---

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


            Friday, February 16, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 35



                            Headlines


A+ CARE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Armstrong" Suit Claims
AARP INC: Faces "Sacco" Suit in Southern District Florida
ABV DINER: Faces "Joya" Suit in Eastern District New York
ACCESS MIDSTREAM: Faces "Kovach" Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
ACE NDT: "Goudge" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under FLSA

ADORO LEI LLC: Faces "Oropeza" Suit in S.D. New York
ADVANCE AUTO: Wigginton Sues over Share Price Drop
ADVANCED CALL: Faces "Shevchuk" Suit in E.D. New York
AGILITY ENERGY: "Burton" Suit Seeks to Certify Coordinators Class
ALMOST FAMILY: Faces "Rosenblatt" Suit Over LHC Group Merger Plan

ALOHA TENT: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Certification of Workers Class
AM RETAIL: Court Narrows Claims in "DaCorta" GBL Suit
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
AMG QUICKSERVE: "Mejia" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under Labor Law
APPLE INC: Vietnamese Lawyers Sue Over Slowing iPhones

AQUA LUNG: Court Narrows Claims in Defective Dive Computer Suit
ARRIS INT'L: Claims in Cable Modem Consumer Litigation Trimmed
ATRIA MANAGEMENT: Certification of Employees Class Sought
BAYER CORP: Court Allows Amendment in "Jordan" Suit
BITCONNECT LTD: Kline, et al. Sue over Cryptocurrency Fraud

BMV REO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Quezada" Action Claims
BOMBBOMB LLC: Has Send Spam Advertisements, "Alves" Suit Claims
BORE COMPANY: "Reyna" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
BORROWERSFIRST INC: Faces "Chavez" Suit in S.D. California
BRODSKY ORGANIZATION: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York

BURNSVILLE, MN: Can Enforce City Zoning Code, Minn. App. Rules
CAPITAL ONE: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Nissou-Rabban" FCRA Suit
CARING PROFESSIONALS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Polyakov Says
CBC RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Pardue Says
CIMAREX ENERGY: Faces Duncan Group Suit in W.D. Oklahoma

CITIBANK N.A.: Lopez Sues over Basic Checking Account Charges
CONDOR CAPITAL: Certification of Pennsylvania Class Sought
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Kaspereit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Bryan" Suit in E.D. of New York

CVS HEALTH: District Court Dismisses TCPA Class Action
D & A SERVICES: Faces "Golub" Suit in E.D. New York
DELTA DELI: "Hernandez" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Employees Wages
DENIHAN OWNERSHIP: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
DRYCLEAN GREEN: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

EFINANCIAL LLC: Turner Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
ELECTROLUX HOME: Court Narrows Claims in Oven Defects Suit
EQUIFAX INC: Services & Insurance Plan Sues over Corporate Rules
FALCON SUBSIDIARY: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Shaulis Says
FLOWERS FOODS: Corrected Bid to Certify Class Okayed

FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Selwyn" Suit in E.D. New York
GC SERVICE: Faces "Khaimov" Suit in Eastern District New York
GC SERVICES: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in "Ocampo" Suit Underway
GENERAC POWER: Craftwood Drops Class Certification Bid
GLOBAL STAFFING: "Horton" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

GOOGLE LLC: Pixel Phones Have Faulty Mic, Weeks & Anbar Allege
HARBOR CARE: "Adolphe" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
HOME BOX OFFICE: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Class Certification in Fuel Economy Suit Vacated
ILLINOIS: Pontiac Inmates' Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action

INFINITY INSURANCE: "Hallums" Suit Seeks Class Certification
JOSEPH K. JONES: Court Junks Suit Over Sham Class Action Suits
L'OREAL USA: "Smith" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Alabama
LA PECORA: Reeves & Booth Sue over Tip Pooling
MACY'S CREDIT: Court Won't Extend Time to Disclose Expert Reports

MADISON SEATING: "Saenz" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
MANDARIN ORIENTAL: Faces "Swartz" Suit over Hotel Access
MARSHALLS OF CA: $8.5MM Settlement in "Roberts" Has Final OK
MDL 1264: Court Denies Lead Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) Bid
MENARDS INC: Ohio Attorneys File Class-Action Suit

MID ATLANTIC PROFESSIONALS: "Rahimi" Suit Seeks OT Pay
MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS: "Brown" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
MILBERG LLP: Malpractice Class Action Hits Wall
MILDON BUS: Pittsburgh School's Class Certification Bid Denied
NEW MEXICO: 10th Cir. Remands Rehabilitation Act Violations Suit

NEWARK, NJ: Court Junks Public School Water Contamination Suit
NOBLE HOUSE: District Court Denies Bid to Remand "Holt" Suit
OHIO: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Graham" ERISA Suit
OSI SYSTEMS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action
PAGEDALE, MO: To Dismiss Tickets as Part of Settlement

PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Sued in Illinois Over Breach of Contract
PETLAND STORE: Accused of Selling Sick Puppy After CA Lawsuit
PHILIP MORRIS: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
PLAINS ALL AMERICA: Court Certifies Oil Industry Subclass
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

PRESIDIO BRANDS: Court Narrows Claims in "Shank" Suit
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Pomerantz Recovery Reaches $3 Billion
PRIME STAFF: Faces "Jones" Suit in California Superior Court
PULASKI COUNTY, IN: "Hizer" ADA Suit Set for Fairness Hearing
RAG & BONE: Faces "Kiler" Suit in Eastern District New York

RASIER-CA LLC: "Kaye" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
RAUSCH & STURM: Toombs Sues over Debt Collections Practices
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
REINALDO MARTINEZ: Court Awards $2,500 Atty's Fees in FLSA Suit
RIESTERER'S ENTERPRISES: Faces "Villa" Suit in E.D. New York

SABER HEALTHCARE: 4th Cir. Vacates Order Remanding "Bartels"
SANTA ANNA LLC: Zuliani Seeks to Certify Class of Service Staff
SASKATCHEWAN: Breaching Inmates' Charter Rights
SOUTH END PARTNERS: Faces "Walker" Suit in District of Mass.
ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: Court Won't Certify Class in Antitrust Suit

STARBUCKS CORP: Court Grants Deposition of Accurate Background
TESARO INC: Faces "Bowers" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
TESARO INCORPORATED: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
TRANSUNION RENTAL: Audio Recordings Not Relevant, Court Says
UPREACH LLC: Ct. Certifies Class in "Brittmon" Unpaid Wages Suit

VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Faces "Mora" Suit in M.D. Florida
WELLS FARGO: "Peters" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
WHITELOCKE AND ASSOCIATES: Faces "Martinez" Suit in C.D. Cal.


                     Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Landrigan Amici Curiae Brief in "Juni"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs CLJ Amici Curiae Brief in "Juni"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. App. Won't Stay Proceedings in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Tarkett Dismissed in "Lineberger"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inadmissibility of Sykes Testimony Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maccormack PI Claims vs. Ingersoll-Rand Barred
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Daikin Counter-Claim Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Enforce Johns-Manville Injunction OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pillsbury Mill Part Owner Sentenced to 3 Years
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Naturally Occurring Asbestos Found in Laughlin

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Century High Construction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unlicensed Demolition Cause $9K Clean-Up Bill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ash from Rochdale Fire May Contain Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Novel Approach on Mesothelioma Screening Urged
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Michigan Veterans Oppose Asbestos Bill

ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Hit with Stock Drop Over Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warnings in Kid's Make-Up Urged
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EWG Lauds Bill on Cosmetics Asbestos Warning
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Forces Closure of Recreation Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pipe Break Pushes More Asbestos to Water Supply

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Complicates Park Demolition Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Scare Leads to Sherman Man's Arrest
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Contaminated Property to Become DayCare
ASBESTOS UPDATE: State to Probe Asbestos Fears After Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BISD Board OK's Elem. School Asbestos Abatement

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Case on Tsunami Asbestos Claims Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Up to Old Tricks in Asbestos Pay
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Pushes Free Asbestos Collection Service
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Alert in Another Dozens Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Man Says Lung Cancer Caused by Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Military Career Exposed Man to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Gov't Bldgs Still Have Asbestos Roofing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steve McQueen Widow Joins Fight for Asbestos Ban
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Heirs Blames Railway Co. for Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Portland Adopts Rules to Contain Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: FDA Urged to Probe Asbestos Found in Cosmetics
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Haunts Chilmark Fire Station
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Falsified Asbestos Reports Lead to Arrests
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Asked to Review U of T Asbestos Handling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Causes San Diego Courthouse Closure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Iowa DNR Fines Man for Asbestos Violation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resident Warned of Asbestos After Bungalow Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Says Huddersfield Work Caused Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Recycling Site Closed Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Ridge Clean Up Enters Final Year

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PCSD to Replace Aging Asbestos Floor Tiles
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cinema Closed Due to Asbestos Exposure Fear
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waste Transporter Fined $7.5K for Asbestos Waste
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Baby Power Has Asbestos, Expert Tells Jury
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Christchurch Probes on Asbestos Contamination

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Over Asbestos-Tainted Talc May Go to Trial





                            *********


A+ CARE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Armstrong" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kalea Armstrong, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. A+ Care Solutions, Inc. and Antonio White,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02040 (W.D. Tenn., January 17, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a home care services firm
providing in-home assisted living services to elderly and
disabled individuals in Memphis and Jackson, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Allen, Esq.
      ALLEN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      212 Adams Avenue Memphis, TN 38103
      Telephone: (901) 321-0731
      E-mail: jim@jmallenlaw.com

         - and -

      Lee A. Filderman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF LEE A. FILDERMAN
      200 Jefferson Avenue Suite 1500
      Memphis, TN 38103
      Telephone: (901) 523-9100
      E-mail: fildermanlaw@gmail.com

         - and -

      Edward M. Bearman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD M. BEARMAN
      780 Ridge Lake Blvd. Suite 202
      Memphis, TN 38120
      Telephone: (901) 682-3450
      E-mail: ebearman@jglawfirm.com


AARP INC: Faces "Sacco" Suit in Southern District Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AARP, Inc. The case
is styled as William Sacco, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AARP, Inc., AARP Services Inc.,
AARP Insurance Plan, United Health Group, Inc. and United
Healthcare Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-14041-
JEM (S.D. Fla., February 8, 2018).

AARP, Inc. offers Medicare supplemental insurance; discounts on
rental cars, cruises, vacation packages, and lodging for members;
pharmacy services; legal services; and insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Scott A Bursor, Esq.
   Bursor & Fisher, P.A.
   888 Seventh Avenue
   New York, NY 10019
   Tel: (212) 989-9113
   Fax: (212) 989-9163
   Email: scott@bursor.com


ABV DINER: Faces "Joya" Suit in Eastern District New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABV Diner Inc. The
case is styled as Rigoberto Joya, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABV Diner Inc. d/b/a
North Shore Diner, Jointly and Severally and Vasilis Fatsis,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00875 (E.D. N.Y., February 8, 2018).

ABV Diner Inc. d/b/a North Shore Diner is in the restaurant
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ACCESS MIDSTREAM: Faces "Kovach" Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Access Midstream
Partners, L.P. The case is styled as Linda Kovach, Gary L. Teeter
Revocable Trust, Gary L. Teeter, Trustee and Sarah A Heilman,
individually and as Trustee of the Ralph E. Heilman and Sarah A.
Heilman Revocable Living Trust, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Access Midstream Partners, L.P.
now known as Williams Partners, L.P, Chesapeake Energy
Corporation, Chesapeake Operating, L.L.C., Chesapeake
Exploration, L.L.C., Chesapeake Energy Marketing Inc., Chesapeake
Midstream Partners, LP, Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, CHK Utica
Preferred Holdings, LLC and Total E&P USA, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00084-TCK-JFJ (N.D. Okla., February 8, 2018).

Access Midstream Partners, L.P. was acquired by Williams Partners
L.P in a reverse merger transaction. Access Midstream Partners,
L.P. owns, operates, develops, and acquires natural gas, natural
gas liquids (NGLs) and oil gathering systems, and other midstream
energy assets in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Daniel E Smolen, Esq.
   Smolen Smolen & Roytman PLLC
   701 S CINCINNATI AVE
   TULSA, OK 74119
   Tel: (918) 585-2667
   Fax: (918) 585-2669
   Email: danielsmolen@ssrok.com

      - and -

   David Arthur Warta, Esq.
   Smolen Smolen & Roytman PLLC
   701 S CINCINNATI AVE
   TULSA, OK 74119
   Tel: (918) 585-2667
   Fax: (918) 585-2669
   Email: davidwarta@ssrok.com

      - and -

   Dennis Albert Caruso, Esq.
   Caruso Law Firm PC
   1325 E 15TH ST STE 201
   TULSA, OK 74120-5833
   Tel: (918) 583-5900
   Fax: (918) 583-5902
   Email: dcaruso@carusolawfirm.com

      - and -

   Donald Eugene Smolen , II, Esq.
   Smolen Smolen & Roytman PLLC
   701 S CINCINNATI AVE
   TULSA, OK 74119
   Tel: (918) 585-2667
   Fax: (918) 585-2669
   Email: donaldsmolen@ssrok.com

      - and -

   Mark Allen Smith, Esq.
   Caruso Law Firm PC
   1325 E 15TH ST STE 201
   TULSA, OK 74120-5833
   Tel: (918) 583-5900
   Fax: (918) 593-5902
   Email: msmith@carusolawfirm.com

      - and -

   Robert Murray Blakemore, Esq.
   Smolen Smolen & Roytman PLLC
   701 S CINCINNATI AVE
   TULSA, OK 74119
   Tel: (918) 585-2667
   Fax: (918) 585-2669
   Email: bobblakemore@ssrok.com


ACE NDT: "Goudge" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
DONALD GOUDGE on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACE NDT, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00130 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 7, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and Class Members for
their overtime hours based on the time and half formula under
FLSA. The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff
and Class Members for all hours they worked and by failing to
calculate their overtime in accordance with the FLSA.[BN]

Lead Attorney in Charge for Plaintiff and Class Members:

          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885 8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885 8813
          E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com


ADORO LEI LLC: Faces "Oropeza" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adoro Lei, LLC. The
case is styled as Benito Diaz Oropeza, on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Adoro Lei, LLC doing business
as: Adoro Lei, Joseph Primiano, Enrico Froio, Michael Dibugnara
and Christopher Seeney, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01141 (S.D.
N.Y., February 8, 2018).

Adoro Lei, LLC is a Pizza Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ADVANCE AUTO: Wigginton Sues over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------
JEWEL WIGGINTON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC.,
THOMAS R. GRECO and THOMAS OKRAY, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00212-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 6, 2018), seeks remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal class action on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Advance Auto, who purchased or otherwise acquired
Advance Auto securities between November 14, 2016 and August 15,
2017, inclusive.

Advance Auto is an automotive aftermarket parts provider in North
America that serves professional installers, independently-owned
operators, and "do-it-yourself" retail customers. The Company's
stores sell, among other things, original equipment manufacturer
and private label automotive replacement parts, accessories,
batteries, and maintenance items for automotive vehicles.

On May 24, 2017, Advance Auto reported disappointing first
quarter fiscal 2017 financial and operational results, including
a quarterly sales decrease of 3.0%. Additionally, the Company
reported a quarterly decrease in gross profit, "primarily driven
by investments in the customer, inventory optimization efforts
and supply chain expense deleverage due to the comparable store
sales decline." Further, Advance Auto reported that its quarterly
comparable store sales had declined 2.7%. Following this news,
shares of the Company's stock declined $7.64 per share, or over
5.4%, to close on May 24, 2017 at $133.02 per share.

Then on August 15, 2017, Advance Auto reported disappointing
second quarter fiscal 2017 financial and operational results and
disclosed that "[c]omparable store sales for the quarter were
flat." Further, and with respect to full-year fiscal 2017
financial and operational guidance, the Company: (i) decreased
its comparable store sales guidance from 0 to 2% growth to
negative 3% to 1% decline; (ii) decreased its adjusted operating
income rate guidance from a 15 to 35 basis point year-over-year
improvement to a 200 to 300 basis point year-over-year reduction;
(iii) decreased its free cash flow guidance by $100 million; and
(iv) increased its "integration and transformation" guidance from
approximately $30 million to $35 million to approximately $100
million to $150 million.  Following this news, shares of the
Company's stock declined an additional $22.24 per share, or over
20.3%, to close on August 15, 2017 at $87.08 per share.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's financial well-being, business relationships,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose or
indicate that: (i) integration issues surrounding the Company's
Carquest acquisition resulted in systemic inefficiencies and
cannibalization of sales; (ii) increased competition was
negatively impacting sales; and (iii) as a result, Defendants'
statements about Advanced Auto's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class Members suffered
damages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
          Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
          FARNAN LLP
          919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777 0300
          Facsimile: (302) 777 0301
          E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                  mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686 1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202 3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com


ADVANCED CALL: Faces "Shevchuk" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Call
Center Technologies, LLC. The case is styled as Tatiyana
Shevchuk, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00894 (E.D. N.Y., February 9, 2018).

Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC provides contact center
and back office support services to companies in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


AGILITY ENERGY: "Burton" Suit Seeks to Certify Coordinators Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ALEX BURTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
AGILITY ENERGY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-00204-DC
(W.D. Tex.), Mr. Burton asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying class for purposes of notice and
      discovery:

      "all current and former sand coordinators employed by
      Agility Energy, Inc. during the last three years who were
      paid a salary and shift rate";

   2. directing that a judicially approved notice be sent to all
      Putative Class Members by mail and email;

   3. approving the form and content of Plaintiff's proposed
      judicial notice and reminder notice;

   4. directing Agility to produce to Plaintiff's Counsel the
      last known name, address, phone number, email address and
      dates of employment for each of the Putative Class Members
      in a usable electronic format;

   5. authorizing Plaintiff's Counsel to send by mail and e-mail
      a Reminder Postcard to the Putative Class Members reminding
      them of the deadline for the submission of the Consent
      forms;

   6. authorizing Plaintiff's Counsel to follow up with all those
      Putative Class Members who have not returned their Consent
      forms with a phone call to ensure receipt of the Notice
      packet; and

   7. authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Putative Class
      Members to join this case.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

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

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, Texas 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877 8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877 8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


ALMOST FAMILY: Faces "Rosenblatt" Suit Over LHC Group Merger Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Rosenblatt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Almost Family, Inc., William B. Yarmuth,
Steven B. Bing, Donald G. McClinton, Tyree G. Wilburn, Jonathan
D. Goldberg, W. Earl Reed, III, Henry M. Altman, Jr., LHC Group,
Inc., and Hammer Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00040-TBR
(W.D. Ken., January 18, 2018), stems from a proposed "merger of
equals" transaction announced on November 16, 2017, pursuant to
which Almost Family, Inc. will merge with LHC Group, Inc. and its
wholly owned subsidiary, Hammer Merger Sub, Inc.
According to the complaint, Almost Family filed a Preliminary
Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, which recommends that Almost Family
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction.  However,
the Proxy omits or misrepresents material information concerning
Almost Family's and Parent's financial projections, and the
valuation analyses performed by Almost Family's financial advisor
in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Guggenheim
Securities, LLC. The failure to adequately disclose such material
information constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as
stockholders need such information in order to cast a fully-
informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction, says
the Plaintiff.  The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will
unlawfully divest Almost Family's public stockholders of the
Company's valuable assets without fully disclosing all material
information concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company
stockholders. To remedy the Defendants' Exchange Act violations,
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction unless and until such problems are remedied.

Almost Family, Inc. is a provider of cost efficient, high quality
home healthcare services and related innovations to drive savings
for payors and improve patient outcomes and experience. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin C. Burke, Esq.
      Jamie K. Neal, Esq.
      2200 Dundee Road, Suite C
      Louisville, KY 40205
      Telephone: (502) 709-9975
      E-mail: kevin@burkeneal.com
              jamie@burkeneal.com

         - and -

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (484) 324-6800
      E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


ALOHA TENT: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Certification of Workers Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Gerardo Sanchez , on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Aloha Tent, Inc.,
Metro Staff, Inc., and James John Gallagher, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05412 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff
moves for class certification of (1) his overtime wage claims
under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and (2) a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for Defendants' failure to
pay overtime wages, on behalf of this class:

   "all individuals who performed work for Aloha Tent, Inc.,
   (and/or its predecessor Partytime Productions, Inc.), between
   July 24, 2014, and the present; and who were not paid for the
   time they spent either: 1) driving fellow employees to and
   from the hotel they stayed to their daily worksites, when
   working out of State for Aloha; or 2) traveling as passengers
   in vans to and from the hotel they stayed to their daily
   worksites."

The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated
fellow employees for time they spent either driving or traveling
in Aloha vans when they worked at sites out of state. Because
Plaintiff and members of the proposed class worked in excess of
40 hours per week, failure to pay them at all for the time spent
traveling in Aloha-owned vehicles which is not compensated, and
should have been compensated at a rate of one and a half times
the normal hourly rate for these employees.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vh0xwlEm

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
          LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 420 6784


AM RETAIL: Court Narrows Claims in "DaCorta" GBL Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIANA DACORTA, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AM RETAIL GROUP, INC., d/b/a
G.H. BASS & Co., Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-01748 (NSR) (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (i) granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint, and (ii) dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiff's
Complaint.

The Plaintiff commenced the cause of action by filing a putative
class action complaint on March 8, 2016.  She commenced the suit
against the Defendant.  The lawsuit arises from the Plaintiff's
purchase of a pair of "Quincy" style boots from Bass's factory
outlet store in Fishkill, New York.  The Plaintiff alleges that
she purchased the product on the mistaken belief that she was
receiving a steep discount on the merchandise, when in fact no
discount existed at all.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges
violations of New York General Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349
and 350 and seeks an injunction and monetary damages.

On Aug. 3, 2016, the Court held a pre-motion conference to hear
the Defendant's request to file a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  During the conference, the Defendant argued that the
complaint failed to state a cognizable claim under GBL Sections
349 and 350.  The Defendant identified specific deficiencies, and
the Court asked if the Plaintiff would consider amending the
complaint to cure such deficiencies.  At the conference, the
Plaintiff notified the Court that she likely would not amend the
Complaint, but did file an Amended Complaint shortly after the
conference purportedly addressing the deficiencies discussed
thereat.

The Defendant now moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint for lack of standing, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Judge Roman finds that the Plaintiff's request for an injunction
relates to a past injury, and past injury alone.  Where there are
no allegations that she will purchase the Defendant's "products
in the future," the request is based on past injury and
injunctive relief is improper.  Even if the Judge chose to
consider these newly alleged assertions, the Plaintiff's argument
still concedes that she has no intention to return to the store
in absence of an injunction, so she has no "real and immediate
threat" of injury.  Accordingly, the Judge will grant the
Defendant's Motion to dismiss Plaintiff's request for injunctive
relief.

The Judge also finds that the allegations in the Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint are sufficient, affirmative demonstrations that
the Plaintiff has standing.  The allegation that Plaintiff "would
not have made this purchase, or would not have paid the amount
she did," is sufficient for Article III injury.  Consequently,
the Plaintiff has Article III standing to sue for GBL violations.
The Defendants' motion to that effect will be denied.

Finally, Judge Roman finds that the Plaintiff fails to discuss
whether the product she purchased was of less pvalue than the
listed sale price, or even the ultimate price she paid for the
product.  In the absence of such allegations reflecting the
objective quality and/or value of the product and how it failed
to live up to its marketing, the Plaintiff cannot draw the
requisite connection between deception and harm.  Consequently,
the Plaintiff has failed to properly allege an injury, and the
Defendant's motion to that effect will be granted.

For these reasons, Judge Roman granted in part and denied in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss.  While she does have Article
III standing to bring deceptive marketing practices claims
against the Defendant, the Plaintiff has failed to properly
allege injury for purposes of the statute.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and
she is granted leave to replead within 30 days of the date of the
Opinion and Order.  The Plaintiff has no standing to seek
injunctive relief and is advised that she cannot pursue such a
request, as discussed supra, as she has already conceded that
there is no risk of imminent future harm.

The Judge cautioned the Plaintiff to include facts demonstrating
a connection between the alleged misrepresentation and the harm
she suffered, in other words, a bargained-for characteristic of
the boots that she paid for but never received.  In the absence
of such allegations, the Plaintiff's case will be dismissed with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/TX1ExG from Leagle.com.

Diana DaCorta, individually & Diana DaCorta, on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joanna Frances
Sandol0 -- jsandolo@denleacarton.com -- Belowich & Walsh LLP &
Jeffrey I. Carton -- jcarton@denleacarton.com -- Denlea & Carton
LLP.

AM Retail Group, Inc., doing business as G.H. Bass & Co.,
Defendant, represented by Laurie Ann Kamaiko --
Laurie.Kamaiko@saul.com -- Sedgwick LLP, Stephanie A. Sheridan --
stephanie.sheridan@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP & Anthony J.
Anscombe -- anthony.anscombe@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP, pro
hac vice.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of AMC Entertainment
Holdings, Inc. who purchased shares between December 20, 2016 and
August 1, 2017. The action, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges
that the Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants failed to disclose that (1) Carmike's
operations had been experiencing a prolonged period of financial
underperformance due to a protracted period of underinvestment in
its theaters; (2) Carmike had experienced a significant loss in
market share when its loyal patrons migrated to competitors that
had renovated and upgraded their theaters; (3) AMC was able to
retain only a small number of Carmike's loyalty program members
after the Carmike acquisition; and (4) these issues were having a
material adverse effect on Carmike's operations and theater
attendance.

Shareholders have until March 13, 2018 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does
not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to
be an absent class member.

If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain
additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by
telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-sbm/amc-entertainment-
holdings-inc?wire=3.

Joseph Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in
securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the
nation.  [GN]


AMG QUICKSERVE: "Mejia" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
FARRAH MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AMG QUICKSERVE LLC; AMG
BROADWAY QUICKSERVE LLC; and/or any other related or affiliated
entities, the Defendants, Case No. 151145/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Feb. 6, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid spread of hours compensation, and unpaid uniform
maintenance, pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants
from the fall of 2015 through December 2017 at their Dunkin'
Donuts fast-food restaurants performing work including but not
limited to food preparation, baking, and barista services.
When Named Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week, she was
not paid one and one-half times her regular wage rate for all
hours worked after 40. Often, when Plaintiff worked more than 40
hours per week, her direct manager, Irene Frangos, would tell
Plaintiff that she could not be paid "that much overtime"
referring to the amount of overtime compensation Plaintiff earned
-- but that Named Plaintiff would instead be paid at her regular
rate of pay for the amount of hours worked over 40 on a separate
check, during a week in which Plaintiff had worked under
40 hours. Accordingly, Plaintiff was often paid at her regular
rate of pay, rather than one and one-half times her regular wage
rate, for hours worked beyond 40 in a week.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          James E. Murphy, Esq.
          Alanna R. Sakovits, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
          40 Broad St, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943 9082
          E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com


APPLE INC: Vietnamese Lawyers Sue Over Slowing iPhones
------------------------------------------------------
Ngan Anh, writing for VN Express, reports that litigants claim
that Apple's software has intentionally forced customers to
replace batteries or buy new phones.

Two lawyers have taken out a class action lawsuit signed by 4,500
people against U.S. tech giant Apple Inc. seeking compensation
for slowing older iPhone models.

The Ho Chi Minh City People's Court is considering the suit filed
by lawyers Nguyen Ngoc Hung and Tran Manh Tung from the Bar
Association of Hanoi. The suit was filed on January 10, but the
court has yet to decide if it will hear the case or not.

Apple admitted on December 20 that operating software updates
have slowed down the iPhone 6, iPhone 6S and iPhone SE models to
prevent them from shutting down abruptly due to aging batteries.

The admission has struck a nerve on social media, with many
people saying Apple has intentionally slowed older phones to
encourage customers to buy new ones. No credible evidence has
emerged that Apple has ever done so. On December 28, Apple issued
a public apology to customers over the battery issue and said it
has never purposely shortened the life of its products.

Litigants claim that Apple's software has forced customers to
replace batteries or buy new phones, which has resulted in their
devices losing value.

Claiming the technical defect has been intentionally caused by
Apple, the two lawyers asked the court to consider the case under
Vietnam's consumer rights laws.

According to the plaintiffs, Apple has violated the Law on
Consumers' Right Protection, which regulates that producers and
traders have a responsibility to warn of the possibility that
their products and services could have a negative impact on
consumers' health or assets. The tech giant did not disclose the
nature of its software updates to iPhone users.

The lawyers have also asked the court to force Apple to repair
its software, offer Vietnamese iPhone users compensation for
their losses, and prevent any damage that could be caused by
updating software or using new operating systems on their phones
in the future.

Lawyer Hung said he wants local consumers to realize that their
legitimate rights and interests have been infringed.

"In Vietnam, Apple often makes annual revenue of $1 billion, but
it does not offer any support for local consumers when their
phones malfunction. Apple's after-sales policy in Vietnam is very
poor compared to other markets," Tuoi Tre quoted him as saying.

"This is not the first time Apple has treated its customers in
Vietnam badly. We have sufficient evidence to claim our
legitimate rights, as customers of Apple," he said.

Explaining the reason for filing the lawsuit against the U.S-
based Apple in Vietnam, Hung said the tech giant has a legal
representative in Vietnam -- Apple Vietnam. Thus, the plaintiffs
have the right to file the suit in Vietnam.

Consumers in many countries, including the U.S., France, and
South Korea, have filed lawsuits over Apple's software updates,
which they allege cause unexpected shutdowns and hamper the
performance of the iPhone SE, 6 and 7 models.[GN]


AQUA LUNG: Court Narrows Claims in Defective Dive Computer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part
Defendant Suunto Oy's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint in the case captioned RALPH A. HUNTZINGER and
ERIC BUSH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. AQUA LUNG AMERICA, INC. and SUUNTO OY,
Defendants, Case No. 15cv1146-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal.).

On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff Ralph Huntzinger initiated this action
by filing a class action complaint alleging the following causes
of action against Defendant Aqua Lung America, Inc. ("Aqua
Lung"): (1) violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
Civil Code section 1750 et seq.; (2) violation of the Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), Business and Professions Code section
17200 et seq.; and (3) breach of implied warranty.

Defendants advertised the Dive Computers as having the ability to
provide critical information regarding a dive, such as, dive
depths, air pressure and remaining air time.  According to the
Plaintiffs, the Dive Computers are defective and prone to
malfunction, resulting in the Dive Computers providing inaccurate
information regarding data such as dive depth, dive time, tank
air pressure, and remaining air time. Defendants knew the Dive
Computers were failing and defective and knew or should have
known that the failing and defective Dive Computers created a
life threatening risk of harm to consumers.

Plaintiffs said they would not have purchased or used the Dive
Computers had they known that the Dive Computers were unsafe and
unfit for their intended use.  Plaintiffs Huntzinger and Bush
suffered injury in fact and lost money or property as a result of
Suunto's unfair business practice.

Suunto contends that Plaintiffs lack standing because they have
not sustained an injury-in-fact under Article III, the CLRA, or
the UCL.

In this case, Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Dive
Computers but would not have purchased or used the Dive Computers
had they known that the Dive Computers were unsafe and unfit for
their intended use. Plaintiffs allege that none of the warnings
on the product packaging or in other marketing informed consumers
that because of the Dive Computers' inherent defect  ordinary use
of the Dive Computers carries a substantial risk of serious
malfunction whereby the Dive Computer may quit working and/or
provide incorrect information about a dive.

Plaintiffs allege that Suunto continued to falsely represent that
the Dive Computers will provide certain accurate information
during a dive and impliedly that the Dive Computers are safe for
use. Plaintiffs allege that all Dive Computers, including
replacements Dive Computers, are defective and cannot be safely
used for their intended and advertised purpose. Plaintiffs allege
that Suunto knew or should have known of the defects in the Dive
Computers. Plaintiffs allege facts sufficient to infer that
Suunto's nondisclosure was a material fact in causing Plaintiffs
to purchase Dive Computers. Plaintiffs' allegations of a material
nondisclosure are sufficient to infer that Plaintiffs relied on
Suunto's nondisclosure in deciding to purchase the Dive
Computers.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to
establish standing under Article III, the UCL and the CLRA at
this stage in the proceedings.

Suunto contends that Plaintiffs' CLRA and UCL claims must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim because Plaintiffs have
failed to allege reliance on any misrepresentations or omissions
by Suunto.

In this case, the SAC alleges that Suunto controlled the product
packaging and advertising of the Dive Computers sold in the
United States and that the Dive Computers were "advertised as a
safe product. The SAC alleges facts supporting an inference that
representations about the Dive Computers were included in product
packaging, Defendant Aqua Lung's website, user guides created by
Suunto, a website owned by Suunto, advertising and marketing
materials created by Suunto, and in-store displays.

Plaintiffs allege that Suunto knew that the Dive Computers all
contain the inherent defects, malfunction, and pose a significant
hazard to consumers" based on numerous reports from Aqua Lung and
a Service Log which documented all repairs done on Dive Computers
by an authorized repair facility.   Plaintiffs allege that Suunto
did not disclose the defect or inform consumers that the defect
could result in inaccurate information about dive depth, dive
time, tank air pressure, and remaining air time. The factual
allegations of the SAC are sufficient to support an inference
that the Suunto knew of the defects in the Dive Computers and
failed to disclose the material defect to consumers while
continuing to market and distribute the Dive Computers as a safe
product.

Further Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Dive Computers
believing they were safe to use during scuba dives and that they
would not have purchased the products had they known that the
Dive Computers were unsafe and unfit for its intended use. The
Court has concluded that Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to
support an inference that Plaintiffs relied on Suunto's material
nondisclosure for purposes of its UCL and CLRA claims. See supra
Part IV.A.2.

The Court concludes that under the requirements of Rule 9(b), the
Plaintiffs have plead sufficient facts to put Suunto on notice of
the claims.

Suunto contends that California law does not allow a breach of
implied warranty claim against a manufacturer of products. Suunto
contends that a plaintiff asserting breach of warranty claims
must stand in vertical contractual privity with defendant and
that there is no third-party beneficiary exception to the privity
requirement.

In this case, the SAC alleges that Plaintiff Bush purchased a
Suunto Cobra 3 dive computer from Sport Chalet and later
purchased a Suunto D6i dive computer to replace the unrepairable
and defective Cobra 3. Aqua Lung entered into distribution
agreements with select retailers for the sole purpose of
distributing the Dive Computers so that they could be sold from
the retailers. As part of those distribution agreements, Aqua
Lung impliedly warranted that the Dive Computers are reasonably
safe, effective and adequately tested for their intended use and
that they are of merchantable quality.

The SAC alleges, Plaintiff Bush and members of the Aqua Lung
Subclass, as purchasers of the Dive Computers, were the intended
beneficiaries of the distribution agreements between Aqua Lung
and retailers of the Dive Computers.These factual allegations are
specific to Defendant Aqua Lung's distribution agreements with
retailers. With respect to Suunto, Plaintiff alleges that Suunto
entered into a distribution agreement with Aqua Lung for the
purpose of marketing and distributing the Dive Computers in the
United States for sale to consumers. Plaintiffs fail to allege
sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that Plaintiff
Bush is an intended third party beneficiary to any contract
involving Suunto.

The motion to dismiss the breach of implied warranty of
merchantability claim as to Suunto is granted.

Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Suunto is
granted with respect to the breach of implied warranty of
merchantability against Suunto and denied in all other respects.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 8, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yad8un2y from Leagle.com..

Ralph A. Huntzinger, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas A. Hofmann
-- dhofmann@williamskastner.com,- Williams Kastner Gibbs PLLC,
pro hac vice, Jennifer L. MacPherson -- toreardon@bholaw.com --
Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, John A. Knox --
jknox@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner Gibbs PLLC, pro hac
vice, Paula R. Brown -- pbrown@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon, LLP, Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood
Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP & William M. Berman --
wberman@bermanlawyers.com -- Berman and Riedel.

Eric Bush, Plaintiff, represented by Paula R. Brown, Blood Hurst
& O'Reardon, LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon,
LLP.

Aqua Lung America, Inc., Defendant, represented by John S. Worden
-- jworden@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, Vaneeta
Chintamaneni -- vchintamaneni@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin &
Jean-Paul Phillip Cart -- jcart@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin
LLP.

Suunto Oy, Defendant, represented by Michael C. Keefe, 411 W
Fullerton Pkwy, Apt 601W, Chicago, IL 60614-2830

Aqua Lung America, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by
John S. Worden, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean-Paul Phillip Cart,
Schiff Hardin LLP.

Suunto Oy, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Bradley T. Fox,
Fox Law Group, LLC, Fort Lewis College, Education and Business
Building, Room 140, 1000 Rim Drive, Durango, CO 81301, pro hac
vice, Jeffery A. Key, Key & Associates, 8720 Georgia Ave, Suite
800
Silver Spring, MD 20910, pro hac vice, Michael C. Keefe, pro hac
vice, Robert W. Harrison -- robert.harrison@wilsonelser.com -
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, David Joseph Aveni --
david.aveni@wilsonelser.com --, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker, LLP, Bradley T. Fox, Fox Law Group, LLC, Jeffery A. Key,
Key & Associates & Michael C. Keefe .


ARRIS INT'L: Claims in Cable Modem Consumer Litigation Trimmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss certain causes of action with Leave
to Amend the case captioned IN RE ARRIS CABLE MODEM CONSUMER
LITIGATION, This Document Relates to: All Actions, Case No. 17-
CV-01834-LHK (N.D. Cal.).  Motion to Strike parts of the
consolidated amended complaint is denied.

California Plaintiffs Joseph Palma and Michael Person bought
Modems in 2015.  California Plaintiff Jon Walton bought a Modem
in or after 2015.  California Plaintiffs Greg Knowles and Carlos
Reyna bought Modems in 2016. California Plaintiff Brian Alexander
bought a Modem in 2017.

Plaintiffs allege that Arris marketed the Modem as fast and
reliable.  Plaintiffs contend that if they had known that the
Modems were defective, they would not have purchased the Modems
or they "would have paid substantially less."

The CAC asserts four causes of action under California law on
behalf of the named California Plaintiffs and the California
Subclass:

   -- First, the California Plaintiffs assert a violation of
California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

   -- Second, the California Plaintiffs assert a violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).

   -- Third, the California Plaintiffs allege a violation of
California's False Advertising Law (FAL).

   -- Fourth, the California Plaintiffs allege a violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

Given that Arris mentions the need for the California Plaintiffs
to establish injury-in-fact, the Court construes Arris's motion
as arguing that Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged an injury-
in-fact.

This argument fails, the Court says.  Plaintiffs have alleged
that if they had known that the Modems were defective, they would
not have purchased the Modems or they would have paid
substantially less for the Modems. In other words, Plaintiffs
alleged that they "spent money that, absent Arris's actions, they
would not have spent," which constitutes a quintessential injury-
in-fact.

Arris focuses solely on the reliance element of statutory
standing.  Arris acknowledges that Plaintiffs have identified
several allegedly misleading statements.  Arris also acknowledges
that Plaintiffs have alleged that they relied on the statements
that ARRIS made about the Modems.  However, Arris argues that
Plaintiffs fail to allege that they saw any of these alleged
misrepresentations prior to their purchase of the Modems, or that
they relied on these representations in making their purchase
decision.

Arris argues that reliance must be alleged with greater
specificity and urges the Court not to countenance Plaintiffs'
vague, conclusory, mass pleading style. Yet Arris cites no
authority to support its contention that general allegations of
reliance are insufficient to establish statutory standing as a
matter of California law, as distinct from Rule 9(b)'s heightened
pleading requirements.

The Court need not resolve what level of specificity is required
to plead reliance under California law, however, because the
Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not satisfied Rule 9(b).

In the instant case, Plaintiffs identify a range of statements on
Arris's website, on Amazon.com, and on the Modem's packaging that
Plaintiffs allege are misleading.  Plaintiffs also generally
allege that they relied on Arris's misrepresentations and
omissions in purchasing the Modems.  However, Plaintiffs have not
specified which statements any of them saw or relied on in
deciding to buy the Modems. Because there are material
differences between the representations on Arris's website, the
representations on Amazon.com, and the representations on the
Modem's packaging, the failure to specify the representations
relied upon by the California Plaintiffs inhibits Arris's ability
to defend against the charge. Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy
Rule 9(b).

Accordingly, the Court grants Arris's motion to dismiss the UCL,
CLRA, and FAL claims. However, because Plaintiffs could allege
additional facts to satisfy Rule 9(b), the Court grants
Plaintiffs leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 4, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yazz26ls from Leagle.com.

Carlos Reyna, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Greg Knowles, Michael Person, Brian Alexander, Joseph
Palma, Jon Walton, Kelly Smith, Christopher Stevens, Matthew
Penner, Timothy Oefelein, Tom Kisha, Kaci Roar, Tony Romeo, John
Matsayko, David Eisen, Wes Tilley, Andrew Prowant, Marco
Fernandez, Damien Probe, Paul Dubey, Callan Christensen, Michael
Bresline, Christopher Bullard, Giovanni Murphy, William Haworth,
Rodney Bryant, Yong Jae Lee, Larry Bavry, William Rosenberg, Jean
Pierre Crespo & Mike Alexander, Plaintiffs, represented by Willem
F. Jonckheer -- wjonckheer@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe
LLP & Noah M. Schubert -- nschubert@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer
& Kolbe LLP.

ARRIS International plc, Plaintiff, represented by Joe Patrick
Reynolds -- jreynolds@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Kilpatrick
Townsend and Stockton LLP, pro hac vice.

Arris International plc, Defendant, represented by Nancy L. Stagg
-- nstagg@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Kilpatrick Townsend &
Stockton LLP.


ATRIA MANAGEMENT: Certification of Employees Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DESTINY GALLEGOS, SARA RAMIREZ, and JESSE
PEREZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ATRIA
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
ATRIA SENIOR LIVING, INC., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00888-
JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for class
certification of:

   "more than 8,000 non-exempt, hourly employees who have worked
   for Defendant Atria Senior Living, Inc. and Defendant Atria
   Management Company, LLC at one of their high-end assisted
   living facilities in California since March 25, 2012, and who,
   as a result of Atria's uniform policies and practices have
   been subject to minimum wage and rounding violations of the
   California Labor Code as well as unlawful failure to reimburse
   for necessary out-of-pocket expenses incurred for their work
   at Atria."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1Sn9vobP

Attorneys for Sara Ramirez and Jesse Perez:

          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Jennifer Bagosy, Esq.
          Suzy E. Lee, Esq.
          Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: Melissa.Grant@Capstonelawyers.com
                  Jennifer.Bagosy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Suzy.Lee@capstonelawyers.com
                  Ari.Basser@capstonelawyers.com


BAYER CORP: Court Allows Amendment in "Jordan" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order
granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
in the case captioned LAVETA JORDAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAYER
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. 4:17-cv-00865-AGF (E.D.
Mo.).

This case was filed in the Circuit Court for the City of St.
Louis, Missouri, alleging injuries sustained as a result of using
Essure, a medical device manufactured and sold by Bayer. Of the
94 named Plaintiffs, seven were citizens of Missouri. One
Plaintiff was an Illinois citizen who allegedly had the device
implanted in Missouri. The remaining Plaintiffs were citizens of
25 different states, including Indiana, Delaware, and
Pennsylvania.

Bayer argues in opposition that the amended complaint was filed
without leave, thereby rendering it procedurally improper and
unable to provide a basis for reconsideration. Moreover, Bayer
contends that even if the amended complaint were to be
considered, Plaintiffs still fail to allege sufficient ties
between the non-Missouri Plaintiffs and Missouri to provide the
Court with subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs have since filed a motion for leave to file the first
amended complaint in an attempt to cure the defects in personal
jurisdiction as to the non-Missouri Plaintiffs. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, leave to amend should be
freely given. Although Defendants urge that allowing the amended
complaint would be futile, the Court believes Plaintiffs should
be given the opportunity to amend their complaint and set forth
their bases for filing suit in Missouri. Defendants will not be
prejudiced by the filing of the amended complaint, as they will
have an opportunity to challenge any aspect of jurisdiction they
believe is lacking.

Therefore, the Court will  grant their motion for leave to file
an amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 8, 2018
Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y77nbyrb
from Leagle.com.

Laveta Jordan, Jennifer Baggett, Cheryl Denbow, Jennifer
Dischbein, Tiffany Queen, Erica Ware, Michelle Weedman & Lavena
Wilkerson, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric D. Holland --
eholland@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Gregory J. Bubalo,
BUBALO GOODE PLC, Katherine Ann Dunnington, BUBALO GOODE PLC,
9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215. Louisville, KY 40222. & Randall
S. Crompton -- scrompton@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

Bayer Corp., Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Essure, Inc., formerly
known as Conceptus, Inc. & Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Christopher Artley Eiswerth --
CEISWERTH@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP, Gerard T. Noce --
gnoce@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM & W. Jason Rankin --
jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM.


BITCONNECT LTD: Kline, et al. Sue over Cryptocurrency Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW KLINE, DUSTY SHOWERS, LENA HUNA, and CHARLES MABRA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. BITCONNECT, BITCONNECT LTD, BITCONNECT
INTERNATIONAL PLC, BITCONNECT TRADING LTD, GLENN ARCARO, RYAN
MAASEN, JOSHUA JEPPESEN , AND JOHN DOES 1-20, the Defendants,
Case No. 8:18-cv-00319-EAK-MAP (M.D. Fla., Feb. 7, 2018), is an
action against a putative cryptocurrency platform called
BitConnect that has been revealed to have been a fraud.

According to the complaint, Class members were advised that
BitConnect was "[a] self-regulated Financial system" and "an open
source all in one bitcoin and crypto community platform designed
to provide multiple investment opportunities with cryptocurrency
education where it is entirely possible to find the independence
we all desire, in a community of like-minded, freedom loving
individuals who, like you, are seeking the possibility of income
stability in a very unstable world."

Plaintiffs bring this class action pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated in the United States, who transferred currency
or cryptocurrency to Bitconnect, in furtherance of Defendants'
scheme, and lost money as a result thereof, at any time since its
Initial Coin Offering on November 15, 2016 (the "Class"), the
subset of such persons who are residents of, or transacted in,
Florida (the "Florida Sub-Class") and the subset of such persons
who are residents of, or transacted in, Rhode Island (the "Rhode
Island Sub-Class).

The Plaintiffs also brings Counts on behalf of subclasses of
Florida and Rhode Island residents who transferred currency or
cryptocurrency to Bitconnect, in furtherance of Defendants'
scheme, and lost money as a result thereof, at any time since its
Initial Coin Offering on November 15, 2016.

The Class and Subclasses do not include Defendants' officers,
agents, employees, or affiliates. The Class and Subclasses
consist of potentially millions of persons who lost money as a
result of Defendants' scheme. While the exact number of members
of the Class and Subclasses and the identities of individual
members of the Class and Subclass are unknown to Plaintiffs'
counsel at this time, and can only be ascertained through
appropriate discovery, based on the fact that several billion
dollars worth of purported market capitalization were destroyed,
the membership of the Class and Subclass are each so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
          5400 S. University Drive, Ste. 417
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889 3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889 5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687 7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490 2022
          E-mail: memert@ssbny.com
                  mklein@ssbny.com


BMV REO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Quezada" Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nestor Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BMV REO, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00368 (N.D. Ill.,
January 18, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a given
workweek.

BMV REO, Inc. is in the business of providing property
preservation services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terrence Buehler, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER
      20 North Clark Street Suite 800
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312)371-4385
      E-mail: tbuehler@tbuehlerlaw.com


BOMBBOMB LLC: Has Send Spam Advertisements, "Alves" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Alves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BombBomb, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00402 (C.D. Cal.,
January 17, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
using automated marketing systems to send spam advertisements and
promotional offers, via text message without prior express
consent.

BombBomb, LLC provides email marketing software for creating,
sending, and tracking the results of traditional and video
emails. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com
              twheeler@toddflaw.com


BORE COMPANY: "Reyna" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO PUENTE REYNA and MIGUEL CUEVAS on behalf of themselves
individually and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY, the Plaintiff, v. BORE
COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00350 (S.D. Tex.,
Feb. 7, 2018), alleges that Bore Company does not pay their
Machine Operator-Supervisors and Manual Laborers overtime as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Instead, Bore pays its
Machine Operator-Supervisors a salary and its Manual Laborers
straight pay, not time and a half, for all hours worked over 40,
in a regular work week.

Bore Company is a small organization in the bridge builders
industry located in Cumming, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taft L. Foley II, Esq.
          THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
          3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
          Houston, TX 77054
          Telephone: (832) 778 8182
          Facsimile: (832) 778 8353
          E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


BORROWERSFIRST INC: Faces "Chavez" Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Borrowersfirst Inc.
The case is styled as Adrian Chavez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Borrowersfirst
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00309-CAB-JLB (S.D. Cal.,
February 8, 2018).

BorrowersFirst, Inc. operates a lending platform that provides
borrowers with an alternative to traditional financing
sources.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
   Kazerounian Law Group, APC
   245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
   Costa Mesa, CA 92626
   Tel: (800) 400-6808
   Fax: (800) 520-5523
   Email: ak@kazlg.com

      - and -

   Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
   Law Offices of Daniel G. Shay
   409 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101B
   San Diego, CA 92108
   Tel: (619) 222-7429
   Fax: (866) 431-3292
   Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com

      - and -

   Mona Amini, Esq.
   Kazerouni Law Group, APC
   245 Fischer Avenue
   Unit D1
   Costa Mesa, CA 92626
   Tel: (800) 400-6808
   Fax: (800) 520-5523
   Email: mona@kazlg.com


BRODSKY ORGANIZATION: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Brodsky
Organization, LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The
Brodsky Organization, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01203
(S.D. N.Y., February 11, 2018).

The Brodsky Organization is one of Manhattan's most established
developers, owners, and managers of residential and commercial
spaces in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Joseph H Mizrahi Law PC
   337 Avenue W Suite 2f
   Brooklyn, NY 11223
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


BURNSVILLE, MN: Can Enforce City Zoning Code, Minn. App. Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Minnesota issued an Opinion reversing the
District Court's judgment granting Plaintiffs' Injunctive Relief
in the case captioned Kathryn Eich, Respondent, v. City of
Burnsville, Appellant, Ted Oakland, et al., Defendants, No. A17-
0496 (Minn. App.).

Appellant City of Burnsville challenges the district court's
order granting a permanent injunction against the city's
enforcement of its city code within a manufactured home park
where respondent Kathryn Eich resides.

Among other sections, the Burnsville city code includes the
city's zoning code and property maintenance code, and it adopts
the state building code, which includes the state's Manufactured
Home Building Code (MHBC). Before 2013, the city enforced its
city code on a complaint basis, whereby the city building
official would inspect a property and its neighboring properties
after a citizen filed a complaint. Effective January 2013, the
city adopted a proactive policy, whereby the city established the
Licensing and Code Enforcement Department to enforce the city
code and a schedule for conducting inspections.

The city argues that the district court erred in enjoining
enforcement of its codes because the city is expressly authorized
by state law to enforce its codes within manufactured home parks
when the codes are not inconsistent with federal or state laws.
The city also argues that respondent's as-applied state
constitutional claims for injunctive relief are moot.

Respondent commenced the proposed class action seeking damages
and injunctive relief and alleging that the city's enforcement
within Rambush Estates was preempted by federal and state law and
violated her due process rights under the Minnesota Constitution.
The district court granted class certification and temporary
injunctive relief, enjoining the city from (1) communicating with
respondent, (2) collecting or assessing fees from respondent, (3)
notifying respondent of violations, (4) accepting or processing
variance applications, and (5) conducting code-enforcement
inspections of housing and property inside Rambush Estates.

Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court
granted summary judgment and permanent injunctive relief to
respondent, but stayed the issue of whether respondent was
entitled to sanctions and damages based on her state constitution
claims, pending resolution of this appeal. In support of its
order issuing an injunction, the district court concluded that
the city's code enforcement within Rambush Estates, (1) was
expressly pre-empted by federal law, (2) was expressly and field
preempted by state law, and (3) violated respondent's procedural-
and substantive-due-process rights because the enforcement action
was arbitrary, the notices did not adequately provide respondent
with notice of what was permitted or how the city code applied,
and the city did not have a meaningful appeals process.

Does federal law expressly pre-empt the city code within Rambush
Estates?

The district court concluded that the National Manufactured
Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (the Act),
Act expressly pre-empts state and local laws that are
inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Act, but did not
explain why the particular city code provisions were inconsistent
with federal law. Instead, the district court stated that the
city's code enforcement conflicts by imposing fines inconsistent
with Congress's objective to maintain affordability of this vital
form of housing as expressed in the Act and adopted by the State
of Minnesota.

The Minn. App. held that the district court erred in its
interpretation of the Act. Since the Act concerns itself with
safety and construction standards of manufactured homes, and
since states and localities may adopt safety and construction
standards that are identical to the Act's standards, enforcement
of any local law impairs the federal superintendence of the
manufactured-home industry only when a local law attempts to
regulate construction or safety standards inconsistent with the
Act's standards. The Act does not pre-empt the city from
enforcing its city code within Rambush Estates because the Act is
limited to consumer protection, and the city code does not
purport to regulate within that construction or safety standards
context.

The city attempted to regulate carports, awnings, zoning
setbacks, trash screening, and exterior storage within a
manufactured home park. None of those regulated items relates to
the construction or safety of the manufactured home itself.
Therefore, the Act does not expressly pre-empt the relevant city
code provisions.

Does state law expressly or field preempt the city code within
Rambush Estates?

The district court also found that Minnesota state law both
expressly and field pre-empts the city code within Rambush
Estates.

Minn. Stat. Section 327.32, subd. 5, specifies that a city is
permitted to apply zoning, subdivision, architectural, or
aesthetic requirements" within a manufactured home park.
The city's property maintenance code, which has been replaced by
the IPMC, had the express purpose to ensure public health,
safety, aesthetics, and welfare insofar as they are affected by
the continued occupancy and maintenance of structures, premises
and land.  The IPMC has a very similar statement of purpose; "to
ensure public health, safety and welfare insofar as they are
affected by the continued occupancy and maintenance of structures
and premises. The city's zoning code has the express purpose to
promote the general health, safety and the welfare" of the
community.

State law has explicitly authorized municipalities to regulate
within manufactured home parks. Thus, state law has not fully
occupied the field of manufactured-home-park regulation. The
district court erred in finding that state law expressly and
field pre-empts the city from enforcing its zoning and property
maintenance codes within Rambush Estates.

A full-text copy of the Minn. App.'s January 8, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y99zzwt4 from Leagle.com.

Kay Nord Hunt, Lommen Abdo, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and
Valerie Sims, Heley, Duncan & Melander, PLLP, Minneapolis,
Minnesota; and Jeffer Ali, Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh,
Lindquist & Schuman, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for
respondent.

Paul D. Reuvers, Jason J. Kuboushek, Nathan C. Midolo, Iverson
Reuvers Condon, Bloomington, Minnesota, for appellant.
Susan L. Naughton, League of Minnesota Cities, St. Paul,
Minnesota, for Amicus Curiae League of Minnesota Cities.


CAPITAL ONE: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Nissou-Rabban" FCRA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANDY NISSOU-RABBAN, Individually and on Behalf of
All Other Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAPITAL ONE BANK
(USA), N.A., Defendant, Case No. 15cv1673-JAH (RBB) (S.D. Cal.),
Judge John A. Houston of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (i) granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to Amend, (ii) denied the Defendant's Motion to Strike
Portions of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), and
denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the SAC.

In 2000, the Plaintiff opened a Neiman Marcus store card and a
Saks store card through the Defendant.  In 2013, the Plaintiff
fell behind on her payments, and by December of 2013, the
Defendant had charged off the Accounts.  Sometime between
December of 2013 and Nov. 24, 2014, the Defendant sold or
transferred the Accounts to a third party.

On Nov. 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
California.  The Defendant was a named creditor in her bankruptcy
proceedings.  On Feb.24, 2015, the bankruptcy court granted the
Plaintiff's petition and discharged, in relevant part, her debt
to the Defendant.  The Defendant received notice of the discharge
on approximately Feb. 25, 2015.

On April 13, 2015, the Plaintiff received a copy of her credit
report from Equifax Information Services, LLC, a credit reporting
agency, indicating the Accounts status displayed "charged off"
rather than "Discharged in Bankruptcy."  In May 2015, the
Plaintiff sent written notice to Equifax disputing the accuracy
of the Defendant's reporting.  She asserted that any and all
accounts discharged in her bankruptcy proceeding should properly
reflect they were discharged in bankruptcy on her credit report,
as required by industry standards and regulations.

The Plaintiff alleges Equifax notified the Defendant that the
Plaintiff disputed the accuracy of the reported status of her
accounts.  She alleges the Defendant failed to reasonably
investigate the disputed account information and review all
relevant information as required by statute.  In addition, the
Plaintiff alleges the Defendant has a policy of not notifying
credit reporting agencies that former debts that have been
discharged in bankruptcy, are no longer "charged off," or
currently still due and owing.  The Plaintiff argues this
deliberate policy adversely affects the Class Member's ability to
obtain credit or employment.  As a result, the Plaintiff
initiated the instant action against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff originally initiated the lawsuit against the
Defendant on July 28, 2015, and subsequently filed her First
Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleging that the Defendant violated
the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and California's Consumer
Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRAA").

On Nov. 20, 2015, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the
FAC.  In December 2015, upon the parties' joint motions, the
Defendants were dismissed with prejudice.  On Sept. 21, 2016, the
Court entered an Order granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
without prejudice.

Subsequently, on Oct. 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a SAC,
alleging violations of the FCRA and CCRAA, based on Capital One's
alleged inaccurate reporting of debt discharged in bankruptcy and
the subsequent failure to investigate the Plaintiff's disputed
credit report information.

On Nov. 7, 2016, the Capital One filed a Motion to Strike
Portions of Plaintiff's SAC.  It seeks to join a punitive class
and add additional class allegations.  The Plaintiff filed an
Opposition to the Motion to Strike and a Motion for Leave to
Amend.  The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the SAC.  The
Motion to Dismiss the SAC was fully briefed by the parties.

Judge Houston finds that the Court is in agreement with the
Plaintiff, finding the Motion to Dismiss Order allowed amendment
of the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint within 30 days, and
included no other limiting language.  The Plaintiff's addition of
a new party and class allegations clearly occurs after the
deadline established in the Scheduling Order, however, the
Plaintiff provided sufficient good cause for the delay.  Even if
the amendment is considered a procedural misstep, it does not
render the amendment redundant, impertinent, immaterial, or
scandalous. Accordingly, the Judge denied the Defendant's Motion
to Strike.

The Judge also finds that while the Defendant may certainly incur
additional costs associated with the amended class allegations,
the expenditure of additional monies or time do not constitute
undue prejudice.  Additionally, the Plaintiff's SAC, in terms of
the alleged substantive claims, is unchanged.  The Plaintiff does
advance new legal theories concerning the Defendant's internal
policies, but these additional allegations were not known to her
upon filing the FAC.  The Defendant is able to utilize a
substantial amount of work product it has acquired litigating
this case thus far.  The Plaintiff had no reason to allege the
class allegations until after the deposition of the Defendant's
PMK.  Justice requires allowing the Plaintiff to amend her
complaint to include those allegations.  Accordingly, the Judge
granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend.

Finally, as to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Judge Houston
finds that taking all factual allegations in the Plaintiff's
complaint as true, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the
Defendant would be unable to conduct a reasonable investigation
with such a policy in place.  Additionally, the Defendant would
be in the best position to engage in this factual inquisition, as
it would have the necessary documents-or lack thereof-regarding
the existence of any company policy.  The Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss as to the FCRA claim is denied.

Upon taking all factual allegations as true, the Judge also finds
that a reasonable inference could be drawn that the Defendant
knew or should have known the information provided was inaccurate
or incomplete.  Accordingly, the Judge denied the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss as to the CCRAA claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/BzBt0t from Leagle.com.

Sandy Nissou-Rabban, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Clark Ovruchesky --
co@colawcalifornia.com -- Law Office of Clark Ovruchesky &
Matthew M. Loker, Kazerouni Law Group, APC.

Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendant, represented by Hunter R.
Eley -- heley@dollamir.com -- Doll Amir & Eley LLP, Chelsea Lynn
Diaz -- cdiaz@dollamir.com -- Doll Amir & Eley LLP & Margaret
Cathleen McHugh-Sivore -- mmchugh@dollamir.com -- Doll Amir &
Eley LLP.


CARING PROFESSIONALS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Polyakov Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
YEVGINY POLYAKOV, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CARING PROFESSIONALS, INC.,
and MIRIAM STERNBERG, the Defendants, Case No. 502384/2018 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Feb. 6, 2018), seeks to recover damages and equitable
relief brought pursuant to overtime provisions and minimum wage
provisions of the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff brings this action for violation of New York State
wage and hour laws by and on behalf of Plaintiff and all other
current and former home attendants or home health aides and other
employees holding comparable positions with different titles
employed by Defendants in the State of New York that worked for
the Defendants in full day or 24 hour shifts from January 2, 2012
until the present.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants, a provider of home
healthcare to the elderly and infirm, as a provider of personal
care and assistance to disabled and/or elderly clients of the
Defendants. Plaintiffs worked at the homes of Defendants' clients
for shifts of 24 hours straight, were available and on call
throughout that time, even in the middle of the night. The
Plaintiffs were required to stay on the premises the complete
live-in shifts that they were scheduled to work, even though they
maintained a residence and resided elsewhere.

According to the complaint, throughout their employment, the
Defendants required Plaintiffs to work, and Plaintiffs did in
fact work shifts of twenty four straight for between 1 day and 7
days a week, the exact days are ascertainable through defendants'
records. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the statutorily-
required minimum wage rate of pay, and the overtime rate of pay
for each hour that they worked per week in excess of forty hours
as required by the NYLL.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545 1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532 3801
          E-mail: mhepwrth@hgrlawyers.com
                  cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
                  droth@hgrlawyers.com
                  rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com


CBC RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Pardue Says
------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER PARDUE and JENNIFER VARGAS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CBC RESTAURANT
CORP., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. BC693274 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 7,
2018), contends that the Defendants have had a consistent policy
or practice of failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiffs and
other non-exempt employees in the State of California working at
or from the Rancho Cucamonga location in violation of California
state wage and hour laws.  Plaintiffs and similarly situated
employees routinely worked over 8 hours per day or 40 hours per
week without being properly compensated for hours worked in
excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week.  Defendants also
failed to accurately track all hours worked and pay for all
tracked hours worked.  Defendants also required employees to work
off-the-clock, auto-deducted pay for worked time, manipulated,
edited, or otherwise rounded off tracked time entries to
employees' detriment.

CBC Restaurant owns and operates fast-casual restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Diego Aviles, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 438 5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                  diego@tomorrowlaw.com


CIMAREX ENERGY: Faces Duncan Group Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cimarex Energy Co.
The case is styled as The Duncan Group LLC and The Duncan Group
LLC, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Cimarex Energy Co, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00123-C (W.D.
Okla., February 8, 2018).

Cimarex Energy Co. is an American petroleum and natural gas
exploration and production company headquartered in Denver,
Colorado, with operations primarily in Texas, Oklahoma, and New
Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Barbara C Frankland, Esq.
   Rex A Sharp PA
   5301 W 75th St
   Prairie Village, KS 66208
   Tel: (913) 901-0505
   Fax: (913) 901-9099
   Email: bfrankland@midwest-law.com

      - and -

   Rex A Sharp, Esq.
   Rex A Sharp PA
   5301 W 75th St
   Prairie Village, KS 66208
   Tel: (913) 901-0505
   Fax: (913) 901-0419
   Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com


CITIBANK N.A.: Lopez Sues over Basic Checking Account Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
PETRA LOPEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITIBANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00291-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2018), arises from
Citibank's routine practice of charging more than the $12 per
month represented for basic checking accounts -- a practice that
punishes Citibank's most economically vulnerable and cash-
strapped consumers.

While Citibank prominently informs consumers the circumstances in
which its regular checking account can cost less than $12 per
month, it never once informs consumers that it will sometimes
charge consumers much more than $12 per month for basic checking
account services.

In fact Citibank charges up to $46 a month for its basic checking
account, despite its express representations that such account
services will cost no more than $12 per month. This massive price
increase occurs when, on accounts like Plaintiff's that have
insufficient funds at a certain point in the month to pay the
monthly checking account fee, Citibank assesses $34 overdraft
fees on its own checking account service charges.

The overdraft fees are an additional, intrinsic charge for the
monthly checking account services in disguise, since Citibank
provides no other service in exchange for the overdraft fee,
other than the provision of the checking account services that
were marketed at $12 per month. There is no justification for
these practices, other than to maximize Citibank's fee revenue.

The Plaintiff never would have chosen Citibank as her checking
account provider had Citibank truthfully and fairly informed her
that her basic checking account services could cost up to $46 per
month.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Petra Lopez and the Putative Class:

          Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474 9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474 8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20009
          Telephone: (202) 450 4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com


CONDOR CAPITAL: Certification of Pennsylvania Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TARA MCCALVIN, ABDULLAH ANSARI, and GHANI
SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CONDOR CAPITAL CORPORATION CONDOR HOLDCO
SECURITIZATION TRUST, CONDOR ASSETCO SECURITIZATION TRUST &
CONDOR RECOVERY SECURITIZATION TRUST, Case No. 2:17-cv-01350-TJS
(E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify a
Pennsylvania Class of:

   "all persons who financed a vehicle primarily for consumer use
   through Condor Capital Corporation, whose consumer loan
   contract or installment sales contract was assigned to the
   Trusts or one of them."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XFVq8MtK

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
          Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
          Jody T. Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
          FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Telephone: (610) 822 0782
          Facsimile: (610) 667 0552
          E-mail: cflitter@consumerslaw.com
                  amilz@consumerslaw.com
                  jlopez-jacobs@consumerslaw.com

               - and -

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Michael H. Reed, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934 9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934 9220
          E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com
                  michael.reed@klafterolsen.com

Attorney for Condor Capital Corporation

          Adam C. Bonin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ADAM C. BONIN
          30 S. 15th Street, 15th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          E-mail: adam@boninlaw.com

Attorneys for Trust Defendants:

          Eric D. Dowell, Esq.
          Jonathan T. Shepard, Esq.
          PRYOR CASHMAN LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036

               - and -

          Tamara S. Grimm, Esq.
          Kevin C. Rasp, Esq.
          Kevin Michael O'Hagan, Esq.
          O'HAGAN LLC
          100 N 18th St Suite 700
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          E-mail: TGrimm@ohaganlaw.com

Attorney for Intervenor CFAM Financial Servs:

          Peter J. Kreher, Esq.
          KREHER & TRAPANI LLP
          1325 Spruce St
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          E-nail: pete@krehertrapani.com

Attorney for Condor Capital Corporation:

          Paul R. Niehaus, Esq.
          NIEHAUS LLP
          150 E. 58th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10155
          E-mail: pniehaus@niehausllp.com


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Kaspereit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHAD KASPEREIT, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00117-C (W.D. Okla., Feb.
7, 2018), seeks to recover all unpaid overtime and other damages,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members performed routine and
manual labor type job duties in the oilfield.  According to the
complaint, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are those
similarly situated persons who worked for Continental at any time
from February 7, 2015 through the final disposition of this
matter, and were paid a salary, but did not receive overtime for
all hours worked over 40 in each workweek.[BN]

Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Noble K. McIntyre, Esq.
          MCINTYRE LAW PC
          8601 S. Western Avenue
          Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73139
          Telephone: (405) 917 5250
          Facsimile: (405) 917 5405
          E-mail: noble@mcintyrelaw.com


CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHRISTINA LEPAK, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONTINENTAL
SERVICE GROUP INC. d/b/a CONSERVE, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-
cv-00219-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing the
Plaintiff as class representatives, and appointing Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing
on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d
891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v.
First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an
amended motion is filed.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3cd6E5HF

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Bryan" Suit in E.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control,
LLC. The case is styled as Michael Bryan, on behalf of plaintiff
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Control,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00865-SJF-SIL (E.D. N.Y.,
February 8, 2018).

Credit Control LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
   Kleinman, LLC
   626 RXR Plaza
   Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
   Tel: (516) 522-2621
   Fax: (888) 522-1692
   Email: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com

      - and -

   Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
   Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC
   20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
   Chicago, IL 60603
   Tel: (312) 739-4200
   Fax: (312) 419-0379
   Email: thardy@edcombs.com


CVS HEALTH: District Court Dismisses TCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Joseph C. Wylie II, Molly K. McGinley, Lexi D. Bond, writing for
The National Law Review, wrote that a federal district court
recently dismissed a putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") class action against CVS Health Corporation ("CVS")
Lindenbaum v. CVS Health Corp., Case No. 17-CV-1863 (N.D. Ohio
Jan. 22, 2018), because the reminder calls to renew prescriptions
fell within the "emergency purposes" exception of the TCPA.

Plaintiff Shari Lindenbaum alleged that CVS made at least six
prerecorded prescription reminder calls to her cellphone in early
2017. She claimed that she received these calls because she had a
"recycled" cell phone number - a number that once was used by an
individual from whom the caller obtained consent but had since
been reassigned to a different individual - and that she had
never provided "prior express written consent" to receive the
calls.  CVS asked the court to dismiss Lindenbaum's claims,
primarily arguing that the calls fell within the TCPA exception
for "emergency purposes."

The TCPA exempts calls "made for emergency purposes" from
liability under the statute. 47 U.S.C. Sec 227(b)(1)(A).  Federal
law defines "emergency purposes" as "calls made necessary in any
situation affecting the health and safety of consumers."  47
C.F.R. Sec 64.1200(f)(4). The district court followed the Federal
Communications Commission's suggestion that the "emergency
purposes" exception should be interpreted broadly in finding that
the alleged CVS calls fell within that exception.

The court found that the prescription reminder calls were
"necessary," relying on a case from the Eastern District of
Missouri, Roberts v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc. No. 4:15 CV
1368 CDP, 2016 WL 3997071, at *3 (E.D. Mo. July 26, 2016), which
found that "in many instances a patient's ability to timely
receive a prescribed medicine is critical in preventing a major
health emergency." The Roberts court had found that the
exception's plain language did not limit the exception to large-
scale emergencies such as power outages, severe weather,
terrorist attacks, or AMBER alerts, as Lindenbaum had argued.
The court also found that the CVS calls were made for the "health
and safety of consumers" because "information about where, when,
and how to refill a prescription concerns the health and safety
of consumers, who may be reliant on their medication."

The court noted that this exception would not necessarily apply
to all pharmacy reminder calls, relying on a case from the
Northern District of California, St. Clair v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
222 F. Supp. 3d 779, 780 (N.D. Cal. 2016).  The court agreed with
St. Clair that that there could not be an "emergency" if the
customer already had told the pharmacy that she did not want or
need the reminder calls.  However, Lindenbaum did not allege any
affirmative action she took to tell CVS that it was calling the
wrong number or that she did not want to receive the calls.  In
absence of such affirmative action, even if Lindenbaum had never
consented to receive the calls, the calls would fall within the
"emergency purposes" exception.  Accordingly, the court held that
the calls were exempt from liability and dismissed the action.

Of note, because the calls in question were deemed to be "made
for emergency purposes," they are outside the scope of the TCPA
entirely, rather than falling within an exception to the TCPA
such as the "health care purposes" exception. 47 U.S.C. Sec
227(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, the calls did not require consent in
any form. This means that such calls are not subject to the FCC's
pronouncements on calls to reassigned numbers, including those
set forth in the FCC's July 2015 TCPA Order ("July 2015 Order").
Pursuant to that Order, calls to reassigned numbers (even where
the caller has TCPA-compliant consent from the previous
subscriber) are deemed to be made without consent, and all calls
to a reassigned number (except for the first call post-
reassignment) may be TCPA violations.  This ruling therefore
presents a powerful defense in certain instances to TCPA claims
predicated on calls to preassigned numbers. [GN]


D & A SERVICES: Faces "Golub" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D & A Services,
LLC. The case is styled as Leonard Golub, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D & A Services,
LLC a/k/a D & A Services, LLC of IL, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00888 (E.D. N.Y., February 9, 2018).

D&A Services, LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


DELTA DELI: "Hernandez" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Employees Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucio Reyes Hernandez (a.k.a. Luis) and Onis Mendez, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Delta Deli Market
Inc. (d/b/a Delta Deli Market), 1060 Flatbush Deli Market, Inc.
(d/b/a Delta Deli Market), 1060 Flatbush Supermarket Corp. (d/b/a
Delta Deli Market), Aziden M. Almontesar, Mohamed S. Hadi,
Mohamed N. Arohany, and Mohammad Hide, Case No. 1:18-cv-00375
(E.D.N.Y., January 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 1060
Flatbush Avenuue, Brooklyn, NY 11226 under the name "Delta Deli
Market." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


DENIHAN OWNERSHIP: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Denihan Ownership
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Denihan Ownership Company, LLC doing business as: The James
Hotels, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01198 (S.D. N.Y., February 9,
2018).

Denihan Ownership Company, LLC (trade name Denihan Hospitality
Group) is in the Real Estate Managers business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


DRYCLEAN GREEN: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dayana Aguiar and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Dryclean Green LLC, a/k/a Dryclean Green Cleaner, Sherisse Da
Silva, and Troy Thomas, Case No. 1:18-cv-20195-FAM (S.D. Fla.,
January 17, 2018), seek to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime wages, and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a dry-cleaning establishment which
provides laundry services to individuals and third party
commercial accounts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EFINANCIAL LLC: Turner Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER TURNER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EFINANCIAL, LLC, a Washington Limited
Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00292 (D.
Colo., Feb. 6, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendant's unlawful practice of sending Plaintiff and putative
Class Members text messages without her consent, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely and as a
matter of practice sends unconsented text messages to mobile
phone numbers across the country in order to solicit customers
for its home security business. Defendant does not obtain consent
to place these calls and send these messages via an Automated
Telephone Dialer System and fails to make the required
disclosures under the TCPA.

Efinancial, LLC operates as an insurance company. The Company
offers term and whole life, dental, mental health care, vision,
and auto insurance products. Efinancial serves customers in the
State of Washington.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLC
          201 Milwaukee St., Suite 200
          Denver, CO 80206
          Telephone: (212) 920 3072
          E-mail: masch@kamberlaw.com


ELECTROLUX HOME: Court Narrows Claims in Oven Defects Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued a Memorandum Decision and Order granting in
part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned SHELLY STEWART AND ROBERT STEWART, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, No. 1:17-cv-01213-LJO-
SKO (E.D. Cal.).

Electrolux filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) asserting many of Plaintiffs' claims are
insufficiently pled.

Plaintiffs purchased a Kenmore Elite oven, manufactured by
Electrolux, from Sears for $1,964.99. Plaintiffs purchased this
model for its self-cleaning feature. On September 9, 2016,
Plaintiffs used the self-cleaning feature for the first time, but
after a few hours, discovered that the oven had stopped working.
When Plaintiffs contacted Sears, they were told that Sears was
aware of the issues with the oven, but the warranty had expired
and Plaintiffs would need to pay for the repairs themselves.
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against
Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (Electrolux) alleging defects in a
self-cleaning oven Electrolux manufactures.

Economic Loss Rule Precludes Plaintiffs' Strict Liability and
Fraudulent Concealment Claims as Currently Pled

Electrolux contends that Plaintiffs' strict liability and
fraudulent concealment claims are barred by the economic loss
rule, which prohibits a tort claim for purely economic loss.
According to Electrolux, Plaintiffs' damages are limited to
paying for a repair to the oven and for loss of use resulting
from being told not to use the self-cleaning feature on the oven.
Plaintiffs argue they allege more than just economic loss:
Plaintiffs and other putative class members have suffered
property loss, financial harm, loss of use, and other damages.
Plaintiffs maintain that at the pleading stage, this is
sufficient. Plaintiffs also assert that the economic loss rule
does not preclude their claims because they have a special
relationship with Electrolux.

Plaintiffs do not articulate any affirmative misrepresentations
Electrolux made; they contend instead that Electrolux concealed
the oven's defect. The lack of an identifiable affirmative
misrepresentation forecloses the narrow exception envisaged in
Robinson. Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal.4th
979, 988 (2004).

Robinson sought replacement parts from the defendant, the
defendant refused to contribute to the replacement costs, and
Robinson filed suit for breach of contract, misrepresentation,
and fraud. On appeal, the court held that because Robinson
suffered only economic loss, it could not recover in tort. The
California Supreme Court reversed, holding that a contractual
obligation may create a legal duty and the breach of that duty
may support a tort claim.

Further, Plaintiffs were not exposed to any personal injury
damages independent of the economic loss that was foreseeable
from a defective oven  the oven purportedly did not function
until the thermostat was replaced. The type of damage Plaintiffs
suffered is distinguishable from Robinson's exposure to personal
injury liability, among other types of damage. The fraudulent
concealment claim in this case is not predicated on affirmative
misrepresentations that led Plaintiffs to be exposed to liability
or damages beyond those expected from a defective oven. Robinson
does not apply to Plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment claims as
currently pled.

In sum, Plaintiffs' claims in strict liability and fraudulent
concealment (Counts V, VI, and VII) as currently pled are
precluded by the economic loss rule. Due to the discrepancies in
the allegations regarding the nature of the oven's defect and the
type of damages incurred, Plaintiffs will be given an opportunity
to amend these claims if, and only if, they can cure the
deficiencies.

Plaintiffs' Fraud-Based Claims (Counts VII, VIII, IX, and X) Are
Not Pled with Specificity

Elements of Plaintiffs' Fraud-Based Claims

Under California law, the elements of fraud include (1) a
misrepresentation (false representation, concealment or
nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to defraud,
to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting
damage.

Plaintiffs' fraud-based claims include Count VII (common law
fraudulent concealment), Count VIII (California Legal Remedies
Act (CLRA), County IX (California's Unfair Competition Law
(UCL)), and Count X (California False Advertising Law (FAL).
The UCL prohibits unfair competition, which it broadly defines as
including any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or
practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.
Plaintiffs' claim here is predicated on the fraudulent prong of
the UCL.  A UCL claim must allege the injuries resulted from the
fraudulent conduct, there was a causal connection or reliance on
the alleged misrepresentation, and that reasonably prudent
purchasers exercising ordinary care would have been misled.
The CLRA prohibits certain "unfair methods of competition and
unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in
a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or
lease of goods or services to any consumer. In CLRA claims, like
those under the fraudulent prong of the UCL, the representation
will not violate the CLRA if the defendant did not know or have
reason to know of the facts that rendered the representation
misleading at the time it was made.

The FAL proscribes making or disseminating any statement which is
untrue or misleading, and which is known, or by the exercise of
reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading with
intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal
property.

Electrolux argues Plaintiffs' fraud-based claims lack the
requisite specificity to show how Electrolux had actual knowledge
of the purported defect in its ovens, what specific
misrepresentations or omissions were made by Electrolux, and how
Plaintiffs relied on these misrepresentations or omissions to
their detriment.

Misrepresentation or Omission/Concealment Allegations

Electrolux argues Plaintiffs have failed to articulate with any
degree of specificity either an affirmative misrepresentation or
concealment or omission by Electrolux.

Plaintiffs' Fraudulent Concealment, CLRA, and UCL Claims
Insufficiently Plead an Omission/Concealment

Plaintiffs allege the thermostat in Electrolux's oven is
defective and "burns out" while using the self-cleaning function.
Plaintiffs claim Electrolux knew its ovens contained this defect
but concealed this fact from consumers. As discussed above, the
nature of the defect, and thus the nature of the information
Electrolux concealed, is not clear and thus not specific. While
Plaintiffs allege and define their oven defect as one pertaining
to the oven thermostat causing it to fail during the self-
cleaning function, Plaintiffs later appear to allege a broader
"electrical defect" that caused ovens to combust and catch fire,
melt, and cause damage to other property besides the oven itself,
creating a safety hazard.

Plaintiffs themselves, however, did not allege they experienced
an electrical defect in the oven that caused a safety and fire
hazard in fact, Plaintiffs apparently fixed their oven's
thermostat and kept the oven, albeit on the admonition not to
engage the self-cleaning function without risk of damaging the
thermostat again. After defining the Defect the complaint then
refers inconsistently to Defects.

Paragraph 27 uses Defect and Defects interchangeably, and
Paragraph 31 returns to claiming there is a uniform Defect. It is
possible the allegations can be clarified, but as the complaint
is pled, it is difficult to know the specific nature of what
defect or defects Electrolux allegedly concealed from Plaintiffs.
For this reason, the Court cannot conclude that the circumstances
of Electrolux' alleged omission or what information Electrolux
withheld from consumers is pled with specificity. Plaintiffs'
fraud-based omission/concealment claims are insufficiently pled
for this reason.

Plaintiffs' FLA Claim Does Not Plead An Affirmative
Misrepresentation

If Plaintiffs' FAL claim is predicated on express statements in
the warranty, as Plaintiffs suggest in their opposition brief,
the complaint must specifically identify these statements so that
Electrolux has sufficient notice of the representations
Plaintiffs claim were false and misleading. As it stands,
Plaintiffs' FAL claim fails to identify an affirmative
misrepresentation or misleading statement with the requisite
specificity.

Plaintiffs' Actual Knowledge Allegations are Insufficient

Plaintiffs allege that Electrolux (1) monitors warranty
statistics and service call rates to detect problems as soon as
customers begin to experience them, (2) tracks returned products
and parts to investigate faults and reduce warranty claims rates,
and (3) employs quality engineers to monitor customer complaints
from Electrolux's call center to detect problems. However, there
are no allegations showing whether complaints were made to
Electrolux's call center, or whether customers were otherwise
reporting problems to Electrolux or returning the product or
parts to Electrolux. To the extent these allegations are made on
information and belief as noted in the complaint, this lacks the
requisite specificity because there is no explanation upon what
the belief is founded.

Plaintiffs' claims sounding in fraud (fraudulent concealment,
CLRA, UCL, and FAL) lack the requisite specificity in alleging
Electrolux had actual knowledge of the purported defect in its
ovens. The customer complaints on a consumer affairs website have
not been linked to Electrolux to show how Electrolux would have
necessarily been aware of these complaints, and the allegations
regarding systems or testing that Electrolux may or may not have
had in place lack specificity and detail about what testing was
performed, when such testing was done, or any allegation showing
that complaints or defects were reported to Electrolux during the
period before Plaintiffs purchased their oven.

Actual Reliance Allegations Are Insufficient

Plaintiffs allege if they, or any of the class members, had known
about the defect, they would not have purchased their oven.
Plaintiffs' allegations about the nature of the defect are
inconsistent, and their allegations of reliance on Electrolux's
misrepresentations or omissions are mixed with other allegations
about a seemingly different type of defect in the oven. Without a
specific and clear allegation about the nature of the defect, it
is unclear what was concealed from Plaintiffs about the product
and whether that information would influence the consumers'
decision to buy the product. For this reason, the actual reliance
allegations are insufficient.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that Electrolux's Motion to Dismiss:

   a. Count I: Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is
denied;

   b. Count XI: Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act is denied;

Electrolux's Motion to Dismiss the following Claims is GRANTED
with leave to amend: Counts V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X.

Electrolux' Motion to dismiss the following claims is granted
without leave to amend:

   a. Count III: Breach of the Implied Warranty; and

   b. Count IV: Injunctive Relief.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 8, 2018
Memorandum Decision and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yajhcqfk  from Leagle.com.

Shelly Stewart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated & Robert Stewart, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Gregory F. Coleman
-- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice,
Mitchell M. Breit -- mbreit@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly
Conroy, pro hac vice & Crystal Gayle Foley --
cfoley@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons, Hanly, Conroy, LLC.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Phillip
J. Eskenazi -- peskenazi@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP.


EQUIFAX INC: Services & Insurance Plan Sues over Corporate Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
SERVICES & INSURANCE PLAN, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOHN W. GAMBLE, JR., JOSEPH
M. LOUGHRAN, III, RODOLFO O. PLODER, RICHARD F. SMITH, JAMES E.
COPELAND, JR., ROBERT D. DALEO, WALTER W. DRIVER, JR., MARK L.
FEIDLER, G. THOMAS HOUGH, L. PHILLIP HUMANN, ROBERT D. MARCUS,
SIRI S. MARSHALL, JOHN A. MCKINLEY, ELANE B. STOCK and MARK B.
TEMPLETON, the Defendants, and EQUIFAX, INC., Nominal Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00577-TWT (N.D. Ga., Feb. 6, 2018), seeks an
order directing Equifax to take all necessary actions to reform
and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to
comply with applicable laws and to protect Equifax and its
stockholders from a repeat of the damaging events such as Data
breach, including, but not limited to, putting forward for
stockholder vote, resolutions for amendments to the Company's By-
Laws or Articles of Incorporation and taking such other action as
may be necessary to place before stockholders for a vote.

The lawsuit is a shareholder derivative action arising from
Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties owed to its shareholders
in connection with its most recent cybersecurity breach, which
was announced to the public on September 7, 2017. Despite
warnings as early as March 2016 -- when Equifax learned that its
subsidiary, Equifax Workforce Solutions, had its website breached
-- that Equifax was in danger of serious data breaches that could
expose to hackers the personal and financial data millions of
Americans, Equifax and the other Defendants chose to do nothing
to correct their inadequate internal controls over the Company's
technology and data security.

Due to Defendants' failure to protect against this known risk, on
or about July 29, 2017, Equifax discovered an unauthorized
intrusion into its massive data files, resulting in unauthorized
access to the personal and financial data of nearly half of the
American citizenry. Rather than immediately announcing the Data
Breach, Equifax waited until September 7, 2017 to acknowledge
that the Data Breach was discovered on July 29, 2017, potentially
impacting approximately 143 million U.S. consumers. This data
breach took place between May and July 2017, when cyber criminals
exploited a U.S. website application vulnerability to gain access
to Equifax files.

Incredibly, between the time of the Data Breach and the public
disclosure by Equifax, three Equifax executives brazenly sold at
least $1.8 million worth of shares, as follows: Defendant Gamble,
Equifax's Corporate Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
sold shares worth $946,374 on August 1, 2017; Defendant Loughran,
President of Equifax's United States Information Solutions
("USIS") business, exercised options to dispose of stock worth
$584,099 on August 1, 2017; Defendant Ploder, Equifax's President
of Workforce Solutions, sold shares worth $250,458 on August 2,
2017.

Equifax failed to secure and safeguard consumers' personal and
private information which it collects from various sources in
connection with the operation of its business as a consumer
credit reporting agency. The information obtained by hackers as a
result of the Data Breach includes names, Social Security
numbers, birth dates, addresses and, in some instances, driver's
license numbers. In addition, Equifax admitted that credit card
numbers for approximately 209,000 U.S. consumers, and certain
dispute documents with personal identifying information for
approximately 182,000 U.S. consumers, were accessed.

Equifax failed to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure
its data systems were protected; failed to disclose to its
customers the material fact that it did not have adequate
computer systems and security practices in place to safeguard
consumers' personal and private information; failed to take
available steps to prevent and stop the breach from ever
happening; and failed to monitor and detect the breach on a
timely basis. As a direct result of Defendants' failures to
protect the consumer information they are tasked with
safeguarding, Company's stock price has plummeted, it is subject
to multiple criminal and civil lawsuits, and it faces multiple
public inquiries into the Data Breach, all of which have caused
the Company to expend, and continue to expend, significant sums
of money.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on over 800 million
individual consumers.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Steven J. Estep, Esq.
          COHEN COOPER ESTEP & ALLEN LLC
          Jefferson M. Allen
          3330 Cumberland Boulevard, Suite 600
          Atlanta, Georgia 30339
          Telephone: (404) 814 0000
          Facsimile: (404) 816 8900
          E-mail: sestep@ccealaw.com

               - and -

          Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
          Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA
          & CHEVERIE LLP
          112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 213 8311


FALCON SUBSIDIARY: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Shaulis Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANET SHAULIS and JEWEL ARLENE KEY, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v.
FALCON SUBSIDIARY LLC d/b/a AXISPOINT HEALTH, a Delaware limited
liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00293 (D.
Colo., Feb. 6, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages and minimum
pay, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant offers call center
services to patients of Defendant's clients and employs
registered nurses in the positions of "Telehealth Nurse" and
"Nurse Advice Line Nurse" to receive and respond to patient phone
calls, among other duties. The THNs work remotely from their home
residences in states across the country.

The Defendant requires its THNs to work a full-time schedule,
plus overtime. However, Defendant does not compensate the THNs
for all work performed. Specifically, Defendant fails to pay THNs
for certain work performed "off-the-clock" at the beginning of
each shift, during meal periods, and at the end of each shift.
Defendant's illegal compensation practices and policies result in
THNs not being paid for all time worked, including overtime.

The Defendant requires THNs to use multiple computer programs,
software programs, and applications in the course of performing
their responsibilities. These programs and applications are an
integral, indispensable, and important part of the THNs' work as
they cannot perform their jobs effectively without them.
Regardless of medical specialty, Defendant's THNs perform the
same basic job duties and are required to use the same or similar
computer programs, software programs, applications, and phone
systems.[BN]

Trial Counsel for Plaintiff and Proposed Class and Collective
Members:

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Jason T. Thompson, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355 0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436 8453
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  jthompson@sommerspc.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Corrected Bid to Certify Class Okayed
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RICHARD WIATREK, Individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FLOWERS FOODS,
INC. and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF SAN ANTONIO LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00772-XR (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Xavier
Rodriguez entered an order granting Plaintiff's corrected motion
to conditionally certify a class.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff is permitted to send via regular
mail the corrected notice along with a self-addressed stamped
return envelope to Kennard Richard, P.C., to potential opt-in
class members. The Defendants shall, within seven days of the
signing of this Order, provide Plaintiff's counsel with names and
addresses of all individuals currently working or who have worked
as distributors for Defendants during the three-year period
before this lawsuit was filed. The potential plaintiffs will have
60 days from the date the first notices are mailed to file their
notices of consent with the Court."

Defendants contend that, if a class is certified, it should be
limited to the warehouse in Kerrville from which Plaintiff
operated.

Plaintiff asks the Court to certify the class as all warehouses
belonging to FBC of San Antonio, noting that, as in the other
cases certifying distributor classes, Defendants have not shown
why a plaintiff's status as an employee or independent contractor
would vary by warehouse.

The cases certifying distributor classes against Flowers Foods
have not limited it to the particular warehouses utilized by the
named plaintiff, and Plaintiff argues that other cases limiting a
class to a particular location are distinguishable based on those
particular workplaces and structures. Plaintiff thus contends
that because Defendants have failed to show how a particular
warehouse may affect the status of a distributor as an employee
or an independent contractor and because evidence suggests that
the policies and practices applicable to Flowers Baking Co. of
San Antonio distributors are the same from warehouse to
warehouse, notice should be sent to all Flowers Baking Co. of San
Antonio warehouses. The Court agrees with Plaintiff.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lfTSn5jv


FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Selwyn" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus
LLP. The case is styled as Yisroel Selwyn, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Forster
& Garbus LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00893 (E.D. N.Y.,
February 9, 2018).

Forster & Garbus LLP is a Debt Collection Law Firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


GC SERVICE: Faces "Khaimov" Suit in Eastern District New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Service Limited
Partnership. The case is styled as Ilya Khaimov, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GC
Service Limited Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00899
(E.D. N.Y., February 9, 2018).

GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of
call center management and collection agency services in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen, PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


GC SERVICES: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in "Ocampo" Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Jose Luis Ocampo, the Plaintiff, v. GC
Services International, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-09388 (N.D. Ill.), the Court will review briefs on the
pending renewed motion for class certification, and determine
whether to set the matter for a status hearing and/or oral
argument or simply issue a ruling by mail.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on February 5,
2018, this case was reassigned to this Court's calendar. A review
of the docket sheet reveals that there is a pending renewed
motion for class certification, which is fully briefed. The Court
will review the briefs and determine whether to set the matter
for a status hearing and/or oral argument or simply issue a
ruling by mail.

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


GENERAC POWER: Craftwood Drops Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Craftwood II, Inc., et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-04105 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs stipulate to withdraw,
without prejudice, pending a protective motion for class
certification.

Defendants, Generac Power Systems, Inc. and Comprehensive
Marketing, Inc., stipulate that they will not make any offer or
tender to Plaintiffs, Craftwood II, Inc. dba Bay Hardware and/or
Craftwood III, Inc. dba Lunada Bay Hardware, including but not
limited to an offer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, or a deposit
of the full amount of the individual claim of Plaintiffs or
either of them in an account payable to Plaintiffs or either of
them, without advance notice to Plaintiffs.

This stipulation does not preclude Defendants from serving an
offer or tender to Plaintiffs in the following circumstances: (1)
If Defendants send all counsel of record for Plaintiffs an email
notifying Plaintiffs that Defendants intend to serve an offer or
tender on an individual basis, then Defendants may serve such
tender or offer beginning on the 14th day after the email
notification was sent (but not before such time); (2) Defendants
may serve an offer or tender on a class-wide basis at any time.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Damon Rubin, Esq.
          Payne & Fears LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 689 1750
          E-mail: dr@paynefears.com

Attorneys for Generac Power Systems, Inc.:

          Molly Anne Arranz, Esq.
          John C. Ochoa, Esq.
          Erin Anne Walsh, Esq.
          SmithAmundsen LLC
          150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          E-mail: marranz@salawus.com
                  jochoa@salawus.com
                  ewalsh@salawus.com

Attorneys for Comprehensive Marketing, Inc.:

          Paul Bozych, Esq.
          Preetha Jayakumar, Esq.
          John J. Murphy, Esq.
          NIELSON, ZEHE & ANTAS, P.C.
          55 West Monroe, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          E-mail: pbozych@nzalaw.com
                  pjayakumar@nzalaw.com
                  jmurphy@nzalaw.com


GLOBAL STAFFING: "Horton" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAMIAN HORTON, the Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL
STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC, and FORREST BETHAY III, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-12609-EEF-JVM (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to conditionally certify the following collective:

   "all individuals employed by Global Staffing Solutions, LLC at
   any time between November 16, 2014 to the date of judgment in
   this action, who were not timely paid for all hours worked,
   including overtime and minimum wage."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court for permission to send
notice to the members of the collective, to approve the proposed
Form of Notice, and to direct Defendants to disclose contact
information on an expedited basis.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YltP7FnC

Attorneys For Plaintiff:

          Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
          STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
          318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104
          New Orleans, LA 70124
          Telephone: (504) 267 0777
          Facsimile: (504) 513 3084
          E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Justin Chopin, Esq.
          CHOPIN LAW FIRM LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 1550
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 229 6681
          Facsimile: (504) 324 0640
          E-mail: Justin@ChopinLawFirm.com


GOOGLE LLC: Pixel Phones Have Faulty Mic, Weeks & Anbar Allege
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA WEEKS and WALEED ANBAR, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00801 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2018), is a
consumer protection class action on behalf of individuals who
purchased Pixel and Pixel XL smartphones. The Pixel phones
contain a manufacturing defect that renders their microphone and
speakers prone to malfunctioning and failing. The defect
compromises the phone's core functionality, preventing consumers
from communicating by voice call and from using features like
Google Assistant (a counterpart to Apple's "Siri" for the
iPhone).  Google designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold the
Pixel phones. It promoted the Pixel phones as premium products
and priced them from $649 to $869. Yet, immediately after
launching the phones, customers complained directly to Google of
"severe microphone issues." Despite receiving hundreds of
complaints shortly after launch -- and admitting the phones have
a "faulty microphone" -- Google continues to sell the Pixel
phones without telling purchasers about the microphone defect.

Moreover, instead of fixing the defective Pixel phones, providing
refunds, or replacing the devices with non-defective phones;
Google has replaced defective phones with other defective phones,
resulting in many consumers repeatedly experiencing the
microphone defect.

The microphone defect in the Pixel phones is substantially
certain to manifest and existed within the phones when sold.
Plaintiffs were consequently deprived of the benefit of their
Bargain.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Simon S. Grille, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981 4800
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  je@girardgibbs.com
                  aep@girardgibbs.com
                  sg@girardgibbs.com


HARBOR CARE: "Adolphe" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRIDANE ADOLPHE, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by HARBOR CARE, LLC, along
with other entities affiliated or controlled by HARBOR CARE, LLC,
the Plaintiffs, v. HARBOR CARE, LLC and/or any other related
entities, the Defendant, Case No. 151146/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Feb. 6, 2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits which
Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive
pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in January 2012 continuing
through the present, Defendant has maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of
ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly
compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread
of hours" compensation. The Plaintiff has initiated this action
seeking for herself, and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees who are citizens of New York and who performed work
within the State of New York, minimum wages, overtime
compensation, "spread of hours" compensation, reimbursement for
business expenses borne for the benefit and convenience of the
Defendants including purchasing and laundering of uniforms, as
well as damages arising from Defendant's breach of contract ,
which they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

Harbor Care LLC was founded in 1998. The company's line of
business includes providing inpatient nursing and rehabilitative
services to patients who require continuous health care.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943 9082
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1517 Voohies Ave, 2nd Fl
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (212) 808 2224
          Facsimile: (866) 261 5478
          E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


HOME BOX OFFICE: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Box Office,
Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Home Box Office, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01155-LGS (S.D. N.Y., February 8,
2018).

Home Box Office is an American premium cable and satellite
television network that is owned by Time Warner through its
respective flagship company Home Box Office, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Avi Naveh, Esq.
   Law Office of Avi A. Naveh
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 881-4471
   Email: court@navehlaw.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Class Certification in Fuel Economy Suit Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, IN RE HYUNDAI AND KIA FUEL ECONOMY LITIGATION.
KEHLIE R. ESPINOSA; NICOLE MARIE HUNTER; JEREMY WILTON; KAYLENE
P. BRADY; GUNTHER KRAUTH; ERIC GRAEWINGHOLT; REECE PHILIP
THOMSON; ALEX MATURANI; NILUFAR REZAI; JACK ROTTNER; LYDIA
KIEVIT; REBECCA SANDERS; BOBBY BRANDON ARMSTRONG; SERGIO TORRES;
RICHARD WOODRUFF; MARSHALL LAWRENCE GORDON; JOEL A. LIPMAN; JAMES
GUDGALIS; MARY P. HOESSLER; STEPHEN M. HAYES; BRIAN REEVES; SAM
HAMMOND; MARK LEGGETT; EDWIN NAYTHONS; MICHAEL WASHBURN; IRA D.
DUNST; BRIAN WEBER; KAMNEEL MAHARAJ; KIM IOCOVOZZI; HERBERT J.
YOUNG; LINDA HASPER; LESLIE BAYARD; TRICIA FELLERS; ORLANDO
ELLIOTT; JAMES BONSIGNORE; MARGARET SETSER; GUILLERMO QUIROZ;
DOUGLAS KURASH; ANDRES CARULLO; LAURA S. SUTTA; GEORGIA L.
THOMAS; ERIC J. OLSON; JENNIFER MYERS; TOM WOODWARD; JEROLD
TERHOST; CAMERON JOHN CESTARO; DONALD BROWN; MARIA FIGUEROA;
CONSTANCE MARTYN; THOMAS GANIM; DANIEL BALDESCHI; LILLIAN E.
LEVOFF; GIUSEPPINA ROBERTO; ROBERT TRADER; SEAN GOLDSBERRY;
CYNTHIA NAVARRO; OWEN CHAPMAN; MICHAEL BREIN; TRAVIS BRISSEY;
RONALD BURKARD; ADAM CLOUTIER; STEVEN CRAIG; JOHN J. DIXSON; ERIN
L. FANTHORPE; ERIC HADESH; MICHAEL P. KEETH; JOHN KIRK MacDONALD;
MICHAEL MANDAHL; NICHOLAS McDANIEL; MARY J. MORAN-SPICUZZA; GARY
PINCAS; BRANDON POTTER; THOMAS PURDY; ROCCO RENGHINI; MICHELLE
SINGLTEON; KEN SMILEY; GREGORY M. SONSTEIN; ROMAN STARNO; GAYLE
A. STEPHENSON; ANDRES VILLICANA; RICHARD WILLIAMS; BRADFORD L.
HIRSCH; ASHLEY CEPHAS; DAVID E. HILL; CHAD McKINNEY; MORDECHAI
SCHIFFER; LISA SANDS; DONALD KENDIG; KEVIN GOBEL; ERIC LARSON;
LIN McKINNEY; RYAN CROSS; PHILLIP HOFFMAN; DEBRA SIMMONS;
ABELARDO MORALES; PETER BLUMER; CAROLYN HAMMOND; MELISSA LEGGETT;
KELLY MOFFETT; EVAN GROGAN; CARLOS MEDINA; ALBERTO DOMINGUEZ;
CATHERINE BERNARD; MICHAEL BREIEN; LAURA GILL; THOMAS SCHILLE;
JUDITH STANTON; RANDY RICKERT; BRYAN ZIRKEL; JAMES KUNDRAT;
ROBERT SMITH; MARIA KOTOVA; JOSIPA CASEY; LUAN SNYDER; BEN BAKER;
BRIAN NGUYEN; HATTIE WILLIAMS; BILL HOLVEY; LOURDES VARGAS;
KENDALL SNYDER; NOMER MEDINA; SAMERIA GOFF; URSULA PYLAND;
MARCELL CHAPMAN; KAYE KURASH; HOLLY AMROMIN; JOHN CHAPMAN; MARY
D'ANGELO; GEORGE RUDY; AYMAN MOUSA; SHELLY HENDERSON; JEFFREY
HATHAWAY; DENNIS J. MURPHY; DOUGLAS A. PATTERSON; JOHN GENTRY;
LINDA RUTH SCOTT; DANIELLE KAY GILLELAND; JOSEPH BOWE; MICHAEL
DESOUTO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, GREG DIRENZO, Petitioner-Appellee,
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA; KIA MOTORS AMERICA; KIA MOTORS
CORPORATION; GROSSINGER AUTOPLEX, INC., FKA Grossinger Hyundai;
JOHN KRAFCIK; HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY; SARAH KUNDRAT, Defendants-
Appellees, v. CAITLIN AHEARN; ANDREW YORK, Objectors-Appellants.
IN RE HYUNDAI AND KIA FUEL ECONOMY LITIGATION. In Re, KEHLIE R.
ESPINOSA; NICOLE MARIE HUNTER; JEREMY WILTON; KAYLENE P. BRADY;
GUNTHER KRAUTH; ERIC GRAEWINGHOLT; REECE PHILIP THOMSON; ALEX
MATURANI; NILUFAR REZAI; JACK ROTTNER; LYDIA KIEVIT; REBECCA
SANDERS; BOBBY BRANDON ARMSTRONG; SERGIO TORRES; RICHARD
WOODRUFF; MARSHALL LAWRENCE GORDON; JOEL A. LIPMAN; JAMES
GUDGALIS; MARY P. HOESSLER; STEPHEN M. HAYES; BRIAN REEVES; SAM
HAMMOND; MARK LEGGETT; EDWIN NAYTHONS; MICHAEL WASHBURN; IRA D.
DUNST; BRIAN WEBER; KAMNEEL MAHARAJ; KIM IOCOVOZZI; HERBERT J.
YOUNG; LINDA HASPER; LESLIE BAYARD; TRICIA FELLERS; ORLANDO
ELLIOTT; JAMES BONSIGNORE; MARGARET SETSER; GUILLERMO QUIROZ;
DOUGLAS KURASH; ANDRES CARULLO; LAURA S. SUTTA; GEORGIA L.
THOMAS; ERIC J. OLSON; JENNIFER MYERS; TOM WOODWARD; JEROLD
TERHOST; CAMERON JOHN CESTARO; DONALD BROWN; MARIA FIGUEROA;
CONSTANCE MARTYN; THOMAS GANIM; DANIEL BALDESCHI; LILLIAN E.
LEVOFF; GIUSEPPINA ROBERTO; ROBERT TRADER; SEAN GOLDSBERRY;
CYNTHIA NAVARRO; OWEN CHAPMAN; MICHAEL BREIN; TRAVIS BRISSEY;
RONALD BURKARD; ADAM CLOUTIER; STEVEN CRAIG; JOHN J. DIXSON; ERIN
L. FANTHORPE; ERIC HADESH; MICHAEL P. KEETH; JOHN KIRK MacDONALD;
MICHAEL MANDAHL; NICHOLAS McDANIEL; MARY J. MORAN-SPICUZZA; GARY
PINCAS; BRANDON POTTER; THOMAS PURDY; ROCCO RENGHINI; MICHELLE
SINGLTEON; KEN SMILEY; GREGORY M. SONSTEIN; ROMAN STARNO; GAYLE
A. STEPHENSON; ANDRES VILLICANA; RICHARD WILLIAMS; BRADFORD L.
HIRSCH; ASHLEY CEPHAS; DAVID E. HILL; CHAD McKINNEY; MORDECHAI
SCHIFFER; LISA SANDS; DONALD KENDIG; KEVIN GOBEL; ERIC LARSON;
LIN McKINNEY; RYAN CROSS; PHILLIP HOFFMAN; DEBRA SIMMONS;
ABELARDO MORALES; PETER BLUMER; CAROLYN HAMMOND; MELISSA LEGGETT;
KELLY MOFFETT; EVAN GROGAN; CARLOS MEDINA; ALBERTO DOMINGUEZ;
CATHERINE BERNARD; MICHAEL BREIEN; LAURA GILL; THOMAS SCHILLE;
JUDITH STANTON; RANDY RICKERT; BRYAN ZIRKEL; JAMES KUNDRAT;
ROBERT SMITH; MARIA KOTOVA; JOSIPA CASEY; LUAN SNYDER; BEN BAKER;
BRIAN NGUYEN; HATTIE WILLIAMS; BILL HOLVEY; LOURDES VARGAS;
KENDALL SNYDER; NOMER MEDINA; SAMERIA GOFF; URSULA PYLAND;
MARCELL CHAPMAN; KAYE KURASH; HOLLY AMROMIN; JOHN CHAPMAN; MARY
D'ANGELO; GEORGE RUDY; AYMAN MOUSA; SHELLY HENDERSON; JEFFREY
HATHAWAY; DENNIS J. MURPHY; DOUGLAS A. PATTERSON; JOHN GENTRY;
LINDA RUTH SCOTT; DANIELLE KAY GILLELAND; JOSEPH BOWE; MICHAEL
DESOUTO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, GREG DIRENZO, Petitioner-Appellee,
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA; KIA MOTORS AMERICA; KIA MOTORS
CORPORATION; GROSSINGER AUTOPLEX, INC., FKA Grossinger Hyundai;
JOHN KRAFCIK; HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY; SARAH KUNDRAT, Defendants-
Appellees, v. ANTONIO SBERNA, Objector-Appellant, IN RE HYUNDAI
AND KIA FUEL ECONOMY LITIGATION. KEHLIE R. ESPINOSA; NICOLE MARIE
HUNTER; JEREMY WILTON; KAYLENE P. BRADY; GUNTHER KRAUTH; ERIC
GRAEWINGHOLT; REECE PHILIP THOMSON; ALEX MATURANI; NILUFAR REZAI;
JACK ROTTNER; LYDIA KIEVIT; REBECCA SANDERS; BOBBY BRANDON
ARMSTRONG; SERGIO TORRES; RICHARD WOODRUFF; MARSHALL LAWRENCE
GORDON; JOEL A. LIPMAN; JAMES GUDGALIS; MARY P. HOESSLER; STEPHEN
M. HAYES; BRIAN REEVES; SAM HAMMOND; MARK LEGGETT; EDWIN
NAYTHONS; MICHAEL WASHBURN; IRA D. DUNST; BRIAN WEBER; KAMNEEL
MAHARAJ; KIM IOCOVOZZI; HERBERT J. YOUNG; LINDA HASPER; LESLIE
BAYARD; TRICIA FELLERS; ORLANDO ELLIOTT; JAMES BONSIGNORE;
MARGARET SETSER; GUILLERMO QUIROZ; DOUGLAS KURASH; ANDRES
CARULLO; LAURA S. SUTTA; GEORGIA L. THOMAS; ERIC J. OLSON;
JENNIFER MYERS; TOM WOODWARD; JEROLD TERHOST; CAMERON JOHN
CESTARO; DONALD BROWN; MARIA FIGUEROA; CONSTANCE MARTYN; THOMAS
GANIM; DANIEL BALDESCHI; LILLIAN E. LEVOFF; GIUSEPPINA ROBERTO;
ROBERT TRADER; SEAN GOLDSBERRY; CYNTHIA NAVARRO; OWEN CHAPMAN;
MICHAEL BREIN; TRAVIS BRISSEY; RONALD BURKARD; ADAM CLOUTIER;
STEVEN CRAIG; JOHN J. DIXSON; ERIN L. FANTHORPE; ERIC HADESH;
MICHAEL P. KEETH; JOHN KIRK MacDONALD; MICHAEL MANDAHL; NICHOLAS
McDANIEL; MARY J. MORAN-SPICUZZA; GARY PINCAS; BRANDON POTTER;
THOMAS PURDY; ROCCO RENGHINI; MICHELLE SINGLTEON; KEN SMILEY;
GREGORY M. SONSTEIN; ROMAN STARNO; GAYLE A. STEPHENSON; ANDRES
VILLICANA; RICHARD WILLIAMS; BRADFORD L. HIRSCH; ASHLEY CEPHAS;
DAVID E. HILL; CHAD McKINNEY; MORDECHAI SCHIFFER; LISA SANDS;
DONALD KENDIG; KEVIN GOBEL; ERIC LARSON; LIN McKINNEY; RYAN
CROSS; PHILLIP HOFFMAN; DEBRA SIMMONS; ABELARDO MORALES; PETER
BLUMER; CAROLYN HAMMOND; MELISSA LEGGETT; KELLY MOFFETT; EVAN
GROGAN; CARLOS MEDINA; ALBERTO DOMINGUEZ; CATHERINE BERNARD;
MICHAEL BREIEN; LAURA GILL; THOMAS SCHILLE; JUDITH STANTON; RANDY
RICKERT; BRYAN ZIRKEL; JAMES KUNDRAT; ROBERT SMITH; MARIA KOTOVA;
JOSIPA CASEY; LUAN SNYDER; BEN BAKER; BRIAN NGUYEN; HATTIE
WILLIAMS; BILL HOLVEY; LOURDES VARGAS; KENDALL SNYDER; NOMER
MEDINA; SAMERIA GOFF; URSULA PYLAND; MARCELL CHAPMAN; KAYE
KURASH; HOLLY AMROMIN; JOHN CHAPMAN; MARY D'ANGELO; GEORGE RUDY;
AYMAN MOUSA; SHELLY HENDERSON; JEFFREY HATHAWAY; DENNIS J.
MURPHY; DOUGLAS A. PATTERSON; JOHN GENTRY; LINDA RUTH SCOTT;
DANIELLE KAY GILLELAND; JOSEPH BOWE; MICHAEL DESOUTO, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, GREG DIRENZO, Petitioner-Appellee, HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA; KIA MOTORS AMERICA; KIA MOTORS CORPORATION; GROSSINGER
AUTOPLEX, INC., FKA Grossinger Hyundai; JOHN KRAFCIK; HYUNDAI
MOTOR COMPANY; SARAH KUNDRAT, Defendants-Appellees, v. PERI
FETSCH, Objector-Appellant. IN RE HYUNDAI AND KIA FUEL ECONOMY
LITIGATION. KEHLIE R. ESPINOSA; NICOLE MARIE HUNTER; JEREMY
WILTON; KAYLENE P. BRADY; GUNTHER KRAUTH; ERIC GRAEWINGHOLT;
REECE PHILIP THOMSON; ALEX MATURANI; NILUFAR REZAI; JACK ROTTNER;
LYDIA KIEVIT; REBECCA SANDERS; BOBBY BRANDON ARMSTRONG; SERGIO
TORRES; RICHARD WOODRUFF; MARSHALL LAWRENCE GORDON; JOEL A.
LIPMAN; JAMES GUDGALIS; MARY P. HOESSLER; STEPHEN M. HAYES; BRIAN
REEVES; SAM HAMMOND; MARK LEGGETT; EDWIN NAYTHONS; MICHAEL
WASHBURN; IRA D. DUNST; BRIAN WEBER; KAMNEEL MAHARAJ; KIM
IOCOVOZZI; HERBERT J. YOUNG; LINDA HASPER; LESLIE BAYARD; TRICIA
FELLERS; ORLANDO ELLIOTT; JAMES BONSIGNORE; MARGARET SETSER;
GUILLERMO QUIROZ; DOUGLAS KURASH; ANDRES CARULLO; LAURA S. SUTTA;
GEORGIA L. THOMAS; ERIC J. OLSON; JENNIFER MYERS; TOM WOODWARD;
JEROLD TERHOST; CAMERON JOHN CESTARO; DONALD BROWN; MARIA
FIGUEROA; CONSTANCE MARTYN; THOMAS GANIM; DANIEL BALDESCHI;
LILLIAN E. LEVOFF; GIUSEPPINA ROBERTO; ROBERT TRADER; SEAN
GOLDSBERRY; CYNTHIA NAVARRO; OWEN CHAPMAN; MICHAEL BREIN; TRAVIS
BRISSEY; RONALD BURKARD; ADAM CLOUTIER; STEVEN CRAIG; JOHN J.
DIXSON; ERIN L. FANTHORPE; ERIC HADESH; MICHAEL P. KEETH; JOHN
KIRK MacDONALD; MICHAEL MANDAHL; NICHOLAS McDANIEL; MARY J.
MORAN-SPICUZZA; GARY PINCAS; BRANDON POTTER; THOMAS PURDY; ROCCO
RENGHINI; MICHELLE SINGLTEON; KEN SMILEY; GREGORY M. SONSTEIN;
ROMAN STARNO; GAYLE A. STEPHENSON; ANDRES VILLICANA; RICHARD
WILLIAMS; BRADFORD L. HIRSCH; ASHLEY CEPHAS; DAVID E. HILL; CHAD
McKINNEY; MORDECHAI SCHIFFER; LISA SANDS; DONALD KENDIG; KEVIN
GOBEL; ERIC LARSON; LIN McKINNEY; RYAN CROSS; PHILLIP HOFFMAN;
DEBRA SIMMONS; ABELARDO MORALES; PETER BLUMER; CAROLYN HAMMOND;
MELISSA LEGGETT; KELLY MOFFETT; EVAN GROGAN; CARLOS MEDINA;
ALBERTO DOMINGUEZ; CATHERINE BERNARD; MICHAEL BREIEN; LAURA GILL;
THOMAS SCHILLE; JUDITH STANTON; RANDY RICKERT; BRYAN ZIRKEL;
JAMES KUNDRAT; ROBERT SMITH; MARIA KOTOVA; JOSIPA CASEY; LUAN
SNYDER; BEN BAKER; BRIAN NGUYEN; HATTIE WILLIAMS; BILL HOLVEY;
LOURDES VARGAS; KENDALL SNYDER; NOMER MEDINA; SAMERIA GOFF;
URSULA PYLAND; MARCELL CHAPMAN; KAYE KURASH; HOLLY AMROMIN; JOHN
CHAPMAN; MARY D'ANGELO; GEORGE RUDY; AYMAN MOUSA; SHELLY
HENDERSON; JEFFREY HATHAWAY; DENNIS J. MURPHY; DOUGLAS A.
PATTERSON; JOHN GENTRY; LINDA RUTH SCOTT; DANIELLE KAY GILLELAND;
JOSEPH BOWE; MICHAEL DESOUTO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, GREG DIRENZO,
Petitioner-Appellee, HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA; KIA MOTORS AMERICA;
KIA MOTORS CORPORATION; GROSSINGER AUTOPLEX, INC., FKA Grossinger
Hyundai; JOHN KRAFCIK; HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY; SARAH KUNDRAT,
Defendants-Appellees, v. DANA ROLAND, Objector-Appellant. IN RE
HYUNDAI AND KIA FUEL ECONOMY LITIGATION. KEHLIE R. ESPINOSA;
NICOLE MARIE HUNTER; JEREMY WILTON; KAYLENE P. BRADY; GUNTHER
KRAUTH; ERIC GRAEWINGHOLT; REECE PHILIP THOMSON; ALEX MATURANI;
NILUFAR REZAI; JACK ROTTNER; LYDIA KIEVIT; REBECCA SANDERS; BOBBY
BRANDON ARMSTRONG; SERGIO TORRES; RICHARD WOODRUFF; MARSHALL
LAWRENCE GORDON; JOEL A. LIPMAN; JAMES GUDGALIS; MARY P.
HOESSLER; STEPHEN M. HAYES; BRIAN REEVES; SAM HAMMOND; MARK
LEGGETT; EDWIN NAYTHONS; MICHAEL WASHBURN; IRA D. DUNST; BRIAN
WEBER; KAMNEEL MAHARAJ; KIM IOCOVOZZI; HERBERT J. YOUNG; LINDA
HASPER; LESLIE BAYARD; TRICIA FELLERS; ORLANDO ELLIOTT; JAMES
BONSIGNORE; MARGARET SETSER; GUILLERMO QUIROZ; DOUGLAS KURASH;
ANDRES CARULLO; LAURA S. SUTTA; GEORGIA L. THOMAS; ERIC J. OLSON;
JENNIFER MYERS; TOM WOODWARD; JEROLD TERHOST; CAMERON JOHN
CESTARO; DONALD BROWN; MARIA FIGUEROA; CONSTANCE MARTYN; THOMAS
GANIM; DANIEL BALDESCHI; LILLIAN E. LEVOFF; GIUSEPPINA ROBERTO;
ROBERT TRADER; SEAN GOLDSBERRY; CYNTHIA NAVARRO; OWEN CHAPMAN;
MICHAEL BREIN; TRAVIS BRISSEY; RONALD BURKARD; ADAM CLOUTIER;
STEVEN CRAIG; JOHN J. DIXSON; ERIN L. FANTHORPE; ERIC HADESH;
MICHAEL P. KEETH; JOHN KIRK MacDONALD; MICHAEL MANDAHL; NICHOLAS
McDANIEL; MARY J. MORAN-SPICUZZA; GARY PINCAS; BRANDON POTTER;
THOMAS PURDY; ROCCO RENGHINI; MICHELLE SINGLTEON; KEN SMILEY;
GREGORY M. SONSTEIN; ROMAN STARNO; GAYLE A. STEPHENSON; ANDRES
VILLICANA; RICHARD WILLIAMS; BRADFORD L. HIRSCH; ASHLEY CEPHAS;
DAVID E. HILL; CHAD McKINNEY; MORDECHAI SCHIFFER; LISA SANDS;
DONALD KENDIG; KEVIN GOBEL; ERIC LARSON; LIN McKINNEY; RYAN
CROSS; PHILLIP HOFFMAN; DEBRA SIMMONS; ABELARDO MORALES; PETER
BLUMER; CAROLYN HAMMOND; MELISSA LEGGETT; KELLY MOFFETT; EVAN
GROGAN; CARLOS MEDINA; ALBERTO DOMINGUEZ; CATHERINE BERNARD;
MICHAEL BREIEN; LAURA GILL; THOMAS SCHILLE; JUDITH STANTON; RANDY
RICKERT; BRYAN ZIRKEL; JAMES KUNDRAT; ROBERT SMITH; MARIA KOTOVA;
JOSIPA CASEY; LUAN SNYDER; BEN BAKER; BRIAN NGUYEN; HATTIE
WILLIAMS; BILL HOLVEY; LOURDES VARGAS; KENDALL SNYDER; NOMER
MEDINA; SAMERIA GOFF; URSULA PYLAND; MARCELL CHAPMAN; KAYE
KURASH; HOLLY AMROMIN; JOHN CHAPMAN; MARY D'ANGELO; GEORGE RUDY;
AYMAN MOUSA; SHELLY HENDERSON; JEFFREY HATHAWAY; DENNIS J.
MURPHY; DOUGLAS A. PATTERSON; JOHN GENTRY; DANIELLE KAY
GILLELAND; JOSEPH BOWE; MICHAEL DESOUTO, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
GREG DIRENZO, Petitioner-Appellee, HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA; KIA
MOTORS AMERICA; KIA MOTORS CORPORATION; GROSSINGER AUTOPLEX,
INC., FKA Grossinger Hyundai; JOHN KRAFCIK; HYUNDAI MOTOR
COMPANY; SARAH KUNDRAT, Defendants-Appellees. v. LINDA RUTH
SCOTT, Objector-Appellant. IN RE HYUNDAI AND KIA FUEL ECONOMY
LITIGATION. JOHN GENTRY; LINDA RUTH SCOTT; DANIELLE KAY
GILLELAND; JOSEPH BOWE; MICHAEL DESOUTO, Plaintiffs, and JAMES
BEN FEINMAN, Appellant, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA; KIA MOTORS
AMERICA; KIA MOTORS CORPORATION; GROSSINGER AUTOPLEX, INC., FKA
GROSSINGER HYUNDAI; JOHN KRAFCIK; HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY; SARAH
KUNDRAT, Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 15-56014, 15-56025, 15-
56059, 15-56061, 15-56064, 15-56067 (9th Cir.), Judge Sandra
Segal Ikuta of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
vacated the district court's class certification and remanded for
further proceedings consistent with her Opinion.

The appeal involves a nationwide class action settlement arising
out of misstatements by Defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc.
(Hyundai) and its affiliate, Kia Motors America, Inc. regarding
the fuel efficiency of their vehicles.  The district court had
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act because the
matter in controversy exceeded $5,000,000, the putative class
comprised at least 100 Plaintiffs, and at least one Plaintiff
class member was a citizen of a state different from that of at
least one Defendant.

Objectors now bring five consolidated appeals raising challenges
to class certification, approval of the settlement as fair and
adequate, and approval of attorneys' fees as reasonable in
proportion to the benefit conferred on the class.

Judge Ikuta first addressed objectors' arguments that the
district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a
choice of law analysis or rigorously analyze potential
differences in state consumer protection laws before certifying a
single nationwide settlement class under Rule 23(b)(3).  As
explained in Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co, the district court was
required to apply California's choice of law rules to determine
whether California law could apply to all plaintiffs in the
nationwide class, or whether the court had to apply the law of
each state, and if so, whether variations in state law defeated
predominance.  Under California's choice of law rules, this
required the district court to apply the California governmental
interest test.

The Judge finds that there is no dispute that the district court
did not do so.  The parties acknowledge that the district court
did not conduct a choice of law analysis, and did not apply
California law or the law of any particular state in deciding to
certify the class for settlement.  In failing to apply California
choice of law rules, the district court committed a legal error.
The district court made a further error by failing to
acknowledge, as it had in its tentative ruling, that Hyundai and
the Gentry v. Hyundai Motor Am. plaintiffs submitted evidence
that the laws in various states were materially different than
those in California, and that these variations prevented the
court from applying only California law.  Finally, the Judge says
the district court erred by failing to make a final ruling as to
whether the material variations in state law defeated
predominance under Rule 23(b)(3).  Because variations in state
law may swamp any common issues and defeat predominance, a court
must analyze whether the consumer-protection laws of the affected
States vary in material ways, even if the court ultimately
determines that the common, aggregation-enabling, issues in the
case are more prevalent or important than the non-common,
aggregation defeating, individual issues.

The Judge also finds that the district court erred in holding
that it could avoid considering the potential applicability of
the laws of multiple states on the ground that the proposed
settlement was fair.  She says a fairness hearing under Rule
23(e) is no substitute for rigorous adherence to those provisions
of the Rule designed to protect absentees.

Even if the district court had restricted the class to California
consumers (as the court indicated it would do in its tentative
ruling in Espinosa), Judge Ikuta holds that she would still have
to consider the objectors' argument that the district court
abused its discretion in certifying a settlement class under Rule
23(b)(3) that includes used car owners without analyzing whether
these class members were exposed to, and therefore could have
relied on Hyundai's and Kia's misleading statements.  According
to the objectors, individual questions of reliance preclude the
inclusion of used car owners in the class.

In sum, because the record does not support the presumption that
used car owners were exposed to and relied on misleading
advertising, the district court had an obligation to define the
relevant class in such a way as to include only members who were
exposed to advertising that is alleged to be materially
misleading.  The district court erred by failing to do so.

The Judge finds that the district court failed to conduct a
rigorous inquiry into whether the proposed class could meet the
Rule 23 prerequisites on the mistaken assumption that the
standard for certification was lessened in the settlement
context.  Because her precedent raises grave concerns about the
viability of a nationwide class in this context, this
certification decision cannot stand.

Finally, because the district court may yet determine, after a
rigorous Rule 23 analysis, that it may certify a settlement class
and approve a settlement, Judge Ikuta briefly clarifies some
principles of attorneys' fee approval for the district court on
remand.  The court failed to calculate the value of the
settlement in order to ensure that the attorneys' fees were not
excessive in proportion to the settlement value.  Moreover, the
court failed to address objectors' reasonable questions about the
value of the settlement.  On remand, if the district court
properly approves class certification and a settlement, the
district court must determine what value was created by the
settlement and take a closer look at the reasonableness of the
attorneys' fees in light of the results achieved.

Judge Ikuta concludes that the district court abused its
discretion in certifying a nationwide settlement class without
conducting a rigorous predominance analysis under Rule 23(b)(3)
to determine whether variations in state consumer protection
laws, or individual factual questions regarding exposure to the
misleading statements, precluded certification.  She vacated
class certification and remanded to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with her Opinion.  She directed
that each party will bear its own costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/Q5nLUI from Leagle.com.

James B. Feinman (argued), James B. Feinman & Associates,
Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellants James Ben Feinman, John
Gentry, Linda Ruth Scott, Danielle Kay Gilleland, Joseph Bowe,
Michael Desouto.

Edward W. Cochran -- edwardcochran@wowway.com -- (argued), Shaker
Heights, Ohio; George W. Cochran -- lawchrist@gmail.com --
Streetsboro, Ohio; John J. Pentz -- jjpentz3@gmail.com --
Sudbury, Massachusetts; for Appellants Caitlin Ahearn and Andrew
York.

Steve A. Miller -- sampc01@gmail.com -- Steve A. Miller P.C.,
Denver, Colorado, for Appellant Antonio Sberna.

Matthew Kurilich, Tustin, California, for Appellant Peri Fetsch.

Dennis Gibson, Dallas, Texas, for Appellant Dana Roland.

Elaine S. Kusel -- esk@mccunewright.com -- (argued), Basking
Ridge; Richard D. McCune -- rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCuneWright
LLP, Redlands, California; for Appellees Kehlie R. Espinosa,
Lilian E. Levoff, Thomas Ganim, and Daniel Baldeschi.

Benjamin W. Jeffers -- bjeffers@hhbjlaw.com -- and Dommond E.
Lonnie -- dlonnie@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC, Los Angeles,
California, for Appellees Kia Motors America Inc. and Kia Motors
Corp.

Shon Morgan -- shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com -- (argued) and Joseph
R. Ashby -- joseph@sergenianashby.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP, Los Angeles, California; Karin Kramer --
karinkramer@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP, San Francisco, California; Dean Hansell, Hogan Lovells LLP,
Los Angeles, California; for Appellees Hyundai Motor America and
Hyundai Motor Co.

Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- and John M. DeStefano --
johnd@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Phoenix,
Arizona, for Appellees Kaylene P. Brady and Nicole Marie Hunter.


ILLINOIS: Pontiac Inmates' Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned STEVEN D. LISLE, JR., CORTEZ RICHARDSON,
KENNETH POWELL, DIONTE D. BURTON and DENZEL O. WALKER,
Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL MELVIN, et al., Defendants, No. 17-CV-1336
(C.D. Ill.), the United States District Court for Central
District of Illinois issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file an amended complaint as it attempts to pursue
this case as a class action.

Plaintiff Steven Lisle and six other plaintiffs, who were all
housed at the Pontiac Correctional Center, filed the lawsuit
alleging excessive force and retaliation.  Two plaintiffs were
dismissed for failure to comply with the court's orders regarding
the filing fees and petitions to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 8, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9959qys  from Leagle.com.

Steven D. Lisle, Jr, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


INFINITY INSURANCE: "Hallums" Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SHELITHEA HALLUMS and SAMUEL CASTILLO,
individually and as representatives of a class of similarly-
situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY
and INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-24507-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for
class certification, for their appointment as class
representatives, and for appointment of Arturo Martinez and
Eric Hernandez, of the law firm Wallen Hernandez Lee Martinez,
LLP, as class counsel.

The Class is defined as all persons who Plaintiffs maintain
should be returned the premiums attributable to the illusory
Rider, as relief consequent to a declaratory judgment, and/or a
fraudulent concealment or negligent omission verdict.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd Wallen, Esq.
          Eric A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Jermaine E. Lee, Esq.
          Arturo Martinez, Esq.
          WALLEN HERNANDEZ LEE MARTINEZ, LLP
          306 Alcazar Avenue, Suite 301
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 842 2100
          Facsimile: (305) 842 2105
          E-mail: todd@whlmlegal.com
                  eric@whlmlegal.com
                  jlee@whlmlegal.com
                  arturo@whlmlegal.com

Counsel for Defendants

          Michael R. Pennington, Esq.
          Thomas Richie, Esq.
          Diana Evans, Esq.
          Ramon A. Abadin, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
          E-mail: mpennington@bradley.com
                  trichie@bradley.com
                  dnevans@bradley.com
                  rabadin@abadinlaw.net


JOSEPH K. JONES: Court Junks Suit Over Sham Class Action Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned JEFFREY A. WINTERS, et al, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH K.
JONES, et al, Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-9020 (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff Collection Solutions, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation
that primarily provides debt collection services.  Plaintiff
Jeffrey Winters is the sole shareholder of Collection Solutions,
Inc.  Defendants Joseph Jones and Benjamin Wolf are attorneys who
practice at the firm of Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.  Defendant
Laura Mann is an attorney and the principal at the firm of Laura
S. Mann, LLC.  Defendants Ari Marcus and Yitzchak Zelman are
attorneys and the principals of the firm of Marcus & Zelman, LLC.

Plaintiffs claim that "the particular actionable conduct
perpetrated by Defendants against Plaintiffs . . . was the class
action litigation . . . Juliette Chapa, et al[.] v[.] Charles I.
Turner Esq., and United Credit Specialists et al.,2 in the
Federal District Court of New Jersey, Case No. 2:15-cv-03125."
("Chapa Case").  Plaintiffs settled the Chapa Case for $12,000 in
September 2016.  Plaintiffs allege that the Chapa Case is
illustrative of Defendants' enterprise pursuant to The Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") of joining
together to bring sham class action lawsuits against debt
collection agencies.

Plaintiffs allege that at some point prior to 2013, Defendants
formed a RICO enterprise that "avoided Small Claims Courts or
unprofitable immediate payment of nominal claims without
attorney's fees, by filing sham putative class actions in Federal
court en masse on theory that the vast majority of the relatively
deep-pocket defendants (mostly debt collection companies) would
view a quick settlement for under $100,000 as basically a
nuisance claim; with the rare contested case only confirming to
victim defendants the practical advisability of settling early on
a class basis."

"To perpetuate the alleged sham class actions, Defendants search
out, solicit, and develop professional plaintiffs retained to
pose as theoretical least sophisticated consumers.  Defendants
falsely impute imaginary false damages to those professional
plaintiffs," the Plaintiffs said.

To support these allegations, Plaintiffs point to five cases
filed on behalf of the same plaintiff (Marni Tntglio), where Ari
Marcus on behalf of Marcus & Zelman LLC was co-counsel.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the federal RICO
statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961 and the New Jersey RICO statute,
N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1.  Additionally, Plaintiffs assert that
Defendants committed fraud, negligence, and legal malpractice
through their participation in the RICO scheme.  Thus, the Court
has federal question jurisdiction over the federal RICO claim and
supplemental jurisdiction over the New Jersey RICO, fraud,
negligence, and legal malpractice claims.

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' RICO liability stems from their
filing of class actions pursuant to the FDCPA.

The Court finds that the First Amended Complaint fails to plead
plausible factual allegations against Defendants. The FAC is
riddled with factually unsupported accusations and wholly
conclusory language. Besides inflammatory language and conclusory
allegations, most notably "sham" litigation, Plaintiffs offer by
way of proof little more than print-outs from PACER reflecting
cases that Defendants worked on. Plaintiffs claim that the
following actions show a fraud of epic proportions: (1) filing a
large number of cases, (2) settling a "majority" of those cases
"relatively quickly"; (3) acting as co-counsel in several cases;
(4) Jones and Mann conducting a legal seminar on the FDCPA; and
(5) in two cases, Abramov and Franco, Defendants using the same
general format of pleadings and the same general theory of the
case.

None of these facts, individually or collectively, reflect any
improper conduct nor can any reasonable inference of wrongdoing
be drawn therefrom.

Indeed, many federal courts have observed that FDCPA cases
generally involve nominal damages for any individual plaintiff
and also settle quickly to avoid the expense of litigation.
Litigators file lawsuits, but Plaintiffs argue that if the
lawyers file a "large" number of cases (whatever subjective,
ambiguous number that may be), there is evidence of wrongdoing.
The allegation is absurd on its face, as are claims that
attorneys working together, conducting seminars together, or
settling cases quickly reflects some type of impropriety.
Plaintiffs suggest that when two firms use the same form of
pleading, they are engaged in wrongdoing.

The suggestion is preposterous. Frankly, the Court is unaware of
any litigator who does not use a prior pleading (whether her own
or another's) at least as a model when drafting a new complaint.
Suffice it to say, Plaintiffs present no legal authority for the
negative inferences they wish to draw from these otherwise benign
facts. if Plaintiffs believe that Defendants are conducting some
nefarious scheme, then Plaintiffs will have to conduct much more
due diligence to plausibly plead their claims rather than relying
on PACER print-outs, a legal seminar, and other anecdotal
information all of which is benign on the surface (if not common
practice).

The FAC only contains misleading interpretations of the cases it
cites as well as factual allegations that are not plausibly pled.
As a consequence, the Court held that the FAC must be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 8, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yad8un2y from Leagle.com.

JEFFREY A. WINTERS & COLLECTION SOLUTIONS, INC., a New Jersey
Corporation; on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by DAVID M. HOFFMAN.

JOSEPH K. JONES, ESQ., Defendant, represented by ANTHONY
SYLVESTER -- asylvester@shermanwells.com -- SHERMAN WELLS
SYLVESTER & STAMELMAN LLP, CRAIG L. STEINFELD --
csteinfeld@shermanwells.com -- SHERMAN WELLS SYLVESTER &
STAMELMAN LLP, JOSEPH K. JONES -- jkj@legaljones.com -- Jones,
Wolf & Kapasi, LLC & BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF --
BWOLF@LEGALJONES.COM. -- Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.

BENJAMIN J. WOLF, ESQ. & JONES, WOLF & KAPASI LLC., Defendants,
represented by ANTHONY SYLVESTER, SHERMAN WELLS SYLVESTER &
STAMELMAN LLP, CRAIG L. STEINFELD, SHERMAN WELLS SYLVESTER &
STAMELMAN LLP & BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.
LAW OFFICES OF LAURA S. MANN, LLC. & LAURA S. MANN, ESQ.,
Defendants, represented by CRAIG JOSEPH COMPOLI, JR. --
ccompoli@oslaw.com -- O'Toole Scrivo & LAURA S. MANN, Law Offices
of Laura S. Mann, LLC, 85 Newark-Pompton Turnpike, Riverdale, New
Jersey 07457.

ARI H. MARCUS, ESQ., YITZCHAK ZELMAN, ESQ. & MARCUS & ZELMAN,
LLC., Defendants, represented by MEREDITH KAPLAN STOMA --
mstoma@morganlawfirm.com -- MORGAN MELHUISH ABRUTYN.


L'OREAL USA: "Smith" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on September 27, 2017 styled
Geraldine J. Smith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. and Soft Sheen-Carson, LLC, Case
No. 7:17-cv-01661 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00019 to the
proceeding.

The case asserts product-liability claims.

The Defendants own and operate a beauty products company with a
principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      W. Lewis Garrison Jr., Esq.
      Brandy Lee Robertson, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC
      2224 First Ave. N.
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 326-3336
      Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
      E-mail: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com
              brandy@hgdlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Leslie K. Eason, Esq.
      GORDON & REES LLP
      3455 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 1500
      Atlanta, GA 30326
      Telephone: (404) 869-9054
      Facsimile: (678) 389-8475
      E-mail: leason@gordonrees.com


LA PECORA: Reeves & Booth Sue over Tip Pooling
----------------------------------------------
STEVEN REEVES and KRISTEN BOOTH, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LA PECORA BIANCA,
INC., LA PECORA Defendant's Place of Business BIANCA HOLDINGS,
LLC, LPB1 LLC and MARK BARAK, in his individual and professional
capacities, the Defendants, Case No. 151153/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Feb. 6, 2018), seeks injunction and order permanently restraining
Defendants from engaging in unlawful tip credit conduct.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated individuals who have been employed by Defendants at any
time during the full statute of limitations period, bring this
action against Defendants pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants require all of their
Servers, Bussers, Bartenders, Barbacks, Hosts, Runners, Baristas,
and other customarily tipped employees to pool their tips.
Further, Defendants apply a "tip credit' to the Tipped Employees'
wages in order to compensate them at $3.50 less than the State
minimum wage. However, the tip credit is invalid, as Defendants
failed to provide proper Notices of Tip Credit to the Tipped
Employees. Further, Tipped Employees' tips are shared with non-
tipped staff, including Polishers and even management. Defendants
also pay for broken glassware by withdrawing money from the tip
pool. Moreover, Defendants fail to provide any of their employees
-- both tipped and nontipped -- with Notices of Pay Rate and
accurate wage statements, as required by law.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the Proposed NYLL Class, and the Tipped
Employee Subclass:

          Innessa Melamed Huot
          Alex J. Hartzband
          Patrick J. Collopy
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983 9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983 9331
          E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com
                  ahartzband@faruqilaw.com
                  pcollopy@faruqilaw.com


MACY'S CREDIT: Court Won't Extend Time to Disclose Expert Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, issued an Order denying Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Disclose Expert Reports
in the case captioned DEBORAH CLARK, Plaintiff, v. MACY'S CREDIT
AND CUSTOMER SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-692-Orl-
41TBS (M.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Macy's Credit and Customer
Services, Inc., "robo-called' her more than 100 times in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Plaintiff filed her Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint to
Substitute Two Defendants and to Set New Class Certification
Deadline.  The motion seeks to substitute the Bank and Department
Stores National Bank (DSNB) for Macys as defendants in this case.
Macys does not oppose the substitution of the Bank or DSNB but it
does object to other relief sought in the motion including
additional time to move for class certification and the addition
of a new putative sub-class.

Now, Plaintiff asks the Court for a 90-day extension from when it
rules on her motion to amend and grant other relief  within to
take discovery and make her expert disclosures Plaintiff
represents that Defendant does not oppose the motion.

The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has shown good cause
for the requested extension. She has been aware since October 28,
2016, that the Bank may be the correct defendant, but for unknown
reasons, she waited until September 6, 2017, to seek leave to
amend her complaint to make this change. No explanation has been
provided why this issue was not investigated and the change made
prior to the filing of the current lawsuit, or if investigation
was made, why Plaintiff was not persuaded prior to September,
2017 that she had sued the wrong company.

The Court also finds the motion to be premature. Only if the
Court grants the motion for leave to amend will the Bank and DSNB
become parties to this case. Until that happens, class discovery
from them is inappropriate.

The motion for extension of time is denied without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 8, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybtvd64p from Leagle.com.

Deborah Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda J. Allen, The Consumer
Protection Firm, PLLC, Amy L. Wells, Keogh Law, LTD, pro hac
vice, Keith J. Keogh, Keogh Law, LTD & William Peerce Howard, The
Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC.

Macy's Credit and Customer Services, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Christopher W. Prusaski, Shutts & Bowen, LLP & Ryan C.
Reinert, Shutts & Bowen, LLP.


MADISON SEATING: "Saenz" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Antonio Saenz, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Madison Seating, LLX, and
Levi Cohen, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00812 (E.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 6, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages, unpaid wages, and
liquidated damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 90
per week until May 2016 and approximately 65 hours from May 2016
through the end of his employment. For most of Plaintiff's
employment, Defendants did not provide a time clock, sign in
sheet, or any other method for employees to tract their time
worked. Plaintiff was paid $750 per week, regardless of how many
hours he worked.

Madison Seating, LLC was founded in 2014. The company's line of
business includes providing various business services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563 9884
          E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com


MANDARIN ORIENTAL: Faces "Swartz" Suit over Hotel Access
--------------------------------------------------------
HELEN SWARTZ, Individually, the Plaintiff, v. MANDARIN ORIENTAL
MANAGEMENT (USA) INC., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01046 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2018), seeks injunctive
relief, and attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, and for damages
pursuant to New York Exec. Law Section 296, et seq. and New York
Civil Rights Law section 40, et seq.

According to the complaint, Helen Swartz has a realistic,
credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from
the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA. The Plaintiff has
reasonable grounds to believe that she will continue to be
subjected to discrimination in violation of the ADA by the
Defendant. Helen Swartz has visited the subject property and
desires to visit The Mandarin Oriental New York Hotel in the near
future, not only to avail herself of the goods and services
available at the property, but to assure herself that this
property is in compliance with the ADA so that she and others
similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the
property without fear of discrimination.

The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
and others similarly situated by denying them access to, and full
and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings, as
prohibited by 42 U.S.C. 12182 et seq. Furthermore, the Defendant
has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff and others
similarly situated by having its ADA accessible guestrooms for
the disabled in a more expensive category than the non-ADA
guestrooms.

Mandarin Oriental Management USA Inc. owns and operates hotels.
The Company offers hotel, hospitality, and other related
services. Mandarin Oriental Management serves customers
worldwide.[BN]

Counsel for Helen Swartz:

          Lawrence A. Fuller, Esq.
          FULLER, FULLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (305) 891 5199
          Facsimile: (305) 893 9505
          E-mail: Lfuller@fullerfuller.com


MARSHALLS OF CA: $8.5MM Settlement in "Roberts" Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIMBERLY ROBERTS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. MARSHALLS
OF CA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-04731-MEJ (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, and granted
in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and
Service Awards.

The Defendants are corporations engaged in the retail sales
business in the State of California.  T.J. Maxx and Marshalls
comprise the Marmaxx Group, a division of The TJX Companies, Inc.
HomeGoods is another division of The TJX Companies.

Ms. Roberts was employed by the Defendants as an hourly employee
from September 2010 to July 2013 at a Marshalls retail store in
California.  Ms. Forney worked at a Marshalls retail store in
California as an hourly employee from August 2012 to June 2013.
Ms. Mullen worked at a HomeGoods retails store in California from
September 2013 to September 2014.

Ms. Roberts initially brought the class action against The TJX
Companies; Marshalls; and HomeGoods.  She subsequently amended
the Complaint to name T.J. Maxx as a Defendant to replace The TJX
Companies.  On March 4, 2015, Ms. Roberts filed a Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC") which added new claims and named Ms. Forney and
Ms. Mullen as additional Plaintiffs.  Pursuant to the Revised
Settlement, the Plaintiffs filed the operative TAC on Aug. 10,
2017.

The TAC asserts nine claims: (1) Failure to Pay Wages; (2)
Failure to Provide Meal Breaks or Compensation in Lieu Thereof;
(3) Failure to Permit Rest Breaks or Pay Compensation in Lieu
Thereof; (4) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; (5) Forfeiture
of Vacation Pay; (6) Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements; (7) Failure to Pay Compensation upon Discharge; (8)
Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; and (9)
Enforcement of the Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004
("PAGA").

On Aug. 8, 2017, the Court preliminarily approved the parties'
revised class action settlement.  It appointed the Class Counsel
for settlement purposes; approved the Notice Plan; appointed ILYM
Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator; and directed notice
be sent to the Class Members.

The Revised Settlement Class consists of all current and former
non-exempt employees who worked at a T.J. Maxx, Marshalls or
HomeGoods branded retail store in the State of California.  The
Class Period is defined as Oct. 10, 2009 through and including
Aug. 10, 2016.

The Revised Settlement provides both monetary and injunctive
relief.  The Defendants agree to pay a Total Settlement Amount of
$8.5 million dollars, which includes: (1) settlement payments to
participating Monetary Payment Class Members; (2) up to
$2,550,000 in attorneys' fees and up to $60,000 in litigation
costs/expenses to Class Counsel; (3) up to $75,000 payment to the
California Labor & Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") to
account for its portion of the PAGA Award; (4) up to $250,000 in
Settlement Administration Costs; and (5) up to $40,000 in Service
Awards for the Plaintiffs.  The Net Distribution Fund represents
the Total Settlement Amount less the LWDA, PAGA, Service, and
Class Counsel Awards--that is, approximately $5,525,000.

The Defendants further agree to modify their wage statements.
They agree to use the proposed revised Wage Statement Exemplar,
subject to Court approval.  They may update their wage statements
in the future as needed.

Each Monetary Payment Class Member will receive an Individual
Settlement Payment.  The precise method of calculating an
Individual Settlement Payment depends on whether the Class Member
is part of the Manager/Coordinator or the Non-Manager/Non-
Coordinator Class.  The process is substantially identical for
each class.

The Revised Settlement provides for a total of up to $40,000 in
service awards to the Plaintiffs: a maximum of $20,000 to Ms.
Roberts and $10,000 to each Ms. Forney and Ms. Mullen.  It
further provides that the Class Counsel may recover up to $60,000
in costs and $2.55 million in fees.  The Defendants agree not to
oppose any applications for the Class Counsel's fees and costs or
Service Awards up to these amounts.  In addition, if the Court
awards less than the full amount requested for the Service Swards
or the Class Counsel's fees and costs, the un-awarded amount will
be distributed to the Monetary Payment Class Members.

The Revised Settlement also allocates a maximum of $100,000 in
PAGA penalties, subject to Court approval.  It designates 75% of
that amount to the California LWDA and 25% to the Monetary
Payment Class Members.  The Settlement Administrator will be paid
a maximum of $250,000 from the Total Settlement Amount.  Should
the Court award less than this amount, the un-awarded amount will
be distributed to the Monetary Payment Class Members.

The Plaintiffs now seek final approval of the Settlement, as well
as attorneys' fees and costs.  The Court held a hearing on these
matters on Jan. 18, 2018.

Having considered the parties' positions, the relevant legal
authority, and the record in the case, Magistarte Judge James
granted the Motion for Final Approval, and granted in part the
Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards.  She
confirmed Marcus J. Bradley and Kiley L. Grombacher of
Bradley/Grombacher LLP; Shaun Setareh of the Setareh Law Group;
Samuel A. Wong and Kashif Haque of the Aegis Law Firm, P.C.;
Scott B. Cooper of The Cooper Law Firm; and Roger R. Carter of
the Carter Law Firm as the Class Counsel for settlement purposes.
The Class Counsel are awarded $2,550,000 in attorneys' fees and
$60,000 in costs.

The Magistrate Judge also confirmed Kimberly Roberts, Carneisha
Forney, and Laurie Mullen as the Class Representatives, each of
whom will receive a $10,000 service award.  ILYM Group, Inc. is
confirmed as the Settlement Administrator and is awarded in the
amount of $248,264.72.

ILYM Group will distribute the Individual Settlement Payments and
Service Awards in accordance with the Revised Settlement.
Pursuant to paragraphs 3.13.8 and 3.13.10 of the Revised
Settlement, unawarded Services Awards and Settlement
Administration Costs will be made available for distribution to
the Monetary Payment Class Members.  Each member of the Monetary
Payment Class who did not properly request exclusion (i.e., class
members not listed in Docket No. 108-6) will be bound to the
terms of the Revised Settlement.

No later than 180 days of the Order, the Defendants will file
with the Court a report certifying compliance with the terms of
the Revised Settlement.

The Order will constitute a final judgment in the action.  The
Court will conduct a status conference on Aug. 2, 2018 at 10:00
a.m.  No later than seven days before the status conference, the
parties will file a joint status report indicating (1) the number
of Class Members who have cashed their settlement checks, (2) the
amount of uncashed funds, (3) any issues the parties believe
should be addressed, and (4) a proposed course of action for
remedying such issues, if any.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/U6ZvMX from Leagle.com.

Kimberly Roberts, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh
-- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group, Marcus Joseph
Bradley- mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com  - Bradley Grombacher,
LLP & Kiley Lynn Grombacher -- kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
-- Bradley Grombacher, LLP.

Carneisha Forney, Plaintiff, represented by Marcus Joseph
Bradley, Bradley Grombacher, LLP, Roger Richard Carter --
rcarter@carterlawfirm.net -- The Carter Law Firm, Samantha Alane
Smith -- samantha@cooper-firm.com -- The Cooper Law Firm, P.C.,
Scott Bradley Cooper -- scott@cooper-firm.com -- The Cooper Law
Firm, P.C., Jessica Lynn Campbell, Aegis Law Firm, 9811 Irvine
Center Dr Ste 100, Irvine, CA 92618, Scott Cole and Associates,
APC, Kashif Haque -- khaque@aegislawfirm.com -- Attorney at Law &
Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Bradley Grombacher, LLP.

Laurie Mullen, Plaintiff, represented by Roger Richard Carter,
The Carter Law Firm, Samantha Alane Smith, The Cooper Law Firm,
P.C., Scott Bradley Cooper, The Cooper Law Firm, P.C., Kiley Lynn
Grombacher, Bradley Grombacher, LLP & Marcus Joseph Bradley,
Bradley Grombacher, LLP.

Marshalls of CA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Emily Erin
O'Connor -- eoconnor@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Joshua J. Cliffe -- jcliffe@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
P.C. & Joshua Daniel Levine -- jdlevine@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson.

TJ MAXX OF CA LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua Daniel
Levine, Littler Mendelson & Emily Erin O'Connor, Littler
Mendelson, P.C.


MDL 1264: Court Denies Lead Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) Bid
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order denying
Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment in the case captioned
DAVID P. OETTING, Plaintiff, v. GLEN A. NORTON, as Receiver for
GREEN JACOBSON, P.C., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:13-CV-1148-
SNLJ (E.D. Mo.).

After NationsBank Corporation and BankAmerica Corporation merged,
shareholders of both companies filed class action lawsuits.  The
multidistrict litigation cases were consolidated and transferred
to the Eastern District of Missouri.  See In re Bank of America
Corp. Secs. Litig., 4:99-MD-1264-CDP (E.D. Mo.).  The court
appointed Oetting as the lead plaintiff and Green Jacobson as
lead counsel for the class.  The Main Action settled, and the
court appointed a claims administrator to distribute the
settlement fund to the class member claimants.  With this
distribution came many problems.

One of these problems was a letter that Green Jacobson attached
to the settlement checks.  The letter included an exculpatory
clause, and by endorsing or signing the settlement check, a class
member released all persons from all claims in connection with
the litigation.  At no point did the court approve using this
exculpatory clause.  Because of the exculpatory clause, and its
unknown effects, Oetting never cashed his settlement checks.

Oetting filed this separate class action, alleging that class
counsel committed legal malpractice and breached its fiduciary
duty.  Class counsel moved to dismiss, arguing Oetting did not
have standing to pursue those claims. The Court agreed and
dismissed the case.

First, the Court held that Oetting did not have standing to
pursue the legal-malpractice claims because Plaintiff never
cashed his settlement checks, and therefore was not injured by
the fact that those checks were slightly smaller than they would
have been had defendants hired a different claims administrator.
Second, the Court held that Oetting's breach-of-fiduciary-duty
claims were collaterally estopped.

Oetting next appealed the Dismissal Order.  The Eighth Circuit
concluded Oetting lacked standing.

First, Oetting argues that relief is appropriate under Rule
60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the Main
Action Reissuance Order effectively reverses the Dismissal Order.

Rule 60(b) allows a court to "relieve a party . . . from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding. . . ." "Rule 60(b) 'provides for
extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon an adequate
showing of exceptional circumstances.'"  "Rule 60(b) is a motion
grounded in equity and exists 'to prevent the judgment from
becoming a vehicle of injustice.'"  A district court has
discretion when deciding a Rule 60(b) motion.

The Dismissal Order was based only on bedrock standing
principles.  It was not based on any earlier judgment that has
been reversed or vacated. And of course, the Dismissal Order was
not based on the later Main Action Reissuance Order. This
argument fails, the Court held.

Second, Oetting argues applying the Dismissal Order prospectively
is no longer equitable.

The Dismissal Order is not executory and does not require
supervising changing conduct or conditions; thus, it does not
apply prospectively for the purposes of Rule 60(b)(5). This
argument fails, and Oetting is not entitled to relief under Rule
60(b)(5).

Rule 60(b)(6) allows a court to relieve a party from a final
judgment for any other reason that justifies relief.

Plaintiff does not argue that anything denied him a full and fair
opportunity to litigate his claim; he argues only that the
Dismissal Order would be at odds with the current state of the
litigation if he properly rejoins his fellow class members.

Other courts have denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6) when a party
requested relief from a lack-of-standing dismissal because
changed circumstances would allegedly alter the standing analysis
that required dismissal.  This is because standing is determined
based on the facts, as they exist, when the suit is commenced.
This argument fails, and Oetting is not entitled to relief under
Rule 60(b)(6).

Rule 60(b)(3) allows a court to relieve a party from a final
judgment based on fraud . misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party. This narrow concept of fraud in Rule 60(b)(3)]
embraces `only the species of fraud which does or attempts to,
defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of
the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the
usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases.

The fraud that Oetting points to is the exculpatory clause that
was never approved by the court--attached to the settlement
checks. He claims he failed to cash his settlement checks because
of the exculpatory clause and its unknown effects.

There has been no fraud on the Court in this case, and this
argument fails.

Oetting is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b), and his
motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 8, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9akbm2d
from Leagle.com.

David P. Oetting, individually and on behalf of all others
similiarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Frank H. Tomlinson
-- tfrank@gmail.com -- FRANK H. TOMLINSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW &
David P. Oetting, DAVID P. OETTING.

Green Jacobson, P.C., Defendant, represented by Joe D. Jacobson -
- Jacobson@ArchCityLawyers.com -- JACOBSON AND PRESS, P.C. &
Martin M. Green, LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN GREEN P.C., 8909 Ladue
Rd., St. Louis, MO 63124.

Martin Green, Joe Jacobson & Jonathan Andres, Defendants,
represented by Joe D. Jacobson, JACOBSON AND PRESS, P.C., Martin
M. Green, LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN GREEN P.C. & Steven H. Schwartz,
BROWN AND JAMES, P.C.,800 Market Street, Suite 1100. St. Louis,
MO 63101


MENARDS INC: Ohio Attorneys File Class-Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gnau, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that a
Columbus law firm is suing the Menards retail chain in federal
court on behalf of workers who say they weren't properly paid
wages and overtime.

The law firms of Barkan Meizlish, LLP and Anderson2X, PLLC filed
a class and collective action lawsuit against Menard, Inc., the
Wisconsin-based operator of about 300 Menards retail stores in 14
states, including Ohio.

The suit alleges that Menards failed to properly pay about 160
current and former hourly Menards employees in 13 states,
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state wage and
hour laws.

Under the FLSA, employees must be paid for all hours worked, and
must be paid overtime at a rate of 1.5 times the regular rate of
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week.

"Short rest breaks lasting 20 minutes or less are considered to
be compensable time under the FLSA and must be counted as hours
worked," the law firms said in an announcement.

The lawsuit charges that Menards requires workers to clock out
for short rest breaks and certain store meetings during shifts.
It also alleges that Menards required workers to complete job
training at home, but failed to pay them for the training.

One of the firms involved in the lawsuit, Barkan Meizlish, has
represented about 13 current and former Fuyao Glass America
workers who are suing the Moraine manufacturer, also in federal
court, making similar allegations about unpaid wages and overtime
in that separate case. Fuyao has denied those allegations and is
fighting the lawsuit.

"The fact that an employer as large as Menards required their
employees to clock out to use the restroom is unacceptable," Bob
DeRose, Esq. -- bderose@barkanmeizlish.com -- an attorney for the
plaintiffs, said in a statement.

A message seeking comment was left for a spokesman for Eau
Claire, Wisc.-based Menard Inc.

The lawsuit is Griffith, et al. v. Menard, Inc., case No. 2:18-
CV-81 and is filed in Columbus federal court.

The Dayton Daily News reported earlier this month that the
Fairborn Planning Board approved preliminary plans for a new
Menards store next to the recently built Kroger Marketplace on
Dayton-Yellow Springs Road.

The retailer will build a 173,000 square-foot retail store, a
27,000 square-foot garden and shipping area and other amenities,
according to plans. [GN]


MID ATLANTIC PROFESSIONALS: "Rahimi" Suit Seeks OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------
WARIS RAHIMI, individually, and MIRWAIS HAKIM, individually, and
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiffs, v. MID ATLANTIC PROFESSIONALS, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00278-CAB-KSC (S.D. Cal., Feb. 6,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, all
applicable liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney's
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, for at least three years prior to the
filing of this action, Defendants have engaged in a system of
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by creating
and maintaining policies, practices and customs that willfully
denied Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees
compensation for all hours worked and willfully denied Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated employees overtime wages.

Regardless of the number of hours worked, Defendants paid
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees on a day-rate
basis. Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees overtime when they worked more than 40 hours a
workweek.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated current and former employees who elect to opt-
in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, and specifically, the
collective action provision of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), to
remedy violations of the wage-and-hour provisions of the FLSA by
Defendants that have deprived Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees of their lawfully earned wages.

Mid Atlantic Professionals, Inc. was founded in 2002. The
company's line of business includes providing employment
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Alexei Kuchinsky, Esq.
          William P. Klein, Esq.
          KLEIN LAW GROUP LLP
          50 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 9411
          Telephone: (415) 693 9107
          Facsimile: (415) 693 9222
          E-mail: alexei@sfbizlaw.com

               - and -

          Trey Dayes Arizona, Esq.
          PHILLIPS DAYES LAW FIRM
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: 800 917 4000
          Facsimile: 602 288 1664
          E-mail: docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com


MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS: "Brown" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled NATHANAEL BROWN, for himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS, LP,
as successor in merger to POST APARTMENT HOMES, LP d/b/a POST
SOUTH LAMAR, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00307-RP
(W.D. Tex.), Mr. Brown seeks certification of a Rule 23(b)(3)
damage class as follows:

   "all persons during the class period who (i) were residential
   lease tenants of Post-branded apartment properties in the
   State of Texas under written leases (such properties being
   formerly owned by Post Apartment Homes LP and affiliates and
   now owned by MAA LP through merger), and (ii) were charged
   (and which Defendants' records show as paid) at least one
   fixed rent late fee equal to 10% of their monthly rent."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Britton D. Monts, Esq.
          THE MONTS FIRM
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474 6092
          Facsimile: (512) 692 2981
          E-mail: bmonts@themontsfirm.com

               - and -

          Jason W. Snell, Esq.
          THE SNELL LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Chase Tower
          221 W. 6th Street, Suite 900
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 477 5291
          Facsimile: (512) 477 5294
          E-mail: firm@snellfirm.com

               - and -

          R. Martin Weber, Jr., Esq.
          Richard E. Norman, Esq.
          CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
          Three Riverway, Suite 1775
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 651 1771
          Facsimile: (713) 651 1775
          E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com
                  mweber@crowleynorman.com


MILBERG LLP: Malpractice Class Action Hits Wall
-----------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that plaintiffs
alleging lawyers at Milberg LLP botched their securities class
action still can't get an immediate appeal of their case using a
tactic recently rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth
Circuit said Feb. 1.

The ruling likely means the malpractice case that has stretched
on for nearly a decade is over.

In Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, the Supreme Court shut down the
plaintiffs' strategy of voluntarily dismissing their case to get
immediate appeal of an adverse class certification ruling.

"As that is precisely the procedural posture here, this court
lacks appellate jurisdiction over this case," the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said in an unpublished opinion.

Milberg didn't tell any of the absent class members when the
securities class action was certified, decertified, or dismissed,
the suit alleged.

Judges Sidney R. Thomas, John B. Owens, and Anthony J. Battaglia,
sitting by designation from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, served on the panel.

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP represented the plaintiffs.
Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC represented Milberg.

The case is Bobbitt v. Milberg LLP, 2018 BL 35261, 9th Cir., No.
13-15812, unpublished 2/1/18. [GN]


MILDON BUS: Pittsburgh School's Class Certification Bid Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled COMMUNITY VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS OF PITTSBURGH,
INC., a corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. MILDON BUS
LINES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, the Defendant/Third
Party Plaintiff, v. CAROLINE ABRAHAM and JOEL ABRAHAM, Third
Party Defendants, Case No. 2:09-cv-01572-JFC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Joy Flowers Conti entered an order on February 9, 2018:

   1. granting Defendant Mildon Bus Lines, Inc.'s motion for
      summary judgment;

   2. denying without prejudice plaintiff Community Vocational
      Schools of Pittsburgh, Inc.'s motion to certify a class, as
      Community Vocational Schools is not a proper class
      representative.

The Counsel for the plaintiff shall have 30 days to substitute a
new plaintiff to serve as class representative. If there is no
motion to substitute a new plaintiff as class representative
within 30 days of the date of this order, the court will dismiss
the amended complaint, Court says.

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


NEW MEXICO: 10th Cir. Remands Rehabilitation Act Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WALTER STEPHEN JACKSON, by his parents and next
friends, Walter and Helen Jackson; STEVE NUNEZ, by his guardian
and next friend, ARC of New Mexico; MARY KATHERINE NOWAK, by her
next friend, James W. Ellis, Esquire; RICHARD STANFIELD, by his
father and next friend, The Reverend Clyde Stanfield; BETTY
YOUNG, by her next friend, Mary Dudley, Ph.D.; KELLY VAN CUREN,
by her parents and next friends, Ted and Sallie Van Curen, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, and ARC OF NEW MEXICO; AVA PEETS,
Plaintiffs Intervenors-Appellees, v. LOS LUNAS COMMUNITY PROGRAM;
NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; LYNN GALLAGHER, in her official
capacity as Secretary of the New Mexico Department of Health;
JILL MARSHALL, in her official capacity as Administrator for the
Los Lunas Community Program; NEW MEXICO HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT; BRENT EARNEST, in his official capacity as Secretary
of the New Mexico Human Services Department; NEW MEXICO PUBLIC
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT; JOE D. CORDOVA, in his official capacity as
Director of the New Mexico Vocational Rehabilitation Division,
Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 16-2172 (10th Cir.), Judge
Carolyn B. McHugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit vacated the district court's 2016 Order denying the
Defendants' motion to vacate all consent decrees and to terminate
the court's oversight, and remanded for the district court to
decide whether the Defendants are currently violating the class
members' federal constitutional or statutory rights and to
reassess the equity of continuing federal oversight with the
benefit of that determination.

The civil rights class action lawsuit was filed 30 years ago to
challenge various aspects of the institutionalization of
developmentally disabled individuals at two state-supported
facilities in New Mexico.  In June 1989, the district court
certified a class of all persons who at that time resided at Fort
Stanton or Los Lunas, all persons who would become residents of
the institutions during the pendency of the action, and all
persons who had been transferred from these two institutions to
other facilities funded by the Defendants.

After a lengthy trial in 1990, the district court ruled that the
Defendants -- the two institutions and the individuals charged
with their operation -- were violating the class members' federal
constitutional and statutory rights.  The district court ordered
the parties to develop a plan to cure the violations, and the
plan was implemented over the ensuing years through several
consent decrees and other court-approved agreements.

Although the two institutions closed in the 1990s, the district
court has continued to monitor whether the Defendants are in
compliance with the obligations set forth in those consent
decrees.  And in the 25 years since the court's initial ruling,
the parties have agreed to, and the court has approved, numerous
additional decree obligations of varying specificity with which
Defendants must comply before the court will discontinue its
oversight.  As of the district court's most recent order, the
Defendants had yet to fulfill over 300 decree obligations.

In August 2015, the Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(5) to vacate all consent decrees and to terminate
the court's oversight, arguing that changed factual circumstances
warrant the requested relief.  The district court denied the
motion in June 2016.  The Defendants appealed.

On appeal, the Defendants assert that the district court abused
its discretion when it denied their Rule 60(b)(5) motion.  They
contend significant changes in factual circumstances warrant
termination of all consent decrees and of the court's oversight.
Specifically, they claim that compliance with the decrees has
become substantially more onerous, the decrees have become
unworkable due to unforeseen obstacles, and continued enforcement
of the decrees would be detrimental to the public interest.  They
also argue that the district court misapplied Horne v. Flores by
requiring them to show attainment of specific essential purposes
identified by the district court rather than compliance with
federal law.

In sum, Judge McHugh concludes that due to the public interests
and federalism concerns, continued enforcement of the consent
decrees is warranted only to the extent the Defendants are in
current violation of federal law or have reached only fleeting
compliance.  She will remand so the district court can make up-
to-date findings and determine whether the Defendants are
currently violating the class members' rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment and the Rehabilitation Act.

On remand, the Judge directed that the district court should
conduct the necessary proceedings to develop a record that would
allow it to make this determination.  If the court then concludes
the Defendants are not violating the class members' rights under
federal law, the court should assess the durability of that
compliance.  In the event that the Defendants have implemented a
durable remedy, the court should next address whether vacatur of
all pertinent orders and termination of the case is appropriate.

For these reasons, Judge McHugh vacated the district court's June
2016 Order, and remanded so the district court can make
appropriate findings and conclusions and then reassess the
equities under Rule 60(b) with the benefit of those findings and
conclusions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/8hP6OP from Leagle.com.

Jerry A. Walz -- jerryawalz@walzandassociates.com -- (James J.
Grubel, appeared with him on the briefs), Walz and Associates,
P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendants-Appellants.

Steven J. Schwartz -- sschwartz@ssfpc.com -- Center for Public
Representation, Northampton, Massachusetts (Cathy Costanzo --
Costanzo@costanzolegal.com -- Center for Public Representation,
Northampton, Massachusetts; Peter Cubra , Albuquerque, New
Mexico; Philip Davis , Albuquerque, New Mexico; Ann Sims, Los
Lunas, New Mexico; Tim Gardner and Nancy Koenigsberg, Disability
Rights New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, appeared with him on
the briefs), for Plaintiffs-Appellees.


NEWARK, NJ: Court Junks Public School Water Contamination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion Granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the
case captioned VERONICA BRANCH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
MINORS S.W. AND S.W, et al, Plaintiff, v. CHRIS CHRISTIE et al,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-2467 (JMV) (MF)(D.N.J.).

Plaintiffs are parents of children who attend Newark public
schools.  They allege that Defendants knowingly exposed the
children, along with thousands of other Newark students, to water
that was contaminated with unsafe levels of lead.  Plaintiffs
claim that Defendants have been aware of the contamination since
March 2011.  Plaintiffs further allege that after the
contamination was discovered, Defendants concocted a scheme to
cover up the health hazard, not disclose these dangers to the
parents, and provide themselves with bottled water.

Count I is for a violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional right to
substantive due process brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, as
is Count II.  Count I is brought under a state-created danger
theory, and Count II is brought under a violation of bodily
autonomy theory.  Count III is for negligence and gross
negligence, Count IV is for negligent infliction of emotional
distress, Count V is for intentional infliction of emotional
distress.  Count VI requests injunctive relief.  Count VII is for
a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs' constitutional rights
have been violated.

The State Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs do not have
standing to bring this case, as they cannot show a concrete
injury as a result of the conduct alleged.  They also argue that
the State Defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity under the
Eleventh Amendment as state officials, or in the alternative,
that they are entitled to qualified immunity in their individual
capacities for their alleged actions because the Plaintiffs have
not sufficiently pleaded a violation of a clearly established
constitutional right.  The School Defendants add that because
there is no respondent superior liability under Section 1983,
Defendant Barton cannot be sued even as an individual.

According to the Court, mere conclusory allegations against
defendants as a group which fail to allege the personal
involvement of any defendant" are insufficient to survive a
motion to dismiss.  Plaintiff must allege facts that establish
each individual defendant's liability for the misconduct alleged.
When a number of different defendants are named in a complaint,
plaintiff cannot refer to all defendants who occupied different
positions and presumably had distinct roles in the alleged
misconduct without specifying which defendants engaged in what
wrongful conduct.

The alleged symptoms of each child are also identical. It is also
unclear where the alleged lead filters were, how many there were,
and how many were not changed. The Amended Complaint only refers
to several such drinking fountains. As to the allegations
concerning testing, Plaintiffs do not state which facilities were
tested, whether Plaintiff were related to the facility, by whom
the tests were conducted, or when the tests occurred. Plaintiffs
alleged that they were "misinformed" about the lead in the water,
but they cite no specifics about what information they were
given, and whether and how it was incorrect. Moreover, they do
not state when the misinformation was disseminated, by whom, and
to which Plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the Amended Complaint is dismissed for failing to
set forth plausible allegations.

The Eleventh Amendment provides that the judicial power of the
United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law
or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United
States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects
of any Foreign State.

The case Plaintiffs cite to, L.R. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia,
is inapposite. 836 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2016). There, the defendant
was a kindergarten teacher who released a student to a woman who
was a complete stranger, without asking to see identification or
verification that the child was allowed to leave the school,
which was in direct violation of school policy.  The woman took
the student from school and later sexually assaulted her. Here,
Plaintiffs have failed to allege this type of affirmative
conduct.

Plaintiffs cite to no cases that support their theory, as pled,
of either state-created harm of violation of bodily integrity.
The Court also could not find any authority. To the contrary,
substantive due process has been found not to guarantee a safe
working environment or a right to minimum levels of safety in
certain arenas.  At best, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs'
alleged facts regarding lead in the drinking water would
constitute a constitutional violation. In fact, there are several
cases suggesting that they do not. However, the mere fact that
the constitutional rights are unclear means that the Defendants
are entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the
analysis.

Because Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the
Section 1983 claims along with the injunctive relief claim
derived from Section 1983 are dismissed with prejudice.

The State Defendants' motion is granted, and the School
Defendants' motion is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 8, 2018
Memorandum Decision and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yajhcqfk from Leagle.com.

VERONICA BRANCH, Individually and behalf of Minors S.W. and S.W.,
ANTHONY BROWN, Individually and on behalf of Minors A.B. and A.B.
& GEWNDOLYN BOOKER, Individually and on behalf of Minors A. B.
and A.B., Plaintiffs, represented by AYMEN A. ABOUSHI --
Aymen@Aboushi.com -- and JOEL SIDNEY SILBERMAN --
joel@joelsilbermanlaw.com -- Joel Silberman, Esq.

CHRIS CHRISTIE, CHRISTOPHER CERF, CAMI ANDERSON, MARK W. BIEDRON,
JOSEPH FISICARO, ARCELIO APONTE, RONALD K. BUTCHER, JACK FORNARO,
EDITHE FULTON, ERNEST P. LEPORE, ANDREW J. MULVIHILL, J. PETER
SIMON & DOROTHY S. STRICKLAND, Defendants, represented by KRISTEN
LEA SETTLEMIRE, STATE OF NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL.

KEITH BARTON & NEWARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendants, represented by
MATTHEW JUSTIN THARNEY -- mtharney@mccarter.com --  MCCARTER &
ENGLISH.


NOBLE HOUSE: District Court Denies Bid to Remand "Holt" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATHLEEN HOLT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. NOBLE HOUSE HOTELS &
RESORT, LTD; and DOES 1 TO 25, Defendants, Case No. 17cv2246-MMA
(BLM) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael M. Anello of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California denied both the
Plaintiff's motion to remand and request for fees and costs, and
the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

On Sept. 20, 2017, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed the putative class action
against Noble House and Doe Defendants 1 to 25 alleging causes of
action for violations of California's False Advertising Law
("FAL"), California Business and Professions Code sections 17500;
California's Unfair Competition law ("UCL"), California Business
and Professions Code sections 17200; and California's Consumers
Legal Remedy Act ("CLRA") California Business and Professions
Code sections 1750.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as all consumers
who ate or drank at a restaurant in California, owned by Noble
House Hotels & Resort, LTD. d/b/a/ Noble House Hotels & Resort,
LTD. LP, who were charged a surcharge on their bill in addition
to the costs of the food and drinks since four years prior to the
filing of the Complaint.

The Plaintiff's claims arise out of a 3.5% surcharge of $1.38,
which was added to the balance of her bill on Aug. 6, 2017, at
Acqua California Bistro in San Diego, California which is owned
by Noble House.  She alleges that Noble House is misleading the
public by advertising prices for food and drinks in its menus and
then adding the surcharge to the balance of the bill total at
checkout after the consumer is finished eating and drinking when
it is too late to make an informed decision about the increased
total bill."

The Plaintiff alleges Noble House purposely added this
'surcharge' instead of raising the prices on its menu in order to
mislead and deceive consumers into thinking that their meal would
cost less than it actually does.  According to the Plaintiff, the
surcharge is added after consumers finished eating and drinking
because they are less likely to notice or object.

Noble House removed the action to the Court on Nov. 3, 2017.  In
removing the action, it invoked diversity jurisdiction pursuant
to Title 28 of the United States Code, sections 1332(a), 1441,
and 1446.3 Id. at 1.  The Plaintiff filed the instant motion to
remand on Dec. 4, 2017.  Noble House moves to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint without leave to amend on the grounds that
the Plaintiff's FAL, CLRA, and UCL claims each fail to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.  The Plaintiff opposes
dismissal of any claims.

Judge Anello finds that Noble House asserts that its aggregate
food and beverage revenue at the relevant restaurants annually
exceeds $5,000,000 and that enjoining the 3.5% surcharge would
thereby prevent Noble House from collecting more than $100,000
per year.  In addition, Noble House claims the funds attributable
to the surcharge since its inception in early 2017 amount to more
than $75,000.  Thus, the Judge is satisfied that the amount in
controversy requirement has been met because the pecuniary result
to Noble House is valued at roughly $100,000 per year based upon
the Plaintiff's requested injunctive relief, and more than
$75,000 for her requested constructive trust or disgorgement of
Noble House's gains from the surcharge.  Accordingly, the Judge
denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand.

As to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the Judge finds that
Noble House's argument would require the Court to make factual
findings and/or construe them in favor of the moving party, which
it cannot do in determining the propriety of a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss.  Accordingly, he denied Noble House's motion
to dismiss on the grounds that the surcharge does not violate the
UCL, FAL, and CLRA based on factual allegations not presently
before the Court.  He also denied the dismissal based on Noble
House's argument that disclosure of the surcharge on the menu and
bill prove that the surcharge is not misleading.  The Court does
not make factual findings in determining the propriety of a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff has not alleged that the surcharge is disclosed in
the menu, and the Court declines to make a factual finding based
on factual allegations not included in the Plaintiff's Complaint.
Accordingly, Judge Anello denied Noble House's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's UCL claim on the grounds that disclosed
surcharges are protected by the safe harbor rule.  Finally,
because Noble House depends upon the Court considering material
outside the pleadings, whose accuracy can be reasonably
questioned, the Judge denied Noble House's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/F13sst from Leagle.com.

Kathleen Holt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Lemieux --
kevin@westcoastlitigation.com -- The Law Office of Kevin Lemieux,
APC, Yana A. Hart, Hyde & Swigart, Abbas Kazerounian, Kazerounian
Law Group, APC, Joshua B. Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com
-- Hyde & Swigart & Robert Lyman Hyde --
bob@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart.

Noble House Hotels & Resort, LTD, doing business as Noble House
Hotels & Resort, LTD, LP, Defendant, represented by Heidi Brooks
Bradley -- bradleyh@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC.


OHIO: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Graham" ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, affirmed the
dismissal of the lawsuit styled TODD GRAHAM, PAUL JOHNSON, RUSS
POPTANYCZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RICHARD FEARON, KEN D.
SEMELSBERGER, DISTRICT OF OHIO TRENT MEYERHOEFER, MARK MCGUIRE,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 17-3407 (6th Cir.), Case No. 3:16-CV-
885-JD (N.D. Ind.).

Plaintiffs-Appellants Todd Graham, Paul Johnson, and Russ
Poptanycz appeal the 12(b)(6) dismissal of their putative class
action brought pursuant to Section 502 of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

Eaton is a publicly traded company that manufactures products in
the industrial, agricultural, aerospace, and vehicle markets.
Eaton sponsors a defined contribution plan (Plan) for eligible
employees, who are permitted to defer up to fifty percent of
their compensation into the Plan.

Plaintiffs are former Eaton employees currently enrolled in the
Plan who invested in the Fund during the Class Period.
Defendants were, at relevant times, senior Eaton corporate
officers, members of the Plan's Pension Investment Committee,
members of the Plan's Pension Administrative Committee, and/or
Named Fiduciaries of the Plan under the governing documents. In
this appeal, it is uncontroverted that Defendants were
fiduciaries of the Plan.

The Plaintiffs alleged that Eaton's fraud and misrepresentation
to investors about the feasibility of tax-free spin-offs caused
its stock price to trade at artificially inflated prices. The
Plan participants who purchased the Eaton Stock Fund during this
time purchased an imprudent investment and were damaged by over-
paying for this stock.

In the instant case, Plaintiffs allege Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties when Eaton's stock became artificially inflated
in value due to fraud and misrepresentation in which several of
the Defendants participated, which made the Eaton stock fund an
imprudent investment.

Here, Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that disclosing the tax
consequences of the Cooper merger was so clearly beneficial that
a prudent fiduciary could not conclude that it would be more
likely to harm the fund than to help it. Plaintiffs' argument
does not account for the risk of market overreaction to such a
disclosure, resulting in a decline worse than actually warranted.
Nor does Plaintiffs' proposal factor in the potential harm to
ESOP participants planning to sell their Eaton stock during the
class period.

Plaintiffs suggest Defendants could have mitigated harm to the
Plan by halting all new contributions or investments into the
Eaton Stock Fund while it knew that it was an imprudent
investment because its stock price was inflated due to fraud and
undisclosed material information.

The plaintiffs in Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 788 F.3d 916, 920 (9th
Cir. 2015) made the same argument Plaintiffs advance here and the
Ninth Circuit agreed, holding that where a company withheld
material information, the impact of the eventual disclosure of
that information must be taken into account in assessing the net
harm that will result from the withdrawal of the fund. In Amgen,
it is plausible to conclude that the withdrawal of the fund will
result in a net benefit, rather than a net harm, to plan
participants. However, the Supreme Court found this insufficient
to meet the Fifth Third standard and reversed.

Plaintiffs suggest Defendants could have directed the Eaton Stock
Fund to put a small but significant portion of its holdings into
a low-cost hedging product.

Plaintiffs argue it would make little sense for the Supreme Court
to reject a presumption of prudence in Fifth Third only to impose
a standard that virtually forecloses all similar actions in the
future. the Sixth Circuit recognizes that the Fifth Third
standard is difficult for plaintiffs to meet and that no court
since Amgen has found sufficiently pled alternative actions.
Nevertheless, under the particular facts of this case, none of
Plaintiffs' proposed alternatives was so clearly beneficial that
a prudent fiduciary, under then prevailing circumstances, could
not conclude that it would be more likely to harm the fund than
to help it.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's January 8, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc45rg6h from Leagle.com.


OSI SYSTEMS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds investors that
a class action lawsuit has been filed against OSI Systems, Inc.
and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United
States District Court, for the Central District of California, is
on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of OSI between August 16, 2013
and December 5, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who have incurred substantial losses in OSI Systems,
Inc. are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You
may obtain additional information concerning the action on our
website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of OSI Systems, Inc.
and would like to assist with the litigation process as a lead
plaintiff, you may, no later than February 5, 2018, request that
the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.
Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights
as  an  investor  in OSI Systems, Inc.

OSI Systems, Inc. produces medical monitoring and anesthesia
systems, optoelectronic devices, and security and inspection
systems.  Its subsidiary Rapiscan Systems ("Rapiscan") provides
metal detectors and X-ray machines for screening luggage and
cargo.

On December 6, 2017, Muddy Waters Research published a report
entitled "OSIS: Rotten to the Core" (the "Muddy Waters Report").
Citing a number of sources--including Albanian media reports,
government documents, corporate filings, statements from former
OSI employees, and statements from a former SAT official--the 19-
page Muddy Waters Report asserted, that:

OSI had secured the Albania Turnkey Contract by corrupt means;

OSI had misled the SAT with respect to the capabilities of the
Company's machines and thus secured a "greatly inflated" price
for the Mexico Turnkey Contract; and

a culture of non-compliance with applicable laws and regulations
was endemic at OSI, with "former employees painting a reasonably
consistent picture of a company operating with disregard for the
law."

On this news, OSI's share price fell $24.55, or 29.2%, to close
at $59.52 on December 6, 2017.

Subsequently, on Feb. 2, after the close of market trading, the
Company announced that:

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California
said it plans to request information regarding Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act  ("FCPA") compliance matters, and;

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")  and Department of
Justice ("DOJ')  are  investigating trading in the company's
shares and have subpoenaed information regarding trading by
executives, directors and employees, as well as company
operations and disclosures in and around the time of certain
trades.
On this devastating disclosure, the stock collapsed and traded as
low as $50.50 per share, intraday, a decline of over 23%!

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has extensive
experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and
derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate
courts across the country.  The firm has attorneys in various
practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego.
The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and
other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the
courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex
securities multi-district and consolidated litigation.


         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Gregory Stone
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Tel: (800) 575-0735
              (212) 545-4774
         E-mail: gstone@whafh.com
                 kcooper@whafh.com [GN]


PAGEDALE, MO: To Dismiss Tickets as Part of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Patrick, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
a federal judge gave preliminary approval February 2 to a
sweeping consent decree that will alter Pagedale's municipal
court practices and resolve a lawsuit claiming the city abused
the ticketing process to raise revenue.

Affected are all those who were ticketed by Pagedale since Jan.
1, 2010, or who were warned that they would be ticketed. William
R. Maurer, a lawyer for the public interest firm Institute for
Justice, told U.S. District Judge Rodney Sippel that 18,000
individuals had been ticketed by the city since 2010.

As part of the consent decree, Pagedale has agreed to repeal
ordinances banning sagging pants, walking on the left side of the
crosswalk, barbecuing in the front yard (unless it's a national
holiday), and walking in a roadway if a sidewalk is present. Also
to be repealed: ordinances banning dish antennas, basketball
hoops, volleyball nets, swimming or wading pools or other
recreational equipment in the front of a house.

The city has agreed to dismiss some municipal court cases as well
as fines, fees and arrest warrants associated with them. It has
agreed to provide more information to residents about the court
process and the ordinances they are accused of violating, as well
as options to resolve those cases.

Those ticketed won't face jail unless they have an attorney or
have waived their right to an attorney. The city has to hold a
contempt hearing before any penalty is imposed for failure to pay
a fine or fee, and that hearing will include a determination of
whether the person can pay the fine or fee, the decree says.

The city will be banned from using municipal arrest warrants to
collect civil court debt, although Pagedale denied that this was
its current practice.

Pagedale also agreed to hold at least one daytime court session
and one night session a month, and won't hold more than seven
trials per court session.

Pagedale doesn't have to refund any money to those ticketed, or
pay attorneys' fees. The city, which covers just over one square
mile, is on the north edge of University City and has about 3,300
residents. [GN]


PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Sued in Illinois Over Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Rockwell, Zack Strupeck, and Stacey Puccini, on behalf of
plaintiffs and class members described herein v. Pennsylvania
Higher Education Assistance Agency d/b/a Fedloan Servicing Inc.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00367 (N.D. Ill., January 18, 208), alleges that
PHEAA has breached its servicing contract with the federal
government, of which the Plaintiffs are intended third party
beneficiaries, and tortiously interfered with the Plaintiffs'
contracts with the federal government, specifically by: (a)
failing to provide borrowers with adequate notice of federally-
mandated disclosures regarding IDR plan enrollment, which has
resulted in the improper cancellation of such plans, and the need
for costly forbearances; (b) improperly applying "delinquency
forbearances" to the accounts of borrowers who enroll in the
direct debt program, causing them to incur significant costs not
authorized by federal law; (c) improperly failing to place
borrowers' loans into an administrative forbearance, as required
by law, when additional time was needed to process their IDR
requests; (d) improperly placing borrowers' loans into general
forbearance status, in violation of federal law, causing them to
incur costly interest capitalizations and to suffer delayed
progress toward loan forgiveness; (e) misprocessing borrowers'
IDR applications, which has resulted in the improper cancellation
of such plans.

Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency is an independent
instrumentality, engaged in non-governmental commercial activity
throughout the United States, including the state of Illinois.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Anthony Fiorentino, Esq.
      FIORENTINO LAW OFFICES LTD.
      180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2440
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 957-8106
      Facsimile: (312) 853-3254
      E-mail: anthony@fiorentinolaw.com


PETLAND STORE: Accused of Selling Sick Puppy After CA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Putterman, writing for Bradenton Herald, reports that a
woman who bought a puppy from a Petland store in Sarasota last
year accused the chain of selling her a sick dog.

A few months ago, Sarah Royal paid the Petland at 5380 Fruitville
Road $4,000 for her dog, Bonibel, and a puppy package that
included a warranty, according to a report by ABC Action News.

But just a week after taking Bonibel home, another veterinarian
diagnosed the dog with kennel cough that Royal said only grew
worse.

A second vet visit determined the cough had turned into
bronchitis, the outlet reported, and Bonibel tested positive for
the highly contagious parasite giardia. Just two days after
Bonibel met the family's pet chinchilla, Peanut, died.

Bonibel made it but other dogs from Petland, many customers say,
aren't so lucky.

Royal's accusation comes as the national chain is already
embroiled in a class-action lawsuit filed last year. The suit
accuses Petland's 77 franchise locations of defrauding customers
by luring them to pay top dollar for dogs that quickly fall sick
and in some cases die. The Animal Legal Defense Fund is one of
the law groups involved in the case.

Attorneys with the defense fund have said that customers who say
the chain sold them sick puppies have rolled in from all over the
country, but Florida seems to be a hot spot, according to the
Tampa Bay Times.

Take Indra Jenkins case, for example, who bought two puppies --
Ollie, a Yorkshire terrier, and Nenanee, a Cavalier King Charles
-- from the Petland location in Largo.

Jenkins paid nearly $5,000 for the dogs that both came with a
clean bill of health with veternarian-signed certificates. But
soon after bringing the pups home, Jenkins noticed that Nenanee
was lethargic. Then, he stopped eating altogether.

A Petland vet prescribed more antibiotics.

Jenkins wasn't convinced and decided to get a second opinion from
a veternarian outside of Petland's warranty, worried there was
something significantly wrong.

She was right.

In the end, Nenanne wound up being diagnosed with double
pneumonia and had to be placed on oxygen at an emergency animal
hospital. Jenkins said she spent over $4,000 to save her puppy's
life.

The store eventually refunded her $1,800, which was the purchase
price of the puppy, ABC Action News reports.

In Sarah Royal's case, the Sarasota store reimbursed her $95 of
about $300 in vet bills.

For the class-action suit, the next step lies in whether a judge
will decide to grant Petland's petition to drop the suit.

But if the plaintiff's win out, it could mean that every Petland
customer who has purchased a sick puppy over the last four years
would receive some compensation. [GN]


PHILIP MORRIS: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Philip Morris
International Inc. (NYSE:PM) who purchased shares between July
26, 2016 and December 20, 2017. The action, which was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) there were
irregularities in the clinical experiments that underpin Philip
Morris' application to the FDA for approval of its iQOS smoking
device; and (2) consequently, defendants' statements about Philip
Morris' business, operations and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times.

Shareholders have until February 20, 2018 to petition the court
for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose
to be an absent class member.

If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain
additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by
telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-sb/philip-morris-
international-inc?wire=3.

Joseph Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in
securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the
nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]


PLAINS ALL AMERICA: Court Certifies Oil Industry Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Keith Andrews et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 2:15-cv-04113-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order
on Feb. 9, 2018:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify a Real Property
      Subclass of:

      "(1) residential beachfront properties on a beach, (2)
      residential properties with a private easement to a beach,
      and (3) residential properties that are within one-half
      mile of a beach (collectively 'Included Properties') where
      oil from the Line 901 spill washed up, and where the oiling
      was categorized as Heavy, Moderate or Light";

   2. granting certification to proposed Oil Industry Subclass
      of:

      "[i]ndividuals and entities who were employed, or
      contracted, to work on or to provide supplies, personnel,
      or services for the operations of the off-shore oil
      drilling platforms, Hidalgo, Harvest, Hermosa, Heritage,
      Harmony, Hondo, and/or Holly, off the Santa Barbara County
      coast, or the on-shore processing facilities at Las
      Flores/POPCO, Gaviota, and/or Venoco/Ellwood, as of May
      19, 2015";

   3. appointing counsel at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
      LLP; Keller Rohrback L.L.P.; Cappello & Noel LLP; and Audet
      & Partners, LLP as lead counsel for the Oil Industry
      Subclass.

   4. appointing moving Plaintiffs as Subclass representatives;
      and

   5. denying Defendants' motion to strike the declaration of
      Peter Rupert and finds Defendants' motion to strike the
      declarations of Randall Bell and Igor Mezic rendered moot.

A copy of the Civil Minutes - General is available at no charge
at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IFEDUOFI


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BONNIE MEYER, JACQUELINE OLSON, and
MARY SCHNEIDER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00214-NJ (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further request that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing
on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d
891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v.
First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an
amended motion is filed.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sG7Bxtu9

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


PRESIDIO BRANDS: Court Narrows Claims in "Shank" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARRET SHANK, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDIO BRANDS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00232-DMR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Donna M.
Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Presidio's motion
to dismiss the amended complaint; and denied its motions to stay
the action pending referral of the matter to the Food and Drug
Administration.

According to Shank, Presidio seeks to capture a growing segment
of consumers who will pay a premium for natural, naturally
derived, and plant-based products.  It thus designs, markets,
distributes, and sells its Every Man Jack brand products with
labels claiming that the products contain only naturally derived
ingredients.  This claim is coupled with images of plants and
forests intended to give the impression that its products'
ingredients are all-natural and plant-based, and do not contain
synthetic, artificial, or toxic ingredients.  The images, along
with statements referring to the ingredients in Every Man Jack
products as "only naturally derived," "naturally," "natural," and
"naturally-derived," appear throughout the Every Man Jack
website, in magazine advertisements and articles, and on product
labels.

According to Shank, Presidio's representation that Every Man Jack
products "contain only naturally derived ingredients" is false,
misleading, and deceptive, because they actually contain numerous
ingredients that are artificially-engineered through multiple
synthetic processes rendering the resulting ingredients and its
components unnatural and not naturally-derived.  Shank identifies
20 products that he alleges on information and belief contain
synthetic ingredients, including 2-in-1 body + face wash, 2-in-1
shampoo + conditioner, and body wash.  The amended complaint
includes a chart of 31 "synthetic" and/or "synthetically
manufactured" ingredients and the Every Man Jack products in
which they are found.

Shank purchased several Every Man Jack products during the
alleged class period, which encompasses four years prior to the
filing of the complaint on Jan. 17, 2017.  He alleges that he
saw, relied upon, and reasonably believed that these products
only contained natural ingredients because of Presidio's
representations including the repeated and highlighted use of the
phrases 'naturally derived' and 'only naturally derived
ingredients,' the picture of a green leaf prominently displayed
on the bottles, depictions of plants and trees, and listing of
other earth-friendly and health-conscious features of the
product, along with the products' wood-grain packaging.  These
representations were material to Shank in deciding to purchase
Every Man Jack products, and if he had known that the products
contained "synthetic and hazardous ingredients," he would not
have purchased the products or would have paid less for them.

Based on these allegations, Shank asserts three claims for relief
under California law: (1) violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) violation of the False Advertising Law
("FAL"); and (3) violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

He seeks to represent a nationwide class of allegedly similarly
situated persons, defined as all individuals in the United States
who purchased any Every Man Jack brand product containing
artificially-processed and synthetic ingredients and labeled or
marketed as naturally derived.  At the hearing, Shank's counsel
confirmed that this description of the nationwide class contains
an error.  It should read "All individuals in the United States
who purchased any Every Man Jack brand product containing
artificially-processed and synthetic ingredients and labeled or
marketed as containing "only naturally derived ingredients."
Shank will amend this allegation in conformance with the
counsel's representation.

Presidio now moves to dismiss the amended complaint and/or to
stay the action.  It challenges Shank's standing to bring certain
claims, as well as the sufficiency of the allegations.

Judge Ryu granted in part and denied in part Presidio's motion to
dismiss.  The Judge finds, among other things, that at the
hearing, Shank's counsel conceded that the operative complaint
currently does not contain factual allegations to establish
standing to pursue injunctive relief, but represented that Shank
will be able to allege sufficient facts if given the opportunity.
Accordingly, Shank's request for injunctive relief is dismissed
with leave to amend.

She finds that Presidio offers no other argument supporting its
claim that this is not a material misrepresentation for purposes
of establishing causation.  Hence, she denied the motion to
dismiss the CLRA and FAL claims on this ground.  She also
concludes that that it is premature to dismiss the nationwide
class allegations at the pleading stage, and finds that the issue
is more properly addressed at the class certification stage.
Accordingly, the Judge denied Presidio's motion to dismiss the
nationwide class claims.

Finally, the amended complaint alleges that Presidio knows that
consumers reasonably rely on its representations in forming the
belief that the EMJ Products do not contain synthetic, artificial
or toxic ingredients, intends for consumers to rely on its visual
and actual representations, and deceives consumers in order to
command a premium price for its products.  The Judge says these
allegations of Presidio's fraudulent intent are sufficient to
support Shank's claim for punitive damages.

Judge Ryu denied Presidio's motion to stay on primary
jurisdiction grounds, finding that the FDA's letter shows that
the agency is aware of but has expressed no interest in the
subject matter of the litigation, and concluding that a formal
referral would be futile.  At the hearing, Presidio was unable to
cite any recent developments that would contradict this
conclusion.  Although it cites the FDA's Nov. 12, 2015 Request
for Comments regarding the term "natural," that development
concerns the use of the term 'natural' in the labeling of human
food products, and makes no reference to cosmetics.  Moreover,
she says, it is far from clear that the FDA will issue guidance
on the use of the term natural with respect to food any time
soon.  At this stage in the proceeding, she declines to exercise
its discretion to stay this action under the primary jurisdiction
doctrine.

The Judge directed Shank to file a second amended complaint
within 14 days of the date of the Order.  She will conduct a case
management conference on March 21, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.  A joint
case management statement is due by March 14, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/fRIoYK from Leagle.com.

Garret Shank, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Bevin Elaine
Allen Pike -- Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Lee Adam Cirsch -- Lee.Cirsch@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone
Law, APC, Robert Kenneth Friedl --
Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC & Trisha
Kathleen Monesi -- Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone
Law APC.

Presidio Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Angela Lee Diesch -- angela@dieschforrestlaw.com -
- Diesch Forrest, APC.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Pomerantz Recovery Reaches $3 Billion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz and Lead Plaintiff Universities Superannuation Scheme,
Ltd. have reached a $50 million settlement with Petrobras'
auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores Independentes ("PwC
Brazil").  With this additional settlement, Pomerantz's recovery
on behalf of Petrobras investors now reaches $3 billion.  This
settlement represents the largest securities class action
settlement in a decade.  It is also the largest settlement ever
in a class action involving a foreign issuer and it is the fifth
largest class action settlement ever achieved in the United
States.  It is also the largest settlement ever achieved by a
foreign lead plaintiff.  Moreover, it is the largest class action
settlement in history not involving a restatement of financial
reports.

The settlement was achieved after nearly three years of hard-
fought litigation, including U.S. and foreign discovery and
complex motion practice in the Southern District of New York, an
appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, and during the pendency of a petition by defendants for
a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

Jeremy Lieberman, Co-Managing Partner of Pomerantz, commented on
the Settlement:

"We are very pleased with the $50 million settlement achieved
with PwC Brazil.  With allegations of such an extended and
pervasive fraud at Petrobras, it is particularly important to
look at the role of auditors and other gatekeepers to ensure that
a blind eye is not turned to corporate malfeasance.  The
settlement announced today ensures accountability for those
gatekeepers whose duty it is to protect the interests of
shareholders, not their corporate clients."

The litigation involved one of the largest securities class
actions pending in the United States, in which Brazil's energy
giant, Petrobras, was accused of concealing a sprawling, decades-
long kickback scheme from investors.  The scandal ensnared not
only Petrobras' former executives but also Brazilian politicians,
including former presidents and at least one-third of the
Brazilian Congress.  According to plaintiffs, defendants'
fraudulent scheme involved billions of dollars in kickbacks, tens
of billions of dollars in overstated assets, as well as
significant losses to Petrobras investors.  Plaintiffs asserted
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.

Pomerantz Co-Managing Partner, Jeremy A. Lieberman led the
litigation assisted by  Partners, Marc I. Gross, Jennifer Pafiti,
and  Emma Gilmore; Of Counsel, John A. Kehoe and Brenda Szydlo;
and Associates Jennifer Sobers, Adam Kurtz and Justin
Nematzadeh.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los
Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier law
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as
the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multibillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


PRIME STAFF: Faces "Jones" Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prime Staff, Inc.
The case is styled as Adriane Jones, an individual on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated aggrieved employees, and the
state of California, Plaintiff v. Prime Staff, Inc., a California
Corporation, Broad Band Integrators, Inc., a California
Corporation, Rebecca B. Gaspar and Gonzalez, Robert P., Jr.,
Defendants, Case No. BCV-18-100301 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 8,
2018).

Broad Band Integrators, Inc., installs cable services,
underground piping and maintenance and trunk cable replacement
for installation throughout Kern County, including Bakersfield,
Arvin, Taft, Shafter, Delano and Tehachapi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Shafiel A. Karim, Esq.
   Law Office of Shafiel A. Karim, P.C.
   2698 Junipero Avenue, Suite 201A
   Signal Hill, CA 90755
   Tel: (562) 246-5371
   Fax: (562) 285-9990
   Email: info@skarimlaw.com


PULASKI COUNTY, IN: "Hizer" ADA Suit Set for Fairness Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division, issued an Opinion and Order
granting Parties' Joint Motion to set the matter for a fairness
hearing and approve notice to the class members in the case
captioned EMILY HIZER on her own behalf and on behalf of a class
of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PULASKI COUNTY,
INDIANA, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-CV-885-JD (N.D. Ind.).

Plaintiff Emily Hizer, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class
of those similarly situated, filed her complaint for declaratory
and injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act (RA) against Pulaski County,
Indiana.  The Court certified the case as a class action under
Fed. R. Civ. P 23(a) and (b)(2), approving a plaintiff class
defined as:

     All persons with mobility impairments or other physical
disabilities who access or attempt to access, or who will access
or will attempt to access, the Pulaski County Courthouse.

The parties have filed an Amended Stipulation to settle all
issues in this case, as well as an Amended Joint Motion to set
the matter for a fairness hearing and approve notice to the class
members pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).

The Court having reviewed the Proposed Stipulation and other
submissions of the parties, and being otherwise fully advised,
ordered that, as previously indicated, for purposes of this
lawsuit, Class Members are defined as follows:

     All persons with mobility impairments or other physical
disabilities who access or attempt to access, or who will access
or will attempt to access, the Pulaski County Courthouse.

Having reviewed the parties' Joint Motion to Approve Form and
Manner of Notice to Set Matter for Fairness Hearing and the
attached proposed notice of hearing the Court grants the parties'
Joint Motion and approves the proposed notice.

The Court will review these summaries and any direct filings at a
hearing to be held at 3:00 p.m. on March 15, 2018, before The
Hon. Jon E. DeGuilio, in his first-floor courtroom of the United
States Courthouse located at 204 S. Main Street, South Bend, IN
46601.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 8, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybfcykuu
from Leagle.com.

Emily Hizer, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jan P. Mensz --
jmensz@aclu-in.org -- ACLU of Indiana & Kenneth J. Falk --
kfalk@aclu-in.org -- ACLU of Indiana.

Pulaski County Indiana, Defendant, represented by Alexander P.
Will, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Anthony W. Overholt, Frost Brown Todd
LLC, 400 West Market Street, 32nd Floor. Louisville KY 40202-
3363. & Kevin C. Tankersley -- kevin@tanklaw.com -- Tankersley
Law Office.


RAG & BONE: Faces "Kiler" Suit in Eastern District New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rag & Bone
Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Rag & Bone Holdings, LLC doing business as: Rag &
Bone, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00852-RRM-PK (E.D. N.Y.,
February 8, 2018).

Rag & Bone Holdings, LLC is in the Women's Clothing Stores
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


RASIER-CA LLC: "Kaye" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE KAYE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. BC692952 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 6, 2018), seeks civil
penalties on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees
pursuant to Private Attorney General Act of 2004 and California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a driver for
Rasier-CA, a subsidiary and/or affiliate of Uber Technologies,
Inc. Defendant contracts with thousands of California drivers
such as Plaintiff and maintains a Transportation Network Company
license from the California Public Utilities Commission.

Under the California Labor Code, employers must provide their
employees with, among other things, itemized wage statements,
minimum and overtime wages, reimbursement of necessary expenses,
and prompt payment of wages upon termination. Uber failed to
comply with the requirements of the California Labor Code just
identified due to its willful and intentional misclassification
of Uber drivers as independent contractors.

Uber has had a consistent policy and/or practice of (1)
misclassifying Uber drivers as independent contractors instead of
properly classifying them as employees; (2) permitting,
encouraging, and/or requiring Uber drivers to work in excess of
eight hours per day and/or in excess of forty hours per
week without overtime pay; (3) failing to pay Uber drivers a
minimum wage for all hours worked; (4) requiring Uber drivers to
incur business-related expenses and then failing to reimburse
them for these costs; (5) knowingly and intentionally failing to
furnish Uber drivers with timely itemized statements accurately
showing their total hours worked and hourly rate paid.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          Madeleine Sharp, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500 8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500 8781
          E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com
                  caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
                  madeleine.sharp@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Adam Miller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ADAM D. MILLER
          2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500 8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500 8781
          E-mail: adam@millerlawcorp.com


RAUSCH & STURM: Toombs Sues over Debt Collections Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
TERESA TOOMBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. RAUSCH, STURM, ISRAEL, ENERSON &
HORNIK, LLC, PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC and John Does
1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00294-K (N.D. Tex.,
Feb. 6, 2018), seeks to recover damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to February 6, 2017,
an obligation was allegedly incurred by Plaintiff. The alleged
obligation arose out of a transaction involving a card debt
incurred by Plaintiff in which money, property, insurance or
services, which are the subject of the transaction, was used to
purchase goods that were primarily for personal, family or
household purposes, superficially a Wal Mart credit card.

The alleged obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C.
section 1692a(5). The original owner of the alleged obligation is
a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(4). Defendant
Portfolio, is the current owner of the obligation and contracted
the Defendant Rausch Sturm to collect the alleged debt. Defendant
Rausch Sturm collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or
alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household
purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal
Services, telephone and internet.

PRA collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to
have been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on
behalf of creditors using the United States Postal Services,
telephone and internet.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jonathan Kandelshein, Esq.
          18208 Preston Rd, Suite D-9 #256
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          JONATHAN KANDELSHEIN
          Dallas, TX 75252
          Telephone: (469) 677 7863
          Facsimile: (972) 380 8118
          E-mail: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com


RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PATRICK MANIACI, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
THE RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORPORATION, D/B/A RMS, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00200-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying proposed
classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing
on the certification motion until discovery could commence.
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay
should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs
contend.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


REINALDO MARTINEZ: Court Awards $2,500 Atty's Fees in FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Fort Myers Division, issued a Report and Recommendation
granting the Renewed Joint Motion to Review and Approve the
Parties' Proposed Settlement in the case captioned YAMILET
CASTANEDA, and other similarly situated non-exempt employees,
Plaintiff, v. REINALDO MARTINEZ, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-498-
FtM-38CM (M.D. Fla.).

Plaintiff, Yamilet Castaneda, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, brought this action against Defendant
alleging that Defendant did not compensate her with overtime pay
in violation of the FLSA.

The Eleventh Circuit has found settlements to be permissible when
the lawsuit is brought by employees under the FLSA for back wages
because the lawsuit provides some assurance of an adversarial
context.  The employees are likely to be represented by an
attorney who can protect their rights under the statute. Thus,
when the parties submit a settlement to the court for approval,
the settlement is more likely to reflect a reasonable compromise
of disputed issues than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought
about by an employer's overreaching. If a settlement in an
employee FLSA suit does reflect a reasonable compromise over
issues, such as FLSA coverage or computation of back wages that
are actually in dispute; we allow the district court to approve
the settlement in order to promote the policy of encouraging
settlement of litigation.

In the Revised Proposed Settlement Agreement, Defendant agrees to
issue one check payable to Yamilet Castaneda in the amount of
seven-hundred and fifty dollars ($750.00) for unpaid wages,
overtime, expenses, or other compensation and one check payable
to Yamilet Castaneda in the amount of seven-hundred and fifty
dollars ($750.00) for liquidated damages.

Based on the Court's review of the settlement agreement, the
parties' representations and the policy in this circuit of
promoting settlement of litigation, the Court recommends the
proposed settlement to be a fair and reasonable compromise of the
dispute.

As part of the settlement, Defendants further agree to pay
Plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of two-
thousand, five-hundred dollars ($2,500.00)

In the instant case, the settlement was reached and the
attorneys' fees and costs were agreed upon separately and without
regard to the amount paid to the Plaintiffs.

Thus, having reviewed the settlement agreements the Court
recommends the proposed monetary terms of the settlement to be a
fair and reasonable compromise of the dispute.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 8, 2018 Report
and Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8we2tu4
from Leagle.com.

Yamilet Castaneda, and other similarly situated non-exempt
employees, Plaintiff, represented by Brody Max Shulman --
bshulman@rgpattorneys.com -- Remer & Georges-Pierre, PLLC & Jason
S. Remer -- jremer@rgpattorneys.com -- Remer & Georges-Pierre,
PLLC.

Reinaldo Martinez, individually, Defendant, represented by Neil
Morales, Neil Morales, PA, 5237 S. Commons Blvd., Suite 364, Ft.
Myers, FL, 33907


RIESTERER'S ENTERPRISES: Faces "Villa" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Riesterer's
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Carlos Lopez Villa
also known as: Carlos Zevallos individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Riesterer's Enterprises,
Inc. doing business as: Riesterer's Bakery, Riesterer Bakeries
Corp, Riesterer's Bakery Inc., Charles Riesterer also known as:
Karl William Riesterer and Karl Riesterer, Jr. also known as:
Karl William Riesterer, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00877 (E.D.
N.Y., February 8, 2018).

Riesterer's Enterprises, Inc. is family-run kosher shop producing
old-fashioned pastries & custom cakes since 1931.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SABER HEALTHCARE: 4th Cir. Vacates Order Remanding "Bartels"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, JEANNE T. BARTELS, by and through William H.
Bartels, Attorney-in-Fact; JOSEPH J. PFOHL, Executor of the
Estate of Bernice C. Pfohl; CLAIRE M. MURPHY, by and through
Michele Mullen, Attorney-in-Fact, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SABER
HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC; SABER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC; FRANKLIN
OPERATIONS, LLC, d/b/a Franklin Manor Assisted Living Center;
SMITHFIELD EAST HEALTH HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a Gabriel Manor
Assisted Living Center; QUEEN CITY AL HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a The
Crossings at Steele Creek, Defendants-Appellants. JEANNE T.
BARTELS, by and through William H. Bartels, Attorney-in-Fact;
JOSEPH J. PFOHL, Executor of the Estate of Bernice C. Pfohl;
CLAIRE M. MURPHY, by and through Michele Mullen, Attorney-in-
Fact, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC; SABER
HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC; FRANKLIN OPERATIONS, LLC, d/b/a
Franklin Manor Assisted Living Center; SMITHFIELD EAST HEALTH
HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a Gabriel Manor Assisted Living Center; QUEEN
CITY AL HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a The Crossings at Steele Creek,
Defendants-Appellants, Case Nos. 16-2416, 16-2247 (4th Cir.),
Judge William Byrd Traxler Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's order granting
the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court, and
remanded for reconsideration of the question of whether all of
the Saber Defendants are bound by the Franklin Manor forum-
selection clause.

Saber sits at the top of a family of wholly owned limited-
liability companies that own and operate dozens of assisted-
living facilities and nursing homes in several states, including
North Carolina.  Current and former residents of one of Saber's
North Carolina assisted-living facilities brought a putative
class action in North Carolina state court against Saber and
certain of its subsidiaries, alleging that the Defendants failed
to deliver the contractually promised care and failed to comply
with certain state law requirements.

After the Defendants removed the case to federal court, the
district court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case
to state court, concluding that a forum-selection clause in the
residents' contracts required the case to proceed in state court.
The court rejected the Defendants' argument that only Franklin
Operations was bound by the forum-selection clause, noting that
the Plaintiffs alleged that the entities were alter egos and that
Saber was the sole member in each entity.

The Defendants appeal.  They argue that the case was properly
removed under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), and
that, in any event, the forum-selection clause does not prohibit
removal.

Judge Traxler holds that the removal was proper under CAFA if any
one of the Defendants was authorized to remove the case.
Accordingly, the questions he must answer are whether the forum-
selection clause prohibited removal, and, if so, whether all the
Defendants are bound by the clause.

The Judge finds that the parties to the residency agreement must
be presumed to have been familiar with the operation of the state
court system when they agreed to the forum-selection clause.
Accordingly, the parties to the Franklin Manor contracts agreed
that disputes must be resolved in Franklin County, while at the
same time recognizing that pretrial proceedings might take place
in another county.  Under these circumstances, the Jugde says it
is clear that the purpose of the forum-selection clause was to
dictate which county court would have jurisdiction over the case
as a whole, without regard to which county courthouse might play
host to a given hearing.  That is, Franklin County may be the
"sole and exclusive venue" for resolution of the dispute as a
whole, as required by the contract, notwithstanding the fact that
a few preliminary hearings might be held elsewhere.  Indeed, the
record shows just that -- the case retained its Franklin County
flavor even when the hearing was held outside Franklin County.
The operation of the North Carolina court system thus provides no
basis for ignoring the plain language of the forum selection
clause.

Having concluded that the operative forum-selection clause
precludes removal to federal court and that the Plaintiffs did
not waive their right to enforce the clause, Judge Traxler turns
now to the question of which the Defendants are bound by the
clause.  He notes that unanimity is not required for removal
under CAFA; a single Defendant may remove a case.  Accordingly,
unless all of the Saber Defendants are bound by the forum-
selection clause contained in the Franklin Manor residency
agreements, removal was proper.  Given the nature of the alter-
ego question, some amount of discovery will likely be required to
permit the Plaintiffs to gather the evidence necessary to support
their claim.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Traxler vacated the district
court's order, and remanded for reconsideration of the question
of whether all of the Saber Defendants are bound by the Franklin
Manor forum-selection clause.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/1FnpKZ from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Mary Beth Hickcox-Howard -- mhickcox-howard@wc.com --
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Stephen Jay Gugenheim, GUGENHEIM LAW OFFICES, P.C., Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Steven B. Epstein -- sepstein@poynerspruill.com --
POYNER SPRUILL LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Edward J. Bennett --
ebennett@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellants.

Daniel K. Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Matthew E. Lee --
matt@wbmllp.com -- Jeremy R. Williams -- eremy@wbmllp.com --
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Andrew D.
Hathaway, GUGENHEIM LAW OFFICES, P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.


SANTA ANNA LLC: Zuliani Seeks to Certify Class of Service Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled VERONICA ZULIANI, on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SANTA ANNA, LLC,
a Florida Limited Liability Company, and MARIO SPINA,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-62080-FAM (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the entry of an Order permitting, under
court supervision, notice to following class of similarly
situated employees:

   "all wait and service staff who worked for Defendants at any
   time during the last three years, who were paid a tip-credit
   but not paid the required minimum wage due under the Fair
   Labor Standards Act in one or more workweeks as a result of
   Defendants' illegal tip pooling, time keeping alterations, and
   pay practices"; and

   "all wait and service staff who worked for Defendants at any
   time during the last three years, who were not paid full and
   proper overtime compensation due under the Fair Labor
   Standards Act for all hours worked over 40 in one or more
   workweeks due to Defendants' illegal time keeping and pay
   practices."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0Eg1CR8s

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          Richard Celler, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (866) 344-9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337 2771
          E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


SASKATCHEWAN: Breaching Inmates' Charter Rights
-----------------------------------------------
Alicia Bridges, writing for CBC News, reports that Saskatchewan
lawyer Tony Merchant, Esq. has launched two class-action lawsuits
claiming the federal and provincial governments are breaching the
charter rights of correctional inmates by keeping them in
segregation for "administrative" reasons.

On Febraury 2 morning, Merchant's law office filed statements of
claim against the attorneys general of Saskatchewan and Canada,
claiming both levels of government are breaching the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.

Members of the class-action suit against the province include
inmates who claim they were held for periods totalling up to six
years and consecutive periods of three months.

Members of the class action against the federal government claim
they were held in segregation for periods of up to seven
consecutive months.

Lack of medical care among complaints

"Prolonged indefinite administrative segregation was used
intentionally, consistently, and with full knowledge of the
physical and psychological damage that it would [cause]," reads
the statement of claim against the province.

It claims the practice causes serious psychological suffering,
and that the health risk increases the longer that the individual
is isolated.

"Use of indefinite administrative segregation can exacerbate
symptoms, promote recurrence of mental disorders, and create new
mental disorders in inmates," it reads.

According to one of the lawsuits, a 25-year-old class member is
currently serving his ninth consecutive month in administrative
segregation at the Regina Provincial Correctional Centre.

Another Saskatchewan class member, who suffers from Crohn's
disease and is said to have lost almost 11 kilograms in 20 days,
claims he has not received proper medical care.

The lawsuit against the Saskatchewan attorney general said
governments "knowingly and intentionally acted contrary to . . .
regulations and law."

B.C. ruling

On Jan. 17, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Peter Leask found that the
laws surrounding administrative segregation in prison
discriminate against Indigenous and mentally ill inmates.

He said the existing rules create a situation in which a warden
becomes judge and jury in terms of ordering extended periods of
solitary confinement.

"I find as a fact that administrative segregation . . . is a form
of solitary confinement that places all Canadian inmates subject
to it at significant risk of serious psychological harm,
including mental pain and suffering, and increased incidence of
self-harm and suicide," Leask wrote.

Merchant said it also increases an offender's chance of
reoffending.

Administrative segregation is allowed in Saskatchewan under the
Correctional Services Act.

In a written response to questions from CBC News about the claims
in the lawsuits, the provincial Ministry of Justice said it is
used as a tool for safety and security in provincial facilities.

It said inmates in administrative segregation have one hour
outside of their cells each day, during which they are not
allowed to interact with other offenders.

The ministry also said offenders on administrative segregation
continue to have contact with their lawyers and others, such as
family.

TV depictions inaccurate: ministry

"Although it is often depicted as a specific location/cell in TV
and film (i.e. - 'the hole'), it is important to the ministry
that it be understood that segregation is a status and not a
specific location within our correctional facilities," said the
ministry in its written response.

"The depiction of this type of segregation in TV and film is not
an accurate representation of the way this practice works in
Saskatchewan's correctional facilities. The dimensions of the
cells vary from facility to facility."

The ministry said it does not make decisions to place inmates in
segregation indefinitely.

Instead, it said a panel is required to review a decision to
segregate an inmate within two days of them being isolated.

The offender can make submissions to the panel, which provides
written reasons for their decision to the inmate and the director
of the facility within two business days.

Under provincial legislation, reviews must be conducted at least
every 21 days if the segregation is involuntary. The inmate can
appeal the decision and they are allowed to seek advice from
their lawyer.

Reasons for isolation vary

"An offender could be put on administrative segregation if they
were thought to be a threat to the safety and security of a
correctional facility," said the ministry.

"Alternately, an inmate may be put into administrative
segregation if corrections staff believed there was a threat to
the offender's safety if they were to remain in general
population."

But it said the province is participating in the development of a
national strategy for the use of administrative segregation.

It said the new strategy, which is being prepared with
Correctional Service of Canada, will take into account offenders'
rights to physical and mental safety, known as "least restrictive
measures," while incarcerated.

The ministry said it is also conducting a medical-services review
in its facilities, which will consider mental health services
provided and potential ways to improve them. Both the strategy
and the review are expected to be complete within the next couple
of months.

The Saskatchewan Health Authority, in partnership with other
provincial groups, is building the new Saskatchewan Hospital
North Battleford as a public-private partnership that will
provide therapeutic mental health services to offenders with the
goal of improving mental health and reducing reoffending.

Merchant's lawsuit calls for the governments to acknowledge they
breached their duty of care for the inmates and pay damages for
the impact to them. [GN]


SOUTH END PARTNERS: Faces "Walker" Suit in District of Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against South End Partners,
Inc. The case is styled as Ricardo Walker, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. South End
Partners, Inc. doing business as: SRV, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-10255 (D. Mass., February 8, 2018).

South End Partners, Inc. (trade name Srv) is an Italian
Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group PLLC
   30 E39th Street, 2nd Flr.
   New York, NY 10016-2555
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: Court Won't Certify Class in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN DVORAK, et al., Individually and as the
Representative of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons,
Plaintiffs, v. ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 14-CV-1119-SMY-RJD (S.D. Ill.), Judge Staci M. Yandle of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The case revolves around St. Clair County, Illinois real estate
tax sales for properties for which the prior year's property
taxes are delinquent.  The County Collector (an ex officio role
of the County Treasurer) conducts the sales.  Purchasers do not
receive clear title to the property at issue, but rather a
Certificate of Purchase and the right to collect the amount of
unpaid taxes from the owner plus a "penalty" ranging from 0 to 18
percent interest.  Each successful bidder pays the county the
amount of the delinquency.  The winning bidder for a given parcel
is the one who is willing to accept the lowest penalty rate if
the owner exercises his/her/its right of redemption.  The maximum
penalty percentage that may be bid is 18 percent, and if no bids
are received on a given property, it reverts to the County at the
maximum penalty rate.

If a property owner fails to redeem a property within the
statutory redemption period, the successful bidder may file a
Petition for a tax deed. Once a tax deed is issued, it conveys
merchantable title, free and clear from most previous interests
in the property.

If the property is redeemed, the purchaser of the tax lien
receives the certificate amount (what is owed to the county) plus
the penalty percentage.  The penalty rate increases every six
months by the amount of the penalty rate that was originally bid.
Using the above example, the property owner would owe the winning
bidder $2,260 if redeemed within six months, $2,520 if redeemed
between six months and a year, $2,780 if redeemed between a year
and 18 months, etc.  The holder of a tax lien may also pay
subsequent unpaid real estate taxes on a property and claim an
automatic 12 percent penalty on the subsequent taxes.

Because the cost of redemption is usually significantly less than
the market value of the property, there is a strong incentive for
anyone holding a sizeable ownership or security interest in the
property to redeem it following a tax sale.  If a property owner
is unable to pay the cost of redemption, it is common for a
mortgage holder or other lienholder to redeem on behalf of the
property owner in order to preserve their interest. The amount
paid on the owner's behalf is then added to the owner's
outstanding obligation.

The Plaintiffs maintain that something went very wrong with this
process at the St. Clair County tax sales conducted in 2007 and
2008.  Specifically, they allege that Defendant Suarez -- in
exchange for political contributions for himself and the
"Democrat Party of St. Clair County" -- arranged for the
auctioneer to recognize the Purchaser Defendants as winning
bidders and to distribute the winning bids from the various
auctions between the Purchaser Defendants.  They also allege that
Suarez arranged for the Purchaser Defendants to have advantageous
seating positions and caused the auctioneer to ignore subsequent
lower bids, thereby artificially inflating the penalty rates.
For their part, the Purchaser Defendants are alleged to have
agreed to keep their bids at or near the 18 percent statutory
maximum penalty rate.

The Plaintiffs assert eight causes of actions, including claims
against all defendants for Civil Conspiracy (Count I), violations
of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (Counts III and IV) and violations
of the Illinois Antitrust Act (Counts V-VII).  They also assert
claims for Money Had and Received against all Defendants except
Suarez (Count II) and breach of fiduciary duty against Suarez
alone (Count VIII).

In each Count, the Plaintiffs allege damages based on the
difference between the amount redeemed and the amount that would
have been needed to redeem the property at a reasonable and
appropriate penalty rate, plus attorneys' fees, expenses and
trebling of damages where allowed by statute.

Now pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.  They move for class certification under Rules
23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
seeking to certify a Plaintiff class consisting of all owners of
real estate parcels that were sold at a St. Clair County Tax sale
auction for unpaid real estate taxes for the 2006 and 2007 tax
years with respect to which a Certificate of Purchase was
obtained at such auction in response to a penalty rate bid in
excess of 0%, excluding the owners of parcels for which there
were no bids and therefore were sold to St. Clair County at
penalty rate of 18% by operation of statute.

The Defendants have all replied.

Judge Yandle finds that the Plaintiffs fail the typicality and
adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a).  Because the Dvoraks' claims
may be dismissed on grounds not applicable to absent class
members, their claims are not sufficiently typical to support
class certification.  And because the Dvoraks' claims may
uniquely be subject to a statute of limitations defense,
certification of a class with them as the only class
representatives would be inappropriate.

The Judge also finds that the class action is not the superior
vehicle for litigation of the matter.  Rather, a class action
would rapidly become unmanageable.  While it would be more
efficient to consolidate the litigation as it relates to that
existence of a conspiracy, that benefit is outweighed by the
necessity of conducting hundreds or thousands of individualized
hearings on impact and damages.  The Judge acknowledges that
because of (relatively) low individual recovery potential,
individual class members would not likely be interested in
personally controlling their claims.  On balance, however, he
concludes that, based on the detailed issues with respect to
predominance and superiority, class certification is
inappropriate under Rule 23(b)(3).

For these reasons, Judge Yandle denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification, and denied as moot their Motion for Leave to
File Supplemental Exhibit.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/T3FVoR from Leagle.com.

Kevin Dvorak & Kathleen Dvorak, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron
G. Weishaar -- aweishaar@rwalawfirm.com -- Reinert Weishaar &
Associates, P.C., Nelson L. Mitten -- mitten@riezmanberger.com --
Riezman Berger, P.C., Steven C. Giacoletto --
sgiacoletto@scglawoffice.com -- Giacoletto Law Firm & Paul A.
Grote -- grote@riezmanberger.com -- Riezman Berger, P.C.

People of the State of Illinois, the "St. Clair County
Government", ex rel, for the use and benefit of the above named
Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Steven C. Giacoletto, Giacoletto Law Firm.

People of the State of Illinois, the "St. Clair County
Government", ex rel, for the use and benefit of the above named
Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Aaron G. Weishaar, Reinert Weishaar & Associates,
P.C.

St. Clair County, Illinois & Charles Suarez, in his official
capacity as St. Clair County Treasurer, Defendants, represented
by Garrett P. Hoerner, Becker, Hoerner, Thompson & Ysursa, P.C.,
James L. Gehrs, II, Becker, Paulson et al. & Thomas R. Ysursa,
Becker, Hoerner, Thompson & Ysursa, P.C.

Barrett Rochman, Kenneth Rochman, Sabre Group LLC & S.I.
Securities, LLC, Defendants, represented by Andrew R. Kasnetz --
akasnetz@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg, Phoenix et al., Natalie
J. Kussart -- nkussart@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg, Phoenix
et al. & Timothy C. Sansone -- tsansone@sandbergphoenix.com --
Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard, P.C.

Dennis Ballinger, Sr., Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Delaney -- daniel.delaney@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle, pro hac
vice, Gordon B. Nash, Jr. -- gordon.nash@dbr.com -- Gardner,
Carton et al., pro hac vice, Patrick J. Kelleher --
patrick.kelleher@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Levi J. Giovanetto -
- levi.giovanetto@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle, pro hac vice.

Dennis D. Ballinger, Jr., Empire Tax Corp. & Vista Securities,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Daniel J. Delaney, Drinker
Biddle, pro hac vice, Gordon B. Nash, Jr., Gardner, Carton et
al., Patrick J. Kelleher, Drinker Biddle & Levi J. Giovanetto,
Drinker Biddle, pro hac vice.

John Vassen, Joseph Vassen & VI, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Paul T. Slocomb, Blunt Slocomb, Ltd.

Scott McLean, Land of Lincoln Securities, LLC, White Oak
Securities, LLC & Algonquin Securities, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Brian E. McGovern --  bmcgovern@mlklaw.com --
McCarthy, Leonard et al. & Mark G. McLean --  mmclean@mlklaw.com
-- McCarthy, Leonard & Kaemmerer, LC.

Scott Sieron & Raven Securities Inc., Defendants, represented by
Alvin C. Paulson, Becker, Paulson et al.

Kurt Prenzler, Movant, represented by Stephen J. Maassen --
smaassen@rssclaw.com -- Rynearson, Suess et al.


STARBUCKS CORP: Court Grants Deposition of Accurate Background
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion
to Compel Deposition of Accurate Background, LLC, 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), in relation to its use of pre-
employment background checks.

Accurate argues that a deposition would be unduly burdensome
because the proffered witness is located in Colorado and a
deposition would require either her or her counsel to travel.
However, Plaintiff represents that he offered to take the
deposition telephonically or by videoconference and to limit the
time of deposition to approximately one hour.

Accurate provides no other convincing argument to support its
contention that a deposition would be improperly burdensome.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is granted.  Accurate Background,
LLC, is ordered to appear for a deposition, either by telephone
or by video, at a mutually convenient time and place, absent
extraordinary weather conditions that would greatly inconvenience
either party if travel is involved.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 8, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7t8f9d6 from Leagle.com.

Jonathan Santiago Rosario, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James A.
Francis -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC,
pro hac vice, John Soumilas -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com --
FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac vice, Lauren K.W. Brennan --
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac
vice, Erika L. Nusser -- enusser@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC & Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

Starbucks Corporation, Defendant, represented by James Harlan
Corning -jamescorning@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & James E.
Howard -- jimhoward@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.


TESARO INC: Faces "Bowers" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Bowers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tesaro Incorporated, Leon O. Moulder Jr. and Timothy
R. Pearson, Case No. 1:18-cv-10086 (D. Mass., January 17, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies.

Specifically, says the complaint, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i)
substantial undisclosed health risks, including anaphylaxis and
anaphylactic shock, were associated with Tesaro's intravenous
formulation of Varubi; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing,
Tesaro's shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, and class members suffered significant losses and
damages.

Tesaro Incorporated is an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical
company that identifies, acquires, develops, and commercializes
cancer therapeutics and oncology supportive care products in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glen DeValerio, Esq.
      Daryl Andrews, Esq.
      ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
      265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 936-2796
      E-mail: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com
              daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


TESARO INCORPORATED: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased
Tesaro Incorporated ("Tesaro" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TSRO)
securities between March 14, 2016 and January 12, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Tesaro investors have until March 19, 2018
to file a lead plaintiff motion. To obtain information or
actively participate in the class action, please visit the Tesaro
page on our website at www.glancylaw.com/case/tesaro-inc.

Investors suffering losses on their Tesaro investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their
legal rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com.

On January 12, 2018, Tesaro announced that it updated the U.S.
labeling for Varubi (rolapitant), for the prevention of delayed
nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, after receiving
reports of anaphylaxis, anaphylactic shock and other serious
hypersensitivity reactions in the postmarketing setting, some
requiring hospitalization. The Company further disclosed that it
"has issued a Dear Healthcare Professional (DHCP) letter." On
this news, shares of Tesaro fell $9.80 or 13.7%, to close at
$61.86 on January 17, 2018, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
substantial undisclosed health risks, including anaphylaxis and
anaphylactic shock, were associated with Tesaro's intravenous
formulation of Varubi; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing,
Tesaro's shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, and class members suffered significant losses and
damages.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased shares of Tesaro during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than March 19, 2018 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you
wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-
9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Tel. No.: 310-201-9150
                   888-773-9224
         E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com [GN]


TRANSUNION RENTAL: Audio Recordings Not Relevant, Court Says
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Discovery Responses from Defendant Transactel (Barbados), Inc.,
in the case captioned KELISSA RONQUILLO-GRIFFIN; KHOI NGUYEN; and
RUSSELL SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRANSUNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS,
INC., AND TRANSACTEL (BARBADOS), INC., Defendants, Case No.
17CV129-JM (BLM) (S.D. Cal.).

The current operative complaint is Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint, which alleges that Defendants violated the California
Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Section 632.7 by audio recording
their cellular telephone conversations, without Plaintiffs'
consent.

Request for Production No. 6 asks Defendant Transactel to produce
all audio recordings for persons similarly situated to Plaintiff.
Request for Production No. 8 asks Defendant Transactel to produce
all audio recordings for any account associated with a California
address.  Request for Production No. 9 asks Defendant Transactel
to produce all audio recordings for any account containing a
California area code.  Request for Production No. 10 asks
Defendant Transactel to produce all audio recordings of telephone
conversations with consumers whose telephone numbers had a
California area code.

The Court held that the content of the calls have minimal
relevance to these issues as Defendant admittedly did not have a
policy of providing a call recording advisement. Because
Defendant does not have such a policy, Plaintiffs do not explain
how the content of the calls is relevant to consent, other than
perhaps reviewing each and every call individually to determine
if the putative class member consented or refused to consent to
the call being recorded. Again, Plaintiffs do not provide any
evidence, such as other discovery responses, indicating that the
calls are likely to contain a discussion regarding consent.
The Court acknowledges that outbound dial lists generally are
relevant to numerosity and commonality, and therefore
discoverable, in TCPA cases.

Here, however, Plaintiffs are seeking the production of audio
recordings of calls of 906 putative class members, which is
different and much broader and more intrusive than outbound dial
lists. The only case cited by Plaintiffs involving the production
of call content, is distinguishable from the instant case as
Saulsberry involved the need to determine the percentage of time
a recording advisement was given, whereas in the current case,
Defendant Transactel acknowledges that it did not have a policy
of providing such an advisement. As a result, Plaintiffs have
failed to establish that the requested discovery the content of
the audio recordings -- is more than minimally relevant to the
class certification issue in this case.

Even if all of the requested discovery was relevant, Plaintiffs
have not established that the discovery requests are proportional
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and not unduly burdensome. Parties may
obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is
relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case.  In the Declaration of Maria Jose De Leon in
Support of Transactel's Opposition, Ms. De Leon, who is the
Quality Manager in Guatemala and works daily with Transactel's
telephone recording system states that due to the relevant time
frame for these recordings, recovery and review of these
recordings would require locating and restoring the recordings
from a server rather than doing so directly through the telephone
recording system.

Ms. De Leon estimates that for each telephone call it will take
115 minutes to try to locate and, if located, restore, export and
copy each recording of the telephone call made during the
relevant period. While neither party provided calculations, 906
calls at almost 2 hours per call results in more than 200 8-hour
work days.

Given the minimal relevance, the significant likelihood that
personal and confidential information will be reviewed, the
burden on Defendant Transactel, and the fact that Plaintiffs have
not established that it cannot obtain the relevant class
information via less burdensome discovery, the Court denies
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 8, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yapaybdh from Leagle.com.

Kelissa Ronquillo-Griffin, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Khoi Nguyen, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated & Russell Smith, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC,
Jason A. Ibey -- jason@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC,
Joshua B. Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde &
Swigart, Yana A. Hart -- yana@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde &
Swigart & Daniel G. Shay -- danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com -- Law
Offices of Daniel G. Shay.

TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Cristina Anastassia Guido -- cguido@stroock.com --
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Julia Beatrice Strickland --
jstrickland@stroock.com --  Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP,
Shannon E. Dudic -- sdudic@stroock.com --  Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan LLP & Stephen J. Newman -- snewman@stroock.com -- Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan LLP.

Transactel (Barbados), Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda
Catherine Fitzsimmons -- amanda.fitzsimmons@dlapiper.com --  DLA
Piper LLP, Edward D. Totino -- edward.totino@dlapiper.com --  DLA
Piper LLP & Perrie M. Weiner -- perrie.weiner@dlapiper.com --
DLA Piper LLP.


UPREACH LLC: Ct. Certifies Class in "Brittmon" Unpaid Wages Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Latesha Brittmon, Plaintiff, v. Upreach, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-219 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Michael
H. Watson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, (i) denied the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss; (ii) denied the Plaintiff's  Motion for Leave to File a
Sur-Reply Instanter; (iii) denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Toll
the Statute of Limitations for Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs; and
(iv) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion
for Conditional Certification and Court-Supervised Notice to
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs.

Upreach is a home care staffing agency that employs direct care
workers for the developmentally disabled in need of assistance.
Gourley is the CEO, and Gourley and Hunter are co-owners, of
Upreach.

The Plaintiff was jointly employed by the Defendants as a Support
Specialist from approximately February 2015 to approximately July
2016.  As a Support Specialist, she provided companionship
services, domestic services, home care, and other in-home
services for individuals with developmental disabilities.  The
Plaintiff alleges that she and similarly situated employees
regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek but that, from
approximately Jan. 1, 2015, to Oct. 13, 2015, they were not paid
one and one-half times their regular rate for each hour worked
over 40.

The Plaintiff seeks remuneration for unpaid overtime wages on
behalf of the following proposed class of Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") opt-in Plaintiffs and Rule 23 putative class members
defined as all current and former employees of Defendants who
have worked as direct support professionals, support associates,
caregivers, home health aides, or other employees who provided
companionship services, domestic services, home care, and/or
other in-home services, and who worked over 40 hours in any work
week beginning Jan. 1, 2015 through Oct. 13, 2015, and were not
paid time and a half for the hours they worked over 40.

The Plaintiff alleges that the proposed class includes upwards of
around 250 similarly situated individuals who worked as, for
example, direct support professionals, support specialists,
caregivers, home health aides, and others who provided
companionship services, domestic services, home care, and other
in-home services for the Defendants during the relevant time
period.

What spawned the action, and many others like it, is a change to
Department of Labor ("DOL") regulations defining the categories
of employees exempted from the FLSA's overtime protections.
Subject to specific exceptions, the FLSA generally requires
covered employers to pay overtime compensation in the amount of
150% of the employee's regular pay rate for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.  In 1974, the FLSA was amended to
exempt "domestic service" employees from the FLSA's overtime
requirement.

The next year, the DOL adopted implementing regulations that, in
relevant part, included individuals employed by third parties in
its category of exempted employees.  In 2013, the DOL reversed
course, adopting a new rule that brought domestic service
employees of third-parties within the protections of the FLSA.
The Final Rule was scheduled to become effective on Jan. 1, 2015.

Prior to its effective date, however, a group of trade
associations representing third-party employers of home care
workers filed a lawsuit challenging the regulation under the
Administrative Procedure Act.  In December 2014, the D.C.
District Court vacated the Final Rule based on its finding that
the Rule was an unreasonable interpretation of federal law and
was arbitrary and capricious.

The DOL appealed, and on Aug. 21, 2015, the D.C. Circuit Court
reversed the district court's ruling and vacatur of the
regulation.  Thereafter, the DOL issued guidance stating that it
would not institute enforcement proceedings for violations of the
Final Rule until 30 days after the Court of Appeals issued its
mandate.  The Court of Appeals issued its mandate on Oct. 13,
2015, and the DOL issued another guidance indicating it would not
bring enforcement actions for violations of the Rule until Nov.
12, 2015.  The effect of these court decisions on the Final
Rule's effective date is at the heart of the lawsuit.

Before the Court are the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification and Court-Supervised Notice; the Defendants'
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss; the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
File a Sur-Reply; and the Plaintiff's Motion to Toll the Statute
of Limitations.

Judge Watson finds that a straightforward application of the
Harper v. Va. Dep't of Taxation retroactivity rule to the case
compels the conclusion that the Final Rule became effective as of
Jan. 1, 2015.  The retroactivity rule requires that all third-
party employers be subject to the Final Rule beginning not just
after Oct. 13, 2015, or Nov. 12, 2015, but on Jan. 1, 2015 -- the
effective date of the Final Rule that has always been validly in
force.  Therefore, the Plaintiff may recover any unpaid overtime
wages from Jan. 1, 2015, and on.  Accordingly, the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss will be denied.

Because he will deny the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Judge
will deny the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply as
moot.

In consideration of the remedial purpose of the FLSA and the
likelihood that the addresses of former employees in the
Defendants' database are outdated, Judge Watson will permit the
Plaintiffs proposed notice to be sent via postal mail for all
current employees and via both postal and electronic mail for all
former employees.  The Plaintiff may not, however, notify any
potential opt-in Plaintiff of the lawsuit by text message unless
the Plaintiff can show that notice by postal and electronic mail
is insufficient as to any given potential opt-in Plaintiff.  The
Judge will likewise deny the Plaintiffs request to send postal
mail, email, and text message reminder notices 45 days after the
first notice is sent.  Judge Watson will grant the Plaintiffs'
request that the opt-in period last 90 days.

Finally, Judge Watson agrees with the vast majority of cases in
the circuit that have declined to apply equitable tolling at this
stage of the litigation.  Applying equitable tolling to the
claims of the unknown Plaintiffs not yet before the Court
contravenes the fact-specific, case-by-case determination that
specific circumstances justify the tolling of an individual
Plaintiffs claims.  Accordingly, the Judge will deny without
prejudice the Plaintiff's premature Motion to Toll the Statute of
Limitations.

For these reasons, Judge Watson denied the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-
Reply, denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Toll the Statute of
Limitations, and granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-
Supervised Notice

The Judge conditionally certified the class of all current and
former employees of the Defendants who have worked as direct
support professionals, support associates, caregivers, home
health aides, or other employees who provided companionship
services, domestic services, home care, and/or other in-home
services, and who worked over 40 hours in any workweek beginning
Jan. 1, 2015 through Oct.13, 2015, and were not paid time and a
half for the hours they worked over 40.

Additionally, Judge Watson ordered the Defendants to produce,
within 14 days from the date of the Opinion and Order, a list in
electronic and importable format of the names, addresses, and e-
mail addresses of all the potential opt-in Plaintiffs who worked
for the Defendants at any time from Jan. 1, 2015, until and
including Oct. 13, 2015.  All the potential opt-in Plaintiffs
will be provided 90 days from the date of mailing the notice and
opt-in consent forms to opt in to the lawsuit.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/mWzwr7 from Leagle.com.

Latesha Brittmon, Individually and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Robi J. Baishnab -- rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com -- Jason Charles
Cox -- jcox@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan Meizlish Handelman
Goodin DeRose Wentz, LLP, Matthew James Porter Coffman --
mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com -- Coffman Legal, LLC & Robert E.
DeRose, II -- bderose@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan Meizlish
Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz, LLP.

Upreach, LLC, Beth Hunter & Melissa Gourley, Defendants,
represented by Jan Elizabeth Hensel -- jan.hensel@dinsmore.com --
Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP & Janay Marie Stevens --
janay.stevens@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.


VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Faces "Mora" Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Visionworks of
America, Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer Mora, on behalf of
herself and a proposed class of all similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Visionworks of America, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
8:18-cv-00335-RAL-JSS (M.D. Fla., February 8, 2018).

Visionworks of America, Inc. is an American company which
operates or manages 700 optical retail stores in 40 U.S. states
and the District of Columbia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
   Varnell& Warwick, PA
   P.O. Box 1870
   Lady Lake, FL 32158
   Tel: (352) 753-8600
   Fax: (352) 753-8606
   Email: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com

      - and -

   Drew Legando, Esq.
   LandskronerGreico Merriman, LLC
   1360 West 9th St., Suite 200
   Cleveland, OH 44113
   Tel: (216) 522-9000
   Fax: (216) 522-9007
   Email: drew@lgmlegal.com

      - and -

   Jack Landskroner, Esq.
   LandskronerGreico Merriman, LLC
   1360 West 9th St., Suite 200
   Cleveland, OH 44113
   Tel: (216) 522-9000
   Fax: (216) 522-9003
   Email: jack@lgmlegal.com

      - and -

   Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
   Varnell& Warwick, PA
   P.O. Box 1870
   Lady Lake, FL 32158
   Tel: (352) 753-8600
   Fax: (352) 753-8606
   Email: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com

      - and -

   Mark Schlachet, Esq.
   3515 Severn Rd
   Cleveland, OH 44118
   Tel: (216) 522-7559
   Fax: (216) 514-6406

      - and -

   Tom Merriman, Esq.
   LandskronerGreico Merriman, LLC
   1360 West 9th St., Suite 200
   Cleveland, OH 44113
   Tel: (216) 522-9000
   Fax: (216) 522-9007


WELLS FARGO: "Peters" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 1, 2017 captioned
Michael Peters, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 3:17-cv-
04367, was transferred on January 18, 2018, from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00136 to the
proceeding.

The case arises from Wells' systematic practice of collecting
"postpayment" interest on loans insured by the Federal Housing
Administration without first complying with the uniform
provisions of the promissory notes and the regulations governing
these loans.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association
headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Francis Ram, Esq.
      Susan S. Brown, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
      Mountain View, CA 94040
      Telephone: (650) 784-4040
      Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
      E-mail: mram@robinskaplan.com
              sbrown@robinskaplan.com

         - and -

      Adam Lewis Hoipkemier
      Jeffrey William DeLoach, Esq.
      Kevin Epps, Esq.
      EPPS HOLLOWAY DELOACH & HOIPKEMIER, LLC
      1220 Langford Drive, Bldg. 200
      Watkinsville, GA 30677
      Telephone: (706) 508-4000
      Facsimile: (706) 842-6750
      E-mail: adam@ehdhlaw.com
              kevin@ehdhlaw.com

         - and -

      Samuel Joseph Strauss
      TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
      936 N 34th Street, Suite 300
      Seattle, WA 98103-8869
      Telephone: (608) 237-1774
      Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
      E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      David S. Reidy, Esq.
      MCGUIREWOODS LLP
      Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 844-9944
      Facsimile: (415) 844-9922
      E-mail: dreidy@mcguirewoods.com

         - and -

      K. Issac deVyver, Esq.
      MCGUIREWOODS LLP
      Tower Two-Sixty
      260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 667-7988
      Facsimile: (412) 667-6050
      E-mail: kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com

         - and -

      Karla Lynn Johnson, Esq.
      MCGUIREWOODS LLP
      EQT Plaza
      625 Liberty Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 667-7927
      Facsimile: (412) 667-6050
      E-mail: kjohnson@mcguirewoods.com

         - and -

      Sara F. Holladay-Tobias, Esq.
      MCGUIREWOODS LLP
      50 North Laura Street, Suite 3300
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Telephone: (904) 798-3200
      Facsimile: (904) 798-3207
      E-mail: stobias@mcguirewoods.com


WHITELOCKE AND ASSOCIATES: Faces "Martinez" Suit in C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whitelocke and
Associates LLC. The case is styled as Steven Martinez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Whitelocke and Associates LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:18-cv-00297-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal., February 8, 2018).

Whitelocke and Associates LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
   Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC
   21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780
   Woodland Hills, CA 91367
   Tel: (877) 206-4741
   Fax: (866) 633-0228
   Email: abacon@toddflaw.com

      - and -

   Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
   Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC
   21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780
   Woodland Hills, CA 91367
   Tel: (877) 206-4741
   Fax: (866) 633-0228
   Email: mgeorge@toddflaw.com

      - and -

   Thomas Edward Wheeler, Esq.
   Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC
   21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780
   Woodland Hills, CA 91367
   Tel: (877) 206-4741
   Fax: (866) 633-0228
   Email: twheeler@toddflaw.com

      - and -

   Todd M Friedman, Esq.
   Law Office of Todd M Friedman PC
   21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780
   Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7104
   Tel: (877) 206-4741
   Fax: (866) 633-0228
   Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com



                           Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Landrigan Amici Curiae Brief in "Juni"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York has granted the motion for leave
to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal and accepted the
proposed brief dated January 2, 2018 filed by Dr. Philip J.
Landrigan, et al. in the case styled: In the Matter of New York
City Asbestos Litigation. Mary Juni, etc., Appellant, v. A.O.
Smith Water Products Co., et al., Defendants, Ford Motor Company,
Respondent, Motion No. 2018-13, (N.Y.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated February 8, 2018 is available
at https://is.gd/BTE4yI from Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs CLJ Amici Curiae Brief in "Juni"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York has granted the motion for leave
to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal and accepted the
proposed brief filed by Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc.,
et al. the case styled: In the Matter of New York City Asbestos
Litigation. Mary Juni, etc., Appellant, v. A.O. Smith Water
Products Co., et al., Defendants, Ford Motor Company, Respondent,
Motion No. 2018-153, (N.Y.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated February 8, 2018 is available
at https://is.gd/bb0dU4 from Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. App. Won't Stay Proceedings in PI Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of New York denied Defendant-Appellant Pentair Water Pool
and Spa, Inc.'s motion to stay all proceedings in the case
entitled In Re: New York City Asbestos Litigation. Kelly
O'Connor, Personal Representative of the Estate of Raymond Flood,
Deceased, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Pentair Water Pool and Spa,
Inc., Defendant-Appellant. In Re: New York City Asbestos
Litigation. Mary Murphy-Clagett, as Temporary Administrator for
the Estate of Pietro Macaluso, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. A.O.
Smith Corporation, et al., Defendants, Motion No. M-542, Index
Nos. 190147/15, 190311/15, (N.Y. App. Div. 1d).

Additionally, the Court vacated the interim relief granted by an
order of a Justice of the Court on February 1, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Order dated February 6, 2018 is available
at https://is.gd/FCIf6f from Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Tarkett Dismissed in "Lineberger"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina granted the parties' Joint Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed all of the Plaintiffs' claims against the
Defendant Tarkett, Inc. from the case Tommy William Lineberger
and spouse Marcella Wilson Lineberger, Plaintiffs, v. CBS
Corporation, et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-00390-MR-
DLH, (W.D. N.C.), without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Order dated February 7, 2018, is
available at https://is.gd/IThCMs from Leagle.com.

Tommy William Lineberger, and spouse & Marcella Wilson
Lineberger, Plaintiffs, represented by:

             Sabrina G. Stone, Esq.
             Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice
             302 N Market Street, Suite 300
             Dallas, Texas 75202
             Phone: 214-722-5990
             Email: sstone@dobllp.com

             -- and --

             William M. Graham, Esq.
             Wallace & Graham
             525 N. Main St.
             Salisbury, NC 28144
             Phone: (704) 633-5244 ext. 143

CBS Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc. (sued as successor-by-merger
to CBS Corporation f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation) and
also as successor in-interest to BF Sturtevant, Defendant,
represented by:

             Jennifer M. Techman, Esq.
             Evert Weathersby Houff
             3455 Peachtree Road NE
             Suite 1550
             Atlanta, GA 30326
             Direct: 678.651.1238
             Phone: 678.651.1200
             Fax: 678.651.1201
             Email: jmtechman@ewhlaw.com

CNA Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Celanese Corporation
formerly known as Hoechst Celanese Corporation & Graybar Electric
Co, Defendants, represented by:

             Stephen B. Williamson, Esq.
             Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A.
             11 North Market Street Suite 300
             Asheville, North Carolina 28801
             Phone: (828) 258-2991
             Fax: (925) 828-5623

Georgia Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia Pacific
Corporation, Defendant, represented by:

             Kenneth Kyre, Jr., Esq.
             Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC
             3203 Brassfield Road
             Greensboro, NC 27410
             Phone: (336) 282-8848
             Fax: (336) 282-8409
             Email: kkyre@pckb-law.com

Plastics Engineering Company, doing business as PLENCO,
Defendant, represented by:

             Amy C. Drayton, Esq.
             Dean and Gibson, Attorneys At Law, PLLC
             301 S McDowell St # 900,
             Charlotte, NC 28204
             Phone: 704-372-2700
             Email: adrayton@deanandgibson.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inadmissibility of Sykes Testimony Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr. of the Superior Court of Delaware
affirmed the Special Master's August 5, 2017 Order granting
Defendants' Motion to Exclude the sworn testimony of decedent,
William Don Sykes as inadmissible hearsay.

The issue between the parties is whether Defendants had the
opportunity to develop the testimony by direct examination,
cross-examination, or redirect examination. The Court agrees with
the Special Master in that Defendants did not have the
opportunity to develop Mr. Sykes testimony.

Plaintiff believes that Defendants had the opportunity to develop
Mr. Sykes's testimony because counsel for Plaintiff notified
Defendants that due to Mr. Sykes's deteriorating health the
deposition should be taken on April 9, 2014 and Defendants were
unable to accommodate that request.

Mr. Sykes was diagnosed with mesothelioma in October 2013. Mr.
Sykes' health was deteriorating, and the parties arranged for
expedited trial depositions and discovery depositions. Mr. Sykes
deposition was taken on April 16, 2014, about six weeks after
Plaintiff filed his Complaint.

Mr. Sykes deposition was taken on April 16, 2014, and Defendant
did not proceed with cross-examination after Mr. Sykes videotaped
deposition. Subsequently, Mr. Sykes was unable to continue with
the deposition and Defendant was unable to cross-examine Mr.
Sykes after the parties took a break because during the break,
Mr. Sykes informed his counsel that he would not be able to
proceed with the remaining portion of the deposition that day due
to his condition.

Subsequently, Mr. Sykes' condition worsened, he was unable to
proceed with a deposition the following day, and Mr. Sykes passed
away just two weeks later. At this time, the parties are left
with the video trial deposition of Mr. Sykes without cross
examination by Defendants.

Before the Special Master, the Defendants sought to exclude Mr.
Sykes's testimony as inadmissible hearsay under the Delaware
Rules of Evidence. Additionally, Defendants argued that the
D.R.E. 804(b)(1) exception to the hearsay rule did not apply
because Plaintiff did not meet his burden demonstrating that any
Defendant had an opportunity to develop testimony from Mr. Sykes
and Defendants attempted to develop testimony but were denied the
opportunity.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Exceptions to the Special Master's
August 5 Order, claiming that the Special Master erred in
granting Defendants' Motion to Exclude the sworn testimony of
William Don Sykes. Plaintiff argued that the testimony was
admissible under D.R.E. 804(b)(1) because Defendants, on the
record, were given the opportunity to cross examine Mr. Sykes but
did not do so. Additionally, Plaintiff argued that Mr. Sykes's
testimony fell within D.R.E. 807 "catch all" exception because
granting the motion would deprive Mr. Sykes of his day in Court.

The Special Master found that Mr. Sykes's deposition testimony
fell within the parameters of hearsay under D.R.E. 801 as an out-
of-court statement by a declarant, offered into evidence to prove
the truth of the matter asserted. The Special Master found that
there was no meaningful opportunity for cross-examination under
D.R.E. 804(b)(1) and the catch all provision of D.R.E. 807 did
not apply.

The Court is not persuaded that Defendants had a meaningful
opportunity to develop Mr. Sykes's testimony. The Court says that
the mere postponement of the Defendants' cross examination
following the videotaped direct examination does not constitute a
"waiver" of the opportunity for cross examination as Plaintiff
argues. Additionally, Superior Court Civil Rule 32 states that
"at a trial or upon hearing of a motion or an interlocutory
proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible
under the rules of evidence applied as through the witness were
then present and testifying, may be used against any party who
was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who
had reasonable notice thereof..."

The Court is not satisfied that the Defendant was "represented"
at the taking of the deposition under Rule 32 because Defendant
did not have the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Sykes.
Similarly, the Court is not persuaded by the argument that Rule
32 and the Delaware Rules of Evidence are read independently.
Finally, Plaintiff did not demonstrate that the Special Master
misconstrued facts or the law for the Court to review, but rather
Plaintiff rehashed arguments already decided before the Special
Master.

The appealed case is In Re: Asbestos Litigation. William Derek
Sykes, as personal Representative of the Estate of William Don
Sykes, Plaintiff, v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al.,
Defendants, C.A. No. N14C-03-028 ASB, (Del. Super.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated February 7, 2018 is available
at https://is.gd/W7jyMb from Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maccormack PI Claims vs. Ingersoll-Rand Barred
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jean C. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri concludes that Plaintiffs' claims against
Defendant Ingersoll-Rand Company are barred by the doctrine of
collateral estoppel.

The Court explains that res judicata encapsulates two preclusion
concepts -- issue preclusion and claim preclusion. Issue
preclusion, or collateral estoppel, means that "once a court has
decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, the
determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the
parties, whether on the same or a different claim." The same
issues cannot be re-litigated.

Under Massachusetts law, the doctrine of collateral estoppel
applies when (1) there was a final judgment on the merits in the
previous adjudication, (2) the party against whom estoppel is
asserted is a party (or in privity with a party) to the prior
adjudication, (3) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is
identical with the one presented in the action in question, and
(4) the issue decided in the prior adjudication was essential to
the judgment.

Berj Hovsepian was a civilian employee of the United States Navy
from 1958 until 1964, in Boston, Massachusetts. He contracted
asbestos-related mesothelioma, allegedly as a result of exposure
to products that were manufactured, sold, distributed or
installed by the Defendants in this case, including Ingersoll-
Rand Company.

In December 2009, Hovsepian brought an action against Ingersoll-
Rand and a number of other entities in the Superior Court for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In an amended complaint filed
April 11, 2012, Hovsepian asserted claims of common law
negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, and
"malicious, willful, wanton and reckless conduct or gross
negligence." Ingersoll-Rand moved for summary judgment in the
Massachusetts action, arguing, among other things, that "there is
no evidence that [Hovsepian] worked with Ingersoll-Rand equipment
and, if he did, Ingersoll-Rand had no duty to warn about non-
original materials supplied by third parties that were
subsequently used on its equipment." The motion was unopposed,
and on September 6, 2012, the Massachusetts Superior Court
granted summary judgment in favor of Ingersoll-Rand.

On December 15, 2015, Hovsepian alone initiated an action in the
Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, naming
Ingersoll-Rand and others as Defendants, and asserting claims
similar to those in the Massachusetts case. The action was
removed to District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1442(a)(1) and 1446. Upon
Hovsepian's death, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint,
proceeding as special personal representatives.

On January 10, 2018, Ingersoll-Rand filed the instant Motion for
Summary Judgment asserting that Plaintiffs' claims against it are
barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

Plaintiffs argue that the summary judgment in favor of Ingersoll-
Rand in the Massachusetts case did not constitute a final
judgment on the merits because Hovsepian did not oppose the
motion, and did not have the opportunity to litigate the
causation issue fully due to an incomplete deposition.

The Court finds Plaintiffs' first argument unavailing, as "issue
preclusion is premised on a party's prior opportunity to litigate
an issue, not on whether the party made the best use of that
opportunity," and Plaintiffs did not explain why the earlier
motion went unopposed. Therefore, although Hovsepian never
responded to Defendant Ingersoll-Rand's summary judgment motion,
he was afforded full opportunity to be heard on the issues.

Similarly, the Court finds Plaintiffs' second argument, regarding
Hovsepian's incomplete deposition, also futile. The Court points
out that in an adversarial system, it is not the responsibility
of the Defendant to present the Plaintiff's case. The Court says
that Hovsepian could have offered evidence demonstrating a
dispute of material fact pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of Civil
Procedure 56. Further, Ingersoll-Rand's alleged failure to
complete the deposition does not rise to the level of discovery
misconduct -- Hovsepian could have requested additional discovery
to contest Ingersoll-Rand's motion. Accordingly, the Court
determines that the grant of summary judgment in the
Massachusetts Superior Court constituted a final judgment on the
merits.

In the Massachusetts action, Hovsepian alleged that he developed
asbestosis as a proximate result of Defendant Ingersoll-Rand's
negligence, and its failure to warn of and protect him from the
dangers of asbestos-containing products. While in the instant
case Plaintiffs allege that "as a direct and proximate result of
said defective and unreasonably dangerous conditions of said
products, Decedent was exposed to... great amounts of asbestos
fibers... causing Decedent to develop the asbestos-related
disease aforesaid."

Despite the striking similarity between the instant case and the
Massachusetts case, Plaintiffs dispute the identity of the
issues. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that because Hovsepian's
condition subsequently developed into mesothelioma in 2015, the
full merits of the case have not been adjudicated

The Court determines that both cases involve injuries that arose
out of the same alleged negligence, and as a result of exposure
to the same product. And the issues that already have been
determined, i.e., whether Hovsepian actually was exposed to
Ingersoll-Rand's product, and whether such exposure substantially
contributed to his diseases, go to the heart of both claims. The
Massachusetts court determined, because of the evidentiary
inadequacies with respect to the claims against Ingersoll-Rand,
that no genuine issue of material fact remained in dispute and
that Ingersoll-Rand therefore was entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.

As such, the Court is bound by considerations of comity and
federalism to accept the state court's decisive legal and factual
determinations, and Ingersoll-Rand should not face the burden of
re-litigating these same issues.

The case is Diane Maccormack, Nancy Broudy, and Karen Loftus, as
Special Personal Representatives of Berj Hovsepian, Deceased,
Plaintiffs, v. Ingersoll-Rand Company, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 4:16CV414 JCH, (E.D. Mo.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated January 30,
2018 is available at https://is.gd/FqWvjM from Leagle.com

Diane MacCormack, Special Personal Representative of Berj
Hovsepian, Deceased, Plaintiff, represented by Demetrious T.
Zacharopoulos , Flint Law Firm, LLC, Jacob A. Flint , Flint Law
FIRM, LLC & Sean Patrick Barth -- info@napolilaw.com -- Napoli
Shkolnik.

Nancy Broudy, Special Personal Representative of Berj Hovsepian,
Deceased & Karen Loftus, Special Personal Representative of Berj
Hovsepian, Deceased, Plaintiffs, represented by Demetrious T.
Zacharopoulos , Flint Law Firm, LLC & Sean Patrick Barth --
info@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Scott R.
Hunsaker -- scott.hunsaker@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP &
Patrick M. Barkley -- patrick.barkley@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker
Ellis LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Scott R.
Hunsaker -- scott.hunsaker@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP &
Patrick M. Barkley -- patrick.barkley@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker
Ellis LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Scott R.
Hunsaker -- scott.hunsaker@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP &
Patrick M. Barkley -- patrick.barkley@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker
Ellis LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Daikin Counter-Claim Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Donovan W. Frank of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota denied The Continental Insurance Co.'s
Motion to Dismiss the case styled The Continental Insurance Co.,
Plaintiff, v. Daikin Applied Americas Inc., Defendant, Civil No.
17-552 (DWF/HB), (D. Minn.), for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiff The Continental Insurance Co. filed suit alleging
breach of contract and seeking a declaration that it was not
liable to insure Defendant Daikin Applied Americas, Inc. From
1973 until 1982, Continental contracted to insure McQuay-Perfex,
Inc., a predecessor to Daikin.

On September 24, 2013, Daikin notified Continental that Daikin
had been named a defendant in mass tort asbestos litigation. In
April 2014, Continental told Daikin that it was searching for
policies and requested additional information. Then in June 2014,
Continental notified Daikin that it had received notice of only
one of the lawsuits, instead of the twenty-three cases
incorporated into the mass litigation. Finally on June 8, 2015,
Continental agreed to defend the asbestos suits with a
reservation of rights.

Between September 24, 2013 and June 8, 2015, Daikin incurred
approximately $680,000 in attorney fees and costs. After
Continental agreed to defend Daikin, Continental sent a check for
$645,346. Daikin asked for the money to be wired, and Continental
then sent $256,184, because Continental determined the remainder
was unrecoverable as pre-tender costs.

After Continental filed suit, Daikin answered and counterclaimed
for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. Continental has
moved to dismiss: (1) Daikin's defense that Continental waived
its claim for breach of contract; (2) Daikin's breach-of-contract
defense that Continental breached the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing; and (3) Daikin's claim for breach of
contract based on a conflict of interest.

Continental moves to dismiss Daikin's affirmative defenses of
waiver and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Continental argues that the waiver defense fails as a matter of
law. Under Minnesota law, insurers cannot expand coverage by
waiving exclusions. But insurers can waive notice provisions.

One of Continental's breach-of-contract claims is that Daikin
failed to forward "every demand, notice, summons, or other
process." Daikin alleges that Continental's claims are barred in
part by waiver. Thus, Daikin alleges that Continental's conduct
in failing to defend Daikin for two years constituted a waiver of
the notice provisions, which is among the grounds for one of
Continental's breach-of-contract claims. Such a defense is
cognizable under Minnesota law.

Continental also moves to dismiss Daikin's claim for breach of
contract based on an alleged conflict of interest. Daikin alleges
that Continental has a conflict as evidenced by Continental's
reservation of rights and delay in agreeing to defend Daikin.

The Court explains that generally insurers with a duty to defend
may control the litigation, including selecting counsel. But when
an insurer has a conflict of interest, the insured has the right
to select independent counsel.

Given the early stage, the Court concludes that Daikin has
adequately alleged a breach of contract based on a conflict of
interest. While a reservation of rights cannot, by itself,
constitute a conflict of interest, the reservation of rights
coupled with the nearly two-year delay raises the claim beyond
the speculative.

The Court concludes that, having listed the defenses, Daikin has
adequately pleaded waiver and breach of the implied covenant of
good faith fair dealing. Accordingly, the Court denies
Continental's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
January 30, 2018 is available at https://is.gd/B3piQT from
Leagle.com

The Continental Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Andrea E. Reisbord -- areisbord@bassford.com -- Bassford Remele,
Jeanne H. Unger, Bassford Remele and Patrick Florian Hofer --
patrick.hofer@clydeco.us -- Clyde & Co US LLP, pro hac vice.

Daikin Applied Americas Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas
L. Skor -- dskor@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP, John M.
Bjorkman -- jbjorkman@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP, Michael
Lamar Jones, Henry & Jones, LLP, pro hac vice and Monica Detert -
- mdetert@larsonking.com -- Larson King, lLP.

Daikin Applied Americas Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by
Douglas L. Skor -- dskor@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP, John
M. Bjorkman -- jbjorkman@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP,
Michael Lamar Jones, Henry & Jones, LLP, pro hac vice and Monica
Detert -- mdetert@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP.

The Continental Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented
by Andrea E. Reisbord -- areisbord@bassford.com -- Bassford
Remele, Jeanne H. Unger, Bassford Remele and Patrick Florian
Hofer -- patrick.hofer@clydeco.us -- Clyde & Co US LLP


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Enforce Johns-Manville Injunction OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cecelia G. Morris of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York issued a memorandum decision
granting Marsh USA's motion to enforce the channeling injunction
following remand from the Southern District of New York.

The dispute between Salvador Parra, Jr., and Marsh US regarding
the effect of the channeling injunction issued in the Johns-
Manville Corporation's chapter 11 bankruptcy case was remanded to
the Bankruptcy Court from the District Court.

The District Court's March 14, 2016 decision affirmed in part and
reversed and remanded in part the Bankruptcy Court's July 27,
2015
memorandum decision enjoining Parra's asbestos claims against
Marsh. On remand, the Bankruptcy Court is instructed to apply the
due process principles articulated by the Second Circuit in
Johns-Manville Corp. v. Chubb Indemnity Ins. Co to the facts of
this case. As part of the due process analysis, the Bankruptcy
Court is to determine whether the future claims representative
appointed in the Manville case was actually charged with
representing the future claimants' in personam claims against a
settling insurer, and, if so, whether the quality of that
representation satisfied due process concerns.

On remand, the question for the Bankruptcy Court is whether
assuming there was some sort of due process violation, is Parra
prejudiced, taking into consideration the fact that he can
recover
from the Manville Trust. The answer is clearly no. The Court can
find no procedural defect that would warrant a different outcome.
Beyond the requirements of due process, and under the heightened
Rule 23 standard, Parra was represented by the Future Claims
Representative. The very objections Parra seeks to make now have
been raised, repeatedly, and were explicitly considered by the
Future Claims Representative prior to confirmation of the
Manville
Plan.

Parra argues that even if he recovers from the Manville Trust, he
will be prejudiced by a deprivation of his right to pursue
independent claims against Marsh. Parra also argues that
deprivation of the right to sue Marsh amounts to a due process
violation of service of process, claiming he was deprived of
notice and the right to be heard. Parra also claims he is
deprived of due process on the grounds the injunction unjustly
limits the amount he can recover for his injuries. Due process
does not preserve for time immemorial the right to assert a claim
against another individual. This cannot be so or the fundamental
discharge
injunction in every bankruptcy case would be a due process
violation. Additionally, any statute of limitations would amount
to a due process violation.

The injunction does not violate Parra's due process rights to
notice and an opportunity to be heard. As this Court has already
determined, the Manville bankruptcy proceedings satisfied Parra's
due process rights to notice and an opportunity to object. Parra
was adequately represented by the Future Claims Representative
who
took into consideration the effect of the settling insurers'
order
and injunction on the rights of the future claimants.

Further, the injunction does not violate due process by limiting
the amount Parra is able to recover on his injury claims. Parra
does not have a due process right to recover more than is
available for distribution. The only reason there is anything to
recover for any asbestos plaintiff is the existence of the
Manville Trust. The Manville Trust's purpose is to ensure there
are funds available for all claimants.

While Parra may not recover as much from the Manville Trust as he
would like, it would be unfair to allow him to recover more than
other similarly situated claimants. It would also be unfair to
permit recovery against a settling insurer in a way that could
jeopardize the continuing existence of the Manville Trust, thus,
preventing recovery for the dozens, hundreds, or thousands of
additional future claimants still yet unknown. As there is no
dispute that Parra could submit a claim to the Manville Trust,
pursuant to the District Court's questions on remand, this Court
finds that Parra does not suffer any prejudice since he is able
to
recover from the Manville Trust. Parra received due process in
every possible respect.

A full-text copy of Judge Morris' Jan. 24, 2018 Memorandum
Decision is available at:

     http://bankrupt.com/misc/nysb82-11656-4313.pdf


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pillsbury Mill Part Owner Sentenced to 3 Years
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak of Asbestos.com reported that Federal judge Sue
Myerscough sentenced a part owner of the shuttered Pillsbury
Mills complex in Springfield, Illinois, to three years in prison
for violating clear air standards with the illegal removal of
asbestos products.

Joseph Chernis IV pleaded guilty to illegal removal, demolition
and disposal of asbestos after using untrained workers to remove
dry pipe insulation and store it in open containers, trash bags
and cardboard boxes.

He is still facing an ongoing civil case brought by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

"I have grave concerns about the damage to the community in this
case," Myerscough said during sentencing, according to The State
Journal-Register.

The Pillsbury Mills plant, which closed in 2001, is not far from
a local high school, a park and the federal courts building in
downtown Springfield.

For more than a decade, the complex has been the subject of a
cleanup dispute between local authorities and different ownership
groups involved in salvage operations.

Salvage Operation Breaking the Law

The Chernis family in 2014 bought the 18-acre site, which
included 20 buildings and warehouses and 30 grain silos.

The original flour-milling plant opened in 1929 and became a
booming Pillsbury processing and distribution factory.

Unfortunately, as it expanded, the construction was done with a
wide range of asbestos products, which were popular throughout
much of the 20th century.

The Chernis family had planned to sell off parcels of the land in
a surplus auction, but it was blocked by contamination concerns
involving asbestos.

An emergency EPA cleanup began early in 2017, following the
failure of owners to meet a series of court-ordered cleanup
deadlines.

The violations occurred between October 2014 and August 2015.

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has rules and specific
regulations for removing asbestos products.

Asbestos Dangers a Serious Concern

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral once widely used in
construction.

It was valued for its versatility and affordability, mixed with a
variety of products to strengthen and fireproof almost anything.

Unfortunately, it is toxic and becomes dangerous once it ages or
is disturbed. The inhalation or ingestion of microscopic asbestos
fibers can lead to serious health problems, including
mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis.

Chernis previously confessed to obstructing justice in a separate
lawsuit that accused him of lying about the asbestos removal
project at the plant.

"I understand I've made some mistakes, some very big mistakes,"
Chernis told the judge before sentencing.

EPA Cleanup Failed to Solve the Problem

Myerscough said the EPA cleanup in 2017 cost $2.5 million -- not
the $1.8 million reported earlier -- but still didn't solve the
asbestos problem, only the airborne threat to others in the area.
She refused to lift the injunction that prevents Chernis and his
partners from being at the Pillsbury site.

The EPA cleanup removed 2,200 tons of asbestos contaminated
debris, but left behind harder-to-reach asbestos within the
structures of the complex.

"I think it's an overreaction," Chernis said during an interview
with the State Journal-Register. "If [the asbestos] is so
dangerous, why is it not yet cleaned up? Clearly, this is about
money. It's not about cleaning the place up."

Chernis called the EPA cleanup "a joke."

The situation of the once-bustling Pillsbury site is similar to a
problem facing many older cities today.

Laws requiring costly asbestos removal before demolition of no-
longer-useful facilities often prevent new construction.

Neighbors have complained for decades about the abandoned, run-
down complex, which has been vandalized repeatedly.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Naturally Occurring Asbestos Found in Laughlin
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Denevan of Laughlin Times reported that a lot remains
unknown, but it is possible that naturally occurring asbestos is
in and around Laughlin and the neighboring areas.

Brenda Buck and Rodney Metcalf, from the Department of Geoscience
of the University of Nevada Las Vegas, and Jean Pfau, from the
Department of Microbiology and Immunology of Montana State
University, presented their findings regarding naturally
occurring asbestos during a special presentation at the Laughlin
Library Feb. 2.

Metcalf showed a map displaying areas in and around Laughlin that
have tested positive for naturally occurring asbestos, NOA. While
it appeared that there isn't as much around Laughlin as there is
closer to Boulder City and the Lake Mead Recreation Area, there
isn't enough information at this point to clearly know if it is
harmful or not.

Metcalf said one thing to keep in mind is that test results can
also be a bit deceptive. Most tests are set up to to keep the
testing less expensive and so that means it's not going to look
for asbestos as the lower levels. More in depth tests that give
more accurate information are much more expensive, he continued.

Buck said what's important is the risk to residents. How much
exposure a person gets to NOA will increase the risk of various
health issues. Soils can have low concentrations of NOA but
because asbestos is so small, it's easily carried by the wind and
stays in the air and breathing in is how it gets into a person's
body, she continued.

Buck's background is in medical geology and she studies how the
earth materials impact humans' health. She was studying what the
impact of breathing in dust while off-road driving when she
became concerned about having found fibrous materials and
concerned of the exposure to them, she said.

Buck invited the University of Hawaii Cancer Research Center to
look at the Nevada state cancer registry and analyze the data,
she said. Unfortunately, they did find reason to be concerned,
she continued.

Buck explained the first thing the researchers look for is the
number of cases of Mesothelioma because it's an indicator
disease, but it's only the tip of the iceberg. They looked for
particular evidence and that is to look for young people and
women who may be impacted.

Buck said the reason for looking for those two groups is because
NOA tends to impact younger people more often and because it's
not occupational exposure, it means more women are likely to be
exposed. Looking at the data, The group found that very young
people in southern Nevada were getting mesothelioma and the
ration of men to women getting it was 1:1, much higher than the
6:1 ratio usually found with occupational exposure, Buck said.

Metcalf talked about what asbestos is and how it's been used.
There are five minerals that are regulated asbestos, he said.
Asbestos has been mined previously to be used in products because
it's fire resistant and resistant to chemical erosion. When the
The World Trade Center came down in the 9/11 attacks, there was a
lot of asbestos in the debris because it was included in the
construction of the buildings, he continued.

The professors talked about the difficulty of dealing with
asbestos because it's so small and the body can't get it out of
the system. It's a fibrous material that builds up over time.

Pfau discussed her own studies in relation to Libby, Mont. Libby
is known for having had a mine for asbestos and the community is
known for all the health issues they've had even since the mine
closed in the late 1970s.

She said the type of asbestos in Libby has been found in Mohave
County and the Lake Mead Recreation Area. The amphibole asbestos
seems to kick the immune system into overdrive, making a person
more susceptible to illnesses like asthama or autoimmune
diseases, Pfau said. While in her studies she found that the
asbestos in the neighboring areas appear to be just as impactful
as the asbestos in Libby and that environmental exposure can be
dangerous, more studies are needed to fully answer questions, she
continued.

Pfau talked about how Libby residents were frequently
misdiagnosed as having Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease,
COPD, when it was asbestos. Pleural disease is common with
asbestos and it means that a fibrous lining develops around the
lungs, making it increasingly difficult for a person to breath
until it's impossible.

There were several questions and concerns raised throughout the
presentation.

Jim Maniaci, Laughlin Town Advisory Board chairman, indicated he
felt the presentation was a sales pitch for more money. "As a
citizen of Laughlin, I object to government employees, such as
university professors, who use some of their federal grant time
and money to conduct a sales campaign -- especially when it is
promoted as being a Laughlin situation -- to form pressure to
continue and expand their work in other areas," he told The
Laughlin Nevada Times.

"My feeling has nothing to do with the validity of the research
of the seriousness of the disease in question. I also feel sorry
for our neighbors in Boulder City who are the real target of this
campaign of fear and tear-jerk appeals," Maniaci added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Century High Construction
------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia MacLaughlin of KFYR-TV reported that several Bismarck
schools have been undergoing construction, and Century High
School ran into a problem in the process.

Asbestos was found in the joint compound used to glue sheetrock
to the wall.

The districts business and operations manager says it raises no
safety concern for staff, students or the public.

"Asbestos is safe unless it becomes friable, so that's why we
have to pay a special contractor to create negative air and
remove it," said Darin Scherr, Business and Operations Manager.

Scherr says they always put a contingency aside for problems like
this that might come up, and they usually are budgeted at five
percent of the entire project.

A contractor is already working to remove the asbestos after the
school board approved it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unlicensed Demolition Cause $9K Clean-Up Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Culture reported that homeowners are urged to take the
necessary precautions after a property owner was left with a
$9,000 asbestos clean-up bill when an unlicensed handyman
demolished a garage at his property.

The property owner hired the handyman to remove the garage as
part of renovations at his property in Helen Street. But instead
of demolishing the garage in small stages, the handyman broke up
the fibro sheets, leaving asbestos debris scattered throughout
the property, putting at risk the health of the owner and
neighbours.

The handyman also mowed the area where the asbestos fragments had
fallen, potentially scattering more fragments.

After learning the issue, SafeWork NSW directed the owner to
remediate the property -- with a subsequent bill of $9,000. The
handyman was fined for unlicensed asbestos removal work.

"In NSW, there are legal requirements regarding asbestos
management, its removal, and disposal," said SafeWork NSW
Executive Director Peter Dunphy.

"The licensed removalist will notify SafeWork about the asbestos
that is being removed and ensure all asbestos likely to be
disturbed by demolition work is identified and safely removed.

"The actions of the handyman are completely unacceptable and
SafeWork NSW has taken action against him for placing people's
health at risk.

"Protect yourself, your family and your neighbours by always
following the legal and safety requirements for the management of
asbestos, including engaging a SafeWork NSW licensed asbestos
removalist," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ash from Rochdale Fire May Contain Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------------
Damon Wilkinson of Manchester Evening News reported that
residents living close to the scene of a huge warehouse fire in
Rochdale are being urged not to clean up ash and debris as it may
contain asbestos.

Around 100 firefighters tackled the blaze at the factory in
Albert Royds Street, Belfield, from 1.10am.

Homes were evacuated, four schools were shut and the nearby
railway line was closed.

Fire chiefs said the burning building contained a 'small amount'
of asbestos.

Council chiefs have urged residents in the area not to clean up
any ash which may have fallen on their property.

Instead, people are asked to call the council, which will arrange
for specialist cleaners to remove debris.

The town hall said that although 'risks to health are low and
there is unlikely to be any significant exposure to asbestos', it
is sensible to take precautions.

"During the fire at Albert Royds Street local residents were
advised to keep their windows and doors closed," the council
tweeted.

"It is possible that asbestos containing material may have been
deposited in ash or debris in the vicinity of the industrial
site. However, this is of no significant health concern as
asbestos fibres are held tightly within the body of cement
products, such as corrugated roofs.

"It is important to realise that, according to Public Health
England, the risks to health are low and there is unlikely to be
any significant exposure to asbestos following fires involving
materials containing asbestos.

"If you were advised to vacate your property for a time during
the fire, this will have been precautionary due to your close
proximity to the fire not because of any hazards from asbestos.

"We are arranging the clean-up of the area. If you find ash or
debris from the fire on your property, you are advised to leave
it alone and to contact the council on 01706 647474.

"If it is absolutely necessary for you to remove debris yourself
-- such as from a car windscreen -- first dampen down the debris
using water, then either gently flush away small particles to the
drain or, wearing protective gloves to prevent scratches, pick up
larger pieces carefully.

"Place them within two plastic bags, one within the other (double
bag), seal the bags and call the number above to arrange
collection/take to your local household waste recycling centre.

"Do not sweep up or vacuum debris as this could create airborne
dust.

"If you came into contact with the smoke plume this may have
caused you to have had breathing difficulties, watery eyes,
coughing and a sore throat. If residents experience any symptoms,
contact your GP or NHS 111 as appropriate."

A spokesman for the fire service said it was too early to
establish the cause of the fire.

A number of fire engines remained at the scene as crews continued
to extinguish the last remaining pockets of fire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Novel Approach on Mesothelioma Screening Urged
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net Blog reported that when it comes to expertise in
asbestos exposure and its role in mesothelioma, few come close to
Professor John Cherrie. In addition to his role as Professor of
Human Health at Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh, Scotland, he
is the Principal Scientist in the Research Division at IOM, one
of the leading providers of workplace health research  worldwide.
As lead author of a study recently published in the International
Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, Cherrie cites the
fact that malignant mesothelioma is generally diagnosed at such
an advanced stage as the number one reason for the challenge in
treating it. He proposes an enhanced method of screening that
relies on assessed levels of exposure to asbestos provided
directly from the individual worker, and suggests that having
such a system in place would provide those at risk with the
opportunity to take advantage of more aggressive therapeutic
approaches.
In most cases, malignant mesothelioma is not diagnosed until the
cancer is late stage, and there are few options for significant
improvement. Cherrie suggests the development of a screening
program that relies on individual exposure reconstruction by the
patient. He supports his idea with results from a validation
study that he conducted, which shows that there was a good
association between the amount of exposure that individual
workers believed that they had been exposed to and actual
measured exposure levels. Based on this, he believes that "an
important use for this exposure reconstruction method could be
selection of past asbestos workers or others at increased risk of
asbestos-related cancer for screening (lung cancer or
mesothelioma) and/or trials of novel chemoprophylaxis strategies.
Those who were exposed to asbestos in the past and their families
are naturally often concerned about the risk of being diagnosed
with an asbestos-related disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Michigan Veterans Oppose Asbestos Bill
-------------------------------------------------------
Send2Press Wire reported that Michigan's top Mesothelioma legal
expert on behalf of hundreds of Michigan Veterans with asbestos
disease, Goldberg, Persky & White P.C., issued the following
statement and alert in response to passage of HB 5456, the so-
called "Asbestos Bankruptcy Transparency Act," out of the
Michigan House of Representatives Republican controlled
"Competitiveness" committee on a straight party line vote.

The bill, better entitled "delay 'til they die plan," would
shield corporations from being held accountable for deadly
asbestos-related diseases like Mesothelioma and delay justice for
victims:
The asbestos industry's ongoing nationwide campaign to avoid
accountability to those they harmed has reared its ugly head in
Michigan. This bill would impose burdens on asbestos victims,
including active and retired service members, the civil justice
system, asbestos bankruptcy trusts, and taxpayers. It would force
victims and their families to jump through several expensive and
time-consuming hoops before being allowed to move forward with a
claim in state court.

Those suffering from mesothelioma, on average, have 12 to 18
months to live. Asbestos victims do not have extra time or money
to spare. Unfortunately, the asbestos industry is seeking to take
advantage of this fact. Their goal: To delay and deny until
victims die.

Michigan ranks 12th nationally for mesothelioma and asbestos
deaths, and 40 percent of asbestos victims in the state are
veterans. Hundreds of asbestos exposed Veterans in Saginaw,
Detroit, Muskegon, Escanaba, Lansing, Grand Rapids, Alpena, Port
Huron and other industrial cities will be disproportionally put
at risk. Veterans were extensively exposed to asbestos products
not only during military service but in their civilian work at
Michigan's automobile plants, steel mills, paper mills and in
construction trades.

It is wrong to give asbestos companies new ways to stonewall
their victims, especially those that served their country. This
injustice is magnified by the fact that this legislation is
unnecessary in Michigan as state law already requires
transparency. Asbestos victims must provide asbestos defendants
with copies of all claim forms six months before trial, and
juries are already compelled to assign responsibility to bankrupt
defendants under existing Michigan Law.

Asbestos victims deserve justice. It is unconscionable that
Michigan lawmakers would pass legislation to allow the same out-
of-state corporations and their front groups who hid the dangers
of asbestos for decades and caused hundreds of thousands of
deaths to avoid accountability. Once again our elected
representatives should be fighting for asbestos victims and their
families -- not those who harmed them.

We urge all Michigan veterans to immediately call their state
senator and representative and urge them to oppose HB 5456.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Hit with Stock Drop Over Asbestos Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal of Law360 reported that Johnson & Johnson and its
top executives were hit with a putative class action in New
Jersey federal court alleging the company harmed its stockholders
by purportedly concealing the truth underlying lawsuits and
articles that contend J&J's talcum powder products contain
asbestos.

The 33-page complaint, filed by named plaintiff Frank Hall,
alleges, like many plaintiffs in the recent slew of lawsuits
attacking the company's talc products, that J&J has known for
decades that its talc products, such as its flagship Johnson's
Baby Powder, contain asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warnings in Kid's Make-Up Urged
------------------------------------------------
Ann Zaniewski of Detroit Free Press reported that U.S. Rep.
Debbie Dingell, D-Dearborn, has introduced legislation that would
ensure all cosmetics marketed to children are proven asbestos-
free, or else they must carry warning labels.

The proposal follows reports from late last year about cancer-
producing asbestos being discovered in some makeup sold by
Claire's. The retailer recalled the products, and later said its
own tests showed them to be safe.

"Parents across the country should have the peace of mind in
knowing that the cosmetics they buy for their children are safe.
Yet we were all stunned when the retailer Claire's pulled ...
products from their shelves after asbestos was found in cosmetics
marketed to children, including glitter and eye shadow," Dingell
said in a news release.

"No child should be exposed to asbestos through the use of
common, everyday products."

The Children's Product Warning Label Act of 2018 would require
all makeup marketed to children to contain a warning label that
the product may contain asbestos, unless the manufacturer has
attested in writing to the secretary of the Department of Health
and Human Services that the source is an asbestos-free mine,
according to Dingell's office. The manufacturer would also have
to demonstrate that the product is asbestos-free using a
transmission electron microscopy method.

In December, Claire's voluntarily recalled nine cosmetic products
after a Rhode Island TV  station aired a story about a law firm's
tests of some of the retailer's products. The report said the
tests found asbestos.

On Jan. 4, Claire's issued a statement that said tests from two
independent labs confirmed the company's earlier tests that the
products are "asbestos free, completely safe and meet all
government requirements."

"Any report that suggests that the products are not safe is
totally false," the statement said.

Representatives from Claire's did not immediately return
messages.

Another retailer, Justice, recalled eight Just Shine cosmetics
products after a reported presence of asbestos in tested samples
of Just Shine Shimmer Powder. While one set of laboratory tests
showed no evidence of asbestos, a second round revealed "trace
amounts of asbestos," Justice said in a statement on its website.

Asbestos, once a common product used in buildings for
fireproofing and insulation, is known to cause lung disease and
cancer.
Geologically, talc and asbestos can be formed from the same
parent rock, according to the nonprofit Environmental Working
Group.  As a result, mined talc deposits in many parts of the
world can be contaminated with asbestos fibers, the group said.

Dingell said a broad overhaul of the Food and Drug
Administration's authority over cosmetics is long overdue.

"We need to pass comprehensive legislation to create a user fee
program for cosmetics and give the FDA the authority to review
the most dangerous ingredients so they can keep people safe," she
said.

"But if Congress is unwilling to consider this approach, we
should start taking common sense steps to protect our children by
passing my legislation to ensure consumers have all the facts
about the products they purchase. Congress must make this a
priority in 2018."

The Environmental Working Group praised Dingell's proposal as
"commonsense legislation to warn consumers when companies fail to
protect us from dangerous products."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EWG Lauds Bill on Cosmetics Asbestos Warning
-------------------------------------------------------------
EWG praised legislation introduced by Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-
Mich., that would mandate warnings for cosmetics marketed to
children that might contain asbestos.

The legislation would require companies to demonstrate that
cosmetics marketed to children are free of asbestos -- otherwise
products would need to carry a warning. The bill would also
update methods to test cosmetics for the presence of asbestos.

Dingell's bill comes after recent reports of asbestos in
cosmetics sold by the retailers Claire's and Justice.

"It's simply outrageous that cosmetics can contain asbestos and
still be legal," said Emily Griffith, EWG's cosmetics law fellow.
"And it's especially troubling that asbestos is being detected in
cosmetics marketed to children and teens."

Asbestos can contaminate cosmetics made from talc, such as facial
powders and eye shadow. Even small amounts of asbestos can cause
mesothelioma and other diseases many years after exposure.

Geologically, talc and asbestos can be formed from the same
parent rock. As a result, mined talc deposits in many parts of
the world can be contaminated with asbestos fibers. This is the
likely reason why products made with talc could be contaminated
with asbestos.

While some companies take steps to reduce risks of asbestos
contamination, federal law does not prohibit asbestos in
cosmetics and other personal care products. The Food and Drug
Administration encourages companies to test talc for asbestos,
but the FDA standard for asbestos testing is more than 40 years
old.

Under the Dingell bill, companies would be required to use
updated testing methods to ensure that cosmetics do not contain
asbestos. If companies decline to certify that products are free
from asbestos, companies would be required to warn consumers that
the product has not been tested and is not suitable for use by
children.

"EWG thanks Rep. Dingell for introducing commonsense legislation
to warn consumers when companies fail to protect us from
dangerous products," Griffith said.

"It is difficult to believe that decades after the threats of
asbestos had been established, it is still putting people,
especially young children, at risk," said Linda Reinstein,
president and CEO of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization,
or ADAO. "Rep. Dingell's bill should pass with unanimous support
among her colleagues in Congress, and every parent should applaud
her efforts to keep kids safe from something as lethal as
asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Forces Closure of Recreation Center
-------------------------------------------------------------
WLWT Cincinnati reported that a Cincinnati recreation center was
forced to close temporarily after the discovery of a dangerous
material.

The Sayler Park Recreation Center on Home City Avenue was
immediately shut down a few days ago.

The recreation commission director said small amounts of asbestos
were found inside the building.

Testing is being done to learn the extent of the problem so that
it can be addressed.

Officials said kids who attend the center's after-school program
will be using the adjacent elementary school for the time being.

Mirai Nagasu has become the first American woman -- and third
skater overall -- to land a triple axel in the Olympics,
accomplishing the rare feat in the women's free skate at the team
competition in Pyeongchang.

The 24-year-old from Montebello, California, skated first of the
five women and led off her routine with the triple axel just 21
seconds in. The feat drew huge cheers from the crowd at the
Gangneung Ice Arena.

Japan's Midori Ito and Mao Asada have also landed triple axels
during the Olympics.

Nagasu completed a flawless routine, pumping both fists as she
finished and got a standing ovation from the excited crowd. She
received a personal-best score of 137.53.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pipe Break Pushes More Asbestos to Water Supply
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jock Anderson and Joanne Holden The Timaru Herald While small
amounts of asbestos released into Temuka's water supply from pipe
breaks pose no additional health risk, there is no assurance it
won't happen again.

Because of the age and condition of the 60-year old asbestos
cement water main,Timaru district council group manager of
infrastructure Ashley Harper said it was not possible to predict
if or when it might burst again.

A Temuka resident, who did not want to be named, said his water
filter clogged up twice with asbestos.

He said that less than five minutes after he cleaned asbestos
from the filter the first time it was full again and only a
trickle of water was coming from his kitchen tap.

Water was cut to 2000 homes in Temuka and Winchester while the
breaks were fixed and Timaru District Council received three
complaints following the breaks.

Timaru District Council communications manager Stephen Doran said
a small amount of asbestos released from the pipe break posed no
health risk and council water staff were constantly monitoring
the filtration plant and the mains water pressure during mains
replacement work.

A Medical Officer of Health for Canterbury, Dr Cheryl Brunton,
said "very little, if any" asbestos made it into the Temuka water
after the Sunday issue.

But to allay any potential concerns she repeated advice given
last December:

"International studies have not shown any link between asbestos
levels in tap water and asbestos-related lung disease, and both
the World Health Organisation and our Ministry of Health advise
that the presence of asbestos in water doesn't make it unsafe to
drink or to use for washing and showering."

Dr Brunton said it was always better to reduce your exposure to
asbestos, but we are all exposed to asbestos in many ways,
including in building materials, brake linings and at home.

She said asbestos in water does increase the amount of asbestos
in the environment, but that's still likely to be at very low
levels compared to the workplace exposures that most often cause
disease.

"There is no reason for people not to use the water as they
normally would.," Brunton said.

Two pipe breaks were linked to changing water pressure at a
temporary filtration plant fitted to the current asbestos cement
water main and not connected to the installation of a new
pipeline.

Doran said the pipe breaks resulted from changes in water
pressure in the main, which in turn put pressure in the 60- year
old pipes.
Urgent work -- costing $3.3 million -- is under way to replace
9.1km of Temuka's water main water main replacement, following an
asbestos contamination scare in November.

Three contractors are working six days a week at three sites to
install new large diameter high density polyethylene (Hdpe) pipe
-- a 100-day job which Doran says should be finished by Easter.

"The new pipeline is being laid separately to the old pipe so
working on one doesn't cause any issues with the other," Harper
said.

Work on installing the new pipeline was not affected by the old
pipe bursts.

Harper said contracts were awarded to Aoraki Earthworks, Rooney
Earthmoving and Fulton Hogan to ensure the major piece of work
was completed quickly and to a high standard.

By late January the delivery of new pipes was said to be one week
ahead.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Complicates Park Demolition Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Mackenzie Dougherty of NBC Montana reported that the Whitefish
City Council is moving forward with the demolition of a building
in Depot Park.

At first planners estimated it would cost $20,000 to get rid of
the building, but other problems could cause the price tag to go
up to over $100,000. Asbestos remediation is one of those
problems.

Mold Wrangler's Jonathan Carpenter put in a bid to remove the
asbestos in the building.

He told NBC Montana a lot goes into removing asbestos. They start
out by creating a special plastic containment area to remove it
safely.

Carpenter said the project is not expected to take long due to
the size of the asbestos contamination, but he said it could be
difficult since the asbestos is in sheet vinyl, which is harder
to pull up.

Carpenter said there are many different regulations and processes
that have to be done for asbestos abatement, and he wants people
to realize it can be very harmful.

"There's a lot of stuff that's janky, and people try to get
around it, but we just try to do everything the right way so you
don't mess with homes and mess up people's health," said
Carpenter.

After a removal an inspector will test air samples from the site
to make sure it's clean.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Scare Leads to Sherman Man's Arrest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Wright of IllinoisHomePage.net reported that a Sherman man
was sentenced to three years behind bars for violating the Clean
Air Act.

Joseph Chernis IV was charged for hiring an untrained individual
to remove dry asbestos pipe insulation from the Pillsbury Mills
facility in Springfield.

U.S. Attorney John Childress says the the cleanup efforts cost
millions of dollars and the actions of Chernis endangered the
health of others.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Contaminated Property to Become DayCare
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Therese Henkin of Times Online reported that there are concerns
over plans to turn a Howick residence contaminated with asbestos
into an early childhood education centre.

A neighbour who goes by the name of Liz s is against the
childcare centre being built on the busy Howick Street and says
it will increase congestion and noise in the area.

She says residents were not informed of the development plans and
were not given the opportunity to object.

Discovering the asbestos contamination has only heightened her
concerns for the building of an early childhood education centre
at the Moore Street property, Liz says.

"I had to do my own investigating to find out that the new owner
planned to pull the house down and build a daycare centre.

"Renovations started before I had a chance to object," she says.

"Now, not only am I unhappy with living next door to a busy day
care centre, but I don't think turning an asbestos-ridden
property into a daycare is the right thing to do."

Liz says she first became suspicious of the development when the
owner of the property wouldn't tell her why the house was being
demolished.

"He repeatedly told me he was not the owner of the property which
of course was a lie."

Liz contacted council herself to find out the plans for
developing the property.

Despite her objections, Liz was told that the development was
deemed "not notified" because it was not believed to have any
adverse effects on the residents or environment.

Liz says it was white powder coming from the demolition site that
raised alarm bells for asbestos.

"I contacted [Worksafe NZ] and, sure enough, after an inspection,
the house was found to be contaminated," she says.

Liz says the whole process for developing the day care has been
unacceptable and she thinks Moore Street residents should have
been kept in the loop.

She now fears she may have been breathing in asbestos for weeks
before the contamination was confirmed.

Steve Pearce, Auckland Council manager regulatory compliance says
the property owner was found to have followed correct procedure
related to asbestos contamination.

"An Auckland Council Compliance Officer has inspected the site
and found the owner of the property and contractors have followed
all the correct protocols, had the property surveyed by approved
asbestos testing service and identified areas for removal,"

Pearce says it is common for asbestos to be concealed behind gib
or other structures and surfaces and is often not identified
until renovations commence.

Notifying neighbours is determined on a case-by-case basis,
Pearce says, which in this case was through signage posted
outside the contaminated property.

Anna Wallace, Auckland Council manager, premium resource consents
says the application for a building consent for the Moore Street
site is still being processed.

"Establish ECE Ltd has had a resource consent approved to develop
the existing dwelling at 105 Moore St, Howick, into an early
childhood centre." She says.

Wallace says several neighbours have provided feedback on the
resource consent application which will be considered by the Duty
Commissioner when making the decision.

A decision has not been made on the application, she says.

Affected parties can apply to the High Court for a judicial
review of a resource consent decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: State to Probe Asbestos Fears After Fire
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bennion of The Courier Mail reported that the State
Government is investigating concerns raised by Carina Heights
residents in the South-East Advertiser about possible asbestos
pollution from last month's fire at the derelict Salvin Park
nursing home site.

The residents said they heard explosions during the latest fire
and feared airborne asbestos fibres had contaminated the
neighbourhood.

Demolition crews have moved on site after Brisbane City Council
issued an enforcement notice to owners TriCare requiring the
demolition of all buildings on the Creek Rd site.

A Workplace Health and Safety Queensland spokeswoman said air
monitoring would be conducted around the site.

"Workplace Health and Safety Queensland's Asbestos Unit will
inspect the site in conjunction with the demolisher to form a
demolition plan, including strategies to protect the local
community from exposure to asbestos fibres," she said.

"We will conduct air monitoring around the site in the coming
weeks and take action if required."

TriCare declined to comment on the residents' concerns about
asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BISD Board OK's Elem. School Asbestos Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa McCaghren of Brenham Banner reported that The Brenham
Independent School District board of trustees approved abatement
services for asbestos removal at Krause Elementary School and
Early Childhood Learning Center (ECLC).

The board approved Crain Group of Pearland as the manager at risk
for the Krause renovation project.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Case on Tsunami Asbestos Claims Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reported that the $9.65 million
question in a fight between United Conveyor Corp. and Travelers
Indemnity Co. was whether a tsunami of asbestos claims against
United, based on decades of conduct in manufacturing and selling
equipment that contained asbestos, added up to a single
occurrence -- thereby limiting.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Up to Old Tricks in Asbestos Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Peacock of ABC Online more than a decade after public uproar
forced asbestos manufacturer James Hardie to return from its new
home in the Netherlands and deal with the consequences of its
deadly product, the company has been accused of again playing
hardball with victims.

Key points:

   * James Hardie accused of not meeting its compensation
obligations

   * Asbestos Fund attempting to restrict payouts

   * About 4,000 people dying of asbestos-related diseases per
year

"Here we go again," lawyer Tanya Segelov told 7.30.

"Same old James Hardie, same old tricks."

Ms Segelov is highly critical of recent actions by the company's
compensation fund to restrict payouts.

"They're using every means possible to not pay the judgements of
a court -- judgements that were made against them for people who
are dying because they used a product James Hardie knew would
kill them and never warned them," she said.

'I can't get my breath'

Late last year Marion Talifera lost her husband John to the
asbestos cancer mesothelioma.

"He went down hill very, very fast. Very fast, and he suffered
dreadfully. He really did," she told 7.30.

"He really couldn't breathe, and I'd say, 'How are you John?' and
he'd say, 'I can't get my breath, can't get my breath'."

The court found John contracted the cancer from exposure to
Hardie's asbestos cement.

But the Hardie fund said it would only pay half the judgement,
because he'd had asbestos exposure overseas.

"The court told them to pay but they're trying to get out of it,"
Ms Talifera said.

"And why, when they have so much money?

"For the suffering that these people, not only John but these
other people go through, they should pay up."

It is not the only case where the Asbestos Fund is stopping
payments.

In Victoria, it recently told plaintiffs it will no longer pay
compensation where victims are unable to continue caring for a
dependent, like a sick husband.

Irene Velican lost her mother to mesothelioma only days ago.
Ms Velican's parents, Joan and Peter Behrend, had renovated the
family home and been exposed to asbestos dust.

Joan had been the main carer for Peter, who needs dialysis every
second day.

They are the last family the Asbestos Fund will pay in Victoria
for such care -- and Ms Velican worries about the families to
follow.

"That money will help them get Meals on Wheels, get a cleaner
once a week, get somebody to come and do the grocery shopping,
maybe do the lawns," she told 7.30.

"It's just those things that the other person used to do for you
that they can't do because either their health is affected or
that they've passed away, as is the case with my Mum."

'It's never over'

The face of the campaign 10 years ago was Bernie Banton.
He fought tirelessly for victims of asbestosis and mesothelioma,
until succumbing himself in 2007.

Former minister and head of the ACTU, Greg Combet, worked
alongside Banton to reach a negotiated a settlement with James
Hardie.

"He was a very passionate campaigner for justice for asbestos
victims," he said.
"I think he grasped the compassion of the community in that
campaign and was a really important reason that we were able to
succeed in getting some justice out of James Hardie at that
time."

According to the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency (ASEA),
the number of Australians dying from asbestos diseases, currently
about 4,000 a year, has yet to peak.

James Hardie's legacy of asbestos cement remains in houses and
buildings around the country.

The material is coming to the end of its useful life and is
likely to be shedding fibres.

But removing asbestos has its own hazards.

What is needed, according to the ASEA, is education and
incentives to clean up legacy asbestos safely.

Meanwhile, families suffering from asbestos diseases today worry
about the families of the future.

"What about all these young people today, pulling these houses to
pieces and not realising that something's happened to them, but
in 10, 15 or 20 years' time when they have a young family, and
suddenly they think, 'Where did I get this from?'" Ms Talfera
asked.

"There was nothing labelled on it to say this is an asbestos
product, so how would you know?" Mr Velican said.

"It's just boards and materials that are in the house and you're
trying to fix it. It was an old house and they were trying to fix
it up and make it a bit more liveable for us."

Banton's widow Karen Banton said education is the key.

"Let's get a program into our high schools, across public and
private schools, to educate children, not in a scary way, but so
they know when they buy that first home and they go to do
renovations, that they know exactly what they're likely to be
dealing with if they bought a home that was built last century,"
she told 7.30.

And so the fight goes on.

"It's never over," Mr Combet said.

"It's so important that the victims are well represented and
cases are fought very hard on their behalf to get access to
compensation."

The Asbestos Fund was contacted but declined to comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Pushes Free Asbestos Collection Service
----------------------------------------------------------------
B. C. Lewis of Blue Mountains Gazette reported that Ward 4
Councillor Brendan Christie is delighted plans for a free
asbestos collection service for Mountains residents are one step
closer, just as council is in the throes of expensive remediation
at Katoomba and other tips.

At the January 30 meeting of Blue Mountains Council, Cr Christie
successfully moved a motion calling for a briefing and a report
for free asbestos collection and for an asbestos education
program for residents.

"This plan isn't a silver bullet for asbestos management and
doesn't take away the disgraceful manner in which asbestos has
been managed in the past," Cr Christie said. "But this is an
opportunity to clean up tonnes of this material, clean up our
environment and protect the health and safety of our community."
It followed weeks of research by the councillor into Holroyd (now
Cumberland) council's successful free asbestos program which only
cost $50,000 in its first year of operation in 2014, but saw 9.42
tonnes of asbestos safely taken away from 180 homes. The program
aims to deter illegal dumping.

Cr Kerry Brown welcomed the idea at council.

"Asbestos costs about $350 a tonne to remove and that's why
people dump it. Free collections of asbestos would save lives and
probably be cheaper than the clean-up costs.

"Council is facing a bill of $900,000 to clean up the asbestos at
Katoomba tip that came in undetected with other waste. I go to
Katoomba tip regularly with van loads of garden waste. I could
have a body in there and no one would know," she later told the
Gazette.

The latest budgeted figure for the Lawson depot clean-up was
$256,000.

Cr Christie said the free collection would involve trained,
accredited professionals packaging, treating and removing
asbestos and asbestos-contaminated material from properties. This
plan would also be tied in with an educational program for
residents -- possibly via a website and pub and club beer
coasters -- as well as targeted mail-outs to local licensed
tradespeople.

"An education program for residents, as well as directly reaching
out to tradies who are most likely to handle asbestos, I believe
will greatly reduce the amount of asbestos material in the
Mountains. At the end of the day we should be focused on
protecting the health and safety of our residents and this plan
is a great step forward."

Cr Christie originally proposed residents could be involved in
the disposal, if necessary using a "hazmat suit from Bunnings".
The proposal was later resubmitted with unanimous approval.
Cr Christie told the Gazette: "I'm just happy that at the end of
the day it passed. I got it through."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Alert in Another Dozens Schools
---------------------------------------------------------
The Leader Newspaper Online reported that the education
federation of CC OO urges Education to maintain the surveillance
of toxic material in centers where it was not foreseen to act.

With 23 works in process and 22 postponed to 2019, the Department
of Education say that they are dealing with the removal of
asbestos from the roofs and ceilings of a number of schools and
institutes in the Province that were built in the 60s and 70's.
However the CC OO teaching federation says that they are not
doing enough as there continues to be a regular trickle of new
cases reported to their office.

"The appearance of new cases is continuous," said delegate Pau
D°az, estimating that so far the union has collected details of
at least a dozen new cases of schools with asbestos across the
provinces of Valencia and Alicante "but with more in Alicante,"
he says. "Public pressure and the complaints from the unions are
ensuring that the authorities continue to remove asbestos
materials from schools, but we must remain vigilant," warns Diaz.

CC OO had reminded that the Government that it is committed to
withdraw the fibre from all schools in this legislature. "We want
to ensure that it has fulfilled its commitment by the time that
we are ready to admit the next generation of children and that we
do not have more centres with material that are dangerous for
their health."

At the moment, actions to remove the substance is being carried
out in about twenty centres in the province, and there are
another 22 schools where preparatory procedures are under way. A
further 23 schools have had the removal postponed until 2019. The
Government says that in the case of these schools the surfaces to
be cleaned are fewer than and not as urgent as the others that
have already been approved.

Of the hundred or so centres that the union state are about to
have the asbestos removed in the Community, about half are in the
province of Alicante with the rest in Valencia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Man Says Lung Cancer Caused by Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison County Record reported that a special
administrator of a late South Carolina man alleges his lung
cancer was wrongfully caused by asbestos exposure.

Carmen Springs, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of Andrew Springs Sr., deceased filed a complaint on Jan.
23 in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against Crown, Cork and
Seal Co.; The DOW Chemical Co.; et al. and others, asbestos
products manufacturers, citing negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that at various
times during plaintiff's decedent Andrew Springs Sr.'s employment
at Henry Co. in South Carolina from 1970 to 2007, he was exposed
to and inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers emanating from certain
products manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by
defendants. The suit states that on or about Oct. 13, 2015, he
first became aware that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-
induced disease, and that the disease was wrongfully caused. He
died on Jan. 23, 2016, the suit states.

The plaintiff holds Crown, Cork and Seal Co.; The DOW Chemical
Co.; et al. responsible because the defendants allegedly
negligently included asbestos fibers in their products when
adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide
adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of
working with or around products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of more than $50,000,
plus punitive damages and all other relief as the court deems
appropriate. She is represented by Laci M. Whitley and Ethan A.
Flint of Flint Law Firm LLC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-53


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Military Career Exposed Man to Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison - St. Clair Record reported that a man
stationed at a Chicago naval base in the 1960s and who also
worked at Pacific Bell alleges asbestos exposure caused him to
develop lung cancer.

Arlie Bales Jr. and Diane Bales filed a complaint on Jan. 23 in
the St. Clair County Circuit Court against AT&T Corp., Crosby
Valve LLC, Eastman Chemical Co., et al. alleging negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
times during Arlie Bales Jr.'s military career and employment
from 1963 to 1998, he was exposed to and inhaled or ingested
large amounts of asbestos fibers emanating from certain products
manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by defendants. He
alleges that on or about July 25, 2016, he first became aware
that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, and
that the disease was wrongfully caused.

The plaintiffs holds AT&T Corp., Crosby Valve LLC, Eastman
Chemical Co., et al. responsible because the defendants allegedly
intentionally included asbestos fibers in their products when
adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide
adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of
working with or around products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiffs seek damages of no less than $50,000. They are
represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in
Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-45


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Gov't Bldgs Still Have Asbestos Roofing
------------------------------------------------------------
The Standard reported that a majority of old government
institutions in the country still have asbestos roofing even as
the World Health Organization warns that this kind of roofing can
cause cancer. Efforts to replace them with the alternative
roofing material have proved costly hence exposing students and
workers at these institutions to the dangers associated with
asbestos.

Speaking during a graduation ceremony at Thogoto teachers
college,  the board members said they have been looking for funds
to enable them to change the roofing in vain. The board has
requested the central government to budget for the same in the
coming financial year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steve McQueen Widow Joins Fight for Asbestos Ban
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Nelson of 6 On Your Side reported that he was considered the
"King of Cool". Hollywood legend Steve McQueen's life was cut
short from a deadly disease. Mesothelioma is cancer caused by
exposure to Asbestos. Now his wife has joined the fight for a ban
on it.

Barbi McQueen describes the day, she and Steve had a serious
heart to heart about their future. "One day he went off to be
alone, I found him, and he looked at me and asked, what do you
want to do. Do you want to blow it and go have some fun, or do
you want to fight it? Me being a young bride and in love, I said
let's face it, yes, we're going to fight it".

But staying positive through countless doctor visits wasn't
enough. In the end, the ultimate Hollywood tough guy was gone.
When and where Steve was exposed to Asbestos isn't precisely
known, even though Barbi believes he may have got it as a young
man in the service. "He had to scrape the hull of a submarine,
and that's all Asbestos, breathing all that Asbestos, and it
didn't appear until he was in his late forties."

Although Asbestos is no longer mined in the United States,
American industry still legally imports, uses and sells both raw
Asbestos and products made with it.

Fast forward to 2011, when Barbi was convinced to share her story
with a woman named Linda Reinstein. Reinstein's, whose husband
Alan also died from Mesothelioma, co-founded the Asbestos Disease
Awareness Organization. "What happens with Asbestos issues,
sometimes people don't put this at the top of their list of
concerns, but when a celebrity shares their story, Barbi and
Steve McQueen, the king of cool, it makes people listen more
intensely."

When asked what she hoped people would take away from her story,
Barbi replied, "I would like to see his name for helping people
to rid the country of this horrible disease."

May we all learn from something Steve McQueen said. "When I
believe in something, I fight like hell for it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Heirs Blames Railway Co. for Asbestos Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo St. Louis Record reported that surviving heirs
are suing BNSF Railway Co., Johnson & Johnson, Union Carbide
Corp., and others, asbestos products manufacturers, alleging
failure to warn and negligence.

Dorothy Haynes, Lorri Hamm, Kimberly Bunfill and Julia Garcia, as
the surviving heirs of Sidney Haynes, deceased, filed a complaint
on Jan. 23 in the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against
the defendants alleging that they failed to exercise reasonable
care and caution for the safety of others.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
time during Sidney Haynes' work as a brakeman from 1977 to 2008,
he was exposed to and inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers
emanating from certain products manufactured, sold, distributed
or installed by the defendants. On Oct. 3, 2016, he first became
aware that he had developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced
disease, and that the disease was wrongfully caused. He died on
Oct. 2, 2016.

The plaintiffs hold BNSF Railway Co., Johnson & Johnson, Union
Carbide Corp., and others responsible because they allegedly
negligently included asbestos fibers in their products when
adequate substitutes were available, and failed to provide
adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of
working with or around products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
the defendants in excess of $50,000. They are represented by
Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1822-CC00153


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Portland Adopts Rules to Contain Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Molly Harbarger of The Oregonian/OregonLive reported that
Portland instituted its first crackdown on lead paint and
asbestos emissions from home demolitions.

The city council voted unanimously to require developers who plan
to tear down homes to more thoroughly search for lead paint and
asbestos, to notify nearby neighbors and to undergo at least two
city inspections to ensure the company follows its own toxics
containment plan.

The new rules, which are effective immediately under an emergency
clause but might not be implemented until July 1, follow
guidelines set by the state.

A pair of Portland lawmakers, Sen. Michael Dembrow and Rep.
Alissa Keny-Guyer, sponsored a bill in the 2017 legislative
session that gave cities more power to regulate lead in
demolitions and significantly expanded their authority to
regulate asbestos. Both materials are common in homes built
before the 1980s.

A 2015 investigation by the Oregonian/OregonLive found that only
about a third of Portland homes built during that era had
asbestos removed before a demolition. The state's standards to
handle asbestos were the weakest in the country.

Unsettling dust: Portland homes razed, asbestos inside
Weak regulatory oversight has allowed contractors to tear down
hundreds of homes in Portland without properly removing asbestos
inside, an investigation by The Oregonian/OregonLive has found.

The newspaper's investigation estimated that in 2012 and 2012
alone, 200 homes in Portland gave off hazardous asbestos fibers
when they were demolished so bigger homes or apartments could be
built in their place. Lead paint is even more ubiquitous in older
homes.

Breathing airborne asbestos fibers can cause cancer. Breathing
lead particles can lead to brain damage.

Dembrow and Keny-Guyer attended the council meeting to applaud
the city's new rules.

"I see a real model for the rest of the state," Dembrow said. "If
the city of Portland can do this right, I can certainly see other
cities taking this up and taking this on because their residents
are equally concerned."

Portland's Bureau of Development Services will oversee the new
program. All buildings that house one to four families and are at
least 200 square feet -- including accessory dwelling units --
will be under the new rules.

With the rule in place, anyone who wants to demolish a home or
duplex must provide an asbestos survey to the city before a
permit is issued. The council raised the cost of those permits by
$180 to help pay for two new city inspectors who will be required
to visit a demolition site before, during and after the house is
torn down.

Nancy Thorington, code and policy analyst for the bureau,
estimated that at least 700 demolitions each year will fall under
the new rules.

The inspectors will make sure demolition companies create a plan
that accounts for dust control, that they remove all painted
parts on the exterior of a building beforehand and that they wet
down all materials that might have lead or asbestos to keep dust
contained.

Studies suggest that people within 300 feet of a demolition could
experience noticeably higher levels of lead dust, so anyone
living in that zone must be notified in advance with a sign on
their door.

"This ordinance is very important so other kids don't get sick
and get developmentally disabled," said 11-year-old Ramona Runkel
during public testimony, who had elevated lead levels in her
blood as 8-month-old until her parents treated their house for
it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FDA Urged to Probe Asbestos Found in Cosmetics
---------------------------------------------------------------
David P. Willis of Asbury Park Press reported that the Food and
Drug Administration should investigate reports that asbestos was
found in cosmetics products sold by retailers Claire's Stores
Inc. and Justice Retail, makeup marketed to girls and young
women,  Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., said.

"Recently, there has been a lot of sort of frightening stories
about cosmetics retailers marketing to children and to young
teenagers, or young people, products that have had problems,"
Pallone said outside Claire's on Route 35 in Wall.

In December, girls fashion retailer Claire's voluntarily recalled
nine cosmetic products after a Providence, Rhode Island,
television station aired a story about a local law firm's test of
a Claire's product. The report said it contained cancer-causing
asbestos.

In early January, Claire's said its test results from two
independent labs confirmed the company's earlier tests that the
products are "asbestos free, completely safe and meet all
government requirements."

"Any report that suggests that the products are not safe is
totally false," the company said.

Justice has recalled eight Just Shine cosmetics products after a
reported presence of asbestos in tested samples of Just Shine
Shimmer Powder. While one set of laboratory tests showed no
evidence of asbestos, a second round revealed "trace amounts of
asbestos," Justice said in a statement on its website.

Representatives from Claire's Stores and Justice Retail could not
be reached for further comment.

Pallone called for an investigation in a letter to FDA
Commissioner Scott Gottleib.

"While asbestos appears to be the primary impurity in the Justice
Retail and Claire's cosmetics, I am also gravely concerned about
the risk that other cosmetic products may also be tainted with
dangerous chemicals," Pallone wrote.

"I urge FDA to thoroughly investigate the claims against Justice
Retail and Claire's Stores, and to open a broader investigation
into the presence of asbestos and other hazardous impurities in
children's cosmetics."

It comes as part of a push by Pallone, the ranking Democrat on
the House Energy and Commerce Committee, for increased regulation
of the cosmetic and personal care industry.

"The thing that amazes me ... is that so many people who buy
cosmetics products just assume that they're safe and they're
being regulated by the government," Pallone said. "That's not the
case often times because the FDA has very little authority over
cosmetics, even through cosmetics is one of the areas where they
have the most activity."

Regulations for the cosmetics industry, a $60 billion a year
industry,have not changed since 1938, Pallone said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Haunts Chilmark Fire Station
------------------------------------------------------
Rich Saltzberg of Martha's Vineyard Times reported that long
slated for replacement, Chilmark's main fire station suffers from
crowded conditions and subpar bathroom facilities. But it's the
asbestos more than anything else that causes many volunteer
firefighters and EMTs not to linger in the place, Fire Chief
David Norton told The Times.

The extent of the problem could be known soon. At a meeting a
week after fire Norton made his concerns public, Chilmark
selectmen addressed the possible asbestos issue in the fire
station without calling the threat by name. In a unanimous vote,
the board authorized chairman Bill Rossi and executive secretary
Timothy Carroll to choose one of two contractors that recently
gave estimates for a "hazardous materials" survey of the fire
station. The town is in the process of picking a location for a
new fire station.

"When we go to tear the building down," Carroll said, "we're
going to have to have the building surveyed for hazardous
materials inside it." The prospective contractors could do that
ahead of schedule, he pointed out, plus take dust samples to see
if a hazard is present "right now."

On paper, a Dedham contractor estimated the work at $1,740 while
another from Rhode Island figured $2,253 for the job. While the
best price was important, the selectmen decided the executive
secretary's office should vet the contractors' credentials as
part of the process.

"They'll have to do some destructive testing of wallboard,
roofing, siding, floor tile -- anything they think [necessary] --
the putty in the windows to hold the glass in," Carroll said. The
furnace, ductwork, and chimney caulking, were also likely to be
tested Carroll said.

"I have a concern that if they find that this is as dangerous as
it might be," Malkin said, "that we might not be able to use the
building, so David, you need to develop a contingency plan
because after this thing is done, if it says it's unsafe . . .

Fresh from taut exchanges with Malkin over a requested pay
increase, Chief Norton interjected with a humorous suggestion.
"An addition on your house would be great," he said.

Rossi opted to wax optimistic. "It'll put a lot more urgency into
a new building, I'll say that," he said.

Meanwhile, the Chilmark Firefighters Association has recently
begun debate about hiring an independent contractor to survey the
fire station for asbestos, firefighter Gary Robinson said. No
vote has been taken, he said.

Chief concern is dust

Chief Norton told The Times that when he arrives at the station
on Menemsha Crossroad in the morning, he frequently finds a film
of dust on the vehicles. He believes it's asbestos dust from the
gray wall and ceiling boards that clad the interior of the bays.
Tri-Town EMTs have a strong distaste for being in the building
due to the asbestos, the chief said.

Tri-Town Ambulance Chief Ben Retmier confirmed that his EMTs do
not like working in the building because of the threat of
asbestos.

Health inspector Marina Lent told The Times that she has not
looked into asbestos in the fire station, nor has her office been
contacted about it. She referred questions to Carroll, who also
serves as the deputy fire chief.

Carroll said based on what he was told, the fire station was
inspected 20 years ago, and the wall and ceiling boards inside
were identified as asbestos. At that time the town was told that
so long as the boards weren't cut or broken, the asbestos
wouldn't be friable, and therefore wouldn't present a hazard,
Carroll said. Friable, in this context, refers to asbestos in a
state where it can be crumbled or turned to dust by hand
pressure.

Building inspector Lenny Jason said he is unaware of any issues
with the station.

He qualified that by stating that with the exception of popping
in to find the chief now and then, he doesn't recall being inside
the station for any length of time since the end of the 1970s,
when a house fire call interrupted a cribbage game he was part of
inside the station.

In general, a dust situation from asbestos boards wouldn't fall
under the duties of his department, he pointed out.

"If they removed them [the boards], that's a different story," he
said.

Robinson said air testing inside the station is necessary. "The
only way you're going to know is to have it tested," he said.

Robinson is also Aquinnah's emergency management director, and a
former environmental consultant who used to work in the oil and
gas industry. Boards used in the inside of the station look
similar to Transite asbestos boards he saw when working in that
industry, he said. However, he stressed, he has no expertise in
asbestos. He specialized in Superfund and industrial cleanups,
involving petroleum pollutants like PCBs, he said. The proper
specialist to evaluate the station is a certified industrial
hygienist, he said. If the boards are composed of asbestos, he
believes they must be repaired and sealed. He also believes
asbestos warning signs would need to be affixed to the building.

"If it is [asbestos], then the town would probably be negligent
in not addressing it," he said.

At the end of an Up-Island selectmen's meeting, Chilmark
selectman Warren Doty, who is also the chairman of the Tri-Town
Ambulance Committee, told The Times the station needs to be
demolished.

In a telephone interview, Rossi said asbestos in the building is
on the selectmen's radar.

"We're getting prices to remove it completely," he said, as an
interim solution until a new station is built. However, if the
remediation is too costly, the possibility exists that the
station will be condemned and fire operations may be transferred
to the auxiliary station on North Road, he said.

"North Road is full," Chief Norton said. Trucks and equipment
could only be stored outside there, he said. "Everything would be
frozen."

A feasibility study is now underway to site a new station behind
the old one, in the town hall parking lot, Rossi said. The search
for a new site has taken about 15 years, he said.

In government, "everything goes excruciatingly slow," he said. "I
think there's a real frustration with the fire department not
having an adequate facility to work out of."

Asbestos was a building product in widespread use until the 1960s
when manufacturers began to phase it out after its carcinogenic
nature came to light, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
engineer Robert Solomon told The Times. At the time, asbestos was
used because it insulated and was fire resistant, he said. Asked
if there is any use for it in contemporary fire stations, Solomon
said: "The broad answer is no. To the best of my knowledge it's
completely non-existent in new construction today." He added that
it's also not used in fireproof clothing for firefighters.

Asbestos in a building, such as in boards, isn't a problem in and
of itself, he said. "As long as you're not disturbing it, it's
fine."

But he pointed out that if it's in a workspace where it's being
struck or subject to any kind of physical damage, then removal or
sealing is advisable.

"If it's airborne, it's a problem," he said.

'Horrible' conditions inside

Equipment clutter exacerbated by tight quarters is also a problem
in the station.

"There's no clear path to anything, except maybe the bathroom on
a good day," the chief said.

As to the bathroom, an exposed stall behind Engine 122, female
firefighters and EMTs tend to avoid it, and use the restrooms
next door at town hall, the chief said.

Reflecting on the bathroom, firefighter and department
administrative assistant Martina Mastromonaco said, "I can't even
come up with the word," before she uttered "horrible."

She confirmed female emergency personnel seek bathroom facilities
elsewhere "or if it's an emergency, you go where you have to go."
Mastromonaco, who is also the town's beach superintendent, said
she lets her colleagues into town hall from time to time to use
the bathrooms.

The station suffers from poor water pressure and water quality,
she said. However the quality has improved somewhat in recent
years. "The water used to smell like rotten eggs."

Mastromonaco described the water as unfit for coffee making or
even washing equipment. Sometimes the firefighters do use it for
cleaning things, she said, but they are forced to fill buckets
outside with a hose to do so because of the weak water pressure
inside. A lot of cleaning is done with bottled water, she said.

Water presents a different sort of issue after a heavy rain, she
said, because the floor of the station's bays flood and then
won't drain.

The building's phones are in such poor shape that they "sound
like they're underwater," she said.

The station's congested bays, she said, are not only a hindrance
to movement but an ongoing blow to the department's spirit. "It's
hard when people work in a volunteer position and don't feel
comfortable and organized. I think it also affects morale," she
said.

Mastromonaco said she works primarily upstairs in the office
where "it's really hard to keep it clean because of the dust."
She described a sash window shimmed open with a barbeque fork as
the primary source of fresh air.

Mastromonaco initially did not respond when asked what she
thought about the potential dangers of asbestos in the station,
but instead said she believed the town will do the right thing
and expressed her admiration for the chief's work ethic. Then
without mentioning asbestos by name she said: "It's pretty
scary."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Falsified Asbestos Reports Lead to Arrests
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lori Chung of NY1 reported that a two-year investigation has led
to the arrests of 17 people who allegedly lying about asbestos
inspections in dozens of city buildings.

It comes following a joint investigation by the D.A.'s office in
Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island.

According to the indictment, the Certified Asbestos Investigators
falsely filed documents certifying asbestos inspections were done
at about 40 sites citywide.

Some of the workers were not even in New York when they claimed
to have done the inspections.

"We will prosecute them. We will revoke their professional
credentials. We will do what is necessary to protect the city
from illegal construction conduct that puts people in danger,"
said DOI Commissioner Mark Peters.

"We can't afford to wait until the next tragedy strikes to make
the changes necessary to protect New Yorkers' lives and their
well-being today," said Manhattan DA Cryus Vance Jr.

"This is criminal activity that's about greed. It's all about
life and death. It's people putting their own financial gain
ahead of the well-being and safety of New Yorkers," said Staten
Island DA Michael McMahon.

All of the inspectors are charged with filing false documents.

The DOI is recommending changes such as more thorough background
checks and audits.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Asked to Review U of T Asbestos Handling
----------------------------------------------------------------
News@UofT reported that the University of Toronto has asked an
expert panel to review the way materials containing asbestos are
handled across its campuses.

The three-member review team is composed of both external and U
of T experts. It will be chaired by epidemiologist Jack
Siemiatycki, a professor of social and preventive medicine at
Ecole de sante publique de l'Universite de Montreal (ESPUM) and
the principal scientist at le Centre de recherche du Centre
hospitalier de l'Universite de Montreal.

The other members are both at U of T's division of occupational
and environmental health: Associate Professor Andrea Sass-
Kortsak, and Roland Hosein, an adjunct professor. Hosein is also
the former vice-president of environment, health and safety at
General Electric Canada Company Inc.

"We're committed to providing a safe environment for our
community to study and work and this review is an effort to
ensure we are doing our best," said Scott Mabury, vice-president
of university operations. "We are very grateful to the panel's
members for agreeing to take up this important task."

The panel's mandate is to examine and evaluate U of T's Asbestos
Management Program on all three campuses to make recommendations
on best practices and to ensure the program complies with
regulations.

In advance of major renovations, it is standard practice at U of
T to remove any materials that contain asbestos, which was in
common use until the 1980s. The university also maintains a
detailed database of locations where asbestos is known to be
present.

The panel will provide a report to Mabury, Vivek Goel, vice-
president of research and innovation, and Kelly Hannah-Moffat,
vice-president of human resources and equity.  The university
plans to make the recommendations public along with its response.
The expert review comes after questions were raised last year
about the university's handling of construction work involving
asbestos at the Medical Sciences Building. Since then, the
university has taken more than 3,400 random air tests at MSB. All
tests all have shown the building is safe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Causes San Diego Courthouse Closure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pauline Repard of The San Diego Union Tribune reported that the
San Diego Superior Courthouse, which opened downtown in 1961,
closed its doors to the public.

By 5 p.m., the last judge, clerk, office worker and bailiff will
have walked out to begin a new chapter in the administration of
justice at the new Central Courthouse a block away.

The move marks the end of an era, 57 years of judicial hearings
and countless tons of court document filings.

"It will be bittersweet," said Michael Roddy, Superior Court
executive officer. "A lot of history and memories are in that
building. Some folks who spent most of their careers there feel
some nostalgia, but it's time."

The building of 58 courtrooms cost $14 million to construct on
three blocks from Broadway to A Street at Union Street. It
replaced a courthouse built on the site in 1890, which in turn
had replaced the county's first court, built in 1872.

As court needs grew, civil cases were shifted next door to the
Hall of Justice, built in 1996 for $56.7 million with 13 stories,
16 courtrooms and offices for the district attorney.

The Superior Court building has been aging badly for a dozen
years, with burst pipes, and false fire alarms, broken elevators
and air conditioning, Roddy said. Constructed when asbestos was a
common fireproofing material, the cancer-causing substance had to
be treated carefully during any repairs.

Officials also discovered it lay atop an earthquake faultline,
making major renovations impossible. The building will be
demolished and replaced with a mixed commercial-use project.

Roddy said that while all public operations cease at the old
courthouse, crews will spend a few months cleaning it out. When
it changes from state to county ownership, he said, the county
wants it "broom-clean" before demolition begins.

Construction on the new, $555 million Central Courthouse began in
2013 on Union at C streets. It was completed in October at 22
stories high with 71 courtrooms for criminal, family and probate
cases. Limited operations began there in December, and court
personnel have been moving in gradually. The doors open with full
public service.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Iowa DNR Fines Man for Asbestos Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Miller of Mason City Globe Gazette reported that the Iowa
DNR has fined a man $3,500 for asbestos violations in Cerro Gordo
County.

Gary Roemhildt was ordered to pay the penalty by Feb. 17.

The DNR, which enforces environmental laws, said the violations
contaminated a building at an undisclosed location, and may have
exposed neighbors and others who entered the structure.

A large portion of the building's roof collapsed in a July 2017
storm, according to an administrative order, causing
contamination inside the structure to be "released into the
outside atmosphere."
Asbestos is known to cause cancer and is considered a hazardous
air pollutant, according to the DNR.

The DNR prohibited Roemhildt from entering the site or removing
materials from the site unless "appropriately trained personnel
are entering the site to accomplish site cleanup" in accordance
with asbestos guidelines, the order stated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resident Warned of Asbestos After Bungalow Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Thomson of The Standard reported that Dennington residents
are being warned about asbestos exposure after a non-suspicious
fire caused extensive damage to a bungalow.

Detective Senior Constable Ash Witham, of the Warrnambool police
crime investigation unit, said the cause of the fire which
started soon after 6pm was not suspicious.

She said a resident was at his The Esplanade home at the time
with his two small children when he looked outside and saw smoke
billowing out of the rear bungalow.

The home was evacuated and Warrnambool Fire Brigade firefighters
attended and extinguished the blaze.

"The bungalow was full engulfed, extensively damaged and found to
be full of asbestos," Detective Senior Constable Witham said.
The main house suffered minimum damaged, but a kitchen window was
shattered which adjoins the veranda structure.

Detective Senior Constable Witham said the house has now deemed
to be uninhabitable due to risk of asbestos and the residents had
moved out.

"The property will be fenced off," she said.

"A general warning has been issued to Dennington residents to be
aware of asbestos exposure.

"If anyone believes they have been exposed to asbestos they can
register on a website as a precautionary health action."

Detective Senior Constable Witham said the website was
www.asbestossafety.gov.au


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Says Huddersfield Work Caused Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Henryk Zientek of Huddersfield Examiner reported that a former
Huddersfield woman dying of an industrial disease has appealed
for former co-workers to get in touch.

Lily Nelson, 65, who was born in and brought up in Turnbridge but
now lives in Stranraer, Scotland, with her husband Bob, has been
diagnosed with mesothelioma, a deadly asbestos-related cancer.

Lily, who was Lily Otty before she married, was told she must
have been exposed to asbestos dust when she was younger, almost
certainly at somewhere she worked.

She has been able to narrow this down to her time as a factory
worker making asbestos gaskets for a firm called T A Cockin at
Waterloo Mills on Old Leeds Road.

Lily said: "I remember asbestos being used to make rings for
industry. I had to cut them to size and apply glue and stick the
rings together. The asbestos was wet, but dried out causing dust.

How former workmates may hold key to cancer death

"I worked for T A Cockin in early 1970 and if anyone who worked
there around that time could make contact I'd be so grateful."

Lily is being helped in her search by solicitor Kevin Johnson, a
specialist in asbestos disease cases at law firm Leigh Day in
Liverpool.

He said: "Mesothelioma is a dreadful disease which is almost
always fatal. It develops years after the original exposure to
asbestos and leaves the victim short of breath, in severe pain
and unable to do even the simplest of tasks.

"It's particularly tragic in Lily's case because her exposure to
asbestos dust was for a relatively short time in 1970. Sadly,
very short periods of exposure to asbestos fibres can cause
mesothelioma to develop decades later."

Lily lived in Huddersfield until she was in her 20s. She met Bob,
who hails from Scotland, when he was in the army and she was
working in a forces canteen. The couple lived at various
locations before settling in Scotland.

Mr Johnson said the company Lily worked for had later undergone a
name change and ceased trading a number of years ago, but he
said: "We have been able to trace the insurers and this is going
to be dealt with through the insurance company

Mr Johnson added: "We need to speak to anyone who worked at T A
Cockin in the late 1960s and/or early 1970s who could shed any
light on how asbestos was used in manufacturing processes."
Mr Johnson said any information received would be treated in the
strictest confidence.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Recycling Site Closed Due to Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------
Ginny Sanderson of Sussex Express reported that a recycling site
has been closed due to the discovery of asbestos. According to
Wealden council the deadly material had been fly-tipped at the
site in North Street, Hailsham. Get GBP10 free when you sign up
to Ice today Got a Mastercard credit card? Sign up for the Ice
rewards programme today and you can start earning points with
every spend at leading retailers and restaurants around the
country.

It says contractors have been called in to remove the material as
a 'matter of urgency'. A spokesperson for Wealden District
Council said, "Our Contractor, Kier, is arranging for the
asbestos to be removed via a specialist contractor as a matter of
urgency and then we will be able to re-open it.

"The incident is under investigation by our Street Scene
Enforcement Team which will pursue offenders for prosecution as
necessary."

Anyone with any further information about this incident is asked
to email street.scene@wealden.gov.uk or call 01323 443322.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Ridge Clean Up Enters Final Year
-------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Liedtke of Citizen Tribune reported that preparations are
underway for a busy summer ahead to complete work at the federal
superfund site of North Ridge Estates, the former home of a World
War II-era military base northeast of Klamath Falls contaminated
by a mountain of poorly demolished building materials tainted by
asbestos.

This year marks the third and final year of active work to clean-
up and store asbestos materials on-site while restoring homes and
landscapes on the property. Declared a federal superfund
designation, identified by the State of Oregon as its most
hazardous site available to federal aid, the project is expected
to top $35 million in federal cost by its projected completion
later this year.

Over 150,000 cubic yards of dirt has already been moved in the
project to retrieve demolished materials from the original World
War II era military hospital that was built on site, then
converted into the original Oregon Institute of Technology
campus, before being demolished to make room for residential
housing in a subdivision named North Ridge Estates. The
demolition process was poorly handled by the land developer in
the 1970s, resulting in toxic asbestos materials being buried
beneath the soil on the 125-acre site, some of which began
bubbling up to the surface in recent years sparking the superfund
declaration.

Initial clean-up efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in the early 2000s proved ineffective, and by 2006 many
residents had been offered permanent relocation. Once a lush
forested area, the lands have been stripped of most of its large
trees to allow for asbestos excavation and contaminated root
removal, leaving a site that for the past two years of extensive
superfund site work has resembled the aftermath of a bomb
explosion.

A large repository of asbestos materials has been built in the
center of the subdivision, to be sealed and monitored for
possible erosion and exposure.  Klamath County Commissioners
declared the county's Property Management department to be in
charge of monitoring the site, in addition to Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) and EPA inspections per an
intergovernmental agreement between Klamath County and the
participating federal organizations.

During the three-year clean-up process many of the permanent
residents have been temporarily relocated while soils immediately
surrounding homes are cleaned and potentially contaminated items
like septic tanks are replaced. Much of the excavation process
and individual home clean-up is now complete, with focus for the
third year of the project aimed more at landscaping, securing the
asbestos repository, planting of trees, reconstruction of roads
and installing new sidewalks and driveways. A small veterans park
currently at the back entrance to North Ridge Estates will also
be moved to the main entrance.

While a once highly toxic site may cause some concerns for
potential residents of the vacant homes on-site, EPA studies have
shown that property values actually increase once a superfund
site is finished, as the site is certified clean and will have
continued monitoring to assure it remains environmentally safe.

"Tree removal for season three properties was completed recently,
and minor prep work is in progress for pre-excavation surveys,
model prep and deck demolition," said Suzanna Skadowski, public
affairs specialist for the EPA overseeing the North Ridge
Superfund project. "Mobilization of equipment and prep work will
start in early March with detail excavation around homes by mid-
March. A mass excavation will begin in April and continue through
July."

By the fall parcel backfill is expected to be completed,
including repository covers and paving of roads, according to
Skadowski. Even after the major work is completed the site will
continue to be closely monitored to assure environmental and
public safety.

A community meeting is being planned for April 10 from 4-7 p.m.
at the Klamath County downtown Klamath Falls branch library to
answer questions, detail site clean-up progress, and post-project
plans.

While state and federal agencies have led the clean-up, the
multi-year project has served as a boon to the local economy. Of
the 78 workers present on site last year, 80 percent of labor was
completed by local contractors. Northwind, one of the primary
contractors on site, had 54 employees present, 46 of which were
local. Through a Superfund Job Training Initiative, 12 local
residents completed training and were hired to work on the North
Ridge Estates clean-up. Similar numbers are expected again for
the final year of work once full-time operations begin in March.

The majority of materials used are also supplied locally;
approximately 80 percent of all gravel, fabric, soil and
protective gear are bought locally. Clean soil is trucked in from
a nearby site, and all equipment and personnel are monitored
closely with preventative cleaning measures to prevent
contamination of surrounding properties to the North Ridge site.
The site is heavily watered continuously to prevent any asbestos
materials from becoming airborne and potentially a toxic hazard
to be inhaled, which can cause respiratory diseases including
mesothelioma -- a form of lung cancer.
email kliedtke@heraldandnews.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PCSD to Replace Aging Asbestos Floor Tiles
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather C. Cook of Perry County Republic Monitor reported that in
such an iconic building as the 1938 Old Senior High is to Perry
County School District 32 and the city of Perryville, the
preservation of original features is high on the list when it
comes to maintenance. But as important as historical preservation
may be, nothing comes before the safety of students and staff.

The upper floor of the Old Senior High had long ago been
identified as containing asbestos, but because the floor was
well-maintained and sealed, the tile previously posed no threat
to students or staff.

"The 8-by-8, checkerboard tiles are original, which contain
asbestos; anything that is white -- like those on the first floor
-- or the 12-by-12 tiles, these are not asbestos," explained
Public Relations and Marketing Director Kate Martin. "They were
replaced at a later date."

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
asbestos is a mineral fiber that is found in rock and soil.

"Because of its fiber strength and heat resistance asbestos has
been used in a variety of building construction materials for
insulation and as a fire retardant," reads the definition on
epa.gov. According to the EPA, asbestos is only a danger if
inhaled. Three of the major health effects associated with
asbestos exposure are "lung cancer; mesothelioma, a rare form of
cancer that is found in the thin lining of the lung, chest and
the abdomen and heart; [and] asbestosis, a serious progressive,
long-term, non-cancer disease of the lungs".

Since 1938, the tiles have never posed a problem, but District 32
administration noticed bubbling in the tile of the upper floor of
the Old Senior High. They took immediate action in closing off
the area and evacuating the building as a precaution. According
to Martin, Jake Dudenhoffer of Schemel-Tarrillion Inc. inspected
the area right away.

"There was a slight disruption in our morning; it lasted about an
hour," explained Martin. Although the area has now been cordoned
off for the safety of students and staff, all classrooms are
still accessible through alternate entrances.

According to Martin, the school has decided that the best course
of action will be to remove the tiled floor entirely. This task
will be completed when students are off school on Feb. 15 and 16
for parent-teacher conferences and a professional development
day.

"We chose the solution that's safest for children," said Martin.
"No question. I think we could have somebody come in, lift it up,
re-adhese. But it's 80 years old at this point, and I think once
the problem started the assumption is that we're going to have
problems going forward, and that's not safe."

The school's certified asbestos contractor will complete the
work, and the concrete exposed by the removal of the floor will
be sealed in a similar fashion to the floor in the building's
bathrooms. Students who have classes with Robin Marler, Amy
Camarillo, and Debbie Chamberlain can meet them in the library
during parent-teacher conferences.

As difficult as it will be for nostalgic staff, students, and
alumni to see the removal of the 1938 tile, the issue was simply
a product of time. According to Martin, the school has adhered to
all regulations set forth by the Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Reponse Act of 1986.

"Our most recent asbestos inspection as required by AHERA was
March 14, 2017," said Martin. "We always pass. Glenn Berkbigler,
who is our director of buildings and grounds, and his crew do a
fabulous job of making sure we're in compliance with our asbestos
management plan."

In an eternal public notice released by the district regarding
asbestos management at the school, a plan was outlined by a
certified asbestos inspector to include the "notification;
education and training of . . . employees; a set of plans and
procedures designed to minimize the disturbance of the asbestos-
containing materials; and plans for regular surveillance of the
asbestos-containing materials."

Martin emphasized the fact that the decision to move forward is
precautionary, and that the building is safe for staff and
students.

"The inspector said that this is more of a tripping hazard than
it is an asbestos hazard," said Martin. "We're in compliance with
all the regulations; we exceed those regulations and act with the
utmost caution to make sure everybody's safe. This is the center-
piece of our campus."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cinema Closed Due to Asbestos Exposure Fear
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Heaney of BBC News reported that the Market Hall Cinema in
Brynmawr was closed in November 2016 and did not re-open for six
months.

The cinema and Arts Trust want an investigation into the handling
of the affair.

Blaenau Gwent council has denied any wrongdoing, saying it acted
"with public safety in mind".

The Arts Trust, which took over the running of the cinema from
the council in 2013, claims the delay cost it more than ú150,000
in lost revenue.

It disputes claims by the local authority, which issued a
prohibition notice against the cinema in November 2016, that
there was "potential for exposure to asbestos containing
materials".

It is also understood that the council did not follow the advice
of one contractor, who suggested the building could be re-opened
in days if an environmental clean was carried out and the attic
was sealed off.

Julian Gardner, a member of the cinema and Arts Trust, said
volunteers were "astounded" when the building was closed.
"Realistically this should have been a six week process, yet
areas were tested and re-tested, cleaned and re-cleaned," he
said.

He questioned why the charity has not been given a long-term
lease under a community asset transfer, despite running the
cinema for more than four years.

Trustee Ian Cowley, who looks after the charity's finances, said
the cinema was about six weeks away from closing permanently
because of the delays.

Simon Thomas, Plaid AM for Mid and West Wales, said he believed
the charity had been "let down" by the process.

In response, the council said the sampling exercise and
remediation was too "complex" to go into without the risk of it
being taken out of context.

It said its priority was public safety and that the cinema
remained closed until remedial works and other safety issues were
addressed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waste Transporter Fined $7.5K for Asbestos Waste
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fairfield City Champion reported that the NSW Environment
Protection Authority (EPA) are reminding property owners to
"think twice and check twice" before they accept any fill
material onto their property after a Lansvale man was fined
$7,500 for causing soil contaminated with asbestos to be
deposited at a private property in Wallacia.

EPA officers were at the Park Road property conducting a
proactive illegal landfilling campaign when a tipper truck
unloaded approximately 10 tonnes of soil as part of construction
of a new dam wall.

The officers observed and videoed the load being dumped and, when
they approached the vehicle, the driver refused to stop and left
the premises.

The EPA used the truck's registration details to track down the
owner and continue the investigation, and soil samples confirmed
that the deposited load was contaminated with asbestos.

The vehicle owner was fined $7,500 for depositing waste at a site
that cannot lawfully receive it.

EPA Director Waste Compliance Greg Sheehy said the waste had put
the local environment at risk.

"Fortunately, in this case the pollution was contained, but the
incident should come as a reminder to all property owners to
think twice and check twice before they accept any fill material
onto their property. To the untrained eye, the soil may seem fine
but unfortunately, this is not always the case," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Baby Power Has Asbestos, Expert Tells Jury
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal of Law360 that an asbestos laboratory founder told
New Jersey jurors that multiple studies have found asbestos in
Johnson & Johnson talcum powder products, during a trial over the
mesothelioma a man allegedly developed as a result of his
decadeslong use of them.

Plaintiff Stephen Lanzo III's attorney Joseph Satterley of Kazan
McClain Satterley & Greenwood called to the stand Dr. James
Webber, who described how the state of New York hired him as a
research scientist in 1979 to launch its asbestos laboratory, the
Wadsworth Center.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Christchurch Probes on Asbestos Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Law of Stuff.co.nz reported that Christchurch City Council
has launched two investigations after staff used soil riddled
with asbestos to form a track behind beachside homes.

The council is spending $285,000 removing the asbestos from a
200-metre long path, which runs parallel to Aston Dr at Waimairi
Beach. The track cost $8420 to construct.

The 375 cubic metres of soil was donated to the council by a
nearby resident and was not tested before it was put into the
ground. The council became aware the soil was contaminated only
when a Waimairi Beach resident presented its staff with test
results showing the presence of asbestos.

As landowner, she said the council was also investigating the
incident in order to establish the facts and ensure processes
were in place "for an appropriate response".

"It is the normal process after an incident like this for an
internal investigation to be undertaken."

The spokeswoman would not comment further on either
investigation, nor say if there would be any consequences for the
staff who accepted the contaminated soil.

"We are unable to answer questions about any individual
employment, either past or present, as that is confidential."

It was understood the soil was donated to the council by Blaise
Chamberlain, who was building a home backing onto the path and
owned a concrete business.

Chamberlain told Stuff he did not want to talk about the soil. He
has not responded to a list of emailed questions including where
the soil came from and whether he knew it was contaminated. He
also did not return calls.

The council would also not answer questions about the soil's
origins, what was known about it before it was placed in the
ground, or if it would seek any payments from Chamberlain.

Waimairi Beach resident Mary McGarth said the soil should have
been tested and she did not want to see ratepayers footing the
clean-up bill.

McGarth, who walked on the path almost daily, said she found out
about the asbestos only when she saw men in white suits removing
the soil.

Canterbury medical officer of health Dr Alistair Humphrey said
people should not be anxious even if they had walked on the path
on dusty days as research showed people who suffered chronic lung
problems from asbestos had been exposed to high levels over a
long period of time.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Over Asbestos-Tainted Talc May Go to Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko of SFGate reported that a San Francisco woman who has
been diagnosed with terminal cancer can go to trial against the
makers of Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder, which she used for 20
years and later learned it may have contained asbestos.

The state Supreme Court unanimously denied review of a challenge
by Colgate-Palmolive to an earlier ruling that reinstated Mary
Lyons' lawsuit.

Lyons said she first used Cashmere Bouquet as a young child in
the early 1950s, when her mother powdered her after every bath,
and continued using it on her own until the early 1970s. She was
diagnosed in October 2015 with malignant mesothelioma, a cancer
commonly caused by asbestos.

Colgate-Palmolive began manufacturing Cashmere Bouquet in 1871
and sold it until 1995. The talc ingredient in the product came
from mines in Montana, North Carolina and Italy. A mineralogist
who was an expert witness for Lyons said he found asbestos in
talc from all three mines, and in Cashmere Bouquet that was sold
in the years that Lyons used it.

The company's expert witnesses said the powder was free of
asbestos

Colgate-Palmolive said there was "no more than a possibility"
that Lyons had been exposed to asbestos from Cashmere Bouquet and
noted that she had failed to preserve any containers of the
powder she had actually used.

Superior Court Judge Garrett Wong dismissed the suit without a
trial, but the First District Court of Appeal reinstated it in
October and said Lyons had presented enough evidence to send the
case to a jury.

The testimony from her expert witness, and another witness with
scientific credentials, would allow jurors to conclude that "all
or most of the Cashmere Bouquet that (she) used almost daily for
20 years contained harmful asbestos," Justice Stuart Pollak said
in the 3-0 appellate ruling. He said there was no evidence that
Lyons had been exposed to asbestos from any other source.

Lyons' attorney, Brian Barrow, said the case was potentially
significant.






                            *********


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, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  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.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *