CAR_Public/180518.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, May 18, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 100



                            Headlines


7 MARKET PLACE: "Moran" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Withheld Tips
7-ELEVEN INC: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Munoz Says
ABILITY RECOVERY: "German" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
ACCELERATED RECEIVABLES: Obtains Favorable Ruling in FDCPA Case
ADA PRODUCTS: Faces "Nikolovski" Suit in N.D. Illinois

ALABAMA: Thompson, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
AMP: Quinn Emanuel Mulls Shareholder Class Action
ARKANSAS UTILITY: "Milam" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over $2.7-Bil. Pink Batts Scheme
BMW BANK: Court Granted Amended Motion to Seal

BRAMBLES: Slater and Gordon Files Investor Class Action
BRANCH BANKING: Lee Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
BRIGHTER INC: New Concept Dental Sues over Unsolicited Ads
C & C ENTERPRISES: Keshner Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
C & V 77: "Tapia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA

CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: Comforte Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
CAPITAL SOURCE: Faces "Nikolovski" Suit in N.D. Illinois
CARECENTRIX INC: "Deluca" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
CENTRAL BUS SERVICE: "Johnson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
CHURCH AND DWIGHT: Faces "Patton" Suit in C.D. California

CIRCUITRY RECYCLING: No Opt-out Provision on Faxed Ads, Says Suit
CITYWIDE TRANSMISSIONS: Rosario Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
CLUB CLIMAXXX: Court Denied Certification of Exotic Dancers Class
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says
COMPASS GROUP: Hawkins Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA

CONTINENTAL SERVICE: "Davis" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA
CROWN INTERNATIONAL: Jackson Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
DITECH FINANCIAL: Charges Borrowers Improper Fees, Rodriguez Says
DR. PEPPER: "Newman" Suit Seeks to Block Keurig Merger
DRILL CUTTINGS: Technicians Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA

EAGLE DINER: "Flores" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages
XCELIGENT INC: "Borchers" Data Breach Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
FORT WAYNE, IN: "See" Amended Class Certification Bid Denied
GLOBAL CREDIT: Certification of Settlement Class Sought
GOOSEBUMPS INC: "Meggs" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA

GW: Faces Class Action Over Expensive Retirement Plans
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Website not Deaf-Accessible, "Conner" Suit Says
HEALTH INSURANCE: Foote Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
HKGDJ INC: Park Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
HOHLA & WYSS: Arp Asks Court to Approve Notice to Employees

HONG HOLDINGS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Madrigal Says
HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Farmer Files Suit Over Faulty Hip Implant
IDAHO: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Public Defense System
INCLUSION SERVICES: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Williams Says
ISAIA CORP: "Fischler" Suit Says Website not Blind-accessible

ITG INC: Class Certification Sought in "Mauthe" Suit
JOHN DOES: Levy Sues Over Volatility Index Derivative Rigging
JOHNNY MORALES: Bid to Designate Class Action Denied as Moot
K & S GLATT: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
KNORR-BREMSE AG: Faces "Carson" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania

LINDE CORP: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LIPOCINE INC: July 2 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LITTLE BROTHERS: Fails to Pay All Wages Earned, Medina Says
LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Certifies Landlord & Renter Classes
M & J ASPHALT: Roman, et al. Seek to Notify Class Members

MCDONALD'S CORP: "Magee" Class Certification Bid Denied
MDL 2804: City of Lynn Joins Opioid Epidemic Class Action
MED ONE MOBILE: "Johnston" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MENARD INC: "Astarita" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces "Oppenheim" Suit in C.D. California

MICRO FOCUS: Johnson Fistel Probes Potential Securities Claims
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Cooper" Suit in M.D. Georgia
MIZUHO BANK: Justice to Recover Losses in Cryptocurrency Fraud
MOKSHA HOTELS: Hotel Employees Seek to Recoup Unpaid OT Wages
MR. HOMECARE: "Leonard" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

NATIONAL CONGRESS: Bilek Sues over Robocalls
NEPTUNE OYSTER: Website not Blind Accessible, "Conner" Suit Says
NEXEN CORP: Hegedus et al. Seek Conditional Class Certification
OHIO ELDERLY: Adams Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
PARAGON SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Thomas Says

PASCHALL TRUCK LINES: Drivers' Labor Suit Transferred to W.D. Ky.
PAT'S SELECT: Workers Seek to Recoup Minimum Wages, Reimbursement
PAUL J. HOOTEN: Faces "Burgos" Suit in E.D. New York
PIZZA HUT: "Ramm" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Siskinds Reaches $36MM Class Settlement

POTJANEE INC: Delivery Staff Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Withheld Tips
PRIME CAPITAL: Faces "Nikolovski" Suit in N.D. Illinois
PROST LLC: Fails to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked, Acosta Says
PURDUE PHARMA: Canadian Doctors Call for Opioid Investigation
RENT-A-CENTER: "Blair" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass

SCHAEFER AUTOBODY: Hubbard, Farmer Seek Conditional Certification
SCI DIRECT: Sales Reps Seek Minimum Wages, Reimbursements
SHIFTPIXY INC: Johnson Fistel Probes Potential Securities Claims
SIRIUS XM: Bell Sues over Lifetime Subscriptions
SMILE BRANDS: "DeForest" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls

SPINNAKER RESORTS: Cardenas Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: "Sebastian" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
STEPHEN EINSTEIN: "Cole" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA
TA OPERATING: Faces "Salcedo" Suit in California State Court
TENET FLORIDA: MSPA to Appeal Case Dismissal to 11th Cir.

TEZOS: Co-Founder Faces FINRA Fine Amid Class Actions
TRUECOVERAGE LLC: Dudley Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Fodge Sues Over Excessive Interest Rates
UNITED STATES: "Broussard" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
UNITED STATES: Faces "Purnell" Suit in N.D. Mississippi

VIVID SEATS: Sold Overpriced Tickets, "Giesea" Suit Says
WAGEWORKS INC: "Hadden" Suit Hits Share Price Drop
WALLE CORPORATION: Brumfield Seeks to Certify Class
WESTERN REFINING: Fails to Pay All Wages, Dilworth Claims
WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Underfills Pre-Workout Product, Lopez Says

XUNLEI: Faces Class Action Over Initial Coin Offering


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,200 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto's Unit Still Defends Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Faces 820 Active Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Had 8 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 140 Injury Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 215 Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $489-Mil. Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Action vs. Johnson & Johnson Underway
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Had 17 Asbestos Claims at Jan. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 59 Cases at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: UPS Injurious Asbestos Exposure Finding Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Summary Judgment Re-Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remand of "Templet" to State Court Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. CBS Dismissed in "Airey"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Gilmore" PI Suit Dismissed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Review Daubert Rulings in "Ahnert"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Flip DOL Refusal of EEOICPA Benefits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mall Development Halted by Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tests Find Asbestos in Shuttered Apt. Complex
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Immunotherapy Brings Hope for Exposure Victims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Giant N.M. Apartment Complex
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Technician Sues PSA Corp. for Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers at Norfolk Shipyard Urged to File Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dispute Over Asbestos Lawsuit Fees to Continue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Convicted for APCO Violations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Can't Escape Alter Ego in ERISA Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Knowingly Exposed Employees to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rulings Offer Hope to Cancer Sufferers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MPP Bob Bailey Pushes for Asbestos Ban
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Corrigan Hall Not Present Danger

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Panama City Hall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rejects Attempts to Avoid Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mafefe Asbestos Road Replaced
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found After Garbage Truck Smash
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped in Clitheroe Country Lane

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter's 2nd-Hand Exposure Claim Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woodburn Workers, Students Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyer Wants $5MM Asbestos Verdict Overturned
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Likely to Decide NYC Asbestos Ct. Future
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Ct. Issues Key Ruling on Take-Home Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wollongong Recycling Scandal Spreads to Homes




                            *********


7 MARKET PLACE: "Moran" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Withheld Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Agustin Garcia Moran, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 7 Market Place, Inc. and HEIDI
KIM, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02498 (S.D. N.Y., March 20,
2018), seeks to recover, withheld tips and overtime wages, unpaid
minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York
Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 707 2nd
Ave, New York, NY 10016 under the name "7 Market Place" where
Moran worked as a delivery person. However, he was required to
spend a considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped
duties. Moran worked without appropriate minimum wage
compensation for the hours that he worked and overtime pay, says
the complaint. Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit
because Moran's non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday,
it adds. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


7-ELEVEN INC: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Munoz Says
------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARDO MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., a Texas corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03893 (C.D. Cal., May 9, 2018),
seeks to obtain redress for, and put an end to, Defendant's
serial violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically
its failure to provide lawful notices and disclosures to its job
applicants and employees as well as its failure to provide
applicants and employees with notice and an opportunity to
respond prior to undertaking adverse action against them.

In 7-Eleven's case, the Defendant fails to provide its applicants
or employees with a standalone disclosure and authorization that
clearly and conspicuously indicates in a document consisting
solely of the disclosure that Defendant may obtain a consumer
report about them for employment purposes. First, the Defendant
provides a single disclosure combining both the disclosure
required for a standard consumer report as well as disclosures
required for an investigative consumer report, including details
regarding the nature and scope of any investigation such that the
disclosure overwhelms the consumer report disclosure. The
disclosure and authorization also contain additional extraneous
information about Sterling Talent Solutions and summaries of FCRA
rights, as well as additional language purporting to authorize
the preparation of reports by Sterling Talent Solutions. The
authorization also purports to give consent to any party or
agency contacted by 7-Eleven, Inc. to furnish information to it,
and contains acknowledgements that the consumer has read and
understood the disclosure and that they may have any employment
offer revoked if "unacceptable information is found in an
investigative background inquiry or consumer report. The
disclosure cannot be considered standalone.

7-Eleven is a Japanese-owned American international chain of
convenience stores, headquartered in Irving, Texas. The chain was
known as Tote'm Stores until it was renamed in 1946.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Edwardo Munoz
and the Classes:

          Mike Arias, Esq.
          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844 9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861 0168
          E-mail: mike@asstlawyers.com
                  alfredo@asstlawyers.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213 0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927 0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                  tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


ABILITY RECOVERY: "German" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------
Shabrina German, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ability Recovery Services, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-60624, (S.D. Fla., March 24, 2018),
seeks redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

German allegedly owes Phoenix Emergency Medicine which was then
transferred to Pendrick Capital Partners and was then transferred
to Ability Recovery. The latter attempted to collect the said
debt via a collection letter that did not advise Plaintiff that
the debt is in fact time-barred or that making a payment towards
the consumer debt will revive the statute of limitations and
failed to advise that agreeing to any "settlement offer," the
current-creditor could then sue Plaintiff for the full amount of
the consumer debt that was previously time-barred. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
       THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
       110 SE 6th Street
       Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
       Telephone: (954) 907-1136
       Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
       Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


ACCELERATED RECEIVABLES: Obtains Favorable Ruling in FDCPA Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACA International reports that the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska ruled in favor of the accounts receivable
management industry April 20 in the case of Robinson v.
Accelerated Receivables Solutions (A.R.S.), Inc. and David W.
Brostrom, 17-00056, 2018 WL ------- (D.Neb. April 19, 2018).  The
key issues in Robinson were:

   1. Whether Nebraska law allows for the recovery of attorney
fees or interest when suing to collect medical debt; and

   2. Whether Nebraska law allows a collection agency to seek and
recover an award of attorney's fees when such fees are incurred
by its in-house counsel.

The federal district court in Nebraska held that under Nebraska
statute creditors and their assignees are entitled to request
attorney fees and interest on claims for "services rendered" and
"material furnished," which includes unpaid debt for medical
services and supplies.  The district court reasoned that
regardless of how the collection agency characterized its claim
in the state court debt collection action as one for "services
and supplies" rather than as "an action on account," the medical
"debts at issue were incurred for services rendered or materials
furnished" and, therefore, fell within the scope of the Nebraska
law allowing the collection agency to request an award of
interest and attorney fees.

The district court also found that there is "no basis for
disallowing attorney's fees under [Nebraska statute] by reason of
[the collection agency's] employment of in-house counsel."  In
doing so, the district court rejected the consumer's argument
that the collection agency was acting like "a law firm suing pro
se, and attorney fees are not recoverable by pro se litigants,
even those who are attorneys." [Editor's note:  When a litigant
proceeds without legal counsel, they are said to be proceeding
"on one's own behalf" or "pro se."]  The district court explained
that while "pro se litigants cannot recover attorney's fees,"
there is no legal reason to define the collection agency as a
"pro se law firm."

In Robinson, the collection agency sought to collect payment from
the consumer for unpaid medical bills.  Through its in-house
counsel, the agency filed a lawsuit in county court against the
consumer seeking recovery of the debt, along with an award of
pre-judgment interest and attorney's fees allowed under Nebraska
state law.  The consumer responded by filing a class action Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and Nebraska Consumer Protection
Act lawsuit against the agency.  The consumer did so to try to
end-around common practice in Nebraska in which collection
agencies routinely request state law authorized pre-judgment
interest and attorney's fees.

Since the collection of pre-judgment interest is an important and
integral part of ACA International member businesses, ACA filed
an amicus brief in the Robinson case on February 13, 2018.  ACA
submitted the "friend of the court" brief to support its member's
case, and to provide assistance and insight to the federal
district court in Nebraska with respect to how the issues raised
in Robinson have potential impact well beyond Nebraska.  ACA
asserted that if the district court were to embrace the
consumer's arguments in Robinson it would "subject [the
collection agency] to liability for following a practice that
many prior judicial precedents had authorized.  To impose
liability under these circumstances would violate
[constitutional] due process.  This Court should . . . apply the
law in the same way that the Nebraska state courts have applied
it for decades."

ACA is encouraged that this important decision will positively
impact its members' ability to seek and collect payment of
interest and attorney's fees to which they are entitled.  And had
the consumer's claims in Robinson been left unchallenged, the
consumer's counsel would be emboldened to continue developing a
cottage industry of pursuing identical class actions lawsuits
against various collection agencies and their in-house counsel
throughout Nebraska on the same theories. [GN]


ADA PRODUCTS: Faces "Nikolovski" Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ADA Products
Company, Inc. The case is captioned as Chris Nikolovski, and
Chris Nikolovski D.D.S., P.C. a Illinois corporation,
individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons and entities, the Plaintiffs, v. ADA Products
Company, Inc., also known as: Dental Health Products, Inc. and
also known as: DHPI, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03087 (N.D.
Ill., April 30, 2018).  The case is Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman.

Ada Products Company, Inc. was incorporated in February, 2002, as
an independently owned and operated Company. The Company's
mainstay products, marketed by the Block Drug Company (now
GlaxoSmithKline) and include AdaMount (TM) Radiograph Mounts;
Mynol (TM) Articulating Paper; and, Mynol (TM) Endodontic
Products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          Ahmad Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575 8181
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
                  ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
                  mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                  osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com


ALABAMA: Thompson, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TREVA THOMPSON, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
JOHN H. MERRILL, in his official capacity as Secretary of State,
et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00783-WKW-CSC (M.D.
Ala.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify class and
subclasses pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(2) and appoint the
Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.

The Class is defined as:

   "all persons otherwise eligible to register to vote in Alabama
   who are now, or who may in the future be, denied the right to
   vote pursuant to Section 177(b) because of a conviction for a
   felony "involving moral turpitude" as defined by section (c)
   of Alabama Code Section 17-3-30.1."

The subclasses are defined as:

   "all persons otherwise eligible to register to vote in Alabama
   who were convicted of a felony "involving moral turpitude" as
   defined by section (c) of Alabama Code Section 17-3-30.1
   before August 1, 2017 but are unable to register to vote
   pursuant to Defendant Merrill's retroactive implementation of
   Alabama Code Section 17-3-30.1 to individuals with prior
   convictions"; and

   "all persons otherwise eligible to register to vote in Alabama
   who (1) are now, or who may in the future be, denied the right
   to vote pursuant to Section 177(b) because of a conviction for
   a felony "involving moral turpitude" as defined by section (c)
   of Alabama Code Section 17-3-30.1; and (2) are unable to pay
   their fines, fees, and/or restitution due to their
   socioeconomic status; but (3) are otherwise eligible to apply
   for a CERV.

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

Counsel for Plaintiffs

          Danielle Lang, Esq.
          J. Gerald Hebert, Esq.
          Mark P. Gaber, Esq.
          CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER
          1411 K Street NW, Suite 1400
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 736 2200
          E-mail: dlang@campaignlegalcenter.org
                  ghebert@campaignlegalcenter.org
                  mgaber@campaignlegalcenter.org

               - and -

          J. Mitch McGuire, Esq.
          MCGUIRE & ASSOCIATES LLC
          31 Clayton Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 517 1000
          E-mail: jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com

               - and -

          James U. Blacksher, Esq.
          P.O. Box 636
          Birmingham, AL 35201
           (205) 591-7238
          E-mail: jblacksher@ns.sympatico.ca

               - and -

          Jessica Ring Amunson, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          1099 New York Ave. NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 736 6000
          E-mail: jamunson@jenner.com

               - and -

          Pamela Karlan, Esq.
          STANFORD LAW SCHOOL
          559 Nathan Abbott Way
          Stanford, CA 94305
          Telephone: (650) 725 4851
          E-mail: karlan@stanford.edu

               - and -

          Aderson B. Francois, Esq.
          INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER
          600 New Jersey Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662 6721
          E-mail: abf48@georgetown.edu

               - and -

          Armand Derfner, Esq.
          DERFNER & ALTMAN
          575 King Street, Suite B
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 723 9804
          E-mail: aderfner@derfneraltman.com

Counsel for Defendants:

          Andrew Lynn Brasher, Esq.
          Brad A. Chynoweth, Esq.
          James William Davis, Esq.
          Laura Elizabeth Howell, Esq.
          Misty Shawn Fairbanks Messick, Esq.
          Winfield James Sinclair, Esq.
          STATE OF ALABAMA OFFICE
          OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          501 Washington Avenue
          Montgomery, AL 36130
          Telephone: (334) 353 2690
          Facsimile: (334) 242 4891
          E-mail: abrasher@ago.state.al.us
                  bchynoweth@ago.state.al.us
                  jimdavis@ago.state.al.us
                  lhowell@ago.state.al.us
                  mmessick@ago.state.al.us
                  wsinclair@ago.state.al.us


AMP: Quinn Emanuel Mulls Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Alice Uribe, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan is mulling a
possible class action against financial services giant AMP, which
has admitted cheating customers.

The global firm said it had already secured the backing of
litigation financer Burford Capital -- the world's largest
provider of litigation finance.

"The conduct admitted at the Royal Commission is starkly at odds
with AMP's responsibilities and shareholders' legitimate
expectations, requiring redress so that AMP's shareholders can
recover the value that has been lost," Burford managing director
Craig Arnott said.

AMP shares shed more than $1 billion in market value following
damning evidence presented to the financial services royal
commission.  The wealth giant's head of financial advice Anthony
'Jack' Regan admitted the company had misled the corporate
watchdog, and its chief executive Craig Meller resigned on April
20.

Financial planning fees at AMP more than doubled after new laws
were introduced to ban unreasonable fees charged by financial
planners, the royal commission heard.

Mr Meller wrote to all the group's licensed advisers to offer
them a personal apology and promise further support for the
queries they are receiving from clients.

"The revelations of AMP's misconduct are especially upsetting
given the people who were hurt -- the ordinary mums and dads who
as shareholders gave AMP one of Australia's largest shareholder
registers, who have now lost their savings due to its dishonesty,
and who as customers were charged for services AMP has admitted
they never received, all so executives could make hefty bonuses,"
Quinn Emanuel partner Damian Scattini said in a statement on
April 23.

Mr Scattini said Quinn Emanuel had been investigating AMP's share
price declines before the most recent revelations of misconduct

Quinn Emanuel is the largest law firm globally dealing with
business litigation and arbitration, according to its website.

AMP's head of advice compliance Sarah Britt is expected to front
the banking royal commission on April 23 over the provision of
inappropriate financial advice.  Her evidence will follow that of
BT's national head of advice Michael Wright and ANZ's head of
aligned dealer groups Darren Whearat.

AMP admitted to the royal commission it had on multiple occasions
lied to the corporate regulator and charged clients fees for no
service. [GN]


ARKANSAS UTILITY: "Milam" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
CALVIN MILAM, EVERETT HORTON, DAVID BRUCE, and STEVEN TRUJILLO,
Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, v. ARKANSAS UTILITY PROTECTION, SERVICES, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00312-BSM (E.D. Ark., May 10,
2018), seeks to declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to
pay Plaintiffs and other Damage Prevention Specialists lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendant
as Damage Prevention Specialists. The Plaintiffs and other Damage
Prevention Specialists regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week throughout their tenure with Defendant. The Plaintiffs and
other Damage Prevention Specialists were classified as hourly
employees and paid an hourly rate. The Plaintiff and other Damage
Prevention Specialists were also paid nondiscretionary cash
awards and bonuses on a regular basis when certain objective and
measurable criteria were met.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over $2.7-Bil. Pink Batts Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Rudd government's $2.7
billion pink batts scheme was music to the ears of home
insulation businesses, but left scores financially devastated
when it was abruptly shutdown.

More than 140 of those businesses have joined a class action,
seeking about $150 million in damages from the Commonwealth of
Australia.

They suffered heavy losses when the program was shut down for
safety reasons as a result of the government's negligence, the
class action claims.

"This program was part of a larger economic stimulus package in
response to the global financial crisis," the class action's
barrister Jim Delany QC told the Victorian Supreme Court as the
trial opened on April 23.

"But when the Commonwealth abruptly terminated the program, it
actually created a financial crisis for the group members, from
which many were unable to recover."

The 2009 Rudd government set up the $2.7 billion Home Insulation
Program as part of a broader $42 billion economic stimulus
package.

But it was shut down in 2010 following the deaths of four workers
in NSW and Queensland in 2009 and 2010.

Mr Delany said the market for retrofitting homes with insulation
totalled less than 70,000 homes annually before the scheme.

But the program promised to fit 2.2 million homes over a two-year
period, representing about a 15-fold increase in demand.

"It was a new market which the Commonwealth created and
controlled," Mr Delany said.

"They knew that for this program to work there would be an
exponential increase in the volume of materials and the rate of
installation."

The plaintiffs say businesses took on staff, expanded production
and invested in new machinery and other equipment to meet demand.

But Mr Delaney said the Commonwealth's program was poorly
designed and didn't have enough safety measures in place.

"The work generally involved older houses where there was exposed
electrical wiring, very poor lighting, confined spaces," he said.

"The Commonwealth was warned early by industry bodies of the
electrical risks of the program and the risk to installer
safety."

Many of the homes lacked electrical safety switches, making
conditions more dangerous.

A royal commission in 2014 found that the deaths would not have
occurred if the scheme had been properly designed and
implemented.

Class action lawyers said many businesses were forced into
liquidation when the program was cancelled.

"Many invested their life savings to be part of the program, only
to have the rug pulled out from under them when the HIP was
terminated, virtually overnight," ACA Lawyers principal Steven
Lewis said.

The trial, before Justice John Dixon, is expected to last six
weeks. [GN]


BMW BANK: Court Granted Amended Motion to Seal
----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CITY SELECT AUTO SALES, INC., individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. BMW BANK OF NORTH AMERICA,
INC., BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, and CREDITSMARTS
CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-04595-NLH-JS (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Noel L. Hillman entered an order May 10, 2018:

   1. granting Plaintiff's amended motion to seal;

   2. denying as moot Plaintiff's original motion to seal; and

   3. directing that the Court reserves the authority to modify
      or vacate this Order if, at later stages of the proceedings
      in this matter and related matters, the public interest in
      access to the sealed materials outweighs the interest in
      confidentiality.

The Court is funded by the public and does not sit, in general,
to resolve private disputes in secret. Any modification or
lifting of an Order to Seal will be done on notice and with an
opportunity to be heard.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SOomA3Px


BRAMBLES: Slater and Gordon Files Investor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Darren Gray, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
law firm Slater and Gordon has announced a proposed class action
lawsuit against the supply chain logistics company Brambles,
alleging the company made misleading and deceptive
representations to the market and that it also breached its
obligations of continuous disclosure.

In a statement released on April 23, the class action law firm
alleged Brambles had misled investors about its future profits
and "cannibalised" its fiscal 2017 growth.

Slater and Gordon senior associate Andrew Paull said investors in
Brambles lost millions of dollars after the company revised its
profit guidance in January and February 2017.

Brambles operates in more than 60 countries around the globe and
has a market capitalisation of almost $15.3 billion.

Mr Paull said the costs associated with the supply chain
logistics company's strong growth in fiscal 2016 effectively
cannibalised the company's growth in the following financial
year.

"Brambles had been enjoying a steady rate of growth for a number
of years, but in fiscal 2016 its revenue and earnings grew at
double the historical rate," Mr Paull said.

Brambles has a conundrum, particularly in the US. Amazon and
others are upending traditional models and its putting downward
pressure on margins.

Brambles flags $200m one-off fillip from Trump cuts but no
material change to its tax rate

"This growth occurred after Brambles allowed a large number of
its pallets to be used to transport goods to companies outside
its regular distribution channels.  Brambles could charge a
premium for this, which increased revenue, but they also lost
visibility over the whereabouts of their pallets, which
significantly increased collection and repair costs," he said.

"Brambles was telling the market that its fiscal 2016 sales
growth of 8 per cent and profit growth of 9 per cent was the 'new
normal' and could be expected into the future.  We are alleging
Brambles knew its increased costs would make future growth at the
fiscal 2016 rate impossible and they failed to account for that
in their fiscal 2017 forecast," he said.

The law firm said that on 18 August 2016 Brambles released its
fiscal 2016 results, as well as guidance for fiscal 2017.  This
guidance estimated sales revenue growth of between 7-9 nine per
cent, and underlying profit growth between 9-11 per cent.
Slater and Gordon said this guidance was "reiterated" later that
year, at the company's annual general meeting in November 2016.
But Slater and Gordon said that in January 2017 Brambles released
a trading update, and "withdrew" its fiscal 2017 guidance.
The law firm also said Brambles advised that "it was expecting
2017 first half constant-currency sales revenue growth of
approximately 5 per cent and underlying profit growth of
approximately 3 per cent; and full year sales revenue and
underlying profit growth was expected to be 'below its current
guidance range".

Slater and Gordon said that on 20 February 2017 Brambles gave
another trading update, in which it revised its fiscal 2017
guidance, forecasting constant currency revenue growth in line
with 2017 first half, "and for underlying profit to be flat to
fiscal 2016 (i.e. 0 per cent growth)".  The Brambles update also
gave more information about the factors behind the fiscal 2017
downgrade.

"We've received a pretty clear and strong message from the
investing community that they feel that Brambles has fallen short
of its disclosure obligations in this case.  Particularly for a
company of its size and value, they would expect better
disclosure practices," he said.

In a statement to the ASX Brambles said it had "not received any
formal communication, nor has it been served with any proceeding
and so is not able to comment further.  However, Brambles
strongly believes that it has at all times complied with its
continuous disclosure and other regulatory obligations.  Brambles
therefore intends to vigorously defend any action if filed."
[GN]


BRANCH BANKING: Lee Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH LEE, JEORGE IRIZARRY, SHARON MONTMIMY, and BEN NEWMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY; and CONVERGENCE
MARKETING LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-21876-RNS (S.D.
Fla., May 10, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
making unsolicited telemarketing calls to the telephones of
consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons
injured by their conduct.

Defendant BB&T is a large regional bank with 2,100 retail branch
locations. In an effort to solicit potential and former
customers, BB&T recruited, or employed call centers, including
Defendant Convergence, to place telephone calls, en masse, to
consumers across the country. On information and belief,
Defendants and or their agents purchase "leads" containing
consumers' contact information and create electronic databases
from which Defendants make automated calls. BB&T also contacted,
through Convergence, former customers who had closed their
accounts years ago in an attempt to win back their business.

Convergence, on behalf of BB&T, conducted wide scale
telemarketing campaigns and repeatedly made unsolicited calls to
consumers' telephones -- whose numbers appear on the National Do
Not Call Registry -- without consent, all in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

By making the telephone calls at issue in this Complaint,
Defendants caused Plaintiffs and the members of a putative Class
of consumers actual harm, including the aggravation, nuisance,
and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt
of unsolicited and harassing telephone calls, as well as the
monies paid to their carriers for the receipt of such telephone
calls.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Raymond Dieppa, Esq.
          FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
          14 Northeast First Avenue Suite 1001
          Miami, Florida 33132
          Telephone: (305) 901 2209
          Facsimile: (786) 870 4030

               - and -

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
          Galleria Tower I
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 554 2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995 3335
          E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
                  craft@hughesellzey.com


BRIGHTER INC: New Concept Dental Sues over Unsolicited Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
NEW CONCEPT DENTAL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRIGHTER, INC.; DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendant(s), Case No. 2:18-cv-03900
(C.D. Cal., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover 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 via "telephone facsimile machine"
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
causing Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to incur the
costs of receiving unsolicited advertisement messages via
"telephone facsimile machines" and invading their privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around March of 2017,
the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's telephone
facsimile number ending in -8083, in an effort to sell or solicit
its services. The Defendant contacted Plaintiff via facsimile
from telephone numbers that belong to Defendant. Defendant's
facsimile transmissions to Plaintiff constituted an invasion of
privacy to properly conduct business. The Defendant contacted
Plaintiff between on or around March of 2017 in an effort to
solicit its business.

Brighter, Inc. provides a platform that connects patients,
providers, and payers.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, 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
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


C & C ENTERPRISES: Keshner Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA KESHNER, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. C & C ENTERPRISES OF SI, LLC d/b/a
THE HOP SHOPPE, CRAIG REGINA, and CARMINE GUALTIERI, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02806 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York
State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, beginning on or about April 17, 2017
and continuing through on or about January 14, 2018, the
Plaintiff worked five days per week, and her work schedule
consisted of eight and three-quarter hours per day on Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday, and Sunday from 10:45 a.m. until 7:30 p.m.; and
nine hours on Saturday from 5:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. During this
period, the Plaintiff continued to work additional days or shifts
to cover for co-workers who could not or did not show up for
work. Thus, during this period Plaintiff normally worked 44 hours
per week (and sometimes more). During this period of time,
Plaintiff was not paid proper minimum wages and overtime
compensation. During this period, Plaintiff was paid, partly by
check and partly in cash, at the rate of $7.50 per hour straight
time for all hours worked, and worked 44 hours per week (an
sometimes more). Work performed above 40 hours per week was not
paid at the statutory rate of time and one-half as required by
state and federal law.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third A venue - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209 3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209 7102
          E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


C & V 77: "Tapia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO FUENTES TAPIA, ISRAEL CRISPIN BAQUIAX CASIA, SAMUEL
SANTOS MENDOZA, and SEBASTIAN BENEDICTO PASTOR HERNANDEZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. C & V 77 ENTERPRISES, LLC (D/B/A GREEN KITCHEN),
VASILI KARABATSOS, and CONSTANTINE KASIMIS, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-04210 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants. The Defendants
own, operate, or control a diner, located at 1477 First Avenue,
New York, NY 10075 under the name "Green Kitchen". The Plaintiffs
were employed as delivery workers and dishwashers at the
restaurant located at 1477 First Avenue, New York, NY 10075. 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
dishwashing, taking out the trash, preparing, peeling and boiling
potatoes, bringing out plates, cleaning bathrooms, cleaning the
kitchen, washing the hot broiler with cleaning chemicals,
cleaning the walls, sweeping and mopping, unloading sodas and
drinks, bringing chairs from the basement to the restaurant,
cleaning the front and the street and preparing salads hereafter.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiffs worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hour's compensation for the
hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay
Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread
of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours
a day. 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,
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. 12 N.Y. C.R.R.
section 146.

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 above the tip-credit rate, but below
the minimum wage. Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs
to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants
maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and
other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without
providing the minimum wage and overtime 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
          E-mail: Faillace@emplyomentcompliance.com


CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: Comforte Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor James Comforte, II and Brendan Michael Carr, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg and John and
Jane Does 1-100, Case No. 18-cv-02120, (N.D. Ill., March 22,
2018), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory
damages pursuant to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of
1986, Stored Communications Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Practices Act.

Cambridge is privately held company that has been actively
engaged in data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis.
Facebook Inc. is a publically-traded social media company with
Mark Zuckerberg as CEO.

Plaintiffs are registered voters in the North District of
Illinois. They allege that the Defendants engaged in data mining,
data brokerage, and data analysis for the purpose of influencing
the 2016 electoral process, using the personal information of
millions of Facebook users to influence the 2016 United States
presidential election. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Vlahakis, Esq.
      Joseph Davidson, Esq.
      SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
      2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
      Lombard, IL 60148
      Tel: (630) 581-5456
      Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
             jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com


CAPITAL SOURCE: Faces "Nikolovski" Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Source
Lending, LLC. The case is captioned as Chris Nikolovski, as the
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons and
entities, and Chris Nikolovski D.D.S., P.C., an Illinois
corporation, the Plaintiffs, v. Capital Source Lending, LLC, also
known as: CSI doing business as: Lending Biz Solutions, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03086 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2018).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman.

CapitalSource Finance LLC provides commercial loans to small and
middle-market businesses in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          Ahmad Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575 8181
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
                  ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
                  mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                  osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com


CARECENTRIX INC: "Deluca" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Deluca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Carecentrix, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-04135 (D. N.J., March 23, 2018), seeks damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

CareCentrix -- https://www.carecentrix.com/ -- is into technology
and analytics for patient care for health plans. It attempted to
contact Deluca using an automated dialing system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      Yana A. Hart, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26
      Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com
             yana@westcoastlitigation.com

             - and -

      Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq.
      DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE PC
      315 Madison Avenue 3rd Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (646) 979-3642
      Email: rschmierer@denittislaw.com

             - and -

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com


CENTRAL BUS SERVICE: "Johnson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rashid Johnson, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Central Bus Service OF NJ, LLC., (a/k/a
Central Bus Service LLC), Jay's Bus Service, Inc., Mayer Gindoff,
Individually and Jay Elinson, individually, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv- 04292 (D. N.J., March 26, 2018), seeks recovery of unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Johnson performed non-exempt mechanic duties for Defendants'
privately-owned school bus service from their location in
Lakewood, Ocean County, NJ. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
             AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com


CHURCH AND DWIGHT: Faces "Patton" Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Church and Dwight
Co., Inc. The case is captioned as Crishanda Patton, an
individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Church and Dwight Co., Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00903-MWF-KK (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2018). The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.

Church & Dwight Co, Inc. is a major American manufacturer of
household products that is based in Ewing, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Kelsey M Szamet, Esq.
          KINGSLEY AND KINGSLEY APC
          16133 Ventura Boulevard Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN PLC
          21900 Burbank Boulevard 3rd Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 992 2925
          Facsimile: (818) 975 5525
          E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com


CIRCUITRY RECYCLING: No Opt-out Provision on Faxed Ads, Says Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oren Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Circuitry Recycling, LP,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-60591 (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2018),
seeks statutory damages for each unsolicited facsimile
advertisements sent to the Plaintiff that do not contain the
legally required opt-out language in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Circuitry Recycling offers the removal of computers and
electronics in exchange for the right to keep them. Their faxed
advertisement failed to contain an opt-out notice stating that
the recipient may make a request to the sender not to send any
future faxes and that failure to comply with the request within
30 days is unlawful, says the Plaintiff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
      Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
      SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
      434 Skinner Blvd., #206
      Dunedin, FL 34698
      Tel: (305) 323-6433
      Email: shawn@sjlawcollective.com
             josh@sjlawcollective.com

             - and -

      Peter Bennett, Esq.
      Richard Bennett, Esq.
      BENNETT & BENNETT
      1200 Anastasia Ave., Office 360
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (305) 444-5925
      Email: peterbennettlaw@gmail.com
             richardbennett27@gmail.com


CITYWIDE TRANSMISSIONS: Rosario Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Rosario, the Plaintiff, v. Citywide Transmissions &
Clutches, Inc., and John Delostia, the Defendants, Case No. 7:18-
cv-04202 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
unlawful wage deductions, and unpaid overtime, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff sued the Defendants on behalf of himself and all
those similarly situated. The Defendants, individually and/or
jointly, employed six or more employees. The Plaintiff was
employed by Defendants from in or around August 2015 to on or
about April 27, 2018. The Plaintiff was individually and/or
jointly employed by Defendants as an auto body
mechanic/technician. The Plaintiff was paid at a regular rate of
$22.50 an hour and was not paid any wages for his overtime hours
(weekly hours over 40), worked each week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue, Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740 1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740 2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


CLUB CLIMAXXX: Court Denied Certification of Exotic Dancers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CORTNEY WALLACE, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
CLUB CLIMAXXX INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
22585-UU (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Ursula Ungaro entered an
order on May 10, 2018:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification
      of:

      "[a]ll current or former Exotic Dancers who worked for Club
      Rol-Lexx and/or Club Climaxxx, during the three years
      preceding the filing of this action, and who were not paid
      at least the minimum wage for all hours worked, and
      overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 hours, in each
      workweek, through and including the date of entry of
      judgment in this case";

   2. denying issuance of notice to potential class members.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AzBz8KhI


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASON CAMACHO AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF
NEW YORK, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03926-AJN (S.D.N.Y.,
May 1, 2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using
his computer.  Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and services
offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations,
is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973.[BN]

Columbia University, established in 1754, is a private Ivy League
research university in Upper Manhattan, New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb. Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: 212 879 0240
          Facsimile: 212 982 6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com


COMPASS GROUP: Hawkins Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Hawkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Compass Group USA, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01196-L (N.D. Tex., May 10, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Hawkins sues on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant
who worked as Route Drivers or Delivery Drivers in Texas for
Defendant, and who were not paid overtime premium pay by
Defendant for work hours over 40 in each workweek of the relevant
statutory time period.

The Plaintiff Hawkins worked for Defendant from around February
2016 through around July 2016, as a Route Driver. As one of
Defendant's business operations, Defendant operates throughout
Texas and other states under the assumed name Canteen Vending
Services. Defendant, in relevant part, provides product, and
services, vending machines at various commercial and residential
third-party locations. Hawkins worked for Defendant as a Route
Driver, refilling vending machines with snack products and
drinks. In addition to stocking his assigned vehicle with product
for his routes at Defendant's warehouse, Hawkins drove a daily
route in Dallas County and adjacent counties to the various
vending machines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kerry V. O'Brien, Esq.
          O'BRIEN LAW FIRM
          1011 Westlake Drive
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 410 1960
          Facsimile: (512) 410 6171
          E-mail: ko@obrienlawpc.com

               - and -

          Kay E. Goggin, Esq.
          GOGGIN LAW FIRM
          6440 N. Central Expy, Ste 804, LB 54
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (972) 437 1965
          Facsimile: (214) 520 9211
          E-mail: kay@gogginlaw.com


CONTINENTAL SERVICE: "Davis" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joann Davis, individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Continental Service Group, Inc.
and Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00676 (M.D. Fla., March
20, 2018), seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief as well as
their reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Continental is a debt collection agency assigned to collect an
alleged debt incurred by Davis to Hillsborough Community College.
It sent a collection letter that falsely stated that the creditor
assessed interest, and fees would be accruing and overshadowed
Plaintiff's right to dispute and/or validate the said debt, says
the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Zeig, Esq.
      ZEIG LAW FIRM LLC
      3475 Sheridan St., Suite 310
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Tel: (954) 217-3084
      Fax: (954) 272-7807
      Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


CROWN INTERNATIONAL: Jackson Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS JACKSON on behalf of himself individually, and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. CROWN INTERNATIONAL
SECURITY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01512 (S.D. Tex., May
10, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Crown International Security does not
pay their Security Guards overtime as required by the FLSA.
Instead, Crown International Security pays its Security Guards
straight time, not time and a half for overtime hours worked.
Crown International Security has a policy, enforced at all of its
locations throughout the United States, denying Plaintiffs and
putative class members compensation at time and a half, and
paying only straight time for hours worked above 40 per week.

Crown International Security is a domestic corporation with
locations throughout Texas and the United States. Crown can be
served with process through its owner, David Zigray at 9802 Forum
Park Drive No. 3236 Houston, Texas 77036.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
          THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
          3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
          Houston, TX 77054
          Telephone: (832) 778 8182
          Facsimile: (832) 778 8353
          E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


DITECH FINANCIAL: Charges Borrowers Improper Fees, Rodriguez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES S. RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC and
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No.
6:18-cv-00721-CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violation of the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
the Truth In Lending Act, and the Federal National Mortgage
Association.

According to the complaint, Ditech charges borrowers improper
fees that are disguised to look legitimate. In this case, Ditech
generally labeled drive-by property inspections as "Corp Adv
Disb" fees on a borrower's mortgage statements instead of what
these fees are. The result is that Ditech can charge drive-by
property inspection at an inappropriate and unreasonable
frequency without notice or dispute from the borrower. Indeed,
Ditech is incentivized to keep borrowers in foreclosure because,
while the amount charged is relatively small, the profit
generating mark-up on the fees charged and repetitive nature in
which the disguised fees are charged results in Ditech reaping
thousands of dollars in profit from borrowers who are unlikely to
challenge the fee when fighting to save their home.

Ditech Financial LLC is a provider of home loan, loan servicing
and refinance products to consumers and institutional partners in
the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Kaufmann, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER
          1054 31st Street, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463 2101
          Facsimile: (202) 342 2103
          E-mail: jkauffmann@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
          J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: (561) 692 6013
          Facsimile: (305) 574 0132
          E-mail: Darren@cloorg.com
                  DCAard@Consumerlaworg.com


DR. PEPPER: "Newman" Suit Seeks to Block Keurig Merger
------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Newman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., Wayne R.
Sanders, Larry D. Young, David E. Alexander, Antonio Carrillo,
Jose Gutierrez, Pamela H. Patsley, Ronald G. Rogers, Dunia Shive,
And M. Anne Szostak, Case No. 18-cv-00442 (D. Del., March 22,
2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing
the merger between Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. and Maple
Parent Holdings Corp., with its indirect subsidiary, Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants consummate
the merger.  The Plaintiff further seeks rescissory damages,
costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Dr. Pepper's shareholders stand to receive a $103.75 cash
dividend per share, plus stock constituting 13% of the combined
company in a deal worth more than $21 billion. Despite Dr. Pepper
continuing on as the surviving entity, its shareholders will give
up 87% ownership in the combined company to current Maple
shareholders via a stock issuance, notes the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that the cash dividend appears inadequate
in light of the Dr. Pepper's recent financial performance and
prospects for future growth. The Company has reported double-
digit Gross Profit Margin growth for 2017. Moreover, the Company
recently reported double-digit net income growth for the fiscal
quarter for 2016 and 2017. Apparently, Dr. Pepper's is well-
positioned for financial growth, and that the cash dividend fails
to adequately compensate the company's shareholders, he adds.

Dr. Pepper's is an integrated brand owner, manufacturer and
distributor of non-alcoholic beverages in the United States,
Mexico and Canada. It offers a diverse portfolio of flavored
carbonated soft drinks and non-carbonated beverages, including
ready-to-drink teas, juices, juice drinks, water and mixers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New Yor006B, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

      Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302) 482-3182
      Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com


DRILL CUTTINGS: Technicians Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Gutierrez, Kyle Lynn and Ryan Stephens, each individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Drill Cuttings
Disposal Company, LLC, The Reddoch Development Company, L.L.C.,
Jeffrey Reddoch, Sr., Jeffrey Reddoch, Jr., Chiquita Reddoch,
Allison Reddoch Reaux, Leah M. Reddoch O'Meara, Jeremiah M.
Reddoch  and Sean M. Reddoch., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00257
(W.D. Tex., March 20, 2018), seeks overtime compensation for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act.

Drill Cuttings Disposal provides drill cuttings disposal services
to the oil and gas industry where Plaintiffs worked as solids
control technicians. They claim to have regularly in excess of 40
hours in a week without overtime.

The Drill Cuttings Disposal Company is owned and operated by
Reddoch Development Company of the Reddoch Family. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard J. Burch, Esq.
     Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
            mparmet@brucknerburch.com


EAGLE DINER: "Flores" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Flores and Virginia Goold, for themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eagle Diner Corp., James
Rokos, Maria Rokos and Marko Rokos, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
01206, (E.D. Pa., March 22, 2017), seeks overtime wages,
compensatory and liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs
and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys'
and expert fees and such other and further relief for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act of 1968.

Eagle Diner is a restaurant located at 739 W. Street Road in
Warminster, PA where Flores and Goold worked as a server. They
worked about 50-60 hours per week, were paid at the tipped
minimum wage rate for all of their work and made required
contributions into Defendants' tip pool. Defendants pay servers
at the tipped minimum wage rate of $2.83 per hour for all
untipped work they perform on-the-clock, way below the mandated
wage rates, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Cohen, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      604 Spruce Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Tel: (215) 873-4836

             - and -

      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 233-1550


XCELIGENT INC: "Borchers" Data Breach Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Elisabeth Borchers, on behalf of herself and
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Xceligent, Inc. and
Erin Curry, Defendants, Case No. 1716-cv-08149 (Mo. Cir., March
23, 2018), was removed to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri on March 23, 2018, under Case
No. 18-cv-00225.

Borchers accuses Xceligent of improper disclosure of personally
identifying information of its employees to phishing scammers
resulting in alleged damages during a data breach. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bryce B. Bell, Esq.
      Mark W. Schmitz, Esq.
      BELL LAW, LLC
      2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Tel: (816) 886-8206
      Fax: (816) 817-8500
      Email: Bryce@BellLawKC.com
             MS@BellLawKC.com

             - and -

      A. Scott Waddell, Esq.
      WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC
      2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Tel: (816) 914-5365
      Fax: (816) 817-8500
      Email: scott@aswlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
      MCINNES LAW LLC
      3500 W. 75th Street, Suite 200
      Prairie Village, KS 66208
      Tel: (913) 378-9830
      Email: jack@mcinnes-law.com

Erin Curry is represented by:

      Justin M. Dean, Esq.
      OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
      4520 Main Street, Suite 400
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Telephone: (816) 471-1301
      Facsimile: (816) 471-1303
      Email: justin.dean@ogletree.com

             - and -

      Paul Karlsgodt, Esq.
      BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
      1801 California Street, Suite 4400
      Denver, CO 80202
      Tel: (303) 764-4013
      Fax: (303) 861-7805
      Email: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com

Xceligent, Inc. is represented by:

      John T. Carroll, III, Esq.
      COZEN O'CONNOR
      1201 North Market Street, Suite 1001
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 295-2028
      Fax: (302) 295-2013
      Email: jcarroll@cozen.com


FORT WAYNE, IN: "See" Amended Class Certification Bid Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KEITH SEE, individually and on behalf of )
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FORT
WAYNE, in its official capacity, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00105-TLS (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Theresa L. Springmann
entered an order denying, with leave to refile, the Plaintiff's
first amended motion for class certification of:

   "all individuals residing in FortWayne, Indiana who are
   homeless or without a fixed address possessing personal
   property that may be left temporarily unattended and subject
   to the seizure and destruction policy of Defendant."

The Court said, "In its Response the Defendant briefly mentions
that the Plaintiff lacks standing and appears to suggest that
this controversy may be moot because the Plaintiff is no longer
homeless. If the Defendant wishes to challenge jurisdiction, it
may file a more detailed motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). While the Plaintiff's First Amended
Motion for Class Certification has defects, these defects may be
remedied. As such, the Plaintiff may file a second amended motion
for class certification that more precisely addresses the
requirements under Rule 23, rather than stating in conclusory
terms that the requirements are satisfied."

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


GLOBAL CREDIT: Certification of Settlement Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SAMUEL WILLIAMS, pleading on his own behalf
and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL CREDIT & COLLECTIONS; VELOCITY INVESTMENTS,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03323 (N.D. Ill.), the
Parties will move the Court, on a date and time to be determined
by the Court for an order certifying this case to proceed as a
class action and granting preliminary approval of the Parties'
class settlement agreement.

Specifically, the Parties will jointly move the Court pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, for an order certifying this case to proceed
as a class action, and granting preliminary approval of the
settlement, on behalf of the following class:

   "all persons in the State of Pennsylvania who were sent
   collection letters and/or notices from GCC on a debt owed to
   Velocity that was beyond the statute of limitations, wherein
   Defendant made a settlement offer on said debt without
   disclosing the debt was beyond the statute of limitations,
   during a period beginning May 2, 2016 through June 9, 2017."

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ImX56OVe

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Apostola, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW, LLC
          1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227 3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
                  ea@zemellawllc.com

Attorneys for Defendants

          Brian W. Ledebuhr, Esq.
          VEDDER PRICE
          222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 609 7845
          E-mail: bledebuhr@vedderprice.com


GOOSEBUMPS INC: "Meggs" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON MEGGS, BRANDY L. MILLER, DENISE O. WEIR, AND LEANNE N.
COMBS, the Plaintiffs, v. GOOSEBUMPS, INC., BRUCE DOBBS, GEORGE
KELLY AND MARK STEVENS, Sr., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01893-SCJ (N.D. Ga., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case is a wage and hour case. At all times relevant to this
action, the Defendants owned and operated an adult nightclub in
Atlanta under the trade name "Goosebumps". The Defendants
employed Plaintiffs as dancers and entertainers. Defendants
misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors; failed to
pay Plaintiffs minimum wages as set in accordance with the FLSA;
required Plaintiffs to kickback tips to Defendants and others for
Defendants benefit; and failed to pay Plaintiffs an overtime
premium for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
          Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr.
          DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS
          FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC
          3100 Centennial Tower
          101 Marietta Street
          Atlanta, Georgia 30303
          Telephone: (404) 979 3171
          Facsimile: (404) 979 3170
          E-mail: charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com
                  kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com


GW: Faces Class Action Over Expensive Retirement Plans
------------------------------------------------------
Dani Grace and Lizzie Mintz, writing for The GW Hatchet, report
that a former employee representing faculty and staff filed a
class-action lawsuit against the University for allegedly
providing unnecessarily expensive retirement plans.

Former and current employees allege in a 74-page class-action
complaint -- filed April 13 in D.C.'s U.S. District Court -- that
GW breached its legal obligation to act in the best interest of
its clients by offering a "dizzying array" of overpriced
retirement plans that leave employees unsure of the best
investment option.  Experts said similar claims have been
increasingly common over the past several years, and that while
the plaintiff has good legal standing, parties are likely to
settle out of court to avoid superfluous spending.

The plaintiffs claim GW violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, which compels the University to "act prudently and
loyally to safeguard plan participants' retirement dollars." The
plaintiffs request that the University reimburse its employees
for retirement plan losses after the court determines the best
way to calculate them.

The plaintiffs allege the University did not properly vet
investment choices available for faculty and staff, which caused
employees to pay higher fees than they would if they were offered
plans from lower-cost fund providers.  The University provides
retirement plan participants with roughly 135 investment options
from four companies instead of offering plans from a single
provider, the suit states.

"The participants lost the potential growth their investments
could have achieved had the defendants properly discharged their
fiduciary duties," the complaint states.  "By selecting a single
recordkeeper, plan sponsors can enhance their purchasing power
and negotiate lower, transparent investment fees for
participants."

University spokeswoman Lindsay Hamilton said the case is the 18th
the plaintiff's lawyers -- a series of attorneys from four
separate firms -- have filed against "the nation's most
prestigious universities."  She said the University intends to
"vigorously defend itself in court."

"The University provides its retirement plan participants with a
very competitive retirement savings program that is administered
prudently and that offers its participants an array of investment
options and tools to assist in making investment choices,"
Hamilton said.

Jason Rathod, Esq. -- jrathod@classlawdc.com -- an attorney at
Migliaccio and Rathod LLP, one of the firms representing the
plaintiffs and the only one to represent the plaintiff in court -
- declined to comment on the case.

Combating excessive fees
The complaint states that, despite offering lower-cost options,
the University mostly offers investment options with higher
administrative fees -- payments that cover record-keeping costs
-- which has wasted millions of dollars in the past six years.

Norman Stein, a law professor at Drexel University, said
administrative and investment fees are much lower than they were
10 to 15 years ago, and there is no perfect way to choose which
retirement fund options to offer.  But, he said there is a
"strong argument" that institutions should constantly re-evaluate
how costly their retirement plan fees are to avoid giving faculty
and staff options that are unaffordable.

"You shouldn't assume employees simply have the ability to sift
through and figure out which of the investments have the lowest
fees," he said.

He added that the complaint highlights the need for low-priced
retirement plan options because costly plans can negatively
impact participants' quality of life after retirement.

"Small differences of fees throughout a 25- or 30-year career
make a tremendous difference in how much money you accumulate in
retirement," Stein said.

Tyler Anbinder, a history professor who has researched the cost
of faculty benefits, said the plaintiffs claim the University
should have negotiated a better deal for its retirement plan
options, but that the companies mentioned, like Fidelity or AXA
Equitable, are not the most expensive when compared to providers
like Merrill-Lynch.

"Vanguard has super cut-rate expenses," Mr. Anbinder said,
referring to another of the University's platforms.  "The suit is
kind of getting at the fact that we have these medium-priced
options, that we are paying these companies a healthy amount to
manage the funds and we could have shopped at something cheaper,
like Vanguard."

Abundance of plans
The plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the University
provides too many retirement plan options, citing roughly 135
different funding plans offered by various companies, which cause
plan participants to lose confidence in their investment decision
or not invest in retirement plans at all.

"The inefficient and costly structure maintained by defendants
caused plans' participants to pay duplicative, excessive and
unreasonable fees for record-keeping and administrative
services," the complaint states.  "There was no prudent reason
for defendants' failure to engage in a process to reduce
duplicative services and fees."

John Banzhaf, a public interest law professor, said the
University must find a middle-ground between offering too few
options -- which could trap employees in a plan they don't want -
- and offering an abundance of plans, which could overwhelm
participants.

"There's a range and there's a judgment," he said.  "Some people
might think three or four choices is more than enough.  Exactly
where you draw the line is unclear."

Stein, the Drexel University law professor, said participants in
the case likely want fewer options because they don't have enough
knowledge to distinguish the best plans from hundreds of options,
which can freeze people's ability to make decisions.

"There is some academic research that says with too many choices,
people make bad decisions because they are just hobbled," he
said.

A pressure to settle
Stein said similar retirement plan cases have been brought before
court for years, but he has only seen an increase in cases
against universities in the last two years. Two of GW's peers --
Georgetown and New York universities -- were sued over high-
priced retirement plans and bad investment options.

Duke University announced in February that it will switch from
four retirement plan providers to just one in 2019, after
employees sued the school in 2016 for offering too many options.

Several of the cases against universities have received class
status -- allowing multiple groups of people with the same
injuries to together sue the same defendant -- but the cases have
not yet been resolved.  Legal experts said GW's case will most
likely settle because class-action lawsuits can quickly become
expensive.

Richard Renner, a partner in the D.C.-based employment law firm
of Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman and Fitch, PC, said once the case is
considered a class action, it becomes very expensive for the
University to spend court fees to defend itself and the risk of
liability is so daunting that most of these cases will settle.

"At that point, it's actually in the University's interest to
settle because in a class-action settlement, they resolve the
possibility that any other class members could bring a similar
suit," he said.

Mr. Banzhaf, the public interest law professor, said prestigious
universities typically avoid going through trials concerning the
mistreatment of students, faculty or staff because the cases can
provide adverse publicity to the school. He said there is a
tremendous financial pressure to settle to avoid huge court
costs.

"This is a class-action lawsuit, and if the other side were to
win a complete victory, the University could be facing huge
losses," Mr. Banzhaf said. [GN]


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Website not Deaf-Accessible, "Conner" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02587, (S.D. N.Y., March 23,
2018), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory
damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State
Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Defendant is a motorcycle company that operates
https://www.harley-davidson.com which provides information about
motorcycles, allowing the user to browse news, information and
videos. Sullivan is a deaf person who alleges that their website
is not deaf-friendly. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


HEALTH INSURANCE: Foote Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Foote, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-00690 (M.D. Fla., March 21, 2018), seeks damages and
any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from
violations of the of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. is a company engaged in the
business of selling health insurance. It used an automatic
telephone dialing system seeking to solicit its services. Foote's
number is on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HKGDJ INC: Park Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG DOL PARK, 6909 West Q Avenue Kalamazoo MI 49009, the
Plaintiff, v. JONG HWA LEE, 11923 Hampstead Green Ellicott City
MD 21042; KYE S. LEE, 11923 Hampstead Green Ellicott City MD
21042; and HKGDJ Inc. R/A Jong Hwa Lee 3301 N. Ridge Rd Ellicott
City MD 21043, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01258-JKB (D.
Md., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff sued the Defendants, being owners and directors of
the HKGDJ, for (1) unpaid overtime wages for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a work week; (2) an amount equivalent to
their unpaid overtime wages as liquidated damages on their
federal claim; (3) an amount equivalent to three times their
unpaid overtime wages as liquidated damages on their state claim
brought pursuant to the supplemental jurisdiction of this court;
and (4) their statutory attorney's fees and the costs of bringing
this action.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Weon G. Kim, Esq.
          WEON G KIM LAW OFFICE
          8200 Greensboro Dr. #900
          McLean VA 22102
          Telephone: (571) 278 3728
          Facsimile: (703) 288 4003
          E-mail: JKKCHADOL99@GMAIL.COM


HOHLA & WYSS: Arp Asks Court to Approve Notice to Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Ray Arp, On behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hohla & Wyss Enterprises,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-WHR (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff moves the Court for an order:

   1. allowing him to send notice of this action to the following
      similarly situated employees:

      "all non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked
      for Defendants at any Jimmy John's location from April 12,
      2015 to present.

   2. approving Plaintiff's proposed notice of the action;

   3. directing Defendants to provide name and contact
      information for all potential collective members in a
      computer-readable format;

   4. authorizing Plaintiff to send the notices via first class
      mail, email, and text message (if the conditions outlined
      above are met);

   5. requiring Defendants to post the notice in their work
      locations, and (6) allow putative opt-in plaintiffs 90 days
      to join the case.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wB1mxKzI

Counsel for Plaintiff

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651 3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665 0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com
                  pkrzeski@msdlegal.com
                  www.msdlegal.com


HONG HOLDINGS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Madrigal Says
-----------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL MADRIGAL, an individual, and all other similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, v. HONG HOLDINGS, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC762263 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 30, 2018),
seeks to recover all unpaid wages, premium pay, and penalties
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have employed
approximately 100 employees who worked in the state of
California. The Plaintiff worked as a truck driver for Defendants
from June 26, 2016 until his termination on May 12, 2017. During
his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was
transporting hazardous materials, such as fuel and diesel. As a
result, he was required to attend to the truck at all times
(thus, he was required to remain on duty at all times).

The Defendants also told Plaintiff "don't ever leave these trucks
unattended," or words to that effect. When Plaintiff asked about
opportunities to eat during his shift, Defendants told Plaintiff
that if he left the truck unattended, he would be terminated. As
a result, the Plaintiff could not be relieved of his work duties
to take a duty-free meal period. The Plaintiff also never
received a second meal period when working more than 10 hours in
a shift. The Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 12 or more
hours each shift, approximately 5 days per week. However,
Defendants failed to provide second meal periods to Plaintiff and
failed to pay him premium payments in lieu thereof. For the same
reasons that the Plaintiff was required to monitor the truck at
all times, the Plaintiff also did not receive any duty-free rest
periods during his employment with Defendants, or premium
payments in lieu thereof. In addition, dispatchers discouraged
Plaintiff from taking duty-free meal and rest periods. For
example, dispatchers remarked to Plaintiff, "can you please hurry
up" and "why are you taking so long?", or words to that effect.
The Plaintiff estimates that the dispatchers regularly made such
comments to him. Furthermore, Plaintiff had approximately 4 loads
per day. The completion for each load took approximately 3 hours.
As a result of being overworked, the Plaintiff could not receive
duty free meal and rest periods.

At the time of Plaintiff's hire, the Defendants informed
Plaintiff that he was required to use his personal cellular
telephone to communicate with Defendants regarding his work. At
the beginning of Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff's cellular
phone did not function properly because the screen of his phone
was cracked. Defendants told Plaintiff that he needed to get a
"better phone" and a "smart phone," or words to that effect. In
addition, Defendants told Plaintiff that "when we call you, you
have to answer. We need to get a hold of you at all times," or
words to that effect. The Plaintiff was required to contact the
dispatchers several times during his shift. For example, when
Plaintiff arrived at the refinery to load up fuel, he was
required to contact the dispatcher and provide a status update of
his whereabouts. In addition, after Plaintiff arrived at a gas
station to unload fuel, he was required to contact the dispatcher
to verify that the location was correct, as well as to verify the
type of fuel and amount of gallons that he was unloading. The
Plaintiff estimates that he made or received approximately 10 to
12 calls each day from dispatchers, with each call lasting
approximately 5 to 10 minutes.

Hong Holdings, LLC was founded in 2003. The Company's line of
business includes holding and owning securities of companies
other than banks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Omid Nosrati, Esq.
          Tatiana Avakian, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF OMID NOSRATI
          1875 Century Park East, 6th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553 5630
          Facsimile: (310) 553 5691
          E-mail: omid@nosratilaw.com
                  tatiana@nosratilaw.com


HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Farmer Files Suit Over Faulty Hip Implant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Audette, writing for Brattleboro Reformer, reports that a
local farmer hopes to join a multi-district litigation intended
to hold a hip implant manufacturer liable for faulty components.

According to documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Vermont, Charles B. Robb Sr., "suffered permanent and
continuing injuries" after a portion of the hip implant he
received in 2008 broke, resulting in significant pain and the
inability to stand or walk.

"Charlie is doing OK," said James Valente, of Costello Valente
and Gentry in Brattleboro, which is representing Robb.  "He's a
tough guy."

According to court documents, the femoral stem -- the portion of
the hip implant that is designed to mesh with the femur bone --
broke and became displaced.

The failure of the stem required a revision total hip
replacement, which is described by OrthoInfo, the website for the
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, as a longer, more
complex procedure than a total replacement.

"This is not a class-action suit," said Mr. Valente.  "Multi-
district litigation is a different animal.  It's meant to
consolidate similar claims under one judge and one set of
staffers."

Mr. Robb declined to comment on the filing.

According to court documents, the hip implant Mr. Robb received
was manufactured by Howmedica Osteonics Corp., a subsidiary of
Johnson & Johnson.  The original plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which
is being consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, are a husband and wife who live in New Jersey.

"You don't want 50 different courts in 50 different states all
figuring out how to deal with," said Mr. Valente.  "When you put
them all together in one court, the plaintiffs and defendant can
get a reasonable idea of what the claims are worth. Multi-
district litigation can enable an en masse settlement."

Mr. Valente said Mr. Robb, after years as a farmer in
Brattleboro, "has lived through a lifetime of physical rigor and
probably all sorts of injuries we who sit at desks all day don't
experience.  I wouldn't say he's happy about the situation, but
for him it's 'Here's another problem.  Let's deal with it.'"

Mr. Robb had the original implant installed at Brattleboro
Memorial Hospital in 2008 and had it removed and replaced at
Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass., in 2017.

The action filed on behalf of Robb accuses Howmedica of
negligence, consumer fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.

Mr. Valente said eventually Mr. Robb's suit will be consolidated
into the multi-district litigation in Massachusetts, but he did
not know exactly when.

The Robb Farm was established in 1907 by Thomas and Christine
Betterly, Hermon Robb's grandparents.  The large barn was moved
from Halifax in 1912 and the farm house was built in 1914, both
are still in use.  The farm is currently run by Hermon's son,
Charles Sr., and Charles Sr.'s wife, Helen, and their son Charles
Jr., and his wife, Karen. [GN]


IDAHO: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Public Defense System
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Blaine County commissioners say
they are contemplating establishing an in-house office to provide
representation for poor people caught in the criminal justice
system.

The discussion comes at a time when Idaho is facing a class-
action lawsuit over allegations the state's public defense system
is faulty and violates the 6th Amendment rights of its citizens.

Commissioner Jacob Greenberg said during an April 19 meeting that
there's no guarantee that the county's current system will
survive the legal challenge and that the county should be ready
to adapt whichever way the ruling comes down.

The Idaho Mountain Express reports the central Idaho county
contracts with seven lawyers who provide public defense to
indigent defendants on a monthly rotation.

The commissioners didn't make a decision during the meeting, but
plan on exploring possible costs to creating the public defense
office. [GN]


INCLUSION SERVICES: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Williams Says
----------------------------------------------------------
ROSEMARIE WILLIAMS, an individual, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INCLUSION SERVICES,
LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC702272 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 30, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime pay
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other class
members worked for Defendants providing supported living services
in order to train and support individuals with developmental
disabilities through providing necessary skills for them to live
independently in an inclusive and supportive environment
throughout California.

The Plaintiff and other Class members consistently worked at
Defendants' behest without being paid all wages due. More
specifically, the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated
Class members were employed by Defendants and worked throughout
California where the conduct giving rise to the allegations in
this Class Action Complaint occurred, including based out of
Defendants' Whittier, Los Angeles, Downey, El Monte, Napa, and
Culver City, California offices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Jason Rothman, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230 0308
          E-mail: David@yeremianlaw.com
                  Jason@yeremianlaw.com


ISAIA CORP: "Fischler" Suit Says Website not Blind-accessible
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Isaia Corp., Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-02634, (S.D. N.Y., March 26, 2018), seeks preliminary
and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs
and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys'
and expert fees and such other and further relief under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law
and New York City Human Rights Law.

Isaia owns and operates stores throughout the United States,
including a location at 819 Madison Avenue, New York, New York.
It sells, at these stores, suits, jackets, button down shirts,
formal wear, overcoats, sweaters and similar items. It also
provides a website, www.isaia.it which allows all consumers to
access the facilities and services that it offers about its
retail stores. Fischler browsed and intended to make avail of
their services. However, the Plaintiff is legally blind and
claims that the Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
      Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
      LIPSKY LOWE LLP
      630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
      New York, NY 10017-6705
      Tel: (212) 392-4772
      Fax: (212) 444-1030
      Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
             chris@lipskylowe.com


ITG INC: Class Certification Sought in "Mauthe" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., PC, individually
and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. ITG, INC., and M SCIENCE LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01968-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff
moves for entry of an order certifying a class of:

   "each person sent one or more telephone facsimile messages on
   or after May 10, 2014 from "ITG Market Research" that invited
   them to participate for payment or compensation in a survey or
   telephone interview."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NO4zlRT9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
          P.O. Box 7255
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Telephone: (412) 716 5800
          Facsimile: (888) 769 1774
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com


JOHN DOES: Levy Sues Over Volatility Index Derivative Rigging
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Levy (Living Trust UA dated January 21, 2010) and Avril
E. Levy (Living Trust UA date January 21, 2010), individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. John
Does, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02303 (S.D. N.Y., March 22,
2018), seeks treble damages arising out of the alleged
manipulation of the prices of financial instruments linked to the
Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index in violation of
the Sherman Act and the Commodities Exchange Act.

Defendants allegedly colluded with each other to manipulate the
trading prices of Volatility Index Derivatives through the
placing of manipulative S&P 500 Index options orders that were
intended to cause Volatility Index Derivative settlement prices
to spike artificially.

Eric J. Levy transacted in the iPath S&P 500 VIX ST Futures ETN,
ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, ProShares UltraShort
S&P500 and the ProShares Ultra VIX Short-Term Futures ETF. Avril
E. Levy transacted in the ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures
ETF.

Unnamed Defendants are a group of financial institutions, market
makers, and/or traders on the Chicago Board Options Exchange.
Plaintiffs will be able to identify Defendants through discovery
and will request leave to amend this complaint upon learning the
identity of Defendants. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10036-8718
      Tel: (917) 438-9189
      Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
             bcohen@nussbaumpc.com

             - and -

      Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
      THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC
      521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10175
      Tel: (212) 292-4441
      Email: lgrant@grantfirm.com


JOHNNY MORALES: Bid to Designate Class Action Denied as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ABDUL HAKEEN JAHMAL NASEER SHABAZZ aka Owen
D. Denson, Jr., the Plaintiff, v. JOHNNY MORALES and SCOTT
STEWART, Adm. Lieutenant, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00648-
JES-CM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge John E. Steele entered an
order on May 10, 2018:

   1. denying as moot the following motions: Plaintiff's motion
      for order designating class action; Motion for Permissive
      Joinder filed by nonparty Raymond Lewis; Defendants Julies
      L. Jones, Secretary of the Florida Department of
      Corrections, J. Sanchez, L. Norwood, and P. Murphy's Motion
      to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint; Plaintiff's Motion for
      Enlargement of Time; and Defendant Millette's Motion to
      Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint; and

The Plaintiff shall complete and return the enclosed service
forms for Defendants Morales and Stewart within 14 days from the
date of this Order, the Court says.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nic9JcWm


K & S GLATT: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL AGUILAR, TOSHUA GERMAN, and ISRAEL RIVERA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, V.
K& S GLATT FARM INC., d/b/a GLATT FARM, A&Z GLATT FARM, INC., dba
GLATT FARM, HASAN OZCAN, as an individual, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-02574-SJF-SIL (E.D.N.Y., May 1, 2018), seeks to
recover damages for violations of state and federal wage laws
arising out of Plaintiffs' employment at Defendants' farm.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 54
hours or more per week for Defendants from 2012 to 2018. The
Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and half for hours worked
over 40 hours, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions
contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


KNORR-BREMSE AG: Faces "Carson" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Knorr-Bremse AG.
The case is captioned as JASON CARSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KNORR-BREMSE
AG, KNORR BRAKE COMPANY LLC, NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC, WESTINGHOUSE
AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH
AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00564-CRE (W.D.
Pa., April 30, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate
Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy.

Knorr-Bremse is a manufacturer of braking systems for rail and
commercial vehicles that has operated in the field for over 110
years.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


LINDE CORP: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for The Times-Tribune, reports
that a Pittston construction firm agreed to pay up to $950,000 to
settle a federal class action lawsuit that alleged it wrongly
denied overtime pay to certain employees.

Linde Corp., 118 Armstrong Road, agreed to pay $636,500 to 73
employees who contend they were denied overtime for hours they
worked between March 22, 2013, and Jan. 2, 2016.  An additional
$313,500 will be paid to Dresher attorney Peter Winebrake and
Clarks Summit attorney Brian Petula, both of whom filed the
lawsuit.

The suit, filed in 2016, on behalf of Michael Trevorah, of
Binghamton, New York, and other employees alleged Linde violated
state and federal wage laws by paying certain salaried employees
"extra compensation units" in lieu of overtime for work they
performed building, maintaining and testing well pads for the
natural gas industry.

The settlement, recently approved by Senior U.S. District Judge
James Munley, says Linde denies it violated the law.  It agreed
to the settlement to avoid the cost of litigating the case.

Payments to employees included in the settlement will range from
around $450 to about $22,000, according to an exhibit attached to
the agreement.  Notice of the settlement will be sent to all
affected employees, who must return the settlement form to obtain
payment.

The lawsuit is one of two filed against the firm relating to the
overtime issue.  A second lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of
Labor remains pending in federal court. [GN]


LIPOCINE INC: July 2 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 23 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the District of Utah has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of securities of Lipocene, Inc.
(NASDAQ:LPCN):

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

To:  ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SECURITIES
OF LIPOCINE INC. BETWEEN JUNE 30, 2015 AND JUNE 28, 2016, BOTH
DATES INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the District of Utah that a hearing
will be held on July 2, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable
Dee Benson, United States District Judge of the District of Utah,
351 South West Temple, Courtroom 8.300, Salt Lake City, Utah,
84101 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for
consideration including the sum of $4,250,000 should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the
proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the
Settlement Amount ($1,416,666.67) plus interest, reimbursement of
expenses of not more than $150,000, and a Compensatory Award to
Lead Plaintiff of no more than $22,500 collectively (or $7,500
each) should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be
dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement dated March 9, 2018 (the "Settlement Stipulation").

If you purchased Lipocine Inc. ("Lipocine") securities between
June 30, 2015 and June 28, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement,
including the release and extinguishment of claims you may
possess relating to your ownership interest in Lipocine
securities.  If you have not received a detailed Notice Of
Proposed Settlement Of Class Action, Motion For Attorneys' Fees
And Expenses, And Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain
copies by visiting http://www.strategicclaims.net/or by
contacting the Claims Administrator toll-free at (866) 274-4004
or at info@strategicclaims.net.  If you are a member of the
Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release
Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked no later than
June 11, 2018, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound
by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a
claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so
that it is received no later than June 11, 2018, in the manner
and form explained in the Notice.  All members of the Settlement
Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class
will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to
the Settlement Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiff must be in
the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received
no later than June 11, 2018, by each of the following:

          Clerk of the Court
          United States District Court
          District of Utah
          351 South West Temple
          Rm. 1.100
          Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

          Lead Counsel
          Jeremy A. Lieberman
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, Floor 20
          New York, NY 10016

          Counsel For Defendants
          David Kistenbroker
          DECHERT LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60601

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may visit
http://www.strategicclaims.netor write to Lead Counsel at the
above address. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S
OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

Dated: March 28, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF UTAH {GN]


LITTLE BROTHERS: Fails to Pay All Wages Earned, Medina Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR MEDINA, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. LITTLE
BROTHERS BAKERY, LLC, a California limited liability company;
PAUL G. G1ULIANO, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC702260 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 30, 2018),
seeks to recover all unpaid wages for all hours worked under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to him and other
similarly situated current and former California-based hourly
workers, including but not limited to warehouse workers, for
unpaid wages and other related relief. These claims are based on
Defendants' alleged failures to provide all meal and paid rest
periods in compliance with California law, pay all wages earned
for all hours worked, provide accurate wage statements, timely
pay final wages upon termination of employment, and fairly
compete. Defendants are also liable to Plaintiff for unlawful
retaliation and wrongful termination.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Sehyung (Logan) Park, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 312
          Encino, CA9I436
          Telephone: (818) 582 3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582 2561
          E-mail: davidt@spivaklaw.com
                  logan@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Hawes, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Boisa Ave. Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256 1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256 1006
          E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Certifies Landlord & Renter Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Brandi Garris, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
City of Los Angeles, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01452-MWF-E (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order certifying
these classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(2):

   Landlord Class:

   "all landlords who, between October 9, 2014 and class
   certification, owned a residential rental property subject to
   the Los Angeles Housing Code, Section 161.101 to 161.1201, and
   paid a fee pursuant to Section 161.352, and who were not
   reimbursed by a renter for such fee"; and

   Renter Class:

   "all renters who, between October 9, 2014 and class
   certification, rented a residential rental unit subject to the
   Los Angeles Housing Code, Section 161.101 to 161.1201, and
   reimbursed their landlords for a fee the landlord paid
   pursuant to Section 161.352".

Excluded from the Landlord Class and Renter Class are Defendants,
their employees, agents and attorneys, and the Court.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SGV4RJfl


M & J ASPHALT: Roman, et al. Seek to Notify Class Members
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CESAR ARREOLA-ORTEGA, SALVADOR CANTERO, NOE
ROMAN on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. M & J ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY,
Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox INC., and JAMES V. DISTASIO,
Individually, Case No. 1:17-cv-05927 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs
move the Court to approve and allow sending of Notice to:

   "other similarly situated past and present employees who have
   worked for Defendants as laborers at various locations
   serviced by Defendants, within the pertinent statutory time
   period."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SnyRF0C7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Geoghegan, Esq.
          Michael P. Persoon, Esq.
          Michael A. Schorsch, Esq.
          DESPRES, SCHWARTZ & GEOGHEGAN, LTD.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 711
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372 2511


MCDONALD'S CORP: "Magee" Class Certification Bid Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Scott Magee, the Plaintiff, v. McDonald's
Corporation, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05652 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Joan B. Gottschall entered an order
denying, without prejudice, the motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk of Court on May
10, 2018, the District Court on June 15, 2017, referred "all
discovery supervision" to Judge Schenkier.  Judge Schenkier
entered the parties' revised joint discovery plan as a Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16 scheduling order on December 7, 2018.  That order
states that a "Discovery Plan for class discovery will be set
after the ruling(s) on Dispositive Motions." Expert discovery on
plaintiff's individual claims closes June 29, 2018, and
dispositive motions on the individual claims must be filed by
August 29, 2018.  The Plaintiff nevertheless filed a motion for
class certification and motion to file a supporting memorandum in
excess of 15 pages and noticed both motions before the district
judge. The Defendants responded with a motion to deny the motion
for class certification, which they also have noticed for
presentment to the district judge. The Defendants ask the court
to sanction plaintiff for violating the December 7, 2017
scheduling order. Because the filing of a motion for class
certification without leave from Judge Schenkier apparently
violates the December 7, scheduling order and would, in any
event, have a significant impact on the discovery schedule, the
motion for class certification is denied without prejudice, and
the motion to exceed page limits is denied as moot. The
Defendants' motion for sanctions is referred to Judge Schenkier.
The Defendants must renotice that motion for presentment to Judge
Schenkier. The May 11 motion hearings were stricken.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gXRsVd6N


MDL 2804: City of Lynn Joins Opioid Epidemic Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Daily Item reports that the city of Lynn has joined other
communities in Massachusetts and across the country in a class-
action lawsuit to hold prescription opioid manufacturers and
wholesale distributors accountable for their role in fueling the
current opioid epidemic, according to an announcement from Mayor
Thomas M. McGee.

The lawsuit is against five of the largest manufacturers of
prescription opioids and their related companies, as well as the
country's three largest wholesale drug distributors.

"Drug companies and wholesale distributors have made billions of
dollars pushing the use of prescription opioids," said Mr. McGee
in a statement.  "These companies need to be held accountable for
their role in the opioid epidemic which has spun out of control
across the nation and greatly impacted our city.

"Nothing can replace the families that have been ripped apart or
the lives lost to opioid addiction, but we must do everything in
our power to turn the tide and prevent further addiction and
loss."

In 1970, Congress designed a system to control the volume of
opioid pills being distributed in the country because
prescription opioids are highly addictive.

It let only a few wholesalers gain the right to deliver opioids,
with those companies agreeing to halt suspicious orders and
control against the diversion of those dangerous drugs to
illegitimate uses.  But in recent years, those companies have
failed to do that, according to the mayor's office.

Lynn, along with other communities, is working with a consortium
of law firms to hold pharmaceutical drug manufacturers and
wholesale distributors accountable for failing to do what they
were charged with under the federal Controlled Substances Act --
monitor, identify and report suspicious activity in the size and
frequency of opioid shipments to pharmacies and hospitals,
according to the mayor's office.

The manufacturing companies pushed highly addictive and dangerous
opioids, falsely representing to doctors that patients would only
rarely succumb to drug addiction, according to the mayor's
office.

Opioids are now the most prescribed class of drugs and sales in
the country and have exceeded $8 billion in revenue annually
since 2009.

Opioid abuse is the leading cause of death for people under 50.
Last year, 1,977 people lost their lives due to opioid-related
overdoses in the state, according to the Massachusetts Department
of Public Health.

In addition to the cost of human life, researchers estimate the
total economic burden of the prescription opioid epidemic at
$78.5 billion, according to the mayor's office.

No taxpayer money is being used for the lawsuit, with all costs
paid through any litigation settlement. [GN]


MED ONE MOBILE: "Johnston" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Johnston and Amy Davis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Med One Mobile LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00212 (N.D. Ind., March 26, 2018),
seeks to recover wages and other damages to which they are
entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Med One operates an ambulance transport service for emergency and
non-emergency situations. Johnston was employed by Med One as an
ambulance driver while Davis was an emergency medical technician.
They claim to be paid straight hourly time for all hours worked
and were not paid overtime for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 419-1008
      Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com

             - and -

      Philip Bohrer, Esq.
      Scott E. Brady, Esq.
      BOHRER BRADY, L.L.C.
      8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
      Baton Rouge, LA 70809
      Telephone: (225) 925-5297
      Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
      Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com
             scott@bohrerbrady.com


MENARD INC: "Astarita" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ALBERT J. ASTARITA, and DIANA M. OWENS,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MENARD, INC. d/b/a MENARDS, the Defendant, Case
No. 5:17-cv-06151-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   a. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all persons currently and formerly employed by Defendant
      in hourly, non-exempt positions within the United States
      who participated in Defendant's In-Home Training Program at
      any time during the last three years";

   b. appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives;

   c. appointing McClelland Law Firm, P.C. as class counsel;

   d. directing Defendant to produce the following information
      for all proposed Class members in an electronic and
      importable format (e.g., Microsoft Excel document) within
      10 days of the Court's Order granting this motion: (1) full
      name; (2) last known address; (3) last known phone
      number(s); (4) last known e-mail address; (5) dates of
      employment; (6) location(s) of employment; and (7) last
      four digits of their social security number;

   e. requiring that notice be mailed via first-class mail and
      electronic mail to such persons within 45 days of the
      Court's Order granting this motion;

   f. requiring the posting of notice of the pending suit in
      conspicuous locations at Defendant's stores where putative
      class members are employed (including lunch room bulletin
      boards or bulletin boards where job notices are posted)
      during the opt-in period;

   g. allowing a reminder postcard or electronic mail notice to
      putative class members 30 days before the opt-in deadline;

   h. tolling the Fair Labor Standards Act limitations period
      during the pendency of the briefing period of this motion,
      for individuals that untimely opt-in to this action to
      ensure that claims are not lost;

   i. approving the Notice to Class Members and Consent Form, and
      setting forth a final date in which the Consent Form must
      be submitted for those Class members opting in, which
      should be at least 120 days from the date of this Court's
      Order conditionally certifying a class and from the date
      that Defendant produces the required contact information;
      and

   j. granting such further relief as the Court deems
      appropriate.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=15jIHYRp

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
          McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, A P.C.
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Telephone: (816) 781 0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781 1984
          E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                  mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com


MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces "Oppenheim" Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercedes-Benz USA,
LLC. The case is captioned as Michael Oppenheim, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
the Plaintiff, v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, a Delaware corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03610-RGK-AGR (C.D. Cal., April
30, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge R. Gary
Klausner.

Mercedes-Benz is a global automobile marque and a division of the
German company Daimler AG. The brand is known for luxury
vehicles, buses, coaches, and lorries. The headquarters is in
Stuttgart, Baden-Wurttemberg.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq.
          Jeffrey Kwatinetz, Esq.
          Mark John Geragos, Esq.
          GERAGOS AND GERAGOS APC
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
          Telephone: (213) 625 3900
          Facsimile: (213) 232 3255
          E-mail: meiselas@geragos.com
                  mark@geragos.com


MICRO FOCUS: Johnson Fistel Probes Potential Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating
potential claims against Micro Focus International plc ("Micro
Focus)" (NYSE: MFGP).

On March 19, 2018, Micro Focus announced the resignation of its
Chief Executive Officer and revealed that the Company was
lowering its constant currency revenue guidance for the twelve
months ending October 31, 2018.  Following this news, shares of
Micro Focus plunged. [GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Cooper" Suit in M.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management Inc. The case is captioned as KEITH COOPER,
Individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00082-CDL (M.D. Ga., May 1, 2018).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Clay D. Land.[BN]

Midland Credit, a licensed debt collector, assists customers in
resolving past-due financial obligations through various
education and payment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tristan Wade Gillespie, Esq.
          5150 COTTAGE FARM RD
          Johns Creek, GA 30022
          Telephone: (404) 984 8260
          E-mail: gillespie.tristan@gmail.com


MIZUHO BANK: Justice to Recover Losses in Cryptocurrency Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Justice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd., a Japanese financial
institution and Mark Karpeles, an individual, Defendants., Case
No. 18-cv-00286 (D. N.M., March 26, 2018), seeks actual, punitive
or exemplary damages, restitution, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs and such other and further relief resulting from fraud,
unjust enrichment and negligence.

Karpeles owned and ran Mt. Gox KK, a business into buying and
selling bitcoins using its trading platform with Mizuho as its
banking partner who maintained Mt. Gox's operating accounts.
Mizuho, a Japanese banking firm, likewise received transaction
fees on every wire deposit that it processed into the exchange.

Mt. Gox was under scrutiny by US authorities for alleged money
laundering while Mizuho Bank allegedly loaned money to organized
crime syndicates and was under investigation by Japan's Financial
Services Agency. Eventually, Mizuho Bank decided to distance
itself from Karpeles and Mt. Gox. Ultimately, in June 2013,
Mizuho stopped processing international wire withdrawals for Mt.
Gox altogether but continued to accept user deposits into the Mt.
Gox Exchange. In September 2015, Karpeles was arrested by Tokyo
police and formally charged with fraud and embezzlement in
connection to his management of Mt. Gox after it went bankrupt.
[BN]

Justice joined Mt. Gox in early February 16, 2013. He never
recovered his investment after the bankruptcy.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Scott Thomassen, Esq.
      EDELSON P.C.
      350 North Lasalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: (312) 589-6370
      Fax: (312) 589-6378
      Email: bthomassen@edelson.com


MOKSHA HOTELS: Hotel Employees Seek to Recoup Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corrozzo, Kevin Ishee, Danielle Rocha and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Moksha Hotels, LLC and Pradeep
Kumar, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00297 (M.D. Tenn., March 20,
2018), seeks overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Moksha owns and operates the Clarion Inn, in Murfreesboro,
Tennessee, where Michael Corrozzo and Kevin Ishee worked as
maintenance workers while Rocha worked at the front desk of the
hotel. They claimed to have worked more than forty hours per week
without receiving overtime compensation for those hours worked in
excess of forty. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kerry E. Knox, Esq.
     117 South Academy Street
     Murfreesboro, TN 37130
     Tel: (615) 896-1000
     Website: www.castelliknox.com

            - and -

     Stephen W. Grace, Esq.
     Delain L. Deatherage, Esq.
     1019 16th Avenue, South
     Nashville, TN 37212
     Tel: (615) 255-5225


MR. HOMECARE: "Leonard" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Cyntia Green, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mr. Homecare Of Cleveland, OH, Inc. and
Samantha Belfer, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00669 (N.D. Ohio,
March 23, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation as well as
liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Ohio Labor Laws.

Defendants are in the business of in-home healthcare, private
duty nursing and in-home care as a home health agency where
Belfer worked for the Defendants as a home health care provider
often working up to eighty hours per week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      Kevin M. McDermott, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      The Caxton Building
      812 E. Huron Road, Suite 490
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Tel. (440) 498-9100
      Fax (216) 621-1094
      Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
             rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
             kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com


NATIONAL CONGRESS: Bilek Sues over Robocalls
--------------------------------------------
MARY BILEK, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL CONGRESS OF EMPLOYERS, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03083 (N.D. Ill., April 30,
2018), seeks to secure redress for Defendant's practice of
calling the cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and others
using an automatic telephone dialing system and prerecorded
voice, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729 5288
          Facsimile: (312) 729 5289
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com
                  dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com


NEPTUNE OYSTER: Website not Blind Accessible, "Conner" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Conner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Neptune Oyster, LLC,, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-10526, (D. Mass., March 20, 2018), seeks declaratory
and injunctive relief and compensatory damages under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Defendant owns and operates Neptune Oyster a seafood restaurant
located at 63 Salem Street, Boston, MA 02109. Plaintiff attempted
to browse Defendant's menu and location on their website.
Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that the website is not
accessible to the blind. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


NEXEN CORP: Hegedus et al. Seek Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANTHONY HEGEDUS, BRYANT LOWE, JONATHAN
OGNIAN, RICHARD CARSON, and DEOSHA BATTLES, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. NEXEN CORPORATION, a Michigan for-
profit corporation, STEVEN KIRKA, a natural person, PACE RUNNERS,
INC., a Michigan for-profit corporation, AMAZON.COM DEDC LLC, a
Washington for-profit corporation, and AMAZON.COM, INC., a
Delaware for-profit corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-
cv-10798-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to
enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action and
      authorizing the dissemination of a written notice to:

      "all similarly situated employees pursuant to the "opt-in"
      mechanism authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
      U.S.C. section 216(b)";

   2. permitting a 60-day period for additional plaintiffs to
      join this litigation;

   3. directing the Defendants to provide each employee's last
      known telephone number, last known mailing address, and
      last known e-mail address within 10 days from the entry of
      the Court's Order;

   4. requiring proposed notice to be posted in Defendants'
      workplaces (away from view of customers but in a common
      place for its employees to view); and

   5. granting the other relief.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AzBz8KhI

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          Omar Badr, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692 9200
          Facsimile: (734) 692 9201
          E-mail: bryan@yaldoulaw.com


OHIO ELDERLY: Adams Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Adams, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Central Ohio
Elderly Care, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00134-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio),

   1. conditionally certifying a proposed Fair Labor Standards
      Act collective;

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
      to:

      "all current and former employees of Defendants who worked
      over 40 hours in any workweek beginning three years
      immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint through
      the date of final disposition of this case, and were not
      paid one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
      hours worked over 40 because (i) Defendants divided their
      hours worked between two entities and paid them with two
      (2) paychecks for the same pay periods; and/or (ii)
      Defendants reduced their employees' regular rate of pay;
      and/or (iii) Defendants failed to pay for travel time; and

   3. requiring Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's
      Order, to provide a list in electronic and importable
      format, of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of
      all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendants
      at any time from three years preceding the filing of this
      Motion through the present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iL5Roox6

Attorneys for Plaintiff and those similarly situated:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949 1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386 9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
          PO Box 215
          Amlin, OH 43002
          Telephone: (614) 787 4878
          Facsimile: (614) 923 7369
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


PARAGON SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Thomas Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JOHNATHAN THOMAS, 13121 Larchdale Road Apt. 3 Laurel, MD 20708,
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. PARAGON SYSTEMS, INC., 13655 Dulles Technology
Drive Suite 100 Herndon, VA 20171, Resident Agent: National
Registered Agents Inc. 1090 Vermont A venue Suite 910 Washington,
D.C. 20005, the Defendant, Case No. 3056 (D. D.C. Fla., May 1,
2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation under D.C. Payment
and Collection of Wages Act and the D.C. Minimum Wage Revision
Act.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Andrew D. Howell, Esq.
          Nicholas Woodfield, Esq.
          R. Scott Oswald, Esq.
          THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC
          888 17th Street NW, 9th Floor
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 261 2829
          Facsimile: (202) 261 2835
          E-mail: dhowel1@employmentlawgroup.com
                  nwoodfield@employmentlawgroup.com
                  soswald@employmentlawgroup.com


PASCHALL TRUCK LINES: Drivers' Labor Suit Transferred to W.D. Ky.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Gale Carter and Forbes Hayes, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Paschall
Truck Lines, Inc., ECN Financial LLC, PNC Equipment Finance, LLC
and John Does 1-20, Case No. 17-cv-04543 (E.D. Pa., October 11,
2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky on March 20, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-
00041.

Plaintiffs seek redress for unlawful wage deductions thereby
reducing their wages below the mandated rates in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act. Paschall is a truckload carrier
operating throughout the United States with a terminal in
Philadelphia PA. Element leased tractor trailers to ECB who in
turn subleased said tractor trailers and their driving services
to Pachall, permitting then to misclassify Plaintiffs as
independent contractors. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as
commercial truck drivers. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
     Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
     Travis Martindale-Jarvis, Esq.
     Manali Arora, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Phone: (856) 685-7420
     Fax: (856) 685-7417
     Email: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
            tmartindale@swartz-legal.com
            marora@swartz-legal.com

Paschall Truck Lines Inc is represented by:

     Christopher J. Eckhart, Esq.
     SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON AND FEARY P.C.
     10 West Market St., Suite 1400
     Indianapolis IN 46204
     Tel: (312) 637-1777
     Fax: (317) 687-2414
     Email: ceckhart@scopelitis.com

            - and -

     Delia A. Clark, Esq.
     RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP
     One S. Penn Square, 16th Floor
     The Widener Bldg.
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Tel: (215) 575-4291
     Email: dclark@rawle.com

ECN Financial in represented by:

     Richard L. Etter, Esq.
     MCNEES, WALLACE AND NURICK LLC
     100 Pine St., PO Box 1166
     Harrisburg, PA 17180
     Tel: (412) 513-4332
     Fax: (412) 513-4229
     Email: retter@fbtlaw.com


PAT'S SELECT: Workers Seek to Recoup Minimum Wages, Reimbursement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cassondra Casorio-Sahin, Andres Quintana and Jonathan Thomas, as
individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Pat's Select Pizza & Grill LLC, Pat's Select Pizza
& Grill of Cockeysville, MD, LLC 224 South Bridge Street Elkton,
MD 21921 Serve: Stavros Kalaitzoglou 224 South Bridge Street
Elkton, MD 21921, Pat's Select Pizza & Grill of Severn, LLC,
Pat's Pizza of North East, Inc., Pat's Pizzeria of Aberdeen, LLC,
Pat's Pizza of Oxford, LLC, Apostolos' Pizzerias, Inc., "John
Doe" Restaurants, Apostolos Kalaitzoglou and Dimitrios
Tangalidis, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00851 (D. Md., March 23,
2018), seeks to recover wages and other damages to which they are
entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate a chain of restaurants commonly known
as Pat's Select Pizza and Grill in Maryland and Pennsylvania.

Sahin and Thomas were employed as delivery persons primarily at
the Pat's Select located at Pulaski Hi-way MD and claim to be
denied the applicable minimum wage when they performed work that
was not subject to tipping. They also claim reimbursements for
uniform shirts and car and cellphone used for the company
errands.

Quintana was employed primarily at the North East Pat's Select as
a kitchen staff. He regularly works over 60 hours a week but has
not been paid overtime, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joyce E. Smithey, Esq.
      RIFKIN WEINER LIVINGSTON LLC
      225 Duke of Gloucester Street
      Annapolis, MD 21401
      Tel: (410) 269-5066
      Fax: (410) 269-1235
      Email: jsmithey@rwllaw.com

             - and -

      Alan B. Sternstein, Esq.
      RIFKIN WEINER LIVINGSTON LLC
      7979 Old Georgetown Road, Fourth Floor
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Tel: (301) 951-0150
      Fax: (301) 951-0172
      Email: asternstein@rwllaw.com


PAUL J. HOOTEN: Faces "Burgos" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul J. Hooten &
Associates, PLLC. The case is captioned as Deserae Burgos, an
individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Paul J. Hooten & Associates, PLLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02583-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y., May 1,
2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joan M. Azrack.

Paul J Hooten & Associates is a law firm. The Firm provides full
service legal advice.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN, LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522 2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522 1692
          E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


PIZZA HUT: "Ramm" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER RAMM, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. PIZZA HUT OF ARIZONA, INC., PIZZA
HUT OF COTTONWOOD, INC., PATRICK MCCONAUGHEY, and BRENT KYTE, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00231-JAS (D. Ariz., April 30,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Employment
Practices and Working Conditions law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants operate numerous Pizza
Hut franchise stores. Defendants employ delivery drivers who use
their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to
their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers
for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their
vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate
beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur
that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall
below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          Jay Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market St., #201
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210 2100
          E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com
                  jay@foresterhaynie.com


POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Siskinds Reaches $36MM Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP on April 23 disclosed that the Court-appointed
representatives of a class of shareholders of Poseidon Concepts
Corp. ("Poseidon") have reached a global settlement with all of
the defendants in the proposed securities class actions arising
from the circumstances of Poseidon ("Global Settlement").

The Global Settlement is currently subject to the approval of the
Court of Queen's Bench of the Province of Alberta ("Alberta
Court") and recognition by Ontario, Quebec and United States
Courts, which will be asked to dismiss the proposed class action
claims.

The Global Settlement supersedes the partial settlement with
Poseidon's directors and officers and certain of its related
entities, which was previously announced on December 21, 2017.

Subject to Court approval and certain other preconditions, the
Global Settlement compromises and finally releases all the claims
asserted against and by Poseidon, its directors and officers and
certain of its employees, Poseidon's former auditor, Poseidon's
underwriters and Peyto Exploration & Development Corp.  The
Global Settlement does not constitute an admission of liability
on the part of the defendants, who dispute the claims.

As consideration for the Global Settlement, the defendants will
pay at least $34,632,800 and up to $36,606,200 for the benefit of
a class of Poseidon's shareholders.  The manner of distribution
of the settlement proceeds will be determined by further Court
order to be sought in the future after the necessary approvals
have been obtained and the settlement has become final.  A
further notice will be issued to the investors when the
settlement proceeds are available for distribution.

The litigation arises from alleged misrepresentations in
Poseidon's disclosure documents issued in 2011 and 2012,
including with respect to the recognition of allegedly improper
revenues and accounts receivable.  Poseidon, which formerly
traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange under ticker symbol ("PSN"),
commenced insolvency proceedings in April 2013 and was delisted
from the Toronto Stock Exchange in May 2013.

The Global Settlement is being presented as part of a plan of
compromise and arrangement filed with the Alberta Court under the
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.  A sanction hearing will be
held on May 4, 2018, during which the Alberta Court will consider
whether the proposed plan of compromise and arrangement is fair
and should be approved.  If you are an investor in Poseidon
securities and wish to object to the Global Settlement, your only
opportunity to object to it is at the sanction hearing.  If you
want to object, you must register your objection by no later than
May 3, 2018 at noon, Calgary time.  If the Global Settlement is
approved, all members of the class will be bound by it.  For
further details, please consult the notice available [here]
(English) and [here] (French).

"We are pleased with this result for our clients and the
shareholders," said Daniel Bach, a partner at Siskinds LLP.
"Poseidon's unfortunate circumstances caused significant
financial losses to its investors, and its insolvency added
multiple layers of complexity to the litigation.  The settlement
represents a significant recovery for the benefit of the
shareholder class," said Robert Hawkes --
hawkesr@jssbarristers.ca -- a partner at Jensen Shawa Solomon
Duguid Hawkes LLP.

The Plaintiffs have been appointed representatives for Poseidon's
investors by Order of the Alberta Court, and are represented by
the law firms of Siskinds LLP, Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes
LLP, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP and Siskinds
Desmeules, Avocats. [GN]


POTJANEE INC: Delivery Staff Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Withheld Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Juarez Sanchez, Santos Rodriguez Garcia, Cristobal Badillo,
Sergio Guadalupe Palafox, Jorge Arturo Castillo Cerezo and Kris
Suthayabhorn, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Potjanee Inc. (d/b/a Potjanee), Potjanee
Authentic Thai Restaurant Inc. (d/b/a Potjanee), Thinawan
Maneepong, Potjanee Maneepong, Chiraphat Khemdaeng, Arthit
Maneepong and Bhimwalan Tanajam, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02664
(S.D. N.Y., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover, withheld tips and
overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant, located at
48 Carmine St, New York, NY 10014 under the name "Potjanee" where
Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers but spent a
considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties.
They worked without appropriate minimum wage compensation for the
hours worked and overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


PRIME CAPITAL: Faces "Nikolovski" Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prime Capital
Source, Inc. The case is captioned as Chris Nikolovski, and Chris
Nikolovski D.D.S., P.C., a Illinois corporation, individually and
as the representative s of a class of similarly situated persons
and entities, the Plaintiffs, v. Prime Capital Source, Inc. and
Scott Davidson, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03085 (N.D.
Ill., April 30, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Manish S.
Shah.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          Ahmad Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575 8181
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
                  ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
                  mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                  osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com


PROST LLC: Fails to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked, Acosta Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUIZ M. ACOSTA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROST LLC, a California
limited liability company d/b/a Bolt Brewery, and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00021811-CU-0E-CTL
(Cal. Super. Ct., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages
under the California Labor Code.

This action arises from Bolt Brewery's uniform, systematic
practices of, inter alia: (a) failing to provide Plaintiff and
the Class members with meal periods; failing to authorize and
permit Plaintiff and the Class members to take rest periods; (c)
failing to pay Plaintiff and the Class members any compensation
(including overtime pay where appropriate) for all hours worked
off-the-clock during meal periods; and (d) failing to pay
Plaintiff and the Class members all wages due upon termination of
their employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel V. Santiago, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL V. SANTIAGO, P.C.
          Torrey Reserve North Court
          11622 El CaminoReal, 1st Floor
          Del Mar, CA 92130
          Telephone: (760) 652 9801
          Facsimile: (760) 652 9802
          E-mail: dvs@dvslawoffices.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Canadian Doctors Call for Opioid Investigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Crowe, writing for CBC News, reports that on April 20, a
group of Canadian doctors and opioid researchers sent a letter to
the Attorney General of Canada and to Health Canada demanding a
criminal investigation into the marketing of opioids to Canadian
doctors.

"While Purdue has already pleaded guilty to illegally marketing
opioids in the U.S., no opioid manufacturer has been prosecuted
in Canada," the letter stated.

"The opioid crisis is one of the defining issues of this time,"
said Dr. Nav Persaud, a family doctor at St. Michael's Hospital
in Toronto. "It's pretty rare to call for a criminal
investigation, as a doctor or researcher, but a group of
colleagues and I have decided to do so because this is such an
important issue."

Purdue Pharma, which introduced OxyContin to the marketplace in
the mid-1990s, heavily promoted the pain medication to doctors at
the time by claiming that it was less addictive.

In the U.S. in 2007, Purdue executives pleaded guilty to criminal
charges that they misled doctors and patients about the drug's
addictive potential.

"Now I am stating publicly with my colleagues that there should
be a criminal investigation in Canada," Dr. Persaud said, adding
that Canada has laws preventing companies from making false and
misleading claims about products.

"There are definitely laws that could have been broken in this
case."

"Purdue Pharma (Canada) has always marketed its products in line
with the Health Canada approved product monograph and in
compliance with all relevant rules, regulations and codes,
including the Food and Drugs Act and the Pharmaceutical
Advertising Advisory Board (PAAB) Code," Purdue Pharma (Canada)
spokesperson Walter Robinson wrote in an email to CBC News.

In the U.S., Purdue has stated it will no longer market opioids
to doctors. But the Canadian company, which operates
independently, has not made a similar declaration.

Dr. Persaud said he and his colleagues decided to call for a
criminal investigation now after a decision in March by a
Saskatchewan judge to reject the settlement Purdue Pharma
(Canada) had agreed to pay Canadian opioid victims after they
launched a class action suit.

Justice Brian Barrington-Foote stated in his decision that he was
not convinced the $20-million settlement was "fair, reasonable
and in the best interests of the class as a whole." Lawyers
estimated that individual opioid victims would have received up
to $13,500.

Purdue Pharma (Canada) said in an email that the company is
"considering next steps" following the Saskatchewan decision and
that "Purdue Pharma (Canada) has made no admissions of
liability."

Dr. Persaud and his colleagues are also calling on Ottawa to
directly compensate victims by using legislation to recover funds
from the continued sale of the opioids in Canada.

"I think it's important to note that companies that may have
contributed to the opioid crisis are continuing to profit from
it," said Persaud.

Health Canada told CBC News in an email that Canada's opioid
prescribing rate is still the second highest in the world after
the United States.

"The government of Canada recognizes that the high level of
opioids historically prescribed in Canada has contributed to the
devastating impacts of the current opioid crisis." [GN]


RENT-A-CENTER: "Blair" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PAULA L. BLAIR, ANDREA ROBINSON,
and FALECHIA A. HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC., a
Delaware corporation; RENT-A-CENTER WEST, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-02335-WHA (S.D. Cal.), Paula Blair, Andrea Robinson, and
Falechia Harris will move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying class of:

      "all individuals who entered into a rent-to-own transaction
      with RAC in California at any time between March 13, 2013,
      and the date notice is sent to the class";

   2. certifying subclass of:

      "class members for whose transactions RAC has no applicable
      arbitration agreement"; and

   3. appointing Celinda Garza as Class Representatives, and
      appointing Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP and Altshuler
      Berzon LLP as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1u1dGvZ0

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          James T. Hannink, Esq.
          Zach P. Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART HANNINK & COVENEY LLP
          4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
          La Jolla, CA 92037-1474
          Telephone: (858) 623 4200
          Facsimile: (858) 623 4299
          E-mail: jhannink@sdlaw.com
                  zdostart@sdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          Eric P. Brown, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421 7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362 8064
          E-mail: mrubin@altber.com
                  ebrown@altber.com


SCHAEFER AUTOBODY: Hubbard, Farmer Seek Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled AMBER HUBBARD and SIEADAH FARMER,
Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. SCHAEFER AUTOBODY CENTERS, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00232-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the parties jointly ask
the Court to:

   a. conditionally certify case to proceed as a collective
      action;

   b. order the Defendant to identify and provide referenced
      information for all putative class members that have worked
      for Defendant from February 9, 2015 and the present;

   c. order the Defendant to provide information in the form of
      a computer-readable list (in Excel format) to Plaintiffs'
      counsel within 14 days of the Court's Order;

   d. direct the issuance of Plaintiffs' proposed notice and
      consent form, attached hereby as Exhibit 1, to all such
      persons on an expedited schedule via U.S. Mail and email;
      and

   e. order a 45-day opt-in period, running from the date that
      the class notice is first disseminated by Plaintiffs'
      counsel. The parties pray for such other and further relief
      as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B97uzop7

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated:

          Russell C. Riggan, Esq.
          Samuel W. Moore, Esq.
          RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC
          132 W Washington Avenue, Suite 100
          Kirkwood, Missouri 63122
          Telephone: (314) 835 9100
          Facsimile: (314) 735 1054
          E-mail: russ@rigganlawfirm.com
                  smoore@rigganlawfirm.com

Attorney for Defendant:

          Kevin P. Clark, Esq.
          LITCHFIELD CAVO, LLP
          222 South Central Ave., Suite 200
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725 1227
          Facsimile: (314) 725 3006
          E-mail: clark@litchfieldcavo.com


SCI DIRECT: Sales Reps Seek Minimum Wages, Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SCI Direct, Inc. and
Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02377, (C.D.
Cal., March 23, 2018), seeks recovery of minimum wages,
reimbursement of reasonable business expenses and losses,
applicable statutory penalties and any other and further relief
for violation of the California Labor Code, Business and
Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
wage orders.

Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as Sales Representatives and
claim to be misclassified as independent contractors instead of
employees. SCI allegedly failed to reimburse them for reasonable
business expenses, failed to provide them with accurate, itemized
wage statements and failed to timely pay full wages upon
termination or resignation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SHIFTPIXY INC: Johnson Fistel Probes Potential Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
On or About June 30, 2017, ShiftPixy, (NASDAQ: PIXY)
("ShiftPixy") completed the Company's initial public offering.
The Company successfully raised $12 Million through the sale of
2,000,000 of its shares to the public at $6.00 per share.
However, since the IPO, ShiftPixy stock has imploded, on April
20, 2018, the stock closed at $3.18.

Specifically, Johnson Fistel's investigation seeks to determine
whether ShiftPixy Company's filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission related to the stock offering contained
untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state other
facts necessary to make the statements made therein not
misleading. [GN]


SIRIUS XM: Bell Sues over Lifetime Subscriptions
------------------------------------------------
MARC BELL, the Plaintiff, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 71506755 (Fla. Cir., 11th Judicial, Miami-Dade County,
May 1, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant related to Plaintiffs lifetime subscriptions, which
Defendant has subsequently refused to honor without encumbrances.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
himself individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons as a class action pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.220(b)(3). The Plaintiff's claims against Defendant, and the
resulting injuries caused to Plaintiff by Defendant, arose in
substantial part from Defendant's advertising and trade practices
related to its satellite radio services to Plaintiff and other
Florida residents. Defendant's conduct amounts to a breach of
express and implied contracts, fraudulent and negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

Sirius XM Satellite Radio is an American broadcasting company
that provides three satellite radio and online radio services
operating in the United States: Sirius Satellite Radio, XM
Satellite Radio, and Sirius XM Radio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357 2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200 8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com


SMILE BRANDS: "DeForest" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan DeForest, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Smile Brands, Inc., Smile Brands
Finance, Inc. (d/b/a Bright Now! Dental, Inc.), Does 1-10, and
each of them, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00472 (C.D. Cal., March
23, 2018), seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief
resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Smile Brands is a company involved in providing dental insurance
and recovery/collections. They contacted DeForest on her cellular
telephone, in an attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt
using an automatic telephone dialing system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPINNAKER RESORTS: Cardenas Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Henna Cardenas, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Spinnaker Resorts, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00761 (D. S.C., March 20, 2018), seeks
an injunction to cease all telemarketing calls, an award of
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further
relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint says Spinnaker utilized unsolicited telemarketing
as a way to increase its customer base in order to generate sales
for its vacation ownership business. Cardenas is on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Margaret A. Collins, Esq.
      P.S.L.G., LLC (d/b/a Palmetto State Law Group, LLC)
      1087B Harbor Drive
      West Columbia, SC 29169
      Tel: (803) 708-7442
      PBX: (803) 251-9003
      Facsimile: (803) 753-9352

             - and -

      Steven Woodrow, Esq.
      Patrick Peluso, Esq.
      Woodrow & Peluso, LLC
      3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Phone: (720) 213-0675
      Email: swoodrow@ppeluso.com
             ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

             - and -

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, P.A.
      201 South Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (877) 333-9427
      Fax: (888) 498-8946
      Email: stefan@classaction.ws


SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: "Sebastian" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Donovan Sebastian, individually,
on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sprint/United Management Company, a
Kansas Corporation and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 30-02018-00982220-CU-OE-CXC, was removed
from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa
Ana) on May 1, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:18-cv-00757-JLS-KES to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton.

Sprint/United Management Company, Inc. is based in Overland Park,
Kansas. Sprint/United Management Company, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Sprint Nextel Corp.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Brian J Mankin, Esq.
          Peter Carlson, Esq.
          FERNANDEZ AND LAUBY LLP
          4590 Allstate Drive
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (951) 320 1444
          Facsimile: (951) 320 1445
          E-mail: bjm@fernandezlauby.com
                  pjc@fernandezlauby.com

Attorneys for Sprint/United Management Company:

          Harold M Brody, Esq.
          Tracey Lynne Silver, Esq.
          Pietro Antonio Deserio, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2049 Century Park East 32nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
          Telephone: (310) 557 2900
          Facsimile: (310) 557 2193
          E-mail: hbrody@proskauer.com
                  tsilver@proskauer.com
                  pdeserio@proskauer.com


STEPHEN EINSTEIN: "Cole" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------
Alex J. Cole, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Stephen Einstein & Associates, P.C. and
Second Round, L.P. Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06230, (W.D. N.Y.,
March 20, 2017), seeks statutory damages and equitable relief
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Einstein is a law firm in the business of the collection of debts
with principal place of business at 39 Broadway, Suite 1250, New
York, New York 10006. Second Round is in the business of
collection of debts with principal place of business at 1701
Directors Boulevard, Suite 900, Austin, Texas, 78744. Defendants
were attempting to collect on an alleged credit card debt from
Cole.

Though substantial amounts of late fees have accrued on this
account, Defendant's collection letter falsely stated that the
amount of accrued charges or fees was $0.00, notes the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander J. Douglas, Esq.
      DOUGLAS FIRM, P.C.
      New York Bar No. 5343892
      36 West Main Street, Ste. 500
      Rochester, NY 14614
      Tel: (585) 568-2224
      Fax: (585) 546-6185
      Email: alex@lawroc.com


TA OPERATING: Faces "Salcedo" Suit in California State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TA OPERATING LLC.
The case is captioned as ROSAURA SALCEDO, an individual, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. TA OPERATING LLC, the Defendant, Case No. BCV-18-101006 (Cal.
Super. Ct., April 30, 2017). The case is assigned to the Stephen
D. Schuett.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY
          16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436


TENET FLORIDA: MSPA to Appeal Case Dismissal to 11th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, the Plaintiff, v.
TENET FLORIDA, INC., and ST. MARY'S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20039-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 30,
2018), the Plaintiff provides notice that it is taking an appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
from the District Court's Order Granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.

This case is a putative class action purportedly arising out of
the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.  The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants Tenet Florida, Inc. and St. Mary's Medical Center,
Inc. failed to reimburse Florida Healthcare Plus -- the assignor
Medicare Advantage Organization -- for conditional payments made
on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries who were separately covered
by a private insurer qualifying as a primary payer under the
MSPA.

Tenet Florida, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Health Services
Network Hospitals, Inc.[BN]

Lead Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Andres Rivero, Esq.
          Jorge A. Mestre, Esq.
          Alan H. Rolnick, Esq.
          Charles E. Whorton, Esq.
          Kingsley C. Nwamah, Esq.
          David L. Daponte, Esq.
          RIVERO MESTRE LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445 2500
          Facsimile: (305) 445 2505
          E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com
                  jmestre@riveromestre.com
                  arolnick@riveromestre.com
                  cwhorton@riveromestre.com
                  knwamah@riveromestre.com
                  ddaponte@riveromestre.com
                  npuentes@riveromestre.com

               - and -

          Frank C. Quesada, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          5000 S.W. 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614 2239
          E-mail: serve@msprecovery.com
                  fquesada@msprecovery.com


TEZOS: Co-Founder Faces FINRA Fine Amid Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Gerald Fenech, writing for Coingeek, reports that Arthur
Breitman, the controversial co-founder of Tezos tech project, is
once again in the headlines following reports that he was fined
by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to the
tune of $20,000.  This occurred due to the fact that Mr. Breitman
made a number of false statements regarding his venture whilst he
was still an employee of Morgan Stanley.  Securities
professionals that are registered with the FINRA are required to
explain any activity that is carried out for profit that has
nothing to do with their employment if this activity results in
some sort of compensation.

Mr. Breitman, a French citizen registered with FINRA, reportedly
started working in the Tezos project between 2014 and 2015, while
he's still employed at Morgan Stanley.  A Reuters report
published a business plan written by Mr. Breitman that listed him
as chief executive of the company--which its executives expected
to make $20 billion in over 15 years.  Additionally, Mr. Breitman
wrote two papers under the pseudonym L.M. Goodman, an indication
that he wanted to hide his connection with the company.

It appears, however, that the Wall Street regulator has already
reached an agreement with Mr. Breitman over that incident.  In
its settlement agreement, FINRA said: "Breitman did not notify
Morgan Stanley at any time that he was engaging in these outside
business activities," He was fined $20,000 and was also banned
from entering into any brokerage dealings for a period of two
years.

Mr. Breitman did not specifically admit or deny the charges, and
his lawyer Sarah Lightdale said, "The settlement with FINRA is
unrelated to and has no impact on the launch of the Tezos
network. Arthur cooperated fully with FINRA at all times and
Arthur is pleased to put this personal matter behind him."

This is not the first time that Tezos has been involved in
conflicts and controversy.  The Tezos Foundation allegedly raised
$232 million in July 2017 to build a blockchain network for smart
contracts.  However, none of the cryptocurrency has been
delivered as yet due to problems with legal issues and internal
conflict at board level.  According to reports, there were
substantial conflicts between Kathleen and Mr. Breitman and the
president of the Tezos Foundation, Johann Gevers, who was also
accused of attempting to embezzle funds and hindering the
progress of the coin.  There were also a number of class action
lawsuits brought against the Tezos Foundation from investors as
well as accusations of securities fraud and persistent rumours
that the SEC would be launching an investigation into the
foundation's operations. [GN]


TRUECOVERAGE LLC: Dudley Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
MONIQUE DUDLEY and NOREEN COSTA, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TRUECOVERAGE
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03760-PA-AGR (C.D. Cal., May
1, 2018), seeks to recover overtime premiums and minimum wage
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendant is in the business of selling insurance for
insurance companies to consumers over the phone, in an at-home
call center setting, via inbound and outbound calls. As part of
its business practices, the Defendant generates their leads
through marketing campaigns to entice consumers to enroll in
insurance plans over the phone.  To make and field these calls,
the Defendant employed insurance agents in an at-home call center
setting. The Defendant misclassified its Agents as independent
contractors.  The Defendant required its Agents to work a full-
time schedule, plus overtime.

However, the Defendant did not record its Agents' compensable
work time as required by law. Instead of paying Agents based on
hours worked, the Defendant paid its Agents on a contingent,
commission-only basis whereby Defendant paid commissions but then
"charged back" their Agents for a return of any commissions (up
to 100%) on sales that were cancelled within the first several
months.

The Defendant's contingent, commission-only compensation system
resulted in Agents not being paid for all time worked, including
overtime.  The Defendant's Agents performed the same basic job
duties and were required to use the same or similar computer
networks, software programs, applications, and phone systems.

TrueCoverage is the private health insurance marketplace
established at New Mexico.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class and Collective Members:

          James Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS, APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA. 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387 7200
          E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MH 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355 0300
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com


TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Fodge Sues Over Excessive Interest Rates
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven D. Fodge, Joseph E. Carey, Jon Adrian Tokay, Pamela Rhea
Jeffcoat, Individually, Andrew J. Kaltenmark, Individually, Lance
K. Inovejas and Deborah A. Inovejas, individually and as
representatives on behalf of all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs V. Trustmark National Bank, OCWEN Loan Servicing, LLC,
Barksdale Federal Credit Union, Pennymac Loan Services, LLC, Bank
of America, N.A. and PHH Mortgage Corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-00386 (W.D. La.,
March 20, 2018), seeks damages and injunctive relief for
violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

Plaintiffs are United States military service members who took
out real estate mortgage loans with the individual Defendants
while they were in service and accuse them of charging interest
in excess of 6%, the cap set by the Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act.

Defendants are financial institutions that provide real estate
mortgages and services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John S. Odom, Esq.
      JONES AND ODOM LLP
      2124 Fairfield Ave.
      Shreveport LA 71104
      Tel: (318) 221-1600
      Fax: (318) 425-1256
      Email: john.odom@jodplaw.com

             - and -

      M. Chad Trammell, Esq.
      TRAMMELL PIAZZA LAW FIRM, PLLC
      418 North State Line Avenue
      Texarkana, AR 71854
      Telephone: (870) 779-1860
      Facsimile: (870) 779-1861


UNITED STATES: "Broussard" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WILFRED BROUSSARD and CATHERINE MARCEAUX
LASETER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 6:18-
cv-00176-UDJ-CBW (W.D. La.), Wilfred Broussard, Catherine
Marceaux Laseter, and Icy Seafood, Inc. ask the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons or entities who or which own property in
      Louisiana on the Intracoastal Waterway in which the
      Intracoastal Waterway has exceeded the boundaries
      established in the servitudes granted to Defendant"; and

   2. naming themselves as Representative Plaintiffs and
      appointing Couhig Partners, LLC, and The Sallinger Law Firm
      to serve as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Aaz72M6o

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Robert E. Couhig Jr., Esq.
          Ralph H. Wall, Esq.
          Jonathan P. Lemann, Esq.
          Jason A. Cavignac, Esq.
          COUHIG PARTNERS, L.L.C.
          3250 Energy Centre
          1100 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 588 1288
          Facsimile: (504) 588 9750

               - and -

          Barry J. Sallinger, Esq.
          P.O. Box. 2433
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Telephone: (337) 235 5791
          Facsimile: (337) 235 1067
          E-mail: bjs@sallingerlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Faces "Purnell" Suit in N.D. Mississippi
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States
President Donald Trump. The case is captioned as Leroy Purnell,
On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the
Petitioner, v. Donald Trump, President of the United States; U.S.
Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"); U.S. Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearm, and Explosive ("ATF"); Federal Bureau and
Investigation; Jeff Sessions, U.S. Attorney General; Jim Hood, MS
Attorney General; John Kelly, U.S. Secretary of DHS; Mark McKee,
MS Director of DHS; National Security Agency ("NSA")'; Central
Intelligence Agency ("CIA"); the Respondent, Case No. 4:18-cv-
00099-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., April 30, 2018). The case is assigned
to the Hon. District Judge Debra M. Brown.

Donald John Trump is the 45th and current President of the United
States, in office since January 20, 2017. Before entering
politics, he was a businessman and television personality.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


VIVID SEATS: Sold Overpriced Tickets, "Giesea" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Todd Giesea, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Vivid Seats LLC, and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01776, (N.D. Cal., March 21,
2018), seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease
advertising and selling subject tickets; and damages together
with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the
California False Advertising Act and the Unfair Business
Practices Act.

Defendant is engaged in the, marketing, supplying, and
distributing of pre-sale tickets for various events.

On September 12, 2017, Giesea purchased tickets for an event
advertised on Vivid's webpage. He paid the Defendant
approximately three times more for the tickets than he would have
had he purchased the tickets from the producers of the event or
their agents, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WAGEWORKS INC: "Hadden" Suit Hits Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------
Robin Hadden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wageworks, Inc., Joseph L. Jackson and
Colm M. Callan, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv -01796, (N.D. Cal.,
March 23, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

WageWorks, Inc. provides tax-advantaged programs for consumer-
directed health, commuter, and other employee spending account
benefits in the United States. Defendants allegedly failed to
disclose material weaknesses in its systems of internal controls
and that its practices and controls were ineffective, that it
failed to adequately manage and assess risk relating to certain
complex transactions, including certain government contracts, and
that it improperly recognized revenue, thereby inflating its
earnings and related financial metrics. On this news, WageWorks'
share price fell $9.75, or 18.58%, to close at $42.70 per share
on March 1, 2018, on heavy volume. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (818) 532-6499
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

              - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


WALLE CORPORATION: Brumfield Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BRIDGET BRUMFIELD, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WALLE
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-08440-JCZ-JCW (E.D.
La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for conditional certification
of a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action Class and Notice
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b):

   "all persons who worked for Defendant since May 2015, who were
   paid by the hour at different rates of pay for different
   shifts that they worked for Defendant, but who were not paid
   overtime based upon their averaged rate of pay."

The Defendant does not oppose the filing of this motion, but
reserves all rights to move for decertification at the
appropriate time or to advance any defenses that it may have to
the substantive claims in this lawsuit.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BUU90uXp

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Action
Plaintiffs:

          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599-5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net


WESTERN REFINING: Fails to Pay All Wages, Dilworth Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
AMIA DILWORTH, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. WESTERN
REFINING RETAIL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
ANDEAVOR, a Delaware corporation; CONICO BULLLTON, LLC, a
California limited liability company; CONICO HARBOR, LLC, a
California limited liability company: CONICO LOMITA, LLC a
California limited liability company; CONICO MACVALLF.Y. LLC, a
California limited liability company; CONICO ROSE, LLC. a
California limited liability company; CONICO SANTA MONICA, LLC, a
California limited liability company; CONICO STATE, LLC. a
California limited liability company; CONICO VICTORY, LLC, a
California limited liability company; CONICO WEST LAKE, LLC, a
California limited liability company; CONICO WHOLESALE. LLC, a
California limited liability company; CONICO YOSEMITE
LLC, a California limited liability company; CONICO CORO, INC., a
California corporation; CONICO ROR.O, INC., a California
corporation; CONICOTORO, INC., a California corporation; PETER
HONG, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. BC702261
(Cal. Super. Ct., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover all unpaid
wages under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to her and other
similarly situated current and former California-based hourly
workers, including but not limited to cashiers, for unpaid wages
and other related relief. These claims are based on Defendants'
alleged failures to (1) provide all meal and paid rest periods in
compliance with California law, (2) pay all wages earned for all
hours worked, (3) indemnify for all expenses, (4) provide
accurate wage statements, (5) timely pay final wages upon
termination of employment, and (6) fairly compete.

Western Refining Texas Retail Services, LLC is based in El Paso,
Texas. Western Refining Texas Retail Services, LLC operates as a
subsidiary of Western Refining, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Sehyung (Logan) Park, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 312
          Encino, CA9I436
          Telephone: (818) 582 3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582 2561
          E-mail: davidt@spivaklaw.com
                  logan@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Hawes, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Boisa Ave. Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256 1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256 1006
          E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com


WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Underfills Pre-Workout Product, Lopez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO LOPEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WOODBOLT
DISTRIBUTION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
(S.D. Fla., April 30, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendant from
further deceptive advertising, sales, and other business
practices with respect to its Cellucor C4 PreWorkout packaging.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant, based
on Defendant's misleading business practices with respect to the
packaging and sale of Cellucor C4 Pre-Workout powders sold in 30-
and 60-serving size containers.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has packaged and sold
the C4 Pre-Workout in opaque packaging that conceals from
consumers the amount of product actually contained therein. The
C4 Pre-Workout is sold fully enclosed in an opaque plastic
container significantly comprised of non-functional empty space.
This packaging prevents the consumer from directly seeing or
handling the product and leads the reasonable consumer to believe
that the package contains significantly more product than it
actually does.

Defendant's practice of approximately half-filling its C4 Pre-
Workout containers with pre-workout powder inside of an opaque
container creates non-functional slack fill. The use of non-
functional slack fill allows Defendant to lower their costs by
deceiving customers into paying a higher price for more product
than they truly receive.

The Plaintiff and others have reasonably relied on Defendant's
deceptive packaging in purchasing C4 Pre-Workout. If Plaintiff
and other consumers had known the actual amount of pre-workout
powder contained in the packaging, they would not have purchased
the C4 Pre-Workout or would have paid less for it. Therefore,
Plaintiff and other consumers have suffered injury-in-fact as a
result of Defendant's deceptive practices, including, but not
limited to, out-of-pocket costs incurred in purchasing the
overvalued C4 Pre-Workout.

Woodbolt Distribution LLC, doing business as Woodbolt
International, provides sports nutrition and dietary
supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
          Robert K. Friedl, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          Capstone Law APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
                  Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com


XUNLEI: Faces Class Action Over Initial Coin Offering
-----------------------------------------------------
Samuel Haig, writing for Bitcoin.com, reports that Nasdaq-listed
technology firm Xunlei has become the subject of multiple class-
action lawsuits from investors who purchased the company's
digital token, Linktoken. Xunlei is accused of misleading
investors to disguise an initial coin offering (ICO) through
which Linktoken was distributed.

The chief executive officer of Xunlei, Chen Lei, has rejected
accusations that the company misled investors in order to
illegally conduct an ICO in China.

Xunlei's Linktoken was distributed to users in exchange for a
contribution of idle internet bandwidth, according to South China
Morning Post. Chen Lei has claimed that the Linktoken
distribution did not comprise an ICO due to the company not
raising any funds through the issuance of the tokens, and due to
Linktoken comprising a utility token that is not allowed to be
traded.  "By making a public offering, really you need to use it
to raise money.  We have never used a coin to raise any money at
all, that's never our intention," Mr. Lei stated.

In October 2017, Linktoken was launched in conjunction with other
efforts by Xunlei to enter the booming blockchain industry.
Whilst the distribution of the Linktoken appears to have been the
catalyst for many weeks of sharp bullish action, the value of
Xunlei's stock has more than halved since posting 500% gains and
setting record highs of $25 USD in November 2017.

Xunlei's Stock Plummets

Since then, the price of Xunlei's shares had plummeted to
approximately $10 by early April, prompting some U.S.-based
investors to seek action against the company for allegations of
giving false and/or misleading statements regarding the
legitimacy of the company's cryptocurrency-related activities
between October 2017 and January 2018.  Among other allegations,
investors have pointed to the requirement that they purchase
hardware from Xunlei in order to share bandwidth and claim the
digital tokens in return.

Chen Lei has refuted the allegations, stating "We are a small
capital company, so our stock price does fluctuate, but I don't
think there's any basis for the lawsuit because we're operating
in China and it is the Chinese law and regulations that we need
to observe," adding that "the definition of [an] ICO has to be
interpreted in the Chinese market." Mr. Lei also indicated that
Xunlei is currently in the process of hiring legal counsel to
refute the allegations.

Chen Lei Claims to Support Regulatory Action Against ICOs

Chen Lei also criticized initial coin offerings and advocated for
greater regulatory action to be taken against such, stating "ICOs
are terrible, and give a bad name to blockchain technology.
Governments should clamp down on these practices -- a crackdown
is the only way blockchain can rebuild its reputation."  Mr. Lei
added: "We have been very straight on our business practices --
we do not sell tokens."

China's National Internet Finance Association (NIFA), a self-
regulatory body established by the People's Bank of China and
authorized by China's State Council, conducted an investigation
into Xunlei's token distribution, concluding in January the
company had evaded regulations through conducting an "initial
miner offering."

NIFA stated "In the case of Lianke issued by Xunlei, for example,
the issuing company in effect substitutes Lianke for the duty to
pay back project contributors with legal tender, making it
essentially a financing activity and a form of disguised ICO.  In
addition, with frequent promotional activities and publishing of
trading tutorials, Xunlei has lured many citizens without sound
discernment into IMO activities."

Xunlei Shares Bounce After Blockchain Launch

Despite the controversy and ongoing class-action lawsuits,
Xunlie's stock has bounced in recent days following the company's
announcement that its "Thunderchain" blockchain platform designed
to facilitate the development of decentralized applications has
been launched.

Xunlei's shares (XNET) are currently trading at $13.46, after
retracing from highs of $14 on the 20th of April. [GN]



                     Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,200 Claims at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. had approximately 1,200 claims
pending for allege exposure to asbestos, 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 are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may
have performed at various locations.  We have never been a
manufacturer, distributor or supplier of asbestos products.  Over
the past several decades and through December 31, 2017, we have
been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos
involving approximately 6,200 plaintiffs and, of those claims,
approximately 1,200 claims were pending and 5,000 have been
closed through dismissals or settlements.

"Over the past several decades and through December 31, 2017, the
claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have
been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount of
approximately two thousand dollars per claim.  We review each
case on its own merits and make accruals based on the probability
of loss and our estimates of the amount of liability and related
expenses, if any.  Although we have seen an increase in the
number of recent filings, especially in one specific venue, we do
not believe the increase or any unresolved asserted claims will
have a material adverse effect on our future results of
operations, financial position or cash flow, and at December 31,
2017, we had approximately US$8.5 million accrued for liability
and related expenses.  With respect to unasserted asbestos
claims, we cannot identify a population of potential claimants
with sufficient certainty to determine the probability of a loss
and to make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any.

"While we continue to pursue recovery for recognized and
unrecognized contingent losses through insurance, indemnification
arrangements or other sources, we are unable to quantify the
amount, if any, that we may expect to recover because of the
variability in coverage amounts, limitations and deductibles or
the viability of carriers, with respect to our insurance policies
for the years in question."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/AZey9E


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto's Unit Still Defends Fibro Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 30, 2017, that its subsidiary still defends itself
against asbestos-related lawsuits.

Advance Auto states, "The Company's Western Auto subsidiary,
together with other defendants (including the Company and other
of its subsidiaries), has been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
products.  The plaintiffs have alleged that certain products
contained asbestos and were manufactured, distributed and/or sold
by the various defendants.  Many of the cases pending against the
Company are in the early stages of litigation.  While the damages
claimed against the defendants in some of these proceedings are
substantial, the Company believes many of these claims are at
least partially covered by insurance and historically asbestos
claims against the Company have been inconsistent in fact
patterns alleged and immaterial.  The Company does not believe
the cases currently pending will have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/5KlAYf


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Faces 820 Active Cases at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation continues to defend itself
against 820 active asbestos cases involving approximately 3,315
plaintiffs 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.

The Company states: "As of December 31, 2017, U.S. Steel was a
defendant in approximately 820 active cases involving
approximately 3,315 plaintiffs.  The vast majority of these cases
involve multiple defendants.  As of December 31, 2016, U.S. Steel
was a defendant in approximately 845 cases involving
approximately 3,340 plaintiffs.  About 2,500, or approximately 75
percent, of these plaintiff claims are currently pending in
jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of
plaintiffs.  Based upon U.S. Steel's experience in such cases, it
believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately
assert claims against U.S. Steel will likely be a small fraction
of the total number of plaintiffs.

"Historically, asbestos-related claims against U.S. Steel fall
into three groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were
exposed to asbestos on the premises of U.S. Steel facilities; (2)
claims made by persons allegedly exposed to products manufactured
by U.S. Steel; and (3) claims made under certain federal and
maritime laws by employees of former operations of U.S. Steel.

"The amount U.S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U.S. Steel's financial condition.  However, U.S.
Steel is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-
related claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1)
the rates at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and
effect of bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending
asbestos claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations
in the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims.  Despite these uncertainties,
management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters
will not have a material adverse effect on U.S. Steel's financial
condition, although the resolution of such matters could
significantly impact results of operations for a particular
quarter."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/8NwFQa


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Had 8 Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that eight plaintiffs have claims against the
Company's subsidiaries at December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in
complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi, and in 2014, a group of similar complaints were
filed in Louisiana.

"The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants,
generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured
asbestos containing drilling mud additives for use in connection
with drilling operations, claiming negligence, products
liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones
Act and general maritime law.  The plaintiffs generally seek
awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the
court appointed special master has ruled that a Jones Act
employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive
damages.

"At December 31, 2017, eight plaintiffs have claims pending in
Louisiana in which we have or may have an interest.

"We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can
provide no assurance as to the outcome.  We historically have
maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain
whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out
of these claims.  Based on our evaluation of the exposure to
date, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from
these claims to have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/8bFYYG


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 140 Injury Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that one of its subsidiaries was a defendant
in approximately 140 asbestos-related lawsuits as of December 31,
2017.

The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as a
defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits
arising out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat
exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment
of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"As of December 31, 2017, the subsidiary was a defendant in
approximately 140 lawsuits with a corresponding number of
plaintiffs.

"For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided with
sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether
all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary,
the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged
injuries.

"The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its
operations were discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than insurance policies, rights and
proceeds, including (i) certain policies subject to litigation
and (ii) certain rights and proceeds held directly or indirectly
through a qualified settlement fund.  The subsidiary has in
excess of US$1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially
available to the subsidiary.

"Although not all of the policies may be fully available due to
the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the
subsidiary will have sufficient funding directly or indirectly,
including from settlements and payments from insurers, assigned
rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements
with insurers to respond to these claims.

"While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome
of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if
any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse
effect on our consolidated statement of financial position,
results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/8bFYYG


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 215 Cases at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, faces a total of 215 asserted claims
related to asbestos exposure, according to Duke Energy
Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal period ended December 31,
2017.

The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced
numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost
reimbursement related to asbestos exposure.  These claims relate
to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from
exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction
and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation
plants prior to 1985.  As of December 31, 2017, there were 161
asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative
relief sought of up to US$42 million and 54 asserted claims for
malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to US$16
million.  Based on Duke Energy Carolinas' experience, it is
expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims
likely will be less than the amount claimed."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/RZVGzI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $489-Mil. Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC has recognized asbestos-related
reserves of US$489 million at December 31, 2017, according to the
Duke Energy Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal period ended
December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized
asbestos-related reserves of US$489 million and US$512 million at
December 31, 2017, and 2016, respectively.  These reserves are
classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other
within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
These reserves are based upon the minimum amount of the range of
loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2037, are
recorded on an undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated
inflation.  In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-
term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably
estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred
after 2037 related to such potential claims.  It is possible Duke
Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the
recorded reserves.

"Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention.  Duke Energy Carolinas'
cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention
in 2008.  Future payments up to the policy limit will be
reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier.  The insurance
policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries
indemnification and medical cost claim payments is US$797 million
in excess of the self-insured retention.  Receivables for
insurance recoveries were US$585 million and US$587 million at
December 31, 2017, and 2016, respectively.  These amounts are
classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and
Receivables within Current Assets on the Consolidated Balance
Sheets.  Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties
regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims.  Duke Energy
Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of
recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong
financial strength rating."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/RZVGzI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Action vs. Johnson & Johnson Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson is facing a securities class action lawsuit
related to alleged asbestos contamination in body powders with
talc, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "In February 2018, a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that
Johnson & Johnson violated the federal Securities laws by failing
to adequately disclose the alleged asbestos contamination in body
powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSONS(R) Baby Powder.  The
lawsuit was assigned to the District Court Judge managing the
personal injury multi-district litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/vP3oxQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Had 17 Asbestos Claims at Jan. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
GATX Corporation and its subsidiaries are facing 17 remaining
asbestos-related cases as of January 31, 2018, 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, "Several of our subsidiaries have also been
named as defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury
caused by exposure to asbestos.  The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of damages based on common law, statutory, or
premises liability or, in the case of claims against ASC, the
Jones Act, which provides limited remedies to certain maritime
employees.  During 2017, courts dismissed five asbestos cases
without any payment by GATX, and GATX settled three additional
cases for an immaterial amount.  As of January 31, 2018, there
were 17 remaining asbestos-related cases pending against GATX and
its subsidiaries, which included three new asbestos cases filed
during 2017.  In addition, demand has been made against GATX for
asbestos-related claims under limited indemnities given in
connection with the sale of certain of our former subsidiaries.
It is possible that the number of these cases or claims for
indemnity could begin to grow and that the cost of these cases,
including costs to defend, could correspondingly increase in the
future."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/iGge7o


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 59 Cases at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., faces 59 asbestos cases
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.

Aerojet Rocketdyne states, "The Company has been, and continues
to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury
or death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials,
products, or in manufacturing operations.  The majority of cases
are pending in Texas and Illinois.  There were 59 asbestos cases
pending as of December 31, 2017.

"Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e.,
as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions)
filed against the Company, the Company is generally unable to
make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims
or unasserted claims.

"The aggregate settlement costs and legal and administrative fees
associated with asbestos cases were immaterial for fiscal 2017,
2016, 2015, and the one month ended December 31, 2015."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/zZhy4Y


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UPS Injurious Asbestos Exposure Finding Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirms the North Carolina
Industrial Commission's finding of fact that Decedent Johnny Ray
Penegar's was last injuriously exposed to asbestos, and the
hazards of developing mesothelioma, during his employment with
United Parcel Service.  The Court also affirms the Commission's
recalculation of Decedent's average weekly wage and dismisses as
moot Plaintiff's appeal regarding the determination of the
maximum compensation rate.

This case arises out of a workers' compensation claim filed by
Johnny Ray Penegar against United Parcel Service and Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company, asserting compensation for Decedent's
mesothelioma. Carra Jane Penegar, Decedent's wife and executrix
of his estate, was substituted as Plaintiff following Decedent's
death on 26 March 2015 during the pendency of this action. Both
parties appeal from the opinion and award of the Full North
Carolina Industrial Commission, which awarded Plaintiff
compensation for all of Decedent's medical expenses associated
with his diagnosis of mesothelioma, total disability
compensation, burial expenses, and death benefits.

Decedent worked for United Parcel Service for thirty years, from
1967 until 1998, as a feeder driver based in United Parcel
Service's Charlotte facility. Decedent's duties included driving
a tracker-trailer to destinations within 200 miles and back each
day. The Charlotte facility was a large, in which the main area,
referred to by employees as the "shop," consisted of various
unseparated bays designated "tractor shop" or "package car shop"
depending on what vehicles were being repaired or maintained in
each. Decedent walked through the shop nearly every day to get
from his truck to the employee locker room. Decedent would often
stop in the shop to talk with mechanics while they worked.

On 8 February 2013, Decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma.
Prior to his death on 26 March 2016, Decedent filed a claim with
the Commission alleging that his mesothelioma developed as a
result of asbestos exposure during his employment with United
Parcel Service.

Plaintiff presented testimony from two former United Parcel
Service mechanics and two medical experts. The mechanics
testified that asbestos was present at the Charlotte facility.
The medical experts testified that exposure to asbestos in the
United Parcel Service facility caused Decedent to develop
mesothelioma or contributed to him developing that disease.
Defendants presented two expert witnesses -- an expert in
industrial hygiene and an expert in pathology.

Defendants challenge the Commission's findings that (1) the
brakes used by United Parcel Service at its Charlotte facility
while Decedent was employed there contained asbestos and (2)
Decedent was at an increased risk of asbestos exposure during his
employment with United Parcel Service.

The Court disagrees with Defendants argument that Plaintiff
failed to present evidence that Decedent was not exposed to
asbestos during his subsequent employments, and therefore, the
Commission's finding that Decedent's last injurious exposure to
asbestos occurred at United Parcel Service is also unsupported by
the evidence.

The Court determines that the Commission's findings are
consistent with the witnesses' testimonies and therefore are
supported by competent evidence. Specifically, Vernon Thomas Pond
testified that he worked with United Parcel Service as a mechanic
at the Charlotte facility from 1972 until 2003. He further
testified that it was his knowledge that all brake pads,
including those used by United Parcel Service during Decedent's
employment, contained asbestos, and that it was common practice
for the mechanics to knock the brake drums on the floor and to
use compressed air to clean the brake dust from the drums.
Likewise, Mr. Bobby Bolin testified that it was his understanding
that the brake pads used by United Parcel Service contained
asbestos, and that it was not until the 1980s that United Parcel
Service began providing protective masks -- and then only to the
mechanics. Both witnesses testified that they frequently saw
Decedent in the shop where these brake jobs were performed.

Based on this testimony alone, the Court concludes that the
Commission's findings that (1) the brakes used by United Parcel
Service during Decedent's employment contained asbestos and (2)
Decedent was exposed to increased levels of asbestos beyond that
of the general public are supported by competent evidence.

Moreover, the Court also finds that the testimonies of Dr.
Harpole and Dr. Barry Horn -- the medical experts called by
Plaintiff -- also provide competent evidence to support the
Commission's findings of fact. Defendants argue that their expert
witnesses, Mr. Agopsowicz and Dr. Roggli, offered testimony that
contradicts the testimony of Plaintiff's witnesses. However, the
Court maintains that it is not within the Court's authority to
reweigh the evidence and credibility of the witnesses.

Since the Commission explicitly found that Plaintiff's expert
witnesses presented more credible testimony than Defendants'
expert witnesses, and, because the Commission is the sole judge
of credibility, the Court rules that Commission's findings must
stand. Accordingly, the Court holds that the Commission's
findings that Decedent -- while employed with United Parcel
Service -- was exposed to asbestos at levels above those of the
general public and was injured as a result thereof are supported
by competent evidence.

The Commission also found that "there is no evidence of record
that any of [Decedent's subsequent] jobs exposed decedent to the
hazards of asbestos." The Court notes that this finding is
logically consistent with the Commission's conclusion that
Decedent's last injurious exposure to asbestos occurred at United
Parcel Service -- because if there is no evidence of later
exposure, the last exposure must necessarily have occurred at
United Parcel Service.

The Court points out that Plaintiff provided competent evidence
that Decedent was injuriously exposed to asbestos during his
employment with United Parcel Service and that his exposure
contributed to his development of mesothelioma. While there is no
affirmative evidence proving a lack of exposure to asbestos in
his subsequent employment, nothing in the evidence regarding his
subsequent employment -- as a van driver and a church and school
employee -- suggests any inference to the contrary. Without any
such evidence, it would have been error for the Commission to
find that Decedent was later exposed. Thus, in the absence of any
evidence establishing a nexus between Plaintiff's subsequent
employment and asbestos exposure, the Court concludes that the
Commission did not err in finding that Plaintiff's last injurious
exposure to asbestos was at United Parcel Service.

The Commission looked at Decedent's earnings for 2012 from his
employment with Union County -- $4,272.92 -- which were evidenced
by Decedent's Social Security Earnings Statement.2 The Commission
then divided this amount by 52 weeks and obtained an average
weekly wage of $82.17 with a resulting compensation rate of
$54.78 for Decedent. Decedent's Social Security Earnings
Statement is competent evidence that supports the Commission's
findings, and therefore, we are bound by such findings on appeal.

Plaintiff also filed a motion for reconsideration of the maximum
compensation rate, arguing that the Deputy Commissioner should
have used the maximum compensation rate from 2015 -- the date of
Decedent's death. The Deputy Commissioner denied Plaintiff's
motion.

The Deputy Commissioner awarded Plaintiff 500 weeks of wage
compensation, calculated using Decedent's average weekly wage
from 1998 of $690.10, the last year he worked for United Parcel
Service, and limited by the maximum compensation rate for 1998,
so that Plaintiff was awarded $532.00 per week. The opinion and
award also compensated Plaintiff for the medical expenses
incurred treating Decedent's mesothelioma.

The Commission looked at Decedent's earnings for 2012 from his
employment with Union County -- $4,273 -- which were evidenced by
Decedent's Social Security Earnings Statement. The Court finds
the Decedent's Social Security Earnings Statement as competent
evidence that supports the Commission's findings, and therefore,
the Court is bound by such findings on appeal.

The appealed case is Carra Jane Penegar, Widow and Executrix of
the Estate of Johnny Ray Penegar, Deceased Employee, Plaintiff,
v. United Parcel Service, Employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.,
Carrier, Defendants, No. COA17-404, (N.C. Ct. App.).

A copy of the Order dated May 1, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7u4s6f9 from Leagle.com.

Wallace and Graham, P.A., by Michael B. Pross, for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Goodman McGuffey, LLP, by Jennifer Jerzak Blackman --
jblackman@GM-LLP.com -- for Defendants-Appellants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Summary Judgment Re-Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware has
granted Defendant Union Carbide Corporation's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case styled Sandra Kivell, individually, and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Milton J. Kivell,
deceased, Plaintiff, v. Union Carbide Corp. et al., Defendants,
C.A. No. N15C-07-093 ASB, (Del. Super.).

On August 30, 2017, the Court granted summary judgment in favor
of Defendant Union Carbide Corporation based on Louisiana case
law including Western District of Louisiana's decision in Roach
v. Air Liquid America.

On their Motion for Reargument, Plaintiff argued that Union
Carbide did not advance any of the evidentiary issues relied on
by the Court in its motion for summary judgment, and thus waived
the arguments concerning the presence of asbestos in the Taft
facility. The Plaintiff's main argument on her Motion is that
evidence, not available at the time of summary judgment, was
discovered by Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff contends that the
contracts, and subsequent documents produced by Kiewit contain
evidence that the Court determined Plaintiff was missing on
summary judgment.

The Court considered the documents as newly discovered evidence
because it was evidence that the Court did not have and was not
able to consider at the time of its decision.

In Plaintiff's motion for reargument three facts are called into
question upon which summary judgment was granted: (a) that Union
Carbide exercised a degree control over its independent
contractor and Mr. Kivell so as to impute vicarious liability to
Union Carbide, (b) that the Taft facility contained asbestos
sufficient to hold Union Carbide directly liable, and (c) that
Union Carbide can be held strictly liable based on the custody of
asbestos Mr. Kivell encountered through his work at the Union
Carbide facility.

Generally a principal is not liable for acts of an independent
contractor in the performance of their contractual obligations.
The two exceptions to this rule are (1) the independent
Contractor is involved in "ultrahazardous" work, or (2) the
principal is in direct control over the manner in which the
independent contractor completes the work.

The determination of "ultrahazardous" activity has been held by
the Supreme Court of Louisiana to include activities that can
cause injury to others, "even when conducted with the greatest
prudence and care." When the activity at issue is not
ultrahazardous, the principal has no duty to ensure, through
instructions or supervision, that the independent contractor
performs its obligations in a reasonably safe manner.

The second exception is based on a determination that the
principal was in direct control over the manner in which the
independent contractor completed the work. The Court explains
that in making the determination of whether a principal retained
supervision or control over the contractor, it is the principal's
right to exercise control that is of primary concern, not the
supervision and control actually exercised. A principal who
exercises no operational control has no duty to discover and
remedy hazards created by acts of its independent contractors.
Similarly contractual obligations to observe prevailing safety
rules "does not signify requisite right of operational control
necessary to vitiate the independent contractor relationship."

Plaintiff again points to Union Carbide safety monitoring of
contract personnel as evidence of control over Kiewit's
contractual obligations. The Court in Davenport correctly points
out that periodic safety inspections and pointing out violations
does not constitute sufficient right to control so as to impose
liability on the principal. To hold any principal liable based on
monitoring their contractors would lead to the undesirable result
of condoning or ignoring unsafe activities.

Plaintiff points to contractual obligations of Kiewit to perform
projects as directed by Union Carbide as evidence of the right to
control the independent contractor. The right to control is not a
question of controlling the work to be performed, but rather the
manner in which the independent contractor performs the work
assigned. Plaintiff concedes in their motion that Union Carbide
employees would instruct Kiewit to have a team to perform various
side jobs on site. These side jobs were contractual obligations
governed by "Job Instructions" to be provided by Union Carbide.
The "Job Instructions" contained in the contract provide
description and scope of work to be completed, cost accounting,
and other details. Neither the "Job Instructions" nor Mr.
Kivell's testimony indicate that UCC retained the right to
control the manner in which Mr. Kivell, Kiewit, or its employees
were to complete these tasks. The Court finds no evidence that
Union Carbide retained the right to control its independent
contractors sufficient to hold Union Carbide vicariously liable.
Plaintiff's newly discovered evidence has failed to show that
Union Carbide failed to provide a safe working environment for
its independent contractors. Mr. Kivell never worked directly for
Union Carbide, and Union Carbide contracted Kiewit to complete
construction and maintenance work at its Taft facility. The
dangers posed by the work to be completed by Kiewit and its
subcontractors were contemplated in the contract formation
calling for Kiewit to complete its obligations in accordance with
prevailing regulations and safety practices in place at the time.

The Court finds the contract submitted as new evidence with their
motion for reargument speaks to transferring of care, custody,
and control from the independent contractor to Union Carbide.
This implies that all new construction work to be performed under
the contract is necessarily under the sole control and custody of
the independent contractor until its acceptance by Union Carbide.
This includes all materials to be installed at the facility. That
Union Carbide was aware of dangers associated with asbestos is
not to imply that they condoned unsafe practices related to it.

Plaintiff has failed to provide new evidence that Union Carbide's
premises contained any inherent hazards for which a Union Carbide
owed a duty to protect its independent contractors from.
Plaintiff argues that as Union Carbide retained the "right to
benefit from the thing controlled" -- namely the Taft facility --
Union Carbide was in custody of any asbestos the plaintiff worked
with. The Court finds that Plaintiffs argument in favor of a
finding of strict liability based on Union Carbide's "right to
benefit from the thing controlled" an impermissible extension of
Louisiana jurisprudence. To hold that a premises owner meets the
"care and custody" requirement for strict liability based on
"receiving a benefit from" the premises itself would be to
overrule Louisiana precedent "that mere physical presence on
[the] premises does not constitute custody." Thus, Plaintiff's
new evidence provides no further support for a finding of strict
liability against Union Carbide.

A full-text copy of the Order dated May 1, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yafk72fu from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remand of "Templet" to State Court Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms
the district court's order remanding the case appealed case
Robert J. Templet, Sr. Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Huntington Ingalls,
Incorporated; Albert Bossier, Jr., as an Executive Officer of
Avondale Industries, Incorporated; Lamorak Insurance Company,
Defendants-Appellants, No. 17-30676, (5th Cir.) to state court.

This case is one of several brought by former Huntington Ingalls
employees in state court alleging that the company failed to warn
them of the risks of asbestos exposure and failed to implement
proper safety procedures for handling asbestos. Recently, in
Legendre v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 885 F.3d 398 (5th Cir.
2018), the Court confirmed that asbestos claims regarding
negligent failure to warn, train, or implement safety procedures
do not give rise to federal jurisdiction when unrebutted evidence
shows that the government did nothing to direct the shipyard's
safety practices.

Robert J. Templet worked for Huntington Ingalls from 1968 to
2002. He alleges that between 1968 and 1979 he handled asbestos
and asbestos-containing products at various worksites, causing
him to contract diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma. Templet
sued Huntington Ingalls, Huntington Ingalls executive Albert
Bossier, Jr., and Lamorak Insurance Company in Louisiana state
court for negligently failing to warn him of the dangers of
asbestos and failing to implement safety procedures for handling
asbestos. Huntington Ingalls removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under
the federal officer removal statute, alleging that the company
used asbestos to construct vessels under government-mandated
contract specifications.

Under the federal officer removal statute, an action against any
officer or agent of the United States "for or relating to any act
under color of such office" may be removed to federal court. To
remove, a defendant must show: "(1) that it is a person within
the meaning of the statute, (2) that it has a colorable federal
defense, (3) that it acted pursuant to a federal officer's
directions, and (4) that a causal nexus exists between its
actions under color of federal office and the plaintiff's
claims."

The Court clarifies the scope of this "causal nexus" in a line of
cases culminating in Legendre. The plaintiffs in Legendre alleged
that Huntington Ingalls failed to warn them of the risks of
asbestos exposure and failed to implement proper safety
procedures for handling asbestos. The Court explains that strict
liability claims that "rest on the mere use of asbestos" support
removal because they are "causally linked to the [government's]
requirement that its ships contain asbestos." But negligently
"failing to warn, train, and adopt safety procedures regarding
asbestos" does not support removal because it is "private conduct
that implicates no federal interest." Because allowing removal
when the defendants were free to adopt the safety measures at
issue, "would have stretched the causal nexus requirement to the
point of irrelevance," the Court rules that the district court
properly remanded the case to state court.

Here, as in Legendre, Templet brings negligence claims concerning
Huntington Ingalls's failure to warn and adopt safety procedures
regarding asbestos -- "private conduct that implicates no federal
interest." And here, as in Legendre, Huntington Ingalls makes no
showing that it could not have adopted the safety measures
Templet alleges would have prevented his injuries. Because of
this, the district court correctly held that Huntington Ingalls
failed to show the required "causal nexus" to support federal
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442.

A full-text copy of the Per Curiam dated May 1, 2018, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybbtszp9 from Leagle.com.

Brian Carl Bossier -- bbossier@bluewilliams.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III -- eellinghausen@bluewilliams.com --
for Defendant-Appellant.

Gary Allen Lee, for Defendant-Appellant.

Samuel M. Rosamond, III, for Defendant-Appellant.

Thomas More Flanagan -- tflanagan@flanaganpartners.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mickey P. Landry -- mlandry@landryswarr.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Sean Patrick Brady, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Frank Joseph Swarr -- fswarr@landryswarr.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Anders F. Holmgren -- aholmgren@flanaganpartners.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jeffrey A. O'Connell -- jeffreyoconnell@nemerofflaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ryan P. Phillips, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roderick Scott Marshall, I, for Plaintiff-Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. CBS Dismissed in "Airey"
-------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Louis Guirola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi dismissed with prejudice CBS
Corporation, a Delaware corporation, f/k/a Viacom Inc., successor
by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, f/k/a
Westinghouse Electric Corporation from the claims of Plaintiff,
Beatrice H. Airey, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate and
Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Albert J. Airey, Deceased.

In the case styled Beatrice H. Airey, Individually and on behalf
of the Estate and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Albert J.
Airey, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., a
division of A.O. Smith Corp.; et al., Defendants, Cause No.
1:16cv317-LG-RHW, (S.D. Miss.), the Plaintiff filed motion ore
tenus to dismiss its claims against CBS Corporation with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Agreed Order dated May 1, 2018, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8h2ltou from Leagle.com.

Beatrice H. Airey, Individually and on behalf of the Estate and
Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Albert J. Airey, Deceased,
Plaintiff, represented by James L. Farragut, III, Farragut Law
Firm, PLLC.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Defendant, represented by Thomas E. Vaughn,
Vaughn & Bowden, PA.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Claire W. Ketner
-- cketner@brunini.com -- Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Gilmore" PI Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York dismissed the action styled Stephanie
Gilmore, Darryl Gilmore, Plaintiffs, v. Troy Housing Authority,
John Doe U.S. Marshals, NYPD, U.S. Marshal Mike Warner, Troy
Housing Authority Officer McLaughlin, Defendants. No. 16-CV-
1048(DNH)(DJS) United States District Court, N.D. New York as the
parties have reached a settlement agreement.

A copy of the Order dated May 2, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yab5ffdu from Leagle.com.

Stephanie Gilmore, Plaintiff, pro se.

Darryl Gilmore, Plaintiff, pro se.

Troy Housing Authority, Housing Police & Unnamed McLaughlin,
Defendants, represented by Mark T. Houston --
mark.houston@townelaw.com -- Towne, Ryan Law Firm & John W.
Liguori  -- john.liguori@townelaw.com -- Towne, Ryan Law Firm.

N.Y.P.D., Jason Garcia & others, Defendant, represented by Erin
T. Ryan, New York City Law Department.

Mike Warner, U.S. Marshal, Defendant, represented by Karen
Folster Lesperance, Office of United States Attorney.

Troy Housing Authority, Housing Police & Unnamed McLaughlin,
Cross Claimants, represented by John W. Liguori  --
john.liguori@townelaw.com -- Towne, Ryan Law Firm.

N.Y.P.D., Jason Garcia & others, Cross Defendant, represented by
Erin T. Ryan, New York City Law Department.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Review Daubert Rulings in "Ahnert"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Pamela Pepper of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin has entered an Order denying Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration of Daubert Rulings in the case titled
Beverly Ahnert, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of
Daniel Ahnert, Deceased. Plaintiffs, v. Employers Ins. Co. of
Wausau, Sprinkmann Sons Corp., Wisconsin Electric Power Co.,
Pabst Brewing Co., Defendants, Case No. 10-cv-156-pp, No. 13-cv-
1456-pp, (E.D. Wis.).

In a hearing held on January 4, 2018, the Court considered and
ruled on the parties' motions to exclude experts under Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), as well
as the majority of their motions in limine, ahead of the trial
scheduled for June 4. As part of that ruling, the Court granted
defendant Pabst Brewing Company's motion to bar, under Daubert,
the reports, opinions and testimony of Kenneth Garza, and granted
the Daubert motion of defendants Sprinkmann, Employers Insurance
Company and WEPCO to exclude Garza's testimony.

In analyzing Garza's reports under the Daubert standard, the
Court found that his training and background gave him the
knowledge and expertise to qualify as an expert in the area of
industrial hygiene. The Court concluded, however, that the
Plaintiffs had not demonstrated that Garza's methods --
particularly in relation to the facts of this case -- were
reliable. The Court initially expressed concern that Garza's
"general" report contained nothing "that in any way, shape, or
form had any specific connection to this case," later, it
acknowledged that Garza's "specific" report mentioned the WEPCO
plant and deposition testimony of some of plaintiff Daniel
Ahnert's co-workers. Despite that detail, the Court concluded
that Garza's proffered opinions lacked sufficient facts or data,
and that he had not explained his methodology.

On February 20, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion, asking the
Court to reconsider its orders barring them from using Garza as
an expert. The Plaintiffs appear to be asking the court to
relieve them of the portion of its January 4, 2018 order that
bars Garza's testimony, and they filed the motion within a
reasonable time after the court issued that order.

Despite spending almost forty pages asking the Court to
reconsider its rulings, the Plaintiffs have not argued that any
of the thirty-seven exhibits attached to the motion for
reconsideration, or any of the three exhibits filed as
supplemental authority, are "newly discovered." Rather, after
over eight years of litigation and a scant four months before
trial, the Plaintiffs have filed a bevy of exhibits that are
newly created or newly produced, but decidedly are not newly
discovered.

In the "newly created" category, Exhibit 151-1 is a declaration
from Garza dated February 19, 2018 -- over a month after the
January 4, 2018 hearing. The Plaintiffs admit that they filed
this February 19, 2018, declaration because they believed that
their prior "briefing did not cover all the Daubert factors in
the depth needed."

Pabst pointed out in its brief in support of the motion to strike
Garza that, during the eight years these cases have been pending,
the Plaintiffs never have formally disclosed Garza as an expert.
At some point prior to January 2013, the Plaintiffs simply
produced two reports from Garza -- a "general" report dated May
1, 2012, and a "specific" report dated August 10, 2012. In 2013,
while the case was in the Multi-District Litigation court, they
produced another "general" report dated January 21, 2013, which
was barred by the MDL magistrate judge as untimely. Days before
the defendants were scheduled to depose Garza (in August 2017),
the plaintiffs produced two more reports.

Garza was deposed on August 11, 2017 -- he could have used that
opportunity to explain all of the information that he provided in
the February 2018 declaration. The Plaintiffs could have provided
that information in their briefs in opposition to the Defendants'
Daubert motions -- they even could have produced Garza at the
January 4, 2018 hearing (which the court had designated several
times as a "Daubert hearing"), and he could have provided the
information there, in person. Instead, the plaintiffs waited
until after the court had ruled that they could not use Garza,
and then had Garza create a new declaration, containing
information that they thought would plug the holes the Court had
identified.

Other exhibits are documents that the plaintiffs knew of at the
time of the Daubert briefing and the January 4, 2018 hearing, but
that they did not submit or reference at the hearing. In filing
these documents after the hearing, the Court determines that the
Plaintiffs have followed a disturbing pattern that has emerged
over the course of the litigation in the consolidated cases -- a
practice of filing, amending or supplementing pleadings or
documents after deadlines have expired, one that has contributed
to the procedural quagmire of this litigation.

Plaintiff Daniel Ahnert filed the 2010 lawsuit in the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, based on his asbestosis diagnosis. After
the 2010 case was transferred to the Multi-District Litigation
court, a doctor diagnosed Daniel Ahnert with a cancer known as
mesothelioma. Rather than amending the 2010 complaint, the
Plaintiffs filed a new complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit
Court, then supplemented their discovery responses in the federal
case to disclose the new diagnosis. The Plaintiffs later
dismissed the Milwaukee County Circuit Court case and, on
December 30, 2013, filed a third case in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin (Case No. 13-cv-1456), grounded in the mesothelioma
diagnosis and naming defendants who had been dismissed from the
first case for lack of proof. When the Plaintiffs later attempted
to amend the complaint in the MDL (Case No. 10-cv-156), the MDL
judge denied that motion as untimely because the parties already
had briefed summary judgment.

While the 2010 case was pending before Magistrate Judge
Strawbridge in the MDL court, the plaintiffs attempted to file an
"amended" general report for Garza, dated January 21, 2013. In an
order dated April 3, 2013, Judge Strawbridge struck the "amended"
report. He found that the report was untimely, because it was
filed beyond the deadlines set in any of the scheduling orders
for any of the MDL cases.

Almost nine months later, the Ahnert estate and Mrs. Ahnert filed
the second federal case, 13-cv-1456. In his June 3, 2014
scheduling order, Judge Clevert ordered the Plaintiff to name
their expert witnesses by August 15, 2014, and to disclose their
reports by September 15, 2014. Despite Judge Strawbridge's ruling
striking the January 21, 2013 "amended" report in the 2010 case,
the Plaintiffs filed it, along with the reports of their other
proposed experts, in the 2013 case in front of Judge Clevert.

Thus, as a result of the Plaintiffs having two cases proceeding
at the same time in different courts, and in different procedural
postures, the plaintiffs were able to succeed in filing the new
Garza report (in their words, an "amended," or "supplemental,"
Garza report) despite having blown the deadline for doing so in
the 2010 case. Now, they seek to take advantage of that windfall
by arguing that the defendants should have challenged specific
portions of the "amended" report in their Daubert motions in the
consolidated cases.

Specifically with regard to Garza, the Plaintiffs have attempted
to supplement Garza's reports on four different occasions
(including the night before his deposition), not including this
most recent attempt. The Court concludes that none of this is
"newly discovered evidence," and all of it could have been
provided before January 4, 2018. The Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated that there is newly discovered evidence that
warrants the Court reconsidering its January 4, 2018 decisions
barring Garza from testifying.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not argued that the Court's
decision to bar Garza's testimony constituted a "wholesale
disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling
precedent." Rather, they take issue with the Court's conclusion
that Garza's methodology -- reviewing relevant industry
literature -- was not reliable. Plaintiffs state that, "based on
the Court's ruling and comments on January 4, 2018, the
Plaintiffs' briefs did not cover all the Daubert factors in the
depth needed." Nothing in the Plaintiffs' hundreds of pages of
reconsideration material demonstrates a manifest error of fact or
law. At best, the materials show a difference of opinion.

The "methodology" Garza described in the two 2012 reports was to
"review the literature." But the Court found no evidence of the
use of appropriate training, appropriate respiratory protective
equipment, and adequate engineering controls will reduce the
exposure to airborne asbestos. The Court determines that neither
Garza's reports nor his August 2017 deposition testimony provided
any basis for the Court (or the Defendants) to assess his
methodology for reliability. Garza assumed that Daniel Ahnert's
exposures were above background concentrations -- whatever those
were. Garza testified at his October 2017 deposition that "no
person ever goes on to a site and is exposed to the same exact
amount of something over time. There's a lot of factors go into
that." Yet Garza admitted that he had no information about Pabst
other than the fact that it was identified as a work site; that
he had never visited any of the defendants' worksites; that he
had never reviewed any air sampling, blueprints, maps or
photographs of the sites; and that he did not know the time
periods or the distance that Daniel Ahnert worked from any
asbestos.

The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not provided newly
discovered evidence that could not have been provided before the
hearing. They have not demonstrated that the court made a
manifest error of law. They have not demonstrated that the court
made a manifest error of fact. They have expended their
resources, the defendants' resources and this court's resources
in re-packaging previous submissions and arguments. The court
will not change its ruling under Rule 54(b).

But the Court rejects the Plaintiffs' arguments that they should
be allowed to present certain of the conclusions/opinions Garza
stated in the "amended" January 21, 2013 report on the sole basis
that the defendants did not specifically challenge those
opinions/conclusions. The Court will not reconsider its rulings
on this basis, nor will it vacate the portion of its rulings that
struck Garza's reports and testimony in their entirety.

A copy of the Order dated May 2, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7venwrt from Leagle.com.

Daniel Ahnert, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd., Daniel B. Hausman, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law
Offices Ltd.

Beverly Ahnert, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd., Daniel B. Hausman, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices Ltd., Jin Ho Chung, Cascino Vaughan Law
Offices Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd.

Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Sprinkmann Sons
Corporation & Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Defendants,
represented by James A. Niquet -- jniquet@crivellocarlson.com --
Crivello Carlson SC, Laura E. Schuett --
lschuett@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson SC & Travis J.
Rhoades -- trhoades@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson SC.

Pabst Brewing Company, Defendant, represented by Joshua C.
Schumacher, Hepler Broom LLC, Michael T. Antikainen, Hepler Broom
LLC & Michael W. Drumke, Hepler Broom LLC.

Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Sprinkmann Sons
Corporation & Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Cross Defendants,
represented by James A. Niquet -- jniquet@crivellocarlson.com --
Crivello Carlson SC & Laura E. Schuett --
lschuett@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson SC.

Pabst Brewing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael T.
Antikainen, Hepler Broom LLC & Michael W. Drumke, Hepler Broom
LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Flip DOL Refusal of EEOICPA Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled David A. Russell, Plaintiff, v. United States
Department of Labor, Defendant, No. 3:15-CV-320-DCP, (E.D.
Tenn.), Judge Debra C. Poplin of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee has denied Plaintiff David A.
Russell's requests to reverse Defendant's decision to denying him
benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act.

Plaintiff David A. Russell brought this action against the United
States Department of Labor, alleging that its decision to deny
him benefits under Part E of the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act, for his chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease ("COPD"), is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse
of discretion, and otherwise inconsistent with the law.

On May 9, 2013, the District Office recommended that Plaintiff's
claim be denied because the evidence was insufficient to
establish that it was "at least as likely as not" that exposure
to a toxic substance at the Oak Ridge facilities was a
significant factor in aggravating, contributing, or causing
Plaintiff's COPD. Plaintiff objected to the recommendation, and a
hearing was held before the Final Adjudication Branch ("FAB"). On
October 11, 2013, FAB issued an order remanding Plaintiff's claim
to the District Office, stating that the District Office did not
explain why a report from Plaintiff's treating physician, Marty
Wallace, M.D., was given no probative value.

On February 4, 2014, the District Office again recommended that
Plaintiff's claim be denied, listing five specific reasons as to
why it gave more probative value to the two Contract Medical
Consultants' opinions as opposed to Dr. Wallace. The District
Office also noted that Plaintiff had been a patient of East
Tennessee Pulmonary Associates since at least October 2009. The
District Office explained that R. Hal Hughes, M.D., with East
Tennessee Pulmonary Associates did not indicate that Plaintiff's
COPD was caused by occupational exposures until May 31, 2013, and
that Dr. Hughes' May 31 diagnosis did not demonstrate knowledge
of the frequency or level of Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos.

Plaintiff objected to the recommendation, and a hearing was held
on May 22, 2014. In a decision dated July 30, 2014, FAB ordered
that the case be remanded to the District Office. The Director
referred Plaintiff's claim to the Cleveland District Office to
further develop and to provide a recommendation. The Director
ordered the District Office to refer the matter to an industrial
hygienist for an opinion regarding the level and intensity of
Plaintiff's work-related exposures to toxic substances. In
addition, the Director ordered the District Office to refer
Plaintiff's claim to another CMC [Contract Medical Consultant]
for an appropriate medical opinion on the purported causal
relationship of the exposures to his COPD.

The industrial hygienist, David Levitt, issued a report on
November 19, 2015, and issued an addendum on December 7, 2015. In
the November 19 report, Levitt concluded that while Plaintiff
worked intermittently as a carpenter at the Oak Ridge Reservation
for a total of 27 months, he was "significantly exposed to
asbestos and wood dusts." Levitt continued that his exposures to
both of these agents would have likely been frequent (i.e., a
daily basis) and that his exposure to asbestos would have ranged
from low to moderate levels, while his exposure to wood dust
would have ranged from moderate to high levels. With respect to
the December 7 report, Levitt stated that there was no evidence
that Plaintiff "engaged in any activities that would have
resulted in him being significantly exposed to crystalline
silicon dioxide (i.e., sandblasting, mixing and applying drywall
compound, mixing dry cement, jackhammering, etc.)." He concluded
that it was "highly unlikely that [Plaintiff] was significantly
exposed to this agent" and that "any exposures that he might have
received would have been incidental in nature (occurring in
passing only) and not significant."

The CMC, Akshay Sood, M.D., issued a report on December 21, 2015.
Dr. Sood concluded, "Plaintiff's work history and exposure
potential does not make it at least as likely as not that
exposure to the toxic substance asbestos, wood dust, and/or
crystalline silicon dioxide during the course of employment at
the DOE facility was a significant factor in causing,
contributing to, or aggravating the condition of COPD."

On January 11, 2016, the Cleveland District Office recommended
that Plaintiff's claim be denied. Plaintiff objected to the
recommendation, and following the hearing held before FAB, on
July 25, 2016, FAB referred the case to Christopher Armstrong,
M.D., the DEEOIC Medical Director, for his opinion concerning the
relationship, if any, between Plaintiff's occupational exposure
to toxic substances in the course of his employment at several
DOE facilities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and his diagnosis of
COPD. In his report, Dr. Armstrong opined that Plaintiff's COPD
"was not, at least as likely as not, caused, contributed to, or
aggravated by his occupational exposure to epoxy adhesives by
themselves, or in combination with exposures to asbestos, wood
dust, or silica."

Dr. Armstrong reasoned that asbestos, wood dust, and silica are
associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but
the duration of [Plaintiff's] exposure to these was insufficient
to support a causal relationship between his questionable
diagnosis of mild COPD and his employment on the Oak Ridge
Reservation. Epoxy adhesives are associated with occupational
asthma, a reactive airway disease that [Plaintiff] does not have.
Furthermore, there is neither a record of significant irritant
exposure resulting in respiratory symptoms during his employment,
nor a connecting history of respiratory symptoms between the
period of his employment and his initial diagnosis of COPD in
December 6, 2010.

FAB concluded that while the evidence showed that Plaintiff was a
DOE subcontractor, who was exposed to several substances during
the course of his employment, the medical evidence did not
establish that "such exposures were at least as likely as not a
significant factor in causing, contributing, or aggravating
Plaintiff's COPD. FAB reasoned that Dr. Sood's and Dr.
Armstrong's opinions represent the weight of the medical evidence
in the case and hold greater probative value than Dr. Wallace's
report. Accordingly, FAB denied Plaintiff's claim.

Now, Plaintiff moves the Court to vacate Defendant's decision and
to enter judgment in his favor, or in the alternative, to remand
the claim for further consideration. In support of his Motion,
Plaintiff asserts Defendant's decision is arbitrary and
capricious for three primary reasons. First, Plaintiff argues
that Defendant's decision is inconsistent with the evidence.
Second, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to consider an
important aspect of the problem -- that is, the combined or
synergistic effect of the three toxins at the exposure levels
documented by Levitt, the industrial hygienist. Finally,
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to follow its own
procedures.

Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant relied on the wrong labor
category in determining the toxins that he was exposed to during
his covered employment. Plaintiff continues that the Statement of
Accepted Facts ("SOAF") identifies his labor category as
"Carpenter" without further limitation and that his employment
cards from Rust Engineering identify him as a "Carpenter."
Plaintiff asserts that the only reference to "Carpenter-
Construction" found in the record are the assertions contained
within the recommended and final decisions. Plaintiff submits
that Defendant relies on the employment cards for the purpose of
hire and termination dates, yet it ignores the same employment
cards to show that his title is "Carpenter." Plaintiff continues
that given the more restrictive labor category, Defendant
improperly isolated his potential toxic exposures to only three
toxins.

The Court has considered Plaintiff's argument, but the Court does
not find Defendant's decision arbitrary and capricious. In FAB's
decision, it explained that in order to determine whether an
employee was exposed to a toxic substance, the record must
contain evidence showing that "such substance was present at the
facility where the employee worked, that there was a reasonable
likelihood for employee exposure, and that the employee came into
contact with such substance." Further, FAB explained that a
"reasonable likelihood of exposure exists when a substance was
used 'during the process involved as part of the employee's job
duties and exposure routes.'"

The Court has reviewed FAB's decision and does not find that it
is arbitrary and capricious. FAB provided a reasonable
explanation for why it used the labor category, "Carpenter,
Construction," as opposed to "Carpenter." Specifically, FAB
reasoned that "Carpenter" pertains to carpenters who worked
permanently at the Y-12 Plant. Plaintiff does not argue that this
definition is incorrect, nor does he assert that he worked
permanently at the Y-12 Plant. In any event, however, FAB
considered Plaintiff's claim that he was exposed to additional
substances, but it found that they were not linked to COPD or
Plaintiff's testimony established that he was not greatly exposed
to such substances. Accordingly, the Court finds that FAB
provided a reasonable explanation for its decision to categorize
Plaintiff's job as "Construction, Carpenter" and finds no reason
to disturb FAB's determination.

Plaintiff also argues that Defendant failed to consider an
important aspect of the problem when it did not consider the
combined, or synergistic, effect of the three toxins at the
exposure levels documented by the industrial hygienist. Plaintiff
asserts Defendant did not consider the likelihood that this
combined effect was a significant factor in aggravating,
contributing to, or causing Plaintiff's COPD. Plaintiff states
that a careful examination of the synergistic effect of the
exposure levels is integral to a proper evaluation of his claim.
Plaintiff maintains that Defendant failed to consider this
important aspect of the problem when it adopted the incongruent
positions of the industrial hygienist and the CMC.

Defendant responds that it did consider the synergistic effect of
the toxins that Plaintiff was exposed to during his covered
employment and that Plaintiff's assertion is baseless and
contrary to the plain evidence in the Administrative Record.

The Court finds that Defendant did properly consider the combined
effect of the toxic substances. In its decision, FAB evaluated
the relationship between Plaintiff's epoxy exposure and COPD, "as
well as any synergistic effect between Plaintiff's COPD and
exposure to all four substances identified and substantiated in
Plaintiff's claim."

The Court has considered the parties' arguments and finds
Defendant properly weighed the medical evidence in this case.
Both parties acknowledge that "generally, a physician who has
physically examined a patient, is knowledgeable of his or her
medical history, and has based the opinion on an accurate factual
basis, has weight over a physician conducting a file review."

The Court finds that Defendant did not err in calculating
Plaintiff's covered employment, and Plaintiff has not cited to
any evidence that Dr. Hughes reevaluated Plaintiff's claim after
Defendant determined that 27 months was the correct length of
employment. In the final decision, FAB explained that the medical
opinions of Dr. Sood and Dr. Armstrong were based on a full
review of the relevant medical and factual evidence, provided an
accurate occupational history of Plaintiff's employment at Oak
Ridge, and contained rationalized medical opinions addressing the
relationship between Plaintiff's documented exposures and COPD.
Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant provided reasoned
explanations for its decision to rely on the CMCs' opinions and
that Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant's
explanations are arbitrary and capricious.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion dated May 2, 2018, is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y79d67l4 from Leagle.com.

David A Russell, Plaintiff, represented by John D Agee, Ridenour
& Ridenour.

United States Department of Labor, Defendant, represented by
Loretta S. Harber, U S Department of Justice Office of U S
Attorney.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mall Development Halted by Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------
Seattle Times reported that development of the new mall in
Burlington is resuming after a two-month hiatus for removal of
asbestos discovered early this year.

Developer Don Sinex says crews had to temporarily stop demolition
work because the asbestos might get released into the air. The
Burlington Free Press reports Sinex hired a New York-based
company that took out all the material containing asbestos at a
cost of $700,000.

Demolition resumed in April, but Sinex notes demolition work's
next large obstacle is demolishing the parking garage.

Construction of the new project, featuring office space,
apartments and retail, is scheduled to begin before the
demolition is complete.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tests Find Asbestos in Shuttered Apt. Complex
--------------------------------------------------------------
KVIA El Paso 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: Immunotherapy Brings Hope for Exposure Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Castillo of News Eminency reported that in light of recent
screening on animal tests, arise a treatment that could turn into
proper full-blown therapy for cancer.

Mesothelioma as a form of cancer has been, more or less, a
mystery until many recent times. It was not put into
consideration up until 1960, with several cases noticed with
their similarities.

The cancer is known to be rare but still heavily incapacitating,
with cancer cells taking residue in lungs, heart, and some other
vital organs that may be involved in the area. In consideration
for this, most scientists have flocked to create a solution for
the cases that preside within the ill.

As of late, there has been a recent study that provides a
possible functional treatment that is of combined immunotherapy,
with remarkably positive views from the test run done on animals
in the first place.

Mesothelioma itself is a very severe strain of cancer that
targets main bodily functions such as even directing fluids
throughout the body. It mostly alludes to the possible effects of
asbestos exposure.

Primarily fatal, it was identified to be hard to cure, especially
as misdiagnosis is posed to be more likely among cases. The
treatment that follows with mesothelioma comes with radiation,
chemotherapy, and surgery.

The options appear to be more on the fine line, but the sad
portion of the bit is that only a minor part of people afflicted
of the condition are eligible to receive surgery as a treatment,
making it more difficult for it to be passable.

On the verdict of any reparations regarding the exposure of
asbestos incurring the ill, some companies, in turn, bring out
mesothelioma compensation. The mesothelioma lawsuit settlements
abide by time in providing for the afflicted workers.

Still following up the approval from the Food and Drug
Administration, there is an open view on the possibility for the
product to actively treat other cancers, such as Ovarian cancer
and with further testing. The primary goal that scientists want
to promote with the treatment is the precise target the cells
that are typically unseen by the human defenses along with
targeting the malignant cells. The therapy becomes apparent with
the proposal of the usage in conjunctive treatments.

Under certain conditions following treatment, mesothelioma
compensation can be founded for areas like Houston and other
states; following up elsewhere on a mesothelioma lawyer
directory; there remains a statute of limitations on mesothelioma
claims.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Giant N.M. Apartment Complex
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reported that testing has found that there's
asbestos nearly everywhere in an abandoned Alamogordo, N.M.
apartment complex, a finding that complicates the city's desire
to demolish the dilapidated property.

The Alamogordo Daily News reported 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: Technician Sues PSA Corp. for Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Independent reported that a 57-year-old technician is suing
Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) Corporation for exposing him to
asbestos particles that he believes caused him to be afflicted
with lung cancer.

The technician, Mr Ajit Singh, had worked for PSA since he was
employed in or around 1980, when the company was a statutory
board. Mr Singh continued to work for PSA even after it became a
Temasek Holdings-linked private corporation in October 1997.

According to court papers, Mr Singh's duties allegedly required
him to service and replace insulation material covering the
exhaust systems of power units of cranes at the port. He claimed:
"The power pack of the crane contains the exhaust, which is lined
with asbestos which could be damaged or worn out."

Asbestos is a fibrous mineral that became banned in Singapore in
1989 after studies showed that long-term exposure to the mineral,
that was once popularly used in construction and insulation, is
linked to illnesses such as lung cancer.

Mr Singh claimed that PSA workers were neither informed of the
risk of asbestos nor properly trained on how to handle the
dangerous mineral. He added that workers did not receive
appropriate equipment to handle asbestos, and were only given
masks that did not protect them from the asbestos particles.

Mr Singh has also named Gethin-Jones Medical Practice as a
defendant in his lawsuit, The clinic, which served as PSA's
appointed clinic for maintenance workers, should have detected
the lung cancer earlier during annual check-ups, according to Mr
Singh.

PSA asks court to throw the case out

Both PSA and Gethin-Jones Medical Practice are fighting the
lawsuit. PSA is represented by one of Singapore's leading law
firms, Drew & Napier. The clinic is represented by
WongPartnership while Mr Singh is represented by Gavan Law
Practice.

PSA, which is fully owned by sovereign wealth fund Temasek, has
asked the court to dismiss Mr Singh's case on a technicality,
arguing that a claim should have been filed within 15 years.
Noting that it has stopped using asbestos in or around 1989 and
that Mr Singh's exposure to the particles would have occurred
before 1990, PSA is asking for the case to be thrown out since
more than 15 years have passed since the alleged negligence took
place.

Medical reports show that Mr Singh was found to have cancer early
last year.

One of the doctors who treated Mr Singh, Dr Tan Wan Ling -- an
associate consultant at the National Cancer Centre Singapore --
noted in a medical report last August: "He is a lifelong non-
smoker . . . The patient has sustained permanent disability due
to compromised lung function and functional decline, and is
unlikely to resume work duties as a technician presently and in
the future."

Another doctor, Dr Choo Chuan Gee -- a senior consultant who
specialises in respiratory diseases at Ng Teng Fong General
Hospital -- noted in another medical report that medical
literature has reported that the time between exposure to
asbestos particles and the development of lung cancer is about 30
years.

If Mr Singh was exposed to asbestos before 1990, like PSA claims
may have happened, it has been about 30 years since the exposure
likely occurred.

Gethin-Jones Medical Practice is arguing that annual medical
check-ups for workers only covered "basic medical screenings and
did not include specialised tests for the detection of lung
cancer due to asbestos exposure".

All parties are presently in closed-door mediation.

Making the decision to sue his former employer was a difficult
one for Mr Singh since he has worked for the Corporation for his
entire career. Mr Singh, who was admitted to Singapore General
Hospital for chemotherapy, may have little choice since he faces
mounting medical expenses.

Mr Singh told reporters: "I am worried about the family's
finances. I won't be able to work any more."

His wife, 55-year-old Koldip Kaur, said: "We are not asking for
(the sake of) money. We want what is fair so that we can cover
the medical expenses, his suffering, his loss of income and
quality of life. He was healthy and fit; now he is in palliative
care."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers at Norfolk Shipyard Urged to File Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a Navy Veteran or a shipyard worker with mesothelioma
and your exposure to asbestos happened at the navy base/shipyard
at Norfolk, Virginia please call us anytime at 800-714-0303 so
that we can provide you with on the spot access to some of the
nation's most skilled and experienced mesothelioma attorneys who
consistently get the best financial compensation for their
clients.

Norfolk, Virginia is home to the world's largest navy base and
one of the largest shipyards on the planet. Norfolk has had this
status for decades and the number of Navy Veterans or shipyard
workers who have rotated though this combination navy base,
shipyard, ship repair facility is in the hundreds of thousands or
more. Prior to the 1980's US Navy Veterans stationed at Norfolk
or shipyard workers working there were exposed to asbestos
constantly.

Our number one priority is seeing to it that US Navy Veterans or
US Navy Shipyard workers receive the very best financial
compensation if they have mesothelioma, as we would like to
discuss anytime at 800-714-0303. One of our most important
services for a US Navy Veteran or shipyard worker with
mesothelioma is we provide them with on-the-spot access to the
nation's most capable mesothelioma attorneys.

Important note to US Navy Veterans or Navy Shipyard workers with
mesothelioma: "A mesothelioma compensation claim for a Navy
Veteran or US Navy Shipyard worker does not involve suing the US
Navy. The financial compensation claim is focused on
manufacturers of equipment, machinery, pipes, or insulation that
contained asbestos, as we would like to discuss anytime at 800-
714-0303."

For more information about the US Navy Shipyard in Norfolk
Virginia please visit their website:
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Shipyards/Norfolk/.

For a recent news article about the condition of the Norfolk
Naval Shipyard and other US Navy Shipyards please review the
following news article: http://pilotonline.com/business/defense-
shipyards/article_3c5e4e79-73c1-56cf-a993-fe12b3398f7c.html.

Each year about 3,000 US citizens will be diagnosed with
mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is caused by exposure to asbestos.
High-risk work groups for exposure to asbestos include US Navy
Veterans, power plant workers, shipyard workers, oil refinery
workers, steel mill workers, miners, manufacturing workers, pulp
or paper mill workers, printers, millwrights, welders, plumbers,
electricians, auto mechanics, machinists, construction workers,
rail road workers, and firemen. Typically, the exposure to
asbestos for these types of workers occurred in the 1950's,
1960's, 1970's, or 1980's.

The average age for a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma is about
70 years old.  Frequently victims of mesothelioma are initially
misdiagnosed with pneumonia.

According to the CDC, the states indicated with the highest
incidence of mesothelioma include Maine, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West
Virginia, Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Louisiana,
Washington, and Oregon.

However, based on the calls the Mesothelioma Victims Center
receives a US Navy Veteran or shipyard worker mesothelioma could
live in any state including New York, Florida, California, Texas,
Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee,
Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, North
Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona,
Idaho, or Alaska.

The Mesothelioma Victims Center says, "If your loved one has
recently been diagnosed with mesothelioma and their medical
condition is grave or if they passed away immediately after the
medical diagnosis of mesothelioma please call as soon as possible
at 800-714-0303 in the hopes we can do everything possible to get
some of the nation's top mesothelioma attorneys to assist with
the financial compensation claim."

For more information about mesothelioma please refer to the
National Institutes of Health's web site related to this rare
form of cancer: https://www.cancer.gov/types/mesothelioma


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dispute Over Asbestos Lawsuit Fees to Continue
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin of Legal News Line reported that a dispute among
attorneys over fees generated by asbestos litigation can proceed,
a federal court has ruled.

California lawyer Marc Willick sued a New York firm and its
principals Paul Napoli and Marc Bern, claiming they used his name
when litigating asbestos cases and pocketed the fees.

The case was stayed after the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California ruled in favor of the defendants' motion
to compel arbitration.

The same court lifted that stay March 23 as further information
emerged after arbitration talks began. It also allowed the
plaintiff to add as defendants more entities linked to Napoli and
Bern, both prominent asbestos attorneys who no longer practice
together.

Willick, who is based in Los Angeles County, signed contracts
with Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates in 2011, agreeing to act as
local counsel in asbestos cases for which he would receive 10
percent of fees generated.

The California attorney continued to work with the firm until
December the following year. He filed suit in December 2014,
alleging the defendants "filed and litigated many cases in
plaintiff's name without his knowledge or consent." He first sued
the law firm, then added the named individuals.

He alleged breach of contract, fraud, violation of California
Business & Professions Code and negligent misrepresentation.

After arbitration was ordered in 2015, Willick became aware that
another attorney, Mary Keyes of the Keyes Law Firm in Baltimore,,
may have documents relevant to his case. He asked Keyes to
participate in the arbitration, but she refused, according to the
order granting the motion to lift the stay.

On Oct. 5, 2016, the court partially and temporarily lifted the
stay to allow plaintiff to subpoena testimony and documents from
Keyes and her firm.

Keyes' attempt to quash the subpoena failed and she was ordered
by a federal court in Maryland to produce a list of cases
referred to Defendants and any compensation she received. Keyes
produced a list of client names and fees from 2,521 cases,
according to the motion.

After Keyes produced the list of cases, Willick "discovered that
additional Napoli- and Bern-affiliated law firms may have
received cases from plaintiff's referral sources, and that there
may be additional cases for which he is owed compensation," the
motion stated.

It further noted, "On Oct. 9, 2017, Keyes filed a complaint in
the District of Maryland against Bern, Napoli and 16 iterations
of their law firms for an accounting, declaratory judgment,
breach of contract, unjust enrichment and constructive trust."

On Jan. 27 this year, the arbitrator in this case "entered an
interim award ordering an accounting against Napoli Bern Ripka &
Associates LLP for fees the firm received on cases referred by
the plaintiff's referral sources," the motion states.

Willick filed the motion to lift the stay and leave to amend to
add parties in February.

Napoli, who has battled cancer, and Bern no longer practice
together following disagreements. Willick referred to these
disagreements in his original complaint.

In a joint statement to Legal Newsline in 2014, Napoli and his
wife, Marie, stated, "As many of you know, Marc, for inexplicable
reasons, decided once I got sick to try and take over the law
firm I have built over the last 20 years.

"He quietly waited until I went under the knife for my transplant
before firing key employees who worked for me in running the
firm. At the same time, he fired my 72-year-old father (the
biggest earner in the office in personal injury). While in ICU,
Marie had to leave my side and rush to court to get the court to
order him to cease."

Napoli further said then the lawsuit was a surprise as it came
out of the blue, adding that Willick "never made an inkling" of
any of his allegations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Convicted for APCO Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
7thSpace Interactive reported that Shing Tai Interior Decoration
Engineering Co Limited, which illegally demolished an asbestos
cement sheet structure at the podium of Sun Fung Mansion at
Lyndhurst Terrace in Central, was convicted April 30 at Eastern
Magistrates' Courts for contravening the Air Pollution Control
Ordinance (APCO).  Another renovation works contractor was also
convicted at Eastern Magistrates' Courts on April 23 for the
illegal demolition of an asbestos canopy at the external wall of
a building located at 169-170 Gloucester Road in Wan Chai. The
two contractors were fined a total of $24,000.

An Environmental Protection Department (EPD) spokesman said that
complaints were received last October and November about the
illegal demolition of an asbestos cement sheet structure at the
external wall of a composite building in Wan Chai, and at the
podium of a building in the commercial area of Central by works
contractors.

The EPD conducted investigations and found that the asbestos
removal works at both locations were not carried out in
accordance with the statutory requirements, as no registered
asbestos contractor was hired to conduct the removal works and
the EPD had not been notified prior to the commencement of the
works. After evidence collection, the EPD initiated prosecutions
against the contractors under the APCO.

The spokesman said that, to safeguard public health, asbestos
abatement works at commercial and industrial buildings or
residential buildings must be carried out by a registered
asbestos contractor in accordance with the statutory requirements
and the code of practice on asbestos control to prevent the
release of asbestos fibres from affecting the workers and public
health. Offenders are liable to a maximum fine of $200,000 and
six months' imprisonment.

Anyone failing to give not less than 28 days' written notice to
the EPD of the commencement date of the asbestos abatement work
is also liable to a maximum fine of $200,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Can't Escape Alter Ego in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Chirs Villani of Law360 reported that a New Hampshire-based
asbestos abatement company will not be able to dodge a lawsuit
claiming it violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 when it allegedly created an "alter ego" company in order
to avoid paying benefits, a Massachusetts federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton denied a motion to
dismiss the suit brought by five employee benefit plans that says
the asbestos removal shop Absolute Environmental Inc. created a
new company, Absolute Environmental Contractors Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Knowingly Exposed Employees to Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nikki Wentling of Stars and Stripes reported that management at
the Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in Bedford, Mass.,
knew of an asbestos contamination for years but continued to put
veterans and employees at risk of exposure, the U.S. Office of
the Special Counsel said.

In a letter to President Donald Trump and members of the House
and Senate veterans' affairs committees, Special Counsel Henry
Kerner said multiple buildings at the Edith Nourse Rogers
Memorial Veterans Hospital were contaminated with asbestos and
that management had known about it since 2014.

"For years, the Bedford VA Medical Center failed to implement a
robust safety inspection program to identify contaminated work
spaces," Kerner said in a statement.

Whistleblowers at the facility alerted the special counsel to the
contamination last year, and the VA Office of Occupational Safety
and Health followed up with an investigation.

Investigators found several instances when workers were put at
risk of exposure to airborne asbestos that could've been
mitigated with better management practices. Because of the
situation, "trust between management and employees is strained,"
the VA wrote in its report to the special counsel.

The VA substantiated that hospital management was first notified
of the asbestos after a 2014 inspection by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration. However, the agency asserted
that managers did not break any rule or law.

"VA believes that the findings do not show evidence that the
medical center or its employees engaged in gross mismanagement
and an abuse of authority," the VA report states. "There was no
indication of willful intent to harm workers or violate
standards, rule or law."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rulings Offer Hope to Cancer Sufferers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lexology reported that following a long-fought battle in the case
of Bussey v Anglia Heating Ltd [2018 EWCA Civ 243], it's good to
be able to report positive news for future mesothelioma claims
against employers, many of which have been stayed awaiting
decision in the Court of Appeal.

The team at Fieldfisher instructed Michael Rawlinson QC and Gemma
Scott from 12 KBW to seek consideration from the Court of the
application of Williams v University of Birmingham [2011 EWCA Civ
1242] in low-exposure mesothelioma claims arising out of
employment.

Veronica Bussey successfully pursued a claim for compensation
originally against one of her husband David's employers, Pump
Maintenance Limited, for exposing him to asbestos while he worked
as a heating engineer. David originally instructed us but sadly
died in 2016 before the second action began.

Due to the shortfall in damages, on behalf of her husband, Mrs
Bussey's second claim, against Anglia Heating Ltd for the
balance, pursuant to Section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006, was
then dismissed by His Honour Judge Yelton in the High Court in
May last year.

Judge Yelton decided he was bound to follow the case of Williams
v University of Birmingham which was decided by the Court of
Appeal in 2011.

The decision in Williams held that even when it was known that
exposure to asbestos at low levels could be fatal, there was no
duty for an employer to take action until the level of exposure
exceeded the level set out in Technical Data Note 13 (TDN13).
This document was only published in March 1970, two years after
the relevant period of exposure with Anglia Heating Ltd, and was
primarily intended, we argued, to provide guidance to factory
inspectors for prosecutions under the Asbestos Regulations that
came into force in May 1970.

In appeal, Mrs Bussey's legal team then argued TDN13 was not a
reliable or appropriate test of acceptable levels of exposure to
asbestos at the relevant time and furthermore did not apply since
the victim in Williams was a visitor to the premises, rather than
an employee.

Instead, they argued that Mr Bussey's case more closely followed
the earlier cases of Maguire and Jeromson [case citations Maguire
v Harland and Wolff (2005) EWCA Civ 1, Jeromson v Shell Tankers
(2001) EWCA Civ 100]] in which the Court of Appeal had decided
that an employer had the duty to reduce exposure to asbestos to
the "lowest level reasonably practicable".

The arguments on law addressed to the Court, explained here by Mr
Rawlinson, were that:

   * While Williams was the last CA judgment on this issue, it
would only bind a lower Court in the face of earlier and
apparently contrary CA authority (namely Maguire v Harland &
Wolff and Jeromson v Shell Tankers) where those earlier decisions
had been fully considered by the later CA.

   * It was now known that Jeromson had not been more than
tangentially cited (and Maguire had not been cited at all) to the
Court in Williams.

   * Thus either (i) the CA in Williams had acted in ignorance of
the formulation of the test for breach in Maguire and Jeromson,
namely that once the threshold of foreseeable risk had been
reached the duty upon an employer was to reduce the risk from
asbestos exposure to the lowest level reasonably practicable; or
(ii) it must be that the CA in Williams had impliedly sought to
restrict that earlier formulation of the duty to employment cases
because the victim in Williams was not an employee but rather a
visitor to premises.

   * In the first of those circumstances, it was argued that the
Court in Bussey should follow the Maguire and Jeromson
formulation because the CA in Williams had acted in ignorance of
those earlier and applicable authorities. In the second of those
circumstances, the Court should still follow Maguire and Jeromson
because Mr Bussey's exposure arose as a result of his employment
and hence was closer to the facts of Jeromson than Williams.

   * It was admitted on the facts of this case that the employer
could have taken steps to materially reduce the exposure faced by
the Deceased by taking simple steps.

   * In the alternative, the Claimant wished to argue that
Williams was simply wrong insofar as it has been taken to have
held that, in the face of the risk of fatal injury to an
employee, a gap existed between the level of exposure at which
foreseeable injury was created and some higher level of exposure
at which the exposure would then be deemed unacceptable and would
thereby require remediation.

In their landmark ruling, the three Court of Appeal judges upheld
the appeal. Lord Justice Jackson said the High Court judge in the
original Bussey hearing had felt 'constrained' by relying on data
in TDN 13 that was never intended to be used as a yardstick for
making claims.

The case has been remitted back to Judge Yelton for re-
determination of liability and will be heard later this year.
This reset the threshold of asbestos cases by acknowledging that
the way retrospective measuring levels of asbestos fibres have
been applied in the past to deny or delay Claimants the
compensation they deserved is wrong, falsely creating a so-called
'safe' level of asbestos exposure, even when it was known to
cause fatal cancer.

This is never what the data in TDN13 were intended for but,
following Williams, they became the test against which all other
claims were measured.

Claims that have been delayed through the need for expert
engineering evidence on retrospectively measuring levels of
fibres in the air can now move forward more quickly and, in
principle, mesothelioma sufferers can have easier access to funds
for private immunotherapy treatment which gives hope for
prolonged life.

Immunotherapy treatment breakthrough

Although more trials and more evidence are needed involving
immunotherapy, there is also tentative good news that, in some
cases, the treatment can prolong the life of mesothelioma
sufferers.

In another recent landmark mesothelioma case, we successfully won
back the original costs of immunotherapy treatment, not yet
available on the NHS, for our client Pamela Stubberfield from
insurers. The successful claim also included payment for all
future treatments so long as it continues to be effective.

As immunotherapy treatment gathers momentum, the good news is
that the Bussey ruling enables Claimants to push through current
and future cases faster, offering a glimmer of hope for so many
sufferers and their families.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MPP Bob Bailey Pushes for Asbestos Ban
-------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Erwin of BlackburnNews.com reported that Sarnia-Lambton
MPP Bob Bailey's bill to ban the use, reuse, import, transport
and sale of asbestos in Ontario, was reintroduced in the
provincial legislature.

The bill, which previously passed second reading at Queen's Park,
was wiped off the legislative agenda when Premier Kathleen Wynne
prorogued the legislature in March.

Bailey says the federal government promised to implement an
asbestos ban during the 2015 election, but three years later, the
ban is still not in place.

"We stopped mining asbestos in 2011, but asbestos imports into
Canada and especially in Ontario, have nearly doubled in value
between 2011 and 2016 to $8.2-million for the year," says Bailey.
"So, that's what my big concern is."

The PC member's bill would also require the province to create a
public registry of all provincially owned or leased buildings
containing the deadly substance.

Health Canada warns that exposure to asbestos, particularly by
breathing in asbestos fibers, can cause cancer and other diseases
such as asbestosis; lung cancer; and mesothelioma.

Canada has never banned asbestos and it continues to enter the
country in imports of brake pads and pipes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Corrigan Hall Not Present Danger
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Setonian reported that it received an anonymous tip about
apparent asbestos in the ceilings of Corrigan Hall on April 18.

According to John Signorello, the associate vice president of
Facilities Engineering and Business Affairs, the asbestos "does
not present a present danger."

"Corrigan Hall and many other buildings, schools and homes
throughout the United States built prior to the 1970's contain
asbestos," he wrote in an email. "This building material was used
in items such as insulation, floor tile, and fire proofing. The
management of this material, while in place or being removed is
regulated and can only be handled by people and contractors who
are trained and licensed."

Signorello added that the contractors and consultants the
University uses to manage this material have noted, "maintaining
it in good condition is often the best approach." He then said
that when it cannot be managed in good condition or when it needs
to be moved for construction activities, it is done by a New
Jersey contractor licensed in asbestos abatement under the New
Jersey Construction Code.

"This is done outside of normal business hours or when the
building is unoccupied," he said.

Austin Francois, a junior criminal justice and political science
double major, said that he still finds the asbestos concerning.

"It most certainly concerns me even though it isn't a 'present
danger' and second I think the school should remove all the
asbestos and replace the ceilings with new materials," he said.

Morwenna Cecil, a sophomore history major, said that the asbestos
in Corrigan concerns her as well.

"Although it does not present a danger at the moment, if
something like a leak were to disturb it then it would become an
issue and pose a health risk to the students and faculty who use
the building," she said.

Cecil then shared how she thinks the school should deal with the
situation saying:

"I think that the best thing that the school could do would be to
use the quieter summer months to properly assess the situation,
and if necessary take the asbestos out."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Panama City Hall
---------------------------------------------------
Eric Morgan of My Panhandle reported that while the City of
Panama City moves into their new city hall, Bay County Public
Works Director, Keith Bryant, said the county is planning to
remodel the old city hall near the marina, to be the new
temporary home for the Juvenile Justice Courthouse.

"As everyone knows the county has an effort to try and keep the
Federal Courthouse in Bay County, so if we can lease our current
Juvenile Courthouse to the Federal government, we would move the
Juvenile to Panama City Hall," he said.

In order to move the Juvenile Courthouse, they have to do some
remodeling at city hall.

But before they could begin that process, they found asbestos in
the attic above the ceiling in the city hall.

Asbestos is a fire retardant used in construction starting in the
1930's, but its use was banned in the United States, because
scientists discovered that is can cause lung cancer if inhaled.

Panama City Interim City Manager, Jared Jones, said the city
plans to make an amendment to their lease with the county to pay
to remove the asbestos.

"We are going to cover the cost, so I believe the whole
demolition package, and the county can speak to this as well, is
$180,000. $120,000 of that is for the asbestos abatement."

Bryant said county staff will then remove the asbestos before
beginning their remodeling process.

"The first 10 days of the abatement is just air monitoring, so
we'll be putting out the monitoring devices, we'll be collecting
samples. Everything we do will be on the second floor at first,
so the whole second floor will be sealed off, it will not be open
to downstairs," he said.

Bryant said all city staff will be safe during this process,
since their offices are on the bottom floor.

He said he anticipates that the abatement and demolition process
will take about three to four weeks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rejects Attempts to Avoid Liability
----------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net Blog reported that despite the fact that it has
long been established that mesothelioma is caused by exposure to
asbestos, companies whose products were contaminated with the
toxic material continue trying to avoid liability with all types
of excuses, including blaming the federal government.

In a recent example, Avondale Industries, Inc. argued that they
should not have to face a jury in the case of Linda Guillot's
malignant mesothelioma, arguing that because the federal
government had ordered that their asbestos-containing materials
be installed aboard Navy vessels the company built, that absolved
them of responsibility for warning that the asbestos could cause
harm. Ms. Guillot's husband and father had both worked for the
company, and the asbestos dust that they carried home on their
clothing is blamed for her fatal diagnosis. Upon hearing
arguments from both sides, District Judge Carl J. Barbier of the
United States District Court of Louisiana, denied Avondale's
motion, indicating that their obligation to fulfill the
government's request for asbestos-containing materials did not
absolve the of their duty to warn.

Ms. Guillot's mesothelioma lawsuit is not the first instance in
which Avondale has attempted to use the argument blaming the
government, and Judge Barbier pointed that out in his decision,
saying that a district court had ruled that "Avondale failed to
provide any evidence that the government had any control over
Avondale's safety protocols.

Judge Barbier's decision in the case said in part, "There is
simply nothing in the record indicating that Avondale was
prevented from adopting the safety measures that Plaintiff claims
would have prevented her from contracting mesothelioma. At best,
Avondale demonstrates that the federal government required
Avondale to use asbestos when building ships."

The judge goes on to say, "The shipyard failed to demonstrate
that its contracts with the government prevented it from taking
any of the protective measures identified by the plaintiffs."

Despite the continued actions of asbestos companies, mesothelioma
victims do have rights that the courts uphold. If you need
information about the resources available, contact the Patient
Advocates at Mesothelioma.net today at 1-800-692-8608.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mafefe Asbestos Road Replaced
----------------------------------------------
Chester Makana of News24 reported that in the hope that it would
bring an end to the amount of deadly asbestos dust on their
streets, residents of former asbestos-mining community Mafefe,
have welcomed the construction of part of a road in the town at
the cost of R43m.

Over the past two decades, locals have complained to the
government about the harmful effects of asbestos dust, used to
construct roads and other infrastructure.

Asbestos-mining company Cape PLC and its partners extracted
asbestos mineral in the area between 1898 until the late 1960s.

The mine's activities are said to have negatively affected 90% of
the impoverished community, which has a 30 000-strong population.

According to anti-asbestos campaign manager Zakes Matime, the
construction of the road, through the government's asbestos
rehabilitation programme, covers eight kilometres of Mafefe's
main street.

"The construction does not cover all the streets, but the main
polluted street in Mafefe is being addressed," said Matime

"The people who are using the road will be walking for the first
time in many years on asbestos-free road," he added.

Four years ago, the government demolished some schools in the
area that were constructed with the use of asbestos material.

However, Matime says more needs to be done. He says there are
still houses and a public building which need to be demolished to
remove asbestos left behind in the village.

The environmental affairs department said it has developed a
national secondary asbestos remediation plan that identified
Limpopo and the Northern Cape as provinces that require
intervention.

The two provinces have significantly high levels of secondary
asbestos contamination.

"Mafefe in Limpopo province and Gamopedi in the Northern Cape
were prioritised for remediation work in the 2017-18 financial
year and will continue in the 2018-19 [financial year],"
departmental spokesperson Albi Modise said.

"Other villages in these provinces will be focused on as and when
funding becomes available, with priority given to schools and
other buildings, playgrounds and roads to contain and prevent any
spread of contamination."

Modise said the challenge was to obtain funding for the
completion of remediation in affected areas.

This means the project has to be carried out in phases when
funding becomes available.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found After Garbage Truck Smash
---------------------------------------------------------
Daily Mail reported that residents of a house in Sydney's inner
west which was ploughed into by a garbage truck won't be able to
return home for some time after asbestos was discovered in the
property.

The asbestos was identified after the truck smashed into the
Lilyfield house with Inner West Council general manager Rik Hart
saying the property has been cordoned off while the removal
process is underway.

The truck began to roll down Gladstone Street after the driver
got out to empty bins.

He jumped back in the cabin but the truck still hit a boat, a
caravan and a car before smashing into the side of the house.

Two children inside at the time -- a 10-year-old boy and a 15-
year-old girl -- luckily escaped uninjured.

The 35-year-old driver was also uninjured but was taken to
hospital for mandatory blood and urine tests.

NSW Police and the Roads and Maritime Services inspected Inner
West Council's fleet at its Leichhardt depot and issued six
defect notices for minor faults.

The truck involved in the crash has not yet been inspected as it
remains lodged in the house.

Council says it will work with the home owner to rectify any
damage and ensure the residents have accommodation while the work
takes place.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped in Clitheroe Country Lane
----------------------------------------------------------
2BR reported that Ribble Valley Borough Council is counting the
cost after fly-tippers dumped over three tonnes of asbestos in a
Clitheroe country lane.

The asbestos was dumped along with a quantity of rubble and waste
wood in Four Lane Ends, Clitheroe, overnight on May 2.

Ribble Valley Borough Council workers wearing protective clothes
and masks spent the best part of their day removing the asbestos
using a special watering and wrapping process for transportation
to a dangerous waste disposal unit.

And following a forensic inspection of the site, the hunt is now
on for the fly-tippers, who face hefty fines if found.

Stuart Carefoot, chairman of the council's community services
committee, said: "This is one of the worst asbestos dumps we have
ever seen in the borough and our street cleansing team responded
as soon as we were alerted.

"The waste is from the demolition of a shed or outbuilding, which
has been carefully checked for clues.

"It has taken our workmen the best part of a day to clear the
mess at a cost of hundreds of pounds to the taxpayer and we are
determined to take action against the culprits."

Householders undertaking renovation work are strongly advised to
ensure that workmen are disposing of any waste properly, because
they too face prosecution if it is traced back to their property.

Fixed penalty notices for fly-tipping start at GBP400, but
prosecution can result in a fine of up to GBP50,000 and 12 months
imprisonment if convicted in a magistrates' court or an unlimited
fine and up to five years imprisonment if convicted in a crown
court.

Waste crime costs the UK millions of pounds a year in clean-up
costs, undermines legitimate business, blights the countryside
and is a public health risk.

Anyone witnessing fly-tipping in Ribble Valley is asked to report
the vehicle's registration number in complete confidence to
Ribble Valley Borough Council on 01200 425111.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter's 2nd-Hand Exposure Claim Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Daily Mail reported that a woman who died after being exposed to
asbestos through hugging her father has been denied compensation.

Deanna Trevarthen, 45, was one of the youngest New Zealand
citizens to die from the aggressive pleural mesothelioma cancer,
which is caused by exposure to asbestos.

When she was diagnosed she applied for ACC cover, which provides
financial compensation to people who have suffered personal
injuries, but was been denied as she was not employed in an
asbestos risk industry, Stuff reported.

Her family lawyer, Beatrix Woodhouse, told the Wellington
District Court that Deanna had been exposed to the toxic asbestos
dust as a young girl.

It would have been on her father's work uniform when she hugged
him and on piles of particle board that she would play with, the
court heard.

Ms Woodhouse originally perused the claim as an accident relating
to the inhalation of a foreign object, rather than a work-related
accident.

Now, with Deanna's family members, she is gearing up for an
appeal.

She says that this case sets an unfortunate precedent unless they
succeed.

A total of 269 mesothelioma cases were lodged between 2013 and
2016 and success with Deanna's case would give hundreds of other
mesothelioma sufferers potential to lodge claims.

Deanna's sister-in-law, Angela Calver, has taken up the fight for
compensation in the wake of her death.

She says the court's rejection of the accidental inhalation claim
made no sense as it suggested she had exposed herself to asbestos
on purpose.

'Take this to a commonsense level -- if you employ a builder to
come into your house and fix something, and he knocks a piece of
ceiling that has asbestos in it, and we both inhale it, then 30
years later we both get sick, he's covered and I'm not.'

Calver argued there was still asbestos in many of the countries
buildings and in the future second-hand exposure cases will
become more common.

'I can't tell you the turmoil this has put our family through.
Not only losing a key member of the family, but because we had to
do so much fundraising and cover Deanna's living expenses.'

Before her death Deanna's life partner Greg Robertson raised
$23,510.80 to help the couple with the medical expenses.

'So we are forced to beg, borrow and if it comes to it in the
future, steal, to give her the treatment she needs to live,' he
said in the post.

Claver is now intending to take the case to the high court.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woodburn Workers, Students Exposed to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Loew of Statesman Journal reported that a former MacLaren
Youth Correctional Facility employee has filed a whistleblower
retaliation lawsuit against the state, saying supervisors
knowingly exposed workers and students to asbestos.

Silverton resident John Neves spent 18 months supervising a team
of six youth offenders who helped remodel cottages and other
buildings at the Woodburn facility as part of a $52 million
upgrade the Oregon Legislature approved in 2015.

According to the lawsuit, on Feb. 22, 2017, as Neves was working
on the final cottage, his supervisor, Steve Babcock, ordered him
to quickly replace panels he had pulled off the walls of the
living area.

"Mr. Babcock explained that a tour of public officials was about
to come through Kincaid Cottage and MacLaren Youth Correctional
Facility did not want them to know about the asbestos in the
walls," the lawsuit reads.

"Plaintiff was shocked. He had never been told that MYCF knew
there was asbestos in the walls of the living units he
remodeled," it continues. "Mr. Babcock said there was asbestos
'all over the place.'"

Asbestos fibers are known to cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and
asbestosis.

There is no safe level of exposure.

That evening, the lawsuit alleges, Neves and a painter who had
been working in the cottage were put on administrative leave.
Neves was told that he was accused of helping or knowing about
youth creating hiding spots for contraband in the units that were
being remodeled.

On March 23, 2017, Neves filed a complaint with Oregon OSHA.
Neves was fired July 21, four days before OSHA cited Oregon Youth
Authority for two serious violations of the Oregon Safe
Employment Act and fined it $500.

The OSHA investigation found that OYA did not notify employees
doing the renovations that the work could disturb known or
suspected asbestos-containing materials; and OYA didn't provide
initial and yearly training about asbestos to the employees, as
required.

Oregon law prohibits employers from discriminating against
employees who lodge complaints against their employer for unsafe
or unhealthful work conditions.

Neves' lawsuit, filed Feb. 20, 2018, names the Oregon Youth
Authority; Babcock; MacLaren superintendent Dan Berger; and OYA
employees Rex Emery, John Cummings and Abe Rios.

It asks a court to award him $935,000.

Neither Neves nor his lawyer, Charese Rohny of Portland,
responded to interview requests.

The state has not yet filed an answer with the court. Oregon
Youth Authority officials declined to answer questions about the
lawsuit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyer Wants $5MM Asbestos Verdict Overturned
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Storace of Law.com reported that a Hartford attorney is
asking a New York court for a mistrial or directed verdict for
the defense following a jury's attempt to award part of $5
million to the estate of a 77-year-old man who died of
mesothelioma allegedly caused by asbestos in the 1950s.

The jury found in favor of the estate of Daniel Barber against
several contractors, suppliers and distributors of products
containing asbestos. But attorney Morris Borea argues
inconsistencies with the verdict form could bode well for
overturning the multimillion-dollar award.

Borea represents defendant AII Acquisition Corp., successor to
Michigan-based Holland Furnace Co. The six-person jury originally
answered "no" to a question on the verdict sheet asking if
Barber's exposure to asbestos was a substantial factor in his
fatal illness. But jurors later changed the answer to "yes" after
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe noted
inconsistencies and instructed them to make corrections.

"Our position is that the original answer should stand," said
Borea, a partner with McGivney, Kluger & Cook.

Now, the New York judge will hear the Connecticut attorney's
request to enforce the original finding of no causation.

Borea's client is responsible for $1.5 million of the $5 million
verdict. Utica Boilers must pay $1 million, while about 10 other
defendants were liable for the remaining $2.5 million. The 10
companies had earlier reached a confidential settlement with
Barber's estate.

Barber is a former Norwalk resident who later moved to Michigan.
He died of mesothelioma in February 2017.

The amended lawsuit maintains he was exposed to asbestos while
working in shipyards, steel mills and industrial sites over
several years. But at trial, the plaintiffs focused solely on
their claim that Barber's asbestos exposure occurred between 1953
and 1958, when he was 14-19 years old, Borea said.

During that time, Barber helped his stepfather install and remove
boilers and furnaces from homes in the Norwalk area and in New
York City.

The suit linked Barber's death to asbestos exposure, and sought
to hold the defendants liable. But Borea argued the plaintiffs
never proved causation.

Jordan Fox of Belluck & Fox in New York City is the attorney for
Barber's estate. Fox did not respond to a request for comment.

Attorney Christian Gannon, a shareholder with Segal McCambridge
Singer &

Mahoney in New York City, represents Utica Boilers. He did not
respond to a request for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Likely to Decide NYC Asbestos Ct. Future
----------------------------------------------------------------
Forbes reported that the fight over New York City's controversial
asbestos court is not over, as companies worried about their
treatment there are likely to appeal an order that kept alive the
possibility for even bigger verdicts.

On March 22, an intermediate appeals court declined to change a
case management order (CMO) that was amended last year to allow
for the possibility of punitive damages in asbestos cases. But it
probably won't be the last word in the matter, as defendants are
expected to appeal once the timeframe for doing so arrives.

After all, less than a month after that order, defendants were
hit with a record-breaking $60 million verdict in an asbestos
trial.
The March order -- issued by the Appellate Division, First
Department -- was the product of the appeals of more than 300
companies that have avoided bankruptcy and, thus, still face
lawsuits over asbestos exposure that occurred decades ago (other
companies established bankruptcy trusts to compensate victims
with a claims process).

Ultimately, the case is likely to head to the state's highest
court, the Court of Appeals, which affirmed a pro-plaintiff
ruling in 2016 over duty to warn. The ruling benefited
plaintiffs' attorneys looking for solvent companies to sue.

Appealing the NYCAL CMO last year were companies like Crane Co.,
Honeywell, Ford Motor Company, 84 Lumber, Eli Lilly, National
Grid, Cooper Industries and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, among dozens
of others that joined together on an appeal brief.

In briefs submitted to the intermediate appeals court, defendants
said their ability to fight claims all the way through trial is
hampered in two major ways: An Accelerated Docket that leaves
them only five months to conduct their investigations and prepare
for trial and a threat of punitive damages that makes simply
going to trial a multimillion-dollar threat.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Ct. Issues Key Ruling on Take-Home Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that on April 16, 2018, a Rhode Island court
addressed for the first time whether an entity has a duty of care
to protect nonemployees from exposure to the asbestos-tainted
work clothes of the entity's employee.

The decision denies defendant Crane Co.'s motion for summary
judgment in the matter of Carolyn Nichols as Executrix of the
Estate of Iva Pearl Jones et al. v. Allis Chalmers Product
Liability Trust et al.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wollongong Recycling Scandal Spreads to Homes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Langford of Illawarra Mercury reported that more than 100
tonnes of asbestos contaminated material has been found at 11
more properties across Wollongong and Shellharbour, supplied by
Kembla Grange business Wollongong Recycling, the Environment
Protection Authority said.

The properties, from Oak Flats and Yallah in the south, to
Thirroul and Austinmer in the north, included many house blocks.
One site was a car storage yard near a kids' play centre at
Albion Park Rail.

The EPA has ordered Wollongong Recycling, which is owned by
Sydney waste giant Bingo, to clean up the material and
surrounding soil. The quantities range from four to more than 30
tonnes.

They were identified during inspections in December and January,
with the asbestos confirmed by laboratory testing, the EPA said.
The EPA told the Mercury it had been working with landowners to
"determine the timeframes and clean-up action required".

There is no suggestion property owners were aware that the
aggregate, which was recovered and supplied for development by
Wollongong Recycling, was contaminated with asbestos.

"Given that the recovered aggregate has been crushed and
processed, the EPA reasonably suspects that there is an increased
risk of asbestos fibres being released into the air which may
cause harm to human health if inhaled," the EPA said in several
of the clean-up notices.

This brings to 23 the number of properties over which the EPA
taken action against Wollongong Recycling for supplying asbestos
contaminated material between June and August last year.

The worst case was 3,300 tonnes of asbestos contaminated
aggregate which it supplied to Lendlease's Calderwood development
near Albion Park. The EPA has been "reviewing" the clean-up work
there.

All up about 7,500 tonnes of material supplied by Wollongong
Recycling to sites around the region has been investigated by the
EPA.

The EPA has not fined or prosecuted Wollongong Recycling, but has
issued legally enforceable clean-up notices. The agency said its
investigation was still in progress.

"Whilst the clean-up and removal of the asbestos has been the
priority, the circumstances that resulted in the asbestos waste
being delivered to the different properties is subject to an
ongoing EPA investigation," an EPA spokeswoman said.





                            *********


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  * * *