CIBA's "business structure is reviewed by various insurance
experts, including a former Department of Insurance director, who
have consistently concluded that CIBA complies with applicable
insurance regulations and standards," Mr. Kennick said. [GN]


CITY WINERY: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Winery New
York LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
City Winery New York LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04079 (S.D.
N.Y.,
May 7, 2018).

City Winery New York is a unique facility, combining a fully
functioning winery with intimate concerts, food & wine
classes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


CONNECTIONS COMMUNITY: Faces "Nash" Suit in D. Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Connections CSP,
Inc. The case is styled as Anthony A. Nash, Edward Brittingham,
Jose Santiago, Reggie Folks, Andrew Mudry and DeAndre Pettiford,
on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs v. Kolawole Akinbayo, Perry Phelps, Steven Wesley,
Connections CSP, Inc. and Unknown Correctional Officers in their
individual capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00677-UNA (D.
Del., May 3, 2018).

Connections Community Support Programs Inc. offers housing for
individuals and families with extremely low incomes They own and
operate more than 500 housing units.  They provide transitional
housing for adults who have complete detox and are waiting for a
residential treatment bed  as well as short and longer-term
transitional housing for people who are homeless.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Straczynski Sues over Spam Calls and Texts
------------------------------------------------------------
EVELYN STRACZYNSKI, on behalf of herself, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONTEXTLOGIC, INC., doing
business as Wish.com, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00855-L-NLS
(S.D. Cal., May 3, 2018), contends that, in a misguided effort to
solicit business, Wish.com routinely contacts potential customers
through text messages with automatic telephone dialing equipment.
However, Wish.com regularly sends these text messages to cellular
telephone numbers, without consent, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.  The Defendant's violations caused
Plaintiff and members of the Class actual harm, including
aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily
accompanies the receipt of unsolicited text messages, as well as
the violation of their statutory rights.

Wish is a mobile and web e-commerce platform. It was founded in
2011 by Peter Szulczewski and Danny Zhang, former programmers at
Google and Yahoo. Wish is the 6th largest e-commerce company in
the world and has over US$1 billion in funding.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
          Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696 9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564 6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  alexis@consumersadvocates.com
                  kas@consumersadvocates.com


COURAGE TEAM: Underpays Delivery Workers, Tornado et al. Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS PEREZ TORNADO, FRANCISCO GOMEZ RAMIREZ, ISMAEL DOLORES
GONZAGA, and PRISCO NAJERA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. c (D/B/A PIG HEAVEN) and
NANCY LEE (A.K.A. HUIFONG LEE), the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
03982 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New
York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants own, operate, or control an Asian restaurant,
located at 1420 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10028 under the name "Pig
Heaven". The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers at the
restaurant located at 1420 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10028. The
Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed as delivery workers. However,
they were required to spend a considerable part of their work day
performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to taking
out the garbage, storing and picking up inventory, making sauces,
stocking deliveries, filling containers, arranging sodas,
bringing items up from the basement, cleaning, filing bags for
delivery, ripping apart and tying up cardboard boxes, stocking
drinks into the refrigerator and moving merchandise when
deliveries arrived.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants without appropriate minimum
wage compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather,
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs at the straight rate for any
hours they worked. The Defendants employed and accounted for
Plaintiffs as delivery workers in their payroll, but in actuality
their duties required a significant amount of time spent
performing the non-tipped duties alleged above.

Regardless, at all relevant times, the Defendants paid Plaintiffs
at a rate that was lower than the required tip-credit rate.
However, under both the FLSA and NYLL, Defendants were not
entitled to take a tip credit because Plaintiffs' non-tipped
duties exceeded 20% of each workday, or 2 hours per day,
whichever is less in each day. The Defendants employed the policy
and practice of disguising Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll
records by designating them as delivery workers instead of non-
tipped employees. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying
Plaintiffs at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay them
the lower tip-credit rate (which they still failed to do).
Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other
similarly situated employees. Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work
without providing the minimum wage compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620


DAVE & BUSTER'S: Simpson Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
MARIAH SIMPSON, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DAVE & BUSTER'S OF
ARKANSAS, INC; DAVE & BUSTER'S, INC.; DAVE & BUSTER'S
ENTERTAINMENT, INC; DAVE & BUSTER'S MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
INC.; DAVE & BUSTER'S HOLDINGS, INC.; and DAVE & BUSTER'S OF
KANSAS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00290-SWW (E.D.
Ark., May 2, 2018), seeks to recover declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other tipped employees
lawful minimum and compensation for hours worked under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was a server at Dave & Buster's location in Little
Rock and also in Kansas City. The Plaintiff and other servers
were paid $2.63 per hour plus tips. Defendant, however, was not
paying Plaintiff and other servers a lawful Arkansas or federal
minimum wage, required Plaintiff and other servers to spend more
than 20% of their shift performing non-tipped work and did not
pay Plaintiff and other servers for all hours worked. The
Defendant was not taking a lawful tip credit and therefore
Plaintiff and other servers were not being paid a lawful Arkansas
minimum wage or federal minimum wage. The Plaintiff and other
servers spent more than 20% of their time performing non-tipped
duties for Defendant such as rolling silverware, cleaning tea and
drink stations and tidying assigned table sections. Because
Plaintiff and other servers spent more than 20% of their time
performing non-tipped duties for Defendant, the Defendant was
required to pay Plaintiff and its other servers at least $8.50
per hour. The Plaintiff and other servers were required to work
at $2.63 per hour when the dining room was closed, when they were
doing side work not in the dining room, and when they were doing
cut work. As a result of the policies put in place by Defendant,
Plaintiff and other servers were often required to perform non-
tipped work for less than minimum wage. The Plaintiff and other
tipped servers are entitled to wages and compensation based on
the standard minimum wage for all hours worked.

Defendant's policies violate the FLSA because Plaintiff and
others similarly situated are not compensated at a minimum of
$7.25 per hour. The Defendant's policies violate the AMWA because
Plaintiff and others similarly situated are not compensated a
minimum of $8.50 per hour.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Burks, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center,
          650 S. Shackleford Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


DC TRANSPORT: Faces "Bykov" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DC Transport Inc.
The case is styled as Valeriy Bykov, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DC Transport Inc., a Texas
Corporation, DC Transport., a California Transport Company, DC
Transportation Services, Inc and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
34-2018-00232383-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., May 3, 2018).

DC Transport Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running a freight hauling business from
Springdale, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig J Ackerman, Esq.
   Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C.
   1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
   Los Angeles, CA 90035
   Tel: (310) 277-0614
   Fax: (310) 277-0635


DE VILLE ASSSET: Faces "Johnson" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against De Ville Assset
Management, Ltd. The case is styled as Ericka Johnson,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Persolve Legal Group, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-
cv-02601 (E.D. N.Y., May 2, 2018).

De Ville Assset Management, Ltd. is a debt collector agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza
   Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Metcalf Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Billi Metcalf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, a
South Carolina limited liability company, and Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01371-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., May 3,
2018), alleges that more than six years ago, Ms. Metcalf fell
behind on paying her bills, including a debt she allegedly owed
for an M&T Bank account. Sometime after that debt became
delinquent, it was allegedly purchased/obtained by Jefferson
Capital, which tried to collect upon it, by having Defendant DRS
send Ms. Metcalf an initial form collection letter, dated January
4, 2018, demanding payment of the M&T Bank debt via various
limited-time settlement offers, the satisfaction of which would
result in the account being "considered satisfied and closed" and
would result in the issuance of a "satisfaction letter".  The
Defendants' letter, however, failed to state that DRS could not
also sue on the debt, and that DRS could not also make a credit
report about the debt. In fact, neither Defendant could sue to
collect the debt at issue because it was time-barred by the
statute of limitations in the State of Indiana, namely Indiana
Code section 34-11-2 (six years from the date of the last
payment/statement). Moreover, there is no benefit to the consumer
in having the account on a time-barred debt marked as
"satisfied", nor any benefit in getting a "satisfied" letter.

The Defendants' failure to disclose that neither Defendant could
sue, and that neither Defendant could credit report the debt is
material. In Indiana, collection agencies like DRS can, and do,
file collection lawsuits for their clients and nationwide they
also make credit reports for their clients. Thus, the lack of a
proper disclosure would leave the consumer without enough
information to make a decision as to what to do about the
collection of the debt at issue and cause them to believe the
Defendants -- that the debt needed to be satisfied.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          Carissa K. Rasch, Esq.
          John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974 2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974 2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  angie@philippslegal.com
                  carissa@philippslegal.com
                  steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


EAZE SOLUTIONS: Williams Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
FARRAH WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EAZE SOLUTIONS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02598-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 2, 2018),
seeks to recover legal and equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of Eaze Solutions, Inc. in negligently,
knowingly, or willfully transmitting unsolicited, autodialed SMS
or MMS text messages, en masse, to Plaintiff's cellular device
and the cellular devices of numerous other individuals across the
country, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is the subscriber of the cellular telephone number
ending -5968. Founded in San Francisco in 2014, the Defendant
operates a mobile app and website that "enable[] superior
customer choice and convenience [in buying marijuana] by
connecting product brands, dispensaries and doctors to customers
on demand." Some of the consumer-oriented services facilitated by
Defendant's technology include "deliver[ing] weed on-demand and
enabl[ing] customers to acquire a medical marijuana card in ten
minutes with just a phone call."

In October 2016, Defendant announced a round of series B funding
in the amount of $13 million from five investors, making the
company the "highest-funded startup in the history of the
cannabis industry, as well as its fastest-growing one. By mid-
2017 Defendant was performing 120,000 deliveries per month to
over 250,000 customers and had experienced 300 percent growth
over the previous year. And by September 2017, the Defendant had
"raised another $27 million in venture funding." All told,
Defendant has thus far raised more than $52 million in financing
and acquired over 300,000 users, in California alone, since its
inception in 2014.

The inconvenient truth, however, is that Defendant's exponential
growth is not attributable to the quality of the product it
delivers or the convenience of the service it provides -- after
all, the product is not even grown by Defendant, and Defendant is
hardly the first drug dealer to deliver. The reality is that
Defendant "growth hacked" its way to the top of the pot delivery
business -- specifically, by relentlessly bombarding existing and
prospective customers with text messages and other digital spam,
day after day, en masse, without anyone's permission, precisely
as experienced by the Plaintiff.

On its website, the Defendant actually embraces growth hacking as
the crux of its business model, priding itself as "the fastest
growing technology startup in the cannabis industry" and actively
soliciting employment applications for a "Growth Engineer"
position. Specifically, the Defendant utilized an "automated
telephone dialing system" because the text messages to the 5968
Number and to the other Class members' cellular devices were sent
from a telephone number used to message consumers en masse;
because Defendant's automated dialing equipment includes features
substantially similar to a predictive dialer, inasmuch as it is
capable of making numerous calls or texts simultaneously (all
without human intervention); and because the hardware and
software used by Defendant to send such messages have the
capacity to store, produce, and dial random or sequential
numbers, or receive and store lists of telephone numbers, and to
dial such numbers, en masse, in an automated fashion and without
human intervention.

Eaze Solutions provides Eaze, a medical marijuana delivery
service for patients in California.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 766 3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402 0058
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.com


EDISON BALLROOM: Dawson-Wainer Sues over Mandatory Charge
---------------------------------------------------------
MARIELLA DAWSON-WAINER, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EDISON BALLROOM, LLC; JAIME
C. MASADA; and any other related entities, the Defendants, Case
No. 605824/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 2, 2018), alleges that
beginning May 2012 and continuing through the present, the
Defendants have a policy and/or practice of assessing and
retaining a mandatory charge in connection with the
administration of and/or admission to a banquet and/or catered
event without adequately notifying customers that the
Mandatory Charge is not a gratuity and will not be distributed to
the service workers who staff the catered event.

The Defendants provide catered and ticketed event customers and
potential customers with documents including bills, menus,
contracts, invoices, correspondence with sales staff, online
advertisements, proposals, and other catering related documents
that refer to a "gratuity", "administrative fee" or other
mandatory charge for the administration of or a ticket to a
banquet and/or catered event. In some instances, Defendants
affirmatively misled customers by stating on advertisements for
ticketed events that gratuity was included, even though no
gratuity was distributed to Plaintiff Dawson-Wainer and, upon
information and belief, members of the putative class.

By failing to include adequate notification on all pricing
documents as required by the Hospitality Wage Order, the
Defendants allowed customers to believe that the Mandatory Charge
was a charge purported to be a gratuity. By failing to include
adequate notification on all pricing documents as required by the
Hospitality Wage Order, the Defendants failed to rebut the
presumption that the Mandatory Charge was a charge purported to
be a gratuity.[BN]

Attorneys for the Named Plaintiff &
the Putative Class:

          Laura R. Reznick, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 1514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


EOG RESOURCES: Faces Little Land Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EOG Resources Inc.
The case is styled as Little Land Company LP, on behalf of itself
and other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EOG Resources Inc.
including affiliated Predecessors and affiliated successors,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04092 (W.D. Okla., May 7, 2018).

EOG Resources, Inc. is an American petroleum and natural gas
exploration company organized in Delaware and headquartered in
the Heritage Plaza building in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Rex A Sharp, Esq.
   Reagan E Bradford, Esq.
   The Lanier Law Firm - OKLAHOMA CITY
   100 E California Ave, Suite 200
   Oklahoma City, OK 73104
   Tel: (713) 659-5200
   Fax: (713) 659-2204
   Email: Reagan.Bradford@lanierlawfirm.com


ERICSSON: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on April 17
disclosed that purchasers of Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson
(NasdaqGS: ERIC) ("Ericsson") have filed a class action complaint
against the company's officers and directors for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between April
8, 2013 and July 17, 2017.  Ericsson provides information and
communications technology solutions for networks and media
markets worldwide.

Ericsson Accused of Delaying the Recognition of Massive Expenses

According to the complaint, Ericsson overstated service revenues
and improperly delayed the recognition of at least $1 billion in
expenses on its long-term service projects while representing
that its financial statements were prepared in accordance with
International Financial Reporting Standards.  After many years of
reporting misleading financial information, Ericsson began to
reveal the truth on April 21, 2016, when the company announced
disappointing results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2016,
due to weak revenues from service projects.  The company
continued to report poor financial results for the second and
third quarters of 2016, again blaming weak revenues from service
projects and higher-than-expected costs.  On July 18, 2017,
Ericsson revealed that it identified 42 long-term service
contracts to date with total annual sales of almost $1 billion
that Ericsson would exit, renegotiate, or transform.  Since
Ericsson's troubles became known to investors, Ericsson's
American Depositary Share price has fallen over 35% to close at
$6.33 per share on April 16, 2018.

Ericsson Shareholders Have Legal Options

If you would like more information about your rights and
potential remedies, contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800)
350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder
information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law.  The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped
its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves
and the companies in which they have invested. [GN]


EVANS TIRE: Ledergerber Sues over Product Warranty
--------------------------------------------------
MARC LEDERGERBER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EVANS TIRE & SERVICE
CENTERS, INC., and DOES 1-10 Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
37-2018-00021757-CU-NP-NC (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2018), seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of falsely advertising and selling
warranties with its thrust line alignments, which they have no
intention of honoring, and to obtain redress for a class of
consumers who were misled by Defendant within the applicable
statute of limitations period.

Warranties are of particular value to consumers because they
provide a guarantee of the value of a good after it is purchased.
The Plaintiff and other consumers similarly situated were exposed
to these advertisements. The Defendant misrepresented and falsely
advertised and represented to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated by failing to disclose in either its advertisements or
the contract itself that Defendant would not honor the warranty.
The Defendant's misrepresentations to Plaintiff and others
similarly situated induced them to purchase Defendant's Class
Products. The Defendant took advantage of Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers unfairly and unlawfully.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Admits Tracking Users Off-Site Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Hern, writing for The Guardian, reports that Facebook has
released more information on the social media platform's tracking
of users off-site, after its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, failed to
answer questions about the process from US politicians and as the
company prepares to fight a lawsuit over facial recognition in
California.

In a blog post, Facebook's product management director,
David Baser, wrote that the company tracked users and non-users
across websites and apps for three main reasons: providing
services directly, securing the company's own site, and
"improving our products and services".

"When you visit a site or app that uses our services, we receive
information even if you're logged out or don't have a Facebook
account.  This is because other apps and sites don't know who is
using Facebook," Baser wrote.

"Whether it's information from apps and websites, or information
you share with other people on Facebook, we want to put you in
control -- and be transparent about what information Facebook has
and how it is used."

But the company's transparency has still not extended to telling
non-users what it knows about them -- an issue Zuckerberg also
faced questions over from Congress.  Asked by Texas
representative Gene Green whether all information Facebook holds
about a user is in the file the company offers as part of its
"download your data" feature, Zuckerberg had responded he
believed that to be the case.

Privacy campaigner Paul-Olivier Dehaye disagreed, noting that,
even as a Facebook user, he had been unable to access personal
data collected through the company's off-site tracking systems.
Following an official subject access request under EU law, he
told MPs in March, Facebook had responded that it was unable to
provide the information.

"They're saying they're so big the cost would be too large to
provide me data," he said.  "They're really arguing that they're
too big to comply with data protection law, the cost is too high,
which is mind-boggling."

Following Zuckerberg's testimony, Dehaye made a complaint to the
Irish data protection commissioner, noting the CEO "contradicted
the pronouncements to me over past year by his own privacy
Operations team".

The Facebook blogpost comes as the company faces a class action
lawsuit in California over its decision to launch a facial
recognition feature for US users in 2011.

The "tag suggestions" feature, involves Facebook running facial
recognition tech on uploaded photos to match them with other
users automatically. But a class action suit representing
Facebook users in Illinois argues that the technology breaches
the law in that state.

On April 16, US district judge James Donato ruled the suit could
go ahead, representing all Illinois users "for whom Facebook
created and stored a face template after 7 June 2011".

The feature was turned off in the EU shortly after it launched,
and Facebook committed in 2012 to delete all face templates by
October that year, as part of a wide-ranging agreement with the
Irish data protection commissioner.

Now, however, the company intends to relaunch facial recognition
features across the EU, building on an approach that it trialled
in America.  Facebook users will see a splash screen that informs
them that they are reviewing "an option for turning on face
recognition".  They can then click "accept and continue", giving
Facebook consent to use their face templates, or click "manage
data settings", then "continue", then check a box marked "don't
allow Facebook to recognise me in photos and videos" to opt out.

Facebook believes this model, which the company describes as
providing explicit consent, will allow it to avoid the concerns
that were previously raised by the Irish data protection
commissioner. [GN]


FAIR COLLECTIONS: Faces "Ayuba" Suit in S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fair Collections.
The case is styled as Crystal Ayuba, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fair Collections
and Outsourcing, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-01448 (S.D. Tex., May 7, 2018).

Fair Collections & Outsourcing, Inc. was founded in 2004. The
company's line of business includes collection and adjustment
services on claims and other insurance related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq.
   The Law Office of Jonathan Kandelshein
   18208 Preston Rd, Ste D-9 No. 256
   Dallas, TX 75252
   Tel: (646) 753-0149
   Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com


FENG XING CORP: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD FLORES, on his own behalf and those similarly situated v.
FENG XING CORPORATION, a Florida Profit Corporation, FAYE Y. LU,
Individually, and YUAN XIANG, Individually, Case No. 3:18-cv-
00469-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla., April 9, 2018), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Feng Xing is a Florida corporation, with its principal place of
business located in Jacksonville, Florida.  Feng Xing owned and
operated a restaurant named Okinawa Japanese Grillhouse and Sushi
Bar located at 4403 Roosevelt Blvd., in Jacksonville.  The
Individual Defendants owned and operated Feng Xing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P. A.
          600 Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


FITNESS INT'L: Faces "Portis" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fitness
International, LLC. The case is styled as Maurice Portis, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Fitness International, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04091
(S.D. N.Y., May 7, 2018).

Fitness International, LLC operates a health club chain in the
United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FLOYD STANLEY: Faces Nationwide Mutual Suit in South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Floyd Stanley, Jr,
doing business as: Stanley's Vinyl Fence Designs. The case is
styled as Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Plaintiff v.
Floyd Stanley, Jr, doing business as: Stanley's Vinyl Fence
Designs, Complete Building Corporation, Palmetto Pointe at Peas
Island Condominium Property Owners Association Inc and Jack Love,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01232-MBS (D. S.C., May 4, 2018).

Floyd Stanley, Jr, doing business as: Stanley's Vinyl Fence
Designs is a fence and gate contractor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John Robert Murphy, Esq.
   Murphy and Grantland
   PO Box 6648
   Columbia, SC 29260
   Tel: (803) 782-4100
   Fax: (803) 782-4140
   Email: jrmurphy@murphygrantland.com

      - and -

   Timothy J Newton, Esq.
   Murphy and Grantland
   PO Box 6648
   Columbia, SC 29260
   Tel: (803) 782-4100
   Email: tnewton@murphygrantland.com


FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Vesely" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled as Linda K Vesely, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, Mark A. Garbus and Ronald Forster, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-02663 (E.D. N.Y., May 4, 2018).

Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
   775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
   Huntington, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 335-1107
   Email: mpash@verizon.net


FRAN & SALS: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fran & Sals
Artichoke in Chelsea, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Fran & Sals Artichoke in Chelsea, LLC,
Fran & Sals Artichoke in Chelsea, LLC and Artichoke Franchising
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04076 (S.D. N.Y., May 7, 2018).

The Defendants operate a pizzeria business in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


G&G TOWING: Payouts in Towing Class Action Commence
---------------------------------------------------
Fredrick Kunkle, writing for Washington Post, reports that more
than three years after a Frederick, Md., man dashed inside a
drugstore only to return minutes later and find his car had been
towed, financial payback is arriving in the mail for thousands of
victims like him.

The payments come from a class-action lawsuit filed against G&G
Towing, one of the largest, and arguably most notorious, towing
operations in Maryland.  The case resulted in a $22 million
judgment against the company for improperly towing an estimated
28,000 vehicles from April 2012 to June 2017.  It also led to
judgments against more than 500 property owners who had hired the
now-defunct towing company to police their lots.

"One of the reasons we were interested in doing this is, we were
told a lot of people who were towed were people of limited
means," plaintiff Mary Pelz said.

Pelz's daughter, Darcy, had borrowed her Toyota Avalon to visit a
friend at a Silver Spring apartment complex.  When she left, she
discovered that the car had been towed from a lot owned by Patner
Properties.  It cost $168 to get the car back from G&G, which
claimed the reason for the March 2014 tow was a "flat tire,"
according to the Pelzes and court documents.

Pelz, who is director of the Long Branch Senior Center, said she
decided to participate in the G&G class-action lawsuit because
many of the lots patrolled by the company were in areas of
Montgomery County populated by large numbers of immigrants and
low-income residents who did not always fight back or understand
their rights under Maryland towing law.

"I've worked in low-income communities, and I've seen how people
are taken advantage of," said Pelz, 64, who was approached by
lawyers to join the class action.  "That's what tipped the scales
for me.  Her family's payment of about $5,000 from the court
judgment came some time ago, she said.

Overly aggressive towing operators are the bane of anyone who has
ever parked in a lot without seeing -- or ignoring -- "customer-
only" warning signs.  Your vehicle can sometimes vanish before
you can say, "I'll be right back."

Though property owners see trespass towing as a necessary measure
to ensure their customers have room to park -- a Bethesda shoe
store owner griped that people who would not think of shoplifting
a pair of socks somehow justify taking parking spots reserved for
customers -- some towing companies push the limits.

KDKA Pittsburgh reported that a lawyer is challenging a
Pittsburgh towing firm for allegedly charging fees higher than
allowed by law, while a Philadelphia towing company reached a
settlement in March with the state's attorney general over
repeated violations of state and city towing laws, WHYY reported.

In Sacramento, law enforcement officials filed charges in March
against the operators of an illegal towing scheme that targeted
fans of the Sacramento Kings basketball team.  The California
Highway Patrol, in filing auto theft and conspiracy charges, says
Davis Tow dragged 270 cars away from the team's  games and
collected at least $80,000 in impound fees, the Sacramento Bee
reported.

The Maryland case began Dec. 12, 2014, when Quan-en Yang, a
doctor from Frederick, Md., parked outside a Rockville Walgreens,
according to Montgomery County Circuit Court records and
documents posted online by lawyers.  Despite the wintry weather,
he dashed inside without his coat to buy a snack, thinking he
would not be long.

When Yang returned minutes later, his car was gone.  He had to
walk, coatless, more than a mile to G&G's impound lot.  He was
required to pay $142, plus a $4.42 "processing fee" for using a
credit card, to reclaim his vehicle.  It was an experience
repeated hundreds of times with other motorists.

Earlier that year, NBC News4 aired a report saying G&G Towing
appeared to be using spotters at a Silver Spring shopping center
in violation of a 2012 Maryland towing law. BethesdaNow.com wrote
about the company, too.

Yang's lawsuit -- which was filed three years ago in Montgomery
County Circuit Court against G&G's parent company -- alleged that
the operators used spotters to identify potential targets,
swooped in to hook the vehicles without following proper
procedures and effectively held the vehicles for ransom.

In addition to taking legal action against the towing firm and
its owner, Glenn W. Cade Jr., the plaintiffs also sued property
owners, shopping plazas, condominium associations, banks,
churches, dentists and a variety of merchants that employed the
towing company, including the Stonebridge Homeowners Association,
Kohl's, Childtime Childcare and Christ Evangelical Lutheran
Church.

The size of the judgments against the property owners varied.  A
judgment of $218, 790 was entered against Glenmont Crossing
Apartments, while $3,900 was entered against the Bradley
Boulevard Shopping Center; a judgment of $75,660 was entered
against the Flower Avenue Shopping Center, according to court
records.

The settlement agreements -- which occurred in phases and
involved different groups of people depending on when and where
their vehicles were towed -- have been approved by Montgomery
County Circuit Judge Ronald B. Rubin.  On Jan. 11, the court
approved a settlement involving more than 400 property owners.
An April 2 letter sent to a victim with a settlement check says
any unclaimed funds will go to charity.

Cade did not return a call seeking comment.  Efforts to reach
Yang through public records were not successful.  Calls to
Richard S. Gordon, the plaintiff's lead attorney in Towson, Md.,
were not returned. James P. Ulwick, who is listed as defense
attorney for property owners in the case, did not return calls.
A call to Bruce D. Patner -- a Bethesda attorney who is
representing himself and other property owners-- also was not
returned. [GN]


GALLIARD HOMES: Class Action Mulled Over Grenfell-Style Cladding
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reports that residents of privately-owned London
buildings that have been fitted with Grenfell-style cladding are
considering legal action against the developers.

Leaseholders say they live in "constant anxiety" over their
safety at New Capital Quay, Greenwich, London, since the disaster
in which 71 people died.

Fire wardens are on watch 24 hours a day after similar cladding
was found.

Developers Galliard Homes say the cladding was certified as
compliant with building regulations at the time.

Home owners Nigel Pickford and Annabel Parsons are part of a
group of up to six people obtaining legal advice on a class
action case against Gilliard Homes and also potentially insurers
NHBC in the event that they wrongly deny cover.

Cladding similar to that used on Grenfell tower was discovered on
the luxury waterfront development soon after the fire last July.

The claims would likely be based on breach of contract under
which reasonable care and proper materials should have been
guaranteed, breach of building regulations, under which dwellings
should be fit for habitation.

"There is a question mark that a building requiring 24-hour
safety watch is fit for habitation," advising solicitor
Chris Haan said, adding that the case will also look at whether,
even if the cladding met building regulations, it was reasonably
fit for purpose and of good quality.

Mr Pickford said damages could be sought for "inability to sell
and distress caused".

Ms Parsons said she believes at least 200 residents could be
mobilised for a class action case.

"I'm absolutely furious," she said, adding that the government
should "step in and take action" to ensure buildings are safe".

Residents also say their properties have plummeted in value as
they are locked in the dispute.

Cecile Langevin told the Guardian newspaper that she bought her
flat for ú475,000, but a Rics-approved surveyor recently valued
it at ú50,000.

Gilliard Homes said it paid a ú1m premium for a 10-year insurance
policy.

Insurers NHBC said it received a claim in respect of cladding but
was currently determining its validity and establishing building
regulations were complied with.

Though NHBC also acted as approved inspector -- assisting
Galliard Homes and its subsidiaries "in achieving compliance
with" building regulations and guidance throughout the building
process, it says the legal responsibility for ensuring New
Capital Quay complies with building regulations falls on Galliard
Homes.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said it
wants to "see private sector landlords follow the lead of the
social sector and not pass on the costs of essential cladding
replacement to leaseholders".[GN]


GARDNER TRUCKING: Accused by Cuevas of Violating FCRA, Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS CUEVAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GARDNER TRUCKING, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00716 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2018), alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California
Labor Code.

Mr. Cuevas, who has been employed by the Defendants as a Non-
Exempt Employee during the Class Period, specifically from August
4, 2016, to May 26, 2017, accuses the Defendants of failing to
pay minimum wages and liquidated damages, all regular wages and
overtime; failing to provide rest breaks, meal periods and
accurate wage statements; and failing to pay all wages owed upon
termination.

Gardner Trucking, Inc., is a corporation, organized and existing
pursuant to the laws of the state of California.  Gardner
conducts its business in California, has various offices and
locations in the State, and serves numerous customers throughout
the State.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names,
capacities and relationships of the Doe Defendants.

Gardner owns, controls, and/or operates a transportation services
nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


GLENN S. LYON: Martinez Balks at JD Sports Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD MARTINEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated and Derivatively on behalf of The Finish Line,
Inc., the Plaintiff, v. GLENN S. LYON, TORRENCE BOONE, WILLIAM P.
CARMICHAEL, RICHARD P. CRYSTAL, FAISAL MASUD, STEPHEN GOLDSMITH,
CATHERINE A. LANGHAM, and SAMUEL M. SATO, the Defendants, and THE
FINISH LINE, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01342-TWP-
TAB (S.D. Ind., May 2, 2018), seeks to enjoin a proposed merger
transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from violation of the
federal securities laws by Defendants.

The Plaintiff brings this stockholder class action on behalf of
itself and all other public stockholders of The Finish Line,
Inc., against Finish Line, and the Company's Board of Directors,
for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, and derivatively on behalf of Finish Line
itself for breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of Defendants'
efforts to sell the Company to JD Sports Fashion PLC and Genesis
Merger Sub, Inc. as a result of an unfair process for an unfair
price, and to enjoin an upcoming stockholder vote in which JD
Sports will acquire each outstanding share of Finish Line common
stock for $13.50 per share, with a total valuation of
approximately $558 million. The terms of the Proposed Transaction
were memorialized in a March 26, 2018 filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K attaching the definitive
Agreement and Plan of Merger.

Thereafter, on April 24, 2018, Finish Line filed a Preliminary
Proxy Statement on Form Pre14A with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in support of the Proposed Transaction. The Proposed
Transaction is unfair and undervalued for a number of reasons.
Significantly, as noted in the Preliminary Proxy, the sales
process was hastily conducted without a proper market check, in
order to avoid an escalation of a conflict with an activist
investor. This overly accelerated process resulted in a process
where only one other party was ever considered as a potential
strategic partner, namely, JD Sports.

Next, it appears as though the Board has entered into the
Proposed Transaction to procure for themselves and senior
management of the Company significant and immediate benefits
while the Company's stockholders are cashed out at an unfair
price. For instance, pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, upon the consummation of the Proposed Transaction,
Company Board Members and executive officers will be able to
exchange large, illiquid blocks of Company stock for massive
payouts, in addition to receiving cash in exchange for all
outstanding and unvested options and/or other types of restricted
stock units.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          William N. Riley, Esq.
          RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC
          Hammond Block Building
          301 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 300
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 633 5270
          Facsimile: (317) 426 3348
          E-mail: wriley@rwp-law.com

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esquire
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: (610) 667-6200
          Facsimile: (610) 667 9029
          E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                  mackerman@brodskysmith.com


GLOBAL SINKHOLE: "Rooney" Suit Seeks Overtimes Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAMONT ROONEY, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL SINKHOLE SOLUTIONS
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-01069-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla.,
May 2, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtimes wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, in exchange for Plaintiff's services,
the Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff an hourly wage. The
Plaintiff and the putative class worked hours in excess of 40
hours within work week for Defendant, and they were entitled to
be compensated for these overtime hours at a rate equal to one
and one-half times their individual regular hourly rates. The
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the members of the putative
FLSA Collective Class an overtime premium for all overtime hours
that they worked, in violation of the FLSA.

Global Sinkhole Solutions is engaged in the soil stabilization
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 N Florida Ave #300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  twells@wfclaw.com


GOOD GUYS: "Chagray" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
JORGE CARRASCO CHAGRAY and MANUEL CARRASCO CHAGRAY, the
Plaintiff, v. GOOD GUYS NYC CONSTRUCTION CORP. and JOHN MIHALIOS
CONTRACTING CORP., and GEORGE MIHALIOS and JOHN MIHALIOS, as
individuals, the Defendants, Case No. 706823/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
May 2, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's primary duties were
as a laborer, construction worker and painter, and performing
other miscellaneous duties from in or around 2006 until in or
around October 2017. The Plaintiff was paid by Defendants
approximately $720.00 per week from 2011 until 2012,
approximately $780.00 per week from 2013 until 2016, and
approximately $800.00 per week in 2017. The Plaintiff worked
approximately 54 hours or more per week for Defendants from 2011
until October 2017.

Although the Plaintiff worked approximately 54 hours or more per
week from in 2011 until October 2017, during his employment with
Defendants, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff 1.5 for hours
worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions
contained in the FLSA and NYLL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263 9591


GOORIN BROS: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goorin Bros., Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Goorin
Bros., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02698 (E.D. N.Y., May 7,
2018).

Goorin Bros.Inc. was founded in 1895. The company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of hats, capps, and
millinery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


GRANT CAFFE: Faces "Lopez" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grant Caffe LLC.
The case is styled as Salvador Lopez Lopez, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Grant Caffe
LLC, doing business as: Liberty Grant Caffe, Steve Skukilides and
Gregorio Soto, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02703 (E.D. N.Y., May
7, 2018).

Grant Caffe LLC is a cafe located at 1170 Liberty Ave, Brooklyn,
NY 11208.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Denied in "Smith" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Doniele Smith, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hillstone Healthcare
Inc. and Cornerstone Innovations, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01075-
JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge James L. Graham entered an
order:

   1. granting Cornerstone's motion for judgment on the pleadings
      and defendant Hillstone's motion to dismiss; and

   2. denying Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a class
      without prejudice.

The Court will not terminate the case at this time but hereby
grants plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30
days of the date of this Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=K8mShgHA


HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action for Mismanaging Retirement Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael E. Kanell, writing for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
reports that a suit filed in federal court against Home Depot
charges that the hardware giant permitted mismanagement of
retirement funds affecting more than 200,000 people and costing
their accounts at least $140 million.

The complaint against the $100 billion-a-year, Atlanta-based
company was filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta by attorneys
for Jaime Pizarro and Craig Smith.  But the plaintiffs aim for
class action status, which would mean inclusion of every employee
and former employee affected.

The key allegations involve investments chosen for $6.5 billion
in the Home Depot pool that provides retirement payments to
former employees.  The plaintiffs argue that those investments,
which are supposed to keep those savings growing as robustly as
possible, have instead been consistently placed with funds that
do not perform well.

The result is a retirement pool that doesn't grow the way it
should, said Charles Field -- cfield@sanfordheisler.com -- a
San Diego-based partner in the firm of Sanford, Heisler, Sharp.
"They see the market is up 40 or 50 percent and they look at
their 401(k) and see that it is not up as much or maybe it's even
down and they think: What is going on here?"

Home Depot spokesman Stephen Holmes declined to comment on the
substance or specifics of the allegations, limiting the official
response to a general endorsement of the company's retirement
plans.

"We're proud of the financial support and the opportunity for
savings that we provide our associates," he told the AJC.

Atlanta attorney Darren Penn said that class actions suits can be
costly, complex and time-consuming.

In general, he said, defendants start by asking for dismissal of
the suit, and if that doesn't succeed, they will argue that the
complaint does not deserve class action status.  If the judge
disagrees, the stakes go up dramatically -- and, at that point,
both sides might consider some kind of settlement, he said.

"This could involve a significant amount of money," said Penn,
whose firm represented plaintiffs in a suit against Home Depot
following a large data breach.

The plaintiffs could have filed in any jurisdiction where Home
Depot does business, not just in the city where the company has
its headquarters.  But the judges and clerks here have seen this
kind of complicated case before, he said.  "The bench here is
very well equipped to handle class action suits.  They absolutely
know what they are doing."

Mr. Field said that the plaintiffs both live in California, but
are not making themselves available for interviews.  One is still
a participant in the Home Depot retirement plan and one is not.
A former employee's participation can end when he transfers the
money to another plan or cashes out and takes a lump sum.

Among the attorneys listed as representing the plantiffs is
Paul Jay Pontrelli -- pjp1460@gmail.com -- of the Atlanta firm
Byrne, Davis and Hicks.

Mr. Pontrelli did not return calls from the AJC requesting
comment.

After justice

Over the years, the Home Depot retirement investments were
funneled into about 20 different funds, most of which brought
lower-than-average returns, Field said.

"Somebody makes a bad investment -- one year, two years -- and
you can't fault them for that." he said.  "But when it is three,
four, five or more years, you begin to wonder, what were they
thinking?"

The suit also charges Home Depot with paying exorbitant fees to a
company called Financial Engines, which was supposed to offer
employees investment advice.  The guidance given was provided by
robotics, the plaintiffs charge.

Brightscope, a financial company that rates company retirement
plans, puts Home Depot below average for its peer group and just
behind hardware competitor Lowes.  Among other companies with
better ratings were Costco, Walgreen and Target.

The Home Depot suit is large, but nowhere near the largest such
suit involving a company's retirement accounts.

A suit against General Electric, for instance, has alleged damage
of more than $700 million for mishandling of retirement accounts.
That case -- also filed by Sanford, Heisler, Sharp -- is still in
the courts.

In 2007, Sandy Springs-based UPS agreed to an $87 million
settlement of a class action suit in which union drivers had
charged the company with forcing them to work off the clock.

The complaint against Home Depot argues that the company owes the
plaintiffs the difference between the funds' performance and the
performance it should have had.  That gap is at least $140
million, Mr. Field said, but the exact number would be determined
after hearing expert testimony at a trial.

"We think that's a lower number," he said.  "We think it could be
higher than that."

Each employee that worked an entire career at Home Depot would
retire with $100,000 less than they should have in their
accounts, according to Brightscope.

The company makes the investment choices, Mr. Field said.  "The
retirement fund is overseen by an investment committee, but we
don't know who is on that committee."

Home Depot's responsibility is clear, he said: Since Home Depot
is managing funds for employees, it has a fiduciary
responsibility to get the best possible results.

"Employees trust their employer to construct a decent plan that
will allow them to retire at some time in their lives," Mr. Field
said.  "The law says that a fiduciary duty is the highest duty
under the law.  They have to be absolutely loyal to their
employees and we are asking for them to be compensated for their
low.

"What we are after is to get justice for all the employees in the
plan." [GN]


HOPE FOUND: Washington Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
MADELINE L. WASHINGTON, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOPE FOUND and EMMANUEL
KHUMBAH, CEO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01038-RMC (D.
Colo., May 2, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants from January 2014 through June 2017. The Plaintiff
worked for Defendant full time as a home healthcare service
provider for individuals with development disabilities living in
the District of Colombia. The Plaintiff worked a minimum 50 hours
per week, with some weeks being as 77 hours or even more. The
Plaintiff was misled into believing that she was not entitled to
be paid overtime wages for the overtime hours she worked each
week because Defendants either told this Plaintiff expressly or
implied that this was the case by repeatedly failing and refusing
to pay overtime wage rates for all hours worked over 40 in a work
week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip B. Zipin, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GGREENBERG, LLC
          8757 George Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587 9373
          E-mail: pzipin@zagfirm.com


HUMANA INC: Kinkead Seeks to Certify 4 Classes
----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAVERLYNN KINKEAD, Individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HUMANA,
INC., HUMANA AT HOME, INC., and SENIORBRIDGE FAMILY COMPANIES
(CT), INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01637-JAM (D.
Conn.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order:

   1. certifying classes:

      Connecticut Effective Date Class:

      "all current or former home healthcare workers employed in
      Connecticut by Humana, Humana at Home, Inc., SeniorBridge
      Family Companies (CT) and/or any of its or their
      predecessors or affiliated entities between January 1, 2015
      and October 12, 2015";

      New York Effective Date Class:

      "all current or former home healthcare workers employed in
      New York by Humana, Humana at Home, Inc., SeniorBridge
      Family Companies, and/or any of its or their predecessors
      or affiliated entities between January 1, 2015 and October
      12, 2015";

      Connecticut Unpaid Hours Class:

      "all current or former home healthcare workers employed in
      Connecticut by Humana, Humana at Home, Inc., SeniorBridge
      Family Companies (CT) and/or any of its or their
      predecessors or affiliated entities who worked 24-hour or
      live-in shifts at any time between January 1, 2015 and
      January 25, 2016"; and

      New York Unpaid Hours Class:

      "all current or former home healthcare workers employed in
      New York by Humana, Humana at Home, Inc., SeniorBridge
      Family Companies (CT) and/or any of its or their
      predecessors or affiliated entities who worked 24-hour or
      live-in shifts at any time between November 11, 2009 and
      the present";

   2. appointing Plaintiff's Counsel as Class Counsel

   3. authorizing Plaintiffs to issue the notice forms by mail;

   4. giving putative class members a period of 30 days from the
      date that notice is issued to opt-out of this action;

   5. requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiffs, in
      electronically readable form, the names, address, email
      address, and any employer number or unique identifier of
      all class members.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TvPKVsel

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
          GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
          250 Fair Street
          Kingston, NY 12401
          Telephone: (845) 255 9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255 8649
          E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com


KALOBIOS PHARMA: Aug. 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Apri1 19 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of common stock of
KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (OTCMKTS:HGEN), formerly
(OTC:KBIO):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS
ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. ("KALOBIOS") COMMON STOCK
(STOCK SYMBOL: KBIO) BETWEEN NOVEMBER 19, 2015 AND DECEMBER 16,
2015, INCLUSIVE (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD").
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and an Order of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, that a proposed settlement
has been reached in this action.  A hearing will be held on
August 2, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Edward J.
Davila, United States District Judge, at the courthouse for the
United States District Court, Northern District of California
Courtroom 4, Robert F. Peckham Federal Building, 280 South 1st
Street, San Jose, CA 95113.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things:
(1) whether the proposed Settlement of the Class' claims against
the Settling Defendant Martin Shkreli, KaloBios Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.'s ("KaloBios") former Chief Executive Officer, for a total
of consideration of one million five hundred thousand dollars
($1,500,000.00) should be approved as fair, reasonable and
adequate; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair and
reasonable and should be approved; (3) whether the application by
Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should
be approved; (4) whether Plaintiffs' application for
reimbursement of costs and expenses should be granted; (5)
whether Plaintiffs' request for a compensatory award should be
granted; and (6) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against the Settling Defendant as set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") filed
with the Court.

Claims against former Defendants KaloBios, Ronald Martell, and
Herb Cross were already resolved as part of a partial settlement
(the "Partial Settlement") for one million five hundred thousand
dollars ($1,500,000.00) and three hundred thousand (300,000)
shares in the reorganized, bankruptcy post-exit KaloBios.  Lead
Counsel representing Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class is
Matthew L. Tuccillo, Pomerantz LLP, 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor,
New York, NY 10016, (212) 661-1100.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired KaloBios common stock
between November 19, 2015 and December 16, 2015, both dates
inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be
affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof.  You may
obtain the detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class
Action, Motion For Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Settlement
Fairness Hearing (the "Notice") and the Proof of Claim and
Release Form ("Proof of Claim") free of charge by contacting the
Settlement Administrator via the information set forth below.

If you previously submitted a valid and timely Proof of Claim in
the Partial Settlement, you do not need to do so again.  Your
prior valid and timely Proof of Claim will be used again.  If you
are a member of the Settlement Class, have not already submitted
a valid and timely Proof of Claim as part of the Partial
Settlement, and wish to share in this Settlement proceeds, you
must submit a Proof of Claim, postmarked no later than June 18,
2018, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  As further
described in the Notice, you will be bound by any Judgment
entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof
of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice,
postmarked no later than July 12, 2018.  Any objections to the
Settlement, Plan of Allocation or Lead Counsel's application for
attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed and served, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later
than July 12, 2018.

The Settlement Class excludes the Settling Defendant and
immediate family; Released Parties; past and present KaloBios
directors, officers, and employees; KaloBios subsidiaries and
affiliates; Defendant Shkreli's investor group who acquired 70%
of KaloBios stock entering the Settlement Class Period, and
others who acquired KaloBios stock and/or were appointed as
KaloBios officers and directors in conjunction with Mr. Shkreli's
takeover of the company.  Additional details are listed in the
Notice and the Stipulation, which can be obtained upon request.

Please direct inquiries, including requests for copies of the
Notice, the Stipulation, and the Proof of Claim, to the
Settlement Administrator:

      KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation
      c/o Strategic Claims Services
      600 North Jackson Street, Suite 205
      Media, PA  19063
      Tel:  866-274-4004
      Email:  info@strategicclaims.net
              www.strategicclaims.net/kalobios

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S
OFFICE, THE DEFENDANT, OR DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL

DATED:  APRIL 2, 2018 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN]


KELLER WILLIAMS: Koppel Sues over Spam Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------
ADAM KOPPEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC.,
a Texas corporation, and PRODUCERS GROUP I, LLC d/b/a KELLER
WILLIAMS REALTY AT WELLINGTON, a Florida limited liability
company, the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80567-DMM (S.D. Fla.,
May 2, 2018), seeks statutory damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
the Defendants, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Keller Williams is an international real estate brokerage and
franchisor headquartered in Austin, Texas. It operates an
"Approved Vendor" network consisting of over 150,000 associates
and 750 franchise locations in the U.S. alone. Keller Williams
Wellington touts itself as the "top producing brokerage" in West
Palm Beach County, Florida.

According to the lawsuit, Keller Williams Wellington's automated
text messaging marketing was approved, consented to, controlled,
and/or ratified by Keller Williams.  Keller Williams knowingly
received and retained a monetary benefit from Keller Williams
Wellington's telemarketing activities. Defendants' text messaging
marketing consists of sending unsolicited text messages to
consumers soliciting the listing of their homes with Defendants.

The Plaintiff and Class Members have no relationship with
Defendants, and never provided their telephone numbers to
Defendants. Nevertheless, the Defendants caused thousands of
unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones
of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including
invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400 4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


KELLER WILLIAMS: Wright Sues over Unsolicited, Autodialed Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., a Texas
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00635 (W.D. Wash.,
May 2, 2018), seeks to stop Keller Williams from directing its
franchisees to violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
making unsolicited, autodialed calls to consumers without their
consent, including calls to consumers registered on the National
Do Not Call registry, and to otherwise obtain injunctive and
monetary relief for all persons injured by Keller Williams'
conduct.

Keller Williams is a real estate franchise started with a single
office in Austin, Texas in 1983 by Gary Keller and Joe Williams.
The company is a training and coaching company that also happens
to be in the business of real estate.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and putative Class:

          Kim D. Stephens, WSBA #11984
          Chase C. Alvord, WSBA #26080
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, Washington 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682 5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682 2992
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                  calvord@tousley.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333 9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498 8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469 5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaurmanpa.com


KIRSCHENBAUM PHILLIPS: Faces "Campagna" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kirschenbaum
Phillips & Levy, P.C. The case is styled as Teresa Campagna,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Kirschenbaum Phillips & Levy, P.C., Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-02632-JFB-GRB (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2018).

Debt collection law-firm Kirschenbaum Phillips & Levy, PC
represents creditors and junk debt buyers in debt collection
cases throughout New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


LDCM INTERNATIONAL: Reynozo Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
CECILIO REYNOZO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LDCM INTERNATIONAL, INC.
and GOLDEN TOWN INTERNATIONAL, L.P., the Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-01400 (S.D. Tex., May 2, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

According to the complaint, Golden Town International violated
the FLSA by employing Reynozo and other similarly situated
nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours [but
refusing to compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of
[forty] hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate at which [they are or were] employed." Golden Town
International violated the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate
time and pay records for Reynozo and other similarly situated
nonexempt employees as required by 29 U.S.C. section 211(c) and
29 C.F.R. pt. 516.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222 6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222 6739


LIVE NATION: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on April 18 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court Central District of California, on behalf of persons and
entities that acquired Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. ("Live
Nation" or the "Company") (NYSE: LYV) securities between February
23, 2017 and March 30, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Live
Nation investors have until 60 days from the date of this notice
to file a lead plaintiff motion.

To obtain information or actively participate in the class
action, please visit the Live Nation page on our website at
www.glancylaw.com/case/live-nation-entertainment-inc-0

Investors that suffered losses on their Live Nation investments
are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their
legal rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com.

On April 2, 2018, The New York Times reported that U.S.
Department of Justice officials were looking into "serious
accusations" against Live Nation regarding possible antitrust
violations.  On this news, Live Nation's share price fell $3.97,
or 9.4% on April 2, 2018, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company
failed to abide by the terms of a Department of Justice Consent
Decree; (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to
prevent a violation of the consent decree; and (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements and
Defendants' statements about Live Nation's business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

If you acquired shares of Live Nation during the Class Period you
have 60 days from April 18, 2018, the date of this notice to file
a lead plaintiff motion to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff.  To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.  If you
wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-
9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased. [GN]


LIVE NATION: Seeks Third Circuit Review of Ruling in "Egan" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Live Nation Worldwide Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled John Egan v. Live Nation Worldwide
Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-00445, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief for
alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The complaint says the Defendant's policies and practices
specifically violate the ADA by failing to provide the Plaintiff
and the class members an equal opportunity to purchase accessible
seating during the same hours and same stages of ticket sales,
though the same methods of distribution, in the same types and
numbers of ticketing sales outlets and under the same terms and
conditions as other tickets sold.

The Defendant owns and operates over one hundred entertainment
venues, including Key Bank Pavilion, in Burgettstown, Washington
County, Pennsylvania.

The appellate case is captioned as John Egan v. Live Nation
Worldwide Inc., Case No. 18-1794, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee JOHN EGAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq.
          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com
                  bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  glynch@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Gregory Care, Esq.
          Eve L. Hill, Esq.
          BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY LLP
          120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 962-1030
          E-mail: gpc@browngold.com
                  ehill@browngold.com

Defendant-Appellant LIVE NATION WORLDWIDE INC. is represented by:

          Michael Chilleen, Esq.
          Gregory F. Hurley, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 513-5100
          Facsimile: (714) 513-5130
          E-mail: MChilleen@sheppardmullin.com
                  hurleyg@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          James S. Malloy, Esq.
          DINGESS, FOSTER, LUCIANA, DAVIDSON, & CHLEBOSKI LLP
          20 Stanwix Street
          PNC Center, Third Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 926-1800
          Facsimile: (412) 926-1801
          E-mail: jmalloy@dfllegal.com



M & A PROJECTS: Faces "Cuxulic" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M & A Projects Inc.
The case is styled as Santos Vicente Cuxulic, on behalf of
himself and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. M & A
Projects Inc. and Bogdan Malinowski, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-02621 (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2018).

M & A Projects Inc. is in the hotel/motel and multi-family home
construction business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


M.L. ZAGER: Faces "Woo" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M.L. Zager, P.C.
The case is styled as Siew H. Woo, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.L. Zager, P.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02631 (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2018).

ML Zager, P.C., is a full-service, debt collection law firm with
38 years of experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MAGNUM SITEWORK: Orozco Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
SAUL OROZCO, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, v. MAGNUM SITEWORK AND EXCAVATION LLC
and ARTHUR PATTON, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01403 (S.D.
Tex., May 2, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked over 40 hours a
week for Defendants every week from January 3, 2018 to May 1,
2018. The Plaintiff regularly worked between 70 and 80 hours a
week without receiving time-and-a-half for each hour that
exceeded 40. The Defendants paid Plaintiff $14.00 per hour. The
Defendants failed to pay an overtime premium of $7.00 for each
overtime hour Plaintiff worked for Defendants. The Defendants owe
Plaintiff 1.5 times his regular rate of pay for each overtime
hour he worked for Defendants during the three year-period
immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit. The Defendants
owe Plaintiff liquidated damages in the same amount as the
overtime wages they owe him. The Defendants are also responsible
for paying Plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs associated with
prosecuting this lawsuit.

Magnum Sitework is located in Magnolia, Texas. This organization
primarily operates in the excavation work business.[BN]

Attorney-In-Charge for Plaintiff Saul Orozco and all Named and
Opt-In Plaintiffs:

          Dennis A. Clifford, Esq.
          THE CLIFFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          712 Main Street, Suite 900
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 999 1833
          Facsimile: (866) 232 0999
          E-mail: dennis@cliffordemploymentlaw.com


MAURY COBB: Faces "Dash" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maury Cobb &
Associates LLC. The case is styled as Howard Dash, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Maury
Cobb & Associates LLC and Amsher Collection Services, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02633 (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2018).

Maury Cobb & Associates LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


MDL 2804: Williamstown City Joins Opioid Crisis Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Saulton, writing for Marietta Times, reports that
retaining a law firm to represent the city in the opioid class
action lawsuit and swearing in a retired Wood County sheriff's
lieutenant as the newest member of the city police department
took place at the Williamstown City Council meeting on April 17.

