CAR_Public/180810.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, August 10, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 160

                            Headlines

7-ELEVEN INC: Wins Prelim. Approval of Gittens Suit Settlement
ABC METRO CLEANERS: Doesn't Pay OT to Ironers, Pastor Alleges
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 17 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
ACE AMERICAN: Denied Minimum Wages, Paystubs, Sandbergen Says
ADVANTAGE RN: Court Certifies Health Care Professionals Class

AIR CANADA: Former Aveos Employees' Class Action Can Proceed
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Denies Franco Bid to Certify Class
AMALIE AOC: Opalka Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Agrees to Settle Class-Action Lawsuit
AMP: Financial Planner Pressured to Sell Inferior Products

AMP: To Vigorously Defend Claims in Shareholder Class Action
ANGRY CRAB: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alarcon Suit Alleges
ANSELMO LINDBERG: Rongey Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Unauthorized Property Inspection Fees
BHP: Faces Class Action in Australia Over Samarco Dam Failure

BIG PICTURE LOANS: Faces McCoy et al. RICO Suit in N.D. Georgia
BLUESTEM BRANDS: Williams Seeks Class Certification Under TCPA
BOLD ENERGY: Olenik Appeals Securities Suit Ruling
BRIUS HEALTHCARE: Faces 15 Class-Action Lawsuits
CALIFORNIA: Plaintiffs' Motion in Solitary Confinement Case OK'd

CANADA: RCMP Faces Another Harassment, Bullying Class Action
CAPTIVA MVP RESTAURANT: Faces Tsao Suit over Data Breach
CBS MEDICAL: Davis Neurology Appeals Judgment to Eighth Circuit
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Prizler Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
CITIBANK: Home Loan Borrowers File Class Action in California

CLEARONE ADVANTAGE: Souders Hits Autodialed Telemarketing Calls
CLIMB WORKS: Faces Class Action Over E. Coli Outbreak
COGZIDEL CORP: Williams Hits Autodialed Telemarketing Calls
CONN'S INC: Motley Rice Files Class Action Settlement
CONNECTICUT: Correction Dept. Sued Over Expensive Hep C Drugs

COWORX STAFFING: Underpays Call Center Reps, Robin Bell Claims
CRAFT BREW: Broomfield Moves to Certify Two Classes of Consumers
D'AMBRA CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguilar Alleges
DR. PEPPER: Drink Doesn't Contain Real Ginger, Childers Claims
ECHELON CORP: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Fraud Class Action

ELI LILLY: Bentele et al. RICO Suit Underway in New Jersey
ELIOT MANAGEMENT: Underpays Sales Representatives, Anemanna Says
EPIC SYSTEMS: Kane Russell Attorney Discusses Arbitration Ruling
FACEBOOK INC: Former Soldier Leads Class Action in Australia
FACEBOOK INC: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

FACEBOOK INC: Sept. 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
FACEBOOK: Pierce Bainbridge Probing Potential Securities Suit
FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Are FHFA & the GSEs Government Actors?
FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Nelson Personal Injury Suit Removed to D.S.C.
FOUR CORNERS: Faces Class Action Over Withheld Tips

FULTON COUNT, GA: To Spend Big Bucks to Defend Tax Class Action
FYRE MEDIA: Music Festival Creator Faces New Fraud Charges
GEOFFREY PALMER: Sued for Witholding Tenants' Security Deposits
GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC: Gumm et al. Seek to Certify Class
GEORGIA: Firefighters Seek to Reverse Racial Bias Case Ruling

HASHFLARE: Class Action Mulled Over Bitcoin Mining Contracts
IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Settles Shareholder Class Action
INVESTA SERVICES: BC Grand Sues over Real Property Tax Assessments
JUNIPER PHARMA: Rosenblatt Challenges Sale to Catalent Pharma
KIA MOTORS: Appeals Court Reinstates $6.3MM Class Action Award

LIFE INSURANCE: Class of Policy Purchasers Certified in "Walker"
LIFESAFER INC: Spencer Sues over Ignition Interlock Devices
LOCK HAVEN: AG Shapiro Seeks Ruling in Title IX Class Action
LOGMEIN INC: Wortman Sues over Auto-Renewal Policy
MAJOR MODEL: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime, Raske Says

MATERIAL TRANSPORT: Search and Rose Sue over Minimum & OT Pay
MDL 2084: Court Denies Bid to Certify Direct Purchaser Class
MERCK & CO: Smith's Bid to Certify Nixed Pending Aug. 17 Hearing
MICRO FOCUS: Schmitt Securities Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
MONSANTO CO: Faces 4-R Farms Suit over Herbicide Products

MONSANTO CO: Ray Suit Seeks Damages Over Roundup Exposure
MONSANTO CO: Schade Suit Says Herbicide Exposure Caused Lymphoma
MONSANTO CO: Smith Blames Roundup Exposure as Cause for Lymphoma
NERIUM INTERNATIONAL: Faces Fraud Class Action in California
NEW YORK: US/Nurses Suit Settlement Provisionally Approved

NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Settles Securities Class Action for $19MM
NISSAN MOTORS: Must Face Class Action Over Defective Sentra CVTs
NORDSTROM INC: Alex Ponce's Wage-and-Hour Suit Dismissed
NOVARTIS PHARMA: Turlock Hits Hypertension Meds Price-rigging
NY FAST GENERAL: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Premium

O'GARA COACH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Kevin Amini Alleges
OHIO STATE: Rep. Jim Jordan Named as Defendant in Class Action
PACIFIC WINE: Bejarano Seeks Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers
PE CONTROL: US Energy Alleges Violation of N.Y. State Lien Law
PEERLESS CREDIT: Margereum Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections

PNC BANK: Fergerstrom et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
PPG PLAN ADMINISTRATOR: Bellon et al. Sue over Welfare Benefits
PRECISION FOCUS: Underpays Security Personnel, Jordan Craft Says
PRO LABEL: Thomas Melzer Alleges Time-Shaving
QUORUM HEALTH: Zwick Partners et al. Seek to Certify Class

R.J. DELIVERY: Underpays Movers & Helpers, Campos Suit Alleges
RCD INC: Hermenegildo Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Too Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
ROYAL WINNIPEG: National Student Class Action Certified
SALESUMO LLC: Pino Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums

SECURUS TECH: Romero et al. Renew Bid to Certify Class
SERVICE CORP: Trinidad Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
SEWARD PARK: Averts Homeowners' Suit Over Parking Spaces
SI PROPERTIES: Nash Alleges Unsafe & Unsanitary Housing
SILVERSTAR DELIVERY: Wasilewski Seeks to Certify Employees Class

SKYLINE FINANCIAL: Abdus-Salaam Seeks to Certify FLSA Suit
SOCAL GAS: Judge Orders Key Witness to Testify in Class Action
SOUTH KOREA: Top Court Delays Ruling in Human Rights Case
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Quinn's Bid to Certify Class Under Advisement
STARBUCKS CORP: Must Pay Workers for Off-Clock Work, Court Rules

SUMMIT CASING: Rains Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SUNWORKS UNITED: Naiman Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
SYNERGIES3 TEC: Jones Seeks to Certify Collective Action
THORN GROUP: Aug. 9 Hearing Set to Resolve Outstanding Issues
TICKETMASTER: Offers Freebies, Discounts as Part of Settlement

TOPPS TOWING: Sosa Seeks Payment of Minimum & OT Wages
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Cardenas & Kirton Suit over Defective HVAC
TRUSTEDID INC: Williams Suit Transferred to S. Carolina Dist. Ct.
UNITED STATES: 24 Montana Counties Joint PILT Class Action
UNITED STATES: Immigrant Reunifications Must Be Transparent

UNITED STATES: Misses Deadline to Reunify Immigrant Families
UNITED STATES: Ravalli County Joints PILT Payments Class Action
UNIVERSAL TRANSPORTATION: Sprague Moves to Certify FLSA Class
UTAH HIGH SCHOOL: Class Action Mulled Over Title IX Disparity
VECTREN CORP: Faces Michael Kuebler Suit over CenterPoint Merger

VERMONT DOC: Russell Seeks to Certify Muslim Inmates Class
WAL-MART STORES: Quiles et al. Seek to Certify Class
WASHINGTON, DC: Lawsuits Over Unjust Teacher Dismissals Ongoing
XPLORE TECH: Scarantino Seeks to Block Sale to Zebra Tech
ZOCO PRODUCTIONS: Dr. Oz Settles False Advertising Class Action


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baldor Electric Dismissed From Dickens' Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bergeron Couple Sues Alleges Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bonvillain Couple Sues Dow Chemical Over Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Avon Sole Factory Posts Asbestos Warning
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 3 Suits, Claims for $195K

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.5-Bil. Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Records US$918MM NARCO Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jack's PI Claims vs. M.W. Custom Papers Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Sides With Celanese in $8MM Asbestos Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kraus Bid to Strike Government Defense Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Withdraws Stay of T. Pogacnick's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Connor Appeal Withdrawn from Docket
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Opioid Lawsuits Not Comparable to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partially Collapsed Bank Building Has Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Deems Non-PC Claims Inactive

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 475 Open Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Remains Shielded from PC Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Kraus' Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Devries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Mullinax's Claims vs. Honeywell Dropped
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scots Woman Negligently Exposed to Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thrash's PI Claims vs. Boeing Company Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.2-Bil. Net Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Dickens' Claims vs. Gardner Denver Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Admits to Asbestos Fraud Scheme


                            *********

7-ELEVEN INC: Wins Prelim. Approval of Gittens Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sandra J. Feuerstein grants the parties' joint motion for
preliminary approval of their settlement resolving the lawsuit
titled SHAKEIRA GITTENS, on behalf of herself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Case No.
2:17-cv-06378-SJF-AKT (E.D.N.Y.).

Shakeira Gittens initiated this case on November 1, 2017.  In her
Complaint, which was later joined by two Opt-In Plaintiffs,
Daniealla Adames and Lisanyela Gonzalez, the Plaintiff asserts
collective action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and Rule 23 class action claims under New York Labor Law.

The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, the settlement
classes, defined as:

   a. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), all individuals who
      spent at least one day performing any work for Defendant as
      an hourly, non-exempt employee at either 7-Eleven Store No.
      11159 (located at 80 Brooklyn A venue, Freeport, NY 11520)
      and/or Store No. 24568 (located at 1571 Hempstead Turnpike,
      Elmont, NY 11003) (together, the "Relevant Stores") at any
      time from February 12, 2016 through January 12, 2017 (the
      "Relevant Time Period ") ("New York Class"); and

   b. Under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), all individuals who spent
      at least one day performing any work for Defendant as an
      hourly employee in the Relevant Stores during the Relevant
      Time Period, and who negotiates his/her settlement check
      received as a result of this settlement, thereby opting in
      to the settlement of all FLSA claims ("Federal Class").

Judge Feuerstein appoints Shakeira Gittens as Class Representative;
Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C., as Class Counsel; and Arden Claims
Service, LLC, as Claims Administrator.  Arden Claims will be
responsible for communicating with Class Members, disseminating the
Notice, accepting and maintaining documents sent by Class Members,
including Opt-out statements and other documents relating to claims
administration, and administering claims for allocation, according
to the formula set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

The Parties are directed to require the Claims Administrator to
send the Notice and Claim Form to putative class members by August
14, 2018.

Any potential Class Member may opt out of the Class by mailing a
written, signed statement to the Claims Administrator postmarked or
received on or before September 28, 2018.  Class Counsel must file
their Motion for Final Approval on or before October 29, 2018.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on the settlement on
November 29, 2018, at 11:15 a.m. E.S.T.



ABC METRO CLEANERS: Doesn't Pay OT to Ironers, Pastor Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS PASTOR, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABC METRO CLEANERS, INC. (D/B/A ABC CLEANER
NYC); SAU YING WANG; DAVY MAK; JOSE DOE, and EMY DOE, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06089 (S.D.N.Y., July 5, 2018) is an action
against the Defendants to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Luis Pastor was employed by the Defendants as ironer from June 19,
2017 to June 16, 2018.

ABC Metro Cleaners, Inc. d/b/a ABC Cleaner NYC is a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
New York. The Company own, operate, or control a laundry service,
located at 184 Avenue C, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 17 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until September 17, 2018 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nasdaq:ACAD), if they purchased the Company's
securities between April 29, 2016 and July 9, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of ACADIA Pharmaceuticals and would
like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect
you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may,
without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner
Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-acad/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by September 17, 2018.

About the Lawsuit

ACADIA and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On July 9, 2018, a report published by the Southern Investigative
Reporting Foundation highlighted problems associated with the
Company's sole drug, Nuplazid, a treatment for Parkinson's disease,
as well as the Company's growth strategies that "have attracted
intense regulatory scrutiny for other drug companies" including
"dispensing wads of cash to doctors to incentivize prescription
writing and downplaying mounting reports of patient deaths."

On this news, the price of ACADIA's shares plummeted $1.21/share,
or 6.8%, to close at $16.63/share on July 9, 2018.

                  About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in
New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. [GN]

ACE AMERICAN: Denied Minimum Wages, Paystubs, Sandbergen Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Sandbergen, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ACE American Insurance Co.,
Federal Insurance Co. and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-04567, (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2018), seeks to recover minimum
and overtime wages, redress for failure to provide meal periods and
rest breaks, accurate itemized wage statements and all wages due
upon separation of employment pursuant to the Business and
Professions Code, the California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Defendants operate as Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, providing
insurance products to commercial and personal customers. Sandbergen
worked as an insurance underwriter for three years out of Chubb's
San Francisco office. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq.
      Eduard Meleshinsky, Esq.
      Logan Starr, Esq.
      BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
      1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 444-9300
      Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
      Email: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
             eduard@bryanschwartzlaw.com
             logan@bryanschwartzlaw.com

ADVANTAGE RN: Court Certifies Health Care Professionals Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled EMILY HOWELL, an individual on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADVANTAGE
RN, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00883-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Janis L.
Sammartino entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion to certify a class of:

      "all non-exempt hourly health care professionals employed
      by Advantage RN in California from May 2, 2013 through the
      date of class certification who worked pursuant to a
      Traveler Assignment Confirmation, worked overtime, and had
      the value of the per diem stipend and/or loyalty, extension
      or completion bonus paid to them excluded from their
      regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime"; and

   2. conditionally certifying Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards
      Act collective as:

      "all non-exempt hourly health care professionals employed
      by Defendant Advantage RN LLC in the United States within
      three years prior to the date of certification who worked
      pursuant to a Traveler Assignment Confirmation, worked in
      excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks, and had the
      value of the per diem stipend and/or loyalty, extension or
      completion bonus paid to them excluded from their regular
      rate for purposes of calculating overtime"; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff Emily Howell as the class
      representative and Plaintiff's counsel Matthew B. Hayes and
      Hayes Pawlenko LLP as class counsel.


AIR CANADA: Former Aveos Employees' Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
News 1130 reports that Air Canada discusses second-quarter results
on July 20. Former Aveos employees have been authorized to proceed
with a class action lawsuit against the airline, which sold most of
its shares in Aveos in 2007 and gradually reduced its contracts
with the maintenance company, forcing it to close permanently in
2012 due to lack of orders. [GN]

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Denies Franco Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned GILBERTO FRANCO, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC
f/k/a ALLIED INTERSTATE, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:13-cv-04053-KBF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine B. Forrest
entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

The Court required the parties to meet and confer and file a joint
letter setting forth a proposed schedule for resolution of
plaintiff's individual claims.

The Court said, "Plaintiff has suggested that defendant's offer of
judgment and subsequent argument against class certification allow
it to 'unilaterally avoid class liability through gimmicks or
creative litigation strategies.' Presumably, plaintiff is concerned
that defendant will be incentivized to offer judgment to any named
plaintiff brought into this action (or other action), and that
plaintiff will therefore be deemed 'inadequate' under Rule 23. That
concern is purely hypothetical, and on the record here,
speculative. It is not based in any facts tethered to this case.
There is not a single fact suggesting that: (1) if plaintiff is
deemed an inadequate representative due to his rejection of a
fulsome offer, another potential plaintiff would or could be
proffered; (2) that defendant would then proceed to 'pick off' by
making a similar offer. Thus, this argument is without factual
basis and is purely speculative. Moreover, any future plaintiff
would be subject to their own individualized analysis under Rule
23, and that plaintiff might submit an adequate factual record
under Rule 23."


AMALIE AOC: Opalka Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------
Brandon Opalka an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amalie AOC, Ltd., Defendant, Case
No. 18-19664-CA-44, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami) on July 27, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-23072.

Opalka bought a bottle of Amalie AOC's premium motor oil and claims
that its XCEL line of premium motor oils lacks sufficient additives
and could cause engine failure. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
      Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
      Robert J. Neary, Esq.
      KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
      2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 372-1800
      Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
      Email: hst@kttlaw.com
             tjl@kttlaw.com
             gfranjola@kttlaw.com

Amalie AOC is represented by:

      Irma T. Reboso-Solares, Esq.
      Julianna Thomas McCabe, Esq.
      Michael N. Wolgin, Esq.
      CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
      Miami Tower
      100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 4200
      Miami, FL 33131-2113
      Tel: (305) 347-6843, 347-6870, 530-0050
      Fax: (305) 530-0055
      Email: isolares@carltonfields.com
             jtmccabe@carltonfields.com
             mwolgin@cfjblaw.com

AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Agrees to Settle Class-Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The American Osteopathic Association (AOA) has agreed to settle a
lawsuit brought by four of its members and, after final approval of
the settlement, will no longer require that its board-certified
physicians maintain membership in the association.

The plaintiffs' attorneys, Philadelphia-based Duane Morris, LLP,
will receive fees and costs in an amount not to exceed $2,617,000.
Subject to court approval, Duane Morris will then pay $15,000 to
each of the four plaintiffs -- Albert Talone, DO, Craig Wax, DO,
Richard Renza, DO, and Roy Stoller, DO -- from its legal fees.
There is no other monetary settlement.

The AOA believes that the business practices at issue in the
lawsuit were lawful, but chose to settle the case because the
litigation appeared likely to extend for several years, said AOA
President William S. Mayo, DO.  The legal case prevented the AOA
from fully implementing strategic initiatives in membership and
board certification and strained staff resources, he explained.

"For two years, the AOA's human and financial resources have been
diverted to defending this lawsuit rather than to refining our
organization to meet the needs of a rapidly growing profession. Our
business is to serve the 137,000 osteopathic medical students and
DOs in the United States. Settling this lawsuit allows us to focus
on the impactful work that is only done by the AOA, such as
practice rights protection, legal assistance and federal advocacy
for DOs," Dr. Mayo said.

A $90 reduction of membership dues was part of the settlement
agreement. Recently approved by the AOA House of Delegates, the
dues reduction applies to regular members for three years starting
June 1, 2019. The AOA is a physician-led organization in which
members set their own dues, which necessitated the vote.  The AOA
also will suspend board certification maintenance fees of $90 for
three years.

Further, the AOA will recognize online continuing medical education
(CME) as equivalent to live CME for the purpose of meeting
membership requirements and will offer AOA members two free online
CME courses for three years, a value of $40 to $150 per year,
depending on specialty.

The AOA will also continue its brand awareness campaign for
osteopathic physicians through May 31, 2021.

          About the American Osteopathic Association

The American Osteopathic Association (AOA) represents more than
137,000 osteopathic physicians (DOs) and osteopathic medical
students; promotes public health; encourages scientific research;
serves as the primary certifying body for DOs; and is the
accrediting agency for osteopathic medical schools. [GN]


AMP: Financial Planner Pressured to Sell Inferior Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Sean Nicholls, Lesley Robinson and Alice Mulheron, writing for ABC,
report that a former AMP planner has described the financial
services giant as a "dictatorship", claiming he was pressured to
sell in-house products, including to a client who would have been
left thousands of dollars a year worse off.

The allegations are part of an ABC Four Corners investigation into
AMP's scandal-plagued financial planning business.

AMP is reeling after evidence at the financial services royal
commission in April that it charged customers "fees for no service"
and repeatedly misled the corporate regulator about doing so during
a major, ongoing investigation.

AMP also faces a shareholder class action worth potentially
hundreds of millions of dollars. The company's market value has
plunged by several billion dollars since the revelations.

Brett Strong signed on as an AMP-licensed planner in mid-2013 after
deciding to grow his independent financial advice business, which
services customers in the Illawarra and on the NSW South Coast.

Signing on as a self-employed representative of AMP allowed Mr
Strong access to more than 2,000 clients on AMP's books — almost
tripling his existing customer base of 700.

Fees for no service
Mr Strong told Four Corners that when he began calling the clients
it became apparent they had not had any contact with an AMP adviser
for many years, despite being charged a monthly adviser fee.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has
investigated a range of financial institutions including AMP, ANZ,
the Commonwealth Bank and NAB over charging advice fees to
customers where no service was provided, since 2015.

AMP has acknowledged that from 2008 it wrongly charged more than
15,000 customers $4.7 million in adviser fees when their financial
planner had left the business and had not been replaced.

The company said 3,500 clients were deliberately charged fees for
no service, totalling less than $600,000, while the rest were
charged by mistake.

ASIC's investigation of AMP is ongoing.

Mr Strong said the incentives AMP offered him to join its network
made him feel like, "a corporate slut; a bitch to somebody's
command".

"A puppet would be the best way to describe it," he said.

Pressure to sell in-house products
Mr Strong told Four Corners AMP began to pressure him to favour AMP
in-house products over others in the market.

He said each time his business reviewed a client or had a new
client he would send a recommendation about the type of products
they needed to AMP head office.

"Every time it came back, regardless of what I had put as an
adviser, the product at the end of the advice or the structure was
an AMP product," Mr Strong said.

"The real issue in my opinion was the fact that they were trying to
get my existing book of business over to their particular products
and services."

Mr Strong said this, "didn't sit well with me, because being in the
independent market space, I already knew that there were
alternative options available, and as an adviser I was utilising
those alternatives".

He said the final straw was when he recommended a long-standing
client set up a self-managed superannuation fund.

He says AMP managers pressured him into selling the client an AMP
superannuation product, which, in Mr Strong's view, would have left
the client thousands of dollars a year worse off.

When Mr Strong argued against doing so, he says AMP pushed back and
told him in a meeting, "I will be using the AMP product, because it
is in the client's best interest".

"Now, best-interest duties for advisers are quite simple. Whose
interest is it in? This particular case it was in the best of
interest of the AMP," Mr Strong said.

He said he resigned as an AMP adviser over the matter.

AMP to review claims
Asked to describe his experience working with AMP, Mr Strong said:
"I guess the best way to describe that would be that it was a
dictatorship."

An AMP spokeswoman told Four Corners Mr Strong resigned in March
2014 after it notified him, "of compliance issues, including
certain advice".

She said his AMP authorisation was then "terminated" the following
August.

"AMP will review the claims made by Mr Strong to the Four Corners
program," she said.

"We encourage any of our advisers or employees — past or present
— who have witnessed behaviours they believe don't put customers'
interests first to come forward with their concerns.

"They can do this formally or through our anonymous whistle blower
channels. All concerns raised will be taken seriously.

"Our advisers are able to advise on both AMP and non-AMP products.
They have a legal obligation to only recommend a new product when
it is in their client's best interests." [GN]

AMP: To Vigorously Defend Claims in Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Killian Plastow, writing for ifa, reports that AMP has maintained
it didn't fail in its obligations to disclose information regarding
fees for no service and will defend against claims made in a
shareholder class action that it had.

In a statement, AMP announced it has lodged its defence to a
shareholder class action led by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
which argues the company "should have disclosed to the market
information about the issues highlighted during AMP's appearance at
the royal commission hearings in April 2018".

"AMP confirms it will vigorously defend this and all similar
proceedings," AMP said.

"AMP denies the plaintiff's allegations that it had information
that was required to be disclosed to the market during the relevant
period (May 2012 to April 2018) regarding the practice of charging
advice fees for no service related to the 90-day exception and
ringfencing, and AMP's interactions with ASIC (including in respect
of the Clayton Utz report)."

The company said none of the information it had regarding any of
the issues brought up by the royal commission were material to
AMP's shareprice, noting the fees for no service affected less than
4,000 customers and accounted for only $600,000, its misleading
statements to ASIC didn't mislead the regulator in any material way
regarding fees for no service, and that ASIC was aware of the
relationship between AMP and Clayton Utz.

"Further, Clayton Utz did not make any changes to the report as a
result of communications with AMP which Clayton Utz did not agree
with, and Clayton Utz carefully verified the accuracy of the
statements in the report," the company said. [GN]

ANGRY CRAB: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alarcon Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
SERVANDO ALARCON; GREGORY GARCIA; FREYA O'KEEFE; and MARY PINEDA
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ANGRY CRAB SHACK CORPORATION; ANGRY CRAB FRANCHISE
LLC; ANGRY CRAB SHACK BBQ LLC; AC AHWATUKEE, LLC; AC EAST MESA,
LLC; AC GOODYEAR, LLC; AC PEORIA, LLC; RONALD LOU AND JANE DOE LOU;
DAN SEVILLA AND JANE DOE SEVILLA; ANDREW DIAMOND AND JANE DOE
DIAMOND; DAVID ENG AND JANE DOE ENG; and JASON LOPEZ AND JANE DOE
LOPEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02207-SMM (D. Ariz., July 12,
2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as full-time,
non-exempt employees.

Angry Crab Shack Corporation is an Arizona corporation, authorized
to do business in the State of Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                  chris@bendaulaw.com


ANSELMO LINDBERG: Rongey Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
----------------------------------------------------------
William R. Rongey, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Anselmo Lindberg & Associates LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04613 (N.D. Ill., July 3, 2018) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.

Anselmo Lindberg & Associates LLC provides legal expertise in the
areas of real estate, estate planning, default services and general
litigation for businesses and individuals. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575-8181
          E-mail: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Unauthorized Property Inspection Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
a homeowner has filed a class action lawsuit against Bank of
America, alleging she was assessed and forced to pay unauthorized
inspection fees on a mortgaged property.

Lead plaintiff Gloria Tirado filed a complaint June 28 in Cook
County Circuit Court, saying the bank allegedly failed to notify
her of the inspections or to contact her to determine whether the
property was occupied, and continued to charge fees for inspection
even after learning that her property was occupied.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek actual damages,
restitution, return of amounts wrongfully received, removal of
outstanding charges for unauthorized inspection fees, interest,
punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs.

She is represented by Arthur Czaja -- arthur@czajalawoffices.com --
of The Law Offices Of Arthur C. Czaja and Assoc. in Niles and
Jeffrey Berman and Patrick Solberg -- psolberg@andersonwanca.com  
-- of Anderson + Wanca in Rolling Meadows.

Cook County Circuit Court case number 18-CH-08116 [GN]

BHP: Faces Class Action in Australia Over Samarco Dam Failure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that global miner BHP said on July 23 it has been
served with a class action proceeding in the Federal Court of
Australia regarding the 2015 Samarco dam failure in Brazil.

BHP said it would defend the claim lodged in Victoria state. It did
not specify who had filed the class action, which relates to a 2015
dam burst that killed 19 people.

Samarco and its parent companies Vale SA and BHP signed a deal with
Brazilian authorities in June to settle a 20 billion reais ($5.30
billion) lawsuit related to the failure.

The miner also agreed to fund a total of $211 million in financial
support for the Renova Foundation, created to help victims of the
Samarco dam disaster in Brazil.

BHP said it expected to record a charge of $650 million in its
fiscal 2018 results on account of the failure. The charge was at
the lower end of expectations according to analysts.

The Daily Telegraph reports that 3000 shareholders have signed up
to participate in a class action against miner BHP over the deadly
Samarco dam disaster of 2015. The mining giant has confirmed it
will fight the allegations. [GN]

BIG PICTURE LOANS: Faces McCoy et al. RICO Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Picture Loans,
LLC. The case is captioned as Victoria Renee McCoy; and Desiree
Wright Lovins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Big Picture Loans, LLC; Matt Martorello;
Ascension Technologies, LLC f/k/a Bellicose Capital, LLC; and
Daniel Gravel, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03217-MHC (N.D. Ga.,
July 3, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Mark H. Cohen.

The case alleges violation of the Racketeering (RICO) Act.

Big Picture Loans is a company engaged in lending money and
provides small cash loans with online application. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
          Caddell & Chapman, P.C.
          628 East 9th St.
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400

               - and -

          Charles Jackson Cole, Esq.
          McRae Bertschi & Cole, LLC
          1350 Center Drive, Suite 200
          Dunwoody, GA 30338
          Telephone: (678) 999-1105
          Facsimile: (404) 525-4347
          E-mail: cjc@mcraebertschi.com

               - and -

          Craig Edward Bertschi, Esq.
          McRae Bertschi & Cole, LLC
          1350 Center Drive. Suite 200
          Dunwoody, GA 30338
          Telephone: (678) 999-1102
          E-mail: ceb@mcraebertschi.com

               - and -

          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          Caddell & Chapman, P.C.
          628 East 9th St.
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
          E-mail: cbc@caddellchapman.com

               - and -

          John B. Scofield , Jr., Esq.
          Caddell & Chapman, P.C.
          628 East 9th St.
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400

               - and -

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Caddell & Chapman, P.C.
          1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
          Houston, TX 77010-3027
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com


BLUESTEM BRANDS: Williams Seeks Class Certification Under TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled WADDELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. BLUESTEM BRANDS, INC.,
Case No. 8:17-cv-01971-JDW-AAS (M.D. Fla.), seeks certification of
this class:

     All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to
     whom Bluestem Brands, Inc. placed a call, (2) directed to a
     number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not
     assigned to a Bluestem Brands, Inc. accountholder, (3) in
     connection with its efforts to collect an account balance,
     (4) via LiveVox, Inc.'s Quick Connect platform, (5) from
     November 2, 2015 through the date of class certification.

The lawsuit is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Mr. Williams asserts that throughout the proposed class period,
Bluestem utilized a vendor -- LiveVox, Inc. -- to place outbound
calls for the purpose of collecting past-due balances.  He alleges
that neither he has or had any business relationship with Bluestem,
nor did he give Bluestem express consent to robocall his cellular
telephone.

Mr. Williams also asks the Court to appoint him as the class
representative and to appoint Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC as
class counsel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 322-3912
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com



BOLD ENERGY: Olenik Appeals Securities Suit Ruling
--------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case captioned Nicholas Olenik, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated and derivatively on
behalf of Nominal Defendant Earthstone Energy, Plaintiff, v. Frank
A. Lodzinski, Ray Singleton, Douglas E. Swanson, Brad Thielemann,
Robert L. Zorich, Jay F. Joliat, Zachary G. Urban, Phillip D.
Kramer, Encap Investments L.P., Bold Energy III LLC, Bold Energy
Holdings LLC  and Oak Valley Resources, LLC and Earthstone Energy,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2017-0414, (Del. Ch., June 2, 2017),
filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.

On July 20, 2018, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights of the Delaware
Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder challenge to an all-stock
business combination between Earthstone Energy, Inc. and Bold
Energy III LLC.

Plaintiff owns a stake in Earthstone Energy Inc., an oil and gas
exploration firm. Earthstone will acquire all of the outstanding
membership interests of Bold Energy III LLC, a portfolio company of
EnCap Investments LP. Current Earthstone stockholders will own
approximately 39% of the combined company and Bold members will own
the remaining 61% on a fully diluted basis. Olenik claims said deal
is one-sided. Chairman and CEO Frank A. Lodzinski is the
controlling stockholder of Earthstone. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
      Spencer Oster, Esq.
      David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
      240 East 79th Street, Suite A
      New York, NY 10075
      Tel: (888) 529-1108

             - and -

      Ned Weinberger, Esq.
      Thomas Curry, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1340
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 573-2540

             - and -

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      David M. Sborz, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike, Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302)-504-4957
      Fax: (302)-397-2681

Defendants are represented by:

      Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esq.
      D. McKinley Measley, Esq.
      Lauren Neal Bennett, Esq.
      MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
      1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Email: knachbar@mnat.com
             mmeasley@mnat.com
             lbennett@mnat.com

             - and -

      Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq.
      Robert L. Burns, Esq.
      Daniel E. Kaprow, Esq.
      RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
      920 North King Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 651-7786, 651-7618
      Fax: (302) 651-7701
      Email: dicamillo@rlf.com
             burns@rlf.com

             - and -

      Rolin P. Bissell, Esq.
      James M. Yoch, Jr.
      YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
      Rodney Square
      1000 North King Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 571-6560, 576-3584
      Fax: (302) 576-3281, 576-3744
      Email: rbissell@ycst.com
             jyoch@ycst.com

BRIUS HEALTHCARE: Faces 15 Class-Action Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------
Will Houston, writing for Eurika Times-Standard, reports that two
California law firms have filed 15 class-action lawsuits against
Brius Healthcare Services nursing homes -- including two in
Humboldt County - alleging the company purposefully understaffed
their nursing homes to maximize profits, violating both staffing
regulations and patient rights.

The law firms claim Brius Healthcare Services, the nursing homes'
administrative company Rockport Administrative Services, Brius
Healthcare Services' CEO ShlomoRechnitz and "his multiple layers of
affiliated companies" directed and implemented these violations in
an effort to "pocket unearned profit at the expense of the
provision of the legally mandated care to be provided to elders of
the state."

"To knowingly understaff these facilities in violation of promised
resident rights so as to unlawfully maximize profit victimizes our
important resource of elders and needs to end," Garcia
Artigliere&Medby attorney Stephen Garcia,Esq. said in a statement
this week. "These lawsuits are an effort on behalf of these
vulnerable citizens to ensure that their needs are met and
services, for which operators are paid incredibly large sums mostly
by us through our Government, are actually provided."

This reporter's attempts to contact Brius and Rockport
representatives for comment were unsuccessful.

Garcia's law firm and the TheArns Law Firm in San Francisco allege
in their complaints gave patients false or misleading
representations of the nursing homes' compliance with staffing
requirements.

Two of the lawsuits were filed against the Fortuna Rehabilitation
and Wellness Center and the Granada Rehabilitation and Wellness
Center in Eureka.

The lawsuits call on the court to issue an injunction against the
nursing homes for up to 10 years requiring them to maintain
adequate staffing, to notify all future residents of the
injunction, to award damages and attorneys fees.[GN]


CALIFORNIA: Plaintiffs' Motion in Solitary Confinement Case OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Rohrbach, writing for San Francisco Bay View, reports that on
July 3, a critical ruling issued in Ashker v. Brown (aka Ashker v.
Governor, Docket No. 4:09-cv-09-5796 CW (N.D. Cal.)), the federal
class-action lawsuit challenging indefinite solitary confinement in
California. The ruling, issued by Presiding Judge Claudia Wilken,
granted Plaintiffs' appeal on a motion challenging the ongoing
conditions of extreme isolation endured by many class members.

The motion was initially filed with the court on Oct. 13, 2017,
along with several other motions brought to enforce Plaintiffs'
settlement agreement with the CDCR[i]. Plaintiffs contended that,
contrary to the terms of the settlement agreement, many class
members effectively remain isolated in restrictive housing
facilities.

Oral argument on the motion was heard by Magistrate Judge Illman on
Feb. 23, 2018, in a courtroom packed with human rights advocates
and activists. Illman asked some good questions of both sides and
appeared to grasp the issues raised by Plaintiffs' counsel.
However, on March 29 he issued an order denying the motion,
prompting Plaintiffs' legal team to move for a de novo
determination (new decision) before Presiding Judge Claudia
Wilken.

The ruling, issued by Presiding Judge Claudia Wilken, granted
Plaintiffs' appeal on a motion challenging the ongoing conditions
of extreme isolation endured by many class members.

The Ashker case specifically challenged the CDCR's practices and
policies of indefinitely confining prisoners at Pelican Bay State
Prison's SHU (so-called Security Housing Unit) on constitutional
grounds. Through these practices and policies, Plaintiffs asserted,
the CDCR had violated both the Eighth Amendment's prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's
guarantee of due process.

Some 78 individuals, they alleged, had been incarcerated in Pelican
Bay's SHU for decades on end. And, more than 500 had been there for
at least 10 years. All of these people spent around 22½ hours or
more each day cramped in closet-sized cells. Any yard time they
received occurred within the narrow confines of an indoor
concrete-walled pen or "dog run." Any visits with loved ones took
place from either side of a glass partition breached only by a
telephone line.

This was merely on account of the fact that the CDCR had deemed
them "associates" or members of prison gangs. In other words, no
misconduct much less criminal activity was required of class
members to keep them isolated on an indefinite basis.

On Sept. 1, 2015, a settlement agreement was reached in the case.
(The agreement was tentatively approved by the court on Oct. 14,
2015, and received the court's final approval on Jan. 26, 2015.)

Those affected by the agreement include "all prisoners who have
now, or will have in the future, been imprisoned in Pelican Bay's
SHU for 10 or more years." Also affected is a subset of such
prisoners, who were moved from Pelican Bay's SHU to a SHU at
another prison before the case settled.[ii] Together, both groups
of prisoners comprise the settlement class.

Following settlement, the CDCR released over 1,400 and up to around
1,500 class members retained in its SHUs statewide into
lower-security facilities. This was pursuant to paragraph 25[iii]
of the settlement agreement. Yet, although paragraph 25 has been
complied with on paper, Plaintiffs' motion and subsequent appeal
raised the question, has compliance been substantively achieved?

Plaintiffs' motion filed Oct. 13, 2017
As of Aug. 2017, according to CDCR data, 712 class members were
housed in what are called "General Population Level IV 180-design"
(maximum-security) facilities. Plaintiffs' attorneys however
contended that many class members were getting even less
out-of-cell time than they experienced while in SHU. In support of
their contention, they pointed to the results of a survey they
conducted in around March 2017.

Fifty-five class members housed in various Level IV facilities
completed the survey, tracking the amount of out-of-cell time they
received during a one-month period. Sixteen of these 55 respondents
reported getting an average of less than one hour of out-of-cell
time per day. Another 11 reported getting an average of less than
two hours per day.

And, a total of nine respondents reported not leaving their cells
at all on most days. That is, they spent anywhere from 16 to 25
days locked in their cells during the one-month tracking period,
without access to the yard, face-to-face contact, showering
facilities etc.

In declarations filed with Plaintiffs' initial enforcement motion,
eight class member-respondents elaborated on the conditions they
endure in Level IV facilities. One such prisoner swore:

"The conditions . . . are similar to SHU, and my experience is
likewise similar. I have limited social interaction and
intellectual stimulation. I rarely go outside. It is difficult to
find productive uses for my time.

"I have difficulty maintaining relationships with my family,
especially since my ability to use the telephone is so infrequent
and irregular. I suffer from insomnia. I suffer from anxiety that I
feel is directly linked to the irregular programming: I am anxious
because I do not know what will happen next."

"The conditions . . .  are similar to SHU, and my experience is
likewise similar. I have limited social interaction and
intellectual stimulation. I rarely go outside. It is difficult to
find productive uses for my time."
And, another prisoner testified:

"The inconsistency of the programming . . . has left me anxious and
frustrated. It is difficult to adapt and plan when I do not know
what will happen the next day.

"Sometimes, to cope with the lack of stability, I tell myself, 'The
only program is no program,' so I do not prepare physically and
mentally to leave my cell only to suffer frustration and
disappointment when it is cancelled. But this means I am often not
prepared for out-of-cell time when it is permitted."

Feb. 23, 2018, hearing before Magistrate Judge Illman
During oral argument on Feb. 23, attorney Jules Lobel[iv] spoke on
behalf of the plaintiffs. Mr. Lobel emphasized in his opening
remarks that, although the CDCR says people have been moved into
the general population, this doesn't make it so: "General
population" has to have an objective definition, he maintained.

When the magistrate asked him whether certain restrictions, such as
restrictions on yard time, come with Level IV confinement,
Mr. Lobel replied yes. But, this cannot mean restrictions of the
magnitude that a significant number of class members are
experiencing, he continued.

Although the CDCR says people have been moved into the general
population, this doesn't make it so: "General population" has to
have an objective definition, he maintained.
The CDCR itself, he pointed out, previously avowed in court that
people in the general population receive 10 hours of yard per week.
But, nobody is getting 10 hours.

Adriano Hrvatin, for the state, countered that class members are
being treated like "any other [Level IV] prisoner," and they don't
want to be treated like other prisoners "any more."
Mr. Hrvartin further argued that no remedy was possible for the
affected class members that wouldn't also involve the tens of
thousands of people held in Level IV at large.

Implicit in Mr. Hrvatin's arguments was the suggestion that,
regardless of the CDCR's prior avowals, Level IV prisoners receive
the same amount of out-of-cell time as SHU prisoners. This point
was not lost on Magistrate Illman: Judge Illman quipped, could he
expect a new class-action lawsuit concerning the conditions of
Level IV confinement to be sent to him?

Magistrate Judge Illman's March 29 order denying motion
In deciding Plaintiffs' initial motion, Magistrate Judge Illman
opined:

"The Settlement Agreement which Plaintiffs signed provides for
transfer of a specific subgroup of class members to a General
Population Level IV 180-design facility within the CDCR system. It
provides no details regarding the conditions of confinement for
those class members.

"This is because, as Defendants argue, this case does not concern
general population [sic]. Rather, it concerns CDCR's agreement to
change its segregated housing practices to comport with the related
shift to a behavior-based model for managing prison gang
affiliates."

"It is undisputed that the class members at issue in this motion
were each transferred to such a facility," Magistrate Judge Illman
pronounced in denying the motion.

Magistrate Judge Illman's facile assessment struck this writer as
being in stunning disregard for, or insensible to, Plaintiffs' plea
for substantive relief under the Eighth Amendment. It was equally
heedless of paragraph 61 of the settlement agreement, which
requires that the agreement be "construed as a whole, according to
its fair meaning." (Of paragraph 61, more will be said in a
moment.)

While the Ashker case and settlement agreement do not concern the
general population or conditions of confinement in
general-population facilities, this is beside the point. Plaintiffs
affirmatively claimed in their lawsuit that their indeterminate
retention in restrictive conditions, including their isolation in
cramped cells for 22½ –24 hours each day, constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment. Moreover, the settlement agreement they entered
into was intended to settle all of their claims.[v]

Plaintiffs' motion for de novo determination
Relevant to both Plaintiff's initial motion and their subsequent
appeal from Magistrate Judge Illman's March 29 order is the court's
observation made in an earlier ruling in the case last summer:

"The parties' agreement here is governed by California law
(Settlement Agreement 60), which requires that contractual terms
'be understood in their ordinary and popular sense, rather than
according to their strict legal meaning . . .  Moreover, the
parties agreed that 'the language in all parts of this Agreement
shall in all cases be construed as a whole, according to its fair
meaning.' (Settlement Agreement 61.)." [vi]

Plaintiffs repeatedly asserted in their briefings that many class
members are not actually in what may be called general-population
housing, within the ordinary or popular sense. Instead, they are in
a form of restrictive housing.

As Plaintiffs' legal team put it in their request for a de novo
determination, "The defining distinction between general population
and restrictive housing is time out of cell." Likewise, restrictive
housing is commonly understood (by the American Correctional
Association and the Department of Justice, e.g.) to be "an
environment where prisoners spend more than 22 hours a day locked
in their cell." The CDCR itself, they further remarked, recognizes
that "'general population' and 'restrictive housing' are mutually
exclusive terms."

Plaintiffs repeatedly asserted in their briefings that many class
members are not actually in what may be called general-population
housing, within the ordinary or popular sense. Instead, they are in
a form of restrictive housing.

Thus, in denying Plaintiffs' "de novo" motion, Magistrate Judge
Illman "incorrectly interpreted the operative contractual term
--i.e. 'General Population Level IV 180-design facility, or other
general population institution' -- to allow Defendants to engage in
a semantic sleight-of-hand." By which some prisoners placed in
nominal general-population facilities are treated "as if they were
in segregation, or worse."

Magistrate Judge Illman additionally misconstrued the remedy sought
by the motion, Plaintiffs' attorneys said. "The motion does not
attack Level IV prisons generally, and does not even cover all
class members," they emphasized. Rather, it is focused "solely on
the subset of class members entitled to GP [general population]
transfer but who are being confined in restrictive housing
conditions, or worse."

Presiding Judge Wilken's order granting 'de novo' motion
On July 3, Presiding Judge Claudia Wilken issued an order stating
in part: "Having considered the papers, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiffs' motion to the extent that Plaintiffs must receive more
out-of-cell time than they received in the Pelican Bay SHU. They
should receive out-of-cell time consistent with the CDCR's
regulations and practices with respect to Level IV general
population inmates, as well as its constitutional obligations. …

"The Settlement Agreement was intended to remove Plaintiffs from
detention in the SHU, where they were isolated in a cell for
twenty-two and a half to twenty-four hours a day. Second Amended
Complaint 3, 63. Plaintiffs may seek to enforce the Settlement
Agreement under either paragraphs 52 or 53, which require
Plaintiffs to show 'current and ongoing violations' of the Eighth
Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment on a systemic basis, or other
substantial noncompliance with the terms of the Agreement.
Settlement Agreement 52, 53 . . .

"Defendants are hereby ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiffs'
representatives and their counsel with the goal of presenting a
proposed remedial plan for Court approval. The matter is referred
to Magistrate Judge Illman to mediate the meet and confer. Absent
agreement, the parties shall present their own respective proposed
remedial plans."

As to what a remedial plan may look like, that's a good question.
To identify the subset of class members covered by Judge Wilken's
order will be a challenge will be no easy task; it has been well
over a year since class members were surveyed as to the amount of
out-of-cell time they received. But, that's the least of the
obstacles standing between the status quo and actual relief for
affected class members.

Kim Rohrbach, a volunteer with the Prisoner Hunger Strike
Solidarity Coalition and a paralegal, can be reached at
kmrohrbach@gmail.com.

[i] The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is
often referred to as CDCr, since the Department has overall long
de-emphasized rehabilitation as part of its mission.

[ii] Starting in 2012, some prisoners who'd been indefinitely held
at Pelican Bay's SHU were transferred to other SHUs in connection
with the CDCR's implementation of its Step Down program.
Plaintiffs' attorneys requested and were granted leave to add these
prisoners to the lawsuit as a supplemental class. (For further
details, see in this writer's article, "SHU-shifting: An update on
and overview of the Ashker v. Brown Class Action," published March
28, 2015, in the San Francisco BayView and available at
http://sfbayview.com/2015/03/shu-shifting-an-update-on-and-overview-of-the-ashker-v-brown-class-action/).

[iii] Paragraph 25 of the settlement agreement states, "If an
inmate has not been found guilty of a SHU-eligible rule violation
with a proven STG [Security Threat Group, aka gang] nexus within
the last 24 months, he shall be released from the SHU and
transferred to a General Population Level IV 180-design facility,
or other general population institution consistent with his case
factors."

[iv] Jules Lobel is with the Center for Constitutional Rights.

[v] This is affirmed at page 1 of the settlement agreement itself
and is also stated in Judge Wilken's orders granting both
preliminary and final approval of the agreement.

[vi] Magistrate Judge Illman paid lip service only to this language
in his March 29 order. [GN]

CANADA: RCMP Faces Another Harassment, Bullying Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Giesbrecht, writing for Frontier Centre for Public Policy,
reports that RCMP is facing another billion-dollar class action
suit. Initiated by two former officers, it has the potential to
reach back decades and involve tens of thousands of former
officers, civilian employees and volunteers. The suit alleges
harassment and bullying. As an example, one officer alleges that he
was made to sleep in a horse trailer while working with the RCMP
Musical Ride.

At one time, a massive lawsuit against the RCMP would have been
unthinkable. The RCMP has a long and honourable history of tough
but fair law enforcement. The force made the West safe for
settlement and chased American whiskey traders back over the
border.

RCMP officers I knew were tough people. They had to be, routinely
dealing with dangerous situations such as highly volatile domestic
incidents that can turn ugly on a dime. Dealing with angry drunks
on a daily basis, officers suddenly find themselves in fast-moving,
life-or-death situations where politeness and sensitivity are but
secondary concerns. Staff sergeants would actually yell at people
when the situation required.

Conduct like that was not only accepted at the time but expected.
Today it's considered harassment and bullying.

Will a new sensitive and polite management style compromise their
professionalism and effectiveness? Will more enlightened RCMP
managers be capable of upholding the force's proud tradition?

And will lawsuits next extend to the military? Will the
quintessential drill sergeant's practice of putting their face a
few inches from that of a new recruit to verbally blast them --
practically part of their job description -- be denounced as
harassment and bullying?

Are we really going to require RCMP officers and drill sergeants to
abandon the brisk and direct speech and conduct that has always
been considered an absolutely necessary part of the their jobs?
Should we sacrifice effectiveness for sensitivity and politeness?

That's not to say that flagrant abuses of power are acceptable –
female RCMP officers have proven cases of sexual abuse within the
ranks. Sexual abuse and other forms of true abuse are unacceptable.
But those choosing policing or the military as a career should
understand that it always will be a life with some rough edges. If
they're not prepared for that life, such as the fellow sleeping
unhappily in the horse trailer, they should consider a less
demanding career.

Just as concerning as the trend towards weaker standards of
policing is the recent trend of huge class action suits aimed at
taxpayers' wallets. A few people make claims to start the ball
rolling, garnering media attention. With the smell of money, people
pile on. Then, if the group is in favour with the federal
government, comes an announcement. It won't be necessary for the
claimants to prove their damages in court. The government will pay,
no proof required, the money coming from the beleaguered taxpayer.

A few examples:

   * For every student who attended a residential school, abused or
not, the federal government will pay $10,000 per year for every
year attended. Payment is to be made even to those who acknowledged
the schools provided them an excellent education. Former students
such as Tomson Highway, who declared that the years he spent at
residential school were some of the best of his life, and Phil
Fontaine, who acknowledged that the schools were beneficial to
some, were eligible.

Simply having been at a residential school was a ticket to a chunk
of cash. Those who could prove they actually suffered some abuse
received more. Our federal government practically encouraged people
to exaggerate their claims. The Liberal government benefited in
turn, receiving praise from special interest groups.

   * The '60s Scoop special interest groups copied this procedure
almost exactly. The result was a payout of another $1 billion. The
only objection voiced was that the $35,000 or so that each person
would receive -- often for being rescued from an alcoholic home --
wasn't enough. Groups are now forming to squeeze even more money
from the taxpayer.

"I'm not being critical of claimants who actually prove damages in
court. They're entitled to their compensation. I'm also not that
critical of the people who receive the money for nothing: they
likely can use the money. If I could qualify to receive cash simply
by stating that the government somehow wronged me, I would be
tempted to sign on," Mr. Giesbrecht says.

"My criticism is of a federal government that plays fast and loose
with the hard-earned money of overtaxed taxpayers. The government's
behaviour is nothing less than a scandal." [GN]

CAPTIVA MVP RESTAURANT: Faces Tsao Suit over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
I TAN TSAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPTIVA MVP RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, D/B/A
AS PDQ, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-01606-SDM-MAP (M.D. Fla., July
3, 2018) is an action against the Defendant for its failures to
secure and safeguard the customers' credit and debit card numbers
and other payment card data, and other personally identifiable
information which the Defendant collected at the time the Plaintiff
made purchases at the Defendant's restaurant, and for failing to
provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and
other Class members that their payment card data and personal
identifiable information had been stolen.

Captiva MVP Restaurant Partners LLC d/b/a "People Dedicated to
Quality", is a fast casual restaurant that specializes in chicken
tenders and other lunch options. The Company has locations in
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          RYAN J. McGEE
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  rmcgee@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON M ARTIN PLLC
          2018 Eastwood Road, Suite 225
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 292-6676
          E-mail: jean@jsmlawoffice.com

               - and -

          James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
          CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
          8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Tele: 314-725-7700
          Direct: 314-678-1064
          Fax: 314-721-0905
          E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

               - and -

          Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
          6220 W. Third Street, Suite 115
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: 314-662-2836
          E-mail: Casey@LawOfficeFlynn.com


CBS MEDICAL: Davis Neurology Appeals Judgment to Eighth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Davis Neurology PA filed an appeal from an order and a
judgment both dated June 28, 2018, entered in its lawsuit styled
Davis Neurology PA v. CBS Medical Inc., et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-00214-BRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas - Little Rock.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendants sent non-compliant facsimile
advertisements to advertise their products and services to
hundreds, if not thousands, of telephone facsimile machines in
Arkansas and, presumably, other states in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Davis Neurology PA v. CBS
Medical Inc., et al., Case No. 18-2606, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix is due on September 10, 2018;

   -- Brief of Appellant Davis Neurology PA is due on
      September 10, 2018;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Davis Neurology PA, on behalf of itself and all
other entities and persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joey Paul Leniski, Jr., Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: jleniski@branstetterlaw.com

               - and -

          Alexander Graham Streett, Esq.
          James Albert Streett, Esq.
          STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
          107 W. Main Street
          P.O. Box 650
          Russellville, AR 72801-0000
          Telephone: (479) 968-2030
          E-mail: Alex@SteettLaw.com
                  James@SteettLaw.com

Defendant-Appellee CBS Medical Inc. is represented by:

          Alexandria D. Bond, Esq.
          Molly K. McGinley, Esq.
          Joseph C. Wylie, Esq.
          K & L GATES, LLP
          70 W. Madison Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602-0000
          Telephone: (312) 372-1121
          E-mail: lexi.bond@klgates.com
                  molly.mcginley@klgates.com
                  joseph.wylie@klgates.com

               - and -

          Kirkman T. Dougherty, Esq.
          Robert M. Honea, Esq.
          HARDIN, JESSON & TERRY, PLC
          5000 Rogers Avenue
          P.O. Box 10127
          Fort Smith, AR 72917-0127
          Telephone: (479) 452-2200
          E-mail: kdougherty@hardinlaw.com
                  honea@hardinlaw.com



CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Prizler Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J. Prizler, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Charter Communications, Inc.,
Charter Communications, LLC (dba Spectrum), Time Warner Cable
Business, LLC, TWC Administration, LLC, AT&T, Inc., Time Warner,
Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-01724, (S.D. Cal., July 27, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and overtime compensation owed, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action in accordance
with California Labor Laws, the federal Labor Standards Act and the
California Business and Professions Code.

Prizler performed retail sales work as employee of Defendants'
cable TV installation business. He did not receive payment of all
wages, including overtime and minimum wages and meal period
payments and claims to be denied complete and accurate payroll/wage
statements and/or reports, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew Righetti, Esq.
     John Glugoski, Esq.
     Michael Righetti, Esq.
     RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
     456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94101
     Telephone: (415) 983-0900
     Facsimile: (415) 397-9005
     Email: matt@righettilaw.com
            jglugoski@righettilaw.com
            mike@righettilaw.com


CITIBANK: Home Loan Borrowers File Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action accuses Citibank of failing to pay home loan
borrowers in California at least 2 percent interest on funds held
in escrow for taxes and insurance.



CLEARONE ADVANTAGE: Souders Hits Autodialed Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristyna Souders, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Clearone Advantage, LLC and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00549
(E.D. Cal., July 27, 2018), seeks damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from contacting Plaintiff on
his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Clearone Advantage is a debt settlement company who contacted
Naiman in an attempt solicit their services using an "automatic
telephone dialing system" thereby incurring a charge for incoming
calls. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLIMB WORKS: Faces Class Action Over E. Coli Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------
The Mountain Press reports that a pair of law firms have partnered
to file suit against amusement company Climb Works LLC after an
outbreak of stomach illnesses were reported by the customers of the
zip line company in the past months. [GN]

COGZIDEL CORP: Williams Hits Autodialed Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cogzidel Corporation and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04577 (N.D.
Cal., July 27, 2018), seeks damages and any other available legal
or equitable remedies resulting from contacting Plaintiff on his
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Cogzidel Corporation is an online marketing company, who contacted
Naiman in an attempt conduct a survey using an "automatic telephone
dialing system" thereby incurring a charge for incoming calls.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CONN'S INC: Motley Rice Files Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

IN RE CONN'S, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 4: 14-cv-00548 (KPE)

(Consolidated Action)

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

To: All Persons and Entities Who Purchased or Otherwise Acquired
Conn's, Inc.'s ("Conn's") Publicly Traded Common Stock and/or Call
Options, or Who Sold/Wrote Conn's Put Options, During the Period
from April 3, 2013 through December 9, 2014, Inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and Were Damaged Thereby (the "Class").

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

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

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Court-appointed Class
Representatives Laborers Pension Trust Fund -- Detroit and
Vicinity, Connecticut Carpenters Pension Fund and Connecticut
Carpenters Annuity Fund, St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund
Association, and Universal Investment Gesellschaftm.b.H., on behalf
of themselves and the Class, and Defendants Conn's, Theodore
Wright, and Michael J. Poppe (collectively, "Defendants") have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action in the amount of
$22,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") that, if approved by
the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action (the
"Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Keith P. Ellison of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in
the United States Courthouse, 515 Rusk Street, Houston, TX  77002
at 2:00 p.m. on October 11, 2018 (the "Settlement Hearing") to,
among other things, determine whether the Court should:  (i)
approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of June 28, 2018;
(iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Class Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of
expenses.  The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing
without providing another notice.  You do NOT need to attend the
Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net
Settlement Fund.

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

In re Conn's, Inc. Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/oEpiq Global
P.O. Box 4087
Portland, OR 97208-4087
Telephone: (855) 804-8547

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

         Contacts:

James M. Hughes, Esq.
         Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq.
         MOTLEY RICE LLC
         28 Bridgeside Blvd.
         Mt. Pleasant, SC  29464
         Website: www.motleyrice.com
         Telephone: (800) 768-4026
         Email: jhughes@motleyrice.com
                cmoriarty@motleyrice.com

         Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq.
         Beth Kaswan, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT  ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169
         Website: www.scott-scott.com
         Telephone: (800) 404-7770
         Email: DWEINTRAUB@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM
                BKASWAN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked or online no later than November 10, 2018.  If you
are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you
will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether
favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the
Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that
it is received no later than September 20, 2018.  If you properly
exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether
favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and payment of expenses must be filed with the Court and mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are filed and received no later than
September 20, 2018.

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

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

DATED: July 27, 2018
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS [GN]

CONNECTICUT: Correction Dept. Sued Over Expensive Hep C Drugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart, writing for CT News Junkie, reports that an
inmate being held in a Connecticut prison is suing the Correction
Department because he wants prison officials to give him access to
expensive medication that would cure his hepatitis C.

Through attorney Ken Krayeske, the prisoner, Robert Barfield, filed
a federal class action lawsuit against the state Department of
Correction claiming his constitutional rights have been violated.
The department is refusing to give him access to a drug treatment
program that would cure him.

Hepatitis C (HCV) is a blood-borne disease caused by a virus. The
hepatitis C virus causes inflammation that damages liver cells and
is the leading cause of liver disease. It's a disease that can be
spread and its now curable thanks to expensive drugs that range
from $54,000 to $95,000 per patient, per course of treatment. A
typical course of treatment lasts 12 weeks.

Drugmakers including Gilead Sciences Inc., AbbVie Inc. and Merck &
Co. have been selling hepatitis C drugs since 2013 with higher cure
rates than older drugs for the disease.

"The failure to provide treatment also creates the potential for
further spreading of the disease to the general public," Mr.
Krayeske wrote. "These actions amount to deliberate indifference to
the serious medical needs of CT DOC prisoners with hepatitis C."

In 2016, the department reported that only four inmates had HCV,
according to a survey by Yale University. The same survey found
that Massachusetts reported 1,505 inmates with hepatitis C, 60 of
whom were receiving treatment.

Earlier this year, Massachusetts prison officials agreed to expand
treatment for inmates with hepatitis C following the filing of a
federal class-action lawsuit.

The Massachusetts case is among the first settlements of several
class-action lawsuits accusing prison systems in other states of
denying inmates access to costly drugs. Other states with similar
actions pending include Indiana, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Minnesota,
and Tennessee.

"We will review the complaint and respond appropriately in court,"
Jacqueline Severance, a spokeswoman for Connecticut Attorney
General George Jepsen said. "We would decline further comment."

Like the other states, Connecticut seems to be struggling with
finding a balance between a constitutional right and its ability to
pay for these drugs.

At one point, according to the lawsuit, one of the manufacturers of
the new HCV treatment -- Gilead Sciences -- offered the Correction
Department $300,000 grant to test all prisoners for HCV. But the
money was never obtained following disagreements among state
officials about who would handle the testing.

Since Connecticut doesn't test for the virus when people enter
prison, it's unknown how many inmates may have hepatitis C. But
research suggests that it's more than four.

National studies have found that the prevalence of HCV in prison is
16 to 41 percent higher in U.S. jail and prison populations than it
is in the general population.

According to Mr. Krayeske, the department conducted a study in 2015
of prisoners at New Haven Correctional and learned that 10-12
percent of the population had HCV. That means 93 of the 779
prisoners in the New Haven jail at the time were HCV positive.

Dr. Johnny Wu was the medical director for Correctional Managed
Health Care, which was operated by the University of Connecticut in
partnership with the Correction Department, between June 2012 and
March 2017.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Wu did not believe HCV was a problem
and never sought to test all the inmates for the virus.

In 2014, according to an article in BusinessInsider.com, Dr. Wu
said there are 20 inmates being treated with the direct-acting
antiviral drugs.

"My total budget is about $89 million to deliver healthcare for
16,200 people. That's mental health, dental, medical, consults,
surgeries. To have a couple of million dollars tied up for hep C is
a big portion of my budget," Dr. Wu told the magazine.

Wu is no longer with the medical team in charge of inmate care, but
the "deliberate indifference" to Mr. Barfield's medical condition
continues, according to Mr. Krayeske.

He said Mr. Barfield, who is currently being housed at Corrigan
Correctional Facility, will continue to suffer without access to
the drugs. [GN]

COWORX STAFFING: Underpays Call Center Reps, Robin Bell Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN BELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COWORX STAFFING SERVICES LLC; and
SYNCHRONOSS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-02833-EGS (E.D.
Pa., July 6, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, penalties, fee and costs.

Bell was employed by the Defendants as call center representative
at the Synchronos Call Center in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, from
October 2017 to January 2018.

CoWorx Staffing Services LLC provides staffing solutions in the
United States. CoWorx was founded in 1974 and is headquartered in
Watchung, New Jersey. It has locations in Maryland, Texas, Georgia,
Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, California, Indiana, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Rhode
Island, Virginia, Maine, and North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBREAK & SANTILLO
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dreesher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                  mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com


CRAFT BREW: Broomfield Moves to Certify Two Classes of Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled THEODORE BROOMFIELD, et al. v.
CRAFT BREW ALLIANCE, INC., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-01027-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), move for an order certifying these Classes:

   (1) Six-Pack Class:

       All persons who purchased any six-pack bottles of the Kona
       Beers (defined below) in California at any time beginning
       four (4) years prior to the filing of this action on
       February 28, 2017 until the present ("Class Period"); and

   (2) Twelve-Pack Class:

       All persons who purchased any twelve-pack bottles of the
       Kona Beers (defined below) in California at any time
       beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this
       action on February 28, 2017 until the present ("Class
       Period").

The Plaintiffs also move the Court for an order designating them as
Class representatives and appointing their counsel, Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP, and the Wand Law Firm, P.C., as Class Counsel.  The
Plaintiffs further ask the Court to order the parties to meet and
confer and present the Court, within 15 days of an order granting
class certification, with a proposed notice to the certified
Classes.

The Court will commence a hearing on September 6, 2018, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
          E-mail: tpeter@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 590-4503
          Facsimile: (310) 590-4596
          E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com


D'AMBRA CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguilar Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY AGUILAR, and JOSE RAMIREZ ZAPATA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D'AMBRA CONSTRUCTION
COPRPORATION; and ANTHONY D'AMBRA, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01758 (N.D. Tex., July 6, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Aguilar was employed by the Defendants as personal safety
representative.

D'Ambra Construction Corporation was founded in 2000. The company's
line of business includes construction of nonresidential buildings.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John H. Allen, III, Esq.
          Jennifer Nolte, Esq.
          ALLEN & NOLTE, PLLC
          3838 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-2300
          Facsimile: (214) 452-5637
          E-mail: tallen@allennolte.com
                  jnolte@allennolte.com


DR. PEPPER: Drink Doesn't Contain Real Ginger, Childers Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JANET CHILDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC.; DR
PEPPER/SEVENUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. DC-18-08724 (D. Tex.,
July 5, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for their false
and deceptive labeling, advertising, marketing, and selling of
certain soft drinks as being "MADE FROM REAL GINGER."

According to the complaint, the representation of the Defendants
falsely leads consumers to reasonably believe that Dr. Pepper's
soft drink is made using real ginger and that consumers who drink
the soft drink will, as a result, receive the health benefits
associated with consuming real ginger.  In reality, however, Dr.
Pepper's soft drink is not made from real ginger. Instead, Canada
Dry Ginger Ale soft drinks are made from carbonated water, high
fructose corn syrup, citric acid, preservatives, and "natural
flavors," i.e., a flavor compound comprised predominately of flavor
extracts not derived from ginger, and only a miniscule amount of a
ginger flavor extract.

As of July 9, 2018, Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. was acquired by
Maple Parent Holdings Corp., in a reverse merger transaction.  Dr
Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. manufactures and distributes
non-alcoholic beverages in the United States, Mexico and the
Caribbean, and Canada. Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. was
incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in Plano, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig D. Cherry, Esq.
          Brandon R. Oates, Esq.
          HALEY OLSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          100 Ritchie Road, Suite 200
          Waco, TX 76712
          Telephone: (254) 776-3336
          Facsimile: (254) 776-6823
          Email: ccherry@haleyolson.com
                 boates@haleyolson.com


ECHELON CORP: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Echelon Corporation ("Echelon" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:ELON) and its board of directors (the "Board"), on behalf
of a class consisting of all public stockholders of Echelon who
have been harmed by Echelon in connection with alleged violations
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "1934 Act").  The class action stems from a proposed
transaction announced on June 29, 2018 (the "Proposed
Transaction"), pursuant to which Echelon will be acquired by Adesto
Technologies Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Circuit
Acquisition Corporation (together, "Adesto").

The Complaint alleges that on July 16, 2018, Defendants filed a
preliminary proxy statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.  The Complaint further alleges that
the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading.

If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please;

         Contact:
         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
         Gainey McKenna &Egleston
         Telephone: (212) 983-1300
         Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                gegleston@gme-law.com.[GN]

ELI LILLY: Bentele et al. RICO Suit Underway in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ALETHA BENTELE, JAMES BOSNER SCOTT
CHRISTENSEN, GAY DEPUTEE, SCOTT DERCKS, DONALD DOUTHIT, F. DONALD
FELLOW, DIANNA GILMORE, GERALD GIRARD, MICHELLE GWIN, RUTH HART,
OFFICER DAVID HERNANDEZ, EMMA JENSEN, EDWARD JOHNSON, RICHARD
KNAUSS, ANGELA KRITSELIS, SUSAN LANDIS, JOHN LOSCHEN, ROBERT
LOWMAN, SEAN MAC AN AIRCHINNIGH, JEANNE MACNITT, LAWRENCE MANDEL,
ANNE OLINGER, JULIANA PATTON, MARILYN PERSON, BRIAN PHAIR, PATRICIA
QUINT, ROBYN RUSHING, MARIE SAFFRAN, MARK SCHLOEMER, HOWARD SCHURR,
TREMAYNE SIRMONS, EDWARD STANFORD, MICHAEL STARR, BRET STEWART,
MOLLY THOMPSON, JON UGLAND, HECTOR J. VALDES, SR. KARYN WOFFORD,
the Plaintiffs, v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00168, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Trenton) on July 10, 2018.  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-11479-BRM-LHG to the
proceeding.  The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian R.
Martinotti.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Eli Lilly artificially
inflates and manipulates the benchmark price of Humalog, an insulin
drug. The Defendant's scheme caused and continues to cause
consumers to overpay for the insulin they need.  The case alleges
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

Eli Lilly and Company is a global pharmaceutical company
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, with offices in 18
countries. Its products are sold in approximately 125
countries.[BN]

Eli Lilly is represented by:

          Shankar Duraiswamy, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One Citycenter
          850 Tenth St., Nw
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662 6000
          E-mail: sduraiswamy@cov.com


ELIOT MANAGEMENT: Underpays Sales Representatives, Anemanna Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MATHEW ANEMANNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELIOT MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 8:18-cv-01624 (M.D. Fla., July 6, 2018), alleges that the
Defendant has denied overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Anemanna was employed by the Defendant as a sales
representative from February 14, 2018 to June 1, 2018.

Eliot Management Group, LLC provides electronic payment processing
services to merchants in the United States. The company was founded
in 1997 and is based in Fort Worth, Texas. It has a network of
offices in the United States. Eliot Management Group, LLC operates
as a subsidiary of First American Payment Systems, L.P. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Telephone: (727) 254-5255
          Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: greg@fgbolaw.com
                  wolfgang@fgbolaw.com


EPIC SYSTEMS: Kane Russell Attorney Discusses Arbitration Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seth A. Sloan, Esq. -- ssloan@krcl.com -- of Kane Russell Coleman
Logan PC, in an article for Lexology, wrote that in Epic Systems
Corp. v. Lewis the United States Supreme Court reviewed three
circuit court cases involving employer-employee arbitration
agreements.[1] The central issue in each case was whether employees
and employers should be allowed to agree that any dispute between
them will be resolved through arbitration, or whether employees
should always be allowed to bring class actions no matter what they
agreed to with their employers.

In each case the employee and employer had entered into an
agreement providing for individualized arbitration proceedings to
resolve employment disputes between the parties. However, the
employees brought class actions against the employers and argued
that courts were not compelled to order individual arbitration
proceedings, as stated in the agreements, because the agreements
violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The employees
sought to have class action lawsuits classified as a "concerted
activity" protected by §7 of the NLRA. That section guarantees
employees "the right to self–organization, to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectivity…, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection".[2]

The Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce private
agreements to arbitrate. However, the Act's savings' clause allows
courts to refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement when grounds
exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. The
employees' argued that the Act's savings' clause applied in this
situation, because the NLRA rendered the class and collection
action waiver illegal, which is a ground that exists in law for
revocation.

In delivering the Court's opinion, Justice Gorsuch noted that the
NLRA focused on the right to organize unions and bargain
collectively, but it did not mention class or collective action
procedures. He explained that the savings' clause did not provide a
basis for refusing to enforce arbitration agreements that waive
collection action procedures, and the NLRA did not manifest an
intent to displace the Federal Arbitration Act and to outlaw class
action waivers.

The Court held that the law was clear, and the Federal Arbitration
Act required courts to enforce arbitration agreements -- including
the terms of an agreement that provides for individualized
arbitration proceeding. The Lewis holding further expands the scope
of terms parties may include in an arbitration agreement, and
confirms that these agreements will be enforced according to the
terms contained in the agreement. [GN]

FACEBOOK INC: Former Soldier Leads Class Action in Australia
------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Lee, writing for ABC, reports that the man leading a legal
challenge against Facebook in Australia says he hopes the case will
encourage people to be more careful with what they share on social
media networks.

Edward Poljak, a printer and self-described astronomy researcher,
was recently notified that his data may have been breached in its
Cambridge Analytica data scandal.

The former soldier told The Law Report he had put strict privacy
settings on his profile out of respect for the privacy of his
friends, some of whom worked in law enforcement and were former
members of the military.

He was concerned the data breach could put their jobs or safety at
risk.

"I was shocked, and a little bit angry because it was like someone
had stolen our data . . . we didn't know what the implications
could be until it started hitting the news,"
Mr Poljak said.

He later learned his data may have been leaked because one of his
friends had taken a personality quiz on Facebook, called This Is
Your Digital Life.

"It's time to assess how we do use these online social media
platforms and be very careful of what we post and share," he said.

Facebook has apologised for allowing political consultancy firm
Cambridge Analytica to access the personal data of about 87 million
of its users worldwide through the quiz.

People who took the quiz handed over not only their data but also
information from the profiles of their friends on the social
network.

Cambridge Analytica then bought this data from the app developers
behind the quiz. The firm is currently being investigated in the
United States over allegations it used the data to influence the
last presidential election.

There are reportedly a number of lawsuits against Facebook and
Cambridge Analytica over the scandal.

Australia's Privacy Commissioner is investigating Facebook to see
whether it broke local privacy laws.

Mr Poljak is the lead plaintiff in a representative complaint
against Facebook to the commissioner on behalf of the 311,127
Australian users who may have had their data leaked in the
scandal.

It's the first time in Australia that a such a complaint has been
lodged with that office.

Mr Poljak said businesses should be held accountable for their
actions.

"[It will be worth it] if it brings awareness to everybody and
opens up doors for people to be careful on social media, that our
data is not safe," he said.

A spokeswoman for Facebook declined an interview with The Law
Report. She also declined to respond to questions on the current
lawsuits against Facebook and on its approach to tougher privacy
reforms worldwide.

But she said in an emailed statement: "We are fully co-operating
with the investigation currently underway by the Australian Privacy
Commissioner and will review any additional evidence that is made
available when the UK Office of the Information Commissioner
releases their report."

According to IMF Bentham, the law firm funding the legal challenge,
the group complaint asks Acting Privacy Commissioner Angelene Falk
to determine that Facebook interfered with the users' privacy, that
the company should pay compensation to the affected Australian
users and that it makes moves to prevent future data breaches.

The complaint also asks for Facebook to apologise to its affected
Australian users.

Case could be a 'game-changer' for privacy law
If successful, the Privacy Commissioner could order that Facebook
pay a certain amount of money to the users covered by the
complaint, which can then be enforced in a formal class action in
the Federal Court.

The law firm declined to say how many people have joined the class
action to date.

Mr Poljak said he still used Facebook, but had culled his friends
list to close friends and family, and no longer revealed details of
his location online.

"I actually wanted to stop using it altogether and close it all off
but it harms my social [life] and my status with my family and my
friends to keep in contact with them so . . . what do I do?"

He was not expecting a great deal of compensation from the legal
challenge, but said he would donate anything he received from it to
charity.

Norton Rose Fulbright special counsel Jim Lennon, who specialises
in data breaches and cyber security, said the case was a
"game-changer" for privacy law, at a time when large data breaches
were increasingly common.

While Facebook would vigorously defend itself against the legal
challenge, Mr Lennon said that if the users won, he expected more
lawsuits to be launched over data breaches in future.

"It's bad for business in a sense that all of a sudden privacy
breaches... [are] going to sound in very distinctly public and
financial consequences, at least more often," Mr Lennon said.

"But what will be good for the community is that corporate
Australia and the Commonwealth government agencies also covered by
the Privacy Act, I think, will now take privacy even more seriously
than they have.

"And many are doing the right thing. But I think now people will
not regard privacy as a nice to have in respect of compliance.

"They will resource it properly and really understand that this is
a human right of their customer base . . . and protect the
information properly." [GN]

FACEBOOK INC: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against Facebook, Inc. (NASDAQ:FB) ("Facebook" or
the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between April 26, 2018 and July 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

IMPORTANT DEADLINE:  Investors who purchased Facebook's securities
during the Class Period may, no later than September 25, 2018, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.

On July 25, 2018, Facebook announced its financial and operating
results for the second quarter of 2018, including revenue and user
numbers that fell short of market expectations.  During a
subsequent conference call, Facebook's Chief Financial Officer
reported that the Company "expect[s] currency to be a slight
headwind in the second half versus the tailwinds we have
experienced over the last several quarters," and that the Company
"plan[s] to grow and promote certain engaging experiences like
Stories that currently have lower levels of monetization."  

Following these disclosures, shares of Facebook's stock declined
$41.24 per share, or 19%, to close at $176.26 on July 26, 2018.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that Facebook and
certain other defendants made a series of false and misleading
statements during the Class Period and failed to disclose material
adverse facts to investors about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  Among other things, the defendants failed to
disclose that: (i) the number of daily and monthly active Facebook
users was declining; and (ii) due to unfavorable currency
conditions and plans to promote and grow features of Facebook's
social media platform with historically lower levels of
monetization, such as Stories, Facebook anticipated its revenue
growth to slow and its operating margins to fall.  The complaint
further alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, investors
purchased Facebook's securities at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period and suffered significant investment losses
following the defendants' disclosures.

Facebook investors who have suffered investment losses in excess of
$100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC and/or submit
their information online at http://kaskelalaw.com/case/facebook/.


         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         201 King of Prussia Road
         Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]

FACEBOOK INC: Sept. 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until September 25, 2018 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Facebook,
Inc. (NasdaqGS:FB), if they purchased the Company's shares between
April 26, 2018 and July 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").
This action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Facebook and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-fb/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by September 25, 2018.

About the Lawsuit

Facebook and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On July 25, 2018, the Company disclosed, after market, its 2Q2018
results including both revenue and active user counts below market
expectations.  Further, the Company anticipated slow revenue growth
and falling margins and that it "expect[s] currency to be a slight
headwind in the second half versus the tailwinds we have
experienced over the last several quarters" and its "plan to grow
and promote certain engaging experiences like Stories that
currently have lower levels of monetization."

On this news, the price of Facebook's shares plummeted 18.96%.

         Lewis Kahn,Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]

FACEBOOK: Pierce Bainbridge Probing Potential Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP, a top-tier business
litigation firm, is investigating a potential class action lawsuit
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Facebook, Inc.
(NASDAQ: FB) from October 1, 2017 through July 26, 2018. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Facebook investors under the
federal securities laws.

For more information on this investigation, and if you have
purchased Facebook shares during the time period set forth above;

         David L. Hecht,Esq.
         Email: dhecht@piercebainbridge.com [GN]

FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Are FHFA & the GSEs Government Actors?
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. government has told Judge Margaret M. Sweeney more than
once in litigation underway in the the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
challenging the perpetual sweep of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's
profits that the GSEs and their regulator, the Federal Housing
Finance Agency, are not agencies of the United States for Tucker
Act purposes and are Federal actors for purposes of constitutional
claims.  Earlier this month, in its Omnibus Motion to Dismiss
litigation brought by Fairholme Funds., Inc., Washington Federal,
Owl Creek, Appaloosa, and other shareholders, the government said
every Federal courts that has specifically addressed whether FHFA
as the Enterprises' conservator is a Federal actor for purposes of
constitutional claims have unanimously held that it is not a
Federal actor.  See https://goo.gl/EU4ikX at 22.

That statement is no longer true.

On Aug, 2, 2018, the Honorable John J. McConnell, Jr., in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island, ruled that Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac and FHFA are government actors for purposes of
constitutional claims, and that FHFA has waived its sovereign
immunity in Sisti v. FHFA, Case Nos. 17-042-JJM-LDA and
17-005-JJM-LDA (Dist. R.I.).  A copy of the decision is available
at https://goo.gl/FYRUcV at no charge.

The government wants Judge Sweeney to believe that when FHFA as
conservator executed the Third Amendment on the Enterprises behalf,
it did not act as the United States but rather stood in the
Enterprises' private shoes.  Litigating shareholders can now point
Judge Sweeney to a non-binding but persuasive ruling saying that's
not true anymore and she has jurisdiction over FHFA.

FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Nelson Personal Injury Suit Removed to D.S.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Gerjuan Nelson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Flagship Credit
Acceptance, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2018-CP-40-03351, was removed
from Richland County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina on July 27, 2018, under
Case No. 18-cv-02074. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Andrew Maxfield, Esq.
      DAVID MAXFIELD ATTORNEY LLC
      PO Box 11865
      Columbia, SC 29211
      Tel: (803) 509-6800
      Fax: (855) 299-1656
      Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com

Flagship Credit Acceptance is represented by:

      Emily Irene Bridges, Esq.
      Michael Kevin McCarrell, Esq.
      Steven Edward Farrar, Esq.
      SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP
      2 West Washington Street, Suite 1100
      Greenville, SC 29601
      Tel: (864) 751-7618, 751-7652, 751-7600
      Fax: (864) 751-7800
      Email: emily.bridges@smithmoorelaw.com
             kevin.mccarrell@smithmoorelaw.com
             steve.farrar@smithmoorelaw.com

FOUR CORNERS: Faces Class Action Over Withheld Tips
---------------------------------------------------
Ashok Selvam, writing for Chicago Eater, reports that Four Corners,
the owners of several Chicago bars -- including Benchmark,
Brickhouse Tavern, and WestEnd -- have been hit with a class-action
lawsuit by workers with an attorney alleging the company has
withheld more than $30 million in tips from servers and bartenders
from 2011 to 2018. The lawsuit names 17 Four Corners'
establishments and could affect as many as 800 employees.

The lawsuit details alleged practices where Four Corners would
withhold tips as means to avoid paying taxes. While the lawsuit has
been expanded to include other employees, the primary plaintiff was
a bartender at Benchmark in Old Town. He alleged that he wasn't
paid the amount he was entitled. Bar employees log their tips
nightly before leaving. That $30 million figure isn't in the
lawsuit and is from the plaintiff's attorney who's encouraging more
employees to join his lawsuit.

A hearing is scheduled for November 16 in Cook County circuit
court. Attorneys asked for a jury trial in the 107-page suit filed
on July 19.

The company called the claims "without merit and based on a
misunderstanding" in a widely distributed statement. Four Corners,
after 17 years, recently dropped the "tavern group" portion of its
name as it prepares for a national expansion, They've explored new
strategies in recent years including collaborating with Brendan
Sodikoff's Hogsalt Hospitality, the owners of Au Cheval.

Matt Menna, a Four Corners co-founder and principal at Sterling
Bay, was also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. Sterling Bay is
one of the city's biggest developers and unveiled its $1 billion
proposal for Lincoln Yards. That's the project to develop the
former Finkl Steel plant and the area along Elston Avenue around
Lincoln Park and Bucktown. Sterling Bay's fingerprints are all over
the city including in the West Loop and Fulton Market -- a trendy
area for restaurants in Chicago. [GN]

FULTON COUNT, GA: To Spend Big Bucks to Defend Tax Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Channel 2 Action News has discovered Fulton County will spend big
bucks on lawyers to defend itself from a class-action lawsuit
alleging tax assessors illegally overvalued thousands of
properties.

Channel 2's Mike Petchenik first reported on the allegations in
May, after now-former board of assessors member R.J. Morris brought
them up during a board meeting.

"The state constitution says you are supposed to tax people fairly.
They were unfairly taxed, we just need to give them their money
back," Mr. Morris said

He estimates that over a two-year period, the county collected
upward of $36 million in excess taxes from more than 18,000
homeowners across the county through a practice called "sales
chasing."  

Mr. Morris said his research showed appraisers assessed homes at
their sales prices, but left values of surrounding properties
untouched.

"These homeowners were robbed," he said.

After Mr. Petchenik's report first aired, an Atlanta attorney,
Mitchell Graham, filed a class-action suit against the county
seeking to recoup the money.  

Mr. Graham has subpoenaed Mr. Morris as a witness.

Mr. Morris said he learned the county will not pay for an attorney
to represent him during a deposition.

The attorney, Carmen Alexander, told Morris in a June 29 email that
she had been retained by Fulton County to represent him.

Reached on July 18 by Channel 2 Action News' investigative partners
at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and AJC.com, she would not
confirm that she was no longer representing Mr. Morris, and
referred questions to Fulton County.

"The board had decided the budget was too tight this year, and even
though they had already hired an attorney, they called up that
attorney and told her she was no longer hired," he said.

Mr. Morris alleges it's retaliation for raising an issue about
Commission Chairman Robb Pitts' re-nomination of Brandi Hunter to
the assessors board. The board has tabled the nomination for now.

"I did my job and found out the board members in the previous years
had not done their jobs. They had hurt taxpayers," he said. "They
don't want to reward me. They want to punish me for doing this."

Mr. Pitts told Channel 2 Action News it was his understanding that
the county attorney's office decided Morris was not acting in his
official capacity when he blew the whistle on the alleged sales
chasing.

Jessica Corbitt, a Fulton County spokesperson, told our
investigative partners at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and
AJC.com that the county had initiated the process of setting up an
attorney, but ultimately did not provide Mr. Morris counsel because
his participation in the litigation was "unrelated to his duties as
a former member of the Board of Assessors."

"As such, the department is not required to provide legal
representation on his behalf," Ms. Corbitt told our investigative
partners at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and AJC.com.

"I don't know if I should be mad at him or think that dementia is
starting to set in with him because you can look on the agenda and
see it was an official action by an official board member," Morris
said.

Acting on a tip, Mr. Petchenik filed an open records request with
the county and learned the board of commissioners has agreed to
hire former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears and
her law firm as outside counsel to defend the lawsuit.

An agreement Mr. Petchenik obtained says the county will pay Sears
and her partners $400 an hour to litigate the case.

"I think it's something the county attorneys could handle," said
Mr. Morris. "The case is not that complex."

Mr. Pitts told Channel 2 Action News he supported hiring the
outside attorneys.

"We have a small staff of county attorneys and this is one that's
going to require, I believe, in my opinion, some real knowledge and
expertise in this area," he said. "We want the best possible legal
representation, and if outside counsel is necessary, I completely
support that." [GN]

FYRE MEDIA: Music Festival Creator Faces New Fraud Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that two days after reaching a $27
million settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
26-year-old creator of last year's failed "once-in-a-lifetime" Fyre
music festival in the Bahamas pleaded guilty to new fraud charges
that could land him in prison for over a decade.



GEOFFREY PALMER: Sued for Witholding Tenants' Security Deposits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that an
L.A. Superior Court class action accuses billionaire housing mogul
Geoffrey Palmer and his captive management companies for his
10,000+ residential apartments of "uniformly withholding tenants'
security deposits without basis, relying on a host of bogus,
illegal charges to justify this withholding."



GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC: Gumm et al. Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TIMOTHY GUMM, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
ERIC SELLERS, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order certifying a class consisting of:

   "all persons who are or will in the future be assigned to
   the Special Management Unit (SMU) at Georgia Diagnostic &
   Classification Prison."

A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://is.gd/LF3nFK at no charge.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          C. Allen Garrett Jr., Esq.
          James F. Bogan III, Esq.
          Tamara Serwer Caldas, Esq.
          Chris W. Haaf, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
          1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 815 6500
          Facsimile: (404) 816 6555
          E-mail: agarrett@kilpatricktownsend.com

               - and -

          Ryan Primerano, Esq.
          Sarah Geraghty, Esq.
          Aaron Littman, Esq.
          Ryan Primerano, Esq.
          SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
          83 Poplar Street, NW
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 688 1202
          Facsimile: (404) 688 9440
          E-mail: sgeraghty@schr.org


GEORGIA: Firefighters Seek to Reverse Racial Bias Case Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kayla Goggin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
attorneys representing five black Georgia firefighters who claim
they suffered racial discrimination and a hostile work environment
asked the 11th Circuit on July 26 to reverse a district court
ruling dismissing their case.

The firefighters, who were all employed by the Thomasville, Georgia
Fire Department, allege that they were denied opportunities for
training, promotions, merit increases and raises that white
firefighters who had less training, experience and seniority
received.

The firefighters also claim that the department was generally
hostile toward the black firefighters on staff.

Two firefighters allege that they overheard white firefighters on
two separate occasions use "the ‘N' word" while speaking to the
fire captain.

According to attorneys for the five firemen, the alleged
discrimination became significantly worse after they filed
complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Firefighter Curtis Bradshaw, for instance, claims that in August
2013, he found a rope tied in a noose hanging from the bed in his
fire station bedroom.

The firefighters claim that after filing their initial charges of
discrimination with the EEOC, the department retaliated by
reassigning them to new positions which allegedly amounted to
demotions and reduced their pay.

In a September 2016 decision, Senior U.S. District Judge Hugh
Lawson ruled that the firefighters failed to present "direct
evidence" of discrimination.

Judge Lawson described the incident involving the noose as "an
isolated incident" and ruled that the allegedly derogatory remarks
made by fire department staff members do not amount to more than
"racial insensitivity."

"Discourteousness and rudeness do not equate to racial harassment,
nor does a lack of racial sensitivity alone amount to actionable
harassment," the ruling states.

On July 26, attorneys representing the city of Thomasville and the
Thomasville Fire Department asked a three-judge panel to affirm the
district court's decision.

The oral arguments largely focused on the department's alleged
retaliation against two of the firefighters, Derek Colson and
Curtis Bradshaw, who were removed from their roles as Fire
Inspectors in 2011 and reassigned after a performance evaluation
revealed that they failed to complete inspections of local
businesses and did not keep accurate records.

"In June and July of 2011, Messrs. Colson and Bradshaw underwent
evaluations.  Both were informed that their work was insufficient.
They were provided with benchmarks to improve in order to receive
their full merit increases," attorney Tom Richardson argued on
behalf of the city and the fire department.

"The [fire] chief gave a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for
their transfer," Mr. Richardson said.

But attorneys representing the firefighters argued that race was
indeed a determining factor in the decision to transfer Messrs.
Colson and Bradshaw.

"After they were called in, in June 2011, Colson and Bradshaw were
replaced by a single white man with early onset dementia who could
not drive," attorney LaTonya Wiley said.

"The fact that they were replaced by one white man–how does that
indicate racial discrimination?" Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Edward
Carnes asked.

"It negates the argument that their performance was deficient. How
can you have someone who is mentally impaired doing that?" Ms.
Wiley said.

Mr. Richardson claimed that there was no evidence when the man
replaced Messrs. Colson and Bradshaw that he was incapable of
driving.

Ms. Wiley and attorney Brenda Youmas also pointed to the timing of
the 2011 evaluation and the subsequent transfers, which they argued
may have been prompted by the firefighters' decision to file EEOC
complaints.

"They never had a problem until after they filed their complaints.
None of these issues became issues until after the chief met with
them, until after the EEOC charges were filed," Ms. Youmas argued.

Ms. Wiley and Ms. Youmas appeared optimistic about the outcome of
the July 26 proceedings.

"We were pleased that the court had a great command of the facts.
They went straight to the heart of the issue," Ms. Wiley told
Courthouse News.

The panel did not indicate when they will render a decision in the
case.

HASHFLARE: Class Action Mulled Over Bitcoin Mining Contracts
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Devoe, writing for Blockonomi, reports that just two days
after suddenly making demands for all customers identity documents,
the company known as Hashflare has released an email hours ago
titled "[IMPORTANT] End of Mining Service of SHA-256 Contracts".
According to the email, all current SHA-256 bitcoin mining
contracts would be terminated on July 20. Many on Twitter and
Reddit are calling this an exit scam.

According to the email that just went out, the company has been
unable to make any bitcoin payments to its contract holders for the
last 28 consecutive days due to the amount earned being allegedly
less than the daily maintenance fee the company charges. This, they
claim, what is causing all contracts to be terminated prematurely.

The email states that the company is within its rights to do this
as the action is "in accordance with clause 5.5 of our Terms of
Service, which are required to be accepted when creating a purchase
and are the basis of concluding the contract."

Clause 5.5 of the terms of service reads:

The Mining process continues until said mining is profitable. This
means the Mining process will stop if the Maintenance and
Electricity Fees will become larger than the Payout. If mining
remains unprofitable for 21 consecutive days the Service is
permanently terminated.

The terms seem to be unaltered, as an identical copy can be found
on archive.org stretching back to at least last year.

Fire and Brimstone
The community reaction has so far been overwhelmingly negative.
Some users who joined the service just recently and stand to suffer
the most loses have claimed that they are trying to perform a
chargeback with their banks. Others are stating that they
considering filing law suits against the Estonia-based company, but
it's too soon to tell whether or not anyone will proceed with legal
action.

Another subset of users are questioning the legitmacy of
Hashflare's claim that mining is no longer profitable. Users are
posting screen shots of mining calculator sites like Coinwarz.com
which suggests that currently mining is profitable, especially
considering the uptick in price that bitcoin has seen. But
profitability is apparently not enough, as the terms seem to be
that mining hasn't to be profitable enough to pay for their own
maintenance fees.

From Bad to Worse
The  announcement comes several months after Hashflare suddenly
changed all pre-existing bitcoin mining contracts from being
"lifetime" to one-year. That sudden change in policy which the
company again justified via its contractual terms caused support
for the company to plummet. That change seems moot, however, as all
bitcoin mining contracts still faced cancellation in much the same
way that we saw today.

Another point to consider is that just two days prior to this, the
company suddenly started requiring all users to submit ID data to
identify themselves. Users who failed to do so were told they could
potentially lose access to their accounts if they failed to comply.
The timing of this sudden requirement seems coincidental, and some
users are suggested this was done as a protective measure against
impending lawsuits.

Redditor /u/urgodfather had a few things to say for those
considering legal action.

"There are plenty of users thinking class action lawsuit. If you
decide to go this route, keep in mind that you will be exposed.
Hashflare is going to air it all out. They aren't going to keep
your privacy in mind at all."

Closing the Book on Hashflare
With this announcement, it is our guess that the community has
likely lost all trust in Hashflare. The companies main competitor,
Genesis Mining, appears to still be paying out and has not made any
statement so far on Hashflare's actions. Previously when Hashflare
changed their contracts from life time to one-year, Genesis Mining
released a statement saying they would never take advantage of
legal jargon to act against their customers best interests.

For those who currently have a balance on Hashflare, it appears
that the previous withdrawal minimums of 0.02 BTC have been
removed. However, the site is currently imposing a 0.01 BTC maximum
daily withdrawal, which is around $75 at July 20 prices.

For users that previously had lifetime contracts, they will only be
losing about a months worth of potential mining income as that
change occurred 11-months ago. But for those that joined just
recently, they stand to lose as much as a year of mining profits.
It's also quite likely that cloud mining itself will take a hit and
fewer users will be willing to invest in it as a result of the
collapse of Hashflare. [GN]

IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Settles Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. ("ImmunoCellular" or the
"Company") (NYSE American: IMUC), a biotechnology company
developing immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer based on its
Stem-to-T-Cell research program, on July 19 disclosed that it has
reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class
action suit, filed on May 1, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, captioned Arthur Kaye
IRA FCC as Custodian DTD 6-8-00 v. ImmunoCellular Therapeutics,
Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-03250,  against the Company, certain
of its current and former officers and directors, and others.

The tentative agreement, which is subject to final documentation
and Court approval, provides in part for a settlement payment of
$1.15 million in exchange for mutual releases and the dismissal of
all claims against the Company and its officers and directors in
connection with the securities class action suit. The $1.15 million
settlement payment will be fully funded by the Company's insurance
carrier.

Anthony J. Gringeri, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer
of ImmunoCellular, said, "We are pleased to have reached a mutually
acceptable resolution of this matter under payment terms that will
be fully covered by our insurance carrier. If approved, this
settlement will allow us to focus on our research to advance our
Stem-to-T-Cell program for the treatment of cancer and our
exploration of strategic alternatives without the distraction of
on-going class action litigation."

             About ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd.

Based in Los Angeles, ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd.
http://www.imuc.comis developing immune-based therapies for the
treatment of cancer. ImmunoCellular is focused on advancing its
Stem-to-T-Cell research program, which engineers hematopoietic stem
cells to generate cytotoxic T cells.  Additional assets, for which
the Company is seeking partners, include clinical-stage programs --
ICT-107, ICT-121 and ICT-140 -- which are patient-specific,
dendritic cell-based immunotherapies targeting solid tumors. [GN]

INVESTA SERVICES: BC Grand Sues over Real Property Tax Assessments
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Investa Services of
GA, LLC. The case is captioned as B.C. GRAND, LLC, and a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, Plaintiff v. INVESTA
SERVICES OF GA, LLC; FIG LLC; and FIG ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2018CV307207 (Ga. Super., Fulton Cty., June
28, 2018).

The complaint alleges that Investa, on behalf of FIG, purchased tax
liens from the Fulton County Tax Commissioner while the tax
assessments associated with those liens are on appeal, and then
used the power of the Sheriff to enforce the payment of the
overly-high tax -- along with interest and penalty fees based on
that high and incorrect assessment. When the appeals were
successful, the overpaid tax payment was returned to the property
owner, but the overpaid interest and penalty fees -- which were
based on a principal far greater than what was actually owed -- are
not.  Business owners, such as the Plaintiff and hundreds more,
have been subject to this farce, and the Defendants continue the
practice to this day.

Investa Services of GA, LLC is a Georgia Limited Liability Company
with a principal place of business in 2020 Howell Mill Road, Suite
C-513, Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mario B. Williams, Esq.
          NEXUS DERECHOS HUMANOS ATTORNEYS, INC.
          44 Broad Street, NW, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 254-0442
          Facsimile: (703) 935-2453
          E-mail: mwilliams@ndhlawyers.com

               - and -

          Julie Oinonen, Esq.
          WILLIAMS OINONEN LLC
          44 Broad Street, NW, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 654-0288
          Facsimile: (404) 592-6225
          E-mail: julie@goodgeorgialawyer.com


JUNIPER PHARMA: Rosenblatt Challenges Sale to Catalent Pharma
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Rosenblatt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Juniper Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cristina
Csimma, James A. Geraghty, Jennifer Good, Mary Ann Gray, Ann
Merrifield, Richard Messina, Nikin Patel, Alicia Secor, Catalent
Pharma Solutions, Inc. and Catalent Boston, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-01108 (D. Del., July 27, 2018), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of
Juniper by Catalent Pharma Solutions, rescinding it and setting it
aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants
consummate the merger.

The plaintiff further seeks costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, Catalent Boston, Inc. will
purchase all outstanding shares of Juniper for $11.50 in cash per
share of Juniper's common stock.

The complaint asserts that Juniper's proxy statement omitted the
Company's financial projections, as well as the analyses performed
by its financial advisor, Rothschild Inc., particularly, Juniper's
financial projections, data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by
Rothschild and the background process leading to the merger.

Juniper is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located at 33 Arch Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. It
is a diversified healthcare company into pharmaceutical development
and manufacturing. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-531
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
             gms@rl-legal.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Email: rm@maniskas.com

KIA MOTORS: Appeals Court Reinstates $6.3MM Class Action Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Journal, reports that in a
case that's been going on since 2001, a New Jersey appeals court
has reinstated a $6.3 million class action award against Kia Motors
America and ordered that fees be awarded to the firm that
represented the more than 8,000 plaintiffs in the case.

The litigation concerns the braking system of the Kia Sephia,
discontinued in 2001.

A three-judge Appellate Division panel in a published decision on
July 18 in Little v. Kia Motors America reversed a Union County
trial judge's 2008 order overturning the jury's verdict and the
award of $681,850 in counsel fees and costs, and decertifying the
class.

Judge Ellen Koblitz, joined by Judges Thomas Manahan and Karen
Suter, said a trial court will have to reach a new determination on
counsel fees, as well as prejudgment interest.

"We hope to get this case cleared," said the plaintiffs' attorney,
Michael Donovan of the Donovan Litigation Group in Bala Cynwyd,
Pennsylvania. "The opinion is thorough and is consistent with
current law."

The case has had a torturous history, repeatedly moving from the
trial courts to the Appellate Division.

The plaintiffs charged that the Kia Sephia's braking system didn't
adequately dissipate heat, causing pads and rotors to wear down at
10,000-mile intervals. In Kia's own tests, the heat of the braking
system was measured at 950 degrees, the plaintiffs alleged. Kia's
warranty didn't cover brake components.

The plaintiffs were those who purchased the Sephia between 1997 and
2000—about 8,450 in number. Each stands to receive about $750
from the jury award, representing the estimated cost of repairing
the brakes.

A jury in 2008 found that the automobile manufacturer breached its
express and implied warranty to purchasers of the cars and violated
the terms of the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which governs
warranties on consumer products and allows prevailing plaintiffs to
recover reasonable costs of suit, including attorney fees. However,
the jury held that Kia did not violate New Jersey's Consumer Fraud
Act, and that there were no diminished values to the cars due to
the faulty brakes.

The Union County verdict followed a $5.6 million verdict in a suit
against Kia in Pennsylvania in 2005. A 47-state settlement that
same year provided only $60,000 for the class and exempted Florida,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

According to the court, following the Union County 2008 verdict, a
judge, finding that individual issues predominated the case, issued
a judgment notwithstanding the verdict later that year, decertified
the class, and ordered a new trial on the repair damages. A motion
to recertify the class was granted, and the jury's finding of no
diminution in value was reversed, in 2011, but the Appellate
Division overturned that ruling the next year. A special master
appointed on remand in 2013 found that only a fraction of the
plaintiffs proved damages. The special master recommended damages
of about $46,000. Then, in 2015, plaintiff lawyers sought more than
$6 million in fees and $481,850 in costs, though only $200,000 in
fees were awarded, plus the costs sought.

The case again returned to the Appellate Division, which on July 18
reached back to 2008 and reversed the granting of judgment
notwithstanding the verdict.

"The trial judge's concern that the jury award would provide a
windfall to class members who did not actually spend $750 in
additional repair costs was inconsistent with principles of
contract damages, and resulted in an unjust windfall to defendant,
which produced no evidence to defeat [the] estimated damages,"
Judge Koblitz wrote for the panel.

Mr. Donovan said he now expects the attorney fee figure he seeks to
be higher. "It will have to be recalculated, in addition to
prejudgment interest," Donovan said.

Kia retained Roberto Rivera-Soto, a former New Jersey Supreme Court
justice now with the Cherry Hill office of Ballard Spahr. He was
not available for comment on the decision. [GN]

LIFE INSURANCE: Class of Policy Purchasers Certified in "Walker"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James V. Selna grants the motion for class certification
filed by the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Joyce Walker, et
al. v. Life Insurance Co. Of the Southwest, et al., Case No.
2:10-cv-09198-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal.).

The Court adopts this class definition:

     All persons who purchased a Provider Policy or Paragon
     Policy from Life Insurance Company of the Southwest that was
     issued between September 24, 2006 and April 27, 2014, who
     resided in California at the time the Policy was issued, and
     who received an illustration on or before the date of policy
     application.

The Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint alleging that LSW's
practices in connection with the marketing and sale of two of its
life insurance policies, SecurePlus Provider and SecurePlus
Paragon, constitute unlawful and unfair business practices under
the California Unfair Competition Law based on various violations
of California's Illustration Statute.



LIFESAFER INC: Spencer Sues over Ignition Interlock Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa C. Spencer, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. No. 1 A LifeSafer of Arizona, LLC, and
No. 1 A LifeSafer, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02225-BSB
(D. Ariz., July 16, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated 15
U.S.C. section 1667a and 12 C.F.R. section 1013.4 for their failure
to provide Plaintiff or members of proposed class requisite
segregated disclosures concerning their leases of Defendants'
ignition interlock devices.

According to the complaint, LifeSafer considers itself "[a]
National Leader in Ignition Interlock Technology," boasting that
its "Ignition interlocks are one of the most widely used devices in
the US." LifeSafer's "ignition interlock is a device which prevents
a vehicle from starting if the driver has been drinking alcohol.
Like a breathalyzer, an ignition interlock measures the alcohol in
a person's system. If that amount exceeds a pre-programmed level,
then the interlock temporarily locks the vehicle's ignition.
LifeSafer offers its ignition interlock devices at over 900
locations nationwide. LifeSafer leases its ignition interlock
devices to drivers throughout the country through use of "consumer
leases" as defined under the CLA, 15 U.S.C. section 1667(1).

LifeSafer is the ignition interlock provider Arizona drivers turn
to first supply the most advanced technology at the most reasonable
prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


LOCK HAVEN: AG Shapiro Seeks Ruling in Title IX Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Stoltzfus, writing for PennRecord, reports that Pennsylvania
Attorney General Josh Shapiro is seeking a ruling in a Title IX
lawsuit filed against Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania in
which the plaintiffs requested class certification, claiming, on
the university's behalf, that the plaintiffs have not proven that
their rights have been violated.

The complaint and summary judgment motion were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

On March 19, counsel for several plaintiffs argued that the case
based on the alleged failure of Lock Haven to provide equal
opportunities for female athletes should become a class action.

Citing "program wide discrimination," the plaintiffs allege that
female students have sometimes been "deterred or prevented from
participating in or obtaining the benefits of intercollegiate
athletics at LHU."

In addition, the plaintiffs' counsel said in the lawsuit that.
"LHU's roster management plans have not succeeded."

The plaintiffs said class certification should be granted "because
LHU has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to
the class."

In response to the class certification request, Mr. Shapiro denied
the discrimination allegations in a June 1 motion for summary
judgment.

"LHU maintains that it is fully compliant with Title IX," the
motion said. "Additionally, each request...contains vague
objectives and terms of bases for comparisons that cannot be easily
defined and would invite perpetual disagreement between the
parties."

The defense also cited provisions that require monetary allocations
be made to avoid affecting the Title IX rights of male students.

"LHU should be given deference to determine what if any changes are
appropriate to the athletic programs," the defense said. [GN]

LOGMEIN INC: Wortman Sues over Auto-Renewal Policy
--------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA WORTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LOGMEIN, INC., a Delaware corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11475-GAO (D. Mass., July 16,
2018), seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, as well
as equitable relief caused by Defendant's alleged automatic
subscription of LMI's software.

LMI is a company that offers annual subscriptions to its online
products. According to the complaint, at the end of the one year
subscription period, the subscription automatically renews at a
significantly higher rate, without any notification to the
customer. Had Plaintiff known the truth about LMI's billing
practices, Plaintiff would have never purchased a subscription to
LMI's software.

LogMeIn, Inc. is a provider of software as a service and
cloud-based remote connectivity services for collaboration, IT
management and customer engagement, founded in 2003 and based in
Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Kazmi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR KAZMI
          55 Chapel Street, Suite 301
          Newton, MA 02458
          Telephone: (617)843 3940
          E-mail: noor@noorkazmilaw.com

               - and -

          Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
          AMARTIN LAW PC
          600 W Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 308 6880
          E-mail: alisa@amartinlaw.com

               - and -

          Lindsay C. David, Esq.
          BRENNAN & DAVID LAW GROUP
          2888 Loker Avenue E, Suite 302
          Carlsbad, CA 92010
          Telephone: (760) 730 9408
          E-mail: lcdavid@brennandavid.com


MAJOR MODEL: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime, Raske Says
--------------------------------------------------------
LOUISA RASKE, Individually and as Class Representative, Plaintiff,
v. MAJOR MODEL MANAGEMENT INC., the Defendant, Case No. 653534/2018
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 16, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to
pay models in full for work performed at the direction of
Defendants -- including, for example, by authorizing the use of
their models' images without their knowledge or consent and without
compensating them for the use -- and by refusing to abide by wage
and hour laws -- including, for example, by not paying for
attendance at mandatory meetings, not paying minimum wages, not
paying overtime, paying wages after a delay of many months, as well
as improperly deducting unauthorized and unsubstantiated amounts
from the models' paychecks -- Defendants unfairly and unlawfully
reaped millions of dollars in profits on the backs of the models,
who had little to no bargaining power and were forced to take
whatever compensation Defendants saw fit.

According to the complaint, the Defendants -- some of the largest
and most powerful modeling agencies in the City and the world --
have systematically taken advantage of the models they claim to
represent by unlawfully diverting millions of dollars in value from
the models to themselves. For years, Defendants mischaracterized
the models they employed as "independent contractors" rather than
employees. In doing so, they denied the models the wages they were
due for work performed at Defendants' direction. Defendants also
avoided state wage and hour laws including payment of a minimum
wage, timely payment of all wages due, and recordkeeping
requirements. Even when the models were paid, they were not paid in
full; Defendants routinely deducted unauthorized and largely
unsubstantiated expenses from their models' paychecks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher D. Kercher, Esq.
          Adam Wolfson, Esq.
          Kimberly Carson, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010-1601
          Telephone: (212) 849 7000


MATERIAL TRANSPORT: Search and Rose Sue over Minimum & OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK SEARCH and ROBERT ROSE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MATERIAL TRANSPORT,
LLC, a domestic corporation, and KIMBERLY M. CHERRY, an individual,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01941-RBH (D.S.C., July 16, 2018),
alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other current
and former drivers for the Company at one-and-one-half times their
regular rates of pay for time worked in excess of 40 hours each
work week under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Material Transport is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Conway,
South Carolina.[BN]

Attorneys for Frank Search and Robert Rose:

          Michal Kalwajtys, Esq.
          DOUGALL & COLLINS
          1700 Woodcreek Farms Road
          Elgin, SC 29045
          Telephone: (803) 865 8858
          Facsimile: (803) 865 8944
          E-mail: mkalwajtys@dougallfirm.com

               - and -

          Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561 0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582 5297
          E-mail: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com
                  jtb@jtblawgroup.com


MDL 2084: Court Denies Bid to Certify Direct Purchaser Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit Re: Androgel Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
1:09-md-02084-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash
entered an order denying Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' motion
to certify class.

The Court said, "First, although the Plaintiffs assert that many of
their proposed class members would have negative claims, they fail
to provide any evidence to support that assertion. The Plaintiffs
argue that 'antitrust litigation is expensive, often requiring
millions of dollars in costs,' and they point to the costs of
retaining experts in this case, which have now exceeded $4.6
million. They then include the following table to suggest that if a
class member's claim is below $1 million or $4.6 million, their
claim is therefore negative. The Plaintiffs provide no answer or
argument as to why $1 million should be the standard by which a
claim is determined as being economically worthwhile or not. And on
the other, the $4.6 million standard based on the cost of experts
is a red herring."

The Court explained that the numerosity rule does not envision the
alternative of individual suits; it considers only the alternative
of joinder. As joined parties, no individual plaintiff will bear
the costs of those experts completely on their own.  According to
the Court, the class plaintiffs would very likely sign joint
litigation agreements and hire joint experts, just as the other
Plaintiffs in this case have done for years.

"It is not clear that there would be a need for that to change
merely because absent Plaintiffs would be joined as individual
parties instead of moving forward as a class," the court said.
Further, the court continued, "[t]he reality of contingent
representation significantly undercuts [the Plaintiffs'] argument
regarding litigation costs. In other words, the fact that all class
members, even those with such so-called 'small' claims, would
likely be represented on a contingent basis undermines [the
Plaintiffs'] position" that litigating via joinder would result in
a negative claim.  The Plaintiffs, particularly those with small
claims, could therefore avoid the costs of litigating altogether,
or at the very least could proportionally shoulder the burden
amongst themselves. And even if there were still some small number
of claims that would be uneconomical to bring, in light of the
other factors at play, the Court still finds that a class action
would be inappropriate.

The Court also held that a joint action could not possibly harm the
relationship between smaller wholesalers and the suppliers any more
than a class action. In a joint action, especially one with so many
large plaintiffs, the smaller plaintiffs would have little more
involvement than they would under a class action. And although a
class action would shield smaller Plaintiffs from discovery, it is
not as if it would shield their identity.  The Defendants would
still know they were opposing them in litigation. Altogether, the
Court finds that joinder would not be impracticable in this case.
Given that Rule 23 allows Courts to certify class actions "only if"
the Plaintiffs can demonstrate that joinder of all the parties
would be impracticable, the Court need not analyze the parties'
other arguments regarding adequacy.


MERCK & CO: Smith's Bid to Certify Nixed Pending Aug. 17 Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael A. Shipp entered an order in the lawsuit styled
KELLI SMITH, KANDICE BROSS, RACHEL MOUNTIS, and KATE WHITMER,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated female
employees v. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME, CORP., and
INTERVET, INC., Case No. 3:13-cv-02970-MAS-LHG (D.N.J.), holding
that these motions are administratively terminated, pending the
hearing:

   (a) Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification and
       Final Certification of an Equal Pay Act Collective Action;

   (b) Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Declarations
       Filed in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
       Certification;

   (c) Defendants' Motion to Strike the Report of Dr. David
       Friedland;

   (d) Defendants' Motion to Strike the Report of Dr. Alexander
       Vekker; and

   (e) Plaintiffs' Motion to Correct Exhibit.

The Court will hold a one-day hearing on August 17, 2018, at 10:00
a.m.  If either party or expert has a conflict with the date and
time set by the Court, counsel shall confer and submit e-filed
joint correspondence regarding their availability and provide a
minimum of two alternative joint proposed dates and times.


MICRO FOCUS: Schmitt Securities Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned David Schmitt, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Micro Focus International
PLC, Christopher Hsu, Stephen Murdoch, Mike Phillips, Kevin
Loosemore, Nils Brauckmann, Karen Slatford, Richard Atkins, Amanda
Brown, Silke Scheiber, Darren Roos, Giselle Manon and John Schultz,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-03066 (N.D. Cal., May 23, 2018), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on July 27, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-06763.

Schmitt, as owner of Micro Focus American Depository Shares, seeks
to recover damages caused by violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

Micro Focus is an infrastructure software company which develops,
sells, and supports software products and solutions to federal,
airlines, and healthcare industry internationally.  The Company is
incorporated in the United Kingdom.  Micro Focus American
Depository Shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker "MFGP."

The Company had suffered ongoing sales execution issues,
particularly in North America, as well as significant employee
attrition. On March 22, 2018, the price of Micro Focus ADS closed
at $12.99 per ADS, representing a decline of more than 54% from its
closing price. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

Micro Focus International PLC, Mike Phillips and Stephen Murdoch
are represented by:

      Austin L. Klar, Esq.
      Christopher William Keegan, Esq.
      KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
      555 California Street, Suite 2700
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (415) 439-4787, 439-1882
      Fax: (415) 439-1500
      Email: austin.klar@kirkland.com
             chris.keegan@kirkland.com

Christopher Hsu is represented by:

      John David Pernick, Esq.
      BERGESON, LLP
      2033 Gateway Place Suite 300
      San Jose, CA 95110
      Tel: (408) 291-6200
      Fax: (408) 297-6000
      Email: jpernick@be-law.com

MONSANTO CO: Faces 4-R Farms Suit over Herbicide Products
---------------------------------------------------------
4-R FARMS INC. individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, and BASF CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-04067 (D. Kan., July 12, 2018) alleges
that the Defendants misrepresented to the general public that the
Defendants' auxin herbicide dicamba under the brand names Xtendimax
and Engenia are safe.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff grew soybeans and corn on
approximately 1,350 acres of farmland near Corning, Kansas. In June
and July 2017, the Plaintiff observed significant dicamba injuries
on Plaintiff's crops, including, but not limited to, cupping,
curling, and discoloration of exposed plants, as well as some plant
death. The damage was observed on approximately 220 acres of
soybeans.

The Plaintiff grew soybean crops susceptible to and not genetically
modified to be resistant to dicamba. As a result of the crop damage
caused by dicamba, the Plaintiff sustained a loss of yield in
2017.

Injury to the Plaintiff's non-resistant crops is a direct result of
the Defendants' development, marketing and sale of a dicamba-based
crop system featuring genetically modified seed specifically
developed and commercialized for the purpose of use with in-crop
dicamba herbicide.

Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was
formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to
Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in
2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018,
Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald Lee Cross, Jr., Esq.
          CROSS LAW FIRM, LLC
          8000 Foster St.
          Overland Park, KS 66204
          Telephone: (816) 454-5297
          Facsimile: (913) 904-1650
          E-mail: lcross@gmolaw.com

               - and -

          James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5500
          Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
          E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com


MONSANTO CO: Ray Suit Seeks Damages Over Roundup Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Ira Ray, individually and as administrator of the Estate of
Daniel Edward Ray, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-01242 (E.D. Mo., July 27, 2018), seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, costs, expert fees, disbursements and attorneys'
fees incurred in prosecuting this action, disgorgement of profits,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate and
such other relief resulting from negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (R), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

According to the complaint, Daniel Edward Ray was exposed to
Roundup while working as a contractor/home-builder. As a direct and
proximate result of his exposure, Ray developed non-Hodgkin's
Lymphoma specifically Mantle cell lymphoma, which was diagnosed for
the first time in July 2012 and he eventually died on
April 23, 2016. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Eric D. Holland, Esq.
       HOLLAND LAW FIRM
       300 North Tucker, Suite 801
       St. Louis, MO 63101
       Tel. (314) 241-8111
       Fax. (314) 241-5554
       Email: eholland@allfela.com

              - and -

       Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
       PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
       6 Harbor Park Drive
       Port Washington, NY 11050
       Tel. (516) 723-4627
       Fax (516) 723-4727
       Email: jrichman@yourlawyer.com

MONSANTO CO: Schade Suit Says Herbicide Exposure Caused Lymphoma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian E. Schade, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company and John Does 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01250 (E.D. Mo., July 27, 2018), seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert fees,
disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this
action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest at the maximum rate and such other relief resulting from
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup (R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The complaint relates that Schade was exposed to glyphosate while
working for 5 years on a 600 acre farm and for a farmers' co-op
from 1994-1998, mixing and spraying Roundup for the purpose of
farming operations. As a direct and proximate result of being
exposed to Roundup, Schade developed Mantle Cell Lymphoma, a
subtype of non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma which was diagnosed for the first
time on or around May 22, 2013 in a pathology report of Port Huron
Hospital. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Eric D. Holland, Esq.
       HOLLAND LAW FIRM
       300 North Tucker, Suite 801
       St. Louis, MO 63101
       Tel. (314) 241-8111
       Fax. (314) 241-5554
       Email: eholland@allfela.com

              - and -

       Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
       PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
       6 Harbor Park Drive
       Port Washington, NY 11050
       Tel. (516) 723-4627
       Fax (516) 723-4727
       Email: jrichman@yourlawyer.com

MONSANTO CO: Smith Blames Roundup Exposure as Cause for Lymphoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry A. Smith and Judy Smith, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company and
John Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01250 (E.D. Mo., July
27, 2018), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert
fees, disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting
this action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest at the maximum rate and such other relief
resulting from negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (R), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

Smith was exposed to glyphosate while mixing and spraying Roundup
for the purpose of landscaping application to the 15-acre area of
land which at all relevant times he owned and resided on. As a
direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Schade
developed Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Small Lymphocytic
Lymphoma, a subtype of non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Eric D. Holland, Esq.
       HOLLAND LAW FIRM
       300 North Tucker, Suite 801
       St. Louis, MO 63101
       Tel. (314) 241-8111
       Fax. (314) 241-5554
       Email: eholland@allfela.com

              - and -

       Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
       PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
       6 Harbor Park Drive
       Port Washington, NY 11050
       Tel. (516) 723-4627
       Fax (516) 723-4727
       Email: jrichman@yourlawyer.com

NERIUM INTERNATIONAL: Faces Fraud Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Bohm Wildish & Matsen LLP on July 18 announced the filing of a
class action lawsuit against Nerium International, LLC ("Nerium")
for fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation in Riverside, California.
The lawsuit was filed on July 13, 2018 on behalf of tens of
thousands of current and former Nerium Brand Partners.

According to the lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status,
Nerium made materially false and/or misleading statements regarding
the cost of Brand Partner Launch Kits. The lawsuit alleges that
Nerium falsely represented that Brand Partner Launch Kits are sold
"at Company cost," but that Nerium sold Brand Partner Launch Kits
for a significant profit.

Nerium's Chief Executive Officer Jeff Olson is also named as a
defendant in the lawsuit. The Complaint alleges that Jeff Olson
received a significant secret "kick-back" from the sale of each
Brand Partner Launch Kit. The lawsuit seeks compensation,
penalties, damages, and attorneys' fees. The suit could include
thousands of current and former Nerium Brand Partners if a class
action is approved by the court.

If you purchased a Brand Partner Launch Kit in California at any
time since January 1, 2010, we encourage you to contact James Bohm,
Klaus Heinze, or Christopher Green, of Bohm Wildish & Matsen, LLP,
at 714-384-6500, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can
also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.bohmwildish.com/,submitting an information request at
https://www.bohmwildish.com/contact, or emailing us at
info@bohmwildish.com.

This class action lawsuit has already been filed. The complaint is
available at the link here. The class in this case has not yet been
certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented
by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an
absent class member.

Bohm Wildish & Matsen, LLP -- http://www.bohmwildish.com-- is a
boutique law firm comprised of attorneys with top legal credentials
and big firm experience, while valuing the significance of our
client relationships. In addition to representing institutions and
other plaintiffs in class action litigation, the firm's expertise
includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as
asset protection and trust litigation. [GN]

NEW YORK: US/Nurses Suit Settlement Provisionally Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William F. Kuntz provisionally approved, subject to the
Court's consideration of objections and final approval, the
Settlement Agreement between the parties of the lawsuit captioned
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, and NEW YORK STATE NURSES
ASSN. and ANNE BOVE, Plaintiff-Intervenors v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
Case No. CV-18-4100 (WFK)(ST) (E.D.N.Y.).

The Court provisionally certified a Settlement Class, as defined in
the Settlement Agreement and consisting of those persons who worked
in registered nurse or midwife occupational titles who:

   (a) were employed by the City of New York (the "City") and/or
       NYC Health & Hospital ("NYC H&H") on October 4, 2016, and
       enrolled in either the NYCERS Tier 4 55/25 retirement plan
       under NYSA Retirement and Social Security Law 604-c, or
       the NYCERS Tier 4 57/5 retirement plan under NYS
       Retirement and Social Security Law 604-d, who could, or
       did, attain twenty-five (25) years of qualifying service
       in registered nurse or midwife occupational titles before
       reaching the age of fifty-five (55) for persons in the
       55/25 plan, or, the age of fifty-seven (57) for persons in
       the 57/5 plan; or

   (b) retired from City and/or NYC H&H employment during the
       period beginning January 1, 2006, and concluding
       October 4, 2016, and during their City and/or NYC H&H
       employment were enrolled in the NYCERS Tier 4 55/25
       retirement plan or the NYCERS Tier 4 57/5 retirement plan,
       and who attained twenty-five years (25) of qualifying
       service in registered nurse or midwife occupational titles
       before reaching the age of fifty-five (55) for persons in
       the 55/25 plan, or, the age of fifty-seven (57) for
       persons in the 57/5 plan.

Anne Bove is provisionally appointed as the representative of the
Settlement Class.  The forms of Notice of Class Certification,
Settlement and Fairness Hearing, Instructions for Filing an
Objection Prior to the Fairness Hering, and Objection Form, as well
as the cover letter submitted in connection with Proposed
Intervenors' motion are approved.

A Fairness Hearing for the consideration of objections and final
certification of the Settlement Class and final approval of the
Settlement Agreement is scheduled for November 14, 2018, at 10:00
a.m.


NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Settles Securities Class Action for $19MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Sweeney, writing for Fierce Healthcare, reports that the
parent company of EHR vendor NextGen Healthcare has agreed to pay
$19 million to settle a class-action complaint that senior
executives defrauded investors by misrepresenting the company's
financial projections.

The settlement ends five years of litigation and suspends a request
to the Supreme Court to review the case.

In a suit initially filed in November 2013 in a Central California
District Court, shareholders accused Quality Systems Inc. and three
company executives of misrepresenting the company's current and
projected financial performance, promising earnings growth of 20%
to 25% in 2013 despite evidence that revenues and bookings had
begun to decline.

Shareholders, led by the City of Miami Firefighters' and Police
Officers' Retirement Trust and the Arkansas Teacher Retirement
System, also accused Quality Systems CEO Steven Plochocki of
insider trading after he sold off nearly $4 million of shares
following dramatic share price increases, allegedly driven by the
company's misrepresentations.

Mr. Plochocki retired in June 2015 after seven years as the
company's CEO. The two other executives named in the litigation
were Paul Holt, the former chief financial officer, now the CFO at
NantHealth, and Sheldon Razin, Quality Systems' founder and
chairman of the board. Mr. Razin left the company in 2015.

As part of the settlement (PDF), Quality Systems and the executives
named do not "admit to any liability, fault, or wrongdoing of any
kind."

Quality Systems operates primarily as NextGen Healthcare, which
offers a suite of EHR solutions targeted primarily to physician
practices. Beyond its core EHR offering, NextGen also provides
billing software, population health platforms and workflow
management tools.

In the last fiscal year ending March 31, 2018, NextGen recorded
$531 million in revenue and $289.5 million in gross profit. The
company recorded a net income of $2.4 million, down from $18.2
million the year prior.

In January, Quality Systems filed a petition (PDF) with the U.S.
Supreme Court asking the high court to weigh in on when a defendant
must admit that non-forward looking statements are false or
misleading in order to be protected under federal safe harbor
provisions.

A NextGen Healthcare spokesperson did not immediately respond to a
request for comment. [GN]

NISSAN MOTORS: Must Face Class Action Over Defective Sentra CVTs
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Nissan
Sentra CVT class-action lawsuit has survived a dismissal bid by
Nissan, although the automaker did succeed in getting some claims
tossed out.

The class-action lawsuit alleges 2013-2017 Nissan Sentras have
continuously variable transmissions (CVTs) that are "defective in
design, materials, and/or workmanship."

According to the plaintiffs, the cars experience all kinds of
transmission problems that make driving dangerous.

Allegations include "sudden, unexpected shaking and violent jerking
(commonly referred to as 'juddering' or 'shuddering') when drivers
attempt to accelerate." Drivers also claim the cars hesitate when
trying to accelerate, increasing the risk of injuries and deaths.

The plaintiffs further allege the transmissions eventually fail,
something Nissan has known about for years.

Within a year of selling the first allegedly defective vehicle,
Nissan sent a technical service bulletin to dealers about engine
control and transmission control modules. However, the lawsuit
alleges customers kept complaining about the CVTs after dealers
made repairs.

Each plaintiff described their own problems with the transmissions,
with one customer claiming "almost immediately after her purchase,"
the "vehicle began to judder and would fail to properly
accelerate."

Another plaintiff "noticed symptoms of the defect, including
frequent juddering, a whining noise, and delayed acceleration."

Another Sentra owner "noticed transmission failures, including that
the vehicle stalled at stoplights, vibrated and jerked under
acceleration, had severe lag, would not go more than 20 mph without
shaking and exhibited severe juddering at higher speeds."

Yet another plaintiff claims several years after buying the Sentra,
"the RPMs were fluttering on the highway," and "[t]he vehicle shook
when at a stop and hesitated when accelerating from a stop." In
addition, one of the plaintiffs say the transmission completely
failed.

Nissan filed a motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit by alleging the
allegations of transmission problems don't hold up according to the
law. While the plaintiffs claim the CVTs are covered by the express
warranty, Nissan says the plaintiffs don't name a specific
transmission defect.

The automaker also argues if any defect is identified, it's a
design defect that isn't covered by the warranty. But the judge
ruled the lawsuit says the CVTs "are defective in design,
materials, and/or workmanship."

According to the judge, the plaintiffs have identified a number of
symptoms that may be attributable to material or workmanship
defects. But the fact the lawsuit alleges a transmission defect is
present in all models does not necessarily mean that the defect
must be in the design.

"Here, Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to support a
plausible claim that the transmissions "differ from the product the
manufacturer intended to sell" in ways that could be attributable
to a materials or workmanship defect," Judge Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr. said.

Concerning implied warranty claims, Nissan argues four plaintiffs
cannot state a claim for breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability because their cars were "minimally fit for the
ordinary purpose of providing basic transportation, and . . .
satisfy a minimum level of quality, even if they fail to perform
exactly as the buyer expected."

However, the judge ruled all the plaintiffs experienced
transmission problems that implicate both quality and safety and
the unreliable acceleration alone poses a risk for any driver on
the road.

"These allegations are more than sufficient to survive at the
pleading stage."

The judge went on to deny Nissan's motion to dismiss a breach of
warranty claim for one plaintiff, but granted the motion concerning
two other plaintiffs.

The judge also denied Nissan's motion to dismiss claims about the
Magnuson-Moss Act.

Due to claims from multiple plaintiffs in multiple states, the
judge had numerous rulings to issue. In the end, the judge granted
Nissan's motion to dismiss all plaintiffs' claims for equitable
relief and implied warranty claims for two plaintiffs, all without
leave to amend.

The judge also dismissed plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment,
but with leave to amend.

Nissan's motion to dismiss is denied as to all remaining claims.

The Nissan Sentra CVT class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California - Falk, et
al., v. Nissan North America, Inc.

CarComplaints.com has owner-reported transmission complaints about
Nissan Sentras for model years 2013 / 2014 / 2015 / 2016 [GN]

NORDSTROM INC: Alex Ponce's Wage-and-Hour Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesus G. Bernal terminated a purported class action lawsuit
filed by Nordstrom employee.

Alex Ponce sued the Company for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.  The
case was originally filed in San Bernardino Superior Court, case
number CIVDS1812475.  Nordstrom removed the case to federal
district court on July 6, 2018.  The case was then captioned, ALEX
PONCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NORDSTROM, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-01444 (C.D. Cal., July 6, 2018).

Mr. Ponce was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
at their distribution centers in the State of California.

On July 13, Nordstrom filed in federal district court a Motion to
Compel Arbitration.  That Motion is set for hearing August 27,
2018, at 9:00 a.m.

On the same day, Ponce filed a Notice of Dismissal.

On July 26, Judge Bernal entered an order saying the case is
dismissed without prejudice.

Nordstrom, Inc., a fashion retailer, provides apparel, shoes,
cosmetics, and accessories for women, men, young adults, and
children in the United States and Canada. Nordstrom, Inc. was
founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sarah E. Ross, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
          Telephone: 310-553-0308
          Facsimile: 310-553-5583
          E-mail: sross@littler.com

               - and -

          Jawid Habib, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101.3577
          Telephone: 619.232.0441
          Facsimile: 619.232.4302
          E-mail: jhabib@littler.com


NOVARTIS PHARMA: Turlock Hits Hypertension Meds Price-rigging
-------------------------------------------------------------
Turlock Irrigation District, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation,
Novartis AG, Novartis Corporation, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Endo
International PLC and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-06776 (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018) seeks to recover
damages, interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees
resulting from anticompetitive foreclosure of hypertension
medication comprising the active ingredients amlodipine (Exforge)
and Valsartan in violation of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff seeks
overcharge damages arising out of Novartis's unlawful agreement
with Par not to compete in the market for Exforge and corresponding
AB-rated generic drug products.

Turlock Irrigation District is a consumer-owned, self-funded,
non-profit irrigation district organized under the laws of the
State of California. It provides health benefits, including
prescription drug benefits, to eligible employees.

The pharmaceuticals unit of Novartis Corporation and Novartis AG,
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation develops, manufactures, sells
and markets Novartis drugs in the U.S.

Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business at 1400 Atwater Drive, Malvern,
Pennsylvania 19355. Endo assumed all of Par Pharmaceutical's
liabilities upon acquiring it. Par Pharmaceutical develops,
manufactures and markets generic versions of brand name drugs.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon R. Stickman, Esq.
      Ashley M. Bond, Esq.
      Amy McDonnell, Esq.
      DUNCAN & ALLEN
      1730 Rhode Island Ave, NW, Ste. 700
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 289-8400
      Fax: (202) 289-8450
      Email: jrs@duncanallen.com
             amb@duncanallen.com
             aem@duncanallen.com

             - and -

      Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
      Deborah A. Elman, Esq.
      Chad B. Holtzman, Esq.
      Allison J. McCowan, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      485 Lexington Avenue
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (646) 722-8500
      Fax: (646) 722-8501
      Email: reisler@gelaw.com
             delman@gelaw.com
             choltzman@gelaw.com
             amccowan@gelaw.com

             - and -

      Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
      Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
      550 West C St., Ste. 1750
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 400-5822
      Fax: (619) 400-5832
      Email: hartley@hartleyllp.com
             lindner@hartleyllp.com


NY FAST GENERAL: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Premium
-------------------------------------------------
WADY RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK FAST GENERAL CONTRACTING CORP.
(D/B/A NEW YORK FAST CARTING CORP.), OSCAR VELASQUEZ, and LUIS
VELASQUEZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04072-PKC-PK (E.D.N.Y.,
July 16, 2018), seeks to recover overtime premium pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Defendants own, operate, or control a
trucking company, located at 93-02 183 Street, Jamaica, NY 11423
under the name "New York Fast Carting Corp." The Plaintiff was
employed as a truck driver at the trucking company located at 93-02
183 Street, Jamaica, NY 11423. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked,
failed to pay Plaintiff Rodriguez appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay
Plaintiff Rodriguez wages on a timely basis.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          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@employmentcompliancc.com


O'GARA COACH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Kevin Amini Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN AMINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. O'GARA COACH COMPANY LLC; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-01188 (C.D. Cal., July
6, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.

According to the compliant, the Plaintiff received a text message
from the Defendants on his cellular telephone containing spam
advertisements and promotional offers without his prior express
written consent.

The case is assigned to Judge James V Selna and referred to Autumn
D Spaeth.

O'Gara Coach Co., LLC retails automobiles.  The Company offers new
and used cars, vans, trucks, sport utility vehicles, parts, and
accessories, as well as financing, maintenance, and repair
services. O'Gara Coach operates in the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OHIO STATE: Rep. Jim Jordan Named as Defendant in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Moser, writing for Rolling Stone, reports that in the two weeks
since former Ohio State wrestlers began to make public allegations
about being repeatedly molested and assaulted by team doctor
Richard Strauss, Congressman Jim Jordan -- who spent eight years as
an assistant wrestling coach at the school -- has repeatedly
claimed any suggestion that he was previously aware of the abuse is
"fake news." As Mr. Moser wrote on July 16, the former wrestlers,
who say Mr. Jordan knew they were being abused and took no action
to stop it, have been slandered repeatedly by the congressman and
his reflexive right-wing defenders -- including accusations that
the former wrestlers are part of either a "deep state" conspiracy
or paid for by the Democratic Party to take down the powerful
founder of the House Freedom Caucus. President Trump and several
members of Congress, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, have leapt
to Jordan's defense, claiming he's just not the kind of guy who
would sit idly by while his wrestlers were preyed upon.

On July 17, Mr. Jordan's public-relations crisis became a legal
nightmare. Attorneys filed a massive class-action lawsuit in U.S.
District Court in Ohio against Ohio State University on behalf of
an as-yet-unnamed former OSU wrestler. The law firm Sauder
Schelkopf is seeking to represent all the students and athletes
"treated" by Strauss in his two decades at the school, from the
late ‘70s to the late ‘90s – a number they estimate will
amount to "at least 1,500."

Mr. Jordan, the jut-jawed Republican and anti-gay crusader in the
House, is singled out in the suit: He's one of only three former
school officials named, including Strauss, though the action is
aimed at all the coaches, administrators and others in positions of
responsibility at OSU who, it claims, stood by while students and
student-athletes were repeatedly "sexually abused, harassed, and
molested," and "forced" to seek treatment from a well-known
predator even after they complained. (Strauss was the sole team
doctor for the wrestlers; the men say they either had to choose to
let injuries go untreated, as the lawsuit says some did, or subject
themselves to yet another assault.)

The lead plaintiff, "John Doe," says he was groped, assaulted and
molested at least 20 times. The other wrestlers have told reporters
how Strauss allegedly used any excuse to make them expose
themselves and grope them, and the lawsuit adds some sickening
details:

"On one occasion, Plaintiff suffered a rib injury while wrestling
and made an appointment to see Dr. Strauss for treatment. Dr.
Strauss instructed Plaintiff to drop his pants so he could examine
Plaintiff's scrotum for a hernia. Plaintiff was young and believed
that Dr. Strauss' actions were medically necessary, but felt
violated and helpless."

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Dr. Strauss also took
photographs of the men he was forcing to disrobe unnecessarily. It
describes how he "regularly touched students' genitals and breast
areas, often at the same time, regularly measured students'
scrotums, all for the purpose of his own sexual arousal and
gratification, and for no legitimate medical purpose and for no
other reason than to satisfy his own sexual desires." You can read
the lawsuit here in its entirety.

So far, as more former wrestlers, including UFC champion Mark
Coleman, have stepped out and told their stories, Mr. Jordan has
wielded his mastery of right-wing media to try and inoculate
himself against this career-threatening scandal. The congressman
managed to contain the fallout from an eerily similar revelation
last November, when one of his longtime Washington aides and
protégées, Ohio state Rep. Wesley Goodman, was publicly unmasked
as one of the capitol city's most notorious sexual predators,
stalking and abusing at least 30 young conservative men he promised
to "mentor." This was huge news in Ohio, but was buried nationally
beneath the daily drumbeat of Trump atrocities.

The Goodman scandal alone could have been enough to force Jordan
out of Congress. In April, Elizabeth Esty, a Democratic
representative from Connecticut, had to resign because she kept a
former chief of staff on her payroll for three months after another
former aide accused him of harassment. The well-documented
accusations against Goodman are much, much broader. He reportedly
harassed or assaulted at least 30 young men. Mr. Jordan adamantly
denied that he had any knowledge of Goodman's notorious reputation
-- just as he's now claiming, against the word of his ex-wrestlers,
that he had no clue that Strauss (who committed suicide in 2005)
was groping the athletes.

In recent public comments on the allegations, Mr. Jordan appeared
to be banking on his former wrestlers' silence and shame. But if he
believed he could humiliate them back into submission, he was
sorely mistaken. At least nine have spoken out so far. Dozens more
will almost certainly be telling their stories in criminal and
civil court along with Strauss' hundreds of other alleged victims
from 13 Ohio State teams. (A separate lawsuit was filed by four
former wrestlers on July 16; this one didn't call out Mr. Jordan by
name, but he will almost certainly become involved if the case goes
forward.)

Back home, where Mr. Jordan's political future will be determined,
local media are determined not to let him slide. "No more denials.
Jim Jordan must acknowledge what he knew," the Cleveland Plain
Dealer editorialized. Mr. Jordan has made it clear, though, that
the truth will have to be pried out of him. (He says he is
cooperating with independent investigators hired by Ohio State,
though what he tells them may never become public.) If either or
both of these lawsuits lands him in court, it will be. [GN]

PACIFIC WINE: Bejarano Seeks Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR BEJARANO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC WINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 60, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC713758 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 13, 2018), alleges that
Defendants failed to provide all required meal breaks, failed to
pay all wages owed semi-monthly, and failed to provide accurate
itemized wage statements pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendant is a trucking company that
works with importers, wholesalers, independent wineries, retailers,
and businesses in the food and hospitality industry throughout the
State of California. According to Defendant's website, the company
handles over two million cases of product each year, with a fleet
of over 60 trucks, and warehouses in both San Francisco and
Irwindale, as well as a cross dock hub in Bakersfield. The
Plaintiff is informed and believes that there were between 80 and
100 employees at the warehouse in Irwindale, and that more than
half were truck drivers like himself. The Plaintiff is informed and
believes that about 30 drivers work in San Francisco and about 10
drivers work in Bakersfield.

On or about April 24, 2015, Plaintiff began working for Defendant
as a truck driver at the warehouse located in Irwindale. Upon
starting his employment with PWD, Plaintiff worked 60 hour weeks,
averaging between 12 and 13 hours a day. He earned about $15 per
hour. On or around June or July 2015, Plaintiff was assigned routes
to Bakersfield. From then until about April 2017, the Plaintiff
worked about 16 to 17 hours a day, for four consecutive days a
week. The Defendant violated Labor Code section 204, requiring
semimonthly payments of all wages owed. The Plaintiffs did not
receive payment of all wages, including meal break premiums, within
any time permissible under California Labor Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sereena Singh, Esq.
          Dat Tommy Phan, Esq.
          Hennig Ruiz & Singh
          3600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1908
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213)310


PE CONTROL: US Energy Alleges Violation of N.Y. State Lien Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
US ACQUISITION LLC d/b/a US Energy Group v. P E CONTROL SERVICES,
LTD.; HENICK-LANE INC.; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; JON AND
JANE DOE, Defendants, Case No. 606083/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty.,
June 7, 2018) alleges that the Defendants violated the New York
State Lien Law.

According to the complaint, on July 12, 2016, the Plaintiff, as a
sub-subcontractor, and Defendant PE, as a subcontractor, entered
into a contract whereby the Plaintiff was to perform certain boiler
control programming and adjustments for the Defendant PE with
respect to two projects, the Cardinal Egan Pavilion and the
Cardinal O' Connor Pavilion, both located at the real property
known as and by the street address 5655 Arlington Avenue, Bronx,
Bronx County, New York.  The Property is also known under its tax
lot designation as Block 5947, Lot 120 located in the County of
Bronx, State of New York.

The Plaintiff performed services for the Defendant PE on the
Project from January 27, 2017, through and including June 16, 2017.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant PE entered into three purchase
orders for work performed by the Plaintiff on the Project.  The
Plaintiff completed the work evidenced by the purchase orders on
the Project in a workmanlike manner and PE never asserted that any
of the work was defective or incomplete.

Pursuant to its work on the Project, the Plaintiff sent invoices to
the Defendant PE on or about January 27, 2017 and July 24, 2017.
PE never objected to the Plaintiff's invoices.  However, PE has
never made any payments on any of the invoices rendered by the
Plaintiff on the Project.  The owner of the Project has paid PE in
full for the work performed by the Plaintiff.  Despite due demand,
PE has failed and refused to pay the Plaintiff the remaining funds
owed under the Project.  As a result, on February 16, 2018, the
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Mechanic's Lien with the Bronx County
Clerk.  On or about March 26, 2018, PE obtained from the Defendant
Henick-Lane and the Defendant Liberty Mutual a bond discharging the
lien.

The Plaintiff alleges that:

     -- The Defendants have received payments from the Project
manager, or owner, on account of their agreements with the owner in
amounts equal to or in excess of the amounts owed by the Defendants
to the Plaintiff;

     -- The funds the Defendants received from the Project manager,
or owner constitute trust funds pursuant to Article 3-A of the New
York State Lien Law for the benefit of and to be applied to the
payment of the Plaintiff who have furnished work in connection with
the Project as a subcontractor to the Defendants;

     -- The Defendants had knowledge of the existence of the
Plaintiff's claims for monies due from the Defendants under the
purchase orders; and

     -- The Defendants diverted some or all the funds for non-trust
purposes rather than for the payment to the Plaintiffs.

The complaint contends that PE and Henick-Lane are liable to US
Energy and all similarly situated unpaid subcontractors or material
suppliers in an amount to be determined at trial, together with
attorney's fees and exemplary and punitive damages.

P E Control Services, Ltd. is a New York corporation with address
at Westchester County, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Ansell, Esq.
          General Counsel of US ACQUISITION LLC
          d/b/a US Energy Group
          270 Park Avenue
          New Hyde Park, NY 11040
          Tel: (516) 812-6963


PEERLESS CREDIT: Margereum Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MARGEREUM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEERLESS CREDIT SERVICES, INC.;
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-2837 (E.D. Pa., July 5,
2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt.

Peerless Credit Services, Inc. provides debt recovery and accounts
receivable management services. It is a full-service debt recovery
and financial services company for commercial, retail and
healthcare businesses. The Company was founded in 1982. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antranig Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          1800 JFK Boulevard, Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 326-9179
          E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com


PNC BANK: Fergerstrom et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned WAYNE FERGERSTROM, SHENANDOAH KAIAMA, and
WINDY KAIAMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PNC BANK, N.A., a national banking
association; et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-00526-DKW-RLP
(D. Haw.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting
certification of these class and subclasses:

The Class:

   "all aconsumers within the meaning of H.R.S. Chapter 480 who
   owned real property in Hawaii and who were subjected to a
   notice of foreclosure sale under H.R.S. section 667-5 prepared
   by Derek Wong or the law firm of Routh Crabtree & Olson by or
   on behalf of Defendant PNC (or NCB before right its merger
   with PNC) claiming for PNC or NCB the rights of a mortgage
   with a power of sale and as to whose property Defendant PNC or
   NCB thereby caused the sale or transfer of the property on or
   after September 9. 2009";

Subclass A consisting of:

   "all members of the class whose non-judicial auction sale was
   not held on both the date and location specified in the
   original published notice (i.e. either or both the date and/or
   location were changed), without one or more of the following
   conditions being satisfied (a) publication of the notice of
   the changed date or location in three successive weeks; (b)
   publication of a notice stating the new date and time for the
   sale at least 29 days after the first publication of such
   notice";

Subclass B consisting of:

   "all members of the Class whose Notice of Sale was published
   or posted for less time before the proposed of auction date
   than required for such publishing or posting by HRS Chapter
   667, Part 1"; and

Subclass C consisting of:

   "members of the Class whose Notice of Sale contained no
   "description" of the property within the meaning of HRS
   Section 667-7(a)(1) or only a "metes and bounds" or square
   footage description of the land".

A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://is.gd/nrum8W at no charge.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          James J. Bickerton, Esq.
          Bridget Morgan, Esq.
          BICKERTON DANG LLLP
          Topa Finacial Center, Fort Street Tower
          745 Fort Street, Suite 801
          Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
          Telephone: (808) 599 3811
          Facsimile: (808) 694 3090
          E-mail: bickerton@bsds.com
                  morgan@bsds.com

               - and -

          John F. Perkin, Esq.
          PERKIN & FARIA
          841 Bishop Street, Suite 1000
          Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
          Telephone: (808) 523 2300

               - and -

          Van-Alan H. Shima, Esq.
          AFFINITY LAW GROUP
          1188 Bishop Street, Suite 3408
          Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
          Telephone: (808) 545 4600


PPG PLAN ADMINISTRATOR: Bellon et al. Sue over Welfare Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES W. BELLON; ROBERT E. EAKIN; JUDY GAY BURKE; LOUISE NICHOLS;
WILTON G. WALLACE; BERNADOT F. VEILLON; BARBARA BROWN; and ROBERT
E. WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. THE PPG EMPLOYEE LIFE AND OTHER BENEFITS
PLAN; PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.; and PPG PLAN ADMINISTRATOR, Defendants,
Case No. 5:18-cv-114 (N.D. W.Va., July 12, 2018) seeks to restore
and recover contractually vested retiree life insurance coverage
and associated benefits under the PPG Employee Life and Other
Benefits Plan, including its predecessor plans.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were retired former
salaried employees of the Defendants, and the surviving spouses and
beneficiaries of the retired former employees who had worked in the
Defendants' commodity chemicals business and who were, at
retirement, eligible for and began receiving healthcare and life
insurance as participants of the PPG Plan.

On January 28, 2013, PPG Industries, Inc. merged its commodity
chemicals business to form Axiall Corporation. As part of the
merger, the Defendants unilaterally removed the Plaintiffs from the
Plan in violation of the Plan terms, and transferred to Axiall the
obligation to provide the Plaintiffs with retiree healthcare and
life insurance coverage under the Plan.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act when the Defendants unilaterally
remove the Plaintiffs as plan participants on January 28, 2013 and
transferring then to Axiall's Plan.

PPG Industries, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, doing business in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Adams, Esq.
          HINERMAN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          P.O. Box 2465
          Weirton, WV 26062
          Telephone: (304) 723-7201
          Facsimile: (304) 723-7203
          E-mail: maa@hinermanlaw.com

               - and -

          John Stember, Esq.
          Maureen Davidson-Welling, Esq.
          STEMBER COHN & DAVIDSON-WELLING, LLC
          The Hartley Rose Building
          425 First Avenue, 7th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 338-1445
          Facsimile: (412) 338-1446
          E-mail: jstember@stembercohn.com
                  mdw@stembercohn.com

               -and-

          James T. Carney, Esq.
          845 Northridge Drive
          Pittsburgh, PA 15216
          Telephone: (412) 561-0533
          E-mail: jtcarney10@comcast.net


PRECISION FOCUS: Underpays Security Personnel, Jordan Craft Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN CRAFT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRECISION FOCUS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
DC-18-08758 (Tex. Dist. Ct., 298th Judicial, Dallas County, July 5,
2018) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Craft was employed by the Defendant as a security personnel.

Precision Focus, LLC is a limited liability corporation organized
under the laws of the state of Texas with its principal place of
business located at 1800 Valley View Lane, Suite 300, Dallas, Texas
75234. The Company provides security services to various venues.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Scott, Esq.
          Javier Perez, Esq.
          Carson D. Bridges, Esq.
          SCOTT PEREZ LLP
          900 Jackson Street, Suite 550
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 965-9675
          Facsimile: (214) 965-9680
          E-mail: matt.scott@scottperezlaw.com
                  javier.perez@scottperezlaw.com
                  carson.bridges@scottperezlaw.com


PRO LABEL: Thomas Melzer Alleges Time-Shaving
---------------------------------------------
THOMAS MELZER on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRO LABEL, INC., 2915 North Progress
Drive Appleton, Wisconsin 54911, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-01080 (E.D. Wisc., July 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

According to the complaint, Defendant operated (and continues to
operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed
to compensate all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek,
including at an overtime rate of pay, by shaving time from
employees' timesheets by impermissibly rounding recorded hours of
work for its own benefit (and to the detriment of employees), and
failing to compensate employees when compensable work commenced and
ceased.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          Matthew J. Tobin, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780 1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565 6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
                  mtobin@walcheskeluzi.com


QUORUM HEALTH: Zwick Partners et al. Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ZWICK PARTNERS, LP and APARNA RAO,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. QUORUM HEALTH CORPORATION, COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS,
INC., WAYNE T. SMITH, W. LARRY CASH, THOMAS D. MILLER, and MICHAEL
J. CULOTTA, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02475 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying their case as
a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and appointing Zwick Partners, LP as
Class Representative, and Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://is.gd/F2mIEi at no charge.

Lead Counsel and Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff:

           Michael J. Wernke, Esq.
           Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
           Michael J. Wernke, Esq.
           Marc C. Gorrie, Esq.
           Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
           POMERANTZ LLP
           600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
           New York, NY 10016
           Telephone: (212) 661 1100
           Facsimile: (212) 661 8665
           E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                   mjwernke@pomlaw.com
                   mgorrie@pomlaw.com
                   pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

Liaison Counsel:

           Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
           Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
           BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
           40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200
           P.O. Box 150734
           Nashville, TN 37215
           Telephone: (615) 248 2828
           Facsimile: (866) 816 4116
           E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
                   Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com

Attorneys for Aparna Rao:

           Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
           Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
           HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
           1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
           Atlanta, GA 30338
           Telephone: (770) 392 0090
           Facsimile: (770) 392 0029
           E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
                   mdees@holzerlaw.com


R.J. DELIVERY: Underpays Movers & Helpers, Campos Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
GARY HIDALGO CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R.J. DELIVERY SERVICES, INC., and
JOSEPH CAIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04001 (E.D.N.Y., July 12,
2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Campos was employed by the Defendants as mover/helper.

R.J. Delivery Services, Inc. is a domestic business corporation
with its principal office located at Two Baker Lane, Levittown, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corey Stark, Esq.
          COREY STARK PLLC
          110 East 59th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 324-3705


RCD INC: Hermenegildo Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KEVIN HERMENEGILDO, Individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v.
RC&D, INC. and JAMES HENEBURY, Individually and in his capacity as
CEO and Vice President of RC&D, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00103-WES-PAS (D.R.I.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
      collective action of:

      "all individuals employed as Laborers (or other comparable
      positions) who were employed by Defendants and were subject
      to the following common practices and/or policies of
      Defendants at any time from three (3) years before the
      filing of the Complaint to the present: a) Who worked on
      prevailing rate jobs for Defendants in Massachusetts and/or
      Rhode Island; and b) who were paid IRS Form W-2
      compensation; and c) who's fringe benefit deductions were
      higher than the employees actual cost; and d) who worked
      more than 40 hours in a workweek; and e) were not paid at
      least one and one-half times of their prevailing rate of
      pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek";

   2. authorizing Plaintiffs' counsel to a) mail and/or email the
      Notice of Pendency of Lawsuit and the Plaintiff Consent to
      Sue Form to all putative class members, b) post the Notice
      and Consent forms on Plaintiffs' Counsel's firm's website
      and/or a website created specifically for the purpose of
      putting prospective class members on notice of this action
      and providing the option to execute opt-in consent forms
      electronically on-line; and, c) send follow up post cards
      and/or emails to any class members who have not responded
      within 30 days after the mailing and/or emailing of the
      initial notice;

   3. directing Defendants to post the Notice and Consent forms
      in conspicuous locations in all its worksites within 30
      days including, at a minimum, the lunch room bulletin board
      or bulletin board where job notices are posted, if any, and
      in the same areas in which it is required to post FLSA
      notices; and

   4. directing Defendant to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with the
      names and last known addresses, email addresses, and
      telephone numbers of all putative class members within 30
      days, and also provide the dates of birth and last four
      digits of the social security number of any potential class
      member whose notice is returned by the post office within
      30 days of a request by Plaintiffs' counsel, so that
      Plaintiffs’ counsel may provide effective notice to the
      putative class members.

A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://is.gd/S4TEn4 at no charge.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Geoffrey M. Aptt, Esq.
          DARROWEVERETT LLP
          One Turks Head Place, Suite 1200
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 453 1200
          Facsimile: (401) 453 1201
          E-mail: gaptt@darroweverett.com


ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Too Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah Kit Too, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Rockwell Medical, Inc., Robert L. Chioini and Thomas
E. Klema, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04253 (E.D. N.Y., July 27,
2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Rockwell operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical company
targeting end-stage renal and chronic kidney diseases in the United
States and internationally. Its lead branded drug is Triferic, an
iron maintenance therapy that replaces the iron lost by patients
during hemodialysis treatment, a dialysis treatment.

Rockwelk allegedly failed to disclose that Medicare and Medicaid
Services will not pursue its proposal for separate reimbursement
for Triferic, that the estimated reserves in the Q1 2018 10-Q are
misstated and that there was a material weakness in Rockwell's
internal controls over financial reporting.

On this news, shares of Rockwell fell $0.85 per share, or over 16%,
over two consecutive trading days to close at $4.41 per share on
June 28, 2018, damaging investors including the Plaintiff. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
      Laurence J. Hasson, Esq.
      Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
      10 East 40th Street
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 779-1414
      Facsimile: (212) 779-3218
      Email: bernstein@bernlieb.com
             lhasson@bernlieb.com
             dsadeh@bernlieb.com


ROYAL WINNIPEG: National Student Class Action Certified
-------------------------------------------------------
A national class action against the Royal Winnipeg Ballet and Bruce
Monk was certified on June 27, 2018. Waddell Phillips Professional
Corporation represents the Plaintiffs.

The class action alleges that Bruce Monk, while a teacher and
photographer at the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, took naked, semi-naked,
and sexualized photographs of Royal Winnipeg Ballet students, some
of which he published, sold, and disseminated on-line. It is
alleged that Monk did this without the consent of the class
members. None of the allegations have been proven in court, and the
Defendants deny liability.

The class action is brought on behalf of all persons who attended
the Royal Winnipeg Ballet School (the "School") from 1984 to 2015
and who, while enrolled at the School, were photographed by Bruce
Monk in a private setting. These class members are defined as the
"Student Class."

The Student Class includes a "Privacy Subclass" comprised of all
members of the Student Class whose intimate photographs taken by
Bruce Monk were posted on the internet, sold, published or
otherwise displayed in a public setting. A "Family Law Class" was
also certified, which includes all dependants of members of the
Student Class, as defined by s.61 of the Family Law Act, RSO 1990,
c. F.3. This may include spouses, children, grandchildren, parents,
grandparents, brothers and sisters.

The class action further alleges that Monk breached his fiduciary
duty to the students, and committed breaches of confidence and
trust. It alleges that Monk intruded upon the seclusion of the
students, invaded their privacy, and committed the tort of public
disclosure of private facts.

The class action seeks damages against Monk for the harm he caused
by taking these photographs of students. It also seeks damages
against Monk for the further harm he caused when he posted the
images online, making them widely available to view and, in some
cases, selling them online.

The class action is also brought against Monk's employer, the Royal
Winnipeg Ballet, on the basis of its vicarious liability for the
tortious conduct of its teacher, for its own systemic negligence in
failing to properly supervise Monk's conduct, and for turning a
blind eye to Monk's improper conduct.

Individuals who think that they may be class members are encouraged
to contact Waddell Phillips Barristers.

Additional information about the action, including further details
about how class members are impacted by the certification decision,
or how they may exclude themselves from the action, and a
confidential inquiry form are available at
http://waddellphillips.ca/class-actions/royal-winnipeg-ballet-class-action/.
[GN]

SALESUMO LLC: Pino Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Pino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Andrew C. Jacob and Kristin Austin, husband
and wife, Brian D. Lesk and SaleSumo, LLC, a Wyoming Limited
Liability Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02364, (D. Ariz.,
July 27, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendants own/operate SaleSumo, a company that sells new,
reconditioned, and certified tools and home improvement items. Pino
worked in Defendants' warehouse unloading trucks and pallets of
products to sell, assisting customers, and loading customers' cars
with purchased items. He worked 47 hours per week, arrived and
began working 10 minutes before his scheduled start time, stayed
between fifteen and twenty minutes after the end of each shift and
worked through his 30 minutes lunch break most of the time, says
the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
      Kaitlyn A. Redfield-Ortiz, Esq.
      Stanley Lubin, Esq.
      LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
      349 North Fourth Avenue
      Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505
      Telephone: (602) 234-0008
      Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
      Email: nick@lubinandenoch.com

SECURUS TECH: Romero et al. Renew Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JUAN ROMERO, FRANK TISCARENO, and KENNETH
ELLIOT, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 3:16-cv-01283-JM-MDD (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order granting their renewed motion for class certification.


The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to certify that individual
Plaintiffs Juan Romero, Frank Tiscareno, and Kenneth Elliot, are
representatives of the plaintiff class(es) and their counsel of
record, The Law Office of Robert L. Teel, The Law Office of Ronald
A. Marron, APLC and Foley & Lardner, LLP, are certified as counsel
for the plaintiff class(es).

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://is.gd/OKjbwn at no charge.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mark Waxman, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Fox, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          3579 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 847 6700
          Facsimile: (858) 792 6773
          E-mail: mwaxman@foley.com
                  nfox@foley.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Teel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. TEEL
          1425 Broadway, Mail Code: 20-6690
          Seattle, WA 98122
          Telephone: (866) 833 5529
          Facsimile: (855) 609 6911
          E-mail: lawoffice@rlteel.com

               - and -

          Eileen R. Ridley, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 1700
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1520
          Telephone: (415) 434-4484
          Facsimile: (415) 434-4507
          E-mail: eridley@foley.com

               - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696 9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564 6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com


SERVICE CORP: Trinidad Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
REYNALDO TRINIDAD, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SERVICE CORP. d/b/a THE BLACK
LODGE and MAMAN & MIMI; and HAMIMI JACQUES OUARI, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06399 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the collective class
work or have worked at the restaurants controlled and operated by
Ouari. The Defendants have engaged in their unlawful conduct
pursuant to a corporate policy of minimizing labor costs and
denying employees compensation. Defendants' unlawful conduct has
been intentional, willful and in bad faith, and has caused
significant damage to Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 100017
          Telephone: (212) 323 6980
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


SEWARD PARK: Averts Homeowners' Suit Over Parking Spaces
--------------------------------------------------------
Rich Bockmann, writing for The Real Deal, reports that lawyers who
demanded half a million dollars in legal fees from co-op owners at
Seward Park on the Lower East Side were looking to carry out
"highway robbery without the six-gun," a Manhattan judge said.

Attorneys from Greenberg Traurig asked Supreme Court Judge Arthur
Engoron to force four Seward Park co-op owners to fork over
$464,000 in legal fees, the New York Post reported.

The homeowners sued the management over parking spaces, and
Greenberg attorneys representing the building won a preliminary
motion to dismiss the case.

But Judge Engoron noted that the "staggering sum" was enough to buy
a one-bedroom apartment in an Upper East Side doorman building or a
four-bedroom home in Nassau County.

"By requesting astronomical fees, attorneys are in danger of
killing the goose that laid the golden egg," Judge Engoron wrote in
his ruling, in which he clipped the fees by nearly 40 percent to
$175,000.

A spokesperson for Greenberg Traurig said the company "respectfully
disagree[s] with the characterization of our firm's fees in this
matter on which our client prevailed."

Tom Stebbins, executive director of the nonprofit Lawsuit Reform
Alliance of New York advocacy organization, agreed with Judge
Engoron's view that attorney fees have gotten out of control.

"We continually hear stories of law firms over-billing by hundreds
of thousands of dollars and class action lawyers that pocket the
majority of large settlements, leaving little or nothing for the
plaintiffs," he told the Post.

In an unrelated matter, the Seward Park board voted against selling
the property's development rights to the Ascend group for $54
million. [GN]

SI PROPERTIES: Nash Alleges Unsafe & Unsanitary Housing
-------------------------------------------------------
SHONT AE NASH, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, and IREN FLOWERS, the Plaintiffs, v. SARGON ISAAC,
individually and d/b/a "SI Properties" ) and/or "Simla Properties,"
and BIG TREE HOMES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2018CH08864 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 16, 2018), seeks to put a stop to Sargon
Isaac's racism, and compel him to provide to his tenants the
equitable, safe, and sanitary housing required by the law.

According to the complaint, Sargon Isaac is a slumlord with an
empire of crumbling properties across Chicago and Evanston. He
rents damaged houses and apartments which are barely habitable, if
at all. Most, if not all, of his properties have infestations, mold
problems, water damage, and/or sewage leaks. He doesn't fix those
problems, though -- instead, he simply demands rent. And if his
tenants withhold rent based on the conditions in the apartment, or
complain repeatedly about those conditions, Sargon evicts them.
He's filed dozens of evictions in the last 18 months, representing
himself in most of them. But Sargon is more than a slumlord. Sargon
doesn't return security deposits, doesn't pay security deposit
interest, and on move-out charges tenants to fix problems which
existed when they moved in. But he will repair the problems in the
units of his white tenants. He will work with his white tenants if
they fall behind on rent. But if the tenant is a person of color,
Sargon harasses them, refusing to make repairs and charging
hundreds of dollars for the few repairs he does make.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sheryl Ring, Esq.
          Christopher Riehlmann, Esq.
          OPEN COMMUNITIES LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
          990 Grove Street, Suite 500
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (847) 501 5760
          E-mail: sheryl@open-communities.org


SILVERSTAR DELIVERY: Wasilewski Seeks to Certify Employees Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MITCHELL WASILEWSKI, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the
Plaintiff, v. SILVERSTAR DELIVERY LTD, an Illinois for-profit
company, GOLD STANDARD TRANSPORTATION, INC., an Illinois for-profit
company, and AMAZON.COM, LLC, a Delaware for-profit company, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-12167-AJT-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action and
      authorizing the dissemination of a written notice to:

      "all similarly situated employees pursuant to the 'opt-in'
      mechanism authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
      U.S.C. section 216(b); permit a 60-day period for
      additional plaintiffs to join this litigation; order
      Defendants to provide each employee's last known telephone
      number, last known mailing address, and last known e-mail
      address within 10 days from the entry of the Court's Order;
      require the proposed notice to be posted in Defendants'
      workplaces (away from view of customers but in a common
      place for its employees to view); and grant the other
      relief described therein."

A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://is.gd/CSEcfy at no charge.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692 9200
          Facsimile: (734) 692 9201
          E-mail: bryan@yaldoulaw.com


SKYLINE FINANCIAL: Abdus-Salaam Seeks to Certify FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled BARDARIAN ABDUS-SALAAM, On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
SKYLINE FINANCIAL CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01136-M
(N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action
      under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of:

      "all current and former Loan Officers Defendant has
      employed in the last three years";

   2. directing Defendant to provide Plaintiff with the names,
      last known address, dates of employment, work location,
      telephone number, and e-mail address for all those
      similarly situated employees in an electronic format (e.g.,
      Excel) within 10 days after the Court's Order; and

   3. directing issuance of Plaintiff's proposed Notice to all
      such similarly situated employees.

A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://is.gd/8OSK8b at no charge.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749 1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749 1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com

               - and -

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          www.rmlegalgroup.com
          8201 Mission Road, Suite 250
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 766 5585
          Facsimile: (816) 875 5069
          E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com


SOCAL GAS: Judge Orders Key Witness to Testify in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Scauzillo, writing for Daily News, reports that after nearly
three years since the largest gas blowout in U.S. history,
residents of Porter Ranch still worry whether their health will be
compromised five, 10 or 20 years down the road after breathing in
not just methane gas, but an array of toxic, often cancer-causing
chemicals spewed from an underground gas storage facility in and
around their suburban neighborhood.

A key part of their quest is finding out what caused their
nosebleeds, headaches, nausea and a few cases of cancer. One answer
may lie in the amount of benzene, formaldehyde, arsenic and
hydrogen sulfide that accompanied a four-month, uncontrolled
natural gas leak from Oct. 23, 2015 until Feb. 2016.

But so far, that information has been hard to come by. Until
Wednesday, July 25, when a key witness was expected to testify at a
morning hearing on the chemicals released during the natural gas
leak.

Break in case
A break came during a class-action lawsuit representing about 9,000
residents when attorneys questioned the principal engineer of the
chemical and environmental section of the engineering analysis
center for SoCalGas about benzene and other air toxics, testing
protocols and air monitoring. The testimony -- a potential gold
mine for the plaintiffs — suddenly dried up when a phalanx of Gas
Co. attorneys used multiple strategies to muzzle their employee,
thereby preventing May Lew from further testifying.

After months of legal maneuvering, Judge Lisa Hart Cole on
July 23 ruled against the Gas Co., ordering the witness to testify
on July 25 in a Los Angeles Superior Court courtroom.  The exact
time and place was still unknown.

The ruling sets up a showdown between the gas company and the
residents of Porter Ranch. Her testimony alone could provide
evidence of toxic chemical releases, possibly linked to illnesses
and negligence. The entire case may hang on Lew's testimony, which
would determine the amount of damages granted residents in the
event of a favorable judgment.

"It is a billion dollar answer," said Rex Parris, lead attorney for
the 9,000 plaintiffs, who is also the mayor of Lancaster, a city
with a strong environmental mantra. In a case that could reach up
to 30,000 claimants, Parris said he's asking for between $1.5
billion and $2.5 billion. "It depends on whether they settle or go
to trial."

Why is Lew's testimony important?
There are two reasons why Lew's testimony may be the most important
part of the nearly year-long case.

First, she's the principal engineer in charge of monitoring what
elements are contained in the natural gas that gets pumped into the
wells. By listing her responsibilities, it solidified her
importance to the case, he said.

"There is not a more important witness," he said. "Her name appears
on 1,700 emails."

The Gas Co. declined to answer questions about the importance of
Lew or her role within the company.

Court documents show Gas Co. attorneys, including Collie James IV
of Morgan Lewis, objected 342 times within Lew's 4.5-hour
deposition, something Paris called "an abuse of discovery." Court
records show the Gas Co. attorneys tried to put a time limit on the
engineer's future testimony, said she was too tired to continue and
then withdrew her name entirely. In a last-ditch effort, they said
she could re-take the witness stand only if the plaintiff's main
attorney, Parris, would be barred from participating.

"The refusal to offer a witness prevents cross-examination on the
most critical issue for proving health problems -- the toxic
chemicals in the gas at Aliso Canyon," he wrote in a brief from
June 5.

Gas Co. attorneys also tried to keep Parris out of the courtroom by
accusing him of badgering the witness in an abusive manner,
"mocking her for her inability to remember documents," court
records show.

Parris denied the accusations, saying in an interview that the
lawyers for the Gas Co. never mentioned this claim until after they
tried keeping Lew from the witness stand. "I was very nice to this
witness," he said.

In her ruling, Judge Hart reprimanded the Gas Co., saying the
lawyers for the defense must "refrain from coaching the witness or
making nuisance objections." She also denied their request to bar
Parris, setting up what many believe will be a fiery but
informative exchange that could take days.

"This is the person they designated, the person most qualified to
testify on the components of the gas," he said. "And now, the court
says she testifies. He is going to tell me on the 25th what they
tested for and why they stopped and why aren't they testing for it
now?"

Second, she's testified about monitoring for impurities, such as
benzene, a very toxic, carcinogenic substance found in gasoline, at
first saying there were only "trace" amounts of benzene, then
saying the levels ranged from 1 part per million to nine parts per
million.

Since the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) set the exposure limit at 1 part per billion (with a "b"),
the exposure mentioned by Lew would be 9,000 times higher than what
the state deemed safe. The state arrived at that reference level in
2014 in order to "protect infants, children and other sensitive
subpopulations," according to the OEHHA website.

During the blowout that left 100,000 metric tons of methane in the
air and sent many to the emergency room, Parris said benzene leaked
into the air at a rate of 249 parts per million. Long-term effects
of benzene can cause cancer by curtailing the amount of red blood
cells and bone marrow, which can lead to leukemia. The residents
have asked independent doctors to take their blood and evaluate
their health. The amount and time of exposure, as well as the
individual's health, are critical factors, according to the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention. In acute exposure, people may
vomit, feel dizzy or experience a rapid heart beat.

The Gas Co. released a statement, saying the South Coast Air
Quality Management District, the OEHHA and the Los Angeles County
Department of Health took samples during the leak and months after
and found no "long-term risk to public health or safety from the
gas leak.

"Furthermore, OEHHA concluded 'nearly all measured benzene
emissions from concentrations in the Porter Ranch community during
the leak are similar to background levels generally found in the
Los Angeles area," continued the response.

Was testing done often enough?
Lew initially testified the Gas Co. did not test for benzene or
other toxics, such as formaldehyde, according to court records,
later saying they did but stopped. One of the line of questions on
will be about the components of the gas leak?

"Aren't they obligated to test for what's leaking into the
neighborhood? Their solution to this problem is turning a blind eye
to it," Mr. Parris said. [GN]

SOUTH KOREA: Top Court Delays Ruling in Human Rights Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Kang Hyun-kyung, writing for The Korea Times, reports that the
Constitutional Court is poised to conclude another milestone
conscientious objection case, weeks after a historic June 28 ruling
where it overturned South Korea's long-standing stance to
alternative military service.

The top court will wrap up a class-action complaint filed in 2011
by 433 conscience objectors who claimed that they were human rights
victims but that they were unable to get adequate compensation from
the government because of the absence of legislation.

Those who filed the complaint urged the top court to take necessary
measures, so the government could compensate them and expunge their
criminal records.

The court is likely to conclude the case before September when a
major reshuffle is expected to take place. Court President Lee
Jin-sung and four other Constitutional Court judges are to be
replaced in September as their tenure ends.

"At the moment, it's the longest pending case in the Constitutional
Court," said Oh Du-jin, a lawyer who represents the 433
conscientious objectors.

He cautiously revealed optimism, saying hope is in the air.

"It remains to be seen how the court will conclude on the case.
Having seen how the court has responded to prior cases regarding
conscience objection to military service, however, I'm optimistic
about the results. I wouldn't rule out the possibility the court
may rule in favor of my clients."

The 433 people, who filed the class-action petition, were convicted
in different time periods after refusing to follow the enlistment
notice to serve in the military and were then imprisoned.

They claim that they refused military service because of their
religious beliefs but were willing to take alternative service
outside the military. Due to the absence of alternative service
back then, their voices were not heard and they were given jail
terms. They call their imprisonment "arbitrary detention" by the
Korean government.

The pending case has drawn the keen attention from the public
following the top court's historic ruling on conscientious
objection to military on June 28.

Oh, who has represented conscientious objectors since 2008 when he
served as a legal trainee after passing the state bar exam, said
the Constitutional Court's June 28 ruling is meaningful because it
ended decades of brutal persecution of conscientious objectors.

"Since the 1950s, some 20,000 conscientious objectors have been
persecuted as their freedom of religion, thoughts and conscience
was not recognized," he said. "Some families see grandfather,
father and son imprisoned in different time periods for their
refusal to serve in the military for their religious belief."

Many conscientious objectors are Jehovah's Witnesses.

The 433 people, who were convicted and then imprisoned before the
June 28 ruling, individually took the case to the United Nations
Human Rights Committee in 2011. There are some 50 others who
followed this course.

They asked the U.N. body to review if the government's punitive
measures were appropriate.

After reviewing the case for years, the committee ruled in 2014 in
favor of the South Korean petitioners, urging the South Korean
government to expunge their criminal records and give them adequate
compensation. The committee identified the Koreans as conscience
objectors and punishing them for their refusal to comply with
military service, despite their willingness to take alternative
service outside the military, was a violation of their basic human
rights.

However, the committee's decision was not binding.

Along with the European Commission for Democracy through Law's
milestone ruling against Armenia in 2011 regarding its treatment of
conscientious objectors, the U.N. committee's decision has had a
significant impact on South Korean judges.

Inside the court, there are several groups where judges have
regular meetings to discuss issues related to legal issues,
including conscientious objection.

The International Human Rights Law Study Group is one of them.
Judges there were greatly affected by the European commission's
decision on the Armenian case and rulings in favor of conscientious
objectors followed. In 2015, 85 conscientious objectors received
not guilty verdicts in district and higher courts, although the
rulings were overturned at the Supreme Court as South Korea didn't
allow alternative military service back then.

The Constitutional Court's June 28 ruling came against this
backdrop.

Oh took the top court's delaying tactic regarding the 433
conscientious objectors-led class-action complaint as a positive
signal for his clients.

"Technically speaking, it's not a hard case," he said. "But for
some reason, the court kept trying to buy time and made it the
longest pending case. If they're going to throw it away and rule
against the 433 people, I think the court members would have
concluded the case much earlier."

Oh stated the Constitutional Court appears to view the ruling on
the case as an opportunity to lift its international profile as a
frontier in human rights.

The lawyer linked the pending class-action complaint to the top
court's ambition to set up a regional judiciary institution for
human rights -- Asia's equivalent of the European Commission for
Democracy through Law.

"Asia is the only continent that has no regional human rights
commission. Europe has it, the Americas have it and even in Africa,
there's a regional human rights commission, although each of them
is named differently," said Oh.

The Constitutional Court reportedly has been pushing for the
establishment of the regional judiciary institution in Korea since
Lee Kang-kook took the helm between 2007 and 2013.

In September 2014, then Court President Park Han-cheol officially
proposed the idea during his key note speech to a World Conference
on Constitutional Justice meeting in Seoul.

He said the time was ripe for constitutional courts in Asia to
initiate a debate for the establishment of a human rights
commission in Asia.

"We, Asians, have watched and experienced traumatic wars and their
brutal consequences on human rights and the pain is still ongoing,"
Park said. "(If the regional judiciary institution is set up), it
will help prevent the repetition of such traumatic human rights
violations."

South Korea needs credentials in its human rights record to make
their voice heard.

Oh said the court's recent ruling on conscientious objection to
military service would help build Korea's credentials. "There's no
doubt if the court rules in favor of conscientious objectors' plea
for necessary legislative steps, this will also help the court have
a greater say in its push for the human rights commission agenda,"
he said.

A rocky road is ahead of the Constitutional Court's push for the
regional human rights commission.

Most notably, Japan, one of the two key players in Asia along with
China, and a war criminal responsible for numerous wartime human
rights violations, is unlikely to be enthusiastic about the
establishment of the human rights commission. [GN]

SPECIALIZED LOAN: Quinn's Bid to Certify Class Under Advisement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on July 31, 2018, in the case entitled
Thomas Quinn, et al. v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-02021 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of time to file
      reply for summary judgment is granted;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended response to
      statement of facts is granted;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for leave to file certain exhibits under
      seal is granted; and

   -- Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is taken under
      advisement, with briefing schedule to be set after
      disposition of summary judgment motions.



STARBUCKS CORP: Must Pay Workers for Off-Clock Work, Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Cahill, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in
a decision that could trickle down to other giant retailers
operating in the Golden State, the California Supreme Court said on
July 26 that Starbucks should be paying workers for menial tasks
like closing and locking up stores.

A class of hourly workers sued Starbucks in Los Angeles County in
2012, saying it regularly requires employees to clock out before
actually finishing their shifts.

Lead plaintiff Douglas Troester guesses he was stiffed four to 10
minutes' pay each shift and that Starbucks owes him $102 over a
17-month stretch. He argued that on a daily basis he had to set his
store's security alarm, lock doors and make sure employees found
their rides safely -- all after officially clocking out.

The seven-justice panel roasted the Seattle company on July 26,
unanimously agreeing those minutes "add up" for minimum and
low-wage workers.

"This is enough to pay a utility bill, buy a week of groceries or
cover a month of bus fares," wrote Justice Goodwin H. Liu for the
panel.

The Ninth Circuit directed the state's high court to weigh in on
whether a longstanding federal law allowing businesses to excuse
small amounts of time from paychecks falls in line with
California's stringent employment framework.

At issue for the San Francisco-based high court was the federal "de
minimis doctrine," which was enacted in 1961 and doesn't require
payment for bits of off-the-clock work.

In court Starbucks said the doctrine, which is supposed to be used
sparingly and not arbitrarily, should apply to Troester and its
thousands of California employees.

But the justices said California employment law doesn't explicitly
mention the federal law and that Starbucks can't cite "statutory or
regulatory history" to prove the Legislature meant to adopt de
minimis.

In a statement, Starbucks indicated its displeasure with the
justices' answer to the Ninth Circuit.

"We are disappointed with the court's decision. We will await
further disposition of the case before the Ninth Circuit as the
appeal process continues."

The July 26 answer appears to be a major win for hourly workers in
California, but the state justices were careful to add that de
minimis could apply in other state employment cases "given the wide
range of scenarios in which this issue arises."

Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar tempered the unanimous ruling in
his concurring opinion, saying there is wiggle room for businesses
and that they shouldn't be expected to "measure every last morsel
of employees' time."

"But what we must avoid in addressing these concerns -- and in
construing the body of law the majority opinion interprets today --
is building a rickety skyscraper on a muddy swamp by relying on an
administrability rationale too precarious to offer much meaningful
analytical structure to a rule of reason," Justice Cuellar wrote.

The class action appeal must still be decided by the Ninth Circuit.

SUMMIT CASING: Rains Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Jayson Rains, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Summit Casing Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00609, (N.D. Tex., July 27, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Summit Casing Services, LLC manufactures and markets downhole tools
used in oil and gas drilling and exploration where Plaintiff worked
for Defendant as an inspector from 2014 to 2016, inspecting and
testing the drilling equipment Defendant manufactures. The
complaint says Summit paid Rains an hourly rate but did not pay him
overtime for his hours in excess of forty per week. [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

SUNWORKS UNITED: Naiman Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUNWORKS UNITED, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-04272 (N.D. Cal., July 16, 2018), seeks damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related
regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions,
thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1)
to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services.
Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from
telephone number (707) 414-8648 confirmed to be Defendant's number.
Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The
Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a
cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for
incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). During all
relevant times, Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior
express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his
cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).[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


SYNERGIES3 TEC: Jones Seeks to Certify Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled STEPHEN JONES, the Plaintiff, v. SYNERGIES3
TEC SERVICES, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-01161-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action
      and authorizing Plaintiff to send notice under section
      16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act to:

      "all current and former satellite television installation
      technicians employed in Missouri, Illinois and Nebraska
      (collectively "the Technicians") at any time during the
      last three years"; and

   2. directing Defendants to provide Plaintiff with a computer-
      readable data file containing the name, last known address
      and dates of employment for each such Technician, to
      conspicuously post notice of this case in the company's
      break rooms, and to disseminate notice with paychecks
      and/or pay stubs.

A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://is.gd/YQE4Pt at no charge.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mark Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

               - and -

          Eli Karsh, Esq.
          LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH
          South Bemiston Ave., Suite 1200
          Clayton, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 862 3333
          Facsimile: (314) 863 0605
          E-mail: elikarsh@aol.com

               - and -

          Richard T. Grossman, Esq.
          GROSSMAN LAW FIRM
          230 S. Bemiston Ave., Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 261 7323
          E-mail: Rick@grossmanlawfirm.com


THORN GROUP: Aug. 9 Hearing Set to Resolve Outstanding Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Bencic, writing for Appliance Retailer, reports that process
could take years.

The Federal Court of Australia will hold an interlocutory hearing
on 9 August 2018 to resolve outstanding issues between Thorn
Australia and law firm, Maurice Blackburn in respect to Thorn's
class action for misleading consumers.

The matter was also tentatively fixed for hearing for two weeks
commencing on 17 June 2019.

In a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), Thorn
Group said, "While Thorn Australia will continue to defend the
claim in the ordinary course of the class action process, that
process could take a significant length of time, perhaps years, to
run its course, is a management distraction and exposes the group
to significant legal and advisory fees.

"As with all major litigation, the company is unable to make any
statements or predictions as to the outcomes that may eventuate."

Maurice Blackburn launched a class action in the Federal Court of
Australia on 29 March 2017 seeking compensation for over 200,000
consumers who entered into 'Rent Try $1 Buy' leases with Radio
Rentals between 28 March 2011 and 29 March 2017.

At the time, the law firm said that if the class action was
successful at trial or a settlement with Radio Rentals was reached,
eligible group members would be paid compensation.

The matter involves Radio Rentals stores owned and operated by the
Thorn Group in states other than South Australia. The South
Australian Radio Rentals brand is not associated in any way. In
South Australia, Thorn Group stores trade as Rentlo Reinvented.
[GN]

TICKETMASTER: Offers Freebies, Discounts as Part of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Doreen Christensen, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that if you
bought tickets on Ticketmaster.com between 1999 and 2013, you may
be eligible for free concert tickets and discounts.

Ticketmaster has settled a class action lawsuit and is offering the
freebies and discounts as part of the settlement

Eligible members of the class get one ticket voucher for each
Ticketmaster.com purchase made during the class period, up to a
maximum of 17 ticket vouchers, during the 14-year period.

A $5 discount if UPS delivery was used, up to 17, and a $2.50
discount code per transaction, up to 17, for each Ticketmaster.com
purchase during the class period.

Codes can be redeemed through June 18, 2020.

Check for eligibility: Log in to your Ticketmaster account to view
your vouchers. If you are a class member, Ticket Vouchers will be
found in your account.

Who is eligible: Consumers who bought tickets on Ticketmaster.com
between October 21, 1999,and February 27, 2013. Email
ticketfeelitigation@gcginc.com to see if you're eligible.

Redeeming codes: Make note of your voucher codes and visit the
eligible event at settlement.livenation.com/#events to redeem them.


What's this about: Schlesinger v. Ticketmaster class action lawsuit
was filed in 2003 alleging that Ticketmaster failed to fully
disclose to consumers all aspects of its UPS and order processing
fees.

For more information go to Settlement.livenation.com [GN]

TOPPS TOWING: Sosa Seeks Payment of Minimum & OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN SOSA, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. TOPPS TOWING, INC., A Florida Profit
Corporation; and DANIEL BOURGET, individually, the Defendants, Case
No. 8:18-cv-01719-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla., July 16, 2018), seeks to
recover minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants operate as a towing services
and road side assistance company. The Plaintiff routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per week as part of his regular job duties.
Despite working more than 40 hours per week, Defendants failed to
pay Plaintiff proper overtime compensation at a rate of one and
one-half times hos regular rate of pay for the hours that he worked
over 40 in each work week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chanelle J. Ventura, Esq.
          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318 0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327 3039
          E-mail: cventura@forthepeople.com
                  afrisch@forthepeople.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Cardenas & Kirton Suit over Defective HVAC
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER CARDENAS and KURT KIRTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION;
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING &
MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and SOUTHEAST TOYOTA
DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-22798-FAM (S.D.
Fla., July 12, 2018) is an action against the Defendants'
fraudulent activities, unfair trade practices, violation of the
federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Practices Organizations
Act, and conspiracy to conceal a known defect in millions of
2012–2017 Toyota Camrys sold in the United States.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the 2012–2017 Toyota
Camrys contain a defective Heating, Ventilation, and Air
Conditioning System that fails to properly remove all humidity and
water and emits foul, noxious, and toxic odors into the vehicles'
passenger compartments when the Defective HVAC System is in use.
The defect has caused the 2012–2017 Toyota Camrys to emit foul,
noxious, and toxic odors into the vehicles and exposing vehicle
occupants to a health and safety hazard.

Toyota Motor Corporation designs, manufactures, assembles, and
sells passenger vehicles, minivans and commercial vehicles, and
related parts and accessories. The company was founded in 1933 and
is headquartered in Toyota, Japan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Prieto, Esq.
          John Gravante, III, Esq.
          Matthew Weinshall, Esq.
          Alissa Del Riego, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
          E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com
                  jgravante@podhurst.com
                  mweinshall@podhurst.com
                  adelriego@podhurst.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056

               - and -

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Konciusn, Esq.
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          Facsimile: (310) 854-0812


TRUSTEDID INC: Williams Suit Transferred to S. Carolina Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Theresa Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TrustedID, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2018-CP-40-03346 (S.C. Comm. Pleas), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on July 27, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-02077. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Andrew Maxfield, Esq.
      DAVID MAXFIELD ATTORNEY LLC
      PO Box 11865
      Columbia, SC 29211
      Tel: (803) 509-6800
      Fax: (855) 299-1656
      Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com

TrustedID, Inc. is represented by:

      Rita Bolt Barker, Esq.
      WYCHE PA
      44 E Camperdown Way
      PO Box 728
      Greenville, SC 29601
      Tel: (864) 242-8235
      Email: rbarker@wyche.com

UNITED STATES: 24 Montana Counties Joint PILT Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Perry Backus and Thomas Plank, writing for Helena Independent
Record, report that Broadwater, Jefferson and Meagher counties are
three of at least 24 counties in Montana that joined in a class
action lawsuit seeking to recover back payments from the federal
government's Payment in Lieu of Taxes program.

The suit seeks to recover monies over a three-year period when the
program wasn't fully funded by Congress.

According to estimates compiled by the Montana Association of
Counties, the under payments for 2015, 2016 and 2017 amount to $1.2
million in Montana.

Authorized in 1976, the PILT program's payments are meant to help
counties with federal lands within their borders offset property
tax losses.

This isn't the first time the federal government has underfunded
PILT to local governments. The original language in the statute
allowed for payments to be discretionary and subject to the annual
congressional appropriations process.

That changed in 2008 when Congress amended the PILT statute by
mandating full funding through 2014.

Due to insufficient appropriations for 2015-17, payments to the
nearly 2,000 counties eligible for PILT were again underfunded due
to insufficient appropriations.

In 2017, Kane County, Utah, filed a lawsuit seeking to recover both
its own underpayments and those of all other PILT recipients
throughout that time period. Last December, a court ruled in favor
of Kane County for the first two years and made a similar ruling on
the 2017 underpayment in March.

The court also certified the lawsuit as a class action. It ordered
that an official notice be sent to each underpaid PILT recipient.

So far, counties in 48 states have signed on to the class action,
according to a website of the law firm handling the suit. The
deadline for joining the class action is Sept. 14.

Eric Bryson, executive director of the Montana Association of
Counties, said the class action lawsuit came as bit of a surprise
in June.

"I don't think anyone of us knew that was there until we received
notification from the law firm," Mr. Bryson said. "I don't know of
any other county who knew this class action existed before then."

The class action lawsuit is being handled by the Smith, Currie and
Hancock firm that has offices across the country. For a list of
counties nationwide that have opted to join so far, go to
https://www.smithcurrie.com/pilt-counties/

The list of Montana counties on the site on July 17 did not include
Ravalli County, which has joined the lawsuit, so it may not be
complete. So far, it includes: Beaverhead County, Carbon County,
Cascade County, Chouteau County, Fergus County, Gallatin County,
Garfield County, Glacier County, Granite County, Hill County,
Judith Basin County, Musselshell County, Park County, Powder River
County, Ravalli County, Richland County, Rosebud County, Silver Bow
County, Valley County and Yellowstone County. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Immigrant Reunifications Must Be Transparent
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno and Nathan Solis, writing for Courthouse News Service,
reported that a federal judge on July 24 praised the government's
efforts to meet a court-ordered deadline to reunify families
separated at the southwest border but sternly reminded government
attorneys "this must be a transparent process."

U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw "commended" the federal government
for reunifying 1,012 families who were separated along the
U.S.-Mexico border as part of President Donald Trump's zero
tolerance policy on unauthorized immigration.

The deadline for all 2,551 children over age five to be reunited
with their parents was July 26.

But Judge Sabraw did not mince words when addressing the
government's failure to provide detailed lists to the American
Civil Liberties Union -- which is representing the separated
families in a class action out of the Southern District of
California -- on how many parents have been deported without their
kids, released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody or
who signed waivers to be deported without their children.

He called the separations the "deeply troubling reality of this
case."

"This should be a transparent process," Judge Sabraw said. "Some of
this information is unpleasant. Large numbers of families were
being separated without the forethought for reunification … it
appears there is a large number of parents unaccounted for or
removed without their child."

Justice Department attorney Sarah Fabian could not provide the
judge information on how many of the 463 parents not in the country
-- after being deported or voluntarily departing -- had left the
U.S. without their kids.

Judge Sabraw pointed out the figure for parents no longer in the
country "could be very significant" since it likely includes
parents deported without their children before zero tolerance was
formally implemented and there was infrastructure in place to keep
track of parents and children.

The number of parents who waived reunification with their children
went down slightly -- down to 127 on July 24 from 130 parents
reported in government figures on July 23. Fabian said this was
because "some may have changed their mind" about releasing their
kids to another relative and wished to be reunited with their
children.

Ms. Fabian said of the 900 parents with final orders of removal,
about 20 had already been deported, but that she "would have to
confirm" the figure.

Hundreds of parents were still unaccounted for on July 24, either
having been deported or voluntarily left the country or released by
ICE custody and authorities could not get in contact with them to
be reunited with their children.

"What would be the explanation for not knowing where the parents
are?" Judge Sabraw asked Ms. Fabian.

Ms. Fabian said the parents could have been transferred into state
custody and Health and Human Services officials were not updated.

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt raised concerns about how the judge will
rule on a motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent the
government from immediately deporting families once they're
reunited.

The ACLU wants families to have seven days to decide how they want
to proceed with asylum claims, including whether parents with
removal orders might leave their children behind in the U.S. to
pursue their own immigration cases.

"Talking to people on the ground, things are really a mess on the
ground," Mr. Gelernt said, noting the ACLU planned to submit
affidavits from attorneys who had been working at family detention
centers.

Mr. Gelernt said the government is expected to house 700 family
class members at a facility in south Texas and that there's "no way
in a couple of days we can provide meaningful consultation" on
legal rights to those families.

Justice Department attorney Scott Stewart said the government
"would take issue with the suggestion things are a mess on the
ground, we strongly contest that characterization."

Judge Sabraw was set to address the temporary restraining order at
a status conference on July 27.

Meanwhile, eight asylum seekers are suing a private prison group,
the city of Adelanto and the federal government in a civil rights
lawsuit over the conditions they experienced while in federal
custody.

Josue Mateo Lemus Campus, from El Salvador, and Alexander Antonio
Burgos Mejia, from Honduras, were both detained in a private
prison, operated by the GEO Group in San Bernardino County where
they were pepper sprayed and beaten by guards for staging a hunger
strike to protest the lack of medical care and edible food.

The two men were joined by immigration advocates and faith-based
leaders at a news conference on July 24.  Their civil rights
lawsuit seeks to bring an end to the mistreatment of asylum
seekers, according to the complaint.

They are represented by Los Angeles-based attorney Rachel
Steinback.

UNITED STATES: Misses Deadline to Reunify Immigrant Families
------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the
federal government did not meet a court-ordered deadline on July 26
to reunite all families with children over age five that were
separated at the southwest border under President Donald Trump's
"zero tolerance" immigration policy.

U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw of the Southern District of
California ordered federal immigration officials to reunite all
families separated at the U.S.-Mexico border by July 26. Children
over five separated from their parents at the border number 2,551.

By July 26, the government reported to Judge Sabraw it had reunited
1,442 of the kids with their parents in Immigration and Customs
Enforcement custody. Another 378 children were "discharged in other
appropriate circumstances," including being reunited with their
parents outside custody or being taken in by a sponsor.

The government claims the parents of 711 kids are either ineligible
to be reunited or were "not available for discharge at this time."

That figure includes 431 kids whose parents are "outside the U.S.,"
meaning they were either deported or voluntarily departed without
their children.

The Department of Homeland Security never did separate 20 of the
2,551 children from their parents, according to the government's
status update.

The July 26 deadline was the second in a class action brought by
asylum-seeking families who were separated from their kids after
crossing into the U.S.

The government missed an earlier deadline to reunite families with
children under age five as well. In response to the missed
deadline, Judge Sabraw ordered DNA tests to streamline the process
of reuniting the younger children with their parents as quickly as
possible.

In status conferences held in Judge Sabraw's downtown San Diego
courtroom in the week leading up to the July 26 deadline, it became
clear the government would be unlikely to reunite families in which
the parents had been deported, had left the country voluntarily or
had been released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

At a status conference July 24, Justice Department attorney Sarah
Fabian could not provide details on how many parents had been
deported without their kids or released from ICE custody.

Judge Sabraw pointed out in court on July 24 the figure for parents
no longer in the country "could be very significant" since it
likely represents families separated and parents who were deported
before zero tolerance was formally adopted.

In a teleconference call on July 26, ACLU Immigrants' Rights
Project attorney Lee Gelernt said his legal team still had not
received a list from the government of families who had been
reunited and where they were located.

The ACLU represents the separated families in the class action
lawsuit.

Mr. Gelernt expressed dismay with the government's claim that it is
"proud" of the work it's doing to reunite families.

"This is not a natural disaster, it is a disaster they created," he
said.

Mr. Gelernt said the ACLU would likely ask for remedies to reunify
families quicker and for the government to be required to produce
information faster, rather than seeking monetary penalties or
sanctions for missing the July 26 deadline.

The ACLU also raised red flags about the government's list of 120
children -- as of the July 26 status update -- whose parents
allegedly signed waivers agreeing to be deported without being
reunified with their families.

On July 25, the ACLU filed over 100 pages of affidavits taken from
attorneys working with families at detention centers that claim the
government coerced parents into signing the waivers even when they
did want to be reunited with their children before facing
deportation.

Judge Sabraw issued a stay on pending deportations after the ACLU
raised concerns about reports the government was immediately
booting families out of the country upon reunification. The ACLU
has asked for a temporary restraining order to give families a week
to explore their legal options before facing removal proceedings.

Without the temporary restraining order, Mr. Gelernt said on July
26 reunited families with orders for removal will be immediately
subject to deportation.

Judge Sabraw was set to address the request for the temporary
restraining order at a hearing scheduled for July 27.

UNITED STATES: Ravalli County Joints PILT Payments Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Backus, writing for Ravalli Republic, reports that Ravalli
County is one of at least 24 counties in Montana that has joined in
a class action lawsuit seeking to recover back payments from the
federal government's Payment in Lieu of Taxes program.

The suit seeks to recover monies over a three-year period when the
program wasn't fully funded by Congress.

According to estimates compiled by the Montana Association of
Counties, the under payments for 2015, 2016 and 2017 amount to $1.2
million in Montana. Ravalli County's share would be $89,571.

Authorized in 1976, the PILT program's payments are meant to help
counties with federal lands within their borders offset property
tax losses.

"For us, it's a significant amount of money," Ravalli County
Commissioner Greg Chilcott said. "The suit is going to go forward
whether Ravalli County is on it or not. The bottom line for our
county (was) it seemed like the right thing to do."

This isn't the first time the federal government has underfunded
PILT to local governments. The original language in the statute
allowed for payments to be discretionary and subject to the annual
congressional appropriations process.

That changed in 2008 when Congress amended the PILT statute by
mandating full funding through 2014.

Due to insufficient appropriations for 2015-17, payments to the
nearly 2,000 counties eligible for PILT were again underfunded due
to insufficient appropriations.

In 2017, Kane County, Utah, filed a lawsuit seeking to recover both
its own underpayments and those of all other PILT recipients
throughout that time period. Last December, a court ruled in favor
of Kane County for the first two years and made a similar ruling on
the 2017 underpayment in March.

The court also certified the lawsuit as a class action. It ordered
that an official notice be sent to each underpaid PILT recipient.

So far, counties in 48 states have signed on to the class action,
according to a website of the law firm handling the suit. The
deadline for joining the class action is Sept. 14.

Mr. Chilcott said it was not a simple decision to file a lawsuit
against the federal government.

"It was a hard thing for me," he said. "Congress gets to write
rules…those federal lands do deflate our tax base. PILT helps
offset those taxes that are lost to local governments. Some people
think it is welfare, but I don't. I see it as a true entitlement in
the traditional definition. We're entitled to the tax monies we
lose by those lands being in federal ownership."

Eric Bryson, executive director of the Montana Association of
Counties, said the class action lawsuit came as bit of a surprise
in June.

"I don't think anyone of us knew that was there until we received
notification from the law firm," Mr. Bryson said. "I don't know of
any other county who knew this class action existed before then."

The class action lawsuit is being handled by the Smith, Currie and
Hancock firm that has offices across the country. For a list of
counties nationwide that have opted to join so far, go to
https://www.smithcurrie.com/pilt-counties/

The list of Montana counties on the site did not include Ravalli
County on July 17, so may not be complete. So far, it includes:
Beaverhead County, Broadwater County, Carbon County, Cascade
County, Chouteau County, Fergus County, Gallatin County, Garfield
County, Glacier County, Granite County, Hill County, Jefferson
County, Judith Basin County, Meagher County, Musselshell County,
Park County, Powder River County, Richland County, Rosebud County,
Silver Bow County, Valley County and Yellowstone County. [GN]

UNIVERSAL TRANSPORTATION: Sprague Moves to Certify FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT SPRAGUE, On behalf of
himself and all similarly situated individuals v. UNIVERSAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS LLC (d/b/a "UTS") and QUALITY TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00165-MRB (S.D. Ohio), moves for
entry of an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying the proposed collective Fair
       Labor Standards Act class as defined herein;

   (2) implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
       Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
       to:

       All individuals employed by Defendants as Drivers within
       the past three years from the Complaint filing date (the
       "FLSA Class" or "Putative Class Members"); and

   (3) requiring the Defendants to, within 14 days of this
       Court's order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
       providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
       the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers
       of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for the
       Defendants in Ohio at any time within the past three
       years.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Jason C. Cox, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  jcox@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com


UTAH HIGH SCHOOL: Class Action Mulled Over Title IX Disparity
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cam Smith, writing for USA TODAY, reports that in 2017, a group of
seven high school girls in Utah petitioned to start a tackle
football league particularly for girls. A year later, they're still
fighting for a league of their own, but now they're asking for a
more serious legal battle.

As reported by the Deseret News, Brent Gordon, the father of one of
the plaintiffs and a backer of the proposed girls football league,
said the refusal of three cited school districts and the Utah High
School Activities Association to address the Title IX disparity the
group highlighted demands further action. Mr. Gordon's proposal?
Certify the existing lawsuit as a class action claim, which would
force the districts to address it.

Mr. Gordon is the father of former youth football phenom Sam
Gordon, a girl who starred in boys leagues and won national
acclaim. Sam Gordon is one of the plaintiffs in the current case.

Per the elder Gordon's research, Canyons, Jordan and Granite school
district all fall short of equal opportunity between male and
female students. Among the three districts, Gordon cited 700 more
opportunities for male student athletes.

That would seem to indicate a clear violation of Title IX, though
the case isn't so open and shut. Per the Deseret News, the
districts have to determine if there is enough interest at each of
the 22 schools represented to field full football teams.

"Each district takes this lawsuit very seriously," Assistant
Attorney General Rachel Terry, who is representing the three
districts, told the News. "They're taking this lawsuit as an
opportunity to see if they're meeting the interests and needs of
their students. But what Granite might offer is very different than
other districts.

"We can't offer every sport that every student wants to participate
in."

That doesn't necessarily mean they can't offer tackle football for
girls, which is why the case lives on . . . for now. [GN]

VECTREN CORP: Faces Michael Kuebler Suit over CenterPoint Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KUEBLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, 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,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-113 (S.D. Ind., July 5, 2018) is a
class action against Vectren and the members of Vectren's board of
directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Vectren by CenterPoint
Energy, Inc.

The complaint alleges that on April 21, 2018, Vectren's Board
caused Vectren to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
the CenterPoint, pursuant to which, Vectren shareholders will
receive $72 in cash for each share of common stock they own.

On, June 18, 2018, the Vectren's Board authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of the Exchange
Act. The Proposed Transaction is expected to close no later than
the first quarter of 2019, with the shareholder vote occurring
before then.

The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for violations
of the Exchange Act and seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding
the shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction and taking any
steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until the
material information is disclosed to Vectren shareholders, or, in
the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover
damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange
Act.

Vectren provides energy delivery services to residential,
commercial, and industrial and other contract customers. The
company supplies natural gas services to approximately 1,022,000
customers in Indiana and Ohio; and electric services to
approximately 145,200 customers in Indiana.  Vectren was
incorporated in 1999 and is headquartered in Evansville, Indiana.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason A. Shartzer, Esq.
          SHARTZER LAW FIRM, LLC
          156 E. Market Street, 10th Floor, Suite 1000
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 969-7600
          Facsimile: (317) 969-7650
          E-mail: jshartzer@shartzerlaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


VERMONT DOC: Russell Seeks to Certify Muslim Inmates Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JUSTIN RUSSELL, the Plaintiff, v. ANDREW
PALLITO, CYNTHIA MASON, RICHARD BILODEAU, and LISA MENARD, the
Defendants, Case No. 7136-08-07-2018 (D. Vt.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order granting his renewed motion to certify class
action, and reopen discovery as to class action issues, on behalf
of:

   "all Muslim inmates within the custody of DOC who were offered
   the prepackaged kosher meals, from when DOC first began
   serving those meals in late 2014, to the present, who consider
   the content of those meals to be in conflict with their
   sincerely held religious dietary beliefs."

Pallito is the Commissioner of the Vermont State Department of
Corrections.

A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://is.gd/ZrKK78 at no charge.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          David Bond, Esq.
          STROUSE & BOND, PLLC
          2 Church St., Ste 3A
          Burlington, VT 05401
          Telephone: (802) 540 0434
          E-mail: david@strouse-bond.com


WAL-MART STORES: Quiles et al. Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SUNDEL QUILES, VICTORIA J. MARTIN, JAMES M.
SHEA, ANGELA COX, and GEORGE J. BRAY JR. Individually and on Behalf
of All Other Persons Similarly, the Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC. d/b/a WAL-MART, the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-09479-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order to certify a class.

As reported by Class Action Reporter, Quiles et al. filed the
lawsuit December 27, 2016, alleging that the Defendants failed to
pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://is.gd/Xg0W43 at no charge.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members:

          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Rebecca Predovan, Esq.
          HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545 1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532 3801


WASHINGTON, DC: Lawsuits Over Unjust Teacher Dismissals Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Stein, writing for The Washington Post, reports that for nine
years, Jeff Canady lived in a cash-strapped limbo. The D.C. Public
Schools teacher was fired in 2009 after 18 years in city
classrooms, the school system deeming him ineffective.

Mr. Canady, 53, contested his dismissal, arguing that he was
wrongly fired and that the city was punishing him for being a union
activist and for publicly criticizing the school system.

For nearly a decade, Mr. Canady, jobless and penniless, waited for
a decision in his case -- until now.

Earlier in July, an arbitrator ruled in favor of the fired teacher,
a decision that could entitle him to hundreds of thousands of
dollars in back pay and the opportunity to be a District teacher
again. The school system can appeal the ruling, which was made by
an arbitrator from the American Arbitration Association, a
nonprofit organization that settles disputes outside of court.

"I've been a hostage for nine years," Mr. Canady said. "And the
District wants to keep it that way."

School system spokesman Shayne Wells said DCPS "just received the
arbitrator's decision and is in the process of reviewing it."

Elizabeth Davis, president of the Washington Teachers' Union, said
Canady isn't the only one fighting to get his job back. Other
educators who were fired years ago and allege unjust dismissals are
waiting for their cases to be settled with the school system.

Mr. Canady was one of nearly 1,000 educators fired during the 3 1/2
year tenure of Michelle Rhee -- the controversial former D.C.
schools chancellor who clashed with the union and instituted a
teacher evaluation system that dictated teachers' job security and
­bonuses. About 200 of those teachers lost their jobs because of
poor performance, 266 were laid off amid a 2009 budget squeeze and
the rest failed to complete new-employee probation or did not have
licensing required under the federal No Child Left Behind law.

The union, which had assailed Rhee's evaluation system, filed a
series of grievances in a bid to salvage the lost jobs.

In 2016, a teacher won a case against the school system after
claiming he was wrongly fired in 2011 for a low score on Rhee's
evaluation system, known as IMPACT.  The educator won on procedural
grounds and the arbitrator's decision did not address IMPACT, but
the union still hailed it as a victory in its battle over the
teacher evaluation system.

"We are certain that there are still a number of cases pending,
unresolved, which were first filed during Michelle Rhee's tenure as
chancellor," Ms. Davis said in an email.

Mr. Canady was a third-grade teacher earning about $80,000 a year
when he was fired in 2009 from Emery Elementary, a school in the
Eckington neighborhood that later closed. The school system,
according to the arbitrator's decision, said Canady scored low on
an evaluation system that preceded IMPACT.

But Mr. Canady and the teachers union argued that his third-graders
performed well and that he had previously posted strong scores on
his evaluations. They said they suspected his low score was linked
to his public criticism of the school system and not to his
performance in the classroom. They also argued that the city did
not follow proper protocol when evaluating him.

In defending its action, the school system claimed that the union
had included Mr. Canady's case as part of a larger class action
complaint and had waited years to proceed with his case
individually. By that point, the school system said it no longer
had documents or email exchanges in the case.

Ms. Davis said she could not discuss specifics of the class action
filing because parts of it are ongoing.

The arbitrator said the school system was responsible for many of
the delays in the case. The ruling also said D.C. schools
improperly evaluated Canady and showed "anti-union animus toward
him."

Mr. Canady said in an interview that he was confident he would
prevail and that he had a moral imperative to keep fighting.

He said that he had ambitions to be a top official in the school
system and that his firing stymied career opportunities. He
imagines that by now, his salary would be substantially higher than
$80,000 had he not lost his job.

"I've been fighting for justice for people for years," Mr. Canady
said. "Surely if I am going to fight for others, I am going to
fight for myself."

Mr. Canady remained in the District and continues to attend
political and community meetings but has not held a steady job.
With no income, he has moved around the city frequently and said
his firing has extracted a physical and emotional toll and
"devastated relationships."

Even if the arbitrator's decision holds, he said he is unsure if he
will return to the classroom. He said he still disagrees with how
the District operates its schools.

"I love teaching where they are actually trying to help people," he
said. "And I'll do it at the appropriate time and in the
appropriate situation." [GN]

XPLORE TECH: Scarantino Seeks to Block Sale to Zebra Tech
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Scarantino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Xplore Technologies Corp., Andrea Goren,
Robert N. Mcfarland, Kent Misemer, Donald F. Neville, Thomas B.
Pickens III, Zebra Technologies Corporation and Wolfdancer
Acquisition Corp., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01109, (D. Del., June
27, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
the acquisition of Xplore Technologies Corp. by Zebra Technologies
Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Wolfdancer Acquisition
Corp., rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory
damages in the event defendants consummate the merger.

The complaint also seeks costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, Wolfdancer
Acquisition Corp. will acquire all of Xplore's outstanding common
stock for $6.00 in cash for each share of Xplore common stock.

Xplore is engaged in the development, integration, and marketing of
rugged mobile personal computer and hand held devices.

The complaint asserts that the proxy statement omitted the
Company's financial projections and the analyses performed by its
financial advisor, Duff & Phelps, LLC, in connection with the
transaction, including all line items used to calculate the
company’s projections of unlevered free cash flows, or the line
item projections used to calculate those unlevered free cash flows.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-531
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
             gms@rl-legal.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Email: rm@maniskas.com

ZOCO PRODUCTIONS: Dr. Oz Settles False Advertising Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to Manatt's Jeffrey S. Edelstein, Esq. --
jedelstein@manatt.com -- as reported in the July 5, 2018, issue of
Advertising Law, the media defendants in a consumer class action,
including television personality Dr. Mehmet Oz, reached a $5.25
million deal in the latest legal action involving false advertising
claims made for green coffee bean dietary supplements promising
weight loss.

A trio of plaintiffs filed the case in February 2016, alleging that
Dr. Oz, ZoCo Productions LLC, Entertainment Media Ventures, Inc.,
and Harpo Productions Inc. promoted products such as Labrada
Garcinia Cambogia Dual Action Fat Buster and Labrada Green Coffee
Bean Extract Fat Loss Optimizer as a "magic weight-loss cure" and
"revolutionary fat buster" on the Dr. Oz talk show, when in fact no
scientific evidence existed to back up the claims.

Without admitting any liability, the media defendants reached a
deal following extensive negotiations and three mediation sessions.
The settlement agreement provides for a $5.25 million fund to pay
the following in full and in this order: any necessary taxes and
tax expenses, all costs associated with settlement administration,
class counsel fees and expenses (not to exceed 33 percent of the
total fund), class representative incentive awards (two for $5,000
and one $7,500 award), and payments to authorized class members.

Class members include U.S. residents (1) who purchased any green
coffee bean extract or garcinia cambogia product from February 2,
2012, until the settlement notice is disseminated and who saw any
fake ad purported to be sourced from or approved by Dr. Oz or the
media defendants; or (2) who purchased any weight loss product,
ingredient and/or plant after viewing three specific Dr. Oz
episodes (or any portion of Doctoroz.com on or after April 26,
2012) related to green coffee bean extract or garcinia cambogia, or
after seeing any fake ad purported to be sourced from or approved
by Dr. Oz or the media defendants. Claimants will receive $30 cash
for each product purchased, up to $90 per household without proof
of purchase, and without limit for those with receipts.

The defendants also promised not to re-air three episodes of "The
Dr. Oz Show" that promoted the products and to remove online clips
from all three episodes.

Since the article was published, the parties have released an
agreed-upon joint statement about the agreement, noting, "None of
the media defendants have been found liable for any wrongdoing and
are pleased with the resolution of this matter." According to the
joint statement, per the proposed settlement agreement, the
plaintiffs requested that the court dismiss Dr. Oz and
Entertainment Media Ventures (Sony Pictures Television was
previously dismissed from the suit). Dr. Oz will not personally pay
any money toward the proposed deal.

Litigation continues against the manufacturers of the dietary
supplements.

The case is styled Woodard v. Labrada.

Why it matters: Though popular for a time, green coffee weight loss
products yielded more legal action than weight loss success. In
addition to consumer class actions like the one recently settled,
the Federal Trade Commission brought several cases against the
manufacturers and marketers of green coffee weight loss products
alleging violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
Act. One case resulted in a $30 million judgment and a ban on
deceptive advertising for one executive, while other companies
agreed to pay $9 million and $3.5 million, respectively. [GN]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baldor Electric Dismissed From Dickens' Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Louis Guirola, Jr. of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi has dismissed, without
prejudice, Baldor Electric Company improperly named as "Baldor
Electric Company, for its RELIANCE brand of products" from the
claims of the Plaintiffs, William Dickens and Karla Dickens, in the
case the case entitled William Dickens and Karla Dickens,
Plaintiffs, v. A-1 Auto Parts & Repair, Inc., et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:18-CV-00162-LG-RHW, (S.D. Miss.).

A copy of the Agreed Order dated July 12, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7y2sqvc from Leagle.com.

William Dickens & Karla Dickens, Plaintiffs, represented by Cameron
M. McCormick , Wiggins Law, PLLC & Eric Przybysz --
eprzybysz@sgptrial.com -- Simon Greenstone Panatier, PC, pro hac
vice.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., doing business as & General Parts, Inc.,
doing business as, Defendants, represented by Michael O'Mara Gwin
-- mgwin@watkinseager.com -- Watkins & Eager, PLLC & Robert B.
Ireland, III -- rireland@watkinseager.com -- Watkins & Eager.

Autozone, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith D. Obert , Obert
Law Group, P.A.

Bell Auto Parts, Inc. & Goulds Pumps, Incorporated, Defendants,
represented by Jennifer Marie Studebaker --
jennifer.studebaker@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz,
LLP.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to Borg-Warner Corporation & John Crane,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Bradley Adam Hays --
ahays@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning, LLP, Christopher O.
Massenburg -- cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning, LLP,
Jeanette S. Riggins -- jriggins@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross
Massenburg, LLP & Michael D. Goggans -- mgoggans@mgmlaw.com --
Manning Gross + Massenburg, LLP.

Bosch Brake Components LLC, sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to Morse Automotive Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Deirdre C. McGlinchey -- dmcglinchey@mcglinchey.com
-- Mcglinchey Stafford, PLLC, pro hac vice, Jose L. Barro, III --
jbarro@mcglinchey.com -- Mcglinchey Stafford, PLLC, pro hac vice &
Zelma M. Frederick -- zfrederick@mcglinchey.com --  Mcglinchey
Stafford, PLLC.

Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Samuel D. Habeeb --
SHabeeb@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy,
LLC & Colleen S. Welch -- CWelch@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel
Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC.

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; sued as
successor-by-merger to CBS Corporation (a Pennsylvania
Corporation), Defendant, represented by Rose Marie Wade --
rmwade@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff.

Crane Co., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to
Chempump Company, Defendant, represented by Robert W. Wilkinson --
rwilkinson@dwwattorneys.com -- Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC & Kevin M.
Melchi -- kmelchi@dwwattorneys.com -- Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC.

Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, sued individually, doing business as,
and as successor to American Talc Company, Metropolitan Talc Co.
Inc. and Charles Mathieu Inc. and Sierra Talc Company and United
Talc Company & Imerys Talc America, Inc., sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to Luzenac America, Inc.
successor-in-interest to Cyprus Industrial Minerals Company and
Windsor Minerals, Inc. and Metropolitan Talc Co., Defendants,
represented by Benjamin Lyle Robinson , Taylor, Wellons, Politz &
Duhe, APLC, Desiree W. Adams , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe,
APLC, pro hac vice & Paula M. Wellons , Taylor, Wellons, Politz &
Duhe, APLC, pro hac vice.

Dana Companies LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest
to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company & Union Carbide Corporation,
Defendants, represented by Clare Smith Rush  --
CRush@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC
& Marcy B. Croft -- MCroft@maronmarvel.com  Maron Marvel Bradley
Anderson & Tardy, LLC.

Eaton Hydraulics LLC, sued as successor to Vickers Inc., Defendant,
represented by Clyde O. Adams, IV -- cadams@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins,
Parnell, Thackston & Young, LLP.

Edelbrock Corporation, Defendant, represented by Fred Krutz, III --
fred.krutz@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP &
Daniel J. Mulholland -- daniel.mulholland@formanwatkins.com --
Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP.

Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, sued as successor to
Felt-Products Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
P. Hubbard -- hubbard@hubbardmitchell.com -- Hubbard, Mitchell,
Williams & Strain, PLLC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Janika D. Polk --
jpolk@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Shell Weiner & Richeson,
Deborah D. Kuchler -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler, Polk,
Weiner, LLC & Lee Blanton Ziffer -- lziffer@kuchlerpolk.com --
Kuchler, Polk, Weiner, LLC.

Holley Performance Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary
Clift Abdalla -- mary.abdalla@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins &
Krutz, LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., sued as successor-in-interest to
Bendix Corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward W. Mizell --
edward.mizell@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP, James H. Bolin --
jay.bolin@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP & Meade W. Mitchell --
meade.mitchell@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Donald C.
Partridge -- DPartridge@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley
Anderson & Tardy, LLC, Charles Chan E. McLeod --
CMcLeod@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy,
LLC & Richard M. Crump -- RCrump@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel
Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC.

Johnson & Johnson & Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., a subsidiary
of Johnson & Johnson, Defendants, represented by Edward W. Mizell
-- edward.mizell@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP, James H. Bolin
-- jay.bolin@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP, Kathleen I.
Carrington -- kat.carrington@butlersnow.com -- BUTLER SNOW LLP &
Meade W. Mitchell -- meade.mitchell@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow
LLP.

Markey Machinery Co. Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Margaret
Gay -- MMGay@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson &
Tardy, LLC, Kimberly Paige Mangum -- KMangum@maronmarvel.com --
Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC & Sarah E. Jones --
SJones@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy,
LLC.

MW Custom Papers, LLC, as successor-in-interest to The Mead
Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Albert Smyth, III --
jsmyth@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC.

Perrigo Company, Defendant, represented by Ben F. Galloway, III ,
Owen & Galloway, PLLC, Jeffrey Jerome Hines -- jjh@gdldlaw.com --
Goodell, Devries, Leech & Dann, LLP, pro hac vice, Joe Sam Owen ,
Owen, Galloway & Myers, PLLC, Michael A. Pichini -- map@gdldlaw.com
-- Goodell, Devries, Leech & Dann, LLP, pro hac vice & Richard
Matthew Barnes -- rmb@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell, Devries, Leech &
Dann, LLP, pro hac vice.

Trinity Marine Products, Inc., for its Nabrico brand of products,
Defendant, represented by Allen E. Graham --
teeto.graham@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Barbara L. Arras --
barbara.arras@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP, pro hac vice &
James G. Wyly, III -- jim.wyly@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Clare Smith Rush
-- CRush@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy,
LLC.

Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard M. Crump --
RCrump@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy,
LLC & Charles Chan E. McLeod -- CMcLeod@maronmarvel.com -- Maron
Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bergeron Couple Sues Alleges Asbestos Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that a couple has
filed suit against two St. Louis-based companies and others over
allegations asbestos exposure caused the husband to develop lung
cancer.

Albert Bergeron and Karen Bergeron filed a complaint on July 9 in
the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against Akebono Brake
Corp., The Boeing Co., Warren Pumps LLC, et al. alleging negligence
and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
times during Albert Bergeron's work from 1964 to 1990 at various
locations in St. Louis and New Jersey, 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 Aug. 7, 2017, he first became aware
that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, and
that the disease was wrongfully caused.

The plaintiffs holds Akebono Brake Corp., The Boeing Co., Warren
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 request a trial by jury and seek compensatory and
punitive damages of more than $50,000, plus costs and all further
relief as the court may deem just and equitable. They are
represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in
Edwardsville.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1822-CC10707

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bonvillain Couple Sues Dow Chemical Over Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that a couple alleges
that the husband's lung cancer was caused by asbestos exposure from
products by companies headquartered in Missouri.

Richard Bonvillain and Wanda Bonvillain filed a complaint on July
19 in the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against The Dow
Chemical Co., General Gasket Corp., Honeywell International Inc.,
et al. alleging strict liability.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
times during Richard Bonvillain's career beginning in the 1970s, 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 Jan. 15, 2016, he
first became aware that he developed lung cancer, an
asbestos-induced disease.

The plaintiffs hold The Dow Chemical Co., General Gasket Corp.,
Honeywell International Inc., 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 health 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 $50,000, plus interest, costs and all other
relief as the court may deem just and equitable. They are
represented by Benjamin R. Schmickle and Matthew C. Morris of SWMW
Law LLC in St. Louis.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1822-CC10800

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Avon Sole Factory Posts Asbestos Warning
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Manzoni of NBC10 Boston reported that several Massachusetts
residents say they're concerned after finding more than a dozen
signs outside an abandoned factory that warn of asbestos and
cancer, an issue that's prompted attention from both town and state
officials.

The signs, which are posted around the former Avon Sole Company
factory at 55 High St. in Holbrook, warn that asbestos "may cause
cancer," and "causes damage to lungs." The signs also recommend
wearing "respiratory protection and protective clothing," in the
area.

"I was woken up to two gentlemen outside on the sidewalk in blue
hazmat suits," said Lisa MacCallum, who lives across the street
from the abandoned facility. "Who's going to say that five years
down the road I’m not going to have asbestos in my lungs?"

MacCallum and her neighbors said they've tried to get answers from
both town and state officials for months, but haven't been
successful.

"We've called the DEP over and over. We’ve called Holbrook Board
of Health. They say, 'Our hands are tied,'" said Lisa
DeMarco-Topping, who lives near the old factory. "What's going to
happen 20 years from now? Say, 'Oh, that lady died of cancer.' From
what? Because no one will remember."

The Town of Holbrook said it hasn't been involved in the issue
since it shut down work at the abandoned factory eight months ago.

In a letter dated Dec. 7, 2017, the Town of Holbrook’s building
inspector wrote: "Please be advised that this department has been
notified by MASS DEP as to the serious violations regarding
asbestos. Upon receipt of this order, please be further advised
this notice is a STOP WORK ORDER . . . . "

The letter, which was signed by the town's building commissioner,
Daniel F. Moriarty Jr., was sent to High Street Cabinet Shop LLC in
Chelmsford.

The property owner could not be reached for comment.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection said it
recently approved the property owner's new plan to remove asbestos
but didn't know when work would resume.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 3 Suits, Claims for $195K
--------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company reported that for the six months ended June 2,
2018, three asbestos-related lawsuits and claims were settled for
US$195,000, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 2, 2018.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago.  The plaintiffs
generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek
damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts.  In many
cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered
any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the
result of exposure to products manufactured by us.  We are
typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment.
If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable
injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case
is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of
the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party.  Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage
for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs.  Historically,
insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and
settlements in asbestos-related litigation.  However, certain of
our insurers are insolvent.  We have entered into cost-sharing
agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of
defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related
lawsuits.  These agreements require, among other things, that we
fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in
which the responsible insurer is insolvent.

"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the plaintiff.
To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of our
probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/90EQco

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.5-Bil. Liabilities at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded total liabilities of US$1,528
million related to asbestos matters at June 30, 2018, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related
personal injury actions related to two predecessor companies:

   * North American Refractories Company ("NARCO”), which was
sold in 1986, produced refractory products (bricks and cement used
in high temperature applications).  Claimants consist largely of
individuals who allege exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing
refractory products in an occupational setting.

   * Bendix Friction Materials ("Bendix”) business, which was
sold in 2014, manufactured automotive brake parts that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form.  Claimants consist
largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes
from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who
performed brake replacements.

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

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Records US$918MM NARCO Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$918 million at June 30,
2018, in asbestos-related liabilities involving predecessor company
North American Refractories Company (NARCO), according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

NARCO, which was sold in 1986, produced refractory products (bricks
and cement used in high temperature applications).

The Company states, "In connection with NARCO's emergence from
bankruptcy on April 30, 2013, a federally authorized 524(g) trust
(NARCO Trust) was established for the evaluation and resolution of
all existing and future NARCO asbestos claims.  Both Honeywell and
NARCO are protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring
all present and future individual actions in state or federal
courts and requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure
to NARCO asbestos-containing products to be made against the NARCO
Trust.  The NARCO Trust reviews submitted claims and determines
award amounts in accordance with established Trust Distribution
Procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court which set forth the
criteria claimants must meet to qualify for compensation including,
among other things, exposure and medical criteria that determine
the award amount.  In addition, Honeywell provided, and continues
to provide, input to the design of control procedures for
processing NARCO claims, and has on-going audit rights to review
and monitor the claims processor's adherence to the established
requirements of the Trust Distribution Procedures.

"Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to
the NARCO Trust which qualify for payment under the Trust
Distribution Procedures (Annual Contribution Claims), subject to
annual caps of US$140 million in 2018 and US$145 million for each
year thereafter.  However, the initial US$100 million of claims
processed through the NARCO Trust (the Initial Claims Amount) will
not count against the annual cap and any unused portion of the
Initial Claims Amount will roll over to subsequent years until
fully utilized.  In 2015, Honeywell filed suit against the NARCO
Trust in Bankruptcy Court alleging breach of certain provisions of
the Trust Agreement and Trust Distribution Procedures.  The parties
agreed to dismiss the proceeding without prejudice pursuant to an
18 month Standstill Agreement.  Claims processing continued during
this period as the parties attempted to resolve disputed issues.
The Standstill Agreement expired on October 12, 2017.
Notwithstanding its expiration, claims processing continues, and
Honeywell continues to negotiate and attempt to resolve remaining
disputed issues (that is instances where Honeywell believes the
Trust is not processing claims in accordance with established Trust
Distribution Procedures).  Honeywell reserves its right to seek
judicial intervention should negotiations fail or prove futile.  As
of June 30, 2018, Honeywell has not made any payments to the NARCO
Trust for Annual Contribution Claims.

"Honeywell is also responsible for payments due to claimants
pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of
the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to
submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the
terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution
Procedures criteria (Pre-established Unliquidated Claims), which
amounts are estimated at US$150 million and are expected to be paid
during the initial years of trust operations (US$5 million of which
has been paid since the effective date of the NARCO Trust).  Such
payments are not subject to the annual cap.

"Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated
liability for Pre-established Unliquidated Claims (US$145 million),
as well as unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for
bankruptcy protection and operating and legal costs related to the
Trust (collectively US$30 million) and for the estimated value of
future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be asserted against the
NARCO Trust (US$743 million).  The estimate of future NARCO claims
was prepared in 2002, in the same year NARCO filed for bankruptcy
protection, using NARCO tort system litigation experience based on
a commonly accepted methodology used by numerous bankruptcy courts
addressing 524(g) trusts.  Accordingly, the estimated value of
future NARCO asbestos claims was prepared before there was data on
claims filings and payment rates in the NARCO Trust under the Trust
Distribution Procedures and also prepared when the stay of all
NARCO asbestos claims was in effect (which remained in effect until
NARCO emerged from Bankruptcy protection).  Some critical
assumptions underlying this commonly accepted methodology included
claims filing rates, disease criteria and payment values contained
in the Trust Distribution Procedures, estimated approval rates of
claims submitted to the NARCO Trust and epidemiological studies
estimating disease instances.  The estimated value of the future
NARCO liability reflects claims expected to be asserted against
NARCO over a fifteen year period.  This projection resulted in a
range of estimated liability of US$743 million to US$961 million.
We believe that no amount within this range is a better estimate
than any other amount and accordingly, we have recorded the minimum
amount in the range.  Given the Trust's lack of sufficient claims
processing experience since NARCO emerged from bankruptcy
protection, it is not yet possible to reliably estimate future
claim costs based on actual Trust experience.

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability
for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage
which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity
and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market.  We conduct
analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is
recoverable for asbestos claims.  While the substantial majority of
our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers
are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of
probable recoveries.  We made judgments concerning insurance
coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our
historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency
issues surrounding insurers.

"Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that
could cause the NARCO-related asbestos liabilities or assets to be
higher or lower than those projected and recorded.  Given the
uncertainties, we review our estimates periodically, and update
them based on our experience and other relevant factors.
Similarly, we will reevaluate our projections concerning our
probable insurance recoveries in light of any changes to the
projected liability or other developments that may impact insurance
recoveries."

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

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jack's PI Claims vs. M.W. Custom Papers Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James L. Robart of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington, has dismissed Plaintiffs'
claims against defendant M.W. Custom Papers LLC, without prejudice.
Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss their claims without prejudice
against defendant, M.W. Custom Papers LLC, as alleged in their
complaint filed in the case styled Leslie Jack, individually and as
Personal Representative of Patrick Jack, individually, Plaintiffs,
v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd., et al., Defendants, No.
2:17-CV-00537-JLR, (W.D. Wash.), and defendant has agreed to waive
its fees and costs incurred in this matter.

A copy of the Order dated July 17, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yb62a4hp from Leagle.com.

Leslie Jack, individually and as Personal Representative of Patrick
Jack & David Jack, individually, Plaintiffs, represented by
Benjamin H. Adams -- badams@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham, LLP,
Charles W. Branham, III , Dean Omar & Branham, LLP, pro hac vice,
Kristin M. Houser -- houser@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark &
Bender, Lisa W. Shirley -- lshirley@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar
Branham, LLP, pro hac vice, Lucas W.H. Garrett --
garrett@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, William Joel
Rutzick , Schroeter Goldmark & Bender & Thomas J. Breen --
breen@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as
successor-in-interest to Buffalo Pumps, Defendant, represented by
Barry Neal Mesher .

Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to Borg-Warner Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Richard D. Ross , Selman Brietman LLP.

CBS Corporation, sued as successor-by-merger to CBS Corporation
f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation and successor-in-interest
to BF Sturtevant, Defendant, represented by William D. Harvard --
wdharvard@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff, pro hac vice,
Christopher S. Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP &
Erin P. Fraser -- efraser@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by Ryan J. Groshong --
ryan.groshong@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & G. William Shaw --
bill.shaw@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Daniel K. Reising --
dan@frllp.com -- Fucile & Reising & Mark J. Fucile --
mark@frllp.com -- Fucile & Reising.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher S.
Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP & Erin P. Fraser
-- efraser@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP.

Goulds Pumps Inc & Viad Corporation, formerly known as The Dail
Corporation, Defendants, represented by Ronald C. Gardner --
rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- Gardner Trabolsi & Assoc. PLLC.

Honeywell International Inc, sued as successor-in-interest to
Bendix Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kristine E. Kruger --
KKruger@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie & Mary P. Gaston --
MGaston@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Katherine A.
Lawler -- katherine.lawler@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin J. Craig --
kcraig@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Mark B. Tuvim
mtuvim@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees & Trevor J. Mohr -- tmohr@grsm.com
-- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Metlife Inc, Defendant, represented by Richard G. Gawlowski --
gawlowski@wscd.com -- Wilson Smith Cochran & Dickerson.

Pneumo Abex LLC, successor to Abex Corporation & Dana Companies,
LLC, sued as successor in interest to Victor Gasket Manufacturing
Company, Defendants, represented by Diane J. Kero --
dkero@gth-law.com -- Gordon Thomas Honeywell.

Union Pacific Railroad Company, Defendant, represented by Robert H.
Berkes -- rberkes@bcrslaw.com -- Berkes Crane Robinson & Seal, pro
hac vice, Ryan T. Moore -- rmoore@bcrslaw.com -- Berkes Crane
Robinson & Seal, pro hac vice, Viiu Spangler Khare --
vspanglerkhare@bcrslaw.com -- Berkes Crane Robinson & Seal, pro hac
vice, Andrew Gordon Yates -- yatesa@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell
PC, Jeffrey M. Odom -- odomj@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC & Tim
D. Wackerbarth -- wackerbartht@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut --
aeraut@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC & Shaun Mary
Morgan -- smorgan@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Sides With Celanese in $8MM Asbestos Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Underwood of St. Louis Record reported that following a
four-day asbestos exposure trial, 12 jurors found in favor of
Celanese Corp. on July 19, ruling that the plaintiff's mesothelioma
was not directly caused by the defendant.

Jerry Crawford v. Celanese Corp. was argued by Aaron Chapman of
Dean Omar & Branham LLP of Texas for the plaintiff and attorney
Mark Wall of Wall, Templeton & Haldrup in South Carolina for the
defendant before 7th Judicial Circuit of South Carolina Judge Jean
Toal.

Streaming video coverage of the trial was provided to Legal
Newsline by Courtroom View Network.

The jury heard testimony from July 16 -19 and deliberated for only
a few hours before ruling the former employee did not contract
cancer from the Spartanburg facility. Crawford was employed by
Celanese Corp. from 1970 to 1974 and alleged he was exposed to
asbestos at the site from pipe insulation supplied by Covil Corp.

The trial was contested from the start, with Toal instructing
jurors that although sanctions were requested by Crawford's
attorneys who claimed Covil purposely destroyed key documents that
would prove the plaintiff developed mesothelioma as a result of
working at Celanese, they were to understand that even without the
specific evidence, Crawford was in fact exposed to asbestos
insulation supplied and installed by Covil Corp. when he was
employed in the 1970s.

Both parties' attorneys' opening and closing arguments were
strikingly similar. While Chapman concluded Covil "knew it, they
did it and they hid it," Wall countered that Covil Corp., which has
been defunct since 1991, was not responsible since they were not
the manufacturer and that Crawford was exposed to asbestos while
changing the brakes on his vehicle for years.

"It's crazy to believe that a few days ago, I stood up here and
told you everything you were going to hear in this case," Chapman
said during his closing. "I promised you that were going to hear
Covil knew it, they did it and they hid it. I think I have kept
that promise."

Wall countered that the "short trial, filled with complications"
did not prove particular dates of exposure and, in his opinion, the
piping manufacturer bore the ultimate responsibility for Crawford's
illness, not his client.

Despite hours of testimony from molecular biologist Dr. Arnold
Brody and qualified pathologist Dr. John C. Maddox, who described
at length how mesothelioma can be caused by exposure to asbestos
fibers, and former employees of the Daniel Construction Co., which
renovated the facility with piping that contained asbestos, the
jury was not moved.

The 12 jurors were also not persuaded by compelling testimony from
Crawford himself or his two daughters, Patty Giles and Tessa Quinn.
Rather it was the testimony of Robert Glenn, a representative of
Covil-supplied asbestos insulation, and Don Buck, a civil engineer
who worked for Daniel Construction, that seemed to sway them to
rule in favor of the defendant.

"Daniel equals Covil," Chapman said in his closing argument. "If
Daniel did the job, Covil did the insulation."

While showing family photos of Crawford, Chapman's closing argument
constantly blamed Covil, reminding the jury the business decision
made by Covil, who was not legally responsible to warn employees of
the dangers of asbestos in the 1970s, was morally wrong.

Chapman then asked the jury to consider the cost of Crawford's
life.

"They want to make a business decision, let's make one for them,"
Chapman said. "We are talking about a life that was taken away here
in a board room."

After detailing the $568,000 in medical bills Crawford accumulated
in 2017 fighting for his life and then multiplying that number by
13 years -- Crawford's life expectancy without mesothelioma -- the
attorney concluded that $7.34 million, plus the cost of Crawford's
wife dying without the peace of knowing what would happen to her
husband, totaled $8 million in damages.

In closing, Wall did not deny that Covil Corp. used asbestos
piping, citing the 1977 deposition of corporation owner Palmer
Covil.

"I am not manufacturing these products, I am just buying them,"
Covil said when asked about the pipes he sold.

As he argued throughout the trial, Wall asked the jury to consider
the responsibility of both Daniel Construction Co. that used the
pipes to construct and renovate parts of the Spartanburg site and
also Crawford’s own interaction with asbestos.

"Brakes were considered by Dr. Maddox to be a contributing human
factor and cause of his mesothelioma," Wall said.

The jury agreed, with the court clerk reading the verdict that
claimed Covil was not responsible for the negligence and implied
and strict liability of Crawford's cancer.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kraus Bid to Strike Government Defense Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Timothy J. Savage of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania has denied the plaintiffs' Motion
to Strike Government Specifications Defense and Remand in the case
titled Robert J. Kraus and Margaret M. Kraus, h/w, v.
Alcatel-Lucent, Allen-Bradley Company, Ametek, Inc., BBC Brown
Boveri, k/n/a ABB, Inc., Belden Wire & Cable Company, LLC, CBS
Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
Clark Controller Co., Espey Manufacturing & Electronics Corp., Ford
Motor Co., General Dynamics, General Electric Company, Gould
Electronics, Inc., GTE Products of Connecticut Corporation,
Honeywell International, Honeywell, Inc., IMO Industries, Inc.,
formerly known as DeLaval Steam Turbine Company, ITT Industries,
L-3 Communications, Lockheed Martin Corporation Service Company,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing, Motorola Solutions, Navcom Defense Electronics,
Northrop Grumman Norden Systems, Northrop Grumman Corporation,
Philips North America, LLC, Raytheon, Rockbestos Co., Rockwell
Collins, Inc., Rogers Corporation, Space Systems/Loral, Square D
Company, UNISYS and United Technologies, Civil Action No. 18-2119,
(E.D. Pa.)

A copy of the Order dated July 25, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ydemhc7m from Leagle.com.

Robert J. Kraus & Margaret M. Kraus, H/W, Plaintiffs, represented
by Robert E. Paul , Paul Reich & Myers, PC.

Allen-Bradley Company, Defendant, represented by G. Daniel Bruch,
Jr. -- gdbruch@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell, LLC.

Ametek, Inc., Defendant, represented by Albert L. Piccerilli --
apiccerilli@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, LLP &
Glenn F. Rosenblum -- grosenblum@mmwr.com -- Montgomery, Mc
Cracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP.

Belden Wire & Cable Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dawn
Dezii -- ddezii@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis & Edelstein &
Jeanine D. Clark -- jclark@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis
Edelstein.

CBS Corporation, formerly known as & General Electric Company,
Defendants, represented by John P. McShea , McShea Law Firm PC.

Espey Manufacturing & Electronics Corp., Defendant, represented by
Kara D. Hill -- khill@rmh-law.com -- Reilly McDevitt & Henrich PC &
Susan M. Valinis -- svalinis@rmh-law.com -- Reilly Janiczek &
McDevitt P.C.

Ford Motor Co., Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Sinclair --
dsinclair@eckertseamans.com --  Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC
& Eric L. Horne -- ehorne@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott.

General Dynamics & Motorola Solutions, Defendants, represented by
Megan Kathleen Bailey -- mbailey@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani, LLP.

Gould Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher H.
Jones -- cjones@mdmc-law.com --  Mcelroy Deutsch Mulvaney &
Carpenter.

GTE Products of Connecticut Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Edward T. Finch -- efinch@lavin-law.com -- Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci,
Cedrone & Disipio.

Honeywell International, Defendant, represented by Peter J. Neeson
-- pneeson@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson LLP.

Honeywell, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kevin Errol Hexstall --
kehexstall@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin,
PC.

IMO Industries, Inc., formerly known as, Defendant, represented by
Joseph I. Fontak -- jfontak@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon
LLP.

ITT Industries, Defendant, represented by Steven A. Luxton --
steven.luxton@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

L-3 Communications, Defendant, represented by Frederick A. Tecce --
fred.tecce@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP.

Lockheed Martin Corporation Service Company & Space Systems/LORAL,
Defendants, represented by Michael David Smith --
smith@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP.

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing & Raytheon, Defendants,
represented by Basil A. Disipio -- BDiSipio@lavin-law.com -- Lavin
O'Neil Cedrone & Disipio.

Northrop Grumman Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam A.
Desipio -- adam.desipio@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Nancy Shane
Rappaport , DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, LLP.

Philips North America LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D.
Wall -- jonathan.wall@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP.

Rockbestos Co., Defendant, represented by Christian A. Weimann --
caweimann@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin &
Tiffany Giangiulio -- tjgiangiulio@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey
Warner Coleman & Goggin.

Square D Company, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Rideout --
crideout@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowen Spinelli & Hanna & W.
Matthew Reber -- mreber@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jason McGuire &
Spinelli & Hanna.

UNISYS, Defendant, represented by Josette Ferrazza Spivak ,
Hollstein Keating Cattell Johnson & Goldstein & Patricia M. Henrich
-- phenrich@rmh-law.com -- Reilly Janiczek And McDevitt P.C.

United Technologies, Defendant, represented by William J. Smith --
wsmith@dmclaw.com -- Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote.

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Cross Claimant, represented by
Basil A. Disipio -- BDiSipio@lavin-law.com -- Lavin O'Neil Cedrone
& Disipio.

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing & Raytheon, Cross Defendants,
represented by Basil A. Disipio -- BDiSipio@lavin-law.com -- Lavin
O'Neil Cedrone & Disipio.

Belden Wire & Cable Company, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jeanine D. Clark -- jclark@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis
Edelstein & Dawn Dezii -- ddezii@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis
& Edelstein.

CBS Corporation & General Electric Company, Cross Defendants,
represented by John P. McShea , McShea Law Firm PC.

Espey Manufacturing & Electronics Corp., Cross Defendant,
represented by Kara D. Hill -- khill@rmh-law.com -- Reilly McDevitt
& Henrich PC & Susan M. Valinis -- svalinis@rmh-law.com - Reilly
Janiczek & McDevitt P.C.

Ford Motor Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Sinclair
-- dsinclair@eckertseamans.com --  Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott
LLC & Eric L. Horne -- ehorne@eckertseamans.com  -- Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott.

General Dynamics & Motorola Solutions, Cross Defendants,
represented by Megan Kathleen Bailey -- mbailey@grsm.com -- Gordon
Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP.

ITT Industries, Cross Defendant, represented by Steven A. Luxton --
steven.luxton@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

L-3 Communications, Cross Defendant, represented by Frederick A.
Tecce -- fred.tecce@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP.

Northrop Grumman Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Adam
A. Desipio -- adam.desipio@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Nancy
Shane Rappaport , DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, LLP.

Square D Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Christina M.
Rideout -- crideout@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowen Spinelli &
Hanna & W. Matthew Reber -- mreber@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jason
McGuire & Spinelli & Hanna.

General Dynamics, Cross Claimant, represented by Megan Kathleen
Bailey -- mbailey@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP.

Gould Electronics, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Christopher H. Jones -- cjones@mdmc-law.com --  McElroy Deutsch
Mulvaney & Carpenter.

Honeywell International, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter J.
Neeson -- pneeson@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Joseph I.
Fontak -- jfontak@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP.

Space Systems/LORAL & Lockheed Martin Corporation Service Company,
Cross Defendants, represented by Michael David Smith --
smith@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP.

UNISYS, Cross Defendant, represented by Patricia M. Henrich --
phenrich@rmh-law.com -- Reilly Janiczek And McDevitt P.C. & Josette
Ferrazza Spivak , Hollstein Keating Cattell Johnson & Goldstein.

United Technologies, Cross Defendant, represented by William J.
Smith -- wsmith@dmclaw.com -- Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote.

GTE Products of Connecticut Corporation, Cross Claimant,
represented by Edward T. Finch -- efinch@lavin-law.com -- Lavin,
O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & Disipio.

GTE Products Of Connecticut Corporation, Cross Defendant,
represented by Edward T. Finch -- efinch@lavin-law.com -- Lavin,
O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & Disipio.

Lockheed Martin Corporation Service Company, Cross Claimant,
represented by Michael David Smith -- smith@glazieryee.com --
Glazier Yee LLP.

Philips North America LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan
D. Wall -- jonathan.wall@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP.

Square D Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Christina M.
Rideout -- crideout@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowen Spinelli &
Hanna & W. Matthew Reber -- mreber@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jason
McGuire & Spinelli & Hanna.

Ametek, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Albert L. Piccerilli
-- apiccerilli@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads,
LLP & Glenn F. Rosenblum -- grosenblum@mmwr.com -- Montgomery, Mc
Cracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP.

Rockbestos Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Tiffany Giangiulio
-- tjgiangiulio@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman &
Goggin.

Ametek, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Albert L. Piccerilli
-- apiccerilli@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads,
Llp & Glenn F. Rosenblum -- grosenblum@mmwr.com -- Montgomery, Mc
Cracken, Walker & Rhoads, Llp.

Allen-Bradley Company, Cross Claimant, represented by G. Daniel
Bruch, Jr. -- gdbruch@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell, LLC.

Margaret M. Kraus, H/W & Robert J. Kraus, Cross Defendants,
represented by Robert E. Paul , Paul Reich & Myers, PC.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Withdraws Stay of T. Pogacnick's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County,
entered on or about April 30, 2018 has been taken to the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of New York for the First Department.
Defendant-Appellant moved for a stay of all proceedings pending
hearing and determination of the aforesaid appeal, and interim
relief had been granted, in part, by a Justice of the Court,
entered on May 1, 2018, for a stay of trial. Upon the stipulation
of the Parties, dated May 7, 2018, the Court now withdraws the
motion for stay, and vacates the interim relief granted by an order
the Court on May 1.

The appealed case is In Re: New York City Asbestos Litigation. This
Document Relates To: Tatjana Pogacnik, as Executrix for the Estate
of Leon B. Pogacnik, and Tatjana Pogacnik, Individually,
Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., et al.,
Defendants-Appellants, Motion No. M-2261, Index No. 190340/15 (N.Y.
App. Div. 1d).

A copy of the Order dated July 10, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yddwpzx6 from Leagle.com.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Connor Appeal Withdrawn from Docket
------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York for the
First Department, after pre-argument conference and upon reading
and filing the stipulation of the parties hereto, has ordered
withdrawn the appealed case In Re: New York County Asbestos
Litigation. Kelly O'Connor, Personal Representative of the Estate
of Raymond Flood, Deceased, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Anthony &
Sylvan Corp., et al., Defendants, -And- Pentair Water Pool And Spa,
Inc., formerly known as Pentair Pool Products, Inc., improperly
named as Pentair Aquatic Eco-Systems, Inc. and Pentair Water Group,
Inc., Defendant-Appellant. Mary Murphy-Clagett, as Temporary
Administrator for the Estate of Pietro Macaluso, Plaintiff, V. A.
O. Smith Corporation, et al., Defendants. Index Nos. 190147/15,
190311/15, Motion No. M-2973X, Index No. 40000/88.  (N.Y. App. Div.
1d), which appeal was taken from an order of the Supreme Court, New
York County, entered on or about January 18, 2018, in accordance
with the aforesaid stipulation.

A copy of the Order dated July 26, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yarc9bqc from Leagle.com.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Opioid Lawsuits Not Comparable to Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Sheehan of Reinsurance News reported that W.R. Berkley's Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) Robert Berkley has said that prescription
opioid drugs, which have come under scrutiny this year following a
series of lawsuits against pharmaceutical manufacturers in the U.S,
are not comparable to asbestos from a re/insurance point of view.

"As far as an asbestos analogy, I think that's apples and oranges,"
said Berkley during the company’s Q2 2018 earnings call. "And the
big difference is policy limits and aggregate limits that backed on
the asbestos period didn't exist the way they exist today."

Drug overdoses have become the leading cause of death for people
under 50 in the U.S, and recent studies have estimated that opioids
could be responsible for half a million deaths in the country by
2027 as the crisis of addiction accelerates.

Recently, many U.S states have begun filing lawsuits against
manufacturers like Purdue Pharma, the creator of OxyContin, who
they accuse of proliferating the drug crisis with misleading
marketing campaigns that began in the mid-1990s.

Opioid manufacturers, it is alleged, underplayed the risks of their
painkillers and exaggerated the benefits in order to persuade
doctors to overprescribe the pills and convince patients that they
were safe and effective.

Berkley granted that "the opioid epidemic is very unnerving and it
should be very concerning to all of us as a society," but warned
that "Unfortunately, when terrible things happen, oftentimes, the
way society deals with it, is they say somebody is going to pay."

"Whether it's the manufacturers or it's the distributors, or it's
anyone else that even was within a stone's throw of the situation,
they and by extension their carrier, there will probably be an
attempt to pull them in."

Some commentators have suggested that opioid health risks may
represent an emerging peril similar to that of asbestos, the
infamous fibrous building material that was later found to cause
various harmful or fatal health effects if inhaled.

Asbestos litigation has since become the longest, most expensive
mass tort in U.S history, with Fitch Ratings having recently
updated its projection for ultimate all-time asbestos-related
industry losses for U.S property and casualty (P&C) re/insurers to
$100 billion.

"How this is going to play out? Clearly, it is a meaningful
situation that one should not shrug off," stated Berkley. "At the
same time, I think it would be a mistake to suggest that this could
be the next asbestos. Could it be meaningful? Yes. Is it the next
asbestos? I think likely not."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partially Collapsed Bank Building Has Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
WV News of The Exponent Telegraph reported that a former bank
building that partially crumbled onto a street in Wallace has
tested positive for asbestos -- a finding that could increase the
cost of additional site remediation, according to a county
official.

The property owner, who lives in North Carolina, received a quote
of approximately $300,000 for cleanup at the site, according to
Harrison County Planning Commission Director Charlotte Shaffer.

According to Shaffer, the owner has indicated he is unable to pay
that sum of money.

The county already had an open case on the building and was making
attempts to contact the owner when a portion collapsed and spilled
into the street June 2, according to County Administrator Willie
Parker.

The property had been seized by the state for delinquent property
taxes. It has not yet sold in a tax sale, however, making the
property owner legally responsible for the property, Parker has
said.

Shortly after the building partially collapsed, the Harrison County
Commission approved emergency cleanup and hazardous materials
testing.

The county paid $9,730 to Feline Excavation and Construction for
the service.

The asbestos was limited to tar paper used in the roofing,
according to Commissioner David Hinkle.

A lien was placed on the property in an attempt to recoup cleanup
costs incurred by the county, Parker said.

The likelihood that the county would be reimbursed in full is
unclear, because delinquent property taxes would also need to be
deducted from the proceeds of a sale, Parker has said.

According to Shaffer, the property is now fenced off to ensure
public safety, and the county is continuing to work with the
property owner in an effort to complete the property cleanup.

According to Hinkle, an update on the building is expected to
appear on a meeting agenda in the near future.

"It's just as much a priority for me as the other properties
we’re asking people to clean up," he said, referring to a series
of eight public nuisance ordinance hearings the commission has
conducted since the spring.

After two of those property owners failed to complete property
cleanup within the 60-day window granted by the commission,
commissioners voted to send those two cases to court within 15 days
if property cleanup is still incomplete.

The actions indicate that the commission sees nuisance properties
as a problem in the county and has started the process of
correcting the issue "so communities can be a cleaner, safer
place," Hinkle said.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Deems Non-PC Claims Inactive
------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. considers the remaining, reportable claims
within the inventory of 114,000 asbestos-related claims, which are
not associated with Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PC"), as
closed or inactive litigation as they relate to the Company,
according to PPG's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Prior to 2000, the Company had been named as a
defendant in numerous claims alleging bodily injury from (i)
exposure to asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured,
sold or distributed by the Company, its subsidiaries, or for which
they are otherwise alleged to be liable; (ii) exposure to asbestos
allegedly present at a facility owned or leased by the Company; or
(iii) exposure to asbestos-containing products of Pittsburgh
Corning Corporation ("PC") for which the Company was alleged to be
liable under a variety of legal theories (the Company and Corning
Incorporated were each 50% shareholders in PC).

"In 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania in an effort to permanently
and comprehensively resolve all of its pending and future
asbestos-related liability claims. At the time of the bankruptcy
filing, the Company had been named as one of many defendants in
approximately 114,000 open claims. The Bankruptcy Court
subsequently entered a series of orders preliminarily enjoining the
prosecution of asbestos litigation against PPG until after the
effective date of a confirmed PC plan of reorganization.

"At the time PC filed for bankruptcy, PPG had been named as one of
many defendants in one or more of the categories of
asbestos-related claims identified above. Over the course of the 16
years during which the PC bankruptcy proceedings, and corresponding
preliminary injunction staying the prosecution of asbestos-related
claims against PPG, were pending, certain plaintiffs alleging
premises claims filed motions seeking to lift the stay with respect
to more than 1,000 individually-identified premises claims. The
Bankruptcy Court granted motions to lift the stay in respect to
certain of these premises claims and directed PPG to engage in a
process to address any additional premises claims that were the
subject of pending or anticipated lift-stay motions. As a result of
the overall process as directed by the Bankruptcy Court involving
more than 1,000 premises claims between 2006 and May 27, 2016,
hundreds of these claims were withdrawn or dismissed without
payment and approximately 650 premises claims were dismissed upon
agreements by PPG and its insurers to resolve such claims in
exchange for monetary payments.

"With respect to the remaining claims still reportable within the
inventory of 114,000 asbestos-related claims at the time PC filed
for bankruptcy, the Company considers such claims to fall within
one or more of the following categories: (1) claims that have been
closed or dismissed as a result of processes undertaken during the
bankruptcy; (2) claims that may have been previously filed on the
dockets of state and federal courts in various jurisdictions, but
are inactive as to the Company; and (3) claims that are subject, in
whole or in part, to the channeling injunction and thus will be
resolved, in whole or in part, in accordance with the Trust
procedures established under the PC bankruptcy reorganization plan.
As a result of the foregoing, the Company does not consider these
three categories of claims to be open or active litigation against
it, although the Company cannot now determine whether, or the
extent to which, any of these claims may in the future be
reinstituted, reinstated, or revived such that they may become open
and active asbestos-related claims against it."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/O0CGEV

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 475 Open Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2018, that it is aware of approximately 475 open and active
asbestos-related claims pending against the Company and certain of
its subsidiaries as of March 31, 2018.

The Company states, "These claims consist primarily of non-PC
Relationship Claims and claims against a subsidiary of PPG.  The
Company is defending the remaining open and active claims
vigorously.

"Since April 1, 2013, a subsidiary of PPG has been implicated in
claims alleging death or injury caused by asbestos-containing
products manufactured, distributed or sold by a North American
architectural coatings business or its predecessors which was
acquired by PPG.  All such claims have been either served upon or
tendered to the seller for defense and indemnity pursuant to
obligations undertaken by the seller in connection with the
Company's purchase of the North American architectural coatings
business.  The seller has accepted the defense of these claims
subject to the terms of various agreements between the Company and
the seller.  The seller's defense and indemnity obligations in
connection with newly filed claims ceased with respect to claims
filed after April 1, 2018.

"PPG has established reserves totaling approximately US$180 million
for asbestos-related claims that would not be channeled to the
Trust which, based on presently available information, we believe
will be sufficient to encompass all of PPG's current and potential
future asbestos liabilities.  These reserves include a US$162
million reserve established in 2009 in connection with an amendment
to the PC plan of reorganization.  These reserves, which are
included within "Other liabilities" on the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheets, represent PPG's best estimate of its
liability for these claims.  PPG does not have sufficient current
claim information or settlement history on which to base a better
estimate of this liability in light of the fact that the Bankruptcy
Court's injunction staying most asbestos claims against the Company
was in effect from April 2000 through May 2016.  PPG will monitor
the activity associated with its remaining asbestos claims and
evaluate, on a periodic basis, its estimated liability for such
claims, its insurance assets then available, and all underlying
assumptions to determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for
these claims is required.

"The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is
subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including
(i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the amounts required
to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iii)
the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims;
(iv) the unpredictable aspects of the litigation process, including
a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are
scheduled; (v) the outcome of any trials, including potential
judgments or jury verdicts; (vi) the lack of specific information
in many cases concerning exposure for which PPG is allegedly
responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases resulting from
such exposure; and (vii) potential changes in applicable federal
and/or state tort liability law.  All of these factors may have a
material effect upon future asbestos-related liability estimates.
As a potential offset to any future asbestos financial exposure,
under the PC plan of reorganization PPG retained, for its own
account, the right to pursue insurance coverage from certain of its
historical insurers that did not participate in the PC plan of
reorganization.  While the ultimate outcome of PPG's asbestos
litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, PPG believes that
any financial exposure resulting from its asbestos-related claims
will not have a material adverse effect on PPG's consolidated
financial position, liquidity or results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/O0CGEV

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Remains Shielded from PC Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. remains protected under a permanent channeling
injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code that
prohibits present and future claimants from asserting claims
against the Company that arise out of exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold or distributed by
Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PC") or asbestos on or emanating
from any PC premises, 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, "Prior to 2000, the Company had been named as a
defendant in numerous claims alleging bodily injury from (i)
exposure to asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured,
sold or distributed by the Company, its subsidiaries, or for which
they are otherwise alleged to be liable; (ii) exposure to asbestos
allegedly present at a facility owned or leased by the Company; or
(iii) exposure to asbestos-containing products of Pittsburgh
Corning Corporation ("PC") for which the Company was alleged to be
liable under a variety of legal theories (the Company and Corning
Incorporated were each 50% shareholders in PC).

"In 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania in an effort to permanently
and comprehensively resolve all of its pending and future
asbestos-related liability claims.  At the time of the bankruptcy
filing, the Company had been named as one of many defendants in
approximately 114,000 open claims.  The Bankruptcy Court
subsequently entered a series of orders preliminarily enjoining the
prosecution of asbestos litigation against PPG until after the
effective date of a confirmed PC plan of reorganization.  During
the pendency of this preliminary injunction staying asbestos
litigation against PPG, PPG and certain of its historical liability
insurers negotiated a settlement with representatives of present
and future asbestos claimants.  That settlement was incorporated
into a PC plan of reorganization that was confirmed by the
Bankruptcy Court on May 24, 2013 and ultimately became effective on
April 27, 2016.

"With the effectiveness of the plan, the preliminary injunction
staying the prosecution of asbestos litigation against PPG expired
by its own terms on May 27, 2016.  In accordance with the
settlement, the Bankruptcy Court issued a permanent channeling
injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code that
prohibits present and future claimants from asserting claims
against PPG that arise, in whole or in part, out of exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold and/or
distributed by PC or asbestos on or emanating from any PC premises.
The channeling injunction, by its terms, also prohibits
codefendants in cases that are subject to the channeling injunction
from asserting claims against PPG for contribution, indemnification
or other recovery.

"The channeling injunction also precludes the prosecution of claims
against PPG arising from alleged exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products to the extent that a claimant is
alleging or seeking to impose liability, directly or indirectly,
for the conduct of, claims against, or demands on PC by reason of
PPG's: (i) ownership of a financial interest in PC; (ii)
involvement in the management of PC, or service as an officer,
director or employee of PC or a related party; (iii) provision of
insurance to PC or a related party; or (iv) involvement in a
financial transaction affecting the financial condition of PC or a
related party.  The foregoing PC related claims are referred to as
"PC Relationship Claims."

"The channeling injunction channels the Company's liability for PC
Relationship Claims to a trust funded in part by PPG and its
participating insurers for the benefit of current and future PC
asbestos claimants (the "Trust").  The Trust is the sole recourse
for holders of PC Relationship Claims.  PPG and its affiliates have
no further liability or responsibility for, and will be permanently
protected from, pending and future PC Relationship Claims.  The
channeling injunction does not extend to present and future claims
against PPG that arise out of alleged exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products historically manufactured, sold and/or
distributed by PPG or its subsidiaries or for which they are
alleged to be liable that are not PC Relationship Claims, and does
not extend to claims against PPG alleging personal injury allegedly
caused by asbestos on premises presently or formerly owned, leased
or occupied by PPG.  These claims are referred to as non-PC
Relationship Claims.

"In accordance with the PC plan of reorganization, PPG's equity
interest in PC was canceled.  PPG satisfied its funding obligations
to the Trust on June 9, 2016, when it conveyed to the Trust the
stock it owned in Pittsburgh Corning Europe and 2,777,778 shares of
PPG's common stock and made a cash payment to the Trust in the
amount of US$764 million.  PPG's historical insurance carriers
participating in the PC plan of reorganization are required to make
cash payments to the Trust of approximately US$1.7 billion, subject
to a right of prepayment at a 5.5% discount rate.

"On October 13, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order entering
a final decree and closing the Chapter 11 case.  That order
provided that the Bankruptcy Court retained jurisdiction to enforce
any order issued in the case and any agreements approved by the
court, enforce the terms and conditions of the modified third
amended Plan, and consider any requests to reopen the case."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/O0CGEV

ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Kraus' Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Devries
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Timothy J. Savage of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, at the behest of CBS Corporation,
has stayed the proceedings in the case styled Robert J. Kraus and
Margaret M. Kraus, h/w, v. Alcatel-Lucent, Allen-Bradley Company,
Ametek, Inc., BBC Brown Boveri, k/n/a ABB, Inc., Belden Wire &
Cable Company, LLC, CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse
Electric Corporation, Clark Controller Co., Espey Manufacturing &
Electronics Corp., Ford Motor Co., General Dynamics, General
Electric Company, Gould Electronics, Inc., GTE Products of
Connecticut Corporation, Honeywell International, Honeywell, Inc.,
IMO Industries, Inc., formerly known as DeLaval Steam Turbine
Company, ITT Industries, L-3 Communications, Lockheed Martin
Corporation Service Company, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Motorola Solutions, Navcom
Defense Electronics, Northrop Grumman Norden Systems, Northrop
Grumman Corporation, Philips North America, LLC, Raytheon,
Rockbestos Co., Rockwell Collins, Inc., Rogers Corporation, Space
Systems/Loral, Square D Company, UNISYS and United Technologies,
Civil Action No. 18-2119, (E.D. Pa.), pending the Supreme Court's
Decision in Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al. v. Devries.

A copy of the Order dated July 25, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6w9ctns from Leagle.com.

Robert J. Kraus & Margaret M. Kraus, H/W, Plaintiffs, represented
by Robert E. Paul , Paul Reich & Myers, PC.

Allen-Bradley Company, Defendant, represented by G. Daniel Bruch,
Jr. -- gdbruch@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell, LLC.

Ametek, Inc., Defendant, represented by Albert L. Piccerilli --
apiccerilli@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, LLP &
Glenn F. Rosenblum -- grosenblum@mmwr.com -- Montgomery, Mc
Cracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP.

Belden Wire & Cable Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dawn
Dezii -- ddezii@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis & Edelstein &
Jeanine D. Clark -- jclark@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis
Edelstein.

CBS Corporation, formerly known as & General Electric Company,
Defendants, represented by John P. McShea , McShea Law Firm PC.

Espey Manufacturing & Electronics Corp., Defendant, represented by
Kara D. Hill -- khill@rmh-law.com -- Reilly McDevitt & Henrich PC &
Susan M. Valinis -- svalinis@rmh-law.com -- Reilly Janiczek &
McDevitt P.C.

Ford Motor Co., Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Sinclair --
dsinclair@eckertseamans.com --  Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC
& Eric L. Horne -- ehorne@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott.

General Dynamics & Motorola Solutions, Defendants, represented by
Megan Kathleen Bailey -- mbailey@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani, LLP.

Gould Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher H.
Jones -- cjones@mdmc-law.com -- McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney &
Carpenter.

GTE Products of Connecticut Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Edward T. Finch -- efinch@lavin-law.com -- Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci,
Cedrone & Disipio.

Honeywell International, Defendant, represented by Peter J. Neeson
-- pneeson@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson LLP.

Honeywell, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kevin Errol Hexstall --
kehexstall@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin,
PC.

IMO Industries, Inc., formerly known as, Defendant, represented by
Joseph I. Fontak -- jfontak@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon
LLP.

ITT Industries, Defendant, represented by Steven A. Luxton --
steven.luxton@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

L-3 Communications, Defendant, represented by Frederick A. Tecce --
fred.tecce@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP.

Lockheed Martin Corporation Service Company & Space Systems/LORAL,
Defendants, represented by Michael David Smith --
smith@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP.

Minnesota Mining And Manufacturing & Raytheon, Defendants,
represented by Basil A. Disipio -- BDiSipio@lavin-law.com -- Lavin
O'Neil Cedrone & Disipio.

Northrop Grumman Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam A.
Desipio -- adam.desipio@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Nancy Shane
Rappaport , DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, LLP.

Philips North America LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D.
Wall -- jonathan.wall@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP.

Rockbestos Co., Defendant, represented by Christian A Weimann --
caweimann@mdwcg.com --  Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin &
Tiffany Giangiulio -- tjgiangiulio@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey
Warner Coleman & Goggin.

Square D Company, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Rideout --
crideout@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowen Spinelli & Hanna & W.
Matthew Reber -- mreber@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jason McGuire &
Spinelli & Hanna.

UNISYS, Defendant, represented by Josette Ferrazza Spivak ,
Hollstein Keating Cattell Johnson & Goldstein & Patricia M. Henrich
-- phenrich@rmh-law.com -- Reilly Janiczek And McDevitt P.C.

United Technologies, Defendant, represented by William J. Smith --
wsmith@dmclaw.com -- Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote.

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Cross Claimant, represented by
Basil A. Disipio -- BDiSipio@lavin-law.com -- Lavin O'Neil Cedrone
& Disipio.

Minnesota Mining And Manufacturing & Raytheon, Cross Defendants,
represented by Basil A. Disipio -- BDiSipio@lavin-law.com -- Lavin
O'Neil Cedrone & Disipio.

Belden Wire & Cable Company, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jeanine D. Clark -- jclark@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis
Edelstein & Dawn Dezii -- ddezii@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis
& Edelstein.

CBS Corporation & General Electric Company, Cross Defendants,
represented by John P. McShea , McShea Law Firm PC.

Espey Manufacturing & Electronics Corp., Cross Defendant,
represented by Kara D. Hill -- khill@rmh-law.com -- Reilly McDevitt
& Henrich PC & Susan M. Valinis -- svalinis@rmh-law.com -- Reilly
Janiczek & McDevitt P.C.

Ford Motor Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Sinclair
-- dsinclair@eckertseamans.com --  Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott
LLC & Eric L. Horne -- ehorne@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott.

General Dynamics & Motorola Solutions, Cross Defendants,
represented by Megan Kathleen Bailey -- mbailey@grsm.com -- Gordon
Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP.

ITT Industries, Cross Defendant, represented by Steven A. Luxton --
steven.luxton@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

L-3 Communications, Cross Defendant, represented by Frederick A.
Tecce -- fred.tecce@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP.

Northrop Grumman Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Adam
A. Desipio -- adam.desipio@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Nancy
Shane Rappaport , DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, LLP.

Square D Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Christina M.
Rideout -- crideout@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowen Spinelli &
Hanna & W. Matthew Reber -- mreber@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jason
McGuire & Spinelli & Hanna.

General Dynamics, Cross Claimant, represented by Megan Kathleen
Bailey -- mbailey@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP.

Gould Electronics, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Christopher H. Jones -- cjones@mdmc-law.com --  McElroy Deutsch
Mulvaney & Carpenter.

Honeywell International, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter J.
Neeson -- pneeson@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Joseph I.
Fontak -- jfontak@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP.

Space Systems/Loral & Lockheed Martin Corporation Service Company,
Cross Defendants, represented by Michael David Smith --
smith@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP.

UNISYS, Cross Defendant, represented by Patricia M. Henrich --
phenrich@rmh-law.com -- Reilly Janiczek And McDevitt P.C. & Josette
Ferrazza Spivak , Hollstein Keating Cattell Johnson & Goldstein.

United Technologies, Cross Defendant, represented by William J.
Smith -- wsmith@dmclaw.com -- Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote.

GTE Products Of Connecticut Corporation, Cross Claimant,
represented by Edward T. Finch -- efinch@lavin-law.com -- Lavin,
O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & Disipio.

GTE Products of Connecticut Corporation, Cross Defendant,
represented by Edward T. Finch -- efinch@lavin-law.com -- Lavin,
O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & Disipio.

Lockheed Martin Corporation Service Company, Cross Claimant,
represented by Michael David Smith -- smith@glazieryee.com --
Glazier Yee LLP.

Philips North America LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan
D. Wall -- jonathan.wall@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP.

Square D Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Christina M.
Rideout -- crideout@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowen Spinelli &
Hanna & W. Matthew Reber -- mreber@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jason
McGuire & Spinelli & Hanna.

Ametek, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Albert L. Piccerilli
-- apiccerilli@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads,
LLP & Glenn F. Rosenblum -- grosenblum@mmwr.com -- Montgomery, Mc
Cracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP.

Rockbestos Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Tiffany Giangiulio
-- tjgiangiulio@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman &
Goggin.

Ametek, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Albert L. Piccerilli
-- apiccerilli@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads,
LLP & Glenn F. Rosenblum -- grosenblum@mmwr.com -- Montgomery,
McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP.

Allen-Bradley Company, Cross Claimant, represented by G. Daniel
Bruch, Jr. -- gdbruch@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell, LLC.

Margaret M. Kraus, H/W & Robert J. Kraus, Cross Defendants,
represented by Robert E. Paul , Paul Reich & Myers, PC.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Mullinax's Claims vs. Honeywell Dropped
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, upon consideration of the
Parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss Honeywell International Inc., has
dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant Honeywell from
the case is Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, as Executor of the
Estate of Jack Junior Waugh, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Advance Auto
Parts, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No.
1:16-cv-00310-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.), without prejudice.

A copy of the Order dated July 24, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7ajy5an from Leagle.com.

Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina
G. Stone -- sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac
vice, William M. Graham , Wallace & Graham & Kevin W. Paul --
kpaul@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham LLP.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Daniel International Corporation,
formerly known as Daniel Construction Company, Inc., Fluor
Constructors International, formerly known as Fluor Corporation,
Fluor Constructors International, Inc., Fluor Daniel Services
Corporation, Fluor Enterprises, Inc. & Union Carbide Corporation,
Defendants, represented by Christopher B. Major --
cmajor@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G.
McDonald -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd
P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick -- sfrick@hsblawfirm.com --
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner --
dconner@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac
vice.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as
successor-in-interest to, Blackmer Pump Company, Goulds Pumps,
Inc., Grinnell, LLC, doing business as, Pfizer, Inc., Viad
Corporation, formerly known as The Dial Corporation & Yuba Heat
Transfer, LLC, Defendants, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin --
tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson, Mullins, Riley &
Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante --
travis.bustamante@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr -- bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com
-- Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Borg-Warner Morse TEC, Inc., Successor in interest to, Defendant,
represented by David L. Levy -- dlevy@hedrickgardner.com -- Hedrick
Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP.

BW/IP, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Defendant,
represented by James M. Dedman, IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com --
Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A., Ronald Gene Tate, Jr. --
rtate@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd, PA, pro hac vice,
Allyson R. Twilley -- atwilley@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, Whte &
Boyd, P.A., pro hac vice & T. David Rheney --
drheney@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A., pro hac
vice.

Covil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robin Alexander
Seelbach -- Robin.Seelbach@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton &
Haldrup & William W. Silverman --
William.Silverman@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup,
P.A.

Dana Companies LLC, Defendant, represented by Carter T. Lambeth ,
Carter T. Lambeth Attorney, P.C., Christopher B. Major --
cmajor@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & William P.
Early , Pierce Herns Sloan & Wilson, LLC.

Flowserve US Inc., individually, Defendant, represented by James M.
Dedman, IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com -- White, & Boyd, P.A., T.
David Rheney -- drheney@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd,
P.A. & Allyson R. Twilley -- atwilley@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan,
Whte & Boyd, P.A.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman -- Ejmtechman@ewhlaw.com -- vert Weathersby Houff.

Genuine Parts Company, doing business as Rayloc, Defendant,
represented by Shannon Strickland Frankel --
Shannon.Frankel@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore and Henderson
P.A., Heather B. Adams , Alston & Bird LLP & David Gerald Williams
--  David.Williams@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore & Henderson,
P.A.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com
-- Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.

O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric T.
Hawkins -- ehawkins@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston &
Young & Douglas Andrew Rubel  -- drubel@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins
Parnell Thackston & Young, LLP.

Pneumo Abex, LLC, successor in interest to, Defendant, represented
by Timothy W. Bouch , Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

Uniroyal, Inc., formerly known as United States Rubber Company,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald Moffatt G.
McDonald -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd
P.A.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Bennett --
jbennett@bennett-guthrie.com -- Bennett Guthrie Latham, PLLC.

Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ronald Howard
Hatfield, Jr. -- Hatfield@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo
LLP.

William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by David B. Oakley
-- doakley@pbp-attorneys.com -- Poole Brooke Plumlee PC.

Zenith Electronics, LLC, Defendant, represented by E. Elaine
Shofner -- eshofner@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell Thackston &
Young LLP & Douglas Andrew Rubel  -- drubel@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins
Parnell Thackston & Young, LLP.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scots Woman Negligently Exposed to Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotsman reported that a judge has ruled a woman who died from
cancer was "negligently exposed" to asbestos when she washed her
husband's dirty work clothes more than 40 years ago.

In the first case of its kind in Scots law, Lady Carmichael
concluded Adrienne Sweeney was exposed to the substance when she
laundered her husband William's clothes in the 1960s.

Mr Sweeney, from Paisley in Renfrewshire, spent the decade working
as a fitter at a boiler making factor in nearby Renfrew.

After coming home from work, Mr Sweeney, who died in 2008, would
"cuddle" Mrs Sweeney whilst wearing overalls that were covered in
dust and dirt.

The non smoker would then wash his clothes. It was whilst she did
this household chore that Mrs Sweeney was exposed to asbestos.

Lady Carmichael ruled this exposure "materially increased" the risk
of Mrs Sweeney contracting mesothelioma -- the illness that claimed
her life in 2015.

In a written judgement, the judge ruled Mr Sweeney's former
employers, Babcock International, should pay his and his wife's
surviving relatives damages, which were undisclosed.

Mrs Sweeney's children Kay Gibson, 54, of Paisley, Jan Sweeney, 52,
of Moscow, Ayrshire, and William Sweeney, 50, of Beith, also
Ayrshire, originally sued Babcock for GBP50,000 as individuals.

Her eldest child Kay also sought GBP200,000 as the executrix of her
estate with lesser sums sought by other family members.

Prior to dying aged 75, Mrs Sweeney gave a statement to a legal
firm's representative detailing her employment history and that of
her late husband William.

The firm's employee Joe McCluskey said Mrs Sweeney told him: "She
said she knew there was asbestos dust on his overalls that she
washed."

Mr McCluskey, 43, said she had met Mrs Sweeney at her home in June
2015 to take notes for a statement. He said: "She was emotional,
understandably. She was very lucid and able to hold a conversation
without any difficulty."

She explained her late husband, who died in 2008 aged 71, had
worked at the boiler plant and came home with asbestos dust on his
overalls and other clothes.

In the judgement published, Lady Carmichael wrote lawyers acting
for Mrs Sweeney's family argued that Mr Sweeney's employers should
have done more to prevent his wife being exposed to the substance.

Lawyers for Babcock argued the evidence to prove Mrs Sweeney's
claims was insufficient. They argued it wasn't clear as to whether
and to what extent Mr Sweeney was exposed to asbestos at the boiler
maker factory.

Advocate Neil Mackenzie told the court that there was nothing to
suggest that warnings given to shipyards were given to factories
such as boiler plant in Renfrew.

However, Lady Carmichael ruled in favour of the family.

She said: "I accept that Mr Sweeney brought dusty clothes home with
him. Whether the deceased had any basis in her own knowledge or
from discussion with Mr Sweeney for her statement that the clothing
had asbestos dust on it, I do not know.

"I accept that the deceased shook out and washed Mr Sweeney's work
clothes in the manner described in her statement. Her statement is
imprecise as to the frequency with which she did so, but I infer
from what she said that this was a regular occurrence, carried out
throughout the different seasons and, on the balance of
probabilities, at least weekly.

"I infer the defenders knew or ought to have known that work
clothes would be cleaned at home given that they did not provide
clean clothing themselves."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thrash's PI Claims vs. Boeing Company Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District California, pursuant to the Parties' stipulation, has
dismissed with prejudice all claims against Defendant The Boeing
Company from the case styled Joseph Thrash, an individual; Chez
Thrash, an individual; Plaintiffs, v. Cirrus Enterprises LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01501-JST, (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the Order dated July 18, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ydc25xud from Leagle.com.

Joseph Thrash, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Benno
Behnam Ashrafi , Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Adam Cooper , Weitz &
Luxenberg P.C., pro hac vice, Carlos Jorge Enrique Guzman , Weitz &
Luxenberg, P.C., Josiah Parker , Weitz and Luxenberg, Michael
Thomas Reid , Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Robert Allen Green , Weitz &
Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock , Weitz & Luxenburg, P.C.

Chez Thrash, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Benno Behnam
Ashrafi , Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Adam Cooper , Weitz & Luxenberg
P.C., pro hac vice, Carlos Jorge Enrique Guzman , Weitz &
Luxenberg, P.C., Michael Thomas Reid , Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.,
Robert Allen Green , Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock ,
Weitz & Luxenburg, P.C.

Honeywell International Inc., formerly known as, AlliedSignal Inc.,
Successor in Interest to the Bendix Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jessica Jean Thomas -- jjthomas@mwe.com -- McDermott
Will & Emery LLP, Alice Truong Wong -- alwong@mwe.com -- McDermott
Will Emery LLP & Jonathan Yang -- joyang@mwe.com -- McDermott Will
& Emery LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey --
bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP, Frederick W. Gatt
-- fgatt@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP & Ketul Dilip
Patel , Leader & Berkon LLP.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.2-Bil. Net Reserves at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., had net asbestos reserves of
US$1,183 million at June 30, 2018, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The Travelers Companies states, "The Company believes that the
property and casualty insurance industry has suffered from court
decisions and other trends that have expanded insurance coverage
for asbestos claims far beyond the original intent of insurers and
policyholders.  The Company has received and continues to receive a
significant number of asbestos claims from the Company's
policyholders (which includes others seeking coverage under a
policy).  Factors underlying these claim filings include continued
intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants and the
continued focus by plaintiffs on defendants who were not
traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation.  The focus on
these defendants is primarily the result of the number of
traditional asbestos defendants who have sought bankruptcy
protection in previous years.  In addition to contributing to the
overall number of claims, bankruptcy proceedings may increase the
volatility of asbestos-related losses by initially delaying the
reporting of claims and later by significantly accelerating and
increasing loss payments by insurers, including the Company.  The
bankruptcy of many traditional defendants has also caused increased
settlement demands against those policyholders who are not in
bankruptcy but remain in the tort system.  Currently, in many
jurisdictions, those who allege very serious injury and who can
present credible medical evidence of their injuries are receiving
priority trial settings in the courts, while those who have not
shown any credible disease manifestation are having their hearing
dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket.  Prioritizing claims
involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense
payment patterns experienced by the Company.  The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.

"The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation
concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for
bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a
portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to
aggregate limits on coverage.  In these instances, policyholders
also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be
treated as a separate occurrence under the policy.  It is difficult
to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both
issues.  To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's
favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's
coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be
materially increased and bounded only by the applicable
per-occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury
claims against the policyholders.  Although the Company has seen a
reduction in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it
remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims.

"Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved
through settlement agreements.  Because many policyholders make
exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of
settlement negotiations.  Settlements involving bankrupt
policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable to
the Company but which could result in settlements for larger
amounts than originally anticipated.  There also may be instances
where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may
result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial
outcomes for the Company.  As in the past, the Company will
continue to pursue settlement opportunities.

"In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages
arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries.  It is
possible that the filing of other direct actions against insurers,
including the Company, could be made in the future.  It is
difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including
whether the plaintiffs would be able to sustain these actions
against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability.  The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to any such claims and
has received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions.

"The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder
category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder bankruptcies,
judicial rulings and legislative actions.  The Company also
analyzes developing payment patterns among policyholders in the
Home Office and Field Office, and Assumed Reinsurance and Other
categories as well as projected reinsurance billings and
recoveries.  In addition, the Company reviews its historical gross
and net loss and expense paid experience, year-by-year, to assess
any emerging trends, fluctuations, or characteristics suggested by
the aggregate paid activity.  Conventional actuarial methods are
not utilized to establish asbestos reserves and the Company's
evaluations have not resulted in a reliable method to determine a
meaningful average asbestos defense or indemnity payment.  Over the
past decade, the property and casualty insurance industry,
including the Company, has experienced net unfavorable prior year
reserve development with regard to asbestos reserves, but the
Company believes that over that period there has been a reduction
in the volatility associated with the Company's overall asbestos
exposure as the overall asbestos environment has evolved from one
dominated by exposure to significant litigation risks, particularly
coverage disputes relating to policyholders in bankruptcy who were
asserting that their claims were not subject to the aggregate
limits contained in their policies, to an environment primarily
driven by a frequency of litigation related to individuals with
mesothelioma.  The Company's overall view of the current underlying
asbestos environment is essentially unchanged from recent periods
and there remains a high degree of uncertainty with respect to
future exposure to asbestos claims.

"Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually.  Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this review
are: available insurance coverage, including the role of any
umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims; allocated
claim adjustment expense; potential role of other insurance; the
role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential non-asbestos
claims in any resolution process; and applicable coverage defenses
or determinations, if any, including the determination as to
whether or not an asbestos claim is a products/completed operation
claim subject to an aggregate limit and the available coverage, if
any, for that claim.

"Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first six months
of 2018 and 2017 were US$98 million and US$139 million,
respectively.  Net asbestos reserves were US$1.18 billion at June
30, 2018, compared with US$1.19 billion at June 30, 2017."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/mRp0iz

ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Dickens' Claims vs. Gardner Denver Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Louis Guirola, Jr. of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi has dismissed, without
prejudice, Gardner Denver Inc. from the claims of the Plaintiffs,
William Dickens and Karla Dickens, in the case the case entitled
William Dickens and Karla Dickens, Plaintiffs, v. A-1 Auto Parts &
Repair, Inc., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No.
1:18-CV-00162-LG-RHW, (S.D. Miss.).

A copy of the Agreed Order dated July 10, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8bz56l6 from Leagle.com.

William Dickens & Karla Dickens, Plaintiffs, represented by Cameron
M. McCormick , Wiggins Law, PLLC & Eric Przybysz --
eprzybysz@sgptrial.com -- Simon Greenstone Panatier, PC, pro hac
vice.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., doing business as Carquest & General
Parts, Inc., doing business as Carquest Auto Parts, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Michael O'Mara Gwin --
mgwin@watkinseager.com -- Watkins & Eager, PLLC & Robert B.
Ireland, III -- rireland@watkinseager.com -- Watkins & Eager.

Autozone, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith D. Obert , Obert
Law Group, P.A.

Baldor Electric Company, for its Reliance brand of products &
Markey Machinery Co. Inc., Defendants, represented by Mary Margaret
Gay -- MMGay@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson &
Tardy, LLC, Kimberly Paige Mangum -- KMangum@maronmarvel.com --
Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC & Sarah E. Jones --
SJones@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy,
LLC.

Bell Auto Parts, Inc. & Goulds Pumps, Incorporated, Defendants,
represented by Jennifer Marie Studebaker --
jennifer.studebaker@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz,
LLP.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to Borg-Warner Corporation & John Crane,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Bradley Adam Hays --
ahays@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning, LLP , Christopher O.
Massenburg -- cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning, LLP,
Jeanette S. Riggins -- jriggins@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross
Massenburg, LLP& Michael D. Goggans -- mgoggans@mgmlaw.com --
Manning Gross + Massenburg, LLP.

Bosch Brake Components LLC, sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to Morse Automotive Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Deirdre C. McGlinchey -- dmcglinchey@mcglinchey.com
-- Mcglinchey Stafford, PLLC, pro hac vice, Jose L. Barro, III --
jbarro@mcglinchey.com -- Mcglinchey Stafford, PLLC, pro hac vice &
Zelma M. Frederick -- zfrederick@mcglinchey.com --  Mcglinchey
Stafford, PLLC.

Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Samuel D. Habeeb --
SHabeeb@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy,
LLC & Colleen S. Welch -- CWelch@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel
Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC.

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; sued as
successor-by-merger to CBS Corporation (a Pennsylvania
Corporation), Defendant, represented by Rose Marie Wade --
rmwade@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff.

Crane Co., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to
Chempump Company, Defendant, represented by Robert W. Wilkinson --
rwilkinson@dwwattorneys.com -- Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC & Kevin M.
Melchi -- kmelchi@dwwattorneys.com -- Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC.

Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, sued individually, doing business as,
and as successor to American Talc Company, Metropolitan Talc Co.
Inc. and Charles Mathieu Inc. and Sierra Talc Company and United
Talc Company & Imerys Talc America, Inc., sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to Luzenac America, Inc.
successor-in-interest to Cyprus Industrial Minerals Company and
Windsor Minerals, Inc. and Metropolitan Talc Co., Defendants,
represented by Benjamin Lyle Robinson , Taylor, Wellons, Politz &
Duhe, APLC, Desiree W. Adams , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe,
APLC, pro hac vice & Paula M. Wellons , Taylor, Wellons, Politz &
Duhe, APLC, pro hac vice.

Dana Companies LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest
to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company & Union Carbide Corporation,
Defendants, represented by Clare Smith Rush  --
CRush@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy &
Marcy B. Croft -- MCroft@maronmarvel.com  Maron Marvel Bradley
Anderson & Tardy, LLC.

Eaton Hydraulics LLC, sued as successor to Vickers Inc. formerly
known as Eaton Hydraulics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Clyde O.
Adams, IV -- cadams@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston &
Young, LLP.

Edelbrock Corporation, Defendant, represented by Fred Krutz, III --
fred.krutz@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP &
Daniel J. Mulholland -- daniel.mulholland@formanwatkins.com --
Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP.

Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, sued as successor to
Felt-Products Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
P. Hubbard -- hubbard@hubbardmitchell.com -- Hubbard, Mitchell,
Williams & Strain, PLLC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Janika D. Polk --
jpolk@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Shell Weiner & Richeson,
Deborah D. Kuchler -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler, Polk,
Weiner, LLC & Lee Blanton Ziffer -- lziffer@kuchlerpolk.com --
Kuchler, Polk, Weiner, LLC.

Holley Performance Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary
Clift Abdalla -- mary.abdalla@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins &
Krutz, LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., sued as successor-in-interest to
Bendix Corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward W. Mizell --
edward.mizell@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP, James H. Bolin --
jay.bolin@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP & Meade W. Mitchell --
meade.mitchell@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Donald C.
Partridge -- DPartridge@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley
Anderson & Tardy, LLC, Charles Chan E. McLeod --
CMcLeod@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy,
LLC & Richard M. Crump -- RCrump@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel
Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC.

Johnson & Johnson & Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., a subsidiary
of Johnson & Johnson, Defendants, represented by Edward W. Mizell
-- edward.mizell@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP, James H. Bolin
-- jay.bolin@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP, Kathleen I.
Carrington -- kat.carrington@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP &
Meade W. Mitchell -- meade.mitchell@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow
LLP.

MW Custom Papers, LLC, as successor-in-interest to The Mead
Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Albert Smyth, III --
jsmyth@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC.

Perrigo Company, Defendant, represented by Ben F. Galloway, III ,
Owen & Galloway, PLLC, Jeffrey Jerome Hines -- jjh@gdldlaw.com --
Goodell, Devries, Leech & Dann, LLP, pro hac vice, Joe Sam Owen ,
Owen, Galloway & Myers, PLLC, Michael A. Pichini -- map@gdldlaw.com
-- Goodell, Devries, Leech & Dann, LLP, pro hac vice & Richard
Matthew Barnes -- rmb@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell, Devries, Leech &
Dann, LLP, pro hac vice.

Trinity Marine Products, Inc., for its Nabrico brand of products,
Defendant, represented by Allen E. Graham --
teeto.graham@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Barbara L. Arras --
barbara.arras@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP, pro hac vice &
James G. Wyly, III -- jim.wyly@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Clare Smith Rush
-- CRush@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy,
LLC.

Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard M. Crump --
RCrump@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy,
LLC & Charles Chan E. McLeod -- CMcLeod@maronmarvel.com -- Maron
Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Admits to Asbestos Fraud Scheme
------------------------------------------------------
Hudson Valley 360 reported that an Earlton woman who owns an
Albany-based asbestos testing firm pleaded guilty to scheming to
defraud 19 customers and collecting about $40,000 for services her
businesses wasn't licensed to provide, officials said.

Ronda M. Dolan, 51, who owns Albany Environmental Consultants LLC,
and project manager Brian K. McLaren, 54, of Troy, pleaded guilty
in Albany City Court to one count each of second-degree scheme to
defraud, a class A misdemeanor, according to a statement from
Attorney General Barbara Underwood.

Dolan, McLaren and the company are accused of illegally forging
documents to defraud customers into believing the company was
licensed by the state to test for asbestos and stealing another
company's licence number, according to the attorney general's
office.

Albany Environmental Consultants LLC, was also charged and pleaded
guilty to one count of first-degree scheme to defraud, a class E
felony, according to the attorney general's office.

The defendants were arraigned in Albany City Court and charged with
one count of first-degree identity theft, a class D felony; four
counts of third-degree grand larceny, a class D felony; two counts
of fourth-degree grand larceny, a class E felony, and one count of
first-degree scheme to defraud, a class E felony, according to the
attorney general's office.

"We all know about the extreme risks posed by asbestos exposure,"
Underwood said in a statement. "It is unconscionable that a company
would work without a New York license -- undermining the public
trust and risking the health of unsuspecting customers."

Albany Environmental Consultants had a state asbestos remediation
license until about August 2014. After the license expired, the
defendants forged their letterhead with a license number from
another company knowing they needed that license to perform
asbestos-related jobs, according to the attorney general.

The defendants took on 19 jobs without a legitimate license through
at least January 2015, according the attorney general.

During that time, the company is accused of stealing $40,000 from
clients including a hospital, firehouse, church, bus station,
manufacturing facility and individual homeowners throughout Albany,
Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Washington and
Westchester counties, according to the attorney general. The
clients had to have the asbestos work redone by a licensed
company.

Dolan's attorney, Dennis Schlenker, of Albany, declined to comment
on the legal proceedings. McLaren's attorney, Matthew Toporowski of
the Wagoner Firm in Albany, did not return calls for comment as of
press time.

Dolan, McLaren and the company's convictions were the result of a
joint investigation by the Attorney General's Criminal Enforcement
and Financial Crimes Bureau, in partnership with the state
Department of Environmental Conservation, the state Department of
Labor Asbestos Control Bureau and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.


                            *********

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.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, 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 ***