CAR_Public/180907.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, September 7, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 180

                            Headlines

1 HOTEL BROOKLYN: Faces ADA Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
AARGON AGENCY: Earnhart Disputes Collection Letter
ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENT: Myers Moves to Certify 3 Classes Under FDCPA
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Pharmacies Sue Over Generic Drug Price-fixing
ASIA MARKET: Court Approves $16K FLSA Class Settlement

BAGATELLE LITTLE: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Claims
BANK OF NEW YORK: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in Butterline Suit
BANK OF NEW YORK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Maddox Suit
BAYER AG: Elliott Company Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
BLACK DOG: Cox Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

BLUE POINT: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Class Suit Alleges
BRONX COMMONS: Faces Metro Iron Suit in NY Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty.
CAPITAL PAWN: McCown Files TCPA Breach Suit in S.D. Alabama
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Attys' Fees Award in Birchmeier Suit Affirmed
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Akselrod Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Dinis Says
CENTRAL FLORIDA GAMING: Drake Files Suit Over Illegal Tip Pool
CHC GROUP: $599K in Attys' Fees & Expenses Awarded in Rudman Suit
CIELO LTD: Faces Diaz ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CIOX HEALTH: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in Faber Class Suit

CIOX HEALTH: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Faber Suit
CLIENT SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Lyes Suit Says
DESERT LAND: Hires Curtis Ensign as Special Litigation Counsel
DIRECTV LLC: Court Denies Class Certification in Flynn's CUTPA Suit
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces Rosen Suit Over FDCPA Violations

DOLLAR GENERAL: Class Certification Sought in Motor Oil MDL
DRW HOLDINGS: Quint Securities Row Transferred to N.D. Ill.
EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Court Dismisses N. Olenik's Securities Suit
ELECTROLUX HOME: Court Consolidates Defective Microwave Suits
EMPLOYEE RESOURCE: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Order in Hill Suit

ENDOLOGIX INC: Bid to Dismiss Nguyen Suit Taken Under Submission
ENDOLOGIX INC: Says Ortiz Employee Class Action Concluded
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Walter Says
ERICSSON: Robbins Geller to Lead in Securities Suit
EXPO CONVENTION: Chedebeau Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums

FIRST STUDENT: Background Check is Investigative Consumer Report
FITBIT INC: Arbitration Proceedings Order in McLellan Suit Issued
FIVE STAR PIZZA: Cheeney Certified as FLSA Collective Action
FLINT, MI: Busch Appeals Ruling in Wai Suit to 6th Cir.
FLINT, MI: Dillon Appeals Ruling in Waid  Suit to 6th Cir.

FREDDIE MAC: Ohio Public Employees Appeal Decision to 6th Cir.
FRESHII USA: Diaz Files Class Suit Asserting ADA Violation
GENERAC POWER: Craftwood Appeals N.D. Illinois Ruling to 7th Cir.
GOODYEAR TIRE: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Alleges
GREEN LAUNDROMAT: Bravo Garcia Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

GUSTECH COMMUNICATIONS: Westberry Moved to D.S.C.
HALE & HEARTY: Murphy Suit Alleges ADA Violation
HUDSON TERRACE: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Alleges
IC SYSTEM: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Reid Suit
ILG INC: Hohman Files Securities Suit in Del.

ILLINOIS: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Menard Prison Condition
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Petition for Review in Baker Suit Underway
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Unit Still Defends Marentes Suit
IMPACT MORTGAGE: Defendants Seek Arbitration in Nguyen Suit
INSIGHT GLOBAL: Court Narrows Claims in Barker's TAC

JOHN DOES: Levy Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
JOHN DOES: Musso Securities Row Transferred to N.D. Ill.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 2d Cir. Vacates Langan Class Certification
KENT NUTRITION: Miller Appeals N.D. Ohio Ruling to 6th Circuit
KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Faces Sam Suit Over FDCPA Violation

KIRSCHENBAUM PHILLIPS: Henriquez Sues Over  FDCPA Violation
L'OREAL USA: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of Decision in Price Suit
LIBERTY CRUISES: Diaz Suit Asserts ADA Violation
MAVIS DISCOUNT: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Claims
MAXIMUS INC: Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan Suit Dismissed

MDL 1556: Court Denies Bid for Reconsideration in Antitrust Suit
MIDCAP FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in J. Garcia's FLSA Suit
MILANO MARKET: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Navarrete Claims
MIRAMED REVENUE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Schik Says
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Faces Tabak Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation

NELSON & KENNARD: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of FDCPA Suit
NRA GROUP: Schenker Claims Violations of Fair Debt Collection Act
PERSONAL TOUCH: Class of Health Caregivers Certified in "Bridges"
PIVOTAL PAYMENTS: Order on Objection to "Abante" Suit Deal Issued
PJP ALACHUA: Honeywell Sues Over Disabilities Act Violations

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: 10th Cir. Affirms Judgment in McCracken Suit
PROSPECT CHARTERCARE: Del Sesto Files ERISA Class Suit in R.I.
PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Court Grants Conditional FLSA Certification
QUALITY BLACKTOP: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
RAPID7 INC: Settlement Reached in Massachusetts Wage & Hour Suit

RECRO PHARMA: Defending Securities Class Action in E.D. Pa.
RINGCENTRAL INC: Appeal from Nixed SPS Class Suit Still Pending
SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Court Narrows Claims in J. Bund's Suit
SANTA FE COUNTY, NM: G. Armendariz Allowed to File SAC
SIYARAM INVESTMENTS: Violates Disabilities Act, Honeywell Alleges

SKYLINE CRUISE: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Alleges
SOUTHWEST GAS: Court Stays Howard Pending Mediation
SPRINGFIELD, MA: Appeals Order in Disability Law Suit to 1st Cir.
STEEL TECHNOLOGY: Accused by Kiler of Violating Disabilities Act
SUBURBAN PROPANE: Faces Class Suits in New York & Pennsylvania

T. ROWE: Court Won't Dismiss D. Feinberg's ERISA Suit
TAXI TOURS: Faces Diaz ADA Suit in N.Y.
TOP'S PERSONNEL: Can Compel to Produce Documents in AUI Suit
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Thompson Sues Over Excessive Charges
TRIBECA PEDIATRICS: Diaz Suit Asserts ADA Violations

TWIN HILL: M. Agnello's Personal Injury Suit Remanded to State Ct.
UNITED STATES: 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in Sajous Suit Sought
UNITED STATES: Ershteyn Files Suit v. Social Security Admin.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Arbitration Ruling in Munro Suit Affirmed
USAA CASUALTY: Dist. Court Won't Remand P. Byorth's Breach Suit

USP LEWISBURG: Court Allows Barlow to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
WELLTEC INC: 5th Cir. Appeal Filed in Rychorcewicz FLSA Suit

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS REPORT: EPA Asbestos Proposals Cause for Alarm
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $4.7B Jury Award in Asbestos Talc Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17, 000 Tonnes Asbestos Illegally Dumped
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 222 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 327 Cases vs. AK Steel Still Pending at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Warwick Site Under Probe for Asbestos Risks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 49,500 Claims v. Goodyear Tire Pending at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 54 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alton Woman Dies After Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Alpena High School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Landmark Bathurst Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Laden Truck Turns Over on U.S. 52
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimant's Witness Says Asbestos Found in Talc
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Fin'l Has $113MM Unfavorable Development
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Records $6MM Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Accused of Disturbing Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Correct Wording on Asbestos Related Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Wins Right to Sue Ford Motor
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants W. Roverano's Allowance of Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crayons Had Detectable Asbestos Level

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. App. Remands Bolin's Case, Dismissing KCG
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Asbestos Resurges in Australian Tradesmen
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Employee Must Disclose Asbestos Settlement

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Begins Asbestos Cleanup at Burley Fire Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FEC Workers May Have Been Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FHC to Defend Rockland Place's Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flat Owner Ordered to Fund Asbestos Treatment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP200,000 Claim for Worker's Asbestos Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records $168MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Supplier Defends Latest Talc Asbestos Link
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. Lyons Personal Injury Claims Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J.H. Cox's Claims vs. Cummins Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Laborer Alleges Cancer From Asbestos Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,507 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Has $1MM Asbestos Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manufacturers Face Suit for Failure to Warn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim Prevails Against Asbestos Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Military Engineers Warned of Asbestos Contact

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Non-Friable Asbestos Found at School Garden
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Beach Opens Despite Asbestos Contamination
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pilbara Railway Line Could Pose Asbestos Risks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Johnson Withdrawn as L. Jack Witness
ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Mullinax's Claims vs. BW/IP Dismissed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Mullinax's Claims vs. Dana Companies Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Mullinax's Claims vs. O'Reilly Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Mullinax's Claims vs. Powell Company Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Mullinax's Claims vs. Zenith Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Raise Concerns at Lake Cathie Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Estimates $38MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Safety Nat'l Can't Arbitrate Coverage Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Hill Bldg Closed After Asbestos Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,550 Fibro Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 125 PI Suits at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Faces 9 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Used Asbestos Laden Talc, Jury Told
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Find Asbestos at Hazlehead Academy


                            *********

1 HOTEL BROOKLYN: Faces ADA Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1 Hotel Brooklyn
Bridge, LLC.  The case is styled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated v. 1 Hotel Brooklyn
Bridge, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-07861 (S.D.N.Y., August 28, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

1 Hotel Brooklyn Bridge, LLC, is a limited liability company that
operates hotels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AARGON AGENCY: Earnhart Disputes Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------
Jason Earnhart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aargon Agency, Inc. dba Aargon Collection
Agency and John Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00428, (S.D.
Tex., June 18, 2018), seeks damages, attorneys' fees and such other
relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant was tasked to collect a consumer debt Earnhart owes
Texoma Medical for medical services. On or around June 5, 2017, the
Plaintiff received a collection letter from Defendant that contains
a threat of a balance increase and misleads the consumer into
believing he must pay immediately rather than to take his 30 day
period provided for by the Statute to either validate or dispute
his debt. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     YAAKOV SAKS
     Stein Saks, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Tel: (201) 282-6500
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENT: Myers Moves to Certify 3 Classes Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned EMILY G. MYERS v. ACCOUNT
ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., and Patrick Sommerville, Case No.
2:17-cv-13964-LJM-EAS (E.D. Mich.), seeks class certification
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
asks the Court to allow her to represent these three classes:

   A. All persons to whom AAB sent a collection letter during the
      time period 12/08/16 to 12/08/17, in an envelope with a
      glassine window, in which the individual's account number
      assigned by AAB was visible through the glassine window of
      the enclosing envelope;

   B. All persons to whom AAB sent a collection letter during the
      time period 12/08/16 to 12/08/17, in an envelope with a
      glassine window, in which the words "Re: [followed by the
      name of the creditor] as written by AAB were visible
      through the glassine window of the enclosing envelope; and

   C. All persons to whom AAB sent a collection letter during the
      time period 12/08/16 to 12/08/17, in an envelope with a
      glassine window, in which the words "You may pay" were
      visible through the glassine window of the enclosing
      envelope.

In her complaint, the Plaintiff alleges violations of the federal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Michigan Occupational Code,
alternative to the MOC, for violations under the Michigan
Regulation of Collection Practices Act.

Ms. Myers also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative, and to appoint her counsel as class counsel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex C. Anderson, Esq.
          REX ANDERSON, PC
          9459 Lapeer Rd., Suite 101
          Davison MI 48423
          Telephone: (810) 653-3300
          E-mail: rex@rexandersonpc.net


ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Pharmacies Sue Over Generic Drug Price-fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
West Val Pharmacy, Halliday's & Koivisto's Pharmacy, Russell's Mr.
Discount Drugs, Falconer Pharmacy, Deal Drug Pharmacy, Chet Johnson
Drug, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Actavis Elizabeth LLC
Actavis Pharma, Inc., Apotex Corp. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., Barr
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Citron Pharma LLC, Dava Pharmaceuticals, LLC,
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Generics Bidco I, LLC, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Heritage
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lannett Company, Inc., Mayne Pharma Inc.,
Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. Perrigo New York, Inc., Pliva, Inc.,
Rajiv Malik Sandoz, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Ind., Inc., Taro
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA),
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02533 (E.D. Pa., June 18, 2018),
seeks to recover liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Sherman
Act.

Defendants allegedly conspired to allocate markets and fix prices
for generic drugs and violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act as well
as the antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws
of various states. Drugs concerned are acetazolamide, doxycycline
monohydrate, doxycycline hyclate, fosinopril- hydrochlorothiazide,
glipizide-metformin, glyburide, glyburide-metformin, leflunomide,
meprobamate, nimodipine11, nystatin, paromomycin, theophylline,
verapamil and zoledronic acid. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christian Hudson, Esq.
      Peter Gil-Montllor, Esq.
      Blaine Finley, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Tel: (202) 789-3960
      Fax: (202) 789-1813
      Email: pgil-montllor@cuneolaw.com

             - and -

      Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
      Joel Davidow, Esq.
      Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street, N.E.
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Email: jonc@cuneolaw.com
             joel@cuneolaw.com
             vicky@cuneolaw.com


ASIA MARKET: Court Approves $16K FLSA Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York approved Joint Application to Approve a Settlement in the case
captioned LIN YANG, Plaintiff, v. ASIA MARKET CORP., et al.,
Defendants. No. 17 Civ. 6886 (HBP). (S.D.N.Y.).

This matter is before me on the parties' joint application to
approve a settlement in this matter pursuant to the requirements
set forth in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d
199(2d Cir. 2015).

This is an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the New York Labor Law in which the plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that she worked for defendant Asia Market Corp., that
on average she worked 61 hours per week and was paid a flat monthly
salary of $1,500 in cash.

The parties proposed settlement provides that the defendants will
pay the plaintiff a total of $16,000.00. From this sum, $850.00
will be allocated to pay counsel's out-of-pocket costs. One third
of the remainder, $5,050.00, will be paid to counsel as a fee. The
balance $10,100.00 will be paid to the plaintiff.

In determining whether [a] proposed [FLSA] settlement is fair and
reasonable, a court should consider the totality of circumstances,
including but not limited to the following factors: (1) the
plaintiff's range of possible recovery (2) the extent to which the
settlement will enable the parties to avoid anticipated burdens and
expenses in establishing their claims and defences (3) the
seriousness of the litigation risks faced by the parties (4)
whether the settlement agreement is the product of arm's length
bargaining between experienced counsel and (5) the possibility of
fraud or collusion.

First, the total settlement represents more than four times
plaintiff's actual allegedly unpaid wages, and the net amount to be
received by plaintiff is more than two and one-half times her
allegedly unpaid wages. The settlement amount is reasonable.

Second, the settlement will entirely avoid the expense and
aggravation of litigation. As noted above, defendants dispute the
number of hours plaintiff claims to have worked and argue that she
was properly paid for all hours worked. Neither side appears to
have any documentary evidence corroborating their position. Thus,
trial preparation would likely require depositions of both sides to
explore these issues. The settlement avoids the necessity of
conducting these depositions.

Third, the settlement will enable plaintiff to avoid the risk of
litigation. To prevail at trial plaintiff will bear the burden of
proving that she was an employee and the number of hours she
worked. Given the apparent absence of any corroborating evidence
and her interest in the outcome, there is a nontrivial risk that a
fact finder may not credit plaintiff's testimony

Fourth, the fact that the net settlement amount to be received by
plaintiff is more than two and one-half her actual claimed damages
strongly suggests that the settlement is the noncollusive product
of arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel.

Fifth, there are no factors here that suggest the existence of
fraud.

The settlement provides that 33.3% of the net settlement fund, $5,
050.00  will be paid to plaintiff's counsel as a contingency fee.
Contingency fees of one-third in FLSA cases are routinely approved
in this Circuit.  

Accordingly, for all these reasons, the Court approves the
settlement in this matter.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 20, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycor5x9u from
Leagle.com.

Lian Yang, individually & Lian Yang, on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Keli Liu
-- kliu@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC, Paul Mendez --
pmendez@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC & Jian Hang --
jhang@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC.

Asia Market Corp & Naomi Kwong, Defendants, represented by David B.
Horowitz , Fong & Wong, P.C. & Robert W. Wong , Fong & Wong, P.C.


BAGATELLE LITTLE: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bagatelle Little West
12th LLC.  The case is styled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Bagatelle Little West 12th
LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-07866 (S.D.N.Y., August 28, 2018).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

Bagatelle Little West 12th LLC operates restaurants.  Bagatelle
specializes in the flavors of the South of France and the
Mediterranean coast.  The Company is based at 1 Little W 12th St.,
in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK OF NEW YORK: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in Butterline Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Lisa Butterline and Mark Butterline filed an appeal from
a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled LISA BUTTERLINE, et al. v.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et
al., Case No. 2-15-cv-01429, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The appellate case is captioned as Butterline, et al. v. City of
Philadelphia, et al., Case No. 18-2908, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Lisa and Mark Butterline previously owned real property located at
2713 East Huntingdon Street in Philadelphia.  They fell behind on
their mortgage payments, and in November 2007, the Bank initiated
foreclosure proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County.  The Bank eventually obtained a default
judgment in the amount of $62,764.79 in April 2009.

The Bank thereafter sought to execute its foreclosure judgment,
causing the Property to be sold at a sheriff's sale on Nov. 1,
2011.  The sale generated competitive bidding, and the Bank
purchased the Property with a winning bid of $93,000, approximately
$30,000 more than the amount of its foreclosure judgment.
Following the sale, the City did not prepare and keep on file a
schedule of proposed distribution of the sale proceeds, as required
by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 3136(a).  Nor did it
enforce the payment terms set forth in its pre-sale advertising.
Instead, on July 23, 2012, the City deeded the Property to the Bank
in exchange for the Bank's payment of only the costs owed on the
Property -- e.g., the Sheriff's costs in conducting the sale,
taxes, charges for water and gas, etc. -- which totaled $16,291.11,
rather than the entire $93,000 bid amount (or the full amount by
which the bid amount exceeded the Bank's foreclosure judgment).
The deed was recorded on Oct. 31, 2012.

In December 2014, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative claim
(known as a "DART" claim) with the Sheriff's Office, pursuant to
the Sheriff's local rules, requesting all excess funds obtained as
a result of the sale in the case -- i.e., the amount by which the
Bank's bid exceeded the sum of its foreclosure judgment and the
costs on the Property.  On Dec. 18, 2014, the City rejected
Plaintiffs' administrative claim, stating that because the Bank, as
executing creditor, "won the bid," it was required to pay only the
pending cost (i.e. Sheriff's cost, transfer taxes, water) and the
Plaintiffs were thus not due any monies from the Sheriff Sale.

The Plaintiffs contend the City has a policy of collecting only the
costs owed to the City where, as here, the winning bidder is also
the executing creditor, leaving any excess proceeds from the
sheriff's sale uncollected.  In contrast, when the winning bidder
is a third party, the City collects the full amount of the bid,
though it does not distribute the excess proceeds to the former
owner unless the former owner submits an administrative claim to
the Sheriff's Office.

Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class
action lawsuit against the City and the Bank, initially asserting a
procedural due process claim against the City and a contract claim
against the Bank based on their mortgage contract with the Bank.

The Plaintiffs seek to pursue this action on behalf of a class
composed of all individuals or entities whose real property was
foreclosed and sold to the Bank at the sheriff sale and who did not
recover the excess funds remaining from such sheriff's sale after
all liabilities on the real property had been satisfied.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants LISA BUTTERLINE and MARK BUTTERLINE, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Christopher G. Hayes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HAYES
          225 South Church Street
          West Chester, PA 19382
          Telephone: (610) 431-9505
          E-mail: chris@chayeslaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Michael G. Louis, Esq.
          William T. Wilson, Esq.
          BAILEY & EHRENBERG PLLC
          120 North Church Street, Suite 206
          West Chester, PA 19380
          Telephone: (610) 357-7418
          E-mail: wtw@becounsel.com

Defendants-Appellees CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and PHILADELPHIA SHERIFFS
OFFICE are represented by:

          Shannon L. Ammon, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-4690
          E-mail: shannon.ammon@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Fogdall, Esq.
          Ira N. Richards, Esq.
          SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
          1600 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 751-2581
          E-mail: sfogdall@schnader.com
                  irichards@schnader.com

               - and -

          Kenneth I. Trujillo, Esq.
          CHAMBERLAIN HRDLICKA WHITE WILLIAMS AND AUGHTRY
          300 Conshohocken State Road, Suite 570
          West Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 772-2340
          E-mail: ktrujillo@chamberlainlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST CO NA, FKA Bank of
New York Trust Co NA, as successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as
trustee for Residential Asset Mortgage Products Inc., Mortgage
Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-RP1 I/P/A Bank
of New York Trust, Co., is represented by:

          Alexander D. Bono, Esq.
          Ryan E. Borneman, Esq.
          Lynne E. Evans, Esq.
          Joseph J. Pangaro, Esq.
          Jessica A. Priselac, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          United Plaza
          30 South 17th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 979-1181
          E-mail: abono@duanemorris.com
                  reborneman@duanemorris.com
                  levans@duanemorris.com
                  jjpangaro@duanemorris.com
                  jpriselac@duanemorris.com

               - and -

          Joelle Epstein, Esq.
          Laura E. Vendzules, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          130 North 18th Street
          One Logan Square
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 569-5540
          E-mail: epstein@blankrome.com
                  lvendzules@blankrome.com


BANK OF NEW YORK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Maddox Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANDRA MADDOX and TOMETTA MADDOX HOLLEY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST CO., Defendant, Case No.
15-CV-01053-RJA-JJM (W.D. N.Y.), Judge Richard J. Arcara of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (i) denied
BONY Mellon's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, and (ii) certified part of that denial for
interlocutory review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).

The Plaintiffs allege that, although they have paid off their
mortgage loan, BONY Mellon failed to record a satisfaction of
mortgage certificate with the Erie County Clerk's Office.  The
Plaintiffs claim that BONY Mellon's failure to do so violates New
York Real Property Actions Law Section 1921(1) and New York Real
Property Law Section 275(1) ("satisfaction statutes"), both of
which impose penalties up to $1,500, on a strict liability basis,
if a mortgagee fails to timely record a certificate of discharge.

After the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J.
McCarthy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B), BONY Mellon
filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judge McCarthy recommends denying that motion, but he also
recommends certifying one of the issues raised in the motion --
whether the Plaintiffs have suffered an injury-in-fact for purposes
of Article III standing -- for interlocutory review.

BONY Mellon objects to Judge McCarthy's recommendation to deny its
motion to dismiss, and the Plaintiffs object to Judge McCarthy's
recommendation to certify a question for interlocutory review.
Judge Arcara reviews these objections de novo.

He finds that it appears that a violation of the statutorily
mandated procedures in the satisfaction statutes entails the
concrete injury necessary for standing, regardless of whether the
Plaintiffs have alleged any additional harm beyond the one the New
York legislature has identified.  Thus, he will adopt Judge
McCarthy's recommendation to deny BONY Mellon's motion to dismiss
for lack of standing.

Because that divergence and doubt concerns such a fundamental
question as whether the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction, the
Judge holds that it would be a tremendous waste to allow the case
and class proceedings to continue for several more years before the
parties could obtain a final judgment from which they could appeal.
Thus, after careful consideration, and being sensitive to the
historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals, he concludes
that certification is appropriate in the case.

Upon de novo review, and for the reasons stated in Judge McCarthy's
Report and Recommendation, the Judge will adopt Judge McCarthy's
recommendation to deny BONY Mellon's motion to dismiss for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction under Section 1332(d).  Given the
procedural stage of the case, as well as the complaint's class
action allegations, he agrees with Judge McCarthy that BONY Mellon
has failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that Section 1332(d)'s
amount-in-controversy requirement has not been adequately alleged.


For the reasons he stated, Judge Arcara adopted Judge McCarthy's
Report and Recommendation in full.  He therefore denied BONY
Mellon's motion to dismiss, and certified the Order for
interlocutory review, but only as the order pertains to the
question whether a bare violation of New York's satisfaction
statutes creates a cognizable injury-in-fact for purposes of
Article III standing.

The case is stayed pending the outcome of proceedings before the
Second Circuit.  The parties will notify the Court when the Second
Circuit either (1) declines to accept this order for interlocutory
review; or (2) decides the merits of the question certified for
interlocutory review.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2018 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/xgP7fB from Leagle.com.

Sandra Maddox & Tometta Maddox Holley, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles
M. Delbaum, National Consumer Law Center, Eric Lechtzin --
elechtzin@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Fran Lisa Rudich,
Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, Todd S. Collins -- tcollins@bm.net --
Berger & Montague, P.C., Michael H. Reed, Klafter Olsen & Lesser
LLP, Stuart T. Rossman, National Consumer Law Center & Seth Richard
Lesser , Klafer Olsen & Lesser LLP.

The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, Defendant, represented
by Jonathan M. Robbin -- jrobbin@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP &
Joseph E. Culleiton -- jculleiton@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP,
pro hac vice.


BAYER AG: Elliott Company Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott Company of Indianapolis, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Bayer A.G. et al., Case No.
7:18-cv-06882 (S.D. N.Y., July 31, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy among the Defendants and certain
unnamed co- conspirators to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize
prices for MDI and TDI products sold in the United States. The
conspiracy was implemented in part through an agreement among
Defendants to limit production of MDI and TDI products and thereby
drive up prices for these products.

The Plaintiff Elliott Company of Indianapolis, Inc. is an Indiana
corporation with its principal place of business in Indianapolis,
Indiana. Elliott Co. purchased in the United States one or more of
the products at issue directly from one or more of the Defendants.

The Defendants are manufacturers and sellers of methylene diphenyl
diisocyanate and toluene diisocyanate who sold directly to
purchasers in the United States, its territories and the District
of Columbia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harold S. Reeves, Esq.
      COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
      1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 220-9600
      Fax: (202) 220-9601
      E-mail: hreeves@cooperkirk.com


BLACK DOG: Cox Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Cox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Black Dog Oilfield, LLC and Joseph (Ben) Abshire, Case
No. 5:18-cv-00991 (W.D. La., July 31, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Black Dog as a chemical mixing operator.
The Plaintiff worked exclusively for the Defendant since May 2017.

The Defendant Black Dog provides chemical mixing services in
support of oilfield drill-outs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
      PARMET HEDGPETH LLP
      800 Sawyer St.
      Houston, TX 77007
      Tel: (713) 999-5228
      E-mail: matt@parmethedgpeth.com


BLUE POINT: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Point Brewing
Company, Inc.  The case is styled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Blue Point Brewing
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-07905 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2018).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Blue Point Brewing Company, Inc., produces beer.  The Company was
incorporated in 1996 and is headquartered in Patchogue, New York.
As of February 2014, Blue Point Brewing Company, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV.[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


BRONX COMMONS: Faces Metro Iron Suit in NY Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matthew Henderson, et
al.  The case is titled as METRO IRON CONTRACTING, INC.
INDIVIDUALLY & ON BEHALF OF ALL LIENORS, CLAIMANTS & CREDITORS
SIMILARLY SITUATED ENTITLED TO SHARE IN FUNDS RECEIVED BY MEMCO
INC., IN CONNECTION WITH THE IMPROVEMENT OF REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY
BX COMMONS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORP IN THE COUNTY OF THE BX,
UNDER ARTICLE 3-A OF THE NEW YORK STATE LIEN LAW v. HENDERSON,
MATTHEW, BRONX COMMONS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, JOHN
DOE #1 THROUGH JOHN DOE #10, SAID NAMES BEING FICTITIOUS ANDUNKNOWN
TO PLAINTIFF, THE PERSONS OR PARTIES INTENDED BEING THE PERSON OR
PARTIES, IF ANY, HAVING OR CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN OR LIEN UPON THE
PREMISES DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT, JANE DOE #1 THROUGH JANE DOE
#10, Case No. 28319/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., August 28,
2018).

Bronx Commons Housing Development Fund Corporation is a domestic
not-for-profit corporation reservation company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP
          135 Crossways Park Dr., Suite 201
          Woodbury, NY 11797
          Telephone: (516) 681-1100
          Facsimile: (516) 681-1101


CAPITAL PAWN: McCown Files TCPA Breach Suit in S.D. Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Pawn of
Alabama, LLC.  The case is styled as Ruth McCown, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capital Pawn of
Alabama, LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. 1:18-cv-00374
(S.D. Ala., August 28, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991.

Capital Pawn of Alabama, LLC, is a limited liability company based
in Mobile, Alabama.  Capital Pawn operates retail outlets that sell
previously used items, and provides loans for short-term cash
needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan G. Festa, Esq.
          HOWARD-FESTA, LLC
          P.O. Box 1903
          Mobile, AL 36633
          Telephone: (251) 431-9364
          E-mail: jonathan@slhpc.com


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Attys' Fees Award in Birchmeier Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, GRANT BIRCHMEIER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants. APPEALS
OF: CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC.; VACATION OWNERSHIP MARKETING
TOURS, INC.; THE BERKLEY GROUP, INC.; FREEDOM HOME CARE, INC.;
KEVIN MCCABE, Cas Nos. 17-1626, 17-1778, 17-1953, 17-1969, 17-1984
& 17-2857 (7th Cir.), Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's
approval of the settlement and attorneys' fees award to the class
counsel.

During 2011 and 2012 a million people received phone calls asking
them to take political surveys in exchange for a chance to go on a
free cruise.  Some recipients filed a class action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), seeking damages for
these unsolicited communications.  

Caribbean Cruise Line, Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, and the
Berkley Group were named as the Defendants on the theory that,
though they had not placed the calls, they had directed them and
thus are vicariously liable.  The district court certified a class
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).  Later it granted partial summary
judgment in the Plaintiffs' favor and scheduled a trial.

On the eve of trial the parties settled.  The Plaintiffs agreed to
release their claims against all the Defendants and any of the
Defendants' agents or independent contractors.  In exchange, the
Defendants agreed to pay into a fund no less than $56 million and
no more than $76 million.  The total will depend on the number of
approved claims that the class members submit.

Out of the fund will come payments to the class, incentive awards
to the named representatives, about $2 million in administrative
expenses, and attorneys' fees.  The class will receive payments in
two rounds.  If some claimants do not cash the checks sent during
the second round, money will be left over, and those remaining
funds will go to an appropriate cy pres recipient to be approved by
the district court.  The district court has not yet determined
whether that occurs.

Over the objections of Kevin McCabe, who says he is in the class,
the district court approved the settlement, estimating that each
claimant will receive $400.  After approving the settlement, the
court entered judgment.  It also awarded attorneys' fees to the
class counsel.  The award gives the counsel 36% of the first $10
million paid into the fund, 30% of the next $10 million, 24% of the
next $36 million, and 18% of any additional recovery.

The Appellate Court has three sets of appeals: (1) the Defendants
and a member of the class, Freedom Home Care, contend that the
award of fees overcompensates the class counsel; (2) Freedom Home
Care wants an incentive award and attorneys' fees for its role in
objecting to the class counsel's fees; and (3) McCabe complains
that the settlement's approval was improper.

Judge Easterbrook holds that a decision about fees, if final, is
appealable separately from the merits.  Because the process for
approving claims is still ongoing, the district court awards at
this time only those attorney's fees corresponding to the minimum
amount the Defendants will be required to pay into the common fund.
The class counsel may petition the Court for the remainder of the
fee award upon conclusion of the claims-approval process.  This
decision does not quantify the total fees that counsel will
collect.  It instead awards a portion of the fees ($14.76 million)
and tells counsel to come back for more if the size of the pot
grows.

In addition, the Judge holds that interim awards of attorneys' fees
can hardly be called final, and such awards typically are not
appealable under Section 1291.  But an award may be final if the
district court lays out a formula for calculating the award's
amount.  Such an award leaves some math but nothing for the
district court to decide.  This award does exactly that.  Though
the district court told counsel to petition the court for the
remainder of the fee award, it also prescribed a formula for that
remainder: 18% of the amount recovered over $56 million.  The total
award is not yet known only because the number of approved claims
is not yet known.  Once the parties know that number, computing the
remaining fees will be a mechanical exercise.

Having found that the Court has jurisdiction over the appeals, the
Judge finds that the Defendants are correct that the fee award is
bigger than some awards in other suits.  He reviews decisions about
attorneys' fees for abuse of discretion, and the Appellants have
not identified any abuse.  He adds only that it is unproductive to
make arguments about the percentages assigned to some tiers of
recovery, as the Defendants have done.  The Defendants' position
boils down to a contention that the fees exceed the market rate,
and the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding
otherwise.  What got multiplied with what else to produce a
market-approximating outcome does not matter.

Freedom Home Care contends that it is entitled to an incentive
award and attorneys' fees for its objection to the class counsel's
fees.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' motion for fees had
proposed that the class counsel take a third of the fund.  Freedom
Home Care counter-proposed that the fund be divided into four tiers
and that counsel take decreasing proportions of each.  The award
adopts that structure, which the parties call a "sliding-scale
approach," and Freedom Home Care wants to be compensated for
proposing it.  Yet its proposal did not add marginal value to the
litigation.  The Plaintiffs' motion itself discussed the
sliding-scale approach, a common one in large class actions.  The
district court was certain to consider the possibility, no matter
what Freedom Home Care said, so the court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that Freedom Home Care did not supply
value to the class.

Last comes McCabe's appeal.  He contends that the settlement
improperly releases claims outside the class period (August 2011 to
August 2012) and that the notice sent to the class members was
deficient.  For two reasons the district court held that McCabe
lacks standing to raise these objections.  First, the court treated
McCabe's assertion that he received calls outside of the class
period as an assertion that he did not receive calls within the
class period, and it reasoned that McCabe thus could not be in the
class.  Second, the court decided that any claim arising from calls
McCabe received during the class period should have been brought in
his separate suit, and that the doctrine of claim preclusion now
bars any such claim.

The Judge also finds that the district court's conclusions about
standing were flawed.  Claim preclusion, an affirmative defense
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c), has nothing to do with standing.  And
there wasn't a basis to ignore McCabe's assertion that he is a
member of the class.  Despite concluding that McCabe lacks
standing, the district court rejected his objections on the merits.
So does he.

The Appellate briefs tell that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
(and the district court) agreed that alleged calls means calls
within the class period, and the doctrine of judicial estoppel will
prevent those parties from taking an opposite position in future
proceedings.  The Judge can quickly dispose of McCabe's remaining
argument: He insists that the notice sent to the class
insufficiently described the process for selecting a cy pres
recipient.  Not so.  The notice told class members that a cy pres
recipient might be selected after the second round of payments,
gave instructions for recommending recipients, and provided a
website where members can learn more about the settlement.  That is
enough to meet the notice requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/BLKjtb from Leagle.com.

Kevin M. Forde, for Defendant-Appellee.

Vincent J. Connelly, for Defendant-Appellee.

Jay Edelson -- jedelson@edelson.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Anna-Katrina S. Christakis, for Defendant-Appellee.

Jon C. Loevy -- jon@loevy.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kevin R. Malloy, for Defendant-Appellee.

John H. Pelzer, for Defendant-Appellee.

Joanne R. Driscoll, for Defendant-Appellee.

Michael Kanovitz -- mike@loevy.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rafey S. Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Eve-Lynn J. Rapp -- erapp@edelson.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ryan D. Andrews -- randrews@edelson.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Brian P. O'Meara, for Defendant-Appellee.

Scott R. Rauscher -- scott@loevy.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roger Perlstadt -- rperlstadt@edelson.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alexander Glenn Tievsky -- atievsky@edelson.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Todd C. Bank, for Appellant.

Jeffrey A. Backman -- jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Akselrod Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC.  The case is styled as Sheindel Akselrod, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Cavalry
Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-04927 (E.D.N.Y., August
29, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, provides financial resolution
services.  The Company's services cover various areas, such as
collection account and debt control.  The Company was founded in
1991 and is based in Valhalla, New York.[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


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Dinis Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC.  The case is titled Laura L. Dinis, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-04911 (E.D.N.Y., August 29, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, provides financial resolution
services.  The Company's services cover various areas, such as
collection account and debt control.  The Company was founded in
1991 and is based in Valhalla, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          MITCHELL PASHKIN ATTORNEY AT LAW
          775 Park Avenue, Suite 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335-1107
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net


CENTRAL FLORIDA GAMING: Drake Files Suit Over Illegal Tip Pool
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Drake, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Central Florida Gaming LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-00302 (M.D. Fla., June 18, 2018), seeks economic and
non-economic damages, equitable relief including lost front and
back pay, lost benefits, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Central Florida Gaming operates as "Oxford Downs Poker Room" where
Drake worked as a cashier. She claims that Defendant illegally
withheld gratuities into a tip pool where even non-tipped workers
were included. She was allegedly fired for complaining about this.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael O. Massey, Esq.
     MASSEY AND DUFFY, LLC
     855 East University Ave.
     Gainesville, FL 32601
     Tel: (352) 505-8900
     Fax: (352) 414-5488
     Email: massey@352law.com


CHC GROUP: $599K in Attys' Fees & Expenses Awarded in Rudman Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERROL RUDMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHC GROUP LTD.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-3773 (LAK) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge
Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses to the extent that Kirby &
McInerney is awarded an aggregate amount of $598,771.62.

The securities class action was dismissed on motion and then
settled almost immediately after the Plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal.  The matter is before the Court on a motion by the
Plaintiffs' counsel for an award of attorneys' fees.  

The Plaintiffs brought these damages actions under the Securities
Act of 1933 claiming that the registration statement issued in
connection with the initial public offering of shares of CHC
contained false and misleading statements.  Two motions for
designation as the lead Plaintiff and for approval of the lead
counsel were filed.  One sought designation of Ira B. Press, Esq.,
of Kirby & McInerney as the lead counsel.  The other sought such a
designation of Kim E. Miller, Esq., of the firm of Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC.  Kahn Swift promptly conceded the merit of the Kirby
motion.  In due course, the Court granted the Kirby motion, denied
the Kahn Motion, consolidated the two cases, and granted leave to
file a consolidated amended complaint.  From that point until
following the settlement of the consolidated cases, the Kahn firm
neither appeared in these actions, nor signed any of the court
papers.

Following the Kirby firm's filing of the amended complaint, the
Defendants moved to dismiss as to all Defendants save CHC, which by
then had filed for bankruptcy.  On Nov. 7, 2016, the Court granted
the motion and dismissed the case.  

The Plaintiffs appealed.  But virtually nothing transpired in the
Court of Appeals.  Less than a month after the filing of the notice
of appeal, the parties notified the Court of Appeals that they had
reached a settlement in principle and withdrew the appeal from
active consideration pending finalization of settlement papers and
an application to the Court to approve the settlement.

The terms of the settlement are straightforward.  CHC's insurance
carrier is paying $3.85 million in cash.  In order to appreciate
the benefit to the class, it is relevant to point out that this
$3.85 million reflects just over one percent of the amount of money
CHC raised on the allegedly misleading prospectus, which covered an
offering of 34 million shares at a price of $10 per share, or $340
million.  As the class notice made clear, the average recovery by
the damaged class members would be about 11 cents per share,
assuming that the Plaintiffs' counsel was paid as they request.

The Plaintiffs moved for class certification and for approval of
the settlement.  As they already had lost the case by the time the
settlement was reached and as the Court regarded the prospects for
ultimate success to be virtually negligible, it approved the
settlement.  It did so essentially on the theory that 11 cents per
share was better than nothing.

The Kirby firm suddenly joined by the Kahn firm now seeks attorneys
fees equal to one third of the settlement fund, or $1,283,333.33 --
approximately 33.33% of the settlement fund.  Their combined
lodestar allegedly is $725,913.25, which is said to reflect
1,259.16 hours of work multiplied by the current billing rates of
the attorneys and other staff who worked on the case.  This is
increased by a multiplier of approximately 1.77.  In addition, the
counsel seeks reimbursement of $12,723.86 in litigation expenses.

There have been no objections to the counsel's proposed fees and
expenses.  As 100% of any fee award will come out of the $3.85
million that the insurance company has provided, neither it nor the
Defendants have any interest in objecting to the requested fee
award.  Nor does it appear likely that any member of the class
would have sufficient economic interest, given the meager size of
the settlement, to challenge the fee award even if it thought a
marginal adjustment to the fees requested were likely; the
incremental difference to any given class member probably would be
too small.

Judge Kaplan makes the following adjustments to the Kirby firm's
proposed lodestar for its own work.  He excludes the hours of the
senior analysts and the administrative clerks.  He exercises his
discretion to cut the hours claimed for the following categories of
work by 50%: the lead Plaintiff motion, the motion to dismiss and
case management, the appeal, the preliminary motion for settlement
approval and class certification, the motion for final settlement
approval, and post-settlement.  This results in a revised aggregate
lodestar for the Kirby firm of $293,023.88.

Taking into account the benefit to the class attributable to the
Kirby firm's efforts, the contribution of the senior analysts and
the administrative clerks to the overall work product of the firm,
and the delay in payment, the Judge applies a multiplier of 2.0.
Accordingly, the adjusted lodestar for the Kirby firm is
$586,047.76.

The Judge declines to make any fee award to the Kahn firm.  The
Kahn firm, which was not chosen as the lead counsel, seeks
compensation for 120.4 hours of work, including 33.90 hours for its
lead Plaintiff motion.  He sees no basis at all for compensating
the Kahn firm for the time devoted to its unsuccessful motion to
have its client appointed the lead plaintiff and itself appointed
as the lead counsel.

A reasonable fee is the proper incentive, and it is within the
Court's discretion to determine what is reasonable.  The largely
pro forma nature of thecase indicates that a reasonable fee is less
than what the Plaintiffs' counsel requests.  The Judge finds that a
fee award of $586,047.76 would better balance the interests of the
class and adequate compensation of the counsel.

The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks $12,723.86 in reimbursement of
expenses.  The Judge finds that the majority of the expenses are
attributable to mediation and online legal research fees.  Others
include filing fees and travel expenses.  He finds nothing
objectionable.  Hence, he granted.

For these reasons, Judge Kaplan granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses to the extent that
the Kirby firm is awarded an aggregate amount of $598,771.62.  He
denied the motion in all other respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/hRK9s5 from Leagle.com.

Peter McCrory, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situtated, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV --
TLAUGHLIN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott + Scott, L.L.P.

Errol Rudman & Rudman Partners LP, Movants, represented by Ira M.
Press -- ipress@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP.

CHC Group Ltd., William J. Amelio, Joan S. Hooper, Rebecca Camden,
William E. Macaulay, Jonathan Lewis & Kenneth W. Moore, Defendants,
represented by Andrew J. Levander -- andrew.levander@dechert.com --
Dechert, LLP, Neil A. Steiner -- neil.steiner@dechrt.com --
Dechert, LLP, Sarah Dean Lyons -- sarah.lyons@dechert.com --
Dechert, LLP & Andrew Aaron Spievack, Dechert, LLP.

J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., UBS Securities
LLC, HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Wells
Fargo Securities, LLC, BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Standard Bank
Plc, Cormark Securities (USA) Ltd., Cowen and Company, LLC, Raymond
James & Associates, Inc., Simmons & Company, International & Tudor,
Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Charles S. Duggan -- charles.duggan@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk &
Wardwell & Andrew Ditchfield -- andrew.ditchfield@davispolk.com
-- Davis Polk & Wardwell.


CIELO LTD: Faces Diaz ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cielo, LTD.  The case
is titled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Cielo, LTD., Case No. 1:18-cv-07863
(S.D.N.Y., August 28, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CIOX HEALTH: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in Faber Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Richard Faber and Jennifer Monroe filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Richard Faber, et al. v.
Ciox Health, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-02337, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 24, 2018, Judge
S. Thomas Anderson granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel.

The action primarily concerns allegations that the Defendant
routinely and systematically overcharges patients for access to
their medical records in violation of federal and Tennessee law.
Because the relevant federal statutes do not provide a private
cause of action, the Plaintiffs advance their suit under several
state law claims.

The Plaintiffs identify their proposed class as follows: From May
13, 2010 to the present, the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated
patients who, personally or through a personal representative such
as an attorney, requested their medical records from Ciox or one of
Ciox's medical provider clients in Tennessee, and whom Ciox charged
any of the following: (1) a basic fee and/or electronic delivery
fee the combined value of which exceeds $6.50; (2) a per page
(paper) fee when records were delivered electronically; or, (3) a
per page(paper) fee that exceeds the actual labor and supply costs
incurred by Ciox in fulfilling that request.

The appellate case is captioned as Richard Faber, et al. v. Ciox
Health, LLC, Case No. 18-5896, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants RICHARD FABER, I, and JENNIFER MONROE,
Individually, and also on behalf of all similarly situated persons,
are represented by:

          Tim Edwards, Esq.
          GLASSMAN, EDWARDS, WYATT, TUTTLE & COX, P.C.
          26 N. Second Street
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 527-4673

Defendant-Appellee CIOX HEALTH, LLC, d/b/a Healthport Technologies,
LLC, is represented by:

          Garry Kevin Grooms, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN LLP
          3102 W. End Avenue, Suite 700
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 724-3200
          E-mail: ggrooms@burr.com


CIOX HEALTH: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Faber Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD FABER, individually, and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, and JENNIFER MONROE, individually, and
on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. CIOX
HEALTH, LLC, d/b/a Healthport Technologies, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-02337-STA-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), Judge S. Thomas Anderson of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
Western Division, (i) granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment, and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.

Defendant Ciox Health, doing business as Healthport Technologies,
LLC, is the largest clinical data exchange platform in the United
States.  It was created by the merger of four medical records
providers -- HealthPort, IOD, Care Communication, and ECS -- that
were acquired by its parent company, New Mountain Capital, in 2016.
The Defendant subsequently acquired a fifth medical record
provider, ArroHealth, increasing its size even further. Today, it
is perhaps the largest medical records provider in the country and
boasts of processing 4.3 million pages of medical records per day.


As a routine practice, the Defendant charges attorneys requesting
medical records on behalf of their clients at a rate that exceeds
the standard cost-based rate.  It does not attempt to track its
actual costs incurred in responding to each medical records request
it receives.  The Defendant seeks dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
class-action and individual claims stemming from allegations of
routine and systematic overcharging for access to medical records.


The Plaintiffs were charged "per page (paper)" fees despite
requesting and receiving medical records in an electronic format.
From May 13, 2010, to Oct. 31, 2017, the Defendant collected
$19,449,024.49 from 427,143 medical records requests made by
individuals or their attorneys in Tennessee.  During that same
timeframe, the Defendant charged Class Members per-page (paper)
fees when records were delivered electronically on 83,325 invoices,
charging a total of $3,655,535.24.  The Defendant charged the
Plaintiffs, their attorneys, or their paralegals electronic
delivery and basic fees that exceeded $6.50.

Faber was represented by the law firm of Ballin, Ballin & Fishman,
PC., in litigation in connection with an automobile accident.
Monroe, acting individually and on behalf of her minor child,
authorized her attorneys to act on her behalf in requesting medical
records.  She retained the law firm of Wolff Ardis, P.C., as her
attorneys for her minor daughter's personal injury case.  Monroe
did not retain any individual attorney from Wolff to act on her
behalf.

Faber and Jennifer Monroe, on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated persons, seek summary judgment on the issue of the
Defendant's liability in each of their claims.

The overarching issue in the case is whether the Defendant's
actions are remediable under Tennessee law.  The Plaintiffs have
advanced a number of theories to this effect, most prominently
that, if the Defendant's actions violated the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") or the Health
Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act
("HITECH"), then the Defendant can be held liable under a theory of
negligence per se.  The Plaintiffs also make a number of arguments
that the Defendant's actions independently gave rise to several
Tennessee common law claims.  And they further assert that the
Defendant's actions violated the State's consumer protection
statute.

Judge Anderson ultimately holds that there is no independent cause
of action under Tennessee law, even under a theory of negligence
per se, for a violation of HIPAA or HITECH.  He further holds that
the evidence supporting the Plaintiffs' claims of overcharging does
not translate into any of the Tennessee common law claims pursued
by the Plaintiffs.  And finally, he holds that the Plaintiffs have
not established a violation of Tennessee's consumer protection
statute.  Accordingly, hte Judge granted the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment, and denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.  He dismissed the action.  The Clerk is directed
to enter Judgment forthwith in favor of the Defendant.

The Judge notes with some concern that this result is a harsh one
considering that the Defendant had sole control of the Plaintiffs'
medical records and by all accounts charged fees that, in other
situations, would be considered excessive and potentially unlawful.
Any direct remedy, however, lies within the purview not of the
Court but the Tennessee General Assembly or the United States
Congress.  Here, the Congress has seen fit to limit enforcement of
HIPAA to the Government.  And the General Assembly has likewise
seen fit to limit the application of Tennessee's own medical
records statute to hospitals.  The Court cannot ignore those
legislative decisions.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/dRgTMu from Leagle.com.

Richard Faber, Individually, and also on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, & Jennifer Monroe, Individually, and also on
behalf of all similarly situated persons,, Plaintiffs, represented
by Ami A. Dave, Kevin Michael McCormack -- kmccormack@bbfpc.com --
BALLIN BALLIN & FISHMAN & Tim Edwards -- tedwards@bbfpc.com --
Ballin, Ballin & Fishman, P.C.

Ciox Health, LLC, d/b/a Healthport, Technologies, LLC, Defendant,
represented by Garry K. Grooms -- ggrooms@burr.com -- BURR &
FORMAN
LLP, Jay Phillip Lefkowitz -- lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND &
ELLIS LLP, pro hac vice & Nathaniel Jacob Kritzer --
nathaniel.kritzer@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, pro hac
vice.


CLIENT SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Lyes Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is captioned as Cheryl A. Lyes, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No.
2:18-cv-04881 (E.D.N.Y., August 28, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Client Services, Inc., operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare
solutions.  The Company provides customer care, technical support,
customer acquisition, cross sell/up-sell, customer retention,
product/account activation, appointment setting/reminders, disaster
support, first notice of loss, market research, customer
satisfaction surveys, and multi-channel interaction management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          MITCHELL PASHKIN ATTORNEY AT LAW
          775 Park Avenue, Suite 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335-1107
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net


DESERT LAND: Hires Curtis Ensign as Special Litigation Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Desert Land, LLC, and its debtor-affiliates seek authority from the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada to employ Curtis
Ensign, PLLC, as special litigation counsel to the Debtors.

Pre-petition, the Debtor SkyVue was a third-party defendant and
cross-complainant in a litigation pending in the Superior Court of
Arizona for Mohave County, entitled Laron, Incorporated v. Ledcor
Construction, Inc., et al., Case No. CV2015-00589.

Desert Land requires Curtis Ensign to represent the Debtors in the
Laron litigation.

Curtis Ensign will be paid at these hourly rates:

        Attorneys           $350
        Paralegals           $95

Curtis Ensign received $100,017 from SkyVue in connection with the
Laron litigation for work performed prepetition.

Curtis Ensign is a prepetition creditor of SkyVue in the amount of
$27,000.

Curtis Ensign will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses incurred.

Curtis Ensign, partner of Curtis Ensign, PLLC, assured the Court
that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in
Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and does not represent any
interest adverse to the Debtors and their estates.

Curtis Ensign can be reached at:

     Curtis Ensign, Esq.
     CURTIS ENSIGN, PLLC
     202 East Earll Drive, Suite 425
     Phoenix, AZ 85012
     Tel: (602) 833-0501

                       About Desert Land

On April 30, 2018, Tom Gonzales commenced an involuntary petition
for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code against Desert
Land, LLC. The petitioning creditor was Bradley J. Busbin, as
trustee of the Gonzales Charitable Remainder Unitrust One. Jamie P.
Dreher -- jdreher@downeybrand.com -- of Downey Brand LLP represents
the Trustee.

The Debtor and its affiliates sought and obtained the conversion of
the case to a case under Chapter 11 on June 28, 2018 (Bankr. D.
Nevada, Lead Case No. 18-12454.) The Debtor's affiliates are Desert
Oasis Apartments LLC, Desert Oasis Investments, LLC, and Skyvue Las
Vegas LLC.

Schwartzer & McPherson Law Firm serves as the Debtors' counsel.
Curtis Ensign, PLLC, is the special litigation counsel.

DIRECTV LLC: Court Denies Class Certification in Flynn's CUTPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned JEAN M. FLYNN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DIRECTV, LLC, et
al., Defendants. No. 3:15-cv-01053 (JAM). (D. Conn.)

The Plaintiffs move for class certification as to their CUTPA
claim.

The Plaintiffs are landlords who claim that defendants installed
satellite television equipment on their property without their
consent. On behalf of themselves and thousands of allegedly
similarly situated landlords throughout Connecticut, they have sued
defendants for trespass and under the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act (CUTPA).

The parties have conducted extensive discovery in two years and the
plaintiffs move to certify a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)
with the following class definition:

     All persons and/or entities (Landlords) that own and lease
residential multiple dwelling units (MDU's) in the State of
Connecticut, upon which Defendants, by their agents, servants
and/or employees have, on at least one occasion during the
applicable statutory period, without first receiving prior written
Landlord authorization and/or permission, installed DIRECTV
satellite dish model Ka/Ku, on the roof of said MDU.

In order for the Court to grant plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), plaintiffs must satisfy seven
requirements. First, plaintiffs must satisfy the four threshold
requirements of Rule 23(a), numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequate representation of the class. Next, plaintiffs must
further satisfy two more requirements under Rule 23(b)(3),
predominance and superiority.

Here, there is no doubt that at least one element of plaintiffs'
CUTPA claim, ascertainable loss, will be subject to individualized
proof. Every CUTPA claim requires proof not only of an unfair
business practice but also of an ascertainable loss of money or
property. It follows that no landlord is an appropriate class
member unless the landlord has suffered some ascertainable loss.  

Of course, the fact that one element of plaintiffs' claim will be
subject to individualized proof does not necessarily resolve the
predominance question, because a court must still step back to
consider whether those elements of plaintiffs' claim that are
subject to generalized proof are more substantial than the elements
or issues that are subject only to individualized proof.  

Here, there are aspects of plaintiffs' CUTPA claim that appear to
be subject to common class-wide proof, namely defendants' use of a
common form and practice to secure consent from a tenant for the
installation of a DIRECTV dish on a landlord's property. Still, the
ultimate wrongfulness (if any) of defendants' practice turns on an
inquiry about whether defendants could rely in good faith on
tenants' representations about their landlord's consent. This in
turn would rely heavily on individualized proof about what steps
tenants took to obtain consent as well as what restrictions may
exist under individual lease agreements. Thus, not only would
individualized proof be required to determine if there has been an
ascertainable loss but also to determine whether defendants'
practices are unfair at all.

Accordingly, because of individualized issues of landlord consent,
plaintiffs have not carried their burden to establish the
predominance requirement. The Court's conclusion is reinforced by
defendants' arguments that individualized proof will also be
required as to the terms of specific lease agreements and the
amount of damages incurred from property to property.

The Court has considered all of plaintiffs' remaining arguments and
reject them for substantially the reasons set forth in defendants'
briefing. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 20, 2018 Ruling is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y89ugxvd from Leagle.com.

Jean M. Flynn, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated & James E. Stead, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Bruce E. Newman ,
Brown, Paindiris & Scott, LLP, Shelly A. Leonard , Blau Leonard Law
Group, LLC, pro hac vice & Steven Bennett Blau , Blau Leonard Law
Group, LLC, pro hac vice.

Directv, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Z. Edelstein --
aedelstein@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, CA, pro hac vice,
Hans J. Germann -- hgermann@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, pro
hac vice, John E. Muench -- jmuench@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown
LLP, pro hac vice, John Nadolenco -- jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com --
Mayer Brown LLP, CA, pro hac vice -- ksteinmetz@mayerbrown.com --
Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice & Nicholas Norton Ouellette , Kurien
Ouellette LLC.

MasTec, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Belter --
cbelter@goldbergsegalla.com -- Goldberg Segalla, LLP, pro hac vice,
Daniel B. Moar -- dklein@goldbergsegalla.com -- Goldberg Segalla,
LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew L. Baldwin --
abaldwin@goldberegsegalla.com -- Goldberg Segalla LLP, Scott S.
Orenstein , Goldberg Segalla LLP & Troy A. Bataille --
tbataille@goldbergsegalla.com -- Goldberg Segalla LLP.


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces Rosen Suit Over FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified
Consultants, Inc., and John Does 1-25.  The case is captioned as
Avrohom Rosen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 7:18-cv-07891 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2018).

The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Diversified Consultants, Inc., a telecom-specific collection
company, specializes in the bad debt recovery of wireless,
landline, cable, satellite, utilities, and security arenas.  The
Company offers third party collection and pre-collection services;
and resolves customers' delinquency and dispute issues.  The
Company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Jacksonville,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel Harris Kohn, Esq
     Revaz Chachanashvili Law Group, P.C.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Class Certification Sought in Motor Oil MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation styled IN RE: DOLLAR
GENERAL CORP. MOTOR OIL MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2709 and Master Case No. 16-02709-MD-W-GAF (W.D. Mo.), move
that the case be certified as a class action lawsuit pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

As set forth in Plaintiffs' Suggestions in Support of Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification, the Plaintiffs contend that they
have established the elements of numerosity, commonality,
typicality and adequacy as required under Rule 23(a).

The Motion relates to these cases:

   * ROBERT OREN V. DOLLAR GENERAL CORP., ET AL.,
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00105;

   * ROBERTO VEGA V. DOLGENCORP, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00518;

   * ALLEN BROWN V. DOLLAR CORP., ET AL., Case No. 4:16-cv-00519;

   * BRADFORD BARFOOT V. DOLGENCORP, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00520;

   * GERARDO SOLIS V. DOLLAR GENERAL CORP., ET AL.,
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00521;

   * NICHOLAS MEYER V. DOLLAR GENERAL CORP., ET AL.,
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00522;

   * JOHN FOPPE V. DOLLAR GENERAL CORP., ET AL.,
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00523;

   * JOHN MCCORMICK, III V. DOLGENCORP, LLC,
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00524;

   * BRUCE GOOEL V. DOLGENCORP, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00525;

   * SCOTT SHEEHY V. DOLLAR GENERAL CORP., ET AL.,
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00526;

   * JANINE HARVEY V. DOLLAR GENERAL CORP., ET AL.,
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00528;

   * WILLIAM FLINN V. DOLGENCORP, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00529;

   * KEVIN GADSON V. DOLGENCORP, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00530;

   * MIRIAM FRUHLING V. DOLLAR GENERAL CORP., ET AL.,
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00531;

   * ROBIN PREAS V. DOLLAR GENERAL CORP., ET AL.,
     Case No. 16-02709;

   * JAMES TASCHNER V. DOLLAR GENERAL CORP., ET AL.,
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00606;

   * JASON WOOD, ET AL. V. DOLLAR GENERAL CORP., ET AL.,
     Case No. 4:16-cv-00607;

   * BRANDON RAAB V. DOLGENCORP, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00868; and

   * SEIT ALLA V. DOLGENCORP, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-00413.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
          Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
          Colin W. McClain, Esq.
          J'Nan C. Kimak, Esq.
          Andrew K. Smith, Esq.
          HUMPHREY FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C.
          221 West Lexington, Suite 400
          Independence, MO 64050
          Telephone: (816) 836-5050
          Facsimile: (816) 836-8966
          E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com
                  kds@hfmlegal.com
                  cwm@hfmlegal.com
                  jck@hfmlegal.com
                  aks@hfmlegal.com

               - and -

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          Cynthia St. Amant, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524-5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524-5763
          E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
                  c.stamant@kanner-law.com


DRW HOLDINGS: Quint Securities Row Transferred to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned David Quint, on behalf himself, and a class
consisting of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. DRW
Holdings, LLC and John Does, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02269 (S.D.
N.Y., March 5, 2018), was transferred to the United States District
Court for Northern Illinois on June 18, 2018, under Case No.
18-cv-04174.

Quint seeks treble damages arising out of the alleged manipulation
of the prices of financial instruments linked to the Chicago Board
Options Exchange Volatility Index in violation of the Sherman Act
and the Commodities Exchange Act.

Defendants allegedly colluded with each other to manipulate the
trading prices of Volatility Index Derivatives through the placing
of manipulative S&P 500 Index options orders that were intended to
cause Volatility Index Derivative settlement prices to spike
artificial.

David Quint transacted in iPATH S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures ETN,
VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short Term ETN, and ProShares
Trust Ultra VIX Short Term Futures ETF. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Court Dismisses N. Olenik's Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph R. Slights, III of the Court of Chancery of Delaware
dismissed with prejudice the case, NICHOLAS OLENIK, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated and Derivatively on
Behalf of Nominal Defendant EARTHSTONE ENERGY, Plaintiff, v. FRANK
A. LODZINSKI, RAY SINGLETON, DOUGLAS E. SWANSON, BRAD THIELEMANN,
ROBERT L. ZORICH, JAY F. JOLIAT, ZACHARY G. URBAN, ENCAP
INVESTMENTS L.P., BOLD ENERGY III LLC, BOLD ENERGY HOLDINGS, LLC
and OAK VALLEY RESOURCES, LLC, Defendants, and EARTHSTONE ENERGY,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Nominal Defendant, C.A. No.
2017-0414-JR (Del. Ch.).

The litigation arises out of an all-stock "Up-C" business
combination between Earthstone and Bold whereby Earthstone's legacy
stockholders ended up owning approximately 38.9% of the combined
company.  The Transaction was negotiated and approved on
Earthstone's behalf by a special committee of independent and
disinterested directors.

From the outset of the negotiations of the Transaction,
Earthstone's proposal to Bold was explicitly conditioned on Special
Committee approval and majority-of-the-minority stockholder
support.  Earthstone stockholders voiced their support of the
Transaction in a "yes" vote where 83.6% of the issued and
outstanding shares participated, and 99.7% of the non-affiliated
shares (shares not held by Earthstone's executive officers or by
Earthstone's largest stockholder, Oak Valley Resources, LLC
approved the Transaction.  The Transaction closed on May 9, 2017.

Plaintiff Olenik, is an Earthstone stockholder.  With the benefit
of documents obtained under 8 Del. C. Section 220, Olenik has
brought a Verified Amended Stockholder Class Action and Derivative
Complaint, in which he alleges that Earthstone's board of
directors, certain Earthstone officers and it supposed controlling
stockholder, Oak Valley, breached their fiduciary duties to
Earthstone's minority stockholders by approving the unfair
Transaction for the benefit of Oak Valley and EnCap Investments,
L.P.  EnCap is a private equity firm with majority stakes in both
Bold and Oak Valley.  Olenik also alleges that Bold, Bold Holdings
LLC (an acquisition vehicle), EnCap and Oak Valley aided and
abetted those breaches.

Plaintiff filed his first complaint on June 2, 2017.  In response
to motions to dismiss, Plaintiff amended his complaint on Aug. 13,
2017, with the now-operative Complaint.  The Defendants renewed
their motions to dismiss on Nov. 8, 2017.

The Complaint sets forth five direct and derivative claims: Counts
I through III assert breach of fiduciary duty claims against the
Director Defendants, Lodzinski and Singleton as officers of
Earthstone, and EnCap and Oak Valley as Earthstone's controlling
stockholders.  Count IV alleges Bold aided and abetted EnCap, Oak
Valley and the Director Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty.
And Count V alleges EnCap and Oak Valley aided and abetted the
Director Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff's core contention is that Lodzinski caused the
Special Committee and the Board to approve the Transaction for the
benefit of himself, EnCap and Oak Valley (to save their failing
investment in Bold) and to the detriment of Earthstone
stockholders.  In doing so, Lodzinski, Singleton and the Director
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties as officers and
directors of Earthstone, and EnCap and Oak Valley breached their
fiduciary duties as Earthstone's controlling stockholder.  Bold,
EnCap and Oak Valley (if not Earthstone's controlling stockholders)
are alleged to have aided and abetted the fiduciary breaches.

Judge Slights concludes that Earthstone structured the Transaction
in the manner prescribed by Kahn v. M & F Worldwide Corp. in order
to trigger the presumptions of the business judgment rule.  Under
the business judgment rule standard of review, the Judge will not
second-guess the decisions of corporate fiduciaries unless the
Transaction is so inexplicable as to constitute waste.  Olenik has
not expressly pled waste and the Complaint does not plead facts
from which the Court can reasonably conceive that waste ccurred.
Because he has concluded that the Complaint fails to state viable
claims, he holds he needs not reach the Defendants' argument that
the Plaintiff has failed adequately to plead demand futility.
Accordingly, he dismissed the Complaint with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/CUTDTI from Leagle.com.

Ned Weinberger, Esquire -- nweinberger@labaton.com -- and Thomas
Curry Esquire -- tcurry@labaton.com -- of Labaton Sucharow LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Peter B. Andrews, Esquire --
pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- Craig J. Springer Esquire --
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com -- and David Sborz Esquire --
dsborz@andrewsspringer.com -- of Andrews & Springer LLC; and Jeremy
S. Friedman, Esquire -- jfriedman@fotpllc.com -- Spencer Oster
Esquire -- soster@fotpllc.com -- and David F.E. Tejtel Esquire --
dtejtel@fotpllc.com -- of Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, New York,
New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esquire -- knachbar@mnat.com -- D. McKinley
Measley Esquire -- mmeasley@mnat.com -- and Lauren Neal Bennett
Esquire -- lbennett@mnat.com -- of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Gerard G. Pecht Esquire, of Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP, Houston, Texas; and Peter A. Stokes Esquire, and
William Patrick Courtney Esquire, of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP,
Austin, Texas, Attorneys for Defendnts Frank A. Lodzinski, Ray
Singleton and Bold Energy III LLC, and Nominal Defendant Earthstone
Energy, Inc.

Rolin P. Bissell, Esquire and James M. Yoch Jr., Esquire, of Young,
Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and Michael
C. Holmes, Esquire, Craig E. Zieminski, Esquire, Amy T. Perry,
Esquire, Kent Piacenti, Esquire, Meredith S. Jeanes Esquire, of
Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, Texas, Attorneys for Defendants
Douglas E. Swanson, Brad Thielemann, Robert L. Zorich, EnCap
Investments L.P., Bold Energy Holdings, LLC, and Oak Valley
Resources, LLC.

Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esquire -- dicamillo@rlf.com -- Robert L.
Burns Esquire -- robert.burns@bipc.com -- and Daniel E. Kaprow
Esquire, of Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware,
Attorneys for Defendants Jay Joliat and Zachary Urban.


ELECTROLUX HOME: Court Consolidates Defective Microwave Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Consolidation in the
cases captioned ERIKA MENDOZA and JAMES HUNT, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs. v. ELECTROLUX
HOME PRODUCTS, INC.; SHARP MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF AMERICA, a
division of SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION; SHARP APPLIANCES
THAILAND LIMITED; MIDEA AMERICA CORP.; MIDEA MICROWAVE AND
ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES MANUFACTURING CO., LTD; LOWE'S HOME CENTERS,
LLC; MODESTO DIRECT APPLIANCE, INC.; and ABC CORP. 1-10;
Defendants. ELAINE RICE and ALEX KUKICH, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ELECTROLUX
HOME PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant. DEAN MAURO, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs. v. ELECTROLUX
HOME PRODUCTS, INC.; MIDEA AMERICA CORP.; MIDEA MICROWAVE AND
ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES MANUFACTURING CO., LTD; and LOWE'S HOME
CENTERS, LLC. Defendants. Nos. 4:17-CV-02028, 4:15-CV-00371,
4:18-CV-00539 (M.D. Pa.)

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Erika Mendoza and James Hunt's
Motion for Retransfer to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California, or in the alternative, to
Consolidate this Action with the Rice/Kukich Consolidated Action.

Plaintiff Rice filed a consumer class action in this Court against
Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (Defendant Electrolux) alleging that
a microwave handle used in Defendant Electrolux's microwaves is
defective (Rice Action). Plaintiff Rice specifically alleged that
this handle can reach temperatures of over 168F when the range
below is activated, and that this high temperature presents a risk
of serious injury to anyone who touches it.

Whether This Action Should be Retransferred to the Eastern District
of California

The Plaintiffs argue that retransfer is necessary (1) because this
Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants Sharp
Manufacturing Company of America, Midea America Corporation, and
Modesto Direct Appliance, Inc; and (2) because Defendant
Electrolux's opposition to consolidation frustrates the purpose of
this case's original transfer. Neither argument warrants
retransfer.

Pennsylvania's long-arm statute reads as follows:

a) General rule. -- The existence of any of the following
relationships between a person and this Commonwealth shall
constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the
tribunals of this Commonwealth to exercise general personal
jurisdiction over such person, or his personal representative in
the case of an individual, and to enable such tribunals to render
personal orders against such person or representative:

(2) Corporations. 00 (i) Incorporation under or qualification as a
foreign corporation under the laws of this Commonwealth.

Based on this language, the Third Circuit in Bane v. Netlink, Inc.
explicitly held that a defendant who is authorized to do business
in Pennsylvania has, under Section 5301(a)(2)(i), consented to the
exercise of personal jurisdiction by Pennsylvania courts. At first
blush, this holding should end the argument. The Plaintiffs and
SMCA, however, contend that Bane has since been implicitly
abrogated by more recent Supreme Court personal jurisdiction cases,
including Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014).  While this
argument has created a divergence of opinion among my sister
district courts, The Court finds those who have read Bane as
continuing to confer personal jurisdiction over corporations
registered in Pennsylvania to be in the right. Here's why.

In Daimler, the Supreme Court restricted general personal
jurisdiction over a foreign corporation to fora where the
corporation was essentially at home. The formulated definition of
at home includes a corporation's principal place of business and
its place of incorporation. Here, SMCA is not at home in
Pennsylvania under this definition. However, as noted by the cases
which continue to follow Bane, significant is what the Daimler
Court did not say concerning consent to jurisdiction. Rather, the
sole discussion regarding consent involves a reference to Perkins
v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., where general jurisdiction was found
over a foreign corporation that had not consented to suit in the
forum. This recognition of consent, in the absence of further
discussion questioning its viability, negates the argument that
Daimler in some way rendered Bane abrogated.

This Court therefore remains bound by the Third Circuit's holding
in Bane, and thus can exercise personal jurisdiction over SMCA in
this matter pursuant to consent evidenced by its registration to do
in business in Pennsylvania.

Whether This Action Should be Consolidated with the Rice/Kukich and
Mauro Actions

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that a court may
consolidate separate actions that are pending before the court if
the actions involve a common question of law or fact. The intent of
consolidation is to streamline and economize pre-trial proceedings
so as to avoid duplication of effort.

Here, as the party moving for consolidation, the Plaintiffs bear
the burden of demonstrating its appropriateness. They make the
following arguments toward satisfying that burden. First, the
Plaintiffs argue that the Rice/Kukich, Mendoza, and Mauro actions
share a common factual background, i.e. they all involve the
Over-the-Range Microwaves with the same alleged stainless steel
handle defect. Therefore, because the purpose of transfer to this
district in both actions was the purpose of judicial economy, the
Plaintiffs aver that this purpose in essence mandates both the
consolidation of these actions, and the filing of a single
consolidated complaint. The Defendants in turn largely recognize
that the efficiency of the transferring courts must be effectuated
in some way, and offer a myriad of options to accomplish that
goal.

The only Defendant opposing consolidation outright is SMCA. Indeed,
SMCA argues that the Plaintiffs' claims against it in the instant
matter cannot be consolidated with those against defendants in the
Rice/Kukich and Mauro actions because this Court lacks
jurisdiction. SMCA continues that, because Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 42(a) only allows for consolidation of actions before the
Court, the lack of personal jurisdiction over SMCA in Pennsylvania
renders this action not before the Court and Rule 42 inapplicable.
Given this Court's determination that personal jurisdiction over
SMCA exists in Pennsylvania, this argument is moot in considering
whether consolidation is appropriate.

Midea America opposes wholesale consolidation of this case, but
recommends, in essence, discovery sharing. It specifically argues
that, because neither Plaintiffs Rice nor Kukich purchased a
purchased a microwave from Midea China, but instead Sharp Thailand,
they are not a proper defendant to those plaintiffs, and
consolidation would prejudice them. Furthermore, Midea American
states that consolidation would result in the addition of claims
beyond the California statutory claims characterizing this action,
including Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New York statutory claims and
Maryland and New York common law tort claims. Midea America cites
the potential confusion for a jury which would result from being
instructed on the law of four different states. In the face of this
prejudice, Midea America posits an alternate path for achieving the
judicial economy envisioned by the transferring courts extending
the protective order in the Rice/Kukich action to this and the
Mauro actions, thereby allowing for easier sharing of discovery.

Having considered the positions of the parties and the procedural
postures of the respective cases, the Court agrees that
consolidation at this juncture for purposes of discovery and
pre-trial management is appropriate to accomplish the goal of
judicial economy envisioned by Rule 42.

First, the Court notes that, while the instant matter and the
Rice/Kukich and Mauro matters invoke the state law of California,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New York respectively, they
nevertheless involve the same general factual background, i.e. a
potentially defective stainless steel microwave handle. That
factual dispute concerning defectiveness rests at the heart of all
of these matters. The parties agree that discovery in the advanced
Rice/Kukich action is relevant to this dispute and should be shared
among the parties. Moreover, and as recognized by the transferring
courts, these actions contain substantially similar and at times
overlapping legal claims. For instance, like the Rice/Kukich
action, the Mauro action raised causes of action including
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Consumer Products Warranties Act,
15, U.S.C. Section 2301, and breach of implied warranty of
merchantability.  

Also like Rice/Kukich, the Mendoza action contains both (1) a claim
for breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act, and (2) a UCL claim based in part on a violation of
the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs Motion for Retransfer and/or
consolidation is granted to the extent it seeks consolidation with
Rice/Kukich v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-00371,
and Mauro v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., et al., No.
4:18-cv-00539.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 20, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yctxqgss from
Leagle.com.

Erika Mendoza, Plaintiff, represented by Charles J. Kocher, Saltz,
Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C., A. Chowning Poppler --
cpoppler@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco, Charles J. Kocher --
ckocher@smbb@com -- Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C.,
pro hac vice, Christopher Heffelfinger --
cheffelfinger@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco & Simon Bahne
Paris -- sparis@smbb.com -- Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky,
P.C., pro hac vice.

James Hunt, Plaintiff, represented by Charles J. Kocher , Saltz,
Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C., A. Chowning Poppler , Berman
Tabacco, Charles J. Kocher , Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky,
P.C., pro hac vice & Christopher Heffelfinger , Berman Tabacco.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Loly G.
Tor -- loly.tor@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, pro hac vice, Michael
S. Nelson -- michael.nelson@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, LLP, pro hac
vice, Patrick J. Perrone -- patrick.perrone@klgates.com -- K&L
Gates, LLP & Caitlin Comstock Blanche --
caitlin.blanche@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.

Sharp Manufacturing Company of America, a Division of Sharp
Electronics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bridget E.
Montgomery -bmontgomery@eckertseamans.com - Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, LLC &Kelly Robreno Koster , Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, LLC.


EMPLOYEE RESOURCE: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Order in Hill Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Employee Resource Group, LLC, WV Neighborhood
Hospitality, LLC, and Neighborhood Hospitality, Inc., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled April Hill v.
Employee Resource Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-11507, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
at Beckley.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, April Hill
brought the purported class action against the Defendants alleging
that they did not inform tipped employees of the tip credit
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, among other
allegations.

The appellate case is captioned as April Hill v. Employee Resource
Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-2009, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee APRIL D. HILL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-0000
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Ryan, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          99 High Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 439-6730
          E-mail: eryan@baileyglasser.com

Defendants-Appellants EMPLOYEE RESOURCE GROUP, LLC, WV NEIGHBORHOOD
HOSPITALITY, LLC, and NEIGHBORHOOD HOSPITALITY, INC., are
represented by:

          Bradley K. Shafer, Esq.
          MINTZER SAROWITZ ZERIS LEDVA & MEYERS, LLP
          48 14th Street
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Telephone: (304) 241-2976
          E-mail: bshafer@defensecounsel.com


ENDOLOGIX INC: Bid to Dismiss Nguyen Suit Taken Under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andre Birotte Jr. held a hearing on August 10 to consider the
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case, Vicky
Nguyen v. Endologix, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00017 (C.D.
Cal., January 3, 2017).  The Court, having carefully considered the
papers and the evidence submitted by the parties, and having heard
the oral argument of counsel, has taken the motion to dismiss under
submission.

Endologix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that on January 3, 2017 and
January 9, 2017, two stockholders purporting to represent a class
of persons who purchased the Company's securities between August 2,
2016 and November 16, 2016, filed lawsuits against the Company and
certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

The lawsuits allege that the Company made materially false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts
about its business, operational and financial performance, in
violation of federal securities laws, relating to U.S. Food and
Drug Administration Premarket Approval for the Company's Nellix
EVAS System.

On May 26, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
extending the class period to include persons who purchased the
Company's securities between May 5, 2016 and May 18, 2017 and
adding certain factual assertions and allegations regarding the
Nellix EVAS System. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the alleged class, interest, and attorney's
fees and costs of litigation.

The first lawsuit, Nguyen v. Endologix, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-0017 AB (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), was consolidated with the
second lawsuit, Ahmed v. Endologix, Inc. et al, Case No.
8:17-cv-00061 AB (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), and lead Nguyen plaintiff
filed a consolidated First Amended Complaint.

On December 5, 2017, the District Court granted Endologix's motion
to dismiss lead plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, with leave to
amend. On January 9, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint and on March 12, 2018, the Company filed its Motion to
Dismiss lead plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.

The hearing on the Company's Motion to Dismiss lead plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint has been set for August 10, 2018.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and continues
to defend itself vigorously.

Endologix, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, and sells medical
devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the
United States and internationally.  Endologix, Inc. was founded in
1992 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


ENDOLOGIX INC: Says Ortiz Employee Class Action Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------
Endologix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court has issued an
order closing the class action lawsuit filed by Steven M. Ortiz.

On September 9, 2016, former employee Steven M. Ortiz filed a class
action lawsuit against the Company in Orange County Superior Court,
claiming the Company's failure to pay all overtime wages owing;
failure to provide meal periods and failure to pay meal period
premiums; failure to pay all wages owed at time of termination
seeking waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203;
failure to provide accurate wage statements; violations of Business
and Professions Code section 17200 and alleging claims for
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

While the Company contested the allegations asserted in the
litigation, a mediation was held on February 24, 2017 at which time
the parties agreed to settle the case for $750,000. The court gave
final approval to the settlement agreement and the $750,000 in
settlement funds that were deposited with the Class Administrator
have been distributed. On July 16, 2018, the court issued an order
closing the case.

Endologix, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, and sells medical
devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the
United States and internationally.  Endologix, Inc. was founded in
1992 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Walter Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC and John Does 1-25.  The case is styled as Mordechai
Walter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC d/b/a ERC and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 7:18-cv-07857 (S.D.N.Y., August 28, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing
services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research
primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and
internationally.  The Company's outsourcing services include
customer service, customer acquisition, and technical support
through inbound and outbound call handling, virtual chat, and
e-mail communications.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


ERICSSON: Robbins Geller to Lead in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRISTOL COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, et al., Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-3021 (RJS) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System ("OLERS")'s motion for
(1) its appointment as the lead Plaintiff, and (2) appointment of
its chosen counsel as the lead counsel.

Before the Court is a putative class action brought under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") on
behalf of investors who claim to have suffered damages as a result
of the Defendants' violations of various securities statutes.  

On April 5, 2018, the Bristol County Retirement System filed the
suit under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934,
on behalf of a putative class of all individuals or entities that
acquired Ericsson American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between April
8, 2013 and July 17, 2017.  On the same day, the Bristol County
Retirement System published a notice of the pending litigation.

Pursuant to the PSLRA, motions for appointment as the lead
Plaintiff were therefore due by June 5, 2018.  On that day, two
motions were filed: the motion before the Court and a motion on
behalf of the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund.  On
June 19, 2018, the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund
filed a notice of non-opposition to OLERS' motion, conceding that
OLERS has the largest financial interest in the action.

Because OLERS has, to this point, satisfied all of the PSLRA
requirements, Judge Sullivan appointed OLERS as the lead Plaintiff.
OLERS has chosen Robbins Geller to serve as the lead counsel.  As
evidenced by the firm resume submitted in support of OLERS' motion,
Robbins Geller has substantial experience in PSRLA litigation.  The
Judge is not concerned that OLERS' chosen firm will fail to protect
the putative class' interests.  Accordingly, he approved OLERS'
choice of Robbins Geller as the lead counsel for the putative
class.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Sullivan granted OLERS' motion for
appointment as the lead Plaintiff.  Robbins Geller will serve as
the lead counsel for the putative class.  As provided in the
Court's June 5, 2018 Order, OLERS will file a consolidated amended
complaint with 60 days of the date of the Order -- that is, Sept.
21, 2018.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
motions pending at docket numbers 21 and 24.  The Clerk of Court is
also respectfully directed to change the caption of this action to
"Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System et al. v.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/6nMtvy from Leagle.com.

Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, Lead Plaintiff,
represented by David Avi Rosenfeld -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Bristol County Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Francis Paul
McConville -- fmcconville@labaton.com -- Labaton & Sucharow LLP &
Christopher J. Keller -- ckeller@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow,
LLP.

Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund, Movant, represented
by Christopher J. Keller, Labaton Sucharow, LLP.

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Hans Vestberg, Jan Frykhammar,
Magnus Mandersson, Borje E. Ekholm & Carl Mellander, Defendants,
represented by Brad Scott Karp -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- Paul
Weiss, Daniel Jonathan Kramer -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- Paul
Weiss, Susanna Michele Buergel -- sbuergel@paulweiss.com -- Paul
Weiss & Maxwell Arlie Halpern Kosman -- mkosman@paulweiss.com --
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.


EXPO CONVENTION: Chedebeau Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
---------------------------------------------------------
Leonardo Taupier Chedebeau and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Expo Convention Contractors, Inc., Richard P Curran,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-22442 (S.D. Fla., June 18, 2018),
requests double damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing
along with court costs, interest and any other relief.

Expo -- http://expocci.com/-- is a full-service trade show service
design company based in Miami FL. Chedebeau worked for Defendants
as a cleaner from on or about January 1, 2014 through June 13,
2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


FIRST STUDENT: Background Check is Investigative Consumer Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of California issued an Opinion affirming the
Court of Appeals' Opinion reversing the Trial Court's judgment
granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned EILEEN CONNOR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FIRST STUDENT,
INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. S229428 (Cal.).

The Court granted review to resolve a conflict in the Courts of
Appeal over whether the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies
Act (ICRAA) is unconstitutionally vague, in violation of due
process, as applied to employer background checks because it
overlaps, in part, with the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act
(CCRAA).

Connor sued First for violating ICRAA because its 2010 notice did
not satisfy ICRAA notice requirements and First did not obtain her
written authorization to conduct the background investigation.
First admitted that the background checks it requested HireRight to
prepare included reports containing information regarding the
subject's criminal records, sex offender status, address history,
driving records, and employment history.

In 1970, the Legislature enacted the Consumer Credit Reporting Act
and repeated by Stats. 1975, ch. 1271, Section 2, p. 3377.) The act
governed credit rating reports that included consumer credit record
and standing reports. That same year, Congress passed the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). FCRA defined a consumer report to
include an individual's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit
capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics,
or mode of living.

In 1975, the California Legislature repealed the 1970 Consumer
Credit Reporting Act and enacted ICRAA and CCRAA to govern consumer
background reports, including checks conducted for employment
purposes.

ICRAA states that an investigative consumer reporting agency may
provide an investigative consumer report to a person other than the
subject of the report under limited circumstances. Such a report
can be given to a person who intends to use the information for
employment purposes.

Alleged Vagueness Issues

It is a well-settled rule that a statute which either forbids or
requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that people of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and
differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due
process of law.

First's principal contention is that CCRAA and ICRAA were initially
intended to be exclusive of each other and that the 1998 amendment
was not intended to abolish that distinction. First's vagueness
argument that the overlap created by the ICRAA amendment renders
the statute unconstitutionally vague whenever CCRAA also might
apply follows the holding of Ortiz v. Lyon Management Group, Inc.
(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 604 (Ortiz). By contrast, Connor asserts
that the two statutes were never exclusive, and the 1998 amendment
did not change that fact.

As the Court of Appeal observed here, when the Legislature amended
ICRAA in 1998 to remove the limitation on its scope so it would
govern all consumer reports that include character information, no
matter how that information is obtained, it did not amend CCRAA to
exclude from its scope reports that include character information
obtained from sources other than personal interviews. Even after
the amendment, "consumer reports that include character information
obtained from a source other than personal interviews continue to
be governed by CCRAA, as long as the reports contain information
`bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, or
credit capacity. But they also are governed by ICRAA under its
clear and unambiguous language. The Court of Appeal found Ortiz
inconsistent with our own precedent governing the interpretation of
overlapping statutes.

In interpreting ICRAA and CCRAA, the Court agrees with the Court of
Appeal and find that potential employers can comply with both
statutes without undermining the purpose of either. If an employer
seeks a consumer's credit records exclusively, then the employer
need only comply with CCRAA. An employer seeking other information
that is obtained by any means must comply with ICRAA. In the event
that any other information revealed in an ICRAA background check
contains a subject's credit information and the two statutes thus
overlap, a regulated party is expected to know and follow the
requirements of both statutes, even if that requires greater
formality in obtaining a consumer's credit records (e.g., seeking a
subject's written authorization to conduct a credit check if it
appears possible that the information ultimately received may be
covered by ICRAA).

Only ICRAA governs reports obtained from personal interviews that
bear solely on an individual's character. Meanwhile, only CCRAA,
which limits its applicability to information gathered and used for
employment purposes, governs credit information obtained directly
from creditors for developing a consumer's credit record.  Any
partial overlap between the statutes does not render one
superfluous or unconstitutionally vague. They can coexist because
both acts are sufficiently clear and each act regulates information
that the other does not.

The background check that First conducted here is an investigative
consumer report under ICRAA because it reported on Connor's
character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of
living.  That CCRAA also applies here does not exempt First from
the requirement that it obtain Connor's written authorization under
ICRAA before conducting or procuring a background investigation.  

The Court affirms the Court of Appeal judgment and remand the
matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's August 20, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9z6ofmd from
Leagle.com.

Sundeen Salinas & Pyle, Hunter Pyle Law, Hunter Pyle --
hunter@hunterpylelaw.com -- Tanya Tambling --
ttambling@hunterpylelaw.com -- Rachel Evans , Chad Saunders --
csaunders@hunterpylelaw.com -- Lewis, Feinberg, Renaker, Lee &
Jackson, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee & Jackson, Feinberg, Jackson,
Worthman & Wasow, Todd F. Jackson -- tjackson@lewisfeinberg.com --
and Catha Worthman -- cworthman@lewisfeinberg.com -- for Plaintiff
and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris , Attorney General, Nicklas A. Akers , Assistant
Attorney General, Michele Van Gelderen and Alicia K. Hancock ,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Attorney General as Amicus Curiae on
behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of Craig Davis and Craig Davis for A New Way of Life
Reentry Project, Bay Area Legal Aid, Bet Tzedek Legal Services,
Center for Employment Opportunities, Collateral Consequences
Resource Center, Community Service Society of New York, Drug Policy
Alliance, East Bay Community Law Center, Ella Baker Center for
Human Rights, Equal Rights Advocates, Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, Legal Action Center, Legal
Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Legal Aid of Marin, Legal Services
for Prisoners with Children, Legal Services of Northern California,
National Consumer Law Center, Neighborhood Legal Services of Los
Angeles County, North Carolina Justice Center, Public Counsel,
Public Interest Law Project, Public Law Center, Root & Rebound,
Rubicon Programs and Western Center on Law and Poverty as Amici
Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Seth E. Mermin , Thomas Bennigson and Jonathan S.M. Francis for
California Reinvestment Coalition, Consumer Action, Consumers for
Auto Reliability and Safety, Housing and Economic Rights Advocates,
National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Employment Law
Project, National Housing Law Project and Public Good Law Center as
Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Littler Mendelson, Benjamin A. Emmert -- bemmert@littler.com -- and
Ronald A. Peters -- rpeters@littler.com -- for Defendants and
Respondents.

Covington & Burling, Andrew M. Smith -- andrewsmith@cov.com -- and
Simon J. Frankel -- sfrankel@cov.com -- for the Consumer Data
Industry Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and
Respondents.


FITBIT INC: Arbitration Proceedings Order in McLellan Suit Issued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California has issued an order regarding the
arbitration proceedings in the case, KATE MCLELLAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. FITBIT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00036-JD
(N.D. Cal.).

When a party to an arbitration agreement is sued, it will lose the
right to compel arbitration if it fails to pay the arbitrator's
fees or otherwise participate in the arbitration.  Judge Donato's
Order discusses the consequences for a party that starts down the
path of non-participation but changes its mind.

McLellan sued Fitbit for alleged misrepresentations about the
accuracy of heart rate monitoring in its devices.  Fitbit told the
Court that the Terms of Service McLellan had agreed to required
arbitration of her claims at the American Arbitration Association
("AAA").  Fitbit also said that McLellan's objections to the scope
and enforceability of the agreement were delegated to the
arbitrator for resolution.  Fitbit succeeded on these arguments,
but when the time to arbitrate came, it failed to pay its fees in a
timely manner and told McLellan it had no intention of arbitrating
her claims or the arbitrability issues.  It reversed course and got
the arbitration back on track after McLellan raised the matter with
the Court at a hearing on another issue in the case.

Fitbit would like to treat the incident as a misunderstanding, but
it is much more than that.  It moved McLellan's claims out of the
Court and then undertook a course of conduct intended to shut her
out of arbitration as well.  It abandoned that plan at an early
stage only because McLellan was diligent in sounding the alarm, and
the Court expressed its concerns in plain terms at the hearing.

Judge Donato finds Fitbit's conduct has multiplied the proceedings
in the case for no good reason and at the expense of the
Plaintiffs' and the Court's resources.  It has also bolstered the
perception that arbitration is where consumer lawsuits go to die.
While the merits of that view can be debated, it's no surprise that
many people, including judges, are skeptical about arbitration
agreements in light of situations like this one. Fitbit's conduct
undermines the public's confidence in getting a fair shake when
arbitration is compelled.

McLellan has asked to be relieved of her arbitration agreement, and
more broadly to strike down Fitbit's arbitration clause for all
users.  Although there is some equitable appeal in those requests,
the record does not support terminating the arbitration.
Nevertheless, the Judge finds that Fitbit and its counsel engaged
in bad-faith tactics that warrant corrective action.

Judge Donato ordered McLellan to submit within 14 days a request
for reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred because of the
misconduct at issue.  Fitbit may respond 14 days after that.  An
award of fees and costs is intended to compensate McLellan and not
to impose a penalty on Fitbit.

To help ensure that Fitbit does not again impose pointless and
wasteful burdens on the supposedly summary and speedy procedures
prescribed by the Arbitration Act, the Judge ordered Fitbit to file
a copy of the decision in all cases where it seeks to compel
arbitration under its Terms of Service with consumers.  This duty
is imposed for a period of one year from the date of the Order.

For the arbitration of McLellan's claims, the parties are directed
to file a joint status statement every 90 days until the
proceedings are completed.  Further evidence of untoward delay or
obstruction of the arbitration by Fitbit may result in restoration
of McLellan's claims to the Court for resolution.

For all of the sanctions imposed by the Order, the parties and
their lawyers are advised that failure to comply may result in
additional sanctions, including monetary sanctions, evidentiary or
issue preclusion, and attorney discipline, and contempt
proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/mOFGHd from Leagle.com.

Kate McLellan, David Urban, Robert Dunn, Rachel Saito, Todd
Rubinstein, James Schorr & Bruce Morgan, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Jonathan David Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein LLP, Elizabeth J. Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com --
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Kelly M. Dermody --
kdermody@lchb.com -- Leiff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Kevin
R. Budner -- kbudner@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and
Bernstein, LLP & Robert Howard Klonoff -- klonoff@usa.net -- Robert
H Klonoff, LLC, pro hac vice.

Teresa Black & Rhonda Callan, Plaintiffs, represented by Jonathan
David Selbin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Robert Howard
Klonoff, Robert H Klonoff, LLC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J.
Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP & Kevin R. Budner,
Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP.

Amber Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin R. Budner, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP & Jonathan David Selbin, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

Judith Landers, Lisa Marie Burke & John Molenstra, Plaintiffs,
represented by Andrea Clisura, Levi Korsinksy, LLP, pro hac vice,
Courtney E. Maccarone, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice, Rosemary
M. Rivas, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Jonathan David Selbin, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP & Kevin R. Budner, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP.

Fitbit, Inc., Defendant, represented by Erin McCalmon Bosman --
ebosman@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Julie Yongsun Park --
juliepark@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, William Lewis Stern
-- wstern@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Anna Erickson White
-- awhite@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Kai Shields
Bartolomeo -- kbartolomeo@mofo.com -- Morrison Foerster LLP.


FIVE STAR PIZZA: Cheeney Certified as FLSA Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Janet T. Neff granted the Joint Motion to Approve
Stipulated Form of Notice of Collective Action and to Stay
Proceedings in the lawsuit entitled JOSEPH CHEENEY v. FIVE STAR
PIZZA CO., INC., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00606-JTN-ESC (W.D.
Mich.).

The case is conditionally certified as a collective action pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

The Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit and Consent to Join forms
are approved and the notice will be sent to all current and former
delivery drivers employed by the Defendant within the three years
preceding the date of this Order.

All further stipulations and agreements between the parties set
forth in the Joint Motion are approved.  The Plaintiff's pending
motions and the Defendants' Pre-Motion Conference Request are
denied without prejudice as moot.

The case, including the Defendants' deadline to respond to the
Complaint, is stayed until 60 days after the close of the opt-in
period or further order of the Court.


FLINT, MI: Busch Appeals Ruling in Wai Suit to 6th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Stephen Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby and Liane
Shekter Smith filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled Luke Waid, et al. v. Rick Snyder, et al., Case No.
5:16-cv-10444, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

The appellate case is captioned as Luke Waid, et al. v. Rick
Snyder, et al., Case No. 18-1967, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Richard Dale Snyder is sued in his official capacity as Governor of
the state of Michigan.   The state of Michigan is sued in its
capacity of operating the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality.  Liane Shekter Smith is sued in her official capacity as
Chief of the Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance for
MDEQ.

Stephen Busch is sued in his official capacity as District
Supervisor assigned to the Lansing District Office of the MDEQ.
Patrick Cook is sued in his official capacity as a Water Treatment
Specialist assigned to the Lansing Community Drinking Water Unit of
the MDEQ.  Michael Prysby is sued in his official capacity as the
Engineer assigned to District 11 (Genesee County) of the MDEQ.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
one of the eight cases consolidated for all purposes, including
trial, in the case captioned In re Flint Water Cases, Case No.
5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM (E.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiffs seek recovery from the Defendants for alleged
injuries, damages and losses suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result
of exposure to the introduction of lead and other toxic substances
from the Defendants' ownership, use, management, supervision,
storage, maintenance, disposal and release of highly corrosive
water from the Flint River into the drinking water of Flint,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Conrad J. Benedetto, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF CONRAD J. BENEDETTO
          1615 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19148
          Telephone: (215) 389-1900
          E-mail: cjbenedetto@benedettolaw.com

               - and -

          Esther Berezofsky, Esq.
          BEREZOFSKY LAW GROUP, LLC
          210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 667-0500
          E-mail: eberezofsky@wcblegal.com

               - and -

          Jayson Edward Blake, Esq.
          Mark McAlpine, Esq.
          MCALPINE LAW OFFICE
          3201 University Drive, Suite 100
          Auburn Hills, MI 48326
          Telephone: (248) 373-3700
          E-mail: jeblake@mcalpinepc.com
                  mlmcalpine@mcalpinepc.com

               - and -

          John McNeill Broaddus, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC
          220 Lake Drive E.
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 755-1115
          E-mail: jbroaddus@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Paul Francis Novak, Esq.
          Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq.
          Diana Gjonaj, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC
          719 Griswold, Suite 620
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 800-4166
          E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com
                  gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com
                  dgjonaj@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

               - and -

          Jordan W. Connors, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 516-3814
          E-mail: jconnors@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Deborah A. LaBelle, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH A. LABELLE
          221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104-0000
          Telephone: (734) 996-5620

               - and -

          Emmy L. Levens, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS AND TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500-W
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: elevens@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          David J. Shea, Esq.
          SHEA, AIELLO & DOXSIE
          26200 American Drive, Third Floor
          Southfield, MI 48034
          Telephone: (248) 354-0224
          E-mail: david.shea@sadplaw.com

               - and -

          Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          400 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com

               - and -

          Jessica B. Weiner, Esq.
          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
          231 W. Lafayette Boulevard
          Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, Room 611
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 226-0003

               - and -

          William H. Goodman, Esq.
          Julie H. Hurwitz, Esq.
          Kathryn Bruner James, Esq.
          GOODMAN & HURWITZ, P.C.
          1394 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: (313) 567-6170
          E-mail: bgoodman@goodmanhurwitz.com
                  jhurwitz@goodmanhurwitz.com
                  kjames@goodmanhurwitz.com

               - and -

          Cary S. McGehee, Esq.
          Michael L. Pitt, Esq.
          Beth M. Rivers, Esq.
          PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER & RIVERS
          117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 398-9800
          E-mail: cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com
                  mpitt@pittlawpc.com
                  brivers@pittlawpc.com

Defendant-Appellant LIANE SHEKTER SMITH is represented by:

          Thaddeus E. Morgan, Esq.
          FRASER TREBILCOCK
          124 W. Allegan Street, Suite 1000
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 482-5800
          E-mail: tmorgan@fraserlawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellant STEPHEN BUSCH is represented by:

          Philip A. Grashoff, Jr., Esq.
          KOTZ SANGSTER WYSOCKI P.C.
          36700 Woodward Avenue, Suite 300
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 646-2073
          E-mail: pgrashoff@kotzsangster.com

Defendants-Appellants PATRICK COOK and MICHAEL PRYSBY are
represented by:

          Charles Edward Barbieri, Esq.
          FOSTER, SWIFT, COLLINS & SMITH, PC
          313 S. Washington Square
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 371-8100
          E-mail: cbarbieri@fosterswift.com


FLINT, MI: Dillon Appeals Ruling in Waid  Suit to 6th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Andy Dillon and Nick Lyon filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Luke Waid, et al. v. Rick Snyder, et
al., Case No. 5:16-cv-10444, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

Andy Dillon is the former Treasurer of Michigan.  Nick Lyon is
director of the Health and Human Services Department of Michigan.
Richard Dale Snyder is the Governor of Michigan.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
one of the eight cases consolidated for all purposes, including
trial, in the case captioned In re Flint Water Cases, Case No.
5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM (E.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiffs seek recovery from the Defendants for alleged
injuries, damages and losses suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result
of exposure to the introduction of lead and other toxic substances
from the Defendants' ownership, use, management, supervision,
storage, maintenance, disposal and release of highly corrosive
water from the Flint River into the drinking water of Flint,
Michigan.

The appellate case is captioned as Luke Waid, et al. v. Rick
Snyder, et al., Case No. 18-1983, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Conrad J. Benedetto, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF CONRAD J. BENEDETTO
          1615 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19148
          Telephone: (215) 389-1900
          E-mail: cjbenedetto@benedettolaw.com

               - and -

          Esther Berezofsky, Esq.
          BEREZOFSKY LAW GROUP, LLC
          210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 667-0500
          E-mail: eberezofsky@wcblegal.com

               - and -

          Jayson Edward Blake, Esq.
          Mark McAlpine, Esq.
          MCALPINE LAW OFFICE
          3201 University Drive, Suite 100
          Auburn Hills, MI 48326
          Telephone: (248) 373-3700
          E-mail: jeblake@mcalpinepc.com
                  mlmcalpine@mcalpinepc.com

               - and -

          John McNeill Broaddus, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC
          220 Lake Drive E.
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 755-1115
          E-mail: jbroaddus@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Paul Francis Novak, Esq.
          Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC
          719 Griswold, Suite 620
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 800-4166
          E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com
                  gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

               - and -

          Jordan W. Connors, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 516-3814
          E-mail: jconnors@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Deborah A. LaBelle, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH A. LABELLE
          221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104-0000
          Telephone: (734) 996-5620

               - and -

          Emmy L. Levens, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS AND TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500-W
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: elevens@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          David J. Shea, Esq.
          SHEA, AIELLO & DOXSIE
          26200 American Drive, Third Floor
          Southfield, MI 48034
          Telephone: (248) 354-0224
          E-mail: david.shea@sadplaw.com

               - and -

          Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          400 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com

               - and -

          Jessica B. Weiner, Esq.
          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
          231 W. Lafayette Boulevard
          Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, Room 611
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 226-0003

Defendants-Appellants ANDY DILLON and NICK LYON are represented
by:

          Margaret Bettenhausen, Esq.
          Zachary Chad Larsen, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          525 W. Ottawa Street
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 373-7540
          E-mail: bettenhausenm@michigan.gov
                  larsenz@michigan.gov

               - and -

          Nathan A. Gambill, Esq.
          Richard S. Kuhl, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 30755
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 373-7540
          E-mail: gambilln@michigan.gov
                  kuhlr@michigan.gov


FREDDIE MAC: Ohio Public Employees Appeal Decision to 6th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ohio Public Employees Retirement System filed an appeal
from a court ruling in its lawsuit entitled OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et
al., Case No. 4:08-cv-00160, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the putative
securities class action lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac and
certain former officers on January 18, 2008, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of a
class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August 1, 2006
through November 20, 2007.  FHFA later intervened as Conservator,
and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several occasions.

The Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the Defendants
violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements concerning their business, risk management, and the
procedures they put into place to protect the Company from problems
in the mortgage industry.  The Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages
and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney
and expert fees.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System, Case No. 18-310, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on
behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, is represented
by:

          Wilbert Benjamin Markovits, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK, & DE MARCO
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com

Defendant-Respondent FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION is
represented by:

          Jordan D. Hershman, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 951-8455
          E-mail: jordan.hershman@morganlewis.com

Defendant-Respondent RICHARD F. SYRON is represented by:

          Frank R. Volpe, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1501 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 736-8000
          E-mail: fvolpe@sidley.com

Defendant-Respondent PATRICIA L. COOK is represented by:

          Carl Spencer Kravitz, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          1800 M Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036-0000
          Telephone: (202) 778-1800
          E-mail: ckravitz@zuckerman.com

Defendant-Respondent ANTHONY S. PISZEL is represented by:

          James K. Goldfarb, Esq.
          MURPHY & MCGONIGLE
          1185 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 880-3961
          E-mail: jgoldfarb@mmlawus.com

Defendant-Respondent EUGENE M. MCQUADE is represented by:

          Michael S. Doluisio, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          2929 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 994-4000
          E-mail: michael.doluisio@dechert.com


FRESHII USA: Diaz Files Class Suit Asserting ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freshii USA, Inc.
The case is captioned as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Freshii USA, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-07860 (S.D.N.Y., August 28, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Freshii USA, Inc., operates and franchises quick-service and
health-casual restaurants in the United States and Canada.  The
Company's menu includes salads, burritos, wraps, rice bowls,
yogurts, breakfast, and soups.  The Company also offers catering
services.  The Company was founded in 2005 and is based in Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAC POWER: Craftwood Appeals N.D. Illinois Ruling to 7th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Craftwood II, Inc., and Craftwood III, Inc., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Craftwood II,
Inc., et al. v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-04105, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court allowed limited discovery in the case.

Defendant Comprehensive Marketing, Inc., filed an amended Rule
12(b)(1) Motion claiming the District Court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction because, according to the Motion, a claimed
CMI/Craftwood consensual relationship allowed the conduct
complained of in the Complaint.

The Plaintiffs, professional litigants having been the plaintiff in
numerous junk fax cases, filed a class action Complaint charging
CMI and Generac of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Craftwood II, Inc., et al. v.
Generac Power Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-2883, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by September 11, 2018;
      and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before October 9, 2018, for
      Craftwood II, Inc. and Craftwood III, Inc.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants CRAFTWOOD II, INC., a California corporation,
doing business as BAY HARDWARE; CRAFTWOOD III, INC., a California
corporation, individually and as representatives of all others
similarly situated, doing business as LUNADA BAY HARDWARE, are
represented by:

          Charles Darryl Cordero, Esq.
          PAYNE & FEARS LLP
          400 Continental Boulevard
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 689-1750
          E-mail: cdc@paynefears.com

Defendant-Appellee GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a Wisconsin
corporation, is represented by:

          Molly Arranz, Esq.
          SMITHAMUNDSEN, LLC
          150 N. Michigan Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60601-7621
          Telephone: (312) 894-3200
          E-mail: gamundsen@salawus.com

Defendant-Appellee COMPREHENSIVE MARKETING, INC., an Illinois
corporation, is represented by:

          Paul Bozych, Esq.
          NIELSON, ZEHE & ANTAS, P.C.
          55 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 322-9900
          E-mail: pbozych@nzalaw.com


GOODYEAR TIRE: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company.  The case is titled Edwin Diaz, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. The Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-07902 (S.D.N.Y., August 29,
2018).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, together with its subsidiaries,
develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells tires and related
products and services worldwide.  The Company offers various lines
of rubber tires for automobiles, trucks, buses, aircrafts,
motorcycles, earthmoving and mining equipment, farm implements,
industrial equipment, and various other applications under the
Goodyear, Dunlop, Kelly, Debica, Sava, Fulda, and various other
Goodyear owned house brands, as well as under the private-label
brands.  The Company also retreads truck, aviation, and
off-the-road tires; manufactures and sells tread rubber and other
tire retreading materials; and manufactures and markets
rubber-related chemicals.[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


GREEN LAUNDROMAT: Bravo Garcia Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria de los Angeles Bravo Garcia, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Green Laundromat, Inc. dba Green
Laundromat, 145 Green Laundromat Inc. dba Green Laundromat,
Benjamin S. Lee and Jae J. Kim, Case No. 1:18-cv-06855 (S.D. N.Y.,
July 31, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations
of the New York labor law.

The Plaintiff Maria de los Angeles Bravo Garcia is a resident in
New York County, New York. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants
at Green Laundromat from approximately June 2013 until on or about
February 27, 2018.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a laundromat, located
at 110 West 145th Street, New York, New York 10039 under the name
"Green Laundromat." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620


GUSTECH COMMUNICATIONS: Westberry Moved to D.S.C.
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, transferred the case,
ROBERT WESTBERRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GUSTECH COMMUNICATIONS,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-3162-D (N.D.
Tex.), to the District of South Carolina under 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a).

The Plaintiffs in the collective action seek unpaid minimum wages
and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA"").  On Nov. 17, 2017 Plaintiffs Westberry and Jared
Stubblefield, who performed satellite installations for DirecTV
customers out of a GusTech facility in Garland, Texas, filed a
putative collective action against GusTech in the court, alleging
that GusTech had misclassified its satellite technicians as
independent contractors and had violated the FLSA by failing to pay
them minimum wage and overtime.  On Feb. 21, 2018 two satellite
technicians who worked for GusTech in South Carolina and North
Carolina filed a similar suit in the District of South Carolina
alleging, inter alia, claims for violations of the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the FLSA.

On March 5, 2018, the plaintiffs in the South Carolina Action filed
a motion for issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) to all of GusTech's technicians across the United States.
On June 5, 2018 the magistrate judge hearing the South Carolina
Action entered a report and recommendation recommending that the
court certifies a collective action under the FLSA as to all
individuals who worked as technicians for Gustech Communications in
the states of Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, or Texas
during the past three years and who were misclassified as
independent contractors.

On April 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed in the case a motion for
issuance of notice pursuant to Section 216(b), seeking conditional
certification of the class of all of GusTech Communications, LLC's
satellite service and repair technicians who performed services on
behalf of GusTech in Texas at any time within the three year period
preceding the filing of the lawsuit through the final disposition
of this matter and were classified as independent contractors.

The Plaintiffs now move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) to transfer
the case to the District of South Carolina, contending that,
because GusTech is headquartered in South Carolina, Santamaria
resides there, and there is already a related case pending there,
the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties require
that the case be transferred to that court.  The Defendants oppose
the motion.

Considering all of the relevant factors holistically, Judge
Fitzwater concludes that the case should be transferred to the
District of South Carolina.  The Defendants are both located in
South Carolina, and it is likely that evidence relevant to the case
will be located at GusTech's corporate headquarters there.
Moreover, because the Olaintiffs are seeking to transfer the action
to the Defendants' home forum, this is not an instance in which the
party seeking transfer is merely attempting to shift the
inconvenience of the venue from one party to the other.

Of the other private and public interest factors, most are neutral
and none weighs more heavily in favor of retaining this case in the
Northern District of Texas.  Finally, considerations of judicial
economy weigh strongly in favor of transfer.  The South Carolina
Action -- which involves a nearly identical FLSA claim brought
against the same defendants by a proposed class that will overlap
with the class proposed in the case -- is pending in the District
of South Carolina, and it will be more efficient and less expensive
for all of the parties involved if this case is litigated in a
single district, the District of South Carolina, than if these
related cases were tried in two different district courts, located
over 1,000 miles apart.

Therefore, having weighed the private and public interest factors
and considering the interests of justice, the Judge concludes that
the case should be transferred to the District of South Carolina
for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest
of justice.  Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
transfer, and transferred the action to the District of South
Carolina under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  The clerk of court is
directed to effect the transfer according to the usual procedure.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/75nHEC from Leagle.com.

Robert Westberry, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated under 29 USC 216(b) & Jared Stubblefield,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated under
29 USC 216(b), Plaintiffs, represented by Drew N. Herrmann --
drew@herrmannlaw.com -- Hermann Law PLLC.

Gustech Communications, LLC & Gustavo Santamaria, Defendants,
represented by Bryan C. Collins -- Collins@RoggeDunnGroup.com --
Rogge Dunn Group PC & R. Rogge Dunn -- Dunn@RoggeDunnGroup.com --
Rogge Dunn Group, PC.


HALE & HEARTY: Murphy Suit Alleges ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------
James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Hale & Hearty Soups LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-06879 (S.D.
N.Y., July 31, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against the Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff James Murphy is a resident of New York, New York. The
Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a
member of member of a protected class of individuals under the
ADA.

The Defendant is a cafe chain that operates Hale & Hearty cafes as
well as the Hale & Hearty website, offering features which should
allow all consumers to access the goods and services which the
Defendant offers in connection with their physical locations.

The Defendant operates Hale & Hearty cafes across the United
States, including its cafe in New York City located at 55 Broad
Street, New York, NY 10004. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
      300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (929) 575-4175
      Fax: (929) 575-4195
      E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

          - and -

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Tel: (212) 228-9795
      E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
              danalgottlieb@aol.com


HUDSON TERRACE: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hudson Terrace
Events, LLC.  The case is styled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Hudson Terrace Events,
LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-07867 (S.D.N.Y., August 28, 2018).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

Hudson Terrace is a premier entertainment and event venue boasting
spectacular panoramic views of the Hudson River.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IC SYSTEM: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Reid Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant I.C. System Incorporated filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Michael Reid, et al. v. I.C. System
Incorporated, Case No. 2:12-cv-02661-ROS, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Reid, et al. v. I.C.
System Incorporated, Case No. 18-16618, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Mediation Questionnaire was due September 4, 2018;

   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 26, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on October 26, 2018;

   -- Appellant I.C. System Incorporated's opening brief is due
      on December 5, 2018;

   -- Appellees Michael Reid and Dave Vacarro's answering brief
      is due on January 7, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees MICHAEL REID, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and DAVE VACARRO are represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Matthew Michael Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          1303 East Grand Avenue
          Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          E-mail: ml@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
          KENT LAW OFFICES
          3219 E. Camelback Road, Suite 588
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (480) 247-9644
          E-mail: tkent@kentlawpc.com

               - and -

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com

               - and -

          David James McGlothlin, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          5343 N 16th Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 265-3332
          E-mail: david@southwestlitigation.com

               - and -

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

Defendant-Appellant I.C. SYSTEM INCORPORATED is represented by:

          John L. Condrey, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          111 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1600
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 794-2460
          E-mail: jcondrey@gordonrees.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Flynn, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          2211 Michelson Drive, Suite 400
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 255-6950
          E-mail: sflynn@gordonrees.com


ILG INC: Hohman Files Securities Suit in Del.
---------------------------------------------
Dina A. Hohman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ILG, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01126 (D. Del., July
31, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges that on July 24, 2018, in order to convince
ILG's shareholders to vote in favor of the proposed acquisition of
ILG by Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation and its affiliates,
the Defendants authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading proxy statement with the SEC, in violation of the
Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of ILG common stock.

The Defendant ILG, a Delaware corporation, is a provider of
professionally delivered vacation experiences and the exclusive
global licensee for the Hyatt, Sheraton, and Westin brands in
vacation ownership. ILG operates in two segments: Vacation
Ownership and Exchange and Rental. ILG common stock trades on the
NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "ILG."

The Individual Defendants are the members of the ILG's board of
directors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
      COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
      The Brandywine Building
      1000 West Street, 10th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 984-3800

          - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
      New York, NY 10118
      Tel: (212) 971-1341
      Fax: (212) 202-7880
      E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
              mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com


ILLINOIS: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Menard Prison Condition
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES HUFF, #23055, Plaintiff, v. JACQUELINE
LASHBROOK, KIMBERLY BUTLER, WARDEN PAGE, SALVADOR GODINEZ, DONALD
STOLWORTHY, JOHN BALDWIN, JOHN DOES 1-3, and JOHN DOE, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-1160-MJR (S.D. Ill.), Judge Michael J. Reagan of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois

Huff, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC")
who is currently incarcerated at Western Illinois Correctional
Center, brings the civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.  His claims relate to his prior incarceration at
Menard Correctional Center.  According to the Complaint, officials
violated the Plaintiff's constitutional rights by subjecting him to
cruel and unusual conditions of confinement and by acting with
deliberate indifference to his health and safety.  More
specifically, the Plaintiff claims that Menard's drinking water was
contaminated with lead and otherwise tainted, endangering his
present and future health and safety.  The Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and monetary damages, on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated inmates at Menard.

The Plaintiff brings the following claims against the Defendants:
(i) Count 1 - Eighth Amendment claim against the Defendants for
endangering the Plaintiff's present and/or future health by
exposing him to drinking water contaminated with lead between 1997
and December 2017; and (ii) Count 2 - Eighth Amendment claim
against Defendants for exhibiting deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff's medical needs after the Plaintiff complained that
drinking water contaminated with lead or that was otherwise tainted
was causing him to suffer from recurring H. pylori bacterial
infections.

As to Count 1, Judge Reagan finds that the Complaint sufficiently
alleges deliberate indifference with respect to the Defendants.
Further, because the Plaintiff's claim involves potentially
systemic, rather than clearly localized, constitutional violations,
the wardens and IDOC directors who were in place during the
Plaintiff's incarceration at Menard may be held to answer for the
alleged problems with contaminated water at the facility.

As to Count 2, the Judge will allow it to proceed as to Butler and
Lashbrook (the warden Defendants who may have been employed at the
time of the Plaintiff's complaint and who may have been on notice
regarding the same).  However, Count 2 will be dismissed without
prejudice as to John Does 1-3, Page, Baldwin, Stolworthy, Godinez,
and John Doe.

The Plaintiff purports to bring this suit as a class action.  To
the extent that Plaintiff is seeking class treatment and
certification, the request is denied.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Recruitment of Counsel is referred to
Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams.

Finally, the Plaintiff will be allowed to proceed against the
unknown Defendants.  These individuals must be identified with
particularity before service of the Complaint can be made on them.
Also, where a prisoner's complaint states specific allegations
describing conduct of individual prison staff members sufficient to
raise a constitutional claim, but the names of those defendants are
not known, the prisoner should have the opportunity to engage in
limited discovery to ascertain the identity of those Defendants.

For that reason, Menard's current warden, Lashbrook, in her
official capacity, will be responsible for responding to discovery
(informal or formal) aimed at identifying these unknown Defendants.
Guidelines for discovery will be set by the U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Once the names of the unknown defendants are discovered, the
Plaintiff must file a motion to substitute each newly identified
Defendant in place of the generic designation in the case caption
and throughout the Complaint.

For these reasons, Judge Reagan that ordered that Count 1 will
proceed against Lashbrrok, Butler, Page, Baldwi, Stolworthy,
Godinez, John Does 1-3 (former wardens, "early and mid 2000s"), and
John Doed (IDOC Director, "1990s").  Count 2 will proceed against
Lashbrook and Butlre.  Count 2 is dismissed without prejudice as to
Page, Baldwin, Stolworthy, Godinez, Joh Does 1-3, and John Doe.

The Clerk of Court will prepare for Defendants Lashbrook, Butler,
Page, Baldwin, Stolworthy, and Godinez: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a
Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6
(Waiver of Service of Summons).  The Clerk is directed to mail
these forms, the Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to each
Defendant's place of employment as identified by the Plaintiff.  If
the Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service of
Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the
forms were sent, the Clerk will take appropriate steps to effect
formal service on Defendant and the Court will require the
Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service to the extent
authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

With respect to a Defendant who cannot be found at the address
provided by the Plaintiff, the employer will furnish the Clerk with
the Defendant's current work address, or, if not known, the
Defendant's last-known address.  This information will be used only
for sending the forms as directed or for formally effecting
service.  Any documentation of the address will be retained only by
the Clerk.  Address information will not be maintained in the court
file, nor disclosed by the Clerk.

The Judge ordered the Defendants to timely file an appropriate
responsive pleading to the Complaint and will not waive filing a
reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g).

Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), the action is referred to U.S.
Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams for further pre-trial
proceedings.  Further, the entire matter is referred to Magistrate
Judge Williams for disposition, as contemplated by Local Rule
72.2(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c), should all the parties
consent to such a referral.

If judgment is rendered against the Plaintiff, and the judgment
includes the payment of costs under Section 1915, the Plaintiff
will be required to pay the full amount of the costs.

The Plaintiff is advised that at the time application was made
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 for leave to commence the civil action
without being required to prepay fees and costs or give security
for the same, the applicant and his or her attorney were deemed to
have entered into a stipulation that the recovery, if any, secured
in the action will be paid to the Clerk of the Court, who will pay
therefrom all unpaid costs taxed against the Plaintiff and remit
the balance to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is further advised that he is under a continuing
obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party
informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts.  This will be done in
writing and not later than 7 days after a transfer or other change
in address occurs.  Failure to comply with this order will cause a
delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in
dismissal of the action for want of prosecution.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/LEsN4b from Leagle.com.

James Huff, Plaintiff, pro se.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Petition for Review in Baker Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the defendants in
Baker, et al. v. Century Financial Group, et al., have filed a
petition asking the Missouri Supreme Court to review a court of
appeal's decision.

In 2001, Baker, et al. v. Century Financial Group, et al., was
filed in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, as a putative
class action against the Company, Century Financial, and others
claiming violations of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loan Act.
Plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves and the members of the
putative class, among other things, disgorgement or restitution of
all allegedly improperly-collected charges, the right to rescind
all affected loan transactions, the right to offset any finance
charges, closing costs, points or other loan fees paid against the
principal amounts due on the loans if rescinded, actual and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

In April 2018, the court of appeals reversed the lower court's
dismissal of the case on statute of limitations grounds. In July
2018, the defendants filed a petition for Missouri's Supreme Court
to review the court of appeal's decision.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Unit Still Defends Marentes Suit
------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that Impac Funding
Corporation continues to defend itself in a class action lawsuit
entitled, Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.

On April 30, 2012, a purported class action was filed entitled
Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that certain
loan modification activities of the Company constitute an unfair
business practice, false advertising and marketing, and that the
fees charged are improper. The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
restitution, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and prejudgment
interest.

On August 22, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding
Impac Funding Corporation as a defendant and on October 2, 2012,
the plaintiff dismissed Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., without
prejudice. The trial was bifurcated with phase 1 scheduled to
determine the proper measure of restitution, if the court later
determines in phase 2 that any relief is proper, and phase 2
scheduled to determine whether the defendant is liable for any
restitution and, if so, the actual calculation of restitution under
the formula determined in phase 1.  

The phase 1 trial was held on June 29, 2018, and the court agreed
with the defendant and ruled that if liability is determined under
phase 2, the proper measure of restitution is the time value of the
fees paid by the plaintiffs from the time they were paid to the
time the fees were lawfully collected by the defendant.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPACT MORTGAGE: Defendants Seek Arbitration in Nguyen Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the defendants in
the case Nguyen v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage et
al., have filed a motion to compel arbitration of the claims.

On April 20, 2017, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court, Central District of California, entitled
Nguyen v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage et al.   

The plaintiffs contend the defendants did not pay purported class
members overtime compensation or provide meal and rest breaks, as
required by law. The action seeks to invalidate any waiver signed
by a purported class member of their right to bring a class action
and seeks damages, restitution, penalties, attorney's fees,
interest, and an injunction against unfair, deceptive, and unlawful
activities.

The defendants have filed a motion to compel arbitration of the
claims.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


INSIGHT GLOBAL: Court Narrows Claims in Barker's TAC
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN BARKER, Plaintiff, v. INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-07186-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth
Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Jose Division, granted with leave to amend in
part and without leave to amend in part, and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss certain claims in Barker's Third
Amended Complaint.

Barker brings the action against his former employer, Insight
Global, and the company's employee benefit plan, Second Amended and
Restated Insight Global, LLC 2013 Incentive Unit Plan.  Barker
asserts that Insight Global enforces an unlawful employment
agreement, denied him benefits under the employee benefit plan, and
wrongfully deprived him of his employment benefits upon
termination.

Insight Global is a company that provides staffing services in the
information technology, finance, accounting, engineering and
government industries.  Barker worked for Insight Global from March
13, 2006 to Oct. 26, 2016, when Insight Global abruptly terminated
his employment.  From September 2009 to Oct. 26, 2016, Barker
worked as an Account Manager, Sales Manager and Director of
Operations at Insight Global's San Jose and San Francisco,
California offices.

Barker filed the action on Dec. 15, 2016.  The operative TAC
asserts eight causes of action: (1) declaratory relief; (2)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; (3) claim for
benefits under ERISA plan; (4) interference with right under ERISA
plan; (5) breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA; (6) waiting time
penalties, California Labor Code Section 203; (7) failure to pay
unused vested time off at termination, California Labor Code
Section 227.3; and (8) defamation.

The first two causes of action are brought on behalf of a purported
class against Insight Global.  The class is defined as all persons
employed at any time by Insight Global in California during the
period from Dec. 15, 2012 to the present who signed an employment
agreement with Insight Global or received an offer letter from
Insight Global that contained a non-solicitation of customers
and/or non-solicitation of employees provision.  Barker brings the
remaining causes of action as his individual claims.

The Defendants move to dismiss the first, second, fourth, and fifth
causes of action.  The Defendants move to dismiss the first and
second claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) on the grounds that Barker
lacks standing.  They also seek to dismiss the first and second
claims for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to
the extent that those claims challenge the enforceability of the
non-solicitation of employees provision.  In addition, they
challenge the fourth and fifth claims for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).  Finally, the Defendants assert that
Barker's jury demand with respect to his ERISA claims should be
stricken because he has no right to a jury trial for those claims.

Judge Freeman is unpersuaded by Barker's contention that it may not
consider extrinsic evidence at this stage to determine whether
Barker has standing.  Barker's argument based on footnote 17 of
Mortensen is incorrect.  The Third Circuit overruled its dictum
provided in that footnote.  Accordingly, the Court may review
extrinsic evidence submitted by the parties.  

The Judge next addresses the first and second claims based on the
non-solicitation of customers provision and non-solicitation of
employees provision.  She finds that Barker does not have standing
to seek declaratory relief and injunctive relief for his first
claim with respect to the non-solicitation of customers provision.
The Defendants' motion to dismiss the first claim with respect to
the non-solicitation of customers provision under Rule 12(b)(1) is
granted without leave to amend.  And because Barker's threat of
injury is actual and imminent and thus he has standing to bring the
first claim with respect to the employee non-solicitation
provision, she denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the first
claim with respect to the non-solicitation of employees provision
under Rule 12(b)(1).

Turning to Barker's second claim which asserts violation of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, the Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL") based on the non-solicitation of customers
and employees provisions, the Judge granted with leave to amend in
part and without leave to amend in part the  Defendants' motion to
dismiss the second claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).  Barker will be
allowed to amend his second claim with respect to the
non-solicitation of customers provision because he may be able to
cure the above deficiencies by an amendment.  On the other hand,
Barker will not be allowed to amend the second claim with respect
to the non-solicitation of employees provision because she also
dismisses that claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) without leave to
amend.  The Judge finds that the non-solicitation of employees
provision in the At-Will Employment Agreement is valid.

The Judge granted with leave to amend the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the fourth claim.  Barker's opposition suggests that he may
have facts which may cure the deficiencies of his fourth claim.  As
such, she finds that Barker should be given an opportunity to amend
the fourth claim.

She granted without leave to amend the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the fifth claim.  The Defendants argue that the TAC's fifth
claim should be dismissed because the Plan is an ERISA "top hat"
plan that is exempt from ERISA's fiduciary liability provisions.
Barker agrees to exclude the fifth claim in an amended complaint.

Finally, because Barker does not provide any argument that he is
entitled to a jury trial for his ERISA claims, the Judge granted
the Defendants' request to strike Barker's jury trial demand with
respect to his ERISA claims.  To the extent that the Barker demands
a jury trial on any ERISA claim, that request is stricken.

Barker may file an amended complaint within 21 days of the date of
the Order.  If Barker amends (i) the second claim with respect to
the non-solicitation of customers provision and (ii) the fourth
claim, the Defendants may file a motion to dismiss those amended
claims.  In that event, the Defendants' opening brief and Barker's
opposition brief will be each limited to 10 pages.  The Defendants'
reply brief will be limited to five pages.  The Court may rule on
that motion to dismiss without oral argument.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/CoLq6M from Leagle.com.

John Barker, Plaintiff, epresented by Benjamin I. Fink
bfink@bfvlaw.com -- Berman Fink Van Horn P.C., pro hac vice, &
Tyler Mark Paetkau -- tyler.paetkau@procopio.com -- Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch LLP.

Insight Global, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher Carl
Marquardt -- chris.marquardt@alston.com -- Alston Bird LLP, Jeremy
Matthew Mittman -- jmittman@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP,
Anna Beth Saraie -- anna.saraie@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP,
pro hac vice & Isabella Pei-Ying Lee -- isabella.lee@alston.com --
Alston and Bird LLP Labor and Employment, pro hac vice.

Insight Global, LLC 2013 Incentive Unit Plan, Defendant,
represented by Christopher Carl Marquardt, Alston Bird LLP,
Isabella Pei-Ying Lee, Alston and Bird LLP Labor and Employment,
Jeremy Matthew Mittman, Proskauer Rose LLP & Tyler Mark Paetkau,
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP.hac vice.

Insight Global, LLC, Counter-claimant, represented by Christopher
Carl Marquardt, Alston Bird LLP, Jeremy Matthew Mittman, Proskauer
Rose LLP, Anna Beth Saraie, Alston and Bird LLP, pro hac vice,
Isabella Pei-Ying Lee, Alston and Bird LLP Labor and Employment,
Isabella Pei-Ying Lee, Alston and Bird LLP Labor and Employment &
Anna Beth Saraie, Alston and Bird LLP.

John Barker, Counter-defendant, represented by Benjamin I. Fink,
Berman Fink Van Horn P.C., pro hac vice, Charles John Smith, III,
Law Offices of Charles J. Smith III, Olga Savage, Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch LLP & Tyler Mark Paetkau, Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch LLP.


JOHN DOES: Levy Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------
The case captioned Eric J. Levy (Living Trust UA dated January 21,
2010) and Avril E. Levy (Living Trust UA date January 21, 2010),
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. John Does, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02552 (S.D.
N.Y., March 22, 2018) was transferred to the United States District
Court for Northern Illinois on June 19, 2018, under Case No.
18-cv-04176.

Plaintiffs seek treble damages arising out of the alleged
manipulation of the prices of financial instruments linked to the
Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index in violation of the
Sherman Act and the Commodities Exchange Act.

Defendants allegedly colluded with each other to manipulate the
trading prices of Volatility Index Derivatives through the placing
of manipulative S&P 500 Index options orders that were intended to
cause Volatility Index Derivative settlement prices to spike
artificial.

Eric J. Levy transacted in the iPath S&P 500 VIX ST Futures ETN,
ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, ProShares UltraShort
S&P500 and the ProShares Ultra VIX Short-Term Futures ETF. Avril E.
Levy transacted in the ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF.

Unnamed Defendants are a group of financial institutions, market
makers, and/or traders on the Chicago Board Options Exchange.
Plaintiffs will be able to identify Defendants through discovery
and will request leave to amend this complaint upon learning the
identity of Defendants. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10036-8718
      Tel: (917) 438-9189
      Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
             bcohen@nussbaumpc.com


JOHN DOES: Musso Securities Row Transferred to N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Christopher Musso, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. John Does, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-02269 (S.D. N.Y., March 14, 2018), was transferred
to the United States District Court for Northern Illinois on June
18, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-04175.

Musso seeks treble damages arising out of the alleged manipulation
of the prices of financial instruments linked to the Chicago Board
Options Exchange Volatility Index in violation of the Sherman Act
and the Commodities Exchange Act.

Defendants allegedly colluded with each other to manipulate the
trading prices of Volatility Index Derivatives through the placing
of manipulative S&P 500 Index options orders that were intended to
cause Volatility Index Derivative settlement prices to spike
artificial.

Musso transacted in Volatility Index Derivative, including
Proshares Ultra Volatility Index Derivative Short-Term Futures and
Velocity Shares. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
      Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
      Donald R. Hall, Esq.
      Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
      Ralph E. Labaton, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 687-1980
      Fax: (212) 687-7714
      Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
             ffox@kaplanfox.com
             dhall@kaplanfox.com
             jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
             rlabaton@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Tel: (914) 934-9200
      Fax: (914) 934-9220
      Email: jak@klafterolsen.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 2d Cir. Vacates Langan Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HEIDI LANGAN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 17-1605 (2d
Cir.), Judge John M. Walker, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit vacated the district court's grant of
certification, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with
his Opinion.

Connecticut resident Heidi Langan sued Johnson & Johnson on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated for deceptive
labeling.  The Plaintiff alleged that several of the company's baby
products were labeled natural when they were not.  Langan claimed
that this labeling violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act, as well as the state consumer protection laws of 20 other
states, and sought to certify a plaintiff class.

After both parties moved for summary judgment, the district court
denied both motions, and certified a class of consumers who
purchased two baby bath products in 18 states.  The Appellate Court
granted Johnson & Johnson leave to appeal the class certification.


On appeal, Johnson & Johnson principally challenges the district
court's conclusions that (1) Langan has Article III standing to
bring a class-action claim on behalf of consumers in states other
than Connecticut, and (2) the state laws in the other states are
sufficiently similar to support certifying the class.

Judge Walker concludes that whether a plaintiff can bring a class
action under the state laws of multiple states is a question of
predominance under Rule 23(b)(3), not a question of standing under
Article III.  Since Langan's individual standing to sue is not in
doubt, he turns to the question of whether the district court
correctly determined that the predominance requirement of Rule
23(b)(3) was satisfied.

He is not convinced that the district court undertook the requisite
considered analysis of the variations in state law and the
potential need for subclasses that might result from those
variations.  Although both parties submitted complicated and
conflicting summaries of the state consumer protection laws in 18
states, the district court's analysis consisted of one paragraph.
In that paragraph, it is his view that the district court did not
sufficiently engage with Johnson & Johnson's arguments about
reliance, instead concluding that "it appears" that none of the
states' high courts have insisted on reliance.  The other
identified differences -- including whether intent to deceive is
required, and whether causation can be presumed -- were not
discussed.  He believes that more precise and greater depth of
analysis is required to comport with the "close look" required by
the precedent.

Accordingly, he will remand the case to the district court to
conduct a more thorough analysis.  Although the Appellate Court is
free to consider variations in state laws in the first instance,
the judgment whether to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3) is a
discretionary determination that he thinks is best made by the
district court upon appropriate analysis of the circumstances of
the case.  Out of respect for the district court's comparative
advantage at weighing whether, under the circumstances of the case,
state law similarities or differences will predominate, he will
remand the case to the able district judge to carefully analyze the
relevant state laws, decide whether subclasses are appropriate,
reconsider the predominance question, and explain in greater detail
its conclusion on that question.

For these reasons, Judge Walker vacated the district court's grant
of certification, and remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/sSxNAm from Leagle.com.

MARK P. KINDALL -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe,
LLP., West Hartford, CT ( Nicole A. Veno, Simsbury, CT, on the
brief), for Plaintiff-Appellee.

HAROLD P. WEINBERGER -- hweinberger@kramerlevin.com -- ( Eileen M.
Patt -- epatt@kramerlevin.com -- Benjamin M. Arrow --
barrow@fdh.com -- on the brief), Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.


KENT NUTRITION: Miller Appeals N.D. Ohio Ruling to 6th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jane Miller filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Jane Miller v. Kent Nutrition Group, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02116, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio at Cleveland.

The lawsuit asserts product liability claims.

The appellate case is captioned as Jane Miller v. Kent Nutrition
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-3813, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant brief is due on October 9, 2018; and
   -- Appellee brief is due on November 8, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JANE MILLER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Dennis E. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          MURRAY & MURRAY CO. LPA
          111 E. Shoreline Drive
          Sandusky, OH 44870
          Telephone: (419) 624-3126
          E-mail: dmj@murrayandmurray.com

Defendant-Appellee KENT PET GROUP, INC., is represented by:

          John Q. Lewis, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Mesko, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 592-5000
          E-mail: john.lewis@tuckerellis.com
                  jennifer.mesko@tuckerellis.com


KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Faces Sam Suit Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kirschenbaum &
Phillips, PC, et al.  The case is styled as Mark N. Sam, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kirschenbaum &
Phillips, PC, Elliot Phillips, LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent Capital
Services LP, Sherman Financial Group, LLC, Forster & Garbus, LLP,
Mark A. Garbus and Ronald Forster, Case No. 2:18-cv-04898
(E.D.N.Y., August 29, 2018).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Kirschenbaum & Phillips, PC, was founded in 1950.  The Company's
line of business includes providing full service legal advice.
LVNV Funding LLC purchases portfolios of both domestic and
international consumer debt.  LVNV invests in consumer debt, which
is owned by credit grantors including banks, financial companies,
and other debt buyers.

Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., manages and services domestic and
international consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt
buyers.  Resurgent manages accounts across the credit spectrum,
including performing accounts, sub- and non-performing accounts,
secured accounts, and unsecured accounts.

Sherman Financial Group LLC, through its subsidiaries, originates,
purchases, and services consumer and commercial debt in the United
States, Canada, Mexico, and the United Kingdom.  Sherman
specializes in the development of solutions that optimize long term
value.  Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services.  Forster &
Garbus specializes in collecting debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
     Mitchell L. Pashkin, Attorney At law
     Phone: (631) 351-1047
     Fax: (631) 824-9328
     E-mail: mpash@verizon.net


KIRSCHENBAUM PHILLIPS: Henriquez Sues Over  FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kirschenbaum Phillips
& Levy, P.C.  The case is captioned Juan R. Henriquez, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
Kirschenbaum Phillips & Levy, P.C., Case No. 2:18-cv-04883
(E.D.N.Y., August 28, 2018).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Kirschenbaum Phillips & Levy, P.C., is a collection agency with an
office maintained in Farmingdale, New York.  Kirschenbaum is a
third party, debt collection law firm and collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


L'OREAL USA: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of Decision in Price Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants L'Oreal USA, Inc. and Matrix Essentials LLC filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Price, et al. v.
L'Oreal USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-614, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in a late 2017
opinion, Judge Lorna Schofield denied L'Oreal USA Inc. and Matrix
Essentials LLC's motion to dismiss a first amended complaint of a
class action complaint brought against them by Plaintiffs Brandi
Price and Christine Chadwick over alleged false representations in
the three of their popular hair products, but did dismiss the
unjust enrichment claim under both New York and California law.

Rather than restoring their hair, L'Oreal subsidiary Matrix's
Biolage Keratindose Pro-Keratin + Silk Shampoo, Conditioner and
Renewal Spray (products), which advertise Keratindose Pro Keratin
+Silk, caused hair loss and damage, according to the Plaintiffs.
The opinion also states the Plaintiffs' expert testified the
products do not even have the natural human protein keratin in
them.

Ms. Price alleged she suffered brittle and dry damage to her hair
in 2014 after purchasing one of the products in New York, and
Chadwick alleged she suffered the same in 2016 when buying two of
the products in California.  While both the Plaintiffs seek
restitution and injunctive relief, L'Oreal was looking to have the
whole matter dropped, specifically arguing that the Plaintiffs have
not sufficiently pleaded fraud under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

The appellate case is captioned as Price, et al. v. L'Oreal USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-2571, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents Brandi Price, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated, and Christine Chadwick, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, are represented by:

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW, P.C.
          550 West Main Avenue
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners L'Oreal USA, Inc., and Matrix Essentials LLC
are represented by:

          Frederick B. Warder, III, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 336-2000
          E-mail: fbwarder@pbwt.com


LIBERTY CRUISES: Diaz Suit Asserts ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Cruises, LLC.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Liberty Cruises, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-07819 (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2018).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Liberty Cruises, LLC, is a foreign limited liability company
registered in United States in 2014.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal


MAVIS DISCOUNT: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mavis Discount Tire,
Inc.  The case is styled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Mavis Discount Tire, Inc., Case
No. 1:18-cv-07904 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Mavis Discount Tire, Inc., operates as an independent multi-brand
tire dealer.  The Company offers tires, as well as other services
including brakes, alignments, suspension, shocks, struts, oil
changes, battery replacement, and exhaust work.[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


MAXIMUS INC: Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Anthony J Trenga granted defendants' motion to dismiss,
with prejudice, the amended complaint in the case, IN RE MAXIMUS,
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-0884
(AJT/IDD)(E.D. Va.).  The Court held that the Amended Complaint
fails to allege facts sufficient to support plaintiffs' claims
under Sections lO(b) or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The Amended Complaint is dismissed.

Maximus, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that on August 4, 2017, the
Company and certain officers were named as defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan
v. MAXIMUS.

The plaintiff alleges the defendants made a variety of materially
false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material
information, concerning the status of the Company's Health
Assessment Advisory Service project for the U.K. Department for
Work and Pensions from the period of October 20, 2014 through
February 3, 2016, and seeks damages to be proved at trial.

Maximus said, "We deny the allegations and intend to defend the
matter vigorously. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably
predict whether this matter will be permitted to proceed as a class
or to reasonably estimate the value of the claims asserted and we
are unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss."

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

Maximus, Inc. provides business process services (BPS) to
government health and human services programs in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Saudi Arabia.
The company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Reston,
Virginia.


MDL 1556: Court Denies Bid for Reconsideration in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, ARANDELL CORP. et al., Plaintiffs, v. XCEL ENERGY INC.
et al., Defendants. NEWPAGE WISCONSIN SYSTEM INC., Plaintiff, v.
CMS ENERGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CO. et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:03-cv-01431-RCJ-PAL, MDL No. 1566, No. 2:07-cv-01019-RCJ-PAL.,
2:09-cv-00915-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev.), Judge Robert C. Jones of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada denied the
Plaintiffs-Movants' Motion for Reconsideration.

These consolidated cases arise out of the energy crisis of
2000-2002.  The Plaintiffs (retail buyers of natural gas) allege
that the Defendants (natural gas traders) manipulated the price of
natural gas by reporting false information to price indices
published by trade publications and by engaging in "wash sales."

In 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML")
transferred seven class action cases from various districts in
California to the District under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 as
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Case No. 1566, assigning Judge Pro
to preside.  Since then, the JPML has transferred in several more
actions from various districts throughout the United States.

Between 2003 and 2015, Judge Pro ruled on many motions to remand,
to dismiss, and for summary judgment.  He also approved several
class settlements.  Several parties settled on their own.  One or
more of the cases have been to the Court of Appeals twice and to
the Supreme Court once.  In 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed
several dismissals under the filed-rate doctrine and remanded for
further proceedings.  

In 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed several summary judgment
orders, ruling that the Natural Gas Act did not preempt state law
anti-trust claims and that certain Wisconsin- and Missouri-based
Defendants should not have been dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction.  The Supreme Court granted certiorari as to
preemption under the Natural Gas Act and affirmed.  The case was
soon thereafter reassigned to the Court when Judge Pro retired.
The Court has issued several dispositive orders and has denied
class certification in applicable cases.  Several appeals remain
pending.

On March 27, 2018, the Court of Appeals reversed the Court's ruling
that Reorganized FLI, Inc. ("RFLI") was entitled to summary
judgment on the basis of a release in the NYMEX Action.  The Court
of Appeals ruled that New York law governed the release issue, that
the language of the release was broad enough to cover RFLI's
claims, but that the release was not enforceable against RFLI under
the "identical factual predicate" rule.  The Court has ruled
similarly against the Plaintiffs-Movants in the present actions
(the '1019 and '915 Cases).  The Plaintiffs-Movants therefore ask
the Court to vacate those rulings, reconsider summary judgment on
the release issue, and deny it.

Judge Jones finds that there is at least one additional issue to be
addressed on appeal, i.e., res judicata, which the Court of Appeals
has not yet addressed in the already-decided case.  The Court of
Appeals may determine the present appeals on the res judicata
issue, it may affirm on the release issue based on distinctions
between the present cases and the already-decided case that this
Court or the parties may or may not perceive, it may reverse for
similar reasons that it reversed the already-decided case, or it
may take some other approach.  But the Court will not abruptly
interfere with the orderly disposition of the Court of Appeals'
determination of related issues in the consolidated cases on the
eve of oral argument.  Although the case has not yet been heard,
the judges on the panel have surely already dedicated time and
resources to evaluating the present appeals.  Also, granting the
present motions would almost certainly result in appeals by the
Defendants, so there is little argument in favor of judicial
economy.

For these reasons, Judge Jones denied the Plaintiffs-Movants'
Motion for Reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/mhiNdA from Leagle.com.

In Re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation,
represented by Jay Kevin Wieser -- jwieser@jw.com -- Jackson Walker
L.L.P., Anna K. Milunas -- amilunas@mckoolsmithhennigan.com --
McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber -- bweber@lockelord.com
-- Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen -- bcohen@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett --
bbissett@mckoolsmithhennigan.com -- McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C.,
Craig A. Fitzgerald -- cfitzgerald@gablelaw.com -- Gable Gotwals,
Diane R. Hazel -- dhazel@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie
LLP, Gary D. McCallister -- gdm@mccallisterlawgroup.com -- Gary D.
McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz --
gbentz@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon
-- jbacon@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Joseph A. Fischer, III
-- tfischer@jw.com -- Jackson Walker L.L.P., Mark R. Robeck --
mrobeck@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Melinda Anne
Bialzik -- mbialzik@kmksc.com -- Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C.,
Melvin
Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel --
mmiguel@mckoolsmithhennigan.com -- McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro
hac vice, Nitin Reddy -- nreddy@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP,
Orrin L. Harrison, III -- oharrison@getrial.com -- Gruber Hurst
Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel -- rm@kupfersteinmanuel.com
-- Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Russell S. Jones, Jr. --
rjones@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings --
rbillings@kmksc.com -- Kohner, Mann & Kailas & Tristan L. Duncan --
tlduncan@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Auila, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene Washburn, Kohner,
Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Charles A. Moore, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP,
Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice,
Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Sylvie K. Kern,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith
Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP & Orrin
L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

Maximum Nursery, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene
Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Melinda Anne
Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, Michael John
Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley
Austin LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail
Shank.

Multiut Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Alan J. Mandel, ALAN
J. MANDEL, LTD., Amy Irene Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac
vice, Ira P. Gould, Greenberg Trauring, LLP, Melinda Anne Bialzik,
Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, Gregory M. Bentz,
Jennifer Gille Bacon, Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan
PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP & Orrin L.
Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

Learjet, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene Washburn,
Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Dennis D. Palmer, Polsinelli
Shughart, P.C., Donald D. Barry, Barry Law Offices, L.L.C., Eric I.
Unrein, Frieden, Unrein & Forbes LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D.
McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory L. Musil, Shughart Thompson
& Kilroy, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Kathleen A. Hardee,
Polsinelli Shughart, P.C., Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann &
Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, R. Lawrence Ward, Shughart Thomson &
Kilroy, PC, Russell S. Jones, Jr., Polsinelli P.C., Susan G.
Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg, Von S. Heinz, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie
LLP, Andrew Ennis, Polsinelli PC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli
Shughart, Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac
vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III,
Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

Cross Oil Refining & Marketing, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Amy
Irene Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Donald D.
Barry, Barry Law Offices, L.L.C., Eric I. Unrein, Frieden, Unrein
& Forbes LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D. McCallister &
Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Gregory L.
Musil, Shughart Thompson & Kilroy, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli
PC, Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac
vice, R. Lawrence Ward, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC, Susan G.
Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg, Von S. Heinz, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie
LLP, Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice,
Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber
Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

Topeka Unified School District 501, Plaintiff, represented by Amy
Irene Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Donald D.
Barry, Barry Law Offices, L.L.C., Eric I. Unrein, Frieden, Unrein &
Forbes LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D. McCallister & Associates,
LLC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Gregory L. Musil,
Shughart Thompson & Kilroy, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC,
Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, R.
Lawrence Ward, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC, Susan G. Kupfer,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg, Von S. Heinz, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Michael
John Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy,
Sidley Austin LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen
Hail Shank.

Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Amy Irene Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Dennis D.
Palmer, Polsinelli Shughart, P.C., Donald D. Barry, Barry Law
Offices, L.L.C., Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Kathleen A.
Hardee, Polsinelli Shughart, P.C., Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner,
Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, Philip Wayne Bledsoe, R.
Lawrence Ward, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC, Russell S. Jones,
Jr., Polsinelli P.C., Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg,
LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Andrew Ennis,
Polsinelli PC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Michael John
Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley
Austin LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail
Shank.

BBD Acquisition Co., Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene Washburn,
Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Donald D. Barry, Barry Law
Offices, L.L.C., Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Melinda Anne
Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, Philip Wayne
Bledsoe, Shughart Thomson * Kilroy, PC, R. Lawrence Ward, Shughart
Thomson & Kilroy, PC, Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg,
LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Andrew Ennis,
Polsinelli PC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Michael John
Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley
Austin LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail
Shank.

Coachella Valley Taxi Owners Association, Plaintiff, represented by
Amy Irene Washburn, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Melinda
Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, Susan G.
Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg, Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith Hennigan PC,
Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane
R. Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister,
Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz, Polsinelli
Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC, Joseph A. Fischer,
III, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren
LLP, Melvin Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John
Miguel, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley
Austin LLP, Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail
Shank, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Russell S. Jones,
Jr., Polsinelli P.C., Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas
& Tristan L. Duncan, Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Arandell Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Amy Irene Washburn,
Kohner, Mann & Kailas, pro hac vice, Dennis D. Palmer, Polsinelli
Shughart, P.C., Donald D. Barry, Barry Law Offices, L.L.C., Gregory
M. Bentz, Polsinelli Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon, Polsinelli PC,
Kathleen A. Hardee, Polsinelli Shughart, P.C., Melinda Anne
Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., pro hac vice, R. Lawrence
Ward, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC, Russell S. Jones, Jr.,
Polsinelli P.C., Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP,
Sylvie K. Kern, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Andrew Ennis, Polsinelli
PC, Anna K. Milunas, McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber,
Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP,
Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane R. Hazel, Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister, Gary D. McCallister &
Associates, LLC, Joseph A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P.,
Mark R. Robeck, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Melvin Goldstein,
Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel, McKool Smith
Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy, Sidley Austin LLP, Orrin L.
Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Robert L. Gegios,
Kohner, Mann & Kailas, Roxanna A. Manuel, Kupferstein Manuel LLP,
Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas & Tristan L. Duncan,
Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Aquila, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles A. Moore, Dewey &
LeBoeuf LLP, Khai LeQuang, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro
hac vice, Martin M. Loring -- martin.loring@huschblackwell.com --
Blackwell, Sanders, Peper, Martin, William Molinski Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP &
Orrin L. Harrison, III -- oharrison@getrial.com -- Gruber Hurst
Johansen Hail Shank.

Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., Cantera Resources, Inc., CMS Energy
Resources, Defendants, represented by Mark E. Haddad, Sidley Austin
LLP, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III,
Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

CMS Energy Resources Management Company, Defendant, represented by
Mark E. Haddad -- mhaddad@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Michelle
B. Goodman -- mgoodman@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Nitin Reddy
-- nreddy@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Steven A.
Ellis Goodwin Procter LLP, Bradley C. Weber -- BWeber@lockelord.com
-- Locke Lord LLP, Joel B. Kleinman, Blank Rome LLP, Orrin L.
Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank & Stacy L.
Williams, Locke Lord LLP.

CMS Enterprises Group, Inc., Defendant, epresented by Bradley C.
Weber, Esq. -- bweber@goodwinprocter.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP -- Orrin
L. Harrison, III, Esq. -- oharrison@getrial.com -- GRUBER HURST
JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK

Coral Energy Resources, LP, Defendant, represented by Bruce A.
Schultz, Esq. -- mschultz@swlaw.com -- SNELL & WILMER LLP; James
Richard Eiszner, Esq. -- reiszner@shb.com -- and Lori Renee
Schultz, Esq. -- lschultz@shb.com -- SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP;
Joshua D.
Lichtman, Esq. -- joshua.lichtman@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON
ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP -- Roxanna A. Manuel, Esq. --
rm@kupfersteinmanuel.com -- KUPFERSTEIN MANUEL LLP; Joel B.
Kleinman, Esq. -- JKleinman@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP; Mark
R. Robeck, Esq. -- mrobeck@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE & WARREN
LLP; Orrin L. Harrison, III, Esq. -- oharrison@getrial.com --
GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK; and Stacy L. Williams, Esq. --
swilliams@lockelord.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP.

Dynegy Holding Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Jay Kevin
Wieser, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Joseph A. Fischer, III, Jackson
Walker L.L.P., Michael J. Kass, VLP Law Group LLP, Bradley C.
Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Douglas R. Tribble, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail
Shank.

Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc., Defendant, represented by David T.
Moran, Jackson Walker LLP, pro hac vice, Jay Kevin Wieser, Jackson
Walker L.L.P., Joseph A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P.,
Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Douglas R. Tribble, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Edwin M. Buffmire, Jackson Walker LLP,
Michael J. Kass, VLP Law Group LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber
Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

El Paso Tennesse Pipeline Company, Defendant, represented by
Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber
Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

e prime Energy Marketing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jay Kevin
Wieser, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Anna K. Milunas --
amilunas@mckoolsmithhennigan.com -- McKool Smith Hennigan PC,
Bradley C. Weber -- BWeber@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Brent
Cohen -- bcohen@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP,
Brett D. Bissett -- bbissett@mckoolsmithhennigan.com -- McKool
Smith Hennigan, P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald, Gable Gotwals, Diane R.
Hazel, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Gary D. McCallister Gary
D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz --
gbentz@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon
-- jbacon@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Joseph A. Fischer, III,
Jackson Walker L.L.P., Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, Mark R. Robeck -- mrobeck@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye &
Warren LLP, Melinda Anne Bialzik, Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C.,
Melvin Goldstein, Goldstein & Associates, PC, Michael John Miguel,
McKool Smith Hennigan PC, pro hac vice, Nitin Reddy --
nreddy@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Orrin L. Harrison, III --
oharrison@getrial.com -- Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Roxanna
A. Manuel -- rm@kupfersteinmanuel.com -- Kupferstein Manuel LLP,
Russell S. Jones, Jr. -- rjones@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli P.C.,
Ryan Matthew Billings, Kohner, Mann & Kailas & Tristan L. Duncan --
tlduncan@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon.


MIDCAP FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in J. Garcia's FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE GARCIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VASILIA a/k/a
"VAUNA" PETERSON, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. H-17-1601
(S.D. Tex.), Judge Gray H. Miller of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, (i) denied
MidCap' motion to dismiss for improper venue; (ii) granted in part
and denied in part MidCap's motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction; and (iii) denied MidCap's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.

Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss for improper venue,
lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim filed
by Defendants MidCap Financial Trust, formerly known as MidCap
Financial, LLC, and MidCap Funding X Trust.  The Motion was
originally filed on Sept. 29, 2017.

The Plaintiffs, who are a group of moving truck drivers, filed a
motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery, which the
Court granted on Nov. 8, 2017.  The Court originally required that
the discovery be completed by Jan. 5, 2018, and that the Plaintiffs
file a supplemental response to MidCap's pending motion for
jurisdictional discovery by Jan. 19, 2018.  The Magistrate Judge
extended the deadline for jurisdictional discovery until March 23,
2018, and required the Plaintiffs to file a response by April 6,
2018, and MidCap to file a reply by April 13, 2018.  The plaintiffs
filed their supplemental response on April 6, and MidCap filed a
reply on April 13.

In the interim, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their
complaint, the Court granted leave, and the Plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint.  On April 30, 2018, MidCap filed a notice
requesting that the court apply their pending motion to dismiss,
which was originally filed in response to the first amended
complaint, to the second amended complaint, which the Court may do
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The case is a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case filed by 28
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated.
Eleven of the named Plaintiffs reside in Texas, and 17 of them live
outside of Texas.  The Plaintiffs were drivers for Graebel Cos.,
Inc., and they were classified as independent contractors.  They
contend that Graebel Cos. underwent a change in ownership in 2014,
became Graebel Van Lines, LLC in 2015, and was eventually dissolved
in March 2017.  They assert that the MidCap financed the purchase
of Graebel Cos., and provided working capital.  MidCap thus had a
security interest in Graebel's and its subsidiaries' assets.  The
Plaintiffs allege that when the reorganization occurred, the new
owners asserted more direct control over the drivers and
implemented changes that were detrimental to the company.

The Plaintiffs contend that by 2016, Graebel decided to start
liquidating at the direction and control of MidCap and a turnaround
company, and the liquidation plan was designed to leave the
Plaintiffs without wages for months.  They allege that they started
receiving only a portion of their pay in October 2016 and that the
amount they received was determined via a formula and at the
direction of MidCap.  This formula allegedly calculated an advance
that the drivers would receive based on the gross weight they
transported.  Graebel's local terminal managers assured the drivers
that they would receive their entire pay, not just the advances,
and that they should continue to perform moving services at
Graebel's instruction and supervision.  The drivers contend,
however, that they never received the balance and were paid nothing
for much of the work they performed.  They allege that they learned
they would probably never be paid when Graebel announced its
liquidation in mid-March 2017.

The Plaintiffs claim that MidCap and the other Defendants are
liable for the actions of Graebel under agency, veil-piercing, or
alter-ego theories of vicarious liability and that the corporate
forms of the Graebel entities ought to be disregarded.  They
contend that the Defendants used the Graebel Entities to dupe them
into continuing to drive for Graebel.  They allege that the
corporate forms of the Graebel entities were organized and operated
as a mere tool or business conduit of the Defendants and that
MidCap and the other Defendants used the Graebel entities as a
means to shield themselves from liability for claims by unpaid
drivers.

The causes of action the Plaintiffs assert against MidCap are (1)
violation of the FLSA for failure to pay wages because MidCap was
an "employer" under the FLSA; (2) violation of the FLSA for failure
to keep records; (3) breach of contract; (4) quantum meruit; (5)
fraud; (6) conspiracy and aider and abettor liability for fraud;
and (7) veil piercing, alter ego, and agency liability.

MidCap moves for the court to dismiss the claims asserted against
it because (1) the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over MidCap;
(2) the Plaintiffs have not shown venue is proper in Texas; and (3)
the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for which relief can be
granted under Rules 8(a) and 9(b).  With regard to personal
jurisdiction, MidCap points out that each Plaintiff must establish
separately that his or her claims arise out of or relate to
MidCap's activities in Texas.  It asserts that despite being
allowed to conduct discovery on their alter ego allegations, the
plaintiffs have no evidence to support their jurisdictional
theories.

With regard to venue, MidCap contends that the Plaintiffs have not
shown that a substantial part of each Plaintiff's claim against
MidCap arose in the Southern District of Texas.  Additionally,
MidCap asserts that the employment agreements for the non-Texas
Plaintiffs have mandatory venue clauses that require those
Plaintiffs to pursue litigation arising from their employment in
other states.

Finally, with regard to their assertion that the plaintiffs fail to
state a claim for which relief can be granted, MidCap contends that
(1) the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims fail because they are not parties
covered by the FLSA; (2) the Plaintiffs do not provide any factual
support for their FLSA claim; (3) the Plaintiffs fail to describe
the putative class for the proposed FLSA collective action; (4)
they cannot maintain both a conspiracy claim and claims of imputed
liability because if there is an agency relationship, there can be
no conspiracy; (5) the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for
conspiracy because they do not plead it with particularity; (6) the
Plaintiffs cannot assert a claim for "aider and abettor liability"
because no such claim exists independent of a conspiracy claim in
Texas; (7) they do not meet Rule 9(b)'s standard with regard to the
corporate veil and alter ego theories for imputing the fraud claims
to MidCap; (8) they fail to state a claim for breach of contract
with regard to the corporate veil and alter ego theories for
imputing the claims to MidCap; and (9) the Plaintiffs fail to state
a claim to impute liability under an agency theory.

Judge Miller first reviews the legal standards for motions to
dismiss for improper venue, lack of personal jurisdiction, and
failure to state a claim.  He them then substantively addresses
venue, personal jurisdiction, and the adequacy of the pleading in
seriatim.

The Judge granted in part and denied in part MidCap's motion to
dismiss.  He granted it with respect to the claims against MidCap
Trust, which are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.  He
otherwise denied the motion.

The Judge finds that the entire action may not be brought in some
other district because there are Texas Plaintiffs who would not
have been parties to any misrepresentations that occurred in these
other districts.  The fallback provision applies, and the
Plaintiffs have asserted a prima facie case that venue is proper in
the Souther District of Texas under this provision -- so long as
the Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.
The motion to dismiss for improper venue is denied.  The Judge,
therefore, now turns to personal jurisdiction.

While the case seems like more of a close call than the cases
relied upon by the Plaintiffs, the Judge agrees with the
Plaintiffs' purposeful availment argument.  They assert that the
receivership case is essentially a state court bankruptcy because
it purports to dispose of all of the Graebel Entities' assets.
They contend that it deals with the very property for which the
Graebel Drivers claim a constructive trust in the action and that
their claim for a constructive trust here could not be more related
to the Dallas Receivership.  Because it arises from the same
operative facts, though a subportion of those facts, MidCap Funding
has purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of
Texas laws as they relate to these facts, and it is not unfair to
subject it to jurisdiction in Texas.  Accordingly, he finds,
notwithstanding the Plaintiffs' failure to meet their burden with
regard to their other jurisdictional theories, that it may exercise
jurisdiction over MidCap Funding due to consent.  MidCap Funding's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is therefore
denied.

Finallty, taking the allegations in the complaint as true, the
Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim
under the FLSA and have identified the putative class.  MidCap's
motion to dismiss because the Plaintiffs did not plead sufficient
facts to support their FLSA claim, have no claim because they were
exempt from the FLSA, and did not adequately identify the putative
class is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/QtvkjI from Leagle.com.

Jose Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Murray J. Fogler --
mfogler@fbfog.com -- Fogler, Brar, Ford, O'Neil & Gray LLP, Robert
Henry Ford -- rford@fbfog.com -- Fogler Brar Ford O'Neil Gray LLP &
Benjamin Witten Allen -- ben.allen@feldman.law -- Feldman &
Feldman, PC.

Mark Wilburn, Jose Luis Vazquez, Jose Caballero, Americo Fuentez,
Franciso Martinez-Villarreal, Jose Mejia, Kenneth Powell, Rosa
Ramirez, Alex Santos, Dulce Santos, James Stephens, Aaron Dunning,
Albert Foks, Gabriel Strasser, Ivan Diaz, Ramon Diaz, Melissa
Earley, Randall Morton Hooper, General Lee McKinney, Michael Kee,
Ed Krapf, Jordan O'Donnell, Marselo Rodriguez, Chet Painter,
William Shelton, Michael Willin, Larry Burt, Jeffrey Casady,
Wlodzimierz Debski & Albert Dennis, Plaintiffs, represented by
Robert Henry Ford, Fogler Brar Ford O'Neil Gray LLP & Benjamin
Witten Allen, Feldman & Feldman, PC.

Vasilia Peterson, also known as Vauna & Robert Peterson,
Defendants, represented by Alice Kwak --
Alice.Kwak@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois et al, Jeffrey S.
Ranen -- Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois et al,
Katherine C. Den Bleyker -- Katherine.DenBleyker@lewisbrisbois.com
-- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & William Scott Helfand ,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP.

Ormando Gomez, Graebel Van Lines Holdings, LLC, doing business as
Graebel Moving Services, Graebel Van Lines, LLC, Graebel/Houston
Movers, LLC, Graebel Moving and Warehouse Corp. & Graebel/North
Carolina Movers, LLC, Defendants, represented by Alice Kwak, Lewis
Brisbois et al, Jeffrey S. Ranen, Lewis Brisbois et al, Katherine
C. Den Bleyker, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Katherine C.
Den Bleyker, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, pro hac vice &
William Scott Helfand, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP.

All My Sons of Denton County, Inc., Defendant, pro se.

MidCap Financial, LLC & Mid Cap Funding X Trust, Defendants,
represented by Jamil N. Alibhai -- jalibhai@munckwilson.com --
Munck Wilson Mandala LLP, John Maston O'Neal --
john.oneal@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah
J. Lopano -- slopano@munckwilson.com -- Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP,
pro hac vice.

John Does 1-10, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Ranen, Lewis
Brisbois et al.

Graebel/St. Louis Movers, LLC & Graebel/Los Angeles, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Jeffrey S. Ranen, Lewis Brisbois et al,
Alice Kwak, Lewis Brisbois et al & Katherine C. Den Bleyker, Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Graebel/Illinois Movers, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alice Kwak,
Lewis Brisbois et al & Katherine C. Den Bleyker, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP.


MILANO MARKET: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Navarrete Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Milano Market Place,
Inc., et al.  The case is captioned as Ricardo Navarrete, on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Milano Market Place, Inc., doing
business as: Milano Market; 89th St. Market, Inc., doing business
as: Milano Market; and Salina Galfaro, Case No. 1:18-cv-07858
(S.D.N.Y., August 28, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act
alleging denial of overtime compensation.

Milano Market Place, Inc., and 89th St. Market, Inc., are domestic
business corporations organized and existing under the laws of the
state of New York, doing business as a gourmet Italian grocery and
specialty store known as Milano Market with a principal place at
1582 Third Avenue, in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


MIRAMED REVENUE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Schik Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Miramed Revenue
Group, LLC.  The case is captioned as Sussie Schik, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Miramed Revenue
Group, LLC, Case No. 7:18-cv-07897 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2018).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Miramed Revenue Group, LLC, operates as a medical collection
agency.  The Company was founded in 2008 and is based in Lombard,
Illinois.  Miramed operates as a subsidiary of MiraMed Global
Services, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City PLaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Faces Tabak Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Enterprise
Systems, Inc., et al.  The case is titled as Chaim Tabak,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Enterprise Systems, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No.
7:18-cv-07868 (S.D.N.Y., August 28, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

National Enterprise Systems, Inc., operates as a full-service debt
collection agency.  The Company also provides accounts receivable
management services in the United States and serves credit grantors
from financial services, retail, automotive, and telecommunications
industries, as well as higher education clients and government
agencies.  The Company was formerly known as Windham Associates
Inc. and changed its name to National Enterprise Systems, Inc. in
January 2002.  The Company was founded in 1987 and is headquartered
in Solon, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel Harris Kohn, Esq.
     Revaz Chachanashvili Law Group, P.C.
     285 Passaic St., Suite 7
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Tel: (201) 282-6500
     Fax: (201) 282-6501



NELSON & KENNARD: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned DAVID TOURGEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NELSON
& KENNARD, a partnership, Defendant-Appellee, and COLLINS FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC., DBA Precision Recovery Analytics, Inc., a Texas
corporation; COLLINS FINANCIAL SERVICES USA, INC.; PARAGON WAY,
INC.; DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LP, Defendants, No. 16-56190 (9th
Cir.).

David Tourgeman appeals the dismissal of his consumer class action
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Tourgeman brought suit against Nelson & Kennard and other entities
allegedly involved in collecting his disputed debt. He claimed that
the letters and complaint violated the FDCPA by using false,
deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection
with the collection of any debt.

Tourgeman argues the district court misallocated the burden of
proof as to Nelson & Kennard's net worth.

Section 1692k of the FDCPA imposes civil liability against any debt
collector who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter
with respect to any person.

The statute provides a two-step determination for awarding
statutory damages to class members, excluding named plaintiffs.
First, the factfinder determines the damages ceiling: a class may
recover statutory damages not to exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 1
per centum of the net worth of the debt collector.

The parties agree that one percent of Nelson & Kennard's net worth
is less than $500,000.

Accordingly, the limit on statutory damages available to the class
must be one percent of Nelson & Kennard's net worth. Tourgeman
conceded below that he could not produce any competent evidence of
this amount at trial. He asserts, however, that Nelson & Kennard
should have carried the burden of introducing evidence of its own
net worth.

The structure of Section 1692k further supports our conclusion that
Congress did not intend to shift the burden of production to the
debt collector.

The FDCPA provides a dual-step formula for calculating class
statutory damages. The fact-finder first determines the defendant's
maximum liability. It next determines the amount of liability in
any action under subsection (a) based on a non-exhaustive list of
factors. The fact-finder thus determines the appropriate award of
statutory damages within the permissible range first established
under subsection (a).

Tourgeman urges the Court to adopt a different interpretation. He
contends that the factfinder can simply skip the cap analysis in
subsection (a) and proceed directly to the list of factors in
subsection (b), on which he concedes he carries the burden of
proof. Under Tourgeman's theory, the factfinder may award any
amount, which the debt collector can subsequently attempt to limit
based on evidence of its net worth. Beyond ignoring the plain
language of Section 1692k(a)(2)(B), discussed above, Tourgeman
would have us simply overlook the analysis Congress enacted for
calculating entitlement to damages. This we decline to do. Before
the factfinder can apply the list of factors, plaintiffs must first
produce evidence from which the factfinder can determine the limit
on statutory damages.

Sections 1692k(c) and 1692k(e) inform the Court's view that
Congress knew how to shift the burden of proof to the defendant,
but chose not to do so regarding evidence of net worth. The Court
has also acknowledged the effort by Congress in drafting the FDCPA
to be both explicit and comprehensive, in order to limit the
opportunities for debt collectors to evade the under-lying
legislative intention.

This is the backdrop against which the Congress writes laws, and
the Court respects it unless the Court has compelling reasons to
think that Congress meant to put the burden of proof on the other
side.

Here, the Court sees no reason to depart from the default rule. The
statute its text and structure makes evidence of net worth
essential to a class statutory damages award; it is not an
affirmative defense. If a plaintiff seeks class statutory damages,
it carries the burden of introducing such evidence at trial.

Tourgeman argues that Nelson & Kennard must bear the burden on this
issue because it has superior access to the relevant evidence. The
Court disagrees. No rule of statutory construction or evidence
compels that result.

The Supreme Court has acknowledged the general principle that a
litigant ordinarily does not carry the burden of establishing facts
peculiarly within the knowledge of his adversary. But the Court has
also cautioned that this rule is far from universal and very often
one must plead and prove matters as to which his adversary has
superior access to the proof. Access to evidence, while perhaps a
consideration, is far from determinative.

The Court also notes that it is not uniquely difficult for consumer
plaintiffs to acquire the debt collector's financial information.


Here, Tourgeman had every opportunity to acquire evidence of Nelson
& Kennard's net worth. A protective order was entered to give
Tourgeman access to Defendant's financial information, and Nelson &
Kennard was ordered to produce it. Tourgeman obtained hundreds of
pages of bank statements, copies of checks, tax returns, and
deposition testimony regarding Defendant's financial condition.
FDCPA plaintiffs seeking evidence of net worth are not peculiarly
at a disadvantage in the discovery of necessary facts.

Tourgeman also argues that placing the burden on the plaintiff
would increase litigation costs, make discovery battles inevitable,
and generally discourage class actions under the FDCPA. But
whatever merits these and other policy arguments may have, it is
not the province of this Court to rewrite the statute to
accommodate them. The Court thinks the statute is clear, and our
inquiry ends there.

The Court concludes, based on the text and structure of Section
1692k, that Congress intended the ordinary default rule to apply.
The Court holds that the plaintiff carries the burden of producing
evidence at trial of the debt collector's net worth to establish
entitlement to class statutory damages under the FDCPA.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 20, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7ahm2uj from Leagle.com.

Brett M. Weaver -- brett@brettweaverlaw.com -- (argued), San Diego,
California; Daniel P. Murphy -- dmurphy@murphydecker.com -- San
Diego, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Tomio Buck Narita -- tnarita@snllp.com -- (argued) and Jeffrey A.
Topor -- jtopor@snllp.com -- Simmonds & Narita LLP, San Francisco,
California, for Defendant-Appellee.


NRA GROUP: Schenker Claims Violations of Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NRA Group, LLC.  The
case is titled as Abraham Schenker, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. NRA Group, LLC doing business as:
National Recovery Agency, Case No. 1:18-cv-04902 (E.D.N.Y., August
29, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

NRA Group, LLC, doing business as National Recovery Agency,
operates as an accounts receivable (A/R) management company that
provides debt collection, skip tracing, and credit bureau reporting
services to companies in the United States.  The Company also
offers outsourced collection, payment processing, first party
collection, third party contingency collection, charge-off
collection, pre-collection, early-out, litigation, check recovery,
debt purchasing, A/R consulting, and call center services.  The
Company serves commercial/B2B, direct marketing, educational,
financial/banking, government, healthcare, purchased debt, retail,
telecommunication, and utility industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     Sanders Law, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Tel: (855) 643-9884
          (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 281-7601


PERSONAL TOUCH: Class of Health Caregivers Certified in "Bridges"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Eldon E. Fallon entered an Order & Reasons in the
lawsuit titled JULIA BRIDGES v. PERSONAL TOUCH HEALTHCARE SERVICES,
LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:17-cv-12423-EEF-DEK (E.D. La.):

   -- granting the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a
      Fair Labor Standards Act collective action under 29 U.S.C.
      Section 216(b);

   -- approving the Plaintiff's proposed notice; and

   -- directing the Defendants to provide the names and last
      known addresses of potential class members.

Julia Bridges brings this FLSA collective action on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated for alleged unpaid wages and
unpaid overtime under the FLSA.  She alleges that in April 2016 she
began working for Personal Touch as a home health caregiver.

Ms. Bridges alleges that she and all other home health caregivers
employed by the Defendants are similarly situated because they 1)
performed similar job duties, 2) were paid by the hour, and 3) were
not paid for all hours worked.


PIVOTAL PAYMENTS: Order on Objection to "Abante" Suit Deal Issued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California has issued an order regarding the
objection of Route 42 Dance Academy, LLC to the proposed settlement
in the case, ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., Plaintiff, v.
PIVOTAL PAYMENTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-05486-JCS (N.D.
Cal.).

On June 29, 2018, the Objector, a class member, filed an objection
to the proposed settlement in the action.  It asserted, among other
things, that the class members could not meaningfully participate
in the process governing approval of class action settlements under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without access to a
declaration by Pivotal's director, Philip Fayer, addressing
Pivotal's financial condition.  The Court permitted Pivotal to file
that declaration under seal.  According to Objector, the Fayer
Declaration must be unsealed to allow the class members to make
their own determination as to whether the amount of the proposed
settlement is reasonable.

Magistrate Judge Spero disagrees.  First, he finds that Pivotal
offered compelling reasons for sealing the financial information
contained in the declaration and that those reasons still exist.
Second, he finds that sealing of the Fayer Declaration has not
impaired the ability of the class members to evaluate the fairness
of the settlement. The Fayer Declaration is the only substantive
document in the case that has been filed under seal.  He therefore
concludes that the class members had sufficient information to
evaluate the proposed settlement.

The Magistrate Judge further notes that the class members could
have contacted the class counsel to inquire about obtaining access
to the Fayer Declaration but none (including Objector) did.  Nor
did any class member other than Objector ask the Court to order
that the Fayer Declaration be unsealed.  Had they done so prior to
the deadline for filing an objection they almost certainly would
have been permitted access to the Fayer Declaration so long as they
agreed to be bound by the protective order in the case.

Notwithstanding his conclusion that the Fayer Declaration should
not be unsealed, however, the Magistarte Judge will permit the
Objector to review that declaration upon the condition that the
Objector and its counsel agree to be bound by the protective order
in the case.  Pivotal has specifically proposed this remedy as one
that is narrowly tailored to address the specific harm alleged by
the Objection, while avoiding the delay, harm, and disruption that
would result if the Confidential Information were unsealed and made
public.

Magistrate Judge Spero therefore ordersedas follows: 1) the
Objector will file a notice by July 27, 2018 stating its intent to
seek access to the Fayer Declaration and agreeing that both
Objector and Objector's counsel will be bound to the terms of the
protective order in the case; or alternatively, the Objector will
file a notice by that date that it does not intend to seek access
to the Fayer Declaration; 2) if it intends to seek access to the
Fayer Declaration and both the Objector and its counsel agree to be
bound by the protective order, Pivotal will provide Objector's
counsel with a copy of the protective order no later than close of
business on July 30, 2018; 3) the Objector and its counsel will
sign and return the protective order by July 31, 2018 and within 24
hours of receipt of the signed protective order, Pivotal will
provide an unredacted copy of the Fayer Declaration to the
Objector's counsel; 4) the Objector may file a supplemental
objection addressing the information contained in the Fayer
Declaration no later than Aug. 3, 2018.  To the extent the
supplemental objection contains information designated as
confidential under the protective order, it will follow the
procedures set forth in Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) for filing the
supplemental objection under seal.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/dbNmUn from Leagle.com.

Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Steven
M. Tindall -- smt@classlawgroup.com -- at Gibbs Law Group LLP;
Adrienne McEntee -- amcentee@terrellmarshall.com --Beth E. Terrell
-- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Jennifer Rust Murray --
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- at Terrell Marshall Daudt and Willie
PLLC; Anthony I. Paronich -- Edward A. Broderick -- at Broderick &
Paronich, P.C.; Matthew P. McCue -- at The Law Office of Matthew P.
McCue

Pivotal Payments, Inc., doing business as Capital Processing
Network doing business as CPN, Defendant, represented by Antony E.
Buchignani -- tbuchignani@tocounsel.com -- Theodora Oringher PC,
Seth Michael Goldstein -- sgoldstein@tocounsel.com -- Theodora
Oringher PC, Amy Elizabeth Burke -- aburke@tocounsel.com --
Theodora Oringher PC & Drew Robert Hansen -- dhansen@tocounsel.com
-- Theodora Oringher, PC.

Route 42 Dance Academy, LLC, Objector, represented by Timothy
Ricardo Hanigan -- trhanigan@gmail.com -- Lang Hanigan & Carvalho,
LLP.

Pivotal Payments, Inc., doing business as Capital Processing
Network doing business as CPN, 3rd party plaintiff, represented by
Antony E. Buchignani, Theodora Oringher PC, Seth Michael Goldstein,
Theodora Oringher PC & Amy Elizabeth Burke, Theodora Oringher PC.


PJP ALACHUA: Honeywell Sues Over Disabilities Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PJP, ALACHUA COUNTY
LLC.  The case is entitled CHERI HONEYWELL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. PJP, ALACHUA COUNTY LLC,
a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 11:18-cv-00166-MW-GRJ
(N.D. Fla., August 28, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

PJP, Alachua County, LLC, is a privately held company in
Gainesville, Florida, and is a single location business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          JESSICA L. KERR PA
          200 SE 6th Street, Suite 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 282-1858
          Facsimile: (844) 786-3694
          E-mail: jkerr@advocacypa.com


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: 10th Cir. Affirms Judgment in McCracken Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, BRENDA McCRACKEN; CHRISTA HECHT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY; PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees. JERRY ARCHULETA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; UNITED
SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos.
17-1285, 17-1286 (10th Cir.), Judge Nancy Moritz of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (i) reversed in part and remanded
to the district court with instructions to vacate its judgment in
favor of USAA Casualty Insurance Co., and (ii) otherwise affirmed.

The Plaintiffs in the consolidated appeals each settled a claim
under their automobile-insurance policies with the Defendants.  But
now the Plaintiffs maintain that the Defendants illegally reduced
their settlement offers by taking into account certain benefits
they had previously paid the Plaintiffs.  The district courts
dismissed the Plaintiffs' putative class-action lawsuits after
concluding the the Plaintiffs each waived their rights to collect
further damages from the Defendants on their settled claims.

These cases involve the interplay between two categories of
automobile insurance that insurers must offer under Colorado law:
uninsured/underinsured-motorist (UM/UIM) coverage and medical
payments (MedPay) coverage.  UM/UIM coverage insures the
policyholder for injuries caused by a third-party driver without
sufficient insurance to cover the policyholder's injury.  MedPay
coverage insures the policyholder for any bodily injury resulting
from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle,
regardless of fault.

The Plaintiffs in the cases each settled a UM/UIM claim after
Section 10-4-609(1)(c)'s effective date but before the Colorado
Supreme Court issued Calderon v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.  The
parties thus reached these settlements under the pre-Calderon
understanding of Section 10-4-609(1)(c).

Archuleta held an insurance policy from the United Services
Automobile Association ("USAA").  The policy included $5,000 in
MedPay coverage and $50,000 per person in UM/UIM coverage.
Archuleta submitted claims to USAA for MedPay and UM/UIM benefits
in November 2012 after an underinsured driver injured him in a
collision.  USAA paid Archuleta $5,000 to satisfy his MedPay claim.
It then paid Archuleta $17,000 in May 2015 to settle his UM/UIM
claim.  The parties agree that when USAA calculated this
settlement, it took a $5,000 set-off to account for the MedPay
benefits it had previously paid Archuleta.  Archuleta accepted the
$17,000 settlement and signed a form releasing and forever
discharging USAA from any and all claims he had arising from the
November 2012 collision.

Hecht held an auto insurance policy from Progressive Preferred
Insurance Co.  Her policy included $5,000 in MedPay coverage and
$25,000 per person in UM/UIM coverage.  Hecht submitted MedPay and
UM/UIM claims in August 2013 after an uninsured driver injured her
in a collision.  Progressive Preferred fulfilled Hecht's MedPay
claim and then reached an agreement with her to settle her UM/UIM
claim for $21,678.  The parties agree that when Progressive
Preferred calculated the settlement, it took a setoff to reflect
the MedPay benefits it had previously paid Hecht. Hecht also signed
a form acknowledging that the payment was in full settlement and
final discharge of all claims arising from the August 2013
collision.

McCracken held an insurance policy from Progressive Direct
Insurance Co.  Her policy included $10,000 in MedPay coverage and
$50,000 in UM/UIM coverage.  McCracken submitted claims to
Progressive Direct for MedPay and UM/UIM benefits in August 2015
after an uninsured driver injured her in a collision.  Progressive
Direct fulfilled McCracken's MedPay claims and initially paid her
$30,959 for her UM/UIM claim.  In September 2016, McCracken and
Progressive Direct agreed to settle her final UM/UIM claim for a
total of $41,000; Progressive Direct paid McCracken an additional
$10,041 to satisfy the settlement.  The parties agree that the
settlement incorporates a $5,000 setoff Progressive Direct took to
reflect the MedPay benefits it previously paid to McCracken.  Upon
receiving the final payment from Progressive Direct, McCracken
signed a form entitled Full Release and Trust Agreement in which
she acknowledged receiving $41,000 in full settlement and final
discharge of a disputed claim arising out of the August 2015
collision.

The insurers removed Archuleta's lawsuit to federal district court.
They then moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that
Archuleta released his right to collect further damages when he
accepted the $17,000 settlement for his UM/UIM claim.  Archuleta
acknowledged he signed a release but argued that, in the wake of
Calderon, the release was unenforceable as a violation of public
policy.  The district court enforced the release and ruled for the
insurers.  Archuleta appeals.

The insurers removed McCracken and Hecht's lawsuit to federal
district court.  McCracken and Hecht moved for partial summary
judgment on (1) whether Calderon applied retroactively, (2) whether
their releases were unenforceable as a matter of public policy, and
(3) whether the district court was required to reform their
insurance contracts.  The insurers responded with a cross-motion
for full summary judgment on the theory that the releases McCracken
and Hecht each signed precluded their claims and, alternatively,
that Calderon didn't apply retroactively. After hearing arguments,
the district court ruled from the bench that the releases were
enforceable and granted summary judgment to the insurers.
McCracken and Hecht appealed, and the Appellate Court consolidated
their appeal with Archuleta's appeal for the purpose of briefing.

Judge Moritz finds that the insurer's error in Kral v. American
Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. was that it bilaterally agreed upon a
settlement amount with the plaintiff and then attempted to reduce
the plaintiff's benefits below that amount.  Here, the insurers
unilaterally took the MedPay setoffs into account when calculating
their offers, but didn't attempt to further reduce the payments
below the value that the Plaintiffs accepted.  Kral doesn't limit
what parties can and cannot take into account when assessing the
value of their claims.  Ultimately, therefore, the releases in this
case didn't impair the Plaintiffs' ability to settle for the full
value of their losses.  Accordingly, she doesn't read Kral so
broadly that it voids the Plaintiffs' releases.

In sum, the Judge is not convinced by other persuasive data that
the Colorado Supreme Court would disagree with the Colorado Court
of Appeals' decision in Arline v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.  Thus,
following Arline -- as she must -- she agrees with the district
courts: the releases are enforceable and bar the Plaintiffs'
claims.

Judge Moritz reversed the judgment in Archuleta v. USAA insofar as
it dismissed Archuleta's claims against USAA Casualty with
prejudice.  As the district court ruled, Archuleta lacked standing
to bring those claims.  Accordingly, it did not have jurisdiction
to hear them.  She therefore remanded to the district court with
instructions to dismiss those claims without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction.  Otherwise, she affirmed the remainder of that
judgment and affirmed the judgment in McCracken & Hecht v.
Progressive in its entirety.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/WxcQP2 from Leagle.com.

Nelson A. Waneka -- naw@levinsitcoff.com -- of Levin Sitcoff PC,
Denver, Colorado ( Bradley A. Levin -- bal@robertslevin.com -- and
Susan S. Minamizono -- ssm@levinsitcoff.com -- of Levin Sitcoff PC,
Denver, Colorado, and Keith R. Scranton -- scrantonk@fdazar.com --
and Patricia A. Meester -- meesterp@fdazar.com -- of Franklin D.
Azar and Associates, P.C., Aurora, Colorado, with him on the
briefs), for Plaintiff-Appellants.

Casie D. Collignon -- ccollignon@bakerlaw.com -- ( Sammantha J.
Tillotson -- jtillotson@TillotsonLaw.com -- with her on the brief),
of Baker & Hostetler LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Progressive Direct
Insurance Company and Progressive Preferred Insurance Company,
Defendants-Appellees.

Casie D. Collignon, of Baker & Hostetler LLP, Denver, Colorado (
Michael Mulvaney -- mmulvaney@maynardcooper.com -- Thomas Butler --
tbutler@maynardcooper.com -- and Taryn Hodinka --
thodinka@maynardcooper.com -- of Maynard Cooper & Gale, Birmingham,
Alabama, and Jon F. Sands -- jsands@SweetbaumSands.com -- and
Marilyn S. Chappell -- mchappell@SweetbaumSands.com -- of Sweetbaum
Sands Anderson PC, Denver, Colorado, with her on the brief), for
USAA Casualty Insurance Company and United Services Automobile
Association, Defendants-Appellees.


PROSPECT CHARTERCARE: Del Sesto Files ERISA Class Suit in R.I.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Del Sesto, as receiver and administrator of the St. Joseph
Health Services of Rhode Island Retirement Plan, Gail J. Major,
Nancy Zompa, Ralph Bryden, Dorothy Willner, Caroll Short, Donna
Boutelle, and Eugenia Levesque, in their individual capacity and on
behalf of all other plan participants, Plaintiffs v. Prospect
Chartercare, LLC, Chartercare Community Board, St. Joseph Health
Services of Rhode Island, Prospect Chartercare SJHSRI, LLC,
Prospect Chartercare RWMC, LLC, Prospect East Holdings, Inc.,
Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc., Roger Williams Hospital,
Chartercare Foundation, The Rhode Island Community Foundation,
Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, Diocesan Administration
Corporation, Diocesan Service Corporation, and The Angell Pension
Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00328, (D. R.I., June 18,
2018), seeks to enforce benefits, promises, and damages resulting
from breach of contract under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

Case concerns an insolvent defined benefit retirement plan with
over 2,700 participants, consisting of hospital nurses and other
hospital workers who, after many years of dedicated service to
their patients and SJHSRI, learned in August of 2017 that the Plan
had not been adequately funded. The disclosure occurred when the
Plan was placed into receivership by SJHSRI, with the request that
the Rhode Island Superior Court approve a virtually immediate 40%
across-the-board reduction in benefits.

St. Joseph Health Services of Rhode Island Retirement Plan is a
defined benefit retirement plan based in Rhode Island with over
2,700 participants. Chartercare owns and operates health care
facilities in Rhode Island, including but not limited to two
hospitals, Roger Williams Hospital and Our Lady of Fatima Hospital.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Max Wistow, Esq.
      Stephen P. Sheehan, Esq.
      Benjamin Ledsham, Esq.
      WISTOW, SHEEHAN & LOVELEY, PC
      61 Weybosset Street
      Providence, RI 02903
      Tel: (401) 831-2700
      Fax: (401) 272-9752
      Email: mwistow@wistbar.com
             spsheehan@wistbar.com
             bledsham@wistbar.com


PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Court Grants Conditional FLSA Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class
Certification in the case captioned RALPH TALARICO, individually
and on behalf Of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, LLC, d/b/a PCG, PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS,
Defendant. Civil Action No. 17-2165. (E.D. Pa.).

Before the Court is the motion for conditional class certification
of Plaintiff Ralph Talarico, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.

The Plaintiff filed his Collective Action and Class Action
Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and thousands of
other similarly situated employees overtime wages to which they are
entitled for work performed as direct care workers in the Federal
Medicaid program.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
adopted a two-step for deciding whether an action may properly
proceed under the FLSA. At the first step, Plaintiff has the burden
to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is similarly
situated to the members of that have opted-in to the collective
action.

The second stage is addressed after all similarly situated
potential plaintiffs have been afforded the opportunity to opt-in
and discovery has taken place.

Conditional Certification

The Plaintiff's proposed class consists of the following members:

     All direct care workers in Pennsylvania who were employed by
PPL between January 1, 2015 and the date of final judgment in this
matter, and who worked over 40 hours in one or more weeks.

The Plaintiff contends that he and the proposed opt-in direct care
workers he seeks to represent: (1) perform the same primary job
duties; (2) share the same FLSA overtime classification and pay
structure; (3) were subject to the same allegedly illegal pay
practice; and (4) are all paid by the hour and commonly work over
40 hours in a work week. The Plaintiff further contends that the
Defendant's previous motion for summary judgment alleging that it
is not a joint employer under the FLSA and Pennsylvania state law
is also evidence that there is a need for common adjudication.

The Defendant contends that it is premature to consider conditional
certification in the absence of any evidence of a properly defined
class and that there is no prejudice to plaintiff or any putative
class members because the Defendant will agree to toll the statute
of limitations pending discovery. Furthermore, the Defendant
asserts that this matter will require individualized determinations
that make conditional certification inappropriate.

Having reviewed the Plaintiff's briefs and exhibits, the Court is
satisfied that the Plaintiff has made a modest factual showing that
he is similarly situated to the proposed class. The Court have also
reviewed and considered the arguments against conditional
certification set forth by the Defendant in its briefing. The
Defendant's arguments are geared toward the merits of this action.
The merits of the Plaintiff's claims do not need to be evaluated at
this stage in order for notice to be approved and sent out to
proposed conditional collective action members; this Court
evaluates only whether the Plaintiffs are similarly situated. The
issues raised by the Defendant are more properly addressed in a
motion for decertification at the second stage of the conditional
certification process, or in a motion for summary judgment after
the completion of discovery.    

Notice

With respect to the form of notice to opt-in plaintiffs, district
courts have broad discretion under the FLSA to facilitate the
notice process.  

The parties disagree on who should send the notice to prospective
class members. Plaintiff argues his counsel should be permitted to
do so. Plaintiff cites two cases in support of permitting counsel
to send the notice. Defendant seeks to have a third-party class
notice administrator handle sending out the notice because it
contends that Plaintiff's counsel may seek to improperly influence
persons to join the class. Defendant cites no caselaw in support of
the proposition that Plaintiff's counsel should not be permitted to
send of the notice. Notice of conditional certification is most
commonly given by Plaintiff's counsel and the Court sees no reason
to depart from that practice in this case. Plaintiff's counsel is
appropriate to serve notice on the putative plaintiffs and I see no
reason to employ a third-party administrator for this task.

The Plaintiff's argument for permitting a reminder notice
persuasive. A reminder notice better ensures that putative
plaintiffs who do not receive, open, view or forget about the
initial notice have the additional opportunity to timely file an
opt-in, if they so desire.  

Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 20, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycuomy2g from
Leagle.com.

RALPH TALARICO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by MIRIAM R. NEMETH --
mnemeth@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC,
RACHHANA T. SREY -- srey@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER PLLP, RICHARD A.
KATZ , ARNOLD BEYER & KATZ, ROBERT L. SCHUG -- schug@nka.com --
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP & CHRISTINE E. WEBBER --
cwebber@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC.

PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, LLC, doing business as PCG PUBLIC
PARTNERSHIPS, Defendant, represented by JONATHAN R. NADLER --
jnadler@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC &
WALTER M. FOSTER -- wfoster@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS
CHERIN & MELLOTT LLC.


QUALITY BLACKTOP: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quality Blacktop
Services, Inc., et al.  The case is titled as Santos Hernandez,
Ferdis Delgado and Manuel Campos, On behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Quality Blacktop Services, Inc.,
Steven Hellerman Driveway Corp., John Doe Prime Contractors 1
through 10, John Doe Surety Company 1 Through 10, Karline Hellerman
and Steven Hellerman, in their individual capacity, Case No.
2:18-cv-04862-JFB-ARL (E.D.N.Y., August 27, 2018).

The Plaintiffs filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act
alleging denial of overtime compensation.

Quality Blacktop Services, Inc., is engaged in a for profit
business and headquartered in Smithtown, New York.  Steve Hellerman
Driveways Corp., is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of New York, having its principal place of
business located in Bohemia, New York.  The Individual Defendants
are officers, owners, shareholders or agents of the Defendant
Corporations.

The Defendants are in the construction and paving business.  The
Defendants provide commercial and residential paving, blacktop,
concrete and masonry needs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Delvis Melendez, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DELVIS MELENDEZ
          90 Bradley Street
          Brentwood, NY 11717
          Telephone: (631) 434-1443
          Facsimile: (631) 434-1443
          E-mail: delvisprlaw@aol.com


RAPID7 INC: Settlement Reached in Massachusetts Wage & Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rapid7, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that it has entered into a
settlement agreement to resolve a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "In November 2016, Rapid7 LLC and two of our then
executive officers were named as defendants in a class action
lawsuit which alleged violations of certain Massachusetts wage and
hour laws.  In the first quarter of 2018, we increased our
litigation accrual by US$0.4 million to US$0.6 million which
reflects the settlement agreement amount entered into in July
2018."

Rapid7 is a provider of security and IT analytics and automation
solutions for SecOps, and is trusted by professionals around the
world to provide visibility, analytics and automation to help
manage risk, simplify IT complexity and drive innovation.  The
company is based in Boston, Massachusetts.


RECRO PHARMA: Defending Securities Class Action in E.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Recro Pharma, Inc. is facing a securities class action lawsuit in
Pennsylvania, 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.

On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim for
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on statements made
by the Company concerning the NDA for IV meloxicam.  The complaint
seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
costs.

The Company said it believes that the lawsuit is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against it.  The lawsuit is in the
early stages and, at this time, no assessment can be made as to its
likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to the
Company.

Recro Pharma, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, engages in
developing non-opioid products for the treatment of acute pain
primarily in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as
Recro Pharma I, Inc. and changed its name to Recro Pharma, Inc. in
August 2008.  Recro Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is based
in Malvern, Pennsylvania.


RINGCENTRAL INC: Appeal from Nixed SPS Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that oral argument on Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC's
appeal from the dismissal of its putative class action against the
Company related to alleged violations of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act has not yet been scheduled.

On April 21, 2016, Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC ("SPS") filed a
putative class action against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
common law conversion and violations of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") arising from fax cover sheets used
by the Company's customers when sending facsimile transmissions
over the Company's system ("SPS Lawsuit").  SPS seeks statutory
damages, costs, attorneys' fees and an injunction in connection
with its TCPA claim, and unspecified damages and punitive damages
in connection with its conversion claim.

On July 6, 2016, the Company filed a Petition for Expedited
Declaratory Ruling before the Federal Communications Commission
("FCC"), requesting that the FCC issue a ruling clarifying certain
portions of its regulations promulgated under TCPA at issue in the
SPS Lawsuit ("Petition").  The Petition remains pending.

On July 8, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the SPS
Lawsuit in its entirety, along with a collateral motion to dismiss
or stay the SPS Lawsuit pending a ruling by the FCC on the
Company's Petition.  On October 7, 2016, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss and gave SPS 20 days to amend its
complaint.  The Court concurrently dismissed the Company's motion
to dismiss or stay as moot.

Plaintiff filed its amended complaint on October 27, 2016, alleging
essentially the same theories and claims.  On November 21, 2016,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, along
with a renewed motion to dismiss or stay the case pending
resolution of the FCC Petition.  On July 17, 2017, the Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice and
concurrently dismissed the Company's motion to dismiss or stay as
moot.

SPS filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
on July 28, 2017.  SPS's opening brief on appeal was filed on
December 20, 2017, and the Company's opposition brief was filed on
February 20, 2018.  SPS filed its reply brief on April 12, 2018.
Oral argument in the appeal has not yet been scheduled.

The Company said, "It is too early to predict the outcome of the
SPS Lawsuit.  Based on the information known by the Company as of
the date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to
the preparation of the Company's condensed consolidated financial
statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of
any such loss or range of loss that may occur."

RingCentral, Inc., is a provider of software-as-a-service ("SaaS")
solutions for the way employees communicate and collaborate in
business.  The Company enables convenient and effective
communications for its customers, across all their locations, all
their employees, all the time, thus, enabling them to be more
productive and more responsive to their customers.


SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Court Narrows Claims in J. Bund's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned JOHN R. BUND II, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES LLC, Defendant. Case No. C16-920 MJP. (W.D.
Wash.).

Defendant Safeguard Properties LLC is in the property preservation
business. At the behest of lenders, investors and loan servicers,
Safeguard hires vendors to enter the properties of borrowers in
default whom it believes have vacated or abandoned the premises and
perform various preservation services; among them, replacing the
locks on primary or secondary doors of the residences to permit
future access for further preservation services.

Preclusion on the Basis of Claim Splitting

The Plaintiffs suggest, almost as an aside, that if the Court is
concerned about claim splitting it could transfer this matter to
the Eastern District of Washington and let Judge Rice consolidate
it with his matter. The Defendant filed a surreply to strike this
portion of the briefing; the Court does not find it necessary as
(1) the Plaintiffs are not actually requesting transfer and
consolidation at this time and (2) the Court would naturally
require a formal motion and more considered argument and analysis
before seriously considering transferring the matter anywhere.

The Court declines to exercise its discretion regarding a finding
of preclusion based on claim splitting. Defendant's motion in that
regard is denied. If there is a judgment or settlement in Jordan
before this case is concluded, Defendant can bring a dispositive
motion on res judicata/collateral estoppel grounds at that stage.

Pre-Jordan Statutory Claims

The Defendant also moves for dismissal of all statutory claims
against it with regard to any property preservation activities
conducted before the Washington Supreme Court's ruling in Jordan.
Defendant divides its arguments on why it should not be held liable
for any pre-Jordanconduct into CPA and statutory trespass sections,
but the arguments on both claims effectively are that the Defendant
had no reason, prior to Jordan, to know that what it was doing was
violative of Washington law.

The Plaintiffs' counterargument focuses on a single point: at no
time did Defendant undertake any legal investigation or analysis of
the legality of the lock changes or any other conduct based on the
entry provisions. The Plaintiffs basically seek a ruling that the
absence of any legal research and analysis concerning the legality
of Defendant's conduct equates to a per se absence of good faith
reliance on an arguable interpretation of existing law. They cite
no case authority for this argument and the Court finds no appeal
in precedent, logic, or intuition.

The Plaintiffs should be judicially estopped from claiming that
Jordan was obvious or, as they put it not a momentous declaration
of new law on the grounds that they have previously argued that
Jordan signals a significant and critical change in the law by the
Washington Supreme Court. Judicial estoppel exists to prohibit the
practice of claiming that the law means one thing in one instance,
but a different thing in another instance when it suits a party's
purposes.

All things considered, the Court finds the Defendant has the better
argument that, prior to Jordan, it rightfully and in good faith
relied on a variety of evidence that its business practices were
legal.

The distinction is not lost on the Court, but in this instance, is
still not sufficient to persuade it that the Defendant can be held
liable for CPA violations pre-Jordan. First, Watkins, Watkins v.
Peterson Enter., 57 F.Supp.2d 1102, 1111 (E.D. Wash. 1999), is
another District Court case, so has persuasive value at best.
Second, the case says good faith may not be a defense to a claim of
deceptive practices; not cannot or is not. Third, the Plaintiffs
cite the Jordan holding that a lock change is deceptive because it
had the capacity to lead borrowers to believe they could no longer
occupy their homes in support of their deceptive even if not unfair
argument. But the Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint did not
allege that the Defendant's conduct was deceptive on that basis.

The Court finds this good faith argument is equally applicable to
the claims of statutory trespass pre-Jordan; i.e., a party acting
on a good faith belief that their conduct is within the law cannot
know, or have reason to know, that he or she lacks authorization to
so act. Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of
law on its request that it be held not liable on the statutory
claims against it for any conduct occurring prior to the issuance
of the Jordan opinion.

The Court denies summary judgment to the Defendant on the issue of
preclusion on the basis of claim splitting and grants summary
judgment to the Defendant on the issue of its nonliability on the
statutory claims against it for any pre-Jordan conduct.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 20, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yayf953w from Leagle.com.

John R. Bund, II, personally,as Executor of the Estate of Richard
C. Bund, deceased, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Clay M. Gatens -- clayg@jdsalaw.com --
JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD, Honea Lee Lewis, IV --
leel@jdsalaw.com -- JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD, Sally F.
White -- sallyw@jdsalaw.com -- JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD,
Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL
LAW GROUP PLLC, Blythe H. Chandler -- bchandler@terrellmarshall.com
-- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Devon Amy Gray --
devong@jdsalaw.com -- JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD & Michael
Duane Daudt -- mike@daudtlaw.com -- DAUDT LAW PLLC.

S. Scott James & Noel L. James, a married couple, and on behalf of
others similarly situated., Plaintiffs, represented by Beth E.
Terrell , TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Blythe H. Chandler ,
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Devon Amy Gray , JEFFERS DANIELSON
SONN & AYLWARD, Michael Duane Daudt , DAUDT LAW PLLC & Clay M.
Gatens , JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD.

Safeguard Properties LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Benjamin O'Connor -- benjamin.oconnor@kirkland.com
-- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Howard M. Kaplan --
howard.kaplan@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Jaime
Drozd Allen -- jaimeallen@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, Kelli
M. Mulder -- kelli.mulder@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac
vice, Leonid Feller -- leonid.feller@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND &
ELLIS, pro hac vice, R. Allan Pixton -- allan.pixton@kirkland.com
-- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Amanda M. McDowell --
amandamcdowell@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Mark N. Bartlett
-- markbartlett@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.


SANTA FE COUNTY, NM: G. Armendariz Allowed to File SAC
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GABRIEL ARMENDARIZ, ERIC DION COLEMAN, JACOB GOMEZ,
TONY LOVATO, MATTHEW J. LUCERO, EDWARD R. MANZANARES, JOE MARTINEZ,
CHRISTOPHER MAVIS, PHILIP TALACHY, FELIPE J. TRUJILLO, and JOSEPH
VIGIL, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. SANTA FE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, and MARK GALLEGOS, in his individual and official
capacity, and INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL COATINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00339-WJ-LF (D. N.M.), Judge William P. Johnson of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Class Action
Complaint, filed April 16, 2018.

Te case is a putative class action arising from the Defendants'
renovation of the shower facilities at the Santa Fe Adult
Correctional Facility ("ACF") in 2014 when the Plaintiffs and the
class members were inmates at the facility.  The Plaintiffs allege
that they were exposed to dust, debris, and hazardous chemicals,
which caused them injury.

The ederal action is a continuation of a prior state court class
action by the Plaintiffs, Case No. D-101-CV-2016-00671 in the First
Judicial District Court of the State of New Mexico.  The state
court action was filed on March 11, 2016 by two of the named
Plaintiffs in this case, Joe Martinez and Christopher Mavis, on
their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons.  The state court action raised timely claims under the New
Mexico Tort Claims Act, NMSA 1978 Sections 41-4-1 et seq, and
according to the Plaintiffs, was brought within the two year
limitations period set forth in NMSA 1978, Section 41-4-15.

The federal case was initiated on March 14, 2017 when Plaintiffs
Mavis and Martinez joined with additional named Plaintiffs to file
a Class Action Complaint for Damages Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
The federal action brought claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
against the County Defendants on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a
class of similarly situated persons based on the same underlying
facts as the state court action.

After Plaintiffs filed the original complaint in the federal case,
parties agreed to litigate the two cases together in the case in
federal court to conserve resources of both the parties and the
courts.  As part of that agreement, the Plaintiffs were granted
leave to amend the complaint to add Industrial Commercial Coatings,
LLC ("ICC") as a Defendant and to include their claims against ICC,
Santa Fe County and Gallegos under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act
and New Mexico common law.  Following the filing of the amended
complaint, the Plaintiffs dismissed the state case without
prejudice.

The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") states four causes of action:
(i) Deprivation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
against County Defendants; (2) Supervisory Liability under Section
1983 against the County Defendants; (3) claims under the New Mexico
Tort Claims Act, NMSA 1978 against the County Defendants; and (4)
claims against Defendant ICC under New Mexico Common Law.

The matter comes before the Court upon the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Leave to File Second Amended Class Action Complaint.  They include
both the FAC and the proposed complaint as Exhibits A and B to the
motion, and ask to amend the complaint in the following four ways:

     1. Correct clerical issues: (i) amend caption to add James M.
Wheeler as a Plaintiff with additional identifying paragraph
regarding Mr. Wheeler; (ii) felete references to official capacity
claims against Defendant Gallegos; and (iii) delete several
duplicative paragraphs.

     2. Clarify Section 1983 claims by expanding allegations to
clearly state that the Plaintiffs allege that the County Defendants
acted with deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs
in violation of contemporary standards of decency..

     3. Clarify claims brought under the New Mexico Tort Claims
Act: (i) add references to applicable waivers of immunity, and (ii)
elaborate on basis of previously stated negligence claims.

     4. Add new legal allegations regarding assault and battery
under the Tort Claims Act claim against the County Defendants
(Third Cause of Action) and under the common law claim against ICC
(Fourth Cause of Action).

The Plaintiffs claim that these amendments are made in good faith
and will not prejudice the Defendants.  They point out that the
clarifications in the first grouping are consistent with previous
orders of the Court.  The Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' motion
because of futility.

Judge Johnson finds that while the correction of mere clerical
errors alone may not justify the filing of an amended complaint, it
certainly is a good reason to do so when the Plaintiffs are
requesting other reasonable modifications.  Moreover, the standard
for denying a motion to dismiss does not turn on whether the
amendments are for clerical errors; it turns on whether there is a
showing of undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice to opposing
party, or futility.  The Plaintiffs will be allowed to file the
proposed amendments with these corrections.

The Court also finds that the best course is to address the
Plaintiffs' motion to amend now.  The proposed amendments
essentially clarify the appropriate legal standard for the claims
already asserted in the FAC; they do not prejudice the Defendants
since the Defendants have had ongoing notice of these claims in the
current complaint; and these amendments will not be futile as to at
least some of the Plaintiffs even if Defendants prevail on their
motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiffs' motion is granted as to the
Section 1983 Claims amendments.

Again, the Judge sees no need to resolve what appears to be rather
complex legal issues in order to determine whether the proposed
amended complaint meets the threshold sufficiency under Rule
12(b)(6); that is, whether it contains sufficient factual matter
that if true, states a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.  The proposed amendments for the Third Cause of Action are
not significant and they do not change any legal theories or facts.
They add references to the specific waivers of immunity asserted
in the claim and add new legal allegations regarding assault and
battery -- which are already enumerated torts listed under the
statutory provisions asserted by Plaintiffs, Sections 41-4-6 and 12
and 41-4-12.  The Defendants cannot (and do not) claim to be
prejudiced.  The Plaintiffs' motion is granted as to these
amendments as well.

Finally, the proposed amendments add the intentional torts of
assault and battery.  Defendant ICC has not weighed in on the
matter at all, and so the Judge will grant the Plaintiffs' motion
as to these amendments.

For these reasons, Judge Johnson granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Leave to File Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/qz0Ere from Leagle.com.

Gabriel Armendariz, Eric Dion Coleman, Jacob Gomez, Tony Lovato,
Matthew J. Lucero, Edward R. Manzanares, Christopher Mavis, Philip
Talachy, Felipe J. Trujillo, Joseph Vigil & James M. Wheeler, on
their own behalf and on similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,
represented by Mark H. Donatelli -- mhd@rothsteinlaw.com --
Rothstein Law Firm, John C. Bienvenu -- jbienvenu@rothsteinlaw.com
-- Bienvenu Law Office, Kristina Martinez, Coberly and Martinez,
LLLP & Paul M. Linnenburger -- plinnenburger@rothsteinlaw.com --
Rothstein Donatelli LLP.

Santa Fe County Board of Commissioners, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer A. Noya, Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA,Tiffany
L. Roach Martin, Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, PA & Alex
Cameron Walker, Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A.

Mark Gallegos, in his individual capacity, Defendant, represented
by Jennifer A. Noya, Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk
PA,Tiffany L. Roach Martin, Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris &
Sisk, PA & Alex Cameron Walker, Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris &
Sisk, P.A.

Industrial Commercial Coatings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Judd
C. West, West Law Firm, PLLC, Carrie A. Snow, West Law Firm, PLLC,
John D. Sear, Bowman and Brooke LLP, pro hac vice & Richard G.
Morgan, Bowman and Brooke, LLP, pro hac vice.


SIYARAM INVESTMENTS: Violates Disabilities Act, Honeywell Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Siyaram Investments,
LLC.  The case is styled as CHERI HONEYWELL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SIYARAM INVESTMENTS,
LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 1:18-cv-00167
(N.D. Fla., August 28, 2018).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

Siyaram Investments, LLC, is Florida limited liability company with
a registered office in Gainesville, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          JESSICA L. KERR PA
          200 SE 6th Street, Suite 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 282-1858
          Facsimile: (844) 786-3694
          E-mail: jkerr@advocacypa.com


SKYLINE CRUISE: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skyline Cruise Lines,
Inc.  The case is styled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Skyline Cruise Lines, Inc., Case
No. 1:18-cv-07818 (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Skyline Cruise Lines, Inc., provides cruises, yacht charters and
catering services.  The Company is based in Flushing, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal


SOUTHWEST GAS: Court Stays Howard Pending Mediation
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order granting Stay Pending Mediation in the case captioned
EBONY HOWARD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION, Defendant. Case
No. 2:18-cv-01035-JAD-VCF. (D. Nev.).

Defendant Southwest Gas Corporation (Defendant), and Plaintiff,
Ebony Howard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated (Plaintiff), by and through their respective undersigned
counsel, agree and stipulate to entry of an Order staying the
present litigation pending the outcome of mediation, staying all
pending deadlines, including the deadline for Defendant to respond
to Plaintiff's complaint, and tolling the FLSA limitations period
for putative collective action members who have not already filed
consents to join the case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 20, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yabplk6e from Leagle.com.

Ebony Howard, Plaintiff, represented by Don Springmeyer --
dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and
Rabkin, LLP, Nicholas Conlon , JTB Law Group, LLC, pro hac vice &
Bradley Scott Schrager , Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin.

Starla Wheeler & Janelle Clarkson-Dean, Plaintiffs, represented by
Don Springmeyer , Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP.

Southwest Gas Corporation, Defendant, represented by Eric R. Magnus
-- Eric.Magnus@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., pro hac vice
& Deverie J. Christensen -- Deverie.Christensen@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis PC.


SPRINGFIELD, MA: Appeals Order in Disability Law Suit to 1st Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Springfield Public Schools and Springfield, MA, filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled S.S., et al. v.
City of Springfield, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-30116-MGM, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
Springfield.

The appellate case is captioned as S.S., et al. v. City of
Springfield, et al., Case No. 18-1813, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 3,
2018, Plaintiffs Disability Law Center, Inc., M. W. and
Parent/Professional Advocacy League filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is titled as
Parent/Professional Advocacy League, et al. v. City of Springfield,
et al., Case No. 18-1778.

The District Court previously granted the Defendants' Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings based on the Absence of IDEA Exhaustion
in the case.

The one-count complaint alleged the Defendants violated Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), with respect to S.S. and
members of the proposed class by failing to provide the educational
programs and services that would have allowed them equal access to
the educational resources offered students attending neighborhood
schools.  In the course of arguing that the Plaintiffs lack
standing, the Defendants raised concerns about IDEA exhaustion.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Docketing
Statement, Transcript Report/Order form, and Appearance form are
due on September 11, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees DISABILITY LAW CENTER, INC.,
PARENT/PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY LEAGUE and S. S., a minor, by his
mother, S.Y., on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
students, are represented by:

          Alison Barkoff, Esq.
          Deborah Alyse Dorfman, Esq.
          Sandra J. Staub, Esq.
          CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          22 Green St.
          Northampton, MA 01060-0000
          Telephone: (413) 586-6024
          E-mail: abarkoff@cpr-us.org
                  ddorfman@cpr-ma.org
                  sstaub@cpr-ma.org

               - and -

          Michael D. Blanchard, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 State Street
          Hartford, CT 06103-0000
          Telephone: (860) 240-2700
          E-mail: michael.blanchard@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Matthew T. Bohenek, Esq.
          Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Esq.
          Jeff Goldman, Esq.
          Robert E. McDonnell, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110-1726
          Telephone: (617) 951-8945
          E-mail: matthew.bohenek@morganlewis.com
                  elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com
                  jeff.goldman@morganlewis.com
                  robert.mcdonnell@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Ira A. Burnim, Esq.
          Jennifer Mathis, Esq.
          BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
          1101 15th St, NW, Suite 1212
          Washington, DC 20005-5002
          Telephone: (202) 467-5730
          E-mail: irab@bazelon.org
                  jenniferm@bazelon.org

Movant-Appellee M. W., a minor, by his parents, L.N. and A.N., on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated students, is
represented by:

          Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Esq.
          Jeff Goldman, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110-1726
          Telephone: (617) 951-8638
          E-mail: elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com
                  jeff.goldman@morganlewis.com

Defendants-Appellants SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS and SPRINGFIELD,
MA, are represented by:

          Stephen L. Holstrom, Esq.
          Mary Jane Kennedy, Esq.
          Melinda Marsh Phelps, Esq.
          BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
          1500 Main Street, Suite 2700
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Telephone: (413) 781-2820
          E-mail: sholstrom@bulkley.com
                  mkennedy@bulkley.com
                  mphelps@bulkley.com

Defendant-Appellant SPRINGFIELD, MA, is represented by:

          Mary Ellen MacDonald, Esq.
          BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
          1500 Main Street, Suite 2700
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Telephone: (617) 368-2500
          E-mail: mmacdonald@bulkley.com

               - and -

          Lisa Caryl deSousa, Esq.
          CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
          1600 E Columbus Ave.
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Telephone: (413) 886-5205
          E-mail: ldsousa@springfieldcityhall.com

Defendant DOMENIC J. SARNO, JR., in his official capacity as Mayor
of City of Springfield, is represented by:

          Melinda Marsh Phelps, Esq.
          BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
          1500 Main Street, Suite 2700
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Telephone: (413) 272-6237
          E-mail: mphelps@bulkley.com

Defendants-Appellants SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS and SPRINGFIELD,
MA, and Defendants DOMENIC J. SARNO, JR., in his official capacity
as Mayor of City of Springfield, and DANIEL J. WARWICK, in his
official capacity as Superintendent of Springfield Public Schools,
are represented by:

          Edward M. Pikula, Esq.
          CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
          36 Court St., Room 210
          Springfield, MA 01103-0000
          Telephone: (413) 787-6085
          E-mail: attyemp@aol.com

Interested Party S. B. is represented by:

          Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110-1726
          Telephone: (617) 951-8638
          E-mail: elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com

Interested Party UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Karen L. Goodwin, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          300 State St., Suite 230
          Springfield, MA 01105-2926
          Telephone: (413) 785-0269
          E-mail: karen.goodwin@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Anne Langford, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Telephone: (202) 616-2727
          E-mail: anne.langford@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Michelle L. Leung, Esq.
          Cynthia A. Young, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200
          Boston, MA 02110-0000
          Telephone: (617) 748-3626
          E-mail: Michelle.Leung@usdoj.gov


STEEL TECHNOLOGY: Accused by Kiler of Violating Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steel Technology,
LLC.  The case is titled as Marion Kiler, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Steel
Technology, LLC, doing business as: Hydro Flask, Case No.
1:18-cv-04874 (E.D.N.Y., August 28, 2018).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Steel Technology, LLC, manufactures and sells flat-rolled steel
products.  The Company offers cold rolled strips, one pass cold
rolled strips, high carbon and alloy steels, low carbon products,
hot rolled pickled and oiled products, high strength low alloys,
high and ultra-strength steels, pre-painted products, and specialty
coated steels.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


SUBURBAN PROPANE: Faces Class Suits in New York & Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is
facing two putative class action lawsuits in New York and
Pennsylvania in connection to its natural gas and electricity
business.

The Partnership's natural gas and electricity business is currently
a defendant in two putative class action suits in New York and
Pennsylvania. The complaints allege a number of claims regarding
pricing to its electricity customers in those states under various
consumer statutes and common law.

Based on the nature of the allegations under these suits, the
Partnership believes that the suits are without merit and is
contesting each of these suits vigorously.  With respect to these
pending suits, based on the merits of the allegations, a liability
for a loss contingency is not required at this time.  

Suburban Propane Partners said, "Although any litigation is
inherently uncertain, based on past experience, the information
currently available to the Partnership, and the amount of its
accrued insurance liabilities, the Partnership does not believe
that currently pending or threatened litigation matters, or known
claims or known contingent claims, will have a material adverse
effect on its results of operations, financial condition or cash
flow."

Suburban Propane Partners, L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages
in the retail marketing and distribution of propane, fuel oil, and
refined fuels. Its Propane segment is involved in the retail
distribution of propane to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers, as well as in the wholesale distribution to
industrial end users. The company was founded in 1945 and is
headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey.


T. ROWE: Court Won't Dismiss D. Feinberg's ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint in the case captioned DAVID G. FEINBERG, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. T. ROWE PRICE GROUP, INC. et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. MJG-17-0427 (D. Md.).

The Plaintiffs are, or were during the relevant time period,
employees of Defendant T. Rowe Price and participated in the T.
Rowe Price U.S. Retirement Program (401(k) Plan), which is a
defined contribution 401(k) Plan. The Plaintiffs have filed this
purported class action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and (a)(3), for violations of ERISA's
fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction provisions.

The Defendants seek dismissal of all Counts in the Plaintiffs' FAC
for failure to allege plausible claims pursuant to Rule7 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendants also assert
that Count VI is substantially time-barred by ERISA's six-year
limitations period.

The Plaintiffs also allege that the Trustees breached their duties
by selecting and/or failing to replace higher cost retail versions
of the in-house funds, when lower-cost versions, specifically
either institutional share classes or collective trusts, were
available. The Plaintiffs cite several examples of retail-class
versions of in-house mutual funds being offered despite there being
less expensive versions of the same funds available to T. Rowe
Price's commercial customers.  

The Defendants argue that the Plan document required the Plan
Trustees to select an exclusive line-up of T. Rowe Price funds. It
was T. Rowe Price's decision as Plan sponsor to structure the Plan
in this manner, and such a decision is a settlor function not
subject to ERISA's fiduciary provisions.

Regardless of the reasons that T. Rowe Price may have chosen to
restrict the Trustees to investing only in in-house funds, it does
not provide a blanket defense for the Plan Trustees. The
Plaintiffs' allegations that related to the use of the more
expensive retail funds rather than commercial funds, the
allegations that related to retaining chronic underperforming
funds, and the allegations that related to seeding, remain
plausible. Plaintiffs provide specific examples, not merely
conclusory statements, and the Court is required to accept those
factual allegations as true at this stage of the proceedings. The
Defendants argue with regard to each one of the Plaintiffs'
theories, that the allegations, standing alone, are insufficient.
But the Plaintiffs have alleged multiple grounds to support their
claim; the allegations related to any one theory do not stand alone
but must also be reviewed as a combined set.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have produced sufficient
allegations to raise a plausible inference that the Trustees
breached their duties of loyalty and prudence in their selection
and monitoring of investments for the 401(k) Plan.

Count II - Failure to Remove and Monitor Trustees

The Plaintiffs allege that the Appointing Fiduciary Defendants (T.
Rowe Price, the Management Committee and its individual named
members, the Management Compensation Committee and its unknown
individual members Defendant Does 1-40) breached their ERISA
fiduciary duties by failing to remove and prudently monitor the
401(k) Plan Trustees.

The Court finds that the failure to monitor claim is plausible.
Denying the dismissal of a claim for failure to monitor when
plaintiffs had sufficiently stated a claim for breach of fiduciary
duty. To state a claim for failure to monitor under ERISA, a
plaintiff must allege facts that the (1) entity charged with the
breach was responsible for appointing and removing fiduciaries
responsible for [sic] fiduciary conduct in question; and (2) entity
charged with this duty to monitor also had knowledge of or
participated in fiduciary breaches by the appointees. Courts have
been unwilling to delineate and probe the scope of defendants'
monitoring duties on motions to dismiss, and have permitted such
claims to proceed forward to discovery.

Count III - Imprudent Investment Advice

The Plaintiffs allege that the investment advice provided was
self-interested because it benefited their own investment
management business both financially and in terms of reputation.
The Plaintiffs also allege that the breach caused losses to the
Plan.  The specifics of these allegations are the same as
identified for the Plan Trustees on the basis that these Defendants
provided the investment advice to the Plan Trustees. Since the
specific allegations are adequate to support the cause of action
against the Trustees, the Court finds they are also adequate to
support the same claim against the investment advisors to the
Trustees

Count IV - Co-fiduciary Liability

The Plaintiffs have alleged that these Defendants knowingly
participated in or concealed another fiduciary's breach of duty, or
failed to remedy known breaches, and benefited financially, causing
losses to the Plaintiffs have cited authority that states that
specific facts are not required here in order to survive a motion
to dismiss.  

The allegations on this Count are minimal, but they are sufficient
because the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded Count I.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have stated a
claim for co-fiduciary liability that is sufficient to survive this
motion to dismiss.

Count V - Failure to Remedy Predecessor Breaches

The Plaintiffs allege that the current Trustees failed to remedy
the fiduciary breaches of the predecessor fiduciaries. The
Plaintiffs assert that discovery is required to provide the names
of these Trustees and any further specific details.

The Defendants argue primarily that Plaintiffs fail to state a
failure-to-remedy claim because they failed to plead a plausible
prior fiduciary breach, but they also argue that the Plaintiffs
failed to allege that the Trustees had actual knowledge. However,
the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a prior fiduciary breach.
The Plaintiffs also allege that the Successor Fiduciary Defendants
were aware that their predecessor fiduciaries had breached their
duties in selecting the in-house funds. The Court finds these
allegations sufficient to survive this dismissal motion.

Count VI - Prohibited Transactions

The Plaintiffs allege that the Trustees and T. Rowe Price
Investment Affiliates were fiduciaries as well as
parties-in-interest, and they engaged in self-dealing by acting
together to cause the Plan to be invested in T. Rowe Price funds,
knowing that this would result in the Plan paying investment
management and other fees to T. Rowe Price Investment Affiliates on
a monthly basis for more than reasonable compensation.

The Defendants specifically point to 29 U.S.C. Section 1108(b)(8),
which includes a statutory exemption allowing financial services
companies to offer affiliated collective trust investments to their
in-house plans, provided that the plan document allows for such
investments and the compensation paid to the trust company is not
more than reasonable. Plaintiffs' allegations, however, are
challenging the payment of unreasonable fees.

Limitations

The Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' Count VI claim for
violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1106, related to the Trustees and T.
Rowe Price Investment Affiliates committing prohibited
transactions, is substantially barred by the statute of repose.
ERISA's limitations statute requires suit to be filed within six
years of the date of the prohibited transaction violation.

The Plaintiffs have alleged that the Plan, directly or indirectly,
paid millions of dollars in investment management and other fees.
Section 1106 covers transactions that constitute an indirect
furnishing of services or indirect transfers to a party in
interest, of any assets of the plan.

Accordingly, while the Defendants may have viable defenses, they do
not warrant dismissal at this time. The Court can infer a plausible
claim of prohibited transactions that are not barred by
limitations.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 20, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7xx3aup from Leagle.com.

David G. Feinberg, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Mikael Sebastian Neville , Mctigue Law, LLP, James
Brian McTigue , McTigue Law LLP, pro hac vice, James A. Moore ,
McTigue Law LLP, pro hac vice, Jamie Bowers --
jbowers@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice, Karen L. Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Scott Michael
Lempert -- slempert@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and
Toll PLLC, pro hac vice.

James Collins, Michelle Bourque, Farrah Qureshi, Sital Jani, Daniel
Newman, Thomas Henry, Regina Widderich, Daniel Fialkoff, Jitesh
Jani & Maria Stanton, Plaintiffs, represented by Scott Michael
Lempert , Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC & Mikael Sebastian
Neville , Mctigue Law, LLP.

T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc, T. Rowe
Price Trust Company, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. Management
Committee, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. Management Compensation
Committee, Christopher D. Alderson, Edward C. Bernard, Michael C.
Gitlin, James A. C. Kennedy, John D. Linehan, Brian C. Rogers,
William J. Stromberg, Eric L. Veiel & Edward A. Wiese, Defendants,
represented by Brian D. Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- O'Melveny and
Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Deanna M. Rice -- derice@omm.com --
O'Melveny and Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory F. Jacob --
gjacob@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Shannon Barrett --
sbarrett@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP.

T. Rowe Price U.S. Retirement Program Trustee Does 1-40 & Does
1-30, Defendants, represented by Brian D. Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com
-- O'Melveny and Myers LLP, pro hac vice & Deanna M. Rice --
derice@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP, pro hac vice.


TAXI TOURS: Faces Diaz ADA Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Taxi Tours Inc.  The
case is titled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Taxi Tours Inc., doing business as: Big Bus
Tours, Case No. 1:18-cv-07820 (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2018).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

Taxi Tours Inc. was founded in 2001.  The Company's line of
business includes providing local passenger transportation
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal


TOP'S PERSONNEL: Can Compel to Produce Documents in AUI Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC., a Nebraska Corporation;
Plaintiff, v. TOP'S PERSONNEL, INC., A New Jersey Corporation;
Defendant, Case No. 8:15CV90 (D. Neb.), Magistrate Judge Cheryl R.
Zwart of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska
granted in part and denied in part Applied's motion to compel.

On Jan. 16, 2018, Top's filed a motion for leave to 1) amend its
answer to assert class action counterclaims; and 2) reopen
discovery limited to class certification.  Applied  opposed the
motion.  A hearing was held on Jan. 26, 2018, and the Court granted
Top's' motion to amend and gave it leave to file an amended answer
asserting the class claims.  In its ruling on the motion to amend,
the Court reopened discovery specifically related to the class
certification, to commence when Top's' amended answer was filed of
record.

After class certification discovery commenced, Applied served a
Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition on Top's and subpoenaed
documents and testimony from Top's' worker's compensation broker,
Global Indemnity Insurance Agency, Inc.  Top's and Global contested
the relevancy of some of the deposition topics and document
production requests.  The Court held a discovery dispute conference
with the parties, after which the discovery issues remained
unresolved.

Applied then filed the instant motion to compel, and the Court
stayed Applied's response to the class certification motion pending
resolution of these discovery issues.

Applied's motion to compel requests the following relief: (i) Top's
will produce a witness to provide deposition testimony on all
topics listed in the Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Top's
dated March 21, 2018, including but not limited to topics Nos. 4-7
listed in the Notice that Top's has objected to as irrelevant and
for which Top's refuses to produce a testifying witness; (ii)
Nonparty Global, which is the workers' compensation insurance
broker for Top's, will produce a witness to provide deposition
testimony on all topics listed in the Subpoena to testify at a
deposition in a civil action and to produce documents, dated March
20, 2018, that was served on Global, including but not limited to
topics listed in the Subpoena as Nos. 3-4 that Global and Top's
object to as irrelevant and for which Global refuses to produce a
testifying witness; and (iii) Global will produce all documents
sought by the Subpoena, including but not limited to the documents
sought in Request Nos. 3-4 listed in the Subpoena that Global
objects to producing and has not produced.

Magistrate Judge Zwart will grant in part and deny in part
Applied's motion to compel the testimony requested in its 30(b)(6)
Notice.  The requests for worker's compensation information and
corporate structure are relevant and proportional to the present
needs of the case.  But the request for information regarding
affirmative defenses is overly broad and requests information
wholly unrelated to purposes for which discovery was reopened.

The Magistrate Judge has determined that inquiry into Top's
worker's compensation insurance experience is reasonably calculated
to lead to information regarding the counterclaims' causation
requirements.  The same is true here.  She will grant the motion to
compel testimony and production from Global regarding the contested
topics for the reasons outlined.

She notes that the requests targeted at Global are bounded in time
to a five-year period before Top's began participating in the
Applied Program, through the date of the deposition.  She
determines that time period is reasonable.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Zwart granted in part and denied in
part Applied's motion to compel.  The deadline for completing class
certification discovery is Sept. 7, 2018.  Applied's deadline for
filing its response to the motion for class certification is Oct.
9, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/708pqK from Leagle.com.

Applied Underwriters, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation, Plaintiff,
represented by Anthony P. Coles -- anthony.coles@dlapiper.com --
DLA PIPER US LAW FIRM, Jeffrey A. Silver --
jeffreysilver@silver-law.net -- SILVER LAW FIRM & Shand S. Stephens
-- shand.stephens@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LAW FIRM,

Top's Personnel, Inc., A New Jersey Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Aaron L. Peskin -- aaron@ferraralawgp.com -- FERRARA
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Andrew W. Ferich -- AWF@chimicles.com --
CHIMICLES, TIKELLIS LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Benjamin F. Johns --
BFJ@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES, TIKELLIS LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Brian T. McKernan -- bmckernan@mcgrathnorth.com -- MCGRATH, NORTH
LAW FIRM, Ralph P. Ferrara -- ralph@ferraralawgp.com -- FERRARA LAW
FIRM, pro hac vice & Zachary P. Beatty -- ZPB@chimicles.com --
CHIMICLES, TIKELLIS LAW FIRM, pro hac vice.

Top's Personnel, Inc., A New Jersey Corporation, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Counter Claimant,
represented by Aaron L. Peskin, FERRARA LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Andrew W. Ferich, CHIMICLES, TIKELLIS LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Benjamin F. Johns, CHIMICLES, TIKELLIS LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Brian T. McKernan , MCGRATH, NORTH LAW FIRM, Ralph P. Ferrara,
FERRARA LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & Zachary P. Beatty, CHIMICLES,
TIKELLIS LAW FIRM, pro hac vice.

Applied Underwriters, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation, Counter
Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Silver, SILVER LAW FIRM &
Shand S. Stephens, DLA PIPER US LAW FIRM.


TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Thompson Sues Over Excessive Charges
-------------------------------------------------------
Gail Thompson, individually and as Power of Attorney for Lois
Thompson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Case
No. 18-cv-05422 (C.D. Cal, June 18, 2018), seeks restitution and/or
disgorgement and such other equitable relief from Defendant's
unlawfully charging excessive monthly deduction rates, preliminary
and permanent injunctive relief, reinstatement of cancelled or
surrendered policies, actual, compensatory, statutory, punitive,
and/or exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and
other costs and such other and further relief resulting from breach
of contract.

Plaintiff owns Transamerica TransUltra 115 and TransSurvivor 115
universal life policies. Transamerica unilaterally increased the
monthly deduction applicable to the policies between 47-58% and
depleted the policies' accumulated values to the point where they
are insufficient, resulting in forfeiture of the promised no-lapse
protections, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harvey Rosenfield, Esq.
      Jerry Flanagan, Esq.
      CONSUMER WATCHDOG
      2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Tel: (310) 392-0522
      Fax: (310) 392-8874
      Email: harvey@consumerwatchdog.org
             jerry@consumerwatchdog.org

             - and -

      Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
      Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
      2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Tel: (602) 274-1100
      Fax: (602) 274-1199
      Email: afriedman@bffb.com
             fbalint@bffb.com

             - and -

      Adam Moskowitz, Esq.
      Howard Bushman, Esq.
      Adam Schwartzbaum, Esq.
      THE MOSKOWITZ FIRM, PLLC
      2 Alahambra Plaza, Suite 601
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (305) 740-1423
      Fax: (786) 298-5737
      Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com
             howard@moskowitz-law.com
             adams@moskowitz-law.com

             - and -

      James R. Patterson, Esq.
      Allison H. Goddard, Esq.
      Catherine S. Wicker, Esq.
      PATTERSON LAW GROUP
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 756-6990
      Fax: (619) 756-6991
      Email: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com
             ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
             catherine@pattersonlawgroup.com

             - and -

      Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
      Mark R. Rosen, Esq.
      Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      One America Plaza
      600 West Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 230-0800
      Fax: (619) 230-1874
      Email: sbasser@barrack.com
             sward@barrack.com
             mrosen@barrack.com

             - and -

      John G. Emerson, Esq.
      EMERSON SCOTT, LLP
      830 Apollo Lane
      Houston, TX 77058
      Tel: (281) 488-8854
      Fax: (281) 488-8867
      Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

             - and -

      David G. Scott, Esq.
      EMERSON SCOTT, LLP
      The Rozelle-Murphy House
      1301 Scott Street
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Tel: (501) 907-2555
      Fax: (501) 907-2556
      Email: dscott@emersonfirm.com


TRIBECA PEDIATRICS: Diaz Suit Asserts ADA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Tribeca Pediatrics, PLLC filed a class action lawsuit under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.  The case is captioned as Edwin
Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Tribeca Pediatrics, PLLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-07862 (S.D.N.Y., August
28, 2018).

Tribeca Pediatrics, PLLC, operates pediatric clinics mostly in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TWIN HILL: M. Agnello's Personal Injury Suit Remanded to State Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the cases captioned
MELODIE AGNELLO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TWIN HILL ACQUISITION
COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants, HEATHER POOLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. TWIN HILL ACQUISITION COMPANY, INC., et al.,
Defendants, ROSEMARY MACKONOCHIE et al., Plaintiffs, v. TWIN HILL
ACQUISITION COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants, ALEXANDRA HUGHES, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. TWIN HILL ACQUISITION COMPANY, INC., et al.,
Defendants. Case No. 18-cv-02756-JCS, Related Case No.
18-cv-02758-JCS., 18-cv-02761-JCS, 18-cv-02762-JCS (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs bring motion to remand asking this Court to remand
all of the actions to Alameda Superior Court and award fees and
costs incurred as a result of the allegedly improper removal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447 (c).

This case involves four actions in which the plaintiffs, who are
employees of American Airlines, assert negligence and product
liability claims based on allegations that the uniforms their
employer required them to wear contain harmful chemicals that have
caused personal injury to the plaintiffs.

In the Motions to Remand, the Plaintiffs contend they never
proposed to try the cases jointly and that they filed a single
First Amended Complaint only in an attempt to comply with the order
of the superior court. They further assert that to the extent the
First Amended Complaint was no longer operative at the time of the
removal, the Defendants' removal of the actions was improper
because the existence of federal jurisdiction depends on the
operative complaint at the time or removal.

Under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)'s mass action
provisions, district courts have original federal jurisdiction over
actions that involve: (1) 100 or more plaintiffs whose monetary
relief claims are proposed to be tried jointly (2) common questions
of law or fact between the plaintiffs' claims (3) minimal
diversity, whereby at least one plaintiff is diverse from one
defendant; (4) aggregated claims totaling in excess of $5 million;
and (5) at least one plaintiff's claim places more than $75,000 in
controversy.

Whether More than 100 Plaintiffs Have Proposed to Try Their Claims
Jointly

The Ninth Circuit has held that consistent with the plain language
of CAFA, the proposal to try claims jointly must come from the
plaintiffs, not from the defendants. Corber v. Xanodyne Pharm.,
Inc., 771 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2014).

A request for a joint trial may be either explicit or implicit.
Corber, 771 F.3d at 1225 (citing In re Abbott Labs., Inc., 698 F.3d
568, 572 (7th Cir. 2012)). An implicit proposal may be found when
all of the circumstances of the action, including the language of
the complaint and the structure of the action, lead to the
assumption that the claims will be tried jointly. In Corber, the
Ninth Circuit addressed whether the plaintiffs in multiple actions
involving the same claims and parties had implicitly proposed to
try the claims jointly when they filed a petition to coordinate
under California Civil Code section 404.  

The facts here are distinguishable from both Ramirez and Corber.
First, the circumstances surrounding the filing of the First
Amended Complaint in this action are markedly different from the
situation in Ramirez.

Here, the Plaintiffs initially filed separate complaints with under
100 plaintiffs in each just as the Ramirez court suggested the
plaintiffs in that case might have done if they did not intend to
propose a joint trial. The Plaintiffs only filed a consolidated
complaint in response to a court order. That order was somewhat
ambiguous, however, especially in light of the discussion that
occurred at the February 20, 2018 case management conference. There
appears to be no real dispute as to what occurred. The superior
court issued an order that discussed the complaints (in the plural)
that were the subject of the demurrers and ordered the plaintiffs
to file a First Amended Complaint (in the singular) to cure these
defects. At the case management conference, the court also asked
the Plaintiffs if there was any reason the cases should remain
separate, raising the possibility that the actions would be
consolidated.

Nonetheless, the court did not order the cases consolidated.
Although the Plaintiffs requested a brief extension of the deadline
to file the First Amended Complaint so that the matter could be
clarified at the upcoming case management conference, Defendants
refused to stipulate to the extension. Moreover, many statements by
the Plaintiffs' counsel indicate that they did not intend to
propose a joint trial of 100 or more plaintiffs. In the CMC
statements of January 18 and 30, the Plaintiffs' counsel state that
there will be four separate but related complaints of up to 99
plaintiffs each. On February 20, 2018, the Plaintiffs' counsel
advised the court of their intent to file two additional complaints
with fewer than 100 plaintiffs each. Counsel did not understand the
court's suggestion of consolidation for streamlining purposes to
mean that the cases would all be tried together.

Indeed, after the FAC was filed the parties agreed that the cases
had not been ordered consolidated and the Plaintiffs' counsel
sought separate case numbers each with fewer than 100 plaintiffs.
Under these circumstances, the First Amended Complaint was not a
proposal by Plaintiffs to try the cases jointly but simply an
attempt to comply with the court's order.

In sum, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs did not intend to
propose a joint trial when they filed the First Amended Complaint
and that the CAFA requirement that there must be more than 100
plaintiffs who seek to have their claims tried jointly has not been
met.

The Court orders all of the removed cases to be remanded to Alameda
Superior Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 20, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7jo2p3r from Leagle.com.

Melodie Agnello, Daniel Derose, Laureen Fromm, Lacy Hines, Eileen
Larkin, Julie Martine, Shari Sivret, Tamura Talmadge, Tracy Teel,
Leslie Vasilakis, Krista Macfarlane, Denise Mumma, Maresa Bache,
Linda Ballard, Mia Benson, Laura Bokor, Colleen Caffrey, Kelly
Campbell, Linda Caron, Majbrit Clarke, Jennifer Craig, Anna
Darnell, Tanya Devaughn, Wendy D'olivo, Cheryl Donnelly, Susan
Edwards, Patrice Ekins, Eddie Encarnacian, Tunde Fejer-Konert,
Teresa Flores, Amy Gabbard, Tina Geier, Marieke Genet, Frank
Gentry, Elizabeth Gordon, Shelley Granatek, Paddy Graves, Virginia
Hardie, Lashonda Harris, Elizabeth Hedlund, Susan Herrington,
Melody Hornung, Shelly House, Elizabeth Jackson, Marla
Jansen-Demarco, Taylor Johnston, Patricia Kirwan, Caren Kolb,
Maryse Lavercier, Susan Lovett, Colleen Maholias, Dona
Mcclain-Yancy, Timothy Mclaughlin, Robin Mcraney, Heidi-Sue Mcvey,
Janeen Mellick, Nicole Miller, Sharon Milton, Karen Montgomery,
Sara Moran, Kerry Morgan, Beverly Naten, Meredith Neill, Morrow
Omli, Joanne Pacitti, Jennifer Pezzotti, Julie Piche, Ginger Platt,
Janice Pollock, Susie Rain, Lucia Restrepo-Rendina, Mary Rucky,
Lisa Rutt, Rosemary Saddler, Beverly Sayre, Joshua Scarpuzzi, Paul
Seay, Leticia Self, Lilly Severson, Michele Slayton, Georgia
Spears, Catherine Statler, Terri Stewart, Lisa Stillwell, Kara
Sutherland, Jack Taylor, Betsy Versluis, Tanya Weatherspoon,
Despina Zanikos, Laura Zelm, Cheryl Palmer, Loraine Shaw, Antonia
Swaringen, Zan Wyatt, Ingela Yelencich, Sandra Coplin-Neill,
Lorraine Cronin, Jody Fellows & Kimberly O'doherty, Plaintiffs,
represented by Andrew Joseph Spielberger -- andrew@dbaslaw.com --
Balaban and Spielberger LLP, Anastasia Kinney Mazzella --
am@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Brian Stephen
Kabateck -- bsk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP &
Daniel Keith Balaban -- daniel@dbaslaw.com -- Balaban and
Spielberger LLP.

Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc. & Tailored Brands, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Robert James Herrington --
herringtonr@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP & Leanna Christine
Costantini -- costantinil@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP.


UNITED STATES: 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in Sajous Suit Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Thomas Decker, Thomas Feeley, James McHenry, Kirstjen M.
Nielsen, Jeffrey Searls and Jefferson B. Sessions III filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Sajous v. Decker,
et al., Case No. 18-cv-2447, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

Thomas Decker is a Field Office Director in the U.S. Immigration &
Customs Enforcement.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, The American
Civil Liberties Union brought national firepower on April 5 to the
case of a man with schizophrenia, who has been denied a bond
hearing while he faces deportation to Haiti for subway-turnstile
mischief.

Kept in a cell at the Hudson County Correctional Facility since
September 2017, 60-year-old Augustin Sajous 'faces the prospect of
indefinite detention in a jail while he contests the government's
misguided efforts to deport him,' according to the ACLU's filing.

The ACLU took up the case, recasting it as a class action, just
over a month after it was originally filed by a public defender
with Brooklyn Defender Services.

When the original case was filed on March 19, Mr. Sajous had been
scheduled to get his bond hearing that same day after six months in
detention.

The appellate case is captioned as Sajous v. Decker, et al., Case
No. 18-2560, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Petitioner-Appellee Augustin Sajous, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Aadhithi Padmanabhan, Esq.
          NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 607-3300
          E-mail: apadmanabhan@nyclu.org

Respondents-Appellants Thomas Decker, as Field Office Director, New
York City Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement;
Kirstjen M. Nielsen, As Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; Jefferson B. Sessions III, as Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice; Thomas Feeley, as Field Officer Director,
Buffalo Field Office, U.S. Immigrations & Customs Enforcement;
Jeffrey Searls, as Assistant Field Officer Director, Buffalo Field
Office, U.S. Immigrations & Customs Enforcement; and James McHenry,
as Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, are
represented by:

          Sarah Kathleen Eddy, Esq.
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE SOUTHERN
          DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
          1 St. Andrew's Plaza
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 637-1033
          E-mail: sarah.eddy@usdoj.gov


UNITED STATES: Ershteyn Files Suit v. Social Security Admin.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nancy A. Berryhill.
The case is captioned as Boris Ershteyn, Individually and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated and Irina Ershteyn, Individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Nancy A.
Berryhill, As Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration, Case No. 1:18-cv-04872 (E.D.N.Y., August 27,
2018).

The Plaintiff alleges civil rights violations.

Nancy A. Berryhill is the Acting Commissioner of the U.S. Social
Security Administration.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Arbitration Ruling in Munro Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sidney R. Thomas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the district court order denying USC's motion to
compel arbitration in the case, ALLEN L. MUNRO, individually and as
representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the University of Southern California Defined
Contribution Retirement Plan and the University of Southern
California Tax Deferred Annuity Plan; DANIEL C. WHEELER,
individually and as representatives of a class of participants and
beneficiaries on behalf of the University of Southern California
Defined Contribution Retirement Plan and the University of Southern
California Tax Deferred Annuity Plan; EDWARD E. VAYNMAN,
individually and as representatives of a class of participants and
beneficiaries on behalf of the University of Southern California
Defined Contribution Retirement Plan and the University of Southern
California Tax Deferred Annuity Plan; JANE A. SINGLETON,
individually and as representatives of a class of participants and
beneficiaries on behalf of the University of Southern California
Defined Contribution Retirement Plan and the University of Southern
California Tax Deferred Annuity Plan; SARAH GLEASON, individually
and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries
on behalf of the University of Southern California Defined
Contribution Retirement Plan and the University of Southern
California Tax Deferred Annuity Plan; REBECCA A. SNYDER,
individually and as representatives of a class of participants and
beneficiaries on behalf of the University of Southern California
Defined Contribution Retirement Plan and the University of Southern
California Tax Deferred Annuity Plan; DION DICKMAN; COREY CLARK;
STEVEN L. OLSON, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA; USC RETIREMENT PLAN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE; LISA MAZZOCCO,
Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 17-55550 (9th Cir.).

The Judge considers in the appeal whether the current and the
former employees of the University of Southern California may be
compelled to arbitrate their collective claims for breach of
fiduciary responsibility against the Defendants ("USC") for the
administration of two ERISA plans.

Allen Munro and eight other current and former USC employees
participate in both the USC Retirement Savings Program and the USC
Tax-Deferred Annuity Plan.  In the putative class action lawsuit,
they allege multiple breaches of fiduciary duty in administration
of the Plans.

Each of the individual Employees was required to sign an
arbitration agreement as part of her employment contract.  The nine
Employees signed five different iterations of USC's arbitration
agreement.  Consistent among the various agreements is an agreement
to arbitrate all claims that either the Employee or USC has against
the other party to the agreement.  The agreements expressly cover
claims for violations of federal law.

In their putative class action lawsuit, the Employees sought
financial and equitable remedies to benefit the Plans and all
affected participants and beneficiaries, including but not limited
to: a determination as to the method of calculating losses; removal
of breaching fiduciaries; a full accounting of Plan losses;
reformation of the Plans; and an order regarding appropriate future
investments.

USC moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the Employees'
agreements bar the Employees from litigating their claims on behalf
of the Plan. It also requested the district court to compel
arbitration on an individual, rather than class, basis because the
parties did not specifically agree to class arbitration.  The
district court denied USC's motion, determining that the
arbitration agreements, which the Employees entered into in their
individual capacities, do not bind the Plans because the Plans did
not themselves consent to arbitration of the claims. USC timely
appealed.

Judge Thomas finds that the language of the arbitration agreements
in the case is not meaningfully distinguishable from that
considered in United States ex rel. Welch v. My Left Foot
Children's Therapy, LLC.  The issue, then, is whether claims for
breach of fiduciary duty brought under ERISA must be treated the
same as qui tam claims brought under the FCA.  In Welch, because
the underlying fraud claims asserted in a FCA case belong to the
government and not to the relator, the Appellate Court held that
the claims were not claims that the employee had against the
employer and therefore not within the scope of the arbitration
agreements.

The Judge find sthat there is no principled distinction to be drawn
between the case and Welch.  If anything, because recovery under
ERISA Section 409(a) is recovery singularly for the plan, compare
29 U.S.C. Section 1109(a), with 31 U.S.C. Section 3730(b), the qui
tam relator has a stronger stake in the outcome of an FCA case than
does a Section 502(a)(2) plaintiff in an ERISA claim.  The ERISA
Section 409(a) claims in the suit are not claims an Employee may
have against the University or any of its related entities, and the
arbitration agreements cannot be stretched to apply to them.

In sum, Judge Thomas holds that the claims asserted on behalf of
the Plans in the case fall outside the scope of the arbitration
clauses in individual Employees' general employment contracts.
Therefore, the district court properly denied the motion to compel
arbitration.  He needs not -- and does not -- reach any other
issues urged by the parties.  Accordingly, he affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/vHPmLH from Leagle.com.

Eugene Scalia -- escalia@gibsondunn.com -- (argued) and Paul
Blankenstein -- pblankenstein@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C.; Debra Wong Yang --
dwongyang@gibsondunn.com -- Christopher Chorba --
cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- Jennafer M. Tryck --
jtryck@gibsondunn.com -- and Samuel Eckman --
seckman@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles,
California; for Defendants-Appellants.

Michael A. Wolff -- sbd@uselaws.com -- (argued), James Redd, and
Jerome J. Schlichter, Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP, St. Louis,
Missouri, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Andrew J. Pincus -- apincus@mayerbrown.com -- Archis A. Parasharami
-- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Brian D. Netter --
bnetter@mayerbrown.com -- and Travis Crum -- tcrum@uchicago.edu --
Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C.; Warren Postman and Janet Galeria
, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus
Curiae Chamber of Commerce.

Mary Ellen Signorille and William Alvarado Rivera, AARP Foundation
Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae AARP and AARP
Foundation.


USAA CASUALTY: Dist. Court Won't Remand P. Byorth's Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Montana,
Billings Division, denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case
captioned PETER BYORTH and ANN McKEAN, on behalf of themselves and
all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. USAA CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY and JOHN DOES I-X, Defendants. No. CV
17-153-BLG-TJC. (D. Mont.).

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Montana
Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, alleging
Defendant USAA Casualty Insurance Company (USAA) engaged in an
improper cost containment scheme designed to wrongfully deprive
Montana consumers of first-party medical payment benefits.
Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
contract and unfair trade practices.

USAA again removed, this time asserting jurisdiction under CAFA.
USAA alleged the original Complaint was not removable under CAFA,
but the FAC is removable. USAA asserts the FAC redefined and
expanded the class. Based on the new class definition, USAA states
it was able to determine, for the first time, that the amount in
controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold under CAFA.

The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to remand. The Plaintiffs
argue this action must be remanded to state court because the
removal is untimely. The Plaintiffs assert the FAC did not
substantively change their claims or damages, and therefore, the
FAC does not provide a new basis for removal.

USAA argues it timely removed on the basis of CAFA jurisdiction.
USAA contends neither the face of the original Complaint, the FAC,
nor any other pleading, motion, order or paper demonstrated the
amount in controversy was sufficient to meet CAFA's jurisdictional
threshold.

Legal Standards

CAFA vests federal courts with original jurisdiction over class
actions where: (1) there is minimal diversity of citizenship
between the parties; (2) the proposed class has at least 100
members; and (3) the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of
$5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

Whether the Removal was Timely

Here, the initial Complaint did not affirmatively reveal on its
face the facts necessary for federal court jurisdiction under CAFA.
The Complaint did not identify the class size or state the amount
of damages sought. Nor did the Complaint provide information from
which USAA could have readily calculated the amount in controversy.
Therefore, the 30-day removal period under Section1446(b)(1) was
not triggered by the initial Complaint.

Likewise, it is not evident from the face of the FAC that the
jurisdictional thresholds for CAFA were present. Again, the FAC did
not specify the amount of damages sought, or state information from
which the amount in controversy could have been calculated. Thus,
both the Complaint and the FAC are indeterminate pleadings with
regard to federal jurisdiction under CAFA. As such, neither started
the removal clock under Section1446(b)(1) or (b)(3).

The Court further finds USAA did not receive any other paper that
provided information sufficient to trigger the 30 day period in
Section1446(b)(3). The Plaintiffs asserts USAA was made aware of
the scope of the class and thereby facts from which CAFA
jurisdiction was ascertainable through the briefing and discovery
on class certification issues. The discovery responses, briefs, and
court orders the Plaintiffs cite, however, are silent regarding the
amount in controversy. None of the documents indicate that the
total amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, or provided
information which made removability under CAFA apparent without
further investigation.  

Because neither 30-day removal window under Section1446(b) was
triggered here, it was permissible for USAA to wait and remove
based on its own investigation. Regardless of whether it was
possible for USAA to have ascertained that CAFA jurisdiction
existed at some earlier point in the litigation, USAA was not
obligated to do so.  

Here, USAA chose to investigate the claimed damages after receiving
the FAC, and it promptly removed upon independently determining
that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional
threshold under CAFA. This process is expressly authorized by the
Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, the Court finds USAA's removal was
timely.

Whether the Removal was an Improper Successive Removal

The Plaintiffs assert that even if USAA could remove based on its
own investigation, the removal is an improper successive removal.
Ordinarily, a party may not file a second notice of removal upon
the same grounds where the court previously remanded the action.
The general prohibition on successive removals does not apply,
however, when subsequent pleadings or events reveal a new and
different ground for removal.

The statutory basis for the successive removal doctrine stems from
28 U.S.C. Section 1447(d), which provides that an order remanding a
case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable
on appeal or otherwise. In Seedman v. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist.
of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988), the Ninth Circuit
explained that Section 1447(d) has been universally construed to
preclude not only appellate review but also reconsideration by the
district court.The Ninth Circuit subsequently recognized, however,
that Seedman and Section 1447(d) prevent a district court from
considering a removal based on the same grounds as the one the
court had previously remanded. The Court also made clear that the
successive removal prohibition does not apply to cases involving
CAFA removals, since CAFA explicitly allows review of remand orders
notwithstanding section 1447(d).

Nevertheless, even if the ordinary rule applies, USAA's second
removal was based on a new and different ground than its first
removal. Previously, USAA removed on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332; USAA's second removal is
based on CAFA. The second removal was initiated after Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint confirming that the scope of the class
included any rejection or reduction or delay and not just denials
following file reviews or because of coding errors. Thus, it was
based on new and different grounds, and did not run afoul of the
successive removal prohibition.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 20, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y94yzf3p from Leagle.com.

Peter Byorth, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
situated & Ann McKean, on behalf of themselves and all those
similary situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Colette B. Davies ,
BISHOP, HEENAN & DAVIES, John C. Heenan , BISHOP, HEENAN & DAVIES,
James Devlan Geddes , GOETZ, BALDWIN & GEDDES, P.C. & Trent M.
Gardner , GOETZ, BALDWIN & GEDDES, P.C.

USAA Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Ian
McIntosh -- imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com -- CROWLEY FLECK, PLLP,
Jeremy A. Moseley -- Moseley@wtotrial.com -- WHEELER TRIGG
O'DONNELL LLP, Kelsey E. Bunkers -- kbunkers@crowleyfleck.com --
CROWLEY FLECK, PLLP & Hannah R. Seifert -- Seifert@wtotrial.com --
WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP.


USP LEWISBURG: Court Allows Barlow to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAMDEN BARLOW, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WARDEN DAVID J.
EBBERT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00716 (M.D. Pa.),
Judge Sylvia H. Rambo of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania dismissed the case in part for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (ii) granted
Plaintiffs Barlow, Terrell Wilson, Christopher Alvarez, Nathan A.
Railey, Juan C. Valles, and Doreteo Garcia's motions for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis; and (iii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion
to proceed as a class action.

On April 3, 2018, the Court received and docketed a complaint filed
pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, ostensibly by 10 inmates currently incarcerated at the
U.S. Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania ("USP-Lewisburg").
The Plaintiffs provide that Plaintiff Railey acts as the agent
and/or voice of the group of the Plaintiffs.  Named as the
Defendants are David J. Ebbert, the Warden at USP-Lewisburg,
Officer Buebendorf, Special Institutional Security at
USP-Lewisburg, and Officer Tharp, acting counselor for B-block at
USP-Lewisburg.  The Plaintiffs allege that they are housed in the
Special Management Unit ("SMU"), and participate in a Secured
Mental Health Step Down Program designed for inmates with
disciplinary infraction issues.

The Plaintiffs claim that they are being discriminated against in
violation of the Equal Protection Clause because they receive
enhanced restrictions on their incoming and outgoing mail by virtue
of their placement in the SMU.  They also allege a violation of
their Fifth Amendment due process rights related to these enhanced
mail restrictions, as well as violations of their First Amendment
rights because they are unable to properly utilize the
administrative grievance remedy procedure at USP-Lewisburg.

Concurrent with the filing of the complaint, the Plaintiffs also
filed a motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"), and
preliminary injunction, and motion to proceed as a class action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

On April 23, 2018, a motion to amend the complaint was filed,
requesting leave to add three additional Plaintiff's to the
complaint: Doreteo Garcia, Juan Carlos Valles, and David Jackson.
On June 14, 2018, the Court issued an Order, granting the
Plaintiffs' April 23, 2018 motion insofar as it added the three
aforementioned Plaintiffs to the action.  The Court dismissed
without prejudice Plaintiff's Haynes, Argueta, and Piggee from the
action for their failure to comply with the Court's April 18, 2018,
30 Day Administrative Order.  Finally, it ordered that all
remaining applications for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must
be filed on or before July 14, 2018, otherwise, failure to do so
would result in that particular Plaintiff being dismissed from the
action without prejudice.  On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff David
Jackson filed a motion to withdraw from the action.  The Court will
grant David Jackson's motion to withdraw from the action and he
will be dismissed.

To date, the following Plaintiffs have filed motions for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis: (1) Barlow; (2) Wilson; (3) Alvarez; (4)
Railey; (5) Valles; and (6) Garcia.  Accordingly, the Court will
grant these Plaintiffs' motions to proceed in forma pauperis, and
the aforementioned six Plaintiffs are the remaining Plaintiffs in
the action.

However, the following Plaintiffs have failed to file a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and will be dismissed from this
action without prejudice: (1) Darryl Taylor; (2) Tabarus Holland;
and (3) Tony C. Knott.  Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), the Court will perform its mandatory
screening of the complaint prior to service.

The Plaintiffs move for class certification and claim that
Plaintiff Railey seeks to act as agent/representative to pursue
claims on behalf of the fellow inmate-Plaintiffs.  However, a pro
se litigant lacks the capacity to represent the interest of his
fellow inmates in a class action.  Accordingly, in accordance with
the law, Judge Rambo will deny the Plaintiffs' motion to pursue the
action as a class action whereby Plaintiff Railey seeks to act as
agent/representative to pursue claims on behalf of the fellow
inmate-Plaintiffs.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs do not allege that they are or
have been treated differently than other inmates housed in the SMU.
The Plaintiffs have not alleged facts from which it can plausibly
be inferred that they, or other inmates in the SMU, are similarly
situated to inmates in other units/blocks at USP-Lewisburg.
Consequently, she finds that the Plaintiffs fail to state an equal
protection claim upon which relief may be granted and this claim
will be dismissed with prejudice.

In the instant case, the Plaintiffs do not state a claim upon which
relief may be granted because they have not alleged an actual
injury to their litigation efforts that has resulted in being shut
out of court.  They do not allege that they lost an opportunity to
file a case in court, or that they could not subsequently file a
case after the alleged interference with their right of access to
the courts ceased.  Moreover, this lack of an actual injury is
apparent in the fact that the Plaintiffs have filed the instant
action in federal court.  Accordingly, the Judge will dismiss with
prejudice this claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.

The Judge concludes that because the review and balancing of the
Turner factors requires evidence that is not yet before the Court,
he is unable to perform an appropriate review and make the relevant
determination as to the reasonableness of the challenged prison
regulation, and to do so at this preliminary screening stage would
be premature.  As such, the Plaintiffs' First Amendment Claim
related to the enhanced mail restriction policy survives
screening.

Finally, the Judge cannot say at this stage whether the remaining
First Amendment enhanced mail restriction claim is frivolous, and
therefore, she will direct service of the Plaintiffs' complaint and
memorandum on the Defendants, and further directs the Defendants to
file a brief in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for a
preliminary injunction.

In accordance with the foregoing, Judge Rambo granted Plaintiffs
Barlow, Wilson, Alvarez, Raiely, Valles, and Garcia's motions to
proceed in forma pauperis; and dismissed in part the complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  The
remaining claim in the action is the Plaintiffs' First Amendment
enhanced mail restriction claim.  She denied the Plaintiffs' motion
to proceed as a class action.

The Judge granted Plaintiff Jackson's motion to withdraw, and
dismissed him from the action.  Plaintiffs Taylor, Holland, and
Knott are dismissed as the Plaintiffs from the action without
prejudice for their failure to comply with the Court's April 18,
2018, 30 Day Administrative Order.  Further, she directed service
of the complaint and memorandum on the Defendants and directed the
Defendants to file a brief in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction.  An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/shkTFw from Leagle.com.

Camden Barlow, Plaintiff, pro se.

Christopher Alvarez, Plaintiff, pro se.

Terrell Wilson, Plaintiff, pro se.

Nathan A. Railey, Plaintiff, pro se.

Doreteo Garcia, Plaintiff, pro se.

Juan C. Valles, Plaintiff, pro se.


WELLTEC INC: 5th Cir. Appeal Filed in Rychorcewicz FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Korey Rychorcewicz filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Korey Rychorcewicz v. Welltec, Incorporated,
Case No. 4:16-CV-2, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks damages for all unpaid overtime compensation, reasonable
attorney's fees and all costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Welltec, Inc., located in Katy, Texas, provides oil well
maintenance and services.  The Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendant as a Field Engineer, rigging oilfield equipment and
operating oilfield machinery.  He claims to have worked in excess
of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation.

The appellate case is captioned as Korey Rychorcewicz v. Welltec,
Incorporated, Case No. 18-20603, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant KOREY RYCHORCEWICZ, Individually and on behalf
of similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Trang Quoc Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          2537 S. Gessner Road
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 223-8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
          E-mail: Ttran@tranlawllp.com

Defendant-Appellee WELLTEC, INCORPORATED, is represented by:

          Andrew Rosenman, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, L.L.P.
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8744
          E-mail: arosenman@mayerbrown.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS REPORT: EPA Asbestos Proposals Cause for Alarm
-------------------------------------------------------
Safety+Health magazine reported that a pair of recent Environmental
Protection Agency proposals regarding asbestos are cause for alarm,
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) is cautioning, while the agency contends it
is attempting to expand restrictions on the substance.

In June, EPA issued new problem formulation documents that "refine
the scope of risk evaluation" for asbestos and nine other
chemicals, as well as a significant new use rule proposal. The
problem formulation or risk evaluation would not include asbestos
in older buildings or the millions of pounds of asbestos that is
dumped in landfills, according to the agency.

EPA states in a June 1 press release that the significant new use
rule "would require manufacturers and importers to receive EPA
approval before starting or resuming manufacturing, and importing
or processing of asbestos. This review process would provide EPA
with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use of asbestos and,
when necessary, take action to prohibit or limit the use."

In a statement issued Aug. 14, Udall counters that EPA "is
proposing to conduct a risk evaluation that excludes among the most
common exposures to the known carcinogen asbestos. EPA is ignoring
the risk posed by asbestos present in countless homes and
buildings."
Udall, who is ranking member of the Senate Appropriations
Committee's Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee, is calling for EPA to ban the substance completely.

In 1973, the agency began banning spray-applied material for
fireproofing or insulating purposes that contained asbestos. It
prohibited more uses of asbestos two years later, and tried to
issue an almost total ban on the substance in 1989 as part of the
Toxic Substances Control Act.

That final rule was overturned two years later by the Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and only new uses of asbestos
initiated after 1989 -- along with five other types of products --
are prohibited.

Asbestos is a commercial label for six minerals that feature
bundles of fibers, which can be turned into threads for many
applications. Those fibers are known for their fire resistance.
People can breathe in those fibers, which can build up and cause
scarring or inflammation. The International Agency for Research on
Cancer has linked asbestos exposure to lung cancer and mesothelioma
-- a rare cancer of the membranes in the abdomen and chest –
among other health problems.

An estimated 15,000 people die from asbestos-related diseases in
the United States each year, Linda Reinstein, co-founder and
president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, said in a
June 1 press release.

"It is incredulous to know that the EPA has ignored the science,
the history and the carnage that asbestos has caused throughout the
nation each year," Reinstein said. "From the World Health
Organization to the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General, there is
global consensus that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure
or controlled use of asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $4.7B Jury Award in Asbestos Talc Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
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: 17, 000 Tonnes Asbestos Illegally Dumped
---------------------------------------------------------
NEWS.com.au reported that investigators say they've tracked down
some of the 17,000 tonnes of asbestos-contaminated waste removed
from a Sydney construction site and illegally dumped.

But the location of much of the contaminated material is still
unknown.

NSW Police believe some of the waste is on a rural property in
Kulnura about 70 kilometres north of Sydney's CBD.

"Investigators believe the illegal dumping operation is linked to
organised crime," a police spokesperson said in a statement on
Wednesday.

Detectives in mid-August arrested a 48-year-old waste disposal
company director at Sydney Airport as he tried to flee the
country.

They allege his company removed 600 truckloads of
asbestos-contaminated building waste from the Green Square
redevelopment from mid-2016 and dumped it illegally.

Police and investigators from the NSW Environment Protection
Authority on Wednesday searched the Kulnura property on the Central
Coast.

The property's owners told police they believed the material was
clean fill.

Aerial footage, aired by the Seven Network on Wednesday afternoon,
showed investigators in masks and gloves surveying the rural land
while excavators shifted mounds of dirt.

Kulnura property owner Soraya Van Tilborg says she doesn't even
want to think about what her family may have been exposed to.

"We spent ages working to get this property. It all looked very
legitimate, everything seemed in order," she told the Seven Network
on Wednesday.

"I don't want to even think about it."

Soil samples are expected to confirm the presence of asbestos and
"large-scale remediation will be required", a police spokesperson
said.

A NSW Police spokeswoman told AAP it's unclear how much of the
missing 17,000 tonnes of waste could be at the Kulnura site.

SafeWork NSW licensed asbestos assessor Tony Milligan said
contaminated waste can only legally be disposed of at EPA-licensed
landfill facilities.

"(But) the high cost of removal of asbestos-containing materials
and charges to legally dispose of it places a huge responsibility
on those operating in the industry and the 'rewards' for misusing
that responsibility are irresistible to some," the managing
director of Practical Environmental Solutions told AAP.

The 48-year-old charged over the illegal Green Square dumping is
facing fraud offences worth almost $4 million.

The EPA on Wednesday separately announced it had commenced seven
prosecutions in the Land and Environment Court in relation to the
alleged illegal disposal of waste -- including asbestos -- at
Arcadia in NSW.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 222 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company is defending itself against 222
individual cases pending in state and federal courts throughout the
United States 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.

Colgate-Palmolive states, "The Company has been named as a
defendant in civil actions alleging that certain talcum powder
products that were sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with
asbestos.  Most of these actions involve a number of co-defendants
from a variety of different industries, including suppliers of
asbestos and manufacturers of products that, unlike the Company's
products, were designed to contain asbestos.

"As of June 30, 2018, there were 222 individual cases pending
against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the
United States, as compared to 199 cases as of March 31, 2018 and
193 cases as of December 31, 2017.  During the three months ended
June 30, 2018, 42 new cases were filed and 19 cases were resolved
by voluntary dismissal or settlement.  During the six months ended
June 30, 2018, 67 new cases were filed and 38 cases were resolved
by voluntary dismissal, appeal in the Company's favor or
settlement.  The value of settlements in the quarter and the
year-to-date period presented was not material, either individually
or in the aggregate, to each such period's results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2NkixV7


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 327 Cases vs. AK Steel Still Pending at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation had 327 asbestos-related cases 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, "Since 1990 we have been named as a defendant
in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos.  The great majority of these lawsuits have
been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to
asbestos while visiting the premises of one of our current or
former facilities.  The majority of asbestos cases pending in which
we are a defendant do not include a specific dollar claim for
damages.  In the cases that do include specific dollar claims for
damages, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim for
compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal
amount for punitive damages and does not attempt to allocate the
total monetary claim among the various defendants.

"Since the onset of asbestos claims against us in 1990, five
asbestos claims against us have proceeded to trial in four separate
cases.  All five concluded with a verdict in our favor.  We
continue to vigorously defend the asbestos claims.  Based upon
present knowledge, and the factors, we believe it is unlikely that
the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos claims against us
will have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated results
of operations, cash flows or financial condition.  However,
predictions about the outcome of pending litigation, particularly
claims alleging asbestos exposure, are subject to substantial
uncertainties.  These uncertainties include (1) the significantly
variable rate at which new claims may be filed, (2) the effect of
bankruptcies of other companies currently or historically defending
asbestos claims, (3) the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, (4) the type and severity of
the disease each claimant alleged to suffer, and (5) the potential
for enactment of legislation affecting asbestos litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2wvpCLm


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Warwick Site Under Probe for Asbestos Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Faa of Warwick Daily News reported that the future of
Warwick sports grounds is up in the air as another site on Jackie
Howe Dr goes into quarantine as a result of suspected asbestos
contamination.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland asbestos specialists are
currently testing for asbestos containing material at the Warwick
Touch Football field behind the Collegians Junior Rugby League
Club.

This is the third site in Warwick where suspected contamination has
occurred.

Warwick Touch Football Association president Justin Nolan said the
fields were dressed with soil from the same contractor that
supplied the Collegians Junior Rugby League Club and Warwick
Central State School around December last year.

The debacle has thrown a spanner in the works for the touch
association, which will begin the season with its main field
off-limits.

"The club community has been quite reasonable about this," Mr Nolan
said.

"We have done everything we can possibly do in this situation and
taken all the necessary precautions -- it is just a matter of
waiting for them to come back with a result to see what the
procedure is from there."

But the news has caused concern for neighbouring clubs.

Redbacks AFC president Ben Lubben said he witnessed soil being
applied to the fields in December.

"The day it was laid was a dusty day I am pretty sure I drove past
it when it was happening," he said.

Mr Lubben said he was concerned asbestos fibres that became
airborne could travel long distances but said the soil was
irrigated as it was being applied.

"Unknowingly they probably did everything they could to mitigate
the risks," he said.

Applying water to asbestos suppresses the release of fibres and
helps prevent them from becoming airborne.

A risk to reputation

Mr Lubben said the sporting clubs were not to blame for the
suspected contamination and should be commended for their
professional response to the situation.

"I would never try and blame volunteers," he said.

"If you don't handle it carefully you could ruin sport very quickly
and that is nothing that we want to see happen."

Mr Lubben sympathised with the pressure Collegians JRL and WTFA
were under.

"If people started hammering small volunteer clubs like the
Collegians we very quickly would not have sports in the country."

Mr Lubben said a coordinated response from Southern Downs Regional
Council, WHSQ and the sporting clubs had been responsible.

"For all the people involved in the grounds they are all very
level-headed and use common sense, which is good."

Calls for supplier to be outed

Clubs have refused to disclose who the soil supplier was and the
Daily News is awaiting information from WHSQ.

An official investigation into the supplier commenced on Friday.

Mr Lubben said it was important for those responsible to be held
accountable.

"I am intrigued to know who the supplier is... I have heard of
plenty of companies around Australia that have been doing dodgy
things with asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 49,500 Claims v. Goodyear Tire Pending at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company has 49,500 pending
asbestos-related claims 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, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and federal courts.  To date, we have disposed
of approximately 140,400 claims by defending, obtaining the
dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement.  The sum of our
accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date,
including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately
US$537 million through June 30, 2018 and US$529 million through
December 31, 2017."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2PHn9WY


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 54 Cases at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., faces 54 asbestos cases 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.

Aerojet Rocketdyne states, "The Company has been, and continues to
be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or
death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products,
or in manufacturing operations.  The majority of cases are pending
in Texas and Illinois.  There were 54 asbestos cases pending as of
June 30, 2018.

"Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims.  As of June 30, 2018, the Company has accrued an
immaterial amount related to pending claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2MAXHVl


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alton Woman Dies After Asbestos Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------
Daily Echo reported that Jean Nixon, 70, of Kings Road, Alton, died
at Southampton General Hospital on April 18 following a battle with
cancer.

Winchester Coroner's Court heard that between 1966 and 1973 Mrs
Nixon washed her husband's work clothes whilst he was working in
communications tunnels under central London.

It was thought that the asbestos dust was on the clothing, and she
would have inhaled it while washing the clothes.

Senior coroner Grahame Short recorded a conclusion of industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Alpena High School
-----------------------------------------------------
Kristen Anzuini of WBKB-TV reported that just days before the first
day of the new school year, asbestos dust was discovered inside of
Alpena High school. The contaminated dust is currently being
cleaned up and tested by professionals. This will not delay the
first day of school for students. Air and dust samples were tested
to determine if there was any contamination and the results showed
there was no contamination in the air. The area of the school that
was contaminated is known as the "B-wing" and it will be closed off
until further notice. Students whose classes were scheduled in the
B-wing will have their classes relocated to different parts of the
building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Landmark Bathurst Building
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacinta Carroll of Western Advocate reported that renovation work
on a landmark building in the Bathurst was abruptly stopped after
asbestos was found on the site.

Safework NSW issued a prohibition notice to the principal
contractor, Inland Building and Constructions, and shut down work
at the two-storey building on the corner of George and Howick
streets after a small amount of asbestos was found upstairs in the
air conditioning receptors, hidden in the ceiling of the building.


As a result of the notice, all work was temporarily stopped on site
until the contractor could ensure any health work and safety risks
were mitigated.

A spokesperson for Safework NSW confirmed on Monday that they were
investigating asbestos management at the construction site on the
corner of George and Howick streets.

"A prohibition notice was issued to the principal contractor
directing them to develop an asbestos management plan, identify all
asbestos containing material at the site and engage a licensed
asbestos removalist," they said.

The spokesperson said any workers potentially exposed to asbestos
had been offered health screening by the employer.

Since the asbestos was found, the spokesperson said the prohibition
notice has been complied with and SafeWork NSW's notice has been
lifted.

"SafeWork NSW's investigation remains ongoing," the spokesperson
said.

Inland Building director Stuart Pennells said there had been no
danger to any workers or the community.

"No-one had been working with the material and once it was
identified it was rendered safe as per the guidelines," he said.

READ MORE: Asbestos on Bathurst High gym site

"It is now awaiting removal by a licensed contractor."

A $2.7 million, three-phase facelift of the building began 12
months ago.

It includes the construction of three new shops, fitting modern
panels to the outside of the building and the final and current
phase, which includes the refurbishment of the third floor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Laden Truck Turns Over on U.S. 52
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Peters of Mount Airy News reported that a tractor-trailer
loaded with asbestos crashed on U.S. 52, resulting in slow traffic
and a clean-up that's expected to take hazardous materials crews
several hours to complete.

The truck, traveling from the entrance ramp from N.C 89 onto North
U.S. 52, was on its way from Charlotte to a northern refuse
facility that accepts hazardous materials when it overturned.

John Shelton, Surry County emergency services coordinator, said it
appeared the load simply shifted, causing the trailer to overturn,
which in turn flipped the cab.

"Witnesses said he was not traveling any sort of significant speed,
or in any way that would have caused this."

As of 12:45 p.m., about an hour-and-a-half after the initial wreck,
Shelton said it appeared the asbestos, which is listed as a
hazardous material, had not spilled. A final determination on that
could not be made until the trailer was turned upright.

The material, which is in a granular form that can become a powder,
is packed in boxes of sand, then wrapped with an outside liner
before being secured to pallets and then loaded on the truck.
Shelton said it appeared all the proper packaging procedures had
been followed.

He said wrecker crews who are "very well versed" in handling such
loads were on the scene preparing to turn the trailer upright.

"We're hoping we can keep the containers sealed and intact,"
Shelton said of the effort.

Afterward, he said the containers would be transported to the Surry
County landfill, which is equipped to properly handle packed
asbestos.

Shelton did not release the name of the driver of the truck. He did
say the driver received minor injuries, but refused treatment. No
other vehicles or people were involved in the wreck.

In addition to Surry County Emergency Services and its hazardous
materials team, Mount Airy Fire Department, Mount Airy Volunteer
Rescue Squad, and the Mount Airy Police Department were on the
scene.

Although the wreck and subsequent clean-up efforts resulted in one
lane of 52 North being closed, Shelton said traffic was moving
steadily. While slowed, he said the wreck did not result in any
significant traffic back-up.

More details will be reported as they become available.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimant's Witness Says Asbestos Found in Talc
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Sammon of Northern California Record reported that a scientist
called on behalf of plaintiff Carolyn Weirick in her lawsuit
against Johnson & Johnson for the baby powder she claimed caused
her mesothelioma said asbestos fibers had been found in samples
taken from the Italian and Vermont talc mines that supplied the
company.

Mesothelioma is a fatal illness.

Live coverage of the trial in the Los Angeles Superior Court is
being streamed courtesy of Courtroom View Network.

"Did you conclusively identify anthophyllite asbestos in these
samples?" Jay Stuemke, Weirick's attorney asked.

"Yes," responded Dr. Steven Compton, a University of
Georgia-trained researcher who works for MVA Scientific
Consultants, a Duluth, Georgia-based microscopy lab specializing in
the identification of materials.

"Did you find asbestos in every sample?" Stuemke asked.

"No," Compton responded.

Eight of ten tests in one sampling of a talc mine in Val Chisone,
Italy tested positive for asbestos contamination, Compton noted.
Stuemke asked Compton how many samples in another sampling taken
from talc mines in Vermont had tested positive.

He said six of the seven samples.

"That's 85.7 percent of the Vermont talc samples you were provided
with were positive for asbestos, correct?" Stuemke said.

"That’s correct," Compton said.

The samples in question had been taken by a geologist and evaluated
at MVA on the request of Imerys America, a mining company which
purchased the Vermont talc mine from Johnson & Johnson in the 1980s
and supplied the mineral to the baby powder company. Brad DeJardin
an attorney with the Los Angeles law firm of Dentons has been
retained to defend Imerys America in the case.

During his testimony, Compton said MVA is a team of scientists of
different specialties who use their microscopes to study and
identify solid materials, their physical properties and structure.

Stuemke asked Compton if talc with less than one-quarter percent
asbestos in it were released into the air, what would be the
result.

"Some could be less than a quarter percent and contain millions and
millions of fibers per gram of material," Compton said. "If that
material were put into the air during normal use, it would result
in a level of (asbestos) exposure above ambient levels."

"How many asbestos fibers?" Stuemke asked.

The defense attorney for J&J objected claiming speculation.

"Sustained," Judge Margaret Oldendorf ruled.

Stuemke reworded the question.

"Based on what you have reviewed, do you have an opinion of the
number of fibers that could be released if the talc did not have
any asbestos present?"

"Same objection," the defense attorney called.

"Overruled!" Oldendorf said.

"It could be in the range of about a billion fibers," Compton
answered.

Powerful state-of-the-art microscopes such as the transmission
electron microscope (TEM), their use and capabilities were
discussed, although limits to their ability to detect asbestos were
mentioned.

A slide projected for the jury read, "Some fibers cannot be
identified as asbestos even though the measurements all indicate
they could be asbestos."

"Using this technique were you able to unequivocally identify
asbestos fibers in Johnson & Johnson Italian and Vermont talc?"
Stuemke asked.

"Yes," Compton responded.

During the afternoon session on cross examination the defense
attorney for Johnson & Johnson, Warrington Parker said, "I think we
can agree that those Italian (asbestos) samples did not end up in a
Johnson & Johnson baby powder bottle, correct?"

Objection was made by the plaintiff's attorney and was sustained by
Oldendorf.

Warrington reworded his question.

"If you found them (samples) on the ground, they wouldn't be in the
bottle, correct?"

"That's correct," Compton said.

"You did not test Johnson & Johnson cosmetic powder that was
actually used?" Warrington asked.

"That's correct," Compton responded.

"You have not published a (scientific) paper about test methods for
talc, correct?" Warrington asked.

"That's correct," Compton said.

"You're not a medical doctor are you?" Warrington asked.

"That's correct," Compton answered.

"Not an epidemiologist?"

"That's right," Compton said.

"Not a toxicologist?" Warrington asked.

"That's correct," Compton said.

"Is it fair to say that as you sit here, you have not at all
offered any opinion -- that what you found causes mesothelioma?"
Warrington asked.

"I'm not providing any medical opinion if that's what you’re
asking," Compton said.

"Or health opinion, correct?" Warrington asked.

"That's correct," Compton answered.

Under further questioning Compton said an opinion on how talc
impacts the body would be outside the scope of his expertise in
this case.

A filmed deposition taken before the trial featured John Hopkins a
former employee of Johnson & Johnson from 1976 to 2000 who now runs
a toxicology firm. Hopkins has been labeled by plaintiffs in former
trials as the top corporate spokesperson for the company.

The plaintiff's attorney called attention to a letter to Johnson &
Johnson written by a doctor in 1969 that warned of possible
litigation if tremolite, a mineral that can contain asbestos, was
not kept to a minimum in J&J powder.

Asked if this was an admission of asbestos, Hopkins responded, "He
said (in the letter) if it (powder) contains any tremolite,"
Hopkins corrected.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Fin'l Has $113MM Unfavorable Development
-------------------------------------------------------------
Loews Corporation's subsidiary, CNA Financial Corporation,
recognized a net unfavorable prior year development of US$113
million, 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, "Based upon CNA's annual A&EP reserve review,
net unfavorable prior year development of US$113 million and US$60
million was recognized before consideration of cessions to the LPT
for the six months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017.  Additionally, in
2018, CNA released a portion of its provision for uncollectible
third party reinsurance.  The 2018 unfavorable development was
driven by higher than anticipated defense costs on direct asbestos
environmental accounts and paid losses on assumed reinsurance
exposures.  The 2017 unfavorable development was driven by modestly
higher anticipated payouts on claims from known sources of asbestos
exposure.  While the unfavorable development was ceded to NICO
under the LPT, CNA's reported earnings in the six month periods
were negatively affected due to the application of retroactive
reinsurance accounting."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2PIi3Kj


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Records $6MM Liability
---------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has US$6,063,000 as its
asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable
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 industrial manufacturers, the
Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation.  In continually
evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related
liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence
of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the
mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its
recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases
pending against it, the status and results of broad-based
settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might
continue.  Based on this review, the Company has estimated its
share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related
personal injury claims.  This estimate is highly uncertain due to
the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability.  The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.

"Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between US$4,000,000 and US$7,700,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from June
30, 2018.  The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates
US$6,063,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the
consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2018.  The
recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation.  This liability will fluctuate based
on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be
filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced
by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing
broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the
cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program.
Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability
payments of approximately US$2,000,000 over the next 12 months.
Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many
years, management believes that the potential additional costs for
claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition
of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future
liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future
period.

"The Company believes that a share of its previously incurred
asbestos-related expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are
covered by pre-existing insurance policies.  The Company has
engaged in a legal action against the insurance carriers for those
policies to recover these expenses and future costs incurred.  When
the Company resolves this legal action, it is expected that a gain
will be recorded for previously expensed cost that is recovered.
In July 2017, the Company received a US$1,741,000 settlement
payment, net of legal fees, from one of its insurance carriers as
partial reimbursement for asbestos-related expenses.  This partial
payment has been recorded as a gain in cost of products sold.  In
February 2018, an additional settlement payment of US$621,000 was
received from another insurance carrier as partial reimbursement
for asbestos-related expenses.  The Company is continuing its
actions to recover further past costs and to cover future costs."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2M0YgT2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Accused of Disturbing Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Rosenfeld of The Beach Reporter reported that the South Coast
Air Quality Management District served violation notices to the
Manhattan Beach Unified School District over work performed by two
contractors at Mira Costa High School that allegedly disturbed
asbestos tiles in the library while parents and students were
registering for the school year.

The violations stem from a complaint the air pollution control
agency received Thursday Aug. 16 alleging that workers renovating a
storage room in the library had disturbed asbestos-containing floor
material, according to a press release from SCAQMD.

Included in the 27 violations cited by the agency were failures to
perform an asbestos survey, something that district officials
should have required, the ACAQMD violations allege.

After receiving the complaint, investigators were sent on the same
day to the location where they discovered workers had used a power
grinder on flooring material in the storage room. They also
confirmed the material contained asbestos.

Further investigation will determine whether anyone was exposed to
asbestos, which can pose a serious health risk if not handled
properly.

Superintendent Mike Matthews said as soon as the district was
notified of the complaint, everyone was cleared out of the library
and three adjacent classrooms, which have been locked down ever
since. The district also sent out a notice to parents, Matthews
said.

"Since then, the district has worked closely with regulatory
agencies and will continue to do so cooperatively until all
concerns have been resolved," Matthews wrote in a statement. "To
that end, we have brought on qualified environmental experts to
assist with assessing the area and remediation efforts."

As the school year began, the library and three nearby classrooms
remained out of use. Remediation efforts will not begin until
SCAQMD officials sign off on the clean up plan.

"Before any work can resume we have to get a clean-up plan and the
district did submit one but it was not complete to our
satisfaction," said SCAQMD spokesperson Sam Atwood.

Violation notices from the SCAQMD are civil in nature and typically
result in a monetary settlement, Atwood said. If the parties
involved fail to reach agreement, the matter can be resolved in
court.

"SCAQMD's prompt actions have helped to minimize the potential
public health threat from exposure to asbestos," said Wayne Nastri,
SCAQMD's executive officer. "Since asbestos can pose a serious
health risk if not properly handled, we work to ensure that all
asbestos procedures in our region comply with our strict
regulations."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Correct Wording on Asbestos Related Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Munz of Asbestos.com reported that in order to have an
asbestos-related, military service-connected disability claim
approved by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), a veteran must
show they have a diagnosis the VA recognizes can be caused by
exposure to asbestos.

The VA recognizes the several diseases as asbestos-related,
according to the M21-1 Compensation and Pension Manual Rewrite.
Each has specific requirements for filing a VA claim.

Eligible conditions include:

Fibrosis, including asbestosis

Pleural effusions

Pleural plaques (scars of the lining that surrounds the lungs)

Mesotheliomas of pleura and peritoneum

Cancers of the lung, bronchus, gastrointestinal tract, larynx,
pharynx and urogenital system except the prostate

People with significant asbestosis often develop cor pulmonale
(enlargement of the right ventricle of the heart) and heart disease
secondary to disease of the lung or its blood vessels.

All diagnoses with the exception of pleural mesothelioma,
peritoneal mesothelioma and asbestosis also require a nexus
statement from a medical specialist linking the disease to exposure
to asbestos.

COPD and Sleep Apnea Not Primary Asbestos Conditions
It is important to note the most common respiratory conditions in
the U.S. — chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and sleep
apnea — are not recognized as primarily caused by asbestos.

It may be possible to get these common conditions connected as a
secondary condition if an acknowledged diagnosis is service
connected and a pulmonary doctor makes a nexus between the
service-connected condition and COPD or sleep apnea.

For example, if the veteran is granted service connection for
asbestosis and the pulmonologist believes the veteran’s sleep
apnea may be caused or worsened by the compromised lung function,
then the VA may grant a secondary-service condition.

If the veteran does not already have a diagnosis from a specialist,
a veteran service officer can share information about how the
veteran can speak with their doctor to ask for the necessary
testing.

Veterans Should Be Vocal About Asbestos Exposure
It is important for veterans to tell their doctor about their
history of asbestos exposure in order for the doctor to look for
specific evidence of asbestos damage in the body. Signs of damage
and symptoms may not be attributed to asbestos if it is not
discussed as a risk factor.

Because asbestos-related diseases carry a long latency period, many
veterans may be misdiagnosed with COPD, which is most commonly a
result of smoking.

This does not prevent a veteran from receiving VA disability, but a
second diagnosis of a VA-approved asbestos disease must be made
before the VA will grant benefits.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Wins Right to Sue Ford Motor
----------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that when people are first diagnosed with
malignant mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases, they're
often shocked to learn that they were exposed to asbestos by iconic
companies like Ford Motor Company. That is exactly what happened to
John Decastro, who was diagnosed with lung cancer after years of
having maintained his Ford vehicles, whose parts were contaminated
with the deadly carcinogen. Though Ford is a powerful adversary,
Mr. Decastro and his wife found that the courts listen carefully
and the law can create an even playing field, allowing victims to
file lawsuits seeking compensation for the damages that they have
suffered. The couple recently defeated Ford’s efforts to keep
their case out of court and have been given the ability to proceed
in their quest for justice.

The case involving Mr. Decastro and his wife is similar to many
others filed by victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related
diseases. Mr. Decastro developed lung cancer after having been
exposed to asbestos from multiple sources, including during his
service in the United States Air Force and his employment with
United Airlines and Pacific Bell Telephone. He also learned that he
was exposed to asbestos during the many years that he serviced his
own Ford vehicles and the vehicles owned by his friends. In the
lawsuit that he and his wife filed against multiple defendants
including Ford Motor Company, he provided testimony that he had
performed repairs on at least eight different Ford vehicles,
ranging from a 1935 Ford coupe, a 1938 Ford coupe, a 1936 Ford
two-door, and many others. On all of these vehicles he performed
extensive maintenance, including replacing engines, carburetors,
changing transitions and replacing brakes, and the parts involved
in those repairs included asbestos. Though Ford defended itself by
arguing that they did not manufacture or supply the parts, the fact
that their vehicles required those parts was enough for the court
to allow them to be named as defendants in the suit. Ford’s
motion for summary judgment was rejected by the court and the case
will proceed for a jury to decide.

Being diagnosed with mesothelioma or asbestos-related lung cancer
is a frightening experience, but fortunately there are many
resources available to help victims stand up for their rights. If
you need information about your rights or the services available to
you, contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net today at
1-800-692-8608.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants W. Roverano's Allowance of Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has granted the Petition for
Allowance of Appeal in the case entitled William C. Roverano and
Jacqueline Roverano, H/W, Petitioners, v. John Crane, Inc. and
Brand Insulations, Inc., Respondents. William Roverano, Petitioner,
v. John Crane, Inc., Respondent. Nos. 58 EAL 2018, 59 EAL 2018,
(Pa.).

The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

     (1) Whether, under this issue of first impression, the
Superior Court misinterpreted the Fair Share Act 42 Pa.C.S. Sec.
7102 in holding that the Act requires the jury to apportion
liability on a percentage basis as opposed to a per capita basis in
this strict liability asbestos case?

     (2) Whether, under this issue of first impression, the
Superior Court misinterpreted the Fair Share Act in holding that
the Act requires the jury to consider evidence of any settlements
by the plaintiffs with bankrupt entities in connection with the
apportionment of liability amongst joint tortfeasors?

A copy of the Order dated July 31, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yaw492d5 from Leagle.com.

Michael A. Rowe , Edward M. Nass , Nass Cancelliere Brenner, for
William Roverano and Jacqueline, Petitioner.

William Rudolph Adams -- wadams@dmclaw.com -- Dickie, McCamey &
Chilcote, P.C., for John Crane, Inc., Respondent.

Robert L. Byer -- rlbyer@duanemorris.com -- Theresa A. Langschultz
-- TLangschultz@duanemorris.com -- Alyson Walker Lotman --
ALotman@duanemorris.com -- Andrew Ronald Sperl --
ARSperl@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP, for Brand Insulations,
Inc., Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crayons Had Detectable Asbestos Level
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Coleman of Environmental Working Group reported that
depending on where you live, schools are either back in session or
the first day is fast approaching. A new study by the U.S. Public
Interest Research Group, or USPIRG, found harmful chemicals in
everyday school supplies that could be in your child’s classroom
or backpack.

Here’s what all parents should know about this new report:

The study tested six brands of crayons for asbestos, the toxic
building and insulation material that causes mesothelioma, a deadly
cancer. One major brand, Playskool Crayons, had detectable levels
of asbestos.

These findings are consistent with EWG Action Fund’s 2015 report
that found traces of asbestos in crayons and other children’s
toys sold nationwide.

USPIRG tested a number of markers for toxic volatile solvents such
as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, which are petroleum
substances also found in fracking wastewater.  EXPO scented and The
Board Dudes dry erase markers had detectable levels of these
harmful chemicals.

Binders

Three binder brands were tested for phthalates, plastic-softening
chemicals that have links to early puberty in girls and harm to the
reproductive system. The brand that tested positive for phthalates
was Jot 1-inch 3-ring binders, which are sold at Dollar Tree.

In 2008, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned six
phthalates in children's toys, and in bottles, cups and pacifiers
for children 3 years old and under, yet these chemicals are still
found in products children use on an everyday basis.

USPIRG also highlighted two water bottles that tested positive for
lead and were recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The two bottles in question were Base Brands Children’s Reduce
Hydro Pro Furry Friends water bottle sold on Amazon and at Costco
and the GSI Outdoors Kids' insulated water bottles sold at L.L.
Bean.

Lead is a potent neurotoxin that impairs children's intellectual
development and alters their behavior and ability to concentrate.
As the lead crisis in America rages on, we recently learned that
testing for lead in the water of both primary schools and day care
centers is woefully lacking.

Stay tuned to the EWG Children's Health Initiative site for the
latest breaking news and analysis on all things regarding kids'
health.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. App. Remands Bolin's Case, Dismissing KCG
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case titled KCG, Inc., as successor to K.C. Wall Products
and Ruco Drywall Products, Inc., Appellant, v. Steven Bolin and
Deborah Bolin, his wife, Appellees. No. 4D18-927, (Fla. 4th Dist.
Ct. App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Fourth
District reversed the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on the authority of
Southern Wall Products v. Bolin, Case No. 4D18-875 (Fla. 4th DCA
July 25, 2018).

The Court held that both cases arise out of the same underlying
case, and the jurisdictional allegations are similar. In this case,
Bolin alleged he was exposed to asbestos in materials manufactured
by KCG or its predecessor from 1975 to 1977 in Florida. The
affidavit filed by a KCG representative stated that it did not have
any contacts with Florida prior to 1994. Its predecessor operated a
plant in Florida starting in the early 1980's, after Bolin's
alleged exposure.

Bolin offered no evidence of minimum contacts, other than his own
use of a product which he identified as distributed or manufactured
by KCG in the 1970's. Just as in Southern Wall Products, Bolin
failed to satisfy the constitutional minimum contacts for KCG to be
subject to jurisdiction in Florida. Accordingly, the Court remanded
the case for entry of an order dismissing KCG from the action.

A copy of the Per Curiam dated August 8, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc5apf62 from Leagle.com.

Michael B. Buckley -- mbuckley@buckleylawgroup.com -- Buckley Law
Group, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Rebecca S. Vinocur of Rebecca S. Vinocur, P.A., Coral Gables, for
appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Asbestos Resurges in Australian Tradesmen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hill of Daily Mail reported that a deadly disease is
experiencing a resurgence in Australian tradesmen -- but there is
one simple question that could be key to avoiding its fatal
consequences.

Workers across the country have been falling seriously ill from
inhaling toxic dust and developing silicosis, believed to be linked
to cutting artificial stone products used to make kitchen
benchtops.

The illness is an irreversible lung disease caused by long-term
exposure to silica dust, and can take up to 30 years to develop.

Lawyer Roger Singh is calling for the practice to be banned before
more tradesmen die as a result of silicosis -- and imploring
doctors to ask one question when treating young men with breathing
difficulties.

'We are encouraging doctors to ask "What do you do for a job?",' Mr
Singh said.

The material causing the disease is so dangerous it is being
described as the 'new asbestos'.

The illness is an irreversible lung disease caused by long-term
exposure to silica dust, and can take up to 30 years to develop

Absestos -- which contains tiny fibers which can cause health
problems including cancer and asbestosis -- was once widely present
in the building industry but is now mostly removed.

Silicosis, however, is striking down a rising number of Australian
tradesmen.

'Young men who turn up at the doctor's office with persistent chest
infections or ongoing breathing difficulties could be exposed to
dust in the workplace and might be in the early stages of
silicosis,' Mr Singh said.

'We know early detection is key to a better outcome.'

Gold Coast stonemason Anthony White, 36, was diagnosed with
silicosis in November after working for more than ten years.

He initially thought the life-threatening disease was just a common
chest infection until an X-ray revealed he had scar tissue all over
his lungs.

Mr White developed silicosis from dry cutting engineered stone,
exposing him to the toxic silica dust.

Scarring of the lung tissue occurs if too much of this dust is
inhaled and deposited in the air sacs, according to a fact sheet by
Workplace Health and Safety Queensland.

Mr Singh's firm Shine Lawyers claims doctors are not well educated
in the illness, meaning it can take months before young men are
properly diagnosed.

Mr Singh has written to every state and territory minister calling
for an immediate ban dry cutting and an enforcement program
introduced to ensure the dangerous practices are stamped out.

'We are now speaking with stonemasons who tell us that despite the
awareness that's been raised the dry cutting continues in their
workplaces and wet cutting systems, and enforcement of proper face
masks, that could prevent disease are not being installed,' Mr
Singh said.

He is calling for tougher penalties and fines for workshops that
carry out unsafe practices.

'We know wet cutting, using water to damp down the dust, is much
safer but there is no regulation of the industry to enforce this
practice.'

Mr White needs to undergo a double lung transplant to survive but
fears the worst.

'I want to be as strong as possible. It's hard. I want to be here
for a bit longer,' he told The Sunday Project earlier this month.

Mr White hopes the practice of dry-cutting will be banned so others
won't have to suffer what he is going through.

Mr White has been in intensive care fighting a viral infection.

'We could have lost him but he's still fighting on and we are just
taking it day by day at the moment,' his mother Dianne said.

'We need some kind of change. We can't let this go on killing our
young men. I don't care how we do it, with legislation or fines, it
just needs to be done.'

Ms White said some of her son's doctors hadn't even heard of
silicosis.

'Unfortunately they are going to start seeing more of it if
something isn't done to stop dry cutting,' Ms White said.

'Anthony's case isn't a one off, there are going to be many young
men affected like this and his condition is only going to get
worse.'


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Suits at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., continues to defend itself against
asbestos-related lawsuits pending in Louisiana, 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 are one of several unrelated defendants in
lawsuits filed in Louisiana state courts alleging that defendants
manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing
asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been
utilized aboard our drilling rigs.  The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages.  The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing drilling
mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the drilling rigs
addressed in these lawsuits.

"We believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted in the
lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset purchase agreement
with Diamond M Corporation.  We are unable to estimate our
potential exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this time but do
not believe that our ultimate liability, if any, resulting from
this litigation will have a material effect on our consolidated
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2MVhQ7O


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Corporation plc remains subject to asbestos claims from
historic products which may have contained asbestos, 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, "Eaton is subject to a broad range of claims,
administrative and legal proceedings such as lawsuits that relate
to contractual allegations, tax audits, patent infringement,
personal injuries, antitrust matters, and employment-related
matters.  Eaton is also subject to asbestos claims from historic
products which may have contained asbestos.  Insurance may cover
some of the costs associated with these claims and proceedings.
Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome
or cost of these matters, the Company believes they will not have a
material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2NPFOys


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Employee Must Disclose Asbestos Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Takesha Thomas of The Louisiana Record reported that a Louisiana
judge has ruled that documents related to a settlement claim over
asbestos-related cancer can be obtained.  

On Aug. 16, U.S. Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld ruled that
documents relating to the settlement of Callen Dempster, a former
employee for the former Huntington Ingalls Inc., now Avondale, can
be obtained by two others, Albert Bossier Jr., and J. Melton
Garrett, who also filed claims against the company.

"Thus, while settlement documents will not be admissible to prove
liability, they might be admissible for other purposes," she
wrote.

Dempster, who was employed with the company from 1962 through 1994,
alleged that during his employment, he was exposed to asbestos that
resulted in his asbestos-related cancer. The cancer did not
manifest until 2017, the suit claims. Dempster joined Bossier and
Garrett as defendants to this lawsuit.

However, in April 2018, Dempster was awarded an undisclosed amount
in relation to his claim. Bossier and Garrett sought to have
documents related to Dempter's case to use in their lawsuit that is
still pending.

Attorneys for Dempster argued that "the sought-after settlement
agreements are not relevant because they do not concern Mr.
Dempster's lung cancer," adding that "even if the settlement
documents contained statements of exposure, they would not be
discoverable or admissible at trial."

But attorneys for Bossier and Garrett argued that "the sought-after
information is relevant." According to the lawsuit, Bossier and
Garrett believed that the documents "may contain statements by Mr.
Dempster regarding his exposure to asbestos at Avondale."  

The Court however, found that the documents related to the
settlement agreement could be given to Garrett and Bossier with
"any settlement amounts redacted as the defendants have requested."
Additionally, the court found the terms of any settlement agreement
are also relevant, writing in part, "If the settlement extends to
the asbestos caused lung cancer that Mr. Dempster claims here and
the defendants can prove those settling parties bear some
responsibility for Mr. Dempster's lung cancer, then the defendants
may be entitled to a reduction of any damages award against them."


Attorneys for Dempster now have 15 days from the Aug. 16 ruling to
provide the defendants with documents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Begins Asbestos Cleanup at Burley Fire Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Welch of Twin Falls Times-News reported that the
Environmental Protection Agency rolled into downtown Burley to
start 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.

Although the Milner landfill can accept asbestos materials, Ball
does not know if that is where it will be taken.

"Once it falls to the EPA the landfill has to meet our requirements
as well," he said.

The fire itself remains under investigation. Cassia County
Undersheriff George Warrell said no arrests have been made in the
case and the sheriff’s office is still seeking help from the
public to identify suspects released in photos and video.

After the fire, officials discovered a pipe bomb across the street
in the doorway of a restaurant.

Burley Fire Chief Shannon Tolman at the scene of a fire that gutted
a downtown Burley building. An undetonated bomb was found across
the street.

Anyone with information on the case can call the Cassia County
Sheriff's Office Crime Stoppers at 208-878-2900, where the caller
can remain anonymous.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives partnered
with the Idaho State Fire Marshal in March to offer a combined
reward of $15,000 for the arrest and conviction of the responsible
parties.

The Cassia County Sheriff's Office is looking for information
regarding the suspect in connection with a Jan. 29 arson fire in
Burley.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FEC Workers May Have Been Exposed to Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Levinthal of HuffPost reported that several Federal Election
Commission employees are concerned they may have been unwittingly
exposed to asbestos -- a known carcinogen and lung irritant --
while working at the agency's downtown Washington, DC, headquarters
during the mid-1990s.

A recent asbestos remediation notice taped to the entrance of the
FEC's former headquarters, which the agency vacated in March and is
now under renovation, prompted alarmed employees to contact the
National Treasury Employees Union, which represents some FEC
workers.

Union officials said several employees recalled extensive interior
work at the old FEC headquarters during the 1990s, and they're
worried asbestos could have then been released into the air.

"FEC employees and retirees are understandably anxious and deserve
a complete accounting of any asbestos-related work that was done
during the time the agency was leasing the facility," National
Treasury Employees Union President Tony Reardon told the Center for
Public Integrity. "Workplace safety is of utmost importance to NTEU
and the employees we represent, and we intend to help them get
answers to their questions and concerns."

FEC officials said they were unaware of asbestos-related concerns
related to the agency's former headquarters at 999 E. St. NW, a
nine-story structure built in 1931 that sits across the street from
the FBI's headquarters.

"The commission is committed to safeguarding the health of FEC
staff and has asked management to put union representatives in
touch with the General Services Administration, which serves as the
FEC's property manager," FEC spokeswoman Judith Ingram said.

It's not uncommon for buildings of that era to contain asbestos,
which was, at the time, a common construction and insulation
material. The substance typically isn't harmful unless disturbed
and made airborne, according to the National Cancer Institute and
Environmental Protection Agency.

And at present, there's no evidence that any FEC employee or
retiree was indeed exposed to asbestos during the 1990s.

An internal memo circulated among NTEU members acknowledges as much
-- while also noting that union members "must recognize the
possibility that FEC staff may have been exposed to asbestos for
unknown periods of time."

Three top FEC officials who worked at the agency during the 1990s
had varying recollections of work being done inside the FEC's
headquarters at that time.

Trevor Potter, a Republican FEC commissioner who served from 1991
to 1995, said he vaguely recalled remodeling at the agency's former
headquarters but "certainly never heard the word 'asbestos'
mentioned in connection with remodeling.

"I obviously hope that whatever asbestos was present in the
building was deeper than the remodeling and not disturbed," Potter
said.

Scott Thomas, a Democratic commissioner who served from 1986 to
2006, said he has no recollection of any asbestos concern at the
FEC’s former headquarters during the 1990s or after.

Larry Noble, who served as FEC general counsel from 1987 to 2000,
said he had a"very vague memory of some issue with asbestos" but
didn't recall any details.

The FEC is an independent federal agency charged with administering
and enforcing the nation’s federal campaign finance laws and
employs about 350 people.

In March, the agency moved from 999 E St. NW, where it had resided
since 1985, to the upper floors of a modern office building north
of Union Station in Washington, DC's NoMa neighborhood.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FHC to Defend Rockland Place's Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
First Hartford Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended April 30, 2018, that the insurer of Rockland Place
Apartments, LP, stated that it will defend Rockland against the
claimant's counterclaims, subject to a reservation of rights,
related to the Spring Gate Apartments in Rockland, Massachusetts.

The Company states, "Following a site inspection of asbestos
abatement activities being conducted at the Spring Gate Apartments
in Rockland, Massachusetts (Facility) on April 14, 2017, the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) by
letter dated April 21, 2017 requested that Rockland Place
Apartments, LP (Company) temporarily cease and desist from any
additional asbestos removal, abatement and/or handling activities
at the Facility.  Upon receipt of the MassDEP letter, the Company
engaged MassDEP in discussions regarding the abatement project.
Following submission to and approval by MassDEP of a work plan
addressing the issues raised in MassDEP's April 21 letter, MassDEP
permitted the asbestos abatement work to go forward.  There have
been no further enforcement actions taken by MassDEP.

"By letters dated May 15, May 16 and May 30, 2017, three attorneys
representing tenants in three units at the Facility notified the
Company and/or its management company, FHRC Management Corporation,
of claims related to environmental conditions at the Facility.  The
first of these letters alleges that the tenant and her family have
been exposed to and have been living in an apartment containing
asbestos for many years.  The second letter claims that the tenant
and her three minor children have suffered injuries believed to be
caused by the presence of mold and asbestos in the apartment.  The
final letter asserts claims with respect to the tenant and her
three minor children involving the presence and remediation of
asbestos including violation of a tenant's quiet enjoyment, breach
of the warranty of habitability, causation of emotional distress
and the use of unfair and deceptive practices under M.G.L. c. 93A.

"The first two letters made no specific monetary demand; the third
letter demanded US$312,600.  All three claims were tendered to the
Company's insurer, which agreed to respond under a reservation of
rights.

"On July 14, 2017, counsel retained by the insurer provided a
timely response to the third letter, adamantly denying the
Company's liability pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A or for any of the
other claims.

"By letter dated July 27, 2017, the insurer acknowledged receipt of
the three claims, at the same time stating however that as no
lawsuit had arisen, it did not have a duty to defend, but
nonetheless would continue to investigate.

"With respect to the third letter, the suit was transferred to the
Superior Court and, on May 11, 2018, the Company's insurer stated
that it will defend Rockland against the claimant's counterclaims
subject to a reservation of rights.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2PGTNYI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flat Owner Ordered to Fund Asbestos Treatment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tampa Bay Times reported that after developer Philip J. Farley III
bought a huge, rundown apartment complex near downtown St.
Petersburg in 2010, he hired cheap day labor to start a renovation
that included tearing out old "popcorn" ceilings.

Unbeknownst to them, the popcorn was full of asbestos, a deadly
cancer-causing substance.

Now, three years after he was indicted on several federal charges,
Farley, 53, has been convicted of a single misdemeanor count of
negligently causing the release of asbestos and placing others in
"imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury."

Under a recent plea deal, Farley was sentenced to 48 months
probation. He also must pay $250,000 to set up a medical monitoring
and treatment program to be administered by the University of South
Florida's College of Public Health. It will monitor the health of
the approximately 90 individuals who may have been exposed to
asbestos while working at what is now called Urban Style Flats near
Tropicana Field.

In renovating the 480-unit complex, Farley's "primary concern was
with his bottom line, which is entirely reasonable for a
businessperson, but he is then responsible for the consequences of
those decisions," federal prosecutors said.

Urban Style Flats, originally known as the Graham Park and Rogall
Congregate, was built in the 1970s for elderly and disabled
residents. In 2010, as part of an effort to "avoid the
concentration of poverty," St. Petersburg's Housing Authority
decided to sell the three-building complex and use the proceeds for
affordable housing in more scattered locations.

Farley bought the property "as-is" for $6.8 million and immediately
began renovations. He did not obtain an asbestos survey of the work
areas even though the authority's sales contract said the buildings
contained the substance, so potentially dangerous that no minimum
safe levels of exposure have been set.

While scraping the popcorn texture from ceilings, workers
"generated large amounts of dusts and debris," Farley's plea
agreement said. Some of it blew threw open windows into the
neighborhood while the rest was swept into wheelbarrows, trash cans
and trash bags, then deposited into open-top dumpsters.

"None of the workers were trained in the proper removal of
asbestos-containing materials," the agreement said. "None of the
workers were provided with or wore more protection than a basic
paper or fiber dusk mask."

Pinellas County officials later said that about 120,000 square feet
of asbestos had been illegally removed before they received a
complaint and checked it out. Farley was ordered to properly remove
the remaining asbestos, which took about six months. Under a
settlement agreement with the county, he paid $175,000 in fines.

In 2015, Farley and a supervisor, Aurelijius Baltusis, were
indicted on seven felony counts, each carrying a maximum penalty of
five years in federal prison. Baltusis pleaded guilty last year and
was sentenced to 36 months probation and fined $4,000.

Since Farley bought it, Urban Style Flats has become a popular
complex because of its location near the city's trendy Edge
District. In December, a New York joint venture paid $46.25 million
for the apartments and embarked on a multi-million dollar
renovation.

Farley could not be reached for comment. It's not clear from public
records if he still had an ownership stake in the complex when it
was sold.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP200,000 Claim for Worker's Asbestos Death
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Star reported that Dorothy Hull became a poster girl for the
industry during the 60s and 70s, achieving local and national fame
for bringing a touch of glamour to what was then a male-dominated
profession more associated with sweat and grime. Demolition worker
Dorothy Hull at work She died in January last year, aged 77, of
mesothelioma -- a form of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos.

Her daughter Tina Hull believes the council, which paid Dorothy and
husband Archie's firm ADH Demolition to pull down hundreds of
homes, factories and other buildings across the city, should have
done more to warn them about the dangers of the hazardous
substance. She has filed a claim at the High Court against the
council, accusing it of being 'negligent and.or in breach of
statutory duty', and seeking more than GBP200,000 in damages. The
claim lists ADH Demolition, which has since been dissolved, as a
second defendant, since although Dorothy ran the firm with Archie
they were also technically employees of the limited company and
could claim any damages off their personal liability insurance.
Dorothy died last year, aged 77.

Tina said: "When mum and dad took on jobs for the council they were
never made aware there was asbestos at any of the sites, nor were
they told the substance was lethal. "My mum was only 77 when she
died, and she was still on a treadmill every day in her 70s. She
would still be here if the council had taken its duty of care
seriously." Dorothy and Archie worked from 1962 to the late 80s,
clearing Sheffield's slums and taking on other major jobs like
razing the abattoir on Cricket Inn Road, just outside the city
centre.

Asbestos licensing regulations only came into force in the UK in
1984 but the dangers of working with the substance, which was
widely used in buildings due to its strength and heat resistance,
became apparent long before that. When the Health and Safety
Commission (HSC) was formed in 1974 one of its firsts tasks was to
investigate the hazards posed by asbestos, though its use was not
banned in this country until 1999. For Tina, who is being
represented by Irwin Mitchell, suing the council is about more than
the money. She believes it will open the door for many more claims,
not just from other demolition workers but from members of the
public who were not protected when buildings were being ripped down
around her. But she also hopes it will raise public awareness of
just how deadly asbestos is, and how it remains a lurking danger in
many homes, schools and other buildings constructed before 2000.
"Too many people still aren't aware of how dangerous it is, or
assume it's only found in industrial properties," she said.
Asbestos still kills around 5,000 workers in the UK each year,
according to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which is more
than the number of people killed on our roads. When materials
containing asbestos are disturbed or damaged, harmful fibres are
released into the air which can cause lethal diseases, the symptoms
of which often only appear many years down the line when it is too
late for anything to be done. Bob Andrew, senior claims officer at
Sheffield Council, said: "We are sorry to hear of the death of
Dorothy Hull and our thoughts are with her family. "We are aware of
the claim from her daughter. Legal proceedings have been issued and
we are investigating the claim."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records $168MM Liability at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company has recorded US$168 million
gross liabilities at June 30, 2018 for both asserted and unasserted
claims, inclusive of defense costs, 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 are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and federal courts.

"We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of the
liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and estimate
our receivables from probable insurance recoveries.  We recorded
gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims,
inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$168 million and US$167
million at June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively.  In
determining the estimate of our asbestos liability, we evaluated
claims over the next ten-year period.  Due to the difficulties in
making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or a change
in circumstances arising in the future may result in an increase in
the recorded obligation, and that increase could be significant.

"We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under
coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess
liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities.  After
consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving
consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance carriers,
the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance
carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an amount we
expect is probable of recovery from such carriers.  We record a
receivable with respect to such policies when we determine that
recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of a
particular recovery.

"We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of US$116
million and US$113 million at June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017,
respectively.  We expect that approximately 70% of asbestos claim
related losses would be recoverable through insurance during the
ten-year period covered by the estimated liability.  Of these
amounts, US$15 million was included in Current Assets as part of
Accounts Receivable at June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017,
respectively.  The recorded receivable consists of an amount we
expect to collect under coverage-in-place agreements with certain
primary and excess insurance carriers as well as an amount we
believe is probable of recovery from certain of our other excess
insurance carriers."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2PHn9WY


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Supplier Defends Latest Talc Asbestos Link
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal of Law360 Johnson & Johnson and its supplier Imerys
Talc America told a California jury that while asbestos comes from
certain minerals, those minerals aren't always asbestos, and a
woman alleging J&J baby powder gave her mesothelioma is relying on
experts who've ignored this distinction.

During the second day of the trial in Pasadena, California, J&J
attorney Christopher Vejnoska of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
continued the opening statement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. Lyons Personal Injury Claims Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Andre Birotte, Jr. of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, having been advised by counsel
that the parties have settled, has dismissed the case entitled
Jimmie Lee Lyons, Plaintiff, v. A.W. Chesterton Company, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. CV 17-05458-AB (JCx), (C.D. Cal.) without
costs and without prejudice to the right to re-open the action if
settlement is not consummated.

A copy of the Order dated July 31, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ya8bdt6u from Leagle.com.

Jimmie Lee Lyons, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica R. Stone ,
Walters Kraus and Paul, Kevin Mathew Loew , Waters Kraus and Paul
LLP & Andrew Lon Seitz , Waters Kraus and Paul.

CBS Corporation, fka Viacom, Inc., successor by merger with CBS
Corporation fka Westinghouse Electric Corporation and as
successor-in-interest to BF Sturtevant & General Electric Company,
Defendants, represented by Francis D. Pond , Pond North LLP, Gavin
D. Whitis , Pond North LLP, Justin F. Cronin , Kevin Jamison Law,
PC & Kevin D. Jamison , Kevin D. Jamison Law PC.

Certainteed Corporation & Union Carbide Corporation, -, Defendants,
represented by Farah Sohaili Nicol -- fnicol@polsinelli.com --
Polsinelli LLP ATTORNEY HAS NOT CONSENTED TO ELECTRONIC SERVICE,
Joseph L. Greenslade -- jgreenslade@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli
LLP, Stephen M. Nichols -- snichols@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli
LLP ATTORNEY HAS NOT CONSENTED TO ELECTRONIC SERVICE & Ryan S.
Landis -- rlandis@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Geoffrey M. Davis --
Geoffrey.Davis@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.

Metalclad Insulation LLC, sued individually and as
successor-by-merger to Metalclad Insulation Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Bradford J. DeJardin -- brad.dejardin@dentons.com --
Dentons US LLP & Blakeley S. Oranburg --
blakeley.oranburg@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to Sacoma-Sierra, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Christopher Sean Patterson --
CSPatterson@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP & Robert Kum --
RKum@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP.

SYD Carpenter, Marine Contractor, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Arpi Galfayan -- agalfayan@prindlelaw.com -- Prindle Amaro Goetz
Hillyard Barnes and Reinholtz LLP, Jeremy David Milbrodt --
jmilbrodt@prindlelaw.com -- Prindle Goetz Barnes and Reinholtz LLP
& Kenneth B. Prindle -- kprindle@prindlelaw.com -- Prindle Goetz
Barnes and Reinholtz LLP.

The W.W. Henry Company, L.P., formerly known as The W.W. Henry
Company, formerly known as Henry Asphalt Company, Defendant,
represented by Molly A. Friend , Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and
Dicker LLP, William M. Hake -- bill.hake@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson
Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker LLP & John Edward Rosenthal --
john.rosenthal@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman
and Dicker LLP.

Thomas Dee Engineering Co., Inc., Erroneously Sued As Thomas Dee
Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Margaret F. Mahaffey
-- mmahaffey@wfbm.com -- Walsworth Franklin Bevins and McCall LLP,
Michael T. McCall -- mmccall@wfbm.com -- Walsworth Franklin Bevins
and McCall LLP & Kendra Bray -- kbray@wfbm.com -- Walsworth
Franklin Bevins and McCall LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J.H. Cox's Claims vs. Cummins Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James C. Dever, III of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, upon consideration of the
Parties' Motion to Dismiss Cummins Inc., has dismissed Plaintiff's
claims against Defendant Cummins from the case styled Jack Howard
Cox, Sr., Executor of the Estate of Percy Ray Cox, Plaintiffs, v.
Agco Corporation, et al. Defendants, Civil Action No.
4:16-cv-00084-D, (E.D.N.C.), without prejudice.

A copy of the Order dated August 23, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y92xqw9t from Leagle.com.

Jack Howard Cox, Sr., Executor of the Estate of Percy Ray Cox,
Dec., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Braly --
bbraly@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham LLP, Sabrina G. Stone --
sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham LLP, Kevin W. Paul --
kpaul@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, LLP & Janet Ward Black --
info@wardblacklaw.com -- Ward Black Law.
Arvinmeritor, successor in interest to Rockwell International
Automotive Products & Maremont Corporation, Defendants, represented
by Carter T. Lambeth , Carter T. Lambeth Attorney, P.C. & William
P. Early , Pierce Herns Sloan and Wilson LLC.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec, Inc., successor in interest to Borg-Warner
Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Levy --
dlevy@hedrickgardner.com -- Hedrick, Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo,
LLP, Kelvin T. Wyles -- kelvin.wyles@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP,
Lisa L. Oberg -- Lisa.Oberg@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP & Jon S.
Player , Hedrick, Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP.

Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant, represented by William Michael Starr
-- bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, LLP.

Deere & Company, Inc., doing business as John Deere, Defendant,
represented by Tracy E. Tomlin -- tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com --
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante
-- travis.bustamante@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, LLP & William Michael Starr --
bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough,
LLP.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Kiger
-- ckiger@smithlaw.com -- Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell &
Jernigan, LLP, Kirk G. Warner -- kwarner@smithlaw.com -- Smith
Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP & Addie K.S. Ries
-- aries@smithlaw.com -- Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell &
Jernigan, LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., individually and as successor in
interest to the Bendix Corporation, Defendant, represented by H.
Lee Davis, Jr.  -- ldavis@davisandhamrick.com -- Davis & Hamrick,
LLP.

Navistar, Inc., successor in interest to International Harvester
Company, Defendant, represented by Robert O. Meriwether , Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough, Tracy E. Tomlin --
tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante --
travis.bustamante@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, LLP & William Michael Starr --
bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough,
LLP.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation & Standard Motor Products, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Robert David Proffitt , Proffitt & Cox,
LLP, Ronald Brian Cox , Proffitt & Cox, LLP & David A. Shaw --
dshaw@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner & Gibbs.

Pneumo Abex LLC, successor in interest to Abex Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch , Leath Bouch &
Seekings.

SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor in interest to Bear
Automotive Service Equipment Company, Defendant, represented by
Gary L. Beaver -- gbeaver@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC.

McCord Corporation, Defendant, represented by Allyson R. Twilley --
atwilley@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A., Daniel B.
White -- dwhite@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A.,
James M. Dedman, IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White &
Boyd, P.A. & Ronald G. Tate -- rtate@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan,
White & Boyd, P.A..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Laborer Alleges 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: Lincoln Electric Had 3,507 Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. remains a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos-induced illness involving claims by approximately
3,507 plaintiffs 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, "In each instance, the Company is one of a
large number of defendants.  The asbestos claimants seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
sums.  Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant
in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 54,869
of those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts,
7 were tried to plaintiff verdicts (1 of which was appealed and
eventually resolved for an immaterial amount), 1 was resolved by
agreement for an immaterial amount and 794 were decided in favor of
the Company following summary judgment motions."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2LuxOBh


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Has $1MM Asbestos Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation's subsidiary, Magnetek, recorded
approximately US$1,038,000 for asbestos-related liability 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, "Magnetek has been named, along with multiple
other defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with
business operations previously acquired but which are no longer
owned.  During Magnetek's ownership, none of the businesses
produced or sold asbestos-containing products.  For such claims,
Magnetek is uninsured and either contractually indemnified against
liability, or contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the
purchaser of these former business operations.  The Company
aggressively seeks dismissal from these proceedings.  Based on
actuarial information, the asbestos related liability including
legal costs is estimated to be approximately US$1,038,000 which has
been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial
statements at June 30, 2018."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2M0YgT2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manufacturers Face Suit for Failure to Warn
------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Record reported that a pipefitter's death has led to
allegations of negligent asbestos exposure against a host of
well-known companies.

Rita Haney, as special administrator of the estate of Donald Files
filed a complaint on Aug. 7 in St. Clair County Circuit Court
against several manufacturers, including Bechtel Corporation,
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company and the Coca-Cola Company.

According to the complaint, Files inhaled or ingested asbestos
fibers through his work as a pipefitter. He discovered his lung
cancer in 2015 and died two years later, the complaint states.

Haney claims the defendants intentionally included asbestos fibers
in their products after knowing about the substance's toxic
effects.

Haney requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory and punitive
damages of more than $50,000. She is represented by Randy L. Gori
of Gori, Julian & Associates in Edwardsville.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim Prevails Against Asbestos Co.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that the road to justice for victims of
malignant mesothelioma takes many twists and turns, as was seen in
a recent court ruling in favor of Navy veteran Harry L. Goodrich
and his wife Agnes.

The couple have filed a lawsuit against numerous defendants
accusing them of being responsible for Harry's exposure to asbestos
during his Navy service. As is frequently true of asbestos
companies, John Crane, Inc. attempted to defend itself by pointing
the blame in another direction -- in this case, they attempted to
defer blame to the Navy itself, attempting to introduce evidence
that the Navy was aware of asbestos' dangers, and therefore it was
the Armed Forces' branch responsibility to protect service men and
women rather than the manufacturers that manufactured and profited
from the sale of the carcinogenic material. After consideration,
the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia,
Newport News Division ruled against the company, restricting them
from offering the Navy's role as a superseding cause of Mr.
Goodrich's illness.

In its ruling in the mesothelioma lawsuit, the court noted that it
has both discretion and responsibility for determining what
evidence is relevant to a case, and particularly to exclude
evidence if its admission risks "unfair prejudice, confusing the
issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or
needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."  The court agreed with
the mesothelioma victim that John Crane's stated wish to submit
evidence of the Navy's knowledge and negligence with regard to his
asbestos exposure was meant to be a "backdoor" way of excusing
themselves of responsibility for knowingly selling a toxic
substance. The court further said that the company's legal argument
"flips the state of the art defense on its head," as that defense
is meant to show that a product "was designed according to the best
methods available at the time" rather than to allow a defective
product to be sold but then move the blame forward to another on
the supply line.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Military Engineers Warned of Asbestos Contact
--------------------------------------------------------------
Forces Network reported that it has been reported that the MOD has
contacted thousands of military engineers warning they may have
come into contact with asbestos while working on Britain’s Sea
King helicopters.

The Mail on Sunday has reported that foreign governments that
bought the helicopter and civilian contractors flying ex-British
military Sea Kings have also been alerted.

Forces News asked the MoD for a response to the claims. A MOD
spokesperson said:

"The safety of our personnel and our partners is always our highest
priority. All Sea King items suspected to contain Asbestos have
been removed from stores."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Non-Friable Asbestos Found at School Garden
------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Foden of The Canberra Times reported that the origin of
non-friable asbestos discovered at a Canberra school is unclear,
raising questions about where else it might be found and who may
have been exposed to it.

The ACT government confirmed on Thursday that "a small amount" of
non-friable asbestos had been found in garden beds at Harrison
School, which remains open despite concerns being raised over
children's safety.

Temporary fencing was erected around garden beds in the preschool
area at Harrison School. It is unclear whether this is one of the
areas that contains non-friable asbestos.

Harrison School referred enquiries to the government's education
directorate, which said the asbestos was mixed with gravel and
recycled building materials in garden beds.

The directorate said the material was in "some" garden beds, but
did not provide an exact number.

"Tests by a licensed asbestos assessor who attended the school have
confirmed it is non-friable asbestos, and exposure to airborne
asbestos is unlikely unless disturbed," an education directorate
spokesperson said.

"To eliminate the chance of it being disturbed, the affected garden
beds have been fenced off."

The spokesperson said a licensed asbestos removalist would begin
removing the material in the coming days, and staff would ensure
children were safe by keeping them away from affected areas.

The directorate did not address a question about how the material
came to be at the school, and whether it had been brought in by a
government or external contractor.

Education Minister Yvette Berry said the situation was being
managed safely and the potentially dangerous area was cordoned
off.

Ms Berry addressed the media outside the ACT Legislative Assembly
early on Thursday afternoon after she returned from another
engagement to see the Canberra Liberals holding a press conference
about the asbestos issue.

The Liberals blasted the government for not shutting the school to
ensure children's safety as soon as the issue came to light.

They also questioned why the public had not been informed earlier,
given WorkSafe has confirmed that it was notified of the asbestos
discovery.

An angry Ms Berry dismissed the Opposition's comments as outrageous
scaremongering and political point-scoring, promising to provide
more information as soon as the government had it.

She said the Liberals had asked her office for a briefing two
minutes before they held their press conference.

"I will find out exactly what the issue is in that particular
school, if it’s happening anywhere else and provide all the
information to the community and ensure that they are kept safe,
which I am being assured that they are," Ms Berry said.

"It is being cordoned off [and] there is nobody able to access it
right now.

"Once all the investigations have occurred, then we can come out to
the community with all the information that I have."

Her comments came after ACT Opposition leader Alistair Coe, Liberal
planning spokesman Mark Parton, education spokeswoman Elizabeth Lee
and industrial relations spokesman Andrew Wall spoke raised
concerns about what the government was doing to handle the asbestos
issue.

"We can only assume that the material has been used in other
places," Mr Parton said.

"... We also know that in cases like this, where
asbestos-contaminated material is found at a building site, that
the whole thing is shut down.

"We think there are serious questions to be asked about the
government’s response to this."

Mr Parton said the education directorate's failure to address how
the asbestos came to be at the school spoke volumes.

"To say that they haven't addressed that question is to say that
they probably don't know," he said.

He was astounded Ms Berry did not know about the issue until
minutes before the Liberals' press conference.

Mr Coe said he was particularly concerned by the government's
response given the involvement of children.

Harrison School is one of Canberra's newest schools, having opened
in 2008. It caters for children from preschool to Year 10 and has
more than 1400 students.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Beach Opens Despite Asbestos Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Cornwall of The Australian reported that Jo Hurrell was in
for a nasty shock when her three-year-old daughter Bonnie came home
with a bucket of ­"treasures" from a Wamberal beach on the NSW
central coast in July.

The next day Ms Hurrell and her daughter found three more pieces of
the "chalk" on the popular family beach before discovering it was
asbestos-contaminated building rubble that continues to surface on
the beach since a major storm surge two years ago.

"It's really bad, it’s scary," Ms Hurrell said. "My daughter has
been drawing with that stuff, ­babies are crawling around on the
sand putting it into their mouths.

"If it was a building site, the council would close it down. Yet
they don’t seem to be worried that you only need to be exposed to
one fibre of asbestos and it will kill you."

NSW Liberal MP Taylor Martin said despite the Central Coast
Council's efforts to bury the contaminated rubble in the Wamberal
sand dunes last year, pieces of fibro were still scattered across
the beach and were being washed up on nearby Terrigal Beach.

Mr Martin said the council ­remained adamant the asbestos material
on the beach was "low risk," yet, he said, there was no safe level
of risk from asbestos.

"When I found out about the little girl using it as chalk, it made
me sick," Mr Martin said.

"This is very personal for me because my grandfather died from
working for James Hardie, and ­asbestosis killed him. How can the
council leave it up to locals and beachgoers, worse still,
children, to clean it up themselves?"

Pat Aiken, from the NSW Coastal Alliance, said just as alarming had
been the failure of the NSW Environmental Protection Authority to
intervene.

"The council promised the EPA in April 2017 they would remove the
huge amount of asbestos ­material from the beach but that never
happened," Mr Aiken said.

"Instead of removing it the council buried it, against all the
recommendations of their own ­report by a highly respected coastal
engineer, Doug Lord. And they buried it in public sand dunes at the
beach that are known hot spots for erosion."

Mr Aiken said the council, which was amalgamated in 2016, was now
dominated by environmental advocates, making its ­failure to act
on the asbestos contamination all the more "incomprehensible."

At the same time, he said, the council in July flagged it had no
intention of building a kilometre-long seawall along Wamberal
Beach, which had been promised to residents for more than 40 years.
Instead, he said, the council was pushing for a "planned retreat"
coastal management policy, effectively abandoning Wamberal Beach to
the forces of storm surges, erosion and rising sea ­levels.

"Basically the council are just throwing their hands up and saying
they will let all the beachfront properties just get swallowed up
by the sea, and the asbestos with it," Mr Aiken said.

The council has released a ­series of public statements in July,
assuring residents it was liaising with expert consultants who had
"identified the risk to human health is low." Daily beach
inspections and "emu pick" removal of the asbestos rubble would
continue, it said, but beach closures had not been recommended.

"We encourage the public to exercise caution," the council said in
a statement.

"If you come across unknown material at the beach please contact us
or the Environment Protection Authority so it can be removed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pilbara Railway Line Could Pose Asbestos Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Perera of The West Australian reported that a Pilbara
council claims people could be exposed to potentially lethal
asbestos if Rio Tinto is allowed to build a railway line through a
controlled area near Wittenoom to service one of its ore mines.

In a motion passed at a council meeting, Shire of Ashburton
councillors formally objected to the alignment of the rail line,
which is planned to be built in the Wittenoom Asbestos Management
Area and will pass 4km north of the closed town, and appealed to
the WA Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation for its
route to be "reconsidered" to exclude access through the area.

The motion also stated if the State Government approved the
alignment, the Shire should be protected from liability for any
asbestos-related compensation claims associated with the
railway’s construction and maintenance.

Shire of Ashburton president Kerry White said the local government
had "significant concern" the railway line's planned alignment
risked exposing people to asbestos, which could lead to claims for
compensation from the Shire.

"While it is noted that the EPA approval for the project to be
implemented includes conditions relating to asbestos management
within the WAMA, it is the Shire's on-going position that the
serious nature of the human health risks associated with asbestos
exposure should principally be avoided, rather than managed," she
said.

"As such the alignment of the railway corridor should be
reconsidered to avoid access through the WAMA, thereby negating the
need for management of exposure to asbestos."

Cr White said council had previously raised concerns about the
Koodaideri rail alignment during an Environmental Protection
Authority review in 2013, but plans for the project had not been
significantly altered since.

The proposed Koodaideri rail line would link the East Pilbara mine
to the Rio Tinto rail network and run over a distance of about
170km.

A Rio Tinto spokesman said the company had developed a management
plan to contain the asbestos risk.

He said it had been approved by several government departments.

"To ensure this work is carried out in a safe manner, a detailed
Koodaideri Asbestos Environmental Management Plan has been approved
by the Department of Health, Department of Water and Environmental
Regulation and the Environmental Protection Agency, which will
avoid the spread of asbestos contamination, and ensure it does not
impact Rio Tinto's employees, contractors or the wider community,"
he said.

"This plan includes appropriate monitoring to ensure the local
environment is safe for our employees, contractors and the
community."

However, Asbestos Disease Society of Australia WA president Robert
Vojakovic said allowing the rail line to be placed in its planned
alignment would be a "disaster" because the speed and mass of an
iron ore train would send fine asbestos particles into the air over
a large distance, potentially reaching Port Hedland, Broome, Derby
or even Perth.

He noted there was no safe level of exposure to asbestos.

"If a train's going at a speed of 100km/h, it would be a disaster
for the locality," he said.

"The fibres can spread hundreds of kilometres, and whatever goes up
must come down.

"The train itself could transmit fibres too, on the wheels,
exterior or connected parts."

Compensation claims for people with asbestos-related diseases after
being exposed to the fibres in Wittenoom have been made against
parties including the Shire of Ashburton for decades.

The Shire has previously stated the claims are ongoing and are made
"at regular intervals" and at a "significant" cost.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Johnson Withdrawn as L. Jack Witness
--------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James L. Robart of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington, upon information of Plaintiffs'
decision to withdraw expert Robert Johnson, has denied as moot
Defendant Ford Motor Co.'s and Defendant Honeywell International
Inc.'s pending motions to exclude Mr. Johnson in the case styled
Leslie Jack, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Borg-Warner Morse TEC LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. C17-0537JLR, (W.D. Wash.).

A copy of the Order dated August 16, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8njanrt from Leagle.com.

Leslie Jack, individually and as Personal Representative of Patrick
Jack & David Jack, individually, Plaintiffs, represented by
Benjamin H. Adams -- badams@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham, LLP,
pro hac vice, Charles W. Branham, III , Dean Omar & Branham, LLP,
pro hac vice, Kristin M. Houser -- houser@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter
Goldmark & Bender, Lisa W. Shirley -- lshirley@dobllp.com -- Dean
Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice, Lucas W.H. Garrett --
garrett@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, William Joel
Rutzick , Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Elizabeth Jean McLafferty --
mclafferty@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender & Thomas J.
Breen -- breen@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to Borg-Warner Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Richard D. Ross , Bennett Bigelow & Leedom.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Daniel K. Reising --
dan@frllp.com --  Fucile & Reising & Mark J. Fucile --
mark@frllp.com --  Fucile & Reising.

Honeywell International Inc, sued as successor-in-interest to
Bendix Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jospeh S. Pevsner --
Joseph.Pevsner@tklaw.com -- Thompson & Knight LLP, pro hac vice,
Kristine E. Kruger -- KKruger@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie &
Mary P. Gaston -- MGaston@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Katherine A.
Lawler -- katherine.lawler@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin J. Craig --
kcraig@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Mark B. Tuvim
-- mtuvim@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees & Trevor J. Mohr --
tmohr@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP.

Union Pacific Railroad Company, Defendant, represented by Robert H.
Berkes -- rberkes@bcrslaw.com -- Berkes Crane Robinson & Seal, pro
hac vice, Ryan T. Moore -- rmoore@bcrslaw.com -- Berkes Crane
Robinson & Seal, pro hac vice, Viiu Spangler Khare --
vspanglerkhare@bcrslaw.com -- Berkes Crane Robinson & Seal, pro hac
vice, Andrew Gordon Yates -- yatesa@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell
PC, Jeffrey M. Odom -- odomj@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC & Tim
D. Wackerbarth -- wackerbartht@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC.

Viad Corporation, formerly known as The Dail Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Ronald C. Gardner --
rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- Gardner Trabolsi & Assoc. PLLC.

Dana Companies, LLC, sued as successor in interest to Victor Gasket
Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by R. Thomas
Radcliffe -- tradcliffe@dehay.com -- Dehay & Elliston LLP, pro hac
vice & Diane J. Kero -- dkero@gth-law.com -- Gordon Thomas
Honeywell.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Mullinax's Claims vs. BW/IP Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, upon consideration of the
Parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss, has dismissed Plaintiff's claims
against the Defendant BW/IP, Inc., and its wholly owned
subsidiaries from the case entitled Robert A. Mullinax,
Individually, as Executor of the Estate of Jack Junior Waugh,
Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-00310-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.), without
prejudice.

A copy of the Order dated August 7, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ybe2qgpd from Leagle.com.

Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina
G. Stone -- sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac
vice, William M. Graham , Wallace & Graham & Kevin W. Paul --
kpaul@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham LLP.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Daniel International Corporation,
formerly known as Daniel Construction Company, Inc., Fluor
Constructors International, formerly known as Fluor Corporation,
Fluor Constructors International, Inc., Fluor Daniel Services
Corporation, Fluor Enterprises, Inc. & Union Carbide Corporation,
Defendants, represented by Christopher B. Major --
cmajor@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G.
McDonald -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd
P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick -- sfrick@hsblawfirm.com --
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner --
dconner@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac
vice.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as
successor-in-interest to, Blackmer Pump Company, Goulds Pumps,
Inc., Grinnell, LLC, doing business as Grinnell Corporation,
Pfizer, Inc., Viad Corporation, formerly known as The Dial
Corporation & Yuba Heat Transfer, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Tracy Edward Tomlin -- tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson,
Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante --
travis.bustamante@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr -- bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com
-- Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Borg-Warner Morse TEC, Inc., Successor in interest to, Defendant,
represented by David L. Levy -- dlevy@hedrickgardner.com -- Hedrick
Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP.

Covil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robin Alexander
Seelbach -- Robin.Seelbach@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton &
Haldrup & William W. Silverman --
William.Silverman@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup,
P.A.

Flowserve US Inc., individually, Defendant, represented by James M.
Dedman, IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com -- White, & Boyd, P.A., T.
David Rheney -- drheney@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd,
P.A. & Allyson R. Twilley -- atwilley@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan,
Whte & Boyd, P.A.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman -- Ejmtechman@ewhlaw.com -- vert Weathersby Houff.

Genuine Parts Company, doing business as Rayloc, Defendant,
represented by Shannon Strickland Frankel --
Shannon.Frankel@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore and Henderson
P.A., Heather B. Adams , Alston & Bird LLP & David Gerald Williams
--  David.Williams@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore & Henderson,
P.A.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com
-- Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.

Uniroyal, Inc., formerly known as United States Rubber Company,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald Moffatt G.
McDonald -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd
P.A.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Bennett --
jbennett@bennett-guthrie.com -- Bennett Guthrie Latham, PLLC.

Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ronald Howard
Hatfield, Jr. -- Hatfield@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Mullinax's Claims vs. Dana Companies Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, upon consideration of the
Parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss Dana Companies, LLC, has dismissed
Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant Dana Companies from the
case entitled Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, as Executor of the
Estate of Jack Junior Waugh, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Advance Auto
Parts, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No.
1:16-cv-00310-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.), without prejudice.

A copy of the Order dated August 7, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7sbq8n4 from Leagle.com.

Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina
G. Stone -- sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac
vice, William M. Graham , Wallace & Graham & Kevin W. Paul --
kpaul@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham LLP.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Daniel International Corporation,
formerly known as Daniel Construction Company, Inc., Fluor
Constructors International, formerly known as Fluor Corporation,
Fluor Constructors International, Inc., Fluor Daniel Services
Corporation, Fluor Enterprises, Inc. & Union Carbide Corporation,
Defendants, represented by Christopher B. Major --
cmajor@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G.
McDonald -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd
P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick -- sfrick@hsblawfirm.com --
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner --
dconner@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac
vice.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as
successor-in-interest to, Blackmer Pump Company, Goulds Pumps,
Inc., Grinnell, LLC, doing business as Grinnell Corporation,
Pfizer, Inc., Viad Corporation, formerly known as The Dial
Corporation & Yuba Heat Transfer, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Tracy Edward Tomlin -- tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson,
Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante --
travis.bustamante@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr -- bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com
-- Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Borg-Warner Morse TEC, Inc., Successor in interest to, Defendant,
represented by David L. Levy -- dlevy@hedrickgardner.com -- Hedrick
Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP.

Covil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robin Alexander
Seelbach -- Robin.Seelbach@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton &
Haldrup & William W. Silverman --
William.Silverman@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup,
P.A.

Flowserve US Inc., individually, Defendant, represented by James M.
Dedman, IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com -- White, & Boyd, P.A., T.
David Rheney -- drheney@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd,
P.A. & Allyson R. Twilley -- atwilley@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan,
Whte & Boyd, P.A.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman -- Ejmtechman@ewhlaw.com -- vert Weathersby Houff.

Genuine Parts Company, doing business as Rayloc, Defendant,
represented by Shannon Strickland Frankel --
Shannon.Frankel@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore and Henderson
P.A., Heather B. Adams , Alston & Bird LLP & David Gerald Williams
--  David.Williams@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore & Henderson,
P.A.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com
-- Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.

Uniroyal, Inc., formerly known as United States Rubber Company,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald Moffatt G.
McDonald -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd
P.A.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Bennett --
jbennett@bennett-guthrie.com -- Bennett Guthrie Latham, PLLC.

Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ronald Howard
Hatfield, Jr. -- Hatfield@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Mullinax's Claims vs. O'Reilly Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, upon consideration of the
Parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc.,
has dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant O'Reilly
from the case is Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, as Executor of
the Estate of Jack Junior Waugh, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Advance
Auto Parts, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No.
1:16-cv-00310-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.), without prejudice.

A copy of the Order dated August 3, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7f4bl89 from Leagle.com.

Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina
G. Stone -- sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac
vice, William M. Graham , Wallace & Graham & Kevin W. Paul --
kpaul@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham LLP.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Daniel International Corporation,
formerly known as Daniel Construction Company, Inc., Fluor
Constructors International, formerly known as successor to Byron
Jackson Pump Company, Fluor Constructors International, Inc., Fluor
Daniel Services Corporation, Fluor Enterprises, Inc. & Union
Carbide Corporation, Defendants, represented by Christopher B.
Major -- cmajor@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.,
Moffatt G. McDonald -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick --
sfrick@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac
vice & W. David Conner -- dconner@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as
successor-in-interest to, Blackmer Pump Company, Goulds Pumps,
Inc., Grinnell, LLC, doing business as Grinnell Corporation,
Pfizer, Inc., Viad Corporation, formerly known as The Dial
Corporation & Yuba Heat Transfer, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Tracy Edward Tomlin -- tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson,
Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante --
travis.bustamante@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr -- bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com
-- Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Borg-Warner Morse TEC, Inc., Successor in interest to, Defendant,
represented by David L. Levy -- dlevy@hedrickgardner.com -- Hedrick
Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP.

BW/IP, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Defendant,
represented by James M. Dedman, IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com --
Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A., Ronald Gene Tate, Jr. --
rtate@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd, PA, pro hac vice,
Allyson R. Twilley -- atwilley@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, Whte &
Boyd, P.A., pro hac vice & T. David Rheney --
drheney@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A., pro hac
vice.

Covil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robin Alexander
Seelbach -- Robin.Seelbach@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton &
Haldrup & William W. Silverman --
William.Silverman@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup,
P.A.

Dana Companies LLC, Defendant, represented by Carter T. Lambeth ,
Carter T. Lambeth Attorney, P.C., Christopher B. Major --
cmajor@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & William P.
Early , Pierce Herns Sloan & Wilson, LLC.

Flowserve US Inc., individually, Defendant, represented by James M.
Dedman, IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com -- White, & Boyd, P.A., T.
David Rheney -- drheney@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd,
P.A. & Allyson R. Twilley -- atwilley@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan,
White & Boyd, P.A.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman -- Ejmtechman@ewhlaw.com -- vert Weathersby Houff.

Genuine Parts Company, doing business as Rayloc, Defendant,
represented by Shannon Strickland Frankel --
Shannon.Frankel@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore and Henderson
P.A., Heather B. Adams , Alston & Bird LLP & David Gerald Williams
--  David.Williams@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore & Henderson,
P.A.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com
-- Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.

Uniroyal, Inc., formerly known as United States Rubber Company,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald Moffatt G.
McDonald -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd
P.A.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Bennett --
jbennett@bennett-guthrie.com -- Bennett Guthrie Latham, PLLC.

Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ronald Howard
Hatfield, Jr. -- Hatfield@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Mullinax's Claims vs. Powell Company Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, upon consideration of the
Parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss The William Powell Company, has
dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant Powell Company
from the case entitled Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, as
Executor of the Estate of Jack Junior Waugh, Deceased, Plaintiff,
v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No.
1:16-cv-00310-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.), without prejudice.

A copy of the Order dated August 3, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ybvpg6pp from Leagle.com.

Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina
G. Stone -- sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac
vice, William M. Graham , Wallace & Graham & Kevin W. Paul --
kpaul@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham LLP.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Daniel International Corporation,
formerly known as Daniel Construction Company, Inc., Fluor
Constructors International, formerly known as successor to Byron
Jackson Pump Company, Fluor Constructors International, Inc., Fluor
Daniel Services Corporation, Fluor Enterprises, Inc. & Union
Carbide Corporation, Defendants, represented by Christopher B.
Major -- cmajor@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.,
Moffatt G. McDonald -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick --
sfrick@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac
vice & W. David Conner -- dconner@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as
successor-in-interest to, Blackmer Pump Company, Goulds Pumps,
Inc., Grinnell, LLC, doing business as Grinnell Corporation,
Pfizer, Inc., Viad Corporation, formerly known as The Dial
Corporation & Yuba Heat Transfer, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Tracy Edward Tomlin -- tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson,
Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante --
travis.bustamante@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr -- bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com
-- Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Borg-Warner Morse TEC, Inc., Successor in interest to, Defendant,
represented by David L. Levy -- dlevy@hedrickgardner.com -- Hedrick
Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP.

BW/IP, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Defendant,
represented by James M. Dedman, IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com --
Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A., Ronald Gene Tate, Jr. --
rtate@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd, PA, pro hac vice,
Allyson R. Twilley -- atwilley@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, Whte &
Boyd, P.A., pro hac vice & T. David Rheney --
drheney@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A., pro hac
vice.

Covil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robin Alexander
Seelbach -- Robin.Seelbach@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton &
Haldrup & William W. Silverman --
William.Silverman@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup,
P.A.

Dana Companies LLC, Defendant, represented by Carter T. Lambeth ,
Carter T. Lambeth Attorney, P.C., Christopher B. Major --
cmajor@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & William P.
Early , Pierce Herns Sloan & Wilson, LLC.

Flowserve US Inc., individually, Defendant, represented by James M.
Dedman, IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com -- White, & Boyd, P.A., T.
David Rheney -- drheney@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd,
P.A. & Allyson R. Twilley -- atwilley@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan,
Whte & Boyd, P.A.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman -- Ejmtechman@ewhlaw.com -- vert Weathersby Houff.

Genuine Parts Company, doing business as Rayloc, Defendant,
represented by Shannon Strickland Frankel --
Shannon.Frankel@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore and Henderson
P.A., Heather B. Adams , Alston & Bird LLP & David Gerald Williams
--  David.Williams@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore & Henderson,
P.A.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com
-- Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.

Uniroyal, Inc., formerly known as, Defendant, represented by
Moffatt G. McDonald Moffatt G. McDonald -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com
-- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Bennett --
jbennett@bennett-guthrie.com -- Bennett Guthrie Latham, PLLC.

Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ronald Howard
Hatfield, Jr. -- Hatfield@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Mullinax's Claims vs. Zenith Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, upon consideration of the
Parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss Zenith Electronics, LLC, has
dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant Zenith from the
case entitled Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, as Executor of the
Estate of Jack Junior Waugh, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Advance Auto
Parts, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No.
1:16-cv-00310-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.), without prejudice.

A copy of the Order dated August 3, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc8usdyf from Leagle.com.

Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina
G. Stone -- sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac
vice, William M. Graham , Wallace & Graham & Kevin W. Paul --
kpaul@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham LLP.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Daniel International Corporation,
formerly known as Daniel Construction Company, Inc., Fluor
Constructors International, formerly known as successor to Byron
Jackson Pump Company, Fluor Constructors International, Inc., Fluor
Daniel Services Corporation, Fluor Enterprises, Inc. & Union
Carbide Corporation, Defendants, represented by Christopher B.
Major -- cmajor@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.,
Moffatt G. McDonald -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick --
sfrick@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac
vice & W. David Conner -- dconner@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as
successor-in-interest to, Blackmer Pump Company, Goulds Pumps,
Inc., Grinnell, LLC, doing business as Grinnell Corporation,
Pfizer, Inc., Viad Corporation, formerly known as The Dial
Corporation & Yuba Heat Transfer, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Tracy Edward Tomlin -- tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson,
Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante --
travis.bustamante@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr -- bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com
-- Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Borg-Warner Morse TEC, Inc., Successor in interest to, Defendant,
represented by David L. Levy , Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo
LLP.

Borg-Warner Morse TEC, Inc., Successor in interest to, Defendant,
represented by David L. Levy -- dlevy@hedrickgardner.com -- Hedrick
Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP.

BW/IP, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Defendant,
represented by James M. Dedman, IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com --
Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A., Ronald Gene Tate, Jr. --
rtate@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd, PA, pro hac vice,
Allyson R. Twilley -- atwilley@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, Whte &
Boyd, P.A., pro hac vice & T. David Rheney --
drheney@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A., pro hac
vice.

Covil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robin Alexander
Seelbach -- Robin.Seelbach@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton &
Haldrup & William W. Silverman --
William.Silverman@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup,
P.A.

Dana Companies LLC, Defendant, represented by Carter T. Lambeth ,
Carter T. Lambeth Attorney, P.C., Christopher B. Major --
cmajor@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & William P.
Early , Pierce Herns Sloan & Wilson, LLC.

Flowserve US Inc., individually, Defendant, represented by James M.
Dedman, IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com -- White, & Boyd, P.A., T.
David Rheney -- drheney@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd,
P.A. & Allyson R. Twilley -- atwilley@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan,
Whte & Boyd, P.A.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman -- Ejmtechman@ewhlaw.com -- vert Weathersby Houff.

Genuine Parts Company, doing business as Rayloc, Defendant,
represented by Shannon Strickland Frankel --
Shannon.Frankel@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore and Henderson
P.A., Heather B. Adams , Alston & Bird LLP & David Gerald Williams
--  David.Williams@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore & Henderson,
P.A.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com
-- Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.

Uniroyal, Inc., formerly known as United States Rubber Company,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald Moffatt G.
McDonald -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd
P.A.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Bennett --
jbennett@bennett-guthrie.com -- Bennett Guthrie Latham, PLLC.

Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ronald Howard
Hatfield, Jr. -- Hatfield@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Raise Concerns at Lake Cathie Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Langdale of Camden Haven Courier reported that Lake Cathie
resident Sue Verlin says she believes restricted access implemented
due to asbestos concerns is 'too little too late.'

On August 10 Port Macquarie-Hastings Council warned the community
to avoid an area at the southern side of the Lake Cathie entrance,
due to the exposure of building materials which might contain
asbestos.

Council has since confirmed asbestos was discovered at the
location.

The area near the corner of Bundella Avenue and Illaroo Road has
been signposted by Port Macquarie-Hastings Council.

Ms  Verlin said she isn't sure council is being completely honest
with residents about the serious nature of the issue.

"How do we know if what they are telling us is true?," she said.

Ms Verlin and her friend Sue Wonson, who also lives in Lake Cathie,
often walk in the area.

They said they would have already been exposed to asbestos by
breathing in the air at the location.

"There is a probability that we’ve been exposed, and could
potentially result in mesothelioma," she said.

Council director Melissa Watkins said test results have confirmed
building materials recently removed from a combination of council
owned, and crown land in Lake Cathie contained traces of asbestos.


"The area is being continually monitored to remove any additional
material uncovered as a result of sand erosion," she said.

"We will continue to work with Crown Land and the EPA to organise
further testing, clean-up, and long-term remediation.

"The community are encouraged to stay clear of the signposted area
until these remediation actions are complete."

Council was notified of the materials by a member of the public in
late July, and staff immediately followed public safety protocols
to remove all visible building material from the site.

A spokesperson from council said it has been suggested the area had
been used as a dumping ground for building material resulting from
home renovations in the village around 30 years ago.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Estimates $38MM Liability at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation estimates US$38.0 million potential liability
for asbestos-related claims as of June 30, 2018, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2018.

Rexnord Corp. states, "The Company's subsidiaries are involved in
various unresolved legal actions, administrative proceedings and
claims in the ordinary course of business involving, among other
things, product liability, commercial, employment, workers'
compensation, intellectual property claims and environmental
matters.  The Company establishes accruals in a manner that is
consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States for costs associated with such matters when liability
is probable and those costs are capable of being reasonably
estimated.  Although it is not possible to predict with certainty
the outcome of these unresolved legal actions or the range of
possible loss or recovery, based upon current information,
management believes the eventual outcome of these unresolved legal
actions, either individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on the financial position, results of
operations or cash flows of the Company.  

"In connection with its sale, Invensys plc ("Invensys") provided
the Company with indemnification against certain contingent
liabilities, including certain pre-closing environmental
liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity
obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth
Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims.  The indemnity
obligations relating to the matters are subject, together with
indemnity obligations relating to other matters, to an overall
dollar cap equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in
excess of US$900 million.  The following paragraphs summarize the
most significant actions and proceedings:

   * In 2002, Rexnord Industries, LLC ("Rexnord Industries") was
named as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"), together with at
least ten other companies, at the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site,
Downers Grove, DuPage County, Illinois (the "Site"), by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"), and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA").  Rexnord Industries'
Downers Grove property is situated within the Ellsworth Industrial
Complex.  The USEPA and IEPA allege there have been one or more
releases or threatened releases of chlorinated solvents and other
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, allegedly
including but not limited to a release or threatened release on or
from the Company's property, at the Site.  The relief sought by the
USEPA and IEPA includes further investigation and potential
remediation of the Site and reimbursement of USEPA's past costs.
Rexnord Industries' allocated share of past and future costs
related to the Site, including for investigation and/or
remediation, could be significant.  All previously pending property
damage and personal injury lawsuits against the Company related to
the Site have been settled or dismissed.  Pursuant to its indemnity
obligation, Invensys continues to defend the Company in known
matters related to the Site and has paid 100% of the costs to date.


   * Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 300 claimants) are
pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions
relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence
of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured
by the Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners.
Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid
100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits.
Similarly, the Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two
pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal
injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product
allegedly manufactured by Prager.  Additionally, there are numerous
individuals who have filed asbestos related claims against Prager;
however, these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district
Litigation inactive docket.  The ultimate outcome of these asbestos
matters cannot presently be determined.  To date, the Company's
insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related to the
Prager asbestos matters.  The Company believes that the combination
of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations
will cover any future costs of these matters.

"In connection with the Company's acquisition of The Falk
Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand provided the Company with
indemnification against certain products-related asbestos exposure
liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity
obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims described
below, and that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity
obligations are not subject to any time or dollar limitations.
"The following paragraph summarizes the most significant actions
and proceedings for which Hamilton Sundstrand has accepted
responsibility:

   * Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple
lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk.  There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits.  The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined.  Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations
and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

"Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos
litigation.  As of June 30, 2018, Zurn and numerous other unrelated
companies were defendants in approximately 6,000 asbestos related
lawsuits representing approximately 14,500 claims.  Plaintiffs'
claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used
primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment
of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components.
Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers.  These claims are
being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers.

"As of June 30, 2018, the Company estimates the potential liability
for the asbestos-related claims as well as the claims expected to
be filed in the next ten years to be approximately US$38.0 million,
of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay approximately
US$29.0 million in the next ten years on such claims, with the
balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years.
The US$38.0 million was developed based on actuarial studies and
represents the projected indemnity payout for current and future
claims.  There are inherent uncertainties involved in estimating
the number of future asbestos claims, future settlement costs, and
the effectiveness of defense strategies and settlement initiatives.
As a result, actual liability could differ from the estimate
described herein and could be substantial.  The liability for the
asbestos-related claims is recorded in Other liabilities within the
condensed consolidated balance sheets.

"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of June 30, 2018, is in excess of
the ten year estimated exposure, and accordingly, believes that all
current claims are covered by insurance.

"As of June 30, 2018, the Company had a recorded receivable from
its insurance carriers of US$38.0 million, which corresponds to the
amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery.  However, there is no assurance the Company's current
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's
coverage limits.  Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount
of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes
in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements
with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies
of one or more of the Company's carriers.  The receivable for
probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in Other assets
within the condensed consolidated balance sheets."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2Nn9GlJ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Safety Nat'l Can't Arbitrate Coverage Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen of Law360 reported that Safety National Casualty Corp.
can't arbitrate its claims that it doesn't have to pay out a $5
million excess policy to help fund Garlock Sealing Technology's
$480 million asbestos settlement, after a North Carolina federal
court declared an arbitration clause in the policy void on Monday.

In the opinion, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Conrad agreed with an
earlier magistrate judge's ruling that found Safety National had
failed to draft its arbitration clause in a way that protected it
from being voided by other aspects of its agreement.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Hill Bldg Closed After Asbestos Find
-----------------------------------------------------------
ITV News reported that areas of the South Hill building have been
closed after asbestos was found during a routine inspection and
staff have been removed from some parts of the office.

The debris was discovered above ceiling tiles of rooms on the
second floor.

Asbestos is a heat-resistant fibre that causes lung related
diseases and can be dangerous if breathed in.

The use of asbestos is now banned in many countries around the
world but it can still be found in buildings.

An air sample test carried out in South Hill showed 11 rooms tested
were below the acceptable limit.

All of the States departments are due to be relocated in November
to the RBC building under merger plans.

The deadly material is a topic of discussion at the moment after
parts of Fort Regent were closed off a few weeks ago after a
possible asbestos related material was discovered in an electrical
cupboard.

Meanwhile in Guernsey it has been announced this month that a new
compensation scheme for victims of asbestos-related illness will be
introduced before the end of this States term.

A petition in Jersey is also calling for a similar compensation
scheme to be introduced in the island for asbestos victims.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,550 Fibro Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,550 cases were outstanding at June 30, 2018, for
which Standard Motor Products, Inc. may be responsible for any
related liabilities in connection to its former brake business,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation.  When we originally acquired this brake
business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the seller
of the acquired brake business.  In accordance with the related
purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities for all new
claims filed on or after September 2001.  Our ultimate exposure
will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on or after
September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and defense
thereof.  At June 30, 2018, approximately 1,550 cases were
outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related
liabilities.  Since inception in September 2001 through June 30,
2018, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately US$24.8
million.

"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an
independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are
filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions.  As is
our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial
consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related
liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability.  The
methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs
in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available
from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent
claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future; (3)
an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an analysis of
our settlements to date in order to develop average settlement
values."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2PCvzxU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 125 PI Suits at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that one of its subsidiaries was a defendant in
approximately 125 lawsuits as of June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as a
defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising
out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers,
and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major
industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

"As of June 30, 2018, the subsidiary was a defendant in
approximately 125 lawsuits with a corresponding number of
plaintiffs.

"For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided with
sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all
or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the
basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries.

"The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its
operations were discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than insurance policies, rights and
proceeds, including (i) certain policies subject to litigation and
(ii) certain rights and proceeds held directly or indirectly
through a qualified settlement fund.  The subsidiary has in excess
of US$1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the
subsidiary.

"Although not all of the policies may be fully available due to the
insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the subsidiary will
have sufficient funding directly or indirectly, including from
settlements and payments from insurers, assigned rights from
insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with insurers
to respond to these claims.

"While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of
these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any,
resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on
our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results
of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2NiECXl


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Faces 9 Claims at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that nine plaintiffs have claims pending in
Louisiana against the Company's subsidiaries at June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants in
complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi,
and in 2014, a group of similar complaints were filed in
Louisiana.

"The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants,
generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos
containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with
drilling operations, claiming negligence, products liability,
strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general
maritime law.  The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-appointed special
master has ruled that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us,
cannot be sued for punitive damages.

"At June 30, 2018, nine plaintiffs have claims pending in
Louisiana, in which we have or may have an interest.

"We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can
provide no assurance as to the outcome.  We historically have
maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain
whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out
of these claims.  Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date,
we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these claims
to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated
statement of financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2NiECXl


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Used Asbestos Laden Talc, Jury Told
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal of Law360 reported that the Johnson & Johnson baby
powder once used by a woman with mesothelioma contained millions of
asbestos fibers, her attorney told a California jury during opening
statements in another trial over the alleged link between the
industry titan's products and the carcinogen, while the company
countered that sometimes "cancer just happens."

At the start of the trial in Pasadena, California, Jay Stuemke of
Simon Greenstone Panatier, representing plaintiff Carolyn Weirick,
told the jury that the case was about a "breach of trust."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Find Asbestos at Hazlehead Academy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aberdeen Evening Express reported that 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.

Now union boss Tommy Campbell has written to senior council
management to demand answers and said "enough is enough."

The Hazlehead discovery was made this week 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 yesterday.

"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 ***