CAR_Public/170609.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Friday, June 9, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 115



                            Headlines

618 MAIN CLOTHING: Proof of Service Requested in "Archer" Case
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over GMO in Similac
ADRIEN SERVICE STATION: "Najarro" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
ADVANCE STORES: Wins Final Nod of "Whitehead" Class Settlement
ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: Faces "Gallagher" Suit Over DVB Merger

ALABAMA: Aug. 3 Fairness Hearing on "Hunter" Case Accord
ALBA CARTING: "Deas" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law
AMERICAN RECOVERY: "Shackowsky" Seeks Overtime Wages, Damages
ANTELOPE VALLEY: Allegedly Paid "Hargrave" Sub-Minimum Wage Rates
ASSET CAMPUS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Jang" Class Suit

ASSET RECOVERY: Trujillo's Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn
ASSURANCE GROUP: "Yoak" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: 150+ People Opt Out of Fire Class Action
AZ COMPASSIONATE: Llewellyn Appeals D. Ariz. Ruling to 9th Cir.
BANK OF AMERICA: Charles Schwab Appeals Judgment in Libor MDL

BLAZING NEEDLES: "Rojas" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
BLITCHTON MARATHON: "Swope-Kreiser" Lawsuit Alleges Wage Theft
CANADA: Gov't to Formally Apologize Over LGBT Purge in Military
CASCADE CAPITAL: McKenzie Moves for Certification of TCPA Class
CHICAGO, IL: Asks Judge to Toss Class Action Over Parking Tickets

CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD: "Rumreich" Suit Asserts FLSA Breach
COTY INC: "Caddell" Suit Over Balsam Color Kit Sent to S.D. Ala.
CRESTVIEW FINANCIAL: "Menichiello" Hits Telemarketing Calls
CVS PHARMACY: Class Certification Sought in "Marcus" Suit
DCH REGIONAL: Accused of Illegal Billing Practices by "McAteer"

DEJA VU: Nude Dancers Push Back Against Class-Action Settlement
DUKE ENERGY: Bowser Moves for Certification of Collective Action
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Mora Seeks Certification of Consumers Class
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Falbo" Suit
E-Z TRANS CORP: "Urbina" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay

ECO SCIENCE: "Stires" Sues Over Share Trading Suspension
ECO SCIENCE: "Penhollow" Sues Over Devalued Securities
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Wins OK of "Dunn" Accord; Hearing on Sept. 12
EL PASO NATURAL: July 18 Hearing to Approve Royalty Case Accord
ELOISE LANDA: June 23 Final Hearing on Tenant Deposits Suit

ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Sasin Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
EXAMINATION MANAGEMENT: Faces "Gonzalez" Lawsuit Under Cal. Law
FEIN SUCH: "Perez" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
FLUSHMATE: September 18 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
FRUIT OF THE EARTH: "O'Shaughnessy" Sues Over Aloe Vera Products

GENERAL MOTORS: Class Suit Alleges Cheating in Emissions Tests
GENERAL MOTORS: Shares Drop After Emissions Class Suit
GEICO: VIP Auto Seeks Class Action Status
HARTFORD CASUALTY: Johnson's Bid to Certify OK'd; To Meet June 20
HARTFORD FIRE: Faces Potential Class Action From Policy Holders

HEALTH AND PALLIATIVE: "Snow" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
HOME DEPOT: Settlement Provides Data Security Framework
HOMELAND SECURITY: Osorio-Martinez Appeals Ruling to 3rd Circuit
HONDA OF AMERICA: Faces "Cooper" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
HUMANA AT HOME: "Cruz" Labor Lawsuit Transferred to M.D. Fla.

ILLINOIS BELL: LaMarr Wins Class Cert. Bid; Hearing on Aug. 29
INDIANA: BMV Supervisor Fired Amid Hoosier Class Action
INTRA-CELLULAR: Pakdeljam Files Suit Over Stock Price Drop
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Vazquez Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit
JIVE SOFTWARE: Faces "Ward" Suit Over Wave Merger

KBR INC: July 25 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
KOREA KING: Foundation for Consumers Mulls Class Action
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Barber" Suit
LONG VALLEY PHARMACY: "Patel" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
LYFT INC: Overton Appeals Ruling in "Cotter" Suit to 9th Circuit

MARKET AMERICA: Yang Files Suit Over Illegal Pyramid Scheme
MATRIX HOME: Faces "Valdes" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
MAXIMUS INC: Bais Yaakov Sues Over Illegally Faxed Ads
MEDICREDIT INC: Court Denied as Moot Hartman's Class Cert. Bid
MEYERKORD & MEYERKORD: Pavone's Motion to Certify Class Denied

MICHAELS STORES: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
MITCHELL D. BLUHM: Sixth Cir. Appeal Filed in "Wolschlager" Suit
MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM: April 2018 Claims Bar Date
NANTHEALTH INC: Bucks County Fund Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Three Teams Fail to Avert Class Action

NEW MEXICO, USA: Cummings Appeals D.N.M. Ruling to 10th Circuit
NIKITA LEVY: Baltimore Victim Says Settlement Isn't Justice
NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Edwards Moves for Certification of Classes
OMEGA EMPIRE: "Linder" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
OMNINET VILLAGE: Court Denies Stallworth's Bid to Certify Class

PHELAN HALLINAN: Borg's Bid to Certify Nixed for Lack of Standing
PLAYERS BIKINI: Entertainers File Labor Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages
POWER DESIGN: Faces "Anderson" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
PROGISTICS DISTRIBUTION: "Petersson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: Transnational Suit Over Oil Spill Commences

QES WIRELINE: "Meador" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
RED ROBIN: Brackley Moves for Final Approval of FLSA Settlement
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Court Approves Taylor's Notice & Consent Form
ROSEVILLE, MI: Garner Seeks Consolidation and Settlement Approval
RUSSELL TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Sought in "Place" Suit

SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: July 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SAUL CHEVROLET: Rivera Moves to Certify Class of Salespeople
SBKU SERVICES: Faces "Garcia" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
SCOTTS COMPANY: "Shedron" Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
SELFRIDGE LEASING: "Wetzel" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

SETERUS INC: Reizes Files Suit Over Improper Collection Letter
SEVENTH GENERATION: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in Rapoport-Hecht Suit
SNAP INC: July 17 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline
SPAN-AMERICA: Pill Files Suit Over Sale to Savaria Corp.
SOUTHERN TUBULAR: "Torres" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

SPOTLESS GROUP: Slater & Gordon Launches Class Action
TCP INTERNATIONAL: Aug. 1 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
TONAWANDA COKE: Faces Class Action Over Pollution
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Gayed" Suit Over Upfront Pricing Model
UNITED FARM: Judge Adds $772,000 to Class Attorney Fees

UNITED STATES: 160K Acres Covered in 'Takings' Class Action
UNITED STATES: Court Denies Bid to Certify & Tosses "Vapne" Suit
UNITED WATER: "Sauers" Action Seeks Unpaid OT, Damages
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Hack" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Faces Suit for Printing 5++ Card Digits

UNROLLME INC: Parikh Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
VOLKSWAGEN: Asks Judge to Move Drivers' Suit to NJ Federal Court
VOLKSWAGEN: Italian Court OKs Class Action Over Emissions Tests
WASHINGTON: Settles Suit Over Denied Healthcare for $55-Mil.
WAYSIDE AUTO BODY: "Robles" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay

WEST COAST: Faces "Cross" Lawsuit Alleging Privacy Invasion
WINGS OVER: Faces Suit Over Wage Act Violations
WIX.COM INC: Faces "Williams" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation

* Anapol Weiss Atty Provides Insight Into World of Class Actions
* Fairness in Class Action Act Would Lead to MDL Litigation Reform


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring Pneumo Abex Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Savoie" to State Court Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro Se Plaintiff Directed to Amend Asbestos Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring Metalclad Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Claims vs. Owens

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shell Owes Duty to Protect Family Member
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d Cir. Affirms Remand of PI Suit to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Faces PI Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Ongoing in 2 Suits vs. Dixie Group

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 33,600 Claims Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has US$152MM Liability at Mar31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haynes Defends 2 Asbestos Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Faces 325 U.S. Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Faces 1,580 Cases at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: WABTec Still Faces PI Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Edison Accrues US$8MM Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Faces 55 Rupture Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Has 5,800 Claims Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Still Faces Suits at April 2

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Defends PL Suits at March 31



                            *********


618 MAIN CLOTHING: Proof of Service Requested in "Archer" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the civil case captioned Oscar Archer, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 618 Main
Clothing Corp. (d/b/a Ten Spot Madrag), Defendant, Case No.
507477/2017 (N.Y. Sup., April 17, 2017), Plaintiffs were requested
to produce a proof of service on May 30, 2017.

Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages and interest for overtime wages
and non-overtime wages, costs and attorneys' fees, an injunction
prohibiting Defendant from continuing to violate the weekly
payment requirement for manual workers pursuant to New York Labor
Law and liquidated damages pursuant to the New York Minimum Wage
Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Tel: (718) 740-1000
      Fax: (718) 740-2000
      Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over GMO in Similac
---------------------------------------------------
Mike Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports two consumers
have filed a class action lawsuit against Abbott Labs, alleging
breach of implied warranty, breach of warranty, fraud, negligence
and negligent misrepresentation.

Crystal Kao of San Francisco and Nina Barwick of Nasvhille filed a
complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, May 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Abbott Laboratories Inc., doing
business as Abbott Nutrition, alleging the defendant made false
claims regarding the contents of its infant care products.

According to the complaint, Kao and Barwick were damaged from
purchasing a Similac infant care product that contains genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). The plaintiffs allege Abbott Nutrition
failed to inform consumers that its products contain GMOs.

The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, actual, statutory,
consequential, punitive and exemplary damages, interest, attorney
fees and court costs, and all other relief the court deems
appropriate. They are represented by attorneys Jonathan
Weissglass, Esq.-- jweissglass@altshulerberzon.com -- of Altshuler
Berzon LLP in San Francisco, and by Michael Isaac Miller, Esq., of
Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings PLLC of Nashville, Tenn. [GN]

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 3:17-cv-02790-JCS


ADRIEN SERVICE STATION: "Najarro" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ocniel Obed Garlobo Najarro, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Adrien Service Station, Inc., Adrien Besson,
Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-21979 (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2017) requests
double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants,
jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
for all overtime wages still owing.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants' auto repair shop located at 3600
NW 46th St. Miami, FL 33142. He claims to have been denied
overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


ADVANCE STORES: Wins Final Nod of "Whitehead" Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Roy B. Dalton, Jr., granted the parties' joint unopposed
motion for final order approving the settlement agreement and
certifying the class in the lawsuit captioned JORDAN WHITEHEAD;
and JANIE STAPLETON v. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY INC., Case No. 5:16-
cv-00250-RBD-PRL (M.D. Fla.).

For purposes of settlement only, the Court finally certifies the
Settlement Class:

     All current and former ASC employees whose personal
     identification information was disclosed as a result of the
     ASC Phishing Attack.

     Excluded from the Settlement Class are individuals who
     submitted a timely request to be excluded from the
     Settlement Class pursuant to the procedures set forth in the
     Class Notice.

The Court finally approves the Settlement Agreement, including all
exhibits, as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Court overrules the
objections to the Settlement Agreement.

The Court finally designates Plaintiffs Jordan Whitehead and Janie
Stapleton as Class Representatives.  The Court also finally
appoints the law firm of Whittel & Melton, LLC, as Class Counsel.

Judge Dalton also granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for an
Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and [an] Incentive Award to
Class Representatives.  Within 30 days of entry of the Order, the
Defendant will pay to Class Counsel: (a) $145,000 for Court-
approved attorney fees and costs; and (b) a total amount of $5,000
for Service Awards to the Named Plaintiffs.

The action is dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PIos9npe


ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: Faces "Gallagher" Suit Over DVB Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN GALLAGHER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS HOLDINGS,
INC., DEAN HOLLIS, CHRISTOPHER D. SLIVA, CELESTE A. CLARK, PETER
C. DILLINGHAM, STEPHEN A. KAPLAN, GARY L. PERLIN, and MATTHEW C.
WILSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00356-TSB (S.D. Ohio, May 24,
2017), alleges that Defendant issued materially incomplete and
misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement in
connection with the tender offer by DVB Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods, Inc., to purchase all of the
issued and outstanding shares of AdvancePierre common stock for
$40.25 per share.

In particular, the Recommendation Statement contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning AdvancePierre's
financial projections and the valuation analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisors, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
says the complaint.

Defendant produces and distributes ready-to-eat sandwiches,
sandwich components and other entrees and snacks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: 212 971 1341
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

        - and -

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
            jwilson@faruqilaw.com


ALABAMA: Aug. 3 Fairness Hearing on "Hunter" Case Accord
--------------------------------------------------------
One of your clients or family members may be affected by the
proposed settlement of a claim made under the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in
the lawsuit styled Hunter, et al. v. Perdue, Case No. 2:16-cv-798-
MHT-CSC, in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama.

This notice summarizes the claim in the lawsuit, what the proposed
settlement entails, and Class Members' rights under the proposed
Settlement Agreement.

Defense counsel, family members, and legal guardians of Class
Members are encouraged to submit any objections, comments, and or
statements that they may have regarding the proposed Settlement
Agreement.

     1. What is the issue in the lawsuit? Whether the Commissioner
of the Alabama Department of Mental Health (ADMH) has failed to
timely provide court-ordered inpatient mental evaluations and
competency restoration treatment, which currently occur only at
the Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility, to persons charged with
a crime in Alabama and incarcerated in city and county jails and
Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) facilities throughout the
State.

     2. Who is affected by the settlement? A Class Member is any
person who has been or will be charged with a crime in Alabama, is
incarcerated, and who has been ordered to receive an inpatient
mental evaluation and committed to the custody of ADMH for that
purpose or who has been found incompetent to stand trial, ordered
to receive competency restoration treatment, and committed to the
custody of ADMH for that purpose. If you have any questions as to
whether your client is affected by this settlement, contact the
Class Counsel referred to in Question 6 on Page 2 of this Notice.

     3. What is the proposed settlement? The Plaintiffs and the
ADMH Commissioner have reached a proposed Settlement Agreement
that would release the ADMH Commissioner from any further
liability related to this claim.  The proposed Settlement
Agreement requires the ADMH Commissioner to do the following,
subject to Court approval:

        -- within 24 months, provide court-ordered outpatient
           mental evaluations to incarcerated criminal defendants
           suspected of being incompetent to stand trial within
           30 days;

        -- within 24 months, provide court-ordered inpatient
           mental evaluations to incarcerated criminal defendants
           suspected of being incompetent to stand trial within
           30 days;

        -- within 24 months, provide court-ordered to competency
           restoration treatment to criminal defendants found
           incompetent to stand trial within 30 days;

        -- create and operate 49 new hospital forensic beds;

        -- create and operate 52 new community forensic beds;
           and

        -- educate court personnel, sheriffs, and lawyers
           regarding the time periods for the ADMH Commissioner's
           provision of mental evaluations and competency
           restoration treatment to incarcerated criminal
           defendants

The Settlement Agreement also creates a system to monitor the ADMH
Commissioner's compliance with the Settlement Agreement and
requires theADMH Commissioner to pay fees to the court-approved
monitor and attorneys' fees to the lawyers who represented the
class members.

You have the right to learn more about the proposed settlement.

Contact Class Counsel referred to in Question 6 below to request a
copy of the proposed Settlement Agreement.

     4. Who represents the individuals affected by the settlement?
The lawyers representing class members ("Class Counsel") are:

          M. Geron Gadd
          Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program
          400 South Union Street, Suite 280
          Montgomery, AL 36104

               - and -

          Henry F. (Hank) Sherrod III, Esq.
          119 South Court Street
          Florence, AL 35630

               - and -

          Randall C. Marshall
          ACLU of Alabama Foundation
          P.O. Box 6179
          Montgomery, AL 36106-0179

     5. What are your options? The United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama has preliminarily approved the
Settlement Agreement but will hold a hearing to determine whether
it is fair, reasonable, and adequate on August 3, 2017, at 10:00
a.m., in Courtroom 2FMJ of the Frank M. Johnson Jr. United States
Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama 36104.

You may request to appear at the hearing if you submit a written
objection or comment regarding the settlement using the attached
"Response to Proposed Class Action Settlement" form or your own
paper.

The Court will decide which class members will testify. Class
members who do not appear will be represented by Class Counsel.

If you have objections, comments, or statements about the proposed
Settlement Agreement, you must make them in writing using the
attached "Response to Proposed Class Action Settlement" form or
your own paper. If you choose to send an objection, comment, or
statement, you must include your full name, all objections or
comments and the reasons for them, any and all supporting papers
(including all briefs, written evidence, and declarations), and
your signature. If you are sending supporting papers, do not send
originals because they will not be returned to you.

Written objections, comments, and statements should be sent to the
following address: M. Geron Gadd, Alabama Disabilities Advocacy
Program, 400 South Union Street, Suite 280, Montgomery, Alabama
36104.

They must be submitted or postmarked by June 26, 2017. Written
objections and comments sent to this address will be consolidated
and submitted to the Court on June 30, 2017, in advance of the
August 3 hearing.  Any objections, comments, or statements that do
not comply with the above procedures and timeline will not be
heard or considered by the Court.

     6. How can you get more information? If you have any
questions about the matters contained in this notice or any
questions regarding the proposed Settlement Agreement, you may
write or call Class Counsel below: M. Geron Gadd ALABAMA
DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM 400 South Union Street, Suite 280
Montgomery, Alabama 36104 (334) 240-0994 RESPONSE TO PROPOSED
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Hunter, et al. v. Perdue, Case No. 2:16-
cv-798-MHT-CSC (M.D. Ala.)

          Your Name:
          Class Member's Name:
          Criminal Case No.:
          Relationship to Class Member:
          Are you the Class Member's Legal Guardian? Yes/No
          Your Mailing Address:
          Your E-mail Address:
          Your Telephone No.:
          Objections/Comments/Statements:
          Do you want to provide oral testimony to the Court
            regarding the settlement? Yes/No
          Date:
          Signature:


ALBA CARTING: "Deas" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELVIN DEAS, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, against ALBA CARTING &
DEMOLITION INC., and ANDREW HORAN, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-03947 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2017), alleges that
Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the wages lawfully
due to him under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law, in that Defendants required Plaintiff to routinely work
more than forty hours per workweek, but intentionally failed to
compensate him at the rate of time and one-half his straight-time
rate for each hour that he worked per week in excess of forty, and
simply paid him straight-time for all hours worked.

Defendants also allegedly failed to provide Plaintiff with
accurate wage statements on each payday or with an accurate wage
notice at the time of hire, as the NYLL requires.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants -- a corporation that provides
demolition services and its Chief Executive Officer -- as a
laborer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joan B. Lopez, Esq.
     Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
     Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
     BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
     1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Phone: (516) 248-5550
     Fax: (516) 248-6027


AMERICAN RECOVERY: "Shackowsky" Seeks Overtime Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Shackowsky and Terry Nelson, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American
Recovery Specialists of Florida, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:17-
cv-01240, (M.D. Fla., May 24, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant operates a vehicle repossession company in Tampa, in
Hillsborough County, Florida where Plaintiffs were employed as
repossession agents. Defendant is accused of not maintaining time-
keeping records, thus failing to account for Plaintiffs overtime
pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Fenton, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Tel: (813) 224-0431
      Fax: (813) 229-8712
      Email: mfenton@wfclaw.com


ANTELOPE VALLEY: Allegedly Paid "Hargrave" Sub-Minimum Wage Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberta Hargrave, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Antelope Valley Hospital,
Defendants, Case No. BC663252 (Cal. Super., May 30, 2017), seeks
redress for failure to pay state-mandated minimum wages pursuant
to the California Labor Code.

Plaintiff worked for Antelope Valley Hospital, a public hospital
located in Lancaster, California specializing in acute care from
December 12, 2012 to June 3, 2016. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
     Gregg Lander, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
     5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
     Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
     Tel: (323) 549-9100
     Fax: (323) 549-0101
     Email: Bames@kbarnes.com

             - and -

      Emil Davtyan, Esq.
      DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418
      Telephone: (818) 992-2935
      Email: emil@davtyanlaw.com


ASSET CAMPUS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Jang" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Andy Jang filed an appeal from a court ruling relating
to the lawsuit titled Andy Jang v. Asset Campus Housing, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01067-JAK-PLA, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The nature of suit is stated as constitutionality of state
statutes.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
appealed a ruling relating to the lawsuit.

The appellate case is captioned as Andy Jang v. Asset Campus
Housing, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-55757, 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 June 22, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on September 20, 2017;

   -- Appellant Andy Jang's opening brief is due on October 30,
      2017;

   -- Appellees Asset Campus Housing, Inc., Does, Entrata, Inc.
      and Property Solutions International, Inc.'s answering
      brief is due on November 29, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant ANDY JANG, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ron Bochner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RON BOCHNER
          3333 Bowers Ave.
          Santa Clara, CA 95054
          Telephone: (408) 200-9890
          E-mail: robolaw@justice.com

Defendants-Appellees ASSET CAMPUS HOUSING, INC., PROPERTY
SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., and ENTRATA, INC., are represented
by:

          Kevin K. Eng, Esq.
          MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP
          465 California St.
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 438-4515
          E-mail: keng@mzclaw.com

Defendants-Appellees ASSET CAMPUS HOUSING, INC., and PROPERTY
SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., are represented by:

          Gary Bruce Friedman, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN LAW GROUP, LLP
          154 Grand Street
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (917) 568-5024
          E-mail: gfriedman@flgllp.com

               - and -

          Deepak Gupta, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
          1735 20th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741
          E-mail: deepak@guptabeck.com

               - and -

          David S. Markun, Esq.
          MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON, LLP
          17383 West Sunset Boulevard
          Pacific Palisades, CA 90272-4181
          Telephone: (310) 454-5900
          E-mail: dmarkun@mzclaw.com

               - and -

          Edward S. Zusman, Esq.
          MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP
          465 California St.
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 438-4515
          E-mail: ezusman@mzclaw.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Trujillo's Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff withdrew the motion for class certification in the
lawsuit titled Yuridia Trujillo v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02303 (N.D. Ill.).

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation to withdraw, the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification is withdrawn without prejudice,
according to the Court's docket entry.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LLvlq2CV


ASSURANCE GROUP: "Yoak" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kipp Yoak, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The
Assurance Group, Inc., (a.k.a. Edward L Shackelford, Inc.)
Defendant, 5:17-cv-01094 (N.D. Ohio, May 24, 2017), seeks unpaid
minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, any other
compensatory damages, prejudgment interest at the statutory rate,
post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs and all other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendants' insurance firm as District
Sales Director at their Akron, Ohio office. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephan I. Voudris, Esq.
     Christopher M. Sams, Esq.
     Voudris Law LLC
     8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8
     Chagrin Falls, OH 44023
     Tel: (440) 543-0670
     Fax: (440) 543-0721
     Email: svoudris@voudrislaw.com
            csams@voudrislaw.com


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: 150+ People Opt Out of Fire Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wichert, writing for Law360, reports that more than 150
proposed settlement class members, most of whom are pursuing
related state court actions, have opted out of a tentative deal
with the developer of a luxury apartment complex in a consolidated
class action in New Jersey federal court over a 2015 fire that
destroyed hundreds of units.

Those proposed members -- residents or occupants of one of the
complex's buildings at the time of the blaze -- have informed the
court that they want to be excluded from the proposed class action
settlement with defendant real estate investment trust AvalonBay
Communities Inc.

As of May 17, such exclusion notices had been electronically filed
on the court docket on behalf of 155 individuals.

Michael J. Epstein, an attorney representing most of the opt-out
members, told U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares in a May 17
letter that his office planned to electronically file exclusion
letters for an additional 19 individuals seeking to opt out of the
proposed deal.

Judge Linares on March 13 granted the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement in which an
uncapped claims process will be handled by an independent claims
adjuster who will be agreed upon by class counsel and the
developer.

The judge scheduled a final hearing for July 11 to determine
whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.

The action accuses AvalonBay of negligence over the Jan. 21, 2015,
fire in Edgewater, which was reportedly started by a maintenance
worker using a blowtorch and ultimately displaced about 1,000
residents.  The fire completely destroyed the Russell Building,
which had several hundred apartment units and represented part of
the complex, plaintiffs said.

The proposed settlement class represents all residents and
occupants of the Russell Building at the complex as identified on
the operative lease agreements as of Jan. 21, 2015, whose property
in a building apartment or storage unit was destroyed by the fire.

Under the tentative deal, each claim form will be evaluated by the
independent claims adjuster, who will make all final decisions on
the issuance of awards through the claims process, according to a
brief filed by the plaintiffs.  The recovery amount available to
each class member will be uncapped, the plaintiffs said.

On the issue of attorneys' fees, AvalonBay has agreed to pay class
counsel $1,900 for each Russell Building unit for which any claim
is submitted and an award issued pursuant to the agreement, the
brief states.  In addition to that payment, class counsel would
receive 6 percent paid directly from the award received by each
claimant, according to the brief.

Parties pursuing New Jersey state court lawsuits against AvalonBay
and related defendants over the fire had urged Judge Linares to
reject the proposed settlement in the federal matter. The state
lawsuits were filed on behalf of plaintiffs who were residents and
occupants of certain apartments in the Russell Building at the
time of the fire.

Those parties argued in part in a brief that the proposed
settlement "prejudices the rights of the state court plaintiffs
who have already prospectively opted out of the proposed class
action by filing and prosecuting individual lawsuits in state
superior court."

But Judge Linares rejected the arguments of the state court
plaintiffs, saying they could opt out of the proposed settlement
class.

"A potential class member is not forced to be part of this
process, because each potential class member has the option to be
excluded for any reason," the judge said in his March 13 written
opinion.

The class action plaintiffs are represented by Bruce D. Greenberg
-- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- of Lite Depalma Greenberg LLC,
Benjamin F. Johns of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP and Daniel R.
Lapinski -- dlapinski@wilentz.com -- of Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer
PA.

AvalonBay is represented by Ronald A. Giller and Daniel J. DiMuro
of Gordon & Rees LLP.

The case is DeMarco et al. v. AvalonBay Communities Inc. et al.,
case number 2:15-cv-00628, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey. [GN]


AZ COMPASSIONATE: Llewellyn Appeals D. Ariz. Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jason Llewellyn filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Jason Llewellyn v. AZ Compassionate Care,
Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-04181-DGC, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

The Class Action Reporter previously reported that a medical
marijuana dispensary customer failed to convince a federal court
that his payment card receipt revealing the card expiration date
was harmful enough to pursue a class action.  Allegations that the
receipt revealed too much information in violation of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act, without more, doesn't implicate
traditional privacy interests, the District Court said.

The appellate case is captioned as Jason Llewellyn v. AZ
Compassionate Care, Inc., Case No. 17-16074, 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 June 22, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on July 24, 2017;

   -- Appellant Jason Llewellyn's opening brief is due on
      August 31, 2017;

   -- Appellee AZ Compassionate Care, Inc.'s answering brief is
      due on October 2, 2017; and

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

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

          David Wendall Williams, Esq.
          DAVIS MILES MCGUIRE GARDNER, PLLC
          80 E Rio Salado Pkwy.
          Tempe, AZ 85281
          Telephone: (480) 733-6800
          E-mail: dwilliams@davismiles.com

               - and -

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY APLC
          1010 N. Central Ave.
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (877) 574-7100
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi

Defendant-Appellee AZ COMPASSIONATE CARE, INC., DBA TruMed, is
represented by:

          Jeff Gardner, Esq.
          JENNINGS STROUSS & SALMON, PLC
          One East Washington Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2554
          Telephone: (602) 256-6100
          Facsimile: (602) 495-2605
          E-mail: jgardner@jsslaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Charles Schwab Appeals Judgment in Libor MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation, et al., took an appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from (1) the
April 27, 2017 judgment entered in the 2011 Schwab Actions; and
(2) all orders and rulings subsumed within the Judgment, including
the District Court's Memorandum and Order entered on December 20,
2016, which dismissed the 2011 Schwab Actions in their entirety.

The 2011 Schwab Actions are SCHWAB SHORT-TERM BOND MARKET FUND, et
al. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-
06409-NRB (S.D.N.Y.); CHARLES SCHWAB BANK, N.A., et al. v. BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-06411-NRB
(S.D.N.Y.); and SCHWAB MONEY MARKET FUND, et al. v. BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-06412-NRB
(S.D.N.Y.).  The lawsuits are part of the multidistrict litigation
styled IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, MDL No. 1:11-md-2262-NRB.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are The Charles Schwab Corporation,
Charles Schwab Bank, N.A., Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Schwab
Money Market Fund, Schwab Value Advantage Money Fund, Schwab
Retirement Advantage Money Fund, Schwab Investor Money Fund,
Schwab Cash Reserves, Schwab Advisor Cash Reserves, Schwab
YieldPlus Fund, Schwab YieldPlus Fund Liquidation Trust, Schwab
Short-Term Bond Market Fund, Schwab Total Bond Market Fund, and
Schwab U.S. Dollar Liquid Assets Fund.

The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Libor-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 17-1569, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Steven E. Fineman, Esq.
          Michael J. Miarmi, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com
                  mmiarmi@lchb.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
                  efastiff@lchb.com
                  bglackin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Lowell Haky, Esq.
          ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL - CIVIL AND COMPLEX
           LITIGATION
          CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC.
          211 Main Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 667-0622
          Facsimile: (415) 667-1638
          E-mail: Lowell.Haky@schwab.com

Defendant Bank of America Corporation is represented by:

          Paul Steel Mishkin, Esq.
          Arthur J. Burke, Esq.
          Edward Fu, Esq.
          Neal Alan Potischman, Esq.
          Patrick Wyatt Blakemore, Esq.
          Peter John Davis, Esq.
          Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL L.L.P.
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4292
          Facsimile: (212) 450-3292
          E-mail: paul.mishkin@dpw.com
                  arthur.burke@davispolk.com
                  edward.fu@davispolk.com
                  Neal.Potischman@dpw.com
                  patrick.blakemore@davispolk.com
                  peter.davis@davispolk.com
                  rwise@dpw.com

               - and -

          Julie Saranow Epley, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL L.L.P.
          1600 El Camino Real
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 752-2061
          E-mail: julie.saranow@dpw.com

Defendant Barclays Bank Plc is represented by:

          Amos Emory Friedland, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8248
          Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
          E-mail: afriedland@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Jonathan David Schiller, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          575 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
          E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          David Harold Braff, Esq.
          Jeffrey T. Scott, Esq.
          Yvonne Susan Quinn, Esq.
          SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4705
          Facsimile: (212) 558-3333
          E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com
                  scottj@sullcrom.com
                  quinny@sullcrom.com

Defendant Citibank NA is represented by:

          Alan M. Wiseman, Esq.
          Jonathan James Gimblett, Esq.
          Thomas A. Isaacson, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P.
          One City Center
          850 10th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662-6000
          Facsimile: (202) 662-6261
          E-mail: awiseman@cov.com
                  jgimblett@cov.com
                  tisaacson@cov.com

               - and -

          Andrew Arthur Ruffino, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P.
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: (212) 841-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 841-1010
          E-mail: aruffino@cov.com

               - and -

          Tammy Albarran, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P.
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-6000
          Facsimile: (415) 955-6566
          E-mail: talbarran@cov.com

Defendant Deutsche Bank AG is represented by:

          Aidan John Synnott, Esq.
          Andrew Corydon Finch, Esq.
          Moses Silverman, Esq.
          Hallie Suzanne Goldblatt, Esq.
          PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3213
          Facsimile: (212) 492-0213
          E-mail: asynnott@paulweiss.com
                  afinch@paulweiss.com
                  msilverman@paulweiss.com
                  hgoldblatt@paulweiss.com

Defendant J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is represented by:

          Alan Craig Turner, Esq.
          Alexander Nuo Li, Esq.
          Eamonn Wesley Campbell, Esq.
          Francis John Acott, Esq.
          Jeffery Li Ding, Esq.
          Omari Largos Royter Mason, Esq.
          Paul Christopher Gluckow, Esq.
          Thomas C. Rice, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 255-2502
          E-mail: aturner@stblaw.com
                  zander.li@stblaw.com
                  eamonn.campbell@stblaw.com
                  francis.acott@stblaw.com
                  jeffery.ding@stblaw.com
                  omason@stblaw.com
                  pgluckow@stblaw.com
                  trice@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick E. King, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 251-5000
          E-mail: pking@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence H. Heftman, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          6600 Sears Tower
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 258-5725
          E-mail: lheftman@schiffhardin.com

               - and -

          Matthew Charles Crowl, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 258-5500

Defendant Lloyds Banking Group plc is represented by:

          Benjamin Andrew Fleming, Esq.
          Kevin Timothy Baumann, Esq.
          Lisa Jean Fried, Esq.
          Marc Joel Gottridge, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          875 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 918-3283
          Facsimile: (212) 918-3100
          E-mail: benjamin.fleming@hoganlovells.com
                  kevin.baumann@hoganlovells.com
                  lisa.fried@hoganlovells.com
                  marc.gottridge@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Megan Polly Davis, Esq.
          FLEMMING ZULACK WILLIAMSON ZAUDERER, LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 412-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 964-9200
          E-mail: mdavis@fzwz.com

Defendant Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc is represented by:

          Robert G. Houck, Esq.
          CLIFFORD CHANCE US, LLP
          31 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 878-3224
          Facsimile: (212) 878-8375
          E-mail: robert.houck@cliffordchance.com

               - and -

          Andrea J. Robinson, Esq.
          David S. Lesser, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (617) 526-6360
          Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
          E-mail: andrea.robinson@wilmerhale.com
                  David.Lesser@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Harriet Hoder, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 526-6203
          E-mail: harriet.hoder@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Mugmon, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          950 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 858-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
          E-mail: michael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com

Defendant The Norinchukin Bank is represented by:

          Alan M. Unger, Esq.
          Andrew W. Stern, Esq.
          Kenneth Benjamin Meyer, Esq.
          Thomas Andrew Paskowitz, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5785
          Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: aunger@sidley.com
                  astern@sidley.com
                  kmeyer@sidley.com
                  tpaskowitz@sidley.com

               - and -

          William J. Nissen, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
          One South Dearborn
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: wnissen@sidley.com

Defendant UBS AG is represented by:

          Peter Sullivan, Esq.
          Jefferson Eliot Bell, Esq.
          Lawrence Jay Zweifach, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-5370
          Facsimile: (212) 351-6370
          E-mail: psullivan@gibsondunn.com
                  jbell@gibsondunn.com
                  lzweifach@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          David Jarrett Arp, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 955-8678
          Facsimile: (202) 530-9527
          E-mail: jarp@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Gary Richard Spratling, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 393-8222
          Facsimile: (415) 374-8464
          E-mail: gspratling@gibsondunn.com


BLAZING NEEDLES: "Rojas" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Feliciano Rojas and Maria Espinosa, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Blazing Needles,
L.P., H.A. Shaban and David Shaban, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
01408 (N.D. Tex., May 26, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs and expenses of this action, post-judgment interest and such
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Blazing Needles, L.P. is an importer, manufacturer, and seller of
soft home furnishings specializing in traditional wholesale and e-
commerce drop-shipping. Its sells through internet retailers
including Amazon, Overstock, Walmart, Lowe's, Hayneedle and
Wayfair. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hannah Alexander, Esq.
      EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
      1250 West Mockingbird Lane, Suite 455
      Dallas, TX 75247
      Tel: (469) 228-4226, ext. 302
      Fax: (469) 941-0861
      Email: halexander@equaljusticecenter.org

             - and -

      Anna Bocchini, Esq.
      EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
      510 S. Congress Ave., Suite 206
      Austin, TX 78704
      Tel.: (512) 474-0007, ext. 105
      Fax: (512) 474-0008
      Email: abocchini@equaljusticecenter.org


BLITCHTON MARATHON: "Swope-Kreiser" Lawsuit Alleges Wage Theft
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dakota Swope-Kreiser, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BLITCHTON MARATHON INC., and ALVARO OCEJO,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00235-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., May 26,
2017), alleges that Plaintiff is entitled to unpaid minimum wages
from Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Plaintiff
further alleges that shed is entitled to unpaid wages from
Defendants for all time worked for which they were not paid as a
result of wage theft.  Plaintiff also alleges that she is entitled
to unpaid minimum wages pursuant to Florida's State Minimum Wage
Law.

Defendants are gas station operators.  Plaintiff was employed as
cashier.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
     Jason M. Melton, Esq.
     WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
     One Progress Plaza
     200 Central Avenue, #400
     St. Petersburg, FL 33701
     Phone: (727) 822-1111
     Fax: 727) 898-2001
     E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
             lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
             daveyard@theFLlawfirm.com


CANADA: Gov't to Formally Apologize Over LGBT Purge in Military
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashifa Kassam, writing for The Guardian, reports that Canada's
government has said it will formally apologise to the thousands of
Canadians who suffered injustices during a decades-long campaign
to root out homosexuality from the military and public service,
bringing it in line with a longstanding demand by advocates.

The apology is expected to take place in early autumn.  Public
consultations are under way -- led by the MP Randy Boissonnault,
the prime minister's special adviser on LGBT issues -- in an
attempt to capture a full picture of the wrongs inflicted by the
federal government during a period of some three decades.

The plans come months after the announcement of a C$600m class
action lawsuit by former public servants and military members who
were forced out of their jobs because of their sexuality.

In a statement, Mr. Boissonnault said the government would
acknowledge the role of its legislation, programs and policies in
the discrimination and injustices faced by LGBT Canadians. "We are
committed to apologise in an inclusive and meaningful manner
before the end of 2017," he said.

The apology is likely to be directed to public servants and
members of the military who were fired or pressured to leave
because of their sexuality, a spokesman for Mr. Boissonnault told
the Guardian.  "But we want to make sure we do it right and that
it is all-encompassing and that we don't forget people," he added.
"That's the reason that the consultations are ongoing at this
point."

The government is also considering whether the apology will
include pardons or some sort of financial compensation.

The government has long fended off calls to apologise, with
advocates pointing to Germany, where legislation was introduced to
financially compensate those who were convicted under laws that
criminalised homosexuality, and Britain, where thousands of men
were posthumously pardoned this year.

In March -- frustrated by the government's continued delays in
addressing the issue -- former public servants and military
members filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Montreal.  The class
action is seeking at least C$600m damages for what lawyers called
the LGBT purge, which saw thousands of people expelled from the
military and public service by a federal government that
considered homosexuals a threat to national security.

The purge began during the cold war, with the last documented case
recorded some two decades after homosexuality was decriminalised
in 1969. The purge at time bordered on dystopian; some were
interrogated with the "Fruit Machine", a device developed by an
Ottawa university to detect homosexuality but which was reportedly
never able to detect any differences between heterosexuals and
LGBT individuals.

Hundreds of people have already signed on to the lawsuit,
according to Douglas Elliott, a Toronto lawyer and prominent gay
rights activist who is leading the case.  "It was a brutal,
senseless, wasteful, harsh and cruel campaign for which the
government should abjectly apologise," he said.

He welcomed the news that the federal government was moving
forward with an apology, calling it long overdue.  "Canada is
really starting to fall behind on this issue," he said.

"I really am mystified as to why it's taking so long . . .  I
think its been very well-intentioned, but there's been a lot of
overpromising and underdelivery so far."

But he noted the importance of getting it right: "I would much
rather have a good apology that has taken a few months than a
rotten apology that's given quickly, because we're only going to
get it once."

The apology would have no effect on the lawsuit, he said.
Negotiations were under way to find a solution, Elliott added,
with both sides keenly aware of the urgent need to provide relief
to the many who have suffered in silence for years.  "The reality
is that a lot of the people who were affected by these obnoxious
laws are already dead."

The apology would be a start, he said, citing the many other
institutions -- from Christian churches to the police -- who also
had to express sorrow for their actions.

"It is a critical moment," he said.  "Because we can begin to heal
once we acknowledge the wrong that was done and we make a
commitment that we are not going to behave like that in future."
[GN]


CASCADE CAPITAL: McKenzie Moves for Certification of TCPA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order determining that
Count I of the action titled MARILYN MCKENZIE, on behalf of
plaintiff and a class v. CASCADE CAPITAL, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03798 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the
Defendant.

Count I alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.  The Plaintiff defines a class consisting of:

     (a) all persons (b) whose cell phones Cascade Capital, Inc.
     called (c) and delivered a recorded or computer-generated
     message (d) during a period beginning four years prior to
     the filing of this action (e) at a number that neither
     Cascade Capital, Inc. nor Santander obtained from the person
     called.

The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iqQA685v

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Michelle A. Alyea, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  malyea@edcombs.com


CHICAGO, IL: Asks Judge to Toss Class Action Over Parking Tickets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
Chicago City Hall has asked a Cook County judge to toss a class
action lawsuit which alleged the city has wrongly issued parking
tickets to motorists who had actually paid to park using the
ParkChicago smartphone app, as the city says the man who brought
the lawsuit actually had never been made to pay an improperly
issued parking ticket.

In a motion to dismiss filed in April, lawyers for the city
asserted plaintiff Edward Sanchez should not be allowed to
continue with his legal action, as an administrative law judge
determined in January -- two days before he filed his lawsuit -
that he shouldn't be made to pay a $65 parking ticket he had been
issued by mistake.

Any further action in this case, the city lawyers said, would
amount to allowing Sanchez's legal team to conduct a "fishing
expedition," poring over city records in search of potential new
clients, or at least a plaintiff to replace Sanchez and rescue the
lawsuit.

Sanchez, represented by attorneys Phillip A. Bock, Esq.--
phil@classlawyers.com -- and Jonathan B. Piper, Esq.--
jon@classlawyers.com -- of the firm of Bock, Hatch, Lewis &
Oppenheim LLC, of Chicago, had filed his putative class action
lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court on Jan. 27 against the city
and vendor Chicago Parking Meters LLC (CPM), as well as LAZ
Parking, the company hired by CPM to administer its network of
parking meters throughout the city.

The lawsuit centered on the rollout of the ParkChicago app in
2014. Introduced by CPM and LAZ Parking in the aftermath of the
signing of CPM's $1.2 billion, 75-year lease of the city's 36,000
metered parking spaces, the app was promoted as a way of helping
busy commuters and others parking on the city's streets to quickly
and easily pay for parking without having to take the time to
visit the associated curbside parking payment kiosk.

According to the lawsuit, the city and its vendors had pledged the
app could help prevent them from getting parking tickets. While
those who pay to park at the kiosk must return to their vehicle
and place a receipt on their dashboard to prove they had paid to
park, those using the app were told parking enforcement officers
would need only run their license plate number to see they were
legally parked.

The app has since been downloaded by hundreds of thousands of
users, who agreed to fund their parking account through an initial
$20 deposit, and to allow the ParkChicago vendors to replenish the
account each time a customer's balance drops below $10.

However, in the years since the rollout, the lawsuit has asserted
flaws in the system could allow those who pay using the app to
still receive parking tickets, particularly if a parking
enforcement officer arrives within 15 minutes of the user
submitting payment, or if the parking enforcement officer doesn't
run a user's license plate to determine if they had paid.

In his complaint, Sanchez asserted he was issued a ticket in
November 2016, even though had had paid using the app. Sanchez
said he contested the ticket.

But Sanchez's complaint potentially untold number of other
ParkChicago users had simply paid the tickets, rather than take
the time and incur the potential expense to challenge the tickets.

The lawsuit alleged the city, CPM and LAZ Parking's actions
surrounding ParkChicago broke consumer fraud law, and breached
implied warranty and the defendants' fiduciary duty, as keepers of
the funds deposited by ParkChicago users.

The lawsuit asked the court to award "appropriate damages," plus
punitive damages and attorney fees.

The plaintiffs have also asked the court to allow them the chance
to review city documents related to ParkChicago and parking
tickets issued to users.

But the city has asked the court to instead refuse to pull the
suit to the curb, asserting Sanchez had never actually been harmed
by the parking ticket he received, which was dismissed by the city
on Jan. 25.

And the city also asked the court to block Sanchez's team's
request for "accounting," specifically to learn "all amounts paid
by users of the ParkChicago application and the dates and times of
the alleged violations . . ."

"This request appears to be nothing more than a premature attempt
to locate additional members of the purported class, perhaps
because Plaintiff recognizes he does not have standing to bring
this action," the city said in a memorandum accompanying its
dismissal motion.

". . . Plaintiff's fishing expedition to locate additional
potential class members should not be permitted under the guise of
an equitable accounting that does not apply to Plaintiff's limited
allegations against the City."

City Hall is represented in the action by its own corporation
counsel from the city's Department of Law, including attorneys
Edward N. Siskel, Esq., John L. Hendricks, Esq., Jennifer Zlotow,
Esq., David M. Baron, Esq., and Tara Kennedy, Esq.[GN]


CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD: "Rumreich" Suit Asserts FLSA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mariah Rumreich, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Church of The Good Shepherd, Inc.,
Defendant, Case 2:17-cv-00292 (M.D. Fla., May 30, 2017), to
recover unpaid back wages, minimum wages, overtime wages, an
additional equal amount of liquidated damages, declaratory relief
and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Rumreich worked for the Defendants as a Preschool Teacher. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A.
      4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      Email: berkelaw@yahoo.com


COTY INC: "Caddell" Suit Over Balsam Color Kit Sent to S.D. Ala.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned MAMIE CADDELL and DIANE BOWDEN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COTY,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, INC.,
an Ohio Corporation; THE PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
INC., an Ohio Corporation; THE PROCTER & GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING,
L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company; PROCTER & GAMBLE
HAIR CARE, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00242-C, (N.D. Ala., February 28,
2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama, and assigned Case Number 7:17-cv-00322.

The suit alleges that Defendants failed to warn the public of the
true risks and dangers associated with the cosmetic hair dye "The
Balsam Color Kit."   Allegedly, the dye causes significant hair
loss; skin and scalp irritation; scalp burnings and blistering;
severe dermatitis; eye irritation and tearing; asthma; gastritis;
renal damage and/or failure; vertigo; tremors, convulsions and
comas; and eczematoid contact dermatitis [in chronic (long-term)
expose situations].

The Plaintiffs' claims are for Unjust Enrichment (Count I),
Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Count II), Breach of
Express Warranty (Count III), Breach of Implied Warranty (Count
IV), violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Count
V), Fraud (Count VI), and Negligent Design and Failure to Warn.

Coty, Inc., is a North American beauty products manufacturer based
in New York founded in Paris, France, by Franáois Coty in
1904.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandy Lee Robertson, Esq.
     HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC
     2224 1st Avenue North
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: (205) 326-3336
     Fax: (205) 326-3332
     E-mail: brandy@hgdlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Joseph L. Tucker, Esq.
     JACKSON & TUCKER, P.C.
     Black Diamond Building
     2229 1st Avenue N.
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: (205) 252-3535
     Fax: (205) 252-3536
     E-mail: josh@jacksonandtucker.com

        - and -

     W. Lewis Garrison , Jr.
     HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC
     2224 First Ave. N.
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: (205) 326-3336
     Fax: (205) 326-3332
     E-mail: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com

        - and -

Defendant(s) is represented by:

     Hugh Cannon Lawley, Esq.
     HUIE, FERNAMBUCQ & STEWART
     417 N. 20th St., Ste. 800
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     E-mail: cannon@huielaw.com

        - and -

     Jeffrey B. Cannon, Jr., Esq.
     HUIE FERNAMBUCQ & STEWART, LLP
     2801 Highway 280 S., Suite 200
     Birmingham, AL 35223
     Phone: (205) 251-1193
     E-mail: bcannon@huielaw.com

        - and -

     Walter J. Price, III, Esq.
     HUIE, FERNAMBUCQ & STEWART, LLP
     800 Regions Bank Bldg., Ste. 825
     417 North 20th Street
     Birmingham, AL 35203-3279
     Phone: (205) 251-1193
     E-mail: wprice@huielaw.com


CRESTVIEW FINANCIAL: "Menichiello" Hits Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Menichiello, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Crestview Financial, LLC (d.b.a.
In Advance Capital) and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00912, (C.D. Cal., May 25,
2017), seeks actual damages, statutory damages for willful and
negligent violations, costs and reasonable attorney's fees and
such other and further relief resulting from negligent violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the provision of the
National Do-Not-Call regulations.

In Advance Capital is a business lending company accused of using
an automatic telephone dialing system to place its call to
Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services without Plaintiff's
prior express consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, 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
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com
             mgeorge@toddflaw.com


CVS PHARMACY: Class Certification Sought in "Marcus" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled SHANI MARCUS and FRIEDA
ESSES ASHKENAZI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00259-
PGS-LHG (D.N.J.), move for an order granting class certification.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-6667
          E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq.
          Shane T. Prince, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN & PRINCE, P.C.
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
                  josefchen@denittislaw.com
                  sprince@denittislaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric R. Kanefsky, Esq.
          CALCAGNI & KANEFSKY LLP
          One Newark Center
          1085 Raymond Blvd., 14th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (862) 397-1796
          Facsimile: (862) 902-5458
          E-mail: eric@ck-harris.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Leffel, Esq.
          Irina N. Kashcheyeva, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
          500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 234-7100
          Facsimile: (313) 234-2800
          E-mail: mleffel@foley.com
                  ikashcheyeva@foley.com

               - and -

          Frank E. Pasquesi, Esq.
          Robert H. Griffith, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
          321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60654-5313
          Telephone: (312) 832-4500
          Facsimile: (312) 832-4700
          E-mail: fpasquesi@foley.com
                  rgriffith@foley.com


DCH REGIONAL: Accused of Illegal Billing Practices by "McAteer"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell McAteer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DCH Regional Medical Center, DCH Health
Systems, Avectus Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Defendants, v. Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, nominal Defendant, Case 2:17-cv-
00859 (N.D. Ala., May 25, 2017) seeks actual, statutory and
punitive damages, penalties, disgorgement of any unlawfully gained
proceeds, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, declaratory
relief, a permanent injunction against Defendants from engaging in
unlawful billing practices, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses of this action and such other and further relief
resulting from breach of contract, civil conspiracy, unjust
enrichment, tortious interference with contractual
relationship/business expectancy and violation of the Alabama
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Plaintiff received medical treatment at hospital facilities owned
and/or operated by the DCH Regional Medical Center. DCH Regional
Medical Center and their debt collection agent Avectus wrongfully
sent improper collection notices and collected payments for
medical services in amounts that violate the terms of the Services
Provider Agreement entered into by DCH Regional Medical Center,
DCH Health systems with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama of
which McAteer is a member, says the complaint.

DCH Health Systems, Inc. provides medical services through its
affiliate, DCH Regional Medical Center, headquartered in and with
their principal place of business in Northport, Alabama.

Avectus Healthcare Solutions LLC is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Corinth, Mississippi.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama is a subsidiary and
independent licensee of Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association,
with its principal place of business headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lauren E. Miles, Esq.
      J. Allen Schreiber, Esq.
      BURKE HARVEY, LLC
      3535 Grandview Parkway, Suite 100
      Birmingham, AL 35243
      Tel: (205) 930-9091
      Fax: (205) 930-9054
      Email: aschreiber@burkeharvey.com
             lmiles@burkeharvey.com


DEJA VU: Nude Dancers Push Back Against Class-Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Egan, writing for USA Today, reports that a growing number of
exotic dancers want to block a national class-action settlement
alleging workplace exploitation by Michigan-based Deja Vu clubs,
saying it will pay many dancers only a few hundred dollars each.

Kalamazoo dancer Merry Clark said in a letter to the court that
the proposed $6.5-million settlement is "nowhere near enough" for
her and other dancers she says have been outrageously exploited by
Deja Vu Services and related companies for "sweaty gross work."

Also, dancers' attorneys from as far away as Massachusetts and
Tennessee have filed objections to the settlement ahead of a June
6 hearing in federal court in Detroit, saying the proposal is not
fair, reasonable or adequate.

Attorneys for the lead plaintiffs and for Deja Vu say the
settlement is fair and contains many non-monetary benefits for the
dancers. They say objectors still represent a tiny handful of the
more than 28,000 dancers and former dancers who are class members.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy can't modify the proposed
settlement, but can only accept it or reject it as is, attorneys
say.

The case centers on whether the dancers are employees or
independent contractors -- a classification that affects issues
such as whether the clubs must pay them a minimum hourly wage or
can instead charge them for doing business inside the clubs.

Though it's billed as a $6.5 million settlement, the proposal
would provide only $920,000 in cash payments to settle claims from
more than 28,000 dancers who worked at 64 different clubs in 18
states, Boston attorney Harold Lichten, Esq. -- info@llrlaw.com --
of Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C. argued in a May 12 court filing.

Most of the rest of the "egregiously unfair and unreasonable"
settlement would pay for coupons the dancers could use to offset
future fees charged by the clubs, plus about $1 million in
attorney fees, Lichten said.

The suit alleges the nude and nearly nude dancers are paid no
wages but required to pay rent to the clubs, plus 30% or more of
their tips. The dancers also face monetary penalties for leaving
early or showing up late, the suit alleges.

Deja Vu, which has denied the allegations and admits no wrongdoing
as part of the settlement, maintains that despite the claims made
in the lawsuit, most exotic dancers who are given the opportunity
to become club employees find out they prefer being independent
contractors because they make more money that way and have more
control over their hours and conditions of work.

Bradley Shafer, Esq. -- bshafer@swartzcampbell.com -- of Swartz
Campbell LLC, a Lansing attorney representing Deja Vu, said the
settlement does not involve "coupons," but a $4.5 million pool of
money that can be used by dancers determined to be independent
contractors to pay fees the dancers would otherwise have to pay
from their own pockets. Also, in clubs that operate on an
independent contractor model, dancers will receive cash payments
from that pool, Shafer said.

Lichten, representing California dancers Eva Cabrera and Brittney
Halverson, said exotic dancers have brought a series of lawsuits
around the country in recent years, challenging their
classification as independent contractors, and have received
$50,000 or more each when they pursued their claims as individuals
and often thousands or tens of thousands of dollars when part of a
class action.

In contrast, the proposed settlement "would put an end to a number
of previously filed actions against individual clubs, and would
allow dancers to receive no more than a few hundred dollars in
cash if they submit a claim form," Lichten wrote.

Anyone with an existing lawsuit elsewhere can opt out of the
settlement and continue their suit, Shafer said.

So far, close to 3,000 dancers have filed claims to share in the
$920,000 cash portion of the settlement, and with notices recently
sent a second time to 8,000 dancers, that number is likely to
grow, he said.

That means each dancer who files a claim for a cash settlement --
passing up on a share of $4.5 million in club coupons -- is likely
to receive between $100 and $300. Many of them may be former
dancers who would not be eligible for coupons, Lichten said.

Lichten estimates the dancers' claims should be worth more than
$141 million, based on the clubs' failure to pay minimum wage
alone.

Under the proposed settlement, Deja Vu will assess all current and
future dancers based on a set of agreed criteria -- including the
dancer's expressed wishes -- to determine whether they should be
hired or retained as employees or as independent professional
entertainers. Those deemed employees will be paid minimum wage,
plus bonuses including commissions of at least 20% on their
private dances and drink sales, and receive club support to pay
for employment-related expenses such as the purchase and cleaning
of costumes and payment of required local license fees.

Southfield attorney Jason Thompson, Esq. --
jthompson@sommerspc.com -- of Sommers SchwartzLaw Offices said
that aspect of the settlement is "ground-breaking" in that it will
require the clubs to change their business practices going
forward.

Lichten said that essentially allows the dancers to "choose" their
status as employees or independent contractors, which flies in the
face of the law because the dancers should clearly be classified
as employees.

Shafer said the dancers don't get to choose their employment
status. What they want is one of several factors that will
determine whether they are employees or independent contractors,
he said.

Deja Vu, founded in Michigan but now a national firm with offices
in Michigan, California and Nevada, has operated many of its clubs
under a model in which the clubs serve no alcohol but dancers
disrobe completely. Until recently, Michigan law prohibited fully
nude dancing at clubs where alcohol was served.

The case began in 2016, when a Bay City dancer filed suit against
Deja Vu clubs in Saginaw, but it was expanded this year to include
Deja Vu clubs and their affiliates nationwide. [GN]


DUKE ENERGY: Bowser Moves for Certification of Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JOHN BOWSER, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DUKE ENERGY CORP.;
THE EMPYREAN GROUP, LLC; and GUIDANT GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:16-
cv-00482-DSC (W.D. Pa.), moves the Court to conditionally certify
a collective action and to authorize the issuance of notice
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=myIPWkp0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  dmoulton@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766-1455
          Telecopier: (412) 766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Mora Seeks Certification of Consumers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying the action
styled LOURDES MORA v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, and
FEDERAL PACIFIC CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-06714 (N.D.
Ill.), as a class action.

Ms. Mora seeks to maintain the action on behalf of herself, and on
behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals, defined as:

     All consumers in the United States of America, beginning one
     year prior to filing this Complaint and continuing through
     the resolution of this action, who, with respect to a time
     barred "debt" (as defined by the FDCPA), received a debt
     collection letter from Defendant that states: (i) Defendant,
     or some other entity, "will not" sue the consumer for the
     debt; and/or (ii) payment on the debt "may" restart the
     applicable statute of limitations on the debt.

In her complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Dynamic Recovery
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by using false,
deceptive, and unfair methods in attempting to collect debts that
are no longer collectable pursuant to the applicable statutes of
limitations.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint her as Class
Representative and to designate her counsel as Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com

               - and -

          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          Ahmad T. Sulaiman, Esq.
          Omar T. Sulaiman, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          900 Jorie Blvd., Suite 150
          Oak Brook, IL 60523
          Telephone: (630) 575-8181
          Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
          E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                  ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
                  osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Falbo" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 22, 2017, in the case titled
MICHAEL FALBO v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-03740 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable John J. Tharp Jr.

The minute entry states that:

   -- the motion for class certification is denied without
      prejudice;

   -- the Court does not accept prophylactic class --
      certification motions in light of Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
      Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016); and Chapman v. First Index,
      Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015);

   -- if the Plaintiff is prepared to proceed on the Motion as
      briefed, it may be refiled;

   -- alternatively, the Motion may be refiled at any point at
      which the Plaintiff is prepared to proceed with substantive
      briefing.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sjLDFb4G


E-Z TRANS CORP: "Urbina" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Ronnie Urbina, and those similarly situated
to him who have or will become part of this collective action, v.
E-Z Trans Corp. (a/k/a Intermodal Equipment & Leasing Corp.,
Statewide Transportation Inc. and Reliable Trans Services Inc.)
and Nathan Sasonov individually, Case No. 2:17-cv-03799 (D.N.J.,
May 27, 2017), demands judgment against Defendants, as well as
payment of compensation for all overtime hours worked at one and
one-half times the regular rate of pay due him for the hours
worked; liquidated damages; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
of suit; and all other appropriate relief for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour
Law.

Defendants are in the business of leasing trucks for hazardous
materials where Plaintiff performed yard/shop work. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
             AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com


ECO SCIENCE: "Stires" Sues Over Share Trading Suspension
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Stires, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Eco Science Solutions, Inc., Jeffery
Taylor and Don Lee Taylor, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03707
(D.N.J., May 24, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages for
violation of federal securities laws; and to pursue remedies under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Eco Science Solutions is a technology-focused company that
provides solutions for the health and wellness industry. On
May 5, 2017, it announced the proposed acquisition of Ga-Du Bank,
Inc.  On May 19, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission
announced the temporary suspension of trading in the securities of
Eco Science Solutions, Inc. because of concerns regarding the
accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information
concerning its proposed acquisition of Ga-Du Bank, Inc.

As a result, Company's securities are illiquid and virtually
worthless thereby damaging investors including the Plaintiff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


ECO SCIENCE: "Penhollow" Sues Over Devalued Securities
------------------------------------------------------
David Penhollow, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Eco Science Solutions Inc.,
Jeffery Lee Taylor, and Don Lee Taylor, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-03760 (D.N.J., May 26, 2017), seeks to recover compensable
damages for violation of federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Eco Science Solutions is a technology-focused company that
provides solutions for the health and wellness industry. On
May 5, 2017, it announced the proposed acquisition of Ga-Du Bank,
Inc. On May 19, 2017 the Securities and Exchange Commission
announced the temporary suspension of trading in the securities of
Eco Science Solutions, Inc. because of concerns regarding the
accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information
concerning its proposed acquisition of Ga-Du Bank, Inc.

As a result, Company's securities are illiquid and virtually
worthless thereby damaging investors including the Plaintiff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Telephone: (973) 623-3000
     Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
     Email: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

            - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman
     J. Alexander Hood II
     Marc Gorrie
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 661-1100
     Facsimile: (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
     Telephone: (312) 377-1181
     Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Wins OK of "Dunn" Accord; Hearing on Sept. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas M. Rose granted the joint motion to certify a
class and preliminary approve a class action settlement in the
lawsuit entitled IRENE DUNN and DONALD STEELY, on Their Own Behalf
and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Persons, and IUE-
CWA, AFL-CIO v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE, LLC, f/k/a Energizer
Personal Care, LLC, formerly a Division of Energizer Holdings,
Inc., as the Plan Sponsor and Administrator of the Hewitt Soap
Retiree Medical Insurance Plan, Case No. 3:14-cv-00195-TMR (S.D.
Ohio).

Edgewell will serve notice to the individual Class members, and
counsel for Edgewell will file proof of service with the Court, no
later than July 17, 2017.  Objections must be filed with the Clerk
of the Court, postmarked no later than August 23, 2017.

A fairness hearing is scheduled for September 12, 2017, at 9:30
a.m.

The Complaint asserts a violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act on behalf of a class of retired employees, who
once worked at a facility owned by the Hewitt Soap Company --
predecessor to Defendant Edgewell Personal Care, LLC -- and who
were covered by collective bargaining agreements between Plaintiff
IUE-CWA and Hewitt Soap.

The Ohio Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release, and the
Complaint which reflected the agreement, identified this class for
certification under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure:

     All participants in the Hewitt Soap Retiree Plan, sponsored
     by Energizer Personal Care, LLC, or its corporate
     affiliates, including Energizer Holdings, Inc., Edgewell
     Personal Care Company, American Safety Razor Company, LLC,
     or Hewitt Soap Company, Inc., covering retirees from the
     Dayton, Ohio factory who: (i) had retired from active
     employment at the Dayton factory on or before October 2003,
     (ii) were represented by the IUE-CWA, AFL-CIO during their
     employment at the Dayton factory, and (iii) received medical
     insurance benefits during their retirement under the
     collective bargaining agreement after retiring from active
     employment at the Dayton factory (the "Class").

The Class Settlement provides, among other things, that putative
class members, who have received any monthly payments of $75
pursuant to the retiree medical cost reimbursement provisions of a
collective bargaining agreement at any time on or after January 1,
2013 will be eligible to receive the lump sum amount set forth in
the chart.  The Defendants will pay a single lump sum benefit to
each eligible class member in these amounts depending on their
ages as of January 1, 2017:

        AGES     LUMP SUM AMOUNT
        ----     ---------------
        85+           $5,000
        80-84         $6,000
        75-80         $8,150
        70-74         $9,225
        <70          $10,250

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z4tA50Om


EL PASO NATURAL: July 18 Hearing to Approve Royalty Case Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF WASHITA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., formerly known as NATIONS BANK, N.A., as
TRUSTEE OF THE VIRGINIA C. EARMAN TRUST, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.

EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY, A Delaware Corporation; and
BURLINGTON RESOURCES OIL & GAS COMPANY, LP, formerly Burlington
Resources Oil & Gas Company, a Delaware Corporation, formerly
Meridian Oil, Inc.; formerly El Paso Exploration Company, a
Delaware Corporation, Defendants.

Case No. CJ-2004-45

Judge Christopher S. Kelly.

TO: All individuals and entities owning any royalty and/or
overriding interests that burden the Defendants' working interests
in the oil and gas leases  owned  by Defendants, which leases,  at
any point during the periods described below for Subclasses 1, 2,
and 3, produced or now produce natural gas  located within the
States of Oklahoma, Texas or New Mexico (less and except certain
coalbed methane gas produced from the Fruitland formation in the
State of New Mexico), and less and except other excluded persons
and claims set forth below (the "Class" which is comprised of
"Class Members").

If you are a Prior Owner of a Subject Royalty Interest now held by
Current Owner during the Class Period, you will be afforded a
reasonable opportunity to make a claim for distribution of
settlement funds attributable to the time you were an owner, even
if the Current Owner has opted out of the Class, provided that you
did not relinquish your right to recover royalty underpayments
during the time of your ownership when you passed title to your
royalty interest to the successor.

A hearing is set for July 18, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Christopher Kelly at the Washita County Courthouse,
which is located at 111 East Main Street, Cordell, Oklahoma 73632.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider a proposed class action
settlement of the claims in the above captioned lawsuit asserted
against El Paso Natural Gas Company and Burlington Resources Oil &
Gas Company, LP, a wholly owned subsidiary of ConocoPhillips
Company, and as successor in interest to Burlington Resources Oil
and Gas Company (collectively referred to herein as "Defendants").

A detailed settlement notice has been mailed to all known
potential Class Members describing the settlement and the rights
of the Class Members.

Because the proposed settlement and the scheduled court hearing
may affect your rights to share in the possible settlement
recovery proposed in this lawsuit, you should immediately obtain a
copy of the Class Settlement Notice if you have not received one
in the mail.

                       The Certified Class

On August 7, 2009, the District Court of Washita County, Oklahoma
entered its Order certifying the Oklahoma and Texas Subclasses.
That Order was affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals by
Order dated May 27, 2011 in Appeal No. 107,510.  Thereafter, the
Oklahoma Supreme Court by Order dated October 10, 2011, denied
certiorari and the Mandate issued on February 27, 2012.

In conjunction with this Order, the Oklahoma and Texas Subclasses
are defined, as follows:

     Subclass 1: The persons or entities who own or have owned
non-cost bearing interests, which are subject to oil and gas
leases owned prior to August 7, 2009 from in whole or in part by
BROG and/or El Paso, which leases are or were productive of
natural gas, and other hydrocarbons during the period March 1,
1984 through May 31, 2015 and located in the State of Oklahoma.
This subclass further includes owners who received a share of
their royalty and/or overriding royalty revenue from BROG and/or
EPNG, even though they were not directly leased to BROG and/or El
Paso, vis-a-vis Oklahoma Senate Bill 168, codified as 52 Okla. St.
Sec. 570.4.

This subclass excludes overriding royalty owners with the right to
take in kind.

     Subclass 2: The persons or entities who own or have owned
     non-cost bearing interests, which are subject to oil and gas
     leases owned prior to August 7, 2009   in whole or in part
     by BROG and/or El Paso, which leases are or were productive
     of oil, gas and other hydrocarbons during the period March
     1, 1984 through May 31, 2015 and located in the State of
     Texas

          a) For each of the above two subclasses, "natural gas
             or other hydrocarbons" shall include natural gas,
             casinghead gas, natural gas liquids, condensate from
             natural gas, and all hydrocarbons entrained in
             natural gas and all other hydrocarbons not produced
             and separated at the well in liquid form by ordinary
             production methods.

          b) For each of the above two subclasses, "non-cost
             bearing interests" shall include owners of royalty,
             overriding royalty and other forms of non-
             participating mineral rights.

          c) For each of the above two subclasses, the Class
             includes persons who owned  non-cost bearing
             interests in the above described  wells from March
             1, 1984 to May 31, 2015.

          d) For each of the above two subclasses, the claim
             period encompasses claims accruing from January 1,
             1980 through the Final Approval.

                            EXCLUSIONS

The following persons or entities are excluded from the
subclasses: (i) Defendants and any of their wholly owned
affiliates, parents or commonly owned subsidiaries through a
common parent; (ii) All state or federal owned interests;  (iii)
Indian Tribe interests, whether or not allotted; (iv) All publicly
traded companies who receive over seventy-five (75) percent of
their oil and gas revenue from working interest sources; (v) All
claims under wells qualified under Sec. 107 of the NGPA, inclusive
of those claims settled by persons or entities in the case of Bank
of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Company, et al.,
consolidated Case No.  CJ-9768, District Court for Washita County,
State of Oklahoma; and (vi) The wells and claims covered by the
allegations pled in Dodson v. El Paso Natural Gas Company, et al.,
Case No. CJ-2004-119, Beckham County, Oklahoma.

On February 13, 2014, the District Court of Washita County,
Oklahoma entered  a subsequent Order certifying the New Mexico
Subclass.  That Order was affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Civil
Appeals by Order dated January 30, 2015 in Appeal No. 112,648.

Thereafter, the Oklahoma Supreme Court by Order dated November 9,
2015, denied Certiorari and the Mandate issued on January 27,
2016.  The 3rd subclass is defined as follows:

     Subclass 3:  The persons or entities who own or have owned
     non-cost bearing interests, which are subject to oil and gas
     leases, owned prior to February 13, 2014 in whole or in part
     by BROG and/ or EPNG, which leases are or were productive of
     oil, gas and other hydrocarbons during the period March 1,
     1984 through December 31, 2015 and located in the State of
     New Mexico.

For further definition, and as is consistent with the Oklahoma and
Texas subclasses previously certified:

          a) "oil, gas and other hydrocarbons" shall include,
             but not be limited to natural gas, oil, condensate,
             casinghead gas, natural gas liquids, all
             hydrocarbons entrained with natural gas, or
             casinghead gas regardless of where such hydrocarbons
             are captured or obtained, inclusive of coal bed
             methane, shale gas, shale oil or any other substance
             or material which consists of or is commonly
             accepted as a hydrocarbon;

          b) "non-cost bearing interests" shall include owners of
             royalty, overriding royalty and other forms of non-
             participating mineral rights;

          c) for this subclass 3, the Class includes persons who
             owned non-cost bearing interests in the above
             described wells during the period March 1, 1984
             through May 31, 2015; and

          d) the claim period encompasses claims accruing from
             January 1, 1980 through the Final Approval.

                            EXCLUSIONS

The following persons or entities are excluded from the proposed
subclass: (i) Defendants and any of their wholly owned affiliates,
parents or commonly owned subsidiaries through a common parent;
(ii) all state or federal owned interests; (iii) Indian Tribe
federal trust interests, whether or not allotted; (iv) all
publicly traded companies who receive over seventy-five (75)
percent of their oil and gas revenues from working interest
sources; and (v) The claims, pertaining to coal bed methane (CBM),
covered by the settlement approved on October 21, 2014 in Ideal v.
Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, L.P., Santa Fe County, New
Mexico, Case No. D-0101-CV-2003-02309.

You may be a member of the Class even though your royalty or
overriding royalty interest burdening Defendants' working interest
is or has been paid to you by an operator other than Defendants.
Please contact Class Counsel, the Settlement and Claims
Administrator, or the operator from which you receive or received
payments to determine if you own or owned royalty or overriding
interest that burden Defendants' working interests during the
Class Period and hence are a member of the Class.

If you are a member of the Class, you have the right to object to
the settlement, you have a right to request to be excluded from
the Class, and you may be entitled to a payment under the Plan of
Allocation if you do not request or have not requested to be
excluded from the class.

                 Preliminary Settlement Approval

As a part of the preliminary approval, the Court approved a Plan
of Allocation.  A copy of the Plan of Allocation can be obtained
by writing to Counsel for the proposed Class at their addresses
specified below.  Under the terms of the Plan of Allocation, the
settlement funds shall be distributed to "Eligible Class Members"
who are defined as the current owner of the Class Members'
royalties and overriding royalties during the Class Period who did
not opt out of the Class and whose portion of the Net Settlement
Amount as calculated pursuant to the Plan of Allocation is equal
to ten dollars or more.

The Plan of Allocation, the Settlement Agreement, and other
documents may be reviewed at shallowwellsettlement.com

             Choices and Deadlines for Class Members

If you are a member of the Class, you have the following choices:

      -- You may remain in the Class by doing nothing and
         participate in the benefits of the proposed settlement
         if you are an Eligible Class member.  If this is what
         you choose to do, your interests will be represented
         without any advance cost to you by the following
         attorneys, whom the Court has appointed as Counsel for
         the Class:

         (1) Bradley D. Brickell
             Brickell & Associates
             1014 24th Ave NW, Suite 100
             Norman, OK 73069

                 - and -

             Stephen R. McNamara, Esq.
             Brian T. Inbody, Esq.
             McNamara, Inbody & Parrish, PLLC
             1437 S. Boulder Ave., Suite 1210
             Tulsa, OK  74119

      -- If you remain in the Class, you may file with the Court
         a written objection to any aspect of the proposed
         settlement.  To do so, you must comply with the
         requirements described in the Settlement Notice, which
         include filing your objection with the Clerk of the
         Court and serving it on counsel for the parties no
         later than June 14, 2017.

      -- If you want to be excluded from the Class, you must
         inform Class Counsel of that fact by written letter or
         postcard postmarked no later than June 14, 2017 to:

         Brickell & Associates
         Attn: Burlington Settlement
         1014 24th Ave NW, Suite 100
         Norman, Oklahoma 73069

         You must specify the name and address of the Class
         Member that elects to be excluded from the Class.
         Only Class Members may opt out.  Persons claiming to opt
         out for or on behalf of other Class Members must show an
         executed Power of Attorney or other valid documentation
         showing their authority to act on behalf of the other
         Class Member.

      -- If you are a Prior Owner, you have one of two options:

         * First, if the Current Owner has opted out of the
           Class, then you may make a claim for distribution of
           the settlement funds attributable to the time you were
           an owner.  The list of opt-outs is maintained by the
           Settlement and Claims Administrator:

           Barbara Ley, P.C.
           Attn:  Burlington Settlement
           6305 Waterford Blvd., Suite 450
           Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118

           To make a claim you must, by June 28, 2017, submit in
           writing to the Settlement and Claims Administrator
           your intention to make a claim on the settlement
           payments attributable to the time you were an owner
           that would have gone to the Current Owner had the
           Current Owner not opted-out of the Class along with
           information sufficient to identify the Subject Royalty
           Interest and the legal basis for their claim by no
           later than June 28, 2017.  You must provide evidence
           of your prior ownership (including your prior
           ownership ID number, a legal description of the
           property or wells in which you held a royalty or
           overriding royalty interest and evidence of the period
           of your prior ownership), information identifying the
           Current Owner who opted-out of the Class and proof
           that you did not relinquish your right to recover
           royalty underpayments during your time of ownership
           when you passed title to your royalty interest to your
           successor.

         * Second, if the Current Owner has not opted out of the
           Class, you may file an objection to allocation of the
           settlement amount due on the Subject Royalty Interest
           solely to the Current Owner.  To dispute allocation of
           the settlement payment from a particular Subject
           Royalty Interest solely to the Current Owner you must
           by June 28, 2017, submit in writing to the Settlement
           and Claims Administrator your intention to object
           along with information sufficient to identify the
           Subject Royalty Interest and the legal basis for the
           objection, including proof that they did not
           relinquish their right to recover royalty
           underpayments during their time of ownership when they
           passed title to their royalty interest to their
           successor.  The Settlement and Claims Administrator
           will then provide additional instructions regarding
           resolution of any dispute with the Current Owner over
           entitle to settlement funds.

More detail on the above procedures is contained in the long-form
Notice of Settlement Agreement.  If you have any questions, if you
wish to obtain a copy of the settlement notice, or if you need
further information about the terms of the settlement, please
write to counsel for the Class at their addresses described above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL FOR INFORMATION.  DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL, EMPLOYEES AND
REPRESENTATIVES ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION
ABOUT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.


ELOISE LANDA: June 23 Final Hearing on Tenant Deposits Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A final fairness and approval hearing will be held on June 23,
2017, on the settlement of the case captioned Alvarado v. Landa et
al., Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department,
Chancery Division No. 15-CH-07447.

A Settlement Agreement has been preliminarily approved by the
Court.  Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, each Class
Member who submits a valid claim form will receive a single
settlement payment check of $75.00.  If multiple claim forms are
received from co-tenants, then a single payment check of $75.00
will be made payable to the co-tenants who submitted a claim form.

A class action lawsuit was filed against Eloise Landa et al., by
Ricardo Alvarado alleging a violation of the Chicago Residential
Landlord and Tenant Ordinance concerning the failure to attach a
copy of the separate summary describing the respective rights,
obligations and remedies of landlords and tenants with respect to
security deposits that was prepared by the Chicago commissioner of
the department of housing as explicitly required by Section 5-12-
170 of the RLTO.

The class includes ALL TENANTS OR PROSPECTIVE TENANTS OF THE
FOLLOWING CHICAGO APARTMENT BUILDINGS BETWEEN MAY 6, 2013 AND
APRIL 10, 2017:

     1324 N. Bosworth Ave., Chicago, Illinois

     1353-57 N. Ashland Ave., Chicago, Illinois

     1437 N. Bosworth Ave., Chicago, Illinois

     2400 N. Lakeview St. #810, 1112, Chicago, Illinois

     253 E. Delaware St., #14D, Chicago, Illinois

     2836-38 N. Francisco Ave., Chicago, Illinois

     2840 N. Francisco Ave., #3, Chicago, Illinois

     1726-28 W. Division St., Chicago, Illinois

     900 N. Lake Shore Drive #1106, 1814, 2506, Chicago, Illinois

     175 E. Delaware St., #5020, 5105, 5416, 5617, 5717, 5906,
6006, Chicago, Illinois

     1361-63 N. Ashland Ave., Chicago, Illinois (a/k/a 1547-59 W.
Blackhawk St., Chicago, Illinois)

Additional information is available at https://is.gd/LnBdXH

Class counsel is:

     JS Law
     29 E. Madison St., Ste. 1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 756-1330
     Email: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Sasin Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vitaliy Sasin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Enterprise Financial Group, Inc., Royal
Administration Services, Inc., Barantas Incorporated, EGS
Administration, LLC, Assurant, Inc. and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-04022 (C.D.
Cal., May 30, 2017) seeks statutory damages, recovery of costs of
suit and all other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

EFG, Omega, and Royal are administrators of after-market
automobile warranty policies sold by each of these defendants
directly to consumers who own vehicles. Assurant is an insurance
company which insures the policies sold by Royal and EFG.

Defendants contacted Plaintiff on his mobile telephone numbers in
an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase their auto warranty
policies. All the calls were allegedly made using an automatic
telephone dialing system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Niv V. Davidovich, Esq.
      DAVIDOVICH KAUFMAN LEGAL GROUP, APA
      6442 Coldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 211
      North Hollywood, CA 91606
      Tel: (818) 661-2420
      Fax: (818) 305-5131
      Email: niv@davkauf.com


EXAMINATION MANAGEMENT: Faces "Gonzalez" Lawsuit Under Cal. Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA T. GONZALEZ, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. EXAMINATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a
Nevada Corporation; LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01077-JLS-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 24,
2017), accuses Defendants of systemic misclassification and
mistreatment of California phlebotomists as independent
contractors in violation of California's wage and hour laws.

EXAMINATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. is a medical information
services company. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS is a
health care diagnostics company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
     Aaron M. Olsen, Esq.
     ZELDES HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
     225 Broadway, Suite 2050
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: 619-342-8000
     Fax: 619-342-7878
     E-mail: alreenh@zhlaw.com
             aarono@zhlaw.com


FEIN SUCH: "Perez" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------
Cathy Perez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05175 (E.D. La., May 23, 2017), seeks
actual and statutory damages for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Defendant is a law firm with offices located at 7 Century Drive,
Suite 201, Parsippany, New Jersey.

Plaintiff's spouse, Alejandro Perez, allegedly incurred a
financial obligation to The Valley Hospital. But Plaintiff herself
was not contractually or otherwise liable on said debt. Defendant
sent a legal complaint in behalf of Valley Hospital to collect
hospital dues addressed to both her and her husband. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
      17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
      Rutherford, NJ 07070
      Tel: (201) 507-6300


FLUSHMATE: September 18 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
A new settlement has been reached about the Series 503 Flushmate
III Pressure Assist Flushing System ("Flushmate System").  A
separate $18 million settlement has already been approved and all
valid claims have been paid.

Anyone who owns or owned a toilet with a Flushmate System
manufactured from October 14, 1997 through April 30, 2011 is
eligible to file a claim.  Flushmate Systems were installed in
American Standard, Copperfit, Crane, Ecotech, Eljer, Gerber,
Kohler, Lamosa, Mancesa, Mansfield, Orion, St. Thomas, Universal
Rundle, Vitra, Vitromex, Vortens and Western Pottery toilets,
which were sold at Home Depot and Lowe's stores and through
distributors and plumbing contractors.

Subject to Court approval, and to the extent not previously
reimbursed, class members can receive money for having installed:
(1) a Flushmate III repair kit, (2) a replacement pressure vessel,
or (3) a replacement toilet.  To the extent not previously
reimbursed, class members can also receive reimbursement for any
direct property damage caused by a Flushmate System that leaked or
burst.

Approximately $7 million is left over from the previous
settlement.  The remaining money will be used to pay all valid
claims.  If necessary, Defendant will contribute additional money
to pay 100% of all valid claims submitted before the claims
deadline for people covered by the new settlement.  If there is
any money left over from the previous settlement after paying all
valid claims from both settlements, the claims periods may be
extended again, or the money may be donated to a charity.

Class Members must submit a claim in order to get reimbursement.
Claims can be filed online at www.FlushmateClaims.com or class
members can call 1-877-412-5277 to receive a claim form.

Even if you do nothing you will be bound by the Court's decisions.
Certain deadlines have already passed for the previous settlement,
but class members can comment on the modifications to the previous
settlement by August 21, 2017. If class members want to keep their
right to sue the Defendant in the new settlement, they must
exclude themselves from the class by August 21, 2017.  If they
stay in the class, they may object to the new settlement by August
21, 2017.

The Court will hold a hearing on September 18, 2017 to consider
the proposed modifications to the previous settlement and whether
to approve the new settlement and a request for attorneys' fees
and costs up to $600,000.  The attorneys' fees for the new
settlement are being paid separately by the Defendant and will not
reduce settlement payments.  Class members may hire their own
lawyer to appear at the hearing at their own expense.

For additional information about the settlements, please visit
www.FlushmateClaims.com or call 1-877-412-5277.


FRUIT OF THE EARTH: "O'Shaughnessy" Sues Over Aloe Vera Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget O'Shaughnessy and Merrick Ungar, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fruit of
the Earth, Inc., CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walgreens Co. and Edgewell
Personal Care Company, Defendants, Case No. D-1-GN-17-002316 (S.D.
Tex., May 24, 2017), seeks money damages, pre and post judgment
interest at the maximum legal rate, costs of suit incurred herein,
including reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further
relief for breach of implied and express warranty and for
violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Defendants are manufacturers, marketers and sellers of aloe vera
products. Plaintiffs allege that their aloe vera products do not
contain a substantial content of aloe vera and thereby do not have
its healing and restorative elements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Colley, Jr., Esq.
      Jarrett Stone, Esq.
      COLLEY & COLLEY, L.L.P.
      12912 Hill Country Blvd., Suite F-234
      Austin, TX 78738
      Tel: (512) 477-2001
      Fax: (512) 477-3335
      Email: paul@colleylaw.net
             jarrettf@colleylaw.net


GENERAL MOTORS: Class Suit Alleges Cheating in Emissions Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Tarantola, writing for Engadget, reports that yet another
automaker has potentially been caught trying to cheat on its EPA
emissions tests. Following VW's "diesel-gate" SNAFU in 2015 and
the Justice Department going after Fiat-Chrysler, GM found itself
the defendant in a class-action suit over its alleged use of
"defeat devices" similar to those used by VW.

The suit, filed in federal court in Detroit, is on behalf of more
than 705,000 people who bought or leased Chevy "Duramax" Silverado
and Sierra trucks between 2011 and 2016. It alleges that the
company employed three different "defeat devices" to bypass state
and federally mandated emissions tests and that these vehicles
actually produce between two and five times the legal limit of NOx
gas.

GM has denied the charges' validity, calling the lawsuit
"baseless". A group of law firms, including Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro (which was involved in the VW case), filed the suit. [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Shares Drop After Emissions Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Tomi Kilgore, writing for Marketwatch, reports that shares of
General Motors Co. sank 2.2% in midday trade May 25, after a
Bloomberg report that the automaker was being sued by consumers
for installing devices in its trucks to beat emissions tests,
similar to Volkswagen AG's highly-publicized scandal in 2015.

The Bloomberg report said the class-action suit was filed in
Detroit by people who own or lease more than 705,000 GM Duramax
diesel trucks, and not by a government agency. The suit alleges
that GM's defeat devices allowed its trucks to pass inspections
even though the trucks spewed emissions up to five times the legal
limit under regular driving conditions, the report said. The
report does not say the damages being sought. Earlier, the stock
was down as much as 3.9% at 6-1/2-month low of $31.92 in intraday
trade. The stock has now lost 6.8% year to date, while the S&P 500
SPX, +0.03% has gained 7.8%, according to the report dated May 25.
[GN]


GEICO: VIP Auto Seeks Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------
John Huetter, writing for Repairer Driven News, reports that a
glass shop which has sued GEICO has formally sought class-action
status for itself and other shops who've butted up against GEICO's
"prevailing competitive price."

VIP Auto Glass argued that GEICO's use of its contractually
discounted rate with Safelite as the "prevailing competitive
price" is inappropriate.

By requiring customers to pay the difference between that amount
and what non-network shops reasonably charge for glass work, GEICO
is in effect charging a glass deductible in violation of Florida
law, the shop alleges.

"Despite collecting billions in premiums, GEICO is, on a
continuing basis, unlawfully underpaying legitimate Windshield
Claims to its Florida insureds and thereby pocketing windfall
profits," the shop argues in a May 19 motion for class
certification, which echoes many of the allegations in its Feb. 21
amended VIP Auto Glass v. GEICO lawsuit.

Florida Section 627.7288 declares that deductibles for all
insurance "providing comprehensive coverage or combined additional
coverage shall not be applicable to damage to the windshield of
any motor vehicle covered under such policy," VIP wrote in its
lawsuit.

GEICO has denied the VIP allegations in its answer to the U.S.
Middle District of Florida lawsuit.

While the case hinges on a glass-specific point of law, it still
might set a precedent for collision repairers in the state by
calling into question an insurer's methodology in determining
"prevailing competitive price." Collision repairers and the state
of California have challenged using contractually discounted
direct repair program labor rates to calculate the market rate for
auto body repairs as well.

"By euphemistically describing the amount it pays as the
'prevailing competitive price,' when that is just a privately-
negotiated rate with the largest operator in the windshield repair
and replacement market, GEICO engages in deceptive business
practices and violates the statutory and contractual prohibitions
against imposing a deductible on Windshield Claims in Florida,"
the motion states.

According to the lawsuit and motion, GEICO's policy is far too
vague on what constitutes a "prevailing competitive price."

"Under well-settled Florida law, a statutory or contractual
provision is ambiguous whenever reasonable people can disagree
over its meaning," and an insurer automatically loses any dispute
over ambiguous policy language, VIP wrote in its motion for class
certification.

"Other than stating that the 'prevailing competitive price' is the
price Defendant "can secure from a competent and conveniently
located repair facility,' the policy does not include a definition
of the term 'prevailing competitive price' or a definition of the
term 'competent and conveniently located repair facility,' or
identify or adopt any particular pricing schedule or pricing
methodology that cannot be exceeded," the lawsuit states.

"Although the policy states that Defendant will, upon the
insured's request, 'identify a repair facility that will perform
the repairs or replacements at the prevailing competitive price,'
the policy does not indicate or require that the insured must make
such a request or use any particular windshield repair facility,
and as a result of the undefined and unauthorized 'prevailing
competitive price' language in the policy, Defendant has and
continues to evade the no deductible mandate."

VIP hangs its case on a customer which selected the glass company
to address a damaged windshield -- and gave it an assignment of
benefits. VIP's motion says it charged GEICO $936.37, "which is
VIP's standard price based on the same retail price published by
the National Auto Glass Specifications." GEICO only paid $468.03,
and "has underpaid VIP on other windshield claims performed for
other customers insured by GEICO."

That $468.03 is nearly 50 percent of the VIP bill, which seems to
mesh with what VIP alleges GEICO charges its glass network shops -
- notably, Safelite.

"According to the current Glass Pricing Agreement, which dates
back to February 6, 2012, GEICO has unilaterally decided that it
will pay merely 50% of the NAGS benchmark list price for
windshield parts," VIP Auto Glass wrote in the motion. ". . .
Notably, the prevailing competitive price provision does not say
it is the "lowest" price that GEICO can secure, or the price that
it can secure from a particular facility or preferred vendor
(e.g., Safelite)."

And given that VIP Auto Glass is charging NAGS prices, it's hard
to argue that it's not being reasonable or competitive --
particularly as other insurers are agreeing to the bills,
according to the motion.

Other insurance companies, such as Liberty Mutual, Infinity, the
Hartford, Chubb, Mercury, and many others, regularly pay VIP's
standard pricing in full, which include charges for windshields at
100% of the NAGS benchmark price. . . . In fact, even GEICO
Commercial Insurance paid VIP's standard price of 100% of the NAGS
benchmark. . . . Indeed, VIP's prices are certainly within GEICO's
vague description of the "prevailing competitive price" because
VIP's price is one that GEICO can secure from VIP, and GEICO does
not dispute that VIP (and the Class members) are each "a competent
and conveniently located repair facility."

GEICO has disputed that it uniformally imposes these terms across
the board.

"Defendant admits that Exhibit G contains some examples of
documents referenced as Glass Pricing Agreement, but denies that
those examples are applicable to all claims in Florida. Otherwise,
Defendant denies the allegations of this paragraph," it wrote in
its March 7 answer to the lawsuit.

". . . Defendant admits that the referenced pricing structure
applied to certain windshield repair or replacement claims in
Florida, but denies that the referenced pricing structure applied
to all windshield repair or replacement claims in Florida."

Class status

VIP has asked that the court define the class as all windshield
repair facility owners in Florida hired by a policyholder to
perform windshield repair or replacement and did so. These class
members must also have an assignment of benefits and requested
payment but didn't receive all that they'd billed for.

Shops which "were otherwise satisfied through litigation or
settlement; and/or (ii) are the subject of pending litigation
against Defendant as of the date of any class certification order
or other deadline established by the Court" don't count as class
members.

VIP Auto Glass estimates that "there are hundreds of potential
Class members," noting that GEICO itself suggests there are more
than 100 at least who'd fall into the class.

GEICO has not yet filed a more detailed response or motion to
dismiss the lawsuit or class motion. As noted above, its answer to
the lawsuit either flatly denies most of VIP's assertions or
denies them on the grounds that it lacks sufficient details to
respond.

However, the March 7 answer does provide several potential
defenses and responses GEICO might use against VIP's specific
case, the idea of granting class-action status, or the allegations
of a class-action lawsuit should one be allowed on the terms
sought by VIP.

These include that assignments of benefits might have been
obtained under fraudulent grounds and that each claim is too
different to merit being lumped into a class-action suit.

It also raises the possibility that some class-action shops' bills
were actually third-party invoices inappropriately marked up by
the shops.

Finally, GEICO also might also argue that VIP and the other
prospective class-action shops already knew it would be a tightwad
when they agreed to serve policyholders.

Some of the claims of Plaintiff and the putative class members may
be barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, ratification, or
other equitable doctrine. For example, without limitation,
Plaintiff and the putative class members are, or should have been,
aware of the amount Defendant is willing to pay for the subject
windshield repair and replacement services due to actually having
obtained estimates or work orders from Defendant (or intentionally
or negligently not obtaining authorization and an estimate prior
to performing the subject services) and by being aware through
prior dealings of the manner in which Defendant pays for such
services.

Some of the claims of Plaintiff and the putative class members may
be barred by the doctrine of estoppel, a contract implied in fact
or law, or other equitable doctrine. For example, without
limitation, Plaintiff and the putative class members may have
performed windshield repair or replacement services after having
received from Defendant the amount Defendant was willing to pay
for the subject services or being aware of Defendant's payment
methodology, thereby constituting a contract in fact or law or
otherwise estopping them from seeking reimbursement greater than
what they knew, or should have known, Defendant would pay. [GN]


HARTFORD CASUALTY: Johnson's Bid to Certify OK'd; To Meet June 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William H. Orrick entered an order in the lawsuit titled
G. GRANT JOHNSON v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
3:15-cv-04138-WHO (N.D. Cal.):

   -- denying in large part Hartford's motion for summary
      judgment.  Material facts are in dispute over Hartford's
      liability to Johnson, if any, and the record does not
      establish as a matter of law that Hartford's interpretation
      of its policy is correct;

   -- granting Mr. Johnson's motion for class certification;

   -- denying Hartford's motion to exclude the testimony of
      Eugene Peterson;

   -- granting Mr. Johnson's motion to strike portions of the
      Frost Declaration;

   -- granting Mr. Johnson's motion to strike the rebuttal report
      of Adrian Frank; and

   -- setting a case management conference for June 20, 2017, at
      2:00 p.m.

A Joint Case Management Statement is due June 13, 2017; it should
include the parties' proposals for a case schedule through trial,
according to the Order.

Mr. Johnson owns a commercial building in San Francisco,
California, which a fire partially consumed.  He alleges that
Hartford unlawfully underpaid him because it purposefully
miscalculates "actual cost value" pay-outs by "depreciating all
components of Plaintiff's structural loss without regard to
whether the components were normally subject to repair and
replacement during the useful life of that structure."  He also
contends that Hartford underpays ACV by decreasing the sales tax
component of ACV by the percentage of physical depreciation taken
on the claim.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qmX8aqbv


HARTFORD FIRE: Faces Potential Class Action From Policy Holders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Business reports that The Hartford Fire Insurance
Company is facing a class action suit from almost 20,000
California policyholders who allege that the insurer routinely
underpays claims for damaged property.

According to the plaintiffs, The Hartford engages in practices
that involve depreciating items not subject to such reductions
under the stipulations of the policy or state law. The firm has
also been accused of decreasing sales tax paid on replacement
items.

The Recorder reported that the class suit originated from a
complaint filed in 2015 concerning an antique early 20th century
building in San Francisco that sustained damage from a fire.

In the original complaint, the plaintiff said that the insurer
depreciated the cost of items including baseboards, cement,
drywall, insulation, marble, lath and plaster, plumbing, and
ornamental iron, among others, often by significant amounts. For
instance, the complainant said that the replacement cost for
plumbing was reduced by more than 42% while the replacement cost
for marble was whittled down by 80%.

The Hartford filed a motion to have the class certification
denied, and sought summary judgment, both of which were denied by
Judge William Orrick.

Judge Orrick outlined that the company's policyholders "may
decide, for a variety of reasons, to take (the actual replacement
value) to which they are entitled and not rebuild all of the
structure . . . . "

"The measure of damages is not the difference between the amount
of money spent on repairs and what was paid out, but rather the
difference between what Hartford paid out and what it should have
paid out," Orrick explained.

As for the sales tax, the judge ruled that it "constitutes a non-
tangible item not subject to deduction at all" under the policy or
under the state insurance code. [GN]


HEALTH AND PALLIATIVE: "Snow" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Snow, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Health and Palliative Services of the
Treasure Coast, Inc. (d/b/a Treasure Coast Hospice), Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-14186 (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, benefits tied
to wages and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Treasure Health is a community of health professionals, volunteers
and donors, primarily engaged in the care of the sick and the aged
where Plaintiff worked as a hospice palliative care nurse. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Cullen, Esq.
      THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      Clearlake Plaza
      500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 543
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Telephone: (561) 640-9191
      Facsimile: (561) 214-4021
      E-mail: mailbox@cullenlawfirm.net


HOME DEPOT: Settlement Provides Data Security Framework
-------------------------------------------------------
Catherine F. Ngo, Esq. -- cngo@nossaman.com -- of Nossaman LLP, in
an article for Lexology, wrote that the latest settlement in Home
Depot's data breach litigation provides a data security framework
for corporate governance that may be used by other companies as a
template.  Based on claims arising from a massive data breach in
2014 involving 56 million credit cards, Home Depot Inc. recently
settled both a shareholder derivative action and a class action
filed by financial institutions.  Both settlements were filed and
approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. As part of a third settlement of a direct consumer class
action in 2016, Home Depot had already agreed to set up a $19.5
million fund to reimburse its affected consumers, and to hire a
chief information security officer (CISO).

The recent settlement in In re: The Home Depot Inc. S'holder
Derivative Litig., N.D. Ga., No. 15-cv-02999 provided nine
corporate governance provisions that focus on corporate reform in
data security, and were designed to improve Home Depot's ability
to prevent and respond to future attacks.  Home Depot and its
board of directors agreed to:

   (i) document the duties and responsibilities of the newly-hired
CISO;

  (ii) periodically conduct tabletop cyber exercises to validate
the Home Depot's processes and procedures, test the readiness of
its response capabilities, raise organizational awareness and
train its personnel, and create remediation plans for issues and
problem areas;

(iii) monitor and periodically assess key indicators of
compromise on computer network endpoints;

  (iv) maintain and periodically assess the Company's partnership
with a dark web mining service to search for confidential Home
Depot information;

   (v) maintain an executive-level committee focused on the
Company's data security;

  (vi) receive periodic reports from management regarding the
amount of the Company's IT budget and what percentage of the IT
budget is spent on cybersecurity measures;

(vii) maintain an incident response team and an incident response
plan;

(viii) maintain membership in at least one information sharing
program; and

  (ix) retain their own IT, data and security experts and
consultants as they deem necessary.

The Home Depot shareholder derivative settlement agreement offers
a valuable example of cybersecurity-focused corporate governance
practices to all companies, including consumer-facing retailers,
for implementing data breach protections and conducting post-
breach remedial actions.  Additionally, companies should consider
using tools such as Privacy Impact Assessments (PIA) and Data
Protection Impact Assessments (DPIA), designed to assess privacy
and security frameworks, are also important in identifying risks
and implementing necessary processes to meet regulatory and
business expectations. [GN]


HOMELAND SECURITY: Osorio-Martinez Appeals Ruling to 3rd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jethzabel Martiza Aguilar Mancia, Carmen Aleyda Lobo-
Mejia, Maria Delmi Martinez Nolasco and Wendy Amparo Osorio
Martinez filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
titled Wendy Osorio Martinez, et al. v. Attorney General United
States, et al., Case No. 5-17-cv-01747, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 25,
2017, the proposed class action lawsuit, which was filed on April
17, 2017, in Philadelphia, is brought by four mothers fleeing
violence in Central America.  The Plaintiffs allege that the new
administration's rush to deport their children violates a
longstanding settlement.

The children in question all successfully petitioned the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services last year, in the waning days
of the Obama administration, for SIJ status.  Short for special
immigrant juvenile, SIJ status was created in 1990 by Congress for
foreign-born children who meet certain criteria, such having
experienced abuse, neglect or abandonment.  The mothers say it
allows at-risk minors under the age of 21 "to remain in the United
States legally and permanently" while they apply for a green card.

Homeland security is an American umbrella term for the national
effort to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient
against terrorism and other hazards where American interests,
aspirations, and ways of life can thrive to the national effort to
prevent terrorist attacks within the United States.

The appellate case is captioned as Wendy Osorio Martinez, et al.
v. Attorney General United States, et al., Case No. 17-2159, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants WENDY AMPARO OSORIO MARTINEZ; CARMEN ALEYDA
LOBO-MEJIA, Individually and on behalf of her minor child, A.D.M.-
L., and all other similarly situated; MARIA DELMI MARTINEZ
NOLASCO, Individually, and on behalf of her minor child, J.E.L.-
M., and all others similarly situated; and JETHZABEL MARTIZA
AGUILAR MANCIA, Individually, and on behalf of her minor child,
V.G.R.-A., and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Bridget Cambria, Esq.
          Jacquelyn M. Kline, Esq.
          CAMBRIA AND KLINE, PC
          532 Walnut Street
          Reading, PA 19601
          Telephone: (484) 926-2014
          E-mail: bridget.cambria@cambriaklinelaw.com
                  jackie.kline@cambriaklinelaw.com

               - and -

          Carol A. Donohoe, Esq.
          P.O. Box 12912
          Reading, PA 19612
          Telephone: (610) 370-7956

               - and -

          Jessica Rickabaugh, Esq.
          Anthony C. Vale, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          217 Ryers Avenue
          Philadelphia, PA 1012
          Telephone: (215) 981-4308
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: rickabaughj@pepperlaw.com
                  Valea@pepperlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ACTING
DIRECTOR UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT OFFICE and FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT are represented by:

          Thomas W. Hussey, Esq.
          Jeff Sessions, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 878
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044


HONDA OF AMERICA: Faces "Cooper" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES COOPER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, 4212 Carona Street Springfield, Ohio 45503 Plaintiff,
vs. HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC., c/o Statutory Agent Corp., 52
East Gay Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-00460-GCS-TPK (S.D. Ohio, May 26, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff
and other similarly-situated employees were only paid for work
performed between their scheduled start and stop times, and were
not paid for the following work performed before their scheduled
start times and after their scheduled stop times, including, but
not limited to, donning and doffing safety glasses, a bump cap,
Kevlar shirt, Kevlar pants, Kevlar gloves and sleeves, and steel
toe boots.

The case was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is an Ohio corporation that operates manufacturing
facilities in various locations in Ohio.  Plaintiff was employed
by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt employee at Defendant's
Marysville, Ohio location.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     Michaela Calhoun, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER, LLC
     7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
     Massillon, OH 44646
     Phone: 330-470-4428
     Fax: 330-754-1430
     E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
             sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
             mcalhoun@ohlaborlaw.com


HUMANA AT HOME: "Cruz" Labor Lawsuit Transferred to M.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned HARRY CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HUMANA AT HOME 1, INC.
And HUMANA, INC., Defendant (originally S.D. Fla., April 11,
2017), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida as Case No. 8:17-cv-01234-RAL-JSS,
according to a case docket dated May 24, 2017.

The case alleges that Plaintiff was denied overtime pay required
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant, HUMANA AT HOME 1, INC., is a multi-line healthcare
enterprise that provides programs and related services to
Medicare-insured individuals throughout Florida and the United
States.  Plaintiff, HARRY CRUZ, is an adult resident of the State
of Florida and has been employed by Defendants as a "Personal
Health Coach", "Healthcare Coordinator."[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

     John Clark Davis, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. DAVIS
     623 Beard St.
     Tallahassee, FL 32303
     Phone: (850) 222-4770
     Fax: (850) 222-3119
     E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net

        - and -

     Sean Parnell Culliton, Esq.
     SEAN CULLITON, ESQ., LLC
     150 John Knox Rd.
     Tallahassee, FL 32303
     Phone: (850) 385-9455
     Fax: (813) 441-1999
     E-mail: sean.culliton@gmail.com

        - and -

     Jeremiah Joseph Talbott, Esq.
     JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, PA
     900 East Moreno Street
     Pensacola, FL 32503
     Phone: (850) 437-9600
     Fax: (850) 437-0906
     E-mail: civilfilings@talbottlawfirm.com

Respondent(s) are represented by:

     Stephanie Leigh Adler-Paindiris, Esq.
     JACKSON LEWIS, PC
     Suite 1285
     390 N Orange Ave
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Phone: (407) 246-8440
     Fax: (407) 246-8441
     E-mail: adlers@jacksonlewis.com

        - and -

     Amanda Simpson, Esq.
     JACKSON LEWIS, PC
     Suite 1285
     390 N Orange Ave
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Phone: (407) 425-7010
     Fax: (407) 425-2747
     E-mail: amanda.simpson@jacksonlewis.com


ILLINOIS BELL: LaMarr Wins Class Cert. Bid; Hearing on Aug. 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 24, 2017, in the case entitled
Jacquelyne LaMarr, et al. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08660 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.

For the reasons stated in the Court's memorandum opinion, the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification and
approval of class notice is granted.

Status hearing is reset to August 29, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.  Status
hearing set for June 6, 2017, was stricken.

The minute entry also states that the joint motion to modify
scheduling orders is granted as follows:

   -- All expert discovery shall be noticed in time to be
      complete by August 25, 2017;

   -- Dispositive motions are to be filed by September 22, 2017;

   -- Responses to dispositive motions, if any, are to be filed
      by October 20, 2017; and

   -- Replies, if any, are to be filed by November 14, 2017.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VguazCoS


INDIANA: BMV Supervisor Fired Amid Hoosier Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Tony Cook, writing for IndyStar, reports that a supervisor at the
Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles and her son -- also a BMV
employee -- have been fired after an internal fraud investigation.

But the BMV is releasing few details about the firings, rekindling
concerns about openness at an agency that has overcharged
customers, grappled with an ethics scandal and faced questions
about politically motivated hirings.

Stacy Cox, the accounting supervisor at BMV's headquarters in
Indianapolis, was terminated March 21 for providing false
information during an investigation by the agency's Fraud and
Security Enforcement division.

Her son, Richard Cody Pringle, who also worked at the central
office as a driver's license printer, was terminated two weeks
later for the same reason.

The fraud investigation was prompted by the employees' personal
vehicle transactions, including allegations of the employees
submitting false monetary amounts paid for those vehicles,
according to Ashley Hungate, a spokeswoman for the state personnel
department.

In phone interviews, Cox and Pringle defended their actions as
oversights rather than deliberate misconduct.

IndyStar requested a copy of the fraud investigation reports, but
the BMV refused to provide them. citing exemptions to the state's
public records law regarding personnel matters.

Such reports, however, are typically released when they involve
nonemployees.

Government watchdogs say the agency's decision to withhold reports
involving BMV employees is concerning, especially since employees
fired after fraud investigations have landed sensitive jobs with
BMV contractors in the past.

Sarah Bonick, a spokeswoman for the BMV, said the agency must
strike a balance between employee privacy and transparency.

Cox told IndyStar the investigation began when she bought a
vehicle from an east-side junkyard, Barlow's Used Auto Parts,
where her brother worked.

The vehicle turned out to be stolen.  She said she was unaware
that the vehicle was stolen when she bought it.

BMV investigators later found she had titled a box truck five
years earlier in her name and listed the purchase price as $0,
even though her then-boyfriend had paid for it, she said.

The BMV takes such indiscretions seriously because they can muddy
the vehicle's ownership history and allow the new owner to avoid
title costs, which include a 7 percent sales tax based on the
purchase price listed on the title.

Ms. Pringle said BMV investigators questioned him about several
vehicles he bought or sold, including a pickup truck he purchased
from the owner of Barlow's, where his uncle worked.

"They accused me of lying about how much I paid for it,"
Ms. Pringle said.  "I can't remember the amounts."

He then sold that vehicle for $500 and "some handguns," he said,
but only listed the $500 cash on the title work.  He later told
BMV investigators there was only one handgun involved in the
exchange, though in reality there were "three or four," he said.

"It was none of their business how many guns I traded for," he
said.

In another case, he purchased a vehicle for $2,000 from a friend,
but paid only $100 in cash and agreed to work off the remaining
$1,900 at his friend's shop, he said.  So he listed $100 on the
title work.

While the terminations may be justified, advocates of open
government said the BMV should be more transparent about such
situations.

"As a citizen, I am always concerned when a government agency
fails to be transparent regarding offenses or violations that
occur at the hands of its employees," said Zachary Baiel,
president of the Indiana Coalition for Open Government. "Without
access to this information, the public cannot be assured the
necessary accountability has been met."

Julia Vaughn, public policy director for Common Cause Indiana,
shared his concerns.

"While keeping these records under wraps serves their immediate
interest of avoiding public scrutiny about what happened here, in
the long term, it's just another reason for the public not to have
faith in this agency," she said.  "All I can think is there is
information embarrassing to someone at a higher level who is still
at the BMV."

IndyStar reported in 2015 that at least three fired BMV employees
were later hired by a BMV contractor, where they continued to have
access to sensitive information stored on BMV terminals.

Two of the employees had been fired after a fraud investigation;
the other was terminated for poor performance that supervisors
said opened up the agency to potential fraud.

As in this latest case, the BMV declined to release any of the FSE
investigation reports related to those employees.

Ms. Bonick said the BMV now has safeguards to ensure that fired
employees don't end up working in similar positions for outside
contractors.

"All potential employees who will have access to BMV terminals or
our transaction system while working for a contractor are vetted
through the State Personnel Department and also the BMV's Fraud
and Security Enforcement Department," she said in an email.  "Any
former State of Indiana employee, not just those who previously
worked for the BMV, who have been flagged as Not Eligible For
Rehire are not approved."

The firings come after several turbulent years for the agency.
Since 2013, the BMV has admitted to overcharging Hoosier motorists
about $90 million in taxes and fees. Those overcharges have since
been refunded, but one of two class-action lawsuits over the fees
remains unresolved.

An IndyStar investigation in 2015 found that top BMV officials
knew for years they were likely gouging Hoosier motorists with
excessive fees, but chose to ignore or cover up the overcharges
rather than refund the extra money and adjust to significant
budget losses.

The financial mismanagement raised serious questions about the
qualifications of several top BMV officials and the role that
political connections played in their hiring.

IndyStar also found that Shawn Walters, the agency's former chief
of staff, encouraged the use of a new fee, then went to work for a
private vendor that benefited from it.

The series of controversies led then-Gov. Mike Pence to shake up
BMV leadership and cancel the state's contract with the
controversial outside vendor.  The state ethics commission later
fined Walters $500 for violating state ethics rules -- an amount
that government accountability experts criticized as too low.

The BMV has since worked with lawmakers to streamline the state's
complicated system of fees. [GN]


INTRA-CELLULAR: Pakdeljam Files Suit Over Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Pakdeljam, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc.,
Sharon Mates, Lawrence J. Hineline And Kimberly E. Vanover,
Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-03197 (E.D. N.Y., May 26, 2017) seeks to
recover damages caused by violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that
is focused on the discovery and clinical development of
innovative, small molecule drugs that address underserved medical
needs in neuropsychiatric and neurological disorders by targeting
intracellular signaling mechanisms within the central nervous
system, or CNS. The Company's lead drug candidate, ITI-007 also
known as lumateperone, is supposed to treat schizophrenia,
behavioral disturbances in dementia, bipolar disorder and other
neuropsychiatric and neurological disorders.

Defendants failed to disclose that the findings related to
toxicity observed in animals treated with lumateperone posed a
safety concern.

On this news, Intra-Cellular's share price fell $3.33, or over
24%, to close at $10.49 on May 1, 2017. Plaintiff owns Intra-
Cellular securities and lost substantially upon these disclosures.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Hui M. Chang, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             hchang@pomlaw.com

              - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Vazquez Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gerardo Vazquez, Gloria Roman and Juan Aguilar filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Gerardo
Vazquez, et al. v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l Inc., Case No. 3:16-
cv-05961-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs seek to recover minimum wage, overtime pay, other wage
protections and other benefits of employment, such as eligibility
for unemployment and workers' compensation, statutory enhancement
of damages as allowed by law, and attorneys' fees and costs under
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law, New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, California Business and
Professions Code, New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act and the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., is a domestic corporation
with its principal place of business in Alpharetta, Georgia.  The
Company operates a franchise system by which franchisees sell and
administers Jan-Pro cleaning workers, including the work of the
Plaintiffs.

The appellate case is captioned as Gerardo Vazquez, et al. v. Jan-
Pro Franchising Int'l Inc., Case No. 17-16096, 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 June 26, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on July 24, 2017;

   -- Appellants Juan Aguilar, Gloria Roman and Gerardo Vazquez's
      opening brief is due on September 5, 2017;

   -- Appellee Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.'s
      answering brief is due on October 2, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants GERARDO VAZQUEZ, GLORIA ROMAN and JUAN
AGUILAR, and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC., is
represented by:

          Jeffrey Mark Rosin, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH AND PROPHETE, LLP
          535 Boylston St.
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 849-7882
          Facsimile: (617) 849-7872
          E-mail: jrosin@constangy.com


JIVE SOFTWARE: Faces "Ward" Suit Over Wave Merger
-------------------------------------------------
BRYAN WARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. JIVE SOFTWARE, INC., ELISA STEELE,
MARGARET BREYA, STEVE DARCY, ROBERT FRANKFURT, PHIL KOEN, TOM
REILLY, CHUCK ROBEL, GABRIELLE TOLEDANO, BALAJI YELAMANCHILI, and
TONY ZINGALE, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02993-WHO (N.D. Cal.,
May 24, 2017), alleges that the recommendation statement that
solicit the tendering of shares of the Company's common stock
omits material facts necessary to make the statements therein not
false or misleading in violation of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act.

Specifically, Defendants solicit the tendering of shares of
Company's common stock to ESW Capital, LLC through ESW's wholly
owned subsidiary, Wave Systems Corp.  The Tender Offer, commenced
on May 12, 2017, is set to expire at midnight Eastern Time on June
9, 2017. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $462
million.

Allegedly, the Recommendation Statement is materially deficient
and misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose material
information about the financial projections prepared by the
Company and relied upon by the Company's financial advisor, the
potential conflicts of interest faced by the financial advisor,
and the potential conflicts of interest faced by Company
management.

JIVE SOFTWARE, INC. furnishes social business software products
and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 291-2420
     Fax: (415) 484-1294

        - and -

     Donald J. Enright, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 524-4290
     Fax: (202) 333-2121
     Email: denright@zlk.com

KBR INC: July 25 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

IN RE KBR, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Case No. 4:14-CV-01287
Judge Lee H. Rosenthal

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

To:     All Persons and Entities Who Purchased or Otherwise
Acquired the Publicly Traded Common Stock of KBR, Inc. ("KBR")
During the Period from September 11, 2013 through July 30, 2014,
Inclusive (the "Class Period"), and Who Were Damaged Thereby (the
"Class").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE
CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS
ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, that the above-
captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class
action on behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Class by definition as set
forth in the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action,
Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
(the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Court-appointed Class
Representatives Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and
IBEW Local No. 58 / SMC NECA Funds, on behalf of themselves and
the Class, and Defendants KBR, William P. Utt, Susan K. Carter,
Dennis S. Baldwin, and Brian K. Ferraioli (collectively,
"Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action in
the amount of $10,500,000 in cash that, if approved by the Court,
will resolve all claims in the Action (the "Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas in the United States Courthouse, Courtroom 11-B, 515 Rusk
Avenue, Houston, TX 77002 at 2:00 p.m. on July 25, 2017 (the
"Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether
the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice
as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
as of April 5, 2017; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation
for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve
Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
payment of expenses.  The Court may change the date of the
Settlement Hearing without providing another notice.  You do NOT
need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution
from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY
PAYMENT.  If you have not yet received the Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by visiting the website dedicated to the Action,
www.KBRSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

KBR Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o Epiq
P.O. Box 4290
Portland, OR 97208-4290
(844) 685-5620

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class
Counsel:

Louis Gottlieb, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
www.labaton.com
(888) 219-6877

John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
www.blbglaw.com
(800) 380-8496

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked or received no later than August 19, 2017.  If you
are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form,
you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether
favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the
Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that
it is received no later than July 4, 2017.  If you properly
exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether
favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and payment of expenses must be filed with the Court and mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are filed and received no later than July
4, 2017.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

All questions about this notice, the Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
the Claims Administrator or Class Counsel.

DATED: May 5, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
URL: www.KBRSecuritiesLitigation.com


KOREA KING: Foundation for Consumers Mulls Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Thai BPS reports that The Foundation for Consumers will launch a
class action lawsuit against the importer and distributor of Korea
King cooking pans on behalf of 109 buyers of the kitchen utensil.

This came after Wizard Solution, the sole distributor the
controversial cooking pans rejected the foundation's offer to
mediate with the company on behalf of the consumers but would
directly deal with them.

Foundation secretary-general Ms Saree Ongsomwang said on May 25
that the class action lawsuit would set an example for the
business sector to pay more attention their advertising to make
sure that their products match with the advertised quality.

Mr Sitthawat Pakinsakulpat, a volunteer lawyer, said consumers
would get fairer treatment if the collectively lodge a class
action suit instead of separately filing cases.

Ms Narumon Mekborisut, head of the Centre for the Protection of
Consumers' Rights, said each buyer would demand compensation for
the price each paid for the cooking pans, 3,900 baht for Diamond
series and 3,300 baht for the Gold series, plus other expenses
incurred such as travel expenses.

She expected the lawsuit to be filed with the court in June. [GN]


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Barber" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Oliver Huston Barber, III, filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Oliver Barber, III v. Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:17-cv-00034, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at
Louisville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks to recover full benefits due and a declaration of the right
to receive future benefits without improper offsets; prejudgment
and post-judgment interest at 12% per annum; enjoinment of the
Defendant from making additional illegal offsets from benefit
payments and from administering claims without using the
appropriate and requisite tax reporting information; disgorgement
of any offsets from benefit payments withheld without using
appropriate tax reporting information and any offsets in excess of
the amounts properly offset as shown by appropriate tax reporting
information; legal fees and such other relief as is just and
proper under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Mr. Barbers was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and filed for
disability under his insurance plan.  Lincoln reduced his monthly
benefits after finding out Barber's was doing freelance political
consulting work.  He claims this as baseless and illegal.

The appellate case is captioned as Oliver Barber, III v. Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 17-5588, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant brief is due on July 10, 2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due on August 9, 2017; and

   -- A Telephone Mediation conference has been scheduled for
      June 26, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. (ET) with Rod McFaull.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant OLIVER HUSTON BARBER, III, on behalf of
himself and two classes of similarly situated persons, is
represented by:

          Clark C. Johnson, Esq.
          Marjorie A. Farris, Esq.
          Michael T. Leigh, Esq.
          STITES & HARBISON PLLC
          400 West Market Street, Suite 1800
          Louisville, KY 40202-3352
          Telephone: (502) 587-3400
          E-mail: mfarris@stites.com
                  cjohnson@stites.com
                  mleigh@stites.com

Defendant-Appellee LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:

          Edmund Scott Sauer, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
          1600 Division Street, Suite 700
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 244-2582
          Facsimile: (615) 252-6374
          E-mail: esauer@bradley.com


LONG VALLEY PHARMACY: "Patel" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pinakin Patel, and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
Long Valley Pharmacy, Inc. and Mickey Singh, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03798, (D.N.J., May 27, 2017), seeks
payment of compensation for all overtime pay due, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and for all
other appropriate relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Defendants operate a store in Long Valley, Morris County, NJ where
Plaintiff works as a delivery personnel. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, New Jersey 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


LYFT INC: Overton Appeals Ruling in "Cotter" Suit to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Intervenor Archie Overton filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft, Inc.,
Case No. 3:13-cv-04065-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, several
objectors have filed separate appeals in the lawsuit, including
Kerry Ann Sweeney.

On May 4, 2017, the District Court gave final approval to a $27
million settlement between ride-hail app Lyft and its drivers, who
claimed they were classified as independent contractors so Lyft
could skirt minimum wage laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft,
Inc., Case No. 17-16072, 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 June 19, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on July 20, 2017;

   -- Appellant Archie Overton's opening brief is due on
      August 28, 2017;

   -- Appellees Patrick Cotter, Jeffrey Knudtson, Lyft, Inc. and
      Alejandra Maciel's answering brief is due on September 28,
      2017; and

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

Movant-Appellant and Proposed Intervenor ARCHIE OVERTON of San
Leandro, California, appears pro se.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees PATRICK COTTER, ALEJANDRA MACIEL and JEFFREY
KNUDTSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:


          Matthew David Carlson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          466 Geary Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee LYFT, INC., is represented by:

          Simona Agnolucci, Esq.
          R. James Slaughter, Esq.
          KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          E-mail: sagnolucci@keker.com
                  rslaughter@kvn.com

               - and -

          Peder Kristian Batalden, Esq.
          Felix Shafir, Esq.
          HORVITZ & LEVY LLP
          3601 West Olive Avenue, 8th Floor
          Burbank, CA 91505-4681
          Telephone: (818) 995-0800
          E-mail: pbatalden@horvitzlevy.com
                  fshafir@horvitzlevy.com

               - and -

          Jon B. Eisenberg, Esq.
          HORVITZ & LEVY LLP
          509 Tucker Street
          Healdsburg, CA 95448-4428
          Telephone: (707) 395-0111
          E-mail: jeisenberg@horvitzlevy.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. McInerney, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-4871
          Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
          E-mail: tmm@ogletreedeakins.com


MARKET AMERICA: Yang Files Suit Over Illegal Pyramid Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chuanjie Yang and Ollie Lan, individuals and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Market America, Inc., Market America
Worldwide, Inc., James Howard Ridinger, Loren Ridinger, Marc
Ashley and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04012, (C.D.
Cal., May 30, 2017), seeks rescission of the agreements made
between Plaintiff and Defendants; recovery of all consideration
paid pursuant to the scheme, less any amounts paid or
consideration provided to the participant pursuant to the
Defendants' business entered into by Plaintiffs; damages for the
financial losses incurred by Plaintiff and for injury to their
business and property; restitution and disgorgement of monies;
temporary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining MarketAmerica
from paying its Distributors recruiting rewards that are unrelated
to retail sales to ultimate users and from further unfair,
unlawful, fraudulent and/or deceptive acts; cost of suit including
reasonable attorneys' fees, relief and pre- and post-judgment
interest under California's Endless Chain Scheme Law (California
Penal Code and California Civil Code), Unfair Competition Law and
False Advertising Law under the under the Business and Professions
Code and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Defendants allegedly run an illegal pyramid scheme, taking in
money in return for the right to sell products that they do not
even manufacture and reward for recruiting other participants into
the pyramid. Enrollees, such as the Plaintiff, must pay a start-up
fee of $399.00 to MarketAmerica as well as a monthly fee of
$129.00 per month. They then must spend $130 to $300 on products
offered on their website and training costs between $20 and $200.
Rewards are paid in the form of cash bonuses, where primarily
earned for recruitment, as opposed to merchandise sales to
consumers, thus constituting a fraudulent business model.

Market America, Inc. and Market America Worldwide, Inc. are North
Carolina corporations that also operates and manages the alleged
pyramid scheme in California with James Howard Ridinger as founder
and CEO. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake J. Lindemann, Esq.
      LINDEMANN LAW FIRM, APC
      433 N. Camden Drive, 4th Floor
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310)-279-5269
      Facsimile: (310)-300-0267
      E-mail: blake@lawbl.com

              - and -

      Daren M. Schlecter, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAREN M. SCHLECTER, APC
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 830
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310)-553-5747


MATRIX HOME: Faces "Valdes" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
LOURDES VALDES and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), Plaintiff, vs. MATRIX HOME CARE, LLC, PRENILLE OSTBERG,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21984-DPG (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2017),
alleges that Defendants have employed several other similarly
situated employees like Plaintiff who have not been paid overtime
and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours
weekly in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate home care/assisted living facilities.
Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an ALF worker/attendant tending
to the infirmed.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Tel: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


MAXIMUS INC: Bais Yaakov Sues Over Illegally Faxed Ads
------------------------------------------------------
Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Maximus, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 7:17-cv-03984, (S.D. N.Y., May 25, 2017) seeks statutory
damages in excess of $2,500,000; an injunction against Defendant
prohibiting it from committing further violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act; and such further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.

Plaintiff is a New York religious corporation, with its principal
place of business at 11 Smolley Drive, Monsey, New York 10952.
Defendant sent fax advertisements without Plaintiff's express
invitation or permission. Defendant, operating as MaxOutreach,
offers recruitment services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
      Bellin & Associates LLC
      85 Miles Avenue
      White Plains, NY 10606
      Tel: (914) 358-5345
      Fax: (212) 571-0284
      Email: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


MEDICREDIT INC: Court Denied as Moot Hartman's Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly denied as moot the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled
MELISSA HARTMAN v. MEDICREDIT, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No.
2:15-cv-01596-MPK (W.D. Pa.).

On October 3, 2016, Ms. Hartman filed the Motion asking that the
Court certify the action as a class action and her as class
representative.

On April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff and Defendant Medicredit, Inc.
filed a Joint Motion for an Order Conditionally Certifying Class
and Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Agreement.
On May 10, 2017, the Court entered a Preliminary Approval Order
which, inter alia, certified the action as a class action and
appointed the Plaintiff as the class representative.

In light of the Joint Motion and the current posture of the case,
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is moot.

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


MEYERKORD & MEYERKORD: Pavone's Motion to Certify Class Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Amy J. St. Eve denies, in the Court's discretion,
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification filed in the
lawsuit styled Antonio Pavone, et al. v. Meyerkord & Meyerkord,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01539 (N.D. Ill.).

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pWEcqOXN


MICHAELS STORES: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Forman, Esq. -- jforman@bakerlaw.com -- of
BakerHostetler, wrote that early in May, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit in Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., No. 16-
260 (L) (2d Cir. May 2, 2017), affirmed the dismissal of a data
breach class action brought against Michaels Stores Inc.
(Michaels) for failing to sufficiently allege an injury to support
standing.  This decision is significant because it widens the
existing circuit split on what allegations constitute an injury-
in-fact, particularly where a plaintiff seeks standing by alleging
a substantial risk of harm resulting from a data breach.

Background and Procedural History

In January 2014, Michaels notified its customers of "possible
fraudulent activity on some U.S. payment cards" and then later
confirmed that hackers obtained information from its systems
relating to approximately 2.6 million credit and debit cards.
Although Michaels noted that there was no evidence that the
hackers retrieved any other customer information (e.g., names,
addresses or personal identification numbers), it offered its
customers 12 months of free credit monitoring services. Plaintiff
learned that she was one of the affected customers after a credit
card she used for payment at Michaels was later physically
presented twice in Ecuador for attempted payments she did not
authorize. Plaintiff did not pay for either charge and canceled
her credit card promptly thereafter.

Plaintiff filed a data breach class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging she suffered
actual damages and faces an increased risk of future harm.  Yet
the court dismissed the class action for lack of standing because
Plaintiff did not allege that she suffered any unreimbursed
charges. 153 F.Supp.3d 577 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2015).  Among other
things, the court found that Plaintiff did not allege that she was
required to pay the charges made in Ecuador, and that any
allegations regarding time or money spent to mitigate the data
breach did not support an injury-in-fact.  The court also found
Plaintiff's allegations of increased risk of future harm to be
unavailing because nearly two years had passed and she had not
experienced any additional fraudulent charges after she canceled
her credit card.

Second Circuit Decision

On appeal, the Second Circuit found that Plaintiff did not satisfy
the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Clapper v. Amnesty
Int'l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1147 (2013), that a plaintiff must
allege an injury that is "concrete, particularized, and actual or
imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and
redressable by a favorable ruling."  The Second Circuit reasoned
that Plaintiff "never was either asked to pay, nor did pay, any
fraudulent charge."  The Second Circuit also reasoned that
Plaintiff did not plead any specifics about the amount of time or
money she spent monitoring her credit. Moreover, the Second
Circuit found that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a
future injury, which must be "certainly impending" and not "simply
speculative," because she promptly canceled her credit card after
the breach and did not allege that any other personally
identifiable information (PII) was stolen.  Although the Second
Circuit attempted to distinguish the facts and circumstances in
Whalen from those in some of the cases discussed below, its
application seemed to deepen the existing split between various
circuit courts on what constitutes a substantial risk of harm in
data breach class actions.

Circuit Split on Pleading Standard for Substantial Risk of Harm

With Whalen, the Second Circuit joined the First, Third and Fourth
Circuits, which also require heightened pleading to establish an
injury in data breach class actions when alleging substantial risk
of harm. See Reilly v. Ceridian Corp., 664 F.3d 38 (3rd Cir.
2011); Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2017); cf. Katz v.
Pershing, LLC, 672 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2012) (interpreting risk of
harm where no breach occurred but defendant allegedly failed to
adequately protect information).  These circuits require pleading
more than merely the fact that a plaintiff's PII was stolen to
support standing. And neither the Second nor the Fourth Circuit
inferred a threat of future harm from an offer to provide free
credit monitoring services to affected individuals.

In contrast, both the Sixth and Seventh Circuits have made such an
inference. See, e.g., Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794
F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015). And the Sixth, Seventh and Ninth
Circuits have also found that a plaintiff has standing where the
data breach allegedly targeted PII and mitigation costs have been
incurred. See, e.g., Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F.3d
688 (7th Cir. 2015); Krottner v. Starbucks Corp., 628 F.3d 1139
(9th Cir. 2010).

Because this widening circuit split encourages forum shopping and
creates uncertainty about the pleading standard for substantial
risk of harm in data breach class actions, it is ripe for review
by the Supreme Court. [GN]


MITCHELL D. BLUHM: Sixth Cir. Appeal Filed in "Wolschlager" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alan Wolschlager filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Alan Wolschlager v. Law Offices of Mitchell D.
Bluhm & Associates, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00033, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand
Rapids.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
has asked the Court to certify three classes:

     "all persons who incurred a medical debt in Florida, where
     no payment was made on that debt five years prior to being
     sent a letter, from January 11, 2016, to January 11, 2017;

     "all persons who were sent a letter from January 11, 2016,
     to January 11, 2017, where the letter was the initial
     collection letter sent by The Law Office of Mitchell D.
     Bluhm & Associates, LLC, to the person; and

     "all persons who were sent a letter from January 11, 2016,
     to January 11, 2017, by The Law Office of Mitchell D. Bluhm
     & Associates, LLC, on behalf of CP Medical LLC, where Capio
     Partners LLC, or any related company other than CP Medical
     LLC, was the owner of the debt referenced in the letter".

The appellate case is captioned as Alan Wolschlager v. Law Offices
of Mitchell D. Bluhm & Associates, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-1598,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ALAN WOLSCHLAGER, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated persons, is represented by:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          350 S. Northwest HWY., Ste. 300
          Park Ridge, IL 60068
          Telephone: (847) 701 5290
          E-mail: cwarner@warnerlawllc.com

Defendants-Appellees LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL D. BLUHM &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; CAPIO
PARTNERS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; and CP MEDICAL
LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, are represented by:

          Michael D. Slodov, Esq.
          SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC
          15 E. Summit St.
          Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
          Telephone: (440) 318-1073
          Facsimile: (216) 359-0049
          E-mail: mslodov@sessions-law.biz


MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM: April 2018 Claims Bar Date
-----------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in the class action lawsuit against
the Montana University System (MUS) captioned as, Gendron v. MUS.
Specifically, MUS has agreed to pay certain medical expenses that
were due under the MUS Health Beneits Plan (MUS Plan).

Individuals employed by MUS between Oct. 5, 2001 and Dec. 31,
2016, may be due money if the following two conditions exist:

     1. The employee or a family member incurred medical expenses
for injuries between October 5, 2001 and December 31, 2016; and

     2. The employee's medical expenses were not paid in full by
the MUS Plan because the medical expenses were paid or able to be
paid by another source, including another source of insurance.

For more information or to access an Acknowledgement and Claims
Form, go to http://choices.mus.edu/notice.aspor call the phone
number dedicated to this settlement, at 844-632-5699. Any claim
must be submitted in writing to the Montana University System on
or before April 13, 2018.


NANTHEALTH INC: Bucks County Fund Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned BUCKS COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. NANTHEALTH, INC., PATRICK SOON-SHIONG, PAUL A.
HOLT, MICHAEL S. SITRICK, KIRK K. CALHOUN, MARK BURNETT, EDWARD
MILLER, MICHAEL BLASZYK, JEFFRIES LLC, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC,
FIRST ANALYSIS SECURITIES CORPORATION, CANACCORD GENUITY INC., and
FBR CAPITAL MARKETS & CO., Defendants, Case No. BC-662330, (Cal.
Super., County of Los Angeles, May 22, 2017) was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May
26, 2017, and assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-03964.

The case is a securities suit.

NANTHEALTH, INC. -- http://nanthealth.com/-- operates as an
evidence-based personalized healthcare company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Boris Feldman, Esq.
     Cynthia A. Dy, Esq.
     Michael R. Petrocelli, Esq.
     WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
     650 Page Mill Road
     Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
     Phone: (650) 493-9300
     Fax: (650) 565-5100
     Email: boris.feldman@wsgr.com
     Email: cdy@wsgr.com
     Email: mpetrocelli@wsgr.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Three Teams Fail to Avert Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News, reports that three
National Football League teams must continue to fight off a class
action claiming they pushed painkillers on hurt athletes, though a
federal judge blew the whistle on May 15 on most claims against 32
teams.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup found only two former players
with claims against three teams -- the Green Bay Packers, Denver
Broncos, and Los Angeles Chargers -- could pursue their grievances
under Maryland's three-year statute of limitations.

Lead plaintiff Etopia Evans, widow of the late Charles "Chuck"
Evans, who played for the Minnesota Vikings and Baltimore Ravens,
sued all 32 NFL teams in May 2015.  Ms. Evans and 12 former
players say the teams conspired since at least 1964 to dole out
unprescribed pills and injections to put hurt athletes back in
play without warning them of the long-term effects.

Judge Alsup in February dismissed with prejudice conspiracy claims
against the teams, finding the players could not allege they
suffered financial harm within the four-year statute of
limitations.

In his May 15 ruling, Judge Alsup had harsh words for the
plaintiff's 124-page amended complaint, grumbling that much of it
repeated "the same sweeping criticisms and accusations, directed
against the NFL as a whole, that permeated" the previous
complaint.

"Only a fraction" of the complaint's 50 relevant pages of specific
allegations pertained to the named plaintiffs, rather than
potential class members not yet certified by the court, Judge
Alsup wrote.

"Plaintiffs do not have leave to patch up weaknesses in their
pleadings by expanding their numbers at this stage," Judge Alsup
ruled. "It is important at the outset to determine whether the
named plaintiffs can state claims for relief before deciding
whether or not they can represent a class."

But claims of intentional misrepresentation against 12 of the 32
teams could survive a motion to dismiss, Judge Alsup ruled.  The
plaintiffs said the teams falsely represented that they cared
about the players and prioritized their safety.

However, when considering the NFL teams' motion for summary
judgment, Judge Alsup found most of those claims were barred by
Maryland's statute of limitations.

Only two former players -- Alphonso Carreker and Reggie Walker --
suffered injuries within the three years before the lawsuit was
filed in May 2015, Alsup wrote.

Mr. Carreker, who played for the Green Bay Packers and Denver
Broncos from 1984 to 1991, had to get heart surgery in 2013 after
anti-inflammatory drugs stopped working because of resistance he'd
built up from taking painkillers during his career, according to
the complaint.

After suffering a sprained ankle while playing for the San Diego
Chargers (now the Los Angeles Chargers), Mr. Walker said he was
given Toradol injections by a team doctor before every game for
the rest of his career.  Now that he's retired, Mr. Walker
continues to feel pain in his ankles.

Those are the only claims that will proceed in the lawsuit and
serve as the basis for class certification due to Maryland's
statute of limitations, Alsup ruled.

Judge Alsup set a deadline of June 1 for the plaintiffs to file a
motion for class certification.

Attorneys for the proposed class of retired players and the NFL
teams did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment on
May 16.

The class is represented by William Sinclair --
bsinclair@mdattorney.com -- of Silverman Thompson Slutkin White in
Baltimore.

The NFL teams are represented by Jack DiCanio --
jack.dicanio@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
in Palo Alto.

Judge Alsup dismissed a similar lawsuit against the NFL in
December 2014.  An appeal of that ruling is pending in the Ninth
Circuit. [GN]


NEW MEXICO, USA: Cummings Appeals D.N.M. Ruling to 10th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Randy Cummings, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in their lawsuit entitled Cummings, et al. v.
Bussey, et al., Case No. 1:16-CV-00951-JAP-KK, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico - Albuquerque.

Celina Bussey is the Secretary of the New Mexico Department of
Workforce Solutions.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Cummings, et al. v. Bussey, et
al., Case No. 17-2079, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit.

Defendant Jason Dean previously filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit.  Jason Dean is the Director of the Labor
Relations Division of the Department of Workforce Solutions of the
State of New Mexico.  That appellate case is captioned as
Cummings, et al. v. Dean, Case No. 17-2072, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript order form, Entry of appearance and Docketing
      statement were due on June 6, 2017, for Jesus
      Aguilar-Murillo, Martin F. Alvarez, Armando Anchondo,
      Arthur Archuleta, Gustavo Berrospe, Harold Brown, Reyes
      Cabriales, David Carr, Rene Carrillo, Kevin Charvea, D.
      Jeremiah Cordova, Enrique Corona, Randy Cummings, Sergio
      Escobedo, Nathan Espalin, Cruz Gallegos, Robert J. Garcia,
      Richard Gonzales, Levi Gutierrez, Jason Head, Nick Hinojos,
      Robert G. Hitzman, Joshua Hoselton, Ronald Hubbard, Eloy A.
      Jaramillo, Kurt Johnson, David Larranaga, Charles W. Lees,
      Joseph Lopez, Michael Lopez, Rick Lopez, Andrew M. Lugo,
      Henry Lujan, Jaime Marquez, Robert Mendoza, David Montano,
      Dennis Moore, Robert Moreno, Henry Nez Jr., Levi Olivas,
      Thomas D. Payne, Angelo Rinaldi, Jose Rodriguez, Sergio A.
      Rojo, Chris Sweeney, Richard Tenorio, Josh Tillinghast,
      Cesar Torres, Tomas Trujillo, Jeffrey S. Wade, Bryan
      Wheeler and Grant Willis; and

   -- Notice of appearance was also due on June 6, 2017, for
      Celina Bussey and Jason Dean.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants RANDY CUMMINGS, CRUZ GALLEGOS, ROBERT J.
GARCIA, RICHARD GONZALES, ELOY A. JARAMILLO, DAVID LARRANAGA,
RICHARD LOPEZ, RICK LOPEZ, DAVID MONTANO, ANGELO RINALDI, CHRIS
SWEENEY, JOSH TILLINGHAST, TOMAS TRUJILLO, JEFFREY S. WADE, JOSHUA
HOSELTON, CHARLES W. LEES, JAIME MARQUEZ, ROBERT MENDOZA, ARMANDO
ANCHONDO, GUSTAVO BERROSPE, REYES CABRIALES, SERGIO ESCOBEDO,
JASON HEAD, NICK HINOJOS, ROBERT G. HITZMAN, MICHAEL LOPEZ, JOSE
RODRIGUEZ, SERGIO A. ROJO, RICHARD TENORIO, CESAR TORRES, GRANT
WILLIS, HAROLD BROWN, RENE CARRILLO, HENRY NEZ, JR., KURT JOHNSON,
JESUS AGUILAR-MURILLO, MARTIN F. ALVAREZ, ARTHUR ARCHULETA,
ENRIQUE CORONA, RONALD HUBBARD, ANDREW M. LUGO, HENRY LUJAN, DAVID
CARR, D. JEREMIAH CORDOVA, KEVIN CHARVEA, NATHAN ESPALIN, LEVI
GUTIERREZ, DENNIS MOORE, ROBERT MORENO, LEVI OLIVAS, THOMAS D.
PAYNE and BRYAN WHEELER, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Stephen Curtice, Esq.
          James Montalbano, Esq.
          Shane Youtz, Esq.
          YOUTZ & VALDEZ, PC
          900 Gold Avenue, SW
          Albuquerque, NM 87102-0000
          Telephone: (505) 244-1200
          Facsimile: (505) 244-9700
          E-mail: stephen@youtzvaldez.com
                  james@youtzvaldez.com
                  shane@youtzvaldez.com

Defendants-Appellees CELINA BUSSEY, Secretary of the New Mexico
Department of Workforce Solutions; and JASON DEAN, as the Director
of the Labor Relations Division of the New Mexico Department of
Workforce Solutions, in their individual capacities, are
represented by:

          Jason J. Lewis, Esq.
          MORRISSEY LEWIS
          2501 Rio Grande Boulevard, NW, Suite B
          Albuquerque, NM 87104
          Telephone: (505) 247-3800

               - and -

          Sean Olivas, Esq.
          KELEHER & MCLEOD, P.A.
          201 Third Street NW, Suite 1200
          Albuquerque, NM 87103
          Telephone: (505) 346-4646
          Facsimile: (800) 444-1529
          E-mail: so@keleher-law.com


NIKITA LEVY: Baltimore Victim Says Settlement Isn't Justice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Swoope, writing for ABC News, reports that more than 8,000
patients of a Johns Hopkins gynecologist accused of secretly
recording pelvic exams will soon receive their share of a $190
million settlement.

While the amounts range between $1,800 to $28,000 for individuals,
some say it still isn't justice.

"It's been exhausting. It's been mentally draining. It's been
disheartening," said Stazi Gomez, who was a patient of Dr. Nikita
Levy from 2007 to 2013 when he committed suicide.

"He flashed that light on me several times and then I recalled the
behavior of the examinations that I had with him at the East
Baltimore Medical Center," she said. "Dr. Levy would either sing
the song 'Leila' by Eric Clapton or play the song 'Leila' and
start dancing and swing around that pen that hung around his neck
on the lanyard."

Leila was the daughter Gomez was carrying at the time.

Dr. Levy worked for Johns Hopkins for more than 20 years. In 2013,
it was discovered that he'd been taking pictures and taping his
patients during gynecology exams.

Two of Gomez's daughters became Dr. Levy's patients. They were
also part of the class action suit representing more than 8,344
victims.

"As a parent, we all want our children to be safe, secure and
nobody to harm them," Gomez said. "So for me I will never know if
Dr. Levy got my girls. I know he got me, but I don't know if he
got my daughters.

Even with the settlement checks in the mail, Gomez isn't happy.

"We can't stand to look at Dr. Levy's face," she said. "It gets us
in a panic mode."

The settlement was for about $190 million. Seven law firms will
split $32 million.

Gomez will receive the highest settlement category of up to
$28,000, one of her daughters will receive up to $21,000.

She says there's no justice in the settlement, but that her help
is through healing and supporting women through the Facebook page
she started.

"I found 14 women and at the end of the day, we're going to be
O.K."

The Johns Hopkins Health System fired Dr. Nikita Levy in 2013
after a co-worker alerted authorities about a pen-like camera he
wore. He killed himself days later, as federal investigators found
about 1,200 videos and 140 images on computers in his home. [GN]


NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Edwards Moves for Certification of Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Paul Edwards and Gerry Wendrovsky (the "Connecticut
Plaintiffs") and Sandra Desrosiers and Linda Soffron (the "New
Hampshire Plaintiffs") move the Court for an order certifying the
action captioned PAUL T. EDWARDS, GERRY WENDROVSKY, SANDRA
DESROSIERS and LINDA SOFFRON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. NORTH AMERICAN POWER AND GAS, LLC,
Case No. 3:14-cv-01714-VAB (D. Conn.), as a class action and
certifying the Connecticut and New Hampshire Classes:

     Connecticut Class

     All individual residential and small business consumers
     enrolled (either initially or through "rolling over" from a
     fixed rate plan) in a North American Power and Gas, LLC
     variable rate electricity plan in connection with a property
     located within Connecticut at any time from January 1, 2014,
     through and including the date of class certification.

     Specifically excluded from the Class are: the Defendant, the
     officers, directors and employees of Defendant; any entity
     in which Defendant has a controlling interest; any
     affiliate, legal representative of Defendant; the judge to
     whom this case is assigned and any member of the judge's
     immediate family; and any heirs, assigns and successors of
     any of the above persons or organizations in their capacity
     as such.

     New Hampshire Class

     All individual residential and small business consumers
     enrolled (either initially or through "rolling over" from a
     fixed rate plan) in a North American Power and Gas, LLC
     variable rate electricity plan in connection with a property
     located within New Hampshire at any time from January 1,
     2014, through and including the date of class certification.

     Specifically excluded from the Class are: the Defendant, the
     officers, directors and employees of Defendant; any entity
     in which Defendant has a controlling interest; any
     affiliate, legal representative of Defendant; the judge to
     whom this case is assigned and any member of the judge's
     immediate family; and any heirs, assigns and successors of
     any of the above persons or organizations in their capacity
     as such.

The Plaintiffs also move that the Court appoint the Connecticut
and New Hampshire Plaintiffs as Class Representatives of their
respective Classes, and to appoint Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP as
counsel for the Connecticut and New Hampshire Classes, and
Bouchard Kleinman & Wright P.A. as counsel for the New Hampshire
Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8MLvlN1Y

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
          Seth R. Klein, Esq.
          IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  craabe@ikrlaw.com
                  sklein@ikrlaw.com


OMEGA EMPIRE: "Linder" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Nicolas A. Linder and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Omega Empire, LLC (d/b/a Eat Greek Souvlak)
Vassilios Dimotakis a/k/a/ Billy Dimotakis, individually
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21958, (S.D. Fla., May 25, 2017),
seeks actual damages for unpaid half-time overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of forty weekly with interest, an equal
amount in double damages/liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs of suit and such other and further relief pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Eat Greek Souvlaki is a Greek restaurant with several locations
within the area of Miami-Dade County where Plaintiff was hired to
work as a cook, kitchen helper, dishwasher, and cleaning employee
from April 13 to May 8, 2017. He claims to be denied overtime pay
and wage statements. He was allegedly fired for complaining about
such. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OMNINET VILLAGE: Court Denies Stallworth's Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Gregory A. Presnell denied the Plaintiff's motion to
certify class submitted in the lawsuit captioned DONELL STALLWORTH
v. OMNINET VILLAGE, L.P., OMNINET VILLAGE LAKE, LLC and OMNINET
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., 6:16-cv-00546-GAP-DCI (M.D. Fla.).

Mr. Stallworth seeks to certify a class consisting of:

     [a]ll former and current residents of the Village Lakes
     Apartments, generally located at 4901 Bottlebrush Lane,
     Orlando, Florida, 32808, between the dates of August 12,
     2013 to present who had or have mold or mold spores, or
     excessive moisture in their apartment units.

Judge Presnell opined that by failing to identify a relevant
common question that this litigation could resolve, Mr. Stallworth
has also necessarily failed to demonstrate that the common
question(s) in this litigation predominate over individualized
questions that would need to be answered to resolve each class
members' claims.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ceT4GyED


PHELAN HALLINAN: Borg's Bid to Certify Nixed for Lack of Standing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Virginia M. Hernandez Covington denied the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled KELLY BORG,
on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals
v. PHELAN, HALLINAN, DIAMOND & JONES, PLLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-
02070-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla.).

In her complaint, Ms. Borg alleges that Phelan violated the
Federal Debt Collection Practices Act by, among other things,
"attempting to collect monthly installment payments due beyond
Florida's five year statute of limitations."

Judge Hernandez Covington stated that the Motion is denied for
lack of standing.  "As Borg does not have standing to bring a
claim challenging the $45 unknown tenant service fee, she cannot
serve as representative of the proposed class," Judge Hernandez
Covington opined.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TZuy53jf


PLAYERS BIKINI: Entertainers File Labor Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA COLLINS Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH WAYNE BARNETT
d/b/a PLAYERS BIKINI CLUB, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00092-J
(N.D. Tex., May 24, 2017), alleges that Defendant violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act because Defendant refuses to compensate
employees at the applicable minimum wage and overtime rates of
pay. Defendant purportedly does not pay employees any wages at
all. Their only compensation is in the form of tips received
directly from patrons.

Defendant employs entertainers at an adult entertainment club in
Amarillo known as Players Bikini Club.  Plaintiff worked as an
entertainer at Players Bikini Club.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
     Collin Wynne, Esq.
     YOUNG &NEWSOM, PC
     1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
     Amarillo, TX 79101
     Phone: (806) 331-1800
     Fax: (806) 398-9095
     E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
             collin@youngfirm.com


POWER DESIGN: Faces "Anderson" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE ANDERSON, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. POWER DESIGN, INC., SEL ELECTRIC INC. and
MARLON RAMIRES Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01607 (S.D. Tex., May
26, 2017), alleges that Defendants violated the FLSA by employing
Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a
workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing to compensate them]
for [their] employment in excess of [forty] hours . . . at a rate
not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which
[they are or were] employed."

Power Design is a national electrical contractor company.  SEL
Electric is a regional electrical contractor company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa Moore, Esq.
     Curt Hesse, Esq.
     MOORE & ASSOCIATES
     Lyric Center
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 222-6775
     Fax: (713) 222-6739


PROGISTICS DISTRIBUTION: "Petersson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Godfrey Petersson on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Progistics Distribution, Inc. and Does 1
to 100, Inclusive, Defendant, Case No. BC662714 (Cal. Super., May
24, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wage and overtime for all hours
worked, missed breaks premium, compensation for failure to provide
accurate and complete wage statements, waiting time penalties,
applicable civil penalties, injunctive relief and other equitable
relief, reasonable attorney's fees costs, and interest pursuant to
the California Labor Code.

Plaintiff worked as a dispatcher for Defendants' logistics
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: Transnational Suit Over Oil Spill Commences
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Emmerig, Esq., Michael Legg, Esq., and Jordan N. Phoustanis,
Esq., of Jones Day, in an article for Lexology, wrote that, a
transnational lawsuit over oil still has commenced in Australia.

The Background: Sanda v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty
Ltd raised the question as to whether the Federal Court of
Australia possesses the power to consider an extension of time on
the class members' statute-barred claims.

The Issue: The Federal Court of Australia may be an appropriate
forum for the resolution of transnational class action disputes
involving events occurring in external Australian territories and
beyond, including Indonesia.

Looking Ahead: The implication of this proceeding is that class
members whose claims are statute-barred may apply for an extension
of time, although each may, in certain circumstances, have to
apply to the Court individually. This was the position reached by
the Court in light of the Northern Territory limitations
legislation and may impose a significant evidentiary burden on
class members seeking an extension of the limitation period.

Following the 2009 Montara Oil Field oil spill in the Timor Sea,
an Indonesian seaweed farmer brought a class action in Australia
against the operator of the Montara Oil Field. The action was
commenced on behalf of a class of Indonesian seaweed farmers who
allegedly suffered loss as a result of the oil's sterilization of
certain Indonesian waters, causing a decline in seaweed
production. On 24 January 2017, Griffiths J handed down judgment
in Sanda v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd [2017] FCA
14 ("Sanda v PTTEP") on the separate question of whether the
Federal Court of Australia possesses the power to consider an
extension of time on the class members' statute-barred claims.

Issues

It was not contentious that Sanda and the class members had
commenced proceedings after the expiration of the relevant
statutory limitation period of three years, stipulated by section
12 of the Limitation Act 1981 (Northern Territory) ("Limitation
Act"). To sustain the action, Sanda would have to apply for an
extension of the limitation period in respect of not only his own
claim, but those of the class members he represented.

The question of whether, in a class action context, section 44 of
the Limitation Act may apply to the extension of the limitation
period on the claims of class members turned on whether a class
member:

   -- Is a "plaintiff" for the purpose of section 44 of the
Limitation Act; and

   -- Can, themself, be considered to institute the relevant class
action proceedings in satisfaction of the requirements of section
44.

Are Class Members Plaintiffs and Do They Institute Class Action
Proceedings?

Section 44(b) of the Limitation Act specifies that time may be
extended where a "plaintiff" (who is defined as a person bringing
an action and not a party to the action) ascertains new facts and
institutes an "action" (which is defined as including a proceeding
in a court of competent jurisdiction) after the expiration of the
relevant statutory limitation period. Justice Griffiths held that
the Limitation Act's definition of "plaintiff" is broad enough to
capture class members on whose behalf a class action proceeding is
instituted and the definition of "action" is sufficiently broad to
encompass any form of legal proceeding.

In light of the language of and legislative intention behind the
Federal Court Act, His Honour held that class members are properly
regarded as plaintiffs (for the purpose of the Limitation Act) who
have instituted proceedings. Furthermore, consistent with modern
principles of statutory interpretation, Justice Griffiths
concluded that class members must be understood to constitute
plaintiffs, at least in the context of the Limitation Act. A
contrary interpretation would lead to a "profoundly unlikely and
scarcely intended result" whereby the statute bar may not have
applied to the class members as it did to the representative
party.

Therefore, His Honour was satisfied that the Court's power not
only extended to considering extending time on the representative
party's claim but on the claims of each of the class members as
well.

Three Key Takeaways

   1. A class member, at least as far as the Limitation Act is
concerned, will be construed as a plaintiff in respect of a class
action in which it is represented. The notion that class members
are plaintiffs in their own right may have more widespread
implications, although broader ramifications will depend on the
context.

   2. An implication of treating class members as individual
plaintiffs is the potential diminishment of the efficiency of a
class action proceeding where many or all class members apply to
the court for an extension of time and the facts of each
application must be determined individually. This may also
increase the burden upon and cost to the defendant, if it should
seek to contest some or all of those applications.

   3. The FCA's decision in Sanda v PTTEP specifically turned on
the language of the Limitation Act. Proceed with caution when
extrapolating the implications of Griffith J's decision. [GN]


QES WIRELINE: "Meador" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Meador, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
QES WIRELINE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00586, (D.N.M., May
25, 2017), seeks overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest and all available penalty wages, all costs
and attorneys' fees incurred prosecuting this claim and such other
and further relief under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant provides wireline and other oilfield services to oil and
gas industry customers in New Mexico where Plaintiff worked as an
engineer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Tel: (214) 790-4454
      Fax: (469) 339-0204
      Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz

             - and -

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      Jay Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 749-1400
      Fax: (214) 749-1010


RED ROBIN: Brackley Moves for Final Approval of FLSA Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned CASSANDRA BRACKLEY, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and DANTE
BUTLER v. RED ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS, INC., RED ROBIN
INTERNATIONAL, INC., SWAN CONCEPTS, INC., RR FAYETTEVILLE LLC, RR
HALFMOON LLC, RR LATHAM LLC, RR POUGHKEEPSIE LLC, JOHN A. SWAN,
JR., an individual, Case No. 2:16-cv-00288-JMA-GRB (E.D.N.Y.), ask
the Court to:

   (1) finally certify the settlement class;

   (2) grant final approval of the Parties' Settlement Agreement
       and Release, as amended by the Parties' stipulation; and

   (3) grant final approval of the FLSA Settlement.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Garrett Kaske, Esq.
          SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100
          Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
          E-mail: tk@shulmankessler.com
                  gkaske@shulmankessler.com

               - and -

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twinning Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Court Approves Taylor's Notice & Consent Form
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Nelva Gonzales Ramos, in an agreed order, approves the
Notice and Consent to Join Wage Claim form in the lawsuit styled
CHARLES TAYLOR and RICHARD LaBRYER, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:16-cv-00502 (S.D. Tex.).

The Court authorized notice, and further held that:

   (1) Republic will produce to the Court-approved third-party
       administrator, Angeion Group, the contact information for
       each potential member of the Class;

   (2) "The Class" for purposes of this Order, are defined as
       those who have been employed as a residential, commercial,
       or industrial driver by Republic Services, Inc. and/or
       any of its subsidiaries anywhere in the United States
       other than North or South Carolina, at any time within the
       three years before the date of this Order and have been
       subject to a 30-minute meal period deduction and/or
       received DTS Awards;

   (3) Within 28 days of the Order, Republic will post a copy of
       the Notice and Consent Form at all subsidiaries or
       affiliated entities in the United States other than North
       or South Carolina that employ one or more potential Class
       members; and

   (4) The potential Class members will have a 60-day notice
       period to join the case such that Angeion Group or
       Plaintiffs' counsel must receive potential plaintiffs'
       Consent to join Wage Claim forms on or before 60 calendar
       days after Notice is distributed by Angeion Group to be
       considered timely.

A copy of the Agreed Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iQU2rIdN


ROSEVILLE, MI: Garner Seeks Consolidation and Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in these lawsuits filed a joint motion for
consolidation, certification of settlement class and preliminary
approval of settlement and class notice:

   (1) LAWRENCE M. GARNER, CHRISTOPHER GARNER, AND WILLIAM KAUPUS
       v. CITY OF ROSEVILLE, GLENN SEXTON, RODNEY BROWNING, Case
       No. 2:16-cv-10760-VAR-DRG (E.D. Mich.); and

   (2) CORDIA MICHIGAN, LLC, RUDALEV I, LLC, and GARNER
       PROPERTIES & MANAGEMENT, LLC v. CITY OF ROSEVILLE, GLENN
       SEXTON, RODNEY BROWNING, Case No. 2:16-cv-10986-VAR-DRG
       (E.D. Mich.)

The Settlement Class and Sub-Class is comprised of:

   Class: All persons and entities who currently own or at one
          time owned any non-owner occupied residential
          structures located within the City of Roseville who or
          which has been issued a misdemeanor ticket for failure
          to obtain a Certificate of Compliance under the City's
          Non-Owner-Occupied Housing Ordinance, and subsequently
          paid a fine at any time since January 1, 2010 through
          December 15, 2016.

   Sub-Class: All persons and entities who were not owners of
          non-owner occupied residential structures located
          within the City of Roseville, yet were issued a
          misdemeanor ticket for failure to obtain a Certificate
          of Compliance under the City's Non-Owner-Occupied
          Housing Ordinance from January 1, 2010 through
          December 15, 2016.

The parties also ask the Court to conditionally certify the
Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, to certify the Plaintiffs'
counsel as class counsel, and to set a date for the Fairness
Hearing and Final Hearing.

The Plaintiffs filed two class actions on March 3, 2016, and on
March 17, 2016.  The parties seek to consolidate those related
cases for purpose of settlement, as the Class Members in each of
those cases are identical.

In their allegations, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
improperly administered its Non-Owner-Occupied Housing Ordinance
in violation of due process rights and allegations of defamation
per se and allegations of an assumpsit action for restitution.

Under the Proposed Settlement, the City of Roseville has agreed to
establish a settlement fund of $150,000, which will be used in
significant part to pay the claims of the Settlement Class
Members, who are entitled to participate in the distribution of
the settlement proceeds pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
Class counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorney's
fees in the amount of $50,000, which represents one-third of the
settlement fund, plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses.  The
Defendants' will pay Named Plaintiffs $2,500 each from the
settlement fund for representing the Settlement Class as the Class
Representatives.  The cost of administering the claims through a
third-party administrator will also be paid from the settlement
fund.

Class Members may make a claim for all fines paid for each
misdemeanor ticket issued for failure to obtain the certificate of
compliance under the City's Non-Owner-Occupied Housing Ordinance.
Valid claims of the Class will be paid at the member's pro-rata
share of the settlement fund minus payments for attorney fees and
costs, and other payments.

Copies of the Motions filed in the Cases are available at no
charge at:

   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8TtXDYmg
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KkpH4A4d

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron D. Cox, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX, PLLC
          23380 Goddard Rd.
          Taylor, MI 48180
          Telephone: (734) 287-3664
          Facsimile: (734) 287-1277
          E-mail: aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Wasvary, Esq.
          MARK K. WASVARY, P.C.
          2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 100
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 649-5667
          E-mail: markwasvary@hotmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carlito H. Young, Esq.
          Stephanie S. Morita, Esq.
          JOHNSON, ROSATI, SCHULTZ & JOPPICH, PC
          27555 Executive Dr., Suite 250
          Farmington Hills, MI 48331
          Telephone: (248) 489-1726
          Facsimile: (248) 489-1726
          E-mail: cyoung@jrsjlaw.com
                  smorita@jrsjlaw.com


RUSSELL TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Sought in "Place" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned JEREMY PLACE, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. RUSSELL
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a COMPUTER ST. LOUIS, SETH RUSSELL, and
NICOLE RUSSELL, Case No. 4:17-cv-00399-RWS (E.D. Mo.), pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, filed their joint motion to
conditionally certify class, order disclosure of putative class
members' names and contact information, and facilitate class
notice.

The class to be conditionally certified consists of:

     all computer employees employed by Defendants within the
     last three years whose primary duty was to perform external
     "help desk" functions for Defendants' clients.

Jeremy Place filed his complaint on February 2, 2017, asserting
claims for failure to pay appropriate overtime compensation in
violation of the FLSA and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.  Since
the filing of the Complaint, two additional individuals have
joined this collective action case as opt-in Plaintiffs by filing
opt-in consent forms with the Court.

By joining the Motion, the Defendants do not waive their right to
file a Motion to Decertify the Class after the expiration of the
discovery period set forth in any Scheduling Order entered by the
Court.  Further, by joining this Motion, the Defendants do not
waive their ability to assert any of their defenses to the
Plaintiff's claims.

The parties stipulate that the Defendants will provide a list of
all putative class members and their last known contact
information.  They also stipulate that notice will be disseminated
to putative class members via U.S. Mail and e-mail of the Opt-In
List.  They further stipulate that given the scope and size of the
class, an opt-in period of 40 days is appropriate, running from
the date that the class notice is first disseminated by te
Plaintiffs' counsel.

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bOy8VhTn

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell C. Riggan, Esq.
          Samuel W. Moore, Esq.
          RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC
          132 W Washington Avenue, Suite 100
          Kirkwood, MO 63122
          Telephone: (314) 835-9100
          Facsimile: (314) 735-1054
          E-mail: russ@rigganlawfirm.com
                  smoore@rigganlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven H. Schwartz, Esq.
          James M. Bertucci, Esq.
          BROWN & JAMES, P.C.
          800 Market Street, 11th floor
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 421-3400
          Facsimile: (314) 421-3128
          E-mail: sschwartz@bjpc.com
                  jbertucci@bjpc.com


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: July 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.
    Case No. 14 Civ. 8925 (KMW)
    CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded common stock of Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.
("Salix") or publicly traded call options on Salix common stock,
or sold publicly traded put options on Salix common stock, during
the period from November 8, 2013 through November 6, 2014,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the
"Settlement Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-
captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified for
settlement purposes only as a class action on behalf of the
Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are
excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in
the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III)
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $210,000,000 in
cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will fully, finally,
and completely resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on July 24, 2017 at 11:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Kimba M. Wood at the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, Courtroom 18B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007-1312, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants,
and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated March 24, 2017 (and in the Notice)
should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Salix
Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., c/o Epiq Systems, P.O. Box 3656, Portland,
OR 97208-3656, 1-844-308-6864.  Copies of the Notice and Claim
Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the
Claims Administrator, http://www.SalixSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than August 9, 2017.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be
bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than July 5, 2017, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of
the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Salix's Counsel such that they are
received no later than July 5, 2017, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Salix, or its
counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
(800) 380-8496
blbg@blbglaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

In re Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.,
c/o Epiq Systems
P.O. Box 3656
Portland, OR 97208-3656
(844) 308-6864
www.SalixSecuritiesLitigation.com

By Order of the Court

URL: www.SalixSecuritiesLitigation.com


SAUL CHEVROLET: Rivera Moves to Certify Class of Salespeople
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MARCOS RIVERA, an
individual, individually, on behalf of the general public, and all
other similarly situated v. SAUL CHEVROLET, INC., et al., Case No.
5:16-cv-05966-LHK (N.D. Cal.), moves for conditional certification
of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and asks the Court
to order notice sent to members of a class consisting of:

     all non-managerial Employees at any of Defendant's
     dealerships from October 11, 2013 to present who worked as
     parts salespeople, counterpeople, or associates, auto
     salespeople or associates, or maintenance employees or
     associates and who were paid an hourly rate and/or by
     commission.

The Defendants are SAUL CHEVROLET, INC., a California corporation;
CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP OF TAHOE, INC., a California
corporation; CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, a California business
entity; VOLKSWAGEN HYUNDAI, a California business entity;
CARDINALE OLDSMOBILE GMC TRUCK, INC., a California corporation;
CARDINALE AG MOTORBIKE, INC., a California corporation; CARDINALE
NISSAN, INC., a California corporation; CARDINALE PROTECTIVE
SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; CARDINALEWAY NEVADA AG
INC., a Nevada corporation; CARDINALEWAY ACURA, a Nevada business
entity; CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP-ARIZONA, INC., an Arizona
corporation, CARDINALEWAY MAZDA AT PEORIA, an Arizona business
entity; CARDINALEWAY MAZDA AT SUPERSTITION SPRINGS, an Arizona
business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle Todd, Esq.
          Zachary Ritter, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD
          611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (323) 208-9171
          Facsimile: (323) 693-0822
          E-mail: kyle@kyletodd.com
                  zachary@kyletodd.com


SBKU SERVICES: Faces "Garcia" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS GARCIA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, against SBKU SERVICES INC. d/b/a KUMO SUSHI &
STEAKHOUSE, TONY LAM, BOBBY LAM, and JANE DOE, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-03130 (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2017), alleges that pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, "[Plaintiff] is entitled to
recover from the Defendants: (a) unpaid mm1mum wages, (b) unpaid
overtime compensation, (c) liquidated damages, (d) prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and (e) attorneys' fees and costs.

". . . [P]ursuant to the New York Labor Law, he is entitled to
recover from the Defendants: (a) unpaid minimum wages, (b) unpaid
overtime compensation, (c) unpaid "spread of hours" premium for
each day he worked a shift in excess of ten (10) hours, ( d)
liquidated damages and civil penalties pursuant to the New
York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act,
(e) prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and (f) attorneys'
fees and costs."

SBKU SERVICES INC. is a restaurant.  Defendants hired Plaintiff to
work as a non-exempt busboy for Defendants' restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Cilenti, Esq.
     Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     708 Third A venue - 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 209-3933
     Fax: (212) 209-7102
     E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


SCOTTS COMPANY: "Shedron" Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Matthew Shedron on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Scotts Company, LLC
v. EG Systems, Inc. and Scotts Miracle-Gro Products, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-10705, (E.D. Mich., March 6, 2017),
was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on May 26, 2017, under Case No. 0:17-cv-61056.

Plaintiff seek to recover overtime wages earned by them and owed
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants provide lawn, tree, and shrub care and maintenance
services throughout Michigan. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants
as a territory service representative. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Blanchard, Esq.
      BLANCHARD & WALKER
      221 North Main Street, Suite 300
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      Tel: 734-929-4313
      Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com

             - and -

      Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
      Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
      COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
      The Hoyt Block Building - Suite 400
      700 West St. Clair Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 781-7956
      Fax: (216) 781-8061
      Email: jfuchs@crklaw.com
             jbristol@crklaw.com

             - and -

      Kevin Darnell, Esq.
      RION, RION & RION, LPA INC.
      130 West Second Street, Suite 2150
      Dayton, OH 45402
      Tel: (937) 223-9133
      Fax: (937) 223-7540
      Email: kdarnell@rionlaw.com


SELFRIDGE LEASING: "Wetzel" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Wetzel, Plaintiff, v. Selfridge Leasing, LLC, DLM Statutory
Agent Corp., Providence Healthcare Management, Inc. Eli Gunzburg,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01122, (N.D. Ohio, May 30, 2017),
seeks unpaid overtime and an equal amount in liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses of Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees who join this action, and any other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Wetzel brings this action in her individual capacity and also on
behalf of all similarly situated employees or former employees of
Defendants.

Selfridge is the registered operator of a licensed nursing
facility in Columbiana County. Providence Healthcare operates
and/or provides management and staffing services to various
nursing facilities in the State of Ohio, including the facility in
Columbiana County. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard T. Bush, Esq.
      GREEN HAINES SGAMBATI CO., L.P.A.
      City Centre One, Suite 800
      100 Federal Plaza East
      P.O. Box 849
      Youngstown, OH 44501-0849
      Telephone: (330) 743-5101
      Fax: (330) 743-3451
      E-Mail: rbush@green-haines.com


SETERUS INC: Reizes Files Suit Over Improper Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mendel Reizes and Yehoshua Yusewitz on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated consumers Plaintiffs, v. Seterus,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03162, (E.D. N.Y., May 25,
2017), seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
statutory damages, attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs
incurred in bringing this action and any other relief for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiffs incurred a home loan debt from HSBC which fell into
default status sometime in 2009. Defendant obtained this loan
after it went in to default. The written notice was mailed to the
creditor, instead of the debtors themselves, so essentially, it
was never sent to the Plaintiffs but rather it has been sent to an
improper address for the Plaintiffs. Defendant subsequently mailed
a letter to the Plaintiffs' proper address on May 30, 2016, but
was void of the Plaintiffs' statutory rights.

New York City regulations require that a debt collector must
provide a consumer with specific information about the consumer's
rights regarding a time-barred account in every communication with
the consumer, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW
      735 Central Avenue
      Woodmere, NY 11598
      Telephone: (516) 668-6945
      Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


SEVENTH GENERATION: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in Rapoport-Hecht Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Patrick S. Sweeney filed an appeal from a District Court
order approving class action settlement and final judgment entered
on April 28, 2017, in the lawsuit entitled Rapoport-Hecht v.
Seventh Generation, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-9087, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (White
Plains).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises out of the Defendant's alleged material misrepresentation
and deceptive business practice of labeling its laundry detergent
and dish liquid products as natural, when in fact they contain
synthetic preservatives benzisothiazolinone and
methylisothiazolinone.

Seventh Generation, Inc. manufactures and distributes Natural
Laundry Detergent, Natural 4x Concentrated Laundry Detergent,
Ultra Plus Natural Laundry Detergent, Natural Dish Liquid, and
Ultra Power Natural Dish Liquid to retailers nationwide.

The appellate case is captioned as Rapoport-Hecht v. Seventh
Generation, Inc., Case No. 17-1592, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Objector-Appellant Patrick S. Sweeney represents himself:

          Patrick S. Sweeney, Esq.
          SWEENEY LEGAL GROUP, S.C.
          2590 Richardson Street
          Madison, WI 53711
          Telephone: (310) 339-0548

Plaintiff-Appellee Tziva Rapoport-Hecht, individually and on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
          77 Water Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (845) 705-9460
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

Defendant-Appellee Seventh Generation, Inc., is represented by:

          Francis J. Earley, Esq.
          MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
          666 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 935-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 983-3115
          E-mail: fearley@mintz.com


SNAP INC: July 17 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Snap, Inc. ("Snap" or the "Company")
(NYSE:SNAP) in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of persons
or entities who purchased the Company's shares (1) pursuant and/or
traceable to Snap's false and misleading Registration Statement
and Prospectus, issued in connection with its initial public
offering on or about March 2, 2017 (the "IPO"); and/or (2) on the
open market between March 2, 2017 and May 15, 2017 inclusive (the
"Class Period") for violations of Sec. 10(b) and Sec. 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Snap made
materially false and misleading statements about its reported user
growth.  On March 3, 2017, the Company completed its IPO, issuing
200 million shares of stock.  On May 10, 2017, after the market
closed, Snap released its first earnings report as a public
company. The report revealed disappointing user growth for the
Company's messaging platform and a quarterly loss of $2.2 billion.
The user growth was the slowest year-to-year user growth rate in
at least two years. Following this news, Snap's stock price
dropped 21.45%, which caused investors harm.  On
May 16, 2017, Anthony Pompliano, a former Snap employee, filed a
federal lawsuit against the Company for terminating his employment
because he raised questions about false growth metrics being
represented to the public in order to inflate Snap's valuation
prior to the IPO. Mr. Pompliano is also seeking whistleblower
protection against retaliation by the Company.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 17, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]


SPAN-AMERICA: Pill Files Suit Over Sale to Savaria Corp.
--------------------------------------------------------
David Pill, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Span-America Medical Systems, Inc., Thomas
D. Henrion, James D. Ferguson, Richard C. Coggins, Robert H. Dick,
Thomas F. Grady, Jr., Dan R. Lee, Dr. Linda D. Norman, Terry
Allison Rappuhn, Thomas J. Sullivan, Savaria Corporation and
Savaria (SC), Inc., Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-01375 (D.S.C.,
May 25, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin
Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of Span-
America Medical Systems, Inc. by Savaria Corporation through its
wholly owned subsidiary, Savaria (SC), Inc.

The complaint seeks rescissory or other damages in the event
Defendants consummate the said merger; costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees;
and such other and further relief under the Securities and
Exchange Act.

Span-America offers specialty solutions for pressure management
and patient positioning. It manufactures therapeutic support
surfaces, medical bed frames, patient positioners, mattress
overlays, wheelchair cushions, foam mattress pads and pillows,
skin care products, fall protection products and in-room furniture
used mainly in the long-term care portion of the medical market

Savaria commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the issued and
outstanding shares of Span common stock for $29.00 in cash per
share, or approximately $80 million in total consideration.
Defendants allegedly did not conduct any pre-signing market check,
entered into an extremely restrictive letter of intent with
Savaria prohibiting Span from negotiating with alternative
potential bidders, agreed to restrictive deal protection devices
that make it highly unlikely that any competing offer to acquire
Span will emerge, declined to engage in discussions with other
bidders and engaged a financial advisor, Robert W. Baird & Co.
which stands to receive $1.3 million, or over 70% of its total
compensation if the merger is consummated. Plaintiff also allege
that the offer price is grossly inadequate and substantially
undervalues Span as it is below the mean and median implied values
based on net sales that Baird calculated. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carl L. Stine, Esq.
      Robert S. Plosky, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 759-4600
      Fax: (212) 486-2093
      Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com
             rplosky@wolfpopper.com

             - and -

      Manning Y. Culbertson, Esq.
      CULBERTSON LAW OFFICE, LLC
      707 E. North Street
      Greenville, SC 29601
      Tel: (864) 233-8282
      Email: mculbertson@myclawyer.com

             - and -

      Hannah Rogers Metcalfe, Esq.
      METCALFE & ATKINSON, LLC
      9 Toy Street
      Greenville, SC 29601
      Tel: (864) 214-2319
      Email: hmetcalfe@malawfirmsc.com


SOUTHERN TUBULAR: "Torres" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Torres, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Southern Tubular Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01585, (S.D. Tex., May 24, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages
and attorney's fees owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Tubular Services provides services to the oil and gas industry,
providing, quality control, inspection and the assembly of tubular
steel pipes where Torres worked for Defendant as an inspector,
pipe threading quality control inspections, coping, notching and
greasing pipes.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: 713-868-3388
      Fax: 713-683-9940
      Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


SPOTLESS GROUP: Slater & Gordon Launches Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Andrew White, writing for The Australian, reports that law firm
Slater & Gordon rained on Spotless Group's investor day on
May 25, launching a class action, the second against the contract
cleaning and facilities management business, over its 2015 profit
downgrade.

Slater & Gordon filed proceedings in the Federal Court on behalf
of aggrieved shareholders who watched the value of their shares
plunge by 50 per cent in a day after a November 2015 downgrade of
its 2016 profit guidance.

The lawyers have secured backing from litigation funder Therium
Australia, and represent investors who bought Spotless shares
between August, 25, 2015, and December 1, 2015.

It was the second class action lodged against Spotless, with
William Roberts Lawyers also filing a claim for investors in the
Federal Court. It came as the company tried to build investor
support for its rejection of a hostile takeover bid from
engineering and contracting group Downer during an investor day
that reaffirmed guidance for 2017 and 2018 annual profits.

Downer pounced after Spotless in February reported a $358 million
interim net loss due to heavy restructuring charges, as chief
executive Martin Sheppard attempts to move the company to longer,
more complex and higher-margin facilities management contracts.

The loss followed three profit warnings by the company.

Slater & Gordon senior associate Mathew Chuk said the claim would
make fresh allegations against Spotless, including that it misled
the market by issuing guidance for the 2016 financial year without
reasonable grounds.

In August 2015, Spotless said 2016 results would materially exceed
the previous financial year and endorsed market consensus
expectations of a AUD161.5 million net profit.

But just three months later its shares fell by almost 50 per cent
when the guidance was pulled and a downgrade issued.

Mr. Chuk said Spotless knew it was highly unlikely to achieve its
2016 guidance.

"Spotless explained its profit downgrade was based on problems
with acquisition integration and underperformance, general market
slowdown and expensing of previously capitalised bid costs," Mr.
Chuk said. "Our investigations have found that most of this
information was available to the company months earlier. "This
class action alleges that Spotless should never have set market
expectations so high."

Spotless told the stock exchange it "strongly denies" the
allegations and would "vigorously defend this proceeding". [GN]


TCP INTERNATIONAL: Aug. 1 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued the following statement
regarding the TCPI Sohal Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

SANKTOKH SOHAL, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,
vs.
ELLIS YAN, et al.,

Defendants.


No. 1:15-cv-00393-DAP
Judge Dan Aaron Polster
CLASS ACTION


SUMMARY NOTICE

TO:
ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK
OF TCP INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD. ("TCPI") AT ANY TIME DURING THE
PERIOD FROM JUNE 26, 2014, THROUGH AND INCLUDING FEBRUARY 26,
2015, INCLUDING PURCHASERS OF TCPI COMMON STOCK PURSUANT AND/OR
TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FOR TCPI'S JUNE 25, 2014
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, that a hearing
will be held on August 1, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. EDT, before the
Honorable Dan A. Polster, United States District Judge, at the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Carl B. Stokes U.S. Courthouse, 801 West Superior Avenue,
Cleveland, Ohio, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the
proposed Settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the
principal amount of $7,175,000, plus interest, should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a
Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be
entered by the Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3)
whether the Plan of Allocation of Settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether
the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees
and expenses in connection with this Litigation should be
approved. Lead Counsel will request attorneys' fees of no greater
than 25% of the Settlement Fund, plus expenses not to exceed
$100,000.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TCPI COMMON STOCK AT ANY
TIME DURING THE PERIOD FROM JUNE 26, 2014, THROUGH AND INCLUDING
FEBRUARY 26, 2015, OR PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO THE
REGISTRATION STATEMENT FOR TCPI'S JUNE 25, 2014 INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
LITIGATION.

If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing
to TCPI Sohal Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o
Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 30216, College Station, TX 77842-3216,
or on the internet at www.tcpisohalsecuritieslitigation.com.

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release by mail to the address above postmarked no later than
September 6, 2017, or online at
www.tcpisohalsecuritieslitigation.com no later than September 6,
2017, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  You will be
bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation unless you
request to be excluded, in writing, to TCPI Sohal Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC,
EXCLUSIONS, 3301 Kerner Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901, postmarked by
July 7, 2017.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the
fee and expense application must be received, not simply
postmarked, by each of the following recipients no later than July
7, 2017:

CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Carl B. Stokes U.S. Courthouse
801 West Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff:
ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

Counsel for Defendants:

CHARLES F. SMITH
MARCELLA L. LAPE
GAIL E. LEE
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60606-1720

JUDY L. WOODS
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER
COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
One American Square, Suite 2300
Indianapolis, IN 46282

ADAM S. HAKKI
DANIEL C. LEWIS
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact counsel for Lead Plaintiff at the address listed
above.

DATED: April 13, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO


TONAWANDA COKE: Faces Class Action Over Pollution
-------------------------------------------------
WIVB reports that a new class action lawsuit was filed against the
Tonawanda Coke plant.

The lawsuit is for anyone whose quality of life might have been
affected by the plant.

About four years ago, Tonawanda Coke was convicted of violating
the federal Clean Air Act after mishandling hazardous waste.

The company has to pay for a soil study to see if, and how far
pollution from the plant has spread.

It is not clear how lawyers will respond to the lawsuit. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Gayed" Suit Over Upfront Pricing Model
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE GAYED, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., UBER
USA LLC, RAISER, LLC and TRAVIS KALANICK, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-03142 (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2017), alleges that Uber has made
materially misleading and deceptive representations to Uber X
riders concerning the "actual fare" charged by Uber's Upfront
Pricing model.

The case was filed on behalf of all Uber X riders in New York
against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber USA LLC, Raiser,
LLC, and Travis Kalanick for violation of New York General
Business Law and unjust enrichment.

Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a technology company based in
San Francisco, California, that offers a smartphone application,
the Uber App, to connect riders looking for transportation to
independent transportation providers, or drivers, looking for
riders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
     GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
     217 Centre Street, 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10013
     Phone: 212-847-8315
     E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com


UNITED FARM: Judge Adds $772,000 to Class Attorney Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
According to California AG Today's Laurie Greene, Monterey County
Superior Court Judge Thomas Wills ruled that the UFW underpaid
their own employees and mandated the UFW to pay a $1.2 million
award that covers former employees, organizers, and other members
of the class action suit, as well as penalties for California
Labor Code Violations.

On April 27, Judge Wills added $772,000 to UFW's court expenses
for attorney fees incurred by Noland, Hamerly, Etienne & Hoss
(NHEH), the law firm that represented former UFW employee
Francisco Cerritos in the class action and Private Attorney
General Act lawsuit on behalf of himself and other current and
former UFW employees.

In issuing the additional costs to the UFW, according to a May 3
NHEH press release, Judge Wills stated that, "The Court has not
placed an amount to destroy someone, and the union does serve a
socially laudable purpose, but (the union) has to follow the law;
and when it doesn't do so at the expense of others and that
results in drawn out, protracted and complex litigation, it cannot
expect the Court to turn a blind eye to what the consequences of
what that conduct are."

As previously published, ALRB Administrative Law Judge William L.
Schmidt issued a decision on April 14 in favor of the UFW, finding
Gerawan violated labor law by negotiating a collective-bargaining
agreement with UFW "in bad faith -- commonly called "surface
bargaining" -- in the eight-month period from January 2013 through
August 2013.

In an April 17 news release, Gerawan Farming called the April 14
decision of the Administrative Law Judge "erroneous" in that
Gerawan did bargain in good faith.  Further, Gerawan maintains
that imposed mandatory mediation and conciliation does not
constitute volitional negotiations. Gerawan will appeal this
decision.  The following are excerpts from this press release:

This unprecedented ruling would punish an employer for failing to
"negotiate" the terms of a "contract" dictated and imposed by the
ALRB.  This is an in-house judge who is not independent; he is an
employee of the ALRB.  He criticizes Gerawan's positions and
second-guesses how it participated in what was supposed to be a
confidential mediation and trial-like arbitration, but he never
asked the only relevant question: How does this forced contracting
process resemble a "negotiation"?

The so-called "mandatory mediation and conciliation" procedures
(MMC) are neither consensual nor voluntary. It is forced
contracting.  The ALRB tells the employer what wages to pay, what
employees to hire or fire or promote, and what portion of the
employees' salary will be turned over to the union.  The employer
may not opt out, and the employees are not given the choice to
ratify or reject the so-called contract that will be forced on
them, even if there are provisions detrimental to them.

Gerawan had no choice but to submit to this coercive process.

The UFW did not bargain; it asked the ALRB to impose terms, based
on a forced contracting process the California Court of Appeal has
since ruled to be unconstitutional (and is now under review before
the California Supreme Court).

To date, UFW's unexplained 17-year disappearance from the Gerawan
farm workers remains unexplained. During its absence, the UFW
never negotiated a single wage increase for any Gerawan employee,
nor did it attempt to bargain for a contract, collect dues, or
file a single grievance on behalf of the employees. Meanwhile,
Gerawan claims its workers are among the highest paid in the
industry.

Yet, the ALRB's controversial 2002 MMC provision appears to allow
this AWOL union to force current Gerawan farm workers to choose
between paying union dues or losing their jobs.  The majority of
Gerawan employees twice asked ALRB for an election to decertify
the UFW.  At the ALRB's request, the Fresno Superior Court
intervened and supervised the decertification petition and
election process.  This was the first time in the history of the
ALRB that a court oversaw an ALRB election.

As yet, ballots cast by Gerawan farm workers in the sanctioned
November 2013 election to decertify the UFW have never been
counted, are being stored in an undisclosed and possibly an
insecure location, and are the target of legal attempts by the
ALRB and UFW to be destroyed.

The Court of Appeal is preparing to decide whether the ALRB may
deny employees the right to choose who will represent them at the
bargaining table -- a seemingly basic American democratic right.
The California Supreme Court is preparing to decide whether the
UFW's longstanding abandonment of Gerawan's employees justifies
this forced contracting process.  California farm workers deserve
a full and fair hearing on these issues. [GN]


UNITED STATES: 160K Acres Covered in 'Takings' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Holly Dillemuth, writing for Herald and News, reports that as of
May 19, 1,151 Notice of Appearance forms covering 3,523 parcels
and more than 160,000 acres on Klamath Project land are now under
review by the United States as part of the class action lawsuit
surrounding the "Takings" case.

The case stems from the shutoff of irrigation water to Klamath
Project property owners or lessees by the Bureau of Reclamation in
2001. The trial's closing arguments adjourned May 9 -- roughly
three months following a trial that lasted more than a week at the
Federal Court of Claims in Washington, D.C.

"That we had a lot of people coming into the office, asking for
help or wanting to make sure they had it (Notice of Appearance
form) filled out right," said local water attorney Bill Ganong,
special counsel to the case.

"The turnout demonstrates that a lot of people were hurt and that
a lot of land did not get irrigated. If we prevail and if the
United States has to pay on a per acre basis, it's going to be a
significant amount of money."

Ganong said while technically the claims submitted represent some
178,958 acres of land, that number represents some duplicated
claims. For example, duplication could be that of two individuals
-- a land owner and a new lessee -- claiming the same parcel of
land.

Both individuals in such a scenario will be considered for
reimbursement from the United States in the event the plaintiff
prevails, Ganong said, though the outcome is in the court's
jurisdiction.

"The next step is the United States is now reviewing the Notices
of Appearances that were filed," Ganong said.

Ganong said the United States can object to claims, for example,
if an individual or partnership that owned land in the project in
2001 that is now owned by another party.

"The U.S. will want an explanation of why you think you're
entitled to make that claim," Ganong said.

"There will be a process during June to identify questions that
the United States may have from some of the people, and to try and
resolve those. The United States isn't saying they're not
entitled," Ganong said. "They're just saying, 'We need some
documentation or evidence to demonstrate they're entitled.' "

The process to resolve any and all issues the U.S. may have with
claims could be completed by June 28, Ganong said.

Many who joined the class action lawsuit are couples,
partnerships, corporations and farming entities affected by the
water shutoffs, Ganong said.

"Nearly all of the commercial farms joined," Ganong added.

Others who joined the lawsuit are relatives of those who owned or
leased land in the Klamath Project at the time of the water
shutoffs and who are now deceased.

Ganong estimated that if the case prevails, the return could be
between $140 to $175 per acre, reaching at least the anticipated
$28 million mark or more.

A decision is anticipated sometime this year, Ganong said.

The case, which is consolidated, is Lonny E. Baley, et al v.
United States and Pacific Federation of Fisherman's Association,
and includes John Anderson Farms v. United States. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Court Denies Bid to Certify & Tosses "Vapne" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ann M. Donnelly entered a decision and order in the
lawsuit entitled GENRIKH VAPNE v. SONNY PERDUE, BEN CARSON, THOMAS
PRICE, NANCY BERRYHILL, AMUEL ROBERTS, and HOWARD ZUCKER, Case No.
1:17-cv-02838-AMD-RLM (E.D.N.Y.):

   -- denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action;
      and

   -- dismissing the case.

George Ervin "Sonny" Perdue III is the United States Secretary of
Agriculture.

The pro se plaintiff, Genrikh Vapne, filed the putative class
action on May 9, 2017, seeking injunctive relief in connection
with the effect of a cost of living adjustment on his public
benefits.  His request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted for
the purpose of this order, Judge Donnelly said.

The Plaintiff alleges that a cost of living adjustment should not
be counted as income for purposes of "reducing food stamps,
increasing rent, increasing of Medicare premiums and deductions
and decreasing of admission to Medicaid benefits."  He complains
that he must pay more money in rent because of a COLA announced by
the Social Security Administration.  He seeks a declaration that
COLA is not income, and should not be considered as income in
calculating public benefits, such as food stamps or rental
assistance.

Judge Donnelly opined that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim
for relief against the Defendants.  Because the Plaintiff is not a
lawyer, and is not represented by a lawyer, he cannot represent a
potential class and, thus, the motion for class certification is
denied.

"I certify pursuant to Section 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in
forma pauper is status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45 (1962)," Judge
Donnelly stated.

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


UNITED WATER: "Sauers" Action Seeks Unpaid OT, Damages
------------------------------------------------------
Aramis Sauers, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. United Water Restoration Group, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 6:17-cv-00944 (M.D. Fla., May 24, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and all other
applicable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

United Water Restoration Group, Inc., is a full service
restoration company specialized in water damage, flood, fire,
storm, sewage and mold remediation. Plaintiff worked for
Defendants as a water and mold technician. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew R. Gunter, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA.
      20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
      PO. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
      Email: mgunter@forthepeople.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Hack" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
BYRON HACK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC.; UNITED HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC.; and UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY;
Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00909 (C.D. Cal., May 24, 2017),
accuses Defendants of repeated violations of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act resulting from their systemic practice of
denying services for lumbar artificial disc replacement (ADR)
surgery on the basis that such services are "unproven."

The complaint says Defendants have developed and used a mandatory
guideline, the "Medical Policy" on "Total Artificial Disc
Replacement for the Spine," which provides that lumbar ADR is not
safe and effective and excluded as such under all United Plans.
Under this guideline, Defendants have systematically denied all
requests for lumbar ADR surgery as not safe and effective.

Contrary to Defendants' position, lumbar ADR surgery has been
approved by The United States Food and Drug Administrations for
nearly ten years and is a safe, effective and often recommended
procedure that has successfully treated the symptoms of lumbar
disc disease, the complaint notes.

Defendant UnitedHealth Group Inc., through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, including Defendants United HealthCare Services,
Inc., and UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company, is a fully
integrated company that is in the business of insuring and
administering health insurance plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
     Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
     Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
     GIANELLI & MORRIS, A Law Corporation
     550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 489-1600
     Fax: (213) 489-1611
     E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
             joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com
             adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Faces Suit for Printing 5++ Card Digits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that two
California consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against the
University of Southern California, alleging fraud and violation of
federal law.

Elizabeth Alvarado, Jose Ramos filed a complaint, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, April 18 in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court against the University of Southern
California and Does 1 through 10, alleging they printed more than
five digits of the plaintiffs' credit/debit cards.

The defendant removed the case to U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on May 16.

According to the complaint, Alvarado and Ramos were damaged from
having their credit debit card information compromised because
printed more than five digits of their customers credit/debit card
on receipts.

The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, statutory damages, punitive
damages, court costs, enjoin the defendant and any further relief
the court grants. They are represented by attorneys Kenneth S.
Gaines, Daniel F. Gaines, Esq. -- gaines@gaineslawfirm.com -- Alex
P. Katofsky, Esq. -- katofsky@gaineslawfirm.com -- and Sepideh
Ardestani, Esq. -- sepideh@gaineslawfirm.com -- of Gaines &
Gaines, APLC in Calabasas, California. [GN]

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:17-cv-03671-GW-AJW [GN]



UNROLLME INC: Parikh Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
-------------------------------------------------------
Meghna Parikh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Unrollme Inc and Slice Technologies, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-03073, (N.D. Cal., May 26, 2017),
seeks actual, statutory and/or punitive damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred and
such other preliminary and equitable relief resulting from unjust
Enrichment, privacy violation based on intrusion, and violation of
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Stored Communications
Act, California's Invasion of Privacy Act, California Business and
Professions Code, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising
Law.

UnrollMe and its parent company Slice Technologies, Inc., monitor,
disseminate and sell its users' personal information and consumer
habits without their informed consent or knowledge for financial
gain, says the complaint.

UnrollMe is an "email management" service designed to help users
eliminate junk mail and remove clutter from their inboxes. It
identifies subscription emails and allow users to unsubscribe from
marketing lists.

Slice is a data firm that measures e-commerce by extracting
purchase information from emails containing e-receipts. Slice's
technology identifies e-receipts within inboxes, extracts every
available data point about every purchase at the item level,
normalizes measurements across retailers and structures the data
into an industry-wide taxonomy and catalog. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
      Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
      Kathryn Y. Schubert, Esq.
      SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
      Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 788-4220
      Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
      Tel: rschubert@sjk.law
           nschubert@sjk.law
           kschubert@sjk.law


VOLKSWAGEN: Asks Judge to Move Drivers' Suit to NJ Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that Volkswagen, with
the consent of a proposed class of drivers, asked a Florida
federal court to move the drivers' lawsuit over a purported engine
defect to New Jersey federal court, where an earlier-filed case
has been pending for more than eight months.

The instant suit, led by four Florida residents, was filed in
April, alleging Volkswagen and Audi hid their knowledge of a
timing chain defect in certain vehicles built between 2008 and
2013. The system is supposed to last for at least 120,000 miles,
but the defect means it could fail at any time, cutting power to
the engine and putting drivers at risk of rear-end crashes, the
complaint said.

The New Jersey action -- a consolidated case stemming from a half-
dozen lawsuits filed between April 2016 and July -- involves
nearly identical claims, seeks identical relief and involves the
same nationwide and Florida subclasses as the Florida case. After
discussing the move with the Florida drivers, both sides agreed
that moving the Florida suit to New Jersey would be appropriate,
Volkswagen said.

In early May, U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares ruled that
Volkswagen can't force the plaintiffs in the New Jersey case into
arbitration because the automaker wasn't actually a party to the
arbitration agreement car owners signed with Volkswagen
dealerships. He also refused to dismiss the vast majority of the
drivers' first consolidated complaint, which was filed in August.

The vehicle owners, who hail from 22 states, including Florida,
seek to represent anyone in the U.S. who bought or leased a 2008
through 2013 model year Volkswagen or Audi vehicle with one of two
types of 2-liter diesel engines. The Florida drivers listed models
including Volkswagen Beetles, Golfs, Jettas, Passats, Rabbits,
Routans, Tiguans and Touaregs, as well as Audi A3s, A4s, A5s, A6s,
A7s, Q3s, Q5s and Q7s.

The timing chain system synchronizes the moving parts within an
engine, and if it fails, the engine may lose power or fail,
possibly resulting in expensive repairs or parts replacements. The
alleged defect is in the part of the chain that keeps it at the
proper level of tension. Part of the mechanism that keeps the
chain taut during startup can fail, causing the chain to jump and
ruin other parts of the engine, the drivers said, claiming
Volkswagen knew about the defect, or should've known, for six
years.

Although most of the New Jersey suit remains intact, Judge Linares
did dismiss a breach of contract claim that the drivers abandoned,
an Arkansas negligent misrepresentation claim that's not
recognized by that state and an Ohio subclass allegation that
Volkswagen violated the state's Sales Practices Act. Regarding the
Ohio claim, the judge found that the automaker wasn't given
sufficient notice that its conduct was deceptive, but gave the
drivers a chance to amend their claim.

Neither side could be reached for further comment on May 25.

Volkswagen is represented by Myron Shapiro, Esq. --
mshapiro@rumberger.com -- of Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell PA and by
Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq. -- jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com -- and Michael
B. Gallub, Esq. -- MGallub@herzfeld-rubin.com -- of Chase Kurshan
Herzfeld & Rubin LLC.

The Florida plaintiffs are represented by Peter Prieto, Esq. --
pprieto@podhurst.com -- John Gravante, Esq. --
jgravante@podhurst.com -- Matthew P. Weinshal, Esq. --
mweinshall@podhurst.com -- and Alissa Del Riego, Esq. --
adelriego@podhurst.com -- of Podhurst Orseck PA.

The New Jersey plaintiffs are represented by Carella Byrne Cecchi
Olstein Brody & Agnello PC, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman PC, Thomas P. Sobran PC, Mazie
Seater Katz & Freeman LLC, McCuneWright LLP, Seeger Weiss LLP and
Baron & Budd PC.

The cases are Artola, et al., v. Aktiengesellschaft, et al., case
number 1:17-cv-21296, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida and In re: Volkswagen Timing Chain Product
Liability Litigation, case number 2:16-cv-02765, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN: Italian Court OKs Class Action Over Emissions Tests
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that an Italian court has opened the way for a
class action lawsuit against automaker Volkswagen over its
emissions scandal.

Altroconsumo, a consumer rights organization, said a tribunal in
Venice gave it the go-ahead to file the lawsuit.

Altroconsumo said the lawsuit would include all affected cars from
the Volkswagen group, including Audi, Skoda and Seat brands.

In 2015, it was discovered that some Volkswagen diesel cars had
software that allowed them to cheat on U.S. emissions tests. The
German company says about 11 million cars worldwide are fitted
with the software.

Altroconsumo said 650,000 of them are in Italy and that 30,000
people are interested in taking part in the lawsuit.

It hasn't been proven that Volkswagen cheated in European tests,
which are less stringent and being revised. [GN]


WASHINGTON: Settles Suit Over Denied Healthcare for $55-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Becker, writing for KOIN, reports that thousands of people who
worked for the State of Washington could be getting sizable checks
in the mail.

The checks are part of a $55 million payout from a class action
lawsuit filed against Washington's healthcare authority. The suit
found that some part time employees of the state were improperly
denied healthcare benefits as far back as 2003.

The lawsuit was filed 11 years ago by Doug Moore, who worked
seasonally at the Emerald Downs racetrack. He noticed substitute
teachers had won a suit to receive year round healthcare and he
seemed to be in the same situation as them.

It took a few years to gather information because so many state
agencies were making the same mistake, and the lawsuit was filed
in 2006. It compelled the state legislature to change the code in
2010 to make all part time employees eligible for healthcare.

"That feels pretty good," Moore said. "I'm glad we made a
difference."

Those part time employees will get $618 for every month they were
employed without healthcare.

"There's many class members who are going to receive tens of
thousands of dollars from the settlement," said Stephen Festor,
the plaintiff's attorney said. "Every class member will receive a
minimum of $1,800 and there's many class members who are going to
receive tens of thousands of dollars from the settlement."

The plaintiff is only getting about $3,500 back, but the lawsuit
has about 7,000 members, some of whom were denied 40, 50 or 60
months of healthcare.

"It's not a large settlement for me personally but I'm glad that
the people that probably can really use that money are gonna get
that money back," Moore said. "I'm sure a lot of them don't even
really realize it's coming so it'll be a nice surprise for them."

Someone with 60 months on their claim would be getting a check for
$37,000 in the payout. [GN]


WAYSIDE AUTO BODY: "Robles" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santiago Acosta Robles, on behalf of himself, and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wayside Auto Body, Inc. and Christopher
Benson, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03180 (E.D.N.Y., May 25,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, unpaid spread-of-
hours premium and statutory penalties pursuant to the New York
State Wage Theft Prevention Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Christopher Benson owns and operates Wayside Auto Body, an
automotive repair shop in 139-23 Queens Boulevard, Jamaica, New
York 11435 where Plaintiff worked as a sander, car preparer and
general helper. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 209-3933
      Fax: (212) 209-7102


WEST COAST: Faces "Cross" Lawsuit Alleging Privacy Invasion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Cross, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. West Coast Center, LLC d.b.a., Green World
Pro, Yossi Ohayon, and/or Imane Haddada a.k.a. Imane Bytton,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01076-AJB-BGS (May 24, 2017), accuses
Defendants of negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone to market solar
systems., in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

    Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
    Kevin Lemieux, Esq., Esq.
    HYDE & SWIGART
    2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
    San Diego, CA 92108
    Tel: (619) 233-7770
    Fax: (619) 297-1022
    E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
            kevin@westcoastlitigation.com

        - and -

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Tel: (800) 400-6808
     Fax: (800) 520-5523
     E-mail: jason@kazlg.com
             ak@kazlg.com


WINGS OVER: Faces Suit Over Wage Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hartley writing for Centre Daily Times reports that a group
of former delivery drivers have filed a class-action suit against
a State College takeout restaurant.

According to the court documents, Jacob Wilson, Ty Carts, Lewis
Grove, Colin Krieger and Branden Ronald filed the suit against
Wings Over Happy Valley and its owner, Steven Moreira. The claim
seeks "overtime and relief" under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

Wings Over Happy Valley is located at 244 W. Hamilton Ave. in the
State College borough.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of
Pennsylvania, and alleges that wages were taken from the
plaintiffs "pursuant to an illegitimate, unlawful and unapproved
'tipping pool' during the course of their duties as delivery
drivers." The suit covers the named plaintiffs and "on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals."

Under FLSA and the minimum wage act, employers are expected to pay
$7.25 an hour except for any tipped employee, court documents
said. Using a "tip credit," employees may pay a tipped employee
below minimum wage as long as "all tips received by such employee
have been retained by the employee."

An exception to this credit is an authorized tip pool, the suit
said, in which employers may direct tipped employees to share tips
among employees who regularly receive tips.

As delivery drivers, the plaintiffs drove their personal vehicles
for the restaurant and received pay rates based on the tip credit,
court documents said. The restaurant, according to the suit,
routinely required all delivery workers to "tip out" about 8
percent of their tips to provide compensation to kitchen workers.

Kitchen workers are not regularly tipped employees, the suit said,
claiming that the restaurant violated the FLSA and minimum wage
act by wrongfully retaining the plaintiff's wages to avoid paying
kitchen workers "an appropriate wage." It's the plaintiff's belief
that the restaurant was able to pay kitchen workers the standard
market rate without requiring their tips.

The suit covers all delivery drivers employed by the restaurant
over the last three years, court documents said, which could cover
up to 50 individuals.

Moreira could not be reached for comment. [GN]

The case is Jacob Wilson, Ty Carts, Lewis Grove, Colin Krieger,
Branden Ronald, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Wings Over Happy Valley MDF,
LLC (d/b/a Wings Over Happy Valley) and Steven C. Moreira,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00915 (M.D. Pa., May 24, 2017).

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David B. Consiglio, Esq.
     David S. Gaines, Jr.
     MILLER, KISTLER & CAMPBELL
     720 South Atherton Street, Suite 201
     State College, PA 16801
     Tel: (814) 234-1500
     Fax: (814) 234-1549
     Email: dconsiglio@mkclaw.com
            dgaines@mkclaw.com


WIX.COM INC: Faces "Williams" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN M. WILLIAMS and SAMUEL R. MURPHY individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. WIX.COM, INC.,
Serve at: The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center
1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Defendant, Case
No. 4:17-cv-00434 (W.D. Mo., May 26, 2017), alleges that WIX
repeatedly sends unsolicited text messages to Plaintiffs' cellular
telephones in order to drive consumer traffic to its website
www.wix.com, which encourages consumers to sign up for a WIX
account and to use and purchase various web-design and webhosting
related products and services in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant WIX.com Inc. markets and sells various web-design and
web-hosting related products and services to consumers and
businesses throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ari N. Rodopoulos MO, Esq.
     WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
     1100 Main Street, Suite 1800
     Kansas City, MO 64105-5171
     Phone: (816) 256-3582
     Fax: (816) 337-4243
     Email: ari@woodlaw.com

        - and -

     William C. Kenney MO, Esq.
     BILL KENNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
     1101 Walnut Street, Suite 102
     Kansas City, MO 64106
     Phone: (816) 842-2455
     Fax: (816) 474-8899
     Email: bkenney@billkenneylaw.com


* Anapol Weiss Atty Provides Insight Into World of Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. -- jfantini@anapolweiss.com -- at Anapol
Weiss, in an article for The Legal Intelligencer, wrote that class
action and mass tort lawsuits are universally recognized as high-
stakes litigations.

Given the publicity following the slew of eye popping settlements
and jury verdicts generated over the past two decades, such a
response is understandable. Everyone is familiar with the
astronomical settlements and verdicts obtained in recent years in
the cases involving Vioxx, Yaz, NFL concussion, the Volkswagen
emission scandal, Pinnacle hips, Stryker hips, and "kids-for-
cash." While the public and media focus on the awards and parties
involved, they often ignore the fact that these cases, which
regularly last in excess of five years, involve clashes between
the titans of the legal profession debating some of the most hotly
contested factual, scientific, legal and procedural issues
courtrooms have ever seen. Over my career, I have had the
opportunity to represent clients in both class action and mass
tort litigations. Attorneys representing plaintiffs and defendants
in these types of cases recognize the benefits of having a large
number of injured people aggregated in a single forum, which
allows the matters to proceed in an extremely efficient manner
helping to facilitate the timely resolution of the numerous
claims. While class actions and mass torts share many
similarities, they are not the same and have very unique and
significant distinctions.

In class actions, the injured parties have suffered similar harm
(injuries or damages) which arise from the same conduct on the
part of the defendants. This allows for the filing of a class
action lawsuit instead of the filing of various individual
lawsuits, for oftentimes relatively small damage amounts, on
behalf of a group of individuals that are treated together as one.
Common examples of class action lawsuits are those involving civil
rights, environmental and employment discrimination claims.
Procedurally, after plaintiffs satisfy the requirements under
Federal Rule Civil Procedure 23, or the governing state rule, the
class is deemed "certified." After the class is certified, the
case proceeds on issues common to all class members and all of the
potentially injured parties must be notified and provided with an
opportunity to participate or "opt-out" of the case. Once a
settlement or verdict is reached, regardless of the circumstances
and individual facts, class members receive a share of the verdict
or settlement that as closely as possible approximates their
proportionate share of the total monetary award.

The central difference between a mass tort and class action is
that in a mass tort each of the plaintiffs has filed an individual
lawsuit, which may involve varying legal claims and causes of
actions, based upon the facts and evidence of their specific
circumstance. The filing of various lawsuits arising from the same
occurrence in jurisdiction throughout the country could
theoretically result in judicial pandemonium as separate courts
may issue conflicting rulings resulting in varying awards. In
order to avoid these unfavorable outcomes and discourage forum
shopping, while seeking to conserve resources of the parties and
the court through the eliminations of duplicative discovery and
pretrial matters, various lawsuits are consolidated or centralized
for management between one or more courts without consideration
for personal jurisdiction over the parties. While state rules vary
for each jurisdiction, plaintiffs or defendants can file a motion
or petition for consolidation of the various individuals' lawsuits
in a mass tort proceeding so long as the actions involve common
questions of fact. This is typically accomplished on the federal
level by filing a petition with the judicial panel on
multidistrict litigation (JPML) seeking to form a multidistrict
litigation (MDL), although the panel has the authority to form an
MDL on its own initiative. The JPML is tasked with determining
which federal actions involve common questions of fact and are
ripe to be transferred for pretrial proceedings to a single
district court and judge that has been determined to be the most
appropriate to handle these matters. Once an MDL or mass tort is
formed, the judge overseeing the litigation typically approves a
standard short-form complaint and a plaintiff fact sheet which
helps facilitate a streamlined pleadings and discovery processes.
Thereafter, case management orders are entered establishing
deadlines for each of the individual cases in the litigation;
including defendants' document production, production of experts'
reports, fact and 'expert witnesses' depositions, and dispositive
motion practice. A huge benefit in these consolidated litigations
is that information is permitted to be shared between attorneys
and clients.

Although mass tort cases can arise from large scale disasters,
sales practices or other improper actions, by far the two most
common mass torts are those involving pharmaceuticals and medical
devices. In order to help resolve an entire mass tort docket, the
parties engage in case-specific fact and expert discovery in a
number of bellwether cases, which are designed to be cases that
involve factual and legal issues that are representative of the
entire inventory, and then that specific case is taken to jury for
a verdict. While these test cases provide valuable insight into
the value of the case for both parties, they are not binding on
other cases in the litigation. As a result, it is common for
multiple bellwether trials to be conducted, with greatly differing
verdicts. If a global settlement is ultimately reached, the
settlement amounts for each plaintiff varies depending on the
specific facts in each case.

Class action and mass tort actions are some of the most complex
and hard fought cases. One thing I have learned over my career is
that while the attorneys involved often make it look simple, mass
tort and class actions are anything but a "get rich quick"
venture. With a great deal at stake, defendants adopt aggressive
strategies by pouring enormous amount of resources into litigation
while refusing to settle. To counter these strategies, plaintiffs
attorneys are forced to devote significant financial resources and
people power to deal with the all but guaranteed extensive motion
practice, numerous expert witnesses, and voluminous document
production and retention necessitating the need for multiple
depositions domestically and internationally, into litigations
that could very well last a decade while yielding no return on
investment.  [GN]




* Fairness in Class Action Act Would Lead to MDL Litigation Reform
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Britt, Esq., at Foley & Lardner LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, reports in addition to it taking a swipe at
class actions, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and
Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017 (the "Fairness
in Class Action Act"), would lead to multi-district litigation
reform (MDL), limiting its reach in federal court.

Like class actions, multi-district litigations, or MDLs, can pose
a tremendous threat to corporate defendants caught in their
crosshairs.  They pose their own set of challenges, though: unlike
class actions that bring in a group of unnamed plaintiffs under
one single case, MDLs collect a group of individual cases under
one consolidated pretrial proceeding in a single forum.
Generally, a sampling of these cases are then chosen for
"bellwether" trials tried by the MDL judge, the outcome of which
gives the parties an idea of what a settlement range for the cases
should look like.  If a settlement isn't reached, the remaining
cases--which may number in the thousands--are tried, either in the
MDL court or in the court where the case would have been venued
but for the MDL.  It is not hard to see the opportunity for
enormous cost and enormous exposure in cases where this mechanism
is used.

While MDLs pose some hurdles to plaintiffs that class actions do
not--for starters, members of an MDL actually need to file their
own case, and (in theory at least) cannot passively await an
award--they, like class actions, also aggregate plaintiffs in a
way that can blow up manageable claims into company-threatening
disputes.  Recent headline-making judgments in MDLs show that,
unlike most class actions, MDLs are threatening for another
reason: each individual case can result in a multi-million dollar
verdict.  Additionally, MDLs can linger for years longer than
individual or class actions--over 50 of the currently pending MDLs
were established before 2010.

A Universal Lone Pine Order

One of the issues that confront defendants in MDLs is that once
they gain momentum, there is the potential for unscrupulous
plaintiffs to file individual cases (which may involve little more
than paying a filing fee and filling out a short-form complaint,
which can be a form that the plaintiff's basic information is
plugged into), even with tenuous claims for relief, on the theory
that if the defendants settle, there is the chance for a payout
without the need to make a showing of injury or causation.  This
creates other issues with MDL case management, such as cases
selected to be bellwether trials that get dismissed before trial
when plaintiffs cannot scrounge evidence backing their claims,
leaving the parties and the court without the barometer that these
early trials are supposed to provide.

One way that courts have addressed these problems is by the use of
Lone Pine orders--case management orders that require plaintiffs
to "put up or shut up" by providing some evidence to support their
claims in order to keep their individual case live.  This can take
the form of requiring expert affidavits spelling out how the
plaintiff was injured by defendant's conduct, which may require
details such as how plaintiff was exposed to defendant's product
and providing a medical explanation for plaintiff's injury.  These
orders can be tremendously helpful to defendants in MDLs--by
creating an obligation for plaintiffs to present some evidence in
support of their claims, subject to review by the defendants and
by the court, they can weed out some of the thinner cases that may
otherwise be swept into an MDL.  For that reason, industry groups
like the Chamber of Commerce have pushed hard for the aggressive
use of Lone Pine orders in these proceedings.

But there are (at least from a defense perspective) problems with
the current Lone Pine regime.  One is that they are completely
discretionary -- federal courts overseeing MDL cases can enter
Lone Pine orders under their broad power to oversee their cases,
but need not do so.  Another is that even where these orders are
entered, that may not happen until case management problems have
already reared their head, or until the parties are already in the
midst of settlement negotiations.

The Fairness in Class Action Act would change that.  It would
require any plaintiff in an MDL to: "make a submission sufficient
to demonstrate that there is evidentiary support (including but
not limited to medical records) for the factual contentions in
plaintiff's complaint regarding the alleged injury, the exposure
to the risk that allegedly caused the injury, and the alleged
cause of the injury."  In short, it would make Lone Pine
mandatory.  In addition to doing so, it would make Lone Pine
mandatory at the outset: plaintiffs would need to make this
showing within 45 days after joining the MDL (either by
transferring in, or by directly filing in, the MDL).  Courts would
need to evaluate this showing within 90 days after that deadline,
and dismiss cases that fail to make a sufficient showing--a
dismissal that would become with prejudice (i.e., permanent) if
plaintiffs did not supplement their evidentiary showing within 30
days of dismissal.  While this may substantially increase the
burden on the judiciary -- again, some of these MDLs have
thousands of individual cases -- it may also result in these cases
having more merit, and being more reliable indicators of the
strength of the claims against defendants.

Limiting Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees

Another step the Fairness in Class Action Act would take if
approved in its current form would be a reduction in the amount of
attorneys' fees that a plaintiff's attorney could collect in a
personal injury action in an MDL.  The Fairness in Class Action
Act requires that such a plaintiff "shall receive not less than 80
percent of any monetary recovery obtained for those claims by
settlement, judgment, or otherwise," subject to any medical lien
in place related to those claims.  This would of course have the
effect of limiting any attorneys' fees to no more than 20% of the
recovered amount -- a sharp reduction from what many plaintiffs'
attorneys currently provide in their fee agreements, which may be
30% or more.  While supporters of this bill may point to the
efficiencies in the MDL mechanism to show why plaintiffs'
attorneys should not expect a full 30%+ contingent fee payment
from each plaintiff that settles in an MDL, this would still
plainly diminish the incentive for plaintiffs' attorneys to bring
these claims in the first place.

Prospects for Passage?

It bears repeating that the Fairness in Class Action Act is a long
ways from becoming law, and there are elements of the bill that
may be stripped out even if it proceeds (such as the limitations
on attorneys' fees provisions, or certain disclosure requirements
that would be added for class action plaintiffs).  But with
Republican control of Washington, it bears watching because it
shows how that party views class actions and MDLs that have become
major risks for business interests.  With groups like the Chamber
of Commerce pushing for these judicial reforms, there is a strong
likelihood that some elements of these reforms will pass in the
next two years. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring Pneumo Abex Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Landreth, as Executrix of the Estate of Bobby Joe Vickery
appeals from summary judgments by the Caldwell Circuit Court which
dismissed its asbestos-related claims against Pneumo Abex, LLC,
Brake Supply Company, Inc., Eaton Corporation, and ArvinMeritor,
Inc. Abex and Brake Supply filed protective cross-appeals to
preserve their potential rights of apportionment who were also
granted summary judgment but who are not parties to the Estate's
appeal.

On the direct appeal, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, first
finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
appointing a special commissioner to make recommendations on
discovery issues.  Furthermore, the Court of Appeals agrees with
the trial court that the Estate failed to present sufficient
evidence that the decedent was exposed to asbestos dust
manufactured or sold by the defendants, or that the exposures were
a substantial cause in causing the decedent's injury.  Therefore,
the trial court properly granted summary judgment for Abex, Brake
Supply, Eaton, and Arvin-Meritor.  As a result, the issues raised
in the cross-appeals are moot.  Hence, the Court of Appeals
affirms in Appeal No. 2015-CA-000006-MR, and dismisses Cross-
Appeals Nos. 2015-CA-000140-MR & 2015-CA-000141-MR.

The cases are TIFFANY LANDRETH, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF
BOBBY JOE VICKERY, Appellant, v. BRAKE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.;
PNEUMO ABEX, LLC; EATON CORPORATION; AND ARVINMERITOR, INC.,
Appellees. AND PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, Cross-Appellant, v. GENUINE PARTS
COMPANY; AND TIFFANY LANDRETH, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BOBBY
JOE VICKERY, Cross-Appellees. AND BRAKE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.; AND
PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, Cross-Appellants, v. FORTNER L.P. GAS COMPANY,
INC.; AND TIFFANY LANDRETH, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BOBBY
JOE VICKERY, Cross-Appellees, Nos. 2015-CA-000006-MR, 2015-CA-
000140-MR, 2015-CA-000141-MR (Ky. App.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated June 2, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/Qy49sj from Leagle.com.

Joseph D. Satterley, Paul J. Kelley, Paul J. Ivie, Louisville,
Kentucky, Hans Poppe, Louisville, Kentucky, Briefs for
Appellant/Cross-Appellee Tiffany Landreth, Executrix of the Estate
of Bobby Joe Vickery.

Paul J. Kelley, Esq. -- pkelley@satterleylaw.com -- Louisville,
Kentucky, Oral Argument for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Joseph P. Hummel, Esq. -- jhummel@lynchcox.com -- Berlin Tsai,
Esq. -- btsai@lynchcox.com -- W. Thomas Rump, IV, Esq. --
trump@lynchcox.com -- Louisville, Kentucky, Brief for Appellee
Arvinmeritor.

Joseph P. Hummel, Louisville, Kentucky, Oral Argument for
Arvinmeritor.

Ridley M. Sandidge, Jr., Esq. -- rsandidge@rwsvlaw.com --
Louisville, Kentucky, Brief and Oral Argument for Appellee Eaton
Corporation.

Briefs for Appellee/Cross-Appellant Pneumo Abex, LLC, were
prepared by:

     J. Christian Lewis, Esq.
     THE GLENN ARMENTOR LAW CORPORATION
     300 Stewart St.
     Lafayette, LA 70501
     Tel: (337)233-1471
     Fax: (337)233-5655

Reagan Simpson, Esq. -- rsimpson@yettercoleman.com -- Houston,
Texas, Oral Argument for Pneumo Abex, LLC.

Palmer G. Vance, II, Esq. -- gene.vance@skofirm.com -- Matthew R.
Parsons, Esq. -- matt.parsons@skofirm.com -- Lexington, Kentucky,
Briefs for Appellee/Cross-Appellant Brake Supply Company, Inc.

Palmer G. Vance, II, Lexington, Kentucky, Oral Argument for Brake
Supply.

Willard B. Paxton, Princeton, Kentucky, Brief and Oral Argument
for Cross-Appellee Fortner LP Gas Co., Inc.

Brief and Oral Argument for Genuine Parts Company:

   Patrick W. Gault, Esq.
   NAPIER GAULT SCHUPBACH & STEVENS, PLC
   730 W. Main Street, Suite 400
   Louisville, KY 40202
   Tel: (502) 855-3802


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Savoie" to State Court Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The matter in LORITA M. SAVOIE, v. PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL INSURANCE
CO., ET AL, SECTION: J(3), Civil Action No. 15-1220 (E.D. La.), is
on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, which vacated this Court's previous Order and Reasons
granting a Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiffs, Lorita Savoie, et
al.

Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana issued an order and reasons dated June 2,
2017, denying the motion to remand.  According to Judge Barbier,
the Defendants have satisfied the third factor in Boyle v. United
Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), for purposes of removal by
demonstrating that the federal government was aware of the dangers
of asbestos at the time of the alleged exposure.  The affidavit of
Danny Joyce states that the federal government was fully
knowledgeable about the hazards of asbestos and that Avondale did
not possess any more information on this subject than the
government.  In his second affidavit, Thomas McCaffery also avers
that the Navy was aware of the health effects as early as 1943.
Finally, Defendants submit the excerpted deposition testimony of
Dr. Richard Lemen, a retired Assistant Surgeon General of the
United States.  Dr. Lemen testified that the federal government
had been collecting literature related to the health effects of
asbestos since the 1930s. With this evidence, the Defendants have
made a colorable showing that the government was aware of the
dangers of asbestos and that Avondale was not responsible for
presenting its own warning, the judge held.

A full-text copy of the Order dated June 2, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/e3cnsP from Leagle.com.

Lorita M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement.

Lorita M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Brett Clement,
Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement &
Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Marcia Savoie Medlin, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Craig M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Tania Savoie Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Rodney A Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Greta Savoie Boudoin, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Dale J Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Joseph B. Savoie, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Benjamin Peter Dinehart, Roussel &
Clement, Dylan A. Wade, TMG Consulting, Jonathan Brett Clement,
Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement &
Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Gary
Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Albert L Bossier, Jr, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP &
Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

J Melton Garrett, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard
Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC,
Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Angela
J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Michael Kevin
Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC,
Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Angela
J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche
Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Daniel L.
Ring, Mayer Brown, LLP, Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, LLC,
Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &
Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &
Carey, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Milele N.
St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey.

Eagle Inc, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Benjamin
Melvin Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot
L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot
L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C..

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot
L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti,
Frilot L.L.C..

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer
& Sommers, LLC.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Owens Illinois, Inc, Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins,
III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell
Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman,
Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown,
PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M. Zanovec, Willingham
Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion Gaynor Manning
LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill.

Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Kristopher
T. Wilson, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard & Travis
Brendon Wilkinson, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes,
Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman
Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz
LLP & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. &
Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C..

CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Abbott Zotti,
Frilot L.L.C..

Albert L Bossier, Jr, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary
Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

J Melton Garrett, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen
Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell
& Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP &
Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne
M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell
& Perles, LLP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC,
Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer
H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Mathilde Villere
Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

International Paper Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by
Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy,
LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin
Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Jason K. Elam, Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, &
Krutz, LLP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC &
Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, XThird Party Defendant,
represented by Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington, Kiefer &
Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC.

International Paper Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by
Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy,
LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Jason K.
Elam, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman,
Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

Albert L Bossier, Jr, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen
Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell
& Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP &
Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

J Melton Garrett, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP &
Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Claimant, represented by
Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot
L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti,
Frilot L.L.C..

Eagle, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Edward J.
Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J.
Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M. Zanovec,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion
Gaynor Manning LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz &
Cougill.

Uniroyal, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Erin Wedge Latuso,
Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
Benjamin Melvin Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr.,
Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan,
Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C..

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Deborah
DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Daniel L. Ring, Mayer Brown, LLP, Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh,
Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker & Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker & Carey, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP
& Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan,
Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott
Zotti, Frilot L.L.C..

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Walter G.
Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP,
Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge
Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, &
Krutz, LLP.

Eagle, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer &
Sommers, LLC.

McCarty Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth
Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Edward J.
Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J.
Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M. Zanovec,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion
Gaynor Manning LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz &
Cougill.

Uniroyal, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Erin Wedge Latuso,
Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
Benjamin Melvin Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr.,
Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan,
Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C..

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Deborah
DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Daniel L. Ring, Mayer Brown, LLP, Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh,
Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker & Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker & Carey, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP
& Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey.

3M Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Sophia L. Lauricella,
Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan,
Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott
Zotti, Frilot L.L.C..

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Walter G.
Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP,
Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge
Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, &
Krutz, LLP.

McCarty Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Susan Beth
Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro Se Plaintiff Directed to Amend Asbestos Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pro se plaintiff Johnson Carter brought a proposed civil action,
under federal diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, in
which he alleges that the defendants are liable under state law
for his exposure to asbestos.  As Carter has been permitted to
proceed in forma pauperis without payment of an initial partial
filing fee, his complaint is ready for screening pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915A.  Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker of the
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
issued an order dated June 5, 2017, a full-text copy of which is
available at https://is.gd/7nABJN from Leagle.com, holding that
Carter may not proceed unless he files an amended complaint that
explain (1) what happened to make him believe he has a legal
claim; (2) when it happened; (3) who did it; (4) why; and (5) how
the court can assist him in relation to those events.

The case is JOHNSON CARTER, Plaintiff, v. HENRY CARLSON'S
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-230-wmc
(W.D. Wis.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring Metalclad Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jay Wanlass filed suit against numerous defendants based
on alleged exposure to friable asbestos.  Defendant Metalclad
Insulation Corp. moved for summary judgment, which the trial court
granted.  Wanlass appeals from the judgment.  The Court of Appeals
of California, First District, Division Two, in a decision dated
June 6, 2017, a full-text copy of which is available at
https://is.gd/k9DjVE from Leagle.com, affirmed.

The case is JAY WANLASS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. METALCLAD
INSULATION CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, No. A143616
(Cal. App.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Claims vs. Owens
---------------------------------------------------------------
In JANET PECHER, Individually and as Special Administrator for the
Estate of Urban Pecher, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Nos. 16-
1799, 16-2376, 16-2377, 16-2378, 16-2379, 16-2380 (7th Cir.), the
six cases consolidated on appeal all involve claims related to
asbestos exposure over thirty years ago at a single Marshfield,
Wisconsin plant which produced fire doors.  While complex on the
surface, and involving bulky appendices and appeals of separate
orders, the thrust of the appeal is quite simple: the claims at
issue are covered by the exclusive remedy provisions of
Wisconsin's Worker's Compensation Act, Wis. Stat. Section
102.03(2).  The Plaintiffs attempt to get around this bar by
recharacterizing their injuries as occurring off the job.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit find these
arguments are unavailing and finds the claims against Owen-
Illinois claims as frivolous.  As a result, the Seventh Circuit
affirms the multiple rulings of the district court dismissing the
claims against both defendants on appeal and denying
reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated June 6, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/CIKiXA from Leagle.com.

Robert H. Riley, Esq. -- rriley@rshc-law.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Robert G. McCoy, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Matthew J. Fischer, Esq. -- mfischer@rshc-law.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Edward Casmere, Esq. -- ecasmere@rshc-law.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Joshua Douglas Lee, Esq. -- jlee@rshc-law.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Smitha Chintamaneni, Esq., for Defendant-Appellee.

Brian O'Connor Watson, Esq. -- bwatson@rshc-law.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Tanya Dearman Ellis, for Defendant-Appellee.

Jason P. Eckerly, for Defendant-Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shell Owes Duty to Protect Family Member
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff and appellant Wanda L. Beckering appealed a judgment
following a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and
respondent Shell Oil Company in a premises liability action.
Beckering's late husband was a Shell employee.  Beckering alleged
she developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos
fibers that her husband inadvertently carried home on his work
clothing, which she laundered.

In a prior decision in this matter (Beckering v. Shell Oil Company
(Nov. 21, 2014, B256407) [nonpub. opn.] (Beckering I)), guided by
Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15 (Campbell),
the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Three, concluded that based upon the Rowland v. Christian (1968)
69 Cal.2d 108 factors, a premises owner has no duty to protect a
family member from secondary exposure to asbestos resulting from
contact with a family member who wore asbestos-contaminated work
clothes home.  Accordingly, the California Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.

The Supreme Court granted review and ultimately transferred the
matter back to this court with directions to vacate the decision
and to reconsider the cause in light of Kesner v. Superior Court
(2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132.  Guided by Kesner, the California Court of
Appeals now concludes Shell did owe Beckering a duty and therefore
reverses the grant of summary judgment.

The case is WANDA L. BECKERING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SHELL
OIL COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, No. B256407 (Cal. App.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated June 2, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/ey4xCn from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff and Appellant is represented by:

     H. W. Trey Jones, Esq.
     Stephanie M. Taylor, Esq.
     Mark A. Linder, Esq.
     THE LANIER LAW FIRM
     10866 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 400
     Los Angeles, CA 90024

Nixon Peabody, Jennifer A. Kuenster, Esq. --
jkuenster@nixonpeabody.com -- Ross M. Petty, Esq. --
rpetty@nixonpeabody.com -- Lauren M. Michals, Esq. --
lmichals@nixonpeabody.com -- and Aaron M. Brian, Esq. --
abrian@nixonpeabody.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d Cir. Affirms Remand of PI Suit to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant-appellant Crane Co. appeals the decision and order of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York remanding the action filed by Alton Chapman and Francis
Chapman to New York state court following removal pursuant to the
"federal officer removal statute," 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1).

Crane makes two principal arguments:

   (1) Crane argues that the district court erred in remanding the
case because there was original subject matter jurisdiction at the
time; and

   (2) Crane argues that, even assuming the court lacked original
jurisdiction, the district court abused its discretion in
declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

The district court concluded that the Chapmans had abandoned "any
and all claims arising from asbestos exposure which are alleged to
have occurred at any government facility, effectively excis[ing]
any claim on which a government-contractor defense could be
premised and thereby extinguish[ing] the basis on which this
action was originally removed."  Crane argues that an abandonment
or disclaimer of claims does not constitute a "dismissal" of
claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted
that it was clear that the federal claims had been abandoned, and
the district court explicitly recognized the claims were no longer
in the case.  Hence, federal question jurisdiction no longer
existed.

Alternatively, Crane asserts that the district court should have
retained jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.  This
avenue, according to the Second Circuit, is also unavailing, given
that "when diversity of citizenship is the basis of removal,
diversity must exist not only at the time the action was filed in
the state court, but also at the time the case is removed to
federal court."  Hence, to sustain removal based on diversity,
Crane had to demonstrate that diversity of citizenship existed
both at the time of the filing of the Chapmans' original complaint
and at the time of removal, the Second Circuit pointed out.

The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
because the Chapmans had abandoned their claims giving rise to
original jurisdiction; it was still an early stage of the
proceedings and discovery was not complete; no dispositive motions
had been decided; and interests of comity militated in favor of
remand because the case was predominately a matter of state law,
potentially implicating unsettled questions of state law, the
Second Circuit held.  The district court did not abuse its
discretion in refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the
Second Circuit concluded.

Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the
district court.

The appeals case is ALTON CHAPMAN, FRANCIS CHAPMAN, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. CRANE CO., Individually and as Successor to Pacific
Valves, Defendant-Appellant, CBS CORPORATION, successor by merger
to CBS Corporation, FKA Viacom Inc., FKA Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, Elliott Company, Foster Wheeler, L.L.C., Jenkins
Valces, Inc., Weinman Pump & Supply Co., Riley Power Inc.,
Defendants, No. 16-933-cv (2d Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated May 31, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/dMfmDI from Leagle.com.

MICHAEL J. ROSS (Nicholas P. Vari, on the brief), K&L Gates LLP,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Angela DiGiglio, K&L Gates LLP, New
York, New York, for Defendant-Appellant.

PIERRE RATZKI, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York, New York, for
Plaintiffs-Appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Faces PI Claims at March 31
------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., continues to face asbestos-
related claims alleging various injuries, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "HII and its predecessors-in-interest are
defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and
continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country,
wherein former and current employees and various third parties
allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or
associated with HII premises or while working on vessels
constructed or repaired by HII.

"The cases allege various injuries, including those associated
with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma and
other alleged asbestos related conditions. In some cases, several
of HII's former executive officers are also named as defendants.
In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available
to the Company for its liability and that of its former executive
officers.

"The average cost per case to resolve cases during the three
months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, was immaterial individually
and in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of asbestos-related
liabilities is subject to uncertainty because liabilities are
influenced by numerous variables that are inherently difficult to
predict. Key variables include the number and type of new claims,
the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from
case to case, reforms made by state and federal courts, and the
passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. Although the
Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not
have a material effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new
or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what
information might come to light and can, therefore, give no
assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related
litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/k5Ggnq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation still defends itself against various
lawsuits regarding asbestos-related injuries, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "The Corporation has been named in a number of
lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos.  To date,
the Corporation has not been found liable for or paid any material
sum of money in settlement in any case.  The Corporation believes
its minimal use of asbestos in its past operations and the
relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in its products makes
it unlikely that it will face material liability in any asbestos
litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate.  The
Corporation maintains insurance coverage for these potential
liabilities and believes adequate coverage exists to cover any
unanticipated asbestos liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/flQGKT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Ongoing in 2 Suits vs. Dixie Group
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 1, 2017, that discovery is still ongoing in two
mesothelioma-related lawsuits filed against multiple parties
including the Company.

The Dixie Group states, "The Company is one of multiple parties to
two lawsuits, both filed in Madison County Illinois, styled Sandra
D. Watts, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate
of Dianne Averett, Deceased vs. 4520 Corp., Inc. f/k/a Benjamin F.
Shaw Company, et al No. 12-L-2032 and styled Brenda Bridgeman,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert
Bridgeman, Deceased, vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., f/k/a
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al No. 15-L-374.

"Each lawsuit entails a claim for damages to be determined in
excess of US$50,000 filed on behalf of the estate of an individual
which alleges that the deceased contracted mesothelioma as a
result of exposure to asbestos while employed by the Company.

"Discovery in both matters is ongoing, and tentative trial dates
have been set. The Company has denied liability, is defending the
matters vigorously and is unable to estimate its potential
exposure to loss, if any, at this time."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/INiIRE


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 33,600 Claims Pending at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had around 33,600 asbestos-related claims pending
as of March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017.

CBS Corp. states, "The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming
various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials,
which allegedly occurred principally as a result of exposure
caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a
predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s.  Westinghouse was
neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos.  The Company is
typically named as one of a large number of defendants in both
state and federal cases.  In the majority of asbestos lawsuits,
the plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products
is the basis of a claim.  Claims against the Company in which a
product has been identified principally relate to exposures
allegedly caused by asbestos-containing insulating material in
turbines sold for power-generation, industrial and marine use.

"Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period.  The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment.

"As of March 31, 2017, the Company had pending approximately
33,600 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 33,610 as
of December 31, 2016 and 35,040 as of March 31, 2016.  During the
first quarter of 2017, the Company received approximately 860 new
claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 870
claims.  The Company reports claims as closed when it becomes
aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when
the Company has reached agreement with the claimants on the
material terms of a settlement.  Settlement costs depend on the
seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the
quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors.

"In 2016, the Company's costs for settlement and defense of
asbestos claims after insurance and taxes were approximately US$48
million.  In 2015, as the result of an insurance settlement,
insurance recoveries exceeded the Company's after tax costs for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims by approximately US$5
million.  The Company's costs for settlement and defense of
asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are
not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of
the expenses.

"The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate
to cover its asbestos liabilities.  This belief is based upon many
factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding
claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims
by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of
resolution and the filing of new claims.  While the number of
asbestos claims filed against the Company has remained generally
flat in recent years, it is difficult to predict future asbestos
liabilities, as events and circumstances may occur including,
among others, the number and types of claims and average cost to
resolve such claims, which could affect the Company's estimate of
its asbestos liabilities."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/01hMKD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has US$152MM Liability at Mar31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc estimated its asbestos-related
net liability to be US$152 million as of March 31, 2017, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.
The amount was recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position.

Johnson Controls states, "The Company and certain of its
subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named
as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged
exposure to asbestos containing materials.  These cases have
typically involved product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos
containing components.

"As of March 31, 2017, the Company's estimated asbestos related
net liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position is US$152 million.
The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial
position is comprised of a liability for pending and future claims
and related defense costs of US$540 million, of which US$35
million is recorded in other current liabilities and US$505
million is recorded in other noncurrent liabilities.

"The Company also maintains separate cash, investments and
receivables related to insurance recoveries within the
consolidated statements of financial position of US$388 million,
of which US$57 million is recorded in other current assets, and
US$331 million is recorded in other noncurrent assets.  Assets
include US$33 million of cash and US$258 million of investments,
which have all been designated as restricted.  In connection with
the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the
Company records asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are
probable; the amount of such recoveries recorded at March 31, 2017
is US$97 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/XveHGh


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haynes Defends 2 Asbestos Suits at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Haynes International, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017, that it is defending itself, together
with a number of other manufacturer defendants, against two
actions alleging that asbestos in its facilities harmed the
plaintiffs.

Haynes International states, "The Company believes that it has
defenses to these allegations and that, if the Company were to be
found liable, the cases would not have a material effect on its
financial position, results of operations or liquidity."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/etnLBg


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Faces 325 U.S. Cases at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Around 325 asbestos-related cases are still pending against
General Cable Corporation in the United States as of March 31,
2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "We have been a defendant in asbestos
litigation for the past 29 years.  Our subsidiaries have been
named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in
products manufactured by us.  As of March 31, 2017, we were a
defendant in approximately 325 cases brought in state and federal
courts throughout the United States.  In the three months ended
March 31, 2017, 19 asbestos cases were brought against us.  In the
calendar year 2016, 84 asbestos cases were brought against us.  In
the last 29 years, we have had no cases proceed to verdict.  In
many of the cases, we were dismissed as a defendant before trial
for lack of product identification.  As of March 31, 2017, 50,962
asbestos cases have been dismissed.  In the three months ended
March 31, 2017, 4 asbestos cases were dismissed.  As of December
31, 2016, 50,958 cases were dismissed.  With regards to the
approximately 325 remaining pending cases, we are aggressively
defending these cases based upon either lack of product
identification as to whether we manufactured asbestos-containing
product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of
our product.

"As of March 31, 2017, plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages
in 169 cases.  In 60 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only
damages in excess of some dollar amount (about US$544 thousand per
plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar
amounts requested as to any defendant.  In 107 other cases pending
in state and federal district courts, plaintiffs seek
approximately US$430 million in damages from as many as 50
defendants.  In two cases, plaintiffs have asserted damages
related to General Cable in the amount of US$20 million.  In
addition, in relation to these 169 cases, there are claims of
US$271 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants.
However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non-
malignant injuries.  As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016,
we had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately US$4.4 million and
as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, had recovered
approximately US$0.4 million of insurance recoveries for these
lawsuits.  The net amount of US$4.0 million, as of March 31, 2017
and December 31, 2016 represents our best estimate in order to
cover resolution of current asbestos-related claims.

"The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and
future asbestos-related claims.  The significant assumptions are:
(1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment
per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per
state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total
liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case
judgment.  Management's estimates are based on the Company's
historical experience with asbestos related claims.  The Company's
current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and
reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential
future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the
value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been
consistent.  As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably
possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims
that may be filed in the future.

"Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos accrual is
relieved, when we receive a fully executed settlement release from
the plaintiff's counsel.  As of March 31, 2017 and December 31,
2016, aggregate settlement costs were US$9.9 million and US$9.8
million, respectively.  For the three months ended March 31, 2017
and April 1, 2016, settlement costs totaled US$0.1 million.  As of
March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, aggregate litigation costs
were US$27.4 million and US$27.1 million, respectively.  For the
three months ended March 31, 2017 and April 1, 2016, the costs of
administering and litigating asbestos claims totaled US$0.3
million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ePlhsZ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Faces 1,580 Cases at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,580 cases were outstanding at March 31, 2017, for
which Standard Motor Products, Inc., may be responsible for any
asbestos-related liabilities in connection to its former brake
business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation.  When we originally acquired this brake
business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the
seller of the acquired brake business.  In accordance with the
related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities
for all new claims filed on or after September 2001.  Our ultimate
exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on
or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and
defense thereof.  At March 31, 2017, approximately 1,580 cases
were outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related
liabilities.  Since inception in September 2001 through March 31,
2017, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately
US$21.1 million.

"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by
an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits
are filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions.
As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial
consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related
liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability.  The
methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs
in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available
from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent
claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future;
(3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an
analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop average
settlement values.

"The most recent actuarial study was performed as of August 31,
2016.  The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability
for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential
recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from US$31 million to
US$47.7 million for the period through 2059.  The change from the
prior year study was a US$2.3 million decrease for the low end of
the range and a US$3.4 million decrease for the high end of the
range.  The decrease in the estimated undiscounted liability from
the prior year study at both the low end and high end of the range
reflects our actual experience over the prior twelve months, our
historical data and certain assumptions with respect to events
that may occur in the future.

"Based on the information contained in the actuarial study and all
other available information considered by us, we have concluded
that no amount within the range of settlement payments was more
likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos
liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded
liability to determine if an adjustment is required.  Based upon
the results of the August 31, 2016 actuarial study, a favorable
adjustment to the asbestos liability was not recorded in our
consolidated financial statements as the difference between our
recorded liability and the liability in the actuarial report at
the low end of the range was not material.

"Future legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported
in loss from discontinued operations in the accompanying statement
of operations, are estimated, according to the updated study, to
range from US$42.7 million to US$78.6 million for the period
through 2059."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/nuPqb5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WABTec Still Faces PI Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation continues to face
asbestos-related bodily injury claims filed in the United States,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Claims have been filed against the Company
and certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions across the
United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products."

"During the first three months ended months of 2017, there were no
material changes to the information described in the Form 10-K."

In its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 filed on
February 28, 2017 with the SEC, the Company said, "Most of these
claims have been made against our wholly owned subsidiary,
Railroad Friction Products Corporation ("RFPC"), and are based on
a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the Company acquired
any interest in RFPC.

"Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.  We cannot, however, assure
that all these claims will be fully covered by insurance or that
the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable.  Our
ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these
claims, as is the case with other pending litigation, cannot be
estimated."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/zynvfr


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Edison Accrues US$8MM Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., had accrued liability of US$8 million
for asbestos suits at March 31, 2017, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.  The Company also
deferred US$8 million as regulatory assets related to asbestos
suits at March 31, 2017.

On the other hand, subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc. (CECONY) had accrued liability of US$7 million for
asbestos suits and deferred US$7 million as asbestos-related
regulatory assets at March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Suits have been brought in New York State and
federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants,
wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of
the Utilities.  The suits that have been resolved, which are many,
have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for
amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them.  The
amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total
billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these
amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of
previous claims.

"At March 31, 2017, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their
estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these
suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15
years.  These estimates were based upon a combination of modeling,
historical data analysis and risk factor assessment.  Courts have
begun, and unless otherwise determined on appeal may continue, to
apply different standards for determining liability in asbestos
suits than the standard that applied historically.  As a result,
the Companies currently believe that there is a reasonable
possibility of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability
accrued for the suits.  The Companies are unable to estimate the
amount or range of such loss.

"In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or
are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos.  CECONY is permitted to
defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates)
costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation
claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/VCFQVs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Faces 55 Rupture Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s subsidiary, Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), continues to face around 55
lawsuits related to CECONY's steam main in midtown Manhattan which
ruptured in July 2007, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company stated, "It has been reported that one person died and
others were injured as a result of the incident.  Several
buildings in the area were damaged.  Debris from the incident
included dirt and mud containing asbestos.  The response to the
incident required the closing of several buildings and streets for
various periods.  Approximately fifty-five suits are pending
against the company seeking generally unspecified compensatory
and, in some cases, punitive damages, for wrongful death, personal
injury, property damage and business interruption.  The company
has notified its insurers of the incident and believes that the
policies in force at the time of the incident will cover the
company's costs to satisfy its liability to others in connection
with the suits.  In the company's estimation, there is not a
reasonable possibility that an exposure to loss exists for the
suits that is materially in excess of the estimated liability
accrued.  At March 31, 2017, the company has accrued its estimated
liability for the suits of US$25 million and an insurance
receivable of US$25 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/VCFQVs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Has 5,800 Claims Pending at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, had around 5,800
pending asbestos-related claims at March 31, 2017, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2017.

The Company said, "Maremont Corporation manufactured friction
products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when it sold
its friction product business.  Arvin Industries, Inc., a
predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont in 1986.  Maremont
and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by
individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products.

"Maremont had approximately 5,800 pending asbestos-related claims
at March 31, 2017 and September 30, 2016.  Although Maremont has
been named in these cases, in the cases where actual injury has
been alleged, very few claimants have established that a Maremont
product caused their injuries.  Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue
dozens or even hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits,
seeking damages against all named defendants irrespective of the
disease or injury and irrespective of any causal connection with a
particular product.  For these reasons, the total number of claims
filed is not necessarily the most meaningful factor in determining
Maremont's asbestos-related liability.

"Maremont engaged Bates White LLC ("Bates White"), a consulting
firm with extensive experience estimating costs associated with
asbestos litigation, to assist with determining the estimated cost
of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims that have
been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against
Maremont.  Although it is not possible to estimate the full range
of costs because of various uncertainties, Bates White advised
Maremont that it would be possible to determine an estimate of a
reasonable forecast of the cost of the probable settlement and
defense costs of resolving pending and future asbestos-related
claims, based on historical data and certain assumptions with
respect to events that may occur in the future.

"As of September 30, 2016, Bates White provided a reasonable and
probable estimate that consisted of a range of equally likely
possibilities of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal
injury claims over the next ten years of US$70 million to US$83
million.  After consultation with Bates White, management
recognized a liability of US$70 million as of each of March 31,
2017 and September 30, 2016 for pending and future claims over the
next ten years.  The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future
claims is estimated based on the history of claims and expenses
for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an
established history with Maremont.  Maremont has recognized
incremental insurance receivables associated with recoveries
expected for asbestos-related liabilities as the estimate of
asbestos-related liabilities for pending and future claims
changes.

"Maremont has historically had insurance that reimburses a
substantial portion of the costs incurred defending against
asbestos-related claims.  The insurance receivable related to
asbestos-related liabilities was US$29 million and US$32 million
as of March 31, 2017 and September 30, 2016, respectively.  The
receivable is for coverage provided by one insurance carrier based
on a coverage-in-place agreement.  Maremont currently expects to
exhaust the remaining limits provided by this coverage sometime in
the next ten years.  The difference between the estimated
liability and insurance receivable is primarily related to
exhaustion of settled insurance coverage within the forecasted
period.

"Maremont maintained insurance coverage with other insurance
carriers that management believes also covers indemnity and
defense costs.  During fiscal year 2013, Maremont re-initiated
lawsuits against these carriers, seeking a declaration of its
rights to coverage for asbestos claims and to facilitate an
orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds.  During the
first quarter of fiscal year 2016, the dispute related to these
insurance policies was settled.  As a part of this settlement, on
December 12, 2015, Maremont received US$17 million in cash, of
which US$5 million was recognized as a reduction in asbestos
expense and US$12 million was recorded as a liability to the
insurance carrier as it is required to be returned to the carrier
if additional asbestos liability is not incurred.  During the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016, Maremont recognized an
additional US$9 million of the cash settlement proceeds as a
reduction in asbestos expense.  During the first quarter of fiscal
year 2017, the company recognized the remaining US$3 million of
the cash settlement proceeds as a reduction in asbestos expense.
The settlement also provides additional recovery for Maremont if
certain future defense and indemnity spending thresholds are met.

"The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and
recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and
estimates derived from currently known facts.  All such estimates
of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are
subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and
recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to
predict.  The future litigation environment for Maremont could
change significantly from its past experience, due, for example,
to changes in the mix of claims filed against Maremont in terms of
plaintiffs' law firms, jurisdictions and diseases; legislative or
regulatory developments; Maremont's approach to defending claims;
or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants.  Estimated
recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers and
the continuing solvency of various insurance companies.  If the
assumptions with respect to the estimation period, the nature of
pending and future claims, the cost to resolve claims and the
amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual
amount of liability for Maremont's asbestos-related claims, and
the effect on the company, could differ materially from current
estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on the
company's financial condition and results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/1XMW9e


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Still Faces Suits at April 2
----------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, ArvinMeritor, Inc., continues to face
asbestos-related lawsuits regarding Rockwell International
products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 2, 2017.

The Company states, "ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), a subsidiary of
Meritor, along with many other companies, has also been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell
products many years ago.  Liability for these claims was
transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business
from Rockwell in 1997.  Rockwell had approximately 2,600 and 3,200
pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together
with many other companies, as defendants at March 31, 2017 and
September 30, 2016, respectively.

"A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of
Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants, if any,
were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products, and
past experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants
will likely never identify any of Rockwell's products.
Historically, AM has been dismissed from the vast majority of
similar claims filed in the past with no payment to claimants.
For those claimants who do show that they worked with Rockwell's
products, management nevertheless believes it has meritorious
defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products
involved and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the
part of many claimants.

"The company engaged Bates White to assist with determining
whether it would be possible to estimate the cost of resolving
pending and future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that
have been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against
the company.  As of September 30, 2016, Bates White provided a
reasonable and probable estimate that consisted of a range of
equally likely possibilities of Rockwell's obligation for asbestos
personal injury claims over the next ten years of US$60 million to
US$75 million.  After consultation with Bates White, management
recognized a liability for the pending and future claims over the
next ten years of US$60 million as of each of March 31, 2017 and
September 30, 2016.  The ultimate cost of resolving pending and
future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and
expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions
with an established history with Rockwell.

"Rockwell has insurance coverage that management believes covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insurance
retentions, for a significant portion of these claims.  In 2004,
the company initiated litigation against certain of these carriers
to enforce the insurance policies.  During the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2016, the company executed settlement agreements with
two of these carriers, thereby resolving the litigation against
those particular carriers.  Pursuant to the terms of one of those
settlement agreements, in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016
the company received US$32 million in cash from an insurer, of
which US$10 million was recognized as a reduction in asbestos
expense, and US$22 million was recorded as a liability to the
insurance carrier as it is required to be returned to the carrier
if additional asbestos liability is not ultimately incurred.
During the first six months of fiscal year 2017, Rockwell
recognized an additional US$8 million of the cash settlement
proceeds as a reduction in asbestos expense.  Pursuant to the
terms of a second settlement agreement, in the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2016 the company recorded a US$12 million receivable
to reflect expected reimbursement of future defense and indemnity
payments under a coverage-in-place arrangement with that insurer.
In addition to the coverage provided from the settlement
agreements executed during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016,
the company continues to maintain a receivable of US$6 million
related to a previously executed coverage-in-place arrangement
with other insurers.  The insurance receivable for Rockwell's
asbestos-related liabilities totaled US$27 million as of each of
March 31, 2017 and September 30, 2016.  Included in these amounts
are insurance receivables of US$9 million as of each of March 31,
2017 and September 30, 2016, which are associated with policies in
dispute and have been fully reserved.

"The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and
recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and
estimates derived from currently known facts.  All such estimates
of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are
subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and
recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to
predict.  The future litigation environment for Rockwell could
change significantly from its past experience, due, for example,
to changes in the mix of claims filed against Rockwell in terms of
plaintiffs' law firms, jurisdictions and diseases; legislative or
regulatory developments; Rockwell's approach to defending claims;
or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants.  Estimated
recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers and
the continuing solvency of various insurance companies.  If the
assumptions with respect to the estimation period, the nature of
pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of
available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of
liability for Rockwell asbestos-related claims, and the effect on
the company, could differ materially from current estimates and,
therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial
condition and results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/1XMW9e


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Defends PL Suits at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017, that it has been named as a defendant
in several multi-defendant asbestos-related product liability
lawsuits.

The Company states, "In certain instances, the Company is
indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question. In
the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to
establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products.
The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes
that it will not incur any material liability with respect to
these claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/LKAj3c


                         *********


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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. 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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *