CAR_Public/180525.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, May 25, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 105



                            Headlines


300 WEST 46TH ST: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages
374 FOOD: Court Enters Findings in "Castillo" FLSA/NYLL Suit
4175 LLC: "Ha" Class Conditional Certification Bid Denied
ALLCONNECT INC: "McKenzie" Suit Moved to E.D. Kentucky
ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Court Grants Bid to File FAC in "Wilson"

AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Schultz" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
AMBI PAVING: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
AMN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Posephny Says
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Shust Balks at Merger Evergreen Deal
ARTISANAL BREWERS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Hopkins Says

APPLE HOSPITALITY: $5.5MM Deal in "Moses" Has Final Approval
APPLE INC: "Orshan" Suit Over Misleading Product Packaging Junked
APRO LLC: Correa Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under Labor Code
ARKOFF OPERATING: $55K Settlement in "Feliz" FLSA Suit Approved
BA-KER TANK: Wilson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation under FLSA

BACCI CAFE: "Villegas" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
BIOGEN INC: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Metzler" Securities Suit
BLACKMON MOORING: "Smith" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Texas
BP EXPLORATION: Porto Castelo Loses Bid to Extend Time Upheld
CDK GLOBAL: Wants Antitrust Suits Included in MDL

CHANGE HEALTHCARE: "Martinez" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
CLARINS U.S.A.: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Wu Claims
CSX INTERMODAL: Court Denies Bid to Strike in "Valadez" Suit
DANELL CUSTOM: July 11 Final Fairness Hearing on "Rodriguez" Deal
DIAGEO-GUINNESS USA: Court Narrows Claims in "O'Hara" Suit

EAGLE MATERIALS: Parties in Wallboard Suit Reached Settlement
EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery Ongoing in Homebuilders' Suit
EBIX INC: Trial in Stockholder Lawsuit Scheduled for August 2018
EGALET CORP: Still Defends Combined Pennsylvania Class Actions
ELIZABETH ARDEN: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Wu Claims

ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Trial in Delaware Suit Set for 2Q 2019
ENBRIDGE INC: Agrees to Pay US$175,000 for Fees and Expenses
ENDOLOGIX INC: "Ortiz" Settlement Has Final Approval
ENERGY TRANSFER: Still Defends Amended Regency Merger Complaint
ENERGY TRANSFER: Still Defends Issuance Litigation in Delaware

ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Still Defends Securities Class Lawsuits
ESSA BANCORP: Awaits Court's Final OK on UCC Settlement
ESSA BANCORP: Subsidiary Still Defends Suit over RESPA Breaches
EZCORP INC: Securities Suit in Texas in Discovery Stage
FAA SERRAMONTE: Luu Sues over Incomplete Car Accessories

FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: Faces 4 Putative Class Actions on Merger Deal
FIRST BANCORP: Defendants to Seek Supreme Court Review
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Still Defends Shareholder Class Lawsuit
FLORIDA COURIER: Sobrinho Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay under FLSA
FOREMOST INSURANCE: "Scherrer" Remains in Missouri District Ct.

FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Discovery Continues in "Cryer" Suit
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: "Fernandez" Suit Underway
GENIE ENERGY: "Ferrare" Parties Await Report over Settlement
GENIE ENERGY: Parties Await Recommendation on "McLaughlin" Pact
GENIE ENERGY: Awaits Final Court OK on "Aks" Accord

GENIE ENERGY: Estimated Settlement Payments Reduced by $1.4-Mil.
GLOBAL EAGLE: Notice of Appeal Filed in Hart Class Action
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Employee Class Suits in Nevada Underway
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit over Transient Lodging Tax
GREAT SOUTH TIMBER: "Roberts" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA

GREATS BRAND: Youn Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
GREEN DOT: Still Defends Class Suits over Service Disruptions
GROUPON INC: 4th Cir. Junks Appeal on "Keena" Suit Dismissal
HC2 HOLDINGS: Oct. 2019 Trial Set in CGI Producer Litigation
HC2 HOLDINGS: Explores Potential Settlement in Schuff Litigation

HUGOTON ROYALTY: Final Allocation Plan in Royalty Suit Due July
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: June 19 Oral Arguments in Securities Suit
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Calif. High Court Reopens Tinder Suit
ICONIX BRAND: Motion to Dismiss N.Y. Class Lawsuit Still Pending
ICU MEDICAL: Hospira Units Defend Lawsuit on IV Saline Solution

ILLINOIS: Court Enters Case Management Orders in "Coleman" Suit
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Trial in "Marentes" Class Suit Set for June 2018
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Solodyn End-Payor Pact Gets Preliminary OK
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Opana ER(R) Antitrust Class Actions Ongoing
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Still Defends Generic Drug Pricing Suit

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Time to Appeal AWP Case Dismissal Has Lapsed
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Still Defends Medicine To Go's TCPA Lawsuit
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Still Faces Securities Class Action in N.Y.
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Class Suits on Amneal Combination Dismissed
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Wage & Hour Suit

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Faces American Resources Suit over Opioids
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Putative Class Suit on Opioid Epidemic
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends "Di Donato" Class Action
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss NY Class Suit Pending
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces "DeSmet" Suit in S.D.N.Y.

IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Lawsuit Still Ongoing
J ALEXANDERS: "Elstein" Shareholder Suit Still Pending
J2 GLOBAL: Appeal from Nixed Davis Neurology Suit Still Pending
JAMAICA HOSPITAL: Court Denies Certification of "Hawkins" Class
JOHNNIE'S ON THE SIDE: Fails to Pay Wages, Casanova Says

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ct. Vacates Pending Motions in "Martinelli"
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Bowling" Suit
JONES FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Retirement Plan Lawsuit Denied
JONES FINANCIAL: Court Approves "White" Class Suit Settlement
JONES FINANCIAL: "Bland" Wage-and-Hour Class Action Underway

JONES FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Faces Securities Class Suit
LITHIA MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in 3rd Amended "Mendoza" Suit
LIVINGSTON COUNTY, MI: "Carr" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
L'OREAL USA: Moved "Wallace" Suit to E.D. California
MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Bid to Dismiss "Freedman" Suit Still Pending

MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: 3 Merger-Related Securities Suits Dismissed
MATIAN LAW: Ramirez & Anguiano Sue for Legal Malpractice
MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Appeal in Fresno Bee Lawsuit Still Pending
MCGOWAN ENTERPRISES: $1.1MM Attys' Fee Awarded in Fairway Suit
MDL 2048: Court Denies Bid to File 1st Amended Antitrust Suits

MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Smith Sues over $20 Late Return Fees
MICROSOFT CORP: Portions of "Moussouris" Class Cert. Bid Unsealed
MILLENNIUM HEALTH: Bid to Certify "Mauthe" Suit Denied
MULTICARE HEALTH: "Johnson" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Nov. 24 Claims Filing in Strip Search Cases

NISSAN NORTH: 6-Mo. Extension in "Tamara" Discovery Deadlines
OHIO REGIONAL SEWER: "Rice" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
OSAKA STEAKHOUSE: "Zhang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
PECO FOODS: Class in "Nicks" Suit Has Conditional Certification
PETMED EXPRESS: Animal Medical Center Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

PETMED EXPRESS: Class Suit in Florida Voluntarily Dismissed
PINNACLE FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Korte" Suit
POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY: De Jesus et al. Sue over Pension
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Can Compel Doc Production in "Bereket" Suit
QUALCOMM INC: Appeal Filed in 3226701 Canada Suit

QUALCOMM INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Action
QUALCOMM INC: Four Consumer Class Suits Filed in Canada
RESOURCE MS: Dismissal of "Crossman" Suit Affirmed
R.C. WENDT: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Cuadras Says

ROADRUNNER TRANS: Faces Securities Class Suit in Wisconsin
SILO EAST: "Quiroz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
SIRIUS XM: "Buchanan" TCPA Class Action Underway
SQUARETRADE INC: "Swinton" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Iowa
TAXI COMPUTER: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Demeter"

TECHNICOLOR USA: "Sharp" Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
TENNECO INC: Still Defends Suit over Anticompetitive Conduct
TRANSUNION RENTAL: June 4 Deadline to File Bid to OK Settlement
TROY CONSTRUCTION: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Stone" Wage Suit
UNITED INDUSTRIES: Bid to Certify "Arthur" Class Suit Denied

VROOM INC: Wins Summary Judgment in "Edelsberg" TCPA Suit
WALLYPARK AIRPORT: Tucker Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
WEBSTAURANT STORE: "Rogers" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
WESTERN STATES: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Antitrust Suit


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $641.2MM Asbestos Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Has $154-Mil. Net Loss, LAE Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Defends Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Expects More Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $25.8-Mil. Libby Costs at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,144 PI Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint, Units Still Face Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Defends Talc-Related Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had $33.4MM Liability at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,530 Fibro Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Cuellar's Bid to Withdraw Plea Upheld
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ZAIC Has Right to Seek Contribution from INA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge OKs Application of Maine Law in "Burleigh"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Mikelsen" Discovery Deadline Moved to June 13

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. No Duty to Protect from Secondary Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claire's Ordered to Stop Selling Tainted Make-Up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Report Finds Asbestos in Philly Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Fined for Breach of Asbestos Notice
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Kusu Island Lagoon, Beach

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Fined EUR50K for Exposing Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Dunedin Mud Tanks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Allegations at Gov't Facility Confirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Launched After Refinery Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qld Carpenter Sues James Hardie for $6MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Medical Supplies Storage Closes Over Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Perth Development Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Foreshore Redevelopment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Latiolais" Remanded to La. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Firms Hope to Continue $117MM Streak

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owners Foot $200K Bill at Ainslie Clean-Up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Denies Attempt to Stop Mesothelioma Suit




                            *********


300 WEST 46TH ST: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO TEPOX GUTIERREZ (A/K/A ALEX TEPOX), LORENZO ANTONIO BRAVO
BRAVO, and SANTOS TARAX, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. 300 WEST 46TH ST. CORP.
(D/B/A BRASSERIE ATHENEE), SOTIRIOS KARAMOUZIS, and CHRISTOS DOE,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04239 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are both current and
former employees of Defendants, which own, operate, or control a
Greek restaurant, located at 300 West 46th Street, New York, New
York 10036 under the name "Brasserie Athenee". The Plaintiffs
have been employed as busboys and food runners. However, they
have been required to spend a considerable part of their work day
performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to buying
things for the store, buying lottery tickets and cigarettes for
the owner, stocking wine in the basement, bringing things up from
the basement for the bartender and cooks, cleaning the tables,
utensils, the floors, and the bathrooms, setting up the tables,
bringing up the cups, bringing water to the tables, making
coffee, folding napkins, performing inventory, stocking
deliveries and getting change from a nearby deli.

The Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation for the hours that they have worked. Rather, the
Defendants have failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked, have failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Furthermore, Defendants have
repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          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@employmentcompliance.com



374 FOOD: Court Enters Findings in "Castillo" FLSA/NYLL Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOMINGO CASTILLO MARCELINO, Plaintiff, v. 374 FOOD,
INC. d/b/a TRIBECA BAGELS, TIRAN TSADOK, and HAYIM TSADOK,
Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 6287 (KPF) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge
Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has entered her Opinion that constitutes the
Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 after a bench trial held on
July 19, 2017.

The Plaintiff, a former employee of Tribeca Bagels, sued the
Defendants for wage and hour and recordkeeping violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL").  He Plaintiff filed his Complaint on Aug. 9, 2016.

The crux of the Plaintiff's wage and hour violations was
contained in his allegations that from approximately Sept. 2,
2015 until on or about April 2016, Castillo worked from
approximately 5:00 a.m. until on or about 5:15 p.m. four days a
week and from approximately 5:00 a.m. until on or about 5:00 p.m.
two days a week (typically 73 hours per week).  Throughout his
employment with the Defendants, he was paid his wages in cash.
From approximately Sept. 2, 2015 until on or about April 2016, he
was paid a fixed salary of $100 per day.  His wages did not vary
regardless of how many additional hours he worked in a week.

The Plaintiff also claimed that the Defendants did not keep track
of his actual hours worked, and that he had not been provided
with rate of pay or wage statements.  Further, as violative
general employment practices, the Plaintiff alleged that the
Defendants failed to pay the minimum wage to which he was
entitled, overtime wages, and spread-of-hours pay, and, further,
that they willfully evaded recordkeeping and notice requirements.

The Defendants filed their answer on Jan. 1, 2017.  Of note, the
Defendants denied that the Plaintiff was an employee of Tiran and
Hayim Tsadok; denied that the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendants for the entirety of the time period between Sept. 2,
2015, and April 20, 2016; and raised an affirmative defense that
the FLSA did not apply because the Defendants' annual revenues
did not exceed $500,000.

An initial pretrial conference was held in the matter on Jan. 4,
2017.  At the beginning of the conference, the counsel for the
Plaintiff disclaimed any intention to proceed as a collective or
class action.  That day, the Court endorsed the case management
plan submitted by the parties, and also issued an order referring
the case to then-United States Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck
for a settlement conference.

A settlement conference was held before Judge Peck on March 8,
2017.  It failed, but was followed by an order referring the case
to Judge Peck for general pretrial purposes.  Three weeks later,
after a status conference on March 28, 2017, Judge Peck issued an
order referring the matter to the District's mediation program.
A mediation was scheduled for May 18, 2017, but did not in fact
take place.

Given the failure of several alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms, the Court held a pretrial conference on May 26, 2017,
to schedule a trial in the matter.  On June 7, 2017, it issued an
order scheduling trial for July 19, 2017.  The Counsel for the
Plaintiff filed a proposed pretrial statement and motion in
limine on June 21, 2017.  The Counsel for the Defendants filed
their corresponding submissions on June 22, 2017, and June 27,
2017.

During this time period, the defense counsel raised concerns
about ex parte communications and contemplated a motion for
recusal.  The motion was not filed, and the Court addressed the
matters at the final pretrial conference on July 5, 2017.  At the
same conference, the counsel for the Defendants confirmed that
they would be calling witnesses only for impeachment purposes.

A one-day bench trial on the Plaintiff's claims was held on July
19, 2017.  Judge Failla has considered the parties' submissions,
but has concluded that it is easier to summarize the testimony at
trial and explain the degree to which she credits, or discredits,
that testimony.

First, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff was employed as a
kitchen worker at Tribeca Bagels from Feb. 15, 2016, until his
termination on March 18, 2016.  Based principally on the
testimony of the Plaintiff and Felix Nieto, she finds that the
Plaintiff worked on 25 days during the work weeks of Feb. 15,
Feb. 22, Feb. 29, March 7, and March 14, 2016.  She credits
Nieto's testimony that the Plaintiff was absent from work on
March 16 and 17, and on one day during the week of Feb. 22 or
Feb. 29.

She further finds that the Plaintiff was directly supervised by
Felix Nieto, and had no direct interaction with either of the
Individual Defendants.  And she finds that the Plaintiff's work
week was from Monday to Saturday, and his work day was from 5:00
a.m. until 5:00 p.m., although it will discuss the actual hours.

Judge Failla concludes that the Plaintiff has vastly overstated
the period of his employment at Tribeca Bagels, to the point of
perjuring himself in his testimony to the Court.  However, even
the testimony of the Defendants' impeachment witnesses suggests
that the Plaintiff is provisionally entitled to recovery for
certain violations of the relevant statutes, in the amount of
$8,144, plus prejudgment interest.

The Judge refrains from issuing judgment in that amount, however,
because it wishes to hear from the parties as to the effect, if
any, of the Plaintiff's perjury on his entitlement to recovery,
and, moreover, on the propriety of sanctions on the Plaintiff
and/or his counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
11, 28 U.S.C. Section 1927, and the Court's inherent power.

The Plaintiff pursued seven causes of action at trial: (i) First
Cause of Action: Violation of the minimum wage provisions of the
FLSA; (ii) Second Cause of Action: Violation of the overtime
provisions of the FLSA; (iii) Third Cause of Action: Violation of
the New York Minimum Wage Act; (iv) Fourth Cause of Action:
Violation of the overtime provisions of the NYLL; (v) Fifth Cause
of Action: Violation of the Spread of Hours Wage Order of the New
York Commissioner of Labor; (vi) Sixth Cause of Action: Violation
of the notice and recordkeeping requirements of the NYLL; and
(vii) Seventh Cause of Action: Violation of the wage statement
provisions of the NYLL.

The first five of these causes of action are related: They all
assert that the Defendants paid the Plaintiff insufficient wages,
and the Judge will thus consider them in tandem, before
addressing the Plaintiff's two remaining causes of action
individually.

The Judge finds that (i) the Plaintiff has not met his burden of
demonstrating the applicability of the FLSA; (ii) Has Not Met His
Burden of Demonstrating the Applicability of the FLSA; and (ii)
the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over the
Plaintiff's NYLL claims.

She finds that the Plaintiff (i) has not met his burden of
proving that Tiran Tsadok was his "employer" under the NYLL; (ii)
is entitled to liquidated damages in the amount of 100% of the
wages of which he was deprived, which total $947 under the NYLL'
(iii) is provisionally entitled to statutory damages in the
amount of $250 per work day, which, given the Court's finding of
25 work days, results in the statutory maximum award of $5,000;
and (iv) is entitled to recoup prejudgment interest on his unpaid
wages under the NYLL.  She directed the parties to submit
supplemental briefing on the issue of sanctions.

She wishes to hear from the parties concerning next steps in
light of all of the findings contained in her Opinion.  As a
result, she ordered the parties to submit briefing of no more
than 20 pages on the following issues: (i) whether the Court may
consider the Plaintiff's perjury, and any other inappropriate
conduct in the litigation, in determining his entitlement to
recovery under the NYLL; (ii) whether the sanctions against the
Plaintiff are warranted under, among other sources, Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 11 or the Court's inherent power; and (iii)
whether the against the Plaintiff's counsel warranted under,
among other sources, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28
U.S.C. Section 1927, or the Court's inherent power.

The Judge further ordered that the Defendants' brief is due by
April 30, 2018 and Plaintiff's responsive brief by May 30, 2018.
She requested no reply brief at this time.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/3CPedJ from Leagle.com.

Domingo Castillo Marcelino, individually & Domingo Castillo
Marcelino, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Colin James Mulholland, Michael Faillace &
Associates, P.C., Raquel Amalia Gutierrez, Michael Faillace &
Associates, P.C., Shawn Raymond Clark -- sclark@faillacelaw.com -
- Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C. & Michael Antonio Faillace
-- Michael@Faillacelaw.com -- Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C.

374 Food Inc., doing business as, Tiran Tsadok & Hayim Tsadok,
Defendants, represented by Brian Earl Lehman --
brian@lehmanlawgroup.com -- Lehman Lg LLC, pro hac vice & Julie
Rosenblum Solarz, Julie Rosenblum Solarz.


4175 LLC: "Ha" Class Conditional Certification Bid Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SIU CHING HA and PAK CHUAN LEONG, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 4175 LLC
d/b/a BAUMGART'S CAFE, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-
5530 (ES) (MAH) (D. N.J.), Judge Esther Salas of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey denied without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiffs (comprising a chef, waiter, and delivery driver at
three different restaurants) and prospective collective action
members are former employees of the Defendants (comprising four
different restaurants and their owners and managers).

Ha filed an initial Complaint on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated on July 14, 2015. Ha worked as a chef for
Defendant Baumgart Cafe of Livingston, Inc., doing business as
Baumgart's Cafe located at 4175 Town Center Way in Livingston,
New Jersey, from June 15, 2014 to April 15, 2015.

Leong worked as a waiter for Defendant Baumgart's Edgewater
Corp., doing business as Baumgart's Cafe located at 59 The
Promenade in Edgewater, New Jersey, from April 7, 2014 to Nov.
30, 2014.  Leong, together with Ha, filed an Amended Complaint on
April 1, 2016.

Plaintiff Laura Wahyudi opted in to the action on April 18, 2016.
Wahyudi worked as a delivery driver for Defendant Baumgart
Restaurant, Inc., doing business as Baumgart Cafe located at 45
East Palisade Avenue in Englewood, New Jersey, from April 14,
2012 to Feb. 11, 2016.

The Amended Complaint includes Defendant Baumgart's of Ridgewood,
Inc. located at 158 Franklin Avenue in Ridgewood, New Jersey,
although none of the Plaintiffs have worked there and there are
no allegations of wrongdoing by Baumgart Ridgewood.

According to the Plaintiffs, the Baumgart Defendants are all
members of a Chinese-American chain store founded in the mid 80's
by Steve and Marsha Wu along with their partner Sam Wang.  They
further allege that the Baumgart Defendants were and continue to
be, a single and joint employer and have had a high degree of
interrelated and unified operation, and share common management,
centralized control of labor relations, common ownership, common
control, common website, common business purposes and
interrelated business goals.

The Plaintiffs allege that (i) the Defendants failed to
compensate them and the purported class members at the statutory
minimum wage in violation of the FLSA and New Jersey Labor Law
("NJWHL") Sections 34:11-56 (Counts I and II); (ii) the
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the purported class
members overtime compensation at the statutory rate of time-and-
a-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek in
violation of the FLSA and New Jersey Labor Law (Counts III and
IV); and (iii) the Defendants violated 26 U.S.C. Section 7434,
which provides that if any person willfully files a fraudulent
information return with respect to payments purported to be made
to any other person, such other person may bring a civil action
for damages against the person so filing such return (Count V).

The Plaintiffs bring the action individually and on behalf of all
other former non-exempt deliverymen, servers, busboys, and
kitchen staff who have been or were employed by the Defendants
for up to the last three years and whom were not compensated at
least the hourly minimum wage and/or overtime compensation for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

On May 12, 2017, the Plaintiffs moved for conditional
certification of the FLSA collective action and publication of
the proposed notice of pendency.  Baumgart Livingston and
Baumgart Ridgewood opposed the Plaintiffs' motion on June 5,
2017.  Baumgart Edgewater opposed the Plaintiffs' motion on June
6, 2017.  On June 12, 2017, the Plaintiffs submitted a reply in
further support of their motion.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the
burden of proof for conditional certification under any standard
however lenient or modest.  Judge Salas agrees.

In sum, the Judge finds that, while the threshold for conditional
certification is modest, the Plaintiffs have nevertheless failed
to provide evidence of a factual nexus between the manner in
which the employer's alleged policy affected them and the manner
in which it affected other employees.  The Plaintiffs are asking
the Court to speculate, based on their own affidavits alone, that
other workers -- who held different positions, performed
different requirements, and worked at different locations -- are
similarly situated to them.

Put differently, the Judge says, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
assume that because their rights may have been violated, the
rights of all non-managerial employees (or those employees
composing the three alternative subclasses) at the different
Baumgart Defendants were also violated.  But, again, the law
requires a factual nexus, not an assumption of facts.  The
Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence -- other than their
allegations -- to support the existence of a companywide policy
in violation of the FLSA.  And the alleged application of a
uniform policy does not, without more, show that potential class
members are similarly situated.

Finally, the Judge finds that the evidence that has been
submitted appears to demonstrate that some employees are not
similarly situated to the Plaintiffs, in that they worked part
time, may not have worked overtime, were paid differently, or
held management positions.  At this stage, it would be
inappropriate for the Court to conditionally certify either all
non-managerial employees or the three alternative subclasses.

Accordingly, Judge Salas denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification of the FLSA collective action without
prejudice to the Plaintiffs refiling the motion at a later date.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/yLMQLE from Leagle.com.

SIU CHING HA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
& PAK CHAUN LEONG, Plaintiffs, represented by MICHAEL TAUBENFELD
-- michael@fishertaubenfeld.com -- SERRINS FISHER LLP & AARON
SCHWEITZER, TROY LAW, PLLC.

BAUMGART CAFE OF LIVINGSTON, doing business as BAUMGART'S CAFE,
BAUMGART RESTAURANT, INC., doing business as BAUMGART'S CAFE,
BAUMGART OF RIDGEWOOD, INC., doing business as BAUMGART'S CAFE,
MARSHA WU, GOU-FU WANG, also known as SAM WANG & STEVE WU,
Defendants, represented by DOUGLAS WEINER, LIPMAN & PLESUR LLP.

BAUMGART'S EDGEWATER CORP., doing business as BAUMGART'S CAFE &
LEUNG FONG HO, also known as, Defendants, represented by BIN XUE
-- benjaminxue@xuelaw.com -- XUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

"ZONG HOU" XIE, Defendant, represented by S.M. CHRIS FRANZBLAU --
franzblau@njcounsel.com -- FRANZBLAU DRATCH, PC.


ALLCONNECT INC: "McKenzie" Suit Moved to E.D. Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mettekjistine McKenzie and
Chastity Combs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Allconnect, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 18-CI-1449, was removed from the Fayette Circuit Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
(Lexington) on May 15, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 5:18-cv-00359-JMH to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Joseph M. Hood.

Allconnect, Inc. operates as a multi-channel marketplace that
connects consumers with essential home services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          THE JOHNSON FIRM
          2226 Cottondale Lane, Suite 210
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 372 1300
          Facsimile: (888) 505 0909

               - and -

          David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
          KIRCHER, SUETHOLZ &
          GRAYSON, PSC - LOUISVILLE
          515 Park Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 636 4333
          Facsimile: (502) 636 4342
          E-mail: dave@unionsidelawyers.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254 8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255 5419

               - and -

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636 6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636 2593

               - and -

          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636 6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636 2593

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Jaron P. Blandford, Esq.
          Robert E. Maclin, III, Esq.
          MCBRAYER, MCGINNIS, LESLIE &
          KIRKLAND, PLLC - LEXINGTON
          201 E. Main Street, Suite 900
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 231 8780
          Facsimile: (859) 281 6480
          E-mail: jblandford@mmlk.com
                  remaclin@mmlk.com



ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Court Grants Bid to File FAC in "Wilson"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CALVIN WILSON, DAVID BLUME, and ASIA MARSHALL,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs, v. ALLEN COUNTY COUNCIL, ALLEN COUNTY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS, and ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD,
Defendants, Cause No. 1:15-CV-402-TLS (N.D. Ind.), Judge Theresa
L. Springmann of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana granted the Plaintiffs' First Motion to
Amend/Correct their Brief in Opposition to the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss.

Wilson, Blume, and Marshall, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, have brought the class action against the
Defendants, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to
42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants have failed to provide effective assistance of counsel
to indigent defendants charged with committing misdemeanor crimes
in the courts of Allen County, Indiana, in violation of the Sixth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and
Section 13(a) of Article 1 of the Indiana State Constitution.

On Sept. 15, 2017, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, and on Sept. 25, 2017, the
Plaintiffs filed their Response.  On Sept. 28, 2017, the
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend/Correct their Brief in
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants responded,
and the Plaintiffs replied.

As detailed in their Motion to Amend, the Plaintiffs seek to
amend their response brief in opposition to the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss by adding one new paragraph and two documents.
One of these documents in a letter from Derrick Mason, identified
as a Senior Staff Attorney at the Indiana Public Defender
Commission ("IPDC"), confirming the IPDC's approval of a request
from the Allen County Public Defender ("ACPD") to hire additional
staff.  The Defendants oppose the Motion to Amend, and the
inclusion of the attached proposed amended response brief and
Letter in the record, arguing that the Letter is protected and
excluded under the deliberative process privilege.

Judge Springmann finds that the deliberative process privilege
does not extend to the Letter at issue.  First, on its face, the
Letter appears to be a confirmation authorizing personnel (or
shifting personnel into different positions).  The language does
not appear to reflect any sort of deliberation, let alone
deliberation related to process by which policies are formulated.
Rather, the language in the Letter indicates that it is an
authorization, or confirmation per a conversation, for the ACPD's
hiring of staff.

The Judge has reviewed the Affidavit of Randall Hammond and has
given it due consideration.  She finds that Mr. Hammond claims
the deliberative process privilege.  Even taking Mr. Hammond's
Affidavit at face value, the Letter is still not protected by the
privilege because the privilege is intended to prevent inquiry
into governmental decision-making that is only collateral to the
case.

At the crux of the lawsuit is an accusation of government
misconduct.  Moreover, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants
acted intentionally when depriving the Plaintiffs of their
constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel.
Therefore, the Judge finds that the deliberative process
privilege does not shield the attachment of, or reference to, the
Letter at issue in the Plaintiff's proposed amended brief in
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

For these reasons, Judge Springmann granted the Plaintiffs' First
Motion to Amend/Correct their Brief in Opposition to the Motion
to Dismiss.  She notes that the Motion to Dismiss is still
pending and thus gives leave to the Defendants to file a reply by
April 17, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/Jo2lSO from Leagle.com.

Calvin Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Asia Marshall, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by David W.
Frank -- dfrank@myers-law.com -- Christopher C. Myers &
Associates.

Allen County Board of Commissioners, Defendant, represented by G.
William Fishering, Beers Mallers Backs & Salin LLP, J. Spencer
Feighner -- jsf@hallercolvin.com -- Haller & Colvin PC, James P.
Posey, Beers Mallers Backs & Salin LLP & Laura L. Maser, Beers
Mallers Backs & Salin LLP.

Allen County Council, Defendant, represented by J. Spencer
Feighner, Haller & Colvin PC & James P. Posey, Beers Mallers
Backs & Salin LLP.

Allen County Public Defender Board, Defendant, represented by J.
Spencer Feighner, Haller & Colvin PC, James P. Posey, Beers
Mallers Backs & Salin LLP & John O. Feighner --
jfeighner@hallercolvin.com -- Haller & Colvin PC.



AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Schultz" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Margaret Schultz, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. American
Airlines, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 02018CA004403XXXXMB, was
removed from 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(West Palm Beach) on May 14, 2018.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 9:18-cv-80633-RLR to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.

American Airlines is a major United States airline headquartered
in Fort Worth, Texas, within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mason Kyle Kerns, Esq.
          MASON KERNS LAW, P.A.
          350 South Miami Avenue, Suite 2404
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 725 8300
          Facsimile: (305) 725 8305
          E-mail: Mason@MasonKernsLaw.com

               - and -

          Robert E Burkett, Jr., Esq.
          BURKETT LAW OFFICE
          5237 Summerlin Commons Blvd., Suite 217
          FORT MYERS, FL 33907
          Telephone: (239) 275 2145
          Facsimile: (239) 275 2145
          E-mail: BOBBURKETTLAW@GMAIL.COM

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Humberto H. Ocariz, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
          201 So Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358 5171
          Facsimile: (305) 358 7470
          E-mail: hocariz@shb.com



AMBI PAVING: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS JAVIER LUCIANO MARTINEZ, Individually and others,
SIMILARLY SITUATED, The Plaintiff, v. AMBI PAVING LLC, A Florida
Limited Liability company and SEROJINIE DEOCHAND, and individual,
the Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00737-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla., May
11, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as paving trick
driver and/or driver's helper for the Defendants. On a weekly
basis, the Defendant would permit each employee to receive a lump
sin in cash for a 40-hour work week based on either a daily or
weekly rate.  During those weeks in which the Plaintiff and those
similarly situated worked in excess of 40 hours, the Defendant
failed to pay overtime wages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Constantine W. Papas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CONSTANTINE W. PAPAS, P.A.
          1277 N. Semoran Blvd., Ste 106
          Orlando, FL 32807
          Telephone: (407) 347 6502
          Facsimile: (407) 206 3655
          E-mail: cwp@deanpapaslaw.com


AMN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Posephny Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE POSEPHNY, BAR.ET SLOLEYSARCHET, LAQUITA KNIGHT, and CARMEN
SISTRUNK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AMN HEALTHCARE, INC., AMN HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC., AMN HEALTHCARE ALLIED, INC., and HEALTHSOURCE
GLOBAL STAFFING, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. RG18905050 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 15, 2018),
seeks to minimum wages and overtime wages under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants has had a policy and
practice of failing to:

     (1) pay Class Members for all hours worked including, time
         spent waiting for work assignments and processing
         paperwork at the hotel, using Defendants' transportation
         to go to and from worksites, and waiting at worksites to
         receive instruction for their daily work assignments;

     (2) pay Class Members overtime premiums of one-and-one-half
         times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in
         excess of eight hours each workday or over 40 hours in a
         workweek, and overtime premiums of two times their
         regular rate of pay for hours worked over 12 hours each
         workday;

     (3) provide Class Members with thirty-minute duty-free meal
         periods for each five hours of work;

     (4) authorize and permit Class Members to take off-duty ten-
         minute rest periods for each four hours worked or major
         fraction thereof; and

     (5) reimburse Class Members for business-related expenses
         including, the costs of personal cell phone use to
         receive Defendants' instructions and the costs of their
         own meals.

The Defendants are in the business of healthcare staffing.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Hunter Pyle, Esq.
          Chad Saunders, Esq.
          Vincent Chen, Esq.
          HUNTER PYLE LAW
          428 13th Street, 11th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444 4400
          Facsimile: (510) 444 4410
          E-mail hunter@hunterpyleaw.com
                 csaunders@hunterpyelaw.com
                 vchcn@hunterpylclaw.com


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Shust Balks at Merger Evergreen Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
NESTOR SHUST, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
DONALD T. DECARLO, SUSAN C. FISCH, ABRAHAM GULKOWITZ, GEORGE
KARFUNKEL, LEAH KARFUNKEL, RAUL RIVERA, MARK SEROCK, and BARRY D.
ZYSKIND, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01129 (N.D. Ohio, May
15, 2018), seeks to enjoin vote on a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which AmTrust will be taken private by a group of
controlling shareholders including AmTrust's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer Barry D. Zyskind and directors George Karfunkel
and Leah Karfunkel, and private equity funds managed by Stone
Point Capital LLC.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of the public
stockholders of AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. against AmTrust
and the members of its Board of Directors for their violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

On March 1, 2018, AmTrust issued a press release announcing it
had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Evergreen
Parent, L.P., an entity formed by funds managed by Stone Point
and the Karfunkel-Zyskind Family, and Parent's wholly owned
subsidiary, Evergreen Merger Sub, Inc., in which Parent will
acquire the approximately 45% of the Company's issued and
outstanding common shares that the Karfunkel-Zyskind Family and
certain of its affiliates and related parties do not presently
own or control. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, AmTrust
common shareholders who are not affiliated with the Karfunkel-
Zyskind Family will receive $13.50 in cash for each share of
AmTrust common stock they own. The Proposed Transaction is valued
at approximately $2.7 billion.

On May 4, 2018, AmTrust filed a Definitive Proxy Statement on
FORM DEFM14A with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends
that AmTrust's minority stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) AmTrust's financial
projections, including the financial projections relied upon by
AmTrust's financial advisor, Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.; (ii)
the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses
that support the fairness opinion provided by Deutsche Bank; and
(iii) Deutsche Bank's potential conflicts of interest. The
failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act as AmTrust's minority stockholders need such
information in order to cast a fully-informed vote in connection
with the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal.

In short, unless remedied, AmTrust's minority stockholders will
be forced to make a voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed
Transaction without full disclosure of all material information
concerning the Proposed Transaction being provided to them.
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are
cured.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Camillus, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS, LLC
          P.O. Box 141410
          Columbus, OH 43214
          Telephone: (614) 558 7254
          Facsimile: (614) 559 6731
          E-mail: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308 5858
          Facsimile: (212) 214 0506
          E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, New York 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682 3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682 3010
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com



ARTISANAL BREWERS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Hopkins Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA HOPKINS and ROLLIN MATTHEWS, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARTISANAL
BREWERS COLLECTIVE, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC705958 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 11, 2018), is an action against the Defendant for
California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices
stemming from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and straight
time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods,
failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal
periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees,
and failure to furnish accurate wage statements.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Allen Feghali, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232-3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com
                  allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


APPLE HOSPITALITY: $5.5MM Deal in "Moses" Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUSAN MOSES, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE HOSPITALITY REIT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-3131 (SMG) (E.D. N.Y.), Magistrate
Judge Steven M. Gold of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted the Plaintiff's move for an Order
(i) finally certifying the class for settlement; (2) approving
the terms of the revised settlement agreement; (3) approving the
plan of allocation; and (4) appointing Moses as the class
representative and interim class counsel as the class counsel.

Representative Plaintiff Moses brings the breach of contract
action on behalf of participants in the Defendant's Dividend
Reinvestment Plans ("DRIPs").  The Plaintiff contends that the
Defendant overvalued DRIP shares, breaching the parties' contract
and causing damage to class members by charging inflated prices
for the shares they acquired under the DRIPs.

The parties eventually reached a settlement agreement and moved
for preliminary approval of the settlement and preliminary
certification of a settlement class.  The Court heard oral
argument on the Plaintiff's motion, and received revised
submissions addressing questions raised at that argument.
Thereafter, on Sept. 19, 2017, the Court granted Moses' motion
for preliminary certification of a settlement class and
preliminary approval of a class action settlement.  The Court's
Order also approved the notice that the parties proposed to have
mailed to the class members, as well as a summary notice they
proposed for publication.

The settlement agreement provides for a $5.5 million fund from
which the class members' claims, incentive awards, attorneys'
fees, and costs will be paid.  The net fund, consisting of the
portion of the fund remaining after disbursements for incentive
awards, attorneys' fees, and costs are made, will be allocated to
the class members.  Of the net fund, 85% will be distributed to
the class members pro rata based on shares purchased during what
the parties refer to as the tender offer period for each Real
Estate Investment Trust ("REIT").  The remaining 15% of the net
fund will be distributed in the same manner based on shares
purchased outside the tender offer period.

The settlement class is defined as any person in the United
States who participated in the DRIPs for Apple REIT Seven and/or
Apple REIT Eight from July 17, 2007 to June 27, 2013 inclusive.

The interim class counsel engaged a third-party settlement
administrator, Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC ("KCC").  After
receiving lists containing the names and addresses of the class
members, KCC mailed the approved notice to 24,242 class members
and re-mailed about five hundred notices that were initially
returned as undeliverable.  It further caused the summary notice
approved by the Court to be transmitted over PR Newswire,
established a toll-free telephone hotline offering information
about the settlement, and created a website with links to the
Notice and other key documents relevant to the litigation.  As of
Dec. 29, 2017, the telephone hotline had received nine calls and
the website had been visited 3,067 times.

Four class members timely asked to be excluded from the
settlement class.  The Court received one objection.

The parties now seek an Order (1) finally certifying the class
for settlement; (2) approving the terms of the revised settlement
agreement; (3) approving the plan of allocation; and (4)
appointing Moses as class representative and interim class
counsel as class counsel.

The counsel in the case requests an award of one third of the
settlement fund for attorneys' fees, for a total of
$1,833,333.33.  In addition to their fees, the counsel seeks a
service award of $10,000 for representative Plaintiff Susan
Moses.  Finally, the counsel seeks litigation expenses totaling
$24,844.66.

Magistrate Gold concludes that the certification requirements of
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b) are met in the case.  Taking into
account the modest degree of success achieved and the high
lodestar multiplier, the Plaintiff's attorneys will be awarded
25% of the settlement fund, or $1,375,000.  Even at the somewhat
high hourly rates charged by the counsel, the Magistrate Judge
finds that this amount results in a multiplier of 1.6, more than
adequate to reasonably compensate counsel in the case and
incentivize attorneys to take on lawsuits like this one.  The
difference between the 33% sought and the 25% awarded shall, of
course, be added to the net settlement fund.

Finally, he finds that the costs described by the counsel are
necessary and incidental to their representation of the class,
and he finds them to be reasonable.  The amount sought will be
accordingly awarded as well.

For the reasons he described, Magistrate Gold granted the
Plaintiff's motion is granted.  Specifically, he ordered that (i)
the final certification is granted to the class described for
purposes of settlement; (ii) the Settlement Agreement, including
its proposed plan of allocation, is approved; (iii) the law firms
of Salas Wang LLC, Eccleston Law, LLC, and Law Office of
Christopher J. Gray, P.C. are appointed the Class Counsel; (iv)
the class counsel are awarded attorneys' fees equaling 25% of the
Settlement fund, or $1,375,000; (v) the class counsel's request
for reimbursement of $24,844.66 of litigation expenses is
approved; and (vi) Moses is appointed the class representative
and granted a $10,000 service award.

A full-text copy of Court's March 27, 2018 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/OaGXMi from Leagle.com.

Susan Moses, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Gray --
christopher.j.gray@hud.gov -- Law Offices of Christopher J. Gray,
P.C.., James J. Eccleston -- JEccleston@ecclestonlaw.com --
Eccleston Law Offices, P.C., Jeffrey M. Salas --
jsalas@salaswang.com -- Salas Wang LLC, pro hac vice & Christine
Elizabeth Goodrich -- cgoodrich@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP.

Marsha Wilchfort, Plaintiff, represented by Lee Squitieri --
lee@sfclasslaw.com -- Squitieri & Fearon, LLP.

Dorothy Wenzel, Plaintiff, pro se.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
F. Edwards -- eedwards@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro
hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr. -- jmcmahan@glvlawfirm.com --
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian --
mchristian@seyfarth.com -- McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac vice,
Marwill Beil -- mbeil@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, Richard
L. Jarashow -- rjarashow@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP &
Stanley A. Roberts, McGuireWoods LLP.

Glade M. Knight, Bryan Peery, Kent W. Colton, Glenn W. Bunting,
Ronald A. Rosenfeld, Anthony Francis Keating, III, Lisa B. Kern,
Bruce H. Matson, Michael S. Waters & Robert M. Wily, Defendants,
represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr., McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M.
Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac vice, Marshall Beil,
McGuireWoods LLP & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire Woods LLP.


APPLE INC: "Orshan" Suit Over Misleading Product Packaging Junked
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL ORSHAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:14-cv-05659-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward
J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted Apple's motion to dismiss
all of the claims in the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs filed the class action suit against Apple on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, alleging that
Apple violated various consumer protection laws by misleading
consumers regarding the storage capacity of certain mobile
devices running iOS 8.

The Plaintiffs are California consumers who purchased Apple
products running iOS 8.  Specifically, Orshan purchased two 16-
gigabyte iPhone 5s devices and two 16 GB iPads all running iOS 7,
which he then upgraded to iOS 8.  Endara purchased a 16 GB iPhone
6 running iOS 8.  Henderson purchased a 16 GB iPad2 running with
a predecessor operating system to iOS 8, which he then upgraded
to iOS 8.

According to the allegations in the FAC, all the three Plaintiffs
purchased their devices in reliance on the Defendant's claims, on
its website, advertisements, product packaging, and other
promotional materials, that the devices came with 16 GB of
storage space and they expected that capacity would be available
for their personal use.  However, contrary to these expectations,
anywhere from 18.1%-23.1% of this capacity (2.9 to 3.7 GB) was
used by iOS 8 and not available to the Plaintiffs for personal
storage.  They Plaintiffs allege that, had they known this, they
would not have upgraded to iOS 8, would not have purchased the 16
GB of storage capacity or would not have been willing to pay the
same price for it.

The FAC also alleges that, in addition to not meeting consumer
expectations, Apple exploits the discrepancy between represented
and available capacity for its own gain by offering to sell, and
by selling, cloud storage capacity through its iCloud service.
The FAC states that Apple charges anywhere from $0.99 to $29.99
per month for iCloud subscriptions and does not permit its users
to use cloud storage services from other vendors.

The Plaintiffs initiated the action on Dec. 30, 2014 and filed
their FAC on April 9, 2015. The FAC alleges the following causes
of action: (1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"; (2) violation of the False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and
(3) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").

Apple responded with the motion to dismiss all of the claims in
the Plaintiffs' FAC.  It also requests the Court to take judicial
notice of 28 separate statements made on its and other websites,
as well as statements made on product packaging.

Judge Davila finds that the Plaintiffs concede that the FAC
references and relies on statements made on Apple's website and
on the product packaging of Apple's devices.  Because those items
meet the standard for admissibility under Rule 201, Apple's
request is granted as to these documents.  For the same reason,
and with the same limitation applied, the Judge will also notice
the articles about iCloud, the storage capacity of Apple devices
and its competitor's devices, and the instructions from Apple's
website explaining how to upgrade to iOS 8.

What remains are Exhibits F, G and BB, which are articles
commenting on the merits of this action.  Aside from whether or
not they are proper matters to be noticed under Rule 201(b), the
Judge finds these articles irrelevant to any issue presented by
the motion.  Accordingly, he declines Apple's request to take
judicial notice of these exhibits.

Because the Plaintiffs' first theory that they were deceived into
thinking that all of the advertised storage capacity would be
available for personal use is not legally cognizable and the
Plaintiffs' second theory that they were deceived into thinking
that iOS 8 would not consume as much storage capacity as it did
is insufficiently plead, Judge Davila finds that the Plaintiffs
have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
He will grant Apple's motion, and all of the Plaintiffs' claims
will be dismissed.

The Judge says amendment is futile as to the Plaintiffs' first
theory (that they were deceived into thinking that all of the
advertised storage capacity would be available for personal use)
because it fails as a matter of law.  However, amendment is not
futile as to their second theory (that they were deceived into
thinking that iOS 8 would not consume as much storage capacity as
it did).  Accordingly, he will allow amendment.

Because he finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim
and grants Apple's motion with leave to amend, the Judge says he
needs not decide at this stage whether the FAC should also be
dismissed on the other grounds raised in Apple's motion,
including that (1) the CLRA is inapplicable; and (2) the
Plaintiffs do not have standing to sue on products they did not
purchase.  He advised the Plaintiffs that, should they choose to
amend their pleadings, they should amend them with an eye towards
resolving any potential issues raised on these grounds as well.

For these reasons, Judge Davila granted Apple's motion to dismiss
and dismissed with leave to amen all claims in the FAC.  Any
amended complaint must be filed on or before May 1, 2018, and
must be consistent with the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/5mmzbm from Leagle.com.

Paul Orshan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Christopher Endara, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles J.
LaDuca -- charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP,
Jon Michael Herskowitz -- jon@bhfloridalaw.com -- pro hac vice,
Matthew Evan Miller -- mmiller@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca, LLP, Melissa S. Weiner, Halunen Law, Michael Andrew
McShane -- mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners LLP, S.
Clinton Woods, Audet & Partners, LLP. & William H. Anderson --
wanderson@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP.

David Henderson, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Andrew
McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca, LLP, Jon Michael Herskowitz, pro hac vice, Melissa S.
Weiner, Halunen Law, S. Clinton Woods, Audet & Partners, LLP. &
William H. Anderson, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP.

Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew David Powers --
mpowers@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


APRO LLC: Correa Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
FABIAN G. CORREA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APRO, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and, DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. BC705657 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is an individual who was/is employed by Defendants
as hourly paid or nonexempt, in California, for at least the past
four years. The Plaintiff was paid under an illegal compensation
policy. The Defendants hired Plaintiff to work different shifts
and paid a shift differential, yet failed to pay him for overtime
hours at the proper overtime rate, and also failed to properly
pay for double overtime hours worked, amongst other violations.

Apro, LLC, doing business as United Oil, operates convenience
store and gas stations in Northern California, Southern
California, Colorado, and Washington.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated:

          Yoonis Han, Esq.
          Sam Kim, Esq.
          VERUM LAW GROUP, APC
          841 Apollo Street, Suite 340
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 320 2000
          Facsimile: (424) 221 5010
          E-mail: yhan@verumlg.com
                  skim@verumlg.com

               - and -

          Paul Lee, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL J. LEE
          2161 W. 182nd Street, Suite 204
          Torrance, CA 90504
          Telephone: (310) 844 7827
          Facsimile: (310) 294 9963





ARKOFF OPERATING: $55K Settlement in "Feliz" FLSA Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOEL FELIZ, Plaintiff, v. PARKOFF OPERATING CORP.,
d/b/a "Parkoff Management," d/b/a "The Parkoff Organization," et
al., Defendants, Case No. 17 Civ. 7627 (HBP) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge
Hnery Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York granted the parties' joint application to approve
their settlement.

From February 2014 until August 2017, the Plaintiff was the live-
in superintendent at an apartment building located at 441 Third
Avenue in Manhattan.  The Plaintiff also performed janitorial
work at another apartment building located at 519 Second Avenue,
also in Manhattan.

The Plaintiff alleges that he frequently worked in excess of 40
hours per week but did not receive overtime premium pay at one
and one-half times his regular hourly rate, as required by both
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law.  He
estimates his total unpaid overtime wages to be $68,000.  The
Plaintiff also seeks (1) statutory damages in the amount of
$10,000 as a result of the Defendants' alleged failure to provide
him with the wage statements and wage notices required by the
Labor Law and (2) damages of $4,000 to compensate for their
allegedly illegal deductions from his wages.

The Plaintiff's employment was terminated in August 2017.  At the
time of his termination, he received a $5,000 payment from the
Defendants in exchange for a release of his claims against them.
Although the Defendants do not seriously contend that the release
the Plaintiff previously provided is effective with respect to
his FLSA claim, they do contend that the Plaintiff's claimed
overtime hours are inflated and that his claims should be limited
to the two-year limitations period applicable to non-willful
violations of the FLSA.  The Defendants maintained time records
which, if credited, support their defense that plaintiff has
overstated the hours that he worked.

The parties and their counsel participated in a settlement
conference before the Judge on Feb. 26, 2018 at which they agreed
to resolve the matter for the sum of $55,000, in addition to the
$5,000 previously paid to the Plaintiff.  Of the $55,000
settlement amount, the gross amount of $37,000 is allocated to
the Plaintiff's FLSA claim.  One-third of this amount will be
allocated to wages, one third will be allocated to interest and
penalties and the remaining one third will be allocated to his
attorney's fees.  Thus, of the $37,000, the Plaintiff will
receive $24,666.67 and his counsel will receive $12,333.33.  In
return for the $37,000 payment, the Plaintiff will release all
wage and hour claims against the Defendants.

The remainder of the $55,000 settlement amount, or $18,000, will
be allocated to the Plaintiff's claims under the Labor Law.  One-
third of this amount will be allocated to wages, one third will
be allocated to interest and penalties and the remaining one
third will be allocated to his attorney's fees.  Thus, of the
$18,000, the Plaintiff will receive $12,000 and the counsel will
receive $6,000.  In return for the $18,000 payment, the Plaintiff
will provide the Defendants with a general release.

The Payment is to be made within seven days of the Plaintiff's
providing the releases.  Of the total amount of $60,000 that the
Defendants have paid and are paying to the Plaintiff, the latter
will receive a total of $41,666.67 and the counsel will receive a
total of $18,333.33.

Judge Pitman explains that in determining whether a proposed FLSA
settlement is fair and reasonable, a court should consider the
totality of the circumstances, including but not limited to the
following factors: (1) the plaintiff's range of possible
recovery; (2) the extent to which the settlement will enable the
parties to avoid anticipated burdens and expenses in establishing
their respective claims and defenses; (3) the seriousness of the
litigation risks faced by the parties; (4) whether the settlement
agreement is the product of arm's-length bargaining between
experienced counsel; and (5) the possibility of fraud or
collusion.  He finds that the settlement satisfies these
criteria.

First, even after deduction of legal fees and costs, the
Plaintiff will receive approximately 61.3% of his claimed unpaid
overtime premium pay.  Second, the settlement will entirely avoid
the burden, expense and aggravation of litigation.  Third, the
settlement will enable the Plaintiffs to avoid the risks of
litigation.  Fourth, the amount of the settlement was suggested
by the Judge.  Fifth, there are no factors that suggest the
existence of fraud.  Finally, the Plaintiff's counsel will
receive one third of the $55,000 settlement figure to which the
parties agreed at the conference.

Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, Judge Pitman approved
the settlement in the matter.  In light of the settlement, he
dismissed with prejudice and without costs.  The Clerk is
respectfully requested to mark the matter closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/p00h3k from Leagle.com.

Joel Feliz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Meredith Reade Miller --
mmiller@tourolaw.edu -- Miller Law, PLLC & Marc Andrew
Rapaport -- info@rapaportlaw.com -- Rapaport Law Firm, PLLC.

Parkoff Operating Corp., doing business as, Richard Parkoff, also
known as, Adam Parkoff, R&R Assets LLC, Third Avenue Operating
Group LLC & 519 Shamrock Assets LLC, Defendants, represented by
Arthur J. Robb -- ajrobb@cbdm.com -- Clifton Budd & DeMaria, LLP
& Carla Gunther -- cbgunther@cbdm.com -- Clifton Budd & DeMaria,
LLP.


BA-KER TANK: Wilson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CORY WILSON AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 U.S.C.
section 216(B), the Plaintiff, v. BA-KER TANK HEAD COMPANY, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00346 (E.D. Tex., May 11, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and Class Members were employed by the Defendant as
inside-sales employees. The Plaintiff and Class Members performed
their day-to-day activities within designed parameters and in
accordance with pre-determined plans coordinated by Defendant.
The Plaintiff and Class Members' daily and weekly activities are
routine and largely governed by standardized plans, procedures,
and checklists created by Defendant. During Plaintiff's entire
employment and during weeks covered by this lawsuit, the
Plaintiff and Class Members regularly worked over 40 hours per
workweek.  However, the Defendant did not and do not pay
Plaintiff and Class Members one-and-one-half their regular rate
for the hours Plaintiff and Class Members worked over 40 in a
single workweek. Instead, the Defendant paid Plaintiff and Class
Members the same for all hours worked, including any hours worked
over 40 in a single workweek, even though Plaintiff and Class
Members are not-exempt from overtime.

Baker manufactures non-code tank heads. The Company produces
hotforming, cones, manways, and rolled shells in various
materials, sizes, shapes, thickness, and strength to choose from.
Baker Tankhead performs burning, machining, and stress relieving
services in the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class Members:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479 9229
          Facsimile: (817) 887 1878
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com


BACCI CAFE: "Villegas" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE A. VILLEGAS, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. BACCI
CAFE & PIZZERIA ON MILWAUKEE AVE., INC., BACCI PIZZERIA SCHILLER
PARK, INC., and PASQUALE DI DIANA, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03440 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2018), seeks to
recover minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the City of Chicago
Minimum Wage Ordinance.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly-
situated, current and former employees worked for Defendants as
delivery drivers. The Defendants paid their delivery drivers a
job rate that equated to a rate below the minimum hourly wage
under the provisions of the IMWL and the FLSA.

Bacci Pizzeria is low-key pizzeria chain serving jumbo slices,
plus pasta, burgers and sandwiches.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS, P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419 1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com
                  sarendt@flsalaw.com



BIOGEN INC: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Metzler" Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV, of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the case, METZLER ASSET MANAGEMENT GMBH and ERSTE-
SPARINVEST KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBH, on Behalf of Themselves
and All Other Similarly Situated Parties, Plaintiffs, v. STUART
"TONY" A. KINGSLEY, GEORGE A. SCANGOS, PAUL C. CLANCY, and
BIOGEN, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-12101-FDS (D.
Mass.).

This is a putative class action involving alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The Lead Plaintiffs Metzler Asset Management
GmbH and Erste-Sparinvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH have
brought suit, on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
against biopharmaceutical company Biogen and three Biogen
executives.  The Plaintiffs contend that the class members were
harmed when they purchased Biogen's common stock at prices that
were artificially inflated by the company's materially misleading
statements and omissions about Tecfidera, its leading multiple
sclerosis drug.

The amended complaint relies heavily on statements by 17 former
Biogen employees acting as confidential witnesses.  It alleges
that the Defendants withheld material information about
Tecfidera's safety profile and declining Tecfidera sales, and
made misleading positive statements about future revenue.  It
further asserts that several Biogen executives made 31 materially
false misrepresentations and omissions during various earnings
calls and conferences over a one-year period between July 23,
2014, and July 23, 2015.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for two
principal reasons.  First, they contend that the Plaintiffs'
claims are barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, or res
judicata, in light of the Court's dismissal of a suit raising
similar claims in In re: Biogen Inc. Sec. Litig. ("Biogen I").
While the claims in this suit are largely identical to those in
Biogen I, because the Biogen I putative class was never
certified, the Lead Plaintiffs in this suit are not bound by the
Court's earlier decision.  Claim preclusion therefore does not
bar this action.

Second, the Defendants have moved to dismiss for failure to state
a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  The Defendants contend
that the complaint fails to set forth plausible allegations that
the Individual Defendants' statements contain actionable
misrepresentations or omissions.  Specifically, they argue that
the alleged misrepresentations, including nine that are newly
alleged and were not included in the original action, are not
adequately alleged to be false at the time they were made.  In
addition, they contend that the complaint fails to allege
specific facts that give rise to a strong inference of scienter.

Judge Saylor finds that the majority of the newly alleged
statements do not appear to be actionable under the PSLRA,
whether considered separately or taken as a whole.  However, the
complaint includes sufficient allegations to conclude that at
least three of the newly alleged statements were material
misrepresentations or omissions.  Together with the three alleged
misstatements or omissions identified in Biogen I, a total of six
such statements qualify as misleading statements or omissions
under the PSLRA.

Considered as a whole, Judge Saylor finds that the complaint
presents new allegations of scienter that fall far short of the
strong inference required under the PSLRA.  At best, the
allegations are plausible, but not cogent and compelling.  Again,
he says, the allegations from confidential sources and Drs.
Thrower and Zamvil -- none of whom personally spoke to defendants
or witnessed any overtly fraudulent behavior -- contribute
somewhat to the Plaintiffs' asserted inference of scienter.
However, they are too unspecific and conclusory to create a
strong inference of recklessness or intent.

Indeed, the allegations concerning Tecfidera's safety profile,
physicians' discomfort after the PML death, and declining
Tecfidera sales are at least partly consistent with the
Defendants' repeated public disclosures.  Furthermore, the
complaint's "additional" motive and core-product allegations
provide very little support to an inference of scienter.  Without
more, the Plaintiffs' circumstantial case of scienter is not
strong or compelling.

In sum, even after drawing all reasonable inferences on behalf of
the Plaintiffs, the most compelling inference to be drawn from
the complaint as a whole is that Defendants did not publicize
further the lymphopenia warning already on the Tecfidera label
and were unduly optimistic -- at worst, negligently so -- in
predicting how quickly Tecfidera sales would recover from the PML
announcement.  Still, allegations of corporate mismanagement are
not actionable under Rule 10b-5.  Nor are allegations of mere
negligence.  Without evidence sufficient to support a strong
inference of intent, or at least recklessness, the Defendants'
failure to predict the future does not support a claim for
securities fraud; accordingly, under the heightened pleading
standard of the PSLRA, Count One will be dismissed.

Accordingly, Judge Saylor granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/mKs1Ih from Leagle.com.

Metzler Asset Management GmbH, on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated parties & Erste-Sparinvest
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated parties, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher F. Moriarty -- cmoriarty@motleyrice.com -- Motley
Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Garrett C. Bradley -- gbradley@tenlaw.com
-- Thornton Law Firm & Gregg S. Levin -- glevin@motleyrice.com --
Motley Rice LLC.

Stuart A. Kingsley, George A Scangos, Paul C Clancy & Biogen
Inc., Defendants, represented by James R. Carroll --
james.carroll@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, Michael S. Hines -- michael.hines@skadden.com -- Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Sara J. van Vliet --
sara.vanvliet@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP.

Metzler Asset Management GmbH & Erste-Sparinvest
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, Movants, represented by
Christopher F. Moriarty, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, William
H. Narwold -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro hac
vice & Gregg S. Levi, Motley Rice LLC.

The City of Miami Fire Fighters and Police Officers Retirement
Trust, Movant, represented by Samuel H. Rudman --
SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice & Theodore M. Hess-Mahan -- thess-
mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com -- Hutchings, Barsamian, Cross and
Mandelcorn, LLP.

FRANKFURT TRUST Investment GmbH & FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment
Luxemburg AG, Movants, represented by Francis P. McConville --
fmcconville@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice,
Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP,
pro hac vice, Joshua L. Solomon -- jsolomon@psdfirm.com --
Pollack Solomon Duffy LLP & Guillaume Buell --
gbuell@hdwlegal.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP.


BLACKMON MOORING: "Smith" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Zachary Smith, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Blackmon Mooring Co., the Defendant, Case No. 348-297650-18, was
removed from the 348th District Court, Tarrant County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Fort
Worth) on May 14, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 4:18-cv-00365-O to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Reed C. O'Connor.

Blackmon-Mooring provides janitorial services. The Company offers
commercial mold remediation, emergency repairs, and controlled
demolition.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930 3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930 3662
          E-mail: craig@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com
                  lenbennett@clalegal.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Russell D. Cawyer, Esq.
          Henry H Robinson, Esq.
          KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP
          201 Main Street, Suite 2500
          Fort Worth, TX 76102-3194
          Telephone: (817) 332 2500
          Facsimile: (817) 878 9280
          E-mail: russell.cawyer@kellyhart.com
                  henry.robinson@kellyhart.com


BP EXPLORATION: Porto Castelo Loses Bid to Extend Time Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: Deepwater Horizon. PORTO CASTELO,
INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP,
P.L.C., Defendants-Appellees, No. 17-30777 (5th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district
court's denial of Porto Castelo's motion to extend deadline to
seek discretionary review in the district court.

The appeal arises from a Business Economic Loss ("BEL") claim
filed under the Court Supervised Settlement Program ("CSSP")
established by the class action settlement of civil claims
stemming from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  Pursuant to the
parties' settlement agreement, disappointed BEL claimant Porto
Castel had 14 days to seek discretionary review in the district
court. Porto Castelo failed to meet the filing deadline and the
district court denied Porto Castelo's motion to extend the time
to file.  Porto Castelo appeals.

The Appellate Court reviews the motion for extension of time for
abuse of discretion.  It finds that even assuming Porto Castelo
has shown that the counsel's personal troubles contributed to his
oversight as to the filing deadline, and that the circumstances
presented may constitute good cause or excusable neglect, Porto
Castelo has not shown that the district court abused its
discretion by declining to grant an extension.  Accordingly, it
affirmed the district court's denial of Porto Castelo's motion to
extend time.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 28, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jn21Z0 from Leagle.com.

Don Keller Haycraft -- dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Gus Emile Pappas, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James Andrew Langan -- andrew.langan@kirkland.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Richard Cartier Godfrey -- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Sr. -- jeffrey.clark@kirkland.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Daryl A. Libow -- libowd@sullcrom.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Julia A. Malkina -- malkinaj@sullcrom.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.


CDK GLOBAL: Wants Antitrust Suits Included in MDL
-------------------------------------------------
CDK Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2017, that defendants in the class action antitrust
suits, have moved to have these putative class actions be
included as part of an MDL proceeding.

On October 19, 2017, Teterboro Automall, Inc. d/b/a Teterboro
Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram filed a putative class-action antitrust
suit against the Company's operating subsidiary, CDK Global, LLC,
and Reynolds and Reynolds, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, seeking certification as a class action,
treble damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief.

Since that time, several more putative class actions have been
filed in a variety of Federal District Courts, with substantively
similar allegations. Defendants have moved to have these putative
class actions be included as part of an MDL proceeding.

CDK Global, Inc. provides integrated information technology and
digital marketing solutions to the automotive retail and other
industries worldwide.


CHANGE HEALTHCARE: "Martinez" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brenya Martinez, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 18-010917-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on May 14, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-21923-MGC to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Marcia G.
Cooke.

Change Healthcare is a provider of revenue and payment cycle
management and clinical information exchange solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Christopher Patrick Hammon, Esq.
          Kelly Marie Pena, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 455 3711
          Facsimile: (305) 374 0456
          E-mail: chris.hammon@ogletreedeakins.com
                  kelly.pena@ogletreedeakins.com


CLARINS U.S.A.: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Wu Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
KATHY WU AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. CLARINS U.S.A., INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-0430 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 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.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using her computer.  The Plaintiff brings
her civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people. 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. Because Defendant's website,
www.clarinsusa.com, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.

Clarins USA, Inc. manufactures skin care, make-up, and fragrance
products for men and women. It provides cleansers and toners,
serums and boosters.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


CSX INTERMODAL: Court Denies Bid to Strike in "Valadez" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIGUEL VALADEZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CSX
INTERMODAL TERMINALS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-05433-EDL
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California denied both the
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and the
Defendant's motion to strike or dismiss the Plaintiffs'
representative Private Attorney General Act of 2003 ("PAGA")
claims.

The Defendant, a federally registered motor carrier, provides
intermodal transport services to shippers that use railroads to
transport freight in and out of California.  The Plaintiffs
worked as Drivers.

The Plaintiffs initiated the case as a putative class action in
Alameda Superior Court on Sept. 30, 2015, and the Defendant
removed it to the Court under the Class Action Fairness Act on
Nov. 25, 2015.  The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on Jan.
29, 2016, to which the Plaintiffs responded by filing an amended
complaint on Jan. 29, 2016.  Thereafter, the Court granted the
Parties' stipulations allowing the Plaintiffs to file a second
and then third amended complaint on March 7, 2016 and March 22,
2016, respectively.

On Dec. 16, 2016, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation
allowing the Plaintiffs to file a fourth amended complaint.  This
is the operative complaint.  In it, the Plaintiffs assert the
following claims based on the Defendant's alleged
misclassification of its Drivers as independent contractors
rather than employees: (i) reimbursement of business expenses
(California Labor Code Section 2802); (ii) unlawful deductions
from wages (California Labor Code Section 221); (iii) failure to
provide off-duty meal periods (California Labor Code Sections
226.7 and 512); (iv) failure to provide off-duty paid rest
periods (California labor Code Section 226.7); (v) failure to pay
minimum wage (California Labor Code Sections 1182.11, 1194); (vi)
failure to timely provide wage statements (California Labor Code
Section 226); (vii) violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law; and (viii) PAGA claims as representatives of
similarly situated Drivers.

On Oct. 26, 2017, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to
strike the Plaintiffs' class claims from the Plaintiffs' Fourth
Amended Complaint.  It moves to strike or dismiss the Plaintiffs'
PAGA claims on the grounds that, because the Plaintiffs seek
relief on behalf of 56 Drivers, adjudication of the claims on a
representative basis would be unmanageable and would interfere
with the Defendant's due process rights.

On Jan. 30, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their current motion for
partial summary judgment on employment status.  That same day,
the Defendant filed a motion to strike or dismiss the Plaintiffs'
PAGA claims.  On Feb. 13, 2018, both parties filed their
oppositions to each other's motions.  On Feb. 20, 2018, they both
filed their replies in support of their own motions.  On March 6,
2018, the Court held a hearing on both motions.

Judge Laporte finds that the differences that the Defendant
raises do not make the determination of whether all the Drivers
were independent contractors or employees unmanageable.  The
majority of the Defendant's arguments show only that there were
some variations in how the Defendant and the Drivers exercised
their rights under the COLA, not that there were variations in
the control that the Defendant retained.

While the derivative claims may require individualized proof, the
Defendant has not shown that they are as hard to manage as the
claims in the cases on which it relies.  The Judge says those
claims were brought on behalf of thousands of employees, whereas
the Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of only 56 Drivers.
Moreover, the parties should have records of business expenses
from their tax filings and their wage statements, and the
Defendant has retained extensive data on exactly when and where
Drivers were working.  While the ultimate resolution of the
claims still requires some individualized inquiries, the
Defendant has not shown that those inquiries would be so
unmanageable as to justify striking the Plaintiffs' PAGA claims.

The Judge will deny the Defendant's motion to strike or dismiss
the Plaintiffs' PAGA claims on the grounds that they are
unmanageable.  However, the Defendant may raise this issue again
if, as trial approaches, it can make a good faith argument that
does not relitigate issues decided here that the Plaintiffs do
not propose a plan for trial that is manageable and protects its
due process rights.

As to the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on
employment status, Judge Laporte finds that while the Plaintiffs
make a strong case that the Defendant retained all necessary
control over their work and might well prevail on this issue at
trial, drawing all inferences in the Defendant's favor, the
evidence is not so strong that a reasonable jury could not
determine that the Defendant did not do so.  For example, the
jury could give significant weight to the facts that the
Plaintiffs chose their own routes, could reject specific offers,
and did not have their performance evaluated.  Because the right
to control is the most important part of the multi-factor test,
the fact that it does not necessarily point in one direction is a
strong indication that summary judgment is not warranted.

Because some of the secondary factors weigh in favor of finding
an independent contractor status, and the right to control, which
is the most important factor, could support a finding of either
status, a reasonable jury could say that the Plaintiffs are
independent contractors.  Accordingly, while Plaintiffs make a
strong argument, the Judge cannot determine that the Plaintiffs
are employees as a matter of law.  Therefore, he will deny the
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on employment status.
Because he is denying the Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment, he will deny the Defendant's request for relief under
Rule 56(D) as moot.

The Judge overruled the Plaintiff's objection to the declaration
of Paul Hand.  Hand states that he has personal knowledge of the
matters he describes and explains why.  The Plaintiff argues an
earlier deposition by Hand shows that he does not have personal
knowledge of those matters.  He holds that that deposition shows
that Hand did not personally supervise the Defendant's operations
in California, but does not establish that Hand did not have
knowledge of the practices in California from 10 years of working
for the Defendant.

The Judge will deny the Plaintiffs' administrative motion to file
six exhibits to the Declaration of Aaron Kaufmann under seal, on
the grounds that the Defendant had designated them confidential.
On Feb. 5, 2018, the Defendant filed a declaration withdrawing
their confidentiality designation for one of the exhibits but
retaining the confidentiality declaration for the other five.  On
Feb. 6, 2018, the Defendant filed an amended declaration
withdrawing their confidentiality designation for all six
exhibits.

For these reasons, Judge Laporte denied the Defendant's motion to
strike, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment, denied the Defendant's request to defer the Plaintiffs'
motion until more discovery takes place, overruled the
Plaintiffs' objections to Hand's declaration, and denied the
Plaintiffs' administrative motion to file exhibits under seal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/yFQQUx from Leagle.com.

Miguel Valadez, Nora Ledesma, Manuel Ledesma, Anthony Green, Jr.
& Eleaquin Temblador, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron D. Kaufmann
-- akaufmann@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder, LLP, David
Philip Pogrel -- dpogrel@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP,
Elizabeth R. Gropman -- egropman@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard
Carder LLP, Giselle Olmedo -- golmedo@leonardcarder.com --
Leonard Cardner, LLP & Paul Thomas Cullen, The Cullen Law Firm,
APC.

Eleaquin Temblador, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron D. Kaufmann,
Leonard Carder, LLP, Elizabeth R. Gropman, Leonard Carder LLP &
Paul Thomas Cullen, The Cullen Law Firm, APC.

CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, represented by Allison Elizabeth Crow --
acrow@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Amanda C. Sommerfeld --
asommerfeld@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Linda Auerbach Allderdice
-- linda.allderdice@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP, Matthew W.
Lampe -- mwlampe@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice,
Elizabeth K. Yates -- eyates@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & John H.
Haney -- john.haney@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight LLP.


DANELL CUSTOM: July 11 Final Fairness Hearing on "Rodriguez" Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DANELL
CUSTOM HARVESTING, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01848-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California has
entered an order granting the parties' stipulation that (i) the
parties will file any motions in support of final approval of the
settlement no later than June 8, 2018; (ii) the final fairness
hearing will be continued from June 20, 2018, to July 11, 2018,
at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9; and (iii) the parties will have the
claims administrator send a notice in English and Spanish stating
the new hearing date to the class members who file objections.

On March 26, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation to continue
the deadline to file a motion for final approval of the class
action settlement and the hearing date.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 28, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/fBOeQy from Leagle.com.

Francisco Rodriguez, Jesus Hernandez Infante, Marco Garcia, Juan
Manuel Bravo, Estela Patino, Jose F. Orozco & Antonio Ortiz,
Plaintiffs, represented by Enrique Martinez, Law Offices of John
E. Hill.

Danell Custom Harvesting, LLC, a California Company, Rance
Danell, Eric Danell, David Danell & Justin Danell, Defendants,
represented by Howard A. Sagaser -- has@sw2law.com -- Sagaser,
Watkins & Wieland, PC, Ian Blade Wieland -- ian@sw2law.com --
Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC & William M. Woolman --
bill@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland PC.


DIAGEO-GUINNESS USA: Court Narrows Claims in "O'Hara" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIERAN O'HARA, Plaintiff. C.A. v. DIAGEO-GUINNESS,
USA, INC. and DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
15-14139-MLW (D. Mass.), Judge Mark L. Wolf of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and denied the
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike.

The Defendants make and market Guinness Extra Stout, a form of
beer, for distribution in the United States.  O'Hara filed a
putative class complaint alleging that he bought Extra Stout in
part because the Defendants deceptively advertised that it was
brewed at St. James's Gate brewery, Dublin, Ireland.  The
Plaintiff alleges that Extra Stout was actually brewed in New
Brunswick, Canada.  He alleges that he paid more for the beer
than he would have if defendants had disclosed its origin.  He
subsequently filed an amended complaint with seven claims,
including unjust enrichment, misrepresentation, and unfair and
deceptive practices in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 93A.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of consumers who
purchased Guinness Extra Stout at stores and restaurants while
the Defendants deceptively represented that the beer was made and
bottled in Ireland, comprising subclasses of consumers who
purchased the product in Massachusetts and across the United
States.

He claims common-law misrepresentation (Count I), Unjust
Enrichment (Count II), and violations of Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter
93A (Counts III, IV, V, and VI). He also seeks a Declaratory
Judgment (Count VII).  Counts IV, V, and VI allege violations of
Chapter 93A based on violations of several Massachusetts
regulations and a statute, including 940 C.M.R. 3.02 (false
advertising) (Count IV) and Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 94, Section
187 (misbranding) on its own (Count V) and as interpreted in 105
C.M.R. 520.115 (requiring Chapter 94-mandated disclosures to be
displayed on a product's label with "prominence and
conspicuousness") (Count VI).  He seeks, in addition to the
declaratory judgment, damages in the amount of the purchase price
for Guinness Extra Stout or any price premium paid as a result of
the alleged misrepresentations, as well as injunctive relief.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss.  They attached two
documents to the motion.  Exhibit 1 is a copy of the COLA for
Extra Stout.  The COLA consists of their application to the
Alcohol Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau ("TTB") with the signature
of the TTB officer who certified it.  The document includes the
labels affixed to bottles of Extra Stout, which are identical to
those pictured in the Amended Complaint.  Exhibit 2 is a copy of
the COLA Detail for Extra Stout, which is a webpage on the TTB's
website containing certain information about the status of the
COLA for Extra Stout, including a link to a "Printable Version"
of the COLA.  The Plaintiff has moved to strike those exhibits.

Judge Wolf is denying the motion to strike Exhibits 1 and 2 to
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  He finds that whether the
Defendants' statements relating to the beer's contents were
correct is irrelevant to the material issue -- whether the TTB
approved, as not misleading, the statements relating to its
origin.  Plaintiff does not dispute that the labels pictured on
the COLA are identical to those pictured in the Amended Complaint
and that the TTB approved those labels.  Therefore, the Judge
says the authenticity of Exhibit 1 as the COLA approving the
labels on the bottle described in the Amended Complaint is
undisputed, and he may consider it to determine whether the
labels can in the case be found to be misleading.

In addition, as to Exhibit 2, the disclaimer does not undermine
the webpage's reliability as proof that the TTB recorded Extra
Stout's "origin" as "Canada" when issuing the COLA.  The Judge is
not relying on any remaining statements of fact in the exhibits,
including the Defendants' statements, because they are irrelevant
to whether the TTB approved Extra Stout's labels knowing that it
was brewed in Canada.

As to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiff has pled facts supporting a plausible inference that he
suffered a judicially cognizable injury compensable under the
causes of action.  He finds that a reasonable jury could conclude
that the place that Extra Stout is brewed influences consumers'
decisions to purchase the beer and its price.

The Judge also finds that the Amended Complaint states a claim
that Extra Stout's bottling, packaging, and website were
deceptive, that the Plaintiff relied on the deceptive statements
in purchasing the product, and that he overpaid for the product
as a result.  The Plaintiff has, therefore, stated claims for
misrepresentation and, as to the statements on the Defendants'
website, a deceptive statement in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws
Chapter 93A.

Judge Wolf is dismissing Counts III and IV to the extent that
they rely on the labeling of Extra Stout's bottles and packaging.
In addition, because the TTB found that Extra Stout labels are
not deceptive, Counts V and VI must be dismissed in their
entirety.

For unjust enrichment, the Judge explains that the claims for
misrepresentation and violations of Chapter 93A provide available
remedies, even though some of them must be dismissed.  Therefore,
the unjust enrichment claim must be dismissed.  Because the
Plaintiff does not satisfy Article III's requirement of an
imminent injury, his prayer for injunctive relief must be
dismissed.  For declaratory judgment relief, the Judge finds that
the Plaintiff acknowledges that all of the violations have been
separately alleged in the Amended Complaint.  The declaratory
judgment claim, therefore, "merely duplicates" the other counts
and is subject to dismissal.

Finally, as to the request to strike allegations, Judge Wolf
finds that the parties are likely to resolve their disagreement
concerning the proper scope of the class definition after they
have conferred with the benefit of the Memorandum and Order and,
if necessary, limited discovery concerning when the Defendants
began selling Ireland-brewed Extra Stout in the United States.
Therefore, he is denying the request to strike the class
allegations without prejudice.

In view of this, Judge Wolf denied the Plaintiff's Motion to
Strike, and granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.  He denied the Defendant's Motion as to Count
I, alleging misrepresentation, and as to Counts III and IV to the
extent that they allege that statements on the Defendants'
website violated Mass.  He allowed the Motion to Dismiss as to
Count II, with respect to Counts III and IV to the extent that
they allege the statements on Extra Stout's bottle and carton
labels violate Chapter 93A, and as to the remaining counts in
their entirety.  He also dismissed the prayers for injunctive and
declaratory relief.

At the scheduling conference, the parties will, in the Joint
Statement required under Rule 16.1(d) of the Local Rules for the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, state
whether they have reached an agreement concerning whether the
class definition should be amended prior to discovery, and if so,
how it should be amended.  If they have not reached an agreement,
they will explain their respective positions.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/vW6Wb1 from Leagle.com.

Kieran O'Hara, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin J.
McCullough -- kmccullough@forrestlamothe.com -- Mazow McCullough
PC & Michael C. Forrest -- mforrest@forrestlamothe.com --
Forrest, LaMothe, Mazoe, McCullough, Yasi & Yasi.

Diageo North America, Inc. & Diageo-Guinness, USA, Inc., aka
Guinness USA, Defendants, represented by Euripides D. Dalmanieras
-- edalmani@foleyhoag.com -- Foley Hoag LLP, Leslie W. Kostyshak
-- lkostyshak@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton & Williams, LLP, pro hac
vice & Samuel A. Danon -- sdanon@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton &
Williams LLP, pro hac vice.


EAGLE MATERIALS: Parties in Wallboard Suit Reached Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2017, that the company together with other
defendants entered into agreements with counsel representing the
direct and indirect purchasers in the Domestic Wallboard
Antitrust Litigation.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States District Courts, including
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North
Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois, against the
Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC ("American
Gypsum"), alleging that the defendant wallboard manufacturers
conspired to fix the price for drywall sold in the United States
in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some cases related
provisions of state law.

The complaints alleged that the defendant wallboard manufacturers
conspired to increase prices through the announcement and
implementation of coordinated price increases, output
restrictions, and other restraints of trade, including the
elimination of individual "job quote" pricing. In addition to
American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits include
CertainTeed Corp. ("CertainTeed"), USG Corporation and United
States Gypsum (together "USG"), New NGC, Inc. ("New NGC"),
Lafarge North America ("Lafarge"), Temple Inland Inc. ("TIN") and
PABCO Building Products LLC ("PABCO").

On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") transferred and consolidated all related cases to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct
purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant. The
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action complaints assert
claims on behalf of purported classes of direct or indirect
purchasers of wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for
unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages) and in
some cases injunctive relief. On July 29, 2013, the Company and
American Gypsum answered the complaints, denying all allegations
that they conspired to increase the price of drywall and
asserting affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs' claims.

In 2014, USG and TIN entered into agreements with counsel
representing the direct and indirect purchaser classes pursuant
to which they agreed to settle all claims against them. Under the
terms of its settlement agreement, USG agreed to pay $48.0
million to resolve the direct and indirect purchaser class
actions. In its settlement agreement, TIN agreed to pay $7.0
million to resolve the direct and indirect purchaser class
actions. On August 20, 2015, the court entered orders finally
approving USG and TIN's settlements with the direct and indirect
purchaser plaintiffs.

Following completion of the initial discovery, the Company and
remaining co-defendants moved for summary judgment. On February
18, 2016, the court denied the Company's motion for summary
judgment, and granted summary judgment in favor of CertainTeed.
On June 16, 2016, Lafarge entered into an agreement with counsel
for the direct purchaser class under which it agreed to settle
all claims against it for $23.0 million. The court entered an
order finally approving this settlement on December 7, 2016.

On July 28, 2016, Lafarge entered into an agreement with counsel
representing the indirect purchaser class under which it agreed
to settle all claims against it for $5.2 million, which was
approved by the court on February 28, 2017. On July 14, 2016, the
Company's motion for permission to appeal the summary judgment
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was
denied.

Direct purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed their motions for class certification on August 3, 2016 and
October 12, 2016, respectively. On August 23, 2017, the court
granted the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and certified a class consisting of all persons or
entities that purchased paper-backed gypsum wallboard in the
United States from January 1, 2012 through January 31, 2013
directly from American Gypsum, the Company, Lafarge, New NGC,
PABCO, USG, and/or L&W Supply Corporation (which was a subsidiary
of USG Corporation during the class period).

On September 6, 2017, American Gypsum, the Company, New NGC, and
PABCO filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit seeking interlocutory appeal of the district
court's decision granting the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motion
for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(f).

The Third Circuit denied the Defendant's petition on October 27,
2017. On August 24, 2017, the court denied the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On September 7, 2017,
the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a petition with the Third
Circuit appealing the district court's denial of their motion for
class certification. The Third Circuit denied the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' petition on October 12, 2017.

On December 29, 2017 American Gypsum and the Company, as well as
New NGC, Inc. ("New NGC"), and PABCO Building Products, LLC
("PABCO"), which are not affiliated with the Company, entered
into a settlement agreement (the "Direct Purchaser Settlement
Agreement") with counsel representing the direct purchaser class
to settle all claims made against the Company, American, New NGC
and PABCO in the direct purchaser class action.

The Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement, in which the Company
and American deny all wrongdoing, also includes releases by the
participating class members of the Company and American as well
as their subsidiaries, affiliates, and other related parties, for
the time period from January 1, 2012 through the date of
execution of the Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement. The
Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement grants the Company,
American, New NGC, and PABCO the right to terminate the Direct
Purchaser Settlement Agreement in the event an agreed upon
percentage of potential class members opt-out of the Direct
Purchaser Settlement Agreement.

Additionally, the Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement is
conditioned on final approval of the District Court. On January
5, 2018 American Gypsum, New NGC, and PABCO entered into a
settlement agreement (the "Indirect Purchaser Settlement
Agreement) with counsel representing the indirect purchaser class
to settle all claims against American Gypsum, New NGC and PABCO
in the indirect purchaser class action. The Indirect Purchaser
Settlement Agreement is conditioned on final approval of the
District Court.

Under the Direct and Indirect Purchaser Settlement Agreements,
the Company and American agreed to pay a total of approximately
$39.1 million in cash to settle the claims against them.

Eagle Materials said "At December 31, 2017 we accrued the total
amount of the two settlements and these amounts are expected to
be paid in the next twelve months."

Eagle Materials Inc. makes, distributes, and sells gypsum
wallboard, Portland cement, recycled paperboard, and concrete and
aggregates. The company is based in Dallas, Texas.


EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery Ongoing in Homebuilders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2017, that discovery is ongoing in a lawsuit by
homebuilders.

On March 17, 2015, a group of homebuilders filed a complaint
against the defendants, including American Gypsum, based upon the
same conduct alleged in the consolidated class action complaints.
On March 24, 2015, the JPML transferred this action to the
multidistrict litigation already pending in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

Following the transfer, the homebuilder plaintiffs filed two
amended complaints, on December 14, 2015 and March 25, 2016.  As
a result of settlements reached with TIN and Lafarge, the
homebuilder plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against
TIN and Lafarge on June 6 and June 24, 2016, respectively.

On January 31, 2017, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims against CertainTeed.  Discovery in this lawsuit is
ongoing.

Eagle Materials Inc. makes, distributes, and sells gypsum
wallboard, Portland cement, recycled paperboard, and concrete and
aggregates. The company is based in Dallas, Texas.


EBIX INC: Trial in Stockholder Lawsuit Scheduled for August 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ebix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018, that a trial is scheduled for August 2018 in stockholder
litigation.

Following the announcement on May 1, 2013 of the Company's
execution of a merger agreement with affiliates of Goldman Sachs
& Co., twelve putative class action complaints challenging the
proposed merger were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
These complaints named as Defendants some combination of the
Company, its directors, Goldman Sachs & Co. and affiliated
entities.

On June 10, 2013, the twelve complaints were consolidated by the
Delaware Court of Chancery, now captioned In re Ebix, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, CA No. 8526-VCS.  On June 19, 2013, the
Company announced that the merger agreement had been terminated
pursuant to a Termination and Settlement Agreement dated June 19,
2013.

After Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated proceeding,
Plaintiffs Desert States Employers & UFCW Union Pension Plan and
Gilbert C. Spagnola (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs") amended
their operative complaint to drop their claims against Goldman
Sachs & Co. and focus their allegations on an Acquisition Bonus
Agreement ("ABA") between the Company and Robin Raina.

On September 26, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Consolidated Complaint.  On July 24, 2014, the Court issued its
Memorandum Opinion that granted in large part the Company's
Motion to Dismiss and narrowed the remaining claims.  On
September 15, 2014, the Court entered an Order implementing its
Memorandum Opinion.  On January 16, 2015, the Court entered an
Order permitting Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended and
Supplemented Complaint.

On February 10, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended and Supplemented Complaint, which was granted in
part and denied in part in a January 15, 2016 Memorandum Opinion
and Order.

On October 25, 2016, the Court entered an Order permitting Lead
Plaintiffs to file a Verified Third Amended and Supplemented
Class Action and Derivative Complaint, which made additional
claims and added two directors as defendants.  The Verified Third
Amended and Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint
was then filed on October 26, 2016.

On October 31, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification.

On November 1, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs moved for partial summary
judgment on Claims (ii), (iii), and (vi) as described below.  The
directors added as defendants in the Third Amended and
Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint moved to
dismiss all Claims against them.  The remaining Defendants moved
to dismiss certain Claims, and filed answers to the other claims
in the Verified Third Amended and Supplemented Complaint.  On
December 12, 2017, the Court postponed the pending hearing on the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and the Defendants'
motions to dismiss and, instead, granted the Plaintiffs leave to
file a Verified Fourth Amended and Supplemented Class Action and
Derivative Complaint, which pleading was filed on January 19,
2018.

The claims in the fourth amended complaint are as follows: (i) a
purported class and derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty
for improperly maintaining the ABA as an unreasonable anti-
takeover device; (ii) a purported class claim for breach of the
fiduciary duty of disclosure to the stockholders with respect to
the Company's 2010 Proxy Statement and 2010 Stock Incentive Plan;
(iii) a purported derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty
to the Company in causing incentive compensation to be awarded
under the 2010 Stock Incentive Plan; (iv) a purported class and
derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty  in adopting
certain bylaw amendments on December 19, 2014;  (v) a purported
class and derivative claim seeking invalidation of the December
19, 2014 bylaw amendments under Delaware law; (vi) a purported
claim for breach of fiduciary duty for not duly adopting the ABA
at the July 15, 2009 Board meeting, and seeking declaratory
relief invalidating the ABA; (vii) a purported claim for breach
of the fiduciary duty of disclosure to the stockholders with
respect to the ABA, and seeking declaratory relief invalidating
the ABA; (viii) a purported claim seeking invalidation of the
2008 Stockholder Meeting, 2008 Certificate Amendment, 2008 Stock
Split and subsequent corporate actions; (ix) a purported class
claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and seeking declaratory
relief invalidating the 2016 CEO Bonus Plan because of incomplete
disclosures with respect to the ABA; and (x) for breach of
fiduciary duty and declaratory judgment relating to the
interpretation of the ABA.

Lead Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief with respect to the ABA,
the 2010 Stock Incentive Plan, the 2010 Proxy Statement, the
bylaw amendments, the 2008 Stockholder Meeting, the 2008
Certificate Amendment, the 2008 Stock Split, and the 2016 CEO
Bonus Plan.  Lead Plaintiffs also seek compensatory damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, all in unspecified
amounts.  A trial is scheduled for August 2018.  The Company
denies any liability and intends to defend the action vigorously.

Ebix, Inc. and subsidiaries is an international supplier of on-
demand software and e-commerce solutions to the insurance,
healthcare and financial industries, as well as e-governance
solutions to governmental agencies in the health and education
sectors.


EGALET CORP: Still Defends Combined Pennsylvania Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Egalet Corporation continues to defend itself against a
consolidated securities class action in Pennsylvania, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.

On January 27, 2017 and February 10, 2017, respectively, two
putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that named as
defendants Egalet Corporation and current officers Robert S.
Radie and Stanley J. Musial, and former officer Jeffrey M. Dayno.
These two complaints, captioned Mineff v. Egalet Corp. et al.,
No. 2:17-cv-00390-MMB and Klein v. Egalet Corp. et al., No. 2:17-
cv-00617-MMB, assert securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Egalet Corporation securities between December
15, 2015 and January 9, 2017.

On May 1, 2017, the Court entered an order consolidating the two
cases before it, appointing the Egalet Investor Group (consisting
of Joseph Spizzirri, Abdul Rahiman and Kyle Kobold) as lead
plaintiff and approving their selection of lead and liaison
counsel.  On July 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their
consolidated amended complaint, which named the same defendants
and also asserts claims for purported violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs bring their
claims individually and on behalf of a putative class of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company
between November 4, 2015 and January 9, 2017 inclusive.  The
consolidated amended complaint bases its claims on allegedly
false and/or misleading statements and/or failures to disclose
information about the likelihood that ARYMO ER would be approved
for intranasal abuse-deterrent labeling.

The Company said, "The defendants moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 1, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed their opposition on October 31, 2017, and the
defendants filed their reply on December 8, 2017.  The Court
heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on February 20,
2018, and entered an order pursuant to which the plaintiffs filed
a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on March 6,
2018, the defendants responded on March 20, 2018 and the
plaintiffs filed their reply on March 27, 2018.  The Company
disputes the allegations in the lawsuit and intends"

Egalet Corporation is a fully integrated specialty pharmaceutical
company developing, manufacturing and commercializing innovative
treatments for pain and other conditions.


ELIZABETH ARDEN: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Wu Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
KATHY WU AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
the Plaintiffs, v. ELIZABETH ARDEN, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04301-AT (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2018), seeks permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's websites will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using her computer.  The Plaintiff brings
her civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people. 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. Because Defendant's websites,
www.elizabetharden.com and www.thereddoor.com, are not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, they violate
the ADA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Trial in Delaware Suit Set for 2Q 2019
-------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that trial for the third
amended complaint in a class action commenced by Peter
Brinckerhoff in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is
"currently scheduled for the second quarter of 2019."

The Company said, "On July 20, 2015, plaintiff Peter Brinckerhoff
(the Plaintiff), individually and as trustee of the Peter R.
Brinckerhoff Trust, filed a Verified Class Action and Derivative
Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against the General Partner, Enbridge, Enbridge Energy Partner,
LP., Enbridge Pipelines (Alberta Clipper) L.L.C., the Enbridge
Energy, Limited Partnership, us, and the following individuals:
Jeffrey A. Connelly, Rebecca B. Roberts, Dan A. Westbrook, J.
Richard Bird, J. Herbert England, C. Gregory Harper, D. Guy
Jarvis, Mark A. Maki, and John K. Whelen, (collectively, the
Director Defendants).  The initial Complaint asserted both class
action claims on behalf of holders of the Partnership's Class A
Common Units, as well as derivative claims brought on behalf of
the Partnership.  The Plaintiff's claims arose out of the January
2, 2015 repurchase by the Partnership of the General Partner's
66.67% interest in the pipeline that runs from the Canadian
international border near Neche, North Dakota to Superior,
Wisconsin on the Partnership's Lakehead System (Alberta Clipper
Pipeline), known as the 2015 Transaction.  First, the Plaintiff
alleged that the 2015 Transaction improperly amended without
Public Unitholder consent the Sixth Amended and Restated
Agreement of Limited Partnership (the LPA) so as to allocate to
the Public Unitholders gross income that should have been
allocated to the General Partner (the Special Tax Allocation).
Second, the Plaintiff alleged that the Partnership paid an unfair
price for the General Partner's 66.67% interest in the Alberta
Clipper Pipeline such that the 2015 Transaction breached the LPA
because it was not fair and reasonable to the Partnership.  The
initial Complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of
residual fiduciary duties, tortious interference, aiding and
abetting, and rescission and reformation."

"On April 29, 2016, the Court of Chancery granted Enbridge's and
the Director Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the case
in its entirety.  On May 26, 2016 the Plaintiff appealed that
dismissal to the Delaware Supreme Court.  On March 20, 2017, the
Delaware Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the
ruling of the Court of Chancery.  Specifically, the Delaware
Supreme Court affirmed that the enactment of the Special Tax
Allocation did not breach the LPA, but reversed on the question
of whether the Plaintiff had adequately alleged that the price
the Partnership paid in the 2015 Transaction, including the
Special Tax Allocation component, was fair and reasonable to the
Partnership.  On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Verified
Second Amended Complaint (the Second Amended Complaint).  The
Second Amended Complaint added Piper Jaffray & Co. as successor
to Simmons & Company International (Simmons) as a direct
Defendant.  Simmons acted as the financial advisor to our Special
Committee in the 2015 Transaction.  The Second Amended Complaint
also revised many of the allegations against Enbridge and the
Director Defendants.  On December 18, 2017, all Defendants except
Simmons filed their brief in support of their motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint.  On January 19, 2018, Simmons filed
its brief in support of its motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.

"On February 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File
a Verified Third Amended Complaint and a Motion to Intervene on
behalf of a proposed new plaintiff, Judy Mesirov (subsequently
amended).  On March 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Verified Third
Amended Complaint and a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of
Brinckerhoff.  On April 3, 2018, all Defendants filed their
briefs in support of their motions to dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint.  The parties are currently in discovery, with trial
currently scheduled for the second quarter of 2019."

Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C. is a limited partner of
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., (the Partnership), through its
ownership of i-units, a special class of the Partnership's
limited partner interests.


ENBRIDGE INC: Agrees to Pay US$175,000 for Fees and Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Inc. said in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission that the company has agreed to pay
US$175,000 to plaintiff's counsel for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses in full satisfaction of their claim for
attorneys' fees and expenses in the action related to the merger
with Spectra Energy Corp.

On September 5, 2016, Spectra Energy Corp ("Spectra") and
Enbridge Inc. (the "Company") entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger pursuant to which the Company, through its subsidiary
Sand Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), would acquire all of the
outstanding Spectra stock in a stock-for-stock merger
transaction, which valued Spectra's stock at approximately US$28
billion. Prior to the consummation of the merger on February 27,
2017, purported stockholders of Spectra filed six putative class
action lawsuits that challenged the proposed merger with the
Company. The lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas and, with respect to one
of the lawsuits, in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware.

The lawsuits alleged, among other things, that Spectra and its
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties (in the
Delaware lawsuit) and violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder (in the
Southern District of Texas lawsuits), as applicable, by issuing
or causing to be issued an allegedly materially misleading and
incomplete preliminary proxy statement in connection with the
proposed merger. The Company and Merger Sub are also named as
defendants in the Delaware lawsuit, and the Delaware complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company and Merger Sub
aided and abetted Spectra's board of directors' alleged breach of
fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs in all actions sought as relief,
among other things, an injunction against the merger, rescission
of the merger to the extent it is already implemented,
declaratory relief, costs and attorneys' fees, and/or damages.
The cases in Texas were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice
by the plaintiffs.

On May 31, 2017, the parties stipulated to dismiss the Delaware
action with prejudice as to the named plaintiff. The Court
retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating
plaintiff's counsel's anticipated application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with
certain supplemental disclosures. The Company subsequently agreed
to pay US$175,000 to plaintiff's counsel for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses in full satisfaction of their claim for
attorneys' fees and expenses in the action. The Court has not
been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment
of the attorneys' fees and expenses or their reasonableness.

Enbridge Inc. is a Canadian multinational energy transportation
company based in Calgary, Alberta. It focuses on the
transportation, distribution and generation of energy, primarily
in North America.


ENDOLOGIX INC: "Ortiz" Settlement Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, Steven M. Ortiz Vs. Endologix, Inc., the Court on
Feb. 9, 2018, entered a Second Revised Order Granting Motion For
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

Endologix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that on September 9, 2016, former employee
Steven M. Ortiz filed a class action lawsuit against the Company
in Orange County Superior Court, claiming the Company's failure
to pay all overtime wages owing; failure to provide meal periods
and failure to pay meal period premiums; failure to pay all wages
owed at time of termination seeking waiting time penalties under
Labor Code section 203; failure to provide accurate wage
statements; and violations of Business and Professions Code
section 17200 and alleging claims for penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004.

While the Company contests the allegations asserted in the
litigation, a mediation was held on February 24, 2017 at which
time the parties agreed to settle the case for $750,000. The
court has given final approval to the settlement agreement and
the settlement funds have been deposited with the class
administrator. The Company said the court was anticipated to
enter final judgment in this case in March 2018, which would
officially conclude this litigation.

Endologix, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, and sells
medical devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms
in the United States and internationally. It offers minimally-
invasive endovascular repair (EVAR) products, including AFX
(Anatomical Fixation) endovascular AAA system, which is a
minimally invasive delivery system; VELA Proximal Endograft,
which is designed for the treatment of proximal aortic neck
anatomies with AFX; and the ovation abdominal stent graft system.
The company is based in Irvine, California.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Still Defends Amended Regency Merger Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (ETE) continues to defend itself
against the amended class action complaint in a lawsuit related
to the merger of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (ETP) and Regency
Energy Partners LP, according to the ETE's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018.

The Company said, "Purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits
in state and federal courts in Dallas and Delaware asserting
claims relating to the Regency-ETP merger (the "Regency Merger").
All but one Regency Merger-related lawsuits have been dismissed.

"On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman ("Dieckman"), a purported
Regency unitholder, filed a class action complaint in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Regency Merger
Litigation"), on behalf of Regency's common unitholders against
Regency GP, LP; Regency GP LLC; ETE, ETP, ETP GP, and the members
of Regency's board of directors ("Defendants").

"The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger
breached the Regency partnership agreement because Regency's
conflicts committee was not properly formed, and the Regency
Merger was not approved in good faith.  On March 29, 2016, the
Delaware Court of Chancery granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the lawsuit in its entirety.  Dieckman appealed.  On January 20,
2017, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the
Court of Chancery.  On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Verified Class Action Complaint.  Defendants then filed Motions
to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and a Motion to Stay Discovery
on May 19, 2017.  On February 20, 2018, the Court of Chancery
issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the motions
to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants other
than Regency GP, LP and Regency GP LLC.  On March 6, 2018,
Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiff's Verified Amended
Class Action Complaint.

"Defendants cannot predict the outcome of the Regency Merger
Litigation or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the
date of this filing; nor can Defendants predict the amount of
time and expense that will be required to resolve the Regency
Merger Litigation.  Defendants believe the Regency Merger
Litigation is without merit and intend to vigorously defend
against it and any others that may be filed in connection with
the Regency Merger."

Energy Transfer Equity is based in Dallas, Texas, a sister
partnership to Energy Transfer Partners. It specializes in the
storage and transportation of natural gas.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Still Defends Issuance Litigation in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (ETE), among other defendants,
continue to face unitholder litigation relating to the issuance
of the Company's Series A Convertible Preferred Units (the
"Issuance"), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018.

On April 12, 2016, two purported ETE unitholders (the "Issuance
Plaintiffs") filed putative class action lawsuits against ETE, LE
GP, Kelcy Warren, John McReynolds, Marshall McCrea, Matthew
Ramsey, Ted Collins, K. Rick Turner, William Williams, Ray Davis,
and Richard Brannon (collectively, the "Issuance Defendants") in
the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Issuance Litigation").
Another purported ETE unitholder, Chester County Employees'
Retirement Fund, later joined the Issuance Litigation.

The Issuance Plaintiffs allege that the Issuance breached various
provisions of ETE's partnership agreement.  The Issuance
Plaintiffs seek, among other things, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief that (a) prevents ETE from making distributions
to holders of the Series A Convertible Preferred Units and (b)
invalidates an amendment to ETE's partnership agreement that was
adopted on March 8, 2016 as part of the Issuance.

On August 29, 2016, the Issuance Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint, and in addition to the injunctive relief, seek
class-wide damages allegedly resulting from the Issuance.

The matter was tried in front of Vice Chancellor Glasscock on
February 19-21, 2018.  Post-trial arguments were heard on April
16, 2018.

The Issuance Defendants cannot predict the outcome of the
Issuance Litigation or any lawsuits that might be filed
subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can the Issuance
Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be
required to resolve the Issuance Litigation.  The Issuance
Defendants believe the Issuance Litigation is without merit and
intend to defend vigorously against it and any other actions
challenging the Issuance.

Energy Transfer Equity is based in Dallas, Texas, a sister
partnership to Energy Transfer Partners. It specializes in the
storage and transportation of natural gas.


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Still Defends Securities Class Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Envision Healthcare Corporation continues to face purported class
actions over alleged violations of the federal securities laws,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the Quarterly Period Ended
March 31, 2018.

On August 4, 2017, a shareholder filed a purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee (M.D.  Tenn.) against the Company and several of its
officers and former officers alleging that the Company and the
individual defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making allegedly false and misleading statements and failing to
disclose certain information.  On September 29, 2017, and October
23, 2017, respectively, two purported class actions were filed in
the same court making similar allegations.  The Court
subsequently consolidated these cases into a single action.

On November 20, 2017, a shareholder filed a purported class
action in the M.D. Tenn. against the Company and its Board.  The
plaintiff generally alleges that the Company and/or certain of
its officers breached various fiduciary duties and violated the
federal securities laws.  On December 12, 2017, and December 15,
2017, respectively, two purported class actions were filed in the
same court raising essentially the same allegations.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend these actions.  Given the preliminary stage
of these matters, the Company is unable to estimate the amount of
potential damages, if any, in any of these actions.

Envision Healthcare Corporation is a provider of emergency
medical services in the U.S. Envision operates an extensive
emergency department, hospital, anesthesiology, radiology, and
neonatology physician outsourcing segment.


ESSA BANCORP: Awaits Court's Final OK on UCC Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. is awaiting the Court's final approval of its
agreement to resolve a potential class action against ESSA Bank &
Trust (The Bank) related to breaches of the Pennsylvania Uniform
Commercial Code, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018.

The Bank was named as the defendant in an action commenced on
September 13, 2016 by one plaintiff.  The plaintiff alleges that
the Bank repossessed motor vehicles, sold the vehicles and sought
to collect deficiency balances in a manner that did not comply
with the notice requirements of the Pennsylvania Uniform
Commercial Code ("UCC").  The plaintiff seeks to pursue the
action as a class action on behalf of the named plaintiff and
other similarly situated plaintiffs who had their automobiles
repossessed and seek to recover damages under the UCC.  The Bank
denies the plaintiff's allegations.  The parties attended
mediation in October, 2017 where they reached an agreement to
resolve the claims asserted against the Bank on a class wide
basis.  The terms of the settlement calls for the Bank to make a
payment of US$1,325,000 to the plaintiffs.  The Bank's insurance
carrier will cover the payment made by the Bank in excess of
US$125,000 retention.  The court has entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.  The court has set a
final approval hearing for May 2018.

ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank
& Trust that provides a range of financial services to
individuals, families, and businesses in Pennsylvania.  It was
founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.


ESSA BANCORP: Subsidiary Still Defends Suit over RESPA Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that preliminary arguments are due in June
2018 in a potential class action against ESSA Bank & Trust (the
"Bank") related to alleged violation of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act.

The Company states, "The Bank was named as a defendant in an
action commenced on December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who will
also seek to pursue this action as a class action on behalf of
the entire class of people similarly situated.  The plaintiff
alleges that a bank previously acquired by ESSA Bancorp, Inc., in
the process of making loans, received unearned fees and kickbacks
in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.  In an
order dated January 29, 2018, the court granted the Bank's motion
to dismiss the case.  The plaintiff has appealed the court's
ruling.  Preliminary arguments are due in June 2018 to the extent
that this litigation could result in exposure to the bank.  The
amount is not currently estimable."

ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank
& Trust that provides a range of financial services to
individuals, families, and businesses in Pennsylvania.  It was
founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.


EZCORP INC: Securities Suit in Texas in Discovery Stage
-------------------------------------------------------
Ezcorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2017, that the case entitled, In re EZCORP, Inc.
Securities Litigation (Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), is now
in the discovery stage.

On July 20, 2015, Wu Winfred Huang, a purported holder of Class A
Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly
situated holders of Class A Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
styled Huang v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS).

The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Stuart I.
Grimshaw (our chief executive officer) and Mark E. Kuchenrither
(our former chief financial officer) and asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The original complaint
related to the Company's announcement on July 17, 2015 that it
will restate the financial statements for fiscal 2014 and the
first quarter of fiscal 2015, and alleged generally that the
Company issued materially false or misleading statements
concerning the Company, its finances, business operations and
prospects and that the Company misrepresented the financial
performance of the Grupo Finmart business.

On August 14, 2015, a substantially identical lawsuit, styled
Rooney v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00700-SS) was
also filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas.

On September 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in these two lawsuits filed
an agreed stipulation to be appointed co-lead plaintiffs and
agreed that their two actions should be consolidated. On November
3, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the two actions
under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), and appointed the two
plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs, with their respective counsel
appointed as co-lead counsel.

On January 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint,
the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of our
Class A Common Stock between November 6, 2012 and October 20,
2015. The Amended Complaint asserts that the Company and Mr.
Kuchenrither violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5, issued materially false or misleading
statements throughout the proposed class period concerning the
Company and its internal controls, specifically regarding the
financial performance of Grupo Finmart.

The plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Kuchenrither, as a
controlling person of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint does not assert
any claims against Mr. Grimshaw. On February 25, 2016, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 11, 2016, and the
defendants filed their reply on May 11, 2016. The Court held a
hearing on the motion to dismiss on June 22, 2016.

On October 18, 2016, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice.
The Court gave the plaintiffs 20 days (until November 7, 2016) to
file a further amended complaint. On November 4, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"). The Second Amended
Complaint raises the same claims dismissed by the Court on
October 18, 2016, except plaintiffs now seek to represent a class
of purchasers of EZCORP's Class A Common Stock between November
7, 2013 and October 20, 2015 (instead of between November 6, 2012
and October 20, 2015). On December 5, 2016, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Compliant. The plaintiffs
filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 6,
2017, and the defendants filed their reply brief on January 20,
2017.

On May 8, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss with regard to claims related to accounting errors
relating to Grupo Finmart's bad debt reserve calculations for
"nonperforming" loans, but denied the motion to dismiss with
regard to claims relating to accounting errors related to certain
sales of loan portfolios to third parties. The case is now in the
discovery stage.

Ezcorp said "We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but
we intend to defend vigorously against all allegations and
claims."

EZCORP is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Austin, Texas.
We are a leading provider of pawn loans in the United States and
Latin America.


FAA SERRAMONTE: Luu Sues over Incomplete Car Accessories
--------------------------------------------------------
LONG NGOC T. LUU, an individual, and on behalf of himself, and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FAA SERRAMONTE
L, INC., an active California corporation, dba LEXUS OF
SERRAMONTE, SUE LUO, an individual, JOBELLE SALINDONG, an
individual, and, DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. (S.D. Fla., May 14, 2018), seeks to recover damages
caused by the Defendant's violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.

The Defendant offered to sell to Plaintiff a vehicle for a
special Costco price with all the accessories the Plaintiff
ordered.  The Defendant:

     -- represented that the car the Plaintiff purchased had
        3 accessories but did not (approximately $2,000.00);

     -- charged $541.00 more than the advertised price of
        $48,459.00;

     -- failed to add a paint protection product ($1,079.00); and

     -- represented that the Plaintiff did not qualify for an
        advertised APR of 2.99% despite his Experian credit score
        of 781.

Faa Serramonte L, Inc. retails automobiles. The Company offers
new and used cars, vans, trucks, sport utility vehicles, parts,
and accessories, as well as provides financing, maintenance, and
repair services.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Louis A. Liberty, Esq.
          LOUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES, a PLC
          553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite
          Foster City, CA 94404
          Telephone: (650) 341 0300
          E-mail: lou@carlawyer.com


FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: Faces 4 Putative Class Actions on Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that it faces four
putative class actions regarding its merger agreement with Unimin
Corporation.

On December 11, 2017, the Company entered into a merger agreement
with Unimin Corporation ("Unimin") and certain other parties with
respect to the proposed combination of the businesses of Unimin
and Fairmount Santrol.  The merger agreement provides that, upon
the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions contained in the
agreement, a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Unimin will be
merged with and into Fairmount Santrol, with Fairmount Santrol
surviving such merger and becoming a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of Unimin (the "Merger").

In accordance with the terms of the Merger agreement ("Merger
Agreement"), Fairmount Santrol stockholders in the aggregate
(including holders of certain Fairmount Santrol equity awards)
will receive US$170,000 in cash and approximately 35% of the
common stock of Unimin, with SCR-Sibelco NV ("Sibelco"), the
existing parent company of Unimin, owning the remaining 65%.  The
Merger is subject to, among other things, approval by Fairmount
Santrol's stockholders, listing of Unimin's common stock on the
New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE"), and certain regulatory
approvals.

The Company will hold a special meeting of its stockholders on
May 25, 2018 (the "Special Meeting") to vote to approve the
Merger, among other items.  Upon completion of the Merger, the
Company would delist and no longer trade on the NYSE.  The
transaction is expected to close in mid-2018, subject to
satisfaction of the closing conditions.  Were the transaction to
close, Internal Revenue Code Sections 382 and 383 could limit
post-merger annual utilization of U.S. federal net operating
losses and tax credits.

On April 24, 2018, an alleged stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action against the Company and its directors,
captioned Jennings v. Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc., et al.,
No. 1:18-cv-00931, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.

On April 27, 2018, another alleged stockholder filed a putative
class action against the Company and its directors, captioned
Klein v. Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-
00646, in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.

On May 1, 2018, a third alleged stockholder filed a putative
class action against the Company and its directors, captioned
Rosello v. Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-
01002, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.

On May 4, 2018, a fourth alleged stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action against the Company and its directors,
captioned Scarantino v. Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc., et al.,
No. 1:18-cv-01047, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.

The lawsuits generally allege that the Company and its directors
violated the federal securities laws by issuing allegedly
misleading disclosures in connection with the Merger, pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, and seek, among other things,
to enjoin the Special Meeting at which stockholders of the
Company will vote on, among other items, a proposal to adopt the
Merger Agreement.  The Company and its directors believe these
allegations lack merit.

Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides sand-based proppant solutions for exploration and
production companies.  The Company operates in two segments,
Proppant Solutions and Industrial & Recreational Products.  The
company was formerly known as FMSA Holdings Inc. and changed its
name to Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. in July 2015.  Fairmount
Santrol Holdings Inc. was incorporated in 1986 and is
headquartered in Chesterland, Ohio.


FIRST BANCORP: Defendants to Seek Supreme Court Review
------------------------------------------------------
First BanCorp. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the defendants intend to file a writ of
Certiorari in the Supreme Court for the case captioned Ramirez
Torres, et al. v Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al.

FirstBank Puerto Rico is named a defendant in a class action
complaint, filed on February 17, 2017 at the Court of First
Instance in San Juan, Puerto Rico, captioned Ramirez Torres, et
al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al. The complaint seeks
damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf
of the purported class against Banco Popular de Puerto Rico and
other financial institutions with insurance agency subsidiaries
in Puerto Rico.

Plaintiffs contend that in November 2015, Antilles Insurance
Company obtained approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance
Commissioner to market an endorsement that allowed its customers
to obtain a reimbursement of their insurance premium for good
experience, but that defendants failed to offer this product or
disclose its existence to their customers, favoring other
products instead, in violation of their fiduciary duties as
insurance producers.

Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants unlawfully failed
to comply with their fiduciary duty to disclose the existence of
this new insurance benefit from this carrier, as well as double
or treble damages (the latter subject to a determination that
defendants engaged in anti-monopolistic practices in failing to
offer this product).

On July 31, 2017, the court entered judgment dismissing the
complaint with prejudice.  On August 30, 2017, Plaintiffs filed
an Appeal before the Court of Appeals and FirstBank filed its
opposition.

On March 20, 2018, the Court of Appeals entered Judgment revoking
the Court of First Instance, ordering a class certification
hearing as well as a preliminary injunction hearing.

The Company said, "Our lawyers intend to file a writ of
Certiorari in the Supreme Court."

First Bancorp operates as the bank holding company for First Bank
that provides banking products and services for individuals and
small to medium-sized businesses primarily in North Carolina and
northeastern South Carolina.  The Company was founded in 1934 and
is headquartered in Southern Pines, North Carolina.


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Still Defends Shareholder Class Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
FleetCor Technologies, Inc. still defends itself against a
shareholder class action lawsuit, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On June 14, 2017, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's stock between February 5, 2016 and May 2,
2017.  On October 13, 2017, the shareholder filed an amended
complaint asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between February 4, 2016 and May 3, 2017.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements
regarding fee charges and the reasons for its earnings and growth
in certain press releases and other public statements in
violation of the federal securities laws.  Plaintiff seeks class
certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and
attorneys' fees.  The Company disputes the allegations in the
complaint and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

Fleetcor is a global provider of commercial payment solutions.


FLORIDA COURIER: Sobrinho Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEAN CARLOS SOBRINHO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTH FLORIDA COURIER
SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida Corporation, and GONZALO OCHOA,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80634-DMM (S.D.
Fla., May 14, 2018), seeks to recover compensation and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The gravamen of this case is that the Plaintiff was a non-exempt
employee hired by the Defendants on an hourly basis, but the
Defendants willfully refused to compensate the Plaintiff, and all
others similarly situated, for time and one half for each hour
worked in excess of 40 hours per work week, as required under
Federal law. During his employment, Defendants had Plaintiff, and
all other similarly situated non-exempt employees under the FLSA,
work for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week. However, the
Defendants willfully refused to compensate the Plaintiff, and all
other similarly situated non-exempt employees under the FLSA.

South Florida Courier Company provides courier services to Miami-
Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad E. Levy, Esq.
          David M. Cozad, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
          1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 588
          Sunrise, FL 33323
          Telephone: (954) 763 5722
          Facsimile: (954) 763 5723
          E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com
                  assistant@levylevylaw.com
                  david@levylevylaw.com


FOREMOST INSURANCE: "Scherrer" Remains in Missouri District Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied Scherrer's Motion
to Remand the case, NELSON C. SCHERRER, individually and on
behalf of others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. FOREMOST
INSURANCE COMPANY OF GRAND RAPIDS MICHIGAN, Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-00855-JAR (E.D. Mo.).

On Jan. 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed his Petition for
Declaratory and Class Action Relief in the Circuit Court of the
City of St. Louis, Missouri, alleging the following: In August
2016, a severe rainstorm caused water damage to the living room,
bedrooms, closets, foyer, hallways, bathroom, and kitchen of his
St. Louis home.  The house was covered by an insurance policy
issued by the Defendant that indemnified him for structural
damage.  The Defendant confirmed that the damage was covered
under the policy and sent an adjuster to inspect the structure.
The adjuster calculated a replacement cost value ("RCV") of
$53,834 but reduced that amount to account for depreciation of
materials and labor, resulting in an actual cash value ("ACV") of
$47,838.  The Plaintiff received that amount less his deductible.

The Plaintiff asserts that labor costs do not depreciate and that
depreciating labor costs is inconsistent with the universally
accepted premise that the fundamental purpose of property
insurance is to provide indemnity to policy holders.  On behalf
of himself and the "thousands" of others whose ACVs were
improperly reduced by labor cost depreciation, he filed suit,
seeking a declaratory judgment that such depreciation is contrary
to the language of the Defendant's policy and compensatory
damages for its breach of contract.

On March 8, 2017, the Defendant removed the suit to federal
court, asserting that CAFA's $5 million jurisdictional threshold
was likely met based on calculations based on market share and an
industry average for depreciated labor cost per claim, in
addition to other costs, which yielded a total of $15,496,198 in
controversy.

The Plaintiff now moves to remand the case, arguing that the
Defendant's use of industry-wide averages and assumed numbers was
unsupported by evidence and far too speculative to satisfy CAFA.
Instead, the Plaintiff asserted, the greatest evidence-based
amount in controversy was $4,196,887.

The Court ordered limited discovery on the jurisdictional issue.
Thereafter, the parties filed supplemental briefing incorporating
the Defendant's actual claim data.

Judge Ross holds that a fact finder might legally conclude, based
on the Defendant's calculations, that the compensatory damages
are greater than $5 million based on the Defendant's
calculations.  The Judge hastens to note the highly speculative
nature of the Defendant's retention-rate-based assumptions, but
reiterates that it needs only show that a fact-finder might
accept its calculations, and the Judge finds that those
calculations are reasonable and based on fact.  Moreover, he
concludes that the Defendant's computations are sufficient to
meet CAFA's jurisdictional threshold even without including
ongoing or future damages.

Although he notes that the Plaintiff's calculations are more
specific and therefore may better approximate the value of the
claim of each person who falls within the definition of the
proposed class, the Eighth Circuit has permitted computational
methods even more general than the Defendant's.  The Judge cannot
say that the Plaintiff has established to a legal certainty that
the CAFA claim is for less than $5 million.  Accordingly, he will
deny the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

Because he has concluded that Defendant has met the
jurisdictional amount based solely on compensatory damages, the
Judge says he needs not decide whether and to what extent
attorney's fees or declaratory judgment affect the amount in
controversy.  Accordingly, Judge Ross denied Scherrer's Motion to
Remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/RRiPWZ from Leagle.com.

nelson C. Scherrer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E.
Roberts -- croberts@butschroberts.com -- BUTSCH ROBERTS &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, David T. Butsch -- dbutsch@butschroberts.com --
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Joe D. Jacobson --
Jacobson@ArchCityLawyers.com -- JACOBSON PRESS, P.C. & Allen P.
Press -- Press@ArchCityLawyers.com -- JACOBSON AND PRESS, P.C.

Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids Michigan, Defendant,
represented by Brian A. Lamping -- blamping@thompsoncoburn.com --
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Marilyn Marie Brown -- mbrown@jw.com --
JACKSON WALKER L.L.P., Paul M. Brown -- pbrown@thompsoncoburn.com
-- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP & Stacy Allen -- stacyallen@jw.com --
JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Discovery Continues in "Cryer" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2017, that discovery is continuing in a class
action lawsuit captioned Cryer v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et
al. in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California.

On July 28, 2016, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit
captioned Cryer v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al. in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against Franklin, the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan
("Plan") Investment Committee ("Investment Committee")and unnamed
Investment Committee members.

The plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), alleging
that the defendants selected mutual funds sponsored and managed
by the Company (the "Funds") as investment options for the Plan
when allegedly lower-cost and better performing non-proprietary
investment vehicles were available. The plaintiff also claims
that the total Plan costs, inclusive of investment management and
administrative fees, are excessive.

The plaintiff alleges that Plan losses exceed $79.0 million and
seeks, among other things, damages, disgorgement, rescission of
the Plan's investments in the Funds, attorneys' fees and costs,
and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Franklin Resources said "Management strongly believes that the
claims are without merit. Discovery is continuing in the Cryer
action. Franklin will defend against both actions vigorously.
Franklin cannot at this time predict the eventual outcome of the
lawsuit or whether it will have a material negative impact on the
Company, or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that may arise from any negative outcome."

Franklin Resources, Inc. is a global investment management
organization and derives its operating revenues and net income
from providing investment management and related services to
investors in jurisdictions worldwide through its investment
products that include its sponsored funds, as well as
institutional and high net-worth separate accounts. The company
is based in San Mateo, California.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: "Fernandez" Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2017, that the suit captioned Fernandez v.
Franklin Resources Inc., et al. is at the pleading stage.

On November 2, 2017, a second former employee, represented by the
same law firm, filed another putative class action lawsuit
relating to the Plan in the same court, captioned Fernandez v.
Franklin Resources Inc., et al. This second action names the same
defendants as those named in the Cryer action, but also includes
as defendants the Franklin Board of Directors, individual current
and former Franklin directors, and individual current and former
Investment Committee members.

The plaintiff in this second lawsuit seeks to assert the same
ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claim asserted in the Cryer
action, as well as claims for alleged prohibited transactions by
virtue of the Plan's investments in the Funds and for an alleged
failure to monitor the performance of the Investment Committee.
The plaintiff alleges that Plan losses exceed $60.0 million and
seeks the same relief sought in the Cryer action.

Franklin Resources said "Management strongly believes that the
claims are without merit. The action is at the pleadings stage.
Franklin will defend against both actions vigorously. Franklin
cannot at this time predict the eventual outcome of the lawsuit
or whether it will have a material negative impact on the
Company, or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that may arise from any negative outcome."

Franklin Resources, Inc. is a global investment management
organization and derives its operating revenues and net income
from providing investment management and related services to
investors in jurisdictions worldwide through its investment
products that include its sponsored funds, as well as
institutional and high net-worth separate accounts. The company
is based in San Mateo, California.


GENIE ENERGY: "Ferrare" Parties Await Report over Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the parties in the "Ferrare" class action
are awaiting a report and recommendation with respect to final
approval of the settlement.  The final approval hearing took
place on April 9, 2018.

On March 13, 2014, named plaintiff, Anthony Ferrare, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.  The
complaint was served on IDT Energy on July 16, 2014.  The named
plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and other former
and current electric customers of IDT Energy in Pennsylvania with
variable rate plans, whom he contends were injured as a result of
IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices.
On August 7, 2014, IDT Energy removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On October 20, 2014, IDT Energy moved to stay or, alternatively,
dismiss the complaint, as amended, by the named plaintiff.  On
November 10, 2014, the named plaintiff opposed IDT Energy's
motion to dismiss and IDT Energy filed a reply memorandum of law
in further support of its motion to dismiss.  On June 10, 2015,
the Court granted IDT Energy's motion to stay and denied its
motion to dismiss without prejudice.  The parties participated in
mediation, and subsequently entered into a Settlement Agreement,
which received preliminary approval from the Court on October 16,
2017.  The Settlement Agreement is subject to entry of a final
order by the Court approving the Settlement Agreement.  The final
approval hearing took place on April 9, 2018.  The parties are
awaiting a report and recommendation with respect to final
approval of the settlement.

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company.  The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy;
Afek Oil and Gas, Ltd.; and Genie Oil and Gas.  It was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


GENIE ENERGY: Parties Await Recommendation on "McLaughlin" Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the parties in the "McLaughlin" class action
lawsuit are awaiting a report and recommendation with respect to
final approval of the settlement.  The final approval hearing
took place on April 9, 2018.

On July 2, 2014, named plaintiff, Louis McLaughlin, filed a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, contending that he and other class members were injured as
a result of IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing
practices.  The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of
himself and two subclasses: all IDT Energy customers who were
charged a variable rate for their energy from July 2, 2008, and
all IDT Energy customers who participated in IDT Energy's rebate
program from July 2, 2008.  On January 22, 2016, the named
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of himself and all
IDT Energy customers in New York State against IDT Energy, Inc.,
Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy International Corporation, and
Genie Energy Ltd. (collectively, "IDT Energy").  On February 22,
2016, IDT Energy moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and the
named plaintiff opposed that motion.  The parties participated in
mediation, and subsequently entered into a Settlement Agreement,
which received preliminary approval from the Court on October 16,
2017.  The Settlement Agreement is subject to entry of a final
order by the Court approving the Settlement Agreement.  The final
approval hearing took place on April 9, 2018.  The parties are
awaiting a report and recommendation with respect to final
approval of the settlement.

Additional information on the case is available at:

                 https://idtenergysettlement.com/

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company.  The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy;
Afek Oil and Gas, Ltd.; and Genie Oil and Gas.  It was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


GENIE ENERGY: Awaits Final Court OK on "Aks" Accord
---------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the parties in the "Aks" putative class
action lawsuit are awaiting a report and recommendation with
respect to final approval of the settlement.  The final approval
hearing took place on April 9, 2018.

On July 15, 2014, named plaintiff, Kimberly Aks, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in New
Jersey Superior Court, Essex County, contending that she and
other class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy's
alleged unlawful sales and marketing practices.  The named
plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of herself and all other New
Jersey residents who were IDT Energy customers at any time
between July 11, 2008 and the present.  The parties were engaged
in discovery prior to the mediation.  On April 20, 2016, the
named plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of herself
and all IDT Energy customers in New Jersey against IDT Energy,
Inc., Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy International Corporation
and Genie Energy Ltd.  On June 27, 2016, defendants Genie Retail
Energy, Genie Energy International Corporation and Genie Energy
Ltd. filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On August
26, 2016, the named plaintiff opposed that motion and IDT Energy
filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of its motion
to dismiss.  The Court granted the motion to dismiss, but the
parties agreed to set aside that decision to give the plaintiff
an opportunity to submit opposition papers that had not been
considered by the Court in rendering its decision.  The parties
participated in mediation, and subsequently entered into a
Settlement Agreement, which received preliminary approval from
the Court on October 16, 2017.  The Settlement Agreement is
subject to entry of a final order by the Court approving the
Settlement Agreement.  The final approval hearing took place on
April 9, 2018.  The parties are awaiting a report and
recommendation with respect to final approval of the settlement.

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company.  The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy;
Afek Oil and Gas, Ltd.; and Genie Oil and Gas.  It was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


GENIE ENERGY: Estimated Settlement Payments Reduced by $1.4-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. has reduced its recorded liability for the
settlement payment to plaintiffs in three class action lawsuits
by US$1.4 million, from US$9.0 million in the second quarter of
2017 to US$7.6 million in 2018 based on the claims received and
related administrative costs, according to the Company's Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On July 5, 2017, the Company entered into a class action
Settlement Agreement with the class action plaintiffs acting
individually and on behalf of the entire class, in the lawsuits
currently pending in Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey.  The
Company does not believe that there was any wrongdoing on its
part, and is entering into the settlement to further its efforts
to address its customers' concerns.  Under the Settlement
Agreement, the Company has agreed to pay certain amounts to
resolve the lawsuits and obtain a release of claims that were
asserted or could have been asserted in the lawsuits or that are
related to or arise out of the conduct alleged in the lawsuits or
similar conduct, wherever it may have occurred.  The settlement
payment includes payments to customers who timely make a claim,
class counsel, and the named plaintiffs, as well as the cost of a
claims administrator for administrating the claims process.

In 2017, the Company estimated, based in part on historical
participation rates, that its total settlement payment would be
approximately US$9.0 million.  In the second quarter of 2017, the
Company recorded a liability of US$9.0 million for the settlement
payment.  The period for class members to make claims has since
expired, and in 2018, based on the claims received and related
administrative costs, the Company estimated that the total
settlement payment will be approximately US$7.6 million.  In the
three months ended March 31, 2018, the Company reduced the
liability for the settlement payment by US$1.4 million, reversed
US$1.7 million of the revenue reduction recorded in 2017, and
recorded expense of US$0.3 million that is included in "Selling,
general and administrative expense".  The Settlement Agreement
was preliminarily approved by the Court on October 16, 2017.  The
Settlement Agreement is subject to entry of a final order by the
Court approving the Settlement Agreement.  The final approval
hearing took place on April 9, 2018.  The parties are awaiting a
report and recommendation with respect to final approval of the
settlement.

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company.  The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy;
Afek Oil and Gas, Ltd.; and Genie Oil and Gas.  It was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


GLOBAL EAGLE: Notice of Appeal Filed in Hart Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Global Eagle Entertainment Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs in
a putative class action brought by putative stockholder M&M Hart
Living Trust and Randi Williams, filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the
Court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the
judgment.

Global Eagle said "On February 23, 2017 and on March 17, 2017,
following our announcement that we anticipated a delay in our
2016 Form 10-K filing and that our former CEO and former CFO
would separate from us, three putative securities class action
lawsuits were filed in United States District Court for the
Central District of California."

These lawsuits alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act against the company, its former CEO
and two of its former CFOs. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
two of these lawsuits.

The third lawsuit, brought by putative stockholder M&M Hart
Living Trust and Randi Williams (the "Hart complaint"), alleged
that the company and the other defendants made misrepresentations
and/or omitted material information about the EMC Acquisition,
the company's projected financial performance and synergies
following that acquisition, and the impact of that acquisition on
our internal controls over financial reporting.

The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and
costs. On November 2, 2017, the Court granted the company and the
other defendants' motion to dismiss the Hart complaint, and
dismissed the action with prejudice. On November 30, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the Court's previous
judgment of dismissal to permit them to file a further amended
complaint.

On January 8, 2018 the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
alter or amend the previous judgment. On January 29, 2018, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the Court's denial of the
plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment.

Global Eagle said "We have not accrued a reserve for this loss
contingency at this time because we currently believe that a
material loss relating to this matter is remote. We intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against this claim."

Global Eagle is a leading provider of satellite-based
connectivity and media to fast-growing, global mobility markets
across air, sea and land. The company's principal operations and
decision-making functions are located in North America and
Europe. The company is based in Los Angeles, California.


GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Employee Class Suits in Nevada Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Entertainment, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that one purported labor-related
class action lawsuit in Nevada is in discovery phase and the
parties in the second case has agreed to settle subject to court
approval.

The Company stated, "In February and April 2017, several former
employees filed two separate purported class action lawsuits
against us in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, and on
behalf of similarly situated individuals employed by us in the
State of Nevada.  The lawsuits allege that we violated certain
Nevada labor laws including payment of an hourly wage below the
statutory minimum wage without providing a qualified health
insurance plan and an associated failure to pay proper overtime
compensation.  The complaints seek, on behalf of the plaintiffs
and members of the putative class, an unspecified amount of
damages (including punitive damages), injunctive and equitable
relief, and an award of attorneys' fees, interest and costs.  In
the second half of 2017, we agreed to settle the first of these
two cases, subject to court approval.  The second case is in the
discovery phase."

Golden Entertainment is a diversified group of gaming companies
that focus on distributed gaming (including tavern gaming) and
casino and resort operations.


GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit over Transient Lodging Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------
Golden Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that it has not yet been served with the
complaint related to the alleged violations of the federal
Internet Tax Freedom Act.

The Company states, "In February 2018, a prior guest of the
Stratosphere filed a purported class action complaint against us
in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, on
behalf of similarly situated individuals and entities that paid
the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax ("Tax") on the
portion of a resort fee that constitutes charges for Internet
access, during the period of February 6, 2014 through the date
the alleged conduct ceases.  The lawsuit alleges that the Tax was
charged in violation of the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act,
which imposes a national moratorium on the taxation of Internet
access by states and their political subdivisions, and seeks, on
behalf of the plaintiff and the putative class, damages equal to
the amount of the Tax collected on the Internet access component
of the resort fee, injunctive relief, disgorgement, interest,
fees and costs.

"We have not yet been served with the complaint.  In the event a
complaint is served on us, we anticipate being accorded a stay to
respond in connection with an agreement that other hotel casino
operators have entered into with regard to case consolidation
while the federal court reviews subject matter jurisdiction.
This case is at an early stage in the proceedings, and we are
therefore unable to make a reasonable estimate of the probable
loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from this
matter."

Golden Entertainment is a diversified group of gaming companies
that focus on distributed gaming (including tavern gaming) and
casino and resort operations.


GREAT SOUTH TIMBER: "Roberts" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS ROBERTS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GREAT SOUTH TIMBER AND LUMBER, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00644-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla., May 14,
2018), seeks to recover compensatory and liquidated damages,
attorney fees, and other relief from Defendant for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and for wrongful termination in
violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked more
than 40 hours per week in a non-exempt job but was not paid at a
rate of one and one-half times his hourly rate when he worked
overtime. The similarly situated employees are also believed to
have performed overtime work for which they were compensated at a
straight time rate of pay.

Great South Timber engages in manufacturing and distribution of
lumber products. The company was incorporated in 1984 as Great
South Timber, Inc. and changed its name to Great South Timber &
Lumber, Inc. in 2002.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
          309 NE 1ST Street
          Gainesville, FL 32601
          Telephone: (352) 244 2069
          Facsimile: (352) 372 3464
          E-mail: mbirk@gainsvilleemploymentlaw.com


GREATS BRAND: Youn Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW YOUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GREATS BRAND INC, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02898 (E.D.N.Y., May
15, 2018), seeks statutory damages and any other available legal
or equitable remedies under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant provides online
shopping specializing in shoes. To promote its services,
Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of
consumers in the process.

On February 21 and 28, and March 28, 2018, the Defendant sent the
following telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in 7662. Defendant's text messages were
transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, and within the
time frame relevant to this action. Defendant's text messages
constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future
purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e.,
Defendant's shoes for sale. The short link
(https://goo.gl/HXfdw.com) contained in the text messages is a
link to Defendant's website, www.greats.com, where Defendant
further promotes its business. The Plaintiff received the subject
texts within this judicial district and, therefore, Defendant's
violation of the TCPA occurred within this district.  Defendant
caused other text messages to be sent to individuals residing
within this judicial district. At no point in time did Plaintiff
provide Defendant with his express written consent to be
contacted using an ATDS. The Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole
user of the 7662 Number and is financially responsible for phone
service to the 7662 Number.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Ari Marcus, Esq..
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC.
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Ashbury, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479 2299
          E-mail: Ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 449 4602
          E-mail: Ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  edelsberg@kolawyers.com


GREEN DOT: Still Defends Class Suits over Service Disruptions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Green Dot Corporation said that it has recorded an estimated
accrual of approximately US$2.3 million, which represents the
Company's portion of the estimated total settlement amount
related to the lawsuits over limited disruptions in service,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

The Company said, "During the quarter ended June 30, 2016, we
continued our planned conversion of customer files from our
legacy third-party card processor to our current third-party card
processor.  As part of the conversion process, a small percentage
of our active account holders experienced limited disruptions in
service.  As a result of this limited disruption in service, two
putative class action complaints were filed during the second
quarter of 2016.  Any settlement amount paid to resolve the
consolidated class actions will be borne equally between us and
our third-party card processor.  We have recorded an estimated
accrual of approximately US$2.3 million, which represents our
portion of the estimated total settlement amount, all of which
our insurance carrier has agreed to reimburse us.  This amount is
recorded in other accrued liabilities and accounts receivable on
our consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2018."

Green Dot Corporation is a provider of reloadable prepaid debit
cards and cash reload processing services in the United States.
It is also a leader in mobile technology and mobile banking with
its GoBank mobile checking account.


GROUPON INC: 4th Cir. Junks Appeal on "Keena" Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert Bruce King of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit dismissed Keena's appeal on the dismissal with
prejudice of the case captioned ERIN KEENA, for herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GROUPON, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 16-1873 (4th
Cir.).

Keena desires relief from a district court ruling in the Western
District of North Carolina that requires her to arbitrate claims
alleged in her complaint against Groupon.  After the court
ordered the parties to arbitrate, Keena moved to amend the
arbitration order to include, inter alia, a provision dismissing
her complaint with prejudice.  The court acceded to that aspect
of Keena's motion and dismissed with prejudice.  Keena has
appealed from the dismissal.

In February 2015, Keena purchased a voucher for massage services
from Groupon, a web-based entity that partners with other
businesses to provide discount products and services to
customers.  In making her purchase, Keena entered into a form
agreement that required her to resolve any disputes with Groupon
through arbitration.  When Keena was unable to redeem her Groupon
voucher, she sought reimbursement and received an electronic
certificate called "Groupon Bucks."  The certificate, however,
could only be used to purchase goods and services on Groupon's
website.

Nearly a year later, Keena -- individually and on behalf of a
putative class of similarly-situated Plaintiffs -- filed the
civil action against Groupon.  The complaint alleged claims
against Groupon on the basis of its reimbursement policy.
Groupon responded by invoking the arbitration clause in its
agreement with Keena and moved to enforce that clause.

The district court agreed with Groupon and ordered the parties to
arbitrate.  It did not reach or address any class certification
issues, but instead stayed all further proceedings in Keena's
lawsuit pending arbitration.

A few weeks later, in July 2016, Keena moved to amend the
Arbitration Order, requesting the district court to dismiss her
complaint with prejudice.  In making her dismissal request, Keena
advised the court that she would not pursue arbitration because
the costs of that process outweighed the potential recovery.  In
the alternative, she sought the court's approval for an
interlocutory appeal of the Arbitration Order.

In disposing of Keena's motion to amend the Arbitration Order,
the district court first declined to certify an interlocutory
appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).  The court agreed to
amend the Arbitration Order, however, and granted Keena's request
that her complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

The court explained that continuing to stay the proceedings
serves no useful purpose, in view of Keena's decision not to
engage in arbitration.  Having failed to garner the district
court's approval for an interlocutory appeal, but having secured
the dismissal of her complaint with prejudice, Keena noted an
appeal from the Dismissal Order.  She contends that the Court
possess final order jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1291.

Judge King finds that like the plaintiff in Microsoft Corp. v.
Baker, Keena secured a voluntary dismissal of her complaint in
order to seek an immediate appeal from an otherwise interlocutory
order.  Justice Ginsburg's opinion in Microsoft rejected the
nearly identical effort made in that case, characterizing Baker's
appeal to the court of appeals as arising from a "voluntary-
dismissal tactic" that contravenes the final-judgment rule
embodied in 28 U.S.C. Section 1291.  Under the final-judgment
rule, the whole case and every matter in controversy in it must
be decided in a single appeal.  Justice Ginsburg's rationale is
instructive in this case, and provides an apt description of what
occurred in Keena's effort to secure an immediate appeal.

The Judge next finds that Keena's voluntary-dismissal tactic also
fails to account for the longstanding principle that a party is
not entitled to appeal from a consensual dismissal of her claims.
Put succinctly, in seeking to create final order Section 1291
jurisdiction, Keena has, like the plaintiff in Microsoft, pursued
her own version of the voluntary-dismissal tactic that the
Supreme Court soundly repudiated.  The Court's approval of such a
tactic -- by agreeing that final order Section 1291 jurisdiction
is present here -- would thus contravene Microsoft and the long-
settled principle that, in the wise words of former Chief Judge
John J. Parker that no appeal lies from a judgment of voluntary
nonsuit.

Finally, the Judge finds that Keena's effort to appeal in the
case is readily distinguishable from Green Tree Fin. Corp.-
Alabama v. Randolph.  First, the district court's Arbitration
Order directed Keena and Groupon to arbitrate and stayed the
proceedings.  Second, Keena's complaint was dismissed with
prejudice after she voluntarily sought the dismissal.  In the
Green Tree case, on the other hand, the defendant Green Tree --
not the plaintiff Randolph -- had sought the dismissal.  The
Green Tree decision thus does not present or address the
propriety of the voluntary-dismissal tactic employed by Keena and
that the Supreme Court squarely rejected in Microsoft.

In these circumstances, Judge King holds that the Dismissal Order
secured by Keena is not an appealable final decision under 28
U.S.C. Section 1291.  Appellate jurisdiction is therefore lacking
and Keena's appeal must be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/46HDeM from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Daniel Chappell Flint, LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL C. FLINT,
PC, Southfield, Michigan, for Appellant.

Scott Thomas Schutte -- scott.schutte@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN
LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Jonathan A. Berry, Washington, D.C., Gregory T. Fouts -
- gregory.fouts@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP,
Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee.


HC2 HOLDINGS: Oct. 2019 Trial Set in CGI Producer Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that while settlement negotiations remain
ongoing in the CGI Producer Litigation, the Court has entered a
scheduling order setting the case for trial during the week of
October 15, 2019.

On November 28, 2016, CGI, a subsidiary of the Company, Great
American Financial Resource, Inc. ("GAFRI"), American Financial
Group, Inc., and CIGNA Corporation were served with a putative
class action complaint filed by John Fastrich and Universal
Investment Services, Inc. in The United States District Court for
the District of Nebraska alleging breach of contract, tortious
interference with contract and unjust enrichment.  The plaintiffs
contend that they were agents of record under various CGI
policies and that CGI allegedly instructed policyholders to
switch to other CGI products and caused the plaintiffs to lose
commissions, renewals, and overrides on policies that were
replaced.  The complaint also alleges breach of contract claims
relating to allegedly unpaid commissions related to premium rate
increases implemented on certain long-term care insurance
policies.  Finally, the complaint alleges breach of contract
claims related to vesting of commissions.  On August 21, 2017 the
Court dismissed the plaintiffs' tortious interference with
contract claim.  CGI believes that the remaining allegations and
claims set forth in the complaint are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them.

The case was set for voluntary mediation, which occurred on
January 26, 2018.  The Court stayed discovery pending the outcome
of the mediation.  On February 12, 2018, the parties notified the
Court that mediation did not resolve the case and that the
parties' discussions regarding a possible settlement of the
action were still ongoing.  The Court held a status conference on
March 22, 2018, during which the parties informed the Court that
settlement negotiations remain ongoing.  Nonetheless, the Court
entered a scheduling order setting the case for trial during the
week of October 15, 2019.  Meanwhile, settlement negotiations
remain ongoing.

Further, the Company and CGI are seeking defense costs and
indemnification for plaintiffs' claims from GAFRI and Continental
General Corporation ("CGC") under the terms of an Amended and
Restated Stock Purchase Agreement ("SPA") related to the
Company's acquisition of CGI in December 2015.  GAFRI and CGC
rejected CGI's demand for defense and indemnification and, on
January 18, 2017, the Company and CGI filed a Complaint against
GAFRI and CGC in the Superior Court of Delaware seeking a
declaratory judgment to enforce their indemnification rights
under the SPA.  On February 23, 2017, GAFRI answered CGI's
complaint, denying the allegations.  The dispute is ongoing and
CGI will continue to pursue its right to a defense and indemnity
under the SPA.

HC2 Holdings is a diversified holding company that seeks
opportunities to acquire and grow businesses that can generate
long-term sustainable free cash flow and attractive returns in
order to maximize value for all stakeholders. The company is
based in New York.


HC2 HOLDINGS: Explores Potential Settlement in Schuff Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the parties in the consolidated case
captioned Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation have
been exploring alternative frameworks for a potential settlement.

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action
complaint challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired
approximately 721,000 of the outstanding common shares of DBMG
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul
Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip
O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint").

On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v.
Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek,
Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda,
Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359.

On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now
designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation)
and appointed lead plaintiff and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel.
The currently operative complaint was filed by Mark Jacobs.  The
pending complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection
with the tender offer, the individual members of the DBMG Board
of Directors and HC2, the controlling stockholder of DBMG,
breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff
class.

Plaintiffs also assert that HC2 should be required to complete a
short-form merger based upon plaintiffs' expectation that the
Company would cash out the remaining public stockholders of DBMG
following the completion of the tender offer.  The complaint
seeks rescission of the tender offer and/or compensatory damages,
as well as attorney's fees and other relief.  The defendants
filed answers to the complaint on July 30, 2015.

The Company said, "The parties have been exploring alternative
frameworks for a potential settlement.  There can be no assurance
that a settlement will be finalized or that the Delaware Courts
would approve such a settlement even if the parties enter into a
settlement agreement.  If a settlement cannot be reached, the
Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
vigorously defend this matter."

HC2 Holdings is a diversified holding company that seeks
opportunities to acquire and grow businesses that can generate
long-term sustainable free cash flow and attractive returns in
order to maximize value for all stakeholders. The company is
based in New York.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Final Allocation Plan in Royalty Suit Due July
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a royalty class action lawsuit against XTO Energy
Inc. are scheduled to submit the final plan of allocation for
Court approval by July 30, 2018, according to Hugoton Royalty
Trust's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

In December 2010, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed
against XTO Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy
Inc. in Coal County District Court, Oklahoma.  XTO Energy removed
the case to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees
from royalty payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent
efforts to secure the best terms available for the sale of gas
and its constituents, and demand an accounting to determine
whether they have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty
interests.  The case was certified as a class action in April
2012.  XTO Energy filed an appeal of the class certification to
the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 26, 2012, which was
granted on June 26, 2012.  The court reversed the certification
of the class and remanded the case back to the trial court for
further proceedings.  A non-binding mediation occurred September
1, 2016, but was unsuccessful.

XTO Energy has advised the Trustee that in December 2017, it
reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs for US$80
million and an additional US$750 thousand for costs to administer
the settlement following final approval.  XTO Energy has advised
the Trustee that on March 27, 2018, the judge signed orders
approving the settlement, including the plaintiffs' initial plan
to allocate the net settlement fund among the wells covered by
the Chieftain class.  Prior to plaintiffs filing their initial
plan of allocation, XTO Energy advised the Trustee that it
believed the portion of the settlement that relates to the Trust
could be as much as US$20 million.  However, the portion of the
settlement allocable to the Trust cannot be finally determined
until after the judge approves the final plan of allocation,
which the plaintiffs are scheduled to submit by July 30, 2018.

XTO Energy has advised the Trustee that depending on the final
plan of allocation, the portion of the settlement XTO Energy
believes should be allocated to the Trust may exceed US$20
million.  The Trustee has asked for additional information
regarding the allocation of the settlement amount and has asked
to be advised by XTO Energy as the matter progresses.  XTO Energy
has confirmed that they do not have additional information at
this time, but will provide an update once it becomes available.
Once additional information is made available, the Trustee
intends to review any claimed reductions in payment to the Trust
based on the facts and circumstances of the settlement.

In light of a 2014 arbitration decision in which a three-
arbitrator panel tribunal decided that the settlement in
Fankhouser v. XTO Energy, Inc., including a new royalty
calculation for future royalty payments, could not be charged to
the Trust, to the extent that the claims in Chieftain are similar
to those in Fankhouser the Trustee had informed XTO Energy that
it would likely object to such claimed reductions.

On May 2, 2018, the Trustee submitted a demand for arbitration
styled Simmons Bank (successor to Southwest Bank and Bank of
America, N.A.) vs. XTO Energy Inc. (the "Arbitration") through
the American Arbitration Association seeking a declaratory
judgment that the Chieftain settlement is not a production cost
and that XTO Energy is prohibited from charging the settlement as
a production cost under the conveyance or otherwise reducing the
Trust's payments now or in the future as a result of the
Chieftain litigation.  In the Arbitration, the Trustee also made
claims for disputed amounts on the computation of the Trust's net
proceeds for 2014 through 2016 in excess of US$5 million.  Due to
the recent date of the filing of the demand for arbitration, XTO
Energy has advised that it is currently reviewing the arbitration
documents and will respond in due course.

The Company said, "If US$20 million or more of the Chieftain
settlement is required to be borne by the Trust, it would result
in excess costs under the Oklahoma conveyance that, based on
recent distribution levels under such conveyance, would likely
result in no distributions under the Oklahoma conveyance for
several years."

Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the laws
of Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered
into on December 1, 1998 between XTO Energy Inc. (formerly known
as Cross Timbers Oil Company), as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A.,
as trustee.  Southwest Bank is now the trustee of the Trust.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: June 19 Oral Arguments in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on the defendants' motion to dismiss the second
amended consolidated complaint in securities class action
litigation against Match Group is scheduled for June 19, 2018,
according to IAC/InterActiveCorp's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

On February 26, 2016, a putative nationwide class action was
filed in federal court in Texas against Match Group, five of its
officers and directors, and twelve underwriters of Match Group's
initial public offering in November 2015.  The case was captioned
David M.  Stein v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-549
(U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas).

The complaint alleged that Match Group's registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with its initial public
offering were materially false and misleading given their failure
to state that: (i) Match Group's Non-dating business would miss
its revenue projection for the quarter ended December 31, 2015,
and (ii) ARPU (Average Revenue per Subscriber) would decline
substantially in the quarter ended December 31, 2015.  The
complaint asserted that these alleged failures to timely disclose
material information caused Match Group's stock price to drop
after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended
December 31, 2015.  The complaint pleaded claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material fact in,
or omissions of material facts from, the registration statement,
the prospectus, and related communications in violation of
Sections 11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants
only, control-person liability under Section 15 for Match Group's
alleged violations.  The complaint sought among other relief
class certification and damages in an unspecified amount.

On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint
was filed in the same court against the same defendants by a
different named plaintiff.  The case was captioned Stephany Kam-
Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Texas).  On April 25, 2016,
Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued an order granting the
parties' joint motion to transfer that case to Judge Lindsay, who
was presiding over the earlier-filed Stein case.  On April 27,
2016, various current or former Match Group shareholders and
their respective law firms filed motions seeking appointment as
lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for the putative
class.

On April 28, 2016, the Court issued orders: (i) consolidating the
Chan case into the Stein case, (ii) approving the parties'
stipulation to extend the defendants' time to respond to the
complaint until after the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff
and lead counsel for the putative class and has set a schedule
for the plaintiff's filing of a consolidated complaint and the
defendants' response to that pleading, and (iii) referring the
various motions for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead or
liaison counsel for the putative class to a United States
Magistrate Judge for determination.

On June 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an order appointing
two lead plaintiffs, two law firms as co-lead plaintiffs'
counsel, and a third law firm as plaintiffs' liaison counsel.  In
accordance with this order, the consolidated case is now
captioned Mary McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No.
3:16-CV-549-L.

On July 27, 2016, the parties submitted to the Court a joint
status report proposing a schedule for the plaintiffs' filing of
a consolidated amended complaint and the parties' briefing of the
defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  On August 17, 2016, the Court issued an order
approving the parties' proposed schedule.

On September 9, 2016, in accordance with the schedule, the
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint.  The amended
pleading focused solely on allegedly misleading statements or
omissions concerning the Match Group's Non-dating business.  The
defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint on November 8, 2016.  The plaintiffs filed oppositions
to the motions on December 23, 2016, and the defendants filed
replies to the oppositions on February 6, 2017.

On September 27, 2017, the court issued an opinion and order: (i)
denying, without prejudice to renewal, the defendants' motions
and (ii) directing the plaintiffs to file a further amended
pleading addressing the deficiencies in the amended consolidated
complaint that were identified in the defendants' motions.

On October 30, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint, which among other things, dropped their
claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Pursuant
to an agreed-upon briefing schedule approved by the court, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended
consolidated complaint on December 15, 2017, the plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the motions on January 29, 2018, and the
defendants filed replies to the opposition on February 20, 2018.

On March 8, 2018, the court issued an order transferring the case
from Judge Lindsay to newly appointed Judge Scholer.  Oral
argument on the defendants' motion to dismiss is scheduled for
June 19, 2018.

The Company said, "We and Match Group believe that the material
allegations and claims in this lawsuit are without merit and
intend to continue to defend vigorously against it."

IAC is a media and Internet company comprised of widely known
consumer brands, such as HomeAdvisor, Vimeo, Dotdash (formerly
About.com), Dictionary.com, The Daily Beast, Investopedia, and
Match Group's online dating portfolio, which includes Match,
Tinder, PlentyOfFish and OkCupid.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Calif. High Court Reopens Tinder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court has denied Tinder, Inc.'s petition
for interlocutory review of the California Court of Appeal's
reversal of the dismissed consumer class action challenging
Tinder's age-tiered pricing, according to IAC/InterActiveCorp's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On May 28, 2015, a putative state-wide class action was filed
against Tinder in state court in California.  The case was
captioned Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles).

The complaint principally alleged that Tinder violated
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act by offering and charging
users age 30 and over a higher price than younger users for
subscriptions to its premium Tinder Plus service.  The complaint
sought certification of a class of California Tinder Plus
subscribers age 30 and over and damages in an unspecified amount.

On September 21, 2015, Tinder filed a demurrer seeking dismissal
of the complaint.  On October 26, 2015, the court issued an
opinion sustaining Tinder's demurrer to the complaint without
leave to amend, ruling that the age-based pricing differential
for Tinder Plus subscriptions did not violate California law in
essence because offering a discount to users under age 30 was
neither invidious nor unreasonable in light of that age group's
generally more limited financial means.

On December 29, 2015, in accordance with its ruling, the court
entered judgment dismissing the action.  On February 1, 2016, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the judgment, and the
parties thereafter briefed the appeal.  On January 29, 2018, the
California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division
Three) issued an opinion reversing the judgment of dismissal,
ruling that the lower court had erred in sustaining Tinder's
demurrer because the complaint, as pleaded, stated a cognizable
claim for violation of the Unruh Act.

The Company said, "Because we believe that the appellate court's
reasoning was flawed as a matter of law and runs afoul of binding
California precedent, on March 12, 2018, Tinder filed a petition
with the California Supreme Court seeking interlocutory review of
the Court of Appeal's decision.  On May 9, 2018, the California
Supreme Court denied the petition.  The case will now be returned
to the trial court for further proceedings.  We and Match Group
believe that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit
and will continue to defend vigorously against it."

IAC is a media and Internet company comprised of widely known
consumer brands, such as HomeAdvisor, Vimeo, Dotdash (formerly
About.com), Dictionary.com, The Daily Beast, Investopedia, and
Match Group's online dating portfolio, which includes Match,
Tinder, PlentyOfFish and OkCupid.


ICONIX BRAND: Motion to Dismiss N.Y. Class Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. is still awaiting the Court's ruling on
its motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

Three securities class actions have been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under the caption In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al.,
Docket No. 1:15-cv-4860, against the Company and certain former
officers and one current officer (the "Class Action").

The plaintiffs in the Class Action purport to represent a class
of purchasers of the Company's securities from February 22, 2012
to November 5, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and
individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, by making allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding certain aspects of the Company's business operations
and prospects.

On October 25, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint filed by the Company and the
individual defendants with leave to amend.  On November 14, 2017,
the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint.  On
February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint.

The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously
defend against the claims.  At this time, the Company is unable
to estimate the ultimate outcome of these matters.


ICU MEDICAL: Hospira Units Defend Lawsuit on IV Saline Solution
---------------------------------------------------------------
ICU Medical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended: March 31, 2018, that Hospira, Inc. and Hospira Worldwide,
Inc. remain defendants in a purported class action in Illinois
regarding intravenous saline solution.

On February 3, 2017, the Company acquired 100% interest in Pfizer
Inc.'s Hospira Infusion Systems ("HIS") business for total cash
consideration of approximately US$255.8 million (net of estimated
working capital adjustments paid at closing), which was financed
with existing cash balances and a US$75 million three-year
interest-only seller note.

Beginning in November 2016, purported class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Pfizer, Inc. subsidiaries, Hospira, Inc., Hospira
Worldwide, Inc. and certain other defendants relating to the
intravenous saline solutions part of the HIS business.
Plaintiffs seek to represent classes consisting of all persons
and entities in the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous
saline solution sold by any of the defendants from January 1,
2013 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct
ceases.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct restricts output
and artificially fixes, raises, maintains and/or stabilizes the
prices of intravenous saline solution sold throughout the U.S. in
violation of federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs seek treble
damages (for themselves and on behalf of the putative classes)
and an injunction against defendants for alleged price
overcharges for intravenous saline solution in the U.S. since
January 1, 2013.

The Company said, "This litigation is the subject of a claim for
indemnification against us by Pfizer and a cross-claim for
indemnification against Pfizer by us under the HIS stock and
asset purchase agreement."

ICU Medical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells medical
devices used in infusion therapy, critical care, and oncology
applications worldwide.  It offers infusion therapy products
comprising a tube running from a bottle or plastic bag containing
a solution to a catheter inserted in a patient's vein for use in
hospitals and ambulatory clinics.  The Company sells its products
to medical product manufacturers, distributors, and end-users.
ICU Medical, Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in San
Clemente, California.


ILLINOIS: Court Enters Case Management Orders in "Coleman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY COLEMAN, No. 13853-028, RANDALL A. MILLER,
QUINCY O. EDWARDS, JOSEPH K. RANDER, JAMAR JONES, and ANDREW
DUNK, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE, and RANDY COBB,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-1282-JPG (S.D. Ill.), Judge J. Phil
Gilbert of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois

Plaintiff Coleman filed the instant action naming himself and
five other individuals as he Plaintiffs, all of whom are
incarcerated at White County Jail.  However, only Coleman signed
the Complaint.  Additionally, Coleman is the only Plaintiff to
file an IFP Motion.  The Complaint alleges that the Defendants
have violated the Plaintiffs' rights by subjecting them to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement and by providing an
unhealthy diet.

The matter is before the Court for case management.

Judge Gilbert finds that it appears that Coleman drafted the
Complaint, as he is the only individual to have signed the
pleading and to have submitted an IFP Motion.  Therefore, he will
designate him as the "Lead" Plaintiff in the case.  The non-lead
Plaintiffs (Miller, Edwards, Rander, Jones, and Dunk) will be
given an opportunity to withdraw from the litigation before the
case progresses further.

In addition, if the Plaintiffs desire to continue the litigation
as a group, any proposed amended complaint, motion or other
document filed on behalf of the multiple Plaintiffs must be
signed by each of the Plaintiffs.  As long as they appear without
counsel in the action, each Plaintiff must sign all documents for
himself.  The Judge warned them that future group motions or
pleadings that do not comply with this requirement will be
stricken pursuant to Rule 11(a).

Judge Gilbert ordered that each of the non-lead Plaintiff
(Miller, Edwards, Rander, Jones, and Dunk) will advise the Court
in writing on or before Jan. 15, 2018, whether he wishes to
continue as a Plaintiff in the group action.  If, by that
deadline, any of the non-lead Plaintiff advises the Court that he
does not wish to participate in the action, he will be dismissed
from the lawsuit and will not be charged a filing fee for the
action.

Each of the non-lead Plaintiff who chooses to continue as a
Plaintiff in the group action must submit a copy of the Complaint
bearing his signature, on or before the Jan. 15, 2018, deadline.
To enable them to comply with the Order, the Judge directed the
Clerk to return a copy of the Complaint to each of the non-lead
Plaintiff.

If any of the non-lead Plaintiff wants to pursue his claims
individually in a separate lawsuit, he will so advise the Court
in writing and he must submit a signed Complaint by the Jan. 15,
2018, deadline.  His claims will then be severed into a new
action where a filing fee will be assessed and his motion to
proceed IFP (if one has been filed) will be considered.

Each of the non-lead Plaintiff who chooses to continue as a
Plaintiff either in the action or in a severed individual case,
is ordered to pay his filing fee of $400 or file a properly
completed motion for leave to proceed IFP if he has not already
done so, on or before Jan. 15, 2018.  Each Plaintiff must have
the Trust Fund Officer at his facility complete the attached
certification and provide a copy of his trust fund account
statement (or institutional equivalent) for the period 5/27/2017
to 11/27/2017.  This information should be mailed to the Clerk of
Court at the following address: United States District Court --
Southern District of Illinois, 750 Missouri Avenue, East St.
Louis, Illinois 62201.

Any Plaintiff who simply does not respond to this Order on or
before Jan. 15, 2018, will be obligated to pay the full filing
fee and will also be dismissed from this action for want of
prosecution and/or for failure to comply with a court order under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).  The Clerk is directed to
send a copy of the order to each of the named Plaintiffs, and to
enclose a blank form IFP motion and trust fund account
certification form for each of the non-lead Plaintiff.

Judge Gilbert advised the Plaintiffs that the Complaint is
currently awaiting preliminary review by the Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915A, and it has not yet been served on the
Defendants.  Further action by the non-lead Plaintiffs is
required before the Court can complete its preliminary review of
the matter under Section 1915A.  As soon as this review is
completed, a copy of the Court's order will be forwarded to each
Plaintiff who remains in the action.

He further advised the Plaintiffs that each of them is under a
continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each
opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court
will not independently investigate a Plaintiff's whereabouts.
This will be done in writing and not later than seven days after
a transfer or other change in address occurs.  Failure to comply
with the order will cause a delay in the transmission of court
documents and may result in dismissal of the action for want of
prosecution.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/m1Ha8C from Leagle.com.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Trial in "Marentes" Class Suit Set for June 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that trial is currently
scheduled for June 2018 in the case captioned Marentes v. Impac
Mortgage Holdings, Inc.

On April 30, 2012, a purported class action was filed entitled
Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that certain
loan modification activities of the Company constitute an unfair
business practice, false advertising and marketing, and that the
fees charged are improper.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and
prejudgment interest.  On August 22, 2012, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint adding Impac Funding Corporation as a defendant
and on October 2, 2012, the plaintiff dismissed Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., without prejudice.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., is a Maryland corporation
incorporated in August 1995.  The Company is an established
nationwide independent residential mortgage lender.  The Company
originates, sells and services residential mortgage loans.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Solodyn End-Payor Pact Gets Preliminary OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Actions, the settlement
with the end payor plaintiff class was preliminarily approved by
the Court on April 5, 2018, according to Impax Laboratories,
LLC's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

From July 2013 to January 2016, 18 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, as well as
by certain direct purchasers, against manufacturers of the brand
drug Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including the
Company.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.  On August 29, 2013,
this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, and on
August 30, 2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort
Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode
Island, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and
Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride)
Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc.,
HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers,
filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.  On April 8, 2015, the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be
transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated
or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings.  The original
complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against
defendant Medicis.  On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint asserting claims against the Company and the
other generic defendants.

On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs.
Corp, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
On May 1, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
ordered the action be transferred to the District of
Massachusetts, to be coordinated or consolidated with the
coordinated proceedings.  The original complaint filed by the
plaintiffs asserted claims only against defendant Medicis.  On
October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting claims against the Company and the other generic
defendants.

On January 25, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.  On February 11, 2016,
the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the
action to be transferred to the District of Massachusetts to be
coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings.

The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged
in anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing
frivolous patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous
Citizen Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement
agreements with several generic manufacturers, including the
Company, to delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in
violation of state and federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs seek,
among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable
relief, including disgorgement and restitution.

On August 14, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaints.

On October 16, 2017, the Court certified the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs' and End-Payor Plaintiffs' classes.  On October 30,
2017, the Company filed a petition for interlocutor appeal
challenging the Court's certification of the End-Payor
Plaintiffs' class and motions for Summary Judgment were filed on
November 1, 2017.  On January 25, 2018, the Court denied
Plaintiffs' and Impax's summary judgment motions.  Trial began on
March 12, 2018.

During March 2018, the Company separately settled all claims with
the direct purchaser plaintiff class, retailer plaintiffs and the
end payor plaintiff class for a total settlement amount of
US$84.5 million.  The settlements with the class plaintiffs are
subject to court approval.  The settlement with the direct
purchaser plaintiff class was preliminarily approved by the Court
on March 12, 2018, and a fairness hearing is scheduled for July
11, 2018.  The settlement with the end payor plaintiff class was
preliminarily approved by the Court on April 5, 2018.

Impax Laboratories, LLC, formerly known as Impax Laboratories,
Inc., is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on
developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and
branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Opana ER(R) Antitrust Class Actions Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that discovery is ongoing in Opana
ER(R) Antitrust Class Actions and that no trial date has been
scheduled.

From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and end-payor (indirect) purchasers,
as well as by certain direct purchasers, against the manufacturer
of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and the Company.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.  On June 26, 2014, this
Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and on July 16,
2014, re-filed the same complaint in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself
and others similarly situated.

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit
Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself
and others similarly situated.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity
Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation.

On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court
of the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated.  On January 27, 2015, the
Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs.
Corp, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay
generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and
federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution.  Consolidated amended complaints
were filed on May 4, 2015 by direct purchaser plaintiffs and end-
payor (indirect) purchaser plaintiffs.

On July 3, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaints, as well as the complaints of the
"Opt-Out Plaintiffs" (Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc.,
HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, Rite Aid Corporation
and Rite Aid Hdqtrs.  Corp.).

On February 1, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  The parties agreed that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. would be
bound by the Court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss
the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints.

On February 10, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser
plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, and denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint.  The end-payor purchaser
plaintiffs have filed a second consolidated amended complaint and
the Company has moved to dismiss certain state law claims.

On February 25, 2016, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints, with leave to amend.
The Opt-Out Plaintiffs and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. have filed amended
complaints and the Company has filed its answer.

Discovery is ongoing.  No trial date has been scheduled.

Impax Laboratories, LLC, formerly known as Impax Laboratories,
Inc., is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on
developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and
branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Still Defends Generic Drug Pricing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, LLC continues to defend itself in the case
captioned In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust
Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018.

From March 2016 to April 2017, 22 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers against
manufacturers of generic digoxin and doxycycline and the Company
alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of
these generic products.  From January 2017 to April 2017, three
complaints were filed on behalf of indirect purchasers against
manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and the Company
alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of
these generic products.

On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.  The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on June 9, 2016.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff Tulsa Firefighters Health and
Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff Pipe Trade Services MN, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 25, 2016, Plaintiff Edward Carpinelli, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami
Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff Nina Diamond, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff The City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a
Kinney Drugs, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Philadelphia Federation of Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff United Food & Commercial Workers and
Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff Ottis McCrary, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff CÇsar Castillo Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33
Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health and Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff United Here Health, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff Valerie Velardi, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On January 13, 2017, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated against manufacturers of generic
lidocaine/prilocaine and the Company alleging a conspiracy to
fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic drug.

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated against
manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and the Company
alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of
this generic drug.

On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff Louisiana Health Service Indemnity
Company, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated
against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and the
Company alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize
prices of this generic drug.

On May 19, 2016, several indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a
motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
transfer and consolidate the actions in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The
Judicial Panel ordered the actions consolidated in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and ordered that the actions be renamed
"In re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation." On
January 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed two consolidated class action
complaints.  With respect to doxycycline, the plaintiffs dropped
their allegations against the Company.  On March 28, 2017, the
Company, separately and along with other defendants, filed
motions to dismiss the digoxin class action complaint. On April
6, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered
the consolidation of all civil actions involving allegations of
antitrust conspiracies in the generic pharmaceutical industry
regarding 18 generic drugs to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The consolidated actions have been renamed In re
Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. On October
6, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the digoxin
complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is complete and a
decision is pending. On February 9, 2018, the Court issued an
order denying the discovery stay and allowing certain fact
discovery to proceed.

On January 19, 2018, Plaintiffs The Kroger Co., Albertsons
Companies, LLC, and H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P., opt-outs,
filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against 35 companies, including
Impax, alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize
prices of 30 drugs and specifically digoxin and
lidocaine/prilocaine with respect to Impax. No schedule has been
set.

Impax Laboratories, LLC, formerly known as Impax Laboratories,
Inc., is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on
developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and
branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Time to Appeal AWP Case Dismissal Has Lapsed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the time period to file an
appeal from the dismissed lawsuit related to the Average
Wholesale Price of certain generic drugs has lapsed.

On December 30, 2015, Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Plan
and others similarly situated filed a class action against
several generic drug manufacturers, including the Company, in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial
District of Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division, alleging that the
Company and others violated the law, including the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law, by inflating
the Average Wholesale Price ("AWP") of certain generic drugs.
The case has since been removed to federal court in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
By virtue of an amended complaint filed on March 29, 2016, the
suit has been amended to comprise a nationwide class of third
party payors that allegedly reimbursed or purchased certain
generic drugs based on AWP and to assert causes of action under
the laws of other states in addition to Pennsylvania.  On May 17,
2016, this case was stayed.  On January 18, 2017, the Company,
along with the other defendants, filed a joint motion to dismiss
the complaint.  On September 15, 2017, the Court dismissed the
complaint with prejudice.  The time period to file an appeal has
lapsed.

On February 5, 2016, Delaware Valley Health Care Coalition filed
a lawsuit based on substantially similar allegations in the Court
of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District
of Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division that seeks declaratory
judgment.  On May 20, 2016, this case was stayed pending
resolution of the federal court action.

Impax Laboratories, LLC, formerly known as Impax Laboratories,
Inc., is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on
developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and
branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Still Defends Medicine To Go's TCPA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, LLC remains a defendant in a class action
suit over alleged breaches of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff Medicine To Go Pharmacies, Inc.
filed a class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated against the Company alleging violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  On April 17, 2017, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay this case in
light of the first-filed case by Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
This case was transferred to the Southern District of Alabama.
On September 15, 2017, the Court stayed this matter pending the
final approval of the class settlement in the Family Medicine
Pharmacy case.

On March 6, 2018, the Court in the Family Medicine Pharmacy case
issued an order with final approval of the proposed class
settlement.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Impax Laboratories, LLC, formerly known as Impax Laboratories,
Inc., is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on
developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and
branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Still Faces Securities Class Action in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, LLC still defends itself against the
securities class action filed by lead plaintiff New York Hotel
Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension
Fund, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

On April 17, 2017, Lead Plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council &
Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an
amended class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself
and others similarly situated against the Company alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  The Company filed its motion to
dismiss the amended complaint on June 1, 2017 and briefing has
been completed.

Impax Laboratories, LLC, formerly known as Impax Laboratories,
Inc., is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on
developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and
branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Class Suits on Amneal Combination Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
After the Court-approved voluntary dismissal of the securities
class actions related to Impax Laboratories, LLC's business
combination with Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, the plaintiffs has
until June 1, 2018 to file any petition and supporting papers for
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, according to the Form
10-Q filing of Impax Laboratories with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.

On December 12, 2017 and December 14, 2017, Plaintiffs Susan Vana
and David Stone, respectively, filed class action
complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated against the Company alleging violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
generally alleging that the Registration Statement on Form S-4
related to the proposed business combination with Amneal
Pharmaceuticals, LLC ("Amneal") contains false and misleading
statements and/or omissions concerning the financial projections
of the Company, Amneal, and New Amneal; Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC's valuation analyses and Fairness Opinions relating to the
Company and Amneal; potential conflicts of interest associated
with one of the Company's financial advisors and the proposed
business combination with Amneal; and background information of
the proposed business combination, including confidentiality
agreements entered into by the Company in connection with the
Combination.  On April 4, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Stipulation
and Proposed Order voluntarily dismissing the actions and on
April 5, 2018, the court issued an order to dismiss the actions.
By no later than June 1, 2018, plaintiffs shall file any petition
and supporting papers for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.

Impax Laboratories, LLC, formerly known as Impax Laboratories,
Inc., is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on
developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and
branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Wage & Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that discovery is ongoing in the
California wage and hour class action filed by Emielou Williams.

On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff Emielou Williams filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court for the State of
California in the County of Alameda on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated against the Company alleging violation
of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by
violating various California wage and hour laws.  On October 10,
2017, the Company filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class
Allegations.  On December 12, 2017, the Court overruled Impax's
Demurrer to Plaintiff's individual claims, however, it struck all
of Plaintiff's class allegations.  On March 13, 2018, Plaintiff
filed her First Amended Complaint once again including the same
class allegations.  The Company filed a Demurrer and Motion to
Strike Class Allegations on April 12, 2018 and hearing is
scheduled for May 25, 2018.  Discovery is ongoing.

Impax Laboratories, LLC, formerly known as Impax Laboratories,
Inc., is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on
developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and
branded pharmaceutical products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Faces American Resources Suit over Opioids
--------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, LLC is facing class action complaint filed by
American Resources Insurance Company, Inc. related to the sale
and distribution of opioids, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff American Resources Insurance
Company, Inc. filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated against the Company and
several other drug manufacturers and distributors alleging
violations of the RICO statute, negligence, fraud, unjust
enrichment, and subrogation with respect to the sale and
distribution of opioids. No schedule has been set.

Impax Laboratories, LLC, formerly known as Impax Laboratories,
Inc., is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on
developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and
branded pharmaceutical products.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Putative Class Suit on Opioid Epidemic
----------------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that it has been
named, along with various other opioid manufacturers and
distributors, in putative class action complaints that seek to
assert claims allegedly related to the national opioid epidemic
on behalf of purchasers of health insurance between 1996 and the
present in the states of California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, and New York.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Insys is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops and commercializes innovative supportive care products.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends "Di Donato" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. continues to defend itself in a
purported class action initially filed by Richard Di Donato,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

The Company said, "On or about February 2, 2016, a complaint
(captioned Richard Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al.,
Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW) was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona against us and certain of our
current and former officers.  The complaint was brought as a
purported class action on behalf of purchasers of our common
stock between March 3, 2015 and January 25, 2016.  In general,
the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the anti-fraud
provisions of the federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding our business,
operations and compliance with laws during the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock.

"On June 3, 2016, the Court appointed Clark Miller to serve as
lead plaintiff.  On June 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint naming a former employee of Insys Therapeutics,
Inc. as an additional defendant and extending the class period.
On December 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, primarily to add allegations relating to an indictment
of Michael L. Babich and certain of our former employees
announced on December 8, 2016, and to extend the class period
from August 12, 2014 through December 8, 2016.

"On January 12, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint.  Oral arguments were heard by the Court on
July 28, 2017, and the Court granted the motion in part and
denied it in part.  The plaintiff subsequently moved for leave to
further amend the complaint, which we opposed.  The Court denied
Plaintiff's motion on March 31, 2018, and Insys filed its answer
on April 13, 2018.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.  We continue to vigorously defend this
matter."

Insys is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops and commercializes innovative supportive care products.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss NY Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
purported class action in New York remains pending, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.

The Company said, "On or about March 17, 2017, a complaint
(captioned Kayd Currier v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case
1:17-cv-01954-PAC) was filed in United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against us and certain of our
current and former officers.  The complaint was brought as a
purported class action on behalf of purchasers of our securities
between February 23, 2016, and March 15, 2017.  In general, the
plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the anti-fraud
provisions of the federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding our business and
financial results during the class period, thereby artificially
inflating the price of our securities.

"On or about March 28, 2017, a second complaint making similar
allegations (captioned Hans E. Erdmann v. Insys Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., Case 1:17-cv-02225-PAC) was filed in the same
Court.

"On May 31, 2017, the Court consolidated the first and second
complaint and appointed lead counsel in the consolidated action.
On July 31, 2017, the lead counsel filed a consolidated
complaint.  On October 11, 2017, the Court held a pre-motion
conference, at which the Court granted leave to plaintiffs to
again amend the complaint.  The amendment was filed on October
27, 2017, and we moved to dismiss.  The Motion to Dismiss remains
pending.

"The plaintiffs in both actions seek unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.  We continue to vigorously defend this matter."

Insys is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops and commercializes innovative supportive care products.


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces "DeSmet" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to defend itself
against the purported shareholder class action filed by Judith
DeSmet in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018.

The Company said, "On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder
class action, styled Judith DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Mark Pruzanski and Sandip S. Kapadia was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, naming us and certain of our officers as defendants.  This
lawsuit was filed by a stockholder who claims to be suing on
behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired our
securities between May 31, 2016 and September 20, 2017.  This
lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions
of material fact were made in our public disclosures during the
period from May 31, 2016 to September 20, 2017, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The alleged improper disclosures relate
to statements regarding our business, operational and compliance
policies.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on
behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses,
including attorney's fees.  The Court has not yet appointed a
lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel.

"On January 5, 2018, a follow-on derivative suit, styled Davis v.
Pruzanski et al., was filed in New York state court by
shareholder Gregg Davis based on substantially the same
allegations as those set forth in the securities case.  On
December 1, 2017, a purported shareholder demand was made on the
Company based on substantially the same allegations as those set
forth in the securities case.

"While we believe that we have a number of valid defenses to the
claims described above and intend to vigorously defend ourselves,
the matters are in the early stages of litigation and no
assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of the matters or
whether they will be material to us.  Accordingly, an estimate of
the potential loss, or range of loss, if any, to us relating to
the matters is not possible at this time."

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of novel
therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases,
including primary biliary cholangitis ("PBC"), nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis ("NASH"), primary sclerosing cholangitis ("PSC")
and biliary atresia.  The Company currently has one marketed
product, Ocaliva (obeticholic acid or "OCA").  Founded in 2002 in
New York, Intercept has operations in the United States, Europe
and Canada.


IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Lawsuit Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. continues to defend itself in a
class action lawsuit related to alleged violations of federal
securities laws, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018.

The Company said, "On April 10, 2017, the SEC announced
settlements with us and with other public companies and unrelated
parties in the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotion
investigation.  Our settlement with the SEC is consistent with
our previous disclosures (including in our Annual Report on Form
10-K that we filed with the SEC on March 9, 2017).  On April 14,
2017, a purported shareholder filed a complaint seeking class
action status in the United States District Court, Northern
District of California for violations of the federal securities
laws (Leonard DeSilvio v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-2086) against our company and three of our
former officers and directors.  On April 19, 2017, a second class
action complaint (Amra Kuc vs. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:17-cv-2188) was filed in the same court.  Both
complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements, or by failing to make certain
disclosures, regarding the actions taken by Manish Singh, our
former CEO, and our former investor relations firm that were the
subject of the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions
investigation.  On July 20, 2017, the plaintiff in the Kuc case
filed a notice to voluntarily dismiss that case.  The court
entered an order dismissing the Kuc complaint on July 21, 2017.
On July 26, 2017, the court appointed a movant as lead plaintiff.
On September 8, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint (Jay Rabkin v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:17-cv-2086) seeking class action status that alleges, among
other things, that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by making materially false and misleading statements, or by
failing to make certain disclosures, regarding the actions taken
by Manish Singh and our former investor relations firm that were
the subject of the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions SEC
investigation.  On February 5, 2018, the court entered an order
dismissing two of Plaintiff's six claims."

Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of novel cancer
immunotherapy products designed to harness the power of a
patient's own immune system to eradicate cancer cells.  On June
1, 2017, the Company reincorporated to become a Company governed
by Delaware corporation laws.  On June 27, 2017, we changed our
name to Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc from Lion Biotechnologies,
Inc.


J ALEXANDERS: "Elstein" Shareholder Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Margie Elstein's class action lawsuit against J. Alexander's
Holdings, Inc. remains pending as of April 1, 2018, despite the
termination of a merger agreement, which was the focus of the
litigation, according to the Form 10-Q of J. Alexander's
Holdings, Inc. filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 10, 2018, for the quarterly period ended April
1, 2018.

The Company said, "On December 8, 2017, Margie Elstein, a
purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Tennessee Chancery Court for Davidson
County, 20th Judicial District (the "Elstein Action") against the
Company, members of the Board, Fidelity Newport Holdings, LLC
("FNH"), then FNFV and FNF.  The Elstein Action alleges that the
members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties to
shareholders because the directors of the Company and Stephens,
Inc.  had conflicts of interest related to the Company's proposed
acquisition of 99 Restaurants.  The Elstein Action also alleges
that the Board and the Company made materially inadequate
disclosures and material omissions in its preliminary proxy
statement for the acquisition of 99 Restaurants.  The Elstein
Action further alleges that FNH, then FNFV, and FNF defendants
aided and abetted the Board's purported breach of its fiduciary
duties.

"[I]n the first quarter of 2018, the merger agreement was
terminated.  However, this case was still pending as of April 1,
2018."

J. Alexander's Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates full service restaurants in the United States. It
operates four complementary upscale dining restaurant concepts,
including J. Alexander's, Redlands Grill, Lyndhurst Grill, and
Stoney River Steakhouse and Grill (Stoney River). The company's
restaurants offer American menu. The company is based in
Nashville, Tennessee.


J2 GLOBAL: Appeal from Nixed Davis Neurology Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Davis Neurology's appeal from the dismissed putative class action
against j2 Global, Inc. is still pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 10, 2018, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2018.

On January 21, 2016, Davis Neurology, P.A. filed a putative class
action against two j2 Global affiliates in the Circuit Court for
the County of Pope, State of Arkansas (58-cv-2016-40), alleging
violations of the TCPA.  The case was ultimately removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (the
"Eastern District of Arkansas") (No. 4:16-cv-00682).  On June 6,
2016, the j2 Global affiliates filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.  On March 20, 2017, the Eastern District of Arkansas
dismissed all claims against the j2 Global affiliates.  On April
17, 2017, Davis Neurology filed a notice of appeal.  On June 20,
2017, Davis Neurology filed its appeal brief.  On August 4, 2017
the j2 Global affiliates filed a response brief.  On August 21,
2017, Davis Neurology filed a reply brief.  Oral argument was
held January 11, 2018.  The j2 Global affiliates submitted a
supplemental letter briefing on February 8, 2018 and March 7,
2018.  Davis Neurology submitted a supplemental letter brief on
February 15, 2018.  The appeal is pending.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a provider of
Internet services.  Through its Business Cloud Services Division,
the Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes,
from individuals to enterprises, and licenses its intellectual
property to third parties.  In addition, the Business Cloud
Services Division includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarily
focuses on our voice and fax products. The Digital Media Division
specializes in the technology, gaming, lifestyle markets and
healthcare markets, reaching in-market buyers and influencers in
both the consumer and business-to-business space.


JAMAICA HOSPITAL: Court Denies Certification of "Hawkins" Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAHED HAWKINS and KENNETH ZUBLIONIS, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL
CENTER DIAGNOSTIC AND TREATMENT CENTER CORP., Defendant, Case No.
16-CV-4265 (RRM) (CLP) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
adopted Magistrate Judge Cheryl Pollak's report and
recommendation ("R&R") denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification with leave to renew after discovery.

Hawkins and Zublionis bring the putative class action against
Jamaica Hospital, alleging that it collected their genetic
information in violation of the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA").  Both the Plaintiffs are former
employees of Jamaica Hospital, who were asked to fill out forms
about their genetic information when applying for their
respective positions at the Hospital.  Both the Plaintiffs have
since left their jobs at Jamaica Hospital.  They seek damages on
the basis that the Hospital collected their genetic information
in violation of GINA, as well as an injunction, directing the
Hospital to destroy the genetic information it still possesses.

The Plaintiffs moved for class certification.  The Court
respectfully referred the motion to the Magistrate Judge for R&R.
Before the Court is Judge Pollak's R&R, which recommended: (1)
denying class certification with leave to renew after discovery;
(2) finding that the Plaintiffs have standing to bring their
claim for damages; and (3) finding that the Plaintiffs do not
have standing to bring their claim for injunctive relief.

The Plaintiffs do not object to the first two recommendations,
but object to the R&R's recommendation about their standing to
seek injunctive relief.  They offer two theories about how the
retention of their genetic information injures them.  First,
retention enables the Hospital to "revert back to requesting"
genetic information in the event that they ever re-apply to work
at the Hospital; and second, the retention in itself is harmful.

Judge Mauskopf finds that this alleged injury is simply too
conjectural to demonstrate actual injury for the purposes of
Article III standing.  The theory is premised on two speculative
actions: that the Plaintiffs re-apply, and that, in response, the
Hospital would revert to requesting their genetic information.
She says the Plaintiffs have not re-applied for their jobs at
Jamaica Hospital, and none of their papers indicate that they
intend to so do.

As for their second theory of harm, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiffs maintain that the retention itself is injurious.
However, they have not identified how the retention injures them
for the purposes of Article III standing.  Their claim is
essentially that if mere collection of their genetic information
is an injury that confers standing to seek damages, then
retention of that information is similarly injurious to seek
injunctive relief to have it destroyed.  This argument, the Judge
says, loses sight of the core purpose of GINA and Congress's
intent in protecting employees from a risk of discrimination.

The Hospital committed a procedural violation of GINA by
collecting the Plaintiffs' genetic information through a
questionnaire; there is no allegation of discrimination.  Though
the Plaintiffs here have identified how the collection of their
genetic information injured them, they have not done so for the
retention of their information.

Accordingly, upon de novo review, the Judge overruled the
Plaintiffs' objections to Magistrate Judge Pollak's R&R, and she
concurred with the Magistrate Judge's standing analysis in full:
the Plaintiffs have standing to seek damages on the basis that
the Hospital collected their genetic information, but do not have
standing to seek injunctive relief.  For these reasons stated,
she adopted Magistrate Judge Pollak's well-reasoned R&R in its
entirety.  The case is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for
all pre-trial matters.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/0OoZAH from Leagle.com.

Shahed Hawkins, individually and on behalf of a proposed class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Jeanne-
Marie Bates Christensen -- jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com -- Wigdor
LLP & Hilary Joy Orzick -- Horzick@wigdorlaw.com -- Wigdor LLP.

Kenneth Zublionis, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a
proposed class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff,
represented by Hilary Joy Orzick, Wigdor LLP.

Jamaica Hospital Medical Center Diagnostic and Treatment Center
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gregory Bertram Reilly --
gregory.reilly@mcblaw.com -- Martin Clearwater & Bell, LLP.


JOHNNIE'S ON THE SIDE: Fails to Pay Wages, Casanova Says
--------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA CASANOVA a/k/a ERICA CASANOVA and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOHNNIE'S ON THE SIDE LLC d/b/a WEST
SIDE JOHNNIES, and JOHN CARON, the Defendant, Case No. 18-1404
(Mass. Dist. Ct., May 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and unpaid overtime wages, treble damages, interest, costs and
attorneys' fees, and all other relief to which she and all others
similarly situated are entitled, pursuant to the Massachusetts
wage laws.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated have not been paid all wages owed. The
Defendants have violated the Massachusetts wage laws by failing
to pay their employees based in Massachusetts for all hours
worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Summer, Esq.
          100 State Street, Suite 900
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 695 0050
          E-mail: david@summerlaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ct. Vacates Pending Motions in "Martinelli"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California vacated all pending motions in
the case, JOANN MARTINELLI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and
McNEIL NUTRITIONALS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-01733-MCE-
DB (E.D. Cal.).

Through the class action, the Plaintiff, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, seeks relief from the
Defendants arising from the labeling and sale of Benecol Regular
and Light Spreads.  The Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action:
(1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, (3) unjust enrichment, (4) violation of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, (5) violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, (6) violation of
California's False Advertising Law, (7) negligent
misrepresentation, and (8) fraud.

On May 23, 2017, the Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, and granted the
Defendants' Motion to Deny Nationwide Class Certification.  The
latter portion of the Order denied certification of the
Plaintiff's proposed nationwide class, leaving the Plaintiff's
proposed California subclass unaffected.

On Aug. 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Certify two
classes: the previously named California Class, and a Multistate
Express Warranty Class.  That motion was originally noticed for
Dec. 14, 2017, and continued by the parties to March 8, 2018.

After the filing of that motion, the Defendants filed an
Opposition and two separate motions to exclude the Plaintiff's
experts.  The Plaintiff separately opposed each motion to
exclude, filed three Motions to Strike various of the Defendants'
expert testimony (all of which Defendants opposed separately),
and separately filed two expert declarations in support of her
original Motion to Certify the Class.  The Defendants then
submitted a surreply in response to the Plaintiff's reply in
support of her Motion, and two motions to strike the reply
declarations of the Plaintiff's experts, all of which were
opposed by the Plaintiff.

On Feb. 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an ex parte Application for
an order striking the Defendants' new arguments and striking
their untimely oppositions to the Plaintiff's motions to strike.
The Defendants' have opposed that application.  All motions were
scheduled for a hearing date of March 8, 2018, and all are
currently pending before the Court.  All total, the parties have
filed nine noticed motions/applications, and 28 separate filings,
all related to a single class certification motion, and the
majority of them dealing with evidentiary and expert issues.

As set forth in the Court's March 7, 2016 Scheduling Order, with
regard to the class certification motion, the Court places a page
limit for points and authorities (exclusive of exhibits and other
supporting documentation) of 20 pages on all initial moving
papers, 20 pages on oppositions, and 10 pages for replies.  The
reason for these limits is twofold: (1) with rare exception,
anything that needs to be conveyed to the Court can be conveyed
in 20 pages; and (2) the Court's resources are limited.

Though the parties have technically complied with those page
limits in each of their filings, they have filed nine separately
noticed motions all relating to the same single issue of class
certification.  On top of those nine opposed motions, the parties
have filed surreplies, replies to surreplies, ex parte requests,
and notices of supplemental authority -- 28 total filings, by the
Court's count.

Certainly, some additional filings are warranted in some cases,
but based on the repetitive and cumulative nature of these 28
additional filings, such is not the case here.  The parties have
muddled the docket, unnecessarily complicated issues that could
be simplified, buried the Court in an attempt to paper each other
to death, and, in sum, violated the spirit of the Court's
Scheduling Order.

Consequently, and pursuant to the Court's inherent power to
manage its docket, Judge England vacated all pending motions.  He
ordered the Plaintiff to refile her Motion for Class
Certification no earlier than April 1, 2018, noticing that motion
for Aug. 9, 2018.  Each side is permitted to file only one
evidentiary motion encompassing all challenges to experts and/or
other evidence.  Such Motions will also be noticed for Aug. 9,
2018.  Any evidentiary motion from Defendants will be filed
simultaneously with the Defendants' Opposition to the Plaintiff's
certification motion.  Any evidentiary motion from the Plaintiff
will be filed simultaneously with her Reply in support of her
certification motion.

The Judge also ordered that not later than 10 days following the
date the Order is electronically filed, the parties are directed
to meet and confer and to file with the Court a stipulated
briefing schedule (and proposed order) that ensures that all of
the foregoing motions will be fully briefed prior to the Aug. 9,
2018, hearing date.  All motions will be submitted unless and
until such time the court determines whether oral argument will
be necessary.  He further ordered the parties to file a statement
with the Court advising when briefing is completed.  At the time
such statement is submitted, the parties are ordered to submit on
one joint jump drive or disc, unredacted copies of all filings
and supporting documents, organized by motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/QiCnzN from Leagle.com.

JoAnn Martinelli, Plaintiff, represented by Annick Marie
Persinger, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Frederick J. Klorczyk --
fklorczyk@bursor.com -- Bursor and Fisher, P. A., pro hac vice,
Joseph I. Marchese -- jmarchese@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher,
P.A., pro hac vice, Lawrence Timothy Fisher --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor and Fisher, PA, Neal J. Deckant --
ndeckant@bursor.com -- Bursor and Fisher, P. A., pro hac vice,
Yeremey Olegovich Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Bursor &
Fisher, P.A. & Joel Dashiell Smith -- jsmith@bursor.com -- Bursor
& Fisher, P.A.

Johnson & Johnson & McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Amanda Villalobos --
amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis, LLP & Ronie
Malka Schmelz -- ronie.schmelz@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis
LLP.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Bowling" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Suzanna Bowling, Plaintiff, v. Johnson & Johnson and
McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-3982 (AJN)
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to strike the
nationwide class allegations in the complaint.

Bowling brings the putative class action alleging that Benecol
Spread and Benecol Light Spread, manufactured by the Defendants,
were falsely and misleadingly labeled as containing no trans fat
and no trans fatty acid.

During the time period at issue in the case, the Defendants
manufactured Benecol Regular and Light Spreads.  The nutrition
label on the Benecol Spreads listed the amount of trans fat
contained in the Spreads as zero grams.  The Benecol Spread
containers also displayed a label stating that the Spread
contained no trans fats or trans fatty acids.  However, the
Benecol Spreads contained partially hydrogenated soybean oil,
which contains trans fats.

On May 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed suit in the case, alleging
that the Defendants falsely and misleadingly labeled the Benecol
Spreads by representing that they contained "no trans fat" and
"no trans fatty acids" and by representing that the products were
generally recognized as safe for human consumption.  She asserts
claims of breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty
of merchantability, unjust enrichment, violation of New York's
General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, negligent
misrepresentation, and fraud.  The Plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of all persons in the United States who purchased Benecol
Spreads, as well as a subclass of all persons who purchased
Benecol Spreads in New York.

On July 21, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint or, in the alternative, to strike the
nationwide class allegations.  They argue the Plaintiff's claims
are preempted because the National Labeling and Education Act
expressly preempts state laws that impose labeling requirements
different from those imposed by federal law, and the Plaintiff's
claims allege a state law requirement different from the federal
one.  In addition, they contend that even if the complaint is not
dismissed, the Plaintiff's nationwide class allegations should be
stricken from the complaint, arguing that variations in state law
related to the Plaintiff's fraud- and deception-based claims
necessarily render it impossible for the Court to certify a
nationwide class for any of the Plaintiff's claims under Rule
23(b)(3).

Judge Nathan explains that the FDA regulations do not authorize
"no trans fat" nutrient content claims.  The Plaintiff's argument
that "no trans fat" representations are false and/or misleading
in this case is thus not preempted expressly or impliedly by
federal law.  Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint as preempted is denied.

Given the allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint and the
limited briefing on the issue of being unsafe for human
consumption, and given that the Defendants do not argue that the
Plaintiff needs the "unsafe for human consumption" theory to
succeed on any count in the complaint, the Judge declines to
decide the issue at this stage.  The Defendants may renew the
argument, if appropriate, at summary judgment.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Defendants' motion to strike is
grounded in the argument that the Plaintiff will be unable to
satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement.  She says they
may very well be right.  But that argument is one that can be
made at the class certification stage.  At this early stage of
the proceeding, the motion to strike the nationwide class
allegations is premature.  Accordingly, she denied the motion.

For these reasons, Judge Nathan denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss or, in the alternative, to strike the nationwide class
allegations.  This resolves Docket Number 11.  An initial
pretrial conference is scheduled in the matter for May 4, 2018,
at 3.pm.  The materials discussed at Docket Number 7 are due
seven days before that conference.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/HQCdcX from Leagle.com.

Suzanna Bowling, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Neal Jamison
Deckant -- ndeckant@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Johnson & Johnson & McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Ronie Malka Schmelz --
ronie.schmelz@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP & Katherine
Anne Garceau -- katherine.garceau@tuckellis.com -- Tucker Ellis
LLP.


JONES FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Retirement Plan Lawsuit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss the Retirement Plan Litigation
has been denied, according to the Form 10-Q of The Jones
Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. (JFC) filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2018.

On August 19, 2016, JFC, Edward Jones and certain other
defendants were named in a putative class action lawsuit
(McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri brought
under ERISA, by a participant in the Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit
Sharing and 401(k) Plan (the "Retirement Plan").

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Retirement Plan participants and seeks declaratory and
equitable relief and monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement
Plan.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the McDonald
lawsuit which was granted in part dismissing the claim against
JFC, and denied in part as to all other defendants on January 26,
2017.

On November 11, 2016, a substantially similar lawsuit (Schultz,
et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) was filed in the
same court.  The plaintiffs consolidated the two lawsuits by
adding the Schultz plaintiffs to the McDonald case, and the
Schultz action was dismissed.  The plaintiffs filed their first
amended consolidated complaint on April 28, 2017.  The defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on May 26, 2017, which was
denied on March 27, 2018.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. ("JFC") is a registered
limited liability limited partnership organized under the
Missouri Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act.


JONES FINANCIAL: Court Approves "White" Class Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. (JFC) disclosed on its
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 10, 2018, for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2018,
that the court has approved the parties' settlement of the class
suit captioned White v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.

On September 22, 2017, Edward Jones was named as a defendant in a
purported collective and class action lawsuit (White v. Edward D.
Jones & Co., L.P.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio by a former branch office
administrator.  The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act as well as Ohio law and alleges that Edward Jones
underpaid overtime compensation to branch office administrators.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in the amount of the
unpaid wages as well as liquidated damages in an equal amount.
On April 24, 2018, the court approved the parties' settlement and
issued its final order of dismissal, without prejudice.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. ("JFC") is a registered
limited liability limited partnership organized under the
Missouri Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act.


JONES FINANCIAL: "Bland" Wage-and-Hour Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. (JFC) is facing a
purported collective and class action lawsuit initiated by Bland,
et al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2018.

On March 13, 2018, JFC and Edward Jones were named as defendants
in a purported collective and class action lawsuit (Bland, et al.
v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et al.) filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois by four former
financial advisors.  The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act as well as Missouri and Illinois law and alleges
that the defendants unlawfully attempted to recoup training costs
from departing financial advisors and failed to pay all overtime
owed to financial advisor trainees among other claims.  The
lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and
liquidated damages.  JFC and Edward Jones intend to vigorously
defend against the allegations in this lawsuit.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. ("JFC") is a registered
limited liability limited partnership organized under the
Missouri Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act.


JONES FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Faces Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The principal operating subsidiary of The Jones Financial
Companies, L.L.L.P. (JFC) is facing securities class action filed
by Anderson, et al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2018.

On March 30, 2018, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. and its affiliated
entities and individuals were named as defendants in a putative
class action (Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et
al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.  The lawsuit was brought under the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Missouri
and California law and alleges that the defendants
inappropriately transitioned clients from commission-based
accounts to fee-based programs.  The plaintiffs have requested
declaratory, equitable, and exemplary relief, and compensatory
damages.  Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and
individuals deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend
this lawsuit.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. ("JFC") is a registered
limited liability limited partnership organized under the
Missouri Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act.


LITHIA MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in 3rd Amended "Mendoza" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH FRANK MENDOZA, MARTIN and CAROL JOCKS, DAWN
CAVEYE and GINA and DANA DALTON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LITHIA MOTORS,
INC., LITHIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, SALEM-V, LLC d/b/a VOLKSWAGEN
OF SALEM, LITHIA KLAMATH, INC. d/b/a LITHIA KLAMATH FALLS AUTO
CENTER, and LITHIA MEDFORD HON, INC., Defendants, Case No. 6:16-
cv-01264-AA (D. Or.), Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division, granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action suit against the
Defendants, asserting various claims, including common law fraud,
violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), Oregon's
Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA"), and Oregon's financial
elder abuse statute.  The named Plaintiffs are residents of
Oregon or California, who purchased vehicles and other goods or
services from one or more of the Defendants, all of which are
headquartered in Oregon.

On June 6, 2016, Mr. Mendoza purchased a vehicle from Lithia at
its Volkswagen of Salem dealership.  The dealership arranged for
vehicle financing with an interest rate of 3.94%, a higher rate
than provided by the lender.  In doing so, Lithia retained what
the Plaintiffs term a kickback in connection with the arrangement
of financing.  Lithia also sold Mr. Mendoza products and services
obtained through third parties.  Specifically, Mr. Mendoza paid
Lithia $2,495 for a vehicle service contract and $695 for gap
insurance; both amounts exceeded Lithia's actual purchase price.
Lithia purchased the service contract for $995 and the gap
insurance for $278 and retained the difference as profit.  Lithia
did not disclose its specific fees associated with the
arrangement of financing or the profit margins related to the
sale of third-party products and services.

In February 2013, Plaintiffs Carol and Martin Jocks purchased a
vehicle from a Lithia dealership in Klamath Falls, Oregon.  Then,
in August 2013, the Jocks purchased another vehicle from the same
dealership.  Carol Jocks was over the age of 65 at the time of
the purchases.  In August 2013, Lithia arranged for vehicle
financing at an interest rate of 3.99%, a higher rate than
provided by the lender.  In doing so, Lithia retained a fee in
connection with the arrangement of financing.  It also sold the
Jocks products and services obtained through third parties.
Lithia purchased the lifetime oil service for $449.50, credit
life insurance for $1,718.63, and gap insurance for $285; Lithia
then sold these products to the Jocks and retained the difference
as profit.  It did not disclose its specific fees associated with
the arrangement of financing or the profit margins related to the
sale of third party products and services.

Plaintiffs Caveye and Dalton also purchased vehicles from Lithia,
in November 2014 and May 2016 respectively.  The circumstances
surrounding these purchases are largely similar to those
mentioned.  In both instances, Lithia arranged for financing and
sold third-party products/services to them.  In both instances,
Lithia retained and did not disclose fees associated with the
arrangement of financing or profits related to the sale of third-
party products and services.

On June 24, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the class action suit.  On
Sept. 22, 2016, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims.  In ruling on the Defendants' motion, Judge Aiken
dismissed various claims by the Plaintiff, but also granted the
Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.

Since the original filing, the Judge has granted the Plaintiffs
leave to amend on three separate occasions.  On June 19, 2017,
she granted their Motion for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint.  The Defendants now move to dismiss certain claims
contained therein.

As to TILA disclosure requirements, Judge Aiken finds it
undisputed that the retail installment contracts at issue contain
language indicating the creditor may retain a portion of the fees
associated with third-party transactions.  Because she finds that
the language of Lithia's contracts satisfies TILA's disclosure
requirements with respect to the sale of third party products,
the Plaintiffs' allegations are insufficient to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.  Further, she finds that
amendment to the pleadings would to cure these defects.

In construing the requirements of Section 1605(a), she finds that
the yield spread premiums and fees allegedly retained by Lithia
are indeed encompassed in the finance charge and are not required
to be independently disclosed under TILA.  Accordingly, she says
the Plaintiffs' allegations mentioned are not sufficient to state
a claim under TILA, and she finds that amendment would not cure
these defects.  Also, the alleged violation of O.R.S.
646.608(1)(u) is dependent on a violation of TILA.  Because the
Plaintiffs fail to state claims under TILA, they also fail to
state a claim under OAR 137-020-0040(2).

As to common law fraud claim, Judge Aiken finds that the facts,
viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, are not
sufficient to support a claim for fraud.  First, Lithia did not
represent that the lifetime oil service provider was a third
party.  Simply because the title indicates that the listed
charges include amounts paid to others, it certainly does not
foreclose that the list may include amounts retained by Lithia,
which owns DMS.  Indeed, even if a consumer were to misread the
title and assume the listed charges were paid entirely to third
parties, the title includes additional language stating that
Lithia "may be retaining a portion of this amount.  Thus, the
language in the retail installment contracts is not false.  For
all of these reasons, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs'
allegations fall short of those that may support a claim for
fraud.

Next, as to UTPA claims arising under O.R.S. Section 646.808 and
OAR 137-020-0020(3)(u), the Judge finds that the profit retained
by Lithia is immaterial, as that is not a required disclosure.
Thus, the Plaintiffs do not state a claim under O.R.S. Section
646.608(1)(a),(b), or (c).  Turning to the remaining alleged
violations of UTPA, Lithia correctly points out that the alleged
misrepresentations do not include price reductions.  Accordingly,
ORS 646.6081(1)(j) is inapplicable to the Plaintiffs' claims.

While Lithia's contractual disclosures alone are not sufficient
to avoid liability under O.R.S. Section 646.608(1)(s), the Judge
finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed reading of the statute is
untenable under the circumstances.  As Lithia points out, the
Plaintiffs' expansive reading of the statute would lead to the
absurd result of requiring any seller of real estate, goods, and
services to disclose its profit margins to consumers.  The UTPA
cannot be stretched so far as to reach such a conclusion.
Accordingly, they do not state a claim under O.R.S. Section
646.6081(1)(s).

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs state a claim under
O.R.S. Section 646.608(1)(u) and OAR 137-020-0020(3)(u), and she
needs not address the merits of their additional arguments at
this stage of the proceeding.  However, their allegation that
Lithia kept a yield spread premium of more than three points is a
new line of argument, absent from the Third Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiffs will be granted leave to amend their complaint on
the allegation.

As she has explained, Judge Aiken granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third
Amended Complaint.  She granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Request for Leave to Amend.  Specifically, she
dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims under TILA, as
well as claims under the UTPA based on violations of TILA.  She
also dismissed with prejudice their claims under O.R.S. Sections
646.608(1)(a), (b), (c), G), and (s).  However, she did not
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim under O.R.S. Section 646.608(1)(u)
and OAR 137-020-0020(3)(u), and granted them 30 days from the
Order to amend their complaint on this allegation.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/knWBgB from Leagle.com.

Joseph Frank Mendoza, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Martin Jocks, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Carol Jocks, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Gina Dalton, Dana Dalton
& Dawn Caveye, Plaintiffs, represented by Bonner Charles Walsh --
bonner@walshpllc.com -- Walsh PLLC, Hsien C. Chang, McGehee Chang
Barnes Landgraf, pro hac vice, Jack E. McGehee, Esq. --
txlaw@lawtx.com -- MCGEHEE CHANG BARNES LANDGRAF -- Young W.
Walgenkim, Esq. -- young@hansonwalgenkim.com -- HANSON &
WALGENKIM, LLC

Lithia Motors, Inc., Lithia Financial Corporation, Salem-V, LLC,
doing business as Volkswagen of Salem, Lithia Klamath, Inc.,
doing business as Volkswagen of Salem & Lithia Medford Hon, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Jeremy D. Sacks, Esq. --
Jeremy.sacks@stoel.com -- Keith E. McIntire, Esq. --
keith.mcintire@stoel.com -- and -- Kennon H. Scott, Esq. --
kennon.scott.stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES LLP


LIVINGSTON COUNTY, MI: "Carr" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DON CARR, MACK CARR, AUTUMN MILLEROV,
THOMAS JOHNSON, TRACEY CAMELET, and all other persons similarly
situated, known or unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. LIVINGSTON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, AND LIVINGSTON COUNTY, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-11313-RHC-SDD (E.D. Mich.), Plaintiffs ask the
Court, pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a proposed collective FLSA class;

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      Plaintiffs' FLSA claim is sent (via US Mail and e-mail) to:

      "all Emergency Medical Technicians who worked for
      Defendants at any time between April 27, 2015 and present
      and who worked at any time in excess of forty (40) hours
      per workweek"; and

   3. requiring Defendants to identify all potential opt-in
      Plaintiffs by providing names, last known addresses, dates
      of employment, job titles, phone numbers, and email
      addresses in an electronic and importable format within 10
      days of the entry of the order.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UmQ6Khri

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David A. Kotzian, Esq.
          David F. Greco, Esq.
          Angela Mannarino, Esq.
          GASIOREK, MORGAN, GRECO,
          McCAULEY & KOTZIAN, P.C.
          30500 Northwestern Highway, Suite 425
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          Telephone: (248) 865 0001
          Facsimile: (248) 865 0002
          E-mail: dkotzian@gmgmklaw.com
                  dgreco@gmgmklaw.com
                  amannarino@gmgmklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bonnie G. Toskey (P30601)
          Sarah K. Osburn (P55539)
          COHN, STOKER & TOSKEY, P.C.
          601 N. Capitol Avenue
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 372 9000
          Facsimile: (517) 372 1026
          E-mail: btoskey@cstmlaw.com
                  sosburn@cstmlaw.com


L'OREAL USA: Moved "Wallace" Suit to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DIVENA WALLACE and XAVIER REYES,
individually, and on behalf of themselves and a class of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. L'OREAL, USA S/D,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; RANDSTAD NORTH AMERICA, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; AND DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants,
(Case No. 34-2018-00230222), the Defendants removed the case from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Sacramento to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California, asserting original jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:18-cv-01222-JAM-CKD to the proceeding.

On April 3, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
in the Superior Court of the State of California against the
Defendants. The Complaint purports to allege nine claims for
relief, including: (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2) failure
to pay overtime; (3) failure to provide meal and rest periods;
(4) failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; (5)
failure to pay all wages due at termination; (6) failure to
maintain records; (7) failure to indemnify business expenses; (8)
failure to provide paid sick leave; and (9) unfair business
practices.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Christian J. Rowley, Esq.
          Michael A. Wahlander, Esq.
          Pamela L. Vartabedian, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397 2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397 8549
          E-mail: crowley@seyfarth.com
                  mwahlander@seyfarth.com
                  pvartabedian@seyfarth.com


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Bid to Dismiss "Freedman" Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
magicJack VocalTec Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that no decision has yet been reached on
the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the putative class
action lawsuit titled Freedman v. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. et al.,
Case 9-17-cv-80940.

On August 11, 2017, the case was filed against the Company and
its Board of Directors in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.  The complaint alleged claims
against the Company and the current members of its Board of
Directors as well as two former members for violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
arising from proxy statements issued in connection with the April
19, 2017 shareholders meeting and the July 31, 2017 shareholders
meeting that allegedly misrepresented material facts concerning
the "true value" of Broadsmart Global, Inc. and its future
prospects in order that the individual defendants (the Board
members) could entrench themselves on the Board and extract
unwarranted compensation from the Company in connection with
their attempt to sell the Company.

In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.  On
February 16, 2018, the Company and all of the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  The
plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss on April
2, 2018, and defendants' reply was filed on April 19, 2018.  No
decision has yet been reached on the motion.

magicJack VocalTec said, "The Company cannot estimate the
likelihood of liability or the amount of potential damages, if
any, that could arise from this matter."

magicJack VocalTec Ltd. and its subsidiaries (the "Company") is a
cloud communications leader that is the inventor of the magicJack
devices and other magicJack products and services.


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: 3 Merger-Related Securities Suits Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
magicJack VocalTec Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that three purported class action
complaints related to the Company's merger agreement with B.
Riley Financial, Inc., among others, have been dismissed pursuant
to stipulations of dismissal filed with the Court.

On March 8, 2018, Hunter Raines, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a complaint titled Raines v. magicJack VocalTec
Ltd. et al., Case 9:18-cv-80927, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.  It alleged that the definitive
proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed by the Company with the SEC
on February 8, 2018 relating to the extraordinary general meeting
of shareholders to consider and vote upon, inter alia, approval
of the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") by
and among the Company, B. Riley Financial, Inc. and B. R.
Acquisition Ltd. (the "Definitive Proxy Statement") contained
materially false and misleading statements in violation of
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
("Exchange Act").  The complaint named as defendants the Company
and the individual members of the Board of Directors.  It also
asserted claims against the directors pursuant to Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act on the theory that they were "control
persons" of the Company.  The complaint, which had been filed as
a purported class action on behalf of Company shareholders,
sought, among other things, damages and an injunction barring the
shareholder vote that was scheduled for March 19, 2018.

On March 9, 2018, two additional similar complaints were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Plaintiff Melvyn Klein, a purported shareholder of the Company,
filed a complaint titled Klein v. magicJack VocalTec, Ltd et al.,
Case 9:18-cv-80307, and plaintiff Morris Akerman, also a
purported shareholder of the Company, filed a complaint titled
Akerman v. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. et al., Case 9:18-cv-80310.
Both complaints asserted that the Definitive Proxy Statement
contained materially false and misleading statements in violation
of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, both named as defendants
the Company and the individual members of the Board of Directors,
and both also asserted "control person" claims against the
directors pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Both
purported to assert class action claims, and sought, among other
things, damages and an injunction barring the shareholder vote.

On March 13, 2018, the Company issued a supplement to the
Definitive Proxy Statement in order to moot plaintiffs' claims.
The Company denies the allegations in all three cases and denies
that there are any material misrepresentations or omissions in
the Definitive Proxy Statement.  All three complaints have been
dismissed pursuant to stipulations of dismissal filed with the
Court.

magicJack VocalTec Ltd. and its subsidiaries (the "Company") is a
cloud communications leader that is the inventor of the magicJack
devices and other magicJack products and services.


MATIAN LAW: Ramirez & Anguiano Sue for Legal Malpractice
--------------------------------------------------------
BYRON RAMIREZ, an individual; CLAUDIA ANGUIANO, an individual;
DARIO ANGUIANO, an individual and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. MATIAN LAW FIRM, A Professional Corporation, SHAWN
MATIAN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC705962 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 14, 2018),
alleges that the Defendant is involved in fraud, legal
malpractice and preying on Latinos.  According to the lawsuit,
the firm is a "criminal enterprise" disguised as a law firm and
is dedicated to committing fraud, preying on the Latino
community, using non-lawyers to decide everything about thousands
of cases, using non-lawyers on a sales team that are paid
commission for overtly lying to clients and do anything at all to
sign up clients, such as the Class Representatives, and commits
wholesale deception and fraud, to pocket millions of dollars.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff & Class:

          Okorie Okorocha, Esq.
          THE OKOROCHA FIRM
          117 E. Colorado Blvd. Suite 465
          Pasadena, CA 91105
          Telephone: (310) 497 0321
          E-mail: 00@00ESQ.COM


MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Appeal in Fresno Bee Lawsuit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs in the case against The McClatchy
Company and The Fresno Bee remains pending, according to
McClatchy Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2018.

The Company said, "In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee
filed a class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno Bee in the
Superior Court of the State of California in Fresno County
captioned Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case")
alleging that the carriers were misclassified as independent
contractors and seeking mileage reimbursement.  In February 2009,
a substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company,
involving similar allegations was filed by carriers of The
Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior Court of the
State of California in Sacramento County.  The class consists of
roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers
in the Fresno case.  The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking
unspecified restitution for mileage reimbursement.  With respect
to the Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage and hour
claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an
equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California
Civil Code.  In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour
claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an
equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California
Civil Code.

"The court in the Sacramento case trifurcated the trial into
three separate phases: independent contractor status, liability
and restitution.  On September 22, 2014, the court in the
Sacramento case issued a tentative decision following the first
phase, finding that the carriers that contracted directly with
The Sacramento Bee during the period from February 2005 to July
2009 were misclassified as independent contractors.  We objected
to the tentative decision but the court ultimately adopted it as
final.  In June 2016, The McClatchy Company was dismissed from
the lawsuit, leaving The Sacramento Bee as the sole defendant.
On August 30, 2017, the court issued a statement of decision
ruling that the court would not hold a phase two trial but would,
instead, assume liability from the evidence previously submitted
and from the independent contractor agreements.  We objected to
this decision but the court adopted it as final.  The third phase
has not yet been defined.

"The court in the Fresno case bifurcated the trial into two
separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor
status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the second
phase was designated to address restitution, if any.  The first
phase of the Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of 2014 and
concluded in late March 2015.  On April 14, 2016, the court in
the Fresno case issued a statement of final decision in favor of
us and The Fresno Bee.  Accordingly, there will be no second
phase.  The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on November 10,
2016.

"We continue to defend these actions vigorously and expect that
we will ultimately prevail.  As a result, we have not established
a reserve in connection with the cases.  While we believe that a
material impact on our condensed consolidated financial position,
results of operations or cash flows from these claims is
unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a
possibility exists that future adverse rulings or unfavorable
developments could result in future charges that could have a
material impact.  We have and will continue to periodically
reexamine our estimates of probable liabilities and any
associated expenses and make appropriate adjustments to such
estimates based on experience and developments in litigation."

McClatchy is a news and information publisher of publications
such as the Miami Herald, The Kansas City Star, The Sacramento
Bee, The Charlotte Observer, The (Raleigh) News & Observer, and
the (Fort Worth) Star-Telegram.


MCGOWAN ENTERPRISES: $1.1MM Attys' Fee Awarded in Fairway Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FAIRWAY MEDICAL CENTER, L.L.C., v. McGOWAN
ENTERPRISES, INC., DIVISION (3), Civil Action No. 16-3782 (E.D.
La.), Magistrate Judge Daniel A. Knowles, III of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the
Plaintiffs' counsel's Unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses and for Service Award.

The Plaintiff accused defendant of inundating its fax machine
with junk faxes.

After consenting to proceed before the undersigned, on Nov. 27,
2017, the parties filed an ex parte motion for preliminary
approval of a settlement, which the Court granted the following
day.  The pleading informed the Court that the parties had
settled for a lump sum in the amount of $3,250,00.

On Dec. 13, 2017, the parties filed an ex parte motion to
establish a qualified settlement fund, which the Court also
granted the following day.  Both parties then filed briefs in
support of the final approval of class settlement.

On March 20, 2018, the Court held a fairness hearing at which
both counsel articulated the terms of the settlement.  After
proper notice, no class member had opted out of the class, and
none had objected to the settlement.  The Court therefore granted
the motion for final approval of the class action settlement the
same day.

The counsel for the Plaintiffs now move for their attorneys' fees
and costs, which, as noted, is unopposed by the Defendant.

The Magistrate Judge finds that the class counsel's contract of
representation signed by the Plaintiff provides for a one-third
attorney fee award on all benefits.  Thus he finds that the
appropriate benchmark in the case is one-third.  Having
considered the Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. factors
carefully and the Plaintiff's briefing, he finds that no factor
weighs in favor of a negative adjustment to the one-third
percentage fee.  The Plaintiff and its counsel argue only that
the Johnson factors support an upward adjustment if the Court
sets a lower fee.  Because the Court has not, the Judge needs not
consider this argument.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that Fairway acted as the lone
class representative.  It also submitted itself to numerous
meetings with class counsel during the pendency of the lawsuit.
Most importantly, the Defendant offered Fairway $75,000 to settle
the case at the outset of the matter.  Fairway, however, declined
this amount so that it could proceed with the class action and
benefit the class.  As such, Fairway played a significant role in
achieving a substantial settlement that benefitted a large class
of people and entities.  The Magistrate Judge finds that the
requested service award of $75,000 is reasonable and thus
approves it.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Knowles granted the
Unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and
for Service Award.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/3RB08L from Leagle.com.

Fairway Medical Center, L.L.C., Plaintiff, represented by George
Brian Recile, Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Murray, Recile, Stakelum
& Hayes, LLP, Matthew Arthur Sherman, Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis,
Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLP, Patrick R. Follette,
Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLP,
Preston Lee Hayes, Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Murray, Recile,
Stakelum & Hayes, LLP & Ryan Paul Monsour, Chehardy, Sherman,
Ellis, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLP.

McGowan Enterprises, Inc, doing business as Acute Care
Pharmaceuticals, Defendant, represented by Stephen J. Herman --
sherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC & Leonard A.
Davis -- ldavis@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC.


MDL 2048: Court Denies Bid to File 1st Amended Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: COX ENTERPRISES, INC. SET-TOP CABLE
TELEVISION BOX ANTITRUST LITIGATION. ANDREW ALWERT, Plaintiff, v.
COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant. STANLEY FELDMAN, Plaintiff,
v. COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 12-ML-2048-C
(W.D. Okla.), Judge Robin J. Cauthron of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaints, and the Defendant
conceded its Motion, in the Alternative, to Compel Arbitration
and Stay Proceedings as moot.

The Plaintiffs originally sought to pursue their anti-trust
action against the Defendant as a national class action.  The
Court rejected that plan and that decision was affirmed on
appeal.  The Plaintiffs then elected to proceed with regional
class actions.  They elected to proceed with certain "bellwether"
cases.

These cases started with Plaintiff Richard Healy pursuing his
action against the Defendant in Oklahoma.  Following the
conclusion of a jury trial in that case, the Court granted the
Defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 motion and entered judgment in
favor of Cox.  That decision was affirmed on appeal.  Plaintiffs
Alwert and Feldman then sought leave to proceed with their state-
based class actions.  The Court determined that each Plaintiff
had agreed to arbitrate any claims against the Defendant.  That
decision was affirmed on appeal.

The Plaintiffs have now filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaints seeking to name substitute plaintiffs to pursue class
actions for the states of Arizona and Louisiana.  The Defendant
has objected to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend and
argued that the proposed substitute plaintiffs are also subject
to arbitration provisions and therefore the Court should deny the
Motion for Leave to Amend as futile.

The Plaintiffs seek leave to replace Mr. Feldman with Mr. Spencer
and Mr. Gallop as proposed representatives for the Arizona class,
and replace Mr. Alwert with Mr. Turner as proposed representative
for the Louisiana class.  In response to the Plaintiffs' Motion,
the Defendant asserts that each of the proposed substitute
plaintiffs has agreed to arbitrate his claims.

The Plaintiffs do not contest that the arbitration provisions are
applicable to Mr. Spencer or Mr. Gallop; rather, their only
argument is that a recent decision from the Louisiana Supreme
Court requires the Court to find that the arbitration provision
applicable to Mr. Turner is an unenforceable contract of
adhesion.

The Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration provision was not
contained in either the annual notices or other messages
contained within Plaintiff Turner's bill.  According to them,
those documents simply informed customers of Cox of the general
provisions or existence of the arbitration clause and directed
them to the Cox website for the complete provisions of the
arbitration clause.  The Plaintiffs assert this process concealed
the full details of the arbitration clause.  Additionally, they
argue that the general notification about arbitration was buried
in a great deal of small print, which covered dozens of separate
topics.  However examination of the actual documents submitted to
the Plaintiffs by Cox demonstrate the error in these arguments.

After considering the physical characteristics of the arbitration
clause and the distinguishing features of the arbitration clause
from its surrounding text, as well as Mr. Turner's lack of
objection to those terms, Judge Cauthron finds that Plaintiff
Turner consented to the terms of the arbitration agreement.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs do not offer any persuasive
argument on the issue of the mutuality of the arbitration clause
or the relative bargaining strength of the parties.  Accordingly,
she finds that the Plaintiffs' attempts to render the arbitration
clause unenforceable based upon the Louisiana Supreme Court's
decision in Duhon v. Activelaf, LLC is without merit and she
finds that the arbitration clause was consented to by Mr. Turner
and it is enforceable as to his claims against the Defendant.

Alternatively, the Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration clause
cannot be enforced because the class action that was brought by
Mr. Alwert was pending at the time that he agreed to arbitrate
his clause and thus the agreement to arbitrate would violate Rule
23 and the Court's stay.  The Judge finds this argument without
merit.  As has been determined on prior occasions, Mr. Turner was
not yet a member of the class at the time that the arbitration
clause went into effect.  As the Court has repeatedly held, until
the class is finally certified, persons such as Mr. Turner are
merely potential members and therefore none of the restrictions
as to class members would have applied to him.

Further, as the Defendant sets forth in its reply brief, recent
U.S. Supreme Court decisions have made clear that claims such as
Mr. Turner's cannot be removed from the reach of the Federal
Arbitration Act by Rule 23.  Enabling Act forbids interpreting
Rule 23 to abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.  In
short, nothing about Mr. Turner's presence as a putative class
member prevented Cox from altering the terms of their agreement
between it and those parties and therefore Cox was within its
authority to create and impose the arbitration agreement.

For these, Judge Cauthron denied as futile the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Leave to File Amended Complaints as each of the proposed
substitute plaintiffs is subject to arbitration.  Because the
Judge has rejected the Plaintiffs' Leave to Amend, the Defendant
concedes that its Motion, in the Alternative, to Compel
Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/2vQl0u from Leagle.com.

Richard Healy, Plaintiff, represented by A. Daniel Woska --
AWoska@WoskaLawFirm.com -- Woska Law Firm PLLC, Allan Kanner,
Kanner & Whiteley LLC, pro hac vice, Cynthia G. St Amant --
C.StAmant@kanner-law.com -- Kanner & Whiteley LLC, pro hac vice,
Garrett W. Wotkyns -- gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky, pro hac vice, Jason H. Kim --
jkim@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton &
Konecky LLP, pro hac vice, Joe R. Whatley, Jr. --
jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley Kallas LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael J. Blaschke, Michael J. Blaschke PC, Rachel L. Mor,
Rachel Lawrence Mor Attorney at Law, S. Randall Sullivan, Randall
Sullivan PC, Todd M. Schneider -- tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
--Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky, pro hac vice, Henry
C. Quillen -- hquillen@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley Kallas LLP,
pro hac vice, Joshua G. Konecky -- jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
-- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky, Kyle G. Bates --
kbates@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP & William T. Brown -- tbrown@whatleykallas.com --
Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC.

Beverly Uhl, Plaintiff, represented by A. Daniel Woska, Woska Law
Firm PLLC, Allan Kanner, Kanner & Whiteley LLC, pro hac vice,
Cynthia G. St Amant, Kanner & Whiteley LLC, pro hac vice, Garrett
W. Wotkyns, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky, pro hac vice,
Jason H. Kim, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton & Konecky LLP,
pro hac vice, Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Whatley Kallas LLP, pro hac
vice, Joseph C. Peiffer, Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis &
Swanson LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Blaschke, Michael J.
Blaschke PC, Rachel L. Mor, Rachel Lawrence Mor Attorney at Law,
S. Randall Sullivan, Randall Sullivan PC, Todd M. Schneider,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky, pro hac vice, Wilfred
K. Wright, Jr., Wright Law PC & Joshua G. Konecky, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky.

Todd Keitlen, Plaintiff, represented by A. Daniel Woska, Woska
Law Firm PLLC, Allan Kanner, Kanner & Whiteley LLC, pro hac vice,
Cynthia G. St Amant, Kanner & Whiteley LLC, pro hac vice, Garrett
W. Wotkyns, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky, pro hac vice,
Jason H. Kim, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton & Konecky LLP,
pro hac vice, Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Whatley Kallas LLP, pro hac
vice, Joseph C. Peiffer, Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis &
Swanson LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Blaschke, Michael J.
Blaschke PC, Rachel L. Mor, Rachel Lawrence Mor Attorney at Law,
S. Randall Sullivan, Randall Sullivan PC, Todd M. Schneider,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky, pro hac vice, Wilfred
K. Wright, Jr., Wright Law PC & Joshua G. Konecky, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky.

George Lepre, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by A. Daniel Woska, Woska Law
Firm PLLC, Allan Kanner, Kanner & Whiteley LLC, pro hac vice,
Cynthia G. St Amant, Kanner & Whiteley LLC, pro hac vice, Garrett
W. Wotkyns, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky, pro hac vice,
Jason H. Kim, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton & Konecky LLP,
pro hac vice, Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Whatley Kallas LLP, pro hac
vice, Joseph C. Peiffer, Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis &
Swanson LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Blaschke, Michael J.
Blaschke PC, Rachel L. Mor, Rachel Lawrence Mor Attorney at Law,
S. Randall Sullivan, Randall Sullivan PC, Todd M. Schneider,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky, pro hac vice, Wilfred
K. Wright, Jr., Wright Law PC & Joshua G. Konecky, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky.

Andrew Alwert, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Kanner, Kanner &
Whiteley LLC, pro hac vice, Benjamin D. Reichard -- Benjamin D.
Reichard -- Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis & Swanson LLP,
pro hac vice, Cynthia G. St Amant, Kanner & Whiteley LLC, pro hac
vice, Gregory Pius DiLeo, Law Office of Gregory P DiLeo, pro hac
vice, Jeffrey P. Berniard, Berniard & Wilson LLC, pro hac vice,
Joseph C. Peiffer, Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis &
Swanson LLP, pro hac vice, Jason H. Kim, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Brayton & Konecky LLP, Joshua G. Konecky, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky & Michael J. Blaschke, Michael
J. Blaschke PC.

Stanley Feldman, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Kanner, Kanner &
Whiteley LLC, pro hac vice, Cynthia G. St Amant, Kanner &
Whiteley LLC, pro hac vice, Garrett W. Wotkyns, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky, pro hac vice, Jason H. Kim, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Brayton & Konecky LLP, pro hac vice, Joe R. Whatley,
Jr., Whatley Kallas LLP, pro hac vice, John Dean Curtis, II,
Burch & Cracchiolo PA, Michael C. McKay, Schneider Wallce
Cottrell Brayton & Konecky, Todd M. Schneider, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Brayton Konecky, pro hac vice, Joshua G. Konecky,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky & Michael J. Blaschke,
Michael J. Blaschke PC.

Sean P Feeney, Louis W Grande & April Bagwell, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jason H. Kim, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton &
Konecky LLP.

Cox Communications Inc, Defendant, represented by Bruce D. Sokler
-- BDSokler@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo,
pro hac vice, D. Kent Meyers -- kent.meyers@crowedunlevy.com --
Crowe & Dunlevy, Ewell E. Eagan, Jr. -- eeagan@gamb.law.com --
Gordon Arata McCollam Duplantis & Eagan, Helen G. Guyton, Mintz
Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, pro hac vice, Martin E.
Landrieu -- mlandrieu@gamb.law.com -- Gordon Arata McCollam
Duplantis & Eagan, Matthew D. Golish, Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan,
Nathan R. Hamler, Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC,
Phillip J. Antis, Jr. -- pantis@gamb.law.com -- Gordon Arata
McCollam Duplantis & Eagan, Robert G. Kidwell --
RGKidwell@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo,
pro hac vice, Vincent T. Norwillo -- vtn@norwillolaw.com --
Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan, Adam S. Sieff -- adam.sieff@lw.com --
Latham & Watkins, Alfred C. Pfeiffer, Latham & Watkins, Allyson
M. Maltas -- allyson.maltas@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins, Jason L.
Daniels -- jason.daniels@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins, Jennifer L.
Giordano -- jennifer.giordano@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins,
Margaret M. Zwisler -- margaret.zwisler@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins, pro hac vice, Mary H. Tolbert --
molly.tolbert@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe & Dunlevy & Matthew A.
Cohen -- mcohen@crowell.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky &
Popeo.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Smith Sues over $20 Late Return Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE MEN'S WEARHOUSE, INC., and
TAILORED BRANDS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02840
(N.D. Cal., May 14, 2018), seeks to enjoin enforcement and threat
of collection of late fees from the rental of garments.

The Plaintiff and the members of the proposed plaintiff class are
individuals who are or were Defendants' customers who used
Defendants' services in the State of California, and who paid
Late Fees in connection with services rendered in the State of
California. The Late Fees have generated substantial revenues and
profits for Defendants.

Men's Wearhouse provides a large range of clothing, shoes, and
accessories for rent at its retail locations. Customers are able
to rent, inter alia, suits, tuxedos, vests, shirts, shoes, pants,
ties, and other clothes and accessories.  Whenever a customer
wishes to rent any item from Men's Wearhouse, the customer is
required to enter into a rental agreement with Men's Wearhouse.
The Rental Agreement imposes late return fees in the amount of
$20 whenever a customer returns any garment after the scheduled
due date. Men's Wearhouse's provision of rental services in
California is and at all times relevant hereto has been subject
to Defendants' Rental Agreement. The Rental Agreement remains in
effect as of the date of this Complaint. The Rental Agreement
provides that Men's Wearhouse will impose a late return fee of
$20 per day. The Rental Agreement states that the "Late fee will
be accrued daily and charged in a lump sum, upon the receipt of
the late garments."[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300 4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407 2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com

               - and -

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 766 3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402 0058
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Portions of "Moussouris" Class Cert. Bid Unsealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Moussouris v. Microsoft, the Court has unsealed
portions of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, expert
reports, and other supporting documents. The brief and expert
reports can be downloaded here. Among the documents the Court
unsealed, is a set of logs of internal gender complaints from
2010 to 2016 escalated to Microsoft's Employee Relations
Investigation Team. The logs document the type of gender
complaint and its resolution.

Plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of their motion for
class certification on February 9, 2018.  Plaintiffs filed three
expert reports in support of their reply brief.

Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2017, that the case Moussouris v. Microsoft, remains
pending.

Current and former female Microsoft employees in certain
engineering and information technology roles brought this class
action in federal court in Seattle in 2015, alleging systemic
gender discrimination in pay and promotions. The plaintiffs moved
to certify the class in October 2017.

Microsoft filed an opposition in January 2018, attaching an
expert report showing no statistically significant disparity in
pay and promotions between similarly situated men and women. The
plaintiffs' reply was due in February 2018.

Additional information on the case is available at:

                 https://microsoftgendercase.com/

Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software
products, services, and devices worldwide. The company is based
in Redmond, Washington.


MILLENNIUM HEALTH: Bid to Certify "Mauthe" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
MILLENNIUM HEALTH LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-01903-EGS
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Edward G. Smith entered an order
denying a motion for class certification without prejudice.

After the complaint has been served upon the defendant and an
attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of the defendant,
the court will hold a telephone conference to establish a
schedule with respect to class action discovery and
certification, the Court says.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Fj3umQ3t


MULTICARE HEALTH: "Johnson" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Raleigh Johnson and Jennifer
Howse, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MultiCare Health System, the
Defendant, a Washington non-profit corporation, Case No. 18-
00002-06456-8, was removed from the Pierce County Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
(Tacoma) on May 15, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:18-cv-05384 to the proceeding.

MultiCare Health System provides hospital, clinic, primary care,
specialty, emergency and urgent care health care services across
Washington state.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Greg Alan Wolk, Esq.
          Hardeep S Rekhi, Esq.
          REKHI & WOLK, P.S.
          529 Warren Avenue N., Suite 201
          Seattle, WA 98109
          Telephone: (206) 388 5887
          Facsimile: (206) 577 3924
          E-mail: greg@rekhiwolk.com
                  hardeep@rekhiwolk.com

               - and -

          Kevin Paul Smith, Esq.
          DEFIANCE LAW PLLC
          1115 Tacoma Avenue South
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 507 4769
          E-mail: k.smith@defiance.law

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Ryan R Jones, Esq.
          Timothy J O'Connell, Esq.
          Christopher T Wall, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES (WA)
          600 University St., Suite 3600
          Seattle, WA 98101-3197
          Telephone: (206) 624 0900
          E-mail: ryan.jones@stoel.com
                  tim.oconnell@stoel.com
                  christopher.wall@stoel.com


NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Nov. 24 Claims Filing in Strip Search Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re NASSAU COUNTY STRIP SEARCH CASES, Case No. 99-
CV-2844 (DRH) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Denis R. Hurley of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the
Plaintiffs' application to extend the time to file claims to Nov.
24, 2018.

Judge Hurley addresses (1) the Plaintiffs' application to extend
the deadline for certain class members to file claims from Feb.
15, 2018 to Nov. 24, 2018 and for assistance in requiring the
County to pay the Administrator's long-standing invoices
forthwith; and (2) the Defendants' request to permit payment of
the claims administrator's invoices out of the funds deposited
with the Court and for the return of $2 million of the funds on
deposit to the County.

The deadline to file claims should be extended for the class
members who were mailed notice in the two most recent 2017
mailings, the Plaintiffs argue, to permit more of those class
members who, through no fault of their own, only recently
received notice of the lawsuit and of their right to recover for
the violation of their state constitutional rights.

The Defendants oppose the application asserting (1) it will
prejudice them as the unclaimed monies from the settlement fund
would revert to the County and the parties had agreed to the date
for submission of claims; (2) the delay is sending notices to the
class members and obtaining updated addressed is attributable to
the administrator and the class counsel; and (3) the Plaintiffs
only offer speculations as to why class members may have delayed
in submitting their claims.

In reply, the Plaintiffs assert no prejudice will occur as an
extension of time will not increase the amount of the Defendants'
liability set out in the judgment entered in this case; a blanket
extension will decrease the amount of litigation as excusable
neglect issues will not have to be individually determined; and
the actions of the administrator and the counsel were reasonable
and not dilatory.

Judge Hurley explains that as framed by the parties, whether the
time to file claims should be extended should be analyzed using
the four elements for determining excusable neglect under Rule
6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as set forth in
Pioneer Investment Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P'ship.
Those elements are: (1) danger of prejudice to the adversary, (2)
length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial
proceedings, (3) reason for the delay and whether it was within
the reasonable control of the party seeking relief, and (4)
whether the party seeking relief acted in good faith.

He finds that the application of the Pioneer factors favors the
granting of the requested extension of time.  Accordingly, he
will grant the Plaintiffs' application to extend the time for the
filing of claims to Nov. 24, 2018 for the class members who were
mailed notices in August and November 2017.

While he understands the Plaintiffs' frustration with what they
perceive to be red tape, the Judge is also cognizant of the
County's need to ensure only proper invoices are paid.  On
balance and in an effort to ensure that the claims administrator
receives the payment due it, the County's application to have the
currently pending, unpaid invoices of the claims administrator
paid out of the funds on deposit with the Court is granted.

Finally, given that there are only slightly more than 50 disputed
claim, withdrawing $2 million and returning it to the County will
not endanger recovery of any of the disputed claim.  And, it
would appear that returning said funds would still leave adequate
funds on deposit to pay any more timely filed claims, even with
the granting of an additional nine months to file claims and the
payment of the currently outstanding invoices of the class
administrator out of these funds.  Lastly, the Plaintiffs do not
object to granting the requested relief.  Thus the application
will be granted.

For these reasons, Judge Hurley granted the Plaintiffs'
application to extend the time to file claims to Nov. 24, 2018,
as are the County's applications to have the currently pending
invoices of the claims administrator paid out of the funds on
deposit with the Court and for the return to the County of $2
million of the funds on deposit.  The County will file, under
cover of letter, proposed orders for each of the two foregoing
distributions within 10 days of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://is.gd/341TCx from Leagle.com.

Francis O'Day, Plaintiff, represented by Robert L. Herbst, Herbst
Law PLLC, Mariann Meier Wang -- mwang@chwllp.com -- Cuti Hecker
Wang LLP & Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &
Abady PC.

John Iaffaldano, Plaintiff, represented by Martin E. Restituyo --
restituyo@restituyolaw.com -- Law Offices of Martin E. Restituyo,
P.C., Robert L. Herbst, Herbst Law PLLC & Jeffrey G. Smith, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz.

Gardy Augustin, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Robert L.
Herbst, Herbst Law PLLC & Jonathan C. Moore, Beldock Levine &
Hoffman LLP.

Marilyn Bloch, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Robert L.
Herbst, Herbst Law PLLC.

Nassau County Sheriff's Department, Division of Correction,
Joseph Jablonsky, Nassau County Sheriff & Nassau County,
Defendants, represented by Liora M. Ben-Sorek, Nassau County
Attorney's Office, Robert F. Van Der Waag, Nassau County Attorney
Office, Christine Ann Lobasso, Office of the Nassau County
Attorney, Dennis J. Saffran, Nassau County Attorney's Office,
Gerald C. Waters, Jr., Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
& Joseph Nocella, Nassau County Attorney's Office.

Jane/John Does 1-200, Defendant, represented by Dennis J.
Saffran, Nassau County Attorney's Office, Gerald C. Waters, Jr.,
Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP & Joseph Nocella,
Nassau County Attorney's Office.

New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, New
York State Office of Children and Family Services & New York
State Department of Health, Intervenor Defendants, represented by
Matthew William Grieco, Office of the NYS Attorney General
Division Of Appeals & Opinions.

Newsday LLC, Interested Party, represented by David A. Schulz --
schulzd@ballardspahr.com -- Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz LLP.

United States Department of Agriculture & United States
Department of Health and Human Services, Intervenors, represented
by Mary M. Dickman, United States Attorneys Office.

Stuart Moskowitz, Plaintiff, represented by Robert L. Herbst,
Herbst Law PLLC & Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady PC.


NISSAN NORTH: 6-Mo. Extension in "Tamara" Discovery Deadlines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington granted the parties' stipulation
to extend the deadlines in the case, TAMARA LOHR and RAVIKIRAN
SINDOGI, on behalf of themselves and all others discovery
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
and NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., Defendants, Case No. C16-1023 RSM
(W.D. Wash.).

On July 16, 2017, the Court adopted the case schedule the parties
proposed in their Joint Status Report.  The Court's Scheduling
Order set deadlines for class certification briefing and expert
disclosure and depositions, beginning with a May 25, 2018,
deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification
and serve expert disclosures and reports.

The proposed class action involves allegations that panoramic
sunroofs installed in seven models of Nissan vehicles suffer from
a uniform defect.  The parties sought to streamline and reduce
the cost of discovery and engaged in extensive negotiations
concerning the scope of discovery, search terms and search-term
proximity for production of electronically stored information
("ESI"), and the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order and
Order Regarding Discovery of ESI. The parties met and conferred
on numerous occasions over the course of several months and were
able to narrow their disputes to a single issue: whether the
Defendant could redact certain unprivileged information prior to
production.

On Jan. 19, 2018, the parties filed their Proposed Stipulated
Protective Order, and Stipulation and Proposed Order regarding
the Discovery of ESI, carving out the issue of redaction for
court resolution.  On Jan. 23, 2018, the parties jointly
requested an expedited resolution of the remaining dispute
concerning pre-production redaction.  The Court ruled on the
issue during a telephonic hearing conducted on Feb. 1, 2018.

With the deadlines for class certification quickly approaching,
significant discovery remains to be completed despite the
parties' cooperation and diligence.  The parties will continue to
work diligently and cooperatively to complete document discovery,
schedule depositions, and resolve any disputes that may arise
promptly and without court intervention.  A six-month extension
of the deadlines in the matter would facilitate the coordination
of discovery by more closely aligning the case schedule with
Johnson.

For these reasons, the parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge
Martinez approved, that whereas, significant discovery is still
required for the parties to address class certification, and
given the parties' desire to coordinate discovery with Johnson,
the deadlines in the matter are extended as set forth:

    a. Deadline to file Motion for Class Certification and serve
Plaintiffs expert disclosures and reports - May 25, 2018 to Dec.
3, 2018

    b. Deadline for Plaintiff to produce experts for deposition -
July 6, 2018 to Jan. 11, 2019

    c. Deadline to file opposition to Motion for Class
Certification and serve NNAs expert disclosures and reports -
Aug.t 6, 2018 Feb. 13, 2019

    d. Deadline for NNA to produce experts for deposition - Aug.
27, 2018 March 6, 2019

    e.  Deadline to file reply regarding Motion for Class
Certification - Sept. 10, 2018 to March 18, 2019

A full-text copy of the Court's March 28, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/9gKDos from Leagle.com.

Tamara Lohr, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated & Ravikiran Sindogi, Plaintiffs, represented by Beth E.
Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW
GROUP PLLC, Charles J. Crueger, CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC, pro hac
vice, Edward A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- WEXLER
WALLACE LLP, pro hac vice, Erin Dickinson --
ekd@cruegerdickinson.com -- CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC, pro hac vice,
Gregory F. Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW
PC, pro hac vice, Lisa A. White -- isa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG
COLEMAN LAW PC, pro hac vice, Mark E. Silvey, GREG COLEMAN LAW
PC, pro hac vice, Amanda M. Steiner --
ASteiner@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC &
Benjamin Drachler -- bdrachler@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

Nissan North America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Amir Nassihi
-- anassihi@shb.com -- SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP, pro hac vice,
Andrew L. Chang -- achang@shb.com -- SHOOK, HARDY, & BACON LLP,
pro hac vice, Holly Pauling Smith -- hpsmith@shb.com -- SHOOK
HARDY & BACON, pro hac vice, William R. Sampson --
wsampson@shb.com -- SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP, pro hac vice &
Heather A. Hedeen -- hhedeen@shb.com -- SHOOK HARDY & BACON.


OHIO REGIONAL SEWER: "Rice" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSH RICE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01100-DCN (N.D. Ohio,
May 14, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required Plaintiff and
similarly situated workers to complete pre-shift work that
related to their jobs without pay.

Pursuant to the District's uniform policies and practices, police
officers are considered to be working as soon they punch in, even
if they punch in before the start of their scheduled shift
scheduled. Police officers do not, however, get paid any amount
until the start of their scheduled shift.

Police officers not in uniform and completely ready for work at
the time they punch in, even if before the start of their
scheduled shift are subject to discipline. Police officers are
required to be in uniform and ready to work from punch in until
punch-out. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class regularly work
hours in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff for all hours work.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Nilges Draher LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470 4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754 1430
          E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hans@ohlaborlaw.com


OSAKA STEAKHOUSE: "Zhang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Jian Zhang and En Rong Zhang on behalf of themselves and all
other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Osaka
Steakhouse & Sushi, Inc. d/b/a SHU Chinese Restaurant, Chun Chen,
"Jane" (first name unknown) Chen, "John" (first name unknown)
Chen No. 1 and "John" (first name unknown) Chen No. 2, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00577-DNH-DJS (N.D.N.Y., May 15,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and
NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay
their employees, including Plaintiffs, overtime compensation for
all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Osaka Sushi Steak House is Sushi & Sashimi and Hibachi Japanese
restaurant in Bushnell.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip H. Kim, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          E-mail pkim@hanglaw.com


PECO FOODS: Class in "Nicks" Suit Has Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JIMMY R. NICKS and WILLIAM MCNEAL, individually and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PECO
FOODS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 7:16-CV-01057-LSC (N.D.
Ala.), Judge L. Scott Coogler of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Western Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Conditional Certification and to
Facilitate Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C Section 216(b).

The Plaintiffs filed the action against the Defendants under the
Fair Labor Standards Act on June 29, 2016.  Peco is a vertically
integrated chicken processing and packing company with facilities
in various locations across Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and
Missouri, and is headquartered in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.  Since
approximately 2011, Peco has used independent contractors for
catching chickens for five out of its six complexes.

The two named Plaintiffs were employed via independent contractor
Armco at Peco's Gordo Complex and/or Sebastopol Complex.  Of the
44 opt-in forms provided as of the date of the Plaintiffs' motion
for certification, including those of Nicks and McNeal, nearly
all have been from workers employed by Armco at either the Gordo
or Sebastopol Complex.

Peco operates six Live Operations complexes located in Alabama,
Mississippi, and Arkansas, all of which oversee the supply of
broiler chickens to Peco's processing facilities.  The putative
class members' work involves the capture of chickens to supply to
the Peco facilities.  The Plaintiffs are hired by independent
contractors and placed on live-haul crews of approximately 10 to
12 workers, generally including eight to nine catchers, one or
two forklift operators, and crew leader.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class members travel to the farms
to capture chickens and place them in cages for transport to
Peco's poultry processing plants at each of the Peco Complexes.
On a typical shift, they estimate between 36,000 and 42,000
chickens are caught by one live-haul crew. Crews are transported
from their homes to motels or trailer parks, where they stay the
nights during the workweek and also are transported between
motels and trailer parks and the farms where they perform Peco's
chicken catching, at times travelling an hour or more.

Plaintiffs aver that Peco oversees the live-haul crews' work in
addition to dictating their schedules as well as their daily
activities and working conditions.  The individuals in the live-
haul crews perform substantially the same work tasks at each Peco
facility.  While the number of hours worked or chickens harvested
may vary slightly from day to day, the duties performed by each
live-haul crew are alleged to be almost indistinguishable no
matter their third-party contractor or farm location.  As such,
the Plaintiffs aver that all crew members were subject to the
same work environment, reporting structure, and Peco policies and
practices.

The Plaintiffs allege Peco paid each contractor on a piece rate
basis, and the independent contractors in turn failed to pay for
overtime hours or time spent waiting for work to become available
when calculating remittance they were due.

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for
Conditional Certification and to Facilitate Notice Pursuant to 29
U.S.C Section 216(b).  They argue that the Court should allow
them to issue notice to all individuals who worked as members of
live-haul, chicken-catching crews that caught Peco chickens at
any time between three years prior to the date that the Court
issues an Order granting Conditional Certification and the
present, and who were paid via a third-party contractor that
entered into an Independent Contractor Service Agreement with
Peco that did not provide for the payment of wait time or
overtime compensation by Peco.

Judge Coogler finds that the Plaintiffs have established a
reasonable basis for the allegation that a class of similarly
situated persons exists. Therefore, he granted their Motion and
conditionally certified an opt-in class consisting of all current
and former hourly employees of Peco whom Peco employed at any
time between three years prior to the date of the Opinion.

The Judge directed the parties to confer and jointly file with
the Court a proposed collective action notice and plan for
facilitating notice and the parties are to proceed through
discovery accordingly.  An Order consistent with the Memorandum
of Opinion will be entered contemporaneously with it.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Memorandum of
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/o8IM9J from Leagle.com.

Jimmy R Nicks & William McNeal, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexandra
Piazza -- apiazza@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE PC, pro hac vice,
Camille Fundora -- cfundora@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE PC, pro
hac vice, David A. Hughes -- dhughes@hardinhughes.com -- HARDIN &
HUGHES LLP, Nicole Self-Drake Hughes -- nhughes@hardinhughes.com
-- HARDIN & HUGHES LLP, Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen -- sschalman-
bergen@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE PC, pro hac vice & Shanon J.
Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE PC.

Peco Foods Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Fontan -
- cfontan@brunini.com -- BRUNINI GRANTHAM & HEWES, Lauren O.
Lawhorn -- llawhorn@brunini.com -- BRUNINI GRANTHAM GROWER &
HEWES PLLC, Scott F. Singley -- ssingley@brunini.com -- BRUNINI
GRANTHAM GROWER & HEWES PLLC & Stephen J. Carmody --
scarmody@brunini.com -- BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES PLLC,
pro hac vice.

Armco Services Inc, Defendant, represented by Joseph L. Adams --
ojoadams@joneswalker.com -- JONES WALKER LLP, pro hac vice,
Lindsay T. Dowdle -- dowdle@joneswalker.com -- JONES WALKER LLP,
pro hac vice & Mac B. Greaves -- mgreaves@joneswalker.com --
JONES WALKER LLP.


PETMED EXPRESS: Animal Medical Center Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
PetMed Express, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2017, that the case entitled, Animal Medical Center
of Orland Park, Inc. v. PetMed Express, Inc., d/b/a 1-800-
PetMeds, and John Does 1-10, has been voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiffs, with prejudice.

In June 2017, the Company was served with a lawsuit by a
veterinary clinic, styled Animal Medical Center of Orland Park,
Inc. v. PetMed Express, Inc., d/b/a 1-800-PetMeds, and John Does
1-10, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division,
2017-CH-07347. The plaintiff alleged that the Company was sending
unsolicited advertisements via facsimile in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and also seeks class action
status.

On November 13, 2017, this matter was voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiffs, with prejudice.

PetMed Express, Inc. and its subsidiaries, doing business as 1-
800-PetMeds, operates as a pet pharmacy in the United States. The
company markets prescription and non-prescription pet
medications, health products, and supplies for dogs and cats to
retail customers. The company is based in Delray Beach, Florida.


PETMED EXPRESS: Class Suit in Florida Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
PetMed Express, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2017, that the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
consolidated lawsuit they filed in United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida without prejudice.

On August 25, 2017 and September 7, 2017, shareholders filed
putative securities class action lawsuits in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which were
subsequently consolidated, against PetMed Express, Inc. (the
"Company") and the Company's principal executive officers, one of
whom is also a director. Relying exclusively on a false and
defamatory, anonymous "report" posted on August 23, 2017 on the
Aurelius Value website the plaintiffs alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company has always denied and continues to deny the
plaintiffs' unfounded accusations. The plaintiffs investigated
their claims, and on or about January 19, 2018, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the consolidated lawsuit without prejudice.

PetMed Express, Inc. and its subsidiaries, doing business as 1-
800-PetMeds, operates as a pet pharmacy in the United States. The
company markets prescription and non-prescription pet
medications, health products, and supplies for dogs and cats to
retail customers. The company is based in Delray Beach, Florida.


PINNACLE FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Korte" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
case, AARON KORTE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PINNACLE FOODS GROUP, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 17-CV-199-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.).

Korte filed the putative class action against Pinnacle in
Illinois state court.  Pinnacle subsequently removed the case to
the Court.  The case involves a line of salad dressings sold by
Pinnacle under the label "Wish-Bone(R) E.V.O.O. Dressing-Made
With Extra Virgin Olive Oil".

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant promotes, markets and
sells its E.V.O.O. line of dressings in such a manner to deceive
the consumer into purchasing what he or she believes is a true
100% E.V.O.O. product.  In particular, he alleges that Pinnacle's
naming and marketing of the dressings in question was deceptive
because although they are made with extra virgin olive oil
(sometimes abbreviated E.V.O.O. or EVOO), they are comprised
mainly of water and cheap soybean oil, and not premium E.V.O.O.

The Plaintiff also alleges that Pinnacle made several statements
in a press release accompanying the introduction of the dressing
that were misleading as to the EVOO content (and therefore
product quality).  He further alleges that Pinnacle charged 25%
more, on average, for the products than similar salad dressings
on the basis that it was made with extra virgin olive oil.

The Plaintiff, a Missouri citizen, purchased the product in the
Fall of 2016 from a Schnuck's Market in St. Clair County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff alleges that the products violate the Illinois
Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Business Practices Act ("IFCA")(Count
I), the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA")(Count II),
and that the money realized by the Defendant as a result of the
alleged deceptive practices constitutes unjust enrichment (Count
III).  The Plaintiff seeks class certification for consumers who
bought the product from Dec. 19, 2013 onward.

The Defendant moves to dismiss each Count of the Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure
to state a claim, as well as under F.R.C.P. 9(b) for failure to
plead fraud with adequate particularity.  Pinnacle first argues
that the Plaintiff's ICFA claim is preempted by federal law,
pointing to a provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act ("FDCA"),added by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of
1990 ("NLEA").  Pinnacle argues that the Plaintiff's ICFA claims
are subject to a statutory exception.  Specifically, Section 10b
provides that the statute does not apply to actions or
transactions specifically authorized by laws administered by any
regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of
this State or the United States.

Pinnacle argues that because the Plaintiff purchased the product
in Illinois, there are no ties between the allegedly fraudulent
transactions and Missouri.  Next it argues that the Complaint
does not meet the heightened pleading standard for allegations of
fraud under F.R.C.P. 9(b).  Finally, it argues that the
Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim fails because it cannot stand
in the absence of the ICFA (or presumably MMPA) claim.

Judge Yandle finds that the Defendant cites to the Seventh
Circuit's Opinion in Turek v. Gen. Mills, Inc. in support of its
preemption argument.  But Turek is readily distinguishable, as it
involved a claim where the plaintiff sought to add disclaimers to
labels of snack bars containing processed (as opposed to natural)
dietary fiber.  Fiber is one of the nutrients specifically
subject to Section 343(q), and therefore does fall under specific
FDCA labeling requirements for nutrient claims.  In the absence
of a nutrient claim, the regulations cited by Defendant do not
apply.  As such, there can be no preemption of differing state
law requirements.  The Plaintiff's ICFA claims are therefore not
preempted.

Next, the Judge finds that the actual damage element of an ICFA
claim requires that the plaintiff suffer "actual pecuniary loss."
Here, the Plaintiff has pled that the dressings were sold at a
premium price, 25% more on average, over similar salad dressings
on store shelves because the represented ingredient is a premium
oil, and that the use of water and other oil made it worth less
than the "premium paid" by consumers.  These allegations are
sufficient to assert that Plaintiff paid more than the product
was worth due to the alleged deceptive practice, and therefore
was deprived the benefit of the bargain.  As such, the
Plaintiff's damage allegations as to his ICFA claim survive
12(b)(6) dismissal.

As to MMPA claim, the Judge finds that there are acts of commerce
alleged in the Complaint that link the purported
misrepresentations to trade and commerce in Missouri.  Therefore,
the Complaint adequately alleges an MMPA claim on this ground.

Although the pleading standard is higher for fraud claims, Judge
Yandle holds it does not require as much detail as Pinnacle
suggests.  The Plaintiff has pled who (Pinnacle) did what (made
deceptive statements regarding the extra virgin olive oil content
of the E.V.O.O. line of products) and specified what the
allegedly deceptive statements were.  He has also adequately
specified the method by which those alleged misrepresentations
(product name and statements on the bottle) were communicated.
He has identified the store and area where he purchased the
product and a reasonably definite timeframe.

Requiring the specific flavor, the specific date and the specific
store address, as well as a detailed description of the
Plaintiff's specific mental processes is a bridge too far at the
pleading stage, even under the Rule 9(b)'s heightened standard.
Finally, because those claims survive dismissal, Pinnacle's
argument on the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim fails as
well.

For these reasons, Judge Yandle denied Pinnacle's Motion to
Dismiss in its entirety.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/atWatr from Leagle.com.

Arron Korte, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian T. Kreisler --
briankreisler@wwkinsurance.com -- Kreisler Law Firm, LLC, George
Volney Granade, II, Reese LLP, Michael R. Reese, Reese Richman
LLP & Sean K. Cronin, Donovan Rose Nester PC.

Pinnacle Foods Group LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas B.
Maddock, Jr. -- dmaddock@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy et al., pro hac
vice & James P. Muehlberger -- jmuehlberger@shb.com -- Shook,
Hardy et al., pro hac vice.


POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY: De Jesus et al. Sue over Pension
-----------------------------------------------------
STEVE DE JESUS, SABRINA DUDLEY JOHNSON, and MARIA KOUZOUKAS,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated Chicago
Police Officers and retirees who received or are receiving
disability pensions, the Plaintiffs, v. POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND
BENEFIT FUND OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, the Defendant, Case No.
2018-CH-06195 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May 14, 2018), seeks declaratory
judgment declaring that the Defendant has violated its statutory
obligations and deprived Plaintiffs and the putative class of
their entitlements under the Illinois Pension Code and the
Illinois Constitution.

The case is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs
individually, and on behalf other similarly situated Chicago
Police Officers who, since 1998, have received, or arc receiving,
monthly disability pension annuities from the Defendant. This
complaint is brought for purposes of obtaining relief under the
Constitution of the State of Illinois, the Illinois Pension Code,
declaratory relief, equitable relief, damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate.

According to the complaint, the amounts of Plaintiffs' respective
monthly disability annuities were at all times systematically
calculated in error by the Defendant and as a result, the
Plaintiffs did not receive the benefits that they were legally
entitled to. Among the benefits which disabled members of the
Chicago Policemen's retirement system are entitled to receive
from the Fund are monthly disability annuities. At the time of
filing of this complaint, there are approximately 275 Chicago
Police Officers assigned to various ranks who, like Plaintiffs,
are unable to work as police officers and are currently receiving
monthly disability annuity payments from the Fund.

The Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago provides
financial security services. The Fund offers a defined benefits
annuity and retirement plan to its members. The Policemen's
Annuity & Benefit Fund serves active, retired, and dependent
policemen employed by the city of Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul D. Geiger, Esq.
          Ronald C. Dahms, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. GEIGER
          540 W. Frontage Road Suite 3020
          Northfield, IL 60093 (773) 410 0841


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Can Compel Doc Production in "Bereket" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABBY BEREKET, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendant(s), Case No. C17-
0812RSM (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
granted PRA's Motion to Compel (1) the production of documents
requested in the subpoenas to Cobalt Credit Services, LLC  and
Jesse Rodriguez; (2) Mr. Rodriguez to appear for a deposition;
and (3) the Plaintiff to produce documents requested in its
Requests for Production.

The Plaintiff filed a proposed class action on May 24, 2017.  He
alleges that the Defendant's actions violated Section 1692 et
seq. of Title 15 of the United States Code, commonly referred to
as the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA") which
prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and
unfair practices.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges some time prior to Aug. 23,
2016, an obligation was allegedly incurred to Bank of America.
On Aug. 23, 2016, the Defendant caused to be delivered to the
Plaintiff a collection letter in an attempt to collect the
alleged debt.  The letter offered the Plaintiff a number of
payment options, one of which offered an 'Installment Option' for
the Plaintiff to pay off his entire alleged debt over the course
of a number of months.

As of Aug. 23, 2016, more than six years had elapsed since the
last payment or activity on the Bank of America debt subject to
the letter. Pursuant to RCW 4.16.040, the statute of limitations
is six (years for filing suit to collect on a debt.  The letter
states that the law limits how long one can be sued on a debt.
Because of the age of the Plaintiff's debt, the Defendant will
not sue him for it.

The Defendant fails to inform the Plaintiff that should he choose
one of the payment plans offered it may re-start the statute of
limitations, which may expose him to future litigation for this
debt.  The Defendant does not inform Plaintiff that should the
statute of limitations reset, the Defendant may have the right to
commence legal action, which otherwise would have been barred.

The Plaintiff alleges that these actions violate section 15
U.S.C. Section 1692e of the FDCPA.  On Aug. 17, 2017, the
Defendant moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a
claim.  The Court denied the motion, finding that the Plaintiff
had adequately pleaded a cause of action under the FDCPA.  The
litigation has proceeded in due course since that time.

The Defendant now alleges that through the course of discovery,
the posture of the case has changed.  It asserts that on Sept.
20, 2017, it issued requests for production to the Plaintiff, to
which the Plaintiff's counsel responded on Dec. 26, 2017.  The
Defendant then took the Plaintiff's deposition on Dec. 21, 2017.
It states that during the Plaintiff's deposition, it learned that
the Plaintiff's concern regarding his debt did not have anything
to do with the potential restart of the statute of limitations.
Instead, the Plaintiff's only issue was that he believed the debt
was too old to still be appearing on his credit file.

It was not until 2016, when the Plaintiff became interested in
building his credit to buy a house, that the letters from the
Defendant caught his eye.  Thus, in an effort to clean up his
credit, the Plaintiff sought advice from Mr. Rodriguez, a senior
credit advisor at Cobalt, who he understood to specialize in
credit repair.

Thereafter, Mr. Rodriguez and/or the Plaintiff began sending
credit reporting agencies numerous dispute letters, demanding
that the PRA account be dropped from the Plaintiff's credit
report and threatening the agencies with litigation.  However,
the Plaintiff has also testified that while he had discussed the
letters with Mr. Rodriguez over the phone, he had never seen the
letters before, and that Mr. Rodriguez must have sent them
without his knowledge.

Eventually, the account fell off the Plaintiff's credit report.
However, he then decided to pursue legal action against PRA for
allegedly continuing to report the account beyond its expiration
date.  Mr. Rodriguez referred the Plaintiff to Marcus & Zelman,
LLC.  Although the Plaintiff had initially been concerned about
the continued reporting of an old account, the basis of the
current matter concerns the potential restarting of the statute
of limitations when a partial payment is made.

After the Plaintiff's deposition, the Defendant issued two
subpoenas on Jan. 12, 2018: a subpoena for documents to Cobalt,
and another to Mr. Rodriguez for documents and a deposition.  It
also sent the Plaintiff's counsel a request to meet and confer
regarding alleged deficiencies in the Plaintiff's document
production, which it believed was revealed at the Plaintiff's
deposition.

The subpoena issued to Cobalt seeks the following documents:

     a. All documents reflecting or relating to any agreements
between Cobalt and Abby Bereket, including any agreement for
Cobalt to perform credit repair services for Abby Bereket.

     2. All documents reflecting or relating to communications
between Cobalt and Abby Bereket, whether reflected in emails,
letters, text messages, voicemail, notes, transcripts,
recordings, memoranda, or any other type of media.

     3. All documents related to the services Cobalt performed
for Abby Bereket, including its file related to those services.

     4. All documents reflecting or relating to communications
regarding Abby Bereket between Cobalt and any third party,
including Experian, TransUnion, Equifax, Marcus & Zelman, LLC or
Concord Law.

     5. All documents reflecting or relating to any relationship
or agreement, formal or informal, between Cobalt and either
Marcus & Zelman, LLC or Concord Law.

The Plaintiff's counsel subsequently informed the Defendant that
Marcus & Zelman would be representing Cobalt and Mr. Rodriguez,
and that they would not be producing Mr. Rodriguez for a
deposition on the date requested or producing documents
responsive to the subpoena.

The Defendant now seeks an Order: (1) compelling the production
of documents requested in the subpoenas to Cobalt and Mr.
Rodriguez; (2) compelling Mr. Rodriguez to appear for a
deposition; and (3) compelling the Plaintiff to produce documents
requested in its Requests for Production.  The Plaintiff opposes
the motion on the basis that the discovery sought is irrelevant
and not proportional to the needs of the case.

Judge Martinez holds that the Court has already determined that
these documents are relevant for the reasons set forth in the
Defendant's motion.  Likewise, the Judge does not find these
requests to be overbroad.  He says these requests seek targeted
documents, which were narrowed through the meet and confer
process.  The subpoena issued to Mr. Rodriguez seeks the same
documents, as well as a deposition.  Again, he notes that the
documents requests are both relevant and not overbroad.  For the
same reasons, any testimony of Mr. Rodriguez is also relevant.
Accordingly, he will not issue a protective order with respect to
these subpoenas.

In addition, the Judge notes that since the time the subpoenas
were issued, it appears that Mr. Rodriguez and Cobalt have
relocated to Hawaii.  It also appears that the Plaintiff's
counsel has refused to provide new contact information to the
Defendant's counsel to date.  Because the information and
testimony sought is both relevant and proportionate to the needs
of the case, the Plaintiff's counsel will provide service
addresses for both Cobalt and Mr. Rodriguez in Hawaii pursuant to
the Order as set forth.

On Jan. 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Certify Class.
That motion remains pending. However, the Judge agrees with the
Defendant that the information and testimony being compelled in
this motion are relevant to questions regarding class
representation and adequacy of class counsel.  Moreover, a
portion of that motion seeks to appoint now-withdrawn local
counsel to represent the class.  Because Concord Law no longer
represents the Plaintiff in the action, that argument is no
longer applicable.  Accordingly, Judge Martinez will strike the
pending motion to certify the class pending completion of the
discovery at issue in this motion.  The Plaintiff may then file a
new motion to certify class with a revised argument regarding the
class counsel.

For these reasons, Judge Martinez granted the Defendant's Motion
to Compel.  No later than 14 days from the date of the Order, the
Plaintiff will provide complete responses to the Defendant's RFP
Nos. 2 and 5, as narrowed through the meet and confer process,
and more fully described.  The Plaintiff will also provide
complete contact information for Mr. Rodriguez and Cobalt in
Hawaii.  To the extent that the Plaintiff has sought a protective
order for the subpoenas issued to Mr. Rodriguez and Cobalt, the
Judge denied that request.  The Judge struck the Plaintiff's
pending motion for class certification, but may be refiled after
the completion of discovery at issue in this motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Sf3yQl from Leagle.com.

Abby Bereket, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Marcus --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC, pro hac vice,
Yitzchak Zelman -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS & ZELMAN,
LLC, pro hac vice, Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC &
Blythe H. Chandler -- bchandler@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by
David L. Hartsell, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, pro hac vice, Duncan
Manville -- dmanville@sbwllp.com -- SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP,
Sarah A. Zielinski -- szielinski@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS
LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen C. Willey -- swilley@sbwllp.com --
SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP.


QUALCOMM INC: Appeal Filed in 3226701 Canada Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Qualcomm Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 24, 2017, that the plaintiffs in the case entitled,
3226701 Canada, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated et al, filed a
notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a securities class action
complaint against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California. On April 29, 2016, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint. On January 27, 2017, the court
dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety, granting leave
to amend.

On March 17, 2017, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
alleging that the Company and certain of its current and former
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business outlook and product
development between November 19, 2014 and July 22, 2015. The
second amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs. On May 8, 2017, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On October 20, 2017, the court entered an order granting in part
the Company's motion to dismiss, and on November 29, 2017, the
court entered an order granting the remaining portions of the
Company's motion to dismiss. On December 28, 2017, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

Qualcomm Incorporated develops and commercializes foundational
technologies and products used in mobile devices and other
wireless products, including network equipment, broadband gateway
equipment and consumer electronics devices. The company derives
revenues principally from sales of integrated circuit products
and licensing its intellectual property, including patents,
software and other rights. The company is based in San Diego,
California.


QUALCOMM INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Qualcomm Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 24, 2017, that the court has not yet ruled on the motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California

On January 23, 2017 and January 26, 2017, respectively, two
securities class action complaints were filed by purported
stockholders of the Company in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact in
connection with certain allegations that the Company is or was
engaged in anticompetitive conduct. The complaints sought
unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs. On May 4, 2017,
the court consolidated the two actions and appointed lead
plaintiffs.

On July 3, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting the same basic theories of liability and
requesting the same basic relief. On September 1, 2017, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. The court has not yet ruled on the motion. The Company
believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

Qualcomm Incorporated develops and commercializes foundational
technologies and products used in mobile devices and other
wireless products, including network equipment, broadband gateway
equipment and consumer electronics devices. The company derives
revenues principally from sales of integrated circuit products
and licensing its intellectual property, including patents,
software and other rights. The company is based in San Diego,
California.


QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Qualcomm Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 24, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in
a consumer class action suit in Northern District of California.

Since January 18, 2017, a number of consumer class action
complaints have been filed against the Company in the United
States District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of
California, each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
cellular phones and other cellular devices. Twenty-two such cases
remain outstanding.

In April 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the cases that had been filed in the Southern
District of California to the Northern District of California. On
May 15, 2017, the court entered an order appointing the
plaintiffs' co-lead counsel, and on May 25, 2017, set a trial
date of April 29, 2019.

On July 11, 2017, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging that the Company violated California and
federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by, among other
things, refusing to license standard-essential patents to its
competitors, conditioning the supply of certain of its baseband
chipsets on the purchaser first agreeing to license the Company's
entire patent portfolio, entering into exclusive deals with
companies including Apple Inc., and charging unreasonably high
royalties that do not comply with the Company's commitments to
standard setting organizations.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and disgorgement and/or
restitution, as well as an order that the Company be enjoined
from further unlawful conduct. On August 11, 2017, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On
November 10, 2017, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, except to the extent
that certain claims seek damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

Qualcomm Incorporated develops and commercializes foundational
technologies and products used in mobile devices and other
wireless products, including network equipment, broadband gateway
equipment and consumer electronics devices. The company derives
revenues principally from sales of integrated circuit products
and licensing its intellectual property, including patents,
software and other rights. The company is based in San Diego,
California.


QUALCOMM INC: Four Consumer Class Suits Filed in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------
Qualcomm Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 24, 2017, that the company faces four consumer class
action lawsuits in Canada.

Since November 9, 2017, four consumer class action complaints
have been filed against the Company in Canada (two in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, one in the Superior Court of Quebec
and one in the Supreme Court of British Columbia) alleging
various violations of Canadian competition and consumer
protection laws. The complaints seek unspecified damages. The
Company has not yet answered the complaints.

Qualcomm Incorporated develops and commercializes foundational
technologies and products used in mobile devices and other
wireless products, including network equipment, broadband gateway
equipment and consumer electronics devices. The company derives
revenues principally from sales of integrated circuit products
and licensing its intellectual property, including patents,
software and other rights. The company is based in San Diego,
California.


RESOURCE MS: Dismissal of "Crossman" Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAUREEN CROSSMAN, individually and as a class
representative on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. RESOURCE MS STONYBROOK NJ MFP LLC; YES ENERGY
MANAGEMENT, INC.; and ALLSTATE MANAGEMENT CORP., Defendants-
Respondents, Case No. A-3309-15T4 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), the
U.S. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed
the trial court's order (i) granting the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, and denying the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment.

Crossman leased an apartment in the 258-unit Stonybrook
Apartments complex.  The complex was owned by Resource, and
managed by Defendant Allstate.  Defendant Yes provided "utility
billing" to the complex.

Apartment units were not billed directly for water and sewerage
services because the units were not individually metered.
Instead, each tenant was billed using a Ratio Utility Billing
System ("RUBS"), whereby Yes allocated total charges to the
complex among the tenants based on a combination of square
footage of a tenant's apartment unit and the number of persons
residing in a tenant's unit.

Prior to occupancy, the Plaintiff executed a written lease that
included a utility addendum, which plaintiff also signed.  The
addendum explained that she was responsible for water and
sewerage charges computed by the use of RUBS; the lease further
explained she would be billed directly by Yes.  Unhappy with the
condition of the apartment, the Plaintiff moved out less than two
months later.  Resource provided a final account statement
reflecting a $61.57 water, trash at sewer reimbursement deducted
from the Plaintiff's security deposit.

Approximately one year later, the Plaintiff filed a putative
class action complaint claiming the Defendants' use of RUBS was
unlawful, and alleging causes of action for constructive eviction
and violation of the New Jersey Truth-in-Renting Act, N.J.S.A.
46:8-43 to-49, against Resource and Allstate, and violation of
the Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to-20, and civil
conspiracy against all the Defendants.

When Yes moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for failure
to state a cause of action, the other Defendants joined in the
motion, and the Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on
liability on all but the constructive eviction count of the
complaint. In a comprehensive written decision, Judge Richard J.
Geiger granted the Defendants' motion and denied the Plaintiff's
motion.  The appeal followed.

Before the Court, the Plaintiff limits her argument to the
dismissal of her CFA claim and denial of partial summary judgment
in her favor on that count of the complaint.  She argues she
established the liability of Resource and Yes under the CFA,
because utilizing RUBS is unlawful.  She contends the Board of
Public Utilities ("BPU") regulates the sale and resale of water,
and Resource and its agent Yes engaged in the sale and resale of
water utilizing the RUBS billing method without BPU approval. The
Plaintiff contends she suffered an ascertainable loss as a
result.

The Appellate Court disagrees and affirms substantially for the
reasons expressed by Judge Geiger.  He finds that Judge Geiger
properly rejected the Plaintiff's argument that Lewandowski v.
Brookwood Musconetcong River Property Owners' Association,
supported a finding that the Defendants operated a public
utility, as defined by N.J.S.A. 48:2-13(a).

In Lewandowski, the Court considered whether the BPU properly
determined a residential property owners' association's operation
of a water system was under the Board's jurisdiction.  It held
the statute requires the existence of two conditions in order to
bring a water supplier within the definition [of a public
utility], i.e., (1) that it owns, operates, manages or controls a
water system for public use, and (2) that it does this under
privileges granted by the State or any of its political
subdivisions.  In conducting that two-prong analysis, the Court
held that "public use" depended on the character and extent of
use and not upon agreements or understandings between the
supplier and those supplied.

The Appellate Court also finds that Judge Geiger properly
distinguished Lewandowski from this case.  He noted that in
Lewandowski, the association operated a water supply system which
included constructing wells, thereby diverting significant
quantities of water from the State's natural resources for use by
a larger number of property owners, and the water system operated
under privileges granted by the State Department of Health and
two municipalities given some 24,000 feet of water mains were
constructed in dedicated streets.

The Plaintiff also argues the use of RUBS results in an unlawful
diversion of utility services, violating both N.J.S.A. 2A:42-88
and N.J.A.C. 14:3-7.8.  The Appellate Court agrees with Judge
Geiger, who concluded the statute and regulation are aimed at
addressing utilities that are physically diverted by unauthorized
connection to pipes' serving other living units, such as when a
tenant is charged for electric services being used by another
tenant as a result of a single electric meter or shared
electrical circuits within the dwelling.  The Plaintiff's
argument lacks sufficient merit to warrant further discussion.

Finally, although the Legislature has chosen to regulate
"indirect apportionment of heating costs" in multi-family
dwellings through the Department of Community Affairs and
indirectly the BPU, the Court finds that none of the agency
statements or unreported cases the Pplaintiff cites in her brief
supports the conclusion that the BPU or any other agency has
prohibited the use of RUBS or similar systems to apportion water
and sewerage costs among tenants.

For these reasons, the Court affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/A9v9yZ from Leagle.com.

Lewis G. Adler -- lewisadler@verizon.net -- argued the cause for
appellant (Lewis G. Adler and Paul DePetris --
paul@newjerseylemon.com -- attorneys; Lewis G. Adler and Paul
DePetris, on the briefs).

Alan C. Milstein -- amilstein@shermansilverstein.com -- argued
the cause for respondents Resource MS Stonybrook NJ MPF, LLC and
Allstate Management Corp. (Sherman, Silverstein, Kohl, Rose &
Podolsky, PA, attorneys; Alan C. Milstein, on the brief).

Daniel C. Gibbons -- dgibbons@nixonpeabody.com -- argued the
cause for respondent Yes Energy Management, Inc. (Nixon Peabody,
LLP, attorneys; Daniel C. Gibbons, on the brief).

James M. Graziano -- jgraziano@archerlaw.com  -- argued the cause
for amicus curiae New Jersey Apartment Association and National
Apartment Association (Archer & Greiner, PC, attorneys; James M.
Graziano, of counsel and on the brief; Maureen T. Coghlan --
mcoghlan@archerlaw.com -- on the brief).


R.C. WENDT: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Cuadras Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL ANGEL LOPEZ CUADRAS, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. R.C. WENDT PAINTING,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive
the Defendant, Case No. BC705064 (Cal Super. Ct., May 15, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum and straight time wages and overtime
compensation under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants for
California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices
stemming from Defendants' failure to pay minimum and straight
time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods,
failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal
periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees,
failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to
furnish accurate wage statements.

R.C. Wendt Painting was founded in 1980. The company's line of
business includes providing painting and paper hanging
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Allen Feghali, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232 3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232 3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com
                  allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


ROADRUNNER TRANS: Faces Securities Class Suit in Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In
re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation,
in Wisconsin.

Following the company's press release on January 30, 2017, three
putative class actions were filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf of a class
of persons who acquired our common stock between May 8, 2014 and
January 30, 2017, inclusive.

The Complaints allege that the company, Mark A. DiBlasi, and
Peter R. Armbruster violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,
and Messrs. DiBlasi and Armbruster violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, by making materially false or misleading
statements, or failing to disclose material facts, regarding the
company's internal control over financial reporting and the
cmompany's financial statements.

The Complaints seek certification as a class action, compensatory
damages, and attorney's fees and costs. On May 19, 2017, the
Court consolidated the actions under the caption In re Roadrunner
Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, and appointed
Public Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff. Counsel
for lead plaintiff has advised the company of their intent to
file a consolidated Amended Complaint after the company issue its
restated financial statements.

Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. is a leading asset-right
transportation and asset-light logistics service provider
offering a full suite of solutions. The company's Truckload
Logistics ("TL") and Less-than-Truckload ("LTL") segments offer
solutions including less-than-truckload, air and ground domestic
and cross-border expedite, dry van and temperature controlled
truckload logistics, and intermodal services. The company is
based in Downers Grove, Illinois.


SILO EAST: "Quiroz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR QUIROZ, FRANCISCO SACALXOT YAC, and DIEGO (A.K.A.
DIEGO RIOS) FABIAN RIOS RIOS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SILO EAST INC.
(D/B/A SOCARRAT PAELLA BAR), JESUS (A.K.A. LOLO) MANSO, SILVIA
ZOFIO, MERCEDES DOE, BENNY DOE, and ULYSSES DOE, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04268 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were ostensibly
employed as busboys and food runners. However, they were required
to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-
tipped duties, including but not limited to preparing food,
preparing desserts, sweeping and mopping, taking out the trash,
tying cardboard boxes, dishwashing, bringing down boxes of
liquor, cleaning the bathroom, cleaning the windows in the
morning, cleaning the kitchen, performing plumbing duties,
dishwashing, cleaning the bar, bringing glasses to the bar,
polishing the cups, making napkin and silverware sets for the
bar, taking orders from the customers, organizing deliveries and
doing deliveries (but was not tipped).

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants without appropriate minimum
wage compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the
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. Furthermore,
Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely
basis.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          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@employmentcompliance.com


SIRIUS XM: "Buchanan" TCPA Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that the company faces a Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") class action
complaint filed by Thomas Buchanan.

On March 13, 2017, Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against the company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in
this action alleges that the company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") by, among other
things, making telephone solicitations to persons on the National
Do-Not-Call registry, a database establish.hed to allow consumers
to exclude themselves from telemarketing calls unless they
consent to receive the calls in a signed, written agreement, and
making calls to consumers in violation of our internal Do-Not-
Call registry.

The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including
statutory damages of five hundred dollars for each violation of
the TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to fifteen
hundred dollars for each knowing and willful violation of the
TCPA and a permanent injunction prohibiting us from making, or
having made, any calls to land lines that are listed on the
National Do-Not-Call registry or our internal Do-Not-Call
registry.

Sirius XM Holdings said "We believe we have substantial defenses
to the claims asserted in this action, and we intend to defend
this action vigorously."

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music plus sports,
entertainment, comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather programs,
including various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop
to country, dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play
sports from principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and
entertainment channels for various audiences; national,
international, and financial news; and limited run channels.


SQUARETRADE INC: "Swinton" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Iowa
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as DAVID M. SWINTON, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
SQUARETRADE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. LACL140964, the
Defendant removed the case from the Iowa District Court for Polk
County, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:18-cv-00144-SMR-SBJ to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, on April 20, 2018, the Plaintiff, on
behalf of himself and others allegedly similarly situated, filed
a putative class action petition against SquareTrade in the
District Court for Polk County, Iowa.  The Plaintiff alleges that
SquareTrade engaged in unfair, deceptive, and unlawful business
practices regarding the advertising, marketing, and sales of
Protection Plans through Amazon.com for consumer electronics and
costing between $1.00 and $6,000.

SquareTrade Inc. is an extended warranty service provider for
consumer electronics and appliances headquartered in San
Francisco's SoMa district.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harley C. Erbe, Esq.
          ERBE LAW FIRM
          2501 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 281 1460
          Facsimile: (515) 281 1474
          E-mail: erbelawfirm@aol.com

               - and -

          Steven P. Wandro, Esq.
          WANDRO & ASSOCIATES
          2501 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 281 1475
          Facsimile: (515) 281 1474
          E-mail: swandro@2501grand.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          John F. Lorentzen, Esq.
          NYEMASTER GOODE, P.C.
          700 Walnut, Suite 1600
          Des Moines, IA 50309-3899
          Telephone: (515) 283 3100
          Facsimile: (515) 283 3108
          E-mail: jfl@nyemaster.com

               - and -

          Douglas A. Winthrop, Esq.
          Michael A. Berta, Esq.
          Katelyn Rey, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
          Telephone: (415) 471 3100
          Facsimile: (415) 471 3400
          E-mail: Douglas.Winthrop@arnoldporter.com
                  Michael.Berta@arnoldporter.com
                  Katelyn.Rey@arnoldporter.com


TAXI COMPUTER: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Demeter"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL DEMETER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TAXI
COMPUTER SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case
No. B276192 (Cal. App.), Judge Lamar Baker of the Court of
Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Five,
affirmed the  trial court's order granting summary judgment in
favor of the Defendants.

Plaintiff and Appellant Demeter filed a putative class action
complaint against Defendants and respondents TAXI and its CEO
Michael Laskow.  The complaint alleged TAXI operated a talent
listing service without procuring the bond California's Fee-
Related Talent Services Law ("FTSL") requires for the benefit of
any person injured by any unlawful act, omission, or failure to
provide the services of the talent service.  Demeter alleged
causes of action under the FTSL itself and under California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").

TAXI is an "Artist & Repertoire" corporation that works with
companies, publishers, and supervisors in the music industry who
are looking for composers and songs for their artists, or for TV
and film placements.  Based on information provided by industry
professionals, TAXI creates and posts listings on its website
describing the type of music sought and the submission deadline.
TAXI members pay an annual flat fee for access to TAXI's listings
and other services, plus an additional $5.00 fee to submit music
in response to a listing on the TAXI website.

Demeter is a musician and DJ who has worked in the music industry
for 30 years.  In early December 2012, Demeter purchased a one-
year TAXI membership via TAXI's website for $299.95.

Roughly six weeks after he purchased his membership, Demeter
filed a putative class action complaint alleging (1) TAXI had not
procured the $50,000 bond required by the FTSL at the time
Demeter paid for his membership; (2) TAXI failed to provide
Demeter with a written contract that satisfied the requirements
of the FTSL, including an advisement that TAXI had complied with
the bonding requirement, and (3) the TAXI website represented the
company had an A+ or A- rating with the Better Business Bureau
("BBB") when, in truth, TAXI had no rating when his complaint was
filed because the BBB does not rate talent services that are not
in compliance with California law.

The operative complaint further alleged a violation of the UCL
because TAXI and Laskow violated the FTSL and therefore engaged
in unfair competition.  The operative complaint's prayer for
relief sought, among other things, payment of Demeter's attorney
fees, treble compensatory damages under the FTSL, and restitution
and injunctive relief under the UCL.

TAXI and Laskow moved for summary judgment, arguing Demeter was
not aware of the bond requirement when he signed up with TAXI and
suffered no injury because he had no complaints about the service
TAXI offered.

The trial court granted TAXI's motion for summary judgment.  In
doing so, it found TAXI's evidence demonstrated Demeter's legal
rights were not invaded by TAXI's alleged failure to comply with
contractual bonding requirements in the FTSL and concluded they
had "brought forth proof that plaintiff has not suffered an
injury sufficient to allow him to assert his FTSL claim.  The
trial court concluded TAXI had satisfied its burden to show
Demeter could not establish the requisite element of injury for
either his FTSL or UCL cause of action, and therefore could not
establish a triable issue of material fact with respect to the
viability of his UCL or FTSL claim.

Demeter claims he was injured by TAXI's alleged violations of the
FTSL -- failure to provide him with an FTSL-compliant contract
and failure to obtain a bond -- because he would not have
purchased a TAXI subscription if he had known TAXI was not
complying with the law.  The dispositive question before Judge
Baker reduces to whether that is a cognizable injury under the
FTSL.  He concludes it is not.

Because TAXI's alleged failure to provide Demeter with an FTSL-
compliant contract rendered the contract merely voidable, not per
se illegal, Demeter's theory of injury fails as to that asserted
violation.  And because Demeter both admitted he did not know
TAXI was required to have a bond before he purchased his
membership and failed to provide any evidence he suffered some
injury that might have entitled him to collect on such a bond,
Demeter failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of
material fact regarding any injury caused by the absence of a
bond.  In other words, the Judge says, Demeter's FTSL claim
amounts to no more than an assertion Demeter was injured by
TAXI's noncompliance with the FTSL, but that mere noncompliance
is not an injury caused "by a violation" of the FTSL.

For similar reasons, Demeter's evidence also failed to raise a
triable issue of material fact as to whether he suffered an
economic injury caused by TAXI's alleged violations of the FTSL,
which he must to establish standing to sue under the UCL.
Neither of his causes of action being viable, Judge Baker
affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.  The
Respondents will recover their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/lhKoPF from Leagle.com.

Lakeshore Law Center, Jeffrey N. Wilens -- jeff@lakeshorelaw.org;
The Spencer Law Firm and Jeffrey P. Spencer -- jps@spencerlaw.net
-- for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of David J. Vendler and David J. Vendler --
djvlegal@gmail.com -- for Defendants and Respondents.


TECHNICOLOR USA: "Sharp" Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Robert Sharp, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Technicolor USA, Inc. and Prologistics, LLC., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00379, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Memphis) on
May 15, 2018. The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-02325-SHL-dkv to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Sheryl H. Lipman.

Technicolor works with creative and technology leaders in content
creation, distribution and consumption to seamlessly deliver
experiences worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian C. Winfrey, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN (NASHVILLE OFFICE)
          810 Broadway, Suite 105
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 601 1276
          Facsimile: (615) 473 3243
          E-mail: bwinfrey@forthepeople.com

Attorneys for Technicolor USA, Inc.:

          Craig A. Cowart, Esq.
          Pamela R. Irons, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS LLP - MEMPHIS
          999 Shady Grove Road, Suite 110
          Memphis, TN 38120
          Telephone: (901) 462 2600
          Facsimile: (901) 462 2626
          E-mail: craig.cowart@jacksonlewis.com
                  ironsp@jacksonlewis.com


TENNECO INC: Still Defends Suit over Anticompetitive Conduct
------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that Tenneco and certain of its competitors are
currently defendants in civil putative class action litigation in
the United States and Canada, and more related lawsuits may be
filed, including in other jurisdictions.

Plaintiffs in these cases generally allege that defendants have
engaged in anticompetitive conduct, in violation of federal and
state laws, relating to the sale of automotive exhaust systems or
components thereof.  Plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of
themselves and various purported classes of purchasers,
injunctive relief, damages and attorneys' fees.

The Company said, "because we received conditional leniency from
the DOJ, our civil liability in U.S. follow on actions is limited
to single damages and we will not be jointly and severally liable
with the other defendants, provided that we have satisfied our
obligations under the DOJ leniency agreement and approval is
granted by the presiding court.  Typically, exposure for follow-
on actions in Canada is less than the exposure for U.S. follow-on
actions."

Tenneco is one of the world's leading manufacturers of clean air
and ride performance products and systems for light vehicle,
commercial truck and off-highway applications.


TRANSUNION RENTAL: June 4 Deadline to File Bid to OK Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Kelissa Ronquillo-Griffin; Khoi Nguyen; and Russell
Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions,
Inc., and Transactel (Barbados), Inc., Defendants, Case No.
17cv129-JM (BLM) (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California has entered an order confirming settlement and setting
deadline to file motion for preliminary approval of the class
action settlement.

On March 26, 2018, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement
informing the Court that they have settled the action in its
entirety on a class action basis. The parties request that the
Court sets a deadline of June 4, 2018 for the Plaintiffs to file
a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement.

The Magistrate Judge ordered the Plaintiffs to file their motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement on or
before June 4, 2018.  She further ordered the parties to contact
District Judge Miller's chambers to obtain a preliminary approval
hearing date prior to filing the document.  She vacated all other
pending dates before the Court and District Judge Miller.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/khQnKY from Leagle.com.

Kelissa Ronquillo-Griffin, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Khoi Nguyen, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated & Russell Smith, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC,
Jason A. Ibey -- jason@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC,
Joshua B. Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde &
Swigart, Yana A. Hart -- yana@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde &
Swigart & Daniel G. Shay -- danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com -- Law
Offices of Daniel G. Shay.

TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Cristina Anastassia Guido -- cguido@stroock.com --
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Julia Beatrice Strickland --
jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Shannon
E. Dudic -- sdudic@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP &
Stephen J. Newman -- snewman@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan LLP.

Transactel (Barbados), Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda
Catherine Fitzsimmons -- amanda.fitzsimmons@dlapiper.com --  DLA
Piper LLP, Edward D. Totino -- edward.totino@dlapiper.com --  DLA
Piper LLP & Perrie M. Weiner -- perrie.weiner@dlapiper.com -- DLA
Piper LLP.


TROY CONSTRUCTION: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Stone" Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James M. Munley of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania dismissed without prejudice the case
captioned LINDA STONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TROY CONSTUCTION,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:14cv306 (M.D. Pa.).

Before the Court for disposition are several motions in the class
action lawsuit dealing with the payment of overtime wages.  The
first is a motion by the Defendant for summary judgment on Counts
I and III of the Plaintiffs' complaint.  The second is a motion
by the Plaintiffs for partial summary judgment on the issue of
liability.  The third is a motion by the Defendant to decertify
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and Rule
23 class action.

The Defendant is a construction company which builds and
maintains, inter alia, oil and gas pipelines and compressor
stations.  This business is itinerant in nature with employees
traveling from worksite to worksite.  Many of Troy's employees
travelled from their homes in other states to work on projects
for Troy.  Some of the Defendant's employees, however, live near
the worksites and work there until the project is complete and do
not follow the Defendant to a new worksite.

Stone worked for the Defendant commencing in January 2013.  The
Plaintiff, a resident of Montrose Pennsylvania, worked at the
Defendant's "shop" in Montrose, Pennsylvania and also as a
"spotter" at its Northeast Compressor Station project in
Hallstead, Pennsylvania.  She did not enter into a written
contract with the Defendant and the Defendant did not provide her
an employee handbook.  She served as an "at-will" employee.

Because some of its employees permanently resided in other states
and traveled to work for the Defendant, the Defendant paid "non-
exempt" employees daily per diems for expenses such as travel,
meals and lodging.  The Plaintiff and other employees who resided
less than 50 miles from the Defendant's worksites received the
per diem payments also.

In March 2013, the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff's
employment.  Subsequently, she filed the instant class and
collective action on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated employees.  Stone formerly worked for Defendant Troy for
a total of eight weeks on a pipeline project in Montrose,
Pennsylvania.  She filed the instant wage and hour lawsuit on
Feb. 19, 2014.

The Plaintiff asserts that the payment of the "per diem" to her
was not to reimburse her for expenses but was actually part of
the wages she received.  When determining her overtime rate of
pay, the Defendant did not take into consideration the "per diem"
that she was paid.  This resulted in a dilution of the overtime
rate of pay; that is, the overtime rate was not as high as it
should have been according to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff raises the following causes of action:
Count I - violation of FLSA; Count II - violation of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act; and Count III - violation of the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment & Collection Law.  The federal FLSA
claim is brought as a collective action, and the two Pennsylvania
Wage Law claims are brought as a class action under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Munley finds that the applicable statute of limitations on
the Plaintiffs' FLSA claim is two years.  The last cause of
action giving rise to the lawsuit accrued on March 15, 2013.  The
lawsuit commenced on March 22, 2016.  Because more than two years
passed between the time the cause of action accrued and the date
the lawsuit commenced, he finds that the Plaintiffs' FLSA claim
is time-barred.  Accordingly, he will dismiss Count I.

The Judge explains that the Court's jurisdiction in the case
rests in the federal FLSA.  In any civil action of which the
district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts
will have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that
are so related to claims in the action within such original
jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy
under Article III of the United States Constitution.

As such, the Judge permitted the Plaintiffs' two Pennsylvania
Wage Law claims to proceed under supplemental jurisdiction.  At
this juncture, however, upon the dismissal of the single claim
over which we have original jurisdiction, he declines to retain
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.  He
finds that the issues that remain in the action are more
appropriate for a state court to decide.  As such, he will
dismiss Count II and Count III of the Plaintiffs' complaint.

Judge Munley finds that the Plaintiffs' FLSA claim is barred by a
two year statute of limitations, thus the Court does not have
jurisdiction to hear the claim.  He declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.
Accordingly, he dismissed the case in its entirety, without
prejudice to the Plaintiffs pursuing their state law causes of
action in Pennsylvania courts.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/L1vVt6 from Leagle.com.

Linda Stone, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Justin L. Swidler -- jswidler@swartz-
legal.com -- SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC, Matthew D. Miller --
mmiller@swartz-legal.com -- & Richard S. Swartz --
rswartz@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz Swidler LLC.

Troy Construction, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jacob E. Godard
-- godardj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Michael Burnett -
- burnettm@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Adam R. Roseman -
- rosemana@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice &
James N. Boudreau -- boudreauj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig,
LLP.


UNITED INDUSTRIES: Bid to Certify "Arthur" Class Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GREGORY ARTHUR, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED
INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-
CAS-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Court denies without prejudice
Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

   "all persons who, on or after September 21, 2013, purchased in
   California, for personal or household use and not for resale
   or distribution, Spectracide Concentrate products in packages
   stating that the product "Makes up to" a specified number of
   gallons as follows:

      16 Ounce Spectracide Concentrate "Makes Up to 5 Gallons"
      32 Ounce Spectracide Concentrate "Makes Up to 10 Gallons"
      40 Ounce Spectracide Concentrate "Makes Up to 13 Gallons"
      64 Ounce Spectracide Concentrate "Makes Up to 20 Gallons"

Accordingly, although the Plaintiff and his counsel appear ready
and willing to prosecution the action vigorously on behalf of the
proposed class, insofar as the Plaintiff's injury appears
distinct from the proposed class members' injuries, and insofar
as it is unclear whether certain proposed class members suffered
any injury at all, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he is free
from conflicts of interest that may arise with other proposed
class members. The Court therefore concludes that the Plaintiff
fails to demonstrate that he can adequately represent the
proposed class.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ecZ76DaG


VROOM INC: Wins Summary Judgment in "Edelsberg" TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK EDELSBERG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. VROOM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-62734-GAYLES (S.D. Fla.), Judge Darrin
P. Gayles of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted Vroom's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Vroom is an online car retailer that buys, sells, and finances
used vehicles over the Internet.  As a seller of used vehicles,
Vroom necessarily needs to acquire used vehicles in order to
maintain its inventory.  In order to source its inventory with
vehicles purchased directly from individuals, Vroom launched an
online appraisal tool (www.vroom.com/sell), referred to as the
"Sell Your Car" or "SYC" platform, which allowed a used car owner
to receive a cash offer for his or her vehicle after filling out
Vroom's online appraisal form.  One of the ways Vroom identified
individual sellers of used vehicles was through online classified
advertisements on websites such as Craigslist
(www.craigslist.com).  Once Vroom identified a vehicle that
appeared to meet its purchasing criteria, Vroom would send a text
message to the seller expressing its interest in purchasing the
advertised vehicle.

On July 12, 2016, Edelsberg posted a classified advertisement on
Craigslist in an attempt to sell his mother's 2010 Toyota Prius.
Edelsberg understood that his advertisement could be viewed by
anyone who visited Craigslist.  His advertisement did not state
that he did not want to be contacted by dealers or distant buyer.

On July 14, 2016, Vroom sent Edelsberg a single text message in
response to Edelsberg's online advertisement.  Vroom texted
Edelsberg to express its interest in purchasing his advertised
Prius and to obtain the additional information needed for Vroom
to appraise the vehicle and provide Edelsberg with a cash offer.
Edelsberg did not click on the link in the text message, view or
complete the vehicle appraisal form, or otherwise engage with the
"Sell Your Car" platform in any other way.  Aside from the
initial text message at issue, Vroom did not send Edelsberg any
other text messages.

Edelsberg brings the putative class action against Vroom for
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  He alleges that Vroom violated the TCPA by using an
Automatic Telephone Dialing System ("ATDS") to send him an
automated telemarketing text message.

Vroom argues that its actions did not violate the TCPA because
its text message was sent in direct response to an online
classified advertisement posted by Edelsberg and, therefore, the
text message did not constitute telemarketing.  It further argues
that Edelsberg expressly consented to receiving the text message
in question by including his cell phone number in the
advertisement and directing interested buyers to contact him at
that number for more information.

Before the Court is Vroom's Motion for Summary Judgment.

First, Judge Gayles must determine whether Vroom's text message
can be considered telemarketing.  If so, Vroom was required to
obtain Edelsberg's prior express written consent before
contacting him.  If Vroom's text message did not constitute
telemarketing, then Vroom only needed to obtain Edelsberg's prior
express consent before contacting him.

The Judge finds that it is clear that the purpose of the single
text message from Vroom was to direct Edelsberg to a page on its
website for him to enter information that would facilitate
Vroom's ability to purchase his car.  While it is apparent that
visiting Vroom's website could result in the increase in the
chances of Edelsberg purchasing a used car sold by Vroom,
Edelsberg cites no authority indicating that this degree of
connection between communication and purchase is sufficient to
transform a text of the sort he received into a telemarketing
message.

He concludes that Vroom's text message to Edelsberg was plainly
not telemarketing.  He further finds that the text message did
not constitute a "dual purpose" message as contemplated by the
FCC.  Therefore, in order to be entitled to summary judgment,
Vroom needs only show that Edelsberg provided prior express
consent to be contacted.

Judge Gayles finds that by including his phone number in an
online advertisement that he knew could be accessed by anyone
with an Internet connection and directing interested buyers to
contact him at the provided number for "more info," Edelsberg
expressly consented to being contacted by Vroom at that number to
facilitate the purchase of his advertised vehicle.  Despite
Edelsberg's post hoc representations that he did not want to be
contacted by dealerships or with automated messages, there are no
such limitations included in Edelsberg's actual Craigslist
advertisement.  By including his cell phone number in his
advertisement with instructions to contact him for more
information, Edelsberg provided express consent for Vroom to
contact him for that purpose.

Based on this, Judge Gayles granted the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment.  He closed the action and denied as moot all
other pending motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/wNuB8z from Leagle.com.

Mark Edelsberg, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew John Shamis --
ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com -- Manuel Santiago Hiraldo --
mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com -- Hiraldo P.A., Andree Quaresima --
andree.quaresima@gmail.com -- Scott D. Owens PA, Angelica Marie
Gentile -- agentile@shamisgentile.com -- Shamis & Gentile, P.A.,
Scott David Owens -- scott@scottdowens.com -- SCOTT D. OWENS,
P.A., Sean Martin Holas -- sean@scottdowens.com -- Scott D.
Owens, P.A. & Seth Michael Lehrman -- seth@epllc.com -- Edwards
Pottinger, LLC.

Vroom, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander H. Southwell --
asouthwell@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, pro hac
vice, Timothy W. Loose -- tloose@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP, pro hac vice, Kadian Nichole Blanson, Rivero
Mestre LLP, Kingsley Chinedu Nwamah -- knwamah@riveromestre.com -
- Rivero Mestre LLP & Jorge Alejandro Mestre --
jmestre@riveromestre.com -- Rivero Mestre LLP.


WALLYPARK AIRPORT: Tucker Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
DETREK TUCKER, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LR SAN DIEGO WALLYPARK,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, dba WALLYPARK AIRPORT
PARKING; LR SAN DIEGO AIRPORT PARKING, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, dba WALLYPARK AIRPORT PARKING; LR SAN DIEGO
PARKING OPERATOR, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company, dba
WALLYPARK AIRPORT PARKING; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant,
Case No. 37-2018-00023649-CU-0E-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., May 14,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under the
California Business and Professions Code, Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order, and California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate parking facilities throughout the State of
California, and offer a wide range of automotive parking
services, including valet, self-parking, shuttle service, as well
as car care services that include auto washing/detailing, window
tinting, and oil changes. The Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants from approximately April 2016 until September 2016 in
the non-exempt position of Cashier.  His primary responsibilities
included handling of payments, customer service, and ensuring
that the cashier's booth was properly manned at all times.

The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees with all statutorily-mandated meal periods due to
Defendants' meal period policies/practices, which systematically
result in late (commencing after the fifth hour of work), short
(less than 30 minutes), and missed first and second meal periods.
Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees any first meal periods on numerous occasions.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
                  dbrown@haineslawgroup.com


WEBSTAURANT STORE: "Rogers" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY ROGERS, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly-
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE WEBSTAURANT STORE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00074-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky., May 14,
2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant sells commercial kitchen equipment through the
website www.webstaurantstore.com, and employs customer support
representatives and similar non-exempt employees on a salary
(non-hourly) basis at several locations around the country
(including one in Madisonville, Kentucky).

According to the lawsuit, the Defendant has willfully engaged in
the practice of not recording employees' time for all work
performed, and not compensating employees with appropriate
payment for such work in excess of 40 hours in a work week, in
violation of the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N. Foster, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
          P.O. Box 869
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Telephone: (270) 213 1303
          E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com


WESTERN STATES: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. REORGANIZED FLI, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ONEOK,
INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-17279 (9th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
district court's grant of summary judgment to the Defendants.

RFLI alleged that the Defendants violated the Kansas Restraint of
Trade Act by manipulating the price of natural gas and that its
predecessor-in-interest, Farmland, was injured in paying inflated
prices on contracts for "physical" natural gas.

The Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that
these claims were barred by settlement releases in a prior class
action, In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation ("NYMEX Action").
In the NYMEX Action, the class alleged the same manipulative
conduct by Defendants, but the NYMEX class alleged they were
injured in paying inflated prices on natural gas futures
contracts (as opposed to retail purchases of physical natural
gas).  The releases entered in the NYMEX Action purported to
release any and all claims relating in any way to the class's
NYMEX trading or any conduct alleged in the class complaint.  The
district court found that the NYMEX Releases barred RFLI's
present claims, and therefore granted summary judgment to the
Defendants on their affirmative defense of release.

The Appellate Court finds that the complaints in both actions
allege that the Defendants inflated the price of natural gas by
manipulative trading practices.  But even if those elements of
the factual predicates of each claim are identical, the question
whether Farmland (and thus RFLI) was injured by the Defendants --
as well as the follow-on questions of when, and where, and how --
are also part of the factual predicate of RFLI's claims made.

RFLI's claims here therefore do not depend on only a different
cause of action (the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act), they also
depend on proof of different facts to establish a different
injury: The terms of Farmland's physical gas contracts, the
effect of the Defendants' alleged misconduct on the performance
and prices of the physical contracts, and the measure of
Farmland's losses on the physical contracts due to their alleged
misconduct, are all facts which RFLI must prove in this action
and which would have been unnecessary in the NYMEX Action.

At oral argument, the Defendants argued that the identical
factual predicate rule was not violated because any injury
Farmland suffered on its physical contracts was offset by its
hedging through NYMEX contracts.  However, the Court finds, the
testimony upon which the Defendants rely indicates that
Farmland's hedging did not always offset its losses on its
physical purchases "to the penny."

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants
submitted the testimony of Farmland's Rule 30(b)(6) deponent.
Moreover, whether the NYMEX claims and the instant claims share
an identical factual predicate is a purely legal question; the
Court needs not look beyond the complaints in each action to
determine that they do not.  Therefore, the Defendants were not
entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their affirmative
defense of release, and the district court erred in granting
their motion for summary judgment.

In light of its conclusion that enforcing the NYMEX Releases to
bar RFLI's instant claims violated the identical factual
predicate rule, the Court does not reach RFLI's remaining claims.
Accordingly, it reversed and remanded the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/40X28I from Leagle.com.


                     Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $641.2MM Asbestos Liability at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation recorded US$641.2 million for asbestos product
liability matters at December 31, 2017, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Numerous claims, complaints, and proceedings
arising in the ordinary course of business have been asserted or
are pending against us or certain of our subsidiaries
(collectively, "claims").  These claims relate to litigation
matters (e.g., class actions and contracts, intellectual
property, and competitive claims), environmental matters, product
liability matters (predominately associated with alleged exposure
to asbestos-containing materials), and other risk management
matters (e.g., general liability, automobile, and workers'
compensation claims).  Periodically, claims, complaints and
proceedings arising other than in the ordinary course of business
have been asserted or are pending against us or certain of our
subsidiaries (e.g. patent infringement and disputes with
subsidiary shareholder(s)).  From time to time, we face actions
by governmental authorities, both in and outside the United
States.  Additionally, we may become subject to other claims of
which we are currently unaware, which may be significant, or the
claims of which we are aware may result in our incurring
significantly greater loss than we anticipate.  Our insurance may
be insufficient or unavailable (e.g., because of insurer
insolvency) to protect us against potential loss exposures.

"Our recorded liabilities related to these matters totaled
US$685.7 million (including US$641.2 million for asbestos product
liability matters) and US$653.5 million (including US$605.6
million for asbestos product liability matters) at December 31,
2017 and 2016, respectively.  The liabilities we record for these
claims are based on a number of assumptions, including historical
claims and payment experience and, with respect to asbestos
claims, actuarial estimates of the future period during which
additional claims are reasonably foreseeable.  While we base our
assumptions on facts currently known to us, they entail
inherently subjective judgments and uncertainties.  As a result,
our current assumptions for estimating these liabilities may not
prove accurate, and we may be required to adjust these
liabilities in the future, which could result in charges to
earnings.  These variances relative to current expectations could
have a material impact on our financial position and results of
operations.

"We have recorded insurance recovery assets associated with the
asbestos product liability matters, with such amounts totaling
US$590.9 million and US$564.4 million at December 31, 2017 and
2016, respectively.  These assets represent amounts that we
believe we are or will be entitled to recover under agreements we
have with insurance companies.  The assets we record for these
insurance recoveries are based on a number of assumptions,
including the continued solvency of the insurers, and are subject
to a variety of uncertainties.  Our current assumptions for
estimating these assets may not prove accurate, and we may be
required to adjust these assets in the future, which could result
in additional charges to earnings.  These variances relative to
current expectations could have a material impact on our
financial position and results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/vq9y3X


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Has $154-Mil. Net Loss, LAE Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation has US$154.0 million net loss and loss
adjustment expenses (LAE) reserves for asbestos-related illness
and environmental impairment liabilities 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, "Our reinsurance and insurance subsidiaries'
reserves for loss and LAE include amounts for risks relating to
asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment.  The
reserves carried for such claims, including the reserves for loss
and LAE incurred but not yet reported, or "IBNR," claims, are
based upon known facts and current law at the respective balance
sheet dates.  However, significant uncertainty exists in
determining the amount of ultimate liability for asbestos-related
illness and environmental impairment losses.  This uncertainty is
due to, among other reasons, inconsistent and changing court
resolutions and judicial interpretations with respect to
underlying policy intent and coverage and uncertainties as to the
allocation of responsibility for resultant damages.  Further,
possible future changes in statutes, laws, regulations, theories
of liability and other factors could have a material effect on
these liabilities and, accordingly, future earnings.  Although we
are unable at this time to determine whether additional reserves,
which could have a material adverse effect upon our results of
operations, may be necessary in the future, we believe that our
asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment reserves
were adequate as of December 31, 2017.

"On November 30, 2015, TransRe entered into a commutation and
release agreement with AIG Property Casualty, Inc., National
Indemnity Company and Resolute Management, Inc. with respect to
certain reinsurance contracts, or the "Commutation Agreement,"
including contracts covering asbestos-related illness and
environmental impairment liabilities for 1986 and prior years, or
the "Commuted A&E Liabilities." Pursuant to the Commutation
Agreement, TransRe made a settlement payment of US$400.0 million
in 2015 to terminate certain liabilities and obligations,
including for the Commuted A&E Liabilities, which eliminated the
vast majority of its asbestos-related illness and environmental
impairment loss and LAE reserves.

"At December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the reserves for
asbestos-related illness liabilities were approximately eight and
nine times, respectively, the average paid claims for the
respective prior three year period.  At December 31, 2017 and
December 31, 2016, the reserves for environmental impairment
liabilities were approximately six and five times, respectively,
the average paid claims for the respective prior three year
period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/R6rgPD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Defends Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc. continues to defend itself against a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

AMETEK states, "The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been
named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits.
Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired
by the Company and do not involve products which were
manufactured or sold by the Company.  In connection with these
lawsuits, the seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the
Company against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims").

"The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being
defended by, such seller.  The seller has met its obligations, in
all respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe
such party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future.

"To date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as
a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit.  The Company believes
that it has good and valid defenses to each of these claims and
intends to defend them vigorously."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/G2web4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Expects More Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. said in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, that additional asbestos-related
claims "may be asserted in the future."

The Company states, "Some facilities owned by CERC or its
predecessors in interest contain or have contained asbestos
insulation and other asbestos-containing materials.  CERC and its
predecessor companies are from time to time named, along with
numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of
individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and
CERC anticipates that additional claims may be asserted in the
future.

"Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this
time, CERC does not expect these matters, either individually or
in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/oDyPX6


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $25.8-Mil. Libby Costs at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. had total estimated liability of US$25.8
million at December 31, 2017, for response costs related to a
vermiculite mine and surrounding area in Libby, Montana, as well
as at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, 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, "Grace purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby,
Montana, in 1963 and operated it until 1990.  Vermiculite
concentrate from the Libby mine was used in the manufacture of
attic insulation and other products.  Some of the vermiculite ore
contained naturally occurring asbestos.

"Grace is engaged with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(the "EPA") and other federal, state and local governmental
agencies in a remedial investigation and feasibility study
("RI/FS") of the Libby mine and the surrounding area.  In its
2017 Annual Project Update for the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site,
the EPA announced a narrowing of its focus from the former "OU3
Study Area" to a smaller Operable Unit 3 ("OU3").  Within this
revised area, the RI/FS will determine the specific areas
requiring remediation and will identify possible remedial action
alternatives.  Possible remedial actions within OU3 are wide-
ranging, from institutional controls such as land use
restrictions, to more active measures involving soil removal,
containment projects, or other protective measures.  Based on
communications from regulatory agencies, Grace expects the RI/FS
and a record of decision to be completed by the end of 2019.
When meaningful new information becomes available, Grace will
reevaluate estimated liability for the costs for remediation of
the mine and surrounding area and adjust its reserves
accordingly.

"The EPA is also investigating or remediating formerly owned or
operated sites that processed Libby vermiculite into finished
products.  Grace is cooperating with the EPA on these
investigation and remediation activities and has recorded a
liability to the extent that its review has indicated that a
probable liability has been incurred and the cost is estimable.
These liabilities cover the estimated cost of investigations and,
to the extent an assessment has indicated that remediation is
necessary, the estimated cost of response actions.  Response
actions typically involve soil excavation and removal, and
replacement with clean fill.  The EPA may commence additional
investigations in the future at other sites that processed Libby
vermiculite, but Grace does not believe, based on its knowledge
of prior and current operations and site conditions, that
liability for remediation at such other sites is probable.

"Grace accrued US$9.5 million, US$24.8 million, and US$6.0
million in 2017, 2016, and 2015, respectively, for future costs
related to vermiculite-related matters.  More than half of the
2016 amount was for the completion of the RI/FS of the Libby mine
and surrounding area, which is expected to be spent over the next
two years.  Grace's total estimated liability for response costs
that are currently estimable for the Libby mine and surrounding
area, and at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby at
December 31, 2017 and 2016, was US$25.8 million and US$31.2
million, respectively.  It is probable that Grace's ultimate
liability for these vermiculite-related matters will exceed
current estimates by material amounts."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/X9vMC8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation continues to defend itself against
asbestos-related injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "We have been named in pending lawsuits that
allege injury from exposure to asbestos.  To date, we have not
been found liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement
in any case.  We believe that the minimal use of asbestos in our
past operations and the relatively non-friable condition of
asbestos in our products make it unlikely that we will face
material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether
individually or in the aggregate.  We maintain insurance coverage
for these potential liabilities and we believe adequate coverage
exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,144 PI Lawsuits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation still defends itself against 17,144 pending
asbestos personal injury actions at December 31, 2017, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

Harsco Corp. states, "The Company is named as one of many
defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal
actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to
airborne asbestos over the past several decades.  In their suits,
the plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.

"The Company believes that the claims against it are without
merit.  The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or
processor of asbestos fibers.  Any asbestos-containing part of a
Company product used in the past was purchased from a supplier
and the asbestos encapsulated in other materials such that
airborne exposure, if it occurred, was not harmful and is not
associated with the types of injuries alleged in the pending
actions.

"At December 31, 2017, there were 17,144 pending asbestos
personal injury actions filed against the Company.  Of those
actions, 16,742 were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New
York County), 110 were filed in other New York State Supreme
Court Counties and 292 were filed in courts located in other
states.

"The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of US$20 million or US$25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.

"At December 31, 2017, 16,712 of the actions filed in New York
Supreme Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive
Docket created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and
future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate
that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical
impairment.  The remaining 30 cases in New York County are
pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for
plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or physical
impairment.

"The Company has liability insurance coverage under various
primary and excess policies that the Company believes will be
available, if necessary, to substantially cover any liability
that might ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions.  The
costs and expenses of the asbestos actions will be paid by the
Company's insurers.

"In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S.,
the Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in
the future.  The Company intends to continue its practice of
vigorously defending these claims and cases.  At December 31,
2017, the Company has obtained dismissal in 27,943 cases by
stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial.

"It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-
related actions in the U.S. due to the unpredictable nature of
this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded in the
Company's consolidated financial statements because a loss
contingency is not deemed probable or estimable.  Despite this
uncertainty, and although results of operations and cash flows
for a given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-
related actions, the Company does not expect that any costs that
are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in
connection with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint, Units Still Face Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC and its subsidiaries
continue to face claims and lawsuits related to asbestos matters,
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, "Some facilities owned by Houston Electric
contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-
containing materials.  CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries,
including Houston Electric, are from time to time named, along
with numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number
of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and
CenterPoint Energy anticipates that additional claims may be
asserted in the future.  Although their ultimate outcome cannot
be predicted at this time, Houston Electric does not expect these
matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/DAuYW4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Defends Talc-Related Lawsuits at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. is facing numerous personal injury lawsuits
related to asbestos-contaminated talc products, 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.

Avon Products states, "The Company has been named a defendant in
numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging
that certain talc products the Company sold in the past were
contaminated with asbestos.  Many of these actions involve a
number of co-defendants from a variety of different industries,
including manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other
products that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to
contain asbestos.

"We believe that the claims against us are without merit.  We are
defending vigorously against these claims and will continue to do
so.  To date, there have been no findings of liability against
the Company in any of these cases but we are unable to predict
the ultimate outcome of each case.

"Additional similar cases arising out of the use of the Company's
talc products are reasonably anticipated.  At this time, we are
unable to estimate our reasonably possible losses.  Also, in
light of the litigation's inherent uncertainties, potential costs
to litigate these cases are not known, but they may be
significant, though some costs will be covered by insurance."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/tYP2Dq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had $33.4MM Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liabilities
amounted to US$33,376,000 as of December 31, 2017, according to
the consolidated balance sheets in 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 responsible for certain future
liabilities relating to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products.  In accordance with our accounting policy, our most
recent actuarial study as of August 31, 2017 estimated an
undiscounted liability for settlement payments, excluding legal
costs and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, ranging
from US$35.2 million to US$54 million for the period through
2060.  Based on the information contained in the actuarial study
and all other available information considered by us, we have
concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments
was more likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our
asbestos liability we compare the low end of the range to our
recorded liability to determine if an adjustment is required.

"Based upon the results of the August 31, 2017 actuarial study,
in September 2017 we increased our asbestos liability to US$35.2
million, the low end of the range, and recorded an incremental
pre-tax provision of US$6 million in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of
operations.  In addition, according to the updated study, future
legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in
earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the accompanying
statement of operations, are estimated to range from US$44.3
million to US$79.6 million for the period through 2060.

"We will continue to perform an annual actuarial analysis during
the third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future.  Based
on this analysis and all other available information, we will
continue to reassess the recorded liability and, if deemed
necessary, record an adjustment to the reserve, which will be
reflected as a loss or gain from discontinued operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/sRoRG7


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,530 Fibro Cases at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,530 asbestos-related cases were outstanding at
December 31, 2017, for which Standard Motor Products, Inc., may
be responsible for any related liabilities in connection to its
former brake business, 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, "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as
a discontinued operation.  When we originally acquired this brake
business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the
seller of the acquired brake business.  In accordance with the
related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities
for all new claims filed on or after September 2001.  Our
ultimate exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed
against us on or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for
indemnity and defense thereof.  At December 31, 2017,
approximately 1,530 cases were outstanding for which we may be
responsible for any related liabilities.  Since inception in
September 2001 through December 31, 2017, the amounts paid for
settled claims are approximately US$23.8 million.

"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by
an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits
are filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions.
As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial
consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related
liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability.  The
methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and
costs in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data
available from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our
recent claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the
future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4)
an analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop
average settlement values."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/sRoRG7


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Cuellar's Bid to Withdraw Plea Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case the People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
Joseph Cuellar, Defendant and Appellant, No. F073511, (Cal. Ct.
App. 5th), the Court of Appeals of California for the Fifth
District affirms the judgment of the trial court denying
Appellant Joseph Cuellar's motion to withdraw negotiated plea.

On November 19, 2010, the grand jury of Merced County returned a
67-count indictment against Appellant Joseph Cuellar and two
other individuals, Rudy Buendia III, and Patrick Bowman. The
indictment generally alleged that Appellant was a principal
officer in a non-profit organization, Firm Build, which had
accepted public funds and failed to pay numerous contractors and
subcontractors for work performed. It was alleged that Appellant
had exposed minors to hazardous waste (asbestos), and Appellant
had improperly removed and handled asbestos. He was accused of
embezzlement, conspiracy, and failure to pay unemployment taxes
to the State of California.

On March 4, 2013, Appellant entered a guilty plea in a companion
federal matter stemming from the handling of asbestos at a
vocational training site. He received a sentence of 27 months in
federal prison.

On May 17, 2013, Appellant entered a negotiated change of plea to
resolve this criminal matter. He pleaded no contest to three
charges: (1) felony improper handling of hazardous waste; (2)
felony diversion of construction funds; and (3) felony willful
failure to file payroll taxes. He received an aggregate prison
term of three years eight months, which was to run concurrently
to a related federal prison sentence.

Appellant read and signed an advisement of rights, waiver and
plea form for felonies -- the Plea Form -- which contained
numerous boxes, each containing specific advisements. Appellant
initialed many of those boxes, including those confirming his
understanding that he was giving up his constitutional rights to
a jury trial, the right to confront and cross-examine all
witnesses against him, and the right to present evidence in his
own defense. He agreed he had enough time to discuss his case
with his attorney and they had discussed his constitutional and
statutory rights. He agreed to waive and give up his
constitutional and statutory rights regarding the charges to
which he was entering a plea of no contest. He understood that he
"may be ordered" to pay restitution. Appellant's defense counsel,
Douglas Foster, signed the Plea Form, indicating he had reviewed
it with Appellant, had explained each of his rights, and answered
all of Appellant's questions with regard to this plea. He
stipulated "that there is a factual basis for this plea."

After entering his negotiated plea agreement in this matter,
Appellant hired new counsel -- Anthony Capozzi -- who then filed
a motion to withdraw the plea. Appellant generally testified that
he had not understood the Plea Form when he reviewed it with
Foster because they went over everything very quickly. According
to Appellant, Foster had not explained what everything meant,
Foster had not reviewed his constitutional and statutory rights,
and they had not discussed potential defenses. Appellant said he
initialed the Plea Form because Foster was "guiding" him and he
had relied on the advice of counsel. The trial court denied that
motion.

Appellant's sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court
abused its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to withdraw
his plea. He argues the trial court erred, claiming his plea was
not knowing, voluntary and intelligent. Appellant claims that his
memory issues and depression rendered his change of plea
involuntary. In denying his motion, the trial court found that
Appellant had been under a lot of stress during this criminal
procedure and during the change of plea process, but that there
was no agreement among the medical professionals regarding
Appellant's condition. The trial court found that Appellant had
"memory problems."

Although the trial court found that Appellant had memory
problems, the Appellate Court determines that the trial court's
denial of Appellant's motion was not an abuse of discretion. The
Appellate Court notes that the examining psychiatrists and
psychologists did not agree on Appellant's mental and emotional
condition. As the trial court noted, three of the four evaluators
believed that Appellant was not suffering from dementia or
Alzheimer's disease. One of the psychiatrists, A.A. Howsepian,
M.D., Ph.D., opined that Appellant was competent to have accepted
the plea agreement and to have signed and initialed the Plea Form
on May 17, 2013. In contrast, the other psychiatrist, Howard
Terrell, M.D., believed "it much more likely than not" that
Appellant was unable to comprehend adequately the nature of the
plea bargain offer.

Thus, the Appellate Court finds that the reports from the medical
professionals, including Appellant's memory problems, do not
establish by clear and convincing evidence that Appellant's
change of plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent.

The Appellate Court also disagrees with Appellant's claim that
his plea was involuntary because the process was rushed or his
review with counsel was abbreviated. Although the Appellate Court
cannot determine from the record the exact amount of time
Appellant discussed the eventual plea agreement with Foster,
Appellant, however, appeared in state court on the day of his
plea with the understanding he would settle this matter. The
grand jury returned its indictment against Appellant on November
19, 2010. The Appellate Court points out that the Appellant had
at least two and a half years to contemplate the nature and
validity of the charges against him prior to entering his plea on
May 17, 2013. Appellant had received earlier offers to settle
this matter, which he rejected. He was represented by legal
counsel at all times and Foster testified that they met
regularly.

While it is true that Appellant had a short time to consider his
plea, the Appellate Court, however, finds that Appellant informed
the trial court that his plea was voluntary and he agreed that he
had received sufficient time to discuss the plea with his
counsel. He knew that a plea in this matter was connected to the
federal case, and he knew his sentence in this matter would be
less than his federal sentence of 27 months in prison.

Moreover, the Appellate Court disagrees with Appellant's position
that his change of plea was involuntary because of coercion by
his co-defendants. Based on the record, the Appellate Court finds
unpersuasive Appellant's assertion that his change of plea was
made involuntary because of his codefendants. The Appellate Court
explains that package offers among multiple co-defendants are
valid so long as their terms are not coercive. There is no
evidence that Appellant entered his change of plea because of a
promise of leniency to a third party since nothing suggests that
Appellant and his co-defendants held a "special relationship"
that might make his change of plea involuntary.

Appellant also asserts that Foster rendered ineffective
assistance of counsel by failing to inform him that additional
restitution would be ordered in this matter. He contends this
constituted good cause to withdraw his plea. The Appellate Court
explains that to challenge a guilty plea on the ground of
ineffective assistance of counsel, "a defendant must establish
not only incompetent performance by counsel, but also a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel's incompetence, the
defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted
on proceeding to trial."

Here, although the amount of restitution ordered in the related
federal matter was very high, and a shock to all involved
parties, the Appellate Court finds nothing which establishes that
Foster acted incompetently in this matter. It was understood that
any restitution in this matter would not duplicate the
restitution ordered in the federal case. Appellant acknowledged
in the Plea Form that he could be ordered to pay restitution in
this matter. Foster advised Appellant that he would request a
restitution hearing if needed.

Appellant testified that he had no discussion with Foster
regarding restitution in this matter. Foster, however, said he
discussed each of the advisements in the Plea Form, including
restitution. The Appellate Court says that the trial court was
entitled to accept Foster's version of events because it is clear
that restitution was addressed in the Plea Form, and Appellant
initialed and signed that document after reviewing it with
Foster. Consequently, since Appellant has not met his burden of
establishing that Foster failed to act competently regarding
restitution or in giving advice about restitution, Appellant's
ineffective assistance of counsel claim must fail.

A copy of the Opinion dated May 4, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9gj22g3 from Leagle.com.

Sandra Gillies, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant
Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Keith P. Sager, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ZAIC Has Right to Seek Contribution from INA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Catherine D. Perry of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, upon consideration on Zurich
American Insurance Company's motion to reconsider, has vacated
the Memorandum and Order she issued in in the case styled Zurich
American Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. Insurance Company of
North America, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:14 CV 1112 CDP,
(E.D. Mo.) on November 15, 2016, except the grant of Pacific
Employers Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss Party Pursuant to
Joint Stipulation, and dismisses Anheuser-Busch, LLC from this
case.

In 2008, the estate of the wife of a former Anheuser-Busch, LLC,
employee filed a wrongful death suit against Anheuser-Busch,
alleging that the decedent wife contracted mesothelioma as a
result of her husband's exposure to asbestos during his
employment as a mechanic with Anheuser-Busch, and her subsequent
laundering of his work clothes. Anheuser-Busch tendered defense
of this suit to insurer Zurich American Insurance Company (ZAIC),
who agreed to provide Anheuser-Busch with a defense subject to a
reservation of rights.

The parties settled during a 2014 mediation for $1.5 million --
an amount all parties stipulate was reasonable. ZAIC paid the
full amount of the settlement and defense costs. During the
multi-year period of the claimant's alleged asbestos exposure,
Anheuser-Busch was consecutively insured by ZAIC and by defendant
Insurance Company of North America (INA). Because ZAIC paid the
full amount of the settlement, it brought this suit for equitable
contribution, subrogation, and unjust enrichment against the
other insurer, INA, and against its insured, Anheuser-Busch.

Both the ZAIC policies and the INA policies have "all sums"
provisions and cover damage that "occurs during the policy
period." The dispute over which insurer must pay arises because
asbestos exposure occurred during the policy periods of both
insurers. In ruling on summary judgment, the Court predicted that
Missouri courts considering the insurance contract provisions in
this case would apply a "pro rata" loss allocation, based on each
insurance company's "time on the loss."

Pursuant to its November 15, 2016 Memorandum and Order, the Court
granted summary judgment to INA because, when the losses were
allocated over the various policy years, Anheuser-Busch's
deductibles under the INA policies exceeded the amount of the
loss that INA would otherwise have had to pay for those years.
The Court denied summary judgment for Anheuser-Busch, reasoning
that ZAIC should be able to seek contribution from Anheuser-Busch
for those amounts ZAIC could have sought as equitable
contribution from INA but for the deductibles. Had Anheuser-Busch
target-tendered INA instead of ZAIC, of course, Anheuser-Busch
would have been responsible for those deductibles.

ZAIC has requested that the court reconsider and set aside its
November 2016 Order based on Rule 54(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and the
intervening developments in Missouri law on loss allocation from
Nooter Corp. v. Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co., 536 S.W.3d 251
(Mo. Ct. App. 2017). ZAIC now asks the Court reconsider the
dismissal of INA from this case, relying on Nooter's discussion
of an insurer's right to "seek contribution from other triggered
insurers." INA opposes reconsideration and contends that the
legal standard for a motion to reconsider cannot be met because
ZAIC "does not argue that there was any manifest error of fact
and offers no newly discovered evidence."

However, the Court overrules INA's argument, explaining that the
final judgment has not yet been entered in this case, and under
Rule 54(b) the Court have the discretionary authority to review
and set aside its interlocutory summary judgment ruling in the
interests of justice considering Nooter's intervening
clarification of Missouri insurance law.

Based on Nooter, the Court finds that the Missouri Supreme court
would apply an "all sums" method to allocate the settlement loss
here between insured Anheuser-Busch and targeted-insurer ZAIC.
Under that method, targeted-insurer ZAIC is liable for insured
Anheuser-Busch's entire loss and may seek contribution from other
triggered insurers. Because the November 2016 Order dismissing
INA incorrectly applied a "pro rata" allocation method to
apportion the loss across the entire period of asbestos exposure,
justice requires that it be set aside.

The Court agrees with Anheuser-Busch argument that ZAIC's
equitable claims against it must be denied because the
requirement that ZAIC pay "all sums" is part of the contract
between ZAIC and Anheuser-Busch, and that a party cannot avoid a
contractual obligation by seeking equitable contribution. The
Court maintains that although ZAIC paid the loss and may now seek
contribution from "other triggered insurers," ZAIC has no claim
for recovery from Anheuser-Busch. Nooter forecloses any
recoupment by targeted-insurer ZAIC from its insured Anheuser-
Busch, because ZAIC is liable for the "entire loss." Equitable
contribution and subrogation are appropriate remedies where
fairness dictates it. There is no unfairness here between ZAIC
and Anheuser-Busch because the "all sums" contract requires ZAIC
to cover the entire loss.

The Court explains that whether or not ZAIC obtains contribution
from INA does not change ZAIC's obligation to Anheuser-Busch.
Missouri law does not allow an insurer such as ZAIC to avoid its
obligations under the policy to its insured, and so ZAIC cannot
seek equitable contribution from Anheuser-Busch for any period of
the underlying asbestos injury, including: any period where
Anheuser-Busch was uninsured, where insurer ZAIC was not on the
risk, or where no insurer-insured relationship existed between
ZAIC and Anheuser-Busch. No matter what portion of the settlement
and defense costs may or may not ultimately be apportioned to
INA, ZAIC has no claim against its insured Anheuser-Busch. Thus,
the Court has dismissed Anheuser-Busch from this case.

The Court grants the request of both ZAIC and INA to further
brief the issue on "whether ZAIC can obtain contribution from
INA" in light of Nooter and the dismissal of insured Anheuser-
Busch from this case. The Court has set these schedules: (a)
additional motions for summary judgment by either party must be
filed no later than June 11, 2018.; (b) opposition briefs must be
filed no later than July 13, 2018; and (c) any reply brief may be
filed no later than July 25, 2018.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order dated May 8, 2018, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9b4uuno from Leagle.com.

Zurich American Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Russell F. Watters -- rwatters@bjpc.com -- Brown and James, P.C.,
T. Michael Ward -- mward@bjpc.com -- Brown and James, P.C. &
Joseph Michael Morris -- jmorris@bjpc.com -- Brown and James,
P.C.

Insurance Company of North America, Defendant, represented by
Alan K. Goldstein, Goldstein and Price, L.C. & Stephen C. Ascher,
Cohn and Baughman.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge OKs Application of Maine Law in "Burleigh"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Marianne B. Bowler of the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts allows the application of Maine
Law in the asbestos product liability and personal injury action
titled Ruth Burleigh, as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Ernest Burleigh, Plaintiff, v. Alfa Laval, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-11030-RGS, (D. Mass.). Seeking to
apply Maine Law, Electric Corporation identifies various
conflicts with Maine Law including caps on damages and the burden
of proof in a wrongful death claim.

Defendant General Electric Corporation seeks to apply Maine law
to a number of substantive issues, which include the reduction of
the amount paid by a joint and severally liable, settling
defendant from the amount of a non-settling defendant's share of
adjudicated damages based on the settling defendant's
proportionate degree of fault under Maine law. Electric
Corporation's position that Maine law always requires a reduction
based on proportionate fault as opposed to the dollar amount of
the settlement, which is not entirely accurate.

Plaintiff Ruth Burleigh, as personal representative of the estate
of Ernest Burleigh, maintains that Massachusetts law applies to
the issues regarding the wrongful death claim. The statutory
right of contribution in Massachusetts "does not distinguish
between intentional torts and negligence." In addition,
Massachusetts' regime of joint and several liability allows "a
plaintiff injured by more than one tortfeasor" to "sue any or all
of them for his full damages." Tortfeasors who pay more than
their 'pro rata' share of damages may seek contribution "from
other joint tortfeasors," but tortfeasors who settle with the
plaintiff prior to entry of judgment are insulated from claims
for contribution from the remaining defendants (who are then
entitled to a setoff in the judgment equal to the settlement
amount), or the amount stipulated by the release, whichever is
greater. The fact finder does not assess the percentage of fault
of the non-party tortfeasors.

Maine limits the amount of punitive damages in a wrongful death
action to $250,000. Maine also caps the amount of non-economic,
compensatory damages in a wrongful death action at $500,000. In
contrast, the Massachusetts wrongful death statute has no
monetary limitations.

Maine's wrongful death statute also imposes a higher standard of
liability and burden of proof than Massachusetts' wrongful death
statute. Specifically, Maine law allows recovery of punitive
damages if the plaintiff establishes by clear and convincing
evidence that the defendant acted with malice. On the other hand,
Massachusetts' wrongful death statute provides for the recovery
of punitive damages upon a lesser showing of gross negligence and
a lower burden of proof than clear and convincing evidence. These
differences in the wrongful death claim therefore warrant a
choice of law analysis.

As set out in the amended complaint, Plaintiff, the widow of
Ernest Burleigh, alleges that Burleigh died in July 2016 of
mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while working as
a mechanic at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard from 1960 to 1981.

Prior to working in North Carolina, Burleigh worked in Maine at a
movie theater, a service station, a shoe factory where he did not
work in the vicinity of insulated piping, a textile mill, a motor
company changing oil and greasing cars, and another motor company
as a car salesman. In North Carolina, he worked at a textile mill
"as a loom fixer." Upon his return to Maine in 1959, he worked
briefly at a few other jobs, including one in New Hampshire for
three months, before beginning work at the shipyard in July 1960.
He worked at the shipyard from 1960 until his retirement in 1994.
The shipyard is located in Kittery, Maine, approximately 20 miles
from the Massachusetts border.

During this time period, General Electric designed and supplied
steam turbines to the shipyard for a number of the submarines
where Burleigh worked. General Electric factories in Lynn and
Fitchburg, Massachusetts manufactured all of General Electric's
marine steam turbines during the relevant time period. The United
States Navy initially supplied General Electric with
specifications for the design of a steam turbine tailored for a
particular ship. "Once the design was complete and approved, then
General Electric would commence the manufacture, order
materials," and then produce and assemble the turbine in one of
the two Massachusetts factories. After assembling the turbine,
General Electric tested "the turbine with steam and speed" to
ensure it met the design specifications. Thereafter, General
Electric disassembled the turbine and shipped it from the
Massachusetts factory to either a Navy storage facility or a Navy
shipyard.

In balancing the Restatement of Conflict of Laws, the courts
should consider various contacts, including: (a) the place where
the injury occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the
injury occurred, (c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place
of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d)
the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is
centered.

The Court determines that Maine is the place of injury because it
is the location of Burleigh's exposure to asbestos. It is also
the place where he received the diagnosis. Indeed, plaintiff
acknowledges that, "Maine is where Mr. Burleigh resided, and was
injured and treated." In cases involving personal injuries, "the
place where the injury occurred is a contact that, as to most
issues, plays an important role."

Moreover, the third contact weighs in favor of applying Maine law
because Maine was Burleigh's domicile, residence, and place of
business throughout the relevant time period and up until his
death. General Electric's recent change of its primary place of
business to Massachusetts does not override Burleigh's consistent
and enduring presence and connection to Maine. It is true that
General Electric's purportedly wrongful conduct in Massachusetts
lends additional weight to General Electric's place of business
contact in Massachusetts.

The Court notes that the wrongful conduct of General Electric
occurred primarily in Massachusetts where it designed,
manufactured, and then shipped the turbines to the shipyard in
Maine or a Navy storage facility. General Electric also applied
the asbestos-containing gaskets to turbines in Massachusetts and
then shipped the gaskets and the turbines to the shipyard in
Maine or a Navy storage facility. It additionally shipped
asbestos-containing packing and asbestos-containing gaskets as
loose parts from Massachusetts to the shipyard or a Navy storage
facility. Burleigh's workplace at the shipyard for more than two
decades and his lifelong domicile and residence in Maine,
however, carry greater weight when grouped with the place of
injury in Maine than General Electric's wrongful conduct in
Massachusetts when grouped with its principal place of business
in that state.

The law where the injury occurred carries even greater weight
"when the injured person has a settled relationship to that
state, either because he is domiciled or resides there or because
he does business there." Conversely, the law of the place of
injury might not play an important role "when the place of
injury" is "fortuitous," such as in a car accident when the non-
resident plaintiffs are "merely passing through" the state where
the accident occurred. Here, the former principle applies. With
the exception of four years in North Carolina and a short time
working at a job in New Hampshire, Burleigh resided, lived, and
worked in Maine. His settled relationship to Maine renders it all
the more likely that Maine law applies.

While it is also true that Massachusetts has an interest in
holding its resident defendant accountable for its conduct that
took place in Massachusetts and caused an injury to a
Massachusetts resident, the Court maintains that the injury took
place in Maine and involved a Maine resident, which reduces the
comparative weight of Massachusetts' interest vis-a-vis Maine's
interest in providing reasonable compensation for the wrongful
death of a Maine resident injured at his workplace in Maine.
Further, Burleigh's beneficiary is herself a longtime Maine
resident.

General Electric and Plaintiff agree that General Electric is a
New York corporation with a principal place of business in
Massachusetts. The amended complaint alleges that Crane is a
Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in
Connecticut and Crane describes itself as "a Connecticut based
company." Warren is purportedly a Delaware corporation with a
principal place of business in Massachusetts.

The remaining joint and several liability issues relative to
contribution implicate the apportionment of liability and amount
of damages between the remaining defendants (General Electric,
Crane, and Warren) and potentially the settling defendants,
particularly in the event Maine law applies. Section 173 of the
Restatement dictates that section 145 "determines whether one
tortfeasor has a right of contribution or indemnity against
another tortfeasor." Contacts consisting of the place of the
injury and the domicile, residence, and workplace in Maine create
the justified expectation that Maine law would apply. Certainty,
predictability, and uniformity are well served by applying the
law of the place of the injury. As urged by the remaining
defendants, the Court therefore concludes that Maine law applies
to the contribution issues at this point in the proceedings.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order dated May 9, 2018, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybng2k8j from Leagle.com.

Ruth Burleigh, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ernest
Burleigh, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Jagolinzer, The
Ferraro Law Firm, P.A.. & James L. Ferraro, The Ferraro Law Firm,
P.A., pro hac vice.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Anne E.
Shannon -- ashannon@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP,
Catherine Mohan -- cmohan@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP
& Stesha A. Emmanuel -- semmanuel@mccarter.com -- McCarter &
English, LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by John P. Gardella, CMBG3 Law
LLC & Seta Eskanian, CMBG3 Law LLC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by A. Bernard
Guekguezian -- bguekguezian@adlercohen.com -- Adler, Cohen,
Harvey, Wakeman & Guekguezian LLP & Alexander E. Terry --
aterry@adlercohen.com -- Adler, Cohen, Harvey, Wakeman &
Guekguezian LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Maria E. DeLuzio --
mdeluzio@piercedavis.com -- Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP,
Carlie S. Seigal -- cseigal@piercedavis.com -- Pierce, Davis &
Perritano, LLP, Joel F. Pierce -- jpierce@piercedavis.com --
Pierce Davis & Perritano LLP, Judith A. Perritano --
jperritano@piercedavis.com -- Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP &
Meghan L. Riordan -- mriordan@piercedavis.com -- Pierce, Davis &
Perritano, LLP.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Anne E.
Shannon -- ashannon@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP,
Catherine Mohan -- cmohan@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP
& Stesha A. Emmanuel -- semmanuel@mccarter.com -- McCarter &
English, LLP.

General Electric Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Anne E.
Shannon -- ashannon@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP,
Catherine Mohan -- cmohan@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP
& Stesha A. Emmanuel -- semmanuel@mccarter.com -- McCarter &
English, LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Maria E.
DeLuzio -- mdeluzio@piercedavis.com -- Pierce, Davis & Perritano,
LLP, Joel F. Pierce -- jpierce@piercedavis.com -- Pierce Davis &
Perritano LLP, Judith A. Perritano -- jperritano@piercedavis.com
-- Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan --
mriordan@piercedavis.com -- Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by John P. Gardella,
CMBG3 Law LLC.

Ruth Burleigh, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ernest
Burleigh, Cross Defendant, represented by David A. Jagolinzer,
The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A.. & James L. Ferraro, The Ferraro Law
Firm, P.A.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Mikelsen" Discovery Deadline Moved to June 13
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled Alice Mikelsen, Surviving Spouse, and Susan
Page, as Personal Representative for Arthur Melvin Mikelsen,
Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et
al., Defendants, No. 2:17-cv-00700-RSL, (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, at the behest of Plaintiffs Alice
Mikelsen and Susan Page, has extended the discovery deadline to
June 13, 2018.

A copy of the Order dated May 10, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9by9na4 from Leagle.com.

Alice Mikelsen, surviving spouse & Susan Page, as personal
representative for Arthur Melvin Mikelsen, deceased, Plaintiffs,
represented by Kristin M. Houser -- houser@sgb-law.com --
Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Lucas W.H. Garrett -- garrett@sgb-
law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Thomas J. Breen --
breen@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Elizabeth Jean
McLafferty -- mclafferty@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark &
Bender & William Joel Rutzick, Schroeter Goldmark & Bender.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, sued individually and as
successor by merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Alice Coles Serko -- aserko@tktrial.com --
Tanenbaum Keale LLP, Rachel Tallon Reynolds --
rachel.reynolds@bullivant.com -- Bullivant Houser Bailey, Mark B.
Tuvim, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP & Barry Neal Mesher.

Asbestos Corp., Ltd & Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendants,
represented by Kevin J. Craig -- kcraig@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees
Scully Mansukhani LLP & Mark B. Tuvim -- mtuvim@grsm.com --
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP.

CBS Corporation, fka Viacom, Inc., successor by merger with CBS
Corporation fka Westinghouse Electric Corporation & Foster
Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendants, represented by
Christopher S. Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP
& Erin P. Fraser -- efraser@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G. William Shaw --
bill.shaw@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher
S. Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP, Erin P.
Fraser -- efraser@tktrial.com --  Tanenbaum Keale LLP & John
Heller -- jheller@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin, pro hac vice.

Goulds Pumps (IPG), Inc., Defendant, represented by Ronald C.
Gardner -- rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- Gardner Trabolsi & Assoc.
PLLC.

IMO Industries Inc, sued individually and as successor-in-
interest to DeLaval Turbine, Inc., IMO DeLaval and C.H. Wheeler,
Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne -- jhorne@gth-
law.com -- Gordon Thomas Honeywell & Michael Edward Ricketts --
mricketts@gth-law.com -- Gordon Thomas Honeywell.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G. Gawlowski -- gawlowski@wscd.com -- Wilson Smith
Cochran & Dickerson.

Warren Pumps LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest
to Quimby Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut --
aeraut@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. No Duty to Protect from Secondary Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case Ernest V. Quiroz and Mary Quiroz, Husband
and Wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. ALCOA Inc., ET AL.,
Defendants/Appellees. No. CV-16-0248-PR, (Ariz.), the Supreme
Court of Arizona holds that an employer owed no duty to the
public regarding secondary asbestos exposure because no common
law special relationship existed requiring the employer to
protect the public from secondary asbestos exposure.

Ernest V. Quiroz died in October 2014 from mesothelioma, a form
of cancer associated with exposure to asbestos. Quiroz's
surviving wife, children, and parents filed a lawsuit, alleging
Defendants Reynolds Metal Company, Alcoa, Inc., and Reywest
Development Company negligently caused his death. Specifically,
the Family alleges that when Quiroz's Father was working at
Reynolds' plant from 1948 until 1983, his clothes were
contaminated with asbestos fibers. The Family contends that when
Father came home from work, Quiroz, who lived with Father as a
minor from 1952 to 1970, was exposed to the asbestos fibers on
Father's clothes. The Family further contends this exposure
eventually caused Quiroz's mesothelioma.

The Family asserts that Reynolds Metal had a duty to protect
Quiroz from exposure to take-home asbestos. They contend Reynolds
Metal breached this duty by failing to warn Father about the
dangers of secondary asbestos exposure. The Family also alleges
that Reynolds Metal failed to provide safety equipment to Father
and failed to take necessary safety measures to protect Quiroz
from such exposure.

There is no dispute that Reynolds Metal, as Father's employer,
owed a duty of care to Father. The Family argues, however, that
there was a special relationship between Reynolds Metal and any
member of the public, including Quiroz, who may have been exposed
to secondary asbestos.

Here, the Court finds no legally recognized special relationship
giving rise to a duty between Reynolds Metal and Quiroz. Quiroz
did not have an employer-employee relationship with Reynolds
Metal, and there is no allegation that Reynolds Metal created a
special relationship with Quiroz based on a contract or a
negligent undertaking. Additionally, the Court holds that
Reynolds Metal and Quiroz shared no relationship as landowner-
invitee or landowner-licensee. Quiroz suffered no injury on
Reynolds Metal property, nor was he injured while entering or
leaving Reynolds Metal's property.

Thus, the general duty proposed by the Family and the dissent
surpasses the bounds of Arizona law. While case law recognizes
that landowners may, in some circumstances, owe a duty of care
for off-premises injuries, it does not support the Family's far
more sweeping claim that landowners owe a general duty to the
public for off-premises injuries. Indeed, none of the authorities
cited by the Family or the dissent support the existence of such
a broad duty.

Duty is not presumed. Duty is a separate, material element of
every negligence claim. It should not be effectively removed as
an element by merging it with the broad terms of "negligence" and
"liability." The Court explains that in every negligence case,
the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of a
duty. Duty in Arizona is based on either recognized common law
special relationships or relationships created by public policy.
Duties based on special relationships may arise from several
sources, including special relationships recognized by the common
law, contracts, or "conduct undertaken by the defendant."

The Court further explains that unlike duties based on special
relationships, duties based on public policy do not necessarily
require preexisting relationships. Rather, the statute itself
creates a legal relationship between the parties giving rise to a
duty such as when a plaintiff "is within the class of persons to
be protected by the statute and the harm that occurred. . . is
the risk that the statute sought to protect against."

While the Court recognizes public policy giving rise to a duty
based on the common law -- specifically, case law and Restatement
sections consistent with Arizona law. However, reliance on the
common law does not mean that the Court establishes duties based
on its own notions of appropriate public policy. Thus, even in
those cases where the Court has mentioned "social concerns" in
relation to tort duties, the Court has ultimately premised the
existence of a duty on a statute or a recognized special
relationship.

But none of the cases cited by the Family or the dissent support
their contention that Arizona, like the Third Restatement,
presumes a duty when a defendant creates a risk of harm. The
Family also conflates cases recognizing a duty based on a
negligent undertaking with the Third Restatement's risk-creation
framework. The Court explains that a duty based on a negligent
undertaking does not arise solely because a defendant committed
an act that might harm someone. Rather, a duty based on a
negligent undertaking exists when a person, who otherwise owed no
duty to plaintiff, voluntarily agrees to provide services for
another person. Under such circumstances, the person assumes a
duty to exercise reasonable care in providing those services.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Family has failed to
identify a valid public policy creating a legal relationship
giving rise to a duty. As a result, although while the Court
vacates the court of appeals' opinion because the Court disagree,
in part, with its reasoning, and affirms the superior court's
grant of summary judgment in favor of Reynolds Metal.

A copy of the Opinion dated May 11, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8arerkp from Leagle.com.

Burt Rosenblatt -- burt@eburlaw.com -- Ely Bettini Ulman &
Rosenblatt, Phoenix; Michael B. Gurien (argued), Waters, Kraus &
Paul, El Segundo, CA, Attorneys for Ernest V. Quiroz and Mary
Quiroz.

Edward M. Slaughter (argued) -- eslaughter@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins
Parnell Thackston & Young LLP, Dallas, Texas; Molly C. Machold,
Mark B. Tuvim -- mtuvim@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Phoenix,
Attorneys for Alcoa, Inc., et al.

David L. Abney, (argued) Ahwatukee Legal Office, PC, Phoenix;
Stanley G. Feldman -- sfeldman@mpfmlaw.com -- Miller, Pitt,
Feldman & McAnally, P.C., Tucson, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Arizona Association for Justice/Arizona Trial Lawyers Association

Ellen M. Bublick --  bublick@email.arizona.edu -- University of
Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, Attorney for
Amicus Curiae

Elizabeth S. Fitch -- beth@righilaw.com -- Righi Fitch Law Group,
PLLC, Phoenix, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Coalition for
Litigation Justice, Inc.

Christopher Robbins, Hill, Hall & DeCiancio, PLC, Phoenix,
Attorney for Amicus Curiae Arizona Association of Defense Counsel

Thomas E. Kelly, Jr. -- Tom.Kelly@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP,
Seattle, WA, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of
the United States of America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claire's Ordered to Stop Selling Tainted Make-Up
-----------------------------------------------------------------
State PIRGs reported that in the wake of a recent U.S. PIRG study
showing that U.S.-based retailer Claire's is selling makeup
contaminated with asbestos, a government agency in The
Netherlands confirmed the results of U.S. PIRG's study. The Dutch
Health and Safety Authority (ILT) ordered Claire's to remove
several makeup products from Dutch store shelves after the
agency's lab testing confirmed that there is asbestos in two
makeup products.

Following these findings and similar results by an agency in
Brussels, the British government ordered that the asbestos-
contaminated products be taken off the shelves in the U.K. and
destroyed. Claire's also offered a refund to European customers
who purchased the asbestos-containing items. A warning has been
issued to all European Union countries about asbestos
contamination in those two Claire's products.

As of May 3, 2018, Claire's has not warned its U.S. customers
about the asbestos-contaminated makeup, continues to deny that
the makeup contains asbestos, and is not offering to refund
customers who have purchased the makeup. At least two of these
products, Claire's Compact Powder and Claire's Shadow and
Highlight Finishing Kit, are still available on store shelves in
the United States.

"It is unconscionable that these products are still being sold to
children here in the U.S., while they have been pulled from the
shelves and destroyed in Europe." said Kara Cook-Schultz, U.S.
PIRG's toxics director. "We have been doing our part to warn
consumers about these products that contain asbestos, but for
months Claire's has lied about this issue to its customers, and
the FDA has failed to step in."

Claire's claims on its website that the Dutch agency ILT
certifies some Claire's products as free of asbestos, but it
conveniently fails to mention that the Dutch ILT actually found
Claire's had been illegally selling asbestos-containing makeup in
The Netherlands.

Worse, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA,) which is
supposed to protect the public from dangers such as asbestos, may
have delayed these European tests for months. On December 29,
2017, the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA)
received a report that Claire's may be selling makeup with
asbestos contamination. The NVWA decided not to test the products
because, according to NVWA spokesman Benno Bruggink, the U.S. FDA
assured the Dutch that the makeup was "in order."

The Dutch announcement confirms U.S. PIRG Education Fund's study
from March 13, 2018, which found asbestos contamination in three
Claire's makeup products: Claire's Contour Palette, Claire's
Shadow and Highlight Finishing Kit, and Claire's Compact Powder.

Asbestos is not purposefully added to cosmetics. However,
asbestos can occur naturally in talc, and talc is commonly added
to cosmetics. Sparkly, shimmery, and powdery makeup often
contains talc as a major ingredient. Inhaling or ingesting any
form of asbestos can lead to serious health conditions, including
lung cancer and mesothelioma. Repeated topical exposure to
asbestos may also result in increased skin cancer risk.

U.S. PIRG Education Fund alerted both Claire's and the FDA to our
findings back in February, but neither the company nor the FDA
has issued a recall in the U.S. While European teens are being
protected by their government, American kids are still facing an
unnecessary and avoidable risk.

The FDA states that asbestos is a carcinogen, and that makeup
companies should take steps to keep asbestos out of cosmetics.
The FDA is currently performing an investigation into the
presence of asbestos in Claire's makeup. The agency, however, has
been slow to act or to publish the findings of its investigation.
In the meantime, European agencies have acted swiftly to protect
their citizens.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Report Finds Asbestos in Philly Schools
--------------------------------------------------------
ABC27 reported that a newspaper investigation has found that more
than half of Philadelphia's public elementary schools have
serious environmental hazards like lead dust, mold spores and
asbestos fibers.

In a series, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily
News said a review of building and other internal records
identified more than 9,000 environmental problems across the
district since September 2015.

The papers say 80 of the city's 148 elementary schools had at
least 50 reports of environmental hazards.

The newspapers also enlisted staffers at some run-down elementary
schools to do their own testing. High levels of cancer-causing
asbestos fibers were found on surfaces in classrooms, gymnasiums,
auditoriums and hallways.

School officials took issue with their testing methods. They say
it will take $3 billion over 10 years to build new schools and
finish all urgent repairs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Fined for Breach of Asbestos Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
Isle of Man Today reported that a property company has been fined
after continuing to allow people to work in a building that
contained asbestos.

E & J Properties Ltd was slapped with the GBP3,000 fine during an
appearance at Douglas Courthouse.

Director Nigel Gill pleaded guilty, on behalf of the company, to
contravening a prohibition notice between November 6 and November
20 last year. The court heard the company was carrying out
construction work on a property on Chapel Lane in Baldrine when
suspected asbestos was found in the roof of a garage.

Workmen alerted the Health and Safety at Work Inspectorate and an
inspector visited the site -- a voluntary cessation of work was
agreed whilst the substance was tested.

On November 6 investigations confirmed there was brown asbestos
in the roof and a prohibition notice was served prohibiting
anyone from entering or working in the area.

However, prosecutor Rachael Braidwood told the court that despite
the notice tradesmen continued to work on the property on two
occasions.

She added that both the foreman and Mr Gill later declined to
attend interviews, under caution, with the Health and Safety at
Work Inspectorate.

E & J Properties Ltd was represented in court by advocate Peter
Russell who said there had been two breaches of the prohibition
order.

The first, he claimed, was instructing and allowing electricians
to mark the garage ceiling for new light fittings -- something he
said had been done without Mr Gill's knowledge.

The second was to allow someone into the garage to cut the holes
into the ceiling for the lighting.

'Hard as it is to believe, Mr Gill does not know who drilled
those six holes,' he said.

Mr Russell told magistrates the work to convert the garage into
living accommodation was a 'professionally thought out
renovation'.

He added: 'I wouldn't want your worships to think this was a
bodge-it job.'

He said since the incident new procedures and policies had been
put into place, adding: 'Since this incident he [Mr Gill] has
undergone full asbestos training and more is planned.

'All in all he's doing everything he can to make sure nothing
like this ever happens again -- it's a one off.'

Magistrates also ordered the company to pay prosecution costs of
GBP250.

A charge of failing to discharge duty was withdrawn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Kusu Island Lagoon, Beach
------------------------------------------------------------
Channel News Asia reported that pieces of debris containing
asbestos have been discovered around the lagoon and beach areas
on Kusu Island, the Singapore Land Authority said on May 4.

Public access to the affected areas have been cordoned off and
will remain closed until removal works are completed, SLA said,
adding that it aims to do this by October.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Fined EUR50K for Exposing Workers
------------------------------------------------------
Bill Browne of The Corkman reported that the removal of the known
carcinogenic asbestos from older buildings should only be
undertaken by competent asbestos removal contractors prior to
their demolition.

That's according to a senior Health and Safety Authority (HSA)
official who was commenting after a Cork company was hit with a
EUR50,000 fine for exposing workers to asbestos fibres during
demolition works at a Mallow office building.

Leeside Cut & Core Contractors Ltd of Blackhill, Fivemile Bridge,
Ballinhassig pleaded guilty to two charges at a sitting of Cork
Circuit Criminal Court presided over by Judge Sean O Donnabhain.
The case arose following demolition works in early 2015 at a two-
story office building at Gould's Hill in Mallow that was built
during the 1970's.

The building had asbestos insulating board ceiling tiles
containing amosite (brown asbestos) and chrysotile (white
asbestos) on both ground and first floor. The floor tiles and
bitumen also contained chrysotile.

The court heard that between January 21 and February 6, 2016
employees of the company were involved in the demolition of stud
wall partitions and block-work at the office building. As a
result of these works being carried out in an uncontrolled manner
damage was caused to the asbestos insulating board ceiling tiles,
resulting in employees being exposed to asbestos fibres.

The company pleaded guilty to offences before the court under the
Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act (2005) and a regulation of
the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Exposure to Asbestos)
regulations (2006 and 2010).

The first of these related to the company's failure to manage the
demolition work at the premises in circumstances where there were
asbestos containing materials present in such a way as to ensure
the safety, health and welfare of workers. This related to the
demolition work being carried out in an uncontrolled fashion,
causing damage to the asbestos ceiling and floor tiles and
exposing employees to the risk of inhaling the asbestos fibres.

The second charge related to the undertaking of work liable to
expose employees to asbestos or materials containing asbestos
where they had failed to undertake a risk assessment on the site.
At a February sitting of Mallow District Court the client company
in this Particular case, Mallow-based AV Pound and company Ltd,
pleaded guilty to a single charge under the Safety, Health and
Welfare at Work Act (failure of client to appoint in writing a
competent Project Supervisor Design Process at or before start of
design process.)

They were fined EUR750 with EUR3,000 costs awarded.

Commenting on the case, assistant HSA chief executive Sharon
McGuinness said asbestos containing materials still remained a
"significant hazard" in older buildings and that exposure to
fibres can lead to fatal diseases many years afterwards.

She said it was a critical requirement under legislation that all
employers, particularly those in the construction and demolition
sector, identify the presence of any materials containing
asbestos in advance of any works on buildings built before the
year 2000.

"In practice, this can be achieved by requesting the results of
an asbestos survey from the client or owner of the building or
engaging a competent asbestos surveyor to conduct an intrusive
refurbishment or demolition asbestos survey," said Ms McGuinness.

"This particular case has highlighted that attempts to demolish
structures below or adjacent to high-risk asbestos containing
materials should not be attempted. All reasonable attempts should
be made to remove all such materials by competent asbestos
removal contractors prior to any demolition techniques being
applied."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Dunedin Mud Tanks
----------------------------------------------------
David Loughrey of Otago Daily Times reported that contractors
have been forced to wear protective equipment when cleaning
Dunedin mud tanks after asbestos was found in about a third of
those tested.

Dunedin City Council acting infrastructure and networks general
manager Leanne Mash said mud tank waste was being tested for
asbestos following results showing what she said were low risk
levels at the Green Island Landfill.

As a precaution, the council was testing mud tank waste and
cleaning procedures had been adjusted to make sure contractors
and the public were kept safe.

Initial test results showed the presence of some level of
asbestos in a third of the 49 tanks sampled.

Further testing was being done to determine the level of asbestos
and related risk.

The council was taking advice from an independent expert and
believed there was no significant risk to the general public.

"The asbestos risk is believed to be very low, but as a
precaution to ensure contractor safety, a number of measures were
put in place as soon as the issue was identified," Ms Mash said.

"As a short-term measure, this includes mud tanks only being
cleaned when they're blocked, although they are still being
checked regularly.

"It is not expected this will cause any issues as the last audit,
two months ago, showed 97% of mud tanks were clean.

"Once results are available and safety precautions have been re-
assessed, an extra truck will be added to clean all mud tanks as
needed."

In the meantime, contractors would wear protective equipment when
cleaning mud tanks and the council was working with them to
ensure they were following safe procedures, including proper
cleaning and disposal techniques for any clothing and equipment
used while cleaning mud tanks.

"We're also taking the additional precaution of using a buffer
zone around mud tanks while they're being cleaned to ensure the
public is well back from the area," Ms Mash said.

The picture would be clearer when more test results were
available.

"We weren't previously aware of any asbestos in the mud tanks as
it's not usually tested for. "We're letting other councils know
so they can check their own systems.

"We expect other cities may have the same issue as asbestos has
historically been a widely used material."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Allegations at Gov't Facility Confirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FEDweek reported that the Office of Special Counsel has said that
many of whistleblowers' allegations of exposure of agency
employees and patients to asbestos fiber at the VA facility in
Bedford, Mass., have been confirmed.

The allegations were confirmed by the IG of that department after
referral from the OSC, which said that the facility "failed to
implement a robust safety inspection program to identify
contaminated work spaces."

"Thanks to courageous whistleblowers coming forward to report
these failures, the facility is now taking this problem
seriously, monitoring employee health, and carrying out more
fulsome measures to ensure safety for employees and veterans," it
said.

Responses include developing procedures to ensure workspaces are
evaluated before construction or renovations begin, additional
asbestos awareness training for employees, and medical
surveillance where appropriate, the OSC said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Launched After Refinery Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlyn Rintoul of The Sydney Morning Herald reported that an
investigation is underway after it was revealed workers at a
Pinjarra refinery may have been exposed to asbestos.
It's understood the incident occurred at Alcoa's Pinjarra
factory, one of the world's largest refineries.

It's believed lagging, which contained asbestos, was removed
within an area that provided no protection from the potentially
lethal fibres.

Alcoa notified the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and
Safety of the incident and after reviewing the preliminary
information, investigation officers attended the site.

The department's mines safety director, Andrew Chaplyn, said the
incident site had been isolated and the rest of the refinery
could continue to operate as normal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qld Carpenter Sues James Hardie for $6MM
---------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Ferrier of NEWS.com.au reported that a former carpenter
who developed a deadly lung disease from James Hardie's asbestos
products is suing the company for almost $6 million, including
for the cost of caring for his sick wife.

Syd Lacey, 73, is deaf and has undergone gruelling rounds of
chemotherapy for mesothelioma while looking after his wife,
Marion, who is also deaf and suffers from severe and debilitating
epilepsy.

Mr Lacey's disease, which James Hardie admits was caused by its
asbestos products, will ultimately stop him from doing that. It
will also kill him.

But the retired carpenter says it's not enough for the company to
only compensate him, and it must also pay for his wife's future
care.

Maurice Blackburn is running the case, due to begin in the
Supreme Court in Brisbane, and the law firm says it could set a
precedent.

"Whilst James Hardie has conceded they are liable for Syd's
asbestos exposure, they have refused to accept that Marion
requires 24-hour care and that Syd will lose his ability to care
for her around-the-clock," principal Jonathan Walsh said in a
statement.

He said Mr Lacey had been Marion's primary carer for 40 years.

"It is very important to him that he has the financial means to
make sure that his wife can be cared for."

Mr Lacey is also seeking exemplary damages that recognise James
Hardie's alleged "reckless indifference" in continuing to sell
the asbestos products that caused his illness, despite knowing
they could be deadly.

"If that aspect of Syd's case is successful it will set an
important legal precedent for future Queensland asbestos
sufferers and their families seeking compensation, as currently
there is no precedent for James Hardie or other defendants to
have pay such damages in Queensland," Mr Walsh said.

The case is set down for four days, with Mr Lacey seeking $5.9
million in damages from Amaca Pty Ltd, formerly James Hardie &
Coy Pty Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Medical Supplies Storage Closes Over Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
TVNZ reported that asbestos was found in the rafters of the
Central Store at Whangarei Hospital.

The Northland District Health Board says tests indicate the
asbestos is not airborne, but staff are taking a precautionary
approach and all unsealed products have been disposed of.

The DHB say staff that have been accessing the building have not
been exposed to any harm.

The DHB says it is not experiencing any shortage in medical
supplies and a temporary supplies site has been set up in the
interim.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Perth Development Site
---------------------------------------------------------
Elizathern Creasy of 9news.com.au reported that asbestos has been
found at the multi-million dollar Perth redevelopment site in
Scarborough.

A local resident found two pieces of what he suspected was
asbestos while walking along the foreshore and reported it to the
City of Stirling.

Officers conducted tests on the small fragments, which revealed
they were asbestos.

The area, just north-west of the clock tower has now been fenced
off and the public has been told not to enter.

A City of Stirling spokesperson told 9NEWS " the pieces appeared
to be in good condition and non-friable which places them in the
low-risk category. The City is now in the process of organising a
site assessment to investigate further. Until this is complete,
and the City knows the status of the site, no work or activity
will be undertaken in this area."

The Council says it is still safe for the public to use the
beachfront.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Foreshore Redevelopment
----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Pond of Community Newspaper Group reported that asbestos
has been found at the Scarborough foreshore redevelopment.

Scarborough resident Matt McIntosh discovered the fragments in a
publicly accessible sandy area at the beachfront.

As a contaminated lands consultant for ARC Environmental, he
suspected the pieces were asbestos and reported it to the City of
Stirling, which fenced off the site.

Test results confirmed two fragments found in the area northwest
of the clock tower near the contained asbestos.

Mr McIntosh was concerned about how the materials came to be in
the area.

"It beggars belief how this could happen," he said.

"Theoretically it could be across the whole site.

"As a local resident, Scarborough should be something we should
be proud of."

City planning and development director Ross Povey confirmed the
pieces contained asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Latiolais" Remanded to La. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Louisiana federal court
has remanded an asbestos action, finding that the removing
defendant had failed to show that the U.S. government exercised
any control over the company's safety practices.

In the May 4 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana subsequently found that the removal on
federal officer grounds was improper.

Plaintiff James A. Latiolais asserted the claims, contending that
he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products he encountered while working aboard the USS
Tappahannock as a machinist at Avondale Shipyard.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Firms Hope to Continue $117MM Streak
--------------------------------------------------------------
Forbes reported that Johnson & Johnson, fresh from losing a $117
million asbestos verdict in New Jersey, is opposing plaintiff
lawyers who are trying to obtain punitive damages against it in a
specialized New York court for asbestos lawsuits.

The fight is still in its initial stages but could represent a
key test of the system for seeking punitive damages under new
rules at the New York City Asbestos Litigation docket. NYCAL
effectively banned punitives from 1996 until March of this year,
when an intermediate appeals court approved them over the
objections of defendant companies that say they are improper in
lawsuits over conduct that occurred decades ago, at firms that
often no longer exist.

Defendants are expected to appeal that decision to the state's
highest court. In the meantime, attorneys are free to add
punitive damages to the demands they make in asbestos suits in
New York City, increasing the pressure on defendants to settle or
risk potentially devastating verdicts.

Lawyers at Levy Konigsberg, a leading asbestos plaintiffs' firm,
did just that in New Jersey, winning $80 million in punitive
damages for a man who claimed he was stricken with mesothelioma
after using talcum powder his lawyers said was tainted with
asbestos.

In an April 20 letter to Johnson & Johnson, lawyers at Levy
Konigsberg said they plan to seek punitive damages in a lawsuit
pending in NYCAL against J&J and its consumer unit. In a May 1
response, J&J's lawyers at Patterson Belknap said the plaintiffs
have no reason to claim punitives because Johnson & Johnson and
its consumer division never "intentionally sold asbestos or
asbestos-containing products at any time" and the lawsuit "does
not allege otherwise."

J&J also said the plaintiffs lack a "good faith" basis for
seeking punitives, which are generally seen as punishment for
egregious and intentional conduct -- a charge J&J believes can't
be proved in cases in which it disputes the basic fact of whether
its talc products contain asbestos at all.

Defendants challenged Judge Heitler's 2014 order reinstating
punitive damages and won a partial victory in 2015 when an
appeals court ruled that her case management order unfairly
allowed plaintiffs to delay informing the other side that they
were seeking punitives until the end of trial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owners Foot $200K Bill at Ainslie Clean-Up
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Trask of The Canberra Times reported that the second stage
of asbestos decontamination at the Ainslie shops has begun with
the owners of the affected buildings expected to fork out up to
$200,000 for the work.

Work Safety Commission Greg Jones said this would allow the
affected shops to stave off demolition for a number of years,
although could not say exactly how long.

"The second stage of works at the Ainslie shops is about to
commence. This will involve an environmental cleanse above units
three and five, as well as the replacement of roof tiling and
some other work inside the roof," Mr Jones said.

"In the long term the buildings will need to be demolished
because of the contamination with the loose fill asbestos, but
under a management plan a medium term solution can be made."

The cost of the roof replacement could be between $100,000 and
$200,000 and would be footed by property owners, Mr Jones said.

"As a commercial premises the owners are responsible for
undertaking these works," he said.

"The owners have engaged licensed builders and asbestos removal
specialists to undertake the works, and Work Safe have monitored
their plans and we are satisfied they are appropriate."

Dangerous "Mr Fluffy" loose-fill asbestos was installed in the
second-level ceiling of 1 Edgar Street, above Edgar's Inn, almost
50 years ago.

Investigations in February and March last year showed it had
migrated into the ceiling of the neighbouring building, which
houses a newsagency and laundromat on the ground floor and a
therapeutic massage business on the first floor.

The corner building, No 1, is owned by Jeff Darwin.

Numbers 3, 5 and 7 are owned by the Xyrakis family.

Manuel Xyrakis said he was pleased the clean-up work would
finally begin, expecting it to cost as much as $200,000 between
himself and Mr Darwin.

He said he did not expect the buildings to be demolished any time
soon.

"Every six months we have to do an asbestos report," he said.
"If it's monitored correctly, as far as I'm concerned there is no
demolition.

"I think Work Safe says every building does eventually get
demolished and replaced. But there is no set date."

Loose-fill asbestos was installed in the ceilings of 1022 homes
across the ACT.

It has also been found in two commercial buildings. One of these
buildings was a childcare centre, and the other was the Ainslie
shops.

The government is buying and demolishing all of the homes,
however owners of commercial sites are responsible for their own
decontamination.

"We are doing the roof replacement. In our building we have to do
an environmental clean," Mr Xyrakis said.

"Between the owner of No 1 and myself it will cost us $200,000 by
the time the work is done."

Mr Jones said the second stage of works would continue for about
four weeks and would cause minimal disruption to businesses in
the area.

"The upper-level shops in the north building will need to close
while the roof replacement works take place," he said.

"A small number of car parking spaces will not also be available
for the duration of the works. Trade will be able to safely
continue for the rest of the shops."

Mr Jones said he did not expect work would need to be done over
weekends.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Denies Attempt to Stop Mesothelioma Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that when a mesothelioma victim makes
the decision to pursue legal action against the companies
responsible for their exposure to asbestos, one of the first
things they are told is that the asbestos companies will push
back hard.

For many this comes as a shock -- after all, it has been well
established that exposure to asbestos causes mesothelioma and
other serious illnesses. If they produced asbestos-contaminated
products, how could they possibly argue against their liability?
Though common sense supports the mesothelioma victims' position,
many of the companies that are named in mesothelioma lawsuits
work hard to defend themselves, and their attorneys offer
numerous arguments to try to shut down victims' claims before
they ever reach a jury.

That is what happened in a recent case filed by Tatjana Pogacnik
on behalf of her late husband, Leon. Leon had been an architect
who worked in close proximity to Mannington Mills' asbestos-
contaminated sheet flooring on numerous projects between 1969 and
1983. When he was diagnosed with mesothelioma he made the
connection between his illness and the dust that he was exposed
to on these work projects, and filed a claim against the company
seeking compensation for his medical expenses and other damages.
In response, Mannington Mills moved for summary judgment,
claiming that he had not proven that there was enough asbestos in
their product, or that his exposure to asbestos was sufficient,
to have caused is illness.

In making the decision about whether the mesothelioma lawsuit
could move forward, Judge Lucy Billings of the Supreme Court of
New York County concluded that Mannington Mills had failed to
fulfill the most basic requirements to support a motion for
summary judgment. In order to have the case dismissed, they would
have had to show that there was no evidence supporting Mrs.
Pogacnik's case. Instead, they tried to shift the burden of proof
onto her, which is something that is not legally permitted when
arguing for summary judgment. As a result, the case will move
forward and she will have the opportunity to prove their
liability for her husband's death.

Mesothelioma victims face many challenges, but they have the
advantage of having numerous  resources to support them. If you
or a loved one has been diagnosed with this rare and fatal form
of cancer, contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net
today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more about how we can help.








                            *********


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  * * *