CAR_Public/180928.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, September 28, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 195

                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY: Ariz. App. Affirms Class Certification Denial
354 HAMILTON LLC: Underpays Car Wash Attendants, Lozada Claims
AGRI STATS: Faces Joe Christiana Suit over Price Fixing of Pork
ALPINE POWER: Fails to Pay Wages to Technicians, Debuse Alleges
AMERICAN FEDERATION: Janus Case Expected to Have Ramifications

ARAMARK UNIFORM: Underpays Service Representatives, Cowen Alleges
ASSISTCARE HOME: Underpays Home Health Aides, Demchenko Claims
AUSTRALIA: 2019 Trial Date Set in Williamtown Contamination Case
AUTOPISTAS: Rodriguez et al Sue over AutoExpreso Toll Systems Fees
BACKYARD ENERGY: Gatlin Seeks to Certify Class of Consultants

BAY CLUBS COMPANY: Faces Nichols Suit in San Francisco
BAYVILLE AVENUE: Underpays Waiters, Papa and Montero Suit Claims
BEDFORD, OH: Court OKs Summary Judgment in POS Inspection Ordinance
BIG PHARMA: B.C. Files Class Action Over Opioid Crisis
BIG PHARMA: Niagara Opioid Class Action to Set Major Precedent

BIG PHARMA: Opioid Class Action to Shape Drug-Addicted Babies
BITCONNECT: Trevon James Fails to Respond to Class Action
BMW: South Korea Bans 20,000 Vehicles from Roads After Fires
BRAHMA GROUP: Faces Cartwright Suit in Kern County, Calif.
BRETT A. OSBORN: Mclean Sues over Telemarketing Text Message

BROTHER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Printer Problems
CAFE ISTANBUL: Court Certifies Class of Tipped Employees
CANADA: Female Police Officers Appeal Class Action Ruling
CARCO GROUP: Court Dismisses Jenkins FCRA Suit
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Wu Suit in S.D. New York

CENTRAL CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
CHRISTIAN DIOR: Underpays Sales Associates, Weller Suit Claims
CJS SOLUTIONS: Underpays Support Consultants, Gray Suit Alleges
CLARK CONSTRUCTION: Doesn't Pay Wages, Villalobos and Perez Claim
COLLEGE CHEFS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Miller and Hinkle Say

CORECIVIC: Faces Another Controversy Amid Class Action
COVINGTON SPECIALTY: Must Reimburse Medicare Payments, MSPA Says  
CREDIT CORP: Kanehl Files Placeholder Class Certitication Bid
DAIMLER: Fleet Operators May Get GBP5-Bil. in Compensation
DAKOTA COUNTY, MN: Inmate Sues Over Forced Religious Lecture

DELI MANAGEMENT: Florence Action to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
DIALAMERICA MARKETING: Ct. Compels Production in Telemarketing Suit
EDGEMARC ENERGY: Larsen Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
EXXIZZ FOODS: Treadway Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime

FARMERS RESTAURANT: Settles Workers' Class Action for $1.49MM
FQSR LLC: Fails to Pay OT to Restaurant Staff, Cano et al. Claim
FRONTLINE ASSET: Kern Sues over Debt Collection Practices
FROST-ARNETT: Bartz Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
GALILEE MEMORIAL: Class Action Over Mishandled Bodies Ongoing

GALILEE MEMORIAL: Trial Begins in Crushed Caskets Case
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Underpays Health Insurance CSRs, Hawkins Says
GENERAL MILLS: Cheerios Contains Carcinogen, Doss Suit Alleges
GEO GROUP: Removed Ramirez Suit to Southern District of California
GOOGLE INC: Klayman Sues Over Conservative Views Censorship

GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Court Certifies Nationwide Class in Murphy Suit
GREAT LAKES HOME: Hicks Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
HARIHAR INC: Honeywell Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
HARLEIGH CEMETERY: Violates Employee Protection Act, Leon Alleges
HAWAII: Faces Class Action Over School Bullying, Violence

HCL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Voll Suit over Race Discrimination
HUNTER ALLIED: Izaguirre Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
HUSKY ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over April 26 Refinery Explosion
IDAHO: Class Action Over Public School Students Fees Pending
IRSA INVERSIONES: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit

J&W GRADING: Revised Bid to Certify Collective Action Filed
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wins Dismissal of Nonresident Plaintiffs' Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Black Financial Advisers' Class Action
JT'S FRAMES: Casares Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
KELLER WILLIAMS: Wright Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls

KNORR-BREMSE: Roozemond Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania
KOHL'S CORP: Ankcorn Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
LANCASTER WINGS: Ex-Athens BWW Workers' Class Action Settled
LOGAN CORRECTIONAL: Court Denies Class Certification in "Dupree"
LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of Vehicle Owners Class Sought

LOUISIANA REGIONAL: Seeks Transfer of Lawsuit to Federal Court
LUMINA SOLAR: Rogers Sues over Text Message Advertisements
MDL 2785: Court Directs Kaiser to Comply with Subpoena
MEDICAL LIABILITY: Castagna et al. Sue over Proposed NICO Merger
MEDIMPACT HOLDINGS: CEO Howe Sued over Use of Company Funds

MERCK & CO: Brumfield et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
MERCK & CO: Ford et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
MERCK & CO: Green et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
MERCK & CO: Zaccanelli et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
MICHIGAN: Class & Subclasses Certified in Sex Offenders' Suit

MICHIGAN: Court Won't Certify Class in Peoples Suit vs. DOC
MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces D'Amore Suit over DRAM Price Fixing
MS APPLIANCES: Violates Employee Protection Act, O'Keeffe Alleges
MY CHOICE: Paczkowski Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA
NATIONWIDE INVESTMENTS: Family Trust Suit Moved to M.D. Tennessee

NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT: Engebretson Hits Illegal Collection Calls
NCAA: College Athletes Compensation Cap Case Begins
NORTH AMERICAN ON-SITE: Schoelkoph Sues for Minimum Wage & OT Pay
NUTRABLEND FOODS: Terminated Burmese Workers File Class Suit
OCWEN LOAN: Must Face Robocall Privacy Claims, Judge Rules

OKLAHOMA: Co-Neutrals Unveil DHS Foster Care Report
OMNI LIMOUSINE: Drivers Seek Unpaid Wages
OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Bid to Stay Further Proceedings in "Wolf" Granted
PENNSYLVANIA: 3d Cir. Partly Flips Dismissal of FCRA Suit vs. SEPTA
PLANTRONICS INC: Phil Shin Sues over Defective Headphones

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Bid to Certify Class in "Rosales" Continued
POWERCOR: Bushfire Victims Call for Compensation Change
PRACHIMA LLC: Goldboss Sues over Customer Bill Surcharge
PREMERA BLUE: Accused of Destroying Evidence in Data Breach Case
PREMIER BANKCARD: Womble Bond Attorney Discusses TCPA Case Ruling

PROVIDENCE, RI: To Reactivate Speed Cameras Following Settlement
PROVISION POWER: Karon Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
PTZ INSURANCE: Legg Seeks to Certify Two Classes
PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Moore Suit in S.D. West Virginia
QUALIA COLLECTION: Wolf Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid

RANGE RESOURCES: Grice Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
REGIONAL MEDICAL: Sandusky Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Denied
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Bid to Certify Class in "Singer" Underway
RIO TINTO: Faces US Class Action Over Guineagate Affairs
RIPPLE LABS: Oconer's Lawsuit Consolidated with Other Cases

RIVERSIDE, CA: Class Certification Sought in Case over YAT Program
SANCHEZ OIL & GAS: Underpays Oilfield Workers, Langen Suit Claims
SCHLUMBERGER LIFT: Garcia Suit Moved to E.D. California
SENSA PRODUCTS: Certification in Weight Loss Products Suit Denied
SHEFAYIM: Sued for Failing to Enforce Smoking Laws

SOLCO HEALTHCARE: Duffy et al. Sue over Sale of Contaminated Drug
SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Court Dismisses TAC in Anticompetition Suit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Underpays Field Instructors, Tanis Alleges
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Drivers, McNutt Suit Alleges
SYNCHRONY BANK: Campbell Suit Moved to W.D. North Carolina

TEPCO: Grace Park Wants $50M Fund Set Up over Nuke Plant Meltdown
TESLA INC: Elon Musk Faces SEC Charges for Go-Private Tweets
TICO JUICE: Cano Alleges Wage-and-Hour Law Violation
TIGER BRANDS: To Agree to Listeria Outbreak Class Action
TOWERS OF QUASIDE: Valcarcel Suit Moved to S.D. Florida

TWO TREES MANAGEMENT: Faces Fischler Disabilities Act Suit in N.Y.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Averts Firefighter Pension Fund's Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Competitor Files Class Action
UNITED STATES: 500 Immigrant Children Not Reunited with Parents
UNITED STATES: DoT, FAA Face Race Discrimination Class Action

UNITED STATES: Separated Families Can Revive Asylum Claims
USA TECH: Gouet Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
VIRGINIA DMV: Stinnie et al. Seek to Certify Two Classes
VOLKSWAGEN: Germany Finds No Evidence of Emissions Cheating
WAL-MART STORES: Hoover, et al. Suit Moved to W.D. New York

WASHINGTON: Janus Language Strengthens Union Dues Class Action
WESTERN UNION: Plaintiffs' Attorneys in TCPA Case Get Big Fee Cut
YUM! BRANDS: West Seeks to Certify Collective Action
[*] Franchisors Face Class Actions Over "Anti-Poaching" Provisions
[*] Overconfident CEOs Likely to Get Sued by Shareholders

[*] Verus Introduces New Mass Tort Case Management Services
[*] William Moran Joins Otterbourg P.C.'s Litigation Department

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $40MM Suit Filed Over Asbestos Cover-up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1 Suit vs. Haynes Int'l Pending at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Won't Review Denial of Cooley's Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Forces Compound Closure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Burnt Building Not Monitored

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Still Takes Lives 17 Years After 9/11
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 31,750 Claims Pending at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $309MM Accrual at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 55,500 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Developers Fined $520K for Asbestos Dumping

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Faces Atkins Suit at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DOJ Files Statement in Kaiser Gypsum Ch. 11
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 167 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ellis Heirs Sue Over Asbestos Exposure Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Had US$192.2MM Liability at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Failed to Address Asbestos in Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Footballer's Death Linked to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gym Customers Exposed to Asbestos, Suit Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,286 PI Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Continues to Defend PI Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Husband Sues Asbestos Maker for Wife's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imerys Settles Asbestos Talc Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $557MM Liability at June30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge's Widow's Asbestos Claims Rejected
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Luxury Bldg Sold Asbestos-Laden Condos, Suit Says

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manhattan Beach SD Coping With Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Melbourne Asbestos-Dumping Developers Fined
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 552 Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N. Battle Sues Companies Over Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nigerian Govt Warns Against Asbestos Home Use

ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Asbestos in Baby Powder, Mineralogist Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nov. 9 Hearing on Bid to Junk Bestwall's Ch. 11
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Preschool Exposed Children to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: S. Geisler Files Claims Over Wife's Asbestos Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment vs. Whelan Reversed on Appeal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tile Worker's Family Wins Asbestos Settlement


                            *********

21ST CENTURY: Ariz. App. Affirms Class Certification Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, issued an Opinion
affirming the trial court's judgment denying Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned CYNTHIA M. FERRARA,
Plaintiff/Appellant, v. 21ST CENTURY NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee. No. 2 CA-CV 2017-0195. (Ariz. App.).

Appellant Cynthia Ferrara seeks review of the trial court's denial
of her motion for class certification made pursuant to Rule 23.

Ferrara was injured in an auto accident in the course of her
employment. As of the date of the accident, she was a covered
person and beneficiary of an auto insurance policy provided by the
defendant/appellee 21st Century North America Insurance Company.
Ferrara subsequently filed the instant action for breach of
contract and declaratory relief, and sought class action
certification pursuant to Rule 23.

The proposed class, of which Ferrara is the sole named plaintiff,
was to consist of all persons or assignees who were covered by 21st
Century auto policies or their affiliated underwriting entities,
who had made a claim for medpay benefits that was denied on the
basis of the workers' compensation exclusion notwithstanding such
claimant's legal obligation to repay the workers' compensation
benefits from a third-party recovery during the period of October
22, 2007 through the date of the class notice, with a geographic
scope to include all thirty-three states in which 21st Century
issues policies containing the exclusion.

Rule 23(a), Ariz. R. Civ. P., requires a party seeking
certification to prove: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder
of all members is impracticable (2) there are questions of law or
fact common to the class (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class and(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class.

In this case, proof of numerosity, commonality, and typicality
necessarily overlap with Ferrara's contention that 21st Century's
denial of medpay claims pursuant to the exclusion constitutes a
material breach of the parties' contractual agreements and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in each, and the
Class has been damaged as a result. This is so because of the broad
geographical scope of Ferrara's purported class, encompassing
thirty-three states.

Ferrara included in her motion for class certification two matrices
addressing the laws of the various states: the first providing each
state's statutory basis for a workers' compensation carrier's right
to reimbursement from third-party-at-fault recoveries; the second
providing case law from each state regarding the interpretation of
insurance contracts.

In its response opposing certification, 21st Century provided its
own matrix addressing the laws of the various states, which pointed
out variances in the states' laws regarding the admissibility and
application of extrinsic evidence in issues of contractual
ambiguity and the rights of an insurer to seek medpay
reimbursement/subrogation from third-party-at-fault recoveries.
This matrix showed that of the thirty-three states in Ferrara's
proposed geographic scope, the laws of twenty-seven appear to
differ substantively from Arizona on whether an insurer has a right
to recover medpay benefits from a third-party-at-fault recovery.

Ferrara did not meaningfully address these variances, except to say
that such individual issues do not defeat certification where the
core issue is common and that 21st Century failed to explain how
Defendant's subrogation rights would absolve it from or be a
defense to the obligation to pay medpay benefits to the insured.

The Court is persuaded that in the instant case, a confluence of
factors, including the potentially small number of class members
and the variances in state law on a core issue, could create issues
sufficient to preclude class certification on the grounds of
numerosity, commonality, and typicality. As it is the plaintiff's
burden to demonstrate both that there are in fact sufficiently
numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, there is
reasonable evidence to support the trial court's determination that
Ferrara did not meet her burden of proof to show a class action was
appropriate.

Finding no abuse of discretion, the Court affirms.

A full-text copy of the Court's September 10, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6ug4v5f from Leagle.com.

Jackson & Oden P.C., Tucson, By Todd Jackson and Jean Roof, 3573
East Sunrise Drive, Suite 125. Tucson, Arizona 85718 and Goldberg &
Osborne, Tucson, By David J. Diamond , 698 E Wetmore Rd Ste. 200,
Tucson,  AZ,  85705, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant.

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Phoenix, By Andrew S. Jacob --
ajacob@grsm.com -- Calvin E. Davis -- cdavis@grsm.com -- and Aaron
P. Rudin -- arudin@grsm.com -- Counsel for Defendant/Appellee.


354 HAMILTON LLC: Underpays Car Wash Attendants, Lozada Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS LOZADA, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 354 HAMILTON LLC D/B/A VIKING AUTO
SPA, CAR WASH, AND DETAILING CENTER; FRANK DOE; and MUSTAFA DOE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04635-ILG-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16,
2018) seeks to remedy the Defendants' wrongful withholding of the
Plaintiff's earned wages and overtime compensation. The action is
also brought against the Defendants for violations of minimum wage
and overtime wage requirements, spread-of-hours pay, and notice and
record-keeping requirements.

The Plaintiff Lozada was employed by the Defendants as car wash
attendants from November 2017 to February 2018.

354 Hamilton LLC d/b/a Viking Auto Spa, Car Wash, and Detailing
Center is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of New York, located at Brooklyn, New York. The Company
is a full service car wash, hand wash, and luxury detailing center.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq.
          PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
          950 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (718) 777-0400
          Facsimile: (718) 777-0599
          E-mail: ari@pnlawyers.com


AGRI STATS: Faces Joe Christiana Suit over Price Fixing of Pork
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOE CHRISTIANA FOOD DISTRIBUTORS, INC., individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGRI STATS, INC.;
CLEMENS FOOD GROUP, LLC; HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION; INDIANA PACKERS
CORPORATION; JBS USA; SEABOARD FOODS, LLC; SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC.;
TRIUMPH FOODS, LLC; TYSON FOODS, INC.; TYSON PREPARED FOODS, INC.;
and TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-02405 (D.
Minn., Aug. 16, 2018) alleges violation of the Sherman act over
price fixing of pork.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants entered
into a conspiracy from at least 2009 to the present to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price of pork. The principal, but not
exclusive, method by which the Defendants implemented and executed
their conspiracy was by coordinating their output and limiting
production with the intent and expected result of increasing pork
prices in the United States. In furtherance of their conspiracy,
the Defendants exchanged detailed, competitively sensitive, and
closely guarded non-public information about prices, capacity,
sales volume and demand through their co-conspirator Agri Stats.

Agri Stats, Inc. was founded in 1985. The company's line of
business includes providing accounting, bookkeeping, and related
auditing services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
          Brian D. Clark, Esq.
          Arielle S. Wagner, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
                  erodette@locklaw.com
                  bdclark@locklaw.com
                  aswagner@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Burton LeBlanc, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          2600 Citiplace Drive
          Baton Rouge, LA 70808
          Telephone: (225) 927-5441
          E-mail: bleblanc@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          W. Scott Simmer, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          600 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Suite 10A
          Washington, D.C. 20037
          Telephone: (202) 333-4849
          E-mail: ssimmer@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          Robert G. Eisle, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com


ALPINE POWER: Fails to Pay Wages to Technicians, Debuse Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
COLIN DEBUSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALPINE POWER SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-02565 (W.D. Tenn., Aug. 16, 2018) is an action against
the Defendant to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, liquidated
damages, post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and cost pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Debuse was employed by the Defendant as technician
from October 2017 to June 2018.

Alpine Power Systems, Inc. distributes backup power, telecom,
cable, green energy, and motive power solutions. The company offers
products through its catalog. Alpine Power Systems, Inc. was
founded in 1963 and is headquartered in Redford, Michigan. It has
locations in Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arizona, Louisiana,
Nashville, California, Michigan, Texas, Florida, Grand Rapids,
Houston, Tampa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Georgia, Ohio, Illinois,
Cleveland, Indiana, and Columbus; and Canada. Alpine Power Systems,
Inc. operates as a subsidiary of TFI, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Marshall, Esq.
          Charles W. Cavagnaro, Jr. Esq.
          EVANS PETREE, PC
          1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 800
          Memphis, TN 38120
          Telephone: (901) 525-6781
          E-mail: mmarshall@evanspetree.com
                  ccavagnaro@evanspetree.com


AMERICAN FEDERATION: Janus Case Expected to Have Ramifications
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arvind Dilawar, writing for The Nation, reports that going into
2018, the writing on the wall spelled doom for organized labor.
Trump had seemingly tricked large sectors of the country into
believing that he was a populist aimed at reconfiguring the global
economy to serve US workers -- then, once in power, he staffed
federal agencies with anti-union ideologues, while cutting
sweetheart deals for corporations and the wealthy. The federal
government at large was poised to attack organized labor on every
front, through legislation and in the courts, and state governments
were expected to continue submitting to a decades-long campaign by
the 1 percent to undo a century of union progress. Yet, despite
this dire outlook, there came moments of truly astonishing
solidarity that resulted in previously unimaginable victories.

These are the three worst stories for workers from the year thus
far, the stories to make you hang your head—and three more to
pick up your chin.

THE BAD
Two-Faced Betrayal: Janus v. AFSCME
Without question, the biggest loss borne by organized labor in 2018
was the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. AFSCME in June. Coming
down 5-4 in favor of Mark Janus in his suit against his union, the
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the
Supreme Court ruled that public-sector unions' levying fees on
non-union members is a violation of the First Amendment. The case
is expected to have ramifications throughout the country, as
already embattled unions are forced to represent non-members who
contribute nothing in dues or fees. As Moshe Z. Marvit described,
rather than being an issue of free speech, Janus v. AFSCME is the
culmination of an anti-labor campaign by wealthy business owners
and their lackey politicians that was 65 years in the making.

No Class: Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis
While Janus stole the limelight, it was actually the second
drubbing the Supreme Court gave labor in 2018. One month before
Janus, the Court ruled, in another 5-4 decision, that employment
contracts mandating individual arbitration supersede the rights of
workers to take collective legal action, such as class-action
lawsuits. The case, dubbed Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, was
actually the consolidation of three different suits: two in which
employers sought to quash legal challenges against them by
employees seeking overtime compensation, and one by the National
Labor Relations Board asserting workers' right to collective legal
action. The defeat of the employees and the NLRB means that US
workers who toil under contracts mandating arbitration -- more than
85 million of them, as reported by Michelle Chen -- have lost legal
rights that they held just four months ago.

Federal Union Busters: Trump's NLRB Appointees
As a federal agency, the National Labor Relations Board is governed
by five board members appointed by the president and approved by
the Senate. Trump has assigned three of the current board members,
as well as the agency's general counsel, and the results have been
predictably hostile to labor. Michelle Chen highlighted one
especially troubling development: In 2015, the NLRB's previous
general counsel argued that McDonald's was a joint employer of all
franchisee employees, possibly paving the way for chain-wide
unionization; that case was sabotaged earlier this year by the
NLRB's new general counsel, Peter Robb, who requested a 60-day stay
on the trial to obtain a settlement. Whereas a trial victory could
have established a precedent applicable to all franchises, a
settlement will allow McDonald's to simply cut a deal. The case is
still pending, but the outlook is grim -- especially as two
Trump-appointed NLRB board members, Chairman John Ring and William
Emanuel, previously worked for union-busting law firms.

THE GOOD
No More Cages: Nationwide Prison Strike
While traditional unions attempting to work through official
channels were stymied time and time again in 2018, more grassroots
forms of labor organizing flourished. In one ongoing example
described by Raven Rakia, prisoners in at least 17 states have come
together to launch a nationwide prison strike. Supported by more
than 150 outside organizations, prisoners are refusing to work,
boycotting commissaries, and staging hunger strikes, sit-ins, and
other forms of protest until their demands to end forced prison
labor, improve conditions, reinstate parole, and more are met. This
strike follows another one in 2016 that was estimated to be the
largest in US history, as well as a South Carolina prison riot in
April, which left seven prisoners dead. The current strike is
planned to continue until September 9, the anniversary of the 1971
Attica prison uprising.

The Price is Wrong: Missouri's Prop A
In 2017, former Missouri Governor Eric Greitens signed legislation
barring unions from collecting agency fees from non-union members,
making the Show Me State the 28h in the nation with so-called
"right to work" laws. But as John Nichols reported, Missourians did
not take this attack on their unions lying down. Just hours after
Greitens had scrawled his signature, union members, labor
organizers, and their supporters announced that they would
challenge the bill through an uncommon tactic: the referendum. They
collected 300,000 signatures to have the legislation included as a
ballot measure—Proposition A—in a statewide election last
month, then voted overwhelmingly to shoot it down. Greitens was not
in office long enough to suffer this defeat, having resigned in
June following charges of campaign finance violations and blackmail
relating to an extramarital affair.

Pencils Down: A Wave of Teachers' Strikes
If Janus v. AFSCME was the nadir for labor in 2018, then the wave
of teachers' strikes was undoubtedly the zenith. Amid fears that
legislation further crippling unions would be a death sentence for
organized labor in the United States, teachers in West Virginia --
a state already mired in years of "right to work" -- struck out
against their elected representatives and even their union leaders
to launch the first of what became a wave of strikes by educators
in eight states. As Jane McAlevey and Steve Fraser pointed out,
these teachers fought not only for livable wages but also against
austerity and acquiescent union bureaucracy. In their victories, as
well as their ongoing struggles, these educators demonstrated that
labor's power is created by workers coming together to fight for
one another -- and no law, court, or politician can usurp that.

The year thus far has demonstrated that, regardless of how the
scales are stacked against organized labor by business and
government, how many anti-union appointments Trump makes or how
many lawsuits, campaigns, and bills the wealthy bankroll, workers
can nonetheless emerge victorious. The path forward is clear:
Increasing repression can only be cut through by greater
solidarity. In that sense, 2018 was just another rehearsal of a
very old lesson -- "The workers united will never be defeated."
[GN]


ARAMARK UNIFORM: Underpays Service Representatives, Cowen Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CODY COWEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02166-B (N.D. Tex., Aug. 17, 2018) is
an action against the Defendant to recover unpaid wages, overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Cowen was employed by the Defendant as route service
representative.

Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC provides uniform rental,
leasing, and purchase programs in North America. The company was
founded in 1936 and is headquartered in Burbank, California with
locations in the United States. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel,
LLC operates as a subsidiary of Aramark. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Forester, Esq.
          D. Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          J. FORESTER
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909


ASSISTCARE HOME: Underpays Home Health Aides, Demchenko Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
VERA DEMCHENKO, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ASSISTCARE HOME HEALTH
SERVICES LLC, d/b/a PREFERRED HOME CARE, BARRY WEISS, ALLEN
HYMOWITZ and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
518401/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 12, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the putative class
plaintiffs were home health aides who worked numerous 24 hour
shifts for which they were illegally paid for only 13 of the 24
hours worked, as they did not get meal breaks and did not get 5
hours of uninterrupted sleep and a full 8 hours of sleep during the
shifts.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants for more than 40 hours per
week and were illegally not paid any wages for many of their hours
worked Plaintiffs worked for Defendants for more than 40 hours per
week during the last 6 years and performed more than 20% household
work and thus were illegally not paid time and one half for their
overtime hours. The Plaintiffs complain that they are entitled to
back wages from Defendant for (a) hours worked for which they did
not receive minimum and/or regular wages, (b) overtime hours worked
for which they did not receive time and one half the minimum wage
or time and one half their actual wages, and (c) spread of hours
work performed for which they did not receive an extra hour of pay,
as required by the NYLL and the supporting New York State
Department of Labor regulations.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          William C. Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          501 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 286 1425
          Facsimile: (646) 688 3078
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


AUSTRALIA: 2019 Trial Date Set in Williamtown Contamination Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Page, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that on a
winter's day in 2016, 60-year-old Anita Bugges packed up her dream
home on Nelson Bay Road, Williamtown, and headed south.

As she drove away, she looked out over the 25-acre farm she bought
ten years before for $899,000 and breathed a sigh of relief.

From the moment she received a flier in her letterbox from the
Department of Defence, nine months earlier, informing her toxic
chemicals were leaching off Williamtown RAAF Base 5km up the road,
her life changed forever.

She stopped eating homegrown vegies, wouldn't let her young
grandson play in the mud anymore and she worried constantly.

Several months later, when news of a landmark US EPA report found
in May 2016 that dust was an important exposure pathway for
children, who could also ingest the chemicals through hand-to-mouth
contact, she began plotting a course of action to get her family
off the land.

Unable to rent the property because of the contamination, she
became the first Williamtown resident to default on her mortgage
payments and walk away from the red zone.

But now Ms Bugges is fighting to stave off foreclosure after
learning that if the Commonwealth Bank takes possession of her
property it rules her out of a residents' class action law suit
seeking compensation from the Department of Defence to claw back
huge falls in property values.

Adding insult to injury, legal advice she has received indicates
that if the bank forecloses and sells her property for less than
what it is owed, the bank could claim an economic loss and be
eligible for joining the class action.

Ms Bugges, a single parent who worked for 40 years to save for the
farm, would walk away with nothing but debt.

"Absolutely nothing about this whole mess has been fair from the
beginning," she said.

"They are basically saying if I don't own the property I can't
claim an economic loss so can't be part of the class action.

"I would dearly like the bank not to foreclose and give me a
moratorium on the mounting interest so I can keep the place until
the class action settles and then I would have some money to pay
them.

"It would also allow me to have something to leave my children. If
it wasn't for Defence poisoning my land I would still be living
here, none of this would be happening."

The Commonwealth Bank issued a foreclosure notice on the property
in July after Ms Bugges fell behind on the mortgage.

The debt, largely due to almost 20 per cent interest on arrears,
has spiralled after Ms Bugges and her family, fled the red zone and
were forced to rent.

Ms Bugges has owned property since the age of 23, and was living at
Williamtown with her daughter Michaela and six-year-old grandson
Tristan.

"It was the death of a dream, but I don't regret leaving for one
moment," Ms Bugges said.

"The financial hardship has been massive, but I needed to make sure
my grandson was safe and away from the contamination. There is no
way we could risk his health."

Ms Bugges has done what so many other red zone residents wish they
could do. She got out.

There has been no exodus but the reason is not that residents all
want to stay.

Many are trapped. They are unable to realise their assets in a
depressed property market due to the contamination and can't find
tenants willing to rent in the area.

Ms Bugges bought the farm in 2007, well after Defence was aware of
the contamination.

The family had built the property with 19 stables into a small
horse business. They never missed a payment on the loan.

Ms Bugess said she had lost more than $50,000 in the past two years
because she could not find anyone willing to rent the property.

She described the financial stress as "extreme".

"Due to the high interest payments on arrears the debt has gone
through the roof," she said.

"I would dearly love for us to find a way to stop the foreclosure
so I can stay in the class action and have a chance to salvage
something."

A class action against the Department of Defence by residents whose
lives have been 'devastated' by firefighting contamination from the
Williamtown RAAF Base got the green light in August 2016, with
funding locked in after a target of over 300 sign-ups was achieved.


Litigation funder IMF Bentham agreed to bankroll the case on the
condition a critical mass of residents signed up.

The class action will be run by international firm Dentons, led by
partners John Dalzell and Ben Allen.

A trial date of late 2019 has been set down for class actions over
firefighting contamination that has tainted hundreds of properties
surrounding Defence bases at Williamtown and Oakey.

Defence told the Federal Court of Australia in March last year that
it rejects allegations it breached federal environmental
legislation and its duty of care to residents around the
Williamtown by polluting land with toxic firefighting chemicals.

It's 42-page defence also indicates the Department may be prepared
to take the case to trial.

Justice Jayne Jagot ordered both parties to look at an out-of-court
mediation when the matter first went before court in November 2016.
Mediation is set down for later this year.

The outcome of the case is expected to be closely watched by
communities across the country where contamination from the
perfluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemicals -- historically used in
firefighting foam -- has been discovered.

A type of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) called 'Light Water',
manufactured by US company 3M, was used at the base in Williamtown
from the 1970s.

Ms Bugges said she held out "no hope" the Australian government
would "do the right thing" and buy out affected properties.

"I knew from the beginning the government would whitewash this
whole issue," she said.

"Both sides of politics have shown they don't care, it doesn't
matter who is in power. The only hope we have for any outcome is
the class action."

Following questions by the Newcastle Herald, a spokeswoman for the
Commonwealth Bank confirmed it would halt foreclosure action.

The banks spokeswoman said it would continue to work with Ms Bugges
and "discuss with her the options available in relation to her
loan".

"We understand the challenges faced by some of our customers in
areas affected by contamination near the Williamtown RAAF Base,"
she said.

"Commonwealth Bank is committed to assisting our customers on a
case-by-case basis, and work through any hurdles that may arise in
meeting their obligations." [GN]


AUTOPISTAS: Rodriguez et al Sue over AutoExpreso Toll Systems Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, IBRAHIM CENTENO HERNANDEZ, CARLOS NEGRON SIERRA
AND JOSE GARCIA, the Plaintiffs, v. AUTOPISTAS METROPOLITANAS DE
PUERTO RICO LLC, ABERTIS INFRAESTRUCTURAS, S.A. GOLDMAN SACHS
REALTY MANAGEMENT LLC, GILA LLC, KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM USA, INC. AND
JOHN DOE'S 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01639-WGY (D.P.R.,
Aug. 31, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiffs have been charged $50
in fees and penalties as a result of using the AutoExpreso toll
systems, instead of the $15 established by the law that regulates
them.

According to the complaint, AutoExpreso became the exclusive form
of payment on most of Puerto Rico's tollways beginning in 2012.
Toll booths have been dismantled and drivers are no longer able to
pay cash at the crossings. Instead, cameras mounted onto overhead
frames collect the tolls using AutoExpreso pass. The tolls are then
charged to the drivers AutoExpreso account.  The lawsuit contends
that the Defendants -- who operate those systems and collect tolls
from drivers -- have used the cashless toll system to line their
own pockets at the expense of drivers, primarily by collecting
improper fees and penalties, in addition to collecting the tolls.
The Defendants fined citizens for violations to the law with
disregard of the law itself.

The complaint notes that Article 22.02 of Vehicle and Traffic Law
of Puerto Rico, Law 22-2000 (9 L.P.R.A. sec. 5001 et seq.) in its
second paragraph clearly states that "Any person who violates the
provisions of this Article, excluding the provisions of subsection
1 (b), will incur an administrative fault and will be punished with
a fine of 15 dollars for each infraction plus the payment of the
toll not paid corresponding to each infraction." However, the
Defendants have been fining citizens $50 instead.  They have also
been doing so without giving citizens due process as they have
repeatedly fined citizens without following the notification
process stated in Article 23.08 (C) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law
of Puerto Rico, supra. Compounding the problem, the Defendants
frequently impose these exorbitant charges without giving prior
notice to the drivers and the Defendants often wait weeks before
notifying the drivers about the charges, which leads to more and
more charges.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants also aggressively pursue
collection efforts against motorists, threatening them with
revocation of their vehicle registration if they do not pay the
fees and penalties. Each defendant has a strong financial incentive
to pursue these improper fees and to collect as much as possible
from drivers because of secret agreements between the Defendants to
split among themselves the amounts they collect. Each defendant
gets a percentage of the money collected from the diver.  The
lawsuit says the Defendants' scheme has resulted in tens of
millions of dollars in improper charges on motorists and frequently
results in individual drivers being charged hundreds or thousands
of dollars in improper fees. Thousands of motorists have been
unfairly and improperly subjected to the Defendants' excessive
fines and fees. In addition to imposing excessive and devastating
financial penalties, the Defendants' aggressive enforcement efforts
have resulted in users losing their vehicle registration and with
that their mode of transportation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Francisco E. Colon Ramirez, Esq.
          COLON RAMIREZ, LLC
          PO Box 361920
          San Juan, PR 00936-1920
          Telephone: (888) 760 1077
          Facsimile: (305) 507 1920
          E-mail: fecolon@colonramirez.com

               - and -

          Keith Altman, Esq.
          EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
          26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401
          Southfield, MI 48033
          Telephone: (516) 456 5885
          E-mail: kaltman@excololaw.com

               - and -

          Ari Kresch, Esq.
          1-800-LAW-FIRM
          26700 Lahser Road, Suite 400
          Southfield, MI 48033
          E-mail: akresch@1800lawfirm.com


BACKYARD ENERGY: Gatlin Seeks to Certify Class of Consultants
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TONY GATLIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BACKYARD ENERGY
SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00081-DC (W.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order conditionally
certifying a class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
consisting of:

   "Solids control consultants employed by, or working on behalf
   of, Backyard Energy Services, LLC as an independent contractor
   and paid a day rate, at any time between three years prior to
   the date of certification, and the present."

Backyard Energy is an environmental oilfield service company that
provides innovative, turnkey solutions for the remediation,
reclamation and re-use of solid and fluid waste materials for oil
and gas producers operating in the Mid-Continent. Backyard's
self-proclaimed "goal is to help oil and gas producers operate more
efficiently in the Mid-Continent by being cleaner, safer and more
resourceful with their waste."  To perform these services, Backyard
Energy employs Solids Control workers through the middle United
States. Just like Gatlin, all of Backyard Energy's solids control
consultants are paid a daily rate with no overtime, work more than
40 hours per week, and perform the same or similar technical,
physical, and manual duties.

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 751 0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751 0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


BAY CLUBS COMPANY: Faces Nichols Suit in San Francisco
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bay Clubs Company,
LLC. The case is captioned as BRETT NICHOLS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BAY CLUBS
COMPANY, LLC A/K/A WESTERN ATHLETIC CLUBS, LLC; MATTHEW J. STEVENS;
and DOES 1 TO 20, Defendants, Case No. CGC18568966 (Cal. Super.,
San Francisco Cty., Aug. 16, 2018).

Bay Clubs Company, LLC operates health clubs, gyms, golf clubs, and
tennis clubs. Bay Clubs Company, LLC was formerly known as Western
Athletic Clubs, Inc. and changed its name to Bay Clubs Company, LLC
in December 2013. The company was founded in 1977 and is based in
San Francisco, California. [BN]


BAYVILLE AVENUE: Underpays Waiters, Papa and Montero Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELLA PAPA and ALFREDO MONTERO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYVILLE AVENUE
HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.; 12 BAYVILLE AVENUE CORP.; 12 BAYVILLE
AVENUE RESTAURANTS, INC.; LONG ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC.;
DONALD R. FINLEY; and any other related entities, Defendants, Case
No. 604337/2017 (N.Y. Sup.,  Aug. 16, 2018) is brought against the
Defendants to recover unpaid compensation, unpaid wages and tips
owed.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as waiters. Ms. Papa
was employed from May 2016 to February 2017, Mr. Montero from July
2015 to February 2016.

Bayville Avenue Hospitality Management, Inc. is a business
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
New York. The company is engaged in the hospitality industry. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550


BEDFORD, OH: Court OKs Summary Judgment in POS Inspection Ordinance
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
in the case captioned KENNETH PUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
BEDFORD, OHIO, et al. Defendants. Case No. 1:16CV1076. (N.D.
Ohio).

The Plaintiffs, citizens of the City of Bedford, Ohio, filed this
lawsuit against Defendants City of Bedford, Ohio, Rob Brown, and
Richard Hickman, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, for Bedford's
allegedly unconstitutional enforcement of the Point of Sale and
Rental Inspection Ordinances. Bedford's Point of Sale Inspection
Ordinance required homeowners to obtain a Certificate of Inspection
before selling their homes.

Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriately granted when the pleadings, the
discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Declaratory Relief (Prayers One, Two, and Four)

In Prayers for Relief 1 and 2, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
declare that Bedford's Point of Sale Inspection Ordinance and
Rental Inspection Ordinance, as they existed on May 4, 2016, were
unconstitutional on their face and as applied to Plaintiffs. In
Prayer for Relief 4, they ask the Court to declare that the City
has been unjustly enriched by its allegedly unconstitutional
collection of inspection fees.

The Plaintiffs argue that Bedford's searches were warrantless and
coercive, rendering consent to inspection impossible. Thus, they
argue, the warrantless inspections violated their Fourth Amendment
right to be free from unreasonable searches.

Point of Sale Inspection Ordinance As It Existed on May 4, 2016

The Plaintiffs' First and Second Prayers for Relief ask the Court
to declare that Bedford's Point of Sale Inspection Ordinance, as it
existed on May 4, 2016, was unconstitutional.

In City of Los Angeles v. Patel, the Supreme Court faced a
virtually identical question to the one presented in this case. 135
S.Ct. 2443 (2015). In that case, under a local ordinance, without
any kind of administrative warrant requirement, a hotel owner could
be obligated to turn over her guest registry to the police. A
noncompliant hotel owner could be arrested on the spot. The Court
held, under the Fourth Amendment, that business owners cannot
reasonably be put to this kind of choice.

In Patel, the Court ruled that the city's ordinance was facially
unconstitutional that is, no set of circumstances existed under
which the ordinance could be validly applied. Hotel owners in Los
Angeles, facing criminal penalties, simply had no real choice but
to comply, so their compliance could never be deemed voluntary
consent.

In this case, according to the Plaintiffs' uncontested allegations,
Bedford's Point of Sale Inspection Ordinance, as it existed on May
4, 2016, featured no administrative warrant requirement. The
Ordinance required a homeowner to obtain a Certificate in order to
sell a home, which in turn allowed a building inspector to enter
and search the property without a warrant at any reasonable time
after being notified that the property was for sale. Failure to
comply was punishable as a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Bedford's Point of Sale Ordinance as it existed on May 4, 2016, was
unconstitutional on its face and, consequently, as applied to the
Plaintiffs. The Ordinance permitted warrantless inspections, and it
was impossible as a matter of law for homeowners to give voluntary
consent to the inspection.

Rental Inspection Ordinance As It Existed on May 4, 2016

The Plaintiffs' First Prayer for Relief also asks the Court to
declare that the Rental Inspection Ordinance, as it existed on May
4, 2016, was unconstitutional.

The Defendants argue that rental inspections under the Ordinance
were legitimate because they obtained the tenant's voluntary
consent. That consent, they assert, was truly voluntary tenants
faced no threat of punishment for noncompliance. Rather, the
potential for criminal punishment rested on the shoulders of the
property owner. According to the Defendants, because tenants were
not threatened into compliance, their consent to inspection was
freely given, and that consent validated the subsequent
inspections.  

As with the Point of Sale Inspection Ordinance, the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to rule that the Rental Inspection Ordinance was
unconstitutional on its face. That is, they ask the Court to find
that the Rental Inspection Ordinance was unconstitutional in all
its possible applications, not merely as applied to the Plaintiffs.
It is important to distinguish, then, between two factually
distinct applications of the Rental Inspection Ordinance. Rental
inspections occurred in two circumstances: (1) whenever there was a
change in tenants, or (2) if there had been no change in tenants,
then every two years.

Unjust Enrichment

In Prayer for Relief 4, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare
that the City of Bedford was unjustly enriched by implementing its
unconstitutional Inspection Ordinances.  

Under Ohio state law, a claim based on unjust enrichment has three
elements: (1) a benefit conferred by a plaintiff upon a defendant;
(2) knowledge by the defendant of the benefit; and (3) retention of
the benefit by the defendant under circumstances where it would be
unjust to do so without payment. In this case, if the first factor
is assumed property owners paid inspection fees under both
ordinances, then the second is obvious the City was aware they had
received payments on those fees. But the City contends that neither
the first nor the third factors of the unjust-enrichment test are
met.

Regarding the first factor, the City contends that the Plaintiffs
did not confer a benefit on the City by paying inspection fees or,
at least, that there remains a genuine dispute of material fact in
that respect. The City argues that, because it spent more than the
amount of the fees in conducting the inspections, the Plaintiff
class members did not confer any benefit on it. This argument
misses the mark. It is not relevant how the City chose to spend its
ill-gotten gains once it received them. Whether the City spent the
fee amount or not, and regardless of the costs the City incurred,
homeowners enriched the City, $50 to $200 per Point of Sale
inspection and $20 to $100 per Rental inspection at a time. To rule
otherwise would be to insist that Plaintiffs pay to have their
constitutional rights violated.

The third factor asks whether it would be unjust for the City to
retain the fees it unlawfully obtained. Courts, including this one,
have made precisely that finding when government entities have
extracted funds from citizens under color of law. In Jordan v. City
of Bucyrus, the Court awarded a refund to city employees when the
city unconstitutionally withheld $11.00 per month from their
paychecks in order to pay the firefighters' union. 739 F.Supp. 1124
(N.D. Ohio 1990).

In Samuel, the Third Circuit found that the University of
Pittsburgh was unjustly enriched when it charged higher tuition
fees to some students based on unconstitutionally discriminatory
residency requirements.  In neither of those cases, however, did
the government defendant obtain its ill-gotten gains by threatening
noncompliant plaintiffs with criminal prosecution, as Bedford did
with its Inspection Ordinances.  

The Court finds, and declares, that Bedford has been and continues
to be unjustly enriched by the fees it charged for implementing the
Point of Sale Inspection Ordinance between September 10, 2014, and
January 30, 2017, and the Rental Inspection Ordinance between
September 10, 2014, and February 14, 2017.

In Prayer for Relief 1, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare
that the Point of Sale Inspection Ordinance and the Rental
Inspection Ordinance, as they existed on May 4, 2016, were
unconstitutional both facially and as applied to the Plaintiffs.
Because there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the
Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary
judgment is granted as to Prayer 1.

Prayer for Relief 2 is unclear. To the extent Prayer for Relief 2
asks the Court to rule on the constitutionality of Bedford's
current Rental Inspection Requirements, summary judgment is denied
because the Rental Inspection Ordinance has been amended to remove
offensive provisions. To the extent Prayer for Relief 2 is
redundant with Prayer 1, summary judgment is granted.

In Prayer for Relief 4, the Plaintiffs request a declaration that
the City of Bedford was unjustly enriched by carrying out its
inspection scheme under the Ordinances. Because there is no genuine
dispute of material fact and the Plaintiffs are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment is granted as to
Prayer 4. In granting summary judgment on Prayer 4, however, the
Court does not express an opinion about the amount due to each
class member.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 10, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ydxys8k5 from Leagle.com.

Kenneth Pund, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher P. Finney --
Chris@FinneyLawFirm.com -- Majeed G. Makhlouf, Berns, Ockner &
Greenberger, Maurice A. Thompson & Sheldon Berns, Berns, Ockner &
Greenberger, John Diezic, Scott Jowers & Stephanie Jowers,
Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher P. Finney, Maurice A.
Thompson & Sheldon Berns, Berns, Ockner & Greenberger.

City of Bedford, Rob Brown, in his official capacity as Building
Inspector, City of Bedford and in his individual capacity & Richard
Hickman, in his official capacity as Building Inspector, City of
Bedford and in his individual capacity, Defendants, represented by
Kallen L. Boyer -- klb@smithmarshall.com -- Smith Marshall & R.
Eric Smearman -- res@smithmarshall.com -- Smith Marshall.


BIG PHARMA: B.C. Files Class Action Over Opioid Crisis
------------------------------------------------------
Cindy E. Harnett, writing for Times Colonist, reports that an Oak
Bay mother says if B.C. can sue drug companies to recoup the
health-care costs of the opioid crisis, it can find answers and
legislate change following her son's opioid overdose death.

"I do think it's a step in the right direction," said Rachel
Staples, whose 16-year-old son, Elliot Eurchuk, died of an illicit
drug overdose in April.

"But government is trying to use a blanket approach, and this is a
multi-faceted problem," Ms. Staples said.

"I think they need to acknowledge there's a lot more work to be
done and it's not just [about] holding these drug companies
accountable and financially responsible."

Elliot underwent four surgeries, had a blood infection, and was
prescribed Dilauded and fentanyl. His parents say he developed an
opiate dependency as a result.

Because Elliot was considered competent under the B.C. Infants Act,
he was able to consent to his own care and his parents were not
able to access information about his medical records or possible
illicit drug use, or prevent him from being prescribed opioids.

Ms. Staples and husband Brock Eurchuk want the B.C. government to
update the Infants Act or adopt the B.C. Liberals' Secure Care Act,
which would allow for the involuntary short-term placement of youth
in a facility to address mental-health challenges and substance
abuse.

They also want a coroner's inquest into Elliot's death to prevent
"dangerous practices and circumstances" from robbing another young
life.

"I guess one question I have is if the government can issue a
lawsuit over these pharmaceutical companies, why can't they grant
us the chief coroner's inquest into Elliot's death?" Staples said.

"Drug companies are just one part of the problem."

British Columbia's proposed class-action lawsuit targets dozens of
pharmaceutical companies, alleging they falsely marketed opioids as
less addictive than other pain drugs and helped trigger an overdose
crisis that has killed thousands, including 1,399 people in B.C.
last year.

Staples, a dentist, remembers drug marketers trying to ply her
profession in the 1990s with "incentives" such as free cruises and
cash for using their opioid products. And while that practice
wasn't condoned, she said, the mindset among doctors remained that
the drugs were safe to prevent pain and pain was to be avoided.

Dr. Eric Cadesky, president of Doctors of B.C., said pain is
complex, but what doctors were told about opioids two decades ago
is starkly different from what they are told today. Now, the
general recommendation is to reduce doses and duration where
appropriate.

The idea is to review patient histories and personalize a plan when
prescribing of opioids, Dr. Caedesky said. Opioids might be the
wrong choice for some patients, but for others -- including some
who have been taking them safely for decades for chronic pain --
close monitoring by a physician is the answer.

Ms. Staples said she said she was pleased to see some changes at
Victoria General Hospital recently.

Elliot's younger brother Oliver had emergency surgery May 31 to
repair a hip he fractured in a skateboarding accident.

The anesthetist told Staples he had just returned from a European
symposium that recommended doctors use fractional doses of opioids
and blocking agents to block the pleasure centres in the brain that
opioids stimulate.

"Oliver had nothing more than two Tylenol post major surgery -- hip
surgery," said Ms. Staples, who notes that pain is a normal part of
healing. "And he didn't complain once. He was well managed with
Tylenol." [GN]


BIG PHARMA: Niagara Opioid Class Action to Set Major Precedent
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenn Schanz, writing for WIVB.com, reports that a class action
lawsuit in Niagara County is taking aim at more than a dozen drug
companies, claiming the pharmaceutical giants are to blame for a
13-month-old's medical complications.

The child, identified in the suit as "Baby C.E." was born addicted
to opioids, having been born to an addicted mother, identified as
"A.M.H."

The lawsuit claims that prior to her pregnancy, the mother was
prescribed narcotics which caused her to become addicted. She later
turned to heroin.

Baby C.E. was born suffering from violent tremors, uncontrollable
shaking, and issues feeding, among other things; all results of
opioid withdrawal, according to the lawsuit.

The suit wants the drug companies to held financially liable for
Baby C.E's ongoing medical costs, among other things.

According to the lawsuit, the companies knowingly or negligently
created the mother's addiction by creating "conditions in which
vast amounts of opioids have flowed freely to drug manufactures."

Legal analyst Barry Covert told News 4 if this litigation is
successful, it will set a major precedent for drug companies moving
forward.

"As opposed to a patient who the pharmaceutical companies can claim
well that person abused, that person made the decision to abuse,
that person had a role in this, they're bringing this lawsuit of an
infant and a class action potentially on behalf of other infants
who had no choice. It's going to be very interesting to see how it
plays out and it's going to be fought very strongly by the
pharmaceutical companies and their lawyers," Covert said.

Suits similar to this one are pending in Ohio and in Suffolk
County, New York.

The suit states that drug addicted births is a growing problem
nation-wide and in New York state, citing a NYSDOH statistic that
Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome among newborns rose from 1.9 per every
1,000 hospital births per year in 2005 to 5.2 per every 1,000
hospital births per year in 2014.

"Excluding New York City, that rate rises to 8.5 per 1,000 hospital
births" the suit said.

This is a developing story. [GN]


BIG PHARMA: Opioid Class Action to Shape Drug-Addicted Babies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Fenster, writing for Niagara Gazette, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed in Niagara County Supreme Court could
shape the futures of all babies in New York state who are born
addicted to opioids.

The lawsuit, filed Aug. 22 on behalf of a 13-month-old boy in
Niagara County, identified only by the initials C.E., seeks to
provide long-term medical monitoring and health care for all state
children born with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) and whose
mothers were prescribed opioids sometime before or during her
pregnancy.

If successful, the named defendants, including nearly a dozen major
pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors, such as Purdue
Pharma and Johnson & Johnson, would have to maintain a fund to pay
for monitoring and treatment of such babies. They would also have
to pay compensatory and punitive damages to Baby C.E. and his
mother.

The lawsuit alleges these pharmaceutical manufacturers misled
doctors and patients about the dangers and benefits of opioids, and
that distributors did not uphold their legal obligations to ensure
opioids weren't being diverted to unauthorized users.

Opioid-addicted newborns

NAS occurs in most babies whose mothers are dependent on opioids
during their pregnancies.

Baby C.E., like many NAS babies, spent his first five days "writing
in agony" while detoxifying from opioids, according to the
lawsuit.

The baby's mother, identified only as A.M.H., was prescribed
opioids before her pregnancy, became addicted and later turned to
heroin.

Over the past decade, the number of infants born with NAS has
skyrocketed.

According to state Department of Health data, incidence of NAS in
babies in upstate New York shot from 1.7 per 1,000 births in 2005
to 8.5 per 1,000 births in 2014.

The problem is even worse in Niagara County, which reported the
highest rate of NAS of any county in the state. Between 2006 and
2014, the rate of NAS increased from 3.2 to 28.8 per 1,000 births,
according to state health department data.

"Baby C.E.'s experience is part of an opioid epidemic sweeping
through the U.S., including New York, causing thousands of infants
great suffering and continuing developmental physical, medical,
occupational and psychological issues," wrote the plaintiffs'
attorneys. "The epidemic is reportedly the largest health care
crisis in U.S. history."

Attorney Scott Bickford, who is part of the legal team representing
Baby C.E., said these infants will require lifelong medical
monitoring to identify and treat conditions that may be caused in
part by their prenatal exposure to opioids.

One recent study in Tennessee — the first major study of NAS
children conducted in the U.S. — linked the condition to
increased rates of learning disabilities, including developmental
delays and speech difficulties.

"There's a dearth of academic data for children with NAS. ...
There's not really a morbidity study tracking the constellations of
diseases in these kids" as they grow older, said Bickford, who is
also representing plaintiffs in similar class-action suits filed in
six other states.

"This is something that could be addressed with medical
monitoring."

Suing Big Pharma

The NAS infant suits are part of a wave of litigation against
pharmaceutical companies that manufactured and distributed opioids,
including hundreds filed by counties, municipalities and states
seeking to recoup the expenses from the largest public health
crisis in U.S. history.

Hundreds of those lawsuits have been consolidated into a single
case before U.S. District Judge Dan Aaron Polster in Cleveland.
More than 50 New York state counties, including Niagara and Erie
counties, have filed similar suits, which have been consolidated
into a multi-district suit before Suffolk County Supreme Court
Justice Jerry Garguilo.

"Multi-district litigation is a complex animal with a lot of moving
pieces, and a lot of parties representing different entities,
different causes of action (and) different remedies," Bickford
said. "We think that if we were maintained within New York, within
our own lawsuit, within our own class action, it would be a much
more efficient manner in which to resolve the concerns of the NAS
babies."

The first trial, which combines suits filed by the city of
Cleveland, Cuyahoga County and Summit County, is scheduled to begin
on March 19, 2019.

The outcome of the trial could drastically impact practices of
marketing, distributing and tracking opioids. And some commentators
have speculated the case could result in the largest settlement
since the $206 billion Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, reached
between the four largest U.S. tobacco companies and the attorneys
general of 46 states.

Allegations

In the hundreds of lawsuits filed against opioid manufacturers and
distributors, plaintiff attorneys are lodging similar allegations:
that manufactures misled patients and doctors on the risk of
opioids, and distributors failed to stop diversion of opioids to
rogue pharmacies and physicians.

The lawsuit was filed against the pharmaceutical manufacturers
Purdue Pharma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Johnson & Johnson,
Insys Therapeutics, Endo International and a number of
manufacturers owned by those aforementioned companies.

Among the allegations against pharmaceutical manufacturers in the
72-page complaint:

   * Purdue Pharma marketed OxyContin for providing 12 hours of
pain relief, even though their own research showed it wore off in
under six hours in 25 percent of patients and in under half 10
hours in over 50 percent of patients.

   * The defendants claimed that doctors and patients could
increase opioid dosages without a risk of the user becoming
addicted.

One brochure by Actavis Generics (owned by Teva) allegedly claimed:
"Over time, your body may become tolerant of your current dose. You
may require a dose adjustment to get the right amount of pain
relief. This is not addiction."

   * The defendants entered into agreements with "seemingly . . .
independent organizations" that generate guidelines for treating
chronic pain, including the American Pain Society, American
Geriatrics Society, the Federation of State Medical Boards, the
American Chronic Pain Association and others.

   * The defendants continued to market opioids as a long-term
solution for pain even after the U.S. Center for Disease Control
and Food and Drug Administration reported that there was
insufficient evidence to support such claims.

Purdue Pharm, Endo International and Insys Therapeutics did not
respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Teva, which
owns Actavis and Cephalon, said the company does not comment on
ongoing litigation.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, which is owned by Johnson & Johnson,
stated the company clearly spelled out the risks of opioid
painkillers in its labeling.

The lawsuit also pegs responsibility of the crisis on the three
largest drug distributors -- Cardinal Health, McKesson Corporation
and Amerisourcebergen -- alleging they knew or should have known
that the amount of opioids distributed in New York state outpaced
the amount that could be consumed for medically-necessary
purposes.

It also claimed that Cardinal and McKesson paid $34 million and
$150 million, respectively, to the U.S. government to settle
allegations that it allowed drug diversion at some distribution
centers, and that Amerisourcebergen lost a license to send
controlled substances to a distribution center amid allegations
that it was not controlling shipments of opioids to internet
pharmacies.

The Healthcare Distribution Alliance, which represents all three
distribution companies, stated that the distributors reported every
order to the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The HDA added that the DEA is responsible for approving and
regulating entities that are allowed to prescribe and handle
opioids.

"The misuse and abuse of prescription opioids is a complex public
health challenge that requires a collaborative and systemic
response that engages all stakeholders," said John Parker, senior
vice president of the HDA.

"Given our role, the idea that distributors are responsible for the
number of opioid prescriptions written defies common sense and
lacks understanding of how the pharmaceutical supply chain actually
works and is regulated. Those bringing lawsuits would be better
served addressing the root causes, rather than trying to redirect
blame through litigation," Mr. Parker said. [GN]


BITCONNECT: Trevon James Fails to Respond to Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bitcoin Exchange Guide News reports that failing to respond to the
class action against BitConnect for which he was named defended, a
default was entered against him.

On August 23rd the class plaintiffs listed a motion requesting an
entry of default is recorded. An entry of default is the first step
towards default judgment. The request is made to the Court Clerk,
who records the entry of default. Once recorded, the filing party
can then file for a motion of default judgment -- which if granted
is basically a loss judgment against the non-responsive defendant.

Following the filing, the Florida District Court clerk recorded an
entry of default against James on August 24th. By ignoring the
class-action lawsuit filed against him, Trevon James now risks a
default judgment.

Recent videos uploaded by Trevor on his YouTube channel showcase
James' newly built house and BMW SUV. Assets that are believed to
have been purchased with stolen BitConnect investor funds, and
could be liquidated to satisfy default judgment should it come to
that.

In a parallel storyline, James is a person of interest in an
ongoing SEC investigation into BitConnect. For some of the
remaining defendants, namely Glenn Arcaro, Ryan Hildreth, Ryan
Maasen and YouTube, the case appears headed to mediation.

On August 29th a joint notice was filed advising the court that a
mediator had been agreed upon. Pending approval by the court, the
class plaintiff representatives and the defendants above are
expected to enter into negotiation later. [GN]


BMW: South Korea Bans 20,000 Vehicles from Roads After Fires
------------------------------------------------------------
James Lee, writing for Forbes, reports that South Korea's Transport
Ministry announced that it would ban 20,000 BMW vehicles from its
roads after a number of vehicles have caught fire while driving.

The German automaker is under intense public scrutiny after nearly
40 vehicles have gone up in flames this year, according to South
Korean media.

Officials at BMW have identified the problem to defects in the
exhaust gas recirculation system, which pumps fumes back into the
engine to reduce pollution.

BMW has recalled more than 100,000 cars for emergency inspections
since last month and has expanded the campaign to 324,000 diesel
vehicles in Europe.

Kim Hyo-joon, the head of BMW Korea, held a news conference in
which he bowed deeply before the cameras, saying "For the recent
series of fire incidents happened in the country, we sincerely
apologize for causing worry and anxiety among people and government
authorities."

South Korean officials have announced that it will launch a
separate investigation into the case without ruling out potential
legal action against the company.

On Aug. 30, police raided the headquarters of BMW Korea as part of
a separate investigation into whether it attempted a cover-up of
the defects as a team of 30 investigators confiscated documents and
other materials. BMW said it first learned of the problems in 2016,
but only identified the root cause earlier this year.

The company has been battling a public relations nightmare after
multiple videos of BMW cars engulfed in flames have gone viral.

BMW customers have complained that the company's slow and
inadequate response to the crisis has resulted in public
retaliation against them.

South Korean media have reported incidents in which apartment
blocks and commercial buildings ban BMW vehicles from parking and
BMWs are avoided by other drivers on the road, triggering a class
action lawsuit against the automaker.

BMW is the second most popular imported car brand in South Korea, a
major destination for premium vehicles. The company saw sales more
than double to 60,000 vehicles last year, trailing German rival
Mercedes. [GN]


BRAHMA GROUP: Faces Cartwright Suit in Kern County, Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Brahma Group, Inc.  The case is captioned is DOUGLASHIA CARTWRIGHT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BRAHMA GROUP, INC. D/B/A BRAHMA GROUP WEST, INC.;
FIRST SOLAR, INC.; WILLOW SPRINGS SOLAR, LLC; WILLOW SPRINGS SOLAR
3, LLC; THE CLARY GROUP, LLC; and DAVID CLARY, Defendants, Case No.
BCV-18-102027 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Aug. 16, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge Thomas S. Clark.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq., at
Dion-Kindem Law Firm.


BRETT A. OSBORN: Mclean Sues over Telemarketing Text Message
------------------------------------------------------------
MARY MCLEAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BRETT A. OSBORN D.O., PLLC, a Florida
Professional Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.
9:18-cv-81222-DMM (S.D. Fla., Sept. 13, 2018), seeks to halt the
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is Professional Limited
Liability Company which provides anti-aging services and products.
To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process.

On or about April 20, 2018, the Defendant sent telemarketing text
message to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 1212.
The Defendant's text message was transmitted to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone, and within the time frame relevant to this
action.  The Defendant's text message constitutes telemarketing
because they encouraged the future purchase or investment in
property, goods, or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff anti-aging
services.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class are:

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

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975 3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          HIRALDO P.A.
          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400 4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


BROTHER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Printer Problems
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Brother International programs its laser printers to stop printing
once a toner cartridge has been used a certain number of times,
regardless of how much toner is left in the cartridges, a class
claims in Cuyahoga County Court, alleging conversion and trespass
to chattels.


CAFE ISTANBUL: Court Certifies Class of Tipped Employees
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ANASS NAZIH, the Plaintiff, v. CAFE
ISTANBUL OF COLUMBUS, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00947-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L.
Marbley entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify and
      conditionally certifying a collective action class of:

      "all servers or other tipped employees who worked at Cafe
      Istanbul in Easton Town Center at any time during the three
      years prior to the granting of this motion to the present";

   2. approving substance of the proposed Notice and Consent
      Form, Email and Text Message, with the exception of all
      references to the opt-in plaintiffs' ability to proceed
      anonymously with respect to the Defendants, which must be
      stricken;

   3. directing Plaintiffs to submit a revised notice, consent
      form, and e-mail striking the proposed references to
      anonymity and making clear that opt-in plaintiffs' identity
      will be shared with Defendants but not third-parties within
      seven from the date of this Order;

   4. giving seven says to Defendants after such revised notice
      is submitted to object to the language regarding anonymity;

   5. directing Defendants to re-file their Memorandum in
      Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify
      an FLSA Collective Action and to Authorize Notice without
      the Annual Reconciliations;

   6. directing Defendants to re-file one copy of Annual
      Reconciliations as Under Seal, and to file one copy with
      the names of all employees other than Mr. Nazih and Mr.
      Bouhajra redacted within 7 days from the date of this
      Order;

   7. directing Plaintiffs to submit a proposed protective order
      consistent with this decision to United States Magistrate
      Judge Deavers for approval within 30 days from the date of
      this Order; and

   8. directing Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs a computer-
      readable list of the names, last known addresses, telephone
      numbers, e-mail addresses, dates of employment, and job
      titles for members of the putative class within 15 days
      from the date of this Order.


CANADA: Female Police Officers Appeal Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Miedema, Esq. -- adrian.miedema@dentons.com -- of Dentons
Canada LLP, in an article for International Law Office, reported
that a group of female police officers has lost its bid to bring a
class action in the courts for gender discrimination and
harassment.

The officers had claimed systemic gender-based discrimination and
harassment by male members of the police force.

The court held that it had no jurisdiction over the class action
because the claims should have been brought at arbitration. Under
the Police Services Act, arbitration is mandatory and binding, even
though the arbitrator did not have the power to award punitive
damages. The officers were therefore barred from making the
discrimination and harassment claim in the courts.

The fact that the police association (the police union that would
have carriage of a harassment case at arbitration) was comprised
mostly of male members did not require the court to take
jurisdiction.

The court also held that a claim of workplace discrimination did
not constitute a viable cause of action under common law. This
meant that even if the court (rather than an arbitrator) had
jurisdiction over the case, the claim was not the type of case that
the courts will hear.

The court concluded:

The Defendants should not regard this result as a vindication of
current practices. Like Sharpe JA in A(K), I have considerable
sympathy for the Plaintiffs' desire to have this litigated in
court. Even on the limited and contradictory evidence before me, it
is apparent that this case raises serious, triable issues relating
to the workplace culture. The allegations are very troubling and
will require close scrutiny should this matter proceed to another
forum for adjudication.

The court action was therefore stayed.

The plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Ontario Court of
Appeal. [GN]


CARCO GROUP: Court Dismisses Jenkins FCRA Suit
----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas issued
a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
case captioned DE'LEAH JENKINS et al., Plaintiffs, v. CARCO GROUP,
INC., Defendant. Case No. 2:18-CV-02196-HLT-GEB. (D. Kan.).

The Defendant seeks dismissal for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing reporting of
consumer educational history does not violate Section 1681c(a)(5).


Plaintiff De'Leah Jenkins alleges Defendant CARCO Group, Inc.,
routinely violates Section 1681c(a)(5) of FCRA by reporting
consumers' college attendance dates and degree-conferral status
that predate the report by more than seven years, including her
own. The Plaintiff asserts an individual FCRA claim and seeks
certification of a putative class action under FCRA. She also
asserts an individual negligence per se claim.

STANDARD

Under Rule 12(b)(6), to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. The plaintiff's
claim is facially plausible if she pleads sufficient factual
content to allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Plaintiff's FCRA Claim Under Ssection 1681c(a)(5)

Interpretation of Section 1681c(a)(5)

FCRA prohibits CRAs from producing consumer reports containing six
categories of information. Five of those categories are limited in
their scope: (1) information related to bankruptcy proceedings
predating the report by more than ten years; (2) civil suits,
judgements, and records of arrest predating the report by more than
seven years or where the statute of limitations has run; (3) paid
tax liens predating the report by seven years; (4) accounts placed
for collection or charged to profit and loss predating the report
by more than seven years; and (5) contact information of any
medical information furnisher that has notified the CRA of its
status.

The remaining category, found in Section 1681c(a)(5), is broader in
scope and prohibits the reporting of any other adverse item of
information, other than records of convictions of crimes which
predate the report by more than seven years.

The Plaintiff contends the Defendant violated Section 1681c(a)(5)
by providing to Synchrony in March 2018 a report reflecting her
college attendance dates and degree-conferral status almost eight
years earlier, from August 2007 to May 2010. The Plaintiff relies
heavily on the Defendant categorizing as adverse the discrepancy
between the Plaintiff's self-reporting that she earned a degree and
KCKCC reporting the Plaintiff did not earn a degree. Because the
Defendant labeled the discrepancy adverse, the Plaintiff concludes
a violation of Section 1681c(a)(5) must have occurred. The
Defendant's use of the label adverse does not automatically equate
to a statutory violation.

Verification of college attendance dates and degree-conferral
status by CRAs serves a valuable function. Many employers rely on
CRAs for this service as part of their employee interview screening
and background check process. If CRAs accurately report the
information, this valuable service can be provided while
maintaining the consumer's interests in fair and accurate
reporting.

Prohibiting the reporting of college attendance dates and
degree-conferral status when the information predates the report by
more than seven years as the Plaintiff suggests would permit
employers to verify this information only for those applicants who
attended college or received a degree within the last seven years.
It would also allow, and perhaps encourage, applicants whose
information predated the report by seven years to falsify their
information with impunity.

Given the FCRA's recognition of the need to balance CRAs vital role
in evaluating consumer information with consumers' expectation in
accurate reporting, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's proposed
interpretation one that would both prevent CRAs from providing a
valuable service and protect applicants who falsify information
yields an absurd result.

Federal Trade Commission Guidance

The Court's interpretation of § 1681c(a)(5) is also consistent
with the only apparent legal authority on the issue, three informal
staff opinion letters from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and
an FTC summary report. The first FTC staff opinion letter, dated
April 17, 1998, addresses whether Section 1681c's temporal limits
on reporting adverse information apply to verification of
graduation and past employment information.  Referring to the
dictionary definition of adverse, the FTC reasoned that only
information that casts the consumer in a negative or unfavorable
light is within Section 1681c's scope. Because college attendance
and dates of employment do not reflect adversely upon the consumer,
the FTC concluded that information is not adverse information as
the term is used for Section 1681c(a)(5) purposes. The FTC restated
its conclusion in a second staff opinion letter a few months later
in June 2018, stating that the date that a consumer graduated from
college is not an adverse item of information' covered by Section
1681c(a)(5).

The Court finds the FTC staff opinion letters persuasive for
several reasons. They explicitly address the precise question
before the Court, set out sound reasoning for their conclusions,
and are consistent. The FTC also administers the FCRA, and
possesses some degree of expertise in these matters. Most
importantly, the FTC's interpretation of adverse information is
consistent with the plain language of § 1681c(a)(5) and this
Court's interpretation. Though they have limited precedential
value, the FTC staff opinion letters support the Court's conclusion
that college attendance dates and degree-conferral status are not
adverse information.  

The Court holds that the term adverse information as used within
Section 1681c(a)(5) is plain and unambiguous with regard to the
particular dispute in this case and that accurately reported
college attendance dates and degree-conferral status do not
constitute adverse information.

Absence of a Claim Under Section 1681c(a)(5)

The Plaintiff's FCRA claim is premised on the Defendant's alleged
willful or knowing violation of only one provision of FCRA Section
1681c(a)(5). Having concluded that accurately reported college
attendance dates and degree-conferral status do not constitute
adverse information under Section 1681c(a)(5) as a matter of law,
the Plaintiff's FCRA claim must be dismissed. The Plaintiff does
not dispute that the Defendant accurately reported her college
attendance dates and degree-conferral status, thus no violation of
Section 1681c(a)(5) occurred, either willfully or knowingly, and
Plaintiff cannot state a claim upon which relief can be granted
under Section 1681c(a)(5).

Negligence Per Se and Putative Class Action

Secondary to her FCRA claim, the Plaintiff alleges common law
negligence per se. Section 1681h(e) of FCRA preempts such claims
unless false information was furnished with malice or willful
intent to injure a consumer. The Plaintiff concedes the information
the Defendant reported was accurate. Absent a claim the Defendant
reported false information, the Plaintiff cannot avoid preemption.
Regardless, Plaintiff cannot state a claim for negligence per se.
Under Kansas law, the elements of a negligence per se claim include
violation of a statute. As discussed above, Defendant did not
violate FCRA by accurately reporting Plaintiff's college attendance
dates and degree-conferral status.

The Plaintiff also sought designation as class representative for a
putative class action related to Defendant's alleged violation of
Section 1681c(a)(5) of FCRA. Because the Court dismisses
Plaintiff's individual FCRA claim, her claims on behalf of the
putative class must also be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 10, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya4ctm6o
from Leagle.com.

De'Leah Jenkins, Individually and on behalf of all others,
Plaintiff, represented by Charles Jason Brown, Brown and Watkins
LLC & Jayson A. Watkins, Brown and Watkins LLC.

Carco Group Inc., Defendant, represented by Henry M. Perlowski --
henry.perlowski@agg.com -- Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, pro hac vice,
Megan P. Mitchell -- megan.mitchell@agg.com -- Arnall Golden
Gregory LLP, pro hac vice & Rosalee M. McNamara --
rmcnamara@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop Gage, LLP.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Wu Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CEC Entertainment,
Inc. The case is captioned as KATHY WU, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CEC Entertainment,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07415-RJS (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15,
2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Richard J.
Sullivan.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. develops, operates, and franchises family
dining and entertainment centers (venues) under the names of Chuck
E. Cheese's and Peter Piper Pizza in the United States and
internationally. The company was formerly known as ShowBiz Pizza
Place, Inc. and changed its name to CEC Entertainment, Inc. in
1998. CEC Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas. CEC Entertainment, Inc. operates as
a subsidiary of Queso Holdings Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (917) 796-7437
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com


CENTRAL CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY UNTERSHINE and BONNIE MEYER, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CENTRAL CREDIT
SERVICES LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01422-DEJ (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying
proposed classes in this case, appointing Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

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

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).
One defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified
check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio,
Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


CHRISTIAN DIOR: Underpays Sales Associates, Weller Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC WELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTIAN DIOR, INC.; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2018-01012565-CU-OE-CXC
(Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Aug. 16, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Mr. Weller was employed by the Defendants as sales associate.

Christian Dior Inc. provides wines and spirits and manufactures
fashion and leather goods, perfumes and cosmetics, and watches and
jewelry. The company was incorporated in 1946 and is based in New
York, New York. Christian Dior Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Christian Dior SE. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sandeep J. Shah, Esq.
          SHAH SHETH LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 955-4551
          Facsimile: (714) 966-0663
          E-mail: sandeep@shahshethlaw.com


CJS SOLUTIONS: Underpays Support Consultants, Gray Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHANA GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CJS SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC d/b/a THE HCI
GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07440-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16,
2018) is brought against the Defendant for its alleged failure to
pay overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 in
any given workweek.

The Plaintiff Gray was employed by the Defendant as support
consultant from January 2018 to June 2018.

The CJS Solutions Group LLC, doing business as The HCI Group,
offers healthcare technology consulting services. The company was
founded in 2009 and is based in Jacksonville, Florida, with
additional office in London, United Kingdom. As of May 4, 2017, The
CJS Solutions Group LLC operates as a subsidiary of Tech Mahindra
Americas, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          830 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Rd., Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  cmitchell@stephanzouras.com


CLARK CONSTRUCTION: Doesn't Pay Wages, Villalobos and Perez Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE VILLALOBOS; and BRYAN PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP,
LLC; CEI MATERIALS, LLC; SUPREME METAL SOLUTIONS, INC.; VC TOTAL
GLASS, LLC; and JUAN VALDEZ, Defendants, Case No. 5933 (D.C.
Super., Aug. 16, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime
premium under the D.C. Minimum Wage Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for about four
and a half month in 2017 on the Defendants' construction project.
Although the Plaintiffs and their coworkers normally worked over 40
hours per week, the Defendants only paid them the overtime premium
in for two weeks of their employment. For the last three weeks of
work, the Plaintiffs received no wages at all.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction
workers from May 16, 2017 to October 2017.

Clark Construction Group, LLC, through its subsidiaries, offers
building and civil construction services for projects of different
sizes in the United States. Clark Construction Group, LLC was
incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. It
has locations in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Alexandria, Fort
Belvoir, Augusta County, Gainesville, Arlington, and Chantilly,
Virginia; Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, and Beltsville,
Maryland; Mesa, Arizona; and Dulce, New Mexico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy Greenberg, Esq.
          Denise M. Clark, Esq.
          CLARK LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 293-0015
          E-mail: jgreenberg@benefitcounsel.com
                  dmclark@benefitcounsel.com

               - and -

          Nicholas Cooper Marritz, Esq.
          LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
          6066 Leesburg Pike, Suite 520
          Falls Church, VA 22041
          Telephone: (703) 778-3450
          Facsimile: (703) 778-3454
          E-mail: Nicholas@justice4all.org


COLLEGE CHEFS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Miller and Hinkle Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL MILLER; and MICHELLE HINKLE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COLLEGE CHEFS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00064-JVB-APR (Ind. Cir., Tippecanoe
Cty., Aug. 16, 2018) is an action against the Defendant to recover
unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Plaintiff Miller was employed by the Defendant as chef from
August 16, 2017 to January 29, 2018. The Plaintiff Hinkle was
employed as kitchen staff from December 5, 2017 to March 4, 2018.

College Chefs is a culinary company that serves food exclusively to
sorority and fraternity students across the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason R. Ramsland, Esq.
          BALL EGGLESTON PC
          201 Main Street, Suite 810
          Lafayette, IN 47902-1535
          E-mail: jramsland@ball-law.com
          Telephone: (765) 742-9046


CORECIVIC: Faces Another Controversy Amid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Jacobson, writing for WREG,  reports that CoreCivic already
has its fair share of controversy and now a violent incident on
Sept. 2 is causing even more concern.

CoreCivic representatives said officials responded to the Hardeman
County Correctional Facility in Whiteville for a fight between
inmates around 8 p.m. on Sept. 2. They didn't say how many were
involved or what kinds of weapons they used, but they did say they
airlifted one to the hospital and took two others in an ambulance.

CoreCivic officials also did not answer questions about why there
were several helicopters circling the facility, according to
witnesses, even though only one inmate required medical help.

Andrea Cole used to work at the prison and spent even more time
working for the operator CoreCivic, formerly known as the
Corrections Corporation of America, in other states including Ohio
and Nevada.

"You're in a male prison. There's a lot of testosterone. Men get
into fights," she said of the incident.

But she defended her former employer.

"CCA is a good company to work for. It has its up and has its
downs," Cole said.

By ups and downs, she's talking about a lot of recent news,
including a lawsuit blaming under-staffing at Hardeman County
Correctional Center for the death of an inmate and a class-action
lawsuit accusing CoreCivic employees of withholding insulin from
diabetic inmates at another CoreCivic location.

"These prisons from CoreCivic are for-profit so they're chronically
understaffed to save money," activist Hunter Demster said.

In fact, Demster and others from all around Tennessee recently
staged a protest at CoreCivic's Nashville headquarters.

"We blocked all three entrances with very unique and creative ways
that not one person got in or out for 24 hours," Demster said.

He referenced an audit from the state last year that stated some
CoreCivic locations "operated with fewer than approved correctional
officer staff, did not have all staffing rosters, did not follow
staffing pattern guidelines, and one left critical posts
unstaffed."

"When you're choosing profit over people, this is exactly what's
going to happen," Demster said.

In response, CoreCivic sent WREG the following statement:

"CoreCivic is committed to operating safe, secure facilities, and a
significant part of meeting that goal is hiring and retaining
qualified staff. To attract talent, we pay competitive wages and
offer excellent benefits including health, dental and vision
insurance, as well as the opportunity to participate in our
company-sponsored retirement plan. We work to meet or exceed our
daily staffing patterns, which are designed to ensure the safety of
the facility and are reviewed and approved by our government
partners. We don't cut corners on care, staff or training, which
meets, and in many cases exceeds, our government counterpart's
standards."  

The Tennessee Dept. of Corrections' Office of Investigation and
Compliance is looking into the cause of the incident. Until then,
they said the facility remains on lock down. [GN]


COVINGTON SPECIALTY: Must Reimburse Medicare Payments, MSPA Says  
------------------------------------------------------------------
MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the
Plaintiff, v. COVINGTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign
profit corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00830 (D.N.H.,
Sept. 13, 2018), alleges systematic and uniform failure of the
Defendant to reimburse conditional Medicare payments pursuant to
the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to fulfill its
statutory duties under the MSP Law as a "no fault" insurer.
Specifically, the Defendant has repeatedly failed to provide
primary payment, or reimburse secondary payments made by
Plaintiff’s assignors and Class Members, on behalf of Medicare
beneficiaries enrolled in Part C of the Medicare Act (the
"Enrollees") for medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained
in an accident (the "accident-related medical expenses"). The
Enrollees were enrolled in Medicare Advantage health plans offered
by Plaintiff's assignors and Class Members, i.e., Medicare
Advantage Organizations, which suffered an injury-in-fact from the
Defendant's failure to reimburse, and accordingly, have standing to
sue under 42 U.S.C. section 1395y(b)(3)(A).

Covington Specialty offers insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tawny L. Alvarez, Esq.
          Paul W. Shaw, Esq.
          VERRILL DANA LLP
          One Portland Square
          Portland, ME 04101-4054
          Telephone: (207)774 4000
          Facsimile: (207)774 7499
          E-mail: talvarez@verrilldana.com
                  pshaw@verrilldana.com


CREDIT CORP: Kanehl Files Placeholder Class Certitication Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MARLENE KANEHL, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CREDIT CORP.
SOLUTIONS INC. d/b/a TASMAN CREDIT CORP., the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-01419-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing
Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly,
LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the
Court may deem appropriate.

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

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).
One defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified
check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio,
Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


DAIMLER: Fleet Operators May Get GBP5-Bil. in Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
According to AMOnline, Fleet News has reported commercial fleet
operators who overpaid for trucks from firms that colluded in a
price-fixing cartel could receive a combined total of GBP5 billion
in compensation.

In July 2016, DAF, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz), Iveco, MAN and
Volvo/Renault all admitted to having participated in a 14-year
illegal price-fixing cartel, between 1997 and 2011.

Scania initially denied any wrongdoing but, following an
investigation by the European Commission, was also found to have
participated in the cartel.

Collectively, the truck manufacturers were fined more than EUR3.8
billion (GBP3.4bn) -- the largest ever penalty imposed by the
European Commission in this type of case.

AM's sister title, Fleet News reported that, in its next step
towards getting compensation for thousands of UK truck operators
who paid over the odds for trucks, the Road Haulage Association
(RHA) has now submitted its application to the Competition Appeal
Tribunal to pursue its claim against the manufacturers.

If successful, the RHA says that UK operators could be reimbursed
more than GBP6,000 for every vehicle of six tonnes and above they
bought or leased between 1997 and 2011.

Operators are entitled to claim for the difference between what
they paid for their trucks (new, second-hand or leased) and what
they would have paid had the cartel not existed.

RHA chief executive Richard Burnett said: "We estimate the truck
cartel will have impacted upon the buyers of 600,000 trucks that
were bought in the UK between 1997 and 2011, amounting to a
potential compensation claim of more than GBP5bn.

"On the same basis, we estimate operators in the rest of Europe
bought 3.4 million trucks and could also be due compensation in
excess of GBP25bn."

ASB Law has recently launched no obligation, specialist cartel
strategy workshops to help companies and individuals affected. The
tailored sessions see truck owners in a range of sectors –
logistics, construction, haulage and others - receive advice on the
available options and guidance on the right route for them.

Sarah Clark, Barrister at ASB Law, said: "Although the claims
deadline is summer 2022, anyone affected really should consider
starting their claims process now.

"The filing demands and decision-making are complex and will
require the advice of a specialist law firm, well-versed in the
sector, and in this kind of action, to ensure that claimants submit
their information well ahead of the limitation period set.

"Even when the data analysis exercise is complete, it is likely to
be a protracted process as each claim will be investigated in
depth."

Kevin Green, director at the Freight Transport Association (FTA),
is advising members to consider the best option for them if they
are thinking about pursuing truck cartel claims.

"A class action will not necessarily be their best option," he
said. "We would advise members to have an initial free and no
obligation discussion about their options with our recommended
legal advisers at ASB Law.

"The firm has deep expertise and knowledge in the logistics sector
and has been advising our members on the impact of this European
Commission decision since it was first published."

That European Commission decision revealed that discussions between
the companies in the cartel focused on two main topics.

Firstly, the truck producers discussed the "gross price list"
increases they were planning for medium and heavy trucks and
coordinated these with each other. These figures are the basis for
pricing in the truck industry. The final price paid by buyers was
then based on further adjustments, done at national and local
level, to these gross list prices.

Secondly, they also discussed their response to increasingly strict
European emissions standards, which have been progressively
tightened over the years, reducing the acceptable limits for
exhaust emissions from trucks.

The truck producers coordinated both on the pricing for the new
technologies that were needed to meet the stricter standards and on
when to introduce new technologies.

MAN revealed the cartel, and so received immunity from fines.
Volvo/Renault, Daimler and Iveco also cooperated by providing
evidence and so had their fines reduced.

Scania, the sixth and final manufacturer implicated in the
price-fixing scandal, was fined more than EUR880 million (GBP790m)
for its participation in the truck cartel.

Volvo/Renault, Daimler (Mercedes), Iveco and DAF – were
collectively fined EUR2.93bn (GBP2.63bn) after admitting
wrongdoing. Daimler was fined EUR1.08bn (GBP1bn), DAF EUR752m
(GBP674m), Iveco EUR494m (GBP443m), and Volvo/Renault EUR670m
(GBP600m).

The RHA announced its intention to bring collective proceedings in
August 2016, a month after the European Commission issued its first
decision in the case. The RHA subsequently set up a website on
which operators can register their interest and sign up.

Since mid-July this year, when the website went live, more than
3,600 operators have signed up, representing more than 160,000
trucks sold or leased during the cartel period.

A further 700 operators, says the RHA, have registered their
interest and are in the process of signing up.

Burnett said: "The UK haulage sector works tirelessly to deliver
98% of everything consumed in the UK and is the backbone of our
economy. Every penny counts, and I would expect these costs to have
been absorbed by the haulage industry, unable to pass them on."

However, Burnett is hopeful that these operators will now be
compensated after paying over the odds for vehicles.

He said: "If the RHA competition claim is successful, there is a
strong potential the majority of the industry's operators will
benefit. This won't happen overnight -- it's a long process. But we
will continue to push for a result that will help the thousands of
operators who have been dealt a poor deal." [GN]


DAKOTA COUNTY, MN: Inmate Sues Over Forced Religious Lecture
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a Minnesota man filed a
federal class action claiming he was forced to attend a religious
lecture while he was an inmate in the Dakota County jail and faced
punishment if he tried to "escape."


DELI MANAGEMENT: Florence Action to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Florence, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Deli Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-04303, (N.D. Ga., September 11, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Deli Management operates as Jason's Deli where Plaintiff worked as
an Assistant Manager. She claims to have worked more than 40 hours
in any workweek without being paid overtime premium. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Andrew Head, Esq.
      Bethany Hilbert, Esq.
      HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
      4422 N. Ravenswood Ave.
      Chicago, IL 60640
      Tel: (404) 924-4151
      Fax: (404) 796-7338
      Email: ahead@headlawfirm.com
             bhilbert@headlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      Michael Reed, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Tel: (914) 934-9200
      Fax: (914) 934-9220
      Email: Fran@klafterolsen.com
             Michael.Reed@klafterolsen.com


DIALAMERICA MARKETING: Ct. Compels Production in Telemarketing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Parties' Joint Motion
for Determination of Discovery Disputes in the case captioned ARIEL
SHUCKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DIALAMERICA MARKETING, INC.; and AMERICAN
STANDARD BRANDS, d/b/a AMERICAN STANDARD BATHROOM AND KITCHEN
FIXTURES, Defendants. Case No. 17cv2073-LAB(KSC). (S.D. Cal.)

In the Second Amended Complaint, the plaintiff alleges that
DialAmerica is a telemarketing company that provides call center
services to a variety of industries, including American Standard,
and regularly makes autodialed telephone calls to consumers in
order to market products. The Plaintiff alleges that defendants
initiated repeated and unauthorized telephone calls to her cellular
telephone using a pre-recorded voice and an ATDS.

Scope of Discovery

If a party fails to answer written interrogatories or produce
documents in response to written requests, the party seeking
discovery may move for an order compelling disclosure.  

Under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), the court must limit discovery if it
determines that: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other
source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive
or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by
Rule 26(b)(1).

Outbound Dial Lists

Plaintiff's Document Request No. 9 broadly seeks production of:
"Any and all documents relating to or regarding, and including, any
and all reports for each outbound dial list to persons that
DialAmerica called on behalf of DialAmerica and/or any third party,
including those outbound dial lists, in electronically searchable
format, utilizing an autodialer since four years prior to the
filing of this action to the date of responding to these document
requests."

Plaintiff's Document Request No. 10 broadly seeks production of:
"Any and all documents relating to or regarding, and including, any
and all reports for each outbound dial list to persons that
DialAmerica called on behalf of DialAmerica and/or any third party,
including those outbound dial lists, in electronically searchable
format, generated by any predictive dialer campaign in which
DialAmerica engaged in since four year prior to the filing of this
action to the date of responding to these document requests."

Plaintiff's Document Request No. 11 broadly seeks production of:
"Documents relating to or regarding, and including, the outbound
dial list to persons that DialAmerica called for and on behalf of
DialAmerica and/or any third party, including those outbound dial
lists, in electronically searchable format, for any autodialer
marketing and/or advertising campaign in which DialAmerica was
engaged since four years prior to the filing of this action to the
date of responding to these document requests."

Plaintiffs Document Request No. 13 Broadly seeks production of:
"Documents relating to or regarding and including, all reports in
electronically searchable format of autodialer or predictive dialer
calls made by DialAmerica] or any of DialAmerica's employees,
agents or independent contractors, or other persons or entities
working on DialAmerica' s behalf, to pagers, cellular telephones,
mobile telephones, or wireless devices of persons DialAmerica
called on behalf of DialAmerica and/or any third party since four
years prior to the filing of this action to the date of responding
to these document requests."

Defendant objected to Document Request Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 13 on
various grounds and did not provide any substantive responses. A
party responding to a document request must either state that
inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or
state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request,
including the reasons. The responding party may state that it will
produce copies of documents or of electronically stored information
instead of permitting inspection.

An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being
withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a
request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.

Document Request Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 13 broadly seek production of
reports listing calls made to any person that DialAmerica called on
its own behalf and/or on behalf of any third party. As noted above,
the Second Amended Complaint only includes allegations that
unauthorized, autodialed calls were made to plaintiffs cellular
telephone by DialAmerica on behalf of American Standard.  

Other than the general allegation that DialAmerica is a
telemarketing company that provides domestic call center services
for a variety of industries there are no factual allegations in the
Second Amended Complaint to indicate the relevance of any calls
that DialAmerica may have made on its own behalf or on behalf of
any third party other than American Standard.

In other words, the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint and
plaintiffs conclusory relevance arguments are not enough to justify
an order allowing plaintiff to rummage through more than four
years' worth of telephone calls made by DialAmerica on its own
behalf or on behalf of any third party other than American
Standard. Without more, the Court finds that plaintiff is only
entitled to production of documents showing calls made by Dial
America on behalf of American Standard during a time period that
directly relates to the allegations in the Second Amended
Complaint.

In sum, the Court finds that plaintiffs request for an order
compelling defendant to provide further responses to Document
Request Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 13 must be granted in part and denied
in part.

The Plaintiffs request is granted to the extent plaintiff seeks an
order compelling defendant to produce outbound dial lists for
autodialed calls made to cellular telephone numbers on behalf of
American Standard for marketing or advertising purposes during the
period May 23, 2016 through the present. If DialAmerica is unable
to produce an outbound dial list that only includes cellular
telephones, it must produce an outbound dial list of all autodialed
calls made on behalf of American Standard for marketing or
advertising purposes during the period May 23, 2016 through the
present. Names and addresses associated with any telephone numbers
are not relevant at this time and should be redacted prior to
production. The Plaintiffs request is denied to the extent it seeks
an order compelling production of any other documents in response
to Document Request Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 13.

DialAmerica's Telephone Dialing System

The Plaintiff served defendant with the following document requests
that are now at issue in the parties' Joint Motion:

Document Request No. 21: All documents relating to DialAmerica's
use of an automatic telephone dialing system.  

Document Request No. 22: All documents relating to DialAmerica's
use of a predictive dialer.

Document Request No. 29: Produce any and all documents describing
the means for determining methodology for initiating and invoking
the telephone equipment and systems to make outgoing calls since
four years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this action.

Document Request No. 30: Produce any and all technical manuals,
network architecture diagrams, booklets, guidelines, and memoranda
regarding telecommunications/dialing systems used since four years
prior to the filing of the Complaint in this action.

Document Request No. 31: Produce any and all documents indicating
whether the telephone used to call plaintiff has the capacity to
store telephone numbers to be called regardless if it was used this
way.  

DialAmerica contends that Document Request Nos. 21, 22, 29, 30, and
31 are overly burdensome because of the time that would be required
to compile the documents and information plaintiff seeks. In
conclusory fashion, DialAmerica states that the time require to
obtain the information would be unduly burdensone, if not
impossible.

The Court finds that plaintiffs request for an order compelling
further responses to Document Request Nos. 21, 22, 29, 30, and 31
must be granted in part and denied in part.

To the extent plaintiff requests an order compelling production of
the following documents, the request is granted: Manuals, diagrams,
booklets, guidelines, memoranda, or portions thereof, that reveal
the material features and functions of the dialing system that
DialAmerica used to provide American Standard with an outbound
telemarketing program during the relevant time period, May 23, 2016
to the present, and/or that address: (1) whether DialAmerica has
used or uses an automatic telephone dialing system" and/or a
predictive dialer (2) whether the telephone dialing system
DialAmerica used to make telephone calls on behalf American
Standard has or had the capacity to store telephone numbers; and
(3) the methodology used by DialAmerica's telephone dialing system
to initiate and invoke outgoing telephone calls on behalf of
American Standard. DialAmerica must specifically advise plaintiff
in writing if it does not have responsive documents that address
any of these topics. If responsive documents do not exist,
plaintiffs remedy is other discovery methods, such as a Rule
30(b)(6) deposition or narrowly tailored interrogatories.

To the extent Document Request Nos. 21, 22, 29, 30, and 31 seek
production of any other documents, plaintiffs request for an order
compelling production is DENIED at this time for failure to
establish relevance.

Number of Calls by DialAmerica.

Plaintiff served defendant with the following special
interrogatories that are now at issue in the parties' Joint
Motion:

Special Interrogatory No. 3: If DialAmerica has attempted to
contact consumers for the purposes of marketing and/or advertising
on DialAmerica' s own behalf and/or any third party at any time
since four years prior to the filing of this action to the date of
responding to these interrogatories, state when any such attempts
began, how the contacts were carried out, i.e. in what form:
telephone, in person, email etc.] and dates of all contacts made
via an automatic telephone dialing system hereinafter ATDS and/or
prerecorded messages.

Special Interrogatory No. 5: State how many telephone numbers
DialAmerica has called, including cellular telephones, landlines,
or any other telephone lines, since four years prior to the filing
of this action to the date of answering these interrogatories, in
DialAmerica' s attempts to market and/or advertise for or on
DialAmerica' s behalf and/or any third party.

Special Interrogatory No. 6: State how many telephone numbers
DialAmerica has called, including cellular telephones, landlines,
or any other telephone lines, since four years prior to the filing
of this action to the date of answering these interrogatories, in
DialAmerica' s attempts to market and/or advertise for and on
DialAmerica's behalf and/or any third party using an ATDS.  

Special Interrogatory No. 7: State how many calls DialAmerica has
made to cellular telephones, mobile telephones, and wireless
devices since four years prior to the filing of this action to the
date of answering these interrogatories, using an ATDS.

Here, DialAmerica objected to these special interrogatories and did
not provide plaintiff with any substantive responses. In other
words, Dial America did not respond to these interrogatories to the
fullest extent possible. DialAmerica's objections are that these
special interrogatories are overly broad and harassing.
DialAmerica's responses to these requests are deficient under
Federal Rule 33(b)(4), because they include only general,
boilerplate objections and do not explain how these interrogatories
are overly broad and harassing.

The Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to an order requiring
DialAmerica to provide further responses to Special Interrogatory
Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 7.

DialAmerica argues in the Joint Motion that there is no reason that
plaintiff needs information on all attempted calls DialAmerica has
made in the past four years using an ATDS as that request includes
persons that could not be a part of the putative class. As worded,
the Court finds that Special Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 7 are
overly broad on their face as to time and scope for the same
reasons discussed above in connection with plaintiffs document
requests. These interrogatories also appear to be somewhat
repetitive or duplicative of one another. However, since plaintiff
indicated in the Joint Motion that the purpose of these
interrogatories is to discover information about similar calls, the
Court finds that plaintiffs request for an order compelling
DialAmerica to respond to Special Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 7
must be granted in part and denied in part.

The Plaintiffs request is granted to the extent these
interrogatories seek to discover the number of autodialed calls
made by DialAmerica on behalf of American Standard as part of any
marketing or advertising campaign and the time period(s) when those
autodialed calls were made. The Plaintiffs request is also granted
to the extent DialAmerica is able to determine how many of any such
calls were made to cellular telephones. If appropriate under the
circumstances set forth in Federal Rule 33(d), DialAmerica has the
option to provide this information by producing specifically
identified business records. To the extent Special Interrogatory
Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 7 seek any other information, plaintiffs request
for an order compelling further responses by DialAmerica is denied
for failure to establish relevance.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 10, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yarvzavc from Leagle.com.

Ariel Shuckett, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Yana A. Hart --
yana@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart, Clark Robert
Conforti -- clark@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group APC & Daniel G.
Shay -- DanielShay@SanDiegoBankruptcyNow.com -- Law Offices of
Daniel G. Shay.

DIALAMERICA Marketing Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey M.
Garrod -- dg@olss.com -- Orloff, Lowenbach, Stifelman & Siegel,
P.A., pro hac vice, Kellie Mitchell Bubeck --
kmitchell@cckc-law.com -- Copilevitz & Canter, pro hac vice,
William E. Raney -- braney@cckc-law.com -- Copilevitz & Canter, pro
hac vice & Hamilton E. Arendsen -- harendsen@arendsenlaw.com --
ARENDSEN CANE LLP.

American Standard Brands d/b/a American Standard Bathroom and
Kitchen Fixtures, Defendant, represented by Jack Gerald Zurlini,
Jr. -- jgz@berensonllp.com -- Berenson LLP & Kevin D. Gamarnik --
kgamarnik@foleybezek.com -- Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP.


EDGEMARC ENERGY: Larsen Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
JAMES LARSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EDGEMARC ENERGY HOLDINGS, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01221-MPK (W.D. Pa., Sept. 13, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

EdgeMarc is an oil and natural gas company operating primarily in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. To do so, EdgeMarc employs
oilfield personnel to carry out its work.  According to the
complaint, Larsen and the other workers like him regularly worked
for EdgeMarc in excess of 40 hours each week. But these workers
never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single workweek.

EdgeMarc Energy Holdings LLC engages in the exploration and
production of oil and gas in Butler County, Pennsylvania, and
Monroe and Washington counties.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766 1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766 0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE VOEKS, PATRICK MANIACI, and STEVEN DOMBROWSKI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-01424 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing
Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly,
LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the
Court may deem appropriate.

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

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).
One defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified
check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio,
Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


EXXIZZ FOODS: Treadway Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
SOPHY TREADWAY, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b), the Plaintiff, v. EXXIZZ FOODS, INC. D.B.A.
ROCKPORT DONUTS and SOPHEAK OTERO, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00259 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 30, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the case is brought as a collective
action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(B). It is believed that the
Defendants have employed other similarly situated employees like
the Plaintiff who have not been paid minimum wages and/or overtime
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of
this complaint back at least three years. These similarly situated
employees are other hourly employees of the Defendants, including
cashiers, servers, and cooks, who were paid lump sum payments
regardless of the actual number of hours worked per week. These
lump sum payments resulted in either or both minimum wage
violations and a failure to pay proper overtime premiums to these
employees similar to the violations suffered by Plaintiff.

Exxizz Foods is in the doughnuts business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Xenos Yuen, Esq.
          Byron Hamilton, Esq.
          SIEGEL YUEN & HONORE, PLLC
          6100 Corporate Dr. Ste. 580
          Houston, TX 77036
          Telephone: (713) 541 6256
          Facsimile: (713) 541 9409
          E-mail: litxy@yuenlawoffice.com
                  litbh@yuenlawoffice.com


FARMERS RESTAURANT: Settles Workers' Class Action for $1.49MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Negin Owliaei, writing for Inequality, reports that Farmers
Restaurant Group, which manages some of the most popular
restaurants in the D.C. metro area, agreed last month to pay out
$1.49 million to settle a class-action lawsuit with nearly a
thousand of its employees. Workers in D.C. and Maryland say they
were systematically underpaid and denied sick leave.

The allegations also include violations of the tip credit, which
allows employers to pay workers a substandard tipped wage --
currently $3.89 in D.C. -- while they're doing work that will bring
in tips. Farmers Restaurant Group workers said they were paid the
tipped wage while doing untipped work, and that they were required
to share the tips they earned with their managers. Both practices
run against Department of Labor requirements.

The timing of the settlement couldn't be more damning for the many
D.C. restaurant owners who have tried to push back against a recent
ballot initiative that would eliminate the subminimum tipped wage.
Voters passed the initiative to end the tip credit and mandate
employers pay all workers a full minimum wage by healthy margins.

But the D.C. city council has already expressed interest in
ignoring the will of the people and overturning the proposition.
While the council is unwilling to end the subminimum tipped wage,
lawsuits like this one underscore the need to end a two-tiered
system. The tip credit leaves workers vulnerable to wage theft,
even as their employers prosper. [GN]


FQSR LLC: Fails to Pay OT to Restaurant Staff, Cano et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIANA CANO; KIMBERLY MARTIN; BEATRIZ RAMIREZ; ALANDRA VALDERAS;
PAULINA TRUJILLO; and RICARDO YANEZ, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FQSR, LLC D/B/A KBP
FOODS; Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00640-SRB (W.D. Mo., Aug. 16,
2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages, minimum wages and other earned wages.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as restaurant
workers.

FQSR, LLC, doing business as KBP Foods, owns, operates, and
franchises fast food restaurants. The Company serves customers
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark V. Dugan, Esq.
          Heather Schlozman, Esq.
          DUGAN SCHLOZMAN LLC
          8826 Santa Fe Drive, Suite 307
          Overland Park, KS 66212
          Telephone: 913-322-3528
          Facsimile: 913-904-0213
          E-mail: heather@duganschlozman.com
                  mark@duganschlozman.com

               - and -

          Gina Chiala, Esq.
          HEARTLAND  CENTER  FOR
          JOBS AND FREEDOM, INC.
          4047 Central Street
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 278-1092
          Facsimile: (816) 278-5785
          E-mail: ginachiala@jobsandfreedom.org

               - and -

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, PC
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 701
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 795-9121


FRONTLINE ASSET: Kern Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Julie Kern, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC and
Velocity Investments, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-05172-SJF-GRB (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2018), seeks to recover
damages as a result of Defendants' violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allege Plaintiff owes a
debt. The Debt was primarily for personal, family or household
purposes and is therefore a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section
692a(5). Sometime after the incurrence of the Debt Plaintiff fell
behind on payments owed. Thereafter, at an exact time known only to
the Defendants, the debt was assigned or otherwise transferred to
the Defendants for collection. In their efforts to collect the
debt, the Defendants contacted Plaintiff by letter dated September
25, 2017. The letter was the initial communication Plaintiff
received from the Defendants. The letter is a communication" as
defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(2). 15 U.S.C. section 1692g
provides that within five days after the initial communication with
a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt
collector shall, unless the information is contained in the initial
communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer
a written notice containing certain enumerated information. The
written notice must contain the amount of the debt.

Frontline Asset is a collection agency located in Roseville,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FROST-ARNETT: Bartz Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL BARTZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FROST-ARNETT COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01420-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order certifying proposed classes in this case,
appointing Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi
& O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).
One defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified
check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio,
Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


GALILEE MEMORIAL: Class Action Over Mishandled Bodies Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Sainz, writing for Associated Press, reports that Galilee
Memorial Gardens, the Tennessee cemetery where caskets were crushed
and stacked, remains were mishandled and bodies were lost, remains
closed.

But the dispute about who should pay for the problems at the burial
ground in the Memphis suburb of Bartlett is alive and active.

Opening statements were scheduled on Sept. 4 in the class-action
trial pitting relatives of about 1,200 dead people against licensed
funeral homes accused of sending bodies to Galilee for three years
after the cemetery said its registration expired in December 2010.

The lawsuit claims more than a dozen Memphis-area funeral homes
failed to carry out their "sacred and contractual duties" for
vulnerable, mourning relatives who expected their loved ones to be
interred with dignity.

Investigations revealed that Galilee's owners, the Lambert family,
misplaced hundreds of bodies, buried multiple cadavers in the same
grave, and crushed caskets to fit them into single plots for years.
The funeral homes kept sending bodies to Galilee until the cemetery
was closed in 2014, the lawsuit claims.

Mishandling of remains would not have occurred if a licensed
funeral director had supervised burials, the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit seeks damages likely ranging into the millions of
dollars -- if a jury sides with the families.

"They turned their backs on the bodies that were entrusted to
them," plaintiff's lawyer Kathryn Barnett said of the funeral
homes. "They just walked away."

In court filings, the funeral homes deny allegations of breach of
contract, negligence and infliction of emotional distress. They
claim they did not violate customers' contracts and did not have a
contractual relationship with Galilee. The funeral homes argue they
had no duty to monitor Galilee's licensure and they are not liable
for the cemetery's actions.

Jemar Lambert, who took over the cemetery's operations after his
father died, received 10 years' probation in a plea deal with state
prosecutors for his role in the mishandling of burials. He left
behind disorganized records, an investigation by the state
Department of Commerce & Insurance, and families who don't know
where their loved ones are buried. Galilee is also a defendant in
the lawsuit.

The Galilee case also exposed a lack of regulation and state
oversight of privately-owned cemeteries and funeral homes. The
Federal Trade Commission enforces the "funeral rule," which allows
consumers to pick and choose only those goods and services they
want or need, rather than accept a package of services that
includes options they may not want.

But oversight of the death industry is largely left up to states,
which typically require funeral homes and cemeteries to be licensed
and establish a complaint process. But, according to experts,
states fall short of detailed oversight, such as regular on-site
inspections of cemeteries.

"It's just not something that is easy to get lawmakers or
regulators to take seriously, consistently," said Joshua Slocum,
executive director of the Funeral Consumers Alliance.

Nationally, lawsuits have been filed and charges pursued over
mismanaged cemeteries, with accusations of unmarked graves, burial
urns unearthed and dumped, and vaults broken to make room for more
remains.

Barnett, of the Morgan & Morgan law firm, says funeral homes around
the country "will be watching this, because it matters."

Many who signed contracts with the funeral homes sought to use life
insurance to pay for affordable services. Akilah Louise Wofford was
one of them.

Ms. Wofford acknowledged in a deposition that she did not closely
read her contract with M.J. Edwards & Sons Funeral Home after her
father suddenly died of a heart attack in his yard. Her main
concern was "just staying within the budget" of about $5,000, the
deposition states.

She said a man with the funeral home recommended where to bury her
father.

"Anybody involved in making the arrangements for a person's loved
one or family member that's passed away that you really care about,
you entrust that they're going to handle everything properly," Ms.
Wofford said in the deposition. "It's something that happened so
fast, and I didn't want to face the fact that my father had died."
[GN]


GALILEE MEMORIAL: Trial Begins in Crushed Caskets Case
------------------------------------------------------
USA Today reports that a trial began on Sept. 4 that pits relatives
of about 1,200 dead people against licensed funeral homes accused
of sending bodies to a Memphis, Tennessee, cemetery for three years
after the cemetery said its registration expired in December 2010.
The class-action lawsuit claims more than a dozen Memphis-area
funeral homes failed to carry out their "sacred and contractual
duties" for vulnerable, mourning relatives who expected their loved
ones to be interred with dignity. Investigations revealed that
Galilee Memorial Gardens' owners, the Lambert family, misplaced
hundreds of bodies, buried multiple cadavers in the same grave, and
crushed caskets to fit them into single plots for years. [GN]


GENERAL DYNAMICS: Underpays Health Insurance CSRs, Hawkins Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CECELIA A. HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00149-KS-MTP (S.D.
Miss., Aug. 16, 2018) is an action against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Hawkins was employed by the Defendant as health insurance
customer service representative from the year 2014 to October
2016.

General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. provides information
technology (IT), systems engineering, professional, and simulation
and training services. It was formerly known as Anteon Corporation
and changed the name to General Dynamics Information Technology,
Inc. in June 2006. The company was founded in 1982 and is based in
Fairfax, Virginia with additional offices worldwide. It has field
offices in Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Georgia,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Texas, and Virginia.  It operates as a subsidiary of General
Dynamics Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Macy D. Hanson, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF
          MACY D. HANSON, PLLC
          102 First Choice Drive
          Madison, MS 39110
          Telephone: (601) 853-9521
          E-mail: macy@macyhanson.com


GENERAL MILLS: Cheerios Contains Carcinogen, Doss Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MOUNIRA DOSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:18-cv-61924-RNS (S.D. Fla., Aug. 16, 2018) alleges that the
products of the Defendant, including Cheerios, contain glyphosate
which causes cancer, in violation of the Florida Deceptive & Unfair
Trade Practices Act.

The Plaintiff allege in the complaint that recent testing confirmed
that Cheerios and other products of the Defendant contain
glyphosate, which the World Health Organization classifies as a
"probable human carcinogen." Glyphosate is even more dangerous for
children, whose bodies are more sensitive to exposure, leaving them
more vulnerable to carcinogens. Had Plaintiff known that Cheerios
contained glyphosate, she would never have purchased them.

General Mills, Inc. manufactures and markets branded consumer foods
worldwide. It operates 507 leased and 372 franchise branded ice
cream parlors. The company was founded in 1866 and is based in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
          SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
          1212 SE Third Avenue
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 467-8800
          E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
                  jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com
                  jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com


GEO GROUP: Removed Ramirez Suit to Southern District of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RAYMOND RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE GEO GROUP,
INC., a Florida Corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00039882-CU-OE-CTL (San Diego Superior
Court), the Defendant removes the action from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.  The
California Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-02136-LAB-JLB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants failed to pay meal and
rest period wages; failed to pay lawful wages; and failed to pay
all wages owed in violation of the Labor Code.

GEO Group is a Florida-based company specializing in privatized
corrections, detention, and mental health treatment, stress
control. It maintains facilities in North America, Australia, South
Africa, and the United Kingdom.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Lena K. Sims, Esq.
          Elizabeth Staggs Wilson, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101.3577
          Telephone: 619 232 0441
          Facsimile: 619 232 4302
          E-mail: lsims@littler.com


GOOGLE INC: Klayman Sues Over Conservative Views Censorship
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patheos reports that Larry Klayman, the dumbest lawyer in America
not named Mat Staver, has filed yet another lawsuit that won't
survive a motion to dismiss. This one is against Google, Facebook,
Twitter and Apple over alleged censorship of conservative views on
the social media networks they own. As usual, the complaint is
little more than a bunch of aggrieved political boilerplate strung
together.

It's a class action suit on behalf of all conservatives, which is
amusing in and of itself. Most of it is just ranting about dark
conspiracies between those social media outlets, the New York
Times, the Washington Post, CNN, etc., "all of whom are owned
and/or managed by persons with a leftist political ideology." Their
goal is "to take down President Donald Trump and his administration
with the intent and purpose to have installed leftist government in
the nation's capital and the 50 states." Even if all of that is
true, it's not the least bit clear what would be unconstitutional
about it. The constitution restricts the government, not private
corporations.

The only ways this could be considered a constitutional question is
if social media platforms, or the internet in general, are declared
"public utilities." But if that were to happen, conservatives would
freak out because that brings with it all kinds of regulation that
they would oppose. So they want it to be a public utility whenever
they want it to, then magically not be one when they don't. He also
claims that this violates the Sherman Antitrust Act, which is
simply laughable -- like virtually every other suit he files.

This one will be dismissed, like so many others. And that will only
prove the conspiracy, of course. The judges are in on it too! Keep
trying, Larry. One of these days you won't be a laughingstock, but
today is not that day. [GN]


GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Court Certifies Nationwide Class in Murphy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and
Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify Class Action in the case captioned GARLAND D. MURPHY, III,
M.D., and PHYLLIS MURPHY, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOSPEL FOR ASIA, INC.; GOSPEL
FOR ASIA-INTERNATIONAL; K.P. YOHANNAN; GISELA PUNNOSE; DANIEL
PUNNOSE; DAVID CARROLL; and PAT EMERICK, Defendants. Case No.
5:17-CV-5035. (W.D. Ark.).

GFA is a Christian missionary organization operating in South Asia,
mainly in India. To fulfill its charitable purposes, GFA solicits
donations from donors across the world. Each year, according to the
Complaint, over one million unique donations are made to GFA from
tens of thousands of donors in the United States alone.

This lawsuit centers on the Plaintiffs' claims that, despite these
numerous representations, GFA did not, in fact, spend the donated
and designated money in accordance with the donors' wishes or with
GFA's representations. All told throughout the proposed class
period, the parties agree that approximately $375 million in
donations are at issue. The Plaintiffs have asserted a number of
causes of action against GFA, including Civil RICO, fraud, unjust
enrichment, and an Arkansas-specific claim under the ADTPA.

For the Civil RICO, fraud, and unjust enrichment causes of action,
the Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class as follows:

     All persons in the United States who donated money to GFA from
January 1, 2009 through the date the Class is certified for Project
Codes 1000-4900. Excluded from the Class are unknown donors;
Defendants and their subsidiaries and affiliates; all persons who
make a timely election to be excluded from the Class; governmental
entities; and the Judge to whom this case is assigned and his/her
immediate family.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 23, certifying a class action requires a two-step
analysis. First, the Court must determine whether: the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (numerosity);
there are questions of law or fact common to the class
(commonality); the claims or defenses of the representative parties
are typical of the claims or defenses of the class (typicality);
and the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class (fair and adequate representation).

Rule 23(a)(1)-(4). Second, because the Plaintiffs seek to maintain
the classes under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court must determine whether:
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
questions affecting only individual members (predominance); and a
class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy (superiority).

Nationwide Class

Numerosity (Rule 23(a)(1)) and Ascertainability

GFA does not seriously dispute that the proposed nationwide class
is readily ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of all
members would be impracticable. After all, by GFA's own count, the
proposed nationwide class would consist of 185,414 individual
members. Clearly, the class is ascertainable by objective criteria.
Additionally, given the size of the putative nationwide class, the
numerosity requirement is satisfied as well.

Commonality (Rule 23(a)(2))

The contention must be of such a nature that it is capable of
class-wide resolution, which means that determination of its truth
or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of
each of the claims in one stroke.

The putative class members in this case share many common questions
of law and fact. First, they all assert similar injuries based on
the same allegedly fraudulent conduct of the Defendants. In
particular, the Court notes the following non-exhaustive list of
common questions:

(1) What GFA promised throughout the class period;
(2) Whether GFA acted in accordance with those promises;
(3) Whether GFA committed a pattern of racketeering activities;
(4) Whether a RICO enterprise exists; and
(5) Whether the named Defendants participated in that enterprise.

The answers to these and other common questions of law and fact are
central to the asserted Civil RICO, fraud, and unjust enrichment
claims and therefore are likely to drive their resolution.

Given the common contentions in this case, all of which are shared
by each class member and susceptible to proof on a class-wide
basis, the Court finds that the commonality requirement is
satisfied.

Typicality (Rule 23(a)(3))

Courts find that the claims can be maintained as a class action and
satisfy the typicality requirement despite factual variations among
class members if the claims of the putative representative and
class members advance the same legal theories and challenge the
same pattern or practice, or alleged common course of fraudulent
conduct.

The Court finds that the named Plaintiffs' Civil RICO claims are
typical of the Civil RICO claims that would be advanced by the
members of the proposed putative nationwide class. All class
members would be marshaling the same facts and advancing the same
legal theories to demonstrate the existence of an enterprise and
the pattern of racketeering activity necessary to trigger liability
(i.e. the alleged common course of fraudulent conduct and the
predicate acts necessary to qualify as a pattern of conduct).
Because the legal theories would all be premised on the same
pattern or practice, the Court finds that the typicality
requirement has been satisfied with respect to this claim.

However, the Court cannot conclude that the typicality requirement
has been satisfied with respect to Plaintiffs' fraud and unjust
enrichment claims. Unlike with Civil RICO, the elements of fraud
and unjust enrichment, the standards of proof, and the scienter
requirements vary considerably from state to state. And because
these are state common law causes of action, this Court would be
duty-bound to conduct a choice-of-law analysis to determine which
state(s) law would apply.

Adequacy of Representation (Rule 23(a)(4))

The Court finds that the Murphys will fairly and adequately
represent the interests of the classes. From the outset of this
litigation, they have vigorously prosecuted their own interests,
including litigating for the past eleven months whether the named
Defendants have abused the discovery process by obfuscating whether
they have evidence in their possession that would show whether they
failed to, despite their prior representations, spend money in the
field and in conformity with the alleged promises they made to
donors. There is no good reason to believe that this will change
following certification.

Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)

Predominance

The Defendants contend that the above-cited cases are inapposite
and that an inference or presumption of reliance is unwarranted
here because GFA is a charity. However, there is no charity
exception for fraud, Civil RICO, or unjust enrichment. If indeed
GFA made these representations and then subsequently did not send
100% of the money to the field or spend the money in accordance
with its commitments to honor donor designations, that is
actionable and can be proven on a class-wide basis.

In short, the cases adopting an inference of reliance have done so
based on the nature of the representations that were made, not on
the nature of the entity making them. Moreover, GFA makes much of
its argument that donors give for a number of reasons. While that
is assuredly true, the Court has been presented with no authority
that the law requires that the donors' reliance on GFA's
representations be the sole cause of their injuries. For these
reasons, the Court finds that reliance is not an impediment to
class certification in this case.  

The Defendants' last argument is that proof of individual damages
will also require individual inquiries, making the claims
unsuitable for class treatment. However, the Advisory Committee
rejected this very argument, writing that a fraud perpetrated on
numerous persons by the use of similar representations may be an
appealing situation for a class action, and it may remain so
despite the need, if liability is found, for separate determination
of the damages suffered by individuals within the class.

In sum, the Court finds that the common issues of law and fact
predominate.

Superiority

The second and final factor to consider in the Rule 23(b)(3)
analysis is whether a class action is a superior means of resolving
this dispute as compared to other litigation methods.  

The class action device is clearly superior to other forms of
litigation methods for a number of reasons. First, there are over
180,000 putative class members. To the Court's knowledge, only one
other case has been filed with similar allegations.10 Given that
each class member would need to prove their claims with similar
facts and have similar questions of law and fact to resolve, it is
certainly more efficient to achieve a common resolution of these
common questions rather than to force 180,000 class members to
litigate separately. This is especially the case given that some of
the individual class members may be dissuaded from filing
individual actions as their amount of damages in each case could
make the cost-benefit analysis inherent in litigation weigh against
filing suit.  

The Court concludes that the proposed nationwide class meets the
requirements of Rule 23 and can be maintained with respect to the
Civil RICO claim. Nevertheless, the Court will slightly modify the
proposed nationwide class to explicitly exclude GFA employees and
members who may be, like the Dicksons, subject to binding
arbitration agreements.

Arkansas Subclass

As the Court noted, because each class or subclass must
independently meet the requirements of Rule 23, the Court now must
determine whether the proposed Arkansas subclass complies with the
Rule. Before turning to the analysis, the Court would note that
while Plaintiffs only expressly asked for certification of the
Arkansas subclass with respect to the ADTPA claim, they also
implicitly requested to maintain a class action with respect to the
Arkansas fraud and unjust enrichment claims as well. That is
because for those claims, the state of residency would provide the
underlying substantive law for each putative class member's claims.
Therefore, in a proposed nationwide class asserting these claims,
there would be, by definition, a group of Arkansas residents
asserting fraud and unjust enrichment under Arkansas law.
Therefore, the Court considers whether the proposed Arkansas
subclass could be maintained with respect to all of the asserted
claims in this case.

Rule 23(a)

Ascertainability and Numerosity

The Court finds that the 2,608 members of the Arkansas subclass
more than meet the requirement that the class be so numerous as to
make joinder of all members impracticable.

Commonality, Typicality, and Adequacy of Representation

Clearly, there are numerous questions of law and fact common to the
Arkansas subclass for each of these causes of action. Whether GFA
fulfilled its commitments to spend the donated money in the field
and for the designated purposes is obviously the question most
central to resolution of each of these claims, and determination of
its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the
validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.

The typicality problems discussed above with respect to maintaining
a nationwide class asserting fraud and unjust enrichment claims
entirely disappear when limiting the fraud and unjust enrichment
claims to Arkansas class members. For, the Murphys' claims of
unjust enrichment and fraud under Arkansas law are clearly typical
of the claims asserted by other Arkansans.  Thus, the additional
concerns about different standards of proof and scienter simply are
not relevant as the Murphys and the other Arkansas class members
would be advancing identical legal theories and proof. GFA has not
advanced any other persuasive reason why the Murphys' claims would
be atypical of the other Arkansas subclass members.

Rule 23(b)(3)

Predominance

GFA again argues that individual proof of reliance and proof of
damages would defeat predominance as to the Arkansas subclass. The
Court rejects those arguments for the same reason it rejected their
arguments as to the nationwide class. In short, the common
questions of law and fact predominate over any of these individual
questions and putative members can establish proof of reliance by
class-wide proof given the nature of the alleged
misrepresentations.

First, Arkansas law is clear that our law is now well settled that
the mere fact that individual issues and defenses may be raised by
the defendant cannot defeat class certification where there are
common questions concerning the defendant's alleged wrongdoing that
must be resolved for all class members. Second, the Court is of the
view that the question of whether GFA's representations were
accurate is of paramount importance to Plaintiffs' ability to
succeed under the ADTPA claim, as the law specifically defines an
unconscionable trade practice to include making a false
representation that contributions solicited for charitable purposes
shall be spent in a specific manner or for specified purposes.

Therefore, the Court concludes that the common questions of law and
fact central to each of the claims asserted by the Arkansas
subclass predominate over any individual inquiries, such as
damages, that may be required.

Superiority

The Court finds that maintenance of these claims as a class action
would be more efficient and superior to other methods of
adjudicating the controversy. Moreover, while maintaining the
nationwide class with respect to the entire fraud and unjust
enrichment claims would have presented numerous management
problems, these problems are not present when the claims litigated
on a class-wide basis are claims asserted under Arkansas law. In
short, resolving these claims on a class-wide basis has all the
benefits of a class action without any of the managerial issues
that would have been caused by differing standards of proof or
conflicting legal theories.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class is granted in
part and denied in part as follows:

A nationwide class, defined as follows, is certified to pursue the
Civil RICO claim:

     All persons in the United States who donated money to GFA from
January 1, 2009 through the date the Class is certified for Project
Codes 1000-4900. Excluded from the Class are unknown donors;
Defendants, their subsidiaries, affiliates, and employees; all
persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the Class;
governmental entities; the Special Discovery Master appointed in
this case; and the Judge to whom this case is assigned and his/her
immediate family.

The following subclass is certified to pursue claims for fraud,
unjust enrichment, and violations of the ADTPA under Arkansas law:

     All persons in Arkansas who donated money to GFA from January
1, 2009 through the date the Class is certified for Project Codes
1000-4900. Excluded from the Class are unknown donors; Defendants,
their subsidiaries, affiliates, and employees; all persons who make
a timely election to be excluded from the Class; governmental
entities; the Special Discovery Master appointed in this case; and
the Judge to whom this case is assigned and his/her immediate
family.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 10, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7re663c from Leagle.com.

Garland D. Murphy, III, M.D. & Phyllis Murphy, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
James M. Graves -- jgraves@bassettlawfirm.com -- Bassett Law Firm
LLP, Marc R. Stanley -- marcstanley@mac.com -- Stanley Law Group,
Woody Bassett -- wbassett@bassettlawfirm.com -- Bassett Law Firm,
Martin Woodward -- mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com -- Stanley Law
Group & Thomas W. Mills, Jr., Mills Williams LLP.

Gospel for ASIA, Inc., Gospel for ASIA-International, K.P.
Yohannan, Gisela Punnose, Daniel Punnose, David Carroll & Pat
Emerick, Defendants, represented by John T. Adams, Shults Law Firm,
LLP, Steven T. Shults, Shults Law Firm, LLP, Cynthia K. Timms --
ctimms@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice, Harriet Ellan
Miers -- hmiers@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Matthew H. Davis
-- mdavis@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice, Paul F.
Schuster -- pschuster@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP & Robert
Thompson Mowrey -- rmowrey@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP.


GREAT LAKES HOME: Hicks Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LAURA BETH HICKS, on behalf of herself and
similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. GREAT LAKES HOME
HEALTH SERVICES, INC. and GREAT LAKES ACQUISITION CORP., d/b/a
GREAT LAKES CARING, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-12674-GCS-DRG
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge George Caram Steeh entered an order:

   1. granting in part Plaintiff's motion for conditional
      certification of:

      "all RNs and LPNs who work or worked at the same
      Springfield, Illinois location where Hicks worked, who at
      any time since October 30, 2015 were paid on a hybrid per-
      visit fee and hourly basis, and who worked more than 40-
      hours per week and were denied overtime compensation"; and

   2. denying without prejudice as premature Plaintiff's motion
      for an extension of tolling of the running of putative
      collective members statute;

The Court said, "The scheduling conference originally set for
September 13, 2018 shall be rescheduled to take place on October
22, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. If the parties are unable to agree on the
Notice form, Plaintiff shall file the proposed Notice form on or
before October 5, 2018 and Defendants shall file any objections
within 14-days. Plaintiff may reply within 7-days of the filing of
any objections. The court reaches no conclusion as to whether
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants.


HARIHAR INC: Honeywell Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cheri Honeywell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HARIHAR INC., a Florida corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00169, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers)
on Sep. 13, 2018. The Florida Middle District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:18-cv-00618-JES-MRM to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge John E. Steele. The suit alleges
Americans with Disabilities Act violation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          THE ADVOCACY GROUP, LLC
          200 SE 6th St Ste 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3424
          Telephone: (954) 282 1858
          Facsimile: (844) 786 3694
          E-mail: jkerr@advocacypa.com


HARLEIGH CEMETERY: Violates Employee Protection Act, Leon Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LEON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARLEIGH CEMETERY ASSN.; RICHARD MARTIELLO;
JOHN DOES 1-5; and 6-10, Defendants, Case No. CAM-L-003114-18 (N.J.
Super., Camden Cty., Aug. 16, 2018) alleges violation of the
Conscientious Employee Protection Act.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff from in or about September of
2005 until his unlawful discharge on or about March 8, 2018. The
Plaintiff worked as a full time cremator.

Harleigh Cemetery Assn. is an entity conducting business in Camden,
New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drake P. Bearden, Jr., Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727-9700


HAWAII: Faces Class Action Over School Bullying, Violence
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Hawaii's public school
administrators have systematically failed to protect students from
bullying and harassment, leading to violent attacks, according to a
class-action lawsuit.

Several parents announced on Aug. 31 the filing of a lawsuit in
U.S. District Court against Hawaii State Department of Education
Superintendent Christina Kishimoto and Department of Education
employees, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported.

The lawsuit accuses the department of "deliberate indifference"
that "needlessly puts the entire student population at risk of
significant and irreparable damage."

Department of Education spokesman Derek Inoshita declined to
comment on how the department handles bullying and harassment in
general, or more specifically to address the allegations in the
lawsuit. "Unfortunately, we can't comment or provide any specific
details due to the pending litigation," he said.

Along with damages and other relief, the lawsuit calls for
appointment of a special master to take over the Department of
Education to ensure children's safety.

The parents are represented by attorney Eric Seitz, who led the
charge in a class-action lawsuit decades ago that resulted in
sweeping changes in special education in Hawaii under a federal
consent decree.

"It's not difficult for them to put resources in place to deal with
these situations and take action to defuse them," Seitz said. "From
the standpoint of the horrendous incidents we've seen, I don't
understand why this isn't a priority."

Along with Ms. Kishimoto, the lawsuit names Principals Elynne E.
Chung of Mililani Middle, Bernadette Tyrell of Castle and Beverly
Stanich of Wailuku Elementary as well as Robert Davis, Central Oahu
complex-area superintendent, and unnamed Department of Education
defendants. [GN]


HCL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Voll Suit over Race Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
REESE VOLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.; and HCL AMERICA,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-4943 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 15, 2018)
equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages, including
pre-and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs to
redress the Defendants' pervasive pattern and practice of
discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

The Plaintiff allege in the complaint that the Defendants had
engaged in a systematic, company-wide, pattern and practice of
discrimination in favor of South Asians and against individuals who
are not South Asian in hiring, promotion, and termination
decisions.

CL Technologies Limited offers software, information technology
(IT) infrastructure, and business process outsourcing services
worldwide. HCL Technologies Limited was founded in 1976 and is
headquartered in Noida, India. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Low, Esq.
          KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
          1745 Kalorama Road NW, Suite 101
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 471-1995
          E-mail: dlow@kotchen.com


HUNTER ALLIED: Izaguirre Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Fernando M. Izaguirre, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hunter
Allied of Maryland, Inc. et al., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00965 (DLF), Case No. 1:18-cv-00965-DLF (D. Colo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify a Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action, and approve and facilitate notice
to potential class members.

The Defendants operate a construction company providing
construction services within Washington, D.C., for whom the
Plaintiff performed work and was employed. The Plaintiff alleges
that he was routinely not paid overtime for the hours he worked in
excess of 40 in a work week. The Plaintiff was subject to the
Defendant's  conscious and deliberate plan to avoid the payment of
overtime in the statutory prescribed amount of 1.5 times
Plaintiff's regular rate of $16.00 per hour. The Defendants would
conceal the number of hours worked by Plaintiff on his paycheck by
misclassifying all hours he worked over 40 as an "expense
reimbursement," paid at a straight rate below the statutory
overtime rate.

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Howard B. Hoffman, Esq.
          HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAW, LLC
          600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 204
          Rockville, MD 20852
          Telephone: (301) 251 3752
          Facsimile: (301) 251 3753
          E-mail: hhoffman@hoholaw.com


HUSKY ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over April 26 Refinery Explosion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Lovrien, writing for Duluth News Tribune, reports that a
class action complaint was filed against Husky Energy and Superior
Refining Company in response to the April 26 explosion and fire at
their Superior refinery, which prompted the evacuation of most of
Superior.

In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin on Aug. 20, Jasen Bruzek, Hope Koplin and
Neil Miller argue Husky displayed negligence, nuisance, trespass on
land and strict liability -- extrahazardous and/or ultrahazardous
activity before, during and after the fire and evacuation.

According to the complaint, "Defendants failed to exercise due care
in the maintenance and monitoring of the Husky Superior Refinery so
as to prevent fires, explosions, and the uncontrolled release of
hazardous substance, odors, and wastes into the environment."

The complaint cites the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board's Aug. 2 factual update that found a worn-out
valve may allow air to mix with hydrocarbons within the fluid
catalytic cracking unit, or FCC, then come in contact with iron
sulfide deposits, which can spontaneously ignite if in contact with
air. Since the evacuation zone was based on the worst-case scenario
-- the release of hydrogen fluoride, a highly dangerous chemical
used in the refining process — the complaint cites the Center for
Public Integrity in claiming that up to 180,000 people could have
been killed or injured if the hydrogen fluoride was released.

No hydrogen fluoride was released.

The Husky refinery in Superior can store nearly 78,000 pounds of
the chemical, according to EPA records. At the time of the April
fire, the refinery said there were 15,000 pounds on site. If
exposed to the atmosphere, hydrogen fluoride travels quickly in a
cloud and can cause burning and respiratory problems. The chemical
can be fatal in high concentrations.

While Husky allowed evacuees to file claims for evacuation expenses
— transportation, lodging and lost wages — as well as separate
claims for bodily harm, the complaint argues "the claim
reimbursement process has skewed towards reimbursing only certain
segments of the affected population," such as those who could
afford the up-front costs of a hotel room.

That was the case for plaintiff Neil Miller, who couldn't afford a
hotel and spent the night in Canal Park with his family, according
to the complaint.

The complaint also claims that while Husky has accepted some claims
for reimbursement, the company has failed to make reimbursement
payments for "many more residents."

In an email on Aug. 31, Husky Energy Media Relations Coordinator
Kim Guttormson said nearly all of the claims received by Husky have
been closed.

"Since the April 26 fire, we have been working to resolve any
related claims, including those for accommodation, food and lost
wages," she said. "To date, more than 95 percent of the claims
presented to us have been successfully closed and we continue to
address the others."

The complaint claims the evacuation led to the death of plaintiff
Hope Koplin's mother, who was in hospice care, had to be evacuated,
then died on May 3.

According to the complaint, "Even though she was eating and talking
prior to the evacuation, upon her return home; she was no longer
eating or talking and her health quickly deteriorated. A few days
later, Ms. Koplin's mother passed away."

Plaintiff Jasen Bruzek had to evacuate his family and dog during
the fire, but managed to find a place to stay for free. However,
since his children's school cancelled class April 27, the day after
the fire, his wife couldn't go to work and lost wages, according to
the complaint.

The plaintiffs are requesting an unspecified amount for damages.
[GN]


IDAHO: Class Action Over Public School Students Fees Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Judd Wilson, writing for Coeur d'Alene Press, reports that sharp
pay increases next door in Washington might transform the way
teachers in Idaho get paid.

Or they might not.

In compliance with the 2012 McCleary court case mandating
additional funding for public schools in Washington, this year the
Washington Legislature allocated an additional $1 billion to
Washington school districts. That funding recently led to
double-digit pay raises for teachers in many Washington public
schools.

Tops in the state was North River School District in western
Washington, which saw an average pay raise of 34 percent for
teachers. Closer to home, teacher salaries went up an average of
16.5 percent in Selkirk, 16 percent in Mead, 15.5 percent in
Pullman, and 13.3 percent in Spokane.

In the Mead district, many teachers with roughly 15 years
experience will see their pay jump to nearly six figures.

Coeur d'Alene Education Association president Bruce Twitchell was
glad to hear the good news.

"The CEA is very excited that the hard-working education
professionals in Washington are receiving the well-deserved raises
that the state has funded," he said.

The pay hike across state lines is concerning if it leads to a
wider salary gap between Kootenai County and Spokane County, said
Coeur d'Alene School District spokesman Scott Maben. Given the
$48,263 starting pay for teachers in the Mead School District
versus the $35,800 starting pay for teachers in the Coeur d'Alene
School District, the difference will be hard to ignore for job
seekers, he said.

Might Idaho educators jump ship for much higher salaries a few
miles to the west? Mr. Twitchell said it's a definite possibility.

"We would not be surprised to see professional educators looking
for work 20 minutes away where they can make $20,000 per year, or
more, over what Idaho pays for preparing the future generations of
this great country," Mr. Twitchell said.

The school district and local teachers' union strive to be on the
same page when it comes to negotiations. Maben said this past
spring, the district and teachers' union tried a new approach
called interest-based bargaining.

"The two sides were pleased with this new process, and at this
point we expect to continue with the collaborative approach," he
said.

Events in Washington might not change that, he said.

Maben said the district wants to "continue to improve salaries for
teachers and other school employees so that we can recruit and keep
quality staff."

However, that's dependent upon the Idaho Legislature.

"We would hope state leaders recognize the unique pressures border
communities confront as they compete for teachers with
higher-paying school districts just over the state line," Maben
said.

He added that while pay rates sharply differ between the two
states, benefit and retirement programs here are competitive with
those at Washington school districts.

The union chief agreed. He said CEA plans to keep plugging away at
improving pay for teachers here, but that the state government is
ultimately responsible for what can be achieved.

"There is not much the union or school district can do, when the
state legislators are failing to do their job and fund education
properly," Mr. Twitchell said. "The state of Idaho will continue to
lose quality education professionals to other states until the
Legislature decides to take action."

Mr. Twitchell added, "We hope that the state of Idaho will follow
suit of Washington and dramatically increase funding for education,
so educators will no longer have to work second jobs, be part-time
fund raisers for their classroom, and thus can be fully focused on
what is most important -- the students."

Now that Washington has proven that a state supreme court can
successfully compel its legislature to fund public schools to the
courts' specifications, might Idaho follow suit? On May 8, former
Idaho Supreme Court Justice Robert Huntley started to chip away at
the issue by filing a class action lawsuit in federal court to
compel Idaho school districts to stop charging students fees. Just
as the McCleary court decision claimed that the Washington
legislature has a constitutional requirement to fund public schools
first, and to give them more than minimum funding, Huntley claims
the Idaho constitutional mandate of "free common schools" both
forbids student fees and requires far more state funding for public
school districts.

"School leaders and patrons should insist that the governor and the
legislators honor their constitutional duty to properly fund
education," Justice Huntley said in May. [GN]


IRSA INVERSIONES: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations Of
Federal Securities Laws (CAC) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) in the case captioned STEFAN
SACHSENBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. IRSA INVERSIONES Y REPRESENTACIONES
SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, EDUARDO SERGIO ELSZTAIN, CRESUD SOCIEDAD ANONIMA
COMERCIAL, INMOBILIARIA, FINANCIERA Y AGROPECUARIA, SAUL ZANG, and
MATIAS IVAN GAIVIRONSKY, Defendants. No. 16-CV-5743 (VSB).
(S.D.N.Y.).

Lead plaintiff Stefan Sachsenberg alleges that the Defendants along
with certain officers and/or directors of the company violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exchange Act) and the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission's corresponding rule. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements to
investors.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim will have
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the PSLRA

Securities fraud claims are subject to heightened pleading
requirements that the plaintiff must meet to survive a motion to
dismiss. Rule 9(b) requires a securities fraud claim to state with
particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. This
standard also requires that the complaint (1) specify the
statements that the plaintiff contends were fraudulent, (2)
identify the speaker, (3) state where and when the statements were
made, and (4) explain why the statements were fraudulent.

Material Misstatement or Omission

Applicable Law

Rule 10b-5, promulgated under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,
provides in pertinent part that it is unlawful to make any untrue
statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact
necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. With
respect to omissions, silence, absent a duty to disclose, is not
misleading under Rule 10b-5.

Application

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made the following
principal misrepresentations or omissions: (1) IRSA failed to
disclose that it controlled IDBD as of February 11, 2015 and failed
to consolidate IDBD's financial results into its own; and (2) IRSA
failed to disclose that it controlled IDBD through Dolphin. Both of
these alleged omissions turn on whether IRSA controlled IDBD as of
February 11, 2015.

The Spruce Point Report

Even though Spruce Point stood to realize significant gains if the
price of IRSA or Cresud shares declined as a result of the Spruce
Point Report, the truth of the Report is a factual dispute that is
inappropriate for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage.
Moreover, the Plaintiff does not rely exclusively on the Spruce
Point Report. Therefore, at this stage in the proceedings, The
Court accept the Spruce Point Report as a sufficiently reliable
factual source for the Plaintiff's allegations in the CAC.

IRSA's Control of IDBD

The Plaintiff alleges in the CAC that IRSA controlled IDBD as of
February 11, 2015, and that IRSA's failure to disclose that control
as well as its subsequent failure to consolidate IDBD into its
financials constitutes a material misstatement or omission. The
Movants argue that the Plaintiff's allegations are belied by the
same accounting standards on which the CAC purports to rely.

Drawing all inferences in the Plaintiff's favor, as the Court must,
the Plaintiff fails to allege that IRSA's failure to consolidate
IDBD into its financials was a material misstatement or omission.
IRSA's alleged failure to consolidate IDBD turns on whether and
when it had control over IDBD.

The Plaintiff argues that Dolphin had control over IDBD and could
have appointed its directors any time before the arbitrator's
injunction on July 6, 2015. The Plaintiff repeats this theory in
his opposition, but this fact is not alleged in the CAC. The
Plaintiff does not allege how Dolphin could have installed its
directors before the arbitrator's award on October 11, 2015, either
before or after the arbitrator's injunction on July 6, 2015.
Instead, the facts in the CAC concerning the arbitration show that
IRSA never had the practical ability to exercise control over IDBD,
free from barriers (economic or otherwise) that prevent [IRSA] from
exercising that control.

IRSA's Compliance with its Debt Covenants

The Plaintiff also fails to plead any facts sufficient to allege a
material misstatement or omission regarding IRSA's compliance with
its debt covenants. The Plaintiff makes no attempt to respond to
the Defendants' argument that the Plaintiff fails to plead that
IRSA breached its debt covenants and appears to abandon this claim
in his opposition. That failure by itself is sufficient to warrant
accepting Movants' argument on this issue. In any event, the CAC
pleads virtually no facts suggesting the plausibility of any such
breach. These equivocal allegations are insufficient to state a
claim under Section 10(b), or to create an inference that would
support such a claim. Moreover, it is undisputed that IDBD has been
consolidated in the financials of IRSA since October 2015, and that
no IRSA noteholder has ever declared breach of the debt covenant
(or any other covenant) over the past two years.

The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has not adequately pleaded a
material misstatement or omission, which alone warrants dismissal
of his claim for securities fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5.  

Scienter

Applicable Law

In the Second Circuit, a strong inference of scienter can be
established by alleging facts to show either (1) that defendants
had the motive and opportunity to commit fraud, or (2) strong
circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.

Motive and Opportunity to Defraud

In order to raise a strong inference of scienter through motive and
opportunity to defraud, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant
or its officers benefitted in some concrete and personal way from
the purported fraud. Motives that are common to most corporate
officers, such as the desire for the corporation to appear
profitable and the desire to keep stock prices high to increase
officer compensation, do not constitute motive for purposes of this
inquiry.

Strong Circumstantial Evidence

As an alternative to the motive and opportunity to defraud, a
plaintiff can raise a strong inference of scienter under the strong
circumstantial evidence prong, requiring a plaintiff to show
conscious misbehavior or recklessness. Conscious misbehavior
encompasses deliberate illegal behavior, whereas recklessness
includes conscious recklessness or a state of mind approximating
actual intent, and not merely a heightened form of negligence. If
motive to commit fraud has not been shown, the strength of the
circumstantial allegations must be correspondingly greater.

The Core Operations Doctrine

Prior to the passage of the PLSRA, a plaintiff could allege
scienter as to individual defendants and a company if the
misleading statements and/or omissions related to a core operation
of the company. However, since the enactment of the PSLRA, the
Second Circuit has expressed doubt as to the continued independent
viability of the core operations doctrine. The Second Circuit has
commented that the doctrine can provide supplemental support for
allegations of scienter, even if it cannot establish scienter
independently. District courts in this Circuit have questioned the
continued viability of the core operations doctrine following the
PSLRA. Without more definitive guidance from the Second Circuit, I
will apply the modified approach followed by district courts in
this Circuit, and consider the core operations allegations to
constitute a supplementary, but not an independent, means to plead
scienter. As a result, the Court will consider the core operations
allegations as part of a holistic assessment of the scienter
allegations.

Application

To establish a strong inference of scienter, Plaintiff proceeds
solely on a theory under the strong circumstantial evidence prong,
arguing that the CAC adequately pleads conscious misbehavior or
recklessness.

As with his argument as to material misrepresentation or omission,
Plaintiff incorrectly contends that IRSA controlled IDBD for all
practical purposes as of February 10, 2015. As described above, to
consolidate IDBD under IFRS 10, IRSA was required to have the
practical ability to exercise control over IDBD, free from barriers
(economic or otherwise) that prevent [IRSA] from exercising that
control. The Plaintiff repeatedly emphasizes that the arbitrator's
injunction was only imposed on July 6, 2015, and that therefore
IRSA controlled IDBD until at least that point in time. The
arbitrator's injunction, however, was imposed before the
shareholders' meeting at which Dolphin would have apparently had
its first opportunity to vote for its director nominees. The
injunction stopped Dolphin from voting for its own directors to
replace Extra's directors. Thus, Dolphin did not have the practical
ability to exercise control over IDBD between February 10, 2015 and
July 6, 2015, and it did not gain such control until October 2015.
There are also no allegations that support an inference that had
the meeting been scheduled earlier Extra could not have sought an
injunction from the arbitrator at an earlier date.

A complaint will survive only if a reasonable person would deem the
inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any
opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged. At most,
and taken as a whole, the CAC shows that Defendants knew that
Dolphin purchased a majority of IDBD shares and that Defendants
hoped to obtain control over IDBD in Dolphin's dispute with Extra.
Plaintiff fails to provide any basis for a conclusion that
Defendants had a motive to defraud, and its allegations of
conscious misbehavior or recklessness are virtually nonexistent.
Although scienter allegations need not be irrefutable or even the
most plausible of competing inferences, to withstand a motion to
dismiss, the CAC's allegations do not meet the heightened standards
of Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA. In other words, the Court finds that
any reasonable shareholder would deem the inference of scienter to
be far less compelling than an inference of, at most,
non-actionable mismanagement and negligence on the part of
Defendants.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff fails to adequately allege scienter, and
his claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 must be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 10, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9qbnu44 from
Leagle.com.

Stefan Sachsenberg, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jacob A.
Goldberg -- jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. &
Keith Robert Lorenze -- klorenze@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A.

IRSA Inversiones Y Representaciones Sociedad Anonima & Cresud
Sociedad Anonima Comercial, Inmobiliaria, Financiera Y
Agropecuaria, Defendants, represented by Bryce Leigh Friedman --
bfriedman@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, George S.
Wang -- gwang@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Stephen
J. Kastenberg -- KASTENBERG BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP &
Thomas W. Hazlett -- HAZLETTT BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR
LLP.


J&W GRADING: Revised Bid to Certify Collective Action Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Michael Brown, Jr., Nathan Cole, Aaron
Floyd, Brandon Horton, Eric Moore, Gregory Seal, John Wilterding,
Manny Rivera, Richard Padilla, Dan Vischansky, Neal Nida, Brent
Reed, Kevin Shofner, Shaun Stockton, Michael Wade Yearby, Kyran
Adams, Cody Piper, John Gable, Donna Turbville, individually, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. J&W Grading, Inc., Migo IQ, Inc., Radar_Apps, Inc.,
ECO IQ LLC, Cloud IQ, LLC, Synergy LLC, Mojo Transport, LLC, Ronnie
Guthrie, Jonathon Kotthoff, Carol Leese, Jason Neilitz, Ivelisse
Estrada Rivero; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01263-WGY (D.P.R.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order granting their revised motion to conditionally certify a
collective action and facilitate notice.

The Plaintiffs seek payment of unpaid regular and overtime wages
owed to them and other similarly situated general laborers due to
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members:

          Enrique J. Mendoza-Mendez, Esq.
          MENDOZA LAW OFFICES
          P.O. Box 9282
          San Juan, PR 00908
          Telephone: (787) 722 5522
          E-mail: mendozalo@yahoo.com

               - and -

          L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHELLE GESSNER, PLLC
          435 East Morehead Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 234 7442
          E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wins Dismissal of Nonresident Plaintiffs' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware issued an Opinion granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss non-resident Plaintiffs' claims for
lack of personal jurisdiction in the case captioned IN RE: TALC
PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION. C.A. No. N17C-03-054 TAL. (Del.
Super.).

Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Inc. (f/k/a Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.) (JNJ)  have
moved to dismiss the claims brought by the nonresident Plaintiffs
for lack of personal jurisdiction.

These complaints allege that women who use talcum powder in their
perineal area over a period of time contracted ovarian cancer. Talc
was manufactured, marketed, and sold by the defendants as baby
powder.

JNJ has not filed an answer to the Complaint, arguing instead that
the Court should dismiss the Complaints of the nonresident
plaintiffs because the Court has neither general nor specific
jurisdiction over JNJ.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under
Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(2), the plaintiff bears the burden
to make out a prima facie case establishing jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant. A prima facie case requires the production
of enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at
issue and rule in the party's favor.

In 2014, the Court decided two personal jurisdiction cases: Daimler
AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. at 137-38and Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. at
284-86

In Daimler, Argentinian residents brought tort claims in a
California court, alleging that an Argentinian Daimler subsidiary
(MB Argentina) conspired with Argentinian security forces to kidnap
and kill employees of MB Argentina. The plaintiffs named only the
Daimler parent company, Daimler, AG not MB Argentina or its U.S.
subsidiary, MBUSA. No plaintiff resided in California and all of
the tortious activities occurred in Argentina. Nevertheless,
plaintiffs argued that because MBUSA sold many automobiles in
California and had a regional office there, those activities should
be imputed to the parent, Daimler AG, which, it was argued, used
agents to conduct substantial business in California. The Supreme
Court rejected this argument.

Daimler gave the Court an opportunity to review and expand on what
it had said previously about general jurisdiction in Goodyear:
"Goodyear did not hold that a corporation may be subject to general
jurisdiction only in a forum where it is incorporated or has its
principal place of business; it simply typed those places paradigm
all-purpose forums. Plaintiffs would have us look beyond the
exemplar bases Goodyear identified and approve the exercise of
general jurisdiction in every State in which a corporation engages
in a substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business.
That formulation, we hold, is unacceptably grasping."

General Jurisdiction: JNJ is not at home in Delaware

The Plaintiffs argue that because JNJ intentionally distributed
talcum products in Delaware as part of a national distribution
plan, the Plaintiffs may establish jurisdiction under a stream of
commerce theory. But the Court has seen that the Supreme Court has
repudiated any stream of commerce theory to support general
jurisdiction.

Nor can the Court agree that Johnson & Johnson's creation of other
subsidiaries in Delaware, unrelated to this lawsuit, somehow
infects Johnson & Johnson and its non-Delaware subsidiaries with
general jurisdiction in Delaware. General jurisdiction is heavily
related to how the defendant has chosen to organize itself and
where it has chosen for its principal place of business. Other
Defendants named in the caption chose to organize in Delaware, JNJ
did not.

The Plaintiffs' arguments favoring general jurisdiction in Delaware
are unpersuasive.

Specific Jurisdiction

It is worth recalling that the dispute before the Court is not a
class action. Rather, each lawsuit represents the claims of
individual Plaintiffs from various states. So what may be true of a
Delaware Plaintiff may not be true of an Ohio Plaintiff. JNJ does
not dispute specific jurisdiction in this Court for the claims
brought by Delaware residents, whose injuries allegedly resulted
from JNJ's forum-related activities. It is only the non-resident
Plaintiffs' Complaints that are vulnerable to JNJ's Motion to
Dismiss.

JNJ's Sales and Marketing of Talc in Delaware

The Plaintiffs allege upon information and belief that JNJ marketed
and distributed talc to hospitals to patients with newborn babies
including Delaware hospitals and clinics and may have also utilized
Delaware newspapers and periodicals for marketing and sales
purposes.

The Court accepts that forum-specific activities such as sales and
marketing in Delaware, to Delawareans, may form a basis for a
Delawarean to make a claim against JNJ. But as to a non-resident
Plaintiff, even if a defendant's activity is forum-specific, it is
not germane to the non-resident Plaintiff's claim. The non-resident
presumably was subject to sales and marketing forces in her own
jurisdiction, not in Delaware. Thus, JNJ's sales and marketing of
products in Delaware to resident Plaintiffs is not forum-related
conduct by JNJ that is related to the specific claims at issue the
claims being asserted by nonresident Plaintiffs.

The Confidentiality Agreement

The Plaintiffs point to an unspecified confidentiality agreement
between Defendant Luzenac (now Imerys Talc America, Inc.) and JNJ.
According to the Plaintiffs, the agreement included a provision
stating that it would be governed by Delaware law.  However, this
is not a lawsuit concerning a breach of the confidentiality
agreement. The fact that an unrelated contract is governed by
Delaware law is, in every sense, conduct unrelated to the specific
claims asserted in the Complaints.

The Testing of Talc Samples by DuPont

The relevant JNJ conduct that forms the basis of nonresident
Plaintiffs' claims against JNJ is the continued production,
packaging, marketing, and sale of talc despite knowing that it was
harmful to women, and the concerted efforts that JNJ allegedly
engaged in to prevent the public from finding out about the dangers
associated with the use of talc in JNJ's products. If JNJ had talc
analyzed by DuPont and learned or confirmed by the analysis that
the talc was indeed dangerous, that evidence would surely be
damaging to JNJ. But that knowledge did not advance the sale or
marketing of talc to the public. It was not even a link in the
production chain of talc's eventual sale to the public. The
Plaintiffs have not alleged any fact linking DuPont's testing of
talc samples in Delaware to the nonresident Plaintiffs' claims. The
bare fact that JNJ contracted with DuPont to have some kind of
testing performed on talc samples in a lab in Delaware is not
enough to vest Delaware courts with jurisdiction over JNJ as to the
nonresident Plaintiffs' claims.

Sending talc samples to DuPont for analysis is, in the Court's
view, at best tangentially related to the claims in this lawsuit in
that they both involve talc. Moreover, the fact that the situs of
the analysis was a lab in Delaware is at best happenstance; it
could have been a lab anywhere, and it was not the sort of
purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting business in a
state that would lead JNJ to "reasonably anticipate being hauled
into court there." Thus, assuming the Plaintiffs' allegations of
forum-related lab analysis of talc are true, the Court does not
find that conduct to be sufficiently significant or related to the
specific claims at issue in the lawsuits before the Court to
justify the exercise of specific jurisdiction over JNJ.

The Parent-Subsidiary, Principal-Agent, and Coconspirator
Arguments

The Plaintiffs make additional claims related to the relationship
between JNJ and other forum Defendants, including
parent-subsidiary, principal-agent, and coconspirators. All three
use a similar, attributive approach to establishing jurisdiction.

Agency Theory

The Plaintiffs argue that JNJ "contracted with distributors in
Delaware to disseminate its talcum products," thus establishing
jurisdiction because the Defendants contracted to supply goods in
Delaware. The Court need not labor long over this argument. JNJ
does not contest jurisdiction in Delaware as to resident claims.
The residents' claims are intimately involved with JNJ's conduct in
the forum, thus satisfying specific jurisdiction. So whether JNJ
acted as principal or through agents is largely irrelevant to
jurisdiction as to resident Plaintiffs. As to the nonresident
Plaintiffs, however, it is equally irrelevant how JNJ distributed
goods to Delaware Plaintiffs with the opposite result: regardless
whether JNJ marketed to Delaware as a principal or through an
agent, its forum-related conduct did not cause injury to
nonresident Plaintiffs.

Conspiracy Theory

The Plaintiffs allege that "both the Delaware suppliers and the
foreign sellers of talc engaged in a civil conspiracy."

Here, the Plaintiffs make no effort at all to articulate a
substantial act committed in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy
that was carried out in Delaware. Nor does even a generous reading
of the Complaints and supplemental briefing remotely suggest one.

While the Plaintiffs' Complaints are long on the history of talc
and its regulation, or lack thereof, the studies showing its
dangers to women, and the Defendants' efforts to repudiate or
suppress the evidence, they are short on references to Delaware.
Not only is JNJ not mentioned in connection with conspiratorial
acts in Delaware, no other Defendant is either. Incorporation in
Delaware serves only to establish Delaware as home for purposes of
general jurisdiction; it is essentially irrelevant for purposes of
specific jurisdiction and does nothing to advance the non-resident
Plaintiffs' claims in that respect.

A full-text copy of the Superior Court's September 10, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaqgshkm from Leagle.com.

R. Joseph Hrubiec, Esquire and W. Steven Berman, Esquire , NAPOLI
SHKOLNIK, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esquire ,
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC, Melville, New York. Attorneys for
Plaintiffs.

Raeann Warner, Esquire , JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A., Wilmington,
Delaware. Attorney for Plaintiffs.

Michael P. Kelly, Esquire and Daniel J. Brown, Esquire , McCARTER &
ENGLISH, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Jessica D. Miller, Esquire ,
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP, Washington, D.C.
(argued). Attorneys for Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson &
Johnson Consumer Inc. (f/k/a Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies,
Inc.).


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Black Financial Advisers' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Max Abelson and Jordyn Holman, writing for Bloomberg News, report
that as racial diversity tumbles on Wall Street, JPMorgan Chase &
Co. has reached a settlement with financial advisers who say they
were treated poorly because they're black.

Six current and former employees at the largest U.S. bank filed
what they asked to be a class action, alleging discrimination
that's "uniform and national in scope." Instead of fighting it in
court, the bank agreed to pay $19.5 million to the members of the
class, according to Aug. 31 filings. It will also put $4.5 million
into a fund that will back recruitment, bias training, a review of
branch assignments and a coaching program for black advisers.

"This settlement eliminates the need for litigation, allowing us to
continue our focus on a diverse and inclusive environment," said
Tom Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan. "We will enhance the careers
of our black advisers." In the settlement, the bank denies any
"wrongdoing of any kind whatsoever."

Big Wall Street banks have been losing black workers year after
year in the U.S. Inside JPMorgan, the share of black employees has
dropped for six straight years, to 13.4 percent in 2017 from 16
percent in 2011, according to its own figures. Black workers
account for about one in 10 of the U.S. employees at Citigroup
Inc., down from about one in six in 2009.

'Race Discrimination'

The lawsuit accuses JPMorgan of sending white advisers to wealthier
places while assigning black colleagues to less lucrative branches
and denying them opportunities. They had few licensed bankers to
support them, were mostly kept out of a program for richer clients
and got paid less, the suit says.

"These racial disparities result from Chase's systemic, intentional
race discrimination and from policies and practices that have an
unlawful disparate impact on African Americans," the six plaintiffs
said in court papers. They are Jerome Senegal in Texas, Erika
Williams in Illinois, Brent Griffin in Wisconsin, Irvin Nash in New
York, Amanda Jason in Kentucky and Kellie Farrish in California.

"Our clients are proud of this outcome and acknowledge that
JPMorgan had a choice to fight," their lawyer Linda Friedman said
in an email. "Each case builds on the last. This is how progress is
made."

Other banks have faced similar allegations. Wells Fargo & Co.
agreed to a $35.5 million settlement with black financial advisers
and Bank of America Corp.'s Merrill Lynch resolved a race
discrimination suit for $160 million five years ago.

Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan's chief executive officer, has said the firm
is making progress. He told shareholders in an April 2016 letter
that he would "dramatically step up our effort" to hire black
people.

Friedman, a civil rights attorney, worked on one of the most famous
Wall Street gender-discrimination fights, known as the "Boom-Boom
Room" suit. It was filed in 1996 against Smith Barney -- when the
man running the firm, and a defendant in the case, was Mr.
Dimon.[GN]


JT'S FRAMES: Casares Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JT'S FRAMES, INC., an Illinois corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. JESSE CASARES, JOE
CASARES, PATRICIA BEZABALETA a/k/a PATRICIA ZABELETA, DAVID A.
OZUNA, JOHN MEDINA, MARKETECH, a Texas corporation d/b/a
INTERFAX.NET, AVIGDOR TESSLER, JAY M. KAMENETSKY, and JOHN DOES
1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02504 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of:

   "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
   filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
   messages of material advertising the commercial availability
   or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf
   of Defendants, and (3) which Defendants did not have prior
   express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not display
   a proper opt-out notice."

The Plaintiff submits its Motion for Class Certification pursuant
to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011)
(holding plaintiffs "can move to certify the class at the same time
that they file their complaint" and "[t]he pendency of that motion
protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named
plaintiffs"), overruled in part by Chapman v. First Index, Inc.,
796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) (overruling Damasco "to the
extent [it] hold[s] that a defendant's offer of full compensation
moots the litigation or otherwise ends the Article III case or
controversy" but not commenting on effect of a "placeholder" motion
if plaintiff's individual claim becomes moot for some other
reason); Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (Jan. 20,
2016) (holding "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment
does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted").

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


KELLER WILLIAMS: Wright Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE WRIGHT, individually and SAM TULI, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KELLER WILLIAMS
REALTY, INC., a Texas corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00775 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 12, 2018), seeks to stop Keller
Williams from directing its franchisees to violate the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited, prerecorded and
autodialed calls to consumers without their consent, including
calls to consumers registered on the National Do Not Call registry,
and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all
persons injured by Keller Williams' conduct.

According to the complaint, on July 1, 2018, a Keller Williams
agent called  Wright's cellular phone number using 321-239-3202 and
left a prerecorded voice message. The message introduces the agent
as being Cesar, offering to sell Wright's property that had been
taken off the market. The Plaintiff called Cesar back at phone
number 321-239-3202 on July 1, 2018. Wright began the call by
confirming Cesar's name and which agency he works at, and then
demanded that the calls stop. Despite the request for all calls to
stop, the same prerecorded voice calls were made to Plaintiff
Wright on July 2, 2018.

On July 9, 2018, Wright received an autodialed call from another
Keller Williams agent using phone number 407-476-8954. After the
agent introduced himself as being with Keller Williams Realty, he
told Wright which property he was inquiring about. In return,
Wright asked the agent how he got Wright's phone number. The agent
answered that he uses a system that locates phone numbers. The
agent specifically indicated that he uses Vulcan7. The Plaintiff
then strongly demanded that the agent remove his number from their
system and never call again. The Plaintiff has never provided his
cellular phone numbers to Landvoice or Keller Williams, or
otherwise consented to any Keller Williams agent placing
solicitation telephone calls to either of his phone numbers
registered on the DNC.

Keller Williams is an American technology and international real
estate franchise with headquarters in Austin, Texas. It is the
number one franchise in the United States by sales volume, ranking
number one in agents and units sold in 2017.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam Muery, Esq.
          111 W. 2nd Street
          Elgin, TX 78621
          Telephone: (512) 200 7367
          Facsimile: (877) 466 4478
          E-mail: Adam.muery@gmail.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 877 333 9427
          Facsimile: 888 498 8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

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


KNORR-BREMSE: Roozemond Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JASON T. ROOZEMOND, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
KNORR-BREMSE AG; KNORR BRAKE COMPANY LLC; NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC;
BENDIX COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SYSTEMS LLC; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; WABTEC RAILWAY ELECTRONICS, INC.;
FAIVELEY TRANSPORT S.A.; FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA, INC.;
RAILROAD CONTROLS, L.P.; XORAIL, INC.; and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01088-JFC, was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on August 16, 2018.
The Maryland District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-01750
to the proceeding.  The Case is assigned to the Hon. George Levi
Russell, III.

Knorr-Bremse Aktiengesellschaft develops, produces, markets, and
services braking systems for rail and commercial vehicles. The
Company provides entrance, windscreen wiper, driver assistance, and
power supply systems, as well as platform screen doors and
torsional vibration dampers. Knorr-Bremse serves customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William H. Murphy III, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Szokoly, Esq.
          Jessica H. Meeder, Esq.
          MURPHY FALCON & MURPHY
          One South Street, 23 rd Floor
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 951-8744
          Facsimile: (410) 539-6599

               - and -

          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
          Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          George C. Aguilar, Esq.
          Michael J. Nicoud, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991


KOHL'S CORP: Ankcorn Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MARK ANKCORN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KOHL'S CORPORATION,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-01303 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. determining that this action may proceed as a class action
      on behalf of:

      "all persons who had or have a number assigned to a
      cellular telephone service, which number was called by
      Defendant using an automatic telephone dialing system
      and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice from four years
      prior to the date of filing through the date of trial".

      Excluded from the class are persons who Defendant called
      for emergency purposes and persons who voluntarily provided
      their cellular telephone numbers to Defendant during the
      transaction that resulted in the debt owed.

   2. appointing Mark Ankcorn, as Class Representative, and
      Martin & Bontrager, APC and McMorrow Law, P.C., as class
      counsel.

The Plaintiff files its motion at this time in order to
procedurally preserve Plaintiff's rights pursuant to Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011) and pursuant to the
decision in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523
(U.S. 2013), although Plaintiff disagrees that either decision is
applicable at this time given the United States Supreme Court's
ruling in the matter of Gomez, Case No. 14-857. Because the parties
have not yet had an opportunity to conduct discovery in this case,
Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court defer ruling on
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification until after the parties
have had the opportunity to complete precertification discovery.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
          6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 960
          Los Angeles, CA 90028
          Telephone: (323) 940 1700
          Facsimile: (323) 238 8095
          E-mail: Nick@mblawapc.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Henry T. Kelly, Esq.
          Janine N. Fletcher, Esq.
          Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          333 W. Wacker Drive, 26th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 857 7070
          E-mail: hkelly@kelleydrye.com
                  cjames@kelleydrye.com
                  lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com


LANCASTER WINGS: Ex-Athens BWW Workers' Class Action Settled
------------------------------------------------------------
Conor Morris, writing for The Athens News, reports that a federal
class-action lawsuit filed by two former Athens Buffalo Wild Wings
employees against the company that owns that restaurant has been
settled, resulting in a $1.55 million collective action settlement
against the company.

U.S. District Judge Algenon L. Marbley approved the settlement on
Aug. 24 in the suit brought by Athens resident Zachary Barton and
Florida resident Ethan Forness -- both former server/bartenders at
the Athens BWW -- against Lancaster Wings Inc.

The suit alleged that the company -- which owns seven BWWs in Ohio
and three in Arizona -- violated the Fair Labor Standards Act in at
least four ways, largely related to tipped employees allegedly
performing "non-tipped" work and being underpaid for that work. The
suit also alleged that the cost of uniforms were deducted from
employees' pay; that they weren't paid when forced to work off the
clock; and that servers and bartenders were required to reimburse
their restaurant when customers left without paying the bill.

After some fees and about $5,000 each going to the two former
Athens employees, and a sizable $465,000 chunk going to their legal
counsel, the rest of the $1 million in settlement money will be
held in a fund that will disburse money owed to more than 1,200
current or former employees of the franchise.

According to the settlement agreement between the Lancaster Wings
company and the plaintiffs filed earlier this year, that amounts to
a minimum of $50 for some employees, although most are set to
receive between $100 and $1,000. In dozens of cases, though,
employees will receive between $1,000 and $3,000, with a some
employees even set to receive between $5,000 and $7,000. Eligible
"settlement class members," according to the lawsuit, are allowed
to claim up to 57 percent of their alleged wages owed.

Despite the settlement, neither of the parties "abandon the
positions they took in the action," according to the agreement.

"Defendants (Lancaster Wings) deny all claims as to liability,
wrongdoing, damages, penalties, interest, fees, injunctive relief,
and all other forms of relief, as well as the collective
allegations asserted in the Action," the settlement notes.
"Defendants further deny that this Action is appropriate for
collective treatment for any purpose other than settlement."

Messrs. Forness and Barton's lawyer, Mike Fradin, who has offices
in Athens and Illinois, said that the lawsuit alleges employment
practices that are "very common" in the restaurant industry.

"(This includes) making tipped workers pay for walk-outs, making
tipped workers pay for their uniforms, and making tipped workers
spend time doing non-tip generating work while being paid less than
minimum wage," Mr. Fradin said. "From the beginning, Zach and Ethan
were focused on doing what was best for their similarly situated
coworkers, who at the Athens location consisted heavily of single
moms, colleges students, and others who could not afford to be paid
less than their full wages.

"This settlement demonstrates the power of employees acting
collectively," Mr. Fradin added.

Judge Marbley ordered that the case be dismissed without prejudice,
although the dismissal will convert to a dismissal with prejudice
after 210 days without "further action of the court."

Mr. Forness is an Ohio University grad, and Mr. Barton is a current
OU student. [GN]


LOGAN CORRECTIONAL: Court Denies Class Certification in "Dupree"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DONNA DUPREE, et al., the Plaintiff, v.
ANGELA LOCKE, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01104-MMM
(C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Mihm entered an order on
September 11, 2018, denying Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of:

"similarly situated individuals alleging, among other things, they
had been subjected to an "unjustified, invasive and humiliating
public strip search inflicted upon [them] at Logan Correctional
Center on October 31, 2013."

The Court said, "Plaintiffs argue this is still the law and the
Supreme Court's holding in China Agritech extends no further than
cases where there has been a denial of class certification. The
Plaintiffs caution that if the rule were extended to cases like the
one presented here "defendants could wait out statutory time limits
and settle with individual plaintiffs to the detriment of class
members, forever avoiding class allegations, a circumstance
prevented by American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 550
(1974)." The Plaintiff raised a valid concern. Nonetheless, the
District Court in Practice Management Support Services examined
China Agritech and came to a contrary opinion. The Court in
Practice Management Support Services noted that the Supreme Court
"purported to resolve a 'division of authority among the Courts of
Appeals' over a broader question: "whether otherwise-untimely
successive class claims may be salvaged by American Pipe tolling."
The District Court surmised that "the Supreme Court repeatedly
stated its holding in clear terms that were in no way qualified
based on how the prior class action lawsuit was resolved"."


LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of Vehicle Owners Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LEONARDO GONZALEZ-TZITA, an individual,
ESTEBAN DIEGO ESTEBAN, an individual, SIDONIO LOMELI, and
individual and all as class representatives, the Plaintiff, vs.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-00194-FMO-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on October 18, 2018, for an order:

   1. certifying class defined as:

      "all registered vehicle owners whose vehicles were seized
      and impounded by the City of Los Angeles at any time from
      January 11, 2014, through February 15, 2017, under the
      authority of Cal. Veh. Code section 21100.4"; and

   2. preliminarily approving proposed Class Action Settlement
      Agreement and authorizing mailing and other forms of notice
      to class members.

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          Donald W. Cook, Esq.
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 252 9444
          Facsimile: (213) 252 0091
          E-mail: manncook@earthlink.net




LOUISIANA REGIONAL: Seeks Transfer of Lawsuit to Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Lye, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that three waste
companies have filed a Notice of Removal to have a lawsuit against
them moved from the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Jefferson to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.

Louisiana Regional Landfill Co., Waste Connections of Louisiana
Inc., and Waste Connections Bayou filed the Notice of Removal on
Aug. 23, according to court documents.

A Parish of Jefferson resident has filed the complaint on behalf of
a proposed class of residents, seeking more than $5 million in
damages, over an alleged garbage smell caused by waste companies.

Louisiana Regional Landfill Co., Waste Connections Bayou, Waste
Connections of Louisiana, Aptim Corp. and the Parish of Jefferson
are named as defendants in the July 30 lawsuit, filed by Savannah
Thompson on behalf of residents of the Parish.

Ms. Thompson is seeking to bring the action on behalf of "a
proposed class consisting of '[a]ll persons domiciled of and/or
within the Parish of Jefferson on or after August 1, 2017."

The lawsuit would seek damages for residents who suffered alleged
nuisances, trespassing, loss of enjoyment of their property, and
loss of property value, according to court documents.

Ms. Thompson claims that the defendants "caused the emission of
noxious odors into and unto their persons and properties,'" the
court documents stated.

The defendants said they have made the move because the damages
that Thompson is seeking exceed $5 million, according to the Notice
of Removal.

"Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants liable 'for all damages arising
from the emission of noxious odors from the Jefferson Parish
Landfill' including the costs for prosecution of the action and
interest," they stated in their filing.

The population is greater than 400,000 people, according to court
documents. The "proposed class alleges damages that include past,
present and future nuisance damages and past, present and future
diminution in property value."

The plaintiff also seeks special damages, applicable penalties (if
any), and expert witness and attorneys' fees. As a result, even a
modest alleged damage amount for each proposed class member, plus
additional witness and attorneys' fees, would exceed $5,000,000,"
documents stated. [GN]


LUMINA SOLAR: Rogers Sues over Text Message Advertisements
----------------------------------------------------------
DARRELL ROGERS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, 5124 Clavel Terrace Rockville, MD 20853 Plaintiff, vs.
LUMINA SOLAR, INC. 12225 Cleghorn Road Cockeysville, MD 21030, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02128 (D.D.C., Sept. 13, 2018), alleges
that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
implementing regulations by using an automatic telephone dialing
system when it sent Plaintiff and the putative class members text
message advertisements in order to promote its solar energy
business without obtaining Prior Express Written Consent.
Plaintiff, on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated,
seeks statutory damages for each violation.

According to the complaint, on September 4, 2018, the Defendant
sent one of the Solar Text Messages to Plaintiff's cell phone. In
order to investigate who was behind this marketing scheme, the
Plaintiff responded to the September 4 Solar Text Message.

After responding to the September 4 Solar Text Message, Plaintiff
received a phone call to his cell phone from Ryan Farrell, who
identified himself as being affiliated with Defendant, and offered
and described various products and services Defendant could provide
Plaintiff with. Mr. Farrell, who is Co-Founder of Defendant, sent
Plaintiff a subsequent email attempting to set up an appointment to
meet.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Telephone: (202) 709 5744
          E-mail: shawn@sjlawcollective.com


MDL 2785: Court Directs Kaiser to Comply with Subpoena
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas issued
an Order granting Class Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Compliance
with Subpoena Directed to Non-Party Kaiser Foundation Hospitals in
the case captioned IN RE: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP)
Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation. (This Document
Applies to All Cases). MDL No. 2785 (D. Kan.).

The Class Plaintiffs seek an order requiring non-parties Kaiser
Foundation Hospitals and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
(Kaiser) to search for and produce documents responsive to the
Plaintiffs' subpoenas served.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs both motions to compel
compliance with and motions to quash a subpoena served on a
non-party.Under Rule 45(d)(2)(B), if the entity commanded to
produce documents serves written objections to the subpoena, the
serving party may seek compliance by filing a motion to compel
production of the documents. If the non-party wishes to challenge
the subpoena, it does so by filing a motion to quash.

Jurisdiction

The Plaintiffs assert that as the MDL transferee court, this Court
has jurisdiction to rule on their motion to compel. Kaiser
disagrees and contends the process for seeking discovery from
non-parties was overhauled by the 2013 amendment to Rule 45.  After
the 2013 amendment, however, subpoenas must be issued from the
court where the action is pending, but the authority to quash or
modify the subpoena remains with the court for the district where
compliance is required.

Section 1407(b) expressly empowers an MDL court to exercise the
powers of a district judge in any district for the purpose of
conducting pretrial depositions.  The statute's remedial purpose of
eliminating the potential for conflicting contemporaneous pretrial
rulings would be frustrated if the MDL court could not entertain
motions to compel.

In this case, the Class Plaintiffs have served subpoenas on
numerous non-parties, each containing the same requests. To enable
this Court to fully exercise its power under Section 1407, it is
necessary to assume enforcement powers in relation to these
subpoenas. Doing so is also consistent with the transfer order in
this case wherein the MDL panel noted that centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery and prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings. As the Court presiding over the MDL, this Court has
authority to decide the motion to compel.

Relevancy

Kaiser objected to every document request on the basis of
relevancy, but in its response to the Plaintiffs' motion it offers
no argument in support of the objection. However, the Court finds
it appropriate to examine the relevancy of the requests to afford
Kaiser the heightened protection a non-party deserves.  

Given the Plaintiffs' allegations, the Court finds relevant the
categories of requests included in the Plaintiffs' subpoena. As the
Plaintiffs describe their requests, they include: (i) EAI-related
incentives and rebates, EAI formulary placement and decisions, and
attendant EAI-related incentive, consideration and cost data and
EAI related budgeting, plans and forecasting (Req. Nos. 1, 4, 7, 8,
10, 13 and 14); (ii) the EAI market, and EAI competitive conditions
and demand (Req. Nos. 5 and 6); (iii) EAI related marketing and
other presentation materials (Req. No. 11); (iv) and documents
sufficient to identify Kaiser's employees and divisions with
responsibility concerning EAI-related decisions (Req. No. 9).

The Subpoena also seeks documents provided to any governmental
entity investigating or conducting an EAI or EAI market-related
inquiry (including documents concerning Mylan's misclassification
of its EAI devices as non-innovator/generic drugs under Medicaid's
Medical Drug Rebate Program (Req. Nos. 2, 3 and 12).

Kaiser's objections

Citing Rule 45's directive that courts must enforce the serving
party's obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue
burden or expense, Kaiser argues it should be protected from
responding to the remaining items in dispute. Kaiser argues that
the Plaintiffs' remaining requests would place an undue burden on
Kaiser by requiring significant additional expenditures of
resources for Kaiser to obtain and produce responsive documents.

Kaiser offers an affidavit, but the affidavit primarily describes
Kaiser's inability to produce responsive documents because it does
not track information the Plaintiffs have requested. If Kaiser
simply does not have within its possession or control certain
responsive documents, no objection is necessary. In only two
instances does the affidavit provide an estimate for the additional
time it would take for Kaiser to obtain and produce the requested
documents. The Court finds Kaiser has not demonstrated that it will
suffer undue burden and expense in complying with the remaining
document requests.

Kaiser's other objections to the individual requests are
boilerplate; they state an objection without offering an
explanation. The Court overrules Kaiser's objections.

Costs

Kaiser asks the Court to order the Class Plaintiffs to pay the
costs of compliance if the Court grants the motion to compel,
asserting it will incur significant costs if it is required to
review emails from three individuals who are responsible for EAI
contracting. By way of affidavit, Kaiser states it will incur
nearly $25,000 in legal fees to perform such work.  Kaiser
acknowledges its costs will lessen if Plaintiffs propose more
targeted search terms. The Plaintiffs assert they have proposed
additional search terms.

The Court's policy is to deny cost-shifting in the absence of
evidence sufficient to demonstrate that compliance will impose
undue expense on the producing party. The court will not deny a
party access to relevant discovery because compliance
inconveniences a non-party or subjects it to some expense. In this
instance, the Court will hold in abeyance its ruling on costs until
Kaiser has complied with this order and has submitted an affidavit
setting forth the time and expense it has incurred in responding to
the subpoenas.

The Court, accordingly, orders that the Class Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel Compliance with Subpoena Directed to Non-Party Kaiser
Foundation Hospitals and Class Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
Compliance with Subpoena Directed to Non-Party Kaiser Health Plan,
Inc. are granted.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 10, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7nj6fgl
from Leagle.com.

All Plaintiffs, In Re, represented by Amanda Klevorn --
aklevorn@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest LLP, Lynn Lincoln Sarko
-- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLC, Paul J.
Geller -- PGeller@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP,
Rex A. Sharp -- Rex A. Sharp, PA, Ryan C. Hudson --
rhudson@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA & Warren T. Burns --
wburns@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest, LLP.

Mylan N.V., Defendant, represented by Adam K. Levin --
adam.levin@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac vice,
Benjamin Frederick Holt -- benjamin.holt@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Brian C. Fries -- bfries@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop
Gage LLP, Brian R. Richichi -- brian.richichi@hoganlovells.com --
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Carolyn Anne DeLone --
carrie.delone@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad E.
Blomberg -- cblomberg@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop Gage, LLP,
Christopher D. Edelman, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Daniel Thomas Graham
-- dgraham@clarkhill.com -- Clark Hill, PLC, pro hac vice, David M.
Foster -- david.foster@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP,
pro hac vice, James Moloney -- jmaloney@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop
Gage LLP, Jon Myer Talotta -- jon.talotta@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Justin Bernick -- justin.bernick@hoganlovells.com
-- Kathryn M. Ali -- kathryn.ali@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells
US LLP, pro hac vice, Sue Lin -- tony.lin@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Timothy Robert Herman -- therman@clarkhill.com --
Clark Hill, PLC, pro hac vice & Yuri Fuchs --
yuri.fuchs@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US, LLP.


MEDICAL LIABILITY: Castagna et al. Sue over Proposed NICO Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
DR. MARK CASTAGNA; DR. SAUL MODLIN; and DR. IRVING FRIEDMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MEDICAL LIABILITY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; JOHN V.
CAPOTORTO; MARK J. FELDMAN; TIMOTHY F. GABRYEL; SAMUEL M. GELFAND;
KIRA GERACI-CIARDULLO; STANLEY L. GROSSMAN; LEAH S. MCCORMACK;
ROBERT A. MENOTTI; SCOTT H. PERRA; JAMES K. REED; MALCOLM D. REID;
MALCOLM J. ROTHBARD; IRENE SNOW; ANTHONY A. ASCIOTI; CHARLES N.
ASWAD; ANN M. BARBACCIA; DAVID W. FELTON; JOHN A. FRACCHIA; ALVIN
KATZ; JOSEPH R. MALDONADO JR.; JOSEPH A. MANNINO; PAUL J. OKOSKY;
KENNETH D. ROBERTS; SALVATORE VOLPE; MURRY A. YOST, JR.; MARGARET
R. ALBANESE; BETH CADY BURGHARDT; DUANE M. CADY; NAMEER R. HAIDER;
RICHARD L. HEHIR; RICHARD H.S. KARPINSKI; EDWARD D. LEWIS; JOHN W.
LOMBARDO; ANDREW J. MERRITT; RICHARD M. PEER; DAVID SIBULKIN;
FREDERICK W. WETZEL JR.; and BETSY WRIGHT, Defendants, Case No.
516767/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Aug. 16, 2018), balks at the
proposed sale of the Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company
("MLMIC") to the National Indemnity Company ("NICO"), arguing that
the deal is for an amount representing approximately $1.7 billion
less than what MLMIC is worth.  The transaction, negotiated in
secret by MLMIC's board of directors (the "Board"), is neither fair
nor equitable to MLMIC's policyholders and will, if consummated,
deprive them of fair value for their interests in MLMIC.  The
lawsuit alleges violation of fiduciary duties, and seek injunction
and damages under the New York General Business Law.

NICO is a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., the conglomerate
headed by Warren Buffet.  If the NICO Transaction is permitted to
occur, MLMIC will be converted from a mutual company to a stock
company and then immediately sold to NICO for $2.502 billion in
cash.  At closing, MLMIC will issue an "extraordinary dividend" to
NICO in the amount of $1.905 billion, representing almost the
entire surplus built up by MLMIC in the course of its highly
profitable operations.

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company provides medical
malpractice insurance solutions in New York. The company offers
medical professional liability insurance services to physicians,
surgeons, hospitals, dentists, and various other healthcare
providers. It also offers risk and claims management services.
Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company was founded in 1975 and
is based in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sigmund S. Wissner-Gross, Esq.
          May Orenstein, Esq.
          BROWN RUDNICK LLP
          New York, New York 10036
          Telephone: (212) 209-4800
          Facsimile: (212) 209-4801
          E-mail: swissnergross@brownrudnick.com
                  morenstein@brownrunick.com

               - and -

          Richard L. Stone, Esq.
          BLACKNER STONE & ASSOCIATES
          123 Australia Avenue
          Palm Beach, FL 33480
          Telephone: (561) 804-9569
          Facsimile: (561) 659-5754
          E-mail: rstoneesq@aol.com


MEDIMPACT HOLDINGS: CEO Howe Sued over Use of Company Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY N. GEHRICH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of MEDIMPACT
HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiff v. MEDIMPACT HOLDINGS, INC.; FREDERICK
HOWE; STEVEN J. SHULMAN; GEORGE S. GOLDSTEIN; JAMES L. GOLLAHER;
and DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00041295-CU-SL-CTL
(Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Aug. 16, 2018) contends that the
Defendant Frederick Howe, the founder, Chairman, CEO, and 90%
shareholder of MedImpact, is using his control of the Company to
benefit himself personally to the detriment of minority
shareholders.  Plaintiff brings claims against the Defendants for
their breaches of fiduciary duty and/or for aiding and abetting
other Defendants ' breaches of fiduciary duty.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Howe has promised to pay dividends to
the minority shareholders but has reneged on his promise to do so.
Meanwhile, Mr. Howe has taken all the liquidity he needs from the
Company in the form of at least $275 million (and possibly up to
$480 million) in loans that he caused MedImpact to provide to him.
The judge in Mr. Howe's divorce proceedings found that he used a
substantial portion of the loans to pay for the outrageous $42
million in attorneys' fees incurred during the divorce proceedings.
Mr. Howe depressed the value of the MedImpact stock while his
contentious divorce proceedings were ongoing, in order to decrease
the amount in alimony, child support, and other payments that would
be due to his ex-wife at the end of the marital dissolution
proceedings. At the same time, Mr. Howe has failed to provide
financial information, annual reports, and other basic information
to the minority shareholders, thus inhibiting their ability to
discover the true worth of their stock.

San Diego-based MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., is an
independent, trend-focused pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), serving
health plans, self-funded employers and government entities.  
MedImpact Holdings Inc. operates as a special purpose entity. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          Facsimile: (858)914-2002


MERCK & CO: Brumfield et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled GEORGIANN BRUMFIELD; CAROL SCHASEL;
EDWARD WASZAK; SUSAN KENNEDY; DEBBIE GUERRERO; F. JOYCE GRASBY;
EDNA O'VITT; MAUREEN PONS; ERNEST MALIZIA; JOSEPH BERNET; PATRICIA
McKOWN; LORETTA SISCA; AUGUST SPEIRS; MARLEEN FLANDERS; JACQUELYN
NASH; LINDA THOMPSON; DANIEL SZYMUSIAK; SALVATORE CROCE; SHIRLEY
BREAULT; CHERYL LAMARELLA; and PATRICK PAPAS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MERCK & CO.,
INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-06526, has been transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on August 14, 2018.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-20044 to the proceeding.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. Merck &
Co., Inc. has collaborations with Pfizer Inc., AstraZeneca PLC,
Bayer AG, Eisai Co., Ltd., IO Biotech, Premier Inc., Cue Biopharma,
Inc., and Foundation Medicine, Inc. It serves drug wholesalers and
retailers, hospitals, government agencies and entities, physicians,
physician distributors, veterinarians, distributors, animal
producers, and managed health care providers. The company was
founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Debra J. Humphrey, Esq.
          MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 950
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 702-5000
          E-mail: dhumphrey@bernllp.com


MERCK & CO: Ford et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled PHYLLIS FORD, and JUDITH
ENDRESEN-WORTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME
CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80715, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on August 16, 2018. The Eastern District
of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-20079 to the
proceeding.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. Merck &
Co., Inc. has collaborations with Pfizer Inc., AstraZeneca PLC,
Bayer AG, Eisai Co., Ltd., IO Biotech, Premier Inc., Cue Biopharma,
Inc., and Foundation Medicine, Inc. It serves drug wholesalers and
retailers, hospitals, government agencies and entities, physicians,
physician distributors, veterinarians, distributors, animal
producers, and managed health care providers. The company was
founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmen A. De Gisi, Esq.
          MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP
          101 West Elm Street, Suite 215
          Conshohocken, PA
          Telephone: (610) 941-4444
          Facsimile: (610) 941-9880
          E-mail: cdegisi@bernllp.com


MERCK & CO: Green et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DORIS GREEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO.,
INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., Defendants,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00007, was removed from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on August 14, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-20044-HB to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Harvey Bartle, III.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. Merck &
Co., Inc. has collaborations with Pfizer Inc., AstraZeneca PLC,
Bayer AG, Eisai Co., Ltd., IO Biotech, Premier Inc., Cue Biopharma,
Inc., and Foundation Medicine, Inc. It serves drug wholesalers and
retailers, hospitals, government agencies and entities, physicians,
physician distributors, veterinarians, distributors, animal
producers, and managed health care providers. The company was
founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmen A. De Gisi, Esq.
          MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP
          101 West Elm Street, Suite 215
          Conshohocken, PA
          Telephone: (610) 941-4444
          Facsimile: (610) 941-9880
          E-mail: cdegisi@bernllp.com


MERCK & CO: Zaccanelli et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MARY ZACCANELLI; MARY WALLIS; ELSA
VEGA; EVELYN WAGNER; DIANE BONIZZI; MARGUARITE DEBOYACE; LORETTA
ABBO; SHEILA SHEA; and ERICA SHEILD, Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO.,
INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-07106, was removed from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on August 14, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-20045-HB to the proceeding.
The Case is assigned to the Hon. Harvey Bartle, III.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. Merck &
Co., Inc. has collaborations with Pfizer Inc., AstraZeneca PLC,
Bayer AG, Eisai Co., Ltd., IO Biotech, Premier Inc., Cue Biopharma,
Inc., and Foundation Medicine, Inc. It serves drug wholesalers and
retailers, hospitals, government agencies and entities, physicians,
physician distributors, veterinarians, distributors, animal
producers, and managed health care providers. The company was
founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Debra J. Humphrey, Esq.
          MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 950
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 702-5000
          E-mail: dhumphrey@bernllp.com


MICHIGAN: Class & Subclasses Certified in Sex Offenders' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN DOES No. 1-6, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD
SNYDER, Governor of the State of Michigan, and COL. KRISTE ETUE,
Director of the Michigan State Police, in their official
capacities, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Robert H. Cleland asks the Court for an
order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   2. certifying primary class defined as:

      "all people who are or will be subject to registration
      under Michigan's Sex Offenders Registration Act";

   3. pursuant to the agreement of the parties, certifying not
      one but two "ex post facto" sub-classes, defined as
      follows:

      Pre-2006 Ex Post Facto Subclass:

         "members of the primary class who committed their
         offense or offenses requiring registration before
         January 1, 2006, and who have committed no registrable
         offense since; and

      2006-2011 Ex Post Facto Subclass:

         "members of the primary class who committed their
         offense or offenses requiring registration on or after
         January 1, 2006, but before April 12, 2011, and who have
         committed no registrable offense since";

   4. appointing John Does No. 1-6 as class representatives for
      the primary class;

   5. appointing Plaintiffs John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2 and
      John Doe No. 3 as class representatives for the pre-2006 ex
      post facto subclass;

   6. appointing Plaintiffs John Doe No. 4 and John Doe No. 5 as
      class representatives for the 2006-2011 ex post facto
      subclass; and

   7. appointing Miriam Aukerman, Alyson Oliver, and Paul
      Reingold as class counsel;

The Court finds that, as to the primary class and the two
subclasses, the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) are met
because (1) the class and subclasses are so numerous that joinder
of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or
fact common to the class and subclasses, (3) the claims or defenses
of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses
of the class and subclasses, and (4) the representative plaintiffs
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class and
subclasses. The Court finds that, as to the primary class and the
two subclasses, the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A) are
met because prosecuting separate actions by or against individual
class members would create a risk of "inconsistent or varying
adjudications with respect to individual class members that would
establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing
the class". The Court finds that, as to the primary class and the
two subclasses, the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) are
met because the party opposing the class has acted or refused to
act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final
injunctive relief would be appropriate respecting the class as a
whole if plaintiffs prevail in demonstrating that those actions or
inactions violate plaintiffs' rights.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Miriam Aukerman, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FUND OF MICHIGAN
          1514 Wealthy SE, Suite 242
          Grand Rapids, MI 49506
          Telephone: (616) 301 0930
          E-mail: maukerman@aclumich.org

               - and -

          Alyson L. Oliver, Esq.
          OLIVER LAW GROUP, PC
          363 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 200
          Troy, MI 48226
          Telephone: (248) 327 6556
          E-mail: notifications@oliverlg.com

               - and -

          Paul D. Reingold, Esq.
          Michigan Clinical Law Program
          363 Legal Research Building
          801 Monroe Street
          Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
          Telephone: (734) 763 4319
          E-mail: pdr@umich.edu

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Adam Sadowski, Esq.
          Jared D. Schultz, Esq.
          MICHIGAN DEPT. OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
          525 West Ottawa Street
          P.O. Box 30736
          Lansing, MI 48933-1067
          Telephone: (517) 373 6434
          Facsimile: (517) 373 6434
          E-mail: sadowskia@michigan.gov
                  schultzj15@michigan.gov


MICHIGAN: Court Won't Certify Class in Peoples Suit vs. DOC
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned EDISON ALEXANDER PEOPLES, the Plaintiff,
v. CATHERINE BAUMAN, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:14-cv-00106-GJQ-TPG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Gordon J. Quist
entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion requesting class
certification of the lawsuit and authority to amend the complaint.

Judge Quist said, "There is no automatic cut-off point at which the
number of plaintiffs makes joinder impractical, thereby making a
class-action suit the only viable alternative. See Bacon v. Honda
of America Mfg., Inc., 370 F.3d 565, 570 (6th Cir. 2004); In re
America Med. Sys. Inc., 75 F.3d at 1079. Plaintiff contends that
the putative class consists of all persons confined in the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) who were subjected to cruel and
unusual punishment by being sprayed with a chemical agent and
placed in restraints for an extended period of time, tasered
without justification, and prohibited from cleaning the chemical
agent off their bodies. Plaintiff can only speculate that there are
other persons in the custody of the MDOC that could qualify as
members of the purported class. Plaintiff has not indicated the
percentage of MDOC prisoners who would qualify as class members.
Therefore, assuming that there are other prisoners with similar
claims, I conclude that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his burden
of establishing that "joinder of all members is impracticable."
FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(1). In addition, Plaintiff has not shown that
potential class members satisfy standards of commonality and
typicality. The commonality and typicality requirements "tend to
merge," and together "serve as guideposts for determining whether
maintenance of a class action is economical and whether the named
plaintiff's claim and the class members are so interrelated that
the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately
protected in their absence." Rutherford v. City of Cleveland, 137
F.3d 905, 909 (6th Cir. 1998). Not every common question will
suffice to satisfy the commonality requirement because, "at a
sufficiently abstract level of generalization, almost any set of
claims could display commonality." Sprague v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
133 F.3d 388, 397 (6th Cir. 1988). The test is whether there is "a
common issue the resolution of which will advance the
litigation"."


MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces D'Amore Suit over DRAM Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY D'AMORE; and JOSEPH REALDINE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY,
INC.; MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD.; SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; SK HYNIX, INC. F/K/A HYNIX
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; SK HYNIX AMERICA, INC. F/K/A HYNIX
SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-05002-JSW
(N.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2018) alleges that the Defendants contracted
to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices at which the
dynamic random access memory ("DRAM") was sold in the United States
from at least June 1, 2016 to February 1, 2018. The Defendants'
conspiracy artificially inflated prices for DRAM throughout the
supply chain that were ultimately passed through to Plaintiffs and
the Class, causing them to pay more for DRAM Products than they
otherwise would have absent Defendants' conspiracy.  The lawsuit
alleges violation of the Sherman Act.

Micron Technology, Inc. provides semiconductor systems worldwide.
It markets its products to original equipment manufacturers and
retailers through its internal sales force, independent sales
representatives, and distributors; and through a Web-based customer
direct sales channel, and channel and distribution partners. The
company was founded in 1978 and is headquartered in Boise, Idaho.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com
                  riop@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq.
          Ronnie Spiegel, Esq.
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  tony@hbsslaw.com
                  ronnie@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT
          & BENDESKY, P.C.
          One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
          1650 Market Place
          Philadelphia, PA19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-3986
          Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com


MS APPLIANCES: Violates Employee Protection Act, O'Keeffe Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE O'KEEFFE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MS APPLIANCES LLC; JONATHAN
SCHWARTZ; ISREAL BESSER; and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Defendants,
Case No. PAS-L-002749-18 (N.J. Super., Passaic Cty., Aug. 16, 2018)
alleges violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant on or around January
22, 2018. During the time that the Plaintiff worked for the
Defendant, she made multiple complaints about dangerous conditions
that existed at the Defendant's workplace. She was terminated from
her employment on March 26, 2018.

MS Appliances LLC is a company organized under the State of New
Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drake P. Bearden, Jr., Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727-9700


MY CHOICE: Paczkowski Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
KATY PACZKOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MY CHOICE FAMILY CARE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00759 (W.D. Wisc., Sept. 13, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages, back
pay, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and/or any such
other relief that the Court may deem appropriate under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin wage and hour laws.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the putative class
members are, or were, Care Managers for Defendant MCFC at times
since September 13, 2015. At times since September 13, 2015, MCFC
has had a policy and/or practice of suffering or permitting
Plaintiff and the putative class members to work in excess of 40
hours per workweek without compensation for all hours worked.
During that time, the Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and the
putative class members as exempt from federal and state mandated
overtime pay by paying them a salary and refusing to pay overtime
pay despite Plaintiff and the putative class members routinely
working in excess of 40 hours per workweek. As a result, MCFC has
failed to pay Plaintiff all overtime wages due under the FLSA and
Wisconsin wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL S.C.
          222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
          P.O. Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: 414 271 8650
          Facsimile: 414 271 8442
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com


NATIONWIDE INVESTMENTS: Family Trust Suit Moved to M.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Family Trust Services LLC, Mr.
Steven Reigle, Regal Homes Co., Billy Gregory, John Sherrod, and
Carl Chambers on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Charles E. Walker, Jon Paul Johnson, Julie
Coone, Nationwide Investments LLC, and Merdan Ibrahim, the
Defendants, Case No. 15-00780-BC, was removed from the Davidson
County Chancery Court to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee (Nashville) on Sep. 13, 2018. The Tennessee
Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00859 to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Waverly D.
Crenshaw, Jr. The suit alleges violation of Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eugene N. Bulso, Jr., Esq.
          Paul J. Krog, Esq.
          LEADER, BULSO & NOLAN, PLC
          414 Union Street, Suite 1740
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 780 4110
          Facsimile: (615) 780 4118
          E-mail: gbulso@leaderbulso.com
                  pkrog@leaderbulso.com

Attorneys for Charles E. Walker:

          Charles E. Walker, Esq.
          WOODBINE LEGAL
          69 Thompson Lane
          Nashville, TN 37211
          Telephone: (615) 367 5111
          Facsimile: (615) 383 1154
          E-mail: charles@woodbinelegal.com

Attorneys for Julie Coone and Merdan Ibrahim:

          Robert Redman Laser, III, Esq.
          LASER LAW FIRM
          625 Main St., Suite 206
          Nashville, TN 37206
          Telephone: (615) 669 5468
          E-mail: rob@laserlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Nationwide Investments LLC:

          Patrick B. Newsom, Esq.
          Paul J. Bruno, Esq.
          BRUNO NEWSOM PLLC
          40 Music Square East
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 251 9500
          Facsimile: (615) 345 4188
          E-mail: patrick@brunonewsom.com
                  paul@brunonewsom.com


NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT: Engebretson Hits Illegal Collection Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Engebretson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Navy Federal Credit Union and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01926
(C.D. Cal., September 11, 2018), seeks damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies over the  Defendant's
practice of contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Navy Federal Credit Union is a banking and lending service provider
and collector. Defendant contacted Plaintiff on his cellular
telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt
to collect an alleged outstanding debt owed which had been
discharged in bankruptcy, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NCAA: College Athletes Compensation Cap Case Begins
---------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that on Sept.
4, college athletes were set to deliver opening statements in a
potential landmark lawsuit aimed at stopping the NCAA from
enforcing rules that limit compensation or benefits.

The college football season kicked off. On Sept. 1, NBC had a huge
ratings win in its telecast of Michigan vs. Notre Dame. With nearly
five million viewers tuning in, ABC didn't do too poorly itself
with coverage of Alabama vs. Louisville. What does it say that four
years after a California federal judge granted victory to UCLA
basketball star Ed O'Bannon in his antitrust class action alleging
the NCAA unlawfully restrains college athletes from licensing their
names and images, collegiate athletics continues to be popular?
That question will be heavily contested at a 10-day trial that may
upend the NCAA's amateur system and the cash cow of college
sports.

The trial was set to opens on Tuesday, Sept. 4, in Oakland,
California, before U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken. In
advance, suing athletes and big NCAA collegiate conferences have
outlined their arguments and witnesses. Fox, CBS and other networks
are paying attention too and have urged Judge Wilken with just
limited success to keep the most sensitive portions of their rights
deals a secret.

Thanks to the O'Bannon case, which went up on appeal, the NCAA was
pressured into giving student-athletes scholarships up to the full
cost of attendance. That meant thousands of dollars more to each
athlete.

Judge Wilken must now decide whether to enjoin the NCAA from
enforcing a rule that "fixes or limits compensation or benefits"
that schools may offer athletes.

The NCAA and its conferences are aghast at the athletes' proposed
injunction.

"They would replace a successful, established product with a
fundamentally different one, with staggering and destructive
implications," states a copy of defendants' opening statement.
"Some schools could compete for highly prized athletes by offering
millions of dollars in compensation. Others with fewer financial
resources would struggle to offer Division I college sports at the
same level, offering a diminished product that would interest
consumers less. And others could withdraw from Division I sports
altogether to preserve their conception of the role amateur
athletics should play."

But the athletes, including West Virginia University running back
Shawne Alston and California basketball star Justine Hartman, say
they can show that the compensation restraints can't be justified
on pro-competitive grounds.

"Defendants will fail to come forward with any evidence capable of
demonstrating that their claimed justifications are anything more
than NCAA mythology," states their own opening brief, which further
puts forward that even if the judge won't enjoin compensation
limits, she should at least consider alternatives. "Most notably,
Defendants could permit individual conferences -- which, as
presently constituted, do not possess market power -- to set their
own rules concerning compensation and benefits, without NCAA-wide
agreements or conferences colluding with one another. This would
allow each conference to make its own decisions about the claimed
pro-competitive need for compensation caps while, at the same time,
providing Class Members and the relevant markets with the benefits
of competition among the conferences and their members."

What has happened since that landmark decision four years ago in
the O'Bannon case that eventually resulted in athletes at least
getting thousands of dollars more each for cost of attendance?

The plaintiffs say there's no proof whatsoever of any negative
impact on the viewing audience for college sports, nor any causal
effect on the compensation rules and whether consumers follow,
watch or attend games. Unlike the O'Bannon trial, this one won't
have any testimony from a broadcasting expert on the impact of
getting rid of the rules intended to promote amateurism.

The NCAA has a different spin.

"Plaintiffs point to the continued demand for college sports since
the NCAA made minor changes to its rules in the wake of O'Bannon,"
states the NCAA's opening. "But none of those changes crossed the
line from amateurism to a 'pay-for-play' world. As a result, the
continued popularity says nothing about how consumers would react
to a radically different concept of college sports, in which
athletes could be paid unlimited amounts for their performance."

The issue of whether the NCAA's fixed limits to compensation
contribute to the demand for college sports is the first big one
for Judge Wilken. The other is whether these rules contribute to
the integration of athletics with academics. Both sides obviously
have different opinions on this. Athletes and college
administrators will testify about their experiences with the
current system.

Here are the plaintiffs' full opening statement and the defendants'
statement.

As for the media companies, they will only be participating
indirectly in the trial proceedings. Judge Wilken responded to
their efforts to restrain use of confidential information by
determining that the parties and witnesses shouldn't discuss
non-public dollar figures. However, she wouldn't go further. Judge
Wilken wrote, "The moving parties have not established compelling
reasons to seal or restrict the use of any other information at
trial." [GN]


NORTH AMERICAN ON-SITE: Schoelkoph Sues for Minimum Wage & OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN SCHOELKOPH, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NORTH AMERICAN ON-SITE, LLC,
a Florida Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 18CV333915 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 4, 2018),
alleges that Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and overtime
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required, allowed,
suffered, and/or permitted Plaintiff and Class Members to work in
excess of eight hours in one work day or 40 hours per work week
without being compensated at the applicable overtime and double
time rate of pay in accordance with the provisions of California
Labor Code section 510 and Section 3 of the Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order and/or any other applicable Wage Order.

North American On-Site provides on-site services to a wide array of
industries in the U.S. and Canada.[BN]

Attorneys for Justin Schoelkoph, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated:

          S. Brett Sutton, Esq.
          Jared Hague, Esq.
          Anthony E. Guzman, Esq.
          SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, P.C.
          5200 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 203
          Fresno, CA 93704
          Telephone: (559) 325 0500
          Facsimile: (559) 981 1217


NUTRABLEND FOODS: Terminated Burmese Workers File Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
TA TAR, REGINA TA BORA, and JAI ROI MAI RON, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiffs, v. NUTRABLEND FOODS INC., and NUTRABLEND FOODS, LLC
AEROTEK, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00993 (W.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 12, 2018), seeks to recover damages under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
42 U.S.C. sec. 1981, and the New York Human Rights Law based upon
the Defendants' discrimination and wrongful termination predicated
on the Plaintiffs' race and origin.

According to the complaint, in May 2016, the Plaintiffs were all
hired through Defendant, Aerotek Group, Inc., as production workers
in NutraBlend's Lancaster, New York location.  The Plaintiffs are
all of Burmese origin and came to the United States as refugees and
re-settled in Buffalo, New York.

The Plaintiffs are all non-English speakers and the only language
the Plaintiffs understand is Burmese. While employed for the
Defendants, the Plaintiffs received direction from bilingual
employee and were, therefore, able to perform their jobs as
production workers competently. During the Plaintiffs' employment
with the Defendants, they never received a warning or notice
regarding their performance. It was well known to the Defendants
that the Plaintiffs were non-English speakers of Burmese origin.

While the Plaintiffs were not proficient in the English language,
it did not prevent them from successfully performing the duties of
their positions. On or about March 30, 2017, the Plaintiffs were
all terminated from their positions as production worker with the
Defendants without explanation.

NutraBlend maintains manufacturing facilities that specialize in
the manufacture of nutritional powder products in two locations in
Ontario, Canada, and one location in Lancaster, New York. Aerotek
Group, Inc., is an international staffing agency with multiple
locations in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel Alba, Esq.
          74 Main Street
          PO Box 31
          Akron, NY 14001
          Telephone: (716)-542 5444

               - and -

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800


OCWEN LOAN: Must Face Robocall Privacy Claims, Judge Rules
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Ocwen Loan Servicing cannot dismiss privacy claims from a woman who
says the company robocalled her cellphone 1,459 times after she
told it to stop, a federal judge ruled.


OKLAHOMA: Co-Neutrals Unveil DHS Foster Care Report
---------------------------------------------------
The Oklahoman reports that an apparent souring of the relationship
between the Department of Human Services and three child welfare
experts is concerning, because ultimately it may impact efforts to
help abused and neglected children. Here's hoping this rift can be
repaired.

In their latest report on how well DHS is doing with child welfare
reforms, three court-appointed "co-neutrals" said the answer is:
not well. Following several twice-yearly reports that were
generally encouraging, they said this time that DHS had made
"sustained progress" in some areas but also wasn't even making
"good faith efforts" to improve in several areas. In their previous
report, issued in January, the co-neutrals had given DHS more
good-faith ratings than they ever had.

But this time, the co-neutrals said continued high incidence of
maltreatment "raises serious concerns about the rigor, focus and
urgency of the state's efforts to ensure the safety and well-being"
of kids in DHS custody.

The response by DHS Director Ed Lake makes it clear he and others
at the agency were blindsided by the latest critique.

Mr. Lake said the report contained "a number of misleading
comments, isolated facts stated without important context,
hindsight bias, and inconsistencies with prior reports" that
apparently were meant "to portray the agency's actions or alleged
inaction in as unfavorable a light as possible."

The three co-neutrals have been monitoring DHS since 2013,
following the state's settlement of a federal class-action lawsuit
and its approval of the Pinnacle Plan, which seeks to reduce
placements, lower caseloads, eliminate shelter use and make other
advances.

Caseloads remain a concern, and the co-neutrals noted that in their
latest report. During the last fiscal year, DHS received an average
of 217 child welfare calls per day, involving 133,055 children.
More than 15,000 children were confirmed victims.

When she announced her resignation in May, the former head of DHS's
child welfare division said the added stress related to the
Pinnacle Plan contributed to her decision.

In their rebuttal, DHS officials included comments from two state
legislators who have worked with the agency on the reforms. Rep.
Pat Ownbey, R-Ardmore, said the child welfare system is "light
years ahead" of where it was in 2012, and Sen. A.J. Griffin,
R-Guthrie, noted the "tremendous efforts" to improve.

Gov. Mary Fallin noted that DHS has added more than 840 case
workers and supervisors since the lawsuit's settlement, with more
than 11,500 children being adopted out of foster care and more than
15,000 reunited with their families.

Gov. Fallin said the co-neutrals' turnaround from their previous
report "raises a lot of questions."

Yes it does. DHS also noted that in addition to oversight, the
co-neutrals are charged with providing guidance and technical
assistance, and that requires solid working relationships and
constant communication. But those have been lacking for the past
year, the agency said.

These developments are disconcerting, not least because they could
serve to discourage front-line case workers who already face
extraordinarly difficult and stressful jobs. Perhaps this
relationship can be improved. Regardless, the focus must remain
fixed on one thing -- protecting Oklahoma's most vulnerable
children. [GN]


OMNI LIMOUSINE: Drivers Seek Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------
Alfred Darnell Greene and Christopher Suasaeng, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Omni
Limousine, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01760 (D. Nev.,
September 11, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, an award of
liquidated damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attendant
penalties, and award of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the Nevada Revised
Statutes and Nevada common and constitutional law.

Omni is in the business of providing limousine services where
Plaintiffs worked as hourly paid, non-exempt drivers. Greene and
Suasaeng claim to be denied minimum wages and overtime at a rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate for hours for working in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek and that they weren't paid for
their compensable pre-shift, mid-shift and post-shift work that
wasn't recorded. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don Springmeyer, Esq.
      Daniel Bravo, Esq.
      WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
      3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor
      Las Vegas, NV 89120-2234
      Tel: (702) 341-5200
      Fax: (702) 341-5300
      Email: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
             dbravo@wrslawyers.com

             - and -

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


OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Bid to Stay Further Proceedings in "Wolf" Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MARIA WOLF, the Plaintiff, v. OPTIO
SOLUTIONS LLC, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01416-WED
(E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order
granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings.

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

On September 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a class action
complaint. At the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the court
commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class
certification. In this motion the plaintiff moved to certify the
class described in the complaint but also moved the court to stay
further proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp.,
662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that
class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same
time that they file their complaint." "The pendency of that motion
protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named
plaintiffs." However, because parties are generally unprepared to
proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a
case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the
district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional
discovery or investigation."


PENNSYLVANIA: 3d Cir. Partly Flips Dismissal of FCRA Suit vs. SEPTA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the District
Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned FRANK LONG; JOSEPH SHIPLEY; MICHAEL WHITE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v.
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY. No. 17-1889.
(3rd Cir.).

The three named plaintiffs were convicted of drug offenses in the
relatively distant past. Plaintiffs applied to Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) for jobs that
involved operating vehicles. Each Plaintiff filled out a form
disclosing his criminal history and authorizing SEPTA to obtain a
background check.

SEPTA did not send the Plaintiffs copies of their background checks
before it decided not to hire them. Nor did it send them notices of
their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The FCRA,
however, required SEPTA to send both before it denied them
employment. Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint
based on these two FCRA violations, as well as other claims not at
issue here.

The Complaint

A district court entertaining a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for
lack of standing must first ascertain whether it presents a facial
attack or a factual attack on the claim at issue, because that
distinction determines how the pleading must be reviewed. A factual
attack, in which the defendant contests the truth of the
jurisdictional allegations, is a different matter: the court need
not treat the allegations as true, and a plenary trial is held to
resolve any material factual disputes.

Although the District Court articulated the correct standard, it
did not actually accept as true all of Plaintiffs'] plausible
allegations, and draw all reasonable inferences in their favor. For
example, the court stated that Plaintiffs alleged that SEPTA denied
them jobs because of what they disclosed about their own criminal
histories. However, Plaintiffs clearly allege that SEPTA denied
them jobs because of their background checks.

Spokeo

Under Article III of the United States Constitution, the power of
the judiciary extends only to Cases and Controversies. The standing
doctrine defines what is a case or controversy. Article III
standing requires (1) an injury in fact, (2) a causal connection
between the injury and the defendant's conduct, and (3) a
likelihood that a favorable decision will provide redress for the
injury.

Third Circuit Precedent

In the first case, which preceded Spokeo, the plaintiffs sued under
the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, alleging that Google put cookies on their web
browsers despite its statements to the contrary. The defendants
argued there was no economic loss and hence no injury in fact. The
Court ruled that injury in fact does not require any particular
type of hard and may exist solely by virtue of statutes creating
legal rights. The plaintiffs' specific allegations of concrete,
particularized, and actual injury were sufficient to confer
standing.  

In the second case, which post-dated Spokeo, the plaintiffs sued
under the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the Video
Privacy Protection Act, alleging that the defendants unlawfully
used cookies to track children's internet history. This Court
concluded that Spokeo did not alter our prior analysis in Google or
call into question whether the plaintiffs have Article III
standing. Plaintiffs' harm was concrete because it involved a clear
de facto injury, i.e., the unlawful disclosure of legally protected
information.

The third appeal involved the theft of a computer containing the
plaintiffs' personal health information. The plaintiffs sued under
the FCRA, arguing that the unauthorized disclosure was, in and of
itself, an injury in fact, even absent any allegation that the
information had been misused.  The Court noted that Google and
Nickelodeon, which provide welcome clarity on standing, are
decidedly in favor of allowing individuals to sue to remedy
violations of their statutory rights, even without additional
injury. The Court also stated that Spokeo does not redefine the
injury-in-fact requirement, but instead . . . reemphasizes that
Congress has the power to define injuries that were previously
inadequate in law.

Application

A plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to
press. Plaintiffs allege that SEPTA violated the FCRA by (i) taking
adverse action without first providing copies of their consumer
reports, and (ii) taking adverse action without first providing
descriptions of their FCRA rights. SEPTA argues that Plaintiffs
lack standing because these alleged harms are not injuries in
fact.

SEPTA points to hypotheticals in Spokeo to argue that the
Plaintiffs' injury is bare and procedural, and thus not a concrete
injury-in-fact. In Spokeo, the Court said that certain FCRA
violations would result in no harm, such as where a consumer report
contains an immaterial inaccuracy like an incorrect zip code, or
where the report is entirely accurate but its use is not disclosed.
SEPTA contends that as in the second hypo Plaintiffs' consumer
reports were accurate, even if they did not receive the required
notice. SEPTA's argument, however, depends on its view that the
sole purpose of the Section 1681b(b)(3) disclosures is to allow the
correction of inaccuracies.  

SEPTA's alleged failure to notify the Plaintiffs of their FCRA
rights. The Plaintiffs argue that this was a concrete harm because
it increased the risk that individuals would not know of their FCRA
rights and have their claims lapse before they could bring suit.
Under the principles outlined above, this is a bare procedural
violation, divorced from any concrete harm, that cannot satisfy the
injury-in-fact requirement of Article III. The Plaintiffs became
aware of their FCRA rights and were able to file this lawsuit
within the prescribed limitations period, so they were not injured.


The Plaintiffs also argue that the lack of an FCRA notice increased
the risk of harm to the putative class. Plaintiffs thus imply that
unnamed class members remained unaware of their FCRA rights.
However, the named plaintiffs who represent a class must allege
that they personally have been injured, not that injury has been
suffered by other, unidentified members of the class .

Therefore, any harm to unnamed class members cannot constitute
injury in fact.

The Court affirms the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claim based on
SEPTA's failure to provide them with notice of their FCRA rights as
required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)(A)(ii). The Court
reverses the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim based on SEPTA's
failure to provide them with copies of their consumer reports as
required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i).

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's September 10, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9qbnu44 from Leagle.com.

Cheryl-Lyn D. Bentley, Adam T. Klein, Christopher M. McNerney,
Ossai Miazad, Lewis M. Steel, Outten & Golden, 685 Third Avenue,
25th Floor, New York, NY 10017.

Benjamin D. Geffen, Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia,
1709 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, United Way Building, 2nd Floor,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.

Jon M. Greenbaum, Dariely Rodriguez, Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law, 1500 K Street, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005.

Deepak Gupta [ARGUED], Gupta Wessler, 1900 L Street, N.W., Suite
312, Washington, DC 20036.
Ryan A. Hancock, Willig Williams & Davidson, 1845 Walnut Street,
24th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Appellants.

Jamie M. Gullen, Community Legal Services, 1424 Chestnut Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19102, Counsel for Amicus Appellants Community
Legal, Services, National Employments Law Project and Service,
Employees International Union Local 668.

James A. Francis, Francis & Mailman, 100 South Broad Street, Land
Title Building, 19th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19110, Counsel for
Amicus Appellant National Consumer Law, Center.

Michael A. Cognetti, Candidus K. Dougherty, Jeffrey B. McCarron,
Swartz Campbell, 50 South 16th Street, Two Liberty Place, 28th
Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102.

Elizabeth A. Malloy [ARGUED], Cozen O'Connor, 1650 Market Street,
One Liberty Place, Suite 2800, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for
Appellee.


PLANTRONICS INC: Phil Shin Sues over Defective Headphones
---------------------------------------------------------
PHIL SHIN on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. PLANTRONICS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
5:18-cv-05626 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 13, 2018), seeks to recover damages
and equitable relief as a result of Defendant's marketing and sale
of alleged defective Plantronics BackBeat FIT wireless headphones.

According to the complaint, Plantronics markets the Headphones as
"sport headphones," and represents on its website, marketing
materials, and product packaging that the Headphones are
"sweatproof" and "waterproof." Plantronics uses images and videos
of sweat-drenched athletes wearing the Headphones while exercising
in its promotional materials. According to Plantronics' website,
the Headphones allow consumers to "train harder and run longer."
Plantronics further represents on its website, marketing materials,
and product packaging that the Headphones offer "up to 8 hours' of
wireless listening -- enough according to Plantronics to "[p]ower
through a week of workouts from a single charge." Plantronics'
website uses the tagline: "You never quit. Neither should your
headphones." Plantronics describes the Headphones on their
packaging as "UNSTOPPABLEWARE."

In reality, the Headphones are neither sweatproof nor waterproof.
And the Headphones' batteries do not last eight hours on a single
charge. This is because the Headphones contain one or more defects
that cause the battery life to diminish and eventually stop
retaining a charge after normal usage, especially when the
Headphones are exposed to sweat or water. As a result of the
defect(s), the Headphones regularly fail to hold a reasonable
charge. The Plaintiff is among the tens of thousands of consumers
nationwide whose Headphones experience rapidly diminishing battery
life and eventual failure to retain a charge after using the
Headphones for less than a year. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Headphones fail to retain an adequate charge in part due to the
Headphones' failure to resist sweat and water.

Despite receiving countless complaints from consumers, Defendant
refuses to acknowledge or attempt to fix the defects. Instead, when
consumers return the defective Headphones under Plantronics’
one-year warranty, Plantronics sends replacement Headphones that
contain the exact same defects, leaving consumers caught in a cycle
of use, malfunction, and replacement. Once the warranty-period
expires, consumers are often left with only a broken pair of
Headphones.

As a result of Plantronics' actions, Plaintiff and the proposed
class have suffered damages. Wireless rechargeable headphones that
are unable to retain a charge for a reasonable amount of time are
essentially worthless. Had Plaintiff and the members of the
proposed class known that Defendant's representations were false
and that the Headphones contained the defect(s), they would not
have bought them or would otherwise have paid less for them. At a
minimum, the defective Headphones certainly are worth substantially
less than what the Plaintiff and members of the class paid to
purchase them.

Plantronics, Inc. is an electronics company producing audio
communications equipment for business and consumers. Its products
support unified communications, mobile use, gaming and music.
Plantronics is a publicly traded company headquartered in Santa
Cruz, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 429 5272
          Facsimile: (866) 300 7367
          E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com
                  jshah@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Todd Naylor, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
          One West 4th Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45249
          Telephone: (513) 345 8291
          Facsimile: (513) 345 8294
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          Justin C. Walker, Esq.
          FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          4270 Ivy Pointe Boulevard, Suite 225
          Cincinnati, OH 45245
          Telephone: (513) 943 6660
          Facsimile: (513) 943 6669
          E-mail: justin@finneylawfirm.com

               - and -

          W.B. Markovits, Esq.
          Paul M. DeMarco, Esq.
          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 665 0200
          Facsimile: (513) 665 0219
          E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
                  pdemarco@msdlegal.com
                  tcoates@msdlegal.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Bid to Certify Class in "Rosales" Continued
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Iris Rosales, Plaintiff, v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.:
1:18−cv−00997 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sharon Johnson
Coleman entered an order continuing Plaintiff's motion to certify
class and Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 13,
2018, the Plaintiff is directed to file or inform the Court of his
decision to file an amended complaint on or before the next status.
Status hearing is set for Oct. 9, 2018.


POWERCOR: Bushfire Victims Call for Compensation Change
-------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Lovell, writing for The Standard, reports that a farmer who
won a payout as part of the Black Saturday class action has backed
calls for change when it comes to compensation for victims of
bushfires.

Terry Place's Weerite property was burnt out in 2009, but the legal
battle for compensation dragged on for six years.

"The solicitors for Powercor, or for their insurers, they're the
ones that have made it really hard for us. They were the ones that
dragged it out and they just try and wear you down," he said.

He said that if there could be some agreement between Powercor and
the people who suffered damages, rather than litigation, it could
alleviate some of the stress for property owners.

His comment follow concerns raised by MP Richard Riordan in The
Standard about the toll on farmers who lost property in the St
Patrick's Day fires.

Mr Place said that he believed that Black Saturday would have cost
Powercor more in litigation than if they'd just paid everyone out.

"I reckon they would have paid two or three times as much on the
actual litigation and lawyers and all of that  stuff than what they
paid out," he said.

Mr Place, who was the lead plaintiff in the class action for the
Pomberneit-Weerite fire, said he was not offered any payments from
Powercor until litigation was instigated. "They offer you minimal
amounts," he said.

Despite the stress that the years of legal action took on him, he
said it was still worth it because he got more compensation that
way.

However, he said the amount was far less than he expected or
believed he was owed. "What we thought and what they thought are
two different figures," he said.

"I'd love for the ones that are doing it now to get what they can.

"If some people are dealing directly with Powercor, and if they're
happy with their result, then I commend them to it. Good on them.

"Certain other ones probably can't do that."

Despite not getting anywhere what he needed to cover the total loss
he suffered on his property, Mr Place said he was still happy with
some of the results from the legal action.

"The best result of all was the infrastructure from Camperdown to
Colac was replaced. Since that has happened, there hasn't been one
incident, clashing wires or anything like that and that's what we'd
been complaining about for years.

"We got a massive win there."

The fire on Black Saturday burnt a hay shed full of hay, fencing,
trees and top soil at Mr Place's property, and while the class
action court case ended in 2012, it still took another two to three
years for some to settle.

"We certainly didn't," he said.

"The court case is that that they say they're going to pay, in our
case 100 per cent of damages, but what we said were damages and
what they said were damages were two different things and you had
to fight for every little thing."

Mr Place, a firefighter with the Pomberneit brigade who fought in
both the Black Saturday and St Patrick's Day fires, said the stress
of a court case was the last thing that those who had lost
everything in bushfires needed.

"It certainly wears certain farmers down. That's the hardest part,"
he said.

"Some farmers' families really struggled.

"Our fire was no where near as bad as St Patrick's Day."

He said it took six or seven years for the pasture on his property
to get back to what it should have been.

"It knocked our cattle around and that's where we probably suffered
a fair bit. We're certainly back on top of it now," he said.

Mr Place praised the early warning system. "We're good at kicking
the guts out of governments for doing things wrong, but that's
probably one thing that they've done right." [GN]


PRACHIMA LLC: Goldboss Sues over Customer Bill Surcharge
--------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN GOLDBOSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SPECIALTY'S CAFE & BAKERY, INC. ET AL,
the Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-569410 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 4,
2018), alleges that the Defendant is misleading the public as to
the actual prices of their food and drinks, by not raising their
menu prices, and instead adding an undisclosed, unauthorized, and
unlawful surcharge onto a customer's bill.  The Defendants
represent to the general public certain prices for food and drinks
in their in-restaurant and advertised menus, but then, after the
food and/or drink is ordered, the Defendant adds a surcharge,
including, but not limited to, a surcharge which it calls "Gov
Mandate," which is actually an undisclosed, unauthorized, and
unlawful charge, to the balance of the final bill total which
consumers thereafter pay.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Bordin-Wosk, Esq.
          Shannon Guevara, Esq.
          Talissa Mulholland, Esq.
          B|B LAW GROUP LLP
          6100 Center Drive, Suite 1100
          Howard Hughes Center
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (323) 925 7800
          Facsimile: (323) 925 7801
          E-mail: JBordinWosk@BBLawGroupLLP.com
                  SGuevara@BBLawGroupLLP.com
                  TMulholland@BBLawGroupLLP.com


PREMERA BLUE: Accused of Destroying Evidence in Data Breach Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Catalin Cimpanu, writing for ZDNet, reports that the plaintiffs of
a class-action lawsuit against health insurance provider Premera
Blue Cross are accusing the organization of "willfully destroying"
evidence that was crucial for establishing accurate details in a
security breach incident.

In court documents obtained by ZDNet, plaintiffs claim that Premera
intentionally destroyed a computer that was in a key position to
reveal more details about the breach, but also software logs from a
security product that may have shown evidence of data
exfiltration.

Establishing if hackers stole data from Premera's systems is
crucial for the legal case. Breach victims part of the class-action
will be to claim a right for monetary compensation, while Premera
may argue that since hackers did not steal data from its servers,
there is no tangible harm to victims.

The class-action lawsuit is in connection to a March 2015
announcement. Back then, Premera announced that hackers breached
its systems and gained access to computers holding the personal and
medical data of over 11 million Americans.

Several lawsuits were set in motion in 2015, later followed by a
class-action filing. Angry Premera customers cited negligence on
Premera's part. The plaintiffs claimed that the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) "found numerous security flaws during a routine
audit of Premera's systems, which it reported to Premera a few
weeks before the breach."

The OPM warning came in April 2014. A month later a Premera
employee fell victim to a phishing email, which led to hackers
planting malware on the organization's network.

Premera took months to heed the OPM's warning, hiring
cyber-security firm Mandiant in October 2014. The cyber-security
firm discovered the breach a few months later, in January 2015.

"Mandiant's investigation determined that a known hacking group
(that had targeted and extracted data from similar entities) was
responsible for the breach, and discovered fragments of RAR files,
which are created by compression software commonly used by hackers
to shrink files to a manageable size before exfiltration," court
documents filed on August 3, 2018 reveal.

Part of their litigation, the plaintiffs requested access to
evidence regarding the 2015 security breach, including Mandiant
reports, and the hard drives and forensic images of the 35 Premera
computers that Mandiant identified as infected.

198 million Americans hit by 'largest ever' voter records leak |
Thousands of US voters' data exposed by robocall firm

But in newly filed documents, plaintiffs say that "Premera
responded that it could only produce images for 34 of those 35
computers; the 35th computer had been destroyed."

"The 35th computer, called [REDACTED], was a 'developer' computer
-- loaded with robust software and afforded security clearance to
Premera's most sensitive databases," court documents say.

"Mandiant found that [REDACTED] contained a unique piece of
hacker-created malware that Mandiant called PHOTO. Mandiant found
PHOTO only on [REDACTED]. PHOTO malware had the capability to
upload and download files, and to exfiltrate data. Hackers accessed
PHOTO on [REDACTED] between May 12, 2014 and February 2015.

"The hackers configured PHOTO on [REDACTED] to communicate with an
outside website named 'www[.]presecoust[.]com.' Mandiant's analysis
of proxy logs found hundreds of thousands of almost daily contacts
between [REDACTED], the only Premera computer containing PHOTO, and
www.presecoust.com between July 23, 2014 and January 9, 2015. Only
[REDACTED]'s destroyed hard drive could show what the hackers left
behind during those contacts."

The suspicion is that these hard drives contained RAR files used
for data exfiltration, along with other evidence.

According to a response the plaintiffs' legal team received from
Premera, 34 of the 35 computers Mandiant marked as infected were
sent to sequestration, but [REDACTED] was categorized as an
End-of-Life asset, and Premera's IT team had it destroyed on
December 16, 2016.

"The destroyed computer was perfectly positioned to be the
one-and-only staging computer hackers needed to create vast staging
files for the purpose of shipping even more data outside of
Premera's network," the plaintiffs argue. "This computer functioned
as the development machine for a software programmer, and as such
was pre-loaded with a vast array of legitimate utilities that could
be turned to any purpose."

"While Mandiant had a chance to analyze its contents and draw
conclusions from that data, Plaintiffs will not be able to do so,
and have been deprived of the ability to review and rebut
Mandiant's conclusions based on that data."

Plaintiffs have an interest in rebutting Mandiant's analysis
because they say several Mandiant reports had conflicting
conclusions -- with February and March 2015 reports suggesting that
hackers exfiltrated data, while a June 2015 report denied the
claims of previous reports, saying no evidence of data exfiltration
was found.

But that's not all. Further, the plaintiffs also argue that Premera
did not take steps to secure crucial logs created by a data loss
prevention (DLP) software called Bluecoat.

"Premera destroyed both of these pieces of evidence after the
filing of this lawsuit," plaintiffs said.

The plaintiffs' legal team is now asking the judge overseeing the
case to instruct the jury "to presume that exfiltration occurred,"
and to deny Premera the chance to bring in any security expert to
testify that no data exfiltration took place.

If the judge rules favorably on this motion, Premera will not be
able to claim that plaintiffs didn't suffer damages because hackers
never actually stole anything from its servers. But a favorable
ruling won't be enough for plaintiffs to win their case, either, as
they'll still need to prove that customers suffered direct damages
because of the 2015 breach. In the last few years, breached
companies have won most of these cases because victims found it
very hard, or near impossible, to link financial losses from
identity theft or identity fraud to a specific breach, in
particular. It certainly doesn't help that customers have had their
personal data leak online left and right, for the past decade.

Answering a request for comment from ZDNet sent earlier on Sept. 3,
Premera Blue Cross VP Corporate Communications Steve Kipp provided
the following statement:

"We are aware of the motion for sanctions that was recently filed
by the plaintiffs in the class action arising from the 2015
cyberattack at Premera. It is the type of motion that is not
uncommon in complex litigation involving voluminous physical and
documentary evidence, and represents just one of many disputes that
can arise during the discovery phase of a lawsuit. We disagree with
the motion and do not believe the facts justify the relief
plaintiffs have requested. Our attorneys will be filing a response
in due course."

This is not the first time an organization is accused of destroying
crucial evidence in a legal case. The Associated Press found last
year that Georgia election officials quietly wiped clean a computer
server that could have revealed whether Georgia's recent elections
were compromised by hackers. [GN]


PREMIER BANKCARD: Womble Bond Attorney Discusses TCPA Case Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Troutman, Esq. -- eric.troutman@wbd-us.com -- of Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
wrote that it's a factual scenario that arises far more than it
should.

A customer provides a cell phone number to a business, consenting
to receive phone calls in the process. Phone calls are placed to
that customer at that number. But it turns out that the customer
does not actually use that number and someone else–usually a
close family member such as a husband or wife– turns around and
sues the business for illegal calls under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA.") Talk about a frivolous waste of a
lawsuit.

But these sorts of cases arise all the time under the TCPA. For
instance, in Rodriguez v. Premier Bankcard, Case No. 3:16CV2541,
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149225 (N.D. Oh. Aug. 31, 2018) a Husband
provided a phone number to a finance company as a valid means of
contacting him to discuss his account.  Although husband was the
subscriber to the number the Plaintiff -- his wife -- claimed that
she was actually the sole user of the phone. When the finance
company called the phone to discuss her husband's account, she sued
Defendant in a nationwide TCPA class action contending that it had
called her and unnamed class members without consent. Unreal.

Defendant argued that it had the consent of the phone's subscriber
to place the calls so . . .  I mean, come on.  Nonetheless the
court found the issue a "close[] question" framing the issue as:
"What happens then, when one "called party" gives prior express
consent to contact a certain number, and another doesn't?"
Rodriguez at *19.

After first spinning its wheels addressing statutory standing
issues that don't real bear on the issue, the Court looked to
authority from the FCC and the Third Circuit to the effect that it
is "'reasonable for callers to rely' on 'consent to receive
robocalls' from either type of called party," -- meaning either the
subscriber, or the non-subscriber customary user can give prior
express consent." Rodriguez at *19 citing Leyse, 804 F.3d at 327
n.15 and 30 FCC Rcd. at 8001-02.  Thus, the Court concludes, the
husband's consent precludes the wife's claim, regardless of whether
she ever personally gave prior express consent.

The Rodriguez court worked hard to arrive at what should have been
an easy answer -- the TCPA plainly authorizes calls with the
consent of the "called party." Everyone agrees that a subscriber is
a "called party" -- although other parties may also be a "called
party" -- so calls made with the consent of the "subscriber" are
obviously not actionable, even if someone else happens to pick up
the phone or use the phone number with the subscriber's consent.
Anyone using that number does so subject to the consent granted by
the subscriber, just like anyone buying land takes it subject to
whatever conveyances the former land owner may have made. Seems
like pretty straightforward stuff. [GN]


PROVIDENCE, RI: To Reactivate Speed Cameras Following Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McGowan, writing for WPRI, reports that anyone driving near one
of Providence's public schools will need to keep a close eye on how
fast they're going starting on Sept. 4.

The city's controversial speed cameras will be reactivated, meaning
they'll be operational on all school days between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m.


Drivers caught traveling at least 11 miles per hour over the posted
speed limit will receive warning notices until Oct. 22, after which
they'll be fined $50 for each violation.

The city also added five new cameras and has relocated some of the
existing ones. Here's where they are located:

   -- Laurel Hill Avenue near the Achievement First Mayoral
Academy
   -- 1547 Chalkstone Ave. near Pleasant View Elementary
   -- 150 DePasquale Ave. near Carl Lauro Elementary
   -- 55 Gordon Ave near Bailey Elementary
   -- 114 Olney Street near Hope High School
   -- 180 Sterling Ave. near Webster Elementary
   -- Branch Avenue near E-Cubed Academy
   -- 320 Public Street near The MET School
   -- Mount Pleasant Avenue at Mount Pleasant High School
   -- Thurbers Avenue near Roger Williams Middle School
   -- Charles Street near Esek Hopkins Middle School
   -- 307 Elmgrove Ave. near Nathan Bishop Middle School
   -- 301 Butler Ave. near The Lincoln School
   -- 773 Chalkstone Ave. near Nathaniel Greene Middle School
   -- 812 Douglas Ave. near Veazie Street School

The cameras were turned off in early July after the General
Assembly approved legislation requiring that tickets only be issued
on days when school is in session. Lawmakers also lowered the fine
from $95 to $50.

The city issued 36,883 speeding violations between Jan. 16 and June
12, but officials later agreed to partially refund thousands of
drivers to settle a federal class-action lawsuit challenging
multiple facets of the program.

Under the terms of the settlement, individuals who had already paid
a $95 fine were eligible to receive a $20 refund from the city,
while those who didn't pay their fines were eligible to pay $75.
All members of the class had the option of requesting a new hearing
before a Municipal Court judge, giving them the opportunity to wipe
out their fines altogether or receive a full refund.

Refunds won't be sent until after Judge McConnell holds a fairness
hearing on the settlement in September, according to the city.
[GN]


PROVISION POWER: Karon Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL KARON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROVISION POWER AND GAS LLC, d/b/a
QUAKE ENERGY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and JOHN
DOE CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02093-CAB (N.D.
Ohio, Sept. 13, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
placing calls using "an artificial or prerecorded voice" to the
telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express
written consent, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by
their conduct.

Quake Energy is a supplier in the Ohio Energy Choice Program,
offering electricity and natural gas to consumers in Ohio.
According to the complaint, in recent years, energy suppliers such
as Quake Energy have turned to unsolicited telemarketing as a way
to increase its customer base. Widespread telemarketing is a
primary method by which Quake Energy solicits new customers. The
Defendants were, and are, aware that their unsolicited prerecorded
calls were, and are, unauthorized as they fail to obtain prior
express written consent before placing those calls to consumers.
Ultimately, consumers are forced to bear the costs of receiving
these unsolicited prerecorded calls. By placing the unsolicited
prerecorded calls at issue in this Complaint, Defendants caused
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class actual harm and
cognizable legal injury. This includes the aggravation, nuisance,
and invasions of privacy that result from the sending and receipt
of such prerecorded calls, a loss of value realized for the monies
consumers paid to their carriers for the receipt of such
prerecorded calls, and a loss of the use and enjoyment of their
phones, including wear and tear to the related data, memory,
software, hardware, and battery components, among other harms.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Adam T. Savett, Esq.
          Savett Law Offices LLC
          2764 Carole Lane
          Allentown PA 18104
          Telephone: (610) 621 4550
          Facsimile: (610) 978 2970
          E-mail: adam@savettlaw.com


PTZ INSURANCE: Legg Seeks to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CHRISTOPHER LEGG individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PTZ INSURANCE
AGENCY, LTD. an Illinois Corporation, and PETHEALTH, INC., a
Canadian Corporation, and FAIRFAX FINANCIAL HOLDINGS LTD., a
Canadian Corporation, the Defendants, 14-cv-10043 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order determining that the lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act against the
Defendants may proceed on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons.

Given the Court's recent finding that the Day 2 calls meet the
TCPA's advertising definition, the Plaintiff provides these revised
class definitions:

   Section 227(b) Class – Day 2 Advertising Robocalls:

   "(1) all persons in the United States (2) who Defendants or
   some person on Defendants' behalf (3) called on their cell
   phone using an artificial or prerecorded voice message to play
   Defendants' Day 2 message (4) in the period between October
   16, 2013 to December 15, 2014."

   Section 227(b) Class - Day 6 Robocalls:

   "(1) all persons in the United States (2) who Defendants or
   some person on Defendants' behalf (3) called on their cell
   phone using an artificial or prerecorded voice message to play
   Defendants' Day 6 message (4) in the period between October
   16, 2013 to December 15, 2014."

According to the complaint, the first call, described as the "Day 2
robocall", which Defendants also identified as campaign call ID
120. For those individuals, such as Plaintiff, who did not accept
the "30-Day Gift" offer during the “Day 2” promotion,
Defendants subsequently sent the so-called "Day 6 robocall," which
Defendants also identified as campaign call ID number 165, The Day
6 robocall served essentially the same purpose as the Day 2 call,
as it was also directed to new adopters who had still not signed up
for insurance.


PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Moore Suit in S.D. West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.
The case is captioned as BOBBIE LOU MOORE; and R. R. C., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK
COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.;
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,
LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. NOW KNOWN AS JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ALLERGAN PLC FORMERLY KNOWN AS: ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; AND ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. FORMERLY
KNOWN AS: WATSON PHARMA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01231
(S.D.W. Va., Aug. 15, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Thomas
E. Johnston. The Moore case is a member case in the multi-district
litigation proceeding, MDL No. 2804.

Purdue Pharma L.P. is engaged in the research, development,
production, and distribution of prescription and over-the-counter
(prescription and non-prescription) medicines and healthcare
products. The company has a strategic research collaboration
agreement with Exicure Inc. Purdue Pharma L.P. was formerly known
as The Purdue Frederick Company and changed its name to Purdue
Pharma L.P. in January 1991. The company was founded in 1892 and is
based in Stamford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311-2204
          Telephone: (304) 343-4401
          Facsimile: (304) 343-4405
          E-mail: drbarneywv@gmail.com

               - and -

          Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311-2204
          Telephone: (304) 343-4401
          Facsimile: (304) 343-4405
          E-mail: kwthompsonwv@gmail.com


QUALIA COLLECTION: Wolf Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MARIA WOLF, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. OPTIO SOLUTIONS
LLC d/b/a/ QUALIA COLLECTION SERVICES and CAPITAL ONE N.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01416-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order certifying proposed classes in this
case, appointing Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and
further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).
One defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified
check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio,
Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


RANGE RESOURCES: Grice Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Todd Grice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Range Resources Corp., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00269 (S.D. Tex., September 11, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Range is a global oil and gas exploration and production company
operating worldwide and throughout the United States, including in
Texas. Grice worked for Range as a day rate independent contractor.
He claims he was paid a day-rate with no overtime compensation.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


REGIONAL MEDICAL: Sandusky Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SANDUSKY WELLNESS CENTER, LLC, the
Plaintiff, vs. REGIONAL MEDICAL IMAGING, P.C., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-12391-BAF-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Bernard A.
Friedman entered an order September 13, 2018 denying without
prejudice Plaintiff's "placeholder" motion for class
certification.


REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Bid to Certify Class in "Singer" Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Richard Singer, the Plaintiff, v. Regional
Transportation Authority, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00199 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman Motion
entered an order continuing the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class, which is deemed for all substantive purposes to have been
filed on Oct. 1, 2018, according to the docket entry made by the
Clerk on September 11, 2018.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Gary Feinerman, Esq.
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 435 5627
          E-mail: gary_feinerman@ilnd.uscourts.gov


RIO TINTO: Faces US Class Action Over Guineagate Affairs
--------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Stevens, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that a US class action launched against Rio Tinto and three of its
former executives over the Guineagate affairs has fallen at its
first courtroom hurdle with a New York court accepting a motion to
dismiss the legal gambit for want of a prima facie case against the
company or its executives.

On Aug. 31, US District Court Judge, Andrew L Carter jnr,
terminated a class action seeking damages for the loss of value of
Rio's New York listed equity that followed the global miner's
decision in November 2016 to self-report to regulators in the
United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.

Rio told its regulators of high-level internal concerns about a
$US10.5 million payment paid to the man who facilitated negotiation
with the government of Guinea over the recovery of disputed ore
concessions.

The internal anxiety was triggered by the August 29 publication, on
an odd little French internet forum called fnPaste, of a leaked
email conversation between then chief executive, Tom Albanese, the
then iron ore boss, Sam Walsh and the man with direct oversight of
the Simandou asset, Alan Davies.

Publication of a conversation, which urged Mr. Davies to trim a
proposed $US15 million payment to the French investment banker who
was the go-between in negotiations that successfully recovered
Rio's grip in Simandou, triggered an unprecedented toll on the Rio
executive.

In quick succession, after new chief executive Jean-Sebastien
Jacques invited a world of regulatory pain on to Rio, Davies lost
his $US3.47 million-a-year job. With him went chief legal and
regulatory officer of long and good standing, Debra Valentine. And,
not a month after that Hugo Bague, the executive whose remit
included IT, also left the building. According to Judge Carter, all
three "were terminated in connection with the payment".

Subsequently, Rio took action to recover past bonus payments made
to Davies and other executives and managers connected to the
recovery of Simandou. The company also suspended short and
long-term incentive payments owed to Walsh that are estimated to be
worth $20 million.

Interestingly, the first of Walsh's delayed payments is due to be
paid by December 31 this year and the Rio world is watching keenly
to see whether or not the man who built the new Rio is delivered
what he is owed.

Given the commentary in Judge Carter's decision, it is hard to see
why those payments might be further deferred without something more
definitive emerging from the extant US and UK investigations into
exactly what Francois de Combret did with the $US10.5 million Rio
paid him.

Certainly, in what is the first conclusive verdict by a court on
the cornucopia of regulatory and legal challenges triggered by the
leaked emails, Carter would seem to have inadvertently challenged
the legal logic and standing of the internal bloodletting that
followed Rio's 2016 revelations.

Indeed, given the technical and evidentiary frailties Judge Carter
identified in the class action before him, the Aug. 31 decision
stands as something of a legal road map for any future action that
the US Department of Justice and the US Securities and Exchange
Commission might contemplate in this matter.

It is worth noting that, as Judge Carter noted, US courts are
inclined not to accept dismissal applications.

"When considering a motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true
all factual allegations in the complaint and draws reasonable
inferences in the plaintiff's favour," he said in introducing his
verdict.

But applicants still need to prove there is a reasonable and
factual basis for their case. "The complaint must provide factual
allegations sufficient 'to give the defendant fair notice of what
the claim is and the ground upon which it rests'."

The class actioneers were claiming that Rio and its executives
knowingly made a payment that breached US anti-bribery laws and
that the company and men then botched the disclosure obligations.

The awesomely powerful and far-reaching US Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act (FCPA) forbids anyone with issuances covered by the
US securities law from offering or making payments to anyone "while
knowing that the money would be offered or given to a foreign
official".

To make this case stick, and presumably others, there must be poof
of foreknowledge of the fact and intent of the payment made to Mr.
de Combret. It must be proved that either Mr. de Combret was an
official of the government or that he paid monies to government
officials and that Rio knew that he was going to or had done so.

In this the class actioneers failed, because it seems that pretty
much the only evidence they offered in support of their proposition
was the leaked emails that triggered this whole shemozzle. But, in
a variety of ways, that was not enough for Judge Carter.

"It is clear that Defendants knew that they were making a payment,"
he advised on one point of a long and deeply technical judgement.
"However the complaint alleges no facts sufficient to show that
Defendants were aware that the payment would be directed to a
foreign official, as required by the FCPA."

The class actioneers offered no facts that suggested Rio and its
executives knew or should have known that Mr. de Combret was a
foreign official. They did not make the case that Mr. de Combret
was a foreign official.

"The complaint simply does not state a claim that Defendants had
any indication that the payment was unlawful."

Given this allegation was not sustained, Judge Carter concluded:
"Since the payment was not unlawful, failure to disclose it cannot
violate the Exchange Act."

So, the company and its former executives successfully argued that
disclosure was not required before 2016.

The May 2011 email trail was also presented to support the claim of
"scinter" (a legal term that describes intent or knowledge of
wrongdoing).

"But the emails do not suggest knowledge of any wrongdoing, The
emails discuss services provided by [de] Combret such as 'vouching
for [Rio Tinto's] integrity' which was impactful due to his
'closeness to the President'.

"The emails appear to discuss legitimate consulting practices. This
does not give rise to a cogent inference that individual defendants
knew, or should have known, that their conduct was unlawful."

This is the point at which the Aug. 31 victory becomes a bit of a
good news, bad news story for Rio.

The good news is obvious. While not all went Rio's way in the
District Court of the Southern District of New York, the class
action has been dismissed resoundingly and at the earliest possible
moment. And sure, the action might be recovered and firmed at some
point in the future should the US Department of Justice pursue a
matter that has been under investigation now for nearly three
years. But for the moment, this class action is a Norwegian Blue.

The bad news, on the other hand, is rather more subtle but
nonetheless critical for the people that have carried the burden of
Rio's pre-emptive internal justice. Judge Carter's observations on
the nature of the emails that triggered an unruly executive
bloodletting will doubtless be received as encouragement for the
likes of Alan Davies and Debra Valentine, whose post-executive
careers have been blighted by the Jacques' invitation of scandal.

In 2016, Rio's then chairman Jean du Plessis said Davies and
Valentine had been sacked because they failed the test of Rio's
internal code of conduct, which is called The Way We Work.

In the wake of Rio's curt executive executions Davies complained
that he had been denied his rights, that he had received no
insights into the nature of the evidence that resulted in his
dismissal and that he had not been offered the chance to defend his
employment or reputation.

As it turns out, Davies lead the drafting of The Way We Work, so he
knew very well that a move to dismissal triggered, among many
things, an opportunity to hear the complaint against him and to
respond to it. Those close to Davies continue to insist that he has
not been served with the documentation demanded by the protocols of
The Way We Work.

Davies is not the only Rio man left bitter by his role as
collateral damage to the Guineagate affair.

In May last year, The Australian Financial Review reported that Sam
Walsh had been left befuddled by the lack of professional courtesy
evident in his treatment by the Rio board. And those lesser-known
Rio folk who have had their long-term rewards postponed in the
fall-out from Guineagate are known to be just as distressed as Mr.
Walsh that their contribution to the business has been tainted by
inference.

Back in 2017, Mr. Jan du Plessis expressed his private frustration
at the Financial Review's sometimes spiky coverage of his rough
justice. He predicted that at a point in the future when the full
Guineagate story was known we might consider offering him an
apology.

Well, if Judge Carter has got this right, then we aren't quite
ready yet, Jan. [GN]


RIPPLE LABS: Oconer's Lawsuit Consolidated with Other Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
XBT Network reports that it appears that Ripple has been successful
in consolidating yet another lawsuit brought against show court
documents.

Ripple continues to fight off a number of negative claims
concerning its XRP token, an aspect that has almost overshadowed
great efforts to develop the platform's blockchain solutions.

The biggest headache so far for Ripple has been the increasing
number of lawsuits brought against it, and the persistent
perception that its XRP token is a security.

But perhaps the latest hurdle is even more challenging. How does it
approach the various cases and get what's best for the platform and
its community?

As for that question, it appears the company has secured an early
boost. Its efforts to have all the different lawsuits consolidated
are on track and could be formalized in due course.

Facing numerous cases in different courts and under a number of
judges was always going to stretch the crypto company's resources.
It could also have meant that facing the prospect of dealing with
multiple outcomes if they were to arise.

These possibilities have seen Ripple's legal team push to have the
lawsuits either combined or coordinated. It is looking like that
will be the case for all the lawsuits, or if not, at least for some
of them- assuming there could be more.

On Wednesday, August 29, Judge Etezadi of the Superior Court in
California designated David Oconer's suit against Ripple Labs, XRP
II LLC, and Brad Garlinghouse as "complex". It means that a moving
forward, the case will be coordinated- or handled together with
other similar suits.

The August 29 decision follows a similar determination in another
case filed by Vladi Zakinov, a California based investor. According
to court documents available to the public, the courts declared the
case complex in June.

Ripple had asked the court to combine the two cases on grounds that
they represented the same issues and involved the same parties.

And now combining the two cases represent a kind of interim victory
for Ripple and its team. It has only been possible due to the
availability of legal grounds to request the court to combine a
number of cases.

The state of California has unique court rules that could be
essential to the cryptocurrency's efforts. Under the rules, a case
qualifies as complex when it involves securities claims. A case
will also fall under this category if it involves investment losses
filed by several parties.

The two class-action lawsuits satisfy both requirements and are
therefore deemed complex. Once a case is declared complex, the
court assigns it to a single judge.

The judge handles everything that relates to the various cases as
one suit, preventing a scenario where parties duplicate efforts or
instances of conflicting results arise.

It is only a single step, but it must feel like a win for Ripple
considering that the SEC overlooked it when it declared in June
that Bitcoin and Ethereum were not securities. It is early days as
they say, and Ripple might yet suffer bruising court battles.

Ripple, a San Francisco based company, has on numerous occasions
sought to clarify that the company and the XRP token are not one
and the same.

Recently, the company stated that XRP is an independent crypto
asset that uses the XRP Ledger. It trades independently and is
owned by many people.

On the other hand, Ripple is a software technology company that
uses blockchain to develop solutions to the problems affecting
cross-border money transfer. It owns lots of XRP (one of the
accusations against it), but it has no control over its market.
[GN]


RIVERSIDE, CA: Class Certification Sought in Case over YAT Program
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SIGMA BETA XI, INC.; ANDREW M., by and
through his next friend DENISE M.; JACOB T., by and through his
next friend HEATHER T., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated; J.F., by and through her next friend CINDY
MCCONNELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; MARK HAKE, Chief of the
Riverside County Probation Department, in his official capacity;
BRYCE HULSTROM, Chief Deputy of the Riverside County Probation
Department, in his official capacity, the Defendants, Case No.
5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move for an
order on October 29, 2018:

   1. certifying class of plaintiffs of:

      "all children in Riverside County who have been referred to
      the Riverside County Youth Accountability Team (YAT)
      program pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code section 601,
      and who have either been placed on a YAT probation contract
      or have been referred but not yet placed on a YAT probation
      contract."

   2. appointing Jacob T., J.F. and Andrew M. as class
      representatives; and

   3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Sylvia Torres-Guillen, Esq.
          Hannah Comstock, Esq.
          Victor Leung, Esq.
          ALEXIS PIAZZA, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
          1313 W. 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977 5220
          Facsimile: (213) 977 5299
          E-mail: storres-guillen@aclusocal.org
                  hcomstock@aclusocal.org
                  vleung@aclusocal.org
                  apiazza@aclusocal.org

               - and -

          Moe Keshavarzi, Esq.
          Andrea N. Feathers, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
          Telephone: (213) 620 1780
          Facsimile: (213) 620 1398
          E-mail: mkeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com
                  afeathers@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Michael Harris, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
          405 14th Street, 15th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 835 8098
          Facsimile: (410) 835 8099
          E-mail: mharris@youthlaw.org

               - and -

          Christine P. Sun, Esq.
          Linnea L. Nelson, Esq.
          Sarah Hinger, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
          39 Drumm St.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 621-2493
          E-mail: csun@aclunc.org
                  lnelson@aclunc.org
                  shinger@aclu.org

               - and –

          David Loy, Esq.
          Melissa Deleon, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
          UNION FOUNDATION OF SAN
          DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES
          P.O. Box 87131
          San Diego, CA 92138-7131
          Telephone: (619) 398 4489
          Facsimile: (619) 232 0036
          E-mail: davidloy@aclusandiego.org
                  mdeleon@aclusandiego.org


SANCHEZ OIL & GAS: Underpays Oilfield Workers, Langen Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN LANGEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SANCHEZ OIL & GAS CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-02840 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 16, 2018) is brought
against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Langen was employed by the Defendant as oilfield
worker from September 2015 to November 2017.

Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation manages oil and natural gas well
properties in onshore Gulf Coast, Mid-Continent, and Rocky Mountain
regions. It provides expertise in the areas of field development
and redevelopment, enhanced oil recovery, exploration and appraisal
activities, and other related operations. The company was founded
in 1972 and is based in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


SCHLUMBERGER LIFT: Garcia Suit Moved to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cristobal Garcia, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Schlumberger Lift Solutions, LLC a Delaware limited liability
company; Schlumberger Rod Lift, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and
Schlumberger Technology Corporation, a Texas corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. BCV-18-101388, was removed from the California
Superior Court, Kern County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California (Fresno) on Sept. 13, 2018. The
California Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-cv-01261-DAD-JLT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. The suit alleges labor law
related violation.

Schlumberger Lift Solutions LLC, a division of oil field services
company Schlumberger Ltd.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Holmes, Esq.
          3311 East Pico Blvd
          Los Angeles, CA 90023
          Telephone: (310) 396 9045
          E-mail: JeffHolmesJH@gmail.com

               - and -

          Lonnie C. Blanchard , III
          THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
          3579 East Foothill Blvd., No. 338
          Pasadena, CA 91107
          Telephone: (213) 599 8255
          Facsimile: (213) 402 3949
          E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com

               - and -

          Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
          PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.
          2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (818) 883 4900
          Facsimile: (818) 338 2533
          E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Heather Dawn Hearne, Esq.
          THE KULLMAN FIRM
          4605 Bluebonnet Blvd., Suite A
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 906 4245
          Facsimile: (225) 906 4230
          E-mail: hdh@kullmanlaw.com


SENSA PRODUCTS: Certification in Weight Loss Products Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California denied Plaintiff Susan Grace Stokes' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned JOSE CONDE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. SENSA, et al., Defendants. Case No. 14-cv-51 JLS WVG. (S.D.
Cal.).

The summary of the allegations are as follows: Sensa produced
various weight-loss products, which were tastant crystals or
sprinkles that users would sprinkle on their food. As marketed by
Sensa, when the users smelled and tasted the crystals, the crystals
would trigger the user's "I feel full" signal and the user would
therefore eat less food.

The Plaintiff brings causes of action generally alleging false and
misleading advertising/marketing, unfair competition, and breach of
warranties. The products at issue are: Sensa Weight-Loss System;
Sensa for Men Weight-Loss System; and Sensa Advanced Weight-Loss
System (Class Products).

The Plaintiff states she relied on the labeling for the Class
Products and alleges the Products are ineffective, the Products
have not been clinically shown to cause weight loss, and the system
is not supported by impressive clinical results.

LEGAL STANDARD

Motions for class certification proceed under Rule 23(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 23(a) provides four
prerequisites to a class action: (1) the class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable (numerosity), (2) there are
questions of law or fact common to the class (commonality), (3) the
claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the
claims or defenses of the class (typicality), and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class (adequate representation).  

A proposed class must also satisfy one of the subdivisions of Rule
23(b). Here, Plaintiff seeks to proceed under Rule 23(b)(3), which
requires that the court find that the common questions predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members (predominance)
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy (superiority).

Rule 23(a) Requirements

The Plaintiff must establish that the proposed class satisfies the
four requirements of Rule 23(a). The Defendants do not contest that
the Plaintiff's proposed class meets the Rule 23(a) requirements of
numerosity and commonality. The Court analyzes these requirements
briefly, focusing on the contested elements of typicality and
adequacy.

Numerosity

The Plaintiff does not provide the Court with an approximate number
of class members, instead providing the confidential sum of money
that the Defendants have earned through sale of the Class Products.
Given this large value, and given that the Defendants do not
dispute the numerosity of the proposed class, the Court finds that
the number of members is sufficiently numerous that joinder is
impracticable, and therefore finds that this requirement is
fulfilled.  

Commonality

To satisfy this requirement, all questions of fact and law need not
be common to satisfy the rule. The existence of shared legal issues
with divergent factual predicates is sufficient, as is a common
core of salient facts coupled with disparate legal remedies within
the class.

The Plaintiff asserts that classwide liability hinges on many
common questions, including whether the marketing and
advertisements for Sensa were false, whether the Defendants'
conduct violated various laws, whether the Defendants' conduct
breached warranties, and whether the Defendants made negligent
misrepresentations. There therefore exists at least one common
question as to the Plaintiff's claims, and the Court finds that the
commonality requirement is satisfied.

Typicality

The test of typicality is whether other members have the same or
similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not
unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members
have been injured by the same course of conduct.

Plaintiff Stokes alleges typicality is satisfied because she and
the class members purchased a Class Product and were exposed to the
same name (Sensa Weight-Loss System) and a uniform branded message.
The Defendants make various arguments against this, many of which
echo the Defendants' dispute against the Plaintiff's standing. The
Court addresses each of the Defendants' arguments in turn.

Plaintiff Did Not Purchase the Class Product to Lose Weight But to
Maintain Her Weight at a Time When She Was Unable to Exercise

Although Plaintiff Stokes may have purchased the Product for a
different reason than other class members, i.e., maintaining her
weight vs. losing weight, she still suffered the same injury as the
class members: monetary loss from purchasing a product based on
alleged misrepresentations.

Typicality does not turn on the specific facts from which the claim
arose. Thus, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is not atypical for
this reason.

Plaintiff Experienced Side Effects From the Class Product

The Defendants argue that Plaintiff Stokes is not typical because
she experienced side effects from the Class Product. the Plaintiff
has filed a declaration stating she is not seeking relief for the
side effects she experienced from using Sensa. She is seeking a
full refund of the purchase product of the product for herself and
the other class members. Therefore, Plaintiff Stokes is seeking the
same relief as the class members and is not atypical for this
reason.

Plaintiff Spent $5,000 on the Class Product, Used the Class Product
for Five Years, and Was Satisfied With the Class Product

The Defendants argue that Plaintiff Stokes was a satisfied customer
who continued to purchase the Class Product over a five-year period
and therefore is atypical of the other class members. The Plaintiff
now states she was not satisfied with the Class Product and was
deceived by Defendants. This contradicts her deposition testimony
where she testified she was satisfied with Sensa while using it and
Sensa was the answer for her to be able to eat what she wanted
without exercising.

She testified her goal in buying Sensa was to maintain her weight,
and she did indeed maintain her weight.  She continued to buy the
product because she was satisfied with it. Indeed, while Plaintiff
Stokes's first purchase of the Class Product was induced by
Defendants' advertisements, it appears Plaintiff's continued
purchase of the Class Product was because she believed it was
working for her.

The Court therefore finds that the Plaintiff Stokes is not atypical
for this reason.

Plaintiff Used Only One of the Three Class Products

In Wiener v. Dannon Co., 255 F.R.D. 658, 666 (C.D. Cal. 2009), the
court determined that the proposed class representative had not
established typicality because she only purchased one of the
products, Activia, and did not purchase DanActive or Activia Light.


Here, unlike in Wiener, the Class Products all boast the same
result: weight loss. And, while Sensa for Men obviously targeted
males, there is no evidence that this Class Product was marketed
any differently than the other two Class Products. The marketing
and ingredients for the three products are substantially similar.
Accordingly, the various products purchased do not negate a finding
of typicality because Plaintiff Stokes alleges that the class
members' injuries arise from a common wrong. The Plaintiff's claims
are therefore reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class
members, and the Court finds that the Plaintiff is not atypical for
this reason.

Plaintiff Did Not See and Rely on All Representations by Sensa
Because Sensa Changed Its Weight Loss Representations in 2013 or
2014

The Defendants state Plaintiff Stokes never saw or read these new
representations. Plaintiff Stokes argues this minor change is
immaterial, and that the same evidence will be used to prove that
both representations are false. The Court agrees with the
Plaintiff: what is important is whether the Defendants'
misrepresentations were false or misleading. This will be the issue
regardless of the change in advertising, as the advertising
uniformly claims that users will lose weight after using the Class
Product.

Plaintiff Did Not Purchase the Product Online and Never Saw Sensa's
Website

Plaintiff Stokes purchased her product from a retail store and over
the phone, not online. The Defendants state that 84% of the class
members purchased the Class Product online and Plaintiff Stokes is
therefore atypical.  In support of their argument, the Defendants
cite to McCrary, in which the court excluded class members who
purchased the product online because the proposed class definition
required that the putative member be exposed to the packaging
and/or labeling of' the product.

McCrary is clearly different from the present case. The class
definition here does not include a requirement that a class member
be exposed to a certain advertisement. In any event, Plaintiff
Stokes testified she saw the Class Product advertised on an
informercial on ShopNBC and saw ads on television.  

In sum, the Court finds that the Plaintiff Stokes has established
the "typicality" requirement for a class representative.

Adequacy

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) requires that the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. To determine whether the representation
meets this standard, courts ask two questions: (1) Do the
representative plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of
interest with other class members, and (2) will the representative
plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on
behalf of the class?

The Defendants argue Plaintiff Stokes cannot adequately fulfill her
duties as class representative because of her health issues.  The
Defendants state that, due to health reasons, Stokes was not able
to travel from Florida to California (i) in July 2015 for an Early
Neutral Evaluation, (ii) in July 2017 for a second Early Neutral
Evaluation, or (iii) in January 2018 for her deposition. Plaintiff
Stokes does not contest that she could not travel to these events,
but states she was able to appear telephonically and that she was
deposed in Florida.

Here, Plaintiff Stokes has demonstrated that she has a general
understanding of her claims. She testified that this is a class
action. She also testified that she and the class members believed
in something, bought the Class Product, and lost money. She
testified that the class members believed in what they were doing,
and it was not true and the Class Product "didn't work for them for
some reason for another.

In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff Stokes has demonstrated that
she is an adequate class representative and that class counsel are
also adequate. The adequacy requirement is therefore satisfied.
Plaintiff Stokes has satisfied the four requirements of Rule 23(a)
and the Court proceeds to analyze the requirements of Rule
23(b)(3).

Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements

Rule 23(b)(3) states that a class may be maintained if the
requirements of Rule 23(a) are fulfilled and if the court finds
that the questions of law or fact common to the class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Predominance of Common Issue

The predominance analysis focuses on the legal or factual questions
that qualify each class member's case as a genuine controversy to
determine whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to
warrant adjudication by representation.

Arbitration

The Defendants first cite to the arbitration clause on Sensa's
website, arguing this causes predominance issues. Sensa's website
contains a provision that states all purchasers agree to arbitrate
their claims on an individual basis.

In Pablo v. ServiceMaster Global Holdings Inc., No. C 08-3894 SI,
2011 WL 3476473 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2011), the court declined to
resolve the arbitration issue at a later juncture because, in this
case, plaintiffs' legal claims are already complex, defendants have
presented significant evidence of numerous enforceable arbitration
agreements, intervening Supreme Court case law has complicated the
issue of waiver and enforcement, and this case was filed
approximately three years ago. The court reasoned that "a
significant portion of this litigation would be devoted to
discovering which class members signed such agreements and
enforcing those agreements, rather than to the resolution of
plaintiffs' legal claims which themselves are complex. The court
therefore denied the motion for class certification.

Conflicts Between States' Laws

The Defendants identify various material conflicts between the laws
of California and other states for the Plaintiff's causes of
action. The Defendants state that the consumer protection laws vary
as follows: (1) allowing vs. barring class actions, (2) proof of
causation and reliance, and (3) proof of actual injury and damages.


The Defendants have demonstrated that there are differences between
California's and other states' laws on material issues for many, if
not all, of Plaintiff Stokes' causes of action. Issues such as
privity, the statute of limitations, the notice requirement, etc.,
are material in this case because each could be dispositive of the
individual class members' cases.

Which Law Applies?

It is true that Sensa was located in California, and California has
an interest in ensuring false advertising and unfair business
practices do not emanate from companies within its borders.
Further, both California courts and the Ninth Circuit have held
that the place of the wrong has the predominant interest in
regulating the conduct at issue. The Restatement First of Conflict
of Laws defines the place of wrong as the state where the last
event necessary to make an actor liable for an alleged tort takes
place. Note 4 to the Restatement further elaborates that when a
person sustains loss by fraud, the place of wrong is where the loss
is sustained, not where fraudulent representations are made. Thus,
the place of the wrong" occurs where the potential class members
sustains their loss. Here, this would be where the members saw the
advertisements and subsequently purchased the product, regardless
of where the company selling the product was located at the time.
Thus, as the place of the wrong, these states would have a greater
interest than does California in applying their law to this case.

In sum, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not satisfied the
predominance requirement.

Superiority

The final requirement for class certification is that a class
action be superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

The Defendants argue that a class action is not superior to other
methods here because of the prior FTC settlement. The Defendants
primarily rely on Kamm v. California City Development., 509 F.2d
205, 210 (9th Cir. 1975).in support of this argument. In Kamm, the
plaintiffs brought a putative class action for claims arising out
of the defendants' land promotion scheme. Prior to the initiation
of the plaintiffs' suit, the Attorney General and the Real Estate
Commissioner of California had brought an action against four of
the nine defendants, in which a permanent injunction and final
judgment on a settlement agreement had already been filed.

Under those circumstances, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district
court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' class complaints for lack of
superiority, citing seven factors supporting the holding.  First, a
class action would require a substantial expenditure of judicial
time which would largely duplicate and possibly to some extent
negate the work in the prior action. Second, the class action would
involve thousands of buyers in separate transactions over a 14 year
period. Third, significant relief had been realized in the state
action through: (a) restitution, (b) defendant's agreement to
establish a program to settle future disputes, (c) a permanent
injunction, and (d) a guarantee of funds for off-site improvements.
Fourth, the state court retained continuing jurisdiction. Fifth, no
member of the class was barred from initiating a suit on his or her
own behalf. Sixth, although the class action aspects of the case
had been dismissed, appellants' action was still viable. And
seventh, defending a class action would prove costly to the
defendants and duplicate in part the work expended over a
considerable period of time in the state action.

In sum, the Kamm factors weigh almost exclusively in favor of
finding that the superiority requirement has not been met here.
Although it is true that the main distinction between the facts in
this case and those in Kamm, i.e., that there is no agreement here
to settle future disputes, weighs in favor of Plaintiff Stokes, the
Court finds that because Plaintiff Stokes and other members may
still bring individual suits, this is an adequate way to resolve
future disputes. This leads the Court to conclude that Plaintiff
Stokes has failed to establish that the proposed class action is
superior to other methods for adjudication of the controversy.

The Court therefore denies Plaintiff Stokes' Motion for Class
Certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 10, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y94n4xob from Leagle.com.

Mollie Delaney & Amanda Retcofsky, Plaintiffs, represented by Julia
A. Luster -- jluster@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher PA, Lawrence
Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, PA &
Annick Marie Persinger -- apersinger@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher,
P.A.  
Susan Grace Stokes, Individually and On Behalf of Herself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Philip
Murray -- bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Edmond E. Koester -- ekoester@cyklawfirm.com -- Coleman Yovanovich
and Koester PA, pro hac vice, Julia A. Luster, Bursor & Fisher
PA,Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, PA, Lee Albert --
lalbert@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice,
Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Mark Samuel Greenstone -- info@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Binkow and Goldberg LLP, Thomas Andrew Reyda, Bursor & Fisher PA &
Annick Marie Persinger, Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Sensa Products, LLC, Defendant, pro se.

Don Ressler, Adam Goldenberg, Kristen Chadwick, Scott Whittier,
Stacey Kivel, Elizabeth Francis, Jeff Campbell, Jason Morano,
Katelyn O'Reilly, Michael Shay, Cody Congleton, IB Holding, LLC,
also known as Intelligent Beauty Holding, LLC & TechStyle, Inc.,
formerly known as JustFab, Inc. formerly known as Just Fabulous,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Valentine Antonavich Shalamitski
-- vas@msk.com -- Mitchell Silberberg Knupp LLP.

John Drew, Defendant, represented by Stephen Hibbard --
sdhibbard@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


SHEFAYIM: Sued for Failing to Enforce Smoking Laws
--------------------------------------------------
According to Arutz Sheva, the Avir Naki organization reported that
a class action lawsuit has been filed against a major Israeli water
park after the park failed to enforce smoking laws.

The claimants, all of whom visited the Shefayim water park after
July 11, 2012, have filed for 740 million NIS in damages after the
park "violated . . . the law for preventing smoking in public
places, and harmed the health of hundreds of thousands of the water
park's visitors."

Israeli law forbids smoking in pools and the yards around pools,
including in the grassy or paved areas around them. The law also
forbids designating "smoking areas" in these places.

Anyone who visited Shefayim after July 11, 2012 can apply to join
the lawsuit, or act as a witness in the case.

Separately, a new bill expanding Israel's list of places where
smoking is forbidden went into effect on Sept. 1. The law bans
smoking within 10 meters (10.9 yards) of the entrance to daycares
and preschools, as well as at public parks and all events organized
by the Israeli government and which take place in a defined area.
This includes events organized by government bodies such as courts,
rabbinic courts, local councils, and religious councils.

Approximately 800 of the 8,000 Israelis who die annually due to
smoking-related illnesses are victims of secondhand smoke. [GN]


SOLCO HEALTHCARE: Duffy et al. Sue over Sale of Contaminated Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH DUFFY; and JOHN DUFFY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOLCO HEALTHCARE U.S., LLC;
PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; WALGREEN CO. a/k/a WALGREENS, and
THROGGS NECK PHARMACY, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07460
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018) alleges that the Defendants manufactured
and distributed valsartan-containing generic prescription
medications contaminated with N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA"), a
carcinogenic and liver-damaging impurity.

Solco Healthcare U.S., is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of the State of Delaware, headquartered in Cranbury,
New Jersey, is engaged in marketing and distributing generic
pharmaceuticals. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
                  aobergfell@bursor.com


SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Court Dismisses TAC in Anticompetition Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint in the case captioned
ARENA RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHERN
GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No.
17-CV-03805-LHK. (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants, who are liquor wholesalers,
of a range of anticompetitive behavior.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Southern Glazer has been fined, punished for, and/or charged with
various misdeeds, including racial discrimination, illegal
kickbacks, unlawful carrying charges, and anti-competitive conduct.
The Plaintiffs additionally cite to a wrongful termination and
defamation suit filed by a former Southern Glazer Vice President
and National Account Manager.

LEGAL STANDARD

Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a
complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. A complaint that
fails to meet this standard may be dismissed pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  

Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)

A motion to dismiss a complaint under Rule 9(b) for failure to
plead with particularity is the functional equivalent of a motion
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiffs assert eight claims: (1) promissory fraud (2) common law
fraud (3) below-cost sales (4) loss-leader sales; (5) secret
rebates; (6) unlawful threats and intimidation; (7) breach of
contract; and (8) unfair business practices.

Fraud-Related Claims (Claims One and Two)

To state a claim for fraud under California law, a plaintiff must
allege: (1) a misrepresentation (false representation, concealment,
or non-disclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity (or scienter); (3)
intent to defraud (i.e., to induce reliance); (4) justifiable
reliance; and (5) resulting damage.

The Court found that the Plaintiffs had failed to plead the
promissory fraud and common law fraud with specificity as required
by Rule 9(b). The Court stated the theory of falsity underlying
both claims is that the Defendants promised to keep the Plaintiffs'
account information confidential, but despite this promise the
Defendants allegedly used the Plaintiffs' account information to
make sales to third parties. The Court found that the Plaintiffs
failed to plead any specific facts about these alleged third-party
sales including who made the alleged third party sales, when the
sales were made, or what was sold. Nor did the Plaintiffs identify
the third parties.

Additionally, the Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to allege
that they had been billed or had paid for products that they did
not order or receive. The April 16, 2018 Order concluded that vague
allegations that unspecified Southern Glazer employees used the
Plaintiffs' account numbers to sell an unspecified amount of liquor
to unspecified parties during an unspecified time period were
nowhere near specific enough to give defendants notice of the
particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud
charged.

The Court stated the Plaintiffs' claim for promissory fraud fails
because the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that the
Defendants failed to perform the promise to keep the Plaintiffs'
account information confidential. Similarly, the Plaintiffs' common
law fraud claim fails because the Plaintiffs have not adequately
alleged a misrepresentation. The Court therefore granted the Motion
to Dismiss the promissory fraud and common law fraud claims, but
granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend to adequately plead these
claims.

Unfair Practices Act Claims (Claims Three, Four, Five, and Six)

The Plaintiffs bring several claims for various unfair business
practices under California's Unfair Practices Act (UPA), California
Business and Professions Code Sections 17000 et seq. The
Plaintiffs' third claim is for below-cost sales in violation of
Section 17043, which makes it unlawful for any person to sell any
article or product at less than the cost thereof to such vendor, or
to give away any article or product, for the purpose of injuring
competitors or destroying competition.

The Plaintiffs' fourth claim is for loss-leader sales in violation
of Section 17044, which prohibits the sale or use of any article or
product as a loss leader as defined in Section 17030.  

The Plaintiffs fifth claim is for secret rebates in violation of
Section 17045, which provides that the secret payment of rebates to
some purchasers that is not extended to all purchasers and that has
a tendency to destroy competition is unlawful.  

The Plaintiff's sixth claim is for unlawful threats and
intimidation in violation of Section 17046, which provides that
[i]t is unlawful for any person to use any threat, intimidation, or
boycott, to effectuate any violation of this chapter.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (8)(2), a pleading must
contain a 'short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.'

The Court also took issue with the fact that the Plaintiffs' other
allegations were conclusory and naked assertions that were devoid
of further factual enhancement. For instance, as to the below-cost
and loss-leader sales claims, the Plaintiffs alleged that the
Defendants sold liquor to different parties at different prices and
allowed the Defendants' employees to give away liquor by pricing it
at $.01. The Plaintiffs also alleged that the Defendants permitted
the Defendants' employees to buy liquor 'off-invoice,' although the
Plaintiffs do not explain what exactly off-invoice' means.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs again fail to address the
deficiencies as to the Plaintiffs' (3) below-cost sales, (4)
loss-leader sales, (5) secret rebates, and (6) unlawful threats and
intimidation claims in the Plaintiffs' TAC. In general, the
Plaintiff points to no specific amendments that cure the
deficiencies identified in the April 16, 2018 Order. Instead the
Plaintiffs put forth the same list of twenty-two alleged violations
that this Court has already rejected as legal conclusions that are
not entitled to the presumption of truth.    

Beyond that, the Plaintiffs put forth vague statements in their
brief that they detailed multiple allegations and factual
statements of below cost sales, such as the products at issue, and
the manner in which they were sold, including the issuance of cash
cards, product tying, phantom rebates, etc., or that they have
plead the existence of secret rebates. But Plaintiffs fail to cite
any allegations in the TAC, or to elaborate on how any allegations
address the deficiencies from the SAC. The new allegations in the
TAC simply fail to address the deficiencies identified in the April
16, 2018 Order.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
third, fourth, fifth, and sixth claims. The Court previously
identified defects with the Plaintiffs UPA claims and warned that a
failure to cure the deficiencies identified in the April 16, 2018
Order or in any of the Defendants' three motions to dismiss," would
result in the claims being dismissed with prejudice. Despite this
warning, the Plaintiffs failed to cure deficiencies in their UPA
claims. Therefore, the Court finds that further leave to amend
would be futile. Additionally, it would be unduly prejudicial to
the Defendants to allow the Plaintiffs to file a fifth complaint
and require the Defendants to file a fifth motion to dismiss after
the April 16, 2018 Order's warning regarding failure to cure
deficiencies.

The Court therefore grants the Motion to Dismiss the UPA claims
with prejudice.

Eighth Claim for Unfair Business Practices

The Plaintiffs' eighth claim is for unfair business practices in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The UCL
creates a cause of action for business practices that are (1)
unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent. Each prong of the UCL
provides a separate and distinct theory of liability. The
Plaintiffs title their eighth claim unfair business practices,
which suggests that the Plaintiffs do not assert claims under the
unlawful or fraudulent prongs of the UCL.

The Plaintiff's UCL claim contained in the TAC once again fails.
First, as in the April 16, 2018 Order, to the extent that the
Plaintiffs' UCL claim is derivative of the other claims in the TAC
that the Court dismisses in this order, the derivative UCL claim
must also be dismissed.  Second, the Plaintiffs fail to establish
statutory standing because they again fail to allege that they
suffered economic harm. Finally, the Plaintiffs fail to cure any of
the other deficiencies identified in the April 16, 2018 Order.  

Accordingly, this Court grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the Plaintiffs' UCL claim with prejudice. The Court finds that
further leave to amend would be futile and unduly prejudicial to
the Defendants. The Plaintiffs were on notice as to the defects of
their UCL claim, and the Court warned that failure to cure the
defects would result in a dismissal with prejudice. Nevertheless,
the Plaintiffs failed to cure. Additionally, if the Court allows
the Plaintiffs to file a fifth complaint, the Defendants would be
unduly prejudiced by having to brief a motion to dismiss for a
fifth time.

Seventh Claim for Breach of Contract

The Plaintiffs assert a breach of contract claim under the same
theory raised in the SAC, namely that the Defendants promised to
keep the Plaintiffs' account and financial information confidential
but the Defendants nevertheless disclosed that information in order
to sell liquor to unlicensed third parties. The Defendants argue
that the claim for breach of contract should be dismissed for
failure to sufficiently plead the details of the relevant contract.


To state a breach of contract claim under California law, a
plaintiff must plead a contract, plaintiff's performance or excuse
for failure to perform, defendant's breach and damage to plaintiff
resulting therefrom.

Despite the Court's direction that the Plaintiffs must specify the
contracts upon which their breach of contract claim is based in any
amended complaint, the Plaintiffs fail to amend their TAC to
identify any specific contract. Nor do the Plaintiffs elaborate on
which promises initially alleged in the SAC were express and which
were implied. The Plaintiffs also fail to identify the agreement
that allegedly contained these promises. The Plaintiffs' TAC also
fails to add any amendments alleging specific instances of
Defendants using named the Plaintiffs' liquor license, Southern
Glazer account, or financial information to sell liquor to
unlicensed third parties.  

Because the Plaintiffs failed to follow the Court's directions and
did not amend their complaint to cure the deficiencies identified
in the April 16, 2018 Order, the Court grants the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim

Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss all
claims contained in the TAC with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 10, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7amf5uz from Leagle.com.

Arena Restaurant and Lounge LLC, Pacifica Restaurants, LLC, Vine
and Barrel LLC & Daniel Flores, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Kelley Gelini
-- kelley@wakefordlaw.com -- Wakeford Gelini, Wesley Dalrymple
Wakeford -- wes@wakefordlaw.com -- The Wakeford Law Firm, Cesar A.
Alvarado, Law offices of Scott Cole & Scott Edward Cole, Scott Cole
& Associates, APC.

Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Daniel Edward Purcell -- dpurcell@keker.com -- Keker Van Nest &
Peters LLP, Franco Emilio Muzzio -- fmuzzio@keker.com -- Keker, Van
Nest and Peters LLP, John Watkins-Keker -- jkeker@kvn.com -- Keker
& Van Nest LLP & Susan J. Harriman -- sharriman@keker.com -- Keker
& Van Nest, LLP.

Southern Wine & Spirits of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Franco Emilio Muzzio, Keker, Van Nest and Peters LLP.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Underpays Field Instructors, Tanis Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUZANNE TANIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.; and DOES 1 through
50, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00041 143-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super.,
Aug. 15, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Tanis was employed by the Defendants as field
instructor.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vilmarie Cordero, Esq.
          Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
          Laura M. Supanich, Esq.
          GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
          3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-0800
          Facsimile: (619) 692-0822
          E-mail: vcordero@grahamhollis.com
                  ghollis@grahamhollis.com
                  lsupanich@grahamhollis.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Drivers, McNutt Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MARY MCNUTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC;
and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-05668-RJB (W.D.
Wash., Aug. 15, 2018) is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime compensation, rest breaks, and minimum wage for
non-driving time.

The Plaintiff McNutt was employed by the Defendant as driver from
April 2017 to October 2017.

Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC is a transportation
company, that is authorized to conduct and is actually conducting
business in the State of Washington, and that designates its main
office Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYNCHRONY BANK: Campbell Suit Moved to W.D. North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Roy Campbell on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Synchrony Bank
and Amicus Curtis Neal, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00080, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for Northern District of
New York to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina (Charlotte) on Sept. 13, 2018. The North Carolina
Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00501 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knowingly and/or
willfully placed automated calls to Plaintiff's cellular phone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          Stephen F. Taylor, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653 2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653 3424

Attorneys for Synchrony Bank:

          Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
          Julieta Stepanyan, Esq.
          Marcos D. Sasso, Esq.
          STROOCK, STROOCK LAW FIRM-LA OFFICE
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 5800
          Facsimile: (310) 556 5959
          E-mail: msasso@stroock.com

Attorneys for Amicus Curtis Neal:

          Douglas G. Blankinship, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298 3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824 1561

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
            FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 824 3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824 1561


TEPCO: Grace Park Wants $50M Fund Set Up over Nuke Plant Meltdown
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GRACE EUNAE PARK, individually and as administrator of the ESTATE
OF JOSH PARK, THOMAS CLARKE, NANCY JACKSON and RYAN MCLAUGHLIN, the
Plaintiffs, v. TOKYO ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC, and GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02121-GPC-JLB
(S.D. Cal., Sept. 13, 2018), seeks judgment ordering, requiring and
compelling the Defendants to establish a fund in an amount not less
than $50,000,000 as to each Defendant available to advance and pay
all costs and expenses for each of the Plaintiffs for medical
examination, medical monitoring, and treatment by physicians of
Plaintiffs' choice, and for the payment of costs and expenses for
each of the Plaintiffs for medical examination, medical monitoring,
and treatment by physicians of Plaintiffs' choice for their
offspring who are at risk for birth defects caused by genetic gene
mutation.

The Plaintiffs are all American citizens who were located in Japan
during March 2011 following the earthquake and tsunami that
devastated the country. On or around March 11, 2011, due to the
Defendants' longstanding gross negligence, the boiling water
reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant melted down.
The Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant was and is owned by Defendant
Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, and the reactors in question
were designed and built by Defendant General Electric.

As a result of the meltdown, significant amounts of radiation were
released into the surrounding environment. In subsequent
investigations, including one conducted by the Japanese Government,
TEPCO was found to have been grossly negligent. Due to the
radiation exposure that Plaintiffs experienced as a result of the
Defendants' negligence and gross negligence, Plaintiffs have
experienced severe physical and mental injury, including cancers,
thyroid conditions and, in some cases, death.

The Plaintiffs were repeatedly exposed to ionizing radiation on or
after March 11, 2011, due to the release of radioisotopes from the
Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. Plaintiffs' injuries, losses,
damages, and harms are the results of the Defendants' illegal
conduct, including the negligently designed and maintained GE
Boiling Water Reactor, which contains numerous design and
manufacturing defects. These harms include, but are not limited to,
the following: illnesses such as Leukemia, ulcers, gall bladder
removals, brain cancer, brain tumors, testicular cancer,
dysfunctional uterine bleeding, thyroid illnesses, stomach
ailments, birth defects, death, and a host of other complaints
unusual in such young adults and victims. The injured servicemen
and women will require treatment for their deteriorating health,
medical monitoring, payment of their medical bills, appropriate
health monitoring for their children, and monitoring for possible
radiation-induced genetic mutations. Some of the radioactive
particles inside these service personnel have long half-lives, from
6 to 50 to 100 years.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles A. Bonner, Esq.
          A. Cabral Bonner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER
          475 Gate Five Road, Suite 212
          Sausalito, CA 94965
          Telephone: (415) 331 3070
          Facsimile: (415) 331 2738
          E-mail: cabral@bonnerlaw.com
                  cbonner799@aol.com

               - and -

          Paul C. Garner, Esq.
          C/O LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER
          475 Gate Five Road, Suite 212
          Sausalito, CA 94965
          Mail to: P.O. Box 232472
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (760) 558 9267
          Facsimile: (760) 918 1984
          E-mail: pcg@garnerlaw.com

               - and -

          John R. Edwards, Esq.
          Catharine E. Edwards, Esq.
          EDWARDS KIRBY
          3201 Glenwood Ave. Suite 100
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 780 5400
          Facsimile: (919) 800 3099
          E-mail: jedwards@edwardskirby.com
                  cedwards@edwardskirby.com


TESLA INC: Elon Musk Faces SEC Charges for Go-Private Tweets
------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission on Sept. 27 charged Elon
Musk, CEO and Chairman of Silicon Valley-based Tesla Inc., with
securities fraud for a series of false and misleading tweets about
a potential transaction to take Tesla private.  

On August 7, 2018, Musk tweeted to his 22 million Twitter followers
that he could take Tesla private at $420 per share (a substantial
premium to its trading price at the time), that funding for the
transaction had been secured, and that the only remaining
uncertainty was a shareholder vote.  The SEC's complaint alleges
that, in truth, Musk had not discussed specific deal terms with any
potential financing partners, and he allegedly knew that the
potential transaction was uncertain and subject to numerous
contingencies. According to the SEC's complaint, Musk's tweets
caused Tesla's stock price to jump by over six percent on August 7,
and led to significant market disruption.

"Corporate officers hold positions of trust in our markets and have
important responsibilities to shareholders," said Steven Peikin,
Co-Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division.  "An officer's
celebrity status or reputation as a technological innovator does
not give license to take those responsibilities lightly."  

"Taking care to provide truthful and accurate information is among
a CEO's most critical obligations," added Stephanie Avakian,
Co-Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division.  "That standard
applies with equal force when the communications are made via
social media or another non-traditional form."

The SEC's complaint, filed in federal district court in the
Southern District of New York, alleges that Musk violated antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws, and seeks a permanent
injunction, disgorgement, civil penalties, and a bar prohibiting
Musk from serving as an officer or director of a public company.  

The SEC's investigation, which is continuing, was conducted by
Walker Newell, and Brent Smyth and supervised by Steven Buchholz,
Erin Schneider, and Jina Choi in the San Francisco Regional Office.
The litigation will be led by Cheryl Crumpton and Barrett Atwood.


TICO JUICE: Cano Alleges Wage-and-Hour Law Violation
----------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO ROLANDO CANO, and all similarly situated present and former
employees of the defendants, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25 and
U.S.C sections 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. TICO JUICE BAR LLC, AMMEL
DEBERNARD and RENEE A. DEBERNARD, jointly, severally, and
individually, the Defendants, Case No. MER-L-001862-18 (N.J. Sup.
Ct., Mercer Cty., Aug. 30, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay
under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, during his employment, the Defendants
promised to pay Plaintiff for services rendered at a regular hourly
rate that varied but which included $12/hour in 2015, $12.50/hour
in 2016, $13.00 in 2017, and $13.50/hour in 2018. The Plaintiff
frequently worked more than 40 hours/week. The Defendants did not
pay Plaintiff the legally-required time-and-one-half the regular
rate of pay for hours worked by Plaintiff over 40 hours/week. The
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the legally required overtime
rate of pay as required by the NJWHL.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roger Martindell, Esq.
          245 Nassau Street
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 921 3355
          Facsimile: (609) 921 9345
          E-mail: martindell.law@gmail.com


TIGER BRANDS: To Agree to Listeria Outbreak Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
702 reports that Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi has announced
that there is no longer a listeria outbreak in South Africa.

The minister says for three months, there has not been a case of
listeriosis recorded.

Chief Executive Officer at Richard Spoor Inc, Richard Spoor, is
filing a class action lawsuit against Tiger brands for the deaths
of those killed by listeriosis.

"We have filed an application in the High Court in Johannesburg to
certify a class action on behalf of the victims," Richard Spoor,
Chief Executive Officer at Richard Spoor Inc.  "Tiger has noted an
application to that application but we have been in discussion and
we have an agreement that Tiger will agree to a class action."
[GN]


TOWERS OF QUASIDE: Valcarcel Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Evelio Valcarcel, and all others
who are similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Towers of Quaside
No. 4 Condo Assoc., Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 18-028558-CA-01,
was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Miami-Dade County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami) on Sept. 13, 2018.  The Southern District of
Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-23761-RNS to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert N. Scola,
Jr. The suit alleges Fair Standards Labor Act violation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Joseph McGuinness, Esq.
          MCGUINNESS & GONZALEZ, P.A.
          3126 Center Street
          Coconut Grove, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 448 9557
          Facsimile: (305) 448 9559
          E-mail: ljmpalaw@netzero.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carlo D Marichal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LORRAINE LESTER
          1200 South Pine Island Rd., Suite 750
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 424 4676
          Facsimile: (866) 696 7828
          E-mail: carlo.marichal@cna.com


TWO TREES MANAGEMENT: Faces Fischler Disabilities Act Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Two Trees Management
Co. LLC. The case is captioned as BRIAN FISCHLER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TWO TREES
MANAGEMENT CO. LLC, D/B/A MERCEDES HOUSE, Case No.
1:18-cv-04618-NGG-RER (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2018). The lawsuit
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case
is assigned to Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis and referred to
Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr.

Two Trees Management Co. LLC develops, owns, and manages a
portfolio of commercial, industrial, and residential real estate
properties in New York. The company owns and manages apartments;
neighborhood infrastructure and amenities, such as schools, parks,
and cultural spaces; and commercial and industrial real estate
properties. It also provides residential and commercial leasing
services. The company was founded in 1968 and is based in Brooklyn,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Averts Firefighter Pension Fund's Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Keane, writing for CNET, reports that Uber and its former boss
won a lawsuit claiming the company hid scandals that led to
investors losing billions.

An Irving, Texas-based firefighter pension fund filed class action
claims against the ride-hailing company and its ex-CEO Travis
Kalanick, but a California judge ruled that the claims should be
tossed on Aug. 31, Bloomberg reports.

The lawsuit "does not specifically tie any particular
misrepresentation by defendants to a decline in Uber's stock
price," US District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. wrote in his
ruling.

It "lumps together" scandals and makes "vague and attenuated
connection" to the fall in Uber's stock, Judge Gilliam noted.

The judge allowed the fund to revise and refile the complaint. It
alleged that Uber and Mr. Kalanick hide at least six instances of
malfeasance while "successfully soliciting billions of dollars in
private investment."

Mr. Kalanick stepped down in June 2017 after an independent
investigation recommended that changes to senior leadership were
needed to mitigate a wave of scandals. He was replaced that August
by Dara Khosrowshahi, who has taken a more diplomatic approach to
leading the company. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Competitor Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Uber has for years successfully fought off lawsuits claiming it
misclassifies drivers as contractors, but a class action filed by a
competitor could force the ride-hail giant to finally start
treating drivers like employees.

Diva Limousine, a Los Angeles-based ride service, sued Uber in
federal court on Sept. 10, claiming its flouting of labor laws
gives Uber an unfair advantage in the marketplace, enabling it to
offer predatory prices that harm competition.

Where prior labor class actions against Uber have failed or run
into road blocks, such as worker contracts that forbid
participation in class actions, a competitor's lawsuit faces no
such restrictions.

"This case is unique in that it is brought by a company that does
not have an arbitration agreement of any kind with Uber that would
prevent adjudication in court," said plaintiffs' attorney Michael
Geibelson -- MGeibelson@RobinsKaplan.com -- of Robins Kaplan in
Mountain View, California.

The class action complaint comes on the heels of two pivotal court
rulings from earlier this year that reshaped the legal landscape
for gig economy workers and their employment status.

In April, the California Supreme Court broadened the definition of
employee and made it harder for companies to classify workers as
independent contractors in the case Dynamex v. Superior Court.

To consider workers contractors under the new standard, companies
must show: they do not directly control the worker, the work done
falls outside the company's usual course of business, and the
worker is "customarily engaged in an independently established
trade."

That decision raised alarms for companies like Uber that rely on
cheap labor from independent contractors. In July, nine gig-economy
giants, including Uber, DoorDash and TaskRabbit, sent a letter to
state lawmakers urging them to override the court with legislation
or executive action. They claim the new labor rules would "stifle
innovation" and "decimate businesses."

Then in May, gig economy workers fighting for employee status were
dealt a setback when the Supreme Court upheld the use of class
waivers in arbitration contracts, which prevent workers from
teaming up to sue their employer.

"Once you can't sue as a class, it becomes very difficult to bring
these cases forward because it doesn't pay the lawyer to go
employee by employee," Stanford law professor William Gould IV said
in a phone interview.

With labor contracts barring drivers from suing as a class, Gould
said a competitor suing Uber for labor violations could be one of
the only ways to obtain an injunction that would force the company
to start treating its drivers as employees.

"That makes this kind of action by a competitor all the more
vital," Mr. Gould said. "The only other way that Dynamex can be
applied to transportation companies would be through the [state]
government enforcing the labor standards."

By classifying its drivers as contractors, Uber avoids paying
minimum wage and overtime, providing health insurance and workers'
compensation and reimbursing for gas and wear and tear on drivers'
cars.

According to Diva Limousine, Uber saves $250 million to $500
million each year by classifying its drivers as independent
contractors.

Meanwhile, ride service companies that treat drivers as employees
cannot match Uber's low prices. Diva Limousine has lost substantial
business since Uber came on the scene, and its customers regularly
ask why fares haven't been lowered in light of Uber's prices,
according to the complaint.

"If they're pricing below everybody else because they're flouting
the law, that's not something that free markets are supposed to
reward," said plaintiffs' co-counsel Warren Postman --
wdp@kellerlenkner.com -- of Keller Lenkner in Chicago.

Uber has defeated several lawsuits brought by competitors in the
past, most recently in the District of Massachusetts, where a
federal judge ruled in May that a Boston taxi driver couldn't sue
the company for antitrust.

U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton concluded that offering lower
prices does not constitute anticompetitive conduct, that the
plaintiff failed to allege specific intent to monopolize, and that
he lacked standing to sue because harm to one's business is not the
same as harm to competition.

Also earlier this year, the Third Circuit in March affirmed the
dismissal of a lawsuit filed against Uber by the Philadelphia Taxi
Association and 80 individual cab companies.

Where this case differs is its reliance on the novel legal theory
that Uber's misclassification of drivers as contractors gives it an
unfair advantage and harms competition.

"To my knowledge no other competitor case has argued that Uber's
failure to comply with labor law results in artificial profit
margins and unfair competition," Mr. Geibelson said. "This is a new
theory that we think is well grounded in California law."

Diva Limousine seeks class certification, an injunction, treble
damages and costs of suit.

Uber's press team did not respond to an email seeking comment on
Sept. 11.


UNITED STATES: 500 Immigrant Children Not Reunited with Parents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Bauman, writing for Dailymail.com, reports that almost 500
immigrant children have yet to be reunited with their parents after
being separated at the Southern U.S. border -- and 22 are younger
than five years old, according to court filings.

About 65 percent, or 322 of the 497 children, have parents who are
outside of the country, in many cases because they were deported
without them.

Of the 2,654 immigrant children who were separated from their
parents during the Trump administration's 'zero-tolerance' policy
at the U.S.-Mexico border earlier this year, 2,175 have been
discharged, according to the federal government's latest update to
U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw.

Discharged' means that in many cases the children were reunited
with their parents, though some were instead placed in custody with
other family members living in the U.S., or were minors who have
since turned 18.

Between April and June, the Trump administration separated more
than 2,600 children from their parents after the families came into
the country -- legally and illegally -- across the southern U.S.
border as part of a 'zero tolerance' immigration policy.

The actions sparked massive public outrage, leading to Trump ending
it through an executive order on June 20.

U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions has blamed the separation of children
and families on the parents fleeing violence in Latin America for
breaking U.S. immigration laws.

The efforts to reunify children have been executed under the
oversite of Judge Sabraw, who said on Aug. 31 that the U.S. should
not follow the 'natural tendency to treat each person as a
number.'

Of the children who still haven't been reunited with parents, 167
have parents who 'indicated desire against reunification.'

However a lawsuit that the American Civil Liberties Union filed in
July claims many immigrant parents were misled or coerced by U.S.
officials into signing such documents.

The federal filing also indicated that 32 parents had a 'red flag'
in their background checks precluding reunification with their
children, while 18 other parents had flags about safety and
well-being and three had flags with questions concerning their
parentage.

The government is required to provide another update with new
numbers.

Attorneys for the government had previously sought to place
responsibility for finding parents who were already deported on the
ACLU, which is representing the children in the class action suit
Judge Sabraw is overseeing.

The judge ruled in early August that it was '100 percent the
responsibility' of the Trump administration to make reunifications
happen. [GN]


UNITED STATES: DoT, FAA Face Race Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in
a federal class action, a Dallas man accuses the U.S. Department of
Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration of
discriminating against white people.


UNITED STATES: Separated Families Can Revive Asylum Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that  a
deal between the Justice Department and families separated under
President Donald Trump's now-abandoned "zero tolerance" immigration
policy gives families the chance to again pursue asylum in the
United States.

In a settlement reached on Sept. 12, class members from two class
actions being litigated in the Southern District of California and
plaintiffs in a third case brought last month in the District of
Columbia will be given the chance to revive claims for asylum.

The settlement still needs final approval from U.S. District Judge
Dana Sabraw in San Diego.

Under the agreement, federal authorities will conduct a "good
faith" review of credible-fear interviews where parents failed to
establish claims for asylum based on fears of persecution or
torture in their home countries. If reconsideration of the parent's
asylum case is warranted, they will be able to provide new or
additional information for consideration by the government.

Muslim Advocates, one of the civil rights groups suing the
government on behalf of the separated parents, says the settlement
may give over 1,000 parents another chance at pursuing asylum.

Parents claim they failed their credible-fear interviews at a high
rate due to being distraught over being separated from their
children at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The settlement recognizes the parents' state of mind after being
separated from their kids could have negatively impacted their
asylum cases.

"In determining whether any factual inconsistencies between the
original interview and the subsequent fact-gathering impact the
credibility of the parent, due consideration will be given to the
psychological state of the parent at the time of the initial
interview," according to the settlement.

For parents who pass a second credible-fear interview, their
children will be "treated as dependents" and the family will be
allowed to stay together during the asylum process.

If a parent fails their second interview, their child will be
screened independently for asylum claims. Parents will be allowed
to participate in their child's interview and provide additional
testimony on their behalf.

As for parents who were deported without their children, their
attorneys may raise "individual cases" with the government where
they think their return to the U.S. is warranted for the purposes
of pursuing asylum. Plaintiffs' counsel indicated such cases are
believed to be "rare and unusual."

In a statement, American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights
Project attorney Lee Gelernt said the agreement "leaves open the
possibility for some deported parents to return" to the United
States.

"The Trump administration will never be able to erase the full
damage of its family separation policy, but this agreement is an
important step toward restoring and protecting the asylum rights of
impacted children and parents going forward," Mr. Gelernt said.

For children seeking asylum whose parents were deported, parents
will be allowed to provide testimony on their child's behalf
telephonically or in writing.

If approved, the settlement lifts the temporary restraining order
by Judge Sabraw, who ordered the reunification of families earlier
this summer. The judge stayed deportations of reunited families
over concerns they were not able to legally pursue asylum claims.

The parties asked Judge Sabraw to add the agreement to the next
status conference in the family separation litigation, scheduled
for Sept. 14.


USA TECH: Gouet Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
Stephane Gouet, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. USA Technologies, Inc., Stephen P. Herbert
and Priyanka Singh, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-13759, (D. N.J.,
September 10, 2018) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

USA Technologies provides wireless networking, cashless
transactions, asset monitoring, and other value-added services in
the United States and internationally.

USA Technologies failed to disclose that its treatment of
contractual arrangements in its financial statements would result
in an internal investigation and delay the filing of its annual
report for fiscal year 2018, indicating that its internal controls
over financial reporting were weak and deficient. On this news,
shares of USA Technologies fell $5.74 per share or over 37% during
intraday trading on September 11, 2018.

Gouet acquired USA Technologies securities at artificially inflated
prices and lost substantially upon the revelation of the alleged
corrective disclosures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


VIRGINIA DMV: Stinnie et al. Seek to Certify Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAMIAN STINNIE, MELISSA ADAMS, and ADRAINNE
JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; WILLIEST BANDY, and BRIANNA MORGAN, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD
D. HOLCOMB, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, the Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-00044-NKM-JCH (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying a suspended Class consisting of:

      "all persons whose driver's licenses are currently
      suspended for failure to pay court debt under Section 46.2-
      395 of the Code of Virginia; and

   2. certifying a Future Suspended Class consisting of:

      "all persons whose driver's licenses will be suspended for
      failure to pay court debt under Section 46.2-395 of the
      Code of Virginia.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jonathan T. Blank, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          Court Square Building
          310 Fourth Street NE, Suite 300
          Post Office Box 1288
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Telephone: (434) 977 2509
          Facsimile: (434) 980 2258
          E-mail: jblank@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Angela A. Ciolfi, Esq.
          Pat Levy-Lavelle, Esq.
          LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
          1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A
          Charlottesville, VA 22903
          Telephone: (434) 529 1810
          Facsimile: (434) 977 0558
          E-mail: angela@justice4all.org

               - and -

          David P. Baugh, Esq.
          PLC 2025 E. Main Street, Suite 114
          Richmond, VA 23223
          Telephone: (804) 743 8111
          Facsimile: (804) 225 8035
          E-mail: dpbaugh@dpbaugh.com

               - and -

          Leslie Kendrick, Esq.
          580 Massie Rd.
          Charlottesville, VA 22903
          Telephone: (434) 243 8633
          Facsimile: (434) 924 7536
          E-mail: kendrick@virginia.edu

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Nancy Hull Davidson, Esq.
          Margaret Hoehl O'Shea, Esq.
          CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          202 North Ninth Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 692 0551
          Facsimile: (804) 786 4239
          E-mail: ndavidson@oag.state.va.us
                  moshea@oag.state.va.us


VOLKSWAGEN: Germany Finds No Evidence of Emissions Cheating
-----------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Welle, writing for Taiwan News, reports that the German
Transport Ministry on Sept. 2 said there was no evidence Volkswagen
manipulated emissions tests for its petrol cars.

The ministry dismissed a Bild newspaper report that cited witnesses
accusing Volkswagen Group brands of manipulating emissions tests
for petrol vehicles.

The witnesses said experts from VW had admitted at a crisis meeting
in 2015 that automatic transmission mechanisms in three VW brands
had switching programs that were only active during the testing
phase and could therefore influence emissions values, Bild
reported.

In a statement to news agency Reuters, the Transport Ministry said
that Bild's report was related to allegations that the Federal
Motor Transport Authority (KBA) had already examined.

There had been no indication so far of any fraud concerning VW
petrol-fuelled cars, the statement said.

Earlier, a spokesman for Volkswagen -- the parent company of Audi
and Porsche — said VW would not comment on an ongoing
investigation, but said the company had recently held intensive
talks with the KBA.

"There are no new circumstances here," he said.

A history of cheating
In Europe, vehicles are taxed according to the level of CO2
emissions they produce.

In 2015, VW admitted that around 36,000 petrol-fuelled cars were
also being tested for excessive emissions.

The cars were checked by a neutral body under supervision by the
regulator and found minimal deviation from requirements. The
automaker was not required to make any technical changes to those
vehicles.

The emissions scandal has cost the carmaker EUR27 billion ($31.3
billion) in penalties and fines for systematic manipulation of
diesel-powered cars to mask excessive pollution levels.

Regulators in the United States blew the whistle on intentional
emissions cheating on September 18, 2015, when it was revealed that
the carmaker had developed an engine that failed to conform to
pollution standards.

VW used software to detect when a car was undergoing a regulatory
emissions measurement test, and throttled back the engines during
the test cycle, which hid excessive pollution. [GN]


WAL-MART STORES: Hoover, et al. Suit Moved to W.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kaitlyn Hoover and Leigha Klopp, on
behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores East,
Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, the Defendants, Case No.
18-44970, was removed from the New York State Supreme Court-Orleans
County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
York (Buffalo) on Sep. 13, 2018. The New York Western District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00999 to the proceeding. The
suit alleges employment discrimination.

Walmart Inc. engages in the retail and wholesale operations in
various formats worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

          Linda H. Joseph, Esq.
          SCHRODER, JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          392 Pearl Street, Suite 301
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 881 4900
          Facsimile: (716) 881 4902
          E-mail: ljoseph@sjalegal.com


WASHINGTON: Janus Language Strengthens Union Dues Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Romano, writing for Seattle Times, reports that as Labor
Day approached, the movement that created the holiday flexed its
muscle in Seattle, where the landscape has been transformed in the
last few years by labor-backed measures protecting and compensating
people like in few other places across the country.

Crane operators and their union had quieted the region with a
strike that put billions of dollars of construction projects on
hold for nearly a fortnight. Teachers in Seattle threatened to
delay the start of the school year, demanding pay raises they say
they need to afford to live where they work. A pot-shop chain
willingly unionized, and retail workers picketed Macy's.

In many respects, this is old hat in a city that next February will
see the centennial of a general strike that brought the place to a
halt. Labor leaders are looking at the string of victories in
Seattle and other big cities as they try to build momentum for
unions nationally against significant headwinds.

"Simply put, Seattle has always had a strong labor movement
compared to most other places," said James Gregory, the Harry
Bridges Endowed Chair of Labor Studies in the University of
Washington's history department. "From the 1880s through the
present, it has helped shape the city, both in terms of its
politics and identity, and certainly affected working conditions
for the people who live here."

The successes in historic strongholds like Seattle stand in
contrast to the national picture. Right-to-work laws, anathema to
unions, remain on the books in more than half the states. A U.S.
Supreme Court decision this summer dealt a body blow to
public-sector unions. Across the nation, union membership rates are
at all-time lows.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka sees that tide turning. Seattle is
no outlier, said the leader of the nation's largest union
federation in a telephone interview.

"The economy hasn't worked for workers for a long time so they're
doing something about it right now," Mr. Trumka said. "Working
people are on the rise right now."

The action in Seattle this year has often played out on a stage
that could hardly be more symbolic.

While the striking construction workers have no obvious beef with
Amazon itself, their pickets lined the work sites for its latest
headquarters towers, just down the street from the one they just
built that holds the office suite of the world's richest man.

Mark Spry, a member of International Union of Operating Engineers
Local 302 since 1997, said he was on strike because wages aren't
keeping up with the region's booming economy.

"We've been needing to catch up for quite a while," he said,
standing beside a job site where he runs the man lift, the orange
elevators that take workers up an under-construction building.
"They just came back with the same type of an offer as other years,
and it's just time not to let that happen again."

Equipment was moving again at several job sites where the union
reached agreements with individual contractors, but as of Aug. 31,
the majority of Seattle cranes were still "put to bed" and no
broader agreement had been reached.

In the throes of a debate this spring over a new business tax on
employee hours to fund housing and services in the face of an
ongoing homelessness crisis, Amazon threatened to halt construction
on one of those buildings and give up a lease on another if it
passed.

While many in labor backed the tax, the tone in the debate started
to turn when a group of ironworkers folded their arms and chanted
"No head tax," drowning out Seattle City Councilmember Kshama
Sawant's attempt to hold a rally for the tax in front of the Amazon
Spheres.

It all makes for an irresistible visual metaphor for the complex,
grinding battle between organized labor and corporate interests
playing out in statehouses and courtrooms across the country, and
in increasingly automated factories and the technology-enabled
marketplaces of the gig economy.

Indeed, Mr. Trumka said labor has its sights set on Amazon's
hundreds of thousands of warehouse employees.

Many voices

As much as it gathers power from its unity, "organized labor
doesn't speak with one political voice," said Mr. Gregory, the UW
professor.

Those vocal ironworkers were on the same side of the head-tax
battle as the business interests that have railed against a series
of union-backed policies passed by Seattle lawmakers, including a
$15-an-hour minimum wage, mandatory paid sick leave and secure
scheduling rules.

Many of labor's biggest achievements in Washington over the past
two decades, dating back to a 1998 initiative that indexed the
statewide minimum wage to inflation, don't directly benefit union
members, who generally are paid well above minimum wage (the
striking operating engineers, for example, make between $37.70 and
$43.13 an hour) and can bargain for improvements to working
conditions during contract negotiations.

Indeed, some unionized hotel workers, whose contracts expired in
May, have complained of wage compression since Seattle's minimum
wage began to rise and their own pay rates have not kept pace.

Advocating for workers beyond its immediate ranks has earned
organized labor, especially in Washington, "a reputation of being a
guardian of the public good," Mr. Gregory said.

Not everyone agrees, of course.

Nationally, support for organized labor stood at 62 percent,
according to a Gallup poll conducted in early August. That's the
highest level measured since 2003. Unsurprisingly, there's a stark
partisan divide, with support among Republicans at 45 percent
compared with 80 percent among Democrats. Overall union support has
climbed steadily during the current economic expansion from an
all-time low of 48 percent measured in 2009.

Yet union membership has continued a steady downward march, from
20.1 percent of all wage and salary workers in 1983 to 10.7 percent
in 2016 and 2017, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Mr. Trumka touts the 262,000 net new union members added last year,
noting that more than three-quarters of them were under 35. He
describes a wave of organizing happening across the country, even
in states with right-to-work laws, which prohibit mandatory
union-dues payments and financially hamstring organized labor.

He cited a membership drive during the last weekend of April that
saw 1,000 nurses organized in Texas and 1,200 in Georgia.

"Those people know more than most that the economy doesn't work for
them and they get taken advantage of," he said.

Perhaps the labor movement's biggest win nationally this year came
last month in Missouri, where voters by a two-to-one margin
overturned a right-to-work law passed by the Legislature.

Beyond the strongholds

In Washington, the 2017 union membership rate was the third-highest
in the country -- trailing New York and Hawaii -- at 18.8 percent,
up 2 percentage points from its 2014 low.

Beyond such strongholds, and even within them, unions remain on
their heels.

The Boeing Machinists union, traditionally the state's most
powerful, helped create Washington's solid blue-collar
middle-class. But after Boeing created a second assembly line in
South Carolina, and the union was forced to give big concessions to
assure assembly of the forthcoming 777X jet in Everett, the
Machinists union has considerably less leverage and a contract that
ensures no strikes through 2024.

In the public sector -- the part of the economy where unions are
strongest, with a membership rate of 34.4 percent — unions now
face fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court's June decision in a case
known as Janus, prohibiting public-sector employers from requiring
workers to pay union dues.

"In many places, unions are really struggling and are going to
struggle a lot more after the Janus decision," Gregory said.

It's already having repercussions in Washington state. In August,
the state and one of its largest public employee unions, SEIU 775,
which represents home caregivers paid by the public for helping
Medicaid clients, stopped deducting union dues from some workers
who had not signed up for membership or authorized deductions. The
Freedom Foundation, which brought a class-action lawsuit
challenging the practice, linked the change to the Supreme Court
decision.

"The unequivocal language in Janus only strengthened the case,"
wrote Freedom Foundation labor policy director Maxford Nelsen in a
recent blog post.

Mr. Trumka said organized labor prepared for the Janus ruling by
working to convert "hundreds of thousands from fee payers to full
members before the decision."

He looked for a silver lining, suggesting that attention on the
case contributed to the win at the Missouri ballot box, and struck
a defiant tone.

"The labor movement's never taken our marching orders from any
outside body," Mr. Trumka said. "Not from corporations, politicians
or the highest court in the land, which, by the way, is captured
and is the best friend that corporations have ever seen."

Eyes on Amazon
While tech-boom Seattle and Amazon's urban headquarters make a fine
backdrop for pickets and rallies, the biggest labor battles of the
21st century may yet be waged where the far greater portion of the
company's half-million-person workforce toils: its network of
so-called fulfillment centers, the warehouses that U.S. union
organizers have been eying for years but have so far failed to
penetrate in a meaningful way. Some of Amazon's European
fulfillment centers are unionized.

The company disclosed last spring a median annual pay of $28,466,
including people in more than 50 countries and part-time workers.

"Jeff Bezos makes more than that every nine seconds," said
Mr. Trumka. "He's building an incredible, incomprehensible amount
of wealth on the backs of employees who rely on food stamps to feed
their families. . . . It's time for something to change, and a
union is exactly how to do that."

Perhaps girding for an organizing battle, the company -- breaking
its usual silence -- rebutted similar assertions about warehouse
working conditions when they were voiced by U.S. Sen. Bernie
Sanders, I-Vt.

Mr. Trumka said the AFL-CIO's Amazon strategy right now involves
one-to-one conversations with warehouse workers to learn about
their wants and needs.

"When we get momentum, then we will go in to organize Amazon," he
said.

Organizers in Amazon's fulfillment centers will be confronted by
another dynamic that is roiling 21st century labor: a growing
number of robotic pickers, trolleys and other automated
technologies working alongside people to speed the wares of the
everything store into cardboard boxes and out to customers.

Amazon's cashierless Go convenience stores and growing numbers of
self-checkout lanes at grocery stores are other examples of
technology replacing jobs often held by union workers.

Mr. Trumka said organized labor takes "very seriously" the
potential job losses, displacement and worsening inequality that
some economists see coming with broader adoption of automation
technologies.

He said the country is at a crossroads on this issue, even if it
has been largely absent from the national political discussion.

"The question becomes, how do we make sure the benefits of
technology are shared throughout society, so you don't continue to
increase the rates of haves and have-nots?" said Mr. Trumka.

His answer: "We accept the technology, and then we figure out how
to get a share for us, make it work for workers, ensure that health
and safety is not jeopardized."

Socialists and tech billionaires alike have proffered the idea of a
universal basic income (UBI) as a potential solution to the
challenges posed by automation, among others. Seattle was part of
an experiment with this concept in the 1970s, when the federal
government provided a guaranteed minimum income through income tax
adjustments to about 2,400 randomly selected households. More
recently, UBI experiments of various designs have been tried in
places as diverse as Finland; Ontario, Canada, where it was
discontinued one year into a planned three; and Stockton,
California.

Mr. Trumka said an AFL-CIO committee is examining UBI as part of a
broader look at the future of work, but remains unconvinced.

"We haven't seen a solution that works," he said, adding, "Workers
would rather have a job that pays them a fair wage and gives them
decent benefits."

On the picket line, construction workers expressed a similar
sentiment.

"We want it to be as short as possible," Mr. Spry, the lift
operator, said of the strike. "Everybody does." A fellow operating
engineer, who didn't want to be named, added as he packed up the
pickets for the day, "I've got my boots on. I'm ready to work."
[GN]


WESTERN UNION: Plaintiffs' Attorneys in TCPA Case Get Big Fee Cut
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, writing for TCPAland, reports that TCPAland's
latest blockbuster settlement came with a lesson to attorneys on
the importance of contemporaneous time entries -- especially those
hoping to recover millions of dollars in attorney's fees following
a TCPA class settlement.

In Douglas v. Western Union Company, Case No. 14 C 1741, 2018 WL
4181484 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2018) the court granted final approval
to a TCPA class action settlement requiring Western Union to pay
$8.5 million to resolve the claims of 741,800 class members who
allegedly received unsolicited text messages from the
money-transfer giant.  While Jay Edelson would surely consider this
a "horrible" settlement since it is on a per-number basis and not a
per-call basis, those of us mere mortals residing in TCPAland would
have to acknowledge that a ~$11.50 per class member settlement in
the post-ACA Int'l environment is a pretty good result for the
class.

Despite the good result, class counsel will not be recovering the
typical multi-million dollar fee award that has become common place
in these TCPA class action settlements.  Instead class
counsel–Siprut, P.C.–received a scathing lecture and a big fee
cut from the Court.

Siprut's sins–in the eyes of the court–were twofold. First, the
Court took issue with Siprut's loose language in approaching an
objector's history with an alleged cocaine possession. In briefing
a motion for discovery from the objector Siprut had come too close
to the line of falsely accusing the objector of having been
convicted of the crime, at least in the Court's eyes.  Next, when
the matter was brought to class counsel's attention he failed to
apologize to the Court's satisfaction and instead the court found
that Siprut "doubled down" on the argument in a reply brief. This,
did not please the court.

The larger problem, however, was with class counsel's fee
submissions. To justify the ~$2.8MM in fees they sought, Siprut and
his colleagues submitted documents specifying 2,164 hours of work
performed on the case, broken down into 15 separate categories and
also broken down by timekeeper.  But the submissions did not
include line-by-line time entries and the Court wanted to see
those. The Court also requested Western Union submit its own
billing records since the Court suspected the hours Siprut
requested were excessively high given that the case proceeded
quickly to mediation.

The Court received the requested information and found it
"disquieting" in two respects.  First, "Siprut and his colleagues
reported more than twice the number of hours expended by defense
counsel." Douglas at * 13.  Second, and probably most damaging,
Siprut did not have any detailed time records for the case. Nor
were the time entries contemporaneously captured. Instead, the
Court found that Siprut and his colleagues must have re-constructed
their time at the very conclusion of the case after two years of
litigation. Douglas at *14.

The Court then dove into one Siprut's billing categories, finding
it "impossible to credit" the firm's assertion that it had spent
59.1 hours preparing reports for the court that were "largely
boilerplate" and a motion to strike that "could not have required
much drafting or much (if any) research" given that it was "largely
a cut-and-paste job" from other motions filed in previous cases.
See Douglas at *15.

After reciting these perceived misdeeds, the Court notes "it would
be well within its rights to deny Siprut's fee request in its
entirety" before eventually awarding class counsel $425,000.00
owing to the "good result he obtained for the class." Id.

While an award of $425,000.00 to class counsel may not sound bad to
most outside of TCPAland, an award of only 5% of a common fund TCPA
class settlement is virtually unheard of.  The Court came down hard
on class counsel in this case and the ruling serves as an important
reminder to all lawyers–contemporaneous and task-specific time
entries are a preferred practice. Failing to maintain such precise
record. [GN]


YUM! BRANDS: West Seeks to Certify Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JOHN WEST II, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff,
v. YUM! BRANDS, INC., a Kentucky for-profit business, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-12750-GCS-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid
      wages under section 216(b) of the FLSA;

   2. approving proposed court-supervised notice to putative
      class members;

   3. appointing Law Offices of Bryan Yaldou, PLLC, as class
      counsel;

   4. requiring Defendant to identify potential opt-in plaintiffs
      by promptly providing Plaintiff West with an updated
      computer-readable data file containing contact information
      for all potential opt-in plaintiffs within 10 days;

   5. approving opt-in period of 60 days;

   6. allowing Plaintiff to send notice to similarly situated
      individuals via e-mail in addition to regular mail; and

   7. requiring proposed notice to be posted in Defendant's
      workplaces (away from view of customers but in a common
      place for its employees to view).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


[*] Franchisors Face Class Actions Over "Anti-Poaching" Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jess Dance, Esq. -- jdance@polsinelli.com -- of Polsinelli PC, in
an article for Franchising.com, wrote that franchise agreements
often contain provisions prohibiting the franchisee from soliciting
or hiring workers employed by the franchisor or other franchisees.
For years such "anti-poaching" provisions have been fairly common,
often passing from year to year without comment, question, or
scrutiny. No more.

Over the past few weeks, 15 large franchisors have agreed to drop
anti-poaching provisions from their franchise agreements in order
to avoid antitrust lawsuits by Washington State's Office of the
Attorney General. Eleven other state attorneys general are
investigating the use of such provisions by various QSR
franchisors. Private plaintiffs have sued franchisors in at least
four class actions, contending that anti-poaching provisions in
franchise agreements violate federal and state antitrust laws.
Meanwhile, pending federal legislation would outlaw anti-poaching
provisions in franchise agreements altogether.

What are anti-poaching agreements?

Broadly speaking, "anti-poaching" agreements are contracts between
employers not to hire and/or solicit for employment each other's
employees. A recent survey by Princeton economists found that 58
percent of the largest franchise systems -- those with more than
500 franchise outlets in the U.S. -- have anti-poaching provisions
in their franchise agreements that restrict the recruitment or
hiring of workers currently (and sometimes formerly) employed at
another outlet in the franchise system.

When used in franchise agreements, anti-poaching provisions prevent
intra-brand freeriding; that is, they bar franchisees from raiding
each other's employees after another franchisee has already
incurred substantial time and expense to train the employee
regarding the specialized skills and methods necessary to deliver
the franchise system's products or services to customers. This is
particularly important regarding management-level employees, who
necessarily require a greater level of investment by the
franchisee. By helping franchisees protect their significant
investment in training, anti-poaching provisions strengthen the
overall franchise system, prevent intra-brand rivalry, and foster
inter-brand competition. Despite such rationales, regulators,
legislators, and class action plaintiffs contend that such
provisions hamper worker mobility and suppress wages.

Governmental scrutiny

In October 2016, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) jointly issued "Antitrust Guidance for Human
Resource Professionals" to alert companies that federal antitrust
laws apply to competition among companies to hire and retain
employees, regardless of whether those companies compete in the
same product or service market. Critically, the Guidance asserts
that "naked" anti-poaching agreements (that is, agreements that are
separate from or not reasonably necessary to a larger legitimate
collaboration between the employers) are per se antitrust
violations under the Sherman Act that could result in criminal
prosecution. The Guidance further warned that anti-poaching
agreements that do not result in criminal sanctions may still lead
to civil liability under federal antitrust law. In a January 2018
speech, the DOJ's top antitrust official announced that the
department expects to initiate multiple criminal proceedings
targeting naked anti-poaching agreements in the coming months.

Anti-poaching attention has focused on franchising in recent
months. In February 2018, Washington State's Attorney General's
office issued civil investigative demands to multiple franchisors,
requesting information about franchise agreements signed in the
past five years that contain anti-poaching provisions and the
franchisors' reasons for having, changing, or eliminating those
provisions.

On July 12, 2018, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson
announced that seven franchisors -- Arby's, Auntie Anne's, Buffalo
Wild Wings, Carl's Jr., Cinnabon, Jimmy John's, and McDonald's --
agreed to remove anti-poaching provisions from their franchise
agreements. On August 20, 2018, his office announced that eight
other franchisors would do so as well: Applebee's, Church's
Chicken, Five Guys Burgers and Fries, IHOP, Jamba Juice, Little
Caesars, Panera Bread, and Sonic.

Pursuant to Assurances of Discontinuance filed in King County
(Washington) Superior Court, the franchisors agreed to no longer
enforce anti-poaching provisions in their existing franchise
agreements and to remove the language from current and future
contracts nationwide. Violations could result in civil penalties.
The Assurances resolve the Washington Attorney General's
investigation into whether these franchisors' anti-poaching
provisions violate state antitrust law and allow the franchisors to
avoid lawsuits without admitting any wrongdoing.

The Washington Attorney General's investigation of other
franchisors that use anti-poaching agreements is ongoing, with a
press release warning that the office will file lawsuits if other
franchisors do not remove anti-poaching provisions from their
agreements.

Other states are following Washington's lead. On July 9, 2018, the
attorneys general of California, the District of Columbia,
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island sent letters to eight QSR
franchisors -- Arby's, Burger King, Dunkin' Donuts, Five Guys
Burgers and Fries, Little Caesars, Panera Bread, Popeyes Louisiana
Kitchen, and Wendy's -- demanding information and documents
regarding the use of anti-poaching provisions in their franchise
agreements.

Meanwhile, on March 1, 2018, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Cory
Booker introduced the End Employer Collusion Act (S.2480), which,
if passed, would expressly prohibit anti-poaching provisions in
franchise agreements. Specifically, the bill would prohibit any
entity from entering into, enforcing, or threatening to enforce a
restrictive employment agreement. Under the proposed bill, a
"restrictive employment agreement" is an agreement, expressly
including a franchise agreement, that "prohibits or restricts one
employer from soliciting or hiring another employer's employees or
former employees." A violator would be liable for the actual
damages sustained by an injured worker, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs. A companion bill (H.R.5632) was
introduced in the House of Representatives on April 26, 2018.

Class actions

In the past year, four class actions have been filed against
franchisors (Carl's Jr., McDonald's, Pizza Hut, and Jimmy John's)
based on anti-poaching provisions in their franchise agreements.
The class action plaintiffs contend that anti-poaching agreements
between the franchisor and its franchisees constitute per se
violations of federal and state antitrust laws. Such antitrust
class actions carry the risk of huge potential class sizes, treble
damages, and attorneys' fees. A federal court in Illinois recently
rejected McDonald's motion to dismiss, and the federal antitrust
claim is moving forward against McDonald's in the case of Deslandes
v. McDonald's USA, LLC. Motions to dismiss currently are pending in
the other three cases.

Joint employment concerns

Aside from potential antitrust implications, anti-poaching
provisions may open a franchisor to arguments that it is a "joint
employer" with its franchisees, and therefore liable for its
franchisees' labor and employment law violations. In the past few
years, many franchisors have taken great pains to disclaim any
involvement in franchisees' hiring decisions in light of
joint-employment concerns. By prohibiting franchisees from
soliciting or hiring qualified workers who work (or worked) at
another franchisee's outlet, anti-poaching provisions undermine
such disclaimers and increase the risk of joint-employer exposure.

What's next?

In light of the increased scrutiny and potential legal exposure
noted above, all franchisors should carefully review with qualified
franchise counsel any anti-poaching provision in their franchise
agreements. What is the provision's purpose? Why is it in the
franchise agreement in the first place? Are there less restrictive
ways to achieve the same goals? How broad is the provision's scope
as to covered employees, geography, and timing? Does it apply
regarding the franchisor's employees, either at headquarters or at
company-owned outlets?

Given recent developments, the safest course of action is for
franchisors to remove anti-poaching provisions from their franchise
agreements altogether and to decline to enforce such provisions in
existing agreements. To the extent a franchisor believes it has a
specific, compelling need for a narrow anti-poaching provision, the
franchisor should work with experienced counsel to analyze the
potential antitrust and joint-employment implications of the
provision and, at a minimum, ensure that it is as narrowly tailored
and least restrictive as possible. [GN]


[*] Overconfident CEOs Likely to Get Sued by Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------
ANI reports that can being overconfident be a reason behind
someone's failure? Chief executives with big public persona ooze
confidence. They are widely known for their innovation,
forward-thinking, and value-creation, willing to take risks and
make unconventional decisions. But what if they are way too
confident? According to a new study, researchers revealed that
overconfidence has a flip side.

Researchers from Stevens Institute of Technology found that
overconfident CEOs are 33 per cent more likely to get sued by
shareholders than CEOs with normal confidence. However, that legal
action is enough to shock their system, lower confidence and curb
the future risk-taking behaviour.

"Shareholders are not powerless, their legal actions do make a
difference in company operations and help the company better adhere
to business regulations and laws," said researcher
Suman Banerjee.

The researchers analyzed leadership rosters of 1,500 leading global
companies and a Stanford dataset tracking nearly 1,400
shareholder-initiated class-action lawsuits against firms over the
16-year period from 1996 to 2012.

The team then assigned confidence scores to executives largely
depending on what portions of their own companies' stock options
they have retained or divested after vesting. Half of the team's
total sample scored as overconfident by these measures.

Mr. Banerjee explained smart CEOs diversify investments; they would
theoretically divest their own company's shares as soon as possible
and invest in something different as a hedge against the unknown.

Sometimes CEOs don't do that, "They hold onto their own shares,
even when they are underperforming in the market because they
believe their own leadership is so superior and innovative that
they will soon overcome market forces and gain a higher return
anyway," said Mr. Banerjee.

The findings suggested that overconfident CEOs are more likely to
make overly positive statements about their companies that are not
yet supported by facts. For example, they might over-invest in the
short term, or postpone the accounting or reporting of losses and
other negative information.

Mr. Banerjee and team also looked at the number of lawsuits
occurring after an initial shareholder-initiated lawsuit against an
overconfident CEO.

They not only found that a lawsuit reduces the likelihood that an
overconfident CEO is sued again but also in some instances, a
shareholder-driven lawsuit reduced a CEO's confidence such that
CEOs began taking more prudent actions with their own companies'
stock options over time.

When the team investigated whether new CEOs inheriting companies
from very confident CEOs react the same way, they found that the
new CEOs learned from the mistakes of the past. That is, newly
hired CEOs were less likely to be overconfident, as measured by
stock option behaviours.

"It's a dynamic, self-correcting system, if shareholders are
willing to use their power to rein in overoptimistic CEO behaviour,
CEO performance and compliance, as well as company operations, can
improve," said Mr. Banerjee.

The study appeared in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative
Analysis. [GN]


[*] Verus Introduces New Mass Tort Case Management Services
-----------------------------------------------------------
Verus LLC, a provider of end-to-end litigation support services to
mass tort law firms, has introduced a suite of case management and
medical review services powered by Lucid, a proprietary new
software platform which offers a secure, real-time view of the work
in progress at any time.

According to Deb Zonies, Verus vice president of mass tort
services, "Litigation support services are a labor-intensive and
time-consuming activity that meaningfully detracts from a law
firm's bottom line, as well as its ability to focus on litigating
matters and client representation.  By outsourcing case management
and medical review services to Verus, now powered by Lucid, mass
tort firms can concentrate on what they do best -- litigate and
advocate for their clients -- while having access to the real-time
status of their cases in a secure environment that was customized
to their own specifications."

Among the other benefits of Verus' new suite of case management and
medical review services are:

   * Real-time case status -- Lucid enables attorneys to see an
overview of their inventory of cases or zoom in on a specific
matter, in real time.

   * Customized reports -- Lucid provides both standard reports on
a routine schedule, as well as customizable reports showing
real-time results on demand.

   * Recouped case management expenses -- Verus fees can typically
be passed through as case costs, which can significantly impact a
law firm's bottom line.

   * Reduced overhead and time managing staff -- Outsourcing case
management services precludes the need to spend on hiring, training
and managing added staff, office space, benefits and related
expenses.

   * Maximized client recoveries -- Verus expertise and Lucid
technology provide law firms with the information and insights
needed to achieve the best results for their clients.

Verus' comprehensive suite of case management and medical review
services include intake review, coordination of medical record
acquisition, medical record review, claim documentation, resolution
of disputed claims, claimant communications, SOL monitoring and
customized reporting.

Tom Cartmell, founding partner of Wagstaff & Cartmell, describes
his experience working with Deb Zonies, who heads up Verus' mass
tort services group: "We've worked with Deb on several of our
projects.  She understands the demands of mass torts and it's
reassuring to know our claimants are being treated with the respect
they deserve.  We have confidence in the results produced by the
review team and appreciate the collaborative approach to creating
solutions that fit our changing needs."

Verus will attend the Mass Torts Made Perfect fall conference in
Las Vegas on October 3-5, 2018.  Visit Verus to learn more about
Lucid and the company's full suite of case management services. Deb
Zonies and Mark Eveland will present on Managing Your
Mass Tort Cases: It's All About Time and Money" on October 3, 2018
at 11:45 a.m.

                         About Verus LLC

Headquartered in Princeton, NJ, Verus LLC -- http://www.verusllc--
is a litigation support firm that provides a full suite of
services, including Case Management & Medical Review Services,
Settlement Administration, Business & Advisory Services, Analytics
and Document Management Services, to mass tort lawyers.  The firm's
principals helped design some of the first-ever mass tort
settlements and have administered more than 5 million personal
injury claims and disbursed more than $10 billion in settlement
funds and expenses.  Today, Verus is fully engaged in providing
litigation support services to law firms working on mass torts.
The experts who work at Verus have experience handling cases
involving defective medical devices, including IVC filters, hernia
mesh and transvaginal mesh, and dangerous drugs, including
Invokana, Taxotere, PPIs, Xarelto, Benicar and Zofran.

Verus employs more than 80 U.S.-based attorneys, nurses,
accountants, statisticians and claims, operations and IT
professionals to help mass tort attorneys improve operating results
and maximize recoveries for their clients.


[*] William Moran Joins Otterbourg P.C.'s Litigation Department
---------------------------------------------------------------
William M. Moran has joined Otterbourg P.C.

Mr. Moran is a member of the Litigation Department.

Mr. Moran focuses his practice in commercial litigation, crisis
management, investigations, and white collar crime.  He represents
banks, securities firms and other financial services companies,
public and private corporations, partnerships, investment
companies, shareholders, and individuals, most often in complex
securities, consumer finance, or commercial litigation.  

Mr. Moran has litigated, tried (both jury and non-jury), and
appealed cases in federal and state courts, and has significant
experience in arbitration and regulatory/compliance proceedings in
cases arising from the securities and banking laws.

Mr. Moran also counsels corporate and individual clients in
high-pressure crisis management arising from serious events
requiring prompt attention.  This area often involves the media and
criminal or regulatory authorities, with regard to allegations of
violations of personal conduct policies or morals clauses, damage
to reputation by threatened litigation or negative publicity, and
strategies for addressing the concerns of shareholders/investors.

Mr. Moran has been named one of the National Law Journal's "Winning
Litigators" and has been selected for inclusion in the New York
Metro Super Lawyers.  He is a member of the New York State Bar
Association and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (SIFMA).


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $40MM Suit Filed Over Asbestos Cover-up
--------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Green of The Oregonian reported that a $40 million lawsuit
claims that managers of a Southwest Portland apartment complex
endangered employees by exposing them to asbestos even though
construction crews had warned that the cancer-causing fibers were
present.

The suit was filed by two former employees of Tandem Property
Management. They claim they were fired in retaliation for knowing
about the alleged asbestos "cover-up" at the Commons at Sylvan
Highlands apartments.

The company and its president, Thomas Clarey, didn't immediately
return messages seeking comment.

The complex is at 1380 S.W. 66th Ave., and spans multiple
buildings.  It's unclear how many people live there. A lawyer for
the plaintiffs said he doesn't think residents have been notified
that they also may have been exposed to asbestos.

The lawsuit claims that after crews remodeling five vacant
apartment units discovered what appeared to be asbestos in May, the
company's president was furious. He visited the site, "yelling that
there was no asbestos and that they all needed to get back to
work," the suit says.

Three of the workers were removed from the job and within a few
days were fired because management thought "they were 'loose
cannons' that might call the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) about the potential asbestos," the suit
says.

In June, the suit says, management directed a new crew to carry
debris through the building's halls and down its elevator. After
the new crew discovered what appeared to be asbestos, someone on
the crew had a sample tested and the results came back as
containing the tiny, dangerous fibers, the lawsuit alleges.

The crew notified management, but the next day, management told two
employees to remove the asbestos-laden sheetrock without proper
protective gear or training, the suit claims.

Michael Fuller, a Portland attorney who filed the lawsuit,
represents Khataun Thompson, an apartment groundskeeper who was
asked to work on one of the renovation teams. The suit alleges that
management removed him from the project and ultimately fired him in
July because of his knowledge and because of his race. Thompson is
black.

Thompson filed an OSHA complaint about the asbestos, the suit
states. An OSHA spokesman couldn't immediately be reached for more
information.

Fuller also is representing Thompson's fiancee, Alyssa DeWeese, a
leasing agent who contends she was fired in July as retaliation
after she found out about the asbestos.

Asbestos has long been a known carcinogen believed to be so
dangerous that even brief exposures can develop into
life-threatening diseases decades later. Public pressure has
mounted in recent years to tighten controls, and government
regulations outline specific procedures for properly removing
asbestos. The process can be time-consuming and expensive.

Government officials take the proper handling of asbestos so
seriously that in recent years, at least two Oregon businessmen
have been convicted of crimes for their mishandling of asbestos
removal projects.

In 2012, developer Daniel Desler was convicted for negligently
releasing asbestos into the air as he tried to redevelop an old
sawmill in Sweet Home into a housing development.

In 2015, real estate agent Bill Gaffney was convicted of recklessly
endangering others after hiring untrained day laborers to remove
asbestos-laden materials from a Southeast house he was remodeling.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1 Suit vs. Haynes Int'l Pending at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Haynes International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018, that it is defending itself, together
with a number of other manufacturer defendants, in two actions
alleging that asbestos in its facilities harmed the plaintiff.

Haynes International states, "The Company believes that it has
defenses to these allegations and that, if the Company were to be
found liable, the cases would not have a material effect on its
financial position, results of operations or liquidity."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/71Bh03


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Won't Review Denial of Cooley's Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case is Jesse Cooley, Jr., Petitioner, v. Director,
Office Of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department
of Labor; Huntington Ingalls, Incorporated - Pascagoula Operations,
Respondents, No. 18-60020, (5th Cir.), Cooley petitioned to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review of
the decision of the Benefits Review Board affirming the
administrative law judge's denial of Cooley's claim.

Jesse Cooley Jr. filed a claim against Huntington Ingalls
Incorporated under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation
Act, alleging that he contracted a permanently disabling lung
disease due to prolonged exposure to asbestos while working for
Huntington.

The administrative law judge denied Cooley's claim after
considering conflicting medical opinions of whether Cooley actually
suffered from asbestosis or an asbestos-related lung condition. The
Benefits Review Board affirmed the ALJ's denial of Cooley's claim.


Cooley argues that the ALJ lacked sufficient evidence to deny his
claim and should have relied on the evidence that he does suffer
from asbestosis.

Quoting Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Dir., OWCP, 614 F.3d 179, 185
(5th Cir. 2010), the Fifth Circuit held that "once the BRB affirms
an order of the ALJ, we need only inquire whether the BRB correctly
concluded that the ALJ's order was supported by substantial
evidence on the record as a whole and is in accordance with the
law."

Construing Cooley's pro se brief liberally, the Fifth Circuit finds
that Cooley fails to demonstrate that the ALJ erroneously relied on
the opposing medical opinions. The BRB therefore did not err when
it concluded that the ALJ's conclusion was supported by substantial
evidence.

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit denies Cooley's petition for review,
as well as his motion for appointment of counsel.

A copy of the Per Curiam dated August 3, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycasoq7x from Leagle.com.

Mark A. Reinhalter , for Respondent

Susan F. E. Bruhnke , for Respondent.

David Duhon , for Respondent.

Rae Ellen James , for Respondent.

Milne Young , for Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Forces Compound Closure
-------------------------------------------------
Matthew Purcell of Warwick Daily News reported that GLEN Aplin bin
compound has been forcibly shut after traces of asbestos were
uncovered at the facility.

Four samples of suspected Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) were
tested and returned a positive result on Monday after the material
was detected by a Southern Downs Regional Council officer.

The facility will be closed for at least two weeks while SDRC takes
precautions to remedy the site.

Accredited personnel have been engaged to come in, collect and
safely dispose of the material.

Residents who use the compound will be directed to either
Stanthorpe or Ballandean for waste disposal while the facility is
closed. Southern Downs mayor Tracy Dobie said people had been put
at risk by the illegal dumping.

"Incorrectly disposing of asbestos is not only illegal but totally
irresponsible. We all know the risks associated with exposure to
asbestos," Cr Dobie said.

"I'd like to remind everyone in the community that asbestos is a
hazardous waste and it puts community members, contractors and
council officers who use the facility at risk.

"If you are dealing with material which contains asbestos you have
a legal responsibility to do the right thing and to dispose of the
material properly; to be aware of material which may contain
asbestos, how to handle it properly and where and how to dispose of
it correctly.

"Some people may simply be unaware of asbestos in or around the
home. If you are unsure, take precautions -- contact council or
someone who specialises in asbestos removal."

Disposing of asbestos is prohibited at all SDRC waste management
facilities, except for Warwick, where asbestos can be disposed of
properly by appointment and for a small fee.

Stanthorpe Waste Facility is currently not accepting ACM until a
new dedicated disposal bin is installed at the site.

The illegal dumping at Glen Aplin comes just weeks after asbestos
containing material was identified at Collegians Junior Rugby
League Club in Warwick as a result of illegal dumping at Allora
Waste Transfer Facility.

Following on from that discovery, soil testing confirmed the
presence of bonded asbestos at five other sites around the Southern
Downs.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland confirmed traces had been
found at the Collegians club, as well as Warwick Central School.

A WHSQ spokesman said four other sites were located in the Southern
Downs, but declined to reveal further details.

Cr Dobie said illegal dumping is not only illegal but comes at a
cost to ratepayers.

THE Glen Aplin bin compound has been closed after traces of
asbestos were discovered.

Southern Downs Regional Council say some illegal dumping of
asbestos containing material has occurred, forcing them to shut the
facility.

Accredited specialists will be brought in to clean up the hazardous
material.

The clean up will come at a cost to ratepayers and come as an
inconvenience to Glen Aplin residents.

It comes a few weeks after several sites around Warwick and the
wider Southern Downs tested positive for small amounts of asbestos
debris.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Burnt Building Not Monitored
---------------------------------------------------------
Marta Subat of Infosurhoy reported that dust from an
asbestos-contaminated building gutted by fire is being managed by
the building's owners, Hutt City Council says.

However, neither the council nor WorkSafe are doing ongoing
monitoring themselves.

It was revealed that dust samples from cars parked near the Chair
Solutions building on Hutt Park Road in Gracefield had tested
positive for chrystotile, a type of white asbestos.

Local workers -- who paid for the testing -- were angry they could
have been exposed to the contaminant since the fire at the end of
July.

The council's manager of trade waste, Gordon George, said two
specialist firms had been managing the asbestos.

"ATL Group did initial monitoring and management of the site and
Accurate Consulting took over the work. This work has been
contracted by, and is being paid for by the property owner.

"There may have been less need to spray foam suppressant on the
site due to a period of fairly high rainfall. With the recent few
days of dry weather, council understands Accurate Consulting has
recommenced dust suppression methods as needed."

However, the council was not doing ongoing monitoring itself.

"Council monitors the asbestos aspect of the site by reviewing air
quality data provided by Worksafe and the previous contractor. To
date, there has been nothing in this data to cause council
concern."

A WorkSafe spokesperson said the site had not been a workplace
since the fire and did not come under its jurisdiction.

"The Hutt City Council has issued a notice requiring the building
owner to remedy any contamination. It is for the building owner and
the Hutt City Council who issued the notice to ensure that the
notice is being complied with, not WorkSafe.

"We are advised that regular monitoring was undertaken by an
independent third party for five weeks the results have not shown
elevated levels of asbestos. We have not been advised why the
testing was halted."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Still Takes Lives 17 Years After 9/11
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reported that On the
morning of September 11, 2001, Americans were gripped by the scenes
unfolding in New York on television, the radio, and right in front
of them. In the hours, days and weeks following the collapse of the
World Trade Center (WTC) towers, thousands of first responders
rushed to the scene in lower Manhattan in a desperate attempt to
save as many lives as possible.

More than 2,600 people died during the initial attacks, including
about 400 New York City firefighters, police officers and Port
Authority personnel. First responders and other volunteers helped
evacuate people to safety. Unfortunately, most of those first
responders and rescue workers were without proper personal
protective equipment (PPE), and many of the people fleeing the area
around the buildings were covered in a layer of toxic dust from the
collapsed buildings.

Seventeen years later, experts fear the number of people dying from
illnesses associated with 9/11, including malignant mesothelioma,
will soon eclipse those who perished in the terrorist attack.

A Toxic Combination of Chemicals

According to a 2006 report from the Robert Wood Johnson Medical
School, the dust emanating from the site contained a cocktail of
dangerous chemicals, heavy elements and other sediment capable of
causing health concerns. Among the contaminants were mainly
particles of construction debris, such as concrete, gypsum and
glass, along with smaller amounts of cellulose, benzene, mercury,
and asbestos.

When the twin towers fell, the pressure and weight of the buildings
themselves crushed the concrete and other materials used to
construct the building into dust, covering several city blocks.
Closer to Ground Zero, people remembered seeing several inches of
dust in the street. All told, 1.8 million tons of debris were
removed from Ground Zero over the course of eight months.

In the years since, the results have been catastrophic for those
heavily exposed to the toxic air at the site following the
buildings’ collapse. According to recent reports, close to 10,000
first responders and survivors have been diagnosed with cancer
since 2001. More than 2,000 have already succumbed to an illness
associated with exposure to the toxic conditions.

People May Not Know They're At Risk

Asbestos products were used during the early part of the
construction of the World Trade Center's north tower, and the
National Resources Defense Council estimates that about 300 to 400
tons of the toxic mineral were included in the project as a
fireproofing material. When the World Trade Center towers fell,
asbestos fibers were found in the airborne dust that people inhaled
and carried home with them on their clothes each day after leaving
the site.

Due to the lack of proper PPE and other respiratory protection on
the day of the incident, many people breathed in toxic dust and as
a result became at risk of developing a variety of conditions,
including asthma, lung cancer and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary
Disease (COPD).

Experts suggest there were about 400,000 people in the area when
9/11 occurred, possibly putting all of them at risk of breathing in
toxic asbestos fibers. The mineral has long been linked to a wide
array of adverse health effects, ranging from pleural mesothelioma
to asbestos-related lung cancer and asbestosis. Unfortunately,
diseases connected to asbestos exposure also have long latency
periods, and diagnoses can often occur decades after initial
exposure has taken place.

Due to the delayed onset of symptoms, it's largely expected that
the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund (VCF) will see more mesothelioma
claims in the coming years, especially from first responders and
those who participated in the months-long clean-up process at
Ground Zero.

According to statistics released by the VCF in August 2018, nearly
21,000 claimants have been deemed eligible for compensation and the
program has paid out $4.27 billion in awards. The vast majority of
those funds ($3.48 billion) have been awarded to New York City
responders, while non-responders working in the exposure zone near
Ground Zero in Manhattan have received the second largest payout,
listed at $522 million, so far. Under the current VCF, claims will
be accepted until December 18, 2020.

First responders and residents from NYC, Washington DC, and
Shanksville, Pennsylvania, are also encouraged to apply for the
World Trade Center Health Program. The program is paid for through
the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act and provides
members with free mental and medical services for certified health
conditions associated with the terrorist attack.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 31,750 Claims Pending at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had approximately 31,750 asbestos-related claims
pending as of June 30, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

CBS Corp. states, "The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming
various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials,
which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s.  Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos.  The Company is typically named as one
of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases.
In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not
identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim.
Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified
principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by
asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for
power-generation, industrial and marine use.

"Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period.  The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment.  As of June 30, 2018, the Company had pending
approximately 31,750 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 31,660 as of December 31, 2017 and 33,240 as of June
30, 2017.  During the second quarter of 2018, the Company received
approximately 860 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive
docket approximately 710 claims.  The Company reports claims as
closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been
entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement with
the claimants on the material terms of a settlement.  Settlement
costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis
of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and
other factors.  The Company's total costs for the years 2017 and
2016 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax were approximately US$57 million and
US$48 million, respectively.  The Company's costs for settlement
and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance
proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured
portion of the expenses.

"The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate
to cover its asbestos liabilities.  This belief is based upon many
factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding
claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims
by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of
resolution and the filing of new claims.  While the number of
asbestos claims filed against the Company has remained generally
flat in recent years, it is difficult to predict future asbestos
liabilities, as events and circumstances may occur including, among
others, the number and types of claims and average cost to resolve
such claims, which could affect the Company's estimate of its
asbestos liabilities."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/NaLxC0


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $309MM Accrual at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) had accrual of
US$309 million for pending and future asbestos-related claims and
related legal costs 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, "Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with
plaintiffs' counsel in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims
which are not yet filed, or asserted, against it.  However, Crown
Cork expects claims under these arrangements to be filed or
asserted against Crown Cork in the future.  The projected value of
these claims is included in the Company's estimated liability as of
June 30, 2018.

"As of June 30, 2018, the Company's accrual for pending and future
asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was US$309,
including US$259 for unasserted claims.  The Company determines its
accrual without limitation to a specific time period.

"It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual.  However, the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due
to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 81% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2017), the Company and claimant's willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims
and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of
pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged
disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos before
or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate the
alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation
environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the
level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the
jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are
filed)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Cz5DPk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 55,500 Claims at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) had 55,500
outstanding claims related to asbestos matters 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, "Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. ("Crown Cork")
is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed
throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos.  These claims arose from the insulation
operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown
Cork purchased in 1963.  Approximately ninety days after the stock
purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was
later merged into Crown Cork.

"Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured.  The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no
remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

"In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos.  The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value.  In November 2004, the legislation was
amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli
v. AC&S Corporation, et al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application.  The Company cautions that the limitations of the
statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be
upheld.

"In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities
at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for
inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

"In October 2010, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas
legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when
applied to asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when
the legislation was enacted in June 2003.  The Company believes
that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court is limited to
retroactive application of the Texas legislation to
asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in
Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

"In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West
Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits
asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as
Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they
are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The legislation, which applies to future
and, with the exception of Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, South
Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming, pending claims, caps
asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the
predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation.  Crown
Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than
the total value of its predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation.
Crown Cork has integrated the legislation into its claims defense
strategy.

"The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-related
liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have a
material impact on the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Cz5DPk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Developers Fined $520K for Asbestos Dumping
------------------------------------------------------------
Tate Papworth of Star Weekly reported that developers have been
fined more than half a million dollars for dumping asbestos in
Cairnlea following the demolition of a 159-year-old Carlton pub two
years ago.

Magistrate Richard Pithouse admonished the developers as he imposed
fines of $120,000 each on Raman Shaqiri and Stefce Kutlesovski in
the Sunshine Magistrates Court.

He fined their company, 160 Leicester Pty Ltd, a further $300,000.

It is alleged that in October, 2016, the Corkman Irish Pub, built
in 1857 on the corner of Leicester and Pelham streets, was
demolished without planning or building permission. As well as
leaving exposed asbestos amid the rubble on the Carlton site, the
developers took bricks, mortar and other building waste -- with
asbestos in it -- to a development site they owned in Cairnlea.

They dumped the waste there, 350 metres from a primary school and a
childcare centre and close to a group of townhouses their company
had recently finished developing.

Moving the waste from Carlton to Cairnlea occurred after the
developers were warned by the EPA, which brought Wednesday’s
charges against the men, to secure the Carlton site. The charges
against the men related both to dumping waste at Cairnlea and
failure to properly secure the Carlton rubble.

Tarpaulins placed over the Carlton rubble and waste were torn, had
holes in them and were blowing in the wind. When warned about the
tarpaulins, Shaqiri's response was to "tape them back together," an
EPA prosecution summary said.

The magistrate said he would have jailed the men if that option had
been open to him.

"In my view, you put the residents of those areas at substantial
risk," Mr Pithouse said. "If jail were available, I would be
imprisoning the accused in relation to these matters. However, I am
constrained by the [Environment Protection] Act and I am limited to
imposing financial penalties.

"It is my view that both [directors] of this company have acted
with complete disregard to the law for their own financial
betterment, and that they have a cavalier disregard [for] the
law."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Faces Atkins Suit at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, Inc. continues to defend itself in the "Atkins"
mesothelioma-related lawsuit, 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 multiple parties to a current
lawsuit filed in Madison County Illinois styled Danny Atkins and
Pamela Atkins, Pltfs., vs. Aurora Pump Company, et al. No. 18-L-2.
The lawsuit entails a claim for damages to be determined in excess
of US$50,000 filed on behalf of a former employee that alleges that
the deceased contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to
asbestos while employed by us.  Discovery in the matter is ongoing.
We have denied liability, are defending the matters vigorously and
are unable to estimate our potential exposure to loss, if any, at
this time.

"In March of 2018, a similar lawsuit styled Charles Anderson,
Pltf., vs. 3M Company, et al, No. 17-L-525 was dismissed.

"In May of 2018, the lawsuit styled Brenda Bridgeman, Individually
and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert Bridgeman,
Deceased, vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., f/k/a Metropolitan
Life Insurance Co. et al No. 15-L-374 was placed in the category of
"special closed with settlements and bankruptcy claims pending" to
all remaining defendants.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/BB9j4X


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DOJ Files Statement in Kaiser Gypsum Ch. 11
------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reported that the Justice Department filed what appears to
be its first-ever statement of interest in an asbestos company's
bankruptcy, asserting its concern that Chapter 11 reorganization
plans to establish a trust for asbestos plaintiffs suing Kaiser
Gypsum do not include adequate safeguards against fraud and
mismanagement.

"With today's statement of interest, the Department sends a clear
message that we will not tolerate fraudulent conduct that cheats
asbestos victims and the United States," said Acting Associate AG
Jesse Panuccio in a press release announcing the filing.

There is no evidence, of course, that anyone has defrauded a Kaiser
Gypsum asbestos trust -- for the simple reason that the trust
doesn't yet exist. Kaiser, its insurer and representatives of
current and future asbestos plaintiffs filed a joint plan of
reorganization in July that would channel asbestos claims into a
trust. More than a hundred companies have undergone similar
restructurings since 1994, when Congress amended bankruptcy laws to
help asbestos defendants cabin off liability in personal injury
suits.

Since then, the handling of asbestos trust claims has become a
bugaboo for tort reformers, who claim plaintiffs' lawyers routinely
file fraudulent and duplicative demands, looting trusts at the
expense of future asbestos victims. Congressional Republicans
perennially introduce legislation to impose restrictions on trust
claims, though the bills have never passed. The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and its Institute of Legal Reform put out their latest
report just last March, asserting that asbestos trusts -- which
have paid out $15 billion and still contain $25 billion -- spend
little money policing fraudulent claims and are likely to run out
of money before all legitimate future plaintiffs get paid.

DOJ's statement in the Kaiser Gypsum case preaches the tort reform
gospel. "In recent years, both courts and researchers have noted a
growing number of concerns with the operations of many of these
trusts," the statement said, citing a 2016 Chamber report and a
2010 study by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice. "The United
States submits this statement to advise the court of its concern
that payments to legitimate asbestos claimants could be diluted
through fraud, mismanagement or abuse. The United States has a
strong interest in ensuring that the processes of this court are
not used to facilitate fraud and abuse in other asbestos-related
proceedings."

The Justice Department filing is also peppered with references to a
2014 ruling, In Re Garlock by the same judge who is overseeing the
Kaiser Gypsum Chapter 11, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges of
Asheville, North Carolina. In the Garlock case, Judge Hodges held a
full-blown evidentiary hearing as part of the process of estimating
the company's liability to asbestos plaintiffs. In the 15
previously-settled suits the judge examined, he found "a startling
pattern of misrepresentation," in which plaintiffs' lawyers
allegedly withheld evidence that their clients were exposed to
asbestos products from other companies. (To be clear, the hearing
in the Garlock bankruptcy didn't involve allegedly fraudulent
claims against Garlock in litigation, not against any then
prospective trust.)

DOJ said in the filing in the Kaiser Gypsum Chapter 11 that it
wants to be sure Judge Hodges does not approve a reorganization
plan in which the trust does not have clear guidelines for
evaluating and reporting claims and for detecting fraud and
mismanagement. The Justice Department said it is registering its
concern now, rather than waiting to object to an approved plan of
reorganization, to give Kaiser Gypsum and asbestos plaintiffs time
to address DOJ's points. In the press release accompanying the
filing, the Justice Department mentioned that it just happens to
have received a letter from 19 state attorneys general, raising yet
more concerns about asbestos trusts.

The Justice Department seems to be anticipating a challenge to its
standing to get involved in the Kaiser Gypsum bankruptcy. You may
recall that DOJ filed a landmark statement of interest earlier this
year in a New Jersey class action, arguing that the proposed
settlement should not be approved. The class action bar read that
filing as a signal that this Justice Department intends to
scrutinize proposed settlements -- of which it receives notice
under the Class Action Fairness Act -- more rigorously than
previous administrations. In Chapter 11, the Office of the U.S.
Trustee, which is part of the Justice Department, typically
represents the interests of the government in private bankruptcy
cases. But the DOJ statement in the Kaiser Gypsum bankruptcy was
signed by Justice Department lawyers in Washington and Charlotte,
North Carolina, not by the U.S. trustee assigned to the case.

DOJ said it has standing because the federal government is entitled
to reimbursement of Medicare payments to trust claimants. "The
United States has a strong interest in ensuring that the trust
operates in a transparent manner and complies with its obligations
under the (Medicare) statute; that claimants are informed of their
potential obligation to reimburse the Medicare program; that the
trust's assets are preserved to the greatest extent possible to pay
the claims of legitimate asbestos victims; and that trust assets
are not dissipated through payment of fraudulent claims, excessive
professional fees, or mismanagement," the filing said. Justice
cited a statute that permits any interested party to be heard in
bankruptcy cases as well as a law that permits DOJ "to attend to
the interests of the United States in any case pending in a federal
court."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 167 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, faces a total of 167 asserted claims
related to asbestos exposure, according to Duke Energy
Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous
claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related
to asbestos exposure.  These claims relate to damages for bodily
injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos
in connection with construction and maintenance activities
conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985.  As of
June 30, 2018, there were 120 asserted claims for non-malignant
cases with cumulative relief sought of up to US$29 million, and 47
asserted claims for malignant cases with cumulative relief sought
of up to US$12 million.  Based on Duke Energy Carolinas'
experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of
these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ellis Heirs Sue Over Asbestos Exposure Death
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that the heirs of a
man who died of mesothelioma allege that asbestos exposure caused
the disease.

Alice Williams, Susan Davenport and James Ellis, as surviving heirs
of Robert Ellis, deceased, filed a complaint on Sept. 5 in the St.
Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against Armstrong Pumps Inc., CBS
Corp., York International Corp., et al. alleging strict liability,
negligence and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
times during Robert Ellis' career life from the 1950s to 2014, he
was exposed to and inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers emanating
from certain products manufactured, sold, distributed and/or
installed by defendants. The suit states that on or about May 3,
2017, decedent's family first became aware that he developed
mesothelioma, an asbestos-induced disease, which ultimately led to
his death the day before.

The plaintiffs holds Armstrong Pumps Inc., CBS Corp., York
International Corp., et al. responsible because the defendants
allegedly intentionally included asbestos fibers in their products
when they knew that it had toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious
effect to human health and failed to provide adequate warnings and
instructions concerning the dangers of working with or around
products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages of more than
$25,000. They are represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian &
Associates PC in Edwardsville, Illinois.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1822-CC11151


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Had US$192.2MM Liability at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited recorded US$192.2 million for indemnity and
defense costs for pending and future claims at June 30, 2018,
determined using standard actuarial techniques for asbestos-related
exposures, 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 acquired Dana Companies, LLC ("Dana") on
December 30, 2016.  Dana continues to process asbestos personal
injury claims in the normal course of business and is separately
managed.

"Other liabilities included US$192.2 million and US$205.7 million
for indemnity and defense costs for pending and future claims at
June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively, determined using
standard actuarial techniques for asbestos-related exposures.
Other liabilities also included US$2.2 million and US$2.2 million
for environmental liabilities associated with Dana properties at
June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively.

"Other assets included US$117.9 million and US$122.3 million at
June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively, for estimated
insurance recoveries relating to these liabilities.  The recorded
asset represents our assessment of the capacity of the insurance
agreements to provide for the payment of anticipated defense and
indemnity costs for pending claims and projected future demands.
The recognition of these recoveries is based on an assessment of
the right to recover under the respective contracts and on the
financial strength of the insurers.  The recorded asset does not
represent the limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the
amount we would expect to recover if the accrued indemnity and
defense costs were paid in full."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Failed to Address Asbestos in Schools
----------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Protection Agency has failed to take the required
and necessary steps under federal law to protect children from the
dangers of asbestos exposure in the nation's public and private
schools, the agency's internal watchdog said.

The more than year-long investigation found that EPA had largely
ignored its responsibilities under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response Act of 1986, or AHERA. The act requires, under the
oversight of the agency, that all public school districts and
private schools regularly inspect buildings for asbestos and take
appropriate abatement actions when necessary.

The EPA Inspector General report stated:

"Even though the EPA was responsible for conducting AHERA
compliance inspections for the majority of states, it conducted
fewer inspections overall than the states responsible for their own
inspections. Specifically, from fiscal years 2011 through 2015, the
EPA conducted 13 percent of AHERA inspections, whereas states with
jurisdiction over their own inspections performed 87 percent.

"Furthermore, EPA regions have either significantly reduced or
eliminated resources for their asbestos program. Of the agency's 10
regions, five only inspect for asbestos in schools when they
receive asbestos-related tips or complaints. Without compliance
inspections, the EPA cannot know whether schools pose an actual
risk of asbestos exposure to students and personnel."

"Turning a blind eye to the risks to children from asbestos at
school is tantamount to installing cigarette machines in the
hallways," said EWG President Ken Cook. "Congress should not
confirm Alexandra Dunn to head EPA’s chemical safety office
unless she commits to follow the law and help schools tackle this
serious health threat facing an untold number of children."

"It is reprehensible that EPA has ignored the asbestos in schools
and disinvested in AHERA, thus exposing thousands of children and
teachers to this deadly toxin. This report further proves that the
EPA’s reckless mismanagement of AHERA and TSCA implementation
ensures exposures will continue," said Linda Reinstein, co-founder
and CEO of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, or ADAO.
"It's time for Congress to keep our students and staff safe by
enforcing AHERA and banning asbestos now. The EPA has failed
Americans again."

Under the 1986 law, EPA requires schools to:

   -- Perform an inspection to determine whether
asbestos-containing materials are prsent and then re-inspect
asbestos-containing materials in each school every three years;

   -- Develop, maintain, and update an asbestos management plan and
keep a copy at the school;

   -- Provide yearly notification to parent, teacher, and employee
organizations on the availability of the school's asbestos
management plan and any asbestos-related actions taken or planned
in the school;

   -- Designate a contact person to ensure the responsibilities of
the public school district or the non-profit school are properly
implemented; and

   Perform periodic surveillance of known or suspected
asbestos-containing building material.

In 2015, a report by EWG Action Fund, a separate 501(c)(4) sister
organization to EWG, documented the widespread threat of asbestos
exposure in the nation’s schools and the failure by EPA and
Congress to adequately address the risk it poses to students,
faculty and school staff.

That same year, a separate Senate investigation by then-Senator
Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. and Senator Ed Markey, D-Mass. revealed
serious failures by states and EPA to adequately protect students
and teachers from asbestos in the nation's schools.

Beyond the classroom, children continue to be exposed to asbestos
through consumer goods. In 2007, ADAO found asbestos in toys, and
in 2015, EWG Action Fund commissioned tests that found the
notorious carcinogen in crayons and toy crime scene kits.

In 2016, President Obama signed legislation that finally gave EPA
the authority to ban asbestos. But the Trump administration's
actions under the new law suggest that it will allow the use and
importation of the substance to remain legal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Footballer's Death Linked to Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------
Punchline Gloucester reported that playing football as a youngster
led to the death of David Rock half a century later -- because the
field where he played was close to an asbestos factory, an inquest
heard.

Mr Rock, known as 'Nick', of Kings Stanley, near Stroud, died on
April 6th this year from mesothelioma -- an incurable lung cancer
for which the only known cause is asbestos exposure. He was 62.

In most cases, victims of the disease have worked with asbestos at
some time in their lives -- but Mr Rock had no known working
association with the deadly mineral fibre, the inquest was told.

However, he had played football as a lad in a field close to the
former Fibrecrete factory at Chalford, Stroud.

The Fibrecrete factory has been associated with many
asbestos-related deaths of former workers. There have been at least
ten inquests in the last decade on former Fibrecete workers killed
by the same asbestos-specific cancer as Mr Rock.

In those cases verdicts of death from industrial disease have been
recorded -- but because Mr Rock had not worked with asbestos the
Gloucestershire coroner Katy Skerrett said she was forced to a
conclusion of Natural Causes.

"Although the condition, Mesothelioma is mostly associated with
asbestos exposure, we have no evidence to suggest he was exposed
during work and therefore I cannot record industrial disease," she
said.

"This is the first case of this kind I have known where the
exposure is attributed to playing in the vicinity of a factory
during childhood."

Mr Rock lived in the Chalford area in his youth, the inquest was
told. He would play football nearby with friends and also played
for Chalford Football Club. He later also became an accomplished
rugby player.

The family asked whether there was an official record of asbestos
related deaths but the Coroner said that although industrial
related disease deaths were recorded centrally she was not aware of
any record of all mesothelioma deaths.

She told Mr Rock's widow, Bernie, she would confirm that at a later
date once she had checked.

The family had raised concerns that having prior knowledge of a
person's historic asbestos exposure may help medical professionals
recognise the condition early on.

But Mrs Skerrett said in Mr Rock's case his condition had been
diagnosed quite quickly.

With no cure available for the condition, just palliative care,
knowing earlier would not have changed the outcome, she said.

"In all likelihood his condition was asbestos-related but it was
not occupationally related so I cannot record it as an industrial
related disease," added Mrs Skerrett.

"This is the first case I have known of someone dying after being
exposed from being in the vicinity of a factory rather than working
in the factory and there is no evidence in front of me to suggest
there is an ongoing risk," Mrs Skerrett concluded.

Tributes to Mr Rock at the time of his death in the Sue Ryder
hospice at Leckhampton, Cheltenham, included one from old school
friend Gary Wheeler, who now lives in Canada.

He said "I recall many great memories of Nick including his great
talent as a rugby and soccer player and our school days at Marling.
"

Another childhood friend, Ian David, said "He was a great sportsman
and I remember our schooldays at Marling Grammar School playing
rugby together. He was also a very talented soccer player. He was
always friendly and polite and never had a bad word for anyone."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gym Customers Exposed to Asbestos, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Jones of MassLive.com reported that a Westwood gym owner has
been sued by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey's office
for allegedly exposing gym customers, including children, to
asbestos during unlicensed renovations at the now-closed business,
her office announced.

The complaint, which was filed in Suffolk Superior Court, "alleges
that the New England Sports Academy, LLC (NESA), and its owner and
manager, Henry Shterenberg, violated the Massachusetts Clean Air
Act and its regulations."

The complaint says in November 2015, Shterenberg allowed the
renovation of the 22,600-square foot facility without following
required precautions and procedures.

The complaint also says Shterenberg did not hire a licensed
asbestos contractor to perform the work, didn't tell the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection about the work
and left asbestos-containing material exposed in areas of the gym
where people passed.

The New England Sports Academy hosted a variety of activities,
sports, classes and parties. MassDEP closed the business after an
inspection confirmed the presence of asbestos-containing material.
The owners have since closed the gym. It was cleaned by licensed
asbestos contractors and is now empty.

When inhaled, asbestos can result in life-threatening illnesses,
including asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma.

The complaint seeks civil penalties for violations of the Clean Air
Act and its regulations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,286 PI Suits at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation still faces 17,286 pending asbestos personal
injury actions at June 30, 2018, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

Harsco Corp. states, "The Company is named as one of many
defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal
actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to
airborne asbestos over the past several decades.  In their suits,
the plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.

"The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit.
The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor
of asbestos fibers.  Any asbestos-containing part of a Company
product used in the past was purchased from a supplier and the
asbestos encapsulated in other materials such that airborne
exposure, if it occurred, was not harmful and is not associated
with the types of injuries alleged in the pending actions.

"At June 30, 2018, there were 17,286 pending asbestos personal
injury actions filed against the Company.  Of those actions, 16,737
were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County), 111
were filed in other New York State Supreme Court Counties and 438
were filed in courts located in other states.

"The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of US$20 million or US$25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.

"At June 30, 2018, 16,704 of the actions filed in New York Supreme
Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket
created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and future
asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they
have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment.  The
remaining 33 cases in New York County are pending on the Active or
In Extremis Docket created for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a
malignant condition or physical impairment.

"The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary
and excess policies that the Company believes will be available, if
necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might
ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions.  The costs and
expenses of the asbestos actions are being paid by the Company's
insurers.

"In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the
future.  The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases.  At June 30, 2018, the Company
has obtained dismissal in 27,999 cases by stipulation or summary
judgment prior to trial.

"It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related actions in the U.S. due to the unpredictable
nature of this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded
in the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements
because a loss contingency is not deemed probable or estimable.
Despite this uncertainty, and although results of operations and
cash flows for a given period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related actions, the Company does not expect that any
costs that are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in
connection with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/gv2Lc0


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Continues to Defend PI Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. continues to defend itself
against asbestos-related claims alleging various injuries,
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, "HII and its predecessors-in-interest are
defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and
continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country,
wherein former and current employees and various third parties
allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or
associated with HII premises or while working on vessels
constructed or repaired by HII.

The cases allege various injuries, including those associated with
pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma, and other
alleged asbestos related conditions.  In some cases, several of
HII's former executive officers are also named as defendants.  In
some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to
the Company for its liability and that of its former executive
officers.

"The average cost per case to resolve cases during the six months
ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, was immaterial individually and in
the aggregate.  The Company's estimate of asbestos-related
liabilities is subject to uncertainty because liabilities are
influenced by numerous variables that are inherently difficult to
predict.  Key variables include the number and type of new claims,
the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from
case to case, reforms made by state and federal courts, and the
passage of state or federal tort reform legislation.  Although the
Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not
have a material effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or
revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information
might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances
regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Husband Sues Asbestos Maker for Wife's Death
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison County Record reported that several
manufacturing companies face litigation over a woman's death
allegedly connected to asbestos inhalation.

Terry Meyer, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of Mildred Meyer, filed a complaint on Aug. 21 in St. Clair
County Circuit Court against a group of companies, including
Borg-Warner Morse TEC LLC, Dana Companies LLC and Riley Power Inc.

According to the complaint, Mildred worked as a cook at Josie's
Place and Red Rooster from the 1970s to 1990s. During that time,
the complaint states, she was exposed to asbestos fibers. In
addition, the lawsuit claims, she was exposed to more asbestos from
plaintiff's work as a die caster. She learned of her lung cancer in
November 2017 and died two months later, the complaint states.

The plaintiff alleges the companies knew about the toxic nature of
asbestos and failed to warn her of its dangers.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages of
more than $50,000. He is represented by Randy L. Gorin of Gori,
Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-551


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imerys Settles Asbestos Talc Case
--------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reported that Imerys SA, which supplies talc to
Johnson & Johnson, isn't taking chances as another jury weighs
whether to sock the health-care giant with a punishing verdict.

A unit of Imerys agreed to settle its part of a California woman's
lawsuit blaming both companies for causing her cancer with
asbestos-tainted talc at the conclusion of a four-week state-court
trial in Pasadena, just before the case was sent to jury for
deliberations.

The terms of the settlement weren't disclosed when the judge
announced it.  In July, a St. Louis jury ordered J&J to pay $4.69
billion in damages to 22 women who blamed their ovarian cancer on
exposure to asbestos in the company's powders. That was the
sixth-largest product-defect verdict in U.S. history. Imerys
reached a confidential settlement a few days before that trial that
people familiar with the accord said included a payment of at least
$5 million.

A previous case over alleged exposure to asbestos-laced talc that
Imerys didn't settle resulted in April in a $117 million verdict in
New Jersey against it and J&J, of which the Paris-based mining
company was responsible for 30 percent.

In the Pasadena case, Carolyn Weirick alleged that talc provided by
Imerys to J&J for its baby powder and other products caused her
mesothelioma, a cancer linked to asbestos exposure.

The world's largest health-care products maker faces more than
10,000 other suits claiming its baby powder caused cancer. The St.
Louis verdict is under appeal.

Imerys wouldn't comment on why it decided to settle the Pasadena
case just before company lawyers were scheduled to give closing
arguments to jurors.

"Imerys Talc America is committed to the quality and safety of its
products, as evidenced by our quality testing results that
consistently show no asbestos," the company said in a statement.

Carol Goodrich, a J&J spokeswoman, declined to comment on Imerys's
decision to settle.

J&J's lawyers asked Judge Margaret Oldendorf to grant a mistrial
after they learned Imerys had decided to settle. Oldendorf refused
and will allow jurors to weigh claims against the health-care
company.

Weirick, 59, is a school counselor who said she’s been using
J&J's talc products, such as baby powder and its former
Shower-to-Shower line, for more than 40 years. She was diagnosed
with mesothelioma in 2017 and said her only exposure to asbestos
came from use of talc products.

During the trial, Weirick's lawyers told jurors that when they
tested baby powder found in her home, they found 11 asbestos fibers
in it, enough to have caused her cancer.

J&J hasn't taken responsibility for the asbestos found in its
products and has broken trust with consumers, Jay Stuemke, one of
her lawyers, said in closing arguments. "We can't trust that these
companies have done the testing they should have done or even the
testing they've claimed to have done," Stuemke said.

J&J denies the company's products have ever contained asbestos and
said it's difficult to pinpoint the causes of cancer. The case
should be about "science, not speculation," Christopher Vejnoska,
one of the company's lawyers, said in his final argument.

Lawyers for J&J and Weirick have agreed the counselor has suffered
about $1.2 million in actual damages over her cancer claims.
Stuemke asked jurors for $25 million in compensation for past and
future pain and suffering. She's also seeking punitive damages.

The case is Carolyn Weirick v. Brenntag North America, California
Superior Court, Los Angeles County (Pasadena).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $557MM Liability at June30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc estimated its asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs
to be US$557 million as of June 30, 2018, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

Johnson Controls states, "The Company and certain of its
subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named as
defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to
asbestos containing materials.  These cases have typically involved
product liability claims based primarily on allegations of
manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that
either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing
components.

"As of June 30, 2018, the Company's estimated asbestos related net
liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position was US$180 million.
The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial
position was comprised of a liability for pending and future claims
and related defense costs of US$557 million, of which US$54 million
was recorded in other current liabilities and US$503 million was
recorded in other noncurrent liabilities.

"The Company also maintained separate cash, investments and
receivables related to insurance recoveries within the consolidated
statements of financial position of US$377 million, of which US$41
million was recorded in other current assets, and US$336 million
was recorded in other noncurrent assets.  Assets included US$10
million of cash and US$274 million of investments, which have all
been designated as restricted.

"In connection with the recognition of liabilities for
asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related
insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount of such
recoveries recorded at June 30, 2018 was US$93 million.  As of
September 30, 2017, the Company's estimated asbestos related net
liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position was US$181 million.
The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial
position was comprised of a liability for pending and future claims
and related defense costs of US$573 million, of which US$48 million
was recorded in other current liabilities and US$525 million was
recorded in other noncurrent liabilities.

"The Company also maintained separate cash, investments and
receivables related to insurance recoveries within the consolidated
statements of financial position of US$392 million, of which US$53
million was recorded in other current assets, and US$339 million
was recorded in other noncurrent assets.  Assets included US$22
million of cash and US$269 million of investments, which have all
been designated as restricted.  In connection with the recognition
of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the Company records
asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount
of such recoveries recorded at September 30, 2017 was US$101
million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Zu6Z9a


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge's Widow's Asbestos Claims Rejected
---------------------------------------------------------
John Council of Law.com reported that Houston's First Court of
Appeals has rejected a wrongful death claim filed by the widow of a
longtime trial court judge who was allegedly exposed to asbestos
during remediation at the Jefferson County Courthouse in the
mid-1990s.

The case, Jefferson County v. Farris, concerns the death of James
Farris, who served as judge of the 317th District Court from 1977
until his retirement in 1996. Farris' widow, Ellarene Farris,
provided written notice to the county in 2005 that she intended to
sue, less than six months after her husband first showed symptoms
of mesothelioma, a lung disease associated with asbestos exposure
from which he ultimately died.

Jefferson County opposed Farris' efforts to recover for the death
of her husband, arguing for the first time on appeal that her claim
should be dismissed because governmental immunity had not been
waived in the case. Specifically, the county alleged that it did
not receive notice within six months of Judge Farris' last exposure
to asbestos in December 1996, as required by the Texas Tort Claims
Act.

In a split decision, the court agreed with Jefferson County's
argument.
"Mrs. Farris does not dispute that the county did not receive
notice before July 1997. Instead, she contends that she had no
claim, and thus no notice was required, until after Judge Farris'
death on November 5, 2004. She thus contends that her written
notice delivered on April 4, 2005 satisfied the statute," Justice
Michael Massengale wrote in the majority opinion.

"We agree with Jefferson County. The Tort Claims Act specifies that
the event triggering the notice requirement is 'the incident giving
rise to the claim.'"  Massengale wrote. "The wrongful-death claim
only could be pursued if Judge Farris himself 'would have been
entitled to bring an action for the injury' if he had lived."

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Terry Jennings wrote that the
majority had misconstrued Texas Supreme Court precedent in
dismissing Ellarene Farris' case for failing to provide "timely"
notice in 1997 of a "nonexistent" claim.

"Stunningly, the majority holds that the claims asserted by
Ellarene are barred by governmental immunity because she did not
provide notice of them within six months of Judge Farris's final
exposure to asbestos in December 1996—before the existence of any
injury or damage," Jennings wrote.

"Based on the majority's reasoning, Judge Farris was required to
provide Jefferson County with notice of a premature and speculative
claim within six months of December 1996," Jennings wrote. "But at
that time, Judge Farris did not yet have a claim against Jefferson
County for which he could provide notice because it was nearly
eight years before he exhibited any symptom or was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, i.e., before any damage or injury to him had come
into existence."

Kyle Beale, an associate in Houston's Bailey Peavy Bailey Cowan
Heckaman who represents Farris, said his client will appeal the
decision.

"The ruling imposes a notice burden on those with latent injuries
like Judge Farris that is legally and factually impossible to meet.
It closes the courthouse doors to those with latent diseases that
would never manifest themselves within the six-month notice period
upheld by the court of appeals," Beale said.

Quentin Price, an assistant Jefferson County district attorney who
represented Jefferson County on appeal, declined to comment on the
decision.

Beale believes the decision essentially restricts all Texas judges
from filing workplace asbestos exposure lawsuits.

"Whatever exposure they have that doesn’t cause cancer or some
kind of injury for six months, they can't bring a claim," Beale
said. "The reality is that Texas judges have denied themselves the
ability to access courts."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Luxury Bldg Sold Asbestos-Laden Condos, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Post reported that a luxury Upper East Side building
knowingly sold apartments with asbestos, a lawsuit claims.

Half a dozen residents of 200 E. 94th St. claim they paid a premium
for homes in the doorman building only to be deceived by the
Related Companies when rental apartments were converted to
condominiums in 2015.

The Related Companies "knew they were selling apartments with
asbestos-containing materials," according to the Manhattan Supreme
Court lawsuit.

The offering plan for Carnegie Park specified the homes, at least
some of which include a substance called mastic under the wooden
floors, were asbestos free, the residents charge. Mastic contains
asbestos.
Renovations were also done without any special asbestos safety
measures, they alleged.

One couple, Mark Aldridge and Maria Manchisi, paid $2.96 million
for their apartment. Melissa Conte shelled out $1 million for what
she thought was a newly renovated apartment. Now they and three
other residents claim "psychological" damage from knowing they're
living with the deadly substance.

"We have reason to believe [Related Companies] were fully aware of
the fact that there was asbestos . . . at the time our clients went
into contract," said lawyer Brad Allen. Related denied the
allegations, adding they'd "vigorously" defend themselves in
court.

"Carnegie Park is a first-class building and several of our senior
executives and their families have also made it their home," a
spokeswoman said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manhattan Beach SD Coping With Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Breeze reported that Manhattan Beach school officials are
trying to determine how a work crew was unaware of the asbestos
contained in tiles it was grinding in the Mira Costa High School
library — without appropriate safety gear and with students,
parents and faculty members nearby.

Mike Matthews, superintendent of the Manhattan Beach Unified School
District, said it was the contractor’s responsibility to identify
asbestos. A representative for the two contracting firms involved,
Progessive Surface Solutions and KYA Group, could not be reached
for comment.

The district is still in the process of cleaning up the asbestos
tiles and toxic fibers, which were disturbed by contractors at the
school library in August. So far, no health problems have been
reported to school officials, although health effects from asbestos
can remain dormant for decades.

Meanwhile, the district also responded this week to the discovery
of mold in classrooms at two different schools among several
classrooms at Mira Costa High School and Manhattan Beach Middle
School.

Workers continued the intricate task of cleaning Mira Costa’s
library of any trace of asbestos material. A 75-page report
detailing the clean-up effort was approved by state regulators.

While the school reopened other parts of the campus, the library
has remained closed since Aug. 16, when contractors hired by the
district mistakenly ground a 300-square-foot section of tile that
contained asbestos, in preparation to lay down carpet.

Covering the tiles with carpet or other flooring material, provided
they are not disturbed, is an acceptable method of handling the
tiles, which are only dangerous when they are broken up into
fragments, according to contractors who specialize in dealing with
asbestos tiles.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District issued violation
notices to the district and two contracting companies responsible
for the work.

The tiles were previously identified at Mira Costa in a report that
all school campuses must maintain related to the Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act. That report identifies the presence of
asbestos-containing building materials in schools so that incidents
like the one at Mira Costa do not happen.

Matthews said the principal, the plant manager, the librarian and
the deputy superintendent all knew there was asbestos tile in the
room.

The tiles, Matthews said, "had been clearly identified as
asbestos-containing building materials in our prior AHERA reports
and inspections."

Exactly where the communication breakdown occurred could become the
subject of litigation as the AQMD pursues civil penalties for the
violations.

"The AHERA report should have been utilized," Matthews said.

On the day the incident happened, a week before the start of
school, students, teachers and parents were in the library
distributing textbooks as workers were grinding asbestos tiles in
the storage room, opening and closing the door while kicking up
dust. They were not wearing face masks.

Librarian Bridget Sullivan was reportedly playing music or she
would have realized sooner what the workers were doing, according
to Mira Costa English teacher and union President Shawn Chen.

Sullivan did not return requests for comment.

Chen said Sullivan understood, as did other school officials, that
the workers were installing carpeting that day specifically to
address the asbestos-containing tiles. Even before the work was
performed that day, Sullivan was concerned about it, Chen said.

In the process of moving some shelving in the storage room in June,
some of the tiles were damaged. Since then, the librarian told
school officials that she did not want to work in the building
until it was free of any asbestos or lead, which also was
discovered, according to Chen.

"Ultimately, the situation seemed to be resolved and they decided
to put carpet over the small part of tile," Chen said. "So Bridget
asked if the room could be prepared on a day that students are not
present. Instead they showed up on that morning at 7 a.m."

When the librarian discovered the workers grinding on the asbestos
tiles and tracking dust out of the room, she texted Chen, who in
turn notified the AQMD.

Matthews acknowledged some immediate miscommunication.

"The first few minutes of the discovery of the unauthorized sanding
were intense," Matthews said in a statement. "There were some
challenging moments of communication and miscommunication, and
within a few minutes everyone understood the concern and was
working to address it."

When Chen arrived at the library, she said she saw school officials
moving books.

"They were adamant there was no asbestos," Chen said. "It doesn't
seem like a miscommunication. If we hadn't been there, they would
have done what they were doing."

So far, the district has not said how long it will take workers to
finish remediation at the library. Next steps at the AQMD involve
sorting out civil penalties for the violations, which are typically
resolved out of court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Melbourne Asbestos-Dumping Developers Fined
------------------------------------------------------------
9news.com.au reported that a pair of Melbourne pub planners have
been slapped with fines in excess of $600,000 after dumping
asbestos-riddled waste at a development site near homes.

Raman Shaqiri and Stefce Kutlesovski, directors of 60 Leicester
Proprietary Limited, pleaded guilty to dumping the industry waste
at the Cairnlea site on Furlong Road in March this year.

The waste came from the Corkman Hotel in Carlton, which was
demolished in October 2016, the Sunshine Magistrates Court heard.

Environment Protective Agency officers found the 30-metre high
waste pile, comprising wood, iron sheeting, bricks, carpet, rocks
and piping.

Samples taken from the Cairnlea site also matched the same type of
asbestos located at the Carlton site.

Today Magistrate Richard Pithouse fined the company $600,000 and
ordered the directors to pay $120,000 each.

Magistrate Pithouse said Kutlesovski and Shaqiri, and the
company's, actions showed "a complete disregard of the law."

'We were not sure if she would make it': Family's flu vaccine plea
"If jail was available I would be imprisoning the accused," he
said.

"This shows the lack of teeth available to the court in this
jurisdiction.

"There needs to be a putative punishment for any developers who may
wish to follow this path. It has to be discouraged, it has to be
stopped."

EPA CEO Cathy Wilkinson supported the decision in an official
statement.

"We hope this case sends a message to developers and company owners
that they can't put the public and the environment's health at risk
by ignoring their legal obligations to dispose of industrial waste
at a facility licenced to receive it," Dr Wilkinson said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 552 Lawsuits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc. is a named defendant in 552 lawsuits involving
approximately 1,152 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 one of many defendants in lawsuits that
plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that
exposure to asbestos allegedly caused.  Plaintiffs and their family
members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of
defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos.  These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of
third-party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc.
subsidiary purportedly distributed.

"As of June 30, 2018, we are named a defendant in approximately 552
lawsuits involving approximately 1,152 claims.  No asbestos lawsuit
has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority
being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved.  Applicable
third-party insurance has substantially covered these claims, and
insurance should continue to cover a substantial majority of
existing and anticipated future claims.  Accordingly, we have
recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement
of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable.  It is not possible to predict the outcome
of these claims and proceedings.  However, in our opinion, the
likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims and
legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial statements is remote."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/7Qi23E


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N. Battle Sues Companies Over Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that a man alleges
exposure to asbestos in Alabama caused him to develop lung cancer.

Napoleon Battle filed a complaint on Sept. 4 in the St. Louis 22nd
Judicial Circuit Court against Borg-Warner Corp., The Dow Chemical
Corp., Western Auto Supply Co., et al. alleging strict liability
and negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that at various
times during Sylvester Watson's career life in Alabama, he was
exposed to and inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers emanating from
certain products manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by
defendants. The suit states that on or about Nov. 30, 2017, he
first became aware that he developed lung cancer, an
asbestos-induced disease, and that it was wrongfully caused.

The plaintiff holds Borg-Warner Corp., The Dow Chemical Corp.,
Western Auto Supply Co., et al. responsible because the defendant
allegedly intentionally included asbestos fibers in their products
when they knew that it had toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious
effect to human health and failed to provide adequate warnings and
instructions concerning the dangers of working with or around
products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of more than $50,000, plus
costs of this action and any further relief deemed just and
equitable. He is represented by Benjamin R. Schmickle and Matthew
C. Morris of SWMW Law LLC in St. Louis.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1822-CC11145


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nigerian Govt Warns Against Asbestos Home Use
--------------------------------------------------------------
AllAfrica.com reported that the Lagos State Commissioner for
Housing, Gbolahan Lawal, has alerted the public against the use of
asbestos as ceiling in homes, saying it could cause cancer.

"Few years ago, Lagos State Government stopped the use of asbestos
for ceiling because of its carcinogenic effect; we now use PVCs
(plastic) in our estates and buildings.

"Asbestos ceilings are carcinogenic, it causes cancer and if you
have it in your house you should try and change it," he told the
News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Lagos.

Mr Lawal called for mass enlightenment on the use of asbestos in
public and private buildings.

NAN reports that the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC), an intergovernmental agency and a part of the World Health
Organisation with its headquarters in Lyon, France, classifies
asbestos as "carcinogenic to humans," based on its ability to cause
mesothelioma and cancers of the lung, larynx (voice box) and
ovaries.

Mr Lawal said the state government was exploring other alternatives
and innovations that would allow for the use of cheaper available
local raw materials to bring down the cost of houses.

On the Green Building Initiative, the commissioner disclosed that
the state was partnering with Echostone, an international
eco-friendly construction firm, to develop its affordable homes
initiative.

He explained that the method ensured that a 40 per cent of carbon
footprints were reduced in line with global climatic change
initiatives.

According to Mr Lawal, the partnership also ensured adoption of the
Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies (EDGE) programme that
helps developers reduce their buildings' energy and water
consumption by 20 per cent while lowering greenhouse gas
emissions.

The commissioner added that the state had also adopted eco-friendly
water and sewage management system to improve the health and
quality of lives of residents.

Mr Lawal said carbon emissions would be reduced if building designs
are targeted at proper ventilation and illumination as well as
green areas for houses.

This, he noted, would reduce the use of generators and reliance on
electricity to illuminate such houses during the day or hot
weather.

"Gov. Akinwunmi Ambode's administration is also in partnership with
a German government institute (GZI) as well as the Federal Ministry
of Power, Works and Housing on how to reduce water and energy
consumption in our estates to achieve energy efficiency in the
buildings.

"We are collaborating with all the regulatory agencies on green
building because it is cheaper and it help to create more jobs," he
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Asbestos in Baby Powder, Mineralogist Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Sammon of Northern California Record reported that a
mineralogist appearing as a witness for Johnson & Johnson said he
found no asbestos in the baby powder bottle used by Carolyn
Weirick, while her attorney sought to portray him as a partisan,
highly paid professional defense witness.

"Whatever you found, was it asbestos?" asked Warrington Parker the
attorney for J&J.

"No, answered Dr. Matthew Sanchez, a mineral expert for R.J. Lee
Group, a Pennsylvania-based lab that determines the components that
make up rocks.

Sanchez said he had found in Weirick's bottle primarily talc with
small amounts of a mineral called chlorite and another called
nahcolite (a sodium bircarbonate), with a trace of tremolite.

Weirick is suing Johnson & Johnson for the baby powder she claimed
contained asbestos causing her to develop mesothelioma, a rare and
deadly form of cancer in the lungs.

The trial in the Los Angeles Superior Court is being streamed
courtesy of Courtroom View Network.

During the hearing Sanchez told a jury he studied mines in Italy
and Vermont that supplied Johnson & Johnson with talc rock to be
ground up in the creation of baby powder. He said no asbestos had
been found in samplings taken from the deposits.

Sanchez visited the Italian mine site to make ore samplings. He did
not visit mines in Vermont, but said his review of literature on
findings was sufficient to determine Vermont talc was not conducive
to the formation of asbestos.

Related minerals existing at the sites including tremolite and
anthophyllite can contain asbestos, or can be found to be
"non-asbestos" in nature.

"Anthophyllite by itself is not asbestos," Sanchez maintained.

"Does tremolite mean asbestos?" Parker asked.

"No," Sanchez answered.

Sanchez added that if tremolite contained asbestos it would be
called "tremolite asbestos."

He disputed the talc testing and earlier trial testimony of star
witness researchers for the plaintiff Dr. William Longo and Dr.
Steven Compton of Georgia-based MVA Scientific Consultants.

"Compton said you reported things as cleavage fragments
(non-asbestos rock particles) instead of asbestos," Parker said.
"What do you have to say about that?"

"I reported cleavage fragments because that's what they are,"
Sanchez said.

Sanchez said Longo misidentified cleavage fragments as asbestos
bundles and misclassified particle types.

Under cross examination, Jay Stuemke, Weirick's attorney, asked if
a test had shown a particle of anthophyllite in Weirick's bottle.

"I agree there was an anthophyllite particle, but it was not
consistent with asbestos," Sanchez answered.

Stuemke asked if on a previous case, Sanchez had billed Johnson &
Johnson $250,000 for testing of talc.

"Not just my test, that was the bill for a case," Sanchez said.

"In your first three cases you billed $640,000, right?" Stuemke
asked.

"I don't know the number, but that sounds reasonable," Sanchez
said.

"You’ve been retained on 100 cases by Johnson & Johnson to give
testimony like this?" Stuemke asked.

"That’s correct," Sanchez replied.

"At $200,000 a case that's $20 million in billings," Stuemke said.

"It depends on the work I'm required to do," Sanchez responded.

"That's the math," Stuemke said.

"Object!" the defense attorney called.

"Sustained!" Superior Court Judge Margaret Oldendorf said.

"You ply your services as a professional witness, correct?" Stuemke
asked.

"I'm obviously here as an expert witness," Sanchez responded.

"Your company R.J. Lee markets you as a professional witness,
right?"

Sanchez agreed.

Stuemke said Sanchez's name appeared in an "Expert Asbestos Defense
Witness Directory" and he had been asked to speak at a Defense
Asbestos Litigation Seminar held in 2016 in Las Vegas.

Sanchez said he had been asked to give a pre-conference talk on the
subject of talc, serpentine and amphibole minerals.

Steumke brought up a technology developed in the 1970s called
"pre-concentration" that would allow greater detection of asbestos
in talc. In prior talc trials, plaintiff attorneys alleged Johnson
& Johnson officials did not use the more intensive screening
process because it could result in asbestos discoveries and
endanger their baby powder business.

"You said earlier it's not necessary for concentration methods to
be used," Stuemke said. "In order to find asbestos contaminants in
the talc. Do you recall that?"

"Yes I do," Sanchez said.  

"You know Johnson & Johnson was told exactly the opposite in the
1970s, correct?" Stuemke asked.

"I do not know that sir," Sanchez replied.

Stuemke said the Colorado School of Mines at the time recommended
to Johnson & Johnson using the concentration method in talc
testing. He exhibited a 1973 letter to J&J officials stating
concern that using the concentration technique for screening talc
for asbestos might be "too sensitive."

"If you're trying to find something in material there is nothing
that is really too sensitive is there?" Steumke asked.

Stuemke called it a business not a science decision.

"I can't speak to the business decisions Johnson & Johnson made,"
Sanchez said.

Sanchez called J&J's testing methods "reasonable."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nov. 9 Hearing on Bid to Junk Bestwall's Ch. 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reported that expecting a major fight over a bid by
asbestos claimants to get the bankruptcy of joint-compound maker
Bestwall LLC dismissed, the judge overseeing the case postponed a
hearing on the matter from next week until November.

Judge Laura Beyer of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of North Carolina in an order said the hearing will take
place on Nov. 9, not Sept. 20 as originally scheduled.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Preschool Exposed Children to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Damian George of Stuff.co.nz reported that children at a Wellington
preschool were unknowingly exposed to asbestos for two months after
a construction company replacing panels failed to take proper
safety precautions.

Parents of children at Wellington's Capital Montessori, in
Kingston, received an email from the school's principal saying the
facility would be closed after asbestos was detected in external
classroom cladding and in some outdoor areas.

The discovery was made following an assessment by an asbestos
testing company -- about two months after work was done to replace
the cladding.

In an email to staff and parents, principal Aleks Zajac​ and
board chair Michael Johnston said the assessment was called for
after the company engaged to do the work "failed to take proper
precautions in regard to asbestos safety".

The work was carried out in the most recent school holidays,
between July 7 and 22.

The email said asbestos was found on the outside of all classroom
buildings, as well in other areas of the school including two
gardens, a compost bin, and a playground.

Those areas had been cleaned and cordoned off, and soil and wood
samples had been taken for further testing.

A WorkSafe asbestos inspector also assessed the school, and found
the risk of harm to staff and children was low.

That was because the sheets used for cladding had low levels of
asbestos, and the asbestos was compressed within the sheets, the
email said.

But a parent of one of the children, who did not want to be named,
said he was shocked to learn his child had been exposed to the
potentially harmful substance for so long.

"It's a bit horrifying, to be honest.

"And I'm also not certain how the school can make the claim that
the children are going to be fine without any lab results or the
actual testing being finished."

The school was closed from Wednesday until Friday last week, with
children forced to stay home and parents needing to arrange care
for them, the parent said.

In a second email, the school said the children would move to a new
location from Monday, in a spare classroom at Berhampore School.

The classroom had been assessed by the Ministry of Education and
was deemed suitable as a preschool site.

However, there was only room for 25 full-day places per day, and
the school had about 40 children on its roster. That meant some
would only be able to squeeze in for half a day, the school said.

Auckland University's Dr Anne Bardsley​, who authored a report
for the chief science advisor to the Prime Minister on
asbestos-related health risks following the Christchurch
earthquakes, agreed the risk of harm was likely to be low.

Asbestos needed to be breathed in to have an effect, she said.

However, Bardsley had not visited the site and stressed her
assessment was based only on what she had been told by the school.

She said based on the age of the building and the materials it
comprised, builders should have checked for asbestos before
starting work.

Johnston declined to be interviewed, but said in a statement the
asbestos was being urgently removed and contained by experts, and
relevant agencies, as well as parents and staff, were being kept
well informed.

The incident had been classified as low-risk by the experts, he
said.

In the email to staff and parents, the school said the asbestos
assessment was also carried out in preparation for further
development on the site and the installation of heat pumps.

The school would remain closed until it had received the relevant
clearance certificates.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: S. Geisler Files Claims Over Wife's Asbestos Death
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A man alleges his late wife's lung cancer was caused by exposure to
asbestos during her life.

Stanley Geisler, individually and as surviving heir of the estate
of Judy Geisler, deceased, filed a complaint on Aug. 28 in the St.
Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against Air & Liquid Systems
Corp., Autozone Inc., Carrier Corp., et al. alleging wrongful
death.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that at various
times during Judy Geisler's life, she was exposed to and inhaled or
ingested asbestos fibers emanating from certain products
manufactured, sold, distributed and/or installed by defendants. The
suit states that on or about April 30, 2015, decedent first became
aware that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease,
and that the disease was wrongfully caused. She died on Aug. 29,
2015, the suit states.

The plaintiff holds Air & Liquid Systems Corp., Autozone Inc.,
Carrier Corp., et al. responsible because the defendants allegedly
intentionally included asbestos fibers in their products when they
knew that it had toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious effect to
human health and failed to provide adequate warnings and
instructions concerning the dangers of working with or around
products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of more than $50,000, plus
costs, interest and any further relief as the court may deem just
and proper. He is represented by Benjamin R. Schmickle and Matthew
C. Morris of SWMW Law LLC in St. Louis.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1822-CC11110


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment vs. Whelan Reversed on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In this products liability case arising out of exposure to
asbestos, the Appellate Division for the Superior Court of New
Jersey considers anew whether a manufacturer has a duty to warn
about the risk of harm from exposure to asbestos-containing
replacement parts integral to the function of the manufacturer's
product, even if the manufacturer did not fabricate or distribute
the replacement parts.

Defendants Armstrong International Inc., Burnham LLC, Carrier
Corp., Cleaver-Brooks Inc., Crown Boiler Co., Ford Motor Co.,
Johnson Controls Inc., NIBCO Inc., and Oakfabco Inc. filed summary
judgment motions. Each Defendant argued Plaintiff had not
demonstrated exposure to friable asbestos on a regular and frequent
basis from a product it sold, manufactured, supplied, or
distributed. The trial judge found Defendants were not liable for
asbestos-containing replacement parts they did not manufacture or
place into the stream of commerce. Because Plaintiff could not
identify an exposure to asbestos from a product actually
manufactured or distributed by defendants, the court granted
summary judgment to each defendant.

Plaintiff Arthur Whelan began work as a residential and commercial
plumber in 1952. He previously worked at an automotive repair shop,
and continued throughout his life to restore vintage cars as a
hobby. From 1955 to 1959, plaintiff worked for Franklin Lowe &
Sons. Plaintiff opened his own plumbing business, Arthur Whelan
Plumbing and Heating, in 1959, which he maintained until 1968. From
1968 until 1971, Plaintiff worked at several other plumbing
companies before becoming employed by Powers Regulator, where he
worked for twenty-five years.

In 2008, Plaintiff was diagnosed with asbestosis; he was
subsequently diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in 2012.
Plaintiff's causation expert, pathologist Eugene J. Mark, M.D.,
stated in his August 2, 2013 report that Plaintiff "developed a
diffuse malignant mesothelioma of the pleura" caused by asbestos
exposure. Dr. Mark further concluded, "with reasonable medical
certainty" that "all of the special exposures to asbestos which
took place prior to the occurrence of the malignancy together
contributed to cause the diffuse malignant mesothelioma . . . and
each was a substantial contributing factor in the causation of the
diffuse malignant mesothelioma."

Plaintiff contends he developed mesothelioma as the result of his
work-related exposure to numerous asbestos-containing products.
Plaintiff asserts, as a plumber and auto mechanic, he was exposed
to asbestos in products manufactured by Defendants, specifically
boilers, valves, steam traps, and brake drums. Although Plaintiff
installed and worked with some original products manufactured by
some Defendants, he primarily encountered asbestos in his cleaning,
repair, and replacement of components used in the products.

On appeal, Plaintiff argues defendants were strictly liable for
their failure to warn users of the asbestos-related hazards of
their products, inclusive of any component parts, including those
hazards associated with routine maintenance and replacement,
regardless of whether Defendants manufactured or supplied the
asbestos-containing hazardous components or replacement parts.

Defendants assert settled principles of product liability law in
New Jersey require a Plaintiff to demonstrate he or she was exposed
to asbestos and suffered injury from a defect in a defendant's own
product. Defendants contend the focus is on the alleged
injury-producing asbestos product itself, alleviating a
manufacturer from liability for an asbestos-containing component or
replacement part it did not manufacture or supply.

It is undisputed Defendants' products as originally marketed had
asbestos-containing component parts. Defendants have not argued
they were unaware these component parts would be replaced regularly
as part of routine maintenance on their products. Instead, they
assert the duty to warn does not extend to replacement parts they
did not manufacture or distribute. The Court maintains that a
manufacturer has a duty to warn of the dangers from asbestos in
replacement parts when its product required the use of asbestos
component parts.

The Court explains that it is well-established in the State of New
Jersey's products liability jurisprudence that a manufacturer may
be held liable for a failure to warn of the dangers of its product,
even if the product has undergone substantial alteration, as long
as the alteration did not affect the defect at issue. If the defect
which, singly or in combination, caused the injury existed before,
as well as after, the change, the manufacturer is not relieved of
liability, regardless of how much the product has been changed.

The Court determines that it was foreseeable, at the time
Defendants placed their products into the marketplace, that
asbestos-containing component parts of the product would be
replaced with similar asbestos-containing parts. Replacing an
original part with a substantially similar part is a foreseeable
alteration. Therefore, the replacement of the asbestos did not
substantially alter either the injury-producing element or the
defect.

The Court concludes that a manufacturer will have a duty to warn in
strict liability if a plaintiff can show: 1) the manufacturer's
product as marketed to the end user contained asbestos-containing
components; 2) the asbestos-containing components were integral to
the function of the product; and 3) the manufacturer was reasonably
aware its product would require periodic and routine maintenance
involving the replacement of the asbestos-containing component
parts with other asbestos-containing component parts. Under these
limited circumstances, the Court warns that the manufacturer's
liability for a failure to warn extends to the danger created by
the component and replacement parts.

The Court points out that a defect that existed when the product
left the manufacturer's control is neither ameliorated nor
diminished when it arises from a component that has been replaced
with a component that contains the identical injury-producing
element. That well-established principle governs the definition of
a product for purposes of determining a manufacturer's liability
for an asbestos-containing replacement part.

Since the product-defect causation element has been met, the Court
concludes that defendants may be held liable for the failure to
warn of the dangers associated with the asbestos contained in their
product -- inclusive of component parts it did not manufacture or
supply. The Court explains that the liability extends to the
failure to warn of the dangers from cleaning, repairing, and
replacing the asbestos-containing components as none of those
activities substantially changed the product or mitigated the
danger. The Court sustains the fact that plaintiff was exposed to a
replacement part, rather than an original part, will not eliminate
a defendant's liability.

Based on the record, the Court also determines that the plaintiff
presented sufficient evidence detailing his exposure to asbestos,
either from original parts supplied by defendants or replacement
parts required for the function of defendants' products to create
issues of fact as to each defendant.

With regard to the boiler defendants -- Burnham and Carrier -- the
Court finds that Plaintiff identified asbestos insulation under the
boiler jacket. Installing and working on the units created asbestos
dust. Plaintiff also built and cleaned fireboxes requiring the use
of asbestos cement. In addition, the room-size boilers of
Cleaver-Brooks and Oakfabco took two days to clean. The cleaning
included work done on fireboxes constructed of bricks held together
and capped with asbestos cement. The Court finds none of the
contact described by Plaintiff with these boilers was casual or
minimal. It is undisputed the products, as marketed, contained
asbestos components and required periodic, routine replacement.
Plaintiff also noted asbestos cement was the only product available
during the relevant years that could withstand the "extreme heat"
of a firebox. He also noted the asbestos cement was supplied with
the boiler as it was needed for the installation and operation of
the product.

When queried about his contact with Crown Boiler products during
his January 2, 2013 deposition, Plaintiff said he did not
personally work on any Crown boilers and could not attribute his
asbestos exposure to that product. However, several weeks later, at
his de bene esse deposition, Plaintiff recalled cleaning five or
six Crown boilers. The Court finds the inconsistency in this
testimony as a factual dispute to be resolved by a jury.
Plaintiff's description of cleaning all of the involved boilers is
sufficient to allow an inference of exposure to these products on a
frequent and regular basis.

Plaintiff also presented sufficient evidence to raise a jury
question as to whether he met the "frequency, regularity, and
proximity" test regarding the valve manufacturers -- Johnson
Controls and NIBCO. He testified he repaired at least a dozen
Johnson steam and hot water valves, which entailed digging out and
replacing the asbestos packing. Plaintiff described the same type
of work regarding his exposure with NIBCO valves. Those valves
required asbestos packing for sealing; the valves' design required
the replacement packing be the same as the original. Plaintiff's
testimony is, therefore, sufficient to raise the inference he
worked frequently and regularly in close proximity to asbestos in
Johnson Controls and NIBCO valves.

Plaintiff also estimated he cleaned twenty Armstrong steam traps.
The traps were designed to use a specific type of asbestos gasket
to function properly. The scraping out of the asbestos gasket took
one to four hours. Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to
withstand the grant of summary judgment.

Thus, the Court resolves that it is undisputed Plaintiff was
exposed to asbestos during his work with Ford cars and their brake
systems. The systems required the use of asbestos and were designed
to be replaced with asbestos linings. The majority of the brake
drums plaintiff worked on at Modern Motors were "original lined."
He stated twenty-five percent of those drums were made by Ford. The
trial court erred in concluding Plaintiff had not established Ford
as the manufacturer of the lining on the vehicles on which he
worked at Modern Motors. Plaintiff demonstrated an exposure to Ford
asbestos products sufficient to raise a factual issue for the jury
under the Sholtis test.

The Court concludes that a duty to warn exists when the
manufacturer's product contains asbestos components, which are
integral to the function of the product, and the manufacturer is
aware that routine periodic maintenance of its product will require
the replacement of those components with other asbestos-containing
parts. In light of the Court's determination that a manufacturer's
product includes any replacement parts necessary to its function,
defendants' duty to warn extends to any danger created by those
replacement parts. Accordingly, the Court reverses the orders of
summary judgment as to each named defendant and remand to the trial
court for trial.

The appealed case is Arthur G. Whelan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
Armstrong International Inc.; Burnham Llc; Carrier Corp.,
individually, d/b/a and as successor to Bryant Heating & Cooling
Systems; Cleaver-Brooks Inc.; Crown Boiler Co., f/k/a Crown
Industries Inc.; Ford Motor Co.; Johnson Controls Inc.,
individually, d/b/a and as successor to Evcon Industries Inc. and
Coleman Heating and Air Conditioning Products Inc.; NIBCO Inc.; and
Oakfabco Inc., individually, d/b/a and as successor to Kewanee
Boiler Corp.; Defendants-Respondents, and A. O. Smith Corp.; Aaron
& Co.; AMG Industries Inc., d/b/a and as successor to Akron
Metallic Gasket Co.; Automatic Switch Co.; Automotive Brake Co.;
A.W. Chesterton Co.; Basf Corp.; Bergen Industrial Supply Co.;
Bethlehem Dynatherm, a/k/a Dynatherm Boiler Manufacturing Inc.;
Binsky & Snyder LLC, individually, d/b/a and as successor to Binsky
& Snyder Co.; Bonland Industries Inc.; Borgwarner Morse TEC Inc.,
as successor to Borg-Warner Corp.; Briggs Industries Inc.; Carlisle
Companies Inc.; CBS Corp., f/k/a Viacom Inc., successor by merger
to CBS Corp., f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corp.; Central Brass Co.
Inc., individually, d/b/a and as successor to Central Brass
Manufacturing Co. and Central Brass & Fixture Co.; Central
Engineering & Supply Co. Inc.; Chicago Faucet Co.; Chicago-Wilcox
Manufacturing Co. Inc.; Colfax Inc., individually and as successor
to Warner Electric Brake & Clutch Co.; Crane Co.; Crosstown
Plumbing Supply Inc.; Dana Companies LLC; DAP Inc.; Ductmate
Industries Inc.; Dunham-Bush Inc.; Dunphey & Associates Supply Co.
Inc.; Duro Dyne Corp.; ECR International Inc., individually, d/b/a
and as successor to Utica Boilers Inc., Utica Radiator Corp.,
Dunkirk Boilers, Pennco Inc., and Olsen Technology Inc.; Essex
Plumbing Supply Inc.; Fisher Scientific International Inc.; Fortune
Brands Home & Security Inc., individually, d/b/a and as successor
to Moen Inc.; Foster Wheeler LLC; General Electric Co.;
Georgia-Pacific LLC; The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.; Goulds Pumps
Inc.; Graco Inc.; Grundfos Pumps Corp.; H.B. Smith Co. Inc.; Hilco
Inc., individually and as successor to Universal Supply Group Inc.
and Amber Supply Co.; Honeywell International Inc., f/k/a Honeywell
Inc., Allied Signal Inc. and Bendix Corp.; Interline Brands Inc.,
individually, d/b/a and as successor to J.A. Sexauer Inc.;
International Business Machines Corp.; ITT Corp.; Kaiser Gypsum Co.
Inc.; Kantor Supply Inc.; Kohler Co., individually, d/b/a and as
successor to Sterling Faucet Co.; Lennox Industries Inc.,
individually, d/b/a and as successor to Armstrong Furnace Co.;
Magnatrol Valve Corp.; Manhattan Welding Co. Inc.; Maremont Corp.;
Meritor Inc., individually and as successor to Rockwell
International Corp.; Mestek Inc., individually, d/b/a and as
successor to H.B. Smith Co., Smith Cast Iron Boilers and Mills
Boilers; Mueller Industries Inc.; National Automotive Parts
Association Inc.; New Jersey Boiler Repair Co.; NCH Corp., as
successor to Creed Co. and Daniel P. Creed Co. Inc.; NMBFIL Inc.,
f/k/a Bondo Corp.; Owens-Illinois Inc.; Peerless Industries Inc.;
Pneumo-Abex LLC, individually and as successor to Abex Corp.; Price
Pfister Inc.; The Prudential Insurance Co. Of America; Rheem
Manufacturing Co.; Riley Power Inc., f/k/a Riley-Stoker Corp.;
Robertshaw Controls Co., individually and as successor to Fulton
Sylphon Co.; SID Harvey Industries Inc.; Slant/FIN Corp.; Sloan
Valve Co.; SOS Products Co. Inc.; Speakman Co.; Superior Boiler
Works Inc.; Sur-Seal Corp.; Taco Inc.; Trane U.S. Inc.,
individually and as successor to American Standard Inc. and
American Radiator Co.; Turner Construction Co.; Unilever United
States Inc.; Uniroyal Holding Inc.; Verizon New Jersey Inc.,
individually and as successor to New Jersey Bell Telephone Co.;
Victaulic Co.; Wallwork Bros. Inc.; Wal-Rich Corp.; Weil-McLain, a
division of the Marley-Wylain Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Marley Co. LLC; W.V. Egbert & Co. Inc.; York International Corp.;
Zurn Industries LLC, individually, d/b/a and as successor to Erie
City Iron Works and Zurn Industries Inc.; AII Acquisition LLC,
individually, as successor to, f/k/a, and d/b/a Holland Furnace
Co., Athlone Industries Inc., T.F.C. Holding Corp. and Thatcher
Furnace Co.; American Premier Underwriters, individually and as
successor to Hydrotherm Corp.; August Arace & Sons Inc.; Honeywell
Inc.; Rockwell Automation Inc., individually, d/b/a and as
successor to Sterling Faucet Co.; Rockwell Collins Inc.,
individually, d/b/a and as successor to Sterling Faucet Co.; Trimas
Corp., individually, d/b/a and as successor to NI Industries Inc.;
Wilmar Industries Inc., individually, d/b/a and as successor to
J.A. Sexauer Inc.; BASF Catalysts Llc; Trimas Corp., individually
and as successor in interest to Norris Industries and/or NI
Industries Inc.; York International Corp., individually and as
successor to The Coleman Company Inc., a/k/a Coleman Heating and
Air Conditioning Products Inc., Defendants, Docket No. A-3520-13T4,
(N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.).

A copy of the Opinion dated August 6, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7acruky from Leagle.com.

Kevin P. Parker (The Lanier Law Firm, PLLC) of the Texas bar,
admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause on May 2, 2016 and May 16,
2018, and Rachel A. Placitella -- rplacitella@cprlaw.com --  argued
the cause on May 16, 2018, for appellant (Cohen, Placitella & Roth,
PC, attorneys; Rachel A. Placitella , Nahid A. Shaikh , and Darron
E. Berquist (The Lanier Law Firm, PLLC) of the New York bar,
admitted pro hac vice, on the briefs).

Thomas J. Kelly, Jr. argued the cause for respondent Armstrong
International, Inc. (Vasios, Kelly & Strollo, PA, attorneys; Thomas
J. Kelly, Jr. -- tkelly@vasioslaw.com -- of counsel and on the
brief; Linda Fulop-Slaughter -- lfulopslaughter@vasioslaw.com -- on
the brief).

Joseph D. Rasnek -- jrasnek@mdmc-law.com -- argued the cause for
respondent Burnham, LLC (McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter,
LLP, attorneys; Nancy McDonald -- nmcdonald@mdmc-law.com -- of
counsel and on the brief; Christopher B. Bladel , on the brief).

Sara K. Saltsman -- ssaltsman@mayfieldturner.com -- argued the
cause for respondent Carrier Corporation (Mayfield, Turner, O'Mara
& Donnelly, P.C., attorneys; Sara K. Saltsman, on the brief).

Karen J. Stanzione-Conte -- kstanzione@rmh-law.com -- argued the
cause for respondents Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. and Crown Boiler,
Company (Reilly, Janiczek & McDevitt, attorneys; Karen J.
Stanzione-Conte, Michelle B. Cappuccio -- mcappuccio@rmh-law.com --
and Colleen B. Cavanaugh , on the briefs).

Robyn Gnudi Kalocsay -- Robyn.Kalocsay@lewisbrisbois.com -- argued
the cause on May 2, 2016, and Sean M. Marotta argued the cause on
May 16, 2018, for respondent Ford Motor Company (LeClair Ryan,
attorneys; Robin Gnudi Kalocsay and Michael D. Goldklang , on the
brief).

Marc S. Gaffrey -- mgaffrey@hoaglandlongo.com -- argued the cause
on May 2, 2016, and Jacob S. Grouser argued the cause on May 16,
2018, for respondent Johnson Controls, Inc. (Hoagland, Longo,
Moran, Dunst & Doukas, LLP, attorneys; Marc S. Gaffrey, of counsel
and on the brief; Anita S. Cohen , on the brief).

Robert T. Connor -- koconnor@pdltlaw.com -- argued the cause on May
2, 2016, and Stephanie A. DiVita argued the cause on May 16, 2018,
for respondent NIBCO, Inc. (Pascarella DiVita, PLLP attorneys;
Robert T. Connor, of counsel and on the brief; Angela Coll Caliendo
, on the brief).

Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP, attorneys for respondent
Oakfabco, Inc. ( Roy F. Viola, Jr. -- rviola@hptylaw.com -- and
Deena M. Crimaldi on the brief).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tile Worker's Family Wins Asbestos Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Sun reported that despite the company denying most of its tiles
used by Mr Morris contained asbestos, Mr Morris died from
mesothelioma -- cancer caused by exposure to asbestos -- in 2014.

His wife, Ann, continued the case on behalf of her husband, which
took four more years to settle.

Mr Morris's solicitor, Peter Williams, an expert in mesothelioma
cases, said that the case was drawn out because, following a court
order, Marley only shared a few scant pages of documents about
asbestos in its tiles and continued to deny it owed Mr Morris a
duty of care.

Ann, in her 70s and living in Surrey, said that her husband had
given his life to Marley by working long hours to support her and
their two children and that he was "always willing, always
cheerful".

She added: "He was a good, good man and hard worker yet they
knowingly didn't even bother to tell him about the dangers of
asbestos or do anything whatsoever to protect him."

Mr Williams said: "Mr Morris worked freelance his whole career and,
initially, despite having presented him with a gold watch in 1978
in recognition of 25 years 'long and loyal service', Marley refused
to treat Mr Morris as an employee."

"Second, the company upheld that because so few of its tiles
contained asbestos, Mr Morris would not have been exposed. It was
only after extensive research that we found documents deep within
the archive of the British Library containing letters from the
company in the 1980s clearly stating that most of the floor tiles
it asked Mr Morris to work with contained asbestos.

"Despite hundreds of documents sitting in the public domain in the
library archive, Marley maintained it had next to no documentation
showing its floor tiles contained asbestos."

Mr Morris's barrister Harry Steinberg QC also stated that, as a
major asbestos-tile producer, Marley should have known about the
health risks associated with asbestos from the early 1960s, but did
nothing to protect workers.

Witness statements collected by Mr Morris's legal team from people
who had worked at the Marley factory at Lenham described "tons and
tons" of raw asbestos in sheds and the factory.

Mr Morris's statement before he died includes mention of being
handed boxes and boxes of tiles, covered in dust, which got right
through his clothes onto his vest.

After Mr Morris's legal team presented the evidence to a judge in
February this year, Marley finally offered Mrs Morris a
settlement.

Mr Williams said that Marley had put the burden of proving the
tiles contained asbestos onto Mr Morris, who was in his 70s and
extremely ill.

"What this means, though," Mr Williams said, "is that other people
who may have contracted asbestos cancer working with Marley tiles
should not have to go through such difficulties to claim."



                            *********

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 ***