Council voted unanimously to retain the firm of Marc J. Bern and
Partners LLP to represent the city in the opioid class action
lawsuit.

Mayor Jean Ford said city attorney Blaine Myers reviewed the
contract the firm offered and said there were no problems.

"I didn't see any problems with it," he said.  "It was very well
drafted and I had no concerns about any of the language in any of
the documents they have prepared."

Councilman Marty Seufer said what he liked about the Bern and
Partners proposal was it was the only firm looking for a flat 25
percent of any monetary award with no additional money for
expenses.

Chief of Police Shawn Graham introduced a new member of the
police force.  He said former Wood County Sheriff's Lt. Dave
Massey, who recently retired, is now a member of the department.

Mr. Graham said he has known Massey for more than 16 years at the
sheriff's department, serving on the S.W.A.T. team.  He said
Massey is the first deputy to join him at the city.

"Dave will be a real asset to us," Mr. Graham said.  "He has been
the officer in charge of the road patrol night shift for nine
years and a former S.W.A.T. commander; he will bring a lot of
experience to the department."

In his three years at the helm of the Williamstown Police
Department, Mr. Graham said he has been working to make the
department the best he can.

"I'm looking forward to it," Sheriff Massey said.

Sheriff Massey noted his swearing in for the Williamstown
department came 20 years and two days after he was sworn in as a
deputy sheriff.

Council also discussed the future of the Williamstown Elementary
School building which is expected to be replaced by the 2020
school year.

Mr. Seufer said the city has been speaking with the Wood County
Board of Education about obtaining the new section of the school,
which contains a cafeteria, a kitchen, a gymnasium and a few
classrooms.

"We want to use the newer section for a community center," he
said.  "At their (board of education) last meeting they actually
made a motion to turn all the property to us, contingent on two
things, one is we would take down the old section within 12
months and the other was in the event it is not longer used by
the city it would revert to the schools."

Mr. Seufer said he sees it as a no-lose proposition for the city.

"If we go ahead and accept it, it does not mean we have to take
it down. It means we accept their proposal and this will give us
time to plan to see if we really want to do this," he said.

Mayor Ford said using the former school for another purpose would
make the city look good.

"I've been mayor for 21 years and it has been a wish of mine,
along with council, that we would have a place for our
community," she said.

"I go to these mayors meetings and see the little small towns
with a population a lot less than ours.  We need a place for our
teens and seniors." [GN]


MERCK & CO: Schwartz Pediatrics Sues over Rotavirus Vaccine Sales
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SCHWARTZ PEDIATRICS S.C., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01851-JCJ (E.D. Pa., May 2, 2018),
challenges Merck's anticompetitive scheme to enhance and maintain
its monopoly power in the market for rotavirus vaccines sold in
the United States. The Plaintiff purchased rotavirus vaccine
directly from Merck.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Healthcare Services, and Alliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary L. Azorsky, Esq.
          Daniel A. Small, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1717 Arch St., Suite 3610
          Telephone: (267) 479 5700
          Facsimile: (267) 479 5701
          E-mail: gazorsky@cohenmilstein.com
                  dsmall@cohenmilstein.com


MERCK & CO: Electrical Workers' Plan Sues over Ezetimibe Sales
--------------------------------------------------------------
ST. PAUL ELECTRICAL WORKERS' HEALTH PLAN, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK &
CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP.;
SCHERING CORP.; MSP SINGAPORE CO. LLC; GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS,
LTD.; GLENMARK GENERICS INC., U.S.A.; and PAR PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00232-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va.,
May 3, 2018), stems from a scheme by Defendants Merck, Glenmark,
and Par to make billions of dollars by delaying competition in
the cholesterol-reducing drug ezetimibe.

The lawsuit relates Merck earned handsome returns off of the
branded version of this drug, Zetia, for years. Glenmark aimed to
challenge Merck's monopoly and sell generic Zetia and applied to
the FDA for the right to do so. Prospects for competition
benefiting consumers looked bright.

Merck sued for patent infringement, and Glenmark responded that
the patents underlying Zetia were invalid and had been obtained
through fraud. Then, on the eve of trial, with all signs pointing
to a win for Glenmark, the parties settled. The resulting
sweetheart deal involved an agreement that Glenmark and Par,
Glenmark's U.S. distributor, would forego competing for five
years, leaving Merck as the entrenched monopolist, and that when
it was their turn to dominate the market, Merck would return the
favor by not competing with its own "authorized generic" Zetia.
All three have reaped enormous rewards from their illegal
conspiracy, and at the expense of SPEW and those similarly
situated.

As the first company to apply to market generic Zetia, Glenmark
earned the right to keep other generic companies off the market
for 180 days; this was its statutory reward. But, Glenmark and
Par could not keep Merck from selling a generic. Brand companies
launch authorized generics, particularly during a first filer's
so-called 180-day exclusivity period, in an effort to staunch the
massive loss of revenue attending generic entry. The brand's
authorized generic takes up to 50% of generic sales away from the
first filer. So even though authorized generics selling at a
lower price point than the brand, they let the brand hold on to
sales that it otherwise would lose.

In the absence of Merck's large and unjustified payment in the
form of a no-AG promise, Par and Merck each would have launched a
generic version of Zetia as early as December 6, 2011 and, in any
event, well before December 12, 2016. Additional generics would
have launched six months later. The presence of so many generics
would have driven prices down to competitive levels.

The Plaintiff and the indirect purchaser Classes have been
injured by Merck, Glenmark, and Par's conduct. In the absence of
the unlawful agreement, Class members would have been able to buy
less-expensive generic Zetia instead of branded Zetia from as
early as December 6, 2011 through the present. The Classes have
likely paid hundreds of millions in overcharges as a result of
Merck and Glenmark's unlawful agreement with Par's knowing
acquiescence and acts to further and exacerbate its effects.

Merck & Company, Inc., d.b.a. Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the
United States and Canada, is an American pharmaceutical company
and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff St. Paul Electrical Workers' Health Plan:

          Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq.
          Christine A. Williams, Esq.
          Kevin J. Funk, Esq.
          DURRETTE, ARKEMA, GERSON & GILL PC
          1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775 6900
          Facsimile: (804) 775 6911
          E-mail: wdurrette@dagglaw.com
                  cwilliams@dagglaw.com
                  kfunk@dagglaw.com

               - and -

          Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
          Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338 4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338 4692
          rsteiner@heinsmills.com
          E-mail: jservais@heinsmills.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Morris Sues over "Reduced Pay at 65" Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA MORRIS, KEVIN MORRIS, and MARSHA DONALDSON on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-03977 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2018), alleges that MetLife lured
the plaintiffs into a policy by promising a trade of higher
short-term premium expense in exchange long-term premium
stability after age 65.  However, MetLife did not deliver.

The Plaintiffs and members of Class are elderly individuals who
purchased long-term care insurance policies from MetLife and
selected MetLife's non-standard payment structure, the "Reduced
Pay at 65" rider or option. The "Reduced Pay at 65" rider states
that "[t]his Rider provides that You pay an increased premium
prior to age 65 for your coverage. Then, on the Policy
Anniversary on or after Your 65th birthday, the premium for your
coverage will be reduced to 50% of the premium that You paid
prior to age 65."

The Plaintiffs and members of the Class relied upon the
statements and representations made by MetLife, which promised
that in return for paying increased premiums prior to reaching
their policy anniversary on or after their 65th birthday, they
would thereafter enjoy fixed premiums set at 50% of the premium
they paid prior to turning 65.

The Plaintiffs and members of the Class reasonably relied on
MetLife's representations and reasonably believed that the
"Reduced Pay at 65" payment structure would safeguard against
increases in premium payments after the policyholders reached the
age of 65 and were likely living on fixed incomes.

Therefore, by selecting the "Reduced Pay at 65" payment
structure, policyholders agreed to pay higher premiums before the
policy anniversary on or following their 65th birthday in
exchange for paying a lower, fixed premium thereafter, equal to
50% of the premium they paid prior to age 65.

Yet, contrary to its uniform representations and contractual
obligations, MetLife has imposed steep premium increases upon
policyholders like Plaintiff Linda Morris and Marsha Donaldson
after the policy anniversary following their 65th birthday,
violating the express language of the "Reduced Pay at 65" payment
structure.

MetLife is an insurance provider that markets and sells long-term
care insurance policies. [BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class and Subclasses:

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          Andrew White, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKENSHIP
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBERM LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, New York 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298 3283
          Facsimile: (914) 824 1561
          E-mail: tgarber@fbglaw.com
                  awhite@fbglaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA
          One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345 8297
          Facsimile: (513) 345 8294

               - and -

          Gary Mason, Esq.
          WHITEFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW Ste 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 640 1168
          Facsimile: (202) 429 2294
          E-mail: Gmason@wb.lllp.com

               - and -

          Charles Schaffer, Esq.
          Levin Sanders & Berman LLP
          510 Walnut Streetm Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592 1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592 4663
          E-mail: CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com


MICHAEL REITER: "Chun" Suit Brought Before N.Y. Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Chun, obo himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Michael Reiter, Defendant, Case
No. 607795/2018, has been brought before the New York Supreme
Court on May 7, 2018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   FRANK & ASSOCIATES
   500 BI-COUNTY BLVD, STE 112N
   FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK 11735
   Tel: (631) 756-0400

The Defendant is represented by:

   SCHER LAW FIRM
   ONE OLD COUNTRY ROAD, STE 385
   CARLE PLACE, NY 11514
   Tel: (516) 746-5040


MIDLAND CREDIT: "Loalbo" Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled KRISTEN N. LOALBO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. G.D.
18-04483, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) on May 3, 2018. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00586-DSC to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David S. Cercone.

MCM is a company that helps consumers resolve past-due financial
obligations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Suher, Esq.
          4328 Old William Penn Highway, Suite 2j
          Monroeville, PA 15146
          Telephone: (412) 349 8909
          Facsimile: (412) 345 1274
          E-mail: jls@dellmoser.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          Union Trust Building, Suite 700
          501 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 803 1185
          Facsimile: (412) 803 1188
          E-mail: dmvugrinovich@mdwcg.com


MONAT GLOBAL: "Botallico" Suit Moved to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kelley Botallico, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Monat Global Corp. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. 37-02018-00016233-CU-FR-CTL, was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on May
2, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-
00851-CAB-NLS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          Sean M. Gaffney, Esq.
          PROCOPIO CORY HARGREAVES & SAVITCH, LLP
          525 B Street, Suite 2200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238 1900
          Facsimile: (619) 235 0398
          E-mail: sean.gaffney@procopio.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Klodzinski Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KLODZINSKI, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00505 (W.D.N.Y., May 3, 2018), seeks
to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

"Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant's roundup
products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate
Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide,
Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export
Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed
& Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, and Roundup
Herbicide.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE, LLC
          55 Cedar Street, Suite 100
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 457 7700
          Facsimile: (401) 457 7708
          E-mail: ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Ave S, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339 0987
          E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com


MRS BPO: Faces "Louis" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Mannel Louis, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02654-WFK-SMG (E.D. N.Y., May 4, 2018).

MRA BPO, L.L.C. provides business process outsourcing services.
The Company offers back office, accounts receivable, and customer
relationship management services. MRA BPO serves customers in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dan@cml.legal


NATIONAL RECOVERY: "Zirogiannis" Settlement Has Initial Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JEANETTE ZIROGIANNIS, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL RECOVERY AGENCY, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:14-cv-03954-DRH-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), the Ho. Judge Denis R.
Hurley entered an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval to the Class Settlement
      Agreement between Plaintiff, Jeanette Zirogiannis,
      individually and as representative of the class previously
      certified by the Court, and Defendant, NRA Group LLC;

   2. scheduling Sep. 13, 2018 at 11 AM as the date and time for
      the final approval hearing on the fairness, reasonableness
      and adequacy of the Agreement, and for consideration of the
      requests for fees and expenses by Class Counsel; and

   3. appointing Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. of Stern Thomasson LLP
      as Class Counsel to serve along with Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
      of Kleinman LLC who was previously appointed Class Counsel;

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LcscyY1S


NEW JADE FOUNTAIN: Faces "Lui" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Jade Fountain
Enterprises Corp. The case is styled as Ngok Kwan Lui and Shihai
Liao, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. New Jade Fountain Enterprises Corp. doing business
as I Chopsticks Chinese Restaurant, I Chopstick Chinese
Restaurant, Inc., Kevin Lin also known as Kevin Lau and JoJo Doe
legal name unknown, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02669 (E.D.
N.Y., May 4, 2018).

I Chopsticks Chinese Restaurant is a restaurant offering a large
menu of basic Chinese staples for dine in or delivery.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


NOHO HOSPITALITY: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Noho Hospitality
LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Noho
Hospitality LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04092 (S.D. N.Y.,
May 7, 2018).

NoHo Hospitality LLC operates a portfolio of restaurants and
culinary services in preeminent hotels, live music venues, and
major metropolitan sports arenas and airports in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


OCWEN LOAN: TCPA Class Action Settlement Delayed
------------------------------------------------
Hannah Meisel, writing for Law360, reports that a class action
settlement over Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against
Florida-based mortgage servicer Ocwen was delayed on April 17
while U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly thinks over Ocwen's
bid for sanctions against a plaintiffs' attorney over his use of
case information.

Judge Kennelly was scheduled have given final approval of a $17.5
million deal to resolve class action claims on behalf of more
than 1.6 million consumers who allege the mortgage loan servicer
autodialed their cellphones without their consent.

The case is styled Snyder v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-08461 (N.D. Ill.).  The case is assigned to Judge
Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly.  The case was filed October 27,
2014. [GN]


P & M MANAGEMENT: Deceived Nursing Home Residents, Parsa Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
NASER PARSA, the Plaintiff, v. P & M MANAGEMENT, INC.;
SILVERSCREEN HEALTHCARE, INC.; MESA GLEN HOLDINGS, LLC; PHILMAR
CARE, LLC; SELA HEALTHCARE, INC.; P & M HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC705054 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 3, 2018), seeks to enjoin the
Silverscreen Defendants from violating residents' rights pursuant
to the state's Health & Safety Code.

According to the complaint, before, during, and after the
admissions processes of Plaintiff and each class member, the
Defendants actively and intentionally concealed from Plaintiff
and class members that Defendants has a long history of being
serial violators of skilled nursing industry laws.  The
Defendants deceived the Plaintiff and members of the class into
believing that the Facilities were properly operated to induce
Plaintiff and class members into becoming residents of the
Facilities. That Plaintiff and members of the class, all in
infirm health, elderly and/or in need of skilled nursing care and
members of one of the most vulnerable segments of our society,
were unsophisticated and unknowledgeable in the operation of
skilled nursing facilities in the State of California and had no
knowledge of the facts concealed by Defendants and could not have
discovered those concealed facts due to, among other things,
their extremely vulnerable status.  Had the concealed facts been
disclosed to Plaintiff and members of the class, they would not
have become residents of the Facilities and would not have paid,
or had monies paid on their behalf, for the substandard skilled
nursing care at the Facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen M. Garcia, Esq.
          GARCIA, ARTIGLIERE & MEDBY
          One World Trade Center, Suite 1950
          Long Beach, CA 90831
          Telephone: (562) 216 5270
          Facsimile: (562) 216 5271
          E-mail: edocs@lawgarcia.com


PRIMESOURCE HEALTH: Certification of Collective Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ERIN PFEFFERKORN, et al., On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
PRIMESOURCE HEALTH GROUP, LLC; et al, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-01223 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying this action as a collective action
      for purposes of notice and discovery;

   2. authorizing Plaintiffs' counsel to send notice to all
      putative Plaintiffs;

   3. approving the form and content of Plaintiffs' proposed
      notices;

   4. directing Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs' Counsel the
      contact information for each putative plaintiff, (last
      known address and email address) as defined in the
      accompanying memorandum in support;

   5. equitably tolling the statute of limitations in this matter
      to June 29, 2017 for all Plaintiffs who joined this matter
      after that date and for all putative plaintiffs who have
      yet to join this action; and

   6. authorizing a 90-day notice period for putative plaintiffs
      to join this action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5XfBC8EO

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Elizabeth A. Thompson, Esq.
          Sharilee K. Smentek, Esq.
          SAUL, EWING, ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
          161 North Clark, Suite 4200
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 876 7185
          Facsimile: (312) 876 0288
          E-mail: elizabeth.thompson@saul.com
                  sharilee.smentek@saul.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
          Chris P. Wido, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 291 4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291 5744
          E-mail: brian.spitz@spitzlawfirm.com
                  chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


PRINCIPAL GLOBAL: Faces ERISA Class Action in Iowa
--------------------------------------------------
Nevin E. Adams, JD, writing for NAPA, reports that three
participants in two different 401(k) plans are seeking class
action status in a breach of fiduciary claim against a major
target-date fund provider.

The suit (Nelsen v. Principal Glob. Inv'rs Tr. Co., S.D. Iowa,
No. 4:18-cv-00115-SMR-SBJ, complaint filed 4/16/18) charges
Principal Global Investors Trust Co. with "disloyal and imprudent
management of the Principal LifeTime Hybrid Collective Investment
Funds ('Principal CITs') in violation of ERISA, to the detriment
of participant investors."

Specifically, plaintiff Ashley Nelsen (a current participant in
the Starkey Laboratories, Inc. Employee Retirement Plan) and
plaintiffs Roody Jasmin and Joellyn Williams (current
participants in the Fleetcor Technologies, Inc. 401(k) Savings
Plan) allege a number of violations in the composition and design
of the target-date funds in question.

According to the suit, filed April 16 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa, as of the end of 2017, the
Principal CITs consisted of 12 trusts: 11 options with a target
date ranging from 2010 to 2060 (2010, 2015, 2020, etc.), and the
Principal LifeTime Hybrid Income Fund designed for investors "who
have reached their investment time horizon." Regarding fees, the
suit notes that Principal CIT consisted of four components: (a) a
trustee fee of .04%; (b) operating expenses, which are deducted
from the trust; (c) the service fee, which varies based upon the
share class selected in the participation agreement, and ranges
from 0 bps to 110 bps; and (d) the "fees charged by the
underlying investments in the [Principal CIT]." The plaintiffs go
on to explain that the first, second, and fourth fee components
were the same for all investors in a particular Principal CIT,
while the service fee varied depending upon the share class
selected by the participating plan.

They go on to explain that the defendants:

   -- determined which asset classes would make up the CITs;
determined the percentage allocations to each of these asset
classes throughout the investor's investment lifespan (the glide
path), and

    -- constructed each Principal CIT's investment portfolio,
which involved "the selection and monitoring of the Target Date
Funds' underlying investment options and investment managers."
Index 'Calls'

It is this last step to which the plaintiffs attributed the
fiduciary breaches: the selection and monitoring of the Principal
CITs' underlying investment options.  Specifically, the suit
notes that the defendants ". . . determined that four asset
classes should be represented through passively-managed
investment portfolios," that during the relevant period
represented 60% to 70% of the total assets of each of the
Principal CITs.  That, of course is not the issue -- rather, the
plaintiffs note that it's not the "decision to use passive
investments for these four asset classes or the index used to
represent each asset class" that's at issue here.  Rather, the
suit claims that "defendants' fiduciary breaches relate to which
index funds they utilized to track each of these four indices, a
determination that fell squarely within the scope of their
fiduciary duties."

The suit notes that, "for most major market indices, one or more
companies offer an index fund product that can track the index
with a high degree of accuracy, while charging very low fees,"
and that this is "particularly true for large investors such as
the Principal CITs (which at all relevant times had over two
billion dollars invested in index fund investments), that can
leverage their billions in investable assets to negotiate lower
fees than what is available to the vast majority of investors."

However, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants here ". . . .
did not invest in any of the competitive index fund offerings in
the marketplace, choosing instead to profit themselves and their
affiliates by investing exclusively in Principal's proprietary
index funds, despite fees that were 5 to 15 times higher than
marketplace alternatives that tracked the exact same index." And
if that were not enough, the plaintiffs further allege that the
Principal index fund products were "far more expensive," and
"also of significantly lower quality," claiming that, "compared
to marketplace alternatives, Principal's index funds deviated
further from the benchmark index, and consistently had the worst
performance even on a pre-fee basis."

'High Fees and History'

Ultimately, the plaintiffs allege that, "given the high fees and
history of poor performance of Principal's index funds, a prudent
fiduciary of a multi-billion dollar suite of target date funds
acting in the best interest of the trust beneficiaries would have
removed these proprietary index funds from the Principal CITs at
the beginning of the relevant period and replaced them with more
competitive marketplace alternatives," and that failing to do so
has "cost participants millions in investment losses compared to
what they would have earned had Defendants acted in accordance
with their fiduciary duties."

Not that the breaches were limited to the index fund selection.
Rather, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants also
"intentionally selected higher-fee versions of proprietary
actively-managed funds to increase fee revenue, at the expense of
trust participants and beneficiaries."

The suit goes on to state that the "imprudent investment
decisions were not the result of mere negligence or oversight,"
but that the defendants "consistently invested the assets of the
Principal CITs in costly and underperforming index funds,
vehicles, and share classes, and failed to timely remove those
funds long after a reasonable investigation would have revealed
the availability of lower cost, better performing options."
Those decisions resulted in "additional investment management
fees and provided a larger asset base to make Principal's index
fund and mutual fund products more competitive in the
marketplace," according to the plaintiffs.

Material 'Witnessed'?

Perhaps laying the groundwork to refute statute of limitation
arguments, the suit states that "plaintiffs did not have
knowledge of all material facts (including, among other things,
availability of less expensive and better performing alternative
investments, the availability of lower-cost investment vehicles
and share classes, the relatively greater experience, expertise,
and asset base of Principal's competitors in the index fund
marketplace, and the investment performance of underlying
Principal CIT investments versus other specific alternatives)
necessary to understand that Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in violation of ERISA, until shortly before this suit was
filed," and that they do "not have actual knowledge of the
specifics of Defendants' decision-making processes with respect
to the selection and monitoring of investment options within the
Principal CITs (including Defendants' processes and motivations
for selecting, monitoring, evaluating, and removing investments),
because this information is solely within Defendants' possession
prior to discovery."

As of the end of 2016, over 9,000 retirement plans had one or
more participants invested in the Principal CITs, and that while
the plaintiffs "do not currently know the number of participants
that have invested in the Principal CITs during the relevant
period," they believe it is in the "hundreds of thousands."

In a response to Bloomberg Law, a company spokeswoman at
Principal said the firm disagrees with the allegations in the
lawsuit and will vigorously contest them. [GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Rivers Sues over Health Insurance Premium Hike
-------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA RIVERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE
PHARMA INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; INSYS
THERAPEUTICS, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ACTAVIS PLC; ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; MCKESSON
CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH INC.; and AMERISOURCEBERGEN
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03116 (N.D. Ill.,
May 2, 2018), seeks redress for Defendants' alleged illegal acts
that have caused Plaintiff's health insurance premiums to
increase.

Prescription opioids have devastated communities across the
country and in the State of Illinois. Since 1999, there have been
more than 351,000 reported opioid-related deaths nationwide -
more than six times the number of U.S. soldiers who died in the
Vietnam War. In addition to the tragic loss of life and the
heartbreaking impact on children and loved ones, some estimates
state that the opioid crisis is costing governmental entities and
private companies as much as $500 billion per year.

The Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute
prescription opioids, which are powerful, highly addictive
narcotic painkillers. The Manufacturer Defendants have engaged in
a cunning and deceptive marketing scheme to encourage doctors and
patients to use opioids to treat chronic pain. In doing so, the
Manufacturer Defendants falsely minimized the risks of opioids,
overstated their benefits, and generated far more opioid
prescriptions than there should have been.

The opioid epidemic is the direct result of the Manufacturer
Defendants' deliberately crafted, well-funded campaign of
deception. For years, they misrepresented the risks posed by the
opioids they manufacture and sell, misleading susceptible
prescribers and vulnerable patient populations. As families and
communities suffered from the scourge of opioid abuse, the
Manufacturer Defendants earned billions in profits as a direct
result of the harms they imposed.

The Manufacturer Defendants knew that their misrepresentations
about the risks and benefits of opioids were not supported by,
and sometimes were directly contrary to, the scientific evidence.
Certain opioid manufacturers, including Defendants Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Purdue Pharma L.P., have entered
agreements prohibiting them from making misrepresentations.
Nonetheless, the Manufacturer Defendants continue to misrepresent
the risks and benefits of long-term opioid use in Illinois, and
they have not corrected their past misrepresentations.

The Manufacturer Defendants' false and misleading statements
deceived doctors and patients about the risks and benefits of
opioids and convinced them that opioids were not only
appropriate, but necessary to treat chronic pain. The
Manufacturer Defendants targeted susceptible prescribers, like
family doctors, and vulnerable patient populations, like the
elderly and veterans. And they tainted the sources that doctors
and patients relied upon for guidance, including treatment
guidelines, medical education programs, medical conferences and
seminars, and scientific articles. As a result, they successfully
transformed the way doctors treat chronic pain, opening the
floodgates of opioid prescriptions and dependence. Opioids are
now the most prescribed class of drugs, generating billions of
dollars in revenue for the Manufacturer Defendants every year.

In addition, the Distributor Defendants could and should have
prevented the brunt of the opioid epidemic, but instead allowed
the country to be flooded with prescription opioids. Under both
Illinois and federal law, distributors are required to secure and
monitor drugs as they travel through commerce, to protect them
from theft, and to reject and report suspicious or unusual orders
by downstream pharmacies, doctors, or patients. But the
Distributor Defendants neglected this duty, turning a blind eye
to known or knowable problems in their own supply chains. By
doing so, the Distributor Defendants created conditions in which
vast amounts of opioids flowed freely from the Manufacturer
Defendants to abusers and drug dealers - with the Distributor
Defendants readily fulfilling suspicious orders from pharmacies
and ignoring red flags that would require further investigation
and resolution.

The direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' misconduct is
that every Illinois purchaser of private health insurance paid
higher premiums, co-payments, and deductibles. Insurance
companies have considerable market power and pass onto their
insureds the expected cost of future care -- including opioid-
related coverage. Accordingly, insurance companies factored in
the unwarranted and exorbitant healthcare costs of opioid-related
coverage caused by Defendants and charged that back to insureds
in the form of higher premiums, deductibles, and co-payments.

Purdue Pharma is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned
principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond
Sackler.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          David I. Mindell, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589 6370
          Facsimile: 312 589 6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  dmindell@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Todd Logan, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212 9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373 9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  tlogan@edelson.com

               - and -

          William S. Consovoy, Esq.
          Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq.
          Michael H. Park, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
          3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: (703) 243 9423
          E-mail: park@consovoymccarthy.com
                  will@consovoymccarthy.com
                  tom@consovoymccarthy.com

               - and -

          Ashley Keller, Esq.
          Travis Lenkner, Esq.
          Seth Meyer, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2570
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741 5220
          E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
                  tdl@kellerlenkner.com
                  sam@kellerlenkner.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Sardella Sues over Health Insurance Premium Hike
---------------------------------------------------------------
LOU SARDELLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA
INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; INSYS THERAPEUTICS,
INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ACTAVIS PLC; ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; MCKESSON
CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; and AMERISOURCEBERGEN
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-08706 (D.N.J., May
2, 2018), seeks redress for the Defendants' alleged illegal acts
that have caused Plaintiff's health insurance premiums to
increase.

Prescription opioids have devastated communities across the
country and in the State of Illinois. Since 1999, there have been
more than 351,000 reported opioid-related deaths nationwide --
more than six times the number of U.S. soldiers who died in the
Vietnam War. In addition to the tragic loss of life and the
heartbreaking impact on children and loved ones, some estimates
state that the opioid crisis is costing governmental entities and
private companies as much as $500 billion per year.

The Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute
prescription opioids, which are powerful, highly addictive
narcotic painkillers. The Manufacturer Defendants have engaged in
a cunning and deceptive marketing scheme to encourage doctors and
patients to use opioids to treat chronic pain. In doing so, the
Manufacturer Defendants falsely minimized the risks of opioids,
overstated their benefits, and generated far more opioid
prescriptions than there should have been.

The opioid epidemic is the direct result of the Manufacturer
Defendants' deliberately crafted, well-funded campaign of
deception. For years, they misrepresented the risks posed by the
opioids they manufacture and sell, misleading susceptible
prescribers and vulnerable patient populations. As families and
communities suffered from the scourge of opioid abuse, the
Manufacturer Defendants earned billions in profits as a direct
result of the harms they imposed.

The Manufacturer Defendants knew that their misrepresentations
about the risks and benefits of opioids were not supported by,
and sometimes were directly contrary to, the scientific evidence.
Certain opioid manufacturers, including Defendants Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Purdue Pharma L.P., have entered
agreements prohibiting them from making misrepresentations.
Nonetheless, the Manufacturer Defendants continue to misrepresent
the risks and benefits of long-term opioid use in Illinois, and
they have not corrected their past misrepresentations.

The Manufacturer Defendants' false and misleading statements
deceived doctors and patients about the risks and benefits of
opioids and convinced them that opioids were not only
appropriate, but necessary to treat chronic pain. The
Manufacturer Defendants targeted susceptible prescribers, like
family doctors, and vulnerable patient populations, like the
elderly and veterans. And they tainted the sources that doctors
and patients relied upon for guidance, including treatment
guidelines, medical education programs, medical conferences and
seminars, and scientific articles. As a result, they successfully
transformed the way doctors treat chronic pain, opening the
floodgates of opioid prescriptions and dependence. Opioids are
now the most prescribed class of drugs, generating billions of
dollars in revenue for the Manufacturer Defendants every year.

In addition, the Distributor Defendants could and should have
prevented the brunt of the opioid epidemic, but instead allowed
the country to be flooded with prescription opioids. Under both
Illinois and federal law, distributors are required to secure and
monitor drugs as they travel through commerce, to protect them
from theft, and to reject and report suspicious or unusual orders
by downstream pharmacies, doctors, or patients. But the
Distributor Defendants neglected this duty, turning a blind eye
to known or knowable problems in their own supply chains. By
doing so, the Distributor Defendants created conditions in which
vast amounts of opioids flowed freely from the Manufacturer
Defendants to abusers and drug dealers -- with the Distributor
Defendants readily fulfilling suspicious orders from pharmacies
and ignoring red flags that would require further investigation
and resolution.

The direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' misconduct is
that every Illinois purchaser of private health insurance paid
higher premiums, co-payments, and deductibles. Insurance
companies have considerable market power and pass onto their
insureds the expected cost of future care -- including opioid-
related coverage. Accordingly, insurance companies factored in
the unwarranted and exorbitant healthcare costs of opioid-related
coverage caused by Defendants and charged that back to insureds
in the form of higher premiums, deductibles, and co-payments.

Purdue Pharma is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned
principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond
Sackler.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          David I. Mindell, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589 6370
          Facsimile: 312 589 6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  dmindell@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Todd Logan, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212 9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373 9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  tlogan@edelson.com

               - and -

          William S. Consovoy, Esq.
          Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq.
          Michael H. Park, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
          3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: (703) 243 9423
          E-mail: park@consovoymccarthy.com
                  will@consovoymccarthy.com
                  tom@consovoymccarthy.com

               - and -

          Ashley Keller, Esq.
          Travis Lenkner, Esq.
          Seth Meyer, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2570
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741 5220
          E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
                  tdl@kellerlenkner.com
                  sam@kellerlenkner.com


RESOURCE CAPITAL: Aug. 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DAREN LEVIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,

Case No. 1:15-cv-07081

Hon. Louis L. Stanton

Plaintiff,

v.

RESOURCE CAPITAL CORP., JONATHAN Z.
COHEN, DAVID J. BRYANT, ELDRON C.
BLACKWELL, and DAVID E. BLOOM,

Defendants.

TO:     ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED RESOURCE CAPITAL CORP. ("RESOURCE CAPITAL") SECURITIES
BETWEEN OCTOBER 31, 2012 AND AUGUST 5, 2015.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure that a hearing will be held on August 3, 2018,
at 12:00 p.m., before the Honorable Louis L. Stanton, United
States District Judge, at the Courthouse for the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, Courtroom 21C,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York,
New York 10007, for the purpose of determining, among other
things, whether the following matters should be approved by the
Court: (1) the proposed Settlement of the claims in the Action
for the combined sum of $9,500,000 in cash as fair, reasonable,
and adequate to the Members of the Class; (2) whether,
thereafter, the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set
forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
February 5, 2018 ("Stipulation"); (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should
be approved; (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred
in connection with the Action should be approved; and (5) whether
the Lead Plaintiff and Additional Plaintiff should be awarded an
incentive award.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired common stock, Series B
preferred stock, and/or Series C preferred stock between October
31, 2012 and August 5, 2015, your rights may be affected by the
settlement of this Class Action.  If you have not received the
detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release Form, you may obtain them free of charge by contacting
the Claims Administrator, by mail at: Resource Capital Corp.
Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 4850
Portland, OR 97208-4850.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim no later than July 23, 2018 establishing that you are
entitled to recovery.  As further described in the Notice, you
will be bound by any Judgment entered in the Action, regardless
of whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude
yourself from the Class, in accordance with the procedures set
forth in the Notice, no later than July 5, 2018.  Any objections
to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or attorneys' fees and
expenses must be filed and served, in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Notice, no later than July 13, 2018.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Lead Counsel for the Class: Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. --
nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, 1101 30th Street,
N.W., Suite 115, Washington, D.C. 20007.

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S
OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL.

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact
Lead Counsel at the address listed above.

DATED:   April 3, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN]


RIPPLE LABS: Faces "Coffey" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ripple Labs, Inc.
The case is styled as Ryan Coffey, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bradley Garlinghouse,
an individual, Ripple Labs, Inc. a Delaware Corporation and XRP
II, LLC a South Carolina limited liability company, Defendants,
Case No. CGC18566271 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 3, 2018).

Ripple is the creator and a developer of the Ripple payment
protocol and exchange network.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ROCKAWAY CARS: "Gochez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY GOCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROCKAWAY CARS I LLC d/b/a ROCKAWAY
NISSAN, the Defendants, Case No. 154069/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May
2, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and unpaid overtime under
violations of the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated nonexempt hourly sales employees
employed by Defendant in the State of New York at any time during
the period commencing six years prior to the filing of this
action and continuing until such further date as the practices
complained of are discontinued. The Plaintiff alleges that he and
other Sales Employees were not paid a minimum wage for all hours
worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625 0105


RSP PERMIAN: Rosenblatt Balks at Concho Resources Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RSP PERMIAN, INC.,
MICHAEL GRIMM, STEVEN GRAY, JOSEPH B. ARMES, SCOTT MCNEILL,
KENNETH V. HUSEMAN, MATTHEW S. RAMSEY, MICHAEL S. WALLACE, CONCHO
RESOURCES INC., and GREEN MERGER SUB INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-01117-K (N.D. Tex., May 2, 2018), stems from a
proposed transaction announced on March 28, 2018, pursuant to
which RSP Permian, Inc. will be acquired Concho Resources Inc.
and Green Merger Sub Inc. On March 27, 2018, RSP's Board of
Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan
of merger with Concho. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, RSP's stockholders will receive 0.320 shares of Parent
common stock for each share of RSP common stock they own. On
April 20, 2018, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading.
Accordingly, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
in connection with the Registration Statement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654 7530

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324 6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631 1305

               - and -

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
          THE KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744 3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744 3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
                  jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com


RUSHMORE LOAN: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Sellers" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Randolph Sellers filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Randolph Sellers, et al. v. Rushmore Loan
Management Services LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01106-TJC-PDB, in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as Randolph Sellers, et al. v.
Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, Case No.  18-11420, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 22, 2018, the
Sellers filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That
appellate case is titled Randolph Sellers, et al. v. Rushmore
Loan Management Services LLC, Case No. 18-90002.

The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on September 11, 2015, raising
claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act and the Declaratory Judgment
Act, based on their receipt of numerous communications from
Rushmore.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that
Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or
before April 23, 2018, as to Appellant Randolph Sellers.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants RANDOLPH SELLERS, individually and on
behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, and TABETHA
SELLERS are represented by:

          Max H. Story, Esq.
          MAX STORY, ESQ.
          328 2nd Avenue N, Suite 100
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 372-4109
          E-mail: max@maxstorylaw.com

               - and -

          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
          PO Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com

Defendant-Appellee RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC is
represented by:

          Amy Lea Drushal, Esq.
          TRENAM LAW
          101 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-7474
          E-mail: adrushal@trenam.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Stuart Hubbard, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          1001 Haxall Point, 15th Floor
          Richmond, VA 23218-1122
          Telephone: (804) 697-1326
          Facsimile: (804) 698-5186
          E-mail: jon.hubbard@troutmansanders.com

               - and -

          John C. Lynch, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          222 Central Park Ave., Suite 2000
          Virginia Beach, VA 23462
          Telephone: (757) 687-7765
          E-mail: john.lynch@troutmansanders.com

               - and -

          Justin Tinshung Wong, Esq.
          Troutman Sanders, LLP
          600 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 5200
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 885-3719
          E-mail: justin.wong@troutmansanders.com


SAN GABRIEL TRANSIT: Fails to Pay All Wages Due, Garcia Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case, GABRIEL GARCIA, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. SAN
GABRIEL TRANSIT, INC. a California corporation and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC702273 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 2, 2018), seeks recovery on a class-wide basis from
Defendants for their failure to provide meal periods or an hour's
pay in lieu thereof; failure to provide rest breaks or an hour's
pay in lieu thereof; and failure to pay all wages due upon
separation from employment and related claims.

San Gabriel provides public paratransit services in Southern
California. The company was founded in 1953 and is based in El
Monte, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher A. Olsen, Esq.
          OLSEN LAW OFFICES, APC
          1010 Second Ave., Ste. 1835
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 550 9352
          Facsimile: (619) 923 2747
          E-mail: Chris@OlsenLawAPC.com


SAVANNAH LAW: "Dickens" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Caitlyn Cliff, George Dickens,
III, Melanie Fenley, Zachary Gruber, Peter Leyh, Mylee McKinney,
and Casey Tuggle, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Savannah Law School, LLC;
John Marshall Law School, LLC. (DE); John Marshall Law School;
John Marshall University; John Marshall Online, Inc.; and JMLS
1422, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. STCV800506, was removed from
the State Court of Chatham County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Georgia (Savannah) on May 3, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00104-LGW-GRS to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lisa G.
Wood.

Savannah Law School is located in Savannah, Georgia, United
States. The school is no longer accepting applications, and press
reports indicate that it will shut down at the end of the 2017-
2018 academic year.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Lucas Drayton Bradley, Esq.
          Todd Michael Baiad, Esq.
          BOUHAN FALLIGANT, LLP
          One West Park Avenue
          P.O. Box 2139
          Savannah, GA 31402-2139
          Telephone: (912) 644 5787
          Facsimile: (912) 233 0811
          E-mail: ldbradley@bouhan.com
                  tmbaiad@bouhan.com


SHENANDOAH VALLEY JUVENILE: Class Action Certification Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN DOE 1, et al., by and through their
next friend, NELSON LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SHENANDOAH VALLEY
JUVENILE CENTER COMMISSION, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00097-EKD/JCH (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs move the Court, subject
to the Defendant's express consent, for an entry of an Order
certifying the case as a class action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cnbfLJ4e

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christine T. Dinan, Esq.
          Hannah M. Lieberman
          WASHINGTON LAWYERS'
          COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
          AND URBAN AFFAIRS
          11 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 319 1000
          Facsimile: (202) 319 1010
          E-mail: Christine_dinan@washlaw.org
                  Hannah_Lieberman@washlaw.org

               - and -

          Theodore A. Howard, Esq.
          Bradley C. Tobias, Esq.
          WILEY REIN LLP
          1776 K Street NW
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 719 7120
          Facsimile: (202) 719 7049
          E-mail: thoward@wileyrein.com
                  btobias@wileyrein.com


SLIDE FIRE: Faces Class Action Over Bump Stocks
-----------------------------------------------
Vanessa Romo, writing for NPR, reports that Slide Fire Solutions,
the company that invented and manufactures bump stocks, announced
on April 17 it is shutting down production.

A notice on its website reads, "On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at
midnight CST, Slide Fire will cease taking orders for its
products and shut down its website."

Bump stocks are modification devices used to accelerate a gun's
shooting rate so it fires like an automatic weapon -- almost as
fast as machine guns, which are largely outlawed.

Slide Fire President Jeremiah Cottle designed and holds the only
approved patent for bump stocks.

It's unclear whether the freeze will be temporary or permanent,
or what might happen to the factory in Texas.  Slide Fire did not
respond to NPR's requests for comment.  And the posted notice
asks visitors to the site to enter an email address to "stay
updated on any future news."

The devices, and Slide Fire products specifically, have come
under intense public and political scrutiny since the rapid-fire
gun accessory was used in the Oct. 1, 2017, Las Vegas mass
shooting that left 58 dead and hundreds more injured.

Three of those victims have filed a lawsuit seeking class-action
status against Slide Fire and any future bump stock manufacturers
for negligence. According to the complaint, "this horrific
assault would not and could not have occurred, with a
conventional handgun, rifle, or shotgun, of the sort used by law-
abiding responsible gun owners for hunting or self defense."

Court documents also allege that Slide Fire manufactured,
marketed and sold devices to gun owners who wanted semi-automatic
rifles to mimic fully automatic weapons, "thereby subverting
federal law that has highly regulated machine guns for over 80
years."

"Slide Fire's decision is just something they're doing now to try
to relieve political pressure they're under," Robert Eglet told
NPR.

Eglet is a senior partner at Eglet Prince, the firm that filed
the class-action lawsuit on behalf of the Las Vegas victims along
with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.  He contends the
shutdown is a strategic move by the company to "put the brakes on
any congressional movement that would prevent them or anyone else
from producing these bump stocks in the future."

This is not the first time Slide Fire is halting production.  As
NPR reported, it suspended sales shortly after the devices were
used in the Las Vegas shooting in October.  But less than a month
later, days after another mass shooting in Texas, Slide Fire
restarted production on the controversial accessories.

Regardless of what the company does or doesn't do, Mr. Eglet
said, he and his clients are continuing to pursue this case.

"We want to sue these people out of business and send a message
to any future manufacturers that that's what will happen to them
if they try to make and sell these devices to the public,"
Mr. Eglet said.

The devices have been legal since June 2010, after the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives determined a bump stock
"is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under [the]
Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act," according to a
letter from the ATF to Slide Fire.

Bloomberg reported that Slide Fire, which is the nation's only
manufacturer of bump stocks, earned more than $10 million in
sales in its first year of business.

The company was engaged in a years-long patent infringement
battle with another manufacturer, FosTecH Outdoors, but that was
settled in 2012. The rival company has since gone out of
business, the founder told Reuters.

The carnage of the Las Vegas shooting, exacerbated by Stephen
Paddock's use of bump stocks, has altered the national debate on
gun control regulations.  It prompted President Trump to call for
a ban on the devices, and in March, the Justice Department took
the first step in banning their sale, manufacture or possession.
[GN]


SENIOR HEALTHCARE: Faces "Ziegler" Suit in Wyoming
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Senior Healthcare
Partners LLC. The case is styled as Robert A Ziegler,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. Richard P Dale, Jr., Senior Healthcare
Partners LLC, Buffett Senior Healthcare Corp and RJR Insurance
Services Inc, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00071-SWS (D. Wy., May
3, 2018).

Senior Healthcare Partners LLC offers pharmacy products and
services for assisted living and specialty care communities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jason Edward Ochs, Esq.
   OCHS LAW FIRM PC
   PO Box 610
   Casper, WY 82602
   Tel: (307) 234-3239
   Fax: (307) 235-6910
   Email: jason@ochslawfirm.com


ST. LOUIS RAMS: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Decision in "Pudlowski"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants ITB Football Company, LLC, The St. Louis Rams LLC and
The St. Louis Rams Partnership filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled James Pudlowski, et al. v. The St.
Louis Rams LLC, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00189-RLW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued a Memorandum and Order remanding the case captioned
RONALD McALLISTER, Plaintiff, v. THE ST. LOUIS RAMS, LLC,
Defendants, Nos. 4:16-CV-172 SNLJ, 4:16-CV-262, 4:16-CV-297,
4:16-CV-189 (E.D. Mo.), to the Circuit Court of St. Louis,
Missouri.

Plaintiff James Pudlowski filed his first complaint in state
court, and the Defendants removed the case to the District Court
citing diversity jurisdiction generally and, in the alternative,
minimal diversity" under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
The case involves alleged violations of the Defendants'
relocation of their professional football team to Los Angeles,
California.

The appellate case is captioned as James Pudlowski, et al. v. The
St. Louis Rams LLC, et al., Case No. 18-8002, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent James Pudlowski is represented by:

          Daniel T. DeFeo, Esq.
          DEFEO & KOLKER, LLC
          1627 Main Street, Suite 900
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 581-4600
          E-mail: ddefeo@defeolaw.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents James Pudlowski, Louis C. Cross, III, Gail
Henry and Steven Henry, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Steven J. Stolze, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC
          300 N. Tucker, Suite 801
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          E-mail: sstolze@allfela.com

Defendants-Petitioners The St. Louis Rams LLC, The St. Louis Rams
Partnership and ITB Football Company, LLC, are represented by:

          Elizabeth Ferrick, Esq.
          Roger K. Heindenreich, Esq.
          Adam S. Johnson, Esq.
          Stephen Howard Rovak, Esq.
          Amy E. Sestric, Esq.
          DENTONS US, LLP
          3000 One Metropolitan Square
          211 North Broadway
          Saint Louis, MO 63102-0000
          Telephone: (314) 241-1800
          E-mail: elizabeth.ferrick@dentons.com
                  roger.heidenreich@dentons.com
                  adam.johnson@dentons.com
                  stephen.rovak@dentons.com
                  amy.sestric@dentons.com


SYSTEM ONE: Hobbs Seeks to Certify Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled THOMAS HOBBS, individually and of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. System One Holdings,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00181-CRE (W.D. Pa.), Mr.
Hobbs asks the Court for an order granting conditional
certification of collective action for purposes of notice and
discovery; approving notice and consent form; directing the
mailing of notice; and permitting Class Counsel to contact by
telephone those notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5xNrN4Tw

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 7046
          Telephone 713 352 1100
          Facsimile 713 352 3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  jsolak@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766 1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766 0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch
          BRUCKNER BURCH P.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, Texas 77046
          Telephone: 713 877 8788
          Facsimile: 713 877 8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


TENET HEALTHCARE: 11th Cir. Upholds Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal appeals
court on April 18 upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit seeking to
force Tenet Healthcare to reimburse Hispanic women who were
forced to go to its hospitals for prenatal services and to give
birth due to a kickback scheme.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta held that the
lawsuit failed to state a claim of fraud or breach of contract
against the hospital operator and that its unjust enrichment
claims were untimely. [GN]


TIRE CLUB: Trujillo Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
ISAAC TRUJILLO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the PLAINTIFF, v. TIRE CLUB USA, INC., TIRES AUTO
SERVICE, LLC, AND FERNANDO AGUIRRE, JR., INDIVIDUALLY, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00141 (W.D. Tex., May 2, 2018),
alleges that, for at least three years prior to the filing of
this Complaint, Defendants willfully committed violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by failing to pay overtime
premiums to hourly employees for hours worked in excess of forty
hours per week.

The Defendants sell tires to the public in El Paso, Texas. The
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt sales clerk
from May 2, 2015 through February 5, 2018. Mr. Trujillo was paid
on an hourly basis and received a commission.  At no time within
the relevant three-year period did Mr. Trujillo's commissions
exceed his hourly pay. In addition to receiving hourly pay from
Tire Club USA, Inc. for hours worked up to 40 per week, Mr.
Trujillo would receive a second check each pay period
representing his overtime hours. The second check did not provide
Mr. Trujillo with an overtime premium; he was simply paid his
regular rate of pay for all overtime hours. Importantly, the
Defendants paid Trujillo this "overtime" check from a different
company, Tires Auto Service, LLC. A true and correct copy of one
of Mr. Trujillo's regular paychecks and his "overtime" paycheck
for the same pay period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          DUNHAM & JONES, P.C.
          1800 Guadalupe Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 777 7777
          Facsimile: (512) 340 4051
          E-mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com


TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Faces "Hardy" Suit in N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transamerica Life
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Ronald B Hardy,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case
No. 5:18-cv-00694-AKK (N.D. Ala., May 4, 2018).

Transamerica Corporation is an American holding company for
various life insurance companies and investment firms operating
primarily in the United States, offering life and supplemental
health insurance, investments, and retirement services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brooke BoucekRebarchak, Esq.
   McCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL
   2201 Arlington Avenue South
   Birmingham, AL 35205
   Tel: (205) 939-0199
   Fax: (205) 939-0399
   Email: brebarchak@mmlaw.net

      - and -

   Courtney Cooper Gipson, Esq.
   MCCALLUM METHVIN & TERRELL PC
   2201 Arlington Avenue South
   Birmingham, AL 35205
   Tel: (205) 939-0199
   Fax: (205) 939-0399
   Email: cgipson@mmlaw.net

      - and -

   David J Hodge, Esq.
   MORRIS KING & HODGE
   200 Pratt Avenue NE
   Huntsville, AL 35801
   Tel: (256) 536-0588
   Fax: (256) 533-1504
   Email: lee@mkhlawyers.com

      - and -

   James M Terrell, Esq.
   MCCALLUM METHVIN & TERRELL PC
   2201 Arlington Avenue, South
   Birmingham, AL 35205
   Tel: 939-0199
   Fax: 939-0399
   Email: jterrell@mmlaw.net

      - and -

   Perry Michael Yancey, Esq.
   Methvin, Terrell, Yancey, Stephens & Miller, P.C.
   2201 Arlington Avenue South
   Birmingham, AL 35205
   Tel: (205) 939-0199
   Fax: (205) 939-0399
   Email: myancey@mmlaw.net

      - and -

   Philip A Geddes, Esq.
   PHILIP A GEDDES PC
   651 Jackson Street
   Decatur, AL 35601
   Tel: (256) 350-0442
   Fax: (256) 350-1812
   Email: geddesphilip@gmail.com


TWILIO CLOUD: Faces "Jozami" Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twilio Cloud
Communications. The case is styled as Maria Jozami, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated and aggrieved,
Plaintiff v. Twilio Cloud Communications a business entity of
unknown form, Twilio Inc. a Delaware corporation and Does 1
through 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC18566356 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 7, 2018).

Twilio is a cloud communications platform as a service (PaaS)
company based in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   MATTHEW J. MATERN, Esq.
   Matern Law Group, PC
   1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
   Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
   Tel: 310-531-1900
   Email: www.maternlawgroup.com


U.S. AVIATION: Haralson Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JAMES HARALSON, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. AVIATION
SERVICES CORP., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05207-
JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on October 11,
2018, for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons employed by Defendant U.S. Aviation Services
      Corp. in hourly paid or non-exempt positions in California
      at any time on or after August 9, 2012";

   2. appointing James Haralson as representative of the class
      proposed herein or later proposed and approved by the Court
      and any other sub-class the Court may devise;

   3. appointing Shaun Setareh and H. Scott Leviant of Setareh
      Law Group as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
     23(g); and

   4. issuing such other Orders as necessary to effectuate the
      Court's certification Order.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court for certification of sub-
classes as are necessary to manage the proposed classes,
including penalty sub-classes limited in time by the applicable
statutes of limitation, including subclasses as follows or as
otherwise approved by the Court:

      Meal Break Sub-Class: all Class members who worked a
      shift in excess of five hours.

      Rest Break Sub-Class: all Class members who worked a shift
      in excess of 3.5 hours.

      Auto-Deduct Sub-Class: all Meal Break Sub-Class members
      who had a half hour or hour deducted from their timecards
      regardless of whether or not they took a meal period.

      Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class: all Class members
      employed at any time during the period beginning August 9,
      2015.

      Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class: all Class members who
      separated from their employment at any time during the
      period beginning August 9, 2013.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B8cFIuFc

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com


US BANCORP: Removes "Leeson" Class Suit to N.D. West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants U.S. Bancorp Government Leasing and Finance, Inc., and
Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Servicing removed on April 9,
2018, the purported class action lawsuit styled Leeson et al. v.
U.S. Bancorp Government Leasing and Finance, Inc., from the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, to the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
(Clarksburg).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-ap-00013 to the
adversary proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as recovery of money/property.[BN]

Plaintiffs George Leeson, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated, and Jacob Crum, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Stuart Calwell, Esq.
          Alexander D. McLaughlin, Esq.
          John H. Skaggs, Esq.
          THE CALWELL PRACTICE, PLLC
          500 Randolph Street
          Charleston, WV 25302
          Telephone: (304) 343-4323
          Facsimile: (304) 343-4323
          E-mail: scalwell@calwelllaw.com
                  amclaughlin@calwelllaw.com
                  jskaggs@calwelllaw.com

Defendant Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Servicing is
represented by:

          J. Mark Adkins, Esq.
          Jessie F. Reckart, Esq.
          Gerard Stowers, Esq.
          BOWLES RICE LLP
          600 Quarrier Street
          Post Office Box 1386
          Charleston, WV 25325-1386
          Telephone: (304) 347-1100
          Facsimile: (304) 347-1756
          E-mail: madkins@bowlesrice.com
                  jreckart@bowlesrice.com
                  gstowers@bowlesrice.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fowler Backs Bill to End Forced Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Russell and Connie Loizos, writing for TechCrunch, report
that Susan Fowler, the former Uber engineer whose blog post about
sexual harassment and troubling internal workings led to the
departure of CEO Travis Kalanick, is backing new legislation that
aims to give victims of sexual harassment and other workplace
discrimination the freedom to seek legal action, and to do it
publicly.

Ms. Fowler is lending her support to bill AB-3080 -- proposed by
California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, the California
Labor Federation and the Economic Policy Institute -- which would
forbid employers from the practice of forced arbitration in
response to discrimination complaints.

The proposed legislation tackles a worrying norm in which
companies, including throughout tech, mandate that employees air
any grievances before a private, third-party arbitrator who is
typically paid for by the company itself.

The hearings happen in secret, with non-disclosure clauses
preventing the claimant from talking about the details or filing
a class-action lawsuit -- and they are on the rise.  The
percentage of nonunion, private-sector employees covered by
mandatory-arbitration clauses has more than doubled since the
early 2000s, according to a study last year by the Economic
Policy Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C.

Though the issue has come up periodically in Silicon Valley --
venture firm Kleiner Perkins tried forcing former employee
Ellen Pao into arbitration when she sued the firm for gender
discrimination -- it hasn't received widespread attention "for
the same reason that it hasn't gotten much attention from people
who work in other industries," says Ms. Fowler via email.  "They
don't realize that it affects them, and they don't realize how
widespread and sinister the problem really is."

Ms. Fowler says that she was "one of those people" for most of
her life, knowing nothing about forced arbitration until she
experienced what she describes as illegal treatment at Uber,
after which she says she discovered that she "had no way to get
justice."

Now that she knows about forced arbitration, she says, "I'm hell-
bent on bringing attention to it and doing everything I can to
prevent what happened to me at Uber from happening to anyone
else."

The proposed legislation isn't the first of its kind.  A 2015
bill banning mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of
employment wended its way all the way to California Governor
Jerry Brown's desk.  Faced with stiff opposition from the
California Chamber of Commerce, which labeled it a "job killer,"
Brown vetoed the bill.

Caitlin Vega, legislative director of the California Labor
Federation, an organization that works with 1,200 labor unions
across the state, is hoping the timing is better for AB-3080
given the #MeToo movement and the awareness it has raised around
sexual discrimination and harassment in particular.

Ms. Vega also says the bill differs from its predecessor in ways
that may make it more palatable to Governor Brown.  For example,
gone is language that required that any waiver of any legal right
by an employee must be knowing and voluntary, in writing, and may
not be an express condition of employment.

This time, the focus is more narrowly on ensuring that people not
be forced to agree to potential arbitration as a condition of
their employment and that employers be prohibited from
"threatening, retaliating or discriminating against, or
terminating any applicant for employment or prospective
employment or any employee because of the refusal to consent to
the waiver of any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of
specific statutes governing employment."

Either way, proponents -- including Ms. Fowler -- hope far more
attention will be paid to the bill's benefits instead of to the
perceived benefits to corporations in continuing to use
arbitration agreements widely.

"The dominant view is that it helps manage long-term legal risk,
ensuring that companies won't become embroiled in costly, drawn-
out lawsuits," Ms. Fowler wrote in a recent op-ed for The New
York Times.  Yet "the examples of Uber and IBM show that the
opposite is true: Forced arbitration leads to long-term operating
risk.  Forcing legal disputes about discrimination, harassment
and retaliation to go through secret arbitration proceedings
hides the behavior and allows it to become culturally
entrenched," she added.

Fowler has said that she believes instead that a choice between
optional arbitration and a public lawsuit would be the ideal
solution for dealing with discrimination.

That was the case for her time at Uber, which had a clause in her
employment contract that prevented her from going public with
what had happened.  The company did take steps after Fowler went
public with her story -- including hiring Eric Holder to conduct
a company-wide investigation (which Uber said included firing
people).  Mr. Kalanick also later resigned after a wave of
controversies made his position untenable.  By then, however, the
company's reputation to outsiders was shattered.

Fowler is determined to bring about change.  Last year, she filed
an amicus brief in three high court cases, asking the Supreme
Court to consider that class and collective action bans in
workplace arbitration agreements violate federal labor laws.

She appears to be far from done with this issue, too.
"Arbitration agreements are present in nearly every employment
agreement," she tells TechCrunch.  "If you have a job, chances
are you've unwittingly signed away your constitutional right to
sue your employer if you ever experience illegal treatment like
harassment, retaliation, or discrimination.

"You probably didn't realize that you signed away this right
because the language used in forced arbitration agreements is
thick with legalese so heavy you need a law degree to understand
what it all means."  Most important to know, she says: given the
near ubiquity of arbitration agreements right now, "you probably
signed away your right to sue before you even started your job."

The new legislation was being announced formally on April 18.
After a period of public review, it will then head into committee
hearings.  If all goes as its supporters hope, the bill will then
go to the Assembly floor, then the Senate floor, before heading
to Governor Brown by late summer. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Set to Receive Settlement Payout
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Menegus, writing for Gizmodo, reports that a lawsuit filed
in August of 2014 on behalf of California Uber drivers is finally
paying out, and recipients of the $7.75 million settlement are
finding their share leaves something to be desired.

Back in August of 2014, a driver named Steven Price sued Uber for
damages resulting from alleged labor misclassification, including
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, missed meal periods and
rest periods, and unlawful business practices.  In short,
Mr. Price claimed Uber drivers were employees the company was
treating as contractors, a scheme that has become a staple of the
gig economy, most visibly affecting rideshare drivers, last-mile
package couriers, and those engaged in food delivery or personal
shopping.

That suit was settled in late January of this year, and payments
were scheduled to arrive on or before on April 13.

That $7.75 million was split among "any and all Drivers who
consented to a background check as part of the sign-up process to
use the Uber software application and/or used the Uber software
application to generate leads in California at anytime from July
8,2013 up to and including January 29, 2017," according to the
settlement.  But after plaintiffs' attorney fees, administration
costs, and allocations to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency, the amount apportioned to drivers was less
than $1 million.

Even though the time period covered by the suit represents three
and a half years, a number of drivers posting on Reddit and other
ridershare driver forums describe payments of less than $20 --
some drastically so.

Three drivers sent Gizmodo copies of the notices they received.
One was awarded $7.05.  Another, 75 cents.  The third was given
just 15 cents.

Though we were unable to verify settlement amounts beyond these
three claims before publication, other posts suggest $3 to $5 was
average.

This is partly a result of the structure of California's Private
Attorneys General Act -- a law for employee recovery of civil
penalties in labor violations -- and with class-action suits in
general. But these meager payouts also read as an insult
following the uproar around a recent study that found around half
of rideshare drivers made below minimum wage. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Faces "Nwaorie" Suit in S.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of
America. The case is styled Anthonia I Nwaorie, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United
States of America, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Kevin
K. McAleenan, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01406 (S.D. Tex., May
3, 2018).

United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the largest
federal law enforcement agency of the United States Department of
Homeland Security. It is charged with regulating and facilitating
international trade, collecting import duties, and enforcing U.S.
regulations, including trade, customs, and immigration.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Lamar Alban, Esq.
   Institute for Justice
   901 N Glebe Rd, Ste 900
   Arlington, VA 22203
   Tel: (703) 682-9320
   Email: dalban@ij.org


UNITED STATES: Seeks Appeals Ct. Review of "Garza" Suit Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Alex Michael Azar, II, Stephen Wagner and Scott Lloyd
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit
entitled Rochelle Garza, et al. v. Alex Azar, II, et al., Case
No. 1:17-cv-02122-TSC, in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 10, 2018, the
Hon. Tanya S. Chutkan entered an order on March 30, 2018:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
      Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction as to the
      class of:

      "all pregnant, unaccompanied immigrant minor children (UCs)
      who are or will be in the legal custody of the federal
      government; and

   2. enjoining Defendants Eric Hargan, Steven Wagner, and Scott
      Lloyd (along with their respective successors in office,
      officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and
      anyone acting in concert with them) from:

   3. interfering with or obstructing any class member's access
      to: judicial bypass, medical appointments related to
      pregnancy dating, non-directive options counseling,
      abortion counseling, an abortion, or other pregnancy-
      related care;

   4. forcing any class member to reveal the fact of their
      pregnancies and their abortion decisions to anyone, and
      from revealing those decisions to anyone themselves, either
      before or after an abortion;

   5. retaliating against any class member based on her decision
      to have an abortion; and

   6. from retaliating or threatening to retaliate against
      contractors that operate the shelters where class members
      currently reside for any actions that those contractors or
      shelters have taken or may take in facilitating class
      members' ability to access pregnancy and abortion-related
      medical care and/or an abortion.

Alex M. Azar II is the Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.

The appellate case is captioned as Rochelle Garza, et al. v. Alex
Azar, II, et al., Case No. 18-5093, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Rochelle Garza, As guardian ad litem to
unaccompanied minor J.D., on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Jane Roe, Jane Poe and Jane Moe, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
          ACLU OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          915 15th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 457-0800
          Facsimile: (202) 457-0805
          E-mail: aspitzer@acludc.org

               - and -

          Brigitte Amiri, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2607
          Facsimile: (212) 549-2652
          E-mail: bamiri@aclu.org

Defendants-Appellants Alex Michael Azar, II, Secretary, Health
and Human Services; Stephen Wagner, Acting Assistant Secretary,
Administration for Children and Families, in his official and
individual capacity; and Scott Lloyd, Director, Office of Refugee
Resettlement, in his official and individual capacity, are
represented by:

          August Edward Flentje, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000
          E-mail: august.flentje@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Michael Christopher Heyse, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1100 L Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-7300
          E-mail: mheyse@gmail.com


VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Upson" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery
Services, LLC. The case is styled Robert Upson, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vital
Recovery Services, LLC, Incline Fund II, LTD and Incline Fund
Management, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02701 (E.D. N.Y.,
May 7, 2018).

A wholly-owned subsidiary of Vital Solutions, Inc., Vital
Recovery Services, LLC (VRS) is a fully licensed, national,
third-party collection agency performing bad debt recovery and
skip tracing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
   775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
   Huntington, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 335-1107
   Email: mpash@verizon.net


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Emission-Cheating Class Actions in Austria
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance News reports that German carmaker Volkswagen faces class
action lawsuits for its emission-cheating scandal in Austria,
where the Social Affairs Ministry announced the launch of the
legal action on April 19.

The class action is being managed by VKI, Austria's main consumer
advocacy group.

VKI said that it will help consumers to sue for 20% of the price
of diesel-powered cars made by the Volkswagen group, arguing that
the vehicles have lost value because of the software that was
installed to mask higher emissions.

"Wilful manipulations of this scale must have consequences, and
Austrian consumers must not be left with their losses," VKI said
in a statement.

Social Affairs Minister Beate Hartinger-Klein said that current
and previous owners of Volkswagen, Audi, Seat, and Skoda cars can
file claims until May 20.

According to Austrian law, lawyers will have to bundle the claims
and filed them as several lawsuits at various Austrian courts.
[GN]


WALMART INC: Faces "Doe" Suit Alleging Extortion Under RICO Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, Mary Moe, and John Doe, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Walmart Inc., Darrell Huntsman,
Glenn Bingham, Brian Ashton, Jeffrey S. Mitchell, Richard
Haddrill, Chris Cottrell, Jeff Powers, Tim Hickey, Jeff Stringer,
DSW, Inc., Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation,
Bloomingdales, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co., The
Kroger Co., Sportsman's Warehouse, Inc., and Decathlon Capital
Partners, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-02125 (N.D. Cal., April 9, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants are all participants in a long-
running, highly profitable extortion scheme that has extracted
millions of dollars from thousands of poor, desperate people
across the country.

The Plaintiffs bring suit under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, on behalf of a class of all persons,
who have made payments to Corrective Education Company, LLC, or
purportedly incurred an obligation to pay CEC through the CEC
Program in the last four years.  CEC is a Utah limited liability
company founded by Defendants Huntsman and Bingham and operated
by the Individual Defendants.  CEC's customers are large
retailers (the Retailer Defendants) to whom CEC offers a program
that it has branded, with Orwellian relish, as "Restorative
Justice" (hereafter, the "CEC Program").

According to the complaint, retailers who participate in the CEC
program offer suspected shoplifters a choice: (1) face criminal
prosecution or (2) take an online class run by CEC.  Those who
choose the latter option (about 90%) are forced to make a
substantial payment to CEC, a portion of which is kicked back to
the participating retailer.

The Individual Defendants are co-founders, directors and officers
of CEC.  The Retailer Defendants -- Walmart, DSW, Burlington Coat
Factory, Bloomingdale's, Abercrombie, Kroger and Sportsman's
Warehouse -- operate retail stores and are participants of the
CEC Program.

Decathlon is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered
in Park City, Utah, and Palo Alto, California.  Decathlon is an
investment firm that focuses on growth-oriented small businesses
with annual revenues between $3 million and $75 million.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Leviton, Esq.
          Joel Fleming, Esq.
          Jacob Walker, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          E-mail: jason@blockesq.com
                  joel@blockesq.com
                  jake@blockesq.com


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Sales Tax Discrepancy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie De Tor, writing for Fox43, reports that one man in Western
Pennsylvania checked his Walmart receipt very closely a few years
ago.

Brian Farmuth claims he was charged extra for sales tax, 21 cents
extra, when he bought shaving cream with a buy one get one
coupon.

Mr. Farmuth says he should have only been taxed the price after
the coupon, not before.

That was years ago.

Now there's a class action filed against Walmart on his behalf
and he's requesting a jury trial.

Some Walmart shoppers in York County say they probably would
never notice a sales tax discrepancy.

Paula Nikolas of Columbia said, "Sometimes I'll check when the
scanning is questionable, you know if I heard an extra beep or
something like that, but not the coupon section."

Stephen Dintaman of Dallastown said, "I'd totally miss it.
Especially when you buy a bunch of stuff from here, it's just not
something you really pay attention to."

Walmart told us the company did nothing wrong, sending us this
statement: "Our sales tax collection system in Pennsylvania has
always been compliant with the law.  This has been confirmed
numerous times over the years by the Pennsylvania Department of
Revenue.  We will continue defending the company against this
litigation."

The company is printing the notice on certain receipts.

Some shoppers though, say they don't care.

"I just don't really worry about it and I just come here and shop
because I like the cheaper prices," said Linda Shaull from
Windsor.

According to the lawsuit, anyone who purchased an item at a
Pennsylvania Walmart with a buy one get one coupon after June
8th, 2007 is eligible to be a class member.

A lawyer told us, there's no specific way to determine who would
be getting money in this case or how they would prove people
bought something more than 11 years ago with a coupon if Walmart
were to lose the case.

However, if you want to specifically be excluded from the class
action suit, you have until May 15th to do so. [GN]


* DOJ, FTC Continue to Scrutinize Class Action Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Vonderhaar, Esq. -- dvonderhaar@bakerlaw.com -- of
BakerHostetler, in an article for JDSupra, report that officials
at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) continue to scrutinize class settlements to
ensure that neither defendants nor class action counsel are
improperly benefiting at the expense of class members.  As
discussed below, at minimum, parties to class actions in federal
court can expect federal authorities to increasingly monitor and
review class actions and file amicus briefs or statements of
interest in appropriate cases.

By way of introduction, a provision of the Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA) requires that proposed class action settlements be
served on the Attorney General of the United States at least 90
days prior to being entered by a court.  This allows the DOJ to
file a statement of interest with the court if it identifies
fairness concerns.  The government has rarely exercised the
prerogative to file such statements, but that may change soon
based on recent activity at the DOJ.

In February 2018, outgoing Associate Attorney General Rachel
Brand signaled that the DOJ would begin reviewing more proposed
class action settlements.  In prepared remarks, Ms. Brand stated
that although the "DOJ receives over 700 CAFA notices every
year," it had participated in only two prior cases -- both more
than a decade before.  She attributed the DOJ's silence to
"government bureaucracy," explaining that due to the DOJ's
rigorous mailroom screening and processing methods, it took an
average of 70 days for a CAFA notice to travel from the mailroom
to a DOJ attorney.  As a result, many notices were not reviewed
until after the fairness hearing or even after settlement had
been finalized. Id. With revamped processes in place, the DOJ is
now in a better position to timely review proposed settlements.

One day after Ms. Brand's comments, the DOJ filed a statement of
interest opposing final approval of a proposed consumer class
action settlement in Cannon v. Ashburn Corp., Civil Action No.
16-1452 (Feb. 16, 2018), ECF No. 58.  Initially, the DOJ argued
that the proposed "textbook coupon settlement" in Cannon, which
would settle claims of false advertising related to wine,
provided "extremely limited value to consumers," particularly
because "consumers gain nothing beyond a chance to buy more wine
from the Defendants at a miniscule discount and then only if they
successfully navigate the unnecessarily complex process the
proposed settlement erects." Id. at 1, 17.  The DOJ also opposed
class counsel's request for "a massive $1.7 million windfall
payment." Id.

However, after attending a fairness hearing on March 19, DOJ
attorneys filed a letter with the court, asserting that although
they remained skeptical of certain settlement provisions, "the
parties now have substantially improved the overall structure and
value of the proposed settlement in response to the United
States' and others' concerns." Cannon, ECF No. 98.  The DOJ added
that in light of the following "material improvements," the
amended proposed settlement was sufficiently fair, adequate and
reasonable and should be approved.

[T]he United States views positively the parties agreement to:
(1) transfer $500,000 from class counsels' requested fee to a
cash fund for class consumers; (2) extend the coupon redemption
period to 18 months; (3) defer class counsel's request for $1.2
million in fees until after the redemption period; (4) provide
that any amount of the requested $1.2 million in fees not awarded
to class counsel shall transfer to supplement the cash fund for
class consumers; (5) issue notice of these revised terms to class
consumers; and (6) extend class consumers' verification period
until May 15, 2018.

FTC's Proposed Studies

In addition to the DOJ, the FTC has also taken an interest in the
fairness of consumer class actions.  In a previous post, we
highlighted two studies that the FTC proposed in May 2015 as part
of its Class Action Fairness Project: the Notice Study and the
Deciding Factors Study.  These studies -- both of which target
nationwide class actions -- would aid the FTC in understanding
(i) consumer comprehension of class action notices and the
options they provide (Notice Study) and (ii) factors that
influence consumers' decisions to participate, opt out of or
object to a class action settlement (Deciding Factors Study).

As part of these proposed studies, in November 2016, the FTC
issued orders to eight unidentified claims administrators,
requiring them to provide information on class settlement
notification procedures and the response rates for various
notification methods.

In July 2017, the FTC issued a second Federal Register notice for
approval to conduct the proposed studies.  This second notice
addressed the two public comments on its first Federal Register
notice.  The second notice solicited additional public comments
by Aug. 17, 2017, and stated that the FTC is continuing to seek
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance to conduct the
study.  The Paperwork Reduction Act requires such clearance
before a federal agency collects certain information for studies.
Id.

Even if the OMB does not approve the proposed studies, it is
clear that federal authorities are monitoring the actual benefits
of class action settlements. [GN]


* EU Commission Presents Directive on Representative Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
K&L Gates LLP reports that the European Commission ("Commission")
presented this initiative in the context of a proposed revision
of the EU framework on consumer protection.  The "Package" (as
the name goes when several independent legal texts are intended
to be negotiated together)  called "New Deal for Consumers,"
builds on the Commission review of consumer law rules that was
conducted as part of the so called Regulatory Fitness and
Performance Program (REFIT).  This is a policy program intended
to keep EU law simple, removing unnecessary burdens and adapting
existing legislation without compromising on policy objectives.

The new set of measures is summarized in a Commission's
Communication and consists of:

   -- A draft Directive on better enforcement and modernization
of EU consumer protection rules; and

   -- A draft Directive on representative actions for the
protection of the collective interests of consumers.

This Alert focuses on the proposed Directive on representative
actions (the "Directive").

The Directive's main novelties
The Directive, which will repeal existing Directive 2009/22/EC on
injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests, defines
its subject matter most clearly in its Article 1: it sets out
rules enabling qualified entities to seek representative actions
aimed at the protection of the collective interests of consumers,
while ensuring appropriate safeguards to avoid abusive
litigation.  This effort to balance a new harmonized EU
collective redress while preventing abuse is at the essence of
the new text.  To prevent the misuse of representative actions,
elements such as punitive damages and the absence of limitations
as regards the entitlement to bring an action on behalf of the
harmed consumers have been avoided.  Member States will also be
requested to establish clear rules on various procedural aspects,
such as the designation of those to be considered as qualified
entities, the origin of their funds, and the nature of the
information required to support the representative action.

In an interesting exercise, the draft Directive comes with an
Annex including a long list of EU law instruments covering a
broad and diverse range of matters range where potential
infringements by traders may harm collective interests of
consumers.  This goes beyond "traditional" consumer protection
rules, to include essential regulation in sectors as diverse as
financial services, transport and tourism, energy, media and
telecommunications, pharmaceutical products, or data protection.

Under the proposal, only nonprofit "qualified entities" to be
designated by Member States at their request will be enabled to
bring actions before courts or administrative authorities.  These
will include consumer associations and independent public bodies.
They can also be created "ad hoc" for a particular representative
action.

And what can those qualified entities ask for from courts or
administrative authorities? Member States shall ensure that
qualified entities are enabled to;

Apply for a provisional or a definitive injunction order for
stopping an existing harmful practice or prohibiting it if it has
not taken place yet;

Seek a redress order that can obligate the trader to provide for
compensation, repair, replacement, price reduction, contract
termination, or reimbursement.  Redress cannot have punitive
effect and will be limited to the actual loss or damage suffered
by the consumers.

In some cases, Member States will be allowed to replace the
redress order by a declaratory decision establishing the
liability of the trader, which may be directly relied upon by
consumers in subsequent redress actions.

The Directive also provides rules on other necessary aspects once
the principle of representative action has been established:
funding transparency for qualified entities, the form and
conditions for settlements, allocation of costs, access to
evidence, or penalties.  It also deals with the effect of a final
decision on an infringement of collective interests of consumers
on any other action against the same trader for the same
infringement.  And it is important that in this matter, Member
States are requested to ensure that a final decision taken by a
court or administrative in a Member State is to be considered as
a (rebuttable) presumption that an infringement has occurred.

A change for many
The Directive will now start its ordinary legislative process.
While there is general political consensus to guarantee that it
will get the necessary final approval by the two co-legislators,
the European Parliament and Council of the EU, there is still
room for many amendments that can better define many aspects and
that could reduce or enlarge the freedom for Member States to
develop the details of the new scheme in their national legal
systems.  According to sources from the legal Commission, there
are seven EU countries for which these rules will represent an
evolution and a reinforcement of already existing rules on
collective court representation in defense of consumers.  For the
other twenty, these rules are completely new and will introduce
in their legal systems a redress mechanism completely strange to
their legal tradition and practice.

Once approved and in force, Member States will have 18 months to
adapt their national procedural and substantive laws to transpose
these rules. [GN]


* Existence of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements on the Rise
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erin Mulvaney, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
employees in low-wage workplaces, women and African-Americans are
more likely to be subject to mandatory arbitration agreements in
employment contracts than other groups, potentially limiting
their access to the court system, a study released on April 6 by
the Economic Policy Institute found.

The survey authored by Cornell University professor Alexander
Colvin found that 57.6 percent of female workers, 59.1 percent of
African-American workers and 53.5 percent of male workers are
bound by mandatory arbitration agreements.

Nearly 65 percent of workplaces where the average wage is less
than $13 an hour also require mandatory arbitration agreements
for their employees.

Mr. Colvin's study also found that since 1991, the existence of
such agreements has risen from just over 2 percent to nearly a
quarter in the early 2000s, to more than 55 percent of workers
today, which he says lessens the access of employees to the
courts for a variety of civil rights and labor rights claims,
representing a "dramatic and important shift in how the
employment rights of American workers are enforced," according to
the report.

Mandatory arbitration agreements are most widespread in
California, Texas and North Carolina.  In all of the 12 largest
states by population, more than 40 percent of employers have
these policies, the survey found.

The issue draws significance as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs a
trio of cases that challenge whether class action waivers should
be allowed in employment contracts.  Mandatory arbitration
agreements have also found new scrutiny amid the #MeToo movement,
as women speak out against past workplace abuses and the efforts
of employers to keep those issues out of court.

"Under such agreements, workers whose rights are violated -- for
example, through employment discrimination or sexual harassment
-- can't pursue their claims in court but must submit to
arbitration procedures that research shows overwhelmingly favor
employers," Colvin writes in the report.

The findings build off a 2017 study from the worker-friendly
policy group that found more than half of private sector nonunion
jobs are subject to mandatory arbitration, a trend the report
found has accelerated since the 1990s.  Among private-sector
nonunion workers, 56.2 percent are subject to mandatory
employment arbitration, which would mean more than 60 million
American employees have no recourse to the courts in legal
disputes and must go to arbitration, the survey found.

Larger employers were more likely to impose such agreements,
which are different from the system used to resolve employment
disputes between labor unions and management in organized
workplaces.  More than 65 percent of employers with 1,000 or more
workers have mandatory employment arbitration, the study found.

Among the employers that require mandatory arbitration, 30
percent include class-action waivers that prevent them from
taking collective legal action, according to the report.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in October, in a trio of cases
-- National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Ernst &
Young LLP v. Morris and Epic Systems v. Lewis -- that consider
whether the class action waiver violates the federal law that
protects workers' rights.

Mr. Colvin said a ruling in favor of the employers would
encourage more businesses to adopt mandatory employment
arbitration and class action waivers.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's amicus brief, filed by a team from
Mayer Brown, urged the Supreme Court to uphold the lawfulness of
mandatory arbitration.

"Most workplace grievances are individualized and therefore could
not be pursued as part of a class or collective action.  Indeed,
without individual arbitration, most of those claims could not be
pursued at all," Mayer Brown's Andrew Pincus, counsel of record,
wrote.  "The best empirical data available show that employees
fare at least as well in arbitration as in litigation, if not
better; and that litigation in court is frequently too expensive
to serve as a realistic option for employees seeking to vindicate
their rights." [GN]



                     Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $105.6MM Reserve at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc., had total litigation reserve of
US$105.6 million as of December 31, 2017, with respect to
potential liability arising from its asbestos-related litigation,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in many
asbestos-related and silica-related personal injury lawsuits.
The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos or
silica from multiple sources and typically we are one of
approximately 25 or more named defendants.  Our predecessors
sometimes manufactured, distributed and/or sold products
allegedly at issue in these pending asbestos and silica-related
lawsuits (the "Products").  However, neither we nor our
predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or
distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the materials that
allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits.  Moreover,
the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if any, were
enclosed within the subject Products.

"Although we have never mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or
distributed asbestos fiber or silica, many of the companies that
did engage in such activities or produced such products are no
longer in operation.  This has led to law firms seeking potential
alternative companies to name in lawsuits where there has been an
asbestos or silica related injury.  However, in our opinion,
based on our experience to date, the substantial majority of the
plaintiffs have not suffered an injury for which we bear
responsibility.

"We believe that the pending and future asbestos and silica-
related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity, based on: our anticipated
insurance and indemnification rights to address the risks of such
matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from the
Products described; our opinion, based on our experience to date,
that the vast majority of plaintiffs are not impaired with a
disease attributable to alleged exposure to asbestos or silica
from or relating to the Products or for which we otherwise bear
responsibility; various potential defenses available to us with
respect to such matters; and our prior disposition of comparable
matters.  However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and
future developments, including, without limitation, potential
insolvencies of insurance companies or other defendants, an
adverse determination in the Adams County Case, or other
inability to collect from our historical insurers or indemnitors,
could cause a different outcome.  While the outcome of legal
proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known
facts, experience and circumstances, we believe that the amounts
accrued on the Company's balance sheet are adequate and that the
liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal
injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
or liquidity.

"We have accrued liabilities and other liabilities on our
consolidated balance sheet to include a total litigation reserve
of US$105.6 million and US$108.5 million as of December 31, 2017
and December 31, 2016 respectively, with respect to potential
liability arising from our asbestos-related litigation.
Asbestos-related defense costs are excluded from the asbestos
claims liability and are recorded separately as an operating
expense as services are incurred.  We currently expect to
continue to incur significant asbestos-related defense costs.  In
the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that
the ultimate resolution of these matters may be material to the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operation
or liquidity, and defense costs may be material.  However, at
this time, based on presently available information, we view this
possibility as remote.

"We have entered into a series of agreements with certain of the
Company's or the Company's predecessors' legacy insurers and
certain potential indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or
reimbursement for the costs associated with the asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits filed against us.  We have also pursued
litigation against certain insurers or indemnitors where
necessary.  We have an insurance recovery receivable for probable
asbestos related recoveries of approximately US$100.4 million and
US$97.3 million, which is included on our consolidated balance
sheet as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016,
respectively.

"The largest such recent action, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9,
2010, in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Adams County, Illinois, as
case number 10-L-48 (the "Adams County Case").  In the lawsuit,
we seek, among other things, to require certain excess insurer
defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to us,
including payment in whole or in part of the costs associated
with the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us.  In October
2011, we reached a settlement with one of the insurer defendants,
which had issued both primary and excess policies, for
approximately the amount of such defendant's policies which were
subject to the lawsuit.  Since then, the case has been proceeding
through the discovery and motions process with the remaining
insurer defendants.  On January 29, 2016, we prevailed on the
first phase of that discovery and motions process ("Phase I").
Specifically, the Court in the Adams County Case ruled that we
have rights under all of the policies in the case, subject to
their terms and conditions, even though the policies were sold to
our former owners rather than to the Company itself.  On June 9,
2016, the Court denied a motion by several of the insurers who
sought permission to appeal the Phase I ruling now rather than
waiting until the end of the whole case as is normally required.
The case has now begun proceeding through the discovery and
motions process regarding the remaining issues in dispute.  A
majority of our expected future recoveries of the costs
associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits are the subject of
the Adams County Case.

"The amounts we recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance recoveries are based on currently available information
and assumptions that we believe are reasonable based on our
evaluation of relevant factors with input from a third party
actuarial expert.  Our actual liabilities or insurance recoveries
could be higher or lower than those recorded if actual results
vary significantly from the assumptions.  There are a number of
key variables and assumptions including the number and type of
new claims to be filed each year, the resolution or outcome of
these claims, the average cost of resolution of each new claim,
the amount of insurance available, allocation methodologies, the
contractual terms with each insurer with whom we have reached
settlements, the resolution of coverage issues with other excess
insurance carriers with whom we have not yet achieved settlements
and the solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers.
Other factors that may affect our future liability include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings
that may be made by state and federal courts and the passage of
state or federal legislation.  We make the necessary adjustments
for our asbestos liability and corresponding insurance recoveries
on an annual basis unless facts or circumstances warrant
assessment as of an interim date."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/sLwksL


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had US$877.2MM Liability at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc. had recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability
of US$877.2 million as of December 31, 2017, for pending claims
and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10
years, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, including ITT LLC and
Goulds Pumps LLC, have been joined as defendants with numerous
other companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal
injury due to asbestos exposure.  These claims allege that
certain of their products sold prior to 1985 contained a part
manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained
asbestos.  To the extent these third-party parts may have
contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other)
material and was non-friable.

"Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or
Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure.  In
addition, a large majority of claims pending against the
Company's subsidiaries have been placed on inactive dockets
because the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a significant
compensable loss.  Our experience to date is that a substantial
portion of resolved claims have been dismissed without payment by
the Company's subsidiaries.

"We have recorded a liability for pending asbestos claims and
asbestos claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years.
While it is probable that we will incur additional costs for
future claims to be filed against the Company, a liability for
potential future claims beyond the next 10 years is not
reasonably estimable due to the uncertainties and variables
inherent in the long-term projection of the Company's asbestos
exposures and potential recoveries.

"As of December 31, 2017, we have recorded an undiscounted
asbestos-related liability for pending claims and unasserted
claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of US$877.2
million, which includes expected legal fees and we have recorded
an associated asset of US$368.7 million, which represents
estimated recoveries from insurers, resulting in a net exposure
of US$508.5 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/bg0CjE


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 20 Cases at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. has 20 pending asbestos cases,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are
among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages
for exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials.  The
Company currently has three pending silica cases and 20 pending
asbestos cases.  To date, 1,493 silica cases and 53 asbestos
cases have been dismissed, not including any lawsuits against
AMCOL or American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our
acquisition of AMCOL.  Seven new asbestos cases were filed in
2017, including one that was previously reported on the Company's
2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K.  Four asbestos cases were
dismissed during the period.  No silica cases were dismissed
during the period.  Most of these claims do not provide adequate
information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the
Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability,
if any.  Additional claims of this nature may be made against the
Company or its subsidiaries.  At this time management anticipates
that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost
of defending such claims, will not have a material effect on its
financial position or results of operations.

"The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal
amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that
may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the
acquisition).  We are unable to state an amount or range of
amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court
pleading practices do not require identifying the amount of the
claimed damage.  The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal
defense of these cases since inception continues to be
insignificant.  The majority of the costs of defense for these
cases, excluding cases against AMCOL or American Colloid, are
reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms of certain
agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial
public offering in 1992.  The Company is entitled to
indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for sales prior to the
initial public offering.  Of the 20 pending asbestos cases, 13 of
the non-AMCOL cases are subject to indemnification, in whole or
in part, because the plaintiffs claim liability based on sales of
products that occurred either entirely before the initial public
offering, or both before and after the initial public offering.
In the six remaining non-AMCOL cases, the plaintiffs have not
alleged dates of exposure.  The remaining case is an AMCOL case,
which makes no allegation with respect to periods of exposure.
Our experience has been that the Company is not liable to
plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not
expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these
lawsuits."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/0CqJZk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Still Defends Lawsuits at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. and its subsidiary, First Energy Solutions
Corp., still defends in pending asbestos litigation involving
multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in pending
asbestos litigations involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple
defendants, in several states.  The majority of these claims
arise out of alleged past exposures by contractors (and in
Pennsylvania, former employees) at both currently and formerly
owned electric generation plants.  In addition, asbestos and
other regulated substances are, and may continue to be, present
at currently owned facilities where suitable alternative
materials are not available.  We believe that any remaining
asbestos at our facilities is contained and properly identified
in accordance with applicable governmental regulations, including
OSHA.  The continued presence of asbestos and other regulated
substances at these facilities, however, could result in
additional actions being brought against us.  This is further
complicated by the fact that many diseases, such as mesothelioma
and cancer, have long latency periods in which the disease
process develops, thus making it impossible to accurately predict
the types and numbers of such claims in the near future.  While
insurance coverages exist for many of these pending asbestos
litigations, others have no such coverages, resulting in
FirstEnergy being responsible for all defense expenditures, as
well as any settlements or verdict payouts."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/Ghoyag


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has US$21.2MM A&E Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group, Inc.'s asbestos claims constituted 30%
of its US$21.2 million net asbestos and environmental reserves at
December 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Our general liability, excess liability, and
homeowners reserves include exposure to asbestos and
environmental claims.  Our exposure to environmental liability is
primarily due to: (i) landfill exposures from policies written
prior to the absolute pollution endorsement in the mid 1980s; and
(ii) underground storage tank leaks mainly from New Jersey
homeowners policies.  These environmental claims stem primarily
from insured exposures in municipal government, small non-
manufacturing commercial risks, and homeowners policies.

"The total carried net losses and loss expense reserves for these
claims were US$21.2 million as of December 31, 2017 and US$22.7
million as of December 31, 2016.  The emergence of these claims
occurs over an extended period and is highly unpredictable.  For
example, within our Standard Commercial Lines book, certain
landfill sites are included on the National Priorities List
("NPL") by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
("USEPA").  Once on the NPL, the USEPA determines an appropriate
remediation plan for these sites.  A landfill can remain on the
NPL for many years until final approval for the removal of the
site is granted from the USEPA.  The USEPA has the authority to
re-open previously closed sites and return them to the NPL.  We
currently have reserves for seven customers related to four sites
on the NPL.

"Asbestos claims" are claims for bodily injury alleged to have
occurred from exposure to asbestos-containing products.  Our
primary exposure arises from insuring various distributors of
asbestos-containing products, such as electrical and plumbing
materials.  At December 31, 2017, asbestos claims constituted 30%
of our US$21.2 million net asbestos and environmental reserves,
compared to 29% of our US$22.7 million net asbestos and
environmental reserves at December 31, 2016.

"Environmental claims" are claims alleging bodily injury or
property damage from pollution or other environmental
contaminants other than asbestos.  These claims include landfills
and leaking underground storage tanks.  Our landfill exposure
lies largely in policies written for municipal governments, in
their operation or maintenance of certain public lands.  In
addition to landfill exposures, in recent years, we have
experienced a relatively consistent level of reported losses in
the homeowners line of business related to claims for groundwater
contamination from leaking underground heating oil storage tanks
in New Jersey.  In 2007, we instituted a fuel oil system
exclusion on our New Jersey homeowners policies that limits our
exposure to leaking underground storage tanks for certain
customers.  At that time, existing customers were offered a one-
time opportunity to buy back oil tank liability coverage.  The
exclusion applies to all new homeowners policies in New Jersey.
These customers are eligible for the buy-back option only if the
tank meets specific eligibility criteria.

"Our asbestos and environmental claims are handled in our
centralized and specialized asbestos and environmental claim
unit.  Case reserves for these exposures are evaluated on a
claim-by-claim basis.  The ability to assess potential exposure
often improves as a claim develops, including judicial
determinations of coverage issues.  As a result, reserves are
adjusted accordingly.

"Estimating IBNR reserves for asbestos and environmental claims
is difficult because of the delayed and inconsistent reporting
patterns associated with these claims.  In addition, there are
significant uncertainties associated with estimating critical
assumptions, such as average clean-up costs, third-party costs,
potentially responsible party shares, allocation of damages,
litigation and coverage costs, and potential state and federal
legislative changes.  Normal historically-based actuarial
approaches cannot be applied to asbestos and environmental claims
because past loss history is not indicative of future potential
loss emergence.  In addition, while certain alternative models
can be applied, such models can produce significantly different
results with small changes in assumptions.  As a result, we do
not calculate an asbestos and environmental loss range.
Historically, our asbestos and environmental claims have been
significantly lower in volume, with less volatility and
uncertainty than many of our competitors in the Standard
Commercial Lines industry.  Prior to the introduction of the
absolute pollution exclusion endorsement in the mid-1980's, we
were primarily a Standard Personal Lines carrier and therefore do
not have broad exposure to asbestos and environmental claims.
Additionally, we are the primary insurance carrier on the
majority of these exposures, which provides more certainty in our
reserve position compared to others in the insurance
marketplace."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/GWzYmT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 31,660 Claims Pending at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had approximately 31,660 asbestos-related claims
pending as of December 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

CBS Corp. states, "The Company is a defendant in lawsuits
claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other
materials, which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure
caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a
predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s.  Westinghouse
was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos.  The
Company is typically named as one of a large number of defendants
in both state and federal cases.  In the majority of asbestos
lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the
Company's products is the basis of a claim.  Claims against the
Company in which a product has been identified principally relate
to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-containing insulating
material in turbines sold for power-generation, industrial and
marine use.

"Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period.  The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal
or no impairment.

"As of December 31, 2017, the Company had pending approximately
31,660 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 33,610 as
of December 31, 2016 and 36,030 as of December 31, 2015.  During
2017, the Company received approximately 3,530 new claims and
closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 5,480 claims.
The Company reports claims as closed when it becomes aware that a
dismissal order has been entered by a court or when the Company
has reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of
a settlement.  Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the
injuries that form the basis of the claims, the quality of
evidence supporting the claims and other factors.

"The Company's total costs for the years 2017 and 2016 for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax were approximately US$57 million and
US$48 million, respectively.  The Company's costs for settlement
and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and
insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as
the insured portion of the expenses.

"Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which
may be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos-
related disease.  The predominant number of pending claims
against the Company are non-cancer claims.

"The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are
adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities.  This belief is based
upon many factors and assumptions, including the number of
outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the
breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings,
costs per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims.
While the number of asbestos claims filed against the Company has
remained generally flat in recent years, it is difficult to
predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances
may occur including, among others, the number and types of claims
and average cost to resolve such claims, which could affect the
Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/gkPqxP


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Unit Still Defends Talc Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX) said in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that there has been an increase in the number
of cases against its subsidiary Freeport Minerals Corporation
(FMC) and certain affiliates alleging exposure "to talc
contaminated with asbestos and to talc that is not alleged to be
contaminated with asbestos".

The Company said, "Since approximately 1990, FMC and various
subsidiaries have been named as defendants in a large number of
lawsuits that claim personal injury either from exposure to
asbestos allegedly contained in electrical wire products produced
or marketed many years ago or from asbestos contained in
buildings and facilities located at properties owned or operated
by FMC affiliates, or from alleged asbestos in talc products.
Many of these suits involve a large number of codefendants. Based
on litigation results to date and facts currently known, FCX
believes there is a reasonable possibility that losses may have
been incurred related to these matters; however, FCX also
believes that the amounts of any such losses, individually or in
the aggregate, are not material to its consolidated financial
statements. There can be no assurance, however, that future
developments will not alter this conclusion.

"With respect to the asbestos exposure cases, there has been an
increase in the number of cases against FMC and certain
affiliates alleging exposure to talc contaminated with asbestos
and to talc that is not alleged to be contaminated with asbestos.
There have been a number of large jury awards in single plaintiff
cases primarily brought by consumers against makers of common
consumer products containing talc and alleging serious health
risks, including mesothelioma and ovarian cancer allegedly
associated with long-term use of such products. Prior affiliates
were involved in talc mining, and some of those affiliates have
been named as defendants in some of those cases. We have
indemnification rights against a successor to those businesses,
and the successor has acknowledged those indemnification
obligations, subject to certain reservations, and has taken
responsibility for all cases we have tendered to it. However, the
indemnitor may have limited financial resources and limited
amounts of insurance available to meet those obligations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/txOIyt


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. Sealed Air's Canadian Units Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that although the possibility is remote, it
could be required to pay substantial damages for asbestos claims
involving its Canadian subsidiaries.

The Company states, "In November 2004, the Company's Canadian
subsidiary Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been
named a defendant in the case of Thundersky v. The Attorney
General of Canada, et al. (File No.  CI4-1-39818), pending in the
Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. --
Conn. were also named as defendants.  The plaintiff brought the
claim as a putative class proceeding and sought recovery for
alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in
the course of employment, as a result of Grace's marketing,
selling, processing, manufacturing, distributing and/or
delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada
prior to the Cryovac Transaction.  A plaintiff filed another
proceeding in January 2005 in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench
naming the Company and specified subsidiaries as defendants.  The
latter proceeding, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province
of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No.
CI5-1-41069), sought the recovery of the cost of insured health
services allegedly provided by the Government of Manitoba to the
members of the class of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding.
In October 2005, we learned that six additional putative class
proceedings had been brought in various provincial and federal
courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and its
subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, as
well as other defendants including W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R.
Grace & Co. -- Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any
Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment (except
with respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's
marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing
and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in
Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction.  Grace and W. R. Grace &
Co. -- Conn. agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
Company and its affiliates in respect of any liability and
expense, including legal fees and costs, in these actions.

"In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the
Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto (the
"Canadian Court"), recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the
United States of America involving Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S.
parent corporation and other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc.,
and enjoining all new actions and staying all current proceedings
against Grace Canada, Inc. related to asbestos under the
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.  That order was renewed
repeatedly.  In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc.,
the Canadian Court ordered an extension of the injunction and
stay to actions involving asbestos against the Company and its
Canadian affiliate and the Attorney General of Canada, which had
the effect of staying all of the Canadian actions.  The parties
finalized a global settlement of these Canadian actions (except
for claims against the Canadian government).  That settlement,
which has subsequently been amended (the "Canadian Settlement"),
will be entirely funded by Grace.  The Canadian Court issued an
Order on December 13, 2009 approving the Canadian Settlement.  We
do not have any positive obligations under the Canadian
Settlement, but we are a beneficiary of the release of claims.
The release in favor of the Grace parties (including us) became
operative upon the effective date of a plan of reorganization in
Grace's United States Chapter 11bankruptcy proceeding.  As filed,
the PI Settlement Plan contemplates that the claims released
under the Canadian Settlement will be subject to injunctions
under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.  The Bankruptcy
Court entered the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order on January
31, 2011 and the Clarifying Order on February 15, 2011 and the
District Court entered the Original District Court Confirmation
Order on January 30, 2012 and the Amended District Court
Confirmation Order on June 11, 2012.  The Canadian Court issued
an Order on April 8, 2011 recognizing and giving full effect to
the Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order in all provinces and
territories of Canada in accordance with the Bankruptcy Court
Confirmation Order's terms.

"The PI Settlement Plan became effective on February 3, 2014.  In
accordance with the December 13, 2009 order of the Canadian
court, on the Effective Date the actions became permanently
stayed until they were amended to remove the Grace parties as
named defendants.  The actions in the Manitoba Court of Queen's
Bench were dismissed by the Manitoba court as against the Grace
parties on February 19, 2014.  The remaining actions were either
dismissed or discontinued with prejudice by the Canadian courts
as against the Grace parties in May and June 2015, but for two
actions in the Province of Quebec, which were discontinued by
order of the Quebec court in February 2016.

"Although we believe the possibility to be remote, if the
Canadian courts refuse to enforce the final plan of
reorganization in the Canadian courts, and if in addition Grace
is unwilling or unable to defend and indemnify the Company and
its subsidiaries in these cases, then we could be required to pay
substantial damages, which we cannot estimate at this time and
which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial condition and results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/1NPevS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Super. Ct. Affirms ConRail Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case Margaret Jarrett, Executrix of the Estate of
Philip Jarrett, Deceased and Widow in her own Right, Appellant,
v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, No. 1229 EDA 2017, (Pa. Super.
Ct.) the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirms the summary
judgment entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County in favor of Appellee Consolidated Rail Corporation.

This matter arises from asbestos-related injuries sustained by
Philip Jarrett, Deceased, in the course of his employment with
Consolidated Rail Corporation and its predecessors-in-interest.
In 1997, Decedent filed suit in the Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas under the Federal Employers Liability Act ("FELA") against
Conrail and other defendants, after he developed non-malignant
asbestosis. The case was settled in 2004 and Decedent executed a
release.

Subsequently, in October 2014, Decedent was diagnosed with lung
cancer. The Jarretts commenced another FELA action in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on February 9, 2015, alleging
that Decedent's workplace exposure to asbestos caused his cancer.

On January 10, 2017, Conrail filed a motion for summary judgment,
arguing that the release Decedent signed in 2004 precluded
recovery in the instant matter, as it had released Conrail from
future liability related to any workplace-related pulmonary-
respiratory diseases and/or injuries, including cancer,
contracted after the execution of the release. In response,
Jarrett argued that the issue of whether a release for a non-
malignancy claim bars recovery for future malignancy claims is a
question for a jury to decide.

On March 17, 2017, the trial court granted summary judgment in
favor of Conrail; Jarrett's motion for reconsideration was denied
on March 29, 2017. Consequently, Margaret Jarrett, as Executrix
of the Estate of Philip Jarrett, Deceased appeals from the order
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
entering summary judgment in favor of Appellee Consolidated Rail
Corporation.

Jarrett first argues that the trial court erred in holding that
the scope of the 2004 release, executed in settlement of a non-
malignancy claim under FELA, encompassed a subsequent claim for a
malignancy that had not yet manifested itself at the time the
release was signed. Jarrett asserts that, in enacting FELA, it
was the intent of Congress to protect workers and prevent
overreaching by an employer. Jarrett argues that section 5
"forecloses the possibility of settlement contracts of adhesion
for injured railroad workers' FELA claims." Because the
protection of workers was Congress' paramount intent in enacting
FELA, Jarrett asserts that a narrow interpretation of section 5
would best achieve that result.

The Court concludes that the trial court properly applied the
rule set forth in Wicker v. Conrail, 142 F.3d 690 (3rd Cir.
1998), as it has been deemed "controlling" by a prior panel of
this Court. The Wicker court engaged in a comprehensive review of
the cases that have applied section 5 and arrived at a cogent and
well-reasoned test for determining the validity of a FELA waiver
under section 5. First, the court found that a valid release
"must at least have been executed as part of a negotiation
settling a dispute between the employee and the employer." In
this way, an employer is foreclosed from evading FELA liability
as a condition of employment or separation. Next, the court noted
that an "evaluation of the parties' intent at the time the
agreement was made is an essential element of this inquiry."

The court arrived at the conclusion that "a release that spells
out the quantity, location and duration of potential risks to
which the employee has been exposed -- for example toxic exposure
-- allowing the employee to make a reasoned decision whether to
release the employer from liability for future injuries of
specifically known risks does not violate section 5 of FELA." In
sum, the approach adopted by the Wicker court is highly fact-
intensive and places the intent of the parties in the forefront
of any inquiry. It also provides a realistic view of compromises
and releases, while staying true to the prohibition on blanket
relinquishments of rights contemplated by Congress in enacting
FELA. Accordingly, Jarrett's first claim is meritless.

Jarrett notes that the proposition in Wicker that the inquiry is
fact-intensive and that the facts thus will need to be resolved
by the fact-finder. Accordingly, Jarrett argues that her claim
should have gone before a jury for a determination as to whether
lung cancer was a "known risk" and/or whether the release was
unenforceable as a general boilerplate release.

Conrail counters that a party seeking to refute a FELA release
bears the burden of establishing its invalidity. Faced with that
burden, Conrail claims that Jarrett nonetheless did nothing to
refute the presumption of validity created by language in the
release barring claims for future cancer due to workplace
exposure to asbestos. Conrail argues that Jarrett failed to
"create a record to refute the fact that [Decedent] knew of the
risk that he could develop cancer when he signed the release on
the advice of counsel." We agree.

On its face, the clear and unambiguous language of the release
signed by the Decedent precludes subsequent recovery for "any and
all forms of cancer . . . arising in any manner whatsoever . . .
out of exposure to . . . asbestos . . . during [Decedent's]
employment with [Conrail]." As Conrail correctly notes, the party
attacking the validity of a FELA release bears the burden of
proof as to its invalidity.

Jarrett presented no evidence that the Decedent was unaware that
cancer was a risk of asbestos exposure at the time he executed
the release. Indeed, as the trial court noted, Jarrett "cannot
possibly claim [Decedent] did not know that cancer was a risk of
asbestos exposure, and it would be implausible to conclude
[Decedent] did not know of his exposure to asbestos when he
settled his prior asbestos-related case." As such, no genuine
issue of material fact existed such that a jury could return a
verdict in Jarrett's favor. Accordingly, the trial court properly
granted summary judgment in favor of Conrail.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated April 24, 2018, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybp34m2x from Leagle.com.

Robert E. Paul, Richard P. Myers -- info@prmpclaw.com -- Paul,
Reich & Myers, P.C., for Appellant, Margaret Jarrett.

Craig James Staudenmaier -- cjstaud@nssh.com -- Nauman, Smith,
Shissler & Hall, LLP, for Amicus, Keystone State Railroad
Association.

David Alan Damico -- dadamico@burnswhite.com -- Ira L. Podheiser
-- ilpodheiser@burnswhite.com -- Burns White, LLC, for Appellee,
Consolidated Rail Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. Fryer-Knowles Dismissed in "Varney"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert J. Bryan of the United States District Court for the
Western District Washington has dismissed the claims against
Defendant Fryer-Knowles, Inc. in the case styled Donald Varney
and Maria Varney, Plaintiffs, v. Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation, et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:18-cv-05105-RJB,
(W.D. Wash.).

The Complaint alleges that Defendants manufactured, distributed,
"and/or" sold asbestos-containing brakes, clutches, gaskets, and
grinders. It further alleges that Plaintiff Donald Varney
developed mesothelioma, an asbestos-caused condition, from
ambient exposure from Defendants' products while working as a
marine machinist, mechanical instrument mechanic, and auto
mechanic at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton,
Washington, and the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San
Francisco, California, between 1957 and 1972. He was also exposed
to asbestos from Defendants' products during personal auto repair
from 1939 to 1957, and he had secondary exposure from his father,
an auto mechanic in Seattle, Washington, during the 1940's and
1950's.

Defendant Fryer-Knowles, Inc. (a California Corporation) seeks
dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12 (b)(2), but Plaintiff did not respond to the motion.
Defendant, as a non-resident defendant, argues that Plaintiff is
unable to show that the court has either general or specific
jurisdiction over it for the relevant time period. It argues
Plaintiff cannot show it had "certain minimum contacts" with
Washington during the relevant period because it was incorporated
in 1973, the year after Plaintiff's last asserted exposure in
1972. Accordingly, it maintains Plaintiff cannot show it had the
"minimum contacts" for the Court to have personal jurisdiction
over it.

The Court finds no evidence that it has general jurisdiction over
this non-resident defendant -- Fryer-Knowles. Its affiliations
with Washington were not so "continuous and systematic" during
the time in question so "as to render it essentially at home" in
Washington. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Court has
specific jurisdiction over it. The uncontroverted evidence in the
record is that this Defendant was not incorporated until August
29, 1973. It could not place any product into the stream of
commerce before that time (the time period Plaintiff alleges he
was injured) because it did not exist. Plaintiff does not contest
this evidence or respond to the motion. Thus, the Court does not
have personal jurisdiction over Defendant Fryer-Knowles, Inc.,
and the case against it should be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Order dated April 24, 2018, is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ydf73bhy from Leagle.com.

Donald Varney & Maria Varney, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs,
represented by Benjamin Robert Couture, Weinstein Couture PLLC,
Brian Weinstein, Weinstein Couture PLLC, Benjamin H. Adams --
badams@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham, LLP, pro hac vice &
Lisa W. Shirley -- lshirley@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, LLP,
pro hac vice.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as & Velan
Valve Corporation, Defendants, represented by Kevin J. Craig --
kcraig@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Mark B.
Tuvim -- mtuvim@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP &
Trevor J. Mohr -- tmohr@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
LLP.

Alfa Laval Inc, BW/IP Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries &
Superior-Lidgerwood-Mundy Corporation, successor in interest M.T.
Davidson, Defendants, represented by Christine E. Dinsdale --
dinsdale@sohalang.com -- Soha & Lang PS.

Armstrong International Inc., Defendant, represented by Bennett
J. Hansen -- bhansen@pregodonnell.com -- Preg O'Donnell &
Gillett, PLLC, David E. Chawes -- dchawes@pregodonnell.com --
Preg O'Donnell & Gillett, PLLC & William E. Fitzharris, Jr. --
wfitzharris@pregodonnell.com -- Preg O'Donnell & Gillett, PLLC.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Jeanne F. Loftis -
- jeanne.loftis@bullivant.com -- Bullivant Houser Bailey PC.

Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Claude Bosworth
-- cbosworth@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC.

BNS Co., formerly known as Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company,
Defendant, represented by Delian P. Deltchev --
Delian.Deltchev@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP & Michael Anthony Jaeger --
Michael.Jaeger@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

Carrier Corporation & Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Nicole R. MacKenzie --
nmackenzie@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner & Gibbs & Ryan
W. Vollans -- rvollans@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner &
Gibbs.

Crane Co. & Crane Environmental Inc, individually and as
successor in interest Cochrane Corporation, Defendants,
represented by G. William Shaw -- bill.shaw@klgates.com -- K&L
Gates LLP & Ryan J. Groshong -- ryan.groshong@klgates.com -- K&L
Gates LLP.

Crosby Valve, LLC, Elliott Turbomachinery Co Inc, also known as
Elliott Company, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Goulds Pumps
LLC, formerly known as Goulds Pumps, Inc., Grinnell LLC, doing
business as Grinnell Corporation & ITT LLC, formerly known as ITT
Corporation formerly known as ITT Industries Inc formerly known
as ITT Fluid Products Corp formerly known as Hoffman Specialty
MFG Corp formerly known as Bell and Gossett Company formerly
known as ITT Marlow, Defendants, represented by Ronald C. Gardner
-- rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- Gardner Trabolsi & Assoc. PLLC.

Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., successor in interest, Defendant,
represented by Alice Coles Serko -- aserko@tktrial.com --
Tanenbaum Keale LLP, Barry Neal Mesher & Christopher S. Marks --
cmarks@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP.

Darigold, Inc, Defendant, represented by John Ray Nelson --
john.nelson@foster.com -- Foster Pepper PLLC.

Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Marc Marshall
Carlton -- Marc.Carlton@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Randy J. Aliment --
Randy.Aliment@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

FMC Corporation & Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC, formerly
known as Peerless Pumps Co., Defendants, represented by Katherine
M. Steele -- katherine.steele@bullivant.com -- Bullivant Houser
Bailey & Michael Mackenzie Brown -- mac.brown@bullivant.com --
Bullivant Houser Bailey.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, General Electric Company & The
Gorman-Rupp Company, Defendants, represented by Alice Coles Serko
-- aserko@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP & Christopher S.
Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP.

Hopeman Brothers Inc, Defendant, represented by Diane Catherine
Babbitt -- dbabbitt@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield,
James D. Hicks -- jhicks@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield
& Melissa K. Roeder -- mroeder@foleymansfield.com -- Foley &
Mansfield.

IMO Industries, Inc, individually and as, Defendant, represented
by James Edward Horne  -- jhorne@gth-law.com -- Gordon Thomas
Honeywell & Michael Edward Ricketts -- mricketts@gth-law.com --
Gordon Thomas Honeywell.

The Nash Engineering Company & Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc.,
individually and as successor in interest Atwood & Morrill Co.,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Dana C. Kopij  --
dkopij@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner & Gibbs.

SB Decking Inc, Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly
-- mmattingly@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC.

Taco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeanne F. Loftis --
jeanne.loftis@bullivant.com -- Bullivant Houser Bailey PC & Megan
Uhle -- megan.uhle@bullivant.com -- Bullivant Houser Bailey PC.

Uniroyal Holding Inc, formerly known as United States Rubber
Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Chris Robert Youtz --
info@sylaw.com -- Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger.

Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Todd M. Thacker --
tthacker@jjrlaw.com -- Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut --
aeraut@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC.

The Wm. Powell Company, Defendant, represented by James D. Hicks
-- jhicks@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, Brian Bernard
Smith -- bsmith@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield & R. Dirk
Bernhardt -- dbernhardt@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Metalcad Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California for the First District
affirmed the summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor
of Metalclad Insulation Corporation in the appealed case Paula
Tarjani et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Metalclad
Insulation Corporation, Defendant and Respondent, No. A140577,
(Cal. Ct. App. 1st).

In the trial court, plaintiffs Paula Tarjani, Phyllis Newman and
Patsy Rojo, the daughters of decedent John Ball, brought claims
against numerous defendants based on John Ball's alleged exposure
to asbestos. Defendant Metalclad Insulation Corporation moved for
summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Plaintiffs
appeal from the judgment.

In 1968, Metalclad . . . contracted with the United States Navy
to supply insulation for stainless steel piping in the reactor
area of four nuclear submarines built at Mare Island Naval
Shipyard... in Vallejo, California. Plaintiffs allege John Ball
('decedent') was exposed to asbestos containing insulation while
working as a joiner and shipwright from 1965 to 1972 at [Mare
Island] aboard the USS Guitarro, USS Hawkbill, USS Pintado and
USS Drum, the submarines for which Metalclad brokered the
Unibestos at issue.

In its order granting Metalclad's motion for summary judgment,
the trial court ruled: "Defendant has shown by admissible
evidence and reasonable inference therefrom that Metalclad is not
liable as a government contractor. The United States government
approved precise specifications for the Metalclad-supplied
Unibestos used aboard the USS Hawkbill (the nuclear submarine at
issue in this case); the Metalclad-supplied Unibestos conformed
to the government's specifications; and Metalclad had no duty to
warn the government because the government was well aware of the
potential hazards of asbestos. Further, Pittsburgh Corning, the
manufacturer of the Unibestos supplied by Metalclad, provided
warnings. Plaintiffs' general negligence (excluding negligent
failure to warn) and strict liability manufacturing and design
defect claims are barred by the government contractor defense.

"With respect to plaintiffs' negligent failure to warn and strict
liability failure to warn claims... Metalclad has demonstrated
that the Navy exercised full control over the specifications and
uses for materials on board nuclear submarines at Mare Island
Naval Shipyard, and that a warning was not required in the
specifications by the Navy. Evidence [was] presented that
Metalclad never took possession of the subject Unibestos.
Metalclad presented uncontroverted evidence that a warning was
provided on the boxes of Unibestos by the manufacturer Pittsburgh
Corning, but that warning did not prevent decedent from exposure.
Metalclad therefore has met its burden to show that a warning
given by Metalclad would not have affected how the Unibestos was
used by the Navy, or prevented decedent's alleged exposure."

Since the evidence is uncontroverted that Metalclad never had
possession of the Unibestos and there is no evidence [John Ball]
ever saw a shipping container, the Court settles that the
question is whether there is any substantial evidence raising a
triable issue that Metalclad could have required Pittsburgh
Corning to place a warning label on each box of the product
before Pittsburgh Corning commenced doing so itself. The Court
finds that the evidence identified by Plaintiffs on this point
(i.e., deposition testimony that Metalclad's purchase order
directed Pittsburgh Corning to mark the cartons of Unibestos to
include information required by the applicable naval shipping
specification) is not sufficient to raise a triable issue as to
causation.

The Court concludes that there simply is no evidence as to
whether Metalclad could have directed Pittsburgh Corning to place
an asbestos warning on the boxes of Unibestos, or whether
Pittsburgh Corning could have, or would have, complied with such
a request. On this record, the Court finds these as matters of
speculation, which does not, and cannot, raise a triable issue.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated April 19, 2018, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8p45mob from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser Bid to Junk "Kilty" Claims Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elvira Kilty and Herbert Spatz, both deceased, are former
Weyerhaeuser employees. In an end around the Wisconsin Worker's
Compensation Act's exclusivity provision, their estates and
respective family members assert claims against Weyerhaeuser
based on non-workplace exposure -- so-called "community exposure"
to asbestos.

Both of plaintiffs' respective complaints allege claims against
defendant Weyerhaeuser based on asbestos fibers transported or
emitted outside of the plant, either by "a worker clothing,
personal effects, hair, and skin [that] had become contaminated
by asbestos fibers at the plant; and b. collecting, removing,
hauling, and dumping asbestos dust and waste materials." Based on
these emissions into the community and plaintiffs' alleged
exposure to these emissions, plaintiffs bring claims for common
law negligence, negligent nuisance, and intentional nuisance
against defendant Weyerhaeuser.

Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin has issued an Opinion and
Order:

      (1) Denying Weyerhaeuser's motion to dismiss under the
exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. As
already explained in prior opinions, if Plaintiffs were alleging
claims based on exposure to asbestos fibers carried home from the
plant, those claims would have been barred by the Worker's
Compensation Act because the exposure would still arise out of
the employment, regardless of the fact that the exposure actually
occurred at home. While the Court remains skeptical that
Plaintiffs will be able to prove the causal link, or that a
reasonable jury could allocate separate damages to that community
exposure, that skepticism alone is an insufficient basis to
dismiss Plaintiffs' complaints, and Defendant's motion to dismiss
under the WCA's exclusivity provision is denied.

      (2) Granting Weyerhaeuser's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
respective nuisance claims on the basis that they are barred by
the applicable statute of limitations, since those claims
similarly involve a claimed injury -- the public right to clean
air -- which on the face of Plaintiffs' complaints ended when
Weyerhaeuser ceased use of asbestos in 1979. While Plaintiffs
failed to develop any other argument, the Court considered
whether Plaintiffs' claims could be viewed as a continuing
nuisance, relieving Plaintiffs of the six-year statute of
limitations for damage to property or the likely more
appropriate, three-year statute of limitations for intentional
and negligent tort claims. The Court finds, however, that the
alleged air quality issue still ended with Weyerhaeuser ceasing
use of asbestos in 1979 or shortly thereafter, rendering
meaningless whether the admissions during the course of
Weyerhaeuser's use of asbestos could be viewed as a continuing
nuisance. Moreover, even if the asbestos exposure itself could be
deemed an injury, the Court holds that a continuing injury "does
not extend the period of limitations."

      (3) Denying Weyerhaeuser's motion to exclude Plaintiffs'
claim for punitive damages. Weyerhaeuser claims that Plaintiffs'
pleadings do not meet the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8. Under Wisconsin law, the Court explains that
punitive damages are available if Plaintiffs can prove an
intentional disregard of their rights. Whether or not it can be
proved, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
that Defendant acted in intentional disregard of their rights in
releasing asbestos fibers into the air -- alleging that
Weyerhaeuser knew of emissions and knew that exposure to asbestos
emissions caused disease and death. This is all that is needed to
meet the requirements of Rule 8.

      (4) Denying Weyerhaeuser's argument that Plaintiffs'
negligence claims are barred by public policy. While this
argument may have merit, the Court declines to consider it on the
pleadings alone, finding that the Court will benefit from a more
robust record in weighing the public policy factors. Also, the
Court is concerned about judicial efficiency, since there will be
no need to consider public policy if there is no finding of
negligence. In most cases, the better practice is to submit the
case to the jury before determining whether the public policy
considerations preclude liability.

The case is Pamela Kilty, individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Elvira Kilty, Paul J. Kilty, David
L. Kilty, William J. Kilty and James S. Kilty, Plaintiffs, v.
Weyerhaeuser Company, 3M Company, and Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, Defendants. Scott Spatz, individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Herbert Spatz, Plaintiff, v.
Weyerhaeuser Company, 3M Company, and Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, Defendants, Nos. 16-cv-515-wmc, 16-cv-726-wmc, (W.D.
Wis.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated April 17, 2018,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycqddy9p from Leagle.com.

Pamela Kilty, Individually and as Special Administrator of the
Estate of Elvira Kilty, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G.
McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Daniel Benjamin
Hausman, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., John Eugene Herrick -
- jherrick@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Meredith Kay Clark
-- mkclark@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC & Nathan David Finch
-- nfinch@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC.

Paul J. Kilty, David L. Kilty, William J. Kilty & James S. Kilty,
Plaintiffs, represented by Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law
Offices, Ltd., John Eugene Herrick -- jherrick@motleyrice.com --
Motley Rice LLC, Meredith Kay Clark -- mkclark@motleyrice.com --
Motley Rice LLC & Nathan David Finch -- nfinch@motleyrice.com --
Motley Rice LLC.

Weyerhaeuser Company, A corporation, Defendant, represented by
Tanya D. Ellis -- tanya.ellis@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins
& Krutz, LLP, Charles M. McGuffey --
mitch.mcguffey@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP,
Joshua J. Metcalf -- joshua.metcalf@formanwatkins.com -- Forman
Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Mark S. DesRochers, DesRochers Law Offices,
LLC, Ruth Maron -- ruth.maron@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins
& Krutz, LLP, Thomas Benton York -- Benton.York@formanwatkins.com
-- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP & Walter G. Watkins, III --
wg.watkins@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP.

3M Company, A corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward J.
McCambridge -- emccambridge@smsm.com -- Segal McCambridge Singer
& Mahoney, Ltd., Jason Patrick Eckerly -- jeckerly@smsm.com --
Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., Jennifer Budner, Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Bradley R. Bultman --
bbultman@larsonking.com -- Larson King LLP, Grace Ellen Mangieri,
Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., Nathan Joseph Law --
nlaw@SMSM.com -- Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. &
Patrick Francis Sullivan, III --  psullivan@smsm.com -- Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, A corporation, Defendant,
represented by Smitha Chintamaneni -- schintam@vonbriesen.com --
von Briesen & Roper.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies Weyerhaeuser Bid to Dismiss "Kappel"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled Michael D. Kappel and Marina P. Kappel,
Plaintiffs, v. Weyerhaeuser Company, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, Unknown Insurers of Roddis Plywood, and Unknown Insurers
of Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendants, No. 17-cv-519-wmc, (W.D.
Wis.), Plaintiffs assert various claims against defendant
Weyerhaeuser Company and its insurer Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company based on Weyerhaeuser's alleged emissions of asbestos
into the Marshfield, Wisconsin, community.

This case is one of a second wave of asbestos-related claims
concerning community or environmental exposure caused by
defendant Weyerhaeuser Company's alleged emission of asbestos
fibers. Unlike the others cases, however, plaintiff Michael D.
Kappel, now deceased, did not work at Weyerhaeuser during the
period of time its predecessor used asbestos in the manufacturing
of fireproof doors. As such, his alleged exposure to asbestos is
solely based on emissions into the community. In his original
complaint, Kappel alleges that he suffers from "asbestos related
disease," but does not specify the nature of that injury or the
onset date.

Defendant Weyerhaeuser moved to dismiss, raising several
arguments, including that the plaintiffs failed to allege with
sufficient specificity the claimed injury and the date of
diagnosis.

While Defendant Weyerhaeuser's motion to dismiss was pending,
Kappel passed away. Plaintiffs then sought a stay, "pending the
outcome of analysis of autopsy tissue by plaintiffs' pathology
expert which is necessary to conclusively determine the correct
diagnosis (mesothelioma v. adenocarcinoma or other lung cancer).
Defendants did not oppose the stay, which the Court granted.
Subsequently, the Court extended the stay to provide additional
time for the expert to finalize the results. After the extended
date had lapsed, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why
this case should not be dismissed for failing to allege Kappel's
injury with sufficient specificity. In response, Plaintiffs filed
a proposed amended complaint, which alleges the Kappel suffered
from adenocarcinoma, and also substitutes as plaintiff Stacy
Kappel, individually and as special administrator of the Estate
of Michael Kappel.

Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin accepts Plaintiffs' proposed
amended complaint and evaluates Weyerhaeuser's motion to dismiss
in light of that pleading. The Court also notes that a number of
Weyerhaeuser's grounds for dismissal were raised in two other
related asbestos cases, Kilty v. Weyerhaeuser, No. 16-cv-515
(W.D. Wis. July 20, 2016), and Spatz v. Weyerhaeuser, No. 16-cv-
726 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 3, 2016). The Court issued an opinion in
those cases, which it adopts here. In brief, the Court will grant
Defendants' motion to dismiss negligent nuisance and intentional
nuisance claims as time-barred, leaving Plaintiffs' common law
negligence claim to proceed. The Court will also deny Defendants'
motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim.

Specific to this case, Weyerhaeuser asserts two additional
grounds for dismissal. First, Weyerhaeuser argues that Plaintiff
failed to allege Kappel's employment or employment-related
exposures, presumably to avoid Weyerhaeuser's argument that his
claims are barred by the exclusivity provision in Wisconsin's
Workers' Compensation Act. Because Plaintiffs' negligence claim
rests solely on community or environmental exposure to asbestos,
Plaintiffs need not allege Kappel's employment history with
Weyerhaeuser. For the reasons explained in the Court's opinion
and order in the Kilty/Spatz cases, the WCA does not bar claims
based on environmental or community exposure. Moreover, unlike
the other plaintiffs in related Weyerhaeuser asbestos cases, as
Plaintiffs explain in their opposition brief, the Court finds
that Kappel did not work at Weyerhaeuser during the period of
time asbestos was used. Kappel testified at his deposition that
he began working at the Marshfield plant in May 1979 and
Weyerhaeuser asserted in other asbestos cases that they stopped
using asbestos in June 1978.

Second, Weyerhaeuser seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim based
on the failure to allege the specific diagnosis and date of
diagnosis. The Court points out that the amended complaint
corrects this defect, alleging Kappel's diagnosis of
adenocarcinoma of the lung and his date of death. In support of
its motion to dismiss, Weyerhaeuser represents that "in other
cases, the Court determined that the Plaintiffs could meet the
special injury requirement when they claimed an injury of
mesothelioma," citing Boyer v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 2015 WL 3485262,
(W.D. Wis. 2015). But the Court made no such finding in Boyer.
The Court explains that the first wave of Weyerhaeuser asbestos
cases had a mix of mesothelioma and lung cancer (more generally)
diagnoses. While none of the non-mesothelioma cases survived
summary judgment, the Court did not dismiss those cases on the
pleadings. Accordingly, the Court similarly declines to dismiss
Plaintiffs' claim, especially given the apparent lack of
workplace exposures.

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated April 17, 2018,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybol9uaq from Leagle.com.

Marina Kappel, Stacy Kappel, Individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Michael Kappel & Tammy Prindel,
Plaintiffs, represented by Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law
Offices, Ltd. & Daniel Benjamin Hausman, Cascino Vaughan Law
Offices, Ltd.

Weyerhauser Company, Defendant, represented by Charles M.
McGuffey -- mitch.mcguffey@formanwatkins.com --  Forman Watkins &
Krutz, LLP, Joshua J. Metcalf -- joshua.metcalf@formanwatkins.com
-- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Mark S. DesRochers, DesRochers
Law Offices, LLC, Ruth Maron -- ruth.maron@formanwatkins.com --
Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Tanya D. Ellis --
tanya.ellis@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP &
Thomas Benton York -- Benton.York@formanwatkins.com -- Forman
Watkins & Krutz, LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Smitha Chintamaneni -- schintam@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen &
Roper.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Warning for Empty C & H Mineral Bldg
--------------------------------------------------------------
UpperMichigansSource.com reported that the Western Upper
Peninsula Health Department issued an asbestos exposure warning.
People should avoid the 1,000-foot stretch of M-26 near the C & H
Mineral Building in Hubbell. The building is located on the north
end of Hubbell between M-26 and Torch Lake, just past Koppers.

The warning follows a Department of Environmental Quality
assessment. The assessment revealed roofing material that had
fallen from the building contained asbestos. MDEQ has removed 14
tons of roofing material from the property between 2016 and 2017.

"Now the property owner will be responsible for any cleanup of
any additional roofing material that may fall from the building.
We are also looking to work with various entities and
stakeholders to see if we can more fully secure the building and
put up additional signage," said WUPHD health officer Kate Beer.

Building owner Silver Shore Enterprise Inc. is responsible for
any necessary additional cleanup. The public is advised to avoid
the building and surrounding 1,000- foot area.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brunel School Accused of Asbestos Cover-Up
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katie Timms of Plymouth Herald reported that parents say they
fear their children's "lives are at stake" amid an investigation
into reports of asbestos at a primary school.

It is understood that the inspection at Brunel Primary and
Nursery Academy in Saltash began.

But parents say the presence of asbestos in a classroom was first
reported as long ago as October 2017.

Representatives from the trust which runs the school have
confirmed the investigation and issued a statement.

Mums and dads say they are worried the material has been
disturbed by workmen who were not aware the material was there.

The Herald was made aware of the investigation when a concerned
member of the public said they saw men in white suits coming in
and out of the school.

A worried mum, who wishes to remain anonymous, said: "To be
honest, there's a lot more serious allegations than this.

"It seems that they're trying to cover it up. Our children are at
the school still.

"It's a nightmare. Our kids' lives are at stake, we don't know
what they're being exposed to."

Brunel Primary & Nursery Academy, Saltash (Image: Penny Cross)
The mum added that she believes the area of the school containing
asbestos is next to the lunch hall and thinks that it will affect
all of the pupils at the school, which remains open as usual.
She said: "It's right next to the canteen so not only are they
probably breathing it in, they're probably eating it as well.

"It's absolute nonsense.

"I've had serious concerns for quite some time."

Another concerned parent said that the asbestos was initially
discovered in October and that Bridge MAT -- the trust which runs
the school -- "basically ignored it until recently".

The parent, who wishes to remain anonymous, said: "The school and
MAT refused to act until Christmas as it would mean having the
electrical supply shut off, however they had workmen in the
contaminated area and never told them as no signage was placed up
until late January.

"The cleaners also found asbestos on the window sills high up in
the corridors within an area of six classrooms.

"There is more to this and a cover up appears to be happening,
however they need to be held accountable as the risk to the
health of countless children has been blatantly been ignored."

The Herald understands that the type of asbestos identified in
the school is amosite.

A spokesperson for Bridge MAT said: "We can confirm that asbestos
was found within the key stage one building at Brunel Primary
Academy and Nursery.

"This incident has been notified to the Health and Safety
Executive and Public Health England and is currently the subject
of an on-going investigation by them both.

"We have informed all of the pupils, teachers, parents and carers
of the situation that that we are conducting an environmental
clean of one classroom, corridor and toilet area. We will
continue to update them as the investigation proceeds.

"Due to the investigation it wouldn't be appropriate for us to
comment further at this time."

What is asbestos?

All information regarding asbestos is supplied by
www.mesothelioma.com

Asbestos refers to six naturally occurring fibrous minerals that
have the ability to resist heat, fire and electricity.

Although asbestos fibers are microscopic in nature, they are
extremely durable and resistant to fire and most chemical
reactions and breakdowns. These properties of asbestos supported
its use for many years in a number of different commercial and
industrial settings, as well as in a wide range of consumer
products. Although its use has diminished in recent decades,
there are still many products that contain asbestos, especially
in older homes, schools, and public buildings.

Asbestos is perhaps best known for its role in causing
mesothelioma, a rare and deadly cancer that can develop in
linings of the lungs, abdomen, or heart.

Why is asbestos hazardous?

Asbestos is made up of microscopic fibers that can easily become
airborne and inhaled. Because of their shape, the asbestos
particles cling to tissues of the lungs and other areas of the
respiratory system.

Over time, these tiny fibers can cause inflammation, causing a
number of health problems, the three biggest of which are:

   * Mesothelioma -- This aggressive cancer forms in the thin
membrane (mesothelium) that protects vital organs in the chest
and abdomen. Exposure to asbestos is the only medically-verified
cause of the disease.

   * Lung Cancer -- Most commonly associated with factors like
smoking and radon, lung cancer is also known to be exacerbated by
exposure to asbestos.

   * Asbestosis -- This degenerative respiratory condition
results from the formation of scar tissue plaques on the surface
of the pleura (lung linings). It can be a precursor to the onset
of mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Academy Closes After Asbestos Disturbance
----------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Whitaker of Schools Week reported that Whitehaven
Academy, the troubled Cumbrian school at the centre of a row over
the state of its buildings, is closed after asbestos was
disturbed on its site.

The Bright Tribe Trust, which runs the school, said this morning
that building materials containing asbestos were discovered
"during a routine asbestos survey", and that "swift and effective
remedial action was taken".

The school is closed so a survey can be carried out.

"The two areas concerned were immediately contained and reported
to the relevant bodies including the Health and Safety
Executive," said a Bright Tribe spokesperson.

"During initial investigations into the matter the decision has
been made to close the school to allow further survey works to be
undertaken, enabling an accurate assessment of risk and then
appropriate guidance can be issued."

The decision to close the school "has not been made lightly", the
spokesperson said, but is in "the best interests of staff and
students".

"A further update will be issued after the relevant assessments
have been concluded and appropriate advice received," they added.

Last November, Bright Tribe announced plans to give up
Whitehaven, following intense pressure from school staff and
parents.

The secondary school has been at the centre of a row over the way
the trust runs its schools in the north of England, but matters
came to a head last autumn when flooding damaged already
"dilapidated" buildings on the school site and local MP and
education select committee member Trudy Harrison was physically
escorted offsite by trust staff when she arrived to check on
damage.

Whitehaven is expected to be rebrokered to the Cumbria Education
Trust, but its proposed new sponsor has said there are "many
issues to review" before its board approves the takeover.

Bright Tribe is also in the process of giving up all but one of
its other schools in the north of England.

Last year, a Schools Week investigation found that asbestos had
been disturbed at schools in a way that could affect the health
of staff and pupils on at least 90 separate occasions in the
previous five years. The government has been urged to collect
more information about the prevalence of asbestos in schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Another Take-Home Asbestos Exposure in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law 360 reported that in Foglia v. Moore Dry Dock Co., a
California appellate court recently upheld the trial court's
granting of summary judgment in a secondary exposure asbestos
case where the plaintiffs could offer no admissible evidence that
the decedent's father worked around asbestos-containing
materials.

The trial court excluded the plaintiff's testimony regarding his
father's work because he admitted he had no personal knowledge of
the subject, and also sustained the defendant's objections to an
affidavit of the decedent's aunt who likewise had no personal
knowledge of the decedent's father's exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Rips Through Asbestos-Containing House
------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Tomasi of 9news.com-au reported that a home previously
raided by police has been destroyed by a suspicious blaze this
morning.

Video captured the moment flames and smoke shot into the air as
the Skye Road property ignited in Frankston just before 5am.

Witnesses told 9NEWS they heard "popping and crackling".

"I ran inside, and woke the kids and the wife up," local Brad
Warrior said.

"The flames were coming out the front (of the home), the roof was
collapsing."

Firefighters arrived at the scene and conducted a search to
ensure no-one was inside.

"Potentially there might have been squatters . . . we did a
thorough search of the property and didn't locate anyone inside,"
Tom Hoppner from the Country Fire Authority (CFA) said.

After spending hours containing the blaze, emergency services de-
contaminated clothes amid asbestos concerns.

The cause of the blaze continues to be investigated.
Neighbours have told 9NEWS the house has gained notoriety in
recent years, with two men being arrested in March after being
found hiding in the roof.

They were wanted over an alleged carjacking and police pursuit on
the Mornington Peninsula, during which officers opened fire.

In an unrelated matter, a cannabis crop worth $1 million was
found inside the property in April 2016.

Four-hundred marijuana plants were seized, while hidden grow
rooms were dismantled.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fragments Found at Nairn Academy
----------------------------------------------------------
Jamie McKenzie of Press and Journal reported that school staff
said they were "incorrectly advised" that a woodwork area at
Nairn Academy could be used after asbestos temporarily closed a
number of other classrooms.

The asbestos fragments were discovered in some parts of the
school in Nairn following work over the Easter break to remove
moss from the building's roof.

Concerns were raised about small amounts of dust appearing in the
rooms. The affected areas of the school were closed so they could
be cleaned and tested.

But the letter to parents said: "Unfortunately the school was
incorrectly advised that the woodwork area could be used."

A Highland Council spokeswoman confirmed that the chryostile
(white asbestos), which is found in small fragments of roof
ceiling paint coating, had fallen and settled on surfaces.

But she stressed that the Health and Safety Executive was
informed and advised that the incident is not reportable under
the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Ocurrences
Regulations 2013, due to "negligible risk" to health and safety.

An NHS Highland spokesman also said that a small number of
students and staff were in these areas of the school for short
periods of time before fragments were removed.

The spokesman stressed that, due to the small amount of asbestos
involved, and short period of exposure, the fragments were
"unlikely to have posed a significant health risk."

Work has been done to clean up all affected areas and sampling
has confirmed no asbestos is now present.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dump Found on West Coast Beach
--------------------------------------------------------
Julian Lee of Stuff.co.nz reported that an old asbestos cache has
been discovered on a West Coast beach.

Rough weather this year, including the remains of ex-cyclone Gita
in February, have exposed the old dump site on the foreshore near
Hector, about 30 kilometres north of Westport.

The West Coast Regional Council and the Buller District Council
have put up signs alerting people about the dump while they
figure out what to do.
The councils said the dump, thought to be used in the 1970s and
80s, was once used by a coal mine operating in nearby Ngakawau.

Hector resident Anne Crawford said the "toxic" site was well
known to older locals as once being the area's official rubbish
dump.

"It has been covered over and people have been dumping garden
rubbish there. It was the official rubbish tip in 1974 and many
years before then."

Timber and iron, as well as other materials, have also been
exposed by the weather.

Both councils have established a working group to plan for the
"long term management of the site", according to a press release.
The group will consult experts on the matter.

Buller will "monitor and maintain" the area in the "short to
medium term".
In the longer term, both councils will need to build up a
protective barrier between the dump and the sea to prevent
further erosion.

Both councils are also looking for cash to help pay for the
protective works. They have applied to the Contaminated Sites
Remediation Fund, which is a government fund for cleaning up
historic contaminated sites.

Buller District Council assets and infrastructure group manager
Mike Duff said the council was responsible because it owned the
land.

"No-one wants to see these historic materials on our beaches and
the councils are working proactively to ensure a practical long
term solution for our community".

The area is vulnerable to rough weather, with residents in Hector
and nearby Granity evacuated in February amid fears a raging sea
whipped up by ex-cyclone Gita could flood their homes.

Emergency services went door-to-door to order people form their
homes in a mandatory evacuation of properties on the seaward side
of the main road north of Westport.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConRail Off Hook for Asbestos Death
----------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a Pennsylvania appeals court upheld the
dismissal of a case brought against Consolidated Rail Corp. by a
man who died of lung cancer because of asbestos exposure, noting
that all evidence indicates he signed away his right to sue in
2004 when settling his previous case for having nonmalignant
mesothelioma.

The panel agreed with the lower court that a release form
decedent Philip Jarrett signed back in 2004 in which he agreed
not to sue Conrail.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Scheduled in Reinsurance Claims
------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York federal judge
has scheduled a Feb. 25 jury trial in a reinsurance dispute
between Utica Mutual Insurance Co. and R&Q Reinsurance Co.
involving coverage for underlying asbestos injury claims.

In an April 23 order, Judge Brenda K. Sannes of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York ordered Utica to
complete its document production by May 25, and R&Q to complete
its review of Utica's supplemental document production by June 4.
R&Q issued Utica multiple facultative reinsurance contracts that
were in effect from 1976 to 1983, and from 1984 to 1986.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tests Find Asbestos in Apartment Complex
---------------------------------------------------------
U.S. News & World Report reported that testing has found that
there's asbestos nearly everywhere in an abandoned Alamogordo
apartment complex, a finding that complicates the city's desire
to demolish the dilapidated property.

The Alamogordo Daily News reports that City Manager Maggie Paluch
says the contractor found asbestos in the Sahara Apartments'
flooring, exterior plaster, window glazing and drywall compound.

Asbestos increases risks for cancer and other health problems.
Paluch says the contractor believes that the city will need to
have a certified company both dispose of the asbestos and
demolish the buildings under federal environmental protection
standards.
She says no cost estimate is immediately available.

The apartments were evacuated in 2010 after a heavy rainstorm
flooded the property. An inspection then found the property to be
in violation of nine sections of the property maintenance code.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Disease Severity Highlighted
------------------------------------------------------
Geraldine Scott of Norfolk Eastern Daily Press reported that
specialist asbestos-related disease lawyers are speaking out on
Workers' Memorial Day about the dangers of asbestos and their
concern over the number of deaths linked to exposure of the
substance in public buildings.

Workers' Memorial Day today (April 28), is a day to "remember the
dead and to fight for the living" by paying respects to those who
have died as a result of their employment, continuing to improve
health and safety standards in the workplace, and increase
protection in place for employees.

Latest figures released by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
show that the number of asbestos- related disease deaths in the
UK in 2015 was over 3000.

The vast majority of these deaths, 2,542, were caused by
mesothelioma, which is a cancer of the lining of the lungs. The
disease is commonly associated with exposure to asbestos, and it
often takes decades for symptoms to show following this exposure.

The number of deaths caused by mesothelioma between 1981 and 2015
in Norfolk was 894. Although the majority of those were men,
women accounted for 128 of those deaths. In Suffolk, the figure
stands at 764 deaths with women accounting for 133.

Inhalation of asbestos dust and fibres cannot only cause
mesothelioma, as well as lung cancer, but also other serious lung
diseases. These include asbestosis and plural thickening.

Graham Buckland, a former college technician from Emneth, near
Wisbech, was diagnosed with mesothelioma just over 18 months ago.
Mr Buckland, 77, was diagnosed following a biopsy at the Queen
Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn.

His legal team believe he may have been exposed to the deadly
asbestos dust and fibres while working as a technician at Dacorum
College, Hemel Hempstead, for Herefordshire County Council
between 1982 and 1992.

Mr Buckland said: "The tiles were often removed, replaced and
drilled into, during a range of refurbishment work and, as I had
not been given any warnings or protection, I would tend to sweep
up any dust myself. When the asbestos removal works eventually
took place, it's quite likely that I was again exposed to
asbestos dust.

"When you go to work you simply never expect that your health may
be put at risk, yet I'm stunned by the fact that this appears to
be the case."

Specialist asbestos-related disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell
have taken up Mr Buckland's case.

Rosemary Giles, a partner at the firm's Cambridge office, said:
"These latest figures highlight the sad reality that we see day
to day in our work.

"That reality is many people are dying due to asbestos exposure
in their past. The majority of those exposed to asbestos were
done so at work, and were completely unaware of the dangers of
asbestos when exposed to it."

Ms Giles, who is also a senior litigator and an Association of
Personal Injury Lawyers-accredited asbestos disease specialist,
added: "Mesothelioma is an extremely aggressive and incurable
cancer and it causes a great deal of suffering to those affected
by it. That's why it is so important that we work to get justice
for them, and answers for how and where they were exposed to
asbestos.

"The first asbestos regulations, to manage the use of asbestos
because of its danger to health, became law in 1931, so to learn
that people were exposed to the fibres much later is very
upsetting for the individuals or the families who come to us.

"Now, we are fully aware of the dangers, and fatalities are
regularly publicised, it seems only right that robust measures
are put in place to ensure when the time comes, the removal of
this potentially deadly substance is managed properly."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Clair County Asbestos Trial Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo of Madison County Record reported
that St. Clair County's first asbestos trial since plaintiffs'
firms have turned their attention to Madison County's neighboring
jurisdiction is underway in Circuit Judge Vincent Lopinot's
court.

The trial began with a rocky start Monday. According to a
courthouse official, jurors were sent to the wrong courtroom
Monday. Then, several jurors didn't show up after being sent an
email telling them they didn't have to come in.

Plaintiffs John and Kaye Vipond filed the lawsuit on July 18,
2016. They allege John Vipond was exposed to asbestos during his
service in the U.S. Navy from 1956 to 1961, his employment as a
laborer with Hi-Tex Brickyard in Aledo, Ill., in 1961, and as a
laborer, welder, assembly line worker, fork truck operator and
grinder with International Harvester in East Moline, Ill., from
1962 to 1991.

Vipond developed mesothelioma in June 2016.

Defendant Iowa-Illinois Taylor Insulation, Inc., or IITI, is the
only remaining defendant at trial.

Testimony kicked off with a video discovery deposition of James
Groves, IITI's corporate representative.

The defendant objected to the video deposition, arguing that
Groves will provide an in-person testimony at trial.

"Discovery depositions are not permitted to be used at a trial
even if the deponent is unavailable, because that use would
inhibit free discovery by requiring time-consuming evidentiary
objections at every discovery deposition," the defendants' bench
memorandum in opposition stated.

IITI, argued that the plaintiff would have an opportunity to
"confront and cross-examine" Groves in open court.

"Allowing plaintiff to play the video of Mr. Groves' discovery
deposition and examine him live at trial would be an imbalance to
the equities in violation of the law of the case doctrine and
would amount to improper bolstering through the admission of
cumulative evidence," the memorandum stated.

Before Groves' discovery deposition was played during court,
defense attorney Douglas M. Sinars of Sinars Rollins LLC in
Chicago renewed his objection, which was noted by Lopinot as a
continuous objection.

Groves began working at IITI in 1968 shortly after graduating
high school. He was later promoted to vice president in the 1980s
before purchasing Midwest Thermal Insulation in 1989.

He explained that IITI was in the business of installing various
types of insulation, including asbestos insulation, fiberglass
insulation, foam insulations and more. Then in the 1980s, Groves
said IITI began removing asbestos for companies.

Groves asked the attorneys deposing him to be specific on the
company's name, explaining that there are several variations of
Iowa-Illinois Taylor Insulation and they are not all the same.

During his deposition, Groves grew frustrated when questioned
about IITI's history and practices prior to 1968.

"What's the play here? It looks like I'm on trial here," Groves
said. "Let's talk about the case. What does what they did in '56
and '63 have to do with the case?"

He added that he was 19 years old when he joined IITI and didn't
look into the company's "dirty laundry."

Groves was also questioned about documents that were supposedly
lost by the "Patterson Law Firm" before they turned up in a 2009
trial against IITI.

Groves said IITI has a records clerk who keeps track of records,
conducts research and requests records and that he did not know
whether the lost documents had been found.

""You're going back nine years," Groves said. "I can't remember
some of the things I did yesterday. My mother died of dementia."

He added that he did not personally request the documents for
this case because that would have been the duty of the records
clerk.

Then when shown a document from 1932, Groves said, "That was the
year I was born. I should have asked for that document right that
day."

"You could have asked for the documents after you joined the
company," the attorney responded.

Following Groves' deposition, plaintiff attorney Ryan Sweet of
Flint Law Firm in Edwardsville questioned Donald DeLoose, the
decedent's former co-worker.

DeLoose said he began working at International Harvester in 1963
and retired in 1993. He testified that steam pipes ran for miles
throughout the 50-acre plant.

DeLoose testified that after OSHA standards for asbestos exposure
came out in the 1970s, he was asked to join the safety committee.
Then in 1981 he took a safety training course, where he was told
by an OSHA instructor that all asbestos insulation currently
being used at the plant needed to be properly removed by a
professional.

He said the instructor told him, "Asbestos is a big deal. It's a
bad thing to have in your plant."

He said International Harvester's safety committee decided to
have IITI remove the asbestos and directed employees not to touch
any of it.

DeLoose also testified that IITI exclusively removed the asbestos
and that IITI was always the initials signed in on the log book.

Sweet noted that DeLoose called the asbestos abatement company
Taylor in a prior deposition and asked him why.

DeLoose responded by saying that he was told that Taylor
Insulation was being sued for the death of co-worker Ed Davis in
2009.

DeLoose also testified that IITI's employees did not remove the
asbestos properly, covering the International Harvester employees
and their machines with asbestos dust and insulation.
On one occasion, DeLoose said they had to send workers home due
to the asbestos mess.

When Sweet asked him to describe what he saw, DeLoose said it
"was like an atomic bomb."

During IITI's cross examination, DeLoose told Sinars that he had
tried to throw IITI out about 15 times.

Sinars read excerpts from DeLoose's prior deposition in which the
witness repeatedly called the abatement company "Taylor" and said
the truck had "Taylor Insulation" or "Taylor Asbestos" written on
the side. He didn't call them "IITI" until his testimony Friday.

DeLoose also said during his deposition that he didn't actually
observe the IITI employees removing asbestos but was told about
the improper removal practices by employees. He added, though,
that he saw the mess left behind.

While St. Clair County's asbestos filings are a far cry from the
filing numbers in hotspot jurisdictions like Madison County, the
St. Clair County filings increased 200 percent last year,
according to analysis of 2017 filings conducted by Washington-
based consulting group KCIC.

The St. Clair County docket tripled from 69 in 2016 to 207 in
2017. Of those new cases, 199 of them were filed on behalf of
plaintiffs alleging lung cancer.

By comparison, Madison County saw 1,128 cases filed in 2017 -- a
13.4 percent drop from 2016. However, Madison County still
remains the preferred jurisdiction with more than twice the
number of filings than its closest competing jurisdiction in
Baltimore.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Clean-Up Resumes at Wonderland
--------------------------------------------------------
Sue Woodcock of Revere Journal reported that after months of work
at a standstill the owners of Wonderland Dog Track have resumed
work, taking away piles of rubble containing asbestos.

In a letter to the council from Chip Tuttle, representing the
property owners CWB Lending, regarding an update on the
demolition of the site, he outlined how work will proceed.

Ward 5 Councillor John Powers said there was a meeting with the
principals of Wonderland and the Department of Environmental
Protection.

Much of the work relies on DEP inspections as the project goes
along. Tuttle expected a calendar of work to come in the next few
days.

DEP has implemented some conditions. CBW plans meetings with
abatement and demolition contractors. Movement forward will rely
on DEP inspections.

Tuttle stated that they would be continuing work for the next
three to six months. Post abatement and demo contractors are
ready to go. Tuttle said the time frames are conservative.

"They said they will have all of that trash out of there by the
end of this month," Powers said. "A tentative day of July 31 for
completion of the demo work. I'm not going to let this go. They
stopped the work because they found asbestos in there in October.
They understand that (asbestos) has to be taken out of there and
those buildings need to come down."

Councillor George Rotondo said this was "foreseen. It's not
something they did not know that they had. The foot dragging has
been disgusting to me."

Powers said the DEP has been to Wonderland several times.

"The people who did that asbestos abatement did a poor job,
that's how the DEP got here," Powers said. "There was a lot of
plaster and the asbestos was used in that plaster."

Council President Jessica Gianinno said when the city had to deal
with schools with asbestos they didn't wait a year.

"The next time they come up to us, they will be held at a higher
standard so that this does not continue to be an issue," she
said.
Nick Moulaison, chairman of the Conservation Commission, said,
"We want results and we want answers. The contractor wanted to
remove the stuff but DEP wouldn't let them. They knew the
building had asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYC Asbestos Court Still Plaintiff's Playground
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Fisher of Legal News Line reported that the retrial of former
New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver began on charges
including allegations he collected millions of dollars in
improper payments from a prominent asbestos law firm, Weitz &
Luxenberg.

Meanwhile Weitz & Luxenberg still dominates the special court in
New York that oversees asbestos cases, a court that defendants
say features rules that are unfairly skewed in favor of
plaintiffs.

Silver was convicted in 2015 of illegally accepting more than $3
million in fees from Weitz & Luxenberg -- prosecutors called them
"kickbacks" -- for referring clients he obtained from a
mesothelioma doctor whom he aided with $500,000 in state grants.
His conviction and 12-year sentencewere overturned in July 2017
after the U.S. Supreme Court significantly narrowed the leeway
for prosecutors to prove official corruption.

Silver's retrial will likely focus on the same allegations that
he traded official favors for millions of dollars in kickbacks
from law firms. His connection with Weitz & Luxenberg also cast
harsh light on the practices of the New York Consolidated
Asbestos Litigation docket, however, which handles asbestos
lawsuits arising in the five boroughs of New York. As Speaker of
the State Assembly, Silver named Arthur Luxenberg to the Judicial
Screening Committee for the First Department, which includes
NYCAL.

The special court draws its jurors mostly from the island of
Manhattan and has a reputation of delivering large plaintiff
verdicts, including a $60 million jury award earlier this month
and a $75 million verdict last year. Plaintiffs win more than 80%
of jury trials in New York City, compared with a 50/50 success
rate in upstate New York and other parts of the country.

As a result, defendants say, lawyers try to place their cases in
the NYCAL system even if their clients can only claim fleeting
exposures to asbestos in New York City. Most asbestos lawsuits
are over mesothelioma, a cancer of the pleural lining that can be
caused by sustained exposure to asbestos.

The court took a dramatic turn in favor of plaintiffs in 2014
when, at the behest of Weitz & Luxenberg, then-presiding Judge
Sherry Sherry Klein Heitler reinstated punitive damages after a
16-year hiatus. Heitler overruled objections by defendants that
punitive damages were unmerited for claims dating back decades
for practices by businesses that often no longer exist, as well
as complaints punitives drain off assets that should be preserved
to pay future asbestos claimants.

Heitler was removed from NYCAL in 2015, but defendants complain
her replacements have done little to restore balance to the
court. A new Case Management Order adopted in 2017 after more
than a year of discussions between lawyers for plaintiffs and
defendants retained punitive damages and introduced an
"accelerated docket" that defendants say forces them to prepare
for hundreds of trials a year while plaintiff lawyers effectively
get to cherry-pick the minority of cases that will actually be
scheduled to go before a jury.

"After Judge Heitler was replaced, a number of defendants held
out hope, but I wouldn't say much has changed," said Mark Hsu, a
partner with Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young who represents
asbestos defendants. "In fact, with punitive damages in play,
there is more risk than ever for defendants."

Weitz & Luxenberg is the most powerful plaintiff law firm
operating in NYCAL. The fact it would pay Silver more than $3
million for what Silver admitted was doing little more than
supplying the names of potential clients demonstrates the
profitability of the asbestos practice, especially in New York.

The firm didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. But
in court filings, plaintiff lawyers say defendant companies
benefit from special rules that are more restrictive than the
general rules of procedure in New York courts, including strict
limits on the number of plaintiffs that can be included in a
single trial and requirements for extensive pre-trial
documentation of claims.

Defendant companies have complained bitterly about NYCAL for
years and it regularly appears on the American Tort Reform
Association's list of "Judicial Hellholes."

The lititgation climate swerved sharply pro-plaintiff after
Heitler reinstated punitive damages. Defendants said the move fit
a pattern of favoring the law firm in court rulings and other
actions, such as allowing Weitz & Luxenberg to "cherry pick"
cases set for trial. By restoring the threat of punitive damages,
plaintiff lawyers could negotiate for higher settlements because
defendants would fear blockbuster verdicts if they took their
cases before a jury.

Heitler was replaced at NYCAL in 2015 and defendants hoped her
replacement, Peter Moulton, would revise the Case Management
Order governing how cases proceed and are selected for trial.
Driving their push for new rules was the shift away from
companies that distributed amphibole asbestos, the most dangerous
form used mostly in insulation, which have largely been driven
into bankruptcy.

The companies now defending themselves in NYCAL tend to be
solvent corporations like Honeywell, Ford Motor Co. and Mondelez
International, whose liability stems from acquired businesses or
even brand names, or products that until recently weren't
considered dangerous.

They argued strenuously for changes including eliminating
punitive damages and preventing multiple-plaintiff trials, which
defense lawyers say confuse jurors and prejudice their clients.
In June 2017 Moulton unveiled a revised CMO but it provided
little relief for defendants.

Trials were limited to a maximum of three plaintiffs, or a single
plaintiff if punitives were sought. And plaintiff attorneys were
ordered to inform the defense if their clients intended for file
claims with trusts set up by bankrupt asbestos companies, which
defense attorneys say is necessary for them to determine if the
plaintiff's illness was caused by exposure to the products of
other companies.

Defense attorneys say other pro-plaintiff practices have remained
the same under Moulton's successor, Judge Manuel Mendez. Those
include an "accelerated docket" for plaintiffs who are dying of
mesothelioma which allows for clusters of 100 or more cases twice
a year.

Defendants complain NYCAL allows cases to remain on the docket
even after plaintiffs die, undermining the logic of speeding
trials for the living.

NYCAL also allows plaintiff attorneys to effectively pick the
minority of cases that will ultimately be set for trial but only
after defendants have been forced to prepare for all of them,
expending time and money obtaining documents and deposing
witnesses.

Defense attorneys also complain of pro-plaintiff practices such
as requiring defendants to show the plaintiff wasn't exposed to
their products to obtain summary judgment, a reversal of the rule
in other jurisdictions where plaintiffs must show strong evidence
of exposure in order to proceed.

Despite these complaints and a blizzard of court filings by
interested groups, a New York appeals court rejected their
arguments on March 22. In its decision, the appeals court said
NYCAL's rules "do not deprive defendants of their due process or
other constitutional rights."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Causes Problems on Apartment Demolition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRQE News 13 reported that demolishing some problem apartments in
Alamogordo could be tricker than expected because of asbestos.
The Alamogordo Daily News reports, an inspection revealed the
hazardous substance in nearly every area of the Sahara Apartments
on Cuba Street.

Neighbors have been complaining about the site for years. The
building was condemned in 2010 following flooding, then further
damaged by fires in 2014 and 2015.

The city manager says the city will now have to hire a specially
certified contractor to handle the demolition to comply with EPA
standards.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Fined EUR50K Over Worker's Asbestos Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Heylin of Irish Examiner reported that a Cork company has
been fined EUR50,000 for exposing workers to the risk of inhaling
asbestos fibres during demolition works at an office building in
Mallow.

At Cork Circuit Criminal Court, Leeside Cut & Core Contractors,
of Blackhill, Fivemile Bridge, Ballinhassig, Co Cork, pleaded
guilty to two charges.

The first was that between January 21 and February 6, 2015, at an
office building at Gould's Hill, Mallow, Co Cork, it failed to
ensure the safety, health, and welfare at work of employees.

This was because it failed to manage the demolition work at the
premises in circumstances where there were asbestos-containing
materials present and that demolition work was being carried out
in an uncontrolled fashion causing damage to the asbestos-
containing ceiling tiles and floor tiles on the premises, thereby
exposing employees to the risk of inhaling asbestos fibres.

The second plea of guilty was to the related charge of failing to
carry out a risk assessment.

Leeside Cut & Core Contractors pleaded guilty to two counts
related to the asbestos and was fined at Cork Circuit Criminal
Court.

Judge Sean O Donnabhain said: "This is quite an alarming case.
There is nobody -- be that judge or labourer -- who is not aware
of the dangers of being exposed to or working with asbestos.

"Yet this company in a cut and core job carried on nonchalantly
in the presence of asbestos. Asbestos dust is known about.

"It is not one of these hidden dangers. It is on the ceiling
[marked asbestos tiles] and all this dust is on the floor and
they started driving diggers on it."

Cian Cotter, defending, accepted employees and directors of the
company stayed on site after being alerted to the presence of
asbestos but said they only did so to make the site safe for
those commissioned to remove the asbestos.

The judge said he found the level of disregard "mind-boggling".
HSA inspector, Tom O'Sullivan, testified that the agency received
confidential information about work taking place at the office
building.

He said it was built in the 1970s and that a building of that
vintage would have asbestos.

He said there was a considerable amount of debris and it should
have been apparent to workers there that there was asbestos as
the ceiling tiles had an identifying asbestos marking.

"Once they became aware of asbestos, they should have stopped
their work," Mr O'Sullivan said.

Mr Cotter said their job was to remove partition walls and not to
interfere with ceiling tiles.

He said employees were informed about the presence of asbestos;
they were directed not to interfere with the ceiling tiles and
were given gloves and masks.

He said when the HSA told them it was a high-risk premises, the
defendant company fully co-operated in every way and complied
with all requirements of them.

The judge said if EUR5,000 was paid within a year, an application
could be made to pay the remainder of the fine on an annual basis
over 10 years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bowling Club Site Fenced Off for Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
St George and Sutherland Shire Leader reported that Georges River
Council has taken actions to protect residents and the
environment by containing the former Oatley Bowling Club site,
and its surrounds, following the discovery of fragments of bonded
asbestos.

"Council monitoring has revealed that two of the retaining walls
at the site have deteriorated and the slight movement of material
containing asbestos," a council spokesperson said.

"Council has obtained independent scientific advice, which has
confirmed that the material currently does not pose a significant
risk of harm to human health or the environment, including the
adjoining Myles Dunphy Reserve.

"However, in order to ensure it does not spread beyond the site
boundary, Council has erected a fence around the entire perimeter
to prevent access until such time that the asbestos can be
further managed.

"Council takes the matter of asbestos very seriously and will
continue to work to ensure the material does not pose any risk to
the community or the adjoining Myles Dunphy Reserve.

"Council appreciates the community's cooperation during this time
and asks that residents refrain from accessing the site while
ever the fence remains."





                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *