---

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


             Thursday, July 13, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 137



                            Headlines

3705 IBERVILLE LLC: "Sims" Cries Retaliation, Seeks Overtime Pay
ABRAMS FENSTERMAN: Class Certification Sought in "Kravitz" Suit
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Judge Okays $1.5MM Class Action Settlement
ALICE'S TEA: Faces "Matzura" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
ALL AMERICAN: "Argueta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

AMERICAN HONDA: Bid to Certify TCPA Class in "Katz" Suit Denied
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Court Certifies TCPA Class in "Caldera" Suit
AMERICARE INC: "Polyakov" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Labor Law
ANZ SECURITIES: Ruling Barometer of Gorsuch's Textualist Approach
ANZ SECURITIES: Proskauer Rose Discusses SCOTUS Ruling

ANZ SECURITES: Mintz Levin Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
ATWOOD OCEANICS: Faces "Stern" Suit Over Proposed Ensco Merger
AVM ENTERPRISES: Gorss Motels Moves for Class Certification/Stay
BASKIN ROBBINS: Faces "Telarroja" Suit in California State Court
BERNARD L. MADOFF: High Court Refuses to Hear Tolling Case

BILL ME LATER: "Evans" Suit Moved to District of Maryland
BLOOMBERG LP: "Martinez" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
BOSSIER, LA: Haab Moves for Certification of Deaf Persons Class
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Sept. 6 TVM Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
CENTURYLINK INC: "McLeod" Sues Over Unjust Service Charges

CERTIFIED AVIATION: "Vance" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Labor Law
CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: "Meier" Suit Moved to W.D. Oklahoma
CHRYSLER: Seeks Summary Judgment in uConnect Class Action
CONCHO RESOURCES: "Wesley" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
CORE-MARK: Misclassifies Sales Development Reps, Vogel Claims

DINEX LICENSING: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
DYNAMIC PET: Wants Real Ham Bone Dog Product Class Action Nixed
EDDIE BAUER: Files Motion to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action
ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Faces "Pampena" Suit in E.D. New York
EVANGER'S DOG AND CAT: Accused of Pet Food Poisoning by "Mael"

EVINE LIVE: Faces "Gregory" Suit in Central Dist. of California
EXCEL STUDIOS: "Karayan" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under Labor Code
EXPERIAN INFO: Meyer Sues Over Illegal Electronic Fund Transfers
FIRST STEP: Court Refuses to Certify Zeznanski's Collective Suit
FORTY NINERS STADIUM: Fails to Issue Wage Statements, Kumar Says

FOSTER FARMS: Products Have Excess Hidden Water, "Wong" Suit Says
FRESENIUS KABI: "Glaubach" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Akorn
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Taylor Seeks to Certify Consumers Class
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Headlights
GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeals Ruling in Sex Discrimination Class Action

HAAGEN-DAZS: "Pedro-Salcedo" Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces "Solak" Suit in Northern Dist. of New York
HCSB FINANCIAL: Short-changed on Merger Deal, "Parshall" Says
HERITAGE HOSPICE: Faces "Pilkinton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HILL COUNTRY CHICKEN: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York

HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Warfield" Suit in N.D. Georgia
INT'L PAPER: Settles Kleen Products Antitrust Suit for $354MM
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Collects Biometric Info, Zepeda Claims
INTUIT INC: Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages Sought in "Myers" Suit
JON2 LLC: "Yascaribay" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, No Time-keeping

JSM APPLIANCE: "Baldwin" Suit Moved to District of Florida
KBR INC: "Porter" Sues Over Stock Price Drop from Bribery Raps
KELLER WILLIAMS: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Razmara" Suit Says
KINECTA ALTERNATIVE: "Sloan" Hits Missed Breaks, Claims Overtime
LAGUNA BEACH, CA: Disabled, Homeless Discrimination Suit OK'd

LANGSTON CONSTRUCTION: Class Certified in "Mairena-Rivera" Suit
MAINE, USA: "SD" Suit Moved Federal District Court
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: "Berube" Suit Seeks Payment of Lost Wages
MATTEL INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
MB FINANCIAL: Sued in Ill. Over Continuous Daily Overdraft Fee

MICROSOFT CORP: Jones Day Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
MOOSE INTERNATIONAL: Sept. 5 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
MSF ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Saucedo" Suit Claims
NEW YORK & CO: Faces Class Action Over Pricing Practices
ON-LINE ADMINISTRATORS: Wants Two People Dropped From TCPA Case

PAGE BROTHERS: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Ramos" Suit Says
PAPA JOHN'S: "Thomas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursements
PEOPLE AGAINST DIRTY: Settles Class Action for $2.8 Million
PINGTAN MARINE: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
PINGTAN MARINE: Faces Securities Class Action

PIXIOR LLC: Fails to Pay State-Mandated Wages, Argueta Claims
PRIMESOURCE HEALTH: Pfefferkorn Moves for Class Certification
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: "Kleinsasser" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
RADISSON HOTEL: Former Employees File Class Action
ROSS STORES: Jacobo's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission

RT MIDWEST: Judge Enters Order of Default in Class Action
RUST-OLEUM CORP: September 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SA HOSPITALITY: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "McCabe" Suit in District of Maine
SANDLIN LAW: Faces "Freeman" Suit in Southern Dist. of Indiana

SET ENTERPRISES: Shaw Seeks Prelim. OK of $1.9-Mil. Settlement
SMITH GROUP: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
SOUTHERN OHIO PIZZA: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Says
SUNRISE SENIOR: Scheme Defrauds Elders, "Heredia" Suit Says
TARGET CORPORATION: Faces "Jibowu" Suit in E.D. New York

TESLA INC: Faces "Wiseman" Suit over Defective Electric Cars
TESLA INC: Misclassifies Sales Advisors, "Wilson" Suit Claims
TEXTURA CORP: Kelsey's Bid to Certify Denied Over Settlement Docs
TGI FRIDAYS: IWPCA Class Certification Sought in "Williams" Suit
THI OF TEXAS: "Wilson" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay

TINY DANCER: Faces "Clark" Suit in Middle District of Florida
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Asks Court to OK $7.75MM PAGA Case Settlement
ULTA SALON: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Wise" Suit Claims
WADDELL & REED: Sued in Kansas Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
WASHINGTON: Faces "Bettys" Suit in Western Dist. of Washington

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
WEIBO CORP: Faces Class Action, Aug. 28 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Byrd" Suit in Southern Dist. of Mississippi
ZTO EXPRESS: Birmingham Retirement Suit Moved to N.D. Alabama

* $2.5MM Settlement OK'd in Delivery Drivers' Class Action






                            *********


3705 IBERVILLE LLC: "Sims" Cries Retaliation, Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raynell Sims and Donna Guillot, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3705 Iberville, LLC
(d/b/a The Blind Pelican) and Steven Seeber, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-05892 (E.D. La., June 16, 2017), seeks all damages
including unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, legal fees,
costs and post-judgment interest under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendants operate a restaurant under the trade name of The Blind
Pelican, which is located at 1628 St. Charles Avenue, New Orleans,
Louisiana. Plaintiffs worked at The Blind Pelican as oyster
shuckers. They often worked from 9 to 10 am in the morning until 9
to 10 pm at night, and sometimes later, for six days a week, all
without overtime pay and rest periods. Defendants allegedly fired
Sims for airing out these complaints. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
      STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
      6557 West End Blvd.
      New Orleans, LA 70124
      Tel: (504) 267-0777
      Fax: (504) 513-3084
      Email: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com

             - and -

      Justin Chopin, Esq.
      CHOPIN LAW FIRM LLC
      650 Poydras St., Suite 1550
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 323-5755
      Fax: (504) 324-0640
      Email: Justin@ChopinLawFirm.com


ABRAMS FENSTERMAN: Class Certification Sought in "Kravitz" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled ERIC KRAVITZ, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ABRAMS,
FENSTERMAN, FENSTERMAN, EISMAN, FORMATO, FERRERA & WOLF, LLP, and
MELANIE I. WIENER, Case No. 2:14-cv-07031-LDW-AYS (E.D.N.Y.),
moves for an order:

   a. certifying the civil action as a Class Action;

   b. certifying the Plaintiff as the representative of the
      Class;

   c. designating the Plaintiff's attorneys, Blau, Brown &
      Leonard, LLC, as counsel for the Class; and

   d. approving the form of Class Notice submitted by the
      Plaintiff.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hWXRBFYe

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
          Shelly A. Leonard, Esq.
          BLAU LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC
          23 Green Street, Suite 303
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 458-1010
          E-mail: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com
                  sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Judge Okays $1.5MM Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tabakman, Esq. -- mtabakman@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox
Rothschild LLP, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that it is
difficult to defend a class action based on exemption, which
explains why many of these cases settle.  This is because the
employer-defendant is (usually) going to be completely right, or
totally wrong.  Either the class of workers (especially if the
exemption at issue is professional or administrative) will meet
the regulatory tests or they will fall short.  That is the reason
these cases often settle, because the employer does not want to
test its theory at an expensive trial.

Case in point. A judge in California just gave final approval to a
1.5 million settlement to resolve class action allegations that a
group of senior artists for a video game giant company were
wrongly classified.

The case is entitled Lee et al. v. Activision Blizzard Inc. et
al., and was filed in Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.

The Judge approved a settlement in this case, more than two years
after the named plaintiff, John Lee, filed a suit alleging that
the Company had misclassified the senior artists as exempt,
salaried employees to avoid paying overtime.  The Court approved
the sum of $1.5 million for the class of 128 artists, as well as
legal fees of $500,000.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs claimed they had a strong case on
the classification issue.  The Company maintained that the senior
artists were properly classified and it had a basis for
potentially wiping out all damages in the case.  The Company had
garnered several Affidavits from the class members themselves who
asserted that they were properly classified.  The Company asserted
in the motion that "given that the makeup of the 128-member
putative class consisted of approximately 80 percent individuals,
who continue to be employed by the defendant, it was possible that
at trial, any if not all of the currently employed class members
might testify that they were properly classified during the class
period or that they worked no overtime hours at all."

The Takeaway

The exemptions at issue were the professional and possibly the
administrative.  The Company might have been well advised to
settle, however, because the professional exemption virtually
mandates a long, prolonged course of study in a field recognized
as "professional."  The administrative exemption, as I have
preached many times, is the most difficult of the white-collar
exemptions to defend, especially on the issue of discretion vs
skills and experience, which may well have been the stumbling
block in this case for the Employer. [GN]


ALICE'S TEA: Faces "Matzura" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alice's Tea Cup,
LLC. The case is captioned as Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Alice's Tea Cup, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04886
(S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2017).

Alice's Tea Cup is a restaurant in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ALL AMERICAN: "Argueta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa A. Monteagudo Argueta, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. All American Clothing, Inc., Case
No. 4:17-cv-01932 (S.D. Tex., June 23, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, costs, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

All American Clothing, Inc. operates a clothing store located at 1
Pop Rite Drive, Arcanum, OH 45304. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

         - and -

      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Bid to Certify TCPA Class in "Katz" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall denied the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit entitled SAMUEL KATZ,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-04410-CBM-RAO (C.D. Cal.).

On June 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
asserting a single cause of action against Defendant American
Honda Motor Co., Inc., for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and its implementing regulations based on Honda's
alleged placement of unsolicited automated telephone calls to his
cellphone after he took his Acura vehicle to a dealership for
service.

The Plaintiff's Motion seeks to certify a class defined as:

     All individuals in the U.S. whose cellphone number(s) were
     called by or on behalf of Defendants, where such call(s)
     were made between October 16, 2013 and the present, were
     placed by Survey Sampling International, LLC, and were made
     pursuant to Defendants' Acura Client Excellence Program.

Judge Marshall opines that the Plaintiff fails to demonstrate
consent (or lack of consent) can be established through class-wide
proof.  Accordingly, the Court finds, based on the facts in this
case, that individualized inquiries and determinations as to
consent predominate.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=55kdBMZF


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Court Certifies TCPA Class in "Caldera" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall grants the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit titled ARMANDO CALDERA,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, a.k.a.
RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00381-
CBM-AJW (C.D. Cal.).

The Class is defined as:

     All persons within the United States who had or have a
     number assigned to a cellular telephone service who received
     at least one call using either the Genesys Desktop dialing
     system or the Aspect 6.5.1 dialing system, from Defendant or
     its agent between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014 for
     debt collection purposes, who received such a call where
     Defendant's customer account records indicate that prior to
     any such calls that Defendant employed a skip trace to
     locate the phone number it contacted, as identified by
     Defendant's electronic customer account records by the
     language "WFBP" or "Created skiptrace."

On January 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
asserting two causes of action against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and its
implementing regulations.  He alleges that the Defendant placed an
unsolicited automated telephone call to his cell phone number in
attempt to collect an outstanding debt that belonged to his
father.

Judge Marshall appoints the Plaintiff as class representative and
appoints the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., Kazerouni Law
Group, APC, and Hyde & Swigart as class counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Gl6cFF6R


AMERICARE INC: "Polyakov" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
YEVGENIY POLYAKOV, on behalf of himself, Individually, and all
others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICARE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 507515/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 29, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime pay under the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as
a Certified Home Health Aide, providing fulltime patient care that
included more than 20 percent of general household work. The
Defendant required Plaintiff to work 24 hour shifts where
Plaintiff was unable to leave the patient's house and was unable
to obtain 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep due to his duties.
Although Plaintiff was working from 84-144 hours per week,
Defendant was not properly compensating him for these hours
worked. In addition, Defendant failed to furnish Plaintiff with
accurate and/or complete wage statements as required under the
NYLL on each payday.

The Defendant is a New York corporation providing nursing, therapy
and home healthcare services for elderly and disabled individuals
in the New York City and the surrounding areas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC.
          225 Broadway, Suite 2700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 227 5700

The Defendant is represented by:

          PECKAR & ABRAMSON
          41 Madison Avenue, 20th Fl.
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 382 0909


ANZ SECURITIES: Ruling Barometer of Gorsuch's Textualist Approach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the June 27 U.S. Supreme Court decision in a closely watched
securities case was the first-class action in which newly
appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch participated -- and he didn't
disappoint.

Justice Gorsuch joined the majority in the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-
4 decision in California Public Employees' Retirement System v.
ANZ Securities, in which the court ruled that the time period
after which a defendant could no longer be sued by shareholders
was a statute of repose that couldn't be tolled.

The Calpers case involved the frame for investors to bring
individual claims under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 while a
related class action was pending.  The ruling was particularly
significant to institutional investors, who often bring their own
securities suits rather than participate in a class action.
But the case also was a barometer of how Justice Gorsuch's
textualist approach to class actions would influence the court.
Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy cited
the "text, purpose, structure, and history of the statute" in
siding with the defense.

"One of the interesting features of this case is how the majority
approached the issue, with respect to the statute of repose, and
tethered it to the statute," said Susan Saltzstein --
susan.saltzstein@skadden.com -- a partner at New York's Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

The case was brought against the underwriters of Lehman Bros.
after its 2008 bankruptcy.  CalPERS, a pension fund that was a
class member, opted out after the case settled, then filed its own
suit.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, parting
with other circuits, dismissed the CalPERS case because it was
filed after the three-year time period.  Under the Securities Act,
investors must file their case "one year after the discovery of
the untrue statement or the omission," but "in no event . . .
more than three years after the security was bona fide offered to
the public."

Plaintiffs had relied on a 1974 decision by the Supreme Court
called American Pipe & Construction v. Utah to toll the latter
time period.  But the Supreme Court found that American Pipe
wasn't applicable because it dealt with a statute of limitations.
The act's three-year limit, in contrast, was a statute of repose
that could not be tolled because of its "congressional purpose to
offer defendants full and final security after three years,"
Kennedy wrote.

Plaintiffs attorneys said the ruling would invite more suits,
flooding the courts.

"To fiduciaries of investors, it's a major, major decision," said
Blair Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com -- a partner at Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossman in San Diego, who filed an amicus brief
in the case on behalf of 75 institutional investors.  "They have
to bring the claims because the institutional investors run the
risk that their claims will not be protected in a securities class
action."  Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the
dissent, mirrored those concerns.  She noted that the majority's
ruling would "gum up the works of class litigation" because
defendants would have an incentive to "slow walk discovery and
other precertification proceedings so the clock will run out on
potential opt outs."

Many investors will be forced to sue before they want to, said Dan
Sommers -- dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- co-chairman of the
securities litigation and investor protection practice group at
Washington's Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.  "That is one of the
real adverse consequences of the majority decision," he said.
"It's needlessly forcing investors to make premature decisions
about their participation in the case when up until now they were
protected by the Supreme Court's American Pipe ruling and made
those decisions at an appropriate time to stay in the class or to
opt out."

Institutional investors will have to more closely monitor class
actions to make those decisions, which will take more time and
money, he said.

But the court found the burden to be "less onerous" than
plaintiffs claimed.  Plaintiffs could simply file a motion to
intervene in the class action, or ask to be included as a named
class representative.

Mark Foster -- mfoster@mofo.com -- a partner at San Francisco's
Morrison & Foerster, said institutional investors with millions of
dollars at stake already are watching class actions "with a
mindful eye."  All they have to do now, he said, is "add something
to their calendar as a reminder." [GN]


ANZ SECURITIES: Proskauer Rose Discusses SCOTUS Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan E Richman, Esq. -- jerichman@proskauer.com -- Ralph C
Ferrara, Esq. -- rferrara@proskauer.com -- Ann M Ashton, Esq. --
aashton@proskauer.com -- and Tanya J Dmitronow, Esq. --
tdmitronow@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article
for The National Law Review, wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled on June 27 that the pendency of a securities class action
does not allow individual class members to opt out of the class
and file separate actions under the Securities Act of 1933 more
than three years after the relevant securities offering took
place.  The Court's decision in California Public Employees'
Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc. (No. 16-373) -- which
likely applies as well to securities-fraud suits under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 -- establishes that statutes of
repose such as the three-year statute in the Securities Act (and
the five-year statute in the Exchange Act) are designed to limit
defendants' liability and cannot be tolled based on equitable
considerations.

The ANZ decision should provide additional certainty to defendants
about their scope of potential liability when they settle
securities class actions.  The ruling should ensure that
defendants will not be subject to individual opt-out actions filed
after the repose date -- and that the class-action settlement and
any other suits filed before the repose date will limit the scope
of defendants' exposure.

Background

The ANZ case addresses the interplay between the "American Pipe"
class-action tolling doctrine and the statutory time periods for
suits under the Securities Act (and, by implication, the Exchange
Act).

In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974),
and Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983), the
Supreme Court held that the commencement of a class action
suspends the statute of limitations for all putative class members
who would have been parties had the case continued as a class
action.  American Pipe and its progeny generally allow putative
class members to intervene in a class action or to file their own
independent actions after the limitations period has expired.
This class-action tolling rule avoids the prospect that putative
class members would feel compelled to file individual, duplicative
lawsuits to protect their own rights in case of a denial of class
certification after the expiration of the limitations period.

Section 13 of the Securities Act prescribes two time periods for
bringing actions under Sec. 11 or Sec. 12 of the statute.  The
first part says: "No action shall be maintained to enforce any
liability created under Section 11 or Section 12(a)(2) unless
brought within one year after the discovery of the untrue
statement or the omission, or after such discovery should have
been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence . . . ." The
second part states: "In no event shall any such action be brought
to enforce a liability created under Section 11 . . . more than
three years after the security was bona fide offered to the
public, or under Section 12(a)(2) more than three years after the
sale."  15 U.S.C. Sec. 78m (bold italics added).

The statute governing suits under the Exchange Act contains a
similar two-part structure: "A private right of action that
involves a claim of fraud, deceit, manipulation, or contrivance in
contravention of a regulatory requirement concerning the
securities laws . . . may be brought not later than the earlier of
(1) 2 years after the discovery of the facts constituting the
violation; or (2) 5 years after such violation." 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1658(b) (emphasis added).

Previous decisions had construed the Securities Act's and the
Exchange Act's discovery-rule prongs as statutes of limitations,
which could be tolled based on equitable or jurisprudential
considerations, including American Pipe tolling principles.  But
courts had held the statutes' second prong (the three-year and
five-year periods under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act,
respectively) to be statutes of repose -- absolute, nontollable
bars to further actions.

The ANZ case raised the question whether American Pipe class-
action tolling principles could apply to the repose prong of
Sec. 13 of the Securities Act.  The plaintiff had been a member of
the putative class in a timely filed class action, but it had
opted out of the class and filed its own action more than three
years after the securities had been offered to the public.  The
plaintiff sought to rely on the underlying class action as the
"action" that had been brought within the allowable three-year
period. The District Court rejected the argument, holding that
American Pipe principles could not toll statutes of repose.  The
Second Circuit affirmed, as did the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Decision

The Court (through Justice Kennedy) first confirmed statements in
prior decisions that Section 13's three-year prong is a statute of
repose, not a statute of limitations.  The Court ruled that "[t]he
3-year time bar in Sec. 13 reflects the legislative objective to
give a defendant a complete defense to any suit after a certain
period."

The Court next held that, because Sec. 13 is a statute of repose,
rather than a statute of limitations, it cannot be overridden by
equitable considerations such as those animating the American Pipe
tolling doctrine.  "By establishing a fixed limit, a statute of
repose implements a legislative decisio[n] that as a matter of
policy there should be a specific time beyond which a defendant
should no longer be subjected to protracted liability." Judicially
created tolling doctrines derived from equity principles, such as
the American Pipe rule, "cannot alter the unconditional language
and purpose of the 3-year statute of repose."

The Court rejected plaintiff's argument (which the dissenting
Justices embraced) that the filing of a class action fulfills the
purposes of a statutory time limit for later-filed suits because
the class action "puts a defendant on notice as to the content of
the claims against it and the set of potential plaintiffs who
might assert those claims."  The Court ruled that, while "generic
notice satisfied the purposes of the statute of limitations" in
American Pipe, it does not do so for a statute of repose "because
the purpose of a statute of repose is to give the defendant full
protection after a certain time."  The Court added that, "[i]f the
number and identity of individual suits, where they may be filed,
and the litigation strategies they will use are unknown, a
defendant cannot calculate its potential liability or set its own
plans for litigation with much precision.  The initiation of
separate individual suits may thus increase a defendant's
practical burden."

The Court also rejected plaintiff's statutory argument that the
individual case was timely filed because the timely class action
was the "action" that must be "brought" within three years under
Sec. 13. The majority held that "[t]he term 'action' . . . refers
to a judicial 'proceeding,' or perhaps to a 'suit' -- not to the
general content of claims" such as those asserted in the later
individual case.  "[I]t defies ordinary understanding to suggest
that [the individual plaintiff's] filing -- in a separate forum,
on a separate date, by a separate named party -- was the same
'action,' 'proceeding,' or 'suit'" as the earlier class action.

Implications

The ANZ decision should resolve the question whether statutes of
repose -- as opposed to statutes of limitations -- can be tolled
based on equitable principles such as the American Pipe tolling
rule.  The Court made clear that tolling of statutes of repose "is
permissible only where there is a particular indication that the
legislature did not intend the statute to provide complete repose
but instead anticipated the extension of the statutory period
under certain circumstances."  The Court saw no such indication in
Sec. 13.

ANZ's rationale will likely apply to the five-year statute of
repose in the Exchange Act.  The Exchange Act's structure is
similar to the Securities Act's:  a shorter "discovery" period and
a longer "repose" period. The Court noted that "[t]he pairing of a
shorter statute of limitations and a longer statute of repose is a
common feature of statutory time limits" and confirms that the
statute of repose was intended to create an absolute limit on the
defendant's liability.

This nontollable bar on future suits should help assure defendants
who settle a class action that they will not be exposed to opt-out
litigation filed outside the statute of repose.  Whether the
nontollable bar will motivate individual class members to file
"protective" individual actions within the repose period remains
to be seen -- although, as the Court noted, empirical evidence to
date does not suggest that a deluge of such cases will be filed.

The four dissenting Justices (Justice Ginsburg, with Justices
Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) issued words of caution to courts
and class counsel handling class actions.  The dissent expressed
concern that "[d]efendants will have an incentive to slow walk
discovery and other precertification proceedings so the clock will
run on potential opt outs."  Accordingly, the dissenters suggested
that, "[a]s the repose period nears expiration, it should be
incumbent on class counsel, guided by district courts, to notify
class members about the consequences of failing to file a timely
protective claim."  Quoting from an amicus brief filed by a group
of retired federal judges, the four Justices added that, "'[a]t a
minimum, when notice goes out to a class beyond [Sec. 13's
limitations period], a district court will need to assess whether
the notice [should] alert class members that opting out . . .
would end [their] chance for recovery.'"  These issues might
therefore arise in future class-action proceedings. [GN]


ANZ SECURITES: Mintz Levin Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Joel D. Rothman, Esq. -- JDRothman@mintz.com -- of Mintz, Levin,
Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., in an article for The
National Law Review, wrote that in a 5-4 decision, issued during
the final week of the its term, the U.S. Supreme Court held that
the filing of a class action does not toll the three-year period
provided for in Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933.
Interestingly, aside from the holding, both the majority and
dissenting opinions contain statements potentially impacting
institutional investors.  The majority, in a phrase that could be
repeated in the future by law firms soliciting institutional
investors to opt out, asserted -- citing only to law review
articles from 2008 and 1997 -- that plaintiffs who opt out have
"considerable leverage" and receive "outsized recoveries."
Meanwhile, the dissent suggested that the majority's decision will
require "every fiduciary who must safeguard investor assets" to
file individual actions before the three-year deadline.

The issue in the case was whether the filing of a class action
tolls the three-year deadline for class members to file a claim
under the Securities Act.  Section 13 governs the time limit for
instituting actions under Section 11 of the Securities Act. Its
second sentence provides that "[i]n no event shall any such action
be brought to enforce a liability created by [Section 11] more
than three years after the security was bona fide offered to the
public."

The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, and joined by
Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch,
ruled that "[f]rom the structure of Sec. 13, and the language of
its second sentence, it is evident that the 3-year bar is a
statute of repose."  According to the majority, by wording Section
13 as a statute of repose, Congress intended to "override
customary tolling rules arising from the equitable power of
courts."  Simply put, the majority concluded that if Congress
wished for tolling to apply to the three-year period, it would
have said so in the statute.  Instead, "the text, purpose,
structure and history of the statute all disclose the
congressional purpose to offer defendants full and final security
after three years."   Thus, the majority held that courts could
not override congressional intent by applying the court-created
American Pipe tolling rule to Section 13.

Notably, the plaintiff's had argued, among other things, that the
filing of a class action fulfills the purpose of the statute of
repose because it put the defendants on notice of the claims
against it.  The majority rejected this argument, reasoning that
the plaintiff's position would allow for an unrestricted potential
for individual suits, which meant that a defendant could not
calculate its potential liability with much precision.  This was
especially so because, at least according to the majority (and the
law review articles from 2008 and 1997 to which the majority
cites), plaintiffs who opt out have considerable leverage and, as
a result, may obtain outsized recoveries.

Also of note, the court rejected the plaintiff's related argument
that the filing of a class action complaint "brought" its "action"
within the three-year time period, even though the plaintiff was
merely a putative class member and had not intervened as a
plaintiff in the suit.  The majority dismissed this argument,
stating that "it defies ordinary understanding to suggest that its
filing -- in a separate forum, on a separate date, by a separate
named party -- was the same 'action,' 'proceeding,' or 'suit.'"

The dissent, however, would have accepted this argument.
According to the dissent, authored by Justice Ginsberg and joined
by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, the filing of the class-
action complaint notified the defendant of its potential liability
and, by opting out and filing its own suit, the plaintiff "simply
took control of the piece of the action that had always belonged
to it."  The dissent notes that as a result of the majority's
ruling, [a]ny class member with a material stake in a Sec. 11
case, including every fiduciary who must safeguard investor
assets, will have strong cause to file a protective claim, in a
separate complaint or in a motion to intervene, before the three-
year period expires.

Additionally, the dissent feared that class members may not be
properly apprised of their constitutionally protected right to opt
out before the repose deadline.  Thus, Justice Ginsburg concluded:

The June 27 decision impels courts and class counsel to take a
more active role in protecting class member's opt-out rights.  As
the repose period nears expiration, it should be incumbent on
class counsel, guided by district courts, to notify class members
about the consequences of failing to file a timely protective
claim.  At a minimum, when notice goes out to a class beyond
Sec. 13's limitations period, a district court will need to assess
whether the notice should alert class members that opting out
would end their chances for recovery. [GN]


ATWOOD OCEANICS: Faces "Stern" Suit Over Proposed Ensco Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Stern, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Atwood Oceanics, Inc., George S. Dotson, Jack E.
Golden, Hans Helmerich, Jeffrey A. Miller, James R. Montague,
Robert J. Saltiel, Phil D. Wedemeyer, Ensco PLC, and Echo Merger
Sub LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-01942 (S.D. Tex., June 23, 2017), stems
from a proposed transaction announced on May 30, 2017, pursuant to
which Atwood Oceanics, Inc. will be acquired by Ensco plc for
approximately $10.72 per share.

According to the complaint, Atwood filed a Registration Statement
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends
that Atwood stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction. However, the Registration Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Registration Statement false and misleading,
including, inter alia, the following sections of the Registration
Statement:  (i) "Background of the Merger"; (ii) "Atwood's Reasons
for the Merger; Recommendation of the Atwood Board of Directors";
(iii) "Opinion of Financial Advisor to Atwood"; (iv) "Certain
Unaudited Financial Forecasts Prepared By the Management of
Ensco"; and (v) "Certain Unaudited Financial Forecasts Prepared By
the Management of Atwood". The Complaint says the Proposed
Transaction will unlawfully divest Atwood's public stockholders of
the Company's valuable assets without fully disclosing all
material information concerning the Proposed Transaction to
Company stockholders. To remedy defendants' Exchange Act
violations, the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on
the Proposed Transaction unless and until such problems are
remedied.

Atwood Oceanics, Inc. operates an offshore drilling company
engaged in the drilling and completion of exploration and
development wells for the global oil and gas industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe Kendall, Esq.
      Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
      KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
      3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Telephone: (214) 744-3000
      Facsimile: (214) 744-301
      E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
              jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com


AVM ENTERPRISES: Gorss Motels Moves for Class Certification/Stay
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned GORSS MOTELS, INC., a
Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons v. A.V.M. ENTERPRISES, INC.,
a Tennessee corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 3:17-cv-
01078-VAB (D. Conn.), moves the Court for an order:

   A. taking the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under
      submission and deferring further activity on it until after
      the discovery cutoff date to be set in the Court's upcoming
      Rule 23 scheduling order, or alternatively;

   B. granting the Motion pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zJxhjEdl

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plaines, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com


BASKIN ROBBINS: Faces "Telarroja" Suit in California State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baskin Robbins USA
LLC. The case is captioned as Telarroja, Sabrina, the Plaintiff,
v. Baskin Robbins USA LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 56-2017-
00498251-CU-BT-VTA (Cal. Super. Ct., June 27, 2017).

Baskin-Robbins offers ice cream, flavored ices and frozen
desserts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Poliner, Phillip R., Esq.
          FINEMAN & POLINER LLP
          155 N. Riverview Drive
          Anaheim Hills, CA 92808
          Telephone: (714) 620 1125
          Facsimile: (714) 701 0155
          E-mail: Phillip@FinemanPoliner.com


BERNARD L. MADOFF: High Court Refuses to Hear Tolling Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on June 27 declined to hear a case that centered on how
strict the Securities Act's three-year statute of repose is, after
a June 26 ruling by the high court helped to clarify the same
issue.

In the suit denied by the high court on June 27, investor Russell
Dusek and others sued JPMorgan Chase for its role as banker to the
massive Ponzi scheme vehicle Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities LLC.  A district court ruled in 2015 that the
investors' Securities Act class action claims were time-barred
because the suit was filed more than five years after Madoff was
arrested and his company shut down, and the court threw out other
claims on procedural grounds.

The investors had unsuccessfully claimed the three-year hard
deadline known as a statute of repose, which is similar to a
statute of limitations, was tolled by an earlier class action
against JPMorgan that resulted in a $218 million settlement, based
on a 1974 Supreme Court decision known as American Pipe.

The Supreme Court did not give any explanation for why it declined
to hear the case, but in another case on June 27 the court held in
a 5-4 decision that the Securities Act's three-year statute of
repose is firm, regardless of whether earlier suits over the same
claims had been filed or not.  That case is California Public
Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ Securities Inc.

"The three-year limit is a statute of repose.  And the object of a
statute of repose, to grant complete peace to defendants,
supersedes the application of a tolling rule based in equity,"
Justice Kennedy wrote, for the majority.  "No feature of [Section
13] provides that deviation from its time limit is permissible in
a case such as this one.  To the contrary, the text, purpose,
structure, and history of the statute all disclose the
congressional purpose to offer defendants full and final security
after three years."

The court also declined to hear a similar case that centered
around a Securities Act statute of repose dispute on June 27,
called SRM Global Master Fund LP v. The Bear Stearns Cos. LLC et
al.

The question of how strictly courts should enforce statutes of
repose in general has led to a circuit split between the Eleventh
and Sixth circuits, and in 2016 the investors' attorney,
Lance Gotthoffer -- lgotthoffer@chaitmanllp.com -- of Chaitman
LLP, told Law360 the issue has "split the federal courts,
including the circuit courts, up and down," in explaining his
decision to petition the high court to hear the case.

The Sixth Circuit in an employment case called Phipps v. Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. held in 2015 that sometimes statutes of repose are
indeed tolled while an initial class action is pending, while the
Eleventh Circuit that same year held in junk fax case Ewing
Industries Corp. v. Bob Wines Nursery Inc. that statutes of repose
uniformly impose a strict, blanket ban on filing class actions
regardless of whether others had been filed earlier on or not.

The June 27 decision will likely put to rest the Madoff investors'
suit once and for all.

In addition to the Securities Act class action claims, they had
sought to bring Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
against JPMorgan.  The district court threw out those charges,
saying under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, a
plaintiff cannot rely upon any conduct that would have been
actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities as
predicate acts in a civil RICO action.

The district court dismissed the Securities Act and RICO claims
with prejudice, and declined supplementary jurisdiction for other
counts brought under state law, in 2015.  The investors
subsequently appealed, and last year the Eleventh Circuit affirmed
the decision.

In affirming the dismissal of the securities claim, the circuit
court rejected the investors' argument that the claim was tolled
under American Pipe, which allowed former class members who either
intervene or file individual claims in another forum to toll their
previous claims.

The panel said that "American Pipe tolling does not apply to the
statute of repose at issue in this case," and that since the
investors did not file the claim until the period of repose had
expired, it is time-barred.

JPMorgan had also argued that, even if the American Pipe tolling
applied, the investors in this suit wouldn't be affected since
they actually made money on their Madoff investments, and the
earlier class action covered only investors with net losses,
meaning the earlier suit never applied to them in the first place.

Neither party responded on June 27 to requests for comment.

The investors are represented by Lance Gotthoffer and Helen Davis
Chaitman -- hchaitman@chaitmanllp.com -- of Chaitman LLP, and
Nicole W. Giuliano of Giuliano Law PA.

JPMorgan is represented by John Ford Savarese --
JFSavarese@wlrk.com -- Scott M. Danner, Stephen R. DiPrima --
SRDiPrima@wlrk.com  -- and Emil A. Kleinhaus --
EAKleinhaus@WLRK.com -- of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, and by
Carlos Juan Canino -- ccanino@stearnsweaver.com -- Grace Lee Mead
-- gmead@stearnsweaver.com -- and Eugene E. Stearns --
estearns@stearnsweaver.com -- of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler
Alhadeff & Sitterson PA.

The case is Russell Dusek et al. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al.,
case number 15-14463, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. [GN]


BILL ME LATER: "Evans" Suit Moved to District of Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lorenza Evans, On Behalf of Class
of Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiff, v. Bill Me Later,
Inc., doing business as: Paypal Credit, the Defendant, Case No.
24-C-17-002898 OT, was removed on June 28, 2017 from the Circuit
Court of Maryland for Baltimore City, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland (Baltimore). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-01784-ELH to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Ellen L. Hollander.

PayPal Credit, formerly named Bill Me Later, is a proprietary
payment method offered on the websites of many well-known
merchants, including those of Wal-Mart, Home Depot, USPS, and B&H
Photo Video.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip R Robinson, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC
          8737 Colesville Road, Suite 308
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 448 1304
          E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Joseph Tobin, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1909 K Street, N.W., 12th Floor
          Washington, DC 20006-1157
          Telephone: (202) 661 2256
          Facsimile: (202) 661 2299
          E-mail: tobindj@ballardspahr.com


BLOOMBERG LP: "Martinez" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------
Julio Martinez, Richard Franke and Irene Moy, both individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,
v. Bloomberg L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04555, (S.D. N.Y.,
June 16, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
costs and attorneys' fees, service awards, as well as declaratory
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a multinational mass media corporation that provides
financial software tools such as analytics and equity trading
platforms, data services and news to financial companies and
organizations around the world through its proprietary Bloomberg
Terminal.

Bloomberg's Installations Department is the Bloomberg call center
responsible for providing customers with a human contact during
the process of installing products or services while other
Bloomberg departments carry out the various tasks involved in the
installation process.

Plaintiffs worked as installations representatives who provide
information and basic technical support to new and existing
assigned customers during the installation of Bloomberg's products
and services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Artemio Guerra, Esq.
      Matthew Dunn, Esq.
      GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
      9 Paradies Lane
      New Paltz, NY 12561
      Tel: (845) 255-9370


BOSSIER, LA: Haab Moves for Certification of Deaf Persons Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned WILLIAM EDWARD HAAB, on
his own behalf and on behalf of a class v. THE CITY OF BOSSIER,
Case No. 5:16-cv-01663-MLH (W.D. La.), asks the Court to certify
this class:

     All deaf or hard of hearing persons who communicate in
     American Sign Language and have interacted or have cause to
     interact with the Bossier City Police Department in a
     non-emergency setting.

Mr. Haab also asks that he be appointed as representative of the
class, and that his counsel be appointed as counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ylm4fQdZ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew D. Bizer, Esq.
          Garret S. DeReus, Esq.
          Marc P. Florman, Esq.
          BIZER & DEREUS
          3319 St. Claude Ave.
          New Orleans, LA 70117
          Telephone: (504) 619-9999
          Facsimile: (504) 948-9996
          E-mail: andrew@bizerlaw.com
                  gdereus@bizerlaw.com
                  mflorman@bizerlaw.com


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Sept. 6 TVM Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The litigation against Boston Scientific Ltd. and Boston
Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific") will proceed as a
certified class action on behalf of women who were or are
implanted with a Boston Scientific transvaginal mesh ("TVM")
device for treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI) or
Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP), and their families.

The claims against Boston Scientific have not been resolved.  The
allegations made by the Plaintiffs have not been proven in Court,
and the Court has not made any conclusions.  This information
should not be considered in any way to be medical advice.  Boston
Scientific denies any fault or liability and continues to defend
the class action.

The class action relates to certain medical devices sometimes
referred to as "transvaginal mesh," "TVM," "slings" or "hammocks"
manufactured by Boston Scientific.  Various of these devices are
used to treat SUI or POP.  The class action seeks compensation for
personal injuries allegedly relating to the use of such devices as
well as for damages allegedly suffered by family members of women
who have been implanted with these devices.

All persons resident in Canada who have been implanted with a
Boston Scientific transvaginal mesh device to treat SUI or POP at
any time on or before February 17, 2017 and certain of their
family members are class members in the certified Boston
Scientific Class Action.

The Boston Scientific Class Action does not include claims against
various other manufacturers of TVM mesh devices, including AMS,
Johnson & Johnson, Covidien, and Cook Medical Inc.

If you have been implanted with a transvaginal mesh but do not
know the brand or type of mesh you were implanted with, you should
retrieve your medical records, including your product
identification tag, which typically will note what brand of mesh
was used. If you need help retrieving your records, or determining
which type of mesh you were implanted with, Class Counsel can
assist.

Class members who do not want to be a part of a class action
relevant to them must "opt out" of it.  As a result of "opting
out," such individuals will not be entitled to any compensation
that may become available as part of the relevant class action,
but they will be able to commence their own lawsuit or continue
any lawsuit they have previously brought.

If you want to exclude yourself from the Class Action you must
notify Class Counsel by September 6, 2017, in the manner described
in the "Long Form NOtice" available at
www.siskinds.com/transvaginal-mesh/.

For more information, including on how to opt out of the class
actions, see the "long form notice" available online at
www.siskinds.com/transvaginal-mesh/ or by requesting it from
Siskinds.  Information can also be obtained in English at: 1-800-
461-6166 x2367 or, in French, at: 1-418-694-2009.


CENTURYLINK INC: "McLeod" Sues Over Unjust Service Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Craig McLeod, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons and Steven L. McCauley, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons, Plaintiffs, v. Centurylink, Inc., a Louisiana corporation
doing business in California as Centurylink Communications, LLC,
Centurylink Public Communications, Inc. and Centurylink Sales
Solutions, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-04504 (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2017), seeks actual,
consequential, statutory and incidental losses and damages,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest on all
amounts awarded, costs and suit and such other and further relief
resulting from unjust enrichment, and fraud.

McLeod and McCauley are CenturyLink customers for their internet
service. They claim to be unjustly charged for services that they
did not avail of and/or did not agree to in connection with their
internet service upgrade. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
     Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
     Zack V. Muljat, Esq.
     Eric Hahn, Esq.
     GERAGOS & GERAGOS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAWYERS
     Historic Engine Co. No. 28
     644 South Figueroa Street
     Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
     Telephone (213) 625-3900
     Facsimile (213) 232-3255
     Email: Geragos@Geragos.com


CERTIFIED AVIATION: "Vance" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN VANCE, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CERTIFIED AVIATION SERVICES
LLC, a corporation; and DOES 2-5, the Defendant, Case No. BC666791
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 29, 2017), seeks to recover Overtime
compensation under California Labor law.

Mr. Vance worked for CAS as an airplane mechanic from about August
to December 2016. He was a non-exempt was paid about $21.50 per
hour. He performed maintenance and repairs on airplanes at LAX
International Airport in Los Angeles, California. However, CAS
failed to pay him and his similarly situated co-workers proper
overtime pay.

CAS is a provider of MRO services for fleet.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lauren Teukolsky, Esq.
          TEUKOLSKY LAW APC
          234 E. Colorardo Blvd., 8th Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 522 8982
          Facsimile: (626) 522 8983
          E-mail: lauren@teuklaw.com


CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: "Meier" Suit Moved to W.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Matthew R Meier, Sheryl Meier, and
Kai Bach, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Chesapeake Operating LLC, Devon
Energy Production Company LP, Midstates Petroleum Company LLC, New
Dominion LLC, Range Production Company LLC, Special Energy
Corporation, and White Star Petroleum LLC, Case No. CJ-17-00277,
was removed on June 28, 2017 from the District Court of Payne
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:17-cv-00703-D to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Timothy D. DeGiusti.

Chesapeake Operating engages in exploration and drilling of
natural gas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Douglas D. Wilguess, Esq.
          DOUGLAS D WILGUESS ATTORNEY AT LAW
          10612 Pond Meadow Dr
          Oklahoma City, OK 73151
          Telephone: (405) 771 3929
          Facsimile: (405) 232 6515
          E-mail: wilguess@wgokc.com

               - and -

          Heather A Garrett, Esq.
          HEATHER A GARRETT ATTORNEY AT LAW
          211 N Robinson, Suite 340
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 239 2226
          Facsimile: (405) 239 7337
          E-mail: garrett@wgokc.com

               - and -

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

Devon Energy Production Company LP

          John J Griffin, Jr., Esq.
          CROWE & DUNLEVY-OKC
          Braniff Building
          324 N Robinson Ave., Suite 100
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235 7718
          Facsimile: (405) 272 5225
          E-mail: griffinj@crowedunlevy.com


CHRYSLER: Seeks Summary Judgment in uConnect Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Record reports that Chrysler has stepped up
against a claim that hackers could seize control of vehicles, and
the lawyer pursuing the case, Stephen Wigginton, appears to be
stepping away from it.

Chrysler took action in U.S. district court on June 23, filing a
summary judgment motion that treated the plaintiff's class action
theory as science fiction.

Former U.S. attorney Wigginton took no action for weeks, on the
record.

After filing 22 documents for plaintiffs in 14 months, he filed
nothing after May 12.

Mr. Wigginton exposed Chrysler trade secrets in April, through a
California lawyer trying to enforce a subpoena for the Illinois
action in a California court.

Chrysler quickly restored confidentiality through motions in both
courts.

Magistrate Judge Donald Wilkerson ordered sanctions on May 30,
ruling that Chrysler could submit a bill of costs for its response
to the exposure.

On June 6, Chrysler submitted a bill for $16,337.50.

On June 13, lead plaintiff Brian Flynn objected to Judge
Wilkerson's order and asked District Judge Michael Reagan to grant
an appeal.

Michael Gras of Belleville, one of seven lawyers for Flynn, sealed
the objection.

Chrysler counsel Sharon Rosenberg of St. Louis responded on the
record on June 20, writing that she found no authority for
Mr. Gras's propositions.

"Plaintiffs never acknowledge the critical fact that they did not
simply discuss Chrysler's confidential documents in public
filings, but quoted directly from those documents," Judge
Rosenberg wrote.

She wrote that the California court denied enforcement of the
subpoena.

At a hearing before Judge Wilkerson, Chrysler challenged
plaintiffs to support a contention that the confidential
information was public.

"Plaintiffs offered nothing then and they come forward with
nothing now," she wrote.

She wrote that it was bad faith to argue it was public when
plaintiffs can't show the court where to find it in the public
domain.

"This is especially so when, in response to pointed questioning
from judge Wilkerson, plaintiffs' counsel Steve Wigginton
expressly denied that the source of the quoted confidential
information was from Chrysler's confidential documents, and he
told the court that it could be found in public documents by doing
a simple google search," she wrote.

Judge Rosenberg indicated that Chrysler ran a search and couldn't
find it in the public domain.

She wrote that they claimed their violation was substantially
justified.

"This is essentially an argument that their violation was not
willful," she wrote.

"This is not a case involving a good faith dispute about whether a
document should have been marked as confidential in the first
place.

"The issue here is whether magistrate Wilkerson properly exercised
his discretion in sanctioning plaintiffs for unilaterally choosing
to ignore a confidentiality designation and their obligations
arising out of that designation."

Judge Rosenberg denied that Chrysler needed to demonstrate
prejudice from the exposure.

"In any event, no one knows what damage may have been caused by
plaintiffs' public filing as damage could play out over time," she
wrote.

On June 21, for Flynn, Christopher Cueto of Belleville objected to
the bill of costs.

Mr. Cueto wrote that Chrysler withdrew its motion to strike the
subpoena action in California shortly after filing it.

"More importantly, this motion to strike is plainly not included
in the scope of the court's sanction order and as such is an
improper taxable expense," he wrote.

He wrote that Chrysler billed for filing a declaration that "was
only necessary because Chrysler got what they wanted and the
documents became sealed."

"This has nothing to do with the alleged violation of the
protective order and therefore plaintiffs should not have to pay
expenses associated with it," he wrote.

On June 23, Chrysler counsel Kathy Wisniewski moved for summary
judgment.

Ms. Wisniewski wrote that plaintiffs couldn't provide any
instructions that would enable anyone to remotely hack a Chrysler
vehicle.

"This is not surprising because no hacker has ever taken remote
control of a stranger's car, not once," she wrote.

"Legal liability cannot be premised on hypothetical, never
realized possibilities.

"This is especially true when, as here, no one even knows how the
hypothetical can be transformed into reality."

Ms. Wisniewski wrote that in 2015, researchers Charlie Miller and
Chris Valasek conducted an experiment on a Jeep Cherokee.

She wrote that they had abundant resources and access to the
vehicle and they remotely took control of certain functions.

She wrote that Wired magazine reported the experiment on July 21,
2015.  Five days before publication, Chrysler released a free
software fix to address the vulnerability Messrs. Miller and
Valasek identified.

Before Flynn filed the suit, Chrysler closed access to a port that
allowed Messrs. Miller and Valasek to hack the Cherokee.

Ms. Wisniewski wrote that before Flynn sued, Chrysler announced a
safety recall expanding its free software fix.

"This motor vehicle recall, like all others, was conducted under
the watchful eye of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration," she wrote.

After the recall, Messrs. Miller and Valasek congratulated
Chrysler on mitigating the flaws, she wrote.

"Out of the 1,416,709 vehicles affected by the hacking
vulnerability, today there are less than 5,000 that have yet to
receive the recall fix," she wrote.

She wrote that plaintiffs claim they wouldn't have purchased their
vehicles or would have paid less if they had known of the alleged
defect. She wrote that they claim their vehicles will be worth
less upon resale.

"It is indisputable that the alleged defects underlying
plaintiffs' claims have been fixed for free," she wrote.

She wrote that plaintiffs now have non defective vehicles to sell.

"Indeed, there is no evidence that any plaintiff has sold a
vehicle at any reduced price," she wrote.

Judge Reagan has set a jury trial next May. [GN]


CONCHO RESOURCES: "Wesley" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barron Wesley, individually and for others similarly situated, v.
Concho Resources, Inc., 4:17-cv-01845 (S.D. Tex., June 16, 2017),
seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest on all amounts
awarded and all such other and further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Concho Resources, Inc. is a global oil and gas exploration and
production company operating worldwide and throughout the United
States, including in Texas and New Mexico. Plaintiff worked
exclusively for Concho as an oilfield contractor and/or
completions consultant. Throughout his employment with Concho, he
was paid a day-rate with no overtime compensation and was
misclassified as an independent contractor, the complaint asserts.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
     Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 352-1100
     Fax: (713) 352-3300
     Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
            adunlap@mybackwages.com
            litkin@mybackwages.com
            jbresler@mybackwages.com

            - and -

     Richard J. Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


CORE-MARK: Misclassifies Sales Development Reps, Vogel Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JODY VOGEL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC667004 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 29, 2017),
seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages under California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, Core-Mark, the largest distributor and
marketer of consumer goods in North America, ratified and engaged
in an out-going campaign of wage violations against Plaintiff and
the putative class. Core-Mark's unlawful scheme consists of
misclassifying Sales Development Representatives or SDRs as
"exempt" "sales" employees to avoid paying wages for all hours
worked including minimum and overtime wages.

Core-Mark distributes fresh, chilled and frozen merchandise mainly
to convenience stores in the United States. It also provides
associated business services such as category management and
management of promotions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maurice D. Pessah, Esq.
          Jasmin K. Gill, Esq.
          PESSAH LAW GROUP, PC
          1801 Century Park East 26th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 772 2261
          E-mail: maurice@pessahgroup.com
                  jgill@pessahgroup.com


DINEX LICENSING: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dinex Licensing,
LLC. The case is titled as Steven Matzura, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dinex Licensing, LLC, Dinex
Consulting, LLC, Epicerie Boulud Online, LLC, and Dinex NYC
Restaurant Services, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04912
(S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 229 2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229 2246
          E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


DYNAMIC PET: Wants Real Ham Bone Dog Product Class Action Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Underwood, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a pet
products company is seeking to dismiss a class action lawsuit
filed by a consumer alleging she was misled into buying the
company's Real Ham Bone for Dogs product.

Missouri resident Stephanie Brown alleged fraud and negligent
misrepresentation against Dynamic Pet Products LLC and Frick's
Meat Products Inc.  She and her counsel, Brown, Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon LLP of San Diego, sought a trial by jury, punitive
damages, disgorgement and further relief from the court for Brown,
who claimed Real Ham Bone for Dogs damages a dog's digestive
system.

The defense alleges that that Ms. Brown did not read the fine
print in a memorandum it submitted to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.

"The product label actually contains specific warnings and
instructions regarding this risk," according to the memorandum
filed by defense counsel Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman &
Dicker.  "Brown's complaint ignores plain warnings and disclosures
on the label in an effort to fashion a fraudulent scheme, where
none could reasonably be found to exist."

The defense alleges Brown attempted to construe the context.

"Brown does not identify the actual statements made by defendants
that are either deceptive or impliedly deceptive.  Rather, she
takes language from the label out of context and inserts those
phrases as she sees fit, and she only provides a few such
statements," according to the memorandum.

For example, Ms. Brown alleged Dynamic was deceitful in labeling
the product "safe for dogs," even though the ham bone allegedly
splinters.

But Ms. Brown, and all other consumers, are warned of the possible
danger, the defense states.  The product label specifically reads
that pets should be supervised when chewing the bone and it is to
"be chewed over several sittings and should not be eaten,"
according to the memorandum, adding a fresh supply of water should
be at hand.

The product label allegedly also warns to remove bone immediately
if splintering occurs or small fragments break off, and notes "pet
owner assumes liability associated with the use of this or any
natural bone product."

"Far from being deceptive, defendants' label warns specifically
that pet owners should not let their dog eat the bone, and to make
sure the bone does not splinter while being chewed.  The label
also warns that aggressive chewers should not use the product at
all.  It is hard to image how this label could be part of an
alleged scheme to defraud customers by hiding the risk to their
pets from these bones splintering," according to the memorandum.

With "no facts to support the element she has suffered an
ascertainable loss and that this loss was caused by the allegedly
deception," according to the memorandum, the defense seeks
dismissal of the case. [GN]


EDDIE BAUER: Files Motion to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Boniface, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that on June
15, Eddie Bauer filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
by Veridian Credit Union claiming a data breach at the retail
chain was caused by a lack of adequate security measures.

Iowa-based Veridian filed a class action suit on March 7 in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on
behalf of itself and other financial institutions against
Washington-based Eddie Bauer alleging injury as a result of a
security breach that took place between January and July 2016.

Veridian claimed that Eddie Bauer was negligent for failure to
implement adequate data security measures for customer
information, including credit and debit card data.

Veridian claimed that the Eddie Bauer breach affected thousands of
customers at approximately 370 retail locations by compromising
names, credit and debit card numbers, expiration dates, and other
credit and debit card information.

As a result, the plaintiff claims it was forced to cancel or
reissue credit and debit cards and refund or credit cardholders to
cover the cost of unauthorized transactions.

In its motion to dismiss the suit, Eddie Bauer claims that
Veridian has failed to allege sufficient facts to support its
claims, specifically any facts establishing a relationship between
Eddie Bauer and those responsible for the data breach.

In addition, Eddie Bauer claims that Veridian filed the suit in
Washington in an effort to avoid unfavorable Iowa negligence law,
and that application of Washington's law to non-residents is
inappropriate.

"The court should rule that Iowa law governs and that Veridian has
failed to allege viable claims," Eddie Bauer responded. Such law
includes Iowa's economic-loss rule, which bars recovery in
negligence when the plaintiff has suffered only economic loss, the
company says.

The motion also cites other conflicts between Washington and Iowa
law governing negligence, negligence per se, injunctive relief,
statutory violation claims, and violation of Washington's Consumer
Protection Act (CPA), all of which would still favor Eddie Bauer.

For example, Washington's CPA states that a consumer can avoid the
risk of theft of their financial information by choosing to use
cash instead of a credit or debit card.

"Should this court decline to apply Iowa law and instead apply the
law of the forum (Washington law), Veridian's claims still fail,"
the motion states.

Eddie Bauer contends it did not do anything "unethical" and that
even if had an insufficient protection system in place, that in
and of itself does not cause "substantial injury to consumers."
[GN]


ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Faces "Pampena" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Encore Receivable
Management, Inc. The case is entitled as Mary Pampena, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Encore Receivable Management, Inc. and Convergys Corp., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03860 (E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2017).

Encore Receivable provides collections management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


EVANGER'S DOG AND CAT: Accused of Pet Food Poisoning by "Mael"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole and Guy Mael, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Evanger's Dog and Cat Food Co.,
Inc. and Nutripack, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-05469 (W.D.
Wash., June 16, 2017), seeks restitution, injunctive or equitable
relief, veterinary costs and costs for pet care caused by
ingestion of the Defendants's Pet Foods, including medical
monitoring, the value of the animal and any costs associated with
their deaths for pets that died as a result of ingesting the
concerned pet foods.  The suit also seeks payment of treble and
punitive damages, equitable remedies available, attorneys' fees
and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the legal
rate and such further relief resulting from unjust enrichment,
negligence, breach of express and implied warranty and for
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Washington
Product Liability Act.

Defendants produce dog and cat food products in the United States
that they sell online, and through a network of distributors to
retailers touting premium grade meats that do not contain soy,
corn, wheat, artificial ingredients, preservatives, harmful
additives or by-products.

Plaintiffs purchased Evanger's Hunk of Beef Au Jus and Against the
Grain's Grain Free Pulled Beef with Gravy canned dog food for
their five dogs. Immediately, after consuming the Hunk of Beef all
of the dogs became ill, acting listless and non-responsive. One of
their dogs died while one is now being treated for seizures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
      Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq,
      TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
      Seattle, WA 98103-8869
      Telephone: (206) 816-6603
      Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
      Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
             jmurray@terrellmarshall.com

             - and -

      Jessica J. Sleater, Esq.
      ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNI LLC
      1250 Broadway. 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (646) 599-9848
      Email: jessica@andersensleater.com


EVINE LIVE: Faces "Gregory" Suit in Central Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evine Live, Inc. The
case is entitled as Betty Gregory, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Evine Live, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01112 (C.D. Cal., June 29, 2017).

Evine is an American cable, satellite and broadcast television
network. Owned by EVINE Live Inc., the channel is headquartered in
Eden Prairie, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


EXCEL STUDIOS: "Karayan" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Karayan, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; and Salah Alwafai, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Excel Studios LLC, A
California LLC; James Harzell, An Individual; Edwin Fajardo, An
Individual; V.J. Doe, An Individual; and Does 1 Through 25,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC666586 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 27, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime
compensation under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Class
members all their earned wages.

The Defendants operate a dental laboratory that manufacture
crowns, bridge, implants and other ceramics for dentist.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          LEBE LAW, APLC
          5723 Melrose Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (310) 921 7056
          Facsimile: (310) 820 1258
          E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com

               - and -

          Rodney Mesriani, Esq.
          MESRIANI LAW GROUP, APLC
          5723 Melrose Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (310) 921 7056
          Facsimile: (310) 820 1258
          E-mail: Rodney@mesriani.com


EXPERIAN INFO: Meyer Sues Over Illegal Electronic Fund Transfers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Meyer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:17-
cv-04631 (C.D. Cal., June 23, 2017), is an action for damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants in
debiting the Plaintiff's and also the putative Class members' bank
accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining a written
authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized
electronic fund transfers.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is engaged in the maintenance
of dissemination of consumer credit reports and a retail seller of
related services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com
              twheeler@toddflaw.com


FIRST STEP: Court Refuses to Certify Zeznanski's Collective Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Susan O. Hickey denied the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification, for approval and distribution of notice
and for disclosure of contact information in the lawsuit styled
STEPHANIE ZEZNANSKI, individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. FIRST STEP, INC., Case No. 6:17-cv-06023-SOH
(W.D. Ark.).

In her Motion, Ms. Zeznanski seeks conditional certification of a
collective action class: All Caregivers employed by Defendant
First Step, Inc., since February 24, 2014.

Ms. Zeznanski filed her complaint on February 24, 2017, seeking
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.  She is a former
employee of First Step and was employed as an hourly and salaried
employee at different times.  She was tasked with providing in-
home care for the Defendant's infirm and disabled customers.

The Defendant is a "for-profit corporation that provides in-home
care to disabled or infirm persons in Arkansas."

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden
of showing that conditional certification is appropriate,
according to the order.  Hence, the Court finds that the
Plaintiff's Motion should be and hereby is denied.

"This finding is not meant to suggest that an FLSA collective
action is not appropriate in the present case, but simply that
conditional certification as proposed on the present record would
be inappropriate," Judge Hickey stated.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YP7CZdyr


FORTY NINERS STADIUM: Fails to Issue Wage Statements, Kumar Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
NATASHA KUMAR, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. FORTY NINERS
STADIUM MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC; and DOES 1-100,inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 17CV312427 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 29, 2017),
seeks award, injunctive relief, and statutory penalties including,
but not limited to, those available under the state Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to furnish
proper and complete itemized wage statements. Ms. Kumar and Forty
Niners Stadium Management Company LLC's other California
employees, both current and former, have suffered injury as a
result of Forty Niners Stadium's knowing and intentional failure
to furnish wage statements showing the address of the legal entity
that is the employer, in violation of the Labor Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J.Wasserman, Esq.
          William J.Gorham, Esq.
          Nicholas J.Scardigli, Esq.
          John P. Briscoe, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
          Stockton, CA 95207-8253
          Telephone: (209) 477 3833
          Facsimile: (209) 473 4818
          E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
                  wgorham@mayallaw.com
                  nscardigli@mayallaw.com
                  jbriscoe@mayallaw.com


FOSTER FARMS: Products Have Excess Hidden Water, "Wong" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER THOMAS WONG, SERENA WONG, 16 11 on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE VONS
COMPANIES, INC., RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, and FOSTER POULTRY FARMS
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. RG17865531 (Cal. Super. Ct., June
20, 2017), contends that Plaintiffs purchased Foster Farms poultry
products at Ralphs and at Vons supermarkets. Those products
contained excess hidden water included in the marked "net weight"
of the products. Because the Plaintiffs paid the marked, per-pound
price for ordinary tap water that was hidden in the packages,
Plaintiffs paid more for the products than the products were worth
and were therefore injured economically.

The case alleges violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law,
among others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Elliot, Esq.
          THE ELLIOT LAW FIRM
          3200 Fourth Avenue, Suite 207
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 468 4865
          E-mail: davidelliot@elliotlawfirm.com


FRESENIUS KABI: "Glaubach" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Akorn
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIX GLAUBACH, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, and Derivatively on Behalf of AKORN, INC., the
Plaintiff, v. FRESENIUS KABI AG, FRESENIUS SE & CO. KGaA, QUERCUS
ACQUISITION, INC., JOHN N. KAPOOR, KENNETH S. ABRAMOWITZ,
ADRIENNE L. GRA YES, RONALD M. JOHNSON, STEVEN J. MEYER, TERRY A.
RAPPUHN, BRIA TAMBI and ALAN WEINSTEIN, the Defendants, and AKORN,
INC., a Louisiana corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2017-
CH-08916 (Ill. Cir. Ct. June 27, 2017), is a shareholder class
action brought by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of holders
of the common stock of Akorn and derivatively on behalf of Akorn
against the members of Akorn's Board of Directors, Fresenius, and
Quercus, arising out of the proposed acquisition of Akorn by
Fresenius.

In pursuing the proposed acquisition, the complaint contends, each
Defendant has violated applicable law by directly breaching and/or
aiding and abetting the other Defendants' breaches of their
fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith, candor and
independence owed to Akorn and its shareholders.

The Plaintiff seeks to remedy Defendants' breaches of fiduciary
duty arising from the Proposed Acquisition and to protect claims
brought derivatively on behalf of Akorn in the matter entitled
Saji-iet v. Rai, et al., No. 15-CV -07275 (N.D. Ill). As a result
of the By-Law Amendment enacted by Defendants, Plaintiff was
forced to bring the claims regarding the Proposed Acquisition in
Court.

On May 10, 2016, Akorn restated its consolidated financial
statements a second time for each quarter during the 2014 fiscal
year. In total, the Company disclosed that it artificially
inflated its revenue 8.4% and its net income a staggering 194.7%.
As a result of the combined first restatement on March 17, 2015
and second restatement on May 10, 2016, $46.9 million of revenue
and $27.0 million of net income evaporated. Indeed, the
Restatement wiped out the vast majority of the Company's net
income originally reported during the year, reducing it from $40.9
million to just $13.9 million. Akorn also admitted to continuing
material weaknesses in its internal controls, which the Company
hoped to remediate by early 2017.

According to the Complaint, following the revelation of the full
extent of the directors' and officers' breaches of fiduciary duty
and mismanagement of the Company, and the loss of the motion to
dismiss the Securities Class Action, the Individual Defendants
engineered the sale of the Company to attempt to insulate
themselves from liability for the wrongdoing detailed above and to
attempt to have their personal indebtedness and liability
extinguished.  Namely, on April 24, 2017, Akorn and Fresenius
entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which Fresenius
would acquire Akorn for approximately $4.3 billion, or $34.00 a
share, plus the assumption of approximately $450 million of debt.
To put the merger price in context, Akorn shares traded higher
than $34 per share as recently as July 27, 2016.

Akorn engages in the manufacture and marketing of diagnostic and
therapeutic ophthalmic pharmaceuticals products, hospital drugs,
and injectable pharmaceuticals in the United States and
internationally. The Company offers products in various specialty
areas, including ophthalmology, antidotes, pain management,
anesthesia, and vaccines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew T. Heffner, Esq.
          HEFFNER HURST
          30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1210
          Chicago, IL 60602
          E-mail: mheffner@heffnernurst.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Hynes, Esq.
          Ligaya T. Hernandez, Esq.
          HYNES KELLER & HERNANDEZ, LLC
          101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Taylor Seeks to Certify Consumers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled DIANE TAYLOR, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRONTIER
COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Case No. 8:17-cv-00476-PA-DTB (C.D.
Cal.), moves the Court to certify a Consumer Class consisting of:

     All consumers, who, between the applicable statute of
     limitations and the present, purchased or attempted to
     purchase one or more Class Products in the State of
     California, and whose telephone and/or internet service was
     advertised at a lower price than charged.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendant concerning alleged
violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law and its
False Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code,
as well as the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Plaintiff also moves the Court for appointment as Class
Representative, and for appointment of the Plaintiff's attorneys
as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on December 11, 2017, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4Wd4irp8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Headlights
------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against General Motors
LLC, a vehicle manufacturer, alleging breach of implied warranty,
breach of warranty, liability and negligence.

Chester Steele filed a complaint on behalf of similarly situated
individuals on June 9 in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against General Motors alleging that it
sold defective vehicles to consumers.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he suffered
damages from purchasing a vehicle that had defects in the
headlights.  The plaintiff holds the defendant responsible because
it allegedly failed to inform the plaintiff of the defects
regarding the headlights on their Cadillac SRX vehicles from years
2010-15.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks injunction
against the defendant, a recall of defective vehicles,
compensatory, exemplary and statutory damages, interest,
disgorgement, restitution, interest, all legal fees and any other
relief this court deems just.  He is represented by Jordan L.
Lurie -- Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Tarek H. Zohdy --
Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Cody R. Padgett --
Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com -- and Karen L. Wallace --
Karen.Wallace@CapstoneLawyers.com -- of Capstone Law APC in Los
Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:17-cv-04323-BRO-SK
[GN]


GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeals Ruling in Sex Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that after failing to
bounce reinstatement claims by women alleging sex discrimination,
Goldman Sachs has asked the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to
step in.

On June 26, the bank's lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell filed a
request for interlocutory appeal, arguing that the 2nd Circuit
should consider two novel questions stirred up in a long-running
class action by women who claim they were underpaid, unfairly
evaluated and ultimately lost or left their jobs because Goldman
treated women differently than men.

Goldman contends that U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres of
Manhattan disregarded a U.S. Supreme Court directive in 2011's
Wal-Mart v. Dukes when she ruled that women who no longer work at
Goldman can sue to change the bank's employment procedures.

According to Goldman, the 9th and 11th Circuits have both said
former employees don't have standing to pursue injunctions against
their ex-employers and trial courts within the 2nd Circuit have
split on the question.

The bank also asked the 2nd Circuit to consider whether former
employees who have not claimed they were fired can demand
reinstatement.  According to Goldman's brief, none of the four
women named in the class action -- which seeks backpay,
reinstatement and injunctive relief -- has alleged she was
wrongfully terminated.  Two resigned. One lost her job after the
2008 financial crisis and another left when Goldman sold her
entire unit.  The bank said in its brief to the 2nd Circuit that,
contrary to Judge Torres' ruling in its case, five federal
appellate circuits have held former employees "must have a valid
claim for unlawful discharge to seek reinstatement."

The 2nd Circuit rarely grants interlocutory, or mid-case, appeals
but even Judge Torres, in a June 14 order certifying the standing
and reinstatement issues Goldman raised, agreed that there is
"substantial disagreement" and "conflicting authority" on the
questions.  Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Outten &
Golden, which represent the women suing Goldman, opposed Judge
Torres' certification of the issues.  According to Adam Klein of
Outten, the plaintiffs also intend to ask the 2nd Circuit to deny
Goldman's request for review.  "We do not think that the 2nd
Circuit should review issues on a piecemeal basis," he said in an
email.

The Goldman gender discrimination case dates back to 2010, when
former Goldman executives Cristina Chen-Oster and Shanna Orlich
filed a complaint alleging the bank denied them equal pay and
promotions because of their gender. In 2012, after the Supreme
Court's Wal-Mart ruling, U.S. District Judge Leonard Sand, who was
then overseeing the case, dismissed the women's injunctive claims,
holding that they didn't have standing.  In 2015, U.S. Magistrate
Judge James Francis recommended against certifying an injunction
class, relying on Judge Sand's 2012 decision.

Two new plaintiffs, Allison Gamba and Mary de Luis, then joined
the case.  Ms. Gamba worked for Goldman until 2014, when her
business unit was sold.  Ms. De Luis resigned in 2016 when Goldman
denied her request for a transfer. Goldman moved to dismiss the
new plaintiffs' class claims for injunctive and declaratory relief
under Judge Sand's 2012 decision that former employees didn't have
standing.

Judge Torres denied the motion in her ruling last April, holding
that Judge Sand's 2012 decision was clearly erroneous.  Judge
Torres agreed with several other trial judges in the 2nd Circuit
that the Supreme Court's discussion in Wal-Mart of the standing of
former employees was non-binding dicta.  She also said former
employees have standing to seek a change in employment policies
when they want to regain their old jobs.

The trial judge has not yet decided whether to certify injunctive
or damages classes. She has called for briefing on the issue of
money damages while Goldman pursues its interlocutory appeal.

Plaintiffs' brief opposing the appeal is due in July.  Class
lawyer Klein declined to comment additionally. [GN]


HAAGEN-DAZS: "Pedro-Salcedo" Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Melanie G. San Pedro-Salcedo, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The
Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc., Nestle Dreyer's Ice Cream
Company, Nestle USA, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case
No. 17CV310563 (Cal. Super., May 18, 2017), was removed to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on June 16, 2017, and assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-03504.

The complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act through its unwanted contact of consumers
on their respective cellular telephones. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq.
      Abigail A. Zelenski, Esq.
      David Zelenski, Esq.
      Sehreen Ladak, Esq.
      Ryan Stubbe, Esq.
      JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
      114 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 200
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 630-7280
      Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
      Email: michael@jlglawyers.com
             abigail@jlglawyers.com
             david@jlglawyers.com
             sehreen@jlglawyers.com
             ryan@jlglawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Miles M. Cooley, Esq.
      KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
      10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 23rd Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-4008
      Telephone: (310) 712-6100
      Facsimile: (310) 712-6199
      Email: mcooley@kelleydrye.com


HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces "Solak" Suit in Northern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. The case is styled as John Solak and Jim Figger, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., doing business as:
Sensible Portions, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00704-LEK-DEP
(N.D.N.Y., June 29, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Senior
Judge Lawrence E. Kahn.

Hain Celestial is an American food company whose main focus is
foods and personal care products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


HCSB FINANCIAL: Short-changed on Merger Deal, "Parshall" Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HCSB Financial Corporation, Michael S.
Addy, Clay D. Brittain, III, Gerald R. Francis, Jan H. Hollar,
James C. Nesbitt, John T. Pietrzak, D. Singleton Bailey, and
United Community Banks, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01589
(D.S.C., June 16, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the acquisition of HCSB Financial
Corporation by United Community Banks, Inc.  The suit also seeks
rescissory damages should the merger push through, costs of this
action including reasonable allowance for Plaintiff's attorneys'
and experts' fees, and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

HCSB Financial Corporation will be acquired by United Community
Banks where stockholders of HCSB will receive 0.0050 shares of
United per share of HCSB. Parshall alleges that the terms of the
merger substantially favors United and are made to unreasonably
dissuade potential suitors from making competing offers.

HCSB is a South Carolina corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices at 3640 Ralph Ellis Blvd., Loris, South Carolina
29569. It's the bank holding company for Horry County State Bank
offering deposit services, including checking accounts, savings
accounts, certificates of deposit, money market accounts and
individual retirement accounts through a network of eight
branches.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      (302) 295-5310

            - and -

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

            - and -

      J. Rutledge Young, III, Esq.
      DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC
      96 Broad Street
      Charleston, SC 29401
      Tel: (843) 720-2044
      Email: ryoung@duffyandyoung.com


HERITAGE HOSPICE: Faces "Pilkinton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Pilkinton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Heritage Hospice of Texarkana, LLC, and Blake R. Rich,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00519-JRG (E.D. Tex., June 23, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide hospice care in East Texas, including the
communities of Jefferson, Texarkana, Atlanta and Kilgore. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HILL COUNTRY CHICKEN: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hill Country New
York LLC. The case is captioned as Steven Matzura, and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hill
Country New York LLC, Hill Country New York Catering Company, LLC,
Hill Country IP, LLC, Hill Country Chicken NY, LLC, Hill Country
New York Holdings, LLC, Hill Country Chicken Holdings, LLC, and
Hill Country Brooklyn, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04933
(S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2017).[BN]


HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Warfield" Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield,
Inc. The case is captioned as Melrose Flowers, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hunter
Warfield, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00144-HLM-WEJ
(N.D. Ga., June 28, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Harold L. Murphy.

Hunter Warfield provides revenue recovery and risk mitigating
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
          Hormozdi Law Firm, LLC, Suite 175
          1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road
          Norcross, GA 30093
          Telephone: (678) 395 7795
          Facsimile: (866) 929 2434
          E-mail: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com


INT'L PAPER: Settles Kleen Products Antitrust Suit for $354MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper on June 27 disclosed that it has entered into
an agreement to settle the Kleen Products antitrust class action
lawsuit, which was filed in 2010 against the Company and seven
other containerboard producers and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

If approved by the court, the agreement would resolve disputed
claims involving the price of containerboard products purchased
directly from International Paper, Temple-Inland Inc. and
Weyerhaeuser Company by the class members at any time prior to the
date of court approval.  Under the terms of the agreement, the
Company will pay $354 million into a settlement fund in return for
dismissal and release of all claims.  The Company will record a
reserve for the expected settlement, which will result in a pre-
tax charge of $354 million ($219 million, net of tax) in the
second quarter of 2017.

"We continue to maintain that the allegations are baseless and
without merit," said Mark Sutton, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer.  "However, we have agreed to settle this lawsuit in order
to avoid substantial on-going legal expenses and the inherent
risks of a multi-billion-dollar class-action lawsuit."

In this complex class-action case, where any award would be
tripled and potentially paid by International Paper alone, this
settlement avoids the substantial uncertainty of continued
involvement with this litigation and a possible adverse jury
verdict.

                    About International Paper

International Paper (NYSE: IP) --
http://www.internationalpaper.com-- is a global producer of
renewable fiber-based packaging, pulp and paper products with
manufacturing operations in North America, Latin America, Europe,
North Africa, Asia and Russia.  It produces packaging products
that protect and promote goods, and enable world-wide commerce;
pulp for diapers, tissue and other personal hygiene products that
promote health and wellness; papers that facilitate education and
communication; and paper bags, cups and food containers that
provide convenience and portability.  It is headquartered in
Memphis, Tenn., and employs approximately 55,000 colleagues
located in more than 24 countries.  Net sales for 2016 were $21
billion.  [GN]


INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Collects Biometric Info, Zepeda Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC ZEPEDA, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and KIMPTON HOTEL & RESTAURANT
GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendants,
Case No. 2017CH08904 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 27, 2017), seeks to
recover damages and other legal and equitable remedies against the
national hotel chain for allegedly capturing, storing and using
its workers' fingerprints in violation of Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act and without their informed written
consent.

Recognizing the serious harm that can come from unregulated
collection and use of biometrics, Illinois passed detailed
regulations addressing the collection, use and retention of
biometric information by private entities, like Defendants.
Choosing to shun more traditional timekeeping methods, Defendants
instead implemented an invasive time tracking program that relied
on the collection, storage, and use of workers' fingerprints and
biometric information, while disregarding the relevant Illinois
regulations and the privacy interests they protect, the Complaint
says.

IHG is a global company with a broad portfolio of hotel
brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTUIT INC: Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages Sought in "Myers" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darci Myers, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Intuit, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01228, (S.D. Fla., June 16, 2017), seeks
consequential damages, statutory damages and penalties, liquidated
damages for waiting time penalties pursuant to California Labor
Code provisions related to overtime compensation and record
keeping, restitution, statutory penalties as set forth in the
California Labor Code, prejudgment, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expenses and costs and such other relief.

Intuit Inc. is a business and financial software company that
develops and sells financial, accounting and tax preparation
software and related services for small businesses, accountants
and individuals.  Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a
Services and Support Representative at its San Diego, California
location. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Noam Glick, Esq.
      Kelsey D. McCarthy, Esq.
      GLICK LAW GROUP, P.C.
      225 Broadway, Suite 2100
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 382-3400
      Facsimile: (619) 615-2193
      Email: noam@glicklawgroup.com
             kelsey@glicklawgroup.com


JON2 LLC: "Yascaribay" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, No Time-keeping
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Santiago Yascaribay, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jon 2, LLC (d/b/a Manny's on
Second), Eric Gonzalez and John Nelson, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-04573, (S.D. N.Y., June 16, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and New York Labor Law, spread of hours premium, applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Manny's on Second is a bar/restaurant previously owned by John
Nelson and now owned by Eric Gonzalez located at 1770 2nd Ave, New
York, NY 10128. Yascaribay was ostensibly employed as waiter,
barback, food runner and busboy, but also required to spend
several hours each day cleaning and unclogging sinks, cleaning
bathrooms, collecting bottles, cutting lemons, taking out the
garbage, recycling beer bottles and washing glass cups. Plaintiff
regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week
without appropriate minimum wage or overtime compensation for any
of the hours that he worked, says the complaint. He alleges that
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of his hours
worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JSM APPLIANCE: "Baldwin" Suit Moved to District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joshua Baldwin, Jonathan LaCroix,
and Anthony Agliano, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, JSM Appliance
Installation & Delivery, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2017-CA-
5332, was removed on June 29, 2017 from 13th Judicial Circuit -
Hillsborough County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 8:17-cv-01556-SDM-TBM to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday.

JSM Appliance is a privately held company in Plant City, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna V. Smith, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave. Ste. 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William L. Yanger, Esq.
          YANGER LAW GROUP, PA
          217 N Lois Ave.
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 286 7025
          Facsimile: (813) 288 2039
          E-mail: bill.yanger@yangerlaw.com


KBR INC: "Porter" Sues Over Stock Price Drop from Bribery Raps
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Porter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. KBR, Inc., Stuart J. Bradie, William P.
Utt, Mark W. Sopp and Brian K. Ferraioli, Defendants, Case No.
4:17-cv-01840 (S.D. Tex., June 16, 2017), seeks damages,
prejudgment and post judgment interest, as well as reasonable
attorneys' fees, expert fees, other costs and such other and
further relief for violation of federal securities laws.  The
lawsuit further seeks to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendants failed to disclose that its United Kingdom subsidiaries
had violated applicable bribery and corruption laws as confirmed
by the United Kingdom's Serious Fraud Office. On this news, KBR's
share price fell $1.43, or 9.24%, to close at $14.05 on April 28,
2017.

KBR provides professional services and technologies across the
asset and program life-cycle within the government services and
hydrocarbons industries worldwide. The company operates through
three segments: Government Services, Technology & Consulting, and
Engineering & Construction. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
      THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
      8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (214) 239-4568
      Fax: (281) 254-7789 (fax)
      Email: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

             - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


KELLER WILLIAMS: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Razmara" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Mahbobeh Razmara, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Keller Williams Realty, Inc. d/b/a Keller
Williams, Case No. 2:17-cv-04669 (C.D. Cal., June 23, 2017), seeks
to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and
prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express
consent of the called party.

Keller Williams Realty, Inc. operates a real estate in Los
Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      S. Masih Kazerouni, Esq.
      Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (949) 407-8721
      Facsimile: (866) 502-5065
      E-mail: mk@rkrlegal.com


KINECTA ALTERNATIVE: "Sloan" Hits Missed Breaks, Claims Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Sloan, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kinecta Alternative Financial
Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04490, (C.D. Cal.,
June 16, 2017), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for
failure to pay for overtime and minimum wage rate, failure to
authorize or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize or
permit required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the
form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all
wages due upon separation of employment, reimbursement of business
expenses, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs and interest pursuant to the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act, California labor Code, the Unfair
Business Practices provision of the California Business and
Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders.

Defendant is a federal credit union that provides loans,
mortgages, and refinancing options to customers as well as
residential and commercial real estate property valuations and
appraisals in conjunction with the purchase and refinancing of
loans. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an appraiser from
approximately December 2010 to April 2016.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Tashroudian, Esq.
      Mona Tashroudian, Esq.
      TASHROUDIAN LAW GROUP, APC
      5900 Canoga Ave., Suite 250
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 561-7381
      Facsimile: (818) 561-7381
      Email: david@tashlawgroup.com
             mona@tashlawgroup.com

             - and -

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      Email: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com


LAGUNA BEACH, CA: Disabled, Homeless Discrimination Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bryce Alderton, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a U.S.
District Court judge in Santa Ana issued multiple rulings in
connection with a 2015 lawsuit filed by the American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, which alleges
the city of Laguna Beach discriminates against disabled homeless
people.

In court documents filed on June 23 and provided by Laguna Beach
City Attorney Phil Kohn on June 27, Judge Andrew Guilford granted
a motion for class-action status from David Sestini, Michael
Newman and Richard Owens, who documents say represent "all
homeless persons who reside or will reside in Laguna Beach who
have a mental and/or physical disability" as defined under the
federal Rehabilitation Act and Americans With Disabilities Act and
"who have been, or are likely to be, cited for violations" of
state and/or city laws.

The 2015 lawsuit challenges the city's practice of issuing
citations for sleeping or lodging in public to disabled homeless
people who cannot access the local emergency shelter, known as
ASL.

ASL, which stands for Alternative Sleeping Location, is an
emergency overnight shelter in Laguna Canyon that provides 45
beds, meals, laundry, showers and van service to Laguna's bus
depot. Officials from the Laguna Beach-based nonprofit Friendship
Shelter operate the ASL under contract with the city.

Sestini, Newman and Owens allege the city violated protections
against cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth and 14th
amendments of the U.S. Constitution, Title II of the Americans
With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,
according to court records.

"The lawsuit will have a broader impact with the representative
class rather than a few individuals," Eve Garrow, homelessness
policy analyst for the ACLU, said in an interview when asked to
explain the reason for the class-action motion.

Judge Guilford denied the men's motion for summary judgment, or
ruling without trial, on the allegations of violations of the ADA
and Rehabilitation Act.

"There are genuine issues of material facts about whether
plaintiffs were excluded from, discriminated against or denied
benefits from the ASL by reason of their disabilities," Judge
Guilford wrote.  "And there are genuine issues of material facts
about whether modifications to the ASL are necessary to avoid
discrimination on the basis of disability."

However, Guilford granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment regarding a claim that city staff members transport
people to and from the ASL using a van that is not equipped with
ramps or lifts.  The city does not dispute that, according to
court records.

Judge Guilford affirmed the city's request for summary judgment on
the plaintiffs' due-process claims, according to court records.

Mr. Kohn wrote in an email that he had no comment and would
discuss the case with the City Council during its closed session.

Plaintiffs seeking class-action status must satisfy four elements
of federal law, according to Judge Guilford's ruling.  One element
requires claims to be typical of the claims of the class members.

"It is true that proposed class members suffer from a wide variety
of mental or physical disabilities, but the overarching issue for
each member is identical," Judge Guilford wrote in his ruling.
"All are allegedly adversely affected by defendants' homelessness
policy.

"Proposed class members, according to defendants, each allegedly
experienced different harms.  For example, one individual was
allegedly harmed physically from having to sleep on the ASL's
floor mats, while another individual suffered from anxiety
allegedly exacerbated by conditions at the ASL.

"Proposed class members all allegedly suffered the injury of
having their rights violated due to their disabilities," Judge
Guilford wrote.

Plaintiffs claim there are about 80 applicable homeless people,
according to court records.  The city disputes that number,
claiming it is based on 2009 data and is not current, according to
court documents.

A pretrial conference is scheduled for July 17.  Trial is
scheduled to start Aug. 1, Mr. Kohn said. [GN]

The case is KENNETH GLOVER, ET AL. v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, ET
AL., Case No. 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM (C.D. Cal.).


LANGSTON CONSTRUCTION: Class Certified in "Mairena-Rivera" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James J. Brady grants the Plaintiff's motion to proceed
as a collective action, for judicial notice, and for disclosure of
the names and addresses of potential opt-in plaintiffs in the
lawsuit captioned BISMARK MAIRENA-RIVERA v. LANGSTON CONSTRUCTION,
LLC, ET AL., Case No. 3:16-cv-00850-JJB-EWD (M.D. La.).

The Plaintiff was employed as a general construction laborer by
the Defendants.  He alleges that he was not paid one-and-a-half
times his straight time rate for the overtime hours he worked in
excess of 40 hours.  He also alleges that the unlawful pay
practices were commonly applied throughout the Defendants'
operations, and that he worked with other individuals similarly
situated to him who were not paid the proper overtime rate.

The Court grants the Motion; however, because the proposed class
is too broad, the Court narrows the class definition.  The class
is defined as: "All individuals who worked or are working for
Langston Construction, LLC or Composite Architectural Design
Systems, LLC performing manual labor during the previous three
years and who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA,
29 U.S.C. Section 207, and who did not receive full overtime
compensation."

Judge Brady directs the Defendants to provide the Plaintiff with
the names, last-known addresses, and e-mail addresses (if
available) of the potential claimants within 20 days of the
Ruling.  Judge Brady also directs the parties to meet and confer
regarding the content of the notice and to submit it within 20
days.

If the parties cannot agree on a joint notice, within 20 days of
this Ruling, they may separately submit proposed notices by filing
them into the record, Judge Brady stated.  Judge Brady also
ordered that the opt-in period for putative class members will be
90 days from the date that a final notice is approved by the
Court.

A copy of the Ruling is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uK80sjgb


MAINE, USA: "SD" Suit Moved Federal District Court
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul R. Lepage. The
case is captioned as SD, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated individuals; YM, through her mother and
guardian JM, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated individuals; SR, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated individuals; KD, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated individuals; SD, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated individuals; CB; MR,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
individuals; the Plaintiffs, v. PAUL R. LEPAGE, in his official
capacity as Governor of the State of Maine; and RICKER HAMILTON,
in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Maine
Department of Health and Human Services, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00245-JDL (D. Me., June 29, 2017). The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Jon D. Levy.

Maine is the northernmost state in the New England region of the
northeastern United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          JACK B. COMART, Esq.
          Maine Equal Justice Partners
          126 Sewall Street
          Augusta, ME 04330-6822
          Telephone: (207) 626 7058
          E-mail: jcomart@mejp.org

               - and -

          Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq.
          Valerie Z. Wicks, Esq.
          JOHNSON WEBBERT & YOUNG LLP
          160 Capitol Street, Suite 3
          P.O. Box 79
          Augusta, ME 04330
          Telephone: (207) 623 5110
          E-mail: jyoung@johnsonwebbert.com
                  vwicks@johnsonwebbert.com


MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: "Berube" Suit Seeks Payment of Lost Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASON BERUBE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, MML INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, D/B/A MASS MUTUAL, the
Defendant, Case No. 17-2024 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 27, 2017),
alleges that Mass Mutual has a company-wide policy of not paying
the Plaintiff or any other similarly situated inside sales
employees an hourly rate equal to one and one-half times their
regular hourly rate for all the hours that they worked in excess
of 40 during multiple weeks of their employment for Mass Mutual.
As a result of Mass Mutual's failure to pay the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated inside sales employees an hourly rate
equal to one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for all
the hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours during multiple
weeks of their employment, they have suffered damages in the form
of lost wages.

The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated inside sales
employees sold and/or sell insurance products to Mass Mutual
customers over the telephone from Mass Mutual's offices.  Mass
Mutual has call centers located throughout Massachusetts,
including, but not limited to, in Boston, Burlington and Ashland.
Mass Mutual uses these offices to regularly sell insurance
products to customers over the telephone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Livingstone, Esq.
          John Regan, Esq.
          REGAN LANE LLP
          43 Bowdoin Street, Ste. A
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (857) 277 0902
          Facsimile: (857) 233 5287
          E-mail: jay@reganlane.com
                  jregan@reganlane.com


MATTEL INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on June 27
disclosed that a class action has been commenced by an
institutional investor on behalf of purchasers of Mattel, Inc.
("Mattel") (NASDAQ:MAT) publicly traded securities during the
period between October 20, 2016 and April 20, 2017 (the "Class
Period").  This action was filed in the Central District of
California and is captioned Waterford Township Police & Fire
Retirement System v. Mattel, Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-04732.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from June 27, 2017.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of this class, you
can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/mattelinc/.Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Mattel and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Mattel is a multi-national toy manufacturing company.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding Mattel's business and prospects,
including that prior to and during the Class Period, Mattel's
retail customers were loaded with extremely high levels of unsold
Mattel product and, as a consequence, Mattel was exposed to the
heightened risk that it would have to issue its retailers
financial concessions (in the form of sales adjustments, discounts
and promotions) to remove such excess inventory, as well as the
heightened risk that Mattel would experience slower sales growth
in future periods.  As a result of defendants' false statements
and/or omissions, Mattel shares traded at artificially inflated
prices of more than $33 per share during the Class Period.

Then, on April 20, 2017, after the close of the market, Mattel
announced its first quarter 2017 financial results, reporting
that, on a year-over-year basis, worldwide net sales and gross
margins each declined by more than 15%, and its operating loss
increased by more than 158% to $127.0 million from $49.1 million.
Mattel's first quarter 2017 results were significantly below Wall
Street consensus estimates.  In fact, Mattel's 15% net sales
decline during the quarter was twice the 7.8% decline expected by
Wall Street analysts and its reported first quarter 2017 gross
margins were 520 basis points less than expected Wall Street
consensus estimates.  In response to these revelations, the price
of Mattel stock fell nearly 14%, or $3.42 per share, on heavy
trading volume to close at $21.79 per share on April 21, 2017.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Mattel publicly traded securities during the Class Period (the
"Class").  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which
has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions
including actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a law firm advising
and representing U.S. and international investors in securities
litigation and portfolio monitoring.  With 200 lawyers in 10
offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history.  For the third
consecutive year, the Firm ranked first in both the total amount
recovered for investors and the number of shareholder class action
recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report.  Robbins Geller attorneys
have shaped the law in the areas of securities litigation and
shareholder rights and have recovered tens of billions of dollars
on behalf of the Firm's clients.  Robbins Geller not only secures
recoveries for defrauded investors, it also implements significant
corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial
markets for investors worldwide. [GN]


MB FINANCIAL: Sued in Ill. Over Continuous Daily Overdraft Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Latanya Moore, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MB Financial Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:17-cv-04716 (N.D.
Ill., June 23, 2017), arises from MB Financial Bank's routine
practice of wrongfully assessing and collecting from its customers
a so-called "Continuous Daily Overdraft Fee" in addition to an
initial overdraft fee if and when the customer's overdraft status
remains in effect for a period of two calendar days after the
account balances goes negative, in an amount that far exceeds the
permissible limit under the National Bank Act.

MB Financial Bank, N.A. is a national bank with its U.S.
headquarters and principal place of business located in Chicago,
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeff M. Ostrow, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Es.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
      One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 525-4100
      Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
      E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
              streisfeld@kolawyers.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Jones Day Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Chaiten, Esq. -- lachaiten@jonesday.com -- Darren Cottriel,
Esq. -- dcottriel@jonesday.com -- Ira Karoll, Esq. --
ikaroll@jonesday.com -- Rebekah Byers Kcehowski, Esq. --
rbkcehowski@jonesday.com  -- and Sharyl Reisman, Esq. --
sareisman@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day, in an article for JDSupra,
report that the United States Supreme Court held that class action
plaintiffs cannot obtain an immediate appeal as of right from the
denial of class certification by voluntarily dismissing their
individual claims.

The Reasoning: The "dismissal device" undermines the final-
judgment rule, undermines the discretion given to the courts of
appeals by Rule 23(f), and violates principles of fairness because
it is available only to class action plaintiffs.

The Implications: Class action plaintiffs cannot use this
"dismissal device" to obtain early review "as of right" of the
denial of class certification.  Given the Court's recognition of
the heavy burdens class certification can impose on defendants,
the decision may also help class action defendants obtain
discretionary appellate review under Rule 23(f).  The Court's
decision provides courts with a reminder to treat class action
defendants evenhandedly.

In a victory for class action defendants, the United States
Supreme Court's decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker puts an end
to plaintiffs' manufactured appeals as of right from denials of
class certification. The Court's holding reaffirms that class
certification decisions are interlocutory and subject to immediate
appeal only within the discretion of the courts of appeals under
Rule 23(f). In addition to narrowing when plaintiffs can appeal,
the Court emphasized that class action rules must be evenhanded;
class certification is "just as important to defendants" as it is
to plaintiffs.

The Background

In 2011, a group of console owners sued Microsoft Corporation in a
putative nationwide class action, claiming the popular Xbox 360
console was defectively designed because, plaintiffs alleged, it
scratched game discs during normal operations. Microsoft Corp. v.
Baker, ___ U.S. ___, No. 15-457, slip op. at 8 (June 12, 2017).
The District Court struck the class allegations, an act that is
"functional[ly] equivalent to an order denying class
certification." The court determined that nothing undermined a
previous court's denial of class certification in a similar case
in 2009. Id. at 8-9 & n.7 (citing In re Microsoft Xbox 360
Scratched Disc Litig., 2009 WL 10219350, at *6-7 (W.D. Wash. Oct.
5, 2009)).

Although the order striking class allegations was not immediately
appealable as of right under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (because it was
not a final judgment), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)
grants an immediate appeal of the grant or denial of class
certification. That appeal, however, lies solely within the
discretion of the court of appeals. The Microsoft plaintiffs
petitioned the Ninth Circuit for discretionary review of the order
striking the class allegations under Rule 23(f). Microsoft, ___
U.S. ___, slip op. at 9. The Ninth Circuit denied that petition.
Id.

The plaintiffs chose not to proceed with their individual claims
on the merits and litigate to final judgment. Instead, in an
effort to obtain immediate review by the Ninth Circuit, the
plaintiffs stipulated to a voluntarily dismissal of their
individual claims. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Ninth
Circuit, arguing that voluntary dismissal created a final judgment
from which they could appeal as of right the order striking class
allegations. Microsoft, ___ U.S. ___, slip op. at 10. The Ninth
Circuit rejected Microsoft's argument that the plaintiffs had "no
right to appeal" and were "impermissibly circumvent[ing] Rule
23(f)" and held that the plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal made the
case appealable under Sec. 1291 as a final judgment. Id. at 10-11.
The Ninth Circuit also reversed the District Court's order
striking the plaintiffs' class allegations. Id. at 11. Microsoft
then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari. Id.

The Issue

In Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978), the U.S.
Supreme Court rejected the "death knell" doctrine, which allowed a
plaintiff who was denied class certification to appeal immediately
if the denial "would end [the] lawsuit for all practical
purposes." Microsoft, ___ U.S. ___, slip op. at 2. The U.S.
Supreme Court agreed to hear the Microsoft case to "resolve a
Circuit conflict" as to whether "federal courts of appeals have
jurisdiction under Sec. 1291 and Article III of the Constitution
to review an order denying class certification (or, as here, an
order striking class allegations) after the named plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice[.]" Microsoft,
___ U.S. ___, slip op. at 11.

The Outcome

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit. Justice
Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion, which Justices Kennedy,
Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justice Thomas wrote a
concurring opinion, which the Chief Justice and Justice Alito
joined. Justice Gorsuch did not participate. The majority held
that "Plaintiffs in putative class actions cannot transform a
tentative interlocutory order into a final judgment within the
meaning of Sec. 1291 simply by dismissing their claims with
prejudice -- subject, no less, to the right to 'revive' those
claims if the denial of class certification is reversed on
appeal."  Microsoft, ___ U.S. ___, slip op. at 16.

The Court reached this conclusion for the same three reasons that
supported its rejection of the "death knell" doctrine in Coopers &
Lybrand.

First, the plaintiffs' "dismissal device subverts the final-
judgment rule" by creating the opportunity for repeated, piecemeal
appeals. Microsoft, ___ U.S. ___, slip op. at 12-13. The final-
judgment rule is designed to funnel all issues into a single
appeal at the end of the case, whereas the "dismissal device" in
Microsoft, like the "death knell" doctrine, gives a plaintiff the
opportunity to file repeated appeals. Id. at 3, 12-14. The risk of
repeat appeals "is greater" here because the plaintiffs could
dismiss as of right at any time, whereas under the "death knell"
doctrine, the court of appeals had to approve each appeal. Id. at
14.

Second, the plaintiffs' dismissal device both "disturb[s] the
appropriate relationship between respective courts" and "undercuts
Rule 23(f)'s discretionary regime." Microsoft, ___ U.S. ___, slip
op. at 14. Rule 23(f) sets out the proper balance for determining
whether to allow an interlocutory appeal of a class certification
decision and leaves that decision to the discretion of the court
of appeals. Id. at 14-16. That discretion "would be severely
undermined," the Court held, by allowing the plaintiffs to invoke
an appeal of as right by dismissing their individual claims. Id.
at 12, 14-16.

Finally, it was fundamentally unfair that the dismissal device
would be available only to plaintiffs, not defendants. That "one-
sidedness" "reinforce[d]" the Court's conclusion that the
voluntary dismissal here "does not support appellate jurisdiction
of prejudgment orders denying class certification." Microsoft, ___
U.S. ___, slip op. at 17. Instead, "Rule 23(f)'s evenhanded
prescription" applies. Id.

The three concurring Justices agreed with the majority that the
Ninth Circuit lacked jurisdiction here, but based on the lack of
an Article III case-or-controversy: The plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their claims against Microsoft, so the parties were no
longer adverse. Microsoft, ___ U.S. ___, slip op. at 1, 3-4
(Thomas J., concurring in the judgment). The concurrence further
explained that a class action claim is merely "a procedural
mechanism that enables a plaintiff to litigate his individual
claims on behalf of a class," not a separate, independent claim.
Id. at 4.

Lesson from Microsoft

Microsoft -- the U.S. Supreme Court's first decision substantively
interpreting Rule 23(f) -- confirms that class certification rules
cannot be one-sided and unevenly favorable to plaintiffs. Despite
the Ninth Circuit's sympathy for plaintiffs who are denied class
certification, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that class
certification can have the "reverse death knell" effect--"'[a]n
order granting certification  . . . may force a defendant to settle
rather than . . . run the risk of potentially ruinous liability.'"
Microsoft, ___ U.S. ___, slip op. at 17 (citations omitted). As
other courts have explained, "certifying the class may place
unwarranted or hydraulic pressure to settle on defendants." Newton
v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 165
(3d Cir. 2001).

The Court's acknowledgment of the "reverse death knell" effect
provides class action defendants with another basis to persuade
courts of appeals to allow Rule 23(f) petitions for interlocutory
appeal from the grant of class certification. To date, Rule 23(f)
petitions from defendants have been granted at lower rates than
those from plaintiffs.
Microsoft reaffirms that Rule 23(f) is the appropriate mechanism
for plaintiffs to seek an immediate appeal of a denial of class
certification. Rule 23(f) provides a balanced approach to meet the
needs of both parties in putative class actions and leaves the
decision whether to allow an interlocutory appeal within the sole
discretion of the courts of appeals.
The three-Justice concurrence provides a reminder that class
action claims should not be divorced from named plaintiffs'
individual claims. Named plaintiffs' individual claims are the
foundation for satisfying the Article III case-or-controversy
requirement, without which there can be no class claims.
Class action parties should continue to monitor relevant pending
legislation. The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017
(H.R. 985) passed the House of Representatives in March 2017 with
a provision that allows appeal as of right by both plaintiffs and
defendants from the grant or denial of class certification (see
Sec. 1723). Passage of that legislation would moot the specific
holding in Microsoft but would further reinforce principles of
equal treatment for plaintiffs and defendants in class actions.

Three Key Takeaways

   * Class action plaintiffs cannot manufacture immediate
appellate review of the denial of class certification by
voluntarily dismissing their individual claims.

   * Any immediate appeal from the denial or grant of class
certification should be sought under Rule 23(f) and is within the
discretion of the courts of appeals.

   * Courts are reminded to treat class action plaintiffs and
defendants evenhandedly, given the heavy burdens that class
certification places on class action defendants. [GN]


MOOSE INTERNATIONAL: Sept. 5 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
If, prior to March 31st, 2017, you purchased a clothing item
bearing a Moose Knuckles(R) trademark and stated to be "Made in
Canada", your rights could be affected by this notice.

A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
against Moose International Inc. ("Moose Knuckles") regarding the
"Made in Canada" statement appearing on clothing products bearing
the Moose Knuckles(R) trademark purchased anywhere in the world
prior to March 31st, 2017.

Pursuant to the settlement: (i) Moose Knuckles will donate, over a
period of 2 years, a total of $250,000.00 in retail value of
fall/winter outerwear to charitable organisations identified in
the proposed settlement agreement and will pay various costs; and
(ii) there will be no payment or distribution of any kind to any
class member.

Why was this notice issued?
You have a right to know about a settlement that has been reached
in a class action lawsuit brought by two (2) individuals (the
"Applicants") against Moose International Inc. (the "Defendant" or
"Moose Knuckles").  The settlement may affect you. This notice
explains the lawsuit, the terms of the Settlement, and your legal
rights.

What is this lawsuit about?
The Plaintiffs allege that the "Made in Canada" statement by the
Defendant with respect to certain clothing products bearing the
Moose Knuckles(R) trademark purchased anywhere in the world prior
to March 31, 2017, is incorrect.

The Defendant asserts that its "Made in Canada" claim is true and
was made in conformity with all federal and provincial laws and
regulations (Canada), and that it is not liable whatsoever to any
class members.

You can tell the court that you don't agree with the settlement or
to any part of it.

If you have an objection, you can write to the court by September
5, 2017, at:

          Clerk of the Superior Court of Quebec
          MONTREAL COURT HOUSE
          1, Notre-Dame Street East
          Suite 1.120
          Montreal (Quebec) H2Y 185
          Court docket: 500-06--000791-166

A copy of the objection must also be sent to:

          Mtre. Joey Zukran
          LPC AVOCAT INC.
          5800, boul. Cavendish
          Suite 411
          Montreal (Quebec) H4W 2T5
          Phone: 514 379-1572
          Fax: 514 221-4441
          Email: jzukran@lpclex.com

When and where will the court consider approving the settlement?
The court will hold a hearing to consider whether the settlement
is acceptable.  The hearing will be held at 9:00 a.m. on September
5, 2017 in courtroom 2.08 at 10 Notre-Dame Street
East, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. If there are objections, the court
will consider them.

How do I opt out of the Class?

If you don't want the claims you may have, and which are covered
by the class action, extinguished by the effect of the release
contained in the settlement, then you must take steps
to exclude yourself.  This is called "opting out".

You must send a signed letter stating that you are class member
and that you wish to opt out.

You must mail your opt out request postmarked by August 18, 2017,
to:

          Clerk of the Superior Court of Quebec
          MONTREAL COURT HOUSE
          1, Notre-Dame Street East
          Suite 1.120
          Montreal (Quebec) H2Y 185
          Court docket: 500-06-000791-166

How do I get more information?
You can get a copy of the settlement agreement at www.lpclex.com.
You may also email
questions to the class counsel by writing to:

          Mtre Joey Zukran
          LPC AVOCAT INC.
          5800, boul. Cavendish, Suite 411
          Montreal (Quebec) H4W 2T5
          Phone: 514 379-1572
          Fax: 514 221-4441
          Email: jzukran@lpclex.com

The official court reference for this lawsuit is:
No. 500-06-000791-166, Superior Court, District of Montreal,
Province of Quebec


MSF ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Saucedo" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faustino Saucedo, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. MSF Electric, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-01943
(S.D. Tex., June 23, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime premium for all hours worked over 40 in
each workweek.

MSF Electric, Inc. operates an electrical contracting firm located
at 10455 Foutaingate Drive, Stafford, Texas 77477. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

         - and -

      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com


NEW YORK & CO: Faces Class Action Over Pricing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Mike Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a consumer
has filed a class action lawsuit against New York & Company Inc.,
New York & Company Stores Inc. and numerous employees of the
company, citing negligent misrepresentation and unfair
competition.

Alyssa Hedrick filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on June 9 in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the defendants alleging that they
made false representations as to the prices of their goods.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she was
damaged from being misled into purchasing a falsely advertised
product.  The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible because
they allegedly misled consumers into buying full-price products
that they labeled as discounted.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages,
restitution and disgorgement, profits, injunctive relief
injunction against the defendant, attorneys' fees and further
relief as the court may deem necessary or appropriate.  She is
represented by Todd M. Carpenter -- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com --
of Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter LLP in San Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case
number 3:17-cv-01153-AJB-JMA
[GN]


ON-LINE ADMINISTRATORS: Wants Two People Dropped From TCPA Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that two of four people
claiming Volkswagen and a marketing company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act with autodialed calls shouldn't be allowed
to stay in the proposed class action because they voluntarily
provided their phone numbers, the companies told a California
federal court on June 26.

Undisputed facts show that Brian Trenz and Francis Breidenbach
both offered their cellphone numbers to the dealerships they used,
which turned them over to On-Line Administrators Inc., doing
business as Peak Performance Marketing Solutions, so Peak could
make calls on behalf of Volkswagen Group of America Inc., the
companies said.  Volkswagen and Peak are seeking summary judgment
on Messrs. Trenz's and Breidenbach's claims, but not the
allegations made by the other two named plaintiffs: Caitlyn
Farrell and Noelle Simms.

"The statutory text, the implementing regulations, the [Federal
Communications Commission] and the Ninth Circuit have all
confirmed that, as a matter of law, a plaintiff cannot prevail on
a TCPA claim if he or she has provided prior express consent to be
called," Volkswagen and Peak said.  "Summary judgment should be
entered on the claims asserted by Trenz and Breidenbach."

For calls placed prior to Oct. 16, 2013, as Messrs. Trenz's and
Breidenbach's were, simply providing a number is enough to give
consent under the TCPA, Volkswagen and Peak said.  The consent
also doesn't need to be given directly to the entity that placed
the calls, as long as they're calling on behalf of the party to
whom the number was given, the companies added, citing FCC
statements.

As least as early as 2006, Peak performed a variety of services on
behalf of certain Volkswagen and Audi dealerships, including
calling customers to remind them about servicing their vehicles.
Around 2008, Volkswagen launched a program to target and retain
customers in which it agreed to pay for dealerships to use some of
Peak's services.  Dealers could also opt out of the program, or
pay for additional services on their own, the companies said.

Peak called Mr. Trenz twice, on consecutive days in June 2013, on
behalf of Cavender Audi, a dealership Mr. Trenz used in San
Antonio, Texas.  Both went unanswered and Peak didn't leave a
message. Prior to these calls, Mr. Trenz gave Cavender his number,
a fact he testified to and said he assumed he would only be called
when the dealer finished servicing his vehicle.  But he also
conceded he never told the dealer that there was any reason he
shouldn't be called, the companies said.

Mr. Trenz is an experienced attorney who has litigated numerous
TCPA class actions since 2010, and has personally argued
successfully that people who knowingly give away their number have
essentially invited the recipient to call them, unless they
specifically instruct them not to.  So he knew when he gave
Mr. Cavender his number without restriction that he'd agreed to
receive calls placed on the dealership's behalf, the companies
said.

Mr. Breidenbach received three calls from Peak, but only a July
2012 call was made within the statute of limitations.  That call
was unanswered and Peak left a message, as it was a follow-up to a
service estimate Mr. Breidenbach had received 10 days earlier from
Santa Monica Volkswagen about the cost of repairing damage to his
car.

Prior to the call, Mr. Breidenbach had given the dealer his
cellphone number and didn't say he shouldn't be called, the
companies said.  They added that 10 days earlier, he'd also signed
a form that gave the dealer permission to contact him and has
conceded he understood that he was agreeing to phone calls.

A motion for class certification is pending in the action.

Peak is represented by Fred R. Puglisi --
fpuglisi@sheppardmullin.com -- and Jay T. Ramsey --
jramsey@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.  Volkswagen is represented by Matthew D. Pearson --
mpearson@bakerlaw.com -- and Paul G. Karlsgodt --
pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker & Hostetler LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by Deval R. Zaveri --
dev@zaveritabb.com -- and James A. Tabb -- jimmy@zaveritabb.com --
of Zaveri Tabb APC and by James R. Patterson and Allison H.
Goddard of Patterson Law Group.

The case is Brian Trenz, et al., v. On-Line Administrators Inc.,
et al., case number 2:15-cv-08356, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California. [GN]


PAGE BROTHERS: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Ramos" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katiria Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Page Brothers Associates, Inc. d/b/a Coral Springs
Honda, Case No. 0:17-cv-61244-DPG (S.D. Fla., June 23, 2017),
seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending automated
telemarketing text messages without their prior express written
consent.

Page Brothers Associates, Inc. operates a motor vehicle dealership
company located at 9400 W. Atlantic Blvd., Coral Springs, Florida
333071. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: (305) 479-2299
      Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
      E-mail: efilings@sflinjuryattorneys.com

         - and -

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


PAPA JOHN'S: "Thomas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Thomas, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Papa John's International, Inc., It's Only Downtown
Pizza, Inc., It's Only Pizza, Inc., It's Only Downtown Pizza II
Inc., It's Only Papa's Pizza LLC and Michael Hutmier, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00411 (S.D. Ohio, June 16, 2017), seeks unpaid
minimum wages, reimbursement of expenses, liquidated damages,
compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses of this action, together with
reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees and such other legal
and equitable relief as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act.

Defendants own and operate twenty-seven Papa John's Pizza
restaurants in the Dayton, Ohio and Cincinnati, Ohio area, and a
total of seventy-three Papa John's Pizza restaurants in Ohio,
Nevada and North Carolina.

Derrick Thomas worked for Defendants as a pizza delivery driver at
the Papa John's Cincinnati Regional Store.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Biller, Esq.
      Andrew Kimble, Esq.
      MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
      3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
      Cincinnati, OH 45209
      Tel: (513) 651-3700
      Fax: (513) 665-0219
      Email: abiller@msdlegal.com
             akimble@msdlegal.com
      Website: www.msdlegal.com


PEOPLE AGAINST DIRTY: Settles Class Action for $2.8 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Heltzel, writing for Westfair Online, reports that a
Poughkeepsie law firm has settled a dirty case for $2.8 million,
or more precisely, a class action lawsuit concerning People
Against Dirty PBC.

People Against Dirty is a public benefit corporation in San
Francisco that markets cleaning products under the Method and
Ecover brands.

On June 20, Judge Nelson S. Roman of the federal court in White
Plains certified the class action lawsuit and approved the
settlement.

Attorney Jason P. Sultzer filed the case in September on behalf of
a Dutchess County resident, Wesley Vincent.  The complaint claims
that People Against Dirty products uses false and misleading
packaging and labels.

Mr. Vincent objected to the use of terms such as "natural,"
"nontoxic" and "bio-based," alleging that the cleaning products
actually contained ingredients that are artificial, synthetic or
highly processed.

People Against Dirty's website says Adam Lowry and Eric Ryan
founded the company after being exposed to toxic cleaning
supplies.

They knew how to make cleaners without dirty ingredients, so "they
set out to save the world and create an entire line of home care
products that were more powerful than a bottle of sodium
hypochlorite.  Gentler than a thousand puppy licks. Able to detox
tall homes in a single afternoon."

Consumers, the lawsuit states, are willing to pay a premium for
products that are branded "natural," and that is what motivated
Vincent to buy Method cleaners at a local Target store.

But Method products use synthetic ingredients, Mr. Vincent
alleged.  The foaming hand wash, for instance, contains calcium
chloride, a desiccant that is an alleged hazardous chemical, and
tocopheryl acetate, a form of Vitamin E that is used in some
pesticides.

A second lawsuit was filed in California, and eventually the cases
were merged with three more plaintiffs.  By last December, People
Against Dirty was in settlement discussions.

Judge Roman noted that by settling quickly both sides would avoid
time-consuming, complicated and expensive litigation.

Nearly 55,000 people have submitted claims.

The $2.8 million settlement includes a 30 percent award to two law
firms, The Sultzer Law Group in Poughkeepsie and Eggnatz, Lopatin
& Pascucci in Davie, Florida.  Including expenses, they will split
$865,800.

Another $404,697 was allocated for claims administration.
Mr. Vincent and three other plaintiffs will split $10,000 for
their efforts.

That leaves a bit more than $1.5 million for consumers who filed
claims, or about $27.81 each.

Any funds remaining from checks that are not cashed after six
months will be donated to the Sierra Club, Earth Echo
International and the Conservation Alliance. [GN]


PINGTAN MARINE: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zhong Zheng, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd., Xinrong Zhuo, and Roy
Yu, Case No. 1:17-cv-03807 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2017), 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. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company is banned from Indonesia; (2) the Company has used
investor capital to finance illegal activity; and (3) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. engages in the ocean fishing
business. The Company is incorporated in Cayman Islands and its
principal executive offices are located at 18/F, Zhongshan
Building A, No. 154 Hudong Road Fuzhou, China 350001. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
              lrosen@rosenlegal.com


PINGTAN MARINE: Faces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") on June 27 announced a securities
class action lawsuit against Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd.
("Pingtan" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: PME).  Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares between August 8, 2016 and
May 10, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to
contact the Firm in advance of the August 22, 2017 lead plaintiff
motion deadline.

If you purchased Pingtan shares during the Class Period, please
contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang LLP, 18101 Von
Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949)
419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.

There has been no class certification in this case yet.  Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney.  You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member as
well.

According to the Complaint, during the Class Period, Pingtan made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
Pingtan is banned from Indonesia; that the Company has used
investor capital to finance illegal activity; and that as a
result, Pingtan's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.  On May 10, 2017, Aurelius Value
published a report alleging that the Company is specifically
banned from Indonesia and that it used investor capital to finance
widespread illegal activity.  When this information reached the
public, shares of Pingtan lowered in value materially, which
caused investors harm according to the Complaint.

If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two decades, by
telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.


PIXIOR LLC: Fails to Pay State-Mandated Wages, Argueta Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ISIDORA E. ARGUETA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PIXIOR LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; COMMERCE LOGISTIC CENTER DISTRIBUTION, LLC, a
California Limited Company; WORLD KARMA, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, v.
Case No. BC666499 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 27, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid monies, wages and penalties for Defendants'
violations of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to pay
state-mandated minimum wages for all hours worked, pay overtime
wages, provide meal periods, and provide rest periods.

Pixior operates as a logistic company. The Company provides
product warehousing, inventory management, kitting, and
assembly.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sam Kim, Esq.
          Yoonis Han, Esq.
          VERUM LAW GROUP, APC
          841 Apollo Street, Suite 340
          Telephone: (424) 320 2000
          Facsimile: (424) 221 5010


PRIMESOURCE HEALTH: Pfefferkorn Moves for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ERIN PFEFFERKORN, LOTTIE
FARVER, AMY PARKS, CHERYL MCEWEN, KOMEKA THOMAS, CAROL MCDONALD,
and EDNA GARCIA, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. PRIMESOURCE HEALTH GROUP, LLC; PRIMESOURCE HEALTH CARE
SYSTEMS, INC.; PRIMESOURCE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, INC.; PRIMESOURCE
OF MICHIGAN, LLC; SENIORSURE HEALTH PLANS, INC.; PRIMEHEALTH GROUP
LLC, d/b/a SeniorWell; ADVANTAGE CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC; DAVID
FLEMING; BOBBIE RICHIE; TRACI BERNTHAL; ANNIE ELLIOTT; KENNETH
KING, Case No. 1:17-cv-01223 (N.D. Ill.), ask the Court to
conditionally certify the matter as a collective action and to
facilitate sending notice to the class.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to authorize their counsel to
send notice to all putative plaintiffs, to approve the form and
content of their proposed notices, to order the Defendant to
produce to their Counsel the contact information for each putative
plaintiff, and to authorize a 90-day notice period for putative
plaintiffs to join this action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kUyi9WZD

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Thompson, Esq.
          ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
          120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876-7100
          Facsimile: (312) 876-0288
          E-mail: eathompson@arnstein.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
          Chris P. Wido, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: brian.spitz@spitzlawfirm.com
                  chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: "Kleinsasser" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled William Kleinsasser, individually
and as the representative of all persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company and Progressive
Max Insurance Company, the Defendants, Case No. 16-00002-06718-8,
was removed on June 28, 2017 from the Pierce County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington (Tacoma). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:17-cv-05499 to the proceeding.

Progressive Direct provides property and casualty insurance
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen M Hansen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN
          1821 Dock Street, Suite 103
          TACOMA, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 302 5955
          E-mail: steve@stephenmhansenlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Shannon Lea Armstrong, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT (OR)
          2300 Us Bancorp Tower
          111 SW Fifth Ave.
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 243 2300
          Facsimile: (503) 241 8014
          E-mail: shannon.armstrong@hklaw.com


RADISSON HOTEL: Former Employees File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Lynette Adams, writing for WHEC, reports that Radisson Hotel
Rochester Airport workers say they were paid illegally low wages,
denied breaks, and when they complained, they faced retaliation or
were fired.

Now, a group of former employees have filed a class action lawsuit
against the hotel chain.

Former worker Maureen, who didn't want to use her last name, is
among about 15 workers who have brought this lawsuit.  The state
Department of Labor has already ruled in her favor in a
retaliation claim against the Radisson.

The former nine-year employee turned to us for help.  She says the
owner refuses to respond and she wants justice for herself and her
former coworkers.

"What I had to go through for the last year and a half is really
outrageous," says Maureen.

Maureen is describing what has happened since she was fired from
the Radisson Hotel Rochester Airport on Jefferson Road.  She was a
lead bartender until she discovered a financial discrepancy and
reported it to the general manager.  When he failed to address it,
she says she went to the owner.

"When I did that, that's when the harassment started," she tells
News10NBC.  "Taking shifts away, telling people I was a drug
addict, telling people that parties didn't want me to wait on
them.  And when I told them to stop the harassment, the very next
day I was suspended."

She was later fired and arrested months later for stealing.
Maureen was cleared of all charges.  She says many of the hotel's
food and beverage employees, like Mary Mannella, were mistreated.
Often she says they didn't get tips that were included in the
banquet prices.

"I would work as hostess on one particular day and still get paid
$5 dollars an hour for the entire shift even though hostess is not
a tipped employee," says Mary Mannella, former Radisson employee.
"They should be getting paid minimum wage or higher."

The workers say they didn't get breaks, yet were charged for them.
They say their overtime was not paid accurately.  Maureen says
it's estimated the workers are owed well over $200,000.

"So I was getting paid $5 an hour during the times when the
restaurant was closed, where technically I was supposed to get
technically minimum wage," says Ms. Mannella.

The Radisson hotel chains are independently owned and operated.
Again, lawyers estimate the workers are owed well over $200,000.
[GN]


ROSS STORES: Jacobo's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael W. Fitzgerald takes these matters under
submission in the lawsuit styled Jose Jacobo v. Ross Stores, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04701-MWF-AGR (C.D. Cal.):

   -- Ross Stores, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment; and
   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class.

According to the Court's civil minutes, the Courtroom Deputy Clerk
distributes the Court's tentative ruling prior to the case being
called.  Case called, and counsel make their appearance.  The
Court hears oral argument from counsel and takes the matter under
submission.  An order will issue.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3O9jZAd8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Caiafa, Esq.
          DOUGLAS CAIAFA APLC
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1245
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 444-5240
          Facsimile: (310) 312-8260
          E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER J MOROSOFF
          77-760 Country Club Dr., Suite G
          Palm Desert, CA 92211
          Telephone: (760) 469-5986
          Facsimile: (760) 345-1581
          E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David F. McDowell, Esq.
          Matt Cave, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
          Telephone: (213) 892-5200
          Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
          E-mail: dmcdowell@mofo.com
                  mcave@mofo.com


RT MIDWEST: Judge Enters Order of Default in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois
federal judge entered an order of default judgment against the
owner of a group of now-closed Ruby Tuesday restaurants on
June 27 after the franchisee failed to respond to a proposed class
action brought by his former employees.

The suit, filed on behalf of more than 500 employees who worked at
10 now-closed Illinois Ruby Tuesdays, wrapped with U.S. District
Judge Amy St. Eve's order granting a motion for default judgment
filed by the action's proposed lead plaintiff, Jose Rafael Bernal.

Mr. Bernal, a Ruby Tuesday kitchen manager who was awarded $7,500
in back pay through the judgment, learned of his layoff when the
restaurant where he worked closed suddenly on July 26, according
to the suit.  Mr. Bernal claimed the restaurant operators -- RT
Midwest Holdings LLC, RT Chicago Franchise LLC and RT Northern
Illinois Franchise LLC -- had violated the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act when they failed to give their
employees the required 60-day notice.

One of Mr. Bernal's attorneys, Michael Persoon --
mpersoon@dsgchicago.com -- of Despres Schwartz & Geoghegan Ltd.,
told Law360 he expects to file a motion in about a month to
enforce the judgment.

"We'll see if we get any money out of it," Mr. Persoon said.

Mr. Bernal filed his suit in January, but representatives of the
franchise owners named in the suit never came forward, according
to court records.

Efforts to reach Guerrino A. Ruta Jr., who is listed in Illinois
Secretary of State records as manager of all of the named LLCs,
were not successful on June 27.  A spokesperson for Ruby Tuesday
did not respond to a request for comment.

All 10 of Mr. Ruta's Ruby Tuesdays closed on the same day last
year after months of declining sales, according to a letter sent
after the closing to employees by company counsel, Michael McGrath
-- MFMcGrath@RavichMeyer.com -- of Ravich Meyer Kirkman McGrath
Nauman & Tansey PA.

The companies were insolvent and unable to pay rent on the
restaurants or their debts to franchisor Ruby Tuesday Inc. when
they were shuttered, according to the letter.  Noting that Ruby
Tuesday Inc. did not immediately terminate the franchise
agreements despite months of default, the company owner believed
Ruby Tuesday Inc. would acquire the franchises and did not need to
alert employees, the letter said.

After the franchisee told Ruby Tuesday Inc. about the financial
problems, the corporation paid rent for several of the restaurants
for a few months to give it a chance to determine whether it would
acquire them or entertain bids from another buyer, but neither
panned out, according to the letter.

"A notice of restaurant closings before closings were a certainty
was not in the best interest of employees or the companies because
it would have disrupted the businesses, caused additional losses,
and jeopardized the joint efforts of the companies and [Ruby
Tuesday Inc.] to keep the restaurants open," McGrath wrote.

But the fact that the companies knew they were in default on their
rent and franchise agreements should have made the closings
foreseeable, the suit said.  Under the WARN Act, a predicted
closure requires advance notice to employees.

Mr. McGrath, who also represented Ruta when his franchise and
affiliates field for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2012, did not
respond to a request for comment on June 27.

Jose Bernal is represented by Thomas H. Geoghegan, Michael P.
Persoon and Sean Morales-Doyle -- smoralesdoyle@dsgchicago.com --
of Despres Schwartz & Geoghegan Ltd.

The case is Jose Bernal et al. v. RT Midwest Holdings LLC et al.,
case number 1:17-cv-00412, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. [GN]


RUST-OLEUM CORP: September 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steelman, Gaunt & Horsefield, Attorneys at Law, on June 27 issued
the following statement regarding the Rust-Oleum class action
settlement.

A proposed class action Settlement has been reached concerning
Rust-Oleum marketing practices regarding certain Products.

The case, White v. Rust-Oleum Corp., Case No. 16AC-CC00533, is
pending in Cole County Circuit Court, Missouri.

What is this about?
The lawsuit claims that certain Rust-Oleum 2X spray paint Products
were improperly labeled as providing twice the coverage of
competing brands.  As part of the Settlement, Defendant Rust-Oleum
Corp. has agreed to stop this marketing practice and provide
payments for customers. Rust-Oleum denies any wrongdoing.

Who is a Settlement Class Member?
You may be an eligible Settlement Class Member if you purchased
(in the U.S., for personal use and not for resale) between
December 12, 2011 and May 30, 2017, any Rust-Oleum 2X spray paint
Products, including: Painter's Touch Ultra Cover 2X spray paint,
Painter's Touch 2X Ultra Cover spray paint, PaintPlus Ultra Cover
2X spray paint, American Accents Ultra Cover 2X spray paint, and
American Accents 2X Ultra Cover spray paint.  A complete list of
Products is found on the website below.

What are the Benefits?
Settlement Class Members without Proof of Purchase may elect a
Benefit of $1.00 per Unit purchased, up to $3.00 per Household for
Tier 1 Claims; or $1.50 per Unit, up to $6.00 per Household for
Tier 2 Claims, if willing to provide additional information. Proof
of Purchase is required to obtain a refund of more than $6.00 per
Household.  Payments may be less depending on a number of factors.
There is also injunctive relief. Visit the website for details.

What are my rights?
You have the right to file a Claim, Opt-Out, Object, or do
nothing.  To receive a payment, you must submit a Claim online or
by mail.  Your Claim must be submitted online or postmarked by
October 16, 2017.  Or, you may Opt-Out. You will not receive a
payment, but you will keep your right to pursue a separate lawsuit
against the Defendant about these claims.  Your request to Opt-Out
must be postmarked by August 28, 2017.  Finally, you may object to
the Settlement. You must submit an Objection in writing.  Complete
information and instructions are available on the Settlement
Website. Your Objection must be received by
August 28, 2017.  If you do nothing, you will receive no payment
and have no right to sue later for the claims released by the
Settlement.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing in the Circuit Court of
Cole County, Missouri, 301 E High Street, Jefferson City, MO
65101, in the courtroom of the Honorable Jon E. Beetem, Division
One, on September 12, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., to decide whether to
approve the Settlement and to award attorneys' fees and expenses
of $1,740,000, and up to $5,000 as a Class Representative Service
Award to each of two Class Representatives.  The Fee and Expense
Award and the Class Representative Service Award are to be paid by
the Defendant and do not reduce the recovery by the class in any
way   All briefs and materials filed in support of the Settlement
and the Fee and Expense Award will be made available on the
Settlement Website.  You may attend this hearing, but you do not
have to.

Payment will be made to the Settlement Class only if the Court
approves the Settlement and all appeals are resolved.  Please be
patient. If the Settlement does not become effective, the Action
will continue.  You still have the right to make a Claim or file
an Objection now and Opt-Out from the Action later if the
Settlement does not become effective.

For more information, please visit www.SprayPaintSettlement.com,
or contact the Settlement Administrator at (855) 486-7348 or by
writing to Spray Paint Settlement, c/o Heffler Claims Group, P.O.
Box 58788, Philadelphia, PA 19102-8788, or contact Class Counsel
at Steelman, Gaunt & Horsefield, 901 Pine Street, Suite 110,
Rolla, MO 65401. [GN]


SA HOSPITALITY: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SA Hospitality
Group, LLC. The case is captioned as Steven Matzura, and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SA
Hospitality Group, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04893
(S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2017).

SA Hospitality Group is a collection of Italian restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "McCabe" Suit in District of Maine
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung Electronics
America Inc. The case is titled as CAROLYN MCCABE and JASON WARD,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC., SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS CO LTD., HOME DEPOT INC., LOWES HOME CENTERS LLC, BEST
BUY CO INC., and SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00242-JAW (D. Me., June 28, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr.[BN]

Samsung Electronics supplies consumer electronics and digital
products in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen C. Smith, Esq.
          LIPMAN & KATZ, P.A.
          P.O. BOX 1051
          Augusta, ME 04332-1051
          Telephone: (800) 660 3713
          E-mail: ssmith@lipmankatz.com


SANDLIN LAW: Faces "Freeman" Suit in Southern Dist. of Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sandlin Law Group,
P.C. The case is captioned as GERALDINE FREEMAN, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
SANDLIN LAW GROUP, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02214-
LJM-MJD (S.D. Ind., June 28, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Larry J. McKinney.

Sandlin Law is a collections firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (845) 367 7146
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


SET ENTERPRISES: Shaw Seeks Prelim. OK of $1.9-Mil. Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled SARAH SHAW, REBECCA WILES,
and ASHLEY HOWELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE SET ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida
Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-62152-WPD (S.D. Fla.), file
with the Court their unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
settlement, certification of the settlement class, appointment of
the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel, and approval of the
proposed notice of settlement and class action settlement
procedure.

Subject to Court approval, the parties have settled the
Plaintiffs' claims on a class-wide common fund basis of up to
$1,900,000, $400,000 of which is designated for attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Plaintiffs are members of a putative collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as a putative Rule 23 class,
comprised of entertainers, who allegedly worked for Defendants THE
SET ENTERPRISES, INC., and FANEUIL ENTERTAINMENT, INC., in Florida
within the five years preceding the filing of the complaint.
Including the Plaintiffs, there are approximately 4,500 current
and former Entertainers, who perform or performed at
establishments owned or operated (allegedly) by the Defendants,
and who comprise the putative Rule 23 class.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants own or operate three
adult entertainment clubs that conduct business under the moniker
"Cheetah," with locations in Hallandale, Florida, Pompano,
Florida, and Palm Beach, Florida.  They allege that they received
no hourly wage or salary from the Nightclubs based upon their
classification as independent contractors and licensees.  They
contend that the Defendants misclassified them as independent
contractors or licensees, when they were actually employees, and
as a result Defendants failed to pay them legally mandated minimum
wages and overtime wages as required under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gTGrIE8y

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Jack Clyde Morgan, III, Esq.
          ALOIA ROLAND & LUBELL, PLLC
          2254 1st Street
          Fort Myers, FL 33901
          Telephone: (239) 791-7950
          Facsimile: (239) 791-7951
          E-mail: jmorgan@FloridaLegalRights.com

               - and -

          John B. Gallagher, Esq.
          JOHN B. GALLAGHER, P.A.
          2631 East Oakland Park Blvd., Suite 201
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306
          Telephone: (954) 524-1888
          Facsimile: (954) 524-1887
          E-mail: gal2701@aol.com


SMITH GROUP: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Smith Group,
LLC. The case is entitled as Steven Matzura, and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Smith
Group, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04922 (S.D.N.Y., June
29, 2017).

Smith Group delivers products and services for the threat and
contraband detection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 229 2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229 2246
          E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


SOUTHERN OHIO PIZZA: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Mullins, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. Southern Ohio Pizza, Inc. ("SOP"), Domino's Pizza,
Inc., Domino's Pizza, LLC, and Domino's Pizza Franchising, LLC,
Louis Metro, and Karen Metro, Case No. 1:17-cv-00426-SJD (S.D.
Ohio, June 23, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate approximately nineteen Domino's
franchise stores in the Cincinnati, Ohio area. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUNRISE SENIOR: Scheme Defrauds Elders, "Heredia" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Heredia as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Carlos
Heredia; and Corbina Mancuso as successor-in-interest to the
Estate of Ruby Mancuso; on their own behalves and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Sunrise Senior
Living, LLC; and Does 1 24 11 Through 100, the Defendant, Case No.
RG17865541 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 27, 2017), alleges the Defendant
has engaged in a scheme to defraud seniors, persons with
disabilities, and their family members at its assisted living
facilities in California by falsely representing to all residents
in its admission contracts that each resident will be provided the
care services (through facility staff) that the resident needs as
determined by a resident assessment conducted by facility
personnel. This is false and misleading, according to the lawsuit,
because Sunrise does not use the results generated by its resident
assessment system to determine or provide staffing at its
facilities. Sunrise conceals and fails to disclose that, as a
matter of corporate policy, Sunrise sets facility staffing per
shift based on pre-determined labor budgets that remain static
throughout the year despite any increases in aggregated resident
needs as determined by resident assessments.

Sunrise is an American operator of assisted living and other
houses for senior citizens.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq.
          Kelly Knapp, Esq.
          George Kawamoto, Esq.
          STEBNER AND ASSOCIATES
          870 Market Street, Suite 1212
          San Francisco, CA 94102 411
          Telephone: (415) 362 9800
          Facsimile: (415) 362 9801

               - and -

          Christopher J. Healey, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
          San Diego, CA 92101-3372
          Telephone: (619) 235 3491
          Facsimile: (619) 645 5328

               - and -

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Julie C. Erickson, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          Folsom Street, 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 495 7800
          Facsimile: (415) 495 7888

               - and -

          Jennifer A. Uhrowczik, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY WOTKYNS, LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421 7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421 7105

               - and -

          Michael D. Thamer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. THAMER
          12444 South Highway 3
          Post Office Box 1568
          Callahan, CA 96014-1568

               - and -

          W. Timothy Needham, Esq.
          JANSSEN MALLOY LLP
          730 5th St
          Eureka, CA 95501


TARGET CORPORATION: Faces "Jibowu" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation.
The case is entitled as Priscilla Jibowu, Individually and On
Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Target Corporation and Target Corporation of Minnesota, Case No.
1:17-cv-03875 (E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2017).

Target Corporation is the second-largest discount store retailer
in the United States, behind Walmart, and a component of the S&P
500 Index.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


TESLA INC: Faces "Wiseman" Suit over Defective Electric Cars
------------------------------------------------------------
ROY WISEMAN and MARITES WISEMAN, as individuals, on behalf of
themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
the Plaintiffs, v. TESLA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04798
(C.D. Cal., June 29, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from
selling defective Tesla Model S and Model X vehicles.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, and all
other similarly situated persons residing in California and/or the
United States who purchased 2012-2017 Tesla Model S and 2016-2017
Tesla Model X electric vehicles sold by Defendants.

Tesla is one of the few auto manufacturers in the United States
that designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells
exclusively fully electric vehicles.

According to the complaint, since 2012, Defendants Tesla and DOES
1 through 100 collectively, designed, manufactured, distributed,
marketed, and sold Tesla Model S and, later, Tesla Model X
vehicles in the United States and in the State of California. Both
Tesla Model S and Tesla Model X vehicles are equipped with either
one or two electric motors to move the vehicle. The electric
motors use the electricity of the vehicle's lithium-ion battery
packs to rotate either the rear wheels or all four wheels of the
vehicle, depending on the specific equipment of the vehicle. When
the driver presses the accelerator pedal, the electric energy
transfers from the lithium-ion battery packs to the electric
motor(s), moving the vehicle. When the driver releases the
accelerator pedal while the vehicle is moving, the electric
motor(s) of Tesla vehicles begin to act as power generators, which
turn the vehicle's kinetic energy into electricity and recharge
the onboard lithium-ion batteries. Thus, in contrast to gasoline-
powered vehicles, which generally coast when the driver releases
the accelerator pedal, Tesla vehicles begin to rapidly decelerate
as a result of power regeneration. Tesla calls this process
"regenerative braking." Unlike almost every other passenger
vehicle with regenerative braking, Tesla vehicles activate
regenerative braking when the driver lets off the accelerator
pedal. Other vehicles, like the Toyota Prius, only activate
regenerative braking when the driver presses the brake pedal,
retaining the ability to coast.

Tesla, Inc. is an American automaker, energy storage company, and
solar panel manufacturer based in Palo Alto, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hovanes Margarian, Esq.
          THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 210
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 553 1000
          Facsimile: (818) 553 1005
          E-mail: hovanes@margarianlaw.com


TESLA INC: Misclassifies Sales Advisors, "Wilson" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN WILSON on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TESLA, INC., a corporation, Case No.
3:17-cv-03763-JSC (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime wages and minimum wage under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff asserts claims against his employer, Tesla, Inc. for
misclassifying Owner and Sales Advisors as exempt from overtime
and failing to pay overtime, provide breaks, and provide proper
wage statements.

Tesla, Inc. is an American automaker, energy storage company, and
solar panel manufacturer based in Palo Alto, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
          Sandra Brennan, Esq.
          AMARTIN LAW
          600 West Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 308 6880
          Facsimile: (619) 308 6881

               - and -

          Lindsay C. David, Esq.
          BRENNAN & DAVID LAW GROUP
          2173 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
          Carlsbad, CA 92008
          Telephone: (760) 730-9408
          Facsimile: (760) 888-3575


TEXTURA CORP: Kelsey's Bid to Certify Denied Over Settlement Docs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on June 29, 2017, in the case styled
Fred Kelsey v. Patrick J. Allin, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-07837
(N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Mary
M. Rowland.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class is denied without prejudice in light of the parties'
settlement documents, which will address matters regarding the
class.

Patrick J. Allin is Textura Corporation's Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CKYcgdbZ


TGI FRIDAYS: IWPCA Class Certification Sought in "Williams" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled GABRIELLE WILLIAMS and TONYA
O'DONOVAN, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown v. TGI FRIDAYS, INC., Case No. 1:16-
cv-04286 (N.D. Ill.), move for class certification and ask the
Court to certify their Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
claim as a class action.

The Plaintiffs also seek authority to send notice to each putative
class member and to require the Defendant to provide the names,
last known addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of all
class members.  They also ask to be appointed as Class
Representatives and for the appointment of Douglas M. Werman,
Esq., and Sarah J. Arendt, Esq., as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tJTxUP0m

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
          Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com
                  sarendt@flsalaw.com
                  zflowerree@flsalaw.com


THI OF TEXAS: "Wilson" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Asenath Wilson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THI of Texas at Richardson, LLC and
Jennifer Bailey, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01597 (N.D. Tex.,
June 16, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of forty hours in a workweek with liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses of this action,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further
relief under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Defendants operate a number of nursing homes throughout Texas.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a licensed vocational
nurse at The Village at Richardson, Richardson, TX. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
      DUNHAM & JONES, P.C.
      1800 Guadalupe Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Tel: (512) 777-7777
      Fax: (512) 340-4051
      E-Mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com

              - and -

      Scotty Jones, Esq.
      DUNHAM & JONES, P.C.
      1110 E. Weatherford Street
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Tel: (817) 339-1185
      0Fax: (817) 810-0050
      E-mail: sjones@dunhamlaw.com


TINY DANCER: Faces "Clark" Suit in Middle District of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tiny Dancer, Inc.
The case is styled as Mayla Clark, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Tiny
Dancer, Inc., doing business as: McDonald's a Florida Profit
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01547-MSS-MAP (M.D.
Fla., June 28, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mary
S. Scriven.

Tiny Dancer is doing business in hotel and restaurant
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, TAMPA P.A.
          One Tampa City Center, 7th Floor
          201 N Franklin Street
          Tampa, FL 33602-5157
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257 0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Asks Court to OK $7.75MM PAGA Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that on
June 23, Uber Technologies Inc. is expected to ask a Los Angeles
judge to approve a proposed $7.75 million settlement that would
resolve all claims brought over the alleged misclassification of
its drivers under California's Private Attorneys General Act of
2004.  The act, called PAGA, allows private parties to pursue
labor violations under California law.

Lawyers in other driver suits have opposed the settlement, which
they claim could wipe out their PAGA claims at little expense to
the ride-hailing company.

In May, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson asked
California Labor Commissioner Julie Su to weigh in on the proposed
accord.  In a June 16 amicus brief, Ms. Su chose not to delve into
the particulars of the deal but, at the same time, outlined a
number of red flags that the judge should consider.
That didn't sit well with Uber.

"Simply put, the commissioner's proposed standards do not
establish a level playing field for Uber to settle its claims in
the manner that countless other litigants have done since PAGA's
enactment," wrote Uber's lawyer, Sophia Behnia, who is of counsel
at San Francisco's Littler Mendelson, in a June 23 response.  "In
fact, Lyft, which has the same business model as Uber, settled its
nearly identical PAGA suit for one million dollars without any
comment, opinion or interference from the LWDA or the
commissioner."

Uber criticized the commissioner's "self-serving comments," noting
that the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, over
which she presides, gets 75 percent of all PAGA settlement
payments.  The commissioner also failed to acknowledge that the
company admitted no liability and that the plaintiffs' claims
prospects at success were dim.

Judge Nelson, who tentatively rejected the settlement in March, is
set to hear arguments on final approval.

Uber attorney Joshua Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- a
partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher who, along with the firm's
litigation group co-chairman Ted Boutrous, has teamed with Littler
Mendelson on the case, declined to comment.

The plaintiffs' attorneys in the case, Douglas Caiafa and
Christopher Morosoff, both solo practitioners in the Los Angeles
area, did not respond to a request for comment.  But in their June
23 response, they called the commissioner's interpretation of the
PAGA "not reasonable and if followed would result in absurd
consequences."  They also noted that they brought the case on
behalf of the state, not the commissioner, who declined to pursue
a case against Uber.

If the judge rejects the deal, it would cap a tough month for
Uber.

Its chief executive, Travis Kalanick, resigned in the wake of an
internal investigation led by Covington & Burling into allegations
of sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination at the San
Francisco-based ride-hailing firm.
Covington & Burling's report came with numerous recommendations to
heal Uber's allegedly toxic workplace culture.

Its legal department, which is in transition, has a lot on its
plate. [GN]


ULTA SALON: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Wise" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Wise, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.; and Does 1-
100, inclusive, Case No. 1:17-at-00493 (E.D. Cal., June 23, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay premium wages
for unpaid rest and recovery periods, failure to pay overtime
wages, and failure to include commissions, non-discretionary
bonuses and other items of compensation when determining their
Salon Professionals' "regular rate of pay" for purposes of
overtime.

Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. is described on its
website as "the largest beauty retailer in the United States
and the premier beauty destination for cosmetics, fragrance, skin,
hair care products and salon services." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
      William J. Gorham, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
      John P. Briscoe, Esq.
      MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
      2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
      Stockton, CA 95207-8253
      Telephone: (209) 477-3833
      Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
      E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
              wgorham@mayallaw.com
              nscardigli@mayallaw.com
              jbriscoe@mayallaw.com


WADDELL & REED: Sued in Kansas Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Schapker v. Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc.; The Board Of
Directors Of Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc.; The Administrative
Committee Of The Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc. Section 401(K) and
Thrift Plan; and Jane and John Doe Defendants 1-25, Case No. 2:17-
cv-02365 (D. Kan., June 23, 2017), is brought on behalf of a class
of similarly situated participants in the 401(k) Plan, for breach
of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The case alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and engaged in prohibited transactions through a number of
actions and inactions, including but not limited to the following:
a) Selecting or retaining as the investment options for 401(k)
Plan participants investment products that: i. In all or nearly
all cases, were operated and managed by the Defendants themselves;
ii. In nearly all cases, cost more than comparable available
investment options; iii. In nearly all cases, performed worse than
comparable available investment options; and iv. In a number of
cases and during a substantial portion of the Class Period, were
duplicative in content but not cost; b) Failing to include (at all
or in sufficient numbers) investment options for 401(k) Plan
participants that: i. Were operated and managed by someone other
than Defendants themselves; ii. Cost less; and
iii. Performed better; c) Selecting as the default investment
option for a 401(k) Plan participant an investment product
operated and managed by Defendants themselves; and d) Failing to
concentrate assets so as to qualify for investment funds that had
lower fees and leverage plan assets to drive down fees.

Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc. provides investment management and
financial planning services to clients throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq.
      FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
      32 Corporate Woods, Suite 600
      9225 Indian Creek Parkway
      Overland Park, KS  66210-2000
      Telephone: (913) 253-2144
      Facsimile: (866) 347-1472
      E-mail: snehrbass@foulston.com


WASHINGTON: Faces "Bettys" Suit in Western Dist. of Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of Washington.
The case is captioned as John E. Bettys, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated and unknown, the Plaintiff,
v. State of Washington, State of Washington Department of Social
and Health Services, William VanHook, Bill Graves, and John or
Jane Does, One through Eight, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
05501-RBL (W.D. Wash., June 29, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Ronald B. Leighton.

Washington is a state in the Pacific Northwest with terrain
spanning the snow-capped Cascade Mountains to forested islands in
Puget Sound. Its largest city, Seattle, is known for its thriving
tech industry, vibrant music scene and famed coffeehouses.BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marla Aliece Sims-King, individually and as representative of a
class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the
Washington University Retirement Savings Plan v. Washington
University in St. Louis, Lorraine Gofferush, Legail Chandler,
Linda Hack, Washington University in St. Louis Board of Trustees,
and Does 1-10, Case No. 4:17-cv-01785 (E.D. Miss., June 23, 2017),
arises out of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, specifically by
pouring the Retirement Savings Plan's funds into scores of
duplicative, expensive and underperforming Teachers Insurance and
Annuity Association of America and College Retirement Equities
Fund ("TIAA" or "TIAA-CREF") and Vanguard Group, Inc. propriety
products.

By doing so, TIAA and Vanguard reaped multiple layers of fees, but
the Plan and its participants lost the potential growth their
investments could have achieved had the Defendants properly did
their fiduciary duties, says the complaint.

Washington University is a private university organized under
Missouri law with its principal place of business in St. Louis,
Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John J. Carey, Esq.
      John F. Garvey, Esq.
      James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
      CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
      8235 Forsyth Boulevard Suite 1100
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 725-7700
      Facsimile: (314) 721-0905
      E-mail: jcarey@careydanis.com
              jgarvey@careydanis.com
              jrosemergy@careydanis.com
         - and -

      Steve Schwartz, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com

         - and -

      Robert J. Kriner Jr., Esq.
      A. Zachary Naylor, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1100
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 656-2500
      Facsimile: (302) 656-9053
      E-mail: rjk@chimicles.com
              zn@chimicles.com


WEIBO CORP: Faces Class Action, Aug. 28 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, on June 27 announced the
filing of a class action lawsuit against Weibo Corporation
("Weibo" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: WB) concerning possible
violations of federal securities laws between April 27, 2017 and
June 22, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period
should contact the firm prior to the August 28, 2017 lead
plaintiff motion deadline.

You can also 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 above action yet.  Until a
class is certified, you are not considered represented by an
attorney. You may choose to do nothing and be an absent class
member as well.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Weibo
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
that the Company lacks a requisite internet audio/video program
transmission license; that Weibo was posting certain commentary
programs with content in violation of Chinese government
regulations on its site; and that as a result of the above, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. When this news was announced, shares of
Weibo fell in value materially, which caused investors harm
according to the Complaint.

Lundin Law PC -- http://lundinlawpc.com/-- was founded by Brian
Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to
upholding shareholders' rights. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Byrd" Suit in Southern Dist. of Mississippi
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo. The
case is captioned as Gwendolyn Byrd, on behalf of herself and all
of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo, N.A.,
d/b/a Wells Fargo Financial Bank, Windows USA, LLC, d/b/a Windows
USA and Alaskan Window Systems, and Big Four Companies, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00522-TSL-RHW (S.D. Miss., June 29,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Tom S. Lee.

Wells Fargo is an American international banking and financial
services holding company headquartered in San Francisco,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Macy D. Hanson, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MACY D. HANSON, PLLC
          102 First Choice Drive
          Madison, MS 39210
          Telephone: (601) 853 9521
          Facsimile: (601) 853 9327
          E-mail: macy@macyhanson.com


ZTO EXPRESS: Birmingham Retirement Suit Moved to N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Birmingham Retirement & Relief
System, City of individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc.;
Meisong Lai; Jianfa Lai; Jilei Wang; Xiangliang Hu; Baixi Lan;
Xing Liu; Frank Zhen Wei; Jianmin (James) Guo; Morgan Stanley & Co
International PLC; Goldman Sachs (Asia) LLC; China Renaissance
Securities (Hong Kong) Limited; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.;
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; and JP Morgan Securities LLC,
Case No. 17-902004, was removed on June 28, from the Jefferson
County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama (Southern). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:17-cv-01091-RDP to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge R David Proctor.

ZTO Express provides express delivery and other value-added
logistics services in China. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory L Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & TALIAFERRO LLC
          7031 Halcyon Park Drive
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 832 9080
          Facsimile: (334) 409 7001
          E-mail: gldavis@knology.net

Attorneys for ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc.:

          A. Inge Selden, III, Esq.
          Joshua D Jones, Esq.
          BRESSLER AMERY & ROSS, P.C.
          420 20th Street North Suite 2200
          Birmingham, AL 35203-2618
          Telephone: (205) 719 0400
          Facsimile: (205) 719 0500
          E-mail: iselden@bressler.com
                  jdjones@bressler.com

Attorneys for Morgan Stanley & Co International PLC,
Goldman Sachs (Asia) LLC, China Renaissance Securities (Hong Kong)
Limited, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, and JP Morgan Securities LLC.

          Peter S Fruin, Esq.
          Richard Jon Davis, Esq.
          MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC
          1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2400
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254 1068
          Facsimile: (205) 254 1999
          E-mail: pfruin@maynardcooper.com
                  rdavis@maynardcooper.com


* $2.5MM Settlement OK'd in Delivery Drivers' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Langdon Ramsburg, Esq. -- lramsburg@mcneeslaw.com -- of McNees
Wallace & Nurick LLC, in an article for JDSupra, report that in
September of 2015, two delivery drivers filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania. The employees alleged that their former
employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
them overtime between 2012 and 2015.  The class subsequently
ballooned to 474 members (and an additional 588 former and current
delivery drivers remain eligible to opt into the class).  The
members asserted that over that three year period, the employer
denied them overtime for five to ten hours per workweek, totaling
over $10 million in allegedly unpaid wages.

The employer initially argued that the employees were exempt from
overtime requirements.  It claimed that in addition to making
deliveries, as "Route Sales Professionals," the drivers could make
additional sales, fill orders, and upsell when making deliveries.
Therefore, according to the employer, the drivers fell within the
FLSA's "outside sales person" exemption. The drivers maintained
that sales were not part of their job duties; they were simply
delivery drivers who did not fit within the outside sales
exemption.

After two years of discovery, in April of this year, the parties
notified the court that they had reached a settlement agreement.
They asked the court to approve agreement, as is required with
both FLSA claims and class actions lawsuits.

The amount: $2.5 million.

In June, the court approved the FLSA settlement.  It also
preliminarily granted approval of the class action settlement,
subject only to a fairness hearing scheduled for September.


                         *********


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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. 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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *