CAR_Public/180727.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 27, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 150

                            Headlines

1237 FULLERTON: Failed to Provide "Miller" with Separate Summary
AEGEAN MARINE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Alderson Sues over Accurate Wage Statement
ALMEDA-GENOA: "Barrera" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
AMCOL SYSTEMS: "Veis" Disputes Creditor in Collection Letter

ANGMAR MEDICAL: Mayhew Seeks Overtime Premiums under FLSA
BEAUTY SLEEP: Faces "Rivas" Suit in E.D. New York
CALIFORNIA NATURAL: Rosillo Sues over Blend Bug Repellent
CANADA: Faces $600MM Class Action Over Missing Indigenous Woman
CITIZENS BANK: "Ford" Class Suit Seeks Damages

CLAUDINE DENIRO: Faces "Dilazary" Suit in New York Supreme Court
COAST TO COAST: Casillas Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
CONFI CHEK INC: Faces "Garza" Suit in E.D. California
CREDITOR'S COLLECTION: "Allen" Suit Moved to S.D. West Virginia
CROWN FENCE: Fails to Pay Regular & Overtime Wages, Molina Says

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Refused to Refund Gift Card, Claims "Siu"
DELTA OUTSOURCE: Faces "Koehn" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
DGDG 1 LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Wilson Says
EVERETT FINANCIAL: "Baretich" Suit Seeks Damages, Restitution
EXPRESS FASHION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Carr Says

FAMILY AND CHILD EMPOWERMENT: "Christian" Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
GEORGIA'S EASTSIDE: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
GOGO INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Suit
GOODLIFE FITNESS: $7.5MM Settlement Approved
GOOGLE LLC: Tech Eyes Inc.'s Suit Moved to N.D. California

HELL'S KITCHEN CREAM: "Saravia" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
HUNTER BOOT: Website not Accessible to Blind, Wu Says
I & Y SENIOR: "Tyha" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
IDEMIA IDENTITY: "Rueda" Suit Hits Missed Breaks, Seeks Final Pay
IC SYSTEM INC: "Wood" Disputes Vague Collection Letters

IDT GROUP: "Dennis" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
ILG INC: Scarantino Balks at Merger Deal with Marriott Vacations
INNERWORKINGS INC: Kaskela Law Files Shareholder Class Suit
INTELEMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS: "Johnson" Suit Moved to M.D. Fla.
JACKSON WELL SERVICES: "Walker" Suit Transferred to W.D. Okla.

KESTREL FIELD: "Gibson" Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: "Brumfield" Suit Moved to E.D. Texas
KLUNE INDUSTRIES: Mendoza Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
KLX INC: Gusinsky Trust Balks at Merger Deal with Boeing
LYDIA M.C.: Zheng Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA

MAGIC HOME CARE: "Teshabaeva" Suit Transferred to King's County
MAGIC JACK: Martinez & Lopez Sue over Unwanted Telephone Calls
MAUSER USA: "Dillingham" Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid Overtime
MDL 2804: Villa Rica May Join Opioid Class-Action Lawsuit
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Maria Says

MONSANTO COMPANY: Wyum Sues over Damage caused by Xtend Seed
MOORE HOLDINGS: Faces "Johnson" Suit in D. New Jersey
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Jang Sues over Debt Collection Practices
NCI GROUP: "Gonzalez" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California
NRG ENERGY: "Tejero" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California

ORLANE INC: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
PAMELA PATTERSON: Worthington Seeks to Block Communication Access
PARAGON BUILDING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Barron Says
PENNSYLVANIA: Rodriguez Files Suit v. Dept. of Corrections
PG&E CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

PINEAPPLE HOSPITALITY: Illegally Retained "Smith" Biometrics Data
POLARITYTE INC: Safirstein Metcalf Files Class Action Lawsuit
PRAXAIR INC: "Garcia" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
PURDUE PHARMA: "Whitley" Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
RESTORE REHABILITATION: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Hatanaka Says

RESURGENT CAPITAL: "Carrillo" Suit Moved to S.D. New York
RIPPLE: Faces 3rd Suit Over XRP Illegal Sale
RNYK LLC: Faces "Lewis" Suit in S.D. New York
ROBERT BOSCH: Tiffin Motor Hits Starter Motors Price-Rigging
ROMAN EMPIRE: Rankins Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under Labor Code

SCHWAN'S HOME: Yepes Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
SEAWORLD: Annual Passholders Could Get $11.5MM in Refunds
SEQUIUM ASSET: Faces "Vandehey" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
SEQUOIA FUND: "Edwards" Sues Over Mismanaged Fund
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY: "Fife" Suit Moved to E.D. California

SHOWS CALI: Faces "Calogero" Suit in E.D. Louisiana
SMILEMAKERS INC: Wainess Sues over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
SOY SAUCE LLC: Kitchen Staff Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
STERICYCLE INC: "Mazur" Suit Moved to M.D. North Carolina
SVF FULTON CHICAGO: Norman Sues Over Biometrics Data Retention

TAHOE RESOURCES: "Cabrera" SEC Suit Transferred to Nevada
TANACON: Tana Mongeau Might Be Facing Class Action Lawsuit
TATA COMMUNICATIONS: SC Stays NCDRC Public Notice Order
THERANOS: Ex-Patients Claim Inaccurate Tests Changed Their Lives
TOTAL SAFETY: "Burton" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT Wages

TRUSSVILLE VISION: "Smith" Suit Moved to N.D. Alabama
TRADER JOE'S: Sanchez Alleges False Labeling of Sour Gummies
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Lowinger Balks at Merger Deal with Disney
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Weiss Sues over Merger Deal
UCAN COMPANY: McCann Alleges Deceptive SuperStarch Labels

UNDERSPIN CITY: Jeter Seeks Full Payment for all Hours Worked
UNDISPUTED CONSTRUCTION: Torres Seeks Unpaid OT Hours under FLSA
UNITED COLLECTION: Card Holders Dispute Collection Letters
UNIVERSAL HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Beldiman Says
UNIVERSITY OF S. CALIFORNIA: Chi Files Suit v. Tyndall, BOT

UNITED STATES: Sued over Family Separation Policy
UNITED STATES: Appanoose County to Join PILT Class-Action
UNITED STATES: Eddy County Joins PILT Class Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Washington County Votes to Enter PILT Class Action
USA DIVING: Athletes Subjected to Sexual Abuse, Pryor Claims

VECTREN CORP: Scarantino Balks at Merger Deal with CenterPoint
VECTREN CORP: Nisenshal Balks at Merger Deal with CenterPoint
ZIRX TRANSPORTATION: "Moore" Suit Seeks Damages, Wages, Benefits


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ASARCO Wins CERCLA Contribution Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Ruling Favoring Herty Reversed on Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Enters Summary Judgment Favoring PACCAR
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $20.9MM Libby Costs at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had $54.8MM A&E Reserves at Mar. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Mar31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Has 106 Pending PI Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,526 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 89 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Still Responsible for Cases at Mar.31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Suits at Mar. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Faces Less Than 500 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 201 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $487MM Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had $289.8MM Loss Reserves at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Faces Less Than 245 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Faces PI Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 180 Cases vs. CECO Still Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 7,004 Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $142.9MM Liability Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Optical Had 56,680 Claims at April 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Faces Various Lawsuits at April 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Had 823 New Claims in 1Q 2018
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nixed 'Take-Home' Asbestos Claim Reversed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Justices Uphold Honeywell Win in Coverage Row
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Feitshans Couple Seeks $50K for PI Injuries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford's Bid to Preclude Deadline Extension Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Complaint Remains in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Plaintiffs Can't Join State Defendants

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arvinmeritor Named in McDowell Couple's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Seeks $50K Damages for Asbestos Injuries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Ct. Threw Out $55MM Talc Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dad Diagnosed With Asbestos-Related Cancer At 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Set in Historic House Asbestos Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Maker Blamed for Dad's Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qualification of Asbestos Witness Challenged
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Manor Residents Worry on Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Coast Garbos Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Dist. Still Under Advisement in Appeal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandt Couple Sues Over Asbestos Exposure


                            *********


1237 FULLERTON: Failed to Provide "Miller" with Separate Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 1237 Fullerton LLC and The Scion Group
LLC, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-06545, (Ill.
Cir., May 22, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief pursuant to the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant
Ordinance.

Miller was a tenant at 1237 W. Fullerton, Unit 304-B, Chicago, IL
60614, a residential apartment owned by the Defendants. They
allegedly did not provide tenants with a mandated "Separate
Summary" that is made for inspection and copying by the City of
Chicago Commissioner of Department of Buildings, when rental
agreements are initially offered and renewed, for the last two
years. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE. P.A.
      225 W. Washington St. Suite 2200
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 924-0278
      Fax: (312) 650-8241
      Email: akrolik@securitydepositlaw.com

             - and -

      MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
      225 W. Washington St. Suite 2200
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 775-1015
      Fax: (312) 256-2055
      Email: mark@depositlaw.com


AEGEAN MARINE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights
law firm, reminds investors of the important August 6, 2018 lead
plaintiff deadline in the shareholder class action lawsuit
against Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc. ("Aegean" or the
"Company") (NYSE:ANW). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on
behalf of those who purchased the securities of Aegean between
April 28, 2016 and June 4, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Aegean had improperly accounted for approximately $200
million of accounts receivable as of December 31, 2017; (2)
Aegean failed to maintain effective internal control over
financial reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Aegean's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On June 4, 2018, during aftermarket hours, Aegean revealed "that
approximately $200 million of accounts receivable owed to the
Company at December 31, 2017 will need to be written off," as
"[t]he transactions that gave rise to the accounts receivable
("the Transactions") may have been, in full or in part, without
economic substance and improperly accounted for in contravention
of the Company's normal policies and procedures." Aegean further
revealed that "[a] number of individuals employed by the Company
across multiple functions who are believed to have been involved
in the Transactions have been terminated or placed on
administrative leave pending the outcome of [an] investigation.
The Company has reported its preliminary findings to the SEC and
the Department of Justice and intends to cooperate with any
resulting investigations."

On this news, Aegean's stock fell $2.18 per share, or over 75%,
from its previous closing price to close at $0.70 per share on
June 5, 2018, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than August 6, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose
to take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

To join the Aegean class action, and/or to discuss your legal
rights and options, please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/aegean-marine-petroleum-network-
inc-anw-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-66/

         Daniel Sadeh,Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: http://www.bernlieb.com
         Telephone: (877) 779-1414
         Email: dsadeh@bernlieb.com[GN]


ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Alderson Sues over Accurate Wage Statement
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS ALDERSON, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. ALAMEDA COUNTY
AGRICULTURAL FAIR ASSOCIATION; a corporation; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG1891264 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 12, 2018), alleges that Defendants intentionally and
willfully failed to furnish accurate itemized wage statements
which complied with Labor Code section 226.

According to the complaint, Alderson and Defendants' other
California employees, both current and former, have suffered
injury as a result of Defendants' knowing and intentional failure
to comply with Labor Code section 226.

The Alameda County Agricultural Fair Association is a 501(c)3
private, non-profit corporation responsible for producing the
annual Alameda County Fair, as well as managing the 267-acre
fairgrounds property in Pleasanton.[BN]

Attorneys for Chris Alderson and the Putative Class:

          Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
          William J. Gorham, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
          John P. Briscoe, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
          Stockton, CA 95207 8253
          Telephone: (209) 477 3833
          Facsimile: (209) 473 4818
          E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
                  wgorham@mayalla.com
                  nscardigli@mayallaw.com
                  jbriscoe@mayallaw.com


ALMEDA-GENOA: "Barrera" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Galvino Barrera, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Almeda-Genoa Houston
Development, LLC, d/b/a Almeda-Genoa Constructors JV and
Dragados, USA, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01653, (S.D. Tex., May
21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, lost wages,
liquidated damages and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Barrera worked for the Defendant's construction business as a
foreman on the construction of the 288 Tollway. Plaintiff
routinely worked up to 11 hours per day, six days per week and
paid a "fixed salary" of $1450.00 per week without reporting any
hours in excess of forty per week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
     Jose E. Galvan, Esq.
     2603 Augusta Drive, 1450
     Houston TX 77057
     Main: (713) 742-0900
     Fax: (713) 742-0951
     Email: Alfonso.Kennard@KennardLaw.com
            jose.galvan@kennardlaw.com


AMCOL SYSTEMS: "Veis" Disputes Creditor in Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
Loranda Veis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Amcol Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00781, (E.D. Wis., May 22, 2018), seeks damages, attorneys'
fees and such other relief for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Amcol is engaged in the business of collecting debts and is a
licensed collection agency. Amcol mailed a collection letter to
Veis regarding an alleged debt, allegedly owed to "Franklin
Hospital" whereas Veis claims she actually owed a debt to
"Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANGMAR MEDICAL: Mayhew Seeks Overtime Premiums under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Lynette Mayhew, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Angmar Medical Holdings,
Inc., d/b/a Angels Care Home Health, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-02365-JWL-KGG (D. Kan., July 12, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages including overtime premiums for all hours worked
exceeding 40 in a workweek, unpaid straight time wages for
compensable off-the-clock work in weeks which employees' hours
exceeding 40; and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant's practice and policy is to
willfully fail and refuse to properly pay straight time and
overtime compensation due Plaintiff, and all other similarly
situated employees, who work in for Defendant. Defendant's non-
exempt employees were and are required to perform work tasks by
answering calls from clients -- after the end of each shift --
without being compensated for the significant amount of
compensable time spent on such calls. Doing so denies such non-
exempt employee compensation for all work performed and overtime
pay and is in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Angmar Medical provides home health care services to seniors in
private residences, retirement communities, or assisted
living.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael C. Helbert, Esq.
          HELBERT & ALLEMANG
          519 Commercial Street
          P. O. Box 921
          Emporia, KS 66801-0921
          Telephone: (620) 343 6500
          Facsimile: (620) 343 1734
          E-mail: mhelbert@helbert-allemang.com

               - and -

          Michael Hodgson, Esq.
          THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
          3699 SW Pryor Road
          Lee's Summit, MO 64082
          Telephone: (816) 600 0117
          Facsimile: (816) 945 2120
          E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Paul H. Mose, Esq.
          MOSE LAW LLC
          3111 Strong Avenue
          Kansas City, KS 66106
          Telephone: (913) 432 4484
          Facsimile: (913) 432 4464
          E-mail: Pablo@moselaw.com


BEAUTY SLEEP: Faces "Rivas" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beauty Sleep, Inc.
The case is styled as Sayda Murillo Rivas, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Beauty
Sleep, Inc., Mattress Direct Incorporated and Ahmad Schuaib,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04060 (E.D. N.Y., July 16, 2018).

Beauty Sleep Inc is a DOT registered motor carrier located in
Jamaica, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CALIFORNIA NATURAL: Rosillo Sues over Blend Bug Repellent
---------------------------------------------------------
LISA ROSILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA NATURAL LIVING, INC., the
Defendant , Case No. 5:18-cv-01493 (C.D. Cal., July 13, 2018),
seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
and restitution of any ill-gotten gains due to Defendant's acts
and practices.

The case is a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
California Baby Natural Bug Blend Bug Repellent in the United
States. The Defendant represents that the Product is a "bug
repellent" that "repels mosquitoes."

According to the complaint, the Product is a complete sham.
Scientific evidence shows that the Product does not repel
mosquitoes. The product is ineffective and worthless. Independent
laboratory testing commissioned by Plaintiff's counsel in early
2018 revealed that the Product was ineffective in repelling Aedes
mosquitoes and Culex mosquitoes -- the two most worrisome and
common species of mosquitoes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300 4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407 2700
          E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com


CANADA: Faces $600MM Class Action Over Missing Indigenous Woman
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janice Dickson, writing for City News, reports that a Regina
mother whose daughter went missing in 2007 is launching a
multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuit against the federal
government and the RCMP, alleging a "negligent" and
"lackadaisical" approach to investigating missing and murdered
Indigenous women.

Danita Faith has been missing for more than 10 years, and her
mother Diane BigEagle is the caretaker of her two children.

Saskatchewan lawyer Anthony Merchant, Esq. --
info@merchantlaw.com -- who filed the suit on July 5 on
BigEagle's behalf, is seeking $500 million in damages, as well as
$100 million in punitive damages, part of an effort to effect
change in policing attitudes and behaviour.

"The conduct of the RCMP was wilful, arrogant, callous, and high-
handed, and constituted a gross violation of the rights of the
plaintiff and the class," says the statement of claim.

In an interview, Merchant said by asking for punitive damages,
"the hope and expectation is that addressing attitudes and
systemic problems in the RCMP will have a positive effect on the
same kind of problems that exist in the municipal police forces."

Scott Bardsley, a spokesman for Public Safety Minister Ralph
Goodale, refused to comment on a specific case that is before the
courts. But he did note that when she appeared last month before
the national inquiry in Regina, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki
apologized to the affected families.

"She acknowledged that, for many, the RCMP was not the police
service they needed it to be, and she pledged to do better."

The suit alleges systemic negligence on the part of the RCMP in
investigating cases of missing and murdered Indigenous women, and
says family members have been forced to endure mental anguish
because of the RCMP's failure to properly investigate and
prosecute the disappearances.

It also includes a lengthy list of allegations against the RCMP
and its handling of cases, including providing false assurances
of safety to victims and those in the class suit, choosing not to
be transparent, and failing to keep the class informed of the
progress of investigations, among others.

BigEagle met with the RCMP more than 50 times about her
daughter's disappearance, but investigators did not pay attention
nor take notes during the meetings, the documents allege. When
the girl first disappeared, police allegedly dismissed BigEagle's
complaint, saying her daughter would probably come home.

The documents include the names and stories of 36 Indigenous
women and girls who are missing or have been murdered.

As a result of the RCMP's actions, states the documents, BigEagle
and members of the class action suit say they have suffered and
continue to suffer damages including physical, psychological and
emotional harm, suicidal ideation, loss of income, opportunity
and loss of enjoyment of life.

The class is also claiming they have sustained certain damages,
losses and expenses for various medical and rehabilitation
treatments.[GN]


CITIZENS BANK: "Ford" Class Suit Seeks Damages
----------------------------------------------
Stanley Ford, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Citizens Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-
01155, (N.D. Ohio, May 21, 2018), seeks actual, statutory damages
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, including
interest thereon and all such further and other relief under the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Citizens is a mortgage servicer for Ford's notes and mortgages on
real property using the trade name "Citizens One Home Loans."

On or about March 13, 2018, Plaintiff, by and through counsel,
sent two requests for information to Citizens via certified mail.
However, Citizen responded with a referral to their foreclosure
attorneys instead of providing him with the needed information.
Citizens' failure to adequately respond to Ford's request caused
him to incur additional costs, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc E. Dann, Esq.
     Brian D. Flick, Esq.
     Daniel M. Solar, Esq.
     DANNLAW
     P.O. Box. 6031040
     Cleveland, OH 44103
     Phone: (216) 373-0539
     Fax: (216) 373-0536
     Email: notices@dannlaw.com
            counsumernotices@dannlaw.com

            - and -

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


CLAUDINE DENIRO: Faces "Dilazary" Suit in New York Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Thais Dilazary and Linda Williams, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Claudine Deniro, Defendant, Case No. 153583/2017 (N.Y., July 16,
2018) was brought before the New York See;e

Claudine Deniro is daughter in law of Robert De Niro who
underpaid her house help.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Leeds Brown Law, PC
   1 OLD COUNTRY RD, STE 347
   CARLE PLACE, NY 11514
   Tel: (516) 873-9550

The Defendant is represented by:

   Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, LLP
   1350 BROADWAY, 11TH FL
   NEW YORK, NY 10018
   Tel: (212) 216-8000


COAST TO COAST: Casillas Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
J. CASILLAS, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. COAST TO COAST
PRODUCTION SUPPORT, INC., a California Corporation, DANIEL
ESPINOZA, an individual, CHRISTOPHER ESPINOZA an individual, and
DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, the Defendants, Case No.
BC713401 (Calif. Super. Ct., July 12, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff as
ground rigger for a video game convention on October 29, 2017. As
of the day of filing of this complaint, Defendants have failed to
properly compensate Plaintiff and other persons who performed
services on the Convention for all work performed on the
Convention. The Plaintiff worked for 10 hours on the Convention.
However, neither Plaintiff nor other Aggrieved Employees were
compensated on time as required by law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          David Garrett, Esq.
          Min Ji Gal, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 1203
          Telephone: (323) 962 3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962 3004
          E-mail: harrisa@harrisandruble.com
                  dgarrett@harrisandruble.com
                  mgal@harrisandruble.com


CONFI CHEK INC: Faces "Garza" Suit in E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Confi-Chek, Inc.
The case is styled as David Garza, Naser Alzer, Margarita
Hernandez, Kimberly Kennedy, Amandeep Singh and Samah Haider, on
behalf of themselves and of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Confi-Chek, Inc., Confi-Chek Investigations,
Peoplefinders.com, Enformion, Inc., PublicRecordsNOW.com,
PrivateEye.com, Veromi.net and Advanced Background Checks,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01968-KJM-EFB (E.D. Cal., July 16,
2018).

Confi-Chek, Inc. provides online public record and investigative
information to private investigators, attorneys, and other
licensed professionals for locating people and businesses, and
performing background checks. Its products and services include
people searches, profile reports, real property searches,
business searches, and court searches. The company was founded in
1986 and is based in Sacramento, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
   Tatar Law Firm, APC
   3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
   Burbank, CA 91505
   Tel: (323) 744-1146
   Fax: (888) 778-5695
   Email: stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com


CREDITOR'S COLLECTION: "Allen" Suit Moved to S.D. West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Patricia E. Allen, on her own
behalf and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Creditor's Collection Service, Inc., doing business as: Cash Flow
Management and doing business as: CCS, the Defendant, Case No.
18-C-280-H, was removed from the Circuit Court of Raleigh County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia (Beckley) on July 12, 2018.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-01132 to the
proceeding.

Creditors Collection Service is a professional collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher B. Frost, Esq.
          Ralph C. Young, Esq.
          Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq.
          HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD
          P. O. Box 959
          Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959
          Telephone: (304) 574 2727
          Facsimile: (304) 574 3709
          E-mail: cfrost@hamiltonburgess.com
                  ryoung@hamiltonburgess.com
                  sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Angela L. Beblo, Esq.
          Bruce M. Jacobs, Esq.
          SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE
          P. O. Box 273
          Charleston, WV 25321-0273
          Telephone: (304) 340 3800
          Facsimile: (304) 340 3801
          E-mail: abeblo@spilmanlaw.com
                  bjacobs@spilmanlaw.com


CROWN FENCE: Fails to Pay Regular & Overtime Wages, Molina Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS MOLINA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CROWN FENCE
COMPANY, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC71355 (Cal. Super. Ct., July
12, 2018), seeks to recover regular and overtime wages under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees regularly worked more than 8 hours per day
and/or more than 40 hours per week and were not paid correctly
for their overtime hours. Defendants' policy and practice was to
record only 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week, even though
employees routinely worked more hours. Further, employees were
typically not allowed to record their own time, with a supervisor
being responsible for recording the work hours of the entire
crew. Employees were allowed limited or no opportunity to review
their time records. As a result of these policies and practices,
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked overtime
hours for which they were not paid at all.

Crown Fence Company is one of California's largest fence
contractors, fabricators, and wholesalers serving all of
California since 1923.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald H. Bae, Esq.
          Olivia D. Scharrer, Esq.
          AEQU1TAS LEGAL GROUP
          A Professional Law Corporation
          1156 E. Green Street, Suite 200
          Telephone: (213) 674 6080
          Facsimile: (213) 674 6081


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Refused to Refund Gift Card, Claims "Siu"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Siu, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., Yard House USA,
Inc., Seasons 52 Holdings, LLC, Darden SV, Inc., and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No.
RG18905939 (Cal. Super., May 22), seeks declaratory and ancillary
injunctive relief under the California Civil Code and for
violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Plaintiff acquired two Darden gift cards from Darden Restaurants,
Inc. Darden owns and operates at least 100 restaurants in the
State of California under various banners, including Yard House,
Seasons 52, Olive Garden. Eddie V's Prime 5 Seafood, and The
Capital Grille.

California Civil Code Section 1749.5(b)(2) requires that any gift
card with a cash value of less than ten dollars is redeemable in
cash for its cash value. Plaintiff visited a Yard House and paid
with a Darden gift card and had a balance of less than $10. Siu
asked the cashier for the remaining balance in cash but was
refused. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jon B. Fougner, Esq.
     11600 California Street, 11th FL
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Telephone: (434) 623-2843
     Facsimile: (206) 338-0783
     Email: Jon@FougnerLaw.com

            - and -

     Robert B. Hancock, Esq.
     PACIFIC JUSTICE CENTER
     50 California Street, Ste. 1500
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone: (415) 310-1940
     Email: rbh@lawyer.com


DELTA OUTSOURCE: Faces "Koehn" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delta Outsource
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Patricia Ann Koehn,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Delta Outsource Group, Inc., a Missouri Corporation
and John Does, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01084-WCG (E.D. Wis.,
July 16, 2018).

Delta Outsource Group, Inc. is a performance based nationwide
professional debt collection company. We are committed to
providing fair, effective and compliant collection programs. In a
difficult industry with an ever changing landscape due to
economic pressures and regulatory change, Delta Outsource Group,
Inc. is dedicated to meeting these challenges head on with
integrity, strong management controls, and straightforward
communication.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew T Thomasson, Esq.
   Stern Thomasson LLP
   150 Morris Ave-2nd Fl
   Springfield, NJ 07081
   Tel: (973) 379-7500
   Fax: (973) 532-5868
   Email: andrew@sternthomasson.com


DGDG 1 LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Wilson Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
KORBIN WILSON, the Plaintiff, v. DGDG 1, LLC; DGDG 2, LLC; DGDG
3, LLC; DGDG 4, LLC; DGDG 5, LLC; DGDG 6, LLC; DGDG 7, LLC; DGDG
8, LLC; DGDG 9, LLC; DGDG 10, LLC; DGDG 11, LLC; DGDG 12, LLC;
DGDG 13, LLC; DGDG 14, LLC; DGDG 15, LLC; DGDG 16, LLC; and DGDG
17, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV331434 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 12, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages under
California Labor Code.

The case concerns four alleged unlawful compensation practices
that the DGDG Defendants applied to Salespersons between July 12,
2014 and the date of trial. Three of the compensation practices
were in effect prior to January 2018. They were: (i) failing to
provide Salespersons with separate compensation for rest breaks;
(ii) failing to provide Salespersons with minimum wages or other
separate compensation for time they spent on activities that
could not have resulted in the sale of a car; and (iii) failing
to provide premium pay to Salespersons who did not receive
timely, unpaid meal periods. The DGDG Defendants changed their
compensation practices in January 2018 and thereby ameliorated or
eliminated the violations associated with these three practices.
However, the changes that took effect in January 2018 created a
new, fourth violation that results in a failure to pay overtime
wages at the regular rate of pay to those Salespersons who are
non-exempt from overtime.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, on behalf of others similarly situated
and as a representative of the LWDA and all aggrieved employees:

          Sebastian L. Miller, Esq.
          SEBASTIAN MILLER LAW, P.C.
          3785 Via Nona Marie, Suite 203-E
          Carmel, CA 93923
          Telephone: (408) 348 1728
          Facsimile: (408) 716 3149
          E-mail: sebastian@sebastianmillerlaw.com


EVERETT FINANCIAL: "Baretich" Suit Seeks Damages, Restitution
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Baretich, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Everett
Financial, Inc., Supreme Lending and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants., Case No. 37-2018-00024796, (Cal. Super.,
May 18, 2018), seeks monetary damages and restitution,
penalties/premium pay for missed meal and rest periods,
restitution and restoration of sums owed and property unlawfully
withheld, statutory penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs under California labor code
and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders.

The complaint says the Defendants hired the Plaintiff and
classified them as non-exempt employees, and failed to compensate
them for all hours worked, missed meal periods and/or rest
breaks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Han, Esq.
      Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
      Daniel J. Park, Esq.
      JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
      411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 230-7502
      Fax: (818) 230-7259


EXPRESS FASHION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Carr Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIE CARR, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXPRESS FASHION OPERATIONS LLC;
EXPRESS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. RG18912494 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 12, 2018), alleges that
Defendant fails to pay wages for all time worked at minimum wage,
fails to pay proper overtime wages for daily overtime hours
worked, and all hours worked, fails to provide meal periods, and
fails to authorize or permit rest periods in violation of the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants subjected employees to
bag checks and/or security checks after they clocked out for meal
periods and/or at the end of their shifts without paying them for
that time when employees worked in excess of eight hours in a day
or 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees worked more minutes per shift than Defendants credited
them with having worked. The Defendants employ a policy,
practice, and/or procedure of subjecting employees to bag checks
and/or security checks after they clocked out for meal periods
and/or at the end of their shifts. Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees were not paid for this time.

Express Fashion Operations, LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Express, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          LA VJ & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
          E-mail: vgranberry@lelawfom.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609 0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609 0892


FAMILY AND CHILD EMPOWERMENT: "Christian" Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andre B. Christian, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated present and former employees of Defendants, Plaintiff,
v. Family and Child Empowerment Services, Inc. and Dr. Lillie
Grant-Epps, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00055 (E.D.
Va., May 21, 2018), seeks to recover all unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees
including expert witness fees, and any such further relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendant operates as "Faces," a Virginia corporation which
provides mental health counseling services throughout the
Peninsula from its office located at 732 Thimble Shoals
Boulevard, Newport News, VA. Christian joined Defendants in
November 2014 as a mental health specialist. He was paid only for
his face to face meetings with the clients despite attending
training and meetings, performing administrative tasks and
driving from client to clients' homes during his work day. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Colt North, Esq.
      THE CONSUMER & EMPLOYEE RIGHTS LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5629 George Washington Memorial Hiway, Suite D
      Yorktown, VA 23692
      Phone: (757) 873-1010
      Fax: (757) 873-8375
      Email: cnorthlaw@aol.com


GEORGIA'S EASTSIDE: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Torres Mendoza, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Georgia's Eastside BBQ, Inc.,
Alan J. Natkiel and David Tenorio, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
04452 (S.D. N.Y., May 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, spread-of-hours, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
New York labor law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants own, operate, or
control an American restaurant, located at 192 Orchard St., New
York, NY 10002 under the name "Georgia's Eastside BBQ."  Torres
was employed as a delivery worker.  Torres regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week without appropriate minimum wage,
spread-of-hours or overtime compensation due to Defendants'
failure to maintain accurate recordkeeping of his hours worked.
Defendants disguised Torres' actual duties in payroll records by
designating him as a delivery worker instead of a non-tipped
employee. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying at the minimum
wage rate and enabled them to pay him the lower tip-credit rate.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


GOGO INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Gogo
Inc. securities during the period between February 27, 2017 and
May 7, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who wish
to become proactively involved in the litigation have until
August 27, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Gogo securities during the Class Period.  Members
of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Gogo's 2Ku
antenna had more reliability issues than the public was led to
believe, that its 2Ku antennas required costly installation and
remediation challenges or required replacement due to de-icing
fluids from planes infiltrating the 2Ku system, as well as
manufacturing and software issues, and that Gogo would not be
able to meet its previously issued 2018 guidance.

According to the complaint, following a May 4, 2018 conference
call addressing the de-icing issues and the 2Ku installation and
lowering its guidance, and a May 7, 2018 announcement that
Moody's downgraded Gogo's credit rating, the value of Gogo shares
declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Gogo securities purchased on or after February 27, 2017 and
held through the revelation of negative information during and/or
at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you.

         Charles J. Piven,Esq.
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         1925 Old Valley Road
         Stevenson, Maryland 21153
         Telephone: 410-415-6616
         Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com
                piven@browerpiven.com [GN]


GOODLIFE FITNESS: $7.5MM Settlement Approved
--------------------------------------------
Yahoo News reports that a judge has approved a $7.5 million
settlement for members of a class-action lawsuit against GoodLife
Fitness.

The lawsuit, launched in the fall of 2016, sought lost wages on
behalf of company employees. It alleged, among other things, that
the London, Ont.,-based fitness giant failed to accurately record
employees' working hours, made it difficult to collect overtime
pay and created a working environment where trainers weren't paid
for time spent doing tasks like scheduling clients and developing
workout plans.

About 22,000 current and past employees who worked at the chain
of fitness clubs from Oct. 12, 2014 are included in the
settlement.

Lead plaintiff Carrie Eklund worked as a personal trainer at a
GoodLife in Toronto between November 2014 and August 2015, and
described the experience as "terrible."

"It was hard to just manage life, because you were working so
many hours that were off the clock that it was compromising the
hours you were with your clients," said Eklund, who has remained
in the industry and now runs her own personal training business.

The class action originally sought $75 million, but lawyer Josh
Mandryk, Esq. -- jmandryk@goldblattpartners.com -- said he's
satisfied with the lower settlement given that class members will
be paid quickly and won't have to prove their individual damages.

He said the settlement also took GoodLife's recent "behaviour
modification" into consideration. After the class action was
filed, GoodLife made several changes to its employment practices,
including:

-- Scheduling paid hours for personal trainers to "prospect" new
clients.

-- Getting rid of a clawback on trainers' commissions.

-- Paying trainers for an extra 2.5 hours every pay period for
time spent on administrative work.

"For these class members, the policy changes that have been
enacted mean in practical terms that employees will receive
millions of dollars more in wages each year," said Mandryk.

The bulk of the money is being awarded to GoodLife personal
trainers, who worked more unpaid hours than other employees, such
as club opening specialists and sales staff, according to the
court's decision.

Precarious work

The fitness industry is a particularly precarious area to work
in, according to Mandryk. In past years, the Ontario's Ministry
of Labour has targeted the industry for inspection blitzes and
found several major violations of the Employment Standards Act.

GoodLife in particular has been the subject of numerous
complaints since 2012, many of which had to do with not paying
wages or overtime, according to the class action's statement of
claim.

Mandryk said he hopes the case will send a message to other
companies that shortchanging employees can carry a real risk of
liability.

For Eklund, the fact that a high-profile company like GoodLife
was the object of the class action is particularly significant.

"When they're not doing their books properly, it lets other
companies go, 'Well they're doing it so it's okay for us,' and
it's not. You should be paid for your work," she said.

In an email statement, GoodLife Fitness president and COO Jane
Riddell said the company is pleased that the court accepted the
settlement.

"Our goal is to provide the best experience possible for our
associates and members and we are eager to move forward together
with our associates to help Canadians live their healthiest
lives," said Riddell.[GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Tech Eyes Inc.'s Suit Moved to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled TECH EYES, INC., a California
corporation, the Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 17-CV-307381, was removed from the Santa Clara Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on July 12, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-04174 to the proceeding.

On June 13, 2018, the Plaintiff Tech Eyes, Inc. filed a fourth
amended complaint on behalf of a putative class against Google in
Santa Clara Superior Court, under the case caption Tech Eyes,
Inc. v. Google LLC, Case No. 17-CV-307381. Google was served with
the Complaint that same day. Plaintiff's prior complaints in this
case were for individual claims only, and not on behalf of any
purported class.

Tech Eyes Inc. is a sport optical distribution company operating
worldwide. The company was founded in 2012.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Benedict Y. Hur, Esq.
          Erin E. Meyer, Esq.
          Grace Y. Yang, Esq.
          KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
          Telephone: 415 391 5400
          Facsimile: 415 397 7188
          E-mail: bhur@keker.com
                  emeyer@keker.com
                  gyang@keker.com


HELL'S KITCHEN CREAM: "Saravia" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
SANTOS B. SARAVIA, FELIPE TEPOZ HERNANDEZ, and JESUS MOLINA
LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. HELL'S KITCHEN CREAM & SUGAR INC. (D/B/A 44
1/2 CAFE), BRUCE HOROWITZ, and SCOTT HART, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-06129 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are former employees
of Hell's Kitchen Cream & Sugar Inc.  The Defendants owned,
operated, or controlled an American restaurant, located at 626
Tenth Avenue Store C, New York, NY 10036 under the name "44 ´
Cafe.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate overtime and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to
work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly
failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis. Defendants'
conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly
situated employees.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


HUNTER BOOT: Website not Accessible to Blind, Wu Says
-----------------------------------------------------
KATHY WU AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. HUNTER BOOT USA LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-06344-LGS (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2018), alleges that Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.

According to the complaint, Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and
services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's website --
www.hunterboots.com -- is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-
impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using
her computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-
impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet
the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.

Hunter Boot Ltd. is a rubber wellington boot and footwear
brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


I & Y SENIOR: "Tyha" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIYA TYHA, LIDYA PETROVA, and ANGELINA DAVYDOV, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. I
& Y SENIOR CARE, INC., and ALEKSANDR GOLDSHMIDT a/k/a ALEXSANDR
GOLDSHMIDT, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03888 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 6, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, including their failure
to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for all hours
worked at the legally required minimum hourly wage rates and for
their failure to pay them federally and state mandated overtime
pay, spread of hours pay, and unpaid Wage Parity pay.

The Defendants provide home care services to elderly and disabled
individuals throughout metropolitan New York City and surrounding
areas. The Defendants employed Plaintiff and others similarly
situated as personal care assistants/home health aides to work in
and around New York City providing personal home health care and
assistance to Defendant's disabled/elderly clients.

While employed by Defendants, Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective
and Class Members regularly worked between 48 and 120 hours per
week, and on occasion more. During said time, Defendants
prohibited Plaintiffs, and the FLSA Collective and Class Members,
from leaving their assigned client(s) and required them to
constantly attend to their client(s). Despite the regular work
that Plaintiffs performed during the nighttime, they were only
paid for 13 (or 12) hours per 24 hour shift. The Plaintiffs were
thus only paid approximately $6 per hour.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Proposed FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
Proposed Class Members:

          David Harrison, Esq.
          HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
          110 State Highway 35, Suite 10
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (718) 799 9111
          Facsimile: (718) 799 9171
          E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


IDEMIA IDENTITY: "Rueda" Suit Hits Missed Breaks, Seeks Final Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Rueda, Jessica Cotton, and Shelia Spencer, individually,
on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, Plaintiffs, v. Idemia Identity & Security USA,
LLC, MorphoTrust USA, LLC, and Does 1-50, Defendant, Case No.
RG18905995, (Cal. Super., May 22, 2018), seeks redress for meal
and rest break violations, failure to compensate for all hours
worked, failure to provide proper wage statements and failure to
pay earned wages upon discharge including waiting time penalties
under Unfair Business Practices statutes of the California
Business and Professions Code, the California Labor Code and
Welfare Commission Orders.

Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as enrollment agents
throughout California, enrolling individuals into the federal
Transportation Security Administration's Universal Enrollment
Services programs including TSA Pre-Check and Transportation
Worker Identification Credential and providing customers with
other identity-related products and services offered by the
Defendants. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachel M. Terp, Esq.
      Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq.
      1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 444-9300
      Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
      Email: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
             rachel@bryanschwartzlaw.com


IC SYSTEM INC: "Wood" Disputes Vague Collection Letters
-------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Wood, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IC System Inc. and Mason
Companies Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00780 (E.D. Wis., May
22, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, actual and statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit and such
other relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

ICS is engaged in the business of collecting debts and is a
licensed collection agency. Mason is a retailer of home goods,
operating primarily over the internet and through catalog sales
who offers store credit to consumers. Wood entered into one or
more consumer credit transactions with Mason for the purchase of
home goods. Wood was confused by the different amounts listed on
their collection letters where the amount due was apparently
subject to confusing and unexplained variation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IDT GROUP: "Dennis" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------
Erik Dennis, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02302, (N.D. Ga., May 21,
2018), seeks actual and statutory damages, injunction requiring
Defendant and Defendant's agents to cease all unsolicited
telephone calling activities, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest on monetary relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and court
costs and all other and further relief for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

IDT is a provider of international voice and payment services,
marketing PIN-less international prepaid calling services. It
conducts wide-scale telemarketing campaigns and repeatedly made
unsolicited calls to consumers' phones. Plaintiff's telephones
are on the National Do Not Call Registry but received calls from
them despite this. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jarrett Ellzey, Esq.
      W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      Galleria Tower I
      2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120
      Houston, TX 77056
      Tel: (713) 554-2377
      Fax: (888) 995-3335
      Email: craft@hughesellzey.com
             jarrett@hughesellzey.com


ILG INC: Scarantino Balks at Merger Deal with Marriott Vacations
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ILG, INC., CRAIG M. NASH,
DAVID FLOWERS, VICKI L. FREED, LIZANNE GALBREATH, CHAD
HOLLINGSWORTH, LEWIS J. KORMAN, THOMAS J. KUHN, THOMAS J.
MCINERNEY, THOMAS P. MURPHY JR., STEPHEN R. QUAZZO, SERGIO D.
RIVERA, THOMAS O. RYDER, AVY H. STEIN, MARRIOTT VACATIONS
WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, IGNITE HOLDCO, INC., IGNITE HOLDCO
SUBSIDIARY, INC., VOLT MERGER SUB, INC., AND VOLT MERGER SUB,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00999-UNA (D. Del., July 6,
2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
a proposed transaction, and in the event defendants consummate
the proposed transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damage.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on April
30, 2018, pursuant to which ILG, Inc. will be acquired by
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation and its affiliates. On
April 30, 2018, ILG's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Marriott, Ignite
Holdco, Inc., Ignite Holdco Subsidiary, Inc., Volt Merger Sub,
Inc., and Volt Merger Sub, LLC. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, ILG's stockholders will receive $14.75 in cash
and 0.165 shares of Marriott common stock for each share of ILG
common stock they hold. On June 7, 2018, defendants filed a
registration statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
The Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Registration Statement false and misleading. Accordingly,
plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
the Registration Statement.

ILG, Inc. is a global publicly traded company and former
subsidiary of the corporation IAC. ILG is the parent company of
Interval International, a leading global provider of membership
and leisure services to the vacation industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324 6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631 1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654 7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com


INNERWORKINGS INC: Kaskela Law Files Shareholder Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against InnerWorkings, Inc. (NASDAQ:INWK)
("InnerWorkings" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between August 11, 2015 and May 7, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

FINAL DEADLINE NOTICE: Investors who purchased InnerWorkings'
common stock during the Class Period may, no later than July 9,
2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the investor class.

InnerWorkings investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC
to discuss their important legal rights and options with respect
to this action prior to July 9, 2018.  Investors may also go to
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/innerworkings-inc/to submit their
information to the firm online.

On May 7, 2018, InnerWorkings disclosed that it was "postponing
the release of its first quarter 2018 financial results and
conference call due to errors in its historical financial
statements identified during the course of its first quarter
financial reporting close process."  Additionally, the Company
disclosed that it "will be restating its financial statements for
the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, and all
interim periods within those years."  Following this news, shares
of the Company's stock declined $0.62 per share, or over 6.4%, to
close at $9.08 on May 8, 2018, on heavy trading volume.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that InnerWorkings
and certain other defendants made false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the Company's
financial statements for fiscal years 2015, 2016 and 2017
contained errors that required restating; and (ii) the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.  The complaint further alleges that, as a result
of the foregoing, investors purchased InnerWorkings' common stock
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and
suffered significant investment losses following the Company's
May 7, 2018 disclosures.

         David Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         201 King of Prussia Road
         Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (484) 258 - 1585
                    (888) 715 - 1740
         Website: www.kaskelalaw.com
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


INTELEMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS: "Johnson" Suit Moved to M.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled TARA JOHNSON and MELVIN BROWN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. INTELEMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and INTELEMEDIA
PREMIER LEADS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02018, was
transferred from the US. District Court for the Western District
Court Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Ocala) on July 12, 2018. The Middle District
of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00361-JSM-PRL to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James S.
Moody, Jr.

Intelemedia Communications, Inc. was founded in 1993. The
company's line of business includes providing business consulting
services on a contract or fee basis.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq.
          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 313 9000
          Facsimile: (615) 313 9965
          E-mail: akaufman@lchb.com
                  mchalos@lchb.com

               - and -

          Benjamin J. Miller, Esq.
          THE HIGGINS FIRM, PLLC
          525 4th Ave S
          Nashville, TN 37210
          Telephone: (615) 353 0930

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gary Scott Peeples, Esq.
          BURCH, PORTER & JOHNSON, PLLC
          130 North Court Avenue
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 524 5127
          E-mail: gpeeples@bpjlaw.com

               - and -

          Debra R. Bernard, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE, LLP
          131 S Dearborn St.- Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 324 8559
          Facsimile: (312) 324 9559
          E-mail: DBernard@perkinscoie.com


JACKSON WELL SERVICES: "Walker" Suit Transferred to W.D. Okla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Dylan Walker, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jackson Well
Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00498 (W.D. Tex.,
January 5, 2018), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma on May 18, 2018 under Case No.
18-cv-00498.

Walker seeks overtime compensation for all hours worked over
forty in a workweek at the applicable time-and-a-half rate,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
expenses of this action and such other and further relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides oil and gas well monitoring services to energy
companies nationwide where Walker was employed as a flowback
operator at multiple well sites throughout West Texas. Plaintiff
worked more than forty hours per work-week but was not
compensated at the mandated time-and-a-half rate, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

Jackson Well Services is represented by:

      Daniel L. Sadler, Esq.
      MAX C. TUEPKER PC
      1322 N. Walker Ave.
      Oklahoma City, OK 73103
      Tel: (405) 235-1700
      Fax: (405) 235-1714
      Email: sadler.lawyer@gmail.com


KESTREL FIELD: "Gibson" Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Randel Gibson, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kestrel Field Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00157, (S.D. Tex., May 21, 2018), seeks
unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Kestrel Field Services, Inc. provides engineering, project and
construction management and inspection services to the oil and
gas industries. Gibson worked for Kestrel as an inspector from
approximately May of 2017 to October of 2017, responsible for
performing visual and non-destructive testing on pipelines and
gas plants owned and operated by Defendant's customers. Defendant
paid Plaintiff a day rate but did not pay him overtime for his
hours in excess of forty per week, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      John Neuman, Esq.
      SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      5612 Chaucer Drive
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (281) 885-8630
      Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
      Email: jneuman@smnlawfirm.com


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: "Brumfield" Suit Moved to E.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled AMANDA BRUMFIELD, On Behalf of
HERSELF and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
KINDRED HEALTHCARE, INC. and KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING, INC.
d/b/a KINDRED AT HOME, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00591, was
removed/transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas (Texarkana) on July 10, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00086-RWS-CMC to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert W.
Schroeder, III.

The Plaintiff brought this collective action lawsuit on behalf of
herself and all those similarly situated workers who worked for
Defendants as home health Licensed Practical Nurses and Physical
Therapist Assistants paid largely on a fee-per-visit basis. This
lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay owed to these
workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kindred Healthcare Incorporated is a healthcare services company
that operates hospitals, nursing centers, and contract
rehabilitation services across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William N. Nettles, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BILL NETTLES
          2008 Lincoln Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 814 2826
          Facsimile: (888) 745 1381
          E-mail: bill@billnettleslaw.com

               - and -

          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTONMARTIN &GARRISON LLC
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244 2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252 3798
          E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
                  dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Edward Fouad Berbarie, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON (TX)
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 880 8100
          E-mail: eberbarie@littler.com


KLUNE INDUSTRIES: Mendoza Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS MENDOZA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. KLUNE INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC 713385 (Cal. Super.,
Ct., July 10, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to include
all remuneration when calculating overtime rate of pay, in
violation of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay
employees one hour of pay at their regular rate of pay for each
workday Plaintiff and employees did not receive all legally
compliant rest breaks. Defendants' failure to provide the
employees with rest breaks was in violation of Labor Code Section
226.7 and the IWC Wage Orders. As such, Defendants owe each of
their hourly employees for these unpaid rest break wages.

Klune Industries develops and manufactures metal components and
other solutions for aerospace and defense industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Anwar D. Burton, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
          E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com
                  ygranberrv@lelawfirm.com
                 aburton@lelawfirm.com


KLX INC: Gusinsky Trust Balks at Merger Deal with Boeing
--------------------------------------------------------
THE VLADIMIR GUSINSKY REV. TRUST, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. KLX, INC., AMIN
J. KHOURY, JOHN T. COLLINS, PETER V. DEL PRESTO, RICHARD G.
HAMERMESH, BENJAMIN A. HARDESTY, STEPHEN M. WARD JR., THEODORE L.
WEISE, AND JOHN T. WHATES, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01000-UNA (D. Del., July 6, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants and
all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a proposed transaction, and in the event
defendants consummate the proposed transaction, rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on May 1,
2018, pursuant to which KLX Inc. will be acquired by The Boeing
Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Kelly Merger Sub, Inc.
On April 30, 2018, KLX's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Boeing. Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, if the Proposed Transaction
is approved by KLX's shareholders and completed, KLX's
stockholders will receive $63.00 in cash for each share of the
KLX common stock they hold.

On June 1, 2018, Defendants filed a preliminary proxy statement,
and subsequently filed an amended proxy statement on June 26,
2018, with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.

KLX Inc. is the world's leading provider of aerospace fasteners,
consumables, and logistics services as KLX Aerospace
Solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324 6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631 1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654 7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com


LYDIA M.C.: Zheng Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------
JIE HUANG ZHENG, on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LYDIA M.C. LLC d/b/a Lilac
House; and LC BISTRO LLC d/b/a LC Chen's; XING CHEN, and LIN MA,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01126 (D. Conn., July 6, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgement interest, and or attorney's fees
and cost under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act, and the Connecticut General Statutes.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and CMWA by engaging in pattern
and practice of failing to pay its employees, including
Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and
potential Rule 23 Class:

          Gary Phelan, Esq.
          MITCHELL & SHEAHAN, P.C.
          80 Ferry Blvd., Suite 216
          Stratford, CT 06615
          Telephone: (203) 873 0240
          E-mail: gphelan@mitchellandsheahan.com

               - and -

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762 1324


MAGIC HOME CARE: "Teshabaeva" Suit Transferred to King's County
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Maktumma Teshabaeva, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed
by Magic Home Care LLC, along with other entities affiliated or
controlled by Magic Home Care LLC, Plaintiffs, v. Magic Home Care
LLC and/or any other related entities, Defendant, Case No.
152076/2018, (N.Y. Sup., County of New York, March 8, 2018), was
transferred to King's County on May 18, 2018 under Case No.
510320/2018.

Teshabaeva seeks to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiffs
were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive pursuant
to New York Labor Law, New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, New
York Public Health Law and Title 6, Section 6-109 of the New York
City Administrative Code.

Magic Home Care provides personal care, assistance, health-
related tasks and other home care services to clients within the
State of New York where Teshabaeva worked as a home health care
attendant from January 14 to July 12, 2017. Plaintiff worked 24-
hour shifts, generally working more than 40 hours per week but
was only paid for approximately 13 hours of her 24-hours shifts.
She was forced to eat her meals between her daily duties and did
not receive the "spread of hours" premium of one additional hour
at the minimum wage rate for the days in which she worked 10 or
more hours, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAGIC JACK: Martinez & Lopez Sue over Unwanted Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON G. MARTINEZ and MOSES LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MAGICJACK LP
a/k/a MAGICJACK, YMAX HOLDINGS CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case
No. 9:18-cv-80917-RLR (S.D. Fla., July 12, 2018), seeks
injunctive relief and statutory damages arising out of and
relating to the conduct of Defendants in negligently, knowingly,
and willfully contacting Plaintiffs and class members on their
telephones using an Automatic Telephone Dialing System, and pre-
recorded voice, without their prior express written consent
within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, between January 3, 2018 and June 21,
2018, the Defendants called Mr. Martinez's and Mr. Lopez's
respective cellular telephones using an automatic telephone
dialing system without the prior express consent of either
Plaintiff. Mr. Lopez received at least one call from Defendants,
including a call on January 3, 2018 using an automatic telephone
dialing system and an artificial and prerecorded voice. The call
was placed from the following telephone number: (480) 319-7609.
When this number is called back, a recording plays stating: "If
you would like to make and receive calls anywhere in the United
States absolutely free, simply visit MagicJack.com and begin
making calls for free." Defendants placed these calls with a
predictive dialer with the capacity to store and dial a list of
telephone numbers without human intervention. Defendants also
placed these calls using an artificial or pre-recorded voice. The
Plaintiffs did not give Defendants prior express written consent
to make these calls.

magicJack is a device that plugs into a USB port on the user's
computer and has a standard RJ-11 phone jack into which any
standard phone can be plugged.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989 9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989 9163
          E-Mail: scott@bursor.com


MAUSER USA: "Dillingham" Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Dillingham, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mauser USA, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-00347, (S.D. Ohio, May 21, 2018), seeks damages in
the amount of the unpaid compensation, liquidated damages and
such other legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and
proper under Ohio wage and hour laws and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Mauser is a manufacturer of steel drums where Dillingham, an
engineer, worked as a service technician at its Mason, Ohio
location. Defendant utilizes a timekeeping software that
uniformly and consistently rounded time down, rather than
rounding to the nearest increment whether up or down and also
uniformly rounded time beyond 0.25 hours, notes the complaint. It
also automatically deducted 0.50 hours for unauthorized lunch
breaks. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Brian P. Gillan, Esq.
      FREKING MYERS & REUL LLC
      600 Vine Street, 9th Floor
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Tel: (513) 721-1975
      Fax: (513) 651-2570
      Email: bgillan@fmr.law

             - and -

      Matt Miller-Novak, Esq.
      Matthew Miller-Novak, Esq.
      GODBEY LAW
      708 Walnut Street, Suite 600
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Tel: (513) 241-6650
      Fax: (513) 241-6649
      Email: Matt@godbeylaw.com


MDL 2804: Villa Rica May Join Opioid Class-Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Ken Denney, writing for Times Georgian, reports that Villa Rica
may join other cities and counties across Georgia -- as well as
other states -- in a massive class-action lawsuit against the
makers and distributors of opioids.

The city council is expected to discuss the matter when they
convene for their monthly work session. On the agenda is a
resolution that declares that the class of painkillers constitute
a "public nuisance."

Several states have joined in a type of class action known as a
multidistrict litigation, claiming that the manufacturers of
opioid medications used misleading advertising and other
marketing techniques that downplayed their risks. This, the
states claim, encouraged doctors to overprescribe the drugs and
led patients to think they were safe and effective.

The resolution to be considered by Villa Rica states that the
entire nation is experiencing "an opioid-induced public health
epidemic" caused by the drugs, many of which are obtained through
illegal street sales.

The proposed resolution states that each day, 91 Americans die
from an opioid overdose, and that, in Georgia, the drugs account
for nearly 70 percent of all overdose deaths. It also cites
research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that
shows 17.7 percent of Georgia high school students report taking
prescription painkillers without a prescription.

Opioids are medications that, like opium, suppress pain. But
because they act like opium on the brain, they produce powerful
euphoric feelings. As they wear off, people taking the drug may
experience nausea and other problems that can only be relieved by
another dose. As the patients' bodies grow tolerant of the drugs,
they must take higher and higher doses to relieve their pain.
Thus, the drugs can become highly addictive.

Villa Rica officials will consider joining a lawsuit filed on
behalf of all Georgia counties against the manufacturers and
distributors of this type of drug. The suit was filed in March by
the city attorney for Rome and the attorney for Whitfield County.

According to a press release issued by Rome city attorney J.
Anderson Davis, Esq. -- adavis@brinson-askew.com -- the purpose
of the suit is to "eliminate the hazard to public health and
safety caused by the opioid epidemic, and to recoup monies that
have been spent, or will be spent, because of false, deceptive
and unfair marketing and/or unlawful diversion" of the drugs by
the makers and distributors.

There are more than 250 lawsuits pending across the country, most
of which have been consolidated in an Ohio U.S. District Court as
a multidistrict litigation, or MDL. Such a classification allows
cases involving similar issues to be combined for a more
efficient legal process.

The lawsuit filed on behalf of Georgia and her counties has been
transferred to the Ohio district court and is now part of the
MDL.

The resolution to be considered by Villa Rica states that the
makers and distributors of the drugs knew of the risk and the
addictive nature of opioids, yet "purposefully set out to
persuade providers, regulators, and patients that their products
were safe and effective."

The resolution claims that all governments -- local, state, and
federal -- "have borne substantial financial and societal burden
related to this crisis" and will continue to bear those costs for
years to come.

It concludes by declaring that a "public nuisance" exists related
to opioids, and states that the city will pursue whatever legal
action is necessary "either by itself or in concert with others,
and to the full extent available under law."

The council will consider the adding the resolution to their July
agenda when they meet at 3 p.m. on July 5 for a work session at
the Municipal Courtroom, Holt-Bishop Justice Center, 101 Main St.
[GN]


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Maria Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE OF
CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC.; a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC713400 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 12, 2018),
seeks to recover alleges that Defendants failed provide meal
periods, failed to authorize and permit rest periods, failed to
pay minimum wages, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to
maintain required records, and failed to furnish accurate
itemized wage statements under the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful actions,
Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered, and continue to
suffer, from loss of earnings in amounts as yet unascertained,
but subject to proof at trial, and within the jurisdiction of
this Court.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          La Una Adolph, Esq.
          Deanna S. Leifer, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901


MONSANTO COMPANY: Wyum Sues over Damage caused by Xtend Seed
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBBIE WYUM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00143-DLH-ARS (D. N.Dak., July 12, 2018), seeks to
recover damages sustained as a result of Defendant's premature
commercialization of its genetically modified cotton and soybean
Xtend seed system without the corollary herbicide, which directly
caused lasting and wide-ranging damage to the agricultural and
environmental landscape across the United States, including Class
members' crops.

The case is brought as a class action on behalf of individuals
across the country whose crops have been wiped out due to
Defendant Monsanto Company's choice of corporate profit over
individuals' livelihoods, the environment, or anything else. This
case focuses on Monsanto's marketing of its genetically modified
Xtend seeds without a corollary EPA-approved herbicide. Such a
decision, to offer a GMO seed without an EPA approved herbicide,
flies in the face of standard agro-chemical corporate practice.
The incomplete system, a dangerously defective product, was sold
to unsuspecting farmers causing widespread damage to Class
members' property and crops throughout the United States.

Instead of waiting to market its Xtend seeds until a safe
herbicide was available to farmers, Monsanto pushed ahead, and
made millions of dollars telling unsuspecting farmers that a
"safe" and "lower volatility" dicamba herbicide was forthcoming.
Without this herbicide, the foreseeable and realized outcome was
not so profitable for many farmers. Those that purchased the
incomplete and defective system predictably applied a volatile
dicamba, the only herbicide that would protect their new seeds,
damaging or wiping out entire swaths of vegetation that were not
the intended target of the herbicide due to drift. Monsanto
actively promoted the illicit use of the highly volatile and
potent herbicide with knowledge that crops without its new
genetic traits would be damaged due to volatilization and drift.
Not until the 2017 growing season was dicamba herbicide approved
for over-the-top agricultural use, and the supposedly lower
volatility formula has continued to wreak havoc on agricultural
land across the United States. The destruction to soybean crops
caused by Monsanto in 2017 alone exceeded 3.6 million acres, a
number which experts believe is significantly underreported. The
individuals in this class action now ask that Monsanto be held
accountable for its conduct that harmed them personally,
contaminated the environment, and enriched the company at the
expense of farmers throughout the United States.

Monsanto Company was an agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation. It was headquartered in Creve Coeur,
Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Ross Nilson, Esq.
          BRUDVIK LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          730 13th Ave E
          West Fargo, ND 58078
          Telephone: (701) 532 1008
          Facsimile: 701 788 4243
          E-mail: ross@brudviklaw.com

               - and -

          Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq.
          Alyssa J. Leary, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341 0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341 0844
          E-mail: Charles.Zimmerman@zimmreed.com
                  Alyssa.Leary@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348 6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348 6415
          E-mail: Hart.Robinovitch@zimmreed.com


MOORE HOLDINGS: Faces "Johnson" Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moore Holdings,
LLC. The case is styled as Elaine Johnson, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Moore Holdings,
LLC d/b/a Renewal by Andersen, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-11650
(D. N.J., July 16, 2018).

Moore Holdings USA LLC operates as a subsidiary of R.R. Donnelley
& Sons Company.

RR Donnelley is a Fortune 500 integrated communications company
that provides marketing and business communications, commercial
printing, and related services. Its corporate headquarters are
located in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Jang Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Young S. Jang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-11562-JMV-CLW (D.N.J., July 12,
2018), seeks to recover damages for Defendant's violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant alleges Plaintiff owes
a debt. The Debt was primarily for personal, family or household
purposes and is therefore a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C.
section 1692a(5). Sometime after the incurrence of the Debt,
Plaintiff fell behind on payments owed. Thereafter, at an exact
time known only to Defendant, the Debt was assigned or otherwise
transferred to Defendant for collection. In its efforts to
collect the debt, Defendant contacted Plaintiff by letter.

The Letter was the initial communication Plaintiff received from
Defendant. The Letter allegedly failed to disclose that the
balance stated may increase due to interest; failed to disclose
that the balance stated may increase due to late fees; and failed
to disclose that the balance stated may increase due to other
fees.

Nationwide Credit, a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706 5055
          E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com


NCI GROUP: "Gonzalez" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Arturo Gonzalez on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, the Plaintiff, v. NCI Group, Inc., Doing business
as: NCI Building Systems, the Defendant, Case No. 18CV-02198, was
removed/transferred from the Superior Court of Merced County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California -
(Fresno) on July 12, 2018. The Eastern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00948-AWI-SKO to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Anthony W.
Ishii.

NCI Group manufactures and distributes metal building components,
custom engineered metal building systems, and metal coil
coaters.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexandra Shipman, Esq.
          David Thomas Mara, Esq.
          Jamie Kathryn Serb, Esq.
          Tony Roberts, Esq.
          William Turley, Esq.
          TURLEY AND MARA LAW FIRM
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048
          E-mail: ashipman@turleylawfirm.com
                  dmara@turleylawfirm.com
                  jkserb@gmail.com
                  troberts@turleylawfirm.com
                  bturley@turleylawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Martin Douglas Bern, Esq.
          MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 512 4021
          Facsimile: (415) 644 6921
          E-mail: martin.bern@mto.com


NRG ENERGY: "Tejero" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Aaron Tejero, Jr., individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NRG Energy Services LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, NRG Energy Services Group LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, and NRG Energy, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. C 18-01067, was
removed from the Contra Costa County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland)
on July 12, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-04188-PJH to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.

NRG Energy Services provides nationwide services to operate,
maintain and repair electric-generation facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ariel S. Harman-Holmes, Esq.
          Jonathan Sing Lee, Esq.
          Robert Joseph Drexler , Jr. , Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: Ariel.Harman-Holmes@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com
                  Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Carolyn Blecha Hall, Esq.
          Roshni Chaudhari Kapoor, Esq.
          Thomas Michael McInerney, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower, One Market Plaza, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 448 4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442 4870
          E-mail: carolyn.hall@ogletree.com
                  roshni.kapoor@ogletree.com
                  tmm@ogletree.com


ORLANE INC: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Aguilar, individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Orlane, Inc. and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00025289
(Cal. Super. May 22, 2018), seeks redress for Defendant's failure
to pay overtime and minimum wages, meal and rest break
violations, failure to make payments within the required time and
failure to indemnify/reimburse business expenses in violation of
the California Labor Code including injunctive and other
equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.

Orlane manufactures and sells its beauty products via a large
network of retail employees where Aguilar worked as a Beauty
Advisor and Field Sales Representative. Orlane allegedly failed
to pay Agular minimum/regular wages for the time spent working
off the clock.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas D. Rutledge, Esq.
      500 West Harbor Drive, Suite 1113
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 886-7224
      Facsimile: (619)259-5455

             - and -

      Isaac Dawoodjee, Esq.
      DAWOODJEE LAW FIRM
      501 West Broadway, Suite 800
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 940-6171
      Facsimile: (619)488-6600


PAMELA PATTERSON: Worthington Seeks to Block Communication Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton R. Worthington, an individual, in pro per, and on behalf
of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pamela Patterson, an
individual and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
30-2018-00993671 (Cal. Super., May 18, 2018), seeks to restrain
and enjoin Patterson from disclosing any personal and
confidential emails and text messages,  statutory damages for
each separate violation of the Court order in the event that
disclosure takes place, reasonable attorney's fees, and such
other and further relief as is just and proper pursuant to the
Public Records Act, Evidence Code, the Right to Privacy statutes
of the California Constitution and the First Amendment Civil
Rights under the United States Constitution.

Plaintiff claims that OC Weekly, a local newspaper, attempted to
access his private correspondence with Patterson vis-a-vis a
Public Records Act requests served on Patterson, member of the
San Juan Capistrano City Council, seeking private emails and text
messages of Plaintiff.

Worthington voted for Patterson to represent him as a city
council member with respect to local city interests as well as
regional interests, including but not limited to the San Onofre
Nuclear Power Plant, Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control,
San Juan Basin Authority and South County Agencies of the
Metropolitan Water District. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented pro se.


PARAGON BUILDING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Barron Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES BARRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PARAGON BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC.;
PEGASUS BUILDING SERVICES COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC713754 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 12, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages, liquidated
damages, and overtime pay under the California Labor Code.

Allegedly, Defendants' policy and practice is to deny earned
wages, including overtime and double time pay, to its non-exempt
hourly employees at its facilities throughout California. In
particular, Defendants require its employees to be present and
perform work in excess of eight hours per day and/or forty hours
per work week but fails to pay them overtime and double time
accordingly, and further fails to pay for all straight time hours
worked. For example, Defendants fail to incorporate time worked
off the clock, time on call, and proper rate of regular pay, when
calculating overtime and double time.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


PENNSYLVANIA: Rodriguez Files Suit v. Dept. of Corrections
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pennsylvania State
Department of Corrections. The case is styled as Bienvenido
Rodriguez, James Brown, Raymond Castro and John Does and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Pennsylvania State
Department of Corrections, John E. Wetzel, Secretary of State
Department of Corrections, Paul Noel, Chief Medical Director of
Pennsylvania State Department of Corrections, Bureau of Heath
Care Services, Rich Wenhold, Infection Control Coordinator of
Pennsylvania State Department of Corrections, Bureau Care
Services, Joseph Silva, Director of Pennsylvania State Department
of Corrections, Bureau of Health Care Services, Correct Care
Solutions, Dr. Jay Cowan, Medical Director of Correct Care
Solutions, Susan Bergey, SCI Pine Grove, Corrections Health Care
Administrator, Roberta Pavlick, SCI Pine Grove, Corrections
Health Care Assistant, Dawn Legars, SCI Pine Grove, Corrections
Registered Nurse, Brittany Cowfer, SCI Pine Grove, Corrections
Physician Assistant and Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00200-MPK (W.D. Penn., July 16, 2018).

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is the Pennsylvania
state agency that is responsible for the confinement, care and
rehabilitation of approximately 47,000 inmates at state
correctional facilities funded by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


PG&E CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of PG&E
Corporation (NYSE:PCG) from April 29, 2015 through June 8, 2018,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for PG&E investors under the federal securities
laws.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) PG&E had failed to maintain electricity transmission
and distribution networks in compliance with safety requirements
and regulations promulgated under state law; (2) consequently,
PG&E was in violation of state law regulation; (3) PG&E's
electricity networks would cause numerous wildfires in
California; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about
PG&E's business and operations were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 13, 2018. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1357.htmlto join the class
action.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on
Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


PINEAPPLE HOSPITALITY: Illegally Retained "Smith" Biometrics Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Smith, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. Pineapple Hospitality Company and
Pineapple Restaurant Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2018CH06589,
(Ill. Cir., May 22, 2018), seeks an injunction requiring
Defendants to destroy Plaintiff's biometrics in its possession,
to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture,
collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory damages
together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees in violation
of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Smith alleges that the Defendants implemented a timekeeping
system that relied on the collection, storage, and usage of
employees' fingerprints and biometric information without
informed consent in violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Myles McGuire, Esq.
      Jad Sheikali, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 893-7002
      Fax: (312) 275-7895
      Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
             jsheikali@mcgpc.com


POLARITYTE INC: Safirstein Metcalf Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Safirstein Metcalf LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against PolarityTE, Inc. and certain of its officers,
on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired
PolarityTE securities between March 31, 2017 and June 22, 2018.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than August 27, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
related to the status of its patents and as a result of the
foregoing, PolarityTE's publicly disseminated financial
statements were materially false and misleading.

On June 25, 2018, Citron Research released a report calling
PolarityTE a "fraud," and accused the Company of failing to
disclose that its key technology has been rejected by the United
States Patent and Trademark Office, just days before the
Company's public offering. Following this news, PolarityTE's
stock fell $12.32 per share, or over 31%, over two consecutive
trading days to close at $26.41 per share on June 26, 2018.

         Peter Safirstein, Esq.
         Safirstein Metcalf LLP
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: 1-800-221-0015
         Email: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com [GN]


PRAXAIR INC: "Garcia" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rita Garcia, on behalf of all similarly situated employees
Plaintiff, v. Praxair, Inc. and Praxair Distribution, Inc., Case
No. RG18905648, (Cal. Super., May 18, 2018), seeks unpaid wages
and interest thereon for failure to pay for overtime and minimum
wage rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal periods,
failure to authorize or permit required rest periods, statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements,
waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for
failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of
employment, injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs and interest pursuant to the
California labor Code, the Unfair Business Practices provision of
the California Business and Professions Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Praxair -- www.praxair.com -- is an industrial gases company in
North and South America where Garcia worked as a laboratory
technician from approximately 2008 to August 2017.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kane Moon, Esq.
      Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
      Allen Feghali, Esq.
      MOON & YANG, APC
      3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1820
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 232-3128
      Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
      E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
              justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com
              allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


PURDUE PHARMA: "Whitley" Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Roxie Whitley, individually and as next friend
of Baby Z.B.D., Chris and Diane Denson, individually and as next
friends of Baby L.D.L. and James and Teri Holland, individually
and as next friends of Baby A.C.H., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
Jury Trial Demanded Purdue Pharma, Inc., The Purdue Frederick
Company, Inc., Mckesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc.,
Amerisourcebergen Corporation, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries,
Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Johnson &
Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.),
Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Allergan
PLC (f/k/a Actavis PLC), Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (n/k/a
Actavis, Inc.), Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis LLC, and
Actavis Pharma, Inc. (f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc.) and Fred's
Stores of Tennessee, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02290,
(W.D. Tenn., March 21, 2018), was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio on May 19, 2018, under
Case No. 18-op-45598.

Plaintiffs seeks compensatory and treble damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs of suit, including reasonable
attorneys' fees as and such further and additional relief
resulting from nuisance, negligence and violation of the
Tennessee Products Liability Act.

Plaintiffs represent children who were born addicted to opioids.
Prenatal exposure to opioids cause severe withdrawal symptoms and
lasting developmental impact and were diagnosed with Neonatal
Abstinence Syndrome, a condition suffered by babies of mothers
addicted to opioids.

Defendants are pharmaceutical companies that are into developing,
marketing, advertising promoting and selling prescription
pharmaceuticals that allegedly contain opioids which have
narcotic effects and may cause addiction.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      MeLisa Janene Williams, Esq.
      P.O. Box 515
      Somerville, TN 38068
      Tel: (901) 465-2622
      Email: mjw@mjwilliamslaw.com

The Purdue Group is represented by:

      James G. Thomas, Esq.
      NEAL & HARWELL PLC
      1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Tel: (615) 244-1713
      Email: jthomas@nealharwell.com

McKesson Corporation is represented by:

      Jeremy Anthony Oliver, Esq.
      John-David H. Thomas, Esq.
      WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS LLP
      511 Union Street, Suite 2700
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 244-6380
      Email: jd.thomas@wallerlaw.com
             jeremy.oliver@wallerlaw.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey C. Smith, Esq.
      WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP-Memphis
      1715 Aaron Brenner Dr., Suite 300
      Memphis, TN 38120
      Tel: (901) 288-1683
      Fax: (901) 288-1706
      Email: jeff.smith@wallerlaw.com

Cardinal Health Inc. is represented by:

      Lela M. Hollabaugh, Esq.
      BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
      1600 Division Street, Suite 700
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Tel: (615) 252-2348
      Fax: (615) 252-6348
      Email: lhollabaugh@babc.com

AmerisourceBergen Corporation is represented by:

      Roger W. Dickson, Esq.
      MILLER & MARTIN
      1000 Volunteer Bldg.
      832 Georgia Avenue
      Chattanooga, TN 37402
      Tel: (423) 756-6600
      Fax: (423) 785-8293

The Teva Group and Cephalon Inc. are represented by:

      Keane Addison Barger, Esq.
      RILEY WARNOCK & JACOBSON PLC
      1906 West End Avenue
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Tel: (615) 320-3700
      Email: kbarger@rwjplc.com

Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Johnson & Johnson is represented
by:

      Taylor B. Mayes, Esq.
      BUTLER SNOW LLP
      150 3rd Ave. South, Suite 1600
      Nashville, TN 37027
      Tel: (615) 651-6710
      Email: taylor.mayes@butlersnow.com

The Endo Group is represented by:

      Ronald Stephen Range, Jr., Esq.
      BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
      100 Med Tech Parkway, Suite 200
      Johnson City, TN 37604
      Tel: (423) 928-0181
      Email: rrange@bakerdonelson.com

             - and -

      Robert F. Tom, Esq.
      BAKER DONELSON
      165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
      Memphis, TN 38103
      Tel: (901) 526-2000
      Email: rtom@bakerdonelson.com


RESTORE REHABILITATION: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Hatanaka Says
------------------------------------------------------------
MAGDALENA HATANAKA, an individual, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
RESTORE REHABILITATION, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and
DOES 1-50 Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-ODD3478D-
CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., July 12, 2018), alleges that
Defendants failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Restore is a provider of integrated
managed care services, focused on controlling health costs and
reducing the impact of workers' compensation claims on injured
workers, insurers, third-party administrators and employers.

To successfully compete against the other comprehensive medical
management service providers, Restore substantially reduced its
labor costs by placing the labor burden on a smaller number of
employees that Restore classified as exempt from overtime wages.
The goal of overtime laws includes expanding employment
throughout the workforce by putting financial pressure on the
employer and nurturing a stout job market, as well as the
important public policy goal of protecting employees in a
relatively weak bargaining position against the unfair scheme of
uncompensated overtime work.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
          ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
          5850 Oberlin Drive, Ste. 230A
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 892 7095
          Facsimile: (858) 404 9203
          www.zakaylaw.com

               - and -

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232
          www.ljamlawca.com


RESURGENT CAPITAL: "Carrillo" Suit Moved to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled XIOMARA CARRILLO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Resurgent Capital Services and LVNV Funding LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00915, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on
July 12, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-
cv-06271-VSB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick.

The Plaintiff seeks redress individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, for Defendant's actions which violate the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Attorney's Xiomara Carrillo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
                  ari@marcuszelman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Arthur Sanders, Esq.
          BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C.
          30 South Main Street
          New City, NY 10956-3515
          Telephone: (845) 499 2990
          Facsimile: (845) 499 2992
          E-mail: asanders@arthursanderslaw.com


RIPPLE: Faces 3rd Suit Over XRP Illegal Sale
--------------------------------------------
Bitcoin Magazine reports that Ripple is staring down the barrel
of yet another securities lawsuit -- its third one this year.

Filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in San
Mateo County, the class action alleges that Ripple and its team
illegally sold and promoted XRP, Ripple's currency, as an
unregistered security.

The suit's plaintiff, David Oconer, is demanding that the court
classify XRP as a security, while also seeking relief for the
"damages, recession" that he incurred from investing in the coin.

"This is a securities class action on behalf of all California
purchasers of Ripple tokens ("XRP"), brought against Ripple, XRP
II, and the Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of the company,
Bradley Garlinghouse ("Garlinghouse"), who promoted, sold and
solicited the sale of XRP. Defendants raised hundreds of millions
of dollars through the unregistered sales of XRP, including
selling to retail investors, in violation of the law," the class
action's complaint reads.

The document argues that Ripple never registered with
California's Commissioner of Corporations for qualification, a
mandatory registration for any securities offering in the state.
From here, the plaintiff outlines his rationale for XRP's
security classification, namely that Ripple's sale of XRP in a
"never-ending initial coin offering" resembles that of an IPO,
with the currency itself acting like a dividend for the ROI its
promotion promised to investors.

On top of this, the plaintiff argues that Ripple is highly
centralized and that its team has used their control over XRP's
supply and distribution to leverage the asset's price.
Specifically referring to an instance where the Ripple team
locked 55 million XRP into an escrow account last December, the
suit claims that Garlinghouse and others advertised the lock-up
as having price-positive ramifications for the asset.

"The fact that the vast amount of existing XRP resides in the
control of defendants further demonstrates the high degree of
centralization and control defendants maintain over XRP, as they
can determine the supply of XRP, which will, in turn, impact the
price of the security," the court document states.

Retracing Familiar Ground

Investors have been putting Ripple on the hot seat this summer.
This securities class action marks the third of the season, as a
succession of investor-led lawsuits are becoming a monthly
occurrence for the industry's top third asset by market cap.

The first of these came in May and, like the most recent one, it
alleges that Ripple sold and promoted XRP like a security,
conducting an endless ICO that allowed its team to reap mass
profits. Another suit filed last month reiterates these
allegations.

All three lawsuits go to lengths to stress Ripple's control over
XRP's distribution. According to the class action suit, not only
does this manipulate supply and price as a result, but it also
conveys that, contrary to other popular currencies like bitcoin
and ether, XRP is highly centralized.

This argument carries additional weight in light of U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Director William
Hinman's comments that ether and bitcoin are not securities.
Alluding to ether during his speech, Hinman indicated that a coin
or token may be sold as a security but, after it has become
sufficiently decentralized in governance and management, it may
be retroactively declassified as such. Given this analysis,
Ripple, whose foundation and founders collectively own more than
half the supply of XRP, may fall into the SEC's classification as
a security for its centralized structure.

During his speech, Hinman made no comment regarding XRP.[GN]


RNYK LLC: Faces "Lewis" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RNYK LLC. The case
is styled as Aurelio Lewis, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RNYK LLC, J & R Electronics Inc.
and Cupola Apts, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06422 (S.D.
N.Y., July 16, 2018).

Rnyk, LLC was founded in 2013. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of products by television, catalog, and
mail-order.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ROBERT BOSCH: Tiffin Motor Hits Starter Motors Price-Rigging
------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffin Motor Homes, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Robert Bosch GmbH, and
Robert Bosch, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv- 11569, (E.D.
Mich., May 18, 2018), seeks to recover damages, including treble
damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, resulting
from violation of the Sherman Act.

Defendants are manufacturers and sellers of starter motors for
installation in motor vehicles manufactured or sold in the United
States. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired to rig bids,
and to fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of starters
sold in the United States from at least January 1, 2000 through
the present. Tiffin Motor Homes, Inc., is an Alabama corporation
with its principal place of business located in Red Bay, Alabama.
It purchased starters at higher prices than they would have paid
in a competitive market. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David H. Fink, Esq.
     Darryl Bressack, Esq.
     Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
     FINK ASSOCIATES LAW
     38500 Woodward Avenue, Ste. 350
     Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
     Tel: (248) 971-2500
     Email: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
            dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com
            nfink@finkandassociateslaw.com

            - and -

     Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
     William G. Caldes, Esq.
     Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
     Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
     SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
     1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 496-0300
     Email: espector@srkattorneys.com
            bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
            jjagher@srkattorneys.com
            jspector@srkattorneys.com

            - and -

     Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
     William H. London, Esq.
     Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
     FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
     2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
     Bannockburn, IL 60015
     Telephone: (224) 632-4500
     Email: skanner@fklmlaw.com
            wlondon@fklmlaw.com
            mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

            - and -

     Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
     William E. Hoese, Esq.
     Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
     Craig W. Hillwig, Esq.
     KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
     One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Telephone: (215) 238-1700
     Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com
            whose@kohnswift.com
            dabrahams@kohnswift.com

            - and -

     Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
     Randall B. Weill, Esq.
     Michael S. Smith, Esq.
     PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
     One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
     Portland, ME 04112-9546
     Telephone: (207) 791-3000
     Email: ghansel@preti.com
            rweill@preti.com

            - and -

     Lee Albert, Esq.
     Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
     New York, NY 10168
     Tel: (212) 682-5340
     Fax: (212) 884-0988
     Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com
            lalbert@glancylaw.com

            - and -

     W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.
     100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Tel.: (612) 339-6900
     Fax: (612) 339-0981
     Email: wjbruckner@locklaw.com


ROMAN EMPIRE: Rankins Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIQUE RANKINS, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. ROMAN EMPIRE LIVING
SKILLS, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC713399 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 12, 2018), alleges that Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to pay all minimum and overtime wages due and
owing to Class Members during the course of their employment;
failing to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods or
compensation in lieu thereof to Class Members; failing to pay all
expense reimbursement due; failing to provide accurately itemized
wage statements to Class Members; and failing to timely pay wages
during the course of employment and upon separation of employment
to Class Members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
          Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
          Alex P. Katofsky, Esq.
          Evan S. Gaines, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          27200 Agoura Road. Suite 101
          Calabasas, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 703 8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703 8984
          E-mail: ken@gainesJawfirm.com
                  daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
                  alex@gaineslawfirm.com
                  evan@gaineslawfirm.com


SCHWAN'S HOME: Yepes Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Yepes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc.,
a Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.
9:18-cv-80922-BB (S.D. Fla., July 12, 2018), seeks injunctive
relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in
the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption
of the daily life of thousands of individuals, pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is an online grocery
delivery service. To promote its services, Defendant engages in
unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the
process. Defendant sent telemarketing text messages (with slight
variations as to the marketing content) to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in 5993. Defendant's text messages were
transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, and within the
time frame relevant to this action. Defendant's text messages
constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future
purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e.,
encouraging plaintiff to purchase groceries online. The
information contained in the text message advertises Defendant's
"One-Day Sale! Save up to 15 dollars on your order," which
Defendant sends to promote its business.  The link contained in
the texts take you to www.schwans.com, a website owned and
operated by Defendant. Defendant caused other text messages to be
sent to individuals residing within this judicial district. At no
point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express
written consent to be contacted using an ATDS.

Schwan's Home Service provides online grocery delivery services
in the United States.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479 2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


SEAWORLD: Annual Passholders Could Get $11.5MM in Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------
Cherine Eurich, writing for 7 News, reports that those who bought
annual passes for one of SeaWorld's parks may be eligible for a
partial refund due to a class-action lawsuit.

The Orlando Sentinel reports that over 130,000 SeaWorld and Busch
Gardens passholders may qualify for a one-time payment thanks to
a proposed $11.5 million settlement.

The lawsuit alleges SeaWorld Entertainment automatically renewed
annual passes without permission on a month-to-month basis via
their "EZPay" system, then did not refund for the extra months
paid, according to WESH.

The theme park company did not admit any wrongdoing, court
documents said, but agreed to the settlement to avoid trial.

People who purchased annual passes between Dec. 3, 2008 and Dec.
3, 2014 may be eligible to receive money from the settlement.

Those who used their pass after the first year expired or already
received refunds would not be entitled to the pending settlement.

SeaWorld Entertainment operates theme parks in Florida, Texas,
Virginia and California, including SeaWorld Orlando and Busch
Gardens Tampa Bay.

The court must still approve the final settlement agreement. If
approved, a website will be created to allow members of the
public to file a claim. [GN]


SEQUIUM ASSET: Faces "Vandehey" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sequium Asset
Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Jacqueline A Vandehey,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Sequium Asset Solutions LLC, a Georgia Limited
Liability Company and John Does, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01086-WCG (E.D. Wis., July 16, 2018).

Sequium Asset Solutions LLC is a Call center in Marietta,
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Francis R Greene, Esq.
   Stern Thomasson LLP
   150 Morris Ave-2nd Fl
   Springfield, NJ 07081
   Tel: (312) 923-0886
   Fax: (973) 532-5868
   Email: francis@sternthomasson.com

      - and -

   Philip D Stern, Esq.
   Stern Thomasson LLP
   150 Morris Ave-2nd Fl
   Springfield, NJ 07081
   Tel: (973) 379-7500
   Fax: (973) 532-5868
   Email: philip@sternthomasson.com

      - and -

   Andrew T Thomasson, Esq.
   Stern Thomasson LLP
   150 Morris Ave-2nd Fl
   Springfield, NJ 07081
   Tel: (973) 379-7500
   Fax: (973) 532-5868
   Email: andrew@sternthomasson.com


SEQUOIA FUND: "Edwards" Sues Over Mismanaged Fund
-------------------------------------------------
Thomas Edwards and Michael Fortune, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sequoia Fund, Inc.,
a Maryland Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04501 (S.D.N.Y.
May 21, 2018), seeks damages, equitable and injunctive relief for
breach of contract.

The Sequoia Fund is a high-cost mutual fund run by Adviser Ruane,
Cunniff & Goldbarb and its Portfolio Managers, Robert D. Goldfarb
and David M. Poppe. The Fund Managers concentrated the Fund's
assets in a single stock, Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. despite
the policy of having at least three investment funds into which
they could invest their retirement savings, says the complaint.

Valeant's stock had already dropped by over 88 percent in less
than a year and has shed an additional 20 percent since then.
Because of its concentration in Valeant and its fees, the Fund
underperformed its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index, by 6.14% in
2014, 8.68% in 2015, and 15.17% from January 1 through June 15,
2016. This caused the Fund to lose over $600 million dollars when
Valeant's stock price sustained a substantial decline in value.
Plaintiffs invested in Sequoia Fund.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan M. Pollack, Esq.
      Felicia S. Ennis, Esq.
      ROBINSON BROG LEINWAND GREENE GENOVESE & GLUCK P.C.
      875 Third Avenue, 9th Floor
      New York, NY 10022-0123
      Telephone: (212) 603-6300
      Facsimile: (212) 956-2164
      Email: amp@robinsonbrog.com
             fse@robinsonbrog.com

             - and -

      Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
      Raymond J. Farrow, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      Email: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
             rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com

             - and -

      Stanley H. Epstein, Esq.
      515 Ocean Avenue #N507
      Santa Monica, CA 90402-2624
      Telephone: (310) 393-7619
      Facsimile: (310) 393-7684
      Email: stanatty@yahoo.com


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY: "Fife" Suit Moved to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Vernon Fife, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Sherwin-
Williams Company, the Defendant, Case No. CV-18-00698, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Stanislaus, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California (Fresno) on July 12, 2018. The Eastern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-
00950-DAD-BAM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Dale A. Drozd.

Sherwin-Williams Company is an American Fortune 500 company in
the general building materials industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Elizabeth Davey, Esq.
          Robin G. Workman, Esq.
          WORKMAN LAW FIRM PC
          177 Post Street, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 782 3660
          Facsimile: (415) 788 1028
          E-mail: rachel@workmanlawpc.com
                  robin@workmanlawpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Margaret Rosenthal, Esq.
          Nicholas D. Poper, Esq.
          Shareef Farag, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 820 8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820 8859
          E-mail: mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com
                  npoper@bakerlaw.com
                  sfarag@bakerlaw.com


SHOWS CALI: Faces "Calogero" Suit in E.D. Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shows, Cali &
Walsh, LLP. The case is styled as Iris Calogero, on her own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Shows, Cali & Walsh, LLP, a Louisiana limited liability
partnership, Mary Catherine Cali and John C Walsh, Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-06709-LMA-DEK (E.D. La., July 16, 2018).

Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P. offers a wide range of legal services
and the practice includes an array of clients, both plaintiff and
defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Keren E. Gesund, Esq.
   Gesund & Pailet, LLC
   3421 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 805
   Metairie, LA 70002
   Tel: (504) 836-2888
   Email: gesundk@gesundlawoffices.com


SMILEMAKERS INC: Wainess Sues over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P. STEVEN WAINESS, DDS, a Michigan resident, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. SMILEMAKERS, INC., a South Carolina corporation and
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-12177-AC-APP (E.D. Mich., July 12, 2018),
alleges that Defendants have sent facsimile transmissions of
unsolicited advertisements to Plaintiff and the Class in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,
including, but not limited to, the facsimile transmission of two
unsolicited advertisements: the first fax on or about March 7,
2017; and the second fax between March 30, 2017 and April 4,
2017.

This case challenges Defendants' practice of sending "unsolicited
advertisements" by facsimile. The TCPA, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005. The Defendants allegedly have sent,
and continue to send, unsolicited advertisements via facsimile
transmission in violation of the TCPA, including but not limited
to those advertisements sent to Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOY SAUCE LLC: Kitchen Staff Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' counsel in the case captioned Hanming Feng, Tian
Fu Zeng, Xin Hui Zhang and Po Man Yam, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Soy Sauce LLC,
Gavriel Borenstein, Elie Katz and Kong Sang Wong (a/k/a Peter
Wong), Defendants, Case No. 700975/2018, (N.Y. Sup., January 21,
2018) filed a motion for relief to the petition to dismiss the
complaint/petition on May 23, 2018.

Plaintiffs are kitchen staff in Defendants' restaurant. They seek
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime and unpaid spread of hours,
liquidated and/or punitive damages and interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further legal and equitable relief
under NY Wage Theft Prevention Act and New York Labor Law. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Troy, Esq.
     Kibum Byun, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Tel: (718) 762-1324
     Email: johntroy@troypllc.com

Defendants are represented by:

     HODGSON RUSS, LLP
     140 Pearl Street, Ste. 100
     Buffalo, NY 14202
     Tel: (716) 856-4000


STERICYCLE INC: "Mazur" Suit Moved to M.D. North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JAMES J. MAZUR, DPM, and JAMES
MAZUR, D.P.M., P.A., on behalf of themselves and all other
individuals and entities similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
STERICYCLE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-02898, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina on July 12, 2018. The Middle District
of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00615 to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals and entities in
North Carolina who contracted with Stericycle, for injuries
caused by Stericycle's fraudulent, misleading and wrongful
conduct associated with overbilling for their services.
Stericycle is a large publically-traded company that has been in
the medical waste collection and disposal industry since 1989.
Stericycle provides medical waste collection and disposal
services for medical clinics, veterinary clinics, medical labs,
municipal jails, and other businesses that generate regulated
medical waste worldwide. Stericycle's business generates
substantial revenues -- in 2012, it posted $1.9 billion in
revenue.

Stericycle is a compliance company that specializes in collecting
and disposing regulated substances, such as medical waste and
sharps, pharmaceuticals, hazardous waste, and providing services
for recalled and expired goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq.
          John Hughes, Esq.
          WALLACE & GRAHAM, P.A.
          525 North Main Street
          Salisbury, NC 28144
          Telephone: (704) 633 5244
          Facsimile: (704) 633 9434
          E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com
                  jhughes@wallacegraham.com


SVF FULTON CHICAGO: Norman Sues Over Biometrics Data Retention
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Norman, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. SVF Fulton Chicago, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2018CH0658B, (N.D.
Ga., May 21, 2018), seeks injunctive and equitable relief,
statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and other
litigation expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
such other relief for violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Plaintiff worked for a company that delivered packages to
Defendant's 1KFulton property located in Illinois. Since
acquiring lKFulton, SVF has relied on a biometric information
device to scan visitors' faces in order to control access to the
building. Norman was required to provide his biometric
information through a facial scan as a condition of successfully
making deliveries to lKFulton. Defendant subsequently stored
biometric data in their database but has never informed Norman of
the specific limited purposes or length of time they collected,
stored, or used his biometric information, says the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Kingston, Esq.
     Jad Sheikali, Esq.
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 893-7002
     Fax: (312) 275-7895
     Email: wkingston@mcgpc.com
            jheikali@mcgpc.com


TAHOE RESOURCES: "Cabrera" SEC Suit Transferred to Nevada
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jose R. Cabrera Jr., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tahoe
Resources Inc., Ronald W. Clayton, C. Kevin McArthur, Elizabeth
Dianne McGregor and Mark T. Sadler, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-
05155 (S.D. N.Y., June 7, 2017), was transferred to the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada on May 22, 2018,
under Case No. 18-cv-00924.

Tahoe, together with its subsidiaries, explores, develops, and
operates mines in the Americas. It primarily produces copper,
gold, silver, lead, zinc, natural gas and petroleum, as well as
precious metals assets. Guatemala's Ministry of Energy and Mines
had granted Tahoe an exploitation license for the Escobal mine, a
large silver mine located in the department of Santa Rosa in
Southern Guatemala, however, without prior consultation with
Guatemala's Xinca indigenous people and constituted a violation
of Guatemalan law and provided a basis for suspension of the
Escobal license.

On this news, Tahoe's common share price fell $2.74, or 33.01%,
to close at $5.56 on July 6, 2017. Cabrera, a Tahoe shareholder,
seeks damages sustained, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
as well as their reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and
other costs and such other and further relief for violation of
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      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
      Email: 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
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Arthur Glenn Jakoby, Esq.
      HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP (NYC)
      2 Park Avenue, Esq.
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 592-1400
      Fax: (212) 592-1500


TANACON: Tana Mongeau Might Be Facing Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Just Jared Jr. reports that Tana Mongeau might be in even more
hot water over TanaCon.

According to a new report from The Blast, one of the attendees is
heading up a possible class-action lawsuit against the promoter
for how convention-goers were treated during the event, which was
ultimately cancelled.

If you missed it, TanaCon oversold tickets and had a venue that
was too small, and so many more issues were present at the event.

With the lawsuit, hundreds of fans are considering suing Good
Times, the organization that sponsored it.

"I started feeling less and less excited about the event because
I had a feeling it would be very unorganized, but I hoped for the
best," attendee Anamarie Olson shared. "After waiting for about
five hours in the sun, with no shade or water or food, a
representative of Good Times made an announcement that the event
was canceled for the day but would resume as scheduled July 7
with an additional location."

The convention was completely scraped the day after and now,
Anamarie is seeking "refunds on our tickets and travel, and also
compensation for our mistreatment during the event" and is
currently talking to law firms who helped people following the
Fyre Festival disaster.

She says there are about 200 people who are interested in joining
the suit.

YouTuber Shane Dawson recently debuted his "documentary" video
series on all that went wrong, and revealed that Good Times CEO
Michael Weist signed a contract with a ticketing agent.

This means that if anything was to go wrong with the convention
and people needed refunds, his company would be responsible for
the compensation. That's over $325,000 he does not have.[GN]


TATA COMMUNICATIONS: SC Stays NCDRC Public Notice Order
-------------------------------------------------------
Meera Emmanuel, writing for Bar and Bench, reports that the
Supreme Court stayed the order of the National Consumer Disputes
Resolution Commission (NCDRC), which had directed the issuance of
a public notice in a class action complaint filed by Mahajan
Imaging against Tata Communications.

The Bench of Justices AM Sapre and UU Lalit passed this order in
a civil appeal filed by Tata Communications. Tata has contended
that the NCDRC order was not compliant with Section 12 (1) (c),
read with Section 13 (6) of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and
Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi,Esq. appeared for Tata, along with
Ashish Bhan,Esq. Mohit Rohatgi,Esq. and Ketan Gaur,Esq. of
Trilegal, and Advocate Ashish Dholakia.

In their complaint before the NCDRC, Mahajan Imaging had sought
compensation from Tata for having lost their data. The
complainant had entered into a contract with Tata to preserve
clinical records of their customers in 2012 but lost access to
the data in 2016.

After hearing submissions made by both parties, the NCDRC agreed
with the complainant that public notice ought to be issued so
that other parties who were similarly aggrieved could also be
informed of the proceedings.

In this regard, it took the view that there was no bar under the
CPC that prohibited such public notice from being issued.

In particular, the NCDRC concluded that under Order 1, Rule 8 of
the CPC (dealing with representative suits), there is no bar on
issuing a public notice to stakeholders before granting
permission to sue or be sued in a representative capacity.

Referring to Section 13 (6) of the CPA, it was noted that the Act
calls for the application of Order 1, Rule 8 of the CPC in
complaints that are filed in a representative capacity.

Therefore, the NCDRC had ordered that public notice of the
institution of the complaint be published in the Statesman and
Navhind Times newspapers, on a prima facie view that the
complainant is a consumer. This order has now been stayed by the
Supreme Court.[GN]


THERANOS: Ex-Patients Claim Inaccurate Tests Changed Their Lives
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Alltucker, writing for USA Today, reports that Theranos
founder Elizabeth Holmes has been indicted on wire-fraud charges.
The company's testing centers located inside Walgreens stores all
have closed. And the company, once reportedly valued at $9
billion, has laid off nearly all employees.

While federal prosecutors have charged Holmes and former Theranos
President Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani with wire fraud, former patients
are pursuing cases on their own in federal and state courts. Nine
ex-Theranos customers are plaintiffs in a federal class-action
lawsuit against Theranos and Walgreens in U.S. District Court in
Phoenix.

One woman, identified as D.L., claimed that Theranos' inaccurate
results indicated she tested positive for an autoimmune disease,
Sjîgren's syndrome, that prompted her to consult with a doctor
and be checked for food allergies. After she was tested by
another lab company, her doctor determined that she did not have
the autoimmune condition.

The lawsuit states another woman identified as L.M. was diagnosed
with a thyroid condition called Hashimoto's disease based on
inaccurate Theranos test results. Her doctor ordered testing from
another lab company that showed she did not have that condition.

The initial diagnosis based on inaccurate lab tests was
"devastating to her" because it prompted her to change her
lifestyle, make unnecessary medical appointments and take
medication she did not need, the lawsuit states.

Both Theranos and Walgreens have denied wrongdoing and filed
separate motions to dismiss the federal class-action lawsuit. In
April, a federal judge agreed to toss out 7 categories of claims
but allowed 13 to move ahead for the plaintiffs in the case, now
in discovery. One plaintiff, R.C., who alleged that he had a
heart attack one month after getting an inaccurate blood test,
voluntarily dropped his claims.

Political leaders in metro Phoenix welcomed Theranos with open
arms five years ago and the area served as testing grounds for
its unproven finger-stick blood draws.

At its peak, Theranos operated 40 centers inside Walgreens stores
in metro Phoenix and sold more than 1.5 million blood tests that
yielded 7.8 million test results for nearly 176,000 consumers.

But court documents state slightly more than 1 in 10 test results
were voided or corrected, and some patients claim in lawsuits
that they were harmed by inaccurate test results.

Others chose not to sue but worry that there's little to
safeguard consumers from another medical technology company
making similar mistakes.

Peoria, Arizona resident Steve Hammons visited a Theranos clinic
five times in September and October 2015 to monitor the results
of a blood-thinning drug. Based on the results of those tests, a
doctor ordered him to discontinue warfarin and switch to another
drug.

One test included inaccurate results that were later revised,
Hammons said. Theranos did not return a USA TODAY query about
Hammons' test results.

He had heart surgery and a follow-up procedure to drain blood
from the pericardial sac, which contains the heart. He does not
know whether more accurate test results would have prompted his
doctors to change his course of care and potentially avert the
second operation to drain blood.

However, he said it made him realize how little protection
consumers get from federal and state government regulators
overseeing the lab business.

"That makes me very concerned and worried for the safety of other
Arizonans," said Hammons, who once worked in the medical services
division of a private health insurance company. "Government had a
role in patient safety. The powers that be dropped the ball."

'An American success story'

Theranos operated only one center not far from its Palo Alto,
California headquarters when it chose Arizona for its ambitious
expansion in the fall of 2013. At the time, company officials
cited Arizona's high uninsured rate and business-friendly
environment.

Arizona also had a state law that allowed labs to sell a limited
number of tests directly to consumers without a doctor's orders.

Theranos pumped up its marketing with media interviews,
billboards and television commercials touting a proprietary
technology that the company claimed would revolutionize the lab
industry by delivering accurate results from a finger-stick
sample of just a few drops of blood. But the company also
appealed to Arizona's political leaders to relax rules and allow
broader, direct-to-consumer testing.

Theranos contributed language to House Bill 2645, which allowed
labs to sell any test to a consumer without a doctor's order. The
bill sailed through the Arizona Legislature despite concerns
raised by doctors' groups such as the Arizona Medical Association
and  Arizona Academy of Family Physicians.

Republican Gov. Doug Ducey and legislative leaders from both
parties hailed Theranos in an April 2015 bill-signing ceremony at
Theranos' lab in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Ducey lauded Holmes as "the definition of an American success
story" and said the bill "keeps our regulations light" and
reflects Arizona's values as a business-friendly state.

Three years later, the governor's spokeswoman said in a statement
that businesses that tout new technology must prove themselves in
the marketplace. "Bad actors must be held accountable, and in
this case, that's happening," said the statement. "Public health
and safety is always a top concern and we will continue to do all
that we can to protect the well-being of Arizonans while also
allowing individuals to have greater access to their medical
information.

The region's dominant lab-testing company, Sonora Quest, also
objected to the legislation. But after realizing the strong
political momentum behind the bill, Sonora Quest did not formerly
oppose the bill and later formed a unit that sells lab tests
directly to consumers.

Questions of accuracy

Theranos' fortune began to turn later in 2015 when the Wall
Street Journal published the first in a series of stories that
raised questions about the accuracy of the company's micro-blood
draws and its underlying Edison technology.

Reports revealed that the company often relied on more
traditional vein blood draws and lab equipment made by other
companies rather than its unproven medical technology.

Federal lab regulators with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services stepped up oversight of Theranos and moved to revoke
that company's laboratory certificate after finding the company's
operation in Newark, Calif., posed an "immediate jeopardy" to
consumers.

Theranos reached a settlement with the federal agency, agreeing
to a two-year ban from the blood-testing business and a $30,000
civil penalty.

In April 2017, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, Esq. --
mark@mark4az.com -- negotiated a consumer-fraud settlement to
refund up to $4.65 million to consumers who purchased Theranos
blood tests. The checks were disbursed through a third-party
administrator with more than 80 percent of the settlement as of
June 2018, officials said.

While the settlement provided consumers financial relief, it did
little to address customers who were harmed by inaccurate test
results, according to attorneys representing patients.

"The attorney general was able to get the money," said Leonard
Aragon, Esq. -- leonard@hbsslaw.com -- a Phoenix attorney who
represents a patient in a lawsuit against Walgreens in Maricopa
County Superior Court. "That doesn't compensate people for being
damaged by bogus test results."

Lawmakers now acknowledge that some patients may have been harmed
by inaccurate test results. However, they insist that consumers
have benefited from greater access to testing sold by other labs.

"The good news is there are other very high quality laboratory
companies in Arizona that have embraced the legislation and have
had tremendous success," said Heather Carter, an Arizona House
Representative who sponsored the direct-access bill.

"I am extremely concerned about patient safety," Carter said.
"Hopefully justice will be served and people will have their day
in court on this."[GN]


TOTAL SAFETY: "Burton" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Burton on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Total Safety U.S., Inc. and Does 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. RG18905565 (Cal. Super., May 18, 2018),
seeks recovery of all allowable compensation including unpaid
minimum and overtime wages, penalties/premium pay for missed meal
and rest periods, restitution and restoration of sums owed and
property unlawfully withheld, statutory penalties, declaratory
and injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs under
California labor code and applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Orders.

Total Safety is an agency that provides workers, on a contract
basis, for its clients that operate refineries and/or industrial
plants at multiple locations in the State of California. Burton
worked for Defendants as a non-exempt hourly safety attendant
from approximately May 8, 2017 through June 2, 2017 at the
Chevron refinery located in El Segundo, California. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric A. Grover, Esq.
      Robert W. Spencer, Esq.
      KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street
      San Francisco, CA 94103
      Telephone: (415) 543-1305
      Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
      Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com
             rspencer@kellergrover.com

             - and -

      Scott Bernstein, Esq.
      LAW QFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN,
       A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
      Folsom, CA 95630
      Telephone: (916) 447-0100
      Facsimile: (916) 933-5533
      Email: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com


TRUSSVILLE VISION: "Smith" Suit Moved to N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Danielle Smith, individually and
those unnamed persons whom are similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Dr. Zachary Steele doing business as: Trussville Vision
Centre; Lindsey Marie Lemaster; Brandy Lynn Sullivan, doing
business as: Brandy Lynn Carpenter; and Dr. Samuel D Pierce O.D.,
P.C. , the Defendants, Case No. 01-cv-17-905089, was removed from
the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama (Southern) on July 12, 2018.
The Northern District of Alabama Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-01079-TMP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge T Michael Putnam.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          A Scott Hughes, Esq.
          BLOUNT HUGHES
          2030 B Gadsden Highway
          Birmingham, AL 35235
          Telephone: (205) 383 1875
          E-mail: scott@bhlawllc.com

               - and -

          John B Brunson, Esq.
          BRUNSON, BARNETT & SHERRER PC
          8020 Parkway Drive
          Leeds, AL 35094
          Telephone: (205) 702 6700
          Facsimile: (205) 702 6702
          E-mail: jbrunson@bbslawoffices.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John W Gray, II, Esq.
          GRAY JENKINS
          2119 3rd Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 208 9595
          E-mail: john@grayjenkins.com

               - and -

          Richard A Bearden, Esq.
          MASSEY STOTSER & NICHOLS PC
          1780 Gadsden Highway
          Birmingham, AL 35235
          Telephone: (205) 838 9000
          Facsimile: (205) 838 9024
          E-mail: rbearden@msnattorneys.com


TRADER JOE'S: Sanchez Alleges False Labeling of Sour Gummies
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Sanchez, an individual on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated and the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
Trader Joe's Company; T.A.C.T. Holding, Inc. and DOES 1 through
25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06040 (C.D. Cal.,
July 11, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising
Law, the California Unfair Competition Law, breach of express
warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and
for fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

The Plaintiff files this class action lawsuit on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated persons who purchased "Trader
Joe's T's & J's Sour Gummies" that are branded, manufactured,
distributed, marketed and sold by Trader Joe's Company and
T.A.C.T. Holding, Inc.

According to the complaint, the Defendants make false, deceptive
and misleading claims regarding ingredients used in and
characteristics of the Product. Defendants created and/or
authorized the false, misleading, and deceptive advertisements
and/or packaging and labeling for the Product that falsely claim
they consist of only natural ingredients, "no artificial flavors"
and conceals the fact that the Product contains DL-malic acid, a
harmful artificial and synthetic flavor additive.

Attorneys for Lisa Sanchez and the Proposed Class:

          Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
          NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
          2901 West Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 350
          Newport Beach, CA 92663
          Telephone: (949) 263 5992
          Facsimile: (949) 209 1948
          E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

               - and -

          Ross Cornell, Esq.
          111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 400
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 612 1708
          Facsimile: (562) 394 9556
          E-mail: ross.law@me.com


TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Lowinger Balks at Merger Deal with Disney
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LOWINGER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the PLAINTIFF, v. TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX, INC.,
RUPERT MURDOCH, LACHLAN K. MURDOCH, CHASE CAREY, SIR RODERICK I.
EDDINGTON, DELPHINE ARNAULT, JAMES W. BREYER, DAVID DEVOE, VIET
DINH, JAMES MURDOCH, JACQUES NASSER, ROBERT SILBERMAN and TIDJANE
THIAM, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:18-cv-06261 (S.D.N.Y., July 11,
2018), seeks to enjoin the vote of shareholders of 21CF on a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which, after spinning off
certain of its businesses into a newly listed company, 21CF will
be acquired by the Walt Disney Company through TWDC Holdco 613
Corp., WDC Merger Enterprises I, Inc. and WDC Merger Enterprises
II, Inc.

The case is a federal securities class action brought against
21CF and the members of its Board of Directors pursuant to
Sections 14 and of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On June
20, 2018, 21CF and Disney issued a joint press release announcing
they had entered into an Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan
of Merger. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, stockholders
of 21CF will receive $38 per share, with the election to receive
their consideration, on a value equalized basis, in the form of
cash or stock, subject to proration and adjustment for certain
tax liabilities. The Proposed Transaction is valued at $71.3
billion. Following the completion of the Proposed Transaction,
assuming the tax adjustment amount is zero, 21CF stockholders
will own approximately 17-20% and Disney stockholders will own
approximately 80-83% of the combined company.

On June 28, 2018, 21CF filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends
that 21CF stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among
other things: (i) 21CF's financial projections, including the
financial projections relied upon by 21CF's financial advisors,
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and Centerview Partners LLC, in their
financial analyses; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the
financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinions
provided by Goldman and Centerview; and (iii) Goldman's potential
conflicts of interest. The failure to adequately disclose such
material information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as 21CF stockholders need such
information in order to make a fully-informed voting or appraisal
decision in connection with the Proposed Transaction. Unless
remedied, 21CF's public stockholders will be forced to make
voting and appraisal decisions on the Proposed Transaction
without full disclosure of all material information concerning
the Proposed Transaction.

Twenty-First Century Fox is an American multinational mass media
corporation that is based in Midtown Manhattan, New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron L. Brody, Esq.
          STULL, STULL, & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687 7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490 2022
          E-mail: abrody@ssbny.com


TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Weiss Sues over Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WEISS, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX, INC.,
RUPERT MURDOCH, LACHLAN K. MURDOCH, CHASE CAREY, SIR RODERICK I.
EDDINGTON, DELPHINE ARNAULT, JAMES W. BREYER, DAVID DEVOE, VIET
DINH, JAMES MURDOCH, JACQUES NASSER, ROBERT SILBERMAN and TIDJANE
THIAM, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01007-UNA (D. Del., July
6, 2018), seeks to enjoin a stockholder vote on a proposed merger
transaction.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of the public
stockholders of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. against 21CF and
the members of its Board of Directors for their violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On June 20, 2018, 21CF and Disney issued a joint press release
announcing they had entered into an Amended and Restated
Agreement and Plan of Merger. Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, stockholders of 21CF will receive $38 per share, with
the election to receive their consideration, on a value equalized
basis, in the form of cash or stock, subject to 50/50 proration
and further subject to adjustment for certain tax liabilities.
The Proposed Transaction is valued at $71.3 billion in cash and
stock. Following the completion of the Proposed Transaction,
assuming the tax adjustment amount is zero, 21CF stockholders
will own approximately 17-20% and Disney stockholders will own
approximately 80-83% of the combined company.

On June 28, 2018, 21CF filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends
that 21CF stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among
other things: (i) 21CF's financial projections, including the
financial projections relied upon by 21CF's financial advisors,
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and Centerview Partners LLC, in their
financial analyses; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the
financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinions
provided by Goldman and Centerview; and (iii) Goldman's potential
conflicts of interest. The failure to adequately disclose such
material information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as 21CF stockholders need such
information in order to make a fully-informed voting or appraisal
decision in connection with the Proposed Transaction. In short,
unless remedied, 21CF's public stockholders will be forced to
make a voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction
without full disclosure of all material information concerning
the Proposed Transaction being provided to them.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          Daniel P. Murray, Esq.
          O-KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
          901 N. Market St., Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 778 4000
          E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com
                  dmurray@oelegal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly C. Keenanv
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, New York 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682 3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682 3010


UCAN COMPANY: McCann Alleges Deceptive SuperStarch Labels
---------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN MCCANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE UCAN COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04769 (N.D. Ill.,
July 11, 2018), alleges that Defendant has been unjustly enriched
in retaining the revenues derived from Plaintiff's and the
National Class members purchase of the Generation UCAN
SuperStarch Drink Mix, Generation UCAN Protein Drink Mix, and
UCAN Snack Bars powered by SuperStarch Products.

According to the complaint, retention of those monies under these
circumstances is unjust and inequitable because Defendant's
labeling of the Products misled consumers, causing injuries to
Plaintiff and the National Class because they would have not
purchased the Products had they known the truth about the
Products' labeling claims.

The UCAN Company advertises, markets, sells and distributes the
Products. Allegedly, through an extensive, widespread,
comprehensive, and uniform nationwide marketing campaign,
Defendant claims that the Products are powered by a
revolutionary, all-natural carbohydrate called "SuperStarch,"
which produces "sustained energy," "optimized performance,"
"enhanced fat burn" and "speedier recovery," all without the
harmful and performance-impairing side effects associated with
gastrointestinal distress.

In reality, according to laboratory tests and peer-reviewed
research, ingesting the Products at recommended rates before and
during exercise does not enhance performance and, in fact,
impairs performance due to Product-induced increases in
gastrointestinal distress. Accordingly, Defendant's claims are
false, misleading and deceptive. The Plaintiff and the Class paid
a premium for the Products over comparable sports and fitness
nutrition products that did not purport to be made pursuant to a
revolutionary ingredient promising a range of false and
unsubstantiated fitness and performance benefits.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Putative Classes:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Ke Liu, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236 0000
          Facsimile: (312) 878 1342
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  kliu@siprut.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
          1644 Bracken Rd.
          Bloomfield Hills, MH 48302
          Telephone: (313) 303 3472
          E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MH 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355 0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  rjohnston@sommerspc.com


UNDERSPIN CITY: Jeter Seeks Full Payment for all Hours Worked
-------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA JETER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNDERSPIN CITY GOURMET, LLC as the
place of trial d/b/a EL BARRIO BURRITOS, STEVEN CAPPIELLO,
individually, and CILAN TOTURKUL, individually, the Defendant,
Case No. 513904/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 6, 2018), seeks to
recover full payment for all hours worked.

The Plaintiff was throughout her entire employment with
Defendants, a covered, nonexempt employee within the meaning of
the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants
as a cashier from approximately July 30, 2017 through March 5,
2018. The Defendants are considered a large employer, having at
least 11 or more employees during the duration of Plaintiff's
employment. The Defendants are employers in the hospitality
industry. The Defendants operate restaurants that prepare and
offer food and beverage for customer consumption.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          400 Jericho Turnpike Suite 226
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: (516) 742 4949
          Facsimile: (516) 742 1977


UNDISPUTED CONSTRUCTION: Torres Seeks Unpaid OT Hours under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO TORRES and other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. UNDISPUTED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LLC and BENITO
PAUL, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-22786-KMM
(S.D. Fla., July 11, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for
unpaid travel time which constituted unpaid overtime hours under
the laws of the United States and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, while employed by Defendants, the
Plaintiff worked consistently a minimum of 54 hours every week.
The Plaintiff official schedule was from Monday to Friday from
7:30 AM to 4:00 PM which represented 8 hours daily, and 40
working hours per week. The Plaintiff was paid for only 40 hours
every week according to the official schedule. However, the
Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours every week. Plaintiff was not
paid for a minimum of 14 travel time hours weekly, which
Plaintiff spent traveling from job site to job side to perform
multiple tasks during every workday. Those travel time hours were
not counted as hours worked and were not paid to Plaintiff at any
rate. Those travel time hours constituted unpaid overtime
hours.[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


UNITED COLLECTION: Card Holders Dispute Collection Letters
----------------------------------------------------------
Jolman N. Umana, Cheryl Lyes, Gloria Greene, and Thomas E.
Benincase, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. United Collection Bureau, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03010 (E.D. N.Y., May 22, 2018), seeks
damages, attorneys' fees and such other relief for violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant alleges each of the Plaintiffs owe a debt that fell
behind on payments owed. Umana and Lyes' debt were incurred on a
Sears credit card underwritten by Citibank, N.A. while
Benincase's debt was incurred on a Wawa credit card underwritten
by Citibank, N.A. Defendants sent each a collection letter that
failed to provide information that would allow Plaintiffs to
determine what they will need to pay to resolve their respective
debts at the time the letters are received including the amount
of interest owed and the amount of the debt, says the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 203-7600
      Fax: (516) 706-5055
      Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


UNIVERSAL HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Beldiman Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGETA BELDIMAN, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
UNIVERSAL HOSPITAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Company; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC712876 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 6, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, and
unpaid minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a pattern
and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-
exempt employees within the State of California, involving, inter
alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages
earned, missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of
California law.

Universal Hospital Services, Inc. provides health care technology
management and service solutions to the health care industry in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Daniel J. Park, Esq.
          Arsine Grigoryn, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230 7259


UNIVERSITY OF S. CALIFORNIA: Chi Files Suit v. Tyndall, BOT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Chi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. University of Southern California, Board
of Trustees of the University of Southern California and George
Tyndall, M.D., Case No. 18-cv-04258, (C.D. Cal., May 21, 2018),
asserts gender violence, gross negligence, negligent supervision
and retention, civil battery and violation of the Education
Amendments Act of 1972, and California Sex Equity in Education
Act.  The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Tyndall is a gynecologist at the University of Southern
California (USC) student health center. He is accused of sexual
abuse, molestation and unwanted touching by female students who
sought examination by a gynecologist at the student health
center. USC nurses, chaperones and other staff members were
regularly present in the examination rooms, observed the
inappropriate sexual molestation but took no steps to stop it as
it occurred. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     301 N. Lake Ave., Suite 920
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Tel: (213) 330-7150
     Fax: (213) 330-7152
     Email: christopherp@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      Email: steve@hbsslaw.com


UNITED STATES: Sued over Family Separation Policy
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. federal government is being sued over infliction of
"enormous emotional trauma" on immigrant families through, the
class action lawsuit says, the government's extraordinary,
deliberate, and needless policy of separating parents from their
children without a showing of that the parents are unfit, and
then holding the parents and children each in separate detention
with no access to one another.

According to the complaint, the family separation policy inflicts
severe harm on Plaintiffs and their children and violates their
Fifth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. To
remedy these constitutional violations and address the severe
harm from trauma the government has inflicted, Plaintiffs and
their children are entitled to appropriate screening and trauma-
informed and family-centered mental-health services under
conditions conducive to effective treatment.

The case is captioned, Ms. J.P., Ms. J.O., Ms. R.M., on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES;
KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AND ITS SUBORDINATE ENTITIES; U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER
PROTECTION; ALEX M. AZAR II, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; SCOTT
LLOYD, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT; OFFICE OF
REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT; DAVID MARIN, LOS ANGELES FIELD OFFICE
DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; LISA VON
NORDHEIM, WARDEN, JAMES A. MUSICK FACILITY; MARC J. MOORE,
SEATTLE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT; LOWELL CLARK, WARDEN, TACOMA NORTHWEST DETENTION
CENTER, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK (C.D. Cal.,
July 12, 2018).

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy P. Lally, Esq.
          Ellyce R. Cooper, Esq.
          Carter G. Phillips, Esq.
          Jennifer J. Clark, Esq.
          Michael Andolina, Esq.
          Timothy Payne, Esq.
          Kevin Fee, Esq.
          Sean A. Commons, Esq.
          Bridget S. Johnsen, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: +1 310 595 9500
          Facsimile: +1 310 595 9501
          E-mail: alally@sidley.com
                  ecooper@sidley.com
                  cphillips@sidley.com
                  jennifer.clark@sidley.com
                  mandolina@sidley.com
                  tpayne@sidley.com
                  kfee@sidley.com
                  scommons@sidley.com
                  bjohnsen@sidley.com

               - and -

          Mark Rosenbaum, Esq.
          Judy London, Esq.
          Talia Inlender, Esq.
          Alisa Hartz, Esq.
          Lucero Chavez, Esq.
          Elizabeth Hadaway, Esq.
          Malhar Shah, Esq.
          Deena Tumeh, Esq.
          PUBLIC COUNSEL
          610 S. Ardmore Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90005
          Telephone: +1 213 385-2977
          Facsimile: +1 213 385-9089
          E-mail: mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org
                  jlondon@publiccounsel.org
                  tinlender@publiccounsel.org
                  ahartz@publiccounsel.org
                  lchavez@publiccounsel.org
                  ehadaway@publiccounsel.org
                  mshah@publiccounsel.org
                  dtumeh@publiccounsel.org

               - and -

          Mark E. Haddad, Esq.
          USC GOULD SCHOOL OF LAW
          UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          699 Exposition Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90089
          Telephone: +1 213 675-5957
          E-mail: markhadd@usc.edu

               - and -

          Luis Cortes Romero (SBN 310852)
          Alma L. David (SBN 257676)
          IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY &
          LITIGATION CENTER, PLLC
          19309 68th Avenue South, Suite R-102
          Kent, WA 98032
          Telephone: +1 253 872-4730
          Facsimile: +1 253 237-1591
          E-mail: lcortes@ia-lc.com
                  adavid@ia-lc.com


UNITED STATES: Appanoose County to Join PILT Class-Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Ocker, writing for Daily Iowegian, reports that Appanoose
County will join a nationwide lawsuit against the United States
government over underpaid funds to cover lost property taxes for
federally owned land.

The class-action lawsuit began with Kane County, Utah. They said
Congress underfunded the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program in
fiscal years 2015-17. They claim its a breach of federal statute.

The county was invited to join at no cost, and supervisors voted
to do so on Tuesday unanimously.

More than 25,000 acres in Appanoose County are owned by the
United States, according to data from the U.S. Department of the
Interior. All of the land impacted by the PILT program belongs to
the Army Corps of Engineers and is Rathbun Lake.

Appanoose County expected to receive $68,600 in the most recent
fiscal year, which would be a record amount.

The amount the county was sent did dip slightly in fiscal year
2015, though payments have typically been between $65,000 and
$70,000 since 2014.

Kane County's suit, though, says the formula to disburse funds
was incorrect. Payments were prorated approximately .3 percent,
meaning Appanoose County, for instance, received $196 less than
what it was due. The difference appears minimal locally, but
nationwide in one year it becomes an underpayment of $1.1 million
to local governments, according to the lawsuit.

PILT came about because federal lands, such as the case is in
Appanoose County at Rathbun Lake, become public attractions that
can draw emergency medical, fire and police services, for
instance. And since the land is not taxable, the PILT program was
the federal government's way of offering some payment to help
support those needs that fall on local government entities to
provide.

Monroe, Lucas and Wayne counties also have federal land subject
to the PILT program due to Rathbun Lake. Though it's unknown if
their counties will join the lawsuit. As a bulk of Rathbun Lake
is inside Appanoose County boundaries, their total amount due
from the federal government is far less than Appanoose County's
total.[GN]


UNITED STATES: Eddy County Joins PILT Class Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
DeJanay Booth, writing for Carlsbad Current Argus, reports that
Eddy County will join a class action lawsuit against the U.S.
Department of the Interior, alleging that it did not receive full
monetary amounts from the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT)
funding in fiscal years 2015, 2016 and 2017.

The joint lawsuit developed after Kane County, Utah officials
filed two lawsuits in 2017 in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
against the federal government for being "underpaid" through the
PILT program.

The two lawsuits were consolidated and filed in April 2018 and
the federal court ruled in favor of Kane County.

"The United States Court of Federal claims has certified a class
action lawsuit," stated an official notice to all counties.

Eddy County Commissioners voted on July 3 to join the lawsuit
after discussion in executive session. The county will not have
to pay to join the lawsuit and all participating counties will be
represented by a law firm in Washington, D.C.

County attorney Cas Tabor, Esq. -- cas@ctblawyers.com -- said
while it is unclear how much the county is owed, officials
believe they did not receive the right amount.

Eddy County received $3 million in 2015, $3.43 million in 2016
and $3.5 million in 2017 in PILT funding.

PILT funding is based on population, receipt sharing payment and
federal lands within a county. Money is used to support schools,
road construction and public safety.

According to the notice, counties have until Sept. 14 to join the
lawsuit.

Any county that does not join the lawsuit may file an individual
suit at its expense.

Chaves County Manager Stanton Riggs said the county has
considered joining the lawsuit but has not made an official
announcement.

"It's something we're looking at. PILT is very important to us,"
Riggs said.

Otero County attorney Michael Eshleman,Esq. said county
commission will discussion the lawsuit at its July 12 meeting.

Officials with the U.S. Department of the Interior could not be
reached.[GN]


UNITED STATES: Washington County Votes to Enter PILT Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tatar, writing for The News Center, reports that
Washington County Commission votes to join a class-action lawsuit
involving PILOT payments for federal land

Pilot stands for "payment in lieu of taxes." Washington County is
supposed to receive payments from the federal government to
offset the loss of property taxes and other services for
federally-owned land in the county.

Congress did not appropriate enough funds for pilot recipients.

As a result, Washington County and others were underpaid.

Kane County, Utah filed the first lawsuit on this in U.S. Court
of Federal Claims in June 2017, to recover those lost funds for
fiscal years 2015 and 2016.

Last December, the court ruled in Utah's favor for those years
and issued a similar ruling for 2017.

The commission also approved a resolution declaring the opioid
crisis -- a public nuisance. This declares the epidemic as a
public health problem for the county. It is also another
necessary step if the county wants to enter into the class-action
opioid lawsuit. [GN]


USA DIVING: Athletes Subjected to Sexual Abuse, Pryor Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Eszter Pryor and Jane Does 2-50, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. USA Diving,
Inc., The Ohio State University Diving Club, and Will Bohonyi,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02113-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind., July
11, 2018), involves sexual abuse, exploitation, and the forced
labor of Team USA hopeful diving athletes by the Olympic coaches,
entities, officials, and executives who were entrusted to protect
them.

According to the complaint, rather than upholding the values and
spirit of Team USA, these bad actors manipulated the trust placed
in them, abused the power and legitimacy bestowed upon them,
shattered the innocence and dreams of numerous female athletes,
and violated multiple federal and state laws in the process.

The USOC and its National Governing Body for diving, USA Diving,
have reached for commercial success at all costs by ignoring,
denying, obstructing, or covering up complaints of sexual abuse,
deferring and diverting investigations, and suppressing all
questions about the sexual exploitation of its coaches. The
leaders of Team USA, including those who run the USOC and USA
Diving, tolerate and often facilitate the sexual abuse of
children by coaches and other adults.1

With hundreds of millions of dollars on its balance sheet (all of
it earned off the backs and labor of Team USA's athletes), the
USOC and its NGBs (including USA Diving) could have long ago
stopped and helped prevent much of this sexual misconduct, which
has been rampant in USA Diving and other sports for decades.
Defendants allowed the sexual assaults committed by William
Bohonyi to continue because as one of its coaches delivering
"medals and money" to Team USA's balance sheet, he brought
financial success to the USOC by generating more sponsorships,
revenues, licensing deals, and publicity. USA Diving made a
financial calculation to place its lust for "medals and money"
over the safety and sanctity of its divers, including Estee and
Logan. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the
Defendant, Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress,
physical injuries, and economic losses, and these injuries
continue.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica A. Wegg, Esq.
          Jonathan Little, Esq.
          SAEED AND LITTLE, LLP
          1433 N. Meridian Street, Ste. 202
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 721 9214
          E-mail: jessica@sllawfirm.com
                  jon@sllawfirm.com

               - and -

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          Ryan C. Hudson, Esq.
          Larkin E. Walsh, Esq.
          SHARP LAW | REX A. SHARP, P.A.
          5301 W. 75th St.
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901 0505
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                  rhudson@midwest-law.com
                  lwalsh@midwest-law.com


VECTREN CORP: Scarantino Balks at Merger Deal with CenterPoint
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VECTREN CORPORATION,
DERRICK BURKS, CARL L. CHAPMAN, JAMES H. DEGRAFFENREIDT, JR.,
JOHN D. ENGELBRECHT, ANTON H. GEORGE, ROBERT G. JONES, PATRICK K.
MULLEN, R. DANIEL SADLIER, MICHAEL L. SMITH, TERESA J. TANNER,
and JEAN L. WOJTOWICZ, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00115-
RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., July 6, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants and
all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a proposed transaction ,an in the event
defendants consummate the proposed transaction, rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on April
23, 2018, pursuant to which the Vectren Corporation will be
acquired by CenterPoint Energy, Inc. and Pacer Merger Sub, Inc.
On April 21, 2018, Vectren's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
CenterPoint. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Vectren stockholders will receive $72.00 in cash for each share
of Vectren stock that they own. On June 18, 2018, the Defendants
filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to
the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false
and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.

Vectren Corporation is a Fortune 1000 energy holding company
headquartered in Evansville, Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William N. Riley, Esq.
          James A. Piatt, Esq.
          RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC
          301 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 300
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 633 5270
          Facsimile: (317) 426 3348
          E-mail: wriley@rwp-law.com
                  jpiatt@rwp-law.com

               - and -

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324 6800


VECTREN CORP: Nisenshal Balks at Merger Deal with CenterPoint
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL NISENSHAL, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VECTREN CORPORATION, CARL L.
CHAPMAN, DERRICK BURKS, JAMES H. DEGRAFFENREIDT, JR., JOHN D.
ENGELBRECHT, ANTON H. GEORGE, ROBERT G. JONES, PATRICK K. MULLEN,
R. DANIEL SADLIER, MICHAEL L. SMITH, TERESA J. TANNER, and JEAN
L. WOJTOWICZ, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00121-RLY-MPB
(S.D. Ind., July 11, 2018), seeks to enjoin stockholder vote on a
proposed transaction pursuant to which Vectren will be acquired
by CenterPoint Energy, Inc. through its wholly owned subsidiary,
Pacer Merger Sub, Inc., unless and until such Exchange Act
violations are cured.

The case is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on
behalf of himself and all other public stockholders of Vectren
Corporation against Vectren and the members of its Board of
Directors (for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission. On April 21, 2018, Vectren and CenterPoint
issued a joint press release announcing their entry into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger to sell Vectren to CenterPoint.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Vectren
stockholders will receive $72.00 in cash for each share of
Vectren common stock they own. The Proposed Transaction is valued
at approximately $6 billion.

On June 18, 2018, Vectren filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy
Statement with the SEC in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Vectren
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) Vectren's financial projections, relied upon by
Vectren's financial advisor Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated in its financial analyses; (ii) the valuation
analyses prepared by BofA Merill Lynch in connection with the
rendering of its fairness opinion; and (iii) the background
process leading to the Proposed Transaction. The failure to
adequately disclose such material information constitutes a
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as
Vectren stockholders need such information to cast a fully-
informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction. In
short, unless remedied, Vectren's public stockholders will be
forced to make a voting decision on the Proposed Transaction
without full disclosure of all material information concerning
the Proposed Transaction being provided to them.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric S. Pavlack, Esq.
          PAVLACK LAW, LLC
          9011 North Meridian Street, Suite 203
          Indianapolis, IN 46260
          Telephone: (317) 251 1100
          Facsimile: (317) 252 0352
          E-mail: Eric@PavlackLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          Kelly C. Keenan
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682 3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682 3010

               - and -

          Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308 5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486 0462
          E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com


ZIRX TRANSPORTATION: "Moore" Suit Seeks Damages, Wages, Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Moore, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Zirx
Transportation Services, Inc., Oollooa, Inc. and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-566655 (Cal. Super.,
May 18, 2017), seeks compensatory damages for minimum and
overtime compensation due, redress for failure to provide meal
and rest breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements,
interest thereon at the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages
due terminated employees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and
such other and further relief pursuant to the California Labor
Code.

Zirx Transportation lervices, Inc. and Oollooa, Inc. provide
transportation services to their clients where Moore worked as a
driver. Drivers were allegedly classified as independent
contractors, failing to make payments to the federal and state
governments for income taxes, social security taxes, medicare
insurance, unemployment insurance and payments for workers'
compensation insurance, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
      Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
      Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
      BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP
      2255 Calle Clara
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 551-1223
      Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
      Website: www.bamlawca.com

             - and -

      Shani O. Zakay
      ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
      5850 Oberlin Drive, Ste. 230A
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (619)892-7095
      Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
      Website: www.zakaylaw.com



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ASARCO Wins CERCLA Contribution Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned ASARCO LLC, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff,
v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
No. CV 12-53-H-DLC  (D. Mont.) is a civil action for contribution
brought by Plaintiff ASARCO LLC pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980,
as amended ("CERCLA") against Defendant Atlantic Richfield
Company for costs and damages incurred by Asarco at a location in
East Helena Montana, known as the East Helena Site, a National
Priorities List or "Superfund" site.

Having carefully reviewed the evidence, the applicable law, and
the testimony and arguments of the parties, District Judge Dana
L. Christensen entered a judgment in favor of Plaintiff Asarco,
LLC, and against Defendant Atlantic Richfield Company.

The Court finds that Anaconda and Atlantic Richfield made
multiple false and misleading statements to the EPA regarding its
discharges to and its use of cooling water from Lower Lake.

Based on Atlantic Richfield's deliberate failure to tell the EPA
the truth about its operations, EPA looked solely to Asarco to
conduct remedial action at the Site.

Additionally, based on Atlantic Richfield's misrepresentations
during the subsequent clean-up investigations and issuance of
environmental reports, the EPA and later METG, focused on
Asarco's operations, and overlooked the contributions of
Anaconda's zinc fuming facility. This focus on Asarco's
operations, and not Anaconda's, to determine the sources of
contamination to the groundwater was exacerbated by the fact that
the zinc fuming facility ceased operations in 1982. The
subsequent environmental investigations and reports were thus
focused on the only operational facility at the Site, which was
Asarco's.

Judgment is, therefore, entered in favor of Asarco and against
Atlantic Richfield as follows:

   1. $27,850,936, representing Atlantic Rich field's equitable
share of the response costs Asarco paid under the June 2009
CERCLA Consent Decree;

   2. $1,000,000, representing an uncertainty premium or error
factor under the sixth Gore Factor;

   3. Prejudgment interest, to be determined in subsequent
proceedings;

   4. Asarco's costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, to
be determined in subsequent proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Findings dated June 26, 2018 is
available at https://bit.ly/2mt2zfz from Leagle.com.

ASARCO, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, represented by
Alicia O'Brien -- aobrien@mcguirewoods.com -- McGUIREWOODS LLP,
pro hac vice, Gregory Evans , McGUIREWOODS LLP --
gevans@mcguirewoods.com -- pro hac vice, Keola Whittaker ,
McGUIREWOODS LLP -- kwhitaker@mcguirewoods.com -- pro hac vice,
Kris McLean , Kris A. McLean Law Firm, PLLC & Rachel H. Parkin --
rparkin@bigskylawyers.com -- MILODRAGOVICH DALE STEINBRENNER.

Atlantic Richfield Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Benjamin B. Strawn -- ben.strawn@dgslaw.com --
DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS, LLP, pro hac vice, Jason T. Hungerford ,
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT LLP, pro hac vice, Kenzo Kawanabe --
kenzo.kawanabe@dgslaw.com -- DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS, LLP, pro hac
vice, Randy J. Cox , BOONE KARLBERG, P.C., William J. Duffy --
William.duffy@dgslaw.com -- DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS, pro hac
vice,Elizabeth H. Temkin , DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS, LLP, pro hac
vice, Mary Cile Glover Rogers , BOONE KARLBERG, P.C. & Randy J.
Tanner , BOONE KARLBERG, P.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Ruling Favoring Herty Reversed on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Delaware reverses the Superior Court's
decision granting summary judgment in favor Defendant-
Manufacturers Georgia Southern University Herty Advanced
Development Center and Hollingsworth and Vose Company and remands
the case for further proceedings to resolve the remaining issues
dividing the parties.

This case requires the Court to consider some mundane realities
and their implications for Delaware tort law. This is a "take-
home" asbestos case in which an employee's now-deceased wife sued
the companies who supplied asbestos products to her husband's
employer. Her husband's employer caused him to work with those
products, and the asbestos in them came home on his clothes.

Robert Ramsey worked for Haveg Industries, Inc. at its industrial
plant for 24 years, from 1967 to 1992.9 From 1967 to 1979, Mr.
Ramsey worked as a maintenance worker and regularly handled
asbestos products manufactured by Georgia Southern University
Herty Advanced Development Center and Hollingsworth and Vose
Company as part of his job of making pipes and pipe fittings.

Before her death, Mrs. Ramsey sued the Manufacturers, alleging
that their negligence caused her illness, because they knew of
the dangers of asbestos exposure, did not "adequately warn her .
. . of the risks of asbestos," did not "adequately package,
distribute and use asbestos in a manner which would minimize the
escape of asbestos fibers," and did not "take adequate steps to
remedy" these failures.

The complaint alleges that the Employer used the Manufacturers'
products in industrial processes that generated asbestos dust
that settled on Mr. Ramsey's work uniform when he left work each
day wearing his uniform.11 Throughout this period, Mr. Ramsey's
wife, Dorothy Ramsey, was the person who did the Ramsey family's
laundry and regularly washed Mr. Ramsey's asbestos-covered
uniform. Mrs. Ramsey eventually suffered and died from lung
cancer in 2015.

The facts of this case could give rise to some confusion. The
focus of this opinion is on whether the asbestos product
manufacturers who sold asbestos products to Mr. Ramsey's
employer, Haveg, are liable to Mrs. Ramsey. The confusion is
possible because Haveg was itself a manufacturer, who took the
asbestos products the asbestos product manufacturers sold to it,
and used them in manufacturing other products.

The Manufacturers moved for summary judgment, arguing they had no
duty to warn Mrs. Ramsey of the dangers of take-home asbestos
exposure under two of the Court's prior cases, Price v. E.I.
DuPont de Nemours & Co., 26 A.3d 162 (Del. 2011) and Riedel v.
ICI Americas Inc., 968 A.2d 17 (Del. 2009).

The wife's theory of recovery against the asbestos product
manufacturers is simple: under Section 388 of the Restatement
(Second) of Torts, which the State has embraced, an asbestos
product manufacturer has a duty to warn foreseeable users of the
dangers of its products, to the extent the asbestos product
manufacturer has actual or constructive knowledge of that danger,
and when it is unlikely that the user will discover the dangerous
condition. The legal question underlying this appeal is
deceptively simple: May the spouse of an employee harmed by take-
home asbestos exposure sue an asbestos product manufacturer and
recover if it failed to provide warnings and safe laundering
instructions to her spouse's employer, so he could protect
himself or whoever laundered his clothes?

If one looks at the Restatement alone, this is a straightforward
question with a straightforward answer. When a manufacturer
supplies an asbestos product that it knows will be used in a
downstream industrial process, it knows that if an employee
involved in that later process gets dust from the asbestos
product on his clothes, there is a danger of harmful exposure if
care is not taken to limit exposure during the laundering
process. Because it is common for an employee to have a household
member, like a spouse, do the laundry, the plaintiff-spouse here
is a foreseeable plaintiff and should be able to recover if the
asbestos product manufacturer did not provide safe laundering
instructions to the employer so the employer could in turn
instruct its employees, who could then protect themselves and
those who laundered their clothes.

But the defendant-manufacturers in this case resist this logic
largely because of a strand of case law addressing take-home
asbestos claims against employers. In those cases, the Court held
that an employer could not be liable in tort to the employee's
spouse who laundered his asbestos-covered clothes repeatedly for
years, even though the employer controlled the conditions under
which the employee was exposed to asbestos dust in the workplace,
and thus the extent to which the asbestos dust got on his
clothes. The rationale for that holding was that, although the
employer was the party that caused the clothes to become covered
in asbestos dust, it did not engage in "misfeasance" under tort
law, but only "nonfeasance," and therefore could not be liable to
the employee's spouse, because it owed only the employee, and not
his spouse, a duty of care.

Based on this case law, the defendant-manufacturers argue that it
does not make sense to immunize the employer from liability to
the employee's spouse, but to hold the asbestos product
manufacturers responsible, when it was the employer who shaped
the conditions under which the employee worked with the asbestos
products; failed to ensure that the employee's clothes were
safely laundered on-site; and failed to give the employee safe
laundering instructions for laundering his clothes at home, and
the asbestos product manufacturers, by contrast, had no
relationship with the employee and no control over his workplace
exposure. Relatedly, the defendant-manufacturers suggest that if
the Court holds that an employee's spouse can state a claim in a
case like this, a menagerie of plaintiff classes will emerge,
claiming to have been exposed to asbestos dust during encounters
with employees of industrial facilities that used asbestos
products.

The Court has to adhere to Section 388 of the Restatement, which
has long governed whether manufacturers can be held liable for
negligent failure to warn under our law. When applying Section
388, the mundane realities of life make the spouses of employees
who launder asbestos-covered clothes foreseeable plaintiffs to
whom the manufacturers can be held liable. Taking into account,
though, the argument that the asbestos product manufacturers are
not in a position to warn employees directly, much less the other
people who might launder employees' clothes, we circumscribe the
conditions under which manufacturers can be held liable, applying
established principles of our law.

Under Delaware law, an employee who is injured by asbestos
products used in his workplace cannot ordinarily recover if the
asbestos product manufacturer provided adequate warnings to the
employer about the product's dangers and safe use. The Court
explains that in that circumstance, the employee must rely on his
employer to have passed on and followed the warnings and
instructions. Likewise, in this context, so long as an asbestos
product manufacturer has provided sufficient warnings to the
employer about the dangers of the product and safe laundering
instructions for how clothes exposed to the product should be
laundered to avoid unsafe exposure, the manufacturer cannot be
held liable to an employee's spouse. That is, so long as the
asbestos product manufacturer provides safe laundering
instructions to the employer, it will face no liability to an
employee's spouse, or to any other person the employee entrusted
to do his laundry.

The Court agrees with the defendant-manufacturers that making
them uniquely subject to suit in cases like this is difficult to
rationalize. It is neither fair nor efficient to immunize
employers who control employee exposure, are best positioned to
inform employees of the risks of laundering asbestos-covered
clothes, and are positioned to prevent dangerous at-home
laundering altogether by requiring that employees' clothes stay
on-site and be cleaned under conditions controlled for safety by
the employer. The Court therefore overrule its prior cases, to
the extent necessary, reverses the Superior Court's grants of
summary judgment, and hold that a household member who regularly
launders an employee's asbestos-covered clothing, like the
plaintiff-spouse here, may sue her spouse's employer for its
failure to provide warnings and safe laundering instructions.

Consistent with the Court's prior reasoning, however, the spouse
cannot recover if the employer made adequate arrangements on-site
to address the harms that may result from laundering asbestos-
covered clothes, or gave the employee the information needed to
protect himself or others who launder his clothes. In other
words, the employer is in a safe harbor so long as it adequately
addressed the harm at the workplace or gave its employee warnings
and safe laundering instructions.

Under this liability regime, the Court takes into fair account
the legitimate concerns about exposing asbestos product
manufacturers to uncabined liability to myriad plaintiffs in
take-home asbestos exposure cases. But, as important, the Court
makes sure that foreseeable plaintiffs who suffer serious injury
have a basis for recovery, if they can prove out all the other
elements of their claims.

This duty scheme is consistent with long-standing principles of
law that support liability for harm to others caused by a failure
to exercise a minimal level of care in preventing a risk of harm:
in a case like this, by failing to provide warnings and safe
laundering instructions. Circumscribing the duties recognized
here to what our courts have recognized is feasible ensures that
the parade of horribles the defendant-manufacturers envision will
never march.

Mrs. Ramsey argued in response that the Manufacturers' position
was grounded in a categorical legal error because the conclusions
of Price and Riedel, dealing with an employer's possible
liability, were inapplicable to asbestos product manufacturers
because "relationship has no significance to a manufacturer or
distributor of a product." Distinguishing her claim against the
Manufacturers from the claims against employers in Price and
Riedel, Mrs. Ramsey clarified that she had not alleged "that [the
Manufacturers] failed to warn [her] about a danger someone else
created, as in Riedel and Price but that [the Manufacturers] made
and sold a dangerous product without warning and placed it into
the stream of commerce which injured [her]."

Next, Mrs. Ramsey looked to Section 388 of the Restatement and
Delaware case law defining a manufacturer's duty to warn. Under
these principles, the Manufacturers' act of manufacturing a
dangerous asbestos product created a duty to warn Mrs. Ramsey, a
foreseeable plaintiff, of the danger of exposure to that product.
In other words, Mrs. Ramsey argued that an asbestos product
manufacturer was, by dint of the simple fact that it was a
manufacturer, more responsible to employees and others exposed to
its asbestos products than the employers who purchased and used
the asbestos products. She did so despite the reality that the
Manufacturers were not in any direct relationship with Mr.
Ramsey.

Considering the applicability of Price and Riedel to the
Manufacturers, the Superior Court focused its analysis on the
nature of the relationship between the employer and the
employee's spouse, noting that "both decisions appear to rest
implicitly on the employer's role as a landowner and the
employee's status as an invitee onto the employer's property."
The Superior Court observed that as to the employee, the
employer's conduct -- its "alleged failure to warn or make safe a
dangerous condition on its property"-- constituted misfeasance.
But the Superior Court found "that [the] same logic did not
extend to the imposition of a duty on the employer to the
employee's spouse," and "the employer's alleged 'conduct' towards
the employee's spouse constituted claims of nonfeasance" because
the employee's spouse "neither entered onto, nor lived next to,
the employer's facility."

The Superior Court concluded that the "Price and Riedel Courts
held that the employer did not engage in affirmative conduct that
worked positive injury on the spouses of its employees; rather,
they failed to act to protect a distant third party who never
entered onto their property," and applied that conclusion to the
claims of Mrs. Ramsey, who, like the plaintiffs in Price and
Riedel, was not injured on the employer's property, but rather,
by take-home asbestos transported there on her husband's uniform.

The Superior Court reasoned that recognizing a manufacturer's
duty of care to an employee's spouse would create the
"paradoxical result" that "the defendant with a closer
relationship to the plaintiff," Mr. Ramsey's employer, "owes no
duty of care . . . while a distant third party -- the
manufacturer -- would be held to a general duty of care." Thus,
declined to find that the Manufacturers owed Mrs. Ramsey a duty
of care based on misfeasance, and granted the Manufacturers'
motions for summary judgment because Mrs. Ramsey had not offered
any facts establishing a special relationship sufficient to
sustain her claims of nonfeasance.

Accordingly, Mrs. Ramsey appeals the Superior Court's grants of
summary judgment in favor of the Manufacturers, arguing that it
erred in finding that the Manufacturers did not have a duty to
warn of the dangers of their asbestos products under Section 388.

Under Delaware law, which embraces Section 388 of the
Restatement, an asbestos product manufacturer whose products are
later used in a facility can be held liable to an employee in
that facility if the manufacturer has actual or constructive
knowledge of the dangers of its product, has no reason to believe
that users will realize the dangerous condition of the product,
and does not warn users of the product's dangerous condition.
But, precisely because it is impractical to expect a manufacturer
to warn employees it does not employ and does not know, a
manufacturer can discharge its duty to warn, and thereby avoid
liability, by warning and providing safe handling instructions to
the employer to whom it sold the dangerous product. Thus, when a
supplier provides a product it knows to be dangerous to a
purchaser/employer whom the supplier knows or reasonably believes
is aware of that danger, there is no duty on the part of the
supplier to warn the employees of that purchaser unless the
supplier knows or has reason to suspect that the requisite
warning will fail to reach the employees, the users of the
product.

It is plain that the law expects employers to take reasonable
steps to provide a safe workplace to all who work on their
premises, including their own employees, and to provide them with
adequate safety instructions and warnings, including any warnings
relating to the dangers of working with asbestos products and
handling clothes covered in asbestos dust.

The conundrum that the Manufacturers point to in this case: how
can a manufacturer be held liable for failing to provide a
warning to an employee's spouse if the employer is immune for its
own failure to do so? Or to be even more specific, if Mrs. Ramsey
could not recover against the Employer, how can she recover
against the Manufacturers who had no control over Mr. Ramsey's
exposure and no relationship with him?

For her part, Mrs. Ramsey makes a different policy point. She
stresses the ordinary reality upon which her claim is based,
which is that members of an employee's household may launder his
clothes. And if the conduct of manufacturers and employers causes
asbestos to go home on employees' clothes without any warning or
safe laundering instructions, it is foreseeable that people like
Mrs. Ramsey will be injured. Recognizing the strength of the
argument that the Manufacturers are less culpable than the
Employer, who controlled her husband's exposure, Mrs. Ramsey
argues that to the extent Price and Riedel get in the way, they
should be overruled. Precisely because the employer is the active
force in determining the circumstances in which employees use and
are exposed to asbestos products, Mrs. Ramsey argues that the
Court erred in finding that cases like this involve nonfeasance,
not misfeasance.

A fair and efficient accountability system can be established by
limiting the duty of asbestos product manufacturers and employers
in take-home asbestos exposure cases to providing fair warning
about the dangers of laundering to those with whom they have the
most proximate relationship. Manufacturers may discharge their
duty by warning employers, and employers may discharge their duty
by warning employees. If the manufacturer has done so, a spouse
of an employee may not recover from the manufacturer. If the
employer has done so and given the employee the information
needed to protect his spouse, the spouse may not recover from the
employer. But if the contrary is the case, and the asbestos
product manufacturer and the employer's failure to warn left the
employee without the information needed to protect his spouse,
his spouse should be entitled to recover if she can prove the
other elements of her claim.

The Court finds that Mrs. Ramsey focused on two related, but
distinct questions. The first is whether she is a foreseeable
plaintiff to which the Manufacturers owed a duty to "take all
reasonable precautions to protect [her] and persons like her
against an event, serious asbestos-related harm, i.e., asbestos-
related lung cancer, that a reasonably prudent [manufacturer]
would protect against"? The second is what was the duty of care
the Manufacturers had to fulfill in terms of product warnings and
safe laundering instructions? Mrs. Ramsey argued below that the
Manufacturers' duty of care under Section 388 required them to
warn her directly of the dangers of laundering Mr. Ramsey's work
clothes. The Court agrees with Mrs. Ramsey's first argument, but
find that her second argument goes too far.

To the extent that Mrs. Ramsey argues that the "reasonable
precautions" required of the Manufacturers or the Employer
included inquiring into employees' household dynamics,
determining who is responsible for doing the family laundry, and
delivering to that person a personalized warning, the Court finds
that those steps are unreasonable and not required by law.
Instead, the Manufacturers' reasonable duty of care only required
them to provide adequate warnings and safe laundering
instructions to the Employer so it could provide this information
to its employees in a manner tailored to their work circumstances
and exposure to the Manufacturers' asbestos products.

Delaware recognizes that an employee's exposure to asbestos in
the workplace is a reasonably foreseeable harm that gives rise to
a duty of care. Just as exposure to asbestos dust when directly
handling asbestos products is reasonably foreseeable, so too is
exposure when completing the quotidian task of laundering a dusty
uniform in preparation for another day of work. When uniforms
come home covered in dust, more frequent laundering, not less,
would seem to be required.

It is likewise foreseeable that an employee who wears his uniform
home may not be the person in his household who does the family
laundry the most, making the most natural class of persons to be
exposed to harmful asbestos dust, other than the employee
himself, those in the employee's household who launder the
employee's dusty uniform. This precise risk of harm -- exposure
to "the release of airborne asbestos fibers" when laundering
"asbestos contaminated clothing" -- was recognized by, among
other industry resources, the 1972 OSHA guidelines that
established requirements for safe laundering of clothing exposed
to asbestos products, as well as specific measures employers must
take to limit employees' transport of asbestos dust on their work
uniforms outside of the workplace.

Because the risk of harm from take-home asbestos exposure when
laundering asbestos-covered clothing is reasonably foreseeable,
the Court determines that a plaintiff in Mrs. Ramsey's position
has a viable claim against a manufacturer who fails to warn and
provide safe laundering instructions to an employer that exposes
its employees to the manufacturer's asbestos products.

Under Delaware's "sophisticated purchaser" defense, and subject
to the requirements of reasonableness and good faith, a
manufacturer may satisfy its duty to warn the employee by relying
on a warning it conveyed to the employer and the employer's
independent duty to warn the employee. This defense provides:
"[Where] an employer has a duty to warn his employees of the
dangers of the product . . . the manufacturer is absolved of any
concurrent duty to warn those same employees." Delaware's
sophisticated purchaser defense thus addresses the Manufacturers'
legitimate concerns about the feasibility of their duty to warn
in take-home asbestos exposure cases.

Because Delaware's sophisticated purchaser defense recognizes
that the employer is in the best position to convey a warning to
its employees, it accounts for "the practical difficulty, if not
the virtual impossibility, of the suppliers actually being able
to communicate adequate warnings directly to the customer's
employees, much less of their being able to institute or assure
the institution of effective safety precautions in their
customer's plant," by providing a safe harbor from liability for
an asbestos product manufacturer that conveys a warning to the
employer, who is better positioned pass that warning on to the
employee, and can be reasonably expected to do so because of its
legal duty to the employee.

Because employers are in a comparatively better position to warn
employees than asbestos product manufacturers with no direct
relationship with the employees, an asbestos product manufacturer
should generally be immune from liability if it provided
sufficient warnings to the employer about the dangers of its
asbestos product, and specifically as to this case, safe
laundering instructions so that the employer could discharge its
duty to provide a safe workplace to its employees and protect
them from harm. To the extent an asbestos product manufacturer
has done so, it should not face liability from a plaintiff like
Mrs. Ramsey, or an employee, unless the plaintiff can prove that
the asbestos product manufacturer knew that the employer could
not be reasonably trusted to pass on the relevant information to
its employees. That is, an asbestos product manufacturer should
not bear the burden of proving it could rely on the employer to
do that what is to be expected of it; rather, if a plaintiff
wishes to fault an asbestos product manufacturer for failing to
go beyond warning the employer, the plaintiff should show that
the asbestos product manufacturer knew that it could not
reasonably rely on the employer to act responsibly.

For these reasons, the Court finds that Mrs. Ramsey has a viable
claim against the Manufacturers under the settled principles of
Section 388 if they failed to give warnings and safe laundering
instructions to the Employer. If they failed to do so, and
therefore the Employer also failed to do so, the Manufacturers
should be accountable to Mrs. Ramsey for any harm she proved she
suffered by exposure to their products.

Contrary to the Manufacturers' wish, the Court does not believe
that the answer to this arguable imbalance in duty is to work a
fundamental change in the principles of law applicable to
asbestos product manufacturers. Instead, the answer is to revisit
Riedel and Price, and their characterization of the employer's
conduct in take-home asbestos exposure cases as nonfeasance.

In resolving this case as the Court has addressed the legitimate
fears of the Manufacturers that they will be unfairly exposed to
liability in take-home asbestos exposure cases. By circumscribing
their duties, and those of employers, there can be no fear of
liability for not providing widespread notice or specific notice
to persons who the defendants do not even know. Furthermore, it
is likely not coincidental that Delaware's take-home asbestos
exposure cases and those in other states, the plaintiffs have not
been people with episodic contact with an employee, they have
been people like Mrs. Ramsey, who laundered their family members'
clothes repeatedly for many years.

The Court points out that although industrial jobs like Mr.
Ramsey's have been valuable in creating the basis for many
Americans to live fulfilling and comfortable middle-class lives,
they rarely, if ever, involve pay that would affordably allow for
weekly dry cleaning of work clothes. For that reason alone, it
seems likely that most plaintiffs in cases like this will be of
the most foreseeable kind: those who for many years laundered the
dirty clothes of the employee with whom they shared a household.
And, of course, these plaintiffs must also prove out all the
other elements of their claims in order to recover.

If, as the Manufacturers suggest, claims from plaintiffs with
more momentary exposure to and tenuous relationship to an exposed
employee are filed in the future, the answer is to address those
cases then in a reasoned way that takes into account the
practicalities that must inform our common law. But, the answer
is not to ignore the equity due to the plaintiff before us, and
the plaintiffs like her, who base their claims on a clearly
foreseeable consequence of common, and necessary, human conduct:
workers often have family members who launder their work clothes,
and if those work clothes are covered in asbestos dust, those
family members can suffer serious injury and even death.

For these reasons, the Court reverses the Superior Court's grants
of summary judgment for the Manufacturers and remand for further
proceedings to resolve the remaining issues dividing the parties.

Elizabeth Ramsey, Personal Representative of the Estate of
Dorothy Ramsey, Deceased, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. Georgia
Southern University Advanced Development Center and Hollingsworth
and Vose Company, Defendants Below, Appellees. No. 305, 2017.
(Del.)

A copy of the Decision dated June 27, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ybzng8sb from Leagle.com.

Raeann Warner, Esquire (Argued) -- raeann@jcdelaw.com -- Jacobs &
Crumplar P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellant, Elizabeth
Ramsey, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dorothy Ramsey,
Deceased.

Eileen M. Ford, Esquire (Argued) -- eford@moodklaw.com -- Megan
T. Mantzavinos, Esquire -- mmantzavinos@moodklaw.com -- Marks,
O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, Delaware,
for Appellee, Georgia Southern University Advanced Development
Center.

Robert S. Goldman, Esquire -- rsg@pgmhlaw.com -- Lisa C.
McLaughlin, Esquire -- lcm@pgmhlaw.com -- Phillips, Goldman,
McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Sarah P. Kelly,
Esquire (Argued) -- skelly@nutter.com -- Nutter, McClennen &
Fish, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee, Hollingsworth and
Vose Company.

David W. deBruin, Esquire , The deBruin Firm LLC, Wilmington,
Delaware, for Amici Curiae Delaware Trial Lawyers Association and
American Association for Justice.

Peggy L. Ableman, Esquire -- pableman@mccarter.com -- McCarter &
English, LLP, for Amici Curiae Coalition for Litigation Justice,
Inc., National Association of Manufacturers, and NFIB Small
Business Legal Center; Mark A. Behrens, Esquire --
mbehrens@shb.com -- Christopher E. Appel, Esquire --
cappel@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Washington, D.C.,
for Amicus Curiae Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc.; Linda
E. Kelly, Esquire , Quentin Riegel, Esquire , Leland P. Frost,
Esquire , Manufacturers' Center For Legal Action, Washington,
D.C., for Amicus Curiae National Association of Manufacturers;
Karen R. Harned, Esquire , Elizabeth Milito, Esquire , NFIB Small
Business Legal Center, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae NFIB
Small Business Legal Center.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Enters Summary Judgment Favoring PACCAR
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ferris W. Wharton of the Superior Court of Delaware
granted Defendant PACCAR Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment there
being no genuine issue of material fact on the issue of Mr.
Dolly's exposure to PACCAR's products.

Plaintiffs claim that Marchie Dolly, Sr., a non-smoker, was
exposed to, inter alia, PACCAR Inc.'s asbestos containing
products over the course of his career as a truck mechanic, and,
as a result, developed asbestos-related lung cancer and died. Mr.
Dolly died before his deposition could be taken. His son Marchie
"Ringo" Dolly, Jr. serves as the Plaintiffs' product
identification witness. Plaintiffs claim that Mr. Dolly was
exposed to asbestos-containing brakes, clutches, and gaskets
while working on Peterbilt and Kenworth trucks at Ryder Truck
Rental from 1969 to 1985 and General Delivery Trucking from 1979
to the late-1980s. Plaintiffs' claims against PACCAR are for
negligence, strict product liability, and wrongful death.

Defendant PACCAR Inc. is a manufacturer of custom built heavy-
duty, over-the-road tractor-trailer trucks. Kenworth Truck and
Peterbilt are unincorporated divisions of PACCAR. PACCAR claims
it is entitled to summary judgment for four reasons: (a) under
West Virginia substantive law applicable to this case, Plaintiffs
cannot show that Mr. Dolly was frequently and regularly in
proximity to asbestos-containing products manufactured,
distributed, or sold by PACCAR in a sufficient amount or dose to
have caused his asbestos-related lung cancer; (b) PACCAR had no
duty to warn about hazardous replacement parts it did not
manufacture or distribute; (c) PACCAR asserts that Plaintiffs
cannot show that Mr. Dolly's exposure to PACCAR's asbestos
containing products was the proximate cause of his lung cancer;
and (d) Plaintiffs cannot establish that the PACCAR products to
which Mr. Dolly allegedly was exposed contained asbestos.

In opposition, Plaintiffs maintain that during his career as a
truck mechanic Mr. Dolly worked on Peterbilt and Kenworth trucks
at Ryder from 1969 to 1991 and part-time at General Delivery from
about 1979 to the late-1980s, and that PACCAR's trucks
incorporated asbestos-containing brakes, clutches, and gaskets.
As a result, Mr. Dolly's exposure to PACCAR's asbestos-containing
products was a substantial factor causing his illness. Plaintiffs
also argue that PACCAR should be held liable for the asbestos-
containing replacement parts of other manufacturers.

The first controverted issue the Court considers is whether
Ringo, as the only product nexus witness, has provided sufficient
evidence so as to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether Mr. Dolly worked with sufficient frequency and regularity
in proximity to asbestos -- containing products manufactured,
distributed, or sold by PACCAR.

Ringo, who became a mechanic himself, testified that over a
period of 10-12 years, from approximately the ages of 6 or 7
until he was 17 or 18, he would visit his father regularly at
Ryder. On those visits, he observed Mr. Dolly doing brake and
clutch work, as well as other mechanic work, on the trucks at
Ryder, as well as brake work on trailers. He identified the
tractors on which Mr. Dolly would have worked as Ford, GMC,
Volvo, Kenworth, and Peterbilt, and the trailers as Great Dane,
Fruehauf, and Trailmobile. It likely is true that Ringo's ability
at 6 or 7 years of age to accurately describe what Mr. Dolly did
at work and on what types of trucks is questionable. Still, Ringo
was a self-described "motorhead since he was little" and "started
in the mechanic business before he left the family home."

Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that once Ringo determined
to follow in his father's professional footsteps, his ability to
make observations improved. Nonetheless, Ringo's knowledge of his
father's work at Ryder has its limits. He has no knowledge of how
many trucks Ryder owned. He does not know when any of the trucks
Ryder owned was purchased. He does not know how many of any
particular brand of truck Ryder owned. He does not know whether
his father performed the first brake job, clutch job, or engine
work on any particular truck. He does not know whether his father
removed original equipment or replacement equipment from any
truck. He does not know where Ryder obtained the replacement
parts his father installed. At no point does Ringo testify that
he actually saw Mr. Dolly working on a Peterbilt or Kenworth
truck. It appears that a fair summary of the state of the record
with respect to Mr. Dolly's employment at Ryder is that he worked
on an unknown number of trucks, some of which may have been
Peterbilts and Kenworths, an unknown number of times, replacing
parts of unknown origin with other parts of unknown origin.

The Court finds Ringo is better positioned to describe Mr.
Dolly's work as a mechanic at General Delivery because he worked
there himself with his father from 1979 to 1985. Mr. Dolly's
part-time employment dates at General Delivery are a bit unclear,
but the lack of clarity is of no particular significance since it
is not in dispute that he worked there part-time for a period of
years. General Delivery was a trucking company that employed
drivers to drive its trucks but also leased trucks to independent
owner operators who did not work for General Delivery. The
manufacturers of trucks serviced at General Delivery were
International, Ford, Kenworth, Peterbilt, GMC, and Volvo.
Trailmobile, Great Dane, and Fruehauf were the manufacturers of
trailers serviced there. The company kept maintenance logs for
its trucks, but not for the ones they leased to owner operators.

As to General Delivery's own trucks, Ringo testified that, based
on the company's maintenance records, his father removed the
original equipment component parts when he serviced those trucks.
Consistent with his testimony about his father's work at Ryder,
the Court notes that Ringo did not offer any information about
how many trucks General Delivery owned itself or leased to owner
operators, how many of those trucks were Peterbilt or Kenworth,
how many first brake, clutch, or engine jobs his father performed
on any of the trucks General Delivery either owned and operated
itself or leased to owner operators, or how many first brake,
clutch, or engine jobs his father may have performed on Peterbilt
or Kenworth trucks. Again, Ringo did not testify that he actually
saw his father work on a Peterbilt or Kenworth truck.

In sum, Ringo offers little more in the way of product
identification with respect to Mr. Dolly's work at General
Delivery than he did at Ryder, except perhaps to the extent Mr.
Dolly may have worked on Peterbilt or Kenworth trucks that
General Delivery bought new and continued to operate itself, it
can be inferred that he would have removed original equipment
component parts.

PACCAR takes the position that under West Virginia law the
proximate cause of an injury is "the last negligent act
contributing to the injury and without which the injury would not
have occurred." Additionally, it must be the "superior or
controlling event or conduct, distinguished from those cases
which are merely incidental or subsidiary..." PACCAR further
argues that in the toxic tort context, West Virginia has a dose
requirement to establish causation, "A mere possibility of
causation is not sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find
causation... Critical to establishing exposure to a toxic
chemical is knowledge of the dose or exposure amount and the
duration of the exposure."

Based on its interpretation of West Virginia law PACCAR urges the
Court to conclude that Plaintiffs cannot show that Mr. Dolly was
frequently and regularly in proximity to asbestos-containing
products manufactured, or distributed by PACCAR and that PACCAR
had no duty to warn about the hazards of products it did not
manufacture or distribute.

The Court determines that the record does not contain any
evidence of even approximate numbers of Peterbilt or Kenworth
trucks on which Mr. Dolly worked at either Ryder or General
Delivery, or how frequently he worked on them. Similarly, the
record does not contain any evidence of how many times or how
frequently Mr. Dolly either removed or replaced original
equipment parts manufactured or distributed by PACCAR. When asked
these types of quantitative questions, Ringo demurred. Asking a
jury to make those determinations where Ringo declined, would
amount to an improper invitation for the jury to engage in
speculation. There is simply nothing in the record before the
Court that would allow a jury to determine the amount, duration,
frequency, and intensity, much less the dose or exposure amount,
of Mr. Dolly's exposure to Peterbilt or Kenworth trucks without
indulging in raw speculation.

Because of the inadequacy of Plaintiffs' evidence establishing,
even roughly, how many Peterbilt and/or Kenworth trucks Mr. Dolly
worked on, if any, the Court settles that it is unnecessary for
it to decide whether PACCAR's potential liability would have been
limited to original equipment components or whether it would be
liable for any replacement parts regardless of manufacturer.

The case is IN RE: Asbestos Litigation: Limited to: Marchie
Dolly, Jr., and Sandra L. Dolly, individually and as Co-Executors
of the Estate Of Marchie Dolly, Sr., Plaintiffs, v. PACCAR, Inc.,
Defendant, C.A. No. N16C-01-086 ASB (Del. Super. Ct.)

A copy of the Order dated June 28, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7ws5poq from Leagle.com.

Bartholomew J. Dalton, Esquire -- bdalton@bdaltonlaw.com -- Ipek
K. Medford, Esquire -- imedford@bdaltonlaw.com -- Andrew C.
Dalton, Esquire -- adalton@bdaltonlaw.com -- Michael C. Dalton,
Esquire -- mdalton@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton & Associates, Cool
Spring Meeting House, 1106 West Tenth Street, Wilmington,
Delaware 19086; Adam Balick, Esquire -- abalick@balick.com --
Michael Collins Smith, Esquire (argued) -- msmith@balick.com --
Patrick Smith, Esquire -- psmith@balick.com -- Balick & Balick,
LLC, 711 King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs Marchie Dolly, Jr. and Sandra L. Dolly, individually
and as Co-Executors of the Estate Marchie Dolly, Sr.; Weitz &
Luxenberg, P.C., 700 Broadway, New York, New York 10003, of
counsel.

Somers S. Price, Jr., Esquire -- sprice@potteranderson.com --
James M. Kron, Esquire (argued) -- jkron@potteranderson.com --
1313 North Market Street-6th Floor, Wilmington, Delaware 19801,
Attorneys for Defendant PACCAR Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $20.9MM Libby Costs at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. had total estimated liability of US$20.9
million at March 31, 2018, for response costs related to a
vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana, as well as at vermiculite
processing sites outside of Libby, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Grace purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby,
Montana, in 1963 and operated it until 1990.  Vermiculite
concentrate from the Libby mine was used in the manufacture of
attic insulation and other products.  Some of the vermiculite ore
contained naturally occurring asbestos.

"Grace is engaged with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(the "EPA") and other federal, state and local governmental
agencies in a remedial investigation and feasibility study
("RI/FS") of the Libby mine and the surrounding area.  In its
2017 Annual Project Update for the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site,
the EPA announced a narrowing of its focus from the former "OU3
Study Area" to a smaller Operable Unit 3 ("OU3").  Within this
revised area, the RI/FS will determine the specific areas
requiring remediation and will identify possible remedial action
alternatives.  Possible remedial actions within OU3 are wide-
ranging, from institutional controls such as land use
restrictions, to more active measures involving soil removal,
containment projects, or other protective measures.  When
meaningful new information becomes available, Grace will
reevaluate estimated liability for the costs for remediation of
the mine and surrounding area and adjust its reserves
accordingly.  Based on communications from regulatory agencies,
Grace expects the RI/FS and a record of decision to be completed
by the end of 2019.

"The EPA is also investigating or remediating formerly owned or
operated sites that processed Libby vermiculite into finished
products.  Grace is cooperating with the EPA on these
investigation and remediation activities, and has recorded a
liability to the extent that its review has indicated that a
probable liability has been incurred and the cost is estimable.
These liabilities cover the estimated cost of investigations and,
to the extent an assessment has indicated that remediation is
necessary, the estimated cost of response actions.  Response
actions typically involve soil excavation and removal, and
replacement with clean fill.  The EPA may commence additional
investigations in the future at other sites that processed Libby
vermiculite, but Grace does not believe, based on its knowledge
of prior and current operations and site conditions, that
liability for remediation at such other sites is probable.

"Grace's total estimated liability for response costs that are
currently estimable for the Libby mine and surrounding area, and
at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, at March 31,
2018, and December 31, 2017, was US$20.9 million and US$25.8
million, respectively.  It is probable that Grace's ultimate
liability for these vermiculite-related matters will exceed
current estimates by material amounts."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/py4KsW


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had $54.8MM A&E Reserves at Mar. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., has net loss reserves of
US$54.8 million for asbestos and environmental matters for its
Run-Off Lines at March 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

Within the three months ended March 31, 2017, the Company has
incurred losses of US$0.2 million and paid losses of US$1.3
million for asbestos and environmental matters.

The Company states, "Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the
three months ended March 31, 2018 was the result of net
unfavorable loss reserve development on prior accident years of
US$1.3 million in other run-off lines and US$0.5 million in Risk
Management.  Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the three
months ended March 31, 2017 was the result of net unfavorable
loss reserve development on prior accident years of US$1.4
million in our risk management lines and US$1.0 million in our
other run-off lines."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/PZ45HV


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Mar31
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiaries remain defendants in
several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by
installation of brakes that contained asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company,
Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-
owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are
named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages
caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early
1970's that contained asbestos.  WAG marketed certain brakes, but
did not manufacture any brakes.  WAG maintains liability
insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from
losses arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an
occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is
not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in
connection with this matter that would be material to its
consolidated financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/oqUgYf


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Has 106 Pending PI Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi, Inc.'s subsidiary, NL Industries, Inc., has 106 pending
personal injury cases related to products manufactured in past
operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2018.

The Company states, "NL has been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as
a result of occupational exposure primarily to products
manufactured by our former operations containing asbestos, silica
and/or mixed dust.  In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure
to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned
and/or operated by NL.  There are 106 of these types of cases
pending, involving a total of approximately 579 plaintiffs.  In
addition, the claims of approximately 8,676 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in
Ohio courts.  We do not expect these claims will be re-opened
unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for
asbestos-related claims.  We have not accrued any amounts for
this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and
inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any.  To date,
we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters.
Based on information available to us, including:

   * facts concerning historical operations,
   * the rate of new claims,
   * the number of claims from which we have been dismissed, and
   * our prior experience in the defense of these matters.

"We believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of
these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which
are not material).  Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably
possible outcome would involve amounts material to our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.  We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek,
dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim.  In
addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding
asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former
subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which
we have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance
policies.  These insurers may seek indemnification from us."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/GcrJqu


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,526 Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., is still a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos-induced illness involving claims by
approximately 3,526 plaintiffs as of March 31, 2018, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.

The Company states, "In each instance, the Company is one of a
large number of defendants.  The asbestos claimants seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
sums.  Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant
in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 54,823
of those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense
verdicts, 7 were tried to plaintiff verdicts (1 of which was
appealed by defendants and was remanded to the trial court for a
new trial), 1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 793 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/CmWDTq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 89 Cases at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. still defends itself against 89 cases
alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.

The Company states, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 89
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 195 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a
minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court
in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally
range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the
monetary damages sought.  To the extent that any specific amount
of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all
named defendants.

"There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
four cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts
at US$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one
count at US$3.0 million compensatory and US$1 million punitive
damages; one count at US$1.0 million.  In the fourth case, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in
the amount of US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of
action, and US$5.0 million compensatory damages for the fifth
cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our
subsidiaries.  We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos
cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being
dismissed from such cases.  However, it is not possible to
predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims
and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal
injury litigation.  Despite this uncertainty, and although our
results of operations and cash flows for a particular period
could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims
and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution
of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.  Among
the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion
were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these
types of lawsuits on the bases; (b) many cases have been
improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many
cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many
cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all
or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result
from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert
claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the
damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants.
Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any
of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential
exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation
to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/TAPujG


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Still Responsible for Cases at Mar.31
----------------------------------------------------------------
OfficeMax remains responsible for all pending and future
asbestos-related proceedings related to a former operation,
according to Office Depot, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

On November 5, 2013, Office Depot completed its merger with
OfficeMax Incorporated in an all-stock transaction.

Office Depot states, "OfficeMax is named a defendant in a number
of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the operation
of certain paper and forest products assets prior to those assets
being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to retain
responsibility.  Also, as part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to
retain responsibility for all pending or threatened proceedings
and future proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising
out of the operation of the paper and forest products assets
prior to the closing of the sale.  The Company has made provision
for losses with respect to the pending proceedings.

"Additionally, as of March 31, 2018, the Company has made
provision for environmental liabilities with respect to certain
sites where hazardous substances or other contaminants are or may
be located.  For these environmental liabilities, our estimated
range of reasonably possible losses was approximately US$10
million to US$25 million.

"The Company regularly monitors its estimated exposure to these
liabilities.  As additional information becomes known, these
estimates may change, however, the Company does not believe any
of these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to the
Company's financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/EAyp2z


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Suits at Mar. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to defend itself against
lawsuits related to asbestos-containing products, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.

Scotts Miracle-Gro states, "The Company has been named as a
defendant in a number of cases alleging injuries that the
lawsuits claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing
products, apparently based on the Company's historic use of
vermiculite in certain of its products.  In many of these cases,
the complaints are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts
with the Company or its products.  The cases vary, but complaints
in these cases generally seek unspecified monetary damages
(actual, compensatory, consequential and punitive) from multiple
defendants.

"The Company believes that the claims against it are without
merit and is vigorously defending against them.  No accruals have
been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements
as the likelihood of a loss is not probable at this time; and the
Company does not believe a reasonably possible loss would be
material to, nor the ultimate resolution of these cases will have
a material adverse effect on, the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

"There can be no assurance that future developments related to
pending claims or claims filed in the future, whether as a result
of adverse outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs,
will not have a material effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/1vr2SV


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Faces Less Than 500 Cases at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. still faces less than 500 active and inactive cases
by claimants alleging health problems as a result of exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "For many years, we have been and continue to
be subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging health
problems as a result of exposure to asbestos.  Our current docket
of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide.
A small number of claims have been asserted against one of our
subsidiaries by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos
products in railroad cars.  The substantial majority of the
remaining claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos in
our automotive products although a significant number of those
claims appear also to involve occupational exposures sustained in
industries other than automotive.

"We believe, based on scientific and other evidence, it is
unlikely that claimants were exposed to asbestos by our former
products and that, in any event, they would not be at increased
risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work with these
products.  Further, many of these cases involve numerous
defendants, with the number in some cases exceeding 100
defendants from a variety of industries.  Additionally, in many
cases the plaintiffs either do not specify any, or specify the
jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages.

"As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out
of business or file for bankruptcy, we may experience an
increased number of these claims.  We vigorously defend ourselves
against these claims as part of our ordinary course of business.

"In future periods, we could be subject to cash costs or charges
to earnings if any of these matters are resolved unfavorably to
us.  To date, with respect to claims that have proceeded
sufficiently through the judicial process, we have regularly
achieved favorable resolutions.  Accordingly, we presently
believe that these asbestos-related claims will not have a
material adverse impact on our future consolidated financial
position, results of operations or liquidity."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/NGJESS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 201 Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, faces a total of 201 asserted claims
related to asbestos exposure, according to Duke Energy
Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.

The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced
numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost
reimbursement related to asbestos exposure.  These claims relate
to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from
exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction
and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation
plants prior to 1985.  As of March 31, 2018, there were 143
asserted claims for non-malignant cases with cumulative relief
sought of up to US$37 million, and 58 asserted claims for
malignant cases with cumulative relief sought of up to US$19
million.  Based on Duke Energy Carolinas' experience, it is
expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims
likely will be less than the amount claimed."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/r6V46y


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $487MM Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, has recognized asbestos-related
reserves of US$487 million at March 31, 2018, according to Duke
Energy Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.

The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized
asbestos-related reserves of US$487 million at March 31, 2018,
and US$489 million at December 31, 2017.  These reserves are
classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other
within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets.  These reserves are based upon the minimum amount of the
range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through
2037, are recorded on an undiscounted basis and incorporate
anticipated inflation.  In light of the uncertainties inherent in
a longer-term forecast, management does not believe they can
reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be
incurred after 2037 related to such potential claims.  It is
possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in
excess of the recorded reserves.

"Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention.  Duke Energy Carolinas'
cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention
in 2008.  Future payments up to the policy limit will be
reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier.  The insurance
policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries
indemnification and medical cost claim payments is US$797 million
in excess of the self-insured retention.  Receivables for
insurance recoveries were US$585 million at March 31, 2018, and
December 31, 2017.  These amounts are classified in Other within
Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on
the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  Duke Energy Carolinas
is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency
of insurance claims.  Duke Energy Carolinas believes the
insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance
carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/r6V46y


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had $289.8MM Loss Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd. had net asbestos loss reserves of US$289.8
million, or 96.1%, of total net A&E reserves at March 31, 2018,
all of which was for assumed business, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "On July 13, 2015, we sold Mt. McKinley to
Clearwater Insurance Company.  Concurrently with the closing, we
entered into a retrocession treaty with an affiliate of
Clearwater.  Per the retrocession treaty, we retroceded 100% of
the liabilities associated with certain Mt. McKinley policies,
which had been reinsured by Bermuda Re.  As consideration for
entering into the retrocession treaty, Bermuda Re transferred
cash of US$140.3 million, an amount equal to the net loss
reserves as of the closing date.  Of the US$140.3 million of net
loss reserves retroceded, US$100.5 million were related to A&E
business.  The maximum liability retroceded under the
retrocession treaty will be US$440.3 million, equal to the
retrocession payment plus US$300.0 million.  We will retain
liability for any amounts exceeding the maximum liability
retroceded under the retrocession treaty.

"Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be
accomplished using standard actuarial techniques.  We believe
that our A&E reserves represent management's best estimate of the
ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that
ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by
a significant amount.

"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities.  The survival
ratio is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses.  Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take
to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels.  Using this measurement, our net
three year asbestos survival ratio was 6.4 years at March 31,
2018.  These metrics can be skewed by individual large
settlements occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may
not be indicative of the timing of future payments."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/DUayiS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to face lawsuits alleging
personal injury due to asbestos that may be in certain wire and
cable, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.

Houston Wire states, "The Company, along with many other
defendants, has been named in a number of lawsuits in the state
courts of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that
certain wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused
injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable.
These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek
unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy.  It is
not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of
the wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact,
distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any
injuries.  The Company maintains general liability insurance
that, to date, has covered the defense of and all costs
associated with these claims.  In addition, the Company did not
manufacture any of the wire and cable at issue, and the Company
would rely on any warranties from the manufacturers of such cable
if it were determined that any of the wire or cable that the
Company distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any
of these plaintiffs.  In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the
Company in 1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to
costs and damages associated with these claims that the Company
believes it could enforce if its insurance coverage proves
inadequate."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/1HDB48


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Faces Less Than 245 Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Univar Inc. had fewer than 245 asbestos-related claims as of
March 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018.

Univar states, "The Company is subject to liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos.  The claims
result primarily from an indemnification obligation related to
Univar USA Inc.'s ("Univar") 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical
Company from McKesson Corporation ("McKesson").  Univar is also a
defendant in a small number of asbestos claims.  As of March 31,
2018, there were fewer than 245 asbestos-related claims for which
the Company has liability for defense and indemnity pursuant to
the indemnification obligation.  The volume of such cases has
decreased in recent quarters.  Historically, the vast majority of
the claims against both McKesson and Univar have been dismissed
without payment.  The Company does incur costs in defending these
claims.  While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of
these matters, it does not believe, based upon currently
available facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of these
matters will have a material effect on its overall financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.  However, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of any present or future
claims or litigation and adverse developments could negatively
impact earnings or cash flows in a particular future period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/BbBwER


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Faces PI Lawsuits at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation still defends itself against various
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in a substantial number
of lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the
past.  While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has
generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance
that this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim
will not further increase.  Asbestos-containing materials
incorporated into any such products were encapsulated and used as
internal components of process equipment, and we do not believe
that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during
the use of this equipment.

"Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims,
and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims
with little or no payment.  Historically, a high percentage of
resolved claims have been covered by applicable insurance or
indemnities from other companies, and we believe that a
substantial majority of existing claims should continue to be
covered by insurance or indemnities.  Accordingly, we have
recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely
settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from
insurers or other companies for our estimated recovery, to the
extent we believe that the amounts of recovery are probable and
not otherwise in dispute.  While unfavorable rulings, judgments
or settlement terms regarding these claims could have a material
adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows, we currently believe the likelihood is
remote.

"Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers
that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded
receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable
quarter.  We are currently unable to estimate the impact, if any,
of unasserted asbestos-related claims, although future claims
would also be subject to then-existing indemnities and insurance
coverage."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/64o9II


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 180 Cases vs. CECO Still Pending at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp. continues to defend itself against 180
pending asbestos-related cases as of March 31, 2018, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.

The Company states, "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC
("Met-Pro"), beginning in 2002, began to be named in asbestos-
related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial
companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid
handling industries.  In management's opinion, the complaints
typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that
Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold
unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other
related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss
to the plaintiffs.  Counsel has advised that more recent cases
typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma.  The
Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the
Company, are vigorously defending these cases.  Many cases have
been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of
exposure to Met-Pro's products.  In those cases, where evidence
has been produced, the Company's experience has been that the
exposure levels are low and the Company's position has been that
its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss.  The
Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of
these cases.  Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through
March 31, 2018 for cases involving asbestos-related claims were
US$2.9 million, of which together with all legal fees other than
corporate counsel expenses; US$2.8 million have been paid by the
Company's insurers.  The average cost per settled claim,
excluding legal fees, was approximately US$37,000.

"Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 180 cases pending
against the Company as of March 31, 2018 (with Illinois, New
York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of
cases), as compared with 218 cases that were pending as of
December 31, 2017.  During the three months ended March 31, 2018,
16 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was
dismissed from 15 cases and settled 39 cases.  Most of the
pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of
discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading
to, or are scheduled for trial.  The Company believes that its
insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending
against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a
continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and
settlement amounts.  However, the Company has no control over the
number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to
the financial health of its insurers or their position as to
coverage.  The Company also presently believes that none of the
pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the
Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/hwoItl


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 7,004 Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has 7,004 asbestos-related claims
pending at March 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components
historically used in some products manufactured by predecessors
of Air & Liquid ("Asbestos Liability").  Air & Liquid, and in
some cases the Corporation, are defendants (among a number of
defendants, often in excess of 50) in cases filed in various
state and federal courts.

"Included as "open claims" are approximately 479 and 445 claims
as of March 31, 2018, and 2017, respectively, classified in
various jurisdictions as "inactive" or transferred to a state or
federal judicial panel on multi-district litigation, commonly
referred to as the MDL.

"A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs was
reported and paid by insurers.  Because claims are often filed
and can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and
timing of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can
fluctuate significantly from period to period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/LQGZ2I


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $142.9MM Liability Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has US$142,869,000 reserve at March
31, 2018, for the total costs, including defense costs, for
Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted
through 2026, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton,
Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc.  ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized
expert in the valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the
Corporation in estimating the potential liability for pending and
unasserted future claims for Asbestos Liability.  Based on this
analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013
as of December 31, 2006.  HR&A's analysis has been periodically
updated since that time.  Most recently, the HR&A analysis was
updated in 2016, and additional reserves were established by the
Corporation as of December 31, 2016, for Asbestos Liability
claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2026.  The
methodology used by HR&A in its projection in 2016 of the
operating subsidiaries' liability for pending and unasserted
potential future claims for Asbestos Liability, which is
substantially the same as the methodology employed by HR&A in
prior estimates, relied upon and included the following factors:

   * HR&A's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the
population likely to have been exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases;

   * HR&A's analysis of the number of people likely to file an
asbestos-related injury claim against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation based on such epidemiological data and relevant
claims history from January 1, 2014, to September 9, 2016;

   * an analysis of pending cases, by type of injury claimed and
jurisdiction where the claim is filed;

   * an analysis of claims resolution history from January 1,
2014, to September 9, 2016, to determine the average settlement
value of claims, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction of
filing; and

   * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at an annual inflation rate based on the
Congressional Budget Office's ten year forecast of inflation.

"Using this information, HR&A estimated in 2016 the number of
future claims for Asbestos Liability that would be filed through
the year 2026, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that
would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted
claims through 2026.  This methodology has been accepted by
numerous courts.

"In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its Asbestos Liabilities.  In developing the
estimate, the Corporation considered HR&A's projection for
settlement or indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and
management's projection of associated defense costs, as well as a
number of additional factors.  These additional factors included
the Settlement Agreements then in effect, policy exclusions,
policy limits, policy provisions regarding coverage for defense
costs, attachment points, prior impairment of policies and gaps
in the coverage, policy exhaustions, insolvencies among certain
of the insurance carriers, and the nature of the underlying
claims for Asbestos Liability asserted against the subsidiaries
and the Corporation as reflected in the Corporation's asbestos
claims database, as well as estimated erosion of insurance limits
on account of claims against Howden arising out of the Products.
In addition to consulting with the Corporation's outside legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Corporation consulted
with a nationally recognized insurance consulting firm it
retained to assist the Corporation with certain policy allocation
matters that also are among the several factors considered by the
Corporation when analyzing potential recoveries from relevant
historical insurance for Asbestos Liabilities.  Based upon all of
the factors considered by the Corporation, and taking into
account the Corporation's analysis of publicly available
information regarding the credit-worthiness of various insurers,
the Corporation estimated the probable insurance recoveries for
Asbestos Liability and defense costs through 2026.  Although the
Corporation believes that the assumptions employed in the
insurance valuation were reasonable and previously consulted with
its outside legal counsel and insurance consultant regarding
those assumptions, there are other assumptions that could have
been employed that would have resulted in materially lower
insurance recovery projections.

"Based on the analyses, the Corporation's reserve at December 31,
2016, for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through
2026, was US$171,181,000 of which approximately 70% was
attributable to settlement costs for unasserted claims projected
to be filed through 2026 and future defense costs.  The reserve
at March 31, 2018, was US$142,869,000.  While it is reasonably
possible that the Corporation will incur additional charges for
Asbestos Liability and defense costs in excess of the amounts
currently reserved, the Corporation believes that there is too
much uncertainty to provide for reasonable estimation of the
number of future claims, the nature of such claims and the cost
to resolve them beyond 2026.  Accordingly, no reserve has been
recorded for any costs that may be incurred after 2026.

"The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2016, for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2016, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity
and defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos
Liability claims, was US$115,945,000 (US$95,388,000 at March 31,
2018)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/LQGZ2I


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Optical Had 56,680 Claims at April 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1,
2018, that approximately 56,680 claims naming American Optical
and numerous other defendants were pending as of April 1, 2018 in
various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged
personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other allegedly
hazardous materials.

The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned
American Optical Corporation, which manufactured and sold
respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing.  In
connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-
Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims.
As of April 1, 2018, approximately 56,680 claims naming American
Optical and numerous other defendants were pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal
injury from exposure to asbestos and other allegedly hazardous
materials.

"Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Pfizer.  Warner-Lambert is actively engaged
in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means of
resolving, these claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/oO4txw


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Faces Various Lawsuits at April 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself against a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2018.

The Company states, "Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer
in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged
personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer
and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries.

"There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/oO4txw


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Had 823 New Claims in 1Q 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that it received
approximately 823 new asbestos-related claims during the three
months ended March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and
has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits
filed primarily in state courts.  These suits principally allege
that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and
punitive damages.  Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never
engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing
or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued liability or workers'
compensation insurance to companies in the business of
manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products.  The lawsuits principally have
focused on allegations with respect to certain research,
publication and other activities of one or more of Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company's employees during the period from the
1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege that
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have
learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among
other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those
health risks.  Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that
it should not have legal liability in these cases.  The outcome
of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and
can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in
legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged
injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the
claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company employs a number of
resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure,
including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial
rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits
under appropriate circumstances.

"Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have
included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning
the health risks associated with asbestos.  Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special
relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture,
produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that allegedly
injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions
of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs'
injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of
asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to
filing suit has expired.  During the course of the litigation,
certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims
against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, while other trial
courts have denied Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions.
There can be no assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company will receive favorable decisions on motions in the
future.  While most cases brought to date have settled,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company intends to continue to defend
aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including
defending claims at trials.

"As reported in the 2017 Annual Report, Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company received approximately 3,514 asbestos-related
claims in 2017.  During the three months ended March 31, 2018 and
2017, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately
823 and 1,104 new asbestos-related claims, respectively.

"The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate
amount of any liability that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given
year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/eqM3P4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nixed 'Take-Home' Asbestos Claim Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Montgomery of Law360 reported that in an acknowledged change
of course, Delaware's Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed the
dismissal of a "take-home" asbestos injury claim by the estate of
a worker's spouse who regularly laundered contaminated clothing,
overruling tort and liability standards used in prior cases.

Writing for the full five-member court, Chief Justice Leo E.
Strine Jr. found that the estate of Dorothy Ramsey -- who died of
lung cancer in 2015 -- could have a viable claim against
manufacturers who supplied asbestos products that in turn
contaminated the workclothes of its employees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Justices Uphold Honeywell Win in Coverage Row
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that Honeywell International Inc. scored a
victory when the New Jersey Supreme Court said the company
doesn't have to help foot the bill for asbestos-related suits
over automotive products filed after insurance for such claims
became unavailable in 1987, dealing a blow to insurers in a long-
running coverage action.

In upholding a state appellate court ruling in Honeywell's favor,
a majority of the justices refused to depart from the
unavailability rule set forth in the high court's 1996 opinion in
Owens-Illinois Inc. v. United Ins. Co.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Feitshans Couple Seeks $50K for PI Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison County Record a couple has filed suit
against several companies over allegations their products
contained asbestos and caused the husband's lung cancer.
Larry Feitshans and Linda Feitshans filed a complaint on June 1
in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against American Biltrite
Inc., Dap Products Inc., Hedman Resources Limited, et al.
alleging negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
times during Larry Feitshans' career from 1956 to 1999, 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 June 16, 2017, he
first became aware that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-
induced disease, and that the disease was wrongfully caused.

The plaintiffs hold American Biltrite Inc., Dap Products Inc.,
Hedman Resources Limited, 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 plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages of more
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-388


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford's Bid to Preclude Deadline Extension Junked
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an effort by Ford Motor Co.
to preclude asbestos plaintiffs from extending expert report
deadlines has been rejected by a Washington federal court, which
found that the plaintiffs could not have reasonably met the
deadline, despite their diligence.

In the June 22 order, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington further opined that the plaintiffs should
not be barred from performing testing on tissue when Ford's co-
defendants have been allowed to conduct such analysis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Complaint Remains in Ill. Court
---------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Illinois federal court
has retained jurisdiction over an asbestos complaint, opining
that the plaintiff's original complaint was "far too vague," to
provide unambiguous notice to Boeing that grounds for removal
were available to it.

In the June 22 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois rejected the plaintiff's position that
Boeing "should have pieced together from his filings that the
products at issue were military planes . . . ."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Plaintiffs Can't Join State Defendants
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York court has
rejected the chance to issue an order requiring asbestos
plaintiffs to join state-court defendants to a separately filed
federal court action, saying that while the joinder of the
defendants into one lawsuit may be efficient but is not required.

In the June 21 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York wrote that if Crane Co. is asked to pay more
than its equitable share, it maintains the right to seek
reimbursements from absent joint tortfeasors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arvinmeritor Named in McDowell Couple's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison County Record reported that a former
mechanic alleges his lung cancer was caused by exposure to
asbestos from various products he encountered during his career.

William McDowell and Carolyn McDowell filed a complaint on June
12 in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against Arvimeritor
Inc., DAP Products Inc., Gould Pumps LLC, et al. alleging
negligence and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
times during William McDowell's employment from 1963 to 2017, 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 Dec. 8,
2015, he first became aware that he developed lung cancer, an
asbestos-induced disease, and that the disease was wrongfully
caused.

The plaintiffs hold Arvimeritor Inc., DAP Products Inc., Gould
Pumps LLC, 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 plaintiffs seek compensatory damages of more than $50,000 and
any further relief as the court deems just and equitable. They
are represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates PC
in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-416


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Seeks $50K Damages for Asbestos Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison County Record reported that several
corporations have been named as defendants a couple's suit over
allegations of injuries from asbestos exposure.

Jesse Glasscock and Judy Glasscock filed a complaint on June 12
in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against Beazer East Inc.,
Cooper Industries LLC, United States Steel Corp., et al. alleging
negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
times during Jesse Glasscock's career from 1967 to 2017, 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 May 9, 2017, he
first became aware that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-
induced disease.

The plaintiffs hold Beazer East Inc., Cooper Industries LLC,
United States Steel Corp., et al. responsible because the
defendants allegedly intentionally included asbestos fibers in
their products when they knew that it had toxic, poisonous and
highly deleterious effect to human's health and failed to provide
adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of
working with or around products containing asbestos fibers.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages of more
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-414


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Ct. Threw Out $55MM Talc Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon of KFGO News reported that a Missouri appeals court
threw out a $55 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson in a
lawsuit by a woman who claimed she developed ovarian cancer after
using talc-based products, including J&J's baby powder, citing a
U.S. Supreme court ruling on where such cases can be brought.

South Dakota resident Gloria Ristesund had been awarded $5
million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive
damages in the 2016 verdict.

She alleged that her decades-long use of J&J talc-based products
for feminine hygiene caused her cancer, and that the company had
failed to warn consumers about the risks.

J&J denied the allegations, saying decades of testing have shown
its cosmetic talc-based products to be safe.

The healthcare conglomerate is battling some 9,000 cases claiming
its talc-based products cause ovarian cancer and, in some cases,
mesothelioma, a rare cancer closely linked to asbestos exposure,
amid allegations the products were contaminated with asbestos
fibers. J&J has said its talc products do not contain asbestos or
cause any form of cancer.

The unanimous three-judge panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals
in the Eastern District, in overturning the verdict, did not rule
on the merits of the allegations.

The judges instead said the verdict could not stand following a
2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limits where companies can
be sued for personal injuries.

The high court ruled that state courts cannot hear claims against
companies that are not based in the state or when the alleged
injuries did not occur there.

J&J is based in New Jersey and Ristesund exclusively purchased
and used the company's talc products in South Dakota and
Minnesota, according to court records.

J&J, in a statement, said it was extremely pleased with the
court's decision to recognize that the trial should have never
occurred.

Ristesund's case was one of more than 60 related talc lawsuits
consolidated in Missouri state court, where juries have a
reputation for issuing high-paying verdicts. But only one of
those cases involved a woman from Missouri, leading many of the
cases to be tossed on jurisdictional grounds.

During the appeals process, Ristesund asked the court for
permission to present additional evidence tying J&J to Missouri.
The judges on Friday rejected her request, saying she had ample
opportunity to present such evidence over the past two years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dad Diagnosed With Asbestos-Related Cancer At 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Hammond of Nottinghamshire Live reported that a man who was
diagnosed with an asbestos-related cancer at just 30 is launching
a campaign to raise GBP100,000 to help fund a clinical trial into
the disease.

Liam Bradley was diagnosed with terminal pleural mesothelioma --
which is "extremely rare" in people under the age of 50 and
"unheard of" in those under 40 -- in February 2017.

The 31-year-old's diagnosis followed a series of unfortunate
events, starting in September 2015 when he suffered a serious
fall while working as a roofer.

He suffered a broken neck, hip and ribs as well as a dislocated
elbow and a punctured lung.

In November 2016, he started feeling nauseous and dizzy after
banging his head while playing at soft play area with his young
daughter Nevaeh.

Due to his earlier neck injury, Liam, who grew up in Eastwood
before moving to Hucknall, decided to go to get checked out at
A&E.

His neck was fine but medics at the Queen's Medical Centre told
him his right lung was 50 percent collapsed.

The news came as a shock to Liam and sparked a series of
appointments which eventually led to him being diagnosed with
mesothelioma at Glenfield Hospital.

He has no idea where he might have been exposed to asbestos.

Liam hopes to kick-start his fundraising campaign with a bike
ride from his home in Swinderby, Lincolnshire, where he moved to
from Hucknall three months ago, to Alicante in Spain -- a journey
of around 1,400m.

He has planned his route and has the support of his family but
Liam needs some donations to help him on his way, including a
bike and first aid kits.

Liz Darlison, head of services at Mesothelioma UK, said: "The
vast majority of patients diagnosed with mesothelioma are over
60. It's unusual to have a patient under 40.

"However, there are a few people like Liam -- and even younger --
in the UK currently with mesothelioma.

"Sadly, asbestos is the only known cause and it's completely
preventable."

Liam has set up a Just Giving page to help with his bid. You can
find it here.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Set in Historic House Asbestos Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Robinson of Pensacola News Journal reported that the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection is moving forward
with a civil lawsuit against a local demolition company that
allegedly released asbestos into the air when it tore down the
historic John Sunday House in Pensacola.

On July 16, 2016, Maverick Demolition of Northwest Florida, Inc.,
demolished a century-old brick home that once belonged to
prominent local businessman John Sunday. The company also tore
down an adjacent building on the same lot.

After the structures were torn down, an environmental group
surveyed the two debris piles and reported that some of the
scraps contained asbestos. The DEP filed a civil lawsuit in April
2017 alleging Maverick failed to inspect the building for
asbestos. The department also claims Maverick mishandled the
toxic materials and failed to issue the proper notifications
before starting its demolition work.

The lawsuit also alleges that Maverick allowed the asbestos
maintaining waste material to remain onsite for 41 days, before
it was ultimately removed by the property owner.

Maverick has denied these allegations. The company also claims
the property in question was exempt from the regulations asserted
by the DEP.

In April 2016, the two parties discussed whether the demolition
of single-family homes was subject to national emissions
standards for "hazardous air," according to the DEPs filing. The
DEP claims officials told McCoy that the standards don't apply to
the demolition of individual single-family homes, but do apply to
the demolition of multiple homes that share the same site and the
same owner or operator.

McCoy's response to the court was that the conversation "related
to a completely different project and property, involving a
separate and distinguishable set of facts."

The trial has been scheduled for June 10, 2019, however the two
parties have been ordered to seek mediation.

The DEP is asking for civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day
the defendant was in violation, reimbursement of its
investigative and legal costs, and any other awards the court
finds appropriate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Maker Blamed for Dad's Mesothelioma
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison County Record reported that a
Belleville woman alleges her late father developed mesothelioma
as a result of exposure to asbestos during his life.

Heidi Santanello, as personal representative of the estate of
Jerald Miller, deceased filed a complaint on June 21 in the St.
Clair County Circuit Court against Air & Liquid Systems Corp.,
Crane Co., Schneider Electric USA Inc., et al., alleging
negligence and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that at various
times during Miller's life, he was exposed to and inhaled or
ingested asbestos fibers emanating from certain products
manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by defendants. He
passed away from mesothelioma on June 22, 2016, the suit states,
and had been employed as a lineman and account for Northwestern
Bell Telephone in Nebraska from 1960 to 1986.

The plaintiff holds Air & Liquid Systems Corp., Crane Co.,
Schneider Electric USA Inc., et al. responsible because the
defendant 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 and economic damages of more
than $50,000. She is represented by Kenneth L. Halvachs and
Ronald J. Abernathy Jr. of Halvachs & Abernathy LLC in
Belleville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-442


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qualification of Asbestos Witness Challenged
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Sammon of St. Louis Record reported that the attorney for 22
women plaintiffs suing Johnson & Johnson for the baby powder they
claimed gave them ovarian cancer on July 2 challenged the
qualifications of a defense witness epidemiologist and accused
her of leaving pertinent information out of her findings.

"You're what we call science for hire, will you agree with that?"
asked Mark Lanier the attorney for the plaintiffs.

"No," responded Dana Hollins, a board certified industrial
hygienist in the areas of environmental and occupational
epidemiology with Cardno ChemRisk of San Francisco, a scientific
consulting firm.

Coverage of the trial in the St. Louis City Circuit Court is
being streamed courtesy of Courtroom View Network.

Hollins appeared as a witness for the defense and said the
findings of asbestos in Johnson & Johnson baby powder alleged by
witnesses for the plaintiffs involved studies that were flawed.
Defense attorney Morton Dubin disputed the findings of Dr. David
Egilman, a plaintiff expert whose testimony had been frequently
cited linking ovarian cancer with asbestos. Egilman had contended
that 960 studies showed the presence of asbestos in J&J talc
powder out of 1,400 studies conducted.

Dubin said Egilman inflated his exposure calculations.
"Did Dr. Egilman perform his analysis scientifically on sound
data?" Dubin asked.

Hollins responded no.

Dubin also noted other alleged test gaffs including a 1972 paper
titled the "Dement," a study he said that did not distinguish
between asbestos and other fibers.

"It must be emphasized that no positive identification of the
fibers found in these powders has been made since the phase
contract microscope is not well suited for the purpose," a
conclusion on the 1972 study read. "Further work is needed to
provide positive identification as to the nature of the fibers
present."

Yet another study paper Dubin maintained was not based on J&J
powder, but a body powder called "Cashmere Bouquet." In addition,
the defense contended that Dr. William Longo, a noted materials
scientist and an electron microscope researcher for the
plaintiffs, had inaccurately measured his powder sampling.

However, Lanier portrayed Hollins' testimony as an attempt to
muddy the waters by the use of "junk science."

"You've got a master's degree in public health, right?" he asked.

"Correct," Hollins answered.

"You said I'm a scientist," Lanier said.

"Right," Hollins answered.

"Are you a biologist or any type of anatomical scientist?" Lanier
asked.

"I wouldn't characterize myself that way," Hollins said.

"What kind of scientist are you?" Lanier asked.

"I'm an industrial hygienist as in epidemiologist," Hollins
maintained.

Lanier said scientists such as Dr. Egilman and another researcher
cited by the plaintiffs, Dr. Jacqueline Moline, were much more
qualified than Hollins to speak on the issue of asbestos
exposure. He said the difference between their qualifications and
hers' was "huge."

"She (Moline) is director of the World Trade Center Medical
Monitoring Committee did you know that?" Lanier asked.

"I did not," Hollins said.

"Have you done any work for them?" Lanier asked.

"I have not," Hollins said.

Lanier asked Hollins if in her review of the case she had
factored in how much baby powder was applied to babies by
mothers?

"I didn't necessarily include it in," Hollins said.

"Oops!" Lanier said. "But you know women testified they would
bathe their children and put the powder on them, right?"

"I don't believe I reviewed their testimony, I reviewed Dr.
Egilman's calculations," Hollins answered.

"Did you include (information) when they used it (powder) on
their carpets?" Lanier asked.

"I did not," Hollins said. "I did not look at those scenarios."

"So your exposure numbers are artificially low," Lanier said.
"They're wrong, too low, correct?"

"I would not characterize it that way," Hollins responded.

"Well I would," Lanier said. "It's wrong isn't it?"

"I wouldn't characterize it as being wrong," Hollins said.

"Well it isn't right," Lanier said. "Do you know the difference
between right and wrong when it comes to a math equation?"

"I do," Hollins said.

"You got it wrong didn't you?" Lanier asked.

"No," Hollins said.

"You didn't get it wrong, but you didn't get it right," Lanier
said. "Two plus two either equals five or it doesn't."

Hollins also agreed she had not looked at the women's genital
application of powder, but had focused on possible exposure due
to inhalation.

"You're saying these women couldn't have their ovarian cancer
caused and contributed to by asbestos -- when you never even took
into account they were putting it on their crotch?" Lanier asked.
Near the end of the session Dr. Cheryl Saenz, a defense witness
and gynecologic oncologist with the UC San Diego School of
Medicine, was called to the stand and asked if J&J powder
contributes to the development of ovarian cancer.

She told the jury she had reviewed a variety of sources including
medical studies in the cases, epidemiology literature, case and
tort literature, websites and information provided by
organizations such as the National Institute of Cancer (NCI). She
added she also relied on her experience as a gynecologist for
over 20 years.

"It is my opinion that using Johnson & Johnson (powder) does not
lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer," Saenz said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Manor Residents Worry on Asbestos Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brennan Doherty of Toronto Star reported that former residents of
Kensington Manor are concerned they may have been exposed to
asbestos following news that the building's owners may need to
conduct an asbestos abatement before its demolition.

Alison McIntosh, a member of the Renters Action Movement, lived
in the building for just over a year, until concerns about its
structural integrity prompted the city to hurriedly evacuate the
building last November. She said tenants were allowed to re-enter
the building about two weeks later to collect whatever belongings
they'd left behind.

"When we went in, the shoring up of the building had left holes
in the walls and ceilings of everyone's space," she said. "All of
our stuff was covered in a thick, white dust that we assumed was
drywall, and now we are concerned it may have contained
asbestos."

The concerns came after news of Kensington Manor's impending
demolition, after the city ordered the building's owners to get a
demolition or remediation permit by the end of June, or finish
any necessary repairs by Dec. 30. An engineer hired by the owners
had warned that the seven-storey building was at risk of
"imminent" collapse.

Wayne Brown, safety resource unit co-ordinator at Calgary
Building Services, confirmed the building's owners had applied
for the demolition permit.

As part of the procedure, Brown also said the owners are
conducting an asbestos abatement in the near future, given the
building's age.

"There's a strong likelihood that there is asbestos in the
building given the year the building was constructed," Brown
said.

National Equity Management Limited, the property management
company for the manor at the time of the evacuation, told
StarMetro Calgary it no longer manages the building. Attempts to
reach Don Lowe, the former property manager of Kensington Manor,
or members of the building's current ownership group, were
unsuccessful.

Bruce Conway, a spokesperson for Alberta Health Services, said
Kensington Manor hasn't shown up in Environmental Public Health
inspection reports for asbestos concerns in the last eight years,
nor has it since the building was evacuated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Coast Garbos Exposed to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------
Hit 107 reported that the Central Coast's garbage collection
service says staff have been exposed to asbestos after it was
uncovered in green bins.

Waste contractor 1Coast took to Facebook overnight, hitting out
over the shock discovery of the dangerous material among garden
waste, believed to have originated in either Umina or Ettalong
Beach.

Residents face $7,500 dollar fines for illegal asbestos dumping,
while it's $15,000 on the spot for businesses.

The Environment Protection Authority has been approached for
comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Dist. Still Under Advisement in Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo of Madison County Record reported
that Fifth District Appellate Court justices are still under
advisement and receiving supplemental motions roughly one and a
half years after oral arguments were heard in the Jeffs v Ford
asbestos jurisdictional appeal out of Madison County.

Oral arguments were heard on Dec. 14, 2016, by justices Richard
Goldenhersh, Thomas Welch and James "Randy" Moore. The case has
been under advisement ever since.

Fifth District Circuit Clerk John J. Flood said that most
recently, counsel for Ford Motor Company filed a motion to cite
additional authority on June 5 following the First District
Appellate Court's decision in Campbell v ACME Insulations.
In the May 18 Campbell decision, First District justices Thomas
E. Hoffman, Maureen E. Connors and Mathias W. Delort reversed a
decision out of the Cook County Circuit Court denying defendant
General Electric's motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

Plaintiff Anissa Campbell, on behalf of decedent Arlin Campbell,
is a resident of Alabama and filed a complaint May 4, 2017, in
Cook County. The complaint alleges Arlin Campbell was diagnosed
with mesothelioma in December 2016 as a result of asbestos
exposure at various jobs in Illinois, Alabama, Louisiana and
Texas between 1961 and 1999. Campbell worked in Illinois at
Republic Steel in Chicago from 1964 to 1965. However the
complaint did not specifically allege that Campbell encountered
GE products containing asbestos at Republic Steel.

GE filed a motion to dismiss on June 9, 2017, arguing that
dismissal was proper because Campbell failed to allege sufficient
facts to confer personal jurisdiction under the Illinois long-arm
statute.

Campbell responded on Aug. 16, 2016, "arguing that Illinois has
'jurisdiction by necessity' because he was exposed to asbestos in
multiple states and there is no single forum in which he could
sue every defendant."

Campbell further argued that GE consented to jurisdiction by
doing business and having a registered agent in Illinois, causing
the defendant to be "at home" in Illinois.

General Electric's motion was denied Nov. 14, 2017, in an oral
ruling without identifying the basis for finding personal
jurisdiction. GE appealed.

The appellate court found that General Electric is not "at home"
in Illinois and not subject to the circuit court's general
personal jurisdiction.

The defendant is incorporated in New York and its principle place
of business is in Massachusetts.

"Although GE has been licensed to conduct business in Illinois
since 1897, employs 3,000 employees at 30 facilities that it
owns, leases, or operates in Illinois, and bases up to 6 business
units in this state, we must consider that activity in the
context of GE's national and worldwide operations. GE's business
in Illinois constitutes a relatively small portion of its total
operations," Hoffman wrote.

The appellate court further held that GE did not consent to be
sued in Illinois based on the same reasoning the court found to
be insufficient to invoke general personal jurisdiction.

"We also reject the notion that GE 'consented' to jurisdictional
because, in unrelated matters, it sued in Illinois courts or
defended actions without contesting jurisdiction. A party does
not consent to jurisdiction in one proceeding by reason of
failing to contest jurisdiction in another, and we cannot say
that a non-resident defendant's periodic participation in
litigation in Illinois over the course of its existence causes it
to 'reasonably anticipate being haled into court' on any matter
when the requirements for minimum contacts have not otherwise
been met" Hoffman wrote.

As for specific personal jurisdiction, the appellate court found
that Campbell did not establish a basis for jurisdiction over GE.

"Other than his deposition testimony, the plaintiff did not
introduce any other evidentiary material supporting his claim
that he was exposed to a product produced by GE containing
asbestos, during his employment in Illinois," the opinion states.

Citing the Bristol-Myers Squibb decision, the appellate court
further rejected the plaintiff's argument that a "sliding scale"
approach to specific personal jurisdiction applies. The "sliding
scale" approach argues that a connection between a plaintiff's
claim and the defendant's forum contacts can more readily be
established if the defendant has wide-ranging contacts in that
forum.

In regards to the plaintiff's "jurisdiction by necessity"
argument, the appellate court rejected the theory "absent any
authority adopting the concept."

Hoffman wrote that Campbell cites U.S. Supreme Court decisions
"that he construes as showing the court's implicit recognition
that such a doctrine exists, he identifies no case in which the
court adopted the doctrine or, for that matter, any case in which
any other court exercised jurisdiction over a party on that
basis."

On the other hand, Ford attorney Sean Marotta of Hogan Lovells in
Washington D.C. argued before the Fifth District that the case of
Dale and Irene Jeffs should be litigated in Michigan, where
Ford's principal place of business is located, or Delaware, which
is its state of incorporation, according to the audio file of the
hearing.

Dale Jeffs, now deceased, had worked as an insulator for various
contractors at various locations from 1968 to 1995, including
time at Ford's plant in Michigan.

Marotta's arguments largely relied on the 2014 Daimler decision
in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that a corporation is only
subject to general jurisdiction where it is essentially "at
home," except in extraordinary situations.

Marotta went on to argue that nothing in Illinois' strong-arm
statute or the Corporation Act states that by registering to do
business in Illinois, a corporation consents to jurisdiction.
The Jeffs' case was originally filed in Madison Count by
attorneys at the Maune Raichle firm in St. Louis.

However, attorney Jonathan Ruckdeschel of the Ruckdeschel Law
Firm in Maryland presented oral arguments on behalf of the
plaintiffs.
He argued that although Jeffs was a resident of Florida and was
exposed to asbestos in Michigan, Madison County is the
appropriate venue.

"There is no dispute that Mr. Jeffs was exposed to asbestos from
asbestos-containing pipe insulation at a power plant in Michigan
that was owned by Ford to power its factories. There is also no
dispute in this case, for purposes of today, that Illinois
workers at Ford's Illinois plants have been exposed to airborne
asbestos from pipe covering in the power plants and factories
that Ford runs in Illinois where thousands of Illinois citizens
work every day," Ruckdeschel said.

"We have the same exact hazard. We have the same exact
consequence. We have citizens in the state of Illinois being
exposed to the same danger that Mr. Jeffs was exposed to. The
only distinction is the exposure didn't occur in the state," he
added.
He argued that no case or statute has ever expanded or changed
the meaning for obtaining general jurisdiction over a corporation
in Illinois.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 15-L-533


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandt Couple Sues Over Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Hackney Gazette reported that a couple alleges
the husband's cancer was caused by his exposure to asbestos
during his employment.

Phillip Brandt and Eileen Brandt filed a complaint on June 20 in
the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against the DAP Inc.,
IMO Industries Inc., J.P. Bushnell Packaging Supply Co., et al.
alleging negligence and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
times during Phillip Brandt's career at various locations in
Wisconsin, 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 June 29, 2017, he first became aware that he developed
lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, and that the disease
was wrongfully caused.

The plaintiffs hold DAP Inc., IMO Industries Inc., J.P. Bushnell
Packaging Supply 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 plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek compensatory
damages of no less than $25,000, plus punitive damages and all
further relief as the court deems just and equitable. They are
represented by Wilson D. Sikes of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC in
Edwardsville.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1822-CC10605





                            *********


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  * * *