---

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

             Friday, October 7, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 201




                            Headlines


1443 YORK GOTHAM: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of "Najera" FLSA Suit
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Court Consolidates 129 Depakote Suits
ABC DISTRIBUTING: "Eaves" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to D. Ariz.
ACADIA PHARMA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Action
ACCOUNT CONTROL: Faces "Emmons" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation

AMAZON.COM: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Suit Says
AMBER GASCHO: Zik Files Appeal in U.S. Supreme Court
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone Upgrade Delays
APPLE INC: Faces iPhone 6 Touch Disease Class Actions in Canada
AUGUST SYSTEMS: Class Certification Bid in Able Home Suit Denied

AUSTRALIA: Borders Chief Defends Controversial Turn Back Policy
AVON PRODUCTS: Hayes Seeks Review of Order in Brockton Suit
BAI CHI: Seeks Settlement of XPEC Class Action with SFIPC
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Saucedo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI: Court Narrows Claims in Forex Suit

BB&T CORP: Faces "Sheffield" Lawsuit Under FLSA, N.C. Wage Act
BIMBO BAKERIES: Misclassifies Distributors, Suit Claims
BRINK'S INC: Ceron Files Appeal From Ruling in "Belew" Class Suit
CAREGIVERS FOR INDEPENDENCE: Faces "Lee" Lawsuit Pursuant to FLSA
CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Lawyer Responds to Female Partners' Claims

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Suit Over Stock Price
CLIFFS NATURAL: Brown Files Another Appeal in Treasury Class Suit
COLLECTO INC: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in Annunziato
COMCAST: Responds to Washington AG's Lawsuit Over Service Plan
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Rishell" Class Suit

DAIGLE'S AUTO: Fails to Pay Drivers OT, "Whitman" Suit Claims
DIAMOND RESORTS: Court Says Fields' Class Cert. Bid "Premature"
DOLE PACKAGED: 9th Cir. Revives Suit Over "All Natural" Claims
EAN HOLDINGS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Toering" Suit
ECOLAB INC: Class Certification Sought in "Campos" Suit

ELECTRANET: Needs to Replace Aging Transmission Lines
ENCORE RECEIVABLE: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Rosa" Class Suit
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Alston" Suit
ERIC GARCETTI: Class Cert. Bid in "Yagman" Suit Denied for Now
FACEBOOK INC: Canada High Court to Hear Appeal on Nov. 4

FARMERS GROUP: Judge Approved $2MM Attorneys Fee in "Coates"
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces "Ross" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
FIFTH STREET: December 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Class Certification Bid in "Garcia" Denied
GARDEN CITY, KS: Market Appeals D. Kan. Ruling to Tenth Circuit

GATEWAY FOUNDATION: Jackson Seeks Certification of 2 Classes
GRAND MORELOS: "Santiago-Neri" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
GREELEY, CO: Urged to Change Pandhandling Laws to Avert Suit
GREENE'S ENERGY: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Peck" Suit Says
GULF COAST TRANS: Class Cert. Bid in Francois-Ordeus Suit Denied

HEARST CORP: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Wang" FLSA Class Suit
HOLLYWOOD TOW: "Guevara" Suit Seeks Compensation Under Labor Code
HOT TOPIC: SPDR Receives Payment From Class Action Settlement
HP INC: "Bayse" Lawsuit Alleges Monopoly of Market for Cartridges
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Shareholder Sues Over Federal-Mogul Merger

ILLINOIS: Frerichs Wins Dismissal of "Kolton" Suit
ILLINOIS: Public Hearing Held on DHS Overtime Rules Amid Suit
ILLINOIS: Proposed "Medicaid" Suit Settlement Hearing Set Dec. 20
INDONESIA: Pasar Ikan Residents File Class Action Over Demolition
IOVATE HEALTH: Falsely Marketed Weight Loss Products, Suit Says

J.B. HUNT: Improper Deductions Allegations in Remington Nixed
JAMIE'S WHALING: Issues Statement on Stellar Sea Accident
JANI-KING: Class Certification in "Williams" Suit Affirmed
JEFF HUGHES: Court Remands Cavalry Suit to Circuit Court
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Narrows Claims in "Mihalich" Suit

JONES GROUP: "Knox" Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
KALON SARBY: Central Alarm Fights for Class Cert. Bid
KAPLAN HIGHER EDUCATION: Violates Labor Laws, Suit Says
KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Faces "Castro" Suit in S.D. of New York
KNOEDLER & CO: Complaint Filed to Recover Stolen Mattise Painting

LA'S LOW: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ayala" Suit Claims
LABOR READY: $6.4 Million Class Action Settlement Approved
LG ELECTRONICS: Supressed Wages in Tech Industry, Suit Claims
LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over TV Software
LINCOLN, NE: Faces Class Action Over Damage From Sewer Backups

LOKEKO INC: Court Dismisses Claims Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums
MARICOPA CTY, AZ: Arpaio Appeals From Ruling in "Melendres" Suit
MARICOPA CTY, AZ: Seeks Review of Order in "Melendres" Class Suit
MAVEN PROPERTY: Faces "Drudy" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
MDL 1663: Marsh USA Must Defend Against Hunstman et al. Suit

MDL 2420: Judge Says Microsoft and Sony Must Arbitrate
MDL 2420: Toshiba's Bids to Dismiss or Compel Arbitration Nixed
MEDICREDIT INC: Class Certification Sought in "Hartman" Suit
MICROSOFT CORP: Class Action Absent From Supreme Court Docket
MGT CAPITAL: Faces "Mayer" Securities Lawsuit Over Acquisitions

MURPHY OIL: Awaits Supreme Court Ruling on Class Action Waivers
MYLAN: Congress Quizzes CEO Over Rising Costs of EpiPens
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Mitchell Appeals Ruling in "Wright" Suit
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Pentz Seeks Review of "Wright" Suit Ruling
NEW JERSEY: Court Narrows Claims in "Galicki" Suit

NEWS CORP: Court Upholds Dismissal of "Wilder" Suit
NISSAN: Faces Class Action Over Brake Pads and Rotors Defect
NORTHWEST MEDICAL: Faces Insurance Class Action
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Giotta Seeks 9th Cir. Review of N.D. Cal. Ruling
OHANA MILITARY: Barber Appeals Hawaii Court Ruling to 9th Cir.

ONTARIO-FRANKLIN: Faces "Arroyo" Suit Under FLSA
PACIFICA HOTEL: Hernandez Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
PASON SYSTEMS: "Balo" Case Transferred to S.D. Tex.
PASON SYSTEMS: "Ricalo" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION: Lang Appeals Ruling to 3rd Circuit

PHARMAVITE LLC: Bradach Seeks Review of Ruling to Ninth Circuit
PURE STORAGE: Faces "Galanis" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
RANJHA CLEANERS: Appeals From Order, Judgment in "Navarrete" Suit
RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Patterson Brings Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court
RED RIVER: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

RESCUE RANGERS: "Kayler" Alleges Misclassification of Technicians
RESPOND POWER: Energy Customers Appeal Class Action Dismissal
REVIVAL SOCIAL: Faces "Wells" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RIP CURL: Candelario Seeks 9th Circuit Review of C.D. Cal. Ruling
RONALD RIGOR: Faces "Kabadayan" Suit Over Medical Negligence

ROSITA D. TAN: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SAVEOLOGY.COM LLC: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stoba" Class Suit
SCOREBIG: Ticket Broker Files Class Action in California
SEARS ROEBUCK: Appeals Attorney Fees' Award in Faulty Washer MDL
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Court Stays Zambrano Suit Pending Arbitration

SUNEDISON INC: "Bloom" Suit Moved from Super. Court to N.D. Cal.
TESCO: Faces Investor Class Action Over GBP150MM Losses
TORONTO: Court Upholds Ruling in Rent Reduction Class Suit
TWITTER INC: Faces "Degenhardt" Securities Suit Over MAU Data
U-HAUL CO: Cal. App. Won't Send "Perez" Claims to Arbitration

UBS FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid in "Roman" Suit Denied
UGL: IMF Bentham Says Class Action Has Good Prospects of Success
UNITED KINGDOM: Faces Class Action Over Return of Hard Border
UNITED STATES: Oregon Court Dismisses Tenrec Complaint
UNITED STATES: Class Certification Bid in "Greer" Suit Denied

UNITED STATES: Pro Se Motions and Objections in "Pigford" Denied
UNITED STATES: Appeals From Ruling in "Sabo" PTSD-Related Suit
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Tosses Minors' Legal Representation Case
USA WATER POLO: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Mayall" Injury Suit
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA: Chinese Sues Over Property-Sale Tax

VARNELIS GROUP: Faces "Rivas" Suit in Ill. Over RLTO Violation
VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Class Certification in "Kivo" Suit Tossed
VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Golan Seeks Certification of Class
VISA INC: Must Defend Against Suit Over Chip-Card Rollout
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Defend $300MM Fee Request

VOLKSWAGEN AG: To Pay $1.2BB Emissions Compensation to US Dealers
WELLS FARGO: To End Sales Goals Following Class Actions
WENDY NAIL: Faces "Qu" Lawsuit Under FLSA, New York Labor Law
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Kljajic Seeks Certification of 7 Classes
WHIRLPOOL CORP: McDonald Appeals Ruling in "Chambers" Class Suit

WILLBROS GROUP: Court Upholds Prior Ruling on Bid to Dismiss
XPO LAST: Delivery Drivers Class Certified in "Carter" Suit
YAHOO! INC: Faces "McMahon" Lawsuit Over Users' Info Theft
YAHOO! INC: Faces "Schwartz" Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breaches

* 9th Circ. to Hear Oral Argument in Pair of Food-Labeling Cases


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Floyd"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Gypsum in Ch11 to Resolve Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants' Appeal from EFH Plan Order Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EFH Asbestos Claimants' Class Cert. Bid Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Family Files Asbestos Suit vs. Chevron

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Deals Fatal Blow to Take-Home Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Sues Lance Construction Over Wife's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire at Hospital Raises Asbestos Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Asbestos Found at Construction Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Tops in Asbestos Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Retains Jurisdiction of Asbestos Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11th Cir. Rejects "Every Fiber Theory"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7 Bldgs in Waterloo Region Have Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Duty to Prevent Take-Home Exposure in Ariz.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Launched After Mum Dies of Asbestos Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Hampers Hoboken Train Crash Evidence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canandaigua Workers Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Problems Continues at CSUB
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Names Chevron, BP as Defendants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Court Reverses Verdict vs. Valve Company

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Sheets Dumped by Children's Trampoline


                            *********


1443 YORK GOTHAM: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of "Najera" FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants 1443 York Gotham Pizza Inc., 144 Ninth Gotham Pizza,
Inc., 1667 First Gotham Pizza, Inc., 852 Eighth Gotham Pizza Inc.
and Michael Shamailov filed an appeal from the District Court's
judgment entered on August 24, 2016, in the lawsuit titled Najera
v. 1443 York Gotham Pizza Inc., Case No. 12-cv-3133, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Najera v. 1443 York Gotham
Pizza Inc., Case No. 16-3296, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Prisco Najera, Israel Fuentes, Carlos
Altamirano, Cristobal Bravo, Levi Gallardo, Lugo Romano and Pablo
Najera, Israel Juarez Luna, Fernando Rodriguez and Claudio Arias,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and
Eleuterio Alonzo, Jose Luis Ortega, Wilfredo Ramirez, Anastacio
Antolin, Luis Antonio Canizy, Fausto Ramales, Ferndando Arellane,
Luis Najera, Adalberto Navarro Flores, Aureliano Tapia, Rodolfo
Ruiz Briones and Manuel Montiel Lopez are represented by:

          Joshua S. Androphy, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1 Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          E-mail: JAndrophy@Faillacelaw.com

Defendants-Appellants 1443 York Gotham Pizza Inc., DBA Gotham
Pizza; 1667 First Gotham Pizza, Inc., DBA Gotham Pizza; 144 Ninth
Gotham Pizza, Inc., DBA Gotham Pizza; Michael Shamailov; and 852
Eighth Gotham Pizza Inc., DBA Gotham Pizza, are represented by:

          Benjamin B. Xue, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN B. XUE, P.C.
          401 Broadway
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 219-2275
          Facsimile: (212) 219-2276
          E-mail: benjaminxue@xuelaw.com


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Court Consolidates 129 Depakote Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel has ordered the consolidation of all
cases involving Depakote litigation, and appointed as lead case
for claims the case captioned IN RE DEPAKOTE: RHEALYN ALEXANDER,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 12-CV-52-NJR-SCW (S.D. Ill.).

There are currently 129 cases, involving approximately 698
plaintiffs, pending on the court's docket directly related to the
Depakote litigation, alleging injury by Abbott's product,
Depakote.  The first cases were filed in state court in 2010 and
removed to federal court on January 18, 2012.  Cases continue to
be filed each month with the last case being filed, as of August
18, 2016.

Judge Rosenstengel realized that batching cases together along
common issues of fact and law is the only way to effectively,
efficiently, and justly move through the volume of cases before
the court.  "The failure of the bellwether approach requires the
Court to proceed with joint trials resolving as many common issues
as possible for as many plaintiffs with each trial," the judge
said.

Judge Rosenstengel designated Case No. 12-cv-52-NJR-SCW, Alexander
et al., v. Abbott Laboratories Inc. as the lead case for claims
involving Depakote litigation.  The judge also ordered that all of
the cases involving Depakote litigation will be consolidated, and
any cases filed hereafter will be considered "tag along" cases.

The court will be establishing a Plaintiffs' Leadership Counsel
and soliciting names for Lead and/or Liaison counsel by separate
order.

A full-text copy of Judge Rosenstengel's September 20, 2016
memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/61FNNj from
Leagle.com.

Rhealyn Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Scott
Williamson -- amanda@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger, Garrison et al.,
Blair R. Loocke -- blaire.loocke@bracewelllaw.com -- Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III -- cd.wilde@bracewelllaw.com --
Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, David I. Cates -- dcates@cateslaw.com -- Cates
Mahoney, LLC, George Erick Rosemond, Rosemond Law Group PC, Heath
A. Novosad -- heath.novosad@bracewelllaw.com -- Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, John E. Williams, Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn Harrington --
kathryn@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger, Garrison et al., Kenneth T.
Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen -- mark@hgdlawfirm.com --
Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R. McEvily --
nancy.davis@bracewelllaw.com -- Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip
L. Sampson, Jr. -- phillip.sampson@bracewelllaw.com -- Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Ralph D. McBride -- ralph.mcbride@bracewelllaw.com -
- Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP.

Stacy Bartolini, Samantha Bryant, Sandra L Book, Plaintiffs,
represented by Amanda Scott Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et al.,
Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD,Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G.
Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John
T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, John E. Williams,
Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn
Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R.
McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr.,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson,
Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP & Steven
R. Weinmann, Audet & Partners LLP, pro hac vice.

Laura Diane Barnes, Jennifer Janecek, Shannah Busby, Amanda Cates,
Teresa H Coronado, Brandy Fisher, Plaintiffs, represented by
Amanda Scott Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et al., Blair R.
Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,Heath
A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, John E. Williams, Jr.,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn
Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R.
McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr.,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson &
Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Tiffany Dunn, Denise Estes, Roger and Mindy Pyszkowski,
individually and as parents and next friends of CP, L.K., L.R.,
G.T., Plaintiffs, represented by Amanda Scott Williamson,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law
Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP,John E. Williams, Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice,Kathryn Harrington, Heninger, Garrison
et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G.
Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Ralph D.
McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP.

Mary Hartman, Janet Woolfolk, Stefanie L. Baldassare, Plaintiffs,
represented by Amanda Scott Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et al.,
Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD,Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G.
Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John
T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, John E. Williams,
Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn
Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R.
McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr.,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP & Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP.

Mary Hartman, Lisa Caetta, Mary Pataky, Monique Benjamin, Janet
Woolfolk, Joseph A. and Jill E Leach, Stefanie L. Baldassare,
Angela D. Barnett, Susan Taylor, Cindi Bufalino, Danielle Womack
Coomer, Bob Roberts, Christina Raquel, Kristi M. Rowell, Cindy
Nye, Roweena Elizabeth Galvin, Roweena Elizabeth Galvin, Valarie
Hagan, Bermesha A. Huston, Bermesha A. Huston, Alison Macdonald,
Laura Bailey, Cleopatra Powell, Ginnifer E & Philip Baugher, Linda
Benjamin, Monique R. Benjamin, Linda Lejune, Sandra L. & Gregory
Book, Loida Colon, Gina Corral, Jennifer B, Covey, Shannon L. &
Shaun Dolan, Kelly Gunn, individually as parent and next friend of
B.G., Donnica & David Hancock, individually as parents and next
friend of AH, Eddia Harrison, individually as parent and next
friend of E.H., Melissa J. & Ronald Hoefs, individually as parents
and next friend of JDH., Ana J. Jiminez, individually as parent
and next friend of KR., Mary & Daniel Kaleta, individually as
parents and next friend of DWK, Jr., Yvette & Randy Joe Morehead,
individually as parents and next friend of JIM, Nicky Name,
individually as parent and next friend of JWA, Toni Pollard,
individually as parent and next friend of KMP, Thompsalina A.
Reed, individually as parent and next friend of HLG, Cynthia
Reynolds, individually as parent and next friend of RD, Jr., Julie
Reynolds, Brenda Rodriguez, individually as parent and next friend
of AA, Denise R. & Robert Songstad, individually as parents and
next friend of AMS, Carrie Taylor, individually as parent and next
friend of JS, James R. White, individually as parent and next
friend of DRW, Ginger Bailey, individually as parent and next
friend of JNB, Liza Carnagio, individually as parent and next
friend of NC, Dawn & Steve Nowak, individually as parent and next
friend of EN, Monica & Nathaniel Raynes, individually as parent
and next friend of SR, Plaintiffs, represented by S. Clinton
Woods, Audet & Partners LLP.

Mary Hartman, Lisa Caetta, Mary Pataky, Angela Pratt, Janet
Woolfolk, Joseph A. and Jill E Leach, Stefanie L. Baldassare,
Angela D. Barnett, Susan Taylor, Cindi Bufalino, Danielle Womack
Coomer, Bob Roberts, Christina Raquel, Kristi M. Rowell, Cindy
Nye, Roweena Elizabeth Galvin, Roweena Elizabeth Galvin, Tammy
Trott, Valarie Hagan, Bermesha A. Huston, Alison Macdonald, Laura
Bailey, Ginnifer E & Philip Baugher, Linda Benjamin, Monique R.
Benjamin, Sandra L. & Gregory Book, Loida Colon, Gina Corral,
Shannon L. & Shaun Dolan, Julie Reynolds, Plaintiffs, represented
by Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Sejal
K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP & Steven R.
Weinmann, Audet & Partners LLP, pro hac vice.

Lisa Caetta, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Scott Williamson,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law
Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP,John E. Williams, Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice,Kathryn Harrington, Heninger, Garrison
et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G.
Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP & Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.

Mary Pataky, Angela Pratt, Plaintiffs, represented by Amanda Scott
Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP,John E. Williams, Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice,Kathryn Harrington, Heninger, Garrison
et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G.
Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP & Ralph D.
McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.

C. C., Keona S. Clay, Plaintiffs, represented by Allen N.
Schwartz, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, Amanda Scott Williamson,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,Janet
G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois &
Schwartz,John E. Williams, Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, pro hac vice,Kathryn Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al.,
Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger,
Garrison et al. & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson.

J.B., Monique Benjamin, E.A., Plaintiffs, represented by Allen N.
Schwartz, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, Amanda Scott Williamson,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law
Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm,Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois &
Schwartz, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
John E. Williams, Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, pro
hac vice, Kathryn Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al.,Kenneth T.
Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et
al., Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L.
Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Ralph D. McBride,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP.

T.B., Plaintiff, represented by Allen N. Schwartz, Kralovec,
Jambois & Schwartz, Amanda Scott Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et
al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G.
Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law
Firm,Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, John T.
Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, John E. Williams,
Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn
Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al.,Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et al., Phillip L.
Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Ralph D. McBride,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson &Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP.

Corkey P. Burks, Plaintiff, represented by Allen N. Schwartz,
Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, Amanda Scott Williamson, Heninger,
Garrison et al.,Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian
A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D.
Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer
Law Firm, Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, John T.
Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, John E. Williams,
Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn
Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP,Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R.
McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,Phillip L. Sampson, Jr.,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson &
Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Monique Benjamin, Plaintiff, represented by Allen N. Schwartz,
Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, Amanda Scott Williamson, Heninger,
Garrison et al.,Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian
A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D.
Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer
Law Firm, Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, John T.
Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, John E. Williams,
Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn
Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP,Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R.
McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,Phillip L. Sampson, Jr.,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP & Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP.

Haylee Gray, Joseph Burns, Logan Burns, Sara Donat, Lisa Glynn,
Candi Harden, Kelly Warner, Traci Barker, Linda Burns, Yleatha
Bell, Michael Blaes, Angela Fetter, Danelle Gillis, Michele Hale,
Erica Hart, Erin Jackson, Plaintiffs, represented by Amanda Scott
Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et al., Brian A. Abramson, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet
G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John
T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,John E. Williams,
Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn
Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et al., Sara J.
Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K.
Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Heather Ashley, individually and next friend of CA, Hush-Tola-
Ulla-Tek-Jones, Plaintiffs, represented by Amanda Scott
Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et al., Brian A. Abramson, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell
LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,
Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich
Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law
Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, John
E. Williams, Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, pro hac
vice, Kathryn Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al.,Kenneth T.
Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et
al., Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson &
Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Amanda Castle, Scherrie Boone, Kristin Higgins, Sara Hooyman,
Nancy McCormick, Amanda Langer, Matthew Dematteo, Brandi Arrowood,
Christine Brady, Tina M. Haynes, Janice M. May, Plaintiffs,
represented by Amanda Scott Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et al.,
Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D.
Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al.,Jay
H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, John E. Williams, Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn Harrington, Heninger, Garrison
et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G.
Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP.

A.A., A.B., Plaintiffs, represented by Amanda Scott Williamson,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet
G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John
T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, John E. Williams,
Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn
Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al., Margot G. Trevino, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et
al., Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson &
Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

N.B., C.B., P.B., S.C., R.D., D.D., R.D., E.D., Plaintiffs,
represented by Amanda Scott Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et al.,
Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D.
Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay
H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, John E. Williams, Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn Harrington, Heninger, Garrison
et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP,Margot G.
Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP.

O.C., Plaintiff, represented by Brian A. Abramson, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet
G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al.,Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John
T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, John E. Williams,
Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn
Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson &Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP.

Nathanael Rymsza, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Scott
Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois &
Schwartz,John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
John E. Williams, Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, pro
hac vice, Kathryn Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al., Kenneth
T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP,Margot G. Trevino, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et
al., Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,Phillip L.
Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich
Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

A.E., Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Scott Williamson, Heninger,
Garrison et al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian
A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D.
Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer
Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP,John E. Williams, Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
pro hac vice,Kathryn Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al., Margot
G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J.
Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson &Sejal K.
Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

J.F., H.J., Plaintiffs, represented by Amanda Scott Williamson,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law
Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP,John E. Williams, Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice,Kathryn Harrington, Heninger, Garrison
et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G.
Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J.
Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K.
Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Nicolas Battle, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth T. Fibich,
Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Amanda Scott Williamson, Heninger,
Garrison et al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian
A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D.
Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer
Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
John E. Williams, Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, pro
hac vice, Kathryn Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al., Margot G.
Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,Ralph D.
McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP.

T.C., C.H., Plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP,Amanda Scott Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et
al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G.
Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John
T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, John E. Williams,
Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn
Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al., Margot G. Trevino, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et
al., Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L.
Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Robert L. Salim, Law Office of Robert L. Salim,
Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson &Sejal K.
Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Kayla Rose McGuinness-Colon, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth T.
Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Amanda Scott Williamson,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law
Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP,John E. Williams, Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice,Kathryn Harrington, Heninger, Garrison
et al., Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R. McEvily,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Robert
L. Salim, Law Office of Robert L. Salim, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich
Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Jewell J. Harris, Becki Nyhagen, Amanda Buttke, Plaintiffs,
represented by Amanda Scott Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et al.,
Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD,Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G.
Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John
T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, John E. Williams,
Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn
Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R.
McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr.,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson &Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP.

Joseph A. and Jill E Leach, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Scott
Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, John E. Williams, Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn Harrington, Heninger, Garrison
et al.,Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G.
Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP & Ralph D.
McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.

Angela D. Barnett, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Scott
Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, John E. Williams, Jr., Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn Harrington, Heninger, Garrison
et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G.
Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP & Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.

Terri Spencer, Angela Fetter, Janice M. May, Patricia McKinney-
Cole, Alicia Middleton, Rebecca Moon, Tomeka Nealy, Debbie
Opperman, deceased, LaSandra Palmer, Kara Peterson, Pinnie Pounds,
Candice S. Thacker, Jessica Trafton, Adria Weaver, Paula Thompson,
Anthoney K. Pate, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP,Margot
G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Sara J. Fendia,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Krista Kaye Howard, Charles H Jackson, II, Jarri and Clay
Leighton, Renae Dell Mandery, Whitney L Middlebrook, Holly Lynn
Russell, Patricia Rodriguez, Rhonda Peeples, Nancy and Paul
Prosence, Lisa Kay Schnarr, Tomiko Moore, Melissa A Wilkinson,
Gloria Stampley, Angela and Scott Vaughn, Toni and Randy Ford,
Ryan Wakefield, Christina Zuniga, Tangila R Joseph, Gina Marie
Loglisci, Jeffery Roumillat, Sherry Rockwell, Timothy Stenovich,
Jessica Straskowski, Johnnie Taylor, Karin Townsend, Pamela L
Tubbs, Rebecca Buttke, Courtney Calvert, Allison Anne Curci,
Lorene S. Fitzgerald, Melissa Lee Goins, Plaintiffs, represented
by Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G.
Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John
T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T.
Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Ralph D.
McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP.

Susan Taylor, Cindi Bufalino, Cindy Nye, Valarie Hagan, Laura
Bailey, Linda Lejune, Loida Colon, Gina Corral, Kelly Gunn, Julie
Reynolds, Plaintiffs, represented by Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP,Margot
G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP &Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.

Karen Kelly, Laura Parr, Bethany Buck, Crystal Kidd, Sindy
Salgado, Nikita Patton, Jean Fisher, Leana Hebert, Elizabeth Loe,
Jenny Martin, Mariah Oliver, Garrett Smith, Shaniquaw Warren,
Natasha Gean, Plaintiffs, represented by Blair R. Loocke,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath
A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP,Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip
L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,Ralph D. McBride,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP.

Danielle Womack Coomer, Roweena Elizabeth Galvin, Roweena
Elizabeth Galvin, Ginnifer E & Philip Baugher, Sandra L. & Gregory
Book, Shannon L. & Shaun Dolan, Plaintiffs, represented by Blair
R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath
A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip
L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP & Ralph D. McBride,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.

Bob Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP,Margot
G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP,Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP & Robert
L. Salim, Law Office of Robert L. Salim.

Christina Raquel, Kristi M. Rowell, Bermesha A. Huston, Bermesha
A. Huston, Alison Macdonald, Cleopatra Powell, Linda Benjamin,
Monique R. Benjamin, Jennifer B, Covey, Plaintiffs, represented by
Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G.
Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John
T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T.
Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP & Ralph D.
McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.

Rachel and Paul Springsteen, Hector and Guadalupe Baeza, Gary R
and Mary E Barickman, Rosemary R and Rober Stoermann, Maria and
Roland Moreno, Plaintiffs, represented by Blair R. Loocke,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath
A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip
L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Ralph D. McBride,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP.

Kelly Allen, Irina Burnett, Denise Page, Plaintiffs, represented
by Amanda Scott Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et al., Blair R.
Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell
LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,
Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R.
McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr.,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson &
Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Senqueita Ancrum, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Scott
Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot
G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J.
Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K.
Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Tammy Trott, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Jon Wright, Hollis,
Wright, Clay & Vail, PC, Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law
Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot
G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP & Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.

Michelle Cassidy, April Harrigan, Marthee Sansone, Angie
Stevenson, Plaintiffs, represented by Amanda Scott Williamson,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law
Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot
G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen,
Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Ralph D.
McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson &Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP.

Carolyn Pearson, Danyelle Harris, Rebecca Chapman, individually as
parent and next friend of TQ, Cherish Dickey, individually as
parent and next friend of AS, Heather Harvey, individually as
parent and next friend of EG, Dana Moore, individually as parent
and next friend of DL, Nancy Royan, individually as parent and
next friend of KR, Kathleen Wheeler, individually as parent and
next friend of OF, Krista Wirick, individually as parent and next
friend of FV, Dallas Nyhagen, Plaintiffs, represented by Blair R.
Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath
A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip
L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich
Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson &Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Bermesha A. Huston, individually as paretn and next driend of
A.S.K., Julie A. Hadley, individually as parent and next friend of
C.E., Donnica & David Hancock, individually as parents and next
friend of AH, Melissa J. & Ronald Hoefs, individually as parents
and next friend of JDH., Mary & Daniel Kaleta, individually as
parents and next friend of DWK, Jr., Yvette & Randy Joe Morehead,
individually as parents and next friend of JIM, Thompsalina A.
Reed, individually as parent and next friend of HLG, Denise R. &
Robert Songstad, individually as parents and next friend of AMS,
Monica & Nathaniel Raynes, individually as parent and next friend
of SR, Plaintiffs, represented by Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP &Steven R. Weinmann, Audet & Partners LLP, pro
hac vice.

Cleopatra Powell, individually as parent and next friend of L.W.,
Amanda Holden, Jonathan Wilson, Jennifer B, Covey, individually as
parent and next friend of T.A., Kelly Gunn, individually as parent
and next friend of B.G., Julie A. Hadley, individually as parent
and next friend of C.E., Eddia Harrison, individually as parent
and next friend of E.H., Ana J. Jiminez, individually as parent
and next friend of KR., Nicky Name, individually as parent and
next friend of JWA, Toni Pollard, individually as parent and next
friend of KMP, Cynthia Reynolds, individually as parent and next
friend of RD, Jr., Carrie Taylor, individually as parent and next
friend of JS, James R. White, individually as parent and next
friend of DRW, Ginger Bailey, individually as parent and next
friend of JNB, Rebecca Chapman, individually as parent and next
friend of TQ, Cherish Dickey, individually as parent and next
friend of AS, Heather Harvey, individually as parent and next
friend of EG, Dana Moore, individually as parent and next friend
of DL, Dawn & Steve Nowak, individually as parent and next friend
of EN, Nancy Royan, individually as parent and next friend of KR,
Kathleen Wheeler, individually as parent and next friend of OF,
Krista Wirick, individually as parent and next friend of FV,
Plaintiffs, represented by Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson,Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP & Steven R. Weinmann, Audet & Partners LLP, pro hac
vice.

Helen Resto, N.M.W., Plaintiffs, represented by Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot
G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Sara J. Fendia,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Heidi Wood, Plaintiff, represented by Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP,Margot
G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP,Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J.
Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Sejal K.
Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP & Steven R.
Weinmann, Audet & Partners LLP, pro hac vice.

B.E., S.F., W.G., G.H., J.H., H.H., I.K., J.M., L.M., D.N., B.P.,
N.R., J.W., D.M.V., J.W.T., Plaintiffs, represented by Brian A.
Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde,
III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al.,Jay
H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot
G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Sara J. Fendia,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

A.H., A.P., A.A.T., Plaintiffs, represented by Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al.,Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson &
Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Tequila Harrell, Erica Peterson, Plaintiffs, represented by
Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Blair R. Loocke,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell
LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,
Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,Margot G. Trevino, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,Ralph D.
McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Robert L. Salim, Law Office of
Robert L. Salim, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson &Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP.

M.L., K.S., Plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP,Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D.
Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer
Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP,Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy
R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr.,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Robert L. Salim, Law Office of Robert L. Salim, Sara J.
Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson &Sejal K.
Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Stephanie Williams, Susan Lawrence, Drew Middleton, Crystal
Vampran, Plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP, Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D.
Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD,Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich
Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law
Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Margot
G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,Nancy R. McEvily,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,Robert L.
Salim, Law Office of Robert L. Salim, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich
Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Linda Lejune, Plaintiff, represented by Sara J. Fendia, Fibich
Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Margie Dickson, Plaintiff, represented by Blair R. Loocke,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP,Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath
A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip
L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Ralph D. McBride,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson, Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP & Steven R. Weinmann, Audet & Partners LLP, pro hac
vice.

Mary Hobbins, Penny Kay, Judy Mason, Victoria Cook, Plaintiffs,
represented by Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A.
Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde,
III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer
Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP,Margot G. Trevino,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP,Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson &
Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

De'Wanda O'Neil, Plaintiff, represented by Blair R. Loocke,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP,Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet
G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John
T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,Kenneth T. Fibich,
Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP,Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J.
Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K.
Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Julie A. Hadley, individually as parent and next friend of C.E.,
Eddia Harrison, individually as parent and next friend of E.H.,
Ana J. Jiminez, individually as parent and next friend of KR.,
Nicky Name, individually as parent and next friend of JWA, Toni
Pollard, individually as parent and next friend of KMP, Cynthia
Reynolds, individually as parent and next friend of RD, Jr.,
Carrie Taylor, individually as parent and next friend of JS, James
R. White, individually as parent and next friend of DRW, Ginger
Bailey, individually as parent and next friend of JNB, Liza
Carnagio, individually as parent and next friend of NC, Liza
Carnagio, individually as parent and next friend of NC, Rebecca
Chapman, individually as parent and next friend of TQ, Cherish
Dickey, individually as parent and next friend of AS, Heather
Harvey, individually as parent and next friend of EG, Dana Moore,
individually as parent and next friend of DL, Dawn & Steve Nowak,
individually as parent and next friend of EN, Nancy Royan,
individually as parent and next friend of KR, Kathleen Wheeler,
individually as parent and next friend of OF, Krista Wirick,
individually as parent and next friend of FV, Plaintiffs,
represented by Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A.
Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde,
III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G.
Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John
T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,Kenneth T. Fibich,
Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP,Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP & Ralph D.
McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.

Donnica & David Hancock, individually as parents and next friend
of AH, Melissa J. & Ronald Hoefs, individually as parents and next
friend of JDH., Mary & Daniel Kaleta, individually as parents and
next friend of DWK, Jr., Thompsalina A. Reed, individually as
parent and next friend of HLG, Denise R. & Robert Songstad,
individually as parents and next friend of AMS, Monica & Nathaniel
Raynes, individually as parent and next friend of SR, Plaintiffs,
represented by Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A.
Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde,
III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD,Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich
Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law
Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP &
Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.

Yvette & Randy Joe Morehead, individually as parents and next
friend of JIM, Plaintiff, represented by Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G.
Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John
T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T.
Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP & Ralph D.
McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.

Brenda Rodriguez, individually as parent and next friend of AA,
Plaintiff, represented by Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law
Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP,Kathryn Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al.,
Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP &
Ralph D. McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.

Brenda Rodriguez, individually as parent and next friend of AA,
Plaintiff, represented by Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson &Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP.

C.A., Irene Aguilar, B.B., C.B., R.D., D.B., Heidi Denney, Cynthia
Doty, Lori Dziedzic, K.B., Kathy Ehorn, Buffie Ellis, J.F., M.F.,
R.B., T.B., R.F., L.G., Amy Griffin, Z.B., T.H., Z.H., Angela
Hardy, Amy Harris, Sonya Harris, Mechelle Hitt, Jessie Hobson,
Jaime Bailey, B.L., G.L., Lisa Bennett, L.L., M.L., Amy Lambert,
Jaclyn Langer, Michelle Leal, Heidi Brown, Derek Bruce, Lillie
Hopkins, Rana Lee, K.M., P.M., Lisa Modling, D.C., J.C., B.D.,
D.D., Lisa Gavazzi, B.H., Plaintiffs, represented by Allen N.
Schwartz, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois &
Schwartz, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal
K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

T. B-L, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office
of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Allen N. Schwartz, Kralovec, Jambois &
Schwartz,Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A.
Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde,
III, Bracewell LLP, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich
Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law
Firm, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,Kenneth
T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP,Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J.
Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K.
Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

L.B., G.E., Ivy Babbit, Tracey Hosea, Plaintiffs, represented by
Allen N. Schwartz, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, Amanda Scott
Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm,Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois &
Schwartz, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP,Margot G. Trevino,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger,
Garrison et al., Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP,Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J.
Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K.
Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

A.E., Plaintiff, represented by Allen N. Schwartz, Kralovec,
Jambois & Schwartz, Amanda Scott Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et
al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G.
Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law
Firm,Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, John T.
Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Margot G. Trevino,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger,
Garrison et al., Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,Sara J. Fendia,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

C.E., Plaintiff, represented by Allen N. Schwartz, Kralovec,
Jambois & Schwartz, Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D.
Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer
Law Firm, Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, John T.
Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich,
Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Sejal K. Brahmbhatt,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,Allen N. Schwartz, Kralovec,
Jambois & Schwartz, Amanda Scott Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et
al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD,Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G.
Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm,
Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz,John T. Boundas,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy R.
McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr.,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP.

Amanda Erpelding, Plaintiff, represented by Allen N. Schwartz,
Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, Amanda Scott Williamson, Heninger,
Garrison et al.,Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian
A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D.
Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer
Law Firm, Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, John T.
Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich,
Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy
R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr.,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP.

Dawn Flinders, Denise Francis, Sandra Hernandez, Sheri Beauchaine,
Lindsey James, Tahirah Bryant, Natalya Bunich, Julie Lemmond, Mary
McAllen Vu, Claudia Melnick, Tiffany Burroughs, JoDee Carpenter,
Joseph Carpenter, Kimberly Coffey, Jennifer Courtney, Katelyn
Courtney, Rachel Gerstner, Plaintiffs, represented by Allen N.
Schwartz, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois &
Schwartz,John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal
K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

N.G., Plaintiff, represented by Allen N. Schwartz, Kralovec,
Jambois & Schwartz, Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D.
Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer
Law Firm, Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, John T.
Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich,
Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP & Sara J.
Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson.

A.H., A.K., A.D., Plaintiffs, represented by Allen N. Schwartz,
Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois &
Schwartz, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R.
McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr.,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP.

R.H., by Brenda Helms, individually as parent and next friend of
R.H., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office
of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP,Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Janet G.
Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al.,Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John
T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T.
Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP.

O.H., Plaintiff, represented by Allen N. Schwartz, Kralovec,
Jambois & Schwartz, Amanda Scott Williamson, Heninger, Garrison et
al., Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Janet G.
Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law
Firm,Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, John T.
Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich,
Fibich Hampton et al, LLP,Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Mark Ekonen, Heninger, Garrison et al., Nancy
R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich
Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

C.L., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office
of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Allen N. Schwartz, Kralovec, Jambois &
Schwartz,Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A.
Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde,
III, Bracewell LLP, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich
Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law
Firm, Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, John T.
Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich,
Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Tyler Bridgewater-Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Allen N.
Schwartz, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP,Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell
& Giuliani LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H.
Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson,Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois &
Schwartz, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal
K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

A M.M., Plaintiff, represented by Allen N. Schwartz, Kralovec,
Jambois & Schwartz, Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D.
Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay
H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois &
Schwartz, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Kathryn Harrington, Heninger, Garrison et al., Margot G. Trevino,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal
K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Trudy Murray, D.N., Danny Oakley, Plaintiffs, represented by Allen
N. Schwartz, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, Blair R. Loocke,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell
LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,
Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich
Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law
Firm, Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, John T.
Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich,
Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Maureen O'Connor, Amy Obermann, Plaintiffs, represented by Allen
N. Schwartz, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, Blair R. Loocke,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,Janet
G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm,
Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, John T. Boundas,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip
L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich
Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

C.P., D.P., L.P., Lisa Parr, N.R., Z.S., C.V., S.Y., Plaintiffs,
represented by Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,Brian A.
Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde,
III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay
H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois &
Schwartz, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal
K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Christy Perry, Tyler Smith, Erika Snow, Elizabeth Still, Susan
Yarber, Plaintiffs, represented by Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm,Jennifer K. Scifo,
Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al,
LLP,Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy
R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr.,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP.

Angela Pettway, Ashley Shamblin, Katrina Standifer, Alisha
Steinmetz, Janice Thomas, Dana Thompson, Lauonda Tooles, Teresa
Tuttle, Plaintiffs, represented by Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP,Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, Jennifer K. Scifo,
Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP,
Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R.
McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr.,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP.

J.R., Plaintiff, represented by Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, Jennifer K. Scifo,
Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP,
Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R.
McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr.,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP.

L.D., Plaintiff, represented by Allen N. Schwartz, Kralovec,
Jambois & Schwartz, Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D.
Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Heath A. Novosad, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson,
Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jennifer K. Scifo,
Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP,
Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R.
McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr.,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP.

J.T., Plaintiff, represented by Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, Jennifer K. Scifo,
Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP,
Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R.
McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr.,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson, Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Blair R. Loocke, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Brian A.
Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde,
III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Jay
H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D.
Meyer, Meyer Law Firm,Jennifer K. Scifo, Kralovec, Jambois &
Schwartz, John T. Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP,Margot G. Trevino,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP,Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson &
Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.

Roger and Mindy Pyszkowski, individually and as parents and next
friends of EP, Plaintiff, represented by Blair R. Loocke,
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F.
Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray,
Burg, Simpson et al., Jay H. Henderson, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson, Jeffrey D. Meyer, Meyer Law Firm, John T.
Boundas, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich,
Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Margot G. Trevino, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Nancy R. McEvily, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
Phillip L. Sampson, Jr., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Ralph D.
McBride, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson & Sejal K. Brahmbhatt, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP.

G.M., C.B., H.B., W.B., Samuel Collins, N.F., K.H., M.K., D.K.,
R.M., G.R., Joshua Sherman, K.S., Madalyn Weaver, J.W., Phillip
Dennis Cornell, Z.K., a minor by Armanda Warren, individually as
guardian ad litem of Z.K. (13-1115), C.S., a minor by Michelle
Scognamiglio, individually as parent of C.S. (13-1115), K.B., a
minor by Glenda Jones, individually as gaurdian ad litem of K.B.
(13-1115), F.J., 13-1061,by and through Misty Williams-Couch,
individually and as next friend of F.J., C.S., a minor by and
through Kristen Schmidt, individually and as next friend of C.S.,
D.C., a minor by and through Leslie Consuerga, individually and as
next friend of D.C., D.P., a minor by and through Mark Pike,
individually and as next friend of D.P., J.L., a minor by and
through Melissa Ulrich, individually and as next friend of J.L.,
J.T., a minor by and through Lonnie Elwood, individually and as
next friend of J.T., K.K., a minor by and through Jennifer
Karpinski, individually and as next friend of K.K., K.N., a minor
by and through Samantha Green, individually and as next friend of
K.N., M.C., a minor by and through Maria Nagamura, individually
and as next friend of M.C., M.H., a minor by and through Kelly
Humphres, individually and as next friend of M.H., N.B., a minor
by and through Tyrah Brunson, individually and as next friend of
N.B., T.S., a minor by and through Kristen Schmidt, individually
and as next friend of T.S., T.W., a minor by and through Laqualer
Davis, individually and as next friend of T.W., Z.L., a minor by
and through Teresa Lewis, individually and as next friend of Z.L.,
R.R. II, a minor by Gloria Wright, individually as guardian and
next friend of R.R., II (13-686), Avis Stewart, 13-686, B.B., a
Minor by Misty Bolling, Individually and as Next Friend of B.B.
(13-1312), C.C., by and through Chassade' Ann Stokes, Individually
and as Next Friend of C.C. (13-1312), C.C., a Minor by and through
Thelma Coleman, Individually and as Next Friend of C.C. (13-1312),
C.H., by and through Jody K. Ladoux Individually and as Next
Friend of C.H. (13-1312), K.P., by and through Janet Mann,
Individually and as Next Friend of K.P. (13-1312), T.S., a Minor
by and through Tabatha L. Smith, Individually and as Next Friend
of T.S. (13-1312), T.T., by and through Carmelita Kyser,
Individually and as Next Friend of T.T. (13-1312), Plaintiffs,
represented by Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP &
Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson.

Robert Krull, Plaintiff, represented by Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Kenneth T.
Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson.

LaReina Mayes, Plaintiff, represented by Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Kenneth T.
Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson.

A.P., by and through Amanda G. Elliott, individually and as next
friend of A. P., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Quinn,
Driscoll Firm, P.C.,Douglas P. Dowd, Dowd & Dowd, John J.
Driscoll, Driscoll Firm, P.C., Brian A. Abramson, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,Janet
G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al. & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson.

T.B., E.C., T.F., G.H., N.H., H.L., B.L., N.P., C.R., B.R., H.S.,
A.S., A.T., K.W., I.W., Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher F.
Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Joseph C. Melugin,
Fibich Hampton et al, LLP,Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al,
LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al. & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson.

C.I., E.J., A.J., N.J., J.N., J.V., Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Joseph
C. Melugin, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Janet G.
Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al. & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson.

M.M., M.F., M.H., Plaintiffs, represented by Douglas P. Dowd, Dowd
& Dowd, John J. Driscoll, Driscoll Firm, P.C., Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al.,Kenneth T.
Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson.

G.M., C.M., I.S., J.S., K.T., B.W., F.T., T.S., C.D., J.D., H.T.,
Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph C. Melugin, Fibich Hampton et
al, LLP,Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law
Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson
et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP & Sara J.
Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson.

A.P., A.R., Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph C. Melugin, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP,Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F.
Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray,
Burg, Simpson et al. & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson.

Michael Olufson, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph C. Melugin,
Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet
G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton
et al, LLP & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson.

A.A., L.B., M.D., K.D., T.E., S.E., N.F., A.F., H.G., K.H., T.H.,
H.H., A.H., M.H., H.H., A.J., N.K., C.M., a minor by Roberta
Melton individually and as next friend of C.M. (13-414), N.O., a
minor by Ana Marie Ortiz individually and as next friend of N.O.
(13-414), Z.P., a minor by Shakeila Small, individually and as
next friend of Z.P. (13-414), R.R., a minor by Rose Mojica,
individually and as next friend of R.R. (13-414), K.S., a minor by
Tammi Salazar, individually and as next friend of K.S. (13-414),
E.T., a minor by Amy L. Thomas, individually and as next friend of
E.T. (13-414), L.V., a minor by Michelle Vaughn, individually and
as next friend of L.V. (13-414), B.Y., a minor by Bonnie Yawn,
individually and as next friend of B.Y. (13-414), B.J.Y., a minor
by Bonnie Yawn, individually and as next friend of B.J.Y. (13-
414), Plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton
et al, LLP,Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law
Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson
et al. & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson.

M.L., a minor by Alison L. Dietrich individually and as next
friend of M.L. (13-414), A.M., a minor by Charlotte Sandoval
individually and as next friend of A.M. (13-414), B.P., a minor by
Sha'Kina T. Harvey individually and as next friend of B.P. (13-
414), L.P., a minor by Conswella Gonzales, individually and as
next friend of L.P. (13-414), B.R., a minor by Shontel C. Campos,
individually and as next friend of B.R. (13-414), N.R., a minor by
Tabbatha A. Roth, individually and as next friend of N.R. (13-
414), C.R., a minor by Stacy L. Rowland, individually and as next
friend of C.R. (13-414), J.U., a minor by Susan and Leonard,
individually and as next friend of J.U. (13-414), A.W., a minor by
Jennifer Whitlock, individually and as next friend of A.W. (13-
414), Plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton
et al, LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al. & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson.

Caitlin Phipps, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth T. Fibich,
Fibich Hampton et al, LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP,Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet
G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al. & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson.

S.S., by Tanya Czar, individually and as next friend of S.S. (13-
414), Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton
et al, LLP, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al. & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson.

V.A., a minor by Jacqueline Alegado, individually as parent of
V.A. (13-1115), M.A., a minor by Jacqueline Alegado, individually
as parent of M.A. (13-1115), T.M., a minor by Jennifer May,
individually as parent of T.M. (13-1115), V.S., a minor by
Jennifer Statsky, individually as parent of V.S. (13-1115), J.D.,
a minor by Amber Dayton, individually as parent of J.D. (13-1115),
D.B., a minor by Marta Bradshaw individually as parent of D.B.
(13-1115), D.M., a minor by Deanna Robertson, individually as
parent of D.M. (13-1115), J.P., a minor by Joseph Props,
individually as parent of J.P. (13-1115), I.J., a minor by Maryann
Aiken, individually as parent of I.J. (13-1115), Z.M., a minor by
Jamie Moss, individually as parent of Z.M. (13-1115), M.M., 13-
1061,by and through Kelly Hawkins, individually and as next friend
of M.M., S.C., 13-1061,a minor by and through Kelly Dawn Kelley,
individually and as next friend of S.C., C.C., 13-1061,by and
through Kelly Dawn Kelley, individually and as next friend of
C.C., O.R., 13-1061,a minor by and through Darlene Fields,
individually and as next friend of O.R., C.J., a minor by and
through Susan Heck, individually and as next friend of C.J., R.J.,
a minor by and through Stacy Jones, individually and as next
friend of R.J., Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Brian A. Abramson, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al.,Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland
Briggs Josephson.

A.C., a minor by Ronald Cimini, individually as parent of A.C.
(13-1115), Plaintiff, represented by Christopher F. Cueto, Law
Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Brian A. Abramson, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al. &Sara J. Fendia, Fibich
Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson.

K.B., a minor by Jennifer Badget, individually as parent of K.B.
(13-1115), Plaintiff, represented by Christopher F. Cueto, Law
Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Brian A. Abramson, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al.,Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich
Hampton et al, LLP, Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto,
LTD, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP,Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al.,Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP & Sara
J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson.

B.H., 13-1061, deceased, by and through Susan Harris, individually
and as personal representative of B.H., J.K., 13-1061,deceased, by
and through Amanda Kidder, individually and as personal
representative of J.K., Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher F.
Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Kenneth T.
Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP &Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson.

A.R., 13-1061,a minor by and through Maria Rachel Rodriguez,
indivdually and as next friend of A.R., A.G., a Minor and by and
through Michelle J. Flynn-Godfroy, Individually and as Next Friend
of A.G. (13-1312), A.H., by and through Scott Helt, Individually
and as Next Friend of A.H. (13-1312), Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Brian
A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D.
Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al. &
Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson.

A.A., a minor by TRACY ALBY, individually and as next friend of
A.A., A.B., a minor by TRACEY BAKER, Individually and as next
friend of A.B., A.B., a minor by LORETTA BENNETT, Individually and
as next friend of A.B., A.C., a minor by SHALIMAR CRIBARI,
Individually and as next friend of A.C., A.C., a minor by ANGELA
CURATOLA, Individually and as next friend of A.C., A.M., a minor
by LISA HIGH, Individually and as legal guardian of A.M.,
Plaintiffs, represented by David I. Cates, Cates Mahoney, LLC,
Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D.
Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD,Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al. &
Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson.

K.E., a minor by LAURA EGLY, Individually and as next friend of
K.E., V.C., a minor by JACQUELINE CARLISTO, Individually and as
next friend of V.C., T.C., a minor by SHERRY WILLIAMS,
Individually and as next friend of T.C., D.F., a minor by SUMMER
FERRELL, Individually and as next friend of D.F., M.L., a minor by
GLADYS LINDSEY, Individually and as next friend of M.L., C.M.,
decedent by LISA MARENTETTE, Individually and as next friend of
C.M., B.M., a minor by GINA MCELROY, Individually and as next
friend of B.M., B.M., a minor by SHADAWN MOODY, Individually and
as next friend of B.M., G.N., a minor by LEE ELLEN NELSON,
Individually and as next friend of G.N., B.O., a minor by INEM
OLUBAJO, Individually and as next friend of B.O., L.P., a minor by
ROBIN PENN, Individually and as next friend of L.P., T.P., a minor
by ANN PICOTTE, Individually and as next friend of T.P., P.P., a
minor by PAMELA MINOTTL, Individually and as next friend of P.P.,
B.S., a minor by SAMANTHA STONE, Individually and as next friend
of B.S., C.W., a minor by ANGELA WILLIAMS, Individually and as
next friend of C.W., D.S., a minor by LATOYA SUITT, Individually
and as next friend of D.S., J.S., a minor by SHERIJUANA BAXTER,
Individually and as next friend of J.S., J.T., a minor by CAROLYN
SHOCKLEY, Individually and as legal guardian of J.T., J.V., a
minor by RECEBBA KAMENSKY, Individually and as next friend of
J.V., K.T., a minor by MELISSA VASQUEZ, Individually and as next
friend of K.T., L.R., a minor by CHRISTINA RAMSEY, Individually
and as next friend of L.R., M.W., a minor by Debra Williams,
Individually and as next friend of M.W., W.S., a minor by SHAIRA
MARQUEZ ROMAN, Individually and as next friend of W.S., W.T., a
minor by REBECCA THIEHOFF, Individually and as next friend of
W.T., Plaintiffs, represented by David I. Cates, Cates Mahoney,
LLC, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law
Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD,Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et
al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP & Sara J.
Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson.

Sarah Jacks, Alec Lenar, Z.S., a minor by TAWANNA SMITH-SIMMONS,
Individually and as next friend of Z.S., Plaintiffs, represented
by David I. Cates, Cates Mahoney, LLC,Brian A. Abramson, Williams
Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet
G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton
et al, LLP & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson.

Judy Jacks, as personal representative of Sarah Jacks, Plaintiff,
represented by David I. Cates, Cates Mahoney, LLC, Brian A.
Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde,
III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Kenneth T.
Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson.

B.R., a minor by JENNIFER ROBINSON, Individually and as next
friend of B.R., J.T., a minor by REBECCA THIEHOFF, Individually
and as next friend of J.T., J.A., a minor by Latasha
Adams,individually and as next friend of J.A., Plaintiffs,
represented by Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas,
LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al.,Kenneth T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP & Sara
J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson.

Dexter Marshall, 13-686, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher F.
Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Carlton D. Wilde,
III, Bracewell LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al., Kenneth
T. Fibich, Fibich Hampton et al, LLP & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich
Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson.

C.M., H.M., K.H., Kaylee Marshall, Kristin Wiggins, A.C.,
Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD, Joshua Jon Wright, Hollis, Wright, Clay &
Vail, PC,Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP,
Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Janet G. Abaray, Burg,
Simpson et al. & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Josephson.

Stacy Clemons, Plaintiff, represented by Brian A. Abramson,
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III,
Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al. & Sara J.
Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson.

Maricela Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher F. Cueto,
Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Joshua Jon Wright, Hollis,
Wright, Clay & Vail, PC, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Janet G.
Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al. & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson.

E.V., Plaintiff, represented by Douglas P. Dowd, Dowd & Dowd, John
J. Driscoll, Driscoll Firm, P.C., William T. Dowd, Dowd & Dowd,
Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D.
Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of
Christopher Cueto, LTD,Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al. &
Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson.

Cassie Nicole Merriman, Plaintiff, represented by Sarah Shoemake
Doles, Carey, Danis and Lowe, Brian A. Abramson, Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde, III, Bracewell LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Janet
G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al. & Sara J. Fendia, Fibich Leebron
Copeland Briggs Josephson.

Misc Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by James G. O'Brien, Zoll,
Kranz & Borgess LLC, Pamela A. Borgess, Borgess Law, LLC, Brian A.
Abramson, Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Carlton D. Wilde,
III, Bracewell LLP,Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Janet G. Abaray, Burg, Simpson et al. & Sara J.
Fendia, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs Josephson.

Abbott Laboratories Inc, Defendant, represented by James F. Hurst,
Winston & Strawn, L.L.P., Paul F. Strain, Venable LLP, C. Carey
Deeley, Jr., Venable LLP, Cedric E. Evans, Bowman and Brooke, LLP,
Celeste M. Brecht, Venable LLP, pro hac vice, Christina Lee
Gaarder, Venable LLP, Christopher J. Conoscenti, Venable LLP,
Courtney A. Sullivan, Venable, LLP, Dan H. Ball, Bryan Cave, David
J. Duke, Bowman and Brooke, LLP, Dimple Desai Shah, Bowman and
Brooke, LLP, Dino S. Sangiamo, Venable LLP, James E. Gray, Venable
LLP, Jason C. Rose, Venable LLP, Jason Sayers, Venable LLP, Joel
H. Smith, Bowman and Brooke LLP, John A. McCauley, Venable LLP,
John D. Sear, Bowman & Brooke LLP, Kathleen Sullivan Hardway,
Venable LLP, Kelly R. Kimbrough, Bowman and Brooke, LLP, Kenneth
Lyle Thompson, Venable LLP, Mary T. Novacheck, Bowman & Brooke
LLP, Michael Lawrence Hecht, Venable LLP, Michael R. Klatt, Gordon
Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP,Michael B. MacWilliams, Venable LLP,
Michaela F. Roberts, Venable LLP,Pamela J. Roberts, Bowman and
Brooke LLP, Randall L. Christian, Bowman and Brooke, LLP, Stefan
Mallen, Bryan Cave, LLP, Stefani L. Rothermel, Bryan Cave, LLP,
Stephen E. Marshall, Venable LLP, Thomasina E. Poirot, Venable LLP
& William Gordon Childs, Bowman and Brooke, LLP.

Randi Ellis, Mediator, represented by Randi Ellis, Law Office of
Randi Ellis.

John Perry, Mediator, represented by John Perry, Law Office of
John Perry.


ABC DISTRIBUTING: "Eaves" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to D. Ariz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Clark Eaves, the Plaintiff, v. ABC
Distributing Incorporated, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; the Elite Wholesale Incorporated on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; Pittsburg Wholesale
Grocers Incorporated on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; Pacific Groservice Incorporated on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; Tonic Wholesale
Incorporated, doing business as Ace Wholesale on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Defendants; and
Innovation Ventures LLC and Living Essentials LLC, the Movants,
Case No. 15-cv-02064-NC, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division). The
Arizona District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-mc-00080-DGC
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge is David G
Campbell.

Elite Wholesale is a broadliner vendor in North Hollywood,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Michael Motolenich-Salas, Esq.
          2575 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 1100
          GALLAGHER & KENNEDY PA
          Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225
          Telephone: (602) 530 8000
          Facsimile: (602) 530 8500
          E-mail: ken.motolenich@gknet.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark Poe, Esq.
          Randolph Gaw, Esq.
          Sam Song, Esq.
          Victor Meng, Esq.
          GAW POE LLP
          4 Embarcadero, Ste. 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111

The Movants are represented by:

          Alexander Robert Safyan, Esq.
          Gerald Edward Hawxhurst, Esq.
          Daryl M Crone, Esq.
          CRONE HAWXHURST LLP
          10880 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1150
          Los Angeles, CA 90024

               - and -

          Bryan Lakeith Hawkins, Esq.
          Edward Charles Duckers, Esq.
          Jonathan Arthur Miles, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP - SACRAMENTO, CA
          500 Capitol Mall, Ste. 1600
          Sacramento, CA 95814


ACADIA PHARMA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California denied a
motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint (CCAC)
in the case captioned, JEFF RIHN, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ACADIA
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., ULI HACKASELL and STEPHEN R. DAVIS,
Defendants. STEVE A. WRIGHT AND VICKI G. WRIGHT, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ACADIA
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., ULI HACKSELL and STEPHEN R. DAVIS,
Defendants, Case No. 15cv00575 BTM(DHB) (S.D. Cal.).

JEFF RIHN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, filed the CCAC asserting violations for (1) section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b), and
Rule 10b-5; and (2) section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.
The claims are premised on allegations that Defendants knowingly
and recklessly made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the timing and status of Acadia's New Drug Application
(NDA) of its lead product candidate, Nuplazid (pimavanserin).
These false and misleading statements allegedly artificially
inflated stock prices of Acadia between November 10, 2014 and
March 11, 2015 (the Class Period).

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss CCAC contending that
Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to
plead falsity with particularity, fails to raise a strong
inference of scienter, and fails to plead loss causation.

In his Order dated September 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/EAg0Sy from Leagle.com, Judge Moskowitz found that
Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts that satisfy the pleading
standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), and
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA).

Defendants are directed to file an answer to the CCAC within 20
days of the entry of the Order.

Jeff Rihn is represented by David C. Walton, Esq. --
davew@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System is represented
by Henry Montague Willis, Esq. -- hmw@ssdslaw.com -- SCHWARTZ
STEINSAPIR DOHRMANN AND SOMMERS

Daniel P. Fay, et al. are represented by Alexander Louis Burns,
Esq. -- alexander.burns@ksfcounsel.com -- and -- Ramzi Abadou,
Esq. -- ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- KAHN SWICK FOTI LLP

Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. are represented by Blake M.
Zollar, Esq. -- bzollar@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP -- Koji F.
Fukumura, Esq. -- kfukumura@cooley.com -- and Peter M. Adams, Esq.
-- padams@cooley.com -- COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH


ACCOUNT CONTROL: Faces "Emmons" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
THEODORE EMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ACCOUNT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01767 (C.D. Cal., September 23, 2016),
alleges that Defendant negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully
contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

ACCOUNT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY INC. is a debt collector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMAZON.COM: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Amazon.com misclassifies its
delivery drivers as independent contractors to skirt minimum wage
and overtime laws, a class action claims in Seattle federal court.


AMBER GASCHO: Zik Files Appeal in U.S. Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Zik, et al., Petitioners v. Amber Gascho, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Case No.
16-383, is an appeal filed before the Supreme Court of the United
States on September 26, 2016, from decisions entered by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 13, 2016, in
Case Nos. 14-3761 and 14-3798.

Robert J. Zik, et al. are represented by:

          Joshua Taylor Rose, Esq.
          239 South Fifth Street, Suite 1400
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: 502 614-5962
          E-mail: jrose@craighenrylaw.com


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone Upgrade Delays
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that some people really
want the new iPhone.

Loyal followers of Apple Inc. were excited last year when the
company started a program that let them pay a little extra with
the promise of getting the latest device each year.  But now
lawyers for a disgruntled subset of those consumers have sued
Apple, saying they've been told to wait.

In a proposed federal class action filed on Sept. 12, attorneys at
Block & Leviton say Apple breached its contract with "iPhone
Upgrade Program" participants who were dismayed to find that they
were not able to pre-order the new iPhone 7 when its release was
announced.

The suit claims that despite meeting the conditions of the
program, participants were given a lesser priority compared with
ordinary buyers when trying to order from Apple's limited
inventory.  In essence, they were simply told to "check back
later," even while traditional customers snapped up the new iPhone
7 and iPhone 7 Plus, according to the complaint.

"iPhone Upgrade Program customers will now be forced to make
additional payments on their old phones while they wait for
availability of new ones, violating the promise of the program,"
the complaint says.  Apple did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

The named plaintiff in the case is Emil Frank, a Brooklyn resident
who the complaint says participates in the program and woke up at
2:45 a.m. to order the iPhone 7.  When he was unable to order the
device for pickup in New York, he expanded his search to states up
and down the Atlantic coast -- to no avail. He ended up shelling
out $950 to pay for the phone outside the program, the complaint
says.

The proposed class is anyone who joined the upgrade program prior
to September 2016 and fulfilled their obligation to make 12
monthly payments on their phone.  In addition to breach of
contract, the suit alleges that Apple violated California consumer
and unfair competition laws.


APPLE INC: Faces iPhone 6 Touch Disease Class Actions in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that in late August Patently Apple posted a
report covering the first class action lawsuit against Apple for a
problem with its touch sensory functionality that iFixit dubbed
'Touch Disease.'  The Apple device teardown experts discovered a
problem that was growing in the Apple community where iPhone 6
models were losing their ability to accept touch commands.  The
defect stems from a change that Apple made in the design changing
a metal cover to one that is made of cloth.  If the iPhone is
handled roughly over time or is dropped the touch sensors
apparently get slightly disconnected causing a misfire for touch
commands.  It's now being reported in Canada on Oct. 2 that
another class action has been started in Canada.

In September, Merchant's firm, Merchant Law Group, filed two class
actions against Apple, one Canada-wide and one solely for Quebec
residents.

The Canadian lawyer in Regina, Saskatchewan, Tony Merchant claims
that "As they began to have more and more complaints and people
were going to them -- and we've had significant numbers of people
contact us -- they brushed it under the rug."

The proposed suit, filed at the Court of Queen's Bench for
Saskatchewan, would include all Canadian iPhone 6 and 6 Plus
customers.  It alleges that Apple was negligent because it
supplied a defective phone, "knowingly and intentionally
concealed" from customers the defect and failed to provide a
proper remedy.

Mr. Merchant claims the most Apple has done for customers is offer
to resolve the problem for a price -- around $300.  Apple declined
to comment on any of the suits, which have yet to be certified in
court.

The iPhone 6 is 'a piece of crap'

"You miss calls, you can't text, it's a horrible piece of crap,"
says Trina Rae Wiegers, the lead plaintiff in the cross-Canada
suit.

Shortly after the product was launched in 2014, Ms. Wiegers bought
the iPhone 6 in Prince Albert, Sask., where she lives.
She paid about $200 -- hundreds of dollars less than the regular
price because she locked into a two-year phone plan contract.

Ms. Wiegers claims that earlier this year, a few months after the
warranty had expired, her phone began to intermittently freeze up
and wouldn't respond to touch commands.

"It's frustrating as hell because you're missing phone calls from
your kids.  I have three kids.  I use it for work," says
Ms. Wiegers, who's employed with the city of Prince Albert.

The suit alleges that that the underlying problem is the
touchscreen controller chips in the phone's motherboard, which are
not properly secured and can malfunction with regular use.

Not Apple's problem?

Ms. Wiegers says she contacted Apple numerous times about her
defective phone and never got a satisfactory response.  She shared
with CBC News a transcript of her online chat in August with
senior adviser "Dave" from Apple Support.

Dave responded that he had no information that the problem was
"known to be a manufacturing issue from Apple."

He also reminded Ms. Wiegers that her warranty had expired and
that she'd have to get the phone repaired.  He recommended that
she visit the Apple feedback site where she could "tell
engineering to look into it."

"I just about felt like throwing my phone through the screen at
him," says Ms. Wiegers.

You have to wonder if the frustration expressed by Trina Rae
Ms. Wiegers is the very frustration expressed by a disgrunteled
Apple customer in France where he took his anger out in the store
by smashing 16 iPhones and a MacBook.  While it's unknown what
that customers problem with the Apple product was, if it ends up
being related to the 'touch disease' issue, this could open the
door to a class action being filed in France. For now it's an open
question.

In the end if Apple continues to outright deny this problem exists
and it spreads further, Apple could have a Samsung-like problem on
their hands.  Over time as most iPhone 6 warranties come to an
end, customers having to fork over $300 + to fix a problem that is
primarily Apple's redesign problem is going to come to a nasty
head in public.  This is something that Apple doesn't need right
now as they're trying to pump up their iPhone 7 sales for the
holidays.


AUGUST SYSTEMS: Class Certification Bid in Able Home Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Able Home Health, LLC, Plaintiff, v. August
Systems, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09379
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge John J. Tharp Jr. entered an order
denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and motion to continue.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 3,
2016, the Court does not accept "prophylactic class-certification
motions" in light of the decisions in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez,
136 S. Ct. 663 (2016); and Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d
783 (7th Cir. 2015). If Plaintiff is prepared to proceed on the
motion as briefed it may be refiled; alternatively, the motion may
be refiled at any point that Plaintiff is prepared to proceed with
substantive briefing.

August Systems has its base of operation in Spokane, Washington.
Its main product, Visit Wizard, satisfies a wide range of Home
Care, Home Health, and Hospice agencies needs.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kFLCH7Bq


AUSTRALIA: Borders Chief Defends Controversial Turn Back Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Meers, writing for The Daily Telegraph, reports that
Australia was in danger of being overwhelmed by boat people
without the controversial turn back policy, Operation Sovereign
Borders chief Andrew Bottrell has warned.

It comes as families of asylum seekers who died in the 2010
Christmas Island boat tragedy call for Australia to compensate
them for "nervous shock", despite the boat being overloaded and
unseaworthy.

In a landmark Supreme Court class action, the families claim they
suffered psychiatric illness after the people-smuggling boat sank
in heavy seas.

Major General Bottrell said Australia had potentially faced a
lifetime of boat arrivals if the uncompromising Operation
Sovereign Borders was not introduced three years ago, bringing
arrivals to an almost instant halt.

With 50,000 arrivals on 800 boats, during six years of Labor
government, Major General Bottrell said turnbacks had "turned off
the leaking tap" just in time.

"If it had been left much longer we may not have been able to turn
it off," he said.

"It may have overwhelmed the system to a point where the frequency
of the boats would have proved difficult to stop."

In the 2010 Christmas Island incident, the worst known asylum-
seeker tragedy, 50 Iraqis and Iranians died and 39 were rescued
when their boat was smashed by massive waves on to the rocks of
Flying Fish Cove in December 2010.

Several survivors and victims' families are seeking to hold
Australia responsible by claiming their unseaworthy boat was owned
by the government once it entered territorial waters because
people-smuggling boats are deemed to be forfeited under the law.

They are also claiming for loss of property.

The allegations are revealed in the statement of claim filed with
the NSW Supreme Court in the case, which continues on Oct. 4.

They admit the boat was overloaded, with insufficient fuel and
none or insufficient life jackets but claim they should have been
saved by Australia.


AVON PRODUCTS: Hayes Seeks Review of Order in Brockton Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
James J. Hayes filed an appeal from the District Court's order
entered on August 24, 2016, in the lawsuit entitled City of
Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-
4665, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case is
brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons
or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's
common stock from July 31, 2006, through and including Oct. 26,
2011.  The second amended complaint names as defendants the
Company and two individuals and asserts violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other
things, the Company's compliance with the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act, including the adequacy of the Company's internal
controls.

The appellate case is captioned as City of Brockton Retirement
System v. Avon Products, Inc., Case No. 16-3295, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellees City of Brockton Retirement System,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System are
represented by:

          Kenneth Mark Rehns, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-0082
          E-mail: krehns@cohenmilstein.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft
mbH and SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH are
represented by:

          William Stephen Norton, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          P.O. Box 1792
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          E-mail: bnorton@motleyrice.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
Retirement Fund is represented by:

          Joshua Wolf Ruthizer, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 451-9668
          E-mail: jruthizer@wolfpopper.com


BAI CHI: Seeks Settlement of XPEC Class Action with SFIPC
---------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Wang, writing for Taipei Times, reports that Bai Chi Gan Tou
Digital Entertainment Co. on Oct. 2 said it is seeking a
settlement with the Securities and Futures Investors Protection
Center (SFIPC) over a class-action lawsuit against the company's
withdrawal from its acquisition of XPEC Entertainment Inc.

The center, which serves as the plaintiff of a class-action on
behalf of 5,000 XPEC shareholders, sought unspecified compensation
for damages caused by Bai Chi's cancelation in September of the
NT$4.86 billion (US$155 million) deal.

Bai Chi said that it was forced to drop the deal after its major
financial supporters decided not to finance the acquisition at the
last minute.

"Bai Chi will make every effort to compensate [XPEC] shareholders
who participated in the tender offer bid to recover their losses,"
the company said in a statement released on Oct. 2.  "Bai Chi
started an initial negotiation in September with the SFIPC via its
lawyers to explore the possibility of a settlement.  Bai Chi hopes
to settle the case in the short term."

The Japanese company is negotiating with the SFIPC to reach a
substantial settlement, according to the statement.  The company
is also in talks with potential supporters to get a capital
injection, backed by its assets.

XPEC has seen its market value drop by NT$11.46 billion after the
tender offer bid collapsed in September. The share price of XPEC
on Sept. 30 took a nosedive of 69 percent to NT$33.8 on the TPEX,
compared with a closing price of NT$105 on May 31.

On May 31, local video game developer XPEC said that the Japanese
company launched a tender offer to buy 38 million XPEC shares via
private placements for NT$128 per share in cash.  The transaction
would have boosted Bai Chi chairman Yoshiaki Kashino's holdings in
XPEC to 21.66 percent from 9 percent.

Separately, XPEC on Sept. 30 said that it planned to sell its non-
core assets, including its holdings in honey cake maker E.
G-Sain and coffee shop chain Ikari Coffee, to solve its cash-flow
problem.

The company said it needs NT$600 million to finance its operation
in the short term.  XPEC blamed its financial strain on a delayed
payment of US$86.59 million for the sales of its subsidiaries.
XPEC so far has received US$3 million, the company told a media
briefing on Sept. 30.  The company agreed to give a grace period
and allowed the buyer to make the remaining payments by Oct. 31.
The buyer is also allowed to pay in several installments.

Due to the financial problems, XPEC shares are only allowed to be
traded in cash from tomorrow, the TPEX said.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Saucedo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Saucedo, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation, and
Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BC635210 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
September 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay employees' compensation at the time of termination.

Bank of America Corporation operates and owns banks throughout the
State of California and provides a variety of financial services
for both consumers and merchants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus I. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
      BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP
      2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
      Westlake Village, CA 91301
      Telephone: (805) 212-5124
      E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
              kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892


BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI: Court Narrows Claims in Forex Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No. 13 Civ. 7789 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Lorna G. Schofield granted in part and denied, in part, the motion
filed by the defendants, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd.,
Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank AG, Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley & Co.,
Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc, RBC Capital Markets, LLC,
Societe Generale, and Standard Chartered Bank -- the "Non-Settling
Defendants" or "NSDs" -- to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against
them pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and
12(b)(6).

The case involves claims based on an alleged conspiracy among
banks to fix prices in the foreign exchange (FX) or foreign
currency market in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the
Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).

In July 2015, the plaintiffs served and filed a Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which added
four new defendants, allegations expanding the breadth of the
alleged conspiracy and claims under the CEA on behalf of an
"Exchange Class" of "[a]ll persons who, between January 1, 2003
and December 31, 2013 (inclusive) entered into an FX Instrument on
an exchange where such persons were either domiciled in the United
States or its territories or, if domiciled outside the United
States or its territories, entered into one or more FX Instruments
on a U.S. exchange."  The putative class in the CAC was restyled
the "Over-the-Counter" or "OTC Class," representing "[a]ll persons
who, between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013 (inclusive)
entered into an FX Instrument directly with a Defendant, where
such persons were either domiciled in the United States or its
territories or, if domiciled outside the United States or its
territories, transacted one or more FX instruments in the United
States or its territories."

The NSDs moved to dismiss on November 30, 2015.

On June 3, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Class Action
Complaint (TAC) to substitute Standard Chartered Bank as a
defendant in place of Standard Chartered plc.

The NSDs raised four arguments in favor of dismissal of all or
part of the TAC's antitrust claims.  First, the NSDs argued that
the TAC fails to plausibly allege a global conspiracy to
manipulate prices in the FX market or that any of the NSDs joined
such a conspiracy.  Second, the NSDs argued that members of both
the OTC and Exchange Classes lack antitrust standing.  Third, the
NSDs argued that the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act
(FTAIA) bars any claims based on transactions outside of the
United States.  Finally, the NSDs argued that claims based on
transactions pre-dating November 1, 2009, are time-barred.

Judge Schofield found that the TAC sufficiently pleads both the
existence of a conspiracy to fix benchmark rates and bid/ask
spreads, and the NSD's participation in that conspiracy.  The
judge also found that the TAC sufficiently pleads antitrust
standing as to both OTC and Exchange Classes, and that both
classes of plaintiffs are efficient enforcers for antitrust
standing purposes.

Judge Schofield also rejected the NSDs' statute of limitations
argument that the plaintiffs' proposed class period (January 1,
2003, to December 31, 2013) is overly broad because the TAC lacks
any allegations before 2010, and because the relevant statute
carries a four-year limitations period.  The judge found that the
plaintiffs have adequately pleaded fraudulent concealment
sufficient to toll the statute.  The period for actionable claims,
however, was curtailed to begin on December 1, 2007, as the TAC
did not plausibly allege conspiratorial activity prior to that
date.

Judge Schofield, however, explained that the FTAIA bars the
plaintiffs' claims arising from OTC transactions where the
plaintiff was operating abroad and transacted with a foreign desk
of a defendant, and bars claims arising from transactions
conducted on a foreign exchange.  Thus, the NSDs' motion to
dismiss in part on this ground is granted.

The NSDs also raised four arguments for dismissal of all or part
of the TAC's CEA claims.  First, the NSDs claimed that the
plaintiffs' claims are not actionable because "manipulation of
spot rates in the OTC market cannot form the basis of a CEA claim
because such rates and markets fall outside the CEA's purview."
Second, the NSDs argue that the TAC insufficiently pleads viable
CEA claims under any theory. Third, the NSDs argued that any
claims based on transactions made on foreign-based exchanges are
not actionable because Congress did not intend for the CEA to
apply extraterritorially.  Finally, the NSDs argued that the CEA
claims against new defendants are time barred because the
plaintiffs did not bring any claims against these entities until
they filed the SAC on July 31, 2015.

Judge Schofield found that the TAC sufficiently pleads CEA
violations based on manipulated prices on FX exchanges, and that
the Exchange Class's CEA claims are not barred by 7 U.S.C. section
2(c)(1).

Judge Schofield also found that the TAC's factual allegations are
sufficient to plead claims under the CEA even under Rule 9(b).
The judge explained that Rule 9(b) is applicable to the case
because the TAC's allegations clearly sound in fraud,
notwithstanding the plaintiffs' attempt to cast its claims as
alleging abuse of market power.

Judge Schofield further found that the TAC adequately pleads a
claim for manipulation under CEA sections 9(a) and 22(a), and that
the TAC adequately pleads the defendants' ability to influence
market prices for FX futures and options by alleging that the
defendants collectively controlled over 90% of the FX spot market.
"The TAC plausibly pleads both that artificial prices existed on
FX exchanges and that this artificiality was caused by Defendants'
actions . . .  The TAC pleads that Defendants specifically
intended to cause artificial prices on FX exchanges", the judge
said.

The NSDs' motion to dismiss was also granted with respect to the
Exchange Plaintiffs' false reporting claims but denied as to the
fraud-based manipulation claims.  The judge pointed out that the
plaintiffs have not identified any market report or market
information concerning the FX markets.

The NSDs' motion to dismiss was denied as to the Exchange Class's
principal-agent liability claims.  Judge Schofield said that
nothing in the TAC suggests that any trader was operating outside
the scope of his employment when engaging in the alleged conduct.
To the contrary, the TAC alleged conduct by traders "acting for"
the benefit of their respective employers/banks.  "Nothing more is
required to plead a claim for principal-agent liability," said the
judge.

The motion to dismiss the TAC's aiding and abetting claims under
the CEA was also denied.  Judge Schofield found that the TAC
adequately pleads that each defendant, through its employee chat
participants, knowingly associated with (and participated in) a
venture to manipulate prices with the desire that the venture
would succeed.

The NSDs argued that the plaintiffs' claims arising out of
transactions on foreign-based exchanges should be dismissed
because the CEA does not apply extraterritorially.  Judge
Schofield held that this argument is correct, and the surviving
CEA claims are limited to exclude such transactions.

Finally, Judge Schofield rejected the new defendants' argument
that the CEA claims against them are time barred under the CEA's
limitations period, which provides that private actions under the
CEA "shall be brought not later than two years after the date the
cause of action arises."  The judge explained that, as with the
plaintiffs' antitrust claims, the statute of limitations for the
CEA claims was tolled as a result of the defendants' fraudulent
concealment of the conspiracy.

In summary, the NSDs' motion was granted with respect to:

     -- Plaintiffs' antitrust claims based on transactions
        executed on foreign exchanges;

     -- Plaintiffs' antitrust claims based on transactions
        between U.S.-domiciled OTC Plaintiffs (operating outside
        the United States) and a foreign desk of a defendant;

     -- Plaintiffs' claims (antitrust and CEA) based on
        transactions executed before December 1, 2007;

     -- Exchange Plaintiffs' CEA false reporting claims; and

     -- Exchange Plaintiffs' CEA claims arising out of
        transactions conducted on foreign exchanges.

The motion was denied as to all other claims.

A full-text copy of Judge Schofield's September 20, 2016 opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/pi76ST from Leagle.com.

Haverhill Retirement System, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
M. Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- Scott Scott, LLP, pro hac
vice.

Haverhill Retirement System, Plaintiff, represented by Donald A.
Broggi -- dbroggi@scott-scott.com -- Scott Scott, L.L.P., Joseph
Peter Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- Scott + Scott,
L.L.P., Kristen M. Anderson -- kanderson@scott-scott.com -- Scott
Scott, LLP, pro hac vice, Noah Smith-Drelich --
nsmithdrelich@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery, LLC, pro hac
vice, Robert E. Litan -- rlitan@koreintillery.com -- Korein
Tillery LLC, Walter W. Noss -- wnoss@scott-scott.com -- Scott
Scott LLP, pro hac vice, William P. Butterfield --
wbutterfield@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Aaron M. Zigler --
azigler@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery, Alexander Dewitt
Singh Kullar, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP,
Allan Steyer -- asteyer@steyerlaw.com -- Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, C. Moze Cowper, Cowper Law,
Christopher L. Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeldllp.com -- Hausfeld
LLP, Daniel Jay Mogin, The Mogin Law Firm P.C., pro hac vice,
George A. Zelcs -- gzelcs@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery,
LLC, Gregory Bradley Linkh, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Hilary
Kathleen Scherrer, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, Jayne
A. Peeters, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith
LLP,Jennifer Janine Scott, ScottScott, Attorneys At Law, LLP, Lee
Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld,
Hausfeld, LLP, pro hac vice,Peter Anthony Barile, III, ScottScott,
Attorneys At Law, LLP, Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Korein Tillery, LLC,
Reena Gambhir, Hausfeld, LLP, pro hac vice,Renae Diane Steiner,
Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Richard M. Elias, Elias Gutzler
Spicer LLC, pro hac vice, Robert L. King, Korein Tillery
LLC,Stephanie Ann Hacket, ScottScott, Attorneys At Law, LLP,
Steven M. Berezney, Korein Tillery, LLC, pro hac vice, Sylvia
Sokol, Scott + Scott, L.L.P.,Thomas Kay Boardman, Scott + Scott,
L.L.P. & William Curtis Fredericks, Scott + Scott, L.L.P..

Value Recovery Fund LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J.
Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld,
Hausfeld, LLP, Robert N. Cappucci, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP,
Thomas Kay Boardman, Scott + Scott, L.L.P., Vincent Roger
Cappucci, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP & Christopher M. Burke, Scott
Scott, LLP.

Augustus International Master Fund, L.P., Plaintiff, represented
by Andrew J. Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Robert N.
Cappucci, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP & Vincent Roger Cappucci,
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP.

State-Boston Retirement System, Plaintiff, represented by Michael
D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld, LLP, Thomas Kay Boardman, Scott + Scott,
L.L.P. &Christopher M. Burke, Scott Scott, LLP.
The City of Philadelphia, Board of Pensions and Retirement,
Plaintiff, represented by Angela L. Baglanzis, Obermayer Rebmann
Maxwell & Hippel LLP, John Elliott Sindoni, Boni & Zack LLC, pro
hac vice, Joshua D. Snyder, BONI & ZACK LLC, Michael J. Boni, Boni
& Zack LLC, pro hac vice, Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld, LLP,
Rigel Caitlin Farr, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, pro
hac vice, Thomas Kay Boardman, Scott + Scott, L.L.P.,William
Leonard, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP & Christopher M.
Burke, Scott Scott, LLP.

Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Alexander Dewitt Singh Kullar, Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Gregory Bradley Linkh, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Jayne A. Peeters, Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld,
LLP, Sylvia Sokol, Scott + Scott, L.L.P., Thomas Kay Boardman,
Scott + Scott, L.L.P. & Christopher M. Burke, Scott Scott, LLP.

Tiberius OC Fund, Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Michael D.
Hausfeld, Hausfeld, LLP, Thomas Kay Boardman, Scott + Scott,
L.L.P. & Christopher M. Burke, Scott Scott, LLP.

Aureus Currency Fund, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Solomon B.
Cera, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, pro hac vice, Michael
Benjamin Eisenkraft, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C.,
Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld, LLP,Thomas Kay Boardman, Scott +
Scott, L.L.P. & Christopher M. Burke, Scott Scott, LLP.

Employees' Retirement System of Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority, Plaintiff, represented by Fei-Lu Qian, Wolf Popper LLP,
Marian Rosner, Wolf Popper LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld,
LLP, Patricia I. Avery, Wolf Popper LLP, Thomas Kay Boardman,
Scott + Scott, L.L.P. & Christopher M. Burke, Scott Scott, LLP.

Syena Global Emerging Markets Fund, LP, Plaintiff, represented by
Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Peter Anthony Barile,
III, Scott+Scott, Attorneys At Law, LLP, Robert Gerard Eisler,
Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld, LLP, Thomas
Kay Boardman, Scott + Scott, L.L.P. & Christopher M. Burke, Scott
Scott, LLP.

J. Paul Antonello, Marc G. Frederighi, Thomas Gramatis, Doug
Harvey, Izee Trading Company, John Kerstein, Michael Melissinos,
Robert Miller, Peter Rives, Michael J. Smith, Jeffrey Sterk,
Kimberly Sterk, Systrax Corporation, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher M. Burke, Scott Scott, LLP & Michael D. Hausfeld,
Hausfeld, LLP.

Mark Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Burke, Scott
Scott, LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld, LLP & Christopher M.
Burke, Scott Scott, LLP.

Richard Preschern dba Preschern Trading, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher M. Burke, Scott Scott, LLP & Michael D. Hausfeld,
Hausfeld, LLP.

John Nypl, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food
Industry Employers Tri-state Pension Fund, Consolidated Plaintiff,
represented byGeoffrey Milbank Horn, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen &
Hart, P.C., Gerald Lawrence, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, PC,
Peter Dexter St. Phillip, Jr., Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart,
P.C., Raymond Peter Girnys, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C.,
Vincent Briganti, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., Barbara J.
Hart, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., Michael D. Hausfeld,
Hausfeld, LLP, Thomas Kay Boardman, Scott + Scott, L.L.P.
&Christopher M. Burke, Scott Scott, LLP.

City of Providence, Rhode Island, Consolidated Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Neil Taylor, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Anthony F.
Fata, Cafferty Faucher LLP, pro hac vice, Bryan Lee Clobes,
Cafferty Faucher LLP, pro hac vice, David E. Kovel, Kirby
McInerney LLP, James Christopher Bradley, Richardson, Patrick,
Westbrook & Brickman, LLC, pro hac vice, Jennifer Winter Sprengel,
Miller, Faucher and Cafferty, L.L.P., Karen L. Morris, Morris &
Morris, LLC, Lauren Wagner Pederson, Kirby McInerney LLP,Patrick
F. Morris, Morris and Morris LLC Counselors at Law, Patrick
Francis Morris, Morris and Morris LLC Counselors at Law, pro hac
vice, Richard Michael Lindsey, Morris and Morris LLC Counselors At
Law, pro hac vice,Thomas W. Elrod, Kirby McInerney, LLP & Karen M.
Lerner, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Steve Leaven, John Burnside, Consolidated Plaintiffs, represented
by Anthony F. Fata, Cafferty Faucher LLP, pro hac vice, Bryan Lee
Clobes, Cafferty Faucher LLP, pro hac vice, David E. Kovel, Kirby
McInerney LLP, Jennifer Winter Sprengel, Miller, Faucher and
Cafferty, L.L.P., Karen L. Morris, Morris & Morris, LLC,Lauren
Wagner Pederson, Kirby McInerney LLP, Patrick F. Morris, Morris
and Morris LLC Counselors at Law, Patrick Francis Morris, Morris
and Morris LLC Counselors at Law, pro hac vice, Richard Michael
Lindsey, Morris and Morris LLC Counselors At Law, pro hac vice &
Thomas W. Elrod, Kirby McInerney, LLP.

Jeffrey Sterk, Kimberly Sterk, Michael Melissinos, Consolidated
Plaintiffs, represented by Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group,
P.C..

Nasser Bakizada, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Daniel H.
Silverman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, George
Fuad Farah, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, J. Douglas
Richards, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, Manuel Juan
Dominguez, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Michael Benjamin
Eisenkraft, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C..

Robert L. Teel, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Leslie Scot
Wybiral, Louis F. Burke PC & Louis Fox Burke, Louis F. Burke PC.

Robert Charles Class A, L.P., Consolidated Plaintiff, represented
by James Christopher Bradley, Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook &
Brickman, LLC, pro hac vice, Leslie Scot Wybiral, Louis F. Burke
PC & Louis Fox Burke, Louis F. Burke PC.

Fresno County Employees Retirement Association, Movant,
represented byTodd Seaver, Berman,DeValerio, Jessica Moy, Berman
Devalerio, Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Berman, DeValerio, Pease,
Tabacco, Burt & Pucillo, Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld, LLP, Sarah
Khorasanee McGrath, Berman Devalerio,Thomas Kay Boardman, Scott +
Scott, L.L.P. & Christopher M. Burke, Scott Scott, LLP.

Barclays Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by David Harold Braff,
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jeffrey T. Scott, Sullivan and
Cromwell, LLP, Kathleen Suzanne McArthur, Sullivan & Cromwell,
LLP, Matthew Alexander Schwartz, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yvonne
Susan Quinn, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP.

Citigroup, Inc., Citigroup, N.A., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.,
represented by Alan M. Wiseman, Covington & Burling, L.L.P., pro
hac vice, Andrew D. Lazerow, Covington & Burling, L.L.P., pro hac
vice & Andrew Arthur Ruffino, Covington & Burling LLP.

Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Defendants, represented by David George Januszewski, Cahill Gordon
& Reindel LLP, Elai E. Katz, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Herbert
Scott Washer, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Jason Michael Hall,
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP & Sheila Chithran Ramesh, Cahill
Gordon & Reindel LLP.

Deutsche Bank AG, Defendant, represented by Joseph Serino, Jr.,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, David George Januszewski, Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP, Eric Foster Leon, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, George
Patrick Montgomery, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & Robert S.
Khuzami, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association,
Defendants, represented by Peter Edward Greene, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom Llp, Boris Bershteyn, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, Patrick Joseph Fitzgerald, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP & Peter S. Julian, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC, Defendant, represented by
Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Greg Donald Andres, Davis
Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., Joel Murray Cohen, Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P., Jennifer Kan, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Lewis Charles
Shioleno, Davis Polk & Wardwell & Melissa Carrie King, Davis Polk
& Wardwell LLP.

UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC, Defendants, represented by David
Jarrett Arp, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Peter Sullivan, Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Joel Steven Sanders, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP, Joshua H. Soven, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro
hac vice & Melanie L. Katsur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac
vice.

Barclays Capital Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew Alexander
Schwartz, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Defendants,
represented by Elizabeth Vicens, Cleary Gottlieb, George S. Cary,
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Leah Brannon, Cleary
Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Thomas J. Moloney, Cleary Gottlieb
& Victor L. Hou, Cleary Gottlieb.

Morgan Stanley, Defendant, represented by Bradley Reid Wilson,
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, David George Januszewski, Cahill
Gordon & Reindel LLP, John David Tortorella, Marino Tortorella &
Boyle, P.C., Jonathan M. Moses, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz &
Kevin H. Marino, Marino Tortorella & Boyle, P.C..

RBS Securities, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel Murray Cohen,
Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., Jennifer Kan, Davis Polk & Wardwell
& Melissa Carrie King, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.

Bank of America, N.A., Bank Of America Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Adam Selim Hakki, Shearman & Sterling LLP, Richard
Franklin Schwed, Shearman & Sterling LLP & Jeffrey Jason
Resetarits, Shearman & Sterling LLP.

Credit Suisse AG, Defendant, represented by David George
Januszewski, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Elai E. Katz, Cahill
Gordon & Reindel LLP,Herbert Scott Washer, Cahill Gordon & Reindel
LLP, Jason Michael Hall, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP & Sheila
Chithran Ramesh, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP.

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Andrew Corydon Finch, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP,
Kenneth Anthony Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP, Michael E. Gertzman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP, Anand Sithian, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP,
David George Januszewski, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Maxwell
Arlie Halpern Kosman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison &
Noam Lerer, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Defendant, represented by James P.
McLoughlin, Jr., Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, Neil Thomas Bloomfield,
Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, David George Januszewski, Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP, Joshua D. Lanning, Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, pro hac
vice & Mark A. Nebrig, Moore & Van Allen, PLLC.

Societe Generale S.A., Defendant, represented by James Robert
Warnot, Jr., Linklaters, LLP, Adam Samuel Lurie, Linklaters, LLP,
David George Januszewski, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Katherine
Zupan Machan, Linklaters, LLP & Patrick Coby Ashby, Linklaters,
LLP.

Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph
Serino, Jr., Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Eric Foster Leon, Kirkland &
Ellis LLP & Robert S. Khuzami, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc,
Defendants, represented by Jonathan M. Moses, Wachtell, Lipton,
Rosen & Katz, Bradley Reid Wilson, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz,
David George Januszewski, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, John David
Tortorella, Marino Tortorella & Boyle, P.C. & Kevin H. Marino,
Marino Tortorella & Boyle, P.C..

BNP Paribas North America, BNP Paribas Group, Consolidated
Defendants, represented by John Terzaken, Allen & Overy Llp, pro
hac vice & Laura Rose Hall, Allen & Overy, LLP.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Consolidated Defendant,
represented by Greg Donald Andres, Davis Polk & Wardwell.

The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, Consolidated Defendant,
represented byArthur J. Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Greg Donald
Andres, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., Jennifer Kan, Davis Polk &
Wardwell, Joel Murray Cohen, Davis Polk & Wardwell & Melissa
Carrie King, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.

Citibank N.A., Consolidated Defendant, represented by Alan M.
Wiseman, Covington & Burling, L.L.P., pro hac vice, Andrew D.
Lazerow, Covington & Burling, L.L.P., pro hac vice, Andrew Arthur
Ruffino, Covington & Burling LLP & Thomas A. Isaacson, Covington &
Burling, L.L.P., pro hac vice.

HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Edwin R. Deyoung, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP & Gregory
Thomas Casamento, Locke Lord LLP.

Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Bradley Reid Wilson, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Jonathan M.
Moses, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Keia Denise Cole, Wachtell
Lipton Rosen & Katz, John David Tortorella, Marino Tortorella &
Boyle, P.C. & Kevin H. Marino, Marino Tortorella & Boyle, P.C..

HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC North America Holdings,
Inc., ADR Providers, represented by Edwin R. Deyoung, Locke Lord
Bissell & Liddell LLP, James Matthew Goodin, Locke Lord LLP,
Gregory Thomas Casamento, Locke Lord LLP, Julia C. Webb, Locke
Lord LLP & Roger Brian Cowie, Locke, Liddell & Sapp, L.L.P..

HSBC Bank USA, N.A., ADR Provider, represented by Edwin R.
Deyoung, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, James Matthew Goodin,
Locke Lord LLP,Gregory Thomas Casamento, Locke Lord LLP, Julia C.
Webb, Locke Lord LLP & Roger Brian Cowie, Locke, Liddell & Sapp,
L.L.P..

Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin
Islands, Interested Party, represented by Christopher M. Burke,
Scott Scott, LLP &Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld, LLP.

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Interested
Party, represented by William P. Butterfield, Hausfeld LLP,
Christopher M. Burke, Scott Scott, LLP, Jennifer Janine Scott,
ScottScott, Attorneys At Law, LLP,Stephanie Ann Hacket,
ScottScott, Attorneys At Law, LLP, Stephen M. Tillery, Korein
Tillery, LLC, pro hac vice & William Curtis Fredericks, Scott +
Scott, L.L.P..

Doris Sue Allen, Interested Party, represented by J. Ross Wallin,
Grais & Ellsworth LLP, James Brian McTigue, Mctigue Law LLP &
Regina Mary Markey, Mctigue Law LLP.

Neil Taylor, Interested Party, represented by Karen M. Lerner,
Kirby McInerney LLP.

Donna S. Lucas, Interested Party, represented by James Brian
McTigue, Mctigue Law LLP & Regina Mary Markey, Mctigue Law LLP.

Eduardo Negrete, Gervasio Negrete, Interested Parties, represented
by Blaine Howell Bortnick, Liddle & Robinson, LLP & James William
Halter, Liddle & Robinson, LLP.


BB&T CORP: Faces "Sheffield" Lawsuit Under FLSA, N.C. Wage Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
RUBY SHEFFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BB&T Corporation, Branch Banking and Trust
Company, and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 7:16-cv-332
(E.D.N.C., September 23, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, interest and costs, including attorneys' fees
and costs, as a result of BB&T's alleged willful violation of: the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the North Carolina Wage and Hour
Act.

Branch Banking and Trust Company is a commercial bank.  Branch
Banking and Trust provides banking products and services,
including consumer loans, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of BB&T
Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

    Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
    WHITFIELD, BRYSON, & MASON
    900 W. Morgan Street
    Raleigh, NC 27603
    Phone: (919)600-5000
    E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com

       - and -

    William F. Cash III, Esq.
    Brandon L. Bogle, Esq.
    LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
    316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
    Pensacola, FL 32502
    Phone: (850) 435-7059
    E-mail: bcash@levinlaw.com
            bbogle@levinlaw.com

       - and -

    David H. Grounds, Esq.
    Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
    Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
    Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
    JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
    444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
    St. Paul, MN 55101
    Phone: (612) 436-1800
    Fax: (612) 436-1801
    E-mail: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
            jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
            tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
            mnephew@johnsonbecker.com


BIMBO BAKERIES: Misclassifies Distributors, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Bimbo Bakeries misclassifies
its distributors as independent contractors to cheat them of
overtime pay, a class action claims in Tucson Federal Court.


BRINK'S INC: Ceron Files Appeal From Ruling in "Belew" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Dorian Ceron filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Timothy Belew, et al. v. Brink's, Incorporated,
Case No. 3:14-cv-01748-JAH-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on May 5,
2014, Timothy Belew initiated a class action against Brinks in San
Diego County Superior Court.  The Belew Suit was later District
Court.  The Belew Suit asserts claims against Brinks for failure
to pay all overtime wages, failure to provide complete and
accurate wage statements, and failure to pay wages at termination.

The appellate case is captioned as Timothy Belew, et al. v.
Brink's, Incorporated, Case No. 16-56376, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 17, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on November 15, 2016;

   -- Appellant Dorian Ceron's opening brief is due on
      December 27, 2016;

   -- Appellees Timothy Belew and Brink's, Incorporated's
      answering brief is due on January 27, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Objector-Appellant DORIAN CERON is represented by:

          Paul Keith Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 E. Maple Avenue, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN, LLP
          222 N Sepulveda Blvd.
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 322-2220
          E-mail: fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com

Plaintiff-Appellee TIMOTHY BELEW, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Alisa Ann Martin, Esq.
          AMARTIN LAW
          600 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 308-6880
          Facsimile: (619) 308-6881
          E-mail: alisa@amartinlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee BRINK'S, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation,
is represented by:

          Timothy L. Johnson, Esq.
          Jonathan Liu, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Santa Maria, Esq.
          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          E-mail: tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com
                  jonathan.liu@ogletreedeakins.com
                  jennifer.santamaria@ogletreedeakins.com
                  spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com


CAREGIVERS FOR INDEPENDENCE: Faces "Lee" Lawsuit Pursuant to FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BOBBI LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; Plaintiff, vs. CAREGIVERS FOR INDEPENDENCE, LLC,
JAMES COUCH, PHYLLIS COUCH and JAMES COUCH, II, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00946-MRB (S.D. Ohio, September 23, 2016), alleges
non-payment of overtime work in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

CAREGIVERS FOR INDEPENDENCE is a company providing caregivers for
special needs individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Kimble, Esq.
     KIMBLE LAW, LLC
     1675 Old Henderson Road
     Columbus, OH 43220
     Phone: (614) 983-0361
     Fax: (614) 448-9408
     E-mail: andrew@kimblelawoffice.com

        - and -

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


CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Lawyer Responds to Female Partners' Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivia Chen, writing for The Careerist, reports that the Chadbourne
& Parke gender discrimination case isn't quieting down.

Fourteen female partners at Chadbourne publicly chided
David Sanford -- dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- for bringing a
class action for gender discrimination. (Sanford is representing
Chadbourne partner Kerrie Campbell.) The 14 women wrote a letter
to Sanford in which they lambasted him for being "patronizing and
patriarchal" in filing a class action without contacting them
first.

On Sept. 15, Sanford issued a retort.  In an "open letter,"
Sanford addressed their complaints, rebutting their claim they
were pressed into the litigation against their will. I won't go
into all his arguments, but let's look at the issue that triggered
the "patronizing and patriarchal" charge from the Chadbourne women
in the first place.

Sanford writes in his rebuttal letter that he made no effort to
contact women about the class action, because "many states,
including New York, where the complaint was filed, prohibit
lawyers from soliciting clients with whom they have no prior
relationship."  He goes on to say "our unsolicited contact with
any of you arguably would have violated the legal ethics rules
that we strictly follow as responsible attorneys."

It all sounds very sober and reasonable, but is it true? I asked
my old law professor Stephen Gillers of NYU School of Law, and
this is what he says: "Solicitation is forbidden in New York only
if it is telephonic or 'real time' or interactive," but it is "not
forbidden if it is by mail, express mail, or email."

Mr. Gillers, in fact, says he finds it "odd" that in a case with
such a small class, unlike class actions with thousands of
potential plaintiffs, "why [Sanford] -- or his client -- did not
think to ask the other women to join as parties."  Besides,
Mr. Gillers adds, "his client would not have been bound by the
rule's prohibition of in-person solicitation."

In other words, all this high-minded talk about being ethically
constrained in contacting the other Chadbourne partners is a bit
misleading, if not bogus.  Why didn't Sanford just email the women
in the first place?

"Maybe he didn't understand the rule before he filed and wrongly
thought that he could not even email or snail mail the women,"
offers Mr. Gillers.

Well, I'm not sure I believe that.  By all accounts, Sanford is a
smart, experienced lawyer.  Most likely, he wants to sweep
everyone into a class to make a big splash.

But does any of this matter? As Sanford correctly points out in
his letter, the women are free to opt out.

Sanford could have -- and maybe should have -- contacted the other
women.  But did he act in a "patronizing and patriarchal" fashion?
Well, I find that to be a stretch.

It's a lot of posturing on both sides.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Suit Over Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a shareholder class action
claims Chesapeake Energy propped up its stock price with false and
misleading statements, in Oklahoma City Federal Court.


CLIFFS NATURAL: Brown Files Another Appeal in Treasury Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff M. Brown filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and
its Division of Investment v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01031-DAP, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 26,
2016, Objector Jeff M. Brown filed an appeal from an order and
judgment entered by the District Court on June 30, 2016.  That
appellate case is captioned as The Dept. of the Treasury etc., et
al. v. Jeff M. Brown, Case No. 16-3405, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 28, 2016, Cliffs Natural said that the parties
have settled the Original Case for $84 million and the Original
Case was dismissed on June 30, 2016.

As amended, the Original Case asserted violations of the federal
securities laws based on alleged false or misleading statements or
omissions during the period of March 14, 2012, to March 26, 2013,
regarding operations at the Company's Bloom Lake mine in Quebec,
Canada, and the impact of those operations on the Company's
finances and outlook, including sustainability of the dividend.
According to the complaint, the alleged misstatements caused the
Company's common shares to trade at artificially inflated prices.

The appellate case is captioned as Department of the Treasury of
the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment, on Behalf
of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Cliffs Natural
Resources Inc., et al., and Jeff M. Brown, Movant-Appellant, Case
No. 16-4096, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellee's Appearance of Counsel is due on October 11,
      2016;

   -- Disclosure of Corporate Affiliation is due by October 11,
      2016; and

   -- Application for Admission to 6th Circuit Bar (if
      applicable) is due by October 11, 2016.

Plaintiff-Appellee The Department of the Treasury of the State of
New Jersey and its Division of Investment, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
          CLIMACO, WILCOX, PECA, TARANTINO & GAROFOLI CO., LPA
          55 Public Square, Suite 1950
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 621-8484
          Facsimile: (216) 771-1632
          E-mail: sdsimp@climacolaw.com


COLLECTO INC: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in Annunziato
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York granted Plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment and denied Defendant's cross motion for
partial summary judgment in the case captioned, DAVID ANNUNZIATO,
Plaintiff, v. COLLECTO, INC., doing business as EOS CCA,
Defendant, Case No. 12-CV-3609 (ADS)(AKT)(E.D.N.Y.)

The case is a class action consisting of 331 former students of
the New York Institute of Technology (NYIT) who received letters
from the Defendant Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS CCA, in
an effort to collect overdue tuition payments and purported
collection fees. The named Plaintiff David Annunziato, on behalf
of himself and the absent class members, asserts that these
letters violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection
Practice Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. (the FDCPA).  He
alleges that the Defendant violated the FDCPA by sending him and
other former students of NYIT collection letters attempting to
collect "Fees/Coll Costs" equal to 42% of the principal balances
left on their accounts in tuition costs. The class seeks to
recover statutory damages; attorneys' fees; litigation expenses
and costs; and declaratory relief.

On August 9, 2013, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion
pursuant to Rule 15 to file an amended complaint. It also granted
the Plaintiff's motion pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) to certify a
class action. However, it amended the Plaintiff's proposed class
of  " (a) all individuals who have mailing addresses within New
York State; (b) who within one year before the filing of this
action; (c) were sent a collection letter in a form materially
identical or substantially similar to the form letter sent by the
Defendant to the Plaintiff; (d) regarding a debt that was time-
barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (e) and
containing a collection fee that they had not previously
authorized by entering into an agreement with NY Tech; (f) which
was not returned by the postal service as undelivered"  which was
granted by the Court on October 15, 2013.

On March 22, 2013, the Court approved the Plaintiff's proposed
class notice and a list of class members consisting of 464
individuals. Subsequently, on March 25, 2012, the Defendant moved
for reconsideration to exclude certain individuals from the class
who it alleged authorized the collection costs listed in the
Defendant's letters. On April 12, 2014, the Court denied the
Defendant's motion because it found that the Defendant "failed to
provide any evidence demonstrating that any of the 464 individuals
who received the subject form letter agreed to the 42.85%
collection fee."

Before the Court is a motion by the named Plaintiff pursuant to
Federal Rule Civil Procedure (Rule) 56 for summary judgment on the
issue of liability. He also seeks a ruling from the Court
establishing the Defendant's "net worth" as $65,680,444.00 for the
purpose of calculating damages.

Also before the Court is a cross motion by the Defendant for
partial summary judgment dismissing the claims of the class
members who allegedly entered into so-called registration
agreements with NYIT regarding the imposition of collection fees.

In his Memorandum of Decision and Order dated September 19, 2016
available at https://is.gd/qceD7x from Leagle.com, Judge Spatt
granted the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to the
class members' Section 1692e claims finding that there are no
genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Defendant's
collection letters to the class members violated Section 1692e and
that Defendant has failed to raise a genuine issue of material
fact as to liability under Section 1692f(1). As to Defendant's
"net worth" the Court found that there is no genuine issue of
material fact that the Defendant's "net worth" is $65,680,440
therefore granting $500,000 as the maximum amount of statutory
damages that the class is entitled to under the FDCPA.

David Annunziato is represented by Brian L. Bromberg, Esq. --
brian@bromberglawoffice.com -- BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.  He is
also represented by:

      Joseph Mauro, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH MAURO, LLC
      14 Monarch Bay Plz #381
      Monarch Beach, CA 92629

Collecto, Inc. is represented by Michael Anthony Carbone, Esq. --
mcarbone@znclaw.com -- Sabato Pellegrino Fiano, Esq. --
ldasilva-fiano@znclaw.com -- and Dominic Spinelli, Esq. --
dspinelli@znclaw.com -- ZELDES, NEEDLE AND COOPER


COMCAST: Responds to Washington AG's Lawsuit Over Service Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Bowermaster, writing for GeekWire, reports that two months
after Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a $100
million lawsuit accusing Comcast of 1.8 million violations of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act, the company has fired back in
a combative court filing.

In a motion filed in King County Superior Court in Seattle late on
Sept. 30, Comcast called the attorney general's lawsuit a
"profound mischaracterization of Comcast's actual business
practices" and called on Judge Timothy Bradshaw to dismiss the
case.

"The complaint consistently ignores the evidence the Attorney
General gathered during a multi-year investigation, repeatedly
misstates the true facts, and -- most pertinent to this motion --
fails to identify any unfair or deceptive conduct even on the
facts as alleged," Comcast argued.

The stakes for Comcast are high and extend well beyond Washington
state.  The two Comcast offerings at the heart of the lawsuit --
its Customer Guarantee and the Service Protection Plan -- are
provided nationally.  Comcast is the country's largest cable
company with more than 22 million television subscribers and
nearly 24 million Internet subscribers.

A class-action lawsuit similar to the Washington state case was
filed in September in federal court in Missouri, and attorneys
general in other states also have been looking at the issues
raised in Washington.

At the heart of the dispute is Comcast's "Customer Guarantee,"
which applies to all subscribers, and its Service Protection Plan,
which is sold for $4.99 per month as an optional method for
customers to cover service call charges related to XFINITY TV,
Internet and phone services.  From January 2011 to June 2016, more
than 500,000 Washington consumers paid more than $73 million in
subscription fees for the plan, according to the attorney
general's lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that Comcast marketed the Service Protection
Plan to customers as a "comprehensive" service plan that promised
to "cover all chargeable service calls for your XFINITY services
without additional service fees."

In fact, the lawsuit charges, the plan only covered "a narrow
scope of repairs," and many XFINITY customers ended up paying for
repairs and technicians' visits that they thought would have been
covered by the plan.

"Deception formed the core of Comcast's Service Protection sales
pitch," the lawsuit alleges.

Comcast flatly rejected the attorney general's accusations in its
motion to dismiss the case on Sept. 30 and argued the attorney
general had not included facts that backed up its charges. Comcast
said that more than 99 percent of service calls covered by the
Customer Guarantee and the Service Protection Plan are resolved
with no charge to the customer.

"The complaint offers little more than speculation about
hypothetical billing errors that the Attorney General does not
allege have actually occurred," Comcast wrote in its filing.  "And
even if those errors did occur, they would at most amount to
isolated breaches of contract, not unfair or deceptive practices
warranting a $3.6 billion legal complaint by the state's Attorney
General."

The $3.6 billion figure is a calculation based on the attorney
general's assertion of 1.8 million violations of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, multiplied by the potential fine per
violation of $2,000, according to a Comcast spokesperson.

The attorney general's lawsuit also alleges improprieties with
Comcast's credit screening policy. According to the suit, all new
Comcast customers must either pay a deposit to begin receiving
services, or undergo a credit screening process to determine if a
deposit is necessary.

"From January 2013 through January 2016, Comcast obtained a
deposit from over 6,000 Washington customers with credit scores
that were sufficient to avoid Comcast's deposit requirement,"
according to the suit.  "In addition, Comcast ran credit checks on
at least 91 Washington consumers over a day after they paid a
deposit to avoid the running of a credit check."

In its response on Sept. 30, Comcast said the attorney general
"does not allege that Comcast made any misrepresentations to those
6,000 customers" regarding their deposits and credit checks, "nor
are there any allegations of actual economic harm suffered by
individual customers from these various practices."

Comcast has assembled a formidable legal team to square off
against the Washington attorney general's office.

The company's lead attorney in Seattle is Mark Bartlett --
markbartlett@dwt.com -- of Davis, Wright, Tremaine, who spent 25
years in the U.S. Attorney's office in the Western District of
Washington, including 9 years as the first assistant U.S. Attorney
before joining Davis, Wright, Tremaine in 2011.

Additionally, Comcast has brought in six attorneys from
Washington, D.C. firm Wilmer Hale to help litigate the case,
including David Gringer, a former assistant attorney general at
the U.S. Department of Justice, and Matthew Martens, who served as
chief litigation counsel for the division of enforcement of the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Comcast has good reason to mount a vigorous defense of the
Washington state case, given the possibility of similar issues
getting raised in other lawsuits related to the Service Protection
Plan, such as the class-action lawsuit pending in Missouri.

There is also the possibility of new lawsuits by other state
attorneys general.

For instance, soon after the Washington state case was filed a
spokesman for the attorney general of Pennsylvania, where Comcast
is based, indicated that the office was reviewing the Washington
state filing.  The spokesman, Jeffrey A. Johnson, encouraged "any
Pennsylvania consumer with a similar complaint to contact the
Office of Attorney General's Bureau of Consumer Protection."

The Pennsylvania Attorney General at the time, Kathleen Kane,
subsequently resigned after she was found guilty of nine criminal
charges related to leaking information to the media about a 2009
grand jury probe as a way to get back at a political rival and
former state prosecutor.

Despite the tumult, Kane's successor, Pennsylvania Attorney
General Bruce Beemer, continues to monitor the Washington state
case.  "Our review is ongoing," Jeffrey Johnson said on Sept. 30.
Mr. Johnson reiterated his request for Pennsylvania customers with
concerns about the Service Protection Plan to contact the state
Attorney General's office.

Judge Bradshaw has scheduled a hearing on December 16 to hear oral
arguments on Comcast's motion to dismiss the case.  If the case
proceeds, it is scheduled to go to trial on July 31, 2017.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Rishell" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Computer Sciences Corporation filed an appeal from a
court ruling relating to the lawsuits styled George Rishell, et
al. v. Computer Sciences Corporation, Case Nos. 1:13-cv-00931-CMH-
TCB and 1:14-cv-00213-CMH-TCB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria.

The dispute arises from alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as George Rishell v. Computer
Sciences Corporation, Case No. 16-2085, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee GEORGE RISHELL, on his own behalf and on behalf
of those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Thomas Farrell Egge, Esq.
          1800 Diagonal Road
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 647-6033

               - and -

          Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com

               - and -

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          600 North Pine Island Road
          Plantation, FL 33321
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com

Defendant-Appellant COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, a Foreign
Profit Corporation, is represented by:

          Samuel Zurik, III, Esq.
          Robert Peter Lombardi, Esq.
          KULLMAN FIRM, PC
          1600 Energy Centre
          1100 Poydras Street
          P. O. Box 60118
          New Orleans, LA 70160-0000
          Telephone: (504) 524-4162
          Facsimile: (504) 596-4114
          E-mail: rpl@kullmanlaw.com
                  sz@kullmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas Jay Woodford, Esq.
          KULLMAN FIRM
          63 South Royal Street
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 432-1811
          E-mail: tjw@kullmanlaw.com


DAIGLE'S AUTO: Fails to Pay Drivers OT, "Whitman" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Whitman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Daigle's Auto & Body Repair, LLC and Neil
Daigle, Case No. 2:16-cv-14959 (E.D. La., September 26, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay their tow truck
drivers overtime and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Daigle's Auto & Body Repair, LLC operates an auto body shop and
towing business known as "Daigle's Auto & Body Repair, LLC" in
Labadieville, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DIAMOND RESORTS: Court Says Fields' Class Cert. Bid "Premature"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled STEPHEN FIELDS and DIANNE DEPIETRO,
Plaintiffs, v. DIAMOND RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., DIAMOND
RESORTS CORPORATION and DIAMOND RESORTS INTERNATIONAL MARKETING,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-1285-Orl-40TBS (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon Judge Thomas B. Smith entered an order granting
Defendants' unopposed motion for clarification of the effect of
the Court's Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Scheduling Order on
the Plaintiffs' pending motion to certify collective action

The Plaintiffs argue that the Court should proceed to adjudicate
their pending motion to certify as a class action even though the
time to engage in settlement negotiations as required by the
scheduling order has not expired. They contend that this is
consistent with FED. R. CIV. P. 1, and an earlier Order granting
Defendants an extension of time to respond to the class
certification motion.

As Magistrate Judge Kelly explained in a similar case "the FLSA
scheduling order expressly contemplates that a ruling on any
motion to conditionally certify notice to the putative collective
class may occur after the parties have attempted to settle the
matter . . ." Powers v. Brambles Industries, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-
1216-Orl-40GJK (M.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2016). The Court agrees
completely with Judge Kelly's analysis. Plaintiffs' motion to
certify collective action and to facilitate notice to potential
class members are therefore, denied without prejudice because it
is premature. The Plaintiffs may renew their motion after
complying with the procedures contained in the Scheduling Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sfhjC1G1


DOLE PACKAGED: 9th Cir. Revives Suit Over "All Natural" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
class claims that Dole Foods misleadingly touted its frozen
berries and fruit cups as "all natural" may proceed, the Ninth
Circuit ruled, reversing a district court's judgment in favor of
Dole.

Josh Schiller, with Boies, Schiller & Flexner in New York, said in
an interview that the decision was a "setback" for Dole.

Schiller represented Hampton Creek against similar false
advertising claims in March 2015 for its "Just Mayo" vegan spread,
although that lawsuit was ultimately dropped.

"Although the appeals court has allowed these claims to proceed,
the panel also limited the damages claims that the plaintiff was
trying to bring," Schiller said. "It is possible that this could
be the rare case that goes to trial and asks a jury to decide
whether the food packaging label is misleading."

Lead plaintiff Chad Brazil initially sued Dole Packaged Foods in
San Jose Federal Court in 2012.

Brazil claimed 38 Dole products labeled as "all natural fruit"
contained "synthetic ingredients," including ascorbic and citric
acid.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations require companies
to eschew the "all natural" tag, Brazil claimed, if a product
contains "unnatural ingredients such as added color, [or]
synthetic and artificial substances."

Brazil referenced a 12-ounce bag of Dole mixed fruit labeled "all
natural fruit," even though it contained ascorbic, citric and
malic acids, and added flavors.

Brazil, who says he spent more than $25 on Dole products, added
that the company's products were mislabeled because they contained
ingredients that precluded use of the term "natural."

Dole Food Co. was removed from the original lawsuit in June 2014.

Its frozen blueberries and smoothie shaker products, which Brazil
testified that he never purchased, were also dismissed.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh denied Brazil's request for a
nationwide class in 2014, but she allowed for a plaintiff class of
Californians who purchased Dole fruit products labeled "all
natural fruit," in April 2008 or later.
Dole and its subsidiaries and affiliates, governmental entities,
and the court involved were excluded from the class.

Brazil's narrowed lawsuit included 10 products: "(1) Tropical
Fruit (can), (2) Mixed Fruit (cup), (3) Diced Peaches, (4) Diced
Apples, (5) Diced Pears, (6) Mandarin Oranges, (7) Pineapple
Tidbits, (8) Red Grapefruit Sunrise, (9) Tropical Fruit (cup),
(10) Mixed Fruit (bag)."

In December 2014, Koh ruled that Dole's "all natural fruit" label
was not misleading to reasonable consumers under California's
unfair competition, false advertising and consumer legal remedies
laws.

Koh agreed with Dole that Brazil offered no evidence that citric
acid and ascorbic acid, the two allegedly synthetic ingredients
found in the challenged products, "would not normally be expected
to be in" those products.

"As binding Ninth Circuit precedent makes clear, 'a few isolated
examples of actual deception are insufficient' to survive summary
judgment," Koh wrote.

The Ninth Circuit partially reversed her decision on September 30.

The three-judge panel pointed to the FDA's informal definition of
"natural" from 1993, which judge Koh referenced in her ruling.
That definition specified that "natural" meant "that nothing
artificial or synthetic . . . has been included in, or has been
added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the
food."

But, the panel added, Brazil also cited recent FDA warning letters
to food sellers that described their products as "100 percent
natural" or "all natural," even though they contained synthetic
citric acid and other substances.

"Taken together, this evidence could allow a trier of fact to
conclude that Dole's description of its products as 'All Natural
Fruit' is misleading to a reasonable consumer," the 8-page
unpublished memorandum states.

"The evidence here -- including the conflicting testimony of
expert witnesses and Dole employees -- could also allow a trier of
fact to find that the synthetic citric and ascorbic acids in
Dole's products were not 'natural,'" the panel added.

But the appeals court backed the lower court's dismissal of
Brazil's claims against Dole for the sale of "illegal products"
because he referenced representations on the company's website
that he did not actually see before purchasing its products.

Nonetheless, Brazil is free to once more more take up his pursuit
to change Dole's product labels on behalf of a class as well as
his individual claims for restitution, the Ninth Circuit ruled.

U.S. Circuit Judges William Fletcher, Morgan Christen and Michelle
Friedland reviewed the appeal.

Dole representatives did not immediately respond to requests for
comment on October 3.

A separate lawsuit against Dole Foods also has been unanimously
revived by the Third Circuit.  In that suit, banana plantation
workers claimed the company, along with non-parties Chiquita and
Dow Chemicals, knowingly exposed them to a chemical that caused
cancer and sterility.

The case is captioned, CHAD BRAZIL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOLE
PACKAGED FOODS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-17480 (9th Cir.)


EAN HOLDINGS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Toering" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant EAN Holdings LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Bruce Toering v. EAN Holdings LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-02016-JCC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case was
originally filed in King County Superior Court, Case No. 15-00002-
28514-9, and was removed to the District Court.

EAN Holdings through its subsidiaries offers car rental and
vehicle leasing services.  The Company was founded in 1957 and is
based in Houston, Texas.  The Company operates as a subsidiary of
Enterprise Holdings, Inc.

The appellate case is captioned as Bruce Toering v. EAN Holdings
LLC, Case No. 16-80134, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Respondent BRUCE TOERING, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Adam Jared Berger, Esq.
          Martin Stanley Garfinkel, Esq.
          SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
          810 3rd Ave., Suite 500
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 622-8000
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2305
          E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com
                  garfinkel@sgb-law.com

               - and -

          Carson Flora, Esq.
          Dmitri Iglitzin, Esq.
          SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT LLP
          18 W Mercer St., Suite 400
          Seattle, WA 98119-3971
          Telephone: (206) 285-2828
          E-mail: flora@workerlaw.com
                  Iglitzin@workerlaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner EAN HOLDINGS LLC, a foreign corporation, is
represented by:

          Harry James Franklyn Korrell, III, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (SEA)
          1201 Third Avenue, Ste 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Telephone: (206) 622 3150
          E-mail: harrykorrell@dwt.com

               - and -

          Ryan Coby Hess, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          55 Second Street, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: ryanhess@paulhastings.com


ECOLAB INC: Class Certification Sought in "Campos" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JUAN CAMPOS, an individual, the Plaintiff,
v. ECOLAB INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-04829-DMR (N.D.
Cal.), Juan Campos and Eddie Gomez move the Court to certify:

   1. that the action is maintainable as a class action under
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(3);

   2. the class of persons described as:

      "Each and every person who has worked for Ecolab Inc. in
      California as a Route Sales Manager and/or Sales Service
      Route Manager at any time between August 22, 2012 and the
      trial of this action, except for such time period as may be
      covered by the release in the matter of Ross v. Ecolab,
      Inc., United States District Court for the Northern
      District of California case number C 13-05097 PJH (Putative
      Class)";

   3. the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action in
      Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint as appropriate for
      class action treatment; and

   4. the named Plaintiffs as the representatives of the
      Plaintiff class, and their counsel of record as counsel for
      the Plaintiff class.

Ecolab offers water, hygiene and energy technologies and services
that provide and protect clean water, safe food, abundant energy
and healthy environments.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3naYNW7g

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Strauss, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ellison, Esq.
          Rabiah A. Rahman, Esq.
          STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC
          121 North Fir Street, Suite F
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: (805) 641 6600
          Facsimile: (805) 641 6607
          E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com
                  andrew@strausslawyers.com
                  rabiah@strausslawyers.com


ELECTRANET: Needs to Replace Aging Transmission Lines
-----------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Puddy, writing for The Australian, reports that
South Australia's electricity network owner has admitted it needs
to spend more money on replacing and refurbishing South
Australia's ageing transmission lines.

ElectraNet executive manager Rainer Korte said on Oct. 2 the
company would submit a proposal to the national energy regulator
in January focusing on the replacement of some of the oldest
transmission networks assets in the National Electricity Market.

This expense would be recouped through household electricity
bills, with South Australians already paying the some of the
highest prices in the nation for electricity.  The company expects
to spend $86 million from 2019 to 2023 refurbishing transmission
lines, and a further $209m replacing old assets.

"We have identified the need to invest more in replacing or
refurbishing transmission line assets over the coming years,"
Mr. Korte told The Australian.

"This a key aspect of the revenue proposal that ElectraNet is
preparing to submit to the Australian Energy Regulator in January
2017.  It is important the AER responds positively to needs
identified in the revenue proposal."

The AER assesses the amount companies can recoup from its
customers for infrastructure investment.

Maurice Blackburn managing principal Tony Kerin said while
businesses across the state had suffered considerable losses, it
was unlikely they would pursue a class action against the
government or ElectraNet.  "Given the weather conditions, it's
unlikely but the question is: should there have been some kind of
back-up system in place?" Mr. Kerin said.

ElectraNet warned that another low headed towards SA could
threaten power supply, with only one of four transmission lines
forming the spine of the state's supply in operation.  A second
line would be back up by end of next weekend.

Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg continued his attack
against state Labor governments for their renewables targets,
warning they were compromising Australia's energy security and
pushing up prices for consumers.

Opposition energy spokesman Mark Butler said the storms leading to
the outage in South Australia constituted a "very serious and
dangerous event" and the breakdown had nothing to do with
renewable energy.


ENCORE RECEIVABLE: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Rosa" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Rosa filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Luis Rosa v. Encore Receivable Management Inc., Case No.
3-15-cv-02311, in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 13,
2016, Judge Michael A. Shipp granted Encore Receivable Management,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss the Case.  Luis Rosa filed the putative
class action against Encore alleging that it violated the Federal
Debt Collection Practices Act.  Specifically, Luis Rosa alleged
that Encore sent correspondence "to at least 50 natural persons in
the State of New Jersey" that deceived consumers into believing
that they could dispute their debt by either calling or writing to
Encore when in fact "a consumer can only make a legally effective
dispute by writing to the Defendant."

The appellate case is captioned as Luis Rosa v. Encore Receivable
Management Inc., Case No. 16-3694, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant LUIS ROSA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com
                  yzelman@marcuszelman.com

Defendant-Appellee ENCORE RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT INC. is
represented by:

          Peter Cipparulo, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER CIPPARULO, III, ESQ.
          349 Route 206, Suite K
          Hillsborough, NJ 08844
          Telephone: (908) 275-8777
          E-mail: petercipparulo@cipplaw.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Alston" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland granted Motions to Dismiss
filed by each of the four Defendants:

     -- Equifax Information Services, Inc. (Equifax),
     -- Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (Experian),
     -- Trans Union, LLC (Trans Union), and
     -- Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Assoc. (Wells Fargo)

in the case captioned, CANDACE ALSTON, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC, TRANSUNION,
LLC, and WELLS FARGO BANK, NAT'L ASSOC., Defendants, Case No. TDC-
15-3343 (D. Md.).

Plaintiff Candace Alston has filed a class action complaint
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15
U.S.C. Sections 1681-1681x (2012). On November 12, 2010, Alston
obtained a mortgage from Monarch Bank (Monarch) to purchase
property located at 7929 Mandan Road in Greenbelt, Maryland.
Although Wells Fargo informed her that it had acquired the
servicing and ownership of the loan, the promissory note was
endorsed to Bank of America. Skeptical of Wells Fargo's claims,
Alston sent her mortgage payments to Monarch, but Monarch did not
process her payments, with one exception. In August 2011, Alston
sent Monarch a cashier's check for $6,492.24, representing her
outstanding mortgage balance. Monarch endorsed the check and
forwarded it to Wells Fargo.

Beginning in January 2011, Alston began to dispute Wells Fargo's
right to service her loan. In July 2011, she began to dispute
Wells Fargo's reporting of her mortgage as past due. These
disputes formed the basis of Alston v. Wells Fargo, No. TDC-13-
3147, in which, as relevant here, Alston sued Wells Fargo for an
FCRA violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681s-2.

On February 26, 2016, the District Court granted summary judgment
to Wells Fargo on that claim. Alston bases her present claims
against Wells Fargo on the same facts that served as the basis for
that prior lawsuit.

Defendants removed the action to the Court on November 2, 2015. On
November 24, 2015, in response to Motions to Dismiss filed by
Defendants, Alston amended her Complaint, this time through
counsel. Alston styles her Amended Complaint as a class action and
alleges five causes of action: (1) a violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681s-2(b) by Wells Fargo; (2) a violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681e(a) by Wells Fargo and Equifax; (3) a violation of 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1681e(b) by Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union; (4) a
violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681i(a) by Equifax, Experian, and
Trans Union; and (5) a class action claim for a violation of 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1681i(b) by Equifax and Trans Union.

Since the filing of Wells Fargo's and Equifax's Motions to Dismiss
in this case, this Court has granted summary judgment to Wells
Fargo in Alston v. Wells Fargo, No. TDC-13-3147 and to Equifax in
Alston v. Equifax No. TDC-13-1230. In Alston v. Wells Fargo, the
Court determined that Wells Fargo validly held Alston's mortgage
loan. In both cases, the Court determined that during the period
that Wells Fargo serviced Alston's mortgage, Alston made no
payments to Wells Fargo, and her payments to Monarch were invalid
as a matter of law because each was conditioned on acceptance of
her secretly executed and unilateral Rider to the Deed of Trust, a
Rider that would have allowed Alston to discharge her mortgage in
its entirety.

Each Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Wells Fargo urges dismissal of
Alston's present claims based on the doctrine of claim splitting,
arguing that the claims she raises in this case all could have
been asserted in Alston v. Wells Fargo, No. TDC-13-3147. Equifax
urges dismissal of Alston's individual and class claims on the
theory that she cannot collaterally attack the validity of the
Wells Fargo mortgage through an FCRA claim and further seeks
dismissal of the class claim based on Alston's failure to satisfy
various requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated September 22, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/Nhk0WB from Leagle.com, Judge Chuang held that based
on the previous ruling of the Court in Alston v. Wells Fargo,
Alston is collaterally estopped from raising her present claims
against Wells Fargo and Equifax and for the same reason the Court
concluded that as to claims against Experian and Trans Union is
dismissed because the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes
the possibility that she could prevail.

As to Alston's motion for partial summary judgment, the court
denied the motion holding that she could not proceed with her
claims against Trans Union.

Candace Alston is represented by:

      Kevin L. Chapple, Esq.
      CHAPPLE LAW FIRM
      1211 Connecticut Avenue NW
      Suite 506
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 669-4014

Equifax Information Services, LLC is represented by Nathan Daniel
Adler, Esq. -- nda@nqgrg.com -- NEUBERGER QUINN GIELEN RUBIN AND
GIBBER PA -- Misty L. Peterson, Esq. -- mpeter@kslaw.com -- and
Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. -- zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- KING AND
SPALDING LLP

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is represented by Meredith
Sarah Campbell, Esq. -- mcampbell@shulmanrogers.com -- and Joy
Einstein, Esq. -- jeinstein@shulmanrogers.com -- SHULMAN ROGERS
GANDAL PORDY AND ECKER

Transunion, LLC is represented by Henry Mark Stichel, Esq. --
HMStichel@ghsllp.com -- GOHN HANKEY STICHEL & BERLAGE LLP -- and
Robert J. Schuckit, Esq. -- rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com -- SCHUCKIT
& ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Assoc. is represented by Charles S.
Hirsch, Esq. -- hirsch@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP


ERIC GARCETTI: Class Cert. Bid in "Yagman" Suit Denied for Now
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Stephen Yagman, the Plaintiff v. Eric
Garcetti, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-05944-GHK-E
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. King entered an order
denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for class
certification until the deadline set at the scheduling conference,
which will take place after all Defendants have been properly
served and have answered the Complaint or their defaults have been
entered.

According to the Court, the motion is denied for the following
reasons: First, despite Plaintiff's contentions, he clearly has
not complied with Local Rule 7-3 with respect to the filing of
this Motion. Plaintiff contends that there was an adequate Rule 7-
3 conference because he called Deputy City Attorney Gerald M. Sato
on August 8, 2016, a day before the Complaint was filed, to inform
Sato that "a motion for class certification would be made in this
action." Local Rule 7-3 requires that "counsel contemplating the
filing of any motion shall first contact opposing counsel to
discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the
contemplated motion and any potential resolution." As the
complaint had not been filed, Sato could not have been counsel for
any opposing party. Moreover, Plaintiff, who purports to be
represented by Joseph Reichmann, could not have engaged in the
Rule 7-3 conference by himself given that the Rule requires a
conference between the Parties' counsel.

Second, the motion is premature because not all of the Defendants
have been served. In fact, Plaintiff filed a proof of service as
to only one of the various Defendants in this action. Many
Defendants have had no ability or opportunity to weigh in on the
Motion. Certifying class claims against unserved Defendants would
highly prejudice those Defendants and likely violate their due
process rights.

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


FACEBOOK INC: Canada High Court to Hear Appeal on Nov. 4
--------------------------------------------------------
Sean Fine, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that a Supreme
Court stocked with newcomers heads into a challenging fall session
beginning on Oct. 5, featuring major cases on Internet regulation,
aboriginal rights and freedom of association.

The court will also tackle a high-profile criminal case in which
convicted murderer Dennis Oland seeks to be released on bail while
he appeals his conviction.  And a case on roadside testing of
drug-impaired drivers could help establish some ground rules for
the coming era of marijuana legalization.

The court has just two judges with more than five years of
experience on the court.  Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin joined
the court in 1989, and Justice Rosalie Abella was appointed in
2004.  Three judges have been named since 2014, and the court is
expecting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to pick a new judge soon
to replace Thomas Cromwell, a workhorse on a wide variety of cases
since 2008; he retired on Sept. 1. Six of the current eight judges
were appointed by former prime minister Stephen Harper.

In Douez v. Facebook, a Vancouver woman is seeking to certify a
class-action lawsuit against Facebook, saying the social-
networking company violates users' privacy by putting users in
advertisements without informing them.  Facebook argues that a
user's privacy settings give it implicit permission.  It also says
California is the designated jurisdiction for the case, raising
the question of whether B.C. courts have the authority to enforce
the province's privacy act to protect consumers.

The class action was certified by the B.C. Supreme Court, but
Facebook won on appeal at the B.C. Court of Appeal.  Deborah
Douez's appeal of that ruling will be heard by the Supreme Court
of Canada on Nov. 4.


FARMERS GROUP: Judge Approved $2MM Attorneys Fee in "Coates"
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San
Francisco, September 30, approved $2 million in attorney fees in a
class-action gender discrimination lawsuit, Lynne Coates et al. v.
Farmers Group.

The case is captioned, LYNNE COATES, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FARMERS GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants., Case No. 15-CV-01913-LHK
(N.D. Cal.)


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces "Ross" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Odus Ross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Sergio Marchionne,
Richard K. Palmer, and Reid Bigland, Case No. 2:16-cv-13468-RHC-
APP (E.D. Mich., September 26, 2016), alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and its subsidiaries engage in the
design, production and sale of automobiles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      101 North Main Street, Suite 565
      Ann Arbor, MI  48104
      Telephone: (734)769-2144
      Facsimile: (734) 769-1207
      E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com

         - and -

      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

FIFTH STREET: December 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The Following statement is being issued by Fifth Street Finance
Corp.:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

IN RE FIFTH STREET FINANCE CORP.
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION

Lead Case No. 3:15-cv-01795-RNC
(Consolidated with No. 3:15-cv-01889)

This Document Relates To:

                    All Actions

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION AND OF HEARING

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO HOLD OR BENEFICIALLY OWN, DIRECTLY
OR INDIRECTLY, COMMON STOCK OR SECURITIES OF FIFTH STREET FINANCE
CORPORATION AS OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2016

THIS NOTICE CONCERNS A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LAWSUIT AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION
ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS CONCERNING THE LAWSUIT.  THIS NOTICE IS NOT AN
EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION BY THE COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY
CLAIMS OR DEFENSES IN THE LAWSUIT.  THE STATEMENTS IN THIS NOTICE
ARE NOT FINDINGS OF THE COURT.

All Fifth Street Finance Corporation ("FSC") securities holders
are hereby notified that a settlement (the "Settlement") has been
reached as to claims asserted in a shareholder derivative action
pending in a federal court in Connecticut (the "Federal Lawsuit")
on behalf of FSC against certain current and former directors of
FSC, FSC's investment advisor, and current and former directors
and officers of the investment advisor.  The terms of proposed
Settlement are set out in a Stipulation of Settlement (the
"Settlement Agreement") that has been filed with the Court and is
available at http://fsc.fifthstreetfinance.com

If approved (and the approval becomes final and no longer subject
to appeal), the Settlement will release all of the claims in the
Federal Lawsuit, as well as the claims in related derivative
lawsuits pending in the Connecticut Superior Court for the
District of Stamford/Norwalk and in the Delaware the Court of
Chancery (collectively, the "State Lawsuits").

A hearing on the Settlement will be held on December 13, 2016, at
2:00 p.m. EST (the "Fairness Hearing") before U.S. District Judge
Robert N. Chatigny, in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Abraham Ribicoff Federal Building, 450
Main Street, Room 228, Hartford, CT 06103.

At the Fairness Hearing, the Court will determine (i) whether to
approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate
and in the best interest of FSC and its shareholders and (ii)
whether to dismiss the Federal Lawsuit on the merits and with
prejudice, enjoin the prosecution of all related claims, and
release the defendants and their related individuals and entities
(as defined in the Settlement Agreement) from all claims of the
type asserted in the Federal Lawsuit.  If the Court approves the
Settlement (and if that approval becomes final and no longer
subject to appeal), the plaintiffs in the State Lawsuits will ask
the state courts to dismiss their lawsuits with prejudice.

The Court may, in its discretion, change the date and/or time of
the Fairness Hearing without further notice to you.  If you intend
to attend the Fairness Hearing, you should confirm the date and
time of the hearing with the Court.

SUMMARY OF THE LITIGATION

The Federal Lawsuit and the State Lawsuits (which are captioned In
re Fifth Street Finance Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litigation,
No. FST-CV16-6027659-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Stamford/Norwalk) and In
re Fifth Street Finance Corp. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No.
12157-VCG (Del. Ch. Ct.)) allege breaches of fiduciary duty and
other violations of law arising out of FSC's relationship with its
investment advisor, an affiliate of Fifth Street Asset Management
Inc. ("FSAM").  The complaints allege, among other things, that
certain FSC and FSAM officers and directors caused FSC to pursue
reckless asset growth strategies, to employ aggressive accounting
and financial reporting practices, and to pay excessive fees under
FSC's investment advisory agreement with FSAM, in order to inflate
the perceived value of FSAM in the lead up to FSAM's initial
public filing.

On February 9, 2016, FSC disclosed that (i) it had placed four of
its investments on non-accrual status, (ii) it would not pay its
monthly dividend in February 2015 and would decrease its monthly
dividends going forward, and (iii) certain of its financial
metrics, including net investment income and total net assets, had
declined from the previous quarter.

The complaints seek damages on behalf of FSC against FSAM, Fifth
Street Management, LLC, Leonard M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D. Berman,
Alexander C. Frank, Todd G. Owens, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, Steven M.
Noreika, David H. Harrison, Brian S. Dunn, Douglas F. Ray, Richard
P. Dutkiewicz, Byron J. Haney, James Castro-Blanco, Frank C.
Meyer, Sandeep K. Khorana and Richard A. Petrocelli (collectively,
the "Derivative Defendants").

This notice is intended to provide only a summary of the
plaintiffs' claims.  If you hold or beneficially own, directly or
indirectly, common stock or securities of FSC, you should review
the complaints for their full content.  The complaints filed in
all three lawsuits are at https://www.robbinsarroyo.com/notices/.

REASONS FOR SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs in the Federal Lawsuit and their counsel, as well as
plaintiffs in the State Lawsuits and their counsel, believe that
the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and in
the best interests of FSC and its shareholders.  They reached this
conclusion after considering: (i) the claims asserted against the
Derivative Defendants and the potential defenses, (ii) the
substantial benefits that FSC would receive from the Settlement
and (iii) their own evaluation of the facts and circumstances that
gave rise to the claims.

Derivative Defendants expressly deny that plaintiffs' claims have
any merit or that pursuit of such claims would be in the best
interests of FSC or its shareholders.  The individual Derivative
Defendants expressly deny all assertions of wrongdoing or
liability arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts or
omissions that were, could have been or could be asserted against
them in the Federal Lawsuit or the State Lawsuits.  FSC, in a good
fair exercise of its business judgment, determined that the terms
of the proposed Settlement would be in the best interests of FSC
and its shareholders.  As discussed below, the proposed Settlement
confers substantial monetary and non-monetary benefits on FSC.

PRINCIPAL SETTLEMENT TERMS

Settlement Relief

Subject to the terms and conditions discussed in the Settlement
Agreement, FSC will (i) implement certain changes related to its
investment advisory agreement (the "Fee Enhancements") and (ii)
adopt certain enhancements to its Board of Directors and to its
policies, practices and procedures (the "Governance
Enhancements").

The Fee Enhancements provide that, subject to the terms and
conditions in the Settlement Agreement, FSC will obtain from its
investment advisor a waiver of fees due under its investment
advisory agreement in the amount of $1,000,000 for each of 10
consecutive quarters starting in January 2018.  In addition, the
Chairman of FSC's Board acknowledges that, in his opinion,
plaintiffs' remedial demands were a substantial and material
factor in FSC's reduction of the base management fee that FSC pays
its investment advisor from 2% to 1.75%.

The Governance Enhancements include implementation, subject to the
terms and conditions in the Settlement Agreement, of, among other
things, (i) additional Board governance provisions (including
appointment of a lead independent director, enhanced independent
director requirements, creation of a Credit Risk and Conflicts
Committee and enhanced equity ownership by directors), (ii)
enhanced policies, practices and procedures regarding FSC's
valuation of its investments (including enhancement to its
valuation policies), (iii) increased disclosure of relevant issues
(including executive compensation) and (iv) increased consultation
with outside advisors and independent third parties (including in
valuing FSC's investments).

The Governance Enhancements and Fee Enhancements are attached as
Exhibits E and F, respectively, to the Settlement Agreement and
are available at http://fsc.fifthstreetfinance.com.

Release

The Settlement Agreement, if finally approved and no longer
subject to appeal, will result in a release of all claims that
have been, could have been or could be asserted through the Final
Settlement Date by or on behalf of FSC against all of the
Derivative Defendants (and related persons and entities defined in
the Settlement Agreement as "Releasees") and an injunction and
order barring the prosecution of any such claims against any of
the Releasees.  The full release (including all of its relevant
definitions) is set out the Settlement Agreement, which is
available at http://fsc.fifthstreetfinance.com

STATUS OF SETTLEMENT

The Court issued an order (the "Preliminary Approval Order")
regarding the Settlement on September 21, 2016 in which it found
that the proposed Settlement is within the range of possible
approval and that notifying FSC's securities holders and
scheduling a hearing to consider approval of the proposed
Settlement were warranted.  The Court's Preliminary Approval Order
is available at http://fsc.fifthstreetfinance.com

The Court has not made (and will not make in connection with its
consideration of the proposed Settlement) any determination as to
the merits of any of the claims or defenses in the Federal Lawsuit
or the State Lawsuits.  This notice does not imply that any
Derivative Defendant (or any other Releasee) would be found liable
or that relief would be awarded if the Federal Lawsuit or the
State Lawsuits were not being settled.

ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

Consistent with the substantial benefits conferred upon and
expected to be conferred upon FSC and its shareholders and,
subject to the Court's approval, FSC has agreed to pay or cause to
be paid $5,100,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses to counsel for
the Derivative Plaintiffs.

YOUR RIGHT TO OBJECT AND TO APPEAR AT THE FAIRNESS HEARING

If you agree that the proposed Settlement should be approved as
fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of FSC and
its shareholders, you do not need to do anything.  However, if you
wish to object to the fairness, reasonableness or adequacy of the
proposed Settlement, to any term(s) of Settlement Agreement or to
any other issue relating to the Settlement Agreement, you may
submit a written objection on your own (or through an attorney you
hire at your own expense), and you (or your attorney, if you have
hired one) may appear at the Fairness Hearing.  YOUR OBJECTION
MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE COURT AND THE COUNSEL IN THE CASE BY NO
LATER THAN NOVEMBER 29, 2016.  The Preliminary Approval Order sets
out the procedures that you must follow if you want to object and
if you want to appear at the hearing (including the addresses for
filing your objection with the Court and serving it on counsel in
the case).  Among other things, any objection must set out the
specific reasons, if any, for each objection, including any legal
support you wish to bring to the Court's attention and any
evidence you wish to introduce in support of your objection.  The
statement of objection must include the caption of the Federal
Lawsuit (which is set out above) and the following information:
(i) your name, address, telephone number and email address (if
available), (ii) if the objection is made by your counsel, your
counsel's name, address, telephone number and email address, and
(iii) evidence that you are and have been a FSC securities holder
at all relevant times.  If you do not meet the November 29, 2016
deadline or follow the procedures set out in the Preliminary
Approval Order, your objection(s) will not be considered by the
Court, and neither you nor your attorney (if you hire one) will be
allowed to appear at the Fairness Hearing.  The Preliminary
Approval Order is available at http://fsc.fifthstreetfinance.com

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Pending final determination of whether to approve the Settlement
Agreement, the Court has preliminarily barred and enjoined holders
of FSC's securities and individuals and entities related to them
(including anyone purporting to act on behalf of or derivatively
for any of them) from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening
in, participating in or receiving any benefits or other relief
from, any other lawsuit, arbitration or administrative, regulatory
or other proceeding (as well as filing a complaint in intervention
in any such proceeding in which the person or entity filing the
complaint in intervention purports to be acting on behalf of or
derivatively for any of the above) against any Releasees in any
jurisdiction based on or relating to claims that will be released
or barred by the Settlement Agreement if the Court approves it
(including all claims that may be brought in a derivative capacity
on behalf of FCS). The terms of the preliminary injunction are set
out in the Preliminary Approval Order, which is available at
http://fsc.fifthstreetfinance.com.

QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

Please do not write or telephone the Court about the proposed
Settlement Agreement.  If you have any questions, you should
contact the plaintiffs' counsel at Robbins Arroyo LLP, c/o Darnell
Donahue, Client Relations, 600 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego,
California 92101, Telephone: (619) 525-3990.

BY ORDER OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT N. CHATIGNY


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Class Certification Bid in "Garcia" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Denise Garcia, Plaintiff, v. Firstsource
Advantage, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-08055 (N.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge John Robert Blakey entered an order denying without
prejudice Plaintiff's preemptive motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 3,
2016, the Plaintiff filed the motion in an effort to address the
concerns raised by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 897 (7th Cir. 2011). In light of
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 663 (2016) and Chapman v.
First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 786-87 (7th Cir. 2015), which
expressly overruled Damasco. The Plaintiff argues that, despite
Campbell-Ewald and Chapman, she is nonetheless required to file
such a placeholder motion to prevent Defendant from picking off
her claim and mooting the class claims. The Court disagrees. See
Brodsky v. Humanadental Insurance Co., No. 10 C 3233, 2016 WL
5476233, at 5 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2016)(Campbell-Ewald "stands
for the general proposition that Plaintiffs, not Defendants, are
the masters of their complaints".).

The October 13, 2016 notice of motion date is stricken, and the
parties need not appear. The October 12 initial status conference
date stands.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=y5LilBsR


GARDEN CITY, KS: Market Appeals D. Kan. Ruling to Tenth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jada J. Market filed an appeal from a court ruling in
her lawsuit entitled Market v. City of Garden City, Kansas, Case
No. 6:16-CV-01053-JTM-GEB, in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas - Wichita.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 13,
2016, Judge J. Thomas Marten granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Case.  Jada Market brought the action under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, claiming Garden City deprived her of the
constitutional right to due process of law.  She alleged the City
did so through an ordinance that imposed a mandatory minimum
sentence for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) that was
higher than the minimum sentence provided for by Kansas statute.

In dismissing the Case, Judge Marten concluded that the Court has
no jurisdiction over Ms. Market's claim for declaratory relief
because she was inviting the court to review and reject the
municipal court judgments against her.  Further, Judge Marten
found that Ms. Market did not allege that the sentence of which
she complains has been reversed on appeal or otherwise declared
invalid.  The judge, thus, held that Ms. Market's claim for
damages under Section 1983 must be dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The appellate case is captioned as Market v. City of Garden City,
Kansas, Case No. 16-3293, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Docketing statement was due on October 4, 2016, for Jada J.
      Market;

   -- Transcript order form was due on October 4, 2016, for
      Randall K. Rathbun; and

   -- Notice of appearance was due on October 4, 2016, for City of
      Garden City, Kansas, and Jada J. Market.

Plaintiff-Appellant JADA J. MARKET, individually, and on behalf of
a class of others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Randall K. Rathbun, Esq.
          DEPEW GILLEN RATHBUN & MCINTEER, LC
          8301 East 21st Street North, Suite 450
          Wichita, KS 67206-2936
          Telephone: (316) 262-4000
          Facsimile: (316) 265-3819
          E-mail: randy@depewgillen.com

Defendant-Appellee CITY OF GARDEN CITY, KANSAS, is represented by:

          J. Steven Pigg, Esq.
          FISHER, PATTERSON, SAYLER & SMITH LLP
          3550 S.W. Fifth Street
          P.O. Box 949
          Topeka, KS 66601-0949
          Telephone: (785) 232-7761
          E-mail: spigg@fisherpatterson.com


GATEWAY FOUNDATION: Jackson Seeks Certification of 2 Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RANDALL JACKSON, the Plaintiff, v. LARRY
CRAWFORD; GEORGE A. LOMBARDI; DOUGLAS A. WORSHAM; MARTHA V. NOLIN;
ALAN EARLS; CYNDI PRUDDEN; ISAAC "SONNY" COLLINS; GATEWAY
FOUNDATION CORRECTIONS; and DWAYNE CUMMINS, the Defendants, Case
No. 12-4018-CV-C-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
certify two classes:

     "all prisoners who are eligible or ordered to receive
     substance abuse treatment in one of MDOC's substance abuse
     treatment programs and who would object to the faith-based
     requirements of those programs, if MDOC made clear the
     availability of a genuinely secular, non-faith-based
     program, and the prisoners could trust MDOC not to prolong
     their custody because they objected to the religious
     components or selected a secular path"; and

     "all prisoners in MDOC's custody who do not believe in a
     god".

Gateway Foundation provides drug treatment and alcohol treatment
services in correctional treatment settings.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xW18PvmU

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher A. Hoffman, Esq.
          Steven M. Berezney, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 N. 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101 1612
          Telephone: (314) 541 4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241 3525
          E-mail: choffman@koreintillery.com


GRAND MORELOS: "Santiago-Neri" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Santiago-Neri, on behalf of himself, and others similarly
situated v. Grand Morelos Corp., d/b/a Grand Morelos Diner and
Bakery, and Raul Gonzalez, Case No. 1:16-cv-05334 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and bakery known as
"Grand Morelos Diner and Bakery" located at 727 Grand Street,
Brooklyn, New York 11211.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREELEY, CO: Urged to Change Pandhandling Laws to Avert Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Sweeney, writing for The Tribune, reports that
Greeley doesn't have to get sued to drop its panhandling laws.

Last year, an advocacy group urged the city to change its laws
that ban panhandling.  The U.S. Supreme Court had just made a
decision that protected begging, rendering Greeley's rules against
it unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado made the same plea
to cities and towns across the state, going as far as suing some
of them.  Greeley officials put a hold on the laws' enforcement
starting in August of last year.  The city attorney's office
agreed to study the law and corresponding cases.

At the Oct. 4 Greeley City Council meeting, Police Chief Jerry
Garner and the city attorney were set to make a pitch to take the
begging ban off the books.

"We won't be able to keep someone from approaching you on the
sidewalk," Mr. Garner said.  "(But) we're not going to ignore bad
behavior.  We just can't use this ordinance to deal with it."

Peaceful begging would be legal, but police officers still would
be allowed to ticket people for interrupting traffic while
panhandling.  Officers also could charge panhandlers if they are
harassing potential donors.

"The short version is the Supreme Court has basically declared
panhandling ordinances across the country to be unconstitutional,"
Mr. Garner said.

"Basically, they're saying someone needs to be able to come up and
ask you for money if they want to."

Panhandling laws regulate what people are allowed to say in public
places.  Any speech regulations a government body puts forward
have to be content neutral.  For example, if a city bans hanging
signs on bus stop shelters, officials have to ban all signs.  They
can't ban signs that share specific messages, such as political
speech.

Greeley's laws regulate when and where people can ask for money.
For example, the law says people can't request money near an ATM.
Opponents argue people in the same location can request
directions, but not money, which breaks the content-neutral
requirement.

Although the laws won't allow police to arrest anyone for peaceful
begging, there are still rules that allow them to address other
related problems.

Police are still trying to fight any kind of harassment-like
behavior.  If a person decides to yell at residents, cuss them
out, push them or make any other offensive moves, police can
charge that person with disorderly conduct, harassment or
disturbing the peace, Mr. Garner said.

People can still get ticketed for running into traffic to grab
money or for panhandling on medians.

"People get hit or they distract the drivers," said City Attorney
Doug Marek.  "It's irrelevant if they're asking for money or
asking for directions."

That irrelevancy protects the rules from being considered
unconstitutional.

"We're proposing to just eliminate all of the offenses from the
code that include solicitation of money," he said.

From what he can tell, there won't be a major difference for
residents and law enforcement officers.

"I think overall there are few complaints based solely on the
panhandling (in Greeley).  They're not nonexistent, but compared
to downtown Denver, downtown Boulder or downtown Fort Collins,
it's really low."

The ACLU has gotten onto each of the cities for their handling of
panhandlers and homeless people.  The organization filed a class
action lawsuit against Fort Collins last year.

More recently, it sent out letters criticizing 34 municipalities
across the state -- about a third of which were in Weld County --
for laws that are even more outdated than Greeley's.


GREENE'S ENERGY: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Peck" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mickey Peck, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, Case No. 3:16-
cv-00268 (S.D. Tex., September 26, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Greene's Energy Group, LLC is an oilfield services company that
provides a range of services to its customers in the oil and gas
industry, including well testing, water treatment, flowback work,
and equipment rentals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      4409 Montrose Blvd. Suite 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com

         - and -

      Joe Ahmad, Esq.
      P. Kevin Leyendecker, Esq.
      AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING, P.C.
      1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500
      Houston, TX 77010
      Telephone: (713) 655-1101
      Facsimile: (713) 655-0062
      E-mail: joeahmad@azalaw.com
              kleyendecker@azalaw.com


GULF COAST TRANS: Class Cert. Bid in Francois-Ordeus Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ESTIME FRANCOIS and RENETTE ORDEUS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. GULF COAST TRANSPORTATION, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 8:16-cv-1061-T-24 TBM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Susan
E. Bucklew entered an order:

     1. dismissing without prejudice all of the opt-in Plaintiffs
        (Lifrants Charles, Franklin Joseph, Loumeste Fleurine,
        Rousseau Fleurinal, Murat Limage, Ronald Louissaint,
        Dieune Refuse, Roger St. Juste, and Kermez St. Louis). If
        they wish to assert a claim pursuant to the Fair Labor
        Standards Act, they must file a lawsuit on their own
        behalf;

     2. denying Dieune Refuse's motion for a 30-day extension of
        time to obtain an attorney;

     3. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and

     4. directing the Clerk to Strike non-party Rodrigue Demard's
        filing.

The Court held that the only remaining claims in this case are an
FLSA claim and a claim pursuant to Florida's FDUTPA Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act brought by Plaintiffs Estime Francois
and Renette Ordeus, individually, proceeding pro se. If they are
able to obtain new counsel, they can have counsel file a notice of
appearance at any time.

Plaintiffs Estime Francois and Renette Ordeus allege that they
were formerly employed by Defendant Gulf Coast Transportation,
Inc. as taxicab drivers and that Defendant misclassified them (and
all other taxicab drivers) as independent contractors. As a
result, Plaintiffs contend that due to Defendant's willful
misclassification of them as independent contractors, Defendant
did not pay taxicab drivers any wages at all, in violation of the
minimum wage requirements of the FLSA.  Plaintiffs intend to bring
their FLSA claim as a collective action.

Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that the misclassification of
them as independent contractors resulted in substantial cost
savings to Defendant (due to its not having to pay employment
taxes) and gave Defendant an unfair competitive advantage as a
taxicab company.  Therefore, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant
violated the FDUTPA.  Plaintiffs intend to bring their FDUTPA
claim as a class action.

Third, Plaintiff Francois, individually, asserted a conversion
claim under Florida common law due to Defendant's failure to
return his taxicab bond money that he had paid. However, the
Court dismissed this claim.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1L4xj3WX


HEARST CORP: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Wang" FLSA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alexandra Rappaport, Erin E. Spencer, Matthew Jordan
Wagster, Xuedan Wang and Sarah Wheels filed an appeal from the
District Court's opinion dated August 24, 2016, and judgment dated
August 25, 2016, in the lawsuit styled Wang v. The Hearst
Corporation, Case No. 12-cv-793, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ms. Wang, a
former intern at Harper's Bazaar magazine, sued Hearst, saying she
and others were unfairly misclassified.  Because she did work that
was similar to what others were paid to do, she claimed her unpaid
internship violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York state labor laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Wang v. The Hearst Corporation,
Case No. 16-3302, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Xuedan Wang, Matthew Jordan Wagster,
Alexandra Rappaport and Sarah Wheels are represented by:

          Juno Turner, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: jturner@outtengolden.com

Defendant-Appellee The Hearst Corporation is represented by:

          Jonathan R. Donnellan, Esq.
          THE HEARST CORPORATION
          300 West 57th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 649-2051


HOLLYWOOD TOW: "Guevara" Suit Seeks Compensation Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE GUEVARA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. HOLLYWOOD TOW
SERVICE, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-100,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC 635455 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sep. 27, 2016), seeks to recover meal period compensation, rest
period compensation, penalties, injunctive and other equitable
relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
California Labor Code.

From at least 4 years prior to the filing of the action and
continuing to the present, HTS employed a policy of systemic
non-compliance with California's wage and hour laws affecting its
non-exempt drivers resulting in the systematic failure to provide
lawful meal periods and rest periods under Labor Code violations.

HTS is a private tow company providing tow services and official
police garage, services for the cities of Los Angeles and West
Hollywood.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
          Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
          DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC
          440 W. First Street, Suite 101
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone (714) 953 1010
          Facsimile (714) 953 1777


HOT TOPIC: SPDR Receives Payment From Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The SPDR S&P Retail ETF, on Oct. 3 disclosed that the Fund
received payment as an authorized claimant from a class action
settlement related to Hot Topic, Inc.

The total payment to be received by the Fund is listed below. When
the Fund calculates its net asset value ("NAV") per share on
Monday, October 3, 2016, it is estimated that the Fund's NAV will
be impacted by the amount stated below based on shares outstanding
as of September 29, 2016.

  Fund      Payment   Shares Outstanding    Per Share
            Amount    as of Sept. 29, 2016    Impact
  ----      -------   --------------------  ---------
SPDR(R)
S&P
Retail
ETF (XRT) $220,102             9,700,226     $0.0227

SSGA manages approximately $452 billion in SPDR ETF assets
worldwide (as of June 30, 2016) and is one of the largest ETF
providers in the US and globally.


HP INC: "Bayse" Lawsuit Alleges Monopoly of Market for Cartridges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAN BAYSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
01583-JEO (N.D. Ala., September 23, 2016), alleges that Defendant
monopolized the market for cartridges compatible with its
printers, by pushing out firmware updates that when activated,
would disable these printers from using certain third-party,
refilled or remanufactured ink cartridges.

Defendant HP, Inc. was spun-off from its parent company, Hewlett-
Packard, a global manufacturer and distributer of inkjet printers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
     Taylor Bartlett, Esq.
     Mark Ekonen, Esq.
     Christopher Hood, Esq.
     HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
     2224 1st Avenue North
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: (205) 326-3336
     Fax: (205) 380-8085
     E-mail: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com
             taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
             mark@hgdlawfirm.com
            chood@hgdlawfirm.com


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Shareholder Sues Over Federal-Mogul Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Kelly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
shareholder claims in a class action in Wilmington, Del., that
Carl Icahn is taking advantage of his control of transportation
parts and services company Federal-Mogul and its depressed share
price to take it private on the cheap.

Icahn Enterprises, Carl Icahn's vehicle, is offering $9.25 per
share for the 18 percent of Federal-Mogul shares it does not
already own. Icahn, known as a corporate raider for his many deals
involving major corporations, has an estimated personal net worth
of $17 billion.

Plaintiff Michael Lemanchek calls the proposed transaction "the
result of a flawed sale process, [which] substantially undervalues
Federal-Mogul's stock."

Federal-Mogul Holdings manufactures powertrain components, system
protection products and aftermarket automobile parts.

"Federal-Mogul and Icahn Enterprises jointly announced the
proposed transaction as an 86 percent premium over Federal-Mogul's
closing price on Feb. 26, 2016, the day before Icahn Enterprises'
initial offer of $7 per share, implying that any gains in share
price were solely related to the offer and not Federal-Mogul's
positive financial results during 2016," Lemanchek says in the
Sept. 30 complaint in Delaware Chancery Court.

Analysts such as Gabelli & Company, which owns a stake in Federal-
Mogul, "put a private market value of $13 per share for 2016 and a
$16 price target for 2017 on Federal-Mogul," Lemanchek says in the
complaint.

"After the [merger] announcement, many speculated that this was
Icahn Enterprises' attempt to vertically integrate its auto parts
business, considering the recent acquisitions of retailers PepBoys
and Auto Plus," the complaint states.

Or, "Icahn Enterprises may already have a buyer in place,"
Lenanchek says in the lawsuit, citing Pat O'Keefe, managing member
of O'Keefe and Associates, a consultant firm based in Detroit.

Citing another commenter, Steve Wybo of Conway MacKenzie,
Lemanchek says that Wybo has "predicted that Federal-Mogul will
have a different owner within six months because Icahn Enterprises
intends to make a quick sale after the proposed transaction is
completed."

The complaint continues: "Whatever his intent may be, he is
required to disclose that intent as well as any discussions he may
have had regarding his post-close intentions."

Lemanchek adds that preclusive deal protections in the merger
agreement "substantially favor Icahn Enterprises and are
calculated to unreasonably dissuade potential suitors from making
competing offers."

Icahn Enterprises gained control of Federal-Mogul in 2007 when it
exercised an option after the company emerged from bankruptcy,
shedding its substantial asbestos-related claims in the process,
according to the complaint.

Since then, Icahn has appointed every board member and
consolidated his control of the company through a rights offering,
and by causing the company to pay for Icahn Enterprises'
affiliates' operating expenses and pension obligations, Lemanchek
says.

By this year, according to the complaint, "Icahn Enterprises had:
(i) appointed every board member; (ii) diluted the ownership of
other shareholders while increasing its own through rights
offerings; (iii) given a long-time associate, [lead defendant
Daniel A.] Ninivaggi, a compensation package well above any other
executive; (iv) freely replaced directors; (v) caused the company
to incur the pension debt of other Icahn Enterprises affiliates;
and (vi) caused the company to pay a portion of the expenses of
another Icahn Enterprises entity."

Ninivaggi has been co-CEO and co-chairman of the board since
February 2014.

With Icahn firmly in control, Lemanchek says, "Icahn Enterprises
informed Federal-Mogul of its intent to purchase the remaining 18
percent of the company's publicly traded shares at $7 per share
conditioned on approval of a majority of the minority
shareholders."

Because the Federal-Mogul board was conflicted, a special
committee was formed "to consider and negotiate the terms and
conditions of the proposed transaction or any alternatives."
But Lemanchek says two of the three of the members of the special
committee are beholden to Icahn by virtue of board appointments.
He also claims that during the merger negotiation process Federal-
Mogul management held meetings with Icahn Enterprises that did not
include the special committee.

Icahn Enterprises raised its offer price to $9.25 after Federal-
Mogul announced bullish financial results for its second quarter
in July this year. That offer was accepted in late September.
"Having failed to secure a reasonable sale price for the company,
members of the board breached the fiduciary duties they owe to
plaintiff and the company's public stockholders, because the
company has been improperly valued and stockholders will not
receive adequate or fair value for their Federal-Mogul common
stock in the proposed transaction," Lemanchek says.

He seeks class certification, rescission of the merger if it goes
through, or "a quasi-appraisal remedy," and damages for breach of
fiduciary duties.

He is represented by James Banko -- jbanko@faruqilaw.com -- with
Faruqi & Faruqi in Wilmington.


ILLINOIS: Frerichs Wins Dismissal of "Kolton" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles P. Korocas of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Defendant
Michael W. Frerichs' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction in the case captioned, ANTHONY D. KOLTON and S. DAVID
GOLDBERG, individually and on behalf of classes of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL W. FRERICHS, Illinois
State Treasurer, Defendant, Case No. 16 C 3792 (N.D. Ill.).

The case arises from the Illinois Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed
Property Act, 765 ILCS Section 1025/1, et seq., (the Act), which
pertains to personal property held by a third party (the holder).
Holders include, but are not limited to, banks, corporations, or
public utilities.

Plaintiffs Anthony D. Kolton (Kolton) and S. David Goldberg
(Goldberg), individually, and on behalf of classes of all others
similarly situated (collectively, Plaintiffs) pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) allege that the
Act, by allowing the State to retain interest and other income on
unclaimed property, as well as beneficially use the property
without paying the owner, constitutes a taking without just
compensation.

According to the Complaint, Frerichs has at all times held and
continues to hold property belonging to Plaintiffs in his custody.
Such property is subject to "being claimed by or on behalf of"
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are "owners" of property, as defined in the
Act.  Kolton asserts that his unclaimed property exceeds a value
of $100. Kolton believes that Bank One delivered his property to
the State, and that the State held it in an interest-bearing bank
deposit account. While in Frerichs's custody, the State has
allegedly used Plaintiffs' property "for public purposes,
including by investing the property and earning interest, and
otherwise using it to fund the state's operations and programs."

The Complaint contains two counts, each of which outlines multiple
prayers for relief. Count I urges the Court to declare: (i) "that
the state's use for public purposes of the property delivered to
the state under the act is a taking of property;" (ii) "that the
proper measure of just compensation is the fair market value of
property taken;" (iii) "the standard for Plaintiffs and the
members of the Rule 23(b)(2) Class for measuring fair market
value;" and (iv) "that Defendant must pay just compensation as
determined by this Court to Plaintiffs and members of the Rule
23(b)(2) Class who have filed claims or who file claims after the
filing of the action." Finally, Plaintiffs ask the Court to award
"their attorneys' fees and reimbursement of their expenses,
including those provided in 42 U.S. C. Section 1988;" as well as
any other relief that this Court deems proper and just.

On June 20, 2016, Frerichs moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). Frerichs
argues that the Court should dismiss the Complaint because it is
not ripe under the requirements outlined in the case, Williamson
County Regional Planning Commission et al. v. Hamilton Bank of
Johnson City.  Specifically, Frerichs argues that Plaintiffs have
not met the two Williamson requirements -- that of finality and
exhaustion.

Plaintiffs, in response, maintain that their claims are not barred
by Williamson because: (i) finality is not in issue; and (ii)
Plaintiffs are making a facial challenge to the constitutionality
of a state statute.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated September 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/bFoWGg from Leagle.com, Judge Korocas found that the
Complaint is not ripe, Plaintiffs' assertion lacks merit, and that
majority of the claims go beyond a facial challenge of the Act.

Anthony D. Kolton, et al. are represented by Terry Rose Saunders,
Esq. -- tsaunders@saunders-lawfirm.com -- THE SAUNDERS LAW FIRM;
and Thomas Arthur Doyle, Esq. -- tad@wexlerwallace.com -- WEXLER
WALLACE LLP

Michael W. Frerichs is represented by:

      Michael D. Arnold, Esq.
      Thomas A. Ioppolo, Esq.
      ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
      100 West Randolph Street
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel:(312)814-7198


ILLINOIS: Public Hearing Held on DHS Overtime Rules Amid Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Carter, writing for Public News Service, reports that the
Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS) was set to hold a
public hearing on Oct. 3 about overtime rules for the Home
Services Program.  It's a state program that sends home-care
assistants to help people with severe disabilities.

In May, the state put new rules into place limiting those workers
to 35 hours a week per client, and not more than 40 hours a week
total.  After much public outcry and a class-action lawsuit, the
state rescinded those limits -- but Gary Arnold, manager of public
affairs for Access Living, says Gov. Bruce Rauner's administration
is trying to find a way to reinstate them.

Mr. Arnold says limiting hours of care is a hardship for workers
who are already underpaid, and has a huge impact on those who need
their help.

"What's going to happen is, you're going to see people being
forced to go back into nursing homes because they're losing their
support system in the community," Mr. Arnold warns.  "And in the
nursing home, it's going to cost Illinois a lot more money."

Gov. Rauner has said he believes there is overtime abuse in the
home-health field.  This summer, he also vetoed legislation that
would have set a minimum wage of $15 an hour for home-care
workers.

Mr. Arnold adds the relationships that home-bound people have
developed with those who help them are being threatened because
the state has a budget that's in the red.

"These are intimate jobs that are being done, and are very
difficult jobs that are being done, and people don't just want
anybody coming in," he explains.  "They want the people who they
trust and who they have these established relationships with."

Dozens of people with disabilities and home-care workers were
expected to testify at the DHS hearing on Oct. 3.

Among the groups represented will be Access Living, Caring Across
Generations, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, Chicago
ADAPT, and SEIU Healthcare Illinois.


ILLINOIS: Proposed "Medicaid" Suit Settlement Hearing Set Dec. 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a person, under the age of 21 years old, Medicaid-
eligible in the State of Illinois, and have been diagnosed with a
mental health or behavioral disorder for which a licensed
practitioner of the healing arts has recommended intensive home-
and community-based services to correct or ameliorate the
disorder, a class action lawsuit may affect your rights.

Or, if you have a child who fits the description in the above
paragraph, a class action lawsuit may affect the rights of your
child.

This Notice is being published by order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to inform you
of the proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit (N.B. v.
Norwood, Case No. 11 C 6866) set forth in a proposed Settlement
Agreement with the Director of the Illinois Department of
Healthcare and Family Services regarding Medicaid services for
children in Illinois under the age of 21 who have been diagnosed
with a mental health or behavioral disorder. The parties to that
lawsuit have agreed to the proposed Settlement Agreement that, if
approved by the Court, would provide certain rights and benefits
to eligible individuals. The Court will hold a hearing to consider
whether to approve the proposed Settlement Agreement on
December 20, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable Jorge L.
Alonso, United States District Judge, in the Dirksen Federal
Building, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 1219, Chicago, Illinois
60604.

Who is Included? You are a Class Member whose rights may be
affected by the proposed Settlement Agreement if you are a
Medicaid-eligible child under the age of 21 years old in the State
of Illinois: (1) who has been diagnosed with a mental health or
behavioral disorder; and (2) for whom a licensed practitioner of
the healing arts has recommended intensive home and community-
based services to correct or ameliorate the disorder.

What Does the Proposed Settlement Provide? The parties have
asked the Court to approve a Settlement Agreement that, if
approved, would provide certain rights and benefits (as more fully
described in the proposed Settlement Agreement) to eligible Class
Members. The Settlement Agreement provides eligible Class Members
the opportunity to access a continuum of Medicaid-authorized
services, including home- and community-based services that may be
needed to address their conditions.

How Can I Get More Information? A detailed Notice describing the
proposed Settlement Agreement, the rights of class members, and a
copy of the proposed Settlement Agreement itself are available on
the website of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family
Services, www.illinois.gov/hfs/info/legal/PublicNotices, and also
at www.farley1.com and www.nbclassaction.org.  If you have any
questions for plaintiffs' lawyers, you may contact Attorney Robert
H. Farley, Jr. at farleylaw@aol.com or 630-369-0103.


INDONESIA: Pasar Ikan Residents File Class Action Over Demolition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Friski Riana, writing for TEMPO.CO, reports that activist Ratna
Sarumpaet, along with a number of residents of Pasar Ikan and
Akuarium Village, North Jakarta, on Monday, October 3, 2016,
lodged a class action against the Jakarta administration, the
Indonesian Military and the National Police with the Central
Jakarta District Court.

"We are filing a class action," Ratna said.

She revealed that hundreds of people would file lawsuits against
the Jakarta governor, the North Jakarta Mayor, the Indonesian
Military (TNI) commander, and the National Police chief.

Marshanda, 40, a resident of Pasar Ikan said that the lawsuits
reflected the public's disappointment at the government.  She
demanded the government to pay her rights.

"We want to sue [the government] because our building was taken.
We built them, and they were demolished without any compensation,"
she added.

Marshanda revealed that the demolition was executed without a
warning.  In addition, she said that the resident was kept in the
dark about the land utilization.  She claimed that the land at
Pasar Ikan was not included in the city's green zone.

"Based on the map, it's not a green zone, but it's for
settlements. Our buildings are not illegal," Marshanda claimed.

Earlier on April 11, 2016, the Jakarta administration carried out
evictions at Pasar Ikan and Akuarium Village in North Jakarta. The
evictions were executed by involving police personnel and military
army.  The Jakarta administration argued that the evictions were
related to sheet pile installations in a bid to prevent floods in
Jakarta.


IOVATE HEALTH: Falsely Marketed Weight Loss Products, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammed Daboussi, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated v. Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc., and Does 1-10,
Case No. BC635205 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 26, 2016), was filed
over the Defendants' false, misleading, and unlawful advertising
of their Weight Loss Products.  The Plaintiff seeks compensation
for himself and the putative class.

Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc. manufactures and sells a line
of weight loss dietary supplements to major retailers in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Martin E. Jerisat, Esq.
      RHEMA LAW GROUP, P.C.
      2373 Morse Ave., Suite 322
      Irvine, CA 926144
      Telephone: (714) 571-5700
      E-mail: mjeristat@fortheplaintiff.net

         - and -

      Gordon G. Phillips, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF GORDON G. PHILLIPS, JR.
      1600 North Broadway, Suite 650
      Santa Ana, CA 92706
      Telephone: (714) 541-3000
      E-mail: gordon@phillipserakat.com


J.B. HUNT: Improper Deductions Allegations in Remington Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard G. Stearns of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts allowed Defendant's motion
to dismiss in the case captioned, WILLIAM REMINGTON and MUSAN
DURAKOVIC, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC. ABE SILFANI, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., Case Nos.
15-10010-RGS, 15-13019-RGS (D. Mass.).

Plaintiffs William Remington and Musan Durakovic are owner-
operator truck drivers for defendant J.B. Hunt Transport Inc., a
freight and package delivery service. They allege that J.B. Hunt
improperly classified them to their detriment as independent
contractors, instead of company employees.

In December of 2014, Remington and Durakovic brought a class
action against J.B. Hunt in Middlesex Superior Court, asserting
violations of the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Statute,
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 148B, (Remington Count I) and the
Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 148, 150
(Remington Count II), or, in the alternative, unjust enrichment
(Remington Count III). Remington alleges that J.B. Hunt hires two
classes of truck drivers -- employee drivers and owner-operator
drivers. Remington also alleges that J.B. Hunt improperly deducts
company expenses from the pay of the owner-operator drivers,
including the costs of equipment repairs, cargo loss and damage,
vehicle insurance, and administrative fees.

J.B. Hunt removed the Remington Complaint to the federal district
court on diversity grounds. The court, adhering to its decision in
Schwann v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 2015 WL 501512 (D.
Mass. Feb. 5, 2015), allowed J.B. Hunt's motion to dismiss,
determining that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization
Act (FAAAA), 49 U.S.C. Section 14501(c)(1), preempted the second
prong of the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Statute.

The plaintiffs in the Remington and Schwann cases appealed. While
the consolidated appeal was pending, in July 2015, plaintiff Abe
Silfani filed a similar putative class action in Middlesex
Superior Court. Silfani had contracted as an owner-operator driver
with J.B. Hunt in October of 2013.  J.B. Hunt promptly removed the
Silfani Complaint to this court. At the joint request of the
parties, the court stayed the Silfani matter pending the outcome
of the Remington and Schwann appeals.

On appeal, the First Circuit agreed with the District court that
the FAAAA preempted the second prong of section 148B but disagreed
with the ruling of non-severability. The First Circuit also
reversed the court's holding that the FAAAA preempted prongs one
and three of section 148B, not on substantive grounds, but "based
on FedEx's decision not to advance any argument that Prongs 1 and
3 were preempted by the FAAAA."

On remand, the court consolidated the Remington and Silfani cases
for pretrial proceedings. In May of 2016, J.B. Hunt filed a
renewed motion to dismiss the Complaints arguing that plaintiffs'
claims are preempted not only because they conflict with the
federal Truth-in-Leasing regulations, 49 C.F.R. Part 376, but also
because the Truth-in-Leasing regulations occupy the entire field
of owner-operator driver compensation.

In his Memorandum and Order dated September 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/7kWpmZ from Leagle.com, Judge Stearns agreed with
J.B. Hunt that the Truth-in-Leasing regulations preempt
Remington's allegations of improper deductions insofar as these
deductions constitute permitted cost-sharing under a compliant
lease; and disagreed in the Defendant's broader contention that
the Truth-in-Leasing regulations occupy the entire field of owner
operator compensation because the regulations use the term
"compensation" narrowly to mean "the amount to be paid."

The parties were required to make a joint submission to the court,
no later than September 30, 2016, stating whether they intend, by
agreement, to proceed to an appellate review of this court's
decision, or to begin discovery.

                           *     *     *

On Sept. 30, Musan Durakovic, William Remington filed with the
Court a Motion for Leave to Appeal and Memorandum in Support
Thereof.

A hearing on the Motion has been reset for Oct. 14, 2016, at 11:00
a.m. in Courtroom 21 before Judge Richard G. Stearns.

J.B. Hunt assented to a Motion to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to Appeal to October 14, 17 or 18.

Abe Silfani is represented by Brant Casavant, Esq. --
bryant@fairworklaw.com -- and Hillary A. Schwab, Esq. --
schwab@fairworklaw.com -- FAIR WORK, P.C.

J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. is represented by David C. Casey, Esq.
-- dcasey@littler.com -- and Stephen T. Melnick, III, Esq. --
smelnick@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.


JAMIE'S WHALING: Issues Statement on Stellar Sea Accident
---------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that another boat owned by a whale-
watching company in Tofino, B.C., has ran into trouble off the
coast of Vancouver Island.

The Canadian Coast Guard has issued a release saying the Stellar
Sea hit the bottom and partially sank near Warn Bay, east of
Tofino, on Oct. 1.

Jamie's Whaling Station, the company that owns the vessel issued a
statement that said the boat was unable to move, but was not in
danger of sinking.

It says 26 people and two crew members were on board when the
slow-moving vessel ran aground during the final bear-watching tour
of the day.

"Because the vessel could not continue with its voyage, all
passengers were transferred onto other company vessels that were
in the vicinity and safely returned to Tofino," the release says.
Both Jamie's Whaling Station and the Coast Guard say there were no
injuries and there have been no reports of pollution.

The company says it resumed normal operations on Oct. 2 and
expects the Stellar Sea will be returned to port shortly.

The incident comes nearly a year after another boat owned by
Jamie's Whaling Station flipped, throwing 27 people into the
water.  Six people were killed.

The Transportation Safety Board is conducting an investigation to
determine what caused the Leviathan II to capsize.

Two German brothers who were on the 20-metre vessel when it
flipped on Oct. 25, 2015, have launched a proposed class-action
lawsuit, accusing Jamie's Whaling Station of negligence for
allowing the boat to go out in treacherous ocean conditions.

The company's owner, Jamie Bray, filed court documents in response
saying the incident was an "act of God" that could not have been
reasonably predicted or prevented.


JANI-KING: Class Certification in "Williams" Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed the
district court's class certification order in the case captioned
DARRYL WILLIAMS; HOWARD BROOKS, v. JANI-KING OF PHILADELPHIA INC.;
JANI-KING INC.; JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL INC., Appellants, No. 15-
2049 (3rd Cir.).

Jani-King, the world's largest commercial cleaning franchisor,
classifies its franchisees as independent contractors.  Two Jani-
King franchisees, Darryl Williams and Howard Brooks, asserted that
they are misclassified and should be treated as employees. On
behalf of a class of Jani-King franchisees in the Philadelphia
area, Brooks and Williams sought unpaid wages under the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL).  The district
court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Jani-King filed an interlocutory appeal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(f), raising the issue on whether the
plaintiffs' claims are capable of class-wide resolution.

The common evidence identified by the plaintiffs and the district
court are the Jani-King franchise agreement, policies manual, and
training manual, and representative testimony about those
documents.  The district court concluded that the plaintiffs'
claims could be proven through this common evidence and that,
therefore, the plaintiffs met the predominance requirement.

Jani-King, on the other hand, asserted that the test for employee
status under Pennsylvania law is not susceptible to proof through
common evidence.  Jani-King argued, the district court erred as a
matter of law "[b]y relying on the terms of Jani-King's common
franchise documents, to the exclusion of individual evidence of
the actual relationships between Jani-King and" franchisees.

The Third Circuit, however, was not convinced that the terms of a
written agreement alone are never sufficient to determine
employment status, stating that the provisions of an agreement may
be evidence of what the actual practice or working relationship
is.  The appellate court also pointed out that under Pennsylvania
law, no special treatment is accorded to the franchise
relationship, such that a franchisee may be an employee or an
independent contractor depending on the nature of the franchise
system controls.  Because documentary evidence can be sufficient
to resolve the multifactor employment status test, the Third
Circuit found that it was not an error of law for the district
court to rely on this evidence in ruling on class certification.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's September 21, 2016 order
is available at https://is.gd/7TzlK6 from Leagle.com.

Counsel for Appellants:

     Kerry L. Bundy, Esq.
     Eileen M. Hunter, Esq.
     Aaron D. Vanoort, Esq.[ARGUED]
     FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS
     90 South 7th Street
     2200 Wells Fargo Center
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     E-mail: kerry.bundy@faegrebd.com

Counsel for Amicus Appellant International Franchise, Association:

     Jonathan N. Solish, Esq.
     BRYAN CAVE
     120 Broadway, Suite 300
     Santa Monica, CA 90401
     E-mail: jonathan.solish@bryancave.com

Counsel for Appellees:

     David J. Cohen, Esq.
     WACHTELL LIPTON ROSEN & KATZ
     604 Spruce Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     E-mail: djcohen@wlrk.com

          - and -

     Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. [ARGUED]
     Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN
     729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
             apagano@llrlaw.com


JEFF HUGHES: Court Remands Cavalry Suit to Circuit Court
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
JEFF HUGHES, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-05976
(S.D. W.Va.), Judge Thomas E. Johnston granted the motion filed by
defendant and counterclaimant Jeff Hughes to remand; and for
costs, remanded the case, and denied as moot all remaining
motions.

On April 14, 2016, Cavalry SPV I, LLC filed a debt collection
action against Hughes in West Virginia magistrate court seeking
judgment in the amount of $2,288.  On June 1, 2016, and following
service of the complaint, Hughes responded with an answer and
class counterclaim and removed the matter to the state circuit
court.

On July 1, 2016, Cavalry removed the case to federal court.
Cavalry filed concurrently with the Notice of Removal a motion to
dismiss its own claims against Hughes under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a) and realign the parties, with the court
designating Hughes as the plaintiff.  Cavalry relied on Hughes'
counterclaim as the basis for jurisdiction, alleging that the
counterclaim gives rise to federal jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Hughes moved to remand on July 13, 2016, arguing that the subject
of his counterclaims is irrelevant to the jurisdictional inquiry
because, as the plaintiff, Cavalry cannot remove.

Judge Johnston explained that one of the most rudimentary
principles of federal jurisdiction is that a plaintiff is not
entitled to removal, and that Cavalry's motion to voluntarily
dismiss its own claims and realign the parties alter the
application of these rules.  The judge also pointed out that
federal jurisdiction is fixed at the time the notice of removal is
filed and there is no question that Cavalry removed this action
while it occupied the plaintiff's role.  Because a plaintiff is
not entitled to remove an action based upon a federal question
presented in a counterclaim, Judge Johnston concluded that the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and granted Hughes' motion
to remand.

As for costs, Judge Johnston stated that federal law expressly
authorizes an award of attorney fees incurred as a result of
improper removal.  The judge found that Cavalry lacked an
objectively reasonable basis for removal, and that its use of an
inappropriate tactic resulted in a waste of the court's resources
and an unnecessary delay of the litigation. Judge Johnston
therefore granted Hughes' request for fees.

The case was reminded to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West
Virginia.

A full-text copy of Judge Johnston's September 21, 2016 order is
available at https://is.g d/M9g2d4 from Leagle.com.

Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Plaintiffs,
represented by John C. Cox, BLEECKER BRODEY & ANDREWS, Nicholas P.
Mooney, II -- nmooney@spilmanlaw.com -- SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE &
Tai C. Shadrick -- tshadrick@spilmanlaw.com -- SPILMAN THOMAS &
BATTLE.

Jeff Hughes, Defendant, Jeff Hughes, Counter Claimant, represented
by Matthew Stonestreet, THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM & Troy N. Giatras,
THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Narrows Claims in "Mihalich" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BARBARA MIHALICH, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON
and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 14-cv-600-DRH-SCW (S.D. Ill.), Judge David R. Herndon granted
in part and denied, in part, defendants Johnson & Johnson and
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
Barbara Mihalich's first amended complaint.

On May 23, 2014, Mihalich filed a class action complaint against
J&J alleging that the defendants failed to warn consumers of the
risks associated with the use of Johnson's Baby Powder for
feminine hygiene purposes.

Mihalich's first amended complaint alleged a violation of Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act (ICFA) based
on certain misrepresentations regarding Johnson's Baby Powder.
Mihalich sought injunctive relief resulting from the alleged ICFA
violation (Count I), in addition to alleging a claim for unjust
enrichment (Count II), arguing that the proposed class of
plaintiffs conferred a monetary benefit on defendants when
purchasing Johnson's Baby Powder, while defendants simultaneously
failed to sufficiently disclose the product's risks to consumers.

J&J moved for dismissal of Mihalich's complaint pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and 9(b), arguing that:

     (1) Mihalich's fraud-based claim under the ICFA failed
         to meet the Rule 9(b) heightened pleading standard and
         Mihalich failed to allege any actual out-of-pocket
         pecuniary harm necessary to meet the ICFA statutory
         requirements;

     (2) Mihalich's prayer for injunctive relief lacks standing,
         and

     (3) Mihalich's unjust enrichment claim must be dismissed
         because Mihalich failed to state any predicate claim
         permitting the unjust enrichment claim to stand.

Mihalich opposed the J&J's motion, arguing that the first amended
complaint sufficiently alleges a violation of the ICFA and a
financial injury resulting therefrom.

Judge Herndon found that Mihalich adequately pled a deceptive act
or practice by defendants based on their statements and omissions.
The judge also found that Mihalich sufficiently alleged that the
defendants intended for her to rely on the deception, which is
evident from the very nature of J&J's representations themselves,
and that the statements and omissions by J&J were, in fact, made
in trade or commerce, as they relate to the marketing and sale of
Johnson's Baby Powder.  Further, Judge Herndon found that Mihalich
sufficiently alleged proximate cause, in that Mihalich relied on
the J&J reputation, guarantees and warnings listed on the label
prior to purchase.  The judge also said that economic injury was
likewise alleged in that whether or not the risk associated with
talc use is harmful to Mihalich, had she known that risk was
associated with use of the Johnson's Baby Powder, she would not
have purchased the product.  Judge Herndon thus concluded that
Mihalich's assertions are sufficient to withstand dismissal.

Judge Herndon also held that based on the court's determination
that that the Mihalich has sufficiently pled her ICFA claims, the
related unjust enrichment claim, which arose out of the same
conduct as in Count I, is also sufficient to withstand the motion
to dismiss.

Defendants challenges Mihalich's request for injunctive relief on
the ground that she lacks standing.  J&J averred that Mihalich is
unlikely to be harmed in the future since she is aware of the
alleged "risk" and is unlikely to purchase Johnson's Baby Powder
in the future.

Judge Herndon found, however, that Mihalich has failed to allege
that she personally will suffer "real and immediate" harm based on
the defendants' actions, and as such, Mihalich lacks standing to
seek injunctive relief.  Accordingly, Mihalich's claim for
injunctive relief was dismissed for lack of standing.

A full-text copy of Judge Herndon's September 20, 2016 memorandum
and order is available at https://is.gd/heQfH3 from Leagle.com.

Barbara Mihalich, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P. Green --
ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller et al..

Barbara Mihalich, Plaintiff, represented by Mark C. Goldenberg --
mark@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller et al., Paula R. Brown,
Blood, Hurst & Reardon LLP, pro hac vice,Thomas P. Rosenfeld --
tom@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli PC, Ann E. Callis
-- acallis@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller Antognoli & Rowland,
PC, Patrick C. Malouf -- patrick@portermalouf.com -- Porter &
Malouf PA, pro hac vice, Robert Allen Smith, Jr., Smith Law Firm,
PLLC, pro hac vice, Ted G. Meadows -- ted.meadows@beasleyallen.com
-- Beasley, Allen et al., pro hac vice, Timothy G. Blood --
tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood, Hurst & Reardon LLP & Timothy W.
Porter -- tim@portermalouf.com -- Porter & Malouf PA.

Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Matthew David Powers -- mpowers@omm.com
-- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Dan H. Ball -- dhball@bryancave.com --
Bryan Cave, Richard B. Goetz -- rgoetz@omm.com -- O'Melveny &
Myers, Timothy J. Hasken -- tim.hasken@bryancave.com -- Bryan
Cave, LLP & Victoria L. Weatherford, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


JONES GROUP: "Knox" Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana granted conditional
certification -- with one addition -- in the case captioned,
KIMBERLEE KNOX, KAYLA BRATCHER on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs,
v. JONES GROUP, AVON WINGS, LLC doing business as BUFFALO WILD
WINGS, BW WINGS MANAGEMENT LLC, COLDWATER WINGS, LLC, COLONIAL
WINGS, LLC, COOL WINGS, LLC, DANVILLE WINGS II, LLC, GREENCASTLE
WINGS, LLC, MECHANICSVILLE WINGS, LLC, SHELBYVILLE WINGS, LLC, and
VINCENNES WINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-01738-SEB-TAB
(S.D. Ind.).

Plaintiffs Kimberlee Knox and Kayla Bratcher brought the action
against Defendants for allegedly violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants paid them an
hourly tip-wage of $2.13, but required them to perform substantial
amounts of non-tipped work and pay for shortages and walkouts from
their tips.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in response to Plaintiffs'
complaint. While that motion was pending, Plaintiffs filed a
motion for step-one notice. Plaintiffs wish to pursue the case as
a collective action, and seek conditional certification to notify
potential Plaintiffs about the suit and allow them to opt in.

Defendants requested that the Magistrate Judge postpone ruling on
the motion for step-one notice until the District Judge ruled on
Defendants' motion to dismiss. After a brief delay, the District
Judge denied Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that
Plaintiffs' claims are viable and that the pleadings sufficiently
allege a violation of FLSA because the alleged time spent on
unrelated non-tipped work is more than negligible and above the 20
percent threshold.

Plaintiffs asked the Court to conditionally certify their class
and authorize Plaintiffs' counsel to notify them about this
action. Plaintiffs' proposed class is comprised of "current and
former employees of Defendants' Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants who
were paid sub-minimum wages in the last three years." Plaintiffs
argue these individuals are "similarly situated," and submit a
proposed notice for Court approval.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' proposed class is not similar
enough to warrant conditional certification. Alternatively,
Defendants argue that the proposed notice should be rejected and
access should be limited so that participation is not encouraged.

In his Order dated September 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/30ekxb from Leagle.com, Judge Baker conditionally
certified the similarly situated individuals as a class of
potential Plaintiffs to receive step-one notice finding that
Plaintiffs are similarly situated to servers and bartenders that
worked at Defendants' restaurants in the past three years.
The proposed notice is approved but Plaintiffs must include a
phrase that "a class member may be subject to obligations such as
responding to discovery, giving a deposition, and testifying at
trial."

Plaintiffs' motion to toll the statute of limitations is denied
because the doctrine is not applicable to the situation.
Plaintiffs' motion to compel initial disclosures is granted.
Defendants must supplement their initial disclosures by producing
the addresses and phone numbers for the witnesses identified in in
their initial disclosures, as well as the names, addresses, and
phone numbers for the category witnesses within 30 days.

Kimberlee Knox, et al. represented by Douglas M. Werman, Esq. --
dwerman@flsalaw.com -- and -- Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq. --
zflowerree@flsalaw.com -- WERMAN SALAS PC

They are also represented by:

      Jamie G. Sypulski, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMIE GOLDEN SYPULSKI
      150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60601

Jones Group is represented by Craig W. Wiley, Esq. --
Craig.Wiley@jacksonlewis.com -- Melissa K. Taft, Esq. --
Melissa.Taft@jacksonlewis.com -- and Paul DeCamp, Esq. --
DeCampP@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS LLP


KALON SARBY: Central Alarm Fights for Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CENTRAL ALARM SIGNAL, INC., a Michigan
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. KALON SARBY and JOHN
DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-11950-GER-APP (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to allow "placeholder" motion
for class certification to remain pending to protect against any
alternative pick-off attempt following the Supreme Court's
decision in the case, Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663,
672 (2016).

The proposed class, the Plaintiff contends, meets the requirements
of Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rules 23(a), (b)(3) and (g). The Plaintiff
requests that, following discovery and further briefing, the Court
certify the class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative,
and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.

Plaintiff will file its memorandum of law in support of its Motion
after Rule 23 discovery has been completed.

The parties need to meet and confer and propose a discovery
schedule with the Court and Plaintiff requests a status conference
with the Court as soon as practicable to set a discovery schedule
on Plaintiff's Rule 23 Motion.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com


KAPLAN HIGHER EDUCATION: Violates Labor Laws, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Kaplan Higher Education and
Education Corporation of America dba Brightwood College violated a
host of labor laws for at least four years, employees claim in a
class action in Alameda County Court.


KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Faces "Castro" Suit in S.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kellermeyer
Bergensons Services LLC. The case is entitled Maria Rosa Castro
Calvario, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Kellermeyer Bergensons Services LLC, doing
business as Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, Mark Minasian, and
Martin Doe, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07459 (S.D.N.Y., Sep.
23, 2016).

Kellermeyer provides contract cleaning and related facilities
support services to retailers and commercial facilities.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


KNOEDLER & CO: Complaint Filed to Recover Stolen Mattise Painting
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Michaels, writing for Law.com, reports that a complaint
filed on Sept. 7, in the Southern District of New York seeks the
return of an allegedly stolen Matisse painting that was lost in
the aftermath of World War II.  The case presents some common
issues found in World War II restitution cases, including the key
issue of whether an exception applies to the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act (FSIA) such that the National Gallery of Art,
London, is not immune from lawsuit in the United States.

In this case, the controversy centers on the ownership of a
Matisse painting, titled "Portrait of Greta Moll."  The following
facts are provided in the plaintiff's complaint.  Greta Moll, the
subject of the painting, was, along with her husband Oskar, a
student of Henri Matisse in Paris.  Shortly after Matisse
completed the painting of Moll in 1908, Oskar purchased it
directly from the artist.  The Molls later moved to Germany during
the rise of the Nazi party and brought the portrait with them.
During the war, the Molls moved to Silesia, a region in Central
Europe that is primarily located in Poland.  Before they left, the
Molls stored the painting with a friend in Thurngia, a state in
east-central Germany.  The Molls returned to Berlin after the war
in 1946.  Out of a concern that allied troops, in particular
Russian troops, would loot the painting in the aftermath of the
war, the Molls decided to send the painting to Switzerland with an
art student of Oskar's, Gertrud Djamarani. Djamarani took the
painting to Switzerland but, the complaint alleges, she illegally
converted the painting for her own benefit and kept the proceeds.
From Switzerland, the painting was imported into the United States
in 1949 by the Knoedler & Co. art gallery in New York City.
Knoedler sold the painting to a collector in Texas, Leo Blaffer,
who in turn sold it to a private collection in Switzerland.  The
next transfer was from the private collection to the Alex Reid &
Lefevre gallery in London, which finally sold it to the National
Gallery in 1979.

The main issue of ownership that is in dispute is how Knoedler
came into possession of the painting.  According to a provenance
sheet provided by the Lefevre gallery to the National Gallery at
the time of sale, the Molls transferred the painting to the
Knoedler gallery. The plaintiffs dispute this fact and allege that
the Molls never transferred the painting to Knoedler.  The
complaint, however, does not explicitly state from where or whom
the plaintiff's believe Knoedler received the painting.  This fact
is key and will no doubt be explored in depth during discovery.

One of the important legal obstacles the plaintiffs must overcome
involves the FSIA.  In general, under the FSIA, foreign
governments or their agencies, like the National Gallery of Art,
London, are immune from suit in the United States, barring one of
several exceptions.  With respect to stolen art restitution
claims, the exception most commonly invoked by plaintiffs is the
expropriation exception, which broadly states that immunity will
not apply to bar a suit if, among other requirements, the
plaintiff's rights in property were taken in violation of
international and that the property has a connection to commercial
activity in the United States.  To determine whether the activity
in question is commercial, courts weigh whether the foreign state
is acting as a private individual and not within its role as a
foreign sovereign.  If so, the activity will be deemed commercial
such that the sovereign is not immune from suit.  Importantly, it
is not the purpose or profitability of the commercial activity
that courts analyze, rather it is the nature of the activity that
is paramount.  One court has explained the activity as such, "we
conclude that when a foreign government acts, not as regulator of
a market, but in the manner of a private player within it, the
foreign sovereign's actions are 'commercial' within the meaning of
the FSIA," as in Representative of Argentina v. Weltover, 504 U.S.
607, 614 (1992).

In this case, the plaintiffs allege that the painting was
illegally converted and, therefore, no owner after the conversion
obtained legal title.  With respect to the National Gallery's
commercial activities in New York, the plaintiffs allege that the
gallery "commercially exploited the stolen painting in New York
and the United States through loaning the painting into New York
for exhibition purposes and further exploiting the painting by
selling books, catalogues and other merchandise in New York and
the United States."  The complaint also states that the National
Gallery failed to fulfill its duty to conduct its own due
diligence on the history of the painting and, had it done so, the
gallery would have realized their acquisition of the painting was
in violation of international law.  As a result of the foregoing,
the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, either the return
of the painting or at least $30 million.


LA'S LOW: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ayala" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rocio Ayala, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LA'S Low Cost Auto Insurance Services, and Does 1 to
50, and DOES 51 to 100, Case No. BC635285 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
September 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime and minimum wages in violation of the California
Labor Code.

LA'S Low Cost Auto Insurance Services operates a car insurance
company in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
      E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


LABOR READY: $6.4 Million Class Action Settlement Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a Los Angeles federal judge
approved a $6.4 million settlement of an employment class action
complaint against Labor Ready Southwest, of which $1.3 million
shall go to attorneys' fees and costs.


LG ELECTRONICS: Supressed Wages in Tech Industry, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
San Jose claims in Samsung and LG Electronics conspired to
suppress wages in the tech industry by agreeing not to recruit one
another's workers.


LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over TV Software
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
San Francisco claims LG Electronics sells Energy Star-certified
TVs without disclosing that its software disables the energy-
saving features if the owner changes the picture settings.


LINCOLN, NE: Faces Class Action Over Damage From Sewer Backups
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Lincoln attorney has filed a
lawsuit against the city over 2014 sewer backups that damaged
hundreds of homes.

Vince Powers filed the lawsuit on behalf of his client,
Susan Dermer.  On Sept. 30, Mr. Powers amended the lawsuit seeking
class-action status.

The lawsuit says Ms. Dermer had more than $10,000 in damages for
cleaning and restoration of her basement.  The suit says the city
failed to have a sewer system that would accommodate heavy
rainfall, among other problems.

The city says the storm was responsible for the backups, not city
negligence.

Even so, it set up a $1 million cleanup fund, limiting property
owners to $5,000 per property.  Those who participated agreed not
to sue the city.


LOKEKO INC: Court Dismisses Claims Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the claims that the
defendants failed to pay overtime premiums and violated the
record-keeping provisions under the Fair Labor Standards Act in
the case captioned, DMITRIY SEREBRYAKOV and DMITRIY KURAMYSHEV,
Plaintiffs, v. LOKEKO INC., DOUBLE "K" USA, CORP. and KONSTANTIN
DERGUNOV, Defendants, Case No. 12-CV-3990 (AMD) (RER) (E.D.N.Y.)

The plaintiffs brought the putative class and collective action on
August 10, 2012 against their employers, Konstantin Dergunov,
Lokeko Inc. (Lokeko), and Double "K" USA, Corp. (Double K), for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New
York Labor Law (NYLL or Labor Law). Specifically, the plaintiffs
complain that the defendants violated the FLSA and the Labor Law
by failing to pay an hourly rate of pay (29 U.S.C. Section 206(a);
12 N.Y.C.C.R.R. Section 142-2.1), and an overtime premium (29
U.S.C. Section 207(a)(1); 12 N.Y.C.C.R.R. Section 142-2.2) for
work performed in excess of 40 hours per work week. Additionally,
the plaintiffs allege that the defendants made unlawful deductions
from their pay in violation of the Labor Law (12 N.Y.C.C.R.R.
Section 195), and failed to maintain records as required by the
FLSA.

The plaintiffs brought this action on August 10, 2012 on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated. They allege that they
were improperly classified as independent contractors. They claim
that when they worked more than forty hours per week, they were
not paid for the hours in excess of forty, and they did not
receive an overtime premium. The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages,
time and a half for the unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees.

On June 9, 2015, the plaintiffs moved to certify conditionally an
FLSA collective action and to distribute notice to putative
members of the collective action. This motion was referred to
Judge Reyes, who granted the plaintiff's motion and approved, with
modifications, the proposed notice.

In April 2016, the defendants filed requests for pre-motion
conferences, and asserted that the plaintiffs' overtime claims
were barred by the motor carrier exemption. The parties agree that
Lokeko and Double K are motor carriers that provide motor vehicle
transportation for compensation.

In her Memorandum Decision and Order dated September 16, 2016
available at https://is.gd/X9NQsU from Leagle.com, Judge Donnelly
concluded that the motor carrier exemption bars the FLSA and New
York Labor Law overtime claims, they are dismissed with prejudice,
that because the plaintiffs concede that there is no private right
of action for the alleged record-keeping violations pursuant to
the FLSA and that the motor carrier exemption does not apply to
the failure to pay minimum wage claims.

Dmitriy Serebryakov, et al. are represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      1517 Voorhies Ave, 2nd Fl,
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Tel: (800)789-9396

Lokeko Inc., et al. are represented by Alexander Paine, Esq. --
alexander@rosenbergfortuna.com -- and Anthony Filosa, Esq. --
anthony@rosenbergfortuna.com -- ROSENBERG, FORTUNA & LAITMAN


MARICOPA CTY, AZ: Arpaio Appeals From Ruling in "Melendres" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio filed an appeal from a court ruling
stemming from the lawsuit styled Manuel De Jesus Ortega Melendres,
et al. v. Joseph Arpaio, et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02513-GMS, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

The appellate case is captioned as Manuel De Jesus Ortega
Melendres, et al. v. Joseph Arpaio, et al., Case No. 16-16663, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 30,
2016, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio may face criminal
contempt charges after a federal judge referred him to the U.S.
Attorney's Office for violating court orders in a 2007 class
action to stop racially profiling Latinos.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow recommended that criminal
contempt charges be brought against Arpaio, Chief Deputy Gerald
Sheridan, Capt. Steve Bailey, and Arpaio's former attorney Michele
Iafrate.

Judge Snow's decision comes after finding in May that Arpaio,
Sheridan, and two other aides were guilty of civil contempt.  The
men disobeyed Snow's earlier orders to turn over video and other
evidence in the racial profiling case, and continued to enforce
federal immigration law.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 17, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on November 14, 2016;

   -- Appellant Joseph M. Arpaio's opening brief is due on
      December 27, 2016;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Manuel De Jesus Ortega
      Melendres, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto Jr., Jessica Quitugua
      Rodriguez, David Rodriguez and Somos America is due on
      January 23, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellees MANUEL DE JESUS ORTEGA MELENDRES, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated; JESSICA QUITUGUA
RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; DAVID RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; VELIA MERAZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; MANUEL NIETO, Jr., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; and SOMOS AMERICA
are represented by:

          Rebecca A. Jacobs, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-7036
          E-mail: rjacobs@cov.com

               - and -

          Stanley Young, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 632-4700
          E-mail: syoung@cov.com

               - and -

          Anne Lai, Esq.
          UCI SCHOOL OF LAW
          401 E. Peltason Dr.
          Irvine, CA 92697-8000
          Telephone: (948) 824-7722
          E-mail: alai@law.uci.org

               - and -

          Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.
          ACLU OF ARIZONA
          P.O. Box 17148
          Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148
          Telephone: (602) 650-1967
          E-mail: dpochoda@acluaz.org

               - and -

          Andre Segura, Esq.
          ACLU-AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2676
          Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
          E-mail: asegura@aclu.org

               - and -

          Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0775
          Facsimile: (415) 395-0950
          E-mail: cwang@aclu.org

Plaintiffs-Appellees JESSICA QUITUGUA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; DAVID RODRIGUEZ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; VELIA
MERAZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
MANUEL NIETO, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; and SOMOS AMERICA are represented by:

          Hyun Sik Byun, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 632-4700
          E-mail: hbyun@cov.com

Defendant-Appellant JOSEPH M. ARPAIO is represented by:

          John Thomas Masterson, Esq.
          Justin Michael Ackerman, Esq.
          Joseph J. Popolizio, Esq.
          JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.
          40 N. Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 263-7330
          Facsimile: (602) 200-7846
          E-mail: jmasterson@jshfirm.com
                  jackerman@jshfirm.com
                  jpopolizio@jshfirm.com

               - and -

          Charles J. Cooper, Esq.
          Michael Kirk, Esq.
          COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
          1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 220-9660
          Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
          E-mail: ccooper@cooperkirk.com
                  mkirk@cooperkirk.com

Defendant MARICOPA COUNTY is represented by:

          Richard Kenneth Walker, Esq.
          WALKER & PESKIND, PLLC
          16100 N. 71st Street
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 483-6336
          E-mail: rkw@azlawpartner.com


MARICOPA CTY, AZ: Seeks Review of Order in "Melendres" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Maricopa County filed an appeal from a court ruling
stemming from the lawsuit titled Manuel De Jesus Ortega Melendres,
et al. v. Maricopa County, et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02513-GMS, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

The appellate case is captioned as Manuel De Jesus Ortega
Melendres, et al. v. Maricopa County, et al., Case No. 16-16661,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 30,
2016, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio may face criminal
contempt charges after a federal judge referred him to the U.S.
Attorney's Office for violating court orders in a 2007 class
action to stop racially profiling Latinos.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow recommended that criminal
contempt charges be brought against Arpaio, Chief Deputy Gerald
Sheridan, Capt. Steve Bailey, and Arpaio's former attorney Michele
Iafrate.

Judge Snow's decision comes after finding in May that Arpaio,
Sheridan, and two other aides were guilty of civil contempt.  The
men disobeyed Snow's earlier orders to turn over video and other
evidence in the racial profiling case, and continued to enforce
federal immigration law.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 17, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on November 15, 2016;

   -- Appellant Maricopa County's opening brief is due on
      December 27, 2016;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Manuel De Jesus Ortega
      Melendres, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto Jr., Jessica Quitugua
      Rodriguez, David Rodriguez and Somos America is due on
      January 24, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellees MANUEL DE JESUS ORTEGA MELENDRES, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated; JESSICA QUITUGUA
RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; DAVID RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; VELIA MERAZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; MANUEL NIETO, Jr., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; and SOMOS AMERICA
are represented by:

          Rebecca A. Jacobs, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-7036
          E-mail: rjacobs@cov.com

               - and -

          Anne Lai, Esq.
          UCI SCHOOL OF LAW
          401 E. Peltason Dr.
          Irvine, CA 92697-8000
          Telephone: (948) 824-7722
          E-mail: alai@law.uci.org

               - and -

          Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.
          ACLU OF ARIZONA
          P.O. Box 17148
          Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148
          Telephone: (602) 650-1967
          E-mail: dpochoda@acluaz.org

               - and -

          Andre Segura, Esq.
          ACLU-AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2676
          Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
          E-mail: asegura@aclu.org

               - and -

          Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0775
          Facsimile: (415) 395-0950
          E-mail: cwang@aclu.org

               - and -

          Stanley Young, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 632-4700
          E-mail: syoung@cov.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees JESSICA QUITUGUA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; DAVID RODRIGUEZ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; VELIA
MERAZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
MANUEL NIETO, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; and SOMOS AMERICA are represented by:

          Hyun Sik Byun, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 632-4700
          E-mail: hbyun@cov.com

Defendant-Appellant MARICOPA COUNTY is represented by:

          Richard Kenneth Walker, Esq.
          WALKER & PESKIND, PLLC
          16100 N. 71st Street
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 483-6336
          E-mail: rkw@azlawpartner.com

Defendant JOSEPH M. ARPAIO is represented by:

          Justin Michael Ackerman, Esq.
          Eileen Dennis GilBride, Esq.
          JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.
          40 N. Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 263-7330
          Facsimile: (602) 200-7846
          E-mail: jackerman@jshfirm.com
                  egilbride@jshfirm.com


MAVEN PROPERTY: Faces "Drudy" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Drudy, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), vs. Maven Property Management, LLC and Barry
Schwarzberg, Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-62280-CMA (S.D. Fla.,
September 23, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime and straight wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Maven Property Management, LLC --
https://mavenre.managebuilding.com/ -- is a full service,
vertically integrated real estate investment firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Franklin Antonio Jara, Esq.
     JARA & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     19 West Flagler Street, Suite 504
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: (305) 372-0290
     Fax: (305) 675-0383
     E-mail: info@jaralaw.com


MDL 1663: Marsh USA Must Defend Against Hunstman et al. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs International
Risk Insurance Company, Huntsman Corporation, Huntsman Holdings,
LLC (n/k/a Huntsman Corporation), Huntsman LLC (n/k/a Huntsman
International LLC), and Huntsman Advanced Materials LLC
(collectively, Plaintiffs) in the case captioned, IN RE INSURANCE
BROKERAGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION. MDL-1663 TAG-ALONG ACTION:
INTERNATIONAL RISK INSURANCE CO., et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARSH USA
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 04-5184 (CCC) (D.N.J.)

The action is part of the consolidated pretrial proceedings of the
multidistrict litigation In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1663. Plaintiffs are businesses, individuals,
and other purchasers of insurance. Marsh is a provider of
insurance brokerage and consulting services -- i.e., Marsh stands
between businesses and individuals that want to buy insurance and
the insurers who sell it. [Id.] Plaintiffs claim Marsh illegally
rigged bids, limited competition, and fixed prices for insurance
products in the United States in violation of Sec. 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1; the Racketeering Influence and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c)-(d);
and various state statutes and common law.

The Second Amended Complaint posits the existence of a Marsh-
centered conspiracy: namely, a horizontal agreement among Marsh's
insurance carrier partners not to compete for one another's
incumbent business in the marketplace for excess casualty
insurance (the excess-casualty-based conspiracy). Specifically,
the Second Amended Complaint alleges "as part of the conspiracy,
the participants agreed that each insurer would be permitted to
keep its incumbent business, and that Marsh would protect that
business from competition, both from insurers inside and outside
the arrangement."

Brian Dumesnil, counsel for Plaintiffs, represented that with
respect to Plaintiffs' federal antitrust and RICO claims,
Plaintiffs only intended to plead the excess-casualty-based
conspiracy.

On April 30, 2013, Marsh filed its original motion to dismiss.
That motion was administratively terminated on November 25, 2013
to allow the parties to pursue settlement. On November 25, 2015,
Marsh was granted permission to refile its motion to dismiss. On
December 18, 2015, Marsh filed the instant motion arguing that the
Second Amended Complaint does not state a claim under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act or Section 1962(c) or (d) of the RICO Act.

In her Opinion dated September 20, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/cJhT7s from Leagle.com, Judge Cecchi concluded that
Plaintiffs adequately pleaded their antitrust claims under Rule
9(b) because Plaintiffs have injected precision into their
antitrust claims by pleading the specifics of the conspiracy and
the acts taken in furtherance of the conspiracy and that because
Plaintiffs rely on mail fraud as the basis for Defendants' RICO
violation, Rule 9(b) governs Plaintiffs' RICO claims.

Eagle Products, Inc. is represented by Howard J. Sedran, Esq. --
hsedran@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN

National Association of Professional Insurance Agents is
represented by William F. Megna, Esq. -- wmegna@mmmlaw.com --
MORRIS, MANNING & MARTIN, LLP

Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers Of America, Inc. is
represented by:

      Shaffin Abdul Datoo, Esq.
      THOMPSON WIGDOR & GILLY LLP
      Rockefeller Center, 1270 Avenue,
      25th Floor
      New York, NY 10020
      Tel:(212)307-5500

IAAD O INC., et al. are represented by:

      John J. Pentz, Esq.
      CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS GROUP
      2 Clock Tower Place
      Suite 260G
      Maynard, MA 01754
      Tel: (978)461-1548

            -- and --

      David Marc Nieporent, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd St., Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Tel:(646)681-4193

Romero General Construction is represented by Andrea J. Lawrence,
Esq. -- counsel@lawrencewandrea.com -- COHEN TAUBER SPIEVACK &
WAGNER P.C.

Stephen Lewis, et al. are  represented by Adam J. Levitt, Esq. --
alevitt@gelaw.com -- GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. -- Fred Taylor
Isquith, Esq. -- Isquith@whafh.com -- and Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. --
rifkin@whafh.com -- WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERTZ LLP --
Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq. -- jagoldstein@pomlaw.com --
POMERANTZ LLP -- Joanne M. Cicala, Esq. -- jcicala@kmllp.com --
Peter S. Linden, Esq. -- plinden@kmllp.com -- and Richard L.
Stone, Esq. -- rstone@kmllp.com -- KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP

KLLM INC is represented by Jon Stephen Kennedy, Esq. -- Richard F.
Yarborough, Esq. -- ryarborough@wellsmar.com -- Roy H. Liddell,
Esq. -- rliddell@wellsmar.com -- and Thomas M. Louis, Esq. --
tmouis@wellsmar.com -- WELLS, MARBLE & HURST, PLLC

AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., et al. are represented by Barbara T.
Sicalides, Esq. -- sicalidesb@pepperlaw.com -- and Joanna J.
Cline, Esq. -- clinej@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP

Marsh & Mclennan Companies, Inc., et al. are represented by Andrew
T. Berry, Esq. -- aberry@mccarter.com -- and Brian J. Osias, Esq.
-- bosias@mccarter.com -- MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP -- Christopher
J. St. Jeanos, Esq. -- cstjeanos@willkie.com -- WILLKIE FARR &
GALLAGHER LLP -- Daniel J. Leffell, Esq. -- dleffell@freeborn.com
-- and David C. Gustman, Esq. -- dgustman@freebor.com -- and Jill
Christine Anderson, Esq. -- janderson@freeborn.com -- FREEBORN &
PETERS   They are also represented by:

      Donald Arthur Blackwell, Esq.
      Francis A. Anania, Esq.
      ANANIA, BANDKLAYDER, BLACKWELL & BAUMGARTEN
      100 SE 2nd St #4300
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel:(305)373-4900


MDL 2420: Judge Says Microsoft and Sony Must Arbitrate
------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif., granted Sony's request to
arbitrate Microsoft's antitrust claims involving lithium ion
batteries, but tossed its motion to dismiss the claims as moot.

In June 2015, Microsoft accused Sony, Panasonic and other
electronics firms of conspiring to fix the price of lithium ion
batteries for more than a decade. The suit is part of a wider
multidistrict class action still pending in the Northern District
of California.

Sony settled the antitrust claims it faced in the multidistrict
litigation case for $19 million in September, the first defendant
to do so.

In Microsoft's lawsuit, the Seattle-based tech giant says Nokia,
whose mobile business it bought in 2013, paid more than it should
have for the batteries during the time of the conspiracy, which it
claims lasted from Jan. 1, 2000 to May 31, 2011.

Sony wants Microsoft to arbitrate its claims, citing its product
purchase agreement with Nokia for the batteries. The agreement
contains an arbitration clause requiring that disputes over its
scope and the arbitrability of claims be resolved by an
arbitrator, not a court.

Meanwhile, Microsoft said the court could determine arbitrability
based on the "wholly groundless" standard, which aims to prevent a
party from asserting any claim it wants just to force arbitration.

Specifically, Microsoft wanted a judge to determine the
arbitrability of claims predating the product purchase agreement
as well as injunctive relief claims, which were carved out of the
agreement. It said the claims that predate the agreement shouldn't
be arbitrated because the agreement isn't retroactive.
And at a hearing in August, Microsoft attorney Parker Miller told
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers that Sony backdated the
arbitration agreement to July 2000, though it was executed in
October 2001.

"This was a narrow contract about the purchase of certain lithium
ion batteries, it doesn't cover purchases before [the contract],"
Miller told the judge. "How can [claims] possibly arise from a
contract that doesn't exist?"

Miller did not return a request for comment on the ruling.

In finding for Sony, Gonzalez Rogers noted that the arbitration
clause is based on International Chamber of Commerce rules.

"The parties' incorporation of the ICC rules in the arbitration
provision constitutes a clear and unmistakable delegation of the
question of arbitrability here to an arbitrator, rather than the
court," she said in her order.

Gonzalez Rogers then addressed Microsoft's "wholly groundless"
argument. Even where arbitrability questions have been delegated
to an arbitrator, she said courts have ordered parties to
arbitrate claims predating an arbitration agreement and that
retroactive application of the agreement isn't wholly groundless
if the arbitration clause is "broad."

The judge made a similar finding regarding Microsoft's contention
that its injunctive relief claims aren't arbitrable based on the
wholly groundless test, noting that even where such claims have
been carved out of an arbitration agreement, courts have
nonetheless compelled arbitration.

And Microsoft is seeking damages, not injunctive relief, Gonzalez
Rogers noted.

"Microsoft did not rush into court seeking emergency injunctive
relief," Gonzalez Rogers said. "Nor is intellectual property at
issue. Given the overlap between the damages sought and the
potential for injunctive relief, the court cannot find that
Microsoft's injunctive relief claims against Sony would fall
within a 'wholly groundless' category depriving the question of
arbitrability from the arbitrator."

Despite ordering arbitration in the case, Gonzalez Rogers denied
Sony's request to dismiss Microsoft's complaint as moot, citing
Ninth Circuit precedent allowing her to either stay proceedings as
in this case or dismiss.

Sony is represented by Jon Cieslak -- jcieslak@cooley.com -- of
Cooley LLP in San Diego. He did not return a request for comment.

Miller -- parker.miller@alston.com -- is with Alston & Bird in
Atlanta.

The case is IN RE: LITHIUM ION BATTERS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, This
Document Relates To: MICROSOFT MOBILE, INC. ET AL. Plaintiffs, v.
LG CHEM AMERICA, INC., ET AL. Defendants, Master File No. 13-MD-
02420-YGR, Case No. 15-CV-03443-YGR (N.D. Cal.).


MDL 2420: Toshiba's Bids to Dismiss or Compel Arbitration Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif., rejected two motions from
Toshiba, seeking to dismiss or compel arbitration in Dell's price-
fixing antitrust complaint involving lithium ion batteries.

Dell accused Toshiba and 12 other defendants in June 2015 of
conspiring to fix battery prices as part of a larger multidistrict
class action, still pending in the Northern District of
California.

Dell said in its motion to dismiss that it paid the defendants
more than $3.1 billion for batteries from the defendants over the
course of the 11-year conspiracy.

Sony settled antitrust claims against it for $19 million in the
multidistrict litigation in September, making it the first
defendant to do so.

In its motion to dismiss, Toshiba said Dell had not provided
enough information about the antitrust claim assignments it
received from its subsidiaries, failing to identify the assignors,
what they bought, from whom they bought them, and where they
bought them, rendering the complaint too "indefinite and
unintelligible" to file a response.

Dell said in opposition that it gave all of that information to
Toshiba in July, and that when it asked Toshiba to withdraw its
motion, Toshiba refused.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers had harsh words for
Toshiba at a hearing last week, telling its attorney J. Frank
Hogue: "I do not take kindly to churning cases."

Hogue told Gonzalez that Toshiba did not withdraw its motion
because the information Dell produced was still insufficient, as
it did not identify which assignments came from foreign
subsidiaries, which Toshiba says is grounds for dismissal.

In an order, Gonzalez agreed with Dell that the information it
provided is sufficient. She denied Toshiba's request that Dell
provide more detailed information if she rejects its motion for
dismissal.

Hogue declined to comment on the rulings.

In denying Toshiba's request for dismissal, Gonzalez wrote: "Given
the nature of plaintiffs' overall allegations and the production
of the assignment agreements themselves, the court finds that
Toshiba's asserted deficiencies in the complaint have been cured."

But Gonzalez ordered Dell to file a statement on how the claim
assignments relate to Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act
requirements, saying the law could affect Dell's case.

"Given the potential for motion practice relative to the FTAIA, a
precise articulation of the facts relative to those issues
promotes efficiency," Gonzalez wrote.

Also, Gonzalez Rogers denied Toshiba's motion to compel Dell to
arbitrate its antitrust claim, saying Toshiba's arguments "do not
persuade."

Dell claims that all of the defendants are responsible for the
batteries it bought from any defendant during the price-fixing
conspiracy, including purchases it made under master purchase
agreements with Panasonic and Sanyo.

The master purchase agreements contain arbitration clauses.
Toshiba argued that though it is not a signatory to them, if it is
to be held responsible for the inflated battery purchases under
them, it can compel Dell to arbitrate its claim under equitable
estoppel.

Dell countered that it never agreed to arbitrate with Toshiba, and
that equitable estoppel does not apply to the case.

Gonzalez agreed with Dell.

"Toshiba offers no support for its proposition that, simply
because an arbitration agreement exists, Toshiba, as a non-
signatory to such agreements, can compel plaintiffs into
arbitration," the judge wrote.

"While relevant, the [master purchase agreements] are just one
piece of a much larger claim."

Dell is represented by Debra Bernstein --
debra.bernstein@alston.com -- with Alston & Bird in Atlanta, who
could not be reached for comment.

Hogue -- fhogue@whitecase.com -- is with White & Case in
Washington, D.C.


MEDICREDIT INC: Class Certification Sought in "Hartman" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MELISSA HARTMAN, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MEDICREDIT, INC.
and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-01596-MRH-MPK
(W.D. Penn.), the Plaintiff seeks certification of the following
Class:

     "all Pennsylvania consumers who, beginning one year prior to
     the filing of this action through and including the final
     resolution of this case, were sent one or more letter(s)
     from Defendant attempting to collect a consumer debt
     allegedly owed to UPP University of Pittsburgh Phys which
     disclosed a consumer number visible through the window of
     the envelope associated by Defendant with the person's
     account or the person".

The Plaintiff filed a complaint averring that the Defendant
violated the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA) which prohibit a debt collector from using any unfair and
unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt and
from using language or a symbol on any envelope when communicating
with a consumer by mail.

Medicredit is debt collector agency.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KoIoJA19

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
          MOYNIHAN LAW, P.C.
          112 Washington Place, Suite 1-N
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 889 8535
          E-mail: mark@moynihanlaw.net

               - and -

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256


MICROSOFT CORP: Class Action Absent From Supreme Court Docket
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports
that the U.S. Supreme Court may be tinkering with its docket with
the expectation that it will be getting a ninth justice by the end
of the upcoming term.

The court has been operating with only eight justices since
Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly in February.

That vacancy seems to be prompting the court to put off hearing
oral argument in controversial cases until later in the term,
which typically goes from October to June, Georgetown University
Law Center professor Martin S. Lederman said at a Sept. 19
Georgetown law school event.

The justices aren't eager to hear cases where they might split
4-4, Mr. Lederman said.  Those cases, including a class action
against Microsoft, are conspicuously absent from the court's
scheduled oral arguments.

It may be that the court is hoping for a ninth justice to break
the tie in those cases, Mr. Lederman said.

Stuck With Hard Cases

Evenly divided decisions leave in place the decision below without
setting binding precedent.  The justices badly want to avoid that
outcome, Mr. Lederman said.

Last term, avoiding 4-4 decisions led to narrow holdings and odd
vote breakdowns.

This term, the court has simply turned away ideologically divisive
cases where a 4-4 split is likely, Mr. Lederman said.

But the court had already agreed to hear some cases likely to end
in a split before Scalia passed away.

The court hasn't scheduled for oral argument a handful of such
cases, even though they were ready to be argued last term,
Mr. Lederman said.

Holding Back

Cases granted by mid-January are typically argued during that
Supreme Court term.

But four cases that met that deadline last term were still
outstanding at the end of the term, even though there was room to
hear them.

At least one of those was delayed at the request of one of the
parties, Manuel v. City of Joliet, U.S., No. 14-9496, to be argued
10/5/16.

But three others are being held likely due to their divisive
topics, Stris & Maher LLP's Peter K. Stris, Los Angeles, told
Bloomberg BNA.

Microsoft Missing

For example, on Jan. 15 the court agreed to hear a class action
suit against tech-giant Microsoft, Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, U.S.,
No. 15-457, granted 1/15/16, Stris, who represents the plaintiffs
in that case, said in a Sept. 26 e-mail.

"We were ready to argue Microsoft v. Baker last Term," but it was
held over to this term, he said.

"Then, along with two other notable cases (Trinity Lutheran and
Murr), it was not placed on either the October or November
argument calendars," Stris said.

Each "of those three cases involves historically divisive
subjects" -- class actions, religious liberty (Trinity Lutheran
Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley, U.S., No. 15-577, cert.
granted 1/15/16) and the takings clause (Murr v. Wisconsin, U.S.,
No. 15-214, cert. granted 1/15/16), Stris said.

"I suspect the Court is waiting to see what happens with the
confirmation process," he said.

"If so, we probably won't see them on the December calendar
either."

Controversial Cases Waiting

Stris's hunch explains why other controversial cases haven't been
scheduled for oral argument yet.

The court granted a racial gerrymandering dispute and a death
penalty case in early June, Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of
Elections, U.S., No. 15-680, cert. granted 6/6/16, and Moore v.
Texas, U.S., No. 15-797, cert. granted 6/6/16.

Neither of those hot-button issues are on the court's oral
argument calendars yet, even though other cases granted later are
already set for argument.

All told, the court has 11 cases that it's agreed to hear but
hasn't yet set for oral argument, research conducted by Bloomberg
BNA shows.

Only two involve relatively non-controversial topics, like patents
or bankruptcy.  The remainder include an antitrust dispute
involving the biggest banks and credit card companies in the U.S.,
a claim of gender discrimination in immigration statutes, the
death penalty and another racial gerrymandering suit.

SCOTUS Tea Leaves

But while Mr. Lederman said the court's scheduling suggests that
it might be counting on a ninth justice by the end of the term,
another court watcher said that's unlikely.

The Senate has made clear that it won't hold confirmation hearings
on the Supreme Court vacancy during the lame-duck session, Carrie
Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network, Washington, said at a
Sept. 27 Federalist Society event.

There's not enough time for the next president to take office in
late-January, nominate a qualified individual and have the Senate
hold confirmation hearings and vote on that nominee before the
Supreme Court breaks for the term in late-June, Ms. Severino,
whose biography says she has briefed Senators on judicial
nominations, said.

So holding off controversial arguments in the hope of avoiding 4-4
decisions seems like a strange strategy, she said.

But Lederman disagreed. No matter who wins the presidency, the
president and senate are likely to act on the vacancy quickly, he
said.

Prior to the most recent nomination, "the average time from
nomination to confirmation is 67 days," according to the White
House.  "The longest time before confirmation in the past three
decades was 99 days, for Justice Thomas, and the last four
Justices, spanning two Administrations, were confirmed in an
average of 75 days," its website says.

Accordingly, we should see someone in the ninth seat by March or
April, Mr. Lederman said.

Until then, as Mr. Lederman put it, court watchers will just have
to keep reading the Supreme Court tea leaves.


MGT CAPITAL: Faces "Mayer" Securities Lawsuit Over Acquisitions
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN MAYER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. MGT CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, INC., ROBERT B.
LADD, and JOHN MCAFEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07449
(S.D.N.Y., September 23, 2016), alleges Securities and Exchange
Act violations relating to Defendant's plan to acquire certain
assets and technology from D-Vasive Inc. and Demonsaw LLC.

MGT CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, INC., together with its subsidiaries,
purports to acquire, develop, and monetize assets in the online,
mobile, and casino gaming space. The Company operates through two
segments, Gaming and Intellectual Property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


MURPHY OIL: Awaits Supreme Court Ruling on Class Action Waivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Halcom and Dustin Walsh, writing for Crain's Detroit
Business, report that Southeast Michigan employers who thought
they had managed the risk of lawsuits from their workforce may
have another think coming early next year if the U.S. Supreme
Court makes the final call on whether employee class-action claim
waivers are legal.

The U.S. Solicitor General's office in mid-September asked the
high court to take up National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil
USA Inc., a dispute over whether the Arkansas gas station
operating company can require employees to forgo class-action and
collective-action employment lawsuits in favor of binding,
individual arbitration.

Murphy Oil, which has about 1,000 stations nationwide, including
in Monroe and Shelby Township, must reply by Nov. 10.  Ernst &
Young LLP also has gone to the Supreme Court, after losing in a
separate case from California over the same issue.

Attorneys generally agree the court is likely to consider class-
action waivers after the presidential election -- which could
directly impact a Kelly Services Inc. lawsuit that the Troy
staffing company just brought to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Cincinnati.

In that case, at least 700 Kelly home-based call center agents,
paid by the hour, contend they are underpaid for the time they
spend booting up, shutting down and resolving technical connection
problems on the software they use to service Kelly customers.

Kelly contends the employees must go to binding arbitration rather
than to court, under arbitration agreements that employees have
had to sign since November 2014, but U.S. District Judge David
Lawson found in August the employees cannot surrender their rights
to sue under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.  The company
has appealed, but local attorneys think the 6th Circuit Court will
want to see how the Supreme Court weighs in first.

"I suspect it (Murphy Oil) will lead to a binding ruling," said
Jason Thompson -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- partner at
Southfield-based Sommers Schwartz PC and lead counsel for the
Kelly Services employees.  "The NLRA (National Labor Relations
Act) preserves 'concerted activity,' which to me seems to include
class actions and collective-action suits, and that's precisely
with this fight is."

At least 700 of the 8,000 or so Kelly employees affected have
"opted in" to participate in the case, Mr. Thompson said.
Gerald Maatman, attorney at Seyfarth Shaw LLP in Chicago
representing Kelly in the case, did not return phone calls seeking
comment.

J. Michael Bernard -- jbernard@dykema.com -- partner at Detroit-
based Dykema Gossett PLLC, said the coupling of the class-action
waiver is a relatively new practice among employers, but one that
is certain to gain in popularity.

"Employers, for obvious reasons, love them because they're not
being held hostage by the threat of a class action," Mr. Bernard
said.  "Class-action suits are a terror, because if you lose, it
could bankrupt your company."

Attorneys believe the Supreme Court will have to settle the issue
now because of conflicting rulings from lower courts -- the 5th
Circuit appeals court sided with Murphy Oil last October, and the
11th in favor of Chipio Windshield Repair in 2014, while the 9th
sided against Ernst & Young in August and the 7th against Epic
Systems Inc. in May.

The outcome is not yet clear, since the winner of the Nov. 8
presidential election will most likely appoint the replacement
justice for the late Antonin Scalia.  Only four justices have to
decide whether to take up a case, but given a recent spate of 4-4
rulings along ideological lines since Scalia's death, it's likely
each faction might want to know the court's future makeup.

"The court for a while declined (to take up) several cases with
(same-sex) marriage equality until they got contradictory opinions
(in lower courts), and then once they had them they acted very
quickly. There are a number of cases to take up here, and it's
possible this will be similar," said Diane Soubly --
soubly@butzel.com -- attorney at Butzel Long PC who practices
employment and benefits law.

If the court sides with employees next year, she said, it could
have ramifications across a range of industries -- particularly
for companies that are known to face wage and benefits lawsuits or
employee classifications.

"It could also impact franchises who have employees and have
disputes about whether the employees belong to them or the
franchisor. Everyone is trying to run leaner and meaner, so there
are certainly FLSA concerns in almost every industry," she said.

"It's possible that they would hear this case (Murphy Oil), or
pick (another).  I don't know that they'll do that until there's a
ninth justice, and that might mean after the election.  But they
don't have to decide this right away.  There will still need to be
a response to the petition, and other procedural matters to
resolve in the meantime."

Dykema's labor attorneys are recommending clients attach the
waiver to employment agreements, even as the practice hangs in the
balance.

"There's a level of uncertainty as to whether (the agreements)
will be enforceable and you could irritate educated employees, but
they can save lots of money and lots of headaches,"
Mr. Bernard said.  "This is going to get more play as the topic
heats up, and depending on whether the Supreme Court hears and
rules on the case, it may become an even more common practice."

But James Perry, a partner at Dickinson Wright PLLC practicing
labor and employment law, said some companies may choose to hold
off on using waivers until the courts clarify whether they're
enforceable.  Even if the Supreme Court decides they are, they may
become an individual business decision based on a company's size
and workforce.

"If you own a company with less than 50 employees, like a
stand-alone restaurant or a single plant, you're probably not
worried about class actions as much.  But if you take a company
with thousands of employees, in multiple states, then requiring
employees to litigate individually means the company would
minimize liability and doesn't need to stay on top of the law in
every state where employees bring claims.  So I could recommend
that (waivers) for those employers, if it gets approved by the
Supreme Court."

But Mr. Thompson, for his part, thinks employers might not fear a
pro-labor ruling in Murphy Oil or the other cases as much as their
lawyers let on.  He has also been working a separate Fair Labor
Standards case outside Michigan that proceeded to binding
arbitration because of waivers, he said -- and so the Southfield
firm has pursued 130 individual matters.  The employer typically
has to pay for those arbitration proceedings, he said.

"If the NLRB's position is supported, it may be a welcome change
for some companies that no one would be willing to admit.  There
are eager firms, ours included, that will file 130 separate claims
if they have to, and employment issues will not go away just
because there's arbitration," he said.  "It could actually be a
little cheaper to clean house with a class action and take care of
matters in one fell swoop."


MYLAN: Congress Quizzes CEO Over Rising Costs of EpiPens
--------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Reyes, writing for Cosumnes Connection, reports that
Congressman Glenn Grothman was one of the members of the House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee that got the opportunity
to question the Mylan CEO about the rising cost of EpiPens.  "I
think what is incorrectly assumed is that $608 is what Mylan
received".

Mylan is caught in the middle of a major drug pricing controversy.
For instance, her patient-assistance argument fell flat as a
repeat of similar defenses from ex-Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO
Martin Shkreli, whose enormous price hike turned up the heat on
the debate a year ago, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals, whose business
model under former CEO Michael Pearson relied in part on outsize
price increases.

All patients with suspected severe allergic reactions -- even the
elderly -- are given either a prescription or an actual
epinephrine auto injector upon discharge, he said.  She explained
that the company pays a majority of the list price in the form of
rebates and fees.  But again lawmakers were skeptical.

"Parents don't have a choice", Chaffetz said. "Show it to us", he
said.

One of the points she made over and over in her defense was that
Mylan had saved the American people $180 billion on drugs.

Bresch has also tried minimizing the gains made from selling the
EpiPen, saying that her company only makes $50 per syringe.

Bresch also emphasized the work the company had done to spread
awareness of anaphylaxis, bragging that the company had now
reached 80 percent more patients.  Because he knew he would go
back and do the same thing.  It's a crock; it is.  Another class
action filed in OH alleges that the price increases violate state
consumer protection laws because "Defendant has a legal duty and
obligation to set a fair, affordable, and reasonable [price] and
not hold consumers hostage by forcing them to pay exorbitant
prices for its medically necessary product".  Drugs are not priced
like other commodities.

"Reading between the tea leaves we suspect discussions are already
taking place", Gal said, predicting increased EpiPen competition
before the end of 2018.  "I'm asking questions -- you're the CEO",
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said.

Bresch earned almost $19 million previous year.

The Food and Drug Administration's Dr. Douglas Throckmorton said
at the Sept. 28 hearing that he could not legally comment on other
epinephrine auto-injector products pending approval.

"About $18 million.  Sounds like you're doing pretty well on
this", Mica said.

She began her defense by asserting her company's right to make a
profit, which is not in dispute.  "FDA can not approve a product
for which we have not received an application", Dr. Throckmorton
said.  The FDA says its goal is to review 90% of those requests
within four months, and most requests generally are approved or
declined within four to six months, said Rosen, a former FDA
official and pharmacist.

According to Marianne Udow-Phillips of Center for Healthcare
Research and Partition, University of MI, the profit margin
enjoyed by Mylan from EpiPen will fluctuate as per the payer. This
is a bogus defense, considering drug price hikes like the ones she
has presided over are very much part of the equation that raises
the costs in the entire health sector for consumers. Rep. Stephen
Lynch (D-Mass.) noted that the Department of Veterans Affairs
probably has negotiated a special price for EpiPens.

"EpiPens save lives every day, but only for those who can afford
them", he said in his blogpost.  "And a lot of those people don't
have discounts".  Their personal testimony helped persuade a
number of state lawmakers to pass bills to get schools to stock
epinephrine injectors, such as the EpiPen, according to
legislators and others familiar with the lobbying effort.  "This
is why we don't believe you". I have to defend both my Republican
and my Democratic colleagues because you asked for it.  If you
want to come into Washington and lobby us to make us buy your
stuff, this is what you get -- a level of scrutiny and treatment
that would curl my hair.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Mitchell Appeals Ruling in "Wright" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Jo Mitchell filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Wright, et al. v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:14-cv-10457, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case
seeks to redress the Defendant's alleged practice of making
unsolicited debt collection and other phone calls to the cellular
and landline telephones of consumers nationwide without consent
and with the use of an automatic telephone dialing system and pre-
recorded voice in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Amy Jo Mitchell v. Nationstar
Mortgage, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-3538, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by October 11, 2016;
      and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before November 7, 2016, for
      Amy Jo Mitchell.

Appellant AMY JO MITCHELL is represented by:

          W. Allen McDonald, Esq.
          LACY, PRICE & WAGNER P.C.
          249 N. Peters Road
          Knoxville, TN 37923
          Telephone: (865) 246-0800
          E-mail: amcdonald@lpwpc.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees HEATHER WRIGHT, CAROLE STEWART, JEANETTE
CHILDRESS, ROBERT JORDAN and SEAN HALBERT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 589-6380
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

Defendant-Appellee NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, is represented by:

          Henry Pietrkowski, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          Ten S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-7507
          Telephone: (312) 207-3904
          E-mail: hpietrkowski@reedsmith.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Pentz Seeks Review of "Wright" Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Pentz filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled Wright, et al. v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:14-cv-10457, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case
seeks to redress the Defendant's alleged practice of making
unsolicited debt collection and other phone calls to the cellular
and landline telephones of consumers nationwide without consent
and with the use of an automatic telephone dialing system and pre-
recorded voice in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Connie Pentz v. Nationstar
Mortgage, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-3537, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by October 11, 2016;
      and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before November 7, 2016, for
      Connie Pentz.

The Appellate Court also noted that these parties are reflected on
the District Court docket but are not reflected on the Appellate
docket/caption for administrative purposes: Plaintiffs-Appellees:
Dana Skelton, Vanessa Ruggles and Rose Somers.

Appellant CONNIE PENTZ is represented by:

          Arthur J. Howe, Esq.
          HOWE LAW LLC
          155 N. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Telephone: (312) 600-8336
          E-mail: howe@howe-llc.com

               - and -

          John Jacob Pentz, III, Esq.
          19 Widow Rites Lane
          Sudbury, MA 01776
          Telephone: (978) 261-5725
          E-mail: jjpentz3@gmail.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees HEATHER WRIGHT, CAROLE STEWART, JEANETTE
CHILDRESS, ROBERT JORDAN and SEAN HALBERT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 589-6380
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

Defendant-Appellee NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, is represented by:

          Henry Pietrkowski, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          Ten S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-7507
          Telephone: (312) 207-3904
          E-mail: hpietrkowski@reedsmith.com


NEW JERSEY: Court Narrows Claims in "Galicki" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Jose L. Linares granted in part and denied, in part, the
defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned ZACHARY
GALICKI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Defendants.
GW CAR SERVICE, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-169 (JLL) (D.N.J.).

The civil action arose out of the closure of multiple lanes of
traffic to the George Washington Bridge ("GWB") from September 9,
2013, through September 13, 2013.

On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint (SAC) on behalf of a putative class.  The SAC alleged
numerous claims sounding in tort and civil rights violations as
against the State of New Jersey, Chris Christie for Governor, Inc.
(CCFG), the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (collectively
the "Entity Defendants"), Bridget Anne Kelly, Michael Drewniak,
David Wildstein, Bill Baroni (collectively the "Individual
Defendants"), as well as fictitious, and as yet unknown,
individuals and corporations.

Specifically, the SAC alleged 10 counts as follows:,

     Count One: 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against Kelly, in her
     individual capacity, Drewniak, in his, individual capacity,
     Wildstein, Baroni, CCFG, and Port Authority

     Count Two: Governmental Responsibility pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
     section 1983 against Port, Authority only

     Count Three: N.J.S.A. section 2C:41-1 et seq., New Jersey
     Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt, Organizations Act (NJ
     RICO) against all Defendants

     Count Four: N.J.S.A. section 10:6-1 et seq., New Jersey
     Civil Rights Act (NJCRA) against, Kelly, in her individual
     and/or official capacity, Drewniak, in his individual,
     and/or official capacity, Wildstein, Baroni, Port Authority,
     CCFG, and the State

     Count Five: Governmental Responsibility pursuant to the
     NJCRA against the State and, Port Authority

     Count Six: Common Law Civil Conspiracy against all
     defendants

     Count Seven: N.J.S.A. section 56:8-1 et seq., New Jersey
     Consumer Fraud Act (NJ CFA), against Wildstein, Baroni, and
     Port Authority

     Count Eight: Breach of Contract and Implied Covenant of Good
     Faith and Fair Dealing, against Port Authority

     Count Nine: Tortious Interference against Kelly, Drewniak,
     Wildstein, Baroni, CCFG, and the State

     Count Ten: Respondeat Superior against the State, CCFG, and
     Port Authority

The defendants, Port Authority, Wildstein, CCFG, the State &
Drewniak, and Baroni, moved to dismiss the SAC.

As to Counts One and Two, Judge Linares found that the plaintiffs
have sufficiently stated a claim to survive the motions to
dismiss.  The judge determined that all of the named defendants
were "acting under color of state law," that the plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged violation of a constitutional right, and that
Baroni and Drewniak are not entitled to qualified immunity.  In
sum, the Section 1983 claims shall proceed against the Individual
Defendants (i.e., Kelly, Drewniak, Baroni, and Wildstein) in their
individual capacities, plus CCFG and Port Authority.  With respect
to Port Authority, the Section 1983 claim shall proceed only to
the extent it is premised on Wildstein and Baroni's possession of
"final policymaking authority," but was dismissed with prejudice
to the extent it is premised on a failure to train.

After having concluded that the SAC sufficiently states a Section
1983 claim against the Individual Defendants in their individual
capacities, CCFG, and Port Authority, Judge Linares held that
Counts Four and Five shall also proceed against these same
defendants for the reasons and to the same extent.  However, Judge
Linares dismissed Counts Four and Five of the SAC as to New Jersey
with prejudice, holding that the State is not a "person" under the
NJCRA and therefore not subject to suit under the statute.

As to Count Six, Judge Linares found that the SAC sufficiently
states a cause of action for civil conspiracy agains the
Individual Defendants, since the plaintiffs adequately alleged an
agreement between these defendants to unlawfully restrict the
plaintiffs in the exercise of their rights, and resulting damages.
Judge Linares also found that the SAC sufficiently states a cause
of action for common law civil conspiracy as to the Port Authority
and CCFG.

As to Count Three, Judge Linares dismissed the NJ RICO claim with
prejudice for failure to sufficiently establish a pattern of
racketeering activity.  The judge noted that the NJ RICO claim is
based on a single, overarching scheme: the creation of traffic
problems in Fort Lee by reducing the access lanes and toll booths
to the GWB, as retribution for Mayor Sokolich's failure to endorse
Governor Christie's re-election bid.  The traffic itself lasted
less than five days, from the morning of September 9, 2013,
through the morning of September 13, 2013.  Judge Linares found
that the plaintiffs failed to allege that the predicate acts
raised a threat of continued racketeering activity.

Judge Linares also agreed with the defendants that Count Seven
fails to state a claim because the payment of a toll in exchange
for the right to travel over the GWB does not constitute
"merchandise" within the meaning of the NJCFA.

Judge Linares also dismissed Count Eight with prejudice.  The
judge noted that the plaintiffs did not allege that they were
impeded in crossing the GWB itself; their allegations were limited
to reduction in access lanes to the toll booths where they would
enter into the purported contract, and the resulting traffic in
Fort Lee.  In the absence of something more, Judge Linares held
that the court cannot construe the payment of the toll as granting
the plaintiffs an indefinite, undefined, future right to "access"
to the GWB toll booth. Accordingly, the Court shall dismiss this
count with prejudice.

As to Count Nine, Judge Linares agreed with the defendants.  The
judge found that the claim for tortious interference with contract
must be dismissed with prejudice, since the court has already
determined that the plaintiffs cannot establish a contract between
themselves and the Port Authority sufficient to survive the
motions to dismiss.  Judge Linares also dismissed the claim for
tortious interference with prospective economic advantage without
prejudice because the plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently
allege reasonable expectation of economic advantage.

Lastly, Judge Linares dismiss the stand-alone cause of action
under Count Ten with prejudice because it is clear that the there
is no independent cause of action for respondeat superior under
New Jersey law.

A full-text copy of Judge Linares' September 15, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/NNuDf7 from Leagle.com.

ZACHARY GALICKI, JOY GALICKI, ELI GALICKI, ROBERT ARNOLD, KIM
JOSCELYN, ELIZABETH PSALTOS, Madeline LoBue, Hong Lee, Mark Katz,
Liberty News, Inc., Dog On It Doggie Daycare, Corrugated Box Ltd.,
Plaintiffs, represented by ROSEMARIE ARNOLD.

GW CAR SERVICE, LLC, LIME TAXI, LLC, PALISADES ENTERPRISES LLC,
FORT LEE CAR SERVICE LLC, VANS R US, BERGEN TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES, INC, ROBERT COHEN, JOAN COHEN, Victor Caltaldo,
Plaintiffs Consolidated, represented by BARRY D. EPSTEIN & MICHAEL
J. EPSTEIN, THE EPSTEIN LAW FIRM, P.A..

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Defendant, represented by JEFFREY S. JACOBSON
-- jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP, MICHAEL
C. WALTERS, OFFICE OF THE NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUSAN MARIE SCOTT,
OFFICE OF THE NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL, ANGELA LEE VELEZ, STATE OF NEW
JERSEY & ROBERT HAYES MURPHY, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

GOVERNOR CHRISTOPHER JAMES CHRISTIE, Defendant, represented by
SUSAN MARIE SCOTT, OFFICE OF THE NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL, ANGELA LEE
VELEZ, STATE OF NEW JERSEY & ROBERT HAYES MURPHY, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.

PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY, Defendant, represented by
DAVID ROBERT KROMM, THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY
& ROSANNE FACCHINI, THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ.

BILL BARONI, Defendant, represented by JOHN J. SULLIVAN, Cozen
O'Connor.

DAVID WILDSTEIN, Defendant, represented by ALAN L. ZEGAS --
azegas@zegaslaw.com

CHRIS CHRISTIE FOR GOVERNOR, INC., Defendant Consolidated,
represented by MARK D. SHERIDAN -- mark.sheridan@squirepb.com --
PATTON BOGGS LLP.

MICHAEL DREWNIAK, Defendant Consolidated, represented by ANGELA
LEE VELEZ, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, JEFFREY S. JACOBSON, KELLEY DRYE &
WARREN LLP, MICHAEL C. WALTERS, OFFICE OF THE NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL
& SUSAN MARIE SCOTT, OFFICE OF THE NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, represented by DAVID WILLIAM
FEDER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.


NEWS CORP: Court Upholds Dismissal of "Wilder" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LEWIS WILDER, as Trustee for the Lewis
Wilder Revocable Trusts, 12/10/2010, and IROW WORKERS LOCAL UNION
NO. 17 PENSION FUND, Plaintiffs, and AVON PENSION FUND,
administered by Bath and North East Somerset Council, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Lead Plaintiff, v.
NEWS CORPORATION, NI GROUP LTD., K. RUPERT MURDOCH, JAMES MURDOCH,
LES HINTON and REBEKAH BROOKS, Defendants, No. 11 Civ. 4947 (PGG)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied the motion filed by the
plaintiffs for reconsideration of the court's October 7, 2015
dismissal order.

The Avon Pension Fund brought the action as lead plaintiff on
behalf of a putative class that purchased News Corporation stock.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants concealed information
regarding illegal news-gathering practices at two News Corp.
newspapers -- The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World -- and
that the eventual public revelation of these practices harmed
investors by causing News Corp.'s stock price to plummet.  The
plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act against News Corp., its wholly-owned
United Kingdom subsidiary NI Group Limited, and four of the
companies' officers and directors -- K. Rupert Murdoch, James
Murdoch, Les Hinton, and Rebekah Brooks.

On April 30, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
(SAC), which modified the start date of the class period: the
SAC's expanded class period begins on July 8, 2009, while the
amended complaint's original class period commenced on February
15, 2011.  The allegedly false statements that provided the basis
for the claims made in the SAC are the same as those set forth in
the amended complaint, but the SAC's expanded class period
encompasses the entire time period during which those statements
were made.

On November 21, 2014, the defendants NI Group Limited and Rebekah
Brooks moved to dismiss the SAC for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Moreover, all defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, arguing, inter alia, that the expanded class period set
forth in the SAC was barred by the two-year statute of limitations
for private securities fraud actions.

On October 7, 2015, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the SAC, finding that (1) the court lacks personal
jurisdiction over the defendants NI Group and Brooks, and (2)
claims arising during the expanded class period were time-barred.
The court explained that because the SAC was filed well after the
two-year statute of limitations had expired for claims arising
during the new class period, the plaintiffs could only proceed on
those claims if they relate back to the filing of the amended
Complaint.  Finding that the plaintiffs had not met the
requirements for relation back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c), the
court concluded that claims arising "prior to February 15, 2011
[are] barred by the applicable statute of limitations."  Because
no actionable claims survived, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

On October 21, 2015, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of
the court's order dismissing the SAC.  The plaintiffs requested
that the court [1] reinstate the claims brought on behalf of the
original class members based on previously alleged
misrepresentations made during the expanded class period; and [2]
permit the plaintiffs to conduct discovery to determine whether a
basis for exerting personal jurisdiction over the NI Group or
Brooks can be pled.  The plaintiffs argued that the court erred by
(1) overlooking that the plaintiffs did in fact commit a mistake
in selecting the class period pled in the amended complaint, and
(2) failing to separately consider the doctrine of relation back
as it applies to the claims of the original class.

Judge Gardephe found that the plaintiffs have not met the standard
for reconsideration.  The judge stated that the appropriate time
for the plaintiffs to have alleged that they made a mistake was in
their opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss the SAC.
Judge Gardephe further said that the plaintiffs are also misguided
in contending that their supposed "mistake of law" justifies
application of the relation back doctrine, as the plaintiffs have
not cited any case in which a comparable "mistake of law" was held
to justify the expansion of a class period in a securities fraud
class action.

The plaintiffs also argued that -- even if the new class members'
claims are time barred -- original class members should be
permitted to proceed with claims based on the expanded class
period.  Judge Gardephe, however, pointed out that the plaintiffs
have not cited any case in which a court has permitted plaintiffs
to expand a class period without in fact expanding the class.

Judge Gardephe also said that the plaintiffs misapprehended the
basis for the court's dismissal with respect to the original class
members.  The judge explained that their claims were not dismissed
as time-barred, but rather because, without the benefit of an
expanded class period, the original class members are left with
nothing more than the same deficient claims that the court
previously dismissed.

In sum, Judge Gardephe found that the plaintiffs have not shown
"an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new
evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice."  Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration was denied.

A full-text copy of Judge Gardephe's September 20, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/EAxW2i from
Leagle.com.

Avon Pension Fund, Administered by Bath & North East Somerset
Council, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Armen Zohrabian --
azohrabian@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, David Avi Rosenfeld -- drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren J. Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Dennis J.
Herman -- dennish@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, Randi Dawn Bandman -- randib@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman --
srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Lewis Wilder, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N. Abbey --
aabbey@abbeyspanier.com -- Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis,
LLP, Danielle Suzanne Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren J. Robbins, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, pro hac vice, Dennis J. Herman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, pro hac vice, Maureen Elizabeth Mueller --
mmueller@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Nancy Kaboolian -- nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com -- Abbey
Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, Randi Dawn Bandman, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Iron Workers Local Union No. 17 Pension Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by Armen Zohrabian, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP &
Dennis J. Herman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

News Corporation, K. Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch, NI Group Ltd.,
Defendants, represented by Jay B. Kasner -- jay.kasner@skadden.com
-- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Scott D. Musoff --
scott.musoff@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP.

Rebekah Brooks, Defendant, represented by Danielle Lauren Rose --
danielle.rose@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP & Megha Jonnalagadda
Charalambides, Kobre & Kim LLP.

Les Hinton, Defendant, represented by Carl Hanline Loewenson Jr.
-- cloewenson@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Jamie A.
Levitt -- jlevitt@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.


NISSAN: Faces Class Action Over Brake Pads and Rotors Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
Los Angeles claims the Nissan Infiniti Q50S in model years 2014-
2016 have brake pads and rotors that wear out prematurely.


NORTHWEST MEDICAL: Faces Insurance Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that Jessica
Mounce of Lowell had health insurance, but Northwest Medical
Center-Springdale wouldn't accept it when she came to its
emergency room in late 2013 after being rear-ended in an auto
accident.

Instead, the hospital filed a medical lien against the
24-year-old elementary school teacher in hopes of collecting
$6,100 from the at-fault driver's insurance rather than a fraction
of that amount that Ms. Mounce's insurance would have paid.

Ms. Mounce, represented by Fayetteville attorney Shawn Daniels,
sued the hospital in federal court last year.  It turned out to be
the first of at least four complaints in Arkansas challenging the
growing and controversial practice of hospitals refusing to accept
the health insurance of patients who have been injured by the
actions of others.

Plaintiffs' attorneys say the hospitals are creating financial
nightmares for injured patients in hopes of being paid higher list
prices for services out of the patients' settlements with the at-
fault party rather than the discounted prices that health
insurance companies have negotiated for policyholders.

Ms. Mounce is seeking class-action certification for her
complaint, which also names as defendants Northwest Arkansas
Hospitals LLC and its collection company, Professional Account
Services Inc.  Her allegations include violations of the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and interfering with the contractual
relationship between Ms. Mounce and her insurer, Arkansas Blue
Cross & Blue Shield.

A decision for class certification is expected this month.

Attorneys for Northwest Medical Center said the case should be
thrown out.

"Mounce cannot prove that defendants did anything wrongful or
improper in asserting and collecting a hospital medical lien,"
attorney Gary Marts Jr. of Little Rock said in a Sept. 1 motion to
dismiss the case. That motion is pending.

Other plaintiffs are seeking class-action status in three separate
suits against Baptist Health of Little Rock, St. Bernard's
Hospital Inc. of Jonesboro and Lawrence Memorial Hospital in
Walnut Ridge.

"The assertions contained in these lawsuits are wrong," a Baptist
Health spokesman said in an email to Arkansas Business.  "Baptist
Health's practices are consistent with Arkansas law and are widely
practiced by most hospitals."

Baptist Health spokesman Mark Lowman would not comment further,
but the Mississippi "injury claims expert" that Baptist contracted
in 2012 has bragged about its success.

RevClaims, of Jackson, said in a case study on its website that
within the first year Baptist Health "saw a hefty increase of
$600,000 each month in injury claims recovery."

In 2014, Baptist paid RevClaims $2.1 million for "claim
assistance," according to the nonprofit hospital systems' most
recent 990 form filed with the IRS.

The billing strategy has piqued the interest of legislators in
other states.  Indiana, for example, outlawed the billing model in
2013.

"There's been several other states that have taken legislative
action to stop this process going on that's being used by these
hospitals," Mr. Daniels said.  But he said he knew of no
legislation to curb the practice being considered in Arkansas.

Elisa White, vice president and general counsel for the Arkansas
Hospital Association, said that she wasn't familiar with the
lawsuits and couldn't comment on the allegations.

But, she said, "It's well-established law that practitioners,
including hospitals . . . can have a lien against a third-party
recovery when there has been an injury to someone," Ms. White
said.  "It's pretty clear under the law that that's allowable."

Ms. White said the law wasn't intended to boost revenue for
providers.  "It's a law set up to say you can provide this
treatment which is often very serious and very expensive and you
don't have to worry about whether you're going to get paid."

Patients' Cases

Northwest Medical Center "represents to patients" that it will
file bills with their health insurance companies, according to Ms.
Mounce's lawsuit.

Ms. Mounce said in a Jan. 28 deposition taken for the case that
every time she went to the Springdale hospital the admissions
procedure seemed simple.

"I give them my insurance card.  They run it through, and my
insurance pays," Ms. Mounce said.  "Every time except for this
time."

She said she went to the hospital because "the pain in my back
started getting pretty unbearable."

At the hospital, the admissions officer quizzed Ms. Mounce about
the auto accident and asked whether it was her fault, Ms. Mounce
said.

"I told her no, and she asked me if the other . . . people had
insurance," Ms. Mounce said.  At the time, she didn't know whether
the other driver had insurance.

The hospital took her insurance card, and Ms. Mounce was treated
on Nov. 30, 2013. She said she expected the hospital to file the
claim with Arkansas Blue Cross & Blue Shield.

But it didn't.

Instead, Northwest Medical notified Ms. Mounce on Jan. 9, 2014,
that it would be filing a lien for $6,105.  The lien was filed in
Washington County in February 2014, the lawsuit said.

Ms. Mounce and the attorney handling her accident claim,
Jeff Slaton of Springdale, urged Northwest to file Ms. Mounce's
claim with ABCBS.  The hospital never billed Ms. Mounce's
insurance, and eventually its collection agency, Professional
Account Services Inc. of Brentwood, Tennessee, began dunning Ms.
Mounce, the suit said.

"They're calling her at work, sending her collection letters,"
attorney Daniels told Arkansas Business.  "They're treating her
just like the deadbeat debtor."

Meanwhile, 180 days had passed since Ms. Mounce was treated,
meaning she missed the deadline to file her claim with ABCBS.

A year after filing the lien, the collection agency agreed to take
50 percent of the bill to settle Ms. Mounce's claim.  That deal
didn't make Mr. Slaton happy.

"PASI agreed to reduce this wrongful lien to an amount that was
still, in my belief, wrongful, as it was still a substantial
amount larger than what I believed would have been owed by a Blue
Cross member after adjustments and any co-insurance amounts that
would have been owed," Mr. Slaton said in a deposition taken
March 31.

Mr. Daniels said he will attempt to prove that the hospital's
collection practice is unlawful.  "They're taking advantage of the
lien law and using it in a manner it was never intended," he said.

What's more, the hospitals are contractually obligated to bill
insurance companies when they treat their policyholders.

"Really it's a shame, because in those circumstances an injured
patient is worse off than somebody who's uninsured," Mr. Daniels
said.  "Because essentially they're paying a premium for nothing
if their injuries were caused by a third party in a car wreck."

ABCBS spokeswoman Max Greenwood said in a statement to Arkansas
Business that the insurance company is not involved in the
conflict.

"We really don't have any idea what transpires between hospitals
and third parties.  We simply process claims when they are
submitted to us," she wrote.

Turning to RevClaims

In 2012, Baptist Health was looking for a way to increase revenue
while improving collections, according to RevClaims' case study.

"In the past, the lack of internal legal knowledge prevented
Baptist from maximizing recovery for these complicated claims and
ultimately, led to lost revenue," the study said.

But that changed when it hired RevClaims.

"According to Baptist staff, it was RevClaims' expertise that
leveled the playing field when dealing with personal injury
attorneys and ultimately expedited the cumbersome payment process
relating to injury and workers' compensation claims," the study
said.

RevClaims didn't return a call seeking comment, but it's fair to
say that Brian Whitley of North Little Rock is not impressed.

Mr. Whitley was severely injured when he collided with a car being
driven the wrong way on Interstate 440 in November 2013.

Mr. Whitley was rushed to Baptist Health Medical Center-Little
Rock; the other driver died in the accident.

Mr. Whitley, now a captain with the Little Rock Fire Department,
was treated at Baptist until July 2014 and the medical bills
totaled nearly $64,000, which exceeded the $60,000 limit of
liability coverage of the driver who caused the accident,
according to the lawsuit Mr. Whitley filed against Baptist Health
and its liability carriers.

At the time of the accident, Mr. Whitley informed Baptist that he
was insured by QualChoice of Little Rock, according to the
complaint filed by attorneys Donald Campbell III and Kendel Grooms
of Little Rock and Sach Oliver of Rogers.

Only later did Mr. Whitley learn that Baptist wouldn't file his
claim with QualChoice and would refuse to give him a sufficiently
detailed bill that he could file the claim himself, the lawsuit
said.

Instead, a medical lien was filed against Whitley to collect the
nearly $64,000.

Mr. Whitley said in the lawsuit that RevClaims began "harassing"
collection efforts through phone calls and letters "seeking to
collect a 'debt' that was never owed because the Baptist
Defendants refused to bill" QualChoice.

In November 2015, two years after the accident, Baptist and
RevClaims reduced the amount of the lien to about $19,500, which
is what QualChoice would have paid had it been presented the claim
in the first place, the lawsuit said.  But the money came out of
Mr. Whitley's settlement with the other driver's insurance company
rather than from the insurer that had collected his health
insurance premiums.

Mr. Whitley is seeking class-action status for his lawsuit, which
is in U.S. District Court in Little Rock.

Although RevClaims wasn't named as a defendant in Whitley's class-
action complaint, it has been named in two similar lawsuits that
Jonesboro attorney Brandon Lacy has filed in federal court in
Jonesboro for patients treated at St. Bernard's in Jonesboro and
Lawrence Memorial Hospital in Walnut Ridge.

Mr. Lacy said the issue came on his radar because he represents a
number of people who have been in auto accidents.  The complaint
about the liens being filed has been going on for years, he said,
but he was waiting for the right set of circumstances before he
could file a lawsuit seeking class-action status.

Hospitals "are doing this statewide," Mr. Lacy said.  "Once we
recognized they were doing it systematically, that was when we
decided enough is enough."


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Giotta Seeks 9th Cir. Review of N.D. Cal. Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Loralee Giotta and Victor P. Giotta filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit titled Victor Giotta,
et al. v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-
00620-BLF, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in a conspiracy to defraud homeowners in default on their
mortgage loans by charging them excessive and duplicative fees
relating to the servicing of the loans.

The appellate case is captioned as Victor Giotta, et al. v. Ocwen
Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-16665, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 19, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on November 18, 2016;

   -- Appellants Loralee Giotta and Victor P. Giotta's opening
      brief is due on December 28, 2016;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Altisource Portfolio Solutions
      S.A., Altisource Solutions, Inc., William C. Erbey, Ocwen
      Financial Corporation and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, is due
      on January 30, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellants VICTOR P. GIOTTA and LORALEE GIOTTA, On
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, are
represented by:

          Joseph Nicholas Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Allegheny Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          E-mail: jkravec@fdpklaw.com
                  wlison@fdpklaw.com

               - and -

          James McIntyre Pietz, Esq.
          PIETZ LAW OFFICE
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Allegheny Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 288-4333
          E-mail: jpietz@fdpklaw.com

               - and -

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          505 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-8700
          E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          Stephen Francis Yunker, Esq.
          YUNKER & SCHNEIDER
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-5500
          E-mail: sfy@yslaw.com

Defendants-Appellees OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, and WILLIAM C. ERBEY are represented by:

          Thomas Justin Cunningham, Esq.
          Phillip Russell Perdew, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          111 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 443-1731
          E-mail: tcunningham@lockelord.com
                  rperdew@lockelord.com

               - and -

          James Christopher Magid, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104-4815
          Telephone: (415) 318-8825
          E-mail: james.magid@lockelord.com

Defendants-Appellees ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS S.A. and
ALTISOURCE SOLUTIONS, INC., are represented by:

          Andrew S. Azarmi, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          One Market Plaza
          Spear Tower, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 356-4631
          E-mail: andrew.azarmi@dentons.com


OHANA MILITARY: Barber Appeals Hawaii Court Ruling to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Cara Barber, Melissa Jones, Melissa Streeter, Katie
Eckroth, Bob Barber, Tim Jones and Ryan Eckroth filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Cara Barber, et al. v.
Ohana Military Communities, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00217-
HG-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii,
Honolulu.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants did not disclose that
pesticides had been confirmed in the soil at Marine Corps Base
Hawaii and required remediation, and that the Defendants did not
follow their own soil remediation plan and their construction
efforts exposed the Plaintiffs to visible dust at Marine Corps
Base Hawaii while they were tenants in the Defendants' housing.

The appellate case is captioned as Cara Barber, et al. v. Ohana
Military Communities, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-16688, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants CARA BARBER, MELISSA JONES, MELISSA
STREETER, KATIE ECKROTH, BOB BARBER, TIM JONES and RYAN ECKROTH,
On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, are
represented by:

          Patrick Kyle Smith, Esq.
          LYNCH, HOPPER, SALZANO & SMITH LLP
          970 N. Kalaheo Ave.
          Kialua, HI 96734
          Telephone: (808) 791-9550
          E-mail: kyle@lhsshawaii.com

Defendants-Appellees OHANA MILITARY COMMUNITIES, LLC, and FOREST
CITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, INC., are represented by:

          Lisa Woods Munger, Esq.
          GOODSILL ANDERSON QUINN & STIFEL LLP
          999 Bishop Street
          First Hawaiian Center, Suite 1600
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 547-5600
          E-mail: lmunger@goodsill.com

               - and -

          Randall C. Whattoff, Esq.
          COX FRICKE LLP
          800 Bethel Street, Suite 600
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 585-9440


ONTARIO-FRANKLIN: Faces "Arroyo" Suit Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------
JUAN ARROYO, on behalf of himself and other Plaintiffs similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. H.B. ONTARIO-FRANKLIN CORPORATION d/b/a
SOUND-BAR, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09197 (N.D. Ill., September
23, 2016), alleges failure to pay wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Portal to Portal Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

H.B. Ontario-Franklin Corporation d/b/a Sound-Bar owns and
operates a nightclub.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marty Denis, Esq.
     Bethany Hilbert, Esq.
     BARLOW, KOBATA & DENIS LLP
     525 West Monroe, Suite 2360
     Chicago, IL 60661
     Phone: (312) 648-5570


PACIFICA HOTEL: Hernandez Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIRIAM HERNANDEZ and MATTHEW BEHM, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PACIFICA HOTEL
COMPANY, a California corporation; and DOES 1-100, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC635444 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 27, 2016),
seeks overtime and minimum wages, premium wages for missed meal
and rest periods, penalties, and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to the California Labor Code.

For at least 4 years prior to the filing of the action and through
to the present Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing
to pay wages, including overtime wages, to Plaintiffs and other
non-exempt employees in the State of California in violation of
California state wage and hour laws as a result of, including but
not limited to, unevenly rounding time worked.

Pacifica Hotel operates a chain of hotels in San Francisco Coast,
Central Coast, Los Angeles Area, Orange County Coast, and San
Diego Area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile (310) 553 3603


PASON SYSTEMS: "Balo" Case Transferred to S.D. Tex.
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales of the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico granted Defendant's request
to transfer the lawsuit to the Southern District of Texas in the
case captioned, CHRISTIAN BALO, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PASON SYSTEMS USA CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-0091KG/SMV (D.N.M.)

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint the same day Defendant
filed its Motion to Transfer Venue or to Stay. In the First
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brings a collective class action
alleging "that Defendant failed and refused to pay Plaintiff, and
all others similarly situated, the proper overtime pay for time
worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiff alleges that the proposed
FLSA class consists of persons who "are Defendant's field services
sales technicians FSSTs who install auto driller systems on the
oil and gas rigs, perform preventive maintenance, and upgrade
various equipment on the rigs at the instruction of Pason's main
office."  Six individuals have consented to join, or opt-in to,
this lawsuit, as amended by Plaintiff.

In the motion, Defendant seeks to either transfer venue to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, or, in the alternative, to stay the case until
the court in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
resolves the Ratliff v. Pason Systems USA Corp. and Ricalo v.
Pason Systems USA Corp. lawsuits.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff could have brought this lawsuit in
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, under the venue
statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1391(b)(1). Plaintiff argues that he could
not have brought this lawsuit in the Southern District of Texas
under either Section 1391(b)(1) or Section 1391(b)(2).

Plaintiff contends that Defendant does not reside in the Southern
District of Texas, because (1) it has an office in New Mexico from
which Plaintiff allegedly received instructions from his
supervisors, and (2) Defendant admitted in its answer that it
engaged in business in New Mexico.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 20, 2016
available at https://is.gd/ZNWdb8 from Leagle.com, Judge Gonzales
concluded that Defendant has satisfied its burden of demonstrating
that the District of New Mexico is an inconvenient forum and that
the matter should be transferred to the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division.

Plaintiff's contentions fail for several reasons. First, Plaintiff
does not submit evidence that Defendant had, or has, an office in
New Mexico, or that Plaintiff's supervisors resided in New Mexico.
Next, although Defendant admitted in its answer that it "has
engaged in business within the District of New Mexico," Plaintiff,
himself, admits he worked for Defendant in Texas as well.

Christian Balo and Eric Wheat are represented by:

      George Zachary Goldberg, Esq.
      James Mark Loren, Esq.
      GOLDBERG & LOREN, PA
      1776 N Pine Island Rd Ste 224
      Plantation, FL  33322

Pason Systems USA Corp. is represented by Donald L. Samuels, Esq.
-- donald.samuels@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP


PASON SYSTEMS: "Ricalo" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Omar Ricalo, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pason Systems USA
Corp., Case No. 1:16-cv-00072, was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District Of Texas (Houston). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-02875 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

Pason Systems USA Corp. is a foreign for-profit corporation that
provides oilfield and drilling data services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Rochelle Owens, Esq.
      Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      Donald L. Samuels, Esq.
      BRYAN CAVE LLP
      1700 Lincoln St, Ste 4100
      Denver, CO 80203
      Telephone: (303) 866-0548
      Facsimile: (303) 866-0200
      E-mail: donald.samuels@bryancave.com


PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION: Lang Appeals Ruling to 3rd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, aka PHEAA, aka
American Education Services, aka AES, aka FedLoan Servicing, filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Anthony Lang,
Sr., et al. v. PHEAA, et al., Case No. 1-12-cv-01247, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The Case is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Lang, Sr., et al. v.
PHEAA, et al., Case No. 16-3690, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellees ANTHONY LANG, SR., and AHKEEM BROWN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
          James J. McCarthy, Jr., Esq.
          Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
          MCCARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
          2041 Herr Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17103
          Telephone: (717) 238-5707
          Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
          E-mail: dcummings@mwcfirm.com
                  jmccarthy@mwcfirm.com
                  lweisberg@mwcfirm.com

               - and -

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com

Defendant-Appellant PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE
AGENCY, aka PHEAA, aka American Education Services, aka AES, aka
FedLoan Servicing, is represented by:

          Joseph P. Hofmann, Esq.
          STEVENS & LEE, PC
          51 South Duke Street
          P.O. Box 1594
          Lancaster, PA 17602
          Telephone: (717) 399-6643
          Facsimile: (610) 371-1946
          E-mail: jph@stevenslee.com

Defendant-Appellant PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE
AGENCY, aka PHEAA, aka American Education Services, aka AES, aka
FedLoan Servicing, and Defendants-Appellees JAMES L. PRESTON, both
as President and Chief Executive Officer of PHEAA and
individually; STEPHANIE FOLTZ, individually; TODD MOSKO,
individually; MATTHEW SESSA, individually; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
individually, are represented by:

          Daniel B. Huyett, Esq.
          STEVENS & LEE, PC
          111 North Sixth Street
          P.O. Box 679
          Reading, PA 19603
          Telephone: (610) 478-2219
          E-mail: dbh@stevenslee.com

               - and -

          Kenneth D. Kleinman, Esq.
          Neil C. Schur, Esq.
          STEVENS & LEE, PC
          1818 Market Street, 29th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 751-1946
          E-mail: kdk@stevenslee.com
                  ncsc@stevenslee.com


PHARMAVITE LLC: Bradach Seeks Review of Ruling to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Bradach and Laura Corbett filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Noah Bradach, et al. v. Pharmavite LLC, Case
No. 2:14-cv-03218-GHK-AGR, in the U.S. District Court for Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that they viewed "Helps
Maintain a Healthy Heart" on Pharmavite's vitamin E supplements
and purchased at least one bottle of the supplements in reliance
on this statement.  The Plaintiffs brings two claims rooted in the
alleged falsity of the "Helps Maintain a Healthy Heart" statement:
(1) violation of California's unfair competition law, and (2)
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Noah Bradach, et al. v.
Pharmavite LLC, Case No. 16-56407, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

    -- Transcript must be ordered by October 24, 2016;

    -- Transcript is due on January 23, 2017;

    -- Appellants Noah Bradach and Laura Corbett's opening brief
       is due on March 2, 2017;

    -- Appellee Pharmavite LLC's answering brief is due on
       April 3, 2017; and

    -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
       service of the answering brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellants NOAH BRADACH and LAURA CORBETT, On Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:

          Nada Djordjevic, Esq.
          Max A. Stein, Esq.
          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          BOODELL & DOMANSKIS, LLC
          1 N. Franklin Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 938-1003
          E-mail: ndjordjevic@boodlaw.com
                  mstein@boodlaw.com
                  sweltman@boodlaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Miller, Esq.
          NYE, PEABODY, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP
          33 West Mission Street, Suite 201
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 963-2345
          Facsimile: (805) 563-5385
          E-mail: jonathan@nps-law.com

               - and -

          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-7748
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com

               - and -

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com

               - and -

          Howard Sedran, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: hsedran@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6978
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          Jordanna G. Thigpen, Esq.
          JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP
          439 N. Canon Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 975-1080
          E-mail: jthigpen@jjllplaw.com

Defendant-Appellee PHARMAVITE LLC is represented by:

          Bridget Ahmann, Esq.
          Joseph Michael Price, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          90 South Seventh Street, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 766-8055
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: bridget.ahmann@FaegreBD.com
                  joseph.price@FaegreBD.com

               - and -

          Juliet Arlene Markowitz, Esq.
          Rene P. Tatro, Esq.
          TATRO TEKOSKY SADWICK LLP
          333 S. Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 225-7171
          Facsimile: (213) 225-7151
          E-mail: jmarkowitz@ttsmlaw.com
                  renetatro@ttsmlaw.com


PURE STORAGE: Faces "Galanis" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Galanis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pure Storage, Inc., Scott Dietzen, Timothy Riitters,
John Colgrove, Mike Speiser, Aneel Bhusri, Mark Garrett, Anita M.
Sands, Frank Slootman, Michelangelo Volpi, Greylock XIII Limited
Partnership, Greylock XIII-A Limited Partnership, Greylock XIII GP
LLC, Greylock XIII Principals LLC, Sutter Hill Ventures, Redpoint
Associates IV, LLC, Redpoint Ventures IV, L.P., Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Barclays Capital Inc., Allen &
Company LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated,
Pacific Crest Securities, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company,
Incorporated, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Evercore Group
LLC, Case No. 16-cv-01387 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 14, 2016),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

According to Courthouse News, Pure Storage went public last year
when cloud-based systems of data storage were posing a growing
threat to its flash-drive-based market, but the company misled
investors about business prospects, the class claims.


Pure Storage, Inc. is a software-driven storage technology located
at 650 Castro Street, Suite 400 Mountain View, California 94041.

Greylock XIII Limited Partnership, Greylock XIII Principals LLC,
Greylock XIII-A Limited Partnership, and Greylock XIII GP LLC
operate venture capital firm based in Silicon Valley, California.

Sutter Hill Ventures is an equity firm focused on venture capital
investments in technology-based start-up companies.


The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James I. Jaconette, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: jamesj@rgrdlaw.com


RANJHA CLEANERS: Appeals From Order, Judgment in "Navarrete" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Mulberry Street Cleaners Inc., Mulberry Subway Inc.,
Ranjha Cleaners Inc., Ranjha Mott Cleaners Inc., Shahid Razza,
Soho Cleaners, Inc., and Worth Subway Inc. filed an appeal from
the District Court's Memorandum & Order, dated August 22, 2016,
and judgment, dated August 23, 2016, entered in the lawsuit styled
Navarrete v. Ranjha Cleaners Inc., Case No. 14-cv-954, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on February 14, 2014, alleging that the Plaintiff
regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate overtime compensation for any of the
hours that he worked.  He accused the Defendants of violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ranjha Cleaners Inc. is a New York corporation headquartered in
New York City.  The Defendants own, operate and control a chain of
full service dry cleaners and Subway franchises around lower
Manhattan.

The appellate case is captioned as Navarrete v. Ranjha Cleaners
Inc., Case No. 16-3277, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee Ernesto Navarrete, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Shawn Raymond Clark, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1 Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

Defendants-Appellants Ranjha Cleaners Inc., DBA Ranjha Cleaners;
Soho Cleaners, Inc., DBA Soho Cleaners; Mulberry Street Cleaners
Inc, DBA Mulberry Cleaners; Ranjha Mott Cleaners Inc, DBA Mott
Cleaners; Mulberry Subway Inc, DBA Subway; Worth Subway Inc., DBA
Subway; and Shahid Razza are represented by:

          Edward J. Heppt, Esq.
          THE HEPPT LAW GROUP, PLLC
          260 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 973-0839
          Facsimile: (212) 973-0891


RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Patterson Brings Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Patterson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, et al., the Petitioners v. Raymours Furniture
Company, Inc., Case No. 16-388, is an appeal filed before the
United States Supreme Court on September 26, 2016, from a decision
entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on
September 2, 2016, in Case No. 15-2820.

Raymours Furniture, doing business as Raymour & Flanigan
Furniture, is a retailer of furniture and mattresses in the United
States.

Connie Patterson is represented by:

          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421 7151


RED RIVER: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Lynn LaRowe, writing for Texarkana Gazette, reports that three men
who formerly worked for Fulton, Ark.-based Red River Wrecker
allege they were denied overtime pay at time and a half, in a
class-action lawsuit filed recently in a Texarkana federal court.

Kevin Smith and Barry Nobles of Texarkana, Texas, and
Cole McCalman of Bradley, Ark., allege they regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, but were only paid "straight time,"
rather than "overtime premium" pay at the rate of time and a half
of their regular hourly wage.

The suit, filed Sept. 12 in the Texarkana Division of the Western
District of Arkansas by Little Rock lawyers Joshua West and Josh
Sanford, seeks certification as a class-action suit, which would
include any employees of Red River who were allegedly denied
overtime compensation.  Named as defendants in the suit are Akin &
Son and David Akin, identified in the complaint as the registered
owners of Red River Wrecker.

Smith worked as a roadside-assistance driver and mechanic for Akin
& Son from August 2015 to August 2016, the complaint states. Ms.
McCalman worked as an operator, roadside-assistance driver and
mechanic from February 2015 to December 2015, and Nobles worked as
a mechanic from December 2015 to July 2016.

The suit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act and the Arkansas Civil Justice Reform
Act.

The complaint asks that the defendants be ordered to produce the
names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of all others
who worked as hourly employees for Red River Wrecker within three
years of the date the lawsuit was filed.  The complaint asks for
actual damages, court costs and attorney fees.

The complaint seeks a judgment of punitive damages, as well, which
are meant to punish the defendants for allegedly violating wage
laws willfully and knowingly.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan Hickey.
The defendants have not yet filed a response to the complaint.


RESCUE RANGERS: "Kayler" Alleges Misclassification of Technicians
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kayler and Karina Quiles, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RESCUE RANGERS, LLC,
1209 Foreign St., Wilmington, DE 19801, Serve Resident Agent: The
Corporation Trust Co., 1209 Orange St., Wilmington, DE 19801, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00788-JAG (E.D. Val., September 23, 2016), alleges
that Rescue Rangers unlawfully misclassified its roadside service
technicians as "independent contractors" in violation of the Fair
labor Standards Act.

RESCUE RANGERS, LLC provides roadside assistance services to
drivers in a number of major cities in the United States who have
been locked out of their car, run out of gas, or suffered a flat
tire.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Nicholas Woodfifeld, Esq.
     THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, P.C.
     888 17th Street, NW, Suite 900
     Washington, D.C. 20006
     Phone: (202) 261-2812
     Fax: (202) 261-2835
     E-mail: nwoodfield@employmentlawgroup.com

        - and -

     Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
     Thomas P. Fowler, Esq.
     Olena Savytska, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Phone: (617) 499-5800
     E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
             tfowler@llrlaw.com
             osavytska@llrlaw.com


RESPOND POWER: Energy Customers Appeal Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that counsel for a
group of plaintiffs representing 50,000 Pennsylvania energy
customers who claim they received astronomical electricity bills
argued before a federal appeals court that the lights shouldn't
have been turned out on their class action.

On Sept. 15, three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit heard oral argument in Gillis v. Respond Power, in
which the plaintiffs maintained they were duped when they signed
up for electricity with Respond Power.  The plaintiffs allege they
were promised competitive rates, but were ultimately charged three
times as much their local power companies would have charged.

Michael Donovan, counsel for the plaintiffs, told the panel --
Third Circuit Judges Joseph A. Greenaway Jr., Michael Chagares and
Luis Felipe Restrepo -- that the lower court went against
applicable Pennsylvania law in denying certification to the
prospective class for lack of commonality and typicality.

At the outset of the argument, Mr. Chagares noted the importance
of the case, mentioning that "this could have far-reaching
implications."

Mr. Donovan argued that the sales representative who pitched
Respond's services to consumers never told them that the company's
variable rates could vary upward, and portrayed them as often less
expensive than local power companies' rates.

Mr. Donovan said the common theme lied within the uniform sales
pitches promising savings to the consumers.  The key, he added,
was looking at the defendant's understanding of the contract, not
the individual plaintiffs' understanding.

"Is it a question of whether it's ambiguous?" Mr. Chagares asked.

"It is," Mr. Donovan answered, "and if it is ambiguous you look at
how the defendant meant it."

David King, the lawyer for Respond, told the court that class
certification would only be appropriate if there was evidence of
common answers to questions between consumers and Respond
salespeople.

Pressing Mr. King, Judge Greenaway said, "It's hard to look at
this . . .  and conclude that there's going to be a thousand
different answers.  There's only a finite number of answers."

"A fair point," Mr. King said, but he added there could still be
anywhere from five to 15 variations of answers. "You're going to
have to examine each case to determine what the sales agent said,"
making a class inappropriate, King said.

Judge Greenaway asked why there should be trials for 50,000 people
when the salespeople asked uniform questions.

In response, Mr. King said the court shouldn't jump to the
conclusion that each consumer had an identical experience with
salespeople.  He said the plaintiffs' testimony demonstrated "that
they've had a completely different sales experience."


REVIVAL SOCIAL: Faces "Wells" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy A. Wells, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Revival Social Club, a/k/a Bar-Ista, LLC, and Alan
Stoll, Case No. 1:16-cv-09223 (N.D. Ill., September 26, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Revival Social Club is a new Chicago restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450


RIP CURL: Candelario Seeks 9th Circuit Review of C.D. Cal. Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucia Candelario filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the class action lawsuit entitled Lucia Candelario v. Rip Curl,
Inc., et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-00963-CJC-AGR, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was
filed on May 25, 2016.  Rip Curl, Inc. is a designer,
manufacturer, and retailer of surfing sportswear.

The appellate case is captioned as Lucia Candelario v. Rip Curl,
Inc., et al., Case No. 16-56382, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant Lucia Candelario's opening brief is due on
      March 1, 2017;

   -- Appellees Does and Rip Curl, Inc.'s answering brief is due
      on March 31, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant LUCIA CANDELARIO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          David Reid, Esq.
          Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP, APC
          4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
                  dreid@trialnewport.com
                  rhikida@trialnewport.com
                  vknowles@trialnewport.com

Defendant-Appellee, RIP CURL, INC., a California corporation, is
represented by:

          Michael Allen Hellbusch, Esq.
          TREDWAY LUMSDAINE AND DOYLE LLP
          1920 Main Street
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 756-0684
          Facsimile: (866) 298-9254
          E-mail: mhellbusch@tldlaw.com


RONALD RIGOR: Faces "Kabadayan" Suit Over Medical Negligence
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Suzy Kabadayan and Joseph Kabadayan v. Ronald
Rigor, M.D., d/ b/a Rigor Dermatology& Laser Center, Ronald Rigor,
M.D., Inc., Rigor Dermatology & Laser Center, and Does 1 to 100,
Case No. BC633637 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 9, 2016),
is an action filed by Suzy Kabadayan, on behalf of herself and all
those similarly situated, for damages as a result of the
Defendants' negligent medical services, specifically by failing to
exercise the proper degree of knowledge and skill and so
negligently, carelessly, recklessly, and unlawfully treated,
provided care, monitoring, examination, and other professional
services.  Among other things, the Defendants failed to adequately
and properly diagnose and treat Suzy Kabadayan for skin matters
and caused multiple severe burns and injuries to her face.

The Defendants operates a dermatology center located at 675 S.
Arroyo Parkway, Suite 100, Pasadena, CA 91105.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vahe Hovanessian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF VAHE HOVANESSIAN
      100 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 536
      Glendale, CA 91203-2642
      Telephone: (818)240-1333
      Facsimile: (818) 240-1369
      E-mail: vahe@vhlaw.com


ROSITA D. TAN: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Castillo, an individual, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Rosita D. Tan, D.M.D, Inc., and Does
1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. BC635329 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
September 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to provide meal and rest periods, or paying meal or rest period
premiums in lieu thereof, refusing to pay for all overtime hours -
- specifically by adopting an "alternative workweek" but failing
to actually conduct an election or register as an alternative
workweek employer under the Labor Code, and providing employees
with inadequate wage statements.

Rosita D. Tan, D.M.D, Inc. operates a dental clinic in Los
Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kyle I. Todd, Esq.
      Jacob J. Larsen, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD
      611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1112
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (323) 208-9171
      Facsimile: (323) 693-0822
      E-mail: kyle@kyletoddd.com


SAVEOLOGY.COM LLC: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stoba" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs George Stoba and Daphne Stoba filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled George Stoba, et al. v.
Saveology.com, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-02925-BAS-NLS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San
Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District
Judge Nita L. Stormes granted the Defendants' request to require
witnesses to appear at depositions and denied the Plaintiffs'
request to conduct further discovery concerning violations of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act.

In their complaint, the Stobas allege they were contacted on
multiple occasions on their landline by a telemarking company,
Saveology.com.  Defendant Elephant Group, Inc., is the parent
company of Saveology.  Saveology made the contacts on behalf of
Defendant Time Warner Cable, Inc.  The Stobas allege that their
telephone calls were recorded without their consent and without
the proper notice, all in violation of California law.

The appellate case is captioned as George Stoba, et al. v.
Saveology.com, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-80130, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Petitioners GEORGE STOBA and DAPHNE STOBA, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
          KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP
          6870 Embarcadero Lane
          Carlsbad, CA 92011
          Telephone: (760) 929-9303
          E-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com

               - and -

          James M. Treglio, Esq.
          CLARK & TREGLIO
          205 W. Date Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-1321

Defendants-Respondents SAVEOLOGY.COM, LLC, ELEPHANT GROUP, INC.,
and TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., are represented by:

          Rachel Jari Feldman, Esq.
          Bryan Alexander Merryman, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 2700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 620-7700
          E-mail: rfeldman@whitecase.com
                  bmerryman@whitecase.com


SCOREBIG: Ticket Broker Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Dave Brooks, writing for Amplify, reports that ticket broker Eric
Fuller with Fulla Tickets in San Diego has filed a class-action
lawsuit against ScoreBig for failing to pay Fuller and other
brokers for tickets sold on the site.

The case in LA Superior court alleges ScoreBig had previously paid
brokers shortly after their orders were delivered, but beginning
in 2016, ScoreBig began to delay payments to brokers.

"Instead of paying the ticket brokers who tickets were sold by
ScoreBig," attorney Erik Jenkins alleges, "ScoreBig used the
proceeds of sales to pay its own operating expenses or to pay for
tickets sold in other transactions."

Mr. Jenkins accuses ScoreBig employees of behaving like a ponzi
scheme, saying it "concealed the practice of using proceeds of
selling a particular broker's tickets for purposes other than
paying the broker who provided the tickets sold."  The suit
accuses ScoreBig officials of negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, conversion and
breach of contract.

Jenkins wrote that the class-action suit is being written so that
"all ticket brokers who delivered ticket inventory to (ScoreBig),"
and "were not compensated for the ticket inventory they provided
to defendants" can participate in the legal action.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Appeals Attorney Fees' Award in Faulty Washer MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Intervenor-Defendant
Whirlpool Corporation appeal to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit from the Memorandum Opinion and Order
entered in the multidistrict litigation titled In Re: Sears,
Roebuck and Co. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-07023, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The Memorandum Opinion and Order, entered on September 13, 2016,
resolves the Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, lawsuits in
the MDL were filed against Whirlpool and Sears, asserting that
their front-load washing machines suffered two types of defects:
(1) the "Biofilm defect," which caused mold and mildew to grow
inside the machines; and (2) the "CCU defect," which caused the
machines' Central Control Unit to malfunction.  The parties in
both the Sears and Whirlpool cases eventually settled all claims,
agreeing to a "CCU Settlement" and a "Biofilm Settlement."  The
CCU Settlement papers, resolving CCU claims against both Sears and
Whirlpool, were filed in the District Court.

The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Sears, Roebuck and Co.
Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litigation, Case No.
16-3554, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Sears Roebuck and Co.'s transcript information sheet is due
      on October 12, 2016; and

   -- Sears Roebuck and Co.'s appellant's brief is due on
      November 7, 2016.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Paul M. Weiss, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: paul@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1310
          St. Louis, MO
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          E-mail: richard@Qulegal.com

               - and -

          Eric C. Brunick, Esq.
          BRUNICK LLC
          22 W. Washington Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (773) 961-7139
          E-mail: ebrunick@brunickllc.com

               - and -

          George K. Lang, Esq.
          LANG LAW OFFICE
          415 N. LaSalle St., Suite 301
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (773) 575-5848
          E-mail: langlawoffice@att.net

               - and -

          James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
          CAREY, DANIS AND LOWE
          8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-7700
          E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1675
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Scott A. George, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLC
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Jaso, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          E-mail: ejaso@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS & LEHRMAN
          425 North Andrews Ave., Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 527-8663
          E-mail: steve@pathtojustice.com
                  mark@pathtojustice.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
          Colin H. Dunn, Esq.
          Shannon Marie McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          120 North LaSalle Street, 31st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          Facsimile: (312) 251-1160
          E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com
                  chd@cliffordlaw.com
                  Email: smm@cliffordlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (215) 642-8500
          E-mail: sas@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Jason Louis Lichtman, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          Sudarsana Srinivasan, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com
                  jselbin@lchb.com
                  dsrinivasan@lchb.com

               - and -

          Jerome Mayer-cantu, Esq.
          Sarah R. London, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: jmayercantu@lchb.com
                  slondon@lchb.com

               - and -

          John Tate Spragens, Esq.
          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          One Nashville Place
          150 4th Ave. N. Suite 1650
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          E-mail: jspragens@lchb.com
                  mchalos@lchb.com

               - and -

          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLC
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
                  jshah@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Douglas P. Dehler, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLC
          111 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1750
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 226-9900
          E-mail: ddehler@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLC
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          Facsimile: (860) 526-1120
          E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                  kleser@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD S. KRAVITZ
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 291-2421
          E-mail: rkravitz@kravitzesq.com

               - and -

          Joseph Patrick Shea, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH PATRICK SHEA
          2400 North Western Avenue, Suite 201
          Chicago, IL 60647
          Telephone: (773) 772-0844
          E-mail: joseph_shea@shealawgroup.com

Defendant-Appellant Sears, Roebuck and Co. is represented by:

          Bradley B. Falkof, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG
          One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4400
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 357-1313
          E-mail: bfalkof@btlaw.com

               - and -

          Evan B. Stephenson, Esq.
          Galen D. Bellamy, Esq.
          Hugh Quan Gottschalk, Esq.
          Joel Steven Neckers, Esq.
          Michael T. Williams, Esq.
          Theresa R. Wardon, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          370 17th Street, Suite 4500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 244-1964
          Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
          E-mail: stephenson@wtotrial.com
                  bellamy@wtotrial.com
                  gottschalk@wtotrial.com
                  neckers@wtotrial.com
                  williams@wtotrial.com
                  wardon@wtotrial.com

Intervenor-Defendant Whirlpool Corporation is represented by:

          Rebecca Weinstein Bacon, Esq.
          Asha L.I. Spencer, Esq.
          Eric Reuel Olson, Esq.
          John C. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP
          54 West Hubbard Street, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Telephone: (312) 494-4400
          E-mail: rweinstein.bacon@bbhps.com
                  asha.spencer@bartlit-beck.com
                  eric.olson@bartlit-beck.com
                  john.fitzpatrick@bartlit-beck.com


STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Court Stays Zambrano Suit Pending Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York partially granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint and stayed the action
pending result of arbitration in the case captioned, CHRISTIAN
ZAMBRANO, LUZ DURANGO, MOIRA RIVEROS, and RIGOBERTO ROMERO, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. STRATEGIC DELIVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, DAVID KRONICK,
ANDREW KRONICK, and MIKE RUCCIO, Defendants, Case No. 15 Civ. 8410
(ER) (S.D.N.Y.).

On October 26, 2015, Plaintiffs Christian Zambrano, Luz Durango,
Moira Riveros, and Rigoberto Romero instituted the action, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against
Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC (SDS), David Kronick, and Mike
Ruccio (Defendants), their purported employers. Plaintiffs allege
that they worked for Defendants as drivers delivering
pharmaceutical products, and that Defendants violated the FLSA and
NYLL by, among other things, failing to pay them overtime wages,
making unlawful deductions from their wages, and requiring them to
incur expenses for Defendants' benefit without reimbursement.

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs must submit their claims to
arbitration pursuant to the Independent Vendor Agreement for
Transportation Services they each executed with SDS. Each Vendor
Agreement contains an arbitration provision that provides that the
parties agree to comply and be bound by the Federal Arbitration
Act. Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs must pursue their
claims on an individual basis, citing a class waiver provision in
the Vendor Agreement that provides that Vendor agrees that any
arbitration, suit, action or other legal proceeding arising out of
or in any way relating to the Agreement or the services provided
hereunder shall be conducted and resolved on an individual basis
only and not on a class-wide, multiple plaintiff, collective or
similar basis unless mutually agreed to in writing by all
interested parties.

Plaintiffs oppose Defendants' motion and seek to proceed with
their claims collectively in this Court arguing that the Court
lacks authority to compel arbitration under the FAA, because the
statute does not apply to "contracts of employment" of
"transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce."

In his Opinion and Order dated September 22, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/guWZNf from Leagle.com, Judge Ramos found that
regardless of whether Plaintiffs' claims are exempt from the FAA,
Plaintiffs must proceed by way of arbitration because the
arbitration provision is enforceable but it is up to the
arbitrator to determine the enforceability of the class waiver
provision.

The Court stayed the action pending arbitration of Plaintiffs'
claims to permit the parties to move their dispute "out of court
and into arbitration as quickly and easily as possible."

Christian Zambrano, et al. are represented by Denise Andrea
Schulman, Esq. -- denise@jhllp.com -- Lucas Colin Buzzard, Esq.
-- lucas@jhllp.com -- and Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
-- daniel@jhllp.com -- JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM

Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC is represented by David F.
Jasinski, Esq. -- djansinski@jplawfirm.com -- and Peter Paul
Perla, Jr., Esq. -- pperla@jplawfirm.com -- JASINSKI AND WILLIAMS,
P.C.


SUNEDISON INC: "Bloom" Suit Moved from Super. Court to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case CHARLES BLOOM AND SHARON BURNSTEIN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff, vs. SUNEDISON,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. CIV538022 (April 26, 2016)" was
removed from the San Mateo Superior Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, and assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-07427-LTS.

The suit is a securities suit. It was removed because it is
"related to" a pending case under the Bankruptcy Code.

SunEdison, Inc. manufactures semiconductors and solar energy
technology.

The Defendant is represented by:

     Sara B. Brody, Esq.
     Jaime A. Bartlett, Esq.
     Sarah A. Hemmendinger, Esq.
     SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
     555 California Street, Suite 2000
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 772-1200
     Fax: (415) 772-7400
     E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com
             jbartlett@sidley.com
             shemmendinger@sidley.com

        - and -

     Norman J. Blears, Esq.
     SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
     1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1
     Palo Alto, CA 94304
     Phone: (650) 565-7000
     Fax: (650) 565-7100
     E-mail: nblears@sidley.com


TESCO: Faces Investor Class Action Over GBP150MM Losses
-------------------------------------------------------
Attracta Mooney and Mark Vandevelde, writing for The Financial
Times, report that Tesco faces legal action from 60 large
investors that claim to have suffered GBP150m in losses because of
accounting irregularities at the British retailer.  It marks the
first collective lawsuit against the supermarket in the UK.

The lawsuit will pile further pressure on Britain's largest
retailer, which is grappling with slowing sales growth and ongoing
controversy over its 2014 profit misstatement.

A group of asset managers, hedge funds and pension funds,
including UK and international investors, will file the lawsuit in
the UK within the next four weeks, according to Bentham Europe,
the litigation funder.

Tesco revealed in September 2014 that it had misstated its profits
during the first half of that year, with the discrepancy
eventually growing to GBP326m.  Shares in the company fell 12 per
cent as the news emerged, the lowest level in 11 years.

Tesco's share price has fallen 20 per cent in the two years since.

Bentham Europe, which would not provide names of investors
involved in the lawsuit, alleges that Tesco failed to provide the
market with accurate information, which negatively affected
investors.  Jeremy Marshall, chief investment officer of Bentham
Europe, said: "Investors have suffered substantial losses."

Sean Upson, a partner at Stewarts Law, the litigation law firm
leading the class action, added: "Investors say that they were
induced to buy or hold Tesco shares as a result of the earlier
financial misstatements and suffered losses when the share price
fell."

The hope is the action "will drive corporate reform" at the
retailer, he added.

Tesco, which reported pre-tax profits of GBP162m on revenues of
GBP48bn last year, declined to comment.

The investors' GBP150m claim in the UK is more than 10 times the
size of a settlement Tesco reached in the US over its accountancy
problems.

In 2015, the retailer said it would pay $12m to settle a class
action with holders of its American depositary receipts, a type of
stock that represents shares in a non-US company.  The company did
not admit liability.

In September, the UK's Serious Fraud Office charged three former
Tesco executives over the accounting scandal.

Lawyers for Christopher Bush, who was Tesco's UK managing
director; Carl Rogberg, former UK finance director; and
John Scouler, who used to be UK commercial director for food, said
in September that their clients will plead not guilty to charges
of fraud and false accounting.

The SFO said its investigation into the company is ongoing.

Tesco is likely to face other lawsuits in the UK. Last year, a US
law firm, Scott & Scott, set up a vehicle -- Tesco Shareholder
Claims -- to allow UK and European shareholders that want to seek
damages to band together and file a joint lawsuit.

Tesco Shareholder Claims said: "[We] are continuing to explore on
behalf of our clients the best way to seek compensation from
Tesco."

While the US has a history of shareholders suing companies over
alleged wrongdoing, British investors have traditionally been far
more reluctant to engage in legal action.


TORONTO: Court Upholds Ruling in Rent Reduction Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that the
City of Toronto is financially liable for failing to alert a group
of vulnerable rooming-house tenants to their entitlement to rent
reductions, Ontario's top court ruled on Sept. 12, 2016.

In its decision on the class-action suit, the Court of Appeal
found the city had been negligent and breached the standard of
care owed the west-end tenants.

"The city knew intimately the situations of the class members and
the nature and extent of their particular vulnerabilities," the
Appeal Court found.

"(It) knew the city's actions would exacerbate those
vulnerabilities, knew that even modest rent relief would be
especially meaningful to the class members, and ought to have
known that this vulnerable group would be especially hard hit by
the city's failure to perform its statutory notification duties."

The case arose in 2003, when changes at the provincial level
lowered property tax rates for rooming houses. The legislation
required landlords to lower rents and municipalities to provide
notices of the rent reduction to affected landlords and tenants.
However, Toronto failed to send out the notices to tenants of
certain rooming houses in the city's Parkdale district.

One tenant, Terence Williams, launched a class action for damages
on the grounds that affected renters between 2003 and 2008 had
overpaid. Williams argued the city had committed itself to
pursuing a lower tax rate on rooming houses as part of an effort
to protect affordable housing in Parkdale and therefore was
responsible for the overpayment situation.

In January, Superior Court Justice Paul Perell agreed the city had
been negligent -- with individual tenant damages to be determined
-- by failing to notify the affected tenants.

"The appellant and the class members are particularly vulnerable
and would not know of their rights without the information in the
notices," Perell ruled.

The city appealed on several grounds, arguing among other things
that it did let the tenants know -- in 2009 -- about the property
tax changes.

In siding with the tenants, however, the Appeal Court found the
notification provided too little information too late. The court
also noted the city knew the tenants would suffer harm by the lack
of timely notice about their entitlement to a rent reduction.

The specific facts of this case and the "modest" $1 million sought
in damages, the court ruled, would not expose Toronto or other
municipalities in the province to potentially huge liabilities.


TWITTER INC: Faces "Degenhardt" Securities Suit Over MAU Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIRE DEGENHARDT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. TWITTER, INC., RICHARD COSTOLO
and ANTHONY NOTO, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05439-SI (N.D.
Cal., September 23, 2016), alleges that Defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act by issuing materially false and misleading
statements regarding Monthly Active Users or "MAUs" (a measure of
the total user base).

Twitter Inc. is a global platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time, where any user can create a Tweet and
any user can follow other users. The Company's main source of
revenue is advertising.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


U-HAUL CO: Cal. App. Won't Send "Perez" Claims to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Acting Presiding Judge Laurie D. Zelon of the California Court of
Appeals affirmed a trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to
compel plaintiffs to individually arbitrate in the case captioned,
SERGIO PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. U-HAUL CO. OF
CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. B262029 (Cal. App.)

In 2010 and 2011, U-Haul hired plaintiffs Erick Veliz and Sergio
Perez (collectively plaintiffs) to serve as customer service
representatives. As a condition of their employment, plaintiffs
signed a mandatory arbitration agreement. Plaintiffs filed a
representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004, alleging that U-Haul Company of California violated several
provisions of the Labor Code, including overtime and meal break
requirements.

On September 22, 2014, U-Haul filed a motion to compel plaintiffs
to individually arbitrate whether they qualified as "aggrieved
employees" and therefore had standing to pursue a PAGA claim.
U-Haul asserted that all other issues regarding the PAGA claim
should be stayed pending resolution of the arbitration.

Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the California Supreme
Court's decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles,
LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 (Iskanian) made clear that "claims
brought pursuant to PAGA are not arbitrable in any manner
whatsoever, as it is against public policy."

The trial court denied the Defendant's motion, concluding that
California law prohibits an employer from compelling an employee
to split the litigation of a PAGA claim between multiple forums
and there was no legal basis to compel arbitration "of the
predicate issue of whether U-Haul committed Labor Code violations
against Plaintiffs."

On appeal, U-Haul contends, however, that the plaintiffs may
nonetheless be compelled to individually arbitrate the "predicate
issue of whether" they are "aggrieved employees within the meaning
of PAGA, and thus have standing to bring representative claims."
U-Haul argues that although "neither party agreed to arbitrate
representative issues, and neither may be compelled to participate
in a representative arbitration," plaintiffs may be compelled to
individually arbitrate whether they have standing to bring such a
representative claim.

In the Order dated September 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/tfxpNF from Leagle.com, Judge Zelon concluded that
PAGA claims are categorically excluded from the arbitration
agreement and that the agreement contains no language suggesting
that despite this exclusion of representative claims, the parties
did agree to arbitrate whether the complaining party had standing
to initiate a representative claim in court.

Sergio Lennin Perez is represented by Gregg A. Farley, Esq. --
gfarley@farleyfirm.com -- LAW OFFICES OF GREGG A. FARLEY

Perez is also represented by:

      Sahag Majarian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN
      18250 Ventura Blvd
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Tel: (818) 609-0807

Erick Veliz is represented by Larry W. Lee, Esq. --
lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- and Nicolas Rosenthal, Esq. --
nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com  -- DIVERSITY LAW GROUP

Veliz is also represented by:

      Sherry Jung, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SHERRY JUNG
      9 Sweetgrass Ln
      Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
      Tel:(310) 709-1972


UBS FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid in "Roman" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CARMELO ROMAN, RICARDO ROMAN-RIVERA and
SDM HOLDINGS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
OF PUERTO RICO; UBS TRUST COMPANY OF PUERTO RICO; PUERTO RICO
INVESTORS TAX-FREE FUND IV, INC.; PUERTO RICO FIXED INCOME FUND
III, INC.; PUERTO RICO FIXED INCOME FUND V, INC.; PUERTO RICO
INVESTORS BOND FUND I, INC.; PUERTO RICO AAA PORTFOLIO BOND FUND,
INC.; PUERTO RICO AAA PORTFOLIO BOND FUND II, INC.; MIGUEL A.
FERRER; and CARLOS J. ORTIZ, the Defendants, Case No. 3:12-cv-
01663-CCC (D.P.R.), the Hon. Judge Carmen Consuelo Cerezo entered
an order:

   a. adopting U.S. Magistrate-Judge Bruce J. McGiverin's Report
      and Recommendation;

   b. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and appoint
      class counsel; and

   c. denying Plaintiffs' motion to intervene and supplement
      complaint.

UBS is a global firm providing financial services in over 50
countries.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ktYD6Z5U


UGL: IMF Bentham Says Class Action Has Good Prospects of Success
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Wiggins, writing for Financial Review, reports that a
proposed class action against UGL has "good prospects of success",
litigation funder IMF Bentham said, as investors cautiously await
the outcome of Slater and Gordon's investigation into alleged
disclosure breaches by the contractor.

Slater and Gordon wants to bring legal action against UGL over
allegations it delayed informing investors about cost blowouts on
a power plant contract for INPEX's Ichthys gas project in late
2014.

The law firm previously had talks with the UK's biggest litigation
funder, Harbour, about bringing action but was unable to reach an
agreement.  It has subsequently teamed up with IMF.

"We believe that the claim is strong, we wouldn't be funding it if
we didn't believe it was strong and had good prospects of
success," Ewen McNee, investment manager at IMF Bentham, told The
Australian Financial Review.

Tim Finney -- tim.finney@slatergordon.com.au -- principal lawyer
at Slater and Gordon, said the firm had "carefully prepared" the
proposed claim.

"We expect strong support from the investment community in
bringing the claim," Mr. Finney said.  Institutional investor
Clime Capital has agreed to act as the representative applicant if
sufficient investors sign up and the class action goes ahead.

Retail and institutional investors who bought UGL shares from
August 8, 2014, to November 5, 2014, have been asked to register
their interest in the class action, which will allege that UGL was
aware as early as August that its power plant project was facing
cost blowouts.

Cost concerns

UGL's joint venture partner, CH2M Hill, had revealed in a filing
to the US's Securities and Exchange Commission in August 2014 that
it was worried about rising costs and the potential for liquidated
damages on the power plant contract.

UGL did not reveal the cost blowouts until November 6, when its
stock slumped almost 15 per cent.

John Abernethy, chief investment officer at Clime, said the fund,
which bought shares before November 5, had lost $500,000 following
the stock slump.  The fund had "a duty" to pursue the class action
because it was the custodian of peoples' money and there had been
"prima facie" breach of disclosure, Mr Abernethy said.

IMF needs a minimum estimated claim size of $30 million to proceed
with funding class actions.

Simon Mawhinney, managing director of Allan Gray, UGL's biggest
investor, said he was unsure whether the class action would "gain
traction".

"As a near 20 per cent holder throughout this period, I sense that
the chances are low but I've been surprised by the settlement of
class actions in the past so I see no reason why this couldn't
surprise me," Mr. Mahwinney said.

UGL declined to comment on the class action proposal.

The November 6 statement came as UGL, which was then run by former
chief executive Richard Leupen, confirmed it had completed the
sale of its DTZ property arm to private equity group TPG for $1.2
billion.

Impact on negotiations

Some analysts said at the time that if UGL had revealed the power
plant problems earlier, it could have hurt the sale negotiations,
making it look like a forced seller of DTZ.

UGL did not write down the value of the power plant contract until
February 2015, when new CEO Ross Taylor said the company would
take $175 million in provisions.

In June 2016 UGL said it was considering taking an additional $200
million of write-downs on both the power plant and the company's
other contract with Ichthys, a $740 million structural, mechanical
and piping contract in a joint venture with Canadian-owned
engineering group Kentz.

Analysts continue to be concerned about the outlook for both
Ichthys contracts, neither of which are complete.

Morgan Stanley warned in August that UGL has "little capacity" to
absorb unexpected costs or underperformance without "exhausting
available liquidity."

"If UGL can transition through its Ichthys challenges without
additional cost we see significant underlying value in the
shares," the bank said in a research note.  "The overhang of
Ichthys however cannot be ignored and clearly has the potential to
more than outweigh any improvement in the underlying core
business."


UNITED KINGDOM: Faces Class Action Over Return of Hard Border
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vivienne Clarke, writing for The Irish Times, reports that the
reintroduction of a hard Border on the island of Ireland cannot be
ruled out when Britain leaves the EU, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Charlie Flanagan warned on Oct. 3.

The Minister said the possible reintroduction of a border between
Northern Ireland and the Republic was a "matter of grave concern"
to the Irish Government.

His comments come as sterling fell to a fresh three-year low
against the euro on Oct. 3 following the announcement by British
prime minister Theresa May that her government will trigger
Article 50 by March 2017.

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty sets out how an EU country might
voluntarily leave the union.

Ms. May has made clear that the UK will insist on controlling
immigration from the European Union after Brexit, even if that
means leaving the European single market.

This stance raises the question about how the movement of people
across the Border between the North and the Republic will be
governed.

Mr. Flanagan said he had impressed upon his EU colleagues the
"unique situation" in Ireland and "the fact that we cannot go back
to the old days of a heavily fortified Border".
However, he said the scenario of a more visible Border by 2019
"cannot be ruled out".

The Minister also said UK ministers Boris Johnson, David Davis and
James Brokenshire had expressed an "understanding" of the Irish
Government's position.

"I'm not discouraged by what I'm hearing.  They don't want a
return to the Borders of the past."

The pound fell by about 1 per cent against the euro to trade at 87
pence, its lowest level in three years.

Northern Ireland deputy first minister, Sinn Fein's Martin
McGuinness said the UK was facing a "head on collision" with the
European Union over Brexit.

Speaking on RTE's Morning Ireland, Mr. McGuinness said he was
concerned and disturbed by the British government's plans to take
the UK out of the European Union.

"The Irish government has a very important role to play during
those negotiation in representing the democratically voiced wishes
of the people of Northern Ireland who want to remain in the EU.

"Our position remains the same, we refuse to be dragged from
Europe.  We are not going to give in on the issue.

"We are part of a class action in courts to try to prevent being
taken out of Europe.

"We want to stay in Europe, we are still trying to maintain that
position."

He added that he had recently met with the Danish Ambassador to
the UK and found that there was very little sympathy in Europe to
the British government's position.

Ms. May told the Conservative party conference in Birmingham she
will invoke article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty before the end of next
March, triggering the start of up to two years of formal
withdrawal negotiations.

Ms. May promised to introduce a Great Repeal Bill next year,
repealing the 1972 European Communities Act and transposing all EU
laws into British law.

Although the Bill will be presented to parliament before next
summer, it will not take effect until after the UK has left the
EU.

Ms. May said the UK would not follow the model of Norway or
Switzerland, which have full access to the single market but must
pay into the EU budget and offer free movement to all EU citizens.

"We have voted to leave the European Union and become a fully
independent, sovereign country.  We will do what independent,
sovereign countries do.  We will decide for ourselves how we
control immigration.  And we will be free to pass our own laws,"
she said.


UNITED STATES: Oregon Court Dismisses Tenrec Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael H. Simon of the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction in the case captioned, TENREC, INC., SERGII SINIENOK,
WALKER MACY LLC, XIAOYANG ZHU, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONS SERVICES, LEON RODRIGUEZ, Director,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants, Case No.
3:16-CV-995-SI (D. Or.).

Plaintiffs Tenrec, Inc. and Walker Macy LLC -- Employer Plaintiffs
-- and Plaintiffs Sergii Sinienok and Xiaoyang Zhu -- Individual
Plaintiffs -- bring the putative class action against U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and its director,
Leon Rodriguez, in his official capacity. Plaintiffs allege that
USCIS improperly administers its H-1B specialty occupation
nonimmigrant visa worker program in violation of federal law.

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendants argue that the Individual
Plaintiffs do not have standing because only employers have
standing to challenge the H1-B visa program and that the Employer
Plaintiffs do not have standing because they do not allege
sufficient facts showing injury or that any injury is judicially
redressable. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs' claims are
time-barred because the regulations that Plaintiffs challenge were
issued more than six years ago.

In his Opinion and Order dated September 22, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/x5JRsb from Leagle.com, Judge Simon found that
Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to show a concrete and
particularized injury and that Plaintiffs' alleged harm is
redressable because the wrong alleged by Plaintiffs is not that
their petitions were not selected by the lottery and granted, but
that the process itself is illegal because it does not consider
applications in the order received.

Tenrec, Inc., et al. are represented by Brent W. Renison, Esq. --
brent@entrylaw.com -- PARRILLI RENISON

US Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al. are represented
by:

      Joshua S. Press, Esq.
      U.S. Department of Justice
      950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
      Washington, DC 20530-0001
      Tel: (202)353-1555


UNITED STATES: Class Certification Bid in "Greer" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BERNARD L. GREER, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, et at., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-C V-142
(N.D.W.Va), the Hon. Judge Michael John Keeley entered an order
denying Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel and motion
for class certification.

According to the Court, the plaintiff has failed to show a
particular need or exceptional circumstances that would require
the assistance of a trained practitioner. Moreover, to the extent
the plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel "because he believes
that action should receive class certification," Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) outlines the prerequisites for maintaining a
class action. The plaintiff has failed to show the existence of
those prerequisites.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=htx78Az9


UNITED STATES: Pro Se Motions and Objections in "Pigford" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul L. Friedman denied eight motions and one objection
filed by four sets of pro se parties in the cases captioned
TIMOTHY PIGFORD et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOM VILSACK, Secretary,
United States Department of Agriculture, Defendant. CECIL
BREWINGTON et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOM VILSACK, Secretary, United
States Department of Agriculture, Defendant, Civil Action Nos. 97-
1978 (PLF), 98-1693 (PLF) (D.C.).

A class of African-American farmers sued the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) for discriminating against them
in the provision of farming credit and benefits.  In April 1999,
the district court approved a Consent Decree that settled the
plaintiffs' claims and created a mechanism for resolving
individual claims of class members outside the traditional
litigation process.  Class members could choose between two claims
procedures, known as Track A and Track B.  Track A claims were
decided by a third-party neutral known as an adjudicator, and
claimants who were able to meet a minimal burden of proof were
awarded $50,000 in monetary damages, debt relief, tax relief, and
injunctive relief.  Track B imposed no cap on damages and also
provided for debt relief and injunctive relief; but claimants who
chose Track B were required to prove their claims by a
preponderance of the evidence in one-day mini-trials before a
third-party neutral known as an arbitrator.

Eight motions and one "objection" were filed before the district
court by four sets of pro se parties, three of whom are
individuals or groups of individuals who either filed unsuccessful
Track A claims, unsuccessfully attempted to late-file Track A
claims, or opted-out of the plaintiff class: (1) Eddie and Dorothy
Wise (collectively, "the Wises"); (2) Theodore F.B. Bates, Ava L.
Bates, Karla K. Bates, Terrie L. Bates, Theodore B. Bates, Jr.,
Theodore F.B. Bates, Sr., and Ada C. and Kerry F. Bates
(collectively, "the Bateses"); and (3) Carl Parker on behalf of
the Estate of Robert J. Parker ("Parker").  The fourth party is
Corey Lea, a representative of the Cowtown Foundation, Inc., who
appeared to have no prior connection to the case.  The defendant,
USDA, opposed the motions and supplied a declaration by Bob
Etheridge, North Carolina Executive Director of the USDA's Farm
Service Agency, with respect to the Wises' motions.  The motions
sought various forms of relief, but generally asked for further
hearings under the Consent Decree in the case.

The district court has previously considered similar motions --
including some by these same pro se parties -- raising the same
arguments on which the movants based the present motions.  The
court at that time concluded that it had no authority to entertain
the arguments, which were clearly foreclosed by the terms of the
Consent Decree.  Judge Friedman held that the same conclusion
still holds true -- even more so in light of the Wind-down
Stipulation and Order, which executed an orderly wind-down of all
obligations imposed on the parties by the Consent Decree, rendered
on November 2, 2015.  The judge concluded that, where not
foreclosed on jurisdictional grounds, the pro se motions are
barred by the doctrine of res judicata.  Judge Friedman therefore
denied the pro se motions and objection.

A full-text copy of Judge Friedman's September 15, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/hXdckJ from Leagle.com.

CECIL BREWINGTON, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Jerome Ware --
charlesjeromeware@msn.com -- CHARLES JEROME WARE, P.A..

CECIL BREWINGTON, JERRY COOPER, ARTHUR GRIFFIN, CHARLIE H HARRIS,
WILLIAM LAMPLEY, HENRY SIMMONS, WILLIE FRANK WHEELER, PAUL
WINGARD, ROY G. WOOD, ARTHUR AMOS, RANSOM ARNOLD, CLARENCE POLK,
HUBERT BROWN, CAROL JEAN BROWN, WILLIE HEAD, JR., ANDREW JACKSON,
CLEM JONES, AARON MOBLEY, THEODORE F.B. BATES, WILBERT WALKER,
JOHN M. DECOUDREAUX, ROY H. ADAMS, LARRY ALEXANDER, HERBERT C.
ALLEN, JR., JAMES C. BACON, STANLEY BACON, W. E. BRANDON, JOSEPH
BROWN, LEON E. BROWN, WILLIE J. BURNES, JOSPEH CARTHAN, MICHAEL V.
CHATMAN, RONALD CLARKE, ALBERT J. COOPER, ANDREW L. COOPER, ELIJAH
COLE, JR., HOUSTON COLEMAN, ROBERT COLEMAN, JIMMY L. CURRY, ALFORT
DAVIS, ADELL DAVIS, SR., HAROLD L. DAVIS, ONZIE GLEN, MARQUIS
GRANT, WILLIAM HAMKLIN, THETIS HARDY, GEORGE HENDERSON, CARY
HOLMES, MARK A. HOUSTON, LEE ANDREW HOWARD, OLLIE HUDSON, TOBIAS
JENKINS, GARRETT JOHNSON, SAMMY JOHNSON, WILLIE JOHNSON, COLONEL
FREDDIE JONES, WILLIE E. LANE, JAMES MADLOCK, ANDRE MATHEWS,
KENZIE MCGINNIS, CURTIS MILLER, TED MILLER, JESSIE MOORE, ROGERS
B. MORRIS, CARL PERRY, JAMES W. PIGGS, EDDIE REED, JAMES SANDER,
MATTIE SANDERS, WILLIE E. SIAS, OLIVER SHORT, EDWARD SMITH, VERNON
SMITH, W. C. SPENCER, JR., MCARTHUR STRAUGHTER, JOHNNIE THOMAS,
HARRY P. THURMOND, WILLIAM WATKINS, BOBBY WELLS, MICHAEL A. WHITE,
CARL WHITTINGTON, CLEOTHA WILLIAMS, HERBERT WILLIAMS, JOHN A.
WILLIAMS, JR., ROBERT WILLIAMS, SUSIE L. CROFT, RAPHAEL L.
WILLIAMS, SANDERS WILLIAMS, FREDDIE L. WINTERS, PERRY WOODS,
WILLIE RICHARDSON, GRETHEL RICHARDSON, ERIC RICHARDSON, DIONYSIA
RICHARDSON-SMITH, GARON TRAWICK, PHILLIP R. BARKER, CHENAY COSTON,
PERCY DAVIS, SHEILA W. HARVEY, EDISON LAMONT SMITH, JR., LARRY R.
WHITT, LAWRENCE L. BRECKENRIDGE, GEORGE C. ROBERTS, JR., ENOCH
EDWARDS, JR., HEZEKIAH GIBSON, WALTER GORE, THEODORE HOUGH, ANDREW
B. JOHNSON, CHARLIE C/O SANDRA MACK KELLY, WALTER C/O LUCY
IBEMERE, DAVID E. BOYD, TOM GARY EWELL, ROBERT H. TAYLOR, JACK
TYUS, JAMES JENKINS, KIRK A. BENOIT, ABERRA BULBULLA, CARL
CHRISTOPHER, DENNIS CONNELL, BENJAMIN JACOBS-EL, VANNICO HANNEY,
ALPHONSO L. JAMES, SAMUEL MOORE, JOAN NELSON, DELROY A. PETERSON,
MARTIN REYNOLDS, WAYNE M. SMITH, LEONA WATSON, CURNEALL WATSON,
GAIL CHIANG, JAMES B. BEVERLY, JR., MACIO HILL, MASHELIA
GRANDISON-KIZZIE, WEST BONES, JR., ALICE DAVIS, CLINTON F.
JOHNSON, JR., Plaintiffs, represented by Phillip L. Fraas, LAW
OFFICE OF PHILLIP L. FRAAS.

ALL PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip L. Fraas, LAW
OFFICE OF PHILLIP L. FRAAS, Rose M. Sanders, Jesse L. Kearney &
Othello C. Cross, CROSS, KEARNEY & MCKISSIC.

CROSS & KEARNEY PLLC, Plaintiff, represented by David U. Fierst --
dfierst@steinmitchell.com -- STEIN, MITCHELL, MUSE & CIPOLLONE
LLP.

THOMAS J. VILSACK, Defendant, represented by Tamra Tyree Moore,
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Andrea Iris Newmark, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Andrew Marshall Bernie, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Megan Anne Crowley, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Stephen
McCoy Elliott, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

LEON MATHEWS, Claimant, represented by Joshua A Doan, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

ESTATE OF CHARLIE KNOTT, Claimant, represented by David N. Fagan
-- dfagan@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING.

MAURICE MCGINNIS, Claimant, represented by John M. Shoreman,
MCFADDEN & SHOREMAN, LLC.


UNITED STATES: Appeals From Ruling in "Sabo" PTSD-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant United States of America filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Sabo, et al. v. US, Case No. 1:08-
cv-00899-MMS, in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

The appellate case is captioned as Sabo v. US, Case No. 16-2693,
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Entry of Appearance is due on October 7, 2016;

   -- Certificate of Interest is due on October 7, 2016;

   -- Docketing Statement is due on October 24, 2016; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on November 22, 2016.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 19,
2016, Judge Margaret M. Sweeney granted the Plaintiffs'
applications for attorneys' fees and expenses in their entirety
and awarded the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses in the
amount of $3,862,924.

The Plaintiffs, and the members of the class they represent, were
medically separated from the United States military due to
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) resulting from their service
in Iraq and Afghanistan during Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom.  In conjunction with their
separations, the military assigned them disability ratings for
their PTSD of less than 50%.  Contending that they were entitled
to disability ratings of 50% for their PTSD under federal law, the
plaintiffs filed suit to obtain the higher disability rating and
the benefits that would flow from that higher rating.  The parties
ultimately reached a settlement.  The Plaintiffs then applied for
attorneys' fees and expenses.

Plaintiffs-Appellees MICHAEL SABO, NICHOLAS WELLS, JUAN PEREZ,
ALAN PITTS, BILLY J. TALLEY, AIMEE SHERROD and TYLER EINARSON, on
behalf of themselves and all other individuals similarly situated
are represented by:

          Arnold Bradley Fagg, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 739-5191
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: brad.fagg@morganlewis.com

Defendant-Appellant UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Emma Bond, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          PO Box 480
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 353-0521
          E-mail: emma.e.bond@usdoj.gov


UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Tosses Minors' Legal Representation Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Michaels, writing for Law.com, reports that in an unusual
call to action directed at members of Congress and the White
House, a federal appeals judge in California on Sept. 11 urged the
other two branches to address the "crisis" of thousands of
children and teenagers facing deportation proceedings without a
lawyer.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a case
brought on behalf of minors ages 3 to 17 facing deportation, who
claim a right to a government-funded lawyer.  Judge M. Margaret
McKeown, writing for the three-judge panel, said that the
plaintiffs failed to follow the proper procedures for bringing the
case.

But Judge McKeown wrote a separate, concurring opinion saying that
although a court would likely someday decide the right-to-counsel
issue, the legislative and executive branches could do more in the
meantime to make sure that minors in immigration cases have access
to a lawyer.  "The problem demands action now," she wrote.

"While I do not take a position on the merits of the children's
constitutional and statutory claims, I write to underscore that
the executive and Congress have the power to address this crisis
without judicial intervention," Judge McKeown wrote.  "What is
missing here? Money and resolve -- political solutions that fall
outside the purview of the courts."

Programs that currently provide money and resources for lawyers to
represent minors in removal proceedings are "laudable," Judge
McKeown wrote, but "a drop in the bucket in relation to the
magnitude of the problem," leaving tens of thousands of children
to go through immigration proceedings unrepresented.

Ahilan Arulanantham, legal director of the American Civil
Liberties Union of Southern California, argued for the plaintiffs.
He said in a statement that "the Ninth Circuit held that the
courthouse doors are effectively closed to thousands of children
whose only opportunity to seek appointed counsel in their
immigration proceedings is through this case."

Given Judge McKeown's recognition of the "moral imperative at
stake," Mr. Arulanantham said, the White House should "exercise
its power to cease its unjust practice of requiring children to
represent themselves in immigration court."

Charles Roth of the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago,
who filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs, said in an
interview that he was disappointed with the decision and
frustrated with Judge McKeown's concurrence.

"We found it very unfortunate that the court would both
acknowledge the problems of sending these children in to face
removal proceedings . . . and yet insist on this procedure that
will effectively deprive these children of the ability to make
these important legal arguments," Roth said.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice, which disputed
that children facing deportation have a right to counsel and
argued that the Ninth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to hear the
case, was not immediately available for comment.

In order to raise the right-to-counsel issue, minors facing
deportation had to bring it up before the immigration judge and go
through an administrative review process before taking their case
to a federal appeals court, Judge McKeown wrote.  The Immigration
and Nationality Act provides the "exclusive" means for reviewing
decisions about the appointment of attorneys in immigration cases,
the judge said.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said that it would be too difficult for
children to understand what they needed to do to raise a right-to-
counsel argument.  Judge McKeown responded to those concerns by
citing a case in which a 14-year-old boy did raise the issue
through the proper channels; his case eventually settled.  The
judge wrote that a parent, court observer or even the government
could alert the court that a minor was invoking a right to
counsel.

"We recognize that a class remedy arguably might be more efficient
than requiring each applicant to file a [petition for review],"
Judge McKeown wrote, "but that is not a ground for ignoring the
jurisdictional statute."

Judges Milan Smith Jr. and Andrew Kleinfeld joined the main
opinion, and Smith joined Judge McKeown's concurring opinion.
Mr. Kleinfeld wrote his own one-paragraph concurring opinion,
saying that he agreed that access to counsel was a problem, but
that because the solution was a "highly controversial political
matter, I think our own advocacy of some particular reform measure
is unnecessary, and the matter is better left to the political
process."


USA WATER POLO: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Mayall" Injury Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alice Mayall, as parent and guardian of minor H.C., on
behalf of H.C. and all others similarly situated, filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Alice Mayall v. USA
Water Polo, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00171-AG-KES, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case
arises from the alleged failure of USA Water Polo to take steps to
recognize, manage and appropriately treat head injuries and
concussions.

The appellate case is captioned as Alice Mayall v. USA Water Polo,
Inc., Case No. 16-56389, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 24, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on January 23, 2017;

   -- Appellant Alice Mayall's opening brief is due on March 6,
      2017;

   -- Appellee USA Water Polo, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      April 5, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant ALICE MAYALL, as parent and guardian of minor
H.C., on behalf of H.C. and all others similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Anne Fegan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  beth@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin Kamuf Green, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 929-3340
          Facsimile: (619) 929-3337
          E-mail: keving@hbsslaw.com

Defendant-Appellee USA WATER POLO, INC., is represented by:

          Steven Jeff Renick, Esq.
          MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
          801 S. Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 624-6900
          Facsimile: (213) 624-6999
          E-mail: sjr@manningllp.com


VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA: Chinese Sues Over Property-Sale Tax
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Greer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
with housing prices in Vancouver, British Columbia, rising into
the stratosphere, the provincial government this summer imposed a
15 percent tax on property transfers involving foreign nationals.
Now a Chinese homebuyer claims in a class action in Vancouver,
B.C., that the tax is unconstitutional and violates international
treaties, including NAFTA.

Lead plaintiff Jing Li claims the provincial tax is ultra vires,
and cites NAFTA and 29 investment protection agreements the
federal government made with other countries, including her
homeland, China.

The British Columbia Legislature approved the property transfer
tax on July 28, to take effect on Aug. 2, in response to growing
public outrage over housing affordability in Vancouver and its
suburbs.

Public debate about the city's overheated real estate market has
zeroed in on foreign investment, with opposing political factions
trading barbs over just how big a role foreign money plays in
inflating land values in a city where single-family homes
routinely fetch more than $1 million, even for dilapidated so-
called tear-downs.

Before drafting the tax, the governing B.C. Liberals had faced
mounting criticism for their years of inaction on the issue,
accused of kowtowing to the real estate industry and developers
who fill the party's coffers with donations.

British Columbia does not prohibit or cap donations from unions or
corporations, even entities from outside the province.

Li, who moved to B.C. after completing a master's degree in
another Canadian province, inked a deal for a property in Langley,
about an hour out of Vancouver, on July 13. Including taxes, the
price was listed as $587,895, and on July 20 she paid a
nonrefundable deposit of $55,990, with the balance due "by the
completion date, which is November 14, 2016," according to the
Sept. 19 complaint in B.C. Supreme Court.

Due to the new tax, Li is on the hook for $83,850 more, though she
signed the contract before the tax took effect.

She complains that foreign people and entities are "treated less
favourably than Canadian citizens or permanent residents when
purchasing residential properties." She says that buyers who
signed deals before the tax was announced, with closing dates
after its implementation, are left with the dilemma of paying the
extra 15 percent or backing out of deals and forfeiting deposits.

She seeks certification of a class of people and entities from
dozens of countries, named in the complaint, plus restitution, and
declaratory judgment that the tax is unconstitutional, beyond the
authority of the B.C. government, that it discriminates against
foreign nationals and violates international treaties, including
the North American Free Trade Agreement.

She also claims the province unjustly enriched itself through
expropriation.

She is represented by Luciana Brasil, with Branch MacMaster in
Vancouver.


VARNELIS GROUP: Faces "Rivas" Suit in Ill. Over RLTO Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Rivas, M.D., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kazys Varnelis ("Varnelis"), Octavian Cojan
("Cojan") and Varnelis Group, Case No. 2016-CH-12669 (Ill. Ch.
Ct., September 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant
Ordinance, specifically for failure to provide the Plaintiff and
the class with interest on their security deposits in the manner
required by Section 5-12-0SO(c) of the RLTO and failure to attach
to the Plaintiff's and the class' leases the RLTO summaries.

The Defendants operate a residential apartment building located at
511 W. Belmont Ave., Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jeffrey Sobek, Esq.
      JS LAW
      29 E. Madison Street, Suite l000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 756-1330
      E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Class Certification in "Kivo" Suit Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Kathleen Tomlinson entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned MELISSA KIVO, individually and on behalf of a class, the
Plaintiffs, v. VENGROFF WILLIAMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. CV
15-5915 (AKT) (E.D.N.Y.), directing Clerk's Office to extinguish
as moot Plaintiffs' counsel two motions -- one seeking to certify
a class and the second seeking to have the motion for class
certification entered and continued until the Court set an initial
status hearing in the case.

According to the Court, prior to the defendant entering this case
and filing an answer, the motions should have been extinguished
previously based upon the appearance of Defendant's counsel in the
action and the parties having worked toward a negotiated
settlement of all claims.

The Court will be separately entering the preliminary approval
order of the class action settlement.

Vengroff Williams engages in third-party debt collection and
subrogation of (assumption of authority to collect) insurance
claims.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VSBzmi9a


VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Golan Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RON GOLAN and DORIT GOLAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:14-
cv-00069-ERW (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs seek certification of a
class of:

     "all persons within the United States to whom Defendants (or
     some person on Defendants' behalf), within four years of
     October 3, 2012, initiated one or more telephone calls to
     such persons' residential telephone lines using the recorded
     voice of Mike Huckabee to deliver a message as part of the
     above-mentioned campaign regarding the movie Last Ounce of
     Courage."

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Plaintiffs as the
Class representatives, appoint Plaintiffs' counsel as Class
counsel, and grant Plaintiffs and the Class all other appropriate
relief."

The Defendants robocalled 4 million homeowners to promote a movie
called "Last Ounce of Courage". The calls came from a script
recorded by Mike Huckabee. The 4 million recipients of the
robocalling had not consented to receiving telephonic
advertisements about Last Ounce of Courage.

Veritas produces films that promote family, faith, and freedom.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eE5d52JN


VISA INC: Must Defend Against Suit Over Chip-Card Rollout
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that major credit card companies must face claims that they
conspired to use the rollout of chip card technology to push
billions of dollars in fraud liability onto small businesses, a
federal judge in San Francisco has ruled.

Lead plaintiff B & R Supermarket, a Miami retailer, sued four
major credit card networks -- Visa, Mastercard, American Express
and Discover -- along with seven banks and standard-setting trade
organization EMVCo. this past March.

The class action centers around the introduction of the EMV chip,
a square chip that functions as a microprocessor which is rapidly
replacing the magnetic stripe as the means by which electronic
sales transactions occur, according to the plaintiffs.

Because the EMV chip has a more dynamic capacity to register
transactions, it is viewed by many as a more secure means of
rendering payment, thereby curtailing credit card fraud.

The merchants say that unlike rollouts of chip-card technology in
other nations, major credit card networks and banks colluded to
force identical requirements and deadlines on U.S. retailers.

To avoid assuming liability for fraud charges, the merchants were
required to get chip-card readers, for which they paid $200 to
$1,000 per terminal, certified by Oct. 1, 2015.

But the merchants say the card networks control and intentionally
delay the certification process, allowing them to reap millions of
dollars in profit each month as the burden for covering fraudulent
charges is pushed onto small businesses waiting to get their chip
readers certified.

In a Sept. 30 ruling, U.S District Judge William Alsup refused to
dismiss claims of antitrust, conspiracy, unjust enrichment and
unfair competition against the four credit card networks.

However, the judge tossed claims against the issuing banks and
EMVCo., finding the plaintiffs failed to adequately show those
entities controlled the chip-card rollout process and
requirements.

Alsup specifically cited statements made by executives from the
major card companies, including MasterCard vice president Krista
Tedder, who said that "the card brands are going to delay the
liability shift date" at a May 2015 fraud summit.

"Ms. Tedder could not speak so confidently on behalf of all
networks save and except for her knowledge of collusion, for true
competition would have driven one or more networks to break ranks
and offer more competitive terms," Alsup wrote in his 22-page
ruling.

He also pointed to a statement made by Visa CEO Charlie Scharf,
who told analysts in March 2014 how the card networks, issuing
banks, merchants and trade groups got together "in a room" to
"work together toward getting much more specific about what we all
want to get done by when."

The defendants argued that inviting merchants "in the room" makes
allegations of a conspiracy implausible because retailers were the
ones affected by the new rules, but the judge disagreed.

"We would expect the giant retail chains to be involved in the
planning, for they would be the first to get certified," Alsup
wrote. "Run-of-the-mill merchants, like our plaintiffs, are the
ones to suffer under the liability shift."

He also found merit in claims that card networks adopted uniform
rules on the liability shift at a time when they faced "unique
pressures" over policies intended to block merchants from steering
customers to use competitors' cards.

In February 2015, a federal judge in New York ruled card networks
like American Express could not ban merchants from offering
discounts to customers who use cards that are less expensive for
retailers to process.

The the Second Circuit overturned that ruling, finding American
Express does not violate antitrust laws by barring merchants from
steering customers to use lower-cost cards.

The judge said an environment where anti-steering policies were
banned gave card companies like Discover a prime opportunity to
delay implementation of the liability shift, and in doing so to
"reap a competitive windfall as merchants steered customers to
Discover cards."

But instead, Discover marched in lockstep with the other card
networks to adopt the same rules and timetables on the liability
shift.

"That Discover turned its back on this opportunity is hard to
explain and is suggestive of collusion," Alsup wrote.

The judge found claims that EMVCo. colluded "sparse" but ordered
it to preserve evidence, adding that such evidence may show the
trade group was complicit in the alleged conspiracy.

Since the lawsuit was filed, three card companies -- Visa,
Mastercard and American Express - offered to forgo making
uncertified retailers cover fraudulent charges under $25,
according to the plaintiffs' first amended complaint.

The merchants' attorney, Alexandra Bernay, and Visa attorney
Robert Vizas did not immediately return phone calls seeking
comment on October 4, afternoon.

Bernay is with Robbins Gellar Rudman and Dowd in San Diego.
Vizas is with Arnold and Porter in San Francisco.

The case captioned, B & R SUPERMARKET, INC.; GROVE LIQUORS, LLC,
Plaintiffs,  v. VISA, INC.; VISA USA, INC.; MASTERCARD
INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED; AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY; DISCOVER
FINANCIAL SERVICES; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION; CHASE BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; CITIBANK (SOUTH
DAKOTA), N.A.; CITIBANK, N.A.; PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION;
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; and EMVCo,
LLC, Defendants., No. C 16-01150 WHA (N.D. Cal.)


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Defend $300MM Fee Request
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that plaintiff lawyers
who helped negotiate a potential $10 billion settlement with
Volkswagen over the diesel emissions scandal fired back at critics
who question their request for more than $300 million in fees for
negotiating terms that are largely overlapped by VW's agreements
with the Justice Department and federal regulators.

In a filing this weekend by lead attorney Elizabeth Cabraser of
Lieff Cabraser Heiman & Bernstein, the Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee called its work "complementary" and "integral to the
success of the combined efforts to right Volkswagen's wrong."  VW
might have offered consumers less without the promise of also
ending civil litigation under the same global settlement, those
lawyers say.

Ms. Cabraser took special aim at attorney Ted Frank of the
Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Class Action
Fairness, who in an objection filed Sept. 16 said the plaintiff
attorneys obtained almost nothing for class members that isn't
provided under VW's consent agreements with the DOJ and Federal
Trade Commission.  Mr. Frank, representing objector
Matthew Comlish, also objected to the fee arrangement under which
plaintiff lawyers will submit their final fee request only after
the settlement is approved, depriving class members of notice as
to how much of the potential settlement pot is going to lawyers
instead of their clients.  Those fees will be higher than
necessary, Mr. Frank adds, because more than 60 plaintiff law
firms collaborated in the case, instead of competing to drive
costs down.

The plaintiff lawyers' response to the objections says
Mr. Frank's analysis is "fatally flawed" because class members who
opt out of the settlement -- in essence, fire Lieff Cabraser et al
as their lawyers -- aren't entitled to a buyback program that
accounts for 99% of the $10 billion in consumer benefits. Under
the proposed settlement VW will pay up to $40,000 to buy back cars
consumers no longer want because of the doctored emissions
systems, which allowed higher levels of nitrogen oxide into the
air.  The plaintiff lawyers say those buyback benefits are
available only to class members who sign away their right to sue
under the settlement, citing an executive summary that it says DOJ
and FTC reviewed, which says opt-outs "cannot receive a Buyback or
Lease Termination" or "any cash payment."

"Those who opt out of the Class Action Settlement are not eligible
for the Buyback and cannot recover any cash," the plaintiff
lawyers state.

Not so, says Mr. Frank.  The executive summary isn't a binding
legal document, he says, and the actual DOJ consent agreement says
VW's obligations are independent of anything the company
negotiates with private lawyers or the FTC.  Under all
circumstances, that document says, VW "must still offer and
provide the Buyback."

The plaintiff lawyers say they also negotiated and set up a system
to administer the claims, "a massive project," and eliminating it
to simply enforce the DOJ consent agreement would "undermine the
efforts of the Class, VW, the regulators and the court to
comprehensively resolve all of the related harms promptly and
efficiently. The Class Action Settlement is not surplusage; it is
essential."

Frank also accused the plaintiff lawyers of breaching their
fiduciary duties to their clients by negotiating a fee arrangement
that hides what they will be paid until class members sign off on
the settlement, and failing to compete among themselves to provide
the lowest cost.  All they lawyers have disclosed is they will
seek no more than $324 million plus expenses, which on $10 billion
would certainly be lower than the 25-30% fee courts approve in
many class actions.  Mr. Frank says that's still too much, given
the settlement provides almost nothing more than the DOJ and FTC
obtained for VW owners on their own.  By splitting the fee from
the negotiations over how much VW was willing to pay for a release
of claims against it, Mr. Frank says, the plaintiff lawyers
abandoned a key point of leverage for obtaining more money for
their clients.  VW likely assumed the lawyers would seek far more
in fees, he argued, and therefore proposed a lower payout than
they otherwise might have done.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: To Pay $1.2BB Emissions Compensation to US Dealers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Randazzo, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Volkswagen has agreed to pay up to $US1.2 billion ($1.6bn) to its
652 US dealers as compensation for a long-running emissions
cheating scheme.

Dealers will receive an average payout of $US1.85 million apiece
in the settlement, according to filings made on Sept. 30 in US
District Court in San Francisco.

Volkswagen over the summer agreed to pay up to $US15bn in a
separate settlement with federal regulators and consumers, and the
additional $US1.2bn was disclosed in the Sept. 30 filings.

Franchised dealers have been stuck holding inventory since the
emissions scandal emerged and shouldered other financial burdens,
including a potential decline in dealership value or damaged
reputations.

A year ago, Volkswagen was forced to stop sales of diesel-powered
vehicles in the US due to so-called defeat devices that allowed
hundreds of thousands of cheat on emissions tests.

In a separate court filing on Sept. 30, attorneys for consumers
said more than 311,000 of the 475,000 eligible to join said they
wanted to take advantage of the terms in a $US10bn settlement with
US drivers of 2.0 litre diesel-engine vehicles.

The filing urged the court to give final approval to the deal,
which could come as soon as a scheduled October 18 hearing.

Volkswagen and the US Justice Department also asked the court to
approve the deal in the Sept. 30 filings.

The settlement offers consumers a choice of selling back their
diesel-engine vehicle, or getting it modified by an as-yet-
undetermined fix to reduce emissions levels.  All consumers will
also get additional compensation on top of either choice.

Plaintiffs' lawyers noted in the Sept. 30 filing that the terms
will compensate the average driver with a minimum of nearly 113
per cent of the retail value of their vehicle before the scandal
broke in September 2015.

If approved, drivers will still have until 2018 to officially join
the class-action deal.

Drivers of larger, 3.0 litre vehicles impacted by the
emissions-crisis are still waiting for their own deal.


WELLS FARGO: To End Sales Goals Following Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Cosunmes Connection reports that the Federal Reserve said it wants
Wells Fargo, JPMorgan and other top banks to hold more capital.

He has already admitted to having "violated" the trust of the
bank's customers, but denied that its executives directed
employees to create fake accounts. Wells Fargo has announced a
plan to end all sales goals set for its sales representatives and
leaders at its branches and call centers effective January 1,
2017.  John Stumpf had said the board was weighing what to do but
refused to say when a decision would be made.  Jonathan Delshad,
the attorney representing the workers, told CNN "We're being
inundated with emails".

During congressional testimony, Mr. Stumpf apologized but refused
to admit the practices were an "orchestrated effort".

A spokesman for the bank refused to confirm or deny the report.
That suit is seeking damages for $2.6 billion for wrongful
termination and unpaid wages.  Wells Fargo perspectives are also
available at Wells Fargo Blogs and Wells Fargo Stories.

Mr. Stumpf, a 34-year veteran of Wells Fargo and CEO since 2007,
earned $19.3 million last year.  "This fraudulent scam was
efficiently and identically perpetrated among all branches, and
pushed to all banks of Wells Fargo nationwide".

Last year, Mr. Stumpf received $4 million in awards for factors
that included "primary consumer, small business and banking
checking customers" that year.

The two employees in the lawsuit were penalized for not making
sales quotas.  They are seeking class-action status.  Federal
prosecutors are considering civil or criminal charges against the
bank.  Stephen Sanger, who has been a member of Wells Fargo's
board since 2003, is the former chairman of General Mills, the
packaged-food company.

Previous suits were also filed against the bank by nine employees
in 2014 and the case is scheduled to go to trial in Los Angeles
Superior Court.

One question that remains unanswered has to do with the impact of
these fake accounts on the affected customers' credit scores.

US and California regulators have fined Wells Fargo $185 million.

The Labor Department is investigating whether Wells Fargo abused
its employees while driving them to meet the lofty sales targets.

Elizabeth Warren and other member of Congress requested the Labor
Department investigation after a Senate Banking Committee hearing
on September 20 in which Wells Fargo CEO Stumpf was questioned
about the bank's pressure tactics used to get employees to open
accounts for customers.  "Wells Fargo has strong recoupment and
clawback policies in place" in part to discourage its senior
executives from taking "imprudent or excessive risks that would
adversely affect the company", the bank said in its latest proxy
statement.  He is to be the only witness before the House
Financial Services Committee when he attends a hearing this week,
and the move to take back financial awards could help head off
some of the inevitable anger of lawmakers.


WENDY NAIL: Faces "Qu" Lawsuit Under FLSA, New York Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
BO QU, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. WENDY NAIL & SPA INC., d/b/a Wendy Nail & Spa, and
YINDI WEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05316 (E.D.N.Y., September
24, 2016), alleges violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act,
and of the New York Labor Law (NYLL), arising from Defendants'
various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or
practices.

Wendy Nail & Spa Inc. is a small, fairly new organization in the
beauty shops industry located in Oceanside, NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Troy, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Phone: (718) 762-1324
     Email: johntroy@troypllc.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Kljajic Seeks Certification of 7 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BETH KLJAJIC and KATHLEEN CATES,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
Plaintiffs, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No.
1:15-cv-05980 (N.D, Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify
seven classes:

Multi-State Class:

     "all individuals residing in the States identified in
      Exhibit 1 who purchased a Whirlpool Oven with a self-
      cleaning mechanism";

IKEA Multi-State Class:

     "all individuals residing in the States identified in
      Exhibit 1 who purchased a Whirlpool Oven sold by IKEA with
      a self-cleaning mechanism";

Illinois Class:

     "all individuals who purchased a Whirlpool Oven with a self-
     cleaning mechanism in the state of Illinois";

IKEA Illinois Class:

     "all individuals who purchased a Whirlpool Oven sold by IKEA
     with a self-cleaning mechanism in the state of Illinois";

South Carolina Class:

     "all individuals who purchased a Whirlpool Oven with a self-
     cleaning mechanism in the state of South Carolina";

Injunctive Multi-State Class:


     "all individuals residing in the States identified in
     Exhibit 1 who purchased a Whirlpool Oven with a self-
     cleaning mechanism"; and

Injunctive Multi-State IKEA Class:

     "all individuals residing in the States identified in
     Exhibit 1 who purchased a Whirlpool Oven sold by IKEA with a
     self-cleaning mechanism".

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to certify all issues subject to
common proof in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(c)(4);
appoint them as Class Representatives; and appoint Michael
Flannery of Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca LLP and Jasper Ward of Jones
Ward P.L.C as Class Counsel.

Whirlpool is an American multinational manufacturer and marketer
of home appliances, headquartered in Benton Charter Township,
Michigan, United States, near Benton Harbor, Michigan.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 226 1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com
                  charles@cuneolaw.com
                  kvandyck@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Corey D. Sullivan, Esq.
          SULLIVAN LAW LLC
          1814 E Eagle Bay Drive
          Bloomington, ID 47401
          Telephone: (314) 971 9353
          E-mail: sullivcd@gmail.com

               - and -

          Francis Joseph Flynn , Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
          6220 W. 3rd Street, #415
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-3173
          Telephone: (855) 805 9005
          E-mail: francisflynn@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
          Alex C. Davis, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          312 S. Fourth Street 6th Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 882 6000
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com
                  alex@jonesward.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: McDonald Appeals Ruling in "Chambers" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector W. Allen McDonald filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Steve Chambers, et al. v. Whirlpool
Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:11-cv-01733-FMO-JCG, in the U.S.
District Court for Central California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District
Judge Ronnie L. White denied Jonathan Fortman's motion to quash
the subpoenas directed to him, as counsel of the absent class
members who objected to a proposed class action settlement and
award of attorneys' fees in the Case.  The Court ordered Mr.
Fortman to produce the requested documents, along with a privilege
log (if necessary), or provide a declaration under oath listing
the information sought in the document requests.

The case was brought by several people whose dishwashers started
on fire.  They alleged that the dishwashers inexplicably ignited.

The appellate case is captioned as Steve Chambers, et al. v.
Whirlpool Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-56364, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 17, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on January 17, 2017;

   -- Appellant W. Allen McDonald's opening brief is due on
      February 27, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Susan Bathon, W. David Beal,
      George Bliss, James Cashman, Steve Chambers, Joseph
      Cicchelli, Kurt Himler, Zila Koswener, Gary LeBlanc, Shirl
      Mederlet, Maureen Meneghetti, Susan Milicia, Kevin
      O'Donnell, Raymond Paolini Jr., Linda Sample, Sears
      Holdings Corporation, Sears Roebuck and Co., Inc., Jackie
      Steffes, Lynn Van Der Veer, Pamela Walchli, Lyndee Walker
      and Whirlpool Corporation is due on March 29, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Objector-Appellant W. ALLEN MCDONALD represents himself:

          W. Allen McDonald, Esq.
          LACY, PRICE & WAGNER
          249 North Peters Rd.
          Knoxville, TN 37923-4917
          Telephone: (865) 246-0800
          E-mail: amcdonald@lpwpc.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees STEVE CHAMBERS, LYNN VAN DER VEER, JOSEPH
CICCHELLI, KURT HIMLER, SUSAN MILICIA, GARY LEBLANC, JAMES
CASHMAN, KEVIN O'DONNELL, GEORGE BLISS, SUSAN BATHON, MAUREEN
MENEGHETTI, W. DAVID BEAL, LINDA SAMPLE, SHIRL MEDERLET, LYNDEE
WALKER, JACKIE STEFFES, RAYMOND PAOLINI, Jr., ZILA KOSWENER, and
PAMELA WALCHLI, individually and for all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Cohon, Esq.
          COHON & POLLAK, LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 11th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 231-4470
          Facsimile: (310) 231-4610
          E-mail: jcohon@cohonpollak.com

               - and -

          Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
          Steven Alan Schwartz, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, Pennsylvania 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          Telecopier: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: tnm@chimicles.com
                  stevenschartz@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Nicole D. Sugnet, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: nsugnet@lchb.com

               - and -

          David H. Weinstein, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          100 South Broad Street, Suite 705
          Philadelphia, PA 19110-1061
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          Telecopier: (215) 545-6535
          E-mail: weinstein@wka-law.com

Defendants-Appellees WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation; SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation;
and SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., INC., a New York corporation, are
represented by:

          Galen D. Bellamy, Esq.
          Michael Timothy Williams, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          370 Seventeenth Street, Suite # 4500
          Denver, CO 80202-5647
          Telephone: (303) 244-1800
          E-mail: bellamy@wtotrial.com
                  williams@wtotrial.com

               - and -

          Dean Jeffrey Zipser, Esq.
          UMBERG ZIPSER LLP
          1920 Main Street, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 679-0052
          Facsimile: (949) 476-0900
          E-mail: dzipser@kruzlaw.com


WILLBROS GROUP: Court Upholds Prior Ruling on Bid to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE WILLBROS GROUP, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-3084 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Keith
P. Ellison denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration of
the court's prior ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss that
had been declined in part.

In the class action, the plaintiffs sought recovery for alleged
misstatements made by the defendants in filings required by
securities laws, and in press releases and oral discussions by
management of the defendant, Willbros Group, Inc.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, seeking dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims for relief because the alleged misstatements
were, for various reasons, not actionable under governing law.
The court granted most of the relief the defendants were seeking.
However, the court declined to grant the defendants' motion as to
seven of the alleged misstatements.  The defendants subsequently
filed a motion for reconsideration as to the alleged misstatements
that were not dismissed.

Judge Ellison, however, found that the defendants did not adduce
any law or evidence that was unavailable when the defendants'
motion to dismiss was first ruled upon.  After a brief review of
the seven relevant misstatements to determine whether the court
made a manifest error of law or fact in refusing to dismiss the
alleged misstatements from the plaintiffs' second amended
complaint, Judge Ellison ruled to deny the defendants' motion.

A full-text copy of Judge Ellison's September 15, 2016 memorandum
and order is available at https://is.gd/YIkLd4 from Leagle.com.

Ray Walters, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A..

Ray Walters, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & R. Dean Gresham,
GRESHAM pc.

Wayne County Employees' Retirement System, City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew M.
Edison -- andrew.edison@emhllp.com -- Edison, McDowell &
Hetherington, LLP, Dennis J. Herman -- dennish@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Douglas R. Britton --
dougb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Kenneth J.
Black -- kennyb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Willbros Group, Inc., Robert R Harl, Van A Welch, Defendants,
represented by David D. Sterling -- david.sterling@bakerbotts.com
-- Baker Botts LLP, Amy Pharr Hefley -- amy.hefley@bakerbotts.com
-- Baker Botts, Benjamin A. Geslison --
ben.geslison@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP & Paul R. Elliott
-- paul.elliott@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP.

John T. McNabb, II, Defendant, represented by David D. Sterling,
Baker Botts LLP, Benjamin A. Geslison, Baker Botts LLP & Paul R.
Elliott, Baker Botts LLP.

Robert Leibold, Movant, represented by Phillip Kim, The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A. & R. Dean Gresham, GRESHAM pc.

Yu-Ping David Oyoung, Movant, represented by David James Sacks --
david@sackslawfirm.com -- Sacks Law Firm.

Steve Heldt, Movant, represented by James L. Gascoyne --
gascoyne@gbpclaw.com -- Gascoyne Bullion PC.

Margaret O'Byrne, Movant, represented by Willie C. Briscoe --
wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com -- The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC.


XPO LAST: Delivery Drivers Class Certified in "Carter" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RON CARTER, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
XPO LAST MILE, INC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01231-WHO
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. William H. Orrick entered an order granting
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of:

     "all persons who are or have operated as a Delivery Driver
     for Defendant in the State of California and who executed an
     XPO or 3PD "Delivery Service Agreement" or a similar written
     contract on behalf of themselves or entities in which they
     have an ownership interest that was in effect during the
     period commencing March 11, 2013 through the present".

The Plaintiffs argue the Delivery Drivers should be classified as
employees, and as a result assert claims on behalf of Delivery
Drivers for: failure to pay overtime, failure to pay a minimum
wage, failure to pay a minimum wage, failure to pay overtime
under, reimbursement of employee expenses, unlawful deduction from
wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest
breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time
penalties violations, and civil penalties under the California
Private Attorneys General Act, the Federal Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), the California Labor Code, and the Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order.

XPO argues that the Delivery Drivers are not similarly situated
for several reasons, but given the low burden for FLSA conditional
certification in this District and the fact that discovery is
needed to test the strength of XPO's assertions (which may be re-
raised on a motion to decertify).

Judge Orrick concluded that Plaintiffs have met their burden to
show substantial similarity between the claims they intend to
assert on behalf of Delivery Drivers sufficient for conditional
certification under FLSA. To facilitate prompt notice, Defendants
shall provide the class information within 30 days of the date of
the oral argument.

XPO provides delivery services to retail merchants like Home
Depot, Lowe's Home Improvement, Macy's, Ethan Allen, Pottery Barn,
and Kraftmaid.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VgoVkDn2


YAHOO! INC: Faces "McMahon" Lawsuit Over Users' Info Theft
----------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD MCMAHON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. YAHOO! INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
07449 (N.D. Cal., September 24, 2016), alleges breach of implied
contract and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,
Business & Professions Code for its failure to secure and
safeguard its users' personally identifiable information.

YAHOO! INC. -- https://www.yahoo.com/ -- was founded in 1994 as a
directory of web sites, but developed into a source for searches,
email, shopping and news.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael F. Ram, Esq.
     Matt Malone, Esq.
     Susan Brown, Esq.
     RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
     101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 433-4949
     Fax: (415) 433-7311
     E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com
             mjm@rocklawcal.com

             sbrown@rocklawcal.com

        - and -

     John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
     Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
     Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone: (813) 223-5505
     Fax: (813) 223-5402
     E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
             mvalladares@ForThePeople.com
             pbarthle@ForThePeople.com

        - and -

     Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
     Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
     James A. Barry, Esq.
     LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC
     801 Kings Hwy. N.
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Phone: (856) 663-8200
     E-mail: mgalpern@lockslaw.com
             abell@lockslaw.com
             jbarry@lockslaw.com


YAHOO! INC: Faces "Schwartz" Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD SCHWARTZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. YAHOO! INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:16-cv-05456 (N.D. Cal., September 23, 2016), alleges that
the Company has failed to adequately protect its users or itself
from data breaches.

YAHOO! INC. -- https://www.yahoo.com/ -- was founded in 1994 as a
directory of web sites, but developed into a source for searches,
email, shopping and news.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     Post Montgomery Center
     One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: 415/288-4545
     Fax: 415/288-4534
     E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

        - and -

     Paul J. Geller, Esq.
     Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     120 East Palmetto Park Road Suite
     500 Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Phone: 561/750-3000
     Fax: 561/750-3364
     E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
             sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com

        - and -

     Joel H. Bernstein, Esq.
     Corban S. Rhodes, Esq.
     Ross M. Kamhi, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway, 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: 212/907-0700
     Fax: 212/818-0477
     E-mail: jbernstein@labaton.com
             crhodes@labaton.com
             rkamhi@labaton.com


* 9th Circ. to Hear Oral Argument in Pair of Food-Labeling Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Herbers, writing for Forbes, reports that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Sept. 12, 2016, heard
oral arguments in two class-action food-labeling cases. The issues
before the court are similar and the cases arise from nearly
identical facts: the plaintiffs allege that the defendants'
product labels are false or misleading in violation of various
state laws because they claim to be "natural." The appeals will
also be heard by the same panel -- Judges Fletcher, Christen, and
Friedland. In considering these two appeals, the Ninth Circuit
will have a chance to set a major precedent that could either
reduce the flow of food-labeling suits into California-based
federal courts or open the spigot even wider.

The similarities between the two cases, Brazil v. Dole Packaged
Foods, LLC and Briseno v. ConAgra, Inc., are striking. The
plaintiffs filed putative class actions alleging that the
defendants violated various statutory and common-law causes of
action by labeling some of their products as "All Natural" or
"100% Natural." Brazil claims that Dole's use of "All Natural" on
several of its juices' labels is false or misleading because the
company added ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and citric acid. Both
additives occur naturally in the juice products. Similarly,
Briseno claims that ConAgra's "100% Natural" label is false or
misleading because the Wesson Oil in question contains genetically
modified organisms (GMOs).

In Brazil, the plaintiff appeals three district court holdings.
First, the court dismissed Brazil's California common law fraud
claims and several of his state statutory claims because they did
not adequately meet the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 9. Further, several of his "causes of action" were
in fact duplicative remedies that were unnecessary given his
surviving state statutory claims. Second, after initially
certifying Brazil's claim as a class action, the court decertified
the damages class because Brazil's proposed damages model could
not establish damages on a class-wide basis through common proof
and therefore individual damage issues predominated in violation
of Rule 23. Third, as outlined by a previous WLF Legal Pulse post,
the district court granted Dole's motion for summary judgment
because Brazil could not demonstrate that a reasonable person
would be deceived by Dole's All Natural juice labels. Since the
labels were not misleading, they could not be "unlawful" under the
state statutes.

In contrast, the Briseno appeal is much more straightforward. The
district court certified 11 consolidated putative class actions.
The cases involved plaintiffs from 11 states each alleging state-
specific statutory violations based on the same Wesson Oil label.
After the district court issued its certification order, ConAgra
successfully sought immediate review of that decision.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit will have to determine the parties'
procedural rights as well as delve into the merits of Brazil's
case. In so doing, the court will parse federal and state
statutory schemes as well as consider larger questions about
class-certification rules. To decide the motion to dismiss and
summary judgment issues in Brazil, the Ninth Circuit must
determine whether Brazil's common-law claims are in fact unique
causes of action under California law and whether, as Brazil
argues, the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard for
his state statutory claims. The parties disagree about the proper
method to determine if plaintiffs were misled by Dole's labels,
what a reasonable person would expect, and if the labels are false
on their face.

As to class certification, the parties in both Brazil and Briseno
contest nearly every element of Rule 23's class-certification
mechanism: typicality, predominance, superiority, and
ascertainability. The parties in both cases hotly contest whose
damages model can accurately calculate class-wide injury. Because
the plaintiffs in each case use similar methods to attempt to
calculate class-wide damages, and the district courts arrived at
opposite conclusions about the models' accuracy, the Ninth Circuit
should address the issue head on and clarify the requirements for
a damages-calculation model under Rule 23. The court also has the
opportunity to clarify how district courts should evaluate
consumer-fraud claims under Rule 9.

Notably, the Ninth Circuit had originally scheduled consecutive
oral arguments in three food-labeling class-action cases. The
third matter was Jones v. ConAgra, a case in which WLF had filed
an amicus brief in support of the Respondent and on which we had
commented previously in the WLF Legal Pulse.  The court postponed
oral argument pending the outcome of a case pending before the US
Supreme Court, Microsoft v. Baker. The issue in that case, in
which WLF filed an amicus brief in support of the Petitioner, is
whether federal courts have jurisdiction over plaintiffs' appeal
of a denial of class certification when the plaintiffs maneuver
themselves into a position to appeal by voluntarily dismissing
their claims with prejudice. The Petitioner in Jones had utilized
such a scheme to file its Ninth Circuit appeal too.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Floyd"
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Jerry Floyd, Plaintiff, v. Asbestos
Corporation, LTD, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05382-JST
(N.D. Calif.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, issued the
following rulings:

   * The Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Action as to IMO Industries,
Inc. is approved, and the Plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed as to
IMO Industries, without prejudice.  A full-text copy of Judge
Tigar's September 23, 2016 Order with respect to IMO is available
at https://is.gd/ac3SL7 from Leagle.com.

   * The Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Action as to Honeywell
International Inc. f/k/a AlliedSignal Inc., as Successor-in-
Interest to The Bendix Corporation, is approved and the
Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed as to Honeywell International
without prejudice.  A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's September
23, 2016 Order with respect to Honeywell is available at
https://is.gd/yP4UXf from Leagle.com.

   * The Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Action as to Defendant
BW/IP, INC., and its Wholly Owned Subsidiaries, Improperly Sued
and Served as BW/IP, INC., Individually and as Successor-in-
Interest to BYRON JACKSON PUMP CO., is approved and the
Plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed as to BW/IP, without prejudice.
A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's September 28, 2016, Order with
respect to BW/IP is available at https://is.gd/waDVYw from
Leagle.com.

Jerry Floyd, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Michael Fishback,
Keller Fishback & Jackson LLP.

Jerry Floyd, Plaintiff, represented by Cassiana Aaronson, Keller
Fishback & Jackson LLP, Daniel Lee Keller, Keller Fishback &
Jackson LLP & John Bruce Jackson, Keller Fishback & Jackson LLP.

BW/IP, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young, Foley
& Mansfield, PLLP, Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP, Holly Elizabeth Acevedo, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Keith
Michael Ameele, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P..

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph Duffy, Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & Taylor
Carl Day, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie Lynn
Lanphear, Schiff Hardin LLP & Renee Christine Kelley, Schiff
Hardin LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Gypsum in Ch11 to Resolve Asbestos Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. and Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc.
sought bankruptcy protection over continuing costs, risks and
administrative burdens associated with their decades-old asbestos-
related litigation and legacy environmental liabilities dating
back to 1978.

The Debtors filed the Chapter 11 petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Western District of North Carolina on Sept. 30,
2016, estimating assets and liabilities in the range of $100
million to $500 million. The Debtors have no funded debt.

The cases are pending before the Hon. Craig J. Whitley, and the
Debtors have requested joint administration of the cases under
Case No. 16-31602.

As disclosed in the bankruptcy filing, the Debtors' asbestos-
related liabilities arise from their manufacture and sale of
certain products that decades ago contained small amounts of
asbestos. According to the Debtors, asbestos was removed from
these products by the end of 1976.

Since 1978, one or both of the Debtors have been named in more
than 38,000 asbestos-related lawsuits. As of Aug. 31, 2016, the
Debtors were defendants in approximately 14,000 pending asbestos-
related bodily injury lawsuits filed in state courts across the
country, as disclosed in the court filing.

In addition, the Debtors said they have environmental liabilities
related to their former ownership and operation of plants in
Seattle, Washington, and St. Helens, Oregon.

Although the Debtors believe that insurance covers most of their
asbestos-related costs and should cover their environmental
liabilities, they said that the policy issuers have not reimbursed
them in full for all defense and indemnity costs incurred related
to these environmental liabilities.

The Debtors have general liability insurance that covers, among
other things, all defense and indemnity costs, subject to certain
limited exclusions and deductibles, related to asbestos bodily
injury claims, with Truck Insurance Exchange, an affiliate of
Farmers Insurance. Truck issued primary liability policies to the
Debtors for the period 1965 through April 1, 1983. The Truck
Policies for the period 1971 to 1979 have no aggregate limits.

The Debtors also have excess insurance policies with various
insurers that cover indemnity amounts in excess of $500,000 per
occurrence. In December 2013, certain of the Debtors' excess
insurers entered into a confidential coverage-in-place agreement
with the Debtors with respect to the excess coverage.

The Debtors seek to permanently resolve their asbestos liabilities
in a fair and equitable manner and further seek to discharge and
liquidate their legacy environmental liabilities.

"Resolution of these liabilities will eliminate the ongoing costs
and distraction of managing these decades-old liabilities,
liquidate and discharge or permanently resolve their deductible
and environmental liabilities, and eliminate potential risks of
uninsured judgments or claims (punitive damages for example) and
insurer insolvencies," said Charles E. McChesney II, vice
president, secretary and director of both Kaiser Gypsum and HPCI.

The Debtors intend to focus their efforts on negotiating, and
ultimately obtaining approval of, a plan of reorganization that
would, among other things, (a) provide for the creation and
funding of a trust established under Section 524(g) of the
Bankruptcy Code to pay asbestos claims, (b) permanently protect
them and their affiliates from any further asbestos claims arising
from products manufactured and sold by them; and (c) discharge the
their legacy environmental liabilities.

Prepetition Discussions

Prior to the Petition Date, an ad hoc committee of asbestos
personal injury claimants consisting of law firms that have filed
asbestos personal injury claims against the Debtors was formed to
engage in discussions with the Debtors regarding the terms of a
consensual plan of reorganization. The Ad Hoc Committee retained
bankruptcy counsel, insurance counsel, a financial advisor, and an
asbestos estimation consultant.

Following its formation, the Ad Hoc Committee delivered to the
Debtors a series of information requests. In response to those
requests, the Debtors provided numerous documents and other
information regarding their corporate history, businesses,
insurance and asbestos and environmental liabilities. Prior to the
Petition Date, the Debtors and the Ad Hoc Committee also agreed on
the selection of Lawrence Fitzpatrick as the representative of
future asbestos claimants. Mr. Fitzpatrick retained his own
counsel and an estimation consultant. The Debtors have provided
the FCR and his professionals with the same information they
furnished to the Ad Hoc Committee.

Meetings and other communications have occurred among some or all
of the Debtors, Truck, the Ad Hoc Committee and the FCR.
Communications between the Debtors and certain of the excess
carriers also took place. Among other things, the parties
discussed these filings and potential paths forward to a
consensual plan. Although all the parties have indicated a desire
to reach agreement on a consensual reorganization plan, due to
time constraints, the parties have not yet been able to engage in
substantive discussions regarding the terms of a plan. The Debtors
said they remain committed, however, to continuing discussions
with these parties and pursuing a consensual agreement with
representatives for current and future asbestos claimants and the
primary and excess insurers.

Cost Sharing Agreement With Truck

In June 2015, the Debtors and Truck entered into a confidential
cost sharing agreement pursuant to which Truck agreed to reimburse
the Debtors for a portion of the costs incurred by them in
connection with their efforts to permanently resolve their
asbestos liability, including the reasonable fees and expenses of
professionals retained by the Debtors and by representatives of
the current and future asbestos claimants. Because the cost
sharing agreement terminates by its terms upon the filing of the
Chapter 11 cases, the Debtors and Truck have recently been in
discussions regarding an amended cost sharing agreement that,
subject to the approval of the Court, would cover costs and
expenses of the Debtors' bankruptcy cases liability, including the
reasonable fees and expenses of professionals retained by the
Debtors and by representatives of the current and future asbestos
claimants.

                 About HPCI & Kaiser Gypsum

HPCI's primary business was the manufacture and sale of portland
cement products. Portland cement is a fine powdery substance that
is mixed with water and an aggregate, such as gravel or sand, to
form concrete, which has a number of construction applications,
including sidewalks, roads and floor slabs.

Kaiser Gypsum's principal business consisted of manufacturing and
marketing gypsum plaster, gypsum lath and gypsum wallboard. Kaiser
Gypsum also manufactured and sold a number of other products,
including metal products used in building construction, wood chip
products for use in building construction, and commercial paper
products.

HPCI is a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of non-debtor Lehigh
Hanson, Inc. HPCI is the direct parent of Kaiser Gypsum as well as
non-debtor Hanson Micronesia Cement, Inc. and non-debtor Hanson
Permanente Cement of Guam, Inc., the operating subsidiaries. Non-
debtor Permanente Cement Company, which has no assets or
operations, is also a wholly-owned subsidiary of HPCI.

Kaiser Gypsum has no current business operations other than
managing its legacy asbestos-related and environmental
liabilities. Kaiser Gypsum has no material tangible assets.

The Debtors' non-debtor affiliates, including HeidelbergCement and
Lehigh Hanson, never manufactured, sold or distributed any of the
Debtors' Asbestos Products. To date, no court has issued a ruling
or made a finding that any of the Non-Debtor Affiliates is
responsible for any of the Debtors' Asbestos Products or that any
of the Non-Debtor Affiliates should be treated as a successor-in-
interest to one or both of the Debtors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants' Appeal from EFH Plan Order Junked
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard G. Andrews of the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware has issued the following orders in the
appealed case captioned SHIRLEY FENICLE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS
SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF GEORGE FENICLE, AND DAVID
WILLIAM FAHY, Appellants, v. ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP., et al.,
Appellees, Civil Action No. 15-cv-1183-RGA (D. Del.):

     -- granting the Amicus Curiae Public Justice's motion for
        leave to file an amicus brief;

     -- granting the appellant's motion for leave to file a
        surreply in opposition to the appellee's motion to
        dismiss Shirley Fenicle and David William Fahy's appeal;

     -- dismissing the appellant's motion for joinder of putative
        appellant John H. Jones; and

     -- granting the appellee's motion to dismiss Fenicle and
        Fahy's appeal.

On December 21, 2015, Fenicle and Fahy filed an appeal with the
district court, seeking relief from a provision of an order of the
bankruptcy court dated December 9, 2015 which confirmed the
debtors' Sixth Amended Plan of Reorganization.  The provision at
issue would discharge future claims held by claimants who were
exposed to asbestos but who have not yet manifested any illness
and who failed to submit a proof of claim by the bar date of
December 14, 2015.

The order approving the Plan provided that the Plan would be
rendered "null and void" if the Plan was not consummated by April
30, 2016.  That date passed without consummation of the Plan.  On
May 1, 2016, the debtors filed a new Joint Plan of Reorganization
with the bankruptcy court.  The appellees moved to dismiss the
Fenicle and Fahy appeal.

In granting the motion to dismiss, Judge Andrews held that the
effect of the failure of consummation of the debtor's confirmed
plan is similar to the effect of a denial of a plan with leave to
amend.  The judge explained that the original confirmed plan "has
been rendered null and void in all respects," and "[t]he parties'
rights and obligations remain unsettled."

Judge Andrews, however, denied the appellants request to be
granted leave to appeal if the order is deemed interlocutory.  The
judge pointed out that the failure of consummation has not
converted the confirmation order from a final order into an
interlocutory order, but only rendered the original confirmation
order as simply no longer operative.

A full-text copy of Judge Andrews September 26, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at http://bankrupt.com/misc/deb14-10979-
9674.pdf

Shirley Fenicle is represented by:

          Leslie M. Kelleher, Esq.
          Jeanna M. Koski, Esq.
          CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED
          One Thomas Circle, NW, Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20005-5802
          Tel: (202)862-5000
          Fax: (202)429-3301
          Email: lkelleher@capdale.com
                 jkoski@capdale.com

            -- and --

          Elihu Inselbuch, Esq.
          CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED
          600 Lexington Avenue, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Tel: (212)379-6000
          Fax: (212)379-6001
          Email: einselbuch@capdale.com

Shirley Fenicle and David William Fahy are represented by:

          Daniel K. Hogan, Esq.
          HOGAN MCDANIEL
          1311 Delaware Avenue
          Wilmington, DE 19806
          Tel: (302)656-7540
          Fax: (302)656-7599
          Email: dkhogan@dkhogan.com

Energy Future Holdings Corp., et al. are represented by:

          Mark D. Collins, Esq.
          Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Esq.
          Jason M. Madron, Esq.
          RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
          One Rodney Square
          920 North King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Tel: (302)651-7700
          Fax: (302)651-7701
          Email: collins@rlf.com
                 defranceschi@rlf.com
                 madron@rlf.com

            -- and --

          Brenton A. Rogers, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Tel: (312)862-2000
          Fax: (312)862-2200
          Email: brenton.rogers@kirkland.com

            -- and --

          Mark E. McKane, P.C., Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Tel: (415)439-1400
          Fax: (415)439-1500
          Email: mark.mckane@kirkland.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EFH Asbestos Claimants' Class Cert. Bid Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals case captioned MICHAEL CUNNINGHAM, JOE ARABIE, AND
MICHELLE ZIEGELBAUM, ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellants, v. ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP.,
et al., Appellees, Civil Action No. 15-cv-1183-RGA
(consolidated)(D. Del.), Judge Richard G. Andrews of the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed the
order of the bankruptcy court which denied a motion by the
appellants for certification of a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23.

On December 1, 2015, the appellants filed a motion with the
bankruptcy court seeking to have the court exercise its discretion
to apply Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7023 to the
proceeding and to certify a class of persons holding unmanifested
asbestos claims.  The bankruptcy court denied the motion,
declining to exercise its discretion to apply Rule 7023.  In
addition, the court found that the class proof of claim did not
meet the superiority requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).

On appeal, Judge Andrews concluded that because the appellants
failed to identify the bankruptcy court's decision not to exercise
its discretion to apply Rule 7023 as an issue presented on appeal,
and then did not argue it in their opening brief and reply brief,
the appellants have waived the argument that the bankruptcy court
abused its discretion in not applying Rule 7023.    The judge also
found no evidence that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion.

Judge Andrews also found that the appellants have not shown that
the bankruptcy court made any erroneous findings of fact, errors
of law, or that it improperly applied the law to the facts with
respect to the superiority inquiry.  Thus, the judge concluded
that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding
the proposed class would not be superior to individual litigation.

A full-text copy of Judge Andrews' September 28, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at http://bankrupt.com/misc/deb14-10979-
9707.pdf

Appellants are represented by:

          Jeanne E. Mirer, Esq.
          MIRER MAZZOCCHI SCHALET & JULIEN, PLLC
          150 Broadway, Suite 1200
          New York, NY 10038
          Tel: (212)231-2235
          Fax: (212)346-9063

            -- and --

          Daniel K. Hogan, Esq.
          HOGAN MCDANIEL
          1311 Delaware Avenue
          Wilmington, DE 19806
          Tel: (302)656-7540
          Fax: (302)656-7599
          Email: dkhogan@dkhogan.com

Appellees are represented by:

          Mark D. Collins, Esq.
          Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Esq.
          Jason M. Madron, Esq.
          RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
          Wilmington, DE
          Email: collins@rlf.com
                 defranceschi@rlf.com
                 madron@rlf.com

            -- and --

          Brenton A. Rogers, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Tel: (312)862-2000
          Fax: (312)862-2200
          Email: brenton.rogers@kirkland.com

            -- and --

          Mark E. McKane, P.C., Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Tel: (415)439-1400
          Fax: (415)439-1500
          Email: mark.mckane@kirkland.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Family Files Asbestos Suit vs. Chevron
-------------------------------------------------------------
Families that have been impacted by mesothelioma, asbestosis, or
other asbestos-related diseases face many challenges. Though
immediate attention must be focused on getting the best medical
treatment available, there must also be acknowledgement that the
condition may have been caused by negligence on the part of an
employer or asbestos company. Such is the case in a lawsuit
recently filed in Jefferson County District Court in Texas.
Margaret Stephens and her son Gary Stephens are suing petroleum
giant Chevron, seeking both compensation for the damages that they
have suffered and justice on behalf of their husband and father
Charles Stephens, who recently died after a long battle with
asbestosis.

Asbestosis is a painful and deadly condition that is caused by
exposure to asbestos. Asbestos is a mineral that was widely used
in industrial and construction applications during the 20th
century because of its strength and heat resistance. Though the
public was made aware that asbestos is a carcinogenic material in
the 1970s and 1980s, many companies that used asbestos in their
day-to-day operations knew of its dangers decades earlier, but
chose to suppress the information in order to continue using the
inexpensive material. Those companies put profits over the health
and lives of people, and as a result, tens of thousands have been
sickened and died.

The case of Charles Stephens is similar to many others that have
been filed on behalf of asbestos victims. Chevron is accused of
negligence in having failed to provide Stephens with the warning
or protections that he needed, and in doing so being responsible
for his sickness and death. Many families have been forced to file
wrongful death lawsuits after their loved ones have died, seeking
compensation for medical expenses, lost support, funeral and
burial expenses, as well as the pain and suffering that the
asbestos victim suffered. Margaret and Gary are also aware that
during his years working at Chevron, Charles often came home with
asbestos dust on his work clothes, raising the specter of their
own exposure to the toxic material, and risk for being diagnose
with mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease in the
future.

If you or someone you love has been sickened as a result of
exposure to asbestos, you may have the right to file a
mesothelioma or asbestos lawsuit against those responsible. The
dedicated and experienced asbestos law firm of Danziger & De Llano
is available to speak with you at your convenience. Call us today
to set up a free consultation to discuss your case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Deals Fatal Blow to Take-Home Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Heaphy, Esq. -- kheaphy@rcalaw.com -- at Ryley Carlock &
Applewhite, in an article for Lexology.com, wrote that in a recent
published opinion, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that an
employer does not owe a duty of care to the child of an employee
who contracts mesothelioma from asbestos brought home on the
employee's work clothes, dealing a fatal blow to "Take-Home"
asbestos exposure cases in Arizona.

In Quiroz v. Alcoa, Inc., the Plaintiffs alleged that Ernest
Quiroz was exposed to asbestos in his childhood home from 1952 to
1966 because his dad, who worked at Reynolds Metal Company,
brought asbestos home on his work clothes. --- P.3d ---, No. 1 CA-
CV 15-0083, 2016 WL 5075524 at *1, Paragraphs 9-4 (Ariz. Ct. App.
Sept. 20, 2016). Reynolds moved for summary judgment arguing that
it did not owe Mr. Quiroz a duty of care and the trial court
agreed, finding no duty "as a matter of law." Id. at Paragraph 5.

On appeal, the Court began its reasoning by rejecting the notion
that foreseeability creates a duty: "Whether a defendant owes a
plaintiff a duty of care does not turn on the foreseeability of
injury." Id. at Paragraph 8. Instead, the Court analyzed whether
there is a "special relationship" in "take-home" asbestos exposure
cases or if public policy considerations create a duty. Id.

With regard to the special relationship, the Court rejected the
argument that Reynolds owed a duty to avoid creating hazardous
conditions on its property that would cause injury to persons off
the property. The Court found that the sections of the Restatement
relied upon by Plaintiffs to make this argument treated
foreseeability as the primary factor in analyzing the existence of
a duty, which is contrary to Arizona law. Moreover, the Court
found that relying on foreseeability "effectively eliminate[es]
duty as one of the required elements of a negligence action." Id.
at Paragraph 13. Likewise, the Court rejected the notion that
Reynolds was liable as a landowner, since the duty of a landowner
typically terminates when a licensee leaves the property and
Quiroz was not an invitee or licensee on Reynolds' property at any
time.

Finally, the Court analyzed whether public policy creates a duty
in "take-home" exposure cases. The Court considered several
factors, including "[t]he reasonable expectations of parties and
society generally, the proliferation of claims, the likelihood of
unlimited or insurer-like liability, disproportionate risk and
reparation allocation, and public policies affecting the expansion
or limitation of new channels of liability." Id. at Paragraph 23.
The Court reviewed each of the factors, and particularly relied on
two points: (1) the failure to limit the duty to homemakers,
possibly expanding claims to people that come in contact with
asbestos tainted clothing in cabs, grocery stores, or Laundromats.
For example; and (2) the possibility that finding a duty in "take-
home" asbestos exposure cases would "exacerbate the current
asbestos litigation crisis." Accordingly, the Court refused to
find a duty on employers in "take-home" asbestos exposure cases.

Although the Court's opinion does not address product
manufacturers, as opposed to employers, this opinion could likely
be extended to defeat "take-home" asbestos exposure claims alleged
against suppliers and manufacturers. It is unlikely that a Court
would find a "special relationship" between a manufacturer and the
child of a person exposed to asbestos from the manufacturer's
product since there is no relationship and a plaintiff would have
to focus on foreseeability as the factor creating a duty. As the
Court discussed at length, foreseeability cannot give rise to a
duty under Arizona law. Further, the public policy considerations
for manufacturers and suppliers are identical to those raised in
Quiroz.

The deadline for Plaintiffs to appeal the Quiroz opinion is
October 20, 2016. The Arizona Supreme Court's review is
discretionary.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Sues Lance Construction Over Wife's Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a man
representing his late wife's estate is suing his employer,
alleging negligence and insufficient measures taken to prevent
injuries connected to asbestos, saying his wife became ill and
died from breathing in asbestos fibers on his work clothes.

Marshall Mathias, individually and as executor of the estate of
Estelene F. Mathias, filed a complaint on Sept. 22 in Cook County
Circuit Court against Lance Construction Supplies Inc., alleging
that his employer included asbestos in its product despite knowing
the harmful effects it could cause.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Estelene F.
Mathias developed mesothelioma from having ingested or absorbed
asbestos fibers through her husband's work clothing. The plaintiff
holds Lance Construction Supplies Inc. responsible because the
defendant allegedly used asbestos in its products despite having
viable replacements.

The plaintiff seeks judgment against the defendant in an amount
greater than the jurisdictional limits of the court plus court
costs. He is represented by James R. Hopkinson of Cooney and
Conway in Chicago and J. Kyle Beale of Bailey Peavy Bailey Cowan
Heckaman PLLC in Houston.

Cook County Circuit Court Case number 16L9362


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire at Hospital Raises Asbestos Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------
Irena Ceranic, writing for ABC News, reported that an
environmental consultant will assess the impact of a fire at a
disused hospital site containing asbestos in Port Hedland.

The blaze on Sutherland Street was reported around 1:30am and was
brought under control within three hours.

Nearby residents were told to stay inside and keep their windows
closed due to a large amount of smoke in the area.

A spokeswoman for the WA Country Health Service said there was no
immediate danger posed by the asbestos but Landcorp, which manages
the site, had called in an environmental consultant to assess the
area.

The Department of Fire and Emergency Services said the cause was
undetermined and damage was estimated at $2 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Asbestos Found at Construction Site
---------------------------------------------------------
North Devon Journal reported that additional discoveries of
asbestos at a controversial North Devon development site have been
confirmed by North Devon Council.

The former Fremington Army Camp on Military Road is being
transformed into a 277-home development by Barratt Homes and Bovis
Homes.

In June it was confirmed material which had been contaminated by
asbestos which is marginally above the recommended levels was
being stored at the site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Tops in Asbestos Cases
------------------------------------------------------
Cole Lauterbach, writing for Alton Daily News, reported that one
southern Illinois county is home to more than a quarter of the
country's asbestos-related legal cases this year, several times
more than any other county in the country, and that increases
business liability costs.

A report by consulting firm KCIC said Illinois' Madison County is
responsible for 29 percent of all the legal cases related to
asbestos exposure in America in the first six months of 2016, up
10 percent from the same period last year. The county had 1,012
cases filed in 2015 but had already filed 619 asbestos cases by
July of this year. New York County came in second, with 184.

"People aren't coming to Madison County because they like the
burgers," Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch Executive Director Travis
Akin said. "They're coming there because they believe that there's
a realistic chance that they're going to have a favorable outcome
in their asbestos case."

Akin said the cozy relationship between judges and trial lawyers
who donate to their campaigns has created a "rocket docket" for
asbestos filings.

"Money generated from these asbestos cases is then used to
leverage campaign donations to judges, and it's become a never-
ending cycle," Akin said.

Akin said this pattern leads to businesses' liability insurance
surging in Illinois, as well as the rest of the nation.

The study also noted that Edwardsville, Illinois-based Gori,
Julian & Associates filed the most asbestos-related cases by any
firm in the country so far this year, with 179 filings. The report
said the firm filed 253 mesothelioma cases in Madison County in
all of 2015. Mesothelioma cases are included in the asbestos-
related filings, as the condition has been linked to asbestos
exposure.

Akin said the national Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week is an effort
to get voters to make informed votes on electing common-sense
judges who will keep situations like the Metro East's number of
nationwide asbestos suits from proliferating in their counties.

KCIC estimated that its study accounts for more than 90 percent of
all asbestos-related filings in the United States.

The Illinois Radio Network reports Madison County Chief Circuit
Judge David Hylla wasn't immediately available for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Retains Jurisdiction of Asbestos Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Maryland federal court has
retained jurisdiction over an asbestos-related lawsuit, concluding
that the defendant had provided "ample support" for the
proposition that the U.S. Navy exercised strict control over the
products in question.

In the Sept. 29 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland also rejected the plaintiffs' request to sever the
federal claims, saying severance would result in two cases
"proceeding simultaneously in two different courts."

The plaintiffs filed the claims on behalf of Earl J. Rhodes,
contending that he was exposed to asbestos-containing products
while serving in the U.S. Navy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11th Cir. Rejects "Every Fiber Theory"
-------------------------------------------------------
James Mulhall, Esq. -- james.mulhall@steptoe-johnson.com -- at
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, in an article for The National Law Review,
wrote that the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida
for the Fourth District rejected the "every fiber theory" in an
opinion issued on September 14, 2016.  The plaintiff in the
underlying case presented an expert that opined "every exposure"
above background levels to friable, inhaled asbestos would be
considered a substantial contributing factor to the alleged
mesothelioma.

However, the Florida appeals court held that the theory that
"every asbestos exposure level above background level is a
substantially contributing factor has been rejected by courts as
insufficiently supported by data or testing . . . "  In rejecting
the every fiber theory, the court relied upon prior decisions from
Illinois, North Carolina, Louisiana, Utah, and California cases.

The decision is another holding that rejects the every fiber
theory.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7 Bldgs in Waterloo Region Have Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that seven buildings in Waterloo region are
listed as having asbestos, in a newly-released National Asbestos
Inventory by the Government of Canada.

The inventory lists federal government buildings in the region
where there is known asbestos, and also buildings that do not have
the carcinogen.

Asbestos listed

The local buildings in the national inventory that have asbestos
include:

Cambridge

   * Office (medical clinic), 350 Conestoga Blvd.

Kitchener

   * John Norton Building, 15-29 Duke St. E.
   * Market Square, 25 Frederick St.
   * The Galleria, 101 Frederick St.
   * Government of Canada building, 166 Frederick St.
   * Two offices, 50 Queen St. N.
   * Office, 40 Weber St. E.

No asbestos listed

Other buildings listed in the inventory that are indicated as not
having asbestos are:

Kitchener

   * Corporation Square, 30 Duke St. W.
   * Office building at Deer Ridge Centre, 4295 King St. E.
   * Forest Glen Shopping Centre, 700 Strasburg Rd.

Waterloo

   * 139 Northfield Drive.

Guelph

   * Office building, 160 Research Ln.
   * University of Guelph Research Park, 174 Stone Rd. W.
   * Woodlawn Square (five listings), 255 Woodlawn Rd. W
   * Office, 259 Woodlawn Rd. W.

Breslau

   * Region of Waterloo Airport

Banned in April

The release of the National Asbestos Inventory comes after a CBC
Investigates report in April that mapped buildings with asbestos.
CBC News contacted 24 government agencies for the project.

In April, asbestos use was banned in new construction of
government buildings. Cleanup is handled on a case-by-case basis.

Though asbestos in buildings is not necessarily dangerous, it
becomes a problem when the fibre is disturbed.

After that report, the Canadian Labour Congress and several
national groups called on the federal government to create an
official registry of all public buildings that contain asbestos,
including schools, hospitals, banks and federal buildings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Duty to Prevent Take-Home Exposure in Ariz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark B. Tuvim, Esq., at Gordon & Rees LLP, in an article for
Lexology, wrote that the Arizona Court of Appeals has held in a
case of first impression that an employer has no duty of care to
protect family members from asbestos taken home on an employee's
work clothes. Quiroz v. ALCOA Inc., et al., No. 1 CA-CV 15-0083
(9/20/2016).

Background Facts

Dr. Ernest V. Quiroz was allegedly exposed during his childhood to
asbestos brought home on his father's work clothes from the
Reynolds Metals extrusion plant in Phoenix. Dr. Quiroz left the
family home at age 14 to attend seminary high school in Los
Angeles. He gave up plans for the priesthood after meeting the
girl he would marry, and instead attended college in Los Angeles
and medical school in Michigan before entering practice in Grand
Rapids in the 1980s. Dr. Quiroz was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
2013, and died the following year at age 62. Dr. Quiroz testified
in his deposition that he never entered the Reynolds Metals
extrusion plant, and acknowledged that his only asbestos exposure
related to Reynolds Metals would have been from his father's work
clothes. The trial court granted Reynolds Metals' summary judgment
motion based on the lack of duty under Arizona law to an
employee's family members. Plaintiffs timely appealed.

The Court's Analysis

Dr. Quiroz was a very sympathetic claimant -- potential priest,
respected doctor, lay leader of his church, devoted husband and
father with five children and six grandchildren -- and absolutely
no occupational or para-occupational exposure. His family and
counsel, Waters Kraus & Paul, sought to use this case to extend
liability for take-home exposure beyond the limited number of
states that have recognized the claim. Acknowledging that there
was no "special relationship" between Reynolds Metals and Dr.
Quiroz, plaintiffs argued that premises owners such as Reynolds
Metals had a duty to protect persons from hazards which
foreseeably left their premises based on three main grounds: (1)
Restatement (Third) of Torts Section7 (imposing a general duty of
reasonable care on all persons), (2) Restatement (Third) of Torts
Section54 (imposing a duty of care on possessors of land "for
artificial conditions or conduct on the land that poses a risk of
physical harm to persons or property not on the land"), and (3)
"public policy."

The Court of Appeals rejected each of plaintiffs' arguments and
affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment. Consistent
with the common law around the country, the existence of a duty of
care is a pre-requisite for a negligence claim in Arizona.
However, the Arizona Supreme Court has steadfastly rejected any
consideration of foreseeability in determining the existence of a
duty of care. The Quiroz court noted that Arizona had previously
declined to adopt any general duty of care such as that in
Restatement (Third) of Torts Sections 7 and 54, and it declined to
do so here as well, explaining that doing so would:

   "substantially change Arizona's longstanding conceptual
approach to negligence law by effectively eliminating duty as one
of the required elements of a negligence action. . . . The Third
Restatement approach significantly lessens the role of the court
as a legal arbiter of whether society should recognize the
existence of a duty in particular categories of cases; for this
reason, adopting the Third Restatement would increase the expense
of litigation."

The court further declined plaintiffs' invitation to either follow
Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 371 (imposing on a possessor
of land liability for physical harm to others outside of the land
caused by an activity thereon which he realizes or should realize
will involve an unreasonable risk of physical harm) or to
recognize a duty on the part of Reynolds Metals as a landowner to
Dr. Quiroz, because those theories do -- but Arizona does not --
consider foreseeability in determining whether a duty of care
exists.

Quiroz also rejected plaintiffs' argument that public policy
supported imposing a duty of care, in part because plaintiffs
offered no statutory or common law basis for the public policy
beyond the Restatement sections discussed (and rejected) above.
The court also rebuffed Plaintiff's argument that "any property
owner could reasonably expect that a lack of due care in handling
toxins on its premises, resulting in off-premises injury, could
lead to liability," which the court saw this as putting the cart
before the horse: "A finding of a duty of care must come before
considering whether Reynolds exercised due care." The court
further questioned where the dividing line would be if claims by
person off-premises were permitted -- would they be limited to
family members with regular exposure, or could claims be brought
by persons with more tangential alleged exposure, and would such
an expansion result in unlimited or insurer-like liability? As
Quiroz explained, other states around the country which, like
Arizona, do not employ foreseeability in their duty analysis have
all rejected claims based on take-home exposure for these and
other reasons. Because there was no basis under Arizona law for
any duty of care on the part of Reynolds Metals to Dr. Quiroz, no
negligence claim could be stated and summary judgment was
correctly granted.

Although the Arizona Supreme Court has repeatedly addressed the
lack of any role of foreseeability in determining the existence of
a duty under Arizona law, we anticipate that Plaintiffs will seek
review of the Court of Appeals decision here.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Launched After Mum Dies of Asbestos Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Hyland, writing for Daily Record, reported that a
grieving son has launched a legal action after his mum died from
asbestos-related cancer he believes she got from cleaning his
dad's dusty work clothes.

Alexander Culbert, who lost his mother Martha, 72, to mesothelioma
in May, hopes his late father's colleagues will help him get
justice for both his parents.

He believes his dad Joseph's death was also caused by exposure to
asbestos fibres while working as a labourer at Colvilles Steel
Mill.

Joseph, who was employed at the steelworks at Ravenscraig,
Lanarkshire, for two to three years in the late 60s, died from
multiple myeloma in 2007. He was 74.

Alexander, 50, and his wife Vanessa, 56, believe Martha was
exposed to asbestos when she would shake the excess dust from her
husband's work clothes before washing them.

They have instructed law firm Harper Macleod to investigate
Joseph's exposure to the deadly dust and fibres, which they say
led to Martha's secondary exposure.

Alexander said: "We were just getting over the death of my father
when my mother was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

"Vanessa and I are still struggling to come to terms with the loss
of my mother and need to do something to see that justice will be
done, in both their names."

The couple -- who have three daughters, Imogen, 22, Jade, 11 and
Aimee, nine -- are making a "loss of society" claim, where family
members can sue when someone's premature death was caused by
something work-related.

Since Colvilles are no longer in operation, their claim is likely
be against whoever provided the insurance to the company at the
time.

The claim is only in relation to Martha's death, due to the time
that has passed since Joseph's death.

Alexander said: "I hope any former employees of Colvilles reading
this will come forward if they have any information about their
working conditions.

"It may just be enough to help us achieve justice and hold
accountable those who failed to protect my parents."

Anyone with information is asked to contact Laura McCallum, an
asbestos litigation lawyer at Harper Macleod, on 0141 227 9304.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Hampers Hoboken Train Crash Evidence
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that evidence
from the Hoboken train crash -- an event recorder and an outward-
facing camera in the front cab -- is trapped due to structural
damage and unsafe asbestos levels.

The event recorder holds speed and braking information to help
determine what the train engineer was or wasn't doing in the time
before and during the crash.

Investigators are attempting to figure out what caused the crash,
but could not get into the front cab to retrieve the evidence
inside because the train crash was so deadly it caused asbestos to
be released into the air.

"Extensive debris removal must be completed before investigators
can access the train and then have the train removed," said the
National Transportation Safety Board.

In fact, the high asbestos levels resulted in the investigators
needing to leave the station altogether. Hoboken Train Station is
over a century old.

The city of Hoboken's history of manufacturing and adaptive reuse
of older structures puts it in a high-risk category for asbestos
exposure. Workers exposed to asbestos may therefore be at high
risk for mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lungs.

This cancer can develop when asbestos is inhaled and the
microscopic fibers become lodged within the outer lung tissue
layer known as the mesothelium. This thin layer of cells protects
and lubricates the chest cavity.

Asbestos causes a sustained inflammation of these cells resulting
in harmful scar tissue forming in the surface. This scar tissue
lays the foundation for cancerous cells to develop.

Coincidentally, asbestos has long been considered a miracle
material as it boasts excellent fire- and heat-resistant
properties. Yet, this natural-occurring mineral is also known to
be a human carcinogen.

During the Industrial Revolution, asbestos use grew in factories
and other heavy industries as well as oil refineries, chemical
plants, railroad cars, and shipyards. It was used to insulate
pipes and boilers in steam locomotives, line tanks and ovens in
refineries, and could be found almost everywhere in ships, from
the engine rooms to the galleys.

As the twentieth century progressed, more uses for asbestos were
found. It was used in brakes and clutches of automobiles,
skyscrapers, and the construction industry. Asbestos construction
products included joint compounds, cements, roofing shingles,
ceiling and floor tiles, siding, stucco, plaster, and much more.

Over time, as stories of sick employees who were exposed to
asbestos became commonplace, the American government began to
consider imposing laws about regulating its use.

Some well-known manufacturers throughout Hoboken's history include
Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Lipton Tea, and Maxwell House.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canandaigua Workers Exposed to Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------
Julie Sherwood, writing for Daily Messenger, reported that dozens
of Canandaigua VA workers were exposed to the dangers of asbestos
during the renovation of Building 36 for the Veterans Crisis Line,
according to the workers' union.

"We don't know exactly who all was exposed, but between 34 and 38
individuals came forward," said David Palmer, business
representative for SEIU 200 United. Workers involved in the
renovation project to enlarge the Crisis Line center included
firefighters, police officers and those involved in construction,
engineering and cleanup jobs, said Palmer.

VA workers with SEIU 200 United filed a complaint in April with
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA
responded with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and VA
Inspector General's office. A stop-work order was issued
immediately.

OSHA investigators found four "serious violations" relating to
asbestos: Not only were improper procedures being used, but VA
management was not using competent staff to oversee the
construction project, the union stated in a release. OSHA also
found appropriate precautions were not being taken to keep
potential asbestos exposure contained to the area under
construction.

"Subsequent to OSHA findings several VA employees filed claims
with Workman's Compensation and VA Employee Health as potential
exposure victims," the union stated.

Before construction began earlier this year, workers raised
concerns about potential asbestos exposure to VA patients and
employees, the union said. Asbestos is known to be present above
ceiling tiles and used as pipe insulation, based on previous
asbestos studies conducted at the Canandaigua VA. According to the
union, "front-line workers tried to make facilities management
reconsider how the project was being handled but felt they were
dismissed."

In a statement provided to the Messenger, the Canandaigua VA
responded Monday: "The medical center maintains the safety of its
staff as top priority. All the employees that may have been in
contact with asbestos have been encouraged to report to employee
health to be evaluated for potential exposure. An abatement
contractor and third party abatement monitoring firm has been
retained to perform and oversee the abatement of the entire area
where the asbestos was encountered. The medical center will
continue to work with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to ensure the safety of all patients and staff."

Retired VA employee and veteran Wayne Thompson, chairman of the
Finger Lakes Veterans Advocacy Council, said the Messenger's
inquiry was the first he had heard of the problem.

"It sounds like a situation with potential serious ramifications
for veterans, staff, and the Veterans Crisis Line. The FLVAC will
be inquiring," he said.


The union added: "Due to the nature of asbestos related illnesses
often lacking acute symptoms despite having serious long-term
health risks, workers who are active in their Union are concerned
people who may have been exposed to the asbestos in Building 36
may not come forward due to fear of retaliation."

A settlement agreement was signed for asbestos abatement in
Building 36. OSHA inspectors will return in the next few weeks to
ensure cleanup is being done properly, the union said. VA Police
have been ordered to keep the area secured and additional Veterans
Crisis Line Employees who were to be placed in Building 36 have
now been permanently reassigned to Atlanta, Georgia. According to
the union, building materials purchased for the project are now
sitting unused.

Randell Johnson is acting director of the Veterans Crisis Line. He
said that no Crisis Line workers were affected by the renovation
project or asbestos because the Crisis Line was not operating out
of Building 36. Crisis line staff work in Building 3 and Building
37. Building 6 is now planned to be renovated for the new center,
he said. That renovation is in the design phase.

Shane Kobaba, a VA facilities director, said the national Veterans
Crisis Line has a total of 507 responders, with 200 of them to be
in place in Atlanta by this November. The 307 will continue
working from Canandaigua, he said. Kobaba said the opening of the
new Crisis Line hub in Atlanta and the placement of the 200
responders was already planned and is not related to the asbestos-
related work stoppage in Canandaigua.

In 2015, an HBO documentary on the national Veterans Crisis Line
at the Canandaigua VA won an Oscar--shedding light on the success
of the hotline saving lives in the face of the alarming suicide
rate among vets. Since then, investigations have revealed serious
troubles with the Crisis Line.

The hotline's former director Greg Hughes said that more than one-
third of calls to the hotline for troubled veterans were not being
answered by front-line staffers because of poor work habits and
other problems at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Some hotline
workers handle fewer than five calls per day and leave before
their shifts end, even as crisis calls have increased sharply in
recent years, Hughes said in an internal email. He said that some
crisis line staffers "spend very little time on the phone or
engaged in assigned productive activity."

Coverage at the crisis line suffers "because we have staff who
routinely request to leave early," he said.

An average of 35 to 40 percent of crisis calls received in May
rolled over to back-up centers where workers have less training to
deal with veterans' problems, said Hughes, who left his post in
June, weeks after sending the emails.

The VA said in September it was expanding the hotline in
Canandaigua and opening the new hub in Atlanta. "The agency also
pledged to continue efforts to improve training, as it responds to
a report by an internal watchdog that said crisis calls are
routinely allowed to go into voicemail and callers do not always
receive immediate assistance," according to the Associated Press.

The crisis line dispatched emergency responders an average of 30
times a day last year and made 80,000 referrals to suicide
prevention coordinators.

A February report by the VA's office of inspector general
indicating that about 1 in 6 calls are redirected to backup
centers when the crisis line is overloaded. Calls went to
voicemail at some backup centers, including at least one center
where staffers apparently were unaware there was a voicemail
system, the report said.

The crisis hotline received more than 500,000 calls last year, 50
times the number it received in 2007, the hotline's first year of
operation. The toll-free hotline number is 800-273-8255.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Problems Continues at CSUB
----------------------------------------------------
Marissa Patton, writing for The Runner, reported that within the
littered ground, steep stairs and musty rooms of the CSU
Bakersfield faculty towers thrives a beast. It usually won't
bother people, unless provoked. Known as asbestos, this beast is a
silicone mineral that thrives within the tower walls.

The person with extensive knowledge of the beast is Safety and
Risk Management Timothy Ridley. Having worked at CSUB for the last
three years, he carries certification in Health Safety,
Environmental and Risk Management, and asbestos.

"I have been working in environment protection since 1978," he
said. "When I have a concern I always do an investigation."

Ridley explained that the asbestos in the faculty towers is not
causing any imminent danger because it is in non-friable form.
While the faculty towers have been up since the 1970's, the only
issue is the lack of elevators which go against ADA's newer
regulations. When they were built in the early 1970s, they were up
to all building codes.

"Asbestos is friable which means it can be released if crumbled.
It can create problems if you breathe it over a long period of
time," Ridley said. "Asbestos is also in non-friable forms such as
floor tile. The campus has buildings that contain asbestos, but it
is in the non-friable form. There is no hazard and no safety
issues."

Yet professors with offices in the faculty towers have thoughts
contrary to Ridley's claim. One such professor is Milissa Ackerly,
who has taught modern languages and literature for the past 16 and
a half years.

"I was in the faculty towers from November 2010 to June 2016,"
Ackerly said. "We had an annual notice every year that the
asbestos was in the floor, ceiling and walls. It's big in the
shipping industry; I know it causes lung problems and
mesothelioma."

Ackerly explained an incident that occurred around 2013 when
private contractors drilled into the towers and the asbestos
fibers spread.

"We were told it wasn't a big problem even though employees wore
these hazmat suits," she said. "They never told people to leave
even though all the stuff is flying around. I know one professor
just got up and left."

Ackerley recalled how the dust flew right into Administrative
Support Coordinator Kathy Hafler's office.

"They were drilling, and we had no idea what they were doing,"
both CSUB employees said. "It was awful."

When asked about the drilling, Ridley said it was to construct new
posts in the towers, as evident by the white plaster around the
building.

"There was no release of asbestos during construction," Ridley
said. "The employees wore suits out of protocol. They broke stucco
but repaired it. Employees were completely safe."

Even with preventative protocols in place, Ackerly said there is a
lack of concern for employees' health.

"It's a thing of no consequence," she said. "They think it's just
faculty, but students go there too. And what if that was the child
development building? Think if your mother was there! You would
want her out, wouldn't you?"

All things considered, the asbestos and faculty towers will not
survive for long.

According to Interim Dean of Arts and Humanities Liora Gubkin-
Malicdem, "we are in the midst of building a new Humanities
building scheduled to open by fall 2017 at which time Faculty
Towers will be vacated."

"We are tearing down due to compliance issues of repurposing the
towers," Ridley said. "Repurposing the towers is not a cost
effective option. I look forward to tearing down because it is an
old structure."

Both Ridley and Gubkin-Malicdem have been involved in the slow but
sure process of destroying and rebuilding the faculty towers.
Ridley met with employees leaving the faculty towers, so they were
satisfied with the layout. When the buildings come down, they will
meet all regulatory concerns for the health and safety of the
campus population.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Names Chevron, BP as Defendants
-----------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reported that a
recent asbestos suit has named more than two-dozen corporations as
defendants, including Chevron USA and BP North America.

Representing the estate of William E. Hargrave, William Jack
Hargrave field the suit Sept. 29 in Jefferson County District
Court.

The suit names 31 defendants in total, a list that includes: AMF,
Bechtel, Flour, Sunoco, CBS, GE, Zurn, Amoco, BP, Chevron, Texaco,
Total and Union Carbide.

According to the lawsuit, Hargrave was exposed to asbestos until
1980. He was diagnosed with lung cancer, allegedly caused by
asbestos, and died on Oct. 1, 2014.

The suit accuses the defendants of mining, manufacturing, selling
and using asbestos products.

The defendants knew, or should have known, the harm caused by
asbestos.

On top of exemplary damages, the plaintiffs are suing for wrongful
death damages.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ian Cloud of the Houston law
firm Robins Cloud.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th District Court, has been assigned to
the case.

Case No. B-199111


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Court Reverses Verdict vs. Valve Company
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. "Rob" Rogers III, Esq. -- robert.rogers@hklaw.com -- at
Holland & Knight LLP, in an article for Lexology.com, reported
that manufacturers of products that contained chrysotile asbestos
won a major victory in Crane Co. v. DeLisle in September, when
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a verdict
entered against a gasket manufacturer on grounds that the trial
court had abused its discretion by admitting an expert's
testimony.

The appellate court ordered that a verdict be directed for the
defendant, where the only proof of causation was expert testimony
that was not supported by scientific data and therefore should not
have been admitted.

An "expert opinion is inadmissible when the only connection
between the conclusion and the existing data is the expert's own
assertions."

The appellate court's detailed opinion confirmed the scrutiny that
judges must apply before admitting expert testimony, and it
largely discredited opinions that exposure to chrysotile causes
disease in humans.

Manufacturers of products that contained chrysotile asbestos won a
major victory in Crane Co. v. DeLisle on Sept. 14, 2016, when
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal (Fourth DCA) reversed a
verdict entered against a gasket manufacturer on grounds that the
trial court had abused its discretion by admitting the testimony
of Dr. James Dahlgren. The appellate court's detailed opinion not
only confirmed the scrutiny that judges must apply before
admitting expert testimony but largely discredited opinions that
exposure to chrysotile causes disease in humans.

In Crane Co. v. DeLisle, plaintiff Richard DeLisle sued Crane Co.,
as well as the successors to cigarette maker R.J. Reynolds, for
causing him to contract mesothelioma through products they
manufactured that contained asbestos. Crane had manufactured
gaskets containing chrysotile asbestos that DeLisle claims he
handled while working for a paper company from 1962 to 1966,
whereas R.J. Reynolds made Kent cigarettes, which had filters
containing crocidolite asbestos when he smoked them from 1952
through 1956. Chrysotile asbestos is widely considered throughout
the scientific community to not cause diseases like mesothelioma
that may be caused by other forms of asbestos.

At trial, to link his mesothelioma to the chrysotile asbestos
found in Crane's gaskets, DeLisle presented the opinion of
Dahlgren that "every exposure" to any kind of asbestos above
background level would be a substantial contributing cause of
mesothelioma. The trial court admitted Dahlgren's testimony over
Crane's objection, and later denied Crane's motion for directed
verdict. The jury then awarded DeLisle $8 million in damages and
apportioned Crane as 16 percent at fault. On appeal, the
defendants challenged the trial court's admission of each expert.

Appellate Decision

In determining that the trial court had "abused its discretion" by
admitting Dahlgren's testimony, the Fourth DCA affirmed a trial
court's duty under Daubert to look beyond an expert's credentials
and scrutinize the data and methodology upon which he relies:
"Although Dahlgren may be an expert in the field of occupational
medicine and evaluation of mesothelioma, the record does not in
any way support a finding that his opinions were supported by
sufficient data or based upon reliable principles and methods
under a proper Daubert analysis."

Critically, Dahlgren could not identify any study or scientific
data demonstrating an association between chrysotile asbestos and
disease in humans. Instead, he pointed only to "mixed" studies,
which examined exposure to chrysotile and other more potent forms
of asbestos. Said the court: "[E]ven if the methodology was
appropriate, it was not supported by any data." Furthermore,
Dahlgren's "opinion that every asbestos exposure level above
background level is a substantially contributing factor has been
repeatedly rejected by courts as insufficiently supported by data
or testing to satisfy Daubert."

An "expert opinion is inadmissible when the only connection
between the conclusion and the existing data is the expert's own
assertions," the Fourth DCA said in its decision, adding that
courts must "affirmatively prevent imprecise, untested scientific
opinion from being admitted." The decision also said, "Dr.
Dahlgren's testimony was more of the nature of ipse dixit, i.e.
that it should be reliable merely because he is an expert. This is
insufficient to satisfy Daubert."

Because DeLisle furnished no proof that exposure to chrysotile
causes mesothelioma other than Dahlgren's inadmissible opinion,
the Fourth DCA reversed the denial of Crane's motion for directed
verdict and ordered that a verdict be entered in Crane's favor.
The court also held that the trial court improperly admitted the
testimony of Dr. James Crapo and James Rasmussen related to
crocidolite asbestos, and it ordered a new trial for R.J.
Reynolds.

Crane is a victory for manufacturers sued in Florida for alleged
defective products based upon unreliable scientific theories of
causation. Crane demonstrates that trial judges applying Daubert
must do more than merely wield a rubber stamp. Professional expert
witnesses cannot merely cite a laundry list of studies and
articles in their reports and then opine generally that the
products at issue caused the plaintiffs' diseases; they must
explain which studies support their opinions and why, regardless
of their credentials or how many times their testimony has been
admitted in the past.

Crane is also particularly helpful for manufacturers of products
containing chrysotile asbestos. Crane largely discredits the
notion that chrysotile causes diseases in humans, and it laid out
a blueprint for attacking the testimony of the handful of
plaintiffs' experts who offer such opinions. Furthermore, in
ordering a new trial against R.J. Reynolds, the Fourth DCA noted
"that the $8 million award was substantially higher than any
previous award for a victim of mesothelioma and asbestosis."

It also suggested that "where product use is contested, as it was
in this case, a targeted instruction to the jury to determine this
issue first would be appropriate." Product use is routinely
contested in asbestos cases, where such use is alleged to have
occurred decades before trial and proof that the plaintiff used
specific products that contained asbestos (as opposed to similar
products that did not contain asbestos) is often unreliable.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Sheets Dumped by Children's Trampoline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express reported that a gang of "cowboy fly-tippers" that dumped
600kg of deadly asbestos sheets by a children's trampoline are
being hunted by detectives.

The illegal load was left at the rear of a row of residential
houses in the Anchersholme district of the seaside town of
Blackpool, in Lancashire.

Council staff took less than 24-hours to clear away the highly
dangerous waste, which had been sealed in blue bags.

But now Lancashire Police and Blackpool Council have vowed to
track down the "cowboys" who left the lung cancer-causing asbestos
in the middle of the the street.

Angry local Coun Tony Williams said: "I just can't believe
somebody would do this.

"This was 600kg of asbestos. When people are removing this stuff
they need specialist clothing. It's just been left out in the
street.

"Not only is this illegal it's also extremely dangerous especially
to young children who might be playing in the area.

"The cowboys who did this need to be caught, appear in court and
properly punished. It is criminal."

Furious mum Wendy Ainton, who lives right by where the deadly
waste was dumped, said: "I came from work and it was just there in
the alleyway.

"You could see straight away what it was. I was out there for
hours making sure nobody went near.

"I had to tell the lads on their bikes it was dangerous and to
stay away. It's unbelievable somebody would do this."

Wendy suspects the asbestos was dumped by somebody paid to
dismantle a nearby building, adding: "I've recently had pretty
much a whole kitchen dumped in my garden.

"There was a dishwasher, a washing machine, a tumble dryer, a
fridge freezer, two bikes and a chair.

"Then I came back and there was a fridge and a pile of bin bags.

"I've had to pay for that to be removed. Now I'm paying for CCTV
to be fitted."

Blackpool Council confirmed it had been called out to reports of
fly-tipped corrugated asbestos sheets, all found packed into blue
bags.

A pile of 11 were left in the street, on the other side of a fence
from a children's trampoline.

A twelfth was propped up against a nearby garage. Next to it a
13th red bag, marked 'asbestos', was left.

Asbestos has been blamed for a number of lung diseases including
several forms of cancer.

Its use in the building trade has been banned since 2000.

Coun Gillian Campbell, deputy leader of Blackpool Council, said:
"Fly-tipping is absolutely unacceptable, illegal and a blight on
local communities.

"There is no valid excuse for carrying it out and if we find
evidence of any fly tipping then we will seek to prosecute the
people responsible.

"Fly-tipping asbestos shows a complete disregard to local
communities and could be very dangerous.

"We safely cleared this incident up within 24 hours but that costs
time and money that could be used keeping the streets clean and
emptying the bins.

"We need the community to stay vigilant to help us stop it.

"People should only have their waste removed by legitimate
registered waste carriers and offers to remove rubbish that seem
too cheap to be true, probably are."



                            *********

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  * * *