---

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

              Friday, June 10, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 116




                            Headlines


101 PARK RESTAURANT: Suit Dismissed as to Workers Covered by CBA
24 HOUR FITNESS: Faces Class Suit Over "Lifetime Renewal Rate
ALLIED PACKING: "Lopez" Plaintiffs' Bid for Counsel Fees Denied
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Mor" Suit Claims
AMERICAN INT'L: Loses Bid to Dismiss Subprime Mortgage Case

AMERICAN INT'L: Former Execs Must Face Trial Over Fraud Charges
ARHAUS LLC: Faces "Seidler" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AT&T: Faces "Zatt" Action Over 10-Cent Per Minute Plan
BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Collecting Discharged Debt
BP PLC: Settles Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Class Action for $175MM

CANADA: Quebec Faces Class Action Over Illegal Medical Fees
CANADA: Judge OKs Kent Prison Inmates' Lockdown Class Action
CASCADE WATER: "Millan" FLSA Action Deal Has Final Okay
CLARK COUNTY COLLECTION: "Grider" Settlement Has Initial Okay
CONSUMER CELLULAR: Court Rejects Settlement Deal in "Bell"

EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action
EASTMAN KODAK: August 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
EDISON HOME: Faces "Fanina" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
ELIAS J: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
FAMBRANDS LLC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims

FORD MOTOR: Court Awards Over $843K in Atty's Fees in "MacDonald"
GEORGE BROWN: Former Students Win $2.75 Million in Damages
GIBCO MOTORS: Wage Class Action Remanded to State Court
GLOBAL SPORTS: Faces "Mandell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Bid to Transfer "Reese" to W.D. Ark. Granted

GOD GREATED: "Ahmed" Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Workers
GOD GREATED: Faces "Ahmed" 2nd Suit Over Untimely Wages
GREAT NECK: Faces "Aryal" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HAPPY DAY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
HAPPY HUCKSTER: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims

HOME ATTENDANT SERVICES: Faces "Minkova" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
HOSTESS BRANDS: Falsely Marketed Maple Glazed Donuts, Suit Says
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Canadian Citizens File Talc Class Action
JP BRONXVILLE: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Oil Flow Problem in Cars

LAMETTRY'S COLLISION: Faces Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
LLP GLOBAL: Faces "Yan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LYFT: Judge Defers Decision on $27MM Class Action Settlement
MANAGED CARE: Schutjer Bogar Files Medicaid Class Action
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Seeks Transfer of Ritz-Carlton Club Case

MARYLAND: $5MM Attorneys' Fees Award in "Braverman" Reversed
MASSAGE ENVY: Faces "Bandell" Suit in S. District California
MCCORMICK & SCHMICK: Sues NLRB Over Illegal Arbitration Claim
MECHEL BLUESTONE: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violation
MICHAEL S. HARRISON LLC: Faces "Staniland" Suit in D.N.J.

MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Adya" Suit Claims
MT POOLS: "Ward" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
NAPERVILLE ROTARY: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Illegal Gambling
NATIONWIDE DEBT: "Payton" Suit Over Debt Settlement Dismissed
NEMARO JEWELERS: "Paramo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

NEW MEXICO: "Lara" Settlement Deal Has Final Okay
ORACLE CORP: Faces Securities Action Over Accounting Practices
PACIFIC WEST: Faces "Shechter" Suit Over Breach of Contract
PARKSIDE CONSTRUCTION: "Bravo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
PEOPLE'S TRUST: Fla. Court to Hear Appeal in "Pesta" Suit

PERRIGO COMPANY: Faces "Zamfino" Suit Over Product Misbranding
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Faces Class Action Over Lead Poisoning Risk
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Citizens Mount Water Lead-Testing Campaign
PPE CASINO: Casino Workers' FLSA Class Action Can Proceed
PREMIER AUTOMOTIVE: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Advertisements

RCN TELECOM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Seal" Action Claims
REDWOOD, MN: Dismissal of "Mdewakanton" Class Suit Affirmed
ROCKY'S BELLA: "Solano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SANFORD BROWN: Former Students File Consumer Fraud Class Action
SCHOLARSHIP STORAGE: Final Settlement of "Curtis" Claims Okayed

SHEA'S AMERICAN GRILLE: "Barnett" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages
SIMON AND SHUSTER: Faces Class Action Over Ebook Royalties
SINGING RIVER: Judge Okays Retirees' Class Action Settlement
SNAPCHAT INC: Illegally Uses Class Members' Biometrics, Suit Says
STRAD ENERGY: Tristan Cos. File Class Action in Alberta Court

SWEDISH MEDICAL: Hospital Tech Who Stole Syringe HIV-Positive
TANGOE INC: July 25 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
TD BANK: Faces "McEnerney" Class Suit in District New Jersey
THAI POT: Faces "Cerezo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
THERANOS INC: Faces Three Consumer Fraud Class Actions

THERANOS INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Deceptive Advertisements
TRAMMELL CROW: Arbitration Clause in Tamko Warranty Upheld
TRANSENTERIX INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.C.
TRIUS TRUCKING: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Ex-Employees Claim Fraudulent Marketing Tactics

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Donald Trump Plans to Reopen Business
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Iraq War Veteran Testifies in Fraud Case
TRUMP U: Plaintiff's Law Firm Founder with Close Ties to Clintons
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Taxi Workers Alliance Files Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Lawyers Want Settlement Tossed

UBER TECH: Judge Expressed Concern Over $100MM Settlement Offer
UNITED STATES: Trade Groups File Suit Over Retirement Device
VALEANT PHARMA: Air Conditioning Trust Fund Files Class Action
VICTORY ENTERTAINMENT: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
YAMAHA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in "James" Product Defect Suit

WYNDHAM HOTELS: Faces Suit Over Resort Fees
ZILLOW: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Employees' OT Wages

* Common Law Jurisdictions Increasingly Accepting of Class Action
* Indian Government Sets Up NCLT to Help Facilitate Class Actions
* Law Society Calls for Class Action Regime in Queensland
* SA Gold Mining Firms Mull Appeal of Silicosis Case Ruling


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Had 118 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WRGrace Paid $1.1M for Ch. 11, Asbestos at Mar31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Still Analyzing Scope of Asbestos Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Had 35,040 Claims Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HARSCO Had 17,134 Suits Pending at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suits vs. Dixie Group Set for 2017, 2018 Trials
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Continues to Defend Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Continues to Defend Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roger Corp. Had 535 Claims Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Defending 3,785 Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aviva Ordered to Post $1.5-Mil. Bond
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WECCO, Hartford Win Dismissal of GICA Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Grant in "Hetzel" Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hurley" Stays in District Court, 4th Cir. Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Vacates Order Dismissing "Hassell"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants CertainTeed's Dismissal from "Lee"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurich's Bid to Amend Suit vs. INCA Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers' Partial Summary Judgment Bid Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment vs. Union Carbide Flipped
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attys Can't Shake RICO Claims Despite Deal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Chip Bee Gardens
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Litigation Attracting More Profit-Driven Attys
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Summary Judgment in NY Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Winstead Factory Mired in Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Confirmed at Scarborough Spa

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Halts Iowa Properties Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $8.75MM in Asbestos Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Derbyshire Joiner Killed by Exposure to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered Inside Water Treatment Plant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Bagenalstown Site Feared to Have Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Not "Apparent Manufacturer" of Insulag
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MassDEP Shuts Down Project at Closed Church
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former School to be Demolished Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Refuses to Reconsider Dismissal


                            *********


101 PARK RESTAURANT: Suit Dismissed as to Workers Covered by CBA
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JESUS IBARRA, ETC., ET AL., Respondents, v.
101 PARK RESTAURANT CORP., ET AL., Appellants, 2014-08497, Index
No. 23350/12 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court of New York, Second Department modified the order of
the Supreme Court, Queens County dated August 4, 2014, which
denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint.

"The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the
defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so
much of the complaint as was asserted by the plaintiffs who are
union members subject to the mandatory arbitration provisions of
the [collective bargaining agreement]," the Appellate Division
said.

Club 101 is a membership-based club and venue space owned by the
defendant 101 Park Restaurant Corp.  The defendant Restaurant
Marketing Associates, Inc. (RMA), provides catering services to
101 Park.  The plaintiffs are former and current union and
nonunion employees of RMA who worked at events held at Club 101.
In November 2012, the plaintiffs commenced the putative class
action to recover damages for violations of Labor Law section 196-
d.  The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants charged their
customers service charges which purported to be gratuities for
their employees, but withheld those gratuities from the
plaintiffs.  The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing
the complaint on various grounds.  The Supreme Court denied the
motion, and the defendants appealed.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York modified
the order, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying
that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary
judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as was asserted by
the plaintiffs who are union members subject to the mandatory
arbitration provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, and
substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the
defendants' motion.  As modified, the order was affirmed, without
costs or disbursements.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2016 decision order is
available at https://is.gd/70bfG6 from Leagle.com.

Kaplan Rice LLP, New York, NY (Howard J. Kaplan --
hkaplan@kaplanrice.com -- of counsel), for appellants.

Robert Hiltzik, Jericho, NY, Miguel A. Terc, Astoria, NY, and
Thomas D. Gearon -- gearonlaw@aol.com -- Flushing, NY, for
respondents (one brief filed).


24 HOUR FITNESS: Faces Class Suit Over "Lifetime Renewal Rate
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that 24 Hour Fitness defrauds
members by offering a "lifetime renewal rate" but then doubling
and tripling renewal fees, a class action claims in Oakland,
Calif. Alameda County Court.


ALLIED PACKING: "Lopez" Plaintiffs' Bid for Counsel Fees Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LANETTE LOUISE LOPEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ALLIED PACKING & SUPPLY INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-
00371-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the
plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees seeking $85,203.75.

Nearly two years after the action was filed, the defendant,
Hillshire Brands Company removed the action to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California from the
Alameda County Superior Court based on diversity jurisdiction.
Hillshire argued that the amendment of the plaintiffs' state court
personal injury action into a wrongful death action "commenced a
new action" re-starting the 1-year clock for diversity removal.
The district court disagreed and granted the plaintiffs' motion to
remand.  Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
attorneys' fees seeking $85,203.75.

Judge Corley found that Hillshire's removal position, while
ultimately unpersuasive, was not unreasonable, and declined to
award fees.

A full-text copy of Judge Corley's June 1, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/5FSGtJ from Leagle.com.

Lanette Louise Lopez, Pillar Elan Lopez, S. V. L., Plaintiffs,
represented by Jeffrey A. Kaiser, Kaiser Gornick LLP & Joshua Owen
Reed, Kaiser Gornick LLP.

The Hillshire Brands Company, Defendant, represented by Stephen
John Squillario -- ssquillario@hbblaw.com -- Haight Brown &
Bonesteel LLP, Anthony David Danhelka -- adanhelka@smbtrials.com -
- Swanson, Martin and Bell, LLP, pro hac vice, Arthur Jerome
Reliford, Jr. -- areliford@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin and
Bell, LLP, pro hac vice, Lee Blair Marshall --
lmarshall@hbblaw.com -- Haight Brown et al LLP & Paul Stephen
Fardy -- sfardy@smbtrials.com -- Swanson Martin and Bell LLP, pro
hac vice.

Honeywell International Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel
Dennis O'Shea -- doshea@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, David
T. Biderman -- dbiderman@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP &
Kristine Elizabeth Kruger -- kkruger@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins
Coie LLP.


AMERICAN CORADIUS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Mor" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Izhak Mor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. American Coradius International LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02606
(E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

American Coradius International LLC operates a debt collection
firm located at 2420 Sweet Home Rd #150, Amherst, NY 14228.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Sasson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
      2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 339-0856
      Facsimile: (347) 244-7178
      E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com


AMERICAN INT'L: Loses Bid to Dismiss Subprime Mortgage Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that American International Group Inc. failed to
persuade a California judge to dismiss a lawsuit by Pacific
Investment Management Co. that accuses AIG of lying about its
subprime mortgage exposure prior to the 2008 financial crisis.

Judge Thierry Patrick Colaw of Orange County Superior Court, in a
decision dated May 31, rejected AIG's argument that Pimco, a unit
of German insurer Allianz S.E., waited too long to sue over the
alleged deception.

But the judge said AIG can appeal immediately, noting that federal
courts in comparable cases have reached differing conclusions over
the proper time limit.

Pimco is seeking to recoup losses allegedly suffered by more than
60 funds, including its flagship Pimco Total Return, over
securities purchased between 2006 and 2008.

Newport Beach, California-based Pimco sued AIG last year after
opting out of a $970.5 million class action settlement between the
insurer and other investors.

AIG had been accused of misleading investors about its exposure to
subprime mortgages and credit default swaps, culminating in $182.3
billion of federal bailouts.

Some plaintiffs opt out of class action settlements when they hope
to recover more by suing on their own. Pimco has about $1.5
trillion of assets under management.

AIG spokesman Jon Diat in a statement said the New York-based
company disagreed with Judge Colaw's decision and will argue on
appeal that "the more recent and better-reasoned decisions of the
federal courts of appeal should be followed."

Pimco declined to comment on Judge Colaw's decision.

AIG had brought related litigation in U.S. District Court in
Manhattan seeking to thwart Pimco's federal securities law claim.
A judge there ruled on April 18 that letting the California court
handle the case was better than "piecemeal" litigation.

The case is Pacific Investment Management Co. et al. v. American
International Group Inc., California Superior Court, Orange
County, No. 30-2015-00779738-CU-SL-CXC.


AMERICAN INT'L: Former Execs Must Face Trial Over Fraud Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
though they already settled with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, former AIG executives must still face a trial on fraud
charges brought by New York's attorney general, the state's
highest court ruled June 2, in Manhattan.

The six-page opinion says a lifetime ban on former AIG CEO Maurice
"Hank" Greenberg and CFO Howard Smith would be warranted if
prosecutors can show a "reasonable likelihood of a continuing
violation."

Greenberg condemned the ruling in statement through his attorney,
saying it "flies in the face of both the court' own precedent and
federal law."

New York's attorney general brought the case more than a decade
ago, accusing the AIG executives of cooking the books for the
commercial insurer to inflate its reported profits by billions of
dollars through no-risk reinsurance transactions.

AIG's board ousted Greenberg as CEO after the accounting scandal
and corresponding investigation came to light in 2005. Massive
losses caused by the sale of risky credit default swaps threatened
to bring down AIG all together three years later, but the federal
government bailed it out with $180 billion.

The case against AIG and its former executives has been waged on
both criminal and civil fronts, with the ink on multiple
settlements long dry.

In 2009, Greenberg settled with the SEC for $15 million, while
Smith paid $1.5 million. The year before Greenberg and three other
executives settled a shareholder lawsuit for nearly $115 million.

Those other settlements have proven a thorn in the side for New
York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who had taken on the case
the last few years. There is case law limiting how much New York
can recover in financial fraud cases where there federal class-
action settlements have occurred.

Schneiderman meanwhile seeks lifetime bans on both Greenberg and
Smith, as well as disgorgement of tens of millions of dollars in
bonus money.

Attorneys for Greenberg and Smith have tried to get the case
dismissed several times, arguing that previous settlements
precluded a state settlement.

The New York Court of Appeals last rejected those arguments in
2013, ruling then that AIG's 2009 settlement with the SEC did not
block New York state from also suing the former executives for
disgorgement and a lifetime ban on their participation in the
securities industry or on boards of public companies.

A month after this ruling, however, the defendants again moved for
summary judgment, telling the trial court that federal law pre-
empted disgorgement and that such relief is also not available
under the state's Martin Act, which allows New York to file civil
and criminal charges in financial fraud cases.

Though a judge sided with the state, a panel with the Appellate
Division asked the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, to
review.

Writing for the 6-0 court today, Judge Leslie Stein said
disgorgement is an available penalty under the Martin Act and that
federal law did not supersede it. Judge Michael Garcia, confirmed
just this past February, took no part in the proceedings.

Though Stein noted the court would not revisit the arguments it
rejected in 2013, Greenberg complained that today's ruling
"inexplicably fails to address at all the principal argument
raised on appeal" that existing settlements with the SEC and AIG
barred the relief sought by Schneiderman.

Stein is represented by David Boies with Boies, Schiller &
Flexner.

Schneiderman praised the decision.

"Nobody -- no matter how rich or powerful -- is allowed to commit
fraud in our state, and we are very pleased the people of New York
will finally have a chance to obtain justice at trial," the AG
said.

New York has pursued charges against Greenberg and Smith since
2005, under then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.


ARHAUS LLC: Faces "Seidler" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Seidler, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Arhaus LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-01587-JKB (D. Md., May 23, 2016),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Arhaus LLC is a national furniture retailer that caters to
clientele who have an appreciation for fine furniture products and
interior designs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Howard B. Hoffman, Esq.
      HOWARD B. HOFFMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 304
      Rockville, MD 20852
      Telephone: (301) 251-3752
      Facsimile: (301) 251-3753


AT&T: Faces "Zatt" Action Over 10-Cent Per Minute Plan
------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in San Diego accuses AT&T of a "classic bait
and switch," by offering a 10-cent per minute plan for all
domestic cellphone calls, though it has no such plan, the cheapest
per-minute plan being 25 cents.

Lead plaintiff Eric Zatt sued AT&T and AT&T Mobility on June 2.
He bought an AT&T GoPhone in a package labeled "Your plan -- your
choice," offering a 10-cent per minute plan for any call within
the United States, Zatt says.

AT&T sells GoPhones and GoPhone-compatible cellphones at major
retail stores, including Wal-Mart, Walgreen, Best Buy, Target,
Staples, Seven-11 and elsewhere, but only AT&T and AT&T Mobility
are named as defendants.

"Under the heading 'Your plan - your choice,' the packaging, for
the cellular phone purchased by plaintiff Zatt features a $0.10
per minute plan for calls within the United States," the lawsuit
states. "Despite this representation . . . AT&T offers no such
plan, instead only allowing GoPhone purchasers to choose other,
substantially more expensive calling plans. This tactic or
practice constitutes a classic 'bait and switch.'"

The lawsuit lists the plans AT&T actually offers, including
monthly plans for $30, $45 or $60, or $2 a day, or 25 cents a
minute.

"AT&T's least expensive offering is a $0.25 per minute plan," Zatt
says. He says that not only does AT&T "victimize" customers by
doing this, he lost the purchase price of his phone as well, as he
refuses to use it.

"Plaintiff and members of the class have been victimized by this
practices in with AT&T advertises on the packaging for its
GoPhones that it has no intention of actually providing to
consumers," Zatt says. "After purchasing a device, and discovering
that AT&T does not offer the plan that they sought to use,
consumers are then forced to either purchase an alternative (and
more expensive) plan, or they are left with an otherwise useless
cellular phone."

AT&T is one of the nation's largest providers of prepaid cellphone
and data services. In the first quarter of 2016, it added 500,000
new prepaid customers through its GoPhone and Cricket prepaid
services, bringing its total of prepaid customers to 11 million,
according to the complaint.

Zatt seeks certification of a nationwide class and California
subclass, and damages for fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, false advertising, and unfair competition.

He is represented by Stephen Basser -- sbasser@barrack.com -- with
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine in San Diego, who could not be reached for
comment June 6. An AT&T spokesman declined to comment on the
lawsuit.


BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Collecting Discharged Debt
------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Reithel, an individual, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 6:16-cv-
06326 (W.D.N.Y., May 23, 2016), is an action for damages as a
result of the Defendant's attempts to collect debt that was
previously discharged in bankruptcy.

Bank of America, N.A. is a multinational banking and financial
services corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander J. Douglas, Esq.
      GESUND & PAILET, LLC
      11 Alger Dr.
      Rochester, NY  14624
      Telephone: (585) 703-9783
      Facsimile: (504) 265-9492
      E-mail: alex@gp-nola.com


BP PLC: Settles Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Class Action for $175MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Camilla Canocchi, writing for thisismoney.co.uk, reports that BP
has agreed a settlement with investors who launched a class-action
lawsuit against the blue chip energy group accusing it of
understating the severity of the disastrous 2010 Gulf of Mexico
oil spill.

The oil giant said it will pay out $175million (GBP121.3 million)
to shareholders who bought stock soon after the oil spill and
later claimed that the share price "did not reflect the magnitude
of the disaster facing the company."

Investors had sought a settlement of $2.5billion (GBP1.7 billion).
However, BP said this settlement did not resolve other
"securities-related litigation" in connection with the spill, so
other payouts could be on the way.

The settlement with shareholders, who will be paid during the
current financial year, follows that with the US government and
five states affected by the spill, to whom BP agreed to pay up to
$18.7 billion.

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill was sparked by an explosion on the
Deepwater Horizon rig on 20 April 2010, which killed 11 men and
saw 134 million gallons of oil flow into Gulf waters in one of the
worst environmental disasters to strike the United States.

More than 8,000 birds, sea turtles, fish and other wildlife were
found injured or dead in the six months after the spill.

Shares in BP were trading 2.3 per cent, or 8p higher on June 3 at
361p, buoyed as well by a rise in oil prices above the $50 a
barrel level.

The stocks has fallen by 45 per cent since the Gulf of Mexico
disaster and lately have been under pressure amid falling crude
prices.

The price of UK benchmark Brent crude has more than halved over
the past two years, falling from around $114 a barrel in June 2014
to below $30 earlier this year, causing oil companies' profits to
shrink.

But on June 3 the oil price pushed back above the $50 a barrel
level after figures on June 2 showing another draw-down in US
crude stockpiles offset oil cartel Opec's failure to agree on any
cuts to its production levels at a meeting.

Like rivals, BP has been forced to reduce spending, cull jobs and
sell assets in the face of the oil price slump.  It shrank capital
spending three times last year to GBP13billion and slashed nearly
10 per cent of its 80,000 workforce.

BP chief executive Bob Dudley recently faced a shareholder revolt
over his GBP13.8 million pay deal., with some 60 per cent of
shareholders voting against his pay package.

                           *     *     *

Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that BP announced the settlement late June 2, two days after U.S.
District Judge Keith Ellison pared down some of the investors'
claims but declined to grant BP a wholesale dismissal.  The
settlement is by no means a done deal, as it must be presented to
Ellison and go through a lengthy process in which Ellison will
decide if it's fair to all the class members.  Ellison approved
the class action after federal lawsuits from Oregon, Ohio,
California and dozens in Houston were consolidated to streamline
the investors' claims that BP had violated the Securities and
Exchange Act.

In his May 31 ruling, Ellison dismissed some "falsity and
scienter" claims against Suttles, finding that the class could not
establish Suttles' press conference were intentionally misleading
because Suttles was merely giving his opinion about the best spill
estimates.

A plaintiff must prove a defendant had knowledge they were doing
something wrong to establish scienter.

Ellison declined to probe Hayward's statements to the Houston
Chronicle for falsity and scienter because "plaintiffs have failed
to establish loss causation for any of the stock drops that
followed Hayward's statement," he wrote in a 70-page order.

But the judge declined to dismiss the class action, finding there
were fact issues that should be hashed out during a trial.

If approved, the proposed settlement makes a trial unnecessary.

Suttles retired from BP in January 2011, and Hayward resigned as
the London-based company's CEO in October 2010.


CANADA: Quebec Faces Class Action Over Illegal Medical Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that the Point Saint Charles community clinic
has filed a class action lawsuit against the Quebec government
over illegal medical fees.

Despite the law, they say hundreds of medical practitioners are
charging patients for tasks such as opening files, lab fees and
even for picking up radiology reports.

The clinic has long denounced the practice and point out that the
Quebec Health Insurance Board strictly forbids these kinds of
fees.

However, some clinics use loopholes to get around the law.
The clinic is asking the government to stop ignoring the practice
and are also asking the province to reimburse the hundreds of
thousands of Quebecers who have paid for these fees over the past
three years.

Stephan Defoy of the Point Saint Charles Community Clinic said the
fees can make the difference between a patient seeking health care
or going without.

"At Point Saint Charles they have a lot of people who don't have a
big revenue and for a lot of them they cannot pay these fees," he
said.  "And if they cannot pay these fees they don't have access
to medical services and that's terrible for them."

It can take years for a class-action suit to make its way through
the court system so the clinic urges anyone who has paid these
fees to keep their receipts.

They may come in handy for claiming a reimbursement if the case is
successful in court.


CANADA: Judge OKs Kent Prison Inmates' Lockdown Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a judge has
found that allegations inmates of Kent prison were mistreated
during a lockdown of nearly 11 days are likely suitable for a
class action proceeding.

In January 2010 officials at the maximum security prison in the
Fraser Valley imposed the lockdown after receiving an anonymous
report that a "zip gun" or improvised handgun had been brought
into the federal jail.

During much of the lockdown the prison's 222 inmates were kept in
their cells and all programs and prison visits were suspended.

Inmates were strip-searched, with the regional Emergency Response
Team (ERT) playing a central role in the searches.

The representative plaintiff in the case alleges that heavily
armed ERT members were deployed without authorization in the
prison's living areas and were directly involved in the removal of
inmates from their cells for the strip searches.

He claims the cell extractions were carried out by ERT members
pointing their automatic weapons at inmates, even ones who were
compliant.

An investigation into the lockdown resulted in a report that found
what happened at Kent amounted to an abuse of correctional power
and authority and violations of human rights law.

The lawsuit makes a number of claims, including that the inmates
were unlawfully imprisoned during the lockdown and that prison
staff were negligent.  Those claims have been denied by the
defendant federal government.

In assessing whether the case was suitable as a class action
proceeding, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Murray Blok concluded that
most of the requirements had been met.

The judge found that the pleadings of the plaintiff disclosed
reasonable causes of action and that the class definition was
appropriate.  He also found that a class proceeding was the most
preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of the
case.

But rather than declaring it a class action suit, he said he
needed to hear more submissions from the lawyers.

"My present view is that this matter is likely suitable for
certification as a class action, albeit in revised form, but there
are two matters on which I will have to hear submissions before a
final determination is made."

The judge said the wording of the common issues in the case needed
to be reformulated and the pleadings of the plaintiff amended
before he could make a decision.


CASCADE WATER: "Millan" FLSA Action Deal Has Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NICHOLAS MILLAN, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CASCADE WATER SERVICES,
INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, No. 1:12-cv-01821-
AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony W. Ishii granted in full the
plaintiff's unopposed motions for final approval of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective action settlement and for
attorneys' fees, costs, and representative service payment.

Judge Ishii certified the settlement class defined as: "Any person
who, at any point between November 6, 2008 and February 21, 2014,
inclusive, is or was employed by Cascade Water Services, Inc. in
California as a Technician or other similar position."

The parties have agreed to an all-in settlement, without a
reversion, in a gross settlement amount of $150,000.00.  The
settlement agreement also provided for deductions from the gross
settlement fund for attorneys' fees and costs, class
representative service award, claims administrator costs, and PAGA
payments.

Plaintiff Nicholas Millan was appointed as a suitable class
representative for the settlement class and awarded $3,500.00 as a
representative service payment.

Darren M. Cohen and Eric B. Kingsley of Kingsley & Kingsley, APC
were appointed as class counsel for the settlement class, and were
awarded $50,000.00 in attorneys' fees and $677.15 in costs.

The settlement administrator CPT Group, Inc., was awarded to up to
$5,500.00 for settlement administration costs.

The proposed PAGA penalties of $4,000.00 ($3,000.00 to the State
of California Labor Workforce Development Agency and $1,000.00 to
the Class) were approved.

A full-text copy of Judge Ishii's May 31, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/cBsQIl from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Millan, Plaintiff, represented by Darren Michael Cohen,
Kingsley & Kingsley APC & Eric Bryce Kingsley, Kingsley & Kingsley
APC.

Cascade Water Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Melinda S.
Riechert -- melinda.riechert@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Yin Zheng, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.


CLARK COUNTY COLLECTION: "Grider" Settlement Has Initial Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kent J. Dawson preliminarily approved the parties'
settlement agreement in the case captioned RONALD GRIDER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
Plaintiff, v. CLARK COUNTY COLLECTION SERVICE, LLC, a Nevada
limited-liability company; DOLLAR LOAN CENTER, LLC, a Nevada
limited-liability company; and DLC EMPIRE, LLC, a South Dakota
limited-liability company, Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-01731-KJD-
CWH (D. Nev.).

For purposes of the settlement only, Judge Dawson conditionally
certified the settlement class, which consists of: All natural
persons, within the United States, who were called by Clark County
Collection Service, LLC (CCCS), on their cellular telephone --
excluding calls that were initiated by manually dialing via a
desktop telephone -- between September 20, 2009 and September 20,
2013, as a result of having their telephone number listed by a
customer of Dollar Loan Center, LLC as a "Reference" on a credit
application.  Settlement class members do not include recipients
of a single telephone call received as a result of a reassigned
telephone number, as defined by the Federal Communications
Commission in its TCPA Omnibus Declaratory Ruling and Order No.
15-72 (July 18, 2015) .

Judge Dawson appointed the named plaintiff, Ronald Grider, as
class representative, the law firms of Bailey Kennedy and Haines &
Krieger as settlement class counsel, and the ILYM Group to serve
as the claims administrator.

A final approval hearing shall be held on February 21, 2017.

A full-text copy of Judge Dawson's May 31, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/IjH2ME from Leagle.com.

Pasquail Bates, Ronald Grider, Erik W. Wahl, Dillyn Warren, Julie
Wright, Sharon Pratt, Plaintiffs, represented by David H. Krieger,
Haines & Krieger, LLC, Dennis L. Kennedy --
dkennedy@baileykennedy.com -- Bailey Kennedy, George Haines,
Haines and Krieger, LLC, Kelly B Stout -- kstout@baileykennedy.com
-- Bailey Kennedy, LLP & Paul C. Williams --
pwilliams@baileykennedy.com -- Bailey Kennedy, LLP.

Dollar Loan Center, LLC, DLC Empire, LLC, Clark County Collection
Service, LLC, Defendants, represented by Holly Stein Sollod --
hsteinsollod@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, pro hac vice,
Kathleen K. Custer -- kkuster@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart
LLP, pro hac vice, Nicole E. Lovelock --
nelovelock@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP & Patrick J
Reilly -- preilly@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP.


CONSUMER CELLULAR: Court Rejects Settlement Deal in "Bell"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SHAWNA BELL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CONSUMER CELLULAR,
INCORPORATED, an Oregon Domestic Business Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00941-SI (D. Or.), Judge Michael H. Simon denied
the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of their
proposed class action settlement.

Shawna Bell brought the hybrid collective and class action lawsuit
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
Oregon wage-and-hour laws against Defendant Consumer Cellular,
Inc.  The complaint characterizes the FLSA claim as an "opt-in"
collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).  The complaint
characterizes the Oregon wage-and-hour claim as an "opt-out" class
action under Rule 23(b)(3).

Judge Simon declined to issue an order preliminarily approving the
proposed settlement and certifying the proposed settlement class
for the following reasons:

          -- The parties, in their joint motion, do not address
             whether and, if so, how the proposed settlement
             class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the
             Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

          -- The parties, in their motion, do not address how or
             why the proposed "opt-in" requirement is appropriate
             for this settlement.

          -- The parties, in their motion, do not discuss why
             class certification under Rule 23 is the appropriate
             method for settlement where, as here, the settlement
             agreement seeks to dispose of class members' FLSA
             claims as well as their Oregon wage-and-hour claims.

          -- The parties, in their joint motion, provide no
             explanation, analysis, or authority for why
             reversion of any unclaimed settlement funds to
             the defendant is appropriate.

          -- The proposed notice and objection process is not
             fair, reasonable, and adequate, and that it does not
             provide the best notice practicable.

A full-text copy of Judge Simon's May 31, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/YAykYw from Leagle.com.

Shawna Bell, Plaintiff, represented by Alan J. Leiman, Leiman &
Johnson, LLC & Drew G. Johnson, Leiman & Johnson, LLC.

Consumer Cellular, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by David
J. Riewald -- driewald@bullardlaw.com -- Bullard Law, Francis T.
Barnwell -- fbarnwell@bullardlaw.com -- Bullard Law & Liani
Jeanheh Reeves -- lreeves@bullardlaw.com -- Bullard Law.


EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on June 1 disclosed that it
has filed class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey against Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Eagle Pharmaceuticals" or the "Company") and its CEO on behalf
of all persons or entities who acquired Eagle Pharmaceuticals
securities during the period from
February 23, 2016 through March 18, 2016 (the "Class Period").
Pursuant to applicable law, investors have until 60 days from the
date of this notice to file a motion to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the investor lawsuit, if they so choose.

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period the Company
made misrepresentations about the FDA approval process for its new
drug, Kangio(TM).

On March 18, 2016, the Company revealed that the FDA had issued a
Complete Response Letter stating that it could not approve the
drug application for Kangio in its current form and requesting
further characterization of bivalirudin-related substances in the
drug.  The Company's stock price declined materially in response.

If you acquired Eagle Pharmaceuticals securities during the Class
Period and you are interested in learning more about this matter
and any rights you might have with respect to these claims,
contact Rona Li at securitiescases@kmllp.com or by telephone at
(212) 371-6600. Please bear in mind that some of these rights may
be time-sensitive.

Kirby McInerney LLP -- http://www.kmllp.com-- is a New York-based
plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, whistleblower,
antitrust and consumer litigation.  The firm has specialized in
complex litigation, including securities class actions, for
several decades.


EASTMAN KODAK: August 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
In the United States District Court for the Western District of
New York, in In re Eastman Kodak ERISA Litigation, Civil Action
No. 12-06051-DGL, a Settlement Notice has been mailed as well as
published on the Settlement website at
www.KodakERISAsettlement.com a summary of which follows:

Summary Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Scheduling
of Fairness Hearing

To:

All Persons who, at any time during the period from January 1,
2010, through March 31, 2012 (the "Class Period"), (a) were
participants in or beneficiaries of the Kodak Employee Stock
Ownership Plan (the "ESOP") and/or (b) were participants in or
beneficiaries of the Eastman Kodak Employees' Savings and
Investment Plan (the "SIP"), and whose SIP Plan accounts included
investments in the Kodak Stock Fund.

If you are a member of the class described above, your rights will
be affected and you may be entitled to a payment from the
Settlement Fund.  Please read carefully.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the above-
referenced action has been certified as a class action for
purposes of a proposed $9.7 million cash settlement, subject to
review and final approval by the Court.  As part of the proposed
Settlement, Settlement Class Members who show a loss under the
proposed Plan of Allocation may be entitled to a payment under the
terms of the Settlement.  You do not need to do anything to
receive a payment under the Settlement if you are entitled to one,
but your rights will be affected.  The Settlement includes a
release of claims related to the administration of the ESOP and
SIP (together, the "Plans") and the selection of investment
options under the Plans.

A Fairness Hearing has been scheduled before Judge David G.
Larimer of the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York in the Kenneth B. Keating Federal Building,
100 State Street, Rochester, NY  14614, at 2:00 p.m., on
August 22, 2016, to determine whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and to consider the proposed Plan of Allocation and Plaintiffs'
Counsel's applications for attorneys' fees, expenses, and Case
Contribution Awards.

You cannot exclude yourself from the Settlement.  You can,
however, file written comments or objections with the Court.  You
or your lawyer may also appear and request the opportunity to
speak at the Fairness Hearing at your own expense.  To do so, you
must send your comments and/or objections to the Court and the
Parties' attorneys no later than August 1, 2016.  Detailed
instructions can be found on the Settlement website at
www.KodakERISAsettlement.com where you can also obtain a more
detailed Class Notice about the terms of the Settlement, how the
existence of a qualifying loss will be determined, and how the
payments will be calculated, along with the Class Action
Settlement Agreement and related materials.  Additional
information and materials, including Class Counsel's application
for attorneys' fees, will be posted on the Settlement website as
they are filed with the Court. You may also write to In re Eastman
Kodak ERISA Litigation Settlement, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., Settlement
Administrator, P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI  53217 to request
copies of these materials.

All other inquiries may be made by writing to Class Counsel at the
following addresses:

         Gerald Wells III
         Mark P. Kindall
         Connolly Wells & Gray, LLP
         Izard Nobel LLP
         2200 Renaissance Boulevard
         29 South Main Street, Suite 305
         King of Prussia, PA  19406
         West Hartford, CT  06107
         gwells@cwg-law.com
         mkindall@izardnobel.com
         Telephone: (610) 822-3700
         Telephone: (860) 493-6294

Published by Order of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York


EDISON HOME: Faces "Fanina" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Edison Home Health Care LLC. The
case is captioned Nadiia Fanina, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Palintiff, v. Edison Home Health
Care LLC, also known as: Edison Liquidating LLC, and John Does 1-
25, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02722 (E.D.N.Y., May 30,
2016).

Edison Home provides personalized home care to elderly and
disabled people throughout the five boroughs of New York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ELIAS J: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robins O. Ruedas Diaz, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Elias J & L Corp. d/b/a Homestyle
Desserts Bakery and Rose Sanca, Case No. 7:16-cv-03815-CS
(S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Homestyle Desserts Bakery and
located at 24 South Water Street, Peekskill, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
              bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jazeller@zellerlegal.com


FAMBRANDS LLC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fidencio Luevanos, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated v. Fambrands, LLC, FAM, LLC, Kamran Staffing, Inc.,
Workfore Solutions WFS, LLC, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. BC620740 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay wages for all hours
worked at the correct rates of pay.

Fambrands, LLC and FAM, LLC manufacture and distribute men's,
women's and kid's active wear and lifestyle apparel.

Kamran Staffing, Inc. and Workfore Solutions WFS, LLC own and
operate an employment agency in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David G. Spivak, Esq.
      Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
      THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
      9454 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 303
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 499-4730
      Facsimile: (310) 499-4739
      E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
              caroline@spivaklaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Court Awards Over $843K in Atty's Fees in "MacDonald"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JEAN MAcDONALD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 13-cv-02988-JST (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Jon S. Tigar granted in part and denied, in part, the motion
for attorneys' fees, expenses, and class representative
enhancement awards filed by the plaintiffs Jean MacDonald,
Veronica H. Aguirre, and Brian C. Barbee.

Judge Tigar awarded $843,433.50 in attorneys' fees.  The judge,
however, denied the plaintiffs' request for reimbursement of
expenses and costs, as well as the plaintiffs' request for
incentive awards.

A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's May 31, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/0KMIMm from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs filed the putative class action on June 28, 2013 on
behalf of individuals who purchased or leased 2005-2008 Ford
Escape Hybrid vehicles and/or 2006-2008 Mercury Mariner Hybrid
vehicles ("Class Vehicles") against the defendant, Ford Motor
Company.  The plaintiffs alleged that the Class Vehicles, equipped
with the Motor Electronic Cooling System (MECS), contained
defective coolant pumps that caused abrupt loss of power, often at
highway speeds, and consequently presented a safety risk to
drivers.  The plaintiffs further alleged that Ford knew or should
have known about the defect and failed to inform consumers.

Jean MacDonald, Veronica H. Aguirre, Brian C. Barbee, Plaintiff,
represented by Robert Kenneth Friedl --
robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Tarek H.
Zohdy -- tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Lawyers, APC,
Arvin Ratanavongse, Capstone Law APC, Cody Robert Padgett --
cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, David
Lishian Cheng, Capstone Law APC & Jordan L. Lurie --
jordan.lurie@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Amir M. Nassihi --
anassihi@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., John Mark Thomas
-- jthomas@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC, David Matthew George
-- dgeorge@dykema@com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC, pro hac vice, James
Powell Feeney -- jfeeney@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC &
Krista L. Lenart -- klenart@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC, pro
hac vice.


GEORGE BROWN: Former Students Win $2.75 Million in Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Louise Brown, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a group of
former George Brown College students has won a landmark $2.75
million in damages from the college for misleading advertising
about a course that failed to deliver the career credentials it
advertised.

The settlement was part of a class-action suit by 108 former
students of the International Business Program who complained the
course did not deliver three industry qualifications that students
felt had been promised in the course description.

In releasing the settlement statement -- eight years after the
lawsuit was launched -- Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward
Belobaba called the compensation "generous and fair."

Justice Belobaba found the college guilty in 2012 of "negligent
misrepresentation" and a breach of the Consumer Protection Act for
suggesting the eight-month program would qualify students for
three special industry designations -- international trade, custom
services and international freight forwarding.  The credentials
usually take two years to earn and can lead to lucrative jobs.

However the college had no partnerships with the industry groups
that administer those designations, which had been the attraction
for many students, two-thirds of whom had come from around the
world.

"It's taken eight years, but we're just happy this weight has been
lifted off our shoulders and someone finally listened to us," said
Katrina Ramdath, who had quit a bank job to take the George Brown
course specifically for the designation in international trade.

The settlement will give each international student in the class
action up to $22,484 to cover tuition, textbooks, airfare,
immigration fees, public transportation and living expenses while
they were here, and a portion of the income they lost by going to
school.  Canadian students will receive up to $16,427 each, and
the three students who led the class action, including
Ms. Ramdath, each receive a $10,000 honorarium for their time.

George Brown never intended to mislead students by suggesting the
credentials would follow automatically from taking the course,
said Mark Nesbitt, vice-president of corporate services, "but the
language was misleading and has been fixed.  It was a wake-up call
for us to be careful in writing consumer marketing promises.

"It underlines the importance of bringing a more critical set of
eyes to our communications."

Sources said the settlement is the first in Ontario in which
claimants did not have to argue for their own individual damages
amounts by showing receipts, etc., but rather had damages
calculated on an "aggregate basis" based on figures provided by an
expert report presented by the students' lawyer.

Ms. Ramdath called the settlement "bittersweet; it finally
happened after eight years, so there's a sigh of relief, but I
still don't have that designation (international trade) I had
wanted and thought I was going to get through the course."


GIBCO MOTORS: Wage Class Action Remanded to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Jaret Fuente, Esq. -- jfuente@carltonfields.com -- and
Christine Stoddard, Esq. -- cstoddard@carltonfields.com -- of
Carlton Fields, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, report
that the Southern District of Illinois recently confirmed that
traditional diversity jurisdiction and jurisdiction under the
Class Act Fairness Act (CAFA) provide two separate means of
obtaining federal jurisdiction over class action lawsuits --
though, in this case, defendants failed to satisfy either.

Two plaintiffs brought a putative class action lawsuit in state
court alleging that their employer failed to pay overtime wages.
The defendant, an Indiana citizen, removed the case to federal
court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, which requires
complete diversity and an amount in controversy that exceeds
$75,000.  Plaintiffs, both Illinois citizens, argued that only
CAFA provides federal jurisdiction over class actions, and remand
was proper because defendant failed to meet CAFA's requirements:
although there were 100 or more putative class members and minimal
diversity, the amount in controversy did not exceed $5 million (a
similar lawsuit had been brought against the defendant in federal
court and then voluntarily dismissed for this same reason).  Yet
the court disagreed, noting that CAFA's intent was to expand
federal jurisdiction over class action lawsuits: "CAFA does not
supplant traditional diversity jurisdiction; it supplements it."
Therefore, class actions may properly be removed to federal court
on either ground.

Unfortunately for defendant, the court found jurisdiction was
lacking.  Defendant argued only for traditional diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1332(a), and, although it
satisfied complete diversity, defendant could not show the
requisite amount in controversy, as putative class members'
potential damages may not be aggregated for this purpose.
Defendant argued that an exception applied, permitting aggregation
because the putative class members sought to enforce a "common and
undivided interest."  However, because plaintiffs could bring
individual actions against their employer without implicating the
other employees, the court found no such interest existed.  Thus,
despite the fact that damages to the class amounted to $400,000,
neither named plaintiff had a claim exceeding $75,000.  The court
therefore remanded the action to state court.

Stell v. Gibco Motors Express, LLC, No. 3:15-cv-1105 (S.D. Ill.
May 9, 2016).


GLOBAL SPORTS: Faces "Mandell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Mandell, an individual, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general v. Global Sports U.S.,
Inc. and Does 1 to 50, Inclusive, Case No. BC621520 (Cal. Super.
Ct., May 23, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Global Sports U.S., Inc. owns and operates a sports company
located at 40 Rector Street, Suite 1504, New York, NY 10006.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
      Liane Katzensteinly, Esq.
      Ari J. Stiller, Esq.
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 990-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
      E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
              liane@kingsleykingsley.com
              ari@kingsleykingsley.com


GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Bid to Transfer "Reese" to W.D. Ark. Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Juan R. Sanchez granted the plaintiffs' motion to transfer
to the Western District of Arkansas the case captioned EARL REESE,
et al., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION , Civil Action No. 15-
2197 (E.D. Pa.).

A full-text copy of Judge Sanchez's May 31, 2016 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/znF8lk from Leagle.com.

The case is one of several lawsuits currently pending against
Global Tel*Link Corporation (GTL), a provider of inmate telephone
services at federal, state, and local prisons around the country,
in which users of telephone systems provided by GTL challenge as
unjust, unreasonable, and unfair the rates and fees the company
charges for calls to and from inmates at the prisons its serves.
In this lawsuit, the named plaintiffs, a group of Pennsylvania
residents who either are incarcerated in Pennsylvania prisons
served by GTL or have family members in such prisons, sought to
pursue claims concerning GTL's rates and fees for intrastate
inmate calling services (ICS) on behalf of a nationwide class and
a Pennsylvania subclass.  GTL's practices with respect to
interstate ICS are the subject of a separate, consolidated class
action in the Western District of Arkansas, where a later-filed
parallel action regarding intrastate ICS is also pending against
GTL.  Like this action, both of the actions pending in the Western
District of Arkansas include nationwide class claims.  Following a
ruling by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL
Panel) denying GTL's motion to transfer all of the pending ICS
litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated
pretrial proceedings, the plaintiffs asked the court to transfer
the action to the Western District of Arkansas so it may proceed
in tandem with the other ICS actions pending there.

Earl Reese, Walter Chruby, Stephen Orosz, Jr., Michael Veon, Larry
Bageant, Luann Bouvier, Wesley Harper, Robert Holmes, Stephen
Orosz, Emily Orosz, Carl Peterkin, Stephanie Veon, Lewis Brooks,
Plaintiff, represented by PETER A. MUHIC -- pmuhic@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Metlzer & Check, LLP, AMANDA TRASK --
atrask@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, DONNA
SIEGEL MOFFA -- dmoffa@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, MONIQUE MYATT GALLOWAY -- mgalloway@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, PETER R. KAHANA -- pkahana@bm.net -- BERGER
& MONTAGUE, P.C., SAMANTHA E. JONES, KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK
LLP & YECHIEL MICHAEL TWERSKY, BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C..

Global Tel*Link Corporation, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL R.
SKLAIRE -- sklairem@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, pro hac
vice & BRIAN T. FEENEY -- feeney@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG,
LLP.


GOD GREATED: "Ahmed" Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
Mohamed Ahmed, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. God Greated Intermodal Logistics, LLC d/b/a GCI
Logistics, LLC, Marlon Moses, Herbert Jenkins, Jr., and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG1681666C (Cal. Super. Ct., May
23, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to timely
pay employees in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a transportation company located in
Hayward, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robin G. Workman, Esq.
      WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
      177 Post Street, Suite 900 3
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 782-3660
      Facsimile: (415) 788-1028
      E-mail: robin@work.manlawpc.com


GOD GREATED: Faces "Ahmed" 2nd Suit Over Untimely Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Mohamed Ahmed, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. God Greated Intermodal Logistics, LLC d/b/a GCI
Logistics, LLC, Marlon Moses, Herbert Jenkins, Jr., and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG16816666 (Cal. Super. Ct., May
23, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to timely
pay employees in violation of California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a transportation company located in
Hayward, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robin G. Workman, Esq.
      WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
      177 Post Street, Suite 900 3
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 782-3660
      Facsimile: (415) 788-1028
      E-mail: robin@work.manlawpc.com


GREAT NECK: Faces "Aryal" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roshan Aryal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Great Neck Petroleum Corp. and Deepak Sharma, Case No.
1:16-cv-02621 (E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate an oil and gas exploration service company
located in Great Neck, New York.

Roshan Aryal is a pro se plaintiff.


HAPPY DAY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
Manuel J. Sanchez, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Happy Day Transit Inc. and Andrew Imperato,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02620 (E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Happy Day Transit Inc. operates a transportation company located
at 144 Pilling St, Brooklyn, NY 11207.

Manuel J. Sanchez is a pro se plaintiff.


HAPPY HUCKSTER: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Zaccaria, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Happy Huckster Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-02529-SD
(E.D. Penn., May 23, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Happy Huckster Corp. owns and operates a wholesale company
based out of Suburban Square Farmers Market, Ardmore,
Pennsylvania, United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Murphy, Esq.
      MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
      1628 John F Kennedy Blvd #1803
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (267) 273-1054
      Facsimile: (215) 525-0210
      E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


HOME ATTENDANT SERVICES: Faces "Minkova" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Home Attendant Service of Hyde
Park, Inc. The case is captioned Ljudmila Minkova, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Home Attendant Service of Hyde Park, Inc., and John Does 1-25, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02720 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2016).

Home Attendant is a home care provider that services Brooklyn, New
York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


HOSTESS BRANDS: Falsely Marketed Maple Glazed Donuts, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth J. Vancleave, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. Hostess Brands, LLC and Does 1
through 5, Case No. 1:16-cv-02779 (N.D. Cal., may 23, 2016), is
brought on behalf of all the consumers who purchased Hostess
Donettes Maple Glazed Mini Donuts that were mislabeled and falsely
advertised by the Defendants as containing maple when this product
does not contain any maple.

Hostess Brands, LLC owns several bakeries in the United States
that produce snack cakes under the Hostess and Dolly Madison brand
names.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Parisi, Esq.
      Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
      PARISI & HAVENS LLP
      212 Marine Street, Suite 100
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (818) 990-1299
      Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
      E-mail: dparisi@parisihavens.com
              shavens@parisihavens.com

         - and -

      Yitzchak H. Lieberman, Esq.
      PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW
      7400 Hollywood Blvd, #505
      Los Angeles, CA 90046
      Telephone: (917) 657-6857
      Facsimile: (877) 501-3346
      E-mail: ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Canadian Citizens File Talc Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a group of Canadians have filed a class
action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson defendants in a Toronto
court, contending that the defendants were negligent in the
development, testing, design, manufacturing and distribution of
their Baby Powder products.

In a complaint filed May 18 in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, the plaintiffs said that they developed ovarian cancer as
a result of the alleged exposure.

The suit was filed by plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf
of all members of a class similarly situated.


JP BRONXVILLE: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yong Xin Wang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JP Bronxville, Inc. d/b/a Haiku Asian Bistro
Bronxville, Michael Lee, John Ching, and Peter Diana, Case No.
706071/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 23, 2016), seeks to recover
overtime wages, spread of hours compensation, damages for failure
to provide wage statements, liquidated damages, interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees for systematic and class-wide violations of
the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 56
Pondfield Road, Bronxville, New York 10708.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Brown, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288


KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Oil Flow Problem in Cars
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Kia Theta 2.0 and 2.4 liter
direct injection engines in some Optima, Sportage and Sorento
models stall and fail catastrophically because of oil flow
problems, a class action claims in Santa Ana Federal Court.


LAMETTRY'S COLLISION: Faces Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey P. Cairns, Esq., of Stinson Leonard Street, in an article
for JDSupra Business Advisor, reports that a Minneapolis law firm
recently filed a class action complaint against Lamettry's
Collision, Inc. and the Trustees of its 401(k) Plan, CFO Stephen
Daniel and President Joan Lamettry for various breaches of
fiduciary duty with respect to fees charged to Plan participants'
accounts in the Company's 401(k) Plan.  Specific allegations
include: (a) failure to assess the reasonableness of the
investment fees; (b) selecting inappropriate and imprudent mutual
fund classes when lower cost institutional share classes were
available; and (c) selecting investment options that were
unnecessarily expensive relative to industry benchmarks and
standards.  In addition, the Plaintiffs allege that the Trustees
failed to have a process for monitoring the Plan record-keeper and
investment providers, the fees that they charged, the investment
classes and the investment options.

The Plan Sponsor, Lamettry's Collision, Inc. is a Minnesota
corporation that owns and operates auto body and repair shops
throughout the Twin Cities.  Lamettrey's sponsors a 401(k) plan
with approximately 114 participants and just under $10 million in
total assets.  The Plan is funded in a bundled record-keeping and
investment platform operated by Voya Retirement Insurance and
Annuity Company (formerly ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company).
The financial advisors to the Plan are a related entity, Voya
Financial Advisors, Inc. which receives commissions and 12(b)(1)
fees from the Plan's retail mutual funds.

Stinson Leonard Street's Cairns learned in Tibble Edison
International that a failure to monitor mutual fund share classes
following initial selection of the mutual fund to determine
whether a lower institutional share class is available can be a
breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA.  If what the Plaintiffs
allege in the complaint is true, the advisors and inside
fiduciaries for this Plan were not aware of the Tibble case or the
duty of plan fiduciaries to monitor service provider fees.  The
Plaintiffs allege that among the 11 mutual funds offered under the
Voya platform, the Trustees approved the selection of retail
mutual funds when institutional share classes were available for
every fund, given the size of the total assets in the Plan.  The
complaint lays out a schedule for each fund showing the applicable
investment management fee and the lowest available institutional
share class fee.  According to the compiled table, the fee
differential charged to the plan ranged from 160% to 2,028% higher
than the institutional share option.  Funds included in the
investment array can be found in many employer-sponsored 401(k)
plans, including the Columbia Midcap Value Fund, American Funds
Growth Fund of America, the Columbia Midcap Fund and the Eaton
Vance Large Cap Value Fund.

The complaint also alleges a breach of fiduciary duty with respect
to the annual account record-keeping fees charged by Voya.  The
record-keeping fees which were negotiated as a percentage of
assets, equated to an $886 per capita charge for record-keeping
services.  The Plaintiffs allege the record-keeping fees should
not have exceeded $18 per capita, 4900% less.

Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that the revenue sharing payments
which were retained by Voya and its affiliates (a) were not
disclosed to Participants and (b) were not evaluated by the
Trustees for their reasonableness with respect to the services
being provided.

The main allegation of the class action complaint is that the in-
house plan fiduciaries failed to have a formal process for
evaluating these fees (investment fees and record-keeping fees)
and failed to conduct periodic RFPs to establish their own
benchmarks.  In my experience, independent investment advisors to
retirement plans will, as part of their co-fiduciary duty, (a)
assist in-house fiduciaries in establishing an investment policy;
(b) ensure that in-house fiduciaries are receiving ERISA Sec 408
required fee disclosures from all service providers receiving
compensation from the Plan's assets; (c)  ensure that Participants
are receiving required annual fee disclosures under ERISA Sec. 404
and (d) routinely assist plan sponsors in either benchmarking
their existing fee arrangements and/or conducting periodic RFPs.
Since the Tibble case, independent investment advisors are
routinely asking investment managers whether lower cost share
classes are available based on asset size or by waivers of minimum
requirements.

"We do not know what the ultimate resolution of the Lemettry case
will be.  However, we do know that the cost of defending a class
action of this nature will be significant in time and expense for
the Plan Sponsor and the individuals involved.  The main thing
that this case demonstrates is that excessive fee actions are no
longer only a concern for the "large plans" with multimillion or
billions of dollars in assets.   Fiduciaries of relatively small
company plans have the same general fiduciary obligations of the
largest 401(k) plans in the country and can be subject to the same
types of lawsuits," Mr. Cairns said.


LLP GLOBAL: Faces "Yan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peng Yan, Xiao Ya Gao, and Xiang Li, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. LLP Global, Inc., Hao Luo, aka Steven
Luo, and Does 1 through 20, Case No. BC620741 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 23, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate a company that provides professional
engineering, consulting and project management services for
infrastructure projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Fang, Esq.
      William G. Short, Esq.
      MARK FANG, AITORNEY AT LAW APC
      400 Camarillo Ranch Road, Suite 203
      Camarillo, CA 93012
      Telephone: (805) 383-2788
      Facsimile: (805) 388-9488
      E-mail: MFang@MarkFangAPC.com


LYFT: Judge Defers Decision on $27MM Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Fortune reports that a proposed $27 million settlement in a class
action lawsuit by drivers against ride-hailing service Lyft took
an unexpected detour on June 2 as a federal judge deferred a
decision to consider whether drivers in another Lyft lawsuit
should get some of the money.

The deal would settle a lawsuit between the company and 150,602
drivers who claimed they should be treated as employees, and it
came before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco
for preliminary approval.

The agreement met conditions that Judge Chhabria had previously
spelled out and, in a victory for Lyft, would keep the drivers
classified as independent contractors.

But plaintiffs in a separate Lyft class action, known as the
Zamora case for plaintiff Alex Zamora, made a motion requesting a
portion of the $27 million be reallocated to them or that money be
added to the settlement and earmarked for them.

Judge Chhabria said he would consider the motion and rule at a
later date.

Meanwhile, Lyft rival Uber hoped to persuade another federal judge
to approve a proposed deal in its own class-action lawsuit with
drivers.  Uber agreed to settle its lawsuit for up to $100
million, plus other benefits including help forming a drivers'
association.

Uber was set to appear before U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in
San Francisco on June 2.

As in the Lyft settlement, Uber's agreement would keep drivers
classified as independent contractors.

Drivers who brought the lawsuits contended they should be deemed
employees and therefore entitled to reimbursement for expenses,
including gasoline and vehicle maintenance.  Drivers currently pay
those costs themselves.

A ruling that these workers are employees would affect the profits
and valuations at ride-hailing companies and set a precedent for
other so-called on-demand technology companies that rely on
independent contractors, including cleaning service Handy and
delivery company Postmates.

In the Lyft hearing, attorneys for both the company and drivers
appealed to Chhabria to approve the settlement agreement.

The motion by the Zamora plaintiffs to intervene threatens to
stymie months of negotiation, said Shannon Liss-Riordan, an
attorney at Lichten & Liss-Riordan representing the plaintiffs.

"All parties would be punished if Zamora motion is granted,"
Ms. Liss-Riordan said.

Plaintiffs in the Zamora case have argued they are entitled to the
commission Lyft took from its Prime Time payout to drivers. Prime
Time is a program in which drivers can earn more money during peak
demand, and Lyft takes a cut of that.

The Zamora plaintiffs say they are owed reimbursement up to $75
million.

              Drivers Ask Judge to Reject Settlement

Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that an attorney for Lyft drivers on June 2, urged a federal judge
in San Francisco to reject a $27 million settlement because it
doesn't compensate drivers for fees taken from prime-time ride
surcharges.

Representing two drivers who filed a class action against Lyft
last month, attorney Jahan Sagafi asked U.S. District Judge Vince
Chhabria to scrap a $27 million deal reached in a separate suit,
Cotter v. Lyft.

The 2013 Cotter suit claims Lyft drivers in California should be
classified as employees rather than independent contractors, and
that the misclassification allows Lyft to avoid paying employment
benefits and reimbursement for gas and vehicle maintenance.

The settlement would release Lyft from liability over prime-time
fees, which it charges riders during high-demand ride times, but
pays zero dollars toward that claim, Sagafi argued.

"About a month or two ago, our clients became concerned about
another fraud -- that Lyft was telling riders the prime-time fees
went to drivers, causing riders to give lower tips," Sagafi said.

Sagafi's client, lead plaintiff Alex Zamora, sued Lyft on May 11.

Lyft attorneys asked the judge to deny Zamora's motion to
intervene in the settlement, arguing his claims lack merit, are of
insignificant value and were not raised until the 11th hour.

Sagafi argued back and forth with Lyft attorneys Rachael Meny and
Robert Slaughter over the true value of the claim, based on a
proposed nationwide class of Lyft drivers. Sagafi estimated the
damages at $60 million, while Slaughter countered the true value
is more likely a fraction of that figure.

Attorney Shannon Liss-Reardon, representing the Cotter plaintiffs,
joined Lyft in opposing Zamora's motion to intervene, saying his
claims face "serious legal and factual hurdles" that could risk
"scuttling this agreement to the detriment of the class."

Still, Chhabria indicated that if the Cotter plaintiffs failed to
consider a significant claim while negotiating the $27-million
deal, that could make the settlement unreasonable.

"If the plaintiffs forgot to negotiate an extremely valuable
claim, that's a problem," Chhabria said.

However, the judge also added that allowing Zamora to dismantle
the agreement on the eve of the settlement's approval could set a
bad precedent in the future.  The judge noted that even with the
settlement's approval, Lyft would only be free from liability for
prime-time fees among drivers that choose not to opt out of the
class. Riders could still bring a consumer lawsuit over Lyft
allegedly misrepresenting that prime-time fee dollars went solely
to drivers.

After about an hour of debate, Chhabria ended the hearing, saying
it may take him some time to rule on the settlement's preliminary
approval and motion to intervene.

In March, Chhabria rejected a proposed $12.5 million settlement in
the Cotter case, finding the award too low compared to the
estimated $64 million that drivers could seek in expense
reimbursement.


MANAGED CARE: Schutjer Bogar Files Medicaid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Schutjer Bogar, a leading law firm in Medicare/Medicaid
eligibility cases, on June 1 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Managed Care Organization (MCO),
Amerigroup.  Schutjer Bogar contends that the MCO is delaying
proper reimbursement on Medicaid claims, costing millions for
long-term care organizations.

"The regulations from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services are very clear," stated Chad Bogar -- cbogar@s-b-b.com
-- Managing Partner and CEO for Schutjer Bogar.  "MCOs must pay
90% of clean claims within 30 days.  No exceptions.

Unfortunately, when we look at the national landscape, this isn't
happening."

According to data from Schutjer Bogar, long-term care
organizations, such as nursing homes, assisted living and hospice
facilities previously carried an aged Medicaid pending debt of
approximately $30-$100 thousand.  Now, this figure has spiked to
over 1 million due to unpaid, properly-filed Medicaid claims.

"The margins for long-term care providers are already razor-thin,"
explained Mr. Bogar.  "When you delay payment and increase their
cost of operation, you have the potential to jeopardize the care
of residents living at these facilities."

The law firm illustrated this by pointing to one of the
participants in the litigation, an elderly nursing home resident
that is entitled to almost $30,000 in unpaid Medicaid benefits.
Schutjer Bogar states that the MCO is in direct violation of The
Federal Medicaid Act by withholding payment.  This creates a
potentially serious healthcare situation, as the plaintiffs in the
suit require 24-hour skilled nursing care.

"This is quite simply a nationwide epidemic impacting our second-
most vulnerable population group -- our elderly," concluded
Mr. Bogar.

                     About Schutjer Bogar

Schutjer Bogar -- http://www.s-b-b.com-- is a law firm with a
singular focus on Medicare and Medicaid eligibility cases.


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Seeks Transfer of Ritz-Carlton Club Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Carroll, writing for The Aspen Times, reports that changes
are afoot in a lawsuit pitting owners of fractional units at the
Ritz-Carlton Club at Aspen Highlands against a group of hotel
operators and affiliates.

On May 27, Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp., Ritz-Carlton
Management Co., Aspen Highlands Condominiums and other defendants
filed a notice to transfer the case from Pitkin County District
Court to the U.S. District Court in Denver.

Their "notice of removal" was filed nearly five months after
California residents Jennifer Kaplan and Alexander Busansky, who
own a 1/12 fractional unit at the Ritz-Carlton at Highlands, took
the hotel groups to court claiming their property's value dropped
by 80 percent because of new membership terms.

Their suit also alleged that their fractional unit lost its
exclusivity and became unmarketable after the Ritz-Carlton Club
affiliated with Marriott Vacations.

Aspen Highlands owners were notified of the possible affiliation
in April 2012.  In April 2014, they learned they could trade a
week of fractional interests for points with the Marriott exchange
program, while Marriott members could exchange a week at the Ritz
at Aspen, the suit said.  And while Ritz-Carlton Club owners pay
condo association fees, Marriott point holders do not, according
to the complaint.

Plaintiffs attorneys initially said they planned to achieve class-
action status in the lawsuit.  More than 800 fractional units have
been sold at the Ritz-Carlton Club at Highlands, with prices
ranging from $200,000 to $400,000 each, the suit said.

Since the suit was filed Dec. 31, more than 40 fractional owners
have joined the suit as plaintiffs.

The defendants' notice of removal says the suit now belongs in the
federal court system because of the amount of money at stake --
more than $5 million -- the size of the class and because the
plaintiffs haven't proven that more than two-thirds of the class
members reside in Colorado.

Whatever the case, Aspen attorney Matt Ferguson, one of the
plaintiffs' attorneys, said on May 31 the plan is no longer to
establish a class action.

"We are going to pursue multiple plaintiffs cases for various
reasons that I can't discuss," he said.

Mr. Ferguson said that decision isn't related to the defendants'
efforts to transfer the case from Pitkin County District Court to
federal court.

The defendants' notice of removal also denies that "Plaintiffs or
the putative class have been harmed in any way."  The defendants
were not served with the complaint until the last week of April.

The Ritz-Carlton Club at Aspen Highlands, built in 2001, was the
hotel flag's first fractional ownership property.  The 1/12
fractionals entitle owners to four weeks of use per year.

Members of the Bachelor Gulch in Beaver Creek, Colorado, and
Jupiter, Florida, clubs cut ties with the Ritz-Carlton in 2013 and
2014, respectively, because of its affiliation with Marriott. The
owners at Aspen Highlands weren't given that option, the suit
says.


MARYLAND: $5MM Attorneys' Fees Award in "Braverman" Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reversed the order of the
circuit court on the issue of attorney's fees in the case
captioned STATE OF MARYLAND, v. WILLIAM BRAVERMAN, ET AL.,  No.
429, September Term, 2015 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.).

A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/RHfHMF from Leagle.com.

Maryland landowners brought a class action against the State,
alleging a taking in violation of the Maryland Constitution. After
several years of litigation, two motions for summary judgment, and
an appellate ruling in a related case, the landowners ultimately
prevailed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in their
favor.

Upon a request by the landowners' attorneys, the circuit court
ordered the State to pay $5 million in attorneys' fees.  The State
appealed.


MASSAGE ENVY: Faces "Bandell" Suit in S. District California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Massage Envy
Franchising, LLC.

The case is captioned Michele Bandell, David Eiglarsh, Charlene
Panos, Jeanette Rawls, Jennifer Walker, Alex Zennnaro,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-01236-GPC-BGS
(S.D. Cal., May 23, 2016).

Massage Envy Franchising, LLC provides therapeutic massage and spa
services in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
      EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
      5400 S. Univeristy Drive, Suite 417
      Davie, FL 33328
      Telephone: (954) 889-3359
      Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
      E-mail: jeggnatz@elplawyers.com


MCCORMICK & SCHMICK: Sues NLRB Over Illegal Arbitration Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Landry's restaurants and the
McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp. sued the National Labor
Relations Board in Federal Court, challenging its charge that they
make workers sign an illegal arbitration agreement barring them
from filing class actions.


MECHEL BLUESTONE: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hadley, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a
Wyoming County miner says his former employer violated federal law
by closing a mine and laying him and his co-workers off without
giving 60 days' notice.

David Jordan filed a class-action lawsuit May 17 in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Beckley
Division, against Mechel Bluestone Inc. and Dynamic Energy Inc.,
alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

According to the complaint, Jordan worked in the defendant's Coal
Mountain Surface Mine No. 1 until he was laid off on Dec. 30,
2013.  The suit claims Jordan and some 128 other full-time workers
were told of the layoff on Dec. 28, and received no advance
written notice of the downsizing, as mandated by the WARN Act.  In
addition, the claim states that terminated employees did not
receive the holiday pay they were owed, and their health care
benefits ended less than 60 days after the verbal notice was
delivered.

Jordan and other class members seeks a jury trial and statutory
damages, plus interest and litigation costs.  They are represented
by attorneys Samuel B. Petsonk and Bren J. Pomponio of Mountain
State Justice Inc. in Charleston.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Beckley Division Case number 5:16-cv-04413


MICHAEL S. HARRISON LLC: Faces "Staniland" Suit in D.N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Michael S. Harrison, LLC. The
case is captioned Tracy Staniland, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Esq. Michael S. Harrison,
and Michael S. Harrison, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
03082-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., May 30, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon.
Jose L. Linares.

The Defendant is a firm which provides collection services to
healthcare providers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl.
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273 7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Adya" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Suhad Adya, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. a/k/a Midland Funding, LLC,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02619 (E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates a financial services
company located at 8755 Aero Dr., San Diego, CA 92123.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Sasson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
      2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 339-0856
      Facsimile: (347) 244-7178
      E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com

MT POOLS: "Ward" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Ward, Danielle Hufnagel, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. MT Pools of SWL, Inc. d/b/a Tri-City Pool
Service & Supply Co., Michael Z. Tragakiss, and Tara Record, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00395-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., May 23, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing commercial and
residential pool maintenance service.  They also sell, install,
and repair commercial and residential pool products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradley P. Rothman, Esq.
     WELDON & ROTHMAN, PL
     7935 Airport-Pulling Road N. Suite 205
     Naples, FL 34109
     Telephone: (239) 262-2141
     Facsimile: (239) 262-2342
     E-mail: brothman@weldonrothman.com


NAPERVILLE ROTARY: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Illegal Gambling
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Anderson and Larry Dakof, on behalf of themselves
individually and all others similarly situated v. Naperville
Rotary Charities Inc. and Trident Interactive LLC, Case No.
2016CH07050 (Ill. Ch. Ct., May 23, 2016), arises out of the
Defendants' alleged deceptive business practices, specifically by
misinforming ticket buyers that they have a chance to be winners
when, in fact, the Raffle is illegal gambling and can have no
winners.

Naperville Rotary Charities Inc. is an Illinois not-for-profit
corporation that operated the Raffle and declared Prizewinners in
2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016.

Trident Interactive LLC operates a marketing company located at
424 Fort Hill Drive # 128, Naperville, IL 60540.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Ficaro, Esq.
      Floyd D. Perkins, Esq.
      Seth A. Horvath, Esq.
      NIXON PEABODY LLP
      3500 Three First National Plaza
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 977-4400
      E-mail: maficaro@nixonpeabody.com
              fdperkins@nixonpeabody.com
              sahorvath@nixonpeabody.com


NATIONWIDE DEBT: "Payton" Suit Over Debt Settlement Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Leoris Payton, Plaintiff, v. Nationwide Debt
Direct, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-742 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Susan
J. Dlott granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the claims
against it pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Leoris Payton filed the action against Nationwide Debt Direct
alleging that Nationwide made false and misleading representations
in its solicitations to her and other Ohio consumers regarding its
debt settlement services.  She specifically alleged that
Nationwide tried to "scare" her into believing that she owed debts
that, in fact, she did not owe and that she required its services
to settle those debts.

Judge Dlott found that Payton has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted against Nationwide as to either the
federal Credit Repair Organizations Act claim or the Ohio Credit
Services Organizations Act claim.  Additionally, Judge Dlott held
that Payton has waived the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
claim, and she cannot bring claims on behalf of a putative class
when her individual claims are not viable.

A full-text copy of Judge Dlott's May 31, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/fpIdSE from Leagle.com.

Leoris Payton, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Flick, Dann Law
Firm, Grace M Doberdruk & Marc E Dann, The Dann Law Firm Co. LPA.

National Debt Direct, Defendant, represented by Ashley L Oliker
-- aoliker@fbtlaw.com -- Frost Brown Todd, LLC, Beth-Ann E Krimsky
-- beth-ann.krimsky@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A., pro hac
vice & Lawren A Zann -- lawren.zann@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon
Marder, P.A., pro hac vice.


NEMARO JEWELERS: "Paramo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Raquel Paramo, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B), the Plaintiff, v. Nemaro Jewelers, Inc., and Alex Perez,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21945-FAM (S.D. Fla., May 30,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages owed, an equal amount in
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, from the beginning of the three-year
statutory period through on or about September 1, 2015, the
Plaintiff was paid at the average hourly rate of $14.37 per hour
for her first 40 hours worked per week, but worked an average of 3
hours and 45 minutes per week "off the clock" without being paid
time and a half overtime wages as required by law.

Nemaro Jewelers offers an extensive inventory of diamonds of every
shape and size.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Markel, Esq.
          THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
          777 Brickell Avenue Suite 500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 458 1282
          Facsimile: (800) 407 1718
          E-mail: David.Markel@markel-law.com


NEW MEXICO: "Lara" Settlement Deal Has Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DULCINEA LARA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NEW MEXICO STATE
UNIVERSITY, and REGENTS OF NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendants, No. 2:14-CV-00401-PJK-CG (N.M.), Judge Paul Kelly, Jr.
granted final approval of the parties' settlement agreement and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Judge Kelly certified, solely for settlement purposes, the
settlement class defined as: "All regular nine (9) month faculty
members who are or were employed by NMSU who had a FMLA qualifying
parental leave event at any time from April 29, 2011 and the date
of this Preliminary Approval Order and who had been employed by
NMSU for at least one year at the time of the qualifying event and
otherwise met the FMLA eligibility requirements."

The agreement provided for $710,730 as the proposed monetary
amount of the settlement, additional benefit to be provided by the
New Mexico State University in the form of paid family and medical
leave (approximate value of $16 million), and non-monetary relief
including training supervisory academic personnel.

Judge Kelly also appointed the named plaintiff, Dulcinea Lara, as
settlement class representative, and Moody & Warner P.C. as class
counsel for the settlement class.

The judge also ordered that the defendant shall pay costs of up to
$25,000 to the claims administrator.  The amount of $250,000 for
attorneys' fees and costs shall be distributed to class counsel by
the claims administrator within 30 days.

A full-text copy of Judge Kelly's June 1, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/4crUfI from Leagle.com.

Dulcinea Lara, Plaintiff, represented by Whitney Warner, Moody &
Warner PC & Repps D Stanford, Moody & Warner, PC.

New Mexico State University, Regents of New Mexico State
University, Defendants, represented by Cody R Rogers --
crogers@mstlaw.com -- Miller Stratvert PA & Holly Agajanian --
hagajanian@mstlaw.com -- Miller Stratvert PA.


ORACLE CORP: Faces Securities Action Over Accounting Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that still reeling from losing a $9 billion copyright battle to
Google last month, Oracle was hit with two lawsuits in San
Francisco accusing it of whistleblower retaliation and securities
fraud.

Oracle's former senior finance manager, Svetlana Blackburn, sued
the technology giant in Federal Court on June 1, claiming the
company fired her for threatening to blow the whistle on its
illegal accounting practices.

A day later, an investor named Grover Klarfeld slapped Oracle with
a securities class action, saying the company misled investors by
artificially inflating its revenues.

Blackburn says she was ordered to add millions of dollars in
accruals to Oracle's Cloud Services financial reports, despite a
lack of billings to support those numbers.

"The data, she knew, would end up in SEC filings and be touted on
earnings calls, used to paint a rosier picture than actually
existed on the ground," Blackburn says in her nine-page lawsuit.

After she refused to fudge the numbers, her superiors added the
baseless revenues on their own, she claims.  Blackburn put her
superiors, a fellow finance manager and the company's assistant
controller on notice about the unjustified numbers, but no action
was taken, according to her lawsuit.

"As plaintiff continued to resist and warn of the accounting
improprieties, she became more of a roadblock than a team player
who would blindly generate financial reports using improper bases
in order to justify the bottom lines that her superiors demanded
to see," the complaint states.

Because she refused to cook the books and threatened to blow the
whistle, Blackburn says she was fired on Oct. 15, 2015.  Her
lawsuit accuses the company of wrongful termination and three
counts of unlawful retaliation against an employee under state and
federal law. She seeks punitive damages.

On June 2, Klarfield lodged his class-action complaint in Federal
Court, claiming revelations from Blackburn's lawsuit caused
Oracle's stock price to fall by $1.60, or 3.97 percent.
Klarfield's suit claims Oracle filed fraudulent reports with the
Securities Exchange Commission in August and December 2015,
stating Oracle's Cloud Services revenues rose 34 percent in both
quarters.

The class-action lawsuit names Oracle, its chief technology
officer Larry Ellison and co-CEOs Mark Hurd and Safra Catz as
defendants. It accuses them of two counts of securities
violations.

"As officers and/or directors of a publicly-held company, the
individual defendants had a duty to disseminate timely, accurate,
and truthful information with respect to Oracle's businesses,
operations, future financial condition and future prospects,"
Klarfield says in his 19-page complaint.

Oracle spokeswoman Deborah Hellinger did not immediately respond
to a June 3, morning phone call seeking comment on the lawsuits.

Blackburn is represented by Daniel Velton of Velton Zegelman in
Sunnyvale, Calif.  Klarfield is represented by Jennifer Pafti of
Pomerantz -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- in Beverly Hills, Calif.

A jury found last month that Google did not infringe Oracle's
copyrights by using 37 Java interfaces in its Android smartphone
system because it was fair use.

                           *     *     *

Pomerantz LLP on June 2 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of Oracle Corporation ("Oracle" or the
"Company") and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Northern District of California,
and docketed under 16-cv-02966, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Oracle securities between September 16, 2015 and June 1, 2016
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Oracle securities during
the Class Period, you have until August 1, 2016 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Oracle develops, manufactures, markets, sells, hosts, and supports
database and middleware software, application software, cloud
infrastructure, hardware systems, and related services worldwide.
Oracle is among the world's largest software makers by revenue.
Through its Oracle Cloud offerings, the Company purports to be a
leader in the core technologies of cloud information technology
environments, including database and middleware software as well
as enterprise applications, virtualization, clustering, large-
scale systems management and related infrastructure.  The
Company's Oracle Cloud offerings include Software-as-a-Service,
Platform-as-a-Service, and Infrastructure-as-a-Service offerings.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Oracle used improper
accounting practices to inflate the Company's cloud computing
revenues by millions of dollars; (ii) in violation of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the "Sarbanes-Oxley Act") and the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the
"Dodd-Frank Act"), Oracle had terminated a Senior Finance Manager
for raising the Company's improper accounting practices to the
attention of her supervisors; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, Oracle's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On June 1, 2016, after the market closed, media outlets reported
that a former Senior Finance Manager at Oracle, Svetlana Blackburn
("Blackburn"), had sued the Company for terminating her for
complaining about improper accounting practices in Oracle's cloud
services business.  In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Blackburn accused
Oracle's upper management of trying to push her to "fit square
data into round holes" to make Oracle Cloud Services' results look
better.  Blackburn's lawsuit accused Oracle of violating the anti-
retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-
Frank Act and alleged that Blackburn was terminated on October 15,
2015, just one month after the alleged wrongdoing began, and two
months after she received a positive performance review.

On this news, Oracle stock fell $1.60, or 3.97%, to close at
$38.66 on June 2, 2016.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


PACIFIC WEST: Faces "Shechter" Suit Over Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
Konstantin Shechter, individually and as co-Trustee ofthe Shechter
Family Trust dated May 22, 2009, Svetlana Averbukh, an individual,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Pacific West Capital Group, Inc., Andrew B. Calhoun IV, and Mills,
Potoczak & Company, PC, as Trustee of the PWCG TRUST, and Does 1
through 30, inclusive, Case No. BC621512 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23,
2016), alleges negligence, breach of contract, violations of the
California Corporations Code and fraud in the sale of
fractionalized interests in universal life insurance policies, or
"life settlements".

Pacific West Capital Group, Inc. operates an insurance company
located at 1901 Avenue of the Stars #680, Los Angeles, CA 90067.

Mills, Potoczak & Company, PC is a public accounting firm with its
principal place of business in Beachwood, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas G. Foley Jr., Esq.
      Kevin Gamarnik, Esq.
      FOLEY, BEZEK, BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
      15 West Carrillo Street
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 962-9495
      Facsimile: (805) 962-0722
      E-mail: tfoley@foleybezek.com
              kgamarnik@folevbezek.com

         - and -

      Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
      Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
      DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC
      440 West First Street, Suite 101
      Tustin, CA 92780
      Telephone: (714) 953-1010
      Facsimile: (714) 953-1777
      E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
              skokonas@donahoo.com


PARKSIDE CONSTRUCTION: "Bravo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Bravo, Mario Franco and Juan C. Montesdeoca, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Parkside
Construction Builders Corp., Park Side Construction Consultants
Co., Inc., Park Side Construction Contractors Inc., Lizard
Construction Co., Inc., Francesco Pugliese and Maria Pugliese,
Case No. 160288/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 23, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the New York
Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company with
principal place of business at 150-18 14th Avenue, Whitestone, New
York 11357.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
      Jonathan Roffe, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
              jmurphy@vandallp.com
              jroffe@vandallp.com


PEOPLE'S TRUST: Fla. Court to Hear Appeal in "Pesta" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY,
Petitioner, v. JOSEF PESTA, individually, and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, Respondent, No. 4D15-4035 (Fla. Dist.
Ct. App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth
District granted People's Trust Insurance Company's petition for a
writ of certiorari seeking review of an order denying a motion to
dismiss the class action suit filed by Joseph Pesta.

The appellate court granted the petition and quashed the order
denying the motion to dismiss because Pesta did not exhaust
available administrative remedies.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's June 1, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/ryfSZ4 from Leagle.com.

Pesta filed a class action suit against People's Trust (his
homeowner's insurance carrier) and the People's Trust's managing
general agent alleging that People's Trust improperly collected a
$25 managing general agent (MGA) fee on all of its insurance
policies in violation of section 626.7451, Florida Statutes.
Pesta alleged he should not have been charged the MGA fee because
the People's Trust's MGA did not place this insurance policy and
was not acting as a legitimate MGA.  The People's Trust moved to
dismiss arguing Pesta's challenge to the MGA fee is an
administrative matter related to the rate and premium that must
first be addressed with the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR)
pursuant to section 627.731, Florida Statutes.

Stephen W. Bazinsky and Joshua S. Beck of Bazinsky, Korman &
Baker, P.A., Plantation, for petitioner.

Bard D. Rockenbach -- bdr@flappellatelaw.com -- of Burlington &
Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach,Edward H. Zebersky --
ezebersky@zpllp.com --  of Zebersky & Payne, LLP, Fort Lauderdale,
and Candise L. Shanbron of Cernitz & Shanbron, P.A., Coral Gables,
for respondent.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Faces "Zamfino" Suit Over Product Misbranding
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tricia Zamfino, on her own behalf, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated v. Perrigo Company PLC and Perrigo
Nutritionals, Case No. 7:16-cv-03843-VB (S.D.N.Y., May 23,2016),
seeks redress for Defendants' deceptive marketing practices in
connection with the sale of their Vermont Organics baby formula
products, specifically by misleading consumers into believing that
their Vermont Organics baby formula products contain only healthy
organic ingredients, when in actuality, the products contain a
multitude of non-organic ingredients which are not permitted in
food products labeled as "organic" under federal law.

The Defendants operate a global over-the-counter consumer goods
and specialty pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
      Robert J. Berg, Esq.
      DENLEA & CARTON LLP
      2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
      White Plains, NY 10604
      Telephone: (914) 331-0100
      E-mail: jcarton@denleacarton.com
              rberg@denleacarton.com


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Faces Class Action Over Lead Poisoning Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Wood and Wendy Ruderman, writing for Philly.com, report that a
Shakespearean actress from West Philadelphia, represented by a
major national law firm, has filed a class-action suit claiming
the city put her family -- and tens of thousands of other
Philadelphians -- at a "significantly greater risk" for lead
poisoning.

Eleni Delopoulos, 37, who lives with her 2-year-old son and
husband, filed suit on June 2 in Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas.  The suit contends the city has been aware of high levels
of lead in the tap water for years and failed to warn residents of
contamination.  It also alleges that the city rigged the results
of its water tests to produce "a woefully inaccurate picture" of
lead contamination in Philadelphia.

Mike Dunn, spokesman for Mayor Kenney, said the city was aware of
the suit.

"At this time we have no comment," Mr. Dunn said.

Ms. Delopoulos' attorney, Steve W. Berman of Seattle's Hagens
Berman firm, served as lead counsel in the $206 billion class-
action settlement against Big Tobacco.

Ms. Delopoulos contacted the law firm after hearing it had filed a
similar complaint against Chicago in February, said Elizabeth
Fegan -- beth@hbsslaw.com -- a partner at Hagens Berman involved
in both suits.

Ms. Delopoulos recently moved to Philadelphia from New York City.
She has been a featured performer with Philadelphia Shakespeare
Theater and joined the staff of Wolf Performing Arts Center in
Bryn Mawr as a teaching artist.

Ms. Fegan said the city recently dug up the street in front of
Delopoulos' 48th Street house to replace the water mains, but did
not warn residents.

Delopoulos' toddler was playing in a pile of dirt when a city
worker warned her the soil was contaminated with lead.

"That seems to have prompted the call" to the law firm, Ms. Fegan
said.

There is no safe level of lead exposure for children, according to
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Children
exposed to lead can suffer irreversible damage, including
developmental delays and learning difficulties.

Ms. Delopoulos' complaint demands that the city pay for a citywide
medical monitoring program that would provide blood tests to
detect the presence of lead.  It also demands the city pay to
replace all lead service pipes running into individual houses from
city water mains with nontoxic materials.

City Water Department officials have said they believe that
homeowners, not the water utility, bear the responsibility for
replacing lead service lines that run from their property curb
line into their homes.  The department is creating a Homeowners
Emergency Loan program, under which the city would help provide
zero-interest loans, to be paid back over five years, to hire a
city-approved certified plumber to replace lead lines.

Ms. Fegan said the cost of creating a monitoring program would be
minimal. The expense of replacing pipes would be steep.  Madison,
Wis., which has one-sixth the population of Philadelphia, spent
more than a decade and nearly $20 million to replace all its lead
service lines.  Ms. Fegan said the law firm would ask the city for
all internal guidelines about how it conducts water tests and
notes taken during any internal discussions about the quality of
Philadelphia water.

"We guess they'll be less than stellar compared to what the city
told residents," she said.

City testing procedures, including how homes are chosen and
whether testing protocols produce artificially low lead levels,
have been the subject of numerous media reports since revelations
about lead in Flint, Mich., water.

City officials have defended their methods as complying with
federal regulations and have repeatedly said the water is safe.
But because service lines may contain lead, they advise running
taps for a few minutes before drinking, and not consuming hot
water from the tap.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Citizens Mount Water Lead-Testing Campaign
------------------------------------------------------------
The Philadelphia water department, accused by some experts of
having water testing "worse than Flint", is facing a class action
lawsuit and a lead-testing campaign mounted by citizens concerned
about water quality.

On June 2, hours after the Guardian published an investigation
into the water-testing practices of 33 cities east of the
Mississippi river, the Hagens Berman law firm announced a class
action lawsuit against Philadelphia, based in part on the city's
outdated test practices.

"Studies have shown that the kind of construction the city is
carrying out creates the perfect storm for lead pipe corrosion,"
said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman, in a
statement.  "Yet the city has decided to conceal this growing
health hazard from its own citizens . . . To add insult to injury,
the city of Philadelphia has actively concealed this issue by
rigging its lead-testing procedures."

The Guardian's investigation, based on documents obtained using
open records requests, showed how 33 cities across 17 states used
testing methods that could have the effect of underestimating lead
levels in water.

Three typical methods were uncovered, which environmental
officials have warned against -- Philadelphia used all three,
documents show.

Many water departments across the US reacted to the Guardian's
report by saying they had changed their protocols after the EPA's
memo in February.  At least one, St Petersburg, Florida, clarified
that while it does have instructions that advise opening taps
"gently", it uses trained technicians to collect water. Others
said instructions were provided by states, or that the EPA's
guidance was unclear.

Philadelphia is now under increasing pressure to change test
methods that scientists said may underestimate the amount of lead
found in water.

"People are very concerned," said Jonathan King, a Philadelphia-
based patent attorney and father of an 18-month-old girl.  King
and another Philadelphia resident, urban planner Tony Spagnoli,
organized a campaign called Philly Unleaded Project, hoping to
test the water in hundreds of homes. Lab tests will be guided by
Virginia Tech professor Marc Edwards, the scientist who helped
uncover the lead scandal in Flint.

Meanwhile, following questions from the Guardian, the
Environmental Protection Agency said it sent a letter warning the
Philadelphia water department to change the way it tests for lead.
The EPA warned a decade ago that cities should stop using
techniques such as removing filters from faucets.

"On May 26, EPA sent a letter to the PWD commissioner that
instructed PWD that they change their [lead] sampling protocols to
follow current guidance regarding aerators and pre-stagnation
flushing," the EPA told the Guardian.  "The letter requests
confirmation from the city of their plan to adjust their sampling
procedures."

Experts said three seemingly innocuous instructions provided to
residents in Philadelphia could have a profound impact on how much
lead is found in water: removing the filter at the tip of the
faucet; running the tap before a six-hour test period; and slowly
pouring water sample bottles.

The EPA told water departments not to remove the filters, called
aerators, in 2006.  Running the water before a test period, called
"pre-flushing", was said to be against the "intent" of federal
regulations in 2008.  In February of this year, the agency also
recommended an end to the practice of slowly pouring water into
bottles. But all of these protocols appear to remain on the books
in Philadelphia.

And despite estimates that 50,000 homes in the city are connected
to mains with high-risk lead service lines, the city's most recent
tests included only 34 with lead pipes.  In the previous testing
cycle, just 27 such homes were tested.  In 2005, only 20 homes
with lead service lines were included in tests, documents obtained
under open records requests show.

The Philadelphia water department declined to comment for this
article, and instead said the Guardian's articles have spread
"misinformation on such a critical health topic" and that stories
contained "numerous factual inaccuracies".

The Pennsylvania department of environmental protection has said
it is only required to have copies of the city's testing plans and
that it doesn't actually approve them, then referred further
questions about the city's tests to the Philadelphia water
department.

Publicly, the water department has responded to criticism by
stating the city's water is "lead-free" when it leaves treatment
facilities, despite common industry knowledge that the majority of
lead contamination happens when water reaches home plumbing.

Documents obtained by the Guardian under freedom of information
laws show that privately, the Philadelphia water department has
criticized public debate over whether its testing methods are
sound and lobbied against EPA efforts to curb their use.

"EPA guidance should be backed with peer-reviewed published
studies," said Gary Burlingame, the water department's lab
director and de facto spokesman, in a February letter that lobbied
the EPA to continue to allow Philly to use the testing methods
scientists have warned against.

That way, he said, "water utilities can work proactively with
their state agencies to stay up-to-date on the science and on how
best to apply that science for public health protection". The
"news media," he added, "is not the appropriate venue for
resolving such questions."

Professionally, Mr. Burlingame has already had some experience
analyzing whether removing faucet filters affects tests.

He was one of a trio of experts who authored a report on Raleigh-
Durham, North Carolina, which had a case of water-based lead
poisoning in 2006.  Mr. Burlingame and the others found that
contamination was detected in the child's water, at least in part
because the local health department did not routinely remove the
aerator for lead-in-water tests, as the water department did.  It
was soon after that incident, in 2006, that the EPA advised
against removing the filters in lead testing.

Questioning the science, in emails disclosed to the Guardian,
Mr. Burlingame told the EPA he was now setting up his own tests to
scrutinize whether removing faucet filters made any difference to
results.

Perhaps the most pervasive effect of recent criticism of the
Philadelphia water department has been an erosion of trust in
government.

Jonathan King, the Philadelphia patent attorney, became concerned
about his own water's safety after media reports about Flint,
Michigan, made national headlines. He contacted Marc Edwards, the
Virginia Tech professor who traveled to Flint to test the city's
water.

Eventually, Mr. King and Tony Spagnoli, a Philadelphia urban
planner, organized the Philly Unleaded Project.  The citizen-led
campaign hopes to test water in hundreds of homes for $63 per kit.

Advocates are hoping to find grants to help the city's poor, more
than a quarter (25.8%) of the population, test their water. Almost
one-third of the city's children younger than six, the population
most vulnerable to lead poisoning, live in poverty.

"I live in a house that was built in 1905. I knew there was a
pretty high likelihood that we have a lead pipe or lead solder,"
said Mr. Spagnoli, a 33-year-old Philadelphia transplant and
father of two toddlers. "I think there's no harm in double-
checking the science," he said.

"There's nothing to lose and everything to gain."

There is no doubting the gravity of Philadelphia's health concerns
associated with lead.

A national health study showed that Pennsylvania has the second
highest percentage of children with elevated lead levels in their
blood, behind only New York state.  The 2014 Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention report suggested Pennsylvania had more than
twice the national average number of cases.

Philadelphia, with 3,400 cases, has the most children with
elevated lead levels of any county in Pennsylvania.

Philadelphia children also live with a number of risk factors for
lead poisoning: old housing stock, concentrated poverty, low
breastfeeding rates and poor nutrition.

Yet when children are found to have elevated lead levels, a health
department team inspects the building.  But water is not routinely
tested.

In a telling exchange at a public hearing in February, a health
official conceded the limitations of her department's
investigations.

"Our testing suggests that none of the lead exposure in homes of
children with elevated blood lead levels need be attributed to
water," Philly's deputy health commissioner Carolina Johnson told
a panel of city council members.

"But you're not testing," responded councilwoman Helen Gym.

"Well, we have," Ms. Johnson said.  "We have done some studies
where we did do it, but it didn't help, so we don't routinely do
it . . . I mean, we'd have to be trained in how to collect the
samples, the whole process."

Contemporary research on children's exposure to lead via water
contradicts Johnson's assertion that there is no link between lead
levels and exposure to water -- most prominently from the
pediatrician who helped uncover the lead crisis in Flint.

"Regrettably, our research reveals that the potentially increasing
threat of lead in drinking water may dampen the significant
strides in childhood lead-prevention efforts," wrote Dr Mona
Hanna-Attisha.  "As our aging water infrastructures continue to
decay, and as communities across the nation struggle with finances
and water supply sources, the situation in Flint, Michigan, may be
a harbinger for future safe drinking-water challenges."

In Philly, an old and financially strapped city, skepticism about
the water department is mixed with existing tension between the
local government and residents.

"I don't trust the city at all, for anything," said Navajo Tafari,
a 46-year-old father of five children ranging from ages two to 26.
"I pay my taxes, I go to work, I do what I'm supposed to do, but
as far as, like, trust -- no, I don't."

Mr. Tafari said he cooks and washes with city tap water but buys
bottled water to drink.  He lives on the same street at the
Spagnolis, in Germantown, one of the oldest settlements in
America.

"Until they actually start to spend some money on infrastructure,
this is where we're at," Mr. Tafari said.  "And until enough
people get sick, I'mma just flat out say it -- until some other
people get sick other than black people, no I don't see it
changing."


PPE CASINO: Casino Workers' FLSA Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Allison P. Dearington, Esq. -- Allison.Dearington@jacksonlewis.com
-- of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law
Review, reports that the Fourth Circuit recently decided in
Harbourt v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC that casino workers
may proceed with a putative class action alleging that their
unpaid attendance at a Maryland casino's "dealer school" violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Maryland wage laws.

Background

Plaintiffs alleged that the Casino advertised for dealer positions
after Maryland authorized the operation of table games.  The
Casino invited approximately 830 applicants, including the named
plaintiffs, Claudia Harbourt, Michael Lukoski and Ursula Pocknett,
to attend a free twelve-week "dealer school" to be "held in
conjunction with Anne Arundel County Community College" and aimed
at teaching them "how to conduct table games" at the Casino.

The dealer school was scheduled for twenty hours per week over
twelve weeks.  Plaintiffs alleged that the advertised community
college had no involvement in the school and the Casino authored
the materials and provided the instruction.  Attendees completed
new hire paperwork, submitted to a drug test and provided the
Casino with information to conduct background checks required for
the attendees to obtain gambling licenses.

Plaintiffs Harbourt and Pocknett attended the dealer school for
eight and eleven weeks, respectively, and were not paid for their
attendance.  Plaintiff Mr. Lukoski attended the dealer school for
the full twelve weeks and began working as a dealer at the Casino.
He received minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for the last two days
of his attendance at the dealer school.

Plaintiffs filed a putative class and collective action lawsuit
asserting violations of the FLSA and Maryland wage laws claiming
their time spent at the dealer school was compensable.  The
district court granted the Casino's motion to dismiss, finding
that Plaintiffs "failed to show that the primary beneficiary of
their attendance at the training was the Casino rather than
themselves" and therefore the time spent at the dealer school was
not compensable.

Decision on Appeal

The Fourth Circuit reversed, finding that Plaintiffs sufficiently
alleged that those who attended the training school were employees
performing "work" for the Casino within the meaning of the FLSA
and Maryland wage and hour laws.  The Court relied on the
Plaintiffs' allegations that the Casino received an immediate
benefit in a trained workforce of over 800 dealers, "the training
was unique to the Casino's specifications and not transferrable to
work in other casinos" and attendees were paid minimum wage for
the last two days of the dealer school, which suggested that the
Casino considered the attendees working for at least those two
days.  The Fourth Circuit also found sufficient allegations to
conclude that the Casino "conceived or carried out" the dealer
school in an effort to avoid paying minimum wage by advertising
that the school was associated with a community college, when in
fact the college had no involvement.

Takeaway

While the Fourth Circuit did not express an opinion about the
likelihood of Plaintiffs' success on the merits and noted that
"[t]he fact that table games were not in operation during the
training well may prove an insurmountable obstacle[,]" Harbourt is
an important reminder for employers that  training may constitute
compensable time under the FLSA and state wage and hour laws,
particularly where the primary purpose of the training is to
benefit the employer.


PREMIER AUTOMOTIVE: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Advertisements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fredeswinda Wilkins, individually and, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premier Automotive Imports of CA, LLC,
JPMorgan Chase Bank, and Does 1 through 500, inclusive, Case No.
RG16816711 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the California Business and
Professions Code, specifically by disseminating false, untrue and
misleading statements in advertising a vehicle for sale as new
when in fact it was used.

Premier Automotive Imports of CA, LLC is engaged in the business
of buying and selling automobiles to the general public.

JPMorgan Chase Bank operates a financial institution engaged in
the business of holding conditional sale contracts and collecting
payments made by consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis A. Liberty, Esq.
      LOUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES, a PLC
      553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A
      Faster City, CA 94404
      Telephone: (650) 341-0300
      Facsimile: (650) 403-1783
      E-mail: lou@carlawyer.com


RCN TELECOM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Seal" Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Seal, individually and on behalf of class of similarly
situated individuals v. RCN Telecom Services, LLC, Case No. 2016-
CH-07073 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May 23, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing calls to consumers' wireless
telephone using an automatic dialing system.

RCN Telecom Services, LLC is a telecommunication provider of voice
telephony, internet, and cable television connectivity services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. McMorrow, Esq.
      MCMORROW LAW, PC
      One North LaSalle St., 44th Fl.
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 265-0708
      E-mail: mike@mjmcmorrow.com


REDWOOD, MN: Dismissal of "Mdewakanton" Class Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit affirmed the
district court's decision to grant the appellees' motions to
dismiss, but vacated the district court's order imposing sanctions
totaling $281,906.34 and requiring an appellate-cost bond, in the
case against several Minnesota townships.

A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's June 1, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/bKOquw from Leagle.com.

The appellants-plaintiffs filed the purported class action
claiming the right to title and possession of 12 square miles of
land in southern Minnesota ("12 square miles").  Specifically, the
appellants alleged they are lineal descendants of the Mdewakanton
band of the Sioux tribe who were loyal to the United States during
the 1862 uprising ("loyal Mdewakanton").  The appellants claimed
the Secretary of the Interior set apart the 12 square miles for
the loyal Mdewakanton and their descendants and, thereby, the
loyal Mdewakanton have the exclusive right to title, use, and
possession of the 12 square miles.  Appellees physically possess
or claim a property interest in the 12 square miles.

The case is captioned, Sheldon Peters Wolfchild; Ernie Peters
Longwalker; Scott Adolphson; Morris Pendleton; Barbara Buttes;
Thomas Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Redwood County; Paxton
Township; Sherman Township; Honner Township; Renville County;
Birch Cooley Township; Sibley County; Moltke Township; John Goelz,
III; Gerald H. Hosek; Allen J. Kokesch; Jacalyn S. Kokesch; Paul
W. Schroeder; Karen J. Schroeder; Chad M. Lund; Amy M. Lund;
Rockford L. Crooks; Janie K. Crooks; UT School District; Episcopal
Diocese of Minnesota; Michael R. Rasmussen; Lee H. Guggisberg
Trust UWT; Patrick T. Hansen; Nancy S. Hansen; Kelly M. Lipinski;
Cynthia Johnson; Mitchell H. Unruh; William Schmidt; Norma
Schmidt; Prouty Properties LLC; Robert D. Rebstock; Lori A.
Rebstock; Allan D. Eller; Elmer C. Dahms; Barbara L. Dahms;
Marlene A. Platt, RT; Eugene A. Engstrom; Enid Guggisberg; Melvin
W. Maddock; Kerry D. Maddock; Thomas J. Heiling; Keefe Family Farm
LLC; Larry Lussenhop; Jon Lussenhop; TJ & CC Properties LLC;
Dennis A. Auslam; Michelle D. Auslam; Dale R. Hanna; Nancy Hanna;
Harold Guggisberg; Sandra Clarken; Julie Anna Guggisberg; Steven
R. Helmer; Dawn R. Helmer; George F. Schottenbauer; John Goeltz;
Alice Goeltz; Francis Goeltz; Edward J. Gaasch; Simmons Valley
Trust; John C. Simmons; Mary J. Simmons; John (L.) Hogan; Timothy
H. Kerkhoff; Theresa J. Kerkhoff; Sherman Acres LLC; Kenneth
Larsen; Henry G. O'Neil; Judith A. O'Neil; Charles D. Neitzel;
Scott A. Olafson; Kimberly A. Olafson; Kim M. Cunningham; John H.
Reynolds; Jeanne A. Reynolds; Douglas Scherer; Brenda Scherer;
Willard Scherer; Eugenie Scherer; Bruce Robert Black; Lila L.
Black; Neil and Donna Berger Family; Charles Case; Lyle Black
Living Trust; Lower Sioux Indian Community; Doe Nos. 1-500,
Defendants-Appellees. James J Ashe Amicus Curiae. Sheldon Peters
Wolfchild; Ernie Peters Longwalker; Scott Adolphson; Morris
Pendleton; Barbara Buttes; Thomas Smith, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
Redwood County; Paxton Township; Sherman Township; Honner
Township; Renville County; Birch Cooley Township; Sibley County;
Moltke Township; John Goelz, III; Gerald H. Hosek; Allen J.
Kokesch; Jacalyn S. Kokesch; Paul W. Schroeder; Karen J.
Schroeder; Chad M. Lund; Amy M. Lund; Rockford L. Crooks; Janie K.
Crooks; UT School District; Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota;
Michael R. Rasmussen; Lee H. Guggisberg Trust UWT; Patrick T.
Hansen; Nancy S. Hansen; Kelly M. Lipinski; Cynthia Johnson;
Mitchell H. Unruh; William Schmidt; Norma Schmidt; Prouty
Properties LLC; Robert D. Rebstock; Lori A. Rebstock; Allan D.
Eller; Elmer C. Dahms; Barbara L. Dahms; Marlene A. Platt, RT;
Eugene A. Engstrom; Enid Guggisberg; Melvin W. Maddock; Kerry D.
Maddock; Thomas J. Heiling; Keefe Family Farm LLC; Larry
Lussenhop; Jon Lussenhop; TJ & CC Properties LLC; Dennis A.
Auslam; Michelle D. Auslam; Dale R. Hanna; Nancy Hanna; Harold
Guggisberg; Sandra Clarken; Julie Anna Guggisberg; Steven R.
Helmer; Dawn R. Helmer; George F. Schottenbauer; John Goeltz;
Alice Goeltz; Francis Goeltz; Edward J. Gaasch; Simmons Valley
Trust; John C. Simmons; Mary J. Simmons; John (L.) Hogan; Timothy
H. Kerkhoff; Theresa J. Kerkhoff; Sherman Acres LLC; Kenneth
Larsen; Henry G. O'Neil; Judith A. O'Neil; Charles D. Neitzel;
Scott A. Olafson; Kimberly A. Olafson; Kim M. Cunningham; John H.
Reynolds; Jeanne A. Reynolds; Douglas Scherer; Brenda Scherer;
Willard Scherer; Eugenie Scherer; Bruce Robert Black; Lila L.
Black; Neil and Donna Berger Family; Charles Case; Lyle Black
Living Trust; Lower Sioux Indian Community; Doe Nos. 1-500,
Defendants-Appellees. Sheldon Peters Wolfchild; Ernie Peters
Longwalker; Scott Adolphson; Morris Pendleton; Barbara Buttes;
Thomas Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Erick G. Kaardal, Plaintiffs'
attorney; Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., Plaintiffs' law firm
Appellants, v. Redwood County; Paxton Township; Sherman Township;
Honner Township; Renville County; Birch Cooley Township; Sibley
County; Moltke Township; John Goelz, III; Gerald H. Hosek; Allen
J. Kokesch; Jacalyn S. Kokesch; Paul W. Schroeder; Karen J.
Schroeder; Chad M. Lund; Amy M. Lund; Rockford L. Crooks; Janie K.
Crooks; UT School District; Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota;
Michael R. Rasmussen; Lee H. Guggisberg Trust UWT; Patrick T.
Hansen; Nancy S. Hansen; Kelly M. Lipinski; Cynthia Johnson;
Mitchell H. Unruh; William Schmidt; Norma Schmidt; Prouty
Properties LLC; Robert D. Rebstock; Lori A. Rebstock; Allan D.
Eller; Elmer C. Dahms; Barbara L. Dahms; Marlene A. Platt, RT;
Eugene A. Engstrom; Enid Guggisberg; Melvin W. Maddock; Kerry D.
Maddock; Thomas J. Heiling; Keefe Family Farm LLC; Larry
Lussenhop; Jon Lussenhop; TJ & CC Properties LLC; Dennis A.
Auslam; Michelle D. Auslam; Dale R. Hanna; Nancy Hanna; Harold
Guggisberg; Sandra Clarken; Julie Anna Guggisberg; Steven R.
Helmer; Dawn R. Helmer; George F. Schottenbauer; John Goeltz;
Alice Goeltz; Francis Goeltz; Edward J. Gaasch; Simmons Valley
Trust; John C. Simmons; Mary J. Simmons; John (L.) Hogan; Timothy
H. Kerkhoff; Theresa J. Kerkhoff; Sherman Acres LLC; Kenneth
Larsen; Henry G. O'Neil; Judith A. O'Neil; Charles D. Neitzel;
Scott A. Olafson; Kimberly A. Olafson; Kim M. Cunningham; John H.
Reynolds; Jeanne A. Reynolds; Douglas Scherer; Brenda Scherer;
Willard Scherer; Eugenie Scherer; Bruce Robert Black; Lila L.
Black; Neil and Donna Berger Family; Charles Case; Lyle Black
Living Trust; Lower Sioux Indian Community; Doe Nos. 1-500,
Defendants-Appellees, Sheldon Peters Wolfchild; Ernie Peters
Longwalker; Scott Adolphson; Morris Pendleton; Barbara Buttes;
Thomas Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Erick G. Kaardal, Plaintiffs'
attorney; Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., Plaintiffs' law firm
Appellees, v. Redwood County; Paxton Township; Sherman Township;
Honner Township; Renville County; Birch Cooley Township; Sibley
County; Moltke Township, Defendants-Appellants, John Goelz, III;
Gerald H. Hosek; Allen J. Kokesch; Jacalyn S. Kokesch; Paul W.
Schroeder; Karen J. Schroeder; Chad M. Lund; Amy M. Lund; Rockford
L. Crooks; Janie K. Crooks; UT School District; Episcopal Diocese
of Minnesota; Michael R. Rasmussen; Lee H. Guggisberg Trust UWT;
Patrick T. Hansen; Nancy S. Hansen; Kelly M. Lipinski; Cynthia
Johnson; Mitchell H. Unruh; William Schmidt; Norma Schmidt; Prouty
Properties LLC; Robert D. Rebstock; Lori A. Rebstock; Allan D.
Eller; Elmer C. Dahms; Barbara L. Dahms; Marlene A. Platt, RT;
Eugene A. Engstrom; Enid Guggisberg; Melvin W. Maddock; Kerry D.
Maddock; Thomas J. Heiling; Keefe Family Farm LLC; Larry
Lussenhop; Jon Lussenhop; TJ & CC Properties LLC; Dennis A.
Auslam; Michelle D. Auslam; Dale R. Hanna; Nancy Hanna; Harold
Guggisberg; Sandra Clarken; Julie Anna Guggisberg; Steven R.
Helmer; Dawn R. Helmer; George F. Schottenbauer; John Goeltz;
Alice Goeltz; Francis Goeltz; Edward J. Gaasch; Simmons Valley
Trust; John C. Simmons; Mary J. Simmons; John (L.) Hogan; Timothy
H. Kerkhoff; Theresa J. Kerkhoff; Sherman Acres LLC; Kenneth
Larsen; Henry G. O'Neil; Judith A. O'Neil; Charles D. Neitzel;
Scott A. Olafson; Kimberly A. Olafson; Kim M. Cunningham; John H.
Reynolds; Jeanne A. Reynolds; Douglas Scherer; Brenda Scherer;
Willard Scherer; Eugenie Scherer; Bruce Robert Black; Lila L.
Black; Neil and Donna Berger Family; Charles Case; Lyle Black
Living Trust; Lower Sioux Indian Community; Doe Nos. 1-500,
Defendants, Nos. 15-1580, 15-2375, 15-3225, 15-3277 (8th Cir.).


ROCKY'S BELLA: "Solano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Zeferino Solano and Silverio Lopez, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Rocky's
Bella Pizza Corp. d/b/a Rocky's II Restaurant, Matt Hoxhaj,
Roberto Doe, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-03827
(S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Rocky's II Restaurant located at
607 2nd Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 563-9884
      E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


SANFORD BROWN: Former Students File Consumer Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Berman, writing for Marketwatch, reports that
Annemarie Morgan and Tiffany Dever figured a certificate in
ultrasound would be a ticket to a career in a field that was
"blowing up."

Representatives at their for-profit college implied that the
program was accredited by describing it as "licensed," they say,
and said the school's career center would help them find jobs.
None of that, they now claim, was true.

In court papers, Ms. Morgan and Ns, Dever say the school, Sanford
Brown College & Institute, stuck them with thousands of dollars in
loans in return for classes taught by minimally qualified teachers
using old equipment.  Neither landed a job in the field.

Ms. Dever and Ms. Morgan are suing, accusing the school of duping
them and violating both their contract and consumer fraud laws.
But whether they're even allowed to sue is uncertain, as the New
Jersey Supreme Court is considering whether their case will head
to arbitration or to court.

Their case is an example of the increased scrutiny deals like
theirs-- most for-profit colleges make students agree to settle
disputes in arbitration, rather than court -- face today.

Lawmakers and advocates want the Department of Education to ban
colleges from receiving federal financial aid funding if they
require arbitration clauses.  They say the provisions, which often
also prohibit class-action suits, make abuses hard to spot and
schools hard to hold accountable.  In May, the University of
Phoenix, one of the country's largest for-profit college
operators, said it would stop making new students sign them.

Today, the limited access to class-action suits means students who
believe they've been duped by their school generally must seek to
have their federal loans forgiven.  But if the Department of
Education, which could propose new rules governing the clauses,
moves to ban them and such a rule becomes law, for-profit students
of all types -- even those that didn't take out federal loans --
could have more options.

The agency, however, has offered mixed signals about its
intentions, leaving observers on all sides of the debate hesitant
to predict victory.

"It looked like they were finally going to get rid of mandatory
arbitration in these contracts," earlier this year, U.S. Sen.
Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), a critic of the contracts, told
MarketWatch.  "Then . . . they backed off of it. I'm waiting for
the third installment of this important story."

Thousands at for-profit schools were required to sign the clauses
Businesses ranging from credit-card issues to cellphone service
providers -- and even some employers) have increasingly used
arbitration clauses in pacts with customers and workers.  Recent
Supreme Court rulings, meanwhile, make challenging them in court
difficult.

Virtually all students who attend for-profit colleges that receive
federal financial aid sign them, according to The Century
Foundation, a progressive think tank.  In 2014, according to the
group, some 900,000 students were enrolled in schools that
required them.

Meanwhile, disputes between for-profit colleges and students have
become more common.  Corinthian Colleges, once one of the
country's largest for-profit college chains, collapsed in 2015
amid claims that it lured students with inflated job placement and
graduation rates.  Other for-profit colleges have faced similar
claims.

The issue even featured in a November episode of the CBS drama
"The Good Wife," in which a group of students went on a debt
strike after learning they couldn't sue their school.  "A class
action isn't possible here," the star character, Alicia Florrick,
told them.  "When you registered at Colosseum, you signed a
document saying you wouldn't sue the school."

The clauses insulate the schools, consumer advocates say,
essentially limiting the groups that can bring claims of
wrongdoing to court and into the public eye, to whistleblowers and
government agencies and officials.

Students who believe they've been wronged by a school -- and who
took out federal loans to pay for it -- must instead appeal to the
federal government to get their money back.

For-profit college representatives say requiring schools to ban
arbitration would make it harder for students who can't afford
lawyers -- or convince them to take their cases -- to find a venue
to settle their claims.  Steve Gunderson, CEO of the Association
of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, which represents for-
profit colleges, said students at smaller schools would be hit
hard because lawyers might be less willing to take on schools
without deep pockets.

"Every school needs to figure out what is the best protocol to
resolving disputes with students," said Mr. Gunderson, a former
Republican Congressman from Wisconsin. "That's going to be
different with every school and every situation."

Consumer advocates see it differently.  Schools deploy the
agreements as a "business tactic," said Eileen Connor, director of
litigation at Harvard Law School's Project on Predatory Student
Lending.

They're typically paired with clauses banning collective action,
so consumers can't share the costs.  That, advocates say, can
deter lawyers -- particularly those with limited resources, such
as legal-aid attorneys -- from taking the cases because it is
difficult to score an effective win.

All this can have a "chilling effect" on consumers looking to
bring claims, Ms. Connor said.

And arbitration proceedings are generally confidential, so there's
no public record of the allegations or the defense.

When consumers do move forward with arbitration, advocates say,
they face long odds.  Of 341 cases -- covering a range of
financial claims, but no for-profit colleges -- settled by an
arbitrator in 2010 and 2011 where the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau could ascertain the outcome, only about a fifth
got some kind of relief, the agency found.

And critics say that because arbitrators are paid by the case,
they tend to favor businesses in hopes of attracting repeat
business.  Michael Kelly, a Los Angeles-based lawyer at Kirtland &
Packard LLP, who won more than $200,000 for a former Le Cordon
Bleu student in arbitration, said he settled four similar cases
for much less after studying the arbitrators to which they were
assigned.

"It didn't look like we were going to get a fair shake," he said.

The arbitration process, meanwhile, is very different from a court
case.  There's rarely an opportunity for discovery, the process
that allows lawyers to review the other side's evidence, and so
some attorneys say they are reluctant to represent clients without
especially well-documented claims of fraud.

That means many common student complaints -- including issues with
job placement and credits transferring to other schools -- don't
get heard, according to California attorney Harry Shulman, who
regularly represents groups of former for-profit college students
in arbitration.

"This notion of failing to provide the promised help with jobs is
one that I see all the time," he said.  "I can't see how to do
anything about that."

And because of the closed nature of arbitration proceedings,
regulators aren't necessarily aware of students' claims, making it
harder for them to track possible abuses and take action.

The widespread use of arbitration clauses in enrollment agreements
runs against the fundamental nature of higher education, Ms.
Connor says.  "No student is going to a school thinking 'it is
only a matter of time before I have a dispute that I need to
involve a court in,'" she said.

Advocates, industry members await new rules

Connor is one of several consumer advocates, lawmakers and experts
who have recently pushed the Department to ban the clauses.

The government is winding down a review of the processes student
borrowers use when they believe they've been duped by their
schools.  After days of stakeholder negotiations earlier this
year, the Department presented a proposed rule that would curb
mandatory arbitration but was short of an outright ban.

That proposal would let schools force individual students with
claims into arbitration; Students who bring claims as a class
could take them to court, though a judge could still decide not to
certify the class, leading back to arbitration.

The proposal only applied to students receiving federal student
loans, so students who used GI Bills to pay for college, financed
it out of pocket, or used private loans wouldn't be covered.

It would also require more transparency, including a rule that
schools would have to notify the Department of Education of any
claim.

Julie Murray, an attorney at the Public Citizen Litigation Group,
which wants the Department to ban colleges that use arbitration
clauses from receiving federal financial aid, said allowing
schools to require arbitration could discourage claims.
Class-action lawsuits are often costly, and if lawyers and
students know they could be forced into arbitration midstream,
they could decide not to bother with a claim.

Just changing the rules of the arbitration process "is not going
to address some of the things that deter students from bringing
claims in the first place," Murray said.

If the Department instead proposes an outright ban on the clauses,
students who believe they were wronged by their school
-- but never took on federal loans -- would have more options.
Right now, their best option is to submit her claim to arbitration
or, if she has federal loans, prove to the government that the
school violated state laws and get the debts forgiven.

The Department, which is expected to release its final proposed
rule in June, has been mostly quiet about its intentions.

"The Department has put forth proposals to ban schools from using
fine print 'gotchas' to skirt accountability," said spokeswomen
Kelly Leon via email.  "We are pleased the use of these clauses is
being reconsidered by the industry."

Some schools are adjusting their arbitration policies.  University
of Phoenix parent company Apollo Education Group one of the
country's largest for-profit college companies, said in May that
it would stop using arbitration clauses in enrollment agreements.

The full effect of that move, however, is unclear.  Apollo didn't
clarify, for example, whether the University of Phoenix would also
stop prohibiting students from filing class-action suits.  A
representative did not respond to requests for further comment.

DeVry Education Group DV, +0.79% another operator of for-profit
colleges, also eliminated arbitration clauses from its enrollment
agreements in May.

Despite the movement, it still appears too early to say whether
the private sector will get rid of the clauses on their own.
Following the decisions of Apollo and DeVry to voluntarily
eliminate the clauses, a group of Democratic Senators, including
Mr. Durbin, sent a letter to the CEO of ITT Educational Services
urging him to do the same. The school has not announced any
changes to its policy.

"No one is more concerned about our students than we are,"
Nicole Elam, a spokeswoman for ITT, said in an emailed statement.
"We're fully aware of what is happening at two institutions in our
sector, but do not feel it's appropriate for us to respond via
media."

A lawyer for Sanford Brown, which is not currently enrolling new
students, declined to comment for this article, citing pending
litigation.

Other agencies have taken steps to curb arbitration in the spaces
they regulate.  The CFPB published a proposed rule in May that, if
enacted, would limit the use of arbitration clauses in contracts
used for financial products. And the Centers for Medicaid and
Medicare Services last year published a proposed rule that bans
nursing homes to which the agency gives federal funds from
requiring pre-dispute arbitration agreements as a condition of
admission

For now, however, students who believe they were misled by their
schools have few options.  Morgan and Dever, who declined to be
interviewed for this story, are still responsible for their loans
as their case winds through the court system.

"They still have these massive debts and they can't proceed until
this issue is resolved," said Robert O'Shea, their lawyer.

Unless the Department bans arbitration clauses or other companies
voluntarily get rid of them, other former students are stuck with
them -- or the route of asking the federal government for debt
forgiveness.  For critics of the clauses, however, that's not
enough.

"When we have an entity -- whether it is a business, or in this
case, a school -- that is engaging in questionable conduct, the
people who are the victims of that conduct should have a day in
court," Mr. Durbin said.  "That is the ordinary course of events
in life in America."


SCHOLARSHIP STORAGE: Final Settlement of "Curtis" Claims Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nancy Torresen approved the final settlement of all claims
in the case captioned ROBERT CURTIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
SCHOLARSHIP STORAGE INC., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 2:14-cv-
303-NT (D. Me.).  The judge also granted the plaintiffs' counsels'
motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

A full-text copy of Judge Torresen's May 31, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/4dkvLj from Leagle.com.

The case concerns wages owed to delivery and shuttle drivers of
Scholarship Storage d/b/a Business as Usual (BAU) under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. sections 207, 255, and under
Maine law, 26 M.R.S. sections 664(3), 629(1).  Through
negotiations, the parties agreed to settle their dispute in
advance of trial.

Robert Curtis, Benjamin Krauter, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey
Neil Young, Johnson Webbert & Young LLP & Phillip E Johnson,
Johnson Webbert & Young LLP.

Scholarship Storage Inc, Michael Williams, Defendants, represented
by Beth A. Deragon -- beth.deragon@mclane.com -- Charla B. Stevens
-- charla.stevens@mclane.com -- and Nicholas F. Casolaro --
nicholas.casolaro@mclane.com -- at McLane Graf Raulerson &
Middleton PA; and Peter C. Felmly -- pfelmly@dwmlaw.com -- and
Michael L. Buescher -- mbuescher@dwmlaw.com -- at Drummond
Woodsum.


SHEA'S AMERICAN GRILLE: "Barnett" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Barnett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Shea's American Grille, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00831 (D. Conn., May 27, 2016), seeks
compensation for unpaid minimum wages at the applicable minimum
wage rate, overtime compensation for unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorney fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act.

Shea's American Bar and Grill does business as Tomato Joe's
located at 103 Tolland Turnpike, Manchester, Connecticut 06042,
where Plaintiff was employed as a server and occasional bartender.
Barnett seeks minimum wage and overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James E. Miller, Esq.
     Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
     Melissa He, Esq.
     SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
     65 Main Street
     Chester, CT 06412
     Telephone: (860) 526-1100
     Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
     Email: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
            lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
            mhe@sfmslaw.com

          - and -

     Ted E. Trief, Esq.
     Shelly L. Friedland, Esq.
     Caitlin Duffy, Esq.
     TRIEF & OLK
     150 E 58th Street, 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10155
     Telephone: (212) 486-6060
     Email:ttrief@triefandolk.com
           sfriedland@triefandolk.com
           cduffy@triefandolk.com


SIMON AND SHUSTER: Faces Class Action Over Ebook Royalties
----------------------------------------------------------
Cory Doctorow, writing for Boingboing, reports that Sheldon Blau
has filed a class action lawsuit against Simon and Shuster (who
appear to have purged wording mentioning "licensing" from their
fine-print after the Eminen/Universal settlement), saying that the
publisher owes him, and other S&S writers, license-level royalties
on all the ebooks they sold.

In 2012, Eminem and Universal settled a lawsuit over this very
issue, with Universal agreeing to pay Eminem the licensing rate on
the digital music sales it made to customers who also got a
"license agreement" with their purchase.

Simon and Shuster is trying to scuttle the suit at the outset by
arguing that they assigned their rights to Mr. Blau's book to
another party, and that his beef is with them.  Nevertheless, you
can expect more of this to come, and damned right, too: publishers
put themselves in this bind by arguing that they got the best of
the deal in both directions, with their customers and with their
writers.  They had to know it was bullshit when they did it, and
it's time they were called on it.  The best possible outcome from
this? Publishers all drop the "licensing" language from our ebooks
from now on, and writers get a big payday besides.

Statute of limitations runs out after six years, though: so
lawyers, start your engines!

In its 2010 decision, the F.B.T court held that digital downloads
should not be treated as auditable physical units for royalty
accounting purposes.  The Ninth Circuit ruling was important for
the recording industry, because recording artists (like book
authors) receive 50% of the record company's net receipts from
rights licensed to third parties -- as opposed to 12% to 20% of
the retail price when a recording is "sold."

In the wake of the Eminem decision, most publishers amended their
contracts, so the sale or license of an "eBook" is unambiguously
treated as a sale.  The lawsuit, therefore, challenges the
publisher's interpretation of their legacy or backlist contracts.


SINGING RIVER: Judge Okays Retirees' Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
WLOX News Now reports that a federal judge has signed off on a
class action settlement between Singing River Health System and
its retirees, calling the settlement "fair, reasonable, and
adequate."

In the June 2 ruling, Judge Louis Guirola said the settlement
"provides the best hope of providing continuing benefits to
current and future SRHS retirees."

The $150 million settlement, paid over 35 years, would give
retirees 100 percent of the money they're owed and shore up the
plan moving forward.  Some key points include:

SRHS must deposit $149,950,000 into the retirement trust pursuant
to a 35-year schedule.  This payment will fully compensate the
Plan for the 2009 through 2014 missed contributions.

Jackson County agreed to pay $13,600,000 to SRHS to support the
indigent care and principally to prevent default on a bond issue
by supporting the operations of SRHS in nine installments between
now and 9/30/24.

SRHS will pay attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Plan will be monitored by Stephen Simpson, the special
fiduciary appointed by Jackson County Chancery Court to oversee
the Plan.  He will receive quarterly reports from SRHS. He'll give
quarterly reports to Chancery Court.

The proposed settlement provides Plan-wide relief.  No specific
monetary damages are awarded to any individual.  The objectors'
arguments that the proposed settlement will not treat class
members equally are therefore without merit.

SRHS Chief Executive Officer Kevin Holland released this statement
on June 2:

"We are very pleased with Judge Guirola's ruling that the proposed
settlement of the Singing River Health System pension plan is
appropriate and should now move forward.  This has been a long and
very difficult process that required a great deal of work from all
parties concerned.  Now the over 3,100 individuals who are members
of the pension plan will know that their benefits will continue
into the future.  We are pleased that we can begin the process of
closure for this matter, and we commend all who worked diligently
to help bring it to this point.  All through the process, it has
been the goal and intention of Singing River Health System to
bring a satisfactory conclusion to the retirement benefit
situation for all concerned, and we are comfortable that the court
ruling has done that.  This pension battle has been brewing since
2014 when SRHS administrators revealed that the hospital had
stopped contributing to its employees retirement fund since 2009."

Since the Singing River Hospital System is the primary health care
provider in Jackson County, Judge Guirola wrote in his ruling that
"it is in the best interest of all -- proponents as well as
objectors, elected and appointed officials, and importantly, all
the citizens of Jackson County, to make every reasonable effort to
protect and nurture the hospital system upon which they depend for
their critical health care needs."

He said the court found no evidence that the settlement is the
product of fraud or collusion.

"The parties have achieved the best result that could be expected
given the difficult circumstances and poor alternatives."

Plaintiffs attorney Jim Reeves helped engineer the deal, and said
he's proud of it.

"We think this is a very good day for all the pension members,"
Reeves told WLOX News Now.  "This should allow us to get this ugly
chapter of coast history behind us. It should allow the pension
plan to be funded again shortly."

Mr. Reeves also thanked all the people involved, saying he knows
it has been a huge undertaking.


SNAPCHAT INC: Illegally Uses Class Members' Biometrics, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Martinez and Malcolm Neal, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated v. Snapchat, Inc., Case No. BC621391
(Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2016), is an action for damages
resulting from the illegal actions of Snapchat in collecting,
storing, and using the Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated
Illinois users' biometric identifiers and biometric information
without informed written consent.

Snapchat, Inc. develops a text and photo based messaging
application for mobile phones.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


STRAD ENERGY: Tristan Cos. File Class Action in Alberta Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Strad Energy Services Ltd. ("Strad" or the "Company") on June 2
disclosed that a proposed class action proceeding (the "Action")
was filed on June 1, 2016 by Tristan Partners LP and Tristan
Offshore Fund Ltd. in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench (the
"Court") against Strad and its directors (the "Directors").  The
Action relates to historical communications between Strad and
Total Energy Services Inc. ("Total") in 2014 and 2015.  The
Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Strad and the
Directors failed to act in the best interests of Strad and failed
to properly consider certain overtures by Total in respect of a
possible business combination transaction.

Strad and the Directors believe that the Plaintiffs' allegations
are unfounded and without merit and intend to vigorously defend
the Action and protect the interests of all shareholders.  Strad
and the Directors have at all times acted in the best interests of
all of Strad's shareholders in the due exercise of their fiduciary
duties.  Strad believes that the Action is indicative of ulterior
motives on the part of certain minority shareholders acting
contrary to the best interests of all of Strad's shareholders.
The Action cannot proceed as a class action unless it is first
certified by the Court.  The Action seeks various declarations,
general damages of $18.5 million and punitive damages of $5
million, although there is no basis provided for either of these
amounts.  Although the outcome of this matter is not determinable
at this time, the Company believes that the Action will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or
results of operations as Strad and the Directors believe the
allegations made against them are without merit.

Commencing in the fall of 2015 the Company, assisted by Raymond
James Ltd. as financial advisor, completed a broad process to
identify, examine and consider a range of strategic alternatives
which may be available to the Company with a view of enhancing
shareholder value.  Strategic alternatives considered included,
among other things, acquisitions of companies or assets,
disposition of assets, the sale of the Company, either in one
transaction or a combination of transactions, a merger or other
business combination or continuing to pursue its current operating
and growth plan.  In connection with the process, Strad
established a special committee of independent directors,
comprised of Messrs. Hagg (Chair), Grandfield, Van der Sloot and
Nodwell to supervise the process.  While Strad and the Directors
continue to consider and pursue various strategic alternative
transactions, no definitive agreement in respect of any one
proposed transaction has been reached at this time.  Strad does
not intend to disclose developments with respect to the strategic
review process unless or until the Directors have approved a
definitive transaction or other course of action or otherwise
deems disclosure of developments is appropriate or otherwise
required by law.

                 About Strad Energy Services Ltd.

Strad is a North American energy services company that focuses on
providing well-site infrastructure solutions to the oil and
natural gas industry.  Strad focuses on providing complete
customer solutions in well-site-related oilfield equipment for
producers active in unconventional resource plays.

Strad is headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  Strad is
listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the trading symbol
"SDY."


SWEDISH MEDICAL: Hospital Tech Who Stole Syringe HIV-Positive
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Gannon, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the surgical technician accused of stealing syringes for liquid
painkillers from hospitals in Colorado and Arizona is HIV-
positive, federal officials said June 1, warning patients to
consider getting tested for the virus.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Denver announced Allen's HIV status
June 1 -- apparently without Allen's consent, according to Denver
news outlets.

Rocky Allen, a Navy veteran, is accused of replacing syringes with
saline solution to support his drug habit during his five-month
employment at Swedish Medical Center in Englewood, Colo. He worked
there from Aug. 17, 2015 until Jan. 22, when he was accused of
stealing a syringe of fentanyl and fired. At least two people are
believed to have contracted hepatitis B after having surgery at
Swedish Medical Center while Allen worked there.

A federal grand jury on Feb. 16 charged Allen with tampering with
a consumer product and obtaining a controlled substance by deceit.
Allen has pleaded not guilty. If convicted, he could be sentenced
to up to 14 years in prison.

In March, a federal class action in Denver claimed Allen could
have exposed 3,000 patients to HIV or hepatitis. Named as
defendants were the Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), and
HealthONE LLC dba the Swedish Medical Center, one of several
Denver-area hospitals run by HealthONE.

In May, another class action, in Phoenix, claimed HonorHealth and
HonorHealth John C. Lincoln Medical Center hired Allen despite his
history of drug abuse. That lawsuit, in Maricopa County Court,
said Allen was court-martialed by the Navy in 2011, "and pleaded
guilty to making a false official statement, wrongfully possessing
approximately 30 vials of fentanyl, wrongly possessing a syringe
containing fentanyl, stealing fentanyl, and stealing a syringe
containing fentanyl."

Lead plaintiff Amy Amari said the records of Allen's court-martial
were available, had the hospital asked for them.  It has since
been discovered that hospitals in Washington and California also
had fired Allen for syringe-swapping.

Allen has tested negative for hepatitis B and hepatitis C, but
prosecutors say he may have reused some of the syringes he stole
and filled with solution, and that his HIV infection might have
been spread to surgical patients.

In Colorado, a state survey found the Swedish Medical Center kept
inaccurate drug records and there were gaps in its pharmacy
audits, which might have helped Allen get away with it as long as
he did.

No patients have yet claimed to have contracted HIV from Allen's
conduct.

Allen's public defender, Timothy O'Hara, told Judge Kristen Mix at
a Feb. 19 hearing that Allen was not necessarily reusing the
syringes, and might have simply switched them. O'Hara said Allen's
drug use was a way to deal with PTSD from his service in
Afghanistan.


TANGOE INC: July 25 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Safirstein Metcalf LLP on June 1 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of  New Jersey on behalf of those who purchased shares of
Tangoe, Inc. ("Tangoe") (NASDAQ:TNGO) during the period between
March 18, 2014 and March 7, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased Tangoe shares during the Class Period, you may,
no later than July 25, 2016, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

If you want more information about the Tangoe Securities Class
Action, contact Sheila Feerick at Safirstein Metcalf LLP, 1-800-
221-0015 or email info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com or at
http://www.safirsteinmetcalf.com/tngo.html

Case: TANGOE, INC.
Ticker: TNGO
Class Period: March 18, 2014 - March 7, 2016
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 25, 2016

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants issued false and misleading statements to
investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendants made
errors in recognizing Tangoe's revenue; (2) the Company's
financial results were overstated; and (3) as a result, statements
about Tangoe's business, operations and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

After market closed on March 7, 2016, the Company issued a press
release entitled, "Tangoe Announces That It Will Restate Financial
Statements."

Further, after the market closed on March 7, 2016, the Company
also filed a Form 8-K with the SEC disclosing the consolidated
financial statements of the fiscal years ending December 31, 2013
and 2014, as well as the quarters ended March 31, 2015, June 30,
2015, and September 30, 2015 should no longer be relied upon.

Following this news, shares of Tangoe fell $0.70 per share or over
9% from its previous closing price to close at $7.75 per share on
March 8, 2016.

              About Safirstein Metcalf LLP

Safirstein Metcalf LLP focuses it practice on shareholder rights.
The law firm also practices in the areas of antitrust and consumer
protection.  All of the Firm's legal endeavors are rooted in its
core mission: provide investor and consumer protection.

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Safirstein Metcalf LLP
Peter Safirstein, Esq.
1250 Broadway
27th Floor
New York, NY  10001
1-800-221-0015
info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com


TD BANK: Faces "McEnerney" Class Suit in District New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against TD Bank, N.A.

The case is captioned David McEnerney, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:16-cv-
02918-JBS-JS (D.N.J., May 23, 2016).

TD Bank, N.A. operates a national bank chartered and supervised by
the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John D. Radice, Esq.
      RADICE LAW FIRM, PC
      34 Sunset Blvd
      Long Beach, NJ 08008
      Telephone: (646) 245-8502
      E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com


THAI POT: Faces "Cerezo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Feliciano Cerezo, Fernando Morales Campos, Jose Dejesus Parada
Ugarte, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Thai Pot, Inc. d/b/a Thai Pot, Black Thai, Inc. d/b/a Black Thai,
Thai Malay Cafe Inc. d/b/a Thai Malay Cafe, Sompong Thuthavorn,
and Swee Chan Cheong, Case No. 1:16-cv-02598 (E.D.N.Y., May 23,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Thai restaurant in New York.


Feliciano Cerezo, Fernando Morales Campos, Jose Dejesus Parada
Ugarte are pro se plaintiffs.


THERANOS INC: Faces Three Consumer Fraud Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
John T. Aquino, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Theranos,
Inc., defrauded patients when it claimed that its blood tests were
accurate when they clearly weren't, according to three proposed
class action suits filed in late May in federal district court in
California (R.G. v. Theranos, Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 5:16-cv-02891,
filed 5/30/16 ; Jones v. Theranos, Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 3:16-cv-
02835, filed 5/26/16 ; M.P.B. v. Theranos, Inc., N.D. Cal., No.
3:16-cv-02810, filed 5/25/16 ).

The filings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, which ask for actual and punitive damages, come as
Theranos waits for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
to decide whether to implement sanctions it threatened against the
company on April 14.

The sanctions could include suspending Medicare payments, shutting
down Theranos's California laboratory and barring its chief
executive from owning or operating a laboratory for two years (10
LSLR 09, 4/29/16).

"The class action suits are really not surprising and often happen
when there's been a regulatory action such as the one by the CMS,
which the litigations cite," said Mark Mansour of Mayer Brown,
Washington.  "They represent the individuals who claim to have
been affected, and they are one more thing in the mix."

He added, "The next big event, the next shoe to drop, will be what
the CMS does."

Allege Tests Inaccurate

The proposed class action suits were filed by three Arizona
residents who said they had purchased Theranos blood tests from
Walgreens through the pharmacy chain's joint venture with
Theranos, which is based in Palo Alto, Calif.

One plaintiff is identified only by the initials R.G.; another as
M.P.B., and the third as Casey Jones.  The litigations were
instituted on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all similarly
situated individuals.

The complaints by R.G. and M.P.B. were filed on May 30 and
May 25, respectively, by McCune Wright LLP, Redlands, Calif., and
Berwyn, Pa., and are identical. Jones's complaint was filed
May 26 by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Berkeley, Calif., Seattle
and Phoenix.

R.G., M.P.B. and Jones alleged that Theranos advertised that
through its testing procedure, a hand-held device would be used
that takes just a few drops of blood from a patient, and from that
sample Theranos's proprietary Edison machine could conduct
hundreds of blood tests.

But the Edison machines didn't work and Theranos's tests weren't
accurate, M.P.B. and R.G. wrote.  Theranos conceded the inaccuracy
of the results, the two plaintiffs contended, by informing
regulators it was voiding all of the companies' test results, both
those run on the Edison machines and those run on traditional
machines that Theranos employed when it stopped using the Edisons.

Mr. Jones said that when he went to the Walgreens, rather than
having just a few drops of his blood withdrawn by a hand-held
device as Theranos had advertised, he was subjected to having
large vials of blood drawn in the traditional manner.

Punitive Damages, Disgorgement

M.P.B. and R.G. asserted causes of action of fraud; negligent
misrepresentation; violation of California Civil Code Sections1710
(Deceit) and 1750 (Consumer Legal Remedies Act); violation of the
Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, A.R.S. Sec 44-1521; and violation of
California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 (Unfair
Business Practices Act) and 17500 (false advertising laws).

Mr. Jones asserted causes of action of breach of contract; unjust
enrichment; Arizona consumer fraud; violation of California
Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500; and
violation of California Civil Code Section 1750.

The three asked the court for certification of the class action;
disgorgement of all profits obtained as a result of violations of
laws, statutes and regulations; damages; punitive damages;
interest; and attorneys' fees and costs.


THERANOS INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Deceptive Advertisements
-------------------------------------------------------------
R.G. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Theranos, Inc., Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. and
Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-02891 (N.D.
Cal., May 30, 2016), seeks to recover damages, including
reimbursement of purchase price of tiny blood test as well as an
order enjoining Theranos from engaging in further deceptive
advertisements, pursuant to the Unfair Advertising, California
Business and Professional; False Advertising, California Business
& Professional Code; and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California
Civil Code.

According to the complaint, Theranos sold its new "tiny blood
test" at Wellness Centers at Defendant Walgreens Boots Alliance,
Inc. owned Walgreens pharmacies in Arizona and California.
Theranos and Walgreens assured customers that these tests were
highly accurate, industry leading in quality, and developed and
validated under, and compliant with, federal guidelines. Thousands
of people, including Plaintiff, believed the Company's
representations and paid for Theranos' tests. However, the Edison
machines did not work, and Theranos' tests were not accurate. This
became evident on May 19, 2016, when Theranos conceded that it had
informed regulators that it had voided "all" of the Company's
blood-testing results from its proprietary Edison machines, as
well as many tests run on traditional machines from 2014 and 2015.
As a result, tens of thousands of patients may have been given
incorrect blood-test results, been subject to unnecessary or
potentially harmful treatments, and/or been denied the opportunity
to seek treatment for a treatable condition.

Theranos is a consumer healthcare technology company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          David C. Wright, Esq.
          Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
          Redlands, CA 92374
          Telephone: (909) 557 1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557 1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  dcw@mccunewright.com
                  esk@mccunewright.com
                  jgs@mccunewright.com
                  mds@mccunewright.com
                  jkb@mccunewright.com


TRAMMELL CROW: Arbitration Clause in Tamko Warranty Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of South Carolina reversed the circuit
court's denial of Tamko Building Products, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the claims of the respondents, One Belle Hall Property
Owners Association, Inc. and Brandy Ramey, and compel them to
arbitration.

Tamko's appeal arose from a dispute over the construction of One
Belle Hall (OBH), an upscale condominium community in Mount
Pleasant, South Carolina.  The Association is responsible for the
management and administration of the OBH community as well as the
investigation, maintenance, and repair of its common elements.
Headquartered in Joplin, Missouri, Tamko manufactures and sells
residential and commercial roof shingles nationally and
internationally.

On November 19, 2012, the respondents filed a proposed class
action lawsuit on behalf of all owners of condominium units at
OBH, alleging defective construction against the community's
various developers.  The complaint was amended on December 30,
2013, to bring, inter alia, causes of action for negligence,
breach of warranty, and strict liability against numerous
contractors and commercial entities, including Tamko for its
allegedly defective roof shingles.  Tamko filed a motion to
dismiss and compel arbitration on February 28, 2014, arguing that
the respondents were bound by the arbitration clause provided in
the warranty for its roof shingles.  In a memorandum in opposition
to Tamko's motion, the respondents contended that neither the
Association nor the property owners ever agreed to arbitrate, and
the arbitration clause was unconscionable and unenforceable.

After holding a hearing on the matter, the circuit court denied
Tamko's motion to compel arbitration on September 17, 2014.  In
its order, the court ruled that South Carolina law invalidated
several of the warranty's provisions, including the arbitration
clause.  Specifically, the court noted that the sale of Tamko's
shingles was based upon an adhesion contract, and the respondents
lacked any meaningful choice in negotiating warranty and
arbitration terms.  Relying heavily upon two prior cases
addressing the subject, the court held the arbitration clause was
unconscionable and unenforceable due to the cumulative effect of
several oppressive and one-sided terms in the warranty.  Lastly,
the court found it could not uphold the arbitration clause because
it was not severable from the warranty's unlawful terms.

The appellate court held the circuit court erred in finding the
cumulative effect of the warranty's purportedly unlawful terms
rendered the arbitration clause unconscionable and unedforceable.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's June 1, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/fYGOWZ from Leagle.com.

The case is One Belle Hall Property Owners Association, Inc. and
Brandy Ramey, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Respondents, v. Trammell Crow Residential Company; TCR
NC Construction I, LP; Belle Hall Direct 101, LP; TCR RLD
Condominiums, Inc.; CS 101 Belle Hall, LP; TCR Southeast, Inc.;
TCR Carolina Properties, Inc.; TCR SE Construction, Inc.; TCR SE
Construction II, Inc.; TCR Construction, a division of Trammell
Crow Residential; TCR Development, a division of Trammell Crow
Residential; Trammell Crow Residential Carolina, a division of
Trammell Crow Residential; and Tauer Consulting Company, Inc., a
division of Trammell Crow Residential, each individually and
collectively d/b/a "Trammell Crow Residential," "Trammell Crow" or
"TCR"; Halter Properties, LLC; Halter Realty, LLC; and Halter
Realty Group, LLC, each individually, and collectively d/b/a/
"Halter Companies"; Jane Doe 1-5; ABG Caulking & Waterproofing of
Morristown, Inc. a/k/a ABG Caulking Contractors; Advanced Building
Products & Services, LLC; BASF Corporation; Budget Mechanical
Plumbing, Inc.; Builders First Source-Southeast Group, LLC;
Builders Services Group, Inc., individually, and d/b/a Gale
Contractor Services, Inc.; Century Fire Protection, LLC; Cline
Design Association, P.A. and Gary D. Cline; Coastal Lumber &
Framing, LLC; Dodson Brothers Exterminating Co., Inc. a/k/a Dodson
Pest Control; First Exteriors, LLC; Flooring Services, Inc.;
General Heating & Air Conditioning Company of Greenville, Inc.
d/b/a General Heating and Air; Jimmy Warner, individually, and
d/b/a Warner Heating & Air; Glazing Consultants, Inc.; GWC
Roofing, Inc., individually, and d/b/a Southcoast Exteriors, Inc.;
Houston Stafford Electrical Contractors, LP a/k/a IES Residential,
Inc. d/b/a Houston Stafford Electric; KMAC of the Carolinas, Inc.;
P&P Metal Sales Co., Inc. a/k/a P&P Metal Sales, LLC a/k/a P&P
Metal Sales, Inc. a/k/a Carolina Metals; Pleasant Places, Inc.;
Raymond Building Supply Corporation d/b/a Energy Saving Products
of Florida, Inc. a/k/a Energy Saving Products of Florida; RS
Custom Homes, LLC; Southern Specialties, Inc.; Structural
Contractors South, Inc.; Superior Construction Services, Inc.,
individually, and d/b/a Superior Masonry Unlimited, Inc.; TAMKO
Building Products, Inc. f/k/a TAMKO Roofing Products, Inc.; VNS
Corporation, individually, and d/b/a Wholesale Building Products
f/k/a Wholesale Building Materials, Inc.; What Don't We Do; and
John Doe 1-25, Defendants, Of whom TAMKO Building Products, Inc.,
is the Appellant. VNS Corp., individually, and d/b/a Wholesale
Building Products f/k/a Wholesale Building Materials, Inc., Third-
Party Plaintiff, v. Billy Grady d/b/a United Builders, LLC, Third-
Party Defendant, Houston Stafford Electrical Contractors, LP a/k/a
IES Residential, Inc. d/b/a Houston Stafford Electric, Third-Party
Plaintiff, v. J. Correa Electrical Company, LLC, Third-Party
Defendant, Opinion No. 5407 (S.C. Ct. App.).

Richard Hood Willis, Paula Miles Burlison --
paula.burlison@bowmanandbrooke.com -- and Angela Gilbert
Strickland -- angela.strickland@bowmanandbrooke.com -- all of
Bowman & Brooke, LLP, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Justin O'Toole Lucey -- jlucey@lucey-law.com -- and Dabny Lynn --
dlynn@lucey-law.com -- both of Justin O'Toole Lucey, P.A., of
Mount Pleasant, for Respondents.


TRANSENTERIX INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on June 2
disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of
purchasers of TransEnterix, Inc. ("TransEnterix") common stock
during the period between February 10, 2016 and May 10, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action was filed in the
Eastern District of North Carolina and is captioned Bankley v.
TransEnterix, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-00313-BR.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from June 2, 2016.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Robert Robbins
of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 561/750-3000, or via e-mail
at rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/transenterix/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges TransEnterix and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
TransEnterix is a medical device company that seeks to use
flexible instruments and robotics to improve the outcome of
minimally invasive surgery, including through its SurgiBot System
("SurgiBot"), a single-port, robotically enhanced laparoscopic
surgical platform.  On June 1, 2015, the Company announced that it
had submitted its 510(k) application to the United States Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") seeking "substantial equivalence"
approval that would enable TransEnterix to begin marketing and
selling the SurgiBot in the United States.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding key aspects of the Company's
business.  Specifically, the complaint alleges defendants failed
to disclose deficiencies within the Company's 510(k) submission
regarding the SurgiBot that undermined the likelihood that the
SurgiBot would receive FDA clearance, which would leave the
Company unable to commercialize the SurgiBot in 2016 and would
impair the Company's ability to obtain approval for and
commercialize its other robotic surgery platform in the United
States.  As a result of these false statements and/or omissions,
TransEnterix common stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching as high as $5.69 per share.

On April 20, 2016, the Company issued a press release announcing
its receipt of a response from the FDA on its SurgiBot 510(k)
submission, which stated that "the FDA has determined that the
SurgiBot(TM) System does not meet the criteria for substantial
equivalence based upon the data and information submitted by
TransEnterix in its 510(k) submission."  On this news, the price
of TransEnterix stock fell $2.47 per share, or more than 50%, to
close at $2.27 per share on April 21, 2016.

Then on May 20, 2016, the Company issued a press release stating
that it "expect[ed] to have further discussion with the FDA, but
currently believes that a new 510(k) submission would be required
to obtain clearance," that it was reprioritizing its near-term
regulatory efforts to focus on another submission, and that, as a
result, it "ha[d] taken actions to reduce headcount and investment
related to the SurgiBot."  On this news, the price of TransEnterix
common stock fell another 10% to close at $1.84 per share on May
11, 2016.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
TransEnterix common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has
extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions
including actions involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- advises U.S. and international
institutional investors in securities litigation and portfolio
monitoring.


TRIUS TRUCKING: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco employment law attorneys at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on June 1 disclosed that they filed a class
action lawsuit against Trius Trucking, Inc. claiming that the
transportation company failed to lawfully compensate their
California truck drivers for all their time spent working,
including time spent while their wheels were not spinning.  The
class action lawsuit against Trius Trucking is currently pending
in the Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 16-CEG-01501.

The Complaint lodged against Trius Trucking by the San Francisco
labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik alleges
that Trius Trucking did not provide off-duty thirty minute
uninterrupted meal periods to their truck drivers.  The Class
action lawsuit claims that Trius failed to provide California meal
and rest breaks and is evidenced by their business records which
contain no evidence of meal breaks.

The lawsuit alleges that Trius truck drivers were paid on a piece-
rate basis only.  The Complaint alleges that the truck drivers
were not paid all minimum wages to which they were owed because
Trius allegedly failed to record all time worked. Specifically,
the Trius Trucking truck driver lawsuit claims that the truck
drivers should have been paid minimum wages for their non-driving
tasks, these tasks allegedly included the work performed during
pre-trip and post-trip inspections and time spent allegedly
waiting for Defendant's loads to be ready for transport.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik is a labor law firm with law
offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los Angeles
County, Sacramento County, San Francisco County and Chicago,
Illinois.  The firm represents employees on a contingency basis
for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime pay,
discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other types
of illegal workplace conduct.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Ex-Employees Claim Fraudulent Marketing Tactics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Talk Media News reports that recently released affidavits by
former Trump University employees enjoined in a class-action suit
against the mogul's real estate school allege fraudulent marketing
practices and substandard instruction.

Those claims were further bolstered on May 31 when a federal judge
ordered the release of university "playbooks" which seem to
suggest the school operated as venture capital marketing
instrument rather than an educational institution.

Plaintiffs in the class action allege many of the instructors had
little or no background in real estate and that students were
constantly pressured to sign up for additional courses regardless
of ability to pay.

It is also alleged that students were encouraged to rack up debt
via credit card maximization and that some of those individuals
may have also been indigent or even homeless.

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton slammed Mr. Trump for
taking "advantage of vulnerable" citizens who emptied out their
bank accounts to attend the University.  She called Mr. Trump a
"fraud."

Mr. Trump said he will win the lawsuit and has refused to settle
the case.

Some of the plaintiffs said they felt so guilty about their
complicity in the alleged scam that they decided to resign.

Ronald Schnackenberg, who was a former sales manager at the
university, is of that disposition.  Mr. Schnackenberg told CNN he
was sanctioned for not forcefully advocating that an elderly
couple use their disability income and a home equity loan to pay
for $35,000 in tuition.

Similar allegations have been made by other plaintiffs and have
helped foster the impression that the university was largely
designed to line Trump's pockets.

But the now defunct institution has long been a source of conflict
and controversy.

In 2011, New York State began investigating the university after
receiving complaints alleging dubious business practices and in
2013 subsequently filed a $40 million suit.  The following year
Trump was legally censured for operating the institution without
proper credentials as New York never officially designed the
school as a university.

Also in 2014, San Diego federal judge Gonzalo P. Curiel permitted
Californians to participate in an entirely separate class-action
suit against the university.  That trial is scheduled for late
November.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Donald Trump Plans to Reopen Business
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeanne Sahadi, writing for CNN Money, reports that a lot of
damning documents against Trump University were unsealed as part
of a class action suit against Donald Trump and his now-defunct
real estate seminar business.

But that hasn't deterred Mr. Trump from making hay of the
attention.  On June 2, he tweeted that he told his executives to
re-open the business "after the litigation is disposed of and the
case won. ... so much interest in it!"

Actually, there's not just one case. There are three lawsuits
against Trump University: two federal class action suits in
California brought by former Trump U students and a state-based
suit filed in New York by State Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman.

Judge Gonazalo Curiel said he chose to release the previously
sealed testimony from one of the cases because of public interest
since Trump "became the front-runner in the Republican nomination
in the 2016 presidential race, and has placed the integrity of
these court proceedings at issue."

Mr. Trump has publicly criticized Judge Curiel -- whom he asserted
was of "Mexican heritage" and a "hater of Donald Trump" -- for
scheduling a trial that will start on Nov. 28.  "There should be
no trial.  This should have been dismissed on summary judgment
easily."

Among the documents released were sworn statements from former
employees of Trump University who called it "a fraudulent scheme"
and a "total lie" along with sales and marketing materials that
show aggressive sales tactics.

But also unsealed were documents of sworn statements from more
than a dozen Trump University attendees who had positive things to
say about their experiences.

The charges in the three lawsuits against Mr. Trump's seminar
business generally assert that it was a scam -- making promises to
students that were never fulfilled.

One of those promises is that Trump "handpicked" the instructors.
But both Messrs. Trump and Michael Sexton, who ran Trump U,
indicated in sworn testimony that he did not do that.

"None of our instructors at the live events were handpicked by
Donald Trump," Mr. Sexton testified.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Iraq War Veteran Testifies in Fraud Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Isidore, writing for CNN Money, reports that an Iraq war
veteran claims she was fired by Trump University because she
needed two days a month off in order to serve in the Army Reserve.

Corrine Sommers, who worked for Trump University for five months,
sued Trump University after she was dismissed in October 2007. She
reached a confidential settlement in that case.  But she later
alleged that she was fired because of her military service in a
November 2012 deposition she gave in a federal class action suit
that accused the school of fraud.  That deposition was unsealed.

Ms. Sommers alleged that a supervisor at the school "complained
when I would have to take days off to do my military service." And
she said that as part of a poor performance review she received,
"they wrote it was an issue that I was in the military."  She
needed to serve two days a month while she worked at Trump
University, she testified.  She said she was fired when returning
from a vacation that she had refused to cut short to respond to a
call asking her to come into work.

The Trump Organization does not comment on the reason for
employees dismissal said spokeswoman Jill Martin.  But she pointed
to Ms. Sommers' own testimony about a poor performance review, her
vacation, which Martin described as "unauthorized," and her
refusal to return to work.  She said Ms. Sommers' claim that she
was fired due to her military service is "completely meritless."

Ms. Sommers also said she was also referred to by supervisors as a
"weekend warrior," which she testified she believed was a
criticism.

"It's a derogatory term when it comes from someone else,
especially when I'm an Iraqi veteran," she testified.

Employers are prohibited by federal law from discriminating
against members of the military reserves for the time they spend
in the service.

Mr. Trump has made his support for members of the military a
centerpiece of his campaign.  He has also criticized the various
lawsuits against Trump University, saying he is refusing to settle
them because he is confident he will eventually win the case.

"I could have settled this case many times, but I don't want to
settle cases when we are right.  I don't believe in it,"
Mr. Trump told a rally on June 3 when talking about the lawsuit.

The decision to settle the case brought by Ms. Sommers was not an
acknowledgment that her claims are legitimate, Ms. Martin said.

"In some situations, settling lawsuits makes financial sense," she
said.  "Mr. Trump has a proven track record of fighting lawsuits
to the end, and this matter settled by Trump University in no way
changes his long-held position that he will not be extorted by
frivolous lawsuits."

The Trump Organization oversees' most of Donald Trump's business
interests, including Trump University, which ceased operations in
2011.


TRUMP U: Plaintiff's Law Firm Founder with Close Ties to Clintons
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Corsi, writing for WND, reports that the law firm suing
Trump University was founded by a wealthy San Diego lawyer with
close ties to the Clintons who served a two-year sentence in
federal prison for his role in a kickback scheme to mobilize
plaintiffs for class-action lawsuits.

William Lerach, best known for winning more than $7 billion in
legal settlements of a class action suit he brought against Enron,
was found guilty in 2007 of a kickback scheme in which he his firm
used intermediaries to pay clients with large stock portfolios a
percentage of the law firm's $11.3 million profits for agreeing to
be plaintiffs in 225 class action and shareholder lawsuits,
spanning the period 1979 to 2005.

Mr. Lerach's former law firm, the once prestigious New York-based
Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman, made an estimated $250 million
in the criminal class-action scheme.

WND reported documents released on June 1 in the lawsuit accusing
Trump University of fraud confirmed the law firm behind the suit
paid Bill and Hillary Clinton a total of $675,000 for speeches.

Get a first-hand account of the Democratic presidential front-
runner's character in "Hillary The Other Woman."  Then take action
with the Hillary Clinton Investigative Justice Project and let
others know, with a bumper sticker calling for "Hillary for
prosecution, not president."

In addition to prison, Mr. Lerach was ordered to pay a $250,000
fine and to complete 1,000 hours of community service for agreeing
to plead guilty as charged.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the California Bar declared Mr. Lerach "not
eligible to practice law," and he later was disbarred and
prohibited from practicing law in California by order of the
California Supreme Court.

The participants in the Milberg Weiss scheme agreed to allege as
lead plaintiffs in the class action lawsuits that they suffered
losses because executives misled them about a company's financial
condition.

Targeted in Mr. Lerach's scheme were some of the nation's largest
corporations of that era, including AT&T, Lucent, WorldCom,
Microsoft and Prudential Insurance.

The Associated Press reported that also pleading guilty in the
case was Seymour Lazar, then 80 years old, a client of Milberg
Weiss who was paid an estimated $2.6 million by the law firm
between 1976 and 2004 for agreeing to be a repeat plaintiff in
stock fraud cases brought by the firm against targeted
corporations.

"Lerach's huge class-action wins -- against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., AT&T Corp., Honeywell International Inc. and Apple Computer
Inc., among others -- made him unpopular with corporate
executives, who slammed his cases as meritless shakedowns," the
Los Angeles Times reported in 2007.  "Success also made him a
millionaire many times over (his fees in suits against Enron Corp.
alone could ultimately total more than $1 billion) and a generous
Democratic campaign contributor."

The Washington Examiner reported in 2008 that Mr. Lerach attempted
in a letter inadvertently made public by his own attorneys to
excuse his criminal behavior by claiming that "everybody was
paying plaintiffs" kickbacks when he was practicing.

The Washington Post reported that year the Milberg Weiss firm
agreed to pay the federal government $75 million to avoid criminal
prosecution by settling a Department of Justice criminal
investigation against the law firm in the kickback case.

In total, seven Milberg Weiss lawyers, including three former
partners, pleaded guilty to criminal charges in the case.

Big-dollar contributions to Democrats

The New York Post reported in 2008 that Mr. Lerach, characterized
as "a heavyweight donor," had contributed up to $250,000 to the
Clinton Foundation.  The newspaper noted that Mr. Lerach was "a
former San Diego trial lawyer serving a two-year sentence for his
roll in a kickback scheme" in which he pleaded guilty the previous
February "to paying clients of his firm to file stock-fraud
cases."

Mr. Lerach's relationship with Bill Clinton traces back to the
1990s, when Mr. Lerach leveraged large contributions to Clinton
and other Democratic Party candidates to win President Clinton's
agreement to veto legislation that threatened to impinge upon
Mr. Lerach's profitable class-action lawsuit racket.

"Lerach and his fellow buccaneers have ample reason to want to
thwart the will of Congress," Forbes wrote on Aug. 26, 1996.

"Between 1989 and 1994, Lerach and his ilk have launched class
actions against 53 of California's top 100 high-tech companies,"
Forbes continued.  "The cases rarely go to trial: To save time,
money and productivity-draining aggravation, the targeted
companies usually settle.

"Total take from the companies: well over $600 million, of which
the lawyers probably got about $200 million," Forbes summarized.
"Bill Lerach himself makes between $7 million and $10 million a
year.  In the California high-tech community there's even a new
verb: to 'lerach' (leh-RACK), meaning to extort money from a
company legally. Think of 'leraching' as a kind of tax on American
high tech and other industries."

The Washington Post reported that President Clinton attended a
$400,000 fundraising event hosted by Mr. Lerach, a man the
newspaper characterized as "much-hated in this land of computer
nerds and high-tech wizards."

"Lerach, a major Democratic contributor is regarded as the king of
securities-action lawsuits, litigation that has won him few
friends among the corporate elite who dined on June 3 with Clinton
and his wife Hillary Rodham Clinton," the Washington Post said.
"When a stock falls in price, many executives here say they fear a
Lerach lawsuit is not far behind.

"Today, it was Lerach at Clinton's side for a Democratic Business
Council lunch raising $ 400,000 in Rancho Santa Fe near San
Diego," the Post continued.  "'Look,' Mr. Lerach told the group,
"It's time for Democrats, fund-raisers, officeholders to roll up
their sleeves and go to work and stand up to an ugly witch hunt to
drive from office one of the best and most popular presidents in
history.'"

On Sept. 20, 2007, the Associated Press reported when then-
presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards learned Lerach had
pleaded guilty in the Milberg Weiss case, he donated to charity
the $4,600 Lerach had contributed to his campaign.  But
Sen. Edwards refused to return the rest of the $81,000 Mr. Lerach
collected from members of Milberg Weiss to contribute to his
campaign.

Ironically, Sen. Edwards made his fortune as a personal injury
lawyer specializing in medical malpractice lawsuits.

The Lerach legacy

In 2004, Mr. Lerach left Milberg Weiss to become a partner in a
split-off San Diego firm initially formed as Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP.  It dropped Mr. Lerach's name and
morphed into Coughlin Stoia Rudman & Robbins after Lerach was
indicted.  Coughlin Stoia was the predecessor firm to today's
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, the firm suing Trump University.

In 2014, the Colorado Springs Gazette observed that Lerach's
legacy remains with the firm.  The paper commented in an editorial
about a case in which "the notorious securities litigation firm
Robbins Geller brought a shareholder suit against Boeing, accusing
its management of illegal misrepresentations based on the word of
a confidential witness inside the company."

In a sanctions order deciding the Boeing case, U.S. District Judge
Rueben Castillo wrote that Robbins Geller had committed "repeated
misconduct throughout this litigation," sanctioning the law firm
for what the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 9, 2014, characterized
as "the use of a false witness."

The Gazette editorial concluded the Boeing case demonstrated "how
class-action investor litigation is often used as a form of legal
extortion: 'Settle now and we'll go away.'"

Writing about the Boeing case, Legal Monitor Worldwide
characterized Robbins Geller as "the plaintiffs firm created by
discredited tort kingpin Bill Lerach out of the ruins of Milberg
Weiss, which fell apart in 2006 after its partners were indicted."

Legal Monitor described Robbins Geller's witness misconduct in the
Boeing case as follows:

In 2009 they [Robbins Geller] filed a securities fraud suit
charging that Boeing withheld information about delays in
producing the 787 Dreamliner that caused the company's stock to
fall.  Robbins Geller based the suit in large part on a
confidential witness who it said had inside dope on Boeing's
conduct. One problem: The witness's details were either incorrect
or concocted by the plaintiffs' attorneys, who filed the complaint
before speaking to the witness.  After the claim was dismissed for
lack of specificity, the firm dug up the confidential witness and
used him to buttress its revised filing with details to suggest
the source's personal knowledge and access within the company.
When the confidential witness was ultimately interviewed by the
defense, they found he was not even a Boeing employee but a
contractor who worked on a different aircraft than the Dreamliner.
He disavowed nearly every statement the plaintiffs had attributed
to him.

Legal Monitor Worldwide noted it was the fourth time Robbins
Geller had been called out by federal courts for misconduct.

"It's a shame [Robbins Geller's] lawyers are still allowed to
practice," the Legal Monitor Worldwide concluded.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Taxi Workers Alliance Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Tacy, writing for Vanity Fair, reports that one day after
Uber announced it raised $3.5 billion in funding from Saudi
Arabia, the ride-hailing start-up got hit with yet another class-
action lawsuit.  The suit, filed on June 2 on behalf of 5,000 New
York City Uber drivers, is the latest in what has become a game of
legal whack-a-mole over the Silicon Valley start-up's contractor
employment model.  Every time the $62.5 billion company manages to
squash one legal challenge, it seems, another pops up.

As with previous class-actions brought against Uber (and its
competitor Lyft), the latest suit accuses the ride-hailing company
of misclassifying drivers as independent contractors, rather than
employees.  The New York Taxi Workers Alliance -- the group that
filed the fresh suit -- claims Uber drivers should receive minimum
wage, overtime pay, and reimbursement for expenses accrued while
driving, Fortune reports. (While Uber did not immediately respond
to a request for comment on the most recent lawsuit, Uber C.E.O.
and co-founder Travis Kalanick has commented on previous lawsuits.
In an April blog post,
Mr. Kalanick wrote that the majority of drivers in the U.S. "say
they choose Uber because they want to be their own boss" and value
their independence.  He also acknowledged that the company hasn't
"always done a good job working with drivers.")

The New York-based class action lawsuit comes one month after a
similar suit with national scope was filed against the company in
an Illinois district court, as well as Uber's prominent $100
million settlement in a major class-action lawsuit at the end of
April.  Due to its potential far-reaching implications, the latter
suit -- which encompassed 385,000 Uber drivers in Massachusetts
and California -- was closely watched by many in Silicon Valley as
it unfolded. Despite the payout, the settlement was ultimately
declared a win for Uber and other gig economy start-ups as it left
the company's contractor-based model intact. With access to
billions in venture funding, the $100 million Uber had to fork
over was petty cash compared to the crippling costs the company
would've faced should it have been required to switch its
workforce from 1099 contractors to W-2 employees.  Lyft also
settled a similar suit over employee misclassification in January,
though it came with a much lower price tag of $12.25 million.

Those settlements, however, appear only to have brought temporary
relief to Uber and Lyft.  In addition to the deluge of class-
action suits, both ride-hailing start-ups continue to face
criticism from politicians and regulators over the state of the
so-called gig economy.  Mr. Kalanick just needs to run down the
clock until his fleet of autonomous cars is ready for the roads
and his current business model headaches, like his "independent
contractors," become obsolete.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Lawyers Want Settlement Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, report that lawyers for Uber
Technologies Inc. drivers have urged a federal judge to reject a
proposed settlement between the company and drivers in a separate
class action, saying a recent U.S. appeals court ruling on class
action waivers shows the plaintiffs could beat Uber's bid to send
the case to arbitration.

Christopher Gansen of Gansen Law Group in Los Angeles on May 31
asked U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco to scuttle
the deal worth up to $100 million for 385,000 drivers in
California and Massachusetts in light of the 7th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals' May 26 ruling in Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp.
Gansen represents drivers in a separate 2015 proposed class action
claiming Uber unlawfully deprived them of workers' compensation
payments.


UBER TECH: Judge Expressed Concern Over $100MM Settlement Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the federal judge in San Francisco overseeing a massive employment
class action against Uber said he has serious concerns about
whether 385,000 California and Massachusetts drivers are getting a
raw deal from a proposed $100 million settlement.

Both class actions accused Uber of withholding tips and
misclassifying drivers as independent contractors while
controlling them like employees.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen on June 2, opened the four-hour
preliminary settlement approval hearing by addressing what he
called the "elephant in the room:" the argument that the
settlement steps all over wage and hour claims brought by other
classes, some of which are being litigated.

In exchange for settling with Uber, drivers in California and
Massachusetts must waive their right to sue the ride-hailing
company for labor law violations. This applies only to
misclassification-related claims regarding overtime and minimum
wages, meal and rest breaks, worker's compensation policy, and the
misclassification claim itself.

"Some have called it collusion. Others have called it unfair. But
it is, to say the least, unusual to have this situation," Chen
said in court.

"One could say is there something wrong when claims from another
case are essentially hijacked, taken or stolen from other
litigation, folded into this case as part of a settlement, and on
top of that given virtually no value. Isn't that troubling?"

Lead class attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan acknowledged that the
settlement is far from perfect, but said it was the only way Uber
would agree to settle what could be risky and prolonged
litigation.

"Defendants in high-stakes, high-publicity ligation will only come
to the table if they can get global peace. It's the reality of
this type of litigation," Liss-Riordan said.

She said that due to the publicity garnered by her case, other
class actions asserting all sorts of labor claims followed.

"The situation we have here is probably one of the most striking
examples of a situation where there is a focused complaint filed
in a high-publicity case and other follow on cases proliferate,"
the attorney said.

She said the claims raised by those "pile-on" cases were not worth
pursing, as they would add only marginal value for the class.

"My practice has been to not pursue kitchen-sink type complaints,
but focus time and energy on claims that are most likely to
advance interests of our clients," Liss-Riordan said.

For example, her firm estimated that overtime claims were worth
only $2.4 million, to which Chen replied: "I have no way of
knowing whether that's a reasonable estimate or not."

Drivers will receive $84 million under the settlement's current
terms, but that amount could grow to $100 million if Uber goes
public. Other provisions allow drivers to ask for tips, and
prohibit Uber from deactivating drivers without "sufficient
cause."

Uber must also give drivers at least two warnings, a written
explanation with reasons for any deactivation, and an appeals
process involving a panel of top-rated drivers for certain types
of deactivation.

Drivers unsatisfied with the appeals process can arbitrate with
Uber at the company's expense. Uber will also be required to form
a drivers association, through which drivers can bring their
concerns to management.

Chen seemed unpersuaded that the grievance process was a
significant win for drivers, as low-star ratings were excluded
from appeal. Liss-Riordan said she would have liked to see low
ratings included in the process, but called the provision a
stronger protection for drivers. She said most complaints she's
received from drivers were that they were deactivated for no
reason at all.

But for the first time in three years of legal wrangling, Liss-
Riordan and Uber attorney Theodore Boutrous appeared to be on the
same side.

"This is really good for drivers," Boutrous told Chen. "It's
significant monetary relief. If Ms. Riordan had taken this to
trial and obtained a $100 million verdict it would be considered a
significant victory. It's fair."

Boutrous said that without the global peace provision, Uber would
have no incentive to settle. "I can tell you this mediation has
been the opposite of collusive," he told the judge. "It was
adversarial, it was contentious."

Chen laughed. "I think the argument would be: 'Everything was
extremely contested,' but when you get to the argument of, 'Do we
fold in other people's cases?', who is in the room to protect
those interests? It's easy to sell out those interests."

Los Angeles attorney Mark Geragos, who represents disgruntled lead
plaintiff Douglas O'Connor, said attorneys for other classes were
not even invited to the negotiating table.

Calling Uber's actions "one of the greatest wage thefts of all
time," Geragos said it was a question of due process.

"It's obvious what happened here: Ms. Riordan decided she was
going to go into mediation with Uber; she was going to give global
peace to Uber, and she was going to do it by hijacking another
case in this very courtroom. And that is what on its face shows
collusion," Geragos said. "I would say it's a fundamental fairness
and a due process violation."

He added: "There's also an ethical issue as to whether you can
start settling out someone else's case for causes of action you
haven't pursued."

Boutrous said that any drivers dissatisfied with the settlement
could opt out and pursue claims on their own.

But any driver who failed to opt out of Uber's 2015 arbitration
agreement would be subject to arbitration. The Ninth Circuit still
hasn't reviewed Chen's 2015 ruling, in which he found Uber's 2013
and 2014 arbitration agreements unenforceable, a fact that Chen
noted at June 2, contentious hearing.

Chen also took issue with a proposed $1 million for the class's
Private Attorneys General Act claim, a law that allows a private
citizen to pursue civil penalties on behalf of the State of
California for labor violations.

Of that $1 million, $750,000, would go to the state.

But Chen said a trial could net $1 billion in penalties on that
claim alone.

"It's harder to swallow this pill of a 99.9 percent discount," he
said.

Chen declined to approve the settlement, but said he would take
the arguments under submission.


UNITED STATES: Trade Groups File Suit Over Retirement Device
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ackerman, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
a coalition of financial and business trade groups filed a lawsuit
on June 2 to try to strike down an Obama administration rule that
would shake up the way Americans receive retirement-savings
advice.

The plaintiffs include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
associations representing the country's biggest financial
institutions, including the Financial Services Roundtable and the
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.  They filed
their suit in a federal court in Dallas.

At issue is a rule rolled out by the Labor Department in April
that requires financial brokers working on retirement accounts to
act as "fiduciaries" who operate in the "best interest" of
clients, a change that would transform the way the $14 trillion
market for such financial products are sold and advice is given.
Previously, brokers were required to give "suitable" guidance, a
looser standard.

The groups say the Labor Department crafted an unduly complex rule
that will make advice too costly for many smaller savers.

"It creates miles of red tape that will make it more difficult for
retirement advice to be provided to modest-income savers," said
Tim Pawlenty, the head of the Financial Services Roundtable and
former Republican governor of Minnesota.

The plaintiffs chose a federal trial court in Dallas because it is
overseen by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New
Orleans, according to people familiar with the matter.

While some prominent appeals courts have moved leftward with
nominees appointed by President Barack Obama, the Fifth Circuit
remains a conservative court dominated by judges appointed by
Republican presidents.

The Chamber's suit was also joined by the Financial Services
Roundtable, the Financial Services Institute, the Insured
Retirement Institute and several Texas business groups.  Also on
June 2, the National Association for Fixed Annuities, a trade
group, filed a separate legal challenge in federal court in
Washington.  Additional trade groups were expected to file similar
lawsuits in the coming days.

The suit led by the Chamber was filed by the law firm of Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher, and one of the attorneys listed was Eugene
Scalia.  Mr. Scalia, son of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin
Scalia, has emerged as one of the leading lawyers challenging
Obama administration financial regulations.

In March, Mr. Scalia succeeded in persuading a federal judge to
overturn a government decision to impose strict regulations on
MetLife Inc. after the government declared the insurance giant was
big enough to pose risks to the financial system.

He has been less successful in other cases, losing two challenges
to Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulations in recent
years.


VALEANT PHARMA: Air Conditioning Trust Fund Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
StreetInsider.com reports that Valeant Pharma has had a class
action filed against it.

The plaintiffs are Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Industry
Health and Welfare Trust Fund, and Fire and Police Health Care
Fund, San Antonio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated.


VICTORY ENTERTAINMENT: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Victory Entertainment
on behalf of the company's exotic dancers alleging that the
gentlemen's club illegally classified their exotic dancers as
independent contractors in order to avoid paying their share of
payroll taxes, minimum wages, and other business related expenses.

The Victory Entertainment VIP Showgirls class action lawsuit is
currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court as Case
No. BC620273.

The class action lawsuit filed by the Los Angeles labor attorneys
alleges that Victory Entertainment hires workers to provide exotic
dancing services at their VIP Showgirls club, but claims that the
gentlemen's club classifies the exotic dancers as independent
contractors (instead of as employees) in order to avoid paying
proper wages and business related expenses.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the exotic dancers "had no
opportunity for profit or loss because Defendant managed all
aspects of the business including attracting investors,
establishing the hours of operation and hiring and controlling the
staff."  According to the Complaint the company allegedly
"established the minimum table dance tip amounts that should be
collected" and also required the dancers to allegedly pay rent to
dance at their club.

The Complaint also claims that if the exotic dancers were late or
absent, the company would allegedly subject them to a fine or
other adverse employment action.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, and Bhowmik represents many employees who
have been misclassified as independent contractors.  With labor
law offices located in Riverside, San Diego, Los Angeles,
Sacramento, San Francisco, and Chicago, the labor law attorneys at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are dedicated to helping
employees protect and enforce their rights against some of the
world's largest corporations.

If you feel you have been misclassified as an independent
contractor and want to collect your unpaid wages, call Attorney
Nicholas De Blouw today at (800) 568 - 8020.


YAMAHA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in "James" Product Defect Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JASON JAMES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. YAMAHA
MOTOR CORP., U.S.A., Defendant, Case No. 15-23750-CIV-
MARTINEZ/GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.), Judge Jonathan Goodman denied the
defendant's motion to dismiss as to Counts I, II, IV and V, but
granted it for Count II without prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Goodman's May 31, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/ujz9Gr from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs, Jason James and Roli Garcia, each purchased two
outboard engines from official dealers.  Neither of them has
experienced any actual operational problems with the subject
motors.  Nevertheless, their First Amended Complaint alleged that
the engines are defective because they are subject to a recall
notice concerning premature failure and excessive wear -- a
scenario which requires them (and all other owners of covered
engines) to constantly bring in their engines for repairs every
time they operate the engines for 80 hours of use within a
specified RPM range.  They alleged that this creates a risk of
catastrophic damage, significant inconvenience and a loss of
market value because the marketplace recognizes that the engines
are defective.  The plaintiffs alleged claims for (1) violation of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), (2) breach of express
warranty, (3) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability,
(4) unjust enrichment (in the alternative), and (5) violation of
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).

Jason James, Roli Garcia, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Evan
Levine -- mlevine@stfblaw.com -- Stewart Tilghman Fox Bianchi &
Cain, PA, Robert Kent Burlington --
rburlington@coffeyburlington.com -- Coffey Burlington, Stuart
Harold Singer -- ssinger@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner,
William Thomas Dzurilla -- wdzurilla@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller
& Flexner & David W. Bianchi -- dbianchi@stfblaw.com -- Stewart
Tilghman Fox Bianchi & Cain, PA.

Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., Defendant, represented by Daniel
John Kissane -- daniel.kissane@csklegal.com -- Cole, Scott &
Kissane & Scott Allan Cole -- scott.cole@csklegal.com -- Cole
Scott & Kissane.


WYNDHAM HOTELS: Faces Suit Over Resort Fees
-------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that hotel giant Wyndham defrauds
consumers by excluding its resort fee from the number consumers
use when comparing prices, a man claims in Pittsburgh federal
class action.


ZILLOW: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Employees' OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Collins, writing for The Orange County Register, reports that
Zillow has settled four federal lawsuits accusing the real estate
website of harassment, discrimination, retaliation and of
maintaining a "frat house" atmosphere at its Irvine sales office,
the company announced on June 2.

A "settlement in principle" also has been reached in a separate
class-action lawsuit accusing the firm of failing to pay about $5
million in overtime to Irvine employees, although a judge has yet
to ratify that agreement, court records show.

An attorney and one of the plaintiffs declined to comment, citing
confidentiality agreements.  Zillow declined to disclose terms of
the settlement.

Zillow issued a statement stating it is not admitting any
wrongdoing related to any of the suits, filed in late 2014.

"We strongly believe it is in the best interest of our people and
our business to reach closure, put these allegations to rest and
move on," a company statement said.

In one lawsuit, a female employee accused supervisors in Irvine of
sexual harassment, saying bosses ranked her by breast size,
repeatedly made overt comments and sent sexually explicit text
messages, asked her for sex and, in one case, sent her a picture
of a penis.

She maintained she was fired for opposing the conduct.

Zillow responded in court papers, saying managers' sexually
explicit texts were inappropriate, but that the employee's
harassment claim was "frivolous."

Other lawsuits accused the firm of racial and age discrimination.
One woman said she was fired for "job abandonment," but in fact
hadn't shown up for work because she had been in the hospital.

Several black employees also sued, accusing managers of referring
to them as the "NAACP black coalition" and moving them to the back
of the sales floor.

In a fourth case, an employee said he was retaliated against after
reporting an alleged credit card fraud scheme by co-workers.

Potentially most damaging, however, was a case filed on behalf of
at least 120 hourly sales consultants working in Irvine,
maintaining they were pressured into working early, late and
through lunch breaks without pay. The case was certified as a
class action lawsuit in February.

"Zillow takes any allegations about our work environment very
seriously," the company statement issued on June 2 said.  "One of
our highest priorities is and always will be ensuring we sustain a
company-wide culture where people work hard and treat each other
with dignity and respect."

The agreements were reached during a court-ordered settlement
conference on May 5.

The settlements come as Zillow is enmeshed in a potentially costly
lawsuit with its chief rival, Realtor.com, over allegations it
received trade secrets after hiring two top Realtor.com
executives.


* Common Law Jurisdictions Increasingly Accepting of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan R M Lancy, writing for Huffington Post, reports that
class actions, or 'representative proceedings' as they're more
formally known, have emerged from being a little used legal
mechanism to a significant and growing area of litigation.  The
procedure itself has existed in English court rules since 1883 and
emerged in their current form in Australia in 1992 at the Federal
level.  Class actions in the USA are firmly established whilst
other jurisdictions such as Singapore have handed down decisions
indicating that class actions are becoming more readily accepted
there.

In a Nutshell

A class action is a legal mechanism in which one or more members
of a 'class' (or group) of people bring a claim that they and
other members of that class share a common interest in.  The
rights of all class members relating to that claim are determined
by the claim brought by the group's representative or lead
applicant.  So, if the claim succeeds, all the claimants will
succeed and any judgment handed down is binding on all represented
members.  However, people who share a common interest don't have
to participate and can 'opt out' of a proceeding if they so wish.

Accessing Justice

Whilst mention of class actions may evoke scenes of high-stakes
litigation and are sometimes perceived as encouraging 'US style
litigation', they are now accepted as being key mechanisms to
allow access to justice and as a form of 'private regulation' that
regulatory bodies such as the Australia Securities and Investments
Commission have cautiously welcomed as a 'self-help' mechanism(5).
In Australia, the Bill that introduced the current class actions
regime at the Federal level specifically outlined that the regime
was to assist 'access to the courts to those in the community who
have been effectively denied justice because of the high cost of
taking action'(6).  In other words, class actions are seen to
allow potentially large groups of people who have all suffered the
same wrong or loss seek redress where their individual loss is
small and the cost of righting that wrong is too high for any one
individual.

In Australia, this has been seen in over 30 such proceedings being
filed as of June 30, 2015.  Nearly half of these proceedings
related to securities, financial products and investment claims.
The causes of actions included breaches for misleading or
deceptive conduct and continuous disclosure obligations.  These
are just some examples of class actions being used by private
citizens enforcing their rights where they may not otherwise have
been able to do so.  Other areas include large scale environmental
actions such as the Wivenhoe Dam class action that had over seven
thousand class members.

Funding

In many jurisdictions, the loser of a case has to pay the costs of
the other side.  Countries such as the UK, Canada and Australia
follow this practice whereas the USA does not.  Such rules present
real obstacles to individuals and groups wishing to pursue an
action against a larger and often better funded defendant.  Other
obstacles include the cost of lawyers, counsel and the complexity
of large scale of litigation that often takes a long time to
resolve or settle.  The problem this presents has been addressed
by the emergence of large and small litigation funders who agree
to fund the costs of running a case in return for an agreed upon
fee, often a percentage, from any recovery or settlement.

When pitted against large and sometimes multi-national companies,
members of a class action often turn to third party litigation
funders to help them level the playing field.  In this way,
funding can help 'rebalance' the scales between two parties where
formerly one party would have a potentially quite large advantage
in access to both legal expertise and finance.

Under the common law such funders ran the risk of breaching the
doctrines of maintenance and champerty -- in effect 'stirring up
litigation' without just cause or doing so for a 'share of the
proceeds'.  However recent decisions have affirmed these concerns
have diminished over time, comparing them to a 'receding tide' and
that funding provides a valuable tool in ensuring access to
justice in the face of the rising costs of litigation.  In
Australia, the High Court case of Fostif sanctioned the use of
third party funding in 2006.  Since then, fears of entrepreneurial
or US style litigation emerging have failed to materialize.  Class
actions are expensive to run and the normal rule that costs follow
the event means the unsuccessful side pays most of the winner's
fees.  As such commercial funders such as IMF Bentham have no
reason to back unmeritorious claims.  This accepting attitude
towards funding is also spreading into Asian jurisdictions such as
Singapore.

Looking Forward

It is clear that courts in common law jurisdictions are growing
increasingly accepting of class actions.  Acceptance of litigation
funding and the benefits it can bring to legal systems that
struggle with costs and timely access to justice is also
spreading.  In the face of an ever expanding economy where large
companies dominate, ensuring mechanisms exist that allow
individuals to pool together and protect their rights against
large foes in an efficient manner is vital.  Law firms, insolvency
practitioners and individuals are becoming much more ready to
accept class actions and litigation funding as a useful legal
mechanism and product to pursue meritorious claims that might
otherwise have not been viable.


* Indian Government Sets Up NCLT to Help Facilitate Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Times of India Reports that Indian investors and depositors
will finally get the option of filing class action suits against a
company after the government on June 1 set up the National Company
Law Tribunal (NCLT) -- a new entity that will take over several
powers in coming months, including those related to deciding on
revival of companies.

Although the Companies Act 2013 had paved the way for class action
suits by a group of investors and depositors, it provided for
filing of such cases in a tribunal.  Now, they can move NCLT to
protect their interest and also seek damages.  Class action is a
type of lawsuit where a certain number or percentage of depositors
or shareholders come together to seek action against an errant
company.

The government has upgraded the Companies Act to make it more
investor-friendly, while putting in checks and balances to protect
investor interest. In addition, several new features have been
added to speed up resolution of disputes and winding up of
companies.

Apart from usual cases, NCLT has been tasked with deciding on
several new issues -- ranging from reopening of a company's
accounts to removal of an auditor in case of involvement in a
fraud and freezing assets of a company after an enquiry.  In the
second phase, the government will transfer several cases to the
tribunal which are currently with high courts, to ensure speedier
and focused disposal of cases. It will reduce workload in courts.

Cases related to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act will come to
NCLT and a special bench will be created to deal with revival of
companies, which has to be decided within 180 days.

NCLT will have 10 benches across the country.  Appeal against NCLT
can be filed with National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.  A
senior official said the government selected 16 judicial and 10
technical members, apart from appointing the president of NCLT and
chairman of the appellate body.  While the government has started
the process to hire over 200 persons, this will be completed by
these two tribunals.  Similarly, the draft rules have been
prepared and will be notified over the next few days.
"The preparatory work from HR to administration has been done and
responsibility will flow in a phased manner," said an officer.


* Law Society Calls for Class Action Regime in Queensland
---------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Coade, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that the need
for a class action regime in Queensland has been put back on the
radar by the state's Law Society.

The stalemate over Queensland's current class action regime has
been described by Law Society President Bill Potts as
"perpetuating a significant omission in the State's legal
structure".

"The 'Yes, Minister' factor is that the necessary changes to have
our own class action regime [in Queensland] were tabled in a bill
in 2014, but it lapsed after the election was called," Mr. Potts
said.

"If the government were to revive the legislation it would likely
have bipartisan support as the original bill was drafted by the
LNP."

Calling for parliament to return its attention to the class
actions space, Mr. Potts expressed concerns for access to justice.
He said the limited availability of judicial remedies, especially
for Queenslanders in need continued to be unmet by an "ongoing
failure".

"At the end of the day, this is an access to justice issue for
Queenslanders; we shouldn't have to go to another state to get
fair compensation when we have suffered harm," Mr. Potts said.

"This reform is simple and would save a lot of stress and time for
people who have already suffered; it is win-win for everybody and
should be a priority for both sides of government."

Mr. Potts drew on the recent experience of victims devastated by
the Queensland floods, who were forced to file their class action
in NSW due to the lack of jurisdiction in their home state.

"Class actions are often the only way that poorly resourced
victims of disasters and other tragedies can uphold their rights,
but for Queensland victims with a possible class action, the only
option is to commence those actions in other jurisdictions,"
Mr. Potts said.

The Queensland Bar Association has endorsed the law society's
position.  According to Mr. Potts, calls for the state to adopt a
class actions regime are also supported by many Queensland judges
and solicitors.

"Keeping the legal work in Queensland would be good for the
state's economy and the local legal profession," Mr. Potts said.

"My counterpart at the Bar Association, Chris Hughes, has recently
noted the current paucity of work on offer for junior barristers;
having our own regime would go some way to address that, and a
thriving Queensland legal industry would help drive our state's
economy," he added.


* SA Gold Mining Firms Mull Appeal of Silicosis Case Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
TJ Strydom, writing for Reuters, reports that South African gold
mining firms plan to appeal a High Court ruling that allowed class
action suits seeking damages for up to half a million miners who
contracted the fatal lung disease silicosis and tuberculosis, the
companies said on June 3.

"The companies are applying for leave to appeal because they
believe that the court's ruling on some of these issues is
incorrect and that another court may come to a different
decision," the Occupational Lung Disease Working Group, which
represents the firms, said in a statement.



                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Had 118 Claims at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
There were 118 asserted claims for non-malignant case against Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC, at March 31, 2016, according to Duke Energy
Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced
numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement
related to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for
bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of
asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to
1985. As of March 31, 2016, there were 118 asserted claims for
non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $30
million, and 68 asserted claims for malignant cases with the
cumulative relief sought of up to $10 million. Based on Duke
Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate
resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the
amount claimed.

"Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$527 million at March 31, 2016 and $536 million at December 31,
2015. These reserves are classified in Other within Deferred
Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities
on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are
based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss for current and
future asbestos claims through 2033, are recorded on an
undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated inflation. In light
of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast,
management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the
indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2033
related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy
Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded
reserves.

"Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention. Duke Energy Carolinas'
cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention
in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed
by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit
for potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and
medical cost claim payments is $847 million in excess of the self-
insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $600
million at March 31, 2016 and $599 million at December 31, 2015.
These amounts are classified in Other within Investments and Other
Assets and Receivables on the Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties
regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy
Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of
recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong
financial strength rating."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WRGrace Paid $1.1M for Ch. 11, Asbestos at Mar31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. paid $1.1 million for Chapter 11 and asbestos
expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2016, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "Grace emerged from an asbestos-related
Chapter 11 bankruptcy on February 3, 2014 (the "Effective Date").
Under its plan of reorganization, all pending and future asbestos-
related claims are channeled for resolution to either a personal
injury trust (the "PI Trust") or a property damage trust (the "PD
Trust"). The trusts are the sole recourse for holders of asbestos-
related claims. The channeling injunctions issued by the
bankruptcy court prohibit holders of asbestos-related claims from
asserting such claims directly against Grace.

"Grace has satisfied all of its financial obligations to the PI
Trust. Grace has fixed and contingent obligations remaining to the
PD Trust. With respect to property damage claims related to
Grace's former attic insulation product installed in the U.S.
("ZAI PD Claims"), the PD Trust was funded with $34.4 million on
the Effective Date. Grace is obligated to make a payment of $30
million to the PD Trust in respect of ZAI PD Claims on February 3,
2017, and has recorded a liability of $29.3 million representing
the present value of this amount in "debt payable within one year"
in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. Grace is also
obligated to make up to 10 contingent deferred payments of $8
million per year to the PD Trust in respect of ZAI PD Claims
during the 20-year period beginning on the fifth anniversary of
the Effective Date, with each such payment due only if the assets
of the PD Trust in respect of ZAI PD Claims fall below $10 million
during the preceding year. Grace has not accrued for the 10
additional payments as Grace does not currently believe they are
probable. Grace is not obligated to make additional payments to
the PD Trust in respect of ZAI PD Claims beyond the payments.
Grace has satisfied all of its financial obligations with respect
to Canadian ZAI PD Claims.

"With respect to other asbestos property damage claims ("Other PD
Claims"), claims unresolved as of the Effective Date are to be
litigated in the bankruptcy court and any future claims are to be
litigated in a federal district court, in each case pursuant to
procedures to be approved by the bankruptcy court. To the extent
any such Other PD Claims are determined to be allowed claims, they
are to be paid in cash by the PD Trust. Grace is obligated to make
a payment to the PD Trust every six months in the amount of any
Other PD Claims allowed during the preceding six months plus
interest (if applicable) and the amount of PD Trust expenses for
the preceding six months (the "PD Obligation"). The aggregate
amount to be paid under the PD Obligation is not capped and Grace
may be obligated to make additional payments to the PD Trust in
respect of the PD Obligation. Grace has accrued for those
unresolved Other PD Claims that it believes are probable and
estimable. Grace has not accrued for other unresolved or
unasserted Other PD Claims as it does not believe that payment is
probable.

"All payments to the PD Trust required after the Effective Date
are secured by the Company's obligation to issue 77,372,257 shares
of Company common stock to the PD Trust in the event of default,
subject to customary anti-dilution provisions."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Still Analyzing Scope of Asbestos Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc., through its subsidiary, Midwest Generation, LLC,
may be subject to potential asbestos liabilities as a result of
its acquisition of Edison Mission Energy, according to NRG's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

NRG Energy said it is currently analyzing the scope of potential
liability as it may relate to Midwest Generation.  NRG Energy says
it believes that it has established an adequate reserve for these
cases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Had 35,040 Claims Pending at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had pending approximately 35,040 asbestos claims
as of March 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "The Company is a defendant in lawsuits
claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other
materials, which allegedly occurred principally as a result of
exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse,
a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse
was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company
is typically named as one of a large number of defendants in both
state and federal cases. In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the
plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products is
the basis of a claim. Claims against the Company in which a
product has been identified principally relate to exposures
allegedly caused by asbestos-containing insulating material in
turbines sold for power-generation, industrial and marine use.

"Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment. As of March 31, 2016, the Company had pending
approximately 35,040 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 36,030 as of December 31, 2015 and 40,090 as of
March 31, 2015. During the first quarter of 2016, the Company
received approximately 1,180 new claims and closed or moved to an
inactive docket approximately 2,170 claims. The Company reports
claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has
been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement
with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement.
Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that
form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting
the claims and other factors. In 2015, as the result of an
insurance settlement, insurance recoveries exceeded the Company's
after tax costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims by
approximately $5 million. In 2014, the Company's costs for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance and
taxes were approximately $11 million. The Company's costs for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year
and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period
as the insured portion of the expenses.

"The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate
to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many
factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding
claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims
by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of
resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of
asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended down in the
past five to ten years and has remained flat in recent years, it
is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and
circumstances may occur including, among others, the number and
types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which
could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HARSCO Had 17,134 Suits Pending at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
There were 17,134 pending asbestos personal injury actions filed
against HARSCO Corporation at March 31, 2016, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "The Company is named as one of many
defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal
actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to
airborne asbestos over the past several decades.  In their suits,
the plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.

"The Company believes that the claims against it are without
merit. The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or
processor of asbestos fibers. Any asbestos-containing part of a
Company product used in the past was purchased from a supplier and
the asbestos encapsulated in other materials such that airborne
exposure, if it occurred, was not harmful and is not associated
with the types of injuries alleged in the pending actions.

"At March 31, 2016, there were 17,134 pending asbestos personal
injury actions filed against the Company.  Of those actions,
16,811 were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County),
125 were filed in other New York State Supreme Court Counties and
198 were filed in courts located in other states.

"The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of $20 million or $25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.
At March 31, 2016, 16,752 of the actions filed in New York Supreme
Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket
created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and future
asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they
have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment. The
remaining 59 cases in New York County are pending on the Active or
In Extremis Docket created for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a
malignant condition or physical impairment.

"The Company has liability insurance coverage under various
primary and excess policies that the Company believes will be
available, if necessary, to substantially cover any liability that
might ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions.  The Company
believes that a substantial portion of the costs and expenses of
the asbestos actions will be paid by the Company's insurers.

"In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S.,
the Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in
the future. The Company intends to continue its practice of
vigorously defending these claims and cases. At March 31, 2016,
the Company has obtained dismissal in 27,805 cases by stipulation
or summary judgment prior to trial.

"It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-
related actions in the U.S. due to the unpredictable nature of
this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded in the
Company's condensed consolidated financial statements because a
loss contingency is not deemed probable or estimable. Despite this
uncertainty, and although results of operations and cash flows for
a given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related
actions, the Company does not expect that any costs that are
reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in connection
with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suits vs. Dixie Group Set for 2017, 2018 Trials
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two asbestos lawsuits filed against The Dixie Group, Inc., among
other defendants, have February 2017 and January 2018 as tentative
trial dates, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "The Company is one of multiple parties to two
lawsuits, both filed in Madison County Illinois, styled Sandra D.
Watts, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of
Dianne Averett, Deceased vs. 4520 Corp., Inc. f/k/a Benjamin F.
Shaw Company, et al No. 12-L-2032, and styled Brenda Bridgeman,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert
Bridgeman, Deceased, vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., f/k/a
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al No. 15-L-374.  Each lawsuit
entails a claim for damages to be determined in excess of $50
filed on behalf of the estate of an individual which alleges that
the deceased contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to
asbestos while employed by the Company. Discovery in both matters
is ongoing, and tentative trial dates of February 2017 and January
2018 have been set.  The Company has denied liability, is
defending the matters vigorously and is unable to estimate its
potential exposure to loss, if any, at this time."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Continues to Defend Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "The Company (including its subsidiaries) has
been named as a defendant, along with many other companies, in a
number of asbestos-related lawsuits.  Many of these lawsuits
either relate to businesses which were acquired by the Company and
do not involve products which were manufactured or sold by the
Company or relate to previously owned businesses of the Company
which are under new ownership.  In connection with many of these
lawsuits, the sellers or new owners of such businesses, as the
case may be, have agreed to indemnify the Company against these
claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The Indemnified Claims have
been tendered to, and are being defended by, such sellers and new
owners. These sellers and new owners have met their obligations,
in all respects, and the Company does not have any reason to
believe such parties would fail to fulfill their obligations in
the future; however, one of these companies filed for bankruptcy
liquidation in 2007. To date, no judgments have been rendered
against the Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit.
The Company believes it has strong defenses to the claims being
asserted and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in
these matters."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Continues to Defend Suits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., continues to defend itself against
asbestos lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of our products many years ago. Currently there are a few thousand
claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with
hundreds of other companies. In some cases, the claims involve
products from divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most
of the costs. However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify
asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by
our former Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor
repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which
occurred on January 31, 2007. We are also responsible for half of
the costs and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against
the former Rockwell International Corporation's divested
measurement and flow control business. But in all cases, for those
claimants who do show that they worked with our products or
products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we
nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial
part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature
of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any
impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. We
defend those cases vigorously. Historically, we have been
dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no payment
to claimants.

"We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary. Our insurance carrier entered into a cost share
agreement with us to pay the substantial majority of future
defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. We
believe that this arrangement will continue to provide coverage
for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of
the asbestos liability.

"The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse
rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or
the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based
on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe
these lawsuits will have a material effect on our financial
condition or results of operations.

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses.
In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims
and proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related
to the period that we owned the businesses, either because we
agreed to retain certain liabilities related to these periods or
because such liabilities fall upon us by operation of law. In some
instances, the divested business has assumed the liabilities;
however, it is possible that we might be responsible to satisfy
those liabilities if the divested business is unable to do so.
In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
business, semiconductor systems business and avionics and
communications business, the spun-off companies have agreed to
indemnify us for substantially all contingent liabilities related
to the respective businesses, including environmental and
intellectual property matters.

"In conjunction with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to
indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to
certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these
businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum
exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roger Corp. Had 535 Claims Pending at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Corp. had 535 asbestos claims at the end of the March 31,
2016, quarter, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "We, like many other industrial companies,
have been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in
courts across the country by persons alleging personal injury from
exposure to products containing asbestos. We have never mined,
milled, manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and
provided to industrial users a limited number of products that
contained encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing
these products in the late 1980s. Most of the claims filed against
us involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several
hundred.

"The table presents information about our recent asbestos claims
activity:

                                   For the Quarter Ended
                                      March 31, 2016
                                   ---------------------
   Claims outstanding at
      beginning of quarter                   488
   New claims filed                           94
   Pending claims concluded*                 (47)
                                   ---------------------
   Claims outstanding at
      end of quarter                         535

"* For the quarter ended March 31, 2016, 44 claims were dismissed
and 3 claims were settled. Settlements totaled approximately $0.5
million for the quarter ended March 31, 2016.

"We recognize a liability for asbestos-related contingencies that
are probable of occurrence and reasonably estimable. In connection
with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos related matters,
we record asbestos-related insurance receivables that are deemed
probable. Our estimates of asbestos-related contingent liabilities
and related insurance receivables are based on an independent
actuarial analysis and an independent insurance usage analysis
prepared annually by third parties. The actuarial analysis
contains numerous assumptions, including general assumptions
regarding the asbestos-related product liability litigation
environment and company-specific assumptions regarding claims
rates (including diseases alleged), dismissal rates, average
settlement costs and average defense costs. The insurance usage
analysis considers, among other things, applicable deductibles,
retentions and policy limits, the solvency and historical payment
experience of various insurance carriers, the likelihood of
recovery as estimated by external legal counsel and existing
insurance settlements.

"We review our asbestos-related forecasts annually in the fourth
quarter of each year unless facts and circumstances materially
change during the year, at which time we would analyze these
forecasts. Currently, these analyses project liabilities and
related insurance receivables over a 10-year period. It is
probable we will incur additional costs for asbestos-related
claims following this 10-year period, but we do not believe that
any related contingencies are reasonably estimable beyond such
period based on, among other things, the significant proportion of
future claims included in the analysis and the lag time between
the date a claim is filed and its resolution. Accordingly, no
liability (or related asset) has yet been recorded for claims that
may be asserted subsequent to 2025.

"As of March 31, 2016, the asbestos-related claims and insurance
receivables for the 10-year projection period were $56.6 million
and $53.4 million, respectively. There were no changes to these
projections from December 31, 2015.

"The defense and settlement costs of our asbestos-related product
liability litigation have been substantially covered by insurance.
We have identified continuous coverage for primary, excess and
umbrella insurance from the 1950s through the mid-1980s, except
for a period in the early 1960s, with respect to which we have
entered into an agreement for primary, but not excess or umbrella,
coverage. In addition, we have entered into a cost sharing
agreement with most of our primary, excess and umbrella insurance
carriers to facilitate the ongoing administration and payment of
claims by the carriers. The cost sharing agreement may be
terminated by any party, but will continue until a party elects to
terminate it. As of the filing date for this report, the agreement
has not been terminated. As previously disclosed, however, we
expect to exhaust individual primary, excess and umbrella
coverages over time, and there is no assurance that such
exhaustion will not accelerate due to additional claims, damages
and settlements or that coverage will be available as expected.
Accordingly, while we believe it is reasonably possible that we
may incur losses and defense costs in excess of our accruals in
the future, we do not have sufficient data to provide a reasonable
estimate or range of such losses and defense costs, at this time.

"The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the
related insurance receivables were based on facts known at the
time and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future
events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year,
the average cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time
it takes to dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers
and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as
well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation
in the United States could cause the actual liability and
insurance recoveries for us to be higher or lower than those
projected or recorded.

"There can be no assurance that our accrued asbestos liabilities
will approximate our actual asbestos-related settlement and
defense costs, or that our accrued insurance recoveries will be
realized. We believe that it is reasonably possible that we will
incur additional charges for our asbestos liabilities and defense
costs in the future, which could exceed existing accruals, but
such excess amount cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. We
will continue to vigorously defend ourselves and believe we have
substantial unutilized insurance coverage to mitigate future costs
related to this matter."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Defending 3,785 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is defending 3,785 asbestos claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in
suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs
who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we previously
manufactured. We produced asbestos-containing paper machine
clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from
1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such fabrics
generally had a useful life of three to twelve months.

"We were defending 3,785 claims as of March 31, 2016.

"We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims.

Exposure and disease information sufficient to meaningfully
estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is
typically not available until late in the discovery process, and
often not until a trial date is imminent and a settlement demand
has been received. For these reasons, we do not believe a
meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible
loss with respect to pending or future claims.

"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer,
Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements
under a standard reservation of rights. As of March 31, 2016 we
had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,378 claims.
The total cost of resolving all claims was $9.4 million. Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier. The
Company's insurer has confirmed that although the coverage limits
under two (of approximately 23) primary insurance policies have
been exhausted, there still remains approximately $3 million in
coverage limits under other applicable primary policies, and $140
million in coverage under excess umbrella coverage policies that
should be available with respect to current and future asbestos
claims."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aviva Ordered to Post $1.5-Mil. Bond
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned FLINTKOTE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
AVIVA PLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-01638-SI (N.D.
Calif.), Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California ordered the Defendants to
post a $1.5 million bond, plus prejudgment interest as advised by
a later order of the Court with all deliberate haste.

The Court observes at the outset that the purpose of the bond
provision is to ensure that non-admitted insurers have the
capacity to pay monetary damages, which is comparable to that
demonstrated by admitted carriers through their on-going
participation in the admissions process. As Flintkote admits, the
provision is not punitive or intended to be unduly burdensome.
A full-text copy of the Order dated May 9, 2016, is available at
https://is.gd/jgbwvO from Leagle.com.

Flintkote Company, Plaintiff, is represented by Marc S. Maister,
Esq. -- mmaister@irell.com -- Irell & Manella LLP, Michael Collins
Smith, Esq. -- McCarter & English, LLP, Cathy Tran Moses, Esq. --
cmoses@irell.com -- Irell and Manella LLP, Gita F. Rothschild,
Esq. -- grothschild@mccarter.com -- pro hac vice, McCarter and
English,   Louis A. Chiafullo, Esq. -- lchiafullo@mccarter.com --
McCarter and English, pro hac vice & Michael Richard Fehner, Esq.
-- mfehner@irell.com -- Irell & Manella LLP.

Flintkote Trust, Plaintiff, is represented by Marc S. Maister,
Irell & Manella LLP, Michael Collins Smith, McCarter & English,
LLP, Cathy Tran Moses, Irell and Manella LLP, Gita F. Rothschild,
pro hac vice, Louis A. Chiafullo, McCarter and English, pro hac
vice & Michael Richard Fehner, Irell & Manella LLP.

Aviva PLC, Defendant, is represented by Andrew G. Wanger, Esq. --
andrew.wanger@clydeco.us -- Clyde & Co US, LLP, Arthur J.
McColgan, II, pro hac vice, Esq. -- amccolgan@wwmlawyers.com --
Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, Fred L. Alvarez, pro hac vice, Kevin
Austin Lahm, Esq. -- klahm@wwmlawyers.com --  Walker Wilcox
Matousek LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah Wells Orrick, Esq. --
sarah.orrick@clydeco.us -- Clyde and Co. LLP.

The Ocean Marin Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Andrew G. Wanger, Clyde & Co US, LLP, Arthur J. McColgan, II, pro
hac vice, Fred L. Alvarez, pro hac vice, Kevin Austin Lahm, Walker
Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah Wells Orrick, Clyde and
Co. LLP.

Aviva International Insurance Limited, Defendant, represented by
Andrew G. Wanger, Clyde & Co US, LLP, Arthur J. McColgan, II, pro
hac vice, Fred L. Alvarez, pro hac vice, Kevin Austin Lahm, Walker
Wilcox Matousek LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah Wells Orrick, Clyde and
Co. LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WECCO, Hartford Win Dismissal of GICA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. THE
WALTER E. CAMPBELL COMPANY, INC. et al., Case No. WMN-12-3307,
Senior District Judge William M. Nickerson of the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland denied the Non-Settled
Insurers' Motion to Enforce; granted the Non-Settled Insurers'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and granted the Motion to
Dismiss filed by Walter E. Campbell Company, Inc., and The
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated May 12, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/aLRQop from Leagle.com.

General Insurance Company of America, Plaintiff, is represented by
Benjamin Rodes Dryden, Esq. -- bdryden@foley.com -- Foley and
Lardner LLP, Ana M Francisco, Esq. -- afrancisco@foley.com --
Foley and Lardner LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Thompson, Esq. --
mthompson@foley.com -- Foley and Lardner LLP, pro hac vice.

The Continental Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Brandon D Almond, Esq. -- brandon.almond@troutmansanders.com --
Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice, Charles Thomas Blair, Esq. --
charles.blair@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac
vice & Prashant Kumar Khetan, Cause of Action.

National Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Brandon D
Almond, Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice, Charles Thomas Blair,
Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice & Prashant Kumar Khetan, Cause
of Action.

Federal Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Jennifer
Winter Persico, Esq. -- Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C Cohn, Esq. --
jcohn@gordonrees.com -- Gordon and Rees LLP, pro hac vice &
William Patrick Shelley, Esq. -- wshelley@gordonrees.com -- Gordon
& Rees, pro hac vice.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C Cohn, Gordon
and Rees LLP, pro hac vice & William Patrick Shelley, Gordon &
Rees, pro hac vice.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Defendant, is
represented by Steven E Leder, Esq. -- leder@lederhale.com --
Leder & Hale, PC, Danielle S Rosborough, Esq. -- Shipman and
Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice, James Pio Ruggeri, Esq. --
jruggeri@goodwin.com -- Shipman and Goodwin LLP, pro hac vice,
Joshua P Mayer, Esq. -- jmayer@goodwin.com -- Shipman and Goodwin
LLP, pro hac vice &Julie Furst Maloney, Esq. --
maloney@lederhale.com -- Leder & Hale, PC.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Harry Lee, Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Catherine Cockerham,
Steptoe and Johnson LLC, pro hac vice & Celia Goldwag Barenholtz,
Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company,
Defendant, represented by Allison R Radocha, Post & Schell, P.C.,
pro hac vice, John C Sullivan, Post & Schell, P.C., pro hac vice &
Vincent Candiello, Post and Schell PC.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by
Catherine Cockerham, Steptoe and Johnson LLC, pro hac vice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Grant in "Hetzel" Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One,
reversed the trial court's judgment in the case SUSAN HETZEL,
Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant
and Respondent. o. A144218 (Cal. App.).

Susan Hetzel, as successor in interest to James Hetzel appeals the
trial court's award of summary judgment in favor of Hennessy
Industries, Inc.  The Plaintiff allegedly developed breathing
difficulties and lung damage as a result of his exposure to
asbestos while working as a mechanic.  He brought claims for
negligence and strict liability against several defendants,
including Hennessy, alleging its brake shoe arcing machines
released asbestos dust when he used them to grind brake linings.
The trial court granted Hennessy's motion for summary judgment,
finding Hennessy could not be held liable because its products did
not contain asbestos, and there was no evidence Hennessy's
products required asbestos-containing brake pads to function.
According to the Court of Appeals, the trial court's order is at
odds with the Second Appellate District's recent opinion in
Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1133
(Sherman), which was issued after the plaintiff filed his notice
of appeal.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 17, 2016, is available
at https://is.gd/JcJGB2 from Leagle.com.

Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Esq., Richard M. Grant, Esq.
and Gary L. Brayton, Esq. for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Gordon & Rees LLP, Don Willenburg, Esq. --
dwillenburg@gordonrees.com -- and Mitchell B. Malachowski, Esq. --
mmalachowski@gordonrees.com  for Defendant and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hurley" Stays in District Court, 4th Cir. Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed
the district court's orders denying the Appellants' motions to
remand and for partial summary judgment, and granting the
Appellees' motions for summary judgment in the cases captioned
RONALD F. HURLEY; BONNIE HURLEY, and Ronald P. Hurley, As Husband
and Wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a
Westinghouse; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; MCIC, f/k/a McCormick
Asbestos Co.; PARAMOUNT PACKING & RUBBER CO.; PHELPS PACKING &
RUBBER CO.; WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST, Successor to
the Wallace & Gale Company; S. B. DECKING, INC., Defendants-
Appellees, and ALLTITE GASKETS; ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY; A.W.
CHESTERTON COMPANY; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., Individually and as
Successor In Interest to Benjamin Foster Co., Amchem Products,
Inc. H.B. Fuller Co., Aventis CropScience USA, Inc. Rhone-Poulenc
AG Company, Inc. Rhone-Poulenc Inc. and Rhodia, Inc.; BONDEX
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Individually and as
Successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.; CONWED CORPORATION; COOPER
INDUSTRIES, INC., Individually and as Successors in Interest to
Crouse Hinds Co.; CROKER & STALLLINGS, INC.; DELAVAL, INC.;
DURABLA MANUFACTURING COMPANY; E.L. STEBBING & COMPANY, INC.;
FLINTKOTE COMPANY; FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION; FOSTER WHEELER
ENERGY CORPORATION; GEORGIA PACIFIC, INC.; GREENE TWEED & COMPANY,
Individually and as Successor in Interest to Palmetto, Inc.;
HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, f/k/a John H. Hampshire Co.;
H.B. FULLER COMPANY, f/k/a Amchem Products, Inc., f/k/a Benjamin
Foster; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a Allied Signal, Inc.,
Successor in Interest to the Bendix Corporation; HOPEMAN BROTHERS,
INC.; INTERNATIONAL PAPER, Individually and as Successor to in
Interest to Champion International Corporation and U.S. Plywood
Corp.; J.E. STEIGERWALD COMPANY, INC.; JOHN CRANE-HOUDAILLE, INC.,
f/k/a Crane Packing Company; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; LOFTON
CORPORATION, As Successor-in-Interest to Wayne Manufacturing
Corporation and Hopeman Manufacturing Corporation; MELRATH GASKET,
INC.; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.; ON MARINE SERVICES COMPANY,
formerly Oglebay Norton Company; PFIZER CORPORATION; RPM,
INCORPORATED, Individually as Successor In Interest to and/or
alter ego of The Reardon Company and Bondex International; SELBY,
BATTERSBY & COMPANY, a/k/a Quaker Chemical Corporation; SQUARE D
COMPANY; UNIROYAL, INCORPORATED; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION;
UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY; WARREN PUMPS, INC.; WAYNE
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION; WORTHINGTON PUMP, INC., f/k/a Dresser
Pump Division; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.; ALFA LAVAL, INC.;
FOSECO, INC.; OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY, f/k/a Owens-Illinois,
Incorporated, Defendants, and CROWN CORK & SEAL USA, INC., Third
Party Defendant. KEVIN HARPER, Kevin Harper Personal
Representative of the Estate of Claude Alvin Harper, Deceased and
Surviving Son of Claude Alvin Harper, Deceased; CAROL JOHNSON
HARPER, Use Plaintiff and Surviving Widow of Claude Alvin Harper,
Deceased; ALEX HARPER, Surviving Son of Claude Alvin Harper,
Deceased; NICOLE COLEMAN, Use Plaintiff and Surviving Daughter of
Claude Alvin Harper, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and CLAUDE
A. HARPER, Plaintiff, v. CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a Westinghouse;
FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; MCIC, f/k/a
McCormick Asbestos Co.; PARAMOUNT PACKING & RUBBER CO.; PHELPS
PACKING & RUBBER CO.; WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST; SB
DECKING, INC.; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendants-
Appellees, and ALLTITE GASKETS; ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY; A.W.
CHESTERTON COMPANY; BONDEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CERTAINTEED
CORPORATION, Individually and as Successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co;
CONWED CORPORATION; COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC., Individually and as
Successors in Interest to Crouse Hinds Co.; CROKER & STALLINGS,
INC.; DELAVAL, INC.; DURABLA MANUFACTURING COMPANY; E.L. STEBBING
& COMPANY, INCORPORATED; FLINTKOTE COMPANY; THE GOODYEAR TIRE &
RUBBER CO.; GREEN, TWEED & CO., Individually and as Successor in
Interest to Palmetto, Inc.; HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED,
f/k/a John H. Hampshire Co.; H.B. FULLER COMPANY, f/k/a Amchem
Products, Inc., f/k/a Benjamin Foster; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL,
INCORPORATED, f/k/a Allied Signal, Inc., Successor in Interest to
the Bendix Corporation; HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC.; INTERNATIONAL
PAPER COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Individually and as Successor to in
Interest to Champion International Corporation and U.S. Plywood
Corp.; J.E. STEIGERWALD COMPANY, INC.; JOHN CRANE-HOUDAILLE,
INCORPORATED, f/k/a Crane Packing Company; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY,
INCORPORATED; LOFTON CORPORATION, As Successor-in-Interest to
Wayne Manufacturing Corporation and Hopeman Manufacturing
Corporation; MELRATH GASKET, INCORPORATED; METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; ON MARINE SERVICES, f/k/a Oglebay Norton
Company; PFIZER CORPORATION; RPM, INCORPORATED, Individually and
as Successor in Interest to and/or alter ego of The Reardon
Company and Bondex International; SELBY, BATTERSBY & COMPANY,
a/k/a Quaker Chemical Corporation; SQUARE D COMPANY; UNIROYAL,
INCORPORATED; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES
COMPANY; WARREN PUMPS, INCORPORATED; WAYNE MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION; WORTHINGTON PUMP INC., f/k/a Dresser Pump Division;
ALFA LAVAL, INCORPORATED; FOSECO, INC.; REUBEN ERNEST LAWSON, JR.;
GEORGIA PACIFIC, INC.; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INCORPORATED,
Individually and as Successor In Interest to Benjamin Foster Co.,
Amchem Products, Inc., H.B. Fuller Co., Aventis CropScience USA,
Inc., Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. and
Rhodia, Inc.; OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY, f/k/a Owens-Illinois,
Incorporated, Defendants, Nos. 14-2049, 14-2271 (4th Cir.).

In these consolidated appeals, Ronald F. Hurley, Bonnie Hurley,
and the estate of Claude A. Harper, along with his surviving widow
and three children, appeal the district court's grant of summary
judgment for defendants CBS Corporation, General Electric
Corporation, MCIC, Paramount Packing & Rubber Co., Phelps Packing
& Rubber Co., Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, SB Decking
Inc., and Foster-Wheeler Energy Corporation.  The Appellants also
appeal from the denial of their motions to remand the case to
Maryland state court and for partial summary judgment against
WGAST.

The Appellants filed these wrongful death suits in Maryland state
court, alleging that they suffered injuries caused in part by
Ronald Hurley's and Claude Harper's exposure to asbestos-
containing products sold or installed by Appellees (as well as by
other entities not part of this appeal). GE ultimately removed the
cases to federal court under federal-officer jurisdiction. The
district court denied Appellants' motions to remand and motions
for partial summary judgment against WGAST, and granted summary
judgment for Appellees.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 6, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/lXKmAl from Leagle.com.

John Amato, IV, Esq. -- jamato@gmelaw.com -- GOODMAN, MEAGHER &
ENOCH, Baltimore, Maryland; Harry Goldman, Jr., Esq.,  Robert G.
Skeen, Esq. -- SKEEN GOLDMAN LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellants.

Mitchell Y. Mirviss, Theodore F. Roberts, Scott M. Richmond, Esq.
-- srichmond@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP, Towson, Maryland; Donald
S. Meringer, Esq. -- dmeringer@meringerlaw.com -- David J. Quigg,
Esq. -- dquigg@meringerlaw.com -- MERINGER, ZOIS & QUIGG, LLC,
Baltimore, Maryland; Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Esq. --
lgrenzer@bodie-law.com -- BODIE, DOLINA, HOBBS, FRIDDELL, GRENZER,
P.C., Towson, Maryland; Geoffrey S. Gavett, Esq. --
ggavett@gavettdatt.com -- Laura D. Abenes, Esq. --
labenes@gavettdatt.com -- GAVATT, DATT & BARISH, P.C., Rockville,
Maryland, for Appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Vacates Order Dismissing "Hassell"
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated
the District Court's order and remanded the case captioned In re:
Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI) relating to PEGGY
R. HASSELL, individually and as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Billie L. Hassell, deceased, Appellant, Nos. 14-1715,
14-1804 (3rd Cir.), for further proceedings.

Peggy Hassell, on behalf of herself and her deceased husband's
estate, appeals an order of the District Court dismissing her
civil suit against The Budd Company and Resco Holdings LLC.
Hassell asserted state law causes of action arising from her
husband's exposure to asbestos during the forty years he worked
for the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway (the Railroad). Budd
and Resco moved to dismiss, arguing that Hassell's claims were
preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. Section
20701 et seq., and the Safety Appliance Act, 49 U.S.C. Section
20301 et seq. The District Court granted the companies' motion,
holding that Hassell's claims were preempted by the Locomotive
Inspection Act.

In this appeal, Hassell claims that the District Court erred
procedurally by dismissing her complaint based on facts that were
neither in her complaint nor undisputed. Hassell also contends
that the District Court misapplied the preemptive scope of the
Locomotive Inspection Act to hold her claims preempted.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated May 16, 206 is available at
https://is.gd/fjeSWX from Leagle.com.

Howard J. Bashman, Esq. -- hjb@hjbashman.com  -- Suite G-22, 2300
Computer Avenue, Willow Grove, PA 19090.

John D. Roven [Argued], Esq. -- Roven Kaplan, 2190 North Loop
West, Houston, TX 77018, Counsel for Appellant Peggy R. Hassell.
Joseph E. Richotte [Argued], Esq. -- richotte@butzel.com --
Butzel Long, 41000 Woodward Avenue, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304.
James E. Wynne, Esq. -- wynne@butzel.com --  Butzel Long, 150 West
Jefferson Avenue, Suite 100, Detroit, MI 48226, Counsel for
Appellee The Budd Company, Inc.

Holli Pryor-Baze [Argued], Esq. -- hpryorbaze@akingump.com --
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, John K. Grantham, Esq. --
jgrantham@akingump.com --  Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, 1111
Louisiana Street, 44th Floor, Houston, TX 77002, Counsel for
Appellee Resco Holdings LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants CertainTeed's Dismissal from "Lee"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Louise Wood Flanagan of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, granted
the Joint Motion for Dismissal without Prejudice and dismissed
without prejudice all of the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant
CertainTeed Corporation in the case styled IN RE: ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION relating to LARRY WINSLOWE LEE and
SUSAN PROVOST LEE, Plaintiffs, v. AK STEEL CORP., et al.,
Defendants, C/A No. 5:13-cv-00826-FL (E.D.N.C.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated May 9, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/G4S26Q from Leagle.com.

Susan Provost Lee, Plaintiff, is represented by David W.
Henderson, Esq. -- Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Kevin
W. Paul, Esq. --  kpaul@sgpblaw.com -- Simon Greenstone Panatier
Bartlett, P.C., Samuel I. Iola, Esq. --  siola@sgpblaw.com --
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Esq.
-- Ward Black Law.

J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant, is represented by
Carrie Lin, Esq. -- clin@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning,
LLP, Christopher O. Massenburg, Esq. -- cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com --
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Daniel B. White, Esq. --
dwhite@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A., James M.
Dedman, IV, Esq. -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White &
Boyd, P.A., John T. Hugo, Esq. -- jhugo@mgmlaw.com -- Manion
Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Amaryah K. Bocchino, Esq. --
abocchino@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Jessica L.
Reno, Esq. -- jreno@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP,
Ryan W. Browning, Esq. -- rbrowning@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor &
Manning, LLP & Stephanie G. Flynn, Esq. -- sflynn@gwblawfirm.com -
- Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant,is represented by Timothy W. Bouch,
Esq. -- Leath Bouch & Seekings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurich's Bid to Amend Suit vs. INCA Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:14 CV 1112 CDP (E.D. Mo.), Judge Catherine
D. Perry of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the plaintiff's
motion to amend the complaint; granted the plaintiff's unopposed
motion to amend the case management order and withdraw motionl and
the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is deemed withdrawn.

Defendant Insurance Company of North America seeks the Court's
leave to amend its answer, and to add a counterclaim against
Plaintiff and a crossclaim against co-defendant Anheuser-Busch
seeking declaratory relief. A-B has opposed this motion.
A-B had insurance policies with both ZAIC and INA at various times
from 1967-2008. In 2008, ZAIC represented A-B's interests in a
lawsuit involving asbestos exposure. ZAIC reached a settlement on
A-B's behalf with the plaintiff in that case, and paid the full
amount. ZAIC then brought this suit to recover a pro rata share of
the settlement amount from INA for the relevant time periods when
INA provided coverage.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated May 2, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/SxALb1 from Leagle.com.

Zurich American Insurance Company, Plaintiff, is represented by
Russell F. Watters, Esq. -- rwatters@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES,
P.C. & T. Michael Ward, Esq. -- mward@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES,
P.C.

Insurance Company of North America, Defendant, is represented by
Alan K. Goldstein, Esq. -- GOLDSTEIN AND PRICE, L.C., Elana Levy
Charles, Esq. -- GOLDSTEIN AND PRICE, L.C. & Stephen C. Ascher,
Esq. -- COHN AND BAUGHMAN.

Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Alan K. Goldstein, Esq. -- GOLDSTEIN AND PRICE, L.C. & Stephen C.
Ascher, Esq. --  COHN AND BAUGHMAN.

Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, Defendant, is represented by James
F. Bennett, Esq. -- jbennett@dowdbennett.com -- DOWD BENNETT, LLP,
Jennifer L. Aspinall, Esq. -- jaspinall@dowdbennett.com -- DOWD
BENNETT, LLP & Robert I. Westerfield, Esq. --
rwesterfield@bowlesverna.com -- BOWLES AND VERNA, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers' Partial Summary Judgment Bid Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company brought an action against
Alfa Laval, Inc., and Alfa's other insurers, including OneBeacon,
seeking a judicial declaration absolving Travelers of the duty to
defend and indemnify Alfa in connection with certain asbestos-
related product liability claims purportedly covered under several
liability policies and excess umbrella indemnity policies sold by
Traveler's predecessor to Alfa's predecessor.

Travelers and The Standard Fire Insurance Company move for partial
summary judgment in favor of Travelers.  Defendant ACE Property
and Casualty Insurance Company opposes Travelers' motion to the
extent it seeks summary judgment or declaratory relief against
ACE.  Defendant OneBeacon America Insurance Company cross-moves
for partial summary judgment in its favor.  Alfa Laval joined by
defendant DeLaval, Inc., opposes Travelers' motion and cross-moves
for partial summary judgment in Alfa's favor.

Judge Debra A. James of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied
the motion for partial summary judgment and cross-motions in their
entirety.

The case is TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY (f/k/a The Aetna
Casualty and Surety Company) and THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. ALFA LAVAL, INC. (f/k/a The Delaval
Separator Company), DELAVAL INC., ACE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY, NATIONAL UNION FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a Ocean Accident &
Guarantee Corporation Ltd.) and ABC COMPANIES 1-100 (fictitious
names of corporations or other entities created by law),
Defendants, 2016 NY Slip Op 30844(U), Docket No. 650667/09-E-File
(N.Y. Sup.).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 4, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/ZwvL5C from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment vs. Union Carbide Flipped
---------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation appeals from the Law Division's February
24, 2015, order denying reconsideration of its August 29, 2014
order denying UCC's motion for a protective order to restrict
dissemination of certain medical records filed in workers'
compensation cases.
While the judge denied UCC's motion, she fashioned an alternative
protective order requiring notification to the former employees.
If they failed to object or respond, the former employees were
deemed to have waived all privacy interests in their medical
records. UCC sought reconsideration, which the court denied. UCC
now appeals.

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division reversed the
judgment because the judge's order does not provide the privacy
protection required by N.J.S.A. 34:15-128.3 when disclosing
workers' compensation medical information and remanded the case
for entry of a protective order.

The case is GWENDOLYN SEYMOURE, individually and as Executrix and
Executrix ad Prosequendum of the Estate of James F. Seymoure,
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY, ARVIN-
MERITOR, INC., f/k/a Arvin Industries, Inc., as successor-in-
interest to Rockwell International Automotive, ASBESTOS
CORPORATION, LTD., BELL ASBESTOS MINES, LTD., BORG WARNER MORSE
TEC, f/k/a Borg Warner, BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE NORTH AMERICAN TIRE,
LLC, as successor-in-interest to Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. and
Worldbestos Corporation, CARLISLE COMPANIES INCORPORATED, a/k/a
Carlisle Braking Products, CENTRAL JERSEY SUPPLY CO., CERTAINTEED
CORPORATION, DANA COMPANIES, LLC, individually and as successor-
in-interest to Victor Gaskets and Spicer Clutches, EASTERN
EXPRESS, INC. (DISCOVERY ONLY), EASTERN FREIGHT WAYS, INC.
(DISCOVERY ONLY), EATON CORPORATION, FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY,
LLC, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, GOODRICH CORP., f/k/a B.F. Goodrich, THE
GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO., HOLLINGSWORTH & VOSE COMPANY,
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a Allied Signal, Inc., as
successor-in-interest to the Bendix Corporation, INTERNATIONAL
PAPER COMPANY, KAISER GYPSUM, KENTILE FLOORS, INC., LIPE
AUTOMATION, f/k/a Lipe Rollway Corporation, McCORD CORPORTAION,
MACK TRUCKS, INCORPORATED, MAREMONT CORPORATION, individually and
as successor to Grizzly, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
MITSUI & CO. (USA), INC., OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP., OVERNIGHT
(DISCOVERY ONLY), PACCAR, INCORPORATED, individually and as
successor to Kenworth Truck Company and Peterbilt Motor Company,
PNEUMO-ABEX, LLC, RYDER SYSTEM, INC., T.I.M.E. D.C., INC.
(DISCOVERY ONLY), UNIROYAL HOLDINGS, INC., f/k/a Uniroyal, Inc.,
WYETH HOLDINGS CORPORATION, f/k/a American Cyanamid Corp., and
RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., Defendants, and UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, Docket No. A-3967-14T3 (N.J.
App. Div.).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 11, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/9wdkSm from Leagle.com.

Craig A. Woods, Esq. -- cwoods@mayerbrown.com  -- Mayer Brown LLP
of the Illinois bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for
appellant (Caruso Smith Picini PC and Mr. Woods, attorneys;
Richard D. Picini, Esq. --  rpicini@carusosmith.com of counsel and
on the brief).

Robert E. Lytle, Esq. -- RLytle@szaferman.com -- Szaferman,
Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, P.C.  argued the cause for respondent,
and Levy Konigsberg, LLP, attorneys; E. Elizabeth Sweetser, Esq.
on the brief.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attys Can't Shake RICO Claims Despite Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a company
that frequently finds itself targeted by asbestos attorneys is
taking the reins on racketeering claims that allege those lawyers
manipulated the system to unfairly drive up the costs of
settlements and verdicts.

John Crane Inc. filed lawsuits against at least two asbestos firms
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The
basis of the claims is evidence uncovered by Garlock Sealing
Technologies three years ago during its bankruptcy proceeding.

"The defendants devised and implemented a scheme to defraud JCI
and others, and to obstruct justice," the JCI complaints say.

"The defendants fabricated false asbestos 'exposure histories' for
their clients in asbestos litigation against JCI and others and
systematically concealed evidence of their clients' exposure to
other sources of asbestos."

Meanwhile, Jones Walker attorney Mike Magner, who is representing
Simon Greenstone, says the company is trying to intimidate lawyers
who have had success against it in court.

"It is a cynical and deceitful legal tactic, and these claims will
be proven false in court," he said.

In 2014, Garlock used the evidence from its 2013 bankruptcy
estimation trial to file lawsuits against five firms -- Shein Law
Center of Philadelphia, Belluck & Fox of New York City and Dallas
firms Simon Greenstone, Waters & Kraus and Stanley-Iola.

At presstime, a search of the federal courts' online database
showed JCI filed lawsuits against Shein Law and Simon Greenstone
in Chicago federal court.

The Garlock lawsuits alleged the five firms told different stories
about their clients' exposures to asbestos in civil lawsuits than
they did in the bankruptcy trust system.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Chip Bee Gardens
---------------------------------------------------
Yeo Sam Jo, writing for The corrugated roof sheets of terraced
houses in Chip Bee Gardens are being replaced after asbestos was
found in some of them.

This has unsettled some residents in the private housing estate
beside Holland Village who fear that their roof sheets, or
awnings, might be unsafe.

Asbestos, once a popular component in building materials, is
linked to health problems such as lung cancer. Its use in
buildings was banned here in 1989, but many earlier structures
still contain the substance.

While the 349 state-owned black- and-white terraced houses in Chip
Bee Gardens were built in the 1960s, the use of asbestos there was
uncovered only earlier this year, The Straits Times has learnt.

The Singapore Land Authority (SLA), custodian of state-owned
properties, said this happened on April 26, when a contractor who
was inspecting a broken roof above the front porch of a vacant
house in Jalan Puteh Jerneh noticed that the material could
contain asbestos. The porch roof was removed on April 29 and
replaced on May 3. Laboratory tests revealed that it contained
chrysotile, a common type of asbestos.

Tests done on two other houses in the neighbourhood also uncovered
asbestos in their front roof sheets, the SLA said. Several
residents met the SLA on May 17.

Replacement or repair 'will be done promptly'

Housewife Essa Tay, 34, who lives across from the house with the
broken porch roof, said: "I feel uncomfortable. I'm especially
worried because I have a two-year-old daughter and I'm pregnant."

Citing the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), which regulates asbestos
removal here, the SLA said roof awnings are not likely to pose any
health risk to occupants if they are intact. But if they are
disturbed, asbestos fibres could become airborne.

As an interim measure, an asbestos specialist hired by the SLA
will visually inspect 323 terraced houses with corrugated roof
sheets in the estate over the next few weeks.

The remaining 26 units are not affected as they have clay-tiled
porch roofs that do not contain asbestos.

Depending on their condition, the roof sheets will be left alone,
coated with a sealant, or replaced.

So far, the SLA's asbestos specialist has inspected the awnings of
110 houses in the estate.

About a tenth of them were found to be in good condition, while 20
per cent are substantially damaged and require removal. The
remaining 70 per cent have some cracks and damage and will be
coated with a sealant.

"Should repairs or replacements be needed, they will be carried
out promptly and safely by our asbestos specialists and in
accordance with MOM guidelines," said the SLA.

Under the guidelines, such work has to be carried out by an
approved asbestos removal contractor. The work area must be
enclosed to prevent the asbestos from spreading.

The SLA said that as tenants have to move out during the
replacement of awnings, which takes about two to three days per
unit, rent will be waived for that period.

When The Straits Times visited the estate last week, three houses
in Jalan Hitam Manis were enclosed in sheets for asbestos removal.

Mr Lee Seng Lai, director of the SLA's land operations (private)
division, said that as a precaution, the SLA plans to replace all
affected roof awnings in the estate within the next 18 months
through a tendered project. "We have explained the situation to
the tenants and will continue to keep them informed of the
progress with the ongoing works."

There were more than 250 cases of asbestos removal here last year,
with about 200 cases on average each year, MOM figures show.

Some residents want their roofs to be replaced sooner and want
better compensation for having to vacate during the asbestos
removal.

Others are less troubled. A 40- year-old Jalan Hitam Manis
resident from New York said: "I was born in the 1970s, when
asbestos was alive and kicking. I don't think of it as a problem.
I'll be worried when they start ripping the roofs out and
replacing them. That's when it's dangerous."

The SLA said that, in consultation with the MOM, residents may
remain in their houses while asbestos removal is under way next
door as measures are taken to prevent the spread of asbestos.

But Chip Bee resident and hedge- fund director Ian Seow, 37, said:
"Going by the book is one thing, but this is an issue of health.
We don't want to take any chances."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Litigation Attracting More Profit-Driven Attys
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reported that the
money that can be made in representing asbestos-related and
mesothelioma cases is attracting less-than-ethical attorneys out
to ensnare less-than-wary-litigants, a spokesman for a tort reform
advocacy group said in a recent interview.

Prospective litigants should be especially wary of law firms'
advertised claims that they specialize in asbestos cases, Darren
McKinney, director of communications at the American Tort Reform
Association, said during a recent SE Texas Record interview. "And
offhand, ATRA is not aware of any law firms specializing in
asbestos claims that we'd call 'reputable' insofar as virtually
all of them engage in 'double-dipping' -- filing both lawsuits and
administrative claims with asbestos bankruptcy trusts -- and
coaching clients to tell differing exposure stories so as to
maximize their profits even if it means a given trust is unjustly
and prematurely depleted, leaving future claimants with nothing."

Multi-million dollar awards and settlements catch headlines, but
asbestos litigation numbers are hard to come by because there is
no national registry for asbestos-related claims. A report,
"Asbestos Litigation: 2015 Year in Review", issued by KCIC, a
consulting firm that specializes in helping companies manage
product liability, indicates such cases are on the decline,
however.

The number of unique asbestos-related filings in 2015, 4,465
cases, was down 7 percent from the 4,820 cases in 2014, the KCIC
report said. Though the drop is only slight, it's enough to
attract the notice of bottom-feeders in the legal community who
often place open-ended advertisements to recruit prospective
asbestos litigators, McKinney said.

McKinney examined one such advertisement at the SE Texas Record's
request, an advertisement disguised as a news release recruiting
U.S. Navy veterans diagnosed with mesothelioma and their families
to contact one law firm. That no individual representing a class
of plaintiffs was included in the advertisement should be a
warning to prospective litigants, McKinney said.

"Insofar as this news release doesn't even quote an individual at
the so-called 'center,' the whole thing reads like just another
marketing ploy," he said. "As the number of meso diagnoses
steadily shrink from year to year, the shysters who've gotten rich
off asbestos are increasingly desperate to maintain market share
by distinguishing themselves from competing shysters."

McKinney did not have any data about how many such ads may be out
there, in print, on television or on the Internet.

"I don't necessarily know if ads like these are 'typical'," he
said. "They're certainly not uncommon."

Some of the more egregious unethical legal practices have been
attracting their own attention. In November, Mealey's Litigation
Report raised the alarm by taking a closer look at the Garlock
Sealings Technology bankruptcy. The report found a pattern of
"systemic suppression of trust disclosures."

"This commentary provides further evidence of the abuse that is
being perpetrated on the U.S. civil justice system through the
strategic suppression of exposure evidence by plaintiff law firms
in asbestos litigation," the report said. "It is clear from the
Garlock discovery data that Garlock, Crane and other tort
defendants have been denied constitutional rights to due process.
To the extent that judges or other principal players involved in
national asbestos litigation remain unconvinced of the magnitude
of the abuse, or simply choose to ignore it, the findings revealed
by this analysis of the Garlock data should serve as powerful
evidence of the urgent need for enhanced transparency and more
open interface between the two available sources of payment."

The same month the report was released, the former New York
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted in federal court on
seven corruption charges. Those charges included his handling of
asbestos litigation. Testimony in the case included details about
cancer patients directed to Silver's law firm, Weitz & Luxenberg,
by one doctor in exchange for New York state research grants.

That case and more is enough to give a potential asbestos-related
litigant pause, but care, attention and a bit of scrutiny will
turn up reputable and professional representation, McKinney said.
"There's no shortage of legal resources available to those
legitimately diagnosed with mesothelioma."

In Texas, one of the most notable asbestos-related cases in recent
memory was filed last summer by former district judge and now
Jefferson County's district attorney, who filed a petition
perpetuate testimony to investigate the asbestos exposure of the
late refereeing legend H.T. "Beau" Hicks Jr.

The Mesothelioma Center's Asbestos.com includes a page on its
website with tips about how to find a attorney to represent an
asbestos-related case. Those tips include looking for an attorney
or law firm with a proven track record in asbestos-related cases,
who can travel to the litigant to gather information, who has
experience filing claims with asbestos trust funds and who can
advise about potential compensation based on facts in a given
case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Summary Judgment in NY Case
---------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York state court has
granted several defense motions for summary judgment, finding that
not only did the plaintiff fail to identify the source of asbestos
exposure, but failed to establish he worked in the vicinity of
those who would have disturbed the encapsulated asbestos.

In the May 26 order, the New York Supreme Court for the 8th
Judicial District wrote that the plaintiff had failed to identify
a single manufacturer's product or a single co-worker in
interrogatory answers and deposition testimony.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Winstead Factory Mired in Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Moffett, writing for Republican-American, reported that the
potential redevelopment of the former Lambert Kay pet supply
factory is mired in red tape.

Environmental consultant Robert W. Simmons notified the town via a
letter to Town Planner Steven Sadlowski in May that he must defer
to the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection "to
direct the necessary investigation and remediation planning" for
the cleanup of contaminants in the soil at 32 Lake St.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Confirmed at Scarborough Spa
------------------------------------------------------
The Spa Theatre at Scarborough, which has staged summer season
shows for generations, has been temporarily closed after the
discovery of asbestos in the ceiling.

The blow comes at the start of the summer season show starring
Leeds comic Billy Pearce who is headlining the main production
being staged by leading impresario, Tony Peers.

Jo Ager, the general manager of Scarborough Spa, said the possible
identification of asbestos had been found in a panel in the
ceiling. "It is being dealt with by experts and in the best
interests of our staff and customers."

She said the theatre will remain closed while investigations are
carried out. "In the meantime we are working to re-locate planned
events to other areas of the Spa."

Ms Ager said the Spa Orchestra concert season would not be
affected but the Billy Pearce Sow will be relocated to the Grand
Hall along with another season-long production, "Movies Meets the
Musicals" also staged by Mr Peers.

"We are welcoming patrons to the Spa as he rest of the complex
remains open as normal. We are looking forward to another good
summer season of shows."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Halts Iowa Properties Demolition
---------------------------------------------------------------
KCCI.com reported that Marshalltown officials have learned that
asbestos will have to be removed from five properties in the city.

The removal will temporarily halt planned demolition and clearance
of the properties.

The Times-Republican reports that the City Council had already
approved the demolition and clearance bids on the properties when
it learned of the asbestos.

City Housing and Community Development director Michelle
Spohnheimer says the asbestos will be "removed as soon as
possible," but that officials don't have an estimated date of
completion.

Asbestos is a material that was often used for building insulation
in the 20th century before its toxicity to human health was
discovered.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $8.75MM in Asbestos Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a jury has awarded $8.75
million to a 65-year-old man who has incurable cancer as a result
of asbestos exposure in the 1970s.

The Oregonian/OregonLive reports that David Hoff's attorneys say
the former construction worker's mesothelioma was caused by a
wallboard product that became airborne when it was sanded down.

Hoff is expected to live another year and a half.

Hoff and his wife sued Kaiser Gypsum, the manufacturer that says
it stopped making the product in 1975.

Evidence at trial showed the company knew the dangers as early as
1965.

The Mesothelioma Center says about 2 to 10 percent of people
exposed to asbestos will get mesothelioma.

Jurors awarded $750,000 for medical expenses, $4 million for pain
and suffering, and $4 million for Hoff's wife Patricia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Derbyshire Joiner Killed by Exposure to Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Racher Sloper, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that a former
joiner who died because of exposure to asbestos said before his
death he would never have touched the deadly material if he had
known of the dangers.

James Shetliffe, of May Street, Ilkeston, died of mesothelioma --
a type of cancer which affects the lining of the lungs, commonly
linked to exposure to asbestos. The inquest heard the 76-year-old
worked as a joiner for Derbyshire County Council in the 1960s.

A statement made by Mr Shetliffe before he died said his work
involved contact with asbestos at various schools, as well as at
Elvaston Castle, removing asbestos sheeting from the stables. He
said he did not ask his employer for protective equipment as he
had no idea of the dangers.

His statement read out at the inquest said: "I was regularly
exposed to broken asbestos and never had protective equipment and
I didn't ask for any -- I had no idea it was dangerous at the
time. Had I known it was dangerous, I would not have done this
job. There was so much dust from cutting the sheets you could
barely see."

After finishing his work with the council, Mr Shetliffe set up a
DIY shop in Ilkeston, where he had no further exposure to the
material. He died on April 16 at Ilkeston Community Hospital.

Coroner Louise Pinder concluded that Mr Shetliffe had died as a
result of an industrial disease -- mesothelioma -- after
significant occupational exposure to asbestos.

Miss Pinder said: "James Shetliffe was significantly exposed to
asbestos while working as a joiner. He was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in 2015 and very sadly then died at Ilkeston
Community Hospital in 2016. I formally conclude that James
Shetliffe died as a result of industrial disease."

Following the inquest, a Derbyshire County Council spokesman said:
"The council is sorry to learn of the death of Mr Shetliffe and
sends condolences to his family for their loss. Due to ongoing
legal proceedings the council is, however, unable to comment any
further at this point in time."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered Inside Water Treatment Plant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Kratovil, writing for New Brunswick Today, reported that
on June 1, the City Council voted unanimously to approve a $19,822
contract with ATC Group Services, LLC, to monitor the air at the
city's Water Treatment Plant while a cache of asbestos is removed.

It marked the first time the public was made aware of the haven of
asbestos that had been found tucked away deep inside the century-
old facility.

Asbestos is a fibrous mineral that, if inhaled for a prolonged
period of time, has been found to cause lung cancer, mesothelioma,
and asbestosis.  Once popular as a form of insulation, asbestos is
now considered a liability.

Water Director Mark Lavenberg said that the ATC contract was
necessary "to monitor the air during some asbestos removal
projects that we have coming up."

The asbestos problem is just one of many that Lavenberg has
discovered in his first year on the job.

"During the course of inspections, deep down in the treatment
plant, we found some asbestos that is related to an old boiler
that is out of service for many years," said Lavenberg.

"Since we're a 24-hour-a-day operation, we need to have to
monitoring while we're working at the same time to ensure there
are no problems."

The City Council approved the advertising of a request for
proposals (RFP) to get a company to perform monitoring at their
May 18 public meeting.

Two weeks later, the Council was prepared to hire ATC, a company
that considers themselves to be a "leading full-service
environmental consulting and industrial hygiene firm."

Lavenberg, who has previously worked for seven different South
Jersey water and sewer facilities, said he was familiar with the
company.

Lavenberg took over the embattled city Water Utility almost a year
ago, making him the fifth man to hold the position in as many
years.

After Water Director Shawn Maloney allegedly committed suicide in
2007, the city's Business Administrator took over as Acting Water
Director in a "temporary" arrangement that ended up lasting nearly
six years.

The past two years have also included two stints where Mayor James
Cahill took over and made himself the Acting Water Director.

Lavenberg said that ATC, based in Lafayette, Louisiana, was the
second lowest of the six bids received by the Water Utility for
the asbestos monitoring.

He also said he expects to have the asbestos removed from the
city's treatment plant, located on Comstock Street in the Second
Ward, by the end of 2016.

"We have [the removal of the asbestos] budgeted for this year, so
we have it planned for prior to the end of the year," said
Lavenberg.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Bagenalstown Site Feared to Have Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Egan, writing for KCLR96FM.com, reported that urgent
investigations of a site in Bagenalstown are being carried out by
the County Council, according to their director of services.

Seamus O'Connor says that there have been allegations of asbestos
in the old meat factory on the Royal Oak Road.

There has been ongoing talk about developing the site for years
since its closure and speaking to KCLR today, Seamus O'Connor says
they're hoping to make that happen now.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Not "Apparent Manufacturer" of Insulag
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that Pfizer Inc.
isn't liable as an "apparent manufacturer" of Insulag, an
asbestos-containing cement made by a company it acquired, the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled ( Stein v. Pfizer Inc.,
2016 BL 171782, Md. Ct. Spec. App., No. 1231/14, 5/31/16 ).

The estate of a worker who died of mesothelioma can't pursue a
product liability suit against Pfizer, but is instead limited to
claims in a bankruptcy trust in the Southern District of New York,
the court said.

Quigley Inc. manufactured and sold Insulag to Bethlehem Steel
Corp. before and after Quigley became a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Pfizer.

Carl Stein worked at Bethlehem Steel, where he was allegedly
exposed to asbestos.

Stein's estate sued Pfizer, alleging it was an "apparent
manufacturer" of Insulag.

The estate alleged that Pfizer, by placing its logo on Insulag
packaging and on advertisements, "held itself out to consumers as
a manufacturer of Insulag."

Under the objective test applied by most states, the court said
the claim fails because Bethlehem Steel knew, at all relevant
times, that it was purchasing Insulag from Quigley, not Pfizer.

Under the actual reliance test, Stein's failure to mention Insulag
or Pfizer in his deposition testimony shows no reliance by the
user, the court said.

"Nor was any evidence adduced that Bethlehem Steel actually relied
upon Pfizer's trademark, reputation, or assurances of quality, in
deciding to purchase Insulag," the court said.

Judge Peter B. Krauser wrote the opinion, joined by Judges Kathryn
Grill Graeff and Christopher B. Kehoe.

Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos P.C. in Baltimore represented the
estate of Carl Stein.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP in New York represents
Pfizer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MassDEP Shuts Down Project at Closed Church
------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Ronan, writing for The Patriot Ledger, reported that the
Massachusetts environmental agency has put a halt to an asbestos-
removal project at the former Star of the Sea church in Squantum
after the contractor failed to meet safety standards.

In addition, a city building inspector cited Victor Sheen, owner
of the church building, because the construction site off Bellevue
Road wasn't properly protected and was left in a dangerous
condition.

Joe Ferson, a spokesman for the state's Department of
Environmental Protection, said the state shut down the asbestos-
abatement project following a site inspection, which was prompted
by a complaint. Once asbestos is removed, the Star of the Sea
church is set to be demolished to make room for four new single-
family homes.

Related content Quincy residents voice concerns about church
demolition in SquantumDemolition of former Star of the Sea church
set for this springSquantum residents squash condo plan for closed
Quincy churchQuincy's Star of the Sea church properties sold for
$600,000Ferson said the asbestos-removal company, Clean Air
Environmental of Boston, has been ordered to cease all work until
the site is in compliance with state standards.

Ferson declined to give specifics of the violations found, other
than to say the project didn't adhere to the state's asbestos-
removal policies.

On Thursday, the city's building department slapped Sheen,
managing director of Oakgrove Residential, the company that owns
the church, with a $300 fine for not having fencing around the
construction site. Duca said loose slate shingles left on the roof
created a public safety hazard.

"With the site being in the condition it is, the owner has the
responsibility to keep people out," Jay Duca, Quincy's director of
inspectional services, said.

Duca said he's been informed that fencing will be installed around
the church property by Friday.

Ward 6 City Councilor William Harris, a Squantum resident, praised
city and state inspectors for taking action.

"The abutters of the property and the people of Squantum are not
being treated properly (by the owner)," Harris said.

Sheen, who hired Clean Air Environmental to remove asbestos from
the church, said compliance issues will be rectified soon and
demolition of the church will move forward.

"Our team is working closely with DEP and the local building
inspector to address the concerns at this point," Sheen said,
later adding: "I don't expect this to be a big delay."

A representative from Clean Air Environmental couldn't be reached
for comment Thursday.

Last June, a subsidiary of Oakgrove Residential purchased the Star
of the Sea properties from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of
Boston for $600,000. The Boston archdiocese closed Star of the Sea
in 2004, and after reopening for limited services, the church held
its last Mass in 2011.

Sheen said the former church properties, which have been
subdivided into four lots, have all been sold to private
homebuilders. Earlier this spring, one of the lots was listed
online for $399,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former School to be Demolished Due to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Herald reported that demolition of former Prins Willem-
Alexander Primary School is scheduled to begin soon. School
officials discovered asbestos in certain parts of the school a few
years ago and the building was abandoned as a result.

Asbestos is the name given to a group of minerals that occur
naturally in the environment as bundles of fibres that can be
separated into thin, durable threads. These fibres are resistant
to heat, fire and chemicals, and do not conduct electricity.

These fibres are easily inhaled and carried into the lower regions
of the lungs where they can cause fibrotic lung disease
(asbestosis) and changes in the lining of the chest cavity
(pleura).

Education Minister Silveria Jacobs said that the school had been
abandoned when it was found out that there was asbestos and now
plans to demolish the building will commence.

The special-needs school moved to Belvedere in 2014, leaving the
building in St. Peters unoccupied. The Daily Herald understands
that children from the district continue to play on the property
on a daily basis.

The effects of asbestos on the children and the pupils who
attended the school is still unclear, but it is known that it can
cause illnesses on a long-term basis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Refuses to Reconsider Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Illinois federal court
has refused to reconsider an order it entered earlier this year
dismissing a defendant from a take-home asbestos exposure suit,
backing its position that while the plaintiff had established that
the exposure was foreseeable, she had failed to refute the
defendant's position that enforcing the duty of ordinary care
would be unduly burdensome.

In the May 31 order, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois additionally granted motions to dismiss filed
by Honeywell International Inc., Borg-Warner TEC LLC, Dana
Companies LLC, Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, and
Hollingsworth & Vose Company, among others.


                            *********

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  * * *