CAR_Public/171006.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Friday, October 6, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 198



                            Headlines

AIC COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Awards $32MM in TCPA Class Action
AMERICAN REALTY: Grant Thornton Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit
APPLE INC: Court Denies Albrechtsen's Forma Pauperis Appeal
APPLE INC: Faces "Morgan" Suit in Northern Dist. of California
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Settlement in "Moses" Has Prelim. Approval

ARCELOR MITTAL: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Supreme Auto Suit
ARRIUM: Class Action Against Former Management "Imminent"
BANK MUTUAL: "Kowalski" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Wisconsin
BANK MUTUAL: "Wollenburg" Suit Moved to E.D. Wisconsin
BIG LOTS: Court Partly Grants Bid to Stay "Willis" Suit

BLACKROCK INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Suit
BLATT HASENMILLER: Bid to Strike Judgment Offer in "Spice" Denied
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Faces "Vederman" Suit in S.D. Florida
BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL: Bid to Dismiss "Washington" Partly OK'd
BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Faces CA Lawsuit for Posting Mug Shots Online

CANADA: Trial in Inmate Death Begins, Ont. Class Action Certified
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Rodriguez Appeals Judgment to Second Circuit
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Can't Depose Chief Marketing Officer
CITGO PETROLEUM: "Alexis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
CLYDESDALE BANK: Faces Class Action Over Tailored Business Loans

CNOVA NV: Reaches $28.5MM Settlement in U.S. Over IPO
DO: Sued for Allegedly Causing Food Poisoning
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Court Certifies Class in "Reyes" CIPA Suit
ENZYMOTEC LTD: Jan. 24 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
EQUIFAX INC: CFPB May Use Powers Under Dodd-Frank Act After Hack

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Zweig" Suit in E.D. New York
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Mohamedali" Suit in N.D. Georgia
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Galpern" Suit in N.D. California
EQUIFAX INC: Beekman Sues over Consumers Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Clark" Suit over Consumers Data Breach

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Gottesman" Suit over Consumers Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Mardock Sues over Data Cybersecurity Incident
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "McDowell" Suit over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Vita" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Levy" Suit in E.D. New York

EXPERIAN SERVICES: $650K Attys' Fees Awarded in "Rodriguez"
FACEBOOK INC: St. John Appeals Order in Campbell Suit to 9th Cir.
FACEBOOK INC: Settles Investor Lawsuit Over Control of Company
FACEBOOK INC: Scraps Non-Voting Share Class Plan Prior to Trial
FCA US: Jeep Wrangler Lawsuit Says Sand Causes Damage

FLORIDA: Marijuana Law Challenged Over Black Farmer License
GC SERVICES LIMITED: Appeals Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
GOOGLE INC: Class Action Mulled Over Name Search Ban Violations
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Court Denies Bid to Remand "Stone" Suit
HAMILTON TOWNSHIP, NJ: Dec. 18 Settlement Approval Hearing Set

HOME CAPITAL: Court Approves Settlement Agreement
HOUSTON, TX: Homeowners Sue Over Hurricane Harvey Flooding
HYLAND'S INC: Hammack Appeals Decision in "Forcellati" Class Suit
IMPERIAL BANK: Depositors Mull Class Action Over Collapse
INT'L PAPER: Court Allows Class Action Over Flooding to Proceed

INTERNAL REVENUE: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of AFSP Suit
JACOB TRANSPORTATION: Limo Drivers Class in "Greene" Certified
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sen. Sparks to Represent Firms in Class Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Denies Bid to File TAC in Ponzi Scheme Suit
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Arroyo Probes Officers and Directors

KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Truck Driver Allowed to Amend Complaint
LON SMITH: Appeals Class Certification Ruling
MAXWELL & MORGAN: Court Denies Class Certification in "Lowe"
MDL 2639: Jammers Inc. Appeals Ruling to 9th Cir.
MDL 2639: Alessi Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit

MDL 2639: Barrios Appeals Decision to 9th Circuit
MDL 2639: Bobadilla Appeals Ruling to 9th Circuit
MDL 2639: Brady Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit
MDL 2639: Galandak Appeals Ruling to 9th Circuit
MDL 2639: Mahoney Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit

MDL 2664: Court Dismisses Data Security Breach Suit
MERCEDES-BENZ: Garick Sues over Radiator in 4-Matic Wagon Car
MERGERS MARKETING: District Court Refuses to Remand "Alame" Suit
MILAGRO OF MICHICAN: "Santillan" Suit Seeks unpaid OT under FLSA
MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: Ference Appeals Order in "Retta" Class Suit

MURRAY GOULBURN: Farmers' Class Action Over Milk Price Pending
NIDEC MOTOR: Faces "Spivak" Suit in California Superior Court
NORTHERN MARIANAS: Settlement Trustee Seeks Tenant for Building
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: 9th Cir. Splits From Other Circuits
OVERTON SECURITY: "McMillian" FLSA Claim Tossed w/ Leave to Amend

OXNARD, CA: "Kittel" Suit Moved to Central District of California
PATH INC: Attorneys Want $1.6MM Cut of App Privacy Deal
PATRIOT NATIONAL: Safirstein Metcalf Files Class Action Lawsuit
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Class Deal in "Rodriguez" Has Prelim. Nod
PHC INC: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Maz Partners Class Suit

PIGGLY WIGGLY: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit
PPI, INC "Rosenberg" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Phillips" Suit in N.D. Georgia
RESTAURANT DELIVERY: Court OK's FLSA Notice in "Roberson"
SFBSC MANAGEMENT: Some Class Members Object to Wage Settlement

RON HILL: Court Denies Bid to Treat as Class Action
ROYAL BANK: Freddie Mac Appeals Decision in N.J. Carpenters Suit
SEPHORA USA: Court Dismisses State Law Claims in "Duran"
SO. CAL PETROLEUM: "Rosales" Suit Moved to C.D. California
SOUTH CAROLINA: Ridgeland Inmates' Claims Separated for Review

SOUTHGOBI RESOURCES: Provides Update on Ontario Class Action
ST. LOUIS, MO: ACLU Files Suit Over Civil Rights Violations
STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in FCRA Suit
TD BANK: Pays Compensation for Shortchanging Customers
TEMPLE TERRACE, FL: Certification of Rental Housing Class Denied

TENNESSEE: Class Suit Filed Over Drivers' License Suspensions
TIM HORTON: Franchisor Accuses Board Members of Leaking Data
TINTRI INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action
TOKYO ELECTRIC: Ordered to Pay Former Fukushima Residents
TRICOR AMERICA: Velarde Seeks Premium Wages under Labor Code

TRIDENT ASSET: Faces "Burden" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
TROTT LAW: Continues to Defend Class Action Over FDCPA Violations
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "O'Connor" Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: O'Connor Appeals N.D. Calif. Order to 9th Cir.
UNITED STATES: Review on Two Vets' Discharge Status Ordered

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: ERISA Plaintiff Directed to Clarify Claims
VEOLIA: Class Actions Over Role in Flint Water Crisis Pending
VEON LTD: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
VERMONT: Investors File Class Action Over Role in Jay Peak Fraud
VIRGIN AMERICA: Court Denies Discovery Request in "Bernstein"

VIVA LABS: Court Denies Move to Dismiss "Tracton"
VOLVO CARS: Faces Class Action Over XC90 Sensus System Issues
WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL: Court Extends Pre-Trial Schedule in "Diggs"

* Group of College Professors Supports CFPB's Arbitration Rule
* Military Groups Join Democrats' Defense of Arbitration Rule
* Supreme Court to Address Arbitration Issues in New Term


                          Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Painter Testifies in Asbestos Removal Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Attys Voice Support for Transparency
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Tiles Discovered at Temple University
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Tosses Plaintiff Expert Testimony
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ainslie Shops Fluffy Clean-up Begins

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Payout for Kin Killed by Asbestos from IRA Bomb
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HFD Fined for Asbestos Violations During Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indian Co. Set to Buy 50K Tons of Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Auckland's Langham Hotel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Misdiagnosis Prompts Call for Greater Awareness

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Face Headwinds in Bid to Audit Payouts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposed Workers Urged to Sue Japanese Gov't.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Knew About Asbestos in Talc Decades Ago
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim Awarded $6.8MM Jury Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Off-Roading Can Expose Riders to Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Rejects "Bare-Metal" Defense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sonoma State University Ordered to Pay $2.9MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipyard Worker's Family Gets Asbestos Payment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shield Vital to Protect Vets' Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson & Johnson Facing Asbestos Talc Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 616 Pending Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at June30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Faces Asbestos Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had US$81.0MM Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Expects Additional Exposure at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BGE Still Defends Asbestos Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Estimates $37MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Had 23 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 168 Injury Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Faces 1,595 Cases at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favors Foster Wheeler, Warren
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies John Crane's Summary Judgment Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Reverses Owens Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suit vs. Volkswagen in "Haynes" Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Denies Re-Argument Bid in "Warren"





                            *********


AIC COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Awards $32MM in TCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sam Knef, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that after finding
in favor of plaintiffs in a trial in August over violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a federal court judge
has awarded $32.4 million in damages, or $10 per violation.

In a case against FreeEats.com and AIC Communications, U.S.
District Judge E. Richard Webber of the Eastern District of
Missouri found that the TCPA statutory damages clause of $500 per
violation is constitutional, "but a specific damages award may be
unconstitutional if it is 'so severe and oppressive as to be
wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously
unreasonable.'"

The case involved a six-day telemarketing campaign that placed 3.2
million telephone calls.

A jury trial had been held in the Eastern District of Missouri
from Aug. 7-16, after which the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for judgment as a matter of law. The lead plaintiff was Ron
Golan.

The defendants in post-trial motions had asked for a reduction of
damages to 10 cents per call, for a total award of $324,249,
according to Webber's ruling issued Sept. 7. They argued that
excessive-damage awards violate the Constitution.

Had the $500 per violation been awarded, the total judgment
against defendants would have amounted to $1.6 billion.

Webber wrote that courts are "hesitant" to declare a statutory
damage provision unconstitutional.

He wrote that in relation to the TCPA, "the $500 per violation
damages provision is meant to address harms that are otherwise
unquantifiable such as invasions of privacy, unwanted disruptions,
tied-up phone lines, and wasted time spent answering unwanted
phone calls."

Webber ruled that a $1.6 billion award would be "unreasonable and
wholly disproportionate to the offense."

He wrote that $10 fine per call reflects the "severity" in the
case against FreeEats.com and AIC Communications "as well as
respecting the purposes of the TCPA to have a deterrent effect and
to account for unquantifiable losses including the invasions of
privacy, unwanted interruptions and disruptions at home, and the
wasted time spent answering unwanted solicitation calls or
unwanted voice messages."

He further wrote that the amount also takes into account the
"significant" time and expense necessary to notify the class and
distribute awards. [GN]


AMERICAN REALTY: Grant Thornton Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Thornton LLP filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
consolidated lawsuit styled In re American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc. Litigation, Case No. 15-mc-40, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The appellate case is captioned as In re American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc. Litigation, Case No. 17-2858, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 22,
2017, American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and other
defendants filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit a petition for permission to appeal orders granting class
certification in the case.

According to VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P.'s
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017,
between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and
certain of its former officers and directors, among other
individuals and entities, were named as defendants in ten
securities class action complaints filed in the District Court.
The District Court consolidated these actions under the caption In
re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-
00040 (AKH) (the "SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action"). The
plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint on
December 11, 2015, which asserted claims for violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.[BN]

Petitioner Grant Thornton LLP is represented by:

          Gary F. Bendinger, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5387
          Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: gbendinger@sidley.com

Respondents Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America,
College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF), College Retirement
Equities Fund, TIAA-CREF Equity Index Fund, TIAA-CREF Real Estate
Securities Fund, TIAA-CREF Large Cap Value Index Fund, TIAA-CREF
Small Cap Blend Index Fund, TIAA-CREF Life Real Estate Securities
Fund, TIAA-CREF Life Equity Index Fund, TIAA-CREF Bond Index Fund,
Noah Bender, City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund, and
James W. Edwards, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others,
are represented by:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com

Respondent Simon Adabi is represented by:

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          1500 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          E-mail: jweiss@weisslawllp.com

Respondents Corsair Select 100, L.P.; Corsair Select Master Fund,
Ltd.; Corsair Capital Partners, L.P.; Corsair Select, L.P.;
Corsair Capital Partners 100, L.P.; and Corsair Capital Investors,
Ltd., are represented by:

          Thomas M. Skelton, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: tskelton@lowey.com

Respondents IRA FBO John Esposito and Berney Harris, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Howard T. Longman, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: hlongman@ssbny.com

Respondents New York City Fire Officers Variable Supplements Fund,
Board of Education Retirement System of the City of New York,
Teachers' Retirement System of the City of New York, Variable A,
New York City Police Superior Officers Variable Supplements Fund,
New York City Employees' Retirement System, New York City
Firefighters Variable Supplements Fund, Teachers' Retirement
System of the City of New York, New York City Police Pension Fund,
and New York City Fire Department Pension Fund are represented by:

          Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 589-2269
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: jreiser@cohenmilstein.com

Respondents Mitchell Ellis and Bonnie Ellis are represented by:

          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: AApton@zlk.com

Respondents Union Asset Management Holding AG, KBC Asset
Management NV and Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund are
represented by:

          Donald Migliori, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          321 South Main Street
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 457-7700
          E-mail: dmigliori@motleyrice.com

Respondent Paul Matten is represented by:

          William Scott Holleman, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          99 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 802-1486
          E-mail: scotth@johnsonandweaver.com

Respondent State Teachers Retirement Systems of Ohio is
represented by:

          Glen DeValerio, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
          E-mail: kdevalerio@bermantabacco.com

Respondent Bernard Priever is represented by:

          Robert Craig Finkel, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com

Respondent Sjunde Ap-Fonden is represented by:

          Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
          E-mail: gjarvis@gelaw.com

Respondent Stuart Rubinstein is represented by:

          Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4693
          E-mail: nespole@whafh.com


APPLE INC: Court Denies Albrechtsen's Forma Pauperis Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARK A. ALBRECHTSEN on behalf of himself and
a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE, INC.
c/o CT Corporation System, Registered Agent, 818 W 7th Street,
Suite 930 Los Angeles, CA 90017, Defendant, No. 1:17-cv-01664-TWP-
TAB (S.D. Ind.), Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division,
denied the Plaintiff's request to proceed on appeal without
prepayment of the appellate fees of $505.

Judge Pratt explained that an appeal may not be taken in forma
pauperis if the trial court certifies that the appeal is not taken
in good faith.  She found no objectively reasonable argument the
Plaintiff could present to argue that the disposition of the
action was erroneous.  In fact, the Plaintiff agreed with the
Court's determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

To the extent the pro se Plaintiff wishes to challenge the Court's
decision not to certify the action as a class action, that too is
not an objectively reasonable claim.  In pursuing an appeal,
therefore, the Plaintiff is acting in bad faith because to sue in
bad faith means merely to sue on the basis of a frivolous claim,
which is to say a claim that no reasonable person could suppose to
have any merit.  Accordingly, his appeal is not taken in good
faith.  For this reason, Judge Pratt denied the Plaintiff's
request for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Z3pjqa from Leagle.com.

MARK A. ALBRECHTSEN, on behalf of himself and a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

APPLE, INC., Defendant, represented by Thomas Eugene Mixdorf --
thomas.mixdorf@icemiller.com -- ICE MILLER LLP.


APPLE INC: Faces "Morgan" Suit in Northern Dist. of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple, Inc. The case
is captioned as Deonn Morgan, Lydia Zepeda, Sophia Ivy
Kelly Okorocha, and Jennifer Zielinski, individually and on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. Apple, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-05277-RS (N.D.
Cal., Sep. 12, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Richard
Seeborg.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California that designs, develops, and
sells consumer electronics.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory F Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247 0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522 0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Hassan Ali Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973 0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973 0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Annick Marie Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 254 6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973 0950
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841 2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652 2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Sharon S Almonrode, Esq.
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841 2200
          E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Sophia Jaclyn Goren, Esq.
          TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973 0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973 0950
          E-mail: sgoren@tzlegal.com


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Settlement in "Moses" Has Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York preliminarily approved the class
action settlement in the case captioned SUSAN MOSES, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE
HOSPITALITY REIT INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-03131 (SMG)
(E.D. N.Y.).

The Parties have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated
Aug. 25, 2017 to settle the litigation for $5.5 million.

For the purposes of the Settlement only, Magistrate Judge Gold
preliminarily certifies the Settlement Class described as any
person in the United States who participated in the DRIPs for
Apple REIT Seven and/or Apple REIT Eight from July 17, 2007 to
June 27, 2013 inclusive.

He preliminarily appointed Susan Moses as the Class Representative
of the Class; and Salas Wang LLC, Eccleston Law, LLC, and Law
Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. as the Interim Class Counsel.

Magistrate Judge Gold preliminarily approved the Settlement.  A
Final Fairness Hearing will be held by the Court on Jan. 16, 2018
at 4:30 p.m.

He approved the substance and requirements of the Notice.  No
later than Oct. 10, 2017, the Interim Class Counsel will mail, or
cause to be mailed, the Notice to those Class members who can be
identified through reasonable effort.  Not later than Oct. 20,
2017, the Interim Class Counsel will also cause a summary notice
to be published via PR Newswire or another national wire service
and will establish a website that will (at a minimum) provide
Class members with access to this Order, the Stipulation of
Settlement, the Notice, and all of the papers before the Court on
the Motion.

The Magistrate Judge consider any objections, and comments in
support of or in opposition to the Settlement, the Plan of
Allocation, or any request by counsel for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses, only if such
comments and any supporting papers are in writing and filed with
the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Room 130,
Brooklyn, NY 11201, and copies of all such papers are served, on
or before Dec. 29, 2017 upon each of the following by U.S. Mail
and e-mail:

Jeffrey M. Salas SALAS WANG, LLC 73 West Monroe, Suite 219
Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 803-4963 (312) 244-3151 (fax)
jsalas@salaswang.com James J. Eccleston Stephany D. McLaughlin
ECCLESTON LAW, LLC 55 West Monroe, Suite 610 Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 332-0000 (312) 332-0003 (fax) jeccleston@ecclestonlaw.com
Christopher J. Gray Michael J. Giarrusso LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER
J. GRAY, P.C. 360 Lexington Avenue, 14th Floor New York, New York
10017 (212) 838-3221 (212) 937-3139 (fax)
chris@investorlawyers.net

Any replies to any objections or comments will be filed and served
no later than Jan. 5, 2018.

Persons who intend to object to the Settlement, the Plan of
Allocation, and/or any request by counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses and
desire to present evidence at the Final Fairness Hearing must
include in their written objections the identity of any witnesses
they may call to testify and exhibits they intend to introduce
into evidence at the Final Fairness Hearing.

All parties are notified that the final approval of the Settlement
would result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in
the Litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/bvQCNx from Leagle.com.

Susan Moses, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Gray --
christopher.j.gray@hud.gov -- Law Offices of Christopher J. Gray,
P.C..

Susan Moses, Plaintiff, represented by James J. Eccleston --
JEccleston@ecclestonlaw.com -- Eccleston Law Offices, P.C.,
Jeffrey M. Salas -- jsalas@salaswang.com -- Salas Wang LLC, pro
hac vice & Christine Elizabeth Goodrich -- cgoodrich@faruqilaw.com
-- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.

Marsha Wilchfort, Plaintiff, represented by Lee Squitieri --
lee@sfclasslaw.com -- Squitieri & Fearon, LLP.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
F. Edwards -- eedwards@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro
hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr. -- jmcmahan@glvlawfirm.com --
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian -- mchristian@seyfarth.com
-- McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac vice, Marwill Beil --
mbeil@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, Richard L. Jarashow --
rjarashow@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP & Stanley A.
Roberts, McGuireWoods LLP.

Glade M. Knight, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marwill Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP.

Bryan Peery, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marwill Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP.

Kent W. Colton, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marwill Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP.

Glenn W. Bunting, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marwill Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP.

Ronald A. Rosenfeld, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F.
Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marwill Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP.

Anthony Francis Keating, III, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
F. Edwards, McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan,
Jr., McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP,
pro hac vice, Marwill Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow,
McGuire Woods LLP.

Lisa B. Kern, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marwill Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP.

Bruce H. Matson, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marwill Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP.

Michael S. Waters, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marwill Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP.

Robert M. Wily, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth F. Edwards,
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr.,
McGuirewoods LLP, Michelle M. Christian, McGuirewoods LLP, pro hac
vice, Marwill Beil, McGuireWoods & Richard L. Jarashow, McGuire
Woods LLP.


ARCELOR MITTAL: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Supreme Auto Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Auto Transport, LLC, Douglas Baker, Peter Kreutzfeldt,
Mark P. Lynch and Cynthia K. Seley filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit titled Supreme Auto Transport, LLC, et al.
v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-05468, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.

The lawsuit arose from alleged violations of antitrust laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Supreme Auto Transport, LLC, et
al. v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-2910, in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet was due September 29, 2017;
      and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before October 25, 2017, for
      Douglas Baker, Peter Kreutzfeldt, Mark P. Lynch, Cynthia K.
      Seley and Supreme Auto Transport, LLC.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SUPREME AUTO TRANSPORT, LLC, A Michigan
Corporation, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, PETER KREUTZFELDT, DOUGLAS BAKER, CYNTHIA K. SELEY and
MARK P. LYNCH are represented by:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900
          Facsimile: (212) 719-4677
          E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com

Defendant-Appellee ARCELOR MITTAL USA, INC., is represented by:

          Andrew S. Marovitz, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-0600
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8651
          E-mail: amarovitz@mayerbrown.com

Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION is represented
by:

          Daniel I. Booker, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          225 Fifth Avenue
          Reed Smith Centre
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-0000
          Telephone: (412) 288-3132
          Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
          E-mail: dbooker@reedsmith.com

Defendant-Appellee NUCOR CORPORATION is represented by:

          Todd Jay Ehlman, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-9703
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          E-mail: tehlman@winston.com

Defendant-Appellee GERDAU AMERISTEEL CORPORATION is represented
by:

          Jacob Hamann, Esq.
          EIMER STAHL LLP
          224 S. Michigan Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60604-2516
          Telephone: (312) 660-7614
          E-mail: jhamann@eimerstahl.com

Defendant-Appellee STEEL DYNAMICS, INCORPORATED, is represented
by:

          Joel G. Chefitz, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY LLP
          444 W. Lake Street
          Chicago, IL 60606-0029
          Telephone: (312) 984-6484
          Facsimile: (312) 984-7700
          E-mail: jchefitz@mwe.com

Defendant-Appellee AK STEEL HOLDING CORPORATION is represented by:

          Kevin J. Mahoney, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-6448
          Telephone: (312) 460-5737
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7537
          E-mail: kmahoney@Seyfarth.com

Defendant-Appellee SSAB SWEDISH STEEL CORPORATION is represented
by:

          John W. Treece, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One S. Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603-0000
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: jtreece@sidley.com

Defendant-Appellee COMMERCIAL METALS, INC., is represented by:

          Angela M. Liu, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          35 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-1608
          Telephone: (312) 646-5800
          Facsimile: (312) 646-5858
          E-mail: angela.liu@dechert.com


ARRIUM: Class Action Against Former Management "Imminent"
---------------------------------------------------------
Luke Griffiths, writing for The Advertiser, reports that
aggrieved Arrium shareholders say a class action against the
company's former management is imminent thanks to the backing of a
mystery international backer.

Arrium Shareholders United spokesman Robert Dadge said the group's
700 members had entered into a non-disclosure agreement with an
overseas legal firm and that the launch of a claim against
Arrium's former management was "imminent".

Although unable to reveal the identities of the legal team or the
person he said would fund the action, Mr Dadge -- whose Arrium
investment has cost him $60,000 -- said they were "definitely not
Mickey Mouse types".

"There seems to be a black hole of money in early 2016, leading up
to the administration . . . a strong possibility that the company
was trading while insolvent," he said.

Mr Dadge's comments come a day after Arrium administrator,
KordaMentha, announced that it had commenced the distribution of
$500 million to unsecured creditors. [GN]


BANK MUTUAL: "Kowalski" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL SCHUMEL, ALEX JAMES KOWALSKI
and HOLLY KAY KOWALSKI, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BANK MUTUAL CORPORATION,
MICHAEL T. CROWLEY, JR., DAVID A. BAUMGARTEN, RICHARD A. BROWN,
MARK C. HERR, MIKE I. SHAFIR, DAVID C. BOERKE, LISA A. MAUER,
ROBERT B. OLSON, THOMAS H. BUESTRIN, WILLIAM J. MIELKE and
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP, Case No. 2017-cv-006201, the Defendants
removed the case on Sep. 13, 2017 from the Circuit Court of
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, to United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01240-PP to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, Bank Mutual and Associated on July 20,
2017, announced that they had entered into an agreement pursuant
to which each share of Bank Mutual common stock will be converted
into the right to receive 0.422 shares of Associated common stock.
The Operative Complaint alleges that, based on Associated's July
19, 2017 closing stock price of $24.60 per share, the all-stock
transaction was valued at approximately $482 million. The
Operative Complaint further alleges that the Merger Consideration
"is inadequate and undervalues" Bank Mutual. The Plaintiffs assert
state law causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and for
aiding and abetting against Associated and Bank Mutual. The
Plaintiffs purport to bring this action as a class action on
behalf of themselves and "all other holders of Bank Mutual common
stock who are being and will be harmed" by the Defendants'
actions. The Plaintiffs allege that there are approximately
45,932,253 outstanding shares of Bank Mutual common stock.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendant Associated Banc-Corp:

          Howard A. Pollack, Esq.
          Michael B. Apfeld, Esq.
          John L. Kirtley, Esq.
          GODFREY & KAHN, S.C.
          833 East Michigan Street, Suite 1800
          Milwaukee, WI 53202-5615
          Telephone: (414) 273 3500
          Facsimile: (414) 273 5198
          E-mail: hpollack@gklaw.com
                  mbapfeld@gklaw.com
                  jkirtley@gklaw.com

               - and -

          Rachelle Silverberg, Esq.
          WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
          51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: 212 403 1299
          Facsimile: 212 403 2299
          E-mail: RSilverberg@wlrk.com


BANK MUTUAL: "Wollenburg" Suit Moved to E.D. Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as FREDERICK WOLLENBURG, On Behalf Of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BANK
MUTUAL CORPORATION, MICHAEL T. CROWLEY, JR., DAVID A. BAUMGARTEN,
WILLIAM J. MIELKE, THOMAS H. BUESTRIN, ROBERT B.
OLSON, MARK C. HERR, DAVID C. BOERKE, RICHARD A. BROWN, LISA A.
MAUER, MIKE I. SHAFIR and ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP, the Defendants,
Case No. 2017-cv-007312, the Defendants removed the case on Sep.
13, 2017, from the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin,
to United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-
01242-PPto the proceeding.

According to the complaint, Bank Mutual and Associated announced
on July 20, 2017, that the parties had entered into an agreement
pursuant to which each share of Bank Mutual common stock will be
converted into the right to receive 0.422 shares of Associated
common stock.  The Operative Complaint alleges that, based on
Associated's July 19 closing stock price of $24.60 per share, the
all-stock transaction was valued at approximately $482 million.
The Operative Complaint further alleges that the Merger
Consideration "is inadequate and undervalues" Bank Mutual. The
Plaintiffs assert state law causes of action for breach of
fiduciary duty and for aiding and abetting against Associated and
Bank Mutual.

The Plaintiffs purport to bring this action as a class action on
behalf of themselves and "all other holders of Bank Mutual common
stock who are being and will be harmed" by the Defendants'
actions. The Plaintiffs allege that there are approximately
45,932,253 outstanding shares of Bank Mutual common stock.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendant Associated Banc-Corp:

          Howard A. Pollack, Esq.
          Michael B. Apfeld, Esq.
          John L. Kirtley, Esq.
          GODFREY & KAHN, S.C.
          833 East Michigan Street, Suite 1800
          Milwaukee, WI 53202-5615
          Telephone: (414) 273 3500
          Facsimile: (414) 273 5198
          E-mail: hpollack@gklaw.com
                  mbapfeld@gklaw.com
                  jkirtley@gklaw.com

               - and -

          Rachelle Silverberg, Esq.
          WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
          51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: 212 403 1299
          Facsimile: 212 403 2299
          E-mail: RSilverberg@wlrk.com


BIG LOTS: Court Partly Grants Bid to Stay "Willis" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALAN WILLIS, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. BIG LOTS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-604 (S.D. Ohio), Judge
Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' Motion To Stay Pending Rule 23(f) Appeal.

This is a securities class action in which the Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants unlawfully inflated the value of Big Lots'
stock during the period from March 2, 2012 to Aug. 23, 2012 by
concealing the company's true financial condition.  On March 17,
2017, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting the Motion
filed by Lead Plaintiff, City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System, for class certification and for the appointment
of itself and Teamsters Local 237 Additional Security Benefit Fund
as Class Representatives and the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP as Class Counsel ("Underlying Motion").  Two weeks later,
the Defendants filed a Motion To Stay Dissemination Of Notice To
Class Members Pending Rule 23(f) Appeal.

On May 4, 2017, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the Defendants Motion be granted in part and
denied in part.  More specifically, the Undersigned recommended
that the Court direct the parties to prepare the class notice for
publication and mailing, but not permit dissemination of the
notice until the Sixth Circuit has resolved the petition for
permissive leave to appeal.  Judge Jolson added that if that
petition is granted, she may then consider a renewed Motion to
Stay.

The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation on June 8, 2017,
and thus dissemination of class notice was stayed.  It also stated
that if the Defendants' petition for appeal is granted, they could
renew the Motion to Stay.

The Sixth Circuit granted the Defendants' petition for appeal on
Aug. 23, 2017.  Although the Plaintiffs agree that a stay of
dissemination of class notice should continue pending appeal, they
oppose the Defendants' request to stay the remainder of the
proceedings.  Consequently, the Defendants filed the instant
Motion on Aug. 28, 2017.

Judge Jolson concludes that although questions remain about the
Defendants' likelihood of success on appeal, the landscape has
changed insomuch as the Sixth Circuit has granted the Defendants'
petition for appeal.  As the Court explained in In re Polyurethane
Foam Antitrust Litig., the defendants' burden with respect to a
showing a likelihood of success on the merits is two-fold: the
defendants must show a likelihood that the Rule 23(f) petition
will be granted, and that the Sixth Circuit will reverse" the
certification decision.

Here, the Defendants have satisfied the first part of that burden.
As to the second, there is at least some merit to their position
concerning the likelihood of success given that the Sixth Circuit
has yet to consider the price maintenance theory.  Thus, even if
this factor is a neutral or continues to weigh against a stay
(albeit less so in light of the procedural posture), it is not a
prerequisite and must be balanced with the potential harms and the
public interest which weigh in favor of a stay.

The Judge further concludes that the Defendants would suffer only
a minimal burden if required to comply with the deadline for
expert reports.  As the Plaintiffs explain, the parties were in
the midst of completing expert discovery on Aug. 23, 2017, when
the Sixth Circuit granted the Defendants' petition to appeal.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs served their expert reports on July
24, 2017, the Defendants' expert reports are due on Sept. 22,
2017, and the Plaintiffs' rebuttal reports are due on Oct. 27,
2017.  Thus, the Motion to Stay is denied in part as it relates to
expert reports.

However, Judge Jolson agrees that absent a stay of the remaining
expert discovery and the summary judgment deadline, significant
costs and judicial resources may be expended unnecessarily, which
is counter to the interests of the parties, the Court, and the
public.  This is not a situation where, as the Plaintiffs'
contend, a stay would do nothing more than unnecessarily delay the
resolution of this litigation.  Because the Sixth Circuit's
decision may define the contours of this case going forward, the
Motion to Stay is granted in part.

Based on these, Judge Jolson granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' Motion.  More specifically, the parties are
ordered to comply with the deadlines for expert reports, but the
remaining case deadlines are stayed pending resolution of the
interlocutory appeal in the Sixth Circuit.  Further, the stay of
dissemination of class notice continues.

Any party may, within 14 days after the Order is filed, file and
serve on the opposing party a motion for reconsideration by a
District Judge.  The motion must specifically designate the order
or part in question and the basis for any objection.  Responses to
objections are due 14 days after objection, and no reply will be
filed without leave of Court.  The District Judge, upon
consideration of the motion, will set aside any part of the Order
found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.  The Order is in
full force and effect, notwithstanding the filing of any
objections, unless stayed by the Magistrate Judge or District
Judge.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/vsjxR4 from Leagle.com.

Alan Willis, Plaintiff, represented by Austin P. Brane --
ABrane@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice.

Alan Willis, Plaintiff, represented by Brian E. Cochran --
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Brian K. Murphy -- murphy@mmmb.com -- Murray Murphy Moul +
Basil LLP, David W. Mitchell -- davidm@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin A. Lavelle --
klavelle@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Lucas F. Olts -- lolts@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & Joseph F. Murray -- murray@mmmb.com --
Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP.

City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Brian E. Cochran, Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, Joseph F. Murray, Murray Murphy Moul Basil LLP,
Austin P. Brane, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice,
Kevin A. Lavelle, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice &
Lucas F. Olts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice.

Teamsters Local 237 Additional Security Benefit Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by Joseph F. Murray, Murray Murphy Moul Basil LLP.

Big Lots, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Joseph Kulewicz --
jjkulewicz@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, William
Darrell Kloss, Jr. -- wdklossjr@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour &
Pease, Caitlin N. Fitzpatrick -- cfitzpatrick@cravath.com --
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, David A. Herman,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew P. Hendrickson
-- matthew.hendrickson@skadden.com -- Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP,
pro hac vice, Michael A. Paskin -- mpaskin@cravath.com -- Cravath,
Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy G. Cameron --
tcameron@cravath.com -- Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, pro hac
vice.

Steven S. Fishman, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Kulewicz,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, William Darrell Kloss, Jr., Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease, Caitlin N. Fitzpatrick, Cravath, Swaine &
Moore LLP, pro hac vice, David A. Herman, Cravath, Swaine & Moore
LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew P. Hendrickson, Cravath, Swaine & Moore
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael A. Paskin, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP,
pro hac vice & Timothy G. Cameron, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP,
pro hac vice.

Joe R. Cooper, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Kulewicz,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, William Darrell Kloss, Jr., Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease, Caitlin N. Fitzpatrick, Cravath, Swaine &
Moore LLP, pro hac vice, David A. Herman, Cravath, Swaine & Moore
LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew P. Hendrickson, Cravath, Swaine & Moore
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael A. Paskin, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP,
pro hac vice & Timothy G. Cameron, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP,
pro hac vice.

Charles W Haubiel II, Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Kulewicz, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Charles W. Haubiel II, Defendant, represented by William Darrell
Kloss, Jr., Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, Caitlin N. Fitzpatrick,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, David A. Herman,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew P. Hendrickson,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Michael A. Paskin,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy G. Cameron,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, pro hac vice.

Timothy A. Johnson, Defendant, represented by William Darrell
Kloss, Jr., Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, Caitlin N. Fitzpatrick,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, David A. Herman,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, John Joseph Kulewicz,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, Matthew P. Hendrickson, Cravath,
Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Michael A. Paskin, Cravath,
Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy G. Cameron, Cravath,
Swaine & Moore, LLP, pro hac vice.


BLACKROCK INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Krouse, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that
investors could have a more difficult time suing exchange-traded
fund managers for misrepresenting risks following a California
court decision in favor of ETF giant BlackRock Inc.

A group of investors who lost money during a wild day of ETF
trading in 2015 accused BlackRock's iShares unit of leaving out
certain warnings about what could go wrong in fund documents.
BlackRock said in court documents that its warnings were adequate.

Because of the way ETF shares are created and sold, those
investors were unable to link their holdings to a specific
registration statement that they said misrepresented certain risks
and therefore couldn't sue, according to San Francisco Superior
Court Judge Curtis E.A. Karnow.

In his ruling on Sept. 18, the judge said investors who purchase
securities after they are first issued are unable to sue under a
specific section of securities law.

The case showcases the evolving legal and regulatory
infrastructure surrounding the relatively nascent ETF market as
the products gain popularity and are tested by market events,
according to fund lawyers.  Globally ETFs hold $4.2 trillion in
assets, up from less than a trillion a decade ago.  BlackRock's
iShares unit is the biggest ETF provider in the world, with $1.5
trillion in assets at the end of June.

The court's decision could limit investors' ability to sue ETF
providers for leaving out or misrepresenting risks in fund
registration statements in the future, these lawyers say.

If the decision stands, "no retail investor will ever be able to
sue for a false registration statement or prospectus" for ETFs,
said Reed Kathrein -- reed@hbsslaw.com -- an attorney for the
investors at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  He said he plans to
appeal the decision.

While ETFs share some similarities with mutual funds, their
structure and mechanics are distinct, and subject to different
rules.  ETFs trade on exchanges like stocks and typically track
the performance of indexes.  They have some tax and trading
advantages over mutual funds and have pulled in hundreds of
billions of dollars in investor cash in recent years.

But the same structure that has made ETFs popular trading and
investing products also makes it impossible for individual
investors to track when the shares they own were issued and for
fund providers to see who owns them in real time, industry experts
and lawyers say.  Shares in mutual funds are purchased from fund
managers themselves.

ETF providers first create and redeem shares in their funds in
large blocks with so-called authorized participants in exchange
for baskets of securities.  This is referred to as the primary
market and shares are then sold to individual investors and others
in the so-called "secondary market."

The investors who brought the class-action suit against BlackRock
lost money on Aug. 24, 2015, when large stock share-price declines
triggered a wave of trading halts and dozens of ETFs traded at
sharp discounts to the sum of their holdings.

Those investors alleged in part that BlackRock failed to clearly
state the risks of buying and selling ETFs using particular order
types, even though the fund firm had known for years that such
risks existed.

BlackRock defended its disclosures and successfully argued that
retail investors bringing the case must be able to link their
shares to registration statements that were misleading when shares
were first issued to authorized participants.  That, however,
isn't possible, BlackRock said.

Shares in ETFs are "fungible and cannot be traced by plaintiffs to
any other particular registration statement or amendment thereto,
much less one that was materially false and misleading when the
shares were first sold in the primary market," BlackRock said in
court documents.

Investors in the California case unsuccessfully argued that shares
they bought after the publication of fund sales documents that
they say omitted certain risks should be covered by that material.

Other courts could interpret current regulations differently, fund
lawyers say.

"It's a very interesting precedent," to apply the standard of
linking a specific security to a particular registration statement
to ETFs, said Jay Baris -- jbaris@mofo.com -- chair of Morrison &
Foerster LLP's investment management practice.

There are other avenues for ETF investors to sue investment
managers, but one such option requires proving that the money
manger intended to mislead investors, which is a more difficult
standard to meet, fund lawyers say. [GN]


BLATT HASENMILLER: Bid to Strike Judgment Offer in "Spice" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GLORIA SPICE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLATT, HASENMILLER,
LEIBSKER & MOORE LLC, Defendant, Cause No. 1:16-CV-366-TLS (N.D.
Ind.), Judge Theresa L. Springmann of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Indiana denied the Plaintiff's Motion to
Strike Offer of Judgment.

Plaintiff Spice, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, has filed a class action complaint alleging violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act.  On May 26, 2017, she
filed a motion to certify the class.  This matter is before the
Court on the Plaintiff's June 12, 2017, Motion to Strike Offer of
Judgment that the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff on June 9,
2017, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.

The Defendant offered to allow judgment in favor of the Plaintiff,
individually, in the amount of $1,100 in damages, plus costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees.  The Plaintiff argues that the offer
should be deemed ineffective as an improper attempt to "pick off"
the class representative by putting her in the position to choose
between accepting the offer and abandoning the class for her own
pecuniary benefit, or rejecting the offer and face the potential
that she will bear the costs the Defendant incurs after the offer
date.  The Defendant contends that it properly exercised its right
under Rule 68 by making a reasonable offer, and that the Rule
contains no exception for class actions.

Judge Springmann finds no basis to strike the offer of judgment,
or to otherwise rule on its effect. She also declines to grant the
alternative relief requested in a footnote in the Plaintiff's
Motion.  The Plaintiff asks that if the Court chooses not to deem
the offer ineffective, that the Plaintiff be provided 14 days
after the date of the Court's order to reconsider the Rule 68
offer.  Just as the Court cannot force the Plaintiff to accept an
offer, neither can it force the Defendant to keep the offer open
for longer than the time set forth in Rule 68(a).

Finally, Judge Springmann notes that its decision is not a
statement about whether the Plaintiff would face the payment of
costs under Rule 68(d) if a class is certified but the Plaintiff's
individual award does not exceed the amount of the Defendant's
offer.  That issue is not before the Court, and it would be
premature to offer any views at this point in the proceedings.

For the reasons stated, Judge Springmann denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Strike Offer of Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/p4HPLY from Leagle.com.

Gloria Spice, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Panvini --
jpanvini@consumerlawinfo.com -- Thompson Consumer Law Group PLLC.

Gloria Spice, Plaintiff, represented by Russell S. Thompson, IV --
rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com -- Thompson Consumer Law Group PLLC.

Blatt Hasenmiller Leibsker & Moore LLC, Defendant, represented by
David M. Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP, Jennifer J. Kalas -- jkalas@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Christopher M. Manhart --
cmanhart@bhlmlaw.com -- Blatt Hasenmiller Leibsker & Moore LLC.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Faces "Vederman" Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluegreen Vacations
Unlimited, Inc.  The case is titled as Michael Vederman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc., a Florida
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-81025-WPD (S.D. Fla.,
Sep. 13, 2017).  The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William P.
Dimitrouleas.

Bluegreen Corporation is an American private vacation ownership
company based in Boca Raton, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333 9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498 8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL: Bid to Dismiss "Washington" Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TAMERRA WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. BRUMBAUGH
& QUANDAHL, P.C., LLO.; KIRK E. BRUMBAUGH; and MARK QUANDAHL,
Defendants, No. 8:15-CV-444 (D. Neb.), Judge John M. Gerrard of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska denied
Washington's motion for class certification, and B&Q's motion to
dismiss and its motion for contempt; and granted in part and
denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.

Tamerra Washington incurred a debt in 2011.  That bill went
unpaid, so the creditor retained Defendant B&Q to pursue legal
action against her.  On Sept. 18, 2015, B&Q filed suit against
Washington in Douglas County Court.  Washington, proceeding pro
se, filed a general denial to the complaint.

A few weeks later, B&Q served Washington with discovery requests,
including interrogatories and requests for admissions.  Through
those documents, B&Q sought general information from Washington
about the existence of the debt, and Washington's prior payment
history, if any.  In its request for admissions, B&Q asked
Washington, among other questions, to admit or deny owing the
debt, which it listed at $7,571.  B&Q's discovery requests also
contained limited information on where and how Washington should
submit her answers.

Soon thereafter, Washington filed this lawsuit, claiming
violations of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act ("NCPA") and
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  Washington claims
that B&Q routinely engages in abusive debt collection practices by
(i) incorrectly instructing pro se debtors that certain answers
must be "filed" and "sworn"; and (ii) failing to inform the
debtors of their right to object to discovery-related inquiries as
permitted under the Nebraska Rules of Discovery.  Based on those
allegations, Washington moves for certification of four Plaintiff
Classes -- two under the FDCPA, and two under the NCPA.

There are over 1,200 pages of highly contentious argument and
evidence currently before the Court.  Those filings correspond to
five pending motions, which include Washington's motion for class
certification, B&Q's motion to dismiss, the parties' cross-motions
for summary judgment, and B&Q's motion for contempt.

The proposed FDCPA classes -- Class One and Class Two -- consist
of pro se Nebraska residents who were sued by B&Q during the one
year period prior to the filing of the complaint in this matter.
Those classes differ, according to Washington, only in the type of
violation alleged.  In other words, Class 1 consists of pro se
debtors who were served by B&Q with requests for admissions
indicating that the recipient is to swear to the answers under
oath and that the recipient's responses are to be filed with the
Court.  Class Two, on the other hand, consists of pro se debtors
who were served by B&Q with any discovery which failed to inform
the recipient of the right to object to any discovery requests.

The proposed NCPA classes -- Class Three and Class Four -- are
materially identical to those just described, but include Nebraska
residents who were sued by B&Q in the past four years, as opposed
to the past 12 months.

Judge Gerrard concludes that Washington has failed to satisfy her
burden, and that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are not
satisfied.  Accordingly, Washington's motion for class
certification will be denied.

The Judge further concludes that Washington has Article III
standing to pursue her claims under the FDCPA.  Therefore, B&Q's
motion for summary judgment will be denied on those grounds.

While Quandahl claims to have had no involvement in Washington's
state court proceedings, his bar identification number is listed
as a signatory on the allegedly false and misleading discovery
requests.  Based on that evidence, the Judge cannot say, as a
matter of law, that Quandahl is not -- and was not -- a "debt
collector" for purposes of FDCPA liability.  Accordingly,
Quandahl's motion for summary judgment on these grounds will be
denied.

With respect to Washington's claims that B&Q's requests for
admissions are false, misleading, and unconscionable because they
incorrectly imply that the recipient's answers must be "sworn" and
"filed," Judge Gerrard finds that B&Q's instructions are
materially false, and that Washington is entitled to summary
judgment on those grounds.  As noted throughout, B&Q's
instructions incorrectly imply that, in order to comply with
discovery related procedures, the debtor must find a notary public
and then file their responses with the court.  Washington's motion
will be granted.

The Judge finds Washington's arguments that B&Q acted improperly
by asking her to admit matters that she had previously denied and
that the discovery forms failed to include information regarding
the response date and where the responses should be sent fail for
at least two reasons.  First, B&Q's discovery documents clearly
state that answers are required within 30 days of the service
thereof and both contain information about where the answers
should be sent.  Additionally, Judge Gerrard has found no
authority to suggest that a debt collector is prohibited from
seeking admissions whenever a pro se debtor has filed a general
denial to the underlying complaint.  Thus, because B&Q's request
for admissions was not false or misleading in the manner in
Washington alleges, B&Q's motion for summary judgment on these
grounds will be granted.

An NCPA claim requires a showing that not just one, but many
Nebraska citizens are affected by a defendant's practices.  And
because Washington is not entitled to class certification on her
claims, it does not appear that she can make that showing.  While
the Court is inclined to grant B&Q summary judgment on the NCPA
claims, Washington will be provided until Oct. 7, 2017 to show
cause why summary judgment should not be entered as to those
claims.  If no objection is filed, summary judgment will be
entered for B&Q, and against Washington, with respect to
Washington's claims under the NCPA.

Judge Gerrard, upon full consideration of B&Q's argument, the
Court is not convinced that contempt is appropriate on these
facts.  That said, he insists that, in future proceedings, the
parties tone down the persistent finger-pointing that often
accompanies their briefing and argument.  Such behavior does
nothing to advance the issues and arguments that actually matter,
and unnecessarily expands the already voluminous record.

Therefore, B&Q is entitled to summary judgment on each of
Washington's FDCPA claims with the exception of Count I, which
alleges violations based on the "sworn" and "filed" language
described.  With respect to that claim, Washington is entitled to
summary judgment, and statutory damages in the amount of $1,000.

But it is unclear, at least at this point, if Defendant Quandahl
shares in that liability.  In other words, because genuine issues
of material fact remain as to whether Quandahl is or was a "debt
collector," the Judge is unable to determine whether, if at all,
Quandahl is liable.  Accordingly, at this juncture, the claims
remaining for disposition are Washington's NCPA claims and her
claim against Quandahl based on the "sworn" and "filed" language
of B&Q's discovery request.

Judge Gerrard, for the reasons stated, (i) denied Washington's
motion for class certification; (ii) denied as moot B&Q's motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim; (iii) granted in part and
denied in part B&Q's motion for summary judgment; (iv) granted in
part and denied in part Washington's motion for partial summary
judgment; and (v) denied B&Q's motion for contempt.

The Judge directed Washington to show cause, on or before Oct. 7,
2017, why summary judgment should not be entered as to her NCPA
claims.  The Clerk of the Court will enter a show cause deadline
of Oct. 7, 2017.  This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge
for case progression as to Washington's remaining, unresolved
claim against Quandahl.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/WMT66k from Leagle.com.

Tamerra F. Washington, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg
-- rand@horwitzlaw.com -- HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM.

Tamerra F. Washington, Plaintiff, represented by Pamela A. Car --
pacar@cox.net -- CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht
-- pacwlr@earthlink.net -- CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.

Brumbaugh & Quandahl, P.C., LLO., Defendant, represented by Karl
E. Von Oldenburg -- karlvonoldenburg@bqlaw.com -- BRUMBAUGH,
QUANDAHL LAW FIRM & W. Gregory Lake -- glake@bqlaw.com --
BRUMBAUGH, QUANDAHL LAW FIRM.

Kirk E. Brumbaugh, Defendant, represented by Karl E. Von
Oldenburg, BRUMBAUGH, QUANDAHL LAW FIRM & W. Gregory Lake,
BRUMBAUGH, QUANDAHL LAW FIRM.

Mark Quandahl, Defendant, represented by Karl E. Von Oldenburg,
BRUMBAUGH, QUANDAHL LAW FIRM & W. Gregory Lake, BRUMBAUGH,
QUANDAHL LAW FIRM.


BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Faces CA Lawsuit for Posting Mug Shots Online
---------------------------------------------------------------
US News reports that a lawyer for a man who sued a Pennsylvania
county jail for posting his mug shot online says nearly 70,000
former inmates could have claims in a class-action lawsuit, though
the county being sued disputes that.

Attorney Jonathan Shub, Esq. -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- of Kohn
Swift & Graf, P.C., represents Daryoush Taha, 46, a Sicklerville,
New Jersey, man arrested on disorderly conduct and other charges
in 1998. Those charges were expunged two years later.

Taha sued the Bucks County jail after his mug shot and arrest
information were included in 2011 on a county website where people
could look up current and former jail inmates. After the lawsuit,
the county removed all mug shots and most inmates' arrest
information two years later.

The county lost its appeal of a judge's ruling last year that it
violated federal law and that Taha's case can go forward as a
class action.

The Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information Act prohibits
sharing a person's arrest record with anyone outside of law
enforcement if the person isn't convicted of a crime.

Shub contends the county could be on the hook for between $1,000
and $10,000 in punitive damages for each person whose picture was
posted on the website -- about 68,000 of them -- or between $68
million and $680 million.

The county isn't commenting on the lawsuit, but has argued in
court filings that the posting of the inmates' names amounts to a
single violation of the act, meaning the total punitive damages
the county faces would simply be $1,000 to $10,000.

Shub disagrees.

"We think we can prove willfulness and each posting of another
name is a willful violation," Shub said. "Bucks County faces a
serious predicament."

Temple University law professor Ken Jacobsen, an expert on class-
action lawsuits, isn't so sure.

Jacobsen said because the court didn't find Taha experienced any
actual damages by having his name and picture posted, a jury might
be hard-pressed to award punitive damages to Taha -- let alone
tens of thousands of others.

"It's going to be interesting to see how damages are proved for
these 60,000 other people," Jacobsen said.

Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed. [GN]


CANADA: Trial in Inmate Death Begins, Ont. Class Action Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Habiba Nosheen, writing for CBC News, reports that Deb Abrams has
been preparing for the last four years to walk into a London
courthouse and face the person charged with killing her 29-year-
old son, Adam Kargus.

"This has been going on for almost four years," Ms. Abrams tells
CBC's The Fifth Estate in an interview for an upcoming documentary
set to air later this year. "I have to stay strong for my son."

"I want justice for Adam . . . so that there isn't another Adam."

Anthony George, Kargus's cellmate inside the Ontario provincial
jail, Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre (EMDC), has been charged
with second-degree murder in connection with his death on Oct 31,
2013.  The trial started on Sept. 25 and is expected to last three
weeks.

A class action lawsuit was certified on behalf of over 10,000 EMDC
inmates against the Province of Ontario.  The claim seeks over
$300 million in damages on behalf of inmates incarcerated there.

The statement of claim alleges an unsafe environment,
overcrowding, lack of care, lack of supervision and lack of
sanitary conditions.  It also alleges that the jail fostered an
atmosphere of "violence, brutality and intimidation."

EMDC has been embroiled in one lawsuit after another over
allegations that inmates' rights are routinely violated inside the
detention center.

Six staff were fired after Kargus' death for failing to do their
jobs.  However, three of the guards were able to get their jobs
back in April 2017 after an Ontario's grievance settlement board
found that the actions of the guards that led to their firing in
this case, "have gone on for years, if not decades, and they were
open and obvious."

High number of deaths

The board ruled that, "there can be no questions that managers
were aware of the practices at EMDC that deviated from written
policy . . ."

One guard who worked at EMDC for decades shares concerns for the
high number of deaths at EMDC.

"No one deserves to die in an institution like that.  And that's
something that's become too prevalent at that jail," he spoke to
The Fifth Estate about his time there on the condition that we
protect his identity because he fears retribution.  "It's tough to
really feel any sympathy for what goes on in there.  But, I've
said all along, nobody deserves to die in there."

Back in her hometown of Sarnia, Ont., Ms. Abrams acknowledges that
her son Adam had a drug addiction and had struggled to stay clean
when he landed in jail.

A tattoo with his name is inked on her left forearm.  Around her
neck, she wears a silver necklace that holds the vial of ashes of
her son.  A bumper sticker on her jeep reads, "Justice for Adam."

She pulls out the last letter her son wrote to her from jail
before he died in which he promises to turn his life around.

"Dear Mom, I just wanted to write to express my honest to God
gratitude for all your support in all of this . . . My heart and
soul are filled with love to know I have such support . . . I am
going to seek counseling upon my release."

"He didn't get that chance," Ms. Abrams says holding the letter in
her hands. [GN]


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Rodriguez Appeals Judgment to Second Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robert Rodriguez filed an appeal from a District Court
judgment dated August 15, 2017, in the lawsuit titled Rodriguez v.
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated, Case No. 16-cv-2006, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court tossed the putative class action ruling that the Plaintiff
-- a diner, who said he was misled into leaving suggested 40 and
60 percent gratuities -- was given all the relevant information he
needed before tipping.

Judge Joan M. Azrack dismissed without leave to amend the suit
brought by Robert Rodriguez who claimed that, although he split
his bill with a companion, his portion of the bill listed
"suggested gratuity" percentages for the entirety of the check.
Judge Azrack pointed out that Mr. Rodriguez, who claims he tipped
based on the receipt's suggestion, acknowledged also receiving a
copy of the entire bill, which included the same suggested
gratuity totals.

The appellate case is captioned as Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake
Factory Incorporated, Case No. 17-2854, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Rodriguez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Richard M. Hendler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD M. HENDLER
          10-14 Bond Street
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 984-6900

Defendant-Appellee The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated is
represented by:

          Brian Thomas Carney, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1 Bryant Park
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 872-8156
          Facsimile: (212) 872-1002
          E-mail: bcarney@akingump.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Can't Depose Chief Marketing Officer
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARTIN SCHNEIDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-02200-HSG
(KAW) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the District Court
for the Northern District of California denied the Plaintiffs'
request to depose Mark Crumpacker, who is the Defendant's Chief
Marketing Officer.

On April 27, 2015, the Defendant began its advertising campaign,
"G-M-Over It."  In this campaign, it represented that it was
becoming the first fast food chain in the United States to have a
GMO free menu that uses "only non-GMO ingredients."

On April 22, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the instant putative class
action against the Defendant.  They allege that the Defendant
violated California, Maryland, Florida, and New York consumer
protection laws when it began advertising that its foods were free
of genetically modified organisms ("GMOs").

The Plaintiffs allege that the campaign is misleading because the
Defendant: (i) serves protein products such as beef, chicken, and
pork from poultry and livestock that have been raised on GMO feed;
(ii) serves dairy products such as cheese and sour cream derived
from cows raised on GMO feed; and (iii) sells beverages such as
Coca-Cola and Sprite that are loaded with corn-syrup derived from
GMO corn.

The Plaintiffs now seek to represent four classes, made up of all
persons residing in California, Maryland, Florida, and New York,
during the period April 27, 2015 to the present, who purchased
and/or paid for Chipotle Food Products.

On Sept. 8, 2017, the parties filed a joint discovery letter
regarding a dispute over the Plaintiffs' proposed deposition of
Mr. Mark Crumpacker.

Judge Westmore finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to identify
any unique personal knowledge by Mr. Crumpacker.  As an initial
matter, the Plaintiffs generally fail to identify what information
they believe Mr. Crumpacker has that has not been otherwise
produced in discovery.  Instead, they only state that Mr.
Crumpacker has not been fully examined on issues relevant to this
case, but do not specify what those issues are.

More significantly, even if Mr. Crumpacker has knowledge on these
unidentified issues, the Plaintiffs do not explain why Mr.
Crumpacker has unique personal knowledge of the facts.  The
evidence cited to by them confirms that Mr. Crumpacker has
knowledge, but does not necessarily show that he had unique
knowledge.  The Plaintiff then points to a number of e-mails that
Mr. Crumpacker was a part of, but again, this does not suggest
unique knowledge given the other individuals who were on the e-
mails, several of whom were deposed by the Plaintiffs.

All of this evidence shows that Mr. Crumpacker worked with other
individuals, many of whom were deposed by the Plaintiffs.  Thus,
the Plaintiffs have failed to show that Mr. Crumpacker has unique,
non-repetitive language that would warrant a deposition.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden.
Accordingly, Judge Westmore denied the Plaintiffs' request to
depose Mr. Crumpacker.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/TlUbpL from Leagle.com.

Martin Schneider, Plaintiff, represented by Donald R. Hall --
dhall@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer, pro hac vice.

Martin Schneider, Plaintiff, represented by Frederic S. Fox --
ffox@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, pro hac vice, Linda
M. Fong -- lfong@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP,
Mario Man-Lung Choi -- mchoi@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, Matthew B. George -- mgeorge@kaplanfox.com --
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Laurence D. King --
lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Sarah Deigert, Plaintiff, represented by Donald R. Hall, Kaplan
Fox and Kilsheimer, pro hac vice, Frederic S. Fox, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, pro hac vice, Linda M. Fong, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP, Mario Man-Lung Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Matthew B.
George, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox
& Kilsheimer LLP.

Theresa Gamage, Plaintiff, represented by Donald R. Hall, Kaplan
Fox and Kilsheimer, pro hac vice, Frederic S. Fox, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, pro hac vice, Linda M. Fong, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP, Mario Man-Lung Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Matthew B.
George, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox
& Kilsheimer LLP.

Nadia Parikka, Plaintiff, represented by Donald R. Hall, Kaplan
Fox and Kilsheimer, pro hac vice, Frederic S. Fox, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, pro hac vice, Linda M. Fong, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP, Mario Man-Lung Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Matthew B.
George, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox
& Kilsheimer LLP.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles C.
Cavanagh -- ccavanagh@messner.com -- Messner Reeves, Adam M.
Royval -- aroyval@messner.com -- Messner Reeves, Allison Dodd --
adodd@messner.com -- Messner Reeves, Jacqueline Raquel Guesno --
jguesno@messner.com -- Messner Reeves, Kristina M. Wright --
wright@messner.com -- Messner Reeves & Sascha Von Mende Henry --
shenry@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.


CITGO PETROLEUM: "Alexis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
MARK ALEXIS, ET AL, the Plaintiffs, v. CITGO PETROLEUM
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01159-UDJ-KK (W.D.
La., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to recover all unpaid compensation, an
equal amount of liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and any
and all other amounts permitted by law, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated employees of Defendant CITGO Petroleum
Corporation. The Plaintiffs assert that CITGO willfully violated
the provisions of the FLSA by depriving Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees of their lawful wages and overtime at
the proper rate for time spent working.

According to the complaint, for more than three years prior to the
filing of this Complaint, CITGO has intentionally committed
violations of the FLSA by, among other things, refusing to pay
employees for time spent before and after their scheduled shifts
relieving the outgoing shift and providing pertinent operating
information to the incoming shift.

Citgo Petroleum is a Venezuelan-owned American refiner,
transporter and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants,
petrochemicals and other industrial products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Somer G. Brown, Esq.
          COX, COX, FILO, CAMEL & WILSON, LLC
          723 Broad Street
          Lake Charles, LA 70601
          Telephone: (337) 436 6611
          Facsimile: (337) 436 9541
          E-mail: somer.brown@coxcoxfilo.com


CLYDESDALE BANK: Faces Class Action Over Tailored Business Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Menon, writing for Mortgage Solutions, reports that
Clydesdale Bank is to be the subject of a class action lawsuit
concerning allegedly mis-sold small business loans by the same
claims firm representing victims of Royal Bank of Scotland's
Global Restructuring Group.

RGL Management, which is representing the claimants, believes
there could be as many as 1,000 or more small businesses which
would join the action.  However, it has been criticised for taking
a significant percentage of any compensation.

The so-called Tailored Business Loans offered by Clydesdale Bank
were taken out between 2002 and 2012, and allegedly came with
hidden break clauses which imposed large penalties on the firms if
they tried to pay back the loans early.

In response to the news, Clydesdale Bank issued the following
statement: "We have seen media reports of a potential claim being
considered in relation to Tailored Business Loans, however we have
not received any such claim to date from RGL Management Ltd. It is
therefore not possible to comment on speculation around any
potential case or the basis for any claim."

"In relation to Tailored Business Loans, this is a long-standing
historical matter, which has been subject to significant scrutiny
and which the bank has been working through with customers as part
of a wide-ranging remediation programme, in an open and
transparent manner.  We have made significant progress in
resolving the vast majority of cases.  Where we have reached a
final agreement with customers, the cost of this has been covered
by existing provisions as extensively disclosed in our financial
reports," it added.

GBP1.6 billion in damages

James Hayward, CEO of RGL told Mortgage Solutions that pre-action
correspondence with Clydesdale will take place in the next 3-4
months.  Prior to that he is undertaking a marketing campaign
involving press advertising to try and build the number of
claimants from the hundreds to around 1,000.  "If we have 1,000
claimants we'll be asking for over GBP1.6 billion in damages,
which is when it starts to get interesting."

Mr. Hayward explained that in return for RGL assuming all the
financial risk of litigation it never takes more than 50% of the
compensation awarded to claimants.

He added: "These people don't have anywhere else to go, as but for
us they would have no redress.  Clydesdale has told claimants:
'come to us and we'll compensate you' but that is unrealistic.  It
is a bit like a rapist saying to the victim, 'it was consensual'."

RGL is running a similar claim on behalf of small businesses
against the Royal Bank of Scotland's now defunct Global
Restructuring Group. It alleges that GRG helped bankrupt these
businesses to boost profits.

Mortgages
Separately, Clydesdale Bank Intermediaries has announced the
launch of its lowest ever fixed rate mortgage. It is offering a
two-year fixed rate of 1.24%, as well as a five-year fixed rate of
1.89%.

The bank is expanding its range of 60% loan-to-value (LTV)
products and reducing rates on a number of other products by up to
0.2%. The new rates are:

   * two-year fixed at 1.24% and an arrangement fee of GBP999
(loans GBP80,000-GBP499,999) or GBP1,499 (loans GBP500,000 -
GBP1m);

   * five-year fixed at 1.89% and an arrangement fee of GBP999
(loans GBP80,000-GBP499,999) or GBP1,499 (loans GBP500,000 -
GBP1m);

   * five-year fixed at 2.04% and no arrangement fee (loans
GBP80,000-GBP1m).

The new products are available for purchase and remortgage
applications. [GN]


CNOVA NV: Reaches $28.5MM Settlement in U.S. Over IPO
-----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, that Cnova NV, the e-
commerce arm of French retailer Groupe Casino, agreed to pay $28.5
million to settle litigation in the United States claiming it
defrauded investors in connection with its November 2014 initial
public offering.

The all-cash, preliminary settlement was filed on September 22
with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, and it requires a
judge's approval.

It resolves claims that Cnova inflated its share price by
overstating net sales and profit, failed to properly write down
the value of damaged and returned items and concealed employee
misconduct and accounting irregularities at a Brazilian unit.

Cnova denied wrongdoing and liability but settled to avoid the
risks and costs of litigation, which sought class action status,
court papers show.

The plaintiffs are led by Jaideep Khanna and Michael Schwabe, and
their law firm Brower Piven plans to apply for legal fees of up to
one-third of the settlement fund, court papers show.

Cnova had gone public at $7 per share, but its share price had
fallen by about two-thirds by the time litigation began.

The Netherlands-based company in December 2015 announced an
investigation into inventory mismanagement at Brazilian
warehouses, and two months later told investors they could no
longer rely on some of its financial statements.

Cnova was delisted from Nasdaq in March, after Casino tendered for
nearly all its outstanding shares in the United States, regulatory
filings show.

The case is In re Cnova NV Securities Litigation, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 16-00444. [GN]


DO: Sued for Allegedly Causing Food Poisoning
---------------------------------------------
Stefanie Tuder, writing for NY Eater, reports that Do, the
Instagram-famous, raw cookie dough shop that garners hours-long
lines, is being sued for allegedly causing at least two cases of
food poisoning. Two Manhattan College students have brought a
class-action lawsuit against the eight-month-old confectionary,
alleging owner Kristen Tomlan knowingly lied about the safety of
her product.

Do's website calls the raw cookie dough "completely safe to
consume" because of pasteurized egg product and heat-treated
flour. "That means NO chance of food-borne illness or the risk
that comes along with eating raw flour products. At last, worry-
free treats you can't get sick from!" the site says.

Except Julia Canigiani and Katherine Byrne say they both got sick
minutes after eating at Do, experiencing diarrhea, heartburn, and
more. The suit, in full below and first reported by the Post, also
cites eight other Yelp reviews that allege sickness. According to
the Mayo Clinic, food poisoning can begin "within hours of eating
contaminated food."

Canigiani and Byrne are suing for unspecified damages on behalf of
anyone who got sick after eating at Do. Update: Do tells Eater
that, "We stand behind the safety of our products and our
representations about our products. We will fully and faithfully
defend ourselves against any and all false accusations." [GN]


EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Court Certifies Class in "Reyes" CIPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned AJ REYES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EDUCATIONAL
CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-00628-
BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal.).

ECMC is a guaranty agency in the Federal Family Education Loan
Program ("FFELP") under the Higher Education Act of 1965.  As
such, ECMC helps to administer the FFELP as a guarantor of federal
student loans on behalf of the United States Department of
Education.  In carrying out this role, the company is tasked with
engaging in reasonable and documented collection activities on
loans that have gone into default.

Reyes brings the putative class action against the Defendant
alleging violations of California's Invasion of Privacy Act
("CIPA").

The Plaintiff now moves for certification of a proposed class
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 described as all
individuals who, between Aug. 2, 2014, to March 31, 2015,
inclusive, participated in an inbound telephone conversation with
a live representative of ECMC that was: (i) placed to an ECMC
phone line with a 0 in the Info field for the audio file that
contained the verbiage this call is being recorded; (ii) made from
a telephone number that includes a California area code; and (iii)
transmitted via cellular telephone.

ECMC filed an opposition -- arguing generally that the Plaintiff
fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 -- to which the
Plaintiff replied. Both parties also submitted supplemental
briefing.

One of the strongest justifications for the class action device is
its regulatory function.  Violations of CIPA, which aims to
protect California residents from secret recording, are likely to
go unrecognized due to the secretive nature of invasions of
privacy. Consequently, the statute is unlikely to achieve optimal
deterrence without the prospect of a class action suit designed to
vindicate many individual claims at once.

The Plaintiff has met the requirements of Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and
(b)(3).  Accordingly, Judge Bashant granted the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification.  She certified the injunctive relief
portion of the proposed class action under Rule 23(b)(2) and the
monetary damages portion under Rule 23(b)(3).

The Judge certified the class described as all individuals who,
between Aug. 2, 2014, to March 31, 2015, inclusive, participated
in an inbound telephone conversation with a live representative of
ECMC that was: (i) placed to an ECMC phone line that used the non-
mandatory message setting for its admonition that the call is
being recorded; (ii) made from a telephone number that includes a
California area code (i.e., 209, 213, 310, 323, 408, 415, 424,
442, 510, 530, 559, 562, 619, 626, 650, 657, 661, 707, 714, 760,
805, 818, 831, 858, 909, 916, 925, 949, or 951); (iii) transmitted
via cellular telephone; and (iv) recorded without the caller's
consent.

Judge Bashant appointed the Plaintiff as the class representative
and the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron as the class counsel.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B), the
parties will meet and confer, and submit to the Court an agreed-
upon form of class notice that will advise individual members of,
among other things, the nature of the action, the relief sought,
the right of class members to intervene or opt out, and the
binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3).
The parties will also jointly submit a plan for dissemination of
the proposed notice.  The proposed notice and plan of
dissemination will be filed with the Court on or before Oct. 17,
2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/k6CTiU from Leagle.com.

A J Reyes, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexis M. Wood --
admin@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

A J Reyes, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kas L. Gallucci, Law Offices
of Ronald A. Marron, Ronald Marron, Law Office of Ronald Marron &
Daniel G. Shay, Law Offices of Daniel G. Shay.

Educational Credit Management Corporation, Defendant, represented
by David J. Kaminski -- kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson and Messer
& Martin Schannong -- schannom@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP.


ENZYMOTEC LTD: Jan. 24 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Saxena White P.A. in
regard to a proposed class action settlement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE ENZYMOTEC LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Civ. Action No. 2:14-cv-5556 (JMV) (JBC)

LEGAL NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES (1) WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED ENZYMOTEC COMMON STOCK FROM SEPTEMBER 27, 2013 TO AUGUST
4, 2014, INCLUSIVE (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD"), AND WERE
DAMAGED THEREBY; AND/OR (2) PURCHASED AND/OR CAN TRACE YOUR
PURCHASE OF SHARES OF ENZYMOTEC COMMON STOCK ISSUED IN THE INITIAL
PUBLIC OFFERING ("IPO") THAT OCCURRED ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 27,
2013 AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY; AND/OR (3) PURCHASED AND/OR CAN
TRACE YOUR PURCHASE OF SHARES OF ENZYMOTEC COMMON STOCK ISSUED IN
THE SECONDARY PUBLIC OFFERING ("SPO") THAT OCCURRED ON OR ABOUT
FEBRUARY 27, 2014, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY

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 District of New Jersey (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") has been certified,
for settlement purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the
Settlement Class, as set forth in the full printed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the Court, a
hearing will be held on January 24, 2018, at 10:30 a.m., before
the Honorable John Michael Vazquez, United States District Judge,
at the Martin Luther King Building & United States Courthouse, 50
Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey 07101, for the purpose of
determining (1) whether the proposed settlement of the Action for
the sum of $6,500,000.00 in cash should be approved by the Court
as fair, reasonable, and adequate, which would result in this
Litigation being dismissed with prejudice against the Released
Persons1 as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated March
29, 2017; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation of settlement
proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be
approved; and (3) whether the application for fees and expenses in
connection with this Litigation should be approved.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Enzymotec common stock,
your rights may be affected by this Litigation and the settlement
thereof. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to
Enzymotec Ltd. Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, Epiq
Systems, Inc., PO Box 4079 Portland, OR 97208-4079, or by
downloading this information at
www.EnzymotecSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release Form postmarked no later than December 26,
2017, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery.

You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation
unless you request to be excluded, in writing, to the above
address, postmarked by January 3, 2018.

Any objection to any aspect of the settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court no later than January 3, 2018, and received
by the following no later than January 3, 2018:

Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
Lester R. Hooker
5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
Boca Raton, Florida 33486
Telephone: (561) 394-3399

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI
OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
James E. Cecchi
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700

RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
Richard A. Maniskas
995 Old Eagle School Rd., St. 311
Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087
Telephone: (484) 588-5516

Counsel for Defendants
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
Richard H. Zelichov
575 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10022-2585
Telephone: (212) 940-8800

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call 844-
418-6627 or contact Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel at the address listed
above. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: September 5, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

1 Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms shall
have the same meanings as set forth in the Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: CFPB May Use Powers Under Dodd-Frank Act After Hack
----------------------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS reports that add the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
to the list of federal agencies expected to punish Equifax for the
massive security breach that exposed the personal data of around
143 million Americans.

According to a Reuters news report, the consumer finance watchdog,
created after the 2008 financial crisis, will utilize the wide-
ranging powers it has used with Wall Street to come down on
Equifax.

The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice are
already investigating the cyberattack.  In addition, Equifax is
being sued by the state of Massachusetts, and is also facing a
class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of 28 million small
businesses impacted by the breach and another suit just filed by
Summit Credit Union.

Because Equifax is not strictly a financial company, there was
uncertainty over whether the CFPB has the power to penalize the
firm for the breach.  But legal experts said it is likely to weigh
in using powers it wields under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.

"Its Dodd-Frank mandate gives the CFPB authority to investigate
Equifax even without cybersecurity rules," said Quyen Truong, a
partner at law firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan who was the
assistant director and deputy general counsel for the CFPB until
early 2016.

The CFPB and legal experts said the regulator could pursue Equifax
under an aspect of the Dodd-Frank Act that bans unfair, deceptive
and abusive acts and practices (UDAAP).  Based on this aspect of
the law, the CFPB even fined Equifax in January for allegedly
deceiving consumers about the usefulness and cost of credit score
information they bought.

A CFPB spokesperson declined to say whether the agency already has
plans to open an investigation.  In addition to forcing companies
to take certain actions or desist from damaging behaviors, the
CFPB can fine them up to $1 million per day if a company knowingly
violates the law.

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote a letter to the CFPB, which
she helped create, stating that it may require additional powers
to ensure closer federal oversight of credit reporting agencies.
[GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Zweig" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is entitled as Marc Zweig, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05366-RJD-SMG (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 13,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Raymond J. Dearie.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367 7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367 1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Mohamedali" Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is captioned as Sakina Mohamedali and Ben Allanoff,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03501-TWT (N.D. Ga., Sep. 12, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 864 2800
          Facsimile: (215) 864 2810
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER, LLP - PA
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 3610
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864 2800
          Facsimile: (215) 864 2810

               - and -

          Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444 0773
          E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com
                  flemond@webbllc.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Galpern" Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc.  The
case is captioned as Andrew Galpern, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax,
Inc. and Trusted ID, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-05265-
BLF (N.D. Cal., Sep. 12, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon.
Beth Labson Freeman.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corey Benjamin Bennett, Esq.
          Teresa Denise Allen, Esq.
          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891 9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891 7030
          E-mail: cbennett@scalaw.com
                  tallen@scalaw.com
                  scole@scalaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy Paul Rumberger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY P. RUMBERGER
          1339 Bay Street
          Alameda, CA 94501
          Telephone: (510) 841 5500
          Facsimile: (510) 521 9700
          E-mail: tim@rumbergerlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Beekman Sues over Consumers Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Bernadette Beekman, Elizabeth Twitchell James Freeman-Hargis,
and Douglas Diamond individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03492-TCB (N.D. Ga., Sep. 12, 2017),
seeks to remedies, among others, statutory damages under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and state consumer protection statutes,
reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses, other compensatory damages,
further and more robust credit monitoring services with
accompanying identity theft insurance beyond Equifax's current
one-year offer, and injunctive relief including an order requiring
Equifax to implement improved data security measures.

According to the complaint, on September 7, 2017, Equifax
disclosed a nationwide data breach affecting an estimated 143
million American consumers. According to the press release
published by Equifax, criminals exploited a U.S. website
application vulnerability to access the Company's consumer and
commercial credit reporting databases from mid-May 2017 through
July 2017.  The information stolen primarily included names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers, credit card numbers, credit dispute documents, and other
personally identifiable information.  Equifax purportedly
discovered the unauthorized access to its databases as early as
July 29, 2017 and engaged an independent cybersecurity firm to
conduct a forensic review to determine the scope of the intrusion,
including the specific data impacted. Equifax also reported the
criminal access to its databases to law enforcement at this time.
Unbelievably, however, Equifax chose not to inform consumers about
this massive breach until September 7, 2017. The Data Breach
resulted from Equifax's failure to implement adequate security
measures to safeguard consumers' PII and having willfully ignored
known weaknesses in its data security, including prior hacks into
its systems and those of its subsidiaries, along with the
weaknesses those previous intrusions identified. Unauthorized
parties routinely attempt to gain access to and steal information
from networks and information systems -- especially from entities
like Equifax, which are known to possess the valuable personal and
financial information of a large number of individuals and
entities.

As a result of Equifax's willful failure to prevent the breach,
the Plaintiffs and Class members have been exposed to fraud,
identity theft, and financial harm. Although Equifax claims that
it has found no evidence of unauthorized activity on its core
consumer or commercial credit reporting databases, Plaintiffs and
other Class members will become victims of identity fraud in the
future, given the breadth of the PII that was exposed during the
Data Breach.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers.  Equifax maintains databases of
consumer and business information derived from numerous sources
including credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility
payments, employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The
Company uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools
to analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David A. Bain, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC
          1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 1050
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 724 9990
          Facsimile: (404) 724 9986
          E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com

               - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338 1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338 1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
          Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
          Correy A. Kamin, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545 4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686 0114
          E-mail: pollack@whafh.com
                  burt@whafh.com
                  kamin@whafh.com

               - and -

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 984 0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214 3110
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Clark" Suit over Consumers Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH CLARK, MEGHAN CLARK, and RUTH REYES, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
EQUIFAX INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03497-MHC (N.D. Ga.,
Sep. 12, 2017), seeks remedies including but not limited to
compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs,
statutory damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, credit
monitoring services provided by a third party vendor unaffiliated
with Equifax, and injunctive relief including improvements to
Equifax's data security systems.

The case is a data breach class action on behalf of 143 million
consumers whose sensitive personal information including Social
Security numbers, birth dates, names, addresses, and in some
instances driver's license numbers, credit card numbers, and other
personal information (collectively "Personally Identifiable
Information" or "PII") was stolen from Defendant Equifax Inc. in a
cyber-attack.  Equifax failed to adequately safeguard consumers'
Identifiable Information. Lack of proper safeguards provided a
means for unauthorized intruders to access Equifax's computer
network and steal consumers' highly sensitive PII. Armed with this
sensitive information, data thieves can commit a variety of crimes
including, e.g., taking out loans in another person's name,
opening new financial accounts in another person's name, using the
victim's information to obtain government benefits, filing a
fraudulent tax return using the victim's information, obtaining a
driver's license in the victim's name but with another person's
photograph, and giving false information to police during an
arrest. As a result of the breach, Plaintiffs and Class members
have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. Plaintiffs and Class members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft. Class members may be faced with fraudulent debt
and may incur out of pocket costs for, e.g., purchasing credit
monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other
protective measures to deter and detect identity theft.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594 5933
          Facsimile: (612) 584 4470
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net

               - and -

          Sherrie Savett, Esq.
          Shanon Carson, Esq.
          Jon Lambiras, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: ssavett@bm.net
                  scarson@bm.net
                  jlambiras@bm.net


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Gottesman" Suit over Consumers Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GOTTESMAN, SOLOMON HESNEY, ELIZABETH CHAKAN, and DAVID
POLLAK, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Plaintiffs, v. EQUIFAX, INC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03498-ELR (N.D. Ga., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to recover damages
caused to Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclasses by Equifax's
violations of law, including state data breach statutes, and
injunctive relief requiring Equifax to properly safeguard the
Class's Personal Information on its computer system or
alternatively, remove such Personal Information from its computer
system.

According to the complaint, on July 29, 2017, however, Equifax
discovered that it had failed in that responsibility. From mid-May
through July 2017, criminals exploited an Equifax U.S. website
application vulnerability gaining unauthorized access to
https://www.equifaxsecurity2017.com/consumer-notice/ certain
files. The accessed files included personal consumer information,
such as names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses,
and in some instances, driver's license numbers.  In addition, the
accessed files also included credit card numbers for approximately
209,000 consumers and certain dispute documents, which included
personal identifying information, for approximately 182,000
consumers were accessed -- which are also included in the
definition of "Personal Information".

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Worley, Esq.
          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq.
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
          8100A Roswell Road, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Telephone: (404) 205 8400
          E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com
                  david@ewlawllc.com
                  kristi@ewlawllc.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Jay I. Brody, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356 2570
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
                  jbrody@kgglaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Mardock Sues over Data Cybersecurity Incident
----------------------------------------------------------
APRIL MARDOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
17-03499 (N.D. Ga., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks remedies, among others
reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses, other compensatory damages,
any available statutory damages, further and more robust credit
monitoring services with accompanying identity theft insurance,
and injunctive relief including an order requiring Equifax to
implement improved data security measures.

The Plaintiff bring this class action case against Defendant
Equifax for its massive failure to secure and safeguard consumers'
personally identifiable information ("PII") which Equifax
collected from various sources in connection with the operation of
its business as a consumer credit reporting agency, and for
failing to provide timely, accurate and adequate notice to
Plaintiff and other consumers that their PII had been stolen and
precisely what types of information were stolen.

According to the complaint, on September 7, 2017, Equifax
disclosed the occurrence of a cybersecurity incident in which
unauthorized persons gained access to the PII of approximately 143
million U.S. consumers held by Equifax. Based on its
investigation, Equifax stated that the period of unauthorized
access lasted approximately 10 weeks, from mid-May through July
2017. According to Equifax, the information accessed includes
names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and, in
some instances, driver's license numbers. In addition, Equifax has
admitted that credit card numbers for approximately 209,000 U.S.
consumers, and certain other documents with personal identifying
information for approximately 182,000 U.S. consumers, were
accessed. Equifax has admitted that it discovered the Data Breach
on July 29, 2017, but delayed informing the public until September
7, 2017. Equifax has not stated why it failed to disclose the Data
Breach to consumers for nearly six weeks. However, after Equifax
learned of the Data Breach but before it was disclosed to the
public, Equifax executives sold at least $1.8 million worth of
shares of Equifax stock. It has been reported that its Chief
Financial Officer John Gamble sold shares worth $946,374, its
president of U.S. information solutions, Joseph Loughran,
exercised options to dispose of stock worth $584,099, and its
president of workforce solutions, Rodolfo Ploder, sold $250,458 of
stock on August 2, 2017.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          David J. Worley
          Kristi Stahnke McGregor
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
          8100 A. Roswell Road, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Telephone: (404) 205 8400
          Facsimile: (404) 205 8395
          E-mail: david@ewlawllc.com
                  jim@ewlawllc.com
          kristi@ewlawllc.com

               - and -

          Ariana J. Tadler, Esq.
          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          Henry Kelston, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 50th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594 5300
          Facsimile: (312) 346 0022
          E-mail: atadler@milberg.com
                  arado@milberg.com
                  hkelston@milberg.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "McDowell" Suit over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
ANDREW MCDOWELL, JENNIFER PARKER, MORGAN MCCLUNG, CHEVERA
BLAKEMORE, COLTON GREGORY, OLIVIA DAVIS, PATRICK DAVIS BARBARA
QUEENEN, LILY ZHOU, MAGGIE MCKINNEY, ASHLEY MIRANDA HALL, CHRIS
ALLISON, JOE SPELLMAN, CLAIBORNE REED, CHRISTOPHER TAMBURELLO,
PAUL FALKENBERG, TOM CRUMLY, WILLIAM MORIARTY, DOUGLAS HAMMEL,
AMANDA LOTS, ANN MARIE WALSH, DANIEL WALSH, RONALD PARKER, JOSIE
LOU SMITH, LARA KNEBEL, JOE YODER, DESIRAE BROADHEAD, RONALD
BROWN, ASHLIE ATKINSON, REBEKAH RHODES, KYLE HANNAH, COURTNEY
FINCH, MICHAEL FINCH, HERSCHEL SIGALL, MEREDITH VILLINES, NICHOLAS
WATSON, JESSICE WATSON, GREGORY KESDEN, KEITH REISMAN, JASON
PIPPIN, ROBIN SMITH, ANTHONY DIMMAGIO, KURT ZENDE, And CAROL
BARBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc. the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-03502-TCB (N.D. Ga., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks all remedies
available under their respective state data breach statutes,
including but not limited to damages, equitable relief, including
injunctive relief, treble damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, as provided by the applicable laws.

This action arises from a months-long data breach experienced by
Equifax during the spring and summer of 2017. Through this breach,
hackers were able to exploit "a garden variety website flaw" to
obtain a massive amount of the most sensitive personal data
available, acquiring the full names, Social Security Numbers,
birth dates, addresses and drivers license numbers of over 143
million Americans. Beyond the severity and scope of the pilfered
data, the Equifax breach also stands out for the way the company
handled the breach once it was discovered. Although Equifax was
aware of the breach as early as July 2017, it did nothing to
apprise affected individuals -- almost 50% of the U.S. population
-- until September 7, 2017. During that time, three Equifax
executives were permitted to sell more than $1.8 million worth of
stock in the days following the company's discovery of the breach.
Noted security researcher Brian Krebs described Equifax's response
to the breach as "completely broken at best, and little more than
a stalling tactic or sham at worst." Of particular concern, the
website the company created to inform people whether they were
affected by the breach would provide results seemingly at random:
"In some cases, people visiting the site were told they were not
affected, only to find they received a different answer when they
checked the site with the same information on their mobile
phones." Further, in the course of providing remedial measures to
affected consumers, Equifax offers a year's worth of credit
monitoring services that in turn require the user to agree to
binding arbitration, thereby foregoing any legal remedy in the
courts for harm caused by Equifax's data breach. Doing so also
lowers the cost to Equifax for future credit monitoring services
as many victims of the breach, including Plaintiffs, will not
succumb to forgoing their legal rights to redress in court. As a
result of the staggering array of personal information that has
been compromised, Plaintiff and Class members will have to remain
vigilant for the rest of their lives to combat potential identity
theft arising from the critical (and in some instances,
irreplaceable) data that are in the hands of cyber criminals, who
may use such data for any purpose, at any point, in perpetuity.
Despite all best efforts of
Plaintiff and Class Members, or any other third party to scrub
these data from the World Wide Web, they are potentially forever
recoverable by anyone who wishes to find them. Equifax's acts,
practices, and omissions violate the laws of numerous states, and
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, a nationwide
class, and multiple state subclasses.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Cohen, Esq.
          COMPLEX LAW GROUP, LLC
          40 Powder Springs Street
          Marietta, GA 30064
          Telephone: (770) 200 3100
          Facsimile: (770) 200 3101
          E-mail: dcohen@complexlaw.com

               - and -

          Allen Carney, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312 8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312 8505
          E-mail: acarney@cbplaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Vita" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is captioned as Nancy M. Vita, Horace C. Ramey, James A.
Black, Jimmie Moore, Thomas A. Williams, Daniel R. Dalton, and
Brittany S. Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03484-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Sep. 12, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Steve C Jones.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradley W. Pratt, Esq.
          THE PRATT LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4401 Northside Parkway, NW, Suite 520
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 939 6101
          Facsimile: (404) 939 4750
          E-mail: bpratt@theprattfirm.com

               - and -

          Charles L. Clay, Jr., Esq.
          CHUCK CLAY & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          4401 Northside Parkway, NW, Suite 520
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 949 8118
          Facsimile: (404) 949 8159
          E-mail: chuck@chuckclay.com

               - and -

          Christopher Baker Hall, Esq.
          Peter Andrew Lampros, Esq.
          HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Promenade Two, Suite 950
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 876 8100
          Facsimile: (404) 876 3477
          E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com
                  alampros@hallandlampros.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Levy" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC. The case is captioned as Daniel Levy, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Equifax Information Services, LLC and Does 1 through 10, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05354-JBW-LB (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 12,
2017).  The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jack B. Weinstein.

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human
resources business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments and consumers. Equifax maintains databases of consumer
and business information derived from numerous sources including
credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The Company
uses statistical techniques and proprietary software tools to
analyze all data to create solutions and services for its
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
          166 Mercer Street, Suite 3A
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 966 5253
          Facsimile: (212) 941 8566
          E-mail: AJG@consumercounselgroup.com


EXPERIAN SERVICES: $650K Attys' Fees Awarded in "Rodriguez"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Sue Rodriguez, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Experian Services Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-
03553-R-MRW (C.D. Cal.), Judge Manuel L. Real of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division,
granted Lead Plaintiff's Counsel's petition for an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Court has granted final approval to the Settlement of the
class action.

The Lead Plaintiff's Counsel, the Schwaba Law Firm and Nicholson
Law Firm, PA, appointed by the Court as the Class Counsel for the
purposes of the Settlement have petitioned the Court for an award
of attorneys' fees in compensation for the services provided to
the Lead Plaintiffs and the Class, and reimbursement of expenses
incurred in connection with the prosecution of this action, to be
paid out of the Settlement Fund established pursuant to the
Settlement.

Having reviewed the fee application and the supporting materials
filed therewith, and having heard the presentation made by the
Class Counsel during the final approval hearing, Judge Real
awarded the Class Counsel $650,000 as attorneys' fees in the
action, which includes their costs of prosecution of the action.
The attorneys' fees will be paid and reimbursement of expenses
will be made in the manner and procedure provided for in the
stipulations of Settlement.

Judge Real also awarded the Lead Plaintiffs $2,000 for an
incentive fee award and reimbursement for their lost time in
connection with their prosecution of the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/nx96qd from Leagle.com.

Sue Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Edward H. Nicholson, Jr.,
Nicholson Law Firm PA, pro hac vice.

Sue Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by R. Kevin Fisher --
rkf@fkslaw.net -- Fisher and Krekorian & Andrew J. Schwaba,
Schwaba Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Deborah Sumlin, Plaintiff, represented by Edward H. Nicholson,
Jr., Nicholson Law Firm PA, pro hac vice, R. Kevin Fisher, Fisher
and Krekorian & Andrew J. Schwaba, Schwaba Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Laurie Amagan, Plaintiff, represented by Edward H. Nicholson, Jr.,
Nicholson Law Firm PA, pro hac vice, R. Kevin Fisher, Fisher and
Krekorian & Andrew J. Schwaba -- ADMIN@VERDICTNC.COM -- Schwaba
Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Taaliba Warden, Plaintiff, represented by Edward H. Nicholson,
Jr., Nicholson Law Firm PA, pro hac vice, R. Kevin Fisher, Fisher
and

Krekorian & Andrew J. Schwaba, Schwaba Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Nick Nichols, Plaintiff, represented by Edward H. Nicholson, Jr.,
Nicholson Law Firm PA, pro hac vice, R. Kevin Fisher, Fisher and
Krekorian & Andrew J. Schwaba, Schwaba Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Steed Rollins, Plaintiff, represented by Edward H. Nicholson, Jr.,
Nicholson Law Firm PA, pro hac vice, R. Kevin Fisher, Fisher and
Krekorian & Andrew J. Schwaba, Schwaba Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Debbie Houston, Plaintiff, represented by Edward H. Nicholson,
Jr., Nicholson Law Firm PA, pro hac vice, R. Kevin Fisher, Fisher
and Krekorian & Andrew J. Schwaba, Schwaba Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Courtney Dusseau, Plaintiff, represented by Edward H. Nicholson,
Jr., Nicholson Law Firm PA, pro hac vice, R. Kevin Fisher, Fisher
and Krekorian & Andrew J. Schwaba, Schwaba Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Vito Andrisani, Plaintiff, represented by Edward H. Nicholson,
Jr., Nicholson Law Firm PA, pro hac vice, R. Kevin Fisher, Fisher
and Krekorian & Andrew J. Schwaba, Schwaba Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Experian Services Corp., Defendant, represented by Levi William
Heath -- levi.heath@BTLaw.com -- Barnes and Thornburg LLP,
Jonathan Boustani -- Jonathan.Boustani@btlaw.com -- Barnes and
Thornburg LLP & Mark W. Bayer -- Mark.Bayer@btlaw.com -- Barnes
and Thornburg LLP, pro hac vice.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jaclyn B. Stahl -- jstahl@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Levi William
Heath, Barnes and Thornburg LLP, Jonathan Boustani, Barnes and
Thornburg LLP & Mark W. Bayer, Barnes and Thornburg LLP, pro hac
vice.

Experian Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Levi William
Heath, Barnes and Thornburg LLP, Jonathan Boustani, Barnes and
Thornburg LLP & Mark W. Bayer, Barnes and Thornburg LLP, pro hac
vice.

CPL Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jaclyn B. Stahl,
Jones Day & John A. Vogt, Jones Day.

LowerMyBills.com, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jaclyn B. Stahl,
Jones Day & John A. Vogt, Jones Day.

Stephen Brian Heymann, Defendant, represented by Levi William
Heath, Barnes and Thornburg LLP, Jonathan Boustani, Barnes and
Thornburg LLP & Mark W. Bayer, Barnes and Thornburg LLP, pro hac
vice.

Steve Kranzler, Defendant, represented by Jaclyn B. Stahl, Jones
Day & John A. Vogt, Jones Day.

Mitchell Viner, Defendant, represented by Jaclyn B. Stahl, Jones
Day & John A. Vogt, Jones Day.


FACEBOOK INC: St. John Appeals Order in Campbell Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Anna W. St. John filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Matthew Campbell, et al. v. Facebook, Inc.,
Case No. 4:13-cv-05996-PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 1,
2017, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted the Plaintiffs' motions
for final approval, attorneys' fees and costs, and service awards
for the class representatives; and overruled the objection of Anna
St. John.

The case was filed on Dec. 30, 2013.  This is a certified class
action alleging violations of the federal Electronic
Communications Privacy Act and California's equivalent, the
Invasion of Privacy Act.  Plaintiffs Campbell and Michael Hurley,
as the class representatives, allege that Facebook's practice of
scanning its users' messages without consent violates these
statutes.

The appellate case is captioned as MATTHEW CAMPBELL; MICHAEL
HURLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. ANNA W. ST. JOHN, Objector-Appellant v.
FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-16873, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- September 22, 2017 -- Mediation Questionnaire due;

   -- October 16, 2017 -- Transcript shall be ordered;

   -- November 14, 2017 -- Transcript shall be filed by court
      reporter;

   -- December 26, 2017 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts
      of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and
      9th Cir. R. 32-1;

   -- January 26, 2018 -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts
      of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and
      9th Cir. R. 32-1; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
      served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief,
      pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1.[BN]


FACEBOOK INC: Settles Investor Lawsuit Over Control of Company
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Castillo, writing for CNBC, reports that Facebook on
September 22 settled a lawsuit over issuing reclassified shares
that some investors argued would decrease the value of their
investment, and announced it was abandoning that plan.

The class action shareholder lawsuit was intended to block
Facebook from issuing reclassified C shares, which some investors
argued could cause shares to lose billions of dollars of value
when they were traded. The new C shares would be publicly listed
but come with no voting rights.

The classification would have allowed Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
to keep voting control of the company, even if he decided to lower
his total ownership stake. The lawsuit said the new structure
would have meant that Zuckerberg could own as little as 2 percent
of the company and still keep voting control.

In a note on Facebook in April 2016, Zuckerberg wrote the plan was
created in order to allow him and his wife Priscilla Chan to
donate money to solving global issues like curing diseases,
improving education and climate change. It would also still allow
him to stay "committed" to improving and leading Facebook,
including helping the company grow internet access around the
world, improve its artificial intelligence and develop virtual and
augmented reality.

The trial was scheduled to begin September 22, and Zuckerberg was
scheduled to take the stand.

Other people who were expected to testify include Facebook board
members Marc Andreessen, CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation Susan Desmond-Hellmann, and former White House chief of
staff Erskine Bowles. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Scraps Non-Voting Share Class Plan Prior to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Renick and Sarah Frier, writing for Bloomberg News, report
that Silicon Valley spent more than a decade finding ways to give
company founders more control. When Facebook Inc. tried to follow
suit, shareholders pushed back.

Google started it with a 2004 initial public offering that gave
co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin voting rights well beyond
their economic stakes in the search giant.  Groupon Inc., Zynga
Inc. and Facebook did it too, and this year Snap Inc. sold stock
with no voting rights at all.

In each case, investors went along, buying into the argument that
founders need control so they can carry out their long-term
visions.  Sometimes shareholders sued, and invariably lost.

In 2015, Facebook doubled down with a proposed new share class to
solidify co-founder Mark Zuckerberg's grip on the social media
giant forever, even if he sold almost all his stock.  Shareholders
sued again, and this time they won.  Facebook scrapped its plans
on Sept. 22, just days before a class action lawsuit challenging
the move was set to go to trial.

"This really is the death knell for existing companies trying to
adopt a non-voting share class," said Ken Bertsch, executive
director at the Council of Institutional Investors, a nonprofit
group that advocates for strong corporate governance.

There are other signs of sentiment shifting. In political and
regulatory spheres, there's a new push to rein in U.S. internet
companies, which have grown to become the world's most valuable
public corporations in recent years.

In capital markets, S&P Global Inc. recently barred stocks with
multiple share classes from joining its main U.S. indexes --
excluding Snap, although Facebook was grandfathered in.  And
London Stock Exchange Group Plc unit FTSE Russell announced a list
of more than 30 companies it would bar from its indexes unless
they raised the percentage of voting rights accorded to public
investors.  MSCI Inc., another major index provider, also spoke
out against these structures recently.

"When you create these special classes of shares that are not
aligned with the economic interests of the shareholders, some will
say that's poor corporate governance," George Maris, portfolio
manager at Janus Capital, said.  "It's essentially trying to have
your cake and eat it too.  You want someone else's money but the
class is divorced from what the shareholders want."

In the tech sector, these special share arrangements often
originate with venture capital investors when companies are
private.  Travis Kalanick had an elaborate way of maintaining
control of Uber Technologies Inc., for example.  But even private
companies are starting to have to answer to shareholder scrutiny:
Kalanick resigned earlier this year after a series of scandals at
the ride-hailing provider.

The lawyers challenging Facebook said that with Zuckerberg taking
back his plan, they "achieved everything we could have hoped to
obtain," according to Lee Rudy -- lrudy@ktmc.com -- a partner at
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.

"This case is important in the ongoing struggle between Silicon
Valley and the belief that founders should maintain ultimate
control," Stuart Grant, an attorney for shareholders at law firm
Grant & Eisenhofer, said.  "Once you ask for public money, that
changes."

Not everyone's convinced Mr. Zuckerberg's decision will dilute
other founders' control.  Mr. Zuckerberg, for his part, said he
made the decision because Facebook's stock had appreciated so much
he didn't need a new class of shares to retain control.

Facebook shares are up about 30 percent in the last 12 months,
valuing the company at $495 billion through Friday, Sept. 22.
They slipped as much as 3.2 percent to $165.12 Monday, Sept. 25,
the biggest intraday decline since June 12.

The suit against Facebook also contained embarrassing revelations
that the CEO may not have wanted to discuss in court.  So the
company may have scrapped the plan to avoid blushes, rather than
appease outside shareholders.  Mr. Zuckerberg also is dealing with
several political crises, most notably investigations into whether
Facebook ads were used by Russia to sow discord ahead of the U.S.
presidential election last year.

And while index providers wield power because hundreds of billions
of dollars are invested against their benchmarks, it's not clear
if their dim view of multiple-class structures is enough to
dissuade a founder who wants to retain control.

"If S&P and indexes had said they won't include the stock, then a
company like Facebook would say fine, don't put us in the index --
--- it's a question of who wags the dog," said Matt Maley, an
equity strategist at Miller Tabak & Co. [GN]


FCA US: Jeep Wrangler Lawsuit Says Sand Causes Damage
-----------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Jeep
Wrangler radiator sludge lawsuit alleges the engines circulate
sand through the cooling systems, causing the sand to settle in
the radiators, oil cooling systems and heater cores. This
allegedly creates sludge that blocks vital heating and cooling
systems.

The proposed 2012-2017 Jeep Wrangler class-action lawsuit says the
two lead plaintiffs suffered from heater problems that cost each
plaintiff more than $1,000 to repair.

Both customers say their Jeep Wranglers were defective when they
were shipped from the plant due to leftover sand in the cylinder
heads. The sand allegedly travels through the systems and block
vital components related to the HVAC systems.

Because sand shouldn't be there in the first place, routine
maintenance allegedly does nothing to fix the alleged damage to
the Pentastar engines and radiators. It's a problem Jeep owners
have complained about for years.

The Texas owner of a 2012 Wrangler said there was no heat on the
driver's side of the vehicle, so the owner checked the coolant.

"I checked my overflow tank and found about 3" of sand in the
bottom. The service manager at the Jeep dealership said he did not
have a recall, campaign or service bulletin on this and it would
not be covered by Jeep. He said he'd not heard of the issue, but
when he asked fellow service managers they had heard of it in
older Wranglers. This is a pretty outrageous issue if you ask me.
Nobody but Jeep dealers have serviced the vehicle, so where would
significant amounts of sand-like residue come from to get into the
cooling system?"

Another Jeep owner says taking the SUV back to dealers for heating
problems has turned into a bad habit.

"I will be bringing in my Jeep for the third time to have the heat
fixed. The passenger side heat feels warmer than the drivers side.
After having my Jeep for six days, they ended up replacing the
heater core (again!) and flushing the coolant to rid the system of
any casting sand." -- 2012 Jeep Wrangler owner / Eureka, Missouri

And the owner of a 2013 Jeep Wrangler complained the coolant was
an abnormal color when the SUV had only 28,000 miles.

"The vehicle was taken to the dealer to get a coolant flush where
it was diagnosed that there was casting sand in the coolant. The
vehicle was repaired; however, upon returning the vehicle home,
the contact inspected the coolant system and noticed that it had
been contaminated by sand particles."

The Wrangler lawsuit alleges the only fix is to replace the
engines to get rid of damage from sand in the cylinder heads.

A similar Wrangler class-action lawsuit was filed in June 2017
that alleges leftover engine casting sand causes sludge that
blocks the radiators.

The Jeep Wrangler radiator sludge lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York - Malizia et.
al. v. FCA US, LLC. [GN]


FLORIDA: Marijuana Law Challenged Over Black Farmer License
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Saunders and Dara Kam, writing for The News Service of
Florida, report that a lawsuit filed on September 22 challenges
the constitutionality of part of a new state law that requires a
coveted medical-marijuana license to go to a black farmer.

Columbus Smith, a black farmer from Panama City, filed the
lawsuit, alleging that the law is so narrowly drawn that only a
handful of black farmers could qualify for the license. The
lawsuit contends that the measure is what is known as an
unconstitutional "special law."

The law, passed during a June special session, was designed to
carry out a November constitutional amendment that broadly
legalized medical marijuana in Florida. A key part of the law was
expanding the number of licenses that would be awarded to
operators in what could turn into a highly lucrative industry.

While the law called for an overall increase of 10 licenses by
Oct. 3, it also specified that one license go to a black farmer
who had been part of settled lawsuits about discrimination by the
federal government against black farmers. The law also said that
the black farmer who receives a license would have to be a member
of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association-Florida
Chapter.

The lawsuit said Smith meets the qualification of being part of
the litigation about discrimination against black farmers. But it
said he has not been allowed to join the black farmers
association, effectively preventing him from receiving a license.

"There is no rational basis for limiting the opportunity of black
farmers to obtain a medical marijuana license to only the few
members of that class of black farmers who are also member of a
specific private association," said the lawsuit, filed in Leon
County circuit court.

The Florida Constitution bars "special" laws, in part, that relate
to "grant of privilege to a private corporation." The lawsuit
alleges that the medical-marijuana law violates that part of the
Constitution.

The lawsuit names the Florida Department of Health, which is
responsible for awarding licenses, as the defendant. It seeks an
injunction against issuing a license under the part of the law
related to black farmers.

Licenses to grow, process and dispense medical marijuana have been
one of the most-controversial issues in the rapidly developing
industry.

Representatives of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists
Association-Florida Chapter said on September 22 they could not
comment on the lawsuit until their attorneys had time to review
it.

Health officials granted the first medical marijuana licenses in
2015, after the Legislature authorized non-euphoric medical
marijuana for patients with severe epilepsy, muscle spasms or
cancer. Nurseries that had been in business for 30 years or longer
in Florida and grew at least 400,000 plants were eligible to
apply.

In expanding the number of licenses this year, the Legislature
carved out a license for black farmers who complained that they
were shut out from applying for the original licenses because none
of the black farmers met the eligibility criteria.

Part of the reason that the black farmers don't have operations as
expansive as their white and Hispanic counterparts may be blamed
on discriminatory lending practices by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture that led to a class-action lawsuit, known as "Pigford
I," filed in 1981. A second lawsuit, called "Pigford II," was
finally settled by a federal judge in 2011. Many of the claimants
have yet to receive their portions of the $1.3 billion settlement,
and others have died waiting for the cases to be resolved.

"They have carved out most of the small farmers, not only the
black farmers, but the small farmers. We can't compete with those
companies. It's just a shame. It's a travesty. Again, going back
30 years ago with the USDA, the same thing you saw in Pigford I
and Pigford II. It's the same thing again, right here in the state
of Florida. It's not right," Howard Gunn, an Ocala farmer who is
the president of the black farmers' association, said in 2015.
[GN]


GC SERVICES LIMITED: Appeals Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Lye, writing for Florida Record, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has vacated a lower court's
decision to deny class-action status in a lawsuit involving debt
collection.

Ronnie Dickens had appealed a decision by the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida to not grant class-action
certification in his suit against GC Services Limited Partnership.

"We are happy with the 11th Circuit's ruling and look forward to
proceeding with the case in the district court," James Davidson,
Dickens' attorney, told the Florida Record.

Dickens had filed the suit after receiving a debt collection
letter from the company that indicated that GC Services was
looking to collect a debt he allegedly incurred from Synchrony
Bank. In the letter, the company allegedly said that if he
disputed the claim, "we will obtain verification of the debt from
our client and send it to you," according to the appeals court
ruling.

However, Dickens, who contested the debt, sued the company and
claimed the letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act. In his claim, he argued that the letter failed to clarify
that he needed to dispute the debt in writing before the collector
would seek verification from its client, Synchrony Bank. He also
alleged that the letter was false, deceptive or misleading.

However, GC Services indicated in a declaration from Mark
Schordock, its executive vice president of operations, that its
policy was to get written verification of the debt even if the
company was informed in a non-written manner that the consumer
disputed the debt.

Dickens attempted to get class certification for the case because
GC Services allegedly sent over 9,000 similar letters to other
individuals in Florida.

However, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida denied a class certification of his complaint.

He argued that the court abused its discretion by deciding he was
not "an adequate class representative and that a class-action was
not the superior method of adjudicating the putative class's
claims."

The appellate court sided with the plaintiff and vacated the
district court's denial of class certification. The appeals court
then sent the case back to the district court for further
proceedings.

"We therefore vacate the district court's denial of class
certification and remand this case to the district court for a new
class certification determination," the appeals court said in the
decision. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Class Action Mulled Over Name Search Ban Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Duffy, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that new and
startling evidence of Google's ability to possibly defeat court-
ordered publication bans has emerged as an Ottawa law firm
prepares a class-action lawsuit against the search engine giant.

The Citizen has found that, in two high-profile Ontario cases,
Google searches aimed at finding online news coverage of the
trials will return "related searches" that include the names of
individuals shielded by the courts.

These inadvertent disclosures provide fresh examples of how Google
could be undermining court-ordered publication bans put in place
to protect crime victims and young offenders.

Meanwhile, Ottawa lawyer Michael Crystal said he intends to launch
a class-action lawsuit on behalf of those whose right to remain
anonymous may have been breached by Google search algorithms.

"I am quite concerned this violation may create a chill in the
court process if not confronted," Mr. Crystal said.  "Complainants
in sexual assault matters often come forward on the basis that
their identities will be protected."

In recent weeks, the Citizen has discovered that Google's powerful
search engine can link a protected name to court coverage, and
court coverage to a protected name.

In one high-profile Ontario case, anyone using common search terms
to retrieve news stories about the trial produces a list of
"related searches" that includes the name of a protected sexual
assault victim.  In another much-publicized case, the "related
searches" list includes the court-protected name of a child
abuser.

It means that someone who doesn't know the protected name of a
victim or offender can, in certain cases, be linked to them
through the "related searches" function.

Google's list of related searches often appear at the bottom of a
search page in dark blue hyperlinks. (Related search links do not
always appear: The search engine requires a certain volume of
associated searches for it to trigger related search results.)

The tool was first unveiled by Google in 2008.  In an official
blog from the company's Google News team, it was promoted as a way
for web surfers to browse the news, "perhaps finding connections
between stories that you hadn't seen."

"As is normal for Google News," the blog noted, "there are no
human editors involved in selecting related searches: These
suggestions are automatically generated based on an algorithm to
determine terms related to your search."

Google Canada officials reiterated on Sept. 22 that they will act
on individual complaints and remove search results that violate
local laws.

The latest developments follow a Citizen story that revealed
Google's search engine can link the protected names of young
offenders and victims to online media coverage.

Computer experts believe such links are an unintended consequence
of math-based algorithms that can produce results informed by what
other people have searched for online.

In six high profile cases documented by the Citizen, searching the
name of a young offender or victim -- shielded by court order --
will return results with online media coverage of their court
cases, even though their names do not appear anywhere in the news
stories.  The same held true for high profile cases in Montreal
and Windsor.

The problem was first discovered by Citizen court reporter
Gary Dimmock, who was troubled when he found that a Google search
of a young offender's name linked to his stories.  Mr. Dimmock
asked editors to investigate the situation and ensure that the
Citizen hadn't accidentally encoded the youth's name onto the
paper's website.

A subsequent investigation found the problem did not lie with the
newspaper's online source code or with the digital forms that
reporters and editors use to describe stories and photos. In fact,
further inquiries revealed that a similar issue existed in at
least five other high-profile Ottawa cases in which publication
bans were issued.

Michael Crystal said he's now searching for people affected by the
situation in order to put together a class-action lawsuit.

The Citizen's findings, he said, suggest the legal regime that
protects the identities of crime victims has been dangerously
weakened by the advance of technology.  Already, he noted, many
sexual assault victims are reluctant to face their abuser in court
and to endure cross-examination.  How many will come forward, he
asked, if the courts can't guarantee their identities will be
protected?

"You will have people who will think twice before agreeing to
participate in litigation in criminal sexual matters. This is a
major issue," he said.

Former CBC Radio executive-producer Alan Conter, now a Concordia
University journalism professor, said the federal government may
have to modernize the Criminal Code's publication ban provisions
to keep up with search engine technology.

"Google is not directly violating the publication ban: the
algorithms are such that it allows that to happen," Mr. Conter
said. "That's why I think the law might need to be clarified -- to
capture the 21st century notion of what constitutes publication."

Google handles more than 3.5 billion searches a day, and dominates
the search engine landscape. [GN]


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Court Denies Bid to Remand "Stone" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to remand the case captioned MEGAN STONE and CHRISTINE
CAROSI, Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. C16-5383 BHS (W.D. Wash.).

Stone was involved in a hit and run car accident on May 22, 2014.
She had an automobile insurance policy with Defendant GEICO.
Stone was unable to use her car for about 105 days while GEICO
investigated her claim and while her car was being repaired.

On June 17, 2015, Stone filed a class action complaint against
GEICO in Pierce County Superior Court, claiming that GEICO failed
to pay her for "loss of use" damages.

Stone sought to certify the class of all GEICO insureds with
Washington policies issued in Washington State, where GEICO
determined the loss to be covered under the Underinsured Motorist
("UIM") coverage, and their vehicle suffered a loss requiring
repair, or the vehicle was totaled, during which time they were
without the use of their vehicle, for a day or more.

Stone claimed there would be about 5,000 class members and the
average damages would be about $140 per class member.  Based on
these numbers, Stone alleged the amount in controversy would be at
most $700,000.  She asserted a single breach of contract claim,
and sought compensatory damages, injunctive and equitable relief,
and attorney's fees.

On Feb. 18, 2016, Stone deposed GEICO's Rule 30(b)(6) designee,
David Antonacci.  Antonacci testified that about 18,000 GEICO
insureds had filed UIM claims during the class period in
Washington.  Antonacci further testified that GEICO possessed
information regarding the average price it paid for rental cars
during the class period.  These numbers were produced in a
supplemental response to a discovery request showing that the
average daily rate is approximately $35/day.

On May 10, 2016, Stone filed an amended complaint, which added
Carosi as a Named Plaintiff.  The Plaintiffs' amended complaint
contains the same proposed class definition, class allegations,
breach of contract claim, and requests for relief.

On May 16, 2016, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification of
the same class pled in their original complaint.  To support their
motion, they provided a declaration from their statistician, Dr.
Bernard Siskin, who explained how the number of class members and
the average damages per class member could be determined.

On May 20, 2016, GEICO removed the action to this Court under the
Class Action Fairness Act, alleging the proposed class may include
as many as 22,929 members and the average damages may be $321.30
per class member.  Based on these numbers, GEICO asserts there is
potentially $7,367,087.70 in controversy.

On June 14, 2016, the Plaintiffs moved to remand.  On July 28,
2016, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand.  On Aug.
11, 2016, GEICO filed a motion for reconsideration.  On Oct. 12,
2016, the Court granted GEICO's motion, vacated its previous
order, and issued an amended order denying the Plaintiffs' motion
to remand.

After the Court denied remand, the parties engaged in discovery
regarding the Court's subject matter jurisdiction.  On Aug. 8,
2017, the Court granted GEICO's motion to compel in part and
denied it in part.  In relevant part, the Court concluded that the
Plaintiffs asserted a coverage dispute and may be entitled to
attorney's fees under Olympic Steamship Co. v. Centennial Ins. Co.

On Aug. 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs moved to remand.  On Aug. 21,
2017, GEICO responded.  On Aug.25, 2017, the Plaintiffs replied.

Judge Settle finds that the Plaintiffs' evidence shows that, at
most, GEICO possessed subjective knowledge that damages could
potentially exceed the jurisdictional limit.  Such knowledge does
not trigger the second removal period.  He further finds that the
Plaintiffs fail to present any plausible argument that awardable
fees would potentially be less in this highly contested matter.
Therefore, he concluded that, with the addition of Olympic
Steamship fees, the amount in controversy easily exceeds
$5,000,000.  Accordingly, Judge Settle denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/rsyMmU from Leagle.com.

Megan Stone, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen M. Hansen --
steve@stephenmhansenlaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN.

Megan Stone, Plaintiff, represented by Scott P. Nealey --
snealey@nealeylaw.com -- NEALEY LAW, pro hac vice.

Christine Carosi, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen M. Hansen, LAW
OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN & Scott P. Nealey, NEALEY LAW, pro
hac vice.

GEICO General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Andrea
H. McNeely -- amcneely@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP,
Joshua Grabel -- jgrabel@lrrc.com -- LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER
CHRISTIE, pro hac vice & Stephanie L. Bloomfield --
sbloomfield@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP.


HAMILTON TOWNSHIP, NJ: Dec. 18 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following release was issued on Sept. 24 by The Notice
Company, Inc.:

A Settlement has been reached in the lawsuit entitled Gray v.
Board of Education of the Township of Hamilton, Mercer County, No.
MER-L-747-14, pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Mercer County. Visit www.HamiltonRetirees.com for
complete information.

What Is This Case About?

The lawsuit alleges that the Hamilton Township Board of Education
("Board") breached its obligations to make cash payments in lieu
of prescription drug coverage to certain retirees, and in some
instances to their dependents, by stopping such payments, and that
this benefit is owed to Class Members both retroactively and
prospectively.  The parties have agreed to settle, but the
Settlement does not constitute an admission of any liability by
any party.

Who is Included in the Settlement?

"Class Members" included in the Settlement consist of five
Subclasses:

Subclass "A" consists of the Administrators/Supervisors defined as
follows: All retired employees that were formerly employed by the
Hamilton Township Board of Education pursuant to a collective
bargaining agreement with the Hamilton Township Administrators and
Supervisors Association and retired from the Board on or before
July 1, 2011, and the dependents of such employees.  These
employees and their dependents received annual cash payments in
lieu of the prescription drug coverage pursuant to the terms of
Article 4, Sec. 11.2 of the parties' collective bargaining
agreement, and their payments stopped in breach of the collective
bargaining agreement in or about July 2011 for the dependents of
the Association retirees who had declared single coverage; in or
about July 2012 for all the dependents of the Association
retirees; and in or around July 2013 to all Association retires.

Subclass "B" consists of Hamilton Township Education Association
("HTEA") members who contracted to receive the annual maximum in
prescription drug copayments as provided by the School Employees'
Health Benefits Program ("SEHBP") and defined as follows: All
retired employees that were formerly employed by the Hamilton
Township Board of Education and were employed pursuant to
collective bargaining agreements with the Hamilton Township
Education Association and retired from the Board on or before July
1, 2012.  These employees received annual cash payments in lieu of
the prescription drug coverage pursuant to the terms of the
parties' collective bargaining agreements, and their payments
stopped in or around July 2013.

Subclass "C" consists of Hamilton Township School Secretaries
Association ("HTSSA") members who contracted to receive the annual
maximum in prescription drug copayments as provided by the SEHBP
and defined as follows: All retired employees that were formerly
employed by the Hamilton Township Board of Education and were
employed pursuant to collective bargaining agreements with the
Hamilton Township School Secretaries Association and retired from
the Board on or before July 1, 2011.  These employees received
annual cash payments in lieu of the prescription drug coverage
pursuant to the terms of the parties' collective bargaining
agreements, and their payments stopped in or around July 2013.

Subclass "D" consists of HTEA members who contracted to receive a
defined payment of $500.00 per year and defined as follows: All
retired employees that were formerly employed by the Hamilton
Township Board of Education and were employed pursuant to
collective bargaining agreements with the Hamilton Township
Education Association and retired from the Board on or before July
1, 2012.  These employees received annual cash payments of $500.00
per year in lieu of the prescription drug coverage pursuant to the
terms of the parties' collective bargaining agreements, and their
payments stopped in or around July 2013.

Subclass "E" consists of HTSSA members who contracted to receive a
defined payment of $500.00 per year and defined as follows: All
retired employees that were formerly employed by the Hamilton
Township Board of Education and were employed pursuant to
collective bargaining agreements with the Hamilton Township School
Secretaries Association and retired from the Board on or before
July 1, 2011.  These employees received annual cash payments of
$500.00 in lieu of the prescription drug coverage pursuant to the
terms of the parties' collective bargaining agreements, and their
payments stopped in or around July 2013.

What Does the Settlement Provide?

The Board has agreed to pay $17,000,000 to the members of all 5
subclasses as a total The Board has agreed to pay $17,000,000 to
the members of all 5 subclasses as a total settlement.  Payment of
$4,000,000, representing past payments due, will be paid in two
payments.  The first half will be paid within thirty (30) days of
entry of the Final Approval Order (if the Settlement is approved
by the Court) and the second half will be paid in or around
January 2018.  These payments are intended to result in all class
members being paid the amounts they would have received if they
were paid through December 31, 2017 (if the benefit had not been
stopped).  The $13,000,000 in remaining settlement monies will be
paid in prospective payments over a ten (10) year period, with one
(1) payment made at the beginning of each year, the first of which
will be made in in January 2019, and the remaining payments made
in January of each of the following nine years.

With respect to Class Members who died prior to January 1, 2017:
The Board has agreed to pay to each Class Member's estate the
Class Member's share of the amounts due up until the date of death
(for each year the member was alive on January 1 of a given year).

With respect to Class Members who died after January 1, 2017: The
Board has agreed to pay to the Class Members estate both
retroactive payments.  All remaining prospective payments will be
paid to the Class Members' estates on the same schedule (provided
the Board is notified of the death by the estate's administrator).

With respect to Class Members who are dependents, once a dependent
"ages out" (exceeds the age of 26 years), any retroactive payment
remaining due shall cease.

What Are Your rights?

If you do nothing, Class Members will be bound by the Court's
decisions.  If you do not want the benefits of the Settlements
and, instead, you want to keep your right to sue the Board
(subject to applicable statutes of limitation), you must exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class by writing to the Class
Administrator at the following address:

Hamilton Exclusions
c/o The Notice Company
P.O. Box 455
Hingham, MA 02043

The Court will exclude from the Class any Class Member who submits
a written exclusion request, which must be signed, dated and state
that you are excluding yourself from the Class in the case of Gray
v. Hamilton Township Board of Education, No. MER-L-747-14.  To be
valid, exclusion requests must be postmarked on or before OCTOBER
24, 2017.

If you do not exclude yourself, you may object to the Settlement,
or enter an appearance through counsel, by filing an objection
with the Court and sending copies to Class Counsel and Defendant's
Counsel, as follows:

Clerk of the Superior Court
Mercer County Courthouse
P.O. Box 8068
Trenton, NJ 08650-0068

Class Counsel:

Richard A. Friedman, Esq.
Zazzali, Fagella, Nowak, Kleinbaum & Friedman, P.C.
150 West State Street
Trenton, NJ 08901

Robert M. Schwartz, Esq.
Schwartz Law Group, LLC
Monroe Office Center at Forsgate
12 Centre Drive
Monroe Township, NJ 08831

Defendant's Counsel:

Patrick F. Carrigg, Esq.
Lenox, Socey, Formidoni, Giordano, Cooley, Lang & Casey, LLC
136 Franklin Corner Road, Unit B-2
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

The deadline to file objections or a notice of appearance is
OCTOBER 24, 2017.

When is the Final Hearing?

The Court will hold a hearing on DECEMBER 18, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. at
the Mercer County Courthouse, 175 South Broad Street, Trenton, New
Jersey, to consider whether to approve the Settlements and a
request for attorneys' fees.  This date may change so please check
the website.  You or your own lawyer may appear and speak at the
hearing at your own expense.

Should You Submit Updated Contact Information?

If you qualify as a Class Member but you are not sure if the Board
has your current address, or if you are the authorized
representative of the estate of a Class Member, you should
complete a Contact Update Form available at
www.HamiltonRetirees.com or by writing to the Class Administrator
at the address shown below.

For More Information: Call toll free 1-800-921-7820, visit
www.HamiltonRetirees.com, write to Class Counsel, or write to
Hamilton Class Administrator, c/o The Notice Company, P.O. Box
455, Hingham, MA 02043.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT
[GN]


HOME CAPITAL: Court Approves Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------
On February 13, 2017, an action styled McDonald v Home Capital
Group Inc., et al. was commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice ("Court") on behalf of persons who acquired Home Capital
Group Inc.'s ("HCG", TSX: HCG, CUSIP: 436913107, ISIN:
CA4369131079) shares between November 5, 2014 to July 10, 2015
("Class Period").  The action is related to Home Capital Group's
allegedly misleading disclosure in relation to mortgage
origination practices and changes in mortgage origination during
the Class Period.

A settlement of the action in the amount of $29,500,000, paid for
the benefit of affected class members has been approved by the
Court. The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is
not an admission of liability or wrongdoing by HCG or any other
defendant named in the action.

If you acquired Home Capital Group Inc. shares during the Class
Period, you may be eligible for compensation.  In order to recover
any such compensation, you must submit a completed Claim Form to
RicePoint Administration Inc. no later than January 22, 2018.

NOTE: If you do not timely submit a Claim Form, you will not be
entitled to any compensation; and, unless you have previously
opted out, you will not be entitled to pursue any other action in
respect of those claims.

For more information about the Settlement, your rights and how to
exercise them, please contact the Claims Administrator at:

         Home Capital Securities Litigation
         c/o RicePoint Administration Inc.
         PO Box 4454, Toronto Station A,
         25 The Esplanade
         Toronto, ON M5W 4B1
         Tel: 1-866-432-5534
         E-mail: homecapital@ricepoint.com

Or Class Counsel (Siskinds LLP) at:

         Michael G. Robb
         680 Waterloo Street
         London, ON N6A 3V8
         Tel: 1-877-672-2121 x 2380
         Fax: 519-672-6065
         E-mail: michael.robb@siskinds.com [GN]


HOUSTON, TX: Homeowners Sue Over Hurricane Harvey Flooding
----------------------------------------------------------
Brien Straw, writing for Houston Public Media, reports that
Kingwood homeowners are taking state officials to court over
flooding that occurred during Hurricane Harvey. They've joined
residents west of the city which are suing the federal government.
The individual lawsuit claims state and federal officials chose to
protect some homes from flooding at the expense of others.
In legal terms it's called inverse condemnation. Attorney Paul
Danzinger explains what that means.

It's called inverse condemnation. Attorney Paul Danzinger, Esq. of
Danziger & De Llano, LLP explains what that means.

"The state does not have the right to take your property without
providing you, just compensation." Danzinger says.

Danzinger says he's representing over 300 homeowners so far that
he believes deserve to be reimbursed for being flooded. The
reason: when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers opened the dams at
the Barker and Addicks reservoirs, and the San Jacinto River
Authority released water from Lake Conroe, they chose to take
property by flooding it.

"United States Supreme Court has determined that a flooding is
considered a taking. And once you have essentially taking by the
state, we're going to be alleging that the state must compensate
the people for that take." says Danzinger.

When asked for their side of the story, the Army Corps of
Engineers said they don't comment on ongoing litigation and the
San Jacinto River Authority didn't respond to email and phone
requests for comments. However, they have posted responses to many
of the issues addressed in the lawsuit on their website. [GN]


HYLAND'S INC: Hammack Appeals Decision in "Forcellati" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Ashley Hammack filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Enzo Forcellati, et al. v. Hyland's, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:12-cv-01983-ODW-MRW, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued an Order granting the parties' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement, and Plaintiffs' Motion for an
Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards in the case.

On February 7, 2017, the Court granted preliminary approval of a
proposed class action settlement between the parties in this
Consolidated Action.  In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court
provisionally certified a Settlement Class of all persons in the
United States who purchased the following Hyland's products on or
after March 8, 2008: (i) Cold 'n Cough 4 Kids, (ii) Cough Syrup
with 100% Natural Honey, (iii) Sniffles 'n Sneezes 4 Kids, (iv)
Cold Relief Strips 4 Kids with Zinc, (v) Nighttime Cold 'n Cough 4
Kids, (vi) Complete Flu Care 4 Kids, (vii) Baby Teething Gel,
(viii) Baby Cough Syrup, (ix) Baby Gas Drops, (x) Baby Infant
Earache Drops, and (xi) Baby Nighttime Tiny Cold Syrup.

The appellate case is captioned as Enzo Forcellati, et al. v.
Hyland's, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-56374, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 12, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 13, 2017;

   -- Appellant Ashley Hammack's opening brief is due on
      December 21, 2017;

   -- Appellees Enzo Forcellati, Hyland's, Inc., Lisa Roemmich,
      Standard Homeopathic Company and Standard Homeopathic
      Laboratories, Inc.'s answering brief is due on January 22,
      2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ENZO FORCELLATI, on Behalf of Himself and all
Others Similarly Situated, and LISA ROEMMICH, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Scott Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Barbara Ann Rohr, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: Bheikali@faruqilaw.com
                  brohr@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com

Objector-Appellant ASHLEY HAMMACK is represented by:

          Michael F. Creamer, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL CREAMER
          5375 Industrial Drive
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (714) 901-8504

Defendants-Appellees HYLAND'S, INC.; STANDARD HOMEOPATHIC
LABORATORIES, INC.; and STANDARD HOMEOPATHIC COMPANY are
represented by:

          Jeffrey B. Margulies, Esq.
          Spencer Stephen Persson, Esq.
          Stephanie Anne Stroup, Esq.
          FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
          555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 892-9200
          E-mail: jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  spencer.persson@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  stephanie.stroup@nortonrosefulbright.com


IMPERIAL BANK: Depositors Mull Class Action Over Collapse
---------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Njugunah, writing for Capital Business, reports that
Imperial Bank depositors have written to the Central Bank of Kenya
with a list of demands they want to be met in a bid to recover
money lost after the bank's 2015 closure by the CBK.

MMC Africa Law which is instituting a class action on behalf of
Imperial Bank depositors says their clients want CBK held legally
responsible for the collapse of mid-tier lender.

The law firm has asked the CBK to share the annual financial
reports of the bank between 2011 and 2015, CBK onsite inspection
reports and inspection reports in respect of the bank among other
demands.

The letter addressed to CBK Governor Dr Patrick Njoroge warned of
the intentions of the depositors to move to a constitutional court
after 14 days should the regulator fail to adhere to the demands.

"Unless we receive your admission of liability together with the
aforesaid documents and information within the next 14 days from
the date of receipt of this letter, our clients intend to commence
legal proceedings against CBK with a view of recovering all
deposits held and lost in the said bank, consequential damages and
interest and to compel you to provide the information as the case
may be.  The attendant costs shall be borne by CBK," the letter
reads in part.

In August, the High Court granted a 12-month extension of the
receivership of Imperial Bank Limited.

The move followed an agreement with stakeholders to enable the
regulator to move on with seeking a potential strategic investor
that will revive the bank.

In October 2015, CBK said it was aware of unsafe business
conditions at the bank, prompting the decision to close the
institution. [GN]


INT'L PAPER: Court Allows Class Action Over Flooding to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
NorthEscambia.com reports that a federal judge has approved a
class action notice in a lawsuit against International Paper over
flooding in several neighborhoods.

The class action suit against IP claims that flooding during
record rainfall in April 2014 was caused by failure of the
"Kingsfield Road Dam", located on IP's mill property in
Cantonment.  The plantiffs claim IP was negligent by not properly
maintaining or removing the dam.

Chief Judge M. Casey Rodgers of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida has granted class action
status to a lawsuit brought on behalf of owners of real property
as of April 29, 2014, in the Bristol Park, Bristol
Woods, Bristol Creek, or Ashbury Hills subdivisions in Cantonment.

"We are pleased that the Federal Court has Certified this Class
Action against International Paper, on behalf of the residents of
Bristol Park and Asbury Hills subdivisions.  We look forward to
fighting for our clients at the trial which is set to begin
February 20, 2018," said J.J. Talbott, one of the plantiff
attorneys in the case.

The lawsuit claims that between 10:30 and 11:30 p.m., a large
"swell" or "wave" of water breached and overflowed into Eleven
Mile Creek, including the Bristol Park and Ashbury Hills
subdivisions, Devine Farms Road and other surrounding areas, as a
result of International Paper's dam or levee.  Both residential
areas are located in "Flood Zone X" on flood insurance maps,
meaning they are not in special flood hazard areas and require no
mandatory flood insurance.

The failure, the lawsuit asserts, was the result of IP's
negligence in maintaining the Eleven Mile Creek Dam and levee,
failure to counteract continued development, failed to control
debris buildup in and around the dam, and of a failure to notify
those downstream of the potential or ultimate failure of the levee
system.

The lawsuit seeks damages for loss and damage to personal and real
property, diminished property values, loss of enjoyment, mental
anguish, loss of income and additional expenses due to the
flooding in the neighborhoods.

International Paper has denied responsibility for the flooding,
contending that he flooding was caused by the rainfall during the
April 29-30 storm.

In a May 2014 statement, International Paper told
NorthEcambai.com:

"On April 29, 2014, the Pensacola Mill experienced the storm/flood
event that the rest of the county experienced.  There was
significant erosion and wash-out of an inactive erosion control
structure near Kingsfield Road.  The structure was previously used
to control erosion at this now abandoned outfall point, but it has
been out of service since the mill completed transition to the
pipeline in October of 2012.

"Our heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to all those who have
been directly affected by the area floods.  Many of our team
members were impacted by this event.  On April 29, record storm
water flows from across the entire 48-square mile watershed of
Elevenmile creek rapidly exceeded the capacity of the creek.
During and after the storm, the Pensacola mill continued to
discharge to our pipeline, which bypasses the Elevenmile creek
watershed. No part of the mill's waste treatment facility failed
or collapsed during or after the storm event.  We have fully
communicated with both state and local agencies regarding the
impacts of the storm on the Pensacola mill." [GN]


INTERNAL REVENUE: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of AFSP Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, issued an Order
and Judgment affirming the judgment of the District Court
dismissing Plaintiff's claim for lack of subject matter in the
case captioned GERARDO RIVERA; OSCAR PRIETO; HECTOR BACA; JUAN
DOMINGUEZ; STEVE WILSON; ELIJIO BORJA; MIRIAM GRANADOS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; JOHN KOSKINEN;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-2277 (10th
Cir.).

Plaintiffs-Appellants in the case are Miriam Granados, a tax-
return preparer doing business as Columbia Tax Service, and six of
her clients.  Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint against
the Internal Revenue Service challenging its voluntary Annual
Filing Season Program (AFSP) for certain tax-return preparers and
the IRS' investigation of Columbia and audits of Client tax
returns prepared by Columbia.

The AFSP is a voluntary program offered by the IRS that allows
non-credentialed tax-return preparers to be listed on the IRS'
online Directory of Federal Tax Return Preparers if they complete
continuing education courses, pass an exam and comply with other
elements of the program.

The AFSP's purpose is to encourage tax-return preparers who are
not attorneys, certified public accountants, or registered agents
to complete continuing education courses in order to increase
their knowledge of relevant federal tax law. The IRS began
offering this program after the D.C. Circuit held that the IRS
lacked authority to issue a rule requiring non-credentialed tax-
return preparers to register with the IRS and comply with similar
requirements.

The complaint alleges the IRS is being more intrusive and
aggressive than necessary in auditing the Clients' tax returns,
and has violated the Clients' basic rights in the course of these
audits by ignoring crucial evidence, disallowing lawful
deductions, issuing defective and misleading notices, and
harassing and intimidating them.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert three substantive
claims against the IRS and IRS Commissioner under the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA).  In Count 1, Columbia asks
the court to invalidate the AFSP on the ground that it exceeds the
IRS' statutory authority.  In Count 2, both Columbia and the
Clients assert that the IRS' harassment and intimidation" of the
Clients constitutes a final agency action that is contrary to
their constitutional rights.  Similarly, in Count 3, the Clients
allege that the IRS violated their constitutional rights and was
arbitrary and capricious in issuing tax deficiency notices to
them.

As relief, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the IRS actions of
which they complain are unconstitutional and in violation of
federal law and an order enjoining these actions.

Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States may
not be sued without its consent and the existence of consent is a
prerequisite for jurisdiction.

The APA's sovereign immunity waiver does not apply if any other
statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids
the relief which is sought. As relevant here, there are two
statutes that forbid the relief Plaintiffs seek with respect to
the IRS' investigations and audits: the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA)
and the tax exception provision of the Declaratory Judgment Act
(DJA).

It is clear from the complaint, and undisputed by Plaintiffs here,
that the IRS is conducting the investigations, audits and other
actions complained of as part of the agency's tax assessment and
collection efforts. Accordingly, Counts 2 and 3 of the complaint,
in which Columbia and the Clients seek an order enjoining the IRS'
investigations, audits and notices of deficiency towards them and
a declaration that they are unconstitutional and in violation of
federal law, fall within the prohibitions stated in the AIA and
DJA and therefore outside of the waiver of sovereign immunity
provided in the APA.

Plaintiffs apparently accept that the AIA and DJA bar Count 3 of
their complaint, in which they seek to invalidate and enjoin the
notices of deficiency the IRS issued the Clients, because
Plaintiffs concede in their opening brief that the district court
lacked jurisdiction over this claim.

In portraying Count 2 as a constitutional claim, Plaintiffs also
appear to be assuming that such claims are per se exempt from the
prohibition on suits seeking to restrain the IRS' tax assessment
and collection activities. This is incorrect. Claims seeking to
restrain the assessment or collection of taxes are prohibited by
the AIA, "notwithstanding that plaintiffs have couched [them] in
constitutional terms.

The Tenth Circuit concluded that Plaintiffs' claims seeking to
enjoin the IRS' investigation and audits, Counts 2 and 3 in the
amended complaint, are for the purpose of restraining the
assessment and collection of taxes and are therefore barred by the
AIA and the DJA and not covered by the waiver of sovereign
immunity provided in the APA.

The Tenth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court's
dismissal of these claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Under Article III of the Constitution, standing is a prerequisite
to subject matter jurisdiction that we must address, sua sponte if
necessary, when the record reveals a colorable standing issue.
These elements are: (1) that it has suffered an injury in fact
that is concrete, particularized and actual or imminent; (2) that
there is a causal connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of, and (3) that the injury will likely be redressed by
a favorable decision.

Elsewhere in the complaint, Columbia and the Clients assert they
have been injured by the IRS targeting Columbia for criminal
investigation and targeting its clients for audits and
examinations in retaliation for Columbia opting not to participate
in the AFSP. Assuming these allegations sufficiently allege an
injury in fact to Columbia, the complaint still fails to allege or
explain any causal connection between this injury and the
existence of the AFSP. Nor is it apparent how the relief sought
with respect to Count 1, invalidation of the AFSP, is likely
redress this alleged injury.

The Tenth Circuit therefore concluded that Columbia does not have
standing to pursue this claim, and that subject matter
jurisdiction is lacking for Count 1 as a result.

A full-text copy of the Tenth Circuit's September 18, 2017 Order
and Judgment is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycpsxkagfrom
Leagle.com.


JACOB TRANSPORTATION: Limo Drivers Class in "Greene" Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned ROBERT GREENE, THOMAS
SCHEMKES, and GREGORY GREEN on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JACOB TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,
LLC, a Nevada Corporation doing business as executive Las Vegas;
JAMES JIMMERSON, an individual, CAROL JIMMERSON, an individual,
and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:09-cv-
00466-GMN-CWH (D. Nev.).

The case arises out of limousine drivers claiming that the
Defendants failed to pay them minimum wage and overtime payments.
On March 10, 2009, Green initiated the case alleging state law
minimum wage claims and federal claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").  Specifically, the Plaintiffs assert that
the Defendants extracted additional work from its employees
without having to pay them for the work being performed, and that
the Defendants required employees to perform work activities
before, after, and in-between picking up and dropping off clients
'off-the-clock' for which they were not compensated.

Following a series of motions, the Court previously dismissed
Green's state law claims, which he appealed.  On Jan. 27, 2015,
the Ninth Circuit issued the Memorandum reversing and remanding
the case back to this Court.

On, Sept. 28, 2015, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
Plaintiffs' cases and on Nov. 18, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed their
consolidated Complaint.  The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges
FLSA violations, and various state law violations pursuant to
Nevada Constitution.

On Sept. 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for
Class Certification.  They seek to certify the class described as
all current and former employees of the Defendants who worked as
limousine drivers at any time during the relevant limitation
periods alleged herein as measured from the date of the filing of
the Lead Case No: 2:09-CV-00466-GMN-CWH and continuing until the
time of judgment after trial.

Judge Navarro finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied all the
Rule 23(a) requirements and the Rule 23(b) requirements.  She
further finds that the Plaintiffs' attorneys, Mark Thierman and
Joshua Buck are adequate to be appointed as certified class
counsel.  Accordingly, Judge Navarro granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification and their Motion to Strike.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Kjshbv from Leagle.com.

Robert Greene, Plaintiff, represented by Mark R. Thierman,
Thierman Buck, LLP.

Robert Greene, Plaintiff, represented by Jason J. Kuller --
jason@kullerlaw.com  -- Kuller Law PC, Joshua D. Buck, Thierman
Buck, LLP & Leah Lin Jones, Thierman Buck, LLP.

Gregory Green, Plaintiff, represented by Mark R. Thierman,
Thierman Buck, LLP, Jason J. Kuller, Kuller Law PC, Joshua D.
Buck, Thierman Buck, LLP & Leah Lin Jones, Thierman Buck, LLP.

Thomas Schemkes, Plaintiff, represented by Mark R. Thierman,
Thierman Buck, LLP, Jason J. Kuller, Kuller Law PC, Joshua D.
Buck, Thierman Buck, LLP & Leah Lin Jones, Thierman Buck, LLP.

Carol Jimmerson, Defendant, represented by James J. Jimmerson,
Jimmerson Hansen, P.C. & Mario P. Lovato, Lovato Law Firm, P.C..

Jacob Transportation Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Mario P. Lovato, Lovato Law Firm, P.C..

James Jimmerson, Defendant, represented by Mario P. Lovato, Lovato
Law Firm, P.C..

Jacob Transportation Services, LLC, Consol Counter Claimant,
represented by Ikenna K. Odunze, Jimmerson Hansen, PC, James J.
Jimmerson, Jimmerson Hansen, P.C. & Mario P. Lovato, Lovato Law
Firm, P.C..

Thomas Thatcher Schemkes, Consol Counter Defendant, represented by
Jason J. Kuller, Kuller Law PC, Joshua D. Buck, Thierman Buck, LLP
& Mark R. Thierman, Thierman Buck, LLP.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sen. Sparks to Represent Firms in Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mack Burke, writing for Norman Transcript, reports that State Sen.
John Sparks, D-Norman, is lining up to defend a group of
pharmaceutical companies against state legal action, but he won't
make his arguments at the Capitol.

Sparks, a defense attorney with the firm Odom, Sparks and Jones,
is part of a legal team representing Johnson & Johnson, Janssen
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutical Inc. and Ortho-
McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., which are among more than a
dozen drug companies the state is suing for alleged fraudulent
marketing.

Sparks' involvement has raised questions about the possibility of
a conflict of interest. Senior partner Ben Odom said it isn't an
issue, precisely because Sparks isn't representing the state.

"The thing that's prohibited here is if John [Sparks] had been an
attorney for the state," Odom said. "You can't draw two checks
from the state.

"The reason for that prohibition, the part about why you don't
want to have somebody drawing two checks, is then somebody says,
'Oh! Go sue somebody in my district and then hire me to be the
lawyer for the state there.' See, that would be a problem. But
we're the opposite of that."

Odom said the state is often involved in suits and proceedings, so
it's not an uncommon position for legislators in the legal field.

"There are many types of cases where the state of Oklahoma can
become a party to the lawsuit," he said. "For example, any time
the district attorney files a case, it's the state of Oklahoma vs.
[defendant]. That's the style of the case, but it's very clear and
obvious that members of the legislature can and have for decades
represented people on opposite sides of cases from the state of
Oklahoma.

"Those people are entitled to a fair day in court and fair
representation, and we don't think that that poses a conflict."

Gina Hendryx, general counsel for the Oklahoma Bar Association,
said the defendants could file a motion to disqualify Sparks, but
the result of such a motion would be a question of fact for the
trial court judge, in this case Judge Thad Balkman.

"If someone were to try to pose a direct conflict, and I'm not
going to get into whatever hypothetical that might be in term's of
John's legislative work, he can always abstain from voting or be
excused from the process," Odom said. "I think John is an
extremely ethical person. I think that's his reputation in Norman
and I don't think, at the end of the day, there's anything there
on this."

Despite public concerns over the case, nobody from the Attorney
General's office was willing to comment on the possibility of a
conflict of interest with Sparks arguing against the state.

Odom said the firm is regarding it as a business matter, and as
senior partner, he -- not Sparks -- should be the one to speak on
the issue.

"I let John [Sparks] speak for the senator stuff and I speak for
the law firm," he said.

The case: Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter filed the class
action lawsuit in July and called it the beginning of a fight to
"hold these companies accountable, slow the opioid crisis gripping
the state and build a healthier Oklahoma."

Hunter alleged in the petition that the companies abused power and
resources by overselling opioids to Oklahomans while underselling
addiction risks.

"[The companies] wanted to increase their opioid sales, and
increase they did. By 2009, Oxycontin retail sales reached $3
billion," the suit read. "By 2015, the number of Oklahoma drug
overdose deaths had reached 823, with the number of prescription
drug overdose deaths greater than the number of overdose deaths
from alcohol and all illegal drugs combined.

"Deceptive marking campaigns and the resulting opioid abuse and
addiction epidemic caused, and continues to cause, the state of
Oklahoma, its businesses, communities and citizens to bear
enormous social and ecumenic costs including increased health
care, criminal justice and lost work productivity expenses."

The American Academy of Pain Medicine also was named in the suit,
which alleges the parties violated the Oklahoma Medicaid False
Claims Act, Oklahoma Medicaid Program Integrity Act and Oklahoma
Consumer Protection Act.

Some of the companies named in the suit have issued statements in
their defense.

"[Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.] recognizes opioid abuse is a
serious public health issue that must be addressed," Janssen
spokesperson Jessica Castles Smith said in July. "At the same
time, we firmly believe Janssen has acted responsibly and in the
best interests of patients and physicians with regard to these
medicines, which are FDA-approved and carry FDA-mandated warnings
about possible risks on every product label."

According to an Associated Press report, the drug companies are
seeking a protective order to prevent the attorney general's
office from gathering information from their companies through the
discovery process until after the court rules on a request to
dismiss the lawsuit.

The state is seeking compensation for damages, costs and punitive
damages. [GN]


JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Denies Bid to File TAC in Ponzi Scheme Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum of Decision and Order denying Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Verified Complaint in the
case captioned EDMUND J. MANSOR and ROBERTA M. MANSOR, Plaintiffs,
v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Civil Action No. 12-
10544-JGD (D. Mass.).

The plaintiffs, Edmund J. Mansor and Roberta M. Mansor, were
investors in what turned out to be a 150 million dollar Ponzi
scheme.  By their initial complaint, the plaintiffs claimed that
JPMorgan knowingly aided and abetted the Millennium Bank fraud,
aided and abetted the conversion of investor funds by Wise and his
associates, and breached fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs
and members of the putative class.

The plaintiffs filed a First Amended Verified Class Action
Complaint.  Therein, the Hollises and the Mansors asserted claims
against JPMorgan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, for aiding and abetting common law fraud, aiding and
abetting conversion, deceit and violation of the California
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200.

The Bank responded by filing a motion to dismiss and to strike.
The defendant argues that the motion should be denied on the
grounds that the proposed amendment is untimely and fails to state
a viable claim for relief. It also argues that the motion should
be denied because it seeks to hold JPMorgan liable for conduct
that occurred prior to its acquisition of WaMu, and amounts to
little more than an attempted end-run around the jurisdictional
limitations of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA).

Although the court determined that FIRREA's jurisdictional
limitations would not preclude claims based solely on JPMorgan's
alleged post-purchase misconduct, and that the First Amended
Complaint alleged conduct that occurred after JPMorgan's
acquisition of WaMu, the court found that those allegations were
nevertheless inadequate to state a claim under any Count of the
Complaint.

As a result, the court allowed JPMorgan's motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint in its entirety. However, because this
court determined that the plaintiffs should be given a final
opportunity to amend their pleading, the dismissal of the First
Amended Complaint was without prejudice to the plaintiffs' ability
to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of the
2014 Order.

JPMorgan filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
As in the case of its motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint, JPMorgan argued that the Second Amended Complaint
should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
FIRREA, for failure to comply with the heightened pleading
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), and for failure to state a
claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  It also requested, as an
alternative to dismissal, that the court enter an order further
limiting the scope of the potential class in order to encompass
only those investors who had been defrauded by Millennium Bank and
harmed by JPMorgan's actions.

JPMorgan's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, the
court again addressed the defendant's argument that FIRREA
deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction over any claims
relating to WaMu's conduct prior to JPMorgan's acquisition of its
assets in September 2008.

The court ruled, as it did in its 2014 Order, that under FIRREA,
federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims that
relate to the acts or omissions of a failed banking institution,
but have not been exhausted through the FDIC's administrative
claims process, including claims asserted against a purchasing
bank when the claim is based on the conduct of the failed
institution rather than the purchaser's independent misconduct.
It also ruled that because the Mansors did not comply with
FIRREA's statutory claims process, this court lacks jurisdiction
over any claims against JPMorgan that relate to any act or
omission of WaMu prior to its acquisition by the defendant.

Accordingly, the court held that to the extent the Mansors' aiding
and abetting claim was based upon WaMu's pre-purchase conduct
rather than the independent, post-acquisition conduct of JPMorgan,
it was subject to FIRREA's jurisdictional bar, and must be
dismissed.

Therefore, they claimed that Williams took affirmative steps to
insure that the fraud could continue unabated. Because this court
found that Williams' alleged actions in lifting restraints in
October 2008, January 2009 and February 2009 could arguably be
attributed to JPMorgan, and were sufficient to state a claim for
aiding and abetting the Millennium Bank scheme, it denied
JPMorgan's motion to dismiss Count I of the Second Amended
Complaint.

Following the issuance of the 2016 Order, the parties proceeded to
engage in extensive discovery relating to the plaintiffs' aiding
and abetting claim. They also pursued third-party discovery
relating to that claim.

The plaintiffs filed their instant motion for leave to amend their
complaint on December 12, 2016. By their motion, the plaintiffs
are seeking leave to file a Third Amended Verified Complaint that
includes a claim for civil conspiracy against JPMorgan based on
the same facts as those alleged in the Second Amended Complaint.
The plaintiffs contend that because the proposed claim is premised
upon the same facts that support their aiding and abetting claim,
the amended complaint will not expand the scope of discovery,
cause undue delay or otherwise prejudice JPMorgan. They further
argue that their motion should be allowed because it is the only
means by which the members of the putative class may recover all
of their alleged losses.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs are seeking to expand the scope of
their recovery by holding JPMorgan liable for the entire
Millennium Bank fraud.

The plaintiffs argue that the court should apply the standard
established by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Under that Rule, leave to
amend is freely given when justice so requires absent an adequate
basis to deny amendment such as futility, bad faith, undue delay
or a dilatory motive.

However, JPMorgan contends that the court should apply the good
cause" requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) rather than the freely
given standard of Rule 15(a) because the plaintiffs filed their
motion to amend long after the March 13, 2015 deadline for filing
the Second Amended Complaint.

Because the plaintiffs complied with this deadline, they contend
that Rule 15(a) should govern their present motion. This court
finds that it is not necessary to finally resolve this issue
because the motion would be denied under either standard.
Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, this court will rely on
the more liberal amendment standard of Rule 15(a).

Futility

The defendant contends that the motion to amend should be denied
not only because it is untimely, but also because it is futile.
Specifically, JPMorgan argues that the plaintiffs have failed to
cite a single additional fact they have learned since filing the
Second Amended Complaint" or to present any other reasons to
justify the delay in filing their motion.

Although the plaintiffs insist that their proposed claim is
predicated solely upon JPMorgan's own post-acquisition misconduct,
they cannot escape the fact that it relates to WaMu's conduct. As
described in detail in this court's 2016 Order, the plaintiffs
claim that the alleged Ponzi scheme was initiated at WaMu, was
carried out with the knowledge and assistance of WaMu employees,
and was ongoing at the time JPMorgan acquired WaMu's assets.

Furthermore, Williams' relationship with Wise and the Hoegels, and
her alleged involvement in any conspiracy, was developed while she
was working for WaMu, well before JPMorgan appeared on the scene.
By seeking to hold JPMorgan jointly and severally liable for what
was in reality the continuation of an alleged conspiracy that was
created under WaMu and substantially carried out through WaMu, the
plaintiffs are functionally, albeit not formally attempting to
assert a claim against a failed bank.   Under FIRREA, the
plaintiffs may not avoid that reality through strategic pleading.
Accordingly, the proposed conspiracy claim is jurisdictionally
barred and the motion to amend must be denied as futile.

Untimeliness

Even if the proposed claim were not futile, the motion to amend
would still be denied because it is untimely. This case has been
pending since 2012, and the plaintiffs have amended their
complaint on two prior occasions. Moreover, there is no question
that the plaintiffs delayed in filing their instant motion to
amend. As the plaintiffs' own pleadings illustrate, the proposed
conspiracy claim is based on the same alleged facts as those that
support the existing claim for aiding and abetting common law
fraud.

The Mansors' effort to justify the delay in asserting a conspiracy
claim is entirely unpersuasive. Thus, the plaintiffs contend that
after this court issued the 2016 Order, they uncovered additional
information supporting the existence of a conspiracy.

However, plaintiffs' counsel concedes that he obtained the
information used to prepare Wise's affidavit during a meeting that
was held in February 2015. Therefore, the plaintiffs were in
possession of that information prior to filing the Second Amended
Complaint on March 13, 2015.

In any event, the lack of any substantive differences between the
facts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint and the facts
alleged in the proposed Third Amended Complaint belie the
plaintiffs' assertion that they uncovered new evidence and could
not have brought a conspiracy claim earlier. The plaintiffs' undue
delay in filing their motion to amend warrants the denial of the
motion.

The court also finds that the motion should be denied because the
addition of a new claim at this juncture in the case would cause
prejudice to the defendant. The First Circuit has emphasized that
motions to amend are especially disfavored where their timing
prejudices the opposing party by requiring a re-opening of
discovery with additional costs, a significant postponement of the
trial, and a likely major alteration in trial tactics and
strategy.

Here, there can be little question that the addition of a
conspiracy claim would prejudice JPMorgan by injecting [an entire]
new theory of relief into the litigation.

Finally, the court finds that allowance of the motion would
further delay the resolution of this protracted litigation.
Pursuant to the current pre-trial schedule, fact discovery is
expected to be completed by the end of this month, and any request
for class certification must be filed by November 21, 2017.

There is little if any likelihood that the parties would be able
to comply with the current deadlines if the motion were allowed.
Moreover, given the often contentious and hard fought nature of
this case, the introduction of a conspiracy claim would almost
certainly result in additional motion practice that would further
delay resolution of this matter.

Accordingly, the court concludes that the plaintiffs' motion to
amend should be denied for these reasons as well.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 18, 2017
Memorandum of Decision and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/yb86jmwdfrom Leagle.com.

Edmund J. Mansor, Plaintiff, represented by Keith L. Miller, Law
Offices of Keith L. Miller, 58 Winter St # 4, Boston, MA 02108,
USA

Edmund J. Mansor, Plaintiff, represented by Michael R. Lorigas --
mlorigas@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP, pro hac
vice, Tal J. Lifshitz -- tjl@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak, Tropin &
Throckmorton, LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti --
tr@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., pro hac vice
& William H. Gagas -- wgagas@kbn-law.com -- Law Office of William
H. Gagas.

Roberta M. Mansor, Plaintiff, represented by Keith L. Miller, Law
Offices of Keith L. Miller, Michael R. Lorigas, Kozyak, Tropin &
Throckmorton, LLP, pro hac vice, Tal J. Lifshitz, Kozyak, Tropin &
Throckmorton, LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak
Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., pro hac vice & William H. Gagas, Law
Office of William H. Gagas.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Beth I.Z.
Boland -- bboland@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Rachel M.
Blise -- rblise@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice,
Courtney Worcester -- cworcester@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP,
Michael Thompson -- mxthompson@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP,
Redi Kasollja -- rkasollja@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP &
Stephen J. Quinlan, Foley & Lardner LLP.

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Interested Party,
represented by Peter C. Koch, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency.


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Arroyo Probes Officers and Directors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP is investigating
whether certain officers and directors of Juno Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQGS: JUNO) breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders by
engaging in self-dealing and issuing materially false and
misleading statements regarding the side effects of its lead
product candidate, JCAR015.

Investors Survive Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in Securities
Class Action

Juno is currently the subject of a federal securities class action
alleging that between June 4, 2016 and November 22, 2016, Juno
officials understated the risks associated with JCAR015. In July
2016, in addition to finally disclosing several patient deaths
associated with the drug, Juno revealed that the FDA issued a
clinical hold. On June 14, 2017, U.S. District Judge Ricardo
Martinez issued an order in the securities class action denying
defendants' motion to dismiss.

Juno Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested.

         Leonid Kandinov
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Tel No: (619) 525-3990
         E-mail: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Truck Driver Allowed to Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned VALERIE SAMPSON, on behalf of herself and on
the behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KNIGHT
TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. C17-0028-JCC. (W.D.
Wash.), John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted Plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend her class action complaint.

Sampson worked as a truck driver for the Defendant from May 2015
to January 2016.  During her employment, Sampson alleges Knight
did not comply with wage and hour laws that applied to its
employees residing in Washington.

On Oct. 14, 2016, Sampson filed a class action lawsuit against
Knight on behalf of all current and former driver employees of
Knight who at any time from July 1, 2013 through the date of final
disposition, worked as drivers for the company while residing in
the State of Washington.  Sampson claims, among other things, that
Knight failed to pay its drivers minimum wage, failed to pay for
rest periods, made unlawful payroll deductions and did not keep
accurate time records for the hours worked by its drivers.

At a status conference on Feb. 22, 2017, the Court ordered the
parties to provide a proposed schedule for class certification
briefing.  The parties initially agreed that briefing would be
completed on Sept. 8, 2017.  On June 29, 2017, the parties
stipulated to an extension of the class certification briefing
deadline to Oct. 23, 2017.  The Court has not set a discovery
cutoff date or a deadline for filing amended pleadings.

On Aug. 2, 2017, Sampson conducted a deposition of Knight's Chief
Operations Officer, Kevin Quast.  During the deposition, Quast
stated that Knight employs and oversees truck drivers who reside
in Washington under three different "business lines:" Knight Dry
Van; Knight Port Services; and Knight Refrigerated.  Sampson
worked for only the Dry Van business.

Quast stated that the different business lines are part of one
corporate structure that is headed by the same executive officers.
Beneath the corporate executive level, the entities have different
management structures.  The businesses all share the same payroll
department and payroll processing system.  Quast testified that
the rate of pay for drivers in the three businesses is essentially
the same.

After learning that Port Services and Refrigerated were separate
entities from Knight, each of which employed truck drivers
residing in Washington, Sampson's counsel interviewed David
Raymond), a truck driver formerly employed by Port Services and
Refrigerated.  On Aug. 18, 2017, Sampson filed a motion asking the
Court for leave to amend her complaint in order to add Raymond as
an additional class representative as well as Refrigerated and
Port Services as the Defendants.  In the proposed amended
complaint, Raymond alleges the same claims against Refrigerated
and Port Services as Sampson initially brought against Knight.
The Parties have since stipulated to an extension of the class
certification briefing deadline to Feb. 16, 2018.

Judge Coughenour finds that Sampson and Raymond's claims raise
common questions of fact or law.  To resolve their claims, both
Sampson and Raymond would have to establish that Knight,
Refrigerated, and Port Services were using unlawful pay practices
and failing to follow several Washington employment regulations.
Since the Plaintiff's claims are identical, they necessarily turn
on the same questions of law that would determine the Defendant's
liability.  For these reasons, Sampson's motion to amend is
appropriate whether tested under the Rule 15 standard or the Rule
20 standard.

Given Quast's awareness of Sampson's lawsuit, Judge Coughenour
does not see how Refrigerated or Port Services would be prejudiced
by having to now defend against the identical claims brought by
Raymond.  Accordingly, he finds that Raymond's claims relate back
to the date that Sampson's complaint was initially filed.

For these reasons, Judge Coughenour granted the Plaintiff's motion
for leave to amend her class action complaint.  He directed the
Plaintiff to file her amended class action complaint within 14
days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/rFORXt from Leagle.com.

Valerie Sampson, Plaintiff, represented by Erika L. Nusser --
enusser@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

Valerie Sampson, Plaintiff, represented by Greg Alan Wolk, REKHI &
WOLK, P.S., Hardeep S. Rekhi, REKHI & WOLK, P.S. & Toby James
Marshall -- tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW
GROUP PLLC.

Knight Transportation, Inc, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey B.
DeGroot -- jeffrey.degroot@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP &
Anthony Todaro -- anthony.todaro@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP.


LON SMITH: Appeals Class Certification Ruling
---------------------------------------------
Denise Johnson, writing for Claims Journal, reports a Texas roofer
has filed an appeal disputing a class action finding in a case
involving allegations of hail solicitation that could impact 3000
of its customers.

The appeals case could have implications for contractors who act
as public adjusters illegally leading to class action lawsuits.

The underlying case involves damage to the plaintiffs' roof due to
a May 2011 hailstorm. The plaintiffs, Joe and Stacci Key, notified
their insurance carrier and signed a contract with A-1/Lon Smith
Roofing and Construction for roof replacement in the amount of
$33,769.50. The plaintiffs received $18,926.69 from their
homeowners' insurer and paid that amount to A-1. To collect the
balance owed, A-1 filed suit against the plaintiffs, obtaining a
default judgment. The plaintiffs challenged the default judgment
and obtained a judgment voiding it. A-1 appealed. The plaintiffs
then filed a declaratory judgment against the roofer, indicating
the contract was null and void since it wasn't licensed to act as
a public adjuster. They also alleged violations under Texas'
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and requested class certification
for both claims.

In its appeal, A-1 (also known as Lon Smith Roofing and
Construction) claims the Court of Appeals erred in siding with the
trial court's decision affirming the class action, citing that the
trial court didn't perform a vigorous enough analysis and didn't
resolve dispositive issues. A-1 also noted class members signed
several versions of the contract and some include an arbitration
provision. They point out the Key's contract contained an
arbitration provision that wasn't referenced in the trial plan.

A-1 also disputes the Court of Appeals findings that LSRC acted as
a public adjuster. It denies it advocated for the plaintiffs or
discussed insurance coverage or exclusions applicable to the roof
replacement.

Lastly, the roofer disputes the Keys are owed any reimbursement,
since they were made whole with the replacement of the roof.

Steve Badger, Esq. -- sbadger@zelle.com -- a partner with Zelle
LLP's Dallas office, said previously that the primary reason for
the dramatic increase in the number of hail claims in Texas are
contractors that inject themselves into the claims process. He
explained how they solicit homeowners using door hangers, call
centers and other means to aggressively market to homeowners with
the promises of a free roof. Badger said the homeowner then signs
an agreement giving the contractor the right to negotiate the
insurance claim and install the roof for the amount of the
insurance proceeds.

"It is not surprising that Lon Smith has filed a further appeal,"
said Badger. "This is a bet the company case for them. If this
class action is upheld, they will be forced to refund millions of
dollars in roofing project payments. That would likely force them
into bankruptcy."

Despite two statutes enacted in 2005 and 2013 to curtail the
unauthorized practice of public adjusting (UPPA) among
contractors, the problem is still rampant, according to Badger, a
vocal advocate against hail fraud abuse.

"An important aspect of this case is that it has brought awareness
to the widespread problem involving the unauthorized practice of
public adjusting. Texas law clearly prohibits contractors from
negotiating insurance claims on behalf of building owners," Badger
said. "This case has been a wakeup call for contractors engaged in
this improper conduct. They know now that they are at great risk
if they attempt to negotiate insurance claims."

The Court of Appeals case is Lon Smith & Associates, Inc. and A-1
Systems, Inc., DBA Lon Smith Roofing and Construction v. Joe Key
and Stacci Key. [GN]


MAXWELL & MORGAN: Court Denies Class Certification in "Lowe"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Michael Lowe, Plaintiff, v. Maxwell & Morgan
PC, Defendant, No. CV-15-02481-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz.), Judge Douglas
L. Rayes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
denied both Lowe's motion for class certification and M&M's
related motion to strike.

Lowe formerly owned and resided at real property governed by the
Village of Copper Basin Community Association ("VCB"), to which he
was required to pay periodic assessments.  In 2012, VCB filed an
action against Lowe in Apache Junction Justice Court after he
failed to make those payments.  M&M represented VCB before the
Justice Court, and on Jan. 31, 2014, successfully obtained a
default judgment against Lowe in the amount of $6,349.69, plus
interest.  This total included $4,546.65 in unpaid assessments,
$1,267.50 in attorneys' fees, and $535.54 in costs.  Additionally,
the Justice Court Judgment awarded VCB all costs and attorney fees
incurred after submission of this judgment for entry by the Court
in collecting the amounts listed in this Judgment.

M&M later filed the Justice Court Judgment in Maricopa County
Superior Court, presumably to domesticate it in Maricopa County
for collection purposes.  On July 14, 2015, M&M simultaneously
filed in the Superior Court Action an Application for Amount of
Attorney Fees Incurred Post-Judgment, Pre-Garnishment and an
Application for Garnishment.  The Post-Judgment Fee Application
requested an award of $1,175.52, representing $875 in post-
judgment attorneys' fees and $300.52 in post-judgment costs.
Although those amounts had not yet been approved by the Superior
Court, the Garnishment Application incorporated them.

On Aug. 14, 2015, Lowe tendered $6,760 to M&M, representing the
sum certain awarded by the Justice Court Judgment.  M&M refused to
accept the payment, however, because it did not also cover the
post-judgment attorneys' fees and costs that M&M had requested and
included in the Writ, but which had yet been approved by the
Superior Court.  The Superior Court later approved M&M's post-
judgment attorneys' fees and costs on Sept. 9, 2015.

Lowe asserts that post-judgment attorneys' fees and costs incurred
in collecting the underlying judgment are not authorized under
Arizona law, and that M&M's method of garnishing those fees and
costs in his case is part of a larger debt collection pattern.  He
alleges that M&M utilizes a form template for all default and
uncontested judgments it prepares and obtains against those
similarly situated to him, and that this template routinely
includes boilerplate language regarding otherwise impermissible
post-judgment costs and fees.  Lowe further claims that M&M
regularly includes post-judgment fees and costs in its garnishment
applications before those amounts have been approved by a court of
competent jurisdiction.  Consequently, the garnishment writs that
M&M obtains are for amounts greater than the sums certain awarded
in the underlying judgments.

On Dec. 7, 2015, Lowe initiated this action alleging that M&M's
post-judgment litigation strategy violates the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  He claims that he is but one
among many who have been subject to M&M's post-judgment fee
collection efforts, and therefore seeks to certify the following
two classes:

     a. All natural persons to whom, in the one year prior to Dec.
7, 2015 through the date of class certification, the Defendant
garnished or attempted to garnish post-judgment fees and/or costs
incurred in the collection of an underlying judgment.

      b. All natural persons against whom, in the one year prior
to Dec. 7, 2015 through the date of class certification, the
Defendant requested or caused writs of garnishment to issue that
included attorneys' fees and/or costs before those fees and/or
costs were awarded by a court of competent jurisdiction.

M&M opposes class certification.

Judge Rayes denied M&M's motion to strike for three reasons.
First, Lowe assures the Court that omission of the phrase "through
the date of class certification" from the putative class
definitions in his initial motion was a clerical error.  Second,
the putative class definitions contained in Lowe's reply
memorandum are consistent with the definitions described in his
complaint.  Finally, M&M conceded at oral argument that it has not
been prejudiced by the omission because it had notice of the
relevant time frame from the complaint, the discovery completed
thus far, and statements made in the motion for class
certification referencing a class size based on the extended
period.

Judge Rayes Court finds that that both putative classes satisfy
the four Rule 23(a) prerequisites for class certification, but
that neither are appropriate for class-wide resolution under Rule
23(b).  Accordingly, he denied Lowe's motion for class
certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/FB89Qs from Leagle.com.

Michael Lowe, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Clark Wigley --
dwigley@dessauleslaw.com -- Dessaules Law Group.

Michael Lowe, Plaintiff, represented by Francis Robert Connelly,
II -- rconnelly@dessauleslaw.com -- Dessaules Law Group & Jonathan
Adam Dessaules -- jdessaules@dessauleslaw.com -- Dessaules Law
Group.

Maxwell & Morgan PC, Defendant, represented by Tomio B. Narita --
tnarita@snllp.com -- Simmonds & Narita LLP.


MDL 2639: Jammers Inc. Appeals Ruling to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jammers, Inc., and City Nights Hospitality, LLC, filed
an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Jammers,
Inc., et al. v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03493-
RGK-PLA, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants'
alleged failure to disclose to the Nevada Athletic Commission the
injuries suffered by Manny Pacquiao prior to the fight between him
and Floyd Mayweather held on May 2, 2015.

The lawsuit was consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
titled In Re: Pacquiao-Mayweather Boxing Match Pay-Per-View
Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Jammers, Inc., et al. v. Top
Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-56372, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 13, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 13, 2017;

   -- Appellants City Nights Hospitality, LLC and Jammers, Inc.'s
      opening brief is due on December 22, 2017;

   -- Appellees Robert Arum, Todd DuBoef, Home Box Office, Inc.,
      Michael Koncz, Floyd Mayweather Jr., Mayweather Promotions,
      LLC, Emmanuel Pacquiao and Top Rank, Inc.'s answering brief
      is due on January 22, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JAMMERS, INC., individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, DBA Flight Restaurant/Flights
Beer Bar; and CITY NIGHTS HOSPITALITY, LLC, DBA 48 Lounge, are
represented by:

          Laurence David King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Caleb Lucas-Hansen Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (562) 216-7387
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd.
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
          E-mail: hlr@zimmreed.com

Defendants-Appellees TOP RANK, INC., EMMANUEL PACQUIAO, MICHAEL
KONCZ, ROBERT ARUM, TODD DUBOEF, and HOME BOX OFFICE, INC., are
represented by:

          Jeffrey Barker, Esq.
          Daniel Petrocelli, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035
          Telephone: (310) 553-6700
          Facsimile: (310) 246-6779
          E-mail: jbarker@omm.com
                  dpetrocelli@omm.com

Defendants-Appellees MAYWEATHER PROMOTIONS, LLC, and FLOYD
MAYWEATHER, Jr., are represented by:

          Mark Tratos, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          3773 Howard Hughes Parkway
          Suite # 400 North
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 792-3773
          E-mail: tratosm@gtlaw.com


MDL 2639: Alessi Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit
------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gerald F. Alessi filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Gerald Alessi v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-06585-RGK-PLA, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The lawsuit was consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
titled In Re: Pacquiao-Mayweather Boxing Match Pay-Per-View
Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.  The
litigation arose from the Defendants' alleged failure to disclose
to the Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries suffered by Manny
Pacquiao prior to the fight between him and Floyd Mayweather held
on May 2, 2015.

The appellate case is captioned as Gerald Alessi v. Top Rank,
Inc., et al., Case No. 17-56382, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 16, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 13, 2017;

   -- Appellant Gerald F. Alessi's opening brief is due on
      December 26, 2017;

   -- Appellees Robert Arum, Todd DuBoef, Home Box Office, Inc.,
      Michael Koncz, Floyd Mayweather Jr., Mayweather Promotions,
      LLC, Emmanuel Pacquiao and Top Rank, Inc.'s answering brief
      is due on January 22, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant GERALD F. ALESSI, On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd.
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
          E-mail: hlr@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Caleb Lucas-Hansen Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (562) 216-7387
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Laurence David King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          733 Summer Street, Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 992-4523
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: nkulesa@zlk.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com

Defendants-Appellees TOP RANK, INC., ROBERT ARUM, TODD DUBOEF,
EMMANUEL PACQUIAO, MICHAEL KONCZ and HOME BOX OFFICE, INC., are
represented by:

          Jeffrey Barker, Esq.
          Daniel Petrocelli, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035
          Telephone: (310) 553-6700
          Facsimile: (310) 246-6779
          E-mail: jbarker@omm.com
                  dpetrocelli@omm.com

Defendants-Appellees FLOYD MAYWEATHER, Jr., and MAYWEATHER
PROMOTIONS, LLC, are represented by:

          Mark Tratos, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite # 400 North
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 792-3773
          E-mail: tratosm@gtlaw.com


MDL 2639: Barrios Appeals Decision to 9th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Enrique Barrios, Chamar Bynum, Felix Natal, David Smith
and Christopher Vallaro filed an appeal from a court ruling in
their lawsuit titled Enrique Barrios, et al. v. Emmanuel Pacquiao,
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06233-RGK-PLA, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The lawsuit was consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
titled In Re: Pacquiao-Mayweather Boxing Match Pay-Per-View
Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.  The
litigation arose from the Defendants' alleged failure to disclose
to the Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries suffered by Manny
Pacquiao prior to the fight between him and Floyd Mayweather held
on May 2, 2015.

The appellate case is captioned as Enrique Barrios, et al. v.
Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al., Case No. 17-56381, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 16, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 13, 2017;

   -- Appellants Enrique Barrios, Chamar Bynum, Felix Natal,
      David Smith and Christopher Vallaro's opening brief is due
      on December 26, 2017;

   -- Appellees Robert Arum, Todd DuBoef, Home Box Office, Inc.,
      Michael Koncz, Floyd Mayweather Jr., Mayweather Promotions,
      LLC, Emmanuel Pacquiao and Top Rank, Inc.'s answering brief
      is due on January 22, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ENRIQUE BARRIOS, CHRISTOPHER VALLARO, FELIX
NATAL, CHAMAR BYNUM and DAVID SMITH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd.
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
          E-mail: hlr@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Caleb Lucas-Hansen Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (562) 216-7387
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Linda Marie Fong, Esq.
          Laurence David King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lfong@kaplanfox.com
                  lking@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON AND GARBER LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas James McKenna, Esq.
          GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 683-3402
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com

               - and -

          Kevin Peter Roddy, Esq.
          WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive
          Woodbridge, NJ 7095
          Telephone: (732) 636-8000
          Facsimile: (732) 726-6686
          E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com

Defendants-Appellees EMMANUEL PACQUIAO, TOP RANK, INC., MICHAEL
KONCZ, ROBERT ARUM, TODD DUBOEF and HOME BOX OFFICE, INC., are
represented by:

          Jeffrey Barker, Esq.
          Daniel Petrocelli, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035
          Telephone: (310) 553-6700
          Facsimile: (310) 246-6779
          E-mail: jbarker@omm.com
                  dpetrocelli@omm.com

Defendants-Appellees FLOYD MAYWEATHER, Jr., and MAYWEATHER
PROMOTIONS, LLC, are represented by:

          Mark Tratos, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite # 400 North
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 792-3773
          E-mail: tratosm@gtlaw.com

MDL 2639: Bobadilla Appeals Ruling to 9th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Victor Bobadilla, Lisette Nazario, Evans Nycole and
Jason Schofield filed an appeal from a court ruling in their
lawsuit entitled Victor Bobadilla, et al. v. Top Rank, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06231-RGK-PLA, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The lawsuit was consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
titled In Re: Pacquiao-Mayweather Boxing Match Pay-Per-View
Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.  The
litigation arose from the Defendants' alleged failure to disclose
to the Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries suffered by Manny
Pacquiao prior to the fight between him and Floyd Mayweather held
on May 2, 2015.

The appellate case is captioned as Victor Bobadilla, et al. v. Top
Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-56386, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 16, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 13, 2017;

   -- Appellants Victor Bobadilla, Lisette Nazario, Evans Nycole
      and Jason Schofield's opening brief is due on December 26,
      2017;

   -- Appellees Robert Arum, Todd DuBoef, Home Box Office, Inc.,
      Michael Koncz, Floyd Mayweather Jr., Mayweather Promotions,
      LLC, Emmanuel Pacquiao and Top Rank, Inc.'s answering brief
      is due on January 22, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants VICTOR BOBADILLA, LISETTE NAZARIO, JASON
SCHOFIELD and EVANS NYCOLE, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, are represented by:

          Laurence David King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Caleb Lucas-Hansen Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (562) 216-7387
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd.
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
          E-mail: hlr@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Kevin Peter Roddy, Esq.
          WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive
          Woodbridge, NJ 7095
          Telephone: (732) 636-8000
          Facsimile: (732) 726-6686
          E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com

Defendants-Appellees TOP RANK, INC., ROBERT ARUM, EMMANUEL
PACQUIAO, HOME BOX OFFICE, INC., MICHAEL KONCZ and TODD DUBOEF are
represented by:

          Jeffrey Barker, Esq.
          Daniel Petrocelli, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035
          Telephone: (310) 553-6700
          Facsimile: (310) 246-6779
          E-mail: jbarker@omm.com
                  dpetrocelli@omm.com

Defendants-Appellees MAYWEATHER PROMOTIONS, LLC, and FLOYD
MAYWEATHER, Jr., are represented by:

          Louis Smith, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          P.O. Box 677
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 360-7900
          E-mail: smithlo@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Tratos, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite # 400 North
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 792-3773
          E-mail: tratosm@gtlaw.com


MDL 2639: Brady Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------
Appellants Bill Brady, Paul Brodsky, Marcy Lokietz and Howard
Miller filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
entitled Bill Brady, et al. v. Home Box Office, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-07093-RGK-PLA, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The lawsuit was consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
titled In Re: Pacquiao-Mayweather Boxing Match Pay-Per-View
Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.  The
litigation arose from the Defendants' alleged failure to disclose
to the Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries suffered by Manny
Pacquiao prior to the fight between him and Floyd Mayweather held
on May 2, 2015.

The appellate case is captioned as Bill Brady, et al. v. Home Box
Office, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-56384, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 16, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 13, 2017;

   -- Appellants Bill Brady, Paul Brodsky, Marcy Lokietz and
      Howard Miller's opening brief is due on December 26, 2017;

   -- Appellees Robert Arum, Todd DuBoef, Home Box Office, Inc.,
      Michael Koncz, Floyd Mayweather Jr., Mayweather Promotions,
      LLC, Emmanuel Pacquiao and Top Rank, Inc.'s answering brief
      is due on January 22, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants BILL BRADY, Individually and On Behalf of
All Other Similarly Situated, HOWARD MILLER, PAUL BRODSKY and
MARCY LOKIETZ are represented by:

          Gregory Michael Egleston, Esq.
          Thomas James McKenna, Esq.
          GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 683-3402
          E-mail: egleston@gme-law.com
                  tjmckenna@gme-law.com

               - and -

          Laurence David King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Caleb Lucas-Hansen Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (562) 216-7387
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd.
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
          E-mail: hlr@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Cullin O'Brien, Esq.
          CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
          6541 NE 21st Way
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
          Telephone: (561) 676-6370
          Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
          E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees HOME BOX OFFICE, INC., EMMANUEL PACQUIAO,
MICHAEL KONCZ, ROBERT ARUM and TODD DUBOEF are represented by:

          Jeffrey Barker, Esq.
          Daniel Petrocelli, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035
          Telephone: (310) 553-6700
          Facsimile: (310) 246-6779
          E-mail: jbarker@omm.com
                  dpetrocelli@omm.com

Defendants-Appellees MAYWEATHER PROMOTIONS, LLC, FLOYD MAYWEATHER,
Jr., and TOP RANK, INC., are represented by:

          Mark Tratos, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite # 400 North
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 792-3773
          E-mail: tratosm@gtlaw.com


MDL 2639: Galandak Appeals Ruling to 9th Circuit
------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs David Galandak, Robert Martinez and Susan Medina filed
an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled David
Galandak, et al. v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
06227-RGK-PLA, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, Los Angeles.

The lawsuit was consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
titled In Re: Pacquiao-Mayweather Boxing Match Pay-Per-View
Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.  The
litigation arose from the Defendants' alleged failure to disclose
to the Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries suffered by Manny
Pacquiao prior to the fight between him and Floyd Mayweather held
on May 2, 2015.

The appellate case is captioned as David Galandak, et al. v. Top
Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-56387, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 16, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 13, 2017;

   -- Appellants David Galandak, Robert Martinez and Susan
      Medina's opening brief is due on December 26, 2017;

   -- Appellees Robert Arum, Todd DuBoef, Home Box Office, Inc.,
      Michael Koncz, Floyd Mayweather Jr., Mayweather Promotions,
      LLC, Emmanuel Pacquiao and Top Rank, Inc.'s answering brief
      is due on January 22, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DAVID GALANDAK, ROBERT MARTINEZ and SUSAN
MEDINA, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Robert R. Duncan, Esq.
          DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC
          161 N. Clark Street, Suite 2500
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 202-3283
          E-mail: rrd@duncanlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Laurence David King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Caleb Lucas-Hansen Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (562) 216-7387
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd.
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
          E-mail: hlr@zimmreed.com

Defendants-Appellees TOP RANK, INC., EMMANUEL PACQUIAO, HOME BOX
OFFICE, INC., ROBERT ARUM, TODD DUBOEF and MICHAEL KONCZ are
represented by:

          Jeffrey Barker, Esq.
          Daniel Petrocelli, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035
          Telephone: (310) 553-6700
          Facsimile: (310) 246-6779
          E-mail: jbarker@omm.com
                  dpetrocelli@omm.com

Defendants-Appellees TOP RANK, INC., EMMANUEL PACQUIAO and HOME
BOX OFFICE, INC., are represented by:

          Britt M. Miller, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-4637
          Telephone: (312) 782-0600
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8763
          E-mail: bmiller@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Esteban Rodriguez, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          E-mail: erodriguez2@omm.com

Defendants-Appellees MAYWEATHER PROMOTIONS, LLC, and FLOYD
MAYWEATHER, Jr., are represented by:

          Mark Tratos, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite # 400 North
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 792-3773
          E-mail: tratosm@gtlaw.com


MDL 2639: Mahoney Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Paul Mahoney, John Day, Brian Denis Flynn, Heather
McDonald, Gary Rempel and Angela Thill filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Paul Mahoney, et al. v.
Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03376-RGK-PLA, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants'
alleged failure to disclose to the Nevada Athletic Commission the
injuries suffered by Manny Pacquiao prior to the fight between him
and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

The lawsuit was consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
titled In Re: Pacquiao-Mayweather Boxing Match Pay-Per-View
Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Paul Mahoney, et al. v.
Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al., Case No. 17-56379, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 16, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 13, 2017;

   -- Appellants John Day, Brian Denis Flynn, Paul Mahoney,
      Heather McDonald, Gary Rempel and Angela Thill's opening
      brief is due on December 26, 2017;

   -- Appellees Robert Arum, Todd DuBoef, Home Box Office, Inc.,
      Michael Koncz, Floyd Mayweather Jr., Mayweather Promotions,
      LLC, Emmanuel Pacquiao and Top Rank, Inc.'s answering brief
      is due on January 22, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants PAUL MAHONEY, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, BRIAN DENIS FLYNN, JOHN DAY,
HEATHER MCDONALD, ANGELA THILL and GARY REMPEL are represented by:

          Courtney E. Curtis, Esq.
          Paul B. Derby, Esq.
          John J. O'Kane, IV, Esq.
          SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
          800 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1450
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 788-4500
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4545
          E-mail: ccurtisives@skiermontderby.com
                  pderby@skiermontderby.com
                  jokane@skiermontderby.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
          324 S. Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  manifold@whafh.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Laurence David King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Edgardo Morales Lopez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EDGARDO M. LOPEZ
          3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1716
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 380-3939
          Facsimile: (213) 596-3772
          E-mail: edlopezlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Caleb Lucas-Hansen Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (562) 216-7387
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd.
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
          E-mail: hlr@zimmreed.com

Defendants-Appellees EMMANUEL PACQUIAO, TOP RANK, INC., MICHAEL
KONCZ, ROBERT ARUM, TODD DUBOEF, and HOME BOX OFFICE, INC., are
represented by:

          Jeffrey Barker, Esq.
          Daniel Petrocelli, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035
          Telephone: (310) 553-6700
          Facsimile: (310) 246-6779
          E-mail: jbarker@omm.com
                  dpetrocelli@omm.com

               - and -

          Esteban Rodriguez, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          E-mail: erodriguez2@omm.com

Defendants-Appellees FLOYD MAYWEATHER, Jr., and MAYWEATHER
PROMOTIONS, LLC, are represented by:

          Mark Tratos, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite # 400 North
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 792-3773
          E-mail: tratosm@gtlaw.com


MDL 2664: Court Dismisses Data Security Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: ALL
CASES, Misc. Action No. 15-1394 (ABJ), MDL Docket No. 2664 (D.
D.C.), Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia dismissed the Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Amended Complaint ("CAC") and the NTEU Complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction based on both standing and sovereign
immunity grounds.

A number of lawsuits were filed around the country after the data
breaches at OPM and KeyPoint were announced.  The United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all actions
that were pending elsewhere to this Court for coordinated or
consolidated proceedings, and the Plaintiffs filed two amended
complaints, which are the operative documents in this matter.

The Plaintiffs in the CAC assert that OPM violated the Privacy
Act, the Little Tucker Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act
("APA"), and that KeyPoint is liable for negligence, negligent
misrepresentation and concealment, invasion of privacy, breach of
contract, and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and
various state statutes governing unfair and deceptive trade
practices and data security.  They seek declaratory and injunctive
relief against both defendants.

OPM and KeyPoint each filed motions to dismiss the CAC, arguing
that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because the Plaintiffs do not
have standing and defendants are shielded by sovereign immunity,
and that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

The NTEU Plaintiffs assert a single claim against the Acting
Director of OPM, alleging that the agency violated their
constitutional right to informational privacy.  They seek
declaratory and injunctive relief.

OPM has moved to dismiss the NTEU complaint for lack of standing
and for failure to state a claim.

Judge Jackson notes that the right to bring a claim for damages
under the Privacy Act is expressly limited to those who can
demonstrate that they have suffered actual economic harm as a
result of the government's statutory violation.  The law is clear
that the statute does not create a cause of action for those who
have been merely aggrieved by, or are even actively worried about,
the fact that their information has been taken.  Neither the
Administrative Procedure Act nor the Little Tucker Act supplies a
cause of action against the government to enforce its information
security obligations, and no court has expressly recognized a
right to data security arising under the Constitution.

Therefore, Judge Jackson granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss, and dismissed the Plaintiffs' CAC and the NTEU Complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on both standing and
sovereign immunity grounds.  The Judge concludes that the CAC
fails to state a claim under the Privacy Act and the Little Tucker
Act, and that the NTEU complaint fails to state a constitutional
claim.

Judge Jackson finds, applying the case law it is required to
follow, that neither set of the Plaintiffs has pled sufficient
facts to demonstrate that they have standing.  Moreover, even if
they had the right to enter the courthouse, they did not bring a
claim with them that the Court can hear.  The Plaintiffs have
failed to overcome the arguments that the federal Defendants are
immune from suit under the Privacy Act and the Administrative
Procedure Act, and that KeyPoint is shielded by government
contractor immunity, so the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to hear those claims.

Moreover, Judge Jackson finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
state claims upon which relief can be granted.  They seek damages
for improper disclosure of information and for a failure to
maintain adequate safeguards under the Privacy Act, but they have
not alleged that private information was "disclosed," as opposed
to stolen, and they have not alleged facts to show that their
claimed injuries were the result of the agency's failures.  The
Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for breach of contract under
the Little Tucker Act since they have not shown that OPM entered
into a contract with them or that any contract was breached, and
they have not alleged any violation of the United States
Constitution.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/R5MzeF from Leagle.com.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff,
represented by Daniel C. Girard -- dcg@girardgibbs.com -- GIRARD
GIBBS LLP, pro hac vice.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff,
represented by Gary Edward Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD
BRYSON & MASON LLP & Jordan Elias -- je@girardgibbs.com -- GIRARD
GIBBS LLP, pro hac vice.

ROBERT CRAWFORD, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel C. Girard --
je@girardgibbs.com -- GIRARD GIBBS LLP, pro hac vice, Gary Edward
Mason, WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP, Jordan Elias, GIRARD GIBBS
LLP, pro hac vice, Adam E. Polk, GIRARD GIBBS LLP, pro hac vice &
Christopher K. Hikida -- ckh@girardgibbs.com -- GIRARD GIBBS LLP,
pro hac vice.

ADAM DALE, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel C. Girard, GIRARD
GIBBS LLP, pro hac vice, Gary Edward Mason, WHITFIELD BRYSON &
MASON LLP, Jordan Elias, GIRARD GIBBS LLP, pro hac vice, Adam E.
Polk, GIRARD GIBBS LLP, pro hac vice & Christopher K. Hikida,
GIRARD GIBBS LLP, pro hac vice.

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, Plaintiff, represented by Paras
N. Shah, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION.

STEPHEN HOWELL, Plaintiff, represented by Paras N. Shah, NATIONAL
TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION.

JOHN ORTINO, Plaintiff, represented by Paras N. Shah, NATIONAL
TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION.

MARY C. WOO, Plaintiff, represented by Anna C. Haac --
ahaac@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP, Hassan A. Zavareei --
hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP & Norman E. Siegel
-- siegel@stuevesiegel.com -- STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP.

TERESA J. MCGARRY, The Honorable, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
C. Girard, GIRARD GIBBS LLP, pro hac vice & Denis F. Sheils --
dsheils@kohnswift.com -- KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C..

VICTOR W. HOBBS, Plaintiff, represented by Behram Parekh, KIRTLAND
& PACKARD LLP.

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Defendant,
represented by Andrew Evan Carmichael, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Elizabeth J. Shapiro, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Joseph Evan
Borson, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

DONNA SEYMOUR, Defendant, represented by Andrew Evan Carmichael,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Elizabeth J. Shapiro, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & Joseph Evan Borson, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, Defendant, represented by Alexander
H. Southwell -- asouthwell@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN &
CRUTCHER, L.L.P., Francis Joseph Warin -- fwarin@gibsondunn.com --
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP & Jason J. Mendro, GIBSON, DUNN &
CRUTCHER, LLP.

BETH F. COBERT, Defendant, represented by Andrew Evan Carmichael,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Elizabeth J. Shapiro, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & Joseph Evan Borson, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

KATHERINE ARCHULETA, Defendant, represented by Andrew Evan
Carmichael, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Joseph Evan Borson, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

ELAINE D. KAPLAN, Defendant, Pro Se.

JOHN BERRY, Defendant, Pro Se.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Garick Sues over Radiator in 4-Matic Wagon Car
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD K. GARICK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 17CV13927 (Mass. Super. Ct., Sep. 12, 2017),
seeks to enjoin Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC from continuing to engage
in an unfair and deceptive acts or practices.

The Plaintiff files this class action complaint on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated who own or
lease certain defective model year 2004 or earlier Mercedes-Benz
C-Class and CLK Class vehicles designed, manufactured,
distributed, sold and/or leased by defendant Mercedes-Benz USA,
LLC.

According to the complaint, on February 11, 2005, Garick purchased
a 2003 Mercedes-Benz 320C 4-Matic Wagon, VIN No. WDBRH84J43D419244
from a MBUSA authorized dealership in Haverhill, Essex County,
Massachusetts. MBUSA expressly and impliedly warranted that the
Class Vehicles were free from any and all design and/or
manufacturing defects and that they were fit for its ordinary
purpose of providing reasonably reliable and safe transportation.
These representations and warranties proved false as at all times,
MBUSA knew about radiator issues with the Class Vehicles. This
includes, without limitation, MBUSA's issuance of Dealer Technical
Bulletin P-B-27.55/50 identifying catastrophic issues with the
radiator and transmission systems in several Mercedes-Benz models,
including, specifically, the Vehicle purchased by Garick and the
other Class Vehicles. MBUSA's DTB acknowledged that certain
Mercedes-Benz models equipped with a radiator manufactured and/or
supplied by Valeo were defective. This defect allowed coolant from
the radiator to mix with and contaminate the transmission fluid,
causing damage to the vehicle, including the transmission and
torque converter The Class Vehicles' radiators are uniformly and
inherently defective in materials, design and workmanship because
the Radiator Defect will inevitably cause extensive damage to the
Class Vehicles by damaging the drivetrain and requiring
replacement of the transmission, torque converter, and radiator.

As a result of the Radiator Defect, the Class Vehicles experience
premature breakdowns and mechanical failures, including but not
limited to loss of forward propulsion, acceleration surging,
significant delays in acceleration, stalling, and the inability to
use the transmission gears. These conditions present a safety
hazard because of sudden and unexpected breakdowns and mechanical
failures that Class Vehicles can experience while in operation.
Thus, the Class Vehicles and their transmissions among other
things can fail, suddenly and unexpectedly, at any time and under
any driving condition or speed, thereby contributing to traffic
accidents, which can result in personal injury or death. In
addition to the safety hazards, the financial costs of the
Radiator Defect to consumers can be exorbitant because consumers
will be required to pay thousands of dollars both to diagnose and
repair the Radiator Defect and to repair the extensive damage that
it causes to a vehicle's drivetrain, as well as damage that often
requires replacement of the transmission, torque converter and
radiator.

Mercedes-Benz is a global automobile manufacturer and a division
of the German company Daimler AG. The brand is known for luxury
vehicles, buses, coaches, and trucks. The headquarters is in
Stuttgart, Baden-Wurttemberg.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua N. Garick, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA N. GARICK, P.C.
          100 TradeCenter, Suite G-700
          Woburn, MA 01801
          Telephone: (617) 600 7520
          E-mail: Joshua@GarickLaw.com


MERGERS MARKETING: District Court Refuses to Remand "Alame" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian C. Wimes of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, Western Division, denied Plaintiff Alame's
Motion to Remand the case captioned QUINTON ALAME, Plaintiff, v.
MERGERS MARKETING, d/b/a Background Screeners of America,
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-CV-06066-BCW (W.D. Mo.).

On April 27, 2017, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action
in the Circuit Court of Clinton County, Missouri, alleging claims
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA").  The Defendant timely removed the Plaintiff's claims
to this Court on May 26, 2017, asserting federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.

The Plaintiff seeks remand to state court.  The Court notes that
the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss before the Plaintiff's
motion to remand; however, because the Plaintiff's motion is
jurisdictional in nature, the Court first considers the
Plaintiff's motion.

The Plaintiff's motion to remand argues that the allegations of
the complaint are inadequate to confer Article III standing.  In
opposition, the Defendant argues the Plaintiff has standing to
proceed in federal court based on his FCRA claims because he
alleges more than "a bare procedural violation."

Judge Wimes finds that although the Plaintiff does not allege that
the inaccurate information about his residential history led to
the loss of any job or other opportunity, the Plaintiff alleges
that the consumer report generated by the Defendant gave the
inaccurate impression that he frequently moves from location to
location.  The threat to a consumer's livelihood is caused by the
very existence of inaccurate information in his credit report and
the likelihood that such information will be important to one of
the many entities who make use of such reports.

Consequently, the Plaintiff's allegations are not of the type
amounting to a mere procedural violation; rather, the Plaintiff
has sufficiently alleged a material risk of harm.  The Judge
concludes that the Plaintiff's allegations are sufficiently
concrete to confer Article III standing.  Accordingly, Judge Wimes
denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/D8lJgv from Leagle.com.

Quinton Alame, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Jason Brown,
Brown & Watkins, LLC.

Quinton Alame, Plaintiff, represented by Jayson A. Watkins, Brown
& Watkins, LLC.

Mergers Marketing, Defendant, represented by Steven H. Schwartz --
sschwartz@bjpc.com -- Brown & James, PC, Derek H. MacKay --
dmackay@bjpc.com -- Brown & James, PC, Ross Thomas Weimer --
rweimer@bjpc.com -- Brown & James, PC & Todd A. Lubben --
tlubben@bjpc.com -- Brown & James, PC.


MILAGRO OF MICHICAN: "Santillan" Suit Seeks unpaid OT under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR GARCIA SANTILLAN, individually and behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EL MILAGRO OF MICHIGAN,
INC., a Michigan Corporation, doing business a El Milagro, and
HENRY PENA, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00826
(W.D. Mich., Sep. 12 , 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified Plaintiff
and those similarly situated as exempt and failed to pay overtime
at a rate of one and one-half times his regular rate for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours during workweek.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
          Victoria L. Smalley, Esq.
          AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC
          600 28th St. SW
          Wyoming, MI 49509
          Telephone: (616) 257 6807
          E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com


MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: Ference Appeals Order in "Retta" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Justin Ference filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Jonathan Retta, et al. v. Millennium Products,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01801-PSG-AJW, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Jonathan Retta, et al. v.
Millennium Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-56375, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 5,
2017, the District Court has given final approval to an $8.25
million deal struck among consumers, Whole Foods and a kombucha
beverage maker in a mislabeling suit over the product's
antioxidant, alcohol and sugar content, overruling objections to
approximately $2 million in attorneys' fees.

U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez on August 22 granted
motions for final approval of the class action settlement agreed
to by consumers led by Jonathan Retta in their suit against Whole
Foods Market Inc. and GT's Kombucha maker Millennium Products
Inc., saying that only four out of 173,000 class members objected
to the terms of the settlement that awards $2.063 million in
attorneys' fees and $18,121 in costs.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 13, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 13, 2017;

   -- Appellant Justin Ference's opening brief is due on
      December 22, 2017;

   -- Appellees George Thomas Dave, Roseline Lewis, Jessica
      Manire, Millennium Products, Inc., Nina Pedro, Jonathan
      Retta, Kirsten Schofield and Whole Foods Market, Inc.'s
      answering brief is due on January 22, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JONATHAN RETTA, KIRSTEN SCHOFIELD and JESSICA
MANIRE, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated,
are represented by:

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ltimothy@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees NINA PEDRO and ROSELINE LEWIS are represented
by:

          Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, Esq.
          KHORRAMI BOUCHER, LLP
          444 S. Flower Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 596-6000
          E-mail: bhujwala@boucher.la

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 North Franklin Street
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

Plaintiff-Appellee ROSELINE LEWIS is represented by:

          Clayeo Arnold, Esq.
          ARNOLD LAW FIRM
          865 Howe Avenue, Suite 300
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: clay@justice4you.com

Objector-Appellant JUSTIN FERENCE is represented by:

          Bradley David Salter, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BRADLEY D. SALTER
          24 Malialani Place
          Lahaina, HI 96761
          Telephone: (808) 298-7873

Defendant-Appellee MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS, INC., is represented by:

          Scott Voelz, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
          E-mail: svoelz@omm.com

Defendant-Appellee WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., is represented by:

          David A. Crane, Esq.
          LTL ATTORNEYS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 612-8900
          Facsimile: (213) 612-3773
          E-mail: david.crane@ltlattorneys.com


MURRAY GOULBURN: Farmers' Class Action Over Milk Price Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adele Ferguson, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that in August 2014, the then-boss of Murray Goulburn,
Gary Helou, told investors "the industry is too fragmented and the
promise of consolidation will come through evolution, not
revolution."  He said Murray Goulburn wouldn't take part in the
consolidation because it had too much on its plate.

Mr. Helou made a series of blunders during his five years at the
helm of the milk processing giant, but on industry consolidation
he was spot on.

What he didn't realise was that it would be Murray Goulburn at the
centre of the consolidation, as the hunted rather than hunter.

Fast forward to today, and the multi-billion dollar dairy industry
is standing on a precipice, waiting for a circuit breaker to help
the industry get back on track after a horror 2016 when some
farmers went to the wall.

Some believe it could be the sale or break-up of Murray Goulburn,
which has been a barrier to consolidation.  Its policy has been to
take all-comers, which means it has a relatively inefficient
supply base and has been reluctant to encourage farmers to
consolidate and improve efficiency.

Dairy is one of Australia's leading rural industries in terms of
adding value across the supply chain.  According to the latest
industry figures from 2016, it is a $13.7 billion farm,
manufacturing and export industry, comprising 6000 farms, around
120 factories and employs 38,000 people.

On September 21, Murray Goulburn told the ASX it had received a
number of confidential, non-binding indicative proposals and it
would provide an update at its annual general meeting next month.

It said "these proposals have ranged from the sale of certain
assets to whole of company transactions".  It dismissed media
speculation that it had received an offer of $1.20 a unit from an
international bidder.

Since, Murray Goulburn's new chief executive Ari Mervis announced
a strategic review there has been a constant supply of names of
speculated bidders, ranging from local to international.  Some
names are legitimate, while others are no doubt a ploy by
investment bankers to create competitive tension in a company that
is clearly distressed.

Whether it is taken out in a merger, forms a joint venture or
becomes a break-up proposition for private equity or a combination
of bidders wanting different assets, Murray Goulburn's fate will
be sealed in the coming months.

What that fate looks like will largely depend on farmers, given
the listed co-operative's constitution.

According to a note from Macquarie Equities, "with a book value
per share of around $1.30 and farmers have purchased shares at $1-
$1.20, so we think any whole company proposal would need to
reflect good value to achieve the 75-90 per cent required farmer
sign-off (under various structures)."

It will be interesting to see whether farmers will be driven
purely by price or other factors will come into play, such as
preferring to be part of an Australian-owned operator such as Bega
Cheese, which has been widely tipped in the media as an interested
party for a full takeover or some key assets.

Bega is a stockmarket darling, run by the highly regarded chief
executive Barry Irwin who has the added attraction to farmers of
still being a dairy farmer.  Bega has been paying solid farmgate
prices to farmers and didn't get caught up in retrospective
pricing, which was triggered by Murray Goulburn in April 2016 and
plunged the industry into crisis.

If Bega bought Murray Goulburn it would catapult it to the biggest
milk processor in the country and generate synergies.

Another interested party is speculated to be Parmalat, which is
more likely to be interested in buying discrete assets for the
domestic market.  In the past few years Parmalat has acquired a
few assets including Tamar Valley, which includes the Ski yoghurt
brands and Harvey Fresh, so it is willing to invest.  The talk is
it would potentially partner with parent French diary giant
Lactalis to split local and international assets.

Saputo has also been named as a potential bidder, but it is more
likely to be interested in certain assets, ditto for Kirin's Lion
Dairy and Drinks, which owns National Foods.

Others speculated in the media to be kicking the tyres include
Arla Foods from Denmark, which is an unknown quantity for farmers.

There has also been talk of Goodman Fielder, Inner Mongolia Fuyang
Farming and a couple of Chinese companies.

Based on a farmgate value of production of $4.3 billion in 2015-
16, dairy is the third largest industry behind beef and wheat,
which makes it attractive for foreign buyers with deep pockets.

For Murray Goulburn shareholders, a quick sale would be ideal
given it is battling trust issues with farmers and is yet to
stabilise its milk intake as farmers continue to defect to rivals
offering higher farmgate prices.

To put it into perspective, in 2016 Murray Goulburn's milk intake
was 3.5 billion litres, falling to 2.7 billion litres in 2017. Its
guidance for 2018 was downgraded in June to 2.5 billion, then to
2.3 billion in July and more lately to 2 billion litres in August.

Milk intake can't be underestimated. When intake falls, profits
fall, processing plants become underutilised, which puts downward
pressure on the share price and encourages more good farmers to
leave -- something it can't afford.  The upshot is the less
efficient farmers remain.

The conundrum for Murray Goulburn is it is battling a battered
reputation and a stretched balance sheet, which means its farmgate
prices aren't as attractive as some of its competitors.

In 2017-18 Murray Goulburn opened farmgate prices at $4.70 a kg
for milk solids but within two weeks it was forced to raise them
to $5.20 in an attempt to stem the flow of defections.  A final
farmgate price above $5.20 remains under review but it will need
to be debt funded, which isn't ideal for a company with a
stretched balance sheet.

In the year to June 30, 2017, Murray Goulburn reported a loss of
$370 million loss after a series of writedowns and processing
plant closures. Revenue was down 10 per cent and the board
suspended its dividend.

It is why something has to give at Murray Goulburn.

The most attractive assets for domestic milk processors are the
white milk processing sites that Murray Goulburn invested in to
service the Coles private label contracts signed three years ago.
It will be interesting to see if they contain a change of control
clause and what that means.

Against this backdrop, the company faces a class action, is being
investigated by ASIC and the competition regulator ACCC has taken
legal action in the Federal Court, alleging unconscionable conduct
and misleading farmers in relation to forecasting a milk price of
$6.05 when it allegedly knew dairy commodity prices were falling
globally.

The class action concerns the alleged misleading and deceptive
representations by Murray Goulburn in its May 2015 Product
Disclosure Statement and a breach of continuous disclosure rules
in relation to the likely downward revision of its expected
revenues and profits in financial year 2016.

There is no doubt that change is needed in an industry that is
battling on many fronts, not least the relatively high costs of
labour, a sub-scale dairy farmer base, cheap milk and brand owners
that haven't done a great job differentiating their product from
$1 milk.

A merger or asset sale would mean one less competitor in an
industry dominated by skinny margins and powerful supermarket
chains that have screwed down milk prices.  If someone takes a
more rational approach, some value might come back into the
market. [GN]


NIDEC MOTOR: Faces "Spivak" Suit in California Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nidec Motor
Corporation.  The case is captioned as David Spivak, Pounds Gurtha
and all others similarly situated and as an aggrieved employee on
behalf of other aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, the Plaintiffs, v. Does 1 through
50; Motion Control Engineering Inc.; Motion Control Engineering
Inc. a Delaware corporation; Nidec Motor Company; and Nidec Motor
Corporation, a Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 34-
2017-00219048-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 13, 2017).

Nidec Motor manufactures commercial, industrial, and appliance
motors and controls.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Walter L Haines, Esq., in
California.


NORTHERN MARIANAS: Settlement Trustee Seeks Tenant for Building
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Manabat, writing for Variety News, reports that the second
and third floors of the former Retirement Fund building on Capital
Hill are available for lease, but it is difficult to find a
suitable tenant for the space, according to Settlement Fund
trustee Joyce C.H. Tang.

In a report filed with federal court, Ms. Tang said government
agencies that are interested in leasing the space do not have
sufficient funding.

According to the report, the second and third floors of the
facility, now known as Settlement Fund Building, were previously
occupied by FEMA after Typhoon Soudelor in 2015 at the rate of
$17,236.50 per month ($1.50 per s.f.), with an additional
$5,745.50 per month for utilities.

"The Settlement Fund would like to explore the possibility of
obtaining consent to lease space to private tenants so that it can
maximize rental revenue," Tang stated in the report.

However, the "building sustained some damage from Typhoon Soudelor
and also requires maintenance work.  The damage from Soudelor is
below the deductible.  The proposals for repair are estimated to
be between $76,632.46 and $103,518.19, excluding construction
management cost. Because of the labor shortage in Saipan, work
that should cost a fraction of this amount is double or triple the
normal cost.  The Settlement Fund has budgeted $270,000 for the
repair and maintenance of the building."

Judicial building loan

As for the judicial building loan, the report said it matured on
March 1, 2015.

"The loan balance as of Sept. 30, 2016 was $4,303,213.80. In FY
2017, the [CNMI] government made payments totaling $942,772.53.
The outstanding balance as of Sept. 15, 2017 [was] $3,667,219.28
(including interest)."

According to the report, the government, with the help of the NMI
judiciary, has applied for a U.S. Department of Agriculture loan
for $12,000,000 to pay off the judicial building loan and to
expand the judiciary building and other facilities.

In Sept. 2016, Public Law 19-67 was signed authorizing the
government to borrow from the USDA for these purposes.

"The Settlement Fund was informed that the USDA loan application
is being reviewed by the Guam and Hawaii USDA offices, and will be
forwarded to the USDA headquarters in Washington, D.C. by Oct. 1,
2017 for final review."

Lawsuit

The report likewise updated the court about NMI Retirement Fund v.
Sword and Express Electronics, Civil Action No. 12-0086 filed in
the CNMI Superior Court by the NMI Retirement Fund.

"It was not assumed by the Settlement Fund and was not identified
as an asset to be transferred to the Settlement Fund in the
settlement agreement," the report said.

"The lawsuit alleged a breach of contract and unjust enrichment
claim by the plaintiff, the Retirement Fund, against defendants,
Gerhard Sword, individually, and Express Electronics, involving a
defective audit software they had supplied to the Retirement
Fund."

The Settlement Fund notified the Office of the AG on March 14,
2016 that the court would be dismissing this lawsuit.

"The lawsuit remained with the Retirement Fund and was dismissed
by the court on April 27, 2016."

Expenses

The report also mentioned that the CNMI government agreed to
reimburse the Settlement Fund for the trustee ad litem fees in the
amount of $694,998.30, to be paid in 24 equal monthly installments
of $28,958.26 per month.  The balance was paid in full on June 15,
2016.

Civille & Tang LLC served as trustee ad litem from Sept. 14, 2012
to Sept. 30, 2013.

For its total personnel expenses, the Settlement Fund budgeted
$777,712 in fiscal year 2016, but the actual expenses amounted to
$649,719.

In FY 2017, the personnel budget was $751,954 while the actual
expenses totaled $680,481.

As for the Settlement Fund's total professional fees, the FY 2016
budget allotted $824,542 while the actual expenses amounted to
$311,446.

In FY 2017, the budget was $671,000 while the actual expenses
totaled $286,747.

In the Settlement Fund's proposed FY 2018 budget, $816,080 was set
aside for personnel expenses and $945,000 for total professional
fees.

The Settlement Fund has three consultants: Wilshire Investments as
its investment consultant; Milliman Inc. as its actuary
consultant; and Ernst & Young as its auditor.

Investment accounts

The balance in the Settlement Fund's investment accounts for FY
2017, as of Aug. 31, 2017, was $72.599 million.

"The Settlement Fund's current investment policy is very
conservative because the Settlement Fund will not be able to take
high levels of capital markets risk," the report stated.

It added that its investment consultant has calculated the amount
needed in order for the Settlement Fund to be fully funded.

"Subject to certain assumptions, an infusion of an additional $468
million is required to fully fund the Settlement Fund. The trustee
plans to engage the government in discussions regarding options
available to obtain this funding."

In the past two years, the trustee told the court, the CNMI
government has been making weekly payments of $1 million to the
Settlement Fund.

These $1 million weekly payments provide the cash flow needed for
bi-weekly benefit payments without having to liquidate the
Settlement Fund's investment

The CNMI government is able to make the weekly payments, partly
because of increased Saipan casino gross revenue tax collected in
2016 and 2017, the trustee said, adding that the casino gross
revenue tax has developed into a primary source of revenue for the
government.

But the report also said reliance on the casino GRT is very risky,
adding that the continuing payment of the casino GRT to the
government at the current rate is, at best, uncertain.

The Settlement Fund was created by the federal court on Sept. 30,
2013 to pay pension benefits to members of the Retirement Fund who
opted to become members of the NMI Settlement Fund.

Under the agreement that settled retiree Betty Johnson's class
action against the CNMI, the government must make minimum annual
payments each year to pay 75 percent of the full benefits of the
class members.

As of Sept. 2017, there are 3,035 settlement class members, 72 of
whom are active CNMI government employees. [GN]


NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: 9th Cir. Splits From Other Circuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Elliott J. Joh, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for National Law Review, wrote that as regular class
action litigators are aware, Rule 23(f) provides a potential
safety valve in case of an adverse class certification order:
within 14 days, a party may file a petition to the applicable
court of appeals seeking interlocutory appeal of the order.
However, if a litigant first files a motion for reconsideration
after the 14-day time limit, and then -- after the motion is
denied months later -- files a Rule 23(f) petition, is the
appellate court without jurisdiction to consider the petition?

In Lambert v. Nutraceutical Corp., the Ninth Circuit answered that
question in the negative, finding that the 14-day deadline is not
jurisdictional, and therefore may be equitably tolled by such a
motion.  Practitioners are advised, however, not to assume that
other courts (particularly the Third Circuit, and likely the Tenth
and Eleventh Circuits as well) would allow the Rule 23(f) deadline
to be so tolled.

The case concerns a product known as "Cobra Sexual Energy," which
is an aphrodisiac dietary supplement that its manufacturer
Nutraceutical marketed as enhancing sexual performance.  Cobra
Sexual Energy had not, however, received approval from the Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA"), and thus the plaintiff Lambert
alleged that the product's label violated several FDA rules.
Lambert brought a consumer class action for violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and
Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The lower district court initially certified the class, but then
granted Nutraceutical's motion to decertify on the basis that
Lambert failed to provide key evidence necessary to apply his
classwide model for damages.  Ten days after the order, Lambert
informed the district court during a status conference that he
intended to file a motion for reconsideration of the
decertification order.  The district court instructed Lambert to
file his motion ten days later, which he did.  Three months later,
the district court denied Lambert's motion for reconsideration,
which prompted Lambert to file his Rule 23(f) petition 14 days
afterwards.  Thus, from the time of the district court's
decertification order to the time of Lambert's Rule 23(f)
petition, more than 4 months had passed -- far exceeding the 14-
day time limit of Rule 23(f).

The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that Lambert's petition would be
time-barred according to the plain language of Rule 23(f), but
then concluded that the rule's time limit is not jurisdictional.
Rather, because the time limit is contained in a rule promulgated
by the Supreme Court, rather than in a Congressional statute, the
time limit is merely a matter of procedural "claims-processing."
A deadline contained in a statute, on the other hand, "delineates
the classes of cases or persons within a court's adjudicatory
authority," and a party's failure to adhere to such a deadline
removes a court's authority over the subject matter.  The Court
primarily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Eberhart v.
U.S., 545 U.S. 12 (2005), in arriving at its conclusion.

The non-jurisdictional nature of the Rule 23(f) deadline means
that equitable exceptions, such as tolling, may apply to avoid or
soften the deadline.  Such equitable exceptions are meant to allow
a "good faith litigant" to have his day in court, and depend on
whether the litigant "pursued his rights diligently" and whether
external circumstances (such as a deadline imposed by the district
court) affected the litigant.  Accordingly, "[a]ll circuits to
consider tolling the Rule 23(f) deadline have held that the
deadline may be tolled when a litigant files a motion for
reconsideration within the fourteen-day deadline."  This exception
did not apply to Lambert, however, because he filed his motion for
reconsideration 20 days after the district court's decertification
order.

The Ninth Circuit nonetheless held that the equitable factors
weighed in plaintiff's favor:  "because Lambert informed the court
orally of his intention to seek reconsideration of the
decertification order and the basis for his intended filing within
fourteen days of the decertification order and otherwise acted
diligently, and because the district court set the deadline for
filing a motion for reconsideration with which Lambert complied,
the Rule 23(f) deadline should be tolled."  The Court acknowledged
that the Third Circuit in Gutierrez v. Johnson & Johnson, 523 F.3d
187 (3d Cir. 2008), reached the opposite conclusion, and that the
Tenth and Eleventh Circuits would likely not allow a district
court's scheduling order to affect or toll the Rule 23(f)
deadline.

Accordingly, litigants should continue to adhere to the 14-day
Rule 23(f) deadline, but should also be aware that failure to do
so under certain circumstances may not preclude the Ninth Circuit
from considering the petition. [GN]


OVERTON SECURITY: "McMillian" FLSA Claim Tossed w/ Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DEMARIO McMILLIAN, Plaintiff, v. OVERTON
SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-03354-JSC (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the FLSA claim with leave to amend.

The Defendant is a security company that provides security
services to clients throughout California.  The Plaintiff is a
security guard at the Bay Street Shopping Center in Emeryville,
California.  He has been employed by the Defendant since January
2017 as an hourly, non-exempt employee and is paid an hourly rate
for his services.

The Plaintiff filed suit in Alameda County Superior Court on April
14, 2017 alleging violations of California state law.  On June 7,
2017, the court dismissed the action without prejudice.

The Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant case on June 9, 2017,
alleging violations of the FLSA and the California Labor Code.  He
brings his FLSA claims as a collective action pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b).  The Plaintiff claims (i) the Defendant
failed to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess
of forty hours; (ii) the Defendant failed to pay minimum wage
because the Defendant failed to reimburse him and the collective
members for work-related expenses; and (iii) the Defendant failed
to properly pay them for off-the-clock hours when security-related
incidents occur near the end of shifts.

The Defendant's 12(b)(6) moves to dismiss the FLSA claim.

Judge Corley granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the FLSA
claim without prejudice.  The complaint fails to allege facts
showing that there was a given week in which the Plaintiff was
entitled to but denied (i) overtime wages, (ii) minimum wages, or
(iii) off-the-clock wages.  Instead, the Plaintiff asserts
generalized allegations that he and the putative Class and
Collective members are not compensated with minimum wages, agreed-
upon wages, or overtime wages for time spent working after the
scheduled conclusion of a work shift.  The Plaintiff's conclusory
allegations repeat the statutory language and fail to identify a
specific pay period.

The Defendant argues that because the Plaintiff's pleadings are
insufficient to satisfy 12(b)(6), the Court should decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a)
and dismiss the remaining California state law claims.  Because
the Judge granted the motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) with leave
to amend, it is premature to consider the Defendant's argument
that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction.

Judge Corley directed the Plaintiff to file his amended complaint,
if any, within 20 days of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/WhwBzr from Leagle.com.

Demario McMillian, Plaintiff, represented by Carolyn Hunt Cottrell
-- ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP.

Demario McMillian, Plaintiff, represented by David Christopher
Leimbach -- dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Mira Pearl Karageorge --
mkarageorge@gmail.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP.

Overton Security Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Damon
M. Thurston -- thurston@rankinlaw.com -- Rankin, Sproat, Mires,
Reynolds, Shuey & Mintz.


OXNARD, CA: "Kittel" Suit Moved to Central District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled April Kittel, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. City of
Oxnard, a California municipality; Sylvia Paniagua, in her
individual and official capacities; Eric Sonstegard, in his
individual and official capacities; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 56-02017-00499300, was removed on Sep.12,
2017 from the Ventura County Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-
06709-MWF-GJS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.

Oxnard is a city in the United States, located along the coast of
Southern California. It is the 19th most populous city in
California and the most populous in Ventura County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William August Salzwedel, Esq.
          J GRANT KENNEDY LAW OFFICES
          141 Duesenbery Drive Suite 4
          Westlake Village, CA 91362
          Telephone: (805) 497 4511
          Facsimile: (805) 497 3014
          E-mail: williamsalzwedel@yahoo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian P Walter, Esq.
          Hengameh S Safaei, Esq.
          Joshua Andrew Goodman, Esq.
          LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE APC
          6033 West Century Boulevard 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045-6415
          Telephone: (310) 981 2000
          Facsimile: (310) 337 0837
          E-mail: bwalter@lcwlegal.com
                  hsafaei@lcwlegal.com
                  jgoodman@lcwlegal.com


PATH INC: Attorneys Want $1.6MM Cut of App Privacy Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, report that the attorneys who
worked out a $5.3 million deal with tech companies including
Twitter, Instagram and Yelp in a consolidated proposed class
action over alleged user privacy violations asked a California
federal judge on September 22 to award $1.6 million in fees for
their work.

U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar granted preliminary approval to
the settlement in July, moving forward a deal that would resolve
five-year-old claims that the companies' apps for Apple's iOS were
created in such a way as to unlawfully upload and disseminate
users' personal information without their knowledge or consent,
court records show.

Now, the counsel that represented the proposed class say they
should be paid 30 percent of that sum for their efforts, owing to
the case's length and the significant resources it took to
prosecute, according to September 22nd's motion. The attorneys had
done thousands of hours of work on the case before it settled,
they said.

"As the court has itself noted, this case was fiercely litigated,"
class counsel said in the filing. "The hours class counsel
expended to investigate, litigate and settle the claims against
the app defendants were driven in substantial part by the
complexity and novelty of the issues presented and each app
defendant's tenacious defense of the claims against it."

The consumers' attorneys are seeking just under $1.6 million in
fees, plus $150,000 in costs and another $195,000 to pay each lead
plaintiff a $15,000 award, according to September 22nd's filing.

The consumers had accused Twitter Inc., Yelp Inc., Instagram LLC,
Foursquare Labs Inc., Foodspotting Inc., Gowalla Inc., Kik
Interactive Inc. and Kong Technologies Inc., formerly known as
Path, of invasion of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion, as well
as a claim against Apple Inc. for aiding and abetting such
activity and for misrepresentation, according to filings in the
case.

The settlement would release most of those claims, save the
misrepresentation claim against Apple, which was resolved in a
stipulated order earlier this month.

The deal covers a proposed class of an estimated 7 million
claimants who downloaded the companies' iOS apps on their Apple
devices and activated the "Add Friends," "Find Friends" or
"Suggested Friends" feature, whichever variation was offered by
the relevant app. The class period, which is different for each
defendant, covers a time period of 2009 through 2012.

The defendants in the suit haven't made many appearances in court
this year as the parties reached and hammered out the details of
their settlement, according to the case docket. Apple and the
consumers agreed to dismiss any claims against the company that
weren't covered by the settlement, and Judge Tigar approved that
stipulation earlier this month, according to filings in the case.

The consumers are represented by David M. Given, Esq. --
dmg@phillaw.com -- and Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq. -- nac@phillaw.com
-- of Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Michael Von
Loewenfeldt, Esq. -- loewenfeldt@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Frank Busch,
Esq. -- busch@kerrwagstaffe.com -- and James M. Wagstaffe, Esq. --
wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com -- of Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Jennifer
Sarnelli, Esq. -- jsarnelli@gardylaw.com -- of Gardy & Notis LLP,
Jeff Edwards, Esq. -- jeff@edwards-law.com -- and Carl Schwenker,
Esq.

Apple is represented by Robert B. Hawk and Stacy Hovan of Hogan
Lovells. The settling defendants have been represented by Durie
Tangri LLP, Perkins Coie LLP, Fenwick & West LLP and Dhillon Law
Group Inc.

The consolidated case is Marc Opperman et al. v. Path Inc. et al.,
case number 3:13-cv-00453, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. [GN]


PATRIOT NATIONAL: Safirstein Metcalf Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Safirstein Metcalf LLP and The Grant Law Firm, PLLC announce that
they have filed a class action lawsuit against Patriot National,
Inc. ("Patriot National" or the "Company") (NYSE:PN) on behalf of
purchasers of Patriot National common stock during the period of
March 3, 2016 and November 14, 2016 ("Class Period").  This action
was filed in the Southern District of New York and is captioned
Kayce v. Patriot National, Inc. et al. No. 17-07164.

If you purchased common stock of Patriot National during the Class
Period, and would like more information about the shareholder
class action, please contact Safirstein Metcalf LLP at 1-800-221-
0015, or email info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 21, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made affirmative misstatements concerning the purpose
and need for the stock repurchase program (the "Stock Repurchase
Program") and falsely represented that its purpose was to increase
the Company's stock price because it did not accurately reflect
the Company's value, and directly manipulated the price of the
Company's stock through the Stock Repurchase Program. The
Complaint alleges that the true purpose of the Stock Repurchase
Program was to artificially inflate the market price of the
Company's stock to enable Steven Mariano, the Company's
controlling shareholder, to provide fewer shares to private equity
investors pursuant to a previously executed agreement and to
maintain his control position.

On November 14, 2016, the Company announced that it was expanding
the Stock Repurchase Program from $15 million to $40 million.
With this change in the Stock Repurchase Program, the Company
characterized the increase (along with a special dividend) as a
reward to shareholders for their patience. Investors, however, now
saw the exposed truth -- the Stock Repurchase Program was not
about the Company's concern that the stock was significantly
undervalued but to aid Mariano.  Following this revelation, the
stock price dropped nearly 10% on very high volume and continued
to trade on very high volume for two more days, closing on
November 16 at over 12% lower than the stock price prior to the
announcement.

About Safirstein Metcalf LLP

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

                  About The Grant Law Firm

For over 30 years, Lynda J. Grant has represented aggrieved
investors and consumers in a variety of actions, and has run The
Grant Law Firm, PLLC for over seven years.  She also has been
heralded as one of the top woman attorneys in corporate
governance, and has won significant governance changes in many of
the country's largest corporations. [GN]


PENSKE LOGISTICS: Class Deal in "Rodriguez" Has Prelim. Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted Rodriguez's unopposed
motion for preliminary certification of the class, preliminary
approval of the settlement and approval of the proposed notice to
the putative class in the case captioned CHARLES RODRIGUEZ,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and
former employees, Plaintiff, v. PENSKE LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive
Defendant, No. 2:14-CV-02061-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.).

Rodriguez worked as a driver for Penske for nearly 15 years before
his separation from the company in July 2013.  During that time,
Rodriguez worked as a non-exempt employee, paid on a "by-the-mile"
or "piece rate" basis.

Rodriguez filed the complaint on Sept. 5, 2014, alleging Penske
did not pay for pre- and post-trip inspections, nor did its piece
rate method of payment account for 10-minute rest breaks that
should have been compensated.  He further alleges he was subject
to policies that did not permit him to be relieved of all duties
during break periods; was subject to an improper accounting
policy; was not paid premium wages, or at least minimum wage, for
non-compliant break periods; was provided inaccurate itemized wage
statements for which the basis for pay and calculation could not
be performed by a reasonable person; and was not timely paid all
wages owed and due upon separation.

Based on these allegations, Rodriguez brings the following eight
claims on behalf of the putative class: (i) failure to pay minimum
wages; (ii) failure to provide paid 10-minute rest periods; (iii)
failure to provide duty-free rest periods or compensation in lieu
thereof; (iv) failure to provide duty-free meal periods or
compensation in lieu thereof; (v) knowing and intentional failure
to provide itemized wage statements; (vi) failure to pay wages at
termination; (vii) violations of the Unfair Competition Law; and
(viii) violations of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

Rodriguez seeks conditional certification of the class described
as all California-based non-exempt truck driver employees who
worked under a 'piece rate' or 'pay-by-the-mile' compensation
policy from Sept. 5, 2010 through to the earlier of (i)
Preliminary Approval of the Court or (ii) Nov. 1, 2016.

Although the complaint proposed subclasses corresponding to each
of the first seven claims in the complaint, Rodriguez seeks
certification only of the broader class described.  The parties
have stipulated to the existence of that class for purposes of
settlement.

In January 2015, the Court issued an initial scheduling order,
which created a cut-off for dispositive motions to be heard no
later than June 16, 2016.  After neither of the parties timely
filed a dispositive motion, the Court advanced the date of the
final pretrial conference.  The parties asked for additional time
in light of their pending negotiations, which the Court granted.
On Oct. 3, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice of settlement.
On Nov. 16, 2016, Rodriguez filed the motion for preliminary
certification of the class, preliminary approval of the settlement
and approval of the proposed notice to the putative class.

Under the proposed agreement, the Defendant agrees to pay a Gross
Settlement Amount of $850,000 for all claims.  The agreed $850,000
will be the Defendant's total payment, which will be used to pay
the following: (i) the Attorney Fees, not to exceed $255,000 or 30
percent of the Settlement Amount, and Expenses not to exceed
$10,000; (ii) the Service Fee Award, as approved by the Court, not
to exceed $3,000; (iii) the Administrative Expenses, as approved
by the court, not to exceed $25,000; (iv) a $10,000 PAGA award, to
be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency
("LWDA"); (v) the aggregate of all Individual Settlement Amounts
of Class Participants; (vi) the Employee's Taxes and Required
Withholding associated with the Individual Settlement Amounts; and
(vii) the Employer's Taxes associated with the portion of the
Individual Settlement Amounts related to wages.  The settlement
will be distributed to class members based on the number of weeks
worked for defendant during the relevant time period, after
deducting the employee's taxes and required withholdings.

The settlement agreement contemplates a notice period for class
members to opt out of the settlement or to file an objection
regarding its fairness.  A settlement administrator will send a
first proposed notice to all putative class members and then a
second should any of the first set be returned as undeliverable.
Once notice is sent out, the class members are automatically part
of the settlement unless they opt out of the settlement by the
response deadline.  The Class members may also file objections to
the settlement and subsequently appear at the second fairness
hearing.

Notably, the settlement agreement includes two safeguards should
the number of settlement class members change.  First, if three
percent or more of the class timely opts out, then the Defendant
has the exclusive right to void the agreement.  Second, if the
number of settlement class members exceeds 796 individuals, then
the Gross Settlement Amount will be proportionally increased to
reflect those additional members.

In this case, the Defendant has stipulated that a class may be
certified for settlement purposes only but it denies each and all
of the allegations, claims, and contentions brought by Rodriguez
and contends that it complied in good faith with California and
federal wage and hour laws.

Judge Mueller granted preliminary certification of the class;
granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and granted
approval of the proposed notice to the putative class.  She
appointed Rodriguez as the representative of the class and Desai
Law Firm, P.C. as the class counsel.

The Judge modified the parties' stipulated schedule, and adopted
the following schedule in this case:

     a. Deadline for Defendant to submit class list to Claims
Administrator: Oct. 3, 2017

     b. Deadline for Claims Administrator to mail Class Notice:
Oct. 15, 2017

     c. Deadline for Class Members to postmark Objections or
Requests for Exclusion-timely Notice mailed: Nov. 14, 2017

     d. Deadline for Class Members to postmark Objections or
Requests for Exclusion-remailed Notices: Nov. 27, 2017

     e. Motion for Final Approval to be filed by Dec. 29, 2017

     f. Final Approval Hearing: Jan. 26, 2018

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jnewbd from Leagle.com.

Charles Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Aashish Y. Desai --
aashish@desai-law.com -- Desai Law Firm, P.C..

Penske Logistics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Smedstad
-- ASMEDSTAD@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson &
Feary, P.C., pro hac vice, Andrew J. Butcher --
ABUTCHER@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson and
Feary, PC, pro hac vice, Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr. --
CMCNATT@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary,
LLP, James H. Hanson -- JHANSON@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis
Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, P.C., pro hac vice & Megan E. Ross --
MROSS@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary.


PHC INC: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Maz Partners Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff MAZ Partners LP filed an appeal from a court ruling in
its lawsuit styled MAZ Partners LP v. Shear, et al., Case No.
1:11-cv-11049-PBS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Boston.

The appellate case is captioned as MAZ Partners LP v. Shear, et
al., Case No. 17-1904, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Defendant
Bruce A. Shear filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is captioned as MAZ Partners LP v. Shear, Case
No. 17-1821.

The lawsuit is a shareholder class action arising from a corporate
merger.

The docket of the Appellate Case states that Appearance form,
Docketing Statement, and Transcript Report/Order form were due
September 28, 2017.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MAZ PARTNERS LP, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
          Adam Blander, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-0000
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com
                  ablander@wolfpopper.com

Plaintiff-Appellant MAZ PARTNERS LP, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, and Plaintiff PETER BLAKESLEE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Chet Barry Waldman, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-0000
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: CWaldman@wolfpopper.com

               - and -

          Norman Berman, Esq.
          Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          1 Liberty Sq., 8th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          E-mail: nberman@bermandevalerio.com
                  norenstein@bermantabacco.com

Plaintiff PETER BLAKESLEE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
          60 State St., 7th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109-0000
          Telephone: (61) 573-5118
          E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

Defendants PHC, INC., BRUCE A. SHEAR, DONALD E. ROBAR, DOUGLAS J.
SMITH, HOWARD W. PHILLIPS, WILLIAM F. GRIECO, DAVID E.
DANGERFIELD, ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC., and ACADIA MERGER
SUB, LLC, are represented by:

          Leonard H. Freiman, Esq.
          Richard M. Zielinski, Esq.
          GOULSTON & STORRS PC
          400 Atlantic Avenue
          Boston, MA 02110-3333
          Telephone: (617) 482-1776
          Facsimile: (617) 574-7579
          E-mail: lfreiman@goulstonstorrs.com
                  rzielinski@goulstonstorrs.com

               - and -

          James H. Hulme, Esq.
          Matthew M. Wright, Esq.
          ARENT FOX LLP
          1717 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 775-5767
          E-mail: james.hulme@arentfox.com
                  matthew.wright@arentfox.com

Defendant-Appellee BRUCE A. SHEAR, Defendants DONALD E. ROBAR,
DOUGLAS J. SMITH, HOWARD W. PHILLIPS, WILLIAM F. GRIECO, DAVID E.
DANGERFIELD, ACADIA MERGER SUB, LLC, and ACADIA HEALTHCARE
COMPANY, INC.., are represented by:

          Nadia Abdulhamid Patel, Esq.
          ARENT FOX LLP
          1717 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 857-6000
          E-mail: nadia.patel@arentfox.com

Defendants ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC., and ACADIA MERGER SUB,
LLC, are represented by:

          Douglas S. Curran, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 N LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Personal: 312-862-2596
          E-mail: douglas.curran@kirkland.com

Defendant ACADIA MERGER SUB, LLC, is represented by:

          Whitney L. Becker, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 N LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Personal: 312-862-2596
          E-mail: whitney.becker@kirkland.com


PIGGLY WIGGLY: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Dana Spires, et al., Plaintiffs, v. David R.
Schools, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:16-616-RMG (D.
S.C.), Judge Richard Mark Gergel of the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, granted in
part and denied in part the Piggly Wiggly Defendants' motion to
dismiss, and denied the Noteholder Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Piggly Wiggly Carolina
Company, Inc. ("PWCC") or Greenbax Enterprises, Inc. ("Company")
They are participants in the PWCC and Greenbax Employee Stock
Ownership Plan and Trust ("Plan") and assert various claims under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), for
themselves and for others similarly situated.

Defendants Robert G. Masche, William Edenfield, Joseph T. Newton,
III, Burton R. Schools, and David R. Schools ("Fiduciary
Defendants") allegedly controlled the Company's board of
directors, were the Company's top executives, and controlled the
"Plan Committee," which directed the voting of Company stock held
by the Plan.  The Plaintiffs also allege that the Fiduciary
Defendants improperly moved assets from the Company to Defendants
Joanne Newton Ayers and Marion Newton Schools ("Noteholder
Defendants"), who allegedly are Company insiders or family members
of Company insiders.

The Plaintiffs allege Company management and directors eventually
agreed to wind down the company and to sell substantially all the
Company's remaining assets to C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. on Sept.
4, 2014.  The sale and winding down was approved on Dec. 12, 2014.

On Feb. 26, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the present putative class
action, asserting six causes of action against the Defendants.  In
count one, they allege the Fiduciary Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  In count two, they allege the
Fiduciary Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA
by failing to bring a derivative action against the Company's
management and board of directors.  In count three, the Plaintiffs
allege co-fiduciary liability under 29 U.S.C. Section 1105 against
the Fiduciary Defendants.  In count four, they allege the
Fiduciary Defendants engaged in transactions prohibited by 29
U.S.C. Section 1106.  In count five, they seek equitable relief
against all the Defendants.

On June 20, 2016, the Piggly Wiggly Defendants (all Defendants
other than the Noteholder Defendants) moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The Piggly Wiggly Defendants argue that the
Plaintiffs' claims are time barred, that the actions the
Plaintiffs complain of were corporate acts unrelated to the Plan,
that the Plaintiffs fail to meet the pleading standard for a
stock-drop claim set forth in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer,
that Plaintiffs lack standing because they suffered no injury-in-
fact, and that the Plaintiffs fail to allege prohibited
transactions.

The Noteholder Defendants moved to dismiss on June 23, 2016,
arguing that the transaction Plaintiffs complain of did not
involve the Plan or Plan assets, and that Defendant Joanne Newton
Ayers is not a party-in-interest under ERISA.

Judge Gergel denied the Piggly Wiggly Defendant's motion to
dismiss as to the statute of limitations argument, without
prejudice to their ability to argue a statute of limitations
defense after discovery.  When the "last action which constituted
a part of the breach" occurred, when "the fiduciary could have
cured the breach," whether the Defendants engaged in "fraud or
concealment," and when "the Plaintiff had actual knowledge of the
breach" are disputed questions of fact.

He also denied the Piggly Wiggly Defendants' motion to dismiss as
to the arguments raised in section IV.B of their memorandum in
support of the motion.  The Judge agrees with Judge Rebecca R.
Pallmeyer's analysis and holds that the voting of shares held by
an ESOP is the use or management of a Plan asset.

He further denied the Piggly Wiggly Defendants' motion to dismiss
as to the arguments raised in section IV.D.2 of their memorandum
in support of the motion.  He finds that the extensive allegations
contained in its 83 pages and 288 numbered paragraphs are
sufficient to state with requisite detail why a derivative action
would have been successful -- i.e., that the persons in control of
the corporation acted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to the
Company and the Plan as stockholder, and that corporate assets
were wasted.

Judge Gergel granted the Piggly Wiggly Defendants' motion to
dismiss as to paragraphs 254(c), 254(d), and 254(e) of the amended
complaint.  He says alleging that the Fiduciary Defendants should
have found new directors to lead the Company may state a claim,
but alleging that the Fiduciary Defendants should have found a new
company (or other asset) for the ESOP to own cannot.

He denied the Piggly Wiggly Defendants' motion to dismiss as to
the argument that the Plaintiffs lack standing.  He expresses no
opinion on whether the Plaintiffs can prove causation, but they
have certainly alleged it, even by the pleading standard the
Piggly Wiggly Defendants propose.

The Judge further denied the Piggly Wiggly Defendants' and
Noteholder Defendants' motions to dismiss as to count five of the
complaint.  He finds that the Plaintiffs allege the Fiduciary
Defendants engaged in or caused the Company to engage in violative
transactions and that the Noteholder Defendants participated in
those transactions knowledge that they violated ERISA.  The
Plaintiffs therefore state a claim under 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(3) for equitable relief.

Finally, because the Judge holds the Plaintiffs have stated a
claim for an antecedent breach of fiduciary duty, he denied the
motion to dismiss as to count three.  The Piggly Wiggly
Defendants' motion to dismiss count three (co-fiduciary liability)
is premised on the purported failure to state a claim for an
antecedent breach of fiduciary duty.

For these reasons, Judge Gergel granted in part and denied in part
the Piggly Wiggly Defendants' motion to dismiss.  He dismissed the
claims asserted in paragraphs 254(c), 254(d), and 254(e) of count
one and the claims regarding above-market leases and excessive
executive compensation asserted in count four of the complaint.
He otherwise denied the Piggly Wiggly Defendants' motion to
dismiss.  He further denied the Noteholder Defendants' motion to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Order and Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/j9eZbt from Leagle.com.

Dana Spires, Plaintiff, represented by Alice W. Parham Casey --
tparham@wyche.com -- Wyche Law Office.

Dana Spires, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Braden Schoen -
- cschoen@wyche.com -- Wyche Law Office, David J. Ko --
dko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice, Eric
Bauman Amstutz -- eamstutz@wyche.com -- Wyche Law Office, Erin M.
Riley -- eriley@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback Law Office,
pro hac vice, Gary A. Gotto -- ggotto@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback, pro hac vice, Henry L. Parr, Jr. -- hparr@wyche.com --
Wyche Law Office, John C. Moylan, III -- jmoylan@wyche.com --
Wyche Law Office & Wade S. Kolb, III --  wkolb@wyche.com -- Wyche
PA.

Glenn Grant, Plaintiff, represented by Alice W. Parham Casey,
Wyche Law Office, Christopher Braden Schoen, Wyche Law Office,
David J. Ko, Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Bauman
Amstutz, Wyche Law Office, Erin M. Riley, Keller Rohrback Law
Office, pro hac vice, Gary A. Gotto, Keller Rohrback, pro hac
vice, Henry L. Parr, Jr., Wyche Law Office, John C. Moylan, III,
Wyche Law Office & Wade S. Kolb, III, Wyche PA.

Tom Miranda, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Braden Schoen,
Wyche Law Office, David J. Ko, Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice,
Erin M. Riley, Keller Rohrback Law Office, pro hac vice, Gary A.
Gotto, Keller Rohrback, pro hac vice, Henry L. Parr, Jr., Wyche
Law Office & Alice W. Parham Casey, Wyche Law Office.

Susan Mohle, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Braden Schoen,
Wyche Law Office, David J. Ko, Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice,
Erin M. Riley, Keller Rohrback Law Office, pro hac vice, Gary A.
Gotto, Keller Rohrback, pro hac vice, Henry L. Parr, Jr., Wyche
Law Office & Alice W. Parham Casey, Wyche Law Office.

David R Schools, Defendant, represented by Andrew David Salek-
Raham -- asalek@groom.com -- Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Lars
C. Golumbic -- lgolumbic@groom.com -- Groom Law Group, pro hac
vice, Lovic A. Brooks, III -- lovic.brooks@janiklaw.com -- Brooks
Law Firm, Mark L. Bieter -- mbieter@groom.com -- Groom Law Group,
pro hac vice, Natasha S. Fedder -- nfedder@groom.com -- Groom Law
Group, pro hac vice, Sarah M. Adams -- sadams@groom.com -- Groom
Law Group, pro hac vice, Sean C. Abouchedid --
sabouchedid@groom.com -- Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Steven G.
Janik -- steven.janik@janiklaw.com -- Janik LLP & Monica B. Towle
-- monica.towle@janiklaw.com -- Janik LLP.

William A Edenfield, Jr, Defendant, represented by Andrew David
Salek-Raham, Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Lars C. Golumbic,
Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Lovic A. Brooks, III, Brooks Law
Firm, Mark L. Bieter, Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Natasha S.
Fedder, Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Sarah M. Adams, Groom Law
Group, pro hac vice, Sean C. Abouchedid, Groom Law Group, pro hac
vice, Steven G. Janik, Janik LLP & Monica B. Towle, Janik LLP.

Robert G Masche, Defendant, represented by Andrew David Salek-
Raham, Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Lars C. Golumbic, Groom Law
Group, pro hac vice, Lovic A. Brooks, III, Brooks Law Firm, Mark
L. Bieter, Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Natasha S. Fedder, Groom
Law Group, pro hac vice, Sarah M. Adams, Groom Law Group, pro hac
vice, Sean C. Abouchedid, Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Steven G.
Janik, Janik LLP & Monica B. Towle, Janik LLP.

Joseph T Newton, III, Defendant, represented by Andrew David
Salek-Raham, Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Lars C. Golumbic,
Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Lovic A. Brooks, III, Brooks Law
Firm, Mark L. Bieter, Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Natasha S.
Fedder, Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Sarah M. Adams, Groom Law
Group, pro hac vice, Sean C. Abouchedid, Groom Law Group, pro hac
vice, Steven G. Janik, Janik LLP & Monica B. Towle, Janik LLP.

Burton R Schools, Defendant, represented by Andrew David Salek-
Raham, Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Lars C. Golumbic, Groom Law
Group, pro hac vice, Lovic A. Brooks, III, Brooks Law Firm, Mark
L. Bieter, Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Natasha S. Fedder, Groom
Law Group, pro hac vice, Sarah M. Adams, Groom Law Group, pro hac
vice, Sean C. Abouchedid, Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Steven G.
Janik, Janik LLP & Monica B. Towle, Janik LLP.

Piggly Wiggly Carolina Company Inc & Greenbax Enterprises Inc
Employee Stock Option Plan and Trust Plan Committee, Defendant,
represented by Andrew David Salek-Raham, Groom Law Group, pro hac
vice, Lars C. Golumbic, Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Lovic A.
Brooks, III, Brooks Law Firm, Mark L. Bieter, Groom Law Group, pro
hac vice, Natasha S. Fedder, Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Sarah
M. Adams, Groom Law Group, pro hac vice, Sean C. Abouchedid, Groom
Law Group, pro hac vice, Steven G. Janik, Janik LLP & Monica B.
Towle, Janik LLP.

Joanne Newton Ayers, Defendant, represented by Brian C. Duffy --
bduffy@duffyandyoung.com -- Duffy and Young.

Marion Newton Schools, Defendant, represented by Brian C. Duffy,
Duffy and Young.


PPI, INC "Rosenberg" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Elizabeth Rosenberg, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
PPI, Inc., doing business as: Isle Casino Racing Pompano Park,
a Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. CACE-17-015827, was
removed on Sep.12, 2017 from 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-61784-RNS to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr.

Isle Casino Racing Pompano Park is located in Pompano Beach,
Florida and is within easy driving distance from Miami, Ft.
Lauderdale and the Treasure Coast.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad Evan Levy, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
          1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 588
          Sunrise, FL 33323
          Telephone: (954) 763 5722
          Facsimile: (954) 763 5723
          E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com

               - and -

          David Mitchell Cozad, Esq.
          DAVID M. COZAD, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.A.
          1083 N. Collier Blvd., Unit 342
          Marco Island, FL 34145
          Telephone: (954) 816 5355
          Facsimile: (321) 600 2083

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Axelman, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          Southeast Financial Center, Suite 400
          200 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 322 7395
          Facsimile: (786) 322 7495
          E-mail: david.axelman@bryancave.com


RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Phillips" Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivable
Management Group, Inc. The case is captioned as Brittany Phillips,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Receivable Management Group, Inc. and John Does 1-
25, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03500-CAP-WEJ (N.D. Ga., Sep.
12, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Charles A.
Pannell, Jr.

The Defendant is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (845) 367 7146
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


RESTAURANT DELIVERY: Court OK's FLSA Notice in "Roberson"
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, issued an Order and Judgment granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Notice Pursuant to Section
216(b) of Fair Labor Standards Act in the case captioned DAVID
ROBERSON, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. RESTAURANT DELIVERY
DEVELOPERS, LLC d/b/a DOORSTEP DELIVERY, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-
cv-769-T-33MAP (M.D. Fla.).

Roberson worked as a driver for an entity doing business as
Doorstep Delivery, using his own car to ferry food from
restaurants to hungry people at their homes.  Although, he wore a
uniform and worked during set shifts, Doorstep Delivery classified
Roberson as an independent contractor, an incorrect
classification, Roberson says.  He claims that other Doorstep
Delivery drivers have also been wrongly classified as independent
contractors and would be interested in joining his proposed FLSA
collective action seeking overtime and minimum wages.

But Restaurant Delivery claims Roberson has not sufficiently shown
that it employed him or any other driver or that Restaurant
Delivery is, in fact, Doorstep Delivery.

The FLSA expressly permits collective actions against employers
accused of violating the FLSA's mandatory overtime provisions.  In
prospective collective actions brought pursuant to Section 216(b),
potential plaintiffs must affirmatively opt into the collective
action.  No employee will be a party plaintiff to any such action
unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and
such consent is filed in the court in which such action is
brought.

In his Motion, Roberson argues that a similarly situated class of
Doorstep Delivery drivers exists across the country and would be
interested in joining the collective action. Roberson points outs
that. three delivery drivers have already opted in to join the
case and four have submitted affidavits, attesting that they have
been subjected to a similar policy of being classified as an
independent contractor for their delivery driver duties, not
getting paid time-and-a-half for the hours that they work beyond
forty each week, and not receiving minimum wage for all work
weeks.

The Court disagrees with Restaurant Delivery's assertion that
granting the Motion would be futile as Restaurant Delivery
Developers does not know the names or addresses of Doorstep
Delivery drivers.  Restaurant Delivery Developers presents no
authority for the proposition that a motion for conditional
certification may be denied on futility grounds. And there is
reason to believe that Restaurant Delivery Developers has access
to information regarding drivers' identities. Indeed, the Doorstep
Delivery website lists the same four members of Restaurant
Delivery Developers as the founders of Doorstep Delivery.  And one
member of Restaurant Delivery Developers, Daniel Sinor, remarks in
his affidavit that through a family corporation, he had access to
information on some aspects of the restaurant food delivery
business" and was able to acquire a copy of Roberson's contract
with another company.

Therefore, a court-approved notice will be sent to Doorstep
delivery drivers.  What remains to be determined is the form that
notice will take.

Roberson proposes to send the notice to drivers nationwide who
have worked for Doorstep Delivery three years before this action
was initiated. Restaurant Delivery Developers raises no objections
in its response to the proposed scope of the class or the proposed
notice.

But the Court does not approve the sending of follow-up
communications by Roberson's counsel to potential opt-in
plaintiffs.  The Court determines that it is not necessary to send
any class members reminder post cards.  Sending a putative class
member notice of this action is informative, sending them a
reminder is redundant.

Restaurant Delivery Developers is directed to provide a list of
the potential opt-in plaintiffs' names, last-known mailing
addresses, last-known telephone numbers, email addresses, work
locations and dates of employment to Roberson's counsel.  If
Restaurant Delivery Developers is unable to provide these
information, Roberson may move to distribute the notice by
different means, like posting notice on the Doorstep Delivery
website.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 18, 2017 Order
and Judgment is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybcot74ofrom
Leagle.com.

David Roberson, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Jacob Lindstrom --
elindstrom@eganlev.com --  Egan, Lev & Siwica, PA.

David Roberson, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon E. Liss-Riordan
-- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, PC & Thomas Fowler
-- tfowler@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, PC, pro hac vice.
Restaurant Delivery Developers, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Steven Greg Wenzel, Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA, 1110 N Florida Ave
Tampa, FL 33602.


SFBSC MANAGEMENT: Some Class Members Object to Wage Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for California Labor News, reports that a
California wage and hour lawsuit alleging exotic dancers toiling
in the Bay area were underpaid, has been settled after a US
District Court Judge earlier in September granted her approval to
the $5 million settlement.

However, the settlement was not without its detractors, including
some members of the class who formally objected to the settlement,
characterizing it as 'a pittance.'

The wage & hour lawsuit is Roe et al. v. SFBSC Management LLC et
al., Case No. 14-cv-03616, in the US District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The lawsuit was launched as a putative class action in August,
2014 by a collective of dancers alleging wage and hour violations
against SFBSC Management LLC, an enterprise managing strip clubs
in the Bay area of San Francisco. Plaintiffs accuse SFBSC of
improperly classifying dancers as  independent contractors, thus
cheating them out of fair wages and overtime that would otherwise
be their due as bone fide employees of SFBSC.

One of the class representatives in the wage & hour lawsuit
appeared before US Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler to express her
concern with the settlement.

"I'm here in part because I do think [the settlement is] unfair to
dancers who don't know their options, and I'm one of the few who
does, and I think it's a responsibility of people with more
privilege to speak up," said dancer Poohrawn Mehraban, who
identified herself as a student at UC Berkeley and a stripper for
about four years.  "We're an easily exploited demographic. Most of
us are young and largely uneducated . . . "

Ms. Mehraban, who filed her own lawsuit September 12 with the help
of her wage & hour lawyer, appeared before Judge Beeler two days
later, on September 14.

"My largest concern is that this would set precedent for dancers
who don't bring cases to court, and for the community, this will
just confirm that the rumors are true: the law is never on your
side."

Ms. Mehraban also suggested that prior to becoming involved in the
wage & hour lawsuit, she had heard from other dancers having
brought wage & hour claims, and had been told that "it wasn't
worth it."

As noted above, two days prior to her appearance before Magistrate
Beeler, Ms. Mehraban filed her own lawsuit against Gold Club SF
LLC, alleging that she had been let go from her job due to her
participation in the putative class action.  That case is Mehraban
v. Gold Club SF LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-05288, in the US District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The proposed settlement, according to Ms. Mehraban's wage and hour
lawyer, contains various provisions and would also provide class
participants with up to $800 in relief.

However attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan
PC, characterized the settlement, on behalf of Ms. Mehraban and
other objectors to the settlement, as inadequate -- estimating
dancers at two, of the nine clubs named in the suit should be
entitled to $40 million in damages, thus damages for the entire
proposed class would likely exceed $100 million.

The objectors also noted that some dancers have historically
received larger payouts after their claims were individually
arbitrated (ironically, SFBSC had put forward a motion to compel
arbitration, but the motion was denied on grounds of
unconscionability).  Objectors also cited multiple deals in
various other jurisdictions that succeeded in resolutions that saw
class members who were also exotic dancers receive upwards of
$17,000 each in restitution.

Undaunted by the objectors' positions, Beeler approved the $5
million wage & hour settlement, for which the parties involved
filed motions for preliminary approval this past March. The
settlement provides up to $2 million in cash payments for hours
worked by 4,681 dancers, $1 million for an alternate "dance fee
payment" compensation program that pays a per-performance cost,
and fees for plaintiffs' attorneys that are to be capped at $1
million.

As part of the settlement, the defendants agreed to change their
business practices so that dancers can opt to be either employees
or independent professional entertainers, according to their own
choosing. Dancers who opt in to the putative class action agree to
release any wage and hour claims brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The defendants in two more recent cases were added, back in March,
when the plaintiffs in the putative class action wage & hour
lawsuit amended their complaint to include the nightclubs named in
the most recent lawsuits.

Those cases, as reported by Law 360 (09/14/17) are Hughes v.
S.A.W. Entertainment Ltd., Case No. 3:16-cv-03371, and Pera et al.
v. Saw Entertainment Ltd., Case No. 3:17-cv-00138, in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN]


RON HILL: Court Denies Bid to Treat as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Florida, Pensacola Division, issued an order denying Plaintiff's
Motions for Ex-Parte Treat as a Class Action and Preliminary
Injunction in the case captioned KEVIN FOSTER-BEY, Plaintiff, v.
RON HILL, et al, Defendants, Case No. 3:16cv629-LC-CJK (N.D.
Fla.).

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation.  The parties have been furnished a copy
of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an
opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States
Code, Section 636(b)(1).  No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, the Court has
determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Treat as a Class Action is denied.
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 18, 2017 Order
is available http://tinyurl.com/y7an226tfrom Leagle.com.

KEVIN FOSTER-BEY, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


ROYAL BANK: Freddie Mac Appeals Decision in N.J. Carpenters Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation filed an appeal from a
District Court order dated September 14, 2017, in the lawsuit
styled New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. The Royal Bank of
Scotland Group PLC, et al., Case No. 08-cv-5310, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The appellate case is captioned as New Jersey Carpenters Health
Fund v. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, et al., Case No. 17-
2859, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund, on Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Christopher Lometti, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
          E-mail: clometti@cohenmilstein.com

Appellant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is represented
by:

          Christopher P. Johnson, Esq.
          MCKOOL SMITH, PC
          1 Bryant Park
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 402-9400
          E-mail: cpjohnson@mckoolsmith.com

Defendants-Appellees The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and
Greenwich Capital Holdings, Inc., are represented by:

          James Gaal Gamble, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 455-2502
          E-mail: jgamble@stblaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc., DBA RBS
Greenwich Capital, Deutsche Bank Securities Incorporated, RBS
Securities Inc., and Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, FKA Wachovia
Securities, LLC, are represented by:

          Alan C. Turner, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2472
          E-mail: aturner@stblaw.com

Defendants-Appellees NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2006-
3; NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2006-4; NovaStar
Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2006-5; NovaStar Mortgage Funding
Trust, Series 2006-6; Novastar Mortgage Funding Corporation;
Hartman Gregory S. Metz; W. Lance Anderson; Scott F. Hartman;
Novastar Mortgage Incorporated and Gregory S. Metz are represented
by:

          Steven J. Fink, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN J. FINK PLLC
          81 Main Street
          White Plains, NY 10005
          Telephone: (646) 802-6976
          E-mail: steven.fink@sjfinkpllc.com

Defendants-Appellees NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2007-
1; NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2007-2; and Mark A.
Herpich are represented by:

          William F. Alderman, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          The Orrick Building
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 773-5944
          E-mail: walderman@orrick.com


SEPHORA USA: Court Dismisses State Law Claims in "Duran"
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order dismissing state law claims in the case
captioned JESSICA DURAN, Plaintiff, v. SEPHORA USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-01261-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

Sephora requested that the Court decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state claims, because the state law claims
predominate over the Fair Labor Standard Act claim and because
exceptional circumstances exist in that there are three other
consolidated class actions pending in California state court that
assert overlapping state law claims.

In her Third Amended Complaint, plaintiff Jessica Duran alleges
six causes of action against Sephora.  Of those causes of action,
five are state claims and only one, her FLSA claim, is federal.

Duran asserts the following state law wage and hour claims: (i)
failure to pay wages based on failure to pay overtime or double-
time in accordance with California law, failure to include non-
discretionary bonuses in the calculation of the overtime rate, and
failure to pay wages within 72 hours after termination; (ii)
Unfair Competition under Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200; (iii)
violation of California Labor Code Section 226 (based on failure
to provide accurate wage statements); (iv) violation of California
Labor Code Section 212 based on failure to provide a negotiable
check; and (v) a claim for civil penalties under California's
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

28 U.S.C Section 1367(a) provides that in any civil action of
which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district
courts have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that
are so related to claims in the action within the original
jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.
A state law claim is part of the same case or controversy when it
shares a 'common nucleus of operative fact' with the federal
claims and the state and federal claims would normally be tried
together.

State Law Claims Substantially Predominate Over Federal FLSA Claim

State law claims substantially predominate over federal claims
when litigating the state claims in federal court can be seen as
allowing a federal tail to wag what in substance is a state dog.
Allen v. Cty. of Monterey, No. C-06-07293 RMW, 2007 WL 3070973.

Duran has five separate state law claims for failure to pay wages
owed, violation of Section 17200, violation of California Labor
Code Sections 226 and 212, and civil penalties under PAGA.  The
one federal cause of action is a violation of FLSA, and that claim
is specifically tied to the same conduct that forms part of the
basis of Duran's state law claim for failure to pay wages owed.
Duran bases her FLSA claim on Sephora's failure to include
employees' non-discretionary bonuses in the calculation of the
overtime hourly rates.

Duran's first cause of action under California law for failure to
pay wages owed also relies on this same allegation; failure to
include non-discretionary bonuses in calculating base overtime
rate.  The overlap between the one federal claim and one of her
five state claims is high.  Moreover, the one state claim for
failure to pay wages owed not only covers all portions of her FLSA
claim, but adds other more extensive allegations of failure to pay
wages including not being paid the correct hourly wage, not having
overtime or double time paid for all hours worked, and no payment
within 72 hours of termination.

Given the significant overlap between pending cases, the lack of
prejudice to plaintiff, and the resulting judicial efficiencies,
the predominance of the state law claims counsels strongly in
favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

Other Compelling Reasons for Declining Jurisdiction

Under this subsection of Section 1367(c), supplemental
jurisdiction may be declined where exceptional circumstances"
exist that provide other compelling reasons.

Here, the circumstances are exceptional. There are three cases in
state court that have similar claims that have been coordinated,
and Judge Karnow is aware of and willing to accommodate Duran's
state law claims in those proceedings.

It makes the most sense for all state law overtime claims to be
litigated in one forum. This will achieve significant judicial
economies and allow an orderly determination of whether and how
Sephora failed to pay overtime at the correct rate. There is also
no unfairness to Duran, given Judge Karnow's willingness to modify
the case schedule to allow her claims to be fully litigated there.
Duran's state law claims predominate over the federal claim.
Exceptional circumstances also exist. The Court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Duran's state law claims;
those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 18, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7auadrefrom Leagle.com.

Jessica Duran, Plaintiff, represented by Alejandro Pedro
Gutierrez, HATHAWAY, PERRETT, WEBSTER, POWERS, CHRISMAN &
GUTIERREZ APC, Hathaway Building, 5450 Telegraph Road, #200
Ventura, CA 93003

Jessica Duran, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Daniel Hefelfinger
-- bdh@calemploymentcounsel.com -- Palay & Hefelfinger, APC &
Daniel Jay Palay -- djp@calemploymentcounsel.com -- Palay Law
Firm.

Sephora USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Ralston
Livingston -- alivingston@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, Alexandra Elena Heifetz, Orrick Herrington
Sutcliffe LLP, 405 Howard St., San Francisco, CA 94105 & Alexandra
H. Stathopoulos, Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe LLP.


SO. CAL PETROLEUM: "Rosales" Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled David Rosales, on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. So.
Cal Petroleum Transport, Inc., doing business as: Superior Tank
Lines, a California corporation, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. BC667537, was removed on Sep.12, 2017 from
the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-06789-JAK-PLA
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John A.
Kronstadt.

So. Cal Petroleum supplies refined petroleum products, gasoline,
diesel, and ethanol.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G Spivak, Esq.
          Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Esq.
          SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Boulevard Suite 312
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582 3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582 2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  caroline@spivaklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sean A O'Brien, Esq.
          Amy R Patton, Esq.
          PAYNE AND FEARS LLP
          4 Park Plaza Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 851 1100
          Facsimile: (949) 851 1212
          E-mail: sao@paynefears.com
                  arp@paynefears.com


SOUTH CAROLINA: Ridgeland Inmates' Claims Separated for Review
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Randy Mast, #338517; Thomas Caron, #370853;
William Taylor, #306746; Shawn Pearson, #200290; Byron Pou,
#350729; Isaac Bradley, #315370; Tony Middleton, #3666657; Jeffery
Bethea, #340959; Samuel Taylor, #366299; Julius Manigault,
#362635; James Hailey, #363373; M. Williams, #357023; J. Perry,
#357361; and L. Thomas, #339893, Plaintiffs, v. Ridgeland
Correctional Institution, et al., Defendant, C/A No. 1:17-2038-
MBS-SVH (D.S.C.), Plaintiffs seek to file a class action lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

This complaint is filed by fifteen pro se inmates incarcerated at
Ridgeland Correctional Institution, a facility of the South
Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC).  Plaintiffs filed the
within complaint concerning the living conditions of the cells at
Ridgeland Correctional, inside of RH which is considered the lock
up unit.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held
that pro se prisoners cannot bring a class action lawsuit.  The
competence of a layman representing himself is clearly too limited
to allow him to risk the rights of others. Holding that a pro se
prisoner's suit is confined to redress for violation of his own
personal rights and not one by him as a knight-errant for all
prisoners.

While this Circuit has not ruled on the issue of whether multiple
prisoner plaintiffs are allowed to join under Rule 20 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the issue of fee payment in a
case filed by multiple prisoners, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed these issues in Hubbard
v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1198 (11th Cir. 2001), and found that
prisoners may not join in one action.

The Hubbard court reasoned that, because the plain language of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), requires each prisoner
proceeding in forma pauperis to pay the full filing fee, it was
appropriate to sever the claims and require each prisoner to file
a separate lawsuit. Hubbard, 262 F.3d at 1198. Even in light of
more flexible holdings in other circuits regarding permissive
joinder of multiple prisoner plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina concludes that the claims of the 15 Plaintiffs
should be separated for initial review.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 18, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y92ohuo5from Leagle.com.

Randy Mast, Inmates of Ridgeland Correctional Institution,
Plaintiff, Pro Se


SOUTHGOBI RESOURCES: Provides Update on Ontario Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
SouthGobi Resources Ltd. (TSX:SGQ)(HKSE:1878) ("SouthGobi" or the
"Company") announces the September 18, 2017 decision of the
Ontario Court of Appeal, which dismissed the Company's appeal of
the original Ontario lower court decision to permit the plaintiff
to commence and proceed with a class action (the "Class Action")
against the Company claiming damages under the Ontario Securities
Act in connection with the Company's restatement of certain
financial statements previously disclosed in the Company's public
fillings (the "Restatement"). Concurrently, the Ontario Court of
Appeal allowed the plaintiff's appeal of the original Ontario
lower court decision to dismiss the plaintiff's leave motion
against certain of the Company's former officers and directors and
made an order granting leave for the plaintiff to proceed against
such former officers and directors of the Company in relation to
the Restatement. As a result, the plaintiff is now permitted to
proceed with the Class Action against both the Company and the
former officers and directors of the Company.

The Company intends to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
of Canada. The Company firmly believes that it has a strong
defence and will continue to vigorously defend itself against the
Class Action through independent Canadian litigation counsel
retained by the Company for this purpose. The Company confirms
that it carries Directors and Officers Liability Insurance which
is responsive to the Class Action as against both the Company and
the former officers and directors of the Company.

For more details in respect of the Class Action lawsuit, please
refer to the Company's Management's Discussion and Analysis for
the quarter ended June 30, 2017, and, in particular, the sub-
section on "Class Action Lawsuit" of the "Regulatory Issues and
Contingencies" available on the SEDAR website at www.sedar.com and
the website of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange at www.hkexnews.hk.

                        About SouthGobi

SouthGobi, listed on the Toronto and Hong Kong stock exchanges,
owns and operates its flagship Ovoot Tolgoi coal mine in Mongolia.
It also holds the mining licences of its other metallurgical and
thermal coal deposits in South Gobi Region of Mongolia. SouthGobi
produces and sells coal to customers in China. [GN]


ST. LOUIS, MO: ACLU Files Suit Over Civil Rights Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Fenske, writing for River Front Times, reports that the ACLU
of Missouri has filed a class action lawsuit against the city of
St. Louis on behalf of protesters -- alleging the city has
retaliated against them for expressing their right to free speech,
unreasonably seized them, applied undue force and violated their
due process rights with methods including "kettling," gassing them
and spraying them without fair warning.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court on behalf of lead
plaintiffs Maleeha Ahmad and Alison Dreith, who was also pepper-
sprayed at the downtown protest. Dreith is also executive director
of NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri.

Both Dreith and Ahmad were protesting downtown on the afternoon of
Friday, September 15. That was just hours after the announcement
that former St. Louis police officer Jason Stockley had been found
not guilty of murder -- and well before any of the damage that
would result later in the weekend following the end of organized
protests.

Neither has been charged with any crime.

"I think everyone deserves the same rights as I do. I just want
peace and justice," Ahmad said in a prepared statement. "If it
hadn't been for my fellow peaceful protestors -- strangers who
came to my aid -- I don't know how my eyesight would be today. I
would have been left out in the sun, on the ground, with my face
burning."

"St. Louis should be a place where all people feel safe against
retaliation from law enforcement, and all should receive due
process," Dreith said in a statement. "We should strive to be a
place where every citizen feels supported by the communities we
call home. This is the vision that drives us into the streets and
inspires us to hold our leaders accountable when they betray our
values."

Because it's a class action suit, the ACLU action seeks to
represent all others who similarly had their constitutional rights
violated during the protests.

On both September 22 and on September 17, the ACLU alleges,
protesters and bystanders had chemical weapons used against them
without proper protocol. The suit also alleges that officers
interfered with people lawfully recording them.

And, the suit alleges, claims police officers surrounded
protesters -- a tactic called kettling -- and pepper sprayed them
in the face, even pulling off their goggles to ensure a direct
hit.

"While long shifts and being the subject of the protest is
understandably challenging for police, that is no excuse for
violating the Constitution," Tony Rothert, legal director of the
ACLU of Missouri, said in a statement. [GN]


STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in FCRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order denying Defendant' Motion for
Protective Order Staying Discovery in the case captioned JONATHAN
SANTIAGO ROSARIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
Defendant, No. 2:16-cv-01951 RAJ (W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiff Jonathan Santiago Rosario brings a putative class action
alleging that Defendant Starbucks Corporation violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3), in
relation to its use of pre-employment background checks.

Starbucks filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and
23(d)(1)(D).

The parties stipulated to an extension of all discovery deadlines
for a period of 91 days.  Plaintiff served Starbucks with
interrogatories, requests for production, and a notice of intent
to serve a subpoena on a third party, Accurate Background, LLC.

A district court has discretion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c) to limit discovery for good cause to protect a
party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or
undue burden or expense.

Starbucks argues that a stay of discovery pending resolution of
its Motion to Dismiss is warranted because Plaintiff is unable to
state a claim for relief.  While the Court has discretion to issue
a protective order to that effect, a motion to dismiss alone, is
not a ground for staying discovery.  By filing this Motion on the
basis of its belief that its motion to dismiss will dispose of
Plaintiff's claim, Starbucks essentially seeks a ruling on its
motion to dismiss. The party that objects to the requested
discovery carries a heavy burden of showing why discovery was
denied.

Starbucks argues that a stay would free the parties from the
burden and expense of unnecessary discovery, but offers no other
reason why discovery should be delayed. At this stage in the
proceedings, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiff will be
unable to state a claim for relief. Starbucks has not met its
burden to show that there is good cause for this Court to issue a
protective order staying discovery.

For these reasons, the Court denies Defendant's Motion for
Protective Order Staying Discovery.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 18, 2017 Order
is available http://tinyurl.com/y8ne4u4sfrom Leagle.com.

Jonathan Santiago Rosario, Plaintiff, represented by James A.
Francis, FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac vice.

Jonathan Santiago Rosario, Plaintiff, represented by John
Soumilas, FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac vice, Lauren K.W. Brennan,
FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac vice, Erika L. Nusser, TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC & Beth E. Terrell, TERRELL MARSHALL LAW
GROUP PLLC.

Starbucks Corporation, Defendant, represented by James E. Howard,
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.


TD BANK: Pays Compensation for Shortchanging Customers
------------------------------------------------------
Colin Woodard, writing for Press Herald, reports TD Bank customers
in Maine and around the country saw the shiny "Penny Arcade" coin
counting machines unplugged, covered up and eventually carried
away from the lobbies of their local branches last summer.

In recent weeks, they've received cards in the mail hinting at
why: a notice that they were eligible members of a class action
settlement against the bank over the Penny Arcades, which had
allegedly been shortchanging customers for years.

The problem with the festive machines was first uncovered by NBC
television's "Today" show, which in April 2016 tested machines at
five New York City TD Bank branches and found all of them were
undercounting, some by a penny or two on the dollar, one by 15
percent. "Today" also tested rival Coinstar machines and found
those to be completely accurate.

Before the segment even aired, the Toronto-based bank -- whose
U.S. subsidiary is headquartered in New Jersey -- announced it was
pulling all Penny Arcades from service to be evaluated. They never
returned to operation.

That's in part because of a class action lawsuit filed shortly
thereafter at a federal court in New Jersey by attorney Stephen
DeNittis, who already had notoriety for his role as co-lead
counsel in a class action suit against Subway alleging its
footlong subs were shorter than advertised. The settlement he
helped negotiate with Subway was thrown out by a federal appeals
court on Aug. 25 after the judge deemed it was "no better than a
racket" because it benefited only the plaintiff's attorneys, who
would have collected $525,000.

The Penny Arcade settlement, however, has proved enduring and
awards $7.5 million to people who used the machines between April
11, 2010, and July 12, 2017. The attorneys received $1.9 million
and plaintiffs named in the suit $65,000.

TD Bank's New Jersey-based spokesman, Matthew Doherty, declined to
discuss the settlement or what went wrong with the Penny Arcades.
"We don't comment on litigation," he said by email.

DeNittis did not respond to interview requests.

The class action payments will be made automatically to those who
were TD Bank account holders at the time, but non-customers who
used the Penny Arcades have to submit a claim form online (at
www.pennyarcadesettlement.com) by Oct. 27.

Most claimants will receive a refund of 0.26 percent of their
Penny Arcade transactions during the period, likely a dollar or
less for a casual user or a child cashing out a piggy bank.

The original suit alleged TD Bank's machines "continuously
undercounted coins placed in them by consumers for years and
resulted in the loss of millions of dollars for consumers."

TD Bank subsequently tested more than 1,000 Penny Arcades twice
and found net undercounts of between 0.117 percent and 0.090
percent, according to court documents.

TD purchased Portland-based Banknorth in 2008, and it began
introducing the Penny Arcades throughout Maine. The counting
machines were free for bank customers, but an 8 percent fee was
levied on non-customers. [GN]


TEMPLE TERRACE, FL: Certification of Rental Housing Class Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LEA FAMILY PARTNERSHIP Ltd., a Florida
Limited Partnership, on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA, and LEN
VALENTI, in his official capacity as "Housing Compliance Officer"
and individually, Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-3463-T-30AAS (M.D.
Fla.), Jduge James S. Moody, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denied the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

The root of the Plaintiff's lawsuit is that the City of Temple
Terrace's Rental Housing Program is unconstitutional.  The Program
requires that dwelling owners complete a permit application before
leasing their units.  The application states that by applying for
a permit, the property owner consents to the periodic inspections
of the dwelling unit for violations of the minimum housing code
and other related codes at any reasonable time.  Failure to
complete the application precludes owners from leasing their
units.  Thus, the Plaintiff argues, the Program "coerces" consent
to inspections from owners who wish to lease their dwellings.

The Plaintiff owns and rents at least six dwellings in the City of
Temple Terrace.  It alleges that at least three of its dwellings
were inspected by the City one or more times, and that it did not
voluntarily and knowingly consent to any of the inspections.  The
Plaintiff alleges that it has paid a total of at least $3,800 in
application fees to the City since the Program began.

In the Plaintiff's Motion, the Plaintiff claims that the City has
"coerced" consent from potentially thousands of people by
requiring all owners interested in leasing their dwellings to
submit the requisite application that provides consent to inspect
the dwellings.

It moves to certify the class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 described as all owners of residential dwellings
located within the City of Temple Terrace: (i) whose dwelling was
subject to the City's Program; (ii) who submitted an initial
application for the City's Rental Housing Ordinance Program at any
time during the Class Period for such dwelling; (iii) who paid an
initial fee to the City of Temple Terrace with their Rental
Housing Ordinance Program application; and, (iv) whose dwelling
was unoccupied at the time of the initial inspection performed by
the City.

To define its class, the Plaintiff relies on records from the
City's computer software programs used to record information
associated with the Program: ZOLL and SunGard NaviLine.  These
programs record information such as unit owners and addresses, the
amount paid for a permit application, whether an inspection has
taken place, and other information.

Judge Moody finds that the Plaintiff cannot meet the two elements
of Rule 23, ascertainability and numerosity, given the data the it
has collected.  At this point, the Plaintiff has not provided the
Court with an administratively feasible means for determining
which units were unoccupied during initial inspection after owners
applied for a permit application to lease the units.  It also has
not provided the Court with evidence that other owners of
dwellings subject to the Program had units that were unoccupied
during the initial inspection.  Accordingly, the Judge concludes
that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Action Certification must be
denied.

Accordingly, Judge Moody denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.  The parties have 90 days from the date of the
Order to conduct discovery on the issue of whether the City's
records, including the two computer software programs used for
enforcement of the Program, record whether a dwelling is
unoccupied during initial inspection.  Upon expiration of the 90
days, the Plaintiff may refile its Motion for Class Certification
if it can present further evidence on the issues of
ascertainability and numerosity.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/puOp38 from Leagle.com.

Lea Family Partnership Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Christa L.
Collins -- clc@harmonwoodslaw.com -- Harmon Woods Parker &
Abrunzo, P.A..

Lea Family Partnership Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by J. Andrew
Meyer -- andrew@jandrewmeyer.com -- J. Andrew Meyer, P.A. & Jack
Light Townsend, Sr. -- info@jacktownsend.com -- Law Office of Jack
L. Townsend, Sr, PA.

City of Temple Terrace, Florida, Defendant, represented by Donovan
Adam Roper -- ddayes@roperandroper.com -- Roper & Roper, PA.


TENNESSEE: Class Suit Filed Over Drivers' License Suspensions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fox 13 reports that a federal class action lawsuit has been filed
challenging Tennessee's suspension of more than a quarter of a
million driver's licenses of people, because they could not afford
to pay traffic tickets.

The lawsuit was filed by attorneys for the Civil Rights Corps, the
National Center for Law and Economic Justice, Just City, and the
law firm Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz.

The lawsuit claims the suspensions prevent Tennesseans from
getting jobs, health care, child care, etc.

"The suspensions also raise profound racial justice concerns," the
lawsuit claims, saying African-American drivers are four times
more likely to lose their licenses for nonpayment of traffic
tickets than white drivers.

The lawsuit was brought in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville against the
Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety, Rutherford and
Wilson counties and their court clerks, and Mt. Juliet and
Lebanon, Tennessee and their clerks.

In Shelby County, FOX13 learned 85 percent of people who have
their licenses taken away are African American. If you are a black
person, you are seven times more likely to have your license
suspended.

Cedrick Price lives in Memphis and is a part of a shocking
statistic. Price said, "I can't get my license back."

He cannot afford to pay his speeding ticket, and according to
information we received from Just City Memphis, failure to pay
fines for suspended licenses affects far more African Americans.

Josh Spickler, Executive Director for Just City, said, "A large
number of the suspensions of driver's license is in the state have
been of people who can't afford it and simply can't afford the
reinstatement fees in the exorbitant court costs and fines that
have been levied against them."

According to Just City, between 2012 and 2016, black drivers were
nearly four times more likely to have their license suspended
across Tennessee.

Spickler said the numbers are even higher here. "It
disproportionately affects people of color."

Spickler said, "This keeps people from working, keeps people from
getting healthcare, keeps people from getting their kids to
school."

Price said he feels the pain and is still currently trying to find
the money to pay his hefty fines.

He also finds public transportation is his only option. [GN]


TIM HORTON: Franchisor Accuses Board Members of Leaking Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Sparks, writing for Blue Maumau, reports Tim Horton
franchisees are once again preparing themselves for a court battle
against their franchisor, all in the effort to maintain store
profitability in Canada, and, now, also in the United States.
Restaurant Brands International threw a new obstacle in the
franchisees' pathway, publicly accusing them of leaking
confidential corporate information to a Canadian news journal.

Since Restaurant Brands International acquired Tim Hortons coffee
and doughnut chain in 2014, franchisees have found themselves
fighting against the direction the corporation is taking with its
management team, prompting them to file a purported class action
lawsuit. The Great White North Franchisee Association (GWNFA)
stated on September 22 that their board members have been served
with notices of default in relation to The Globe and Mail News
article dated September 15, 2017.

Jon Domanko, head of legal in Tim Hortons' subsidiary TDL Group
Corp., affirmed that all GWNFA board members had been served. The
association website posted, "It is alleged that Board Members have
directed, authorized and/or permitted the provision of
confidential information to Don Schroeder [former CEO of Tim
Hortons] who in turn communicated confidential information to The
Globe and Mail. That is false and we know of no facts to support
it."

A report in Owens Sounds Sun Times confirmed that. Domanko said he
never received confidential data from the franchisee association,
nor did he disclose any confidential information regarding Tim
Hortons. In the article, correspondence from Schroeder is quoted
in the Globe and Mail September 15 report about franchisees asking
corporate for price increases to offset upcoming minimum wage
price hikes in Ontario and Alberta.

GWNFA said that in its view, the sole purpose of the notices of
default is to continue the pattern of conduct of TDL "to
intimidate GWNFA and the efforts of the franchisees to associate
in order to advance their interests consistent with their rights
under the Arthur Wishart Act." It further states that in doing so,
TDL is actively and in bad faith interfering with franchisees'
right to associate and directly or indirectly penalizing or
threatening franchisees who choose to associate.  "That pattern of
conduct will no longer be tolerated and we are in the process of
directing our counsel, Himelfarb Proszanski, to take appropriate
legal action to restrain such conduct including a claim seeking
damages."

The Globe and Mail News reported last June that there was
discontent among Tim Hortons franchisees over Restaurant Brands
International's efficiency drive to spread south of the Canadian
border, and RBI felt the friction was posing a threat to the
chain's plans for significant expansion in the United States.
Franchisees also voiced their opinion that their franchisor was
pushing some expenses to store owners and, in some cases,
modifying products and operations to save money or boost corporate
profit margins.

As a result, The Great White North Franchisee Association was
formed last March, and has now set up a U.S. division to provide
Tim Horton store owners there with a way to voice their concerns
"about the increasing mismanagement" of the chain's operations.

Restaurant Brands International (QSR.TO) proclaims it is one of
the world's largest quick service restaurant companies with more
than $28 billion in system-wide sales and over 23,000 restaurants
in more than 100 countries and U.S. territories. Restaurant Brands
was formed in 2014 when 3G Capital-backed Burger King acquired Tim
Hortons for $11 billion, with assistance from Berkshire Hathaway.
Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen was acquired by RBI in March 2017.

Last June, Elias Diaz Sese stepped down as president of Tim
Hortons. His responsibilities were taken over by Daniel Schwartz,
chief executive officer of RBI, which also owns Burger King and
Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen. A Globe and Mail News report stated,
"RBI carries a significant debt load, with nearly $10-billion
(U.S.) in long-term borrowings, and relies heavily on cash flow
from Tim Hortons to service that debt. Last year, the chain
accounted for 57 per cent of RBI's adjusted EBITDA, even though
there are more than three times as many Burger King outlets.
(EBITDA stands for earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation
and amortization.)"

The same day Elias Diaz Sese resigned, a Toronto Tim Hortons
franchisee, with the backing of the GWNFA, filed a $500 million
(Canadian) lawsuit seeking class-action status on behalf of the
chain's roughly 3,500 Canadian restaurant owners against RBI and
its top executives, claiming they misused money from the
franchisees' ad fund. The lawsuit states that as of December 14,
2014, the fund has collected nearly $700 million.

The Toronto Sun reported that each franchisee contributes 3.5
percent of their gross sales to the fund. The purported class
action complaint states that when RBI acquired Tim Hortons, its
TDL Group Corp. started to charge administrative and operational
expenses, such as the costs of franchisee training, to the fund.
The franchisee also alleges that TDL failed to provide statements
of the fund's operations, which is required by franchise
agreements.

RBI executives issued a statement saying they disagree strongly
and deny all the allegations the franchisees have made about the
Tim Hortons business operations and the brand.

While only having seen the press reports, restaurant analyst John
Gordon, founder of Pacific Management Consulting Group, noted that
this latest action from RBI was a very unfortunate diversion. "A
judge will rule whether there was really any confidential
proprietary brand information involved. It seems not. RBI needs a
great culture and successful franchisees in all three brands to
meet its investor promise to expand the brands across the world.
100% "asset light" franchisors can't go to war with their
franchisees "

Keith Miller, chair of the Coalition of Franchisee Associations
and multi-unit franchisee of Subway, said unfortunately, it's the
norm during disputes for the franchisor to go after and target
franchisee board members, and threaten their livelihoods. He
explained, "It scares other franchisees from being engaged,
leaving the board isolated while they are trying to protect those
that are scared away. While I don't have firsthand knowledge in
this case, I have served with many franchisees on many brands over
the years, and all are keenly aware of not negatively impacting
the brand they are part of. After all, they are heavily invested
in that brand, they don't want to diminish their own investment."
[GN]


TINTRI INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that a
class action complaint was filed against Tintri, Inc. (NASDAQGM:
TNTR) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers
of Tintri securities pursuant to the company's Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection to the company's
initial public offering on or about June 30, 2017 (the "IPO"), for
alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 by Tintri
officers and directors. Tintri, Inc. develops and markets an
enterprise cloud platform combining cloud management software
technology and a range of all-flash storage systems for
virtualized and cloud environments in the United States and
internationally.

According to the complaint, in connection with its IPO, Tintri
represented in its Registration Statement and Prospectus that the
company was intending to extend their position as a leader in
providing enterprise cloud solutions to large organizations and
CSPs in accordance to their growth strategy. However, the
complaint alleges that Tintri failed to disclose that during and
after the company's IPO the company was experiencing waning sales.
On September 7, 2017, Tintri held an earnings conference call for
the second quarter of 2018 during which Tintri CEO stated "Q2
revenue grew 27% over the same quarter a year ago, at the low end
of our expectations," and explained that "distraction, disruption
and some sales attrition occurred during and after our IPO." On
this news, Tintri stock plummeted and now currently trades below
$5.00 per share -- less than 65% of its IPO price.

Tintri Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested.

         Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Tel: (619) 525-3990
         E-mail: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


TOKYO ELECTRIC: Ordered to Pay Former Fukushima Residents
---------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a court in Japan on September 22 ordered
Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) to pay compensation to a group of
former Fukushima residents, the second such ruling following the
2011 earthquake and nuclear disaster, Japanese media reported.

However, the ruling by the Chiba district court, east of Tokyo,
did not find the government liable for compensation, in contrast
to a March ruling in another court that ordered both the
government and Tepco to pay compensation to a separate group of
evacuees.

Tepco is facing mounting legal claims over the disaster, with
about 12,000 former Fukushima residents filing about 30 similar
class action lawsuits seeking compensation, media reports said.

In the Chiba case, a group of 45 residents sought damages totaling
about 2.8 billion yen ($25 million) for the emotional distress of
fleeing their homes as radiation spread from the meltdowns at
Tepco's Fukushima Daiichi plant after an earthquake and tsunami
more than six ago.

Tepco was ordered to pay a total of 376 million yen ($3.36
million) for 42 of the evacuees, Kyodo and Jiji reported.

Tepco on September 22said it would review the contents of the
ruling before making a response.

Some 15,000 people died in March 2011 when three reactors at the
Fukushima Daiichi plant suffered meltdowns after a magnitude 9
earthquake triggered a tsunami that devastated a swathe of Japan's
northeastern coastline.

Tepco has long been criticized for ignoring the threat posed by
natural disasters to the Fukushima plant and both the company and
government were lambasted for their handling of the crisis.

In December, the government nearly doubled its projections for
costs related to the disaster to 21.5 trillion yen ($192 billion),
increasing pressure on Tepco to step up reform and improve its
performance. [GN]


TRICOR AMERICA: Velarde Seeks Premium Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
JOAN VELARDE individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRICOR AMERICA, INC., UNITY
COURIER SERVICE, INC. and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 17CIV04141 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 12, 2017),
seeks to recover premium Wages, restitution and declaratory
relief, and penalties as permitted by applicable law, plus
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent,
policy of requiring non-exempt employees within the State of
California, including Plaintiff, to work through meal periods and
work at least five hours without a meal period and failing to pay
such employees' hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of
compensation for each workday.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Briand Chase, Esq.
          Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
          BSNAR CHASE LLP
          1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 752 2999
          Facsimile: (949) 752 2777
          E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
                  jbeligan@bisnarchase.com


TRIDENT ASSET: Faces "Burden" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trident Asset
Management, LLC. The case is captioned as Lavonne Burden, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Trident Asset Management, LLC and OPS 9, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03496-LMM-AJB (N.D. Ga., Sep. 12, 2017). The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May.[BN]

Trident Asset is collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marques J. Carter, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARQUES J. CARTER
          3400 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 100
          Douglasville, GA 30135
          Telephone: (888) 332 7252
          Facsimile: (866) 842 3303
          E-mail: mcarter@consumerlawinfo.com


TROTT LAW: Continues to Defend Class Action Over FDCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Nann Burke, writing for Detroit News, reports that
legislation proposed by U.S. Rep. Dave Trott is drawing the ire of
consumer groups who say it would allow attorneys and law firms to
sidestep federal law barring abusive debt-collection practices
such as making false threats and pressuring people to pay debts
they don't actually owe.

Critics also say the bill could pose a conflict of interest for
Rep. Trott, a Birmingham Republican who is planning to retire next
year, by potentially benefiting his former foreclosure law firm in
Farmington Hills.

The firm, Trott Law PC, is one of Michigan's largest foreclosure
firms and has been sued in federal court for alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The law firm disputes the
allegations.

Rep. Trott sold his stake in the law firm nearly three years ago
after he was elected to Congress and denies any conflict.  He says
his critics misunderstand the law in Michigan, where lenders can
foreclose without going to court.

By contrast, his legislation would exempt lawyers from liability
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act only to the extent
that they are representing a client in court.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits certain debt-
collection practices, such as attempting to collect unauthorized
amounts.

"The technical correction proposed in HR 1849 would not help Rep.
Trott or his former law firm in any way, and the legislation would
have no impact on the frivolous lawsuit," Trott spokeswoman Katie
Vincentz said.

Rep. Trott's bill would also exempt licensed attorneys engaged in
litigation from the supervision and enforcement authority of the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has gone after several
law firms in recent years for questionable debt-collection
practices.

Supporters of the legislation say lawyers are already regulated by
the state supreme courts that license them, and that Congress and
federal agencies shouldn't interfere.

"This limited, targeted and common-sense bill clarifies that
attorneys engaged in litigation should not be subject to
interference by federal agencies," Rep. Trott said at a hearing of
the House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer
Credit.

"We must protect the system against any attempts to tip the scales
of justice by interference with our independent judiciary."

But April Kuehnhoff, a staff attorney with the National Consumer
Law Center in Boston, has concerns about eliminating liability for
what she calls debt-collection "mills" -- large legal practices
that generate and file tens of thousands of debt collection cases
a year.

Some of these firms have gotten in trouble in recent years for
tactics such as filing false or misleading pleadings, filing
lawsuits in the wrong venue far from a debtor's home and filing
suits without any meaningful review of account-level documentation
of the alleged debt.

Another high-pressure strategy used by some attorneys leans on
consumers to "settle" a case in the hallway outside the courtroom
when he or she arrives for court without their own lawyer,
Ms. Kuehnhoff said.

"All of these practices are litigation-related practices that
attorneys are engaging in, and debt collection is a huge portion
of what happens in trial courts around the country," she said.

"The idea that state regulators or bar advocates or the courts
themselves are going to be able to take care of all of this is
really unrealistic. These regulators are overwhelmed dealing with
other important regulatory matters."

Rep. Trott said the concerns are overblown.

"If you're in court and doing something bad, you've got,
potentially, opposing counsel, the state bar, the judge -- so I
think there's adequate protection there," Rep. Trott said in an
interview.

Brian Marshall, policy counsel for the advocacy group Americans
for Financial Reform, said one of the reasons Congress adopted the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in 1977 was empowering
consumers to sue to enforce their rights under the law.

Rep. Trott's bill would exempt lawyers from being sued to the
extent they are litigating on behalf of a client.

"You can file a bar complaint against a lawyer, but it's not like
you could take a lawyer to court to get compensation or relief
from the wrongdoing," Mr. Marshall said.

With this legislation, Rep. Trott is doing a "favor" for debt-
collection law firms and attorneys by giving them a competitive
advantage over non-attorney collectors, Marshall said.

"We think lawyers should follow the law, and Rep. Trott
disagrees," Marshall said. "He wants to create a carve-out so that
lawyers and law firms can engage in abusive tactics that anyone
else without a bar card would be prohibited from doing."

But Trott stressed that, with his legislation, the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act would still cover lawyers' activities out
of court, such as calls to debtors and demand letters.

Ms. Kuehnhoff suggested the bill would complicate enforcement
efforts, creating a situation in which false or deceptive
statements made in a letter to a consumer could be punished, but
the same statement filed in court could not be.

"You would end up with this very odd solution where the same
statement could be a violation in one place and not a violation
made in another place," she said.

Rep. Trott's bill is backed by ACA International, an association
of credit and collection professionals; the Commercial Law League
of America; and the National Creditors Bar Association.

The legislation also is supported by the American Bar Association,
which says the measure is narrowly tailored to exempt creditor
lawyers engaged in legal proceedings, and would not create a broad
exemption for non-litigation activities.  The Federal Trade
Commission has recommended the change for years.

Congress initially exempted attorneys when it adopted the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.  But a few lawyers abused the
system, calling debtors frequently late at night, making false
threats and engaging in other practices that would have been
prohibited were they considered debt collectors under the law.

Congress responded in 1986, saying attorneys hired by creditors
could be held liable under the law if they "regularly" engage in
debt collection.

The courts have interpreted that liability to extend to
litigation-related activities, such as filing a lawsuit on behalf
of a client.

Anne P. Fortney, partner emerita with the Maryland-based law firm
Hudson Cook, said that interpretation has created somewhat of a
cottage industry for plaintiffs attorneys who routinely sue law
firms over "technical but harmless" violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, resulting in penalties and attorney
fees.

She said plaintiffs suing law firms over legal pleadings often
have not suffered any harm, but courts have found that they can be
sued over technical violations of the law for information they
included in a legal complaint, for harmless errors, or even
mistakes that benefit the consumer.

She offered an example involving venue.  The Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act requires a debt collector to sue in the locality in
which the debtor lives or signed the contract at issue.

A federal appellate court recently said a debtor could sue a law
firm for filing a collection lawsuit in the wrong judicial sub-
district in Cook County, Illinois -- a technical violation of the
law -- even though the court selected was within the debtor's same
county.  The debtor alleged no harm, and was not dragged into a
far-flung court, Ms. Fortney said.

"The whole point of this bill is there's a distinction between
someone who collects debts as a business and someone engaged in
the practice of law," Ms. Fortney said.

"The benefits overall are clear, and whatever problems are being
discussed or raised are really speculative."

Consumer advocates say some violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act are harmful.  They highlight suits filed by the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau against firms such as the
Georgia-based Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, which the bureau
slapped with a $3.1 million penalty in 2015.

The bureau alleged the Hanna firm made misrepresentations to
consumers by filing collection lawsuits signed by attorneys when
the attorneys had little or no involvement.

The bureau said the suits were created through automated processes
by non-lawyer staffers, allowing them to generate hundreds of
thousands of suits.  One attorney signed more than 130,000
collection suits over two years, according to the bureau.

The federal consumer bureau also accused the firm of filing faulty
or unsubstantiated evidence in court in the form of sworn
statements from clients.  In some cases, the bureau said, the
clients lacked the specific documents or details showing the debt
was accurate and enforceable.

In Michigan, Ann Arbor attorney Andrew J. McGuinness in 2015 filed
a proposed class-action lawsuit against Trott Law PC and Trott
individually, alleging in part that they violated federal and
state collection practices laws by sending certain "deceptive"
form letters in an effort to foreclose on hundreds of thousands of
homes.

The plaintiffs claim that the letters could give consumers the
false impression that they were from an attorney when, the suit
alleges, attorneys were not involved in a meaningful way in
drafting, reviewing or sending the letters.

The firm and Rep. Trott are fighting the suit, saying in court
records the letters were not misleading, and denying any
violations of state or federal law. U.S. District Judge David
Lawson in Detroit last year ruled that three types of claims
against the firm and Trott could move forward, while he dismissed
others.

The firm did not respond to calls for comment. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "O'Connor" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Douglas O'Connor, Thomas Colopy, Matthew Manahan and
Elie Gurfinkel filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
titled DOUGLAS O'CONNOR; THOMAS COLOPY; MATTHEW MANAHAN; ELIE
GURFINKEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 3:13-cv-03826-EMC,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 18,
2017, Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order regarding corrective
notice, and granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
administrative motion to file under seal.

On Aug. 31, 2017, the District Court concluded that the Class
Counsel's e-mail communication to Class Members was misleading and
that a corrective notice was required to protect the rights of
absent class members.  It ordered the parties to meet-and-confer
and to propose the contents of the corrective notice, as well as a
means to distribute it.

The appellate case is captioned as Douglas O'Connor, et al. v.
Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 17-16859, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- September 21, 2017 -- Mediation Questionnaire due;

   -- October 13, 2017 -- Transcript shall be ordered;

   -- November 13, 2017 -- Transcript shall be filed by court
      reporter;

   -- December 22, 2017 -- Appellants' opening brief and excerpts
      of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and
      9th Cir. R. 32-1;

   -- January 22, 2018 -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts
      of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and
      9th Cir. R. 32-1; and

   -- The optional appellants' reply brief shall be filed and
      served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief,
      pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1.[BN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: O'Connor Appeals N.D. Calif. Order to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Douglas O'Connor, Thomas Colopy, Elie Gurfinkel and
Matthew Manahan filed an appeal from a court ruling in their
lawsuit titled Douglas O'Connor, et al. v. Uber Technologies,
Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-03826-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 18,
2017, Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order regarding corrective
notice, and granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
administrative motion to file under seal.

On Aug. 31, 2017, the District Court concluded that the Class
Counsel's e-mail communication to Class Members was misleading and
that a corrective notice was required to protect the rights of
absent class members.  It ordered the parties to meet-and-confer
and to propose the contents of the corrective notice, as well as a
means to distribute it.

The appellate case is captioned as Douglas O'Connor, et al. v.
Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 17-16863, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 16, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 14, 2017;

   -- Appellants Thomas Colopy, Elie Gurfinkel, Matthew Manahan
      and Douglas O'Connor's opening brief is due on December 26,
      2017;

   -- Appellee Uber Technologies, Inc.'s answering brief is due
      on January 26, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, THOMAS COLOPY, MATTHEW
MANAHAN and ELIE GURFINKEL, individually and on behalf of 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
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com

               - and -

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

Defendant-Appellee UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., is represented by:

          Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
          Theane Evangelis Kapur, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7804
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6804
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
                  tkapur@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 393-8200
          Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
          E-mail: jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Kevin Joseph Ring-Dowell, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 451-3800
          E-mail: kringdowell@gibsondunn.com


UNITED STATES: Review on Two Vets' Discharge Status Ordered
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julia Bergman, writing for The Day, reports a Connecticut judge is
asking the Army to reconsider its denial to upgrade the discharge
status of two Connecticut former soldiers, who allege that they,
and tens of thousands of Army veterans across the country,
received less than honorable discharges for behavior later
attributed to post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental
health conditions.

Judge Warren Eginton of the U.S. District Court of Connecticut on
September 19 directed the Army to review the claims of Steve
Kennedy, 31, and Alicia Carson, 28, and report back to the court
within 90 days.

Kennedy, of Fairfield, who served in the Army, and Alicia Carson,
who served in the Army and the Connecticut Army National Guard but
now lives in Alaska, filed a class-action lawsuit on April 17 in
U.S. District Court in Bridgeport on behalf of approximately
60,000 less-than-honorably discharged post 9/11 Army veterans with
PTSD.

The suit claims that the Army "routinely" fails to treat soldiers'
serious mental health conditions, and instead gives them less-
than-honorable discharges, "often because of infractions related
to mental health crises."

Veterans with these kinds of discharges are usually ineligible for
crucial health and retirement benefits and for state benefits such
as property tax exemptions. And the discharges also can make it
difficult for veterans to get a job.

Kennedy returned from a yearlong deployment in Iraq with severe
PTSD and depression that the Army did not adequately diagnose or
treat, according to the suit.

"Rather than giving veterans with PTSD the treatment they need,
the Army is kicking them out and denying them benefits that would
help make them whole," Kennedy said in a statement.

After he got back from Iraq, Kennedy abused alcohol, self-
mutilated and began having suicidal thoughts despite leading his
team to top performance marks, the suit alleges. He didn't seek
help because he feared being labeled weak and losing the trust of
members of his unit, the lawsuit says. After being told he could
not take leave to attend his own wedding, Kennedy went absent
without leave, or AWOL.

He was given a "general" discharge and dismissed from the Army on
July 27, 2009. The Army board twice rejected Kennedy's requests to
upgrade his discharge status.

Initially, Kennedy, who is the Connecticut team leader for Iraq
and Afghanistan Veterans of America, sued individually, but
amended his suit and refiled a federal class-action. It has yet to
be classified as a class-action lawsuit, and that effort is on
hold while the Army performs its review.

A 2014 memo from then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was supposed
to make it easier for veterans like Kennedy and Carson to upgrade
their discharge status. The memo directed review boards to give
liberal consideration to PTSD-based applications. A class-action
lawsuit filed by Vietnam combat veterans also seeking to upgrade
their discharges due to PTSD, led, in part, to the Hagel memo
being released. Eginton also was the judge in that case.
In a statement, Kennedy said the Army review board "has
systematically failed in its duty of correcting inequitable
discharges, furthering the injustice against us and compounding
the stigma around mental health in the military."

The Department of Defense issued guidance in August to clarify
Hagel's 2014 memo, explaining that the liberal consideration
policy includes conditions resulting from post-traumatic stress
disorder, traumatic brain injury, sexual assault or sexual
harassment.

Carson, a former Southington resident, deployed to Afghanistan
with the Army in early 2010 and within five months was promoted
from assistant gunner to gunner. Her command also recommended she
be placed in a Special Forces unit, the suit says.

When she returned to the U.S., Carson was diagnosed by clinicians
from the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs with PTSD and
traumatic brain injury. She got a doctor's note excusing her from
drills, but the National Guard gave her a general discharge
because of her absences, the suit says.

The lawsuit seeks to upgrade Kennedy and Carson's discharges to
honorable and to compel the Army to fairly adjudicate PTSD
applications.

Kennedy and Carson are represented by law student interns Jordan
Goldberg, Catherine McCarthy, Jonathan Petkun, Giovanni Sanchez
and Helen White, and supervising attorneys Aaron Wenzloff, Esq.--
aaron.wenzloff@yale.com -- and Michael Wishnie, Esq. --
michael.wishnie@yale.edu -- of the Yale Law School Veterans Legal
Services Clinic. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: ERISA Plaintiff Directed to Clarify Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KEITH GOULD, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF
MIAMI, Defendant, Case No. 16-25233-CIV-WILLIAMS/SIMONTON (S.D.
Fla.), Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida denied the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and ordered the Plaintiff to file an Amended
Complaint which sets forth a more definite statement of the claims
he asserted.

Gould filed a Class Action Complaint against his former employer,
the University, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA").  The Complaint alleges one count of Breach
of Fiduciary duty pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132 (a)(3), which
asserts that the University violated its fiduciary duty under
ERISA by failing to extend to the Plaintiff, and members of the
putative class, the opportunity to participate in the plans.  The
Plaintiff contends that as a result of the breach of fiduciary
duty, the Plaintiff, and the class, suffered harm including the
lost value of the Plan benefits, and that the University was
unjustly enriched.

The Plaintiff seeks class certification, an equitable award of all
make-whole relief to which the Plaintiff and the Class are
entitled, and an equitable award to remedy the University's unjust
enrichment, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest, as permitted by
law, and any other relief to which the Plaintiff and class are
entitled.

The Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss contending, among
other things, that the Plaintiff, as a volunteer faculty member,
was not eligible to participate in the ERISA plans at issue, save
one supplemental retirement plan, in which the Plaintiff elected
to not participate.

Judge Simonton agrees with the Defendant on this point and
concludes that the Complaint as drafted is ambiguous and
confusing, and fails to satisfy Rules 8 and 10.  Specifically, in
the Complaint, the Plaintiff has failed to set forth allegations
pertaining to each plan in a manner that makes clear which plans
the Plaintiff contends he and other members of the class are
entitled to participate.  The lack of clarity in the Complaint
cannot be cured by the Plaintiff identifying the specific plans in
opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

The Judge determines that it is appropriate to sua sponte direct
the Plaintiff to file a more definite statement.  To that end, she
directed the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint which
identifies which ERISA and other benefit plans offered by the
University Plaintiff Gould alleges that he was eligible to
participate; describes other similarly-situated University
employees and the ERISA and other benefit plans that those persons
claim they are entitled to participate; and provides a clear
recitation of the relief he seeks including whether the he and
other potential class members seek to receive specific benefits
under the plans at issue, seek to be enrolled in particular plans,
and/or seek to restore losses to the relevant plans.

While the Plaintiff need not set forth every claim advanced in the
Amended Complaint and all relief sought therein in detail, the
Plaintiff must provide enough information to allow the Defendant
and the Court to know the basis of the Plaintiff's ERISA claims,
sufficient for the Defendant to file an appropriate responsive
pleading, and for the Court to assess the viability of those
claims.

Judge Simonton ordered the Plaintiff to file his Amended Complaint
within 20 days from the date of the Order.  She denied the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint without
prejudice to file a Motion to Dismiss after the Plaintiff files
his Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/h59V4O from Leagle.com.

Keith Gould, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg I. Shavitz --
gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group.

Keith Gould, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Churchill --
steve@fairworklaw.com -- Fair Work, P.C, pro hac vice & Paolo
Chagas Meireles -- pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group,
P.A..

University Of Miami, Defendant, represented by Edward Soto --
edward.soto@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges, Jonathan R. Gartner
-- jonathan.gartner@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro
hac vice & Nicholas J. Pappas -- nicholas.pappas@weil.com -- Weil,
Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice.


VEOLIA: Class Actions Over Role in Flint Water Crisis Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
AFP reports that Veolia's hopes of taking advantage of municipal
privatizations and promised Trump administration public works
projects to expand its U.S. presence, are being strained by its
role in water crises in Flint, Michigan and other cities.  The
French water and waste management giant has targeted five percent
revenue growth in North America in 2017, with the United States
expected to lead the way.  But Veolia's operations have not been
without controversy, especially in Flint, where a lead
contaminated water system became a notorious symbol of American
social injustice.  The contamination harmed thousands of children
and was seen as the cause of 12 fatalities due to Legionnaires
disease.  Veolia continues to face numerous investigations and
class-action lawsuits connected to the crisis.

Veolia also has run into controversy in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
which also suffered from elevated levels of lead in its water
system. [GN]


VEON LTD: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Sept. 24 provided Class Action update
regarding VEON, Ltd. ("VEON" or the Company") (NASDAQ:VEON),
previously known as VimpelCom, Ltd.

On December 9, 2016, Lead Plaintiff in the action filed an amended
class action complaint.  The amended complaint asserts claims on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased VimpelCom
securities (now VEON) between December 4, 2010 and November 3,
2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"), and seeks to pursue
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder.  Recently, the
Court issued an important decision which denied the Company's
attempt to dismiss the class action.  In particular, the Court's
decision denied Defendants' motion to dismiss and sustained most
of the claims in the amended class action complaint.

A copy of the amended class action complaint and the Court's
decision can be found at www.gme-law.com.

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

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


VERMONT: Investors File Class Action Over Role in Jay Peak Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Galloway, writing for VTDigger, reports that plaintiffs in a
lawsuit against the state allege that Bill Stenger, the former CEO
and president of Jay Peak Resort, paid $25,000 to immigration
attorneys in "kickbacks" for each new investor the lawyers brought
into the projects.

New evidence shows that the $25,000 fee agreement was a fill-in-
the-blank form Mr. Stenger sent to immigration attorneys.  Payment
was to be made within seven days of receipt of a copy of an
investor's temporary visa approval by U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Service.  In the document provided, Jianming Shen, a
New York City attorney, signed an agreement form with Mr. Stenger
in 2010.

Wei Wang and four other plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the
state say they were unaware that the attorneys they hired to help
them through the EB-5 visa process were also getting payments from
Mr. Stenger.

The investors say state officials with the Vermont EB-5 Regional
Center, who were responsible for overseeing Jay Peak, never took
action to investigate allegations about the so-called "finders
fees," which were brought to their attention in 2012.

Separate lawsuits have been filed by the investors against
attorney Anthony Korda, who represented foreigners in early
projects, including Hotel Jay and Tram Haus Lodge, and Shen, who
was allegedly paid by Stenger to "funnel" 70 investors into a
bogus biomedical facility in Newport.

Case against state heads to court

The first hearing in the investors' case against the state would
be on Sept. 25 in Lamoille County Superior Court where arguments
regarding discovery would be laid out by the Barr Law Group, on
behalf of the investors, and the Vermont Attorney General's
office, which is defending 10 current and former state officials
and three state agencies.

Megan Shafritz, the lead lawyer for the state, has said Vermont
officials have "absolute immunity" in the case, which protects
them "from the burdens of discovery and litigation generally."

Ms. Shafritz has urged the court to block the release of documents
and the deposition of a key witness in the investors' case until
after the court has ruled on a motion to dismiss, which the
attorney general's office has yet to file. Attorneys for the state
asked for an extension in early September.

The Lamoille County Superior Court put a stay on discovery in
July.

Russell Barr, the owner of Stowe Aviation and Barr Law Group, is
the lead attorney in the class action investor lawsuit against the
state, which alleges that the regional center acted as a partner
in the Jay Peak fraud.

Unless the court allows discovery, Barr says, the truth will never
come out about how state officials allowed Mr. Stenger and Jay
Peak owner Ariel Quiros to defraud 890 EB-5 investors and
ultimately helped to cover up the fraud.

"The state will argue [in court] that they cannot be brought to
justice and, more importantly, no fact finding or truth seeking
discovery can even take place," Mr. Barr said in an email.

A letter from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
bolsters the plaintiffs' assertion that the Vermont EB-5 Regional
Center officials stood by as the Jay Peak developers defrauded
investors over an eight-year period.

Last month, USCIS threatened to terminate the state regional
center citing "the Regional Center's failure to provide adequate
oversight and monitoring of its projects allowed the alleged
malfeasance by Quiros and Stenger to occur and jeopardize the
Regional Center's ability to promote economic growth within EB-5
program requirements, as well as the EB-5 investors' investments."

The investor lawsuit cites the USCIS notice of intent to terminate
the Vermont EB-5 Regional Center as proof that the state was
complicit in the fraud.

Messs. Quiros and Stenger are accused of misusing more than $200
million in foreign investor funds.  The two developers collected
about $490 million through the Vermont EB-5 program from 2008
through April 13, 2016.  On that date, federal regulators brought
52 counts of securities fraud against Messrs. Quiros and Stenger.
Both men remain under criminal investigation, have pleaded no
contest to the charges and have agreed to the facts in the
Securities and Exchange Commission case.

The Ponzi-like scheme started when Messrs. Stenger and Quiros used
investor money to purchase the resort instead of investing in
specific developments as promised, according to the SEC.
Mr. Quiros is accused of stealing as much as $191.8 million,
according to federal regulators who say he couldn't have
perpetrated the fraud without the aid of Mr. Stenger, who was the
front man for the operation and had direct dealings with
investors.

A state 'cover up'?

In February 2012, Douglas Hulme, owner of Rapid USA, an EB-5
middleman who worked for Jay Peak, announced to 100 immigration
attorneys that he no longer had faith in representations about the
finances made by Messrs. Stenger and Quiros.

In the case against the state, investors say that immediately
after Mr. Hulme's announcement, James Candido, the former director
of the Vermont EB-5 Regional Center, reassured investors that the
Jay Peak projects were a safe investment.

Based on assurances from Mr. Candido, investors believed that the
state was properly monitoring the projects and protecting their
investments.

But Mr. Candido was actually protecting the Jay Peak developers
from scrutiny, according to the lawsuit. He and other officials
with the commerce agency "misrepresented state oversight" and the
"viability" of the Jay Peak projects "in order to induce investors
into becoming investors," the Barr Law Group writes.

In March, a month after Mr. Hulme's revelations, an investor wrote
to John Cronin, the then-director of the Vermont Department of
Financial Regulation, with "deep concerns" about Jay Peak. Cronin
responded by email that the Vermont Securities Division "was not
conducting an investigation of Jay Peak."

Not long after, Michael Gibson, of USAadvisors.org, a group that
analyzes EB-5 projects, warned state officials that they were
failing to properly oversee the marketing of the projects to
foreign investors.

Mr. Gibson alleged in an April 2012 letter to Cronin, Candido and
John Kessler, the general counsel for the commerce agency, that
the Jay Peak developers were giving immigration attorneys "finders
fees" for new investors in the projects.  He warned that the state
should investigate the matter immediately, because finders fees
violate securities laws, which prohibit immigration attorneys who
are supposed to be representing investors from simultaneously
representing the interests of developers.

State officials ignored Mr. Gibson's advice and worked "directly
with their Jay Peak partners" to engage in a "crusade of
obfuscation and frivolous accusations" against Mr. Hulme and Rapid
USA Visas, "resulting in an outright cover-up," according to the
lawsuit.

"Continuing as if there was nothing wrong, and continuing to
concoct the outward appearance of legitimacy," state officials
touted the next phase of the Jay Peak projects, Barr writes.

In September 2012, Gov. Peter Shumlin, Rep. Peter Welch, Sens.
Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders, participated in a daylong press
conference at Jay Peak, in which  Messrs. Stenger and Quiros
announced that having completed $200 million worth of projects at
the Jay Peak Resort, they would use more than $500 million in
additional EB-5 funds to bring four more large-scale projects to
the Northeast Kingdom, including a biomedical facility (AnC Bio
Vermont), a conference center and marina, an office and retail
block on Main Street in Newport, a new airport terminal in
Coventry, a window manufacturing plant and an indoor and outdoor
Olympic athletic center at Burke Mountain Resort.

Four months later, the developers announced the completion of
Hotel Jay. The lawsuit alleges that Stenger and Quiros double sold
the top floor of the hotel to two separate groups of investors
with the blessing of the Vermont EB-5 Regional Center.

Messrs. Stenger and Quiros seized ownership of the Tram Haus Lodge
without the consent or knowledge of investors in 2013. Six months
later, investors in the first project at Jay Peak complained that
they had been mistreated.

In a memo to state officials, Tony Sutton, a plaintiff in the
lawsuit, detailed the failure of the Vermont EB-5 Regional Center
to protect investors.  Pat Moulton, the commerce secretary at the
time, claimed the Vermont EB-5 Regional Center did not have the
authority to vet the Jay Peak projects and that Sutton and the
other investors had not "identified a violation of any of the
federal laws and regulations governing the EB-5 program."

In an email, Ms. Moulton "discounted" the investors concerns and
said it was "not only unreasonable, but impossible, to expect
reporting of where individual dollars are spent in a multi-
investor project."

Investor funds were supposed to be held in escrow.  Instead, the
money was commingled from the beginning.

A state investigation of Jay Peak wasn't launched until March
2015, three years after allegations of financial improprieties
first surfaced.

Even then, the state did not put a halt to the Ponzi scheme.
Messrs. Stenger and Quiros continued to bring in new investors
right up until the SEC shut them down in April 2016. [GN]


VIRGIN AMERICA: Court Denies Discovery Request in "Bernstein"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JULIA BERNSTEIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
VIRGIN AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-02277-JST (JSC)
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California denied the
Defendant's discovery letter brief seeking (i) written discovery
and depositions of 10% of the absent class members, or 180
individuals; and (ii) a continuance of the current Sept. 22, 2017
discovery cut-off to allow it the opportunity to conduct this
additional discovery.

It is not Defendant's first attempt to pursue discovery of absent
class members.  It previously sought documents, interrogatory
responses, and depositions from each absent class member, or 1,800
individuals.  That request was denied.

Judge Corley explained that the broad discovery the Defendant
seeks -- depositions, document requests, and interrogatories -- is
not appropriate for a certified class, and that if the Defendant
believes liability involves significant individual questions, it
should move to decertify the class.  Until then, she would treat
the lawsuit as a class action.

The Defendant did not move to decertify the class.  Instead, it
appealed the Court's July 28, 2017 order to Judge Tigar, who
affirmed the Court's decision and denied the Defendant's motion
for relief.  The Defendant subsequently filed the discovery
request pending before the Court.  The Plaintiff opposes the
request.

The Defendant maintains its same position -- that discovery of the
class is appropriate and raises no new arguments regarding the
necessity of the requested discovery.  Moreover, the Defendant's
argument that its due process rights entitle it to discovery of
all available defenses has been rejected by the Ninth Circuit.
Finally, the request comes too late as discovery closes this
Friday and the Defendant has not shown good cause for extending
the discovery deadline.  Accordingly, Judge Corley denied the
Defendant's request.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/OgAy5z from Leagle.com.

Julia Bernstein, Plaintiff, represented by Monique Olivier --
monique@dplolaw.com -- Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP.

Julia Bernstein, Plaintiff, represented by Alison L. Kosinski --
alison@ktlawsf.com -- Kosinski & Thiagaraj, LLP, Chiharu Gina
Sekino, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Emily Ann Thiagaraj
-- emily@ktlawsf.com -- Kosinski & Thiagaraj, LLP, James Edward
Miller, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP & Kolin C. Tang, Shepherd
Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP.

Esther Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Monique Olivier,
Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP, Alison L. Kosinski,
Kosinski & Thiagaraj, LLP, Chiharu Gina Sekino, Shepherd Finkelman
Miller & Shah, LLP, Emily Ann Thiagaraj, Kosinski & Thiagaraj,
LLP, James Edward Miller, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP,
James C. Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP & Kolin C.
Tang, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP.

Lisa Marie Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Monique Olivier,
Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP, Alison L. Kosinski,
Kosinski & Thiagaraj, LLP, Chiharu Gina Sekino, Shepherd Finkelman
Miller & Shah, LLP, Emily Ann Thiagaraj, Kosinski & Thiagaraj,
LLP, James Edward Miller, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP,
James C. Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP & Kolin C.
Tang, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP.

Virgin America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Jon
Hendricks -- rhendricks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Jennifer Adkins Tomlin -- jtomlin@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP & Nancy Villarreal --
nancy.villarreal@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.


VIVA LABS: Court Denies Move to Dismiss "Tracton"
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Complaint and Motion to Strike Allegations in the case captioned
SYNDI TRACTON, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. VIVA LABS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-2772-BTM-KSC (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Syndi Tracton brings a putative consumer class action
against Defendant for marketing its Organic Extra Virgin Coconut
Oil as both inherently healthy and a healthy alternative to
butter, despite that the Coconut Oil's total fat and saturated fat
content make it unhealthy, and a less healthy alternative.
Plaintiff claims that Defendant deceptively markets its coconut
oil through representations it makes on its product labels,
website, and Amazon.com (Amazon).

Plaintiff pleads five causes of action on behalf of the putative
class: (1) violations of the California Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200,
et seq.; (2) violation of the False Advertising Law ("FAL"),
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq.;
(3) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq.; (4) breach of
express warranty, California Commercial Code Section 2313(1); and
(5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, California
Commercial Code Section 2314.

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
should be granted only where a plaintiff's complaint lacks a
cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a legal
claim. When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the allegations of
material fact in plaintiff's complaint are taken as true and
construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.  In
deciding a motion to dismiss, a court may consider the facts
alleged in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, and
documents whose authenticity is not questioned and upon which the
plaintiff's complaint necessarily relies on, even if not
physically attached to the complaint.

Standing to Pursue Claims Based on Defendant's Website

To adequately plead a claim under the UCL or FAL, a plaintiff must
have suffered injury in fact as a result of the unfair
competition. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17204, 17535.

First, Plaintiff argues that despite not alleging reliance, she
can nevertheless pursue these claims because Defendant directs
consumers to its website on the product label and encourages them
to learn about the many health benefits of its coconut oil by
visiting its website. However, because the Complaint does not
allege that she relied on misrepresentations made on Defendant's
website, Plaintiff does not have standing to proceed on these
claims

Second, Plaintiff argues that she is not stating a claim for
relief as to the falsity of representations on Defendant's
website, but instead referencing the website because it is highly
relevant to various issues in the case. Given the early stage of
this action, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's references to
the website may be relevant.

Because Plaintiff's claims are also based on statements other than
those on Defendant's website, the Court denies Defendant's motion
to dismiss.

Standing to Pursue Injunctive Relief

Defendant challenges Plaintiff's Article III standing to pursue
injunctive relief because Plaintiff does not allege that she would
purchase the coconut oil for cooking or consumption again.
To establish that she has standing, a plaintiff must show that (1)
she suffered an injury in fact; (2) the injury is fairly traceable
to the challenged conduct; and (3) the injury is likely to be
"redressed by a favorable decision"

Plaintiff contends that she has met her burden by alleging that:
if she could be assured that any health and wellness labelling on
the Coconut Oil was lawful and not misleading, she would consider
purchasing the product in the future, including for uses other
than direct consumption, if she could be assured that its price
matched its true value in a fair and honest marketplace. Thus,
were [Defendant] to remove the false and misleading claims,
plaintiff may desire to purchase the Coconut Oil in the future for
cosmetic purposes other than direct consumption if the subsequent
marketplace pricing was based on fair and honest labelling.

This Court recognized that there were circumstances in which a
plaintiff could adequately allege standing, stating: "it is an
exaggeration to claim that injunctive relief would never be
available in false advertising cases. There are cases where a
consumer would still be interested in purchasing the product if it
were labeled properly for example, if a food item accurately
stated its ingredients. In these types of cases that do not
involve claims that a product does not work or perform as
advertised, injunctive relief may still be available."

The Court finds that this case presents the appropriate
circumstances. Taking the allegations in the light most favorable
to Plaintiff, she has alleged that she would purchase the coconut
oil again in the future. Plaintiff has, therefore, sufficiently
pled a real and immediate threat of continued harm. Accordingly,
Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as to Plaintiff's request
for injunctive relief.

Misrepresentation-Based Claims

Plaintiff asserts misrepresentation claims under California's UCL,
FAL and CLRA. California's UCL prohibits any unlawful, unfair or
fraudulent business act or practice. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200. The false advertising law prohibits any "unfair,
deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising. Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Section 17500. California's CLRA prohibits "unfair methods or
competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

Reasonable Consumer Test

Defendant argues that Plaintiff's UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims should
be dismissed because she fails to plausibly allege that a
reasonable consumer is likely to be deceived by the alleged false
advertising.

Defendant, likewise, argues that because Plaintiff alleges that it
is well established that diets generally high in saturated fatty
acids increase the risk of CHD, her claims that the label is false
or misleading should be dismissed.

However, as Plaintiff notes, she does not dispute that saturated
fats may be harmful, but instead that Defendant's labeling claims
are intended to convince consumers that the product is healthy,
and to conceal or distract from the fact the Coconut Oil is almost
entirely saturated fat.

Plaintiff alleges that these claims, taken individually and in
context of the label as a whole, are false and misleading because
the Coconut Oil is not 'healthy, nor does it positively boost
nutrition' given its saturated fat, which adversely affects
cholesterol levels and increases risk of CHD, stroke, and other
morbidity. Viewing the facts and representations in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff, the Court cannot hold at this juncture
that it would be impossible for Plaintiff to prove that a
reasonable consumer would be deceived by Defendant's
representations.

Accordingly, the Court declines to dismiss Plaintiff's UCL, FAL,
and CLRA claims based on the reasonable consumer test.

Reliance and Causation Prongs

Defendant also moves to dismiss Plaintiff's misrepresentation
claims on the ground that she has failed to sufficiently plead
reliance.

Defendant largely renews its arguments that Plaintiff's reliance
on the misrepresentations is unreasonable. As already held, this
is not a rare situation" that would allow the Court to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claims at this juncture. A review of Plaintiff's
allegations reveals that she has adequately pled reliance.

She claims that when deciding whether to purchase Defendant's
coconut oil, she read and relied on the representations made on
the product's label, as well as on the Amazon product page.
Plaintiff further alleges that she "would only have been willing
to pay less, or unwilling to purchase it at all, absent the false
and misleading labeling.

Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied on this ground.

Violations of the FDA and Sherman Laws

First, Defendant argues that technical violations of the FDA are
not actionable under the UCL because misbranded food under these
regulations are not automatically misleading.

Under both the federal and California labeling regulations, a food
product is deemed misbranded when its label contains any statement
that is false or misleading in any particular.

Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to at least create an issue
of fact that a reasonable consumer is likely to be deceived by
Defendant's representations of the coconut oil. At this juncture,
Plaintiff has thus adequately pled a violation of Cal. Health &
Safety Code Section 110660. Plaintiff specifically alleges that
the coconut oil is misbranded because its label bears nutrient
content claims even though it does not meet the requirements to
make such claims.

Because the coconut oil does not meet these regulatory
requirements, Plaintiff alleges that it cannot bear the term
healthy and is misbranded. Thus, Plaintiff has pled sufficient
facts to allege that the coconut oil is misbranded under these
three separate FDA regulations.

Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not alleged any injury
from the alleged violations of the FDA regulations. A review of
Plaintiff's allegations reveals that when deciding whether to
purchase Defendant's coconut oil, she relied on the
representations that are the basis of the FDA violations.

She specifically alleges that she relied on claims such as making
it a healthy addition to your daily life through dietary
supplementation, free of. trans fats, and contains MCTs for energy
and weigh management.  She further claims that absent these
representations, she would have only been willing to pay less, or
unwilling to purchase it at all. Plaintiff has, therefore, alleged
sufficient facts to support that she relied on these
representations.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as to
Plaintiff's UCL unlawful claim.

UCL Claim

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
based on all three independent prongs of the UCL.

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant's sale of the coconut oil was
unfair because Defendant's conduct was immoral, unethical,
unscrupoulous, or substantially injurious to consumers and the
utility of its conduct, if any, does not outweigh the gravity of
the harm to its victims. She further claims that the harm to
consumers caused by increased consumption of the Coconut Oil due
to the deceptive claims is not outweighed by the benefit of
increased profits gained from the deceptive claims.

The Court finds that these allegations are enough to survive a
motion to dismiss. Therefore, Defendant's motion is denied as to
Plaintiff's unlawful claim under the UCL.

Breach of Express Warranty

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's breach of express warranty
claim arguing that the claim is based on "highly subjective
claims" that are not actionable.

Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Coconut Oil label,
[Defendant] made affirmations of fact or promises, or descriptions
of goods, that  the product is a healthy addition to your daily
life through dietary supplementation, and cooking, will boost
nutrition' and provides 'many health benefits. Drawing all
inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court
must find that Plaintiff has adequately alleged her breach of
express warranty claim.

Defendant's motion to dismiss this claim is, therefore, denied.

Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Defendant also moves to dismiss Plaintiff's breach of implied
warranty claim, arguing that Plaintiff fails to allege that the
coconut oil is not fit for ordinary use.

Under California's Commercial Code Section 2314, a warranty that
the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their
sale. The California Supreme Court has defined "merchantability"
as a product that conforms to the promises or affirmations of fact
made on the container or label or as a product that fits the
ordinary purpose for which such good is used.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled a breach of
implied warranty. Though Plaintiff does not allege that the
coconut oil is not fit for ordinary use, she does allege that
Defendant has failed to conform to the promises or affirmations
made on its label. Moreover, as already discussed above, Plaintiff
has at least sufficiently alleged that a reasonable person would
be deceived by the representations made on the label. Therefore,
it is not enough at this juncture that the ingredient list
expressly discloses the product's saturated fat content. Thus,
Plaintiff's claim survives.

Injury

Lastly, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's UCL, FAL, and CLRA
claims should be dismissed because she has failed to allege any
damages model by which the Court could measure her restitutionary
relief.

Plaintiff has alleged that she lost money as a result of
Defendant's deceptive claims and practices in that she not receive
what she paid for when purchasing the Coconut Oil.

Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's misrepresentation claims
is, therefore, denied.

Motion to Strike

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff's allegations concerning
Defendant's website, as well as Plaintiff's proposed class
allegations.

Plaintiff's allegations concerning Defendant's website cannot
support her misrepresentation claims, it is unclear at this
juncture whether they can be considered immaterial.

As to Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's class allegations,
the Court similarly concludes that these issues are best resolved
at the class certification stage. While it is true that a
defendant can pre-emptively petition the court to deny class
certification under Rule 23, here, Defendant moves to strike the
class allegations pursuant to Rule 12. Defendant "has not answered
in this case, discovery has not yet commenced, and no motion for
class certification has been filed.

Defendant's motions to dismiss and strike allegations in the
Complaint are denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 18, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycztor2vfrom Leagle.com.

Syndi Tracton, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Fitzgerald, The Law
Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC, Hillcrest Professional Building,
3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202, San Diego, California 92103

Syndi Tracton, Plaintiff, represented by Melanie Rae Persinger,
The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, Hillcrest Professional
Building, 3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202, San Diego, California
92103, Paul K. Joseph -- Paul@pauljosephlaw.com -- The Law Office
of Paul K. Joseph, PC & Trevor Flynn --
trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com --  Hillcrest Professional Building.

Viva Labs, INC., Defendant, represented by Ana Tagvoryan --
ATagvorgan@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP & Safia G. Hussain --
Shussain@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP.


VOLVO CARS: Faces Class Action Over XC90 Sensus System Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Volvo
XC90 Android Auto lawsuit alleges the SUVs were marketed and sold
as being compatible with the Android Auto feature when in fact
they are not.

Android Auto is described as a smartphone application for Google
Android cell phones and designed to work with the display screen
of the Google Android user's car.  A user can control their
smartphone through the car's touchscreen display, steering wheel
buttons and by voice commands.

Volvo's marketing materials allegedly pushed the in-car technology
user interface called "Sensus" that was, or would eventually be,
compatible with Android Auto.

Plaintiff Robert Middien claims Volvo started selling Volvo XC90
crossover SUVs in 2014, and in 2015 Volvo began selling the 2016
XC90, but did not sell a 2015 XC90.

The plaintiff claims Volvo specifically focused on the Sensus
system by emphasizing its compatibility with Android Auto.  But
the plaintiff says Volvo would sometimes falsely market that
Sensus on the Volvo XC90 was compatible with Android Auto, yet at
other times Volvo would advertise that Sensus would eventually be
compatible with Android Auto in the future.

However, the lawsuit alleges the Sensus never was, and never will
be, compatible with Android Auto in XC90s SUVs.

In December 2016, Volvo added Android Auto to the 2017 XC90s and
offered upgrades to create compatibility with Android Auto.
However, those upgrades were only available for 2017 XC90 models
that had been built after April 2016 and allegedly not available
for any 2016 models.

The plaintiff says Volvo now admits on its website the Sensus
system on the 2016 XC90 is not and never will be compatible with
Android Auto.

The lawsuit includes this alleged statement from Volvo:

"For installation of Android Auto to be possible, the car must be
equipped with two USB ports (USB hub).  If the car has only one
USB port then it is not possible to use Android Auto.  It is not
possible to install Android Auto on the XC90 or XC90 Twin Engine
model year 2016 since they do not have the USB hub. It is not
possible to retrofit the USB hub on these models."

According to the plaintiff, the 2014 and 2016 Volvo XC90s have
only one USB port and it's not possible to install Android Auto
and impossible to retrofit the USB hubs.

In addition, the lawsuit alleges the 2017 Volvo XC90s manufactured
before April 2016 also have only one USB port, making it
impossible to install Android Auto.

The plaintiff says about 29,000 SUVs are affected by the problem,
and every owner and lessee paid too much for their SUVs that were
marketed as compatible with Android Auto.

The proposed class-action lawsuit includes all U.S. consumers who
purchased or leased a new 2014 or 2016 Volvo XC90 or a new 2017
Volvo XC90 with a Sensus systems incompatible with Android Auto.

The Volvo XC90 Android Auto lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts - Robert Middien, et. al.,
v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC.

The plaintiff is represented by Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP.
[GN]


WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL: Court Extends Pre-Trial Schedule in "Diggs"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order extending the time set forth in the
pre-trial scheduling order for the briefing schedule on motion on
alleged capacity of Defendant's automatic telephone dialing system
and expert designation dates in the case captioned FREEMAN and
VALECEA DIGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL, LLC a
California limited liability company dba WILSHIRE CONSUMER CREDIT,
Defendant, Case No. 2:15-CV-01428-WBS-AC (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs have disclosed their expert and he has produced a
report; however, Plaintiffs' designated expert, Mr. Jeffrey A.
Hansen, due to medical reasons, including a recent surgery, has
been unable to sit for a deposition regarding his current
findings, and will not be able to do so until after the rebuttal
expert disclosure/report deadline.  Defendant will need to depose
Plaintiffs' expert, currently scheduled for October 12, 2017, and
have the transcript reviewed by its expert before filing the
motion on the ATDS system, and before filing the rebuttal expert
report.

The Parties have cooperated with discovery in anticipation of this
motion, and have professionally resolved any issues that have
arisen.  Plaintiffs have consulted their expert, and he is
available on October 12, 2017, for a deposition.  Once the
Plaintiff's expert's deposition, is complete, Defendant will be
able to designate a rebuttal expert, and the parties will be able
to brief the issue of capacity.

The Court, at the behest of the parties, modifies the schedule as
follows:

   -- Discovery concerning the alleged capacity of defendant's
Automatic Telephone Dialing System to make autodialed calls to
Plaintiffs will be continued to November 13, 2017.

   -- Plaintiffs are ordered to produce their designated expert
for deposition on October 12, 2017 in San Diego.

   -- With regard to expert testimony intended solely for
rebuttal, those experts will be disclosed and reports produced in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or
before October 25, 2017.

   -- A hearing for motion regarding the alleged capacity of
Defendant's Automatic Telephone Dialing System to make autodialed
calls to Plaintiffs will take place on January 16, 2018 at 1:30
p.m.

   -- Any motion regarding the alleged capacity of defendant's
Automatic Telephone Dialing System to make autodialed calls to
Plaintiffs must be filed by November 30, 2017

   -- Opposition thereto must be filed by December 18, 2017, and
Reply to that Opposition must be filed by January 4, 2018.

   -- Following the hearing on the motion regarding the capacity
of Defendant's alleged Automatic Telephone Dialing System on
January 16, 2018 at 1:30 p.m., the Court will conduct a case
management conference to reset the current Pretrial Conference
date of January 29, 2018 and trial date of March 27, 2018.

   -- A Joint Status Report shall be filed no later than January
2, 2018.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 18, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yc9e277sfrom Leagle.com.

Verina Freeman, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Kemnitzer,
Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg, PC., 445 Bush St 6th Fl
San Francisco, CA 94108

Verina Freeman, Plaintiff, represented by Scott D. Owens, Scott D.
Owens, P.A., 3800 S Ocean Dr #235, Hollywood, FL 33019, USA, pro
hac vice & Elliot Jason Conn -- Elliot@kbklegal.com -- Kemnitzer
Anderson Barron and Ogilvie LLP.

Valecea Diggs, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Kemnitzer,
Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg, PC, Scott D. Owens, Scott D. Owens,
P.A., pro hac vice & Elliot Jason Conn, Kemnitzer Anderson Barron
and Ogilvie LLP.

Wilshire Commercial Capital L.L.C., Defendant, represented by
Anthony Angelo Molino -- Molino@molinolawfirm.com -- Molino and
Berardino, APLC, Benjamin John Carter, Molino & Berardino, APLC,
4751 Wilshire Blvd Ste 207, Los Angeles, CA, 90010-3860, Steven
Reed Berardino -- sberardino@molinolawfirm.com -- Molino &
Berardino, APLC & Michelle Cooper -- mcooper@molinolawfirm.com
-- Molino & Berardino, APLC.


* Group of College Professors Supports CFPB's Arbitration Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Lamagna, writing for MarketWatch, reports that a group of
college professors is rallying in support of consumers' right to
sue.

Some 423 law school, university and college professors are sending
a letter to two senators, encouraging them to support a rule the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has passed.

The CFPB announced a final version of the rule in July that would
ban companies from putting "mandatory arbitration clauses" in
their contracts, language that prohibits consumers from bringing
class-action suits against them.  It applies to institutions that
sell financial products, including bank accounts and credit cards.

Rather than being allowed to sue, consumers who sign such a
contract have to resolve disputes with companies through privately
appointed individuals known as arbitrators, allowing companies to
save time and money and avoid negative publicity.

"Class action lawsuits are an important means of protecting
consumers harmed by violations of federal or state law," the
letter says. "Class actions enable a court to see that a company's
violations are widespread and to order appropriate relief."

The CFPB's mandatory arbitration rule was in the news recently in
the aftermath of a security breach at credit reporting agency
Equifax, when consumer advocates said that breach showed why suing
financial institutions can be important.  After the breach,
consumers filed numerous class-action suits against Equifax.

"This is a prime example of why we need the CFPB rule," said
George Slover, senior policy counsel at Consumers Union, a
consumer advocacy group based in Yonkers, N.Y.

Members of the House in July voted to repeal that rule, which now
faces a vote in Senate. Depending on the Senate's schedule, it's
unclear when or if the vote will take place.  If the Senate does
not vote against it, firms will be required to comply with the
rule starting in March 2018.  It would not apply to contracts
entered into before that.

The professors are sending the letter on Sept. 25 because it is
Sept. 25, the anniversary of when Congress passed the Seventh
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791, which states: "In
suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."

"The right of access to the courts was so important to our
founders that they enshrined the right to a jury trial in both the
Sixth and Seventh Amendments," said Imre Szalai, a professor at
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, in a statement.

Critics of the CFPB rule have said class-action suits actually
don't help consumers.  Many of the critics are Republicans, who
have opposed the bureau, saying it is too powerful.  The
professors are sending their letter to one Republican, Senator
Mike Crapo of Idaho, who is the chair of the Senate Committee on
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, and one Democrat, Senator
Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who is a member of that committee.

The House's vote against the rule was "critical to ensuring the
bureau doesn't provide trial lawyers with a regulatory windfall at
consumers' expense," said Rob Nichols, the president and CEO of
the trade group American Bankers Association, in a previous
statement.

"Members of the House took a much-needed step toward checking the
power of a rogue agency and its attempt to impose a bad rule on
American consumers," said Lisa Rickard, the president of the U.S.
Chamber Institute for Legal Reform and David Hirschman, the
president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber Center for Capital Markets
Competitiveness, in a joint statement after the vote. Both are
part of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"Our arbitration rule was the result of more than five years of
careful research and open deliberation," said David Mayorga, a
CFPB spokesman.  "We found that blocking group lawsuits makes it
nearly impossible for most consumers to get justice and relief for
wrongdoing."

Professors who are sending the letter include Creola Johnson, a
professor at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law,
David Cluchey, a professor of law emeritus at the University of
Maine School of Law in Portland and Jean Sternlight, a professor
of law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Boyd School of Law.

Ms. Sternlight said in a Sept. 25 Law360 article "Sept. 25 is the
anniversary of Congress' passage of the Seventh Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, which provides a right to jury trial in civil
cases.  That right is increasingly in jeopardy, as the fine print
of contracts from many banks, nursing homes, for-profits schools,
credit monitoring services and other companies strip away our day
in court. Forced arbitration clauses, typically coupled with class
action bans, prevent Americans from accessing courts or banding
together in group litigation when companies violate the law.
Instead, no matter how many people have been harmed, such clauses
usually require people to go it alone before a private arbitrator,
typically chosen by the company, in a secretive proceeding with
virtually no right of review."

"A new rule by the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
the independent watchdog created after the financial crisis, helps
restore our constitutional rights.  Specifically, this rule,
adopted after years of study, prevents banks, credit reporting
companies and other financial companies from using fine-print
forced arbitration clauses to prevent their customers from
participating in class action lawsuits brought against the
company.  The rule restores transparency and accountability to our
justice system and allows people to exercise their Seventh
Amendment rights.

"But the rule is in jeopardy.  The House of Representatives has
voted to block the rule and the Senate may soon follow suit.

That's why I have joined with over 400 other law professors and
academics from all 50 states to support the CFPB.  We urge our
Senators to allow the rule to take effect.

"When Equifax misplaces our trust and exposes sensitive financial
information of 143 million Americans; when Wells Fargo opens 3.5
million fake accounts without customer permission; and when for-
profit schools use deception to get students deep in debt for a
worthless degree, people need group access to the courts.  They
can't go it alone against a big company, especially when consumers
may not know they have been harmed, and when the amount that a
company steals from each person is often too small to justify
hiring an attorney or taking the time to fight, whether in court
or in arbitration.

"For many years, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and various business
interests have campaigned to convince the world that arbitration
is necessarily quicker and cheaper than litigation, and that class
actions only benefit lawyers, and not class members.  Yet, many
advocates for consumers say that forced arbitration is unfair and
that class actions help consumers by providing compensation and
deterring future unlawful conduct.

"Faced with these debates, the CFPB spent three years collecting
and analyzing massive amounts of data and produced a comprehensive
report, hundreds of pages long.  The report found that forced
arbitration typically deters consumers from bringing claims in any
forum, and that class actions are far more helpful to consumers
than individual arbitration.  In particular, just a few hundred
financial consumers even filed arbitration claims in a typical
year.  However, the data show that, over five years, 160 million
consumer class members who were not forced into arbitration were
awarded $2.2 billion in relief -- after deducting attorneys' fees.

"Taking a detailed look at cases involving banks' deceptive
overdraft fee practices, the CFPB found that class actions brought
on this issue alone allowed millions of Americans to recover
nearly $1 billion of damages as well as important nonmonetary
relief, all of which deters future legal violations. By contrast,
the consumer watchdog learned that when people who were covered by
forced arbitration clauses were defrauded by unfair overdraft fees
or other similar financial misconduct they were not likely to know
that they had been harmed, even less likely to realize that the
harm was illegal, and certainly not likely to try to bring an
individual arbitration claim over quite a small amount of money.
This, together with the fact that federal and state investigative
agencies are typically underfunded, is why class actions remain a
critically important means of enforcing our laws.

"The CFPB's well-grounded data and analysis provide solid support
for the arbitration rule.  Yet lobbyists opposing the arbitration
rule have mischaracterized the CFPB's data.  They have claimed
that arbitration is better for consumers because people supposedly
earn $5,389 on average in arbitration but only $32 on average in
class actions.

"That argument is completely deceptive.  The $5,389 figure is
based on the average cash award in the CFPB study for the only 16
people per year in the entire country who the study found won cash
awards in arbitration.  These are extreme outlier results. For the
most part, when a company steals a small amount from a lot of
people, those people won't get over $5,000 if a class action ban
requires them to pursue individual arbitration; they will get
nothing, because only people with a lot of money at stake
typically take the time and expense to pursue a case in
arbitration.  Compare the 16 people a year who won in consumer
financial arbitrations to the 32 million who recovered billions in
class actions.  Companies are afraid of the deterrent power of
class actions and are trying to use arbitration to avoid having to
follow the law.

"We cannot let dishonest lobbyist pitches doom a rule that
restores accountability when companies like Wells Fargo and
Equifax harm millions of people.  It is time for Americans who
value their Seventh Amendment rights to speak out and insist that
their senators vote to preserve access to our justice system.
"[GN]


* Military Groups Join Democrats' Defense of Arbitration Rule
-------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Sword, writing for Roll Call, reports that service member and
veterans groups on September 20 criticized a Republican effort to
overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule barring
mandatory arbitration in many consumer contracts.

The groups joined Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., ranking member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee and a member of the Senate Banking
Committee, to oppose Senate Republicans' plan to pass a measure
that would repeal the CFPB rule. The rule took effect on September
25, but the agency is giving companies until March 2018 to comply.

"Our membership has stated unequivocally that we will not accept a
future where our military veterans' financial protections are
chipped away to increase the margins of the financial sector,"
said John Kamin, assistant director of the American Legion's
Veterans Employment & Education Division. The American Legion
opposes the repeal effort, he said.

Republicans are trying to repeal the CFPB rule under the
Congressional Review Act. The House voted 231-190 on July 25 to
pass a repeal measure. The White House has said the president
would sign the repeal measure.

The CFPB rule bars consumer contracts with banks, cell phone
companies and others from including clauses that waive a
consumer's right to join class-action suits, instead offering
arbitration as the only option to settle disputes other than
individual litigation. Proponents say the rule will expand the
legal rights of consumers. Opponents say it will mainly serve to
enrich class-action lawyers.

"The rule is extremely important to people," Reed said. "That's
been highlighted by the Equifax breach, it's been highlighted by
some of the disputes regarding Wells Fargo."

Under the CRA, the Senate can repeal the rule with a simple
majority. No Democrats are expected to back it. But the Senate has
to act within 60 legislative days of the rule's July 19
publication. The House passed the repeal over the opposition of
all Democrats and one Republican. The Senate parliamentarian will
determine when that clock runs out, a staffer said.

Service members on active duty are already more protected than
many consumers. Two existing laws prohibit arbitration agreements
-- and cap interest rates on loans -- for some products. But the
groups said on September 20 that companies have found ways around
the laws.

John McElligott, co-chairman of the Guard and Reserve Committee of
The Military Coalition, said some members of the military are
being held during deployment to clauses in contracts signed before
they joined the military. The coalition's 32 members include the
Veterans of Foreign Wars and associations representing the Navy,
Army, Air Force and Marines.

"Unfortunately, companies have found a way around these laws,"
McElligott said. "They routinely bury forced arbitration clauses
in the fine print of their contracts."

Current and former service members were among those that Wells
Fargo signed up for unauthorized accounts, he said. A practice
that led to $185 million in fines last year and the CEO explaining
the actions before Congressional committees. The bank established
3.5 million accounts unauthorized by customers.

The rule "must be supported, protected and fully enforced," he
said.

McElligott said that active duty service members are also more
vulnerable to identity theft than civilians. The report that as
many as 143 million Americans had personal information stolen in a
breach at the credit-reporting firm Equifax is particularly
troubling, he said.

Equifax has mandatory arbitration clauses in its contracts, though
it said arbitration clauses would not be part of the free services
customers can receive to deal with the effects of the breach.

The arbitration rule is the result of an "unholy alliance" between
Democrats and trial attorneys, House Financial Services Chairman
Jeb Hensarling said in the House debate on the repeal measure. If
the rule goes into effect, consumers' main avenue for redress will
be through class-action suits, which would benefit trial lawyers,
the Texas Republican said.

A CFPB study of four years of class-action lawsuits in financial
services disputes found that out of $2.7 billion in awards to
consumers, $424 million in fees went to attorneys. The study also
found consumers rarely went to arbitration because most of their
disputes with banks and other providers were over amounts far
smaller than the cost of arbitration. [GN]


* Supreme Court to Address Arbitration Issues in New Term
---------------------------------------------------------
Ian Millhiser, writing for ThinkProgress, reports that the Supreme
Court returns Oct. 2 from its summer vacation for the first full
term where Neil Gorsuch will occupy a seat at the far end of the
Court's bench.  And the Court will open this term with a trio of
cases that are very likely to immunize many employers from
consequences for their illegal actions.

The three cases -- National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil
USA, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, and Epic Systems v. Lewis -- all
involve employment contracts cutting off employee's rights to sue
their employer for legal violations.

In at least one case, employees were required to sign the contract
as a condition of beginning work.  In another, employees were
forced to give up their rights as a condition of keeping their
job.  These contracts contained two restrictions on the employees:
1) a "forced arbitration" provision, which requires any legal
disputes between the employer and the employee to be resolved in a
privatized arbitration system; and 2) a provision prohibiting
employees from bringing class actions or other collective suits
against their employers.

Requiring private arbitration favors employers over employees.  As
an Economic Policy Institute study determined, employees are less
likely to prevail before an arbitrator than before a court, and
they typically receive less money from an arbitrator when they do
prevail.

Banning class action suits, meanwhile, effectively permits
employers to violate the law with impunity, so long as they do not
do too much harm to any individual employee.

If an employer cheats one employee out of $300,000 worth of wages,
for example, that employee is likely to be able to find a lawyer
who will take his case on a contingency basis -- meaning that the
lawyer gets a percentage of what the employee collects from the
employer if they win.  If the same employer cheats 10,000
employees out of $30 each, however, no lawyer is going to
represent any one of these workers on a contingency basis.  Plus,
few employees are likely to bother with a $30 suit.  It's too much
hassle, and too expensive to hire a lawyer who won't work on
contingency.  The solution to this problem is a class action suit,
which allows the 10,000 employees to join together in a single
case litigated by a single legal team.

Banning such class actions effectively leaves these employees
without remedy.  As one federal judge explained, "the realistic
alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits,
but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for
$30."

The employer's claim that they can combine a forced arbitration
clause with a class action ban arises out of two previous Supreme
Court cases that took an extraordinarily creative view of a nearly
100-year-old law.

In 1925, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act to allow, as
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once explained, "merchants with
relatively equal bargaining power" to agree to resolve their
disputes through arbitration. Beginning in the 1980s, however, the
Court started to read this law expansively to permit forced
arbitration between businesses and relatively powerless consumers
and employees.

Then, the Court got even more aggressive.  By its own terms, the
Federal Arbitration Act exempts "workers engaged in foreign or
interstate commerce." Nevertheless, in its 5-4 decision in Circuit
City v. Adams, the Supreme Court held that the Act applies to most
workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.  Thus, forced
arbitration clauses in employment contracts were given special
protected status, even though the federal law governing these
clauses says otherwise.

Similarly, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for a 5-4 Court in AT&T
Mobility v. Concepcion that the Federal Arbitration Act has
penumbras, formed by emanations from its guarantees that give it
life and substance.  The right of businesses to insert class
action bans, Scalia claimed, is one of these penumbras contained
in the 1925 law.  And so businesses gained the power to add no
class action clauses to their forced arbitration agreements, even
if a ban on class actions violates state law -- and despite the
fact that the Federal Arbitration Act says nothing about class
actions.

Nevertheless, the employees in Murphy Oil and its companion cases
hope that another provision of law will protect them from signing
away their right to join a class action.

A provision of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) provides
that "employees shall have the right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection."  Several lower
courts have held that an employee's right to engage in "concerted
activities" protects their right to join class actions, and they
cite multiple previous Supreme Court decisions which lend
credibility to this claim.

In a world governed by the text of the law, employees would have a
strong case that they cannot be forced to give up their right to
bring class action litigation.  But we live in a world governed by
Circuit City and Concepcion -- both of which demonstrate the
Supreme Court's willingness to take liberties with the law in
forced arbitration cases. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Painter Testifies in Asbestos Removal Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Don Hopey, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gzette, reported that
Raymond H. Sida, a house painter by trade, testified that
developers Ramesh and Vikas Jain tried to bribe him to take
responsibility for a massive, illegal asbestos removal operation
at the 135-acre former Westinghouse research property in Churchill
that they own.

At the Allegheny County Health Department hearing, Mr. Sida said
the Jains offered him $100,000, two houses -- one for his mother
-- and a $5 an hour raise from his $19 an hour rate, if he would
agree to take the blame for the illegal asbestos removal work,
which was discovered by a Churchill Borough building inspector in
February and halted by the health department in May.

They also offered his mother a car, Mr. Sida said.

The Jains have denied any involvement in the asbestos removal
work, and Attorney Maurice Nernberg, who represents them, declined
to comment on Mr. Sida's testimony.

"I don't represent Mr. Sida. I'm not telling you anything else. I
have no comment on what he said."

The Allegheny County Health Department levied the largest asbestos
related fines in its history -- $1.47 million against the Jains
and $451,400 against Mr. Sida -- in June, alleging that more than
130,000 square feet of floor tile and pipe insulation containing
asbestos were removed from two large buildings at the former
George Westinghouse Research and Technology Park earlier this
year.

In addition, according to the health department enforcement
orders, the work was performed by untrained workers who were not
provided any protective clothing or breathing masks and who didn't
post warning signs, allowed asbestos dust to be vented into the
air outside the buildings, and did not dispose of the material in
a landfill licensed to accept hazardous materials. Mr. Sida said
the workers were all undocumented workers from Guatemala.

Mr. Sida, 51, who worked as a painter in New York City for more
than 20 years before he was hired by the Jains five years ago,
confirmed all of those allegations in his hearing testimony, but
claimed he was only following orders issued either by Ramesh Jain
or his son, Vikas, who, he said, told him the tile contained
"safe" levels of asbestos.

"I had checked on the crew and saw they were cutting and ripping
insulation from around the pipes. I knew that wasn't right," Mr.
Sida said. "I asked RJ (Ramesh Jain) why they were doing that and
he said, 'Don't worry about it.' He told me to keep my mouth shut
and not to tell anybody about the asbestos removal."

When he asked more questions he was pulled off of the Churchill
job and sent to work at another Jain property in Beckley, W.Va.
After three days there he was told the Churchill job had been shut
down, and Vikas Jain called him and told him to come back to
Pittsburgh.

"I asked to what purpose. He said, 'To take the blame,' " Mr. Sida
testified. "I said no and he got very angry. He promised the world
-- money, house, a car. 'We'll pay you if you take the blame.
Please, my father can't go through this.' "

Mr. Sida denied he was the owner of Pintura Construction, LLC, the
company that employed the asbestos removal workers, as the
original health department enforcement order claimed, saying that
the Jains created the company and forged his signature on bank
documents and corporate papers.

"This is orchestrated fraud by the Jains perpetrated on a painter
who was an hourly employee for five years," Ken Hardin, Mr. Sida's
attorney, said in an opening statement at the hearing, which was
held to determine Mr. Sida's ability to pay the fine. The Jains
went through a similar hearing on their ability to pay their fine
in August, but the hearing was closed to the public and news media
at their request.

Jason Willis, assistant solicitor for the health department's air
quality division, said the department had determined Mr. Sida
"would not have the ability to pay," and agreed to waive that
issue.

ACHD hearing Officer Max Slater delayed ruling on a motion by Mr.
Hardin to dismiss the case and have the enforcement order set
aside, pending testimony from two more witnesses, including Brad
Sommer, an attorney hired by the Jains to represent Mr. Sida. Mr.
Slater continued the hearing but set no date for its resumption.

The health department is still seeking information about where the
asbestos-containing material was taken.

"The department is trying to ascertain the truth the best we can
and find out what happened to the asbestos that was removed," Mr.
Willis said.

Mr. Sida testified the tile and pipe insulation was put into
plastic bags and taken by pickup truck to dumpsters in front of
the workers' residence, another Jains-owned property about 2 miles
from the Westinghouse property. The dumpsters were removed when
filled and replaced with an empty one.

Mr. Sida also said the material was taken by truck to the Motel 6
on Banksville Road in Banksville, another Jains-owned property,
where it was "put in a dumpster, or sometimes when the dumpster
was full, behind the building."

Shannon Sandberg, a health department air quality engineer who
attended the hearing, said the department is trying to determine
where the asbestos material was landfilled but tracking isn't
required on dumpsters that are supposed to contain only non-
hazardous materials.

Sampling at the redevelopment project work site by the ACHD found
the tile and pipe insulation to contain up to 65 percent amosite
asbestos, which studies have found to cause cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Attys Voice Support for Transparency
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Corcoran, writing for Huffington Post, reported that with
hundreds of attorneys gathered in San Francisco for the annual
Perrin Conference "asbestos summit," it seems a good time to note
that a new documentary featuring alleged fraud with asbestos
litigation earned a heated reception in Texas.

For trend spotters, the raucous film debate coupled with comments
from the summit may hint at a softening in victims' lawyers'
opposition to controversial efforts to increase transparency in
asbestos trust funds holding billions of dollars for people who
will become sick or die.

In the state that some call Ground Zero for the start of the
asbestos litigation, Canadian journalist Paul Johnson offered a
work-in-progress screening of his "UnSettled: Inside the Strange
World of Asbestos Lawsuits" at The University of North Texas
College of Law/Dallas on September 20. The after-movie discussion
panel included nationally prominent asbestos trial attorneys
Jeffrey Simon and Charles Siegel.

In a startling exchange, at least by asbestos-community standards,
both Simon and Siegel discounted impacts of a hotly-debated recent
Texas law increasing transparency for asbestos trust funds. The
issue is controversial in many states and is being debated in the
U.S. Congress.

The American Association for Justice, the leading national trial
lawyer group, has however steadfastly opposed the transparency
movement, usually called "FACT Act" after the federal "furthering
asbestos claims transparency" legislative proposal.

The "UnSettled" panel tension comes amid a shifting landscape for
America's longest-running toxic-substances litigation. A 2014
North Carolina case called "Garlock," named for the gasket maker
seeking bankruptcy protection, featured a federal judge finding
"evidence suppression" by victims' attorneys in all 15 cases
examined.

That milestone figures prominently in Johnson's film, which has
been screened in Washington, DC, and several state capitals.

In Garlock, the federal court reduced suggested liability by about
a billion dollars, and the discoveries led the gasket company to
file suit against Jeffrey Simon's firm and others, alleging
violations of civil RICO, the "racketeering influenced corrupt
organization" laws usually associated with gangsters. According to
attorney Michael Magner, of Jones Walker who represents Simon
Greenstone, Garlock and Simon Greenstone (and other parties)
agreed to dismiss the RICO case and Simon Greenstone's RICO and
fraud based counterclaim against Garlock. He added, the motion to
dismiss was granted purely on procedural grounds and the district
court did not consider the evidence.

Similar civil RICO cases are pending and one dozen U.S. State
Attorneys General are now investigating leading asbestos trusts,
worried, among other things, that required reimbursements to
Medicare and Medicaid have not been made.

There are other controversies: Another of the Texas post-movie
panelists, Dallas-based journalist Christine Biederman, is suing
in state court to pry open 20-year-old documents related to the
so-called "Baron & Budd coaching memo" that was referenced in the
Garlock case. In "UnSettled," it is noted that some people think
the memo teaches witnesses to lie.

One of the questions Johnson raised with his panelists/critics is
whether the current system really works for the victims, and do
lawyers take too much of the money? The Record noted that question
went "largely unanswered."

But trend-watchers take note: The opening panel in the Perrin
summit included a new report indicating that less than 25 percent
of the total money spent on asbestos litigation goes to help
victims. Meanwhile, yet another nationally prominent trial
attorney, Joe Rice of South Carolina, responded to a question
about the effects of FACT laws by saying they would be "no big
deal."

Johnson says he's considering whether he should incorporate the
comments from the Dallas screening into his film, along with the
new information about how much money the victims actually receive
-- which, he notes, is one of the major points of his movie.

The director said the film will be released this fall and other
screenings are being planned, including a "major screening" in
Pennsylvania in October.

Going forward, let's now see if the American Association for
Justice follows the lead of its two prominent attorneys supporting
greater transparency for the management of asbestos trusts. Heck -
- maybe even Baron & Budd attorneys will now stop fighting the
release of the infamous "coaching memo" deposition documents --
all for the greater good of transparency.

Now, that might give Johnson's movie a true Hollywood ending.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Tiles Discovered at Temple University
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that asbestos
floor tiles were discovered during remodeling and removed shortly
thereafter at Temple University's Center City (TUCC) building.
Upon discovery, the fifth floor was closed to classes and staff
and faculty offices were relocated.

An asbestos remediation firm was called in the next day to confirm
the presence of the hazardous material. In accordance with
Pennsylvania asbestos laws, 10 days ahead of work TUCC filed a
remediation plan and permit application with the city to remove
the asbestos tile.

That firm pulled up the tile, put down a sealant, and captured any
residual dust and debris. Inserting new vinyl tile and sealing
cracks "contained" the asbestos. Plus, a new layer of carpet was
added.

Pennsylvania is known for its asbestos exposure. From 1999 to
2015, approximately 2,779 residents died from mesothelioma. The
state has the second highest mesothelioma rate in the country. The
highest death rates occur in metropolitan areas surrounding
Pittsburg and Philadelphia (where TUCC is located).

Philadelphia has a significant history of activity in industries
where asbestos-containing products were widely used. Workers
exposed to asbestos may be at risk for asbestos cancer.

"There was never any risk to Temple students or staff or employees
or faculty because there was that double layer of encapsulation,"
said Director of TUCC William Parshall.

The fifth floor air was tested before, during, and after the
construction. Post-work results were negative, but the school
hired another independent asbestos contractor to also test the
air. Those results were negative as well.

"The type of asbestos found in tile is not as dangerous as people
think because it isn't the type of asbestos that is friable,
meaning the fibers don't get into the air easily," added Parshall.

Temple University isn't the only higher education institution with
asbestos problems. At least 90 University of Maryland buildings
were found to contain asbestos in October of last year.

At the beginning of 2016, asbestos was discovered in Harvard
University's housing. In 2015, the University of Montana pushed
its needed asbestos abatement work off until 2017 when it could
request state legislature funding.

"I feel like [Temple] should put something out there like, 'Hey,
just a heads up," said Junior Financial Planning Major Alyssa
Klauder whose class moved from the fifth floor to the third
without any explanation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Tosses Plaintiff Expert Testimony
------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Pennsylvania court has
found expert testimony proffered by the plaintiffs in an asbestos-
containing talc case to be inadmissible, saying that one expert
used a "mishmash of scientifically accepted methodologies."

In the Sept. 25 opinion, the Pennsylvania Court for Commons Pleas
for Philadelphia County found that the plaintiffs' experts
modified, varied and, eventually, deviated from generally accepted
methodology.

In reaching this conclusion, the court granted defense motions to
preclude the experts' testimony.

The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that Sally Brandt was
exposed to asbestos in Cashmere Bouquet brand cosmetic talc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ainslie Shops Fluffy Clean-up Begins
-----------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Lawson, writing for Canberra Times, reported that asbestos
removalists will encase the first floor and roof space of a
building at the Ainslie shops in plastic to remove the dangerous
loose-fill asbestos that has tainted the building for almost 50
years.

Edgar's Inn on the ground floor will close for two weeks after
this weekend's trading while the 10-day removal is underway.

Work Safety Commissioner Greg Jones said the removal company,
Caylamax, would access the first floor space from behind, setting
up a decontamination chamber at the back first-floor entry to the
building. Fully-suited removalists would enter and leave the flat
through the decontamination chamber, which would ensure no
asbestos fibres left the building. The loose-fill asbestos would
be double-bagged, removed the same way, and taken to the Mugga
Lane tip.

The area will be scaffolded, and the government says what the
community will see is mostly just the plastic cover.

Mr. Jones said the inside of the first-floor would be stripped,
including carpet, internal walls and ceilings, which would be
taken to the West Belconnen asbestos dump site. The wall cavities
would be cleaned, and the cavities between the corner building and
the neighbouring building would be cleaned from the inside.
Equipment would allow removalists to vacuum down the wall
cavities, then cameras would be lowered to check on the success of
removing fibres, he said. Work on Fluffy-contaminated houses has
shown extensive contamination in wall cavities and sub-floors.

The internal surfaces of the cleaned flat would be sprayed to
catch remnant fibres, then the building would be tested --
including testing downstairs at Edgar's -- before it would be
declared safe for use.

Negative-air suction units would be set up to ensure no fibres or
dust escaped the building during the clean-up, he said, insisting
that neighbouring businesses, local residents and visitors could
continue to use the shops as usual in complete safety. Air
monitoring would be done inside and outside the building and if
any abnormal readings were recorded work would stop.

"There is no risk to those people in that area or those tenants
and customers next door," Mr. Jones said.

The clean-up process was the same as being used in the demolition
of the more than 1000 Fluffy asbestos-contaminated houses in
Canberra, Mr. Jones said. "The principals and the processes are
exactly the same," he said.

Investigations in February and March showed the Fluffy asbestos
installed in the ceiling of the corner building at Ainslie, No 1
Edgar Street, had migrated into the ceiling of the neighbouring
building, which houses a newsagency and laundromat on the ground
floor and a therapeutic massage business on the first floor. A
positive sample was also returned from the building next to that,
which houses a bakery and takeaway.

Mr. Jones said Nos 3 and 5 would be cleaned probably in February
when trade at the shops was quieter. The leaking roof would be
replaced at the same time.

The clean-up of the Ainslie shops asbestos has angered residents
who have been forced to sell their houses to the government under
the mass buyback and demolition. Residents say if the Ainslie
shops building can be made safe, their homes should likewise have
been considered safe.

But Mr Jones said Nos 1, 3 and 5 would ultimately have to be
demolished, like the homes.

A government spokeswoman denied any inconsistency, pointing out
that some people were still living in their Fluffy homes, with the
buyback and demolition allowing them to stay until 2020. A small
number had refused to join the scheme and remained in their homes
under asbestos management plans.

Mr. Jones said the Ainslie shops building would continue to have
an asbestos management plan after the clean-up, which would be
regularly reviewed. Decisions on how the space could be used would
depend on the asbestos management plan.

Asked whether the floor of the floor upstairs flat would be taken
up to clean underneath, Mr. Jones said Worksafe has waiting for
advice on what state the floor was in and how it linked to the
ceiling of Edgar's below.

In March, Mr. Jones said his best guess was that Nos 1 and 3 would
have to be demolished within three to five years, but the
government now says the buildings might be allowed to stand
longer, depending on the report of the asbestos assessors.

The work is being paid for by building owner Jeff Darwin. The
government says workers or tenants with health concerns should
contact their doctor for advice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Payout for Kin Killed by Asbestos from IRA Bomb
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Edwards, writing for Belfast Telegraph, reported that
compensation has been paid to the family of a police officer who
died after being exposed to asbestos following the IRA's Brighton
bombing.

Jonathan Woods, a Metropolitan Police officer, was one of the
first on the scene after the 1984 attack and became known as its
sixth victim.

He contracted mesothelioma, an aggressive form of lung cancer, and
died last year.

Mr. Woods' widow Sharon sued the Metropolitan and Sussex Police
for compensation, saying emergency service staff were not warned
of the risks of asbestos during the clean-up operation.

Mr. Woods' family received an undisclosed payout in an out-of-
court settlement, the Argus newspaper in Brighton reported.

The police officer issued a writ against both Sussex Police and
the Met in August 2014, claiming he was not given adequate
protection at the site of the blast.

Sussex Police accepted liability, but he passed away in 2015
before his case was finalised.

Sussex Police said: "The claim involving the one deceased
Metropolitan Police officer was settled in February this year.

"The claim amount was split between Sussex Police and the Met
Police. We will not be going into the details of the amount of the
settlement."

The IRA carried out the attack in October 1984 in a bid to kill
Margaret Thatcher and her Cabinet during the Conservative Party
conference.

Lawyers for the Woods' family said the former bomb squad officer
spent 14 days sifting through dust and rubble by hand.

The legal case is thought to be the first civil suit of its kind
from a police officer working at the scene of a terror attack.

The Brighton Argus reported that lawyers said Mr. Woods had been
accompanied by 14 other officers from the Met and 15 Sussex
officers who may have suffered the same exposure.

Sussex Police sent letters to 154 people but said they had
received no further legal claims.

Solicitor Andrew James, representing Mr .Woods' family, said:
"When the bomb blew up, it collapsed the building into the
basement.

"Jonathan Woods and 15 Met and 15 Sussex Police officers picked
through the dust in the basement, which it turns out was
contaminated with blue asbestos, but weren't protected.

"In 1984 they would definitely have known the risks of asbestos.
There had been a big publicity campaign a couple of years before.
It can be 60 years before the effects start to show themselves,
but once you are exposed you are always at risk."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HFD Fined for Asbestos Violations During Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jobeth Devera, writing for Hawaii News Now, reported that two and
a half months after a fire ripped through the Marco Polo highrise
in Moiliili, the Honolulu Fire Department is being fined over
asbestos exposure concerns.

An investigation by the Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health
Division (HIOSH) found that HFD violated workplace safety
standards by failing to reduce the level of potential asbestos
exposure for firefighters. The citation said HFD failed to conduct
immediate decontamination procedures following the fire.

"Only one company bagged their turn-out gear and equipment at the
scene and the rest of the companies did not do so until they
returned to their stations. Some fire fighters did not bag their
contaminated turn-out gear until the end of their shift i.e. next
morning. As a result, the fire trucks and/or the fire stations may
be contaminated with asbestos and/or other hazardous materials,"
the citation said.

The penalties, classified as serious, resulted in a $7,000 fine
for HFD.

Hawaii Fire Fighters Association President Bobby Lee filed the
complaint one week after the deadly blaze.

"We approached the department and asked them to take proactive
safety measures and they refused, they disregarded us, so they
left us no choice but to involve HIOSH," Lee said.

Asbestos is commonly used as a fire retardent and insulation
material in older buildings.

Its fibers are microscopic and can easily be inhaled. Prolonged
exposure to asbestos can lead to serious health problems,
including cancer.

"Our firefighters cannot help the public if they're not kept as
safe as possible," said Lee. "In the end, all we want is for this
department and this leadership to do their job and put
firefighters and public safety first."

The fire department says it's still reviewing the citation and
will release a statement.

Meantime, officials still haven't released the cause of the fire
that killed three people.

Several units remain boarded up and clean up efforts continue.

The Hawaii Salvation Army was on property this weekend offering
residents additional assistance.

So far, the nonprofit said it's helped eight displaced families
find permanent housing.

"I think it's sinking in, the degree of damage and even the
personal trauma they're experiencing, so now they're coming out
and saying we really need help," said Anna Stone, Director of The
Salvation Army's Family Services Office and Pathway of Hope.

HFD must pay the fine within 20 days of receiving the notice. The
department also has until November 2 to abate the violations.

In July, Hawaii News Now reported HFD was under scrutiny for other
issues regarding the Marco Polo response.

Lee said he was unhappy with how executives handled it, and that
resources were lacking.

"When you're looking at a five-alarm fire, it really is a fire
that requires all of the command people to be there, especially
the executive staff," Lee said in July. "You got civilian deaths,
you got over 100 firefighters there on scene. I was somewhat
disappointed that the executive staff, that they weren't there."

Lee says an expensive HFD mobile command unit should've been
utilized, but wasn't.

"There's no reason for it not to be there," Lee said. "That's what
we bought, or the department bought that truck for. They spent a
lot of money, public money, to have that resource available to our
firefighters. To not only protect them, but to protect the public.
And there's absolutely no reason for it not to be there."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indian Co. Set to Buy 50K Tons of Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Counterview reported that an anti-asbestos campaign organization
has expressed the fear that an Indian company is all to import
50,000 tonnes of the hazardous commodity which allegedly causes
cancer. Quoting 'The Mirror', a well-known daily newspaper of
Zimbabwe, it says that this follows after the Government of
Zimbabwe "muscling its efforts to reopen the Shabani Mashaba Mines
(SMM)".

A principal supplier of asbestos, the state-run company was shut
down amid financial scandals back in 2004, but is likely to
"reopen at full capacity employing up to 5,000 workers", says the
Occupational and Environmental Health Network India (OEHNI),
underlining, this has happened "because the Indian company has
shown keen interest in importing 50,000 tonnes of SMM's asbestos
annually."

OEHNI notes, this is happening even though, "in recognition of its
harmful effects, asbestos mining is banned in India for the last
three decades". However, it adds, " Industries exploit legal
loopholes and import vast quantities of asbestos and produce
various products, directly increasing public health risks and
subject workers to occupational diseases."

Asbestos, when inhaled, causes asbestosis, an inflammatory
scarring of lung tissues, which leads to permanent and
irreversible damage to the respiratory system, weakening the
immune system and overall functioning of the body. According to
studies, it can also lead to lung cancer, cancer of mesothelioma
and various other organ cancers.

"The risk associated with the use of asbestos is far greater than
the benefits, ipso facto global consensus on banning the use of
asbestos except for India", says OEHNI in its statement, but
avoids naming the company.

"The asbestos sheets used in roofing on anganwadis and other
public spaces expose children and adults alike to the harmful
effects of asbestos", it says, insisting, "The Indian company in
question needs to be investigated. The Government of India has the
responsibility to protect its citizens through unilateral action
to ban mining, import, production, sale and consumption of all
materials based on asbestos with immediate effect."

Underlining that the problem lies at the policy level, OEHNI,
quoting the Rotterdam Convention, an international treaty to
investigate, monitor and restrict trans-boundary transportation of
toxic substances, says that the Indian delegation has "stubbornly
disagreed and has repeatedly blocked listing of chrysotile (white
asbestos) in Rotterdam Convention Hazardous Substances list (Annex
III)".

"Even the subcontinental neighbours, Nepal and Sri Lanka, are well
on their way to permanently ban production and consumption of
asbestos", it says, adding, yet, "Our administration and governing
politicians continue to ignore the constitutional and judicial
rights of our own less fortunate brothers and sisters."

Earlier, in a letter to the President of India, OEHNI's national
coordinator, Jagdish Patel, reminded him how India helped block
the inclusion of the chrysotile (white asbestos) in the Rotterdam
Convention Hazardous Substances list (Annex III), despite the fact
that some 60 countries "including Japan, Europe, Australia, and
also International Labour Organization and World Health
Organization, firmly believe that 'safe and controlled use' of
asbestos is not possible".

"The convention had put an eye opening figure that more than
100,000 people die each year from various asbestos related
diseases including a rare cancer of mesothelioma", Patel said,
adding, this runs against the Union Environment Ministry's Vision
Statement that says, "Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the
extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Auckland's Langham Hotel
-----------------------------------------------------------
New Zealand Herald reported that asbestos has been found in the
ceilings of a small number of rooms at the Langham Hotel in
Auckland.

The bonded asbestos was detected in an area of the hotel currently
under construction as a result of a routine test, the hotel's
communications team said in a statement.

"The health and safety of our guests, employees and contractors
are our highest priority.

"As a safety precaution and after consultation with the head
contractor BUILT (NZ) Pty Ltd, the work site has been closed until
further testing can be completed," the statement said.

The area had been fully contained from the public throughout the
building works and no guests or staff were able to access it.

"There is no risk to any guests or staff at the hotel."

All areas of the up-market hotel, which often hosts VIP visitors
to New Zealand, continued to operate as normal.

"We are complying with all health and safety requirements and will
continue to monitor the situation."

According to a 2016 statement on the government's Worksafe
website, asbestos was New Zealand's number one killer in the
workplace with some 170 people dying each year from asbestos-
related diseases.

Due to its strength, durability and resistance to fire and water,
asbestos was widely used in building products and materials until
the 1990s.

Regulations were changed last year to protect as many people as
possible from exposure to asbestos fibres.

According to the website of New Zealand asbestos removal company
Asbestos Solutions, bonded asbestos, as opposed to the more
fragile "friable asbestos", contains asbestos fibres "that are
bound within the matrix of the material it's contained within".

"Bonded asbestos is more difficult to damage and cause the release
of fibres by hand and includes materials such as asbestos cement
sheeting.

"However, bonded asbestos containing materials that have been
subjected to weathering, physical damage, water damage, fire or
other conditions may contain exposed fibres which could be
released upon disturbance."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Misdiagnosis Prompts Call for Greater Awareness
----------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Hitch, writing for ABC, reported that an Australian woman
whose asbestos-related cancer was misdiagnosed twice says doctors
and patients need to be more aware of the symptoms of
mesothelioma.

Two months ago Ruth Rose and her husband, Geoff, from Tuross in
NSW, were getting ready for the trip of a lifetime -- they were
headed to New York to travel along Route 66.

But when she got off the plane in New York, Ms. Rose could barely
breathe.

"I was shocked to find that I had a chest cavity full of fluid,
because it'd never entered my head that that was the problem," she
said.

Her lung had collapsed; one doctor said it resembled a sponge full
of water.

"I remembered that my brother had fluid with his mesothelioma, so
I told them I'd been exposed to asbestos and [the doctors] knew
what to look for, then," Ms. Rose said.  "It gave them the clue to
do further tests to prove that that's what it was."

After surgery to drain the fluid, a biopsy from the lining of Ms.
Rose's lung confirmed she had developed the asbestos-related
cancer that her brother is also fighting.

"It was like I was outside my body, like it was happening to
somebody else not me," she said.

Mesothelioma is a terminal cancer with few treatment options. It
is almost exclusively caused by asbestos, but it is difficult to
diagnose.

It was an extreme way for Ms. Rose to find out, especially after
she had sought help from her doctor for chest pain and shortness
of breath -- common symptoms of mesothelioma -- twice in the week
before her trip.

"[My GP] sent me in to the hospital where they said they were
going to do an ultrasound of my abdomen -- thinking it was a gall
stone -- and a chest x-ray," Ms. Rose said.  "But because they
were so busy and short-staffed, they did the ultrasound and said,
'double your [medication] and go home, you're fine, no chest x-
ray'."

On the second occasion, a day before she flew out, her doctor told
her to call paramedics.

"And they said, 'look we've been watching you breathe, you seem to
be okay, you've probably pulled a muscle in your back, you're
right to fly'," Ms. Rose said.

Symptoms similar to other conditions

Part of the problem was how similar the symptoms of the disease
were to a range of other conditions like asthma and emphysema,
said Dr. Samantha Herath from not-for-profit integrated cancer
treatment centre Chris O'Brien Lifehouse.

"It's not easy, definitely not easy to diagnose at the beginning,"
she said.

"Having vigilance and a patient saying that they had exposure
helps to raise red flags, and even at specialist levels it's a
combined diagnosis that requires a biopsy."

In Ms. Rose's case, she told her doctor when her brother was
diagnosed last year that she had been exposed to the toxic
substance.

She lived in Wittenoom -- a former asbestos mining town in West
Australia that has since been closed after growing health concerns
-- for 11 years with her brother during the 1970s and 80s.

"Neither of us thought to mention it," Ms. Rose said.  "I didn't
really believe I was seriously ill, I didn't know what it was, but
I'm a tough old girl."

Ms. Rose said even with what she knew from her brother's
experience, she had no idea she could also have the disease.

"I probably was getting little signals but didn't realise it," she
said.  "I put it all down to my age . . . I just didn't bother
going to see anyone because I just didn't think anything was
seriously wrong."

Greater awareness of symptoms needed

Ms. Rose's misdiagnosis experience was not an isolated incident,
said National Asbestos Diseases Foundation president Barry Robson.

"It's a terrible terrible story, but it highlights the fact that
most GPs in this day and age, even with all the publicity of all
the dangers of asbestos, can still misdiagnose an asbestos-related
disease," he said.

Mr. Robson said he was concerned that public awareness of the
dangers of asbestos were slipping, despite it occurring across the
country.

"I think people have got a bit complacent," he said.
"The possibility of being exposed is still there; we keep trying
to make the public aware that the danger of asbestos is still
present in our community."

In August, asbestos was found in the Alice Springs Hospital
pathology building, and has also been discovered in Perth
Children's Hospital.

It has been a long-standing issue in Canberra, with a number of
homes insulated with Mr. Fluffy still to be demolished.

After spending 11 days in a New York hospital, Ruth is now back
home trying to work out exactly how far her mesothelioma has
progressed.

She said she knew she would not beat the cancer, but was
determined to make the most of the time she had left.

"I'm going to have the biggest party you can imagine and invite
all my friends, I don't want them celebrating after I've gone,"
Ms. Rose said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Face Headwinds in Bid to Audit Payouts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Montgomery, writing for Law360, reported that insurers' bid
for deeper audits of asbestos injury trust payouts on behalf of
Philips North America hit skeptical questioning in Delaware's
Chancery Court, and reminders that the insurers appeared to have
already agreed to nothing more.

Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III told John S. Favate of
Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto PA, counsel to six insurance
companies involved, that there are arguments that "you don't have
the right to question" the trust's conclusions, based on a
settlement approved in 2009 and shored up in 2015 Chancery Court
opinion.

"You gave up that right in this document," the vice chancellor
said to Favate, referring to the settlement agreement. "Now you're
asking me to give you something more than what you bargained for."

Hundreds of millions in asbestos injury payouts have been approved
by the T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Asbestos Personal Injury Trust
for claims processed both before and after THAN sought Chapter 11
protection in 2008.

The debtor came to bankruptcy court with a prepackaged Chapter 11
plan under which the trust would be funded with $900 million from
insurance companies and Philips North America, the U.S. unit of
Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV. The insurers sued in 2014,
arguing that outlays appear to be headed significantly higher and
that trust settlements might have been based on fraud, including
reliance on doctors entangled in fraud disputes elsewhere.

An amended, six-claim complaint filed in April included three
breach of contract counts as well as a claim of interference with
a contract, a request for declaratory judgment and a demand for
specific performance. The trust and associated entities,
meanwhile, sought dismissal.

"We believe these claimants were treated by doctors who have a
pattern of falsifying diagnoses," or benefited from
miscalculations, Favate said. "The whole purpose of audits is to
monitor how payments are made, to make sure our payments are not
being affected by miscalculation or fraud."

Trust attorneys rejected the complaints and said THAN had complied
with its duties to the insurers, the ultimate payors of the damage
claims.

Sander L. Esserman of Stutzman Bromberg Esserman & Plifka PC,
counsel to the trust, said the insurers already have moved through
one audit cycle and "now, in desperation, they're asking for more"
as another annual audit looms, despite years of litigation
already.

"This is very 11th hour and very contrived, in my opinion, in
light of the record and what's been done and what the trust has
agreed to and what the trust had agreed to do in all future
audits," Esserman said. "It's our view that they got what they
bargained for. There's been no evidence of accounting error.
There's been no evidence of fraud submitted to the court."

Vice Chancellor Slights said the insurers appeared to be asking
the court to write audit protocols that they themselves left
unspecified under an earlier agreement and court decisions that
now control the process.

"The parties have agreed that this is a clear and unambiguous
provision," Vice Chancellor Slights said of the audit right,
noting that Vice Chancellor John W. Noble declined to be drawn
into disputes over detailed arrangements when he handled the case
and key rulings before his retirement last year.

Vice Chancellor Slights added: "You didn't bargain for the court
to intervene and I'm not going to be drawn into what it's going to
look like. Why should I do that now when the vice chancellor said
he wasn't going to do it in in 2015?"

Favate argued that the insurers' objections were raised only in
recent years because the potential for fraud was unclear, and said
that Vice Chancellor Noble concluded that the insurers had broad
audit rights.

"We're not asking for the ability to second-guess the trust,"
Favate said. "We're not asking for the ability to become a shadow
claim reviewer."

Kenneth H. Frenchman of McKool Smith PC, counsel for Philips
Electronics North America Corp., said an expansion of the
insurers' audit provision would eventually bring challenges to
every claim.

"The agreement says the trust has to determine if there's been an
accounting error. They have done that," Frenchman said. "They want
this court to make those determinations. That's not what the
bankruptcy plan said. That's not what the agreement said. They
don't get to second-guess."

Esserman said that the insurers' demands could potentially lead to
release of secret evaluation and weighting methods used by the
trust to arrive at settlement amounts.

"If it gets out, you're basically telling the world or other
people how claims are being valued," Esserman said, "and they can,
being good lawyers, fashion their claims to fit the formulas."

Vice Chancellor Slights said he would take the arguments under
advisement.

The insurance companies are represented by John S. Favate and
Henry T.M. LeFevre-Snee of Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto PA and
Marc C. Casarino of White and Williams LLP.

Philips Electronics North America Corp. is represented by David J.
Baldwin and Jennifer C. Wasson of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
and Kenneth H. Frenchman of McKool Smith PC.

The T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition LLC Asbestos Personal Injury
Trust is represented by Daniel K. Hogan and Garvan F. McDaniel of
Hogan McDaniel and Sander L. Esserman, Steven A. Felsenthal and
David A. Klinger of Stutzman Bromberg Esserman & Plifka PC.

The case is AIU Insurance Co. et al v. Philips Electronics North
America et al, case number 9852, in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposed Workers Urged to Sue Japanese Gov't.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Japan Times reported that the labor ministry said it will
encourage individual former asbestos plant workers who suffered
mesothelioma or other health damage, and relatives of such workers
who have died, to file damages lawsuits against the government.

The ministry decided to make the unusual move because such
lawsuits need to be settled before the government pays damages to
the victims.

There are 2,314 workers exposed to asbestos who are believed
eligible to receive damages but who have not yet filed lawsuits
against the government, according to the ministry. The ministry
plans first to send related leaflets to 756 whose names and
addresses are known.

In October 2014, the Supreme Court for the first time found the
government responsible for asbestos pollution affecting plant
workers in Osaka Prefecture, ruling that it was illegal for the
government to neglect to oblige asbestos plant operators to
install exhaust air ducts.

Following the ruling, the ministry decided to pay damages, under
certain conditions, after settling lawsuits with victims.

As of the end of August, a total of some JPY2.1 billion had been
paid to 236 plaintiffs, while 197 others were in the process of
claiming JPY1.5 billion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Knew About Asbestos in Talc Decades Ago
------------------------------------------------------------
Sydney Ziverts, writing for Consumer Safety, reported that Johnson
& Johnson may be in trouble again if newly released documents from
a trial in St. Louis, MO, is any indication. Not only did the
large pharmaceutical company know about the link between talcum
powder and ovarian cancer -- as has been revealed in previous
trials -- but a revealing memo shows that the company may have
been aware that the crushed talc it used in its baby powder and
body powder products was contaminated with asbestos, a known
carcinogen.

Earlier in September, lawyers representing more than 50 women in a
talcum powder lawsuit unveiled documents that they claim indicate
J&J was aware of asbestos fibers in its talc-based products over
the course of several decades. These documents appear to
contradict other memos, presented by the company's legal team,
that claim asbestos "has never been found and it never will."

Concerned that asbestos may have tainted talc used in the
company's products, a J&J official suggested the company move
toward using corn starch in its consumer products rather than
talc.

According to a Bloomberg News report, inspection officials at
Johnson & Johnson found traces of two types of asbestos in talc
sourced from a Vermont mine. A 1973 memo details their findings,
while a 1974 booklet describes asbestos contaminating talc
obtained from a mine the company bought in Italy.

These revelations add a new wrinkle to the already embattled
pharmaceutical and consumer products company. To date, juries have
found the company liable in four cases, with more than $700
million in damages being paid to women diagnosed with ovarian
cancer (or their surviving family members).

Asbestos, Talc & Ovarian Cancer

While there is still some debate over how big of a role talc plays
in causing ovarian cancer, there is little doubt that asbestos is
the primary cause of some types of cancer, and a contributory
cause for others.

Mesothelioma is the most directly linked cancer to be caused by
asbestos. It most commonly develops in the lining of the lungs,
but it can also originate in the abdomen or heart. Although rare,
mesothelioma is extremely deadly, with most patients dying in less
than a year after diagnosis.

Other cancers that have been linked to asbestos include cancers of
the colon, lungs, pharynx (throat), stomach, rectum -- and
ovaries. In fact, after mesothelioma, the two cancers most closely
linked with asbestos are ovarian cancer and laryngeal cancer,
according to a variety of scientific studies.

However, most of those studies have focused on occupational
exposure to asbestos, primarily because industrial workplaces
factories, mines, shipyards, and construction sites have seen the
highest amounts of asbestos exposure. Very few studies have been
done on direct exposure through asbestos-contaminated talc --
mostly because many people believed Johnson & Johnson and other
companies when they said their talc-based products were asbestos
free.

Talcum Powder & Ovarian Cancer Guide

With this new evidence that asbestos may have been found in baby
powder and body powder products for decades, it will likely
strengthen the lawsuits against J&J, given that there is an
already established medical link between asbestos and cancer. Even
if the exact role that talc plays in ovarian cancer -- and it is
clear that there is some role, given that talc particles have been
found in ovarian tumors going back to at least the 1970s -- is
still unknown, the additional evidence of asbestos exposure is
likely to increase the number of women seeking to make the
consumer products company pay.

This particular class action lawsuit covers more than 50 women who
filed in St. Louis, Missouri, and based on how it is going so far,
it could be J&J's most expensive yet. Previously, the company had
tried to get the suit thrown based on a recent Supreme Court
ruling that limits state courts' ability to consider complaints
filed by out-of-state plaintiffs. However, a federal judge
dismissed Johnson & Johnson's claims, deciding that the plaintiffs
had filed their initial complaints well before the established
deadline.

In any case, the company so far has refused to settle any of the
claims made against it, a strategy that has proven costly and time
consuming. Whether this new evidence becomes a tipping point that
makes the giant multinational corporation consider a new approach
remains to be seen.

What to Do If You Used Talcum Powder

For decades, many women were told they should use baby powder as
part of their daily feminine hygiene routine. This in spite of the
fact that Johnson & Johnson knew about medical studies potentially
tying the mineral to ovarian cancer.

So what should women do now?

   * First, stop using talcum powder on or near your genitals.
This includes powdering undergarments, sanitary napkins, tampons,
or other products that may be used near your vagina.

   * If you exhibit any signs or symptoms of ovarian cancer, talk
to your doctor and get them checked immediately. Early detection
is important to survival for any form of cancer.

   * If you are diagnosed with ovarian cancer after years of using
talcum powder products, talk to a lawyer who can help you
understand your legal rights. You may be eligible for compensation
to pay for treatment and related expenses, and most reputable
attorneys will evaluate your case for free.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim Awarded $6.8MM Jury Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Superior Court jury in Boston returned a verdict of $6.8 million
dollars against New England Insulation, a Canton company that
distributed and installed asbestos insulation material until the
early 1970s. Former Massachusetts insulator Timothy Ross passed
away due to mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer, on Aug. 19,
2013. His widow, Amy Ross, pursued this case individually and on
behalf of his estate.

"Our family, including my children, are very pleased that justice
was served," said Ross. "Were he here, I know my husband would be
greatly appreciative of the team that represented him and the jury
for their hard work and dedication."

This is the second multi-million-dollar verdict in two weeks for
the Thornton Law Firm and co-counsel Waters & Kraus against New
England Insulation. On Sept. 21, 2017, another Boston jury
returned a verdict of $7.55 million for Gerald Sylvestre, a former
New Hampshire power plant worker currently undergoing treatment
for mesothelioma.

"We're very happy with the verdict reached by the jury," said
attorney Andrew Wainwright of Thornton Law Firm. "They recognized
the pain the Ross family endured through the years and rightfully
held New England Insulation responsible for their actions."

Thornton Law Firm was founded in 1978 by Michael Thornton and two
other attorneys doing groundbreaking work for victims of
mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Now the leading
injury law firm in Massachusetts and the largest plaintiff law
firm in New England, the firm has 18 attorneys representing
thousands of clients in a wide variety of plaintiff-side work.
Thornton Law Firm has represented asbestos victims in New England
for nearly 40 years and this commitment led the firm to aid in the
creation of the Thornton House, which provides housing for
mesothelioma and asbestos disease patients and families.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Off-Roading Can Expose Riders to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Safety and Health reported that people who participate in "off-
roading" in certain areas of the United States may be exposed to
cancer-linked substances, including asbestos, according to
researchers at the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.

The researchers looked at 15 previous studies and reports to
determine the risk caused by off-road vehicle use in regions known
to have hazardous mineral fibers in the soil or unpaved road
surfaces. Dust churned up by four wheel-drive vehicles, all-
terrain vehicles, motorcycles and other vehicles intended for off-
highway use can contain naturally occurring asbestos and erionite
-- an asbestos-like substance found in sedimentary rocks in the
western United States and Appalachian Mountains.

Researchers found 665 cases in which the two materials were
present in the soil in five Western states. About 80 percent were
within 20 miles of an off-road vehicle trail, and almost one-third
were within one mile.

"ORVs have been designed to operate in rugged, unpaved terrain,
and they can produce copious amounts of dust," Chris Wolfe, an
epidemiologist and lead author of the study, said in a press
release. "This puts riders -- particularly children -- at risk of
inhalation exposure, but the dust can also be blown to other areas
and may pose a risk to others."

Wolfe suggests that riders either avoid these locations altogether
or wear safety masks and eyewear to reduce exposure.

The study was published online July 20 in the International
Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Rejects "Bare-Metal" Defense
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reported that a federal
appeals court said manufacturers of "bare-metal" products can be
held liable for negligence in maritime cases for asbestos-related
injuries that are a reasonably foreseeable result of their
conduct.

Ruling on an issue that has divided federal courts, the 3rd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals revived negligence claims by Roberta
Devries and Shirley McAfee, widows of two former U.S. Navy
officers who said their husbands contracted cancer from asbestos
exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sonoma State University Ordered to Pay $2.9MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Estes, writing for Sonoma State Star, reported that Sonoma
State University must pay faculty and staff who worked in
Stevenson Hall and other buildings a total of $2.9 million in
damages for violations of occupational health and safety laws
concerning the improper handling of asbestos, a Sonoma County
judge has decided.

The judgment, awarded in September by judge Nancy Case Shaffer, is
part of a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Thomas Sargent, a
university employee who claimed SSU forced him to resign after
raising alarms about how the school was handling asbestos at
Stevenson Hall and other locations.

"We are happy about the ruling," said Gina Voight, chapter
president of the CSU employees union at Sonoma State and
administrative coordinator of the department of kinesiology. "We
hope this will open the door for all 23 campuses to address
asbestos problems as well as challenge Cal-OSHA's outdated
standards of what acceptable levels of asbestos are."

SSU President Judy K. Sakaki has said the university will appeal
the decision.

The award is in addition to $387,000 that a jury awarded to
Sargent in March after finding both the California State
University Board of Trustees and Sargent's direct supervisor,
Craig Dawson, liable. The court awarded Sargent the money for lost
income, mental suffering and emotional distress as a result of
being forced to leave.

"We hope that the results of this case will prompt the university
to change its behavior," said Dustin Collier, primary lawyer for
Sargent. "Mr. Sargent and his attorneys are committed to
protecting all of its workers' with a safe place of employment."

Under Shaffer's order, the school will distribute a quarter of the
$2.9 million to 232 teachers, administrative assistants and other
university employees who worked in Stevenson Hall between May 1,
2013 and March 6, 2015. The amount is about $3,100 each. The
remaining three-quarters of the penalties will go to the Labor and
Workforce Development Agency and the Occupational Health and
Safety Administration.

An appeal will place a hold on the collection and distribution of
any penalty awards until after the appeals court resolves it.

The university spent approximately $3.5 million in legal fees to
fight the case and take it to trial.

Sargent, an environmental health and safety specialist at Sonoma
State, said he noticed unsafe practices starting in 2012, with the
treatment of asbestos materials in Stevenson Hall and other
buildings, and voiced his concerns to Dawson, his immediate
superior.

According to the lawsuit, Sargent, a 24-year employee of SSU,
contends faculty retaliated against him and forced him to resign
for reporting the unsafe conditions.

"When the trial concluded earlier this year, the jury made factual
findings about the number and type of OSHA violations committed by
the Sonoma State campus," said Collier. "However, the jury does
not have the power to determine the amount of penalties that are
owed. Only a judge can."

Shaffer awarded Sargent his job back on Sept. 21 ruling. His
reinstatement is on hold during the appeal process.

Meanwhile, the Sonoma Chapter of the California Faculty
Association had filed a grievance over the asbestos with the
university, hired a consultant and worked with OSHA for
independent testing.

"We are advocating for the health and safety for faculty, staff
and students," said Elaine Newman, chapter president of CFA at
Sonoma State and professor in the mathematics and statistics
department.

The test results from OSHA's independent study said the air in any
building did not exceed the legal threshold for asbestos fibers.

In a written statement to its members, the CFA decided late August
to withdraw its grievance because they "don't believe they can
convince an arbitrator that the campus has violated our contract
when the test results are in the legal range."

The statement also cautioned members, saying though the results
were within legal range, it does not mean air quality is
necessarily safe; only that there haven't been any findings that
the campus had too much asbestos as established by government
code.

Sakaki said in a campus-wide email that Stevenson Hall did not
pose a safety risk. "It is important for everyone to know that the
jury in the case found that Stevenson Hall is a safe and healthful
environment," she said.

According to Sakaki, Sonoma State has been "regularly conducting
air monitoring tests in Stevenson and other older buildings," and
have tested more than 100 samples over the past year. All but two
showed no detectable asbestos fibers, she said. Of the two samples
that did prove positive for fibers, both "were barely over the
detection threshold and well within the range that Cal/OSHA
considers acceptable," she said.

"Nothing is more important than the safety of our employees and
students," she said. "If conditions should ever warrant it, the
university would take all appropriate steps to abate the hazards
and protect the well-being of our students, faculty and staff."

OSHA's website says there is a permissible asbestos exposure limit
of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter for work in all industries.
However, that asbestos PEL is a target guideline for regulatory
purposes only and does not establish any level of "safe" asbestos
exposure.

"The Sonoma State community should be aware that there is a
separate lawsuit pending right now," Collier said. "In that case,
we are seeking penalties for the same OSHA violations to the
extent they occurred after March 6, 2015 as well as alleging
additional OSHA violations that were not known during the Sargent
case."

Collier alleges they have tests that prove the same violations
still exist at Sonoma State to this day and that the university
continues to allow its faculty and staff to work in unsafe
environments, not just at Stevenson Hall but other buildings as
well. Some new OSHA violations surround the campus' electrical
grid and electrician training/certification protocols.

Details about how often the university will be testing for
asbestos and what maintenance will be done to control the problem
were not available.

For questions about specifics, the STAR was directed to Craig
Dawson, director of environmental health and safety on campus, who
was out of the office. Dawson administers the asbestos management
plan on campus.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipyard Worker's Family Gets Asbestos Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
STV.tv reported that the family of a former shipyard worker in
Edinburgh who died after coming into contact with asbestos has
been awarded more than GBP340,000 in compensation.

Lord Clarke ruled the relatives of George Manson should receive
the payout because Henry Robb Ltd, which admitted liability for
the exposure, did not do enough to protect him from the substance.

Mr. Manson, originally from Dalkeith in Midlothian, died aged 81
in February 2016 from mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer.

The lethal condition has affected many shipyard workers who came
into contact with asbestos in the 1960s and 1970s.

Lord Clarke made the ruling in a written judgment that was issued
at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

Mr. Manson worked in the shipyard, which was located in Leith,
before moving to England with his family in the 1970s.

Mr. Manson came into contact with asbestos during his time at the
yard.


The court heard asbestos can cause mesothelioma.

Mr. Manson was diagnosed with the illness in July 2015 and his
condition deteriorated quickly.

Lawyers acting for Henry Robb agreed the company did not do enough
to stop Mr. Manson from being exposed to asbestos.

In a hearing held earlier this year, Lord Clarke was asked to
determine the amount of compensation that should be awarded to Mr.
Manson's family.

After hearing evidence Mr. Mason was a member of a "very close"
family and his relatives were devastated by his death, Lord Clarke
ruled payment should be set at GBP340,634.

Lord Clarke wrote: "When the deceased was diagnosed with his fatal
condition in July 2015, the family were informed that the deceased
would be likely to live only for a few months.

"In the event the deceased survived for about ten months but his
condition deteriorated rapidly and within two months of diagnosis
he could not really help himself.

"Although his family had been warned that the deceased was going
to die, his death itself came as a great shock to all of them."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shield Vital to Protect Vets' Asbestos Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Bauerle, writing for The Journal Gazette, reported that
retired Army Brigadier Gen. James Bauerle is vice chairman and
legislative chairman of the Military Veterans Coalition of
Indiana.

There are some hard truths embedded in the history of asbestos:
Exposure to the deadly mineral continues to claim thousands of
lives a year, with military veterans in their 60s and older
overrepresented among the victims. And there is a limited amount
of money to pay for their injuries.

Uncontrolled litigation and gaming the system are depleting the
funds available for sick veterans. The Furthering Asbestos Claim
Transparency Act is a much-needed reform to a system that
currently favors unscrupulous lawyers at the expense of legitimate
asbestos claimants.

Veterans deserve the right to sue over their exposure to asbestos,
which was ubiquitous in Navy ships and military installations
until the 1970s. But recovery options are limited, and plaintiffs'
lawyers have driven virtually all the big asbestos manufacturers
into bankruptcy. This leaves a dwindling number of companies and
asbestos bankruptcy trusts with a limited pool of assets to pay
future claims.

These trusts are typically under the control of the plaintiffs'
lawyers themselves -- the equivalent of putting the foxes in
charge of the henhouse. An audit of one of the biggest trusts
found that 41 percent of claimants had no disease or a less severe
condition than claimed. More recent investigations have uncovered
evidence of widespread fraud.

People only have one set of lungs and when they receive the tragic
diagnosis of mesothelioma, the deadly cancer associated with
asbestos exposure, they need all the help they can get. And by
preventing the trusts from sharing information among themselves,
with civil courts or with outside entities like Medicare and the
Veterans Administration, lawyers can quietly multiply a single
legitimate case into numerous fraudulent claims. Lawyers typically
collect 30 percent or more of what their clients receive, and by
manipulating claims to boost their fees they leave less money for
future, equally deserving victims.

The roughly 60 asbestos trusts outstanding currently hold more
than $30 billion in assets, but they are being drained at a rapid
pace. Lawyers have clustered their cases in jackpot districts to
maximize recoveries at the expense of future claimants.

The situation is particularly dire for veterans, who genuinely can
claim to have been exposed to asbestos in multiple locations as
they moved from ship to ship or from barracks to depot. I'm not
suggesting they shouldn't be able to recover based on such varied
work histories. But it is important for multiple claims to be
disclosed and made available to a judge so everybody involved
knows up front what a person has claimed and what they've been
paid for so far.

The FACT Act would address some of this gamesmanship by requiring
the trusts to make quarterly reports with the bankruptcy court
detailing claimants' names and their claims against the trust. It
doesn't require them to disclose settlement amounts, and it
doesn't require disclosure of sensitive information like Social
Security numbers.

Ohio passed its own version of FACT in 2013. Despite the claims of
plaintiffs' lawyers, there has been no appreciable delay in the
resolution of cases since the law went into effect. It's time to
enact federal legislation to bring order and transparency to the
entire asbestos bankruptcy system.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson & Johnson Facing Asbestos Talc Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Mauney, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that recently
unsealed documents from a lawsuit against consumer goods and
pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson revealed the company knew
for decades its talc products may have contained deadly asbestos
fibers.

The files show Johnson & Johnson was alerted of asbestos
contamination risks in the early 1970s and trained employees to
reassure the public its iconic baby powder products were never
contaminated with the carcinogenic mineral.

It is the latest chapter in the ongoing controversy over the
alleged link between talcum powder and cancer. The lawsuit --
filed on behalf of more than 50 women in St. Louis -- is among
more than 5,000 talc-related claims against J&J.

Most of the lawsuits blame the company's talc products for causing
women to develop ovarian cancer, but previous lawsuits link talc
to mesothelioma, a rare cancer caused almost exclusively by
exposure to asbestos.

In 2016, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded Philip Depoian
$18 million against talc supplier Whittaker, Clark & Daniels. It
remains the largest verdict for mesothelioma linked to talcum
powder.

The St. Louis-based lawsuit against J&J alleges talc used in the
company's products "is not now, nor has it ever been, free from
asbestos and asbestiform fibers."

Johnson & Johnson Ensures Products are Asbestos-Free

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires testing to
ensure talcum powder products are asbestos free.

In the lawsuit, J&J supplied documents showing tests of its talc
dating back to 1972, finding no traces of asbestos. But federal
regulations on talcum powder didn't exist until 1973.

A statement on the company's website reads: "Since the 1970s, talc
used in consumer products has been required to be asbestos-free,
so JOHNSON'S talc products do not contain asbestos, a substance
classified as cancer-causing. JOHNSON'S Baby Powder products
contain only U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) grade talc, which meets the
highest quality, purity and compliance standards."

Talc products were popular through the mid-1970s, and many
continue to be used today. The natural mineral can be found in
many pharmaceuticals and cosmetics as well as in chalk, rubber and
ceramics.

Considered one of the world's softest minerals and coveted for its
ability to absorb moisture, talc has been mined from deposits
interwoven with asbestos fibers. According to the unsealed
documents in the lawsuit, J&J officials expressed concern over
possible asbestos contamination from talc mined in Vermont and
Italy.

One official suggested the company should start using corn starch
in its consumer products instead of talc. A J&J research scientist
also reportedly persuaded one of the company's talc suppliers --
the Val Chisone mine in Italy -- to stop distributing English-
language versions of a 1974 informational booklet that revealed
talc from the mine contained trace amounts of asbestos.

"The business threat is that it can raise doubts on the validity
of the documentation of purity and safety of talc," the scientist
said in the document.

How Asbestos in Talc Can Cause Cancer

Inhaling or ingesting asbestos fibers can lead to serious
diseases, including asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Some studies suggest asbestos fibers can accumulate in the ovaries
of women, potentially leading to ovarian cancer. Using talc
products on the genitals could be to blame, but there is still
much debate regarding exposure pathways.

Dr. Barry Castleman, an asbestos risk consultant, told Bloomberg
that even trace amounts of asbestos in products such as baby
powder can pose a cancer risk.

"It is a problem even if it's found in small amounts in talc,
especially because it's used by children and women," Castleman
said.

J&J spokesman Ernie Knewitz cited the FDA's regulations when
defending his company in an emailed statement to Bloomberg.

"We are confident that our talc products are, and always have
been, free of asbestos, based on decades of monitoring, testing
and regulation," Knewitz said. "Historical testing of samples by
the FDA, numerous independent laboratories, and numerous
independent scientists have all confirmed the absence of asbestos
in our talc products."

A 2012 study from the FDA found no traces of asbestos in dozens of
talc-containing cosmetic products. However, the agency
acknowledged the results were not conclusive since only four or
the nine requested talc suppliers submitted samples.

According to the statement on J&J's website, "The company's
sources for talc are routinely evaluated using a sophisticated
battery of tests designed to ensure compliance with all global
standards."

Pharmaceutical Giant Continues to Fight Lawsuits

J&J has been held liable by five juries related to links between
its talc products and ovarian cancer, including a $417 million
verdict in August. In the last two years, the company has been hit
with more than $600 million in jury awards.

None of those cases are related to asbestos, however.

The first asbestos-related lawsuit against J&J expected to go to
trial involves California resident Tina Herford, who allegedly
developed mesothelioma from breathing in the company's Baby Powder
and Shower to Shower products between 1956 and 1993.

Unlike failure-to-warn lawsuits against asbestos insulation
manufacturers, who intentionally added the toxic mineral to
products, claims against talc companies gives plaintiffs a new
angle -- negligence in the failure to detect a contaminant and
falsely ensuring a product's safety.

Although Herford's case is the first set for trial against J&J,
there have been several notable asbestos-related verdicts against
other talc manufacturers.

In April 2015, a California woman won a $13 million lawsuit
against Colgate-Palmolive. The jury ruled Judith Winkel developed
mesothelioma from asbestos in the company's Cashmere Bouquet
talcum powder.

That same year, a New York jury awarded $10.55 million in a
wrongful death case against R.T. Vanderbilt.

In the record-setting 2016 case against Whittaker, Clark &
Daniels, the jury ruled Depoian developed mesothelioma after he
was exposed to asbestos-contaminated talc his father brought home
from working in a barber shop.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 616 Pending Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation had 616 outstanding claims related to asbestos-
related matters at June 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "For the six months ended June 30, 2017, 175
claims were dismissed and 9 claims were settled.  Settlements
totaled approximately US$1.2 million for the six months ended June
30, 2017.

"We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as a
defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts across the
country by persons alleging personal injury from exposure to
products containing asbestos.  We have never mined, milled,
manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and provided to
industrial users a limited number of products that contained
encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these products
in the late 1980s.  Most of the claims filed against us involve
numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred.

"We recognize a liability for asbestos-related contingencies that
are probable of occurrence and reasonably estimable.  In
connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos
related matters, we record asbestos-related insurance receivables
that are deemed probable.  Our estimates of asbestos-related
contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables are based
on an independent actuarial analysis and an independent insurance
usage analysis prepared annually by third parties.  The actuarial
analysis contains numerous assumptions, including general
assumptions regarding the asbestos-related product liability
litigation environment and company-specific assumptions regarding
claims rates (including diseases alleged), dismissal rates,
average settlement costs and average defense costs.  The insurance
usage analysis considers, among other things, applicable
deductibles, retentions and policy limits, the solvency and
historical payment experience of various insurance carriers, the
likelihood of recovery as estimated by external legal counsel and
existing insurance settlements.

"We review our asbestos-related forecasts annually in the fourth
quarter of each year unless facts and circumstances materially
change during the year, at which time we would analyze these
forecasts.  Currently, these analyses project liabilities and
related insurance receivables over a 10-year period.  It is
probable we will incur additional costs for asbestos-related
claims following this 10-year period, but we do not believe that
any related contingencies are reasonably estimable beyond such
period based on, among other things, the significant proportion of
future claims included in the analysis and the lag time between
the date a claim is filed and its resolution.  Accordingly, no
liability (or related asset) has yet been recorded for claims that
may be asserted subsequent to 2026.

"As of December 31, 2016, the asbestos-related claims and
insurance receivables for the 10-year projection period were
US$52.0 million and US$48.4 million, respectively.  As of June 30,
2017, there have been no changes to these projections.

"The defense and settlement costs of our asbestos-related product
liability litigation have been substantially covered by insurance.
We have identified continuous coverage for primary, excess and
umbrella insurance from the 1950s through the mid-1980s, except
for a period in the early 1960s, with respect to which we have
entered into an agreement for primary, but not excess or umbrella,
coverage.  In addition, we have entered into a cost sharing
agreement with most of our primary, excess and umbrella insurance
carriers to facilitate the ongoing administration and payment of
claims by the carriers.  The cost sharing agreement may be
terminated by any party, but will continue until a party elects to
terminate it.  The agreement has not been terminated, however, we
expect to exhaust individual primary, excess and umbrella
coverages over time, and there is no assurance that such
exhaustion will not accelerate due to additional claims, damages
and settlements or that coverage will be available as expected.
Accordingly, while we believe it is reasonably possible that we
may incur losses and defense costs in excess of our accruals in
the future, we do not have sufficient data to provide a reasonable
estimate or range of such losses and defense costs, at this time.

"The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the
related insurance receivables were based on facts known at the
time and a number of assumptions.  However, projecting future
events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year,
the average cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time
it takes to dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers
and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as
well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation
in the United States could cause the actual liability and
insurance recoveries for us to be higher or lower than those
projected or recorded.

"There can be no assurance that our accrued asbestos liabilities
will approximate our actual asbestos-related settlement and
defense costs, or that our accrued insurance recoveries will be
realized.  We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves and
believe we have substantial unutilized insurance coverage to
mitigate future costs related to this matter."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/i5zzph


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at June30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., continues to face personal injury
lawsuits filed by people claiming exposure to asbestos in certain
product components, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of our products many years ago.  Currently there are a few
thousand claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants,
together with hundreds of other companies.  In some cases, the
claims involve products from divested businesses, and we are
indemnified for most of the costs.  However, we have agreed to
defend and indemnify asbestos claims associated with products
manufactured or sold by our former Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses prior to
their divestiture by us, which occurred on January 31, 2007.

"We are also responsible for half of the costs and liabilities
associated with asbestos cases against the former Rockwell
International Corporation's divested measurement and flow control
business.  But in all cases, for those claimants who do show that
they worked with our products or products of divested businesses
for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we have
meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of
the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing
components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the
part of many claimants.  We defend those cases vigorously.
Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of
these claims with no payment to claimants.

"We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary.  Our insurance carrier entered into a cost share
agreement with us to pay the substantial majority of future
defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.  We
believe that this arrangement will continue to provide coverage
for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of
the asbestos liability.

"We also have rights to historic insurance policies that provide
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising out of certain asbestos liabilities
relating to the divested measurement and flow control business.
We initiated litigation against several insurers to pursue
coverage for these claims, subject to each carrier's policy
limits, and the case is now pending in Los Angeles County Superior
Court.  In September 2016, we entered into settlement agreements
with certain insurance company defendants, and we continue to
pursue our claims against the remaining defendants.  We believe
these settlement agreements will continue to provide partial
coverage for these asbestos claims throughout the remaining life
of asbestos liability.

"The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse
rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or
the settlement process.  Subject to these uncertainties and based
on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe
these lawsuits will have a material effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations.

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses.
In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims
and proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related
to the period that we owned the businesses, either because we
agreed to retain certain liabilities related to these periods or
because such liabilities fall upon us by operation of law.  In
some instances, the divested business has assumed the liabilities;
however, it is possible that we might be responsible for
satisfying those liabilities if the divested business is unable to
do so.

"In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
business, semiconductor systems business and avionics and
communications business, the spun-off companies have agreed to
indemnify us for substantially all contingent liabilities related
to the respective businesses, including environmental and
intellectual property matters.

"In conjunction with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to
indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to
certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these
businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum
exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/fq0SRs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Faces Asbestos Lawsuits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc., continues to defend itself against a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

AMETEK states, "The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been
named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits.
Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired
by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured
or sold by the Company.  In connection with these lawsuits, the
seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company
against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims").  The Indemnified
Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such
seller.  The seller has met its obligations, in all respects, and
the Company does not have any reason to believe such party would
fail to fulfill its obligations in the future.  To date, no
judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of
any asbestos-related lawsuit.  The Company believes it has strong
defenses to the claims being asserted and intends to continue to
vigorously defend itself in these matters."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/YZsWKL


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had US$81.0MM Reserves at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
had reserved US$81 million at June 30, 2017, for asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "At June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016,
Generation had reserved approximately US$81 million and US$83
million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury
claims.  As of June 30, 2017, approximately US$21 million of this
amount related to 224 open claims presented to Generation, while
the remaining US$59 million of the reserve is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2050, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are
updated on an annual basis.  On a quarterly basis, Generation
monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims
to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether
an adjustment to the reserve is necessary."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/TIaMR1


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Expects Additional Exposure at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that there is a reasonable possibility that Exelon
may have additional exposure to estimated future asbestos-related
bodily injury claims in excess of the amount accrued and the
increases could have a material adverse effect on future results
of operations and cash flows of the Company and its subsidiaries
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Commonwealth Edison Company, PECO
Energy Company and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company.

The Company states, "On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania held that the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act
does not apply to an employee's disability or death resulting from
occupational disease, such as diseases related to asbestos
exposure, which manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee's
last employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity
provision of the Act does not preclude such employee from suing
his or her employer in court.  The Supreme Court's ruling reverses
previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court precluding
current and former employees from suing their employers in court,
despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible for
workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more than
300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure to
asbestos.  Since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in
November 2013, Exelon, Generation, and PECO have experienced an
increase in asbestos-related personal injury claims brought by
former PECO employees, all of which have been reserved for on a
claim by claim basis.  Those additional claims are taken into
account in projecting estimates of future asbestos-related bodily
injury claims.

"On November 4, 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court found that the
provisions of the Illinois' Workers' Compensation Act and the
Workers' Occupational Diseases Act barred an employee from
bringing a direct civil action against an employer for latent
diseases, including asbestos-related diseases that fall outside
the 25-year limit of the statute of repose.  The Illinois Supreme
Court's ruling reversed previous rulings by the Illinois Court of
Appeals, which initially ruled that the Illinois Worker's
Compensation law should not apply in cases where the diagnosis of
an asbestos related disease occurred after the 25-year maximum
time period for filing a Worker's Compensation claim.  Since the
Illinois Supreme Court's ruling in November 2015, Exelon,
Generation, and ComEd have not experienced a significant increase
in asbestos-related personal injury claims brought by former ComEd
employees.

"There is a reasonable possibility that Exelon may have additional
exposure to estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims
in excess of the amount accrued and the increases could have a
material adverse effect on Exelon's, Generation's, ComEd's, PECO
and BGE's future results of operations and cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/TIaMR1


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BGE Still Defends Asbestos Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that its subsidiary, Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company, continues to face asbestos-related claims.

The Company states, "Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation
(now Generation) subsidiaries have been involved in several
actions concerning asbestos.  The actions are based upon the
theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE and Generation
knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard.  In
addition to BGE and Generation, numerous other parties are
defendants in these cases.

"Most asbestos claims which have been resolved relating to BGE and
certain Constellation subsidiaries have been dismissed or resolved
without any payment and a small minority of these cases has been
resolved for amounts that were not material to BGE or Generation's
financial results.  Presently, there are an immaterial number of
asbestos cases pending against BGE and certain Constellation
subsidiaries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/TIaMR1


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Estimates $37MM Liability at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation estimates US$37.0 million potential liability
for the asbestos-related claims as of June 30, 2017, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "The Company's subsidiaries are involved in
various unresolved legal actions, administrative proceedings and
claims in the ordinary course of business involving, among other
things, product liability, commercial, employment, workers'
compensation, intellectual property claims and environmental
matters.  The Company establishes accruals in a manner that is
consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States for costs associated with such matters when
liability is probable and those costs are capable of being
reasonably estimated.  Although it is not possible to predict with
certainty the outcome of these unresolved legal actions or the
range of possible loss or recovery, based upon current
information, management believes the eventual outcome of these
unresolved legal actions, either individually or in the aggregate,
will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position,
results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

"In connection with its sale of the Company, Invensys plc
("Invensys") provided the Company with indemnification against
certain contingent liabilities, including certain pre-closing
environmental liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to
such indemnity obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to the matters relating to the
Ellsworth Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims.
The indemnity obligations are subject, together with indemnity
obligations relating to other matters, to an overall dollar cap
equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in excess of
US$900 million.  The following paragraphs summarize the most
significant actions and proceedings:

  * In 2002, Rexnord Industries, LLC ("Rexnord Industries") was
named as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"), together with at
least ten other companies, at the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site,
Downers Grove, DuPage County, Illinois (the "Site"), by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"), and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA").  Rexnord Industries'
Downers Grove property is situated within the Ellsworth Industrial
Complex.  The USEPA and IEPA allege there have been one or more
releases or threatened releases of chlorinated solvents and other
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, allegedly
including but not limited to a release or threatened release on or
from the Company's property, at the Site.  The relief sought by
the USEPA and IEPA includes further investigation and potential
remediation of the Site and reimbursement of USEPA's past costs.
Rexnord Industries' allocated share of past and future costs
related to the Site, including for investigation and/or
remediation, could be significant.  All previously pending
property damage and personal injury lawsuits against the Company
related to the Site have been settled or dismissed.  Pursuant to
its indemnity obligation, Invensys continues to defend the Company
in known matters related to the Site and has paid 100% of the
costs to date.
  * Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 300 claimants) are
pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions
relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence
of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured
by the Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners.
Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid
100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits.
Similarly, the Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two
pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal
injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product
allegedly manufactured by Prager.  Additionally, there are
numerous individuals who have filed asbestos related claims
against Prager; however, these claims are currently on the Texas
Multi-district Litigation inactive docket.  The ultimate outcome
of these asbestos matters cannot presently be determined.  To
date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the
costs related to the Prager asbestos matters.  The Company
believes that the combination of its insurance coverage and the
Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs of
these matters.

"In connection with the Company's acquisition of The Falk
Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand provided the Company
with indemnification against certain products-related asbestos
exposure liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to such
indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend
and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and
that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity obligations are
not subject to any time or dollar limitations.

"Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple
lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk.  There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits.  The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined.  Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity
obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

"Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to
asbestos litigation.  As of June 30, 2017, Zurn and numerous other
unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 7,000
asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 17,000
claims.  Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by
exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture
asbestos or asbestos components.  Instead, Zurn purchased them
from suppliers.  These claims are being handled pursuant to a
defense strategy funded by insurers.

"As of June 30, 2017, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims as well as the claims
expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately
US$37.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to
pay approximately US$28.0 million in the next ten years on such
claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years.  The US$37.0 million was developed based on
actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout
for current and future claims.  There are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims,
future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives.  As a result, actual
liability could differ from the estimate described herein and
could be substantial.  The liability for the asbestos-related
claims is recorded in Other liabilities within the condensed
consolidated balance sheets.

"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of June 30, 2017, is approximately
US$241.9 million, and believes that all current claims are covered
by insurance.  However, principally as a result of the past
insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers, certain
coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other carriers
have paid the first US$165.9 million of aggregate liabilities.

"As of June 30, 2017, the Company had a recorded receivable from
its insurance carriers of US$37.0 million, which corresponds to
the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery.  However, there is no assurance that US$241.9 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed US$241.9 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers.  The
receivable for probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in
Other assets within the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/RqIXP7


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Had 23 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that there are 23 asbestos-related claims against
its subsidiaries pending as of June 30, 2017, in Mississippi and
Louisiana with regards to their drilling operations.

The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21
complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts
of the State of Mississippi, and in 2014, a group of similar
complaints were filed in Louisiana.

"The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants,
generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos
containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with
drilling operations, claiming negligence, products liability,
strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and
general maritime law.  The plaintiffs generally seek awards of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-
appointed special master has ruled that a Jones Act employer
defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages.

"At June 30, 2017, 15 plaintiffs have claims pending in
Mississippi and eight plaintiffs have claims pending in Louisiana
in which we have or may have an interest.

"We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can
provide no assurance as to the outcome.  We historically have
maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain
whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out
of these claims.  Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date,
we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these
claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed
consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Njds92


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 168 Injury Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that one of its subsidiaries was a defendant in
approximately 168 asbestos-related injury lawsuits as of June 30,
2017.

The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as a
defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits
arising out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat
exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment
of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"As of June 30, 2017, the subsidiary was a defendant in
approximately 168 lawsuits, some of which include multiple
plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are approximately 182
plaintiffs in these lawsuits.

"For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided with
sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether
all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary,
the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged
injuries.

"The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its
operations were discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than insurance policies, rights and
proceeds, including (i) certain policies subject to litigation and
(ii) certain rights and proceeds held directly or indirectly
through a qualified settlement fund.  The subsidiary has in excess
of US$1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the
subsidiary.

"Although not all of the policies may be fully available due to
the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the subsidiary
will have sufficient funding directly or indirectly, including
from settlements and payments from insurers, assigned rights from
insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with insurers
to respond to these claims.

"While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of
these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any,
resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on
our condensed consolidated statement of financial position,
results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Njds92


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Faces 1,595 Cases at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,595 cases were outstanding at June 30, 2017, for
which Standard Motor Products, Inc., may be responsible for any
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
June 30, 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 June 30, 2017, approximately 1,595 cases were
outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related
liabilities.  Since inception in September 2001 through June 30,
2017, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately
US$22.1 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/gVPfiF


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favors Foster Wheeler, Warren
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court of Delaware
approves and adopts the August 30, 2017 Report and Recommendation
filed by Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon finding that there are
no genuine disputes as to any material facts, thereby granting the
motion for summary judgment filed by Foster Wheeler Energy
Corporation and Warren Pumps, LLC.

The case is ICOM HENRY EVANS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALFA LAVAL,
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-681, (D. Del.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 26, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/WGk2XP from Leagle.com.

Icom Henry Evans, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin, The
deBruin Firm LLC.

Icom Henry Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E. Soechting,
Jr., pro hac vice & Samuel I. Iola, pro hac vice.

Johanna Elaine Evans, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin,
The deBruin Firm LLC & Samuel I. Iola, pro hac vice.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall,
Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E.
Soechting, Jr.,

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E.
Soechting, Jr.,

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E.
Soechting, Jr.,

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies John Crane's Summary Judgment Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court of Delaware
issued an order adopting the August 30, 2017 Report and
Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon, finding
the existence of a genuine dispute as to a material fact, thereby
denying the motion for partial summary judgment regarding punitive
damages filed by John Crane, Inc.

The case is ICOM HENRY EVANS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALFA LAVAL,
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-681, (D. Del.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 26, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/eCgLSG  from Leagle.com.

Icom Henry Evans, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin, The
deBruin Firm LLC.

Icom Henry Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E. Soechting,
Jr., pro hac vice & Samuel I. Iola, pro hac vice.

Johanna Elaine Evans, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin,
The deBruin Firm LLC & Samuel I. Iola, pro hac vice.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall,
Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E.
Soechting, Jr.,

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E.
Soechting, Jr.,

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E.
Soechting, Jr.,

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Reverses Owens Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
The First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of New York unanimously reverses the Order entered January
31, 2017, which granted the motion of Defendant International
Paper Company for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's
products liability claims as against it, granted the motion of
Defendant Owens-Illinois, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing
plaintiffs' products liability claims and common-law negligence
claim as against it, and sua sponte dismissed the remainder of
plaintiffs' claims against International Paper Company and Owens-
Illinois, and reinstates the claims.

The First Department explains that the re-sizing of wood laminate
doors with asbestos-containing cores resulted in the incidental
release of asbestos dust into Plaintiffs' facilities. In any
event, International Paper Company and Owens-Illinois both failed
to make out their prima facie burdens as movants, inasmuch as no
testimony, either expert or lay, was proffered regarding the
foreseeability that the doors, and thus their core, would be cut
for their use as paneling.

To the extent that the order sua sponte dismissed the complaint,
that portion of the order is not appealable as of right. However,
given the extraordinary nature of the sua sponte relief, that is,
dismissal of the complaint, the First Department nostra sponte
deems the notice of appeal from that portion of the order to be a
motion for leave to appeal, grant such leave, and reverse the
order.

The appealed case ALL CRAFT FABRICATORS, INC., at al., Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. ATC ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Defendants,
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Index
No. 156897/13, (1st Dept. App. N.Y.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 26, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/drnHvv from Leagle.com.

Cullen and Dykman LLP, New York (Timothy J. Flanagan of counsel),
for appellants.

Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Lake Success (Thomas M. Toman, Jr. of
counsel), for International Paper Company, respondent.

Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, New York (Joshua D. Lee of
counsel), for Owens-Illinois, Inc., respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suit vs. Volkswagen in "Haynes" Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court of Delaware
has issued an order approving and adopting the August 22, 2017
Report and Recommendation, filed by Magistrate Judge Sherry R.
Fallon, granting Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.'s unopposed
motion to dismiss after finding that the Court lacks jurisdiction
over the movant.

The case is HAROLD HAYNES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID
SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-607,
(D. Del.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 26, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/LLHtPl from Leagle.com.

Harold Haynes, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Balick, Balick &
Balick, LLC.

Harold Haynes, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Collins Smith,
Balick & Balick, LLC, Andrew Caulfield Dalton, Dalton & Associates
P.A. & Bartholomew J. Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A..

Judy Haynes, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Balick, Balick &
Balick, LLC, Michael Collins Smith, Balick & Balick, LLC, Andrew
Caulfield Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A. & Bartholomew J.
Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A..

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Denies Re-Argument Bid in "Warren"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of New York denies the separate motions for re-argument
filed by J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., and Theresa Warren, as
well as the alternative motion of J-M Manufacturing for leave to
appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision and order of the
Court, entered on June 15, 2017.

The Case In Re NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. THERESA WARREN,
ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants, J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant,
Index No. 190281/14, (1st Dept. App. N.Y.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 26, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/gvZHMr from Leagle.com.


                             *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 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  * * *