---

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

              Friday, August 31, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 175

                            Headlines

1701 MIAMI: Faces Luis Sierra Suit in Southern District of Florida
2009 BAMKP: Faces Martinez Suit in Southern District of New York
AGRI STATS: Phil's BBQ Alleges Price-Fixing of Pork
AIRE SERV: Faces Delacruz Suit in Southern District of New York
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: D. Syria's Suit Dismissed

ALLIQUA BIOMEDICAL: Court Dismisses Cresta Class Action
ANTHEM INC: Solorzano Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Under FLSA
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Action Settlement in "Pastor" Approved
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in A. Suarez's Wage Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Culpepper Seeks to Certify Class of Employees

BAR METHOD: Faces Delacruz Suit in Southern District of New York
BESIM KUKAJ: Macancela et al. Seek Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA
BEST BUY: Court Denies Certification of 2 Subclasses in "Harris"
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Master Settlement Reached in Mesh Litigation
CARRIER CORPORATION: Cormier Suit Transferred to C.D California

CASPER SLEEP: Court Dismisses 3 Privacy Policy Suits
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces Felendler Suit in E.D. New York
CENTURY FINANCIAL: Faces Thoby Suit in District of Connecticut
CERTIFIED LEGAL FUNDING: Taylor Seeks to Certify Class
CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: 10th Cir. Appeal Filed in Meier Suit

CINEMARK USA: Court Certifies Class of Employees in "Amey" Suit
CLIENT SERVICES: Stoessel Sues over Debt Collection Practices
COLLATERAL INVESTIGATIONS: Rogers Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA
COMSCORE INC: Shares Issued in Fresno Retirees' Case Settlement
COMSOCRE INC: Continues to Defend Privacy Suit

CONSOL ENERGY: Fitzwater Seeks to Certify Class
CROSSROADS TRAINING: Faces Wu Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
CYA MANAGEMENT: Faces Rosa Suit in Southern District of New York
DASH LUBE: Moreno Seeks Overtime Premiums under FLSA
DIAMOND RESORTS: Faces Bartine et al. Suit in M.D. Florida

DISH DBS: Unit Files Appeal in Krakauer Class Action
DOLES GRILL: Navarro Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
DOLLAR GENERAL: Weller Seeks to Certify Class
DON MCGILL: Wheeler Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
DUNES FOOD: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Santiago et al., Say

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Thoby Sues over Debt Collections Practices
E.I. DU PONT: Dunne Suit Moved to Texas Eastern District Court
EAST LAKE MANAGEMENT: White Sues over Outdated RLTO Summaries
EGALET CORP: Court Grants Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
EIGER BIOPHARMA: Trial Underway in Cupid 2 Data Case Appeal

ELECTRONIC ARTS: 2nd Class Certification Motion in "Davis" Denied
EQUITABLE ACCEPTANCE: Faces Williams et al. Suit in S.D.N.Y.
EXPEDIA INC: Buckeye Tree et al. Seek to Certify Class
FACEBOOK INC: Inflates "Potential Reach" Data, Danielle Singer Says
FAMILY DOLLAR: Ziegler Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA

FANNIE MAE: Certification of Four Classes Sought
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Fails to Disclose Material Info, Mariconda Says
FCA US LLC: Tomassini Appeals N.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Cir.
FIDELITY SECURITY: Barrett Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
FIRST NATIONAL: Court Won't Dismiss C. Lundquist's Suit

FITNESS & SPORTS: Faces Cheshire Suit in S.D. Florida
FIVE STAR: Cheeney Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
FIVE STAR: Faces Delacruz Suit in Southern District of New York
FLIGHT SERVICES: Settlement in Workers' Suit Has Prelim Approval
FLIK INTERNATIONAL: Clarke's Class Certification Bid Granted

FORSTER & GARBUS: Court Stays Proceedings in Bencomo Suit
GC SERVICES: Faces Golod Suit in Eastern District of New York
GC SERVICES: Lee Sues over Debt Collection Practices
GIORGIO SHELLFISH: Faces Lazarev Suit in E.D. New York
GOLDEN STATE FC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss R. Palma's Labor Suit

GOOD SHEPHERD: Rumreich Bid to Certify Collective Action Denied
GREENSPOON MARDER: Lapan Seeks to Certify Class
HARBOR FREIGHT: Sells Defective Chainsaws, Olmos & Caraballo Claim
INTEGRITY HOME: FLSA Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Appeal in NY ERISA Class Suit Ongoing

JACKSON NURSE: Musgrove Seeks to Certify Two Classes
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Hostetler's Class Certification Bid Denied
JUNK KING: Faces Delacruz Suit in Southern District of New York
KELLOGG SALES: Court Certifies 3 Subclasses in Hadley Suit
KICHO CORPORATION: Faces Chen Suit in Southern Dist. of New York

KIMBERLY-CLARK: Huggies Diapers Caused Rashes, Morales Says
KINGLY COACH: Faces Li Suit in Eastern District of New York
KNORR-BREMSE: Lucas Suit over No-Poach Deals Moved to Pennsylvania
KOHN LAW: Court Certifies FDCPA & FCRA Classes in "Rizzo" Suit
KROGER CO: Wins Summary Judgment in Coffelt Suit

LAS VEGAS, NV: D. Nelson's FLSA Suit Remanded to State Court
LASER AESTHETIC: Olwen Jaffe Sues over Junk Messages
LAWRENCE GROUP: Melton Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
LEGENDS HOSPITALITY: Faces Reyes Suit in E.D. New York
LIFE TIME: Faces Sullivan Suit in Southern District of New York

LJM PARTNERS: Melcher Sues over Collapse of Limited Partnership
MANHATTAN WELLNESS: Faces Delacruz Suit in S.D. New York
MARBLE AND GRANITE: Faces Alvarado Suit in District of New Jersey
MARKET AMERICA: Arbitration Granted in Distributorship Dispute
MARSHALLS OF CA: Failed to Pay Minimum & OT, Paulino Says

MCDONALD'S CORP: O'Neil Sues over Background Checks
MDL 2420: Indirect Purchasers Seek to Certify Two Classes
MDL 2695: Pontusson vs. Santa Fe Natural Consolidated
MEDI IP: Faces Delacruz Suit in Southern District of New York
MEDIMETRIKS PHARMA: Bid to Certify Class Terminated as Premature

MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Kola Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MERCED CITY, CA: Fails to Pay Overtime, Solis et al. Say
MERCK & CO: Firefighters' Fund Suit Alleges Conspiracy
MERRILL LYNCH: Court Allows Customers to Amend RICO Suit
MESA LABORATORIES: Faces Two Purported TCPA Class Suits

MIDLAND CREDIT: Connor Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
MILWAUKEE: Wilke Seeks to Certify Class Action vs. Sheriff
MR. SANDLESS: Faces Delacruz Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
NATUROPATHICA HOLISTIC: Faces Delacruz Suit in S.D.N.Y.
NEVADA: Bid to Decertify Class of NDOC Workers Denied

NEW ORLEANS: Court Certifies Class of OPCDC Indigent Criminal
NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in M. Roher's Medicaid Suit
NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in Suit vs. MTA, LIRR
NJRM INC: Rodino Asks Court to Approve Notice to Class
NORTHLAND GROUP: Court Dismisses I. Robinson's FDCPA Suit

NORTHSTAR LOCATIONS: Faces Feldman Suit in E.D. New York
OPENING CEREMONY: Faces Delacruz Suit in S.D. New York
OVERTON & RUSSELL: Faces Bonneau et al. Suit in N.D. New York
P.F. CHANG'S: Conditional Certification Bid in "Esry" Granted
PASSION FOOD: Faces Walker Suit in Eastern District of New York

PENNSYLVANIA: Court Narrows Claims in Inmate's HepC Suit
PENNSYLVANIA: Williams et al. Seek Okay of Settlement Class
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Arce Suit in District of Connecticut
PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Watkins Seeks Final Settlement Approval
PRH 1300: Faces Sierra Suit in Southern District of Florida

PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS: Tatarian Sues over Spam Text Messages
REGIONAL TRANS AUTHORITY: Singer Class Certification Bid Denied
RESORT SALES: Lopez Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
RESTAURANT EXPRESS: Burgess Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
RUSHMORE SERVICE: Faces Jackson Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York

SACHS ELECTRIC: Durham Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Mckibben Seeks to Certify Two Classes
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Initial Approval of Parmlee Case Accord Sought
SAWA SUSHI: Faces Zhao Suit in Eastern District of New York
SCANA CORP: Petition for Original Jurisdiction Pending

SEATTLE, WA: Dismissal of Traffic Ticket Refund Suit Affirmed
SEDGWICK, KS: Court Enters Show Cause Order in A. Ridley's Suit
SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Suit Pending
SERVICE CORPORATION: Bernstein Class Action Still Ongoing
SH 3 LTD: Bueso Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

SONO UCHI: Yuwono Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages under FLSA
SPIRAL SPINE: Faces Sullivan Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Lamoutte Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
STATE FARM: Faces Bally Suit in Northern District of California
SUDDATH VAN: Hervey Seeks to Certify Collective Action

SUMMIT CREDIT: Presiding Judge Refuses to Recuse from Action
SUNLIGHT MANAGEMENT: Faces Castillo Suit in S.D. New York
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Ct. Denies Motions re Overtime Claim Dispute
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Failed to Pay Minimum Wage, McNutt Says
TACO BELL: 9th Cir. Affirms Summ. Judgment Denial in "Rodriguez"

TNT CRANE: Repass et al. Seek to Certify Crane Operators Class
TOWER HILL: MSPA Sues over Medicare Reimbursements
TOWNHOUSE HOTEL: Faces Sierra Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
TP-LINK USA: Faces Gonzalez Suit in California Superior Court
TRANS-CONTINENTAL: Schonfeld Sues over Debt Collection Practices

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Malave Sues over Debt Collection Practices
UNITED STATES: Meredith et al. Sue over Dissemination of Tax Info
UNUM GROUP: City of Taylor Police Files SEC Class Suit in Tenn.
UNUM GROUP: Faces Cunningham Securities Suit in Tennessee
UNUM GROUP: Faces Pittman Securities Action in Tennessee

UNUM GROUP: Faces Suit by Taylor Police and Fire Retirement Sys.
US BANK: Court Precludes Discovery on Statistical Sampling
USA FITNESS: Pershes Sues over Spam Text Messages
VENATOR MATERIALS: Q4 Final Hearing to Approve TiO2 Case Accord
VITAL RECOVERY: Faces Cuebas Suit in Eastern Dist. of Wisconsin

VIZION ONE: Subclasses Conditionally Certified in Richardson Suit
WATER'S EDGE: Alobud Seeks Return of Tenants' Security Deposits
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Still Ongoing in Shanklin Suit
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Roberta Little Remains as Sole Plaintiff
WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL: Court Continues Stay of V. Freeman's Suit

WOOD GROUP: Nino Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
WWW.URBAN INC: Wheeler Sues over Unwanted Text Messages

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $29MM for Aearo-Related Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Accrues $631MM for Respirator Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 2,260 Claimants at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Abatement to Begin at Sahara Apartment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Claims Continue to Follow Albany Int'l.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Delayes Old City Jail Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Findings Pause Rental Homes Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Children's School Supplies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Talc Powder Causes Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal at Quanta Superfund Site Begins

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed From Florence Elem. School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Warning at Historic Courthouse Entrance
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankr. Judge Okayed Fraser's Settlement Agreement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Had 9,270 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Records $799.9MM Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Symphony Hall Tested for Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Christmas Market Cancelled After Asbestos Found
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Had $147MM Non-PCC Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $185MM PCC Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Dismissed Imerys Talc From "Stevenson" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crayons Test Positive of Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deshler Parents Upset Over Possible Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Claim vs. Lawes Affirmed on Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Engel Couple Sues 5 Cos. for Husband's Injuries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Pushes Back Asbestos Proposal Criticism

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Starts Asbestos Cleanup After Arson Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Equity LifeStyle, DAs Still in Talks at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Dist. Fined $31K for Asbestos Release
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Government May Allow New Asbestos Uses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Had $1.1BB Reserve at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Dept. Reacts to Loosened Asbestos Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hundreds of Kids Exposed to Footyfield Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: In-House Lawyers Object to EPA New Asbestos Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Irish Surgeon Dies of Asbestos-Related Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Laborer Alleges Lung Cancer From Asbestos Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Secures $40.1MM Asbestos Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manufacturer Held Liable for Asbestos Injury
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Widow Reacts to EPA Asbestos Proposal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nearly 10,000 People Has 9/11-Related Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Petition for Compensation for Asbestos Victims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Vicar Set for Asbestos Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Jun.30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Board Sued for Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Schools Found to Contain High Risk Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Son of Former Bethlehem Steel Welder Sues in Del.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Students at No Risk of Asbestos Health Problems
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Had $333.0MM Asbestos Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wittenoom Family Loses 13 Members to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Find Asbestos at 2nd Aberdeen School


                            *********

1701 MIAMI: Faces Luis Sierra Suit in Southern District of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1701 Miami (Owner)
LLC.  The lawsuit is captioned as Luis Sierra, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 1701
Miami (Owner) LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-23314-RNS (S.D. Fla., Aug. 15, 2018).
The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr.

1701 Collins (Miami) Owner, LLC was incorporated in 2010 and is
based in Los Angeles, California. 1701 Collins (Miami) Owner, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of SBE Entertainment Group, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          JESSICA L.KERR, P.A. DBA THE ADVOCACY GROUP
          200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 282 1858
          Facsimile: (844) 786 3694
          E-mail: service@advocacypa.com


2009 BAMKP: Faces Martinez Suit in Southern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 2009 Bamkp Corp. The
lawsuit is captioned as Efrain Martinez, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 2009 Bamkp
Corp., doing business as: La Antillana; St Nicholas JM Deli
Grocery, Inc., doing business as: La Antillana; and Pablo Peguero,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07414 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2018).
The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation.

La Antillana operates a supermarket.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


AGRI STATS: Phil's BBQ Alleges Price-Fixing of Pork
---------------------------------------------------
Phil's BBQ, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Agri Stats, Inc., Clemens Food
Group, LLC, Hormel Foods Corporation, Indiana Packers Corporation,
JBS USA, Seaboard Foods, LLC, Smithfield Foods, Inc., Triumph
Foods, LLC, Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc., and
Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-02390 (D.
Minn., Aug. 15, 2018), seeks to recover treble damages under United
States antitrust laws against Defendants.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself individually
and on behalf of a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who
purchased pork directly from any of the Defendants or their
subsidiaries or affiliates and their co-conspirators for use or
delivery in the United States from at least as early as January 1,
2009, until the present.  The United States pork industry, which
averages approximately $20 billion in annual commerce, is dominated
by a small number of large pork producers. In this highly
concentrated industry, pork integrator-Defendants and their
co-conspirators controlled, at all times relevant, over 80% of the
U.S. wholesale pork market.  The Plaintiff alleges, that in order
to maintain price stability and increase profitability, beginning
at least as early as January 1, 2009, the Defendants and their
co-conspirators conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize the price of pork. The principal, but not exclusive,
method by which Defendants and their co-conspirators implemented
and executed their conspiracy was by coordinating their output and
limiting production with the intent and expected result of
increasing pork prices in the United States. In furtherance of
their conspiracy, Defendants exchanged detailed, competitively
sensitive, and closely-guarded non-public information about pork
prices, capacity, sales volume, and demand, through third-party
co-conspirator, Agri Stats, Inc. The Plaintiff believes that
Defendants fraudulently concealed their anticompetitive conduct
from Plaintiff and the Class in furtherance of the conspiracy, and
as a result there may be other methods by which Defendants carried
out their conspiracy which presently are not known to Plaintiff and
the Class.

Agri Stats is a private information-sharing subscription service
that collects, analyzes, and then publishes data from agricultural
producers, such as pork and poultry producers, in the form of
confidential weekly reports to their paying subscribers[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          Roberta Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          W-1050 First National Bank Building
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287 2100
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                  r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496 0300
          E-mail: ESpector@srkattorneys.com
                  JCorrigan@srkattorneys.com
                  JJagher@srkattorneys.com
                  JSpector@srkattorneys.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
          BONI ZACK & SNYDER LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822 0200
          E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
                  jsnyder@bonizack.com

               - and -

          Lee Albert, Esq.
          Brian Murray, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          New York Helmsley Building
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682 5340
          E-mail:labert@glancylaw.com
                  bmurray@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-3604
          Tel: (513) 345 8297
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
                  tnaylor@gs.legal.com

               - and -

          Richard R. Gordon, Esq.
          GORDON LAW OFFICES, LTD.
          111 West Washington Street Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 332 5200
          E-mail: rrg@gordonlawchicago.com

               - and -

          David P. McLafferty, Esq.
          MCLAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 940 4000
          E-mail: dpmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com

               - and -

          Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF
          CUNNINGHAM LLC
          111 West 2nd Street, Suite 1100
          Jamestown, NY 14701
          Telephone: (716) 664 2967
          E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com


AIRE SERV: Faces Delacruz Suit in Southern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aire Serv LLC. The
lawsuit is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Aire Serv LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07409 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2018). The
suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violations.

Aire Serv is a franchise organization providing installation and
maintenance of heater or air conditioner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: D. Syria's Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANA SYRIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES
MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-1139 TSZ (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Defendant
AllianceOne's motion for summary judgment.

Pursuant to RCW 3.02.045(1), the King County District Court entered
into a contract with AllianceOne pursuant to which AllianceOne
would collect for the King County District Court unpaid legal
financial obligations ("LFOs") imposed in connection with criminal
sentences.  The contract between the King County District Court and
AllianceOne was in effect from Aug. 1, 2009, through July 31, 2010,
and then automatically renewed for one-year terms thereafter, until
it was terminated.  Under the agreement, AllianceOne absorbed all
costs in processing credit cards, and it could charge and retain a
"nominal convenience fee" for credit card transactions.
AllianceOne's credit card fee is the subject of the litigation.

During the relevant period, AllianceOne accepted payment via cash,
check, or money order without charging a transaction fee.
AllianceOne was not required to permit payment by credit card, but
it did so as a convenience to debtors.  In contrast to cash
payments, which require a debtor to travel to a courthouse pay
station, credit card transactions could be completed online or by
phone.  Moreover, unlike payments by check, credit card
transactions were not subject to any waiting period, and were
immediately posted in the same manner as cash.  Thus, by using a
credit card, a debtor could wait until the due date to make payment
without incurring any late penalties.

In written communications with debtors, AllianceOne advised that a
convenience fee would be charged for each credit card transaction.
The convenience fee was initially $5, but increased to $10 during
the timeframe at issue in the litigation.  In addition, when
debtors called or went online to make credit card payments, they
were told about the associated transaction fee, as well as the
fee-free payment options, namely walk-in cash payments or payments
by check via mail.

On July 22, 2010, Syria pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, and the
King County District Court imposed LFOs in the amount of $1,720.50.
etween November 2011 and October 2012, the Plaintiff made four
payments to AllianceOne via credit card in connection with the LFOs
imposed by the King County District Court, and each time incurred a
$10 charge for using a credit card.

The Plaintiff alleges that AllianceOne's assessment of credit card
fees was prohibited by Washington's Collection Agency Act ("WCAA")
and therefore constituted an unfair or deceptive trade practice in
violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA").  She
asserts her CPA claim on behalf of a class of all persons who paid
AllianceOne a transaction fee for use of a credit or debit card to
pay down an alleged debt.

AllianceOne now moves for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of
the Plaintiff's CPA claim.  

Judge Zilly explains that under the WCAA, a "claim" is an
obligation for the payment of money or thing of value arising out
of any agreement or contract, express or implied. LFOs do not arise
out of an agreement or contract, but are imposed by a court in
connection with criminal sentencing.

Moreover, even if the WCAA section at issue governs, he concludes,
as a matter of law, that the statute permitted AllianceOne to
impose credit card transaction fees as part of the collection
costs6 or handling fees expressly authorized by statute.  Courts of
limited jurisdiction, like the King County District Court, are
allowed to use credit cards and/or debit cards to collect unpaid
penalties, fines, costs, assessments, and forfeitures, to enter
into agreements relating to debt collection that specify
conditions, remuneration for services, and other charges deemed
appropriate, and to assess as court costs the amounts paid to
collection agencies or financial institutions.  Credit card
transaction fees fall within the other charges deemed appropriate
that may be included in LFOs, and they were part of the explicit
terms of the agreement between the King County District Court and
AllianceOne.  AllianceOne did not violate RCW 19.16.250(21) by
imposing the $10 credit card fees at issue.

In addition to not qualifying as a "per se" unfair or deceptive
trade practice, the Judge finds that the collection of credit card
transaction fees does not satisfy the jurisprudential standards for
unfair or deceptive acts or practices.  The Plaintiff was not
forced to use a credit card to pay her LFOs, but instead chose to
do so despite being advised of the transaction fee and of the other
fee-free options for making payment.  Nothing about these
circumstances was unfair or deceptive.  Although the Plaintiff
objects to the amount of the credit card transaction fee, she has
presented no evidence to support her allegation that the amount
bore no rational relationship to the costs AllianceOne incurred in
connection with such transactions.

In sum, the Plaintiff has not shown that the imposition of credit
card transaction fees in any way offended public policy, was
immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous, caused substantial
injury to consumers, competitors, or other businesses, or involved
a representation, omission, or practice that was likely to mislead
a reasonable person and had  the capacity to deceive a substantial
portion of the public.  Because the Plaintiff cannot establish the
first element of a CPA claim, her CPA claim against AllianceOne
must be dismissed.


For the foregoing reasons, Judge Zilly granted the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment, and dismissed with prejudice Syria's
first claim for violation of Washington's CPA.  In light of this
ruling, he struck AllianceOne's motions to decertify the class, and
to bifurcate and stay the class claims, as well as the Plaintiff's
motion to certify questions to the Washington Supreme Court.  He
also struck the hearing set for Aug. 2, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.  

The Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Transworld Systems Inc.
("TSI") remain pending, and the Court will separately address the
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement with TSI.

No just reason for delay existing, the Clerk is directed to enter
partial judgment in favor of AllianceOne and against the Plaintiff
consistent with the Order and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b).  The Clerk is further directed to send a copy of
the Order and the partial judgment in favor of AllianceOne to all
the counsel of record.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/pfeMfD from Leagle.com.

Dana Syria, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Berger --
berger@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Jason D.
Anderson -- jason@alkc.net -- Anderson Santiago, PLLC, Lindsay Halm
-- halm@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER & Thomas Tyler
Santiago -- tyler@alkc.net -- ANDERSON LAW OF KING COUNTY, PLLC.

Transworld Systems Inc, Defendant, represented by Bryan C. Shartle
-- shartle@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL LLC,
pro hac vice, Mallory L. Satre -- msatre@corrcronin.com -- CORR
CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP, Damian Patrick
Richard -- drichard@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN &
ISRAEL, LLP & Emily J. Harris -- eharris@corrcronin.com -- CORR
CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP.


ALLIQUA BIOMEDICAL: Court Dismisses Cresta Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Alliqua BioMedical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the putative stockholder
class action suit initiated by Ronald Cresta has been closed.

On February 22, 2018, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware against the Company and each member of the Board,
captioned Ronald Cresta, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Alliqua BioMedical Inc., David Johnson,
Joseph M. Leone, Gary Restani, Jeffrey Sklar and Mark Wagner. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the
Board violated federal securities laws and regulations by
soliciting stockholder votes in connection with the AST through a
proxy statement that omits material facts necessary to make the
statements therein not false or misleading.

The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the Company and
the Board from conducting the stockholder vote on the AST unless
and until the allegedly omitted material information is disclosed
to the Company's stockholders, damages allegedly suffered by the
plaintiffs as a result of the asserted omissions, as well as
related attorneys' fees and expenses.

On April 4, 2018, the court approved the parties' stipulation and
proposed order to withdraw the motion for preliminary injunction
and dismiss the action and the case was closed.

The court retained jurisdiction of the action solely for
determining any potential fee application if the parties are unable
to reach agreement and a fee application becomes necessary.

Alliqua BioMedical, Inc., a regenerative technologies company,
commercializes regenerative medical products that assist the body
in the repair or replacement of soft tissue. The company is
headquartered in Yardley, Pennsylvania.


ANTHEM INC: Solorzano Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
ROSA SOLORZANO, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ANTHEM, INC. and AMERIGROUP
NEW YORK, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04600 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid minimum wages, and spread of hours compensation, for
Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers who have worked
for Defendants in New York as Medicaid Marketing Representatives,
also known as Facilitated Enrollers and Certified Application
Counselors -- Marketing Representatives -- under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the Wage Theft Prevention
Act of 2011.

According to the complaint, while employed by Defendants,
Plaintiffs consistently worked over 40 hours per week without
receiving premium overtime pay for all the hours they worked.
Throughout the relevant period, it was Defendant's policy to
deprive Plaintiffs of all of their earned overtime wages in
violation of the FLSA and the NYLL. In order to avoid paying
Plaintiffs overtime premiums for all of the hours Plaintiffs worked
in excess of 40 per workweek, Defendants required its Marketing
Representatives to work "off-the-clock." The Defendants tracked its
Marketing Representatives' hours worked by requiring them to use a
computer program that logged their hours worked each day. Marketing
Representatives were not permitted to log all of their overtime
hours worked per workweek.

The Defendants are insurance companies, operating throughout the
United States, including New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradford D. Conover, Esq.
          Molly Smithsimon, Esq.
          CONOVER LAW OFFICES
          345 Seventh Avenue, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 588 9080
          E-mail: brad@conoverlaw.com
                  molly@conoverlaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Class Action Settlement in "Pastor" Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT A. PASTOR, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v.
BANK OF AMERICA, the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-03831-VC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order approving
class action settlement.

1. NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCESS:

Pursuant to the Court's orders, the Claims Administrator has
complied with the approved notice process as confirmed in its
declaration filed with the Court. The form and method for notifying
the Settlement Class members of the settlement and its terms and
conditions was in conformity with this Court's Preliminary Approval
Order and Supplemental Preliminary Order and satisfied the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) and due process, and
constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances.
The Court finds that the notice process was clearly designed to
advise the Settlement Class members of their rights. Further, the
Court finds that the claim process set forth in the Agreement was
followed and that the process was the best practicable procedure
under the circumstances.

2. FINAL CLASS CERTIFICATION:

The Court again finds that the Lawsuit satisfies the applicable
prerequisites for class action treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23:


   A. The Settlement Class members are so numerous that joinder
      of all of them in the Lawsuit would be impracticable;

   B. There are questions of law and fact common to the
      Settlement Class members, which predominate over any
      individual questions;

   C. The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the
      Settlement Class members;

   D. The Plaintiff and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately
      represented and protected the interests of all the
      Settlement Class members; and

   E. Class treatment of these claims will be efficient and
      manageable, thereby achieving an appreciable measure of
      judicial economy, and a class action is superior to other
      available methods for a fair and efficient adjudication of
      this controversy.

   F. The Court finds that the settlement of the Lawsuit, on the
      terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, is in all
      respects fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
      interests of the Settlement Class members, especially in
      light of the benefits to the Settlement Class members, the
      strength of the Plaintiffs' case, the complexity, expense
      and probable duration of further litigation, the risk and
      delay inherent in possible appeals, and the risk of
      collecting any judgment obtained on behalf of the class.

3. SETTLEMENT TERMS:

The Agreement, which has been filed with the Court and shall be
deemed incorporated herein, and the proposed settlement are finally
approved and shall be consummated in accordance with the terms and
provisions thereof, except as amended by any order issued by this
Court. The material terms of the Agreement include, but are not
limited to, the following:

   A. Defendant shall pay each of the 114,512 claimants that made
      a timely and valid claim $4.06;

   B. Defendant shall pay to Class Counsel the sum of $431,250 in
      attorneys' fees and $19,023.42 for costs incurred in
      litigating this action.

4. EXCLUSIONS:

A total of 33 exclusions were received. Those persons requesting
exclusion are named on Exhibit A to this Order. The Court hereby
excludes these individuals from the class and settlement.

5. OBJECTIONS:

The Settlement Class members were given an opportunity to object to
the settlement. No Settlement Class members filed objections.

6. RELEASE OF CLAIMS AND DISMISSAL OF LAWSUIT:

The Class Representative, Settlement Class members, and their
successors and assigns are permanently barred and enjoined from
instituting or prosecuting, either individually or as a class, or
in any other capacity, any of the Released Claims against any of
the Released Parties, as set forth in the Agreement. Pursuant to
the release contained in the Agreement, the Released Claims are
compromised, discharged, and dismissed with prejudice by virtue of
these proceedings and this Order.

The Court said, "The Lawsuit is hereby dismissed with prejudice in
all respects. This Order is not, and shall not be construed as, an
admission by Defendant of any liability or wrongdoing in this or in
any other proceeding. The motion for attorneys' fees and costs is
also granted. The plaintiffs are awarded $431,250 in fees and
$19,023.42 in costs. Ten percent of the fee award must be withheld
by the settlement administrator until the Court approves its
release, which will be after plaintiffs' counsel files a notice of
completion of duties. The requested $5,000 incentive fee for each
named plaintiff is approved. Without affecting the finality of this
Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice, the Court
hereby retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the
Parties and all matters relating to the Lawsuit and/or Agreement,
including the administration, interpretation, construction,
effectuation, enforcement, and consummation of the settlement and
this order. No later than 120 days after settlement checks are
distributed, plaintiffs' counsel must file a notice of completion
of duties which certifies that the settlement administration
process is complete, explains how many checks were distributed and
cashed, explains how much money is left in the settlement fund,
describes any problems that occurred during the settlement
administration process and explains how they were addressed, and
seeks approval of distribution to a cy-pres beneficiary. The notice
of completion of duties should be accompanied by a proposed order
releasing the remainder of attorneys' fees, and may be submitted as
an administrative motion under Civil Local Rule 7-11."


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in A. Suarez's Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned ARIANNA SUAREZ, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01202-MEJ (N.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiff brought a total of twenty causes of action. She
asserted her first through eighth causes of action under the
California Labor Code on behalf of the proposed class: (1) failure
to compensate for all hours worked, (2) failure to pay minimum
wage, (3) failure to provide meal and rest periods, (4) failure to
provide adequate time off, (5) failure to pay PTO on termination,
(6) failure to pay final wages on time, (7) failure to maintain
accurate records, and (8) failure to furnish wage and hour
statements.  The Plaintiff's twentieth cause of action, asserted on
behalf of the proposed class, was a claim under California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL).

First and Second Causes of Action

The Plaintiff asserts her first cause of action, failure to
compensate for all hours worked under California Labor Code
sections 200-204, 218, 223, 225.5, 226, 500, 510, 558, 1194,
1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198. She asserts her second cause of
action failure to pay minimum wage under Labor Code sections 223
and 1194. The Defendant argues her first cause of action fails to
give adequate notice of the relief sought because she simply cites
various California Labor Code sections without sufficient factual
allegations to comply with the Rule 8 pleading standards.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff asserting a claim to
overtime payments must allege that she worked more than forty hours
in a given workweek without being compensated for the overtime
hours worked during that workweek.

Here, the Plaintiff alleges she worked more than eight hours in a
day and more than forty hours in a week on multiple occasions. She
also provides specific examples. For instance, in the last week of
October 2015 and the first week of November 2015, the Plaintiff
worked more than eight hours in a day, arriving at 9:00 a.m. and
clocking out at 7:00 p.m. or 7:30 p.m. During the same time, the
Plaintiff worked approximately 45 hours per week. These allegations
are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's
factual allegations plausibly support the inference that Defendant
failed to pay her overtime when it was owed on at least one
occasion. That is enough under Landers.

The Court denies Bank of America's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's first and second causes of action.

Third Cause of Action

The Plaintiff brings her third cause of action, failure to provide
meal and rest periods  under California Labor Code sections 226.7
and 512, and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders.  The
Defendant moves to dismiss this cause of action for failure to
state a claim for putative class relief.

Here, the Plaintiff alleges Bank of America failed to consistently
provide meal and rest breaks and that Plaintiff was reprimanded by
her supervisor when she would try to take such breaks. For
instance, in the last week of June 2015, the bank was understaffed
and the Plaintiff was ordered to work as a teller during the entire
shift. Jerez-Lee told the Plaintiff she could not take a break from
serving as a teller unless someone took over for her, yet nobody
was available to cover for the Plaintiff during the entire shift.
The Plaintiff personally observed the same thing happen to
co-workers.

The Plaintiff further alleges that, though she had almost never
received an uninterrupted meal or rest break, her supervisor
prevented her from indicating on her records that she had not taken
a meal break. In addition, she alleges other Bank of America
employees were denied their meal and rest breaks and the Defendant
failed to make premium payments after the missed breaks.

The Court finds the Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient at this
stage in the case. The Plaintiff is not required to allege the
non-existence of something, such as rest periods, with any greater
specificity than she has done here. And, the Plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of hourly employees who worked "as Assistant
Manager or similar job titles. She alleges she personally observed
the same thing happen to co-workers. The Court finds the
Plaintiff's allegations sufficient to put the Defendant on notice
that class members were required to work through breaks.

The Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
third cause of action for failure to provide meal and rest
periods.

Fifth Cause of Action

The Plaintiff's fifth cause of action alleges she had accrued but
unused vacation time upon her termination from employment with
Defendants, but Defendants failed and refused to pay Plaintiff and
Class Members for the value of that time upon termination.
Defendant argues Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim for
relief because she recites no facts in her FAC regarding the
specific contract terms providing for paid vacation time, sick
leave, or PTO and she pleads no facts plausibly supporting her
belief that she was not paid all accrued vacation.

The Plaintiff alleges Bank of America's PTO policy is located on
its internal system, which employees access at
www.BankofAmerica.com/Associate. She alleges she worked enough
hours to accrue vested vacation PTO and the amount accrued was
available through the website. After her termination, Plaintiff
received a paycheck but no paystub which may have been for accrued
and vested PTO. And, as she is no longer an employee, she is unable
to access her accrued and vested PTO data.

The Plaintiff states she does not have copies of documents that
would reveal the amount of unpaid, accrued, vested vacation PTO
because she previously accessed such information solely through the
designated website, but she intends to conduct discovery to obtain
data to prove that she was not paid all accrued, vested, vacation
PTO.

The Court finds these allegations sufficient. And, because the
policy is applicable to potential class members, her class claim is
also sufficient at this stage in the case.

The Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
fifth cause of action for failure to provide PTO at termination.

Sixth Cause of Action

The Plaintiff brings her sixth cause of action for failure to pay
final wages on time under Labor Code sections 201 through 204.
Defendant argues Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to
support her claim, including any allegation that Defendant acted
willfully.

The Defendant also argues Plaintiff's section 203 claim fails to
the extent it relies on a failure to make section 226.7 meal and
rest period payments at termination because section 226.7 payments
do not constitute wages earned" under California Labor Code section
201. Two California Supreme Court cases have addressed this issue
in other contexts. In Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Products., Inc., the
California Supreme Court held that meal and rest premiums sought
under section 226.7 are wages for statute of limitations purposes.
40 Cal.4th 1094, 1113 (2007). There, the appellant argued that
payments ordered for meal and rest period violations were penalties
and therefore subject to the statute of limitations related to
penalties.  

The Court disagreed, holding the payments were wages and fell under
the statute of limitations for statutory liabilities other than
penalties, including related to wages. The Court noted that
payments for meal and rest period violations had a behavior-shaping
purpose, but were first and foremost meant to compensate employees
for their injuries. The Court concluded that payments for meal and
rest period violations were wages, rather than penalties, and
therefore fell under the statute of limitations related to wages.

The Court denies the Defendant's motion as to the Plaintiff's sixth
cause of action for failure to pay waiting time penalties.

Eighth Cause of Action

The Plaintiff's eighth cause of action asserts Bank of America
failed to furnish wage and hour statements as required by Labor
Code section 226. Defendant argues Plaintiff fails to allege any
facts plausibly suggesting she or any putative class members
suffered the requisite injury because the wage statements were not
inaccurate as to the wages actually paid to her.

The Defendant also argues meal and rest period premiums need not
appear on wage statements because they are liquidated damages, not
wages. Courts have split as to whether premiums for meal and rest
periods are wages for the purpose of accurate pay statements, but
the majority of courts have held that meal and rest premiums are
wages, finding the holding in Murphy remains controlling: that the
additional hour of pay premium owed for meal and rest violations is
a wage and must be included in pay statements. This Court agrees
with the majority position that because Murphy (Murphy, 40 Cal. 4th
at 1113) held meal and rest premiums are wages, a plaintiff can
bring a claim for failure to accurately describe these wages on pay
statements.  

Thus, the Plaintiff adequately pleads that she did not receive an
accurate wage statement.

The Court denies Bank of America's motion as to Plaintiff's eighth
claim for failure to provide accurate wage statements.

Ninth Cause of Action

The Plaintiff brings an individual cause of action for unlawful
retaliation in violation of public policy pursuant to California
Labor Code sections 98.6, 230, 232, 232.5, and 1102.5.  As an
initial matter, Defendant argues Plaintiff's claims for violations
of sections 230, 232 and 232.5 should be dismissed because her FAC
is devoid of any allegations relevant to those sections.

The Plaintiff alleges she tried to take meal and rest breaks, to
which she was entitled, despite being reprimanded for doing so by
her supervisor. Plaintiff alleges she was forced to skip meal
breaks, but her supervisor then prevented her from indicating on
her records that she had been denied such meal periods. She further
alleges: Before Plaintiff complained about break violations,
Jerez-Lee would approve requests for time off as a general matter
and did not revoke this approval.

Immediately after Plaintiff complained about break violations, the
Branch Manager would refuse Plaintiff's requests for time off.
Plaintiff contends Jerez-Lee also began approving days off, then
revoking the approval approximately one to two days before the
planned day off. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim
for retaliation under the California Labor Code. However, to the
extent Plaintiff seeks to bring a claim based on her maternity
leave, taking maternity leave is not a protected activity under the
Labor Code.  

The Court denies the Defendant's motion as to the Plaintiff's
retaliation claim under sections 98.6 and 1102.5.

Tenth and Eleventh Causes of Action

The Plaintiff's tenth cause of action asserts an individual Tameny
claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Her
eleventh cause of action asserts a claim for discrimination and
harassment in violation of FEHA.  

The Defendant argues her claims fail because the FAC is vague as to
the protected characteristic that forms the basis of her
discrimination claim, noting Plaintiff includes allegations
regarding pregnancy, a back injury, and gestational diabetes.

The Plaintiff also alleges that, due to her gestational diabetes,
when she was in the restroom checking her insulin, her manager
would ask what she was doing in there and would ask her to come
help customers quickly. When Plaintiff was on the way to the
restroom to check her blood sugar, her manager would say, `Can you
wait? This treatment was frequent, severe, and pervasive. These
allegations sufficiently put Defendant on notice as to the facts
supporting her claim that a discriminatory motive was a substantial
factor in the decision.  

The Court finds these allegations are sufficient. At this stage,
Plaintiff is not required to present facts proving a prima facie
case; rather, Iqbal merely requires sufficient factual matter to be
alleged that permits a plausible inference that a prima facie case
has been stated.

The Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
tenth and eleventh causes of action for wrongful termination in
violation of public policy and for discrimination and harassment in
violation of FEHA.

Twelfth Cause of Action

The Plaintiff's twelfth cause of action alleges Bank of America
failed to prevent and investigate harassment and discrimination
against Plaintiff in violation of FEHA. FEHA requires an employer
to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring.
It also makes it unlawful for an employer . . . to fail to take all
reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment
from occurring. Plaintiff alleges she complained about the
harassment and discrimination to one her managers, but Defendants
did not investigate Plaintiff's complaints or take action to stop
the harassment and discrimination. Defendant's sole argument in
support of its motion to dismiss this claim is: For the same
reasons that Plaintiff cannot state claims for discrimination,
harassment, and retaliation under the FEHA, Plaintiff's wholly
derivative Twelfth Cause of Action for failure to prevent and
investigate discrimination and harassment also fails as a matter of
law. However, as discussed above, those claims survive.

The Court denies the Defendant's motion as to Plaintiff's twelfth
cause of action for failure to investigate.

Twentieth Cause of Action

The Plaintiff's twentieth and final cause of action asserts a UCL
violation for unfair business practices. An action based on the UCL
to redress an unlawful business practice borrows' violations of
other laws and treats these violations as unlawful practices,
independently actionable under sections 17200 and subject to the
distinct remedies provided thereunder. Defendant argues Plaintiff's
claim fails as a matter of law to the extent it is wholly
derivative of her claims and allegations that do not satisfy the
pleading requirements of Rule 8. However, Plaintiff's UCL claim
rises and falls with the substantive causes of action already
discussed. As those claims remain, dismissal of her UCL claim is
inappropriate.

The Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
UCL cause of action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y9eshu72 from Leagle.com.

Arianna Suarez, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Noel Ilg --
silg@ilglegal.com -- Ilg Legal Office, P.C., Frank Joseph Zeccola
-- fzeccola@ilglegal.com -- Ilg Legal Office, P.C. & Tracy Scanlan
, Ilg Legal Office, P.C.

Bank of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Sylvia Jihae
Kim -- skim@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP & Michael David
Mandel -- mmandel@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.


BANK OF AMERICA: Culpepper Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled AILEEN CULPEPPER, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. BANK
OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00264-VAB (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23(a) and 23(b):

      "all current and former employees of Defendants who were
      employed as Inbound Specialists in Connecticut at any time
      after February 16, 2015 through the date of final judgment
      in this action"; and

   2. designating her as Class Representative; and to designating
      her counsel, The Hayber Law Firm, LLC, as class counsel.

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Thomas J. Durkin, Esq.
          HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 Main St., Ste. 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522 8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218 9555
          E-mail: tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com


BAR METHOD: Faces Delacruz Suit in Southern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Bar Method
Franchising Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. The Bar Method Franchising Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07545 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2018). The case alleges Americans
with Disabilities Act violations.

The Bar Method Media owns and operates fitness studios with
exercise rooms, spas, locker rooms, and retail/beverage counters.
It offers a workout method that is formed by integrating the fat
burning format of interval training, the muscle shaping technique
of isometrics, the elongating principles of dance conditioning, and
the science of physical therapy to reshape the entire body.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


BESIM KUKAJ: Macancela et al. Seek Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN MACANCELA, CRISTIAN ASITIMBAY, MARIO ASITIMBAY, EDISON
MACANCELA, MILTON QUIZHPILEMA, EDUARDO YUNGA, VLADIMIR YUNGA,
FELIPE VEGA-LOYOLA, VICTOR GONZALEZ, JUAN AGAPITO CARRANZA, ROGELIO
DE JESUS SANTOS, DIEGO A. ESTRADA AND CORTEZ, and JOSE VAZQUEZ
REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. BESIM KUKAJ d/b/a BKUK GROUP and BKUK NYC
Restaurant Group, BKUK CORPORATION d/b/a Cara Mia, BKUK 1 CORP.
d/b/a Pecorino Pizzeria, BKUK 3 CORP. d/b/a La Carbonara, BKUK 5
CORP., BKUK 6 CORP. d/b/a Gallo Nero, BKUK 7 CORP. d/b/a Gallo Nero
II and El Gallo de Oro, BKUK 8 CORP. d/b/a Serenata Mexican
Restaurant, BKUK 9 CORP. d/b/a Lime Jungle Empanadas, BKUK 10 CORP.
d/b/a CaraMia and Cara Mia 2, ZUCCA TRATTORIA INC. d/b/a Taqueria
Mez-A and Gallo Nero, PIO RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a Luna Piena, 9TH
AVENUE LIME JUNGLE INC. d/b/a Limon Jungle, B & R SORRENTO CORP.
d/b/a Intermezzo, 319 WEST 51ST ST. RESTAURANT CORP. a/k/a 319 W
51st St Inc. d/b/a Maria Pia Restaurant, and GALLO NERO W 44TH INC.
d/b/a Gallo Nero, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07507 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 17, 2018), seeks to minimum wages and overtime pay under the
New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Besim Kukaj is a restaurateur with a
history of underpaying workers at more than a dozen restaurants he
owns, controls, operates and manages in Manhattan. He has coerced
large numbers of low-wage workers -- including many who speak
little or no English -- to continue working for him for less than
legal wages by retaining the workers' first two paychecks as
"security" and by firing anyone who insists on being paid what the
law requires.  Mr. Kukaj and his companies have stolen paychecks,
wages and tips from at least 100 restaurant workers in every way
imaginable, including by never giving them the paychecks that were
withheld as "security," failing to pay for all hours worked,
failing to pay minimum wages, failing to pay overtime rates after
40 hours per workweek, failing to pay spread of hours compensation
after 10 hours worked in a single day, failing to provide required
wage notices, and repeatedly giving workers paychecks that could
not be cashed due to insufficient funds.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Howley, Esq.
          THE HOWLEY LAW FIRM P.C.
          350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 601 2728


BEST BUY: Court Denies Certification of 2 Subclasses in "Harris"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned STARVONNA HARRIS, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. BEST BUY STORES, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00446-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam entered an order on
Aug. 16, 2018:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

      Wage Statement Subclass comprises:

      "all nonexempt individuals employed by DEFENDANT in
      California who received wage statements containing one or
      more "Previous Period Hrs" entries, (2) all members of the
      Overtime Wage Subclass, and (3) all non-exempt individuals
      employed by DEFENDANT in California who received wage
      statements listing hours worked that do not match the hours
      worked in their time records for the same pay periods
      [during the applicable limitations period]"; and

      Waiting Time Subclass includes

      "all non-exempt individuals formerly employed by DEFENDANT
       in California who either did not receive their final
      hourly wages on the date their employment was terminated or
      within 72 hours of their resignation” during the applicable

      limitations period."

   2. granting Defendant's motion for leave to file a response to
      plaintiff's objections and request to exclude evidence; and

   3. denying Plaintiff's motions for relief from orders of the
      magistrate judge.

The Court said, "Even if Plaintiff could present a common question
to satisfy Rule 23(a), the Court concludes that individual issues
predominate over common ones pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiff
does not dispute that her expert, to assess the number of untimely
payments, simply identified instances in which an employee's Oracle
termination date occurred before their final payout as recorded by
Best Buy's Payroll Department. See Opp. at 24; Reply at 12–15.
Based on that analysis, Plaintiff claims that "[o]ne simply needs
to compare the termination date with the final payment date" for
common proof of untimely payments. Reply at 14. Plaintiff's
position ignores numerous other factual findings required to show
liability, including: (1) whether the employee voluntarily or
involuntarily resigned; (2) the information in the employees' ISN
or VSN and their MPR; (3) the day of the week the final payment was
due; (4) what days were actually worked and when; (5) when the
final pay was processed, how that pay was delivered, and, if the
payment was a direct deposit, when the individual’s financial
institution deposited that pay."


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Master Settlement Reached in Mesh Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company had
entered into master settlement agreements in relation to
transvaginal surgical mesh products suits.

As of July 24, 2018, approximately 49,500 product liability cases
or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed
to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have
been asserted against the company. The pending cases are in various
federal and state courts in the U.S. and include eight putative
class actions. There were also fewer than 25 cases in Canada,
inclusive of one certified and three putative class actions and
fewer than 25 claims in the United Kingdom.

Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with
use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs
assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of
warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and
loss of consortium claims. Over 3,100 of the cases have been
specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts.

On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the
federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, the company received written
discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices
regarding itstransvaginal surgical mesh products. The company had
responded to those requests.

As of July 24, 2018, the company had entered into master settlement
agreements in principle or are in the final stages of entering one
with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of
approximately 48,000 cases and claims. These master settlement
agreements provide that the settlement and distribution of
settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional upon,
among other things, achieving minimum required claimant
participation thresholds. Of the approximately 48,000 cases and
claims, approximately 27,000 have met the conditions of the
settlement and are final.

All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of
compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any
liability or wrongdoing.

Boston Scientific Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets
medical devices for use in various interventional medical
specialties worldwide. The company was founded in 1979 and is
headquartered in Marlborough, Massachusetts.


CARRIER CORPORATION: Cormier Suit Transferred to C.D California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled PAUL CORMIER and NICHOLAS SHONER,
the Plaintiffs, vs. CARRIER CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-00964, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in Los Angeles on Aug. 15, 2018. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-07030-DDP-PLA to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dean D. Pregerson.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages sustained by consumers and
contractors arising from a manufacturing defect that has caused
widespread failures of Thermal Expansion Valves in air conditioners
and heat pumps manufactured by Carrier.

Specifically, from late 2013 through at least late 2014, Carrier
manufactured HVAC systems with a chemical rust inhibitor that is
incompatible with the oil and/or refrigerants used in the HVAC
systems and creates a sticky substance that deposits inside the
system. The sticky substance is known to collect on TXVs, where it
causes degraded performance and, often, acute failure of the HVAC
systems.

Carrier quickly discovered the defect by at least as early as the
summer of 2014, and determined that the root cause was a rust
inhibitor called Ryconox, which had been applied to the compressor
motors by Carrier's supplier, Emerson Climate Technologies. Despite
knowing about this defect, however, Carrier continued to sell these
defective HVAC systems containing the rust inhibitor to
unsuspecting consumers without disclosing the defect so that
Carrier could offload its inventory of thousands of affected HVAC
systems. Even after Carrier eventually admitted the existence of
the manufacturing defect in dealer service bulletins in 2014,
Carrier never pulled the affected systems from the shelves of
distributors and never disclosed the defect to consumers.

Carrier Corporation is a brand of the UTC Climate, Controls and
Security division, based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: 860 526 1100
          Facsimile: 866 300 7367
          E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                  lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
          Zachary P. Beatty, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642 8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649 3633
          E-mail: tnm@chimicles.com
                  zpb@chimicles.com

Attorneys for Carrier Corporation:

          Andraya B. Pulaski, Esq.
          Jeffrey Mueller, Esq.
          DAY PITNEY LLP-HTFD-CT
          242 Trumbull St.
          Hartford, CT 06103-1212
          Telephone: (860) 275 0100
          Facsimile: (860) 275 0343
          E-mail: apulaski@daypitney.com
                  jmueller@daypitney.com

               - and -

          Daniel Bress, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 15th Street Nw, Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879 5152
          E-mail: daniel.bress@kirkland.com


CASPER SLEEP: Court Dismisses 3 Privacy Policy Suits
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the cases captioned
BRADY COHEN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CASPER SLEEP INC. and NAVISTONE, INC.,
Defendants; BRADY COHEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NAVISTONE, INC. and CHARLES
TYRWHITT, INC., Defendants; BRADY COHEN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NEW MOOSEJAW, LLC
and NAVISTONE, INC., Defendants. Nos. 17cv9325, 17cv9389, 17cv9391
(S.D.N.Y.).

The Defendants move to dismiss this putative class action alleging
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA),
Stored Communications Act (SCA), and New York General Business Law
(GBL).

NaviStone is a marketing company and data broker that offers
computer code (Code) to e-commerce retailers to help them identify
who visits their websites.

According to the Complaint, NaviStone maintains a database
containing profiles of U.S. consumers, including their names and
addresses. When users browse websites containing the Code,
NaviStone matches or compares, elements of the intercepted data to
its database. When there is a match, NaviStone de-anonymizes
website users and updates its database with the users' current
browsing activities and PII.   Cohen further alleges that Casper
violated its privacy policy (Privacy Policy).

Electronic Communications Privacy Act Claims

Section 2511 Claims

Here, Cohen fails to allege that the Defendants' primary motivation
at the time of the alleged interception was to commit a tort.
Instead, he claims that the Defendants' purpose was to collect
data, de-anonymize consumers, and disclose the de-anonymized data
to other parties, and that these purposes amount to GBL
violations.

That is not sufficient.

First, collecting data to de-anonymize consumers was not the
Defendants' primary motivation for installing the Code. Rather, it
was the means the Defendants used to achieve their real purpose,
marketing. Cohen admits exactly that. The Complaint further
demonstrates the Code's true purpose, as Cohen alleges that
NaviStone has partnered with hundreds of e-commerce websites, to
help these websites "unlock a new universe of 'ready to engage'
customer.

Second, Cohen fails to demonstrate that the Defendants' primary
purpose was to commit a tort. Instead, he claims that the
Defendants' conduct amounted to a tort.  But whether a tort was
committed is irrelevant -- the test is whether the Defendants
intended to commit a tort. Cohen offers nothing to show that the
Defendants intended to violate the GBL.

Section 2512 Claims

Cohen next raises a claim under 18 U.S.C. Section 2512, another
provision of the ECPA. Under Section 2512, it is unlawful to
possess devices specifically designed for wiretapping: Any person
who intentionally manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells any
electronic . . . device, knowing or having reason to know that the
design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose
of the surreptitious interception of electronic communications
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both. But there is no private cause of action available
under Section 2512.

In DirecTV, Inc. v. Treworgy, 373 F.3d 1124 (11th Cir. 2004), the
Eleventh Circuit held that a private cause of action did not exist
because (1) a private cause of action would be constitutionally
problematic, in that plaintiffs who suffered no injury in fact
would still be able to sue; (2) a plain reading of Section 2520
excludes claims based on mere possession by plaintiffs; and (3)
courts interpreting Section 2520 before it was amended in 1986 held
that there was no private cause of action, and nothing in the 1986
amendments expanded the class of violations giving rise to a civil
suit.

This Court agrees and holds that there is no private cause of
action under Section 2512.

Stored Communications Act Claim

The SCA creates liability for anyone who intentionally accesses
without authorization a facility through which an electronic
communication service is provided and thereby obtains, alters, or
prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication
while it is in electronic storage in such.

Cohen's reliance on Kaufman v. Nest Seekers, LLC, 2006 WL 2807177
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2006), is misplaced. There, the plaintiff
operated a website containing a multiple listing forum for brokers
to list and search for residential properties and to manage their
confidential client records, real estate listings, and
advertisements, which defendant hacked into. The website also
offered email service. The court held that plaintiff adequately
alleged that its website not a personal device was akin to a
facility through which an electronic communication service was
provided because it served as an electronic bulletin board" on
which users could post listings and access email service.   

Cohen makes no such allegations.

General Business Law Claims

Cohen brings claims under GBL Sections 349 and 350, which fall
under New York's deceptive acts and practices laws. Defendants
argue that (1) this Court should not exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over these state-law claims; and (2) even if there is
jurisdiction, Cohen fails to state a claim.

Jurisdiction

To establish federal jurisdiction under CAFA, plaintiffs must prove
to a reasonable probability that (1) there is minimal diversity
(meaning at least one defendant and one member of the putative
class are citizens of different states); (2) the putative class
exceeds 100 people; and (3) the amount in controversy is greater
than $5 million.

Cohen alleges that the nationwide class is in the millions. GBL
Ssection 349(a) states that the alleged misconduct must occur in
New York. Therefore, the GBL claims must relate to business
Defendants conducted in New York. Moreover, GBL Sections 349(h)
states that "damages shall be equal to actual damages or fifty
dollars, whichever is greater and that a court may, in its
discretion, increase the award of damages to an amount not to
exceed three times the actual damages up to one thousand dollars,
if the court finds the defendant willfully or knowingly violated
this section." As such, the minimum damages per violation would be
$50. And Cohen alleges intentional violations and asks this Court
to increase damages to three times the amount of actual damages.  

Therefore, to meet CAFA's amount-in-controversy requirement, even
at the bare minimum damages level of $50, there would need to be
100,000 class members who could sue under the GBL. Given the
population of New York State relative to the United States, and
that Cohen alleges there are millions in the nationwide class,
there is a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.

Therefore, this Court possesses original jurisdiction over the GBL
claims under CAFA.

Merits

Jurisdiction aside, Cohen fails to state a claim. GBL Section
349(a) provides that deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of
any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service
in this state are hereby declared unlawful. GBL Section 350 states,
False advertising in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce
or in the furnishing of any service in this state is hereby
declared unlawful. These statutes share the same elements: A
plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1)
consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and
that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly
deceptive act or practice. However, GBL Section 350 relates
specifically to false advertising.

Whether it was materially misleading is more open to question. But
even assuming the conduct was materially misleading, Cohen's
inability to identify a cognizable injury is fatal. To allege a
claim under the GBL, he must identify a connection between the
misrepresentation and any harm from, or failure of, the product.
Here, the only alleged injury is a general invasion of privacy
"through the exposure of personal and private information. Cohen
does not allege that any exposed information was particularly
sensitive or that it was exposed for any reason other than
marketing.

The Defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaints in these actions
are granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 12, 2018 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yafdvh9k from
Leagle.com.

Brady Cohen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented byNeal Jamison Deckant --
ndeckant@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Scott A. Bursor --
scott@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Casper Sleep Inc., Defendant, represented by Ian Ross Shapiro --
ishapiro@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Kyle C. Wong -- kwong@cooley.com
-- Cooley LLP, Michael Graham Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com --
Cooley LLP & Alexander Mirkin -- amirkin@offitkurman.com -- OFFIT
KURMAN, P.A.

NaviStone, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard Glen Menaker --
rmenaker@offitkurman.com -- Offit Kurman, P.A., Alexander Mirkin --
amirkin@offitkurman.com -- OFFIT KURMAN, P.A. & David Bertoni,
Branni & Isaacson.


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces Felendler Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Michael Felendler on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-04674 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2018). The case alleges Fair
Debt Collection Act violations.

Founded in 2002, Cavalry is a leader in the acquisition and
management of non-performing consumer loan portfolios. Cavalry
helps people create affordable solutions to resolve their debt and
is committed to providing customers with a professional
experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 668 6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


CENTURY FINANCIAL: Faces Thoby Suit in District of Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Century Financial
Services, Inc., et al. The lawsuit is captioned as Jenevieve Thoby
also known as: Jenny Thoby individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Century Financial Services,
Inc., doing business as: Century Healthcare Collection in
Connecticut, and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01404-SRU (D. Conn., Aug. 17, 2018). The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill. The case alleges Fair Debt
Collection Act violations.

Century Financial provides a secure payment portal for making
online payments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


CERTIFIED LEGAL FUNDING: Taylor Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RONALD TAYLOR, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CERTIFIED LEGAL
FUNDING, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00027-EAK-SPF (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class
of:

   "any and all persons who, within 4 years prior to the filing
    of this lawsuit, November 29, 2013, through the date of class
    certification:

    (1) entered into Agreements with Certified in the State of
        Florida; or

    (2) entered into Agreements with Certified in the State of
        Florida and were charged in excess of the maximum
        interest rate and fees allowed pursuant to Sections
        516.02, and 515.031, Florida Statutes."

According to Certified's president, between November 29, 2013 (the
starting date of the Class Period), and November 29, 2017, the
Defendant entered into standard form investment (loan) agreements
with over 1,000 individuals residing in Florida and 23 other
states, all of which Agreements contained Florida choice-of-law
provisions. As evidenced by the two Agreements Taylor entered into
with Certified in late 2011, the Agreements are loan agreements
whereby Certified loans money to personal injury
plaintiffs in exchange for their promises to pay Certified back out
of any funds they may receive from their pending lawsuits at 3.5%
interest per month, compounded monthly, plus "Origination Fees" and
"Processing Fees" in the hundreds of dollars each, such that they
uniformly charge on their faces interest in excess of 42% per
annum. Such Agreements are uniformly unlawful and not only
usurious, but also criminally usurious.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Craig E. Rothburd, Esq.
          CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A.
          320 W. Kennedy Blvd., No. 700
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 251 8800
          E-mail: crothburd@e-rlaw.com
                  mropp@e-rlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
          THE JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A.
          954 First Avenue North
          St. Petersburg, FL 33705
          Telephone: (727) 894 2929
          E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com
                  hill@jeeveslawgroup.com

Attorney for Certified Legal Funding, Inc.:

          Dennis P. Waggoner, Esq.
          Joshua C. Webb, Esq.
          HILL WARD & HENDERSON, P.A.
          101 E. Kennedy Blvd., #3700
          Tampa, FL 33606
          E-mail: dennis.waggoner@hwhlaw.com
                  joshua.webb@hwhlaw.com


CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: 10th Cir. Appeal Filed in Meier Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kai Bach, Matt Meier and Sheryl Meier filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Meier, et al. v.
Chesapeake Operating L.L.C., et al., Case No. 5:17-CV-00703-F, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma -
Oklahoma City.

The nature of suit is stated as "Other Personal Property Damage."

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
(Case No. CJ-17-00277) was removed on June 28, 2017, from the
District Court of Payne County, to the District Court.

Chesapeake Operating engages in exploration and drilling of natural
gas.

The appellate case is captioned as Meier, et al. v. Chesapeake
Operating L.L.C., et al., Case No. 18-6152, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

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

   -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of
      appearance are due on September 4, 2018, for Kai Bach, Matt
      Meier and Sheryl Meier;

   -- Notice of appearance is due on September 4, 2018, for
      Chesapeake Operating L.L.C., Devon Energy Production
      Company, LP, Midstates Petroleum Company LLC, New Dominion,
      LLC, Range Production Company, LLC, Special Energy
      Corporation and White Star Petroleum, LLC.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants MATT MEIER, SHERYL MEIER and KAI BACH, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Warren Tavares Burns, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          900 Jackson St., Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (469) 904-4550
          Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
          E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com

               - and -

          Roger L. Ediger, Esq.
          Carol H. Lahman, Esq.
          Larry D. Lahman, Esq.
          MITCHELL DECLERCK
          202 West Broadway Avenue
          Enid, OK 73701
          Telephone: (580) 234-5144
          Facsimile: (580) 234-8890
          E-mail: rle@mdpllc.com
                  carollahman@gmail.com
                  larry.lahman@sbcglobal.net

Defendant-Appellee CHESAPEAKE OPERATING L.L.C. is represented by:

          Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
          Phillip G. Whaley, Esq.
          RYAN WHALEY COLDIRON JANTZEN PETERS & WEBBER
          119 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 900
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 239-6040
          E-mail: mkane@ryanwhaley.com
                  PWhaley@ryanwhaley.com

Defendant-Appellee DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, LP, is
represented by:

          Ronald Glenn Franklin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
          600 Travis St., Suite 7500
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (832) 214-9942
          E-mail: rfranklin@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Joy C. Fuhr, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-1000
          E-mail: jfuhr@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          John J. Griffin, Jr., Esq.
          CROWE & DUNLEVY
          324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-7700
          E-mail: john.griffin@crowedunlevy.com

Defendant-Appellee MIDSTATES PETROLEUM COMPANY LLC

          Timothy J. Bomhoff, Esq.
          Michael F. Smith, Esq.
          Patrick L. Stein, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT
          211 North Robinson Avenue, 10th Floor
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-9621
          E-mail: tim.bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com
                  michael.smith@mcafeetaft.com
                  patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com

               - and -

          J. Craig Buchan, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT
          2 West 2nd Street, Suite 1100
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 587-0000
          E-mail: craig.buchan@mcafeetaft.com

Defendant-Appellee NEW DOMINION, LLC, is represented by:

          April B. Coffin, Esq.
          Robert G. Gum, Esq.
          GUM, PUCKETT, MACKECHNIE, COFFIN & MATULA
          105 N. Hudson Ave., Suite 900
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 488-1212

Defendant-Appellee RANGE PRODUCTION COMPANY, LLC,

          Timothy J. Bomhoff, Esq.
          Patrick L. Stein, Esq.
          J. Todd Woolery, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT
          211 North Robinson Avenue, 10th Floor
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-9621
          E-mail: tim.bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com
                  patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com
                  todd.woolery@mcafeetaft.com

Defendant-Appellee SPECIAL ENERGY CORPORATION is represented by:

          Mark H. Bennett, Esq.
          MARK H BENNETT PLLC
          1721 Drakestone
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 272-5718

               - and -

          Michael Jay McDaniel, Esq.
          COFFEY SENGER & MCDANIEL PLLC
          4725 East 91st Street, Suite 100
          Tulsa, OK 74137
          Telephone: (918) 292-8787

Defendant-Appellee WHITE STAR PETROLEUM, LLC, is represented by:

          Tammy D'ahn Barrett, Esq.
          Bradley W. Welsh, Esq.
          GABLEGOTWALS
          1100 ONEOK Plaza
          100 West 5th Street, Suite 1100
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 595-4800
          E-mail: tbarrett@gablelaw.com
                  bwelsh@gablelaw.com

               - and -

          Dale E. Cottingham, Esq.
          Lewis T. LeNaire, Esq.
          GABLEGOTWALS
          211 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 1500
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-5500
          E-mail: dcottingham@gablelaw.com
                  llenaire@gablelaw.com

               - and -

          David L. Kearney, Esq.
          E. Edd Pritchett, Jr., Esq.
          DURBIN, LARIMORE & BIALICK PC
          920 North Harvey Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-9584
          E-mail: dkearney@dlb.net
                  epritchett@dlb.net


CINEMARK USA: Court Certifies Class of Employees in "Amey" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOSEPH AMEY, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
CINEMARK USA INC, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
3:13-cv-05669-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick
entered an order:

   1. granting Silken Brown's request to certify a class of:

      "all current and former non-exempt employees of Cinemark's
      California theaters since December 3, 2011 who were paid
      overtime compensation during at least one pay period".

   2. appointing Brown as class representative, and appointing
      Capstone Law APC as class counsel.

Brown, a former employee of Cinemark USA Inc., who worked for seven
months at the theater in the San Francisco-Westfield Mall, claims
that Cinemark is liable for failing to properly list overtime rates
on wage statements; she seeks to represent a class of all current
and former non-exempt employees of Cinemark's California theaters
who were paid overtime compensation since December 3, 2011.

The Amey complaint originally alleged causes of action on behalf of
"all non-exempt" employees of defendants for: (i) failure to
provide meal and rest periods (California Labor Code sections
226.7, 512); (ii) unlawful failure to pay wages for all time worked
(California Labor Code sections 200-204, 510, 1194, and 1198);
(iii) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements
(California Labor Code sections 226, 1174); (iv) failure to pay
wages upon termination (California Labor Code sec. 203); (v) Unfair
Business Competition (California Business & Professions Code sec.
17200); and (vi) violation of the Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA") (California Labor Code sec. 2699).

On September 5, 2014, the Court denied Cinemark's motion to deny
certification of the class, and allowed class-wide discovery.
After discovery, plaintiffs sought certification.  Cinemark moved
to deny certification, to dismiss the PAGA claims, and for judgment
on the pleadings.  The court denied the motion for class
certification, granted the motion to dismiss PAGA claims, and
granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the direct
wage statement claim because plaintiffs had not sufficiently
notified defendants of their wage statement claim.

The parties settled individual claims, but on March 4, 2016,
plaintiffs Brown and De La Rosa appealed.  Meanwhile, on December
7, 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the court's
decision concerning the direct wage statement claim and the PAGA
claim.  The Ninth Circuit required a Rule 23 analysis of the direct
wage claims because "the pleadings put Defendants on sufficient
notice of California Labor Code sec.226(a) violations, whether
direct or derivative."  Accordingly, plaintiff Brown moves again
for class certification of the direct wage statement claim.

Plaintiff Amey has been dismissed from this matter and plaintiff De
La Rosa worked outside the relevant class period beginning December
3, 2011.

Cinemark opposes certification on the basis that the proposed class
definition is overbroad, Brown is not a typical or adequate class
representative, and individual issues predominate.

Judge Orrick held that the direct wage statement claim is typical
of the class claims and predominates; and Brown is an adequate
class representative.  In his ruling, Judge Orrick explained,
"Cinemark argues that since Brown has settled her individual claim,
she does not have an incentive to represent the class and her
interests no longer align with the class. See Opp. at 12. Brown
indicates that she has no conflicts of interest with the class and
that there is no evidence of antagonism. As discussed in the
typicality analysis, she retained her personal stake and financial
interest in the advancement of the class claims and the PAGA
claims. At the hearing, Brown's counsel attested to her continued
interest in being class representative.  Cinemark questions whether
Brown will vigorously pursue her claims on behalf of the putative
class without a personal financial interest in the settlement.
Brown has demonstrated and is demonstrating vigorous pursuit of the
claims. Brown and her counsel have been litigating this case for
years, completing an individual settlement with the intent to
appeal, prevailing on that appeal, and now pursuing a second class
certification motion for the direct wage claim. Brown's counsel has
ample experience in prosecuting wage and hour class actions such as
this case."


CLIENT SERVICES: Stoessel Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Libby Stoessel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Client Services, Inc. and John Does
1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04659 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17,
2018), seeks to recover damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to December 12, 2017,
an obligation was allegedly incurred to Chase Bank U.S.A., N.A. The
Chase obligation arose out of a transaction in which money,
property, insurance or services, which are the subject of the
transaction, are primarily for personal, family or household
purposes. The alleged Chase Bank U.S.A., N.A. obligation is a
"debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Chase is a
"creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(4). Chase or a
subsequent owner of the Chase debt contracted the Defendant to
collect the alleged debt.  The Defendant collects and attempts to
collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for
personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using
the United States Postal Service, telephone and internet.

Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management and business processing.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel Kohn, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282 6501
          E-mail: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com


COLLATERAL INVESTIGATIONS: Rogers Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ROGERS, 5966 Spring Valley Court Galion, OH 44833;  And
ROBERT PERDEW 3930 Aries Brook Drive Columbus, OH 43207, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
vs. COLLATERAL INVESTIGATIONS AND RECOVERY GROUP, INC. c/o
Statutory Agent Christopher D. Peer 7968 Simpson Creek Way Mason,
OH 45040, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00901-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio,
Aug. 17, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendant's
practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt employees,
including Plaintiffs, the applicable minimum wage for all hours
worked, and for Defendant's practices and policies of not paying
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each
workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Collateral Investigations is a national recognized leader in the
repossession and asset recovery industry.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696 5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696 7005
          E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


COMSCORE INC: Shares Issued in Fresno Retirees' Case Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
comScore, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Company issued to a
settlement fund for the benefit of authorized claimants about
3,669,444 shares of Common Stock, valued at $82.8 million in
relation to the settlement of the Fresno County Employees'
Retirement Association et al. v. comScore, Inc. et al.

In October 2016, a consolidated class action complaint, Fresno
County Employees' Retirement Association et al. v. comScore, Inc.
et al., was filed in the District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the Company, certain of the Company's current
and former directors and officers, Rentrak and certain former
directors and officers of Rentrak.

On January 13, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
alleging that the defendants provided materially false and
misleading information regarding the Company and its financial
performance, including in the Company and Rentrak's joint proxy
statement/prospectus, and failed to disclose material facts
necessary in order to make the statements made not misleading. The
complaint sought a determination of the propriety of the class,
compensatory damages and the award of reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in the action, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

On September 10, 2017, the parties reached a proposed settlement,
subject to court approval, pursuant to the terms of which the
settlement class would receive a total of $27.2 million in cash and
$82.8 million in Common Stock to be issued and contributed by
comScore to a settlement fund to resolve all claims asserted
against the Company. All of the $27.2 million in cash would be
funded by the Company's insurers. The proposed settlement further
provided that comScore denies all claims of wrongdoing or
liability.

On January 29, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. On June 7, 2018, the Court granted final approval of
the settlement and entered judgment dismissing the case with
prejudice. No appeals of the judgment were filed.

As of December 31, 2017, the Company reserved $110.0 million in
accrued litigation settlements for the gross settlement amount, and
recorded $27.2 million in insurance recoverable on litigation
settlements for the insurance proceeds expected from the Company's
insurers. On June 21, 2018, the Company issued to a settlement fund
for the benefit of authorized claimants 3,669,444 shares of Common
Stock, valued at $82.8 million. The insurance proceeds of $27.2
million were contributed to the settlement fund concurrently.

comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company
that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across
media platforms worldwide. The company offers digital audience
products and services, including Media Metrix and Mobile Metrix,
Video Metrix, Plan Metrix, and comScore marketing solutions, which
provide person-centric insights across various devices and can
capture various types of content. comScore, Inc. was founded in
1999 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


COMSOCRE INC: Continues to Defend Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------
comScore, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company and its
subsidiary, Full Circle Studies, Inc., continues to defend a
purported class action suit related to the right to privacy
statutes.

On September 11, 2017, the Company and a wholly-owned subsidiary,
Full Circle Studies, Inc., ("Full Circle"), received demand letters
on behalf of named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
alleging that the Company and Full Circle collected personal
information from users under the age of 13 without verifiable
parental consent in violation of Massachusetts law and the federal
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

The letters alleged that the Company and Full Circle collected such
personal information by embedding advertising software development
kits ("SDKs") in applications created or developed by Disney. The
letters sought monetary damages, attorneys' fees and damages under
Massachusetts law.

The Company and Full Circle responded to the demand letters on
October 11, 2017. On June 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed amended
complaints adding the Company and Full Circle as defendants in a
purported class action against Disney, Twitter and other
defendants, alleging violations of California's constitutional
right to privacy and intrusion upon seclusion law, New York's
deceptive trade practices statute, and Massachusetts' deceptive
trade practices and right to privacy statutes.

The complaints allege damages in excess of $5 million, with any
award to be apportioned among the defendants. The Company and Full
Circle deny any wrongdoing or liability and intend to vigorously
defend against these claims.

comScore said "Although the ultimate outcome of this matter is
unknown, the Company believes that a material loss was not probable
or estimable as of June 30, 2018."

comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company
that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across
media platforms worldwide. The company offers digital audience
products and services, including Media Metrix and Mobile Metrix,
Video Metrix, Plan Metrix, and comScore marketing solutions, which
provide person-centric insights across various devices and can
capture various types of content. comScore, Inc. was founded in
1999 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


CONSOL ENERGY: Fitzwater Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled BENNY FITZWATER, CLARENCE BRIGHT, and TERRY
PRATER, EMMETT CASEY, JR., CONNIE Z. GILBERT, ALLAN H. JACK SR.,
and ROBERT H. LONG, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CONSOL ENERGY, INC., CONSOLIDATION
COAL CO., FOLA COAL CO., LLC, CONSOL OF KENTUCKY, INC., CONSOL
PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO., LLC and KURT SALVATORI, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-09849 (S.D. W.Va), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying a class consisting of:

   "all individuals receiving welfare benefits (medical,
   prescription drug, dental, vision, and/or life insurance)
   under a plan administered by CONSOL Energy in 2014 or 2015,
   whose receipt of such benefits was predicated on being a
   retiree from Consol or the dependent of a retiree from Consol,
   and whose receipt of such benefits was terminated by the
   Defendants".

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Samuel B. Petsonk, Esq.
          Bren Pomponio, Esq.
          223 Prince Street
          Beckley, WV 25801
          Telephone: (681) 207 7510
          Facsimile: (681) 207 7513
          E-mail: sam@msjlaw.org
                  bren@msjlaw.org


CROSSROADS TRAINING: Faces Wu Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Kathy Wu, and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Crossroads
Training Co., Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05267, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for Southern District of
New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on Aug. 15, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-cv-04588-PKC-SMG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Pamela K. Chen. The suit alleges Americans with
Disabilities Act violations.

Crossroads is a new and recycled fashion retailer that has been
serving customers since 1991.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CYA MANAGEMENT: Faces Rosa Suit in Southern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CYA Management LLC.
The lawsuit is captioned as Jose Danilo Rosa, On behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CYA
Management LLC, CYA Management Group, LLC, 2701 Marion Realty LLC,
2705 Marion Realty LLC, 360 East 195 Realty LLC, Charles Abramson,
Ayala Ismael, and John Does, No. 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07512 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2018). The case alleges
Fair Labor Standards Act violations.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


DASH LUBE: Moreno Seeks Overtime Premiums under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DASH LUBE, GHARDASH ENTERPRISES, INC.,
KAYLA CORP, collectively d/b/a as Jiffy Lube, PAYAM RYAN GHARDASH
and POYA PAUL GHARDASH, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV1922 DMS NLS
(S.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2018), seeks to recover overtime premiums
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, the
California Industrial Welfare Commission, and the California
Business & Professions Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff and
other similarly situated hourly employees at Defendants' Jiffy Lube
automotive oil change shops located throughout Southern
California. The Plaintiff and the putative FLSA collective and Rule
23 class members he seeks to represent regularly worked beyond 40
hours in a workweek and eight hours in a workday but were not paid
the required overtime premiums for all overtime hours worked.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and Proposed Class and Collective Members:

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM, APC
          10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 150
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 599 8292
          Facsimile: (619) 599 8291
          E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com

               - and -

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


DIAMOND RESORTS: Faces Bartine et al. Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diamond Resorts
Management, Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as David E. Bartine and
Judith S. Bartine, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Diamond Resorts Management, Inc.,
doing business as: Diamond Resorts International; and First
American Title Insurance Company, doing business as: First American
Title, the Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-01364-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla.,
Aug. 17, 2018).  The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul G.
Byron.  The case alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violations.

Diamond Resorts was formerly known as Sunterra Resort Management,
Inc. and changed its name to Diamond Resorts Management, Inc. in
October, 2007. The company was incorporated in 1991 and is based in
Las Vegas, Nevada. The company operates as a subsidiary of Diamond
Resorts Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian P. Parker, Esq.
          DC CAPITAL LAW, LLP
          700 12th Street NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 888 1144
          Facsimile: (248) 642 8875
          E-mail: brianparker@collectionstopper.com


DISH DBS: Unit Files Appeal in Krakauer Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that DISH Network L.L.C. has
filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit in the "Krakauer Action".

A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are also the
subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network
L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").

Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that
case found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as
DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue
in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover $400
in damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA.  On March
7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the Court for
judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new
trial, which the Court denied on May 16, 2017. On May 22, 2017, the
Court ruled that the violations were willful and knowing, and
trebled the damages award to $1,200 for each call made in violation
of TCPA. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a $61 million judgment
in favor of the class.

On May 4, 2018, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. During the
second quarter 2017, the company recorded $41 million of
"Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action on its
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive
Income (Loss).  

The company recorded $20 million of "Litigation expense" related to
the Krakauer Action during the fourth quarter 2016.  

The company's total accrual related to the Krakauer Action at June
30, 2018 was $61 million and is included in "Other accrued
expenses" on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.    

DISH DBS said "We intend to vigorously defend these cases.  We
cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these
suits."

DISH DBS Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV
services under the DISH and Sling brands in the United States. Its
DISH branded pay-TV services include the company's licensed Federal
Communications Commission authorized direct broadcast satellite and
fixed satellite service spectrum, as well as its owned and leased
satellites, receiver systems, third-party broadcast operations,
customer service facilities, a leased fiber optic network, and
in-home service and call center operations. The company was founded
in 1996 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado. DISH DBS
Corporation is a subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation.


DOLES GRILL: Navarro Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
STELLA MARIS NAVARRO, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. DOLES GRILL CORP. d/b/a La Brochetterie and FEDJA
BALKICH, the Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-61898-KMM (S.D. Fla.,
Aug. 15, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid minimum
and overtime wages under the laws of the United States and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, while employed by the Defendant,
Plaintiff worked approximately an average of 50-60 hours per week
without being compensated at the rate of not less than one and one
half times the regular rate at which he was employed. In addition,
the Defendant paid Plaintiff $2.00 per hour, which is less than the
minimum wage (even if by chance a "Tip Credit" is considered). The
Plaintiff was employed as a Server performing the same or similar
duties as that of those other similarly situated Servers whom
Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without
overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from January 2017 to July
2018. In total, Plaintiff worked approximately 79 compensable weeks
under the Act, or 79 compensable weeks if counted 3 years back from
the filing of the instant action. However, the Defendant did not
properly compensate Plaintiff for hours that Plaintiff worked in
excess of 40 per week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503 5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270 5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


DOLLAR GENERAL: Weller Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CHRISTOPHER WELLER, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR GENERAL
CORPORATION, DOLGENCORP, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
5:17-cv-02292-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying a class and appointing his counsel as Class
Counsel.

The Plaintiff further moves the Court for conditional certification
of collective action class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Noah Axler, Esq.
          Marc A. Goldich, Esq.
          AXLER GOLDICH LLC
          1520 Locust St., Suite 301
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 534 7400
          Facsimile: (267) 534 7407
          E-mail: naxler@axgolaw.com
                  mgoldich@axgolaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel A. Dion, Esq.
          DION & GOLDBERGER
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1199
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 546 6033
          Facsimile: (215) 546 6269
          E-mail: samueldion@aol.com

               - and -

          Mitchell L. Paul, Esq.
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1199
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 546 6811
          Facsimile: (215) 546 6812
          E-mail: mpaul@paullaw.net


DON MCGILL: Wheeler Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW WHEELER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DON MCGILL OF WEST HOUSTON, LTD., a
Texas company, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02845 (S.D. Tex.,
Aug. 17, 2018), seeks injunction requiring Don McGill Toyota to
cease sending unsolicited text messages to consumers, as well as an
award of actual and/or statutory damages and costs.

This case challenges Defendant's practice, to stop its practice of
sending unauthorized and unwanted text messages promoting its
vehicles and services, and to obtain redress for all persons
similarly injured by its conduct. Don McGill Toyota's unsolicited
texts violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and caused
Plaintiff and putative members of the Class to suffer actual harm,
including the aggravation, nuisance, loss of time, and invasions of
privacy that result from the receipt of such text messages, lost
value of cellular services paid for, and a loss of the use and
enjoyment of their phones, including wear and tear to their phones'
data, memory, software, hardware, and battery components, among
other harms.

According to the complaint, Don McGill Toyota is one of the oldest
Toyota dealers in the country. As part of its marketing plan, Don
McGill Toyota sends consumers text messages promoting Don McGill
Toyota's vehicles and services. However, Don McGill Toyota does not
attempt to obtain consent from consumers before sending solicitous
texts. And that is precisely what happened to Plaintiff. In sending
the unsolicited text messages at issue, Don McGill Toyota, or a
third party acting on its behalf, utilized an automatic telephone
dialing system; hardware and/or software with the capacity to store
or produce cellular telephone number to be called, using a random
or sequential number generator. This is evident from the
circumstances surrounding the text messages, including the ability
to trigger an automated response by replying "STOP" or "HELP," the
text messages' commercial and generic content, and that they were
sent from a short code, which is consistent with the use of an
automatic telephone dialing system to send text messages.[BN]

Counsel for Andrew Wheeler and all others similarly situate:

          Jason Johnson, Esq.
          TERREL LAW GROUP
          8303 Southwest Freeway no. 450
          Houston, TX 77074
          Telephone: (346) 718 8286
          E-mail: Jjohnson@terrellawgroup.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469 5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


DUNES FOOD: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Santiago et al., Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX SANTIAGO, CARLOS ENRIQUE TOJ OVALLE, JERBI ELIAS MARTINEZ
DOMINGUEZ, JORGE VIRGILIO ROMAN ROMAN, OSCAR CELESTINO YANEZ,
RAFAEL VASQUEZ DISLA, MIGUEL SAMPEDRO SARTILLO, RODRIGO (A.K.A.
CARLOS) FLORES CAZARES, MALECIO SANCHEZ CASADO, and HECTOR BATEN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. DUNES FOOD GROUP, INC. (D/B/A DELICE CAFE AND
CATERING F/D/B/A LIBERTY DELI), 2249 CORP. (D/B/A DELICE CAFE AND
CATERING F/D/B/A LIBERTY DELI), ALIMADE LLC (D/B/A DELI PLUS),
SANJIV CHAND (A.K.A. MIKE), AKBARALI B HIMANI, HORACIO DOE, and
ALFRED DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07378 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime
compensation, and for any improper deductions or credits taken
against wages, pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs have been employed as
salad and food preparers, cooks, delivery workers, packer and
dispatcher of orders, pizza makers and catering workers at the
delis located at 22 E 49th street, New York, NY 10017 and at 2 W
45th street, New York, NY 10036. The Plaintiffs have worked for
Defendants at least 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum
wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that
they have worked. Rather, Defendants have failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay
Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.

The Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread
of hours" pay for any day in which they have had to work over 10
hours a day. The Defendants allegedly repeatedly failed to pay
Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis.

Defendants own, operate, or control two delis, located at 22 E 49th
street, New York, NY 10017 and at 2 W 45th street, New York, NY
10036 under the name "Delice Cafe" and Catering f/d/b/a Liberty
Deli and "Deli Plus," respectively.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Thoby Sues over Debt Collections Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
JENEVIEVE THOBY a/k/a JENNY THOBY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY
SOLUTIONS, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01399 (D. Conn., Aug. 17, 2018), seeks to recover damages
and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to October 3, 2017, an
obligation was allegedly incurred to Citibank, N.A. by the
plaintiff. The Citibank N.A. obligation arose out of Citibank N.A.
credit card transactions in which money, property, insurance or
services, which were the subject of the transactions, were
primarily for personal, family or household purposes. The alleged
Citibank, N.A. obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C.
section 1692a(5). Due to her financial constraints, Plaintiff could
not pay the alleged debt, and it went into default. Sometime
thereafter, the current creditor Cach, LLC purportedly purchased
the alleged debt from the original creditor Citibank, N.A.
Creditors Citibank N.A. or Cach, LLC contracted with the Defendant
Dynamic to collect the alleged debt. The Defendant collects and
attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred
for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors
using the United States Postal Services, telephone and internet.

Dynamic Recovery Solutions is doing business in debt collection
industry.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282 6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


E.I. DU PONT: Dunne Suit Moved to Texas Eastern District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Gerard M. Dunne, Ronald S.
Murphy, Dion L. Walker, Margaret Manning, Lisa Brown, Ronald
Carbonneau, Tommy Carmichael, Adonis Coble, Christopher Danzi,
Kenneth Eisenhutch, Thomas Hall, Jeffrey Houseman, Grady Lofton,
Kyle Martin, Thomas Maxwell, Ryan Parish, David Riestor, Luis
Rivera, William Salisbury, Chea Sharrett, Leo Sperduti, Nathaniel
Stevenson, John Stover, Julie Switzer, and Robin Wright, the
Plaintiffs, vs. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00659, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas on Aug. 15, 2018. The Texas
Eastern District of assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00402-MAC to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Marcia A.
Crone.

The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of the Defendant,
and they brought this action against Defendant on their own behalf
regarding alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
as a class action in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, violations
of the New York Labor Law, because of Defendant's unlawful
deprivation of Plaintiffs' rights to overtime compensation. The
Plaintiffs seek compensation, damages, equitable and other relief
available under the FLSA, as amended, 29 U.S.C. section 201, et
seq., and for damages compensation, interest, and liquidated
damages under the NYLL.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, commonly referred to as
DuPont, is an American conglomerate that was founded in July 1802
as a gunpowder mill by French-American chemist and industrialist
Eleuthere Irenee du Pont.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sarah M. Block, Esq.
          Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
          Diana J. Nobile, Esq.
          William Li, Esq.
          WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
          1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833 8855
          E-mail: gkm@wmlaborlaw.com
                  djn@wmlaborlaw.com
                  wwl@wmlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles P. Yezbak, Esq.
          Yezbak Law Offices
          2002 Richard Jones Rd. Suite B-200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 250 2000
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com


EAST LAKE MANAGEMENT: White Sues over Outdated RLTO Summaries
-------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA WHITE, Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. EAST LAKE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. and
EAST LAKE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., individually and d/b/a
EAST LAKE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., 3550 RHODES PH.
I, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH10386 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty., Aug. 15, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to provide the
plaintiff with a complete, updated summary of Chicago Residential
Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

According to the complaint, the RLTO summary changes from time to
time as security deposit interest rates are updated for each year.
The Defendant did not provided White with a complete, updated
summary of the RLTO in 2018, 2017 and 2016.  Defendants had a
policy at the subject matter property of providing outdated and/or
incomplete summaries RLTO to tenants entering or renewing a lease.
Alternatively, Defendants only provided either an outdated, earlier
version or an incomplete version of the RLTO summary and interest
rate disclosure to tenants and prospective tenants. The Defendants
acted pursuant to this policy when they failed to tender complete,
updated summaries to White. Pursuant to this policy or procedure,
Defendants did not provide or tender complete, updated RLTO
summaries to Plaintiff when she first moved into the property, or
renewed her lease thereafter. The Defendants created this policy so
as to ensure tenant was not apprised of her rights under the RLTO.


White was and is a residential tenant of the multi-unit apartment
complex located at 3620 S. Rhodes Avenue in Chicago, Illinois.

East Lake Management & Development Corp. is a Chicago based firm,
providing the full range of real estate services to a diverse
client base.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Berton N. Ring, Esq.
          BERTON N. RING, P.C.
          123 West Madison Street, 15th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 781 0290
          E-mail: bring@bnrpc.com


EGALET CORP: Court Grants Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned IN RE EGALET CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil
action No. 17-390 (E.D. Pa.).

In this securities case, brought pursuant to Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, a putative class of
shareholders possessing shares of Egalet Corporation (Egalet)
alleges that three of Egalet's executives defrauded the class by
failing to disclose that the FDA was likely to grant intranasal
labeling exclusivity to a competitor's abuse-deterrent morphine
drug. As a result, upon FDA approval of Egalet's own pain
management drug, Egalet was not permitted to market its drug as
effective at reducing intranasal opioid abuse, and when this news
was announced, shares of the stock dropped significantly within a
matter of days.

In their Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants make four primary
arguments:

   (1) Because the CDER Memo demonstrates that the scope of
MorphaBond's exclusivity had not been established during the Class
Period, none of the allegedly false or misleading statements were,
in fact, false;

   (2) Because the Amended Complaint's allegations that the
Defendants knew or should have known of MorphaBond's exclusivity
are based on publicly available information, any omission of this
information is immaterial (i.e., truth on the market defense);

   (3) Because many of the Defendants' statements were
forward-looking, the Defendants are shielded from liability for
those statements under the PSLRA's safe harbor provision; and

   (4) Because the Defendants' alleged motives are legally
insufficient, and the Amended Complaint does not demonstrate actual
knowledge, there is no scienter.

In Response, the Plaintiffs assert that:

   (1) Because the false or misleading statements were made
misleading as a result of a failure to disclose the substantial
risk that MorphaBond's exclusivity would include abuse-deterrent
labeling for intranasal abuse, the CDER Memo does not change the
false or misleading nature of the Defendants' statements;

   (2) Because the truth on the market defense has a high burden,
it is not an appropriate basis for dismissing the complaint in most
circumstances, including in this case, where the stock price
dropped once the relevant information was revealed;

   (3) Because many of the Defendants' misstatements were not
forward-looking, were made with actual knowledge that they were
misleading and false, were not accompanied by meaningful cautionary
language, and, if believed, were not reasonable, the PSLRA's safe
harbor provision does not shield Defendant's statements from
liability; and

   (4) Because the Amended Complaint demonstrates the Defendants'
knowledge of the undisclosed risk and the relevant regulatory
landscape, the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges scienter. It
also adequately alleges motive and opportunity as a means of
demonstrating scienter.

In this case, the Plaintiff's seek relief under Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act.
The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss focuses on the first and second
elements above, but also relies on the PSLRA's Safe Harbor
Provision, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-5(c), which shields Defendants
against Section 10(b) liability for forward-looking statements
accompanied by meaningful cautionary language.

Thus, the Court will (1) assess whether the Safe Harbor Provision
insulates the Defendants against Section 10(b) liability; and then
determine whether the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged (2) a
material misrepresentation or omission by the Defendants, and (3)
the Defendants' scienter.

Safe Harbor

The PSLRA's Safe Harbor Provision provides that, inter alia: "A
person shall not be liable with respect to any forward-looking
statement, whether written or oral, if and to the extent that (A)
the forward-looking statement is (i) identified as a
forward-looking statement, and is accompanied by meaningful
cautionary statements identifying important factors that could
cause actual results to differ materially from those in the
forward-looking statement; or (ii) immaterial."

The Defendants made the Challenged Forward-Looking Statements in
earnings calls on November 4, 2015, May 10, 2016, and August 4,
2016; investor presentations filed as attachments to Forms 8-K on
January 11, 2016, April 5, 2016, May 11, 2016, and June 21, 2016,
and a press release on August 4, 2016.  

The Plaintiffs contend that many of the misleading statements
identified in the Complaint are not forward-looking and with
respect to those statements that potentially may be deemed
forward-looking, those statements were inextricably intertwined
with statements of present or history fact and/or were not
accompanied by meaningful cautionary language.

Forward-Looking Statement

The term forward-looking statement is defined in the Safe Harbor
statute, and it includes, a statement of the plans and objectives
of management for future operations, including plans or objectives
relating to the products or services of the issuer as well as any
statement of the assumptions underlying or relating to any
forward-looking statement. As Defendants point out, courts in this
circuit have repeatedly found that statements regarding the
likelihood and timing of FDA approval for a drug and the reasons
for management's beliefs that such approval will occur fall under
the statutory definition of`forward-looking.

Meaningful Cautionary Language

The PSLRA requires that forward-looking statements be accompanied
by meaningful cautionary statements in order for safe harbor
protection to apply. Cautionary language must also be directly
related to the alleged misrepresentations, but it does not have to
actually accompany the alleged misrepresentation.

The Plaintiffs assert that the cautionary language Defendants cite
is boilerplate language because they did not alert investors to
contemporaneously known specific risks that MorphaBond approval
likely precluded the FDA from granting ARYMO  approval for a label
that also included intranasal abuse deterrence  In other words,
Plaintiffs assert that Defendants' cautionary language is not
sufficiently tailored to the specific future projections that
Plaintiffs challenge as fraudulent misstatements or omissions.  

The Court disagrees.

The cautionary language cited by the Defendants is at a level of
specificity sufficient under established precedent. The warnings
contained in Egalet's SEC filings, presentations, and investor
calls specifically address the risk that the FDA would fail to
approve labeling for certain abuse-deterrence claims. For example,
as excerpted above,Egalet repeatedly disclosed that there can be no
assurance that our product candidates in development will receive
FDA-approved labeling that describes the abuse-deterrent features
of such products.

This statement and others, such as, the commercial success of our
product candidates will depend upon our ability to obtain FDA
approved labeling describing their abuse-deterrent features or
benefits gives notice to investors that Egalet might not be able to
successfully commercialize its products if precluded to use
labeling that describes all abuse-deterrent features. Given that
this is the precise risk the Plaintiffs assert was responsible for
their loss, this Court finds the cautionary language sufficient for
purposes of the Safe Harbor Provision.   All of the Challenged
Forward-Looking Statements are protected by the Safe Harbor
Provision.

Misrepresentation or Omission

The first pleading requirement of a Section 10(b) claim, subject to
a heightened pleading requirement above the normal Rule 12(b)(6)
standard, is that the complaint must specify each allegedly
misleading statement, why the statement was misleading, and if an
allegation is made on information and belief, all facts supporting
that belief with particularity.

In this case, the regulatory conclusion of the FDA (a third-party)
was the uncertainty. By way of illustration, for example, if the
FDA had already decided the scope of Morphabond's exclusivity over
intranasal labeling and Egalet were speculating about the effect of
the FDA's determination, Egalet would be expected to provide
accurate, or at least not misleading, information about the effect
of the FDA's determination. Instead, in this case, a third-party,
the FDA, had not yet determined the scope of MorphaBond's
exclusivity.

Therefore, when Egalet stated that it was potential for its drug to
receive intranasal labeling from the FDA, it did not mislead
reasonable investors; falsity is determined at the time a statement
is made, not on the basis of subsequent events.

Scienter

A complaint adequately pleads scienter under the PSLRA only if a
reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter cogent and
at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw
from the facts alleged. In making this determination, the court
must review all the allegations holistically. The absence of a
motive allegation, though relevant, is not dispositive.

In summary, the present case is premised on allegations that the
Defendants possessed the requisite expertise to determine, based on
admittedly public information, that it was unlikely to receive FDA
approval for a particular type of labeling on its drug. Frater and
Viropharma are premised on allegations that the FDA specifically
imparted information, not available to the public, that reasonable
investors would want to know in order to make an informed view as
to the value of the company's stock. The complaint in Enzymotec,
although factually closer to the present case, alleged nearly $60
million in insider stock sales, suspiciously timed, which
specifically bolstered the plaintiffs' scienter allegations.

Therefore, this Court reiterates that the Plaintiffs' citations,
while non-precedential, are also factually inapposite in this
context. The Plaintiffs' allegations of securities fraud under
Section 10(b) must be dismissed.

Section 20(a) Claims

Because the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under Section 10(b),
their Section 20(a) control person liability claim must also be
dismissed. Once all predicate Section 10(b) claims are dismissed,
there are not allegations upon which Section 20(a) liability can be
based.

Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc36z5kb from Leagle.com.

EGALET INVESTOR GROUP, Lead Plaintiff, represented by ADAM M. APTON
-- aapton@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP, ALEXANDER A. KROT, III
-- amccall@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP, DANIEL P. MURRAY --
dmurray@oelegal.com -- O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE LLC, MARC L. ACKERMAN,
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC, MARC I. GROSS -- migross@pomlaw.com --
POMERANTZ LLP, NICHOLAS I. PORRITT, LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP, RYAN M.
ERNST -- rernst@oeblegal.com -- O'KELLY ERNST BIELLI & WALLEN LLC,
TAMAR A. WEINRIB -- taweinrib@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP & EVAN J.
SMITH -- esmith@brodsky-smith.com -- BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC.

GEORGE MINEFF, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by ADAM M. APTON, LEVI & KORSINSKY
LLP, RYAN M. ERNST, O'KELLY ERNST BIELLI & WALLEN LLC & DANIEL P.
MURRAY, O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE LLC.

EGALET CORPORATION, ROBERT S. RADIE, STANLEY J. MUSIAL & JEFFREY M.
DAYNO, Defendants, represented by KAREN PIESLAK POHLMANN --
karen.pohlmann@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP,
LAURA HUGHES MCNALLY -- laura.mcnally@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN
LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & MARC J. SONNENFELD --
marc.sonnenfeld@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.

MARKUS EBNER, STEVEN GRELLA & RUIHUA HE, Movants, represented by
JACOB A. GOLDBERG -- jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW
FIRM.


EIGER BIOPHARMA: Trial Underway in Cupid 2 Data Case Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that oral arguments were
scheduled this week before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in
the CUPID 2 data related suit.

In July 2015, following Celladon's announcements of the negative
CUPID 2 data and the suspension of further research and development
activities and the subsequent declines of the price of its common
stock, three putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California against Celladon and
certain of its current and former officers. The complaints
generally alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the clinical trial program for MYDICAR,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Celladon's common
stock.

The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages and other
relief, including attorneys' fees. On December 9, 2015, the
district court consolidated the three putative securities class
actions and appointed a lead plaintiff to represent the putative
class. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on
February 29, 2016.

On October 7, 2016, the district court granted defendants’'motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and granted leave to
amend within 60 days from the date of the district court's order.
The lead plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of intent not to
amend the consolidated amended complaint and instead indicated that
it intended to appeal the district court's decision. On December 9,
2016, the district court closed the case.

On December 28, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a notice to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appealing the
district court's order dismissing the consolidated amended
complaint. On May 5, 2017, the lead plaintiff and appellant filed
his opening appellate brief.

On July 5, 2017, defendants filed their answering appellate brief
response. The Plaintiff subsequently filed their response to the
Company's July 5, 2017 filing on August 19, 2017. Oral arguments
are scheduled to be heard on August 28, 2018 before the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

Eiger BioPharmaceuticals said "It is possible that additional suits
will be filed, or allegations made by stockholders, with respect to
these same or other matters and also naming the Company and/or
Celladon's former officers and directors as defendants. The Company
believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend
these lawsuits vigorously. Due to the early stage of these
proceedings, the Company is not able to predict or reasonably
estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses relating to these
claims."

Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company, focuses on the development and commercialization of
targeted therapies for rare diseases in the United States and
internationally. he company was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: 2nd Class Certification Motion in "Davis" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL E. DAVIS, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:10-cv-03328-RS
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order on
August 17, 2018, denying Plaintiff's second motion for class
certification of:

   "all former NFL players who did not provide permission to EA
   to use their name, image, identity, persona and/or likeness
   that are listed on a roster for an NFL team that is included
   as a "historic" or "all time" team in a Madden NFL video game,
   and whose actual name appears in the software, or in EA's
   design database(s), for Madden NFL video games that [were]
   sold or distributed in California within the applicable
   statute of limitations."

The Court said, "Within 14 days of the date of this order, the
parties should submit a joint status report setting out their views
as to how this action should proceed from this point. Under the
proposed class definition, each class member would be an individual
"whose actual name appears in the software, or in EA's design
database(s)." EA, however, would not be liable for merely listing
players’ names in its software and/or databases, where they are
not displayed to persons playing the game. For a player to prevail,
he must show there is an avatar used in the game that is
sufficiently identifiable as him to constitute a misappropriation.
Even assuming one player succeeds in showing that game users
readily identify him (perhaps because there are particularly
distinctive aspects to his identity captured in the avatar and
contextual information), it would not follow that all or any of the
other players named in the software or databases necessarily also
are identifiable. Rather, each and every avatar alleged to
represent a particular player will have to be examined to determine
if it is an appropriation of that specific player’s identity
within the meaning of the common law tort. This issue is not merely
one of damages, where variations in individual circumstances could
be addressed in additional court proceedings or the claims process.
This is the very heart of the liability case. Whether each player
has a claim or not turns on the specific characteristics of that
player's identity and whether he can be identified by virtue of how
those characteristics have been reflected in his avatar. EA's
potential liability to any former NFL player simply cannot be
determined on a class-wide basis."


EQUITABLE ACCEPTANCE: Faces Williams et al. Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equitable Acceptance
Corporation.  The lawsuit is captioned as Vanessa Williams and Kory
Turner, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equitable Acceptance Corporation, SLF
Center, LLC, Integra Student Solutions, LLC, and Does 1-41, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07537 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2018).  The
case alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
violations.

Equitable Acceptance is an indirect finance company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


EXPEDIA INC: Buckeye Tree et al. Seek to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BUCKEYE TREE LODGE AND SEQUOIA VILLAGE
INN, LLC, a California limited liability company, and 2020 O STREET
CORPORATION, INC, D/B/A THE MANSION ON O STREET, individually and
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. EXPEDIA, INC., a Washington corporation;
HOTELS.COM, L.P., a Texas limited partnership; HOTELS.COM GP, LLC,
a Texas limited liability company; ORBITZ, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; VENERE NET S.R.L DBA VENERE NET, LLC, an Italian
limited liability company; and EXPEDIA AUSTRALIA INVESTMENTS PTY
LTD., an Australian private company, the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-04721-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on
October 25, 2018, for an order:

   1. certifying a class of the following individuals pursuant to
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3):

      "all hotels, lodges, inns, and motels located in the United
      States that did not have a booking agreement with
      Defendants, but whose names appeared on Expedia.com,
      Hotels.com, Orbitz.com, or Travelocity.com (the
      "Websites"), or on search engine links to the Websites,
      from August 17, 2012 to the present";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs Buckeye Tree Lodge and Sequoia
      Village Inn, LLC, and 2020 O Street Corporation, Inc.,
      d/b/a/ The Mansion on O Street, and Proposed Intervenor
      Plaintiffs Prospect Historic Hotel and Shiloh Morning Inn
      as the Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing the law firms of Patterson Law Group, APC, and
      Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP as Class Counsel.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Allison H. Goddard, Esq.
          Jacquelyn E. Quinn, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756 6990
          Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  jackie@pattersonlawgroup.com

               - and -

          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, D.C. 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789 3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: hello@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda , Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 369-0800
          Facsimile: (408) 369-0752

               - and -

          RICHA LAW GROUP, P.C.
          4800 Hampden Lane, Suite 200
          Bethesda, MD


FACEBOOK INC: Inflates "Potential Reach" Data, Danielle Singer Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle A. Singer, and Project Therapy, LLC (d/b/a Therapy
Threads), individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-04978 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 15, 2018), seeks injunctive and
other equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of
the Class, including an order prohibiting Facebook from engaging in
the wrongful acts; requiring Facebook to engage third-party
auditors to conduct audits and evaluations of Facebook's purported
user base and its Potential Reach, and ordering them to promptly
correct any problems or issues detected by these auditors, and
requiring Facebook to disclose any further inaccuracies with
respect to its user base in a timely and accurate manner.

Facebook, Inc. is a social media company that generates
substantially all of its revenue from advertising.  Facebook in
2017 earned approximately $40 billion from advertising revenue. The
core of Facebook's business is its large purported user base, which
ostensibly enables advertisements placed on Facebook.com to reach a
large number of people. Facebook claims to have 2.13 billion
monthly active users globally, with over 240 million monthly active
users in the U.S. alone. Before advertisers make a purchase,
Facebook represents that their advertisements can potentially reach
a specified number of people ("Potential Reach"). Facebook "defines
potential reach" as "an estimation of how many people are in an ad
set's target audience." Depending on the demographic targeting
selected by the advertiser, the Potential Reach is often millions
of people. Facebook also represents that the advertisement will
reach an estimated number of people per day (Estimated Daily
Reach). The Estimated Daily Reach is based, in part, on the
audience size or Potential Reach.

According to Facebook, Estimated Daily Reach "gives you an idea of
how many of the people in your target audience [or Potential Reach]
you may be able to reach on a given day."  However, according to
the complaint, these foundational representations are false. Based
on publicly available research and Plaintiffs' own analysis,
Facebook overstates the Potential Reach of its advertisements. For
example, based on publicly available data, Facebook's purported
Potential Reach among the key 18-34 year-old demographic in every
state exceeds the actual population of 18-34 year-olds. Based on a
combination of publicly available research and Plaintiffs' own
analysis, among 18-34 years-olds in Chicago, for example, Facebook
asserted its Potential Reach was approximately 4 times (400%)
higher than the number of real 18-34 year-olds with Facebook
accounts in Chicago. Based on a combination of publicly available
research and Plaintiffs own analysis, Facebook's asserted Potential
Reach in Kansas City was approximately 200% higher than the number
of actual 18-54 year-olds with Facebook accounts in Kansas City.
This inflation is apparent in other age categories as well.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class:

          Andrew Friedman, Esq.
          Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
          Eric Kafka, Esq.
          Julia Horwitz, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 2000
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
          E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
                  ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
                  ekafka@cohenmilstein.com
                  jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Charles Reichmann, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES REICHMANN
          16 Yale Circle
          Kensington, CA 94708-1015
          Telephone: (415) 373 8849
          E-mail: Charles.reichmann@gmail.com


FAMILY DOLLAR: Ziegler Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
REGINA ZIEGLER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FAMILY DOLLAR INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00359-JRG (E.D. Tex., Aug. 15, 2018), seeks
equitable and injunctive relief and to remedy violations of the
wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by the Defendant,
which has deprived Plaintiff, as well as others similarly situated
to Plaintiff, of their lawful wages.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant
until she was terminated on May 24, 2018. At the time of her
termination, Plaintiff was a manager at the Tyler store located at
3508 Frankston Hwy, Tyler, TX 75701. The Plaintiff was paid a
salary rate of $38,393 per year, with no overtime pay for hours
worked over 40 hours in a single workweek. However, Plaintiff was
expected to work at least 52 hours each workweek to earn her
salary. The Plaintiff regularly worked seven days in a row, opening
the store at 7:45 a.m. and closing the store at 9:30 p.m.  Because
of this, Plaintiff consistently worked at least 60 to 80 hours a
week. Plaintiff clocked in and out, Defendant has records of all
hours worked. No matter the rigorous hours worked, Plaintiff was
regarded as exempt from receiving overtime pay. The Defendant was
aware that Plaintiff performed non-exempt work that required
payment of overtime compensation.

Defendant operates retail stores in the "dollar store" market under
the trade name "Family Dollar." Defendant operates over 8000 stores
in approximately all states, except for Alaska, Hawaii and
Washington.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM
          1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903) 596 7100
          Facsimile: (469) 533 1618
          E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


FANNIE MAE: Certification of Four Classes Sought
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled re: Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred
Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations, Case No.
1:13-mc-01288-RCL (D. Colo.), the Co-Lead Plaintiffs N. Bradford
Isbell, Joseph Cacciapalle, John Cane, Estate of Francis J. Dennis,
Michelle M. Miller, Marneu Holdings, Co., 111 John Realty Corp.,
United Equities Commodities, Co., Charles Rattley, and Timothy J.
Cassell move the Court for entry of an Order:

   1. certifying 4 classes consisting of:

      Fannie Preferred Class:

      "all persons and entities who held shares of Fannie Mae
      Preferred Stock on August 17, 2012 and who were damaged
      thereby, and their successors in interest (meaning current
      shareholders)";

      Freddie Preferred Class:

      "all persons and entities who held shares of Freddie Mac
      Preferred Stock on August 17, 2012 and who were damaged
      thereby, and their successors in interest (meaning current
      shareholders)";

      Fannie Common Class:

      "all persons and entities who held shares of Fannie Mae
      Common Stock on August 17, 2012 and who were damaged
      thereby, and their successors in interest (meaning current
      shareholders)"; and

      Freddie Common Class:

      "all persons and entities who held shares of Freddie Mac
      Common Stock on August 17, 2012 and who were damaged
      thereby, and their successors in interest (meaning current
      shareholders)"

   2. designating Plaintiffs as Co-Lead class representatives;
      and

   3. designating law firms of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP,
      Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Grant & Eisenhofer,
      P.A., and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Co-
      Lead Class Counsel.

      Excluded from all Classes are the Defendants.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
          Lee D. Rudy, Esq.
          Grant Goodhart, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER &CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Rd.
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667 7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667 7056
          E-mail: ezagar@ktmc.com
                  lrudy@ktmc.com
                  ggoodhart@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          GRANT &EISENHOFER, P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622 7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622 7100
          E-mail: mbarry@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq.
          Stacey K. Grigsby, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Shaw, Esq.
          James Kraehenbuehl, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          1401 New York Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 237 2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237 6131
          E-mail: hhume@bsfllp.com
                  sgrigsby@bsfllp.com
                  jshaw@bsfllp.com
                  jkraehenbuehl@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Blair A. Nicholas, Esq.
          David R. Kaplan, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793 0070
          Facsimile: (858) 793 0323
          E-mail: blairn@blbglaw.com
                  davidk@blbglaw.com


FARMLAND PARTNERS: Fails to Disclose Material Info, Mariconda Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE MARICONDA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FARMLAND PARTNERS INC., PAUL A.
PITTMAN, and LUCA FABBRI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02104
(D. Colo., Aug. 17, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants, who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
Farmland between March 16, 2016 and July 10, 2018, both dates
inclusive.

According to the complaint, on July 11, 2018, before market hours,
Rota Fortunae published a report stating, among other things, that
"FPI is artificially increasing revenues by making loans to
related-party tenants who round-trip the cash back to FPI as rent;
310% of 2017 earnings could be made-up." The report further stated
that "FPI has neglected to disclose that the majority of its loans
have been made to two members of the management team, including
Jesse Hough, CEO Paul Pittman's long-time business partner," and
"we found evidence that strongly supports FPI has significantly
overpaid for properties," stating in pertinent part On this news,
Farmland's stock fell $3.37 per share, or over 38%, from its
previous closing price to close at $5.28 per share on July 11,
2018, damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.

Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate company
that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland
and makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate. As of the
date of this release, the Company owns over 165,000 acres in 17
states, including Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,
Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and
Virginia.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Jeffrey A. Berens
          BERENS LAW LLC
          2373 Central Park Boulevard, Suite 100
          Denver, CO 80238
          Telephone: (303) 861 1764
          Facsimile: (303) 395 0393
          E-mail: jeff@jberenslaw.com

               - and -

          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
          E-mail: bernstein@bernlieb.com
                  lhasson@bernlieb.com
                  dsadeh@bernlieb.com


FCA US LLC: Tomassini Appeals N.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robert Tomassini filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Tomassini v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 14-cv-1226, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
(Syracuse).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 15, 2018, the
Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification;

   2. denying as moot Defendant's motion to preclude expert
      testimony; and

   3. directing Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of the
      Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance
      with the Local Rules.

The appellate case is captioned as Tomassini v. FCA US LLC, Case
No. 18-2453, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Robert Tomassini, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Gary Steven Graifman
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

Defendant-Respondent FCA US LLC, FKA Chrysler Group LLC, is
represented by:

          Alan John Pope, Esq.
          POPE & SCHRADER, LLP
          2 Court Street
          P.O. Box 510
          Binghamton, NY 13902
          Telephone: (607) 584-4900
          Facsimile: (607) 584-4901
          E-mail: apope@psplawfirm.com


FIDELITY SECURITY: Barrett Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Barrett and Craig Cunningham, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Fidelity Security Life Insurance
Company and NFS Insurance Agency LLC dba Seniors United Insurance,
Case No.  1:18-cv-11545 (D. Mass., July 24, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff Joseph Barrett is a resident of Middlesex County.

The Plaintiff Craig Cunningham is a resident of Tennessee.  

The Defendant Fidelity Security Life Insurance Company is a
Missouri corporation that has its principal office in Kansas City,
Missouri. Fidelity Security conducts business in this District,
including entering into life insurance contracts with recipients of
Seniors United's telemarketing calls.

The Defendant NFS Insurance Agency LLC dba Seniors United Insurance
is a California limited liability company that has its principal
office at 6080 Center Dr., Suite 300 in Los Angeles, CA. Seniors
United conducts business in this District, including making
telemarketing calls into this District for the purposes of
soliciting customers, as it did with the Plaintiffs. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
      Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
      BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
      99 High St., Ste. 304
      Boston, MA 02110  
      Tel: (508) 221-1510
      E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com


FIRST NATIONAL: Court Won't Dismiss C. Lundquist's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned CAMERON LUNDQUIST, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FIRST NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a New Hampshire Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 18-5301 RJB (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiff asserts that First National's practice of using
unexplained and unjustified condition adjustments to comparable
vehicles when valuing a total loss claim for a vehicle, violates
the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 284-30-391) and so
constitutes: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) violation of
Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

VIOLATIONS OF WAC 284-30-391

WAC 284-30-391 (4)(b) provides: when settling a total loss claim
the insurer must base all offers on itemized and verifiable dollar
amounts for vehicles that are currently available, or were
available within ninety days of the date of loss, using appropriate
deductions or additions for options, mileage, or condition when
determining comparability.

The Plaintiff also asserts that First National violated WAC
284-30-391 (5)(d) because the blanket deduction of $936 on all the
comparable vehicles was not explained and itemized with specific
dollar amounts. First National argues that read in context, WAC
284-30-391 (5) does not create a disclosure requirement.

The Plaintiff accurately points out that if the additions or
deductions only applied to the loss vehicle, as First National
maintains, it would amount to an end-run around the explanation and
itemization requirements of subsection (5)(d). He points out that
the value of the loss vehicle is obtained from averaging the value
of the comparable vehicles; by making unexplained deductions to the
value of the comparable vehicles, the value of the loss vehicle is
reduced with no explanation or itemization, rendering subsection
(5)(d) meaningless.

The regulation's failure to so specify should be interpreted to
include both the loss vehicle and comparable vehicles. Nothing in
WAC 284-30-392 which provides what information must be included in
the valuation reports conflicts with this interpretation.

Accordingly, WAC 284-30-391 requires insurers itemize and explain
condition adjustments to either the loss vehicle or the comparable
vehicles.

BREACH OF CONTRACT

First National's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's breach of
contract claim should be denied.
First National did not dispute that the parties had a valid
contract. As to breach, the insurance contract provides that the
Plaintiff will be given the actual cash value of the loss vehicle.
The actual cash value is determined, in part, by applying WAC
284-30-391. First National argues that it did not breach the
contract because it did not violate WAC 284-30-391. While the
valuation report stated that it was reducing all three comparable
vehicles by the exact same amount ($936), construing all factual
allegations and conclusions in the Plaintiff's favor as the Court
must do for purposes of this motion, First National did not fully
itemize and explain the deduction. The Complaint asserts that the
Plaintiff was damaged.

BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR HEALING

First National's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for breach
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing should be denied. The
allegations in the Plaintiff's Complaint, if credited, raise
sufficient questions regarding whether First National's exercised
its discretion in setting the settlement price reasonably.

VIOLATION OF THE CPA

First National's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's CPA claim should
be denied. First National argues that the Plaintiff bases his CPA
claim on alleged violations of 284-30-391, and because it did not
violate WAC 284-30-391, it did not commit a per se violation of the
CPA.  Construing all facts, allegations and reasonable inferences
in the Plaintiff's favor, this Court cannot find that First
National did not violate WAC 284-30-91.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yawop8c4 from Leagle.com.

Cameron Lundquist, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David L.
Woloshin, ASTOR WEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL, LLP, pro hac vice, Dina S.
Ronsayro, ASTOR WEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL, LLP, pro hac vice, John M.
DeStefano -- johnd@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP,
pro hac vice, Marc A. Goldich, AXLER GOLDICH LLC, pro hac vice,
Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com --  HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

First National Insurance Company of America, a New Hampshire
Corporation, Defendant, represented by James A. Morsch, BUTLER
RUBIN SALTARELLI & BOYD, pro hac vice, John O. Leahy , BUTLER RUBIN
SALTARELLI & BOYD LLP, pro hac vice, John Michael Silk --
silk@wscd.com -- WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON & Julie Rodriguez
Aldort, BUTLER RUBIN SALTARELLI & BOYD LLP, pro hac vice.


FITNESS & SPORTS: Faces Cheshire Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fitness & Sports
Clubs LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Shawn Cheshire, on behalf of
herself, and all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v.
Fitness& Sports Clubs LLC, doing business as: LA Fitness, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-61904-WPD (S.D. Fla., Aug. 15, 2018).
The case is assigned to Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan Keith Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          Wells Fargo Tower
          One East Broward Blvd., Ste. 1500
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 745 0588
          Facsimile: (877) 253 1691
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com


FIVE STAR: Cheeney Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOSEPH CHEENEY, On behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FIVE STAR PIZZA CO.,
INC.; 5 STAR PIZZA, LLC; DEFT BROTHERS, LLC; E.R.A. PIZZA LLC; EAT
PIZZA; and ERIC ARNTSON, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00606-JTN-ESC (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order:

   1. approving notice of collective action lawsuit and
      consent to join forms, to be sent to current and former
      delivery drivers employed by Defendant Five Star Pizza
      Company, Inc.; and

   2. certifying case to proceed as a collective action under the
      Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of:

      "all delivery drivers employed at the Domino's Pizza stores
      owned by Defendants who consent to join this action."

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Andrew Biller, Esq.
          Andrew Kimble, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651 3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665 0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com

               - and -

          Bradley K. Glazier, Esq.
          Robert M. Howard, Esq.
          Bos & Glazier, P.L.C.
          990 Monroe Avenue, N.W.
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 458 6814
          E-mail: bglazier@bosglazier.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Kathleen McLeod Caminiti, Esq.
          FISHER PHILLIPS LLP
          430 Mountain Ave., Suite 303
          Murray Hill, NJ 07974
          Telephone: (908) 516 1062
          E-mail: kcaminiti@fisherphillips.com

               - and -

          James Michael Honeycutt, Esq.
          J. Hagood Tighe, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          227 West Trade Street, Suite 2020
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 337 4565
          E-mail: mhoneycutt@fisherphillips.com
                  htighe@fisherphillips.com


FIVE STAR: Faces Delacruz Suit in Southern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Five Star Painting,
Inc.  The lawsuit is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Five
Star Painting, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07407
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with
Disabilities Act violations.

Five Star provides painting services. The Company offers interiors,
exteriors, decks and fences, and green painting, as well as
pressure washing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


FLIGHT SERVICES: Settlement in Workers' Suit Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted Parties' Stipulated Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned ANANAIS ALLEN, an individual, and AUSTIN CLOY, an
individual, Plaintiffs, v. FLIGHT SERVICES AND SYSTEMS, INC., a
foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-1137-RSL (W.D.
Wash.).

The Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable and
adequate and within the range of reasonableness for preliminary
settlement approval. The Court finds that: (a) the Agreement
resulted from extensive arm's length negotiations; and (b) the
Agreement is sufficient to warrant notice of the Settlement to
persons in the Settlement Class and a full hearing on the approval
of the Settlement.

For purposes of settlement, the Court amends the Class definition
as follows:

     All employees of Flight Services and Systems (FSS) who have
been Transportation Workers, as defined by the Ordinance, and who
were employed by FSS within the City of SeaTac between January 1,
2014 and the present, and who allege they were paid less than
required under the Ordinance, and who are not party to a parallel
legal action against FSS for claims substantially like those in
this lawsuit or who have not otherwise opted out of the Class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 9, 2018 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/ycv83p5v from Leagle.com.

Ananais Allen, an individual & Austin Cloy, an individual,
Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel R. Whitmore -- Duncan Calvert
Turner, BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC & Mark A. Trivett, BADGLEY
MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Flight Services and Systems, Inc., a foreign corporation,
Defendant, represented by Alan D. Schuchman, SKELLENGER BENDER, PS,
Jimmy Goh -- jgoh@constangy.com -- CONSTANGY, ROOKS, SMITH &
PROPHETE LLP, pro hac vice & Rochelle Y. Nelson, SKELLENGER BENDER,
PS.

Opt-Outs, Interested Party, represented by David N. Mark --
david@marklawoffice.com -- WASHINGTON WAGE CLAIM PROJECT & Beau C.
Haynes -- beau@wageclaimproject.org -- WASHINGTON WAGE CLAIM
PROJECT.


FLIK INTERNATIONAL: Clarke's Class Certification Bid Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JAMES CLARKE, for himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FLIK INTERNATIONAL CORP. and
COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-01915-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Stanley R. Chesler
entered an order on August 16, 2018:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion
      for conditional certification pursuant to the Fair Labor
      Standards Act;

   2. authorizing notice of this lawsuit to be sent to a group
      consisting of:

      "all people who have worked in the Flik cost center for
      Bayer located in Whippany, New Jersey under the following
      seven job titles during any workweek in the three years
      preceding the date of this Order: Cook, Grill Cook, Prep
      Cook, Sr. Cook, Food Svc Utility (a/k/a Utility Associate),
      Food Svc Worker and Food Svc Worker/Cashier (a/k/a
      Cashier/Food Service Worker);

   3. upon modification conforming to the Court's rulings in the
      accompanying Opinion, directing Plaintiff to serve proposed
      Notice of Lawsuit on Defendants within 10 days of the date
      of this Order;

   4. within seven days of receiving the further revised Notice
      of Lawsuit, directing Defendants to notify the Court of any
      objections they may have to the Notice; and

   5. once any objections are resolved, directing Notice of
      Lawsuit to be sent to group defined above via first class
      mail and shall be posted in the Flik cost center for Bayer
      located in Whippany, New Jersey.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Court Stays Proceedings in Bencomo Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MODESTA BENCOMO, the Plaintiff, v. FORSTER
& GARBUS LLP, the Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-1259 (E.D. Wisc.), the
Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order dated August 16,
2018, granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings.

The Court said, "The parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).
Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco."


GC SERVICES: Faces Golod Suit in Eastern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership.  The lawsuit is captioned as Christine A. Golod on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. GC Services Limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-04666 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2018).  The alleges Fair Debt
Collection Act violations.

GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of
call center management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
     775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
     Huntington, NY 11743
     Telephone: (631) 335 1107
     E-mail: mpash@verizon.net


GC SERVICES: Lee Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GC Services Limited Partnership, a
Delaware limited partnership, and ORG GC GP Buyer, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-01355-CDP (E.D. Mo., Aug. 17, 2018), seeks to recover
damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, Lee fell behind on paying his bills,
including a debt he allegedly owed for a Citibank credit card
account. Sometime after that debt went into default, it was placed
with Defendants for collection, who began trying to collect upon it
by sending Mr. Lee a form collection letter, dated August 29,
2017.

The collection letter stated: "As of the date of this letter, you
owe $675.69. Because of interest, late charges, and other charges
that may vary from day to day, the amount owed on the day you pay
may be greater. Hence, if you pay the amount shown above, an
adjustment may be necessary after we receive your payment, in which
event we will inform you."

The language, according to the lawsuit, is a variant of a "safe
harbor" letter created by the Seventh Circuit in Miller v. McCalla,
Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols, and Clark, 214 F.3d 872, 876 (7th
Cir. 2000), for mortgage debts where interest, late charges and
other charges are continuing to accrue on an account. To include it
in collection letters involving other debts, where such charges are
not accruing, violates the FDCPA. Boucher v. Finance System of
Green Bay, 880 F.3d 362, 367-368 (7th Cir. 2018). 9. In fact,
interest was not, and had not been, accruing on Mr. Lee's account.
As a matter of policy, the creditor ceased charging interest and
other charges after the account was charged off, and was not, in
fact, charging any "interest, late charges and other charges" on
this debt.

GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of
call center management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road Suite
          One Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974 2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974 2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Callahan, Esq.
          James R. Crump, Esq.
          CALLAHAN LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 East Gregory Suite A
          Kansas City, MO 64114
          Telephone: (816) 822 4041
          Facsimile: (913) 273 1799
          E-mail: ryan@callahanlawkc.com
                  james@callahanlawkc.com


GIORGIO SHELLFISH: Faces Lazarev Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Giorgio Shellfish
Corp. The lawsuit is captioned as Dmitriy Lazarev, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Giorgio Shellfish Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04599
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2018).  The suit alleges Americans with
Disabilities Act violations.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GOLDEN STATE FC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss R. Palma's Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROMEO PALMA, Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN STATE FC, LLC, d/b/a
AMAZON.COM, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00121-DAD-MJS (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California (i) denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand,
and (ii) granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

In his first amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges he is
employed by the Defendant in its Patterson, California fulfillment
center as a non-exempt employee.  His job duties at the fulfillment
center include packaging, loading, unloading, and various other
tasks.  The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated employees, alleging that they have
been exposed to, have suffered, and/or were permitted to work under
the Defendant's unlawful employment practices.  

His FAC defines the proposed class as all current or former
California residents who worked for the Defendant as non-exempt
employees at any time beginning four years prior to the filing of
the Complaint through the date notice is mailed to the Class.

According to the FAC, the Defendant's employees are required to
report for duty at the beginning of their shift, but that prior to
doing so, they must "clock in."  In addition, upon ending their
shift, employees must "clock out."  However, the facility in which
the class members work is quite large, and the location to clock in
and clock out is frequently located a considerable distance away
from where an employee actually performs his or her job duties.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges, it often takes several minutes
to walk from the clock in location to where an employee must report
for duty.  The result of this arrangement is that while employees
may be scheduled to work a 10-hour shift, in practical effect,
their shifts frequently last longer than 10 hours to account for
the time spent clocking in and out.  The Plaintiff argues that
under California law, the fact that the shifts lasted more than 10
hours necessitates an additional rest break, which was not provided
by the Defendant.

Based upon these allegations, the Plaintiff asserts four causes of
action against the Defendant.  On Jan. 3, 2018, the Defendant
removed the action to the federal court.  On Feb. 2, 2018, the
Paintiff filed his motion to remand.  On Feb. 7, 2018, he filed his
FAC.  On Feb. 20, 2018, the Defendant moved to dismiss the
Plaintiff's second cause of action.  Oppositions to both motions
were filed on March 6, 2018.  The replies were filed on March 13,
2018.  On March, 20, 2018, those motions came before the court for
hearing.

The Plaintiff contends in his motion to remand that the action
concerns only individuals who were scheduled to work 10-hour shifts
but in fact proceeded to work longer than 10 hours.  Assuming this
to be true for present purposes, the Defendant submitted yet a
third Nickerson Declaration from its expert stating that at four of
its facilities in California, there were approximately 885,000
shifts meeting these criteria during the relevant time period.
Against this number, the Defendant applies a quite conservative
violation rate of roughly 25%.

Judge Drozd finds this estimate to be a reasonable approximation of
the amount in controversy in light of the allegations in the FAC.
The FAC unequivocally alleges that the DDefendant does not provide
the Plaintiff and the class members with time to clock-in and
clock-out, and travel to the location to report for work, in
scheduling the Plaintiff and the Class member's shifts.  The FAC
speaks in absolutes—indeed, were it otherwise, it is doubtful
whether this action could be maintained as a class action.  The
Judge finds that an assumed violation rate of 25% is more than
reasonable in light of the allegations in the FAC.

Moreover, the Plaintiff's response on this point is unpersuasive.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has not established
jurisdiction under CAFA because the Defendant has failed to provide
the "actual violation rate."  As an initial matter, the Judge
reiterates that the standard for establishing the amount in
controversy under CAFA is a preponderance of the evidence, not
mathematical certainty.  The Plaintiff has not submitted any
further evidence to rebut the third Nickerson Declaration, leaving
the Court with limited support for the Plaintiff's position.
Moreover, the Defendant need not state the amount of damages that
are actually recoverable in the action.  Because the Jourt
concludes that the Defendant has established an amount in
controversy in excess of $5 million by a preponderance of the
evidence, the Plaintiff's motion to remand will be denied.

The Judge next addresses the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's second cause of action, which alleges a violation of
California Labor Code Section 510.  The Plaintiff alleges that
class members worked shifts exceeding ten hours, but were not
provided a third rest break as required.

The Judge holds he is unaware of any case addressing whether an
employer's failure to provide a rest break permits an employee to
seek overtime compensation under Section 510 for the time in which
the employee would have taken that rest break, and the Plaintiff
has provided no authority to support this proposition.  However,
the California Supreme Court appears to have foreclosed the
Plaintiff's contention in this regard.  In a case determining the
statute of limitations governing claims brought under Section
226.7, the California Supreme Court noted that for an employee
forced to forgo his or her meal period or rest break, Section 226.7
provides the only compensation for these injuries under California
law.  

If the Plaintiff is correct that the putative class members were
unlawfully denied a third rest break, they already possess an
adequate remedy at law pursuant to Section 226.7.  The Plaintiff
cites no authority for the proposition that Section 510 provides an
additional remedy.  Finding no other allegations in the FAC that
could plausibly support a claimed violation of Section 510, the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second cause of
action alleging a violation of California Labor Code Section 510
will be granted.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Drozd (i) denied the Plaintiff's
motion to remand, and (ii) granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.  The Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to
attempt to cure the deficiencies identified in the Order.  Within
28 days of service of the Order, the Plaintiff is directed either
to file an amended complaint, or to file a notice of intent to
proceed only on the remaining claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/46aAuw from Leagle.com.

Romeo Palma, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua H. Haffner --
jhh@haffnerlawyers.com -- Haffner Law, PC.

Golden State FC, LLC, Doing business as Amazon.Com, Defendant,
represented by Joel M. Purles -- joel.purles@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Alejandro David Szwarcsztejn --
david.szwarcsztejn@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP
& Barbara J. Miller --  barbara.miller@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis and Bockius LLP.


GOOD SHEPHERD: Rumreich Bid to Certify Collective Action Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MARIAH RUMREICH, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOOD SHEPHERD DAY
SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTE, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00292-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sheri Polster
Chappel entered an order on August 15, 2018:

   1. accepting and adopting a Report and Recommendation by
      a magistrate judge;

   2. denying Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify Fair
      Labor Standards Act collective action and facilitate notice
      to Potential Class; and

   3. directing Joleen Doherty and Kimberly Coleman to join this
      action as plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 20 of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure on or before August 29, 2018.


GREENSPOON MARDER: Lapan Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KARENA LAPAN, the Plaintiff, v. GREENSPOON
MARDER P.A., the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00130-gwc (D. Vt.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class consisting of the
people who had their information exposed by the Defendants in mass
letters sent out.

The proposed class includes:

   "any person (1) whose name was included on a list of debtors;
   (2) the list of debtors included the amount of the debt; (3)
   the list was sent by or on behalf of Defendant to any other
   debtor or alleged debtor; and (4) within the past year."

The class excludes any person who falls within the definition if
the person is (i) an employee or independent contractor of the
Defendant; (ii) a relative of an employee or independent contractor
of the Defendant; or (iii) an employee of the Court where this
action is pending.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Andrew B. Delaney, Esq.
          MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          P.O. Box 607
          100 North Main Street, Ste. 2
          Barre, Vermont 05641
          Telephone: (802) 479 0568
          Facsimile: (802) 479 5414
          E-mail: andrew@martinassociateslaw.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Holland, Esq.
          THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          P.O. Box 6268
          Annapolis, MD 21401
          Telephone: (410) 280 6133
          Facsimile: (410) 280 8650
          E-mail: peter@hollandlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          EGG LAW
          1900 S. Norfolk St. Suite 350
          San Mateo, CA 94403
          Telephone: (301) 620 1016
          Facsimile: (301) 620 1018
          E-mail: Borison@legglaw.com


HARBOR FREIGHT: Sells Defective Chainsaws, Olmos & Caraballo Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE OLMOS and FRANKLIN CARABALLO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HARBOR FREIGHT
TOOLS USA, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-04986 (N.D. Cal.,
Aug. 15, 2018), alleges that the Defendant manufacture and sell
Portland, One Stop Gardens, and Chicago Electric 14-inch Electric
Chainsaws, all of which suffer from an identical design defect.

According to the complaint, the defect manifests itself in the form
of the Products' power switch malfunctioning, which allows the
chainsaw blade to continue operating after the operator moves the
power switch to the "off" position. This defect renders the
Products unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose.

The Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendant individually and on
behalf of a class of all other similarly situated purchasers of the
Products for (1) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability;
(2) fraud; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (5) violation of California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act; and (6) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law.

Harbor Freight is a privately held discount tool and equipment
retailer, headquartered in Calabasas, California, which operates a
chain of retail stores as well as a mail-order and e-Commerce
business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


INTEGRITY HOME: FLSA Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANA COOPER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTEGRITY HOME CARE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-CV-1293-DGK (W.D. Mo.), Judge Greg Kays of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
Western Division, granted the parties' joint motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement.

The action arises from Cooper's, for herself and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, allegations that Integrity
unlawfully withheld overtime wages from hourly, non-exempt home
healthcare workers in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL").  The
Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on Dec. 14, 2016.  Integrity's answer
denied all material allegations and set forth affirmative defenses.


On May 9, 2017, the Court conditionally certified a FLSA collective
action, which resulted in a class of approximately 138 opt-in
Plaintiffs.  On May 10, 2017, the parties held a mediation and
reached a tentative settlement.  On June 16, 2017, the Court denied
Integrity's motion to dismiss, which argued that the DOL Final Rule
did not require payment of overtime wages until Nov. 12, 2015.

The settlement postulates two types of class members: the FLSA
opt-in Plaintiffs and the MMWL Rule 23 claimants.  For both the
FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 claimants who submit a valid
claim form, Integrity will pay 75% of the alleged unpaid overtime
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at any time
from Jan. 1, 2015 to Nov. 12, 2015, paid at the rate of one-half
the regular rate of pay for each individual.  Checks not cashed
within 180 days of issuance will be voided and proceeds will be
paid to the State of Missouri Unclaimed Property Fund in the name
of any individual whose check remains uncashed.

The parties have hired Analytics Consulting, LLC as the Settlement
Administrator.  Integrity will pay the settlement administration
costs.  In addition to notifying class members of the settlement
and calculating settlement amounts, Analytics Consulting will
establish a toll free telephone line and a website to answer the
class members' questions and provide information about the
Settlement Agreement.

Analytics Consulting will also send to each class member who did
not previously opt-in a notice informing them of their right to
participate in the settlement and the calculations for determining
the settlement amount they are entitled to receive.  Any class
member who timely opts out by submitting a valid exclusion will not
be paid any amount and will not release any federal or Missouri
state law claims.

The parties agree that if all eligible class members make claims,
$174,405.76 in total payments would be made to the class.  However,
the parties estimate that between 233 and 310 (about 30% to 40% of
eligible class members) claims will be made, resulting in between
$52,321.73 and $69,762.30 paid to the class.

The parties agree that Cooper -- as the class representative --
will receive a service award of $2,500 for her efforts in
prosecuting the case.  Integrity also agrees not to oppose the
Plaintiff counsel's motion for approval of their fees, costs, and
expenses, not to exceed $96,263.05.

After careful review and consideration of the Settlement Agreement,
Judge Kays gave preliminarily approval to the Settlement Agreement,
subject to final determination by the Court at the final fairness
hearing.  He conditionally certified, for settlement purposes only
(and for no other purpose and with no other effect upon the Action,
including no effect upon the Action should the Settlement Agreement
not receive final approval or should the Effective Date not occur),
a class as all current or former Nurse Aids, Certified Nurse Aids,
Personal Care Aides and Advanced Personal Care Aids who were
employed directly by Integrity, and who were not paid overtime for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at any time from
Jan. 1, 2015 to Nov. 12, 2015.

The Judge appointed, for settlement purposes, Cooper as the Class
Representative; Attorneys George Hanson and Curtis Shank of Stueve
Siege Hanson LLP and Philip Bohrer and Scott Brady of Bohrer Brady
LLC as the Settlement Class Counsel; and Analytics Consulting, LLC
as the Settlement Administrator.  Integrity will bear the cost of
paying Analytics Consulting, LLC.  

He approved, as to form and content, the Notices submitted by the
parties (Exhibits B and C to the Settlement Agreement).  The
Settlement Administrator -- with the aid of both parties -- will
identify and contact Class Members by both first-class direct mail
and email.  He also approved the Notice and Approval Schedule set
forth in Exhibit 3 of the Joint Motion for Preliminary Aproval.

At or after the Final Fairness Hearing, the Judgeshall determine
whether any application for attorneys' fees and expenses, and any
award to the Class Representatives for their representation of the
Settlement Class, should be approved.

All proceedings in this Action are stayed until further order of
the Court, except as may be necessary to implement the settlement
or comply with the terms of the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/78wIT8 from Leagle.com.

Dana Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Philip Bohrer --
Phil@bohrerbrady.com -- Bohrer Brady LLC, pro hac vice, Scott Brady
-- Scott@bohrerbrady.com -- Bohrer Brady LLC, pro hac vice,
Christopher Curtis Shank -- shank@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel
Hanson, LLP & George A. Hanson -- hanson@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve
Siegel Hanson, LLP.

Integrity Home Care, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tina G. Fowler
-- tfowler@blmlawyers.com -- Baird Lightner Millsap, PC & Katherine
A. O'Dell -- kodell@blmlawyers.com -- Baird Lightner Millsap, PC.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Appeal in NY ERISA Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
31, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the
plaintiffs in the putative class action suit commenced in the
United States District Court for the Southern District made an
appeal from the court's order granting Defendants' motion to
dismiss to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  That appeal is
pending.

In May 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York related
to the company's October 2014 announcement that it was divesting
its global commercial semiconductor technology business, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA").

Management's Retirement Plans Committee and three current or former
IBM executives are named as defendants. On September 29, 2017, the
Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint. Plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals and the matter remains pending.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

International Business Machines Corporation operates as an
integrated technology and services company worldwide. International
Business Machines Corporation was founded in 1911 and is
headquartered in Armonk, New York.


JACKSON NURSE: Musgrove Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned E. HOWARD MUSGROVE, an individual on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
JACKSON NURSE PROFESSIONALS, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-06565-FMO-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court for an order certifying a California-wide class pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and conditionally
certifying a nationwide Fair Labor Standards Act collective action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

In connection with the motion for Rule 23 class certification, the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying California-wide class with respect to the state
      claims for unpaid overtime (Cal. Labor Code sections 510
      1194), unlawful business practices, and waiting time
      penalties:

      "all non-exempt hourly health care professionals employed
      by Jackson Nurse Professionals, LLC ("Jackson") in
      California from September 6, 2013 through the date of class
      certification who worked pursuant to an Assignment
      Contract, worked overtime, and had the value of per diem
      benefits and/or monetary bonuses (other than a referral
      bonus) excluded from their regular rate for purposes of
      calculating overtime;

   2. appointing Plaintiff as representative of the class;

   3. appointing Hayes Pawlenko LLP, Matthew B. Hayes, and Kye D.
      Pawlenko as class counsel for the class; and

   4. approving and order dissemination of the proposed notice.

In connection with the motion for conditional certification of a
FLSA collective action, Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying nationwide collective for purposes
      of disseminating notice of this action:

      "all non-exempt hourly health care professionals employed
      by Jackson in the United States within three years prior to
      the date of certification who worked pursuant to an
      Assignment Contract, worked in excess of 40 hours in one or
      more workweeks, and had the value of per diem benefits
      and/or monetary bonuses (other than a referral bonus)
      excluded from their regular rate for purposes of
      calculating overtime; and

   2. approving and order dissemination of the proposed notice
      lodged as Exhibit 8 with the Joint Evidentiary Appendix to
      members of the collective who worked one or more
      assignments in California and the proposed notice lodged as
      Exhibit 9 with the Joint Evidentiary Appendix to members of
      the collective who worked exclusively outside of
      California;

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
          Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
          HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
          595 E. Colorado Blvd., Ste. 303
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 808 4357
          Facsimile: (626) 921 4932
          E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
                  kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Hostetler's Class Certification Bid Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned AMOS HOSTETLER, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
3:15-cv-00226-JD (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Jon E. Deguilio
entered an order on August 15, 2018:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   2. granting in part and denying in part Johnson Controls'
      motion to strike Dr. Keramida's opinions; and

   3. denying remaining motions to strike and the motion for
      an evidentiary hearing.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have not identified the evidence
that would allow this issue to be resolved on a class-wide basis,
as opposed to with evidence as to each class member's relation to
the contamination and Johnson Controls' knowledge and conduct
relative to that class member's exposure. The evidence could differ
for each property, or even for class members who resided at the
same property at different times. A general finding that Johnson
Controls was recklessly indifferent would not assist in
determining, in the second phase, which class members would be
entitled to punitive damages, and the Plaintiffs have not spelled
out how the first phase could be structured so as to delineate
which class members would be subject to any finding in the first
phase. Therefore, the Court declines to certify Issue for class
treatment. And having found that none of the Plaintiffs' issues are
suitable for resolution on a class-wide basis, the Court denies the
motion for class certification."


JUNK KING: Faces Delacruz Suit in Southern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Junk King Franchise
Systems, Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07406 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2018). The suit alleges
Americans with Disabilities Act violations.

Junk King offers junk removal services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


KELLOGG SALES: Court Certifies 3 Subclasses in Hadley Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned STEPHEN HADLEY, the Plaintiff, v. KELLOGG
SALES COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-04955-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order on August 17,
2018:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for
      class certification;

   2. denying Kellogg's motion to exclude the opinion testimony
      of Steven P. Gaskin under Daubert;

   3. certifying following Rule 23(b)(3) class, which is composed
      of three subclasses:

      "all persons in California who, on or after August 29,
      2012, purchased for household use and not for resale or
      distribution";

         Raisin Bran Subclass:

         "Kellogg's Raisin Bran (including Omega-3) or Kellogg's
         Raisin Bran Crunch Cereals in a 13.7 oz., 14.3 oz., 18.2
         oz., 18.7 oz., 23.5 oz., 24.8 oz., 29 oz., 30.3 oz.,
         43.3 oz., 56.6 oz., or 76.5 oz. package stating heart
         healthy";

         Smart Start Subclass:

         "Kellogg's Smart Start Original Antioxidants cereal in a
         17.3 oz. package"; and

         Frosted Mini-Wheats Subclass:

         "Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats Bite Size (Original,
         Maple Brown Sugar, Strawberry, or Blueberry varieties),
         Big Bites (Original variety), Little Bites (Chocolate or
         Cinnamon Roll varieties), or Touch of Fruit in the
         Middle (Mixed Berry and Raspberry varieties) cereals in
         a 15.2 oz., 15.5 oz., 15.8 oz., 16.5 oz., 18 oz., 21
         oz., or 24 oz. package."

   4. appointing Stephen Hadley as representative of the class.
      As Kellogg does not challenge the adequacy of proposed
      class counsel;

   5. appointing Jack Fitzgerald of The Law Office of Jack
      Fitzgerald, P.C., as class counsel.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)
predominance as to (1) Plaintiff's proposed Nutri-Grain Soft-Baked
Breakfast Bar Subclass; and (2) Plaintiff's deceptive omission
theory of liability. However, the Court also finds that Plaintiff
has established Rule 23(b)(3) predominance as to the remainder of
his proposed subclasses and theories of liability. Accordingly, the
Court denies Plaintiff's motion for class certification only as to
the proposed Nutri-Grain Soft-Baked Breakfast Bar Subclass and
deceptive omission theory of liability.  Moreover, because the
Court denies class certification as to Plaintiff's deceptive
omission theory of liability, the Court denies as moot Kellogg's
motion to exclude Gaskin's expert testimony to the extent that it
concerns Gaskin's proposed advantage realized damages model.


KICHO CORPORATION: Faces Chen Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kicho Corporation.
The lawsuit is captioned as Zhongle Chen, on his own behalf and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KICHO
CORPORATION and Jin Chun Chen, the Defendants, Case No.
7:18-cv-07413 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2018). The suit alleges Fair
Labor Standards Act violations.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Huggies Diapers Caused Rashes, Morales Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
HEIDY MORALES, individually and as parent and guardian of J.F., and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-07401
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2018), seeks redress for Plaintiff individually
and as parent and guardian of J.F., for painful rashes to J.F. and
financial injury to Plaintiff resulting from the purchase and use
of Huggies Snug & Dry Diapers (TM).

Huggies is manufactured by the Defendant. As a result of
Defendant's negligent manufacturing process, Defendant's Product
created rashes significant enough to require medical attention and
prescription medication for Plaintiff's son J.F. Accordingly,
Plaintiff Morales brings this Class Action Complaint against
Defendant, alleging violations of New York General Business Law and
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, strict products
liability, negligence, and fraudulent misrepresentation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212 465 1188
          Facsimile: 212 465 1181


KINGLY COACH: Faces Li Suit in Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kingly Coach, Inc.
The lawsuit is captioned as Wing Kam Li on his own behalf and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kingly
Coach, Inc., BWJ Group, Inc., Sung Ae Kim, Andy Meng, and Dae Kun
Yi, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04614 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15,
2018). The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violations.

Kingly Coach is in the local passenger transportation.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


KNORR-BREMSE: Lucas Suit over No-Poach Deals Moved to Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JOHN W. LUCAS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
KNORR-BREMSE AG, KNORR BRAKE COMPANY LLC, NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC,
WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and FAIVELEY
TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01280, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) on Aug. 17, 2018.  The
Western District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-01089-JFC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Joy Flowers Conti.

The civil antitrust class action is brought by and on behalf of
employees of Defendants, the world's largest rail equipment
suppliers.  Rail equipment employees, like employees in any labor
market, benefit when their employers compete for their services.
Competition among employers leads to greater negotiating leverage
for employees, which in turn leads to higher wages and greater
mobility.

According to the Defendants, however, agreed not to compete for the
services of rail equipment employees through "no-poach" agreements,
meaning Defendants agreed among themselves that they would not
solicit or recruit each other's employees. Knorr and Wabtec were
the first to enter into a no-poach agreement, which began in
January 2009 at the latest. Knorr and Wabtec then each entered into
separate no-poach agreements with Faiveley (which has since been
acquired by Wabtec). As a result of the agreements, Defendants'
employees were denied the benefits of competition and received
compensation that was artificially suppressed.

Knorr-Bremse is a manufacturer of braking systems for rail and
commercial vehicles that has operated in the field for over 110
years.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Paul Mark Sandler, Esq.
          Eric R. Harlan, Esq.
          SHAPIRO SHER GUINOT & SANDLER
          250 West Pratt Street, Suite 2000
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 385 0202
          Facsimile: (410) 539 7611
          E-mail: pms@shapirosher.com
                  erh@shapirosher.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Karissa Sauder, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                  mdellangelo@bm.net
                  ksauder@bm.net

               - and -

          Daniel Walker, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 559 9745
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: dwalker@bm.net

               - and -

          Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
          KEHOE LAW FIRM
          Two Penn Center Plaza
          1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 792 6676
          E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Steve N. Williams, Esq.
          Jiamie Chen, Esq.
          Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500 6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395 9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                  jchen@saverilawfirm.com
                  kgibboney@saverilawfirm.com


KOHN LAW: Court Certifies FDCPA & FCRA Classes in "Rizzo" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SASHA RIZZO, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KOHN LAW FIRM S.C., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-408-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (i)
granted Rizzo's motion for class certification; (ii) granted
Wisconsin Lawyers Mutual Insurance Co. ("WLMIC")'s motion to
intervene; and (iii) denied without prejudice to refiling Kohn's
motion for summary judgment.

Rizzo is suing Defendant Kohn for violating her rights under the
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), and the
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").  Specifically, Rizzo says that
Kohn disclosed her credit score in public documents filed in a
collections action in state court and that doing so was unlawful
debt collection activity under the FDCPA and an impermissible use
of a "consumer report" under the FCRA.

Pending before the Court is Rizzo's motion for class certification
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Rizzo seeks
to certify two classes, one for violations of the FCRA and one for
violations of the FDCPA.  Both classes include current and former
customers of Discover Bank in the state of Wisconsin who have had
their FICO credit scores published by Kohn in Wisconsin circuit
court collection actions.  The only difference between the two
proposed classes is that the FCRA class extends to conduct that
occurred up to two years before Rizzo filed this lawsuit and the
FDCPA is limited to one year.  This is presumably because the
statute of limitations for the FCRA is two years of the discovery
of the violation, and the statute of limitations for the FDCPA is
one year from the date the violation occurred.

Also pending before the Court is the motion to intervene filed by
WLMIC.  WLMIC wishes to intervene so that it can obtain a
declaration regarding whether a liability policy it issued to Kohn
covers the claims in the case.  None of the other parties oppose
the motion.

After the parties finished briefing Rizzo's motion for class
certification, Kohn filed a motion for summary judgment, four
months before the deadline for doing so.

With respect to WLMIC's motion to intervene, the only requirement
in question is timeliness.  Judge Peterson finds that WLMIC waited
more than a year to seek intervention and it identifies no reason
for the delay.  Because the other parties do not allege that they
will be prejudiced, he will grant the motion to intervene, but with
a caveat.  Having waited so long to act, WLMIC should not expect to
receive a stay or any alteration in the Court's schedule to allow
time to get up to speed.  It will have to abide by the deadlines
set forth in the preliminary pretrial conference order.

As to Rizzo's motion for class certification, the Judge concludes
that Rizzo has satisfied the Rule 23 requirements.  As to the
definition of the class, its scope is clear and its members can be
identified using objective criteria.  As to numerosity, it is
undisputed that Kohn disclosed the credit scores of more than 800
customers within the two years that preceded this lawsuit.  As to
the adequacy of the class counsel, courts have appointed Thomas
Lyons Sr. and Thomas Lyons Jr. in many other class actions,
including Eggen v. WESTconsin, which raised issues similar to those
in this case.  In light of counsel's experience, the Judge will
approve them as the class counsel.

Finally, the Judge concludes that Rizzo has shown that there are
questions of law and fact that are common to all the class members,
that Rizzo is an adequate class representative and is raising a
claim that is typical of the class, that common questions
predominate, and that a class action is superior to other methods
of adjudication.

The only remaining issue is the class notice.  Generally, a
plaintiff's counsel includes a proposed class notice with their
motion for certification, but the counsel failed to do that in the
case.  He will give Rizzo the opportunity to do that now.  He
should take care to include all the information required under Rule
23.

In addition to this information, it may be appropriate to advise
potential class members of the requirement to disclose their claim
if they choose to join the class and have filed a bankruptcy
action.  That could go a long way toward avoiding the potential
problem identified by Kohn.  But the Judge will leave to Rizzo to
decide in the first instance whether to include that information.

For these reasons, Judge Peterson granted WLMIC's motion to
intervene and Rizzo's motion for class certification.

He certified the following classes:

     a. FCRA class: All current and former customers of Discover
Bank in the state of Wisconsin who have had their FICO credit
scores published by Kohn Law Firm, S.C. in circuit court collection
actions within two years of the date of the filing of the lawsuit
-- May 26, 2017.

     b. FDCPA class: All current and former customers of Discover
Bank in the state of Wisconsin who have had their FICO credit
scores published by Kohn Law Firm, S.C. in circuit court collection
actions within one year of the date of the filing of the lawsuit --
May 26, 2017.

The Jduge appointed Thomas Lyons Sr. and Thomas Lyons Jr. as the
class counsel.  Rizzo may have until July 26, 2018, to file a
proposed class notice.  Kohn may have until Aug. 2, 2018, to file a
response.  

The Judge denied Kohn's motion for summary judgment without
prejudice to Kohn's refiling it after the class members' deadline
for opting out of the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/QcuqQ7 from Leagle.com.

Sasha Rizzo, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D. Christianson --
lawfirm@cf.legal -- Christianson & Freund, LLC, Thomas John Lyons,
Jr. -- tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com -- Consumer Justice Center,
P.A. & Thomas John Lyons, Sr. -- tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com -- Lyons
Law Firm PA.

Wisconsin Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, Intervenor Plaintiff,
represented by Sheila M. Sullivan -- ssullivan@bmrlawyers.com --
Bell, Moore & Richter, S.C.

Kohn Law Firm S.C., Defendant, represented by Terry E. Johnson --
tjohnson@pjmlaw.com -- Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C.


KROGER CO: Wins Summary Judgment in Coffelt Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Roger Coffelt, Jr., the Plaintiff, v. The
Kroger Co., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-01471-JGB-KK
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order
granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment; denying all other
pending motions as moot; and directing Clerk to close the case.

The Court said, "In Whitson v. Bumbo, No. C 07-05597 MHP, 2009 WL
1515597, at 6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2009), the district court
dismissed the plaintiff's claim for lack of standing because the
plaintiff had failed to "allege actual injury" under her "benefit
of the bargain" theory or any other theory articulated. In Whitson,
as here, the product was subject to a recall. The court found the
plaintiff did "not allege that she or any child on whose behalf she
has standing to sue actually used or was harmed by any defect in
the Bumbo seat. Nor [did] she allege that she relied upon or even
saw the images of children sitting in Bumbo seats on elevated
surfaces. The plaintiff there merely alleged that she purchased a
Bumbo seat, the defendants misrepresented the safety and intended
uses of the Bumbo seat, and some children were harmed. Thus, the
plaintiff claimed she, and a class of Bumbo seat purchasers, were
entitled to damages. Summary, Whitson does not have standing for
her claims under a 'benefit of the bargain' theory or any other
stated theory." Here, similar to the cases discussed above,
Plaintiff cannot show that he purchased a contaminated product.
There is no evidence before the Court that the specific package
Plaintiff purchased had in fact been adulterated or contaminated.
Plaintiff merely presents evidence that he purchased peas during
the period of time in which products were subject to recall.
However, not all Korger Peas & Carrots packed between the recall
dates were packed with CRF peas. In fact, Kroger's outreach
regarding the recall was broader than Pictsweet's recall and
included bags that were not packed with CRF peas. Undisputed facts
establish that Plaintiff ate the October 2014 peas without incident
and was satisfied with the product. In sum, Plaintiff has not
presented sufficient evidence that a reasonable juror could
conclude he was exposed to a dangerous substance that the product
he bought was contaminated). The case at bar mirrors the
plaintiff's claims in Whitson, where she merely alleged that she
purchased the product, the defendants misrepresented the product,
and some customers experienced harm. Perhaps most significantly, in
Whitson, as here, the plaintiff did not allege that the specific
product she purchased manifested the purported defect. Similarly,
here, Plaintiff's facts establish he purchased a bag of peas (the
product at issue),
the product, as in Whitson, was subject to recall, and some of the
product (not necessarily his) were contaminated. Plaintiff offers
no authority for the proposition that he has standing or injury
simply because a product was recalled and may have been
contaminated. In fact, cases reviewed by this Court suggest
otherwise. Plaintiff relies on Brod v. Sioux Honey Ass'n Co-op, 895
F. Supp. 2d 972 (N.D. Cal. 2012) for the proposition that he has
standing. (Opp. at 8.) In Brod, the court found the consumer had
standing after he purchased honey that was unlawful to sell. Id. at
976. However, in Brod, the plaintiff alleged a uniform
misrepresentation on the product label; Sioux Honey labeled its Sue
Bee Clover Honey as 'Honey,' and that was a false representation.
Plaintiff here, however, fails to acknowledge that in Brod all of
the products had all pollen filtered or otherwise removed and thus
did not constitute "honey," whereas here not all Kroger Peas &
Carrots were contaminated. To the extent Plaintiff attempts to
impose liability based on alleged violations of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and California's Sherman Law, he cannot.
These statutes do not provide a private right of action. See 21
U.S.C. section 337(a) (stating that only the United States can
bring actions to enforce violations of FDCA); see also Cal. Health
& Safety Code § 111840 (providing that only the attorney general,
district attorney, or city attorney can initiate proceedings under
California's Sherman Law).


LAS VEGAS, NV: D. Nelson's FLSA Suit Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENNIS B. NELSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LAS VEGAS,
Defendant, Civ. No. 17-919 JCH/SCY (D. N.M.), Judge Judith C.
Herrera of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
and Request for Attorney's Fees.

On Sept. 4, 2015, Nelson filed his original, pro se complaint
against his former employer, the City of Las Vegas, in the Fourth
Judicial District Court, County of San Miguel, State of New Mexico.
Nelson alleged that the City violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") by failing to properly pay him and other police officers
for overtime.  The complaint asserts these allegations, but does
not purport to make a claim on behalf of anyone besides Nelson.

The City filed an answer to the complaint, as well as a motion for
judgment on the pleadings for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, in which it sought dismissal of Nelson's
FLSA claims.  Then Nelson retained counsel, who moved to
consolidate Nelson's FLSA case with a whistleblower complaint
Nelson had filed pro se against the City on May 27, 2016.

On July 28, 2017, the state court granted the motion to
consolidate.  That same day, Nelson filed a motion for leave to
file an amended complaint. The state court granted that motion as
well.  

On Aug. 30, 2017, Nelson filed his amended complaint which
reasserted Nelson's FLSA claim but set forth no new federal cause
of action.  The amended complaint did add a request that the court
certify a class action for Nelson's New Mexico Minimum Wage Act
claim, as well as a collective action for his federal FLSA claim
and his breach of contract claim.

On Sept. 8, 2017, the City filed its Notice of Removal in the
federal district court.  The City's notice of removal does not set
forth the procedural history of this case and states merely that
this Court has original, federal question jurisdiction under 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 over Nelson's FLSA
claim and supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.  It
appears that the parties have not conducted discovery or litigation
on the merits of the amended complaint.

On Oct. 4, 2017, Nelson filed his motion to remand and request for
attorney's fees.  Nelson argues that the City's removal of the case
in September of 2017 is untimely, as it was clear from the face of
the original complaint -- filed two years earlier in September of
2015 -- that he was bringing a claim under the FLSA.  This is
further supported, he argues, by the fact that the City filed a
motion in state court arguing that his FLSA claims were not
cognizable, thereby litigating the merits of the federal claim in
state court.  He contends that having waived its opportunity to
remove the case at the outset, the City may not get a "second bite
at the apple" at a later stage of the case.  In response, the City
contends that the amended complaint is so different from the
original that it constitutes an entirely new claim, and that under
the revival exception, it should have a second opportunity to
remove.

After reviewing the motion, response, reply, and relevant
authorities and precedents, Judge Herrera concludes that the right
to removal cannot be revived under the circumstances presented in
the case.  She finds that the causes of action in the amended
complaint in the case cannot be described as entirely new and
different -- it began as a claim for unpaid wages under the FLSA,
and it remains so.  Although it is true that the factual
allegations underlying Nelson's theory of the FLSA violation have
changed, the cause of action itself has not.  Furthermore, a
request to certify a collective action under the FLSA has certainly
expanded the claim, but has not changed it so fundamentally that it
can be considered an entirely new and different cause of action.
Thus, even if the revival exception exists in the Tenth Circuit,
the present case does not satisfy its requirements.  Thus, the
removal is untimely, and the case will be remanded to the state
district court.

The Judge cannot conclude that the City's removal was entirely
unreasonable.  The Fifth Circuit has applied the revival exception.
Furthermore, the Tenth Circuit's decision in Henderson, though
old, provides a non-frivolous basis for the City's argument that
the revival exception is valid and should apply.  Based on this,
and the fact that Nelson's amended complaint did expand the scope
of his FLSA claim, she concludes that Nelson's request for
attorney's fees and costs should be denied.

For these reasons, Judge Herrera granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Request for Attorney's Fees.
She remanded the case to the Fourth Judicial District Court, County
of Miguel, State of New Mexico.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/yNtPta from Leagle.com.

Dennis B. Nelson, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew L. Garcia,
Matthew L. Garcia Attorney at Law & Jonathan Jacob Guss --
jon@matthewgarcialaw.com -- Matthew L. Garcia Attorney at Law,
LLC.

City of Las Vegas, Defendant, represented by James P. Sullivan,
Brennan & Sullivan, P.A. & Christina L. Brennan, Brennan & Sullivan
PA.


LASER AESTHETIC: Olwen Jaffe Sues over Junk Messages
----------------------------------------------------
OLWEN JAFFE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. LASER AESTHETIC CENTER,
INC., an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH10361
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Aug. 15, 2018), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of making unauthorized automated text message
calls to consumers' cellular telephones, and to obtain redress for
all persons injured by Defendant's conduct.

According to the complaint, in a misguided effort to advertise its
services, LAC, a cosmetic dermatology center specializing in laser
hair removal, engaged in a persistent, invasive, and unlawful form
of marketing: the transmission of unauthorized advertisements in
the form of text message calls to the cellular telephones of
consumers throughout northwest Illinois and the rest of the nation.
By placing these unauthorized text message calls, Defendant has
violated the called parties' statutory rights and has caused
consumers actual harm, not only because consumers were subjected to
the aggravation and invasion of privacy that necessarily
accompanies the transmission of automated text messages, but also
because consumers, like Plaintiff, must frequently pay their cell
phone service providers or incur a usage allocation deduction from
their calling plans for the receipt of such messages,
notwithstanding that the text messages were made in violation of
specific legislation on the subject.

Laser Aesthetic offers laser skin care services.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          David L. Gerbie, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
          E-mail: dgerbie@mcgpc.com


LAWRENCE GROUP: Melton Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned HORACE TRACY MELTON, and SUZANNE BASKETTE,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiffs, vs. CECIL LAWRENCE; DALE LAWRENCE; CECIL LAWRENCE,
INC.; and LAWRENCE GROUP MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00167-TRM-SKL (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
      collective action and directing to send notice to all
      members of the class Plaintiff proposes one of the
      following class(es):

      "all individuals employed by defendants at any time since
      June 25, 2015, who were paid primarily on an hourly basis,
      who were not paid overtime compensation; and who in lieu of
      overtime compensation were provided with "comp time";

      alternatively;

      "all individuals employed by defendants at any time since
      June 25, 2015, who were paid primarily on an hourly basis,
      who were not paid overtime compensation; who in lieu of
      overtime compensation were provided with "comp time," and
      who worked at a facility that was supervised or managed by
      Dale Lawrence."

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Joshua R. Ward, Esq.
          MASSEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          Attorney for Plaintiff
          1024 M.L. King Blvd.
          Chattanooga, TN 37403
          Telephone: 423 697 4529
          Facsimile: 423 634 8886
          E-mail: josh@masseyattorneys.com

Attorney for Defendants:

          Donna J. Mikel, Esq.
          BURNETTE, DOBSON & PINCHAK
          711 Cherry Street
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          E-mail: dmikel@bdplawfirm.com


LEGENDS HOSPITALITY: Faces Reyes Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Legends Hospitality,
LLC.  The lawsuit is captioned as Jose Reyes, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Legends
Hospitality, LLC, doing business as: Ford Amphitheater, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04671 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2018).  The
case alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violations.

Legends Hospitality provides integrated solutions for sports,
entertainment, and leisure industries. It offers management
consulting, advisory, and planning.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


LIFE TIME: Faces Sullivan Suit in Southern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Life Time, Inc. The
lawsuit is captioned as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Life Time,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07404 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15,
2018).  The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act
violations.

Life Time, Inc. is a chain of health clubs in the United States and
Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


LJM PARTNERS: Melcher Sues over Collapse of Limited Partnership
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Melcher, et al, the Plaintiffs, v. LJM Partners, Ltd., et
al., the Defendants, Case No. 2018CH10346 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty., Aug. 15, 2018), seeks to recover damages arising out of the
rapid collapse of the Partnership wherein the Partnership lost
approximately 80% of its value over two days.

According to the complaint, LJM marketed the Partnership as a
carefully hedged strategy, when in reality LJM employed a highly
aggressive trading strategy.  The Plaintiffs bring this class
action on behalf of all persons who were invested in the Limited
Partnership Interest in the Asset Class I Series of LJM Fund, L.P.
as of February 6, 2018. The Partnership raised hundreds of millions
of dollars from Limited Partners pursuant to a subscription
agreement, Limited Partnership Agreement, and a Confidential
Offering Memorandum and Disclosure Documents.  These Offering
Documents promoted the Partnership as a carefully hedged strategy,
with factually inaccurate statements.  On February 5 and 6, 2018,
the Partnership lost approximately 80% of its value despite a
modest downturn of approximately 2% in two days in the S&P 500.

LJM Partners is an Illinois Corporation and investment firm
specializing in managed futures and financial investment
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Freed, Esq.
          William H. London, Esq.
          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632 4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632 4521
          E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com
                  blondon@fklmlaw.com
                  bhogan@fklmlaw.com


MANHATTAN WELLNESS: Faces Delacruz Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manhattan Wellness
Group, Inc.  The lawsuit is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Manhattan Wellness Group, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07546 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2018).  The case alleges
Americans with Disabilities Act violations.

Manhattan Wellness specializes in chiropractic treatment for back
pain and neck pain in the Manhattan, New York City area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


MARBLE AND GRANITE: Faces Alvarado Suit in District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marble and Granite
Fabricators Corporation.  The lawsuit is captioned as PEDRO
ALVARADO, Individually on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff v. MARBLE AND GRANITE FABRICATORS CORPORATION, doing
business as: MARBLE AND GRANITE FABRICATORS; JORGE AREVALO; and
GIOVANNI DOE, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-12904 (D.N.J., Aug.
17, 2018).  The case alleges denial of overtime compensation.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MARKET AMERICA: Arbitration Granted in Distributorship Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina granted Petitioner's Petition for Order Compelling
Arbitration in the case captioned MARKET AMERICA, INC., MARKET
AMERICA WORLDWIDE, INC., JAMES HOWARD RIDINGER, LOREN RIDINGER, and
MARCASHLEY, Petitioners, V. CHUANJIE YANG, OLLIELAN, and LIULIU,
Respondents, No. 1:17CV897 (D.N.C.).

On May 30, 2017, Respondents Yang and Lan commenced a putative
class action ("the California Action") in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California against the
Petitioners.  The Petitioners filed a motion to compel arbitration,
and the Respondents amended the complaint on July 20, 2017, to add
Respondent Liu as a plaintiff and to include an argument that the
district court in California lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
compel arbitration outside its judicial district.  As amended, the
complaint in the California Action seeks a declaratory judgment
that the arbitration provision in the Agreement is unenforceable,
and also asserts claims under state law for an "endless chain
scheme," for unfair and deceptive practices, and for false
advertising, as well as claims for damages under 18 U.S.C. Section
1962(a) (RICO), and for federal securities fraud.  Market America
moved to transfer the California Action to this judicial district,
or to stay or dismiss the case pending arbitration.  THe
Petitioners then filed the present action in this Court. The
district court in the California Action subsequently held a hearing
on the Motion to Transfer. While not necessarily sharing the
parties' concerns about its ability to compel arbitration in
another judicial district, the district court nevertheless stayed
the California Action in light of the commencement of this action,
noting that it may not need to confront the jurisdictional issue in
light of any action taken by this Court.

This matter comes before the Court on a Petition for Order
Compelling Arbitration filed by Market America, Inc. (Market
America), its parent company Market America Worldwide, Inc., and
its officers James Howard Ridinger, Loren Ridinger, and Marc Ashley
(Petitioners).

Market America is a self-described product brokerage and Internet
one-to-one marketing company, with headquarters in North Carolina.
Petitioners allege that Respondents are independent distributors
for Market America and that each signed an Independent Unfranchise
Application and Agreement" (Agreement) that is at the core of the
parties' dispute.

First to File

The Respondents contend that this Court lacks proper venue because
of the earlier filed California Action. Typically, when similar
lawsuits are filed in multiple forums, the Fourth Circuit adheres
to the 'first-filed' rule, which holds that the first-filed suit
should have priority.

This Court finds that special circumstances exist to warrant
consideration of the Petition. The Court notes that the district
court in California declined to consider whether it may compel
arbitration specifically to permit this Court to consider the
Petition.  These facts present special circumstances to warrant
this Court considering the merits of the Petition.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Respondents next contend that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction because the claims have already been asserted in the
California Action.

To the extent the Respondents are again contending that the matter
should proceed in California under the First to File rule, that
contention was already considered.

Arbitrability

The Respondents contend that Respondent Yang did not assent to
arbitration, that the arbitration clause is illusory, that the
arbitration clause is unconscionable, that the individual Market
America officers were not signatories and cannot enforce the
arbitration agreement, that any arbitration should be on a class
basis, and that the underlying Agreement is void.

Assent as to Respondent Yang

Arbitration is a matter of consent, and the burden is on the party
seeking to compel arbitration to prove that a valid arbitration
agreement exists.  

In this case, Respondents Lan and Liu do not dispute that they
executed the agreement to arbitrate. However, Respondent Yang
submitted an affidavit stating that on or about 2009 he signed a
one page piece of paper,that to the best of his recollection did
not include any terms and conditions.

The Court notes that a consent to arbitration can be found even if
the arbitration agreement was not formally signed, and may be shown
based on an agreement that incorporates the arbitration provisions
by reference. In Krusch v. TAMKO Bldg. Products, Inc., 34 F.Supp.3d
584(M.D.N.C. 2014), an agent for a party was provided samples of a
roofing shingle containing a warning on each shingle that its
purchase was subject to terms and conditions and that a copy could
be obtained from a distributor or by contacting the company.

The incorporated materials contained an arbitration clause. The
district court concluded that the incorporation-by-reference of a
document containing an arbitration agreement was sufficient to
provide constructive notice of the document's terms.  

Here, Respondent Yang executed one or more documents which
incorporate by reference the Distributor Agreement, and he also
continued to make annual renewals after being provided with the
Career Manual that gave additional notice of the arbitration
provisions. Therefore, when coupled with Respondents'
acknowledgement that Market America's policies were fully
accessible, the Court will not permit Mr. Yang to commence suit
based on the Distributorship Agreement but ignore its complete
terms.

In light of the record presented, the Court finds that all of the
Respondents assented to the arbitration agreement, and Respondent
Yang has not created a genuine factual dispute on this issue.

Illusory Contract

The Respondents contend that Market America's unilateral right to
amend the Agreement renders it illusory and unenforceable.

In the present case, the arbitration provision requires arbitration
in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration
Association, an independent forum, and provides that each party may
seek emergency or provisional relief in state court. As Respondents
correctly point out, the Distributorship Agreement permits Market
America to amend the entire Agreement, and therefore presumably the
arbitration clause, by providing notice in an official company
publication or communication.

Here, the requirement of formal publication or communication to the
Respondents provides notice of any changes to the Career Manual,
the rules governing arbitration are set by the independent American
Arbitration Association, and consistent with Abdullah, a court will
not interpret the arbitration clause to allow Market America to
avoid the dispute resolution process by altering its terms which
there is no record that it has attempted to do. Based upon these
findings, the Court concludes that Respondents have not established
that the agreement to arbitrate is illusory.

Class Actions

The Respondents contend that if the Court compels arbitration, the
arbitration should be permitted on a class-wide basis. The
Petitioners maintain that the language of the arbitration clause
cannot be read to fairly permit class-wide arbitration. In
resolving this issue, Courts look to the terms of the arbitration
clause to avoid forcing parties to resolve their disputes though
means not intended at the time of contract formation. The Supreme
Court has found that 'class action arbitration changes the nature
of arbitration to such a degree that it cannot be presumed the
parties consented to it by simply agreeing to submit their disputes
to an arbitrator.'

In the present case, the Petitioners note that the arbitration
clause is not written in the plural, repeatedly referencing you and
making no provision for class-wide litigation. The Respondents
counter that the agreement's reference to any controversy or claim
is sufficiently ambiguous to encompass class-wide arbitration.
However, the Respondents' argument conflates claims' with parties,
and the Court does not find that the Petitioners have consented to
arbitrate on a class-wide basis by merely consenting to
arbitration. Therefore the Court concludes that the reference to
any claim or controversy is not sufficient to reflect an agreement
to class-wide arbitration.

It appears that the Petition for an Order Compelling Arbitration
should be granted, since that matter has been briefed and
considered here.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 12, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9f6ev35 from
Leagle.com.

MARKET AMERICA, INC., MARKET AMERICA WORLDWIDE, INC., JAMES HOWARD
RIDINGER, LOREN RINDINGER & MARC ASHLEY, Plaintiffs, represented by
PRESSLY MCAULEY MILLEN -- millen@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE BOND
DICKINSON (US) LLP.

CHUANJIE YANG, OLLIE LAN & LIU LIU, Defendants, represented by
BLAKE J. LINDEMANN -- Blake@lawbl.com -- LINDEMANN LAW FIRM, APC &
THOMAS C. KILPATRICK -- tom@kilpatricklawgroup.com -- KILPATRICK
LAW GROUP, PLLC.


MARSHALLS OF CA: Failed to Pay Minimum & OT, Paulino Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JOAN CATHERYN PAULINO, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01925-CAB-AGS (S.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2018), alleges wage and
labor violations arising out of, among other things, Defendant's
policy and practice of requiring its closing supervisors and
managers to perform off-the-clock duties, pursuant to the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant operates a chain of
retail department stores throughout California. Plaintiff has
worked for Defendant for nearly 14 years, and is currently employed
by Defendant as Assistant Merchandising Manager at Defendant's
store in San Marcos, California. The Plaintiff and the Class, which
include various employee titles, work as non-exempt closing shift
supervisors or manager employees responsible for closing
Defendant's stores. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant with the
responsibility for supervising the closing of Defendant's store on
a number occasions. The Defendant had a policy applicable to
Closing Supervisors regarding closing the store. The policy
required the Closing Supervisor to first clock-out, on a device
most frequently in the break room at the back of the store, then
proceed to activate the alarm, what for the alarm to clear or
sound, wait and potentially repeat the process for any employees
slow in leaving the store, and confirm the store is locked,
secured, empty, and closed. The post-closing, uncompensated off-the
clock process by Closing Supervisors took several minutes,
regularly 5-10 minutes. On each occasion, the Plaintiff was
responsible closing Defendant's store, she worked off the clock
time, regularly for 5-10 minutes, time for which she was not
compensated. The specific dates and times Plaintiff worked as
Closing Supervisor are reflected in Defendant's records. The
uncompensated time spent closing the store, because it was at the
end of a shift, was regularly overtime hours. The specific dates
and times Plaintiff worked as Closing Supervisor at a time during
which she should have received the overtime rate will be reflected
in Defendant's records.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Joan Catheryn Paulino, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Benson E. Garrett, Esq.
          Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514 5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514 5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  benson@haffnerlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com


MCDONALD'S CORP: O'Neil Sues over Background Checks
---------------------------------------------------
DANNY O'NEIL, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, A
foreign corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02038-SDM-AEP
(Fla. Cir. Ct., Manatee Cty., Aug. 17, 2018), seeks to recover
damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a fast food company
operating stores all over the world. Defendant routinely obtains
and uses information in consumer reports to conduct background
checks on applicants and employees. The Defendant violated FCRA by
procuring consumer reports on Plaintiff and other putative class
members for employment purposes, without first making proper
disclosures in the format required by the statute.

McDonald's is an American fast food company, founded in 1940 as a
restaurant operated by Richard and Maurice McDonald, in San
Bernardino, California, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, No. 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 225 0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Steven G. Wenzel, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 3000
          Tampa, Florida 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: swenzel@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com
                  twells@wfclaw.com


MDL 2420: Indirect Purchasers Seek to Certify Two Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 4:13-md-02420 YGR (DMR) (N.D. Cal.), the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs will move the Court on November 6, 2018, for an order:

   1. certifying classes:

      Consumer Class:

      "all persons and entities who, as a resident of Alabama,
      Arizona, Arkansas, California, District of Columbia,
      Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
      Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
      Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York,
      North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota,
      Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, or Wisconsin who,
      during the period from January 1, 2007 through May 31,
      2011, indirectly purchased, new for their own use and not
      for resale, one of the following products containing a
      lithium-ion cylindrical battery manufactured by one or more
      defendants or their co-conspirators: (i) a portable
      computer; or (ii) a replacement battery for a portable
      computer."

      Excluded from the class are any purchases of Panasonic-
      branded computers. Also excluded from the class are any
      federal, state, or local governmental entities, any
      judicial officers presiding over this action, members of
      their immediate families and judicial staffs, and any juror
      assigned to this action.

      California Government Entity Class:

      "all non-federal and non-state governmental entities in
      California that, during the period from January 1, 2007
      through May 31, 2011, indirectly purchased, new for their
      own use and not for resale, one of the following products
      containing a lithium-ion cylindrical battery manufactured
      by one or more defendants or their co-conspirators: (i) a
      portable computer; or (ii) a replacement battery for a
      portable computer.

      Excluded from the class are any purchases of Panasonic-
      branded computers. Also excluded from the class are any
      federal or state governmental entities, any judicial
      officers presiding over this action, members of their
      immediate families and judicial staffs, and any juror
      assigned to this action.

   2. appointing Jason Ames, Caleb Batey, Christopher Bessette,
      Cindy Booze, Matt Bryant, Steven Bugge, William Cabral,
      Matthew Ence, Drew Fennelly, Sheri Harmon, Linda Lincoln,
      Patrick McGuinness, Joseph O’Daniel, Piya Robert
      Rojanasathit, Bradley Seldin, David Tolchin, and Bradley
      Van Patten as class representatives for the Consumer Class:

   3. appointing the City of Palo Alto and the City of Richmond,
      as class representatives for the California Government
      Entity Class; and

   4. appointing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Lieff Cabraser
      Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy,
      LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel for both the Consumer Class
      and the California Government Entity Class.

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel:

          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
          Michael K. Sheen, Esq.
          Abbye R. Klamann, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956 1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
                  bglackin@lchb.com
                  lchan@lchb.com
                  msheen@lchb.com
                  aklamann@lchb.com

               - and -

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Siegel, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725 3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725 3001
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  jefff@hbsslaw.com
                  shanas@hbsslaw.com
                  bens@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Tamarah Prevost, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697 6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697 0577
          E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                  azapala@cpmlegal.com
                  tprevost@cmplegal.com


MDL 2695: Pontusson vs. Santa Fe Natural Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Clive Pontusson, On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Santa
Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc., Reynolds American Inc., and RJ
Reynolds Tobacco Company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00594,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Middle District of
North Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico (Albuquerque) on Aug. 17, 2018.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00789-JB-LF to the proceeding.  The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge James O. Browning.  The lead case is
1:16-md-02695-JB-LF.

The Pontusson case is being consolidated with MDL 2695 Re: Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco Company Marketing And Sales Practices Litigation.
The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on March 11, 2016.  According to the JPML,
these actions share factual questions arising out of the allegation
that defendants label and advertise Natural American Spirit
cigarettes as "natural" and "100% additive free" in a false and
misleading manner in violation of state consumer protection and
false advertising laws. Additionally, all actions stem from an FDA
warning letter to Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company on August 27,
2015, concerning the allegedly unauthorized use of "natural" and
"additive free" on Natural American Spirits cigarette labeling.
Common factual issues include: (1) the ingredients in Natural
American Spirit cigarettes; (2) the messages conveyed to consumers
by the labeling and advertising, including whether the labels
falsely convey a message that the products are healthier or less
harmful than other cigarettes; and (3) defendants' corporate
policies and decision making as to the marketing of Natural
American Spirit cigarettes.

In its March 11, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel and the judiciary.

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company is an American tobacco
manufacturer based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, best known for its
production of the premier Natural American Spirit cigarette
brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
          RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 772 9960
          Facsimile: (910) 772 9062
          E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com


MEDI IP: Faces Delacruz Suit in Southern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medi IP, LLC. The
lawsuit is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Medi IP, LLC doing
business as: Medi-Weightloss, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07547
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2018).  The case alleges Americans with
Disabilities Act violations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


MEDIMETRIKS PHARMA: Bid to Certify Class Terminated as Premature
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RUTH ANN COOPER, the Plaintiff, v.
MEDIMETRIKS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-11987-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Jose Linares entered
an order on August 15, 2018:

   1. administratively terminating without prejudice for being
      premature motion to certify the action as a class action;
      and

   2. directing plaintiff may move again by filing a new notice
      of motion and new briefing in support at the appropriate
      juncture, i.e.: (1) after the defendant has appeared in
      this action; and (2) when the Magistrate Judge grants leave
      to the plaintiff do so.


MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Kola Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Age Kola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC and
John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-07498 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 17, 2018), seeks to recover damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to January 30, 2018, an
obligation was incurred to a creditor. This obligation arose out of
a transaction in which money, property, insurance or services,
which are the subject of the transaction, are primarily for
personal, family or household purposes. The alleged obligation is a
"debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5).  Capital One, or a
subsequent owner of the debt contracted the Defendant to collect
the alleged debt.  The Defendant collects and attempts to collect
debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal,
family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the
United States Postal Services, telephone and internet.

Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC provides collection and accounts
receivable management services to lenders, debt purchasers, and
universities.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel Kohn, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282 6501
          E-mail: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com


MERCED CITY, CA: Fails to Pay Overtime, Solis et al. Say
--------------------------------------------------------
NATHANIEL MCKINNON, COURTNEY BOHANAN, EDWARD DRUM, TIMOTHY GACHES,
JOSEPH PEREZ, LUIS R. SOLIS, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
MERCED, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-at-00609 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 17,
2018), seeks declaratory judgment, unpaid overtime and other
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, costs of suit and
reasonable attorney fees, and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant knew or should have known
of its obligation to include Holiday Pay in Plaintiffs’ regular
rate of pay but, in each case, Defendant failed to do so. Thus,
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated
their proper overtime compensation. The Defendant acted voluntarily
and deliberately in maintaining an intentional practice of failing
to compensate Plaintiffs and others similarly situated in
accordance with the FLSA.

Merced is a city in, and the county seat of, Merced County,
California, United States, in the San Joaquin Valley.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary M. Messing, Esq.
          Jason H Jasmine, Esq.
          D. Paul Bird II, Esq.
          MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LLP
          235 Montgomery St., Suite 828
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415 266 1800
          Facsimile: 415 266 1128
          E-mail: gary@majlabor.com
                  jason@majlabor.com
                  paul@majlabor.com


MERCK & CO: Firefighters' Fund Suit Alleges Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------
The Uniformed Firefighters' Association of Greater New York
Security Benefit Fund and the Retired Firefighters' Security
Benefit Fund of the Uniformed Firefighters' Association, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Merck & Co.,
Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, Schering-Plough Corporation,
Schering Corporation, MSP Singapore LLC, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals
Ltd., and Glenmark Generics Inc., U.S.A., Case No. 2:18-cv-00403
(E.D. Va., July 24, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
conspiracy and combination in restraint of trade, and for
monopolization and monopolistic scheme under state law.

The Plaintiffs also claim state consumer protection violations and
unjust enrichment. The Defendants carried out a scheme with the
anticompetitive intent and effect of maintaining supra-competitive
prices for ezetimibe tablets.

The Plaintiffs are health and welfare benefit plans headquartered
and with principal place of business in New York, New York.

The Defendants are brand and generic drugs manufacturers and
sellers. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      James A. Cales III, Esq.
      FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND
      & SAUNDERS, P.C.
      6160 Kempsville Circle Suite 341B
      Norfolk, VA 23502
      Tel: (757) 461-7100
      Fax: (757) 461-0083
      E-mail: jcales@furnissdavis.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Court Allows Customers to Amend RICO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted with leave to amend the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the case, JAMES JIAO et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MERRYLL LYNCH PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC. et al., Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-409-L (MDD) (S.D. Cal.).

On June 23, 2016, in an administrative proceeding against
Defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. and Merrill
Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") released a consent Order Instituting
Administrative Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Pursuant to Sections
15(b) and 21C of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, Making
Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist
Order.  The SEC Order issued pursuant to a settlement with the
Defendants.

As part of the settlement, the Defendants admitted that from 2009
to 2012, they executed a series of trades referred to as Leveraged
Conversion Trades, that reduced the balance of their Reserve
Account by billions of dollars and then used those freed-up funds
to finance firm inventory for their own gain.

The Defendants were required to maintain the Reserve Account
pursuant to the Customer Protection Rule of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, which provides a formula for the balance the
Defendants were required to maintain in the Reserve Account.  It
also requires the Defendants to maintain physical possession or
control over customers' fully paid and excess margin securities.
The SEC found that the Defendants violated these provisions of the
Customer Protection Rule.

Upon learning of the SEC Order, the Plaintiffs, who were the
Defendants' customers, filed the action on their own behalf and on
behalf of similarly situated individuals in California.  They
allege that the Defendants represented that they complied with
legal requirements relating to customer investments, and failed to
disclose their non-compliance.  Based on the facts and violations
found in the SEC Order, they seek compensatory damages for economic
injury stemming from the Defendants' violations of the Customer
Protection Rule, and request disgorgement of the Defendants'
profits, among other things.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for common law fraud, negligence and
violation of California Corporations Code Sections 27101 et seq.
and 27200.  The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the operative
first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), (2), (3) and (6) for failure to allege,
respectively, Article III standing, personal jurisdiction, proper
venue, and any viable cause of action.  The Defendants maintain
that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998
("SLUSA"), preempts the Plaintiffs' action.

Judge Lorenz finds that the fact that the Plaintiffs found out
about the fraud only after the SEC Order issued and long after they
had invested their money with the Defendants does not remove their
claims from the broad scope of the "connection" under SLUSA.  The
claims based on similar allegations were found preempted in Freeman
Investments, L.P. v. Pacific Life Insurance Co. and Stoody-Broser
v. Bank of America.

In Freeman, the plaintiffs alleged that defendant, pursuant to an
insurance contract, assessed a periodic "cost of insurance" charge
against plaintiffs' investment accounts.  They alleged that they
understood the charge would be calculated according to industry
standards, and that the defendant's charge was excessive.  The
court rejected the argument because Dabit does not require active
trading, and because the defendant's alleged fraud (withdrawal of
charge by liquidating a portion of plaintiffs' investment accounts)
"coincided" with the sale of securities.

Similarly, in Stoody-Broser, the plaintiffs alleged omissions of
material fact and deceptive practices in connection with the bank's
investment in proprietary mutual funds.  The court found that the
essence of these allegations is that the bank fraudulently engaged
in self-dealing, and found the claim preempted.

For the foregoing reasons, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs'
action meets the requirements for preemption under SLUSA.  The
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits,
and therefore does not address the Defendants' other arguments for
dismissal.  The Plaintiffs will be granted leave to amend.

Judge Lorenz granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss and
dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
He granted the Plaintiffs.  Should they choose to amend, they must
file and serve the amended complaint, if any, no later than Aug.
20, 2018.  The Defendants will file and serve a response, if any,
no later than the time provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(3).

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/YBWU4Y from Leagle.com.

James Jiao, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Joshua B. Swigart --
josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart & Jason A. Ibey,
Kazerouni Law Group, APC.

Samuel Nunez, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian, Kazerounian
Law Group, APC & Jason A. Ibey, Kazerouni Law Group, APC.

Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. & Merrill Lynch
Professional Clearing Corp., Defendants, represented by Brian M.
Jazaeri -- brian.jazaeri@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis, Harriet
Hoder -- HARRIET.HODER@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale & Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Janice Patrice Brown --
brown@brownlawgroup.com -- Brown Law Group, Matthew T. Martens --
MATTHEW.MARTENS@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Noah Jacob Woods -- woods@brownlawgroup.com
-- Brown Law Group, Timothy J. Perla --
TIMOTHY.PERLA@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory Peter Boden --
GREGORY.BODEN@WILMERHALE.COM -- WilmerHale & Lisa R. Veasman --
lisa.veasman@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


MESA LABORATORIES: Faces Two Purported TCPA Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Mesa Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is facing
two purported TCPA class action suits.

In February 2018, Dr. James L. Orrington II filed a purported civil
class action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging that the company
sent unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as
well as analogous state statutes and state consumer protection
laws.  

The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees.

Additionally, in June 2018, Rowan Family Dentistry, Inc. filed a
purported class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado making substantially the same
claims as Dr. James L. Orrington II and seeking substantially the
same relief.

Mesa Laboratories said, "We intend to vigorously defend both of the
aforementioned cases; however, we cannot predict with any degree of
certainty the outcome of the lawsuits or determine the extent of
any potential liability or damages."

Mesa Laboratories, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets quality
control instruments and disposable products. The company markets
its products through distributors in Europe, Africa, Asia, South
America, Australia, Canada, and Central America. Mesa Laboratories,
Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Lakewood,
Colorado.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Connor Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Jacki Lyn Connor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-23023
(S.D. Fla., July 25, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Florida.

The Defendant is a debt collector with its principal business at
3111 Camino DelRio North, Suite 103, San Diego, California 92108.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James L. Kauffman, Esq.
      BAILEY GLASSER LLP
      1054 31st Street NW, Suite 230
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 463-2101
      Fax: (202) 463-2103  
      E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com

          - and -

      Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
      J. Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
      721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
      North Palm Beach, FL 33408
      Tel: (561) 692-6013
      Fax: (305) 574-0132
      E-mail: darren@cloorg.com
              DCard@Consumerlaworg.com


MILWAUKEE: Wilke Seeks to Certify Class Action vs. Sheriff
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JONATHAN DAVID WILKE, the Plaintiff, v.
CRYSTALINA MONTANO, the Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-1640 (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify his
case as a class action and to appoint class counsel.

Wilke is an inmate at the Milwaukee County Jail.

Crystalina Montano is a Correctional Officer at the Milwaukee
County Sheriff's Office.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



MR. SANDLESS: Faces Delacruz Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mr. Sandless
Franchise, LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Mr. Sandless Franchise, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07549 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2018). The case alleges Americans
with Disabilities Act violations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


NATUROPATHICA HOLISTIC: Faces Delacruz Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Naturopathica
Holistic Health Inc.  The lawsuit is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Naturopathica Holistic Health Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07548 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2018).  The case alleges
Americans with Disabilities Act violations.

Naturopathica is a wellness company offering skin care, body care
and herbal remedies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


NEVADA: Bid to Decertify Class of NDOC Workers Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONALD WALDEN JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF
NEVADA, ex rel. NEVADA DEPARTMETN OF CORRECTIONS, and DOES 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-00320-MMD-WGC (D. Nev.), Judge Miranda
M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (1)
denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment ("MPSJ"); (2) denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification; (3) denied without prejudice the
Defendant's Motion to Decertify Collective Action; (4) denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's March 26,
2018 Order with Respect to the NRS Section 284.180 Overtime Claim
Pursuant to FRCP 59(e) and 60(b); and (5) granted the unsealed
version of the Defendant's Emergency Motion to Strike Plaintiffs'
Voluntary Dismissal and denied the sealed version of the Motion to
Strike.

The Plaintiffs are employees or former employees of the Nevada
Department of Corrections ("NDOC") who contend that NDOC failed to
compensate them for time worked as well as for overtime pay.

On March 26, 2018, the Court issued an order resolving in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended
Collective and Class Action Complaint ("Prior MTD").  Relevant here
is the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' claim under NRS Section
284.180, in which the Court held that the claim was not ripe for
judicial review because state administrative procedures had not
been exhausted pursuant to state law.  The Plaintiffs now seek
reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e)
and 60(b).

Also pending before the Court are four dispositive motions: (1) the
MPSJ; (2) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify; (3) the Defendant's
Motion to Decertify; and (4) the Defendant's Motion to Strike.  The
parties filed various responses and replies relating to these
motions.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Court should reconsider its prior
decision because the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies
under NRS Section 284.180 is futile and the administrative process
provided for by that statute is inadequate.  The Defendant counters
that the evidence was available to the Plaintiffs in 2013, yet the
Plaintiffs failed to raise this argument or introduce the evidence
in the their opposition to the Prior MTD.  The Plaintiffs dispute
that Kelly's grievances are not new evidence by pointing out that
they have opposed the Defendant's separate motion to strike those
grievances and by stating that Kelly is representative of the class
despite being an opt-in Plaintiff (Kelly became a party Plaintiff
on Aug. 8, 2014).  

Judge Du finds that neither response directly addresses the
Plaintiffs' failure to present this evidence in their opposition to
the Prior MTD or their failure to argue that the administrative
process under NRS Section 284.180 is futile or inadequate as a
matter of law.  These issues could have reasonably been raised in
the Plaintiffs' opposition to the Prior MTD.  She therefore will
deny the Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider.

As to the Defendant's emergency motion to strike the Plaintiffs'
notice of voluntary dismissal on Feb. 20, 2018, the Defendant
argues that: (1) the Notice was improper and should be stricken
because the parties agreed with the Court's prior order that
dismissal of these plaintiffs must occur only by motion; and (2)
under Rule 41, a plaintiff's ability to voluntarily dismiss a party
is not absolute where an answer has been filed.

The Judge finds that the plain language and purpose of Rule 41
required that the Plaintiffs seek leave of court to file the Notice
because an answer had already been filed in the action.  She agrees
that the purpose of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is to allow a plaintiff to
voluntarily withdraw his case before the defendant expends
significant time and resources on the case, not just on the version
of the plaintiff's complaint currently before the district court.
Hence, she will grant the Motion to Strike.  The Plaintiffs' notice
of voluntary dismissal will be stricken and the Plaintiffs are
given leave to file a motion seeking voluntary dismissal if they so
choose.

The Plaintiffs' MPSJ and Motion to Certify are premised on their
voluntary dismissal of certain opt-in Plaintiffs while the
Defendant's Motion to Decertify is based on the conditional group
approved for collective action under FLSA.  Because the Judge has
ordered that the notice of voluntary dismissal be stricken, she
will deny without prejudice these motions.

Finally, the Defendant filed five motions to seal: (1) motion to
file under seal specific exhibits attached to its Motion to
Decertify ("First Motion to Seal"); (2) motion to file under seal
specific exhibits attached to its Motion to Strike ("Second Motion
to Seal"); (3) motion to file under seal certain exhibits attached
to the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' MPSJ ("Third
Motion to Seal"); (4) motion to file under seal certain exhibits
attached to the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify ("Fourth Motion to Seal"); and (5) motion to file under
seal certain exhibits attached to the Defendant's reply in support
of its Motion to Decertify ("Fifth Motion to Seal").  The Judge
will deny all five motions without prejudice based on the
Defendant's failure to comply with Local Rule IA 10-5.

In the Defendant's First Motion to Seal, it seeks to have certain
exhibits that are attached to its Motion to Decertify filed under
seal.  However, the Judge finds that the Defendant did not actually
submit these documents under seal, so she is unable to make a
determination about them.  The First Motion to Seal will therefore
be denied without prejudice and with leave to refile the motion so
long as the Defendant also files the exhibits under seal.

The Defendant makes the same error in moving to file certain
exhibits under seal in the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Motions
to Seal -- the Defendant files the primary document under seal when
it seeks to have only certain exhibits filed under seal.
Similarly, it did not file an affidavit indicating that it served
the sealed documents on the Plaintiff.  The Judge therefore will
deny these three motions to seal without prejudice and permitted
the Defendant leave to refile the motions as well as the exhibits
it wishes to be filed under seal independently of the primary
document.  In turn, the Court will strike the following docket
entries in their entirety: ECF Nos. 137, 144, 145, 146, 161, 170.

For these reasons, Judge denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration.  She granted the Defendant's Emergency Motion to
Strike.  The Clerk is instructed to strike the notice of voluntary
dismissal.  The Plaintiffs are given leave to file a motion seeking
voluntary dismissal and must file said motion within 10 days of the
Order.

The Judge further ordered that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify, and the
Defendant's Motion to Decertify are denied without prejudice.  If
the Judge grants the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for voluntary
dismissal, the parties will have 45 days from the date that order
is issued to file renewed motions to certify and decertify the
class.  The parties will then have 45 days from the Court's order
resolving the motions to certify or decertify the class to file any
dispositive motions.

If the Plaintiffs do not file a motion for voluntary dismissal, the
parties are permitted to file renewed motions to certify and
decertify based on the conditional class.  Those motions must be
filed within 45 days of the Order, and the normal briefing schedule
will then follow.  In this scenario, the parties will also have 45
days from the Court's order resolving the motions to certify or
decertify to file any dispositive motions.

She further ordered that the Defendant's motions to seal are denied
without prejudice and with leave to refile.  While she did not
consider the sealed exhibits when ruling on the Motion to Strike,
the Defendant must file those exhibits under seal in an independent
docket entry (without also filing the motion itself under seal),
file a separate motion to seal explaining why those exhibits should
be filed under seal, and indicate by way of affidavit that it has
served the sealed exhibits on the Plaintiffs.  If the Defendant
chooses to refile the other motions, it must file under seal a
separate docket entry with the documents it wishes to be sealed
without the primary document included and filed under seal, and it
must otherwise comply with LR IA 10-5.

The Clerk is instructed to strike ECF Nos. 137, 144, 145, 146, 161,
170.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/obwG0c from Leagle.com.

Nathan Echeverria, Aaron Dicus, Brent Everist, Daniel Tracy, Martin
Gaura, Added by FLSA Consent see document, Terry Greene, FLSA
Consent, Eric Hood, FLSA Consent, John Hurt, FLSA Consent, Edward
Inwood, FLSA Consent, James Kelly, FLSA Consent, Floyd Miller, FLSA
Consent, Curtis Smith, FLSA Consent, Kenneth Webb, FLSA Consent,
Ingrid White, FLSA Consent, Johnathan R. Allen-Ricksecker, FLSA
Consent, Josep Allison, FLSA Consent, Yesenia Aviles, FLSA Consent,
Robert P. Barker, FLSA Consent, Rocky Baros, FLSA Consent,
Francisco Bautista, FLSA Consent, Kathleen E. Beaver, FLSA Consent,
Taerik Berry, FLSA Consent, Erica Brown, FLSA Consent, Mark Brown,
FLSA Consent, Wendall Bunting, FLSA Consent, Karen Chislett, FLSA
Consent, Kenneth J. Clark, FLSA Consent, William M. Clarke, FLSA
Consent, Willie Clayton, FLSA Consent, Kenneth F. Corzine, FLSA
Consent, Tirome Dale, FLSA Consent, Terry Day, FLSA Consent, Kevin
Dennis, FLSA Consent, John J. Dibari, FLSA Consent, Franklin E.
Dickens, FLSA Consent, Michael Fuscarino, FLSA Consent, Anthony
Garcia, FLSA Consent, Jeffrey R. Gilbert, FLSA Consent, Douglas
Hamilton, FLSA Consent, Tejay Harvey, FLSA Consent, Robert D.
Hendricks, FLSA Consent, Johnny Raymond Isum, FLSA Consent, Martin
P. Kelly, FLSA Consent, Nathan Kennet, FLSA Consent, Dariusz Krol,
FLSA Consent, Efrain Lona, FLSA Consent, David J. Luce, FLSA
Consent, Mark S. Mooberry, FLSA Consent, Walter Oilar, FLSA
Consent, Burch M. Perry, FLSA Consent, Jeremy D. Peterson, FLSA
Consent, Mark David Poland, FLSA Consent, Domingo J. Quintanilla,
FLSA Consent, Jonathan Rivera, FLSA Consent, Christian Ruchel, FLSA
Consent, Aaron Ryer, FLSA Consent, Danilo Santos, FLSA Consent,
Justin Scarano, FLSA Consent, Chris Schaeffer, FLSA Consent,
Shannon Shelton, FLSA Consent, Frank M. Sherman, FLSA Consent,
Brian Shultz, FLSA Consent, Daniel Tedesco, FLSA Consent, Joel E.
Tyning, FLSA Consent, Claye Vogelsang, FLSA Consent, Jacob Walden,
FLSA Consent, Sandra Walker, FLSA Consent, Bruce C. Welsch, FLSA
Consent, Daniel Zurschiede, FLSA Consent, Robert Ahmad, FLSA
Consent, Tania Arguello, FLSA Consent, Richard Bogue, FLSA Consent,
Sean J. Brooks, FLSA Consent, Timothy Carlman, FLSA Consent, Loren
G. Chupulin, FLSA Consent, Rashay Crosswhile, FLSA Consent, Ronald
Davis, FLSA Consent, Finley Cornelius, FLSA Consent, Rick Giancola,
FLSA Consent, Greg Gillam, FLSA Consent, Kristopher Ledingham, FLSA
Consent, Mark Marangi, FLSA Consent, Shalon Marangi, FLSA Consent,
Perry Mikel, FLSA Consent, Daniel L. Mondragon, FLSA Consent, Jason
N. Nelson, FLSA Consent, Cory Newton, FLSA Consent, Jorge Olague,
FLSA Consent, Curtis Welby Peery, FLSA Consent, Dshamba Prater,
FLSA Consent, Charles Ratcliff, FLSA Consent, Timothy Ridenour,
FLSA Consent, Luis A. Rodriguez, FLSA Consent, William Sevier, FLSA
Consent, William Tobin, FLSA Consent, Kirk Darrell Valdez, FLSA
Consent, Emilio Vignapiano, FLSA Consent, Eric A. Ward, FLSA
Consent, Aaron C. White, FLSA Consent, Brenda Williams, FLSA
Consent, Omar Bass, FLSA Consent, Johnny Bilavarn, FLSA Consent,
Efren De Jesus, FLSA Consent, Terrel A. Gregory, FLSA Consent, Mark
Grimaldi, FLSA Consent, Jimmy Jones, FLSA Consent, Joseph Lewis,
FLSA Consent, Paul Lunkwltz, FLSA Consent, Ronald A. Mirador, FLSA
Consent, Danielle Money, FLSA Consent, Michael Naylor, FLSA
Consent, Larry W. Roberts, FLSA Consent, Christopher Sloan, FLSA
Consent, Shawn Thorne, FLSA Consent, Robert D. Varay, FLSA Consent,
Cuong Vo, FLSA Consent, Robert Ashcraft, FLSA Consent, James
Barnett, FLSA Consent, Giovanni Capra, FLSA Consent, James T. Cook,
FLSA Consent, Huston Crutchfield, FLSA Consent, Radek Dvorak, FLSA
Consent, Michael A. Flores-Nava, FLSA Consent, Michael Ford, FLSA
Consent, Michael P. Gavin, FLSA Consent, Tony Lai, FLSA Consent,
Cory Lee, FLSA Consent, Robert Baker, FLSA Consent, John Bankston,
FLSA Consent, Christopher Caggiano, FLSA Consent, Lonnie Crose,
FLSA Consent, Gilber Fuentes, FLSA Consent, Steven Indiveri, FLSA
Consent, Colby Ingram, FLSA Consent, Christopher Jones, FLSA
Consent, Emory King, FLSA Consent, Christopher Neville, FLSA
Consent, Donald Pierce, FLSA Consent, Jan Michael Shultz, FLSA
Consent, Jamie Stevens, FLSA Consent, Emery Williams, FLSA Consent,
Richard Atherton, FLSA Consent, Russel Atkins, FLSA Consent, Joseph
Baros, FLSA Consent, Nickey Brooks, FLSA Consent, Vincent Brooks,
FLSA Consent, Timothy Calderone, FLSA Consent, Michael Chavez, FLSA
Consent, Todd Drake, FLSA Consent, James Hogan, FLSA Consent, Abdi
S. Ismail, FLSA Consent, Chais Vee Jenkins, FLSA Consent, Sarkis
Jopalian, FLSA Consent, Felix J. Kreskey, FLSA Consent, Todd
Ludwig, FLSA Consent, Nicholas McGahuey, FLSA Consent, Antoine
Norman, FLSA Consent, Vincent Saladino, FLSA Consent, Mitchell
Villegas, FLSA Consent, Gregory Bennett, FLSA Consent, Benitez
Christian, FLSA Consent, Gerald Collette, FLSA Consent, Donald W.
Davis, FLSA Consent, Lukas Ferris, FLSA Consent, Michael Gaskins,
FLSA Consent, Bradley Hansen, FLSA Consent, Julio Mesa, FLSA
Consent, Gilbert J. Ramirez, FLSA Consent, Donald Thorpe, FLSA
Consent, Adrian Arias, FLSA consent, Tanya Armerdariz, FLSA
consent, Ben Eric V. Calvez, FLSA consent, Gerald Clarett, FLSA
consent, Detlin Georgiev, FLSA consent, Eric Mark, FLSA consent,
Charles J. Razmic, FLSA consent, David Soley, FLSA consent, Jeremy
Summers, FLSA consent, Diego Torres, FLSA consent, Jesse Vargas,
FLSA consent, Stewart Whalum, FLSA consent, Curtis Willhite, FLSA
consent, Jurea A. Williams, FLSA consent, Bryan E. Wilson, FLSA
consent, Pud Brewster, FLSA consent, Hector Carrillo, FLSA consent,
Benjamin R. Fehr, FLSA consent, Gary Garrison, FLSA consent, Sean
Horlacher, FLSA consent, Eric Jones, FLSA consent, Sean Olsen, FLSA
consent, David K. Magnum, FLSA consent, Teresa G McCastle, FLSA
consent, Richard Martin, FLSA consent, Michael A. Ramos, FLSA
consent, Edwin Segovia, FLSA consent, Stanley Thomas Shinault, FLSA
consent, Phillip Travis, FLSA consent, Derland Blake, FLSA consent,
Canute Brown, FLSA consent, Taham Castillo, FLSA consent, Russell
Garvin, FLSA consent, Brian Gentile, FLSA consent, Judith Gibson,
FLSA consent, Britney Harris, FLSA consent, Jonathan Lara, FLSA
consent, Jack Maurer, FLSA consent, Charles May, FLSA consent,
Gustavo Sanchez, FLSA consent, Bret Sandborn, FLSA consent, Dory
Vesperas, FLSA consent, Carl Arnold, FLSA consent, Timothy
Dressler, FLSA consent, Martin K. Freeman, FLSA consent, Pedro
Guerra, FLSA consent, Andre Shawn Natali, FLSA consent, Jose
Navarrete, FLSA consent, Teresa Radke, FLSA consent, Alonzo Romero,
FLSA consent, Cameron Seisan, FLSA consent, Scott J. Smith, FLSA
consent, Darin Statton, FLSA consent, Dennis M. Stuckey, FLSA
consent, David Wilson, FLSA consent, Jonathan Binder, FLSA consent,
Michael Dane, FLSA consent, Scott Gilbert, FLSA consent, Jose
Haros, FLSA consent, Floyd Marshall, FLSA consent, Todd Miller,
FLSA consent, Jason Saing, FLSA consent, Mark Tansey, FLSA consent,
Anthony Vaccaro, FLSA consent, Cresencio Zamora, FLSA consent,
Jeremy Ambler, FSLA consent, Rama Akash, FLSA consent, Jonathan
Allen-Ricksecker, FLSA consent, Ysenia Aviles, FLSA consent, Almon
Bame, FLSA consent, Kenneth Clark, FLSA consent, Michael Covington,
FLSA consent, Taham Cristilli, FLSA consent, Juan Cruz, FLSA
consent, Shawn Elder, FLSA consent, Luke Gardner, FLSA consent,
Reggie Goins, FLSA consent, Nicole Crowley Jones, FLSA consent,
Maria Kinsey, FLSA consent, William Kirste, FLSA consent, Paul
Kluever, FLSA consent, Jesus Meranza, FLSA consent, Mark Mooberry,
FLSA consent, Lawrence Panozzo, FLSA consent, Jeffrey Peeler, FLSA
consent, Larry Puckett, FLSA consent, Charles Razmic, FLSA consent,
Joe Roberts, FLSA consent, Kenneth Thackwell, FLSA consent, Ashley
Thomason, FLSA consent, Michael Val, FLSA consent, Kirk Valdez,
FLSA consent, Audy Viloria, FLSA consent, John Williams, FLSA
consent, Donald Walden, Jr. & Travis Zufelt, Plaintiffs,
represented by Joshua D. Buck -- josh@thiermanbuck.com --, Thierman
Buck, LLP, Leah Lin Jones -- leah@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman
Buck, LLP & Mark R. Thierman -- mark@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman
Buck, LLP.

State Of Nevada & Nevada Department of Corrections, Defendants,
represented by Richard Dreitzer -- Richard.Dreitzer@wilsonelser.com
-- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, Theresa M. Haar,
David S. Kahn, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP & James
T. Tucker, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker.


NEW ORLEANS: Court Certifies Class of OPCDC Indigent Criminal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the
case captioned ALANA CAIN, ET AL., v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL.,
SECTION "R" (2), Civil Action No. 15-4479 (E.D. La.).

Plaintiffs Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste, Reynajia
Variste, Thaddeus Long, and Vanessa Maxwell filed this civil rights
putative class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, challenging the
manner in which the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court (OPCDC)
collects post-judgment court debts from indigent criminal
defendants.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: All persons who
currently owe or who will incur court debts arising from cases
adjudicated in the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court.

The Defendants' chief objection to class certification is that the
proposed class definition is overbroad. Specifically, the class
definition includes no time limits; does not distinguish between
the different types of court debts restitution, fines, fees, and
other court debts.

Numerosity

Thousands of individuals are prosecuted in OPCDC each year. Most of
these individuals plead guilty, and the Judges regularly impose
fines and fees at sentencing. Thus, it is apparent and defendants
do not contest that plaintiffs' proposed class comprises thousands
of individuals. Joinder at such a large scale is clearly
impracticable.  The Plaintiffs have therefore satisfied the
numerosity requirement.

Commonality

The second requirement of Rule 23(a) is that there be "questions of
law or fact common to the class.

First, defendants assert that court debts owed by the putative
class members vary by type and time of imposition. But the
challenged policy or practice relates to the Judges' collection,
not imposition, of court debts. The Judges' collection practices
create the same risk of injury regardless of when a criminal
defendant's court debts were imposed or what types of court debts
the individual currently owes.

Second, defendants point out that not all criminal defendants in
OPCDC are indigent. But a putative class member's right to an
ability-to-pay inquiry does not depend on indigence; the procedural
protections required by the Supreme Court in Bearden apply equally
to indigent and non-indigent individuals. 461 U.S. at 672. Thus,
every criminal defendant subject to the Judges' debt collection
practices is entitled to an ability-to-pay hearing. Indeed, the
point of such a hearing is to determine indigence.

Third, defendants contend that some putative class members have
received or will receive an ability-to-pay inquiry. Any such
inquiry would be tainted by the unconstitutional conflict of
interest found by the Court in its earlier order, so long as the
criminal defendant's court debts were at least partly owed to the
Judicial Expense Fund.

The second part of Count Five, challenging the Judges' conflict of
interest, does not necessarily affect every member of the proposed
class. Of course, every putative class member is entitled to a
neutral forum to determine ability to pay. But a Judge would not be
conflicted in determining the ability to pay of an individual who
owes only restitution, for example, because restitution goes only
to the victim.  

The Court therefore divides plaintiffs' proposed class into one
subclass, comprising persons whose debts are at least partly owed
to the OPCDC Judicial Expense Fund. All such persons' claims depend
upon the common contention that the Judges' conflict of interest
violates due process, a contention that is clearly capable of
classwide resolution.

Thus, plaintiffs have shown commonality with respect to the second
part of Count Five.

Typicality

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that claims or defenses of the
representative parties be typical of the claims or defenses of the
class.

Count Five challenges the defendants' practice of failing to
conduct an ability-to-pay inquiry and defendants' conflict of
interest in evaluating ability to pay both of which are generally
applicable to the putative class members. Indeed, the named
plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief are identical to those of
the other putative class members. Plaintiffs have therefore
satisfied the typicality requirement.

Adequacy of representation

The final requirement of Rule 23(a) is that the representative
parties must fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class.

The Plaintiffs' attorneys in this case have proven to be both
zealous and competent. The declarations by Alec Karakatsanis, Jon
M. Greenbaum, David P. Fuad, and William P. Quigley highlight
counsel's extensive experience in civil rights cases. Additionally,
the Court is satisfied that the representative parties have
adequately represented the interests of the class members, and will
continue to do so. All named plaintiffs have executed affidavits
detailing their personal experiences regarding defendants' policies
and practices; Alana Cain and Ashton Brown continue to owe court
debts to OPCDC; and Cain and Brown have kept counsel apprised of
defendants' ongoing debt collection efforts.

The class representatives and counsel are therefore adequate.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycmhlmsh from
Leagle.com.

Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste, Reynajia Variste,
Thaddeus Long & Vanessa Maxwell, Plaintiffs, represented by William
Patrick Quigley -- quigley@loyno.edu -- Loyola New Orleans College
of Law, Alec George Karakatsanis, Civil Rights Corps, Anna Lise
Lellelid, LaBas Law Offices, APLC, Christine Elizabeth Hanley --
chanley@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac
vice, David P. Fuad -- dfuad@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac vice, Hallie Nodgaard Ryan --
hryan@lawyerscommittee.org -- Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights,
pro hac vice, Hsiwen Lo -- hlo@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac vice, Jon M. Greenbaum, Lawyers Committee
for Civil Rights, pro hac vice, Jonathan Phillip Guy --
jguy@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac
vice, Kathryn Grzenczyk Mantoan -- kmantoan@orrick.com -- Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac vice & Mateya Beth Kelley,
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, pro hac vice.

Joseph T Lafrance, Consol Plaintiff, represented by William Patrick
Quigley , Loyola New Orleans College of Law & Anna Lise Lellelid ,
LaBas Law Offices, APLC.

Laurie A White, Judge Sect. A of the Orleans Parish Criminal
District Court, Tracey Flemings-Davillier, Judge Sect. B of the
Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Benedict Willard, Judge
Sect. C of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Keva
Landrum-Johnson, Judge Sect. E of the Orleans Parish Criminal
District Court, Robin Pittman, Judge Sect. F of the Orleans Parish
Criminal District Court, Byron C. Williams, Judge Sect. G of the
Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Camille Buras, Judge Sect.
H of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Karen K. Herman,
Judge Sect. I of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Darryl
Derbigny, Judge Sect. J of the Orleans Parish Criminal District
Court, Arthur Hunter, Judge Sect. K of the Orleans Parish Criminal
District Court, Franz Zibilich, Judge Sect. L of the Orleans Parish
Criminal District Court & Harry E. Cantrell, Magistrate Judge of
the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Defendants, represented
by Dennis J. Phayer -- DPHAYER@BURGLASS.COM -- Burglass &
Tankersley, L.L.C., Christopher Kent Tankersley --
CTANKERSLEY@BURGLASS.COM -- Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C.,
Elizabeth A. Doubleday -- ctankersley@burglass.com -- Burglass &
Tankersley, L.L.C. & Erika Mullenbach Cunningham --
ecunningham@burglass.com -- Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C.

Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, 16-14439, Consol Defendant,
represented by Dennis J. Phayer , Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C.


NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in M. Roher's Medicaid Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Eastern District of New York
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying
in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned GEMMA
SAMELE, SELMA ROHER by her next friend MELANIE ROHER, and SALVATORE
GUADAGNA, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff(s), v. HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the
New York State Department of Health, Defendant. No. 2:17-cv-03397
(ADS)(AKT). (E.D.N.Y.)

Presently before the Court is a motion to dismiss by the Defendant
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and Rule
12(b)(6).

The Plaintiffs commenced this putative class action against the
Defendant Howard Zucker (Zucker or  Commissioner), as Commissioner
of the New York State Department of Health (DOH), alleging that the
Defendant violated the Medicaid Act; the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.

As to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction

The Parties' Arguments

The Defendant contends that Samele and Roher's claims are not ripe
for review because they have not suffered an injury in fact in that
their services were never terminated or reduced. Further, the
Commissioner argues that all of the Plaintiffs' claims are moot
because the Plaintiffs have already been given all of the relief
that they seek because the series of letters sent by the DOH and
Maximus state that all GuildNet enrollees must receive the same
level of care when they transfer to a new MLTCP for 120 days.

The Plaintiffs assert that all of the Plaintiffs' claims are ripe,
and that the Plaintiffs therefore have standing, because the DOH
never sent a constitutionally and statutorily mandated notice to
the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs contend that the Commissioner's
failure to send such a notice, and the Plaintiffs' risk of having
their services reduced or being institutionalized, constitute an
injury in fact.

The Legal Standard

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), a court must
dismiss a claim if it lacks the statutory or constitutional power
to adjudicate it.

The Relevant Law as to Standing

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution limits federal
jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. U.S. CONST. ART.
III Section 2. It is well-established that:

the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three
elements. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact
an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete
and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the
injury and the conduct complained of. Third, it must be likely, as
opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by
a favorable decision.

Medicaid
Medicaid is a program designed to provide medical assistance to
needy persons, and is operated jointly by the federal government
and the states. States that participate in Medicaid must comply
with the requirements set out in federal law and the accompanying
regulations to be eligible for federal funding. Federal law
requires that states administer Medicaid through a single state
agency.

Application to the Facts

As to Whether Samele and Roher Suffered Injuries in Fact

The Defendant contends that Samele and Roher had not suffered an
injury in fact at the time that the suit was commenced because, at
that time, they had not enrolled in an MLTCP with less coverage,
and had not been forced into a nursing home or some other less
restrictive environment.

The Plaintiffs argue that Samele and Roher suffered injury in fact
when they were refused the same level of care by other MLTCPs
without notice of their right to a fair hearing after they were
forced to leave GuildNet. The Court finds that Samele and Roher
have not suffered an injury in fact.

First, the Court notes that the relevant date for measuring whether
a plaintiff has standing is the date on which the suit commenced.

At the time that the suit was commenced, June 6, 2017, Samele had
not yet enrolled in a new MLTCP. In fact, although she had been
assessed by ArchCare Community Life, ArchCare assessed that Samele
only needed eight hours of home care services per day. At that
time, her son had also reached out to Fidelis and Elderplan, but
assessments had not yet been scheduled. Samele alleged that if she
did not receive 24 hours of home care, she would possibly have to
move to a nursing home.

When the Plaintiffs sought leave to allow Roher to join the suit,
August 31, 2017, two MLTCPs assessed that she required less than
twenty-four hours of care per day. When Roher's daughter asked one
of the MLTCPs if she could appeal the assessment, she was
apparently told that she had to accept or reject the offer.

However, in May, both Samele and Roher received the Commissioner's
letter which stated that GuildNet would have to continue providing
existing services to them until they transitioned to a new plan.

Here, in contrast, neither Samele nor Roher faced such the imminent
prospect or even the threat of loss of medical care. Pursuant to
the Commissioner's May 2017 letter, GuildNet had to continue
providing the same level of care to them until they found a new
provider. The letter even said that enrollees may remain in
GuildNet and continue to receive your existing levels of service
until you have found a plan that meets your needs and the
enrollment transfer can be arranged. While several MLTCPs had
assessed that Samele and Roher required less care than previously
offered by GuildNet, they were free to seek out other MLTCPs who
would offer the same level of care.

Indeed, both Samele and Roher were eventually offered 24-hour care
by different MLTCPs.
For those same reasons, neither Samele nor Roher were in danger of
being institutionalized.
Therefore, Samele and Roher did not suffer injuries in fact, and
they do not have standing.

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss their claims
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is granted. In any event, as discussed
below, their claims are moot.

However, as the Defendant seemingly concedes, Guadagna does have
standing. Indeed, the Court finds that when Guadagna enrolled in
Agewell, and received less care than he had received under GuildNet
without notice of a right to a fair hearing with aid continuing, he
suffered injury.

The Court notes that the Defendant's silence on Guadagna's standing
seemingly contradicts their position that an MLTCP need not provide
notice of a right to a fair hearing when an enrollee decides to
switch to their plan and receive less care. By conceding Gaudagna's
standing, the Commissioner seemingly admits that AgeWell should
have afforded notice of a right to a fair hearing when they
provided him with less care than he received under GuildNet.

In the same way, Guadagna suffered injury when AgeWell authorized
him for less care than he received from GuildNet, and was not
provided with notice of a right to a fair hearing. Therefore,
Guadagna had standing to bring his claims at the time he commenced
this action.

As to Whether the Plaintiffs' Claims Are Moot

The Defendant contends that all of the Plaintiffs' claims are moot,
because the Commissioner has already provided all of the relief
that they seek. Specifically, the Commissioner states that since
the letters and Transition Policy force MLTCPs to accept enrollees
at their previous levels of care when another MLTCP closes, the
Plaintiffs' claims are moot.  

Plaintiffs argue that the DOH has not eliminated the harm because
the Transition Policy does not state that MLTCPs accepting
enrollees from closing MLTCPs must provide notice of a right to a
fair hearing when they assess and authorize them for a lower
standard of care.

There are three exceptions to the general rule that the mooting of
a named plaintiff's claims moots a class action: (a) the defendant
voluntarily ceases the injury-causing conduct in an attempt to
evade judicial scrutiny (b) the claims are inherently transitory or
(c) the claims are capable of repetition, yet evading judicial
review. The Plaintiffs claim that each of the exceptions are
applicable here.

Voluntary Cessation

In order to determine whether voluntary cessation of conduct moots
a controversy, a defendant must show 1) that the conduct has, in
fact, ceased, 2) that there is no reasonable expectation that the
alleged violation will recur.

As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Defendant has, in
fact, provided the relief sought by the Plaintiffs. That is, the
Defendant's conduct which serves as a basis for this lawsuit has
ceased. By mandating that receiving MLTCPs accept enrollees at
their previous levels of care, the DOH has ensured that the
Plaintiffs and those similarly situated continue to receive their
care at the levels previously provided by GuildNet. Since the
enrollees will receive their previous levels of care by the
receiving MLTCPs before they are reassessed, any assessment finding
that the enrollee requires less care would have to be accompanied
by notice of a right to a fair hearing with aid continuing.  As the
MLTCPs are already bound by statute and regulation to provide
notice to enrollees when they take action, the Transition Policy
did not need to reiterate it.

Therefore, the Commissioner has provided the relief sought by the
Plaintiffs.

Second, the Court finds that there is no reasonable expectation
that the alleged violation will recur. The DOH issued the
Transition Policy in response to CMS' amending of 42 C.F.R. 438.62.


Relevant here, the amendment requires states to have a transition
of care policy to ensure continued access to services during a
transition from one Medicaid provider to another when an enrollee,
in the absence of continued services, would suffer serious
detriment to their health or be at risk of hospitalization or
institutionalization.The transition of care must provide, inter
alia, that the enrollee has access to services consistent with the
access they previously had, and is permitted to retain their
current provider for a period of time.

Therefore, the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs' claims are
moot.

Inherently Transitory

The inherently transitory exception applies to putative class
actions if (1) it is uncertain that a claim will remain live for
any individual who could be named as a plaintiff long enough for a
court to certify the class; and (2) there will be a constant class
of persons suffering the deprivation complained of in the
complaint.

Here, Guadagna's claims were mooted after the Plaintiffs moved for
class certification. The Defendant could continually pick off named
plaintiffs in this case who had their services reduced by restoring
their care to previous levels on a case by case basis. Without
ensuring that all individuals who had their services reduced were
restored to their previous levels of care, claims such as
Guadagna's are inherently transitory, and capable of repetition
while evading review. In such cases, the `relation back' doctrine
is properly invoked to preserve the merits of the case for judicial
resolution.

Second, there will be a constant class of persons suffering the
deprivation complained of by Guadagna. Four thousand Medicaid
recipients received home care services through GuildNet in
Westchester, Suffolk, and Nassau counties as of March 1, 2017.
Although the Plaintiffs have not provided evidence as to how many
individuals switched to another MLTCP and were provided with less
care, the Court is confident that there is a constant class of
persons suffering the deprivation alleged in the complaint,, due to
the large number of former GuildNet enrollees.

Therefore, the Court finds that claims such as Guadagna's are
inherently transitory, and his claims brought on behalf of the
putative class survive because the motion for class certification
could relate back to the date of the filing of the complaint.

Accordingly, Guadagna's claims brought on behalf of the putative
class survive, and the Defendant's motion to dismiss his claims
brought on behalf of the putative class is denied.
Guadagna's claims brought on behalf of the putative class survive,
and the Defendant's motion to dismiss his claims brought on behalf
of the putative class is denied.

As to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

The Legal Standard

In reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the
Court must accept the factual allegations set forth in the
complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of
the Plaintiff.

Application to the Plaintiff's Claims

Guadagna and those similarly situated received less care after
switching MLTCPs, and they were not given notice of their right to
a fair hearing with aid continuing. Loss of medical care
constitutes irreparable harm.   Furthermore, the Defendant is
incorrect that the Plaintiffs cannot show a likelihood of success
on the merits because the DOH implemented the Transition Policy.
The Transition Policy did not affect Guadagna or those similarly
situated. Indeed, Guadagna continued to receive less care after the
Transition Policy was put into place. As the Court has already
found, claims such as Guadagna's are inherently transitory because
DOH has not implemented a policy to ameliorate the harm experienced
by those similar to Guadagna.

Therefore, as the Court has already determined that the Defendant's
actions have not mooted Guadagna's claims brought on behalf of the
putative class, the Defendant's motion to dismiss those claims
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is denied.

The Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) is granted in part, and denied in part. It is granted to
the extent that Samele and Roher's claims are dismissed because
they do not have standing. It is denied to the extent that the
inherently transitory exception applies to claims such as
Guadagna's, and his claims are preserved for the purposes of the
putative class action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 2, 2018 Memorandum
of Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybopremg
from Leagle.com.

Gemma Samele, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Selma Roher, by her next friend Melanie Roher & Salvatore
Guadagna, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin Wait Taylor , New
York Legal Assistance Group, Elizabeth A. Jois , New York Legal
Assistance Group, Jane Greengold Stevens , New York Legal
Assistance Group & Julia Grossman Russell , New York Legal
Assistance Group.

Howard Zucker, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Health, Defendant, represented by Dorothy O. Nese , Office of the
New York State Attorney General.


NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in Suit vs. MTA, LIRR
----------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted in part and denied in
part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned MEREDITH
JACOBS and FRED LEE, INDIVIDUALLY and ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY ET. AL., A/K/A MTA, MTA, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
LONG ISLAND RAILROAD, Defendant, No. 606977/17 (N.Y.).

The motion by the defendants, the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (MTA) and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR), for an order
dismissing the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR Section 3211(a)
(1) and (7), is granted pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to the extent
that the third cause of action for intentional infliction of
emotional distress is dismissed as this cause of action does not
seek to vindicate a private right and the plaintiffs failed to
timely file a notice of claim.

The defendants' motion at bar to dismiss is based upon the legal
doctrine of sovereign immunity and the well-settled statutory
requirement that the plaintiffs are required to file and serve
notices of claims pursuant to the Public Authorities Law as a
prerequisite before any monies can be recovered based on theories
of tort or contract. The plaintiffs admit that they did not file
any notice of claim, nor did they cross-move for permission to file
a late notice of claim. They rely instead on the slim reed of the
appellate court-created public interest exception to the notice of
claim requirement.

This court agrees with the plaintiffs' contention that since the
purported class action case at bar seeks to vindicate a public
interest that the defendants maintain safe and adequate facilities
and service in accordance with the Transportation Law and that the
disposition of that claim will directly affect the rights of the
public, this action falls within the public interest exception to
the notice of claim requirement

A full-text copy of the New York Supreme Court's July 9, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7352n47 from
Leagle.com.

DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP PLLC, by PAUL LIGGIERI, ESQ. --
PAUL@DEREKSMITHLAW.COM -- Attorney for Plaintiffs.

MARK D. HOFFER, ESQ., GENERAL COUNSEL, by KEVIN McCAFFREY, ESQ.,
THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD LAW DEPARTMENT, Attorney for Defendants.


NJRM INC: Rodino Asks Court to Approve Notice to Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Paul Rodino, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NJRM, Inc. and Ray
Montez, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05167 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order permitting him to send notice
of this action to these situated individuals:

   "all current and former delivery drivers employed at the
   Domino's Pizza restaurants owned, operated, and controlled by
   NJRM, Inc. nationwide, during the three years prior to the
   filing of this Class Action Complaint and the date of final
   judgment in this matter, who elect to opt-in to this action."

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the putative class:

          Michael Fradin, Esq.
          MICHAEL L. FRADIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 644 3425
          Facsimile: (847) 673 1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Biller, Esq.
          Andrew Kimble, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Telephone: (513) 651 3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665 0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com
                  www.msdlegal.com

               - and -

          Aaron Maduff, Esq.
          MADUFF & MADUFF, LLC
          205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2050
          Chicago, IL 60601
          E-mail: abmaduff@madufflaw.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: Court Dismisses I. Robinson's FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IMANI ROBINSON, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NORTHLAND GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-12023 (D. N.J.), Judge Noel L. Hillman of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's putative class action
claims for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").

Robinson, claims that the Defendant violated the FDCPA when it sent
her a notice regarding an unpaid debt.  The Plaintiff claims that
the Defendant did not comply with Section 1692g(a)(3), which
requires debt collectors to inform debtors that a debt dispute must
be in writing in order to be valid.  She claims that the Defendant
led the debtor to believe that she could orally dispute her debt in
violation of Section 1692e(10), which provides that a debt
collector may not use false, deceptive, or misleading
misrepresentations in connection with the collection of any debt.

The Defendant has moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for
failure to state a claim for Section 1692g(a)(3) and Section
1692e(10) violations.  The Plaintiff has opposed the Defendant's
motion.

Judge Hillman finds that through the lens of the least
sophisticated debtor, it is clear that the collection letter at
issue here adequately provides an unsophisticated consumer with her
rights, as required by FDCPA.  The third paragraph in the
Defendant's collection letter does not overshadow or contradict the
prior paragraph informing the Plaintiff of her rights because the
invitation to call within the last paragraph is the same font,
size, and color type face as the other two paragraphs.

In addition, the collection letter does not invite the consumer to
call if she uncovers any discrepancies in her debt or if she feels
she did not owe this debt.  It only invites her to call if she has
general questions regarding the account.  Absent a rule from the
Circuit barring any language encouraging or facilitating oral
communication with the debt collector, the Judge holds that the
language placed where it was and presented as it was, is innocuous
at worst and does not violate the statute.

Because the Plaintiff's Section 1692g(a)(3) claim fails, her
Section 1692e(10) claim likewise fails.  Even if, however, the
judgment on the Section 1692g(a)(3) claim is not dispositive of the
Section 1692e(10) claim, the language used in the debt collection
letter is not a false representation or deceptive, because the
language cannot be reasonably read to have two or more different
meanings, one of which is incorrect.  The letter reasonably
articulates to the Plaintiff, accurately tracking the statutory
language, that to legally dispute her debt it must be in writing.

In sum, the debt collection letter adequately informs the Plaintiff
how to dispute her debt in compliance with the requirements of the
FDCPA.  Consequently, the Plaintiff has failed to state a valid
claim that the Defendant violated the FDCPA.

For the reasons expressed, Judge Hillman granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint.  An appropriate Order
will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/bwNOBn from Leagle.com.

IMANI ROBINSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF --
bwolf@legaljones.com -- Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC & JOSEPH K. JONES
-- jkj@legaljones.com -- Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.

NORTHLAND GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by ANDREW JOSHUA
BLADY -- ablady@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN &
ISRAEL.


NORTHSTAR LOCATIONS: Faces Feldman Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Locations
Services, LLC.  The lawsuit is captioned as Stella Feldman, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Northstar Locations Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04608 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2018). The suit alleges Fair Debt
Collection Act violations.

Northstar Location provides receivables debt collection services to
customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Its
services include first and third-party debt collections, customer
care programs, and location services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


OPENING CEREMONY: Faces Delacruz Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Opening Ceremony,
LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Opening Ceremony, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07411
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with
Disabilities Act violations.

Opening Ceremony is an American clothing brand and retailer founded
in 2002 by American fashion designers Carol Lim and Humberto
Leon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575 4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal


OVERTON & RUSSELL: Faces Bonneau et al. Suit in N.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Overton, Russell,
Doerr & Donovan, LLP. The lawsuit is captioned as Mark Bonneau and
Julia Moffitt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Overton, Russell, Doerr & Donovan, LLP,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00983-GTS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 15,
2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Glenn T. Suddaby. The
suit alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violations.

Overton & Russell provides online payment services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Arleo, Esq.
          Office of Robert L. Arleo
          380 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 551 1115
          Facsimile: (518) 751 1801
          E-mail: robertarleo@gmail.com


P.F. CHANG'S: Conditional Certification Bid in "Esry" Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JACQUELINE ESRY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the PLAINTIFF, v. P.F.
CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., d/b/a P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, the
DEFENDANT, Case No. 4:18-cv-00156-JLH (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge
J. Leon Holmes entered an order dated August 13, 2018, granting in
part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification.

The Court said, "On the issue of whether Esry is similarly situated
to other employees, the only evidence that Esry submits is her own
declaration. Esry describes her work and the work of other servers,
but she says nothing about tipped employees other than servers,
such as bartenders.  Furthermore, she claims no specific knowledge
about servers in locations other than in Little Rock, except to say
that she was informed by the defendant that the hourly rate of
$2.63 was paid to all servers employed by the defendant. P.F.
Chang's has submitted evidence that there is no company-wide policy
or practice that servers will spend any particular amount of time
or percentage of time on non-tipped work. According to evidence
submitted by P.F. Chang's, the amount of time that tipped employees
spend on non-tipped work varies from location to location because
busier restaurants tend to use more bussers to clear and set tables
and to bring dirty dishes to the kitchen than do the slower
restaurants. Esry has met the minimal requirements of representing
a collective action for servers at the Little Rock location. She
has not, however, shown that she is similarly situated to
non-servers or servers in other locations."


PASSION FOOD: Faces Walker Suit in Eastern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Passion Food Four,
LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Ricardo Walker, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Passion
Food Four, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04609  (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 15, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act
violations.

Passion Food operates in the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Court Narrows Claims in Inmate's HepC Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment the case captioned SALVATORE CHIMENTI, ET AL.,
v. JOHN WETZEL, ET AL., Civil Action No. 15-3333 (E.D. Pa.).

The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit against the Defendants asserting
claims regarding the medical care provided to Department of
Correction inmates who have been diagnosed with Hepatitis C viral
infections (HCV). Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that the DOC
Defendants have violated their rights under the Eighth Amendment
and the Pennsylvania Constitution by adopting a policy for the
treatment of inmates with chronic HCV that fails to provide them
with appropriate medical care.

Count I

The DOC Defendants move to dismiss Count I on the grounds of
mootness, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, lack of
standing, and because the record does not support the Plaintiffs'
claims that they were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs'
serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Mootness

The DOC Defendants also argue that the Court should dismiss
Chimenti's claim for injunctive relief in Count I as moot because
he has already received the requested relief. Chimenti has already
received treatment with DAAs and, accordingly, no longer personally
needs the second of the three items in the requested injunction.

However, there is no basis on the record before the Court upon
which the Court could determine that Chimenti has no interest in
requiring the DOC Defendants to formulate and implement a policy
for the treatment of Hepatitis C that meets community standards of
care or that he no longer needs monitoring and medical care for
cirrhosis or liver fibrosis and access to treatment by a
hepatologist. Indeed, Chimenti's medical expert, Dr. Bennet Cecil,
has opined that Chimenti still has a liver lesion and suffers from
diabetes, severe fatigue, and memory problems relating to hepatic
encephalopathy. The Court concludes that Chimenti's claim for
injunctive relief is not moot and we deny the DOC Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment as to this issue.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The DOC Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment
as to Leyva's claim for injunctive relief in Count I because he
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this
lawsuit.

The Defendants also argue that the Court should dismiss the claims
brought in Count I as to all but seven of the members of the Class,
because only seven members of the Class properly exhausted their
administrative remedies pursuant to the PLRA before this action was
filed. The Court has concluded that vicarious exhaustion applies in
this case. Since there is no dispute that both Chimenti and
Maldonado exhausted their administrative remedies pursuant to the
PLRA prior to filing suit, the Court concludes that the PLRA
exhaustion requirement is satisfied through vicarious exhaustion as
to all of the members of the class who did not personally exhaust
their administrative remedies with respect to the claims asserted
in Count I of the First Amended Complaint.

The Court thus denies the DOC Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment as to their argument that the claims asserted in Count I
should be dismissed as to all but seven members of the Class for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Standing

The Defendants argue that future inmates of the DOC lack standing
to assert claims in this case and should be dismissed as the
plaintiffs in this action. Specifically, the Defendants contend
that the definition of the class includes individuals who are not
yet inmates in the custody of the DOC and that the named Plaintiffs
lack standing to assert claims on behalf of those individuals.
However, the definition of the class includes only all persons who
are currently incarcerated in a Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections facility with a diagnosed condition of chronic
Hepatitis C.

Since the class does not include any individuals who are not
currently incarcerated in a DOC facility, the Court denies the DOC
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to this argument.

Deliberate indifference

Deliberate indifference can be shown by a prison official
intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or
intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed. A
medical need is serious if it has been diagnosed by a physician as
requiring treatment or one that is so obvious that a lay person
would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention.

The Hepatitis C Protocol

The DOC Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary
judgment as to Count I of the First Amended Complaint because the
DOC has adopted a Hepatitis C Protocol that provides for treatment
with DAAs for some inmates with chronic HCV and thus, they are not
deliberately indifferent to inmates' serious medical needs.

The Court concludes that there is evidence on the record that the
DOC's prioritization of its treatment of inmates with DAAs pursuant
to the Hepatitis C Protocol is influenced by the cost of that
treatment rather than solely by the medical needs of inmates with
chronic HCV and, thus, that the DOC has delayed necessary medical
treatment for a non-medical reason.  

Moreover, there is no record evidence that there is anything to
prevent the DOC from changing the Hepatitis C Protocol after the
conclusion of this litigation. Under these circumstances, the Court
concludes that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding
whether DOC Defendants are deliberately indifferent to the serious
medical needs of inmates with chronic HCV notwithstanding their
adoption of the Hepatitis C Protocol.

Accordingly, the Court declines to grant summary judgment to the
DOC Defendants with respect to Count I because the DOC has adopted
the Hepatitis C Protocol.

Inmates with F0 to F1 fibrosis scores

The DOC Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment
as to Count I because those inmates who do not qualify for
treatment with DAAs under the Hepatitis C Protocol do not currently
have serious medical needs.

The Plaintiffs argue that the DOC is deliberately indifferent to
the serious medical needs of inmates with chronic HCV because it is
prioritizing patients based on imprecise tests that may miss
patients who may otherwise be entitled to treatment with DAAs under
the Hepatitis C Protocol.

The Court concludes that the record contains evidence that patients
who have chronic HCV and whose Metavir scores are less than F2 have
serious medical needs, as they may suffer from fatigue and other
nonhepatic symptoms of their infections and, if not treated with
DAAs before their disease progresses, may suffer from liver
inflammation, liver fibrosis, liver cancer and liver-related
mortality that they would not suffer if they were treated with DAAs
while their Metavir scores are in the F0 to F1 range.  

There is also evidence that the DOC's reliance on an inaccurate
method of testing for fibrosis could result in the DOC's failing to
treat many individuals who suffer from advanced fibrosis and
cirrhosis. The Court further concludes that there is record
evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact regarding
whether inmates who have chronic HCV but whose APRI scores do not
yet correlate to Metavir scores of F3 and F4 have serious medical
needs that the DOC Defendants are deliberately refusing to treat
for non-medical reasons, such as cost.

Accordingly, the Court denies the DOC Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment insofar as they argue that they are entitled to
summary judgment on Count I because inmates who have been
categorized as having Metavir scores of F0 to F1 do not have
serious medical needs.

Count III

The DOC Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment
as to Chimenti's medical malpractice claim in Count III of the
First Amended Complaint because the evidence of record is not
sufficient to establish a causal relationship between their alleged
failure to conform to the appropriate standard of care and injury
to Chimenti.

The Court concludes that Dr. Cecil's opinion satisfies the standard
of certainty except with respect to his statement that Chimenti's
diabetes is likely related to his HCV, as this statement fails to
comply with the requisite standard of certainty for causation.

The DOC Defendants also argue that they are entitled to summary
judgment as to Chimenti's medical malpractice claim because Dr.
Cecil's report does not specify what actions Dr. Noel took with
respect to Chimenti's medical care. The DOC Defendants, however,
cite no authority for the proposition that a medical malpractice
plaintiff must establish duty and breach of that duty solely
through expert testimony and we are aware of none. Plaintiffs have
submitted evidence that Dr. Noel was involved in the development of
the DOC's interim and final Hepatitis C Protocols and the decision
of the DOC to cease all treatment for HCV before it developed a
treatment protocol.

There is also record evidence that Dr. Noel had the final authority
to determine whether a particular inmate received DAA treatment,
that medical staff consulted him regarding whether to provide DAA
treatment to Chimenti, and that he was involved in the decision not
to provide DAA treatment to Chimenti. The Court concludes,
accordingly, that there is sufficient evidence on the record to
raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Dr. Noel
owed a duty to Chimenti; whether Dr. Noel breached that duty
through his involvement in the decision to delay Chimenti's
treatment with DAAs; and whether that breach was a substantial
factor in causing Chimenti to suffer severe fatigue, memory
problems and increased risk of death, liver cancer, worsening of
liver failure and an increased need for a liver transplant in the
future.  
The Court therefore grant the DOC Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment as to Count III of the First Amended Complaint with
respect to Dr. Cecil's opinion that the DOC's failure to treat
Chimenti with DAAs in 2013 and 2014 was likely to have caused his
diabetes and we deny the DOC's Motion for Summary Judgment as to
Count III of the First Amended Complaint in all other respects.

The Court grants the DOC Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as
to the following: (1) Maldonado's personal claim for injunctive
relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in Count I of the First
Amended Complaint; (2) Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief for
violation of Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution
in Count II of the First Amended Complaint; and (3) that portion of
Chimenti's claim for medical malpractice in Count III of the First
Amended Complaint that pertains to Dr. Cecil's opinion that
Chimenti's diabetes is likely related to his HCV.

The Motion for Summary Judgment is denied in all other respects.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs may proceed with respect to their claims
against the DOC Defendants for injunctive relief on behalf of
Chimenti, Leyva, and the Class in Count I; Chimenti's claim for
monetary damages in Count I; and the remainder of Chimenti's claim
for medical malpractice in Count III.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 12, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycrrdf3z from Leagle.com.

SALVATORE CHIMENTI, DANIEL LEYVA & DAVID MALDONADO, AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented by ANGUS R. LOVE, PA
INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT, DAVID RUDOVSKY, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING
FEINBERG & LIN, LLP, STEPHEN D. BROWN -- stephen.brown@dechert.com
-- DECHERT LLP, SU MING YEH, PA Institutional Law Project,
CHRISTINE C. LEVIN -- christine.levin@dechert.com -- DECHERT LLP,
ETHAN SOLOVE -- esolove@structurelaw.com -- STRUCTURE LAW GROUP,
LLP & ROSE MARIE WONG -- rosey.wong@dechert.com -- DECHERT LLP.

JOHN WETZEL, SECRETARY OF THE (DOC) & PAUL NOEL, CHIEF MEDICAL
DIRECTOR, PENNSYLVANIA DOC, Defendants, represented by VINCENT R.
MAZESKI , CHIEF COUNSEL'S OFFICE PENNSYLVANIA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS.

CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. & DR. JOHN
KEPHART, MEDICAL DIRECTOR (FORMER), SCI SMITHFIELD, Defendants,
represented by CAITLIN J. GOODRICH -- cgoodrich@wglaw.com -- WEBER
GALLAGHER, NOAH EVAN KATZ -- nkatz@wglaw.com -- WEBER GALLAGHER &
SAMUEL H. FOREMAN -- sforeman@wglaw.com -- WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON
STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY, LLP.

DR. JAY COWAN, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS. & DR.
JAMES FROMMER, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, SCI SMITHFIELD, Defendants,
represented by CAITLIN J. GOODRICH , WEBER GALLAGHER & SAMUEL H.
FOREMAN , WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY, LLP.


PENNSYLVANIA: Williams et al. Seek Okay of Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned THEODORE WILLIAMS, DENNIS McLAUGHLIN, JR.,
CHARLES CRAIG, CHARLES ROBINSON, EDWARD GASDICK, and FRANK
TROMBETTA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. LESLIE S. RICHARDS, Secretary of Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation, in her individual capacity; SCOTT
CHRISTIE, Deputy Secretary for Highway Administration, Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation, in his individual capacity; H. DANIEL
CESSNA, District Executive, District 11, Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation, in his individual capacity; and ANGELO PAMPENA,
Senior Highway Maintenance Manager in District 11 of the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in his individual
capacity, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00525-MPK (W.D. Pa.),
the Parties ask the Court for an order:

   1. granting collective action certification of a Settlement
      Class;

   2. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement;

   3. approving proposed Class Notice; and

   4. setting a date for a hearing on the fairness of the
      Settlement Agreement.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Edward J. Feinstein, Esq.
          Elizabeth Rabenold, Esq.
          Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
          Pamina Ewing, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          429 Fourth Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281 8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281 1007
          E-mail: efeinstein@fdpklaw.com
                  pewing@fdpklaw.com
                  erabenold@fdpklaw.com
                  rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Scott A. Bradley, Esq.
          6th Floor, Manor Complex
          564 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 565 3586
          Facsimile: (412) 565 3019
          E-mail: sbradley@attorneygeneral.gov


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Arce Suit in District of Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Natasha Arce,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC and John Does
1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01406-SRU (D. Conn., Aug.
17, 2018).  The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Stefan R.
Underhill.  The case alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violations.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Watkins Seeks Final Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TREMAINE WATKINS, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRESSLER & PRESSLER,
LLP a/k/a Pressler and Pressler, LLP; JOHN DOE 1-10; and XYZ
CORPORATION 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00119-MCA-LDW
(D.N.J.), which alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting
final approval to the parties' settlement, award requested and
agreed-upon counsel fees and costs, and grant an incentive award to
the Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, the Defendant represented that there
are 437 Settlement Class members, not including the Plaintiff. The
Defendant, without admitting liability, agreed to pay to each of
the 437 Settlement Class Members $70.  If all 437 Settlement Class
Members remain in the Class Action settlement, then the total
monetary relief to the Settlement Class will be $30,590.  However,
per the Settlement Agreement, if after confirmatory discovery the
total number of class Members remaining in the Class was greater
than 437, each Class Member would still receive $70.

If the class size was less than 437, each Class Member would
receive a pro-rata share of the settlement fund rounded down to the
nearest penny.  As such, the class action settlement fairly
resolves the FDCPA claims on behalf of the Settlement Class. Each
Settlement Class Member who does not exclude themselves will be
directly paid $70.00, without any claim form requirement. The
$70.00 per Settlement Class Member will be paid in a timely
fashion, without the risk of a potentially unfavorable outcome in
litigation (or on an appeal that would likely have followed,
regardless of the litigated outcome).

The Defendant has also agreed to pay Class Representative Tremaine
Watkins a total of $3,000.00 to resolve the individual FDCPA claims
and as an incentive payment in recognition of her efforts on behalf
of the Settlement Class.  The Defendant has also agreed to pay
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $65,000.00
subject to court Approval. This amount was negotiated by the
parties after the Settlement Agreement was fully executed.

The Notice to the Class informed them that Class Counsel would be
seeking fees and costs in the amount of $65,000.00 at the Fairness
Hearing. In the event that a settlement check is not deliverable to
a member of the Settlement Class, a check is not cashed prior to
its expiration date, or there otherwise is a balance left over in
the settlement fund, then the remaining balance in the settlement
fund will be delivered to the Civil Justice Clinic at Rutgers
School of Law - Newark as a cy pres payment.

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Settlement Class:

          Bharati O. Sharma, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 U.S. Hwy 130 – Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545 7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545 1030
          E-mail: bsharma@wolflawfirm.net

               - and -

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM, LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., 2nd Floor
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273 7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


PRH 1300: Faces Sierra Suit in Southern District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PRH 1300 Hotel, LLC.
The lawsuit is captioned as Luis Sierra, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRH 1300 HOTEL,
LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-23316-JEM (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2018). The suit alleges
Americans with Disabilities Act violation. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          JESSICA L.KERR, P.A. DBA THE ADVOCACY GROUP
          200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 282 1858
          Facsimile: (844) 786 3694
          E-mail: service@advocacypa.com


PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS: Tatarian Sues over Spam Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Tatarian, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Progressive Business Funding, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. not provided (E.D. Mich., Aug. 15, 2018), alleges that
Defendant routinely violates Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
using an automatic telephone dialing system to deliver
non-emergency text messages to telephone numbers assigned to a
cellular telephone service without prior express consent.

According to the complaint, the Defendant continued to deliver text
messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number despite having
been instructed to stop delivering text messages to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number.  The Plaintiff's claims, and the claims
of the members of the classes, originate from the same conduct,
practice, and procedure on the part of Defendant.  The Plaintiff's
claims are based on the same theories as are the claims of the
members of the classes.  The Plaintiff suffered the same injuries
as the members of the classes.

Progressive Business offers commercial financial services and small
business loans.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed classes:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          James L. Davidson, 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
                  mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Andrew Campbell, Esq.
          ATTORNEY AT LAW
          1000 Beach Street, Suite B West Entrance
          Flint, MI 48502
          Telephone: (810) 232 4344
          E-mail: michiganbk@gmail.com


REGIONAL TRANS AUTHORITY: Singer Class Certification Bid Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Richard Singer, the Plaintiff, v. Regional
Transportation Authority, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00199 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an
order denying a motion for class certification without prejudice to
renewal.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 17, 2018,
at the outset of this case, and consistent with the procedure
advised by Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir.
2011), Plaintiffs filed a protective motion for class
certification. The motion has not been briefed and of course is not
ready for decision. Due to recordkeeping issues involving the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the court asks Plaintiff
to re−file its class certification motion by September 10, 2018.
There is no need to notice the motion for presentment under Local
Rule 5.3(b). The re−filed motion will be deemed for all
substantive purposes to have been filed on 1/10/2018, and this case
will remain a putative class action. The effect of the denial is
stayed until September 14, 2018.


RESORT SALES: Lopez Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------
JACKELINE CORALEE LOPEZ, and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff, vs. RESORT SALES CONSULTING, LLC., d/b/a HOLIDAY’S
LOUNGE, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and FLORIDA RESORT
XCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a HOLIDAY'S LOUNGE, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-23346-UU (S.D. Fla., Aug.
17, 2018), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages,
interests, costs and attorney's fees for willful violations of
overtime wages under the laws of the United States and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, RSC and FRX were located at the same
address. Both companies represented and marketed themselves to the
public under the fictitious name 'Holiday's Lounge'. Both companies
performed the same or related functions in selling vacation and
time-share packages to their customers.

During the period of on or about mid-April 2018 through the end of
July 2018, the Plaintiff worked in a position titled as
salesperson. Plaintiff was paid approximately $75 per day plus
additional commissions and bonuses. Plaintiff worked approximately
50 hours per week but was not paid overtime wages. Plaintiff is due
overtime wages at a rate of time-and-one-half the rate of all
wages, commissions, bonuses and all other remuneration paid. The
Defendants were required to pay Plaintiff overtimes wages.
Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages at a rate of time and one
half, when she worked more than 40 hours per week. Plaintiff is
owed overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 hours per
week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
          2847 Hollywood Blvd.
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 361 8383
          E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

               - and -

          Isaac Mamane, Esq.
          Mamane Law LLC
          10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 350A
          Miami, FL 33161
          Telephone (305) 773 6661
          E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


RESTAURANT EXPRESS: Burgess Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Burgess, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Restaurant Express Delivery, LLC dba Five
Star Food Express, Philip Portman, Matthew P. Bartnik and Bethany
Bartnik, Case No. 1:18-cv-01878 (D. Colo., July 25, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act.

The Plaintiff Nancy Burgess was employed as a dispatcher by
Defendants from approximately January 30, 2017, through March 17,
2018.

The Defendants' business is based in Michigan, but provides service
to restaurants located in no fewer than six states. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
      Ashley K. Boothby, Esq.
      THE KELMAN BUESCHER FIRM  
      600 Grant Street - Suite 450  
      Denver, CO 80203
      Tel: (303)-333-7751
      Fax: (303)-333-7758
      E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com


RUSHMORE SERVICE: Faces Jackson Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rushmore Service
Center, LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Eric Jackson, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Rushmore Service Center, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04587
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2018). The suit alleges Fair Debt Collection
Act violations.

The Defendant is third party debt collection company.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SACHS ELECTRIC: Durham Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
William Durham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sachs Electric Company, McCarthy Building Companies,
Inc., and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 3:18-cv-04506 (N.D. Calif.,
July 25, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay compensation in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is a California resident and was primarily employed
in Monterey County by Defendants as a non-exempt employee.

The Defendants were involved in the construction and development of
photovoltaic power projects, including the California Flats Solar
Project. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
      THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
      21550 Oxnard Street, Ste. 900
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Tel: (818) 883-4900
      Fax: (818) 883-4902
      E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

          - and -

      Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq.
      THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
      3579 East Foothill Blvd., No. 338
      Pasadena, CA 91107
      Tel: (213) 599-8255
      Fax: (213) 402-3949
      E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com


SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Mckibben Seeks to Certify Two Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled DAN MCKIBBEN, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v.
JOHN MCMAHON, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order to
certify these classes:

   Damages Class:

   "individuals who, between October 22, 2012 and March 31, 2018
   were Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (GBT) inmates housed in
   the Alternative Lifestyle Tank (ALT) of the San Bernardino
   County Jail facility known as the West Valley Detention
   Center"; and

   Injunctive Relief Class:

   "individuals who currently are, or in the future without the
   intervention of this Court will be, GBT inmates housed in the
   Alternative Lifestyle Tank of the San Bernardino County Jail,
   including but not limited to those housed in the ALT".

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Barrett S. Litt, Esq.
          David S. McLane, Esq.
          Linsay Battles, Esq.
          KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT
          975 East Green Street
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Telephone: (626) 844 7600
          Facsimile: (626) 844 7670
          E-Mail: blitt@littlelaw.com
                  dmclane@kmbllaw.com
                  lbattles@kmbllaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa Goodman, Esq.
          Brendan M. Hamme, Esq.
          Peter J. Eliasberg, Esq.
          Amanda C. Goad, Esq.
          Aditi Fruitwala, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977 9500
          Facsimile: (213) 977 5299
          E-mail: MGoodman@aclusocal.org
                  BHamme@aclusocal.org
                  PEliasberg@aclusocal.org
                  AGoad@aclusocal.org
                  AFruitwala@aclusocal.org

County of San Bernardino et al. are represented by:

          Nathan A Oyster, Esq.
          Susan E Coleman, Esq.
          Burke Williams And Sorensen LLP
          Tel: 213-236-0600
          E-mail: noyster@bwslaw.com
                  scoleman@bwslaw.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Initial Approval of Parmlee Case Accord Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the lead
plaintiff in the case entitled, Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. et al., has filed an unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement of the lawsuit for a cash
payment of $9,500.

The Company is a defendant in two purported securities class
actions lawsuits that were filed in March and April 2016 in the
United States District Court, Northern District of Texas.

The lawsuits were consolidated and are now captioned Parmelee v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783.

The lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and executive officers on behalf of a
class consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired
our securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated federal securities
laws by making false or misleading statements, as well as failing
to disclose material adverse facts, in its periodic reports filed
under the Exchange Act and certain other public disclosures, in
connection with, among other things, the Company's change in its
methodology for estimating its allowance for credit losses and
correction of such allowance for prior periods.

On March 14, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. On January 3, 2018, the court granted the Company's motion
as to defendant Ismail Dawood (the Company's former Chief Financial
Officer) and denied the motion as to all other defendants.

In July 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement of the lawsuit
for a cash payment of $9,500.

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a specialized consumer
finance company, provides vehicle finance and third-party servicing
in the United States. Its products and services include retail
installment contracts and vehicle leases, as well as dealer loans
for inventory, construction, real estate, working capital, and
revolving lines of credit. he company was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. is a subsidiary of Santander Holdings USA, Inc.


SAWA SUSHI: Faces Zhao Suit in Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sawa Sushi 88 Inc. et
al. The lawsuit is captioned as Ji Zhao and Wei Zhong Feng,
Individually and on behalf of All Other Employees Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sawa Sushi 88 Inc. a/k/a Sawa Sushi; Hu
Ming Zheng a/k/a "Vincent"; and KiKi Wu, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-04610 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2018). The suit alleges Fair
Labor Standards Act violations.[BN]

Sawa Sushi serves fish, seafood and other delights.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


SCANA CORP: Petition for Original Jurisdiction Pending
------------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Notice of Petition
for Original Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of South Carolina,
in the class action suit filed Jessica Cook, remains pending.

On September 7, 2017, a purported class action was filed against
Santee Cooper, SCE&G, Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc. and
Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. by plaintiff Jessica Cook,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated (the "Santee
Cooper Ratepayer Case") in the Hampton County Court. The plaintiff
makes substantially similar allegations as the SCE&G Ratepayer
Case.

The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that defendants may not
charge the purported class for reimbursement for past or future
costs of the Nuclear Project, as well as other compensatory and
statutory treble damages, attorneys' fees, and any other relief the
court deems proper.

On March 27, 2018, the plaintiff and additional named plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint including as additional named defendants
the current and former directors of Santee Cooper and SCANA.

On June 25, 2018, Santee Cooper filed a Notice of Petition for
Original Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of South Carolina,
which Notice was pending at June 30, 2018.

SCANA Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity to
retail and wholesale customers in the United States. The company
was founded in 1924 and is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SEATTLE, WA: Dismissal of Traffic Ticket Refund Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirmed the
Superior Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned NICHOLAS E. BOONE, and all others similarly
situated, Appellant, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, Respondent, No. 76611-2-I
(Wash. App.).

This an appeal of the Superior Court's dismissal of Boone's
restitution claim, ruling that plaintiffs could only seek a refund
of fines paid in municipal court through a motion in that court to
vacate the judgment.

Nicholas E. Boone exceeded the speed limit in a school zone and
received a notice of infraction. He paid the ticket without contest
and the municipal court entered a judgment against him. Boone
brought a class action lawsuit in superior court seeking (1) a
declaration that the school zone was improperly signed and (2)
restitution of fines paid.

In its oral ruling, the superior court first noted that there was
no dispute that it had jurisdiction over Boone's declaratory claim.
But because it found disputed issues of material fact, it denied
the parties' motion for summary judgment on that claim. As to the
restitution claim, the court ruled that the issue was not properly
before it and found no basis to aggregate the proposed plaintiffs'
claims on this issue. The court's order states that Boone's refund
claim is barred as res judicata in superior court and plaintiffs'
refund claims must be brought in municipal court.

Boone raises several theories to argue against this result. He
first argues that his claim for monetary relief is based on his
claim for a declaratory judgment and is thus within the
jurisdiction of the superior court. But the cases Boone relies on
are inapposite. Because there was no prior judgment at issue in
Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc., 160 Wn.2d 173, 157 P.3d
847(2007) or Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wn.2d 249, 692 P.2d 793
(1984) those cases are of no help to Boone.

Boone next argues that the trial court erred by relying on Doe (Doe
v. Fife Mun. Court, 74 Wn.App. 444, 874 P.2d 182 (1994). Boone
argues that Doe is limited to the particular circumstances of that
case and should not be applied here to require an entire certified
class of plaintiffs to bring actions in municipal court.

Boone misconstrues Doe. In Doe, the Court held that, even where a
municipal court judgment is void, the exclusive means to vacate
that judgment is through a motion in municipal court. The Doe court
did not address jurisdiction over declaratory claims or the order
of actions in superior and municipal court.

There was no dispute below that the trial court had jurisdiction
over Boone's declaratory claim. The court did not require Boone to
vacate the municipal court judgment before it would hear his claim
for declaratory relief. And, because the trial court expressly did
not certify a class as to Boone's restitution claim, the court did
not require an entire certified class to bring actions in municipal
court.

In this case, the City moved to dismiss Boone's declaratory claim
as moot, arguing that the allegedly improper signs had been changed
and a declaration that the former signs were improper would not
provide any meaningful relief. The trial court granted the motion.
Boone contends this was error. He asserts that the superior court
has jurisdiction over a declaratory claim even when no relief is
available.

Boone relies on New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. City of Clyde
Hill, 185 Wn.2d 594, 374 P.3d 151(2016). The issue in that case was
whether a declaratory action was proper to challenge a city's
action or whether relief was only available through a writ of
review. The New Cingular court held that, in the circumstances of
that case, either avenue of relief was available.  
In concluding that there was no statutory or constitutional bar to
seeking a declaratory judgment, the court quoted RCW 7.24.010,
which states in part that courts of record within their respective
jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status and other
legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be
claimed.

A full-text copy of the Wash. App.'s July 9, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7n84jly from Leagle.com.

Cynthia J Heidelberg, Breskin, Johnson & Townsend, David Elliot
Breskin, Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC, Stephen Joel Crane, Crane
Dunham PLLC, Counsel for Appellant(s).

Kymberly Kathryn Evanson, Pacifica Law Group LLP, Paul J. Lawrence,
Pacifica Law Group LLP, Rebecca Boatright, Seattle Police
Department, Gregory Colin Narver, Seattle City Attorney's Office,
Shae Blood, Pacifica Law Group LLP, Counsel for Respondent(s).


SEDGWICK, KS: Court Enters Show Cause Order in A. Ridley's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY EARL RIDLEY, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF SEDGWICK
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-3097-SAC (D.
Kan.), Judge Sam A. Crow of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas ordered the Plaintiff to show cause why his
complaint should not be dismissed.

Ridley brings the pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.  Although he was incarcerated at the Lansing
Correctional Facility at the time of filing, the acts giving rise
to his Complaint occurred while he was in custody at the Sedgwick
County Detention Facility.  The Court granted his motion to proceed
in forma pauperis.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was denied a special diet and
religious text in accordance with his Hindu religion, and that he
was excluded from chaplain services.  He names as the Defendants:
the Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners; Sedgwick County; Sam
Brownback; Governor Constituent Services Office; the State of
Kansas; John Doe (1) Chaplain; and John Doe (2) Chaplain.

The Plaintiff seeks (i) $10 million for monetary damages for
violations of the Due Process Clause, his right to Substantive Due
Process, and First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments,
Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("UDHR"), Federal Conspiracy
to Obstruct Justice Act, prospective injunctive relief and $3
million for violation of Kan. Const. B. of R. (7), $10 million for
monetary damages for violations of Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Person Act ("RLUIPA") and Kansas Preservation of
Religious Freedom Act, $27 million for punitive damages for
constitutional injury and damages of emotional injury, loss of
enjoyment of life, dispiritedness and mental distress and bodily
damage.

Judge Crow finds that (i) the Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to
dismissal without prejudice based on his failure to exhaust
available administrative remedies before filing the action; (ii)
the Plaintiff has pointed to no policy or deficiency in the
training program used by the Sheriff or Sedgwick County and no
causal link between any such inadequacy and the allegedly
unconstitutional acts; (iii) the Plaintiff fails to allege personal
participation by the John Doe Chaplains in any purported
constitutional violations; (iv) any claim for monetary damages
against the state, a state agency, or a state official in his or
her official capacity is subject to dismissal as barred by
sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment; (v) the
Plaintiff's bare conspiracy allegations fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; (vi) the Plaintiff's claims for
injunctive relief are moot and subject to dismissal because he is
no longer incarcerated at the Sedgwick County Detention Facility;
(vii) the Plaintiff presents no plausible basis for a claim of
punitive damages because he alleges no facts whatsoever
establishing that any defendant acted with a sufficiently culpable
state of mind; and (viii) the Plaintiff's instant case includes
claims substantially similar to those he has raised in his prior
cases.

The Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, seeking to
maintain his action as a class action on behalf of the class of
"Religious Student Association of Hindu Vaishnava Brahmacari."  The
Judge finds that the Plaintiff, appearing pro se, cannot adequately
represent a class.  Any request to certify a class is denied.

Judge Crow holds that the Plaintiff is required to show good cause
why his Complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons he
stated.  The Plaintiff is also given the opportunity to file a
complete and proper Amended Complaint upon court-approved forms
that cures all the deficiencies discussed.  The Plaintiff is given
time to file a complete and proper Amended Complaint in which he
(1) shows he has exhausted administrative remedies for all claims
alleged; (2) raises only properly joined claims and defendants; (3)
alleges sufficient facts to state a claim for a federal
constitutional violation and show a cause of action in federal
court; and (4) alleges sufficient facts to show personal
participation by each named defendant.

If Plaintiff does not file an Amended Complaint within the
prescribed time that cures all the deficiencies discussed, the
matter will be decided based upon the current deficient Complaint.
He is granted until Aug. 17, 2018, in which to show good cause why
his Complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons stated.  He
is also granted until Aug. 17, 2018, in which to file a complete
and proper Amended Complaint to cure all the deficiencies
discussed.  The clerk is directed to send Senction 1983 forms and
instructions to the Plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/XVkyS0 from Leagle.com.

Anthony Earl Ridley, Plaintiff, Pro se.


SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs
in the case, Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service
Corporation International and others, Case No. 2013-5636; in the
Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans, Louisiana, have taken
an appeal from the court's dismissal of the case.

The case was filed as a class action in June 2013 against SCI and
its subsidiary in connection with SCI's acquisition of Stewart
Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted
breaches of fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board
of directors in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises
with a subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek damages concerning
the combination.

The company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were
granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer
be party to the suit. The case has continued against the company's
subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former individual directors.
However, in October 2016, the court entered a judgment dismissing
all of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.


Service Corporation said, "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss,
if any."

Service Corporation International provides deathcare products and
services in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through Funeral and Cemetery segments. The company was founded in
1962 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Bernstein Class Action Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself in a class action suit initiated by
Caroline Bernstein.

Caroline Bernstein, on behalf of herself and Marla Urofsky on
behalf of Rhea Schwartz, and both on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SCI Pennsylvania Funeral Services, Inc. and Service
Corporation International, Case No. 2:17-cv-04960-GAM; in the
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The case was filed in November 2017 as a purported national or
alternatively as a Pennsylvania class action regarding the
company's Forest Hills/Shalom Memorial Park in Huntingdon Valley,
Pennsylvania and the company's Roosevelt Memorial Park Cemetery in
Trevose, Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs allege wrongful burial and sales practices. Plaintiffs
seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief.

Service Corporation said "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss,
if any."

Service Corporation International provides deathcare products and
services in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through Funeral and Cemetery segments. The company was founded in
1962 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


SH 3 LTD: Bueso Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------
Danilo Rigoberto Bueso, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SH 3, Ltd. dba Faro Blanco Resort & Yacht
Club, Spottswood Management, Inc, and Robert A. Spottswood, Case
No. 1:18-cv-23017 (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2018), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a cook from
August 15, 2016 through July 11, 2018.

The Defendants operate a resort and Yacht Club in Miami-Dade
County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SONO UCHI: Yuwono Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit is captioned as SANDY YUWONO, on behalf of himself and
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs, v. SONO UCHI SUSHI, LLC
d/b/a SUSHI INOUE, RUFINO LOPEZ and STANLEY WOLFSON, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07531 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unlawfully
retained tips, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and willfully
operated their business with a policy of not providing a proper
wage statement to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees
(servers, runners, delivery persons, cooks, dishwashers, food
preparers), in violation of the NYLL.  The Defendants knowingly and
willfully operated their business with a policy of not providing a
proper wage notice to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees at
the beginning of employment and annually thereafter, in violation
of the NYLL.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          William Brown, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


SPIRAL SPINE: Faces Sullivan Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spiral Spine, Inc.
The lawsuit is captioned as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Spiral
Spine, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07535 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
17, 2018).  The case alleges Americans with Disabilities Act
violations.

Spiral engages in the manufacture and distribution of binding and
laminating equipment and supplies in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


SPIRIT AIRLINES: Lamoutte Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
CECILLE LAMOUTTE, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b), Plaintiff(s), v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, LISA LOPEZ, individually, SRIYAH BISSOON,
individually, and LAURIE VILLA, individually, the Defendants, Case
No. 0:18-cv-61939-BB (S.D. Fla., Aug. 17, 2018), seeks rightful and
proper overtime wages, which would be half-time not paid for all
hours over 40 actually worked in each workweek within the past
three years, an equal amount in liquidated damages, judgment,
attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employ and have employed
within the past three years non-exempt office employees.  The
Defendant uniformly treat and classify their non-exempt office
employees as employees within the scope of the Railway Labor Act,
and as result, the Defendants have unlawfully failed to pay
overtime wages regardless of the non-transportation type job
functions of non-exempt office employees.

The Plaintiff and the class members performed similar job duties as
one another in that they worked in an office setting, away from any
airport, and their job activities and functions bear no more than a
tenuous, remote or negligible relationship to the regular
transportation activities of their carrier-employers.  Plaintiff
and the class members were subjected to the same pay provisions in
that they suffered or were permitted to work overtime, but not
properly paid at the correct rate for all hours worked.  Thus, the
class members are owed overtime wages for the same reasons as
Plaintiff.

Spirit Airlines is an American ultra-low-cost carrier headquartered
in Miramar, Florida. It is the eighth largest commercial airline in
North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 417
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871 0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  livia@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 1400
          Davie, FL
          Telephone: (954) 889 3359
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
                  MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com
                  SGizzie@JusticeEarned.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elaine Keyser, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          Wells Fargo Center
          333 SE 2nd Ave., Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          E-mail: ekeyser@littler.com


STATE FARM: Faces Bally Suit in Northern District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Life
Insurance Company. The lawsuit is captioned as Elizabeth A. Bally,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. State Farm Life Insurance Company, a Illinois
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-04954 (N.D. Cal., Aug.
15, 2018). The suit alleges breach of contract.

State Farm provides life insurance products and annuities. It
offers term life, whole life, and universal life insurance plans.
[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SUDDATH VAN: Hervey Seeks to Certify Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GARRY HERVEY, the Plaintiff, v. SUDDATH VAN
LINES, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-00996-MMH-JBT (Fla. Cir. Ct., Duval Cty.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to conditionally certify his case as a collective
action and to facilitate notice to potential class members.

According to its website, the Defendant is based in Jacksonville,
Florida with offices globally. The Defendant is principally engaged
in moving and other logistical services. The Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees are paid salary but are eligible for
overtime, who have been denied overtime even though they were
required to be "on call".

Attorneys for Plaintiff and similarly situated employees:

          Earl M. Johnson Jr., Esq.
          Post Office Box 40091
          Jacksonville, FL 32203
          Telephone: (904) 356 5252
          Facsimile: (904) 394 3288
          E-mail: jaxlawfl@aol.com
                  jaxlawfl@gmail.com



SUMMIT CREDIT: Presiding Judge Refuses to Recuse from Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued an Order of
which the Presiding Judge refuses to recuse from the action in the
case captioned MATTHEW DOMANN, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SUMMIT CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, No. 18-cv-167-slc (W.D. Wis.).

The parties in this class action have consented to magistrate judge
jurisdiction. The lead law firm for defendant is Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP, through its Century Park (Los Angeles) office.

At the June 19, 2018 unrecorded telephonic preliminary pre-trial
conference, the Court advised the parties that his daughter, Sarah
C. Crocker, had been a first year associate at Katten's Chicago
office and will be returning to that office in 2019 at the
conclusion of a judicial clerkship.

The presiding judge told the parties that he would research the
need for recusal and report on the record. The Court concludes that
recusal is not required in this case.

The Committee then cautions that a judge must be mindful of Canon
2A, which directs that a judge should act at all times in a manner
that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary as well as the general command of Canon
3C(1)-which also mirrors Section 455-that a judge should recuse in
a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.

"In light of the facts that my daughter isn't currently working at
the Katten firm, that when she returns she will be working in the
Chicago office, which to my knowledge has no involvement in this
case, that she easily can be walled off from this case, and that
the Court can assert without reservation that my daughter's
employment at Katten will have absolutely no effect on how the
Court handle this lawsuit, the Court see no basis for anyone
reasonably to question the Court's impartiality," the magistrate
said.

The magistrate concludes that he is not required to recuse myself
from this case, that my impartiality cannot be reasonably
questioned, and that continuing to preside over this case does not
undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
the judiciary.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycj9vmf7 from Leagle.com.

Matthew Domann, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas P. Dehler --
doug.dehler@wilaw.com -- O'Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong & Laing
S.C., Laura Jean Lavey -- laura.lavey@wilaw.com -- O'Neil, Cannon,
Hollman, DeJong & Laing S.C. & Richard Dale McCune, Jr. --
rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

Summit Credit Union, Defendant, represented by Stuart M. Richter --
stuart.richter@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP &
William Warren Ehrke -- wehrke@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello
Carlson, S.C..


SUNLIGHT MANAGEMENT: Faces Castillo Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunlight Management
Corp.  The lawsuit is captioned as Evelyn Castillo, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Sunlight Management Corp., doing business as: Barrymore Theatre,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07511 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2018).
The case alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violations.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Ct. Denies Motions re Overtime Claim Dispute
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, denied Parties' Motions Regarding the Overtime
Claim Dispute in the case captioned TROY SLACK, et al., Plaintiff,
v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
C11-5843 BHS (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant
Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, in the Pierce County
Superior Court for the State of Washington.  Slack filed an amended
class action complaint adding Plaintiffs Richard Erickson, Jacob
Grismer, and Scott Praye.  The new plaintiffs alleged that they
worked for Swift and that their base terminal was in Washington.

The Plaintiffs contend that resolution of the issue may result in
vacating the settlement, while Swift contends that decertification
of the entire class is warranted.

In this case, the evidence has establish that identifiable groups
of drivers exist. For example, it seems undisputed that a group of
drivers exists that worked for a dedicated account similar to the
plaintiff in Bostain (Bostain v. Food Express, Inc., 159 Wn.2d 700
(2007). Ms. Sabbe refers to these individuals as Washington-based,
mileage-paid, dedicated drivers at Swift. These are the
approximately 1,482 drivers who routinely drove dedicated accounts,
not all 2,764 drivers to whom the Plaintiffs had provided class
notice.

This appears to be the most easily identifiable subclass of
overtime claims with the only dispute being whether Swift paid
these drivers the reasonable equivalent of overtime. Amending the
class definition to cover this subclass of overtime claims appears
warranted to better conform to the actual evidence produced in
discovery. In other words, now that experts have dissected Swift's
complicated accounting system, there may exist a clearer definition
of Swift's Washington-based drivers.

Swift contends that the hybrid group of drivers were included in
the class when the Court approved the Plaintiffs' version of the
class notice. Contrary to Swift's position, the Court did not
redefine the class by approving the Plaintiffs' notice.

Instead, the Court stated that the Plaintiffs' version of the
notice was the best way to apprise potential class member of the
class. In hindsight, the Court should have considered redefining
the certification order at that time, but it did not seem that this
dispute would evolve into an issue that could potentially derail a
settlement. Regardless, the evidence establishes an issue that can
be addressed with developing subclasses.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 9, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9facwmf from Leagle.com.

Troy Slack, Jacob Grismer, Richard Erickson, Scott Praye,
individually, and as putative class representatives, Gary H
Roberts, individually, and as Putative Class Representatives,
Robert P Ulrich, individually, and as Putative Class
Representatives, Henry M Ledesma, individually, and as Putative
Class Representatives, Timothy Helmick, individually, and as
Putative Class Representatives, Dennis Stuber, individually, and as
Putative Class Representatives, Eric Dublinski, individually, and
as Putative Class Representatives & Sean P Forney, individually,
and as Putative Class Representatives, Plaintiffs, represented by
Angela J. Mason -- amason@cochran.com -- THE COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro
hac vice, Deborah M. Nelson, NELSON BOYD PLLC, J. Farrest Taylor,
THE COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. Boyd, NELSON BOYD
PLLC, Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge -- jeniphr@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Joseph D. Lane, THE COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro
hac vice, Robert J. Camp, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC,
pro hac vice, Robert F. Lopez -- robl@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP & Thomas E. Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, doing business as Swift
Transportation Corporation, Defendant, represented by David W.
Wiley -- dwiley@williamskastner.com -- WILLIAMS KASTNER, Jeffery M.
Wells -- jwells@williamskastner.com -- WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS &
Sheryl D.J. Willert -- swillert@williamskastner.com -- WILLIAMS
KASTNER & GIBBS.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Failed to Pay Minimum Wage, McNutt Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARY MCNUTT, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF
ARIZONA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-01199 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 15, 2018), alleges that
Defendant failed to pay rest breaks, minimum wage for non-driving
time, and other labor violations.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a
driver based out of Washington, from approximately April 2017 to
October 2017, and was paid on a per mile basis. The Plaintiff and
class members were not paid for rest breaks because defendant's
"piece rate," or per mile, pay plan failed to compensate for rest
breaks, and failed to treat rest breaks as "on the employer's
time," in violation of Washington administrative Code section
296-126-092(4). Because Plaintiff and Class members are paid on a
per mile basis, they are only paid for driving time, and are not
compensated for non-driving time work performed by Plaintiff and
Class members. The non-driving time Plaintiff and Class members
worked for Defendant and were not compensated for includes, but is
not limited to, pre and post trip inspections, meetings, waiting
for loading or unloading of goods transported, and driving back
with empty loads. Defendant's failure to compensate Plaintiff and
Class members for all time worked violates Revised Code of
Washington section 49.46.020.

Defendant is a transportation company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514 5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514 5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com


TACO BELL: 9th Cir. Affirms Summ. Judgment Denial in "Rodriguez"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary M. Schroeder of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment in the case, BERNARDINA RODRIGUEZ, on
behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general
public, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TACO BELL CORP., a California
corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 16-15465 (9th Cir.).

The case is about the meal breaks that California law requires an
employer provide to employees after they have worked a certain
number of hours.  The Plaintiff-Appellant, Rodriguez, was for many
years a restaurant employee of the Defendant-Appellee, Taco Bell.
During that time Taco Bell offered 30-minute meal breaks that were
fully compliant with California's requirements, but with a special
offer that employees could purchase a meal from the restaurant at a
discount, provided they ate the meal in the restaurant.  That
policy was intended to prevent theft.  Employees were not required
to purchase the discounted meal.  The purchase was voluntary.

The Plaintiff filed the putative class action contending that she
was entitled to be paid a premium rate for the time spent on the
employer's premises eating the discounted meals during her meal
breaks.  Her theory is that because the employer required the
discounted meal to be eaten in the restaurant, the employee was
under sufficient employer control to render the time compensable.

The Plaintiff's operative complaint alleges that Taco Bell violated
California law by: (1) failing to provide uninterrupted, dutyfree
meal periods, or premium wages in lieu thereof; (2) failing to
provide rest periods, or premium wages in lieu thereof; (3) failing
to calculate regular hourly and overtime wages at a rate that
reflected the value of the discount; (4) failing to provide
accurate written wage statements; and (5) failing to timely pay all
final wages to employees upon end of their employment with Taco
Bell.

The district court agreed with Taco Bell that California law was
not violated because the employees were free to use the 30 minutes
in any way they wished, subject only to the restriction that if
they purchased a discounted meal, they had to eat it in the
restaurant.  

The district court granted summary judgment for Taco Bell on the
first two claims.  It observed that under the discounted meal
policy, employees were free to use the meal break time as they
wished, and that a requirement to remain on the premises was
imposed only if an employee voluntarily chose to purchase a
discounted meal.  Imposition of that condition does not satisfy the
applicable test of control under California law as set forth in the
leading California Supreme Court decision, Brinker Restaurant Corp.
v. Superior Court.

The district court denied the Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment on the third claim, the regular rate claim, on the ground
that the Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of the reasonable
cost or fair value to Taco Bell of the employee discount.  The
district court denied the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
on her remaining claims on the ground that they were derivative of
her other claims.

Judge Schroeder concludes that Taco Bell's meal policy satisfies
the standard set forth in Brinker, because the company relieves
employees of all duty and relinquishes control over their
activities.  Taco Bell does not require the employee to purchase a
discounted meal.  The purchase of the meal is entirely voluntary.
The Plaintiff has not alleged nor introduced any evidence to show
that Taco Bell pressured its employees to purchase the discounted
meals.  Employees are free to leave the premises or spend their
break time in any way that they choose that does not interfere with
Taco Bell conducting its business.

For that matter, employees are free to purchase meals at full price
and eat them wherever the employees wish.  The company does not
otherwise interfere with the employees' use of the break time or
require the employees to serve the interests of Taco Bell.  Nor has
the Plaintiff alleged or introduced any evidence to show that her
employer required or pressured her to conduct work activities while
on premises during the meal period.  Taco Bell's policy indeed
appeared to prohibit this, as employees were required to take rest
breaks and meal periods away from the food production area and the
cash register service area.

Finally, even assuming the regular rate claim is not completely
derivative of her meal break claim and refers to overtime hours
worked apart from meal breaks, and even assuming further that the
value of the meal could be considered part of her compensation, the
Judge finds that the Plaintiff has not established that value.  The
district court properly denied the Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment.  The additional compensation she would receive from Taco
Bell would be the reasonable cost of the meal to Taco Bell.  The
Plaintiff relies only upon the dollar amount of the discount from
the retail price.  She has failed to produce any evidence showing
the "reasonable cost" or "fair value" to Taco Bell of furnishing
the discounted meal.  The district court thus properly denied the
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on that basis and she has
made no further showing.

For these reasons, Judge Schroeder affirmed.  Taco Bell relieved
their employees of all duties during the meal break period and
exercised no control over their activities within the meaning of
California law.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/mQ5UII from Leagle.com.

H. Scott Leviant -- fo@setarehlaw.com -- (argued) and Shaun Setareh
, Setareh Law Group, Beverly Hills, California, for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Nora K. Stiles (argued) and Tracey A. Kennedy --
tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Los Angeles, California; Morgan P. Forsey --
mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, San Francisco, California; for Defendant-Appellee.


TNT CRANE: Repass et al. Seek to Certify Crane Operators Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TIMOTHY W. REPASS and WILLIAM SCOTT
McCANDLESS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TNT CRANE AND RIGGING, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00107-DC (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order conditionally certifying class and
authorizing counsel for the Plaintiffs to send Notice and Consent
forms to:

   "all current and former crane operators of Defendant who
   worked out of Defendant's Midland, San Antonio, or Houston
   yards at any time in the last three years."

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel A. Verrett, Jr., Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          700 West Summit Drive
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782 0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782 0605
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com
                  daniel@morelandlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          G. Mark Jodon, Esq.
          Kevin S. Little, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1301 McKinney Street, Suite 1900
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 951 9400
          Facsimile: (713) 951 9212
          E-mail: mjodon@littler.com
                  klittle@littler.com


TOWER HILL: MSPA Sues over Medicare Reimbursements
--------------------------------------------------
MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the
Plaintiff, v. TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida profit
corporation; TOWER HILL CLAIMS SERVICE, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00157-MW-GRJ
(N.D. Fla., Aug. 17, 2018), alleges that Defendants systematically
and uniformly failed to reimburse conditional Medicare payments
that should have been paid, in the first instance, by the
Defendants, as primary payers, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. section
1395y(b)(8), under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have repeatedly failed
to reimburse conditional payments made by Plaintiff's assignor and
the Class Members on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in
the Medicare Act for medical expenses resulting from injuries
sustained in an accident. The Enrollees were enrolled in MA Plans
offered by Plaintiff's assignor and the Class Members. Plaintiff's
assignor and the Class Members suffered an injury in fact from
Defendants' failure to reimburse, and accordingly, have standing to
sue under 42 U.S.C. section 1395y(b)(3)(A).

The Defendants have failed to fulfill its statutory duty upon
entering into settlements with the Enrollees. Specifically, the
Defendants have entered into settlement agreements with Medicare
beneficiaries as a result of claims arising under liability
insurance policies issued by the Defendants. Liability insurance
plans are considered primary plans under 42 U.S.C. section
1395y(b)(2). Accordingly, the Defendants are primary payers and
must reimburse Plaintiff and the putative Class Members for their
Medicare payments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Ferraro, Esq.
          Janpaul Portal, Esq.
          James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
          THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
          Brickell World Plaza
          600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone (305) 375 0111
          Facsimile (305) 379 6222
          E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
                  jpp@ferrarolaw.com
                  jjr@ferrarolaw.com
                  serve@msprecovery.com

               - and -

          Louise R. Caro, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
          Coconut Grove, FL 33133
          Telephone (786) 837 5442
          Facsimile (786) 800 3901
          E-mail: lcaro@napolilaw.com


TOWNHOUSE HOTEL: Faces Sierra Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Townhouse Hotel, LLC.
The lawsuit is captioned as Luis Sierra, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Townhouse
Hotel, LLC, a Florida limited liability, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-23317-CMA (S.D. Fla., Aug. 15, 2018). The suit alleges
Americans with Disabilities Act violation. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
          200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 282 1858
          Facsimile: (844) 786 3694
          E-mail: service@advocacypa.com


TP-LINK USA: Faces Gonzalez Suit in California Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TP-Link USA
Corporation. The lawsuit is captioned as RICHARD GONZALEZ and
MATTHEW WALKER, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES, THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND
THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. TP-LINK NORTH AMERICA
INC. and TP-LINK USA CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No.
CGC18568950 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 15, 2018).

TP-Link USA Corporation manufactures and supplies SOHO and SMB
networking products. The company offers switches such as managed
switches, smart switches, easy smart switches, unmanaged switches,
and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Gutride, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          San Francisco, CA
          Telephone: (415) 271 6469
          E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com


TRANS-CONTINENTAL: Schonfeld Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eidl Schonfeld, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Trans-Continental Credit & Collection
Corp. and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-07501
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2018), seeks to recover damages and declaratory
and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to May 14, 2018, an
obligation was allegedly incurred to Mt. Sinai/Radiology Dept. The
Mt. Sinai/Radiology Dept. obligation arose out of transactions in
which money, property, insurance or services, which are the subject
of the transaction, are primarily for personal, family or household
purposes, specifically a medical debt.  The alleged Mt.
Sinai/Radiology Dept. obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15
U.S.C. section 1692a(5).  Mt. Sinai/Radiology Dept. is a "creditor"
as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(4). Mt. Sinai/Radiology Dept.
or a subsequent owner of the Mt. Sinai/Radiology Dept. debt
contracted the Defendant to collect the alleged debt.

Trans-Continental Credit was founded in 1973. The company's line of
business includes collection and adjustment services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Kohn, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          E-mail: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Malave Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
TINA MALAVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC. and JOHN DOES
1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-12903 (D.N.J., Aug. 17,
2018), seeks to recover damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to March 7, 2018, an
obligation was allegedly incurred. The obligation arose out of a
transaction in which money, property, insurance or services were
the subject of the transaction. Specifically Plaintiff allegedly
incurred services which were primarily for personal, family or
household purposes. The alleged obligation is a "debt" as defined
by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5).  Defendant collects and attempts to
collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for
personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using
the United States Postal Services, telephone and internet.

Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical
companies, and dental companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Kohn, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          E-mail: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com


UNITED STATES: Meredith et al. Sue over Dissemination of Tax Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT MEREDITH, MIKE AUBIN, REBECCA COOK, DAVID DUNN, ANDRE
PELLEGRIN, CALVIN LEDBETTER, BILL KIRKPATRICK, AND OTHER SIMILARLY
SITUATED TAXPAYERS, the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02130-M (N.D. Tex., Aug. 15, 2018),
seeks immediate issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order to be
followed by a Preliminary Injunction preventing IRS Agent Godelis
or the IRS from any further dissemination of confidential tax
information, and from further attempts to "force" Plaintiffs to
inappropriately sign away rights.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are employees of defense
contractors working at the Joint Defense Facility Pine Gap located
in Australia. The Plaintiffs are United States citizens living and
working in Australia at the Pine Gap Facility. The Plaintiffs are
United States taxpayers and at all relevant times were and are
current in their tax filings. As such, any release of tax related
information is governed under 26 U.S.C. section 6103. It came to
Plaintiffs' attention late in 2017 that they had signed "Closing
Agreements" at the inception of their employment that were
potentially invalid and included terms that purported to waive
their rights to certain tax benefits and confidentiality
protections. At this time, Plaintiffs' reached out to Castro & Co.,
LLC to review the enforceability of the "Closing Agreement."

Castro & Co. diligently researched the concerns of Plaintiffs and
concluded that the "Closing Agreement" was in fact invalid and
Plaintiffs had been erroneously advised. Based on the erroneous
advice Plaintiffs had been failing to claim tax benefits for years.
Castro & Co. immediately began submitting amended returns for the
Plaintiffs that had engaged Castro & Co. for such legal
representation. Amended returns which were all ultimately approved
and granted.

In or around early 2018, Plaintiffs were informed that any
individuals claiming additional tax benefits based on the legal
position that the "Closing Agreement" was invalid would be reported
to their employer and the employer would be provided copies of the
tax returns making such a claim.

The Plaintiffs quickly notified Castro & Co. of the new concern and
noted that an IRS Agent named Melanie Godelis had already
inappropriately disseminated confidential tax information in
violation of 26 U.S.C. section 6103. Castro & Co. immediately
notified Agent Godelis of the potential criminal implications of
violating section 6103 as established in 26 U.S.C. section 7213 and
placed Agent Godelis on notice that Castro & Co. would fully defend
the rights of its clients through all available avenues. This would
include the civil remedies offered under 26 U.S.C. sections 7431
and 7433, remedies which are currently sought in this
complaint.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          Joshua S. Milam, Esq.
          CASTRO & CO., LLC
          13155 Noel Road, Suite 900
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (214) 998 9607
          Facsimile: (866) 700 7595
          E-mail: J.Milam@CastroAndCo.com


UNUM GROUP: City of Taylor Police Files SEC Class Suit in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unum Group, Richard
McKenney, John F. McGarry, Steve Zabel and Daniel J. Waxenberg,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00169 (E.D. Tenn., July 25, 2018), seeks to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a class action on behalf of purchasers of Unum securities
between October 27, 2016 and May 1, 2018, inclusive. The Plaintiff
alleges that throughout the class period, the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and
prospects.

The Plaintiff City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System
purchased Unum securities at artificially inflated prices.

The Defendant Unum offers disability, life, accident, critical
illness, dental and vision insurance products and other related
services marketed primarily through the workplace in the United
States and the United Kingdom.  Unum operates through five business
segments: Unum U.S., Unum U.K., Colonial Life, Corporate, and
Closed Block. The Defendant Unum Group is an insurance provider
based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
  
Unum's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbol "UNM."

The Individual Defendants are officers of Unum. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher M. Woods, Esq.
      Christopher H. Lyons, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWN LLP
      414 Union Street, Ste 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 244-2203
      Fax: (615) 252-3798


UNUM GROUP: Faces Cunningham Securities Suit in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that on July 13, 2018 an alleged securities
class action lawsuit entitled Scott Cunningham v. Unum Group,
Richard McKenney, John McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.

The allegations, class period, and damages claimed mirror those in
the Cynthia Pittman v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John McGarry,
and Daniel Waxenberg.

The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.

Unum Group, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial
protection benefit solutions in the United States, the United
Kingdom, and internationally. It operates through Unum US, Unum UK,
Colonial Life, and Closed Block segments. The company was founded
in 1848 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


UNUM GROUP: Faces Pittman Securities Action in Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the company is facing a securities class
action suit entitled, Cynthia Pittman v. Unum Group, Richard
McKenney, John McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg.

On June 13, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit
entitled Cynthia Pittman v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John
McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The plaintiff
seeks to represent purchasers of Unum Group publicly traded
securities between January 31, 2018 and May 2, 2018.

The plaintiff alleges the Company caused its shares to trade at
artificially high levels by failing to disclose information about
the rate of long-term care policy terminations and long-term care
claim incidence resulting in misleading statements about capital
management plans and long-term care reserves. The complaint asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.

Unum Group, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial
protection benefit solutions in the United States, the United
Kingdom, and internationally. It operates through Unum US, Unum UK,
Colonial Life, and Closed Block segments. The company was founded
in 1848 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


UNUM GROUP: Faces Suit by Taylor Police and Fire Retirement Sys.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that on July 25, 2018 an alleged securities
class action lawsuit entitled City of Taylor Police and Fire
Retirement System v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John McGarry,
Steve Zabel, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The plaintiff seeks to represent purchasers of Unum Group publicly
traded securities between October 27, 2016 and May 1, 2018. The
allegations and damages claimed mirror those in the Cynthia Pittman
v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John McGarry, and Daniel
Waxenberg.

The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.

Unum Group, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial
protection benefit solutions in the United States, the United
Kingdom, and internationally. It operates through Unum US, Unum UK,
Colonial Life, and Closed Block segments. The company was founded
in 1848 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


US BANK: Court Precludes Discovery on Statistical Sampling
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order to Preclude
Discovery on Statistical Sampling as a Means to Establish Liability
and Damages in the case captioned ROYAL PARK INVESTMENTS SA/NV,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee,
Defendant, No. 14 Civ. 2590 (VM) (RWL)(S.D.N.Y.).

This is a residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) case in
which Plaintiff Royal Park Investments SA/NV (Royal Park), an
investor in the securities at issue, claims Defendant U.S. Bank
National Association (U.S. Bank), trustee of the trusts holding the
securities, breached its contractual and fiduciary duties. More
particularly, Royal Park alleges that it and other investors lost
investment funds because U.S. Bank failed to enforce its rights to
require the RMBS issuer to repurchase defective loans underlying
the securities.

The Trustee Sampling Decisions

The principal reason given by each of the Trustee Sampling
Decisions for precluding the use of sampling is that under the
language of the relevant agreements governing the trusts, the sole
remedy provided to the trustee with regard to breaching loans is to
seek repurchase on a loan-by-loan, trust-by-trust basis. In other
words, whether and to what extent a trustee can obtain repurchase
of breaching loans must be determined separately for each specific
loan.

Royal Park contends that sampling nevertheless is proportionate
because of the far larger number of loans it would expect to
reunderwrite if sampling is not permitted. By Royal Park's
estimate, it would need to reunderwrite more than 30,000 loans,
more than ten times the loans required for its preferred sampling
regime.10 U.S. Bank tenders a number of reasons why it believes
Royal Park's 2,800 loan number is artificially low (such as the
sample sizes being too small) and why the 30,000 loan estimate is
highly exaggerated such as because many of those loans would not be
actionable due to statute of limitations or other issues.

Regardless, and notwithstanding that the monetary amount
potentially at stake in this case is hundreds of millions of
dollars, spending millions of dollars, expending court resources
and introducing additional expert subject matter, all to conduct
sampling discovery with even as few as 2,800 loans, is not
proportionate to the needs of the case when every court to address
the issue has concluded sampling is not viable proof against
trustees.

Royal Park's pledge to prove discovery by means other than sampling
removes one of the issues that call into question the relevance and
proportionality of sampling in this case. That, however, does not
cure the problem. While sampling has been accepted in some cases to
prove rates of materially breaching loans, those cases, as
explained earlier, were against sponsors or issuers of the
securities who had a direct relationship to the mortgages
underlying them. U.S. Bank, as trustee, stands in different shoes
subject to trustee-specific contractual terms.

As has been consistently held, that contractual language dictates a
loan-by-loan" analysis, a standard that cannot be met with
sampling. The same problem extends to Royal Bank's intended use of
sampling to prove damages. As U.S. Bank explained at oral argument,
there are relevant questions that sampling cannot answer. For
instance, with respect to each breaching loan, Royal Park would
need to establish which entity originated the loan and whether that
entity was solvent at the time that U.S. Bank would have demanded
that the originator repurchase the loan. Sampling cannot answer
those questions.

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion for a protective order is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 9, 2018 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycazs546 from
Leagle.com.

Royal Park Investments SA/NV, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Darryl J.
Alvarado -- dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Hillary B. Stakem -- hstakem@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Marco Janoski Gray --
mjanoski@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Lucas F.
Olts -- lolts@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Arthur C. Leahy -- artl@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Christopher M. Wood -- cwood@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Juan Carlos Sanchez --
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Samuel Howard Rudman -- Srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP & Steven W. Pepich --stevep@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice.

U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Defendant, represented
by Michael Stephan Kraut -- michael.kraut@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP, Benjamin Patrick Smith
--michael.kraut@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP,Chelsea Walcker --CWalcker@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan,
LLP, pro hac vice, David E. Marder -- DMarder@RobinsKaplan.com --
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP, pro hac vice, Hillel Ira
Parness -- hip@hiplaw.com -- Parness Law Firm, PLLC, Joseph Edward
Floren -- joseph.floren@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Kevin M. Papay -- kevin.papay@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Martin Richard Lueck --
kevin.papay@morganlewis.com -- Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi,
Michael Collyard --MCollyard@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins, Kaplan,
Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Morgia Dampf Holmes --
morgia@holmes@gmail.com -- Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P,
pro hac vice, Peter Cooper Ihrig -- PIhrig@RobinsKaplan.com --
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Rachael Catherine Chan
-- rachael.chan@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro
hac vice, Rollin Bernard Chippey -- rachael.chan@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Sherli Furst --
SFurst@RobinsKaplan.com 0 Robins Kaplan, LLP, Stacey Paige
Slaughter -- SSlaughter@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP, Tera
Marie Heintz -- SSlaughter@RobinsKaplan.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Thomas F. Berndt -- TBerndt@RobinsKaplan.com --
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.


USA FITNESS: Pershes Sues over Spam Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------
ELLIOT PERSHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. USA FITNESS CENTER and DOES 1-10
Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-07258 (C.D. Cal., Aug.
17, 2018), seeks damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant conducted business in the
State of California and in the County of Los Angeles. On or about
May of 2018, the Plaintiff received a text message from Defendant
on his cellular telephone, number ending in -7763. During this
time, Defendant began to use Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the
purpose of sending Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or promotional
offers, via text messages, including a text message sent to and
received by Plaintiff on or about May 9, 2018.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          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


VENATOR MATERIALS: Q4 Final Hearing to Approve TiO2 Case Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Venator Materials PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the final settlement
approval hearing in the TiO2 antitrust related suit is expected to
occur in the fourth quarter of 2018.

In the past, the company was named as a defendant in multiple civil
antitrust suits alleging that the company, its co-defendants and
other alleged co-conspirators conspired to fix prices of TiO2 sold
in the U.S. The company settled litigation involving both direct
purchasers of TiO2 and purchasers who opted out of the direct
purchaser litigation for amounts immaterial to the company's
unaudited condensed consolidated and combined financial
statements.

Venator Materials said, "We were also named as a defendant in a
class action civil antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by
purchasers of products made from TiO2 (the "Indirect Purchasers")
making essentially the same allegations as did the direct
purchasers.

On October 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class
Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs to those
merchants and consumers of architectural coatings containing TiO2.

On August 11, 2015, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the Indirect Purchasers litigation with leave to amend the
complaint. A Third Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on
September 29, 2015 further limiting the class to consumers of
architectural paints. Plaintiffs have raised state antitrust claims
under the laws of 15 states, consumer protection claims under the
laws of nine states, and unjust enrichment claims under the laws of
16 states.

On November 4, 2015, the company and its co-defendants filed
another motion to dismiss. On June 13, 2016, the court
substantially denied the motion to dismiss except as to consumer
protection claims in one state.

Venator Materials said, "We have agreed to settle this matter for
an amount immaterial to our unaudited condensed consolidated and
combined financial statements. The court preliminarily approved the
settlement on December 13, 2017 and the final approval hearing is
expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2018. The Indirect
Purchasers sought to recover injunctive relief, treble damages or
the maximum damages allowed by state law, costs of suit and
attorneys' fees. We are not aware of any illegal conduct by us or
any of our employees."

Venator Materials PLC manufactures and markets chemical products
worldwide. It operates through two segments, Titanium Dioxide and
Performance Additives. he company was founded in 2017 and is
headquartered in Stockton-On-Tees, the United Kingdom.


VITAL RECOVERY: Faces Cuebas Suit in Eastern Dist. of Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery
Services LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Wesley Cuebas,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Vital Recovery Services LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-01280 (E.D. Wisc., Aug. 17, 2018).  The case alleges Fair
Debt Collection Act violations.

Vital Recovery is a fully licensed, national, third-party
collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip D Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T Thomasson, Esq.
          Stern Thomasson LLP
          150 Morris Ave-2nd Fl
          Springfield, NJ 07081
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532 5868
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com


VIZION ONE: Subclasses Conditionally Certified in Richardson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TEMECA RICHARDSON, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
VIZION ONE INC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00838-CMV
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying these subclasses:

      216(b) Home Health Subclass:

      "all Ohio current and former hourly, non-exempt home health
      employees of Defendants, including home health aides,
      providing companionship services, domestic services, home
      care, and other in-home services who worked over 40 hours
      in any workweek but were not properly paid time and a half
      for the hours they worked over 40, from January 1, 2015
      through the date of final disposition of this case"; and

      216(b) Hourly Employee Subclass:

      "all Ohio current and former hourly, non-exempt employees
      of Defendants that did not provide companionship services,
      domestic services, home care, and other in-home services
      who  worked over 40 hours in any workweek but were not
      properly paid time and a half for the hours they worked
      over 40 for the three years preceding the filing of this
      case through its date of final Disposition."

   2. directing Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs within 14
      days of this Order a list, in electronic and importable
      format, of all potential members of each of the
      conditionally-certified subclasses, including their names,
      positions of employment, last-known mailing addresses,
      email addresses, work locations, and dates of employment;
      and

   3. directing parties to meet and confer regarding the content
      and method of delivery of the notice to be sent to
      potential class members. Within 14 days of this Order, if
      the parties are able to reach an agreement, the parties
      shall jointly submit a proposed notice to potential class
      members for the Court's approval. If the parties are unable
      to reach an agreement, Defendants shall file within 14 days
      of this Order any objections to the proposed notice and
      delivery methods already submitted by Plaintiffs.


WATER'S EDGE: Alobud Seeks Return of Tenants' Security Deposits
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABDUL AZIZ ALOBUD on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WATER'S EDGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the
Defendant, Case No. 18-2554 (Mass. Super. Ct., Aug. 15, 2018),
seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful practices of failing to properly
withhold and/or promptly return residential tenants' security
deposits in violation of G.L. c. 186, section 15B (the Security
Deposit Law).

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to return tenants'
security' deposits within the required 30-day deadline imposed by
the Security Deposit Law or pay the interest required by that
statute. Pursuant to the Security Deposit Law, the Plaintiff, on
his own behalf and on behalf of the class, seeks damages of three
times the security deposit and the statutory interest to which he
is entitled for the security deposit, (both of which are
non-discretionary statutory' damages under the Security Deposit
Law), as well as his costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The
Plaintiff also seeks an order, in the form of injunctive relief,
directing Defendant to cease its practice of violating G.L. c. 186,
section 15B.

The Plaintiff brings this action as a class action on behalf of
himself and a class comprised of all current and former tenants at
any buildings owned or managed by Defendant in Massachusetts who
paid a security deposit during the period(s) of Defendant's
ownership and/or management and who were not paid interest on the
security deposit and/or whose security deposit was not returned
within 30 days of the end of their tenancy, from four years prior
to the filing of this action to the present.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Gardner, Esq.
          GARDNER & ROSENBERG, P.C.
          One State St., Fourth Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 390 7570
          E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com

               - and -

          Edward Race, Esq.
          45 Pierce Street
          Malden MA 02148
          Telephone: (617) 475-0909
          E-mail: ed@edricelaw.com

               - and -

          Chritopher Saccardi, Esq.
          58 Day St., No. 441538
          Somerville, MA 02144
          Telephone: (617) 500 3198
          E-mail: chris@attomeysaccardi.com


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Still Ongoing in Shanklin Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that discovery is ongoing
in the putative class action suit brought by Alex Shanklin.

On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and
others (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court
(New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented
plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske
(the "Raske Litigation").

The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of
contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters
similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting
of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other
parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include
other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain
advertisers.

On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2014, the
court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of
the model management defendants.

Further, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin
Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General
bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims
asserted therein against the model management defendants, and
stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest."
The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the
Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case. Plaintiffs retained
substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then Third Amended
Complaint.

Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for
alleged breaches of the plaintiffs' management contracts with the
defendants, conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, and unjust enrichment. The Third Amended Complaint also
alleges that the plaintiff models were at all relevant times
employees, and not independent contractors, of the model management
defendants, and that defendants violated the New York Labor Law in
several respects, including, among other things, by allegedly
failing to pay the models the minimum wages and overtime pay
required thereunder, not maintaining accurate payroll records, and
not providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages
and deductions therefrom were computed. The Third Amended Complaint
seeks certification of the action as a class action, damages in an
amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper.

On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most
of the plaintiffs' claims. The Court entered a decision granting in
part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May 26,
2017.

The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law causes
of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action, in
their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract
causes of action, and some plaintiffs' remaining two New York Labor
Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame.

The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed and the decision was
affirmed on May 24, 2018.

On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina filed its Answer to the Third
Amended Complaint, and discovery in this action is continuing.  

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Third Amended
Complaint are without merit, and intends to continue to vigorously
defend the action.

Wilhelmina International, Inc. provides fashion model and talent
management services. The company engages in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was
founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Roberta Little Remains as Sole Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that Roberta Little
remains the sole plaintiff in the putative class action suit
initiated by Shawn Pressley.

On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and
others (the "Pressley Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court
(New York County) by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs
in the Shanklin Litigation, and asserting identical, although more
recent, claims as those in the Shanklin Litigation.

The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of
claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on August 16, 2017.
Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on
May 10, 2018. Some New York labor law and contract claims remain in
the case.  

Discovery is proceeding, and Ms. Pressley has withdrawn from the
case, leaving Roberta Little as the sole named plaintiff in the
Pressley Litigation. The Company believes the claims asserted in
the Pressley Litigation are without merit, and intends to continue
to vigorously defend the action.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Wilhelmina International, Inc. provides fashion model and talent
management services. The company engages in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was
founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL: Court Continues Stay of V. Freeman's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order continuing to Stay the case captioned
VERINA FREEMAN and VALECEA DIGGS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs. v. WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL
CAPITAL L.L.C., a California limited liability company, dba
WILSHIRE CONSUMER CREDIT, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-01428-WBS-AC
(E.D. Cal.).

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Resh (Resh v. China
Agritech, Inc. (9th Cir. 2017) 857 F.3d 994) and the Court's Order
Re: Motion to Stay, the parties are exploring the possibility of
settling the above matter on an individual basis on behalf of
Verina Freeman and Valecea Diggs. Defendant reserves the right to
bring a dispositive motion if settlement discussions are not
successful.

Accordingly, the parties stipulate that the August 6, 2018 Status
Conference re Stay will be continued to November 13, 2018 at 1:30
p.m. to allow for the parties to conduct further settlement
negotiations.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9n2mcv8 from Leagle.com.

Verina Freeman & Valecea Diggs, Plaintiffs, represented by Bryan
Kemnitzer -- bryan@kbklegal.com -- Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg, PC,
Scott D. Owens -- scott@scottdowens.com -- Scott D. Owens, P.A.,
pro hac vice & Elliot Jason Conn -- elliot@kbklegal.com --
Kemnitzer Anderson Barron and Ogilvie LLP.

Wilshire Commercial Capital L.L.C., a California Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony Angelo Molino --
molino@molinolawfirm.com -- Molino and Berardino, APLC, Benjamin
John Carter -- bcarter@molinolawfirm.com -- Molino & Berardino,
APLC, Steven Reed Berardino -- sberardino@molinolawfirm.com --
Molino & Berardino, APLC & Michelle Cooper --
mcooper@molinolawfirm.com -- Molino & Berardino, APLC.


WOOD GROUP: Nino Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS NINO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WOOD GROUP PSN, INC., the Defendant,
Case No.: 2:18-cv-00241 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 15, 2018), seeks to
recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs, pursuant to the provisions of Section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, and pursuant to Texas common law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members are those similarly situated persons who worked for Wood
Group in the United States at any time within their relevant
statutes of limitations through the final disposition of this
matter, were not paid for all hours worked and were not paid the
correct amount of overtime compensation in violation of federal and
state law.  Specifically, Wood Group has enforced a uniform
company-wide policy wherein it improperly required its non-exempt
hourly employees -- Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members -- to
perform work off-the-clock and without pay in violation federal and
state law.

Wood Group provides a range of engineering, production support,
maintenance management and industrial gas turbine overhaul and
repair services.[BN]

Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          George Schimmel, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com
                  geordie@a2xlaw.com


WWW.URBAN INC: Wheeler Sues over Unwanted Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW WHEELER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WWW.URBAN INC., a Texas corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02847 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 17, 2018),
seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending unauthorized and
unwanted text messages promoting its properties and realty
services, and to obtain redress for all persons similarly injured
by its conduct. Plaintiff alleges as follows upon personal
knowledge as to himself and his own acts and experiences, and, as
to all other matters, upon information and belief, including
investigation conducted by his attorneys.

According to the complaint, Urban Living's unsolicited texts
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and caused
Plaintiff and putative members of the Class to suffer actual harm,
including the aggravation, nuisance, loss of time, and invasions of
privacy that result from the receipt of such text messages, lost
value of cellular services paid for, and a loss of the use and
enjoyment of their phones, including wear and tear to their phones'
data, memory, software, hardware, and battery components, among
other harms.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff Andrew Wheeler and all others similarly
situated:

          Jason Johnson, Esq.
          TERREL LAW GROUP
          8303 Southwest Freeway No. 450
          Houston, TX 77074
          Telephone: 346 718 8286
          E-mail: Jjohnson@terrellawgroup.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469 5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $29MM for Aearo-Related Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies subsidiary, had accruals
of US$29 million as of June 30, 2018, for product liabilities and
defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos
and silica-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company
purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo
Technologies ("Aearo").  Aearo manufactured and sold various
products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye,
ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products.

"As of June 30, 2018, Aearo and/or other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp.  and Cabot Corporation
("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants,
including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in
which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and
seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.

"As of June 30, 2018, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary,
had accruals of US$29 million for product liabilities and defense
costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and
silica-related claims.  This accrual represents the Company's best
estimate of Aearo's probable loss and reflects an estimation period
for future claims that may be filed against the Aearo approaching
the year 2050.  Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for
settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal
arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a
subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their respective insurers (the
"Payor Group").  Liability is allocated among the parties based on
the number of years each company sold respiratory products under
the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of
American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of
the individual plaintiff.  Aearo's share of the contingent
liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between
Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995.  This agreement provides that, so
long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of US$100,000, Cabot
will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo
against, any product liability claims involving exposure to
asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior to
July 11, 1995.  Because of the difficulty in determining how long a
particular respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being
sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising
out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to
asbestos, silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997.  With
these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited
to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators
involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or
after January 1, 1997.  To date, Aearo has elected to pay the
quarterly fee.  Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional
claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its
agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its
participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to
meet its obligations in these matters."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2LsQCAI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Accrues $631MM for Respirator Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company had an accrual of US$631 million as of June 30, 2018,
for liabilities associated with respirator mask and asbestos cases
(excluding those related to Aearo Technologies), 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.

3M Co. states, "The Company regularly conducts a comprehensive
legal review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities.  The
Company reviews recent and historical claims data, including
without limitation, (i) the number of pending claims filed against
the Company, (ii) the nature and mix of those claims (i.e., the
proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (iii) the costs to defend and resolve pending claims, and
(iv) trends in filing rates and in costs to defend and resolve
claims, (collectively, the "Claims Data").  As part of its
comprehensive legal review, the Company regularly provides the
Claims Data to a third party with expertise in determining the
impact of Claims Data on future filing trends and costs.  The third
party assists the Company in estimating the costs to defend and
resolve pending and future claims.  The Company uses these
estimates to develop its best estimate of probable liability.

"Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of
its liabilities.  These developments include, but are not limited
to, significant changes in (i) the key assumptions underlying the
Company's accrual, including, the number of future claims, the
nature and mix of those claims, the average cost of defending and
resolving claims, and in maintaining trial readiness (ii) trial and
appellate outcomes, (iii) the law and procedure applicable to these
claims, and (iv) the financial viability of other co-defendants and
insurers.

"As a result of the Company's review of its respirator
mask/asbestos liabilities and as a result of the cost of resolving
claims of persons who claim more serious injuries, including
mesothelioma and other malignancies, the Company increased its
accruals in the first six months of 2018 for respirator
mask/asbestos liabilities by US$56 million.  In the first six
months of 2018, the Company made payments for legal fees and
settlements of US$33 million related to the respirator
mask/asbestos litigation.

"As of June 30, 2018, the Company had an accrual for respirator
mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding Aearo accruals) of US$631
million.  This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of
probable loss and reflects an estimation period for future claims
that may be filed against the Company approaching the year 2050.
The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range of
amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company
has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in
projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or
the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the
complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants
where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to
individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may
turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by
state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in
estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible
developments that may occur that could affect the Company's
estimate of liabilities.

"As of June 30, 2018, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
US$4 million.  The Company continues to seek coverage under the
policies of certain insolvent and other insurers.  Once those
claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected
substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2LsQCAI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 2,260 Claimants at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company is still defending itself against numerous lawsuits in
various courts that purport to represent approximately 2,260
individual claimants as of 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, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims
resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of
some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages
from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury
from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.  A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure
to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company,
which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by
other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.

"The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003.  The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past.  Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies,
will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the
past.  The Company has prevailed in thirteen of the fourteen cases
taken to trial, including eleven of the twelve cases tried to
verdict (such trials occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004,
2007, 2015, and the cases tried in 2016, 2017, and 2018), and an
appellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the
Company.  The remaining case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the
court at the close of plaintiff's evidence, based on the court's
legal finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient
evidence to support a jury verdict.  In August 2016, 3M received a
unanimous verdict in its favor from a jury in state court in
Kentucky, in 3M's first respirator trial involving coal mine dust.
The estate of the plaintiff alleged that the 3M 8710 respirator is
defective and caused his death because it did not protect him from
harmful coal mine dust.  The jury rejected plaintiff's claim and
returned a verdict finding no liability against 3M.  The verdict is
final as the plaintiff did not file an appeal.  In September 2017,
3M received a unanimous verdict in its favor from a jury in state
court in Kentucky in 3M's second respirator trial involving coal
mine dust.  The jury ultimately determined that the plaintiff's
claims were barred by the statute of limitations.  In November
2017, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.  The
plaintiff did not file an appeal, thereby ending the litigation.
In February 2018, 3M received a verdict in its favor from a jury in
state court in California.  The plaintiff alleged that the 3M 8710
respirator was defective and caused his mesothelioma because it did
not protect him from asbestos fibers.  The jury rejected
plaintiff's claim and returned a verdict finding no liability
against 3M.  In April 2018, a jury in state court in Kentucky found
3M's 8710 respirators failed to protect two coal miners from coal
mine dust and awarded aggregate compensatory damages of
approximately US$2 million and punitive damages totaling US$63
million.  Once a judgment has been entered by the trial court, the
Company plans to appeal the judgment.  The Company believes
liability in this case is not probable and estimable.  In June
2018, the Company also settled a number of coal mine dust lawsuits
for an amount that was not material to the Company.

"The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to resolve
than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes
the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a
per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in
prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by
medically unimpaired claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2LsQCAI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Abatement to Begin at Sahara Apartment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Abatement and Jack Wayte Construction will begin the
asbestos abatement and demolition process of the Sahara Apartment
complex, City officials say.

There may be partial lane closures in the immediate vicinity east
of the structures, officials said, but residents will still have
full access to their homes throughout the project.

Hours of operation will be Monday through Friday, from 7 a.m. to 4
p.m.

The Sahara complex includes four buildings located between 23rd and
25th Streets at 2405 Cuba Ave. The public is cautioned to avoid
this area for approximately six weeks due to equipment in use and
heavy truck traffic, officials said.

City crews removed much of the vegetation growing in the complex
and decaying porches and stairwells over the past week, said City
Manager Maggie Paluch.

MORE: Alamogordo officials plan to demolish Sahara Apartments soon

Southwest Abatement was contracted by the City to handle the
abatement due to the high levels of hazardous material used in the
construction of the apartment complex, she said, which was built in
1954.

"There (is) asbestos in nearly every area of the buildings,
including the exterior plaster, the window glazing, the
multilayered flooring and mastic, the vinyl floor tile, the drywall
compound and texture, and the additional floor tile," Paluch said
at a regular Commission meeting on April 24.

A wet encapsulant will be sprayed on the outside of each of the
complex's four structures preceding demolition to limit the amount
of dust, Johnson said. The condition of the buildings precludes any
other kind of demolition, said City Engineering Manager Bob
Johnson.

"The insides of the structures are so structurally unsafe that it's
too dangerous to try to do any abatement from the inside. Combined
with the asbestos on the exterior parts of the buildings, this was
the next logical step. That’s industry standard for this type of
work. It's a fairly standard process," Johnson said.

Following the application of the encapsulant, the structures will
be taken down one at a time using demolition machinery and put into
lined containers provided by Southwest Abatement and hauled to the
landfill, Johnson said.

A silt fence and dirt berm will be constructed around the perimeter
to contain the residual liquids used in the encapsulation process
necessary to limit the escape of asbestos-laden dust, Paluch said.

Terracon Consultants will be on site to monitor air quality during
the process.

"During the stages of (the demolition), Terracon will be out there
to monitor the air to ensure that we don't have any vapors flying
around. The chances are slim and almost none that that will occur
since everything will wet," he said.

Given the abundance of hazardous material on the property, public
works staff have printed out copies of a recent PSA issued by the
City and left door hangers at all adjacent houses filling them in
on the scope of the project, Johnson said.

"The residents have been advised," he said. "I personally have not
received any calls of concern of resistance. The few conversations
I've had say (the apartments) are an eyesore and they've been there
forever and a day and they're looking forward to having it gone."

The Sahara Apartments have sat empty since July 2010 when the
residents were evacuated during a serious flood. Following a
prolonged legal battle with the property's owner, the City was
granted permission to move forward with demolition in March of this
year. In April 2018, testing confirmed the presence of asbestos in
the buildings.

Asbestos is a set of fibrous minerals used in construction and
manufacturing. According to the Department of Health and Human
Services, asbestos is dangerous when friable or abraded, as this
allows fibers to escape and enter the lungs. Asbestos fibers can
remain lodged in the body and cause a variety of serious health
issues, such as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma, the DHHS
reports.

Bringing down the buildings is expected to cost around $401,000,
Johnson said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Claims Continue to Follow Albany Int'l.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marlene Kennedy of The Daily Gazette reported that when Albany
International Corp. released second-quarter results, it reported
being involved in 3,677 claims for personal injury due to alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing materials.

The company, founded in Albany in 1895 and now headquartered in New
Hampshire, for years focused on the production of custom-designed
belts and fabrics that run the machines used in papermaking --
so-called paper-machine clothing.

Today the company also supplies highly engineered composite parts
for the aerospace industry, a line of work that prompted the
out-of-state move, even though "Albany" stayed in the name.

It's the legacy paper-machine clothing that prompted the asbestos
lawsuits. Or, as the company recites in its periodic filings with
regulators, "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits
brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who
allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing paper-machine clothing synthetic
dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used
in certain paper mills."

The filings then offer a running tally of the lawsuits outstanding,
including new claims and those that have been dismissed, settled or
resolved. That's where the 3,677 number comes from, as the claims
outstanding as of June 30.

The filings state that even though Albany International believes
"we have meritorious defenses to these claims," it chose to settle
some. The total number of settled or dismissed claims stood at
almost 37,700 as of June 30, according to the second-quarter
report.

The company paid out $10.3 million to resolve those claims -- the
money coming almost exclusively from its insurance carrier. Some
$140 million of coverage remains, the company says.

Albany International isn't alone in facing asbestos-exposure
claims. General Electric Co., for instance, noted in its annual
report filed in February that it had set aside some $1.7 billion in
reserves for "environmental remediation and asbestos claims" as of
Dec. 31.

Albany International, GE and other familiar corporate names -- Borg
Warner, Honeywell, International Paper, 3M -- are found in the
asbestos lawsuits that are occasionally filed locally by
individuals or their estates. Some look for big payouts for the
alleged exposure, although Albany International's second-quarter
results show $93,000 as the average amount paid to settle or
resolve claims as of June 30.

Nationally, the pace of new claims is declining, according to NERA
Economic Consulting of White Plains, which reviews public company
annual reports for mentions of asbestos-related liabilities. NERA
said 2017 was the third year in a row showing a decline.

That was the finding, too, of Washington, D.C., consultant KCIC,
which also found a corresponding drop in filings for major disease
type (mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancer, non-malignant).

Asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous mineral, was widely used by
industry prior to the 1980s because it resisted heat and corrosion.
It is a known human carcinogen, according to the National Cancer
Institute.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Delayes Old City Jail Demolition
----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Antonacci of Longmont Times-Call reported that the ball is in
the state's court in regard to the building known as the Old City
Jail in Longmont.

The building at 915 Main St. was slated to be demolished more than
a year ago. The building is not historic -- it was built in 1969 to
look old and once sported an "Old City Jail" sign due to its
proximity to a site that was once home to North Longmont's
combination town hall and jail.

Property owner Robert Martin said in June the delayed demolition
was due to his contractor having trouble getting a permit from the
city. City officials said the contractor was supposed to show up
and pick up the permit but never came.

Martin has fired his previous contractor and hired a new one, but
now, asbestos has been discovered in the building and the new
contractor has applied for permission from the state to use an
alternative method of asbestos remediation.

Longmont Assistant City Manager Shawn Lewis wrote in an email that
the asbestos was found during the new contractor's structural
assessment and that tearing the building down as-is would be
dangerous to workers.

"Due to significant structural problems with the building,
traditional asbestos remediation posed a threat to the safety of
employees involved in the process," Lewis said. "According to
information provided by the contractor to the city's Code
Enforcement Division, the state has not yet granted that variance
request. The contractor has conveyed that as soon as the variance
is obtained, demolition will occur in a timely manner."

Social media pressure mounted on Martin and city officials to do
something about the ramshackle structure in June, w hen Longmont
Matters Radio posted a Facebook Live video showing the extent of
damage transient drug users and squatters have done inside the
building.

Despite Martin's efforts to keep people out by screwing the doors
shut and boarding up the windows, someone had ripped part of a wall
off the building and broken one of the front windows.

Inside, dirty mattresses, used needles and trash littered the floor
and graffiti decorated the walls.

The city condemned the building, deeming it unfit for human
habitation and police stepped up patrols around the building to
curb drug and squatting issues.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Findings Pause Rental Homes Demolition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Desirae Duncan of WLOX reported that a project involving the
demolition of 30 rental homes on Bills Avenue in Ocean Springs is
on a temporary pause as several of the properties undergo asbestos
abatement.

Warning signs were found posted to the doors of at least five
homes. The homes are vacant after a development company called
Little Bluff purchased them to tear them down and build newer
upscale homes.

Developer Jimmy Lane told WLOX that "minute" amounts of asbestos
were found in the floor tiles of the homes during a routine and
required asbestos study. The tiles are believed to have been
installed in the homes in the 1950s.

An MDEQ inspector visited the site to collect information. An
official says certified workers will perform the asbestos removal
to assure correct work practices.

Neighbors said they're concerned and hope the issue is resolved
quickly.

"I had called the City Hall the next day, and they said everything
was going to be removed and professionally taken care of before
they do any more work on it. So, I'm just hoping they hold to that
because it's scary living right next door," said resident Rhonda
Yegerlehner.

Lane told WLOX the project is still on schedule, and findings of
asbestos are expected when demolishing older homes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Children's School Supplies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ursula Perano and Amanda Watts of CNN reported that parents may
want to take a second look at their children's school supplies this
season.

The results of lab tests detailed in a report found traces of
asbestos, lead and other dangerous chemicals in a number of popular
school supplies.

The US Public Interest Research Group Education Fund tested dozens
of typical classroom materials for toxins. While most were
nontoxic, some crayons, markers and binders received a failing
grade.

Here are some of the products that tested positive for toxic
substances:

   -- Playskool crayons (36 count)

This box set, purchased at Dollar Tree, has traces of asbestos, the
report found. The chemical can appear in the talc that is used in
crayon manufacturing, according to the report.

If ingested or inhaled, asbestos can cause severe damage to a
person's health, including lung cancer and mesothelioma.

It is unclear if other versions of the crayons have been affected.

"Product and children's safety are top priorities for Hasbro," the
toy company said in a statement to CNN. Hasbro owns the license to
the product. "We are conducting a thorough investigation into these
claims."

Dollar Tree spokesperson Randy Guiler said the retail chain is
"aware of the report and have since reverified that each of the
listed products successfully passed inspection and testing."

   -- EXPO dry erase markers with scented ink

The markers, purchased on Amazon, were found to have traces of
BTEX, which refers to four chemicals that have been linked to
liver, kidney and immune system damage. One of the four chemicals,
benzene, is a carcinogen.

It is unclear if unscented versions of the markers also contain
traces of BTEX.

In a statement to CNN, EXPO said in part, "We are aware of the
report by U.S. Public Interest Research Group and can confirm that
our products meet all applicable regulatory and safety standards.
Additionally, all EXPO Dry Erase Markers have been examined by an
independent, certified toxicologist from Duke University Medical
Center and are certified as safe, non-toxic by The Art & Creative
Materials Institute, Inc. (ACMI)."

CNN has not yet heard back from Amazon for comment.

   -- The Board Dudes six magnetic dry erase markers

The Board Dudes, another brand of dry erase markers that were also
purchased on Amazon, tested positive for traces of BTEX chemicals.

Amazon and Mattel, which owns The Board Dudes' parent company, have
not responded to CNN's request for comment.

   -- Jot 1-inch 3-ring binder in blue

This Dollar Tree binder tested positive for traces of phthalates, a
group of chemicals used to soften plastics.

According to the report, research suggests the chemicals can cause
problems for children, including issues with development, asthma
and childhood obesity.

It is unclear if other versions of the binder also contain
phthalates.

'Need for constant vigilance'

The organization urged parents to be mindful of the potential
presence of toxins when buying school supplies.

"The presence of toxic hazards in school supplies highlights the
need for constant vigilance on the part of government agencies and
the public to ensure that school supplies containing toxic
chemicals are removed from store shelves," the report says.

The report is accompanied by a shopping guide for parents that
lists products that tested safe for use.

"We want to give parents and teachers the option to choose school
supplies that do not contain toxic chemicals."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Talc Powder Causes Cancer
------------------------------------------------------
https://norcalrecord.com/stories/511537485-after-staggering-award-in-latest-talc-trial-just-what-is-the-scientific-and-geological-evidence

John Breslin of Northern California Record reported that in
characterizing the more than $4.69 billion jury award against J&J
after it found the company's talc-based products were responsible
for ovarian cancer in 22 women, the words staggering,
extraordinary, or even insane might be used.

From past history, the size of the award by a St. Louis jury will
drop, likely drastically, and it may well be overturned on appeal.

But its size is a measure of just how much the jury, and others in
cases across the country, are persuaded entirely by the arguments
of the plaintiff bar.

Talc, a natural occurring mineral mined for years in the U.S., and
later largely in China, is carcinogenic, J&J knew it was, and it
attempted to cover up, according to the successful argument made to
juries.

This latest award has a twist, for it is the first time, after a
number of trials in Missouri and California, that it was explicitly
claimed that asbestos in talc powder caused the cancer. This
quickly raises the question about the previous trials because in
those it was argued that talc itself is carcinogenic.

It has been conclusively proven that inhalation, and inhalation
only, of asbestos over a period of time does cause cancer, mainly
mesothelioma. There is no conclusive proof, according to U.S. and
international expert groups, that talc, even its mined form, causes
cancer.

Now J&J is facing other legal fires beyond the estimated 6,000
women who claim Baby Powder and Shower and Shower caused their
cancer.

Suits are being filed, and the first award won, over claims that
asbestos in talc directly caused mesothelioma in users of the same
product. The first award, $117 million, was made to a New Jersey
couple after the husband, a banker, contracted mesothelioma,
claiming it was caused by years of inhaling J&J's talc products.

Following the St. Louis trial, one juror explained to the St. Louis
Post Dispatch that they "multiplied the roughly $70 million Johnson
& Johnson earned selling baby powder in a recent year by the 43
years it's been since the company claimed the baby powder did not
contain asbestos."

But geologists, the FDA, the American Cancer Society, and the World
Health Organization's cancer expert group all largely agree that,
first, asbestos can seep into mined talc, and secondly, to
differing degrees, that there is really no evidence that consumer
talc products contain asbestos, at least since the 1970s.

Talc and asbestos occur naturally and may occur in close proximity
in some metamorphic rocks, according to Geology.com, which can lead
to cross contamination..

"Studies published in the 1960s and 1970s identified health
concerns about the use of talc that contains asbestos in some
cosmetic products,"

J&J has argued in court and elsewhere that it worked to identify
any traces of asbestos in their products since the early 1970s, and
found none.

Peter Bicks, the lead lawyer for J&J in the St. Louis case, told
Reuters news agency that the company has been investigating ways it
could remove asbestos from talc during mining, but that "no
contamination was ever found."

Bicks told the agency that the claims of a link between talc and
asbestos is “junk science.”

Juries in those two trials appeared not to agree, though the
American Cancer Society does.

"All talcum products used in homes in the United States have been
asbestos-free since the 1970s," the society said, though it did not
cite its own source on its website.

It adds, "Talc that has asbestos is generally accepted as being
able to cause cancer if it is inhaled. This type of talc is not
used in modern consumer products. The evidence about asbestos-free
talc, which is still widely used, is less clear."

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the
World Health Organization (WHO), has gone further than most groups
in linking talc power to cancer.

First, it concludes, talc that contains asbestos is “carcinogenic
to humans," secondly that inhaled talc not containing asbestos is
“not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans," and third,
that the the perineal (genital) use of talc-based body powder as
“possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

But the last categorization includes a list of hundreds of agents.

In a paper published by the independent National Center for Health
Research, Drs. Diana Zuckerman and  Danielle Shapiro, noted that
studies show that "a woman who uses talcum powder increases her
chances of developing ovarian cancer from 1.3 percent to 1.7
percent."

But most of the evidence comes from studies that recruit two sets
of women, those with ovarian cancer and those without. All were
asked to remember whether they used talc powder, the frequency and
how it was used.

"These studies cannot tell us for sure that talcum powder use
causes ovarian cancer, but they can tell us if women who report
using the powder in the genital area are more likely to develop
ovarian cancer," the authors conclude.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal at Quanta Superfund Site Begins
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristie Cattafi and Scott Fallon of NorthJersey.com reported that
workers will begin removing asbestos from a commercial building
next to the Quanta Superfund site this month in preparation for its
demolition.

This is the next phase of the two-year cleanup after soil
remediation at the River Road site was stopped in June because of
complaints from nearby residents over noxious fumes emanating from
the site.

The removal of the asbestos from 115 River Road was supposed to
begin earlier this month but will begin as soon as the weather
clears, said Victoria Streitfeld, Honeywell community liaison.
Federal environmental officials determined the building had to be
demolished because large amounts of toxic pollution from Quanta had
migrated beneath it.

In June, non-friable asbestos was found in the building roof.
Non-friable is a form of asbestos that is locked in the material
and does not easily become airborne when crushed, Streitfeld said.


The air will be monitored for asbestos using mobile stations near
the work area, even though it's not required by regulations or
permits.

The asbestos removal staging area will be in the north parking lot.
Material will be transported through a chute from the roof to a
lined container in the parking lot. Water will also be sprayed to
control dust, Streitfeld said.

Once work begins, it will take six to seven weeks for removal.
Demolition of the east side of the building could start in
September, while asbestos removal may still be ongoing in the
western part of the building.

Demolition of the former industrial building, extending from the
Hudson River to River Road, is expected to take about three months.


Despite the removal plan, some residents are still concerned and on
high alert. Jin Kim, a City Place resident in the condominium,
hotel and retail complex next to the site, raised concerns at the
Borough Council meeting.

"I feel like they've lost the public's trust," he said. "How can we
really ensure what happened with the naphthalene doesn't happen
again. It's destroying the quality of life here."

Since the spring, Kim said, the residents in the area have taken it
upon themselves to start a grass-roots effort. There are email
lists and social media groups to help keep all the residents
informed and share information to help each other understand, Kim
said.

Mayor Michael McPartland said the federal Environmental Protection
Agency will continue monitoring the site and he has "all the
confidence in the world" in the agency.

"We know it's a dangerous site and contaminated," McPartland said.
"But this has been a long time coming. We are looking forward to
getting this done. If there are bumps in the road, we want it to
slow down and rather be safe than sorry."

The air around the site has been cleaner since soil work at Quanta
stopped in late June. Levels of naphthalene, a possible carcinogen,
were below more stringent screening level of 3.13 micrograms per
cubic meter that EPA imposed this spring after residents'
complaints.

Naphthalene, the primary ingredient in mothballs, is "reasonably
anticipated" to be a human carcinogen after studies showed that lab
rats formed lung and nose tumors when breathing in the chemical
daily, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.

As work at the site wound down in May and June, naphthalene levels
at the site's perimeter still exceeded the screening level. But the
amounts were much lower than results from earlier in the year that
lead to four public hearings where residents voiced anger and
frustration at the cleanup and the noxious fumes that often
engulfed the buildings surrounding the site.

The summer hasn't been without its conflicts, though.

After finding no detectable levels of naphthalene, Honeywell
removed air monitors from nearby residential complexes --
Independence Harbor, the Metropolitan and the Promenade -- on July
9 without allowing the EPA to inform the community of the move.

"While the EPA concurs that the data collected from the canisters
showing no detectable levels of naphthalene supports removing them,
Honeywell removed the monitors before EPA could first communicate
with the community of our intention to make the shift," Sophia
Rini, chief of intergovernmental and community affairs with the
EPA, said in an email to residents.

Honeywell reduced the offsite air monitoring program from 12 to six
locations because the remedy had been suspended, Streitfeld said.
The public was notified through the website of the reduction.

Air samples will now be collected three days a week, reduced from
daily, after nearly four weeks of results with air quality before
the remedy, Streitfeld said. "The modification has been approved by
the EPA," she said. "If there is a detection attributable to the
Quanta site, the collection frequency will be increased."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed From Florence Elem. School
------------------------------------------------------------
Tonya Brown of WPDE.com reported that asbestos has been removed
from a part of Savannah Grove Elementary School in Florence,
according to S.C. Dept. of Health & Environmental Control Public
Information Officer Tommy Crosby.

Crosby sent the following statement about the asbestos abatement:

"The project was scheduled for August 1-10. The asbestos removal
was in the 400 wing of the school according to the notification
received from the school. DHEC became aware of the project when the
application was received on August 1."

Crosby sent the news agency the district's application for asbestos
abatement showing asbestos was remove 8,200 square feet of flooring
and 9,000 square feet of mastic in the 400 wing of the school.

Florence School District One sent a letter to DHEC back on July 30
for an emergency permit for asbestos abatement.

The letter says, "Multiple rooms flooded by storm. We need asbestos
abated in an emergency so we can begin repairs to be ready for the
start of school on Monday, August 20, 2018."

The letter was signed by then Interim Superintendent Dr. Dan
Strickland.

Some parents asked the news agency to look into the situation. They
became concerned after seeing large containers and cleaning crews
at the school.

The parents said they were alarmed when they saw "Danger" and "Do
Not Enter" signs on the school's front door.

The news agency said it has repeatedly called and emailed FSD1
administrators for a comment on the matter, but its calls or emails
haven't been returned.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Warning at Historic Courthouse Entrance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Democrat reported that a sign outside the north entrance to
the Historic Courthouse warns of asbestos in the building where a
crew is demolishing certain parts of the building. Renovations will
be made to the first and second floors of the building as they will
be the new headquarters for the Probation Department’s
administrative staff.  

A forklift is outside the east entrance of the Historic Courthouse
where workers are demolishing in preparation for renovations. The
renovations will be made to the first and second floors of the
building as they will be the new headquarters for the Probation
Department’s administrative staff.

Renovations at the Historic Yolo County Courthouse were continuing
with the removal of asbestos.

The work is underway on the first floor, which is known as the
basement level, of the building.

Signs on the north entrance of the courthouse located at 725 Court
St. warned of asbestos in the building, and contractors from Bowen
Engineering and Environmental were moving loads of material out of
the building into large trash bins with a forklift.

One of the contractors said they were "demo'ing" to prepare for
"renovations."

According to county spokeswoman Beth Gabor, supervisors voted on
July 24 to allow Bowen Engineering and Environmental to reinforce,
remediate and renovate the facility.

According to a report prepared by General Services Director Kevin
Yarris, Bowen submitted a bid to renovate the building for
$400,000, beating out the price of competitor West Coast
Environmental, which estimated the costs would be $545,000.

This contract would be the final demolition contract to continue
the project, Yarris told supervisors during the July 24 meeting.
The first and second floors of the building were basically stripped
of everything and during the demolition, contractors became aware
of issues that drove the cost of the work up.

Hollow clay brick that needs to be either removed or reinforced,
pipes wrapped in asbestos, paint on the floors and hidden
staircases that need to be removed were some of the things that
drove the cost up, Yarris said.

"We're finding these 'easter eggs' throughout the project," Yarris
added, a reference to video games where hidden, unexpected
surprises are placed by designers.

Yarris said that despite the cost going up, they would be under
budget for this phase of the renovations, which was estimated at
$1.2 million. The contract with Bowen made the final cost of
demolition process $850,000. It was estimated that the entire
project will cost between $10 and $12 million.

According to county documents, the first and second floor of the
Historic Courthouse will be used as the primary headquarters for
the Probation Department's administrative staff.

The courthouse has been vacant since the summer of 2015, when the
new courthouse officially opened and all proceedings were moved to
the Main Street building.

The fate of the building had been in question since before its
closing.

In 2015, ideas have ranged from turning the space into the museum
to using it as a retail space for various businesses. Others have
suggested turning the building into an event center or using it for
after-school programs or other educational purposes.

When supervisors decided to turn the Gibson House over to YoloArts,
those who opposed said during public comment that YoloArts should
move into the Historic Courthouse instead of taking over the
museum.

Ultimately, the fate of the 5,000-square-foot third floor of the
courthouse is still in limbo, as supervisors have yet to decide
what the preserved historic space would host.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankr. Judge Okayed Fraser's Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Brian D. Lynch of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Washington has entered an order approving
Debtor Fraser's Boiler Service, Inc.'s Settlement Agreement with
Certain Insurers, and the sale of certain policies to Certain
Insurers in the case styled In re: Fraser's Boiler Service, Inc.,
Debtor. Case No. 18-41245-BDL, (Bankr. W.D. Wash.).

For several decades, Debtor Fraser's Boiler Service, Inc. operated
a business erecting and repairing industrial, commercial, and
marine boilers in Washington, Oregon, and California. Fraser's
business declined over the years, and Fraser's became insolvent by
late 2014. Fraser's petitioned in King County Superior Court for
the appointment of a receiver. In early 2015, Resource Transition
Consultants LLC was appointed as receiver and ordered to take
charge over Fraser's assets.

Since the 1990s, individuals have brought claims against Fraser's
for personal injuries related to asbestos exposure from Fraser's
operations in various courts in Washington, Oregon, and California.
Additional claims are anticipated. Fraser's is insured under
certain comprehensive general liability ("CGL") insurance policies
that provide coverage for Fraser's liability in connection with the
asbestos-related claims. Fraser's insurers, including some of the
Certain Insurers Century and Allianz, have generally been paying
defense and indemnity for asbestos-related claims on behalf of
Fraser's since at least 1994. However, some of these insurers have
also asserted defenses that would limit the scope of their coverage
obligations and at times have contended that their policies were
exhausted or nearly exhausted.

Fraser's and RTC were involved in a long-running series of disputes
with Providence Washington Insurance Company regarding PWIC's claim
that its policies were exhausted in approximately 2010. PWIC filed
a declaratory judgment action in state court in 2012. PWIC's action
resulted in a settlement, which was finalized in December 2016.
Under the PWIC settlement, Fraser's, via RTC, would receive $1.95
million, less any amounts paid by PWIC toward certain
asbestos-related claims, in exchange for a release and a bar on
contribution claims. Most of Fraser's other insurers, including the
Certain Insurers, filed objections in state court to approval of
the PWIC settlement. They objected, in part, to the bar on the
assertion of contribution and indemnity claims by other insurers
against PWIC.

RTC engaged in settlement discussions with some of Fraser's
remaining insurers, including the Certain Insurers. These
discussions resulted in the Settlement Agreement, under which the
Certain Insurers agreed to pay a total of approximately $11.66
million and no longer pursue their objections to the PWIC
settlement in state court, in exchange for mutual releases and
other relief set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Motion.
After the Settlement Agreement was executed, the PWIC settlement
was approved in the state court receivership on January 31, 2018.
Approval of the PWIC settlement is the subject of a pending appeal
by the Certain Insurers and the non-settling insurers.

The terms of the Settlement Agreement with the Certain Insurers at
issue here obligated DJO Services LLC to take all necessary steps
to cause Fraser's to file a chapter 11 bankruptcy case. The purpose
of filing the bankruptcy case was to permit the Certain Insurers to
obtain protection through a free and clear sale under Section 363
of the Bankruptcy Code, including an injunction against future
defense, indemnity, or contribution claims for asbestos-related
claims.

Under the Settlement Agreement, Fraser's and RTC will sell certain
insurance policies back to the Certain Insurers free and clear of
all liens, encumbrances, and interests. In exchange, the Certain
Insurers will pay the estate $11.66 million, Fraser's, RTC, and DJO
Services LLC will provide the Certain Insurers with a broad
release, and the Certain Insurers will provide Fraser's with a
similar release. Finally, the Certain Insurers will receive the
benefit of an injunction to effectuate the sale of the policies
free of liens, claims, and encumbrances. The Certain Insurers are
not obligated to pay the $11.66 million unless and until an order
approving the sale and issuing the injunction becomes a final
order.

Accordingly, Fraser's filed a motion requesting that the Court
enter an order: (i) approving the Settlement Agreement and Release,
dated January 11, 2018, as later amended, between and among
Fraser's, receiver Resource Transition Consultants LLC, sole
shareholder DJO Services LLC, and Certain Insurers,1 (ii)
authorizing the sale under the Settlement Agreement of select
insurance policies back to the Certain Insurers pursuant to Section
363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code free and clear of all liens, claims,
and interests, and (iii) enjoining various claims against the
Certain Insurers pursuant to Section 105 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Objections to the Motion were filed by non-settling insurers
Certain London Market Insurance Companies and Certain Underwriters
at Lloyd's, London and National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, PA, non-settling insurer The Travelers Indemnity
Company and the U.S. Trustee.

London Market Insurers and Fraser's did not reach an agreement by
June 28, 2018. Fraser's requested that the Court rule on the Motion
at the hearing set for July 3, 2018. London Market Insurers
requested that the Court delay announcing its ruling for two weeks
to allow additional time for negotiations. At the July 3, 2018
hearing, the Court announced from the bench that it would issue a
written ruling on the Motion and laid out the general principles of
that ruling. The Court also requested supplemental briefing from
Fraser's and the Opposing Insurers on the issue of whether the
judgment reduction provision in Paragraph 6.8 of the Settlement
Agreement adequately protects the Opposing Insurers' interests
under 11 U.S.C. Section 363(e). With their supplemental briefing,
the Opposing Insurers also filed a motion seeking to introduce the
cost sharing agreement among several of the insurers into the
record under seal. The motion to file under seal was granted, and
the Court has considered the contents of the Cost Sharing
Agreement.

The Court determines that the Settlement Agreement involves the
sale of certain insurance policies of Fraser's back to the Certain
Insurers free and clear pursuant to Section 363(f) of the
Bankruptcy Code. Fraser's insurance policies are property of the
estate. Along with the free and clear sale, the Settlement
Agreement contemplates and the Motion requests entry of a
supplemental injunction pursuant to Section 105(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code to ensure the free and clear sale provides the
Certain Insurers with meaningful relief from future contribution
and indemnity claims.

Fraser's has shown that the proposed sale has a valid business
justification and was proposed in good faith. The sale resolves
several insurance coverage disputes that risk leaving the
asbestos-related tort claimants with no access to insurance
proceeds from some insurers and no entity providing overarching
administration of claims for the benefit of Fraser's claimants. The
sale will effectuate the orderly administration of asbestos-related
tort claims in accordance with Fraser's plan of reorganization,
including allowing claimants to pursue other insurance coverage for
their claims where appropriate. The proposed sale was negotiated in
good faith at arms-length by sophisticated counsel. The proposed
sale is supported by valuable consideration, including payments of
approximately $11.66 million.

The funds from the sale of the insurance policies will provide the
primary funding for the liquidating trust Fraser's intends to
create as part of its plan of reorganization for the payment of
asbestos-related personal injury and wrongful death claims. The
funding from the Certain Insurers is essential to making Fraser's
plan work, as there are no other assets available to administer,
and the liquidation of these insurance policies will result in
substantial payments to the asbestos exposure victims.

The record shows significant efforts to resolve multiple, complex
insurance coverage disputes. The Settlement Agreement also resolves
considerable risk, expense, and delay from likely further
litigation. In particular, the Settlement Agreement prevents a race
to the courthouse by asbestos-related tort claimants, instead
funneling the proceeds of the sale to a liquidating trust for
orderly administration. Further, the Settlement Agreement disposes
of potentially expensive legal disputes with the Certain Insurers
surrounding exhaustion of policy limits. Contrary to the suggestion
of the Opposing Insurers, there is ample evidence of the risks of
exhaustion and coverage disputes. As shown by the PWIC litigation,
exhaustion and coverage disputes are imminent, and there is
substantial risk the Cost Sharing Agreement will no longer protect
Fraser's from litigation regarding insurance coverage. The
Settlement Agreement also resolves several objections to the PWIC
settlement, reducing the risk of delay in obtaining approval of the
PWIC settlement on appeal and securing the related payment of
approximately $1.95 million from PWIC. Given the risks, cost, and
delay associated with litigating these disputes, the Settlement
Agreement provides Fraser's with significant benefit.

Finally, the Court finds that approval of the Settlement Agreement
is in the paramount interests of the creditors in this case. The
Settlement Agreement will result in approximately $11.66 million
being sent to the liquidating trust for distribution to creditors
with asbestos-related tort claims. The payments from the Settlement
Agreement are the primary funding for the liquidating trust. The
creditors have indicated their support for the Settlement Agreement
both through the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors' reply
filed in support of the Motion and by the creditors' pre-petition
votes in favor of a plan of reorganization with the Settlement
Agreement and related liquidating trust as its centerpiece. See ECF
No. 83. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair and
equitable and in the best interests of the estate and the
creditors.

Moreover, grounds exist to sell the insurance policies free and
clear of all interests. First, Washington state law permits sales
free and clear of interests under Washington's receivership statute
and other nonbankruptcy law. The policies can be sold free and
clear of some interests under Section 363(f)(2), because the
holders of asbestos claims have given the equivalent of their
consent by submitting ballots in favor of the pre-petition plan of
reorganization and by the Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors' filing of a reply in support of the Settlement Agreement
that includes the free and clear sale. Finally, the
asbestos-related tort claimants could be compelled to accept a
money satisfaction of their interests in the policies in a legal or
equitable proceeding. The Court approves the proposed sale of
certain insurance policies free and clear of all interests pursuant
to Sections 363(b) and (f) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Opposing Insurers argue that the Court cannot approve a sale of
the insurance policies free and clear of their interests, which
they characterize as (1) an equitable contribution right and (2) a
contractual claim for contribution under the Cost Sharing
Agreement. As to the first interest, it derives entirely from the
policies being sold and exists solely because Fraser's purchased
and maintained the policies. The contribution claims are interests
in the policies, which are property of the estate. The Court joins
several courts in approving the sale of insurance policies back to
insurers in exchange for proceeds to fund a trust for creditors
exposed to asbestos by a company now in bankruptcy. As to the
second interest, the Cost Sharing Agreement is an agreement between
Fraser's insurers entered into without Fraser's consent and for
which it received no consideration. The Cost Sharing Agreement may
not act as a bar to Fraser's rights to settle its coverage claims.

However, as the Opposing Insurers raised in their objection, on the
request of an entity that has an interest in the property being
sold, the court will prohibit or condition the sale as necessary to
adequately protect that party's interest. The non-settling insurers
are being required to give up certain subrogation, contribution,
and indemnity rights against the Certain Insurers. It is not just
the tort claimants who are at risk of policy exhaustion. The
non-settling insurers bear that risk as well and will benefit from
the payments made to the liquidating trust pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement. Moreover, the liquidating trust will directly
handle certain historically settled claims and substantially
underinsured claims without tendering those claims to the
non-settling insurers, alleviating the non-settling insurers of
incurring the costs and risks of defense and indemnity obligations
associated with those claims.

The Opposing Insurers argue that the Settlement Agreement does not
adequately protect their subrogation, contribution, and indemnity
rights against the Certain Insurers. In their supplemental
briefing, the Opposing Insurers raised the issue of the Certain
Insurers' obligations under the Cost Sharing Agreement and the
impact of the supplemental injunction on those obligations.

The principal dispute at the center of the Motion concerns whether
the Court may issue a permanent supplemental injunction that
prevents a non-settling insurer also liable for a particular claim
from pursuing one or more of the Certain Insurers for contribution
or indemnity. The Opposing Insurers and the U.S. Trustee argue the
Court cannot issue a supplemental injunction because such
injunctions are the functional equivalents of third party releases
prohibited under Ninth Circuit precedents and are unfair to the
non-settling insurers.

The Opposing Insurers and U.S. Trustee are correct that this
Circuit has interpreted Section 524(e) of the Bankruptcy Code as
prohibiting bankruptcy courts from issuing global third-party
releases pursuant to Section 105(a). However, the supplemental
injunction proposed in this case is distinguishable from those
precedents. The crux of the difference is that, unlike releases of
all claims against a third party, the supplemental injunction is
narrowly tailored to only apply to derivative claims. A third party
asserts a claim that is derivative of an insurance policy when the
third party "seeks to collect out of the proceeds of [the debtor's]
insurance policies on the basis of [the debtor's] conduct."
Derivative claims are inseparable from the debtor's own insurance
policies. Id. The contribution and indemnity claims subject to the
supplemental injunction are claims derived from the insurance
policies being sold back to the Certain Insurers free and clear
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Because it only impacts
derivative claims, the supplemental injunction is not the
equivalent of a discharge of a third party.

The supplemental injunction does not provide for retention of the
asset by the debtor or a purchasing third party, but rather the
payment of the cash value of those assets into a liquidating trust
that is essential to Fraser's plan of reorganization.

The Opposing Insurers and the U.S. Trustee argue that these kind of
supplemental injunctions are only appropriate in cases where the
debtor satisfies the requirements of Section 524(g) of the
Bankruptcy Code. Fraser's does not satisfy those requirements
because it is not an ongoing entity that can contribute the value
of its equity to the liquidating trust. But a debtor that can
qualify under Section 524(g) is not the only debtor that may seek a
Section 105(a) injunction in connection with a Section 363(f) sale.
Supplemental injunctions have been approved and upheld in
bankruptcy cases in this Circuit on several occasions where the
requirements of Section 524(g) could not be satisfied.

The Court finds that the supplemental injunction is a necessary
element of the sales of the policies. Without the supplemental
injunction, the Certain Insurers would not be willing to purchase
the insurance policies, as they would continue to have potential
liability to the non-settling insurers. The injunction is necessary
and appropriate to carry out the sale under Section 363(f) pursuant
to Section 105(a), and without it the idea of a sale free and clear
would be denuded of its meaning. The supplemental injunction also
prevents irreparable harm to the Certain Insurers, who negotiated
the purchase of the insurance policies back from Fraser's with the
intent of avoiding further litigation over the claims related to
those policies. That value will be lost if the non-settling
insurers can seek indemnity and contribution claims from the
Certain Insurers for the same claims. A properly tailored
supplemental injunction is necessary and appropriate and can
balance the equities between the Certain Insurers, the non-settling
insurers, Fraser's, and its creditors.

A copy of the Order dated July 18, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9fbe5c9 from Leagle.com.

Fraser's Boiler Service, Inc., Debtor, represented by Eisenhower
Carlson PLLC , Darren R. Krattli -- dkrattli@eisenhowerlaw.com --
Eisenhower Carlson PLLC, Danial D. Pharris -- pharris@lasher.com --
Lasher Holzapfel Sperry & Ebberson PLLC & Katrina Self --
kself@eisenhowerlaw.com -- Eisenhower Carlson PLLC.

United States Trustee, US Trustee, represented by Sarah R. Flynn .

Mark D Waldron, Creditor Comm Atty, pro se.

Official Unsecured Creditors Committee, Creditor Committee,
represented by Mark D. Waldron , Law Offices of Mark D. Waldron,
PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Had 9,270 Claims at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. has 9,270 asbestos-related claims pending as of
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, "Like many other industrial companies that have
historically operated in the United States, the Company, or parties
that the Company is obligated to indemnify, continues to be named
as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury
actions.  We believe that the Company's involvement is limited
because these claims generally relate to a few types of automotive
products that were manufactured over thirty years ago and contained
encapsulated asbestos.  The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation
of the asbestos, and the manner of the products' use all lead the
Company to believe that these products were and are highly unlikely
to cause harm.  Furthermore, the useful life of nearly all of these
products expired many years ago.  

"The Company vigorously defends against these claims, and has
obtained the dismissal of the majority of the claims asserted
against it without any payment.  The Company likewise expects that
no payment will be made by the Company or its insurers in the vast
majority of current and future asbestos-related claims in which it
has been or will be named (or has an obligation to indemnify a
party which has been or will be named).

"Through June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the Company incurred
US$556.9 million and US$528.7 million, respectively, in indemnity
(including settlement payments) and defense costs in connection
with asbestos-related claims.  During the six months ended June 30,
2018 and 2017, the Company paid US$28.2 million and US$26.5
million, respectively, in indemnity and related defense costs in
connection with asbestos-related claims.  These gross payments are
before tax benefits and any insurance receipts.  Indemnity and
defense costs are incorporated into the Company's operating cash
flows and will continue to be in the future."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2MxDy2y


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Records $799.9MM Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. estimates US$799.9 million as of June 30, 2018 for
asbestos-related claims and associated costs through 2067,
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, "Like many other industrial companies that have
historically operated in the United States, the Company, or parties
the Company is obligated to indemnify, continues to be named as one
of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions.
The Company has an estimated liability of US$799.9 million as of
June 30, 2018 for asbestos-related claims and associated costs
through 2067, which is the last date by which the Company currently
estimates it is likely to have resolved all asbestos-related
claims.  The Company additionally estimates that, as of June 30,
2018, it has aggregate insurance coverage available in the amount
of US$386.4 million to satisfy asbestos-related claims and
associated defense costs."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2MxDy2y


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Symphony Hall Tested for Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------
WCVB Boston reported that an iconic building in Boston is dealing
with a potential health problem.

The Boston Symphony Orchestra received a complaint in mid-July
about possible asbestos exposure due to damaged ducts in the attic
of Symphony Hall.

The BSO is waiting for results on whether there's an asbestos
problem in the 118-year-old building.

A report is due in the next few days.

In a statement the BSO says, "In the event repair work might need
to be done, it would be completed in the next few weeks, before the
fall season of performances begin in September."

As a precaution the Pops will practice elsewhere for their upcoming
performances.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Christmas Market Cancelled After Asbestos Found
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITV News reported that Leicester's Christmas Market has been
cancelled after asbestos was discovered during work to revamp an
historic building which overlooks the Market Square.

The City Council insists Christmas itself is most definitely not
cancelled, and say the celebrations will still continue. The
authority also stress the public is not at risk as the asbestos has
been removed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Had $147MM Non-PCC Reserves at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated's reserve for asbestos claims that are
unrelated to Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC") was US$147
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 Company states, "Corning is a defendant in certain cases
alleging injuries from asbestos unrelated to PCC (the "non-PCC
asbestos claims") which had been stayed pending the confirmation of
the Plan.  The stay was lifted on August 25, 2016.  Corning
previously established a US$150 million reserve for these non-PCC
asbestos claims.  The estimated reserve represents the undiscounted
projection of claims and related legal fees over the next 20 years.
The amount may need to be adjusted in future periods as more data
becomes available; however, we cannot estimate any lesser or
greater liability at this time.  At June 30, 2018 and December 31,
2017, the amount of the reserve for these non-PCC asbestos claims
was US$147 million.

"Several of Corning's insurers have commenced litigation in state
courts for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the
parties under insurance policies related to Corning's asbestos
claims.  Corning has resolved these issues with a majority of its
relevant insurers, and is vigorously contesting these cases with
the remaining relevant insurers.  Management is unable to predict
the outcome of the litigation with these remaining insurers."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2PIN5BI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $185MM PCC Liability at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the total amount of payments due in years
2019 through 2022 for asbestos claims under the reorganization plan
of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC) is US$185 million.

The Company states, "Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. each owned
50% of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC").
PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in 2000 and the Modified
Third Amended Plan of Reorganization for PCC (the "Plan") became
effective in April 2016.

"At December 31, 2016, the Company's liability under the Plan was
US$290 million, which is required to be paid through a series of
fixed payments beginning in the second quarter of 2017.  Payments
of US$35 million and US$70 million were made in June 2018 and June
2017, respectively.  At June 30, 2018, the total amount of payments
due in years 2019 through 2022 is US$185 million, of which US$50
million is due in the second quarter of 2019 and is classified as a
current liability.  The remaining US$135 million is classified as a
non-current liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2PIN5BI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Dismissed Imerys Talc From "Stevenson" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Paul G. Byron of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida grants Defendant Imerys Talc America,
Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment insofar as it moved for summary
judgment for want of personal jurisdiction and dismisses the action
as against Imerys Talc America, Inc.

The case is Susan Stevenson, Plaintiff, v. Cyprus Amax Minerals
Co., Imerys Talc America, Inc., Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.,
Publix Supermarkets, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, Defendants. Case
No. 6:17-cv-417-Orl-40DCI, (M.D. Fla.).

This products liability suit arises from the death of Judith
Minneci, who was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in 2012.
She died of that disease on May 24, 2015. In February 2017,
Plaintiff Susan Stevenson, Decedent's daughter and personal
representative of Decedent's estate, initiated this suit, alleging
that Decedent's mesothelioma was caused by her exposure to
"asbestos and asbestiform fibers in . . . asbestos-contaminated
talc and talcum powders."

The Complaint named eleven Defendants, all of whom allegedly
"designed, manufactured, sold and/or distributed
asbestos-containing [talcum powder] products" used by Plaintiff.
The Complaint alleges that, between 1942 and 1985, Decedent was
exposed to asbestos-contaminated talcum powder. In their
depositions, Plaintiff and Plaintiff's brother testified that
Decedent used Johnson & Johnson baby powder as part of her regular
hygiene routine. Plaintiff contends that Decedent's regular
exposure to asbestos-laced powder brought about her death. The
Complaint asserts two claims against Imerys: (1) negligent failure
to warn, and (2) strict liability for the manufacture and
distribution of an unreasonably dangerous product.

Imerys moves for summary judgment on both counts. Imerys maintains
that it is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims
because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction. Imerys is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in California.
Imerys' predecessor-in-interest mined and processed talc, and sold
processed talc to Johnson & Johnson for one month in 1980 outside
Florida.

Plaintiff opposes, pointing to two contacts between Imerys and
Florida that purportedly support the exercise of personal
jurisdiction over Imerys: (1) Cyprus was registered to do business
in Florida from February 1966 until 1978, and (2) Cyprus had a
registered agent in Miami, Florida, during the same time frame.
Plaintiff also maintains that Imerys knew or should have known that
the talc it supplied to Johnson & Johnson would reach consumers in
Florida. Also, Plaintiff contends that personal jurisdiction over
Imerys can be justified by the fact that Imerys sold talc to
Johnson & Johnson knowing that its talc would reach "people
throughout the United States and the world."

Citing Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339,
1350 (11th Cir. 2013), the Court holds that personal jurisdiction
disputes involve a two-step inquiry: "(1) whether personal
jurisdiction exists . . . under Florida's long-arm statute, and (2)
if so, whether that exercise of jurisdiction would violate the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution." The parties' dispute centers on the second part:
whether exercising jurisdiction over Imerys would violate the Due
Process Clause. To decide whether the exercise of specific personal
jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant comports with due
process, the Court applies a three-prong test, examining: (1)
whether the plaintiff's claims arise out of or relate to at least
one of the defendant's contacts with the forum; (2) whether the
nonresident defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege
of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the
benefit of the forum state's laws; and (3) whether the exercise of
personal jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair
play and substantial justice. The plaintiff bears the initial
burden of demonstrating the first two prongs.

Plaintiff relies on two contacts between Imerys' and Florida to
satisfy the first prong: (1) Cyprus (Imerys'
predecessor-in-interest) was registered to do business in Florida
between 1966 and 1978, and (2) Cyprus had a registered agent in
Florida during those years. However, the Court points out that
Plaintiff's claims against Imerys do not "arise out of or relate
to" Imerys' contacts with the forum. It is undisputed that Imerys
did not supply Johnson & Johnson with talc during the years that
Imerys was registered to do business in (and had a registered agent
in) Florida, and Plaintiff does not assert that these contacts have
anything to do with the claims at issue. The Court finds
Plaintiff's foreseeableness argument is equally unavailing, both as
it relates to the relatedness prong and the minimum contacts
inquiry more broadly.

The Court finds that Imerys' contacts with Florida do not suggest
it purposefully availed itself to -- or otherwise targeted -- the
state of Florida. First, Imerys' scant contacts with Florida are
unrelated to Plaintiff's claims. Second, Plaintiff has made no
showing that Imerys took affirmative steps to avail itself of the
privileges of doing business in Florida. Finally, in the Court's
view, Imerys' minimal contacts with Florida are not such that it
would "reasonably anticipate being haled into court" in Florida.
The Court is therefore satisfied that exercising specific personal
jurisdiction over Imerys would violate the Due Process Clause.

A copy of the Order dated July 10, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y89tamhc from Leagle.com.

Susan Stevenson, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Judith
I. Minneci, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Jagolinzer , The
Ferraro Law Firm, Gabriel S. Saade , The Ferraro Law Firm & Juan P.
Bauta, II , Ferraro Law Firm.

Cyprus Amax Minerals Co., individually and as successor in interest
to Charles Mathieu, Defendant, represented by Aliyya Haque --
aliyya.haque@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, LLP, pro hac vice, Cathy
R. Gordon -- GordonC@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo, LLP,
pro hac vice, Eric K. Falk -- efalk@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson,
Geralyn M. Passaro -- Passaro@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Litchfield
Cavo, LLP, Morgan Fairthorne Spector -- Spector@LitchfieldCavo.com
-- Litchfield Cavo, LLP, Angela Marie Swenka --
Swenka@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo, LLP & Karleen Murphy
-- karleen.murphy@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP.

Imerys Talc America, Inc., individually and as successor in
interest to and/or F/K/A Luzenac America Inc., Defendant,
represented by Aaron Karl Block , Alston & Bird, LLP, pro hac vice,
Aliyya Haque -- aliyya.haque@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, LLP, pro
hac vice, Anna Sumner Pieschel -- anna.sumner.pieschel@alston.com
-- Alston & Bird, LLP, Cathy R. Gordon --
GordonC@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo, LLP, pro hac vice,
Eric K. Falk -- efalk@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson, Geralyn M.
Passaro -- Passaro@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo, LLP,
Morgan Fairthorne Spector -- Spector@LitchfieldCavo.com --
Litchfield Cavo, LLP, Angela Marie Swenka --
Swenka@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo, LLP & Karleen Murphy
-- karleen.murphy@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. & Johnson & Johnson, Defendants,
represented by Cori Steinmann -- csteinmann@bcklaw.com -- Bailey
Crowe Arnold and Majors, pro hac vice, Eric D. Cook --
ecook@wilsav.com -- Willcox & Savage, PC, pro hac vice, John Ewald
-- jewald@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro
hac vice, Kevin M. Hynes -- khynes@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington
& Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Conigliaro , Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, PA, Melvin David Bailey -- mbailey@bcklaw.com --
Bailey Crowe Arnold and Majors, pro hac vice, Michael David Sloan ,
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Nina Trovato --
Entrovato@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro
hac vice, Ryan S. Cobbs , Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA & Stephen
J. Krigbaum , Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA.

Publix Supermarkets, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric D. Cook
-- ecook@wilsav.com -- Willcox & Savage, PC, pro hac vice, James
Murdica , Barnes & Thornburg LLP, pro hac vice, John Ewald --
jewald@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac
vice, Kevin M. Hynes -- khynes@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Conigliaro , Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, PA, Meredith Thornburgh White --
meredith.white@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael David Sloan , Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Nina Trovato
-- Entrovato@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro
hac vice, Ryan S. Cobbs , Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Sandra Ko
-- Sko@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E.
Johnston -- sjohnston@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP, pro hac
vice & Stephen J. Krigbaum , Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crayons Test Positive of Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------
Jill Sheridan of WBAA reported that a new report tested common
school supplies like crayons and binders and finds a few products
have toxins that are known to cause health problems.

The independent group, U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Education Fund has been testing school products for 30 years.
Their latest assessment found one brand of crayons, Playskool, had
a green crayon that tested positive for asbestos.

Dr. Blake Froberg, Riley Children’s Health pediatrician and
toxicologist, says asbestos is a known carcinogen but most of the
research has focused on long-term, inhalation exposure.

"Within crayons it's going to be encapsulated within the wax of the
crayon and so there is probably less risk that the child is going
to get inhalation exposure," says Froberg.

The tests also identified benzene in The Board Dudes dry erase
markers. Froberg says it's inevitable that some chemicals are
present in our products.

"At the same time, I think that companies can continue to try and
do their part to limit any exposure to known toxins," says Froberg.


The companies involved responded to the report and say they do test
and meet federal standards.

The study looked at a variety of products including water bottles,
lunch boxes and rulers which all tested negative.

Authors of the report called on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission to conduct more testing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deshler Parents Upset Over Possible Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
WAFF reported that a group of Deshler High School parents are still
waiting to find out whether their kids have been exposed to
asbestos. This after some students pulled up old carpeting in a
classroom that may have exposed them to toxins.

Katie Herron's kids are in the Deshler High School marching band.
She said an emergency meeting was held after her kids were possibly
exposed to asbestos in a classroom.

WAFF 48 News was in the emergency meeting when Superintendent
Darryl Aikerson assured parents would get the results of the air
quality as soon as they are available.

"I was told the results cannot be released to parents and that Mr.
Aikerson did inform school that it can only be released through
him," said Herron.

Herron said Aikerson is out of the office, leaving parents to spend
two more days worrying about those results.

Herron said parents feel if students were exposed to asbestos the
school system is responsible. They are outraged band director Craig
Weeks is on administrative leave. She said school administrators
are looking for someone to blame but the band director is not
responsible.

Now kids are rallying together to save their band director. Keegaen
Herron said some of his bandmates say they plan to protest until
Weeks returns.

Parents and students plan to attend a school board meeting to help
get Weeks back at school.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Claim vs. Lawes Affirmed on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case Michelle Lomet, Petitioner-Appellant, and
Dennis Lomet, Sr., Petitioner, v. Lawes Coal Company,
Respondent-Respondent, No. A-1169-16T1, Superior Court of New
Jersey, Appellate Division, Appellant Michelle Lomet, the widow of
Dennis Lomet, Sr., appeals from a Division of Worker's Compensation
order dismissing a petition Dennis filed after he was diagnosed
with lung cancer, in which he sought worker's compensation benefits
from respondent Lawes Coal Company (Lawes).

The order also dismissed a dependency claim petition Michelle
filed. The two petitions were consolidated for the hearing, in
which the sole issue was whether the lung cancer from which Dennis
died was caused by exposure to asbestos and other chemicals during
his employment with Lawes.

Dennis was employed by Lawes from 1987 to 2012, when he died of
lung cancer at the age of forty-seven. His job duties at Lawes were
to install, remove, or repair heating and air conditioning
equipment. He had never been a smoker. Before his death, he
informed one of his treating physicians that he had been exposed to
chemicals, soot, and asbestos in the workplace.

One of Dennis' friends who worked for Lawes from 1987 through 1992
testified he believed he and Dennis were exposed to asbestos during
that five year period. Michelle testified that when Dennis came
home from work, she often observed him blowing his nose, and saw
black material come out of his nose when he did so. In addition, he
often had to shower twice in order to get clean. There was no other
evidence about Dennis's alleged exposure to asbestos or other
chemicals while he worked for Lawes.

Michelle called William A. Lerner, M.D., as her expert oncologist.
On the question of what caused the lung cancer in Dennis to
develop, the substance of Dr. Lerner's testimony was: "There are a
lot of things out there that are. . . known carcinogens that are
contributing to developing lung cancer. In somebody who is exposed
to chemicals like that and asbestos with no other smoking history
and no other known cause for his lung cancer, a reasonable
probability of these carcinogens causing [Dennis'] lung cancer. . .
is not unreasonable as a conclusion." He subsequently testified:
"There are lots of things that we don't know why people get certain
cancers. . . . There are things that we don't know that he may or
may not have been exposed to that could have led to his increased
risk of lung cancer.

Lawes' expert oncologist, Jack Goldberg, M.D., testified that if
asbestos fibers enter the lung and cause cancer, neural plaques and
"B readers" are visualized on radiographical films. He noted none
of these was found on Dennis' radiographical studies. Further, none
of the pathological studies indicated Dennis had been exposed to
asbestos. In addition, Dr. Goldberg testified the radiographical
studies failed to show evidence Dennis's cancer was caused by
chemical exposure.

The judge found Dr. Goldberg more credible than Dr. Lerner, and
concluded that even if Dennis had been exposed to asbestos or
carcinogenic chemicals when he worked for Lawes, there was no
objective medical evidence such exposure caused or contributed to
the onset of Dennis's lung cancer. As the judge stated, this is "a
case where there [is] zero medical evidence and 100% medical
speculation."

On appeal, Michelle argues there was sufficient evidence Dennis was
exposed to asbestos or other chemicals while he worked for Lawes
that led to his developing lung cancer.

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey has
examined the evidence, and concurs with the judge of compensation's
October 6, 2016 oral decision finding that there was no evidence of
substance that causally links Dennis' lung cancer to asbestos or
other chemicals to which he may have been exposed while working for
Lawes. Even if Dennis had come into contact with such agents, there
was no evidence of the extent to which he was exposed. Further, the
judge credited Dr. Goldberg's testimony, who testified that if
Dennis's cancer were caused by asbestos or chemical exposure,
evidence of such exposure would have but did not appear on his
radiographical and pathological studies. Because the judge's
findings were reached on sufficient credible evidence present in
the record, the Court affirms the judge of compensation's
decision.

A copy of the Per Curiam dated July 11, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yclxgmv5 from Leagle.com.

Michelle Lomet, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

David P. Kendall argued the cause for respondent ( Ann DeBellis ,
of counsel and on the brief).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Engel Couple Sues 5 Cos. for Husband's Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Couples Marlin and Joann Engel allege in a lawsuit filed in the
Superior Court of the State of Delaware that Marlin Engel was
exposed to, inhaled, ingested, and otherwise absorbed asbestos
fibers emanating from various sources which were mixed, mined,
manufactured, distributed, sold, removed, installed, and/or used by
the Defendants including, but not limited to: steam driven turbines
and motors, generators, breakers, relays, panels arc chutes,
electrical components, and exposure to asbestos when servicing
televisions.

Marlin Engel's former employers include, but are not limited to:

   * Public Service Co. of Colorado - Colorado, as an Apprentice
Electrician and Helper, from approximately 1961 to 1963;

   * Jorgensen Construction - Winner, SD, performing cement work,
from approximately 1963 to 1963;

   * U.S. Army - Ft. Leonard Wood, MO, from approximately 1963 to
1965;

   * Northwestern Bell - Winner, SD, as a Lineman's Helper, from
approximately 1966 to 1966;

   * Public Service of Colorado - Colorado, as an Apprentice
Electrician, from approximately 1966 to 1967;

   * TV/Radio Electronics store - Winner, SD, as a Radio
Electronics Technician, from approximately 1968 to 1971;

   * Casper Electronics - Casper, WY, as an Electronics Technician,
from approximately 1971 to 1978; and,

   * Electric Service Co./Communication Systems Inc. "CSI" -
Casper, WY, as an Electronics Technician, from approximately the
late 1970s to 2014.

The case is, IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION, MARLIN E. ENGEL and JOANN
ENGEL, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, f/k/a VIACOM, INC., successor by merger to CBS
CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE
ELECTRIC CORPORATION, as successor in interest to THE BRYANT
ELECTRIC COMPANY; EATON CORPORATION, individually as successor in
interest to CUTLER-HAMMER, INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY;
OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., individually
and as successor in interest to SQUARE D COMPANY, Defendants, Case
No. N18C-08-115 ASB (Del. Super.).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bartholomew J. Dalton, Esq.
     Ipek K. Medford, Esq.
     Andrew C. Dalton, Esq.
     Michael C. Dalton, Esq.
     DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     Cool Spring Meeting House
     1106 West Tenth Street
     Wilmington, DE 19806
     Tel: (302) 652-2050
     Email: IMedford@BDaltonlaw.com

        -- and --

     Adam Balick, Esq.
     Michael Collins Smith, Esq.
     Patrick J. Smith, Esq.
     BALICK & BALICK, LLC
     711 North King Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 658-4265
     Email: abalick@balick.com

OF COUNSEL:

     WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
     700 Broadway
     New York, NY 10003
     Tel: (212) 558-5500


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Pushes Back Asbestos Proposal Criticism
------------------------------------------------------------
New York Times reported that asbestos was used in many products up
through the 1970s but after being linked to health concerns and
liability, many manufacturers in the U.S. dropped it out of their
products. It's banned in dozens of countries, but the U.S. never
banned it outright.

Now the substance is one of 10 being reviewed by the EPA that could
be allowed in more products. Groups such as the Environmental
Working Group (EWG) are concerned that the EPA is actually moving
to weaken protections and possibly make consumers less safe.

"It's really cooking the books on the level of risk that EPA is
able to identify," said EWG attorney Melanie Benesh. She says the
EPA won't be taking a comprehensive review and evaluating the risks
of asbestos in some places like home, work and school
environments.

"If you are ignoring major ways that people are exposed to a toxic
substance, you may dramatically underestimate the risks," Benesh
said.

In other words, Benesh is saying the EPA's evaluation may make
asbestos seem less dangerous than it actually is.

EPA officials told CBS News that's not true. In a phone interview,
Nancy Beck, the Trump administration appointee who oversees the
agency's toxic chemical unit, told us, "The criticism just makes me
sad." She added the agency is "working hard to put in place a
program grounded in science" and that current EPA proposals would
amount to new regulations.

"We're putting in place a hammer, a prohibition that doesn't exist
today," she said.

The EPA says some manufacturers who want to apply for some new uses
of asbestos under the proposed rule would need EPA approval.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Starts Asbestos Cleanup After Arson Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Welch of Twin Falls Times-News reported that the
Environmental Protection Agency rolled into downtown Burley to
begin asbestos cleanup at the site of a Jan. 29 arson fire.

The fire destroyed a building at 1222 Overland Ave. The adjacent
building was damaged by water and both buildings were demolished
because they were deemed unstable.

"EPA has determined that immediate action is necessary to minimize
any potential health risks from debris-related asbestos fibers
leaving the site," the agency said in a statement.

The EPA will remove the asbestos contaminated debris, transport and
disposes of it at an authorized landfill. The work will take about
four weeks.

According to EPA documents, owner Brian Tibbets will be billed for
the cleanup.

The EPA gave him until the end of July to start the clean-up
himself, but it remained untouched.

Tibbets said in July he intended to start the cleanup but was still
working on getting pricing from two companies.

"I won't start the work until I find out how much it costs and I
know I can afford it," he said in previous interview.

Tibbets could not be reached for comment.

"It's been a long wait and I know there have been a lot of
concerns," Stephen Ball, on-scene coordinator for the Environmental
Protection Agency's Idaho operations office, said. "Believe me, we
are as happy to be here getting this done as anyone."

About a dozen crew members will be at the scene cleaning up the
debris.

Although the cleanup will be addressed under superfund authority,
the site does not carry that designation.

"It falls under short term emergency cleanup," Ball said.

The EPA will use a team of contractors, including a certified
abatement crew, an industrial hygienist to take care of workers and
a technical contractor that will monitor air quality and the
workers during the removal.

"One of the best ways to protect workers and the community is to
keep the site wet," Ball said. That will be accomplished by
spraying water along with a substance that resembles Elmer’s
Glue, to bind up the debris.

"That way no emissions will blow around," he said.

The cleanup will pose no danger to passing traffic or for nearby
businesses, but people should be wary of the large equipment that
is working at the site. The sidewalk and parking spaces near the
site will be blocked during the work so equipment can get in and
out.

"All necessary measures will be taken to ensure public safety,"
Ball said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Equity LifeStyle, DAs Still in Talks at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc., continues to assess the
allegations and the facts related to the alleged asbestos-related
violation on its properties in California, 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, "In November 2014, we received a civil
investigative subpoena from the office of the District Attorney for
Monterey County, California ("MCDA"), seeking information relating
to, among other items, statewide compliance with asbestos and
hazardous waste regulations dating back to 2005 primarily in
connection with demolition and renovation projects performed by
third-party contractors at our California Properties.  We responded
by providing the information required by the subpoena.

"On October 20, 2015, we attended a meeting with representatives of
the MCDA and certain other District Attorneys' offices at which the
MCDA reviewed the preliminary results of their investigation
including, among other things, (i) alleged violations of asbestos
and related regulations associated with approximately 200
historical demolition and renovation projects in California; (ii)
potential exposure to civil penalties and unpaid fees; and (iii)
next steps with respect to a negotiated resolution of the alleged
violations.

"No legal proceedings have been instituted to date and we are
involved in settlement discussions with the District Attorneys'
offices.  We continue to assess the allegations and the underlying
facts, and at this time we are unable to predict the outcome of the
investigation or reasonably estimate any possible loss."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2wrR5Oc


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Dist. Fined $31K for Asbestos Release
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Loew, Salem Statesman Journal reported that Polk County Fire
District No. 1 and a Salem-based contractor have been fined a total
of $31,235 for releasing asbestos during a “burn-to-learn”
demolition on a Monmouth home.

In imposing the fines, the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality called both parties' behavior "reckless."

The home, at 351 Broad St. N, was in a residential neighborhood
near Western Oregon University. The district burned it on Jan. 27,
2018, as a training exercise for firefighters at the request of 3
G’s Construction.

On March 23, DEQ received a complaint from neighbors concerned the
house may have contained asbestos.

A DEQ lab analysis of debris an inspector collected at the site
found that vinyl flooring and flooring mastic from the house had
contained asbestos.

"We came to find through this there were holes in our process,"
fire district Chief Ben Stange said. "We suspended further
burn-to-learns until we could re-examine our procedures."

That review has been completed and changes made, Stange said.

3G's Construction President Roger Griswold could be reached for
comment.

The city of Monmouth had told the contractor it must have an
asbestos survey done on the home, which was built in 1895, but the
contractor failed to do so, DEQ wrote in its penalty order.

Despite that fact, the company assured the fire district there was
no asbestos present.

The fire district, meanwhile, was aware the structure it planned to
burn was built well before 1980 and therefore was likely to contain
asbestos, but did not require any documentation beyond the
contractor's statement, DEQ said.

Burning the materials could have released asbestos fibers and
exposed workers and the public to asbestos, DEQ officials said.

DEQ fined the company $16,835 and the fire district $14,400.
Asbestos is a hazardous air contaminant for which there is no known
safe level of exposure. Asbestos fibers are a respiratory hazard
proven to cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis.

"It's frustrating. It's disheartening," Stange said. "But it's
something we're trying to learn as much as we can about to make
sure it never happens again."

The fire district and company each have until Aug. 27 to appeal the
penalty.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Government May Allow New Asbestos Uses
-------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Herald Dispatch reported that though asbestos has over
recent decades become nearly synonymous with the lung diseases its
particulate causes when inhaled, the long-restricted building
material might return to broader use under new measures outlined by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this year.

Experts warn the EPA's new regulations potentially leave the door
open for the infamous material to be used in new applications and
could overlook the "downstream" environmental aspects of indirect
contact with asbestos.

Asbestos is a natural mineral fiber and a documented carcinogen
known to cause lung cancer; mesothelioma, which is cancer in the
inner lining of the chest; and asbestosis, which is scarring in the
lungs from inhaling airborne particulates. Between 1999 and 2013,
530 West Virginians died from mesothelioma and asbestosis,
according to The Mesothelioma Center.

Asbestos was commonly used in many types of building materials and
insulation until the 1970s for its heat resistance and durability.

In question are two particular new pieces of EPA policy that have
stirred controversy since their introduction earlier this year.

First, EPA guidelines were restructured in April so that the agency
will no longer consider the effect of substances in the environment
when assessing the risks of its most high-priority substances like
asbestos, instead focusing solely on a substance's effects in
direct human contact. This new framework was released in April
after the EPA completed its first study on 10 chemicals, including
asbestos, under a 2016 amendment to the Toxic Substances Control
Act of 1976 (TSCA).

Not accounting for the effects of asbestos entering public air,
water and soil turns a willful blind eye to consumer protection,
argues James Van Nostrand, director for the Center for Energy and
Sustainable Development at West Virginia University's College of
Law.

"It's disregarding everything we know about these chemicals when
they're disposed of," he said.

In June, the EPA released a second proposal stating the agency
would consider possible new uses of asbestos on a case-by-case
basis to determine which uses would be deemed hazardous enough to
review.

However, the new "significant new-use rule" is limited to only 15
specific uses that would automatically trigger federal oversight,
leaving experts -- including many within the EPA itself, The New
York Times reported -- speculating the new language would limit
oversight to any new asbestos uses outside those 15 uses.

Those uses include well-established existing uses for asbestos,
such as in batteries, floor tile and electrical paper.

The TSCA requires the EPA to screen potentially toxic substances
instead of levying bans or restrictions against them. Asbestos has
been banned in 60 countries worldwide, though the U.S. attempted to
ban it as well in the 1970s; its partial use was restored by a
federal court ruling in 1991.

Even though it remains legal to use, the material has fallen out of
use for most of its former applications with the years of
litigation -- and the millions paid to those exposed to it --
already precedent in the court of law. Van Nostrand said he does
not foresee these new deregulations sparking a return to form for
asbestos with the chance for a lawsuit so prevalent.

"Just because the EPA said it's OK doesn't mean it stands up in the
court of law, because the science is just so founded on it," Van
Nostrand said. "We don't need to connect the dots (between asbestos
and lung disease) anymore. It's already been done.

"Who's going to use this stuff with a precedent like that?"

While loosening asbestos restrictions will likely have no real
economic or environmental impact as its use remains status quo, Van
Nostrand called it a "poster child win for the chemical industry"
in a push toward broader deregulation goals touted by the Trump
administration and the EPA under former director Scott Pruitt.

It's a symbolic gesture by the ruling powers, he added, and will
likely become a political football to be run back by any future
administration looking to tout tighter regulation on asbestos.

"Who would use this stuff anyway? Because they're going to get
sued," Van Nostrand said. "It's just going to get kicked back and
forth so much whether or not it makes economic sense or not."

Still, Van Nostrand said it was troubling, even as a matter of
symbolism, that the EPA would take an action that would knowingly
risk public exposure to more scientifically founded risk.

"It's a win for the chemical industry, but what does that say about
the EPA and this administration?" he added.

The EPA told The Washington Post it will conduct further studies on
the first 10 chemicals under the amended TSCA and final risk
evaluations will be published in December 2019.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Had $1.1BB Reserve at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. had net asbestos
reserves of US$1,125 million as of 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, "Reserves for asbestos and environmental
("A&E") are primarily within P&C Other Operations with less
significant amounts of A&E reserves included within Commercial
Lines and Personal Lines."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2PFuwy4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Dept. Reacts to Loosened Asbestos Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jakob Lazzaro of 90.5 WESA reported that the Environmental
Protection Agency has announced rule changes allowing the
manufacture of new products containing asbestos after they undergo
EPA review.

Once common in construction materials, the use of asbestos has
dwindled due to its negative health effects and ensuing regulations
and lawsuits. The material was favored due to its excellent
insulating properties and strong resistance to fire, heat and
electricity, and is commonly found in the tiles, insulation,
adhesives and vinyl siding of older buildings.

Shannon Sandberg, who manages asbestos control for the Allegheny
County Health Department, said the county does not have the
authority to block the use of asbestos materials in new
construction.

"We only regulate if it's disturbed when there's a future
demolition or renovation project," Sandberg said. "Even if it was
built yesterday and going to be disturbed today, our regulations
require the content to be tested for whether or not it contains
asbestos."

Enacted on June 1, the EPA's Significant New Use Rule allows
asbestos products to be approved by the government on a
case-by-case basis. The change comes after a May 2018 revision of
the way the agency will evaluate new uses -- specifically, they
will not include information on the risks from existing, or
"legacy," uses of asbestos.

In other words, as the New York Times reported in June, the agency
no longer considers the dangers posed by the use and disposal of
asbestos products already installed in millions of buildings when
approving new uses.

A naturally occurring mineral mostly composed of silicon and
oxygen, asbestos is made up of bundles of fibers. It's a hazard to
human health, because the dust can penetrate deep into the lungs
when inhaled. The small fibers become stuck and can eventually lead
to scarring in the form of asbestosis, which can cause lung cancer
and mesothelioma.

Sixty countries have banned the use of asbestos, but the United
States has never completely blocked its use. Instead, it’s been
heavily regulated under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.

Allegheny County already ranks high for asbestos deaths, according
to a 2015 study by the Environmental Welfare Group Action Fund.
Between 1999 and 2015, more than 1,600 people died of
asbestos-related illnesses. With a rate of 8.6 deaths per 100,000
people, the county's mean rate was nearly than double the national
average of 4.9.

Jim Kelly, the health department's deputy director of environmental
health, said that's why the department has revitalized its asbestos
program to focus on outreach.

"Pennsylvania's one of the worst states in the country for asbestos
mortality," Kelly said. "Allegheny County is one of the worst in
the state. So, it's a real problem here because of the age of our
building stock."

Sandberg said the county's regulations put the burden of testing
for asbestos on property owners, who generally do home improvement
projects that could potentially cause a health hazard to occupants,
but it's only a problem when renovations or demolitions release
dust.

"Asbestos that is in good condition poses no health risk at all,"
Sandberg said. "It's only when you start disturbing it that you
create a situation where the fibers become airborne."

Because of the large liability issues surrounding the dangers of
asbestos, no companies in the United States mine or manufacture
products containing the material. Most of the world's supply
currently comes from Russia.

In June 2018, Uralasbest -- a Russian asbestos mining company that
operates a massive mine in eastern Russia near the Ural Mountains
-- posted pictures on Facebook of asbestos pallets stamped with a
seal featuring Trump's face.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hundreds of Kids Exposed to Footyfield Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Faa of Courier Mail reported that positive traces of
asbestos have been detected at the Collegians football field in
Warwick where hundreds of young children from across the district
have played and trained this year.

Asbestos Removal Queensland yesterday confirmed the presence of
asbestos in soil at the football field on Jackie Howe Dr, the
Warwick Daily News reports.

Children and families from all around the Darling Downs have run,
pushed, played and tackled on the field that has been contaminated
for the past eight months.

Collegians Junior Rugby League Club was notified of possible
contamination resulting from topsoil that was put on the field in
December 2017, and undertook soil testing.

"On August 16, we received advice that the soil testing showed
positive traces of asbestos," a Collegians spokesman said.

"We made immediate arrangements to have the field secured with
temporary fencing and the appropriate signage displayed," the
spokesman said.

Asbestos is a mineral fibre that, when inhaled, can result in
serious diseases including asbestosis, lung cancer and
mesothelioma.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland asbestos removal team are
currently in the process of surveying the field for traces of
asbestos.

As one of the top clubs in the Warwick and district junior rugby
league competition, Collegians has hosted numerous games on the
contaminated fields since the start of the year.

The Warwick Touch Association, which has 500 players, also used the
field for fixtures.

Queensland Rugby League has notified Southern Downs Regional
Council, which owns and leases the field to Collegians JRL Club.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: In-House Lawyers Object to EPA New Asbestos Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Friedman of New York Times reported that top officials at the
Environmental Protection Agency pushed through a measure to review
applications for using asbestos in consumer products, and did so
over the objections of E.P.A.'s in-house scientists and lawyers,
internal agency emails show.

The clash over the proposal exposes the tensions within the E.P.A.
over the Trump administration's efforts to roll back environmental
rules and rewrite other regulations that industries have long
fought.

Asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral and known carcinogen, was
once common in insulation and fireproofing materials, but today
most developed countries ban it. The United States still allows
limited use in products including gaskets, roofing materials and
sealants.

The proposed new rule would create a new process for regulating
uses of asbestos, something the E.P.A. is obliged to do under a
2016 amendment to a toxic substances law.

The E.P.A. says it is toughening oversight. However, the way its
new rule is written has spawned a spirited debate over whether it
will actually make it easier for asbestos to come back into more
widespread use. Consumer groups say the agency should be looking
for ways to prohibit asbestos entirely.

"The new approach raises significant concerns about the potential
health impacts," wrote Sharon Cooperstein, an E.P.A. policy
analyst, in one of the emails. She, along with a veteran E.P.A.
scientist and a longtime agency attorney, said the proposal as
designed left open the possibility that businesses could start
using asbestos in some cases without getting the government’s
assessment, putting the public at risk.

The asbestos plan, which was introduced with little fanfare in
June, stems from the E.P.A.'s responsibility to regulate chemicals
under the Toxic Substances Control Act and fulfill an Obama-era
amendment that requires the agency to regularly re-evaluate the
harmfulness of toxic materials. Asbestos is the most prominent of
the current batch of substances the E.P.A. is deciding how best to
regulate in the future.

Andrew R. Wheeler, E.P.A.’s acting administrator, said the
E.P.A.'s plan would make it more difficult to use asbestos in
products. The E.P.A., he wrote on Twitter, "is proposing a new rule
that would allow for the restriction of asbestos manufacturing and
processing of new uses of asbestos."

The Trump administration has made government deregulation -- of
environmental rules, banking guidelines and myriad other regulatory
areas -- a centerpiece of its policy agenda, and the E.P.A. has
been at the forefront of the effort. In recent weeks the agency
detailed one of its most significant efforts, a major weakening of
federal auto-emissions regulations.

The United States tried to ban asbestos use in the 1970s, but that
effort was overturned by the federal courts in 1991. However the
ruling did retain a ban on new uses of asbestos. Because of that
(and the potential legal liability), use of asbestos declined in
the United States.

Attorney General Maura Healey of Massachusetts is leading an effort
among Democratic state attorneys to fight the asbestos plan,
calling it a threat to human health. Exposure to asbestos has been
linked to lung cancer, mesothelioma and other ailments.

"In recent years, tens of thousands have died from mesothelioma and
other diseases caused by exposure to asbestos and other dangerous
chemicals," she said. "If the Trump administration's erosion of
federal chemical safety rules continues, it will endanger our
communities and the health of all Americans."

The United States no longer mines or manufactures asbestos. Until
recently, Brazil had been the source of about 95 percent of all
asbestos used in America, according to the E.P.A., but last year
that country banned its manufacture and sale. Since then, Russia
has stepped in as a supplier.

One Russian producer recently signaled enthusiasm for the American
market. Last month, the Russian firm Uralasbest posted on Facebook
an image of its asbestos packaging that featured President Trump's
face along with the words: "Approved by Donald Trump, 45th
president of the United States." The company is one of the world's
largest producers and sellers of asbestos.

Uralasbest did not respond to a request for comment.

The new E.P.A. proposal is called a "significant new-use rule" that
sets out the guidelines for what types of asbestos uses the federal
government considers risky enough to evaluate and perhaps restrict
or ban.

The internal E.P.A. emails indicate that, this year, top E.P.A.
officials sought a last-minute change in the language of the rule.

"Upper management asked us to take a different approach," wrote
Robert T. Courtnage, an associate chief in E.P.A.'s Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, in an April 25 email sent to 13
members of an agency group working on the then-forthcoming
proposal. Specifically: Rather than call for all new uses of
asbestos to come before the E.P.A. for a risk review, the rule
would include just 15 specific uses that would trigger a federal
assessment.

The list of 15 included a number of specific and relatively common
uses for asbestos, including as separators in fuel cells and
batteries and as a component in vinyl-asbestos floor tile and
high-grade electrical paper.

Mr. Courtnage in his email did not identify who had sought the
change. He and other E.P.A. officials who wrote the emails did not
respond to requests for comment.

Critics of the rule argue that limiting the review to 15 uses means
other potential uses would avoid examination.

"This is presuming there's nothing under the sun you could ever do
with asbestos other than these 15 things," said Betsy Southerland,
former director of the E.P.A.'s office of science and technology,
in an interview. Ms. Southerland resigned from E.P.A. last year
over the Trump administration's leadership of the agency and is
working on opposing the asbestos rule and others for the
Environmental Protection Network, a group of agency alumni.

Narrowing the list to 15 potential uses took E.P.A. scientists and
lawyers by surprise, the emails indicate. Three staff members
argued in the emails that the agency could not anticipate all
future uses of asbestos, and therefore risked letting some uses
take place without being weighed for safety risks.

Under the E.P.A.'s approach, if the agency "failed to correctly
anticipate some other new use, then it seems to me that the
manufacture of such a product would not be subject to" the new-use
rule, wrote Susan Fairchild, an environmental scientist who has
worked at the agency since 1991.

"Asbestos is an extremely dangerous substance with no safe exposure
amount," Mark Seltzer, an attorney who has been with E.P.A. more
than a decade, noted in another email

A spokesman for the E.P.A., James Hewitt, said the emails indicated
staff and other members of the working group on asbestos "did not
fully understand the proposal being developed."

In a telephone interview, Nancy B. Beck, the E.P.A.'s deputy
assistant administrator in the agency's chemical safety office,
said the rules would to restrict and perhaps even ban some uses of
asbestos where no means of doing so currently exist. "Obviously
someone out there thinks we are increasing exposure to asbestos
when we are doing the opposite," she said.

The E.P.A. has set a deadline for the public to comment on the
asbestos rule, which it intends to finalize this year.

Before joining the E.P.A. Ms. Beck served as an executive at the
American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry's main trade
association. (An E.P.A. spokeswoman also noted that Ms. Beck also
previously worked for the Washington State Department of Health and
served in the Office of Management and Budget under two former
presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.)

The American Chemistry Council has not weighed in directly on the
proposed asbestos rule.

Ms. Beck said that, since there is no ban on asbestos, no
regulatory process currently exists to stop a company that chooses
to put it in something like flooring or roofing materials. But
under the rule, some of those ways of employing asbestos -- which
had over the decades become less common -- would now be considered
a significant new use. That will force companies to notify the
E.P.A. and face an evaluate the risks.

"If you want to put asbestos in flooring materials you have to come
to us first and we have to do a thorough risk evaluation and
approve it," she said. "Or we simply prohibit it."

Asked why the rule specified 15 uses instead of applying to all
prospective uses, Ms. Beck said the agency was confident it had
included all foreseeable uses of asbestos. "We think we have
identified all of the potential possible uses that are out there
and could come back into manufacturing," Ms. Beck said. "The
universe is covered."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Irish Surgeon Dies of Asbestos-Related Cancer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Roseingrave of Irish Times reported that it is unknown how a
pioneering surgeon who carried out the first hip replacement in
Ireland was exposed to asbestos during his lifetime, an inquest
into his death has heard.

Joseph Gallagher, originally from Westport in Co Mayo, was the
orthopaedic surgeon who started the A&E department at St Vincent's
Hospital in Dublin. He died at St Vincent's on March 19th aged 93.

An inquest into his death at Dublin Coroner's Court heard the cause
of death was peritoneal mesothelioma, a cancer of the stomach
related to asbestos exposure.

However, family members said Mr Gallagher had no idea where he may
have been exposed to the substance.

An avid golfer and rugby fan, the much-respected surgeon had
undergone hip replacement surgery shortly before his death in order
to return to his beloved golf, the inquest heard.

Mr Gallagher, a father of four, began to feel unwell towards the
end of 2017 and was diagnosed with inoperable mesothelioma in
January 2018. There was widespread evidence of a tumour within the
abdominal cavity and a biopsy revealed it was a form of cancer
linked to asbestos known as mesothelioma.

He later suffered a fall due to problems with his new hip and was
re-admitted to hospital on March 13th.

Deteriorated

Despite antibiotics and morphine his condition deteriorated and he
died peacefully on March 19th.

Coroner Dr Myra Cullinane asked the surgeon's son, who was present
for the inquest, how he might have been exposed to asbestos during
his lifetime.

"Mesothelioma is almost exclusively related to previous asbestos
exposure," Dr Cullinane said.

Family members told the coroner Mr Gallagher had spoken about this
but had no idea where he might have been exposed to it. He worked
in the UK, in Coventry, Leicester and London during the 1950s when
he was aged in his 30s. The bulk of his work throughout his lengthy
career was hospital based.

Most mesothelioma cases involve breathing asbestos fibres into the
lung but in Mr Gallagher's case the fibres had entered the stomach.
Only 20 per cent of mesothelioma cases occur in the abdominal
cavity, the inquest heard.

"The interval between exposure and the development of cancer is
anything between 20 and 50 years," Dr Cullinane said.

The cause of death was aspiration pneumonia as a consequence of
advanced peritoneal mesothelioma.

The coroner said it was not known if Mr Gallagher was exposed to
the substance through his work and, as such, a verdict of death due
to an occupationally acquired disease was not suitable.

She returned a narrative verdict setting out the circumstances of
the surgeon's death and extended her condolences to the Gallagher
family.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Laborer Alleges Lung Cancer From Asbestos Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison County Record reported that a former
welder claims several manufacturers hid the dangers of asbestos
exposure.

Benson Leamon Saucier filed a complaint on July 27 in St. Clair
County Circuit Court against the companies, including 3M Company,
Honeywell International and John Crane Inc.

According to the complaint, Saucier worked as a welder for Irby's
Steel in Gulfport, Mississippi from 1965 to 2005. During this time,
Saucier claims he came into contact with asbestos fibers from
products made by a host of companies at the time. In July 2016,
Saucier learned he had a type of lung cancer consistent with
asbestos exposure.

He claims the companies failed to provide adequate warnings and
instructions concerning the dangers of working with or around
products containing asbestos fibers.

Saucier seeks a jury trial and more than $50,000. He is represented
by Ethan A. Flint and Laci M. Whitley of Flint Law Firm in
Edwardsville, IL.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-510


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Secures $40.1MM Asbestos Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------
RiverBender.com reported that NSimmons Hanly Conroy, one of the
nation's leading mesothelioma law firms, has secured a $40.1
Million verdict on behalf of J. Walter Twidwell, who was diagnosed
with mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos while serving in
the U.S. Navy. The jury awarded $40.1 Million in compensatory
damages against the defendant, Goodyear.

Firm shareholders Daniel P. Blouin, James Kramer, Laurence Nassif,
Timothy Thompson and associate Robert Woodward represented Mr.
Twidwell in Walter Twidwell v. Aerco International Inc., et al No.
190136-2017 in New York County Supreme Court.

Mr. Twidwell joined the Navy in 1954 as a boiler tender and
fireman. His nearly 20 years of service covered both the Vietnam
and the Korean wars. He conducted maintenance and repairs in the
engine and fire rooms of seven vessels ported in New York,
California and Washington. Twidwell retired in 1973 as a Chief
Petty Officer.

The jury found that, during his time in the Navy, Mr. Twidwell was
exposed to asbestos dust released from the manipulation of Durabla
and Cranite gaskets manufactured by Goodyear.

"As a veteran, Walter dedicated his life to keeping others safe,"
said Kramer, who served as co-lead with Blouin. "We are pleased the
truth prevailed, and the jury determined Walter's pleural
mesothelioma was the result of his exposure to gaskets manufactured
by Goodyear."

The dangers of asbestos have been known since the early 1900s.
According to evidence presented during trial, Goodyear knew of the
hazards of asbestos as early as 1939 but never warned about the
hazards associated with its asbestos-containing gasket material.

Mesothelioma, a deadly cancer caused by asbestos, has a latency
period of 10 to 50 years. In 2017, Mr. Twidwell experienced
shortness of breath and a cough. Doctors diagnosed him with
mesothelioma in March 2017 after an X-ray revealed a mass in his
right lung.

"While no amount of money will give Walter back his health, this
result is fair compensation for his loss of his self-reliance and
dignity," said Kramer. "We are satisfied with the result."

Before his diagnosis, Mr. Twidwell lived an active life. He built
his log cabin home in the Washington woods by hand. He actively
logged the property and took regular walks with his miniature
dachshund, Hiram. He also is a member of the local Shriners and
Masons chapters and contributed to the community by hosting an
annual reading contest for school children and providing
transportation to the elderly.

In the 17 months since Mr. Twidwell's diagnosis, all of that has
changed. He told lawyers during the trial he is physically unable
to live his life the same as before.

"More and more and more, I'm having to rely on people to help me
and that's what hurts," he said during his trial testimony.

The trial lasted three weeks, and the jury deliberated for less
than two hours before holding Goodyear liable for Mr. Twidwell's
mesothelioma.

Simmons Hanly Conroy dedicates its legal practice to helping
victims of mesothelioma. As one of the nation's largest mass tort
law firms, Simmons has represented thousands of patients and
families affected by mesothelioma throughout the country.
Additionally, the firm's attorneys have been appointed to
leadership in numerous national multidistrict litigations involving
dangerous drugs, medical devices, prescription opioids, and
consumer protection issues, including Vioxx, Yaz, Volkswagen
Emissions and DePuy Pinnacle. Since 1999, the firm has pledged more
than $20 million to cancer research and been a leading supporter of
mesothelioma research and asbestos prevention. Read more at
www.simmonsfirm.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manufacturer Held Liable for Asbestos Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------
David F. Asmus, Esq., Samuel B. Boxerman, Esq., Terence T. Healey,
Esq., Kenneth W. Irvin, Esq., Michael L. Lisak, Esq., and Judah
Prero, Esq., at Sidley Austin LLP, in an article for Lexology,
wrote that manufacturer held liable for asbestos-related injury
stemming from replacement parts it did not make. A New Jersey
appeals court has ruled that manufacturers of products with
asbestos-containing components have a duty to warn users of
replacement parts with the same risk, even if they don't make them.
In Whelan v. Armstrong, the plaintiff sued a number of companies
claiming his mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos during
his work as a plumber and mechanic from the 1950s to 1971. The
companies argued, in part, that they had no liability for
replacement parts they didn't manufacture.

The court found that if a product was marketed to end users
containing asbestos parts that were "integral" to its function, and
the manufacturer was aware that replacement parts would eventually
be needed, it has a duty to warn. The court stated that "A product
that contained asbestos when it was supplied by the manufacturer,
with no warning as to the dangers posed by the asbestos-containing
component, and that contained asbestos when encountered by a worker
years later, remains in substantially the same defective condition,
whether or not its original asbestos has been replaced with other
asbestos."

A similar issue, in the maritime context, is the subject of a
federal circuit split. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit has held that a defendant cannot be held liable for
injuries allegedly caused by components that are manufactured, sold
and distributed by third parties and that are added to the
defendant's products post-sale, as a manufacturer is liable for
only the injuries that it causes, not for those caused by others.
However, the Third Circuit has held that a defendant may be held
liable for injuries caused by the products of a third party.
Accordingly, a petition for review was filed with the U.S. Supreme
Court that urges the court to resolve the circuit split.

Novel watershed permit issued for Cape Cod towns. The Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection has issued a first-of-its
kind "watershed" permit. Instead of issuing individual permits, the
Cape Cod towns of Brewster, Chatham, Harwich and Orleans were
issued a joint permit that addresses water quality concerns. None
of the towns has a municipal public sewer system, and most homes
rely on septic systems. The towns have grown, and the additional
septic systems installed have leaked excess nitrogen to the point
where fish and their habitats are being harmed.

The 20-year permit, issued after consultation with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), allows the towns to reduce
nitrogen pollution through efforts like fertilizer reduction and
improved aquaculture. Each town has its own nitrogen removal
target, and the towns must meet and show progress through reports
every five years.

CERCLA claims constitutionally barred against state government
entities. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled
that a group of Texas state agencies and universities cannot be
sued for funding cleanup activities at a Superfund site, as the
agencies and schools have sovereign immunity as arms of the state.
(Oil Recovery Site Potentially Responsible Parties Group v.
Railroad Commission of Texas, et al., case number 17-20361).

The plaintiff had originally sued more than 1,200 parties that it
believed was responsible for environmental remediation costs for
the cleanup of a Superfund site in Pasadena, Texas, under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA). The Texas Department of Transportation, Texas A&M
University and eight other agencies and schools argued that they
were immune from the lawsuit, as sovereign immunity under the
Eleventh Amendment bars lawsuits against states and arms of the
state unless the state consents to the suit or Congress abrogates
that immunity.

The court found that CERCLA does not circumvent that immunity. Each
named agency and school was included in the state budget, receives
substantial funding from the state treasury, lacks local autonomy,
has statewide regulatory power and is overseen by state officials.
Therefore, they were rightfully "arms of the state," afforded
sovereign immunity.

EPA to revisit Wood Heater New Source Performance Standards. The
EPA will soon propose to postpone the compliance date for selling
wood stoves that do not comply the 2015 New Source Performance
Standards for new residential wood heaters. The rule required
manufacturers to redesign wood heaters to emit fewer pollutants.
Industry argued that most forced-air furnaces would not be able to
comply with the rule's technology requirements, and, at a minimum,
retailers need a chance to sell off their existing stocks of wood
stoves before the new rules take effect.

On Aug. 3, the EPA sent a proposal for review to the Office of
Management and Budget that would allow retailers "a period of time"
after the May 2020 compliance date to sell units that were
manufactured before the compliance deadline. This action comes in
the midst of litigation challenging these standards. In April, the
EPA asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit for more time to file its response to the lawsuit, saying
it has decided to take another look at its 2015 regulation.

BLM must consider downstream greenhouse gas releases under NEPA. A
federal judge in Montana has directed the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) to conduct a new National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
review of management plans for the fossil fuel-rich Powder River
Basin (PRB), to consider the downstream greenhouse gases (GHGs)
that could be released if the fuel is extracted and burned.
However, Judge Brian Morris of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana declined to enjoin any leasing in the region or
to vacate the 15 resource management plans (RMPs) at issue in the
suit. (Western Organization of Resource Councils, et al. v. BLM, et
al.)

In March, Judge Morris ruled that BLM violated NEPA for failing to
assess the downstream GHGs of the fossil fuel that could be
extracted under the plans. However, he declined to rule on the
appropriate remedy. BLM attorneys asked the judge to remand the
record of decision supporting the RMPs without vacatur for
corrective NEPA analysis. In his ruling, Judge Morris largely
adopted the remedy proposed by BLM. BLM must now complete new coal
screening and remedial NEPA analyses by Nov. 29, 2019, that
consider the GHGs that could be released under the plans. The order
also requires that any new or pending coal, oil or gas resources
subject to two of the RMPs undergo a comprehensive NEPA
environmental analysis.

Morris' ruling was the second to require downstream GHG analyses.
In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit ordered the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
to consider the GHGs emitted when gas from a major southeast
pipeline network would be burned for electricity at existing and
planned power plants in Florida.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Widow Reacts to EPA Asbestos Proposal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Howerton of WFAA.com reported that the Environmental
Protection Agency is taking some flak for a new proposal regarding
how it would handle new uses of asbestos in the U.S. Among those
frustrated is a widow from Southlake who lost her husband to
mesothelioma.

Barbara Walker, a 70-year-old mesothelioma widow, said she's
astounded that the government is even allowing new uses for
asbestos to be reviewed. Walker lost her 76-year-old husband,
Richard Walker, in 2014. He died 8 months after being diagnosed
with mesothelioma.

She says her husband, an airline pilot, was primarily exposed to
asbestos while in the military and while growing up. "He helped his
father roof a home with asbestos shingles," Walker said. "He also
helped rebuild a runway with concrete containing asbestos."

As a marine, Walker said her husband was also on a WWII era ship
that contained asbestos as well. "All the pipes in the sleeping
quarters were wrapped with asbestos," she said. "We didn't know
where he could have gotten it. But then they started asking us 'did
you ever do this, this, and this?' And we said yes over and over
again."

Asbestos products have been limited throughout America, but the
natural mineral was once widely used in many industries decades
ago.

It could be found in fabrics, cars, concrete, roofing materials,
and even insulation. Many companies have phased out its use,
however, after it was discovered that inhaling its near-invisible
fibers lead to mesothelioma and lung cancer.

Many workers who encountered asbestos and contracted cancer have
since won large civil settlements in court. Up to 15,000 people die
every year due to asbestos exposure, according to the Environmental
Working Group.

Environmentalists and mesothelioma advocates have long said that
the U.S. is dragging its feet when it comes to asbestos
regulations. Many, point to the fact that over 50 nations have
already banned it outright.

In 2016, President Obama authorized legislation directing the EPA
to regulate tens of thousands of dangerous chemicals, including
asbestos.

That legislation also requires the EPA to re-evaluate toxic
materials, like asbestos. In June, a proposal was announced by the
EPA saying it would allow new uses of asbestos in products pending
approval by the agency.

Companies would be required to notify the EPA at least 90 days
before manufacturing or processing a product containing asbestos.
After notification, the EPA would then do a risk review to assess
the safety of the product and if it would be harmful to the
public.

EPA officials say that the proposal would give them teeth to
evaluate the intended use of asbestos and act to prohibit or limit
its use. But critics of the proposal are growing in the political
arena and amongst mesothelioma advocates.

Jeffrey Simon, an attorney for Simon Greenstone Panatier, PC, has
represented mesothelioma victims in court for the last 25 years.
He's read over the proposal and feels like the only move the EPA
should be considering is a ban. "Asbestos destroys lives," he said.
"The idea that we would make it easier for us to use asbestos in
products -- which this proposed rule would appear to do is
logically insane."

Walker said she understands that asbestos is a material that helps
a corporate bottom line. But she adds that people should come
first. "It's cheap, but people are more valuable than the almighty
dollar to some business company that wants to make money," Walker
said. "I saw my husband disintegrating in front of my eyes. I loved
him, and I didn't like seeing that."

The EPA has been taking public feedback the last two months
regarding the proposal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nearly 10,000 People Has 9/11-Related Cancer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessa Schroeder of Daily Mail reported that as many as 9,795 people
were diagnosed with cancer linked to 9/11, the federal World Trade
Center Health Program recently confirmed ahead of the 17th
anniversary of the terrorist attacks.

The New York Post initially reported the numbers -- and spoke with
health officials, rescue workers and survivors who were at the
scene of the dangerous toxic dust caused by jet fuel, asbestos,
cement and glass shards.

Medical director of the World Trade Center Health Program at Mount
Sinai, Dr. Michael Crane, told the Post there has been a
significant increase in the number of cancer patients since the
program -- which tracks 9/11 related diseases -- began five years
ago.

The program 'provides medical monitoring and treatment for
responders at the WTC and related sites in New York City, Pentagon,
and Shanksville, PA, and survivors who were in the New York City
disaster area,' according to its website.

The health program reported 3,204 9/11-linked cancers in 2015. By
the end of the next year, the figure rose to 8,188. Now -- the
number of incidents is nearing 10,000 with a figure of 9,795.

More than 1,700 responders and others have died as a result,
including 420 specifically from cancer, according to the Post.

Epidemiology studies revealed that rescue and recovery workers have
a 'significantly higher' risk of thyroid or bladder cancer and skin
melanoma.

Leukemia and other blood-cell disorders are also of major concern,
according to the report.

Non-rescue workers were reported to have 'significantly higher
rates of breast cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.'

WTC responders advocate, John Feal, said: '9/11 is still killing...
sadly, this fragile community of heroes and survivors is shrinking
by the day.'

According to NCBI, as many as 60,000 and 70,000 first responders
alone were said to have inhaled the toxic dust.

Dr. Jacqueline Moline, director of the Queens World Trade Center
Health Program at Northwell Health, told CNN about the related
illnesses in June: 'The first wave was the acute -- the deaths and
all the acute injuries in the first couple of days.

'The second wave was the aftermath and developed the sinus, asthma,
anxiety and depression.

'The third wave is the diseases that take years to manifest... the
transformation from acute to chronic to permanent disease. That's
where we really are now.'


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Petition for Compensation for Asbestos Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITV News reported that more than 900 people have signed a petition
calling for automatic compensation to be given to those who may
have been diagnosed with mesothelioma.

The disease which is caused from inhaling deadly asbestos fibres is
thought to kill three people a year on the island.

In the UK a person diagnosed with the disease is automatically
entitled to access a compensation scheme but this is not the case
in Jersey.

There have been ongoing calls to Jersey's government to make sure
that public owned properties are made safe from the deadly
material.

Mesothelioma is thought to not have any viable treatment and no
cure.

If the petition receives 1000 signatures or more then it will be
Ministers in Jersey's States will have to respond to it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Vicar Set for Asbestos Payout
------------------------------------------------------
David Huntley of Gazette Live reported that a retired vicar, who
was diagnosed with asbestos-related disease after working on sites
across Teesside, could be set for a pay out after his previous
employers were found responsible.

Grandfather-of-four Christopher Puckrin, 70, who lives in Leeds but
was born in Redcar, developed various symptoms including
breathlessness before he was told he was suffering from pleural
thickening.

A year later he was told he was also suffering from asbestosis.

He appealed to his former colleagues in the Middlesbrough area
after instructing specialist asbestos-related disease lawyers at
Irwin Mitchell to investigate how his illness developed and whether
more should have been done to prevent his exposure to the
material.

As part of their work, the legal experts investigated the presence
of asbestos during the time that Christopher undertook an
apprenticeship for Haigh & Ringrose in the 1960s.

They were also keen to speak to anyone who recalled the use of the
material while he was working at ICI Wilton between 1973 and 1980.

After numerous people came forward having seen TeessideLive's
appeal, his lawyers were able to secure a favourable judgement at a
hearing into his illness. The judgement found that both of his
former employers were responsible for his exposure to asbestos and
his resulting illness.

Christopher said: "I was absolutely overwhelmed when I was informed
of the response to my appeal.

"I am so grateful to all those who came forward and provided my
legal team at Irwin Mitchell with the information they needed for
my case.

"All I wanted was for some answers as to how and why I, along with
my co-workers, were exposed to the harmful asbestos dust and fibres
that caused my illness.

"Now that my former employers have been found responsible for this
exposure, I do feel some sense of justice and I want, and need, to
thank those who came forward to help my legal team secure this for
me."

Now that his previous employers have been found responsible for
causing his condition, his lawyer's priority is now making sure
that care needs arising from his respiratory needs are met in the
form of a settlement.

Fay Marshall, the legal expert at Irwin Mitchell's Leeds office who
is representing Christopher, said: "Christopher's experiences
highlight how asbestos exposure which took place many years ago can
go on to affect individuals in later life.

"Due to the in depth information we were provided with, we were
able to counter any argument that the defendants put forward. Sadly
some people are not as fortunate as Christopher and do not get
answers about who was responsible for their illness.

"Without a doubt, those who came forward helped in our
investigations and we were able to get those answers for
Christopher."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Jun.30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. still faces personal injury lawsuits
filed by people claiming exposure to asbestos in certain product
components, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of our products many years ago.  Currently there are a few thousand
claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with
hundreds of other companies.  In some cases, the claims involve
products from divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most
of the costs.  However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify
asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by
our former Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor
repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which
occurred on January 31, 2007.  We are also responsible for half of
the costs and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against
the former Rockwell International Corporation's divested
measurement and flow control business.  But in all cases, for those
claimants who do show that they worked with our products or
products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we
nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial
part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature
of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any
impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants.  We
defend those cases vigorously.  Historically, we have been
dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no payment to
claimants.

"We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary.  Our insurance carrier entered into a cost share
agreement with us to pay the substantial majority of future defense
and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.  We believe
that this arrangement will continue to provide coverage for
Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of the
asbestos liability.

"We also have rights to historic insurance policies that provide
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising out of certain asbestos liabilities
relating to the divested measurement and flow control business.  We
initiated litigation against several insurers to pursue coverage
for these claims, subject to each carrier's policy limits, and the
case is now pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  In
September 2016, we entered into settlement agreements with certain
insurance company defendants, and we continue to pursue our claims
against the remaining defendants.  We believe these settlement
agreements will continue to provide partial coverage for these
asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of asbestos
liability.

"The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings
or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or the
settlement process.  Subject to these uncertainties and based on
our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these
lawsuits will have a material effect on our business, financial
condition or results of operations.

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses.
In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims and
proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related to the
period that we owned the businesses, either because we agreed to
retain certain liabilities related to these periods or because such
liabilities fall upon us by operation of law.  In some instances,
the divested business has assumed the liabilities; however, it is
possible that we might be responsible for satisfying those
liabilities if the divested business is unable to do so.

"In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
business, semiconductor systems business and avionics and
communications business, the spun-off companies have agreed to
indemnify us for substantially all contingent liabilities related
to the respective businesses, including environmental and
intellectual property matters.

"In conjunction with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to
indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to
certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these
businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum
exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2of1Csi


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Board Sued for Asbestos Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------
Drew Broach of NOLA.com reported that Jimmy Lawson, who served 19
years on the Jefferson Parish Council and now sits on the parish's
Housing Authority, is suing the local government, the Jefferson
School Board and 34 other defendants for asbestos exposure. He
blames them for his mesothelioma, which he says was diagnosed less
than a year ago.

The suit represents a late-in-life attempt to collect damages for
what Lawson, 71, describes as repeated encounters over almost three
decades with asbestos "from a number of different sources ...
throughout the greater New Orleans area." Among them were school
system properties where he worked from 1966 to 1968, Avondale
Shipyard where he worked briefly in the late 1960s and Jefferson
Parish government offices, the suit says.

Lawson was a Parish Council member from 1976 through 1995, elected
from a Marrero-based district. He later was appointed to the
Jefferson Finance Authority, and in 2014, the council, at
Councilman Paul Johnston's request, put him on the Housing
Authority. He is a former chairman of the Housing Authority.

Inhaled asbestos particles have been linked to mesothelioma, an
aggressive and deadly form of cancer in the thin tissue covering
internal organs. Workplace damage claims have been litigated in
U.S. courts since 1929 but began skyrocketing in the late 1960s and
might not peak until 2020, according to the Mesothelioma Asbestos
Awareness Center.

Already, however, asbestos litigation has made for the longest,
most expensive mass tort in U.S history, according to Reinsurance
News. Fitch Ratings projects ultimate losses for the U.S property
and casualty insurance sector to be $100 billion.

Many of the defendants in Lawson's suit are insurers, equipment
manufacturers and big corporations such as Huntington Ingalls,
which owns the closed Avondale Shipyard property, and Union Pacific
Railroad. The suit says Jefferson government and the School Board,
like many of the companies, "designed, evaluated, manufactured,
packaged, furnished, stored, handled, transported, installed,
distributed, sold and/or supplied asbestos-containing products" to
Lawson's exposure sites."

The public housing agency has been without an executive director
for almost a year.

The suit was filed in Orleans Parish Civil District Court on July
11. It's been assigned to Judge Nicole Sheppard.

Some of the defendants have denied Lawson's allegations in court
filings. Others, including the Jefferson government and School
Board, have not yet responded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Schools Found to Contain High Risk Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Wynn-Da of Ray and Battle Today reported that the council
carried out an assessment of each school in the county and gave
them a ranking between one and 12 -- with 12 being the highest.

Northiam CE Primary School and Robertsbridge Community College were
both found to have a ranking of 11. The council said: "We are
committed to providing a safe and healthy environment for pupils to
learn and for employees to work. As such, we take our
responsibilities in relation to asbestos management very
seriously.

"All our schools have been surveyed for asbestos and adhere to an
Asbestos Management Plan. Where asbestos containing materials are
identified in any of our buildings they are removed or encapsulated
through a controlled and managed process to minimise risk.

"The council allocates money each year for statutory compliance
works and survey programmes, including asbestos surveys and
associated works."

Management surveys are carried out on all buildings constructed
before 2000, where asbestos could be present. To ascertain whether
an area of asbestos is classed as 'high risk,' a risk assessment is
carried out which looks at the type, condition and location of the
asbestos. In terms of type of asbestos, according to the council,
'blown' asbestos -- loose fibres of the type historically used for
lagging pipes -- is more of a risk than asbestos that is
encapsulated within a building element such as ceiling or floor
tiles.

If asbestos starts to deteriorate or degrade, or has been damaged,
its condition would be classed as more high risk than asbestos
which is in a good condition. The council said any asbestos of high
risk and in an easily accessible area such as school classrooms,
hallways and offices would be removed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Son of Former Bethlehem Steel Welder Sues in Del.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary F. Powers, son of Albert Vincent Powers, Sr., deceased, filed
a lawsuit with the the Superior Court of the State of Delaware
alleging that Mr. Powers was exposed to, inhaled, ingested, and
otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from various sources
which were mixed, mined, manufactured, distributed, sold, removed,
installed, and/or used by the Defendants including, but not limited
to: insulation, boilers, firebrick, cement, piping, pumps, gaskets,
and valves.

Mr. Powers' former employers include, but are not limited to:

   (1) Bethlehem Steel/General Dynamics/Fore River Shipyard
-Quincy, MA, as a Welder and Pipe-coverer, from approximately 1958
to 1970; and

   (2) Blue Hills Regional Technical School - Canton, MA, as a
Janitor and Director of Facilities, from approximately 1970 to
2002.

The case is, IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION, GARY F. POWERS,
Individually and as Personal Representative for the Estate of
ALBERT VINCENT POWERS SR., deceased, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID
SYSTEMS CORPORATION, as successor by merger to BUFFALO PUMPS, INC.;
ATWOOD & MORRILL CO., d/b/a WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC.;
AURORA PUMP COMPANY; BLACKMER PUMP COMPANY; BW/IP INC., as
successor to BYRON JACKSON PUMPS; CARRIER CORPORATION, individually
and as successor in interest to BRYANT HEATING & COOLING SYSTEMS;
CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a VIACOM, INC.,
successor by merger to CBS CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation,
f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, as successor in interest
to THE BRYANT ELECTRIC COMPANY; COMPUDYNE CORPORATION, individually
and as successor to YORK SHIPLEY, INC.; CRANE CO.; CRANE CO.,
Individually, and as successor to COCHRANE; CRANE CO.,
Individually, and as successor to CYCLOTHERM CORPORATION; CRANE
CO., individually and as successor to JENKINS VALVE, INC.; CRANE
COMPANY, Individually, and as successor to CHAPMAN VALVE COMPANY;
EATON CORPORATION, individually as successor in interest to
CUTLER-HAMMER, INC.; FMC CORPORATION, on behalf of its former
CHICAGO PUMP & NORTHERN PUMP BUSINESSES; FOSTER WHEELER LLC;
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; IMO INDUSTRIES, INC.; OWENS-ILLINOIS,
INC.; ROBERTSHAW CONTROLS COMPANY, individually and as successor to
FULTON SYLPHON COMPANY; S.O.S. PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC.; UNION
CARBIDE CORPORATION; VIKING PUMP, INC.; WARREN PUMPS, LLC; ZURN
INDUSTRIES, LLC, individually and successor to ERIE CITY IRON WORKS
a/k/a ERIE CITY BOILERS; Defendants, Case No. N18C-08-109 ASB (Del.
Super.)

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Bartholomew J. Dalton, Esq.
     Ipek K. Medford, Esq.
     Andrew C. Dalton, Esq.
     Michael C. Dalton, Esq.
     DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     Cool Spring Meeting House
     1106 West Tenth Street
     Wilmington, DE 19806
     Tel: (302) 652-2050
     Email: IMedford@BDaltonlaw.com

        -- and --

     Adam Balick, Esq.
     Michael Collins Smith, Esq.
     Patrick J. Smith, Esq.
     BALICK & BALICK, LLC
     711 North King Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 658-4265
     Email: abalick@balick.com

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Students at No Risk of Asbestos Health Problems
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jess Clark of The Lens reported that Lafayette Academy Charter
School students who may have been exposed to asbestos during the
2016-2017 school year are at virtually no risk of asbestos-related
health issues, a doctor told Lafayette parents at a meeting.

The Choice Foundation, which runs Lafayette Academy, brought in
Dean Edell, director of pulmonary and respiratory care at the
Children's Hospital of New Orleans, to assuage parents after an
investigation by WWNO uncovered problems with an asbestos removal
job at the Carrollton charter school.

In July, Lafayette was forced to close its building for the
upcoming school year because of asbestos contamination, after
contractors working at the school mishandled asbestos-containing
materials. That work was apparently done this summer, when no
children were at the site.

WWNO later reported on a previous asbestos-removal job, in 2017.
The station found an inspection report showing that work began as
early as March 2017, when students were in class.

The Choice Foundation paid Edell to review records from the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality showing the amounts
of asbestos in the school air while the work was being done in
2017. Edell says based on those records, students were safe.

"The exposure is basically negligible, almost incalculable, as far
as true risk for the children," Edell said in an interview with
WWNO before the meeting at Xavier University.

Edell said given the amount of asbestos in the air and the length
of time students were in the building during the work, students are
at virtually no risk of developing asbestosis or mesothelioma.
Those are diseases caused by inhaling or ingesting asbestos fibers.
Edell says the diseases normally present decades after exposure.

"It normally takes sometimes decades of exposure, significant
exposure, prolonged exposure, very high concentrations," he said.

If parents have noticed that their kids have experienced lung
problems, asbestos is not the culprit, Edell said.

"Anybody at that school that is having symptoms now is 100 percent
not related to asbestos," he said. Edell said it is possible
coughing or wheezing could be due to irritation from construction
dust.

ASBESTOS REMOVAL WORK WENT ON WHILE STUDENTS WERE IN SCHOOL

The concerns about asbestos came up after a botched asbestos
removal job contaminated the school this summer.

Lafayette Academy was part of the state-run Recovery School
District until July 1, when it switched over to control of the
Orleans Parish School Board, along with dozens of other RSD charter
schools. Both school districts and the Choice Foundation assured
parents that students were not in the building during the recent
abatement work that resulted in the school's temporary closure.

They also told parents that students  were not in the building
uring an earlier asbestos removal last year. But a WWNO
investigation uncovered a Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (LDEQ) report, showing the Recovery School District
contracted a company to do asbestos work on the third floor of
Lafayette Academy Charter School while children were in the
building in March 2017.

The LDEQ inspector noted a number of concerns with the 2017 work,
including unsecured containment areas, an on-site supervisor with
falsified paperwork and children poking their heads into
containment areas. The report says most issues were corrected by
the time the inspector returned to the school five days later.

At the suggestion of the LDEQ, the Recovery School District changed
workers' hours so that they only did asbestos abatement after
students had left for the day. Air quality tests show that on the
day the inspector was at the school, the air was safe for
students.

PARENTS WANT MORE ANSWERS ABOUT WHAT'S NEXT

Some parents still have questions about why they weren't notified
the job was being done while their children were in the building,
and about the safety of the old McDonogh 35 building on Kerlerec
Street, one of two temporary sites where Lafayette Academy students
will be attending school this year.

In July, the Orleans Parish School District ordered that campus
evacuated, too, after construction workers disturbed
asbestos-containing insulation, possibly releasing the material
into the school. District officials said it was a minor incident
that was quickly cleaned up. But parents are still concerned.

"Your child already went through something. You didn't tell anybody
anything then," parent Contrice Tyson said after the meeting. "Now
you're sending your kids over to 35 that has asbestos over there."

Parents at the meeting said wanted to hear from the Orleans Parish
School Board, which is overseeing renovations at the old McDonogh
35 building. But no representatives were at the meeting. That
peeved some parents, including Demirah Howard.

"They should have been here," Howard said.

Choice Foundation President Jim Swanson told parents that before
they put any students in McDonogh 35 building, the Choice
Foundation will have an independent assessment done to determine
the building is safe and free of airborne asbestos, bats and mold.

In an emailed statement, Dominique Ellis, a spokeswoman for the
Orleans Parish school district, said the school will be "fully
prepared to house students on August 27," and that "small areas
that contained disturbed asbestos have been properly cleaned and
repaired."

The district did not respond to an inquiry from WWNO asking whether
the statement means construction will be finished before students
return to school.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Had $333.0MM Asbestos Liability at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation (UTC) recorded US$333 million as of
June 30, 2018 for its estimated total liability to resolve all
pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through
2059, 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, "... [L]ike many other industrial companies, we
and our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos
integrated into certain of our products or business premises.
While we have never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporate
it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of our
historical products, like those of many other manufacturers, have
contained components incorporating asbestos.  A substantial
majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed
without payment or were covered in full or in part by insurance or
other forms of indemnity.  Additional cases were litigated and
settled without any insurance reimbursement.  The amounts involved
in asbestos related claims were not material individually or in the
aggregate in any year.

"Our estimated total liability to resolve all pending and
unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is
approximately US$333 million and is principally recorded in Other
long-term liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet
as of June 30, 2018.  This amount is on a pre-tax basis, not
discounted, and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend the
asbestos claims (which will continue to be expensed by the Company
as they are incurred).  In addition, the Company has an insurance
recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of
approximately US$146 million, which is included primarily in Other
assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30,
2018.

"The amounts recorded by UTC for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance recoveries are based on currently available information
and assumptions that we believe are reasonable.  Our actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions.  Key variables in these assumptions include the number
and type of new claims to be filed each year, the outcomes or
resolution of such claims, the average cost of resolution of each
new claim, the amount of insurance available, allocation
methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer with whom we
have reached settlements, the resolution of coverage issues with
other excess insurance carriers with whom we have not yet achieved
settlements, and the solvency risk with respect to our insurance
carriers.  Other factors that may affect our future liability
include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings
that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of
state or federal legislation.  At least annually, the Company
evaluates all of these factors and, with input from an outside
actuarial expert, makes any necessary adjustments to both our
estimated asbestos liabilities and insurance recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2ogddal


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wittenoom Family Loses 13 Members to Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Tyrrell of The West Australian reported that Bronwen Duke is
confronted by the harrowing impact of asbestos-related disease
every time she looks at a family photo.

Ms Duke, 59, has lost 13 family members from mesothelioma or
asbestosis over four decades.

She was born in Wittenoom, where many of her relatives worked in
and around the now infamous asbestos mine.

Her grandfather Phil McKenna moved to the Pilbara town in the 1950s
to take up a job as the foreman at the mine's mill.

Mr McKenna's decision to give his family a better chance at life
devastatingly led to a string of painful deaths many years later.

His wife Esther, daughters Valerie (Bronwen's mother), Shirley,
Virginia and Barbara and son Frank all moved to Wittenoom with
him.

They, and the daughters' spouses whom they all met in Wittenoom,
have all since died from asbestos-related disease.

"I have lost both my grandparents, I have lost my dad, I've lost my
brother, my mum," Ms Duke said.

Ms Duke was five when her family moved to Perth because her father
got sick. Her older brother David was six -- he has since died from
mesothelioma.

She has had regular tests to understand why she has not contracted
the incurable illness, which starts as a cancer on the lining of
the lungs and rapidly spreads through the body.

"It is fast -- it is virulent, it is quite harrowing to watch
people go through the process of mesothelioma -- it basically
strangles them," she said.

Ms Duke, who lives in Canberra, is in Perth for the unveiling of a
memorial in West Perth's Solidarity Park to the Wittenoom victims
of asbestos-related disease.

Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia chief operating officer
Melita Markey said her organisation had lobbied for decades for
such recognition.

She said despite the mine closing in 1966 and the loss of family
and home, people still felt a connection to Wittenoom.

"They needed somewhere to go to reflect," Ms Markey said.

More than 4000 people have died from asbestos-related disease in
Australia and Wittenoom is the main source of the substance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Find Asbestos at 2nd Aberdeen School
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aberdeen Evening Express reported that a union boss has called for
answers after asbestos was discovered at an Aberdeen school just
days before pupils return after the summer holidays.

Workers replacing windows at Hazlehead Academy found the
potentially deadly substance, which the council has admitted was
removed "without agreement on safe working practices."

The find is the second in recent weeks, after a similar discovery
at Bridge of Don Academy last month.

Now union boss Tommy Campbell has written to senior council
management to demand answers and said "enough is enough."

The Hazlehead discovery was made as work was being carried out to
freshen up the 1970s building.

A city council spokesman said: "Works involving window replacement
at Hazlehead Academy were completed.

"The council is aware that some corrugated cement panels were
removed by a sub-contractor without agreement on safe working
practices.

"We were alerted by a member of staff that work had started and the
external contractor was instructed to stop work."

He added a specialised licensed contractor had been ordered to
carry out remedial works, which were completed and confirmed the
school will open as planned.

The spokesman added: "Following the previous interest in works
involving asbestos at Bridge of Don Academy, the council can
confirm that removal and decontamination works were undertaken and
completed during August 4 and 5. The school will reopen as
normal."

But Unite's regional representative Mr Campbell said the
discoveries were unacceptable and demanded action.

Prolonged inhalation of asbestos fibres can cause fatal illnesses.

Mr Campbell said: "There is no low-level contamination as far as
Unite is concerned -- once the asbestos is disturbed or broken it
only takes one fibre that could be the cause of death later on in
life.

"Enough is enough and we won't accept this poor managerial and
inappropriate behaviour any longer."



                            *********

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 ***