---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, April 8, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 71


                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY ONCOLOGY: Faces "Barbieri" Suit Over Data Breach
ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT RESOURCES: Judge Narrows Bid to Bifurcate
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Judge Narrows Claims in "Stevenson" Suit
ALMOD DIAMONDS: Faces "Otero" Class Action Over FCRA Violation
ALWAYS HAIR: Faces "Bradley" Suit in Mass. Superior Court

BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Narrows Claims in Alaska Pension Fund Suit
BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Judge Narrows Claims in "Bigsby" Suit
BAYVIEW LOAN: Wis. Suit Over Debt Collection Practices Tossed
BLUE SHIELD: Judge Trims Issues for Trial in "Daniel F" Suit
CHAZ DEAN: Faces Class Suit in Florida Over Hair Products

CHICAGO, IL: Judge Rejects 2012 Class Suit Over Traffic Cameras
DELUXE DELIVERY: Settlement in "Samaroo" Wages Suit Wins Approval
DOMINO'S PIZZA: "Kucher" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA & NYLL
EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: "Urena" Labor Suit Moves to C.D. Cal.
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: "Jones" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Pay

FORD MOTOR: Judge Trims Claims in "Van" Sexual Harassment Suit
FREEDOM OILFIELD: Faces Suit in Tex. Court Over FLSA Violation
GROCERYWORKS.COMM LLC: Faces "Wafer" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GUAM: Must Defend Against Alleged Land-Grabbing Suit, Judge Says
HAMPTON CREEK: Judge Narrows Claims in "Duran" Class Suit

HILL BROTHERS: Judge Narrows Claims in Employees' ERISA Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Three Invokana Suits in New Jersey
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of RMBS Cases
JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Rules in Dispute v. Ex-WaMu Branch Managers
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Faces "Winner" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Plaintiffs Claim are Already Time Barred
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces "Randolph" Class Action in S.D. Fla.
KS WORLD: Violated California Labor Code, "Hall" Suit Claims
LAR-BEV OF HOWELL: Judge Declines to Exercise Authority to Stay
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Ellis" Suit Over Chinese Flooring

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Guidry" Suit Over Chinese Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Chinese Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Flooring Emits Formaldehyde, "McDonald" Says
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Schneider" Suit Says Flooring Emits Gas
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Skehan" Suit Says Flooring Has Formaldehyde

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Snyder" Suit Over Chinese Flooring
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Judge Allows "Jordan" Suit to Proceed
MEXICAN GASTRONOMY: "Luperon-Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: April 14 Case Conference in "Banks" Suit
POWER DESIGN: Bid for Conditional Certification Granted in Part

RECKITT BENCKISER: Faces "Agrawal" Suit Over Airwick(R) Labeling
RHODE ISLAND: Suit v. Education Board May Proceed as Class Action
RINCONCITO PAISA: Violated FLSA & FMWA, "Parra" Suit Claims
RECTRIX COMMERCIAL: Violated MTA & MWA, "Gardner" Suit Claims
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces "Benson" Securities Suit in Tex. Court

SOCIAL SECURITY: Judge Rules in Adult Disability Hearings Suit
SONUS NETWORKS: Violated Exchange Act, "Huang" Suit Claims
SSM HEALTH: Faces Retirement Plan Participants' Suit in Missouri
STONE PONY: Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in EEOC Suit
SUNEDISON INC: Violated Securities Act, "Bloom" Suit Claims

SYLVIA STEIN: Violated Cal. Vehicle Code, "Harris" Suit Claims
TRANSCANADA PIPELINE: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal
UBER: Common-Carrier Statutes Favor Rape Case Plaintiffs
WADDELL INC: Must Defend Against Goodland Foods' TCPA Suit
WAL-MART STORES: $187.6MM Judgment in Wage Class Action Affirmed


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RAI Unit Had 64 Filter Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RAI Units Continue to Defend W. Va. Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Suit vs. RAI Unit Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Continues to Defend Asbestos Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BCNY Allowed to File Amici Curiae Brief

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Ct. Affirms Summ. Judgment Favoring BASF
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Compass Insurance Loses Summary Judgment Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warden Wins Summary Dismissal of Inmate Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. High Court Affirms Last Exposure Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mintz Ordered to File Memorandum on Jurisdiction

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. Johns-Manville Remanded to Bankr. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty Expects Decline in Madison County Filings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Seeks Damages for Husband's Asbestos Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bigger Payouts in Line for Scot Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Chamber Applauds Signing of HB 403

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Laborer Sues Over Exposure Leading to Disease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Exposed to Asbestos Following Blaze 1983
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oxford Company, Units Settle Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valley Contractors Fined for Asbestos Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lisbon Homeowner Cited with Envi. Violation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered in Old Soap Lake Schoolhouse
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Police Scotland to Survey Bldgs for Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Scare at Magill Primary School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arbitration Bifurcation on Tap at Orals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Under Way for Hawthorndale School Site

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at Center of Complex Indiana Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sue Over Damages Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Patriots Environmental to Pay $129K Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheet Metal Workers Screened for Diseases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Finds Asbestos in Columbiana County Trash

ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Asbestos Exacerbating Pacific Problems


                            *********


21ST CENTURY ONCOLOGY: Faces "Barbieri" Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Barbieri, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. 21st Century Oncology Holdings, Inc., Case 2:16-cv-
00252-CM (M.D. Fla., April 4, 2016), seeks injunctive relief
requiring the Defendant to implement and maintain security
practices to comply with regulations designed to prevent and
remedy an October 2015 data breach and other potential data
breaches, as well as restitution, and damages.

21st Century Oncology Holdings, Inc., through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, is a global, physician-led provider of integrated
cancer care services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven A. Ramunni, Esq.
     Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
     Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
     Matthew Jasinski, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE, LLC
     28 Bridgeside Boulevard
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Phone: (843) 216-9000
     E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com

          - and -

     Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
     Matthew Jasinski, Esq.
     Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE, LLC
     28 Bridgeside Boulevard
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Phone: (843) 216-9000
     E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com

        - and -

     Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
     KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
     2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd. Suite 625
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 384-7270
     Fax: (954) 525-4300
     E-mail: gilbert@kolawyers.com


ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT RESOURCES: Judge Narrows Bid to Bifurcate
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David L. Russell of the Western District of
Oklahoma granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to
bifurcate proceedings in the case SARAH BRISTOL, DAVID BRISTOL, on
behalf of plaintiffs and a class, Plaintiffs, v. ACCOUNT
MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, LLC; ROBINSON HOOVER & FUDGE, PLLC; and DOES
1-10, Defendants, Case No. CIV-15-1049-R (W.D. Okla.)

Defendant Robinson Hoover & Fudge, PLLC (RHF), seeking to collect
on a medical debt allegedly assigned to defendant Account
Management Resources, LLC (AMR), filed a lawsuit in state court
against plaintiffs Sarah and David Bristol.

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action brought under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e,
alleging that the debt collection form violates the FDCPA's
prohibition on false or misleading representations. Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of "(a) all natural persons (b) to whom
RHF provided a document in the form represented by the Form
whether on behalf of AMR or someone else (c) which document was
filed or served on or after a date one year prior to filing of the
action and (d) on or before a date 21 days after the filing of
this action.

Plaintiffs also seek to certify a subclass of class members where
RHF was acting as attorney for AMR, as opposed to representing
another entity.

Defendants RHF and AMR separately filed motions to bifurcate the
proceedings into an initial merits phase and a subsequent class
phase. Defendant RHF proposes that the merits phase address the
sole question of whether the Form violates the FDCPA. Defendant
AMR joins RHF in that request and additionally asks that the
merits phase address the issue of its vicarious liability. Both
defendants urge that their respective issues are potentially
dispositive and could help to streamline, if not moot, subsequent
class litigation. Specifically, defendants argue, if the court
finds that the form does not violate the FDCPA, that would dispose
of the case entirely. Similarly, if the court finds that AMR is
not vicariously liable for RHF's actions, then certain issues,
including the necessity of a subclass, will be moot.

Judge Russell granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to bifurcate. The motions are granted to the extent they
seek bifurcation of discovery. The motions are denied to the
extent they seek separate trials. The court direct defendants to
meet and confer with the plaintiffs and submit a joint proposed
discovery and briefing schedule for the merits phase by March 31,
2016.

A copy of Judge Russell's order dated March 17, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/MBSra1from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Victor R Wandres, Esq.
     PARAMOUNT LAW
     1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3000
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Telephone: 206-612-7938
     Facsimile: 206-420-5369

Plaintiffs are also represented by:

     Daniel A Edelman, Esq.
     Francis R Greene, Esq.
     EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
     20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: 312-739-4200
     Facsimile: 312-419-0379

Account Management Resources LLC, Defendant, represented by Justin
D Meek -- jmeek@ntmdlaw.com -- Ryan L Dean -- rdean@ntmdlaw.com --
at Nelson Terry Morton DeWitt Paruolo & Paruolo

Robinson Hoover and Fudge PLLC, Defendant, represented by David
Alan Cheek -- dcheek@cheekfalcone.com -- Robert E Norman --
rnorman@cheekfalcone.com -- at Cheek & Falcone PLLC


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Judge Narrows Claims in "Stevenson" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of
California granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss in the
case ANDREA STEVENSON, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-04788-YGR (N.D. Cal.)

Defendants Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity
Company (Allstate) are Illinois corporations that issue automotive
insurance policies nationally, including in California. In
California, auto insurance premiums are approved by the Department
of Insurance.

Plaintiff Andrea Stevenson is a resident of California and has
been an auto insurance customer of Allstate for more than 25 year.
Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of Allstate's alleged improper
practices, she has paid higher prices for her insurance coverage
than have other insureds who present the same risk presented by
plaintiff. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that Allstate
improperly uses elasticity of demand (ED) as an unapproved rating
factor when pricing auto insurance for its customers and potential
customers.

Plaintiff brought six causes of action on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated in the first amended complaint
(FAC), for (1) unlawful conduct in violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17200, et seq., (2) unfair conduct in violation of the UCL, (3)
fraudulent conduct in violation of the UCL, (4) unjust enrichment,
(5) violation of California's False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et seq., and (6) violation of
Cal. Ins. Code Section 1861.10.

Defendants moved to dismiss all causes of action, or in the
alternative, to stay judicial proceedings under the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction.

Judge Rogers granted in part defendants' motion.  He dismissed
with prejudice the sixth cause of action for failure to state a
claim. The first five causes of action have been stayed under the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

A copy of Judge Rogers' order dated March 17, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/8jxFJlfrom Leagle.com.

Andrea Stevenson, Plaintiff, represented by David Borgen --
dborgen@gbdhlegal.com -- James Kan -- jkan@gbdhlegal.com -- at
Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen Dardarian & Ho; Andrea R. Gold
-- at Tycko & Zavareei LLP; Jay B Angoff -- at Mehri and Skalet;
Peter Richard Kahana -- pkahana@bm.net -- at Berger Montague, P.C.

Defendants, represented by Kathleen Ann Birrane --
kathleen.birrane@dlapiper.com -- Michael Paul O'Day --
michael.oday@dlapiper.com -- Eliot Reeve Hudson --
eliot.hudson@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper LLP


ALMOD DIAMONDS: Faces "Otero" Class Action Over FCRA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scarlett Otero and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. Almod Diamonds Ltd., Inc., a Foreign Profit
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-008465-CA-01(Fla. Cir.
Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., April 4, 2016), seeks to recover damages
exceeding $15,000 excluding attorneys' fees or costs for
discrimination and termination of Plaintiff's employment in
violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA).

Almod Diamonds through its subsidiary owns and operates a chain of
jewelry stores in the United States, Mexico, and the Caribbean. It
retails diamond and colored stone jewelry, timepieces, and
gemstone products, including rings, earrings, necklaces, pendants,
bracelets, men's jewelry, and watches. The company also operates
an online jewelry retail store. Almod Diamonds, Limited was
founded in 1991 and is based in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALWAYS HAIR: Faces "Bradley" Suit in Mass. Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Always Hair Salon. The case is
captioned Kellie Bradley, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Always Hair Salon, Before
and After Hair Salon, and Tina Stephens, the Defendant, Case No.
1682CV00419 (Mass. Super. Ct., Norfolk Cty., April 4, 2016).

Always Hair Salon is a hair dressing salon located in Milford,
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Trombetta, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF Christopher J. Trombetta
          190 Chauncy Street
          Mansfield, MA 02048
          Telephone: 508-339-5900
          E-mail: chris@trombettalaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Narrows Claims in Alaska Pension Fund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New
York ruled on the parties' claims in the case ALASKA ELECTRICAL
PENSION FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants, No. 14-CV-7126 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.)

Defendants are 14 banks that dominate the market for interest rate
derivatives and set U.S. Dollar ISDAfix (ISDAfix) and ICAP Capital
Markets LLC (ICAP), an inter-dealer broker that served as the
administrator in charge of setting the ISDAfix rates until January
26, 2014.

Plaintiffs are various institutions that transacted in interest
rate derivatives expressly tied to ISDAfix or directly impacted by
defendants' manipulation of ISDAfix with one or more defendant
banks on days that have been identified as being subject to
manipulation.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants took advantage of their
respective roles in the ISDAfix rate-setting process to manipulate
the daily ISDAfix benchmarks for their own financial gain. In
particular, they contend that the defendant banks manipulated
daily ISDAfix rates to benefit their own trading positions and
that ICAP assisted in that manipulation in order to earn brokerage
commissions. Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to
rubberstamp the reference rate posted by ICAP each day in
contravention of ICAP's publicly disseminated submissions rules,
which indicated that the defendant banks should not submit a rate
where the dealer sees the mid-market away from itself, but should
be a function of its own bid/offer spread.  Second, plaintiffs
allege that the defendant banks manipulated the reference rate
itself by flooding the inter-dealer swap market just before 11
a.m. with transactions designed to move ICAP's reference rate to
whatever point the defendant banks desired, a process known as
banging the close. Finally, plaintiffs contend that, when banging
the close failed to move the reference rate to the desired level,
ICAP could and would also simply set the reference rate at the
predetermined level irrespective of the state of the market.

In the amended complaint, plaintiffs brought antitrust claims
under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, et seq., as well as
state-law claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and
tortious interference with contract.

Defendants moved pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, to dismiss all of plaintiffs' claims.
In their opposition, plaintiffs ask for leave to amend their
complaint for a second time in the event that the court grants
defendants' motion in any part.

Judge Furman granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to dismiss. Specifically, plaintiffs' tortious interference and
breach-of-implied-faith claims are dismissed in their entirety, as
are plaintiffs' breach-of-contract and unjust enrichment claims
against Nomura. Plaintiffs' remaining claims survive. Plaintiffs'
request for leave to amend is denied.

A copy of Judge Furman's opinion and order dated March 28, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/2ObDAifrom Leagle.com.

Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher M Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- Scott + Scott,
L.L.P., Daniel Lawrence Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
-- Quinn Emanuel, Daniel Paul Cunningham, Quinn Emanuel, David W.
Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Marc
Laurence Greenwald, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Patrick
Joseph Coughlin, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ronald Judah
Aranoff, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Stanley D Bernstein, Bernstein
Liebhard, LLP, Steig Olson, Quinn Emanuel, Sylvia Sokol, Scott +
Scott, L.L.P., Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, Christopher M. Burke, Scott Scott, LLP, Jeremy
Daniel Andersen, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, LLP,
pro hac vice, Randi Dawn Bandman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& Thomas Kay Boardman, Scott Scott, L.L.P.

Genesee County Employees' Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Daniel Lawrence Brockett, Quinn Emanuel
Magnolia Regional Health Center, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart
Halkett McCluer, McCulley Mccluer PLLC, Daniel Lawrence Brockett,
Quinn Emanuel, Michael Dell'Angelo, Berger & Montague, P.C. & R.
Bryant McCulley, McCulley McCluer PLLC, pro hac vice

The County of Beaver, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence
Brockett, Quinn Emanuel

The City of New Britain, Plaintiff, represented b yDaniel Lawrence
Brockett, Quinn Emanuel

The County of Westmoreland, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
Lawrence Brockett, Quinn Emanuel

The County of Montgomery, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Thomas
Caliendo, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.,Peter Anthony Barile, III, Grant
& Eisenhofer P.A., Robert Gerard Eisler, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA &
Daniel Lawrence Brockett, Quinn Emanuel

The County of Washington, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
Lawrence Brockett, Quinn Emanuel

Bank Of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam Selim
Hakki, Shearman & Sterling LLP &Richard Franklin Schwed, Shearman
& Sterling LLP

Barclays Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by Alexander John
Willscher, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Andrew Zenner Michaelson,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Benjamin Robert Walker, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, David Harold Braff, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP,
Jeffrey T. Scott, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jonathan David
Schiller, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Matthew Joseph Porpora,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Matthew Alexander Schwartz, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP

BNP Paribas SA, Defendant, represented by Alejandro Hari Cruz,
Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP, Deirdre Ann McEvoy,
Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP, Joshua Aaron Goldberg,
Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP, Amy Neda Vegari, Patterson,
Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP & William Francis Cavanaugh, Jr.,
Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP

CitiGroup Inc., Defendant, represented by Alan M. Wiseman,
Covington & Burling, L.L.P., pro hac vice, Andrew D. Lazerow,
Covington & Burling, L.L.P., pro hac vice & Andrew Arthur Ruffino,
Covington & Burling LLP

Deutsche Bank AG, Defendant, represented by James L. Brochin,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Moses Silverman,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Aaron Sean Delaney,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

HSBC Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by Edwin R Deyoung, Locke
Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, Andrew L. Fish, Locke Lord LLP,
Gregory Thomas Casamento, Locke Lord LLP & Roger Brian Cowie,
Locke, Liddell & Sapp, L.L.P.

Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, Defendant, represented by Jay B.
Kasner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Paul Madison
Eckles, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Shepard
Goldfein, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Thomas
Mcauley Leineweber, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

UBS AG, Defendant, represented by Peter Sullivan, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP, Jefferson Eliot Bell, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP,
Joel Steven Sanders, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & Lawrence Jay
Zweifach, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP

Nomura Securities International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Joseph John Frank, Shearman & Sterling LLP & Brian Howard Polovoy,
Shearman & Sterling LLP

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Defendant, represented by Arthur J. Burke,
Davis Polk & Wardwell

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Eric Jonathan
Seiler, Friedman, Kaplan, Seiler & Adelman, LLP, Andrew W.
Goldwater, Friedman, Kaplan, Seiler & Adelman, LLP & Anne
Elizabeth Beaumont, Friedman, Kaplan ,Seiler & Adelman, LLP

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Defendant, represented by Anthony R. Van
Vuren, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, pro hac vice & Jon Randall
Roellke, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, pro hac vice

Credit Suisse AG, New York Branch, Defendant, represented by David
George Januszewski, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Herbert Scott
Washer, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP & Landis C. Best, Cahill
Gordon et ano.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Vicens, Cleary Gottlieb, George S Cary, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Leah Brannon, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas J. Moloney, Cleary Gottlieb

HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Defendant, represented by James Matthew
Goodin, Locke Lord LLP & Julia C Webb, Locke Lord LLP

ICAP Capital Markets, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian S.
Fraser, Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP, H. Rowan Gaither, IV, Richards
Kibbe & Orbe LLP & Shari A. Brandt, Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP


BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Judge Narrows Claims in "Bigsby" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss
in the case LAMAR BIGSBY, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BARCLAYS
CAPITAL REAL ESTATE, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 14-cv-1398
(JGK)(S.D.N.Y.)

Lamar Bigsby, Jr., purchased property in Stockbridge, Georgia in
August 2005 and obtained two mortgage loans from Fremont
Investment & Loan Co. for $244,000 and $61,000, secured by his
home. HomEq Servicing (HomEq) was the original servicer until it
was acquired by Barclays in 2006. Barclays Capital Real Estate,
Inc. (Barclays) serviced the mortgages after November 2006.
Mortgage Electronic Registrations System (MERS) served as the
nominee for the lender on the loan, and Bigsby signed standardized
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac form loan documents setting forth the
terms and conditions of the loans.

On January 1, 2007, Bigsby filed for bankruptcy protection after
he became delinquent on his loans. After the bankruptcy filing, he
was assessed various fees and costs. Bigsby alleges he was
assessed foreclosure fees and costs, bankruptcy attorney fees, a
fee for a breach letter, and late charges.

On the other hand, Karla Freeland, obtained two mortgages in 2004
and 2005 for a combined sum of over $500,000, secured by her
Plymouth, Massachusetts home. MERS served as the nominee for the
lender on both loans, and Freeland signed standardized Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac loan documents setting forth the terms and
conditions of the loans. At some point, Barclays became the
servicer of those loans.

In or about 2006, Freeland became delinquent on her loans and
filed for bankruptcy in 2006. From 2006 through 2008, Freeland was
charged by Barclays for attorney fees and other fees that the
plaintiffs claim were improper, including post-acceleration late
fees. During the course of Freeland's bankruptcy, and continuing
until the first part of 2013, Feeland paid off the amounts that
were allegedly owed before she had filed for bankruptcy, including
the attorneys' fees, postacceleration late fees, and other unpaid
fees.

Bigsby and Freeland, brought a putative class action alleging
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961 et seq.(RICO), based on predicate acts
of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. Section 1341, and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1343, and related state law claims against defendant
Barclays and various John Doe defendants. The plaintiffs allege
jurisdiction under RICO and the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d) (CAFA). They claim that Barclays engaged in
two different schemes to overcharge borrowers fraudulently, by fee
shifting scheme, whereby Barclays allegedly charged borrowers for
administrative and outsourcing fees that it concealed under the
category attorneys' fees, and a related mortgages scheme, wherein
Barclays allegedly inflated costs for borrowers with multiple
mortgages.

Barclays moves to dismiss the amended class Action complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1),
failure to state a claim, Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and failure to
state with particularity circumstances constituting fraud, Fed. R.
Civ. P. 9(b).

Judge Koeltl granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to dismiss. The substantive RICO claim and the RICO conspiracy
claim are dismissed. The defendants' motion to dismiss is denied
with regard to the plaintiffs' state-law claims (Counts III-VII).

A copy of Judge Koeltl opinion and order dated March 17, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/l7Yldffrom Leagle.com.

Lamar Bigsby, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Neal Arthur DeYoung
-- neal@sharmadeyoung.com -- at Sharma & Deyoung LLP; Paul Stewart
Grobman -- at Paul Grobman, Esq.

Karla Freeland, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Paul Stewart Grobman, Esq.
     Paul Grobman, Esq.
     555 5th Ave #17
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: 212-983-5880

Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc., Defendant, represented by
James Ellis Brandt -- james.brandt@lw.com -- Paul Anthony
Serritella -- paul.serritella@lw.com -- at Latham & Watkins LLP


BAYVIEW LOAN: Wis. Suit Over Debt Collection Practices Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin of the Eastern District of
Wisconsin granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case JAMES
O'CONNELL, Plaintiff, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 15-CV-1342 (E.D. Wis.)

James O'Connell defaulted on a mortgage loan and the holder of the
loan foreclosed upon the property. The mortgagee waived any
deficiency judgment and the redemption period expired on October
27, 2015. On that day, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (Bayview) took
over servicing the loan.

On November 3, 2015, Bayview mailed O'Connell certain documents
that O'Connell contends were communications in connection with the
collection of a debt.

O'Connell contends that Bayview violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) when it failed to timely provide him with
certain information required by the FDCPA.

Bayview moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Bayview contends that it was not required to provide the
information set forth in 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a) because the
letter it sent to O'Connell was not an initial communication with
a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt. Rather,
it was a hello letter sent to comply with the servicing transfer
notification requirements of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. Section 2605.

Magistrate Judge Duffin granted defendant's motion to dismiss.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Duffin's decision and order dated March
17, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/1xxEVsfrom Leagle.com.

James OConnell, Plaintiff, represented by John D Blythin --
jblythin@ademilaw.com -- Mark A Eldridge -- meldridge@ademilaw.com
-- Shpetim Ademi -- sademi@ademilaw.com -- Denise L Morris --
dmorris@ademilaw.com -- at Ademi & O'Reilly LLP

Bayview Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew C
Glass -- andrew.glass@klgates.com -- Gregory N Blase --
gregory.blase@klgates.com -- Roger L Smerage --
Roger.Smerage@klgates.com -- at K&L Gates LLP; Kenneth R
Nowakowski -- knowakowski@whdlaw.com -- at Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek
SC


BLUE SHIELD: Judge Trims Issues for Trial in "Daniel F" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment in the case DANIEL F., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 09-cv-
2037-PJH (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Daniel F. and Shan O. are the parents of Geoffrey F.
Plaintiffs were participants in and/or beneficiaries of the
Ogdemli/Feldman Design Group Benefit Plan, provided through the
employment of Daniel F. and Shan O. The plan included a group
health insurance policy from defendant Blue Shield of California
(Blue Shield). The policy excluded coverage for residential
treatment. Geoffrey received residential mental health and
behavioral treatment at Island View Residential Treatment Center
in the State of Utah, from May 24, 2007 through February 27, 2008.
Blue Shield denied coverage for Geoffrey's residential treatment,
based on the policy exclusion in the plan.

Plaintiffs filed a suit and alleged that Blue Shield's practice of
excluding coverage for residential treatment services involving
mental health conditions violated the terms of Blue Shield's
policies and the requirements of the California Mental Health
Parity Act, California Health & Safety Code Section 1374.72
(Parity Act) and California Insurance Code Section 10144.5, which
mandate coverage for treatment of severe mental illness in a
person of any age, and serious emotional disturbances in a child,
under the same terms and conditions applied to other medical
conditions. In the contract claim, plaintiffs alleged that the
terms of the contract provide coverage for appropriate medically
necessary treatment for mental health conditions that accord with
the requirements of California insurance law, and that Blue
Shield's refusal to provide coverage for residential treatment of
mental health conditions violated the contract terms. In the claim
for declaratory and injunctive relief, plaintiffs sought a
judicial declaration that Blue Shield's practice of denying
coverage for residential treatment services violates the
requirements of ERISA and the terms of the insurance policies at
issue in this case, and asked the court to enjoin Blue Shield's
practice of excluding coverage for residential treatment services.

Blue Shield filed a motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs for
leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action alleging
inconsistent claims processing. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a
motion to continue the hearing on the summary judgment motion
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). The court
denied the motion to continue the summary judgment ruling, and set
the motion for hearing on February 16, 2011.

On March 3, 2011, the court issued an order denying the motion for
leave to amend the complaint, and granting the motion for summary
judgment based on the policy exclusion for residential treatment.
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on March 11, 2011. On August
31, 2011, after plaintiffs had filed their opening brief but
before Blue Shield had filed its responsive brief, the Ninth
Circuit granted Blue Shield's request to stay the appeal pending
the final decision in Harlick v. Blue Shield of Calif., a case
raising similar issues. On June 4, 2012, the Ninth Circuit issued
an opinion in Harlick, holding that while the ERISA Plan at issue
did not require coverage for residential treatment for anorexia,
the Parity Act did. On January 22, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued
an order reversing the grant of summary judgment, based on the
decision in Harlick, and remanded the case.

On March 9, 2015, Blue Shield served plaintiffs with an offer of
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, offering
to pay $79,954 in damages, plus $27,767.79 in prejudgment
interest, with fees and costs to be determined by the court after
entry of judgment. Plaintiffs did not respond to the offer.
Neither side filed a dispositive motion, but on March 27, 2015,
without first seeking leave of court, plaintiffs filed a renewed
motion for class certification, claiming that they were entitled
to do so because motions for class certification are dispositive.

On April 8, 2015, Blue Shield moved to strike the motion.
The court issued an order denying the motion to strike, but
advising plaintiffs that it viewed the renewed motion as a motion
for reconsideration, and that plaintiffs would be required to seek
leave to file a motion for reconsideration as required by the
Civil Local Rules. Plaintiffs did so on May 29, 2015, and on June
22, 2015, the court denied the motion for leave to file a motion
for reconsideration, and terminated the previously filed renewed
motion.

In the July 9, 2015 joint case management conference statement,
Blue Shield offered to stipulate to entry of judgment in favor of
plaintiffs in the amount of $79,954 the amount plaintiffs had paid
to Island View for the residential treatment and the amount Island
View had accepted in full payment which Blue Shield again asserted
was the maximum that plaintiffs could recover for the alleged
wrongful denial of benefits. Blue Shield further offered to
stipulate to payment of prejudgment interest in the amount of
$29,403, calculated based on the rate set in 28 U.S.C. Section
1961, which courts in the Ninth Circuit generally apply in ERISA
cases. Blue Shield also proposed that the court determine the
amount of attorney's fees and costs to which plaintiffs might be
entitled.

Plaintiffs took the position that they retained claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief and an interest in spreading
attorney fees incurred in the litigation.  Blue Shield argued that
plaintiffs had no basis to seek declaratory or injunctive relief,
in light of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Harlick, and that under
existing Ninth Circuit authority, it would be permissible for
plaintiffs to stipulate to judgment as to damages and interest,
while preserving their right to appeal any fees and costs award as
well as the denial of class certification.

At the July 16, 2015 telephonic CMC, the parties advised the court
that they had been unable to reach agreement as to damages,
interest, or attorney's fees. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
summary judgment, seeking an award of damages, attorney's fees,
interest, and costs. Blue Shield did not file a motion.

Judge Hamilton granted the motion as to the amount of damages,
denied as to the request for costs, without prejudice to
submitting the cost post-judgment in a proper cost bill except for
costs incurred after March 9, 2015. Denied as to the request for
prejudgment interest at a rate of 15% but granted as to the
request for prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest at the
statutory rate and granted in part and denied in part as to the
amount of the attorney's fees. The total amount of attorney's fees
to be awarded is $326,484.80, plus $12,813.27 for paralegal fees,
for a total of $339,298.07.

A copy of Judge Hamilton's order dated March 17, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/r0gjvNfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Brian S. King, Esq.
     Nicole T. Durrant, Esq.
     Brian S. King, Attorney At Law
     336 300 E
     Salt Lake City, UT 84111
     Telephone: 801-532-1739

Plaintiffs are also represented by

     David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
     DL Law Group
     345 Franklin St.
     San Francisco, CA 94102
     Telephone: 415-678-5050

Blue Shield of California, Defendant, represented by Craig S.
Bloomgarden -- cbloomgarden@manatt.com -- Carol Hu -- Gregory Neil
Pimstone -- gpimstone@manatt.com -- at Manatt Phelps & Phillips,
LLP


CHAZ DEAN: Faces Class Suit in Florida Over Hair Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Harrell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a Florida woman claims in a newly filed class action that hair
care products created and sold by Hollywood stylist Chaz Dean
ravaged rather than revitalized her locks.

In a complaint filed in Broward County, Fla., Waverly Robinson
says the Wen by Chaz Dean cleansing conditioners she purchased
were a waste of money that caused serious side effects including
hair loss, dryness, thinning and an itchy scalp.

Her claims are similar to those in an ongoing class action in
which hundreds of plaintiffs claim Dean's products     contributed
to their extreme hair loss.

Unlike the plaintiffs in that case, Robinson is also suing QVC,
the television shopping service that markets and sells WEN
products.

Dean's A-list clients have included Brooke Shields, Alyssa Milano
and Christina Applegate, all of whom at one time or another have
attested to the quality of his products.

But Robinson says she no longer finds those claims convincing.

"Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated consumers, did not
bargain for Products that cause adverse effects in exchange for
their payment of the purchase price," the March 29 complaint says.
"Plaintiff contends that the Products do not work as impliedly
warranted and as a result, mislead consumers into purchasing the
Products under misleading circumstances."

Robinson seeks unspecified damages, full restitution and a
disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains on multiple claims of
negligent misrepresentation and violations of Florida's Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

She is represented by Joshua Eggnatz -- JEggnatz@ElpLawyers.com
-- of Eggnatz, Lopatin & Pascucci LLP in Davie, Fla.

Representatives of the parties could not immediately be reached
for comment.


CHICAGO, IL: Judge Rejects 2012 Class Suit Over Traffic Cameras
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class action in Chicago challenging the legality of Chicago's red-
light camera system, one of several in recent years, was dismissed
with prejudice by a Cook County, Ill., judge.

The 2012 lawsuit claimed that the cameras were illegal because
they violate the Illinois Constitution and because Chicago had no
authority to pass an ordinance that regulates the program.

A state law passed in 2006 allows red-light cameras, which take a
picture of the license plates of cars running red lights and lead
to fines issued to the owners, only in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake,
Madison, McHenry, St. Clair and Will counties.

According to the plaintiffs, a statute must apply to the whole
state unless there is a valid reason for local legislation, and
the red-light cameras create a disadvantage to those living in the
affected counties.

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Rita Novak said in her April 1
ruling that the localized rules make sense in this case. The
counties that have a red-light camera program are the state's most
populous and surround the major metropolitan areas of Chicago and
St. Louis, according to the judge.

Novak found that classifying the counties "based on population and
proximity, while imperfect, is not based on an irrational
difference in situation or condition."

Because there are more cars, intersections and pedestrians in
those counties, Novak said, state lawmakers "could have rationally
concluded that these areas have different traffic enforcement
needs than the rest of the state."

Chicago also argued that it has "inherent home rule authority to
regulate traffic within its borders," and the judge agreed.

Steve Patton, counsel for the city, said in a statement: "We are
pleased that the court dismissed this lawsuit and found the red
light automated enforcement program to be legal and
constitutionally sound."

Attorney Patrick Keating, who represented the plaintiffs, did not
respond to a request for comment from Courthouse News.

Chicago started installing its cameras in 2003 and lists on its
website 306 intersections that currently have one, bringing in
over $60 million in fines every year.

Novak noted in her opinion that "the cameras have been
controversial since their installation," and "aggrieved motorists
have filed several civil lawsuits challenging the program's
legality under a variety of theories."

The city itself sued the original operator of its cameras, Redflex
Traffic Systems, last year after Mayor Rahm Emanuel fired the
company amidst a bribery scandal.

Redflex executives allegedly paid city official John Bills to
secure city council votes and manipulate tests and reports on the
company's equipment to get the contract. Several Redflex employees
and city officials pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges.

A 2014 class action lawsuit against the city involving the bribes
was thrown out in December. The judge ruled that there was no
reason the plaintiffs should get back part of the fines they paid
due to the bribes.

However, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Kennedy ruled in
February that another lawsuit will move forward. That one says the
city is violating its own municipal codes in the way it issues
violation notices and in the time it gives citizens to pay or
contest the ticket.

The case captioned, TERIE L. KATA, MAUREEN SULLIVAN, NICHOLAS
CLARKE, BOHDAN GERNAGA, and NIRAJ RAMI, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO,
an Illinois Municipal Corporation, Defendant, No. 2012 CH 14186
(Ill. Cir., Cook County).


DELUXE DELIVERY: Settlement in "Samaroo" Wages Suit Wins Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the Southern District of New York
granted defendants' motion to approve parties' settlement in the
case, ANDERSON SAMAROO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DELUXE DELIVERY SYSTEMS
INC., et al., Defendants, No. 11 Civ. 3391 (HBP) (S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiffs Anderson Samaroo and Clint Laldeo commenced an action
against Deluxe Delivery Systems Inc. (Deluxe) and Yoindra
Ramnarayan (Ramnarayan) as a putative class action under the New
York Labor Law (NYLL) Sections 190 et seq., 650 et seq. and a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29
U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq., for unpaid wages and overtime.
Samaroo and Laldeo also asserted claims for unlawful deductions
under the FLSA and the NYLL and retaliation under the NYLL.

On September 2, 2011, plaintiffs amended the complaint to add
Dowlat Ramdihal as a named plaintiff and Courier on the Run, Inc.
and Park Avenue Delivery, Inc. as defendants. Opt-in plaintiffs
Jose Zayas, Ricardo Brown, Michael Lopez, Samuel Parshotam, Victor
Clinton, Anthony Rosal, Henry Reid, Alpheus Calderon, Ebere
Nwokiwu, Tony Stevens, Nigel Pinnock, Francisco Feliciano and
Carlton Borris joined the collective action as plaintiffs

In the amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that they were
employed by defendants as couriers, messengers, deliverers,
dispatchers and in other similar positions and that defendants (1)
did not pay them the statutory minimum wage, (2) did not pay them
overtime, (3) took unlawful deductions from plaintiffs' wages and
(4) retaliated against the named plaintiffs for complaining about
NYLL violations.

Deluxe and Ramnarayan filed their answer to the amended complaint,
but later amended their answer on December 3, 2012, adding various
counterclaims against Brown, Zayas, Parshotam and Reid and
Counterclaims, dated December 3, 2012.

The parties reached an agreement to settle the action. Under the
settlement agreement, Deluxe and Ramnarayan agreed to pay a gross
settlement amount of $330,000, inclusive of attorneys' fees and
costs in exchange for, among other things, a release of all claims
against all defendants. The settlement agreement further specifies
that $115,831.74 of the $330,000.00 gross settlement amount is
allocable to attorneys' fees and costs. The settlement agreement
has been signed by defendants Deluxe and Ramnarayan and plaintiffs
Samaroo, Laldeo, Ramdihal, Zayas, Brown, Lopez, Parshotam, Reid,
Calderon, Stevens, Pinnock, Feliciano and Borris. However,
plaintiffs Nwokiwu, Rosal and Clinton have not signed the
settlement agreement.

On or about October 15, 2013, Nwokiwu signed a declaration in
which he consented to the dismissal of all of his claims with
prejudice. In his declaration, Nwokiwu also stated that he
understood that, by withdrawing his claims with prejudice, he
would not be entitled to his share of the settlement proceeds.
Plaintiffs' counsel made repeated attempts to contact Rosal and
Clinton in August, September, October and December of 2013 but was
unable to reach them

On November 26, 2013, Magistrate Judge Pitman issued an order
directing Nwokiwu, Rosal and Clinton to appear on December 9, 2013
and explain why they had not signed the settlement agreement, but
Rosal and Clinton failed to appear at the December 9, 2013
conference. On January 14, 2014, opt-in plaintiff Melvin Mingo
joined the collective action and shortly thereafter, Mingo and
defendants reached a separate settlement agreement, which binds
Mingo to the material terms of the settlement agreement and
further provides that Mingo will receive $7,500.00, which shall be
deducted from the amount allocated to plaintiffs' counsel's fees
under the settlement agreement

On or about April 27, 2015, plaintiffs' counsel sent letters to
Rosal and Clinton by first class mail and email informing them
that if they failed to contact plaintiffs' counsel, their claims
would be dismissed with prejudice

Deluxe and Ramnarayan filed a motion to approve the settlement
reached by the parties and requested either that (1) the parties'
settlement be approved and enforced as to all plaintiffs,
including Nwokiwu, Rosal and Clinton, or (2) (a) the parties'
settlement be approved as to the plaintiffs that signed the
Settlement Agreement and as to Mingo, (b) Nwokiwu, Rosal and
Clinton be dismissed from the case with prejudice for failure to
comply with my November 26, 2013 Order and (c) the settlement fund
be reduced by $39,312.92, the amount allocable to the claims of
these three plaintiffs.

Magistrate Judge Pitman approves the settlement with respect to
Samaroo, Laldeo, Ramdihal, Zayas, Brown, Lopez, Parshotam, Reid,
Calderon, Stevens, Pinnock, Feliciano, Borris and Mingo and those
plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
The claims of Nwokiwu are dismissed with prejudice and without
costs. The claims of Rosal and Clinton are dismissed with
prejudice and without costs, provided that their claims may be
reinstated for the sole purpose of signing, and being bound by the
terms of, the settlement agreement if they contact the Magistrate
Judge's chambers and express such an interest within 30 days of
the date of the order.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Pitman's opinion and order dated March
17, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/bB5WOcfrom Leagle.com.

Anderson Samaroo, Clint Laldeo and Dowlat Ramdihal, Plaintiffs,
represented by:

     Robert David Lipman, Esq.
     David A. Robins, Esq.
     Lizabeth Schalet, Esq.
     Lipman & Plesur, LLP
     Seven Penn Plaza
     370 Seventh Avenue, Suite 720
     New York, NY 10001
     Telephone: 212-661-0085

Ricardo Brown, Michael Lopez, Samuel Parshotam, Victor Clinton,
Anthony Rosal, Henry Reid, Tony Stevens, Alpheus Calderon, Ebere
Nwokiwu, Nigel Pinnock, Francisco Feliciano, Carlton J. Borris,
Melvin Mingo, Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Lizabeth Schalet, Esq.
     Lipman & Plesur, LLP
     Seven Penn Plaza
     370 Seventh Avenue, Suite 720
     New York, NY 10001
     Telephone: 212-661-0085

Deluxe Delivery Systems Inc., Yoindra "Ryan" Ramnarayan
Defendants/ Counter Claimant, represented by David F. Jasinski --
djasinski@jplawfirm.com -- Richard Spitaleri, Jr. -- at Jasinski,
P.C.; Jagat Paul Lall -- at Lall & Associates, P C; Ellen Margaret
Nichols -- at Emn Law, P.C.

Courier On The Run, Inc., Park Avenue Delivery, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Jagat Paul Lall -- at Lall & Associates, P C

Ricardo Brown, Samuel Parshotam, Henry Reid, Jose L. Zayas,
Counter Defendant, represented by:

     Lizabeth Schalet, Esq.
     Lipman & Plesur, LLP
     Seven Penn Plaza
     370 Seventh Avenue, Suite 720
     New York, NY 10001
     Telephone: 212-661-0085


DOMINO'S PIZZA: "Kucher" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA & NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Riad Kucher, on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated
employees, the Plaintiff, v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., Domino's Pizza,
LLC, domino's pizza franchising, LLC, Cookston Enterprises, Inc.,
Mumbuh Style Pizza, Inc., Hat Trick Pizza, Inc., Sestwon Pizza,
LLC, 117 Mineola Ave., LLC, 1872a Bellmore Ave., LLC, 1017 Jericho
TPKE LLC, 3489 Riverhead Pizza, LLC, 3469 Mastic Pizza, LLC, 3683
Washington Heights Pizza, LLC, 3456 Hamilton Heights Pizza, LLC,
3342 New Windsor Pizza, LLC, 3361 Monroe Pizza, LLC, 3352 Mount
Kisco Pizza, LLC, 3441 Ossining Pizza, LLC, 3488 Cortland Manor
Pizza, LLC, 3616 West Village Pizza, LLC, 3694 Lower East Side
Pizza, LLC, 3551 Yonkers Pizza, LLC, Team Stamford, LLC, Team East
Hartford, LLC, Rolling in the Dough, LLC, Customers First of
Connecticut, LLC, AAR, LLC, MIRC, LLC, Ams Pizza, LLC, Lucky 13,
INC., Ac Pizza, INC., Doe Corporations 1-50, and Robert Cookston,
in his individual and professional capacities, the Defendants,
Case No. Case 1:16-cv-02492 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2016), seeks to
recover damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as may be
allowed by law, additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and disbursements, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law
(NYLL).

Domino's Pizza is an American fast food delivery institution.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
          Rita M. Lenane, Esq.
          WIGDOR LLP
          85 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 257 6800
          Facsimile: (212) 257 6845
          E-mail: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
                  trahman@wigdorlaw.com
                  rlenane@wigdorlaw.com


EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: "Urena" Labor Suit Moves to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Urena, Victor Urena, and Frank Contreras, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Earthgrains
Distribution, LLC, Earthgrains Baking Co., Inc., and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 30-02016-00838177-CU-OE-CXC, was transferred
from Orange County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Southern Div. - Santa Ana.
The Calif. Central District Court assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00634-
CJC-DFM to the proceeding. The assigned Presiding Judge is Hon.
Cormac J. Carney.

Earthgrains' line of business includes bread, cake, and related
products distribution. The Company is based in Ukiah, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D Kaufmann, Esq.
          Beth A Ross, Esq.
          Elizabeth R Gropman, Esq.
          LEONARD CARDER LLP
          1330 Broadway Suite 1450
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 272 0169
          Facsimile: (510) 272 0174
          E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
                  bross@leonardcarder.com
                  egropman@leonardcarder.com

               - and -

          Peter S Rukin, Esq.
          Valerie Jean Brender, Esq.
          RUKIN HYLAND DORIA AND TINDALL LLP
          100 Pine Street Suite 2150
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 421 1800
          Facsimile: (415) 421 1700
          E-mail: prukin@rhdtlaw.com
                  vbrender@rhdtlaw.com


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: "Jones" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darrick Jones and Terrence Bridgeforth, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Fleetcor Technologies Operating Company, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-01092-TCB (N.D. Ga., Atlanta Div., April 4, 2015),
seeks to recover overtime pay, unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Defendant provides fuel cards and workforce payment products to
businesses, commercial fleets, oil companies, petroleum marketers
and government entities throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A.
          1201 Peachtree Street
          Colony Square, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: (813) 639 9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639 9376
          E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


FORD MOTOR: Judge Trims Claims in "Van" Sexual Harassment Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion for partial dismissal in the case CHRISTIE VAN,
CHARMELLA LEVIEGE, MARIA PRICE, HELEN ALLEN, JACQUELINE BARRON,
THERESA BOSAN, SHRANDA CAMPBELL, KETURAH CARTER, MICHELLE DAHN,
TONYA EXUM, JEANNETTE GARDNER, ARLENE GOFORTH, CHRISTINE HARRIS,
ORISSA HENRY, LAWANDA JORDAN, DANIELLE KUDIRKA, TERRI LEWIS-
BLEDSOE, CONSTANCE MADISON, CEPHANI MILLER, MYOSHI MORRIS,
STEPHANIE SZOT, SHIRLEY THOMAS-MOORE, ROSE THOMAS, TONI WILLIAMS,
BERNADETTE CLYBURN, MARTHA CORBIN, ANGELA GLENN, LADWYNA HOOVER,
OGERY LEDBETTER, LATRICIA SHANKLIN, ANTOINETTE SULLIVAN, DERRICKA
THOMAS, AND NICHEA WALLS, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 14 cv 8708 (N.D. Ill.)

Ford Motor Company (Ford) manufactures vehicles and employs more
than 4,000 employees at its Chicago Assembly Plant and more than
800 employees at its Chicago Stamping Plant.

Christie Van, Charmella Leviege, Maria Price, Helen Allen,
Jacqueline Barron, Theresa Bosan, Shranda Campbell, Keturah
Carter, Michelle Dahn, Tonya Exum, Jeannette Gardner, Arlene
Goforth, Christine Harris, Orissa Henry, Lawanda Jordan, Danielle
Kudirka, Terri Lewis-Bledsoe, Constance Madison, Cephani Miller,
Myoshi Morris, Stephanie Szot, Shirley Thomas-Moore, Rose Thomas,
Toni Williams, Bernadette Clyburn, Martha Corbin, Angela Glenn,
Ladwyna Hoover, Ogery Ledbetter, Latricia Shanklin, Antoinette
Sullivan, Derricka Thomas, and Nichea Walls, were employed at one
of the Chicago plants between January 1, 2012, and the present.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commision (EEOC) issued
determinations that plaintiffs Van, Leviege, Price, Allen, Barron,
Carter, Dahn, Gardner, Lewis-Bledsoe, Miller, and Williams, were
discriminated against based on their sex (female), subjected to
sexual and gender-based harassment, and retaliation while employed
at the Ford Assembly Plant in Chicago.

The EEOC also issued a determination that plaintiffs Campbell and
Exum were discriminated against based on their sex (female),
subjected to sexual and gender-based harassment, and retaliation
while employed at the Ford Stamping Plant in Chicago.

Plaintiffs filed a 123-Count First Amended Complaint on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated persons, alleging sexual
harassment and hostile work environment, gender/sex
discrimination, race discrimination, retaliation, national origin
discrimination, failure to accommodate under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, battery, assault, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. The complaint alleges that male employees and
supervisors routinely make discriminatory and harassing remarks
and gestures based on race and gender towards female Ford
employees and the company takes no action. Plaintiffs allege that
Ford maintains a pattern and practice of inferior treatment of
female employees with respect to the terms and conditions of
employment, including job assignments, harassment, training,
promotions, and overtime assignments.

In addition to the allegations of a sexually and racially charged
hostile work environment contributing to gender and race
discrimination and retaliation, the plaintiffs allege battery,
assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Ford moves to dismiss many of the allegations for failure to state
a claim, and also moves to strike the class claims.

Judge Coleman granted in part and denied in part defendant's
motion. Plaintiffs are allowed 21 days to file a second amended
complaint in accordance with the order.

A copy of Judge Coleman's memorandum opinion and order dated March
28, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/Ph3JLOfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Bradley Edwin Faber, Esq.
     Keith L. Hunt, Esq
     KEITH L. HUNT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     Three First National Plaza, Suite 2100
     Chicago, IL 60602-1373
     Telephone: 312-558-1300
     Facsimile: 312-558-9911

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Kathleen M. Nemechek
-- knemechek@berkowitzoliver.com -- Timothy Scott Millman --
tmillman@berkowitzoliver.com -- at Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw
& Eisenbrandt LLP; Eugene Scalia -- escalia@gibsondunn.com --
Thomas Michael Johnson -- tjohnson@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Karen Kies DeGrand --
karen.degrand@dbmslaw.com -- Mark Howard Boyle --
mark.boyle@dbmslaw.com -- Zach T. Bowles --
zach.bowles@dbmslaw.com -- at Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC


FREEDOM OILFIELD: Faces Suit in Tex. Court Over FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ALFORD and CODY CARROLL, Each Individually and on behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated vs. FREEDOM OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC;
and JAMES BARRON, MATTHEW EVANS, DONALD LEE GLOVIER, SAMUEL C.
HESTER andROBERT E. MOSLEY, JR., Each Individually and as Officers
of Freedom Oilfield Services, LLC, Case 5:16-cv-00331 (W.D. Tex.,
April 4, 2016), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Freedom Oilfield Services, LLC provides products and services in
the oil and gas industry, throughout the United States in those
areas in which fracking is a viable business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John Alford, Esq.
     Cody Carroll, Esq.
     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AK 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040


GROCERYWORKS.COMM LLC: Faces "Wafer" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Groceryworks.Comm LLC. The case
is captioned Cory Wafer, Rene Vorster, Jessie Vega, Robert Tucker,
Carlos Taylor, Samuel Lee Sturdivant III, Mike Schmidt, Roberto
Sanchez, Jordan Sanchez, Hugo Sanchez, Anthony Salinas, Freeman
Rudulph, Francisco Roman, Robert Rogers, Manuel Rodriguez, Marcus
Roberts, Raul Rios, Priscilla Riding, Paul Ranaldi, Angel Ramirez,
Abner Portillo, Merk Pimentel, Mark Phlegar, James Palmer, Sidney
Minor, Vance Mesa, Richard Mendez, Walter Mcduffie, Victor J.
Martin, Theodor Madrid, Daniel Lockhart, Alpheus Lockhart, Kevin
Lacounte, Gilbert Kam, Edgar Juarez, Ronald Johnson, Robert
Johnson, Timothy Heath, Teri Guidry, Randolph Glover, Paul
Gibbons, Mike Garcia, Glenn Ganjai, Charles Froehlich, Ashly
Cullumber, Patrick Coyne, Raymond Cortez, Jon Chastain, Phillip
Casillas, Richard Burrise, Mitchell Brown, Lawrence Botelho, and
Joel Alvarez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated and the general public, the Plaintiffs, v.
Groceryworks.Comm LLC, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. CGC 16 551271 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 4,
2016).

GroceryWorks.com offers online grocery retail services. It retails
food and groceries, including fresh produce, meat and poultry, and
other perishables to supermarkets. The company was incorporated in
1998 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. It has additional
offices in Fort Worth and Houston. As of Oct. 3, 2006,
GroceryWorks.com, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Safeway Inc.


GUAM: Must Defend Against Alleged Land-Grabbing Suit, Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Fillmore, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that ancestral landowners in Guam who claim they were never fully
compensated for property confiscated during World War II will have
their day in court, a federal judge has ruled.

Guam is an unincorporated U.S. territory in the Western Pacific
Ocean, and is the largest of the Marianas Islands. The Japanese
occupied the area before the United States regained control of the
islands during World War II.

The U.S. Navy condemned and converted large sections of the island
into military bases where the Antonio Won Pat International
Airport now sits. The land the airport occupies was appraised at
$51.2 million in 2000, making it some of the most valuable
property in Guam, according to lead plaintiff Vicente Palacios
Crawford.

And in 2012 alone, the Airport Authority reported it received
$66.5 million in revenues, $52.5 million from airport operating
income, Crawford says in his federal class action. He believes
that rather than making money on rent, the Guamanian government
should either return the properties to their rightful ancestral
owners or properly compensate them.

Guam Gov. Eddie Baza Calvo and the Guam Ancestral Homelands
Commission chair Anita Orlino moved to dismiss the class action,
arguing that the matter lies outside Federal Court jurisdiction
due to Guam's sovereign immunity from contract and unjust
enrichment claims and that Crawford's ancestor had already been
compensated for his property.

U.S. District Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood rejected
both arguments from the bench and in a written ruling issued March
31. As for Guam's sovereign immunity, Tydingco-Gatewood found that
the Ancestral Homelands Commission's process allows for judicial
involvement when disputes over land cannot be resolved in another
way - thus waiving sovereign immunity in this instance.

The judge also found that Crawford has gone as far as he can to
exhaust the administrative remedies regarding his civil rights
claims, since the commission has never established the necessary
rules to make payments for land that has been taken.

And Tydingco-Gatewood rejected Guam's argument that because
Crawford's mother had already received payment for the parcel -
$8,340 in 1951 by the Naval Government of Guam, and an additional
$71,227.22 through a federal claims procedure in 1993 - the issue
has already been litigated and resolved.

Later court cases found that ancestral landowners that received
payments were paid less than market value. Furthermore, Guamanian
law specifically "preserves the rights of landowners to sue for
compensation in exchange for their ancestral claim being
extinguished," Tydingco-Gatewood wrote in rejecting both the res
judicata and statute of limitations arguments.

The issue of payments for ancestral land takings has been an
ongoing issue on Guam.

Despite several legislative efforts and the creation of the Tinyan
Trust "to set aside all net income derived from Tinyan into a
trust for the benefit of the original owners of the property,"
various lawsuits and court injunctions have prevented the
disbursement of any money-except $470,000 to the Guam Economic
Development Authority for administering the trust from October
2001-May 2014.

In a previous unsuccessful motion opposing class certification,
Attorney General David Highsmith suggested plaintiff Crawford
should wait patiently for his share of the trust, and called his
suit for a portion of Airport revenues "pie in the sky."

The case captioned, VICENTE PALACIOS CRAWFORD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. ANTONIO
B. WON PAT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, GUAM; EDWARD G.
UNTALAN, EDDIE BAZA CALVO, and ANITA F. ORLINO, all in their
official capacities only; and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants., CIVIL
CASE NO. 15-00001 (D. Guam).


HAMPTON CREEK: Judge Narrows Claims in "Duran" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, granted in part and denied in
part defendant's motion to dismiss in the case DANIEL DURAN,
Plaintiff, v. HAMPTON CREEK, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-05497-LB
(N.D. Cal.)

Daniel Duran purchased one or more units of Just Mayo, which is
produced by Hampton Creek (Hampton). Before he bought Just Mayo,
he was exposed to and saw Hampton's claims, and bought the product
in reliance on them.

Duran allege that the product has a front label with the words
"Just Mayo" and an image of an egg, but the product does not
contain eggs. On behalf of himself and other consumers, Duran sued
Hampton, claiming that its label misrepresents what the product is
because mayo is mayonnaise, which as commonly understood and
defined by FDA regulations is a product that contains eggs.

Duran brought claims under the three deceptive advertising under
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, deceptive practices under
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Sections
1750-84 and unfair business practices under the Unfair Competition
Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200-08. He also
brought claims for common-law fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. He seeks an
injunction under the statutes to prevent further marketing of
products as mayo or mayonnaise when the products do not meet the
FDA's definition of mayonnaise.

Hampton moves to dismiss the complaint arguing that the claims
sound in fraud, and the plaintiff did not plead fraud with
particularity because he did not specify what he bought or the
misrepresentations that he relied on. It also argues that the
plaintiff lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief because he
knows now that the products do not have eggs and thus can no
longer suffer adverse effects. It also asserts that the plaintiff
did not comply with the CLRA's 30-day statutory notice
requirement.

Magistrate Judge Beeler granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion to dismiss. The court denies the motion to
dismiss the claims for failure to plead fraud with particularity.
The court grants the motion to dismiss the claims to the extent
that they seek injunctive relief and gives leave to amend within
21 days from the date of the order.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Beeler's order dated March 28, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/CYuhnRfrom Leagle.com.

Daniel Duran, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Ann DeSario --
mdesario@scalaw.com -- at Scott Cole & Associates, APC

Hampton Creek, Defendant, represented by Raoul Dion Kennedy --
raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- Angela Cecily Colt --
angela.colt@skadden.com -- James Patrick Schaefer --
james.schaefer@skadden.com -- Kenneth A. Plevan --
kenneth.plevan@skadden.com -- at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
LLP


HILL BROTHERS: Judge Narrows Claims in Employees' ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hill Brothers Construction Company (HBC) was incorporated by
four individuals to perform road and bridge construction on
federal, state, and local roads. It then created the Hill Brothers
Construction Company, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and
401(k) Plan and Trust for HBC employees (ESOP). Under that plan,
employees who are at least twenty-one years of age with 1,000 or
more hours worked were eligible to invest in Company Stock
purchased from the four shareholders, namely Kenneth W. Hill, Sr.,
Gerald Hill, John F. Hill, Jr., and Clyde Robertson. The ESOP held
at least 49% of all company Stock, with promissory notes
outstanding for the remaining 51%.

In October of 2012, the plan participants received official
written notice that the value of their retirement investment was
approximately $19.8 million. HBC was valued by an outside
evaluator at $16 million in early 2013. Within six months,
however, HBC had ceased operations. On June 18, 2013, HBC
employees were notified that their retirement savings amounted to
zero.

Fifteen plaintiffs brought suit against the defendants under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Section
1001 et seq., on behalf of themselves and current and former Plan
participants whose individual accounts held shares of HBC common
stock from December 31, 2006 to present.  Plaintiffs believe there
to be approximately 787 potential class members.

Plaintiffs' third amended complaint charges three counts:

     1. breach of fiduciary duties by all Defendants for failing
        to manage the Plan's assets prudently and loyally.

     2. breach of the fiduciary duty to monitor other fiduciaries
        adequately and provide them with accurate information.

     3. breach of fiduciary duty by theft of corporate
        opportunity.

Defendants Clyde R. Robertson and Kenneth W. Hill, Jr., have filed
motions to dismiss.  They contend that application of the United
States Supreme Court's recent iteration of an alternative action
pleading standard requires dismissal of plaintiffs' duty of
prudence claims.

District Judge Sharion Aycock of the Northern District of
Mississippi, Oxford Division, granted Clyde R. Robertson's partial
motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part Kenneth
W. Hill's motion to dismiss.

"The Court finds that the Supreme Court's statement of the
standard for duty of prudence claims is applicable to this case,"
Judge Aycock said. "Plaintiff has not pled an alternative action
the fiduciaries could have taken that a prudent fiduciary in the
same situation would not have viewed as more likely to harm the
fund than to help it. Moreover, Plaintiffs failed to plead a
causal connection between the alleged breach of the duty of
prudence and the losses that occurred. Therefore, Plaintiffs have
failed to state a claim for breach of the duty of prudence, and
Counts I and II of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint are
dismissed. Plaintiffs' Count III survives at this stage of the
proceedings."

A copy of Judge Aycock's memorandum opinion dated March 28, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/FF3t5Mfrom Leagle.com.

The case is, ROBERT K. HILL, DONALD BLYTHER, SANDY BLYTHER, KEITH
CLARK, SAMUEL COPELAND, B.T. ERVE, PERCY EVANS, GEORGE FLAKES,
SCOTT GOOLSBY, SHEILA KELLY, PAUL LEONARD, FRED SMITH, DEWAYNE
TOLLIER, ULYSSES WILEY, and WARFLOYD WINTERS, Individually and on
Behalf of Themselves, and on Behalf of a Class of Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. HILL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC., HBC BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KENNETH W. HILL, KENNETH W.
HILL, JR., GERALD C. HILL, JIMMY HILL, JOHN F. HILL, JR., STERLING
AKER, DANNY MCALISTER, CLYDE R. ROBERTSON, DONALD BATES, JANE H.
CHILDS, BETH LOCKHART, MARK ROBERTSON, DOUG HORTON, DAVID HORTON,
THE HILL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK
OWNERSHIP AND 401(K) PLAN AND TRUST PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE,
and THE PEOPLES BANK, Defendants, Cause No. 3:14CV213-SA-SAA
(N.D. Miss.)

Robert K. Hill, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse-
Zimmermann -- fuli@zarzaur.com -- ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE, pro
hac vice, Edgar C. Gentle, III -- escrowagen@aol.com -- GENTLE
TURNER SEXTON DEBROSSE & HARBISON, pro hac vice, Matthew Yarbrough
Harris, The Law Offices of Matthew Y. Harris, PLLC & Sterling L.
DeRamus -- sderamus@deramuslaw.com -- STERLING L. DERAMUS,
ATTORNEY, pro hac vice

Donald Byther, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse-
Zimmermann, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE, pro hac vice, Edgar C.
Gentle, III, GENTLE TURNER SEXTON DEBROSSE & HARBISON, pro hac
vice, Matthew Yarbrough Harris, The Law Offices of Matthew Y.
Harris, PLLC & Sterling L. DeRamus, STERLING L. DERAMUS, ATTORNEY,
pro hac vice

Sandy Byther, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse-
Zimmermann, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE, pro hac vice, Edgar C.
Gentle, III, GENTLE TURNER SEXTON DEBROSSE & HARBISON, pro hac
vice, Matthew Yarbrough Harris, The Law Offices of Matthew Y.
Harris, PLLC & Sterling L. DeRamus, STERLING L. DERAMUS, ATTORNEY,
pro hac vice

Keith Clark, Plaintiff, represented by Laurance Nicholas Chandler
Rogers, ROGERS LAW GROUP, P.A.

Samuel Copeland, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse-
Zimmermann, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE, pro hac vice, Edgar C.
Gentle, III, GENTLE TURNER SEXTON DEBROSSE & HARBISON, pro hac
vice, Matthew Yarbrough Harris, The Law Offices of Matthew Y.
Harris, PLLC & Sterling L. DeRamus, STERLING L. DERAMUS, ATTORNEY,
pro hac vice

B. T. Erve, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse-
Zimmermann, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE, pro hac vice, Edgar C.
Gentle, III, GENTLE TURNER SEXTON DEBROSSE & HARBISON, pro hac
vice, Matthew Yarbrough Harris, The Law Offices of Matthew Y.
Harris, PLLC & Sterling L. DeRamus, STERLING L. DERAMUS, ATTORNEY,
pro hac vice

Percy Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse-
Zimmermann, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE, pro hac vice, Edgar C.
Gentle, III, GENTLE TURNER SEXTON DEBROSSE & HARBISON, pro hac
vice, Matthew Yarbrough Harris, The Law Offices of Matthew Y.
Harris, PLLC & Sterling L. DeRamus, STERLING L. DERAMUS, ATTORNEY,
pro hac vice

George Flakes, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse-
Zimmermann, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE, pro hac vice, Edgar C.
Gentle, III, GENTLE TURNER SEXTON DEBROSSE & HARBISON, pro hac
vice, Matthew Yarbrough Harris, The Law Offices of Matthew Y.
Harris, PLLC & Sterling L. DeRamus, STERLING L. DERAMUS, ATTORNEY,
pro hac vice

Scott Goolsby, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse-
Zimmermann, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE, pro hac vice, Edgar C.
Gentle, III, GENTLE TURNER SEXTON DEBROSSE & HARBISON, pro hac
vice, Matthew Yarbrough Harris, The Law Offices of Matthew Y.
Harris, PLLC & Sterling L. DeRamus, STERLING L. DERAMUS, ATTORNEY,
pro hac vice

Sheila Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse-
Zimmermann, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE, pro hac vice, Edgar C.
Gentle, III, GENTLE TURNER SEXTON DEBROSSE & HARBISON, pro hac
vice, Matthew Yarbrough Harris, The Law Offices of Matthew Y.
Harris, PLLC & Sterling L. DeRamus, STERLING L. DERAMUS, ATTORNEY,
pro hac vice

Paul Leonard, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse-
Zimmermann, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE, pro hac vice, Edgar C.
Gentle, III, GENTLE TURNER SEXTON DEBROSSE & HARBISON, pro hac
vice, Matthew Yarbrough Harris, The Law Offices of Matthew Y.
Harris, PLLC & Sterling L. DeRamus, STERLING L. DERAMUS, ATTORNEY,
pro hac vice

Fred Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse-
Zimmermann, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE, pro hac vice, Edgar C.
Gentle, III, GENTLE TURNER SEXTON DEBROSSE & HARBISON, pro hac
vice, Matthew Yarbrough Harris, The Law Offices of Matthew Y.
Harris, PLLC & Sterling L. DeRamus, STERLING L. DERAMUS, ATTORNEY,
pro hac vice

Dewayne Tolliver, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse-
Zimmermann, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE, pro hac vice, Edgar C.
Gentle, III, GENTLE TURNER SEXTON DEBROSSE & HARBISON, pro hac
vice, Matthew Yarbrough Harris, The Law Offices of Matthew Y.
Harris, PLLC & Sterling L. DeRamus, STERLING L. DERAMUS, ATTORNEY,
pro hac vice

Ulysses Wiley, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse-
Zimmermann, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE, pro hac vice, Edgar C.
Gentle, III, GENTLE TURNER SEXTON DEBROSSE & HARBISON, pro hac
vice, Matthew Yarbrough Harris, The Law Offices of Matthew Y.
Harris, PLLC & Sterling L. DeRamus, STERLING L. DERAMUS, ATTORNEY,
pro hac vice

Warfloyd Winters, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse-
Zimmermann, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE, pro hac vice, Edgar C.
Gentle, III, GENTLE TURNER SEXTON DEBROSSE & HARBISON, pro hac
vice, Matthew Yarbrough Harris, The Law Offices of Matthew Y.
Harris, PLLC & Sterling L. DeRamus, STERLING L. DERAMUS, ATTORNEY,
pro hac vice

Kenneth W. Hill, Defendant, represented by Ralph E. Chapman --
ralph@chapman-lewis-swan.com -- CHAPMAN, LEWIS & SWAN & William B.
Raiford, III, MERKEL & COCKE

Gerald C. Hill, Defendant, represented by Hal S. Spragins --
hspragins@hickmanlaw.com -- HICKMAN, GOZA & SPRAGINS, PLLC &
Lawrence John Tucker, Jr., HICKMAN, GOZA & SPRAGINS, PLLC

Sterling Aker, Defendant, represented by:

     Kenneth H. Coghlan, Esq.
     RAYBURN COGHLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
     115 Courthouse Square
     Oxford, MS 38655
     Tel: 662-234-1400

Clyde R. Robertson, Defendant, represented by John Samuel Hill,
MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS & Guy W. Mitchell, III, MITCHELL, MCNUTT &
SAMS

The Hill Brothers Construction Company Inc. Employee Stock
Ownership and 401(K) Plan and Trust Plan Administrative Committee,
Defendant, represented by Kenneth H. Coghlan, RAYBURN COGHLAN LAW
FIRM, PLLC

Kenneth Hill, Jr., Defendant, represented by John Booth Farese,
FARESE, FARESE & FARESE

John F. Hill, Jr., Defendant, represented by Hal S. Spragins,
HICKMAN, GOZA & SPRAGINS, PLLC &Lawrence John Tucker, Jr.,
HICKMAN, GOZA & SPRAGINS, PLLC

Danny McAlister, Defendant, represented by Kenneth H. Coghlan,
RAYBURN COGHLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC

Donald Bates, Defendant, represented by Kenneth H. Coghlan,
RAYBURN COGHLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC

Jane Childs, Defendant, represented by Kenneth H. Coghlan, RAYBURN
COGHLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC

Beth Lockhart, Defendant, represented by Kenneth H. Coghlan,
RAYBURN COGHLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC

Mark Robertson, Defendant, represented by Kenneth H. Coghlan,
RAYBURN COGHLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC

Doug Horton, Defendant, represented by Kenneth H. Coghlan, RAYBURN
COGHLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC

David Horton, Defendant, represented by Kenneth H. Coghlan,
RAYBURN COGHLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Three Invokana Suits in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that Johnson &
Johnson faces allegations in a pair of suits filed March 30 that
users of its popular diabetes drug, Invokana, develop kidney
damage and heart disease.

The latest filings bring the number of Invokana suits filed in
federal court in New Jersey to three.  Another case making similar
claims was filed in November 2015.

The three suits all name Johnson & Johnson as well as its Janssen
Pharmaceuticals division and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp. as
defendants.  The drug was developed by Mitsubishi Tanabe and is
marketed by Janssen under a licensing agreement.

The latest suits include a claim on behalf of Cornelius Benjamin,
a South Carolina resident who allegedly suffered a stroke and
kidney damage after he was prescribed Invokana for diabetes,
according to court papers.  He died in June 2013, two months after
he began taking Invokana, the suit claims.

The plaintiff in the other suit, Alabama resident Robert
Partington, allegedly took the drug for 19 months before
developing kidney damage, according to court papers.

Both suits claim that the defendants failed to warn the plaintiffs
of potential side effects of Invokana.

Mr. Partington's suit includes claims for failure to warn,
defective manufacturing, breach of express warranty, breach of
warranty of fitness for everyday use, negligence, breach of
implied warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and fraud.  The suit
seeks punitive damages as well as pain and suffering and non-
economic damages for increased risk of future complications.  The
Benjamin case brings similar claims but also includes counts for
wrongful death and for a survivor action.

Christopher Seeger -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- of Seeger Weiss
in Newark filed the Partington and Benjamin cases.

In the suit filed in 2015, Texas resident Maria Puente claims she
suffered kidney damage and a potentially fatal condition called
diabetic ketoacidosis as a result of taking the drug.  The
defendants have not filed an answer yet in the Puente case.

Other suits by Invokana users are pending in federal court in
Alabama, in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia and in
Ontario, Canada.

Invokana was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in
2013 for treatment of Type 2 diabetes.  The drug prevents the body
from metabolizing excess glucose by directing it to be excreted
through the kidneys, according to court papers.  An analysis of
incidents reported to the FDA shows patients taking Invokana for
diabetes are several times more likely to report kidney disease
than those taking other types of diabetes treatment, the
complaints allege.

The suits claim the defendants fraudulently and intentionally
concealed the drug's problems from users, and that the facts that
were concealed were material to a reasonable person who was
deciding whether or not to use the drug.

Invokana is one of Johnson & Johnson's top-selling drugs, with
sales of $278 million in the first quarter of 2015, according to
court papers.

Mr. Seeger did not return a call about his Invokana cases.  Nor
did Ms. Puente's attorney, Michael London --
mlondon@douglasandlondon.com -- of Douglas & London in
New York.  Johnson & Johnson also did not immediately respond to a
request for comment about the Invokana litigation.

A statement from Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Kaitlin Meiser
said: "Invokana is an important medicine used along with diet and
exercise to lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. With
real world experience that includes more than five million
prescriptions to date, we are confident in the overall safety
profile of Invokana.  The company remains committed to
aggressively defending against allegations made in these
lawsuits."


JPMORGAN CHASE: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of RMBS Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the
Appellate Division, First Department, has upheld the dismissal of
two cases stemming from the 2008 financial crisis.

The plaintiff's failure to make a pre-suit demand of JPMorgan's
board of directors doomed a derivative action brought by a pension
fund that lost money on JPMorgan stock, a unanimous panel ruled in
Asbestos Workers Philadelphia Pension Fund v. Bell, 652020/13.

In a separate ruling, the appeals court established an accrual
date for common-law fraud and aiding and abetting claims brought
against issuers of mortgage-backed securities.  A unanimous panel
in Aozora Bank v. Deutsche Bank Securities, 652161/13, said the
April 2011 publication of a Senate report on the financial crisis
put potential plaintiffs on "inquiry notice" that they had been
fraud victims, triggering a two-year statute of limitations.
In Bell, the court said the plaintiffs had not established that
"at the time the complaint was filed, the board of directors could
not have properly exercised its independent and disinterested
business judgment," which excuses the pre-suit demand obligation.

The pension fund had alleged the individual directors were
responsible for the bank's share decline because they failed to
heed warning signs and direct bank executives to cease packaging
and selling residential mortgage-backed securities, known as RMBS,
as the financial crisis began.

"Plaintiffs allege that the board's actions were intended to make
JP Morgan appear more financially secure than it actually was in
the short run, all the while knowing that the substantial losses
(in the billions of dollars) would subsequently be realized by
JPMorgan, based upon repurchase obligations and other lawsuits by
the government and RMBS investors," the panel said in an unsigned
opinion.

Under Delaware law, which controlled because JPMorgan is
incorporated there, the pre-suit demand requirement can be excused
only if such a demand would have been futile, the panel said.

Joining in the opinion, which affirmed the June 2014 dismissal of
the case by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Charles Ramos, were
Justices David Friedman, Richard Andrias, Judith Gische and
Barbara Kapnick.

Barrack, Rodos, & Bacine partner Alexander Gershon --
agershon@barrack.com -- represented the plaintiff.
Stuart Baskin -- sbaskin@shearman.com -- a partner at Shearman &
Sterling, argued for certain JPMorgan directors. Debevoise &
Plimpton partner Gary Kubek -- gwkubek@debevoise.com --
represented the company and other named officers and directors.
The attorneys either did not wish to be quoted or did not respond
to requests for comment.

In Aozora, the court declared that the plaintiff, a Japanese bank
that lost all of its $30 million investment in a Deutsche Bank-
issued RMBS, should have discovered the alleged fraud "in the
exercise of reasonable diligence."

Although the Senate report, entitled "Wall Street and the
Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse," did not
mention the particular collateralized debt obligation, or CDO,
Aozora purchased one called Blue Edge, a chapter was devoted to
Deutsche Bank's role in packaging and selling RMBS and CDO
products.

Since Aozora began its case in January 2014, its suit was time
barred under CPLR 213(8), which requires fraud claims to commence
within two years of when the plaintiff discovered the fraud or
could have discovered it with reasonable diligence.

Aozora should have begun its fraud investigation in 2008, the
panel said, noting Blue Edge was downgraded to junk status that
year.

Also, "there was considerable publicity about the subprime
mortgage crisis from news reports, investor lawsuits and
government investigations well before June 2011," the panel noted
in an unsigned opinion. "Indeed, by April 2011, defendants had
been sued multiple times in connection with RMBS and CDOs."


JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Rules in Dispute v. Ex-WaMu Branch Managers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2008, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and JPMorgan Chase &
Co.'s (Chase) acquired certain assets and liabilities of
Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) from the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC).  Tiffany Reid, Jorge Navarrete, Maryana
Grattan, and Bree Jones each worked for Chase as an Assistant
Branch Manager (ABM) after Chase acquired WaMu's assets and
liabilities.  Ms. Jones worked as and ABM in Washington, Ms. Reid
in Florida, and Mr. Navarrete and Ms. Grattan in York.  They all
signed a binding arbitration agreement (BAA) with WaMu.

Ms. Reid submitted a letter to Chase's counsel on May 7, 2015
invoking arbitration pursuant to her BAA with WaMu.  Ms. Reid
brought claims that Chase violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) by not paying her overtime during her time as an ABM.

On May 19, 2015, Ms. Reid indicated that she intended to prosecute
her claims on a representative basis on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated. On June 4, 2015, Ms. Reid mailed
another letter addressed to WaMu's general counsel, this time
listing all of the defendants as claimants and indicating a desire
to collectively arbitrate their claims as well as those of others.

Chase responded on June 11, 2015, indicating that the defendants
were in breach of the arbitration agreements by attempting to
proceed collectively. Chase requested that the defendants agree to
individual arbitration in the states where they worked for Chase.

After the case was filed, defendants indicated that they wished to
join in Taylor, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No.
15-cv-3023 (S.D.N.Y.). Chase pressed on to enforce the arbitration
agreements against the defendants. At the same time, defendants
requested that the court dismiss the action, largely because they
have opted into the Taylor class action.

District Judge Richard A. Jones of the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration, and granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.

Chase's motion to compel arbitration is granted as to Ms. Jones in
its entirety. Ms. Jones must pursue her individual claims in
arbitration on a nonclass and non-collective basis in Washington
State in accordance with the terms of the Binding Arbitration
Agreement. Chase's motion to compel arbitration is denied as to
Ms. Reid, Mr. Navarette, and Ms. Grattan.

Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted insofar as the court does
not have personal jurisdiction over the out of State defendants.
As such, Chase's claims against Ms. Reid, Mr. Navarrete, and Ms.
Grattan are dismissed and defendants' motion to dismiss is denied
on all other grounds.

A copy of Judge Jones's order dated March 28, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/ngXyWjfrom Leagle.com.

The case is, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
BREE JONES, et al., Defendants, Case No. C15-1176RAJ (W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiffs, represented by Erin M Wilson --
wilsonem@lanepowell.com -- Sarah E Swale -- swales@lanepowell.com
-- at LANE POWELL PC; Samuel S Shaulson --
sam.shaulson@morganlewis.com -- Thomas A Linthorst --
thomas.linthorst@morganlewis.com -- at MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS

Defendants, represented by Alan L Quiles -- aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
-- Gregg I Shavitz -- gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com -- Michael Palitz --
mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com -- at SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.; Adrienne
McEntee -- amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- Beth E Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- at TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Faces "Winner" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.
The case is captioned Lynne Winner and Destiny Jennings, on their
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01541-JP (E.D. Penn., Philadelphia, April 4, 2016).

Kohl's operates department stores in the United States. It offers
apparel, footwear, accessories, and home products to middle-income
customers. The company was incorporated in 1986 and is based in
Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Kohl's Corp.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          WILTON, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653 2250
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Plaintiffs Claim are Already Time Barred
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Wendy Beetlestone of Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to dismiss in the case JENNIFER GORDON, VALERIE TANTLINGER and
JENNIFER UNDERWOOD, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated Plaintiffs, v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.
and CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Civil Action
No. 15-730 (E.D. Pa.)

Kohl's Department Stores (Kohl's) is a Wisconsin-based department
store chain, with over one thousand stores throughout the United
States, as well as multiple websites on which customers may shop
for merchandise. Capital One, National Association (Capital One)
is one of the 10 largest banks in the United States, based on
deposits, with approximately $204 billion in deposits and $300
billion in total assets.

Pursuant to a Private Label Credit Card Program Agreement Kohl's
markets the cards to their customers and services the cards on
behalf of Capital One. It is, however, Capital One which issues
the cards and with which customers enter into a card member
agreement.

Plaintiffs Jennifer Gordon, Valerie Tantlinger, and Jennifer
Underwood allege that defendants Kohl's and Capital One improperly
charged them for two enhancement products namely the Kohl's
Account Ease (KAE) and PrivacyGuard to their Kohl's-branded credit
card accounts.

KAE is a product that purports to cancel a consumer's account
balance, up to a certain dollar amount, in the event of a
qualifying event due to involuntary employment, disability,
hospitalization or death. The fee for KAE is $1.60 per each $100
of a customer's ending monthly balance. PrivacyGuard is a product
which purports to provide customers with credit monitoring and
credit report retrieval services in exchange for a monthly fee of
$14.99.

Plaintiffs claim that they were enrolled in the programs without
authorization and that the programs had little or no value.
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint asserts claims for unjust
enrichment and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims in their entirety.

Judge Bettlestone granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Beetlestone's opinion dated March 28, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/5M7iGlfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by CHARLES J. KOCHER -- ckocher@smbb.com
-- PATRICK HOWARD -- phoward@smbb.com -- at SALTZ MONGELUZZI
BARRETT & BENDESKY PC; LEE S. SHALOV --
lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com -- WADE C. WILKINSON --
wwilkinson@mclaughlinstern.com -- at MCLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP;
ANGELA EDWARDS -- at LAW OFFICE OF ANGELA EDWARDS

KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., Defendant, represented by MARTIN
C. BRYCE, JR. -- bryce@ballardspahr.com -- DANIEL J.T. MCKENNA --
mckennad@ballardspahr.com -- JOSEPH J. SCHUSTER --
schusterj@ballardspahr.com -- SARAH SCHINDLER-WILLIAMS --
schindlerwilliamss@ballardspahr.com -- at BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS
AND INGERSOLL, L.L.P.

CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented by
MARTIN C. BRYCE, JR. -- bryce@ballardspahr.com -- DANIEL J.T.
MCKENNA -- mckennad@ballardspahr.com -- at BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS
AND INGERSOLL, L.L.P.


KRAFT HEINZ: Faces "Randolph" Class Action in S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Kraft Heinz Foods Company. The
case is captioned Melissa Leigh Randolph, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kraft Heinz Foods
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-80511-DMM (S.D. Fla.,
(West Palm Beach), April 4, 2016). The assigned Presiding Judge is
Donald M. Middlebrooks.

Kraft Heinz Foods produces and markets food products in the United
States and internationally. It offers ketchups, sauces,
condiments, tomato products, and pasta sauces under Heinz, Lea &
Perrins, Quero, Classico, ABC, Master, and Pudliszki brand names;
and tomato and vegetable-based snacks, prepared meals, frozen
potatoes, frozen snacks and entrees, and other products under the
brand names of Heinz, Quero, ABC, Ore-Ida, Bagel Bites, T.G.I.
Friday's, Smart Ones, and Weight Watchers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Grey Tesh, Esq.
          515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite P300
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 600 4166
          Facsimile: (561) 697 8317
          E-mail: gt@greytesh.com

               - and -

          William Charles Wright, Esq.
          WRIGHT LAW OFFICE
          301 Clematis Street, Suite 3000
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 514 0904
          Facsimile: (561) 514 0905
          E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com


KS WORLD: Violated California Labor Code, "Hall" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Hall, Saya Kadota, and Maho Kazuoka, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KS
World, Inc., dba Shin-Sen-Gumi, Shigeta America, Inc., dba Shin-
Sen-Gumi, Mitsuyasu Shigeta, and Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case
No. BC615746 (S.D. Fla., Cal. Super. Ct. - Los Angeles Cty., April
4, 2016), seeks to recover economic damages, liquidated damages,
minimum wage, and pre-judgment interest, punitive damages, and
reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to the California Labor Code
(CLC).

KS World operates a Japanese restaurant chain serving charcoal-
grilled yakitori, plus sushi, udon & ramen.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Cohen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT W. COHEN
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 282 7586
          Facsimile: (310) 282 7589
          E-mail: rwc@robertcohenlaw.com


LAR-BEV OF HOWELL: Judge Declines to Exercise Authority to Stay
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sean F. Cox of the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division denied defendants' motion for continued stay
proceedings in the case Shari Machesney, Plaintiff, v. Lar-Bev of
Howell, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 10-10085 (E.D. Mich.)

The cases of Machesney v. Lar-Bev of Howell, Inc., et al.(Case No.
10-10085) (Machesney), APB Associates, Inc. v. Bronco's Saloon,
Inc., et al. (Case No. 09-14959) (APB Associates) and Compressors
Engineering Corp. v. Manufacturers Financial Corp. et al. (Case
No. 09-14444) (Compressors Engineering) were assigned to the
present court.

All three cases were filed by the same plaintiff's counsel and
assert claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA).

The court initially dismissed each of the cases for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because, at the time, there was an
unpublished Sixth Circuit decision holding that state courts'
maintenance of exclusive jurisdiction over private rights of
action under the TCPA and federal courts' concomitant lack of
jurisdiction to hear such private claims are well-settled.

Plaintiffs appealed in all three cases and ultimately ruled upon
by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that federal-
question jurisdiction does exist.

Upon remand, each of the three cases proceeded to discovery,
proceeding along similar scheduling orders. The court denied
motions for class certification in each of the cases. Each of the
three cases proceeded with respect to the named Plaintiff's
individual claims.

The defendants in each of the three cases later filed motions,
asking the court to dismiss the case as moot because defendants
had made an offer of judgment that provided each of the named
plaintiffs with all the relief that they could potentially obtain
if they prevailed at trial. The court ultimately granted the
motions, based upon the Sixth Circuit's position regarding the
mootness-by-unaccepted-offer-of-judgment theory.

Plaintiffs filed motions in each case asking the court to vacate
the judgments and reconsider class certification in each case. At
a September 17, 2015 hearing on the motions, counsel for the
parties agreed that, given that the United States Supreme Court
was scheduled to hear a case that would resolve a circuit split on
the viability of the mootness by-unaccepted-offer-of-judgment
theory in October of 2015, it would be best for the court to take
the motions under advisement until there was a ruling in that
case, which the court agreed.

On January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in
Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez on January 20, 2016, ruling that an
unaccepted offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case.

APB Associates and Machnesney filed a motion asking the court to
stay the action until the Supreme Court issues a decision in
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339.  Judge Cox denied the motion
for stay.  A copy of Judge Cox's order dated March 17, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/q1Qy0ffrom Leagle.com.

Shari Machesney, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Wanca --
BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Ryan M. Kelly --
RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- at Anderson & Wanca; Daniel J. Cohen
--  Phillip A. Bock -- phil@bockhatchllc.com -- Tod A. Lewis --
tod@bockhatchllc.com -- at Bock & Hatch; Jason J. Thompson --
jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C.

Defendants, represented by Jason R. Mathers --
jmathers@harveykruse.com -- John R. Prew -- jprew@harveykruse.com
-- Larry W. Davidson -- ldavidson@harveykruse.com -- at Harvey
Kruse


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Ellis" Suit Over Chinese Flooring
------------------------------------------------------------
Evangeline Ellis, Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability corporation, Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-01766, (E.D. La., March 1, 2016), seeks damages and injunctive
relief arising from and relating to the purchase and installation
of Lumber Liquidators' laminate and engineered wood flooring
materials manufactured in China.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants import into the United States,
and deceptively warrant, advertise, and sell Chinese Flooring that
fails to comply with relevant formaldehyde standards applicable to
such products.

Lumber Liquidators is a retailer of hardwood flooring in the
United States, with more than 360 stores in 46 states and annual
revenues of more than one billion dollars.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Russ M. Herman, Esq.
     Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
     Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
     HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
     820 O'Keefe Ave.
     New Orleans, LA 70113
     Tel: (504) 581-4892
     Fax: (504) 561-6024
     Email: rherman@hhklawfirm.com
            ldavis@hhklawfirm.com
            sherman@hhklawfirm.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Guidry" Suit Over Chinese Flooring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Guidry and Barbara Guidry, Plaintiffs, v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Lumber Liquidators
Leasing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, Lumber
Liquidators Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Lumber
Liquidators Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-00284, (W.D. La., March
1, 2016), seeks damages and injunctive relief arising from and
relating to the purchase and installation of Lumber Liquidators'
laminate and engineered wood flooring materials manufactured in
China.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants import into the United States,
and deceptively warrant, advertise, and sell Chinese Flooring that
fails to comply with relevant formaldehyde standards applicable to
those products.

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

Lumber Liquidators is a retailer of hardwood flooring in the
United States, with more than 360 stores in 46 states and annual
revenues of more than one billion dollars.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Russ M. Herman, Esq.
     Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
     Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
     HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
     820 O'Keefe Ave.
     New Orleans, LA 70113
     Tel: (504) 581-4892
     Fax: (504) 561-6024
     Email: rherman@hhklawfirm.com
            ldavis@hhklawfirm.com
            sherman@hhklawfirm.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Chinese Flooring
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fannie Jackson and Mark Jackson, Plaintiffs, v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Lumber Liquidators
Leasing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, Lumber
Liquidators Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Lumber
Liquidators Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01768, (E.D. La., March
1, 2016), seeks damages and injunctive relief arising from and
relating to the purchase and installation of Lumber Liquidators'
laminate and engineered wood flooring materials manufactured in
China.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants import into the United
States, and deceptively warrant, advertise, and sell Chinese
Flooring that fails to comply with relevant formaldehyde standards
applicable to those products.

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

Lumber Liquidators is a retailer of hardwood flooring in the
United States, with more than 360 stores in 46 states and annual
revenues of more than one billion dollars.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Russ M. Herman, Esq.
     Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
     Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
     HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
     820 O'Keefe Ave.
     New Orleans, LA 70113
     Tel: (504) 581-4892
     Fax: (504) 561-6024
     Email: rherman@hhklawfirm.com
            ldavis@hhklawfirm.com
            sherman@hhklawfirm.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Flooring Emits Formaldehyde, "McDonald" Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik & Kari McDonald, Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability corporation, Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-01763, (E.D. La., March 1, 2016), seeks and injunctive relief
arising from and relating to the purchase and installation of
Lumber Liquidators' laminate and engineered wood flooring
materials manufactured in China.  Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants import into the United States, and deceptively warrant,
advertise, and sell Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with
relevant formaldehyde standards applicable to those products.

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

Lumber Liquidators is a retailer of hardwood flooring in the
United States, with more than 360 stores in 46 states and annual
revenues of more than one billion dollars.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Russ M. Herman, Esq.
     Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
     Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
     HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
     820 O'Keefe Ave.
     New Orleans, LA 70113
     Tel: (504) 581-4892
     Fax: (504) 561-6024
     Email: rherman@hhklawfirm.com
            ldavis@hhklawfirm.com
            sherman@hhklawfirm.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Schneider" Suit Says Flooring Emits Gas
------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Schneider, Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability corporation, Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-01767, (E.D. La., March 1, 2016), seeks damages and injunctive
relief arising from and relating to the purchase and installation
of Lumber Liquidators' laminate and engineered wood flooring
materials manufactured in China.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants import into the United States,
and deceptively warrant, advertise, and sell Chinese Flooring that
fails to comply with relevant formaldehyde standards applicable to
those products.

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

Lumber Liquidators is a retailer of hardwood flooring in the
United States, with more than 360 stores in 46 states and annual
revenues of more than one billion dollars.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Russ M. Herman, Esq.
     Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
     Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
     HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
     820 O'Keefe Ave.
     New Orleans, LA 70113
     Tel: (504) 581-4892
     Fax: (504) 561-6024
     Email: rherman@hhklawfirm.com
            ldavis@hhklawfirm.com
            sherman@hhklawfirm.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Skehan" Suit Says Flooring Has Formaldehyde
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Skehan & Jeffery Lee Larkins, Plaintiffs, v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Lumber Liquidators
Leasing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, Lumber
Liquidators Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Lumber
Liquidators Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01765, (E.D. La., March
1, 2016), seeks damages and injunctive relief arising from and
relating to the purchase and installation of Lumber Liquidators'
laminate and engineered wood flooring materials manufactured in
China.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants import into the United States,
and deceptively warrant, advertise, and sell Chinese Flooring that
fails to comply with relevant formaldehyde standards applicable to
those products.

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

Lumber Liquidators is a retailer of hardwood flooring in the
United States, with more than 360 stores in 46 states and annual
revenues of more than one billion dollars.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Russ M. Herman, Esq.
     Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
     Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
     HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
     820 O'Keefe Ave.
     New Orleans, LA 70113
     Tel: (504) 581-4892
     Fax: (504) 561-6024
     Email: rherman@hhklawfirm.com
            ldavis@hhklawfirm.com
            sherman@hhklawfirm.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Snyder" Suit Over Chinese Flooring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Snyder and Heather Snyder, Plaintiffs, v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Lumber Liquidators
Leasing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, Lumber
Liquidators Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Lumber
Liquidators Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01769, (E.D. La., March
1, 2016), seeks damages and injunctive relief arising from and
relating to the purchase and installation of Lumber Liquidators'
laminate and engineered wood flooring materials manufactured in
China.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants import into the United States,
and deceptively warrant, advertise, and sell Chinese Flooring that
fails to comply with relevant formaldehyde standards applicable to
such products.

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

Lumber Liquidators is a retailer of hardwood flooring in the
United States, with more than 360 stores in 46 states and annual
revenues of more than one billion dollars.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Russ M. Herman, Esq.
     Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
     Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
     HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
     820 O'Keefe Ave.
     New Orleans, LA 70113
     Tel: (504) 581-4892
     Fax: (504) 561-6024
     Email: rherman@hhklawfirm.com
            ldavis@hhklawfirm.com
            sherman@hhklawfirm.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Judge Allows "Jordan" Suit to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya of the District of Colorado
denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case THERESA JORDAN,
individually and on behalf of the Proposed Colorado Rule 23 Class,
Plaintiff, v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Civil
Action No. 15-cv-01372-KMT (D. Colo.)

Theresa Jordan was a certified nursing assistant employed by Maxim
Healthcare Services, Inc. (Maxim) from February 2007 to December
2013. While employed by Maxim, Jordan was paid on an hourly basis
and was not paid overtime compensation.

Maxim is a for-profit healthcare services company that provides
its customers with in-home personal care and management and/or
treatment of a variety of medical and non-medical conditions.
Maxim does not pay overtime wages to any of its employees who fall
under the broad term of home health workers.

Jordan alleges that under the Colorado Wage Act (CWA), Maxim is
required to pay her and similar employees overtime compensation.
Jordan brought  a class action on behalf of herself and "all
individuals who are or have been employed by Defendant as hourly
paid home health care workers, or other job titles performing
similar job duties, to provide in-home domestic services in
Colorado and were not paid" overtime compensation.

Maxim filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's class claim or in the
alternative, to strike plaintiff's class claim. Maxim's
interpretation of the CWA's companion exemption, 7 Colo. Code
Regs. Section 1103-1.5, which exempts certain employees providing
home health care services from overtime protections, applies to
plaintiff and the potential class members.

Jordan counters that, according to the plain language of the
exemption, it applies only to companion employees that are
employed by households or family members and not those employed by
third parties, such as Maxim.

Magistrate Judge Tafoya denied defendant's motion to dismiss
plaintiff's class claim or, in the alternative, to strike
plaintiff's class claim.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Tafoya's order dated March 17, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/73e9Rcfrom Leagle.com.

Theresa Jordan, Plaintiff, represented by Gurdip S. Atwal --
tatwal@johnsonbecker.com -- Jacob Robert Rusch --
jrusch@johnsonbecker.com -- at Johnson Becker, PLLC; Neil B. Pioch
-- NPioch@sommerspc.com -- at Sommers Schwartz, PC; Robert Eugene
DeRose, II -- bderose@barkanmeizlish.com -- Robi J. Baishnab --
rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com -- at Barkan Meizlish Handelman
Goodin DeRose Wentz, LLP

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda
Colette Dupree -- amanda.dupree@morganlewis.com -- Andrew George
Sakallaris -- andrew.sakallaris@morganlewis.com -- Matthew James
Sharbaugh -- matthew.sharbaugh@morganlewis.com -- Thomas F. Hurka
-- thomas.hurka@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP;
Joseph L. Lambert -- joseph.lambert@hoganlovells.com -- Erin Lynn
Sokol -- erin.sokol@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US LLP


MEXICAN GASTRONOMY: "Luperon-Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Luperon-Garcia, and other similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiff, v. Mexican Gastronomy International, LLC, a Florida
Profit Limited Liability Company, d/b/a Cantina La Veinte,
individually, and Alberto Cinta, individually, the Defendant, Case
No. 2016-008420-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., April 4,
2016), seeks to recover damages exceeding $15,000 excluding
attorney's fees or costs for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

Mexican Gastronomy provides bar services, cocktail lounge
services, and preparation of food and beverages. The Restaurant is
located in Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: April 14 Case Conference in "Banks" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
At a case management conference held on February 18, 2016, in the
case BRANDON BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 11-cv-2022-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the parties
proposed a procedure by which notice of the amended proposed
settlement would be sent only to class members who opted out of
the original proposed settlement. The parties argued that the
proposed procedure was similar to that approved in Klee v. Nissan
North America, Inc., 2015 WL 4538426.

Following the case management conference, District Judge Phyllis
J. Hamilton of the Northern District of California reviewed Klee
and noted that, unlike Klee, the Banks case is a claims made case,
so only class members who submit a valid claim will receive any
benefit. The court further observed that, as a result, if the
court were to send notice only to class members who opted out of
the original proposed settlement, all of the class members who
neither opted out nor submitted a claim would receive nothing.

The court allowed the parties an opportunity to file a
supplemental brief, explaining why the court should follow the
approach taken in Klee, despite the key differences between the
two cases.

Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. filed a supplemental brief,
arguing that notice should not be sent to the class members who
did not respond to the first notice. Nissan makes two primary
arguments: (1) supplemental notice is not required when a
settlement is amended to increase the benefits to the class, and
(2) supplemental notice would incur an extraordinary expense.

Subsequently, Judge Hamilton held that notice of any proposed
modified settlement must be sent to all class members, other than
those who have already submitted a claim.  A revised notice was to
be submitted for approval by March 31, 2016, should the parties
elect to proceed with the amended proposed settlement. Should the
parties elect not to proceed with the amended proposed settlement,
counsel shall appear at a case management conference on April 14,
2016 at 2:00 p.m.

A copy of Judge Hamilton's order dated March 17, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/WjgXzdfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by James Clark Wyly --
jwyly@wylyrommel.com -- Sean F Rommel -- srommel@wylyrommel.com --
at Wyly-Rommel, PLLC; Clifford Lee Carter -- cliff@cwclawfirm.com
-- Kirk J. Wolden -- kirk@cwclawfirm.com -- at Carter Wolden
Curtis, LLP; F. Jerome Tapley -- jtapley@corywatson.com -- Hirlye
R. (Ryan) Lutz, III -- rlutz@corywatson.com -- at Cory Watson,
P.C.; Michael Francis Ram -- mram@rocklawcal.com -- at Ram, Olson,
Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP

Nissan North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by George
Charles Nierlich, III -- gnierlich@gibsondunn.com -- Joseph
Friedman Tartakovsky -- Timothy William Loose --
tloose@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC., Miscellaneous, represented
by Anthony Francis Latiolait -- ALatiolait@yokasmith.com -- Bret
Richard Henry -- BHenry@yokasmith.com -- at Yoka Smith LLP


POWER DESIGN: Bid for Conditional Certification Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the District of Columbia
granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification of collective action and to facilitate
notice in the case ALEX RIVERA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. POWER
DESIGN, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-cv-0975
(TSC) (D.D.C.)

Plaintiffs Alex Rivera, Medardo Escobar, Jenry Escobar, Alfonso
Escobar and Emerson Lopez were employed as electricians on a
condominium development project at 460 New York Avenue NW in
Washington, D.C. in December 2014.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendants Power Design,
Inc., E.A. Electric, LLC and Emerson Alvarado in the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia in April 2015. The complaint
alleged that the defendants violated the D.C. Minimum Wage Act,
D.C. Code Sec. 32-1001, et seq. (DCMWA) and the D.C. Wage Payment
Collection Law in failing to pay the plaintiffs for work they
performed on the Project, and requested relief including $11,040
in unpaid wages and $33,120 in liquidated damages.

Power Design asserts that while it served as an electrical
installation subcontractor on the project, it also subcontracted
certain electrical installation work on the Project out to several
of its own subcontractors, including E.A. Electric. Power Design
also asserts that the plaintiffs worked for E.A. Electric and its
owner, Emerson Alvarado, not for Power Design itself.

On May 13, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in Superior
Court, adding claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Workplace Fraud Act. They also restyled their action as,
one brought on behalf of themselves and putative FLSA and DCMWA
opt-in collectives under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and D.C. Code
Section 32-1012(b). Putative plaintiffs were alleged to include
individuals who performed construction duties for Power Design at
the project from April 2012 to the final disposition of the
action, who were similarly undercompensated for their work.

In June 2015, Power Design, with the consent of E.A. Electric and
Alvarado, removed the action to federal court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1441(c). In July 2015, plaintiffs filed a status
report informing the court that they had settled with E.A.
Electric and Alvarado while the case was still in Superior Court,
which resulted to the dismissal of the case with regards to E.A.
Electric and Alvarado.

Plaintiffs then asked the court to conditionally certify the case
as a collective action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b), and the DCMWA, former D.C. Code Section 32-1012(b).
Plaintiffs seek conditional certification on behalf of "all
nonexempt employees who performed construction duties for Power
Design at the project from April 2012 to the final disposition of
this action. Plaintiffs also request that the court facilitate
notice to all such persons of their rights to join in this case.

Power Design opposes conditional certification.

Judge Chutkan granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification of collective action and to
facilitate notice.

"The court will not grant the Motion as to the Named Plaintiffs'
DCMWA claim in the absence of any briefing on what version of D.C.
Code Sec. 32-1012 applies to that claim," the judge said.  "If
Plaintiffs intend to further pursue collective certification and
the facilitation of notice under the DCMWA, they must file a
supplemental brief addressing the question of what version of
section 32-1012 properly applies to their DCMWA claim -- i.e., (i)
the former version of the statute, which was in effect when they
were performing the work at issue in this case, or (ii) the
present version of the statute, which was in effect when they
filed their Initial Complaint. . . .  If the Named Plaintiffs
elect to file such a brief, it must be filed by no later than two
months from the issuance date of this Memorandum Opinion. If the
Named Plaintiffs file such a brief, a response may be filed by no
later than one month thereafter."

A copy of Judge Chutkan's memorandum opinion dated March 28, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/35Gkrzfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Virginia Rae Diamond, Esq.
     ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP
     Suite 700
     1825 K Street, NW
     Washington, D.C. 20006
     Telephone: 202-783-6400
     Facsimile: 202-416-6392

Plaintiffs are also represented by

     Andrew Hass, Esq.
     EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE CENTER
     413 K St NW
     Washington, DC 20005
     Telephone: 202-828-9675

POWER DESIGN, INC., Defendant, represented by Leslie A. Stout-
Tabackman -- Leslie.Stout@jacksonlewis.com -- Natalie B. Kaminsky
-- at JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

EMERSON ALVARADO and E.A. ELECTRIC, LLC, Defendants, represented
by Leslie A. Stout-Tabackman -- Leslie.Stout@jacksonlewis.com --
at JACKSON LEWIS P.C.


RECKITT BENCKISER: Faces "Agrawal" Suit Over Airwick(R) Labeling
----------------------------------------------------------------
VINTEE AGRAWAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case 1:16-cv-02497-LGS (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2016), alleges
that the Defendant manufactures, markets and sells Airwick(R)
aerosol sprays with false and deceptive labels that overestimate
their functional capabilities in violation of New York's Deceptive
Acts or Practices Law; Breach of Express Warranty; Negligent
Misrepresentation and; Unjust Enrichment.

Defendant RECKITT BENCKISER LLC is a privately held global
manufacturer of household cleaning supplies and other consumer
chemicals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RHODE ISLAND: Suit v. Education Board May Proceed as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge William E. Smith of the District of Rhode
Island granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the case K.S. and K.L., through her parent
L.L., on behalf of a class of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. R.I. BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL., Defendants, C.A.
No. 14-77 S (D.R.I.)

A putative class action was filed in court, concerning the right
to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) under the
Individuals With Disabilities Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. Section 1400,
et seq., between the ages of 21 and 22. Plaintiffs seek to certify
a statewide class defined as follows:

All individuals who were over 21 and under 22 within two years
before the filing of this action or will turn 21 during the
pendency of this action who are provided or were provided a FAPE
under the IDEA by any Local Education Agency in the State of Rhode
Island and who, but for turning 21, would otherwise qualify or
would have qualified for a FAPE until age 22 because they have not
or had not yet earned a regular high school diploma (the Class).

Plaintiff K.L., through L.L., also seeks certification of the
following subclass:

All individuals who were over 21 and under 22 within two years
before the filing of this action or will turn 21 during the
pendency of this action who are provided or were provided a FAPE
under the IDEA by Chariho and who, but for turning 21, would
otherwise qualify or would have qualified for a FAPE until age 22
because they have not or had not yet earned a regular high school
diploma (the Chariho Subclass).

Defendant Chariho Regional School Committee (Chariho) filed an
objection to certification of the Chariho Subclass because K.L.
has not sustained her burden of explaining why a Chariho subclass
is necessary as every member of the putative Chariho subclass is a
member of the putative statewide class.

Chief District Judge Smith granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs' motion to
certify the class is granted and their request to certify the
Chariho subclass is denied.

A copy of Chief District Judge Smith's order dated March 17, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/pxlM2bfrom Leagle.com.

K.S., Plaintiff, represented by Sonja L. Deyoe --
sld@the-straight-shooter.com -- at Law Offices of Sonja L. Deyoe;
Jason H. Kim -- jkim@schneiderwallace.com -- at Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky LLP; Paul Alston -- palston@ahfi.com -- at Alston
Hunt Floyd & Ing

Rhode Island Board of Education, Defendant, represented by Paul V.
Sullivan -- psullivan@swdlawfirm.com -- at Sullivan Signore
Whitehead & DeLuca LLP; Anthony F. Cottone -- at RI Department of
Education & Jon M. Anderson -- jon.anderson@lockelord.com -- at
Locke Lord LLP

Warwick School Committee, Defendant, represented by Jon M.
Anderson -- jon.anderson@lockelord.com -- at Locke Lord LLP;
Andrew D. Henneous -- ahenneous@brcsm.com -- Michael J. Polak --
mpolak@brcsm.com -- at Brennan, Recupero, Cascione, Scungio &
McAllister

Bethany A. Furtado, Chariho Regional School Committee, William Day
and Barbara S. Cottam, Defendants, represented by Jon M. Anderson
-- jon.anderson@lockelord.com -- at Locke Lord LLP


RINCONCITO PAISA: Violated FLSA & FMWA, "Parra" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Santana Parra, individually, and other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. Rinconcito Paisa Corp.
a Florida Profit Corporation, individually, Jose L. Toro,
individually, Carolina L. Toro, individually, the Defendants, Case
No. 2016-008468-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., April 4,
2016), seeks to recover damages exceeding $15,000 excluding
attorneys' fees or costs for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA).

Rinconcito Paisa is a small organization in the restaurants
industry located in Miami, Florida. It opened its doors in 2010
and now has an estimated $170,000 in yearly revenue.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RECTRIX COMMERCIAL: Violated MTA & MWA, "Gardner" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
William R. Gardner Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Rectrix Commercial Aviation
Services, Inc., Rectrix Administrative Services, Inc., Ashley H.
Watts and Richard A. Cawley the Defendants, Case No. 1684CV01091
(Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., April 4, 2016), seeks payment of
all unpaid wages and benefits, statutorily mandated treble
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and all permissible legal
interest, pursuant to the Massachusetts Tips Act (MTA), the
Massachusetts Earned Sick Time Law, and the Massachusetts Wage Act
(MWA).

Rectrix Commercial provides a range of aviation products and
services to the private aviation industry. It offers private jet
charter services for personal and business travel needs worldwide;
custom designed hangar spaces for aircraft owners, travelers, and
pilots; aircraft management and consulting services for
individuals and companies; and ground maintenance services, such
as fueling planes. The company also operates fixed base operation
facilities in Hyannis, Bedford, Worcester, and Westfield,
Massachusetts; and Sarasota, Florida. The Company was incorporated
in 2000 and is headquartered in Bedford, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Safran, Esq.
          Jonathon D. Friedmann, Esq.
          Rudolph Friedmann LLP
          92 State Street
          Boston, MA 021 09
          Telephone: (617) 723 7700
          Facsimile: (617) 227 0313
          E-mail: ashafran@rflwayers.com
                  jfriedmann@rflawyers.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces "Benson" Securities Suit in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
STUART A. BENSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA
HOLDINGS INC., THOMAS G. DUNDON, ISMAIL DAWOOD, JASON KULAS and
JENNIFER DAVIS Case 3:16-cv-00919-C (N.D. Tex., April 4, 2016),
was filed on behalf of purchasers of Santander securities between
February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act.

Santander is the holding company for Santander Consumer USA Inc.,
an Illinois corporation, and subsidiaries, a specialized consumer
finance company focused on vehicle finance and unsecured consumer
lending products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Courtney Barksdale Perez, Esq.
     CARTER SCHOLER ARNETT HAMADA & MOCKLER, PLLC
     8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 500
     Dallas, TX 75206
     Phone: (214) 550-8188
     Fax: (214) 550-8185
     E-mail: cperez@carterscholer.com

        - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Marc Gorrie, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 661-1100
     Fax: (212) 661-8665
     E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             mgorrie@pomlaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 697-6484
     Fax: (212) 697-7296
     E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


SOCIAL SECURITY: Judge Rules in Adult Disability Hearings Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Pamela Pepper of the Eastern District of Wisconsin
ruled on the parties' motions in the case MARGARET ASH, et. al.
Plaintiffs, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-149-pp
(E.D. Wis.).  Specifically, Judge Pepper granted in part and
denied in part the Commissioner's motion to dismiss, and held that
the complaint is dismissed as to all named plaintiffs except
Margaret Ash and Diane Marotti-Roxbury. The court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and stays ruling
on the motion for class certification.

On February 5, 2015, 35 plaintiffs filed a complaint against
Carolyn W. Colvin, the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (SSA), alleging that she violated the plaintiffs'
due process in the conduct of adult disability hearings in
Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin as it relates to vocational
testimony.

The plaintiffs ask the court to determine whether the Commissioner
has a clandestine policy of denying fair disability hearings in
violation of the Social Security Act, the Administrative Procedure
Act, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Specifically, the plaintiffs challenge an alleged policy of
denying claimants' requests that vocational experts produce the
evidence that supports their testimony and conclusions provided at
the administrative hearing.

On March 17, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), and a combined motion for
preliminary injunction and expedited discovery.

On April 17, 2015, the Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss. On
page 10 of the brief in support of the motion, the Commissioner
quoted Steele Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 104
(1998) and several other Supreme Court decisions for the
proposition that a district court should determine whether it has
subject-matter jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of a
claim. The Commissioner discusses the jurisdictional issue on
pages 23-25, stating that the court should reach the question of
whether the plaintiffs have standing, and should determine that
the majority of them do not because they cannot prove injury. On
December 8, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the
complaint.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint
and orders that within 30 days of the date of the order, the
plaintiffs either shall inform the court that they wish it to
docket the proposed amended complaint, or file a second amended
complaint. Once the plaintiffs have elected one of those options,
the court will schedule a Rule 16 conference and require the
parties to file a Rule 26(f) report.

A copy of Judge Pepper's order dated March 28, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/eagdqsfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Vincent R Angermeier, Esq.
     Robert C Angermeier, Esq.
     Angermeier & Rogers LLP
     401 E Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 400
     Milwaukee, WI 53202
     Telephone: 414-289-9200
     Facsimile: 414-289-0664

Carolyn W Colvin, Defendant, represented by Brian E Pawlak --
Timothy Andrew Johnson -- at United States Department of Justice


SONUS NETWORKS: Violated Exchange Act, "Huang" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Ming Huang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sonus Networks, Inc., Raymond P.
Dolan, And Mark T. Greenquist, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
10657-GAO (D.N.J., April 4, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies
against Sonus and its most senior executives under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).

Sonus provides networked solutions from communications service
providers and enterprises, bringing intelligence and security to
real-time communications.

According to the complaint, the public statements Defendants made
in its conference calls and press release regarding guidance for
the first quarter 2015 and the full year 2015, were materially
false and misleading. Sonus allegedly failed to disclose that
certain orders the Company publically indicated that it expected
to close during the first quarter of 2015 were not received, which
would require the lowering of the Company's previously issued
guidance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10116
          Telephone: (212) 686 1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202 3827
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


SSM HEALTH: Faces Retirement Plan Participants' Suit in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY BEIERMANN, MARILYN LIDDELL, and HOLLY PYATT, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. SSM
Health Care Corporation, SSM Health, Retirement Plan for Employees
of SSM Health Care Committee, and John Does 1-20, Case: 4:16-cv-
00460-HEA (E.D. Mo., April 4, 2016), was filed on behalf of all
purported participants in and beneficiaries of the Retirement Plan
for Employees of SSM Health Care.

Defendant SSM Health Care Corporation is the parent company of SSM
Health.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Don R. Lolli, Esq.
     Dysart Taylor Cotter, Esq.
     MCMONIGLE & MONTEMORE, P.C.
     4420 Madison Avenue, Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64111
     Phone: (816) 931-2700
     Fax: (816) 931-7377
     E-mail: dlolli@dysarttaylor.com

        - and -

     Kessler Topaz, Esq.
     Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
     Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
     Julie Siebert-Johnson, Esq.
     MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Phone: (610) 667-7706
     Fax: (610) 667-7056
     E-mail: eciolko@ktmc.com
             mgyandoh@ktmc.com
             jsjohnson@ktmc.com

        - and -

     Robert A. Izard, Esq.
     Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
     IZARD NOBEL LLP
     29 South Main Street, Suite 305
     West Hartford, CT 06107
     Phone: (860) 493-6292
     Fax: (860) 493-6290
     E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com
             mkindall@izardnobel.com


STONE PONY: Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in EEOC Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sharion Aycock of the Northern District of
Mississippi, Greenville Division, ruled on the parties' motions
for summary judgment in the case EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. STONE PONY PIZZA, INC., Defendant, Civil
Action No. 4:13-CV-92-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss.)

Stone Pony Pizza, Inc. is a restaurant in Clarksdale, Mississippi,
that employs workers in the back-of-house positions of cook and
dishwasher, and front-of-house positions of server, bartender, and
host, as well as delivery drivers.

Chendra Johnson-Hampton filed a charge of discrimination with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC on March 17, 2011,
alleging that she was denied a position as a server at Stone Pony
in September of 2010 because she is black, and that white females
were hired for open server positions instead.

The EEOC made a reasonable cause determination that Stone Pony
discriminated against Johnson-Hampton and two other black
applicants by denying them the opportunity to work in server
positions because of their race. The EEOC informed Stone Pony of
its determination by letter dated June 29, 2012, and invited Stone
Pony to engage in conciliation discussions. Stone Pony responded
with a wholesale denial of the EEOC's findings.

The EEOC filed a case on May 17, 2013, alleging that Stone Pony
Pizza, Inc., engaged in racially discriminatory employment
practices. Specifically, the EEOC contends that Stony Pony failed
to hire job applicants because of their race, maintained a
racially segregated workforce, and failed to retain records as
required by Title VII.

Johnson-Hampton, Wylinda Gregory, and Youmeka Simpson were
permitted to intervene in the suit on August 2, 2013. Cecily
Allen, Stephanie Clay, Shameika Cooper, Faith Holmes, Regina
Moton, Crystal Peeler, Lashunda Ranson, and Jasmine Washington
were permitted to intervene on January 8, 2014. All of the
intervenor-plaintiffs allege that Stone Pony failed to hire them
for front-of-house positions because they are black.

Stone Pony moves for summary judgment on all of the plaintiff and
intervenors' claims on both procedural and substantive grounds.
Stone Pony argues five separate issues for summary judgment in its
favor:

     1. Stone Pony challenges the EEOC's ability to sue on behalf
        of individuals that never filed EEOC charges.

     2. Stone Pony challenges the ability of individuals that
        never filed EEOC charges to intervene in a case brought by
        the EEOC on their behalf.

     3. Stone Pony argues that this case should be dismissed
        because the EEOC failed to conciliate in good faith.

     4. Stone Pony argues that Plaintiffs' Section 1981 claims
        fail as a matter of law because the Plaintiffs have failed
        both to establish prima facie cases of discrimination, and
        to rebut Stone Pony's stated legitimate non-discriminatory
        reasons for its adverse actions against the Plaintiffs.

     5. Stone Pony argues that there is no basis for the
        Plaintiffs' claim that Stone Pony failed to comply with
        the record keeping requirements of Title VII.

The EEOC requests summary judgment on four of Stone Pony's
affirmative defenses.

Judge Aycock granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
for summary judgment. Intervenors Washington, Ranson, and Moton
will be dismissed as intervenor plaintiffs. Stone Pony's motion
for summary judgment is denied on all other issues. The EEOC's
motion for summary judgment is granted in part, and denied in
part. The EEOC's motion for summary judgment as to the defendant's
sixteenth affirmative defense is granted. The EEOC's motion for
summary judgment as to the defendant's first, seventeenth, and
twentieth affirmative defense is denied.

A copy of Judge Aycock's memorandum opinion dated March 28, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/K3MKkGfrom Leagle.com.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, represented
by:

     Faye A. Williams, Esq.
     Markeisha Katara Savage, Esq.
     Gerald L. Thornton, Esq.
     Kelley R Thomas, Esq.
     EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
     1407 Union Avenue, 9th Floor
     Memphis, TN 38104
     Telephone: 800-669-4000
     Facsimile: 901-544-0111

Chendra Johnson-Hampton, Intervenors-Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Melvin David Miller, II, Esq.
     W. Ellis Pittman, Esq.
     PITTMAN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     315 Desoto Ave.
     Clarksdale, MS 38614
     Telephone: 662-627-52222

Stone Pony Pizza, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

     Craig M. Geno, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG M. GENO, PLLC
     587 Highlan Colony Pkwy
     Ridgeland, MS 39157
     Telephone: 601-427-0048

Stone Pony Pizza, Inc., is also represented by

     Tujuana S. McGee, Esq.
     Vikki J. Taylor, Esq.
     GIBBS TRAVIS PLLC
     1400 Meadowbrook Rd
     Jackson, MS 39211
     Telephone: 601-487-2640


SUNEDISON INC: Violated Securities Act, "Bloom" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Bloom and Sharon Burnstein, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Sunedison, Inc.,
Ahmad Chatila, Brian Wuebbels, Antonio Alvarez, Peter Blackmore,
Emmanuel Hernandez, Steven Tesoriere, Clayton Daley Jr., James
Williams, Georganne Proctor, and Randy Zwirn, the Defendants, Case
No. CIV538022 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty., April 4, 2016),
seeks to obtain damages as a result of Defendants' violations of
the Securities Act.

Defendants allegedly misled investors by creating the picture that
the Company had the financial wherewithal to sustain continued
growth. However, as the Company continued its acquisition binge,
it was revealed that the entire scheme was nothing more than a
house of cards.

Sunedison is a diversified developer of wind and solar energy
projects, having developed over 1, 300 solar and wind projects in
20 countries.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joi T. Jasno, Esq.
          Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq.
          Joseph V. Halloran, Esq.
          Geoffrey M. Johnson, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          707 roadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233 4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233 0508
          E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
                  tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                  jhalloran@scott-scott.com
                  gjohnson@scoff-scott.com


SYLVIA STEIN: Violated Cal. Vehicle Code, "Harris" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Harris and Lonnie Harris, the Plaintiff, v. Sylvia Stein,
and and Does 1-100, the Defendant, Case No. CIV538024 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Mateo Cty., April 4, 2016), seeks to recover damages due
to direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent
conduct and violation of California Vehicle Code.
The Defendant's vehicle allegedly struck the rear of the vehicle
of the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Olga A. Koplik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALAN M. LASKIN
          1810 S Street
          Sacramento, CA 95811
          Telephone: (916) 329 9010
          Facsimile: (916) 442 0444
          E-mail: okopllk@lasklnlaw.com


TRANSCANADA PIPELINE: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that TransCanada's $13 billion acquisition of Columbia Pipeline
Group undervalues the company and unfairly benefits its largest
shareholder, JPMorgan Chase, a class claims.

Stephen Vann and Dennis Zuke filed a class action against Columbia
Pipeline Group (CPG), TransCanada Pipelines, CPG CEO Robert C.
Skaggs, Jr. and other CPG officers in Delaware Chancery Court on
March 30.  Vann and Zuke are shareholders of CPG, which operates
15,000 miles of pipeline from New York to the Gulf of Mexico. It
also runs one of the nation's largest underground natural gas
storage systems.

TransCanada operates more than 42,000 miles of pipelines across
North America, and is the continent's largest provider of gas
storage.

Shareholders say CPG performed very well in 2015. But despite "its
securing the largest project in the company's history, and its
flawless execution of its deep inventory of expansion and
modernization projects, the board decided to sell the company
rather than pursue its excellent prospects as a standalone
business," according to the lawsuit.

On March 17, 2016, CPG's board announced that it had accepted
TransCanada's acquisition offer, which will pay shareholders
$25.50 per share, a premium of 32 percent, for a total value of
$13 billion, including debt, according to court records.

Skaggs presented the deal to shareholders as delivering
"tremendous value," but the class action lawsuit says that process
was infected with conflicts.

"The proposed acquisition is the product of a hopelessly flawed
process that is designed to ensure the sale of CPG to TransCanada
on terms preferential to defendants and other CPG insiders and to
subvert the interests of plaintiff and the other public
stockholders of the Company," the complaint states.

In particular, CPG's largest shareholder, JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
will receive over $1.1 billion from the sale of its illiquid CPG
holdings and is actively working with TransCanada to find buyers
for more than $7 billion in assets to help TransCanada raise money
to complete the acquisition, the lawsuit claims.

CPG's officers allegedly will also receive special benefits for
currently unvested stock options and retain their management
positions after the deal closes.

"The $25.50 per share proposed consideration is significantly
below the market high of $33.00 per CPG share on June 17, 2015.
CPG most recently traded above the offer price at $25.82 on August
31, 2015. Further, the $25.50 per share proposed consideration is
significantly below the target price of $29.00 set by an analyst
at UBS on December 8, 2015," the 19-page complaint states.

Shareholders believe CPG has excellent prospects, despite the
recent downturn in the energy market, but "the board agreed, for
its own interests, to sell CPG on the cheap, ignoring its duty to
maximize stockholder value." They seek a court order enjoining the
proposed acquisition as a breach of defendants' fiduciary duties.

CPG shares closed at $25.08 on April 1.

Vann, Zuke and the proposed class are represented by R. Bruce
McNew with Wilks, Lukoff & Bracegirdle in Wilmington, Del.


UBER: Common-Carrier Statutes Favor Rape Case Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
caught lawyers for Uber Technologies Inc. by surprise on April 1,
digging up precedent from the mid-20th century that could undercut
a key part of its defense in a sexual assault case.

The ride-hailing company is facing a lawsuit by two unnamed women
who say they were sexually assaulted by Uber drivers in 2015.  One
of Uber's chief arguments is that the drivers aren't employees,
and thus it cannot be held liable for their conduct.

Both sides claim to have case law on their side.  But at a hearing
on April 1, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern
District of California cited a 1956 California appeals court
decision that neither side had argued -- or even appeared to be
aware of.  Berger v. Southern Pacific would seemingly favor the
plaintiffs.  The decision found that The Pullman Co., a passenger
rail service provider, was liable for the rape of a passenger by
one of its porters because it was a "common carrier."

"For me, that's the starting point," Judge Illston said, adding
that it showed the nature of an employment relationship does not
necessarily get a company "off the hook."  Judge Illston indicated
that she is likely to let the bulk of the claims against Uber go
forward.

Central to the Berger decision is the idea that as a "common
carrier," Pullman was responsible for a higher standard of care
under law, and liable for the actions of individuals carrying out
that duty.  Uber contends that the label "common carrier" does not
apply to its business model. But if it loses on that point, the
case could be detrimental to its attempt to shake off liability.

The allegations against the Uber drivers in question are serious.
One of the alleged victims, "Jane Doe 1," claims that Uber driver
Abderrahim Dakiri began groping her and kissing her during a ride
late at night on Feb. 8, 2015, in Boston. She says he then pulled
over the car and climbed on top of her, but that she managed to
escape.

The woman identified as "Jane Doe 2" in the complaint claims to
have been "viciously" raped by Uber driver Patrick Aiello on
Aug. 9, 2015, in Charleston, South Carolina. Aiello allegedly
drove the victim to a secluded parking lot after dropping off her
friend.

Uber's lawyer, Josh Cohen -- jcohen@clarencedyer.com -- of
Clarence Dyer & Cohen, argued on April 1 that the "common carrier"
label does not apply because the company arranges the
transportation of people from one place to another -- similar to a
broker -- but is not actually responsible for providing the
transportation.

Plaintiffs attorney Jeanne Christensen --
jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com -- of Wigdor said that, to the
contrary, when Uber drivers are using the company's app, the
company is responsible for the safe care of their passengers.

Ms. Christensen, however, seemed to concede that this is not the
case when drivers are not actively driving for Uber.  That could
be important for one of the unnamed plaintiffs, "Jane Doe 2," as
it's disputed whether the ride during which he allegedly raped her
was initiated through the Uber app.

Mr. Cohen tried to poke holes in Ms. Christensen's theory.  "The
notion that Uber is sometimes a common carrier and not a common
carrier at other times I think exposes the flaw in the argument,"
he said.

"It could make sense," Judge Illston shot back.  The common-
carrier statutes were drafted at a time when Uber's business model
did not exist, but that doesn't necessarily mean the company
completely falls outside their scope, she said.


WADDELL INC: Must Defend Against Goodland Foods' TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen of the Easter District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, ruled on the parties' motions in the
case, GOODLAND FOODS, INC., individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. WADDELL,
INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, No. 4:16 CV 31 JMB (ED Mo.)

Goodland Foods, Inc. (Goodland) filed a class action petition in
the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri and contends that
on December 19, 2012, it received an unsolicited fax from Waddell,
Inc. (Waddell) advertising a coffee and water delivery service
without obtaining prior express permission or invitation and the
transmission did not contain the proper opt out notice.

Goodland further contends that Waddell sent the same and other fax
advertisements to the members of the proposed classes in Missouri
and throughout the United States. Goodland alleges violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227
(TCPA), and seeks to recover damages and declaratory relief for
the violations of the TCPA (Counts I and II). In a Missouri common
law conversion count (Count III), Goodland alleges that by sending
plaintiff and the other class members unsolicited faxes,
defendants improperly and unlawfully converted their fax machines,
toner, and paper to its own use.

Waddell moves to dismiss counts I and II for failure to state a
cause of action upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), and to dismiss Count III for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  Waddell also moves to strike Goodland's motion for
class certification or in the alternative to stay briefing.
Plaintiff also moves for the dismissal without prejudice of its
Count IV.

Magistrate Judge Bodenhausen orders the denial of Waddell's motion
to dismiss. Waddell's motion to strike plaintiff's motion for
class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23, or in the
alternative, motion to stay briefing is granted to the extent
Waddell seeks to stay briefing until after discovery is completed.

Goodland was directed to file no later than March 28, 2016, an
amended complaint including the basis of subject matter
jurisdiction for Count III and pursuant to plaintiff's dismissal
without prejudice of Count IV of plaintiff's complaint, Count IV
will be dismissed without prejudice.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Bodenhausen's memorandum and opinion
dated March 17, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/MJJiIRfrom
Leagle.com.

Goodland Foods, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Wanca --
BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Ross M. Good --
RGood@andersonwanca.com -- Ryan M. Kelly --
RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- at ANDERSON AND WANCA; Max G. Margulis
-- at MARGULIS LAW GROUP

Waddell, Inc., Defendant, represented by James C. Ochs --
jochs@ochsklein.com -- at OCHS AND KLEIN


WAL-MART STORES: $187.6MM Judgment in Wage Class Action Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Seal, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court on April4 denied Wal-Mart Stores' petition for
certiorari seeking to overturn a $187.6 million class-action
damages award against the company over wage-and-hour violations.

The denial lets stand a 4-1 ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court in December 2014 in Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores and Hummel v.
Wal-MartStores that affirmed the award.  The majority found that
despite the size of the 188,000-member class, the methods used to
extrapolate liability and damages to each member did not
constitute an improper "trial by formula" that deprived the retail
giant of its due-process rights.

"In this case, where systemic wage-and-hour violations were
asserted, evidence was presented by appellees that, if believed,
supported an inference that Wal-Mart managers companywide were
pressured to increase profits and decrease payroll by
understaffing stores through the preferred scheduling system, and
that these factors, including the managers' annual bonus
compensation program, impeded the ability of employees, across the
board, to take scheduled, promised, paid rest breaks," the
majority opinion said. "The lack of proof of class commonality
present in [Wal-Mart Stores v.] Dukes is not present here."

Michael Donovan of Donovan Litigation Group in Berwyn, who
represented the class at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, said he
was gratified by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision.

"We're hopeful that our clients will finally be paid the back
wages that they've been due for over 16 years," Mr. Donovan said.
Robert S. Peck of the Center for Constitutional Litigation in
Washington, D.C., class counsel before the U.S. justices, said he
was pleased by the decision and felt it was presaged by the
court's recent ruling in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, which affirmed
a class-action award for Tyson Foods workers in Iowa who contended
they were underpaid.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher attorney Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.
represented Wal-Mart. Company spokesman Randy Hargrove said in a
statement that Wal-Mart was disappointed by the court's decision
not to review the case.

"While we continue to believe these claims should not be bundled
together in a class-action lawsuit, we respect the court's
decision," he said.  "We will now determine how we move forward in
the trial court."

Hargrove also said the company has taken steps in the past decade,
since most of the claims were filed, including enhancing its
timekeeping systems and additional training, "to make sure all our
associates understand the importance of those policies and comply
with them."

A jury in 2006 had awarded the  -- plaintiffs in Braun and Hummel
$187.6 million in damages for claims that Pennsylvania employees
were not properly compensated for off-the-clock work and missed
rest breaks.  Although the state Superior Court in 2011 upheld the
award, it determined that a $33.8 million award for attorney fees
needed to be recalculated by the trial court.

While Wal-Mart argued in the Superior Court that the proof offered
by the class only showed individual proof, not classwide proof,
the intermediate appellate court said the commonality of the class
was demonstrated through Wal-Mart's own business records to show
that class members missed breaks, had too few breaks or had their
breaks truncated.  Wal-Mart had additionally argued that
individual employees would have to be questioned to determine if
they were forced by managers to work through or truncate their
breaks.

In a dissent, then-Justice Thomas G. Saylor said he felt the
majority's decision relaxed the approach to class action law.

"Here, the appellee class was permitted to effectively project the
anecdotal experience of each of six testifying class members upon
30,000 other members of the class at large, to extrapolate
abstract data concerning missed and mistimed 'swipes' from 16
Pennsylvania stores to 139 others, to overlay discrete data taken
from several years' experience across a distinct four-year period,
and to attribute a single cause to missed and mistimed swipes, all
despite -- indisputable variations across store locations,
management personnel, time, and other circumstances," Justice
Saylor said.

Justice Saylor added he felt the subject should be "of overt
consideration in the political branch."



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RAI Unit Had 64 Filter Cases at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American, Inc.'s subsidiary was a defendant in 64 filter
cases as of December 31, 2015, according to the Company's Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "Claims have been brought against Lorillard
Tobacco and Lorillard by individuals who seek damages resulting
from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were
incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes
manufactured by a predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited
period of time ending more than 50 years ago. As of December 31,
2015, Lorillard Tobacco and/or Lorillard was a defendant in 64
Filter Cases. Since January 1, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco has paid,
or has reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately $51.8
million in settlements to resolve 187 claims asserted in Filter
Cases.

"Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard
Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the
filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify
Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and
resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished
products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter
material.

"On September 13, 2013, the jury in DeLisle v. A. W. Chesterton
Company, a case tried in the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial
Circuit, Broward County, Florida, found in favor of the plaintiffs
as to their claims for negligence and strict liability, and
awarded $8 million. Lorillard Tobacco is responsible for 44%, or
$3.52 million. Judgment was entered on November 6, 2013. Lorillard
Tobacco filed its notice of appeal on November 18, 2013. Briefing
is complete. Oral argument is scheduled for February 16, 2016."

Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard) is the manufacturer of cigarettes in
the United States. Its Newport is a menthol flavored premium
cigarette brand. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the
Newport brand accounted for approximately 88.4% of its sales
revenue. In addition to the Newport brand, its product line has
four additional brand families marketed under the Kent, True,
Maverick and Old Gold brand names. These five brands include 43
different product offerings. During 2011, it shipped 40.7 billion
cigarettes, all of which were sold in the United States and
certain the United States possessions and territories. Lorillard
produces cigarettes for both the premium and discount segments of
the domestic cigarette market. It sells its products primarily to
wholesale distributors, who in turn service retail outlets, chain
store organizations, and government agencies, including the United
States Armed Forces. In April 2012, it acquired all of the assets
of blu ecigs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RAI Units Continue to Defend W. Va. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit filed in West Virginia remains pending against
Reynolds American, Inc.'s subsidiaries, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in
February 1998 in Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the
plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco, and
parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
and Lorillard, seeking to recover $1 million in compensatory and
punitive damages individually and an unspecified amount for the
class in both compensatory and punitive damages. The case was
brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have personal injury
claims arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers
and cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use
of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos products caused her
to develop lung cancer and to become addicted to tobacco. In
December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North America and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all
defendants who filed for bankruptcy. The case remains pending
against the other defendants, including RJR Tobacco and Lorillard
Tobacco, but it has long been dormant."

Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard) is the manufacturer of cigarettes in
the United States. Its Newport is a menthol flavored premium
cigarette brand. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the
Newport brand accounted for approximately 88.4% of its sales
revenue. In addition to the Newport brand, its product line has
four additional brand families marketed under the Kent, True,
Maverick and Old Gold brand names. These five brands include 43
different product offerings. During 2011, it shipped 40.7 billion
cigarettes, all of which were sold in the United States and
certain the United States possessions and territories. Lorillard
produces cigarettes for both the premium and discount segments of
the domestic cigarette market. It sells its products primarily to
wholesale distributors, who in turn service retail outlets, chain
store organizations, and government agencies, including the United
States Armed Forces. In April 2012, it acquired all of the assets
of blu ecigs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Suit vs. RAI Unit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit against Reynolds American, Inc.'s subsidiary
remains pending in California, according to the Company's Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "On July 30, 2014, in Major v. Lorillard
Tobacco Co., a case filed in November 2011, in the Superior Court,
Los Angeles County, California, the jury returned a verdict in
favor of the plaintiff, found the plaintiff 50% at fault,
Lorillard Tobacco 17% at fault, and RJR Tobacco and another
manufacturer collectively 33% at fault. RJR Tobacco and the other
manufacturer were dismissed prior to trial. The jury awarded
approximately $17.74 million in compensatory damages. The
plaintiffs alleged that as a result of the use of the defendants'
products and exposure to asbestos, the decedent, William Major,
suffered from lung cancer, and sought an unspecified amount of
damages. In August 2014, an initial final judgment was entered
against Lorillard Tobacco in the amount of approximately $3.9
million. In November 2014, Lorillard Tobacco filed a notice of
appeal to the California District Court of Appeal and posted a
supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately $9 million. The
plaintiff filed a notice of cross appeal in December 2014. On July
1, 2015, the trial court entered an amended final judgment in the
amount of approximately $3.78 million in compensatory damages,
approximately $135,000 in costs, approximately $1.9 million in
prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest from August 25,
2014 in the amount of approximately $1,100 per day. Lorillard
Tobacco filed a notice of appeal from the amended final judgment,
and the California District Court of Appeal ordered the appeals
consolidated. On October 15, 2015, RJR Tobacco filed a stipulation
to substitute RJR Tobacco for Lorillard Tobacco, which was granted
on October 20, 2015. A briefing schedule for the appeal has not
been entered."

Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard) is the manufacturer of cigarettes in
the United States. Its Newport is a menthol flavored premium
cigarette brand. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the
Newport brand accounted for approximately 88.4% of its sales
revenue. In addition to the Newport brand, its product line has
four additional brand families marketed under the Kent, True,
Maverick and Old Gold brand names. These five brands include 43
different product offerings. During 2011, it shipped 40.7 billion
cigarettes, all of which were sold in the United States and
certain the United States possessions and territories. Lorillard
produces cigarettes for both the premium and discount segments of
the domestic cigarette market. It sells its products primarily to
wholesale distributors, who in turn service retail outlets, chain
store organizations, and government agencies, including the United
States Armed Forces. In April 2012, it acquired all of the assets
of blu ecigs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Continues to Defend Asbestos Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company continues to defend itself against asbestos
litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "Asbestos was used in some brakes, clutches,
and other automotive components from the early 1900s. Along with
other vehicle manufacturers, we have been the target of asbestos
litigation and, as a result, are a defendant in various actions
for injuries claimed to have resulted from alleged exposure to
Ford parts and other products containing asbestos. Plaintiffs in
these personal injury cases allege various health problems as a
result of asbestos exposure, either from component parts found in
older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos products in our
facilities, or asbestos aboard our former maritime fleet. We
believe that we are being targeted more aggressively in asbestos
suits because many previously-targeted companies have filed for
bankruptcy, or emerged from bankruptcy relieved of liability for
such claims.

"Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who
claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles. We are
prepared to defend these cases, and believe that the scientific
evidence confirms our long-standing position that there is no
increased risk of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure
to the type of asbestos formerly used in the brakes on our
vehicles. The extent of our financial exposure to asbestos
litigation remains very difficult to estimate and could include
both compensatory and punitive damage awards. The majority of our
asbestos cases do not specify a dollar amount for damages; in many
of the other cases the dollar amount specified is the
jurisdictional minimum, and the vast majority of these cases
involve multiple defendants, sometimes more than one hundred. Many
of these cases also involve multiple plaintiffs, and often we are
unable to tell from the pleadings which plaintiffs are making
claims against us (as opposed to other defendants). Annual payout
and defense costs may become significant in the future."

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is a manufacturer of automobiles. The
Company together with its subsidiaries is engaged in other
businesses, including financing vehicles. The Company operates in
two segments: Automotive and Financial Services. Automotive
includes Ford North America, Ford South America, Ford Europe, Ford
Middle East & Africa and Ford Asia Pacific. Financial services
include Ford Motor Credit Company and Other Financial Service. The
Company manufactures or distributes automobiles across six
continents. Its automotive brands include Ford and Lincoln. Other
Financial Services includes a range of businesses, including
holding companies and real estate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BCNY Allowed to File Amici Curiae Brief
--------------------------------------------------------
In IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
RUBY E. KONSTANTIN, ETC., Respondent, v. 630 THIRD AVENUE
ASSOCIATES, ET AL., Defendants, TISHMAN LIQUIDATING CORPORATION,
Appellant, Motion No. 2016-268 (N.Y.), the Court of Appeals of New
York, in a decision dated March 24, 2016, granted the motion by
Business Council of New York State et al. for leave to file a
brief amici curiae on the appeal and the proposed brief is
accepted as filed.  A full-text copy of the Decision is available
at http://is.gd/cwSgqtfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Ct. Affirms Summ. Judgment Favoring BASF
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John J. and Rosalinda DePree sued a number of defendants for
injuries arising out of Mr. DePree's alleged exposure to the
defendants' asbestos-containing products.  With regard to BASF
Catalysts, LLC, the plaintiffs alleged Mr. DePree had been exposed
to talc produced by BASF's corporate predecessor, because the talc
was an ingredient of an auto body filler Mr. DePree used to repair
dented vehicles.  Asbestos was not an intended ingredient in the
filler; it was allegedly present as an impurity in the talc.

After discovery, BASF moved for summary judgment, claiming the
plaintiffs could not establish causation, because they could show
no more than a possibility that Mr. DePree had been exposed to an
asbestos-containing BASF product. BASF relied on California case
law holding that a mere possibility of asbestos exposure is
insufficient to support a finding of causation. The trial court
agreed with BASF and entered summary judgment in its favor.

The Plaintiffs appealed.  In this court, Mrs. DePree argues the
trial court improperly granted summary judgment because (1) BASF
failed to make a prima facie showing sufficient to shift the
burden to plaintiffs to demonstrate the existence of a triable
issue of fact, and (2) the evidence before the court showed there
were triable issues of fact regarding Mr. DePree's exposure to an
asbestos-containing BASF product.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Five,
held that BASF's initial showing on summary judgment was
sufficient to meet its burden of showing that "one or more
elements of [plaintiffs'] cause[s] of action . . . cannot be
established[.]"  The burden thus shifted to plaintiffs "to show
that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists" as to
their causes of action.  Viewed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiffs, the evidence before the trial court showed at most
that some of the talc produced by BASF's corporate predecessor in
the mid-to-late 1970s contained asbestos.  In the absence of
evidence that all or even most of the talc was contaminated with
asbestos, the plaintiffs could show only a possibility of asbestos
exposure, the Court ruled.  Under California law, such a
possibility is insufficient to support a finding in the
plaintiffs' favor on the issue of causation.  Accordingly, the
Court of Appeals will affirm the judgment.

The case is JOHN J. DEPREE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
BASF CATALYSTS LLC et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. A140681
(Cal. App.).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated March 15, 2016, is
available at http://is.gd/0fKpf5from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Compass Insurance Loses Summary Judgment Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In COMPASS INSURANCE COMPANY Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY MECHANICAL &
ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-04295-JD
(N.D. Calif.), the main dispute in the diversity action for
declaratory judgment is over the trigger of coverage for asbestos
injuries under excess coverage policies issued by plaintiff
Compass Insurance Company.  Compass contends that its policies
require two triggers -- exposure to asbestos and resulting injury
-- within the policy period for coverage.  Defendant University
Mechanical & Engineering Contractors, Inc., which is the defendant
in multiple state court cases filed by asbestos victims, argues
that asbestos injury alone is enough.  In a related counterclaim,
UMEC contends that counterdefendant Transport Insurance Company
must indemnify and defend UMEC in other state court asbestos suits
under comprehensive general liability policies it issued to UMEC.
Transport denies liability for the same trigger of coverage
reasons Compass asserts.

Judge James Donato of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, in an order dated March 25, 2016,
denied Compass's Motion for Summary Judgment and Transport's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.  Judge Donato granted UMEC's
Motions for Summary Judgment in its favor on the issue of whether
coverage under the policies arises on the single trigger of injury
or damage within the policy period, and on Transport's duty to
defend in the specified underlying actions.

The order resolves the parties' policy interpretation dispute
about trigger of coverage.  The Court emphasizes that it is not
ordering coverage in any particular case.  Judge Donato said the
parties know the pending cases in detail and are better situated
to resolve coverage claims in a manner consistent with this order.
In light of that, the Court would like the parties' guidance on
what issues, if any, remain outstanding in the case.  The parties
are directed to file a Joint Case Management Statement advising
the Court what they believe remains to be resolved in this case
and why the Court should not issue judgment and close this matter.

A full-text copy of Judge Donato's Order is available at
http://is.gd/Y6xLBcfrom Leagle.com.

Compass Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by James Philip
Lemieux, Esq. -- lem@darlaw.com -- Demler, Armstrong and Rowland &
David Allen Ring, Esq. -- rin@darlaw.com -- Demler, Armstrong &
Rowland, LLP.

University Mechanical & Engineering Contractors, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Charles Leroy Fanning, IV, Oliva and Associates
ALC, Joseph Louis Oliva, Oliva & Associates, ALC & Theresa Anna
Reiss, Oliva and Associates, ALC.

University Mechanical & Engineering Contractors, Inc., Counter-
claimant, represented by Charles Leroy Fanning, IV, Oliva and
Associates ALC, Joseph Louis Oliva, Oliva & Associates, ALC &
Theresa Anna Reiss, Oliva and Associates, ALC.

Transport Insurance Company, Counter-defendant, represented by
Lawrence Allen Tabb, Esq. -- l.tabb@mpglaw.com -- Musick, Peeler
and Garrett LLP & Chad A. Westfall, Esq. -- c.westfall@mpglaw.com
-- Musick Peeler & Garrett LLP.

Transport Insurance Company, Counter-claimant, represented by Chad
A. Westfall, Musick Peeler & Garrett LLP.

University Mechanical & Engineering Contractors, Inc., Counter-
defendant, represented by Charles Leroy Fanning, IV, Oliva and
Associates ALC, Joseph Louis Oliva, Oliva & Associates, ALC &
Theresa Anna Reiss, Oliva and Associates, ALC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warden Wins Summary Dismissal of Inmate Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Brown initiated an action on January 11, 2013, by filing a
two-count Complaint against Defendant Michael Crews, Secretary of
the Florida Department of Corrections, in his official capacity,
Kenneth S. Tucker, former Secretary of the Florida Department of
Corrections, in his individual capacity, Bryan Riedl, Warden of
Reception and Medical Center, in his individual and official
capacities, Ellen Link, Assistant Warden of Reception and Medical
Center, Sergeant Christopher Hancock, Colonel Archie W. Clemons,
and Officer Hartley.

Brown alleges that the Defendants "through deliberate
indifference, caused the Plaintiff to be exposed to high levels of
friable asbestos and toxic chemicals, which posed an unreasonable
risk of serious damage to the Plaintiff's health now and in the
future."

In an order dated March 25, 2016, Judge Marcia Morales Howard of
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Jacksonville Division, granted the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment.  Judge Howard found that the record is devoid of
any evidence that Riedl was personally involved with the tile
removal project, that he was aware of or directed any unlawful
conduct, or that there was any history of "widespread abuses."
Regardless, Brown's claim for supervisory liability must fail
given his inability to establish the underlying constitutional
violation, Judge Howard said.

Accordingly, Judge Howard directed the Clerk of Court to enter
judgment in favor of Defendants Brian Riedl, in his individual and
official capacities, Ellen Link, Christopher Hancock, Archie W.
Clemons, and Officer Hartley, and against Plaintiff John Brown.
The Clerk of the Court is further directed to terminate any
remaining pending motions and deadlines as moot and close the
file.

The case is JOHN BROWN, Plaintiff, v. BRYAN RIEDL, Warden of
Reception and Medical Center, in his individual and official
capacities, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:13-cv-36-J-34PDB (M.D.
Fla.).

A full-text copy of the Order is available at http://is.gd/ZhEYQJ
from Leagle.com.

John Brown, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Bryan Riedl, Defendant, represented by Eric Gonzalez, Office of
the Attorney General, Eric Neiberger, Office of the Attorney
General, Lance Eric Neff, Office of the Attorney General, Matthew
F. Vitale, Office of the Attorney General & Susan A. Maher, Office
of the Attorney General.

Ellen Link, Defendant, represented by Eric Gonzalez, Office of the
Attorney General, Eric Neiberger, Office of the Attorney General,
Lance Eric Neff, Office of the Attorney General, Matthew F.
Vitale, Office of the Attorney General & Susan A. Maher, Office of
the Attorney General.

Christopher Hancock, Sergeant, Defendant, represented by Eric
Gonzalez, Office of the Attorney General, Eric Neiberger, Office
of the Attorney General, Lance Eric Neff, Office of the Attorney
General, Matthew F. Vitale, Office of the Attorney General & Susan
A. Maher, Office of the Attorney General.

Archie W. Clemons, Colonel, Defendant, represented by Eric
Gonzalez, Office of the Attorney General, Eric Neiberger, Office
of the Attorney General, Lance Eric Neff, Office of the Attorney
General, Matthew F. Vitale, Office of the Attorney General & Susan
A. Maher, Office of the Attorney General.

Officer Hartley, Defendant, represented by Eric Gonzalez, Office
of the Attorney General, Eric Neiberger, Office of the Attorney
General, Lance Eric Neff, Office of the Attorney General, Matthew
F. Vitale, Office of the Attorney General & Susan A. Maher, Office
of the Attorney General.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. High Court Affirms Last Exposure Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner Minnie Bennett, widow of Billy Bennett, by Edwin H.
Pancake, her attorney, appeals the decision of the West Virginia
Workers' Compensation Board of Review.  West Virginia Office of
the Insurance Commissioner, by Dawn E. George, its attorney, filed
a timely response.

The appeal arises from the Board of Review's Final Order dated
December 23, 2014, in which the Board affirmed a May 20, 2014,
Order of the Workers' Compensation Office of Judges.  In its
Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator's
March 21, 2012, decision to grant dependent's benefits with a date
of last exposure of August 16, 1983.

In a decision dated March 24, 2016, the Supreme Court of Appeals
of West Virginia affirmed the decision of the Board of Review,
finding that the decision of the Board of Review is not in clear
violation of any constitutional or statutory provision, nor is it
clearly the result of erroneous conclusions of law, nor is it
based upon a material misstatement or mischaracterization of the
evidentiary record.

The case is MINNIE BENNETT, WIDOW OF BILLY BENNETT, DECEASED
Claimant Below, Petitioner, v. WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER Commissioner Below, Respondent CORNING, INC.,
Employer Below, Respondent and SAINT GOBAIN CERAMICS & PLASTICS,
Employer Below, Respondent, No. 15-0072 (W. Va.).

A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/iddxIefrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mintz Ordered to File Memorandum on Jurisdiction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mintz Group LLC is conducting an investigation into the
conduct of Weitz & Luxenberg, PC, and Sheldon Silver, the former
Speaker of the New York State Assembly who was "of counsel" to
Weitz.  Silver was convicted following a jury trial in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York in
connection with a Superseding Indictment that charged Silver with
fraudulent schemes to deprive the public of his honest services,
extortion and money transactions involving crime proceeds.  Mintz
filed an application to obtain access to a schedule of clients
represented by the members of the former Ad Hoc Committee of Tort
Victims ("AHC"), a group that included Weitz. The schedule was
supposed to be annexed to a statement filed in 2004 on behalf of
the AHC pursuant to Federal Bankruptcy Rule 2019 by its counsel,
Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP. According to Brown Rudnick, the
schedule was not attached to the filed Rule 2019 statement because
it was too voluminous. Instead, the Rule 2019 statement
represented that the schedule was available on request.

This appeared to be a simple matter but was not because there is
no evidence that Schedule A, at least in the form that the Rule
2019 statement suggested, was ever prepared. Thus, Mintz
essentially seeks to compel Brown Rudnick and/or the members of
the AHC to create Schedule A and provide access to Mintz. Mintz's
application raises two threshold questions: does the Court have
subject matter jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by
Mintz, and if so, does Mintz have standing to seek it?

In a Memorandum Decision and Order dated March 18, 2016, which is
available at http://is.gd/aARHFnfrom Leagle.com, Judge Stuart M.
Bernstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York directed Mintz to file a memorandum of law
within fourteen days of the date of the order, not exceeding 20
pages, to address the questions raised by the Court.  In the event
it does not, and absent an extension granted by the Court, the
Mintz Motion is deemed abandoned.  Brown Rudnick may file an
opposition of equal length within fourteen days of the receipt of
Mintz's brief. The Court will reserve decision on the merits
pending consideration of the threshold questions.

The case is In re: QUIGLEY COMPANY, INC., Chapter 11 (Confirmed),
Debtor, Case No. 04-15739(SMB)(Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).

Quigley Company, Inc., Debtor, is represented by Lawrence V.
Gelber, Esq. -- lawrence.gelber@srz.com -- Schulte Roth & Zabel
LLP, Victoria A. Lepore, Esq. -- victoria.lepore@srz.com --
Schulte Roth & Zabel, LLP.

Quigley Asbestos PI Trust, Trustees of the Quigley Asbestos PI
Trust, Trustee, is represented by Rachael Anne Rowe, Esq. --
rrowe@kmklaw.com -- Keating Muething & Klekamp, PLL.

United States Trustee, U.S. Trustee, is represented by Tracy Hope
Davis, United States Trustee Office, Pamela Jean Lustrin, United
States Trustee, Andrea B. Schwartz, U.S. Department of Justice,
Greg M. Zipes, Office of the United States Trustee.

Unsecured Creditors Committee for Quigley Company, Inc., Creditor
Committee, is represented by Elihu Inselbuch, Esq. --
einselbuch@capdale.com -- Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, Kevin C.
Maclay, Esq. -- kmaclay@capdale.com -- Caplin & Drysdale,
Chartered.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. Johns-Manville Remanded to Bankr. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador J. Parra, Jr., developed asbestosis and other conditions
after he was exposed to asbestos while working as an insulator in
the 1960s and 1970s.  In 2009, he sued Marsh USA, Inc., an
insurance broker, and others alleging that they had conspired with
asbestos producers, distributors, and insurers to withhold
information from the public regarding the dangers of asbestos
inhalation.  In response, Marsh filed a motion in the chapter 11
bankruptcy cases of the Johns-Manville Corporation arguing that it
had been relieved of any liability for Parra's claims by the
release and channeling injunction contained in the order
confirming Manville's chapter 11 plan.

The bankruptcy court issued a memorandum decision and accompanying
order granting Marsh's motion (the "July Order"). Parra now
appeals from the July Order.

In an Opinion and Order dated March 14, 2016, which is available
at http://is.gd/U2gkisfrom Leagle.com, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York affirmed the July Order in part and reversed in part, and
remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings
consistent with this Opinion and Order.

The civil proceeding is THE BOGDAN LAW FIRM, AS COUNSEL FOR
SALVADOR PARRA, JR., Appellant, v. MARSH USA, INC., Appellee, No.
15-cv-06607 (SAS)(S.D.N.Y.), relating to In re JOHNS-MANVILLE
CORPORATION, Debtor.

The Bogdan Law Firm, Appellant, is represented by Peter Carmine
D'Apice, Esq. -- Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka, P.C..

Marsh USA, Inc., Appellee, is represented by Brian E O'Connor,
Esq. -- boconnor@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP &
Emma Jane James, Esq. -- ejames@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr &
Gallagher LLP.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Interested Party, is represented
by Andrew Tyler Frankel, Esq. -- afrankel@stblaw.com -- Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Interested Party, is
represented by Andrew Tyler Frankel, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty Expects Decline in Madison County Filings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison Record, reported
that asbestos plaintiff attorney Paul Napoli anticipates that a
new trend in asbestos litigation could bring an end to Madison
County's era as industry epicenter.

Napoli said that several asbestos plaintiff's firms are starting
to file more of their cases in other jurisdictions -- some in
federal court and some in other states altogether. In a phone
interview Monday, he said the Napoli Shkolnik firm has begun to do
this and that other firms are following suit.

He said it benefits the plaintiffs to file in more courts, forcing
defendants to "re-fight battles in different jurisdictions."

"I think it's to the plaintiff's advantage to file in as many
jurisdictions as possible and to spread the defendants out," he
said.

Madison County has begun seeing a gradual decline in asbestos case
filings in recent years after it saw a record-breaking docket in
2013 with 1,678 asbestos cases filed.

Last year, 1,224 asbestos cases were filed, which was just over
what was projected but less than in 2014, which saw 1,300 cases.

Of the 2015 cases, the Napoli firm filed 18, most of which were
lung cancer cases.

Although case filings went down slightly last year, Napoli said he
still expected to see a smaller overall number for the docket.

"It seems about the same, and I'm surprised it would be the same,"
he said.

He said he expects Madison County to really start seeing an impact
within the next 18 months.

"You might not see a change in 2016, but certainly in 2017," he
said.

Napoli added that nationally, the number of asbestos claims are
going up, which could explain why the local case filings were
somewhat close to the case filings from last year instead of much
lower as firms start pulling some of their caseloads out of
Madison County.

Napoli also explained that when plaintiffs continue to file mass
numbers of cases in a single jurisdiction, judges start to think a
certain way and rule in set ways. So taking cases to new courts
with new judges who may not be set yet, can be beneficial to
plaintiffs. He also said it opens the door for new opportunities
to make new arguments and obtain new information they weren't
previously able to get.

In Madison County, there have been nine defense verdicts in recent
years with two asbestos cases settling early in the litigation
process so far this year.

While asbestos case filings in Madison County might be shrinking,
a growing factor on the docket each year involves plaintiffs'
residency.

Of the 1,224 cases filed last year, roughly 6 percent, or 75
cases, were filed on behalf of Illinois residents, a decrease from
years before where roughly 10 percent of the cases were brought by
Illinois residents.

Only six of the plaintiffs, or less than half of 1 percent, were
filed on behalf of Madison County residents. However, 20 of the
cases filed for Illinois residents do not include the county in
which they reside.

Also notable were the nine plaintiffs from outside the U.S.,
including Canada, Puerto Rico, Germany and the Philippines.

Napoli anticipates that in the future, only Illinois plaintiffs
will be filing their cases in Madison County, a move he said is
being led by national defense counsel.

"They are looking for the total destruction of processing of cases
in Edwardsville," he said.

Napoli added that he thinks this new trend is not necessarily a
good thing for the local jurisdiction.

"I think that will have a serious detriment on the economy. Who
needs 100 firms for 75 cases?" he said.

As a result, Napoli said defendants will shake up their litigation
leaderships as they look for lead attorneys closer to these new
jurisdictions.

As plaintiffs start to shy away from current asbestos hubs, new
hubs in other jurisdictions will be created, Napoli said. He
anticipates these new hubs may be developed based on the
defendants.

Napoli explained that plaintiffs will start filing cases "in the
backyard" of various defendants' local jurisdictions based on the
defendants' headquarters.

He added that hub jurisdictions benefit both sides of asbestos
litigation as they reduce transaction costs, saying plaintiffs are
better at keeping transaction costs down than the defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Seeks Damages for Husband's Asbestos Death
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reported that
the widow of a man who spent his entire working life around
asbestos is suing over his death. Negligence and fraudulent
misrepresentation are among the counts.

Connie C. Olson, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of Michael F. Olson, filed the asbestos litigation suit
March 8 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against many named
defendants, including Armstrong Pumps Inc., Dow Chemical Company
and Special Electric Company Inc.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. is singled out as a defendant in
this case for alleged conspiracy in squelching scientific evidence
that exposure to asbestos could be deadly.

For his entire working life, until 2004, Michael Olson was exposed
to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed large amounts of
asbestos fibers from certain products which were manufactured,
sold, distributed or installed by the defendants, the suit says.

On April 19, 2013, the defendant first became aware that he had
developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, and he died on
March 9, 2014, according to the suit.

Prior to his death, the deceased had become liable for large sums
of money for medical costs, he experienced physical pain and
mental anguish, he was hindered from pursuing his normal course of
work, his family has been deprived of his means of support, and
substantial sums of money were expended by his estate for funeral
and burial, according to the suit.

The plaintiff seeks in excess of $50,000 for each of the eight
counts against the defendants. She is represented by Randy L. Gori
and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-133


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bigger Payouts in Line for Scot Victims
--------------------------------------------------------
Jody Harrison, writing for Herald Scotland, reported that victims
of asbestos-related cancer in Scotland could be in line for bigger
payouts following a ruling in their favour at the Court of
Session.

A worker who sought compensation when he developed pleural plaques
on his lungs as a result of being exposed to asbestos was awarded
GBP15,000, a sum significantly higher than the usual level of
payout for this type of condition.

Roger Harris contracted the illness after working amid clouds of
asbestos dust and fibres when he was employed as a boiler maker
with the Ministry of Defence between 1961 and 1977.

The award more than doubles the level or compensation usually seen
in agreements used by some legal firms and insurers to settle
claims of this type.

Digby Brown Solicitors, who represent Mr Harris, say the decision
was "very significant" and it showed that courts were prepared to
award compensation on a case by case basis.

While benign in themselves, pleural plaques are an indicator of
exposure to asbestos, and sufferers face a lifetime risk of
developing conditions such as pleural thickening, asbestosis,
asbestos-related lung cancer and mesothelioma.

The decision is the second major judgement on compensation levels
for victims of asbestos exposure in the last few months in
Scotland, with William Wales receiving GBP8500 in provisional
damages after being diagnosed with pleural plaques.

Claimants seeking compensation after developing an asbestos-
related condition can choose to resolve their case on either a
provisional or full and final damages basis.

In both cases, Digby Brown argued the level of compensation
appropriate for the pursuer ought to accurately reflect the
specific health risks involved along with the individual's
distress and anxiety suffered as a consequence of this diagnosis.

Fraser Simpson, Digby Brown Partner and head of the firm's
Industrial Disease Department said: "This is a very significant
decision for those whose lives have been affected as a result of
asbestos exposure. Asbestos exposure disease is not a legacy of
our industrial past but something affecting individuals and
families in Scotland today.

"Although the diagnosis of pleural plaques is shocking enough,
sufferers are also forced to cope with the daily fear that a more
serious disease may develop.

"The decision recognises the importance of assessing each case
subjectively, and shows the progress made by Scottish Courts in
recognising the distress caused by the presence of pleural
plaques."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Chamber Applauds Signing of HB 403
--------------------------------------------------------
Lisa A. Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform (ILR), made the following statement about Utah Governor
Gary Herbert signing into law a bill to curb "double dip" claims
against asbestos bankruptcy trusts and in the tort system (HB
403):

"Utah's new law aimed at stopping plaintiffs' lawyer 'double
dipping' -- seeking money from multiple asbestos trusts in
addition to bringing a lawsuit, all on behalf of the same
individual -- is a significant step toward fighting asbestos
lawsuit abuse. This law will ensure that companies and bankruptcy
trusts both pay their fair share of recoveries to claimants. It
will also mean that Utah companies won't be the targets of
wrongful lawsuits.

"Utah now joins a growing number of states including Arizona,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin
that have recently enacted such laws to bring transparency to the
asbestos compensation system. Other states should follow their
lead.

"We especially commend Representative Brad Wilson and Senator J.
Stuart Adams for their tireless work in the legislature, and
Governor Herbert for signing this bill into law."

ILR seeks to promote civil justice reform through legislative,
political, judicial, and educational activities at the national,
state, and local levels.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business
federation representing the interests of more than 3 million
businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state
and local chambers and industry associations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Laborer Sues Over Exposure Leading to Disease
--------------------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reported that a
laborer is suing a number of companies, claiming his work exposed
him to asbestos that led him to develop mesothelioma.

Chris A. Hughes filed suit March 21 in St. Clair County Circuit
Court against Advance Auto Parts Inc., Georgia-Pacific LLC,
Honeywell International LLC, Union Carbide Corporation, and 20
other defendants.

The plaintiff framed houses, was a plumber, and performed drywall
work, roofing work and brake replacement from 1986 through 2015,
according to the suit, which alleges that exposure to asbestos-
containing products led to a diagnosis on Feb. 23 of mesothelioma.

The suit alleges the defendants failed to use ordinary care and
caution for the safety of the plaintiff.

For the five counts against the defendants, including negligence,
conspiracy, and willful and wanton spoilation of evidence, the
plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at
trial but to exceed $50,000, punitive damages and other relief the
court deems proper. He is represented by Ethan A. Flint, Carson C.
Menges, Laci M. Whitley and Jill M. Price of the Flint Law Firm
LLC in Glen Carbon.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-164


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Exposed to Asbestos Following Blaze 1983
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Lomas, writing for Winsford Guardian, reported that a
disabled Winsford woman was 'almost certainly' exposed to asbestos
in the aftermath of an army storage warehouse fire in Donnington
more than 30 years ago, an inquest has heard.

Susan Maughan, 63, of Dee Way, died in her home on October 30,
2015.

On December 2012 she was diagnosed with Mesothelioma -- an
aggressive form of cancer that is usually caused by asbestos
exposure.

At an inquest on Thursday, March 31, a statement from Ms Maughan's
daughter, Lorraine Laketic, revealed the family moved to Northern
Ireland at the height of the Troubles.

During their time there the family were in the vicinity of at
least two explosions, the inquest heard.

The family later moved to Telford, in the borough of Donnington,
Shropshire.

In 1983 the family were potentially exposed to asbestos following
an explosion at COD Donnington, an Army storage warehouse.

As a result, ash containing asbestos was scattered over a 15
square mile area, which was linked to the death of Paula Ann Nunn
-- who died of mesothelioma -- at a separate inquest last October.

At the time of the blaze, Ms Laketic accused the local authority
of waiting too long to inform residents of the potential danger of
the smoke.

"It took the local authority five days before they told the
community, so they were exposed to asbestos for all that time," Ms
Laketic told the inquest.

Ms Maughan started smoking around 14, and was smoking around 20
cigarettes a day at the time of her death. She started getting
chest pains around four years before she died.

Dr Peter Larmour, of High Street Medical Practice, Winsford, said
in a statement that Ms Maughan visited the surgery on two
occasions in 2011 and 2012 with breathing difficulties.

She was diagnosed with mesothelioma and began chemotherapy
treatment, which lasted for three years.

On one occasion she had to be treated for a collapsed lung as a
result of the disease, the court.

In March 2015 a CT scan showed the tumours were spreading and Ms
Maughan was deemed 'not fit for further chemotherapy', the
doctor's statement said.

Dr Larmour said over the coming months her health deteriorated and
she was given palliative care at St Luke's Hospice.

"She died in her own home with her family. That is what she
wanted," Ms Laketic said in her statement.

Ms Maughan had several jobs over the years including a
hairdresser, several cleaning jobs, bacon packer and plastic
factory worker.

A post mortem concluded there was 'no definitive proof' of
asbestos in her body though it was possible the cancer was caused
by asbestos exposure.

John Pollard, Senior Coroner for Manchester South, said: "In my
view there is no evidence that she was exposed to asbestos where
she worked.

"There is significant evidence she may, well almost certainly, was
exposed to asbestos in the aftermath of the Donnington explosion."

Delivering his conclusion, Mr Pollard ruled that Ms Maughan's
death was an accidental one.

He said: "It was an accident that she was exposed to it and that
is the only conclusion I can reach."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oxford Company, Units Settle Asbestos Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Telegram & Gazette reported that Patriots Environmental of Oxford
and three companies it owns will pay up to $129,000 to settle
allegations that workers mishandled asbestos-containing material
during two demolition projects, and that one of the companies
failed to pay a $54,714 penalty for prior asbestos violations.

According to the state attorney general's office, the consent
judgment, entered by Suffolk Superior Court Judge Dennis Curran,
settles a lawsuit originally brought in July 2014 against Patriots
Environmental for failing to follow proper procedures and safety
precautions while removing asbestos-containing shingles from a
home in Sturbridge the year before.

The complaint was amended by the attorney general's office in July
2015 to include allegations that the owners of Patriots
Environmental were operating with three other companies they owned
- Demo Realty in Oxford, CRB Demolition Corp. in Charlton, and
Patriots Realty LLC in Worcester - including while conducting the
illegal asbestos removal projects alleged in the complaint.

According to the AG's office, because Patriots Environmental
shared finances, employees, ownership and demolition and asbestos
work with the other companies, they are also responsible for the
violations.

Airborne asbestos fibers taken inhaled into the lungs may over
time cause serious lung diseases, including asbestosis, lung
cancer, or mesothelioma. Asbestosis is a serious, progressive,
long-term, non-cancerous disease of the lungs for which there is
no known effective treatment. Mesothelioma is a rare form of
cancer found in the thin membranes of the lung, chest, abdomen,
and heart, and may not show up until many years after exposure.

According to the attorney general's office, in July 2013, Patriots
Environmental was allegedly hired to remove asbestos shingles from
the exterior walls of a single-family home in Sturbridge. During
the project, the company, using workers from Demo Realty,
allegedly caused the asbestos shingles to break apart, dropping
asbestos-containing debris onto the ground and into unsealed
plastic bags exposed to the air, the attorney general's office
said in a press release Thursday. Patriots Environmental also
allegedly failed to wet, cover, or seal in containers the shingles
and debris to prevent the release of asbestos fibers into the air
during the work, the AG's office said.

No one was immediately available for comment at Patriots
Environmental Thursday.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valley Contractors Fined for Asbestos Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Loew, writing for Statesman Journal, reported that two
companies have been fined a total of $27,200 for violating
asbestos rules during the remodel of a commercial building in
Albany.

Albany-based Conser Design & Construction was the general
contractor on the project, which began in March 2015 at 1245 Clay
St.

The state Department of Environmental Quality fined the company
$12,800 for mishandling vinyl flooring by failing to have it
properly removed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior
to the renovation.

The company knew it was violating the law because it had an
asbestos survey that showed the flooring contained asbestos. It
also allowed the waste to be openly accumulated at the site,
creating the potential for public exposure.

Conser hired Master Craft Restoration and Maintenance of Corvallis
as a subcontractor on the project.

Workers for the company removed about 225 square feet of sheet
vinyl flooring as part of the renovation.

Master Craft Restoration and Maintenance was fined $14,400 for
performing an asbestos abatement project without a license, as
neither the company nor its workers are licensed to perform this
work.

By not complying with asbestos regulations, the company likely
caused the release of asbestos fibers into the atmosphere, DEQ
said in its order.

Asbestos fibers are a respiratory hazard proven to cause lung
cancer and mesothelioma, DEQ said in a news release. Asbestos is
also a hazardous air contaminant for which there is no known safe
level of exposure.

Both companies have appealed the penalty. Neither responded to
requests for an interview.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lisbon Homeowner Cited with Envi. Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stroshine, writing for WKBN.com, reported that the Ohio
EPA has determined that a property owner was burning material
containing asbestos in Lisbon in late March, according to a
spokesperson.

Ohio EPA Spokeswoman Lindey Amer said that on March 24, some
material was burning on the property of Bill Catlett along State
Route 45. The EPA arrived and took seven samples of the material,
finding that six of them came back positive for asbestos, a group
of minerals that can cause serious health problems.

Amer said that the EPA instructed Catlett to contain the material
and remove it. The EPA went back to check on April 1 that Catlett
had contained the material, and he had. Amer also said that the
EPA will be following up to make sure Catlett removes the
material.

The EPA cited Catlett with a violation of open burning laws.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered in Old Soap Lake Schoolhouse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Taylor, writing for KPQ.com, reported that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has identified materials
containing asbestos at Delancey-Houghton Elementary School in Soap
Lake. The building is currently unused and partially demolished,
but the EPA warns the building poses a small risk for those living
nearby. Studies have shown that exposure to asbestos greatly
increases the risk of various cancers, including mesothelioma.
There is a plan to properly dispose of the materials by the end of
spring.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Police Scotland to Survey Bldgs for Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herald Scotland reported that cash-strapped Police Scotland may
have to carry out asbestos surveys on hundreds of its premises
after a critical inspection by the health and safety quango.

A moratorium on work to existing buildings has also been imposed
amid concerns the single force does not have the procedures in
place to monitor the cancer-inducing hazard.

Asbestos has been a huge risk to construction workers and is
believed to be linked to thousands of deaths in the UK.

Police Scotland's problem was flagged up after the Health and
Safety Executive visited five force sites in February.

The watchdog identified "contraventions" of the law regarding the
management of asbestos, which it formalised in an improvement
notice: "You must take action on these matters to comply with the
law."

It said a number of concerns were highlighted in the police
stations visited: "There were no asbestos management plans, areas
with asbestos containing materials were not marked as such, other
areas were marked in general terms as containing asbestos but with
no indication where it actually was. . ."

It continued: "[T]here was no monitoring of the condition of
asbestos and at one location it looked as though the asbestos
containing material had recently been drilled into by a contractor
whilst fitting a new fire safety system."

Police Scotland confirmed the problem, but internal communications
revealed the scale of challenge.

The force is having to redraft its policy on the management of
asbestos and carry out surveys on hundreds of properties.

A memo seen by this newspaper describes the task as "onerous".

George McIrvine, a branch secretary at the Unison trade union,
which represents police staff, said:

"It is disappointing that it has taken the intervention of the HSE
to highlight the shortfalls in the asbestos management systems
within Police Scotland. The branch has been working with Police
Scotland to address the issues contained within the improvement
notice to ensure that the workplace is safe for our staff and
officers as well as other visitors to police premises.

"The health, safety and wellbeing of our members is paramount and
we will continue to effectively challenge the organisation to
ensure that these issues are addressed in a timely manner,
whatever the cost and that a situation such as this does not
happen again."

John Gillies, the Director of People and Development at Police
Scotland, said: "We take the health and safety of our staff very
seriously, and are working with unions, staff associations and the
HSE to develop and deploy the appropriate action plans in relation
to the management of asbestos. We are committed to providing a
safe working environment for our officers, staff and members of
the public and are fully co-operating with the HSE to ensure the
appropriate action is taken to achieve this."

The force also confirmed work is under way to determine how many
sites have to be surveyed.

A spokesperson for the HSE said: "During inspections of Police
Scotland premises, HSE found inadequate arrangements in relation
to the management of asbestos and an improvement notice was served
requiring remedial action to be taken. Further visits will be paid
to assess compliance."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Scare at Magill Primary School
--------------------------------------------------------
Josephine Lim, writing for The Advertiser, reported that asbestos
pieces have been found on the grounds of Magill Primary School.

Emergency services were first alerted by a parent accompanying
children on the school grounds just after 10.30am on Sunday.

It was believed two pieces of asbestos -- each the size of a 50c
coin -- were found in an outdoor area of the school.

Metropolitan Fire Services are removing the pieces and will
disposed them appropriately.

Despite a 100m-radius search the MFS found no more asbestos.

It is not known yet whether the asbestos was dumped by an outsider
or came from a school building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arbitration Bifurcation on Tap at Orals
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Seal, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reported that as
Pennsylvania's six justices await word on whether an interim
appointment will restore their full complement, the state Supreme
Court is set to hear argument on the "any exposure" theory in
asbestos cases and whether wrongful-death and survival actions
need to be bifurcated for arbitration.

In its first argument session since former Justice J. Michael
Eakin retired from the court March 15, the court is also set to
review a case over low funding levels at the Luzerne County Public
Defender's Office that has drawn attention from the federal
government and several national legal organizations.

In Taylor v. Extendicare, the justices are set to hear argument on
whether the Superior Court's holding that wrongful-death and
survival claims did not need to be bifurcated violated the Federal
Arbitration Act, and whether the ruling went against U.S. Supreme
Court precedent indicating that arbitration is required when there
is an agreement to arbitrate.

A three-judge panel of the Superior Court determined in April 2015
that claims stemming from a patient's death after her stay at a
nursing home facility did not fall into a category of claims that
should be tried piecemeal.

"On the facts herein, the wrongful-death beneficiaries'
constitutional right to a jury trial and the state's interest in
litigating wrongful-death and survival claims together require
that they all proceed in court rather than arbitration," said
Judge Mary Jane Bowes, who wrote the majority opinion. "In so
holding, we are promoting one of the two primary objectives of
arbitration, which is 'to achieve streamlined proceedings and
expeditious results.'"

According to Bowes, the case stems from negligence claims against
Extendicare and other health facilities for injuries that resulted
in the death of Anna Marie Taylor in April 2012.

Asbestos

The court is set to review in Rost v. Ford Motor whether an "any
exposure" causation theory should have been prohibited in an
asbestos case against Ford Motor Co. The justices first heard
argument in the case last May, but issued an order for reargument
this year following the court's historic turnover.

The first issue to be addressed is whether "a plaintiff in an
asbestos action may satisfy the burden of establishing
substantial-factor causation by an expert's 'cumulative exposure'
theory that the expert concedes is simply an 'any exposure' theory
by a different name," the allocatur order, issued in November
2014, said.

The court will also look at whether the Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas' mandatory practice of consolidating unrelated
asbestos cases is consistent with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure and due process.

The Superior Court ruled that despite a plaintiffs expert's
testimony that minimal exposure to asbestos can cause
mesothelioma, prohibition of "any exposure" causation theories did
not apply in the case.

A three-judge panel denied Ford's request for a new trial,
reasoning that the Supreme Court's decision in Betz v. Pneumo Abex
was not applicable in Rost. In denying a new trial, the court
upheld a $994,800 jury award out of the Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas to plaintiff Richard Rost and his wife.

Superior Court Judge Jack A. Panella wrote in the court's opinion
that Rost's experts gave sufficient evidence showing that Rost's
exposure to Ford's asbestos-containing brakes was a substantial
factor in the development of his mesothelioma, contrary to Ford's
assertions.

Public Defender

In Kuren v. Luzerne County, the justices are set to hear argument
on whether "chronic and systemic deficiencies" in the Luzerne
County Public Defender's Office deprive individuals of their right
to effective assistance of counsel. Arguments will also
contemplate whether Adam Kuren and Steven Allabaugh, the two
indigent defendants who are named plaintiffs, state a claim of
mandamus to compel the county to provide adequate funding to the
office under the Public Defender Act.

The U.S. Department of Justice and the American Bar Association
have filed amicus briefs in support of Kuren and Allabaugh, as did
the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the
Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the
Innocence Network and the Pennsylvania Innocence Project.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Under Way for Hawthorndale School Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Pickett, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reported that
Environment Southland is investigating the demolition of the
former Hawthorndale School amid concerns about asbestos on the
site.

Environment Southland began an investigation into the demolition
of the Hawthorndale School site in November, after an anonymous
informant contacted them and claimed the buildings were being
demolished with asbestos containing materials inside.

The site is owned by the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, which
bought the property from a private owner in 2009.

Church representatives declined to comment on the investigation,
saying the matter was with their lawyers.

In 2014, a land use consent application was lodged with the
Invercargill City Council for the demolition of three school
buildings larger than 120 square metres.

Environment Southland compliance manager Simon Mapp said letters
were sent in December to properties neighbouring the school
warning them of asbestos possibly being present at the site, and
asking for information about the demolition.

The letter told residents to contact Public Health South if they
had any queries or concerns.

Mapp said many buildings of the same era had contained asbestos-
containing materials as a part of construction.

Environment Southland sent an abatement notice to halt demolition
in December, and asbestos was confirmed at the site, Mapp said.

The investigation was trying to ascertain the reason the buildings
were being demolished, why demolition had not followed asbestos
guidelines and if the asbestos present could have gotten into the
environment, he said.

The investigation involved speaking to neighbours at present, and
it was not known when it would be completed, Mapp said.

Neighbours said they began noticing the school being torn down in
December, with workers in white suits and wearing respirator masks
at the site.

Southern District Health Board medical officer of health Dr Derek
Bell said Public Health South had not received any queries about
the Hawthorndale School site or about asbestos in Southland in the
past year.

The Ministry of Health describes asbestos as only a risk to health
when it is inhaled as a fine dust. It can cause asbestosis,
malignant tumours, pleural plaques (a thickening of the membranes
around the lungs) and lung cancer.

Dos and don'ts for asbestos:

   -- If asbestos is found, stop work immediately
   -- Keep people away
   -- Minimise the spread of contamination to other areas
   -- From April 4, 2016 if more than 10 m2 of ACM has to be
removed, it must be done by a licensed asbestos removalist
   -- Do not reuse masks or overalls which have come into contact
with asbestos
   -- If you find asbestos in your home leave it as is, and have
it sealed off or removed by professionals


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at Center of Complex Indiana Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kristine Guerra, writing for Indy Star, reported that Larry Myers
worked 40 years as an electrician, unaware he had been handling
materials that could cause his death.

For the past two years, the 78-year-old man from Northern Indiana
has been embroiled in a contentious legal battle against a number
of manufacturers who he claims knowingly produced products that
caused malignant pleural mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that
typically kills within a year of diagnosis. Myers was diagnosed on
March 17, 2014, 15 years after he retired.

The cancer, doctors told him, resulted from years of exposure to
asbestos in materials he had used, worked with and been around as
an electrician. He also smoked a brand of cigarettes that had
filters containing asbestos, according to court records.

The complex litigation reached the Indiana Supreme Court in early
2015. At issue is the constitutionality of a section of Indiana's
Product Liability Act called the statute of repose, which created
a 10-year cutoff for allowing plaintiffs to sue manufacturers of
asbestos-containing products. According to the statute, the 10-
year countdown starts when a product reaches a user or consumer.

That posed a problem for Myers. Mesothelioma and other diseases
caused by exposure to asbestos take decades to manifest
themselves, sometimes up to 50 years. Indiana denied Myers any
legal recourse because he became sick  after the 10-year cutoff
had passed. And unlike the state's statute of limitations, which
starts from the time a person discovers an injury, the repose
could expire well before the injury occurs or is discovered.

"They could be injured, but there (are) no symptoms. That's the
problem," said Linda George, one of Myers' lawyers. "They're sick,
but they don't know."

A separate but related provision of the Product Liability Act
allows lawsuits in asbestos-related diseases to move forward
within two years of diagnosis, but it affects only companies that
mined and sold raw asbestos, not ones that manufactured products
containing asbestos. Myers' attorneys argued that such disparate
treatment is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court, in a sharply divided decision, struck down the
statute of repose, ruling that the 10-year cutoff does not apply
to cases involving diseases that take decades to show symptoms.
The court also ruled that manufacturers of products containing
asbestos should not be exempt from being sued by people like
Myers.

It's good news for Myers, for another plaintiff -- a woman whose
husband has already died of mesothelioma -- and for others like
them. Myers' attorneys said the ruling would hold companies
responsible for putting products into the marketplace they knew
could harm and kill people.

"All it does is give them the right to actually present their case
to a jury, to actually come forward with their case instead of
being stopped at the courthouse doors," said Kathy Farinas, one of
Myers' lawyers. "It's impossible for these people to look into a
crystal ball and know one day they could get sick."

Critics of the ruling, however, say it will increase the number of
asbestos-related lawsuits in Indiana and make many businesses,
including product manufacturers, more vulnerable to costly
litigation.

"For manufacturers and property owners, in a state where they had
put their asbestos problems to bed, they have been woken up,"
Chicago lawyer Jason Kennedy, who defends businesses in asbestos-
related cases, said about the ruling.

The Supreme Court ruling is not yet final. Michael Martinez, a
Chicago attorney who is representing one of the defendants, said
he and his colleagues plan to ask the court to rehear the case.

'Topsy-turvy land'

Myers, who lives just outside South Bend, was first exposed to
asbestos in the 1950s, court records say, when he started working
as an electrician in Northern Indiana and southern Michigan.

But he was not aware of his exposure until he was diagnosed more
than 50 years later.

He and his wife, Loa Myers, filed a lawsuit in Marion County
against several defendants, including Crouse-Hinds, a division of
the international Cooper Industries Inc., which Myers claimed
manufactured a product that contained asbestos which  he used
throughout his career as an electrician; and Lorillard Tobacco Co.
and Hollingsworth & Vose, companies Myers claimed produced
asbestos-containing filters in a brand of cigarettes he smoked.

Michael Martinez represents Crouse-Hinds, one of the
Michael Martinez represents Crouse-Hinds, one of the defendants in
Larry Myers' lawsuit. (Photo: Provided photo)
In January 2015, a Marion County judge ruled that Myers' claims
were blocked by the statute of repose. Myers appealed the ruling
to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Barring asbestos victims from presenting their cases to a jury was
not the intent of the legislature when it enacted the Product
Liability Act in 1978, Myers' attorneys argued. Rather, legal
experts say, the law was meant for a reasonable purpose: To allow
people to sue manufacturers for a defective product, but only
within 10 years of the product being sold. That way, businesses
wouldn't face liability after the end of the product's life span.
But the statute, some say, had been interpreted wrongly and
contrary to its original intent.

Myers' attorneys cited two previous and somewhat similar asbestos
cases. In Covalt v. Carey Canada, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled
in 1989 that the statute of repose should not apply to illnesses
that take decades for symptoms to manifest. But in 2003, in Allied
Signal v. Ott, the high court flipped that ruling, significantly
limiting the number of plaintiffs who can sue for asbestos-related
claims.

Todd Barnes, one of Larry Myers' attorneys
Todd Barnes, one of Larry Myers' attorneys (Photo: Provided photo)
Myers' attorneys argued the ruling in the Ott case created a
"topsy-turvy land" where injured people are already barred from
filing lawsuits before they even know they're injured.

"Asbestos product manufacturers seek nothing less than free rein
to injure or even kill Indiana residents and workers, so long as
those injuries and deaths take more than 10 years to manifest
themselves," Myers' attorneys argued in court records. "The
Indiana Constitution did not permit such a result. The Indiana
legislature did not intend such a result."

Todd Barnes, also one of Myers' attorneys, said the ruling places
Indiana in line with much of the rest of the country in allowing
people like his client to have their day in court.

Barnes said some states don't have statutes of repose at all. In
some that did, courts have ruled them unconstitutional. Others
have laws that explicitly say asbestos-related claims can't be
blocked until a person knows he or she is sick.

'Inevitable perception'

The Supreme Court agreed with Myers' arguments in his appeal,
reversing its ruling in the Ott case, which had been the legal
precedent in asbestos cases in Indiana for the past 13 years.

Such is the main concern of those who oppose the decision.

Chief Justice Loretta Rush, one of the dissenting judges, said
judges are obligated to follow precedents set by previous rulings.
The court's reversal of its own decision will create a public
perception that the law will change depending on who's on the
bench, Rush wrote, and that shouldn't be the case.

"... I fear the court's change of heart sets into motion a
pendulum that will swing long into the future -- not because I
expect we will actually reverse other close or controversial
decisions, but because that is the inevitable perception," Rush
wrote.

Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta RushBuy Photo
Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush (Photo: Charlie
Nye/IndyStar 2014 file photo)
Kennedy agreed, adding the ruling will create a perception that
the law changes based on the sitting justices' political leanings.

"You always want an independent judiciary, at least facially free
of what would be a partisan look," said Kennedy, one of the
lawyers who represented defendants in the Ott case. "You don't
want it to look like a Republican or a Democratic court."

Martinez, the attorney for one of the defendants, said asbestos
litigation in Indiana has been "on life support" since the Ott
ruling, and a lot of lawsuits were filed outside Indiana.

"Now that the statute of repose has been struck down," Martinez
said, "there will likely be an uptick in filings and possibly
reinstatement of cases that were dismissed in the past based on
the changes in the law."

'They've worked hard to live'

For Myers and his wife, who both declined to be interviewed, the
legal complexities of their case are all too confusing.

Barnes, one of Myers' attorneys, said plaintiffs like them often
don't comprehend how companies could knowingly sell a product that
could kill people and get away with it simply because a lawsuit
wasn't filed soon enough.

George, also one of Myers' attorneys, said the dilemma goes beyond
trying to understand a complicated law.

Linda George, one of Larry Myers' attorneys
Linda George, one of Larry Myers' attorneys (Photo: Provided
photo)
"These are blue-collar workers. These are people who built our
city. These are people who worked very, very hard to support their
families," said George, who has been representing asbestos victims
for more than 20 years. "They were the man in the family, and now
they are the people who can't do anything. So it ends up being
they're helpless, and it's very humiliating."

"Because they all want to live," George added. "They've worked
hard to live."

Myers and his wife have three grown children and six
grandchildren. Myers recently passed the two-year anniversary of
his diagnosis. In a statement, he and his wife said they're
grateful that they and other asbestos victims in Indiana can have
their days in court.

Mary Geyman, his co-plaintiff, was married to Raymond Geyman, who
died of mesothelioma in March 2008, a year after he was diagnosed.
Raymond Geyman worked as an electrician in Southern Indiana for
nearly 30 years.

He also was a U.S. Army fighter pilot and a prisoner of war during
World War II.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sue Over Damages Due to Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reported that a
husband and wife are suing over the husband's alleged exposure to
asbestos during his working life; she claims she has been damaged
as well. Negligence and conspiracy are two of the counts.

Thomas Bardusk and Norma Bardusk filed the suit March 8 in St.
Clair County Circuit Court against Carrier Corporation, The Dow
Chemical Company, Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, and many
other named defendants.

The plaintiff was exposed to asbestos fibers emanating from
products he worked with and around for many years, according to
the complaint. Those products were manufactured, sold, distributed
or installed by the defendants, the suit alleges.

The defendants should have known the asbestos fibers had a toxic,
poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon the health of those
who inhaled them, the suit alleges.

On Oct. 28, 2015, the plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma,
an asbestos-related disease, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs seeks judgment of compensatory damages in excess of
$50,000 from the defendants for all seven counts against them,
court costs and other relief the court deems appropriate.

Norma Bardusk seeks judgment for loss of consortium that has
occurred as a result of her husband's disease. She seeks
compensatory damages from each defendant in an excess of $50,000
plus court costs and other relief.

They are represented by Ethan A. Flint, Carson C. Meges, Laci M.
Whitley, Jill M. Price and Luke P. Pfeifer of the Flint Law Firm
LLC in Glen Carbon.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-135


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Patriots Environmental to Pay $129K Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Iandolo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey announced that
Patriots Environmental and affiliated companies will pay up to
$129,000 to resolve allegations of illegal handling of asbestos-
containing materials.

The company allegedly failed to follow proper procedures and
safety precautions for removing asbestos-containing materials
during the demolition process of a home in Sturbridge.

"Improper handling of asbestos during construction and demolition
work can cause serious health hazards," Healey said. "In order to
prevent the exposure of workers, the public, and the environment
to dangerous asbestos fibers, such projects must be conducted in
strict accordance with state regulations, and we will vigorously
pursue those who fail to comply with those safety requirements."

Properly handling asbestos-containing materials during
construction work protects human health. When airborne, asbestos
fibers can be taken in by human lungs and cause serious damage,
including cancer and mesothelioma.

"Licensed asbestos contractors must follow the proper removal
practices and storage requirements to protect workers and the
public from being exposed to this known carcinogen," Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Commissioner
Martin Suuberg said. "As this settlement reflects, MassDEP and the
attorney general's office work together to take strong enforcement
against companies that fail to comply with the asbestos
regulations and put citizens of the Commonwealth at risk of
exposure."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheet Metal Workers Screened for Diseases
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Schneider, writing for WESA.com, reported that Keith
Shettler worked to install and retrofit duct systems in downtown
buildings for more than 20 years, opening structures that had been
closed off for decades.

"You could see the coal dust that was there when the steel mills
were there," Shettler said, "to the asbestos that might be hidden
behind all that put there years ago when asbestos was prevalent to
put on job sites."

Asbestos is a natural mineral, mined from the ground and it was
used regularly as a binder in construction from floor and ceiling
tiles to insulation. Its microscopic crystals float through the
air and when they're inhaled, they scar the lungs. Those scars can
develop into respiratory diseases such as lung cancer or
mesothelioma -- which affects the cells that line the lungs.

Asbestos has affected so many sheet workers who fabricate and
install duct systems in heating and air conditioning systems, that
the Sheet Metal Workers International Union Started offering
screenings in the 1980s to those who had been exposed to the
material for more than 20 years.

About 150 active and retired workers are being screened at a pop-
up clinic at the local union trade school just outside of
Pittsburgh. The union provides screenings for active and retired
workers every five years to look for effects from exposure to
asbestos and other respiratory hazards.

Shettler is the coordinator of the school's apprenticeship
program. His father and uncles were also in the trade. He said it
wasn't until the 1970s that they knew asbestos was hazardous. He
learned about it during his apprenticeship and later in his
career, contractors would send employees to classes about the
material.

"In the old days, it was to understand what asbestos was," he
said. "Now, asbestos is in the forefront, unlike what it was years
ago. We've kind of taken a back seat on it but it's still out
there."

Gary Batykefer is a retired sheet metal worker. He was also the
director of the Sheet Metal Occupational Health Institute Trust --
a branch of the international union -- for 17 years. He pointed
out the floor tiles in the trade school.

"This was installed in the 1970s and guaranteed there is asbestos
in there," he said.

The number of cases has decreased over the years because of
heightened awareness. But building owners in the past would
capsule the asbestos under a sealant, rather than remove it.
Batykefer said that's because it was cheaper. Now, in a renovation
or retrofit project, workers will again be exposed to asbestos.

"For example, if they have to cut the pipes to get a new boiler
in, that stuff is still there and is going to become airborne once
the renovation project begins," he said. "I don't see this going
away for quite some time."

David Hinkamp is a physician with the University of Illinois in
Chicago. He's contracted by the international union to oversee the
screenings. Hinkamp said the material causes problems in the lungs
and organ systems such as the gastrointestinal tract, including
the stomach, intestines and colon. Part of the screening is a
colon test, but Hinkamp said he also recommends a colonoscopy for
workers who were exposed more than 20 years to screen for cancer.

"We know from every single sheet metal worker we discuss this
with, whether they are old or young, they all have stories about
being exposed. So even young people in the trade are running into
it," he said.

Asbestos is not completely banned in the United States, although
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has set limits
of how long people can work around the material.

Hinkamp said fewer cases are being diagnosed altogether, but he
recommends regular screenings for all workers who have been
exposed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Finds Asbestos in Columbiana County Trash
--------------------------------------------------------------
WFMJ.com reported that the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
says it has determined that piles of burning trash contained
asbestos on property along Route 45 in Elkrun Township in March.

The EPA says tests found asbestos in half a dozen samples
collected by a team of Ohio EPA investigators following a field
fire on the property near Stookesberry Road.

The West Point Fire Department contacted the EPA after they saw
trailers on the property containing drums marked "hazardous waste"
and "asbestos".

Ohio EPA spokesperson Lindy Amer says that the asbestos had been
pulled from a trailer and tossed onto piles of burning refuse.
According to the U.S. EPA, exposure to asbestos can increase an
individuals risk of developing lung disease.

The EPA returned to the property and informed the owner to wet,
cover, and consolidate the toxic mineral and ensure that is is
disposed of properly.

Amer says the EPA will continue to monitor the situation to ensure
that the disposal instructions are followed.

She says the agency has not issued a citation or violation, but is
still evaluating the situation.

No health cautions or advisories have been issued associated with
the investigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Asbestos Exacerbating Pacific Problems
-----------------------------------------------------------
Radio NZ reported that a new report on the use of asbestos in the
Pacific has found that new forms of asbestos being imported into
the region from Asia are exarcebating an already serious problem.

The report, which looked at 13 island countries, found more than
180,000 square metres of asbestos in non-residential buildings,
enough to cover 26 football fields.

The manager of SPREP's Pacwaste management project Stewart
Williams said in many cases importers didn't even know they were
importing asbestos.

He said this was not helped by the fact that not a single Pacific
Island nation had banned the toxic material.

"I think if we don't do that then products will surreptiously come
in anyway so it is really, let us make it unacceptable to have
these kind of products. And if the demand and the recognition of
those products that have it ceases, then we won't have this
material come in."

"It is the much bigger problem it is the long term problem it is
all those houses all those residential premises and that is the
material that is more important from a disaster risk point of view
just because of sheer volume. Really I mean to rid that from the
entire region you are talking about hundreds of millions of
dollars quite a large funded project would be needed to address
that," he said.

Mr Williams says massive cyclones like Ian which struck Hapai in
Tonga and Pam in Vanuatu last year are examples of natural
disasters in areas known to have buildings made with materials
containing asbestos.

'The State of Asbestos in the Pacific' report compiled by the
regional environment programme SPREP and the World Health
Organisation with funding from the European Union has been
released to coincide with Global Asbestos Awareness Week which
runs from 1st to 7th April.




                            *********

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, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2016. 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 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *