CAR_Public/180709.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


               Friday, July 6, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 135



                            Headlines


1923 SNEAKER: Faces "Lopez" Suit in E.D. New York
A FINKL: Faces BIPA Class Action Over Employee Timekeeping System
AIR METHODS: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Alleged Price Gouging
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $45MM
AMERCO INC: Faces "Shetler" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania

APPLE INC: Turner et al. Allege Defective MacBook Keyboard
APPLE INC: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to App Class Action
ARASOR INT'L: Court Tosses Caason's Appeal in Secret Deal Spat
AUSTIN, TX: Female Sexual Assault Victims File Class Action
AUSTRALIA: 150+ People Denied Entry to Festival, Lawsuit Mulled

AUSTRALIA: Class Action Mulled Over Delayed Light Rail Project
AUSTRALIA: Liverpool Council Settles Asbestos Class Action
AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Doesn't Pay OT to Sales Agent, Rafael Alleges
BANK OF MONTREAL: Faces Class Action Over Cybersecurity Breaches
BITGRAIL: Class Action Over Missing Funds Ongoing in Italy

BROADSPECTRUM: Faces "Wu" Suit in California Superior Court
BW RRI III: Faces "Honeywell" Suit in N.D. Florida
CALIFORNIA FOUNDATION FOR HEALTH: Faces "Palacio" Suit in Kern
CANADA: Koskie Minksy Ordered to Donate $1.5MM Fees to Charity
CANADA: Hearing Begins in Waterloo Regional Police Class Action

CAPITAL FITNESS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Holczler" Suit in E.D. New York
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Velez" Suit in E.D. New York
CHINA AGRITECH: Cohen Milstein Attorney Comments on SCOTUS Ruling
CHINA AGRITECH: Schiff Hardin Attorney Discusses SCOTUS Ruling

CHINA AUTO: Aug. 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
CHRYSALIS CENTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Jones" Suit Says
CICERO, IL: Class Suit by Adair et al. Underway
CLUBCORP INT'L: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
COLORADO: Tenants File Class Action Over Rat Infestation

CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL: Underpays Delivery Driver, Barragan Says
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE: Faces Sigma Beta Xi Suit in C.D. California
CREDIT UNION: Law Firm Prepares Overdraft Fee Class Action
DECORATIVE CONCRETE: Underpays Concrete Finishers, Ramirez Claims
DIPPIN' DOTS: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York

DURHAM UNIVERSITY: Students Sign Up for Class Action Over Strikes
EASTERN MICHIGAN: Two Student-Athletes File Discrimination Suit
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Ct. OKs Renewed Bid to Certify "Johnson" Class
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Must Produce Docs on Geneva Class
ERIE INDEMNITY: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Beltz" Suit

FAT BRANDS: Faces Securities Class Action in California
FEED & GRAIN: Faces "Zuniga" Suit in E.D. New York
FINANCIAL ENGINES: Faces Securities Class Action in Delaware
FINANCIAL ENGINES: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Mandelos" Suit in E.D. New York

GEL FACTORY: Faces "Huang" Suit in E.D. New York
GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
GOOGLE INC: Likely to Give Donations to Resolve WiFi Class Action
HAN DYNASTY: Faces "Yeh" Suit in S.D. New York
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Faces Race Discrimination Class Action

HAWAII: Settles Special Education Class Action for $10.3MM
HEALTH NET: Faces "Mitchell" Suit over Access of Health Plans
HEALTHPORT TECH: Class Suit Over Basic Fees Dismissed
HEALTHTRAX INT'L: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
INDIANA: Court Certifies Class of DOC Prisoners in "Sweeney" Suit

INNERWORKINGS INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
INTEREXCHANGE INC: Can't Compel Disclosure of Opt-In Info
INVENTION SUBMISSION: Faces "Zanotti" Suit in S.D. New York
IRELAND: HSE Faces Legal Action Over Cancer Misdiagnosis
JULIE FORD: Faces "Martinez" Suit in Sacramento

KLONDEX MINES: Faces Class Action Over Hecla Acquisition Deal
LAGUNA BEACH, CA: Makes Changes Under Homelessness Settlement
LANVIN INC: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Kyros to File Claims on Behalf of Investors
LIFT BRANDS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York

MADISON, NB: "Nelson" Can't Proceed as Inmates Class Action
MARION COUNTY, FL: 11th Cir. Affirms Judgment in "Truesdell"
MAEIL JANCHI: Doesn't Pay OT to Waitresses, "Kim" Suit Alleges
MARS INC: Averts Candy Bar Labeling Class Action
MCDONALD'S: Lawyer Says Quarter Pounder Class Action Frivolous

MCS CLAIM: Faces "Asaro" Suit in E.D. New York
MDL 2843: Delaware Class Action Added to MDL
MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION: Faces "Droke" Suit in M.D. Florida
MONSANTO CO: Cancer Patient's Roundup Lawsuit Goes to Trial
MUSEUM OF THE BIBLE: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. New York

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Duncan's Class Action Objection Meritless
NATIONAL RECOVERIES: "Reizner" FDCPA Suit Dismissed
NEW JERSEY: Faces Class Action Over "Representation Fees"
NEW ORLEANS, LA: "Anderson" Class Certification Reversed
NESTLE USA: Slave Labor Lawsuit Can Proceed in U.S., Panel Rules

NHL: Players Mull Concussion Class Action
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Kazar" Suit in E.D. New York
NUTRIBULLET LLC: Faces "White" Suit in C.D. California
ONE LODGING: Faces "Colburn" Suit in D. Maryland
OZ MEDIA: Settles Class Action Over Diet Supplement for $5.25MM

QRXPHARMA: Emails Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege
PACCAR INC: Anderson & Sons et al. Sue over Defective Engines
PAGEUP: Data Breach Class Action Mulled Following Malware Attack
PCL CONSTRUCTION: $10.3MM Power Outage Suit Deal Has Prelim OK
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Smith" Suit in S.D. Mississippi

PALATE RESTAURANT: Faces "Thapa" Suit in E.D. New York
POWERCOR AUSTRALIA: Faces 4th Suit Over St. Patrick's Day Fires
POWERHOUSE GYMS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
RITE AID: Faces "Duncan" Suit in S.D. New York
RITEAID CORP: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Figueroa Alleges

SAIPRASAD MEDICAL: Underpays Drivers, "Lama" Suit Alleges
SFM LLC: Munoz Sues over Failure to Provide Seats to Cashiers
SKYLINE HIGHLAND: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Understaffing
SPORTTIME CLUBS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
STAPLES INC: Court Dismisses Suit Over Defective DVD-R Disks

STYLELINE STUDIOS: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Ct. Denies Bid to Dismiss FAC in "Luong"
TAL EDUCATION: Aug. 17 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
TD AMERITRADE: Files Motion to Strike Class Action Claims
TELEDIRECT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Chavez" Suit in Sacramento

TENNIS EQUITIES: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
TITLEMAX OF NEW MEXICO: Arbitration Bid in "Romero" Partly OK'd
TOTAL CARD: Court Denies Bid to Strike Amended "Judah" FDCPA Suit
UBER: Ct. to Partially Review Dismissal of Lyft Drivers' Suit
UBER: $7.5MM Settlement in FCRA Suit Has Final Approval

UNION FARE: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
UNITED PARCEL: Underpays Delivery Drivers, "Cabezas" Suit Claims
UNITED STATES: Fight Against Illegal Immigrant Abortions Not Over
UNITED TECH: Class Certification Bids in "Cotromano" Suit Denied
UNUM GROUP: Johnson Fistel Probes Potential Securities Claims

UPMC: Decertification of Part of Class of Nurses Reversed
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Faces Probodanu et al. Suit in Calif.
VACO TECH: Court Denies Bid to Stay "Bush" Suit
VIONIC GROUP: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Ct. Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended "Mora"

WASABI N' WOK: Faces "Lin" Suit in D. New Jersey
WELLS FARGO: Fake-Accounts Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
WORLD GYM: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York

* AG Supports Move to License Litigation Funders in Australia
* G100 Calls for ALRC to Review Class Action Litigation Fees
* Law Students Fight Back Against Mandatory Arbitration Deals


                     Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Objects to Claims of ComEd, Exelon
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Defends Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $53.6MM Accrued Liability at March 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 18,067 Unresolved Claims at March 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 533 Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Had 675 PI Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $555MM Liability at Mar.31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1 Suit vs. Haynes Int'l Pending at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Still Defends Talc-Related Suits at Mar.31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 50 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Athene Holding's Unit Settles "Holzer" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Accrued US$38MM for DuPont Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.3BB Liability at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 14,333 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 25,000 Claims Pending at Mar. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Has US$870.3MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Defends 2 Mesothelioma Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Had 31,600 Claims Pending at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $629.5MM Asbestos Liability at Mar. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Final Judgment vs. Bechtel Reversed on Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Broadway Couple Sues MetLife Over Lung Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Sued Over Failure to Warn in "Coffey"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cos. Sued Over Failure to Warn in "Callahan"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hillburn Couple Seeks Damages for Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Vicar Diagnosed with Asbestos Disease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worker Dies After Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veteran Sailor Blames Asbestos for Lung Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defense Move to Dismiss "Dapp" Talc Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bitter Discovery Fight Heated in Talc Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Plant Worker's Family Seeks Help
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Son Awarded $11.4MM in Take-Home Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Apartment Displaces L.A. Residents
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SDC Builders Fined for Asbestos Violation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Asked to Dismiss Asbestos Claimants Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Negligent Suit Filed Against Asbestos Maker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Dying of Asbestos Disease for Hugging Dad







                            *********


1923 SNEAKER: Faces "Lopez" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1923 Sneaker, Inc.
d/b/a "Air Kicks". The case is styled as Gerson Lopez, on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. 1923 Sneaker, Inc.
d/b/a "Air Kicks" and Youkyung Choi, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03828 (E.D. N.Y., July 2, 2018).

1923 Sneaker, Inc. d/b/a "Air Kicks" is engaged in shoe
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


A FINKL: Faces BIPA Class Action Over Employee Timekeeping System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a proposed class action has been brought by
a former employee of Illinois steel maker A. Finkl & Sons Co.
over its handprint-based employee timekeeping system.

The suit is the latest litigation brought under Illinois'
Biometric Information Privacy Act, which makes companies liable
for damages if they fail to properly keep people informed about
the use of their biometric identifiers.

It is alleged that Finkl violated BIPA when it didn't ask
employees for permission to use the handprints or tell them how
long the information would be retained.  The suit also claims the
company failed to obtain written releases from employees for the
information and is lacking a written policy outlining how long
the information is kept and when it will be destroyed.

The suit against Finkl also names its timekeeping vendor, ADP
LLC, and claims that Finkl shared the handprints with ADP and
other unnamed parties.

The suit seeks statutory damages of $5,000 per willful or
reckless violation or $1,000 for each negligent violation, plus
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

Experts have said that the recent wave of lawsuits under the
decade-old law is due to the increase in popularity of biometric
workforce management solutions.  With the recent barrage of BIPA-
related lawsuits brought to Illinois courts, several top privacy
attorneys have discussed what areas defendants should seek
insurance coverage for the potentially high-stakes claims. [GN]


AIR METHODS: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Alleged Price Gouging
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Jordan, writing for The Gazette, reports that four years
after the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics quietly
outsourced its AirCare helicopter ambulance service to a for-
profit corporation, the public hospital won't say how much money
it's receiving from the company facing patient complaints about
sky-high costs.

Walter Brant, 66, of Osceola, filed a complaint with the Iowa
Attorney General's Office against Air Methods for charging him
$35,000 for a 40-mile flight to Mercy Medical Center in Des
Moines in 2014 -- a trip he's not sure was necessary.

"I said next time, let me die, because I'm not paying that,"
Mr. Brant said.

The Gazette investigated the relationship between UIHC and Air
Methods because the company now owns and operates the majority of
medical helicopters in Iowa.  UIHC, with a burn treatment center
and a neonatal intensive care unit, receives between 800 and
1,000 helicopter transports a year, providing significant
business for Air Methods.

The Iowa City hospital is facing a $7 million deficit caused by
rising costs, state and federal funding cuts and Affordable Care
Act changes.  The hospital's rocky finances make it particularly
important the public be able to see whether officials got a good
deal when outsourcing a vital state service.  But the UIHC
blacked out all financial details of the contract.

"As chair of the Government Oversight committee for the state of
Iowa, I find it completely unacceptable that they sent you
redacted financial documents," Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton,
said on June 15.  "I would strongly urge they release that
information before I make them."

AirCare first in Iowa

Started in 1979, UI AirCare was the first hospital-based air
ambulance in Iowa and one of the first 15 programs in the nation,
the hospital reported. Early flights were in a D model A-Star
helicopter with room for only two people, according to Mike
Dillard, an AirCare nurse for more than 30 years.

"Flying alone with the pilot made for some very interesting
flights and you haven't lived until you have done one-person CPR
at 5,000 feet!" Dillard wrote in an online history.

AirCare added a second helicopter in 1987, moving it to Waterloo
a year later.  AirCare II now is stationed there at Covenant
Medical Center, which is planning a 30-year celebration of the
flight service June 24. AirCare III has been based at Mercy
Medical Center in Dubuque since 2016.

In April 2014, the UIHC signed a five-year, renewable contract
with Rocky Mountain Holdings, an Air Methods subsidiary, making
it the "preferred provider" for all helicopter transports to
UIHC.

"It allows UI Hospitals and Clinics to focus on providing high-
quality clinical care for critically ill patients, while
contracting with an air medical provider with experience and
expertise in providing safe and efficient medical transport,"
UIHC said in an email to The Gazette.

Air Methods, founded in 1982 in Denver, is the nation's largest
air ambulance company serving 41 states, according to the
company's 2016 annual report.  The company flew 71,700 patients
in 2016, up 14 percent from the previous year, and reported
revenue of $1.17 billion, up from $1 billion in 2015.

Payments kept secret

Air Methods provides the helicopters and pilots for all three
AirCare sites, according to the contract The Gazette obtained
through a public records request.  The hospitals supply a
registered nurse and a paramedic or other provider for each
flight. A UI medical director oversees the clinical care provided
on all AirCare flights.

Air Methods has "sole authority to bill and collect any and all
non-physician service fees" from patients.  Those fees and
billing policies aren't outlined in the contract.

The payments Air Methods makes to UIHC for clinical care, medical
direction and program management were blacked out in the 43-page
document, as were payments for medical equipment and supplies.

Hospital officials refused to give The Gazette an estimate of how
much Air Methods paid the public hospital for each of the last
three fiscal years.

"At the advice of our counsel, the University is unable to
provide the information you requested regarding the amount paid
by Air Methods to UIHC since Air Methods' attorney represented
that Air Methods is filing for injunctive relief to enjoin the
disclosure of this information that it considers to be trade
secret information," Ann Goff, UI transparency officer, wrote in
a May 14 email.

The Gazette has filed an application to intervene in these court
proceedings to argue for openness.

Lifesaving care

There's no question air ambulances provide lifesaving services
for many patients.

A 2014 study in the Canadian Journal of Surgery showed patients
with traumatic injuries who were transported by air ambulance
often have better outcomes than those who come in ground
ambulances because of shorter transport times, more advanced
equipment and the presence of a flight nurse and paramedic,
Science Daily reported.

Stephen and Kristine Vermeulen, of Moline, Ill., believe their 1-
year-old son, Asher, might not be alive without the AirCare crew
that flew him to Iowa City when he was born 10 weeks early.

The couple and their two older sons were on a road trip to Galena
in February 2017 when Kristine started bleeding and losing
consciousness, she said. She was taken by ground ambulance from
Galena to Dubuque, where Asher was born at just under four
pounds.

"In Dubuque, they airlifted Asher to Iowa City," Kristine
Vermeulen said.  "In my mind, there really wasn't another option
if he was going to make it."

Asher stayed in the UI's NICU for 40 days before going home with
his family.  The Vermeulens then received a $50,000 bill from Air
Methods.

"We told them 'we can't pay that'," Stephen Vermeulen said.

The couple made numerous calls to their insurer, which paid the
bulk of the bill, and Air Methods before negotiating an out-of-
pocket payment of $500.

"They just wanted whatever they could get," he said.  "Maybe we
were just lucky."

Alleged price gouging

Air Methods is facing several lawsuits across the country for
alleged price gouging.

Michael and Tabitha Cox, of West Virginia, are proposing a class-
action lawsuit against Air Methods over $46,000 the company says
it is owed for a 76-mile flight for their sick son in 2015,
according to Bloomberg. The dispute focuses on the difference
between the actual cost of the flight and what Air Methods is
charging.

In a federal lawsuit filed in Ohio, Billy Byler claims Air
Methods charged him $25,344 for a 36-mile flight, court filings
show.  He and co-plaintiff Donald Reid, charged $48,000 for a
31-mile flight, allege the company hides its pricing structure
and doesn't work with managed care organizations -- so patients
have to pay up front and then seek their own reimbursement.

Three people have complained to the Iowa Attorney General's
Office since 2015 about air ambulance billing practices.  Two
complaints concern Air Methods.

"I had an incident in December (2014)," said Brant, the Osceola
farmer and veteran. "I got real dizzy, real sick.  I had elevated
blood pressure."

The first emergency medical technician on the scene couldn't
figure out what was wrong and decided to call an air ambulance,
Brant said.  The helicopter landed in a field north of his house
and air lifted him to Mercy Medical Center in Des Moines.

Brant stayed there for two days without being admitted and
without a diagnosis, he said. The hospital had to give him scrubs
to wear home because EMTs had cut off his clothes.

He later saw an ear nose and throat doctor who determined the
illness likely was due to an inner ear imbalance or vertigo,
Brant said.

Brant was shocked when he got the $35,000 bill from Air Methods.

"I don't know how you can justify that kind of billing," he said.
His insurance company paid $11,000 and then Brant filed a
complaint with the AG's office to try to persuade Air Methods to
settle.  It did.  Brant said he can't say how much he ended up
paying, but "they came down a considerable amount."

Air Methods tries to find financial assistance for every patient,
pairing patients with employees who help them "navigate the
complexities of their insurance reimbursement," according to a
statement Air Methods sent The Gazette.

The company also has a membership program allowing people in
about 30 states to pay $40 a year (or $75 for families) for Air
Methods to accept as full payment in advance of whatever a
person's health insurance will pay for a medically-necessary
helicopter transport.

"That could save you thousands of dollars for just a single
transport," the Air Methods website notes.

Profit potential drives consolidation

The profit potential for helicopter transports has led to a
steady increase in the number of air ambulances, according to the
Atlas and Database of Air Medical Services.

But 1,049 helicopters nationwide in 2017 are owned by a shrinking
number of firms, as for-profit companies have bought out local,
hospital-based services.

Four operators -- including Air Methods -- now claim half the
industry's revenue, according to a 2017 article by Consumer
Reports.

Air Methods' average charge went from about $13,000 in 2007 to
$50,000 in 2016, reported Jon Hanlon of Research 360, an
independent research and analysis firm.  The real cost of
transport averages from $7,000 to $10,000, Consumer Reports
noted.

Rick Sherlock, president and chief executive of the Association
of Air Medical Services, told Consumer Reports air ambulance
operators try to collect more from people with private insurance
to make up for patients on Medicare or Medicaid, which pay only
$200 to $6,000 per transport.

Another major player is Med-Trans Corp, owned by Texas-based Air
Medical Group Holdings.  Med-Trans owns and operates the
LifeGuard helicopter at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke's Hospital, in
Cedar Rapids, as well as helicopters at hospitals in Mason City
and Sioux City.

St. Luke's LifeGuard averages about 300 flights a year in a
coverage area that ranges north to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester,
Minn., east to the Quad Cities, west to Marshalltown and south
into part of Johnson County.

Who calls the Chopper?

Some patients, including Brant, have questioned whether they
needed to be flown by helicopter.

A 2015 study by Gary Vercruysse, a trauma surgeon at the
University of Arizona Medical Center, showed nearly one-third of
air lifts to his hospital over six years weren't necessary.


"Education to physicians calling for transport and identification
of alternate means of transportation would be both safe and
financially beneficial to our system," the study notes.

Under a Johnson County policy revised in 2016, first responders
decide whether to call or cancel a helicopter, said Tom Jones,
director of the Johnson County Joint Emergency Communications
Center.  He's heard concerns about for-profit companies in other
states prematurely launching helicopter transports to make more
money.

"That's one of the reasons we caution that we want to have first
responders decide," he said.  "We're (dispatchers) not going to
assume that role."

Air Methods said its pilots do respond only when called.

"We only act when a first responder or an attending physician
determines the patient needs us," a statement said.

Reaction from the public

UIHC hasn't advertised its contract with Air Methods, with many
people believing AirCare's black-and-gold helicopters still are
university-owned and operated.

"I checked with UIHC and was informed that there were no press
releases or Board of Regents reports/presentations that relate to
UIHC's agreement with AirMethods," reported Goff, the UI
transparency officer.  The regents govern the hospital.

Josh Lehman, regents communication director, said of the contract
with Air Methods: "The board was not involved in that process and
has no information about it."

Cathy Glasson, president of the union that represents UI nurses,
and a former Democratic gubernatorial candidate, said if the Air
Methods contract is saving money, UIHC should be proud to talk
about it. "It would be irresponsible for a public entity to not
be forthcoming," she said.

Iowa Sen. Pam Jochum, D-Dubuque agreed.

"The UIHC needs to provide their rationale for contracting with
this company -- especially in light of the legal problems it is
facing in other states." [GN]


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $45MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
American Airlines agreed to pay $45 million to settle an
antitrust class action accusing it of colluding with other
domestic airlines to limit capacity and drive up fares, and will
cooperate with the federal government as it pursues Delta and
United.

The Fort Worth-based airline settled under terms of a 20-page
memorandum filed on June 15 in District of Columbia Federal
Court.

American has faced several since-consolidated federal class
actions against it, Southwest Airlines, Delta and United,
beginning in 2015.  One suit filed in Milwaukee claimed the
airlines "illegally signaled to each other how quickly they would
add new flights, routes and extra seats."

The plaintiffs claimed that mergers since 2008 resulted in the
defendants controlling more than 80 percent of seats in the
domestic travel market.

"During that period, they have eliminated unprofitable flights,
filled a higher percentage of seats on planes and made a very
public effort to slow growth in order to command higher
airfares," the Milwaukee complaint states.

The class claims airlines used the term "discipline" as a
euphemism for limiting flights and seats to increase profits, at
a June 2015 meeting of top airline executives at the
International Air Transport Association conference in Miami.

American is the second airline to settle the case. Dallas-based
Southwest Airlines agreed to pay $15 million in January, citing
the high cost of litigation and denying wrongdoing.

American spokesman Matt Miller made the same argument on June 16.
"We believe we're right on the law and the facts," he said,
adding: "Costs to defend against antitrust litigation often run
into the tens of millions of dollars.  We continue to deny,
without qualification, that American participated in any such
agreement, and the settlement does not include any admission of
wrongdoing," he said.

"The facts show that American dramatically increased domestic
capacity during the period covered by the complaint, while taking
delivery of hundreds of new aircraft, giving it the youngest
fleet of the U.S. network carriers.  Customers have greatly
benefited from these investments in our network, as domestic
passenger traffic has increased considerably while fares have
fallen to near all-time lows.  The airline industry overall has
been, and remains, intensely competitive, with a variety of
business models and individual airlines making very different
decisions concerning when and where to add new routes or
flights."

Both settlements came after the court refused Southwest and
American's joint motion to dismiss filed in May 2016.  Both
airlines unsuccessfully sought dismissal on grounds that the
plaintiffs "had not sufficiently alleged a conspiracy" or
established standing.

American began to discuss a settlement in March.

Delta spokesman Morgan Durrant said on June 15: "The assertion
that our success is due to anything but the hard work of our
people is offensive."

The court has 30 days to give preliminary approval for American's
proposed settlement. [GN]


AMERCO INC: Faces "Shetler" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amerco, Inc. The
case is styled as Nicole Shetler, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Amerco, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00867-JFC (W.D. Pa., July 2, 2018).

AMERCO operates as a do-it-yourself moving and storage operator
for household and commercial goods in the United States and
Canada. The company's Moving and Storage segment rents trucks,
trailers, portable moving and storage units, specialty rental
items, and self-storage spaces primarily to the household movers;
and sells moving supplies, towing accessories, and propane.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP
   1133 Penn Avenue
   5th Floor
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Fax: (412) 231-0246
   Email: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com


APPLE INC: Turner et al. Allege Defective MacBook Keyboard
----------------------------------------------------------
REMY TURNER, CHRISTOPHER MARTIN, and JOEY BARUCH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-03048-HRL (N.D. Cal., May
22, 2018) is an action against the Defendant for selling and
manufacturing Apple MacBook which are equipped with defective
butterfly switch keyboards.

Prior to the introduction of the butterfly switch keyboard in
2015, Apple used a "scissor switch" mechanism for the keyboard
keys on its low-profile laptops. Butterfly switch keyboards,
which Apple began to use in 2015 on MacBooks and in 2016 on
MacBook Pros, are even lower profile than scissor switch
keyboards. Because of their very low profile, butterfly switch
keyboards are resistant to the accumulation of debris underneath
the keys. However, when dust or other tiny particles do get
beneath the keys, they are capable of rendering the butterfly
switches nonfunctional.

Despite its awareness of the defect, Defendant has advertised and
continues to advertise the Laptops as having a superior and
highly responsive keyboard, with "four times more key stability
than a traditional scissor mechanism." These representations were
false and misleading.

Defendant has at all times failed to disclose that the keyboard
is defective, because it is prone to malfunction necessitating
costly repair and replacement.

Apple Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the State of
California and has its principal place of business in Cupertino,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Miranda P. Kolbe, Esq.
          Noah N. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: wjonckheer@sjk.law
                  rschubert@sjk.law
                  mkolbe@sjk.law
                  nschubert@sjk.law


APPLE INC: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to App Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Wheeler and Harper Neidig, writing for The Hill, report
that the Supreme Court on June 18 agreed to hear Apple's
challenge to a class-action lawsuit brought by consumers who
alleged the company has a monopoly on how apps can be purchased
for its devices.

Consumers allege the tech company illegally monopolized the
distribution of iPhone apps and charged app developers high
commissions that ultimately inflated the prices for consumers.

On June 18, the court said it would take up Apple's claim that
only app developers and not consumers have legal ground to bring
such an antitrust suit.

Apple does not allow app developers to distribute their software
outside of the App Store.  The company takes 30 percent of fees
for any paid apps then passes on the remaining 70 percent to the
developer.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that only "the overcharged
direct purchaser, and not others in the chain of manufacture or
distribution" have the right to bring antitrust cases.  The
class-action plaintiffs, in this case, argue that they're the
direct purchasers since they pay Apple directly for the apps,
which then passes on their payments to the developers.

Apple countered that it does not sell apps, but essentially rents
out space in its app store to developers.

In January of last year the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
sided with the consumers, ruling that Apple was a distributor
that sold apps directly to its users and that they could proceed
with their lawsuit against the tech giant.

Neither Apple nor an attorney for the plaintiffs responded when
asked to comment on the court's decision on June 18. [GN]


ARASOR INT'L: Court Tosses Caason's Appeal in Secret Deal Spat
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miklos Bolza, writing for Lawyerly, reports that a legal stoush
over a "secret" side agreement between the lead applicant in a
shareholder class action and a litigation funder has been shut
down, with the Full Federal Court on June 18 dismissing an appeal
by the applicant.

The dispute, which threatened to put a $19.25 million settlement
on ice indefinitely, set Caason Investments against Singapore-
based funder International Litigation Partners in a battle over
almost $700,000 in GST refunds.

Caason was the lead applicant in a shareholder class action
against directors and auditors of defunct laser technology
company Arasor International Ltd.

It claims the side agreement with ILP entitled it to withhold tax
credits on GST paid by the funder to cover legal, administrative
and accounting costs incurred in its lead role in the litigation.

The investment firm says it advised ILP it would retain the
refunds as part of their deal, but ILP denies making that
agreement.

In approving the $19.25 million settlement in the underlying
class action in April, Justice Bernard Murphy ruled that the
Federal Court had the authority to hear the side dispute because
it formed part of a "single justiciable controversy".

Judge Murphy, who referred to the side agreement at issue as a
"secret" apparently kept from group members, ordered Caason to
pay the GST refunds to the scheme administrator.

On June 18, the Full Court heard and dismissed Caason's appeal,
which challenged Justice Bernard Murphy's power to resolve the
side dispute together with approving the settlement.

The GST refunds themselves are currently under audit by the
Australian Taxation Office, which is investigating almost
$400,000 of tax credits received by Caason, the Full Court heard
on June 18.

ILP barrister Dr Kristine Hanscombe, QC, told the court the ATO
was looking into claims Caason had claimed credit on invoices
that were too old and had also claimed excess GST on other
invoices.

Caason barrister David Robertson told the Full Court the side
dispute was separate from the shareholder class action and should
be heard in the NSW District Court.

"They're essentially disparate claims concerning an applicant and
a non-party," Mr. Robertson said.

The Full Court was not persuaded, with Justice John Middleton
saying GST refunds were "part and parcel" of the settlement and
not an issue Judge Murphy "could sweep under the carpet".

Justice Nye Perram agreed that Judge Murphy was correct to
consider GST refunds together with the overall settlement amount.
"You can't assess the reasonableness of the settlement without
assessing the deductions made upon it," he told Mr. Robertson.

Chief Justice James Allsop questioned the need for the dispute at
all.

"Don't you trust ILP to give you your costs properly?" he asked.

Mr. Robertson replied that Caason was in a "somewhat invidious
position" given the current circumstances.  There was concern
money would be handed over to the overseas-based ILP, which may
be needed to repay the ATO once it concluded its investigations.

The June 18 appeal was dismissed with costs.

Mr. Robertson, of New Chambers, was instructed by Mills Oakley.
Hanscombe, of Castan Chambers, was instructed by Russells.

The case is Caason Investments Pty Ltd v International Litigation
Partners No.3 Ltd. [GN]


AUSTIN, TX: Female Sexual Assault Victims File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elisha Brown, Danika Fears and Olivia Messer, writing for The
Daily Beast, report that in 2008, Amy Smith* was a student at the
University of Texas at Austin when a man forced her into his car,
drove her to a hotel, and repeatedly raped her in his room,
according to a class-action lawsuit filed on June 18.

She reported the assault to the police -- but the trauma only
continued from there, as she endured a 10-year struggle for
justice that ultimately resulted in her rape case being
dismissed, the court papers state.

Ms. Smith is one of three women who are suing the city of Austin,
Travis County, and local authorities for unspecified damages,
claiming female victims of sexual assault "have been denied equal
access to justice and equal protection of the law."

"In short, the women of Travis County have been failed by the
people sworn to protect them -- the government officials and
actors who have instead disbelieved, dismissed, and denigrated
female victims of sexual assault, failed to have DNA evidence
tested for years at a time, and refused to investigate or
prosecute cases of sexual assault against female survivors
because juries purportedly do not like 'he said, she said'
cases," the lawsuit states.

Among many allegations, the lawsuit accuses authorities of
failing to properly train government employees how to handle sex-
assault cases, mishandling rape kits, and devoting more resources
to other violent crimes.  The current and former district
attorneys of Travis County are also named in the suit, along with
the current and former police chiefs of Austin.

"Defendants' unconstitutional and discriminatory conduct subjects
female victims of sexual assault in Travis County and all women
of Travis County to continued risk at the hands of perpetrators
who are never held accountable," it says.

The lawsuit notes that fewer than 10 cases of sexual assault are
prosecuted in Travis County each year, despite over 1,000 women
coming forward to report violent sexual crimes.

"And in 2017, only a single case of sexual assault -- against a
male victim -- was prosecuted through trial," it says.

The lawsuit also accuses the Austin Police Department of failing
to believe some victims who come forward -- or, in other cases,
suggesting they bear some responsibility for their alleged
assaults.  A wall in the department's sexual-assault unit even
featured photos of women who had made what officers
"unilaterally" determined to be false reports, the papers allege.

"Officers posted pictures of these 'debunked' female accusers on
the wall as a matter of pride, as trophies of their
'investigations,'" the lawsuit says.

After Ms. Smith's alleged rape, she went to the hospital for a
sexual-assault exam and discussed her attacker with police,
describing him as a "heavy set, black man with dreadlocks."
Cops first picked up a Hispanic man at a local hotel and tested
his DNA, even though Ms. Smith was sure he wasn't her attacker,
she said.

"The analyst there purportedly found a three DNA mixture -- the
Hispanic man, an unknown woman, and Ms. Smith," the lawsuit says.
"Despite telling Police detectives that it was impossible for her
DNA to be on the Hispanic man, the Police began to question her
truthfulness."

DNA from Ms. Smith's rape kit led authorities to another man,
Tyrone Robinson, a convicted thief who had checked into the same
hotel she was raped at, the documents say.  In 2009, he was
charged with her kidnapping and rape, but the case languished
from there for years.

Eventually, another DNA lab ruled out the Hispanic man as
Ms. Smith's attacker, and charges were refiled against
Mr. Robinson in 2014.  "But [Travis County District Attorney
Rosemary] Lehmberg did not aggressively pursue the case, upon
information and belief, to avoid having to explain the initial
flawed DNA analysis to a jury," the lawsuit states.

Meanwhile, Mr. Robinson allegedly sexually assaulted two others
in the Houston area and was charged there.  The charges against
him in Travis County were dropped in 2017.  "Ten years have now
passed since Ms. Smith was kidnapped and raped in Travis County,
and given the status of her case -- which has been dismissed --
it is unlikely Ms. Smith will ever have a day in court to bring
her rapist to justice," the lawsuit says.

Another woman, Julie Ann Nitsch, alleges in the lawsuit that she
was raped in 2010 after returning home from a party in her
neighborhood.

"Nitsch awoke to find a man on top of her, pinning her down to
her bed and licking her face," the court papers say.  "She did
not recognize the man who was sexually assaulting her, and she
screamed repeatedly and tried to escape."

Her attacker ran off, and Ms. Nitsch's roommate called the Austin
police, whom she thought would help track down the intruder.
Instead, APD entered Ms. Nitsch's apartment as though it was "an
active shooter scene" and interrogated her with a series of
questions about what she was drinking, what she was wearing, and
why she resided in a "bad neighborhood," the court filing states.
Cops didn't test evidence at her home for DNA, and never followed
up to give her the results of her rape kit, according to the
lawsuit.

"Though Ms. Nitsch grew frustrated with the lack of contact from
Defendants, she tried to move on," it says.  "In the ensuing
years, other friends of hers were raped and had similar
experiences with the criminal justice system in Travis County.
Two of those friends . . .  committed suicide or died of
accidental overdoses in the years following their own attacks."

The third woman listed in the lawsuit is Maria Conner, who says
she was raped in a parking garage by a man who'd offered her
drugs.  "During the attack, Ms. Conner's cell phone called her
friend, who did not answer, and the voicemail recorded
Ms. Conner's cries for help and screams of resistance," the
complaint states.

Afterwards, Ms. Conner says she showered to "remove the presence
and smell of her attacker" -- without knowing that doing so would
remove his DNA, according to the lawsuit.  Even so, the
University of Texas graduate went to a local domestic violence
shelter for a rape kit.

Cops managed to track down her alleged rapist when the man texted
her, asking if he'd sold her cocaine.  He was arrested and
confessed to raping Ms. Conner after police caught him through a
fake drug deal, the complaint states.  But Ms. Conner says her
rape kit test was put off for months until she received notice in
June 2017 that mold had grown on hundreds of rape kits at the DNA
lab, the lawsuit claims.

Meanwhile, Ms. Conner said she received notice through Facebook
that her attacker enrolled at UT Austin.

"She felt incredibly unsafe on campus and grew distracted from
her schoolwork, fearing that she would run into her attacker at
any moment," the lawsuit states, adding that she left school and
suffered from PTSD and panic attacks.

She returned to college in fall 2017 and called Austin police for
an update on her case.  That's when officials told her that DNA
had not been found on her rape kit -- and that without it, they
couldn't prosecute her alleged attacker.

"Ms. Conner's case has been dismissed, and her rapist walks free
with the confidence that he can rape other women with no
repercussions," the lawsuit states.  "There will be no justice
for Ms. Conner because the DA's office refuses to try sexual
assault cases without DNA evidence."

On June 19, a spokesperson for the city of Austin said in a
statement, "The integrity of the criminal justice system is of
utmost importance to the City and our law enforcement partners.
We are aware of the issues raised in this lawsuit and will be
reviewing the details as we determine our next steps." [GN]


AUSTRALIA: 150+ People Denied Entry to Festival, Lawsuit Mulled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avani Dias, writing for ABC, reports that Hack can reveal more
than 150 people were kicked out of a Sydney festival despite
being searched and found without drugs, prompting a potential
class action against the NSW Police.

About 30 of those punters have joined the legal action so far
saying they were kicked out of Sydney's Midnight Mafia hardstyle
festival in May where a tough new drug dog strategy was
conducted.

NSW Police refused entry to the event if a sniffer dog gave "an
indication" someone had drugs on them.

That's even if a subsequent search found no illegal substances.

One hundred and eighty-seven people were searched and kicked out,
according to a police report, and only 35 of them were found with
drugs on them.

"Even though each individual's claim may be relatively small --
the loss of enjoyment, going to a concert, the personal
difficulties they have on their night, the loss of ticket, or the
travel costs -- but when you bring all of these claims together
that's when you have a viable action," Greens MP David Shoebridge
-- who is spearheading the action -- told Hack.

"That's when you get the critical mass to hold organisations the
size of the NSW Police to account."

Type of legal action still being assessed
This strategy was used by NSW Police most recently at Sydney's
Above and Beyond concert where five people were turned away or
kicked out despite having nothing on them.

"We really are just trying to work out the most viable course of
action whether it's a case that the police exceeded their
statutory powers, whether the police potentially engaged in
what's called an intentional tort of trespass against
individuals," David says.

"Or it may even be based on consumer protection laws.

People suspected with drugs will be refused entry
In a statement, NSW Police told Hack that of the 187 people
searched at the festival more than 3,500 MDMA capsules were
found.

Police say 13 people were charged with supplying drugs at
Midnight Mafia

"If you are suspected of drugs or alcohol, you will be refused
entry into the event," a spokesman says.

"Our top priority for police is the safety of all event staff,
performers and music fans throughout the festival . . . We want
everyone to have a great time but we won't tolerate behaviour
that risks the safety of others." [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Class Action Mulled Over Delayed Light Rail Project
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt O'Sullivan, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
an upmarket Swiss watch retailer is suing the state government
for $4 million for losses it claims to have suffered from
construction of Sydney's delayed $2.1 billion light rail project.

Watches of Switzerland is the latest in a growing list of
companies, including Spanish contractor Acciona, pursing the
state's lead transport agency over the 12-kilometre light rail
line from Circular Quay to Randwick and Kingsford in the city's
south east.

Court documents show Watches of Switzerland's profits have more
than halved to $1.3 million in the 12 months to June last year,
from more than $3 million in the prior period.

The family owned retailer of luxury watches has a large shop on
the ground floor of the five-star Four Seasons Hotel on George
Street near the Rocks.

In a statement of claim filed in the NSW Supreme Court, Watches
of Switzerland's lawyers said the retailer would prove that
further losses had been incurred since July last year, and that
more were likely until the light rail line was completed.

Watches of Switzerland claims Transport for NSW's conduct in
relation to the light rail project amounts to a "public nuisance
and an unreasonable interference" with the retailer's business
which "continues to suffer substantial loss and damages".

Construction of the light rail line began in front of the
retailer on George Street in March 2016, which Watches of
Switzerland claims has resulted in "excessive noise and dust".

Barricades for construction had also significantly restricted
pedestrian access to the hotel, it is claimed in the court
documents.

Under the government's original plans, major civil construction
along the entire route of the line was expected to be finished by
April this year, and testing started in June.

But a $1.1 billion lawsuit against the state by Acciona has
revealed that the light rail line is not expected to be opened
until March 2020, a year later than the government had planned.

In April, Acciona launched legal action against Transport for NSW
for "misleading or deceptive conduct" in the lead-up to it
signing a contract in 2014 to design and build the line.

The sub-contractor building the project claims Transport for NSW
led it to believe power company Ausgrid had agreed to a plan to
deal with utilities under the route of the line when it had not.

Transport for NSW said it would defend the proceedings launched
by Watches of Switzerland but declined to comment further while
the matter was before the court.

Watches of Switzerland's lawsuit is the first legal action over
the light rail project by an individual retailer. However, small
businesses and residents are seeking to launch a class action
against Transport for NSW for damages.

And Queensland company VAC Group also has legal action under way
against the government in the Federal Court over the project for
breach of contract, claiming it is owed more than $4.3 million in
damages for delays and additional costs. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Liverpool Council Settles Asbestos Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Cat Fredenburgh, writing for Lawyerly, reports that Sydney's
Liverpool council has reached a proposed settlement with
residents who claim their properties were harmed when soil
containing asbestos was dumped near nature strips around their
properties.

The plaintiffs have agreed to settle the case against the
Liverpool City Council for $200,000, according to an order of
proposed settlement filed June 15.  The Council has admitted no
wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

A ten-day hearing was scheduled to begin July 30 in the Supreme
Court of New South Wales.

More than 20 plaintiffs are represented in the suit, brought in
June 2016 alleging the Council was negligent when it dumped 12
asbestos-containing mounds made of reprocessed soil/shale and
clay taken from a nearby Council depot in December 2014.

The Council breached its duty of care by not preventing the
initial contamination, not having a plan to minimise the impact
of the dumping, failing to take steps to reduce the
contamination, and failing the ensure the material was properly
inspected before dumping, the plaintiffs claim.

The plaintiff allege the Council was negligent in using asbestos
dust and fibre to create the material and that the Council
created a nuisance with the mounds.  The class members claim
their property values were diminished as a result of the
Council's actions.

In its defence, the Council said the mounds were created to wall
off an area where previous unathorised dumping had occurred.  It
also claimed it retained a consultant that tested the material
used in the mounds and found it to be asbestos-free.

The Council also said it never dumped material on nature strips.

However, if there was asbestos contamination, the case would be a
personal injury matter that should be heard in the Dust Diseases
Tribunal, the Council argued.

Objections to the settlement are due by June 29.

A hearing to approve the settlement has been scheduled for
July 6.

The plaintiffs are represented by Paramount Compensation Lawyers.
The Council is represented by Moray & Agnew. [GN]


AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Doesn't Pay OT to Sales Agent, Rafael Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD J. RAFAEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. BC705671 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 22, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Rafael was employed by the Defendants as sales agent.

Automobile Club of Southern California is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361
          Telephone: (323) 549-9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
          E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com

               - and -

          Raphael A. Katri, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A. KATRI
          8549 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3104
          Telephone: (310) 940-2034
          Facsimile: (310) 733-5644
          E-mail: RKatri@socallaborlawyers.com


BANK OF MONTREAL: Faces Class Action Over Cybersecurity Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that proposed class-action lawsuits
have been filed against Bank of Montreal and CIBC's direct
banking division Simplii Financial over recently disclosed
cybersecurity breaches impacting up to 90,000 customers.

Law firms Siskinds LLP and JSS Barristers say they have filed the
proposed class actions against the two Canadian banks in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleging the institutions
failed to establish robust security measures to protect clients'
sensitive information.

The data breaches have had far reaching implications on clients'
personal lives and financial affairs, the full extent of which
has yet to be determined, said Sajjad Nematollahi --
sajjad.nematollahi@siskinds.com -- a lawyer with Siskinds.

"Financial institutions like CIBC and BMO are entrusted with
their clients' most sensitive personal information, and are
expected to have in place robust security measures to safeguard
that information against unauthorized access, use or theft," he
said in a statement.

"Canadian financial institutions are required and expected to
continuously review their defence systems and use best industry
practices to protect Canadians' personal and financial
information."

A CIBC spokesman said on June 18: "While we will vigorously
defend Simplii's legal position at the appropriate time and in
the appropriate venue, our focus is on protecting and supporting
our clients."

BMO did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Simplii and BMO warned in May that "fraudsters" may have accessed
certain personal and financial information of some of its
customers, up to 40,000 clients and 50,000 clients, respectively.

Both institutions said they had been contacted by entities
claiming to have accessed their client's personal data. A BMO
spokesman said a threat was made to make the information public.

BMO and CIBC have since offered clients free credit monitoring
and have pledged to cover any money lost from affected bank
accounts due to fraud.

The proposed class action lawsuits, which have not yet been
certified, are seeking general, compensatory, consequential and
punitive damages on behalf of affected Simplii Financial and BMO
clients. [GN]


BITGRAIL: Class Action Over Missing Funds Ongoing in Italy
----------------------------------------------------------
Finder reports that BitGrail sinks slightly deeper into the hole
of missing funds.

BitGrail hasn't made many friends in the last year.  After some
careless coding and the subsequent theft of $170 million worth of
Nano, it found itself caught between angry users on one side and
suspicious authorities on the other.

Deep in the hole, it made an unsuccessful and tone deaf attempt
to come back to life and bring back users, but was soon beaten
back by impending legal action.

Undeterred, it came back to life anyway and reopened for a few
hours of heavy trading at the start of May before Florence
authorities ordered it to close its doors again. That last
reopening may have spurred on the newest development.

Italian authorities have now seized the exchange's bitcoin
holdings on the grounds of genuine concern for its remaining
assets following BitGrail's ill-advised reopening.

The move is another nail in the coffin for the exchange and might
be another small step towards the conclusion of the BitGrail-Nano
saga.

It might be good news for those who lost funds in the initial
Nano incident, suggesting that there's a chance of getting even
some of their funds back.  Affected users have joined together in
legal action, launched within Italy for better results, but
anyone who lost funds in the incident can put their name on the
list of complainants and potentially receive some of their funds
back when it comes to a head.

The legal action is being supported by Nano developers, who have
started a fund to match other user contributions.

On the other side, there's a considerably less enthusiastic and
more interesting class action lawsuit being launched in the USA
against Nano developers, which similarly invites all affected
users to take part.

In what might be a world first, the lawsuit demands that
developers perform a recovery fork to return funds to all
affected users.  It maintains that Nano developers were in the
wrong for directing users to the BitGrail site, and that they
maliciously refused to perform a hard fork to restore user funds.
It was an outlandish idea even at the time the incident was first
discovered with most of the stolen Nano having been sold and
dispersed months before, and by now it's even more impossible.

The actions of Italian authorities suggest that progress is being
made in the lawsuit against BitGrail, and that affected users
might have the most luck joining the actions there rather than
pursuing a fascinating, but probably ineffectual, court-ordered
hard fork. [GN]


BROADSPECTRUM: Faces "Wu" Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Broadspectrum
Americas, Inc. The case is styled as Shu Wu, individually and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Broadspectrum Americas, Inc. f/k/a Transfield
Services Americas, Inc. a Delaware Corporation, Broadspectrum
Downstream Services, Inc. a Delaware Corporation, Ferrovial
Services Infrastructure Inc f/k/a Broadspectrum Infrastructure
inc. f/k/a Transfield Services Infrastructure Inc. a Vergina
Corporation, Timec Specialty Services, Inc. f/k/a Broadspectrum
Specialty Services, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
CGC18567744 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 29, 2018).

Broadspectrum provides operations and maintenance, asset
management, project and capital management outsourcing and
infrastructure development services to the resources and
industrial, infrastructure services and property and facilities
management sectors. Broadspectrum operates in Australia and New
Zealand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bevin Elaine Allen Pike, Esq.
   Capstone Law APC
   1875 Century Park E Ste 1000
   Los Angeles, CA 90067
   Tel: (310) 712-8010
   Email: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com


BW RRI III: Faces "Honeywell" Suit in N.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BW RRI III LLC. The
case is styled as Cheri Honeywell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BW RRI III LLC, dba
Red Roof Plus Gainesville, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00124-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., June 29,
2018).

Red Roof PLUS+ Gainesville is a cheap, smoke-free and pet
friendly hotel in Gainesville, FL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   JESSICA LYNN KERR, Esq.
   JESSICA L KERR PA - FORT LAUDERDALE FL
   200 SE 6TH STREET, SUITE 504
   FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com


CALIFORNIA FOUNDATION FOR HEALTH: Faces "Palacio" Suit in Kern
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central California
Foundation for Health. The case is captioned as ALVA PALACIO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CENTRAL CALIFORNIA FOUNDATION FOR HEALTH, and DELANO
HEALTH ASSOCIATES, Defendants, Case No. BCV-18-101221 (Cal.
Super., Kern Cty., May 22, 2018).

Central California Foundation For Health is a medical group that
has only one practice medical office located in Delano, CA. There
are six healthcare providers, specializing in Internal Medicine,
Cardiovascular Disease (Cardiology), Family Practice, General
Practice, Neurology, being reported as members of the medical
group. Medical taxonomies which are covered by Central California
Foundation For Health include Interventional Cardiology,
Neurology, Cardiovascular Disease, Internal Medicine. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy F. Bollinger, Esq.
     MOSS BOLLINGER LLP
     15300 Ventura Boulevard, Ste. 207
     Sherman Oaks, CA 91403


CANADA: Koskie Minksy Ordered to Donate $1.5MM Fees to Charity
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meagan Gillmore, writing for Law Times, reports that Koskie
Minsky LLP is seeking leave to appeal an Ontario Superior Court
of Justice order to donate $1.5 million of its legal fees to
charity.

The order comes as part of the decision in Welsh v. Ontario, a
class action lawsuit that alleges the Ontario government was
negligent and failed in its fiduciary duties and duties to care
for students at three provincially run schools for the deaf.
This failure, the lawsuit alleges, led to children, who often
lived at the schools, being physically and sexually abused.

The appeal does not affect how much class members can receive,
says Robert Gain -- rgain@kmlaw.ca -- an associate at Koskie
Minsky, who worked on the case.

"This does not impact the distribution of the settlement funds to
the class," says Gain.  "We are in the process of finalizing that
plan for distribution and will be rolling it out shortly."

In a decision released May 24, Superior Court Justice Paul Perell
approved the $15-million gross settlement, which has a maximum
net value of $9.2 million.  Koskie Minsky, which represented the
plaintiffs, asked for $3.75 million plus HST in legal fees.  The
judge granted the fees on the condition that the law firm donate
$1.5 million of the money to a charity or charities that benefit
the deaf community.  The court must approve the charities, the
decision says.  The judge also ordered the fees, but not the
donation, be reduced in proportion to any money left in the
settlement fund that reverts back to Ontario.

Students who attended Ernest C. Drury School for the Deaf in
Milton and Robarts School for the Deaf in London between Sept. 1,
1963 and Aug. 23, 2016 and Sir James Whitney School for the Deaf
in Belleville between Sept. 1, 1938 and Aug. 23, 2016 are
eligible for the settlement, the decision says.  It estimates
that 4,500 students are eligible.

Four students objected to the settlement, the decision says.

Stephanie DiGiuseppe, principal at DiGiuseppe Law in Toronto, who
represented Aaron Zachary Smith, an objector, says the appeal of
the fees is "disappointing."

She called the judge's decision to order class counsel to donate
to charities that support the deaf a "high point of the
decision."

"For the survivors of these communities, that's not just a token.
That's a real fundamental part of a settlement in a case where
their dignity has really been directly violated by the actions of
the defendant," she says.

Mr. Smith objected to the settlement because he felt it was too
low, she says.  He was also concerned because only students who
were physically or sexually abused receive compensation, she
says.

Justice Perell certified the lawsuit in 2016, but he hesitated to
approve the settlement, calling it "a disappointing outcome."

The agreed amount is "inadequate to bring substantive access to
justice for class members," he wrote.  The distribution plan was
"unfair and unreasonable," he wrote, because it only compensates
students who allege physical and sexual abuse.  The original
lawsuit, filed in 2015, had claimed $325 million in damages and
sought compensation for various emotional and psychological
traumas, including alienation from family members, substandard
education and difficulty finding employment.  Family members of
students could also have applied for compensation, the decision
says.

Since then, class counsel has conceded that only physical and
sexual abuse claims would be compensated and that no family
members would receive money, the decision says.

"This class action was not a class action for the lower-hanging
litigation fruit of vindicating individual victims of assault
perpetrated by the guardians and teachers," Justice Perell wrote.
"It was a class action with the aim of achieving substantive
access to justice for the victims of systemic negligence and
systemic breaches of fiduciary duty."

Justice Perell approved the settlement because it was better than
a trial.

"The proposed settlement was a product of hard bargaining and it
was preferable to approve the settlement than to give the class
as a whole the false hope that continuing litigation would
produce a more favourable outcome," he wrote.

The judge didn't want the government to receive money left in the
settlement fund after claims were paid, so he ordered class
counsel to make a charitable donation.  This will benefit class
members who don't receive settlement money.

The Ontario government denied all allegations of wrongdoing, the
decision says.  The ministry of the attorney general declined an
interview with Law Times, saying in an email that it did not want
to comment on a case that was subject to appeal.

Under the terms of the settlement, the maximum one person can
receive is $22,500 for the most severe sexual assault and $15,000
for the most severe physical assault, for a total of $37,500, or
perhaps up to $45,000 depending on how many claims are awarded,
the decision says.

Susan Vella, a senior litigator who leads the sexual and
institutional abuse and Aboriginal Rights groups at Rochan Genova
LLP in Toronto, says this is very low.

The average award in Ontario for pain and suffering caused by
childhood sexual assault is between $144,000 and $290,000, she
says.  This does not include further compensation people can
receive for loss of income, treatment costs and other damages.

"What [the amount in the Welsh case] suggests is that there was a
significant discount for litigation risk that must have been
taken into account," Ms. Vella says.

She says non-monetary compensation, such as an apology or public
commemoration of some sort, helps people heal.

Ordering class counsel to donate part of the fees to a charity is
"a very unusual thing to do," says Jasminka Kalajdzic, a
University of Windsor law professor who studies class actions.
Judges can't change the amount of an approved settlement, she
says.  They can order counsel to lower their fees if they think
they are too high, she says.

It's difficult to determine what is reasonable in a tort case
like this, she says.

"There's no way to identify what the overall damage for the
entire class is. You can't measure it by looking at, for example,
profit," she says.  "This isn't a situation where the government
defendant profited by their wrongdoing." [GN]


CANADA: Hearing Begins in Waterloo Regional Police Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Record.com reports that a court hearing started on June 18
into the proposed class-action lawsuit against Waterloo Regional
Police alleging sexual harassment and gender discrimination.

The five-day hearing held in a Brampton courtroom will look at
whether the suit will be certified as a class action.

A judgment is expected to be made at a later date. [GN]


CAPITAL FITNESS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Fitness,
Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital Fitness,
Inc doing business as: Xsport Fitness, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-06014 (S.D. N.Y., July 2, 2018).

Capital Fitness, Inc. is a health and fitness company. The
company was incorporated in 1997 and is based in Big Rock,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Holczler" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Zissy Holczler, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
03806 (E.D. N.Y., June 29, 2018).

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC provides financial resolution
services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection
account and debt control. The company was founded in 1991 and is
based in Valhalla, New York. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Cavalry Investments, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Velez" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Paola Velez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
03795 (E.D. N.Y., June 29, 2018).

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC provides financial resolution
services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection
account and debt control. The company was founded in 1991 and is
based in Valhalla, New York. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Cavalry Investments, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHINA AGRITECH: Cohen Milstein Attorney Comments on SCOTUS Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Steingart, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that a recent
U.S. Supreme Court ruling about when securities fraud class
actions can be filed could ripple into employment law,
practitioners told Bloomberg Law.

"This decision, I regret to say, has taken a step toward making
many civil rights unenforceable," Joe Sellers --
jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- with Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC in Washington told Bloomberg Law.
Mr. Sellers represents workers in employment lawsuits.

"The underlying rights are only as effective as the mechanisms
that are available to permit their enforcement," Mr. Sellers
said.  "If the mechanisms that exist to permit the enforcement of
those rights have constraints on them, then those rights are
abrogated."

One of those mechanisms is a class action, which lets one person
sue on behalf of others in a similar position who may have
experienced the alleged wrongdoing.  If a court certifies a
class, all individuals who meet the definition of a class member
are automatically included.  But members can opt out if they want
to pursue their own lawsuit, don't like the terms of a
settlement, or simply don't want to be part of the class.

The case, China Agritech Inc. v. Resh, involved corporate
shareholders who wanted class action status for their lawsuit
that alleged the fertilizer manufacturer committed securities
fraud.  Their case followed earlier fraud lawsuits in which the
court denied class action certification.

The justices unanimously held that a later-filed class action
can't "piggyback" on one that was filed earlier in order to be
considered timely.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a concurring
opinion, said she may have ruled differently if the case involved
another area of law because of the unusual rules that apply in
securities litigation.

Solo Lawsuits Aren't Always Feasible, Lawyers Say
Sellers represents women who allege sex discrimination against
Walmart.  They filed regional class actions after the high court
in 2011 ruled that a nationwide class action was too broad to
satisfy a requirement that a class action include claims common
to class members.

Mr. Sellers filed an amicus brief in the China Agritech case that
said cutting off the window for a follow-on class action could
end up blocking a subsequent case from being filed.  As a result
of the decision, "the follow-on regional classes which we'd been
pursuing probably will no longer be available to us," Mr.
Sellers said.

Putative members of the class wouldn't run into the statute of
limitations problem if they filed individual lawsuits,
Mr.  Sellers said in his brief.

"But if your case has any complexity it's not economical to bring
it individually," he told Bloomberg Law.  "If you require people
to bring it only as an individual rather than collectively, then
you may have effectively precluded them from bringing the claim
at all."

One of the differences between filing one's own lawsuit and
participating in a class action is that a solo litigant can draw
unwanted attention in a way that a class member is less likely to
receive, Emily Martin, general counsel and vice president for
education and workplace justice at the National Women's Law
Center, told Bloomberg Law.

"If you're still working for that employer, it is incredibly
difficult to stand up and paint a target on yourself," Ms. Martin
said.  "Lots of people will feel like they can't go forward
because the risks are too great."

Impact on Wage Cases Less Certain
Wage-and-hour cases under federal law are different from
discrimination and other employment law cases. The Fair Labor
Standards Act has its own procedure for litigating cases with
many plaintiffs, which are called collective actions.

Collective actions are similar to class actions, but differ in
some significant ways.  One of them is that a collective action
doesn't automatically include all individuals who meet the
parameters.

Even though the rules of class action procedure don't govern an
FLSA collective action, they can affect a lawsuit in federal
court that alleges a violation of a state wage-and-hour law.  A
case involving state law might be heard in federal court if the
complaint also alleges violations of federal law or if the
defendant takes advantage of a provision in federal law that lets
it move a case that is initially filed in state court into
federal court under some circumstances.

"Right now the wage-and-hour multiple-plaintiff case is the
number one case being brought against employers," Gerald Maatman,
a partner in the Chicago and New York offices of Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, told Bloomberg Law.  Mr. Maatman authors the management law
firm's annual report on class action employment litigation.

But FLSA collective actions may not be affected by the China
Agritech ruling, Paul DeCamp told Bloomberg Law.  Mr. DeCamp
represents employers in wage-and-hour matters as a member of
Epstein Becker & Green P.C. in its Washington office.

"It does not appear that the decision will affect collective
actions because of the different procedural mechanism used under
the FLSA," said Mr. DeCamp, who is co-chair of the firm's wage-
and-hour practice group.  "Nevertheless, courts dealing with
collective actions might look to China Agritech when deciding
whether and when to apply equitable tolling."

Equitable tolling is the legal term for temporarily stopping the
clock on a statute of limitations.

Timing Matters
The question the high court resolved in the China Agritech case
was how to handle the statute of limitations for members of a
putative class when the court denies class action status. A
statute of limitations is the period of time after a violation
occurs in which the plaintiff may file a lawsuit.  A complaint
filed after the cutoff period will be dismissed as untimely.

If a court rejects class action status, members of the proposed
class may try again by filing a new class action that proposes
different parameters for who the class includes.

The Supreme Court ruled that the cutoff period for filing a
follow-on class action isn't paused while a court considers
whether to grant class certification in an earlier case.  The
court left open the possibility that the statute of limitations
could be paused with respect to follow-on individual cases.

The clock may stop for a number of reasons, one of which is if
the person who sued wants the case certified as a class action
but the court says no.  Other individuals who may have been part
of the class, if it had been certified, would be able to file
their own lawsuit, and the second court would pause the cutoff
window for the period when the first court was weighing class
certification. [GN]


CHINA AGRITECH: Schiff Hardin Attorney Discusses SCOTUS Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aphrodite Kokolis, Esq. -- dkokolis@schiffhardin.com -- of Schiff
Hardin LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports
that in a decisive victory for class action defendants, the U.S.
Supreme Court held that a pending class action tolls the statute
of limitations only for putative class members' individual
claims, and not for any "follow-on" class actions they file on
their own. China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh. Thus, if the limitations
period expires during the pendency of the first class action, a
putative class member may file a subsequent individual suit, but
not a class action.  This decision is important because, among
other things, it prevents class action plaintiffs from filing a
potentially limitless series of class actions, after the
limitations period has run, by claiming that the first suit
"tolled" the limitations period indefinitely.

In China Agritech, the Court limited the so-called "American Pipe
tolling doctrine," under which the timely filing of a class
action tolls the limitations period for all putative class
members while the court considers class certification.  If
certification is denied, an absent class member may file an
individual lawsuit, even if the limitations period expired during
the first suit. American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538
(1974). The Court in China Agritech held that American Pipe
extends only to subsequent individual suits, but "does not permit
the maintenance of a follow-on class action past expiration of
the statute of limitations."

The Court (Ginsburg, J.)  held that plaintiffs "have no
substantive right to bring their claims outside the statute of
limitations." The Court noted that the American Pipe doctrine was
based on efficiency concerns: without tolling, potential class
members would file potentially unnecessary "protective" new
lawsuits to preserve their individual claims, in the event the
court in the first case denied class certification and the
limitations period expired.  But the Court held that these
considerations do not apply to "untimely successive class
actions":

[A]ny additional class filings should be made early on, soon
after the commencement of the first action seeking class
certification. . . . With class claims, . . . efficiency favors
early assertion of competing class representative claims. If
class treatment is appropriate, and all would-be representatives
have come forward, the district court can select the best
plaintiff with knowledge of the full array of potential class
representatives and class counsel.  And if the class mechanism is
not a viable option for the claims, the decision denying
certification will be made at the outset of the case, litigated
once for all would-be class representatives.

This decision is significant for several reasons.

First, it prohibits the potentially unending "stacking" of class
action suits, whereby if class certification is denied in the
first suit, the next class suit may be filed by an absent class
member regardless of whether the limitations period expired, and
if class certification is denied yet again, still a third class
suit may be filed, and so on.  Under the plaintiffs'
interpretation of American Pipe, "as each class is denied
certification, a new named plaintiff could file a class action
complaint that resuscitates the litigation."  That, in fact, is
what happened in the underlying case: the case was filed after
two prior attempts to certify a securities class action had
failed.  The Ninth Circuit, relying on American Pipe, allowed the
plaintiffs to revive the case as a class action, even though the
third suit was filed after the limitations period had expired.

Second, the decision means that putative class members --
including institutional investors in securities fraud class
actions -- must carefully monitor pending class action suits in
order to preserve their ability to file class suits of their own.
Indeed, although Justice Sotomayor concurred in the judgment, she
would have limited the holding to suits under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and permitted American
Pipe tolling for other types of class actions unless the denial
of class certification was "for a reason that bears on the
suitability of the claims for class treatment," rather than "the
deficiencies of the . . . class representative, or because of
some other nonsubstantive defect." Justice Sotomayor noted the
"significant procedural requirements on securities class actions
that do not apply" to other suits, including the process for
early appointment of a lead plaintiff.  Justice Sotomayor
reasoned that because the plaintiffs here did not seek to be
chosen as lead plaintiffs in either of the first two class
actions, they "can hardly qualify as diligent in asserting
[class] claims and pursuing relief."

Finally, it remains to be seen whether the decision will
precipitate more "protective" class action filings.  The Court
dismissed this possibility, noting that while several courts of
appeals had declined to extend American Pipe to class actions,
there was no evidence that these circuits "experienced a
disproportionate number of duplicative, protective class action
filings."  Furthermore, many class action plaintiffs' lawyers
already file duplicative class actions to attempt to secure a
competitive advantage. But the decision in China Agritech
certainly should discourage potential class representatives and
their attorneys from allowing the limitations period to expire
while they await a class certification ruling in the first
lawsuit. [GN]


CHINA AUTO: Aug. 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, reminds investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against China Auto Logistics
Inc. ("China Auto" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CALI) and certain
of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired China Auto securities between March 28, 2017
through April 13, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").  Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/cali.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
China Auto failed to maintain adequate internal controls over
identifying and reporting certain relationships and related
transactions; and (2) as a result, defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/cali or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you suffered a loss
in China Auto you have until August 6, 2018 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in
any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. [GN]


CHRYSALIS CENTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Jones" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHAUN JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHRYSALIS CENTER, and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. BC706916 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May
22, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular
hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and
rest periods.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly non-
exempt employee on November 14, 2017.

The Chrysalis Center is an entity doing business in the State of
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  arosenkranz@lelawfirm.com


CICERO, IL: Class Suit by Adair et al. Underway
-----------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff Lesia Adair in the case captioned as Lesia Adair;
Anita Donato; Veronica Garcia; Jordan Garcia; and Areceli Vega,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Town Of Cicero, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03526
(N.D. Ill., May 18, 2018) filed a motion for protective order
requiring the preservation of certain evidence. The case was
assigned to the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly.

Cicero is a suburb of Chicago and an incorporated town in Cook
County, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff are represented by:

          Richard J. Dvorak, Esq.
          DVORAK LAW OFFICES, LLC
          6262 Kingery Highway, Suite 305
          Willowbrook, IL 60527
          Telephone: (312) 593-7146
          E-mail: richard.dvorak@civilrightsdefenders.com

               - and -

          Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS
          5707 W. Goodman
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: (847) 361-3869
          E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com

               - and -

          Adrian J. Bleifuss Prados, Esq.
          Christopher Allen Tinsley, Esq.
          DVORAK LAW OFFICES, LLC
          900 W. Jackson, Suite 5-West
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (773) 641-4667
          E-mail: ableifuss@gmail.com
                  chris.tinsley1@gmail.com

               - and -

          Mark G. Weinberg, Esq.
          3612 North Tripp
          Chicago, IL 60641
          Telephone: (312) 283-3913
          E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          K. Austin Zimmer, Esq.
          Cynthia Sara Grandfield, Esq.
          DEL GALDO LAW GROUP, LLC
          1441 South Harlem Avenue
          Berwyn, IL 60402
          Telephone: (708) 222-7000
          E-mail: zimmer@dlglawgroup.com
                  grandfield@dlglawgroup.com


CLUBCORP INT'L: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clubcorp
International, Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Clubcorp International, Inc, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06015
(S.D. N.Y., July 2, 2018).

ClubCorporation International operates as clubs and resorts. The
Company specializes in golf, country, business, sports, alumni,
and stadium clubs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


COLORADO: Tenants File Class Action Over Rat Infestation
--------------------------------------------------------
Lance Hernandez, writing for Denver7, reports that some people
are asking if the home, and the vermin inside, pose a health risk
to humans or pets.

"Look at that thing stumbling around," said Kelly Houghton, while
pointing to a mangy rat on the property adjacent to hers.

When Houghton purchased her new home, she had no idea the house
next door was infested with rats.

It was only after she moved in that she noticed a putrid odor and
then noticed the vermin.   Rats on the rain spout, rats on the
roof and rats on the rocks.

"It's a concern for our health," she said.

Health Dept. Response

Denver7 asked Jefferson County Public Health if the infestation
poses a danger to neighbors and their pets.

"In Colorado, rats don't tend to be a public health issue," said
Craig Sanders, JCPH's Environmental Program Manager.

He noted that rats were the carrier of bubonic plague in Europe
during the middle ages, but said in modern day Colorado, they are
generally treated as a nuisance.

"A pretty disgusting nuisance," he said, "but they're not really
implicated in a lot of diseases that are spread around."

Sanders said other wildlife poses a much greater risk to health,
namely bats and skunks, because they both carry rabies.

He also said that rats live in places where there is food,
shelter and water.

"If you're in an area backed up by a reservoir, greenbelt, or
something like that, there are plenty of places they can live,"
he said.  "They're pretty good at finding food, so sometimes it
takes a coordinated neighborhood effort to really rid an area of
rats."

Houghton's home, and the rat-infested house next door, are
adjacent to Smith Reservoir.

Sanders said there are steps homeowners can take to lessen the
likelihood that rats will move in.

"When you feed your dog, don't leave the food outside, bring it
back in," he said.  "If you've got a wood pike, spread it out, so
the rats can't lie in there."

Gnawing Wires

Sanders told Denver7 that while rats may not be a big health
threat, they can do things that end up posing a safety hazard.

"They like to gnaw things," he said, "they're gnawing animals.
Sometimes they will gnaw on the wires under the hood of your
car."

Last year, rats chewed up insulation on the wiring of several
cars at the Breakers apartment complex, in East Denver.

An attorney, representing tenants in a class action lawsuit, said
one of his clients was told by management to wrap the frayed
wires with electrical tape.

He said the airbag in that client's vehicle deployed, "while he
was driving down the road," shattering the windshield and leaving
the client's face bruised.

City Response

A city spokeswoman said Lakewood has known about the rat issue on
South Lee Street for some time, but didn't believe it rose to the
level where they could legally enter the house, until now.

She said after a code enforcement officer saw what Denver7 saw,
on June 15, they now believe they can seek a court order granting
them access to the house.

When asked if Lakewood might hire an exterminator to deal with
the problem, and then charge the owners, or perhaps condemn the
property, she said it's too early to know how this might play
out, or how long it will take.

Dealing with an Infestation

When asked how an infestation should be dealt with, Sanders said,
"You can go to any big box store and buy rat traps, which are
like mouse traps on steroids.  They're huge and you can put those
out to trap the rats, but we generally recommend that poison and
things like that be left to the professionals. [GN]


CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL: Underpays Delivery Driver, Barragan Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD BARRAGAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL
DISTRIBUTORS, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
BC706914 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 22, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay straight-time
and overtime wages, all wages owed upon separation, and provide
accurate wage statements.

Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. was employed by the
Defendants as delivery driver from November 20, 2017 to March 26,
2018.

Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. is a corporation
organized and created under the laws of the State of Delaware.
The Company is engaged in electrical supply distribution
networks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander I. Dychter, Esq.
          S. Adam Spiewak, Esq.
          DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
          1010 Second Ave., Suite 1835
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 487-0777
          Facsimile: (619) 330-1827
          E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com
                  adam@dychterlaw.com

               - and -

          Walter L. Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256-1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: admin@uelglaw.com


COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE: Faces Sigma Beta Xi Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of
Riverside. The case is styled as Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Andrew M.
by and through his next friend Denise M, Jacob T. and J. F. by
and through her next friend Cindy McConnell, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. County of
Riverside, Mark Hake Chief of Riverside County Probation
Department, in his official capacity, Bryce Hulstrom Chief Deputy
of Riverside County Probation Department, in his official
capacity and Does 1-10 Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-
01397 (C.D. Cal., June 29, 2018).

Riverside County, California, is one of fifty-eight counties in
the U.S. state of California. As of the 2010 census, the
population was 2,189,641, making it the 4th-most populous county
in California and the 11th-most populous in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE.


CREDIT UNION: Law Firm Prepares Overdraft Fee Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Passman, writing for Credit Union Journal, reports that if
the constant threat of ADA suits wasn't enough, credit unions now
have another potential legal hassle to worry about.

Attorneys at the Southern California-based law firm Marlin &
Saltzman, LLP have set up a website called Credit Union Class
Action and are seeking credit union members who have been charged
overdraft fees for insufficient funds related to debit card usage
with the hopes of garnering enough of a response to put together
a class-action suit.  While sources say these attorneys are also
going after bank customers, the site specifically seeks credit
union members, and those behind the site have been using targeted
ads on social media in their search for potential plaintiffs.

"We don't condone this approach -- this is better handled,
frankly, by regulators with the power to do so," said
Ryan Donovan, chief advocacy officer with the Credit Union
National Association, speaking during a recent CUNA press call.
That sort of fishing, he noted, is "unfortunately not illegal but
also a common tactic."

Credit union trade groups said they learned of the matter within
May or so and are urging credit unions to work with staff and
vendors to ensure their overdrafts are compliant. But they were
also quick to point out that Marlin & Saltzman is believed to be
just one of a handful of firms pursuing similar cases.  Earlier
this year, CUNA, CUNA Mutual Group, the National Association of
Federally-Insured Credit Unions and others filed an amicus brief
with the 11th Circuit Court relative to an overdraft case,
regarding model forms under Reg E and whether that regulation
mandates any particular way of ordering transactions.

In a bit of unfortunate timing, the issue arises as credit unions
have seen a surge in overdraft revenue while banks are seeing
declining overdraft income, largely because banks are shedding
single-service customers only interested in checking accounts.

While it's unclear how many credit unions have been impacted at
this point, the number appears to be fewer than a dozen, with
NAFCU reps noting they've only heard from one or two CUs so far.
Carrie Hunt, EVP and genral counsel at NAFCU, noted that one
credit union has actually already been sued by this same law firm
and had the case dismissed because the statute of limitations had
expired.

"This isn't necessarily new, though it is new that this law firm
is pushing for a class-action lawsuit," said Ms. Hunt.

Representatives from Marlin & Saltzman did not return calls from
Credit Union Journal seeking comment.

The trade associations' strategy for now is merely to alert
credit unions to the problem so that if a CU receives some sort
of demand letter it can be ready to work with counsel as it would
in any other legal situation.

"Credit unions saw a whole slew of litigation relative to patent
trolls and we have all of the ADA suits," noted Ms. Hunt.
"Unfortunately, we're in a litigious society and credit unions
being sued on various things -- even typical things like
collections -- is pretty run of the mill.  Just like any other
case, credit unions [that may see demand letters from related to
overdrafts] are going to have to look at what's being alleged,
how they run their overdraft program, and do an assessment as to
whether or not they think there's any sort of cause of action,
and potentially decide to litigate or settle the case -- if it
even goes that far."

'The cost of doing business'

The potential for class-action overdraft suits comes as credit
unions continue to fend off wave after wave of legal challenges
related to alleged non-compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act.  But despite similarities -- a small number of
law firms phishing for CUs that might be non-compliant and can be
targeted for a lawsuit -- CUNA and NAFCU reps were hesitant to
draw too many comparisons between the two.

"Like ADA, this is another reason to go after credit unions for
issues that may not even be a lack of compliance with the law,"
observed Elizabeth Eurgubian, CUNA's deputy chief advocacy
officer.

NAFCU's Hunt also noted that potential Reg E violations that
could lead to overdraft suits haven't hit nearly the same level
as alleged ADA violations, in which credit unions in more than 25
states have been targeted.

"Anyone who watches TV past 11 a.m. at night will certainly see
that attorneys have always advertised or are potentially fishing
for causes of action and plaintiffs," she said.  "Typically we
see it in medical situations where 'Did you work in asbestos?' or
'did you have an IUD that you had a problem with?' . . . This is
just a version of that in the financial services space . . . we
fought very hard under Reg E and overdrafts for there to be a
model that allows credit unions to be in compliance with
Regulation E, because that gives some level of protection.
Litigation is a real issue; it costs credit unions time and
money, but in the society we live in, it unfortunately is the
cost of doing business."

In spite of that, the end game remains unclear -- in part,
sources say, because the issue of the problem is unclear.
Whereas ADA cases revolve around a lack of guidance, these cases
vary more.

"Some of these causes of action are specifically relative to
contract claims, so they're arguing that the account notices may
not be clear," explained Ms. Hunt.  "It could be a very case-by-
case situation where a financial institution is going to be
amending its account agreements.  If ultimately a court were to
rule on a bigger issue, one of the issues we filed the amicus
brief on in the 11th circuit was relative to whether credit
unions were allowed to order transactions in a certain way.  If
the issue were to be decided by a court that went further than a
case-by-case basis, then potentially we'd have to go back and see
if regulation relative to overdrafts needed to be changed, or if
it was a statutory issue we'd need to go back to Congress."

In the meantime, trades continue to push to make CUs aware of the
issue and defend them when necessary. [GN]


DECORATIVE CONCRETE: Underpays Concrete Finishers, Ramirez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS A RAMIREZ JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DECORATIVE CONCRETE COMPLETE,
INC., and JOHN TESTER, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00801-PGB-DCI
(M.D. Fla., May 22, 2018) is an action against the Defendants to
recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as concrete finisher
from January 26, 2018 to April 24, 2018.

Decorative Concrete Complete, Inc. is a Florida corporation doing
business in Orange County, Florida. The Company is engaged in
providing commercial and residential stamped and decorative
concrete services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 s. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


DIPPIN' DOTS: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dippin' Dots, LLC.
The case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dippin' Dots, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05914 (S.D. N.Y., June 29, 2018).

Dippin' Dots, LLC produces, packages, stores, and ships beaded
ice creams worldwide. It also provides yogurts, flavored ices,
sherbets, no sugar added products, and sorbets; and treats, such
as cup of dots, shakes, quakes, sundaes, shake it ups, smoothies,
waffle cones, fudgy blends, and floats. In addition, the company
engages in franchising its operations. The company offers its
products for amusement parks, theme parks, fairs and festivals,
waterparks, stadiums, arenas, fairs/festivals, movie theatres,
etc. in the United States and internationally. It sells its
products through authorized retail stores and vending machines,
as well as online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


DURHAM UNIVERSITY: Students Sign Up for Class Action Over Strikes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Conner-Hill, writing for The Northern Echo, reports that
hundreds of students from the region are suing their universities
because of lost teaching time during strikes by lecturers.

More than 400 students from Durham University, around 100 from
Newcastle and 50 from York are among more than 5,000 to have
signed up to a class action group seeking compensation for
classes cancelled this year.

Lectures and other classes were cancelled in February and March
after members of the University and College Union (UCU) went on
strike.

The law firm behind the group action, Asserson, says the claim
has risen to GBP5m.

Shimon Goldwater, a senior solicitor at Asserson, said it was one
of the largest student group legal actions ever to have been
launched in the UK.

He added: "The compensation claim against universities is
building rapidly.

"Students are telling us that they have been following advice
from their unions and the universities to use standard complaints
procedures when asking for compensation, with absolutely no sign
of progress.

"In fact, we have not heard of a single instance of a student
receiving proper financial compensation for cancelled teaching
time.

"Universities are presumably hoping that this problem will go
away, but this claim shows that thousands of students are not
willing to sit by and pay for a service which was cancelled."

Analysis of the sign ups shows Durham had the second highest
number of students taking part.

According to the law firm, Russell Group universities saved
around GBP8m in salaries from striking staff.

The UCU says the strikes affected around a million students, with
the loss of 575,000 teaching hours. [GN]


EASTERN MICHIGAN: Two Student-Athletes File Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
two female Eastern Michigan University student-athletes filed a
sex-discrimination class action over the school's decision to
shutter its tennis and softball teams.

In March, EMU announced that it had decided to end four sports
programs -- including the men's swimming and diving and wrestling
teams and the women's tennis and softball teams -- at the end of
the 2018 spring season.  The university said that it was forced
to cancel the programs because of budgetary concerns and to fund
its most popular academic programs.  It estimated that the cuts
would save $2.4 million.

In a class-action lawsuit filed on June 15 in Detroit federal
court, EMU senior and tennis player Marie Mayerova and sophomore
softball player Ariana Chretien say that the decision to
eliminate the teams was part a "long-standing and ongoing"
pattern of Title IX discrimination against female athletes.  The
plaintiffs are represented by Tracy Van den Bergh --
tracy@roberts-freatman.com -- with Roberts & Freatman and Jill
Zwagerman -- jzwagerman@newkirklaw.com -- with Newkirk Zwagerman.

"The elimination of these programs, despite EMU also eliminating
men's swimming and diving and wrestling, does not bring them into
compliance with Title IX," the complaint states.  "EMU already
discriminates against its female students by offering too few
athletic opportunities.  By eliminating women's tennis and
softball, EMU will make this discrimination worse -- despite also
eliminating some men's opportunities."

The university says it has one of the smallest budgets in the
Mid-American Conference and had previously offered 21 sports,
more than other universities in the conference.  Fifty-eight male
students and 25 female students have been affected by the
decision to cancel the teams and several have already graduated
while others have transferred, the university said in a
statement.

In response to the lawsuit, EMU says its budgetary actions were
"wholly appropriate and justified" and that it does not
discriminate against its students.

EMU has an annual operating budget of more than $307 million,
according to the complaint, and is also constructing a $35
million multi-sport complex.

University spokesman Geoff Larcom said that since disbanding the
teams, the focus has been on athletes and how to help them move
to other schools if they decide to leave.

"The truth is that the university is honoring the scholarships of
all athletes and is greatly facilitating their transfers,"
Mr. Larcom said in a phone interview.  "In other words, if they
choose to stay at Eastern Michigan University, their scholarships
are going to be honored, and if they choose to go elsewhere, we
are doing what we can to facilitate that and find them a good,
competitive location."

But Ms. Mayerova and Ms. Chretien claim EMU made the decision to
end the teams in secret and that it caught players by surprise.

Ms. Mayerova, one of eight women on the varsity tennis team, and
Chretien, one of 17 members of the softball team, have now been
left "in limbo," according to their complaint.

Although EMU said the students could keep their scholarships,
Ms. Mayerova and Ms. Chretien claim that would mean giving up the
sports they came to the university to play.

In an interview on June 18, one of their attorneys, Ms.
Zwagerman, said her clients are passionate about their sports and
had given up the right to move from school to school by signing a
letter of intent with EMU.

"A couple of these young women have very specific circumstances
as to why they chose EMU," Ms. Zwagerman said.  "This is
something they've done their entire lives and to have the school
just rip it out from underneath them is quite emotional, it is
quite scary, it is quite devastating to these young women."

Ms. Mayerova, who is from the Czech Republic, started playing
tennis at an early age and was part of the EMU team that had a
16-10 record in 2018.  She says that she does not have the
financial resources to transfer to another school.

Ms. Chretien, of Ypsilanti, Michigan, is studying aviation -- a
major that is not widely offered by other schools.  She says that
even if she could find another school where she could train to be
a pilot, it would be difficult to obtain a scholarship because
those resources have already been allocated to other students.
[GN]


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Ct. OKs Renewed Bid to Certify "Johnson" Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIN JOHNSON, on behalf of plaintiff and a class,
Plaintiff, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:16CV330-PPS (N.D. Ind.), Judge Philip P. Simon of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond
Division, granted Johnson's renewed motion for class
certification.

Johnson has brought the case alleging that debt collector
Enhanced Recovery Co. sent her a dunning letter that was false or
misleading in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").  The form letter challenged by Johnson has been
described and discussed at length in my previous order denying
ERC's motion to dismiss.

Now before the Court is Johnson's renewed motion to certify a
class of the Plaintiffs under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3).
Johnson proposes herself and her attorneys as the class
representative and the class counsel.  She proposes this
definition for the class: (a) all individuals in Indiana (b) who
were sent a letter by defendant (c) offering a settlement (d) and
stating that your delinquent account may be reported to the
national credit bureaus (e) where the debt was reported to one or
more national credit bureaus (Equifax, Trans Union, or Experian)
on or before the date in the letter for receipt of the
settlement, or first payment thereof (f) and the letter was sent
at any time during a period beginning July 13, 2016 and ending
Aug. 3, 2017.

ERC's opposes the selection of Johnson as the representative of
an Indiana class, when she is now a resident of Illinois.

Judge Simon finds that the broad consideration of Section 1692e's
purposes and the particulars of Johnson's allegations support his
conclusion at this stage that she has standing to bring her claim
and to represent a class.  If ERC wishes to further challenge
standing with reliance on evidence obtained in discovery, it may
do so in a motion for summary judgment.

In addition,the Judge is persuaded that the defined class meets
the requirements of commonality and typicality as to the stated
FDCPA claim under Section 1692e.   The statewide scope of the
class is also perfectly acceptable.

As to ERC's opposition to the selection of Johnson as the
representative of an Indiana class, the Judge finds that this
argument is a non-starter.  The ERC mailing on which the FDCPA
claim is based was sent to and received by Johnson in Indiana,
where she then lived.  The issue calls to the Judge's attention
the ambiguity of the phrase "individuals in Indiana" in Johnson's
proposed class definition.  To clarify the matter, he modifies
the class definition by altering the proposed "all individuals in
Indiana" in subsection (a) and adding a new subsection referring
to mailing addresses in Indiana.

Because ERC offers no other arguments specifically disputing the
appropriateness of Erin Johnson as representative of the
Plaintiff class, the Judge is persuaded that Johnson will fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the class, as required by
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4).  Johnson proposes her attorneys' firm,
Edelman, Combs, Lattuner & Goodwin, LLC, as the class counsel.
ERC expresses no opposition to that selection. Edelman, Combs is
known by me to have more than sufficient experience in handling
FDCPA and other consumer rights litigation and serving as the
class counsel in such cases.  The counsel's knowledge of the
applicable law, the resources of the firm, and the work counsel
has done in identifying and investigating potential claims in the
action, all militate in favor of the firm's appointment as the
class counsel under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g)(1).

For these reasons, Judge Simon granted Johnson's renewed motion
for class certification.  He certified the class, under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3), consisting of: (a) all individuals
who were sent a letter by defendant Enhanced Recovery Company,
LLC, (b) offering a settlement of a debt incurred primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes, (c) and stating that
"your delinquent account may be reported to the national credit
bureaus" (d) where the debt was reported to one or more national
credit bureaus (Equifax, Trans Union, or Experian) on or before
the date in the letter for receipt of the settlement, or first
payment thereof, and (e) the letter was sent at any time during a
period beginning July 13, 2016 and ending Aug. 3, 2017 (f) to a
mailing address in the State of Indiana.

Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC is appointed the counsel
for the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/XbAw06 from Leagle.com.

Erin Johnson, on behalf of plaintiff and a class, Plaintiff,
represented by Cassandra P. Miller -- cmiller@edcombs.com --
Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cathleen M. Combs --
ccombs@edcombs.com -- Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC,
James O. Latturner -- jlatturner@edcombs.com -- Edelman Combs
Latturner & Goodwin LLC & Daniel A. Edelman --
dedelman@edcombs.com -- Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

Enhanced Recovery Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Patrick B.
Healy -- Patrick.Healy@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Scott S. Gallagher --
sgallagher@sgrlaw.com -- Smith Gambrell & Russell, pro hac vice.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Must Produce Docs on Geneva Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL BRUNO, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-327-WBS-EFB
(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in
part and denied in part both the Plaintiff's motion to modify the
scheduling order and motion to compel Equifax to provide further
responses to his Requests for Production of Documents.

The putative class action proceeds on the Plaintiff's second
amended complaint.  He asserts claims for violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") against Defendants Equifax; Geneva
Financial Services, Inc. and its officers Mark Hassan and Robert
McGinley; Geneva Motors, Inc., doing business as Geneva Financial
Services, and its officers Kamies Elhouty and John McGinley; and
REBS Supply Inc., doing business as REBS Marketing, Inc., and its
CEO, Andy Mitchell.  The crux of the Plaintiff's complaint is
that Equifax improperly furnished his and the proposed class
members' credit information to the other Defendants, who did not
have a proper purpose for obtaining such information.

The Plaintiff alleges that in February 2016, REBS, a marketing
company, submitted an order with Equifax for the purchase of a
prescreened list of 10,000 consumers residing around the 95618
zip code area, with credit scores of 530 to 600 who had no open
autos, no open repos for the purpose of a direct marketing mailer
which REBS was arranging for Hanlees Nissan Chevrolet.  According
to the complaint, after Defendant McGinley, the Director of
Lending and Data Operations for Geneva Motors, inquired about the
status of REBS's order, Equifax confirmed that it provided the
Prescreened List to "Geneva," which forwarded the list to REBS.

Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff received a mailed solicitation
inviting him to purchase a vehicle from Hanlees Nissan Chevrolet
and purporting to contain an offer of credit from Geneva
Financial Services.  He alleges that the credit solicitation was
mailed on behalf of the dealership by Defendant REBS using
information obtained from the Prescreened List.  The Plaintiff
subsequently submitted a loan application through the website
listed on the solicitation.  He alleges that the following week,
he called the phone number listed on the website to inquire about
the status of his loan application.  A representative informed
him that the company did not finance vehicles for purchase and
that he would need to contact the dealership.

Notwithstanding that representation, the Plaintiff eventually
received a letter from Geneva Financial Services stating that his
application for an automotive refinance loan was rejected due to
insufficient collateral.  Accordingly, he claims that he was not
extended a firm offer of credit, and therefore the Defendants,
with the exception of Equifax, did not have a permissible purpose
for obtaining the prescreened list.

As for Equifax, the Plaintiff alleges it knew the other
Defendants requested the Prescreened List to use for a direct
mail marketing campaign for Hanlees and that they did not have a
have a permissible purpose for obtaining the Prescreened List.
He further alleges that Equifax failed to maintain reasonable
procedures to ensure credit reports were not finished to other
entities lacking a permissible purpose for acquiring such
information.

He also alleges that on other occasions Equifax has furnished
consumer reports to "Geneva Financial Services," which has never
had a permissible purpose for obtaining consumer reports.
Appended to the second amended complaint are several credit
solicitations, similar to the one Plaintiff received, each
purporting to extend a firm offer of credit from "Geneva
Financial Services."

The complaint alleges the following claims under the FCRA: (1)
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e against Equifax, Geneva
Inc., Geneva Motors, Hanssan, Elhouty, John McGinley, and Robert
McGinley; (2) violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b against all
the Defendants; and (3) violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681q
against REBS, Geneva Inc., Geneva Motors, Hassan, Elhouty, and
John and Robert McGinley.

The Plaintiff seeks to assert these claims on behalf of himself
and two classes: the REBS class and the Geneva Class.  The
complaint defines the REBS class as the 10,000 persons whose
names appeared on the Prescreened List.

The Geneva Class is defined as all persons within the United
States (including all territories and other political
subdivisions of the United States) whose consumer reports were
provided by Equifax to Geneva Financial Services within the five
year period preceding the date the lawsuit was filed.

The case was before the Court on April 4, 2018, for hearing on
the Plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order and motion
to compel Defendant Equifax to provide further responses to his
Requests for Production of Documents.

The Plaintiff seeks to modify the Court's scheduling order to
extend the deadlines for completing discovery, disclosing expert
witnesses, and filing dispositive motions.  He moves to compel
Equifax to provide further responses to 17 requests for
production of documents.  These requests seek three categories of
documents: the Prescreened List (RPD No. 3); documents related to
the Geneva Class (RPD Nos 38, 54, 60, 61, 62); and requests
seeking information that Equifax characterizes as irrelevant (RPD
No. 69-75, 80, 81, 84, 85).

The Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents Number 3
seeks a copy of the Prescreened List that included his name.
Although Equifax contends that it does not maintain copies of the
prescreen lists that it furnishes, Equifax has agreed to recreate
the Prescreened List.  For the reasons stated on the record,
Judge Brennan directed Equifax will produce a recreated
Prescreened List to plaintiff within 7 days of the Order.

Requests Numbers 38, 54, and 60-62 seek: (1) documents related to
requests for consumer reports made by Geneva to Equifax; (2) all
prescreened lists Equifax furnished to Geneva; (3) documents
indicating Equifax finished consumer reports to Geneva; (4) the
names and addresses of all persons whose consumer reports were
given to Geneva; and (5) documents related to those consumer
reports that were furnished.

The Plaintiff also seeks to represent a class of persons residing
in the United States and whose credit reports were provided by
Equifax to "Geneva Financial Services," which may include
recipients of the other credit solicitations.  To certify that
class, the Plaintiff will need to establish, among other things,
that there are common questions of law and fact among the class,
as well as that his claims are typical of the claims of the class
members.  Documents pertaining to other prescreened lists are
highly relevant to these two issues.  Accordingly, the Judge
granted the Plaintiff's motion to compel as to requests numbers
38, 54, and 60-62, and Equifax will produce responsive documents
responsive that are in its possession, custody, or control within
14 days of the Order.

Requests numbers 69-74, 80-81, and 84-85 seek Equifax's contracts
and communications with the following third-parties: Name Seeker,
Inc.; Datamyx, LLC; RMB World Enterprises, LLC; Impact Zone; and
US Capital.  The Plaintiff's remaining request, Request Number
75, seeks all communications between Martha Dunn of Equifax and
Dan Adams of Equifax regarding Geneva.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's conclusory statement fails
to establish his entitlement to the discovery related to these
third-party entities.  Although he does claim that some of the
entities terminated their business relationship with Geneva over
concerns that Geneva did not have a permissible purpose for
obtaining prescreened lists, he does not identify which entities
did so.  He also fails to explain the business relationship these
entities had with Geneva. Thus, on this record, he finds that the
Plaintiff has failed to show that the discovery sought is
relevant to the instant dispute.  Accordingly, he denied the
motion to compel as to Requests for Production of Documents
Numbers 69-74, 80-81, and 84-85.

As for request number 75, Equifax has agreed to search for and
produce communications between Ms. Dunn and Mr. Adams the
relevant time period regarding Geneva Motors.  Given this
representation, the Judge finds the parties' dispute over this
request moot.

Accordingly, Judge Brennan granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order.  He granted
the motion as to the Plaintiff's request to extend the deadline
for completing discovery and expert witness disclosures.  All
discovery will be completed by July 16, 2018.  The Plaintiff's
expert disclosure(s) will be completed by May 9, 2018, and the
Defendants' expert disclosures will be completed by June 9, 2018.

He denied the the motion as to the Plaintiff's request to extend
the date for filing dispositive motions.

The Judge granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's
motion to compel Equifax to provide further responses to his
Request for Production of Documents.  The motion is granted as to
requests numbers 3, 38, 54, and 60-62.  Equifax will produce a
reproduction of the Prescreened List within 7 days of the order.
All other documents responsive to these requests will be produced
within 14 days of the Order.  The motion is denied in all other
regards.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/RsJAb7 from Leagle.com.

Daniel Bruno, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Louis Kohl --
jamesk.legal@gmail.com -- Law Offices Of James Louis Kohl &
Joseph Messer -- jmesser@messerstrickler.com -- Messer Strickler,
Ltd., pro hac vice.

Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Matthew H. Dawson -- mdawson@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP,
Allison L.  Hill, King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice, Meryl W.
Roper -- mroper@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice &
Zachary A. McEntyre -- zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding
LLP, pro hac vice.

Geneva Financial Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Rebecca
Dena Wester -- rdj@smbgroup.com -- Law Offices of Henry N.
Jannol,
APC.

John McGinley & Robert McGinley, Defendants, represented by Paul
H. Levine -- phl@smbgroup.com -- Law Offices Of Paul H.
Levine & Rebecca Dena Wester, Law Offices of Henry N. Jannol,
APC.

Geneva Financial Services, Inc. & Mark Hassan, Defendants,
represented by Neil C. Evans, Law Office of Neil C. Evans.


ERIE INDEMNITY: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Beltz" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas Hardiman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the case,
PATRICIA R. BELTZ; JOSEPH S. SULLIVAN; ANITA SULLIVAN,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Erie Insurance
Exchange, Appellants, v. ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY; KAJ AHLMANN;
JOHN T. BAILY; SAMUEL P. BLACK, III; J. RALPH BORNEMAN, JR.;
TERRENCE W. CAVANAUGH; WILSON C. COONEY; LUANN DATESH; PATRICIA
A. GOLDMAN; JONATHAN HIRT HAGEN; THOMAS B. HAGEN; C. SCOTT HARTZ.
SAMUEL P. KATZ. GWENDOLYN KING; CLAUDE C. LILLY, III; MARTIN J.
LIPPERT; GEORGE R. LUCORE; JEFFREY A. LUDROF; EDMUND J. MEHL;
HENRY N. NASSAU; THOMAS W. PALMER; MARTIN P. SHEFFIELD; SETH E.
SCHONFIELD; RICHARD L. STOVER; JAN R. VAN GORDER; ELIZABETH A.
HIRT VORSHECK; HARRY H. WEIL; ROBERT C. WILBURN; ERIE INSURANCE
EXCHANGE, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 17-2774 (3d Cir.).

The Exchange is a subscriber-owned reciprocal insurance exchange
organized under Pennsylvania law.  Since the Exchange itself is
unincorporated and has no officers or employees, its affairs are
managed by the Indemnity.  The relationship among the Exchange,
its subscribers, and Indemnity is governed in large part by a
written Subscriber's Agreement.  The Subscriber's Agreement
appoints Indemnity as each subscriber's attorney-in-fact and
provides that Indemnity will retain up to 25% of all premiums
written or assumed by the Exchange, as compensation for serving
in that role.  The case is the latest skirmish in a long-running
dispute over whether Indemnity may take compensation from the
Exchange beyond that described in the Subscriber's Agreement.

The Plaintiffs sued Indemnity and more than two dozen of its
current and former directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.  They asserted direct claims
for breach of the Subscriber's Agreement, breach of fiduciary
duty, and conversion, along with derivative claims on behalf of
the Exchange for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust
enrichment.  The District Court dismissed the complaint for
failure to state a claim, and the Plaintiffs filed the appeal.

Judge Hardiman holds that the District Court did not err in
concluding that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim.  Though
not itself an insurance policy, the Agreement obligates
subscribers to pay their policy premiums, empowers Indemnity to
collect premiums, authorizes Indemnity to retain up to 25% of all
premiums, and expressly limits how Indemnity may dispose of the
remainder.  By contrast, the Subscriber's Agreement, the Judge
says, is silent on Indemnity's collection and disposition of
money from any other source.  The express terms of the Agreement
are detailed and speak only to premiums, and he declines the
Plaintiffs' invitation to infer from them additional restrictions
on other funds.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have forfeited their
fiduciary duty claims by advancing a different argument on appeal
than they did in the District Court.  Under their precedent, to
preserve an argument on appeal, a party must make the same
argument in the District Court that it makes on appeal.  The
Arguments are identical if they depend on the same legal rule or
standard and the same facts.  The Plaintiffs' argument to the
District Court was that the Board had committed affirmative acts
constituting a continuing breach of Indemnity's fiduciary duties.
They've inverted that theory on appeal.  Instead of a series of
"affirmative acts," they base their fiduciary duty claims on a
sustained or systematic failure of the board to exercise
oversight.

He also agrees with the District Court that the conversion claims
against Indemnity are barred by Pennsylvania's two-year statute
of limitations.  The limitations period began to run when the
Plaintiffs were harmed and not when the precise amount or extent
of damages was determined.  The harms underlying the Plaintiffs'
conversion claims had all materialized by 2008 at the latest --
by that date it was the continuing practice of Indemnity to claim
all of the disputed funds for itself.  They were well aware at
the time that Indemnity claimed the monies at issue here, and
they cannot avoid the statute of limitations now by asserting
that Indemnity's continuing claim was really a string of separate
conversions.

Finally, he perceives no error in the District Court's conclusion
that the Plaintiffs are judicially estopped from pursuing their
unjust enrichment claims.  Judicial estoppel bars a party from
prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying
on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase.  Having
already prevailed in state court by representing that they do not
challenge the fairness of the relevant payments, the Plaintiffs
may not argue the opposite to the Court.  But that is exactly
what they would have to do in order to press their unjust
enrichment claims, since Pennsylvania law requires a showing of
inequity in order to prevail.

For these reasons, Judge Hardiman affirmed the judgment of the
District Court.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's May 2, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/RgM7Yd from Leagle.com.


FAT BRANDS: Faces Securities Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on June 18 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in California state court against
the officers and directors of FAT Brands, Inc. (NASDAQ: FAT) for
violations of federal securities law in connection with FAT
Brands' Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on October 23, 2017.

In its IPO, FAT sold 2 million shares of common stock for $12 per
share, raising $24 million.  The complaint alleges that at the
time of the IPO, FAT failed to disclose that the Company's free
cash flow was insufficient to cover its dividend, and that its
sales growth had declined markedly.  When this information was
revealed to the market, FAT's share price declined and now trades
below $8 per share -- a 34% decrease from the IPO price.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired FAT shares traceable to
the IPO and suffered a loss, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato
by email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-
4648, or by filling out this contact form.  There is no cost or
obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a
New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and
securities litigation. [GN]


FEED & GRAIN: Faces "Zuniga" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Feed & Grain of
Northport, Inc. The case is styled as David Zuniga, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Feed & Grain of Northport, Inc. and Robert Tyler, Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-03771 (E.D. N.Y., June 29, 2018).

Feed & Grain of Northport, Inc. is a Seafood Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FINANCIAL ENGINES: Faces Securities Class Action in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on June 18 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware against Financial Engines, Inc.
("Financial Engines" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:FNGN) on behalf of
a class consisting of all public stockholders of Financial Engine
in connection with alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
pertaining to the proposed acquisition of the Company by
affiliates of Hellman & Friedman, Edelman Financial, L.P.
("Parent") and Flashdance Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub").

On April 29, 2018, Financial Engines' Board of Directors caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the
"Merger Agreement").  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, if the Proposed Transaction is approved by Financial
Engines' shareholders and completed, Financial Engines'
shareholders will receive $45.00 in cash for each share of
Financial Engines common stock they own.

On June 5, 2018, the Company filed a proxy statement (the "Proxy
Statement") with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
According to the Complaint, the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading.

If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or
Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212)
983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or
gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


FINANCIAL ENGINES: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on June 18 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
The Northern District of California, 5:18-cv-03542-EMC, on behalf
of public common unitholders of Financial Engines, Inc,
("Financial Engines " or the "Company") (NasdaqGS: FNGN) who held
Financial Engines securities and have been harmed by Financial
Engines and its board of directors' (the "Board") for alleged
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the sale of
the Company to Edelman Financial, L.P.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each outstanding
share of Financial Engines common stock will be converted into
the right to receive $45.00 per share in cash, without interest
and subject to required withholding taxes.  The board have failed
to disclose material information that is necessary for
stockholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy
incomplete and misleading.  In particular, the Proxy contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i)
financial projections for Financial Engines; (ii) the valuation
analyses performed by Financial Engines' financial advisor,
Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. ("Sandler") in support of its
fairness opinion; and (iii) the background process leading up to
the Proposed Transaction.

The complaint alleges that this offer is inadequate and alleges
that the Registration Statement in Form 14A (the "Proxy")
provides materially incomplete and misleading information about
the Company's financials and the transaction, in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from June 18, 2018.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/financial-engines-inc
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered
millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders
and consumers from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates
PC lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect
investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field.  He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017 Top Rated Lawyer. [GN]


FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Mandelos" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled as Elisa J. Mandelos, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster &
Garbus, LLP and The Forster Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-03821 (E.D. N.Y., July 2, 2018).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GEL FACTORY: Faces "Huang" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gel Factory, Corp.
The case is styled as Yunzhe Huang, Ren ZheJin, Ri Yuan and Tammy
Jae Eun Kang also known as: Tammy Jaeen Kang also known as: Jae
Eun Kang also known as: Jaeeun Kang also known as: Tammy Jaeen
Kim also known as: Tammy Jae En Kim also known as: Jae Eun Kim
also known as: Jaeeun Kim, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Gel Factory, Corp and Kay Kim
also known as: Kay Kang, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03817 (E.D.
N.Y., July 2, 2018).

Gel Factory, Corp. offers standard manicure and pedicure, as well
as crystal and gel nails.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Giuseppe Zanotti
America, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Giuseppe Zanotti America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
05952 (S.D. N.Y., June 29, 2018).

Giuseppe Zanotti is an Italian luxury footwear and fashion
designer known for his sculptural, jeweled heels, luxury
sneakers, handbags, jewelry, and leather ready-to-wear..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOOGLE INC: Likely to Give Donations to Resolve WiFi Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Google likely
will donate money to nonprofit organizations in order to settle a
class-action privacy lawsuit stemming from the collection of data
by its Street View cars, a new court filing suggests.

Details, including the total amount of the donations and the
names of the recipients, are not yet publicly available. A copy
of the settlement agreement was filed late on June 15 with U.S.
Charles Breyer in San Francisco, but under seal.  No public
version was available as of June 18.

If accepted by Breyer, the settlement will resolve an 8-year-old
battle stemming from revelations that the Google's Street View
cars collected a host of data -- including URLs, passwords and
emails -- sent over unencrypted WiFi networks.

News about the data gathering sparked investigations into the
company, both in the U.S. and abroad.  In 2013, Google agreed to
pay $7 million to settle with more than 30 state attorneys
general who were investigating the so-called "Wi-Spy" debacle.
The company also was fined $25,000 in 2012 by the Federal
Communications Commission for failing to cooperate with a probe.

A separate court filing, also made on June 15, suggests that the
settlement will involve donations to nonprofits or schools. In
that document, lawyers for Google and the plaintiffs ask Breyer
to pause the Wi-Fi privacy case until after the Supreme Court
issues a decision that could set new rules for class-action
settlements.

That upcoming Supreme Court matter, which also involves Google,
stems from a lawsuit accusing the company of leaking search
users' names by including their search queries in "referer
headers" -- the information that is automatically transmitted to
sites that users click on when they leave Google. Some queries,
like people's searches for their own names, can offer clues to
users' identities. (Google no longer transmits search queries
when people click on links in the results.)

Google agreed to resolve that matter by donating $5.3 million to
six nonprofits -- Carnegie Mellon University, World Privacy
Forum, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Stanford Law, Harvard's
Berkman Center and the AARP Foundation.  The settlement also
requires Google to pay more than $2.1 million to the attorneys
who brought the lawsuit, with the remainder of the $8 million-
plus settlement fund going to court costs.

Theodore Frank, an activist who founded the Center for Class
Action Fairness, is challenging that settlement at the Supreme
Court.  Mr. Frank previously argued that the deal doesn't
compensate Google users, and that some of the nonprofits had
prior relationships with the company as well as with the lawyers
representing the consumers. [GN]


HAN DYNASTY: Faces "Yeh" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Han Dynasty, Inc.
The case is styled as Hsieh Liang Yeh, on his own behalf and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Han Dynasty,
Inc doing business as: Han Dynasty, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
06018 (S.D. N.Y., July 2, 2018).

Han Dynasty Inc. is a Chinese restaurant located in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Faces Race Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Mirengoff, writing for Powerline, reports that a class
action lawsuit accuses Harvard of discriminating against Asian-
Americans in admissions.  The plaintiffs have moved for summary
judgment, arguing that they should prevail based on facts not
genuinely in dispute.

One fact not genuinely in dispute is that Harvard's own
researchers found statistical evidence that the University's
undergraduate application process discriminates against
Asian-Americans.  In 2013, the Harvard Office of Institutional
Research found that Asian-Americans would comprise 43.4 percent
of the admitted class if they were judged purely on their
academic merit.  Asian-American representation at Harvard is only
about half that number.

No college judges all applicants purely on their academic merit,
and it's not race discrimination to consider other factors.
However, Harvard's researchers found that, even after accounting
for the school's preferences for the children of alumni and
recruited athletes, Asian-American representation fell
significantly short of the expected level.

During his deposition, Mark Hansen, a former Harvard researcher,
was asked, "Do you have any explanation other than intentional
discrimination for your conclusions regarding the negative
association between Asians and the Harvard admissions process?"
Mr. Hansen responded, "I don't."

The findings of the Harvard researchers are confirmed by Duke
University Professor Peter Arcidiacono, an expert witness for the
plaintiffs.  He reviewed six years of admissions data. Because
recruited athletes, children of alumni, and those who find their
way onto the "Dean and Directors List" are admitted at
exceptionally high rates, Mr. Arcidiacono excluded them from his
analysis.  This enabled him to compare applicants who were
similarly situated except for their race and their
qualifications.  His pool contained around 95 percent of
applicants and more than two-thirds of admitted applicants.

Mr. Arcidiacono's analysis showed the same discriminatory
phenomenon the Harvard researchers had found.  Asian-Americans
are admitted at significantly lower rates than can be explained
by grades, test scores, extracurricular activities, teacher
recommendations, guidance counselor recommendations, and alumni
interviews.

Where Asian-Americans fall short is where the discrimination
occurs -- in the personal qualities ratings.  These are given not
by people who know the applicants, or at least have talked to
them, but by the Harvard admissions office.  White applicants
receive significantly higher ratings than Asian-Americans and
Black and Hispanic applicants receive higher ratings than Whites.

The low personal ratings Asian-Americans receive are inconsistent
with what Harvard's own officials say about the personal
qualities of this group.  For example, Harvard's Dean of
Admissions, William Fitzsimmons, who has read every applicant
file for more than 30 years, denied that Asian-Americans have
fewer attractive personal qualities than other applicants.  He
testified that he did not believe Asian-Americans fall short of
White applicants in terms of leadership, friendliness, outgoing
nature, etc.

The testimony of Harvard's Director of Admissions, Marlyn
McGrath, was the same in this regard.  So was the testimony of
officials from elite high schools with a very high percentage of
Asian-American students.  And one of Harvard's own expert
witnesses, the former president of Brown University, described
the view that Asian-Americans are less well-rounded than other
groups of applicants as "balderdash."

Still, Harvard contrived to give comparatively low personal
qualities to Asian-American applicants.  These ratings depressed
the rate at which these applicants were admitted.

This is classic discrimination.  Imagine if Harvard
systematically rated African-American applicants lower on
"personal qualities" than other groups, resulting in Blacks being
rejected in higher percentages than objective factors like
grades, scores, and extracurricular activities indicated they
should be.  No one would doubt that this was racial
discrimination.

By the same token, there should be no doubt that Harvard has
engaged in racial discrimination against Asian-American
applicants.

Unfortunately, the plaintiffs drew a liberal judge nominated by
President Obama to hear their case.  Any appeal would be to the
First Circuit Court of Appeals, which is dominated by liberals.

However, Harvard's discrimination is so blatant and so offensive
that Powerline's Mr. Mirengoff hold out some hope that the
plaintiffs will succeed.  Perhaps the fact that Whites benefited
from the discrimination will help the Asian-American plaintiffs,
though, of course, the racial characteristics of the
beneficiaries of discrimination shouldn't matter.

A trial is scheduled for October of this year, assuming summary
judgment is not granted either side.  In Mr. Mirengoff's view,
the case should be decided in favor of the plaintiffs without a
trial, based on facts not genuinely in dispute. [GN]


HAWAII: Settles Special Education Class Action for $10.3MM
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the state of Hawaii has agreed
to pay $10.3 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over a law
that cut off public education for special-needs students at age
20, in contrast to federal law.

Parents and legal guardians and the Hawaii Disability Rights
Center filed the lawsuit in reaction to the 2010 state law.

A federal appeals court later ruled that the state law violated
the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, which
entitles disabled students to free appropriate public education
until they turn 22, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported on
June 15.

The settlement will pay for educational and related services the
495 students who joined the class-action lawsuit should have
received and reimburse their families for private services they
paid for out of their own pockets.

The state Department of Education has deposited $8.8 million into
the settlement fund and is awaiting Gov. David Ige's approval to
take $1.5 million from its special-education and student support
budget for the rest.

A portion of the settlement money will be used to cover attorney
fees, administrative support for the settlement fund's
administrator and other costs.

The $8.2 million that remains is currently available. The
plaintiffs have until December 2020 to spend down the money.

Students can receive up to $20,000, according to the terms of the
settlement.

Meredith Miller -- mmiller@ahfi.com -- of the Honolulu law firm
Alston Hunt Floyd & Miller, who was one of the lawyers who
represented the plaintiffs, said they can use the funds to pay
for occupational services and therapy, adaptive equipment, GED
support, community college classes and job and independent life
skills training and education.

Checks will be given directly to the providers of the qualifying
services, Ms. Miller said.

To receive reimbursement, parents and guardians must present
supporting documentation for services that were already provided
and paid for, Ms. Miller said. [GN]


HEALTH NET: Faces "Mitchell" Suit over Access of Health Plans
-------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA MITCHELL, individually as successor in interest to Chase
Frei, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. HEALTH NET, INC.; HEALTH NET LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; HEALTH
NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK, INC.; CENTENE
CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC706917
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 22, 2018) is an action
against the Defendants for their deceptive and fraudulent
misrepresentations; inadequate network of contracted providers of
behavioral health and substance use disorder services; grossly
mishandled administration of policies; groundless investigation
of behavioral health and substance use claims and consequent
elimination of out-of-network choices; inequitable payment of
benefits for behavioral health and substance use services as
compared to medical and surgical services.

Plaintiff Mitchell is the mother of Chase Frei who passed away on
May 6, 2017. The Plaintiff discovered that her provider networks
did not include the behavioral health and substance use providers
the Defendants had represented to be in-network providers, and
that those provider network were much more limited than
previously represented by the Defendants. Due to the Defendants
deceptive and fraudulent actions and misrepresentations, the
Plaintiff is not able to fully access the benefits of the plans
they purchased.

Health Net Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware. The Company is engaged
in the providing health care service plan to consumers throughout
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Callahan, Esq.
          Edward Susolik, Esq.
          Richard T. Collins, Esq.
          Damon D. Eisenbrey, Esq.
          CALLAHAN & BLAINE, APLC
          3 Hutton Centre Drive, Ninth Floor
          Santa Ana, CA 92707
          Telephone: (714) 241-4444
          Facsimile: (714) 241-4445


HEALTHPORT TECH: Class Suit Over Basic Fees Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois granted Healthport's motion to dismiss the
case, LAW OFFICE OF BRENT GAINES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEALTHPORT
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-00030-SMY-SCW (S.D.
Ill.).

Healthport manages medical record requests for healthcare
providers.  It is an LLC with its principal place of business of
Georgia and its sole member is a Delaware corporation.  The
Plaintiff is a law firm that represents clients seeking Social
Security benefits.  It is located in Belleville, Illinois.

The nature of the Plaintiff's work requires that it obtain its
clients' medical records.  Occasionally, a client believes, but
is not certain, that he/she was treated by a particular provider.
In the interest of due diligence, the Plaintiff sends medical
records requests to these facilities in order to determine
whether they treated the client.  It sent such requests to two of
Healthport's clients, one in Illinois and one in Missouri.  In
both instances, Healthport informed the Plaintiff that it had
found no record of treatment and presented a bill for what it
called a "Basic Fee."

The Plaintiff filed a four Count class action lawsuit in the
Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, alleging that
Healthport's Basic Fees violated Illinois and Missouri's medical
records release statutes and consumer protection statutes in
those states and Georgia.  The putative class is comprised of
Missouri and Illinois attorneys and law firms who were charged
Healthport's Basic Fee when no records were provided.  Healthport
removed the case to the Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).

The matter is before the Court on Healthport's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Doc. 8).  It argues that the
Plaintiff lacks standing, that its settlement offer renders its
claims moot, and that because the conduct complained of is not
unlawful, it cannot support a claim under the statutes asserted
by the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Judge Yandle finds that the Release Healthport offered does not
admit fault, does not require it to pay any damages, and does not
waive the challenged fees prospectively (in general or as to the
Plaintiff).  As a unilateral Release, it does not have the force
of a contract.  It does not grant the Plaintiff full relief and
therefore cannot moot the Plaintiff's claims. For these reasons,
Healthport is not entitled to dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff's First and Second causes of action assert
violations of two Georgia consumer protection statutes --
"Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act" and "Georgia's
Fair Business Practices Act of 1975."  In the context of consumer
protection law violations, the injury is decidedly where the
consumer is located, rather than where the seller maintains its
headquarters.  Because the injuries alleged in the Plaintiff's
Complaint, occurred in Illinois and Missouri, It would be
improper to apply Georgia law.  Therefore, the Judge will dismiss
the claims asserted in the Plaintiff's First and Second causes of
action.

Finally, the Plaintiff's the Third and Fourth causes of action
assert violations of "Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act" and "Missouri Merchandising Practices Act."  The
Judge concludes that Illinois' medical records statute applies to
a request for medical records and allows for an initial handling
fee, even when no record is furnished.

He reaches the same conclusion as to Missouri's statute.  Similar
to the Illinois statute, it both authorizes a flat charge and
sets forth what may be charged for each page of records; creating
a reasonable inference of an intent to allow this charge as an
initial fee for processing the request.  Although the statute
characterizes the fee as one for "search and retrieval," based on
the considerations discussed, he does not find the language to
mean that fees may only be imposed when a record is searched for
and provided.

For these reasons, Judge Yandle granted the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).  He dismissed with
prejudice the action.  The Clerk of Court is directed to enter
judgment accordingly and to close the case.

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

Law Office of Brent Gaines, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian T.
Kreisler, Kreisler Law Firm, LLC, Michael R. Reese, Reese Richman
LLP, Amy E. Boyle -- boyle@halunenlaw.com -- Halunen Law, pro hac
vice, George Volney Granade, II, Reese LLP & Melissa S. Weiner --
weiner@halunenlaw.com -- Halunen Law, pro hac vice.

Healthport Technologies LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathan
Barton Potts -- Jonathan.Potts@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave, LLP &
Jena M. Valdetero -- jena.valdetero@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave.


HEALTHTRAX INT'L: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthtrax
International, Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Healthtrax International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05911
(S.D. N.Y., June 29, 2018).

Healthtrax International, Inc. owns and operates medical fitness
and wellness centers. The Company offers physical therapy,
occupational health, cardiac rehabilitation, primary care,
orthopedics, radiology, diagnostic laboratory, and health
education services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


INDIANA: Court Certifies Class of DOC Prisoners in "Sweeney" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLES SWEENEY, ANTHONY DELAROSA, on their own
behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendant, Cause
No. 1:17-cv-3550-WTL-MPB (S.D. Ind.), Judge William T. Lawrence
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
Class.

The named Plaintiffs in the case are adult residents of Indiana
who are committed to the Defendant Indiana Department of
Corrections ("DOC") and are confined at Wabash Valley
Correctional Facility.  On April 1, 2017, the DOC implemented
Executive Directive #17-13.

The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that Executive Directive #17-13
violates the First Amendment, as applied to the DOC by the
Fourteenth Amendment.  They seek a declaration to that effect and
also seek injunctive relief enjoining the application and use of
Directive #17-13.

The DOC has filed an Amended Notice of Suggestion of Mootness,
indicating that Executive Directive #17-13 has been rescinded.
As such, the DOC argues, the relief sought by the Plaintiffs is
no longer possible.

The Plaintiffs have responded, arguing that because the relevant
portions of the new directive, Executive Directive #17-66, are
virtually identical to the prior directive, their claims that the
restrictions on incoming mail violate the First Amendment are not
moot.

While a case becomes moot if the government repeals, revises, or
replaces the challenged law and removes the complained-of defect,
the new directive still contains the prohibitions about which the
Plaintiffs complain.  As such, the case is not moot, and the
Court retains jurisdiction.

In response to the replacement of Executive Order #17-13 with
Executive Order #17-66, the Plaintiffs have revised their
proposed class definition to the following: All prisoners
confined to facilities operated by the Indiana Department of
Correction or that are otherwise subject to Indiana Department of
Correction executive directives and policies.  The Plaintiffs
moved to certify the class.

Judge Lawrence finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the four
requirements of Rule 23(a) and the requirements of Rule 23(b).
For these reasons, he granted the Motion to Certify Class,
modifying the class definition to the following: All prisoners
confined to facilities operated by the Indiana Department of
Correction or that are otherwise subject to Indiana Department of
Correction executive directives and policies that restrict
incoming correspondence.

Moreover, the Judge designated Charles Sweeney and Anthony
Delarosa as the representatives for the class action pursuant to
Rule 23; and Kenneth J. Falk as the lead class counsel pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).  Within 21 days, the Plaintiffs will
file a motion to approve notice to the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/6uDFHU from Leagle.com.

CHARLES SWEENEY & ANTHONY DELAROSA, on their own behalf, and on
behalf of a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Kenneth J. Falk -- kfalk@aclu-in.org -- ACLU OF
INDIANA.

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendant,
represented by Jonathan Paul Nagy, INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Marley Genele Hancock, INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL & Ryan J.
Guillory, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL CURTIS HILL.


INNERWORKINGS INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 18
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of InnerWorkings, Inc. (NASDAQ:INWK)
from August 11, 2015 through May 7, 2018, both dates inclusive
("Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
InnerWorkings investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the InnerWorkings class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1337.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) InnerWorkings' financial statements for the fiscal
years ending December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 as well as all
interim periods contained errors that required restating; and (2)
InnerWorkings' financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 9, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1337.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-
767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
[GN]


INTEREXCHANGE INC: Can't Compel Disclosure of Opt-In Info
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHANA PAOLA BELTRAN, LUSAPHO HLATSHANENI, BEAUDETTE
DEETLEFS, ALEXANDRA IVETTE GONZALEZ, JULIANE HARNING, NICOLE
MAPLEDORAM, LAURA MEJIA JIMENEZ, SARAH CAROLINE AZUELA RASCON,
CAMILA GABRIELA PEREZ REYES, CATHY CARAMELO, and LINDA ELIZABETH,
Plaintiffs, v. INTEREXCHANGE, INC., USAUPAIR, INC., GREATAUPAIR,
LLC, EXPERT GROUP INTERNATIONAL INC., d/b/a Expert AuPair,
EURAUPAIR INTERCULTURAL CHILD CARE PROGRAMS, CULTURAL HOMESTAY
INTERNATIONAL, CULTURAL CARE, INC., d/b/a Cultural Care Au Pair,
AUPAIRCARE INC., AU PAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., APF GLOBAL
EXCHANGE, NFP, d/b/a/Aupair Foundation, AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR
FOREIGN STUDY, d/b/a Au Pair in America, AMERICAN CULTURAL
EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a GoAuPair, AGENT AU PAIR, A.P.E.X. AMERICAN
PROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a ProAuPair, 20/20 CARE EXCHANGE,
INC., d/b/a The International Au Pair Exchange, ASSOCIATES IN
CULTURAL EXCHANGE, d/b/a GoAuPair, and GOAUPAIR OPERATIONS, LLC,
d/b/a GoAuPair, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-cv-03074-CMA-CBS
(D. Colo.), Judge Christine M. Arguello of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado denied (i) Defendant
InterExchange's Motion to Compel Discovery and its Motion for a
Forthwith Hearing on the Motion to Compel Discovery; (ii)
Defendants Cultural Care, American Cultural, and GoAuPair
Operations' Joint Motion to Compel Discovery and their Motion for
Forthwith Hearing on their Joint Motion to Compel Discovery; and
(iii) Defendant Expert AuPair's Motion to Compel Discovery.

The Court conditionally certified 11 classes and subclasses of
opt-in Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") on March 31, 2017.  The deadline for completion of
discovery pertaining to these opt-in FLSA Plaintiffs was April 9,
2018.

In March 2018, Defendant Cultural Care and the Plaintiffs filed
competing motions regarding the scope of Defendant Cultural
Care's depositions of opt-in FLSA Plaintiffs it had previously
sponsored.  On April 4, 2018, the Court issued its Order on
Depositions of FLSA Opt-In Class Members and defined the
permissible breadth of Defendant Cultural Care's inquiries.
Relevant here, Defendant Cultural Care's questions are to be
limited to the period between when the deponent was recruited to
join an au pair program and when his/her J-1 visa expired, and
Defendant Cultural Care may ask about relevant issues outside of
that time period only if the questions pertained solely to the
deponent's au pair experience.  The Court limited inquiries about
a deponent's personal life, background, and subjective states of
mind.  It also ordered that opt-in class members residing in
countries that restrict depositions will not be required to
travel internationally to be deposed.

Also on April 4, 2018, Defendant InterExchange filed its Motion
to Compel Discovery. It argues a court order compelling
production of information is necessitated by: (i) certain opt-in
Plaintiffs' failure to respond to [its] discovery requests, (ii)
the Plaintiffs' refusal to respond to its Interrogatory Nos. 2,
3, 5, and 6, and (iii) the Plaintiffs' failure to respond to
Requests for Production and failure to disclose the opt-in
Plaintiffs' survey answers.  Defendant InterExchange
simultaneously moved for a forthwith hearing on the ground that
the discovery end date was less than a week away, on April 9,
2018.  The Plaintiffs responded to Defendant InterExchange's
Motion to Compel Discovery on April 25, 2018, asserting that
Defendant InterExchange's motion is the result of strategic
choices it made during opt-in discovery and that Defendant
InterExchange is not entitled to relief just because it "regrets"
its strategic decisions.

On April 6, 2018, Defendants Cultural Care and GoAuPair filed
their Joint Motion to Compel Discovery.  They ask the Court to
compel production of survey responses from a survey prepared and
sent out by the Plaintiffs' counsel to all opt-in au pairs.
Defendant Cultural Care also requests that the Court compel the
Plaintiffs to produce "six remaining deponents" and to inform
these deponents that failing to comply with a court order may
warrant dismissal.

Defendants Cultural Care and GoAuPair filed a Motion for a
Forthwith hearing on their Joint Motion to Compel Discovery on
April 6, 2018.  The Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to
the Joint Motion to Compel Discovery on April 18, 2018.  They
argue Defendants Cultural Care's and GoAuPair's Joint Motion to
Compel Discovery is contrary to the FLSA and case law, both of
which envision very limited discovery of opt-ins.  Defendants
Cultural Care and GoAuPair timely replied in support of their
Joint Motion on April 23, 2018.

On April 9, 2018, Defendant Expert AuPair filed its Motion to
Compel Discovery, asking the Court to enter an order compelling
Plaintiffs to provide responses to Expert AuPair's discovery
requests by the opt-in Plaintiffs who have not responded.  The
Plaintiffs did not respond.

April 9, 2018, was the close of the discovery period as to opt-in
FLSA Plaintiffs, as the Court previously stated.  The deadline
for any motions to decertify the FLSA classes and subclasses is
May 9, 2018.

Judge Arguello is satisfied that each moving Defendant has
collected discovery from a sufficient number of the Plaintiffs.
None of the moving Defendants are entitled to individualized
discovery of all opt-in Plaintiffs in its class.  She therefore
denied all Motions to Compel Discovery.

The Judge also denied at the outset Defendant InterExchange's
Motion for a Forthwith Hearing and Defendants Cultural Care's and
GoAuPair's Motion for a Forthwith Hearing.  The Defendants
requested a forthwith hearing in advance of the April 9, 2018,
close of discovery. That deadline has passed, rendering the basis
for the Defendants' Motions for a Forthwith Hearing moot.

The deadline for any motions to decertify the FLSA classes and
subclasses remains May 9, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/WN54bO from Leagle.com.

Johana Paola Beltran, Lusapho Hlatshaneni, Beaudette Deetlefs &
Alexandra Ivette Gonzalez, and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Byron Pacheco -- bpacheco@bsfllp.com -
- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Dawn Smalls --
dsmalls@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Joshua James
Libling -- jlibling@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Juan Pablo Valdivieso -- jvaldivieso@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller
& Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz -- mlschwartz@BSFLLP.com --
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner --
pskinner@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Randall
Wade Jackson -- rjackson@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, Sabria Alexandria McElroy -- smcelroy@bsfllp.com -- Boies
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Sean Phillips Rodriguez --
srodriguez@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Sigrid
Stone McCawley -- smccawley@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP & Alexander Neville Hood -- info@towardsjustice.org
-- Towards Justice.

Juliane Harning, Nicole Mapledoram, and those similarly situated,
Laura Mejia Jimenez & Sarah Carolina Azuela Rascon, Plaintiffs,
represented by Byron Pacheco, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Dawn
Smalls, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Joshua James Libling,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Juan Pablo Valdivieso, Boies
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner, Boies Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, Sean Phillips Rodriguez, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP &
Alexander Neville Hood, Towards Justice.

Camila Gabriela Perez Reyes, Cathy Caramelo & Linda Elizabeth,
Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua James Libling, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Sean Phillips Rodriguez, Boies Schiller & Flexner,
LLP & Dawn Smalls, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP.

InterExchange, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brooke A. Colaizzi
-- bcolaizzi@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.,
Raymond Myles Deeny -- rdeeny@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman &
Howard, L.L.C., Alyssa Lauren Levy -- alevy@shermanhoward.com --
Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Heather Fox Vickles --
hvickles@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. & Joseph
H. Hunt -- jhunt@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.

USAuPair, INC, Defendant, represented by Chanda Marie Feldkamp --
cfeldkamp@kellywalkerlaw.com -- Kelly & Walker, LLC & William
James Kelly, III -- wkelly@kellywalkerlaw.com -- Kelly & Walker,
LLC.

GreatAuPair, LLC, Defendant, represented by Martin Jose Estevao -
- mestevao@armstrongte -- Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, Meshach
Yustine Rhoades -- mrhoades@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong
Teasdale, LLP & Vance Orlando Knapp --
vknapp@armstrongteasdale.com --- Armstrong Teasdale, LLP.

Expert Group International, Inc, doing business as Expert AuPair,
Defendant, represented by Bogdan Enica, Bogdan Enica, Attorney at
Law.

EuRaupair InterCultural Child Care Programs, Defendant,
represented by David Meschke -- dmeschke@bhfs.com -- Brownstein
Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP & Martha Louise Fitzgerald --
mfitzgerald@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP.

Cultural Homestay International, Defendant, represented by Adam
A. Hubbard -- aahubbard@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart, LLP,
James Edward Hartley -- jhartley@hollandhart.com -- Holland &
Hart, LLP & Jonathan S. Bender -- jsbender@hollandhart.com --
Holland & Hart, LLP.

Cultural Care, Inc., doing business as Cultural Care Au Pair,
Defendant, represented by Diane Rebecca Hazel -- dhazel@lrrc.com
-- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, James Michael Lyons --
jlyons@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Jessica
Lynn Fuller -- jfuller@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie
LLP, Joan A. Lukey -- joan.lukey@choate.com -- Choate, Hall &
Stewart, LLP, Justin J. Wolosz --  jwolosz@choate.com -- Choate,
Hall & Stewart, LLP, Kevin Patrick O'Keefe -- kokeefe@choate.com
-- Choate Hall & Stewart, LLP, Lyndsey Marie Kruzer --
lkruzer@choate.com -- Choate, Hall & Stewart, LLP, Michael T.
Gass -- mgass@choate.com -- Choate, Hall & Stewart, LLP, Robert
M. Buchanan, Jr. -- rbuchanan@choate.com -- Choate, Hall &
Stewart, LLP & Samuel Newland Rudman -- srudman@choate.com --
Choate Hall & Stewart, LLP.

AuPairCare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer Arnett
Roehrich -- jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP,
Nathan Andrew Huey -- nhuey@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Peggy
E. Kozal -- pkozal@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP & Thomas Baker
Quinn -- tquinn@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP.

Au Pair International, Inc. & American Cultural Exchange, LLC,
doing business as GoAuPair, Defendants, represented by Brett
Michelle Mull -- mull@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell,
LLP, Brian Alan Birenbach -- brian@rietzlawfirm.com -- Rietz Law
Firm, LLC, Kathryn A. Reilly -- reilly@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Natalie Elizabeth West -- west@wtotrial.com
-- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP & Victor William Scarpato, III --
scarpato@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP.

APF Global Exchange, NFP, doing business as Aupair Foundation,
Defendant, represented by Susan M. Schaecher --
sschaecher@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP.

American Institute for Foreign Study, doing business as Au Pair
in America, Defendant, represented by Eric Jonathan Stock --
estock@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Joseph B.
Cartafalsa -- joseph.cartafalsa@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Robert M. Tucker -- Robert M. Tucker
-- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Stephen J. Macri
-- stephen.macri@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C.

Agent Au Pair & GoAuPair Operations, LLC, doing business as
GoAuPair, Defendants, represented by Brett Michelle Mull, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Kathryn A. Reilly, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell,
LLP, Natalie Elizabeth West, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP &
Victor William Scarpato, III, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP.

A.P.E.X. American Professional Exchange, LLC, doing business as
ProAuPair & 20/20 Care Exchange, Inc, doing business as
International Au Pair Exchange, Defendants, represented by
Kathleen E. Craigmile -- kcraigmile@nixonshefrin.com -- Nixon
Shefrin Hensen Ogburn, P.C. & Lawrence Daniel Stone --
lstone@nixonshefrin.com -- Nixon Shefrin Hensen Ogburn, P.C.

International Care Limited, Movant, represented by Harvey J.
Wolkoff -- harveywolkoff@quinnemanuel.com -- Ropes & Gray, LLP.


INVENTION SUBMISSION: Faces "Zanotti" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Invention
Submission Corporation. The case is styled as Julie Zanotti,
Ronese Brooks and Sherry Porter, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Invention
Submission Corporation d/b/a InventHelp doing business as:
InventHelp, Technosystems Consolidated Corp., Technosystems
Service Corp., Western Invention Submission Corp., Universal
Payment Corporation, Intromark Incorporated, Innovation Credit
Corp., Robert J. Susa, Invents Company, Invents Company, LLC,
Global Express Manufacturing, Smithlilly Manufacturing, Zambro
Manufacturing, Inc., Abrams Gentile Entertainment, LLC, Abrams
Gentile Entertainment, Inc., AshkanNajafi, Esq., RG Patent
Consulting LLC, John Doe Companies 1-10 and John Doe Individuals
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05893 (S.D. N.Y., June 29,
2018).

Invention Submission Corporation (ISC) is an inventor service
company. It uses a variety of methods in its attempts to submit
an idea or new invention to industry including contacting
companies through business associations, mailings, publicity,
advertising and attendance at trade shows or seminars. ISC also
produces the Invention New Product Exposition (INPEX), held each
May in Pittsburgh -- where innovations and new ideas from around
the world are exhibited. [BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


IRELAND: HSE Faces Legal Action Over Cancer Misdiagnosis
--------------------------------------------------------
Micheal O Maoileoin, writing for Galway Daily, reports that the
sisters of Miriam O'Brien -- who was diagnosed with stage two
cancer in Belfast just nine months after getting the all-clear in
the Republic -- are taking legal action against the HSE and labs
used by CervicalCheck, through Galway-born Pat McMyler of P.A
Dorrian & Co. Solicitors.

Miriam O'Brien, a thirty-four-year-old single mother-of-one, died
on 25 August 2013 from Cervical Cancer.

Her sisters, Susan O'Brien and Danielle Miley, with with Ms
O'Brien's daughter, Rachael (19), are taking legal action which
was originally initiated by Ms O'Brien herself.

Ms O'Brien initiated the process when she was told by doctors in
Belfast of the failures made by the HSE.

In June 2011, Ms O'Brien went for a smear test but nothing was
flagged.

Nine months later, in March 2012, she changed over to the
Northern system as she was a cross-border worker in the North.

She registered with a GP in Derry and within one month, she was
diagnosed with stage 2B Cervical Cancer.

"She presented with symptoms.  She felt she had done everything
right, she had gone through all of her tests, so she didn't think
there was a need for concern," said Ms O'Brien's sister Danielle,
speaking to Greg Hughes on Highland Radio.

When she was then diagnosed in the North after presenting with
symptoms she was told it was treatable, but as it developed, it
wasn't.

Danielle added: "She felt she was wronged and she initiated all
of this process herself."

Pat McMyler explained on Highland Radio that P.A. Dorrian & Co.
Solicitors are pursuing the HSE in an attempt to bring the
cervical cancer cases forward as quickly as possible.

He said that this case revolves around the death of Ms O'Brien
which occurred because of the negligence of the HSE through
Letterkenny University Hospital.

"This case differs from other cases and substantially differs
from the Vicky Phelan case because we are alleging that
Letterkenny Hospital failed to diagnose, independently of the
labs in America.

"Miriam said herself that she did everything right. So when she
initially had the smears, they came up as, if you like,
questionable.

"The smears indicated that she had to be watched and monitored,
so she attended diligently at six month intervals and her smears
were taken and sent away to be analysed.

"In fairness to her GPs and in fairness to her, she was very
diligent about that and attended and the usual problems arose
then in the failure to diagnose in the labs in America.

"A biopsy was taken from Miriam and the biopsy, to put it in
simple terms, was insufficient and it was under-reported.

"And basically the case being made is had any of these procedures
been properly dealt with or competently dealt with, her life
would have been saved.  It's as simple as that," Mr McMyler said.

Mr McMyler visited Miriam O'Brien before she died, as he knows
the O'Brien family well.

"I went to see Miriam and at that stage she knew she was dying,
it was a terribly humbling and difficult experience for both of
us, and she had a young daughter from whom she was keeping all of
this, and she knew that she was dying because there was a failure
to diagnose.

"She was heavily bleeding and in difficulty, and she took
advantage of the fact that she was a cross-border worker, and
eventually she was referred to Altnagalvin Hospital and
effectively, at first inspection, she they discovered that she
was heavily cancered."

Mr McMyler said that the fact that there was an opportunity
beyond the screening programme to diagnose Miriam ought to be of
concern to a lot of people, including the public representatives
who are 'so up in arms about all of this'.

"We have issued High Court proceedings based on an expert report.

"We have a reputation for bringing cases successfully, we don't
bring spurious cases.

"And it is disturbing that there has been very little response to
the provable allegation that Miriam should be alive if
Letterkenny Hospital had done their job."

McMyler stressed that this case is distinct from the others in
that insufficient material was taken from Miriam and there was a
failure in the lab and in the diagnostics within the HSE at
Letterkenny University Hospital.

"One would think that that would trigger a reaction in the State
Claims Agency, in the HSE, in the hospital, and it seems that
there's no reaction, and it seems to me anyway that the political
masters are deflecting attention to America, blaming everything
on the labs -- and they're still making the case that the HSE
can't settle the cases because the labs are to blame," he added.

Mr McMyler also criticised the shocking length of time that it
takes for cases such as this to be resolved and said that it was
important that Miraim O'Brien's story was told.

If you or someone you know have been affected by a similar
misdiagnosis at Galway hospitals, contact P.A Dorrian & Co.
Solicitors. [GN]


JULIE FORD: Faces "Martinez" Suit in Sacramento
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Julie Ford. The
case is captioned as Jose Luis Martinez, and Derick Turiello,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Julie Ford; Todd Ford; and Does 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 34-2018-00233462-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.
May 22, 2018).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Kenneth S Gaines, Esq.


KLONDEX MINES: Faces Class Action Over Hecla Acquisition Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on June 18 disclosed
that a federal class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada against the
Board of Directors ("Board") of Klondex Mines Ltd. ("Klondex" or
the "Company") (NYSE AMERICAN:KLDX) related to the Company's
entry into an agreement to be acquired by Hecla Mining Company
("Hecla") in a transaction valued at approximately $462 million.

Investors who have purchased shares of Klondex Mines Ltd. prior
to March 19, 2018 and still hold their shares are urged to
contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800)
575-0735 or (212) 545-4774.

On March 16, 2018, the Board caused Klondex to enter into an
agreement with Hecla.  Pursuant to the terms of the agreement,
shareholders of Klondex may elect to receive either US$2.47 in
cash or 0.6272 of a Hecla share for each share of Klondex common
stock they hold.

On May 23, 2018, Klondex filed a preliminary proxy statement
("Proxy Statement") with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, which recommends that Klondex shareholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction.

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has extensive
experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and
derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate
courts across the country.  The firm has attorneys in various
practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego.
The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and
other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the
courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex
securities multi-district and consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
regarding your rights and interests in this case, please
immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-
0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website
at www.whafh.com. [GN]


LAGUNA BEACH, CA: Makes Changes Under Homelessness Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter J Eliasberg and David Hernand, writing for The Orange
County Register, report that homelessness in Orange County is a
growing epidemic that most civic leaders appear unwilling to
address.  Since evicting a large homeless encampment from the
Santa Ana riverbed, the county has struggled to manage an
inadequate shelter system while also dealing with litigation and
public outcries of NIMBYism.

The exception is Laguna Beach.  Soon, this city -- the first in
Orange County to open a year-round shelter -- will become a
standard-bearer for protecting the rights of homeless residents
with disabilities and supporting regional solutions to ending
homelessness overall.

Under a pending settlement resulting from a class-action lawsuit
brought by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California and the law
firm Paul Hastings LLP, the city's shelter will soon offer a host
of commonly requested accommodations for people with
disabilities.

For example, the city will launch a pilot program providing
separate sleeping spaces for people who, because of a disabling
condition, find it impossible to cope with crowded, congregate
living. Laguna Beach will change rules at its shelter to limit
the reasons for which people might be kicked out and require such
actions to be documented in writing.

The agreement also calls for shelter staff to get guidance and
training on defusing conflict and connecting people with higher
levels of care.

The federal Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation
Act afford persons with disabilities the right to reasonable
accommodations when accessing public services.  Unfortunately,
most homeless shelters are notorious for their lack of ADA and RA
compliance.  Some people with disabilities who are homeless cope
by avoiding shelters altogether.  And in too many shelters, staff
members throw out people with mental disabilities when they
become symptomatic.

Persons with the greatest vulnerabilities end up living and dying
on the streets, effectively shut out from the services that
shelters provide.

The challenge and pain of being homeless are most acute for those
suffering from physical and mental disabilities.  A disabled
person may need a cot instead of a mat on the floor, assistance
getting to the restroom and extra time for showering and eating.
A person with a mental disability may need respite from crowded
and noisy living quarters, permission to re-enter a shelter after
taking a walk to calm down, and refrigeration for medication.

Laguna Beach, under the agreement, will create a process for
disabled people to exercise their rights under the ADA and RA. It
will include letting people know they can request accommodations
to meet their needs.  Such a request will have to be handled in a
timely manner, and if it's rejected it can be appealed to a city
employee who is a neutral expert on the ADA.

If a staff member at the Laguna Beach shelter bans a person
because of behavior that is symptomatic of a disabling condition
-- a ban that is unlawful under the ADA unless the behavior poses
a direct health or safety threat -- that person will have the
opportunity to regain access through an appeals process.

Recognizing that emergency shelters, no matter how accessible,
will not end homelessness, the Laguna Beach City Council under
the agreement will also approve a resolution urging Orange County
to fully fund and implement its "housing first" plan.  That plan
embraces a proven strategy to end homelessness (first adopted as
federal policy under the George W. Bush administration) by
providing people with affordable apartments and wrap-around
services. Orange County has long neglected this strategy, even
though it was enshrined in its "Ten-Year Plan to End
Homelessness."

The county has the resources, but so far not the will, to address
homelessness, leaving cities on the front lines without
desperately needed social services and other aid typically
provided by county agencies.

The ACLU SoCal and Paul Hastings commend the leadership of Laguna
Beach, and the Friendship Shelter organization that operates its
emergency shelter, for their work in this field.  We call upon
Orange County and cities in the region to also take substantial
steps to protect the rights of people who use shelters,
particularly those with disabilities. [GN]


LANVIN INC: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lanvin Inc. The
case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lanvin Inc.
and YNAP Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05951 (S.D.
N.Y., June 29, 2018).

Lanvin is a French fashion house that offers men's and women's
ready-to-wear clothes, accessories, and perfumes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Kyros to File Claims on Behalf of Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyros Law Offices is alerting investors of LendingClub Corp
(NYSE: LC) that it is filing legal claims on behalf of investors
against the company for possible securities fraud violations.

LendingClub Corp (NYSE: LC) investors that purchased stock
between 12/10/2014 AND 05/06/2016 are urged to contact our law
firm immediately to protect their rights.  Visit our LC
Shareholder Lawsuit Settlement webpage or call 1-800-934-2921 to
speak to someone about your case. Your legal rights will be
affected whether you act or do not act. If you do not act, you
may permanently forfeit your right to recover on this claim.

A lawsuit brought by shareholders of the online peer-to-peer
lender Lending Club has been settled. The lawsuit stemmed from
alleged discrepancies and improprieties that may have been found
in the digital lender's business operations. William Alsup, a
judge in the Northern District of California, approved the
settlement in the amount of $125 million, allowing LC investors
to collect significant financial compensation.

Kyros Law Offices urges LendingClub Corp (NYSE: LC) investors to
contact our law firm immediately to protect their rights.  Visit
LendingClub Corp (NYSE: LC) Lawsuit Settlement or call 1-800-934-
2921 to find out if you have a case.

Due to the terms of the proposed settlement, your legal rights
will be affected whether you act or do not act. If you do not
act, you may permanently forfeit your right to recover on this
claim.

Receive alerts about potential class action lawsuits that may
affect you by visiting the Class Action Lawsuit Center website.

Kyros Law -- http://www.kyroslaw.com-- specializes in a wide
range of complex litigation, mass torts, and corporate governance
matters, including the representation of whistleblowers,
shareholders and consumers in securities fraud, false claims act
and class actions. [GN]


LIFT BRANDS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lift Brands Inc
doing business as: Snap Fitness. The case is styled as Cedric
Bishop, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Lift Brands Inc doing business as: Snap Fitness,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06013 (S.D. N.Y., July 2, 2018).

Snap Fitness is a privately owned and operated health and fitness
club founded in 2003 by Peter Taunton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


MADISON, NB: "Nelson" Can't Proceed as Inmates Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LINDA NELSON, Plaintiff, v. VERN HJORTH, Defendant,
Case No. 8:18CV88 (D. Neb.), Judge Richard G. Kopf of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska denied Nelson's
motions for leave to amend and for appointment of counsel.

Nelson, appearing pro se, filed her Complaint on Feb. 23, 2018,
and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on March 8,
2018.  She paid an initial partial filing fee on April 2, 2018.
The court now conducts an initial review of the Complaint to
determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28
U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.

Nelson is a pretrial detainee at the Madison County Jail in
Madison, Nebraska.  She sues the Madison County Sheriff, Hjorth,
both in his individual and official capacities, for alleged
constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

She purports to bring the action on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated.  For her claims, Nelson alleges, among
other things, that (i) Nebraska jail standards meant to protect
inmates from the wanton and malicious behavior of jail staff are
ignored in their entirety by the Administration of Madison County
Jail; (ii) no reading material from any source is allowed, unless
it is selected and distributed by jail staff; (iii) the jail has
no grievance procedure; (iv) no due process exists at Madison
County Jail; and (v) staff is allowed to swear at and taunt
inmates with impunity.

For relief, Nelson just wants the Court to order the sheriff to
follow the laws.  More specifically, she states she would like
the Court, among other things, (i) to certify a class action
because the problems at Madison County have effected hundreds of
people over many years; (ii) to order the jail (Hjorth) to adhere
to the Nebraska Jail Standards and stop punishing people by
making them cold, hungry and bored; (ii) to order the jail
(Hjorth) to stop punishing people without due process; (iv) to
order Hjorth to pay all the costs of these proceedings; and (v)
to find that Hjorth is guilty of neglect of duty pursuant to Neb
RRS Section 47-116 and order him to pay the punitive damages
established by Nebraska law for such neglect of duty.

Judge Kopf finds that Nelson has stated plausible claims for
obtaining relief against Madison County with respect to the
withholding of her newspaper and magazine subscriptions and with
respect to the quality and quantity of food she is provided.  He
cautions Nelson that this is only a preliminary determination
based on the allegations of the Complaint and is not a
determination of the merits of her claims or potential defenses
thereto.  In all other respects, he finds that Nelson's Complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against
Madison County.  No plausible claim for relief is alleged against
Sheriff Hjorth in his individual capacity.  Nelson cannot sue on
behalf of other inmates or bring a class action.  Her motions for
leave to amend and for appointment of counsel will be denied.

Accordingly, Judge Kopf ordered the the clerk of the Court to
modify the docket sheet to (i) list Linda Nelson as the sole
Plaintiff, by striking the words all other similar situation
after her name; and (ii) add the County of Madison, Nebraska, as
Defendant.

He dismissed without prejudice all claims alleged against Hjorth,
Madison County Sheriff, in his individual and official
capacities, and he will no longer be a party Defendant.

He (i) denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to amend
complaint; (ii) denied without prejudice, as moot, the
Plaintiff's motion for additional time to pay the initial partial
filing fee; and (iii) denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
motion for appointment of counsel.

The only claims alleged in the Plaintiff's Complaint that will be
allowed are: (1) A First Amendment claim against Madison County
for an alleged official policy which has prevented the Plaintiff
from receiving newspaper and magazine subscriptions; and (2) a
Fourteenth Amendment claim against Madison County for an alleged
official policy of feeding her stale bread, soggy food, and 50%
portions to result in constant hunger.  Any and all other claims
alleged in the Complaint are dismissed without prejudice.

For service of process on the Defendant, the county of Madison,
Nebraska, the clerk of the Court is directed to complete a
summons form and a USM-285 form for said Defendant using the
address Madison County Clerk, 1313 N. Main Street, Madison, NE
68748, and forward them together with a copy of the Complaint,
and a copy of the Memorandum and Order to the Marshals Service.

The Marshals Service will serve the Defendant.  Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service of the complaint on a
defendant within 90 days of filing the complaint.  However, the
Judge granted the Plaintiff, on the Court's own motion, an
extension of time until 90 days from the date of the Order to
complete service of process.

The United States Marshal will serve all process in the case
without prepayment of fees from Plaintiff.  The clerk of the
Court is directed to set the following pro se case management
deadline: July 30, 2018 -- Check for completion of service of
process.

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

Linda Nelson, Plaintiff, pro se.


MARION COUNTY, FL: 11th Cir. Affirms Judgment in "Truesdell"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLEAN K. TRUESDELL, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant, v.
CLAYTON THOMAS, individually, CHRIS BLAIR, individually and in
his official capacity as the Marion County Sheriff, Defendants-
Appellants-Cross Appellees, Case No. 16-16388 (11th Cir.), Judge
William Pryor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of
Truesdell.

Clayton Thomas worked as a Sergeant at the Marion County
Sheriff's Office.  Between January 2010 and July 2013, he used
the Florida driver and vehicle identification database to access
the personal information of thousands of people.  Thomas admitted
that many of these searches were motivated by "curiosity," but he
also stated that some searches were in response to calls about
cars in the jail parking lot or suspicious vehicles at the jail.
On June 8, 2011, and again on Feb. 28, 2012, Thomas accessed
Kellean Truesdell's information without justification.

In 2012, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement notified the
Sheriff's Office of potential misuse of the driver database.  An
internal investigation revealed that Thomas had misused the
database. In 2013, the Sheriff's Office notified Truesdell that
Thomas had accessed her information.

Truesdell sued Thomas in his individual capacity and Chris Blair,
the Sheriff of Marion County, in his individual and official
capacities.  She alleged that Thomas accessed the personal
information of thousands of people in violation of the Act and
that the Sheriff's Office failed to prevent unauthorized access
to the database, and she demanded injunctive relief and money
damages.

She then moved the district court to certify under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) a class of approximately 42,364
individuals whose personal information was accessed by Thomas
during the class period in violation of the Act.  Truesdell also
asserted that the Sheriff's Office had failed to notify many of
the alleged victims as required by both Florida law and an
agreement between the office and the Florida Department of
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

The district court refused to certify the class after adopting
the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.  The district
court underscored "a lack of typicality and commonality" among
the claims asserted by Truesdell and the potential class members.
It concluded that any amendments to certify a more narrow class
would suffer from the same deficiencies, and therefore, denial of
the motion without leave to amend was appropriate.

At trial, the jury denied Truesdell compensatory damages, but it
awarded $100 in punitive damages against Thomas and $5,000 in
punitive damages against Blair, in his official capacity as
Sheriff.  The district court also assessed $5,000 in joint and
several statutory damages against Thomas and Blair, in his
official capacity, representing an award of $2,500 for each of
two violations of 18 U.S.C. section 2722(a).

After trial, Truesdell moved the district court to enter a class-
wide judgment for liquidated damages and to grant a new trial as
to the amount of punitive damages.  Thomas and Blair argued that
the Court should award only a total of $2,500 in liquidated
damages instead of $2,500 for each violation, and they contended
that federal law is clear that punitive damages are not available
against the Sheriff's Office on a civil rights claim.  The
district court rejected all of these arguments.

First, Judge Pryor finds that unlike section 1983, which is
silent about damages, the Act specifically permits punitive and
liquidated damages.  And when a statute that applies to a
municipal agency allows expressly for damages that are more than
compensatory, these damages are available against the agency.  He
says he cannot read an implicit exception for municipal agencies
into the express provision of the Act that permits punitive
damages against a willful or reckless violator.

Second, he finds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion.  Thomas' two violations were separated by eight
months, Thomas offered no justification for either action, and
Truesdell offered evidence that the Sheriff's Office conducted a
lackluster internal investigation.  In the light of this
evidence, the district court was entitled to award damages for
each violation.

The appeal presents several questions about the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act: whether the Act permits punitive damages against
municipal agencies and multiple awards of liquidated damages for
separate violations; whether the district court abused its
discretion when it refused to certify a class and to grant a new
trial; and whether the district court erred when it instructed
the jury about punitive damages.

Third, he finds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it determined that Truesdell failed to establish
commonality, typicality, and superiority.  The Act encourages
individual litigation by offering liquidated damages and
attorney's fees, although not dispositive, is a factor the
district court was entitled to consider.  And the district court
was entitled to deny Truesdell's post-trial motion for class
certification based on the same deficiencies.

Fourth, the Judge finds that although Truesdell asserts that the
amount of the award is akin to a license to engage in outrageous
conduct in the light of the evidence adduced at trial, this
argument is meritless because the question whether to award
punitive damages is left to the jury, which may or may not make
such an award.  The jury weighed the evidence and awarded
punitive damages despite finding that Truesdell had not suffered
actual damages.

Finally, he finds that the  district court properly instructed
the jury on the purpose of punitive damages and instructed the
jury to consider all of the evidence concerning the gravity and
extent of the Defendants' misconduct.  And the question whether
to award punitive damages is left to the jury, which may or may
not make such an award. The charge, taken as a whole, was not
erroneous and prejudicial.

For these reasons, Judge Pryor affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/bCRMSV from Leagle.com.

John M. Green, Jr. -- jmgjr@mac.com -- for Defendant-Appellant-
Cross Appellee.

Linda LeVines Winchenbach -- lwinchenbach@me.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee.

Adriana Jisa, for Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee.

Anthony Anderson Benton Dogali -- adogali@dogalilaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant.

Bruce Wallace Jolly, for Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee.

Geoffrey E. Parmer -- gparmer@dogalilaw.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee-Cross Appellant.


MAEIL JANCHI: Doesn't Pay OT to Waitresses, "Kim" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
KYUNG SOOK KIM individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAEIL JANCHI, INC., DANIEL C. AHN, JOHN
AND JANE DOES 1-10, and XYZ CORPS 1-10, Defendants, Case No:
1:18-cv-3026 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-
of-hours pay, and other monies pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as waitress from
November 2016 to October 2017.

Maeil Janchi, Inc. (d/b/a Mae Il Jan Chi), is a New York
corporation, licensed to do business in the State of New York,
that has as its principal place of business at 149-32 41 St
Avenue in Queens County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Farzad Ramin, Esq.
           KIM & BAE, P.C.
           154-08 Northern Blvd., Suite 2G
           Flushing, New York 11354
           Telephone: (718) 321-0770
           Facsimile: (718) 321-0799


MARS INC: Averts Candy Bar Labeling Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Ephrat Livni, writing for Quartz, reports that Snickers candy
bars famously promise to satisfy.  But you might find them less
satiating if you knew your chocolate could be salted with the
tears of enslaved children.

Some children in Cote d'Ivoire are forced to work in terrible
conditions against their will, picking cocoa beans that make
their way into Mars company sweets.  A class action lawsuit
sought to force Mars company candy bar labels to disclose the
fact that child slaves may have picked the cocoa beans that went
into these chocolates.  But a recent court ruling found that Mars
isn't obligated to do so under California's consumer protection
laws, because -- technically speaking -- child labor doesn't
affect the quality of the product.

The June 4 ruling in Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc. comes from the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals in California.  The federal appeals
court opinion acknowledges that forced child labor is
reprehensible and violates international labor standards. Still,
the court finds that Mars isn't violating labeling laws by
failing to disclose child slavery, and a district court made no
mistake when it dismissed the case for "failure to state a
claim," according to the appellate judges.

Mars makes Snickers, Twix, M&Ms, and other popular chocolate
products, which are sold in 180 countries around the world.  The
opinion notes that the company does recognize -- as required by
law -- that its "supply chains may be infected with the worst
forms of child labor."

Mars buys cocoa beans from Cote d'Ivoire, where farms are
notorious for abusive conditions.  The Bureau of International
Labor Affairs of the US Department of Labor describes the
situation in the West African nation as follows:

[C]hildren . . . are working under conditions of forced labor on
Ivoirian cocoa farms . . . Some children are sold by their
parents to traffickers, some are kidnapped, and others migrate
willingly but fall victim to traffickers who sell them to
recruiters or farmers, where they end up in conditions of bonded
labor . . . Some children are forced to perform dangerous tasks .
. .

This is reprehensible, according to the Ninth Circuit.  But
omitting the information about the infected supply chain from
labels doesn't actually violate state consumer protection, false
advertising, and fraud laws, as the plaintiff claims.  The court
writes:

[T]he alleged lack of disclosure about the existence of slave
labor in the supply chain is not a physical defect at all, much
less one related to the chocolate's function as chocolate.
Plaintiff contends that he has "no practical use" for the
products tainted by slave or child labor, but the central
functionality of the product is not based on subjective
preferences about a product.

Mars successfully argued that it has no duty to disclose its
awareness of possible slave labor involvement in its chocolates
on labels because the child slavery doesn't "cause an
unreasonable safety hazard."  There's no physical or safety
defect in the confections as a result of the nasty labor
practices, and so no reason to warn consumers.

The appellate court agreed in an opinion that is, for Mars, a
bittersweet win.  Child labor in the supply chain is likely
important to consumers, the court posits, and "not labeling
chocolate bars may indirectly exacerbate slave labor in the
supply chain."  Still, it doesn't "affect the central
functionality of the chocolate products." [GN]


MCDONALD'S: Lawyer Says Quarter Pounder Class Action Frivolous
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate Crime Reporter reports that a Florida trial attorney
recently filed a consumer class action lawsuit against McDonald's
claiming that the burger giant was charging consumers the same
amount for a quarter pounder as it charges for a quarter pounder
with cheese.

To John Uustal, a fellow Florida trial lawyer, the case sounded
like a frivolous lawsuit -- the kind that corporate lobbyists use
to mock and undermine the civil justice system.

Mr. Uustal took to his blog and offered a $100,000 reward for
evidence corporations were behind the case against McDonald's.

But then Mr. Uustal changed the reward.

Now, Mr. Uustal is offering "$100,000 for the first person who
provides proof that leads to a judgment finding that a lawsuit
was filed since March in the Southern District of Florida as a
result of a corporate conspiracy to manufacture frivolous
lawsuits," Mr. Uustal told Corporate Crime Reporter in an
interview.

"Of course, every case deserves to be decided on the law and the
evidence," Mr. Uustal said.  "But I look at some of these
lawsuits, and I cannot imagine that they have any chance of
success. When they fail, the lawyer will have lost plenty of time
and money."

"Why would any lawyer try to lose money?"

"We know that big corporate interests have successfully attacked
the credibility of our civil justice system by highlighting
frivolous lawsuits.  They do it so they can eliminate truly
righteous lawsuits."

"It's worth remembering that these righteous lawsuits are the
only hope for justice against these powerful corporations when
they knowingly decide to act in ways that kill people.  That's
why I'm writing a book called Corporate Serial Killers."

"Frivolous lawsuits are poison.  They not only create unfair
costs for innocent defendants, they also allow powerful corporate
interests to create a smoke screen to hide their truly despicable
conduct."

"When a frivolous lawsuit gets filed, that's bad enough.  But is
there any possibility this is even worse?"

"Could an entire lawsuit be a scam? A scam to create more smoke
for corporate lobbyists so they can destroy our rights to get
justice against a manufacturer who knowingly and intentionally
refuses to fix a defective product that kills, or against a bank
that steals money from its customers?"

"Look at how the tort reform lobby is already using this new
Quarter Pounder lawsuit.  They're perpetuating the idea that
lawyers are shifty scammers.  They are brainwashing us to think
that lawsuits in general are frivolous."

"Corporations point to suits like this to claim that the civil
justice system must be 'reformed.' And they get laws passed that
supposedly 'reform' the civil justice system but which, in
reality, eliminate or limit righteous lawsuits."

"The campaign to destroy our civil justice system by using
frivolous lawsuits as a Trojan Horse has already been so
successful that massive corporations essentially enjoy a new
license to kill."

"Some people are wondering if there is a lawsuit scam, designed
to further weaken the power of the people against wealthy
corporations.  It seems impossible to believe, but if it's true,
the public deserves to know."

"If there's any evidence at all, I don't have it.  But if it
exists, I'd like to see it.  So I'm offering, on
JohnUustal.com/conspiracy-evidence, up to $100,000 to the first
person who brings me proof that leads to a judgment finding that
a lawsuit filed since March in the Southern District of Florida
was a scam created in a corporate conspiracy to destroy our
rights."

"To be absolutely clear, this is the only way I can think to get
evidence about the potential conspiracy that I have heard lawyers
speculate about.  I have no evidence that the conspiracy exists,
and I am not implying that it does.  Moreover, even if it exists,
I can't imagine that the recently filed McDonald's case is a part
of it."

"But I feel that there is more than we yet know about the
corporate strategy against frivolous lawsuits, and I want to find
out whatever I can."

"Think of poison ivy for a moment.  It's a plant, but we all know
it'd be ridiculous to say that all plants are bad just because
some few are poisonous.  Lawsuits are like that. Some few are
poison. But don't be fooled.  Lawsuits, like plants, are good.
Without them, we'd be in big trouble.  The courtroom is the only
place in the world where the people hold powerful corporate
interests to account."

"So, don't let those corporations fool you into thinking that
lawsuits are the problem. Because if you get scammed like that,
you'll let them treat all lawsuits, even the most righteous ones,
as frivolous."

"God help us when corporations, without bodies or souls, have all
the power and no accountability.  I've spent my entire career
going up against companies that hurt and kill people in the name
of profits.  It's time to fight back."

His upcoming book -- Corporate Serial Killers -- is based on
cases he has come across in his practice over the years.

"There are many ways that the new laws allow corporations to take
care of customers.  But the most serious cases are when
corporations make decisions they know will result in people
dying.  And they know they will get away with it.  I wanted to
focus on cases I know about where corporations made decisions
where they knew people would die.  And how the law encourages
that today."

"Under the current law, the corporations know they will get away
with it.  Several things have come together to create this
situation.  The US Supreme Court has found that corporations have
a constitutional right not to be subject to punitive damage
awards of more than a single digit multiplier of the compensatory
damages."

"And the corporations do the math.  They look at how much it will
cost per person who dies or get injured.  And they compare that
with how much it would cost for them to fix the problem.  Because
of this limit on punitive damages, there are now many more
corporations who will be financially better off if they make the
decision to let people die."

"If five people die, and there is a million dollar judgment for
each of their families.  That's $5 million.  If the evidence is
clear that this corporation was reckless and made intentional
decisions, there could be additional punitive damage awards.
Let's say it's two or three million dollars allowed by this new
constitutional corporate right.  You might be up to $15 million
for those five people.  Some of them may never bring a lawsuit.
Some of them will lose because of the way that big corporations
litigate.  They learned from the tobacco companies.  They
understand that scorched earth tactics will result in a situation
where most plaintiffs attorneys can't afford to bring a case and
they fold.  There may be only two or three who get a verdict.
Maybe some of them are settled for half a million dollars."

"They end up estimating maybe $7.5 million to kill five people.
If they have a lot of product and the fix is going to cost $30 or
$40 or $50 each, it quickly becomes cheaper to let those people
die."

"Twenty years ago, the jury had the duty to deter the company
from ever doing it again.  If the corporation walked away with an
extra $50 million because they didn't fix the problem, the jury
would take the money back to make sure they don't make money by
killing people.  Now, the jurors can't do it."

"And it really only applied to large corporations making hundreds
of millions of dollars by their misconduct.  And the civil
justice system has become powerless to deter that kind of
conduct."

If the civil justice is powerless, what would you propose to
reign in corporate power?

"I face that question often when I'm speaking.  And the answer is
-- I don't know.  To make myself feel better, I look back and see
there are times when we didn't know the way forward. But people
kept working until something happened."

"When Thurgood Marshall started working in the 1930s, he was
losing a lot.  But he kept at it until the culture started to
change.  Then he started to win. Similarly here, the culture has
to change.  People have to begin to realize the value of the
righteous lawsuit.  So much of the freedoms and protections we
enjoy are based on lawyers and lawsuits. Until they understand
that, I don't think we will make much progress."

Is this your first foray into public advocacy for victims of
corporate crime?

"Yes."

And why did you decide to do it?

"It came down to the sick feeling I get day after day telling
people that the law can't help them.  It wasn't like that when I
first started as a lawyer."

You are a relatively young trial lawyer. Is this a generational
thing?

"Maybe.  Many lawyers are worried about it and talk about.  But
they are just not clear what to do about it." [GN]


MCS CLAIM: Faces "Asaro" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MCS Claim Services,
Inc. The case is styled as Patricia Asaro, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCS Claim
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03797 (E.D. N.Y.,
June 29, 2018).

MCS Claim Services, Inc. is a insurance agency in New Cassel, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2843: Delaware Class Action Added to MDL
--------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal
judicial panel on June 18 added a Delaware class action against
Facebook Inc. and Cambridge Analytica to multidistrict litigation
in a California federal court over the social network's alleged
mistreatment of personal user information.

The move follows the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation's order coordinating 30 class actions into an MDL
before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern
District of California.  Judge Chhabria had been presiding over
more than half of the suits from Facebook users who say the
breach compromised their data.

On June 18, the panel said the Delaware action, filed by seven
Facebook users in the United States and England, involved
"questions of fact that are common to the actions previously
transferred to the Northern District of California and assigned
to Judge Chhabria."

Facebook has acknowledged that Cambridge Analytica, a data
analytics firm whose parent firm has since gone bankrupt,
accessed data from millions of its users as part of a software
application called "thisisyourdigitallife."  Questions have
surfaced over the use of such data during the 2016 election,
given that Steve Bannon, who was campaign manager and later a top
White House strategist for President Donald Trump, provided
financial backing to Cambridge Analytica.

According to the Delaware lawsuit, Facebook knew about problems
with its platform in 2011, but failed to close a "back door" that
allowed outside app developers to obtain "wide-scale,
unauthorized access" to the names, addresses, telephone numbers
and locations of users in its system.

In a 42-page complaint, the plaintiffs said a 2011 investigation
by the Federal Trade Commission revealed that Facebook's privacy
settings were ineffective in stopping third parties from
accessing users' personal information either directly or through
a Facebook friend who authorized a platform app, like an online
personality quiz, in violation of its privacy policy.
"Despite this knowledge and its obligations to its users,
Facebook took no affirmative action, and, thereby, refused or
otherwise failed to fix, change or otherwise remedy this known
defect in its existing developer tools," the complaint said.

The oversight allowed Aleksandr Kogan, a professor at Cambridge
University, in 2014 to obtain user data through the online
personality-test app thisisyourdigitallife, and then improperly
share it with Cambridge Analytica, which had been hired by the
Trump campaign, according to the filing.

At the time, Mr. Bannon was serving as a "top executive of
Cambridge Analytica" and "was deeply involved in the company's
strategy," according to media reports cited in the complaint.

Mr. Bannon was not a named defendant in the case.  But the
complaint did name Mr. Kogan -- the professor -- and his company,
Global Science Research, as defendants.  Another firm, SCL
Elections, was accused of improperly licensing the information to
Cambridge Analytica.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Christopher Wylie, a former
Cambridge Analytica research director-turned-whistleblower, have
testified on Capitol Hill. Zuckerberg also has testified in
European Parliament in Brussels, while Wylie has provided
testimony to a committee of the British Parliament.

In court documents, Facebook, which is represented by Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher, has denied breaking any laws or violating legal
duties.

The Delaware case was captioned Redmond v. Facebook. [GN]


MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION: Faces "Droke" Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merchants
Association Collection Division, Inc. The case is styled as
Natalie Droke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Merchants Association Collection Division,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-01050-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla., July
2, 2018).

Merchants Association Collection Division, Inc. is a debt
collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Cancer Patient's Roundup Lawsuit Goes to Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------
CNNWire reports that on bad days, Dewayne Johnson is too crippled
to speak.  Lesions often cover as much as 80% of his body.

Doctors have said they didn't expect him to live to see this day.
But June 18 marks a milestone: Mr. Johnson, 46, is the first of
hundreds of cancer patients to see his case against agrochemical
giant Monsanto go to trial.

CNN reported last year that more than 800 patients were suing
Monsanto, claiming its popular weed killer, Roundup, gave them
cancer.

Since then, hundreds more non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients have
made similar claims, Mr. Johnson's attorney, Timothy Litzenburg,
said.  He now represents "more than 2,000 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
sufferers who used Roundup extensively," he said.

Mr. Johnson, a father of two in California's Bay Area, applied
Roundup weed killer 20 to 30 times per year while working as a
pest manager for a county school system, his attorney said.

Mr. Johnson's case is the first to go to trial because, his
doctors claim in court filings, he is nearing death.  And in
California, dying plaintiffs can be granted expedited trials.

And there's a lot riding on this case, which could set a legal
precedent for thousands of cases to follow.

Report on Roundup ingredient in dispute
The big questions at stake are whether Roundup can cause cancer
and, if so, whether Monsanto failed to warn consumers about the
product's cancer risk.

In March 2015, the World Health Organization's International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said the key ingredient in
Roundup, glyphosate, is "probably carcinogenic to humans."

"For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of
carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma," the report
states.

"The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures, mostly
agricultural, in the USA, Canada, and Sweden published since
2001. In addition, there is convincing evidence that glyphosate
also can cause cancer in laboratory animals."

But Monsanto long has maintained that Roundup does not cause
cancer, and that the IARC report is greatly outnumbered by
studies saying glyphosate is safe.

"More than 800 scientific studies, the U.S. EPA (Environmental
Protection Agency), the National Institutes of Health and
regulators around the world have concluded that glyphosate is
safe for use and does not cause cancer," Scott Partridge,
Monsanto's vice president of strategy, said in a statement.

"We have empathy for anyone suffering from cancer, but the
scientific evidence clearly shows that glyphosate was not the
cause.  We look forward to presenting this evidence to the
court."

Monsanto spokeswoman Charla Lord said regulatory authorities help
ensure Roundup is safe.

"The safety of each labeled use of a pesticide formulation must
be evaluated and approved by regulatory authorities before it is
authorized for sale," she has said.

The National Pesticide Information Center -- a cooperative
between Oregon State University and the EPA -- said studies on
cancer rates in humans "have provided conflicting results on
whether the use of glyphosate containing products is associated
with cancer."

Many more cases to follow
Mr. Johnson's case -- and hundreds of similar cases against
Monsanto -- have been filed in various state courts,
Mr. Litzenburg said.  Many other cases have been filed in federal
multidistrict litigation, or MDL.

MDL is a procedure similar to class-action, in that it
consolidates pre-trial proceedings for the sake of efficiency.
But unlike a class-action lawsuit, each case within an MDL gets
its own trial -- with its own outcome.

In other words, one MDL plaintiff might get a large settlement,
while another plaintiff might get nothing.

It's not clear when future state or MDL trials will begin.  One
advantage of filing in state court -- as Mr. Johnson did --
instead of through MDL is that state courts might produce an
outcome faster.

And in Mr. Johnson's case, time is critical.

"Mr. Johnson is angry and is the most safety-oriented person I
know," his attorney said.  "Right now, he is the bravest dude in
America. Whatever happens with the trial and his health, his sons
get to know that." [GN]


MUSEUM OF THE BIBLE: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Museum of the
Bible, Inc. The case is styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The
Museum of the Bible, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03775
(E.D. N.Y., June 29, 2018).

The Museum of the Bible, Inc. operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization offers museum, traveling exhibits,
educational programs, research services. Museum of the Bible
services members in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Duncan's Class Action Objection Meritless
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Fischer, writing for NBC Sports, reports that it's been
well over a year since the NCAA reached a settlement in a
class-action lawsuit over grant-in-aid/cost of attendance and yet
the $208 million the organization is still just sitting in a bank
account waiting to be doled out.  While you might first think
that this is the result of the usual dragging of their feet from
those in Indianapolis, it turns out that is not the case at all.

USA Today is reporting that it's actually former Western Michigan
wide receiver Darrin Duncan who is the one holding things up.  He
withdrew from the class-action case but his attorney,
Caroline Tucker, "attempted to obtain $200,000 from the
plaintiffs' lawyers in exchange for dropping the objection."  The
lawyers on the plaintiffs' side have naturally responded in
force, asking either of the two to post a five-figure bond to
cover their own legal fees resulting from this delay.  The judge
in the case, Claudia Wilken, knocked that down to $5,000 on
June 15 by calling Tucker/Duncan's objection to the case
"meritless and thus his appeal is unlikely to succeed."

At this point, Duncan/Tucker can either put up the money and risk
losing it to continue their objection or drop things and let the
payments -- which could go as high as $6,000 per athlete --
starts. While this is naturally focused on money, there's a bit
more to what the former Broncos receiver is going through:

All of this is occurring against the backdrop of Duncan dealing
with personal hardship.

Now 28, he has been diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma, according
to his mother and a GoFundMe page established on his behalf about
a year ago.  He has received death threats because of his
objection to the settlement, his mother, Arleen Pollard, said in
an interview with USA TODAY Sports.

It does appear as though a solution to this long-running saga is
in the cards somewhat soon but until then, the wait continues
before the checks can start hitting the mail. [GN]


NATIONAL RECOVERIES: "Reizner" FDCPA Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Judge John Michael Vasquez of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the case, ALEX REIZNER, Plaintiff; v. NATIONAL RECOVERIES, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-2572 (D. N.J.).

The Plaintiff is a New Jersey resident.  The Defendant is a
Minnesota corporation primarily engaged in the business of debt
collection.  On March 28, 2017, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred
a debt to the United States Department of Education ("DOE").  The
DOE assigned the debt to NRI for collection.  NRI mailed the
Plaintiff a letter, dated March 28, 2017, concerning the debt.

On April 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
Complaint on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.
The Complaint alleges one count for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  Specifically, the Plaintiff
claims that the Defendant's Collection Letter violated Sections
1692g(a)(3) and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA.

On June 29, 2017, NRI moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  It
claims that the Plaintiff fails to provide any factual
information to support her claim to standing.  To that end, the
Defendant argues that rather than state the genesis of the
obligation, the Plaintiff simply quotes FDCPA statutory language
to draw legal conclusions.  It concludes that the Court cannot
ascertain whether the debt at issue is a consumer "debt" under
the FDCPA and, therefore, also whether the Plaintiff is
"consumer" under the FDCPA.

The Defendant points the Court to Sanon-Lauredant v. LTD Fin.
Servs., L.P.  In Sanon-Lauredant, Judge McNulty found that the
complaint insufficiently pled that the debt in question was
governed by the FDCPA.  Judge McNulty noted that to establish
this threshold element of her FDCPA claim, plaintiff ha[d] merely
repeated the language of the statute.  This, he concluded, was a
legal conclusion that d[id] not satisfy the pleading requirements
of Rule 8.

The Plaintiff opposed the motion, and the Defendant replied.  The
Defendant then submitted a letter asking the Court to consider
the case of Riccio v. Sentry Credit, Inc.  The Plaintiff
responded with a submission refuting the Plaintiff's
interpretation of Riccio.

Judge Vasquez finds Judge McNulty's reasoning in Sanon-Lauredant
persuasive.  Judge McNulty's decision tracks the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and the corresponding
plausibility requirements.  Here, too, he finds that merely
parroting statutory language is insufficient to plausibly plead a
claim.  However, he does not decide the motion on this basis.

The Judge also finds that the Collection Letter does not violate
Section 1692g.  The Defendant's Collection Letter adheres to each
requirement of Section 1692g(a).  The validation notice appears
in the first two paragraphs of the letter, and it precedes NRI's
address and telephone number.  The Collection Letter does not
expressly state that the Plaintiff should call to contest the
debt.

Viewing the Collection Letter from the perspective of the least
sophisticated debtor, the letter's validation notice is not
overshadowed by other language in the letter given the position
of the validation notice language in the letter and the fact that
it is in bold typeface.  Moreover, in light of the foregoing
analysis, including the important differences with the letter in
Caprio, the Collection Letter's validation notice is not
contradicted by other language in the letter.  The Judge
concludes that the letter does not violate Section 1692g(a) and,
as result, it also does not violate Section 1692e(10).

For the foregoing reason, Judge Vasquez granted with prejudice
the Defendant's motion to dismiss.  Because the Plaintiff cannot
change the Collection Letter, any attempted amendment to the
Complaint would be futile.  An appropriate Order accompanies the
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/v8HsE5 from Leagle.com.

ALEX REIZNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH K. JONES, Jones, Wolf
& Kapasi, LLC & BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.

NATIONAL RECOVERIES, INC., Defendant, represented by MITCHELL L.
WILLIAMSON -- mwilliamson@bn-lawyers.com -- Barron & Newburger,
P.C..


NEW JERSEY: Faces Class Action Over "Representation Fees"
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Cherry Hill Courier-Post, reports that a
Gloucester County educator is the lead plaintiff in a proposed
class-action lawsuit that targets the state's teacher unions.

The suit, brought in the name of Clearview Regional High School
teacher Ann Smith, challenges the constitutionality of
"representation fees" charged to non-union members by the New
Jersey Education Association and its affiliates.

It asks a federal judge to bar such payments and to order unions
to return all funds collected through representation fees.  It
also argues against a recently enacted state law allegedly
intended to discourage union objectors like Ms. Smith.

Ms. Smith referred a reporter to attorney Jonathan Mitchell of
Austin, Texas.  He did not respond to a request for comment.

The suit, filed in federal court in Camden, has political
overtones in a state where teachers' unions are a powerful ally
of Gov. Phil Murphy and other Democratic leaders.

Ms. Mitchell, a former solicitor general of Texas. recently
brought a similar suit targeting California's largest teacher's
union.  He's been nominated by President Donald Trump to chair an
agency that recommends changes to government procedures.

Defendants in the local suit include the NJEA, the National
Education Association, as well as Mr. Murphy and other state
officials.

Clearview's school board is named as a representative of similar
organizations that enforce collection of representation fees at
districts across the state.

NJEA spokesman Steven Baker declined to comment on June 15 on a
lawsuit he had not seen.

He said more than 3,000 public school workers pay representation
fees to the union, which has more than 200,000 dues-paying
members.

"NJEA fully complies with the current laws," Mr. Baker said.
"Should those laws change, we will fully comply with the revised
laws."

He noted the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on a lawsuit brought by
Mark Janus, a public employee in Illinois who opposes mandatory
union fees.

"Regardless of the court's ruling in that matter, NJEA members
will continue to advocate for students and great public schools,"
Baker asserted.  He said the union's members "will not let
outsiders with an anti-worker agenda take away what they have
worked so hard to earn and build."

The local suit seeks to represents all current and past employees
of the state "or any of its subunits, including any school
district," if those people were non-union members compelled to
pay representation fees.

The local lawsuit contends mandatory fees violate Ms. Smith's
constitutional rights because "she does not wish to subsidize the
union's activities."

"She refuses to join the NJEA or its affiliates because she
disapproves of the union's political and ideological advocacy, as
well as the excessively high salaries that are paid to the
union's leaders," the lawsuit says.

It acknowledges Ms. Smith's union "has tried to accommodate" her
objections, allowing the teacher to direct the undisclosed
representation free from her $82,604 annual salary to Habitat for
Humanity.

But the suit contends Smith "has a constitutional right to
refrain from joining or lending financial support to a public-
employee union, and she cannot be subject to any financial
penalty for that decision."

The suit also challenges two provisions of a state law enacted in
May, The "Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act."  The bill's
sponsors included three South Jersey Democrats -- Senate
President Stephen Sweeney of West Deptford; Sen. Paul Moriarty of
Washington Township and Assemblywoman Gabriela Mosquera of
Blackwood.

One of the provisions requires public employers to give unions
the names and contact information for all workers, according to
the suit.  The suit argues this "unconstitutionally chills" the
First Amendment rights of employees who choose not to join or
financially support a union.

A second contested provision allows public employees to revoke
consent to deduction of union fees only "during the 10 days
following each anniversary date of their employment."

The suit argues a worker "has a constitutional right to revoke
membership and financial support of a public employee union at
any time." [GN]


NEW ORLEANS, LA: "Anderson" Class Certification Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS ANDERSON, ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET
AL, Case No. 2017-CA-0999, Consolidated with Nos. 2017-CA-1020,
2017-CA-1052 (La. App.), Judge James F. McKay, III of the Court
of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, reversed the trial
court's judgment certifying the class, and defining the class
according to the Plaintiffs' proposal, and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with his Opinion.

The City of New Orleans is the owner of a building known as the
"City Hall Annex" located at 2400 Canal Street, in New Orleans,
Louisiana.  In a Petition for Damages filed on May 12, 2000, the
Plaintiffs claimed to have suffered personal injuries as a result
of their exposure to dangerous levels of hazardous chemicals
including potassium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid and hydrofiboric
acid.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the City was aware that hazardous,
dangerous chemicals were present at the Annex, but nonetheless
ordered petitioners and those similarly situated to work in this
dangerous environment.

The class certification issue was previously before the Court on
the Defendants' appeal of the certification of a class related to
an alleged toxic waste release at 2400 Canal Street, a building
that operated as an Annex to New Orleans City Hall from 1982
until 1999.  In the previous appeal, the Court vacated the trial
court's judgment certifying the proposed class and remanded
because there was no precise definition of the class.

On remand, the trial court issued Amended Reasons for Judgment,
again indicating that the Plaintiffs had met the requirements of
La. Code Civ. P. art. 591, certifying the class, and defining the
class according to the Plaintiffs' proposal, as all persons who
had an employment relationship with (meaning reported to work at)
the building located at 2400 Canal Street ("The Annex") from 1982
to Dec. 9, 1999 and who were exposed to toxic chemicals stored in
the basement of the building at any time from August 1982 until
Dec. 9, 1999 and who suffered injury as a result of that
exposure.

The Defendants-Appellants -- the City of New Orleans, NID Corp.,
and Pan-American Life Insurance Co. -- separately appealed the
trial court's certification of the class and the class
definition.  The Appellate Court consolidated the Defendants'
appeals for its consideration.

After careful review of the record and consideration of the trial
court's amended judgment, amended reasons for judgment, and the
applicable law, Judge McKay reversed the trial court's judgment
certifying the class and remanded for further proceedings.  He
finds that the class definition that the Plaintiffs proposed and
the trial court adopted is overbroad and does not reflect the
evidence in the record.  That is, there is no objectively
definable class as required under Article 591(A).

Moreover, in attempting to redefine the class, his rigorous
review of the record reveals that the Plaintiffs have not met
their burden of proving that the matter is appropriate for class
certification because they have not shown that class issues
predominate over individual issues or that class treatment is
superior to joinder of individual claims under Article 591(B)(3).

While he disagrees, based on the facts in the record, with the
trial court's statement that "working at the Annex during the
time the barrels were present" is sufficient for establishing
class certification, he pretermits an analysis of the typicality
and adequacy of representation prongs necessary for certification
because he has determined that the proposed class does not meet
other requirements of Article 591.

Finding class certification inappropriate, Judge McKay reversed
the judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with
his Opinion.

A full-text copy of the La. App.'s May 2, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/oQW5DB from Leagle.com.

Roy F. Amedee, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROY F. AMEDEE, JR., 3723 Canal
Street, New Orleans, LA 70119.

Gary Joseph Gambel -- ggambel@mrsnola.com -- MURPHY ROGERS SLOSS
GAMBEL & TOMPKINS, 701 Poydras Street, One Shell Square, Suite
400, New Orleans, LA 70139, Jennifer N. Willis --
Jenniferwblaw@bellsouth.net -- WILLIS & BUCKLEY, APC, 3723 Canal
Street, New Orleans, LA 70119.

Antonio Clayton, CLAYTON, FRUGE & WARD, 3741 Highway 1 South,
Port Allen, LA 70767, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES.

Darryl J. Foster -- dfoster@bradleyfirm.com -- BRADLEY,
MURCHISON, KELLY & SHEA, 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2700, New
Orleans, LA 70163, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant, Pan-American
Life.

Kimlin S. Lee, Corwin M. St. Raymond, Derek Michael Mercadal,
Rebecca H. Dietz, Cherrell S. Taplin, Deputy City Attorney, 1300
Perdido Street, City Hall-Room 5E03, New Orleans, LA 70112.

John A. Stewart, Jr. -- jstewart@bhbmlaw.com -- Brodie G. Glenn -
- bglenn@bhbmlaw.com -- BALDWIN HASPEL BURKE & MAYER, LLC, 1100
Poydras Street, Suite 3600, New Orleans, LA 70163.

Robert B. Gilbreath -- rgilbreath@hptylaw.com -- HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP, 4514 Cole Avenue, Suite 500, Dallas, TX
75205, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS.


NESTLE USA: Slave Labor Lawsuit Can Proceed in U.S., Panel Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Myers, writing for Confectionery News, reports that
Nestle and Cargill cocoa slave labor lawsuit takes another twist
as appeal judges indicate plaintiffs can sue the companies in the
US.

Three-judge 9th Circuit panel indicates the six plaintiffs can
sue the two manufacturing giants under the Alien Tort Statute for
alleged child labor violations. [GN]


NHL: Players Mull Concussion Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Matt Gajtka, writing for PGH Hockey Now, reports that if you love
hockey, you should root for the National Hockey League to take it
on the chin.

Based on U.S. District Court depositions reported on by TSN's
Rick Westhead, The Athletic's Katie Strang and others in recent
weeks, if you love hockey, root for the league to lose.  From
former Devils GM Lou Lamoriello admitting his team outright
skipped baseline concussion testing during one preseason to
longtime Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs denying that he's ever heard
of CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), the NHL has the look
of a league covering its eyes and pretending to be blind.

While pragmatic, the NHL's legal strategy is abhorrent from a
human perspective.  In order to prevent a consortium of former
players from filing a class-action lawsuit, the NHL
representatives being interviewed are denying and deflecting.

Their hope is that, by establishing enough gray area, they can
avoid the fate of their National Football League brethren, who
settled with a group of suffering players for around $1 billion
last year.  It was a similar case in that the NFL players of
yesteryear claimed (successfully) that their league and its teams
knew enough about the detrimental effects to the brain that
football can cause.

That's why we see Gary Bettman clinging to the thought that
"(t)here's no medical or scientific certainty that concussions
lead to CTE" when grilled under oath three years ago.

Mr. Bettman is technically correct that there's no 100 percent
certainty that concussions and the kind of general head trauma
endemic to full-contact sports like hockey cause CTE.  But
medical professionals are increasingly compiling evidence that
there is likely a cause-and-effect relationship.

Not only does that theory align with common sense, it's a moral
imperative to give weight to the good possibility that it's
accurate.  And as I argued the June 15 200-Foot Podcast here on
PHN, for all the hours of enjoyment NHL players have given us
over the years, we owe it to them to look out for their well-
being.

The NHL likely realizes it's in big trouble here.  Considering
the precedent set by the bitterly-disputed NFL case, it appears
more likely than not that the former hockey players will be able
to reach that class-action threshold and thus be able to team up
against the league.

As such, NHL leadership figures are probably being instructed to
play dumb, even if they were more enlightened of the latest
research than they are letting on during the ongoing legal
proceedings.

Nick Boynton and Daniel Carcillo have been among the most vocal
of former players illuminating their struggles with mental health
following careers of literal self-sacrifice on the rinks of
organized hockey.  These impassioned anecdotes via the Players'
Tribune are important in keeping this topic at front of mind in
the hockey-following world.

All due respect to these men -- and there's plenty of it coming
from my angle, believe me -- but emotion and empathy aren't what
wins in the court of law.  What wins is cold, hard evidence.

The question will be this: Are there enough facts to convince
Judge Susan Richard Nelson in Minneapolis to grant the class-
action request? Was the NHL reckless and negligent in failing to
warn players of the potential long-term effects of head trauma?

We're not privy to all of these on-the-record conversations.
However, it strains credulity to believe that the league and its
representatives acted in good faith.  Whether they were actively
malicious is in the eye of the beholder, but intent doesn't
matter.  What actually happened does. And what actually happened
was very little.

If you care about the people who make the NHL go, a.k.a., the
players, then you should be pulling for the league to take a
massive financial hit in this possible lawsuit.  In my view,
that's the only motivation this group will actually respond to.

You may say how the NHL is conducting itself through this ordeal
is just good business.  I won't disagree, but I'd also argue the
best way to protect the business into the future is to ensure its
upstanding stature in the eyes of the customer.  Bettman and Co.
should realize they're losing the PR battle here, big time.
That'll hurt the bottom line in the end.

Now, we can debate which changes need to be made to the pro game
to best protect current and future players.  I'm not sure I have
all the answers, outside of a zero-tolerance policy on head
contact.  Perhaps the NHLPA, which is not faultless in this
situation, could offer its suggestions.

To put it in legal terms, though, there's a preponderance of
evidence that the league has been in the wrong and continues to
be so.  We don't need 'beyond the shadow of a doubt' here.  This
is not a criminal trial.

How about giving the players the benefit of the doubt? The time
for that is well past. [GN]


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Kazar" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NorthStar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Colleen Kazar, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
NorthStar Location Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
03822 (E.D. N.Y., July 2, 2018).

Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar
Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to
customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Its
services include first and third-party debt collections, customer
care programs, and location services. The company was founded in
2000 and is based in Cheektowaga, New York with an additional
office in Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NUTRIBULLET LLC: Faces "White" Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nutribullet, LLC.
The case is styled as Deveta White, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nutribullet, LLC,
Homeland Housewares, LLC, Capital Brands, LLC and Capital Brands
Distribution, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-05785 (C.D. Cal.,
July 2, 2018).

Nutribullet, LLC is a compact blender.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ONE LODGING: Faces "Colburn" Suit in D. Maryland
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against One Lodging
Management Inc. The case is styled as Gaynell C. Colburn,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. One Lodging Management Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-01998-CCB (D. Md., July 2, 2018).

ONE Lodging Management is a hospitality management company
operating close to 120 hotels across 33 U.S. states and one
Canadian province.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   E David Hoskins, Esq.
   The Law Offices of E David Hoskins LLC
   16 E. Lombard Street, Suite 400
   Baltimore, MD 21202
   Tel: (410) 662-6500
   Fax: (410) 662-7800
   Email: davidhoskins@hoskinslaw.com

      - and -

   Kathleen Hyland, Esq.
   Hyland Law Firm, LLC
   16 E Lombard Street, Suite 400
   Baltimore, MD 21202
   Tel: (410) 777-5396
   Fax: (410) 777-8237
   Email: kat@lawhyland.com

      - and -

   R Bruce Carlson, Jr, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP
   1133 Penn Avenue
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Fax: (412) 231-0246
   Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


OZ MEDIA: Settles Class Action Over Diet Supplement for $5.25MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Goldblatt and Ryan Naumann, writing for The Blast, report
that Dr. Oz is finally done with a class action lawsuit over a
diet supplement but it's costing him and the other defendants
$5.25 million to make it go away.

According to court documents obtained by The Blast, a settlement
has been reached between Dr. Oz -- along with Oz Media, Harpo
Productions, Sony Pictures Television and other defendants -- and
the class action plaintiffs.

The docs state that the settlement amount is $5,250,000 but the
defendants still "deny liability for Plaintiffs' alleged injuries
and damages."

"Given Plaintiffs' alleged damages exceed ten (10) million
dollars," the documents add, "and that Media Defendants strongly
contest liability to Plaintiffs for their injuries, the
Settlement Sum is reasonable and well within the 'ballpark.'"

As part of the settlement agreement, Dr. Oz agrees not to re-air
the episodes where he promoted the products the lawsuit contested
never worked.

The settlement docs also make it clear that Dr. Oz did not get
paid to promote the products on his show, saying, "Furthermore,
Media Defendants contend there is no evidence to support
Plaintiffs' theory that Dr. Oz (or anyone else affiliated with
the show) received payment from the other defendants in exchange
for referencing GC and/or GCBE."

The original lawsuit was over two products -- Labrada Garcinia
Cambogia and Labrada Green Coffee Bean Extract -- which the
plaintiffs claim to have purchased because they saw them talked
about on "The Dr. Oz Show." [GN]


QRXPHARMA: Emails Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege
--------------------------------------------------------
Cat Fredenburgh, writing for Lawyerly, reports that a judge
overseeing a securities class action against former directors of
failed pharmaceutical company QRxPharma and its legal advisor
DibbsBarker has ruled that certain documents, including numerous
emails sent by the law firm, are protected by attorney-client
privilege.

The class action was brought in November 2015 against QRxPharma's
former directors, its underwriter Morgans Corporate and legal
advisor DibbsBarker alleging they failed to disclose material
information to investors when raising capital in 2009, 2010 and
2011 regarding the regulatory approval process for QRxPharma's
pain relief drug Moxduo.

Moxduo is a combination of two drugs that had already received
FDA approval, morphine and oxycodone and as such was eligible for
streamlined regulatory approval under the FDA's Special Protocol
Assessment.  The class action claims QRxPharma failed to disclose
the FDA denied the SPA request on three occasions.

The plaintiffs in the long-running case filed an interlocutory
application seeking pre-trial production of 1,542 discovered
documents. QRxPharma opposed the bid, saying the documents would
reveal privileged communications.

Justice Tom Thawley analysed a sample of 48 documents and largely
agreed, finding most of the documents were protected by attorney-
client privilege.

Among the documents the judge said were privileged were an
unsigned draft engagement letter with handwritten notes from a
DibbsBarker attorney, a printout of a letter to QRxPharma's US
lawyers McKenna Long from the US Health and Human Services with
handwritten notes from attorneys at DibbsBarker, and an email
from DibbsBarker partner Lis Boyce to seven officers of QRx,
Philip Podzebenko of Herbert Smith Freehills, which was also
retained by QRx, and six individuals at public relations
companies hired to advise QRx on ASX announcements.

The plaintiffs argued the defendants had waived privilege for
certain documents by including Morgans in the communication.
Judge Thawley rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the company
had waived privilege by authorising Morgans, in its retainer, to
use certain information in connection with its services to QRx,
including a document titled "2009 Legal Opinion".

"I would infer an obligation of confidentiality in the
circumstances, that obligation being for Morgans to maintain
confidentiality in the communications of legal advice made to it
by QRx.  The fact that Morgans could use the communications for
its purposes and the purposes of managing and underwriting the
capital raisings does not detract from this," the judge said.

The judge also found disclosures to the PR firms Brightline Media
and WE Buchan did not amount to a waiver of privilege and that
the firms were under an express obligation of confidentiality.

The class action was brought on behalf of purchasers of QRxPharma
securities between November 2009 and June 2012.

QRxPharma was not targeted by the class action, but Justice Yates
provided for the limited joinder of QRxPharma as a party given
its interests in the case.

QRxPharma was suspended from the ASX and placed into voluntary
administration in 2015 after failing to get FDA approval for
Moxduo.

It was also hit with a securities class action in US Federal
Court alleging it misled investors into believing it would get
approval for the drug.

The plaintiffs were represented by Anthony Martin and Thomas
Bagley of 9 Selborne Chambers and and solicitors with Corrs
Chambers Westgarth.

QRxPharma was represented by Tamir Maltz with 12 Wentworth
Selborne Chambers and solicitors with Arnold Bloch Leibler.

Former QRxPharma directors Peter Campbell, Michael Quinn and John
Holaday were represented by Ms J D Little and solicitors from
Norton Rose Fulbright Australia.

DibbsBarker was represented by Luke Livington with New Chambers
and solicitors with Sparke Helmore.

Morgans Corporate was represented by Paul Jammy with 11th Floor
St James Hall and solicitors from Wotton + Kearney.

The case is Kenquist Nominees Pty Limited v Campbell. [GN]


PACCAR INC: Anderson & Sons et al. Sue over Defective Engines
-------------------------------------------------------------
S.L. ANDERSON & SONS, INC., BEACON HARDWOOD, and SANTORO
TRANSPORTATION, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. PACCAR, INC., PACCAR ENGINE
COMPANY, KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY, and PETERBILT MOTORS COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00742-JCC (W.D. Wash., May 22,
2018), is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs on behalf
of themselves and a nationwide class of current and former owners
and lessees of defective Peterbilt or Kenworth trucks and other
heavy-duty vehicles containing PACCAR MX-13 diesel engines.

The PACCAR MX-13 engine includes an Emissions Aftertreatment
System which include exhaust gas recirculation within the engine
section and an Aftertreatment System with integrated systems and
their parts and components. The Engines with the Emissions
Aftertreatment System were produced by Defendants, who jointly
developed, designed, manufactured, marketed, assembled, and sold
the defective Vehicles and Engines to comply with the
Environmental Protection Agency's 2010 Heavy-Duty On Highway
Emissions Standard "2010 Standard" or "EPA 2010 Emission
Standards," as well as the California Air Resources Board
emissions standards, and includes the Model Years beginning in
2010.

According to the complaint, the Emissions Aftertreatment System
suffers from constant failure under all conditions and
applications on a consistent basis, even after repeated warranty
repairs. These repeated warranty repairs and replacements failed
to repair and correct the defects, resulting in damages to
Plaintiffs and the putative Class members. Damages include, but
are not limited to, diminished value of the defective Vehicles,
out-of-pocket costs such as repairs and related hotel/taxi
charges, towing charges, and the costs to re-power the defective
Vehicles with suitable replacement diesel engines.

Paccar, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Bellevue,
Washington. The Company manufactures medium- and heavy-duty
trucks and sells tractor-trailer and vocational trucks in the
U.S. and within the state of Washington, under the names of its
subsidiaries, Kenworth and Peterbilt. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  jerrodp@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          475 White Horse Pike
          Collingswood, NJ 08107
          Telephone: 856-858-1770
          Facsimile: 866-300-7367
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: 610-891-9880
          Facsimile: 866-300-7367
          E-mail: sshepherd@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          John W. Trimble, Esq.
          TRIMBLE & ARMANO
          900 Route 168 Suites B1-B2
          Turnersville, NJ 08012
          Telephone: 856-232-9500
          Facsimile: 856-232-9698
          E-mail: john.trimble@trimbleandarmano.com

               - and -

          Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
          Leslie M. Kroeger, Esq.
          COHEN, MILSTEIN
          SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: 561-515-1400
          Facsimile: 561.515.1401

               - and -

          Theodore Leopold, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400
          Email: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN
          BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          E-mail: rich@qulegal.com
                  zachary@qulegal.com


PAGEUP: Data Breach Class Action Mulled Following Malware Attack
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asha McLean, writing for ZDNet, reports that PageUp has confirmed
that some data held on its clients may be at risk, after
revealing it had fallen victim to a malware attack.

"Forensic investigations have confirmed that an unauthorised
person gained access to PageUp systems," the company wrote.
"Although the incident has been contained and PageUp is safe to
use, we sincerely regret some data may be at risk."

The HR firm said that some personal data for employees who
currently or previously had access to the client's PageUp
instance may be affected.

The potentially accessed information includes employee contact
details, such as name, email address, street address, and
telephone number, as well as employment information, such as
employment status, company, and job title.

In addition, failed login attempt data from 2007 and before
contained a very small amount of password data in clear text,
PageUp said, advising employees who have not changed password
information since 2007 to do so with urgency.

Similarly, data on job applicants may also be at risk.

Contact details including name, email address, physical address,
and telephone number; biographical details including gender, date
of birth, middle name, nationality, and whether the applicant was
a local resident at the time of the application; and employment
details at the time of the application, including employment
status, company, and title, comprise the information potentially
breached.

PageUp said if the application was submitted for a reference
check, additional details may have also been breached, such as
the applicant's technical skills, special skills, team size,
length of tenure with company, reason for leaving that position,
and the length of relationship between the applicant and
reference.

According to the company, resumes, financial information,
Australian tax file numbers, employee performance reports, and
employment contracts are not affected.

PageUp confirmed on June 5 it found "unusual" activity on its IT
infrastructure in May, which resulted in the potential compromise
of client data.

On May 23, the SaaS provider said it immediately launched the
forensic investigation after malware was spotted on its system.
Five days later, PageUp said its suspicions were confirmed, with
investigations revealing "some indicators" that client data may
have been compromised.

PageUp said it is continuing to work with the Australian Cyber
Security Centre, Australian Federal Police, and multiple
independent cybersecurity firms to address the incident.

"We have retained one of Australia's leading cybersecurity firms
to evaluate our systems and identify improvements based on the
evolving landscape," the company added.

According to Sydney-based Centennial Lawyers, which announced it
was considering launching a class action lawsuit on PageUp over
potential data mishandling, companies that may have suffered at
the hands of the breach include Wesfarmers-owned Coles, Target,
Kmart, and Officeworks; the National Australia Bank; Telstra; the
Reserve Bank of Australia; Australia Post; Medibank; the ABC; the
Australian Red Cross; and the University of Tasmania.

Australia's Notifiable Data Breaches (NDB) scheme came into
effect in February, requiring agencies and organisations in
Australia that are covered by the Privacy Act to notify
individuals whose personal information is involved in a data
breach that is likely to result in "serious harm", as soon as
practicable after becoming aware of a breach.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) --
which handles the NDB scheme -- is in contact with PageUp and the
Australian Cyber Security Centre about the incident.

"We have confirmed that the threat on our systems has been
contained and eradicated," PageUp added.  "We have deployed
several layers of advanced security monitoring solutions, which
have not identified any ongoing malicious activity.  We believe
these additional layers of advanced security will help prevent a
similar incident in the future." [GN]


PCL CONSTRUCTION: $10.3MM Power Outage Suit Deal Has Prelim OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: OUTERBANKS POWER OUTAGE LITIGATION, Case No.
4:17-CV-141 (E.D. N.C.), Judge James C. Dever, III, of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina,
Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement.

On July 26, 2011, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
("NCDOT") awarded PCL a design-build contract for a new bridge to
replace the Hebert C. Bonner Bridge.  The Hebert C. Bonner Bridge
spans the Oregon Inlet and is the single point of road access
from the North Carolina mainland via Bodie Island to the Outer
Banks islands.  The NCDOT originally agreed to pay PCL $215.8
million but the NCDOT later increased that amount to $246
million.

The NCDOT granted the contract to PCL, in part, because PCL
promised to perform the work on an accelerated schedule and to
use its expertise to avoid harm to environmentally sensitive
areas.  PCL's contract provided that it owed a duty to prevent
foreseeable harm that could occur if PCL damaged the power cables
that supply the islands with electricity.  It also required PCL
to use suitable precautions to prevent damage to pipes, conduits,
and other underground structures, and to poles, wires, cables,
and other overhead structures.

On July 27, 2017, while PCL was working on the bridge project,
PCL severed power cables near the south end of the bridge which
cut the islands' power at the height of the tourist season.   On
the same day, Gov. Roy Cooper declared a state of emergency and
governmental agencies issued mandatory evacuations. The loss of
power and evacuations caused class members economic losses.

On July 31, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the first of six class
action lawsuits against PCL.  Their counsel from the numerous
actions conferred and decided that consolidation would promote
judicial efficiency.

On Oct. 12, 2017, the Court consolidated all six class actions,
appointed interim co-lead counsel and an interim steering
committee, and ordered the Plaintiffs' counsel to file a
consolidated complaint.  On Nov. 10, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint against PCL for negligence, negligence per
se, gross negligence, private nuisance, private claim for public
nuisance, and breach of contract.

On March 9, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval
of a class action settlement and filed a memorandum in support.
On May 2, 2018, the Court held a hearing.

The proposed settlement includes three settlement classes: (1)
the business class; (2) the rental/vacationer class; and (3) the
resident class.  The business class is defined as all businesses
located and/or operating on Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands during
the time of the Incident.  The rental/vacationer class is defined
as all persons who rented a vacation property on Hatteras or
Ocracoke Islands during the time of the Incident, together with
all persons or entities that rented homes to Vacationers.  The
resident class is defined as all permanent residents of Hatteras
and Ocracoke Islands at the time of the Incident.

The settlement establishes a claims program whereby the
settlement classes will receive cash payments.  PCL will pay into
the settlement fund $10,350,000 (less any attorneys' fees, costs,
and incentive awards) of which $100,000 will be used to pay for
the costs of notice and administration.  Any additional costs for
notice and administration also will be paid from the settlement
fund.  The Class counsel will request an award of attorneys' fees
not to exceed $3,415,500 (33% of the settlement fund), as well as
costs not to exceed $100,000.  The class counsel also will
request a service award payment of $2,500 for each of the class
representatives.  The aggregate service award payments will not
exceed $72,500.

The payments into the settlement fund will be allocated as
follows: (1) $8.1 million of the settlement fund will be
allocated to the business class, and (2) $2,250,000 of the
settlement fund will be allocated to the rental/vacationer class
and the resident class.  Business class members that submit a
timely business claim form may either: (1) receive a $2,500
payment upon proof of a valid Business Tax Identification Number
at the time of the outage and a sufficient written statement of
the economic loss incurred; or (2) may submit documentation of
proof of loss and seek a recovery in excess of $2,500.  Recovery
in excess of $2,500, however, is not guaranteed.
Rental/vacationer class members and resident class members who
submit a timely claim form can recover their economic damages.
Any funds remaining after all claims are processed and all other
attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs are paid will be first
distributed to business class, rental/vacationer class, and
resident class members pro rata in an amount equal to 20% of
their recovery.  Any remaining funds will be paid to a cy pres
recipients approved by the Court.

Judge Dever preliminarily finds that the proposed settlement
classes, for the purposes of settlement only, meet the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and the requirements of
Rule 23(b)(3).  He has also reviewed the proposed notice plan and
finds that the notice plan provides the best practicable notice
under the circumstances and, when completed, chall constitute
fair, reasonable, and adequate notice of the settlement to all
persons and entities affected by or entitled to participate in
the settlement, in full compliance with the notice requirements
of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) and due process.  Thus, he will
approve the proposed notice plan.  Moreover, he will approve the
appointment of Crawford & Company as the settlement administrator
and Angeion Group as the notice provider.

The Judge will order the notice provider to implement the notice
events identified in the settlement agreement and notice plan,
using the forms attached as exhibits to the settlement agreement,
pursuant to the following schedule: (i) Notice Period to Begin -
May 14, 2018; (ii) Notice Period to End - July 3, 2018; and (iii)
Post-Notice Declaration of Notice Provider Attesting to its
Compliance with the Notice Plan Filed with the Court - Sept. 4,
2018.

Any member of the settlement classes who objects to the
settlement agreement will file a written objection with the
Court, with a written copy served on the class counsel and the
Defendants' counsel by July 31, 2018.  The counsel for the
parties will file any responses to the objections submitted by
objecting settlement class members at least eight days before the
date of the final approval hearing.

If the attorney intends to seek fees and expenses from anyone
other than the objectors he or she represents, the attorney will
also file with the Court and serve upon the class counsel and the
defense counsel not later than 15 days before the final approval
hearing or as the Court may otherwise directs.

To participate in the settlement, a settlement class member must
complete, sign under penalty of perjury, and mail, a claim form,
attached as Exhibit A to the settlement agreement.  The claim
form and any other required documentation must both be mailed via
first class mail to the settlement administrator and postmarked
on or before the last day of the claims period, or submitted
electronically through the settlement website on or before the
last day of the claims period.  The last day of the claims period
is Oct. 15, 2018.

Ten days after the notice provider commences the notice period
(and every week thereafter), the settlement administrator will
provide the class counsel and the defendants' counsel a report
listing: (1) any putative claims denied as fraudulent or
otherwise ineligible; and (2) any claims determined to be valid.

The Final Approval Hearing will be held on Sept. 14, 2018.  Judge
Dever orders the class counsel to file with the Court any
memoranda or other materials in support of final approval of the
settlement and any fee petition by Aug. 27, 2018.  Any response
is due by Sept. 4, 2018.  Any reply is due by Sept. 10, 2018.

Any settlement class member may retain an attorney at his or her
own expense to appear in the action.  Such attorney will file
with the Court and serve a notice of appearance on the class
counsel and the defendants' counsel by Sept. 4, 2018.

In sum, Judge Dever granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement and granted their
motion to seal.  He set the final fairness hear for Sept. 14,
2018, at 2:00 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/JkT3VW from Leagle.com.

Island Vibe Cafe, Morning Star Stables, TBM Construction &
Michael Janssen, Plaintiffs, represented by Jean S. Martin, Law
Office of Jean Sutton Martin, PLLC, John A. Yanchunis, Morgan &
Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Joseph G. Sauder --
jgs@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo LLP & Daniel K.
Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Rhonda Derring, Robert Case & Marissa Gross, d/b/a Down Creek
Galleries, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel K. Bryson,
Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP, Matthew E. Lee -- matt@wbmllp.com
-- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP, Scott C. Harris --
scott@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP & Joseph G.
Sauder, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP.

Miss Ocracoke, Inc., Stephen J Wilson, Hatteras Blue, Inc.,
Steven J. Harris, Steven Wright, Charles Edward Hofmann & Alex
Daniel Garrish, Plaintiffs, represented by John R. Taylor,
Zaytoun Law Firm, PLLC, Matthew David Ballew, Zaytoun Law Firm,
PLLC, Robert E. Zaytoun, Zaytoun Law Firm, PLLC, Joseph G.
Sauder, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP & Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield,
Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Matthew Breveleri, Plaintiff, represented by Jean S. Martin, Law
Office of Jean Sutton Martin, PLLC, Patrick Donovan --
donovan@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Alder Freeman & Herz LLP,
Thomas H. Burt -- burt@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Alder
Freeman & Herz LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP &
Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Thomas Edgar, Nina Edgar, Edward Waas & Jack Lewis, Plaintiffs,
represented by J. Michael Malone, Hendren, Redwine & Malone,
PLLC, Joseph G. Sauder, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP & Daniel K.
Bryson, Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Briggs McEwan, Las Olas, Inc., Tri-V Conery, Inc., Tami Lynette
Gray, d/b/a Family Water Adventures, Daniel Spaventa, Karen
Fitzpatrick & Edwin Fitzpatrick, Plaintiffs, represented by
Dennis C. Rose, Rose Harrison & Gilreath, P.C., John S. Hughes,
Wallace and Graham, P.A., M. Peebles Harrison, Rose Harrison &
Gilreath, P.C., Mona Lisa Wallace, Wallace and Graham, P.A.,
Joseph G. Sauder, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP & Daniel K. Bryson,
Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Mike Warren, William Bailey & Kerry Fitzgerald, Plaintiffs,
represented by Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

PCL Construction Enterprises, Inc., PCL Civil Constructors, Inc.,
PCL Construction Services, Inc. & PCL Construction Resources
(U.S.A.), Inc., Defendants, represented by Alexandra L. Couch --
acouch@ymwlaw.com -- Yates, McLamb & Weyher, LLP, David Michael
Fothergill -- dfothergill@ymwlaw.com -- Yates, McLamb & Weyher,
LLP & Rodney E. Pettey -- rpettey@ymwlaw.com -- Yates, McLamb &
Weyher, LLP.


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Smith" Suit in S.D. Mississippi
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phillips & Cohen
Associates, Ltd. The case is styled as Renyna Smith also known
as: Renyna Vaughn individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Phillips & Cohen Associates,
Ltd. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00110-KS-
MTP (S.D. Miss., June 29, 2018).

Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. is a debt collection agency in
Wilmington, Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael T. Ramsey, Esq.
   SHEEHAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
   429 Porter Avenue
   Ocean Springs, MS 39564
   Tel: (228) 875-0572
   Email: mike@sheehanlawfirm.com


PALATE RESTAURANT: Faces "Thapa" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Palate Restaurant
LLC. The case is styled as Bobby Thapa, on behalf of herself and
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. Palate Restaurant LLC
doing business as: ASYA and Vipin Agarwal, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-03788 (E.D. N.Y., June 29, 2018).

Palate Restaurant LLC is a Persian Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


POWERCOR AUSTRALIA: Faces 4th Suit Over St. Patrick's Day Fires
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cat Fredenburgh, writing for Lawyerly, reports that Powercor
Australia has been hit a class action alleging its negligence led
to a fire in the Gazette area of South West Victoria, the fourth
class action the electrical distribution company faces over the
2018 St Patrick's Day fires.

The class action, brought by Maddens Lawyers, claims the fire
began when a tree from a blue gum plantation failed and fell onto
nearby powerlines, causing one of the conductors to fall to the
ground and ignite dry grasses below.

"This fire should never have occurred. The powerlines were
situated too close to the mature blue gums such that if a
plantation tree failed in high winds, as they frequently do, it
was inevitable and foreseeable that the live conductors would be
dislodged.  Such an event is very easily avoided by controlling
the height of the plantation trees adjacent to the lines,"
Brendan Pendergast, Maddens Lawyers' Class Action Principal,
said.

The fire, which allegedly destroyed around 3,500 hectares before
being contained, caused significant damage to nearby properties,
the class action claims.  Two residences were destroyed, as were
more than 20 farms, causing loss of stock, pasture and fencing
loss, the lawsuit claims.

Powercor now faces four class actions in the Supreme Court of
Victoria over the fires, with potential damages exceeding $50
million, according to Maddens.

The first class action was brought March 28 on behalf of
individuals who suffered physical or psychiatric injury or
personal property damage or loss as a result of the fire near
Garvoc.  The lawsuit claims Powercor breached its duty to ensure
its powerlines were safe.  The class seeks damages plus interest
as well as costs.

Maddens filed another St Patrick's Day fire class action on April
10 over a fire near Terang, and another class action on May 17
over a fire near Gnotuk.

A case management hearing in the class actions has been scheduled
for June 29 before Justice John Dixon. [GN]


POWERHOUSE GYMS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Powerhouse Gyms
International, Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Powerhouse Gyms International, Inc. also known as: Old Pgi, Inc,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06012 (S.D. N.Y., July 2, 2018).

Powerhouse Gym International, Inc. owns, operates, and licenses
gyms in the United States and internationally. The company
provides tanks, tees, and yoga pants for women; tees for infants
and kids; sweatshirts and outerwear for men; shorts, shirts, and
karate pants for men and women; and accessories, such as climber
clips, gym towels, travel duffels, drawstring backpacks, and logo
water bottles and key chains through its gym locations and other
retail channels worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



RITE AID: Faces "Duncan" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rite Aid Online
Store, Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rite Aid
Online Store, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06016 (S.D. N.Y.,
July 2, 2018).

Rite Aid is an online pharmacy which manages and refills
prescriptions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


RITEAID CORP: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Figueroa Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
LUIS FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RITEAID CORPORATION; THRIFTY PAYLESS,
INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. BC707218 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., May 22, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Figueroa was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver.

Riteaid Corporation is a corporation engaged in the ownership and
operation of industrial vehicles and industrial work sites
located within Los Angeles County and throughout California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jill Vecchi, Esq.
          Nikki Ousdahl, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048


SAIPRASAD MEDICAL: Underpays Drivers, "Lama" Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
APRIL LAMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAIPRASAD MEDICAL TRANSPORT, LLC, and
MOULIN LALAJI, Defendants, Case No. 2018 CA 003591 B (D.C.
Super., May 24, 2018) seeks to recover damages for the
Defendants' willful failure to pay lawfully owed wages and
asserts claims under the Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act, and
the Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiff
likewise seeks to be reinstated to her former position.

Ms. Lama was employed by the Defendants as a driver from the year
2013 to December 2017.

Saiprasad Medical Transport, LLC is a professional door to door
non-emergency medical transportation provider serving D.C.,
Maryland and Virginia area. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Kaplan, Esq.
          THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
          1100 N. Glebe Law Firm, Suite 1010
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: (703) 665-9529
          E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
          HANDLEY & ANDERSON PLLC
          718 7th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 559-2411
          E-mail: mhandley@hajustice.com


SFM LLC: Munoz Sues over Failure to Provide Seats to Cashiers
-------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SFM, LLC, and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC707116 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., May 22, 2018) alleges that the Defendants failed to
provide the Plaintiff and other cashiers with seats as required
by the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as cashier.

SFM, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company, registered in
California as SF Markets, LLC. The Company own and operate a
network of specialty grocery stores in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
          K.L. Myles, Esq.
          KNAPP PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5000
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
          E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
                  klm@kpclegal.com

               - and -

          Michael V. Jehdian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL V. JEHDIAN, APC
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 2150
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 247-9111
          Facsimile: (818) 247-9222
          E-mail: jehdian@lawyer.com


SKYLINE HIGHLAND: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Understaffing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Marselas, writing for McKnight's, reports that a federal
judge has dismissed a potential class action lawsuit against
Skyline Highland Holdings -- an entity connected to the operator
whose homes went into receivership en masse this spring -- ruling
the case was without merit because attorneys failed to describe
specific harm to residents.

An attorney argued that limiting the number of licensed nurses
and staff on duty at four Highland nursing homes victimized
residents because workers were unable to address basic needs.
But a U.S. District Court judge found the suit's broad
allegations did not meet provisions of Arkansas's Deceptive
Practice Act.

"It does not discuss any particular damage or injury suffered by
the three identified residents, who are represented by the named
plaintiffs, on account of the alleged understaffing," wrote Judge
Brian S. Miller.  "Instead, the complaint refers to the
collective conduct of all of the defendants as causing collective
injuries suffered by various, unidentified nursing home
residents... Plaintiffs cannot simply rely on allegations of
damages to unidentified residents."

The suit dates to 2017, when JS Highland Holdings owned the four
nursing homes being sued.  Administrative and management company
Skyline Holdings LLC was a subsidiary of JS, whose sole member
was Joseph Schwartz.  He was the effective owner of all the
nursing homes, according to Lexis Legal News.

Before its collapse this spring, Mr. Schwartz's Skyline still
operated 21 facilities in Arkansas under five different corporate
entities.  The state placed two of those buildings into
receivership in April.

In Nebraska, Kansas, Pennsylvania and South Dakota, employees
complained that Skyline failed to pay staff, skipped out on
healthcare premiums and came close to running out of food or
medication for residents.

In the 2017 case, Mr. Miller also dismissed claims from estate
administrator James Green that Skyline and its nursing homes
breached various admissions agreements, committed illegal
exaction, engaged in civil conspiracy and were unjustly enriched.
[GN]


SPORTTIME CLUBS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sporttime Clubs,
LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sporttime Clubs,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05913 (S.D. N.Y., June 29,
2018).

Sportime Clubs LP operates tennis facilities. The Company offers
indoor and outdoor tennis courts and fitness facilities, as well
as tennis coaching and physical education services. Island Tennis
serves customers in the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


STAPLES INC: Court Dismisses Suit Over Defective DVD-R Disks
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts dismissed the case, GEORGE KERSEY,
Plaintiff, v. STAPLES, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-
11267-NMG (D. Mass.), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Kersey, appearing pro se, filed a class action complaint alleging
that the Defendants marketed and sold defective DVD-R Disks. With
his complaint, he filed an Application to Proceed in District
Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs.

By Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 21, 2017, Kersey was granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and was directed to show cause
why his complaint should not be dismissed or, in the alternative,
file an amended complaint that cures the pleading deficiencies of
the original complaint.  He was advised that (1) complete
diversity of citizenship would not exist if Kersey's domicile or
state of residence is Massachusetts; (2) the complaint fails to
sufficiently allege that his claims meet the jurisdictional
amount for diversity jurisdiction; and (3) the complaint fails to
allege a plausible claim against any of the Defendants.

Now before the Court are Kersey's show cause response and amended
complaint.  In his show cause response, he argues that his
complaint is not subject to dismissal.  As to the sufficiency of
the pleadings, Kersey argues that his claims are plausible
because (1) he stated that the Defendants have sold and marketed
defective DVD-R disks; and (2) he should be entitled to relief if
he can show a jury that the Defendants have sold and marketed
such disks.

Kersey's Amended Complaint alleges that he is a citizen of Rhode
Island, and that he receives mail at a Framingham, Massachusetts
address.  He sues on his own behalf and on behalf of a proposed
class.  He believes there is federal jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), which provides diversity
jurisdiction for class actions when certain criteria are met.
Kersey states that because there are more than 100 proposed Class
Members, some members of the proposed class -- including him --
and the Defendants are citizens of different states, and the
amount in controversy exceeds $1 million.

The Plaintiff alleges in his Amended Complaint that the
originally manufactured disks of the Defendants, many years ago,
all performed well and many are in use today, but the discs now
manufactured and sold by the Defendants employ a change in
manufacturing process [use of incorrect dye, pit structure or
laser grove that has made the discs defective.  He alleges that
the Defendants could easily have tested their discs before
offering them for sale to eliminate those that are defective, but
have now failed to do so.  He alleges that he had so many
defective disks that his damage from failure to record
information that he wished to save amounted to at least $75,000.

The Amended Complaint alleges breach of warranty, breach of
implied warranty, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, false
advertising, deceptive trade practices, and violation of the
consumer protection laws.  Kersey seeks (a) actual, incidental
and consequential damages, (b) pre and post judgment interest;
(c) equitable relief and restitution; (d) equivalent attorney's
fees and costs; (e) injunction; and (f) all other remedies under
the law.

Judge Gorton finds that the allegations in Kersey's amended
complaint fail to show the requisite jurisdictional threshold for
CAFA.  Additionally, if Kersey wishes to serve as the class
representative, he must receive class certification.  Kersey, as
a pro se litigant in the action, is not authorized to serve as
the representative of a class.

With respect to diversity jurisdiction for Kersey's individual
claims, the Judge finds that the amended complaint fails to
identify a monetary amount for his individual damages.
Similarly, the response to the order to show cause does not
provide a basis to conclude that a sufficient amount in
controversy exists with respect to Kersey's individual claims.  A
court may dismiss an action for insufficiency of the amount in
controversy if it is apparent from the face of the pleadings that
the plaintiff would never be entitled to recover an amount in
excess of the jurisdictional amount.

Kersey has not shown that the true amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, notwithstanding his claim for $1 million.  Kersey's bare
allegation that his claim meets the amount in controversy
requirement for diversity subject matter jurisdiction is
insufficient.  The Judge cannot infer that the Defendants'
marketing and/or sale of defective DVD-R disks to Kersey can
support a claim over $75,000.

In accordance with this, Judge Gorton finds that Kersey has not
pled a claim over which the court has subject matter
jurisdiction.  Accordingly, he dismissed without prejudice the
case pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/9ZL0eN from Leagle.com.

George Kersey, Individually and on behalf or all others,
similarly situated, Plaintiff, pro se.


STYLELINE STUDIOS: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Styleline Studios,
LLC. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Styleline Studios, LLC doing business as: J/Slides
and JSL Studio Intl LLC doing business as: J/Slides, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03779 (E.D. N.Y., June 29, 2018).

Styleline Studios, LLC (trade name J-Slides) is in the Shoe
Repair Supplies and Equipment business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Ct. Denies Bid to Dismiss FAC in "Luong"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUCIA LUONG, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. SUBARU OF
AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-03160-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied Subaru's motion to dismiss
the First Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and all
persons who purchased or leased any 2015 through 2016 Subaru
Outback or Legacy vehicles in the State of California.  They
allege that the Class Vehicles suffer from one or more design
and/or manufacturing defects that can cause the windshield to
crack, chip, and/or fracture.  The Plaintiffs allege that scores
of Class Vehicle owners reported their windshields cracking for
no reason at all, and many others reported windshield failure as
the result of circumstances that would not cause a non-defective
windshield to crack, such as a very slight impact.  They contend
that the Windshield Defect constitutes an unreasonable safety
hazard which was known to Subaru, and that Subaru failed to
disclose the defect to class members despite having a duty to do
so.

The Plaintiffs allege that, in October of 2015, Subaru admitted
the existence of a defect but, in doing so, fraudulently
misrepresented the nature and scope of the actual Windshield
Defect.  Subaru purported to extend the original New Vehicle
Limited Warranty ("NVLW") of three years/36,000 miles to five
years/unlimited miles for front windshield failure pursuant to a
Technical Service Bulletin ("TSB").  However the warranty
extension was limited to vehicles with a windshield deicer
feature that had damage to the lower deicer area of the
windshield.  The Plaintiffs allege that Subaru denied their and
others' valid warranty claims, and when Subaru replaced defective
windshields, it merely replaced them with similarly defective
windshields.

The Plaintiffs Subaru alleging claims for: (1) violation of
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) violation
of California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (3) breach of
implied warranty pursuant to California Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act; (4) Breach of Express Warranty; (5) violations of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"); and (6) fraudulent
omission.  The original complaint was filed June 1, 2017.

Subaru moved to dismiss and the Plaintiffs elected to file the
FAC on Sept. 8, 2017.  Subaru moves to dismiss the FAC pursuant
to Rules 9(b), 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(f), on the grounds that
the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring certain claims, that claims
sounding in fraud are not stated with sufficient particularity,
and that certain forms of relief are not available for the claims
alleged.

Judge Rogers finds that Subaru's standing argument misapprehends
the nature of the claim in the case, artificially separating the
Plaintiffs' claims into complaints about original windshields and
replacement windshields.  The Plaintiffs' claims make no such
distinction.  Both the Plaintiffs allege that the windshields
original to their Subaru vehicles, though manufactured at
different times, were equally defective.  Both Luong and Mann
were denied warranty coverage for replacement of their
windshields -- Mann had his replaced elsewhere and paid out of
pocket for a repair.  Both Plaintiffs allege that the value of
their vehicles was affected as a result of their defective
original windshields.  These allegations are sufficient to allege
injury in fact for purposes of Article III and the UCL.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations are
sufficient to state claims based upon fraudulent omissions.  They
allege that Subaru concealed defects in its windshields, which
they contend was material information that Subaru had a duty to
disclose to them and other class members.  They allege that
Subaru's warranty extension letter falsely stated that the
Windshield Defect was limited to the lower deicer area of the
windshield and that damage to other areas did not result from a
defect, even though Subaru knew the true nature and extent of the
defect was much greater.  The FAC alleges specific facts,
including prior testing, analysis, and consumer complaints, which
support the allegation that Subaru had knowledge of the falsity
of its representations that the Windshield Defect existed and was
not limited to the deicer portion of the windshield.  The
allegations regarding Subaru's knowledge are sufficiently
pleaded.

The motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's UCL claim and claims for
equitable relief under the CLRA due to the adequacy of the legal
remedies the Plaintiffs allege is denied, the Judge holds.  She
says the CLRA similarly provides that the remedies provided for
violation of any section of this title or for conduct proscribed
by any section of this title will be in addition to any other
procedures or remedies for any violation or conduct provided for
in any other law.  The availability of monetary damages does not
preclude a claim for equitable relief under the UCL and CLRA
based upon the same conduct.

For the implied warranty claim, the Judge holds that the FAC can
be read to allege direct privity.  To the extent that the
allegations would only support a third-party beneficiary
relationship, the more well-reasoned authorities in In Re MyFord
Touch and In re Toyota support an exception to the privity rule
in the case.  She therefore denied the motion to dismiss the
implied warranty to the extent it relies on Commercial Code
section 2314.

Based on the record presently before the Court, Luong's letter is
sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements for the express
warranty claims.  Luong sent a pre-litigation demand letter which
notified Subaru of both the CLRA violations and the breach of
express warranty.  The letter specifically stated that it sought
corrective action under the CLRA, the MMWA, and California
Commercial Code section 2607(3)(A) on behalf of Luong and all
persons residing the United States who purchased or leased any
2015 or 2016 Subaru Outback or Legacy vehicles.  The letter
states that Luong was denied warranty coverage.

Finally, the Judge agrees with the Plaintiffs that although the
MMWA does have these jurisdictional requirements, if there is an
alternative basis for federal jurisdiction over the action, such
as the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), then MMWA claims may
be heard in federal court without meeting the statute's
jurisdictional requirements.  The Plaintiffs have alleged
jurisdiction of this Court under CAFA.  The MMWA requirements
need not be met to establish jurisdiction over the FAC, hence the
dismissal of the MMWA claims on this basis is not supported.

Based upon this, Judge Rogers denied the Motion to Dismiss the
FAC.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/kL5NWU from Leagle.com.

Lucia Luong, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Samuel
Greenstone -- mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP & Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP.

Brian Mann, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone --
mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Subaru of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Livia M. Kiser
-- LKISER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Michael Lawrence
Mallow -- MMALLOW@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Johnnet
Simone Jones -- SIMONE.JONES@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP.


TAL EDUCATION: Aug. 17 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on June 18 disclosed that a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired the securities of TAL Education Group
("TAL" or the "Company") (NYSE: TAL) between April 26, 2018 and
June 13, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover TAL shareholders' investment losses.

To join the TAL class action, and/or if you have information
relating to this matter, please visit our TAL SHAREHOLDER PAGE or
contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) TAL overstated its net income; (2) TAL's net income was
deteriorating; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about TAL's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On June 13, 2018, Muddy Waters Research published a report
stating, among other things, that TAL "has been fraudulently
overstating its profits since at least FY2016," and that "TAL
combines the old school China fraud playbook of simply penciling
in more favorable numbers with the more sophisticated asset
parking fraud of Enron."

On this news, TAL's stock fell $4.54 per share, or over 9%, from
its previous closing price to close at $41.11 per share on June
13, 2018, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than August 17, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose
to take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5
billion for its clients.  In addition to representing individual
investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest
public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their
assets and pursue litigation on their behalf.  As a result of its
success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the
Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs'
Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten
consecutive years. [GN]


TD AMERITRADE: Files Motion to Strike Class Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Lane, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that
TD Ameritrade is mounting its defense against a class action
lawsuit against it that was filed in Philadelphia federal court
on Nov. 3 by Marianne Antczak and others.

The plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of herself and others
situated "to secure redress from Defendants who enabled,
facilitated, and concealed registered investment advisors who
openly and notoriously pursued wildly unsuitable trading
strategies using wildly unsuitable investments causing great loss
in funds and securities held in TD Ameritrade brokerage
accounts."

The lawsuit names Bridget A. Fernandez as the broker/dealer,
operating under the name of Ultimate Financial Investments, LLC,
a TD Ameritrade representative.

Plaintiffs allege that Ultimate Financial Investments heavily
over-concentrated their money in daily leveraged exchange traded
funds and, to the great detriment of them, held onto these
positions for weeks, months and years.

There is practically nothing left in the plaintiffs' TD
Ameritrade brokerage account, they says.  UFI employed this same
wildly unsuitable investment strategy in most, if not all, of its
customers, they claim.

After UFI ceased to function and TD Ameritrade knew that
Bridget A. Fernandez was no longer licensed, TD Ameritrade
concealed this from regulators as Fernandez "openly and
notoriously continued to pursue the same wildly unsuitable
trading strategy," plaintiffs claim.

Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial and claim that a class
action is "superior to all other available methods for the fair
and efficient adjudication of this controversy since joinder of
all members is impracticable."  They further state that as the
damages suffered by individual class members involved a number of
the companies within the TD Ameritrade family of companies, "the
expense and burden of individual litigation make it impossible
for members of each Class to individually redress the wrongs done
to them."

On Feb. 8, TDA filed a motion to strike the class action
allegations and compel arbitration or dismiss the complaint.  TDA
says that Plaintiff Marianne Antczak should be compelled to
arbitrate her claims against the TDA Defendants in accordance
with her arbitration agreement because "her putative class claims
do not and cannot qualify for class treatment."

TDA also says that the Court should dismiss the action under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. [GN]


TELEDIRECT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Chavez" Suit in Sacramento
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teledirect
Communications Inc. The case is captioned as SILVIA CHAVEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Teledirect Communications Inc., and Does 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00233487-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., May 22, 2018).

TeleDirect Communications, Inc. provides outsourced business
services specializing in inbound and outbound call center
services. The Company serves the healthcare, insurance,
education, telecommunications, retail, construction, information
technology, media, and financial services industries. TeleDirect
Communications, Inc. was founded in 1961. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.


TENNIS EQUITIES: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tennis Equities,
Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tennis Equities,
Inc. doing business as: Saw Mill Club, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-05910 (S.D. N.Y., June 29, 2018).

Tennis Equities, Inc., doing business as Saw Mill Club, operates
recreational centers. The Company offers yoga, gym, cardio,
zumba, strength training, swimming, boxing, tennis, dance, and
children's summer camp facilities. Saw Mill Club serves customers
in the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


TITLEMAX OF NEW MEXICO: Arbitration Bid in "Romero" Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TITLEMAX OF NEW MEXICO, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. CIV 17-0775 KG/SCY (D. N.M.), Judge
Kenneth J. Gonzales of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico granted in part the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Plaintiff to Arbitrate and to Enforce the Arbitration Clause as
to All Proposed Class Members Who Did Not Opt-Out of the
Arbitration Clause and to Stay All Proceedings or, in the
Alternative, to Stay All Class Action Related Discovery and
Proceedings Until the Motion is Decided.

On May 2, 2018, the Court held a telephonic conference.  The
Judge granted in part the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration.  He directed the parties to meet and confer by March
16, 2018, to determine the Plaintiff's arbitrable claims related
to the first and second loan agreements.  If they cannot agree as
to the following two issues (1) whether there are any arbitrable
claims related to the first and second loan agreements, and if
so, (2) what those claims are, the Defendant will file a brief on
those issues by May 30, 2018.  The Plaintiff will file his
response no later than June 13, 2018; and the Defendant will file
a reply no later than June 27, 2018.  Upon deciding which claims,
if any, are arbitrable, the Court will require the parties to
proceed to arbitration as to those claims related to the first
and second loan agreements.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/glXESg from Leagle.com.

Jesse Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Landgraf --
blandgraf@lawtx.com -- McGehee Chang Barnes Landgraf, Jack E.
McGehee -- jmcgehee@lawtx.com -- McGehee Chang Barnes Landgraf,
Scott Fuqua -- scott@fuqualawpolicy.com -- Fuqua Law & Policy,
P.C. & Stephen Barnes, McGehee Chang Barnes Landgraf.

TitleMax of New Mexico, Inc., TMX Finance LLC & Tracy Young,
Defendants, represented by Douglas A. Baker -- dbaker@abrfirm.com
-- Atkinson, Baker & Rodriguez, PC & Justin D. Rodriguez --
jrodriguez@abrfirm.com -- Atkinson, Baker & Rodriguez, P.C..


TOTAL CARD: Court Denies Bid to Strike Amended "Judah" FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALI JUDAH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOTAL CARD, INC. & JOHN DOES
1-25, Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-5881 (D. N.J.), Judge John
Michael Vasquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey denied the Defendant's motion to strike the Amended
Complaint.

The case arises out a debt collection dispute.  Sometime before
Feb. 10, 2016, the Plaintiff incurred a debt to Verizon Wireless
and the debt was declared to be in default.  The debt was
subsequently transferred to the Defendant for collection.

On Feb. 10, 2016, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter
attempting to collect the debt, which allegedly totaled
$1,648.56.  The Plaintiff argues that the Collection Letter
violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the "FDCPA").

On Sept. 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a class action Complaint
alleging a violation of Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA.
The Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  The Court granted the
Defendant's motion and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice.

On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.  The
Defendant then moved to strike the Amended Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).  The Plaintiff filed a
brief in opposition, to which the Defendant replied.

The First Amended Complaint alleges one count, a violations of
Section 1692e of the FDCPA.  Specifically, the Plaintiff
reasserts that the Collection Letter's failure to advise the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated that choosing one of the
monthly payment plans creates a new obligation violates Section
1692e, 1692e(2)(A), and 1692e(10).

Looking to the bases on which a court may strike matter from a
complaint, Judge Vasquez finds none applicable to the Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint.  The Defendant does not argue, and there is no
cause to find, that the Amended Complaint contains impertinent or
scandalous matter.  There is also no immaterial matter in the
Amended Complaint.

Finally, the Amended Complaint is not redundant.  Under Rule
12(f) a matter is redundant when it is already alleged or
implicit in the pleading.  The Amended Complaint is not hundreds
of pages.  It does not re-allege the same facts ad nauseam.

The Judge holds that the Defendant appears to argue that the
Amended Complaint's allegations remain insufficient to plausibly
plead a FDCPA claim.  Yet, as noted, the proper vehicle for such
an argument is a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
The Defendant appears to implicitly argue that if a pleading does
not plausibly set forth a claim, it is subject to dismissal under
Rule 12(f). However, he could find no precedent to support this
argument nor does Defendant cite any.  If he were to follow the
Defendant's logic, it appears that failure to plausibly plead a
claim would always be subject to a Rule 12(f) motion in addition
to a Rule 12(b)(6) attack, which would make Rule 12(b)(6)
unnecessary and redundant.

Thus, for these reasons, Judge Vasquez denied the Defendant's
motion.

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

ALI JUDAH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH K. JONES --
jkj@legaljones.com -- Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC & BENJAMIN JARRET
WOLF -- BWOLF@LEGALJONES.COM -- Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.

TOTAL CARD, INC., Defendant, represented by CONCEPCION A. MONTOYA
-- cmontoya@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP.


UBER: Ct. to Partially Review Dismissal of Lyft Drivers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., et al., Defendant, Case Case No. 17-cv-02264-JSC (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
Uber's motion for leave to seek partial reconsideration of the
Court's Order dismissing the majority of the Plaintiff's claims
with leave to amend.

Gonzales brings the action on his own behalf and as a putative
class action for Lyft drivers whose electronic communications and
whereabouts were allegedly intercepted, accessed, monitored,
and/or transmitted by Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber
USA LLC, and Raiser-CA.

Now pending before the Court is Uber's motion for leave to seek
partial reconsideration of the Court's Order dismissing the
majority of Plaintiff's claims with leave to amend.  It
specifically seeks reconsideration of the Court's decision to
deny Uber's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's UCL claim.

Magistrate Judge Corley holds that while the Court's Order did
discuss whether the Plaintiff has standing to seek equitable
relief, it did not squarely address Uber's argument that the
Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief because he stopped
driving for Uber in 2014 nor that the decreased effectiveness of
the Lyft app was a lost opportunity to earn revenue, not a loss
of revenue already earned.

Accordingly, she granted Uber's motion for leave.  The
Plaintiff's opposition to Uber's motion for reconsideration is
due May 16, 2018.  Uber's reply must be filed by May 23, 2018.
The Order disposes of Docket No. 52.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/i6YHlr from Leagle.com.

Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker --
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, Ling Yue Kuang -
- lkuang@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP, Mark Etheredge
Burton, Jr. -- mburton@audetlaw.com -- Audet and Partners, LLP &
Michael Andrew McShane -- mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet &
Partners LLP.

Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Patrick Leo Oot, Jr. -- oot@shb.com -- Shook,
Hardy and Bacon, LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Anne Lee --
elee@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy Bacon L.L.P., John K. Sherk, III --
jsherk@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & Michael Kevin
Underhill -- kunderhill@shb.com --  Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.

Uber USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company & Raiser-CA,
a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, represented by
Patrick Leo Oot, Jr., Shook, Hardy and Bacon, LLP, pro hac vice,
John K. Sherk, III, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & Michael Kevin
Underhill, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.


UBER: $7.5MM Settlement in FCRA Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE UBER FCRA LITIGATION, Case No. 14-cv-05200-EM
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of class settlement, and granted in
part and denied in part their motions for service awards and
attorney's fees.

The Plaintiffs brought putative class actions alleging they were
denied employment or were terminated on the basis of information
contained in background checks that Uber procured in violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and related state laws.

On June 29, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class action.  Following entry of the
Preliminary Approval Order, the Class Counsel worked closely with
the Court-appointed Settlement Administrator, the Angeion Group,
LLC, and with counsel for Uber to implement the notice program
approved by the Court.

Notice of the settlement was given to the class.  On Dec. 6,
2017, in accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement, the claim
administrator sent 977,313 reminder email notices to the class
members included in the list who did not submit a claim form to
reminder of the claims submission deadline.  As of Jan. 23, 2018,
the claim administrator had received 135,209 claim form
submissions, of which 99,243 appear to be valid.  The total
number of 99,243 valid claim forms represent approximately 10% of
all the Class Members.  The deadline for requests for exclusion
and objections to the settlement was Dec. 14, 2017.  As of Jan.
23, 2018, there have been 216 opt outs.

The Plaintiffs moved for final approval of class settlement on
Jan. 25, 2018.  On Feb. 8, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement,
their motion for service awards, and their motion for attorney
fees and expenses.  Plaintiffs Wise, Farmer, and Christenson seek
to be granted $5,000 as incentive awards each.  The class counsel
is asking for an award of $2.5 million in attorneys' fees (which
amounts to one-third of the $7.5 million Settlement Fund or
30.86% of the Settlement's total of approximately $8,102,000
common fund), plus expenses of $47,512.18.

The Court expressed concerns regarding: (1) the wording of the
release included in the settlement; and (2) an objection based on
a single request for exclusion filed by Audet & Partners LLP on
behalf of Thomas Abeyta and 548 individuals.

The Court issued a minute order the same day requiring the
parties to meet and confer regarding the first issue and, with
respect to the second issue, requiring that additional notice be
provided certain Class Members on whose behalf Audet filed an
objection and request for exclusion.  With regards to the scope
of the release, it found that the settlement's release should be
clarified without requiring additional notice to Class members.
The parties have filed and revised a stipulation and proposed
order, and the Court entered that revised order on April 19,
2018.

With regards to the second issue, Audet claimed to represent each
of the 548 individuals individually and argued that the
prohibition on counsel filing opt outs on behalf of clients is a
violation of due process.  However, only 245 of the 548
individuals are actually Class Members.  As some of the 245 Class
Members have already (a) submitted claim, (b) requested for an
exclusion, (c) submitted a claim and submitted a request for
exclusion, or (d) did not respond, the Court ordered the parties
to re-issue a class notice to only 108 Class Members, who have
either (i) submitted a claim and an individual request for
exclusion, or (ii) did not submit a claim and did not submit an
individual request for exclusion.  The 108 Class Members were
given a period of 45 days to respond and the deadline to respond
was April 14, 2018.  Of the 108 Class Members, 25 submitted
claims and 17 submitted requests for exclusion.

Judge Chen reaffirmed the Court's finding that the settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate. Thus, he granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The Judge finds that reasonable the Service awards for Plaintiffs
Wise, Farmer and Christenson in the amounts of $4,500, $3,200 and
$3000 respectively.  With regards to the lead Plaintiffs Gillette
and Mohamed who seek $7,500, Gillette delayed his bankruptcy
filing indefinitely in order to safeguard his ability to serve as
a Class Representative.  Plaintiffs Gillette and Mohamed only
spent 34 and 18 hours assisting their attorneys respectively.  He
finds reasonable the Service Awards for Plaintiff Gillette and
Mohamed in the amount of $7,500 and $5,000 respectively.  As
aforementioned, he granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for service awards.

While the Court recognizes the risk inherent in the litigation
and the caliber of the counsel, the Judge finds that the factors
which might otherwise warrant enhanced compensation, exceeding
the 25% benchmark in the case in view of the very modest results
obtained is not justified.  Taking the settlement's total of
$8,102,000, 25% fee award, consistent with the benchmark, amounts
to $2,025,500 in fees.  He finds reasonable an award of
$2,025,000 in attorneys' fees.  For these reasons, he granted in
part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's
fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/6P8qkR from Leagle.com.

Abdul Kadir Mohamed, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Keith King
-- bking@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot and Wolfson, P.C., Robert
Ahdoot -- RAhdoot@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C.,
Theodore Walter Maya -- tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot &
Wolfson, P.C., Andrew Paul Lee -- alee@gbdhlegal.com --
Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Elisa Marie Della-Piana --
edellapiana@lccr.com -- Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights, Laura
L. Ho -- lho@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho &
Tina Wolfson -- twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson,
P.C.

Michael Nokchan, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh ,
Setareh Law Group, Andrew Paul Lee, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian
& Ho & Elisa Marie Della-Piana, Lawyers Committee For Civil
Rights.

Ronald Gillette, Shannon Wise, Brandon Farmer & Meghan
Christenson, Plaintiffs, represented by Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot &
Wolfson, P.C., Andrew Paul Lee, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian &
Ho, Elisa Marie Della-Piana, Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights,
Laura L. Ho, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Robert Ahdoot,
Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C. & Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot & Wolfson,
P.C.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael
Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Debra Wong Yang -- dwongyang@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn
Crutcher LLP, Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada --
dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, Emily
Erin O'Connor -- eoconnor@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
John C. Fish, Jr. -- jfish@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC,
Joshua Seth Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn
and Crutcher LLP, Marcellus Antonio McRae --
mmcrae@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Rod M.
Fliegel -- rfliegel@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C., Sophia
Behnia -- sbehnia@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Theane
D. Evangelis -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Attorney at Law & William J. Simmons
-- wsimmons@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC.

Rasier, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise,
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Debra Wong Yang, Gibson, Dunn Crutcher
LLP, Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada, Gibson Dunn and
Crutcher, Emily Erin O'Connor, Littler Mendelson, P.C., John C.
Fish, Jr., Littler Mendelson, PC, Joshua Seth Lipshutz, Gibson,
Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Marcellus Antonio McRae, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Rod M. Fliegel, Littler Mendelson P.C., Sophia
Behnia, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Theane D. Evangelis, Gibson Dunn
& Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Attorney at Law &
William J. Simmons, Littler Mendelson PC.

Kathy Robinson, Interested Party, pro se.

Kathy Robinson, Interested Party, represented by Tina Wolfson,
Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C.

Ms. Christine Gussoin, Objector, represented by Michael Frederick
Creamer, Jr.

Thomas Abeyta, Objector, represented by Mark Etheredge Burton,
Jr., Audet and Partners.


UNION FARE: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Union Fare, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Union Fare,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05949 (S.D. N.Y., June 29,
2018).

Union Fare, Inc is an Industrial-chic American restaurant in an
expansive space also featuring food stands & bars.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED PARCEL: Underpays Delivery Drivers, "Cabezas" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DDILON CABEZAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC705672 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 22, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver
from February 29, 2012 to March 27, 2017.

United Parcel Service, Inc. is an Ohio Corporation engaged in
international package and parcel delivery services and logistics.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101-5305
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          LEBE LAW, APC
          777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Telephone: (213) 358-7046
          Facsimile: (310) 820-1258

               - and -

          Rodney Mesriani, Esq.
          MESRIANI LAW GROUP, APLC
          5723 Melrose Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (310) 921-7046
          Facsimile: (310) 820-1258


UNITED STATES: Fight Against Illegal Immigrant Abortions Not Over
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Butts, writing for OneNewsNow.com, reports that the
federal government's fight against providing abortions for
underage illegal immigrants is not over.

The American Civil Liberties Union previously won a lower court
decision that forced the government to cover an abortion for a
teenage girl who illegally crossed the Mexican border into
America.  But government attorneys went on to take the case to
the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It vacated a lower court opinion which said that the Office of
Refugee Resettlement policy to not facilitate abortions for
unaccompanied alien minors is no longer going to be binding in
future cases," Rachel Busick, staff counsel for Americans United
for Life tells OneNewsNow about the ruling.  "So the Office of
Refugee Resettlement is able to continue to enforce that policy."

But that is not a settled decision because the ACLU has a pending
class action lawsuit and could file others on behalf of girls who
are captured while crossing the border to get an abortion.

"We hope the lower courts and the Supreme Court would not hold
that there is a constitutional right for unaccompanied alien
minors apprehended at the border to require the government to
facilitate abortions as a matter of policy, and we think that is
unconstitutional to require the government to hold that
position," Ms. Busick says.

Abortion is severely restricted in most states in Mexico, which
could mean a flood of women, including minors, might make their
way into the U.S. to obtain abortions they would not be able to
get in their home state.  And if captured prior to the abortion,
a wrong decision from American courts could mean taxpayers would
pay for those abortions. [GN]


UNITED TECH: Class Certification Bids in "Cotromano" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, RICHARD COTROMANO et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION and PALM BEACH AGGREGATES, LLC,
Defendants. JOSEPH ADINOLFE etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case Nos. 13-80928-Civ-
Marra, 10-80840-Civ-Marra (S.D. Fla.), Judge Kenneth A. Marra of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (i)
denied Plaintiffs' Daubert motion to exclude testimony of John
Hauser; (ii) granted the Defendant's motion to exclude testimony
of John Kilpatrick; (iii)  denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify a Litigation Class as against Defendant United
Technologies; and (iv) denied the parties' Joint Motion to
Certify a Settlement Class as against Defendant Palm Beach.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action against United
Technologies Corp. ("UTC"), Pratt & Whitney Group, the owner of a
rocket and aerospace testing and manufacturing plant located
between 5 to 15 miles north of the Plaintiffs' properties.

The Plaintiffs allege Pratt & Whitney released toxic contaminants
into the air, water and soil at the Pratt & Whitney plant and in
the communities surrounding the plant, and that some of the
contaminants migrated to the Acreage via groundwater or soil
transport.  They claim their properties are either contaminated,
at risk of future contamination, or in proximity to contaminated
property as a result of Pratt & Whitney's environmental abuses,
and that they have suffered a loss of use and enjoyment of their
property, as well as a diminution in property values, as a
result.

In its present incarnation, the Plaintiffs' Joint Consolidated
Class Action Complaint alleges state-law causes of action against
UTC for strict liability (Counts 1-3), negligence (Counts 4-5),
and nuisance (Count 6), as well as a federal claim for nuclear
incident liability under the Price-Anderson Act (Count 7).

The Plaintiffs propose a 60-square-mile class area which they
describe as a well-defined, homogenous, semi-rural predominantly
residential neighborhood in Palm Beach County, Florida commonly
known as the "Acreage."  This area contains 17,409 residential
parcels, 14,509 of which are improved and 2,900 of which are
vacant.

They seek to certify the proposed class consists of all persons
who, on Aug. 24, 2009 (or alternatively on Feb. 1, 2010) owned
residential property within the neighborhood in Palm Beach
County, Florida, known as The Acreage, as defined on the map
attached directly to this motion as Exhibit A (or alternatively
on the map attached directly to this motion as Exhibit B).

The Plaintiffs contend that either alternative definition of the
proposed class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule
23(b)(3).  With this proposed definition, they presumably seek to
show that persons owning property found within either of these
metes and bounds map descriptions have suffered a common injury
by virtue of being in the vicinity of, or being under the future
threat of environmental contamination caused by Pratt & Whitney.

The putative class representatives in Cotromano are five married
couples who own or owned residential properties in the Acreage,
all of whom have a child that was declared to be a member of the
pediatric brain tumor cluster designated by the Florida
Department of Health.

In Adinolfe, the proposed class representatives are two
individual property owners, Joseph Adinolfe and Kay Samson, who
claim a diminution in value of their property as a result of
environmental stigma caused by UTC which clouds their property.

Pratt & Whitney argues that class certification is inappropriate
because the putative class representatives' claims are not
typical of all injuries of the proposed absent class members (who
are not claiming personal injury).  They also object that the
proposed class area is overbroad and insufficiently defined,
without reference to a common injury from a common cause, and is
therefore not "ascertainable."

The Defendant's primary objection, however, goes to the
predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).  It
asserts that individual issues touching on the measure of
damages, the causation of each class member's damage, and
defenses to be raised against such claims (e.g. statute of
limitations) predominate over any common issues that exist.  It
also contends that the Plaintiffs' mass appraisal technique for
assessing property damage is not a valid formulaic or
mathematical method that would be appropriate for a class action
under the facts of this case.  Finally, the Defendant asserts
that a class action is not a superior vehicle for adjudication of
the Plaintiffs' claims because absent the class members have a
strong interest in controlling their own claims, which are
significant.

The Court held a lengthy evidentiary hearing on the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification from Jan. 8, 2018 through Jan. 12,
2018.  In the wake of that hearing, the Court directed both sides
to submit written summations, in addition to proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law.  The parties have since submitted
supplemental briefing.

The Court focuses its analysis on the Plaintiffs' proffered
expert witness on class-wide damages, Dr. John Kilpatrick.  Dr.
Kilpatrick holds a Ph.D. in Real Estate Finance and is a licensed
certified real estate appraiser in all fifty states.  The
Plaintiffs tender Kilpatrick in effort to demonstrate that
damages in this putative class action, encompassing approximately
18,000 property owners, are susceptible to calculation on a
class-wide, uniform basis throughout the proposed class area by
application of "mass appraisal" methodology.

Having done so, relying in part on the critique of Kilpatrick's
methodology proffered by defense rebuttal expert, John Hauser,
Sc.D., Judge Marra finds Dr. Kilpatrick's opinions on class-wide
diminution in value calculations does not satisfy Daubert and is
appropriately excluded under application of Rule 702.  Without
Kilpatrick's testimony, the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the
predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3), and
cannot carry their burden of proof under Rule 23, compelling
defeat of their motion for class certification.

Judge Marra also finds that all of the Plaintiffs' tort claims
are anchored in the contention that contamination from the Pratt
& Whitney facility has created an "environmental stigma" which
clouds their properties and impairs their property values.  These
claims certainly rely on some measure of common proof for all the
Plaintiffs, including: (1) Pratt & Whitney's history of aerospace
manufacturing at the Pratt & Whitney facility from the 1950's
going forward, and use of licensed nuclear materials at that site
in conjunction with various defense projects; (2) the chemical
properties, hazards and toxicity of contaminants released into
groundwater and air and soil at the Pratt & Whitney facility; (3)
Pratt & Whitney's waste disposal practices relating to CCOCs, and
(4) the potential that such disposal practices would cause off-
site migration of CCOCs, resulting in contamination of
surrounding properties five to fifteen miles away, many years
after Pratt & Whitney remediated the property and ceased the
alleged improper disposal practices.  Most of these common
matters may be classified as background facts -- a shared fact
background that necessarily exists whenever multiple individuals
pursue similar claims against the same Defendant.

Regardless of how these common questions are resolved, the Judge
explains that the existence and degree of Pratt & Whitney's
liability to a particular Plaintiff will turn on the following
individual-specific questions: (1) whether that the Plaintiff's
property is actually contaminated or threatened with
contamination of radionuclides or other CCOCs -- or whether it is
in proximity to a contamination detection which poses an
objectively-measured health risk to occupants of the property;
(2) whether the source of those contaminants is Pratt & Whitney,
or whether there is a property-specific alternative source that
better explains the detected contamination; (3) whether the
contamination is sufficiently severe to reduce the property's
value, and if so, the extent of that diminution in value; (4)
whether the property is contaminated by toxins other than those
released by Pratt & Whitney, and if so, the extent to which any
diminution in property value may be attributed to such other
toxins; (5) whether each Plaintiff acquired his or her property
before or after the alleged diminution in value occurred, and (6)
when each Plaintiff was first on notice of the contamination and
whether the timing of that notice renders his or her claims time-
barred.

So, while there will be some common methods of proof, such as the
Defendant's disposal practices, migration pathways, and
properties of released contaminants, it is likely common
liability issues will not predominate in this case because the
existence and degree of liability (measured by magnitude of
damages owed) to a particular Plaintiff will turn on all of the
individual inquiries.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden
proving a class action is appropriate.  Their proposed class
definition is overbroad, and they do not show, by a preponderance
of the evidence, satisfaction of Rule 23(b)'s predominance and
superiority requirements.

Accordingly, Judge Marra denied the Plaintiffs' Daubert motion to
exclude testimony of John Hauser, and granted the Defendant's
motion to exclude testimony of John Kilpatrick.  He denied as
moot all other pending Daubert (motions in limine).  This order
is without prejudice for either side to renew any relevant
Daubert challenge at a later stage of this proceeding.

The Judge also denied both the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a
Litigation Class as against UTC, and the parties' Joint Motion to
Certify a Settlement Class as against Defendant Palm Beach for
failure to establish ascertainability of the settlement class,
based on the essential defects attending the proposed definition
of the litigation class as more specifically identified in the
Order.

The case will proceed on behalf of the individually named
Plaintiffs.  He directed the parties to submit a joint scheduling
report within 20 days advising as to their discovery and
scheduling needs, including a proposed trial date, going forward
without the class action allegations.

In light of this, the Judge denied as moot the Defendant's motion
to strike untimely disclosures re: expert Lawrence Wylie, the
Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' direct testimony
affidavit of Brian Moore, and the Plaintiff's motion to file a
sur-reply to the Defendant's motion to strike Moore direct
testimony.  He also denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to
expedite consideration of the motion to extend fact discovery.

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

Richard Cotromano, Plaintiff, represented by Darren Robert
Latham, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., Bryan
Scott Gowdy -- bgowdy@appellate-firm.com -- Creed & Gowdy, P.A.,
John Scarola -- JSX@searcylaw.com -- Searcy Denney Scarola
Barnhart & Shipley & Mara Ritchie Poncy Hatfield --
mrh@searcylaw.com -- Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart and Shipley
PA.

Bethany Cotromano, Frank DeCarlo, Paulette DeCarlo, Gregory
Dunsford, Jennifer Dunsford, Joyce Featherston, Bill Featherston,
Robert T. Newfield & Tracy Newfield, Plaintiffs, represented by
Bryan Scott Gowdy -- bgowdy@appellate-firm.com -- Creed & Gowdy,
P.A., John Scarola, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley &
Mara Ritchie Poncy Hatfield, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart and
Shipley PA.

All Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Mara Ritchie Poncy
Hatfield, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart and Shipley PA, Steven
Jeffrey Hammer, Bryan Scott Gowdy, Creed & Gowdy, P.A. & Jeffrey
Louis Haberman -- jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com -- Schlesinger Law
Offices.

Joseph Adinolfe, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Scott
Gowdy, Creed & Gowdy, P.A., Craig Randall Zobel --
czobel@zobellawfirm.com --Law Offices of Craig R. Zobel, P.A.,
Jeffrey Louis Haberman, Schlesinger Law Offices, Jonathan Gdanski
-- scott@schlesingerlawoffices.com -- Sheldon J. Schlesinger PA,
Scott P. Schlesinger -- scott@schlesingerlawoffices.com --
Sheldon J. Schlesinger PA & Mara Ritchie Poncy Hatfield, Searcy
Denney Scarola Barnhart and Shipley PA.

United Technologies Corporation, Pratt and Whitney Group,
Defendant, represented by Andrew C. MacNally --
andrew.macnally@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar
& Scott, LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. McElroy --
daniel.mcelroy@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar
& Scott, LLP, Sean Gallagher -- sean.gallagher@bartlit-beck.com -
- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, pro hac vice, Alex
Groden -- alex.groden@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman
Palenchar & Scott, LLP, pro hac vice, Heather Carney Costanzo --
Hcostanzo@gunster.com -- Gunster & Gregor J. Schwinghammer, Jr. -
- gschwinghammer@gunster.com -- Gunster Yoakley & Stewart.

Palm Beach Aggregates, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stephen
James Rapp -- srapp@wwhgd.com -- Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn &
Dial.


UNUM GROUP: Johnson Fistel Probes Potential Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating
potential claims on behalf of purchasers of BorgWarner Inc.
(NYSE: BWA) ("BorgWarner").

On June 15, 2018, BorgWarner stated that it would restate its
financial statements for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 for the
accounting of its asbestos-related charges.  The company said it
did not record the estimated liability before the fourth quarter
of 2016 due to a material weakness in its internal control over
financial reporting.  BorgWarner also indicated it had been in
discussions with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
since 2017 over the accounting issue.

If you have information that could assist in this investigation,
including former employees and others, and are interested in
learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and
remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by
email or by phone at 619-814-4471.  If you email, please include
your phone number.

Unum Group
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Unum
Group ("Unum") (NYSE: UNM) between January 31, 2018 and May 2,
2018 ("the Class Period").

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(1) Unum was experiencing a higher claims incidence for its long-
term care business; (2) Unum was experiencing less favorable
policy terminations in connection with its long-term care
business; (3) Unum's long-term care business loss ratio would
reach the upper 90% range; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements about Unum's business, operations, and
prospects, including statements related to Unum's long-term care
reserves and capital management plans, were materially false and
misleading and lacked a reasonable basis.

Shareholders have until August 13, 2018, to petition the court
for lead plaintiff status.

If you purchased shares of Unum between January 31, 2018 and
May 2, 2018, or if you are an Unum shareholder continuously
holding shares before January 31, 2018, and are interested in
learning more about your legal rights and remedies, please
contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If
you email, please include your phone number.

                   About Johnson Fistel, LLP

Johnson Fistel, LLP -- http://www.johnsonfistel.com-- is a
shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York,
and Georgia.  The firm represents individual and institutional
investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action
lawsuits. [GN]


UPMC: Decertification of Part of Class of Nurses Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MISTY M. SOMMERS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. UPMC AND UPMC PRESBYTERIAN
SHADYSIDE, APPEAL OF MISTY M. SOMMERS, Case No. 1202 WDA 2017
(Pa. Super.), Judge Deborah A. Kunselman of the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania reversed the trial court's order decertifying part
of a class of nurses, who are suing their employer for unpaid
wages.

Class Representative Sommers sued the UPMC and its subsidiaries
for unpaid wages nearly six years ago.  The class alleged that
UPMC owes nurses a shift differential of $1 per hour in "Urban
and Community Hospitals" and $0.50 per hour in "Regional
Hospitals," if they have a Bachelor's of Science in Nursing (BSN)
Degree.  The nurses asserted claims for breach of contract;
violation of the Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL");
promissory estoppel; and quantum meruit.

Ms. Sommers began working for UPMC in 1998 when it acquired her
then-employer, Presbyterian Hospital.  Several years later, she
learned of the BSN differential and that she and other nurses
should have been receiving it.  For example, UPMC Human Resources
Manager Laura Zaspel emailed her, stating that in July 2011, the
differential for RNs in eligible positions who possess BSNs was
increased from $.50 to $1.  UPMC began correcting its payroll
data to fix prior oversights of certain BSN nurses, to whom it
owed the differential.

Ms. Zaspel's email also indicated widespread underpayments.  She
assured Ms. Sommers that executives in the HR and Legal
departments are reviewing the data and once any salary
adjustments and retroactive pay amounts are finalized and
approved, she will be notified.  Those notifications of
retroactive pay came via email three months later; they were
identical in form and substance.

Ten days later, UPMC sent a spreadsheet to Ms. Sommers calling
the retroactive differential a "Back Wage Payment."  UPMC's wage
repayment to Ms. Sommers ran from Feb. 24, 2009 to Feb. 25, 2012,
and the spreadsheet reflected the standardized July 3, 2011
increase from $.50 to $1, described by Ms. Zaspel in her previous
email.  The total restitution from UPMC to Ms. Sommers was
$4,397.73.

UPMC's computations included no interest or liquidated damages as
mandated under the WPCL.  UPMC's Legal Department sent a
substantially similar spreadsheet to another nurse, Danielle
Gregory, which also called the differential a "Back Wage
Payment;" ran from Feb. 24, 2009 to Feb. 25, 2012; reflected the
standardized July 3, 2011 increase; and included no interest or
liquidated damages.

Ms. Sommers thought that UPMC's retroactive payments were legally
insufficient, so, in July of 2012, she filed the class action.

Originally, the case was assigned to Allegheny County Court of
Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick, Jr. In response to
interrogatories, UPMC produced the names of 91 nurses at Magee-
Women's Hospital of UPMC who were retroactively paid the BSN
differential effective July 3, 2011 and 11 BSNs who UPMC
Presbyterian Shadyside identified as having not received the BSN
differential and who were ultimately paid retroactively in March
2012.

After pleadings closed, Ms. Sommers moved for class
certification.  The trial court declined to certify a class
action as to UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside for lack of numerosity,
because only eleven of its nurses had claims similar to Ms.
Sommers'.  However, Judge Wettick found that UPMC itself was an
"employer" under the WPCL, and he certified Ms. Sommers'
representation as to UPMC for a class consisting of all
individuals employed by any UPMC subsidiary and/or business unit
at any time on or after Feb. 23, 2006 who should have received
but did not receive all or any portion of the regular or overtime
BSN Differential from Feb. 23, 2006 to present.

He ordered UPMC to identify all class members.  UPMC then
identified a class of at least 330 nurses who should have, but
did not, receive a BSN Wage Differential' during the time frame
relevant to this matter.  When confronted with lists of 337
nurses, UPMC Compensation Director Gary DuJordan acknowledged
that UPMC owed them the differential and that UPMC made
retroactive payments to some of them because of the suit.

Further inquiry revealed that UPMC had repaid only a part of the
Original Class.  The nurses who transferred jobs or left UPMC
have received no backpay, despite being in the Original Class. I

After creating subcategories of repaid nurses and unpaid nurses,
UPMC moved for summary judgment and total decertification of the
class.  Judge Wettick retired shortly thereafter, and the case
was reassigned to Judge Robert J. Colville.  On May 11, 2017,
Judge Colville denied summary judgment to all parties, but he
granted UPMC partial decertification.  He allowed Ms. Sommers to
continue representing the partially-repaid nurses but removed all
unpaid nurses from the class.

The interlocutory appeal followed under Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 313.  Although the nurses raised four issues
on appeal, they condensed them to two arguments as to why the
Court should return the unpaid nurses to the Original Class.
First, they attacked decertification procedurally: i.e., the
Original Class should have gone undisturbed, because UPMC's post-
complaint creation of subgroups is not a later development in the
litigation.  Second, they argued that common issues of fact and
law predominate, because the BSN differential is a statutory
"wage" under the WPCL that all similarly situated nurses earned
by working the same hours, at the same hospitals, on the same
jobs, with the same BSN degrees.

UPMC countered that there is no commonality of evidence showing
that it had any obligation to pay the BSN differential to unpaid
nurses.  In order for those nurses to recover, it said, they each
need proof that it owes them the "wage" on an individual basis.
UPMC provided no answer to the nurses' procedural argument.

Judge Kunselman finds that UPMC's Compensation Director has
admitted that the unpaid nurses did not receive any portion of
the regular or overtime BSN Differential, and that, because of
this fact, they were a part of the Original Class.  Judge
Colville never explains what new evidence came to light that
caused those nurses to forfeit their class membership, besides
the fact that they were unpaid.

Thus, Judge Colville revisited Judge Wettick's initial ruling to
certify and impermissibly reversed him without any newly
discovered evidence, proffered by UPMC, upon which to base his
reevaluation.  Accordingly, she concludes that the trial court's
decertification misapplied Pa.R.C.P. 1710 as interpreted in
Janicik v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America.  Therefore,
procedurally speaking, the decertification of a portion of the
Original Class constituted an abuse of discretion.

The Judge also finds that UPMC's preoccupation with the need for
each nurse to testify as to the exact instant when she or he
agreed to receive an hourly pay increase is a red herring.  If
the jury finds that UPMC, more probably than not, repaid Ms.
Sommers because the BSN differential was due and owed to her as a
part of her WPCL "wages," then it follows that this is why it
made similar repayments to 150 other nurses. And if the BSN
differential was also due and owed to them as a part of their
WPCL "wages," then it follows that it was also due and owed to
the remainder of the Original Class.

Thus, she says, there is no reason to distinguish unpaid nurses
from partially-repaid ones.  They all share the same common facts
of UPMC employing them to do the same work, in the same
hospitals, in the same positions, with the same degrees, under
the same corporate-wide policies and publications, and for the
same compensation.

By both misapplying Rule 1710 of Civil Procedure and limiting the
scope of UPMC's admission, via partial restitution, without
reasonable justification, the trial court abused its discretion.
Judge Kunselman therefore reversed that portion of its July 21,
2017 Order which decertified unpaid nurses from the case and
reinstated the Original Class as found in Judge Wettick's March
2, 2015 Order.  The case remanded for jury trial consistent with
her Opinion.  Jurisdiction relinquished.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/82ytsO from Leagle.com.

Frank Gugliotta Salpietro, William F. Ward --
WFWard@rothmangordon.com -- Ryan Patrick Stewart --
RPStewart@rothmangordon.com -- Rothman Gordon, P.C., for
Appellant, Misty M. Sommers.

John Jay Myers -- jmyers@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott, LLC, for Appellees, UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside
and UPMC.


US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Faces Probodanu et al. Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the U.S. Department
of Justice. The case is captioned as Jeremiah Michael Probodanu;
Ferdinandus Santosa; Anneke Palar; Daniella Auningputri; Albert
Palar; Adelena Palar; Eldridge Woy; Lora Londa; Echglene Woy;
Alex Londa; and Kristina Limbong, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. Department of
Justice; Jefferson Sessions, in his official capacity as the
Attorney General of the United States; U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Thomas D. Homan, in his
official capacity as the Senior Official Performing the duties of
the Director of ICE; David A. Mari, in his official capacity as
the Director of the Los Angeles Field Office of ICE; Thomas P.
Gile, in his official capacity as the Deputy Field Office
Director of Detention and Removal Operation for District 23; and
Does 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00888-CJC-KS (C.D. Cal.,
May 22, 2018).

The case is assigned to Judge Cormac J. Carney and referred to
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson.

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), also known as the
Justice Department, is a federal executive department of the U.S.
government, responsible for the enforcement of the law and
administration of justice in the United States, equivalent to the
justice or interior ministries of other countries. The department
was formed in 1870. [BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          Nicolette Glazer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R GLAZER
          1875 Century Park East No 700
          Century City, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 407-5353
          Facsimile: (310) 407-5354
          E-mail: nicolette@glazerandglazer.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          OIL-DCS Trial Attorney
          OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
          PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 353-8806
          E-mail: oil-dcs.cacd@usdoj.gov


VACO TECH: Court Denies Bid to Stay "Bush" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTIANA BUSH, Plaintiff, v. VACO TECHNOLOGY
SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-05605-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, (i)
granted with leave to amend Google's motion to dismiss Bush's
first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth
causes of action in the First Amended Complaints; (ii) granted
without leave to amend Google's motion to dismiss Bush's ninth
cause of action for civil penalties under the California Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"); and (iii)
denied without prejudice Vaco Defendants' motion to stay.

It is no secret that technology companies employing anyone from
chefs to engineers to salespersons in order to keep up with the
fast pace of Silicon Valley outsource some of their staffing
decisions.  In this case, Bush alleges that Defendants Google and
staffing company Vaco Technology Services, LLC, Vaco San
Francisco, LLC, Vaco LaJolla, LLC, Vaco Orange County, LLC, and
Vaco Los Angeles, LLC, misclassified her as an exempt employee
when she worked as a Google Expedition Team Lead, when in fact
she was non-exempt.  Bush seeks to represent several proposed
classes and subclasses encompassing all persons employed by
Google through any staffing agency, including Vaco, or any other
third parties in California since May 2011.

Google moves to dismiss the FAC, arguing that Bush's factually
deficient individual allegations and overbroad claims on behalf
of a highly disparate class amount to pleading abuse and fail to
satisfy the requirements of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and
Ashcroft v. Iqbal.  Google also specifically moves to dismiss
Bush's ninth cause of action for civil penalties pursuant to PAGA
as time-barred.

Meanwhile, the Vaco Defendants move to stay the action pending
adjudication of a previously filed class action pending in
California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, Daniel
Trujillo, et al., v. Vaco Technology Services, LLC, et al.

The Court held a hearing on Google's motion to dismiss the FAC
and the Vaco Defendants' motion to stay on Feb. 22, 2018.

Judge Freeman granted with leave to amend Google's motion to
dismiss Bush's first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth,
seventh, and eighth causes of action in the FAC.  Among other
things, the he finds that Bush alleges no facts that would allow
her to draw the reasonable inference that the Defendant is liable
for failing to timely pay putative class members all of their
final wage.  Bush also provides no other basis for her UCL claim
other than the Defendants' alleged violations of the predicate
statutes.  Her FLSA claim is factually deficient in other
respects as well.  The Judge holds she needs look no further than
Bush's incomplete allegation that at all material times, the
Defendants have violated the FLSA by failing to explain conduct.
She says she cannot infer any misconduct until Bush explains the
conduct that she purports is a violation of the FLSA.

The Judge also granted without leave to amend Google's motion to
dismiss Bush's ninth cause of action for civil penalties under
PAGA. He holds that Bush's unsupported argument that the statute
of limitations should be tolled by the timely filing of Carroll's
claims in the Trujillo action cannot be squared with the clear
legal principles underlying PAGA.  The Judge recognizes that Bush
is frustrated by Google's resolution of Carroll's individual
claims in the Trujillo Action, but that tactic does not obviate
the requirement that a representative plaintiff must timely
comply with PAGA's administrative requirements.  Because Bush's
claims are time barred by the applicable statute of limitations,
further amendment would be futile.

Unless otherwise stipulated, the Judge directed Bush to file a
Second Amended Complaint on or before May 23, 2018.  Failure to
meet the deadline to file an amended complaint or failure to cure
the deficiencies identified in this Order will result in
dismissal of her claims with prejudice.

Judge Freeman denied without prejudice the Vaco Defendants'
motion to stay.  Vaco's proposal is inconsistent with principles
of judicial economy.  Staying the claims brought by Vaco
employees pending adjudication of Trujillo will create two cases
out of one. Moreover, the counsel for Bush represents that the
Plaintiffs wish to pursue this federal action in light of a
breakdown of communication with the only remaining named
plaintiff in Trujillo.  Given her ruling that all of Bush's
individual and class claims are insufficiently pled, it is not at
all clear which class members or claims will remain after
amendment.  At this juncture, she cannot predict whether Bush's
Second Amended Complaint will be brought on behalf of a class
that is co-extensive with Trujillo, or whether it will differ
substantially.  If necessary after amendment and upon renewed
motion, the Court will revisit whether staying or severing the
claims brought by Vaco employees is appropriate under the
applicable law.

Discovery in the case remains stayed until the Defendants are
ordered to answer the complaint, or such earlier time as ordered
by the Court.  As previously ordered, the parties will file a
stipulated pre-trial schedule including discovery cut-off dates
within 14 days of the lifting of the discovery stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/lWlMRS from Leagle.com.

Christiana Bush, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & Thomas Alistair Segal
-- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Vaco Technology Services, LLC, Vaco San Francisco, LLC, Vaco
LaJolla, LLC, Vaco Orange County, LLC & Vaco Los Angeles, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Daniel B. Chammas --
dchammas@fordharrison.com -- Ford & Harrison LLP.

Google Inc., Defendant, represented by Zachary P. Hutton --
zachhutton@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, Paul Andrew
Holton -- paulholton@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP &
William Tucker Page -- tuckerpage@paulhastings.com -- Paul
Hastings LLP.


VIONIC GROUP: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vionic Group LLC.
The case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Vionic Group LLC doing business as: Vionic,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03777 (E.D. N.Y., June 29, 2018).

Vionic Group, LLC manufactures footwear and foot care products
that assist in restoring the foot's natural (neutral) alignment
for men and women. It offers sandals, shoes, wedges, and
slippers. The company sells its products through its Website, as
well as through distributors, retailers, online retailers, and
health professionals. The company was founded in 1979 and is
based in San Rafael, California with a retail shop in San
Francisco, California. Vionic Group, LLC operates as a subsidiary
of Vasyli Pty Limited.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Ct. Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended "Mora"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER MORA, on behalf of herself and a proposed
class of all similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v.
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-335-T-
26JSS (M.D. Fla.), Judge Richard A. Lazzara of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denied
the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and
Supporting Memorandum of Law.

The Plaintiff has filed a two-count amended class action
complaint accusing the Defendant of violating Florida's Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act of the Florida Statutes ("FDUTPA")
(count one) and of unjust enrichment (count two).  She
challenges, as deceptive and unfair, the Defendant's repeated and
continuous use of its "Buy One Get One Free" program with regard
to the purchase of eyeglasses at the Defendant's retail stores.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent all Florida consumers who
purchased eyeglasses from Defendant pursuant to this program.

After carefully considering the well-pleaded factual allegations
of the Plaintiff's amended complaint, Judge Lazzara denied the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint.  After drawing
upon the Court's judicial experience and common sense, the Judge
is convinced that the Plaintiff's extremely detailed factual
allegations in paragraphs 11 through 25e (as supplemented by the
other allegations) are more than sufficient to survive the
Defendant's motion to dismiss in that those allegations state
claims for relief that are plausible on their face against the
Defendant.  Furthermore, he is more than satisfied that those
factual allegations are more than sufficient to allow him to draw
the reasonable inference that the Defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged in both counts of the amended complaint.

In his view, the Plaintiff has more than adequately alleged
actual damages, has more than satisfied the pleading requirements
imposed by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if
in fact that rule applies, and has sufficiently cured the
"shotgun" nature of her original complaint.

Additionally, he rejects the Defendant's contention that the
Plaintiff is precluded from bringing a cause of action grounded
in unjust enrichment because she has an adequate remedy at law
under the FDUTPA.  What the Defendant overlooks is the pleading
standard of Rule 8(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
which explicitly provides that a party may state as many claims
or defenses as it has, regardless of consistency.  Any concerns
about the Plaintiff's ability to sustain her claims successfully
against the Defendant are more appropriately raised within the
context of a motion for summary judgment after the completion of
full discovery.

Accordingly, Judge Lazzara directed the Defendant to file its
answer and defenses to the Plaintiff's amended complaint within
14 days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/S02fja from Leagle.com.

Jennifer Mora, on behalf of herself and a proposed class of all
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Brian W.
Warwick -- bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell & Warwick,
PA, Drew Legando -- drew@lgmlegal.com -- Landskroner Greico
Merriman, LLC, pro hac vice, Edward S. Jerse, Landskroner Greico
Merriman, LLC, pro hac vice, Jack Landskroner --
jack@lgmlegal.com -- Landskroner Greico Merriman, LLC, pro hac
vice, Janet R. Varnell -- jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com --
Varnell & Warwick, PA, Mark Schlachet -- markschlachet@me.com --
Law Offices of Mark Schlachet, pro hac vice & Thomas Merriman,
Landskroner Greico Merriman, LLC, pro hac vice.

Visionworks of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin
H. Hill, III , Hill Ward Henderson, PA, Christopher M. Murphy --
cmurphy@mwe.com -- McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP, pro hac vice,
Daniel Ray Campbell -- dcampbell@mwe.com -- McDermott, Will &
Emery, LLP, pro hac vice, Dennis Parker Waggoner --
dennis.waggoner@hwhlaw.com -- Hill Ward Henderson, PA & Justin B.
Uhlemann -- juhlemann@mwe.com -- McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP.


WASABI N' WOK: Faces "Lin" Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wasabi N' Wok Inc.
The case is styled as Xinrong Lin, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wasabi N' Wok Inc doing
business as: Wasabi Wok, Siew Lan Low, Hon Weng Tan and "John"
Chen, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-11278 (D. N.J., July 1, 2018).

Wasabi N' Wok Inc is a delivery chinese restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


WELLS FARGO: Fake-Accounts Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Smith, writing for Mortgage Professional America, reports
that Wells Fargo has received final approval to settle a class-
action lawsuit over its fake-accounts scandal.

The bank received preliminary approval last July to settle the
suit for $142 million.  The settlement is meant to compensate
millions of customers who had accounts opened in their name
without their knowledge or approval.  A California judge has now
granted final approval to the settlement, according to a report
by PYMTS.com.

Wells Fargo CEO called the approval "a significant step forward
in making things right for our customers and restoring trust (of)
Wells Fargo's stakeholders," Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan said.

Affected customers have until July 7 to claim funds, according to
PYMTS.com.

The fake-accounts scandal kicked off a series of black eyes for
the banking giant.  Wells Fargo has also been accused of charging
mortgage customers improper fees, charging auto loan customers
for unnecessary insurance, botching the refunds related to those
scandals, and discriminatory mortgage lending.

In May, the bank agreed to pay $480 million to settle a class-
action lawsuit accusing it of securities fraud, even as it denied
the claims in the suit.  That agreement is still awaiting court
approval. [GN]


WORLD GYM: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against World Gym
International, LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
World Gym International, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05909
(S.D. N.Y., June 29, 2018).

World Gym International is an American fitness center founded in
1976 by Joe Gold during the glory days of "Muscle Beach" in
Venice Beach, California. Joe Gold is also the founder of Gold's
Gym, another globally leading gym, which he sold in 1973.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


* AG Supports Move to License Litigation Funders in Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Pelly, writing for Financial Reviews, reports that
Attorney-General Christian Porter has backed moves to license
litigation funders as part of an overhaul of Australia's class
actions regime.

The Attorney-General said on June 15 that a push for more
prudential oversight was "one of the less contentious" proposals
contained in a recent Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC)
report.

"Most people view it as a sensible approach," he said on June 15.

The comments came as the Australian Institute of Company
Directors (AICD) said the licensing of funders -- which is backed
by market leader IMF Bentham -- would feature in any submission
it made to the ALRC.

The AICD says it fears "opportunistic claims" are helping drive a
"risk averse" business culture in Australia.

The AICD's general manager, advocacy, Louise Petschler, said: "We
are concerned that one of the incentives around our current class
action regime is a very light touch regulatory environment.

"There's no prudential supervision, there's none of the licensing
aspects you see for other financial service providers -- which is
really what litigation funders are -- operating in the market."

Ms Petschler said one benefit of a licensing regime would be
"confidence that the funder are able to meet any costs orders
made against them".  There might also be common procedures for
people joining a class action and also for disclosing the fees
involved.

She said the class action regime was "particularly friendly"
towards plaintiffs.  This had produced unintended consequences,
such as a tenfold increase in shareholder class actions payouts
over the past decade (from $127 million in 2007 to $1.5 billion
in 2017).  All have settled before trial.

There was also concern, Ms Petschler said, around the legal and
economic impact of Australia's "very immediate" continuous
disclosure obligations and their relationship with the misleading
and deceptive conduct provisions of the Corporations Act "that
don't require intent and are all about consequences".

The Attorney-General noted the consensus around the licensing of
litigation funders.

"Without agreeing that this is one area that might lead to law
reform, there does seem to be a general level of agreement that
this is an issue, Mr Porter said.

"That seems to be one of the less contentious possible
recommendations . . .  Most people view it as a sensible
approach."

The ALRC report says only one class action should be allowed for
each claim and that there should be other avenues for companies
to provide redress.  It also urges a review of the impact of the
continuous disclosure obligations of listed entities and the
propensity for companies to be the target of funded shareholder
class actions and that plaintiff lawyers be allowed to charge
contingency fees.  Under the current regime, litigation funders
take a percentage of any payout while lawyers can only charge
their fees.

The AICD's chief executive, Angus Armour, said the group's
"directors' sentiment index" showed a strong aversion to risk.

"We have a concern that part of that aversion to risk is driven
by the uncertainty around the continuous disclosure regime and
the justifiable fear of boards that will be caught out if they
are seen not to be doing the right thing," Mr Armour said.

He noted that "the battler has become the vehicle for one big
company taking an another big company".

He said it should be clear "what the different interests involved
are and what they get out of it -- and make sure if they have a
conflict of interest that it is clear and articulated and
regulated.

"At this point, we have a market that doesn't satisfy those three
tests."

The Attorney-General said there would be a period of public
debate after the report is released "to stress-test the
conclusions".

Submissions close on July 30, with the report due on December 21.
[GN]


* G100 Calls for ALRC to Review Class Action Litigation Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Durkin and Michael Pelly, writing for Australian
Financial Review, report that the country's leading chief
financial officers -- known as the Group of 100 -- are getting
behind a push to reign in the explosion of class actions, with
settlements topping $1.5 billion last year and director insurance
climbing by as much as 400 per cent.

G100 president Andrew Porter -- who is also CFO of listed company
AFIC -- warned that insurance premiums for directors are
"skyrocketing" and called for a review, following a
recommendation by the Australian Law Reform Commission, which
suggests disclosure laws may need to be relaxed, litigation
funders regulated and lawyers' fees examined to tackle the
problem.

"Insurance fees will continue to skyrocket as class actions grow
and settle out of court," Mr Porter told The Australian Financial
Review.  "We welcome the idea of a review as a first step.

"Every listed company in Australia is now seeing a dramatic
increase in D&O [directors and officers'] liability cover. We
have been told by our insurers that it is a direct result of
class actions, so there is a cost to shareholders as well as on
the company's and directors' time."

Ewen McKay, a management liability expert at global insurer XL
Catlin, said the price of directors and officers' insurance had
"increased spectacularly" over the past 18 to 24 months.
"A good result would be a 40 per cent increase on last year's
premium, but we have seen some companies pay 400 per cent more
than their expiring policy," Mr McKay said.

He noted the total value of class-action settlements from 1999 to
2016 had been about $1.6 billion.  Insurers contributed $1
billion of that, leaving about $600 million as a direct hit on
the bottom line of the companies involved.  Premiums can cost
about $1 million for full D&O cover.

Chris Bowen blamed
King & Wood Mallesons pointed to a decision by Labor's Chris
Bowen in 2010 for ASIC to exempt litigation funders from
licensing obligations, following a decision by the full Federal
Court in the Multiplex class action that called for regulation.

"The ALRC is suggesting we revisit the position the court
proposed 10 years ago before Chris Bowen and ASIC put in
exemptions which mean that litigation funders are almost
completely unregulated," KWM partners Alex Morris and Moira
Saville said.

"It would create a barrier to entry for new funders. It is the
link between a strict continuous disclosure regime and an easy
class-action framework that together make the Australian system
unique and a real issue for capital markets."

Litigation funders and class-action firms have exploded in line
with the growth in class actions.  International entrants such as
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Squire Patton Boggs have
coincided with local spin-offs, such as Phi Finney McDonald and
home-grown teams such as Bannister Law and Portfolio Law.

Major class actions, including against Myer, WorleyParsons and
AMP, remain on foot while QBE settled a class action last year
for $132.5 million.  Multiple class actions are often brought at
once but lawyers are closely following a recent decision by the
Federal Court in GetSwift, where Justice Michael Lee ruled he
would only allow one class action to proceed.

Retail shareholders said they are also open to a review, despite
an update to the listing rules in 2013 that added the concept of
"without delay" to the requirement of immediate disclosure.

"While we do not support a 'relaxation' of continuous disclosure
laws, we are not averse to a review of how continuous disclosure
laws facilitate only one group of shareholders (the more recent
shareholders) to participate and benefit at a cost to the
longstanding shareholders," Australian Shareholders Association
CEO Judith Fox said. [GN]


* Law Students Fight Back Against Mandatory Arbitration Deals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia DePillis, writing for CNNMoney, reports that when a law
student got an offer from one of Silicon Valley's most
prestigious law firms last fall, she wasn't about to quibble over
the stack of documents they asked her to sign.

The agreements seemed like standard practice.  So even when it
came to signing over her right to join a class action lawsuit in
any employment matter, she didn't object.

"This isn't stuff you negotiate," said the now-graduate, who
asked not to be identified.  "You go intern for the summer.  You
get a job offer, and you either go work for that firm or you're
jobless."

A few months later, though, the decision started to bother her.
The burgeoning #MeToo movement was shining a light on mandatory
arbitration agreements, which require workers to pursue any legal
issues they have with their employer in a private setting rather
than in court.

Arbitration, which is often conducted in private, offers an
alternative to regular courts.  It can be cheaper and faster, for
both plaintiffs and defendants.  But critics say mandatory
arbitration, often imposed in settings where people feel they
have no choice to agree to it, can be used to keep legitimate
grievances out of the public eye.

"What I don't think should happen is having hundreds of law
students walking into a situation where entire rights are
obliterated," says the former student, who also recalls signing a
non-disclosure agreement.  "You end up creating a world where
these conversations aren't even happening, and things are siloed
off and quiet.  That's deeply dangerous."

But even as the use of mandatory arbitration agreements remain
popular in America's workplaces, some employees -- law students
in particular -- are pushing back and some companies and firms
are having second thoughts about using them.

'For 99% of employees, it's not a choice'
Mandatory arbitration agreements have steadily grown over the
past two decades as lower courts supported the practice,
according to research by Cornell University professor Alexander
Colvin funded by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.

Today, such agreements are in place at more than half of non-
union, private-sector employers in the United States.  Now plenty
more businesses may roll them out.

In a decision in May, the US Supreme Court upheld a company's
ability to enforce clauses that bar employees from joining class
action lawsuits.

"A lot of companies were waiting on the Supreme Court to see
whether it was permissible or not," says Ron Chapman --
ron.chapman@ogletree.com -- an attorney with Ogletree Deakins,
who helped set up a do-it-yourself arbitration clause generator
on the firm's website that went live hours after the court ruled.
He says that about 50 businesses have made use of it so far.
"I've been on the phone nonstop since the decision came down."

Much attention has been focused on the impact of mandatory
arbitration on low wage workers. In her dissenting opinion,
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that barring class action
lawsuits hurts people with smaller claims who can realistically
take legal action only if they band together and convince a
lawyer to take the case on contingency.

But mandatory arbitration is most common among higher wage
workers, according to Mr. Colvin's research.  In professional
fields, like business services, education and health care, more
than 60% of non-union, private-sector employers require one, he
found.

These workers typically understand what they're signing --- but
often feel that they don't have any more ability to opt out than
someone toiling at a fast food restaurant.

"The only people who can do that effectively are CEOs," Mr.
Colvin says.  "For 99% of employees, it's not a choice.  It's a
company policy."

That even includes lawyers, whose jobs revolve around access to
the court system.

"I can't say that I took the time to pore over every detail and
understand the legal significance of what I was signing," says
the law student who joined the Silicon Valley firm.

But thanks to a growing movement among law school students, young
attorneys-to-be might be able to fight back.

Law students want change
Earlier this spring, a Harvard Law lecturer named Ian Samuel
posted on Twitter about how Los Angeles-based Munger, Tolles &
Olson was requiring summer associates to sign arbitration
agreements.

After drawing criticism on social media, the firm announced it
would scrap the agreements.  "In this case, we were wrong, and we
are fixing it.  We will no longer require any employees,
including summer associates, to sign any mandatory arbitration
agreements," the firm wrote in a tweet.

Another large firm, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, quickly
followed suit. "It's time to make a change. We will no longer
require any employees, including associates, to sign any
arbitration agreements," the firm tweeted.

Emboldened by that success, students at the University of
California-Berkeley, Harvard, Georgetown, Yale and a number of
other colleges and universities began setting up petitions and
asking their career counseling offices to pressure corporate
recruiters that come on campus to drop the arbitration agreements
from their employment contracts.

In mid-May, 50 of the country's top law schools sent a letter to
374 of the country's largest legal employers asking them about
their use of mandatory arbitration.  The students said they would
make the results available to other students so they could
consider those policies when looking for a job.

Exactly half of the employers responded.  Of those, 18 of the
firms said they required some or all of their new hires to sign
arbitration agreements, including very large firms.  In their
survey responses, Cooley said it would exclude harassment and
discrimination in future arbitration agreements, and Drinker
Biddle & Reath said it has never required confidentiality.
Another firm, Gibson Dunn, said that arbitration "offers a swift,
fair and easier-to-access process for the resolution of
employment disputes."

Student activists believe that many of the remaining 187
non-respondents also require mandatory arbitration.

"We are really left wondering what these firms are hiding," says
Nate Brown, who just graduated from Berkeley Law.

But the survey also showed that many of the nation's highest
grossing firms do not require mandatory arbitration, proving to
the students that shutting down access to the courts isn't a
prerequisite for being a successful business. Also, several firms
indicated they were reconsidering their policies.

For example, Miller Canfield, a Detroit-based firm with more than
265 attorneys, has required arbitration agreements in the past
but is thinking through whether to continue doing so.

"In light of concerns that arbitration more broadly has been used
to conceal bad behavior, we are reevaluating our ongoing use of
it for employment dispute resolution," says CEO Michael McGee.
"This issue is part of a larger discussion about diversity within
Big Law, and about success and opportunities for leadership in
large law firms for minorities and women."

Related: Microsoft lifts policy that silences sexual harassment
claims

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, the #MeToo movement is
putting pressure on other large employers, like Microsoft, to
think twice about their mandatory arbitration agreements -- at
least in the context of sexual harassment.

"Increasingly the plaintiffs bar is looking to corporations to
rescind these policies, because we now know that arbitration
creates a mechanism that conceals harassment," says Debra Katz, a
Washington D.C.-based attorney who focuses on employment
discrimination.  "It's such an unfair forum."

Unless Congress changes the law, however, it's still to an
employer's advantage to keep their employment disputes out of
court -- unless collective public pressure by high-value
prospective employees, like graduates of America's top law
schools, convinces them otherwise. [GN]



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Objects to Claims of ComEd, Exelon
--------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. has filed an omnibus objection to all remaining
asbestos-related claims of Commonwealth Edison and Exelon,
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.

NRG Energy states, "The Company, through its subsidiary, Midwest
Generation, may be subject to potential asbestos liabilities as a
result of its acquisition of EME.  The Company is currently
analyzing the scope of potential liability as it may relate to
Midwest Generation.  The Company believes that it has established
an adequate reserve for these cases.  On March 27, 2018, ComEd
filed a Motion to Compel Payments of Claims seeking US$61 million
related to asbestos liabilities.  On April 25, 2018, NRG filed an
Omnibus Objection to All Remaining Claims of ComEd and Exelon."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/uVifx8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Defends Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc. remains a defendant in a number of asbestos-related
lawsuits, 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.

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-Q is available at
https://is.gd/pMKwaS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. had accrued liability of US$8 million
for asbestos suits at March 31, 2018, 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 also
deferred US$8 million as regulatory assets related to asbestos
suits at March 31, 2018.

On the other hand, subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc. (CECONY) had accrued liability of US$7 million for
asbestos suits and deferred US$7 million as asbestos-related
regulatory assets at March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Suits have been brought in New York State
and federal courts against the Utilities and many other
defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large
amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and
injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various
premises of the Utilities.  The suits that have been resolved,
which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the
Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate,
material to them.  The amounts specified in all the remaining
thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, the
Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated,
based on the disposition of previous claims.

"At March 31, 2018, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their
estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these
suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15
years.  These estimates were based upon a combination of
modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment.
Courts have begun, and unless otherwise determined on appeal may
continue, to apply different standards for determining liability
in asbestos suits than the standard that applied historically.
As a result, the Companies currently believe that there is a
reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in excess of the
liability accrued for the suits.  The Companies are unable to
estimate the amount or range of such loss.

"In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed
or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos.  CECONY is permitted to
defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through
rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers'
compensation claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Uy2YGY


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $53.6MM Accrued Liability at March 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had accrued asbestos liability of
US$53,589,000 and long-term asbestos liability of US$303,134,000
as of March 30, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2018.

The accrued liability represents current accruals for probable
and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability costs that
the Company believes the subsidiaries will pay, and unpaid legal
costs related to defending themselves against asbestos-related
liability claims and legal action against the Company's insurers,
which is included in Accrued liabilities in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The Company states, "Management's analyses are based on currently
known facts and assumptions.  Projecting future events, such as
new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving
each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method
in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance
policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various
policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of
remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous
uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the
actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded which could materially affect
the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flow."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 18,067 Unresolved Claims at March 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had 18,067 unresolved claims related to
asbestos matters as of March 30, 2018, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2018.

The Company also disclosed that in the three months ended March
30, 2018, there were 1,069 filed and 739 claims resolved.

The Company states, "Claims filed include all asbestos claims for
which notification has been received or a file has been opened.

"Claims resolved include all asbestos claims that have been
settled, dismissed or that are in the process of being settled or
dismissed based upon agreements or understandings in place with
counsel for the claimants."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 533 Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc. is named a defendant in approximately 533
asbestos-related lawsuits involving approximately 1,143 claims as
of March 31, 2018, 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 states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits
that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal
injuries that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused.  Plaintiffs
and their family members have brought these lawsuits against a
large volume of defendant entities as a result of the defendants'
manufacture, distribution, supply or other involvement with
asbestos, asbestos containing-products or equipment or activities
that allegedly caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos.
These plaintiffs typically assert exposure to asbestos as a
consequence of third-party manufactured products that our MRC
Global (US) Inc. subsidiary purportedly distributed.

"As of March 31, 2018, we are named a defendant in approximately
533 lawsuits involving approximately 1,143 claims.  No asbestos
lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a
majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved.
Applicable third-party insurance has substantially covered these
claims, and insurance should continue to cover a substantial
majority of existing and anticipated future claims.  Accordingly,
we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely
settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from
insurers for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe
that the amounts of recovery are probable.  It is not possible to
predict the outcome of these claims and proceedings.  However, in
our opinion, the likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any
of these claims and legal proceedings will have a material
adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements is
remote."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Had 675 PI Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company is facing approximately 675 asbestos-related
lawsuits personal injury lawsuits as of March 31, 2018, 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 states, "We have been named a defendant in asbestos-
related personal injury litigation.  To date, the costs resulting
from the litigation, including settlement costs, have not been
significant.  As of March 31, 2018, there were approximately 675
lawsuits.  We believe that we have substantial insurance
coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits,
with respect to asbestos claims.

"We have valid defenses to these asbestos-related personal injury
claims and intend to continue to defend them vigorously.  Should
the volume of litigation grow substantially, it is possible that
we could incur significant costs resolving these cases.  We do
not expect the resolution of pending litigation and proceedings
to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
condition or liquidity.  In any given period or periods, however,
it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition
or cash flows."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation still defends itself against asbestos-
related injury lawsuits, 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 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-Q is available at
https://is.gd/BnNLmH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $555MM Liability at Mar.31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc estimated its asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs
to be US$555 million as of March 31, 2018, 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.

Johnson Controls states, "The Company and certain of its
subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named
as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged
exposure to asbestos containing materials.  These cases have
typically involved product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were used with
asbestos containing components.

"As of March 31, 2018, the Company's estimated asbestos related
net liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position was US$174 million.
The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial
position was comprised of a liability for pending and future
claims and related defense costs of US$555 million, of which
US$54 million was recorded in other current liabilities and
US$501 million was recorded in other noncurrent liabilities.

"The Company also maintained separate cash, investments and
receivables related to insurance recoveries within the
consolidated statements of financial position of US$381 million,
of which US$57 million was recorded in other current assets, and
US$324 million was recorded in other noncurrent assets.  Assets
included US$12 million of cash and US$274 million of investments,
which have all been designated as restricted.

"In connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-
related matters, the Company records asbestos-related insurance
recoveries that are probable; the amount of such recoveries
recorded at March 31, 2018 was US$95 million.  As of September
30, 2017, the Company's estimated asbestos related net liability
recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's consolidated
statements of financial position was US$181 million.  The net
liability within the consolidated statements of financial
position was comprised of a liability for pending and future
claims and related defense costs of US$573 million, of which
US$48 million was recorded in other current liabilities and
US$525 million was recorded in other noncurrent liabilities.

"The Company also maintained separate cash, investments and
receivables related to insurance recoveries within the
consolidated statements of financial position of US$392 million,
of which US$53 million was recorded in other current assets, and
US$339 million was recorded in other noncurrent assets.  Assets
included US$22 million of cash and US$269 million of investments,
which have all been designated as restricted.  In connection with
the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the
Company records asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are
probable; the amount of such recoveries recorded at September 30,
2017 was US$101 million."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1 Suit vs. Haynes Int'l Pending at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Haynes International, 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 is defending
itself, together with a number of other manufacturer defendants,
in one action alleging that asbestos in its facilities harmed the
plaintiff.

Haynes International states, "The Company believes that it has
defenses to these allegations and that, if the Company were to be
found liable, the cases would not have a material effect on its
financial position, results of operations or liquidity."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Still Defends Talc-Related Suits at Mar.31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. still defends itself against numerous
personal injury lawsuits related to asbestos-contaminated talc
products, 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.

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, if any.  Also,
in light of the inherent litigation 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-Q is available at
https://is.gd/n21QPm


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 50 Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. has 50 pending asbestos
claims as of March 31, 2018, 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 states, "A subsidiary of BNS Holdings Liquidating
Trust ("BNS Sub") has been named as a defendant in approximately
1,390 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as of March 31,
2018.  The claims were filed over a period beginning in 1994
through March 31, 2018.  In many cases these claims involved more
than 100 defendants.  Of the claims filed, approximately 1,340
were dismissed, settled or granted summary judgment and closed as
of March 31, 2018.  Of the claims settled, the average settlement
was less than US$3.  There remained approximately 50 pending
asbestos claims as of March 31, 2018.  There can be no assurance
that the number of future claims and the related costs of
defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the
experience to-date of existing claims.

"BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate
coverage limits of US$183,000, with US$1,543 at both March 31,
2018 and December 31, 2017 in estimated remaining self-insurance
retention (deductible).  There is secondary evidence of coverage
from 1970 to 1973, although there is no assurance that the
insurers will recognize that the coverage was in place.  Policies
issued for BNS Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related
to asbestos.  Under certain circumstances, some of the settled
claims may be reopened.  Also, there may be a significant delay
in receipt of notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal
or settlement of a claim or the filing of a new claim.  BNS Sub
believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic-
tort claims on the merits.  None of these toxic-tort claims has
gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that
these defenses will prevail.

"BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from
its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims
accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as
estimates of the ultimate settlement and defense costs for the
then-existing claims are revised.  As of both March 31, 2018 and
December 31, 2017, BNS Sub has accrued US$1,349 relating to the
open and active claims against BNS Sub.  This accrual represents
the Company's best estimate of the likely costs to defend against
or settle these claims by BNS Sub beyond the amounts accrued by
the insurance carriers and previously funded by BNS Sub through
the retroactive billings.

"There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and
the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be
consistent with the experience to-date of existing claims and
that BNS Sub will not need to significantly increase its
estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an
amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated
financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2JUqtPz


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Athene Holding's Unit Settles "Holzer" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Athene Holding Ltd.'s U.S. insurance subsidiary Athene Annuity &
Life Assurance Company (AADE) has settled the asbestos-related
lawsuit filed Jack Holzer and Mary Bruesh-Holzer, 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 states, "On September 12, 2016, Jack Holzer and Mary
Bruesh-Holzer filed suit in Jackson County, Missouri against
several defendants, including AADE, as successor-in-interest to
Business Men's Assurance Company of America.  Mr. Holzer
allegedly sustained injuries due to asbestos exposure from 1966-
1973 while working in an office building in Kansas City,
Missouri, then owned by Business Men's Assurance Company of
America.  Plaintiffs asserted strict liability and negligence
claims against AADE.  On February 26, 2018, an agreement was
reached that resulted in the settlement of this matter.  The
settlement had no impact on our financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2K2HAdR


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Accrued US$38MM for DuPont Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company had an accrual of US$38 million for
asbestos-related lawsuits pending against E.I. du Pont de Nemours
(DuPont) at March 31, 2018, 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 states, "Chemours, by virtue of its status as a
subsidiary of DuPont prior to the separation, is subject to or
required under the separation-related agreements executed prior
to the separation to indemnify DuPont against various pending
legal proceedings arising out of the normal course of Chemours'
business including product liability, intellectual property,
commercial, environmental, and anti-trust lawsuits.

"In the separation, DuPont assigned its asbestos docket to
Chemours.

"At March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, there were
approximately 1,600 lawsuits pending against DuPont alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos.  These cases are
pending in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in
the U.S. and are individually set for trial.

"A small number of cases are pending outside the U.S. Most of the
actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between
1950 and the 1990s.  A small number of cases involve similar
allegations by DuPont employees or household members of
contractors or DuPont employees.  Finally, certain lawsuits
allege personal injury as a result of exposure to DuPont
products.

"At March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, Chemours had an accrual
of US$38 million related to this matter.  Chemours reviews this
estimate and related assumptions quarterly."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2to8Dt3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.3BB Liability at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for
pending and future claims and defense and processing costs was
US$1,339 million at March 31, 2018, according to DowDuPont Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

DowDuPont Inc. states, "Union Carbide is and has been involved in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-
containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive
damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products that
Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-
containing products located on Union Carbide's premises, and
Union Carbide's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a
former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc.
("Amchem").  In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate
that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such
exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from
exposure to Union Carbide's products.

"Union Carbide expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed
against Union Carbide and Amchem in the future, and will
aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both
pending and future claims.

"Since 2003, Union Carbide has engaged Ankura Consulting Group,
LLC ("Ankura"), a third party actuarial specialist, to review
Union Carbide's historical asbestos-related claim and resolution
activity in order to assist Union Carbide's management in
estimating the asbestos-related liability.  Each year, Ankura has
reviewed the claim and resolution activity to determine the
appropriateness of updating the most recent Ankura study.

"Based on the December 2017 Ankura review, and Union Carbide's
own review of the data, Union Carbide's total asbestos-related
liability through the terminal year of 2049, including asbestos-
related defense and processing costs, was US$1,369 million at
December 31, 2017.

"Each quarter, Union Carbide reviews claims filed, settled and
dismissed, as well as average settlement and resolution costs by
disease category.  Union Carbide also considers additional
quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of
pending claims, trial experience of Union Carbide and other
asbestos defendants, current spending for defense and processing
costs, significant appellate rulings and legislative
developments, trends in the tort system, and their respective
effects on expected future resolution costs.  Union Carbide's
management considers all these factors in conjunction with the
most recent Ankura study and determines whether a change in the
estimate is warranted.  Based on Union Carbide's review of 2018
activity, it was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was
required at March 31, 2018.

"Union Carbide's asbestos related liability for pending and
future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,339
million at March 31, 2018.  Approximately 16 percent of the
recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 84
percent related to future claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2I5R9GW


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 14,333 Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation has 14,333 unresolved asbestos-related
claims at March 31, 2018, according to DowDuPont Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

DowDuPont Inc. states, "Union Carbide is and has been involved in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-
containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive
damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products that
Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-
containing products located on Union Carbide's premises, and
Union Carbide's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a
former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem.  In many cases,
plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any
compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries
incurred in fact resulted from exposure to Union Carbide's
products.

"Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual
lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants.  As a result, the
damages alleged are not expressly identified as to Union Carbide,
Amchem or any other particular defendant, even when specific
damages are alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury.
In fact, there are no personal injury cases in which only Union
Carbide and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants.  For these
reasons and based upon Union Carbide's litigation and settlement
experience, Union Carbide does not consider the damages alleged
against Union Carbide and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its
determination of any potential asbestos-related liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2I5R9GW


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 25,000 Claims Pending at Mar. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc.'s subsidiaries had 25,000 pending asbestos-related
claims at March 31, 2018, 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 states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, including ITT LLC and
Goulds Pumps LLC, have been sued, along with many other companies
in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure.  These claims generally allege that certain
products sold by our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part
manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained
asbestos.  To the extent these third-party parts may have
contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other)
material and was non-friable.  As of March 31, 2018, there were
approximately 25 thousand pending claims against ITT
subsidiaries, including Goulds Pumps LLC, filed in various state
and federal courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos.

"Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or
Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure.  Our
experience to date is that a majority of resolved claims are
dismissed without any payment from ITT subsidiaries.  Management
believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little
or no value.  In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed
in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim can
fluctuate significantly from period to period.  ITT expects more
asbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will
continue to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution,
as appropriate.

"Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation.  Frequently,
the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not
state a specific claim amount.  After filing a complaint, the
plaintiff engages defendants in settlement negotiations to
establish a settlement value based on certain criteria, including
the number of defendants in the case.  Rarely do the plaintiffs
seek to collect all damages from one defendant.  Rather, they
seek to spread the liability, and thus the payments, among many
defendants.  As a result of this and other factors, the Company
is unable to estimate the maximum potential exposure to pending
claims and claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2liFhZn


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Has US$870.3MM Liability at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc. had recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability
of US$870.3 million as of March 31, 2018, for pending claims and
unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years,
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 states, "We record a liability for pending asbestos
claims and asbestos claims estimated to be filed over the next 10
years.  While it is probable that we will incur additional costs
for future claims to be filed against the Company, a liability
for potential future claims beyond the next 10 years is not
reasonably estimable due to the variables and uncertainties
inherent in the long-term projection of the Company's asbestos
exposures and potential recoveries.  As of March 31, 2018, we
have recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability for
pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over
the next 10 years of US$870.3 million, including expected legal
fees, and an associated asset of US$394.3 million which
represents estimated recoveries from insurers, resulting in a net
asbestos exposure of US$476.0 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2liFhZn


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Defends 2 Mesothelioma Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, 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 discovery remains ongoing in two
mesothelioma-related lawsuits filed against multiple parties
including the Company.

The Company states, "We are one of multiple parties to two
current lawsuits filed in Madison County Illinois, styled Brenda
Bridgeman, Individually and as Special Administrator of the
Estate of Robert Bridgeman, Deceased, vs. American Honda Motor
Co., Inc., f/k/a Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al No. 15-L-
374 and styled Danny Atkins and Pamela Atkins, Pltfs., vs. Aurora
Pump Company, et al. No. 18-L-2.

"Both lawsuits entail a claim for damages to be determined in
excess of US$50,000 filed on behalf of either a former employee
or the estate of an individual which alleges that the deceased
contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while
employed by us.

"Discovery in each matter is ongoing, and a tentative trial date
has been set for one of the cases.  We have denied liability, are
defending the matters vigorously and are unable to estimate our
potential exposure to loss, if any, at this time.

"In March of 2018, a similar lawsuit styled Charles Anderson,
Pltf., vs. 3M Company, et al, No. 17-L-525 was dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2lhRZrg


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Had 31,600 Claims Pending at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had approximately 31,600 asbestos-related claims
pending as of March 31, 2018, 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.

CBS Corp. states, "The Company is a defendant in lawsuits
claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other
materials, which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure
caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a
predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s.  Westinghouse
was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos.  The
Company is typically named as one of a large number of defendants
in both state and federal cases.  In the majority of asbestos
lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the
Company's products is the basis of a claim.  Claims against the
Company in which a product has been identified principally relate
to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-containing insulating
material in turbines sold for power-generation, industrial and
marine use.

"Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period.  The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal
or no impairment.

"As of March 31, 2018, the Company had pending approximately
31,600 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 31,660 as
of December 31, 2017 and 33,600 as of March 31, 2017.  During the
first quarter of 2018, the Company received approximately 870 new
claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately
930 claims.  The Company reports claims as closed when it becomes
aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when
the Company has reached agreement with the claimants on the
material terms of a settlement.  Settlement costs depend on the
seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claims,
the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors.

"The Company's total costs for the years 2017 and 2016 for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax were approximately US$57 million and
US$48 million, respectively.  The Company's costs for settlement
and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and
insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as
the insured portion of the expenses.

"The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are
adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities.  This belief is based
upon many factors and assumptions, including the number of
outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the
breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings,
costs per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims.
While the number of asbestos claims filed against the Company has
remained generally flat in recent years, it is difficult to
predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances
may occur including, among others, the number and types of claims
and average cost to resolve such claims, which could affect the
Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2K4EbeJ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $629.5MM Asbestos Liability at Mar. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation recorded US$629.5 million for asbestos product
liability matters at March 31, 2018, 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 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).  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.
While we (and our subsidiaries) maintain property, cargo, auto,
product, general liability, environmental, and directors' and
officers' liability insurance and have acquired rights under
similar policies in connection with acquisitions that we believe
cover a significant portion of these claims, this insurance may
be insufficient or unavailable (e.g., in the case of insurer
insolvency) to protect us against potential loss exposures.
Also, while we believe we are entitled to indemnification from
third parties for some of these claims, these rights may be
insufficient or unavailable to protect us against potential loss
exposures.

"Our recorded liabilities related to these matters totaled
US$672.8 million (including US$629.5 million for asbestos product
liability matters) and US$685.7 million (including US$641.2
million for asbestos product liability matters) at March 31, 2018
and December 31, 2017, respectively.  Of these amounts, US$640.7
million and US$651.6 million are included in "Other long-term
liabilities" within our condensed consolidated balance sheets at
March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively, with the
remainder included in "Accrued expenses." 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$582.1 million and US$590.9 million at March 31, 2018 and
December 31, 2017, respectively, and included in "Other assets"
within our condensed consolidated balance sheets.  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-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2K0H7sq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Final Judgment vs. Bechtel Reversed on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bechtel Corporation and Bechtel Construction Company appeal a
final judgment after a jury trial in favor of Richard and Regina
Batchelor. The jury found that Bechtel was liable for Mr.
Batchelor's mesothelioma because it was caused in part by
exposure to asbestos at Florida Power and Light's (FPL) Turkey
Point Power Plant, where Mr. Batchelor worked from 1974 to 1980.
At that time, Bechtel was a large contractor for FPL, providing
services at the power plant.

Richard Batchelor was diagnosed with terminal mesothelioma in
2015. The major cause of mesothelioma is exposure to asbestos. In
the past, Mr. Batchelor had served on nuclear submarines in the
Navy where he was trained as an electrical technician to maintain
gauges used to monitor nuclear power plants. He then joined FPL
where he worked as an electrical technician at the Turkey Point
power plant from 1974 to 1980 and then at another one of its
power plants for two years, until he was promoted to perform
budgeting work within an office.

Evidence showed that Turkey Point at the relevant time was a
large and complex facility, which provided power for all of South
Florida. It contained two nuclear-fueled units and two oil and
natural gas fueled units. Indeed, Turkey point was a wilderness
of concrete, wires, pipes, cables, gauges, boilers, and turbines.
Bechtel built Turkey Point and was retained under contract-
specifically, under two Construction Services Agreements-to
provide ongoing maintenance services. The contracts provided that
FPL would issue work orders at its discretion to Bechtel and
Bechtel would do the work requested on a cost-plus basis. FPL
would decide whether FPL or Bechtel would provide needed
supplies, equipment, and ancillary services. During the six years
at issue, from 1974 to 1980, Bechtel provided 1,050,070 man hours
of services at Turkey Point. The contracts required both Bechtel
and FPL to carry insurance, with FPL required to provide
"Premises-Operation" insurance.

FPL periodically took each of the four units offline for repair
and maintenance. During these shutdowns, FPL tasked Bechtel with
performing major overhauls on the units; it tasked Foster Wheeler
with performing maintenance on the unit's giant boilers, which
were lined with insulation; and FPL directed its own employees,
including Mr. Batchelor, to perform certain maintenance on the
units. Even when contractors were present, which was most of the
time, Batchelor received work instructions only from FPL.

At trial, Mr. Batchelor testified that he was employed by FPL as
an electronic technician responsible for repairing and
maintaining the gauges and equipment at the Turkey Point power
plant. The plant has a nuclear side and a fossil fuel side, each
consisting of two units. From 1974 to 1976, he worked mainly on
the nuclear side. He then transferred to the fossil fuel side
where he worked from 1976 to 1980.

Because of Mr. Batchelor's medical condition, the case was set
for trial on an expedited basis to begin August 22, 2016. On July
2, 2016, Batchelor noticed the depositions of Bechtel's corporate
representatives. Immediately after the depositions were taken,
Batchelor moved for sanctions, asserting that Bechtel failed to
adequately search for documents and information that might have
been provided by retired former employees. In particular, he
requested an instruction permitting the jury to infer that such
evidence would have been unfavorable to Bechtel.

Five days before trial, the trial court held a hearing on
Batchelor's motion for sanctions. In opposition to the motion,
Bechtel argued that it had no obligation to seek out former
employees from thirty-six to forty-two years earlier and that
attempts to locate past employees in similar lawsuits proved
fruitless due to the passage of time. The trial court indicated
Bechtel could have mailed postcards to the last-known addresses
of employees. The trial court had never previously issued an
order compelling Bechtel to mail the postcards or otherwise
contact past employees. Nor did it have copies of the transcripts
of the deficient depositions before it. Nevertheless, the trial
court granted the motion for an adverse inference based on
Bechtel's failure to attempt to locate former employees.

Batchelor's medical causation testimony was provided by Dr.
Murray Finkelstein. Dr. Finkelstein never examined Batchelor and
never visited Turkey Point. He based his testimony on a review of
Batchelor's deposition and published medical studies. Dr.
Finkelstein testified that Mr. Batchelor's mesothelioma was
caused by exposure to asbestos in three situations. Particularly,
because Mr. Batchelor testified that: (1) he repaired brakes as a
hobby and the medical studies showed a correlation between
repairing brakes and exposure to dangerous levels of asbestos;
(2) he sanded drywall as part of this project and the medical
studies showed a correlation between sanding drywall and exposure
to dangerous levels of asbestos; and (3) he was nearby when
insulation at Turkey Point was removed and medical studies showed
a correlation between removing insulation containing asbestos and
exposure to dangerous levels of asbestos for workers actually
removing the asbestos.

The jury entered a verdict for Mr. Batchelor in the amount of
$15,381,724 and for his wife in the amount of $6 million. It
attributed the fault as follows: Foster Wheeler 5%, FPL 35%, and
Bechtel 60%. Bechtel timely moved for directed verdicts and a new
trial which were denied. This appeal followed.

Bechtel raises four points on appeal: (1) the trial court should
have directed a verdict because there was insufficient proof of
possession and control; (2) the trial court should have directed
a verdict because there was insufficient proof of medical
causation; (3) the trial court should have granted a new trial
because of the exclusion as Fabre defendants of the entities that
manufactured the brake linings and drywall that Dr. Finkelstein
testified also caused Mr. Batchelor's mesothelioma; and (4) the
trial court should have granted a new trial because the adverse
inference jury instruction was reversible legal error.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida for Third District has
reversed the final judgment on the ground that: (1) the trial
court erred by giving an adverse jury instruction as a discovery
sanction, and (2) there was complete absence of direct evidence
to support a jury finding that Bechtel possessed or controlled
all or part of the plant -- no witness testified and no document
indicated that FPL surrendered, and Bechtel took joint possession
of, all or any part of Turkey Point.

On appeal Bechtel argues that, at the very least, its motion for
new trial should be granted because the adverse inference
instruction that the judge gave the jury constituted reversible
error. Batchelor maintains that Bechtel's failure to attempt to
locate retired employees who had worked at Turkey Point during
the relevant time period-well over thirty years ago -- justified
the adverse inference. According to the trial court, the sanction
here was imposed for Bechtel's failure to attempt to locate
retired employees by mailing postcards.

Obviously, a party's duty under Rule 1.310(b)(6) includes some
reasonable efforts to contact retired employees if current
employees cannot provide the information requested. Mailing
postcards to locate retirees who had worked over thirty years ago
and could then be interviewed to prepare a corporate witness is a
time-consuming effort with no guarantee of success. However,
absent a specific court order to do so, the Court maintains that
it would not interpret a party's responsibilities to prepare a
representative to extend so far, particularly here, where the
deposition is noticed to take place only a few weeks before trial
when there is reduced time for such a large effort.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that in the absence of an order
compelling Bechtel to undertake such an extraordinary effort on
the eve of trial which involved so little promise of results, the
trial court erred in imposing the sanction of an adverse
inference jury instruction. Consequently, the Court holds that
the judgment would require reversal for a new trial.

Bechtel next argues that its motion for a directed verdict should
have been granted because Batchelor failed to provide sufficient
evidence to satisfy the "control" element of the premises
liability claim. There was not enough evidence to allow this
question to go to the jury.

The Court notes that one of the unusual aspects of this case is
Batchelor's theory of liability. Batchelor did not sue Bechtel
under a products liability theory for manufacturing products
containing asbestos. Nor did Batchelor sue Bechtel on the theory
that Bechtel removed asbestos in a manner that negligently
exposed Batchelor to a dangerous level of asbestos. Instead,
Batchelor sued Bechtel on the theory of premises liability.

In his brief, Batchelor explained that Bechtel was liable for the
dangers of asbestos dust created by Bechtel "or by others in
areas of Turkey Point that were being controlled by Bechtel while
Bechtel performed its work at the time Mr. Batchelor was
exposed." Batchelor's premises liability theory was that Bechtel,
as the party in control of the premises, was liable to warn
Batchelor of asbestos dangers created by FPL -- Batchelor's own
employer -- and by FPL's other contractors.

Batchelor asserted, and the evidence showed, that no one
monitored asbestos levels at the plant, warned Batchelor about
asbestos, supplied asbestos respirators, distributed asbestos
safety clothes, or provided asbestos laundry facilities. Instead
of direct evidence, Batchelor, as he may, relies on inferences.
In particular, the Court finds that Batchelor asked the jury to
infer that FPL granted joint possession and control based on
several circumstances.

The Court points out that control of property for purposes of
premises liability means control that rises to the level of the
ability to control access or exclude others from the property.
"The duty to protect others from injury resulting from a
dangerous condition on a premises rests on the party who has the
right to control access by third parties to the premises, be it
the owner, an agent, or a lessee of the property."

The Court concludes that the evidence at trial -- complete
absence of direct evidence -- supports a jury finding that
Bechtel possessed or controlled the premises as there was no
witness has testified and no document has indicated that FPL
surrendered, and Bechtel took joint possession of, all or any
part of Turkey Point. The Court settles that this lack of direct
evidence might be due to FPL's refusal to share with a third
party control of any part of Turkey Point which was, after all, a
heavily guarded nuclear facility providing electricity to all of
South Florida. But it might also be due simply to the over-
thirty-year lapse in time from the period at issue to the date of
the trial. Whatever the reason, there was no direct evidence on
this point at trial.

A copy of the Decision dated June 20, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycb2w62z from Leagle.com.

Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., and Sylvia H. Walbolt --
swalbolt@carltonfields.com -- and Matthew J. Conigliaro (Tampa) -
- mconigliaro@carltonfields.com -- Banker Lopez Gassler, P.A.,
and Chris W. Altenbernd , (Tampa) -- caltenbernd@bankerlopez.com
-- for appellants.

The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A., James L. Ferraro , Juan P. Bauta, II
, Paulo R. Lima , Gabriel S. Saade , and Mathew D. Gutierrez ,
for appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Broadway Couple Sues MetLife Over Lung Cancer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison County Record reported that  a couple
is suing Metropolitan Life Insurance and a number of asbestos-
related companies, alleging their negligence led to the wife's
lung cancer.

Willie Mae Broadway and Grimes Broadway Jr. filed a complaint on
June 13 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against the defendants,
alleging they failed to exercise due care and caution for the
safety of others.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
times during Willie Mae Broadway's employment, she was exposed to
or inhaled asbestos fibers emanating from products manufactured,
sold, distributed or installed by the defendants. In March 2018,
she first became aware that she had developed lung cancer.

In addition to their complaint against the asbestos-related
companies, the couple alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance
and others conspired to provide misleading information regarding
the negative health effects of asbestos exposure.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek compensatory and
exemplary damages of more than $50,000. They are represented by
Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-417


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Sued Over Failure to Warn in "Coffey"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that a lung-cancer
victim is suing International Paper, Albany International, Trane
US, 3M Company and other asbestos-related companies, alleging
that negligence and failure to warn led to his ailment.

Mark Coffey filed a complaint on May 31 in St. Clair County
Circuit Court alleging the defendants failed to exercise
reasonable care and caution for the safety of others.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that at various
times during his employment from 1971 to 2004, he was exposed to
and inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers emanating from certain
products manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by the
defendants. In October 2017, he first became aware that he
developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease.

The plaintiff alleges the defendants intentionally included
asbestos fibers in their products though they knew it had toxic,
poisonous and highly deleterious effect to humans' health and
failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions concerning
the dangers of working with or around products containing
asbestos fibers.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory
damages of more than $50,000 and any further relief the court may
deem just and equitable. He is represented by Randy L. Gori of
Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-384


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cos. Sued Over Failure to Warn in "Callahan"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that  a former
electrician alleges exposure to asbestos at his job and through
family members caused him to develop lung cancer.

James M. Callahan filed a complaint on June 14 in the St. Louis
22nd Judicial Circuit Court against A.W. Chesterton Inc., Bechtel
Power Corp., Zurn Industries LLC, et al. alleging negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he was
exposed to asbestos from 1937 to 1979 and that as a result of the
defendants' negligent acts and omissions, he was caused to
develop and was diagnosed with lung cancer on or about March 7.
He alleges he has suffered great pain and anguish and became
liable to large sums of monies for medical care and treatment
expenses.

The plaintiff holds A.W. Chesterton Inc., Bechtel Power Corp.,
Zurn Industries LLC, et al. responsible because the defendants
allegedly failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions
concerning the dangers of working with or around products
containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory and
punitive damages of more than $75,000, plus costs of this action
and any additional relief that are just and proper. He is
represented by Andrew A. O'Brien, Christopher J. Thoron,
Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Gerald J. FitzGerald and Adam J.
Reynolds of O'Brien Law Firm PC in St. Louis.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1822-CC10533


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hillburn Couple Seeks Damages for Mesothelioma
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that a Kansas couple
is seeking damages over allegations the husband developed
mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure.

Grant Hillburn and Vicki Hillburn filed a complaint on June 15 in
the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against Bayer Corp.,
Ford Motor Co., Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co., et al.
alleging negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
times during Grant Hillburn's career from 1952 to 1997, he was
exposed to and inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers emanating from
certain products manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by
defendants. The suit states that on or about March 22, he first
became aware that he developed pleural mesothelioma, an asbestos-
induced disease, and that the disease was wrongfully caused.

The plaintiffs hold Bayer Corp., Ford Motor Co., Procter & Gamble
Manufacturing Co., et al. responsible because the defendants
allegedly intentionally included asbestos fibers in their
products when they knew that it contained a dangerous, toxic and
disease-causing substance and failed to provide adequate warnings
and instructions concerning the dangers of working with or around
products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek compensatory
damages of more than $25,000, plus interest, and all further
relief that the court deems appropriate. They are represented by
Robert D. Woodard of Simmons Hanly Conroy in Alton, Illinois.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1822-CC10568


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Vicar Diagnosed with Asbestos Disease
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Huntley of Gazette Live reported that a retired vicar who
was diagnosed with asbestos-related disease after working on
industrial sites across Teesside is hoping to find out whether
more should have been done to protect him.

Grandfather-of-four Christopher Puckrin, 70, who lives in Leeds
but was born in Redcar , developed symptoms including
breathlessness before being told he was suffering from pleural
thickening.

A year later he found out he was also suffering from asbestosis.

Following the diagnosis, he instructed lawyers to investigate his
illness and whether more should have been done to prevent it.

As part of their work, the legal experts are now appealing for
information regarding the presence of asbestos during the time
Christopher undertook an apprenticeship for Middlesbrough-based
Haigh & Ringrose in the 1960s.

They are also keen to speak to anyone who recalls the use of the
material while he was working at ICI Wilton between 1973 and
1980.

Christopher said: "I remember spending my first few weeks doing
domestic work but for the majority of time I was based on
industrial sites.

"These included the British Steel site in Middlesbrough , their
coke ovens site at South Bank and I also spent a lot of time at
the British Steel Lackenby site.

"I also worked at the ICI Wilton site prior to being employed
there, as Haigh & Ringrose helped with the construction of
the Olefins 5 works.

"So much of my role revolved around crawling through ducts and
among pipework lagged with asbestos. There was so much of the
material around that I was virtually eating it at times.

"I also worked closely with laggers and pipefitters and was never
given a mask or warned of any dangers."

Christopher joined ICI Wilton in 1973 as an electrician and was
subsequently trained up as an instrument artificer where he had
frequent contact with asbestos, including having to remove
lagging as part of his job.

He added: "I was devastated to receive the news that I had
developed an asbestos-related illness and it has affected my life
so much already.

"While nothing will change what has happened I do feel I deserve
answers and also to know whether more should have been done to
protect me from the risks. I would be hugely grateful to anyone
who may be able to help."

Why we may never know the cause of the Eston Park Academy fire
Fay Marshall, from Irwin Mitchell - the law firm he instructed -
said: "Christopher's experiences highlight how asbestos exposure
which seemingly took place many years ago can go on to affect
individuals in later life.

"While Christopher joined the Church of England in 1980 and
became a vicar we are keen to gain a better understanding of the
working conditions he faced in the jobs he held prior to that
time and specifically how prevalent asbestos was in those roles.

"Such information could prove absolutely vital to us as we
continue to work to help him get justice in relation to the
illness he has developed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worker Dies After Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------
Ben Hatton of Kent Live reported that a man born in Tunbridge
Wells who worked in power stations for most of his working life
died as a result of asbestos exposure.

Colin Geoffrey Scott, 75, who grew up in Rusthall, but lived on
Main Road, Chattenden, Rochester, died on March 29.

His wife Erica Scott, 77, said: "He died a very painful death."

She described how her husband had worked in power stations for 33
years.

She said he started working in a power station in Tunbridge Wells
and moved to Kingsnorth power station in Medway.

She said: "He went to work in the control room which was meant to
be a clean environment."

But she added a doctor later told the couple: "There is no such
thing as a clean environment in a power station."

Lifelong career in power stations

From 1998 to his full retirement in 2009 Mr Scott worked as a
tour guide, taking children and business delegations around the
power station.

Kingsnorth power station was owned by several different companies
throughout Mr Scott's employment, but by the time he left it was
owned by E.ON UK.

At an inquest at The Archbishop's Palace, Maidstone, yesterday
(June 19) Coroner Scott Matthewson said it was well known that
asbestos was present in power stations in the sixties and
seventies.

Mrs Scott mentioned that her husband had spoken on occasion about
having to leave the control room to go and fix something in the
power station. She also recalled an incident where a part of the
ceiling broke away and a material landed on his desk that he said
was asbestos.

She also said that he would sometimes come home from work with
dust on him.

Kingsnorth power station

Kingsnorth was a dual-fired coal and oil power station,
previously operated by E.ON UK and capable of genarating 2,000
megawatts of power.

It was decommissioned after the site was badly damaged by fire in
2010.

It was built on the site of former World War One airship base
RNAS Kingsnorth, between 1963 and 1973.

Conclusion

A post-mortem found the cause of death to be 1A sarcomatoid type
malignant mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veteran Sailor Blames Asbestos for Lung Cancer
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Navy veteran alleges that his lung cancer was caused by
exposure to asbestos during his military career and employment.

Albert W. Johnson filed a complaint on May 31 in the St. Clair
County Circuit Court against Blackmer Pump Co., The Coca-Cola
Co., Zurn Industries LLC, et al. alleging negligence and other
counts.

Lhalie Castillo of Madison County Record reported that according
to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that at various times
during his employment and military career from 1956 to 1995, he
was exposed to and inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers emanating
from certain products manufactured, sold, distributed or
installed by defendants. The suit states that on or about March
19, he first became aware that he developed lung cancer, an
asbestos-induced disease, and that the disease was wrongfully
caused.

The plaintiff holds Blackmer Pump Co., The Coca-Cola Co., Zurn
Industries LLC, et al. responsible because the defendants
allegedly negligently included asbestos fibers in their products
when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide
adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of
working with or around products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages of more
than $50,000. He is represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian
& Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-383


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defense Move to Dismiss "Dapp" Talc Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Whittaker, Clark & Daniels has moved to dismiss an asbestos
cosmetic talc suit on grounds that the court cannot exercise
personal jurisdiction over the defendant since the contacts the
company has with Florida are "insufficient."

In the June 13 motion filed in the Florida 13th Judicial Circuit
for Hillsborough County, the defendant argued that the decedent's
alleged injury "does not arise from or relate to any contacts
between Whittaker and Florida, and thus, is insufficient to
support the Court's exercise of specific personal jurisdiction."

Thomas Dapp filed the lawsuit on May 22 in Florida's 13th
Judicial Circuit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bitter Discovery Fight Heated in Talc Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carl Salvatore of Law360 reported that a bitter discovery fight
heated up further in a suit accusing BASF and former counsel
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP of destroying proof of asbestos in
talc from a mine that, in other litigation, is claimed to have
been a supplier to Johnson & Johnson, as plaintiffs' firm Cohen
Placitella & Roth PC disputed terms governing the handover of its
referral deal with a major fact witness.

The case is headed by named plaintiff Kimberlee Williams in New
Jersey federal court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Plant Worker's Family Seeks Help
----------------------------------------------------
Kristy Hough of Echo reported that the family of a man who died
from an asbestos-related cancer are attempting to trace his
former colleagues.

Lee Mullins was only 49 when he passed away from mesothelioma - a
cancer which is linked to the inhalation of asbestos fibres.

He had worked at the Ford Dagenham plant between September 1985
to March 1990 when he was aged 19 to 24 and was on the family
intake management program for the adult children of Ford
managers.

The father-of-two attended the entrance exam at Romford in 1985.

His wife Sue, who lives in Rayleigh, said: "We know that at the
time of his employment at Ford, asbestos was being used in
certain products within the motor industry.

"As Lee's condition developed so quickly we were unable to
confirm exactly what his role was and indeed whether or not he
came into contact with the asbestos during this time.

"We desperately need to talk to someone that worked with Lee at
the Ford Motor Company to fill in the gaps."

Lee, who was a keen rugby player, became ill in Christmas 2015
and he received a diagnosis of mesothelioma in March 2016.

In Lee's case, the cancer was in the stomach and he died on April
11, 2016.

Sue added: "We were all, naturally, shocked and devastated having
very little time to adjust.

"What is unusual about Lee's case is the age at which he was
affected and the speed in which it developed.

"We were told mesothelioma would usually develop 50 to 60 years
after exposure to asbestos therefore most people showing signs of
this form of cancer are usually much older.

"This is an extremely aggressive cancer known to be caused by
contact with asbestos."

Lee was known as a local celebrity at the Brownstock Music
Festival because of his outrageous outfits.

He also had a brother named Boyd which Sue feels may jog people's
memory.

Michael Osborne, of Larcomes solicitors added: "Lee suspected he
was exposed to asbestos when working on the production line as a
result of fitting brake pads to vehicles.

"I am keen to contact former Ford workers who may recall Lee or
have useful information about whether asbestos was used in any
processes on the production line at the Ford factory."

If you have useful information, please contact Michael on
michael.orsborne@larcomes.co.uk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Son Awarded $11.4MM in Take-Home Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Jane Mundy of LawyersandSettlements.com reported that a
California jury recently awarded Alfred Mata and his wife $11.4
million in an asbestos lawsuit against Liberty Utilities (Park
Water) Corp. Alfred developed mesothelioma from his father, who
worked with water pipes that contained asbestos and brought the
fibers home on his clothes.

The "take-home asbestos exposure trial" took 12 days for the Long
Beach, California jury to reach a verdict. They found Liberty
Utilities Corp., which was formerly Park Water and employer of
Alfred's father, guilty of negligence. Francisco Mata worked from
1970 to 1985 at Park Water, where he cut, installed and repaired
asbestos-cement water pipes. Not once in those 15 years was
Francisco aware of asbestos exposure and its dangers.

During the trial, plaintiffs' attorneys demonstrated how Park
Water (now Liberty Utilities) never told its employees that
asbestos was dangerous. If they had provided proper safety
measures, such as separate lockers for street and work clothing,
Francisco and his co-workers likely would have been aware of the
dangers. And Alfred would not have developed mesothelioma.

The jury found that Park Water violated both federal and state
health and safety laws for more than a decade. Since 1971, the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) has been protecting
workers from the threat of asbestos. And between 1971 and 1994,
OSHA issued two emergency temporary standards, three major
notices of proposed rulemaking, three final rules, and 31 Federal
Register notices related to asbestos. It was impossible for Park
Water not to know the dangers of asbestos exposure and its link
to asbestosis and mesothelioma -- terminal cancer. Yet Francisco
worked at Park Water until 1985. For 15 years, he brought
asbestos-contaminated clothing home from work, and to his family.
The jury also found that Park Water acted with malice in the
treatment of its employees and their families.

Liberty Utilities purchased Park Water Company in January, 2016.
According to the California Water Association, Park Water and its
subsidiary, Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company (Apple Valley),
served about 51,000 customer connections with more than 700 miles
of distribution mains in southeast Los Angeles County, Apple
Valley and Victorville. And Liberty Utilities is owner and
operator of water utilities in Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois,
Missouri and Texas and operates an electric utility in California
that serves the Lake Tahoe region. Liberty Utilities was the only
defendant remaining when the verdict was reached in April, 2018.

On its website, Liberty says it " . . . lives in and supports the
communities we serve. We deliver safe and reliable service with
care and integrity... we strive to exceed local and national
license-to-operate requirements when it comes to environmental
management. Our goal is to ensure we comply with all
environmental regulations, which is an extension of our local,
responsive and caring culture."

How could Liberty not know about Park Water's blatant disregard
for its employees, and how it put profit above safety? Or maybe
Liberty did know, and $11.4 million is just a part of the cost of
doing business. However, Alfred Mata might not be the only
casualty: An asbestos mesothelioma diagnosis can be tied to
asbestos exposure going back decades. Asbestosis and asbestos
cancer can lay dormant for many years, sometimes up to three or
more decades, before suddenly emerging in an otherwise healthy
individual.

Mesothelioma is a disease affecting the lining of the lungs. The
only known cause is exposure to asbestos. While rare, there have
been previous cases where a family member of an industrial worker
has been diagnosed with asbestos cancer by way of exposure to
asbestos fibers and asbestos dust brought into the home on work
clothes.

For instance, an asbestosis lawsuit in Alabama was based on
second-hand asbestos exposure. Plaintiff Barbara Bobo died from
mesothelioma in 2013, but not before she filed a lawsuit alleging
that her asbestos exposure was the result of second-hand exposure
from the same asbestos that claimed her husband's life, while
washing his work clothes.

"The jury held Park Water accountable for its practice of cutting
corners and ignoring common sense health laws for decades," said
attorney Mark Bratt, with Weitz & Luxenberg law firm. "This
verdict helps make Southern Los Angeles County a safer place to
work and live by making it clear that companies cannot put profit
ahead of safety."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Apartment Displaces L.A. Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Los Angeles reported that more than a dozen West L.A.
residents were forced to find another place to stay for the night
after asbestos was found in their apartment building.

Los Angeles County Health Hazmat officials were sent out to an
apartment in the 1800 block of South Prosser Avenue and requested
the help of the Los Angeles Fire Department, fire spokesman Brian
Humphrey said.

The building's manager had been doing renovations and recently
removed popcorn ceilings from apartments, then disposed of it in
the building's dumpsters, according to residents, who believe
this was the source of the exposure.

"Most property managers know that if you're going to do
construction, you have to do it properly and dispose of it
properly," one resident, who was not named, said. "Unfortunately
they just hire whoever."

If it becomes airborne, asbestos can cause lung cancer.

Fifteen residents were decontaminated. The Red Cross provided
temporary transportation and lodging assistance to those who were
displaced.

The cause of the exposure remains under investigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SDC Builders Fined for Asbestos Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
The Construction Index reported that Luton Crown Court heard how
on 11th August 2015, SDC Builders Ltd failed to carry out
suitable and sufficient assessment to identify the presence of
asbestos in all areas of the building where work was to be
carried out.

An investigation by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) found
that SDC failed to carry out the procedures required under the
Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. Subsequently, asbestos-
containing materials were disturbed in the course of the work.
The company failed to ensure all workers were informed, and did
not take the necessary measures to control access into the area
until remedial actions were taken.

SDC Builders pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5 and
Regulation 15 of The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. It was
fined GBP185,000 and ordered to pay costs of GBP28,118.74.

HSE inspector Alison Outhwaite said after the hearing: "Asbestos
remains the top cause of fatal illness because of exposure in the
workplace. It is important that contractors responsible for
refurbishment of premises constructed before 2000 identify
whether asbestos is present and take the appropriate action to
prevent exposure."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Asked to Dismiss Asbestos Claimants Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reported that Energy Future Holdings Corp, once Texas'
biggest power company, has asked the U.S. District Court of
Delaware to dismiss an appeal filed by a group of asbestos
personal injury claimants, calling it "moot" and an "improper
attack."

The appeal argued that EFH's bankruptcy confirmation is unlawful
because of its treatment of people who had asbestos exposure
before the 2014 bankruptcy filing but had not filed a claim by
Dec. 14, 2015 because they were not yet sick.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Negligent Suit Filed Against Asbestos Maker
------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison County Record reported that a former
laborer and roofer alleges he developed cancer as a result of
exposure to asbestos during his career.

Johnny Sapp filed a complaint on May 31 in the St. Clair County
Circuit Court against Ameron International Corp., Continental
Teves, URS Corp., et al. alleging negligence and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that at various
times during his employment from 1965 to 1978, he was exposed to
and inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers emanating from certain
products manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by
defendants. He alleges that on or about March 22, 2017, he first
became aware that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced
disease.

The plaintiff holds Ameron International Corp., Continental
Teves, URS Corp., et al. responsible because the defendants
allegedly negligently included asbestos fibers in their products
when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide
adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of
working with or around products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages of more
than $50,000 and all further relief as the court deems
appropriate. He is represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian &
Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-381


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Dying of Asbestos Disease for Hugging Dad
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hampstead and Highgate Express reported that Wendy Holland would
jump up and greet her dad as a toddler when he returned from the
Millwall and the Royal Docks in east London unloading deadly
asbestos cargoes.

Lawyers are trying to trace employers for compensation to pay for
desperate treatment for Wendy, now aged 51, and are appealing for
anyone who remembers working with her father Patsy.

"I'm determined to fight this horrible disease and go about my
life as much as possible," the mother-of-three says.

"But a sunny day is never sunny with mesothelioma hanging over
us. I get terrible pain days after treatment, but will continue
for as long as it works."

She is using up her life savings for immunotherapy treatment to
keep the cancer at bay.

"I was a baby when I jumped up to greet my father," Wendy
explains. "It's devastating knowing that our lives have been
turned upside down by the natural affection between a parent and
child."

Her dad, sometimes known as 'Paddy' or 'Roadrunner', always
picked up his little girl the minute he came home and carried her
on his shoulders -- with the deadly asbestos dust still on his
clothes and his bushy hair.

Her solicitor Peter Williams, from Fieldfisher law firm, is
appealing to anyone who remembers Patsy Holland around 1965 to
pursue compensation for Wendy.

He said: "I was shocked when I heard Wendy's age. This is a case
of men working hard for their families unknowingly sentencing
them to a terrible future."

Unloading asbestos was "a good earner" and most dockers believed
employers' statements back then that it was 'safe' -- until it
was banned by the unions.

Patsy retired from the docks in the 1970s to run a pub in Ilford.
He died in 1993 in his early 50s.

Wendy was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2016 and given less than
two years to live. She is now on "borrowed time."




                            *********


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  * * *