/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/161005.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, October 5, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 199


2013 VENTURE: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ACUMEN FISCAL: Faces "Toney" Suit in Northern District of Georgia
ALABAMA: Faces "Thompson" Suit in Middle District of Florida
ALLIANZ LIFE: "Thompson" Sues Over Reduced Annuitization Payout
ALLSTAFF MEDICAL: "Murphy" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

ANTHONY MANCINI: Judge Nixes Lawyer's 1st Amendment Defense
AVENTURA, FL: Court Allows Red Light Camera Suit to Proceed
AZTEC PLUMBING: "Dietz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Tosses Collection Litigation Suit
BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Hassett" Suit in Arizona Over Data Breach

BCA FINANCIAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
BRAIN STATE: Faces Financial Fraud Class Action in Arizona
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Gluck" Suit in E.D. of New York
CEMEX INC: Illegally Obtains Background Reports, Action Says
CENTRAL FLORIDA AUTO: "Perez" Suit Moved to M.D. Fla.

CHEVRON CORP: Funding Agreement Still Hasn't Been Filed
CITRA SOLC: Ill. Citizen Files Class Action Over False Ads
CONCORDIA INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Stanczyk" Class Action Lawsuit
CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Faces "Tiernan" Suit in M.D. Tenn.
DAILY PRESS: "Oard" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.

DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Court Hears Arguments on Subway Settlement
DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: "Alan" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal to S.D. Fla.
DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM: Davis Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Ark.
ELECTION SYSTEMS: Faces "Provitola" Suit in N.D. of Florida
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Faces Securities Class Action in Colorado

F.H. CANN: Faces "Scanno" Suit in District of New Jersey
FEI COMPANY: Nov. 7 Deadline Set to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: "Kinalis" Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
FRESNO, CA: Class Action Suit Filed Over Lead in Water
GENERAL MILLS: Faces Another Class Action Over Nature Valley Bars

HAFFLER CORP: "Koschara" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
HERSHEY COMPANY: "Huppert" Sues Over Under-filled Packaging
HUNTINGTON BANK: Suit Over Discriminatory Account Closures Settled
INSMED INCORPORATED: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
KFC CORP: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of Florida

LG ELECTRONICS: Former Employee Sues Over Alleged Hiring Deal
MADISON COUNTY: No Longer Liable in Bathon Class-Action Suit
MASTERCARD: Stoke-on-Trent Residents Could be getting GBP300
MEDICAL & FINANCIAL: Faces "Cala" Suit in S.D. of Florida
MITSUBISHI CEMENT: "Caveness" Alleges Racism, Seeks Reinstatement

NATIONS RECOVERY: Faces "Weingarten" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
NATIONS TITLE: Faces Class Action Over Telemarketing Calls
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Judge Okays $12.1MM Class Action Settlement
NOODLES & COMPANY: SELCO Files Class Action Over Data Breach
NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Antitrust Class Action Not time Barred

PHILIP MORRIS: Settles Marlboro Lights Class Action for $45MM
POMONA: Suit Over Confiscation of Homeless' Property Settled
POP WARNER: Parents Say Benefits of Football Outweigh Risks
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
PTT EXPLORATION: Seaweed Farmers File Class Action Over Oil Spill

PURE STORAGE: Faces "Moe" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
PURE STORAGE: Securities Class Action Suit Filed in Calif.
PVH CORPORATION: "Ramos" Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
QUENTIN MARKET: Faces "Campos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
REGIS CORP: Potential Breaches of Fiduciary Duty Probed

RENAMBA LLC: Faces Beebe Suit in New York Supreme Court
RJ REYNOLDS: Boynton Beach Man Loses Tobacco Case
SEAGATE: Staff Sue Over Phishing Data Breach
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE: "Tilton" Suit Cries Foul Over Proceedings
SELIP & STYLIANOU: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims

SEPHORA USA: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
SETERUS INC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Visceglie" Suit Claims
SDHI INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
STELLAR CONCEPTS: Settles Robocall Class Action
SUBARU: Settles Class Action Over B9 Tribeca Hood Latch Defect

TIME WARNER: Faces "Cunningham" Class Suit in C.D. California
TONY'S EXPRESS: Faces "Ortiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Court Dismisses Drivers' Class Action
UNION COUNTY: November 17 Hearing Date on $2.2MM Settlement
VICTORIA: Siermans' Parents Join Parole Group Action

VIRGIN AMERICA: Consumers Sue to Block Alaska Airlines' Merger
VITAS HEALTHCARE: Faces "Seper" Suit in California Super. Ct.
WECTEC ENTERPRISES: "Ashworth" Suit Moved to S.D. of Georgia
WEST VALLEY: Faces "Chavira" Class Action Suit in Calif. Ct.
WHITE PLAINS: "Sanders" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay

WINDTBERG & ZDANCEWICZ: Faces "Higginbotham" Suit in D. Ariz.
WINGS R US: Server Tips Class Action to Cleared to Proceed
WIRELESS ONE: "Echevarria" Suit Seeks Damages Over Erroneous Taxes


2013 VENTURE: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
Zacarias Ramirez, Carlos Rojas, David Soto, Hector Mauricio Mucito
Rivera, Sergio Melchor, Telesforo Rosas, Israel Valeriano, and
Luis Miguel Fernandez, on behalf of others similarly situated v.
2013 Venture Corp. d/b/a The Harold, Spiros Zisimatos, Nick
Vasilatos, and Angelo Zisimatos, Case No. 1:16-cv-07463 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 23, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards

2013 Venture Corp. is a licensed liquor authority in New York.

Zacarias Ramirez, Carlos Rojas, David Soto, Hector Mauricio Mucito
Rivera, Sergio Melchor, Telesforo Rosas, Israel Valeriano, and
Luis Miguel Fernandez are pro se plaintiffs.

ACUMEN FISCAL: Faces "Toney" Suit in Northern District of Georgia
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acumen Fiscal Agent,
LLC. The case is captioned Lucinta Toney, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Acumen
Fiscal Agent, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03619-RWS-JSA
(N.D. Ga., Sept. 27, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Richard W. Story.

Acumen Fiscal provides fiscal agent solutions for individuals with
disabilities and their families in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Jackson Cole, Esq.
          McRae Bertschi, LLC, Suite 200
          1350 Center Drive
          Dunwoody, GA 30338
          Telephone: (404) 688 2600
          Facsimile: (404) 525 4347
          E-mail: cjc@mcraebertschi.com

               - and -

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

ALABAMA: Faces "Thompson" Suit in Middle District of Florida
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the state of
Alabama. The case is captioned Treva Thompson, Melissa Swetnam,
Antwoine Giles, Anna Reynolds, Laura Corley, Larry Joe Newby,
Mario Dion Yow, Jennifer Zimmer, Timothy Lanier, and Pamela King,
individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, and
Greater Birmingham Ministries, the Plaintiffs, v. State of
Alabama; John H. Merrill, in his official capacity as Secretary of
State; George Noblin, in his official capacity as Chairman of the
Montgomery County Board of Registrars and on behalf of a class of
all voter registrars in the State of Alabama; Clifford Walker, in
his official capacity as Chairman of the Board of Pardons and
Paroles, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00783-CSC (M.D. Fla.,
Sept. 26, 2016). The Case is assigned to Hon. Judge Charles S.

Alabama is a southeastern U.S. state that's home to significant
landmarks from the American Civil Rights Movement.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Armand Derfner, Esq.
          P. O. Box 600
          Charleston, SC 29402
          Telephone: (803) 723 7436

               - and -

          James Uriah Blacksher, Esq.
          PO Box 636
          Birmingham, AL 35201
          Telephone: (205) 591 7238
          Facsimile: (866) 845 4395
          E-mail: jblacksher@ns.sympatico.ca

               - and -

          Joseph Mitchell McGuire, Esq.
          31 Clayton Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 517 1000
          Facsimile: (334) 517 1327
          E-mail: jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com

               - and -

          Pamela Karlan, Esq.
          Stanford Law School
          Nathan Abbott Way, Alvarado Row
          Stanford, CA 94305
          Telephone: (650) 725 4851

ALLIANZ LIFE: "Thompson" Sues Over Reduced Annuitization Payout
Debra J. Thompson, an individual, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v.
Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, a Minnesota
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01754, (C.D. Cal.,
September 21, 2016), seeks damages in the amount at which their
ultimate annuitization payout was reduced by application of the
Expense Recovery Adjustment.  The plaintiff also seeks pre-
judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs of suit,
attorneys' fees and such other relief for breach of contract.

Allianz is a privately held stock insurance corporation with
executive offices at 5701 Golden Hills Drive, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, 55416. It sells deferred annuities, developing,
marketing and selling an array of single-tier and two-tier
deferred annuity products. Allianz imposed lengthy surrender
charge periods with significant surrender charges on its single-
tier annuities and incorporated a severe forfeiture provision in
its two-tier annuities. Policyholders, including the Plaintiff,
lost the bonus, higher earned interest or index credits, and even
a portion of the premium.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ingrid M. Evans, Esq.
      Michael A. Levy, Esq.
      3053 Fillmore Street, #236
      San Francisco, CA 94123
      Telephone: (415) 441-8669
      Facsimile: (888) 891-4906
      Email: ingrid@evanslaw.com

ALLSTAFF MEDICAL: "Murphy" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
Lisa Murphy, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals and on behalf of the Proposed Rule 23 Class,
Plaintiff, v. Allstaff Medical Resources, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-02370 (D. Colo., September 20, 2016), seeks unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages and prejudgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred and such other
further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Colorado
Wage Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order Number 31.

Defendant is a Colorado corporation with its principal place of
business located at 3525 South Tamarac Drive, Suite 360, Denver,
CO 80237. It is a healthcare services company that provides its
customers with in-home personal care and management and/or
treatment of a variety of medical and nonmedical conditions.
Plaintiff worked as a caregiver for the Defendants. She claims to
be denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Tel: 248-355-0300

            - and -

      David H. Grounds, Esq.
      444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Tel: (612) 436-1800
      Email: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com

ANTHONY MANCINI: Judge Nixes Lawyer's 1st Amendment Defense
Dan Churney, writing for Cook Country Record, reports that a
Chicago federal judge has refused to dismiss a suit against a
Chicago personal injury lawyer, which alleges he violated a
federal drivers privacy law by buying traffic crash reports.
Nonetheless, the judge said he wants the lawyer to further explain
why the plaintiffs may lack standing under the law to pursue the
case at all.

The Sept. 7 ruling was issued by Judge Matthew Kennelly in the
U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois involving an action
brought by plaintiffs Antonio and Karen Pavone against Chicago
lawyer Anthony Mancini. The Pavone couple filed for a class action
suit in February 2015 against Mancini, claiming Mancini violated
the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act.

According to the Pavone couple, they and their minor son were in a
traffic accident in January 2015 in suburban Schaumburg. For
official purposes and as a matter of routine, police entered their
report of the crash -- containing personal information about the
Pavones -- into an online database maintained by iyeTek LLC, a
subsidiary of LexisNexis, an online information provider.
LexisNexis makes such reports available for sale to lawyers
looking for lawsuits. One such lawyer was Mancini, according to
the suit.

With the report allegedly in hand, Mancini sent a letter to the
Pavones about one week after the accident. Mancini told the couple
he wanted to represent them in any litigation or claims arising
from the accident. The letter included a copy of the police crash
report that contained the Pavones' personal information, according
to the Pavones' suit.

The Pavones said Mancini's letter left them "shocked and dismayed,
very concerned their personal information and that of their child
had been transmitted to someone they did not know and used to
solicit them for legal representation."

The Pavones said they believe "hundreds if not thousands" of
people have received similar solicitation letters. They want at
least $2,500 per member of the class action, as well as punitive

Mancini countered with a motion to dismiss the suit in May 2015.
He argued he did not breach the Drivers Privacy Protection Act,
because crash reports do not constitute "personal information" and
are not considered "motor vehicle records" as outlined by the
Drivers Privacy Protection Act. The motion was rejected by Judge
Kennelly in July 2015.

Mancini came back with a motion for summary judgment in November,
beefing up the arguments he used in the previous motion, but again
Kennelly shut them down. Mancini put forth a fresh argument that
the Privacy Protection Act could conflict with the U.S.
Constitution's right to free speech, as spelled out in the First
Amendment. Kennelly was not persuaded, saying there was no
evidence Mancini disseminated Pavone's private data to anyone
other than Pavone, so the First Amendment did not apply.
However, Kennelly left the door open for Mancini on the question
of standing. Mancini argued the Pavones had no standing to sue
under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, in light of the U.S.
Supreme Court's recent ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.

In the Spokeo case, Thomas Robins sued Spokeo, a consumer
reporting agency, alleging Spokeo provided inaccurate information
about him to a third party, violating the U.S. Fair Credit
Reporting Act. The Supreme Court ruled Robins needed to show he
suffered a "concrete" injury, not simply to allege a statutory

"Because this area of the law is still in development, the Court
believes that further briefing is required," Kennelly said.

As a consequence, Kennelly gave the Pavones until Sept. 21 to
submit a supplementary memorandum on the issue of standing, with
Mancini to reply to the memorandum by Sept. 28.

The Pavone couple are represented by Zamparo Law Group, of
suburban Hoffman Estates, and Francis & Mailman, of Philadelphia.
Mancini is defended by Chicago lawyer George E. Becker.

Antonio Pavone also has a putative class action pending against
the Georgia-based LexisNexis and iyeTek, as well as Meyerkord &
Meyerkord, a St. Louis-based personal injury firm. The Pavones
allege iyeTek also sold the crash information to the Meyerkord
firm, which then also contacted them about filing a lawsuit in
connection with the crash.

The judge in that case recently rejected an attempt by LexisNexis
to dismiss the action, saying Pavone should have the opportunity
to sue the company for allegedly illegally selling his crash
report and those of others.

AVENTURA, FL: Court Allows Red Light Camera Suit to Proceed
William Patrick, writing for Watchdog.org, reports that a federal
appeals court in Atlanta denied a red light camera refund worth
$200 million to Florida drivers. But the case is allowed to

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, overseeing
Florida, Georgia and Alabama, denied a ticket refund worth more
than $200 million. But it also denied the local governments'
request to dismiss the class-action lawsuit, thereby allowing it
to proceed.

A final decision won't happen anytime soon.

The case is under review at a lower federal court in Miami, where
the aggrieved drivers sued for a refund more than a year ago.
Lawyers for the cities and counties went to the 11th Circuit in
Atlanta in an attempt to undermine their claim.

Further complicating matters, a state appeals court ruling in July
found the city of Aventura's red light camera program was
perfectly fine. Aventura is a defendant in the class action suit.

The maze of legal proceedings will likely land in the Florida
Supreme Court, said Sheila Dunn, communications director for the
National Motorists Association. A ruling from the high court would
apply throughout the state.

"Our hope is that the state supreme court will find red light
cameras illegal," Dunn told Watchdog.org.

"If they're illegal, then the ill-gotten gains should certainly go
back to motorists," she said.

In 2014, the 4th District Court of Appeal invalidated the red
light camera program in Hollywood, Fla., for unlawfully delegating
police power to a red light camera vendor called American Traffic

The Arizona-based company, also a defendant in the class-action
lawsuit, was selectively determining which photos to send to
Hollywood's traffic enforcement office where the tickets were
effectively rubber-stamped.

"The tickets are void and should be dismissed," the court

The class action suit alleges other local governments operated
similar red light camera programs, and the ticket proceeds
resulted in "unjust enrichment."

But in July, Florida's 3rd District Court of Appeal determined
that the neighboring city of Aventura's program did not violate
the law.

"The question thus becomes whether the vendor's (American Traffic
Solutions') review in this case involves the exercise of
unfettered discretion. We hold that it does not," the court said.

Red light cameras are now illegal in Hollywood, but not several
miles away in Aventura.

Still reeling from the fiscal effects of the 2008 economic
downturn, state lawmakers authorized red light cameras in 2010,
with the express intent of improving public safety - but with the
added prospect of millions of dollars for state and local

The cameras have proved an unpopular source of revenue, while
providing little in the way of measurable safety improvements and
potentially contributing to an increase in traffic accidents.

According to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles,
3,453 traffic accidents occurred from 2011-2014 at red light
camera intersections before the cameras were installed.

Using comparable metrics, the department reported 3,959 accidents
occurred at the same intersections after cameras were installed --
an increase of 15 percent.

The number of rear-end collisions increased during the period by
10 percent. Crashes involving non-motorists rose 17 percent, and
crashes resulting in incapacitating injuries jumped 29 percent.

The department said an increase in the number of drivers during
the period may have contributed, but wouldn't account for the
entire 15 percent.

According to a legislative analysis, about $128 million in
citations is expected to be remitted to government coffers every

More than 936,000 tickets were issued in 2015, according to DHSMV.

Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor VehiclesThe revenue
is split between the state and the local government that issues
the citation. The city or county retains $75 for every $158 red
light camera ticket. The remaining $83 goes to the state.

By law, local governments must procure the services of a red light
camera vendor. The contract term generally ranges from three to
five years, and local governments typically pay between $4,250 and
$4,750 per camera, per month, according to the Office of Policy
Analysis and Governmental Accountability.

A Watchdog.org review of the state elections database found
American Traffic Solutions made 389 financial contributions since
2010, when red light cameras were legalized, totaling nearly $1.2
million. The recipients included the Florida Democratic Party, the
Republican Party of Florida, and a sizable number of legislators
from both parties.

"Everybody gets a cut," Chris Torres, a Tallahassee defense
attorney, said in an interview.

A state research survey of local governments that operate red
light camera programs found that 49 percent of the money collected
went to red light camera vendors.

About 80 percent of local government respondents reported excess
revenue after vendor payments and other program expenses. Nearly
all of the remaining revenue went into local general funds and to
law enforcement.

Sixteen percent of local red light camera programs struggle to
make vendor payments and lost money, according to the survey.

"They're in a lot of trouble if they have to give the money back,"
Torres said.

The 65 cities and counties named in the class action lawsuit
claimed a defense of "sovereign immunity" to avoid paying back the
ticketed motorists.

Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that states the government
is immune from civil or criminal prosecution.

Both federal courts denied the defense, stating that the legal
principle doesn't apply to "unlawful monetary extractions."

AZTEC PLUMBING: "Dietz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
Gary Dietz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Aztec Plumbing Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation
and Stephen Taub, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00716
(M.D. Fla., September 21, 2016), seeks recover unpaid overtime
wages, minimum wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Dietz worked for Aztec Plumbing as a technician. He claims to be
denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      Email: berkelaw@yahoo.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Tosses Collection Litigation Suit
Tim Bauer, writing for insideARM, reports that on Sept. 6 a
federal judge in Pennsylvania dismissed a proposed class action
against Bank of America over collection litigation on accounts
Bank of America had previously securitized.

The case, Willard v. Bank of America, et al. (Case No. 2:16-cv-
01199, United States District Court, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania) had been filed in March of this year.  insideARM had
written about the initial filing.

The very next day insideARM wrote another story regarding a
similar case that had been filed by the same attorney in 2014.
Background & Procedural History

On March 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a class action Complaint
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the
Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (PFCEUA), the
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Plaintiff also raised state law claims for unjust enrichment and
fraudulent misrepresentation.  Plaintiff sued Bank of America (B
of A), Bank of America Consumer Card Services (BACCS), BA Credit
Card Funding (Funding) (collectively the "Bank Defendants"),
Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC (BHLM), and 100 John

The summary allegations were that B of A had "engaged in a scheme
whereby they issue credit cards to consumers and, then seek to
collect the amounts allegedly due from each card holder's use of
the credit card, despite the fact that B of A has sold,
transferred, assigned or otherwise conveyed its beneficial
interest in each consumer's credit card account to a trust as part
of a financial transaction known as a credit card securitization.
Having relinquished its beneficial interest, B of A no longer has
a debt obligation owed to it by Plaintiff or the Class."

The complaint alleged very specific elements of the B of A "sale"
process from account creation through securitization; a process
that shows an account moving via "sale" from Bank of America to
Bank of America Consumer Credit Services to Bank of America
Funding LLC to Wilmington Trust Company.

The complaint then alleged:

"Wilmington Trust Company then underwrites a bond offering.  The
bonds are placed into tranches from senior debt to junior debt and
each tranche has a certain amount of assets.  Bank of America
Consumer Credit Services still services the account by sending out
bills and accepts payment, but Bank of America has given up
ownership rights as required to Wilmington Trust Company,
therefore Bank of America and its entities have given up its
rights to sue its cardholders when they default on their debt."

Finally, the complaint alleged:

"Despite the fact that Bank of America intentionally relinquished
its beneficial interest in Bank of America accounts, it has
continued to pursue, along with its affiliates and the defendant
law firms, collection lawsuits against Plaintiffs and members of
the Class to recover the obligations allegedly owed on the Bank of
America accounts."

On May 11, 2016, B of A filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint.
On May 18, 2016, BHLM moved for leave to join the motion.
Plaintiff then sought in an unopposed motion additional time "to
respond to the Motion to dismiss," which the Court granted.

However, on June 30, 2016, instead of filing a response to the
motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.  The
Amended Complaint is substantially the same as the original
Complaint.  Most of the changes represent argument against
assertions made by the Bank Defendants in their first motion to
dismiss and the addition of paragraphs concerning the filing of
UCC termination statements.  Plaintiff also adds a seventh count
for civil conspiracy, essentially alleging that numerous
organizations have engaged in the alleged scheme, including

In July and early August, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss
the Amended Complaint.  On August 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a
response to the motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  On
August 24, 2016, the Court held oral argument regarding the
pending motions.  Without leave from the court to do so, Plaintiff
then filed a supplemental response on August 28, 2016.

The Court's Memorandum and Opinion

The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno presided over the case.  He
issued a 14-page Memorandum.

The Defendants had argued in their motions to dismiss that the
Plaintiff's basic assumptions about the securitization process
were incorrect.  Judge Robreno agreed with the defendants that
"Plaintiff's premise is fundamentally flawed.  As a result, there
is no need for the Court to address the individual counts in the
Amended Complaint since they all stem from the erroneous

Judge Robreno then wrote:

"Plaintiff's first contention -- that B of A loses all interest in
the credit card account once it sells the receivables -- has been
raised previously by this Plaintiff's counsel and rejected by this
Court in a decision subsequently affirmed by the Third Circuit.
Scott v. Bank of America, et al, No. 13-987, 2013 WL 6164276 (E.D.
Pa. Nov. 21, 2013), aff'd, 580 F. App'x 56 (3d Cir. Nov. 3, 2014).
Moreover, every time this argument has arisen across the country,
it has been rejected.

The Bank Defendants argue that Plaintiff is relying on a flawed
theory that when creditors securitize receivables, they somehow
lose the ability to collect on the underlying debt.  They contend
that, as they explained in Scott, under the Pooling Agreement
which controls these sales, the Bank Defendants transfer eligible
credit card receivables to a trust, which then sells bonds backed
by those receivables.  So long as the accounts are in good
standing, their receivables remain in the trust.  However, if an
account falls into default and has all of its receivables charged
off as uncollectible, those receivables are immediately ejected
from the trust and sold back to Funding, which then sells them
back to B of A through BACCS.  As the Pooling Agreement makes
explicitly clear, the only items being sold to the trust are the
receivables, not the underlying accounts.  B of A maintains
ownership of the related credit card accounts and the right to
collect thereon throughout the entire process.

The identical argument, based on nearly identical facts was raised
in Scott by this Plaintiff's counsel. Judge Pratter in that case
recognized that "both mortgage and credit card cases[] have
rejected unequivocally the idea that securitizing receivables
changes the relationship between a debtor and a creditor." 2013 WL
6164276. She also noted that the Pooling Agreement controlling the
transactions made "clear that only receivables, not entire
accounts, are sold in the securitization process," citing Section
2.01, just as the Bank Defendants have argued in this case.
Ultimately Judge Pratter concluded that "Scott has not provided
the Court with adequate allegations or legal arguments to conclude
that the Bank Defendants violated any laws or contract provisions
in their handling of her account."

On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge
Pratter's decision holding that,

"Scott misapprehends the effect of securitizing a credit card
receivable. 'Credit card securitization involves the
securitization solely of the receivables, not of the accounts
themselves.'" Scott v. Bank of Am., 580 F. App'x 56, 57 (3d Cir.

This Court agrees with the analysis presented in these cases and
holds that Plaintiff's argument to the contrary is meritless."

Plaintiff also argued that B of A needed to of File a UCC
Termination Statement before removing the receivables from the
trust and that since that was not done, B of A did not have rights
to collect on the accounts.

Judge Robreno also rejected that argument.  He wrote:

"Plaintiff's arguments amount to a straw house built on the sand -
their foundations shift and are ultimately insubstantial.
Plaintiff admits that her theory regarding the necessity of a
termination statement is novel.  However, she provides no solid
authority from which to build her argument and instead spins only
gossamer allegations.

Plaintiff has failed to establish that before receivables
associated with a defaulted credit card account may be transferred
from a trust back to the bank that issued the card, the bank must
request that the trust issue a termination statement."

As a result of Plaintiff's flawed premise, the Amended Complaint
must be dismissed. Given this fundamental fault, any further
amendment to the Complaint would be futile.  As a result, the
Court will dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice."

insideARM Perspective

Three strikes and you are out? Plaintiff's attorney has now lost
this "securitization" argument three times; twice in the Scott
case, and now again in the Willard case.  Will there be an appeal
of this case? Will there be future lawsuits filed with a different
theory or in a different jurisdiction? insideARM will continue to
monitor the case and similar cases and report on future

BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Hassett" Suit in Arizona Over Data Breach
Hilda Hassett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Banner Health, Case No. 2:16-cv-03252-JJT (D. Ariz.,
September 23, 2016), is brought on behalf of all consumers whose
account and personal identifying information was stolen as a
result of the Banner data breach.

Banner Health is a nonprofit health care system, with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Maricopa County,

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark D. Samson, Esq.
      3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (602) 248-0088
      Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
      E-mail: msamson@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
      Amy N. L. Hanson, Esq.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com

BCA FINANCIAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
Estrellita Reyes, on behalf of herself others similarly situated
v. BCA Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-24077-JEM (S.D.
Fla., September 23, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

BCA Financial Services, Inc. operates a debt collection firm
located at 18001 Old Cutler Rd #462, Miami, FL 33157.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 826-5477
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

BRAIN STATE: Faces Financial Fraud Class Action in Arizona
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, The Higgins Firm, and
co-counsel filed a class action lawsuit in Arizona federal court
in September on behalf of Tennessee resident Polly Nelson alleging
claims including financial fraud and racketeering against Arizona
companies Brain State Technologies and Braintellect and individual
Lee Gerdes for illegally selling and fraudulently marketing "brain
optimization" business opportunities intended to alleviate
psychological problems.

"This case is about a scheme by Brain State to sell business
opportunities without disclosing that there was no realistic
possibility of buyers recouping their investment, let alone
earning a reasonable profit," said Ms. Nelson's attorney Ben
Miller of The Higgins Firm.  "The defendants in this case are
believed to have taken millions of dollars from unsuspecting
people who hoped to improve their lives and the lives of others by
operating independent, successful businesses."

Brain State and the other defendants market and sell licenses to
operate computer systems purporting to "balance and harmonize
brain waves."  As stated in the complaint, in what plaintiff
alleges is an attempt to circumvent Federal Trade Commission
disclosure requirements on franchises, the ventures require
investors to purchase a license costing $25,000 to $40,000 each,
and to pay monthly fees, often amounting to additional tens of
thousands of dollars over time.  The complaint further argues that
as a result of defendants' failure to disclose material facts
about those licenses -- which disclosures would have been mandated
under the various state and federal laws defendants avoided by
fraudulently claiming the ventures were licenses rather than
franchises -- buyers had no way of knowing there was no realistic
possibility of recouping their investments.

As further stated in the complaint, Brain State's activities
allegedly break numerous federal and state laws including
regulations by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act (RICO), and the
Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.

Ms. Nelson lives in Middle Tennessee and is represented by The
Higgins Firm PLLC, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Baggott Law PLLC, and Clausen & Williamson, PLLC.  The defendants
are Brain State Technologies, LLC, Braintellect, LLC, and founder
and CEO Lee Gerdes.  The lawsuit seeks class action status for
Ms. Nelson and all other similarly situated purchasers of business
opportunities from Brain State Technologies, Braintellect, and Lee

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Gluck" Suit in E.D. of New York
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services, L.P. The case is titled Deborah Gluck, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Capital Management Services, L.P., the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-05330 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2016),

Capital Management is a nationally licensed and recognized
collections agency, providing delinquent receivables resolution.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

CEMEX INC: Illegally Obtains Background Reports, Action Says
Teeka Masermsin, as an individual and as a representative of the
class v. Cemex, Inc., Case No. BC635157 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
September 23, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to provide required disclosures prior to procuring background
reports on applicants and employees.

Cemex, Inc. operates a building materials company located at 625
Lamar Street, Los Angeles, CA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephanie Tatar, Esq.
      3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
      Burbank, CA 91505
      Telephone: (323) 744-1146
      Facsimile: (888) 778-5695
      E-mail: stephanie@thetatarlawfmn.com

CENTRAL FLORIDA AUTO: "Perez" Suit Moved to M.D. Fla.
The class action lawsuit titled Dominique Perez, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Central
Florida Auto Wholesale Inc., doing business as Deal Time Cars &
Credit; Hudson Insurance Company; and Great American Insurance
Company, the Defendants, Case No. 2016-ca-7581-0, was removed from
Orange County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Orlando). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 6:16-cv-01696-GKS-TBS to the proceeding. The
Case is assigned to Hon. Senior Judge G. Kendall Sharp.

The Defendant sells cars and vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger D. Mason, II, Esq.
          Zachary A. Harrington, Esq.
          ROGER D. MASON, II, PA
          5135 W Cypress St., Suite 102
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 304 2131
          Facsimile: (813) 304 2136
          E-mail: rmason@flautolawyer.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John Philip Gaset, Esq.
          Robert E. Sickles, Esq.
          100 N Tampa St., Suite 3500
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 225 3020
          Facsimile: (813) 225 3039
          E-mail: jgaset@broadandcassel.com

CHEVRON CORP: Funding Agreement Still Hasn't Been Filed
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
plaintiff in a proposed class action brought over a gas explosion
off the coast of Nigeria has yet to reveal the identity of his
third-party funder.

On Aug. 5, Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted Chevron Corp.'s motion
requiring plaintiff Natta Iyela Gbarabe to produce his litigation
funding agreement.

During a case management hearing a week later, on Aug. 12, Illston
ordered the plaintiff to meet and confer in person regarding the
agreement and related documents.

So far, a copy of the funding agreement has not been filed with
the court, according to a recent search of the case docket.

Robert Mittelstaedt, of San Francisco-based Jones Day and lead
attorney for Chevron, couldn't immediately be reached for comment
on the agreement and when it might be made available to his

It has become commonplace for third party-funders to pay the owner
of a civil claim upfront in return for the claim owner's promise
to convey a portion of the potential recovery.

This brings tax advantages for both the third-party funders and
class action plaintiffs attorneys, allowing them to defer tax
liability on the monetary advancement until the claim pays off
while the funders deduct expenses and pay taxes on profit accrued
at the lower capital-gains rate. These agreements routinely are
entered confidentially.

But Illston said in her ruling in August that considering the
circumstances of the case, the litigation funding agreement was

"The confidentiality provision of the funding agreement does not
prohibit plaintiff from producing the agreement, and instead
simply states that 'if at any time such a requirement [to produce
the agreement] arises or to do so would be prudent... the lawyers
will promptly take all such steps as reasonably practicable to
make such disclosure. . ." the judge wrote in her seven-page

She noted that the plaintiff's proposal for an in camera review of
the agreement -- meaning a hearing would be held before the judge
in her private chambers -- is "inadequate."

"... it would deprive Chevron of the ability to make its own
assessment and arguments regarding the funding agreement and its
impact, if any, on plaintiff's ability to adequately represent the
class," Illston continued.

Chevron requested that the plaintiff produce documents "reflecting
or relating to the actual or potential financing or funding of the
prosecution of this litigation."

The oil giant contends that the funding agreement and related
documents are relevant to determining adequacy of representation
in the putative class action.

The company points out that the plaintiff does not dispute that
his counsel, who appear to be solo practitioners, are dependent on
outside funding to prosecute the case.

After initially refusing to produce the requested documents, the
plaintiff produced a heavily redacted copy of the funding
agreement. Chevron argued the redactions make it "impossible" to
assess whether counsel can commit "adequate resources" to the

On Jan. 16, 2012, an explosion occurred on the KS Endeavor
drilling rig, which was drilling for natural gas in the North Apoi
Field off of the coast of Nigeria. The explosion caused a fire
that burned for 46 days.

Gbarabe alleges that the KS Endeavor was operated by KS Drilling
under the management of Chevron Nigeria Limited, which, in turn,
acted at Chevron's direction.

Gbarabe is a fisherman who lives in a coastal community of Bayelsa
State in Nigeria who depends on fishing for his primary method of
earning a living.

He alleges he suffered financial and personal losses, including
health issues, as a result of the explosion.

He seeks to represent a class of individuals who live and work in
communities and co-operatives located in the Niger Delta region.

In an Aug. 26 order, Illston granted, in part, Chevron's motion
for an order compelling the plaintiff to comply with its discovery

The judge said the plaintiff shall provide "complete, verified
responses" to the company's interrogatories.

Documents were ordered to be produced and the privilege log and
interrogatory responses to be provided by no later than Sept. 9.

Another case management conference is set for Sept. 30.

CITRA SOLC: Ill. Citizen Files Class Action Over False Ads
A St. Clair County consumer is suing a multipurpose cleaner
manufacturer, alleging false, deceptive and unfair merchandising

Donna Biffar filed a class action lawsuit, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated citizens of Illinois, Aug.
23 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against Citra Solc LLC,
alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.

According to the complaint, Citra Solc took advantage of consumers
buying healthier products and represented that its products are
natural when, in fact, they contain synthetic substances. Biffar
claims she suffered financial damages for paying a premium price
for cleaners, detergents and soaps that were actually worth less.

Biffar seeks trial by jury, an order certifying this case as a
class action, appointing the plaintiff as class representative and
the plaintiff's counsel as class counsel, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, attorney fees, costs and all other relief.

She is represented by attorneys David C. Nelson of Nelson & Nelson
Attorneys at Law PC in Belleville, by Matthew H. Armstrong of
Armstrong Law Firm LLC in St. Louis, and by Stuart L. Cochran of
Cochran Law PLLC in Dallas.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-443

CONCORDIA INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Stanczyk" Class Action Lawsuit
Michael Abella, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
shareholder is suing a Canadian corporation and executives,
alleging material misrepresentations and omissions.

Chad Stanczyk filed a class action lawsuit, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Aug. 26 in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Concordia
International Corp., Mark Thompson and Adrian de Saldanha,
alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, due to the defendants' actions,
Stanczyk suffered significant economic losses and damages. The
plaintiff alleges the defendants misled the investing public by
trading at artificially inflated prices during the class period,
and failed to disclose the company was experiencing a substantial
increase in market competition and that it would be forced to
suspend its dividend.

Stanczyk seeks trial by jury, declaration this complaint is a
proper class action, compensatory damages, court costs and
expenses and all other relief the court deems just and proper. He
is represented by attorneys Jeremy A. Lieberman, J. Alexander Hood
II and Marc Gorrie of Pomerantz LLP in New York, by Patrick V.
Dahlstrom of Pomerantz LLP in Chicago, and by Michael Goldberg and
Brian Schall of Goldberg Law PC in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case
number 1:16-cv-06749

CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Faces "Tiernan" Suit in M.D. Tenn.
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental Service
Group, Inc. The case is titled Shawnda Tiernan, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Continental Service Group, Inc., also known as Conserve, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02601 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 27, 2016).
The case is assigned to Hon. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger.

Continental Service provides debt collection services to
creditors. It specializes in higher education receivables.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M. Kaludis, Esq.
          1230 Second Avenue S
          Nashville, TN 37210-4110
          Telephone: (615) 742 8020
          Facsimile: (615) 255 6037
          E-mail: bill@shieldlawgroup.com

DAILY PRESS: "Oard" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
The class action lawsuit titled Kirkland Oard, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Daily
Press, LLC, a California corporation, Local Media Group, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. CIVDS1516106, was removed from the San Bernardino
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The Central
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-02039 to the

Daily Press is a daily morning newspaper published in Newport
News, Virginia, which covers the lower and middle Peninsula of
Tidewater Virginia.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Court Hears Arguments on Subway Settlement
Jacob Gershman, writing for the Wall Street Journal, reports that
the recent controversy over the size of Subway subs drew much
attention to the issue of sandwich-consumer rights, culminating in
a class-action settlement.

But more than a year and a half after plaintiffs' lawyers and
Subway owner Doctor's Associates Inc. struck a deal to settle the
litigation, the case of the "footlong" isn't wrapped up.

On Sept. 8, a federal appeals court panel heard arguments on
whether the settlement gave too much dough to the lawyers without
benefiting Subway consumers.

As Law Blog previously reported, lawyers sued Subway after reports
surfaced in 2013 that the chain's signature "Footlong" didn't
measure up to its name.  In class-action complaints later
consolidated, the attorneys alleged that Subway deceived customers
by promoting a 12-inch sub that was really more like 11 inches.

A district court judge approved a deal that awarded $520,000 in
plaintiffs' attorney fees -- split among several firms -- and
"incentive awards" valued at $500 each to 10 named plaintiffs.

The agreement also came with injunctive relief: Subway agreed to
quality-control measures -- to "help ensure that the bread sold to
customers is either 6 or 12 inches long -- and to conduct regular
compliance inspections.

Arguing before the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Chicago is Competitive Enterprise Institute litigator Ted Frank, a
longtime critic of the class-action system who advocates on behalf
of unnamed class members in settlement agreements.

Mr. Frank says settlements, particularly in the consumer-fraud
arena, too often enrich plaintiffs' lawyers without benefiting the
plaintiffs they represent.  And he says the Subway settlement is a
prime example.

In a brief to the appeals court, he argues that Subway "had
already committed to fixing any problem with the lengths of its
sandwiches in January 2013," and he said there's "no evidence that
the litigation and settlement added anything to that."

He also contends that Doctor's Associates isn't even guaranteeing
that its subs would be 12 inches after baking.  "Thus, the only
beneficiaries of the case were class counsel and the class
representatives," wrote Mr. Frank, arguing that such an imbalance
legally requires the deal to be struck down.

A Doctor's Associates spokesman declined to comment.

Lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Stephen DeNittis and Thomas
Zimmerman Jr., defended the terms in court papers filed in
January.  They accused Mr. Frank of having a "biased ideology"
that presumes class actions are "part of an evil scheme to damage
our economy and stifle the progress of businesses as they strive
to make all our lives better."

Mr. Frank called the criticism an "extraordinary personal attack."

The three Seventh Circuit judges hearing the case are Diane Sykes,
Joel Flaum and Ilana Rovner.

Circuit Judge Diane Sykes . . . questioned the settlement itself,
saying "very few" sandwiches fell short of 12 inches, customers
could always ask for more food, and customers who already ate
"short" sandwiches would get no benefit . . .

Matthew De Re, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, countered that "there
was no 'selling out' here.  It was plaintiffs' counsel doing the
best they could with what turned out to be some 'bad facts.'"

DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: "Alan" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal to S.D. Fla.
The class action lawsuit titled Jason Alan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Doctor's Associates Inc., doing business as Subway; MCCAN INC.
doing business as Subway; Does, 1-10, inclusive, and each of them,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04945, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft
Lauderdale). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:16-cv-62300 to the proceeding.

Doctor's Associates owns and operates a chain of sandwich
restaurants in the United States and internationally. The company
offers various food and catering menus. It also provides franchise

DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM: Davis Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Ark.
The class action lawsuit titled Davis Neurology PA, on behalf of
itself and all other entities and persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. DoctorDirectory.com LLC; Everyday Health Inc.; and
John Does, 1-10, intending to refer to those persons, corporations
or other legal Entities that acted as agents, consultants,
Independent contractors or representatives, Case No. 58-cv-16-
00040, was removed from the Pope County Circuit Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00682-JM to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to Hon. Judge James M. Moody Jr.

DoctorDirectory is a marketing solutions company for pharma brand
teams and their advertising and market research.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex G. Streett, Esq.
          James A. Streett, Esq.
          STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
          107 West Main
          Russellville, AR 72801
          Telephone: (479) 968 2030
          E-mail: james@streettlaw.com

               - and -

          Joe P. Leniski, Esq.
          & JENNINGS PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37204
          Telephone: (615) 254 8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255 5419
          E-mail: jleniski@branstetterlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David A. Zetoony, Esq.
          Maria Z. Vathis, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          One Boulder Plaza
          1801 13th Street, Suite 300
          Boulder, CO 80302-5386
          Telephone: (303) 417 8530
          Facsimile: (303) 417 8330
          E-mail: david.zetoony@bryancave.com

ELECTION SYSTEMS: Faces "Provitola" Suit in N.D. of Florida
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Election Systems &
Software LLC. The case is entitled ANTHONY I PROVITOLA AS AN
Plaintiff, v. ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE LLC formerly known as
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00314-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla.,
Sept. 27, 2016). The Case is assigned to Hon. Judge Mark E Walker.

ES&S provides electronic voting machine products, services, and
supplies such as ballots to support elections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Provitola, Esq.
          1960 Hazen Rd
          Deland, FL 32720
          Telephone: (386) 734 5502
          Facsimile: (386) 736 3177
          E-mail: aprovitola@cfl.rr.com

ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Faces Securities Class Action in Colorado
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Sept. 8 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc.
("Envision Healthcare" or the "Company") in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of current
stock holders of Envision Healthcare, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on June
15, 2016, pursuant to which Envision Healthcare will be acquired
by AmSurg Corp. ("Parent") through Parent's wholly-owned
subsidiary, New Amethyst Corp. ("Merger Sub," and together with
Parent, "AmSurg").  On June 15, 2016, the Board caused Envision to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger
Agreement").  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
AmSurg will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Envision
common stock for 0.334 AmSurg shares per Envision share, in a
transaction valued at approximately $4.73 billion.  The Complaint
alleges that the Form S-4 Registration Statement omits material
information with respect to the proposed transaction, which
renders the Form S-4 Registration Statement false and misleading.

If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm.

F.H. CANN: Faces "Scanno" Suit in District of New Jersey
A class action lawsuit has been filed against F.H. CANN &
ASSOCIATES, INC. The case is captioned JOANNE SCANNO, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. F.H.
CANN & ASSOCIATES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-05943-
MCA-LDW (D.N.J., Sept. 26, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge Madeline C. Arleo.

F.H. Cann provides default prevention, debt collection and account
resolution solution for a wide range of industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507 6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com

FEI COMPANY: Nov. 7 Deadline Set to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a
securities class action has been filed on behalf of those who
purchased shares of FEI Company on May 26, 2016 in connection with
the with the acquisition of FEI by Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
and Polpis Merger Sub Co.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

FEI is an American company that designs, manufactures, and
supports microscope technology.

On May 27, 2016, FEI and Thermo Fisher revealed that they had
entered into a merger agreement in which FEI would be acquired by
Thermo Fisher.  FEI shareholders voted and approved the
Acquisition, and received $107.50 in cash for each share of FEI
common stock held.

The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and/or assisted and supported such breaches and violated
state and federal law in connection with the Acquisition.
Specifically, on June 24, 2016, in an attempt to secure
shareholder support for the Acquisition, defendants issued a
materially false and misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A (the "Proxy").  The Proxy suggested that FEI
shareholders vote for the Acquisition and omitted and/or
misrepresented material information about the unfair sales process
for the Company, the unfair consideration offered in the
Acquisition, and the actual inherent value of the Company on a
standalone basis and as a merger partner for Thermo Fisher in
contravention of Section14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and/or
defendants' fiduciary duty of disclosure under state law.

No Class has yet been certified in the action.  To discuss this
action, or for any questions, please visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/feicor contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com.
Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.  If you suffered a loss in
FEI, you have until November 7, 2016 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities

FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: "Kinalis" Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
The class action lawsuit titled Alexis Kinalis, individually and
on behalf of other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Fitness International, LLC, Louis Welch, and Todd McSeveney and/or
any other related entities or individuals, the Defendants, Case
No. 605990-2016, was removed from the County of Nassau Supreme
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York (Central Islip). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:16-cv-05353 to the proceeding.

Fitness International, LLC operates a health club chain in the
United States and Canada. It offers group fitness classes that
offer training such as aerobic basics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Alexander Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          1 Old Country Road
          Carles Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550
          Facsimile: (516) 747 5024
          E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark Wayne Robertson, Esq.
          Erin Piper Andrew, Esq.
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326 4329
          Facsimile: (212) 326 2061
          E-mail: mrobertson@omm.com

FRESNO, CA: Class Action Suit Filed Over Lead in Water
Residents of Northeast Fresno, California filed a class action
lawsuit on Sept. 9 in the California Superior Court for the County
of Fresno, alleging that the City of Fresno, California and
private contractors caused dangerous levels of lead and other
toxic substances to leach into their water supply. The lawsuit
asks for a jury trial.

The plaintiffs allege that in 2004, the City of Fresno changed the
residential water supply from groundwater to surface water despite
clear warnings from consultants that the change would alter the
water chemistry and result in pipe corrosion causing lead to
contaminate the city's drinking water.

Thousands of Northeast Fresno area residents were further affected
when, between 2008 and 2012, the city and its private contractors
installed water meters on properties, improperly connecting brass
meters to galvanized piping. The brass to galvanized piping
connection violated industry standards, accelerating corrosion of
pipes that increased the risk of contamination by lead and other
hazardous metals.

Esther Berezofsky, attorney with the national environmental law
firm Williams Cuker Berezofsky represents residents filing the
class action: "The city and other responsible government agencies
were negligent in their duty to properly monitor water, report
results of water quality testing to the State as required, and
ensure its residents receive safe drinking water."

Berezofsky was lead counsel in the New Jersey water contamination
cancer cluster portrayed in the Pulitzer prize- winning book "Toms
River: A Story of Science and Salvation" by Dan Fagin and
represents plaintiffs in Flint, Michigan, Hoosick Falls, New York,
Warminster, PA and other communities experiencing environmental

Williams Cuker Berezofsky is co-counsel in the lawsuit with
California law firms Boucher LLP in Woodland Hills and the
Valencia law firm of Owen, Patterson & Owen, LLP.

Ray Boucher, of Boucher LLP, says residents of Northeast Fresno
have been seriously impacted by the shortcuts and pure negligence
of the City of Fresno and other governmental agencies and their
contractors. Boucher has previously handled corrosive pipe cases
and other complex contamination cases, including his
representation of plaintiffs in the In re Galvanized Steel Pipe
Litigation, a class action involving defective galvanized pipes on
behalf of Santa Clarita, CA residents.

According to the court filing, when complaints of discolored water
first surfaced from the community -- beginning as early as 2004 --
the city and other governmental agencies ignored them. Instead of
investigating and finding a solution, the City of Fresno assured
residents that their water was safe. Yet, the city failed to test
the water and ignored its responsibility to report the complaints
to the State Water Resources Board as required.

The EPA standard for lead in water is 15 parts per billion (ppb).
According to city testing, forty percent of Fresno homes tested
had water that exceeded the acceptable level. The EPA says lead
exposure, especially in children, can lead to damage of the
nervous system, hyperactivity, lower IQ, learning disabilities,
impaired hearing and anemia. In rare cases, exposure to lead in
water can cause seizures, coma and potentially death. Pregnant
women and their unborn children are also at risk for "slow or low
growth" of the baby or premature birth.

Diminished home values are also a concern. In court documents, the
residents allege lead contamination has substantially decreased
the value of their homes, diminishing their residential investment
and making it difficult to sell their property. They have
sustained other economic damages as well, including replumbing
their homes and paying the city for contaminated water while
purchasing bottled water for drinking, cooking and bathing.

On behalf of tens of thousands of affected Northeast Fresno, CA
residents, the class action complaint asks the court to require
the city to solve the water treatment plant problems, and abide by
its duties to residents to, among other things, provide clean and
safe water.

The class action also names as defendants the City of Fresno's
Department of Public Utilities, and private contractors retained
by the city.

The case is Micheli et al. v. City of Fresno, County of Fresno, CA
Superior Court Case No. 16CECG02937.

About Williams Cuker Berezofsky

Williams Cuker Berezofsky is committed to protecting citizens
affected by environmental toxic contamination at home and work.
The firm's attorneys also represent clients in  product liability,
civil rights, consumer protection, and abusive or predatory
lending practices.

Founded in 1985 with offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and
Cherry Hill, New Jersey, the firm represents clients regionally
and nationally. Contact the firm at 215-557-0099, 856-667-0500 and

GENERAL MILLS: Faces Another Class Action Over Nature Valley Bars
Christopher Maynard, writing for Consumer Affairs, reports that
General Mills is in some hot water due to allegations that its
Nature Valley products aren't as natural as they claim to be.

Consumer Yusenia Nuez has filed a class-action suit against the
company on the grounds that it deceptively advertises Nature
Valley bars as being "Made with 100% Natural Whole-Grain Oats."

Nuez says the claims are false because the products actually
contain a chemical called glyphosate, a powerful herbicide that
the suit alleges to be a probable carcinogen, human endocrine
disrupter, and danger to consumers.

"Across all Nature Valley products, General Mills conceals the
presence of glyphosate, fails to disclose of the presence of
glyphosate, and fails to disclose to consumers about the harmful
effects of ingesting glyphosate," the suit charges.

Not so natural
This isn't the first lawsuit that General Mills has faced over
glyphosate. In August, three non-profit organizations sued the
company on similar grounds of deceptive labeling, marketing, and
sale. The Organic Consumers Association, Moms Across America, and
Beyond Pesticides filed a joint suit saying that General Mills was
in violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection
Procedures Act.

The suit alleged that an outside laboratory had found .45 parts
per million (ppm) of glyphosate in Nature Valley products. While
the reading may seem infinitesimal to some, the groups point out
that a product that claims to be "natural" should not contain any
foreign substances.

"As a mother, when I read '100% natural,' I would expect that to
mean no synthetic or toxic chemicals at all," said Zen Honeycutt,
executive director and founder of Moms Across America.

In response, General Mills has stood strong against its critics
and the integrity of its products. "We stand behind our products
and the accuracy of our labels," said Mike Siemienas, manager of
brand media relations, of the suit.

HAFFLER CORP: "Koschara" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
Kathy Koschara, on behalf of herself all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Haffler Corp., Comfort Keepers of
Pittsford and Donna Haffler, Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-06641
(W.D. N.Y., September 20, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, experts' fees and costs of
suit, pre and post judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Haffler operates as Comfort Keepers of Pittsford, a homecare
services agency owned and operated by Donna Haffler, with address
at 1163 Pittsford-Victor Road, Suite 215, Pittsford, New York.
Plaintiff worked as a Home Health Aid and claims to have been
denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cordello, Esq.
      693 East Avenue, Suite 220
      Rochester, NY 14607
      Tel: (585) 857-9684
      Email: justin@cordellolaw.com

             - and -

      Robert Mullin, Esq.
      7635 Main St.
      Fisher, NY 14453
      Tel: (585) 869-0210
      Email: rmullin@ferrmullinlaw.com

HERSHEY COMPANY: "Huppert" Sues Over Under-filled Packaging
Christopher Huppert, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Hershey Company, Defendant, Case No.
7:16-cv-07338, (S.D. N.Y., September 20, 2016), seeks treble
damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees under the New York
General Business Law.

Huppert purchased "Classic Bags" of Hershey's Kisses Milk
Chocolate with Almonds or Hershey's Kisses Cookies 'N' Creme
manufactured and/or marketed by The Hershey Company. He alleges
that the packaging contains less than 12 ounces net weight of
product, contrary to the label.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
      Robert J. Berg, Esq.
      2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
      White Plains, NY 10604
      Tel: (914) 331-0100
      Email: jcarton@denleacarton.com

HUNTINGTON BANK: Suit Over Discriminatory Account Closures Settled
Hassan Khalifeh, writing for The Arab American News, reports that
the strife of thousands of Arab Americans being discriminated
against by government entities since 9/11, as well as by some
Trump-inspired individuals, is nothing new to the immigrant

Recently, cases of banks abruptly closing the accounts of their
Arab Americans customers without explanation have begun to surface
in district courts.

Financial institutions like Chase, Bank of America and Huntington
are seeing their days in court as local small business owners,
doctors and educators who have banked with them for decades have
stepped up to -- at least -- demand an explanation.

Most of these cases have been dismissed or have concluded in favor
of the banks, which reject allegations of discriminatory
practices, as in the recent trial involving Bank of America and
Life for Relief and Development, a charity organization ran by
Middle Easterners.

However, few trials involving account closures have come as far as
a class action lawsuit against Huntington National Bank, a case
brewing for more than two years.

Settlement negotiations begun between Huntington and the more than
20 plaintiffs representing hundreds of victims.

The talks signal a victory for thousands of Arab Americans whose
accounts were closed and an implied acknowledgment of
discrimination by the bank, said Nabih Ayad, the plaintiffs'
lawyer and executive director of the Arab American Civil Rights
League (ACRL).

                          About the case

In October 2013, Ali El-Hallani and Mark Manuaeel filed a class
action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of
Michigan, alleging the decision to close their accounts in March
of that year were based on their ethnicity and religion.  As
Mr. Ayad took the case, thousands of complaints from Arab
Americans nationwide flooded both his offices and those of the

The case was dismissed in the District Court by then Chief Judge
Gerald Rosen in 2014.  After Mr. Ayad re-filed it a few more
times, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati
reversed Judge Rosen's decision on the basis of a plausible case
of discrimination.

Along with a wave of complaints to ACRL's hotline from thousands
of Arabs Americans of varying religious backgrounds,
Hussein Dabaja, a former Huntington Bank manager in Dearborn,
testified that while working at the branch from 2008 to 2009, the
bank's headquarters would send a quarterly list of Arab-owned
business accounts to be closed.

During that time, the employee estimated more than 200 account
closures took place.

The Court of Appeals stated Mr. Dabaja's affidavit "supports an
inference that race may have been a factor in these account

Mr. Ayad said the Dearborn Huntington branch is one of the most
profitable in the state.  Its victims include gas station and
party store owners, doctors and engineers -- even a 5-year-old

"They are benefiting and profiting from this community, yet they
are harassing, intimidating and discriminating against this
community," he said.

Dennis Lormel, a former long-time FBI special agent focused on
anti-terrorism financing, who served as Bank of America's expert
in court, told The AANews that banks often close the accounts of
businesses and organizations that work in "high risk" countries
known for terrorism or transnational crime, more often than they
close individuals' accounts.

Mr. Lormel explained that terrorist groups have historically
benefited financially from charity organizations.

In the wake of 9/11, the U.S. began cracking down on these groups.
In 2009, five leaders of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and
Development, a Texas charity, were sentenced to up to 65 years in
prison for funneling more than $12 million in material support to

A year later, a Sudanese American was convicted in federal court
for using the Islamic American Relief Agency, a Missouri-based
charity, to donate more than $1 million dollars to Iraq, violating
U.S. economic sanctions against the country.  The charity director
conspired with a designated global terrorist living in Jordan.


Mr. Lormel added that banks employ a "de-risking" method to weed
out funds provided to terrorist groups through a charity front.
"A lot of institutions decide the risk is not worth the reward in
maintaining those accounts," he said.

In the case of Life for Relief vs. Bank of America, a jury decided
the bank was justified in closing the account, partly because the
charity had multiple accounts with different banks.

For Life, having multiple accounts was a safety net in case one
was closed, as had happened in the past.

However, Mr. Lormel said the bank only saw only a fraction of
Life's activity, raising money-laundering concerns.  The bank does
not see a full picture, so there is a lack of transparency.
He added that legally, the bank is justified in closing the
account, although he said such action might be unfair.

                    "When in doubt, close"

Mr. Lormel said the discriminatory practice of closing the
accounts arise from a lack of leadership between federal financial
regulators and the banks.  Essentially, regulators give banks the
upper hand in determining what is a risk, and whether to "err on
the side of omission" rather than keeping businesses as customers.
Consequently, the banks are under the impression that the
regulators would penalize them if they keep these accounts open,
he added.

Mr. Ayad said the banks' decisions to close thousands of Arab
Americans' accounts transcend perceived risk and that they are
"painting with a very wide brush."

He related the closures to wide-spread instances of bigotry where
African Americans walk into shops, only to be kicked out due to
fear of theft.

To him, saying "when in doubt, close" is like saying "when in
doubt, do not rent a home to an African American or a Mexican."
"These are financial institutions, not national security
institutions," Mr. Ayad said.  "If banks act as our national
security, then they're in the wrong field."

He added that the plaintiffs' hold clean financial records with no
late fees and have not dealt with international wire transfers.
Mr. Ayad said a possible settlement involving multiple plaintiffs
and a large financial institution on the basis of alleged
discrimination is a major feat in the battle for Arab Americans'
civil rights.

"Justice is never given, you have to fight for it," he said.

INSMED INCORPORATED: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
Lundin Law PC announced on Sept. 10, 2016, a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Insmed Incorporated concerning possible
violations of federal securities laws between March 18, 2013 and
June 8, 2016. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
during the Class Period should contact the Firm in advance of the
September 13, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian
Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him
at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the action. Until a class is
certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You
may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Insmed
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: the data on which Insmed's European marketing authorization
application relied for its lead product candidate for the
treatment of NTM lung disease, Arikayce, was not likely to support
approval by the European Medicines Agency ("EMA"); Arikayce's
approval by the EMA for the treatment of NTM lung disease and
subsequent commercialization in Europe were thus less likely than
the Company had led investors to believe; and as a result,
Insmed's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

Lundin Law PC was established by Brian Lundin, a securities
litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding
shareholders' rights.

KFC CORP: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of Florida
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KFC CORPORATION. The
case is captioned ANDRES GOMEZ, on his own and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KFC
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-24115-UU (S.D. Fla.,
Sep. 26, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Ursula Ungaro.

KFC Corporation is the largest fast-food chicken operator,
developer, and franchiser in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jaci R. Mattocks, Esq.
          MARK D. COHEN, P.A.
          4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 435 So.
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 962 1166
          E-mail: markdcohenpa@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          JESSICA L.KERR, P.A.
          4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 435-South
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 962 1166
          Facsimile: (954) 962 1779
          E-mail: service@jmadvocacygroup.com

LG ELECTRONICS: Former Employee Sues Over Alleged Hiring Deal
Georgia Wells, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that a
former sales manager for LG Electronics Inc. in California filed
suit against LG and Samsung Electronics Co., claiming the two
Korea-based companies have an agreement not to recruit each
other's Silicon Valley employees, which has the effect of
suppressing wages.

In the suit, filed on Sept. 9 in U.S. District Court in San
Francisco, the former employee, identified as A. Frost, said the
agreement extends to the "highest levels" of the two companies.

Mr. Frost said in the suit that he learned of the alleged
agreement in 2013 when a recruiter contacted him on LinkedIn to
fill a position with Samsung. Later the same day, according to the
suit, the recruiter told Mr. Frost, "I made a mistake! I'm not
supposed to poach LG for Samsung!!! Sorry! The two companies have
an agreement that they won't steal each other's employees."

The suit seeks class-action status on behalf of all LG and Samsung
employees in California.

Both LG and Samsung declined to comment.

Allegations of anti-poaching agreements have embroiled other
Silicon Valley tech companies. The U.S. Justice Department in 2010
settled civil charges that six big tech companies--including Apple
Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp. and Adobe Systems Inc.--had
violated antitrust law by agreeing not to hire each other's
employees. The companies didn't admit wrongdoing or pay fines.

In 2015, Apple, Intel, Adobe and Google, now part of Alphabet
Inc., agreed to pay 64,000 current and former workers $415 million
to settle a class-action lawsuit around the same allegations. The
companies denied wrongdoing.

Mr. Frost's lawyer, Joseph Saveri, was one of the lawyers for the
workers in the earlier class-action suit. He didn't respond to a
request for comment.

MADISON COUNTY: No Longer Liable in Bathon Class-Action Suit
Elizabeth Donald, writing for BelleVille News-Democrat, reports
that only the people directly involved in the bid-rigging scheme
of former Madison County Treasurer Fred Bathon will be on the hook
for reimbursing people who were cheated, an appeals court has

The 5th District Appellate Court in Mount Vernon has ruled that
Madison County will be removed as a defendant from a class-action
lawsuit brought by people who were defrauded in a scheme to rig
the bidding process for delinquent property taxes under Bathon's
tenure as treasurer.

Bathon served 18 months in federal prison for rigging Madison
County tax auctions at the highest interest rates to benefit the
tax buyers, some of whom also went to prison. Several people who
lost money or property to the scheme filed a class-action lawsuit
against the county and many others, including Bathon, in an
attempt to recoup their losses.

Among the defendants was Madison County itself, which would have
required that taxpayer money would be spent to reimburse the
victims. That was applauded by current Treasurer Kurt Prenzler,
who is running for county board chairman opposite incumbent
Chairman Alan Dunstan, who opposed it.

"Only the criminal co-conspirators who profited from this
conspiracy, several of whom served prison sentences for this
crime, should be made responsible for restitution to the victims,"
Dunstan said. "Taxpayers should not have to pay the bill for
corruption by tax buyers and their co-conspirator, the former
treasurer. With this decision by the court, Madison County
officials again have been exonerated of any liability and we now
have saved taxpayers from having to potentially pay millions of
dollars in damages."

Prenzler said he believes the county should pay the victims first,
and then seek reimbursement from Bathon and his co-conspirators.

"It's been more than 10 years since the first crooked tax sale,"
Prenzler said. "The victims lost more than $4 million - and that
doesn't count those who lost their homes - and they have not
received one dollar in restitution. Those swindled were struggling
families who could not pay their taxes on time. This scheme to
benefit Democrat campaign contributors preyed on the weak. My goal
has always been to see that these people receive restitution."

Dunstan said he believes using taxpayer money to repay Bathon's
victims would have been "reckless" and "a jackpot for the

"Had we followed Mr. Prenzler's plan, Madison County taxpayers
would have, in effect, been paying for the corruption in the
treasurer's office when the blame and responsibility for
restitution belongs to the criminal co-conspirators who secretly
rigged the tax sales. Obviously, the court agrees," Dunstan said.
"The Appellate Court confirmed what we have been saying since this
case was initially filed, the parties directly involved in this
criminal conspiracy are responsible, and not Madison County
government, or its public officials, nor the citizens of Madison

Bathon's scheme forced 10,000 Madison County property owners into
paying excessive interest rates and penalties from 2005-09 on
delinquent taxes. Bathon pleaded guilty in January 2014 to a
federal bid-rigging charge and was sentenced to 30 months in
prison, of which he served 18 months.

Taxbuyers John Vassen, Scott McLean and Barrett Rochman were
sentenced to terms ranging from 16 months to two years at a
minimum security federal prison camp. The guilty pleas and
subsequent lawsuits occurred more than three years after an
investigative series by the Belleville News-Democrat exposed
Bathon's scheme.

Prenzler has previously argued that the county could put the money
saved from Bathon's pension - which he lost as a result of his
felony conviction - with other funds to pay for the lawsuit. But
Madison County State's Attorney Tom Gibbons has said such use of
those funds is illegal.

A year ago, the appellate court allowed the case to become a class
action, and included Madison County as a defendant. However, they
left a window for the county to pursue removal as a separate
appeal, Gibbons said.

"The best thing is that the taxpayers aren't on the hook here,"
Gibbons said. "We have established what we've said all along: the
responsibility does not lie with taxpayers. Don Weber and these
attorneys are trying to make money off the taxpayers when there's
a group of people clearly responsible for this, who went to prison
for it. I expected and hoped the court would rule this way."

Gibbons said the case will now move forward against Bathon and the
tax buyers, though the plaintiffs could appeal to the Illinois
Supreme Court. However, he said he believes the appellate court's
ruling was well-argued. "I'm confident this decision will stand,"
he said.

Weber, who represents the plaintiffs, is a political ally of
Prenzler. He said he is now "only marginally involved" in the
case, but criticized Gibbons and the county for fighting the
class-action suit.

"I think the county needs to take some action to make sure these
criminals don't get to keep the $4-5 million they stole," Weber
said. "I thought (Gibbons) should have directed his efforts toward
recovering the money . . . the county should have been pursuing
the criminal defendants all along."

MASTERCARD: Stoke-on-Trent Residents Could be getting GBP300
Becky_Loton, writing for The Sentinel, reports that it was
revealed on Sept. 9 that every British adult could be entitled to
a payout because a lawsuit against Mastercard.

Former financial services ombudsman Walter Merricks filed a class
action lawsuit against the company.

He said: "MasterCard charged billions of pounds of unlawfully high
fees for its sole benefit and to the detriment of consumers."

MasterCard has said it "firmly disagrees" with the basis of the

If the claim goes through, everyone should all get about GBP300 --
regardless of whether they are a customer or not.

Sound too good to be true? We explain what's going on . . .

Why and when does everyone get the cash?

Everyone over the age of 18 will get the payout, as the case is on
behalf of everyone in Britain -- not just MasterCard customers --
who bought anything between 1992 and 2008.

The only downside is, exactly how people will get the money hasn't
been worked out, because this is the first case of its kind

The case is expected to be heard by the Competition Appeal
Tribunal, but the case isn't expected to be decided until 2018.

If it's decided against MasterCard, anyone who bought things in
the UK between 1992 and 2008 will be eligible to claim their share
-- although probably not until 2020.

What did Mastercard do?

MasterCard charges shops and businesses "interchange fees" when
people buy products from them using its cards - they're the reason
many places have "minimum card spends".

Card providers use these fees to fund perks like cashback card
deals, Air Miles and more to attract customers, among other

But in in 2014 the European Court of Justice declared that such
fees were a violation of EU antitrust rules.

On April 29 last year the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union adopted the Interchange Fee Regulation, and
caps of 0.2% for debit cards and 0.3% for credit cards came into
effect on December 9.

Previously MasterCard -- as well as other card providers --
charged fees far higher than this, and that's what led to the

The case against them

The lawsuit claims MasterCard set unlawfully high interchange fees
for 16 years.

These were then passed on to consumers in the form of inflated
prices for goods and services.

Merricks argues the total damage caused to UK consumers could be
as much as GBP14 billion, meaning hundreds of pounds for each

"My aim is to get the redress to which UK consumers are entitled
and to ensure that MasterCard cannot hold on to the illegal
profits it made," he said when the law suit was announced.

What do Mastercard say?

Mastercard made it clear that it firmly disagrees with this.

"Now that the claim has been filed, we will take time to review it
in detail, however we continue to firmly disagree with the basis
of this claim and we intend to oppose it vigorously," MasterCard

"We deliver real value through the benefits of security,
convenience and consumer protection, and we are committed to
investing in our payment services in order to continue to meet the
rapidly evolving needs of all our customers."

MEDICAL & FINANCIAL: Faces "Cala" Suit in S.D. of Florida
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical & Financial
Management, Inc. The case is entitled Dinoisio Cala, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff. v.
Medical & Financial Management, Inc., a Florida Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-14423-RLR (S.D. Fla., Sept. 26, 2016).
The Case is assigned to Hon. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.

The Defendant is a privately held company offering medical and
financial Management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sovathary K. Jacobson, Esq.
          Desmond Law Firm, P.C.
          5070 A1A Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 34963
          Telephone: (772) 231 9600
          Facsimile: (772) 231 0300
          E-mail: jacobson@verobeachlegal.com

               - and -

          Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
          5070 N. Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 234 5150
          Facsimile: (772) 234 5231
          E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com

MITSUBISHI CEMENT: "Caveness" Alleges Racism, Seeks Reinstatement
In the case captioned Vontrae Caveness, an individual Plaintiff,
v. Mitsubishi Cement Corporation, a California corporation,
Derrick Couse, an individual and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC834348 (S.D. Tex., September 19, 2016),
the plaintiff seeks on his own behalf, on behalf of those
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, full
restitution and disgorgement of all employment compensation
wrongfully withheld, as necessary and according to proof, to
restore any and all monies withheld, acquired, or converted by the
Defendant by means of its unfair and unlawful business practices.
The restitution and disgorgement requested includes all wages
earned and unpaid, or otherwise promised as a term of employment,
including interest.

The suit also seeks general damages, including back pay, front pay
and other monetary relief, special damages resulting from mental
and emotional distress, prejudgment interest on all monetary
damages, reinstatement of Plaintiff to his former position with
all salary, benefits, compensation and promotional opportunities,
exemplary and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, waiting time
penalties and such other and further relief under the California
Labor Code.

Plaintiff was allegedly subjected to racial discrimination in the
workplace where he worked as a laborer. He claims to be denied
equal opportunity rights due to his being an African American.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian I. Vogel, Esq.
      572 E. Green Street, Suite 305
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Tel: (626) 796-7470

NATIONS RECOVERY: Faces "Weingarten" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nations Recovery
Center, Inc. The case is captioned Rosaline Weingarten, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Nations Recovery Center, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-05372 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 27, 2016).

The Defendant is a collection agency company.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

NATIONS TITLE: Faces Class Action Over Telemarketing Calls
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a Laguna Hills man has filed a class-action suit against a
title insurance company over its alleged telemarketing calls.

Brock Meintel filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on Sept. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Nations Title Co. of California and
Does 1 through 10 citing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that beginning
in June, he received calls from the defendant in an attempt to
solicit its services despite his number being registered on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry. The plaintiff holds Nations Title
Co. of California and Does 1 through 10 responsible because the
defendants allegedly called plaintiff several times to promote or
sell its services to him using an automatic dialing system.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks statutory
damages, treble damages, and any other relief as the court deems
just. He is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Adrian R. Bacon and
Meghan E. George of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in Woodland

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 8:16-cv-01661-JVS-KES

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Judge Okays $12.1MM Class Action Settlement
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago federal judge has approved a $12.1 million class action
settlement against a national mortgage company, which allegedly
made improper automated phone calls to collect debts, in which
each class member gets $45 and attorneys pocket $3.1 million -
even as attorneys had wanted $600,000 more.

The Aug. 29 decision was rendered by Judge Edmond Chang in U.S.
District Court for Northern Illinois.

In December 2014, eight plaintiffs filed a class action suit
against Nationstar Mortgage, claiming the company broached the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Nationstar, which is
based in Lewisville, Texas, provides mortgages and services loans
from other mortgage companies.

Plaintiffs alleged Nationstar made unsolicited, prerecorded debt
collection phone calls to their cellular phones, using an
automated dialing system, without their consent.  There were 2.3
million people who potentially received the calls.  After the suit
was lodged, plaintiffs sent notices of the suit, with claim forms,
to those who may have received the calls; as of April, 147,476
claims were returned and entered.

In April 2016, parties reached a settlement agreement in which
Nationstar would set up a $12.1 million fund, from which each
member of the class action would be paid about $45.  The fund
would also cover administration costs, as well as $3.7 million in
fees for plaintiffs' attorneys.  The $3.7 million figure
represented 36 percent of the estimated amount remaining in the
fund after the other payouts.

Attorney fees of 30 percent are a "baseline" standard for such
settlements, but the attorneys wanted an extra 6 percent, because
of the added risk they said they faced in agreeing to handle the
case.  However, Judge Chang refused to approve the six percent,
saying the risk was already included in the 30 percent contingency

"The 30 percent baseline appropriately reflects the market rate in
this case," Judge Chang observed.

The eight plaintiffs who brought the suit each asked for a $5,000
"incentive award," in addition to their $45, for their efforts in
getting the case off the ground.  Judge Chang found this request
"reasonable," saying such awards are necessary to induce
plaintiffs to initiate class actions.

In approving the settlement, Judge Chang said success for
plaintiffs was far from assured, with continued proceedings likely
to be lengthy and expensive.  In this regard, Judge Chang quoted
an unnamed Nationstar defense attorney, who said, "If this case
doesn't settle, this litigation will be a war."

Judge Chang noted one hurdle for plaintiffs would have been the
issue of consent.  Nationstar could have contended participants in
the class action agreed to be called by Nationstar, when they
listed their cell phone numbers on loan applications or associated
papers.  This argument would not only have served as a viable
defense, but would also have presented "significant manageability
obstacles" to plaintiffs, as "individualized" inquiries would have
had to be made to clarify the "scope of consent," Judge Chang

Complicating matters, some participants provided phone numbers on
forms for other lenders -- with wording different than that of
Nationstar -- which Nationstar serviced, adding more knots for
lawyers to untie.  Judge Chang said that as a consequence, the
case could have become "unwieldy" to pursue as a class action.

Another challenge to plaintiffs, in Judge Chang's view, would have
been whether Nationstar's phone system was an auto dialing system
as defined in the Telephone Consumers Protection Act.
Judge Chang said the question figures in a pending appeal in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which could
narrow the definition to such a degree that Nationstar's system
could fall outside it.

Plaintiffs were represented by the following counsel: Edelson
P.C., of Chicago; Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, of Miami;
Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, of New York; Landskroner, Grieco &
Merriman, of Cleveland; Douglas J. Campion Law Office, of San
Diego; Wick, Phillips, Gould & Martin, of Fort Worth, Texas; and
Law Offices of Michael P. Sousa, of San Diego.

Nationstar was defended by the firm of Reed Smith LLP, which is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Penn., with an office in Chicago.

NOODLES & COMPANY: SELCO Files Class Action Over Data Breach
Robert Abel, writing for SC Magazine, reports that Oregon credit
union SELCO Community Credit Union accused Noodles & Company of
failing to implement or maintain adequate data security measures
for customer information despite highly publicized breaches at
large national retailers and restaurant chains, according to court
documents filed in a class action lawsuit on Sept. 6.

The suit, filed on behalf of other financial institutions that
were affected by a breach that hit the restaurant chain in January
2016, claimed that revenue was lost when the financial
institutions were forced to replace cards, stop payments, block
transactions, and refunding fraudulent charges among other costs
attributed as a result of the breach.

Noodles & Company announced the breach in a June 28 press release
and said customers that used payment cards at the affected
locations between January 31, 2016 and June 2, 2016 may have had
their information compromised.

NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Antitrust Class Action Not time Barred
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
NorthShore University Health System will need to continue to
defend itself against a class action antitrust lawsuit, after a
federal judge ruled a group of patients and health insurers were
not years too late in bringing their legal action over
NorthShore's decision to allegedly jack up its rates nearly 16
years ago following its acquisition of Highland Park Hospital.

On Sept. 9, U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang refused to grant
Evanston-based NorthShore's request for summary judgment, saying
he believed the lawsuit was not precluded by the statute of
limitations, the clock for which would not have started ticking
until the plaintiffs were first handed higher bills from

"As far as the Class could tell as of January 1, 2000, NorthShore
was touting that the merger was only going to benefit consumers,
(Managed Care Organizations), and the communities that the three
hospitals served," Chang wrote. "And here, class members could not
have discovered that they suffered any injury as a result of the
merger until they knew that NorthShore had illegally overcharged
them for its healthcare services."

The dispute over NorthShore's acquisition of Highland Park
Hospital has been long running, ever since the system formerly
known as Evanston Northwestern Healthcare formally completed its
merger with what was then its newest member suburban hospital.

In the years since, NorthShore has taken on its current brand and
moniker, and acquired Skokie Hospital, bringing its current total
to four, along with its Evanston and Glenbrook hospitals.
NorthShore is also currently in the process of merging with
Downers Grove-based health care services giant Advocate. That
merger has been challenged by federal regulators in federal court
on antitrust grounds, and the case remains pending with the U.S.
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, after a federal judge sided with
NorthShore and Advocate in that case.

In 2004, however, the Federal Trade Commission also responded to
NorthShore's Highland Park acquisition with an administrative
complaint alleging NorthShore's acquisition violated federal
antitrust law by all but eliminating competition in that region,
allowing it to sharply increase prices. The FTC found in 2007 that
the merger did indeed violate antitrust rules.

Immediately after the FTC wrapped up its proceedings on the
matter, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit, alleging patients
and insurers were forced to pay more than should have, if market
competition had been maintained, as required by federal law. The
insurers noted that, while NorthShore had notified them of the
merger as early as 1999, at no time did NorthShore indicate it
intended to raise prices following the merger. They asserted
NorthShore had instead led them to believe they would continue to
work under their previous fee schedules and payment agreements.

However, shortly after the merger, NorthShore moved to renegotiate
those agreements and schedules, driving up prices. According to
published reports, insurers were forced to pay substantially more.
The reports said an expert testified that Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Illinois, for instance, paid $110 million more after the merger
for equivalent services.

NorthShore has moved several times to dismiss the case or secure
summary judgment in its favor. However, each time those motions
have been denied.

A plaintiffs' class was formally certified in the action in
December 2013.

In its most recent motion for summary judgment, NorthShore asked
the court to find the plaintiffs' claims were time barred, because
NorthShore said the clock on the four-year statute of limitations
should have begun rolling at the time the plaintiffs first became
aware of the merger, or when the merger was completed -- meaning
the statute of limitations would have expired before the FTC
launched its action against the merger in 2004.

The judge, however, sided with the plaintiffs, who argued the
statute of limitations should have begun at the time NorthShore
first raised its post-merger rates, and then should have been
paused, or "tolled," while the FTC action continued. Thus, even
though they filed suit seven years after the merger was completed,
the judge said he believed federal precedent, established by the
U.S. Supreme Court, would come down on the side of the plaintiffs
in this case.

"Because NorthShore instituted a supracompetitive pricing policy
after February 10, 2000- again, four years before the FTC brought
its action-and because the merger made that policy possible, the
Class's Section 7 claim based on that policy can go forward,"
Chang wrote.

Named plaintiffs in the case include Amit Berkowitz, Steven
Messner and Painters District Council No. 30 Health & Welfare
Fund. They are represented by the firms of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz; Miller Law LLC; and Grant Eisenhofer, each of
Chicago; and attorneys David Balto, of Washington, D.C.,  and Mary
Jane Fait, of Chicago.

NorthShore is defended by the firm of Winston & Strawn, of

PHILIP MORRIS: Settles Marlboro Lights Class Action for $45MM
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a $45
million settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
against Philip Morris USA accusing the cigarette maker of
deceiving consumers.

The class plaintiffs, among other things, alleged Philip Morris
deceived them by advertising Marlboro Lights as being safer and
having less tar and nicotine than other cigarettes.

According to a Pulaski County Circuit Court news release,
Philip Morris denies the allegations in the lawsuit. The court has
not decided who is right.

The deal includes all persons who purchased Marlboro Light or
Marlboro Ultra Light cigarettes in the state of Arkansas for
personal consumption from Nov. 1, 1971 through June 22, 2010.

Class benefits include the $45 million settlement fund, which will
be used to make payments to class members and for the cost of
administration of the settlement, attorneys' fees and litigation
costs, and class representative fees.

The Thrash Law Firm of Little Rock, Houston firm Williams Kherkher
Hart Boundas LLP, Lovelace and Associates PA of Destin, Fla., and
Provost Umphrey Law Firm LLP of Beaumont, Texas, have been
appointed class counsel.

The firms will make their requests for fees with the court.

Payments will be made to class members who file valid claims and
will be calculated as follows:

   -- Ten cents per pack for each pack purchased between Nov. 1,
1971 and April 17, 1998;

   -- Twenty-five cents per pack for each pack purchased between
April 18, 1998 and April 18, 2003; and

   -- Ten cents per pack for each pack purchased between April 19,
2003 and June 22, 2010.

The final value of each claim may be adjusted depending on the
number of claims filed.

The plaintiffs claim the litigation has afforded other,
non-monetary benefits, including the removal of Marlboro Lights
and Marlboro Ultra Lights from the market.

Class members can file a claim online, download a claim form from
the website or call a toll-free number and ask that a form be
mailed to them.

Claims must be filed online no later than midnight Central Time
Dec. 1.  Forms sent by mail must be postmarked on or before
Dec. 1.

Those class members who do not want to be legally bound by the
settlement must exclude themselves by Nov. 1.  Class members also
may object to the settlement by Nov. 1.

A court hearing is scheduled for Nov. 21 to consider whether to
approve the settlement.

Last year, the Arkansas Supreme Court was forced to weigh in on
whether the class action could proceed.

The state's high court, in its Feb. 26, 2015 ruling, upheld the
Pulaski Circuit Court's decision certifying the class action.

The circuit court certified the plaintiffs' class action against
Philip Morris based on the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Philip Morris appealed the class certification.

The cigarette maker, in its appeal to the high court, argued that
each element of the plaintiffs' ADTPA claim -- misrepresentation,
causation and damages -- contained "overriding" individual issues
that destroy predominance.

"We conclude that proof of misrepresentation does not turn on each
class member's smoking habit because the key inquiry under the
ADTPA focuses on the defendant's actions," Associate Justice
Rhonda K. Wood wrote for the state Supreme Court.  "We further
conclude that any individual issues regarding causation and
damages can be addressed, if necessary, using the bifurcated

"And we agree that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion
when it reached the same conclusion: 'The other issues raised by
[Philip Morris] in an attempt to negate predominance are
downstream of the common, predominate threshold allegation of the
plaintiffs: that Marlboro Lights, as designed, manufactured,
advertised and sold, were misrepresented.'"

Simply put, the class action is a "superior" method to adjudicate
at least some parts of the plaintiffs' cause of action, the court
said in its 6-1 decision.

POMONA: Suit Over Confiscation of Homeless' Property Settled
Doug Smith, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that homeless
residents of Pomona will be provided storage for their property
and will be allowed to sleep in public spaces until shelter beds
exist for all of them, following the settlement of a lawsuit
challenging the city's practice of homeless cleanups.

In the settlement reached with the pro bono law firm Public
Counsel, the city agreed to build 388 lockers for the property of
homeless people and to stop enforcing three laws that prohibit
tents, personal property and overnight sleeping on public

Enforcement of the overnight sleeping ban could resume once
sufficient accommodations exist, either in indoor shelters or open
spaces designated for overnight stays.

Both sides praised the agreement as a win for the city and its
homeless population and as a model for cities struggling to
balance their health and safety measures with the moral and legal
restraints on homeless crackdowns.

Across California, laws that criminalize homeless people continue
to be enacted and enforced, despite constitutional challenges that
are gaining weight in the courts, according to a June study by the
Berkeley Law Policy Advocacy Clinic at UC Berkeley. The authors
found that all of California's 58 largest cities have laws that
target homeless people by restricting standing, sitting and
sleeping in public places.

"So many lack sufficient shelter options and yet have these 'anti-
homeless' ordinances that penalize the homeless for doing what
they simply have to do to survive," said Christina Giorgio, Public
Counsel's attorney in the case.

The city of Santa Ana on Sept. 6 declared a health and safety
crisis and voted to increase policing and enforcement of a growing
homeless encampment in Civic Center.

By contrast, the Pomona City Council is scheduled in September to
approve construction of the lockers for its homeless population
and to declare a "shelter crisis," allowing public facilities to
be used as shelters.

The Pomona agreement "stops the practice of ticketing folks for
camping and sleeping in public when those being ticketed don't
have a choice but to sleep where they are because there are not
housing options for them," Giorgio said.

From the city's viewpoint, the settlement preserves its power to
remove permanent dwellers from public places if they have another
place to sleep.

"The ultimate goal is to get people off the streets," said
Assistant City Atty. Andrew L. Jared. "You can't shackle someone
and force them to go somewhere. At the same time the police powers
of zoning do not allow people to sleep and live in public areas."

Though the agreement does not require the city to provide more
shelters, Jared said the lawsuit only spurred efforts already

Within a month the city will roll out a proposal for an open-air
accommodation, Jared said.

"People would be able to roll up their beds in that location," he
said. "It would be managed. It wouldn't be a tent city. There
would not be the lawlessness that occurs in other places where the
city turns people out on a vacant lot."

More conventional solutions are also in the works.

The City Council has approved a shelter zone where a Christian
organization hopes to open a 48-bed shelter this fall.

Mayor Elliott Rothman said the city is looking at opening a year-
round shelter in a state-owned armory building, which has recently
been used as a winter shelter.

Public Counsel filed the class-action lawsuit in March, alleging
that the constitutional rights of homeless people were being
violated by city officials who confiscated and destroyed their

The 15-point Pomona settlement goes beyond the issues in the
lawsuit by addressing the thorny topic of overnight camping.

Enforcement must stop until there are more shelter beds in the
city than the unsheltered population in the most current count by
the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. The 2016 count found

The settlement parallels a similar legal battle in Los Angeles a
decade ago. A federal appeals court ruled that L.A.'s practice of
arresting and ticketing homeless people for sleeping in public was
a violation of the 8th Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual
punishment because these residents had no other place to spend the

The ruling in what became known as the Jones case was vacated
following a settlement in which L.A. agreed to stop enforcing its
no-overnight-camping ordinance and to provide storage space.

Since then, the U.S. Department of Justice has called on federal
courts to adopt the reasoning in the Jones case, but cities often
sidestep the issue by enacting bans that cover only specific times
of day or locations, said Jeffrey Selbin, director of the Berkeley

The Pomona settlement showed an unusual spirit of compromise.

The plaintiffs, for example, agreed that the city could continue
enforcement at two railroad underpasses acknowledged to be drug

"Our clients were in support of the city's request on this,"
Giorgio said. "I've toured these areas. On Reservoir Street it's
very problematic."

Giorgio praised the city for agreeing to provide individual
lockable storage, unlike the trash cans used in Los Angeles.

"Having lockers you have access to is a better way to go," she

In addition to a 120-gallon limit on property, the agreement
allows bicycles, walkers, wheelchairs and an important item:
collected recyclables.

"People will say they see that as trash," she said. "It's currency
for many people working in that trade."

The settlement requires the city to pay $49,000 in damages to be
distributed among the 15 named plaintiffs and no more than
$160,000 in attorney fees.

POP WARNER: Parents Say Benefits of Football Outweigh Risks
Lynette Adams, writing for WHEC, reports that the most popular
sport in America is seeing less young players taking part.  But
one local youth organization says it's bucking the trend.

For one group in the city, enrollment is going up while it's
falling nationwide.  Parents told us football is about more than
just field goals and games -- it's about the future.

The coaches for the Northeast Bulldogs say enrollment has been
steady at around 120 boys -- some as young as five.
Shasee Johnson grew up in Pop Warner and now coaches his son in
the league.

"I like the things they do in Pop Warner and they teach him so
much -- important things you need in life," says Mr. Johnson,
"Like getting a job, having structure in their life."

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pop Warner, claiming
the organization knowingly put players in danger by ignoring the
risks of head trauma.  Jimmie Session has been coaching kids since
1984 and says the Bulldogs have had few injuries in those 30-plus

"You put your shoulder pads on, hit and wrap," says Coach Session.
"Bring your man down, but a lot of coaches just don't care how
people tackle as long as they get the man to the ground."

Coach Sessions says it's about the fundamentals of football.  "We
very rarely have serious injuries here because we teach the basics
on how to tackle in the proper position."

The class action lawsuit was filed by mothers of two deceased
former football players and signals youth football could be next
front in the legal battle against concussions.  Tenieka Stokes has
three sons in Pop Warner. A total of five of them have played in
the league.

"I'd rather have my kids on the football field where I can see
them," says Ms. Stokes, "Versus on the street where I can't see
them and they're doing something harmful to somebody else."

The two young men at the center of this class action lawsuit
played football as youngsters and were found after they died to
have a chronic neurological condition linked to repeated head

PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
Debbie Nicolaides, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No.
2:16-cv-05300 (E.D.N.Y., September 23, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. operates a credit reporting firm
located at 439 Oak St, Garden City, NY 11530.

Debbie Nicolaides is a pro se plaintiff.

PTT EXPLORATION: Seaweed Farmers File Class Action Over Oil Spill
Rebecca Henschke, writing for BBC News, reports that more than
13,000 Indonesian seaweed farmers have launched a massive class
action in Australia's federal court demanding compensation for the
effects of Australia's worst oil spill.

In August 2009 there was a huge explosion at an oil well in
Australian waters in the Timor Sea. The well was run by a
subsidiary of the state-owned Thai oil firm, PTT Exploration and
Production Public Company (PTTEP).

For more than 10 weeks enough oil to fill 10 Olympic-sized
swimming pools spewed into the sea.

Indonesian seaweed farmers on Rote Island, 250km (155 miles) away
from the well, say the disaster devastated their livelihood.
The BBC's Rebecca Henschke travelled to Rote Island to hear the
stories of the people involved.

The seaweed farmers

Indonesia is one of the largest seaweed producers in the world.
When Daniel Sanda moved from fishing into the industry he started
earning more money than he had ever dreamed about.

In the years between 2001 and 2008 he was harvesting about 14
tonnes of seaweed a year and earning about 20,000 Australian
dollars (GBP11,400; US$15,000) annually -- a huge amount of money
in terms of the island's economy.

It meant he could save and send his children to university,
something unthinkable a generation ago.

But in September 2009 Daniel Sanda says something went very wrong.
"I had never seen anything like it. The colour of the water was
like a rainbow. I didn't understand what was going on. The
seaweed, too, had changed colour. There were dead fish, too many
to count."

He says for the next four years all the seaweed they planted died.
"We felt cheated and robbed of our ability to continue to pay for
our children's education," he says.

The lawyers

Australian lawyers are seeking about A$200m for the loss of income
that farmers like Daniel Sanda suffered as a result of the oil

"It is a lot of money," says lawyer Greg Phelps, "but there are a
lot of seaweed farmers and these seaweed farmers, for the first
time in their existence, had businesses with returns as much as
A$30,000 a year for a big seaweed farmer. That is considerable
wealth in the terms of this economy."

Mr Phelps decided to take on the case after travelling to Rote
Island and hearing the seaweed farmers' stories.

"The eyewitness testimony is very strong," he says.

"The more we looked into it the more compelling the case became
and it was apparent that a very large area was affected by an
extraordinary level of pollution."

Lawyers are suing PTTEP Australasia, a subsidiary of PTTEP. The
class action is being paid for by Harbour Litigation Funding
Limited -- one of the largest litigation funders in the world.

The company

PTTEP Australasia declined to give an interview to the BBC but in
a statement said it had paid for "the largest independent
scientific research program ever undertaken into the Timor Sea
environment", which showed that no oil from the spill reached the
shores of Indonesia.

It also said that the research showed "no lasting impact on the
highly sensitive and biodiverse ecosystems in the areas closest to
Indonesian waters".

However, the company told the BBC that none of its research or
testing was done in Indonesian waters or around Rote, after it
failed to reach an agreement with the Indonesian government for a

But it said: "We are confident the results of these independent
studies would stand up to the highest scrutiny, as would our
assertion that it is reasonable to extrapolate from the studies
that, if the reefs closest to Montara -- where the oil and
dispersant concentrations were at their greatest -- did not show
lasting impacts, then it is highly improbable that the seas and
coastline of Nusa Tenggara Timor would have been impacted."

The activist

Indonesian activist Ferdi Tanoni has spent years fruitlessly
lobbying both the Indonesian and Australian governments as well as
the company to fund a proper environmental assessment of the

For him, the fact that the case is now in court is a victory.

"It's a long-time struggle," he says. "But we are no longer alone.
The seaweed farmers now have allies all over the world. I do
believe in the justice system in Australia.

"That's why I want to take this to an Australian court. The truth
will win no matter how long the fight is."

Lawyers are warning that the case could drag on for months or even

PURE STORAGE: Faces "Moe" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
Loren Moe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pure Storage, Inc., Scott Dietzen, Timothy Riitters,
John Colgrove, Mike Speiser, Aneel Bhusri, Mark Garrett, Anita M.
Sands, Frank Slootman, Michelangelo Volpi, Greylock XIII Limited
Partnership, Greylock XIII-A Limited Partnership, Greylock XIII GP
LLC, Greylock XIII Principals LLC, Sutter Hill Ventures, Redpoint
Associates IV, LLC, Redpoint Ventures IV, L.P., Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Barclays Capital Inc., Allen &
Company LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated,
Pacific Crest Securities, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company,
Incorporated, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Evercore Group
LLC, Case No. 16-cv-01555 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 23, 2016),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Pure Storage, Inc. is a software-driven storage technology located
at 650 Castro Street, Suite 400 Mountain View, California 94041.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com

PURE STORAGE: Securities Class Action Suit Filed in Calif.
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announced on
Sept. 12 that it filed a class action lawsuit on September 1,
2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California County of
San Mateo on behalf of the shareholders who purchased shares of
Pure Storage during its initial public offering ("IPO") on
October 7, 2015. The complaint seeks remedies under the Securities
Act of 1933.

Pure Storage is Accused of Disseminating a False and Misleading
Registration Statement

On May 15, 2015, Pure Storage filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") its Registration statement on Form S-
1, which after some amendments in response to comments received
from the SEC, was used for the IPO. On October 7, 2015, Pure
Storage filed with the SEC the final prospectus for the IPO, and
sold 28.75 million shares of Pure Storage common stock to the
investing public at $17.00 per share, raising a total of $488.75

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement was
negligently prepared and contained untrue statements of material
facts or omitted other facts necessary to make the statements not
misleading. Specifically, Pure Storage failed to disclose and
misrepresented that at the time of the IPO: (i) its sales
personnel had aggressively pulled sales forward into the quarters
prior to the IPO, resulting in reduced sales in the quarters
ending after its IPO; (ii) general trends in the IT market, as
well as Pure Storage's own historical sales trends, demonstrated
that its first quarter 2017 sales growth for the quarter ending
April 30, 2016, would be significantly lower than prior quarters;
and (iii) its concomitant increases in sales and marketing and
general and administrative expenses were not one-time expenses
attributable to increasing the size of its sales force and sales
footprint, but would continue in perpetuity.

If you purchased Pure Storage stock during the IPO on October 7,
2015, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning your rights or interests, please contact attorney
Darnell R. Donahue of Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the
shareholder information form on our website, or by e-mail at

Robbins Arroyo LLP, a nationally recognized leader in the area of
shareholder rights litigation, represents individual and
institutional investors in securities class action lawsuits and
shareholder derivative actions. Robbins Arroyo LLP has helped its
clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and
the companies in which they have invested. Past results do not
guarantee similar outcomes. For more information about the firm,
please go to http://www.robbinsarroyo.com.

PVH CORPORATION: "Ramos" Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
The class action lawsuit captioned Maria Ramos, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. PVH Corporation, Case
No. 3:16-cv-04131, was removed from the District of California
Northern to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-
02258-JAM-KJN to the proceeding.

PVH Corporation is a clothing company which owns brands such as
Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, IZOD, and Arrow.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gene Joseph Stonebarger, Esq.
      Richard David Lambert, Esq.
      75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
      Folsom, CA 95630
      Telephone: (916) 235-7140
      Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
      E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com

         - and -

      Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
      Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq.
      3436 N. Verdugo Rd., Suite 230
      Glendale, CA 91208
      Telephone: (213) 473-1900
      Facsimile: (213) 473-1919
      E-mail: tak@kearneylittlefield.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Lary Alan Rappaport, Esq.
      Ronald A. Valenzuela, Esq.
      2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 557-2900
      Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
      E-mail: lrappaport@proskauer.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey H. Warshafsky, Esq.
      11 Times Square
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 969-3241
      E-mail: jwarshafsky@proskauer.com

         - and -

      Lawrence L. Weinstein, Esq.
      1585 Broadway
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 969-3240
      Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
      E-mail: lweinstein@proskauer.com

QUENTIN MARKET: Faces "Campos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
Ricardo Perez Campos, Gerardo Gonzalez, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Quentin Market Corp.
d/b/a Quentin Market, Won Ke Lee, Sean Oh, and Susan Jong Lee,
Case No. 1:16-cv-05303 (E.D.N.Y., September 23, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a supermarket located at 3404
Quentin Rd, Brooklyn, NY.

Ricardo Perez Campos and Gerardo Gonzalez are pro se plaintiffs.

REGIS CORP: Potential Breaches of Fiduciary Duty Probed
Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP, a class action law firm dedicated
to representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating a
potential breach of fiduciary duty claim involving the board of
directors of Regis Corporation (NYSE: RGS).

If you are a shareholder of Regis Corporation and are interested
in obtaining additional information regarding this investigation,
free of charge, please visit us at:


You may also contact Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. either via email at
rl@pjlfirm.com or by telephone at 212-725-1000.  One of our
attorneys will personally speak with you about the case at no cost
or obligation.

Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP is a law firm exclusively committed
to representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty and other types of
corporate misconduct. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://pjlfirm.com.

RENAMBA LLC: Faces Beebe Suit in New York Supreme Court
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Renamba LLC. The
THROUGH JOHN DOE 10, JOHN DOE, the Defendant, Case No. 61493/2016
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sep. 26, 2016).

Renamba LLC is a developer registered at Nassau county.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          9650 Brewerton Rd,
          Brewerton, NY 13029
          Telephone: (315) 676 7314

The Defendant is represented by:

          100 Madison St No. 1600,
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: (315) 474 6448

               - and -

          KEANE & BEANE, P.C.
          445 Hamilton Ave., 15th Fl.
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 946 4777

RJ REYNOLDS: Boynton Beach Man Loses Tobacco Case
Jane Musgrave, writing for myPalmBeachPost, reports that a 70-
year-old suburban Boynton Beach man lost a legal battle to get
cigarette giant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. to pay for health
problems he suffers after decades of smoking.

In a verdict, a Palm Beach County Circuit Court jury rejected
John Hackimer's claims for millions in damages for the emphysema
he suffers.  After deliberating for less than two hours after a
weeks-long trial, the jury found Mr. Hackimer should have known
before May 5, 1990 that his health problems were related to

The finding barred Mr. Hackimer from collecting damages from the
cigarette-maker.  His case was among thousands statewide that grew
out of a 1994 Miami-Dade County class-action suit Dr. Howard Engle
filed against tobacco companies on behalf of smokers and their

Under the terms set by the courts, to be part of the class,
smokers' health problems had to surface between May 5, 1990 and
November 21, 1996.  Because Mr. Hackimer's ills appeared earlier,
according to the jury, he couldn't be part of the class.

The Florida Supreme Court in 2006 threw out a $145 billion verdict
against cigarette-makers in the Engle class-action lawsuit.  It
ruled that each individual smoker or their families must prove
their unique damages at separate trials.

Since then, more than 100 cases have gone to trial statewide.
About two-thirds of the verdicts have been in favor of smokers or
their families, according to records kept by the Tobacco Products
Liability Project Northeastern University School of Law in Boston.
Thousands of cases are awaiting trial.

SEAGATE: Staff Sue Over Phishing Data Breach
Charlie Osborne, writing for ZDNet, reports that Seagate is trying
to fend off a lawsuit brought against the company by its own
employees after falling for a phishing scam which exposed the
sensitive data of staff.

The electronics maker is the focus of a class-action lawsuit,
originally filed in July through the Northern California District
Court, which accuses Seagate of malpractice and a lack of regard
for employees affected by the negligent handling of data.

In March this year, Seagate HR was duped into handing over W-2
forms and the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
company's current and past employees.

These documents are used by the IRS to calculate tax and contain
Social Security numbers, wage and salary information, tax already
paid, and other valuable information which can be used by scammers
to commit identity fraud.

The operators behind the phishing campaign pretended to be Seagate
CEO Stephen Luczo while requesting the 2015 forms, which were then
willingly handed over by an unsuspecting member of human

It is believed that data belonging to roughly 10,000 current and
past employees' data was exposed -- as well as anyone named in the
W-2 documents, such as family members or beneficiaries.

As noted by The Register, the lawsuit (.PDF) alleges that Seagate
was negligent and implements "unfair" business practices due to
poor handling of employee data and how the company then handled
the data leak.

It is still not known who the threat actors behind the phishing
campaign are, however, the complaint says that the group "almost
immediately" exploited the stolen data by filing fraudulent
federal and state tax returns on behalf of employees and third-
party victims. In some cases, joint claims were filed on behalf of
staff and their wives or husbands.

"In order for the cybercriminals to have obtained employees'
spouse's Social Security numbers, Seagate would have had to have
disclosed more than just the Form W-2 data for employees," the
complaint reads. "Seagate would have to have disclosed additional
information, such as retirement fund or insurance beneficiary
information that contained the PII of third parties."

"No one can know what else the cybercriminals will do with the
employees' and third-party victims' PII. However, the employees
and third-party victims are now, and for the rest of their lives
will be, at a heightened risk of identity theft," the complaint

Seagate informed staff members of the data breach three days after
the event, but many did not receive any kind of warning until a
week later, by which point many had "already [become] the victims
of identity theft."

In an email to employees on March 4, Seagate's chief financial
officer allegedly took responsibility for the breach, saying that
the data leak "was caused by human error and lack of vigilance,
and could have been prevented," according to the complaint.

The class-action suit says that Seagate has offered little in the
way of restitution beyond credit monitoring, which some employees
already have.

The lawsuit asks for a trial by jury, as well as damages and out-
of-pocket expenses caused by identity theft to be paid to both
employees and third-party victims.

Seagate, however, disputes the claims and wants the lawsuit
dismissed. The company says that the complainants cannot hold
Seagate responsible for the damage caused by the scammers and for
the lawsuit to hold merit, they "must actually allege facts that
show they are entitled to relief from Seagate."

Seagate told ZDNet that the company does not comment on active

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE: "Tilton" Suit Cries Foul Over Proceedings
In the case captioned Lynn Tilton, Patriarch Partners, LLC,
Patriarch Partners VIII, LLC, Patriarch Partners XIV, LLC, and
Patriarch Partners XV, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07048, (S.D, Fla.,
September 10, 2016), the Plaintiffs seek an injunction enjoining
the SEC from proceeding against Plaintiffs (and other similarly
situated individuals) in administrative proceedings and from
otherwise violating Plaintiffs' due process and equal protection
rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Patriarch Partners, LLC is a Delaware LLC with principal place of
business in New York County, New York. Ms. Tilton, through an
affiliated entity, owns Patriarch Partners, LLC, which is a family
office investment firm focused on restructuring and rebuilding
distressed American companies.

The SEC alleges that Plaintiffs improperly received fees from
distressed debt investment funds structured as collateral loan
obligations. The funds' financial statements were allegedly not
compliant with generally accepted accounting principles. Plaintiff
accuses the SEC of depriving them of procedural due process.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randy M. Mastro, Esq.
      Lawrence J. Zweifach, Esq.
      Lisa H. Rubin, Esq.
      200 Park Avenue
      New York, NY 10166-0193
      Telephone: 212.351.4000
      Facsimile: 212.351.4035
      Email: rmastro@gibsondunn.com

             - and -

      Susan E. Brune, Esq.
      BRUNE LAW P.C.
      450 Park Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Email: sbrune@brunelaw.com

SELIP & STYLIANOU: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
Shmuel Zitronenbaum, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Selip & Stylianou, LLP f/k/a Cohen &
Slamowitz, LLP, Case No. 1:16-cv-05297 (E.D.N.Y., September 23,
2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Selip & Stylianou, LLP is a law firm located at 199 Crossways Park
Dr, Woodbury, NY 11797.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SEPHORA USA: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
Lacey Hernandez and Brenda Morales, Plaintiffs, v. Sephora USA,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05392 (N.D. Cal., September 20,
2016), seeks unpaid wages at overtime rates, and any other actual,
consequential, liquidated and incidental losses and damages, and
attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings her claims on behalf of herself and the
national collective and California classes.

Hernandez and Morales were employed by Sephora as a cashier and
sales consultant respectively. They claim to be denied overtime
pay, worked through rest breaks and incurred business-related
expenses that weren't reimbursed.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Matthew F. Archbold, Esq.
      David D. Deason, Esq.
      17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
      Huntington Beach, CA 92647
      Telephone: (949) 794-9560
      E-mail: matthew@yourlaborlawyers.com

              - and -

      John M. Norton, Esq.
      444 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 800
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 624-2894

SETERUS INC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Visceglie" Suit Claims
Kathie M. Visceglie, on behalf of herself and all similarly-
situated individuals v. Seterus, Inc. and Robertson, Anschutz &
Schnied, P.L., Case No. 8:16-cv-02734-EAK-AAS (M.D. Fla.,
September 23, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Seterus, Inc. operates a loan servicing company in Florida.

Robertson, Anschutz & Schnied, P.L. operates a law firm located at
6409 Congress Ave, Boca Raton, FL 33487.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
      1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com

SDHI INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
Ron Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SDHI, Inc. d/b/a Classic Home Improvements, and Does 1
through 10 inclusive and each of them Case No. 3:16-cv-02381-WQH-
RBB (S.D Cal., September 22, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

SDHI, Inc. operates a construction company located in Escondido,
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@AttorneysForConsumers.com

STELLAR CONCEPTS: Settles Robocall Class Action
Connie Thompson, writing for KomoNews, reports that when someone
you don't know suddenly sends you a check for nearly a hundred
dollars -- it can pay to be suspicious.  But in this case, the
checks are real.

They're settlement checks from a class action lawsuit over illegal

The case is unique, because instead of going to individual
consumers the robocall sales pitches targeted small businesses.

Seattle attorneys Rob Williamson and Kim Williams filed the class
action lawsuit after being contacted by small business owner
Richard Maclean.  Mr. Maclean complained his business line was
being targeted by robocall sales pitches from a company called
Stellar Concepts and Design.

"We filed the lawsuit in January of 2010," said Mr. Williamson.
The couple's law firm, based out of their home office, specializes
in class actions against telemarketers who send junk faxes, make
robocalls, or violate the Do Not Call list.

Their investigation traced Stellar Concepts to Florida.  Court
records show the small marketing company hired a third party auto
dialing service in California to blast robocalls to small business
across the country.

Under federal law, robocalls to businesses are legal.  But here in
Washington robocalls to everyone, including businesses, are a
violation of state law.

Because Stellar Concepts did not have the assets to pay fines and
penalties mandated by Washington State law, Williamson and
Williams went after Stellar Concept's insurance company.

"We got 4 million dollars after we won our lawsuit." said
Mr. Williamson.

After administrative and attorneys fees- the remaining $2.5
million was divided among the nearly 28,000 small business owners
in Washington who got those calls.

Mr. Williamson and Ms. Williams say since the checks went out at
the end of August, they're getting about 20-30 calls a day from
people wondering if the checks are legit, or wanting more

"In this case we just got a judgment for the money and sent it out
to everybody.  And they really didn't know why it was coming and
what for."

The struggle now, is to get all those checks cashed within 60

After 60 days, the settlement calls for any unclaimed money,
depending other total, to either be redistributed among the people
who did respond, or donated to the Legal Foundation of Washington,
a non-profit that funds legal-aid programs for low-income people.

SUBARU: Settles Class Action Over B9 Tribeca Hood Latch Defect
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that Subaru has
settled a class action complaint that alleged 2006 and some 2007
Subaru B9 Tribeca vehicles have a hood latch defect, which allows
the hood to open while the car is being driven.

Subaru owner Marion Hadley alleged the hood can "fly open
unexpectedly while traveling at highway speeds, cracking the
windshield, causing substantial damage to the vehicles, and
rendering the driver unable to see the road."

A judge for the U.S. Federal District Court of New Jersey has
dismissed the class action lawsuit after a letter was submitted to
the court saying the settlement had been reached.

The terms of the settlement had not yet been published in the
public court system.

TIME WARNER: Faces "Cunningham" Class Suit in C.D. California
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Time Warner
Cable, Inc.

The case is captioned Patrick M. Cunningham, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Time Warner Cable,
Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-07190-FMO-PLA (C.D. Cal., September 23,

Time Warner Cable, Inc. operates a telecommunications company in
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
      Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: jason@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
      George Thomas Martin III, Esq.
      6464 West Sunset Boulevard Suite 960
      Los Angeles, CA 90028
      Telephone: (323) 940-1700
      Facsimile: (323) 328-8095
      E-mail: Nick@mblawapc.com

TONY'S EXPRESS: Faces "Ortiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
Fabian Ortiz, Juan Carlos Gil, Eric Gil, and Jesus Ochoa
Contreras, individuals, on behalf of themselves, all others
similarly situated v. Tony's Express, Inc., Case No. BC 634477
(Cal. Super. Ct., September 23, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards

Tony's Express, Inc. provides drayage services to customers
throughout the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul T. Cullen, Esq.
      19360 Rinaldi, Box 647
      Porter Ranch, CA 91326
      Telephone: (818) 360-2529
      Facsimile: (866) 794-5741
      E-mail: paul@cullenlegal.com

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Court Dismisses Drivers' Class Action
Dominik Bosnjak, writing for Android Headlines, reports that one
year after the United States District Judge in San Francisco
approved the lawsuit Uber drivers filed against Uber as a class
action, the ride-hailing multinational company achieved a
significant legal victory after the federal appeals court
concluded that drivers must settle their disputes with Uber on an
individual basis.  The ruling was made on Sept. 7 by the ninth US
circuit court of appeals and applies to the aforementioned lawsuit
which challenges Uber's background-checking practices.

Regardless of that, the reasoning behind this decision also
significantly weakens another class-action suit Uber drivers filed
over their classification.  Namely, plaintiffs in the said case
claimed that Uber was treating them in an exploitative manner by
classifying them as contractors and not regular employees.  That
lawsuit was signed by close to 385,000 Uber drivers whose position
just got significantly weaker after the decision made by the
appeals court.  If forced to settle that claim individually, most
Uber drivers will have significantly weaker cases, not to mention
the fact that it isn't likely many of them have the resources to
engage in a legal battle with such a large company on their own.
Plaintiff's attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan was obviously
dissatisfied with the ruling describing it as "not good for the
class".  Regardless of that, she proclaimed that the dispute is
far from over and that there are still alternative angles from
which the plaintiffs can challenge Uber's controversial practices.
However, Ms. Liss-Riordan refused to clarify on what that exactly
means, implying we'll get more details on the case in the coming
months.  Experts believe Ms. Liss-Riordan's new strategy will
probably be related to the fact that there are certain exceptions
to the appeals court's ruling.  More specifically, several
thousand of Uber's drivers can still participate in the class-
action lawsuit.

Besides having legal battles with its own drivers, Uber is also
frequently getting involved in disputes with its own customers.
Earlier this year, the company was forced to settle two class-
action lawsuits in Northern California after former Uber
passengers sued on the basis of untrue descriptions of the
company's safety practices and related fees.  That settlement
alone cost the company a whopping $28.5 million and would have
definitely ended differently if the plaintiffs were forced to
resolve their claims with Uber individually, which is basically
what happened with the aforementioned case on Sept. 7.

UNION COUNTY: November 17 Hearing Date on $2.2MM Settlement
William Riback LLC and Carl D. Poplar, P.A., announced on Sept. 12
class action settlement in Takacs/Allen v. Union County (Strip
Search Case)


If You Were Admitted Into The Union County Correctional Facility
("Jail") From May 1, 2006 To June 30, 2008 For A Non-Indictable
Offense And Were Strip Searched Upon Arrival, You Could Get A
Payment From A Class Action Settlement.

A $2,286,000.00 (two million two hundred eighty-six thousand
dollar) settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit
about the strip search policies of the Union County Correctional
Facility (the "Jail"). If you meet the criteria explained, you can
share in this settlement.

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
authorized this notice. The Court will have a hearing to decide
whether to approve the settlement, so that the benefits may be

Who's Included?

You are a class member and could get benefits if (1) you were
admitted into the Jail from May 1, 2006 through June 30, 2008, (2)
you were charged solely with a non-indictable offense(s), such as
a disorderly persons offense, traffic violation, or held on a
civil matter, and (3) you were strip searched upon entry into the
Jail without reasonable cause to believe that you were concealing
a weapon or other contraband.

What's This About?

The lawsuit claims that Defendant Union County and its Correction
Officers booking procedures constitute an unlawful strip search of
individuals admitted into the Jail without reasonable suspicion to
believe the Individuals were concealing contraband. The County of
Union has denied those claims. The Court did not decide which side
was right, but both sides agreed to a settlement to ensure a
resolution and to provide benefits to the people who were

What Does the Settlement Provide?

Defendants agreed to pay a total of $2,286,000.00 (two million two
hundred eighty-six thousand dollars) for claims, plus a $10,000
(ten thousand dollar) incentive award fee to the class
representative, plus $379,000 (three hundred seventy-nine thousand
dollars) for costs of administration, plus reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, not to exceed $1,200,000.00 (one million two
hundred thousand dollars) to be applied for upon the motion for
Final Approval to settle the case. There are 7,620 strip searches
payable within the class period. You may make a claim, for each
admission during the class period. Each class member who makes a
claim will receive $300.00 for each time strip searched per
admission during the class period.

How Do You Ask For A Payment?

A detailed Notice and Claim Form package contains everything you
need. Just call 1-866-778-9623 or visit the settlement website,
www.UnionCountyStripSearch.com, to get one. To qualify for a
payment, you must send in a claim form. Claim forms are due by
February 9, 2017.

What Are Your Other Options?

If you want to share in the settlement, all you need to do will be
to obtain a claim form, as just explained, and return it according
to its directions. If you don't want the settlement benefits or
don't want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude
yourself by November 14, 2016. If you exclude yourself, you can't
get any benefits from this settlement, but you could bring a
separate case against the Defendants, if you want to. If you stay
in the settlement, you may object to it by November 14, 2016. The
detailed notice, available by calling or visiting the website,
explains how to exclude yourself or object.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case Takacs/Allen v. Union
County, Civil Action No. 08-CV-711 on November 17, 2016 at
10:00 a.m., to consider whether to approve the settlement and a
request by the lawyers representing all class members (William
Riback, The Riback Law Firm, Haddonfield, New Jersey and Carl
Poplar, Carl D. Poplar, P.A., Cherry Hill, New Jersey) for
attorneys' fees and costs. You may ask to appear at the hearing,
but you do not have to. For more information, call toll free 1-
866-778-9623, visit the settlement website
www.UnionCountyStripSearch.com, or write to: Union County
Settlement, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee WI

VICTORIA: Siermans' Parents Join Parole Group Action
Peter Mickelburough, writing for Herald Sun, reports that the
parents of murdered mum Sharon Denise Siermans are the latest
victims of parolee killers and sex offenders to join a group legal
action against the State Government.

The state is now being sued for eight horrific murders and two
brutal sex attacks committed by offenders on parole or under
supervision orders.

The heartbroken couple say authorities failed in their duty of
care in carrying out those duties.

"The conduct of the (State) was negligent and fell below a
reasonable standard of care," their writ file with the Supreme
Court says.

Ms Siermans, 29, was beaten to death with a cricket bat when Jason
John Dinsley -- who she had met on an internet dating site --
"flipped" out and wanted to punish his victim for rejecting his

Dinsley beat her to death as her four-year-old son Aron hid in
another room.

In June the Herald Sun revealed the families of five murder
victims -- Sarah Cafferkey, Raechel Betts, Joanne Wicking, Evan
Rudd, and Douglas Phillips -- had launched a group action, along
with the victims of two sex attacks.

Bridget O'Toole, whose husband and Hastings Jeweller Dermot
O'Toole was killed during a bungled 2013 robbery joined the group
in July and in early September the parents of Elsa Janet Corp, who
was killed on a blind date in 2010, also joined the group.

Ms Siermans' killer had at least a year to go on his parole when
he broke into his victim's Ballarat home, attempted to rape her
and then killed her on April 6, 2013.

Shine lawyer Paula Shelton said Dinsley had remained on parole
despite returning a positive drug test.

"Sharon's murder was discovered hours later when a visitor to the
house spoke to the child who told them 'mummy won't wake up and
make my breakfast.'," Ms Shelton said.

Through this action, we're seeking compensation for the
significant harm inflicted upon Sharon's family and in particular
for her son who was just four when he found his mother's body. He
has been profoundly affected by what's happened.

"This is yet another example of the Government's failure to
adequately respond to parole breaches and another family has paid
the price."

Dinsley, who had almost 100 convictions against his name had not
long been out of jail before the killing.

The then 30-year-old had served seven years and one month of an
eight-year sentence for the brutal drug-fuelled rape at knifepoint
of a woman, 52, in St Kilda, whom he handcuffed and tied up.

Dinsley was jailed for life with a minimum of 32 years for killing
Ms. Siermans.

VIRGIN AMERICA: Consumers Sue to Block Alaska Airlines' Merger
Johanna Jainchill, writing for, reports that a group of 42
consumers has filed a lawsuit to block Alaska Airlines' purchase
of Virgin America.

The complaint, filed in San Francisco, alleges that the merger
would harm consumers by reducing the number of airlines serving
Hawaii and both U.S. coasts; reducing capacity overall, leading to
higher ticket prices and ancillary fees; and depriving passengers
of the lower fares and "unique flying experience" offered by
Virgin America.

The lawsuit also says that the rash of U.S. airline mergers has
been bad for U.S. consumers, stating that "since airline mega-
mergers began in 2008, capacity has been substantially reduced and
airfares increased."  The complaint also alleges that mergers have
led to increased ancillary fees.

The consumers also mention Richard Branson's opposition to the
merger.  The Virgin America founder had expressed regret that he
did not have the shareholder votes to reject the offer from
Alaska, writing that Virgin America had started "out of

As more airlines consolidated and grew larger and more focused on
the bottom line, flying in the U.S. became an awful experience,"
he said.

VITAS HEALTHCARE: Faces "Seper" Suit in California Super. Ct.
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vitas Healthcare
Corporation of California. The case is captioned SEPER, JORDAN A.
UNKNOWN; and DOES 1 TO 100, INCLUSIVE, the Defendants, Case No.
CGC 16 554500 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 26, 2016).

VITAS Healthcare helps patients and their families seeking hospice
and palliative care with perseverance and dignity in the face of
terminal illness.

WECTEC ENTERPRISES: "Ashworth" Suit Moved to S.D. of Georgia
The class action lawsuit titled Joseph Ashworth, James Cliett
Ryan Coldiron, Terry English, John Michael Green, Willie Helms
Leon Henson, Donald Keith Miles, Daniel Nichols, Tim Pinkerton
Brian Rinker, Wayne Silva, and Jackson Williams, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Wectec Enterprises, Inc. and Fluor Enterprises, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 2016-v-0047, was removed from the Superior
Court of Burke County for the State of Georgia, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia (Augusta). The
Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00160-JRH-
BKE to the proceeding.

Fluor Enterprises provides engineering, construction and,
procurement services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Troy A. Lanier, Esq.
          TUCKER, LONG, PC
          P.O. Box 2426
          Augusta, GA 30903
          Telephone: (706) 823 6800
          Facsimile: (706) 724 6064
          E-mail: tlanier@tlanierlaw.com

Wectec Enterprises, Inc. is represented by:

          C. Garner Sanford, Jr., Esq.
          SMOAK & STEWART, PC
          One Ninety One Peachtree Tower
          191 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 4800
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 881 1300
          Facsimile: (404) 870 1732
          E-mail: garner.sanford@odnss.com

Fluor Enterprises, Inc. is represented by:

          Joseph P. Shelton, Esq.
          1075 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 3500
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 240 4259
          Facsimile: (404) 240 4249
          E-mail: jshelton@laborlawyers.com

WEST VALLEY: Faces "Chavira" Class Action Suit in Calif. Ct.
Rafael Olivares Chavira, individually and on behalf of other
individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff, West Valley
Enterprises, Inc. and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. BC634329, (Cal. Super., September 19, 2016), seeks
nominal and compensatory damages, waiting time penalties,
interest, costs of suit and expenses incurred, reasonable
attorneys' fees pursuant to the California Labor Code and full
restitution and payment resulting from unfair competition,
including disgorgement of wrongfully withheld reimbursements
pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code.

West Valley Enterprises, Inc. is a California corporation
operating a Domino's Pizza franchise in Los Angeles where
Plaintiff worked as a general manager. Chavira claims to have
worked through meal breaks and has incurred out-of-pocket expenses
that wasn't reimbursed.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Young W. Ryu, Esq.
      Kelly Kim, Esq.
      9595 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (888) 365-8686
      Facsimile: (800)576-1170
      Email: young.ryu@ywrlaw.com

WHITE PLAINS: "Sanders" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
In the case captioned Damian Sanders, Plaintiff, v. White Plains
Cleaning Services, Inc., AVR Realty Company, LLC and Raoul Petit
Homme, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05235 (E.D.
N.Y., September 20, 2016), Mr. Sanders, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, brings this collective action
complaint to seek unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, penalties, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards and
New York Labor Laws.

White Plains is a domestic corporation located at 139 Fisher
Avenue, White Plains, Westchester County, New York 10606, where it
provides commercial, janitorial and maintenance services
throughout New York City and Westchester County.

AVR develops both land and real estate, and manages and maintains
commercial and residential properties throughout the country.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a cleaner/maintenance worker at
Oakwood Center, Staten Island, Richmond County, New York.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      Lawrence Office Park
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Building 2, Suite 220
      Lawrenceville, NY 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308

WINDTBERG & ZDANCEWICZ: Faces "Higginbotham" Suit in D. Ariz.
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Windtberg &
Zdancewicz PLC. The case is captioned Shanessa Higginbotham, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, Windtberg & Zdancewicz PLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-03263-JZB (D. Ariz., Sept. 26, 2016).

Windtberg & Zdancewicz specializes in Judgement Enforcement in

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Michael Panvini, Esq.
          Russell Snow Thompson, IV, Esq.
          5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388 8898
          Facsimile: (866) 317 2674
          E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com

WINGS R US: Server Tips Class Action to Cleared to Proceed
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
despite a federal appeals court's recent ruling that restaurants
aren't necessarily breaking federal labor law by requiring tipped
servers to perform tasks other than waiting tables, a Chicago
federal judge has decided to allow servers at several suburban
Buffalo Wild Wings franchise locations to sue their employers for
that same reason.

On Sept. 8, U.S. District Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. refused to
dismiss the class action lawsuit brought by plaintiff Katrina Soto
against the owner of the Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants in
Romeoville, Plainfield, Bolingbrook and Elmhurst, which are each
operated under the corporate name "Wings R Us."

According to court documents, Soto had worked from 2011-2015 at
the Romeoville restaurant as a server. During that time, she
alleged the restaurant's owners required her and other servers to
perform "duties outside the scope of their tipped occupation,"
which she alleged violated state and federal wage and hour laws.

While the servers were paid only the minimum wage for tipped
servers at all times, Soto said they were required to perform non-
tipped tasks, including "cleaning bathrooms, dishwashing, general
restaurant cleaning and trash removal." Soto's complaint argued
the restaurant owners should have paid the servers the "full
minimum wage" for the time they spent performing "non-tipped

Soto estimated more than 200 other workers should be included in
her lawsuit.

The restaurant owners then asked the judge to dismiss the
complaint, saying the non-tipped duties were closely enough
related to the core duties of a server to allow them to not pay
more than the tipped employee minimum wage rate.

Dow said courts have wrestled with this question in several cases.
And he acknowledged in recent decisions from the U.S. Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals, judges there sided with employers on the
question of related tipped and non-tipped duties.

Most recently, this summer, the Seventh Circuit found a chain of
northwest suburban pancake house restaurants had not improperly
required its servers to perform "dual jobs," by requiring them to
among other duties, slice and chop strawberries, mushrooms and
lemons; mix jams, jellies, compote, applesauce and salsas; stock
bread bins; brew tea and coffee; replenish other beverages and
condiments; fill ice buckets; and perform some cleaning duties,
including dusting and wiping down of burners.

Court documents indicated the servers would dedicate about 10-45
minutes per day to those side tasks.

However, at this stage in the case, Dow said such "high level of
nuance . . . i.e., what types of tasks are and are not related to
the occupation of restaurant server" is not required.  Instead, he
said, "at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court's only concern is
whether Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for relief."

Further, he said, there remains a dispute over the relation of the
side tasks to the servers' actual jobs.

"In short, there is no controlling authority stating that, as a
matter of law, cleaning bathrooms, dishwashing, general restaurant
cleaning, and trash removal are non-tipped duties related to the
occupation of a restaurant server," Dow wrote. "While, with the
help of discovery, Defendants might succeed in proving that some
or all of the alleged tasks actually were related to Plaintiff's
tipped occupation or were otherwise negligible in comparison to
Plaintiff's tipped duties, Defendants' arguments are insufficient
to allow the Court to reach that conclusion at the motion to
dismiss stage."

Soto is represented in the action by attorneys with the firm of
Werman Salas P.C., and the Law Office of Jamie Golden Sypulski,
each of Chicago.

Wings R Us is represented by the firm of Jackson Lewis P.C., of

WIRELESS ONE: "Echevarria" Suit Seeks Damages Over Erroneous Taxes
In the case captioned Lazaro D. Echevarria, Plaintiff, v. Wireless
One LLC and Ali A. Ali, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23983, (S.D.
Fla., September 16, 2016), Mr. Echevarria, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, sues the Defendants, to recover the
amount of $5,000 for each fraudulent information return filed by
Defendant for each year during the past six years with
corresponding damages, interest, reasonable attorneys fees, costs
and expenses and such other and further relief pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendants are into the marketing and sales of cellular
telephones, cellular telephone service agreements, cellular
telephone accessories, computers, tablets, telephones, telephone
systems, internet routers, computer cabling, and credit card
processing devices. Plaintiff worked at two different stores owned
and operated by Defendants, one located in Homestead and the other
in Doral where Plaintiff worked as manager.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
      7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450
      Miami, FL 33156
      Tel: (305) 230-4884
      Fax: (305) 230-4844
      Email: brian@fairlawattorney.com


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2016. 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 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *