---

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


             Friday, August 11, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 158



                            Headlines

AAM HOLDING: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ADME INVESTMENT: Failed to Provide 60 Days' Termination Notice
ADVANCED CONTRACTING: Faces "Shaw" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ALL COUNTIES: "Perla" Suit in Cal. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ALLSTATE FLORAL: Accused by "Guiling" Suit of Not Paying Overtime

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Aziev" Suit Claims
ANAUEL CATERING: Garcia Seeks to Recover Unpaid Min. & OT Wages
APPLE INC: iPhone 4 Owners' FaceTime Class Action Can Proceed
ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL: "Orr" Suit Sues Over Confinement Conditions
ARTS NAIL: "Chen" Labor Suit Transferred to N.D.N.Y.

AUSTRALIA: Defence Aware of Firefighting Foam Risks, Case Claims
AUTUMN SKY: "Lin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
AVEDA INSTITUTE: Did Not Pay Cosmetology Students for Work
BAKER HUGHES: "Shaw" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
BANDINI ENTERPRISES: "Arredondo" Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime

BANK OF AMERICA: Must Face Interest Rate Swap Suit, Judge Says
BANKRATE INC: Faces "Berg" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Red
BARCLAYS: Oct. 23 Dollar LIBOR Settlement Approval Hearing Set
BATH & BODY: Faces "Flaherty" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BEAUMONT PRODUCTS: Faces "Paul" Suit in C.D. California

BEHR PROCESS: DeckOver Paint Not Durable, Meyers' Suit Claims
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Illegally Hacked Counsel's Files, Suit Claims
BEST CARE: Rodezno Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
BLS LIMOUSINE: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
BMW AG: "Lewis" Suit Sues over German Automobile Conspiracy

BMW AG: "Surjko" Suit Alleges German Premium Vehicle Conspiracy
BMW NORTH: Barrera Sues over German Luxury Vehicles Conspiracy
CALIBER COLLISION: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
CANADA: Nov. 1 G20 Summit Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
CAPITAL BANK: "Parshall" Hits Merger Deal, Seeks More Info

CAREFIRST INC: Schuman Wants to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
CATE STAR: Velasquez Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wage under FLSA
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Kahn Swick Commences Investigation
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sued in Col. Over Misleading Financial Reports
CLARINS USA: Blackwell Sues Over Misleading Product Label

CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Valentino" Suit in S.D. New York
CODE REBEL: December 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
COMPTREE INC: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code
CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
COPCO: Faces "Bowen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS: "Peterson" Suit Moved to C.D. California
CRESCO CAPITAL: Faces "Worrel" Suit in N.D. Ga.
CRYPTSY: CEO Ordered to Pay $8.2 MMM in Class-Action Lawsuit
DAP SERVICES: Violates State Labor Laws, "Huitzil" Suit Alleges
DENTAL RESOURCE: New Concept Seeks Damages Over TCPA Violations

DIRECTV LLC: "Ellendorf" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
DIRECTV LLC: "Parr" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under the FLSA
DUNBAR ARMORED: "Chico" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
DUPONT FABROS: "Lawrence" Suit Balks at Digital Realty Merger
EI DU PONT: "Cook" Suit Transferred to E.D. Tex.

ENCOMPASS HOME: "Brown" Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Pitale" Suit in E.D. Va.
FACEBOOK INC: Biometric Data Class Action Ongoing in Illinois
FANDOMFEST: Goers Threaten to File Class Action vs. Owners
FAST ADVANCE: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Fabricant" Suit Claims

FIRST NATIONAL: "Batts" Disputes Vague Collection Letter
FLINT, MI: Lawsuits Can Proceed But Not Against State, Judge Says
FLOWERS FOODS: "Robbins" Suit Seeks Back Wages under FLSA
FORD MOTOR: A. Blair Sues Over Defective Driveshaft Couplings
FOREVER 21: Faces "Togut" Suit in N.Y. Over Retail Sales Tax

FOUNDATION MEDICINE: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Suit
FOX RENT: Faces "Harnage" Suit in Cal. Over Maximum Leave Policy
FUNBOX INC: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Shelton" Suit Claims
FUYAO GLASS: More Workers Join Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
GELSON'S MARKETS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Missed Rest Breaks

GENESIS HEALTH: "McGowan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
GOLDEN STATE: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
GOOGLE INC: 269 People Join Hiring Discrimination Class Action
GOPRO INC: Kahn Swick Investigates Officers and Directors
GRAIN PROCESSING: Fight Continues for Residents Over Pollution

GRAND CELEBRATION: Faces Baxter & Keshisyan Class Suit in Florida
GREEN DOT: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Adaimy" Suit Claims
HADAR GEULAH: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
HARRIS AND HARRIS: "Laplume" Sues Over Auto-dialer Calls
HELIX TCS: "Kenney" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

ICAP CAPITAL: Court Dismisses Claims in Antitrust Class Action
IN LIVING SUPPORT: "Jenkins" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
INC RESEARCH: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
INDIA: Top Court Puts Release of GMO Mustard Variety on Hold
INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action

INTERNATIONAL HOTEL: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
IRON SUSHI: "Walker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
JAY-JAY CABARET: "Monuz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
JIM BERRY: Jimenez Seeks Unpaid Regular & OT Wages under FLSA
JP MORGAN CHASE: Faces Bartons' Suit over Foreclosed Property

JUST SALAD: Alvarez Sues over Time Shaving and Unpaid Overtime
KIA MOTORS: Faces "Campbell" Suit over Vehicle Warranty
KIMPTON HOTEL: Faces "Zepeda" Suit in N.D. of Illinois
LEBANON FARMS: Sued in Penn. Over Failure to Pay Drivers Overtime
LEE COUNTY, FL: Judge Denies Race Discrimination Class Certs

LOS ANGELES, CA: Judge OKs Special Education Services Settlement
MARSHALLS OF CA: Calif. Supreme Court Expands Discovery Scope
MASTERCARD INC: Hogan Lovells Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
MASSACHUSETTS: Class Action Against MBTA Dismissed
MCKESSON CORPORATION: "A.T" Suit Moved to C.D. California

MIDWAY OILFIELD: "Bagby" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
MISSOURI: Inmates' Hepatitis C Class Action Certified
MONSANTO COMPANY: King et al., Sue over Herbicide Roundup
MOVING SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Wages Under FLSA, Rider Alleges
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Kachelmyer" Suit Over Sale to ADVA

MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Scarantino" Suit Over ADVA Merger Plan
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Chelvaratnam" Suit Over ADVA Merger
MSA SECURITY: Dog-Sniffing Handlers Underpaid, Barrett Claims
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Lawyers Blitz Claimants in Settlement
NATIONAL GENERAL: Faces "Jacob" Suit in S.D.N.Y.

NATIONAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Lindo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NATIONAL OILWELL: Villanueva Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
NELLSON NUTRACEUTICAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims
NEW MEXICO: Bail Bond Association Sue Over New Court Rules
NEW YORK: Schools Neglect to Provide Disabilities Vital Services

NEW YORK: Housing Dept. Subject to Special Master Oversight
NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Ahmed" Suit Eastern Dist. of New York
NUROFEN: Settles Specific Pain Range Class Action for $3.5MM
NUTRACEUTICAL INT'L: "Berg" Suit Challenges HGGC Merger Deal
OBERMAN TIVOLI: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims

OPTIO SOLUTIONS: "Hull" Disputes Vague Collection Letter
OREGON: Judge Withdraws Ruling on State Forest Trust Lands
ORGANIC CANDY: "Arabian" Suit Disputes Candy Flavors
OXNARD, CA: Faces "Kittel" Suit in California Superior Court
PALTAS SERVICES: "Castillo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

PCL CONSTRUCTION: Faces Class Action Over Outer Banks Blackout
PETERSBURG, AK: Faces Class Action Over Property Seizure
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: "Ayers" Disputes Vague Collection Letter
PIZZAIOLO'S GOURMET: Kitchen Staff Underpaid, Zavaleta Claims
PROCEL TEMPORARY: Nesbit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging Race Bias
PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Guzman" Suit in New Jersey
PURDUE PHARMA: Provinces Can't Recoup OxyContin Full Costs
PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Class Action in Arkansas Over Opioids
RAYONIER INVESTMENT: Zamansky Begins Probe for ERISA Violations

RECKITT BENCKISER: Late Amendment to Pleadings Refused in Suit
RICE ENERGY: Faces "Assad" Suit in Penn. Over Proposed EQT Merger
RIVERHEIGHTS CLEANERS: Lockett Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
ROBERT M.A. NADEAU: Probate Judge Accused of Slowing Docket
ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: "Doporcyk" Suit Goes to N.D. Ill. Court

RUBY TUESDAY: "Thompson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
RWI TRANSPORTATION: "Craft" Suit Removed to C.D. California
SAINT-GOBAIN: Sen. Sears to Join PFOA Class Action
SAINT-GOBAIN: Vermont Settlement Positive for New Hampshire
SAL-MARK RESTAURANT: Cooks Don't Receive OT Pay, Cruz Claims

SAS SERVICES: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Meal & Rest Break Suit
SCO FAMILY: Counselors Are Underpaid, "Prichett" Suit Claims
SCOTT FARMS: Underpays Seasonal Workers, Mondragon Claims
SELL IT: Faces "Tiffany" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls
SENIORCARE HHA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum and OT Wages

SHAMROCK SALOON: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
SIGNODE INDUSTRIAL: "Stone" Seeks to Enforce Lifetime Healthcare
SINGING RIVER: 5th Cir. Voids Class Action Settlement
SIRTEX MEDICAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action After CEO Exit
SMALL COMMUNITY SPECIALISTS: Yergovich Sues over Debt Collection

SNAP INC: Faces "Hsieh" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
SOUTHEASTERN PENN: Sued for Denying Medical Expense Coverage
SPARTAN GROUP: Faces "Singletary" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SPECTRANETICS CORP: "Aviles" to Halt Shareholder Vote on Merger
SPOTIFY USA: Judge Presses Pause on Auto-Charge Class Action

SPOTIFY USA: Dec. 1 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set
SST ENERGY: Underpays Oilfield Workers, "Wilson" Suit Says
STERICYCLE INC: Robbins Arroyo Probes Officers and Directors
STERNS 58: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
STOKES & SPEIHLER: "Williams" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA

SUMMIT DIAGNOSTICS: Arkin Sues over Unsolicited Faxes
SUPER CENTER: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
TABLEAU SOFTWARE: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Action
TABLEAU SOFTWARE: Sept. 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
TACO MIX: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Medina" Suit Claims

TEXTURA CORP: November 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
TORRANCE MEMORIAL: Faces "L.D." Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
TRANS UNION: "Peters" Suit Sues over Fair Credit Reporting Act
TRI-STATE CAREFLIGHT: "Bell" Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
TRIBUNE MEDIA: Pill Wants to Enjoin Acquisition by Sinclair

TYLER II: "Colbert" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT under FLSA
UNITED STATES: Suits Could Force Payments to Obamacare Insurers
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS: Judge Allows Sexual Assault Suit to Proceed
WEIBO CORPORATION: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Company Reports
WELLS FARGO: Accused by "Solano" Suit of Stealing Real Property

WELLS FARGO: Illegally Placed Automobile Insurance, Suit Claims
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Preston" Suit over Forced-Insurance Program
WELLS FARGO: Keller Rohrback Files Auto Insurance Class Action
WELLS FARGO: To Compensate Loan Customers Forced to Buy Insurance
WYOMING: Youth Offender Files Class Action Over Bootcamp Program

XPO LAST MILE: "Ibanez" Suit Transferred to N.D. California

* CFPB's Class Action Rule Last Straw for Banks, Regulator Says
* German Carmakers Face Political Reckoning Over Diesel
* Germany Policymakers Divided Over Emissions Scandal
* Germany Prepares to Drop Opposition to Class Action
* Scott Co-Sponsors Measure to Overturn CFPB Anti-Arbit. Rule


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Refuses to Order Ex-Workers to Return Docs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rivera-Soto Named Special Master in Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviro Recycling Slapped with $66K Fines
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposure Contributed to Laborer's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Asbestos Docket Rules Favor Plaintiffs

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Sides with Plaintiffs in Emerson Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miami Attorneys Win $5.1MM Asbestos Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Developers Face Hearing on Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Detroit Demo Program Poses Asbestos Dangers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Finishes Cleaning Up Ambler Superfund Site

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Abatement Needed at County-Owned Bldg
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dunfermline Business Dumps Asbestos Near School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Lowestoft Welder Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: R&Q Can Compel Discovery Process v. St. Paul
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Affirms Denial of Workers' Payment

ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. App. Affirms Judgment vs. Ingersoll-Rand





                            *********


AAM HOLDING: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. AAM Holding Corp. d/b/a Private Eyes Gentlemen's
Club; Barry Lipsitz; Barry Lipsitz, Jr.; Marsha Lipsitz; Anita
Miceli; Case No. 156601/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 21, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, illegally retained tips,
and improperly withheld wages pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment located at 320 West
45th Street, New York, New York 10036. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADME INVESTMENT: Failed to Provide 60 Days' Termination Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Baptiste, on behalf of herself and a class of those
similarly situated v. A.D.M.E. Investment Partners, Ltd. d/b/a
Oceanside Extended Care Center, A.D.M.E. Investment Corporation
and A.D.M.E. Real Estate, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-22719-UU (S.D.
Fla., July 20, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to give the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated
employees at least 60 days' advance written notice of
termination, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification (WARN) Act.

The Defendants own and operate a retirement home in Miami Beach,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett M. Amron, Esq.
      Hayley Gerson Harrison, Esq.
      BAST AMRON LLP
      Sun Trust International Center
      One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 1400
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 379-7904
      Facsimile: (305) 379-7905
      E-mail: bamron@bastamron.com
              hgerson@bastamron.com

         - and -

      Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
      LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
      132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 581-5005
      Facsimile: (212) 581-2122

         - and -

      Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
      M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
      THE GARDNER FIRM
      210 S. Washington Avenue
      Mobile, AL  36602
      Telephone: (251) 433-8100
      Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
      E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com
              vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com


ADVANCED CONTRACTING: Faces "Shaw" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mohamed Shaw, in his individual capacity and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Advanced Contracting Solutions LLC a/k/a
ACS-NY LLC, TMG Advisory, Inc., LJB Contracting, Inc., Wod
Solutions, LLC, Eoin Moriarty, an individual, and Eashwardial
"Vinesh" Sooknanan, Case No. 1:17-cv-04335 (E.D.N.Y., July 21,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a contracting company in Bronx,
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Penn A. Dodson, Esq.
      Alexander L. Gastman, Esq.
      ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
      11 Broadway, Suite 615
      New York, NY  10004
      Telephone: (212) 961-7639
      Facsimile: (646) 998-8051
      E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com
              alex@andersondodson.com


ALL COUNTIES: "Perla" Suit in Cal. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
T. Perla, individually and on behalf of the State of California
as well as proposed Classes of Aggrieved Employees v. All
Counties Courier, Inc. and Doe One through and including Doe Ten,
Case No. BC669555 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 24, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, continuing wages, damages, civil penalties,
statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

All Counties Courier, Inc. operates a courier service company in
Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan Harris, Esq.
      Priya Mohan, Esq.
      HARRIS & RUBLE
      655 North Central Avenue 17 Floor
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (323) 962-3777
      Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
      E-mail: harrisa@harrisandruble.com
              pmohan@harrisandruble.com


ALLSTATE FLORAL: Accused by "Guiling" Suit of Not Paying Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN GUILING, on behalf of himself and a class of others
similarly situated v. ALLSTATE FLORAL, INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC667530
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 3, 2017), accuses the
Defendants of failing to pay overtime, to provide meal period
breaks and to authorize or permit rest breaks, among other
things.

Allstate Floral, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is based in
Cerritos, California.  Allstate imports and sells silk and
artificial flowers, greenery, and home accessories.  The Company
also offers spring and everyday floral, succulents, containers
and accessories for various occasions, and Christmas, Easter,
Halloween, and fall decors.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Morris Nazarian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MORRIS NAZARIAN
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1790
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 284-7333
          Facsimile: (310) 284-7332
          E-mail: mornazarian@yahoo.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Aziev" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gayrat Aziev, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Alltran Financial, LP, Case No. 1:17-cv-04561
(E.D.N.Y., August 3, 2017), seeks redress for the Defendant's
actions of using an unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Alltran Financial, LP operates a collection agency with an office
maintained in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Cohen, Esq.
      DANIEL COHEN, PLLC
      300 Cadman Plaza W, 12th floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Telephone: (646) 645-8482
      Facsimile: (347) 665-1545
      E-mail: Dan@dccohen.com


ANAUEL CATERING: Garcia Seeks to Recover Unpaid Min. & OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS A. GARCIA and other similarly-situated individuals v. ANAUEL
CATERING, CORP. d/b/a MEZCAL GRILL AND BAR, SALOMON CHAILLO, and
DODEL DRUKMANN, individually, Case No. 1:17-cv-22460-MGC (S.D.
Fla., June 30, 2017), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages, and retaliation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Anauel Catering, Corp., is a Florida corporation doing business
as Mezcal Grill and Bar.  Mezcal Grill and Bar is a Mexican
restaurant located at 1009 Kane Concourse, in Bay Harbor Island,
Florida.  The Individual Defendants are the owners/partners/and
managers of Mezcal Grill and Bar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


APPLE INC: iPhone 4 Owners' FaceTime Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Apple has failed in its bid to dismiss a
lawsuit claiming it disabled the popular FaceTime video
conferencing feature on older iPhones to force users to upgrade.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ruled late on July 28 that iPhone 4
and 4S users can pursue nationwide class action claims that Apple
intentionally "broke" FaceTime to save money from routing calls
through servers owned by Akamai Technologies.

Neither Apple nor lawyers for the plaintiffs immediately
responded on July 31 to requests for comment.

Apple began using Akamai's servers after losing a lawsuit in 2012
in which VirnetX Holding claimed that FaceTime technology
infringed its patents.

Testimony from a 2016 retrial in that case showed that Apple paid
Akamai $50 million in one six-month period.

The plaintiffs said Apple eventually created a cheaper
alternative for its iOS 7 operating system, and in April 2014
disabled FaceTime on iOS 6 and earlier systems.

Judge Koh said the plaintiffs alleged some measurable loss to
their phones' value, and could try to show that Cupertino,
California-based Apple's conduct constituted a trespass and
violated state consumer protection laws.

The San Jose, California-based judge twice quoted from what the
plaintiffs said was an Apple employee's internal email
characterizing iOS 6 users as "basically screwed" because of the
disabling of FaceTime.

She also rejected Apple's argument that the plaintiffs suffered
no economic loss because FaceTime was a "free" service.

"FaceTime is a 'feature' of the iPhone and thus a component of
the iPhone's cost," Judge Koh said in a footnote.  "Indeed, Apple
(AAPL, +0.60%) advertised FaceTime as 'one more thing that makes
an iPhone an iPhone.'"

The plaintiffs are led by Christina Grace of Marin County,
California, and Ken Potter of San Diego County, California, who
both owned the iPhone 4.  Akamai was not named as a defendant.
[GN]


ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL: "Orr" Suit Sues Over Confinement Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ORR, the Plaintiff, v. JAMES DIMAS, ANDERSON FREEMAN,
SHARON CDLEMAN, GREG SCOTT, CHRISTOPHER CLAYTON, JOSEPH HANKINS,
WANDA PENNOCK, DAVE BIERMAN, MICHAEL MADIGAN, LISA MADIGAN, JOHN
SULLIVAN, JOELLE MARASCO, DEBRA SMILEY-BIDMGREN, LIBERTY HEALTH
Inc., SHAN JUMPER, SHARLENE CARRAWAY, WEXFDRD HEALTH SOURCES,
Inc., DAVID SUIRE, RICHARD TRAVIS, KIMBERLY WEITL, STEVE GASKELL,
ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL FOOD SERVICES and various John/Jane Doe
individuals to be later named, MICHAEL BEDNARZ, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-cv-04196-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill., July 26, 2017), seeks
to enjoin the Defendants from continuing to impose
unconstitutionally punitive, prison-like conditions of
confinement upon the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff alleges civil rights violations against the
defendants who, while acting under color of state law, have
imposed punitive conditions of confinement upon him that are
illegal and are unconstitutional because plaintiff is a civilian
patient/detained person not held for criminal or punitive
purposes. The plaintiff claims and alleges that each defendant,
individually and collectively, has, created a secondary Illinois
prison system under the guise of purported "civil" justification
but in reality has imposed punitive, maximum security prison
conditions of confinement on plaintiff that are not logically nor
rationally related to the purpose for which he is confined. Each
defendant has violated the plaintiff's Federal Constitutional
Right not to be imprisoned and punished without Due Process of
Law.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ARTS NAIL: "Chen" Labor Suit Transferred to N.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
Shihan Chen and Lainpei Qi, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Arts Nail Putnam Valley Inc.,
Arts Nail Vestal Inc., Xiaoyan Zang, Haiying Zhou and Ye Zhou,
Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-03037 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2014), is
transferred to the United States District Court of the Northern
District of New York on July 21, 2017.

Plaintiff seeks to recover overtime wages, spread-of-hours
premium for each day he worked ten or more hours pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and the NY Wage
Theft Prevention Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     Hang & Associates, PLLC
     136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Tel: (718) 353-8588
     Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


AUSTRALIA: Defence Aware of Firefighting Foam Risks, Case Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Knaus, writing for The Guardian, reports that Defence
has known of potential dangers with its use of firefighting foam
at a Queensland army base for more than two decades, a class
action alleges.

In July 450 people from the small town of Oakey, just west of
Toowoomba, launched a class action against the defence department
in the federal court.

For about 40 years, Defence used firefighting foam containing two
chemicals now known to share a probable link with cancer and
other illnesses -- perfluorooctane sulfonate (Pfos) and
perfluorooctanoic acid (Pfoa).

The chemicals have spread from the Oakey base, leaching into
groundwater, nearby waterways and soil.  Neighbouring landowners
have ingested the chemicals by drinking contaminated bore water,
while others used it to wash, clean or hose down gardens and
livestock.

Defence began a gradual phaseout of its most toxic foam product,
3M Light Water, in 2004, and says it became aware of Pfos/Pfoa in
soil and groundwater at Oakey in 2010, during routine
environmental investigations into potential hydrocarbon
contamination.

But Shine Lawyers, which is running the class action, alleges
Defence knew of the potential risks of using firefighting foam at
the site much earlier.

In 1991 Defence conducted an internal investigation into the
"waste disposal practices" at the base and their impact on
"groundwater quality and drinking water quality for the Oakey
aviation base and township of Oakey", according to Shine's
statement of claim.

The claim alleges the investigation is evidence that Defence knew
of potential environmental and human health risks of firefighting
foam in 1991.

Defence has declined to release the report but told Guardian
Australia the 1991 investigation did not consider the use of
firefighting foam at the base and was more of a general
investigation of the base's waste disposal practices.

"In 1991, Pfas [per and polyfluorinated alkyl substances] was not
considered an emerging contaminant and therefore Defence did not
investigate for the presence of Pfas at that time," it said in a
statement.

But five years later a separate report was prepared for Defence
about contamination at the Oakey base.

It found that "many of the activities at the [army aviation
centre Oakey] . . . have the potential to cause contamination of
the environment", according to Shine's claim.

"These activities include. . . fire training and firefighting,"
the report, produced by now-defunct consultancy Sinclair Knight
Merz, found.

Shine Lawyers also alleged a Thiess report on remediating the
base's fire-training area in 1997 showed Defence was aware of the
risks of the foam, as did a 1998 waste audit report on the base.

The 1998 audit described the area surrounding the fire station as
a contaminated site, stated that foam from fire engine tanks was
a contaminant, and specifically recommended that contaminants and
nutrients from the base facilities "should not pass into the
natural groundwater system either directly or via storm (surface)
water drainage system", according to court documents.

Shine alleges a "large and diffuse" plume of the chemicals, about
1,800 hectares in size, is now present in the groundwater beneath
the base and surrounding areas.

According to Shine's statement of claim, testing of 75 Oakey
residents last year revealed two-thirds had "statistically
abnormal" levels of the chemicals in their blood.

The man who conducted that testing, a local resident and former
aviation medical officer, Eric Donaldson, said the levels he
recorded in blood testing were above those seen elsewhere in
southern Queensland.

But Mr. Donaldson, whose 1,000-hectare property is impacted by
the contamination, cautioned against panicking.

"I think that people that are worrying themselves that their
blood levels may be higher than the average Queenslander, I think
they're worrying unnecessarily," Donaldson told Guardian
Australia.

"As far as the town of Oakey is concerned, only a small area of
Oakey is under the plume.  It's only a small area, and yet the
way the papers have reported it in some places that you go
through the town, you better not have a cup of coffee or
something," he said.

When Mr. Donaldson began the testing, he did so in the hope of
proving the fears of about contamination were unfounded. He was
expecting lower levels than he found.

"I wasn't trying to create trouble, I was trying to make it go
away," he said.

Defence, the company that manufactured the chemicals, and the
Australian government have all denied there is any consistent
link between the chemicals and adverse human health impacts.

Defence said it had connected affected Oakey residents to town
water, installed a demonstration water treatment system, removed
source area material, conducted drain-maintenance activities and
provided "enhanced community support services".

But a Shine Lawyers special counsel, Peter Shannon, has called on
the government to pay for residents to relocate out of the
contaminated zone. Shannon said it was a sound strategy, even if
Defence's argument against human health impacts proved right.

"Why should our people carry the risks inherent in living there?
If there is no problem, then [Defence] can sell the land after
that's ascertained, so they suffer no damage," Mr. Shannon told
Guardian Australia.

"If there is a problem, then they've done the right thing and got
people out of there as quickly as possible.

"It's a question about who bears that risk in the meantime, and
why it should be those landholders?"

Defence declined to comment directly on the statement of claim
lodged by Shine Lawyers. [GN]


AUTUMN SKY: "Lin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
HONGLIANG LIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. AUTUMN SKY ENTERPRISE CORP. d/b/a
Ting Restaurant d/b/a Ting, YU MEI ZHENG, "JANE DOE," and
"JOHN DOE", the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04357-ADS-ARL
(E.D.N.Y., July 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and/or
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA, NYLL,
and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations by engaging in a
pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked, overtime for all
hours worked in excess of 40 in each workweek, and spread-of-
hours for all hours worked in excess of 10 in each workday. The
Defendants willfully failed to record all of the time that
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees work or worked,
including time worked in excess of 40 hours per week and 10 hours
per day.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762 1324
          E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com


AVEDA INSTITUTE: Did Not Pay Cosmetology Students for Work
----------------------------------------------------------
PRINCESS SAKYI Individually, on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, and on Behalf of the General Public of the District of
Columbia 2 M St NE, Washington D.C. 20002, the Plaintiff, v.
AVEDA INSTITUTE, INC., 1099 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington D.C.
20005 and THE ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES INC., 767 Fifth Avenue, New
York, NY 10154, the Defendants, Case No. 2017 CA 0052598 (D.C.
Super., July 31, 2017), seeks actual damages, statutory damages,
punitive damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney's
fees for herself and all others similarly situated.

The case is a private attorney general action and class action on
behalf of individuals who enrolled in the Aveda Institute in
Washington D.C. as cosmetology students. The Aveda Institute
holds itself out as an education institution for students to
"learn their craft in Cosmetology." Aveda told prospective
students that, if they enrolled in its program, they would be
directly supervised by skilled professionals and "train" directly
with guests, "receiv[ing] the trademark difference that defines
an Aveda school." In reality, students spent many days not
training, but as line employees, working upwards of 12 hours and
performing simple, repetitive tasks on Aveda clients without
supervision -- such as straightforward nail or hair jobs. This
work primarily benefitted Defendants, who charged the clients for
the work performed and charged the students tuition higher than
peer institutions, but did not pay students for the work they
did, which was not in the nature of training.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated provisions of
the Washington D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA")
by marketing that its cosmetology school was superior to its peer
institutions because of the "training" it provided on guests,
which, in reality, amounted to hundreds of hours of unsupervised,
free labor for Defendants. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself
and the class, alleges that Defendants have violated provisions
of the Washington D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act ("DCMWRA") and
the Wage Payment Collection Law ("DCWPL"), by failing to pay a
minimum wage, and failing to pay all wages earned to student
employees in a timely manner.

Aveda Institutes are an internationally known network of
cosmetology and spa institutions dedicated to shaping the future
of beauty, wellness, and fashion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H St., NE Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470 3520
          Facsimile: (202) 800 2730
          E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
                  nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com


BAKER HUGHES: "Shaw" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREG SHAW, the Plaintiff, v. BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00284-RAW (E.D. Okla., July 21,
2017), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, litigation costs, costs of court, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, and injunctive relief under
the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has willfully violated
and is violating the provisions of the FLSA, by employing
employees, such as the Plaintiff, in an enterprise engaged in
commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the
meaning of the Act for workweeks longer than 40 hours and
holidays without compensating such employees, including the
Plaintiff, for their employment in excess of 40 hours per week at
rates not less than one and one-half times the regular rates at
which they were employed. The Plaintiff and those similarly
situated are entitled to recover all reasonable attorney's fees
and costs incurred in this action.

Baker Hughes is one of the world's largest oil field services
companies.  As of July 2017, Baker Hughes is a General Electric
company making up its Oil and Gas division.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy M. Dortch, Esq.
          COOPER & SCULLY, P.C.
          900 Jackson Street, Suite 100
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 712 9500
          Facsimile: (214) 712 9540
          E-mail: Micah.Dortch@cooperscully.com


BANDINI ENTERPRISES: "Arredondo" Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Arredondo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, V. Bandini Enterprises, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-02212 (S.D. Tex., July 19, 2017), seeks damages
and restitution for all unpaid wages including fringe benefits
and bonuses, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages
and other injuries, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's
fees, litigation expenses, expert fees and costs, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and such other and further relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Bandini Enterprises is a staffing agency who assigned plaintiff
at Total Petrochemicals USA, Inc. in Houston, Texas as an HSEQ
Engineer.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Moises Cedillos, Esq.
      John M. Padilla, Esq.
      PADILLA & RODRIGUEZ, L.L.P.
      5433 Westheimer, Suite 825
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 574-4600
      Facsimile: (713) 574-4601


BANK OF AMERICA: Must Face Interest Rate Swap Suit, Judge Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stemple, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge
on July 28 said investors may pursue part of their nationwide
antitrust lawsuit accusing 12 of the world's biggest banks of
conspiring to rig the $275 trillion market for interest rate
swaps.

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan said 11 of the
banks, including Bank of America Corp (BAC.N) and JPMorgan Chase
& Co (JPM.N), must defend against claims that from 2013 to 2016
they boycotted three upstart electronic platforms for swaps
trading, hoping to destroy them.

Investors seeking damages in the proposed class action said banks
did this to preserve their 70 percent market share, and boost
profit by making trading more costly. Engelmayer dismissed all
claims against the 12th bank, HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA.L).

Interest rate swaps let parties exchange future interest
payments, typically by exchanging a fixed rate for a floating
rate, to manage risk or bet on whether rates will rise or fall.

Banks have faced many private lawsuits and regulatory probes into
alleged rigging of derivatives, rates, securities and
commodities.

In his 108-page decision, Engelmayer said the complaint by
investors led by the Public School Teachers' Pension and
Retirement Fund of Chicago and including the city of Baltimore
was "rife with specifics" about alleged collusion in swaps.

He rejected defense arguments that the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial
reforms precluded the claims, saying "it cannot credibly be
claimed" that a boycott was "necessary or appropriate to achieve
Dodd-Frank's purposes."

But the judge also dismissed claims of alleged collusion from
2008 to 2012 to block the creation of electronic platforms,
including through investments by most of the banks in Tradeweb,
allegedly to control that platform's direction.

The remaining bank defendants include Barclays Plc (BARC.L), BNP
Paribas SA (BNPP.PA), Citigroup Inc (C.N), Credit Suisse Group AG
(CSGN.S), Deutsche Bank AG (DBKGn.DE), Goldman Sachs Group Inc
(GS.N), Morgan Stanley (MS.N), Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc
(RBS.L) and UBS Group AG (UBSG.S).

"It remains a very large case," Daniel Brockett, a lawyer for the
investors, said in an interview. "The banks have gotten some
temporary relief. We will study the opinion and review our
options."

Bank of America, Barclays, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche
Bank, Goldman, HSBC and JPMorgan declined to comment. The other
banks had no immediate comment.

Engelmayer also said Javelin Capital Markets LLC and TeraExchange
LLC, which created two of the electronic platforms, can pursue
some of their own claims against banks. A lawyer for both
declined to comment.

The case is In re: Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 16-md-02704.
[GN]


BANKRATE INC: Faces "Berg" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Red
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Berg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bankrate, Inc., Kenneth S. Esterow, Peter C. Morse,
Seth Brody, Michael J. Kelly, Sree Kotay, Christine Petersen,
Richard Pinola, Mitch Truwit, Red Ventures Holdco, LP, and
Baton Merger Corp., Case No. 1:17-cv-05877 (S.D.N.Y., August 3,
2017), stems from a proposed transaction announced on July 3,
2017, pursuant to which Bankrate, Inc. will be acquired by Red
Ventures Holdco, LP and Baton Merger Corp. for $14.00 per
shareholders' share in cash.

According to the complaint, Bankrate filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which
recommends that Bankrate 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) the Company's projected unlevered free cash flows
for years 2017 through 2026, as well as the line items used to
calculate those unlevered free cash flows, that were used in J.P.
Morgan's Discounted Cash Flow Analysis; (ii) the Company's
projected operating income and net income for years 2017 through
2026; (iii) the projected synergies or costs savings that are
expected to result from the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) the
line item projections for the metrics used to calculate the
Company's non-GAAP projections or a reconciliation of the non-
GAAP projections to the most comparable GAAP measures. The
Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest
Bankrate's public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets
without fully disclosing all material information concerning the
Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy the
Defendants' Exchange Act violations, the Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless
and until such problems are remedied.

Bankrate, Inc. is an online publisher, aggregator, and
distributor of personal finance content. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 683-3516
      E-mail: tjm@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (484) 324-6800
      Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
      E-mail: rojan@rmlawpc.com


BARCLAYS: Oct. 23 Dollar LIBOR Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following is being released by Susman Godfrey LLP and
Hausfeld LLP.

There is a Settlement with Barclays Bank that impacts individuals
and institutions that entered into over-the-counter financial
derivative and non-derivative instruments directly with Barclays
or a Non-Settling Defendant that received payments tied to U.S.
Dollar LIBOR. Barclays and the Non-Settling Defendants are U.S.
Dollar LIBOR Panel Banks.  Please visit
www.BarclaysLiborSettlement.com for the list of Defendants.  The
instruments include certain interest rate swaps, forward rate
agreements, asset swaps, collateralized debt obligations, credit
default swaps, inflation swaps, total return swaps, options, and
floating rate notes.

The litigation claims that the banks manipulated the U.S. Dollar
LIBOR rate during the financial crisis, artificially lowering the
rate for their own profit, which resulted in purchasers receiving
less interest payments for their U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based
instruments from the banks as they should have. Plaintiffs assert
antitrust, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment claims.
Barclays denies all claims of wrongdoing.

Individuals and institutions are included in the Settlement if
they:

Directly purchased certain U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based instruments;
From Barclays or any Non-Settling Defendant (or their
subsidiaries or affiliates); In the United States; and Owned the
instruments at any time between August 2007 and May 2010.

The Settlement will create a $120 million Settlement Fund that
will be used to pay eligible Class Members who submit valid
claims.  Additionally, Barclays will cooperate with the
Plaintiffs in their ongoing litigation against the Non-Settling
Defendants.

Class Members must submit a Proof of Claim, online or by mail, by
December 21, 2017 to get a payment.  They are entitled to receive
a payment if they have a qualifying transaction with Barclays or
a Non-Settling Defendant.  At this time, it is unknown how much
each Class Member who submits a valid claim will receive.

Even if they do nothing, Class Members will lose the right to sue
Barclays for the alleged conduct and will be bound by the Court's
decisions concerning the Settlement.  This Settlement will not
result in a release of claims against any Non-Settling Defendant,
and the litigation against Non-Settling Defendants is ongoing.
If Class Members want to keep their right to sue Barclays, they
must exclude themselves from the Settlement Class by October 9,
2017.  If they stay in the Settlement Class, they may object to
the Settlement by October 9, 2017.

The Court will hold a hearing on October 23, 2017 to consider
whether to approve the Settlement and approve Class Counsel's
request of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement
Fund, plus reimbursement of costs and expenses.  Class Members or
their lawyers may appear and speak at the hearing at their own
expense.

For more information, please visit
www.BarclaysLiborSettlement.com, or call 1-888-568-7640.


BATH & BODY: Faces "Flaherty" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Flaherty, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Bath & Body Works, LLC, Case No. 514276/2017 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., July 24, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Bath & Body Works, LLC offers a wide range of bath and beauty
products with net sales of over $3.8 million a year and over
1,700 retail stores worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      Molly A. Brooks, Esq.
      Olivia J. Quinto, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000

          - and -

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


BEAUMONT PRODUCTS: Faces "Paul" Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beaumont Products.
The case is titled MONA PAUL and John Does 1-100, the Plaintiff,
v. BEAUMONT PRODUCTS doing business as: Clearly Natural
Essentials, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01225-DOC-KES (C.D.
Cal., July 18, 2017) and assigned to District Judge David O.
Carter.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Reuben D Nathan, Esq.
     NATHAN AND ASSOCIATES APC
     2901 West Pacific Coast Highway Suite 700
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 272-7014
     Fax: (619) 330-1819
     E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com


BEHR PROCESS: DeckOver Paint Not Durable, Meyers' Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
GLEN MEYERS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. BEHR PROCESS CORP.; BEHR PAINT CORP.; and MASCO
CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01228-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.,
July 18, 2017), seeks to enjoin the defendant from further
deceiving the public on its paint product.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants on its national
marketing campaign released a patio and deck product exclusively
through Home Depot branded as DeckOver. The plaintiff, like the
rest of other consumers similarly situated, purchased DeckOver at
more expensive price than other ordinary paints, believing that
the product was a more durable coating and 5 times thicker than
the other products. However, it turns out that DeckOver is not
durable and long lasting. The paint product performs worse than
the other cheaper options.  Removing the paint requires hours of
scraping, scrubbing and sanding and with that the consumers
option is to replace their entire decks and patios.  The
Defendants, in its products labels and website representations
deceived the public on its product through unfair marketing
schemes knowing that DeckOver is not durable.

Behr Process Corp. and Behr Paint Corp. are California
corporations while Masco Corp. is a Delaware corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael F. Ram, Esq.
     Susan S. Brown, Esq.
     ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
     2440 West El Camino Real
     Mountain View, CA 94040
     Tel: (650) 784-4040
     Fax: (650) 784-4041
     E-mail: mram@robinskaplan.com
             sbrown@robinskaplan.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq.
     Matt J. Malone, Esq.
     ROCK LAW LLP
     101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 433-4949
     E-mail: jbc@rocklawcal.com
             mjm@rocklawcal.com


BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Illegally Hacked Counsel's Files, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Casillas and Adela Gonzales, v. Berkshire Hathaway
Homestate Insurance Company, Cypress Insurance Company, Zenith
Insurance Company, William Reynolds, Oliver Glover, HQSU Sign Up
Services, Inc., and Does 1 to 10, Inclusive, Case No. BC670058
(Cal. Super. Ct., July 26, 2017), alleges that the Defendants
illegally hacked computers, accessing and downloading privileged
and confidential counsel's files of around 33,000 individuals,
who proceeded with or were considering filing workers'
compensation or personal injury cases.

Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company, Cypress Insurance
Company, and Zenith Insurance Company operate an insurance
company in California.

HQSU Sign Up Services, Inc. is a California corporation that
operates a website, computer database, and servers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Green, Esq.
      James Robert, Esq.
      GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
      4500 East Pacific Coast Highway, Fourth Floor
      Long Beach, CA 90804
      Telephone: (562)491-2487

         - and -

      2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
      Larkspur, CA 94939
      Telephone: (415)477-6700
      Facsimile: (415)477-6710
      E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com

         - and -

      Mark Ravis, Esq.
      David Martin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MARK RAVIS & ASSOCIATES
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310)295-4145
      Facsimile: (310) 388-5251
      E-mail: Mravis99@gmail.com
              Dhmartin99@gmail.com


BEST CARE: Rodezno Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------
Karla Rodezno, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Best Care, Inc.; Lawrence Wiener and
any other related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
04217-SJF-SIL (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 17, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and all similarly
situated persons under the New York Labor Law, Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Wage Theft Prevention Act Violation.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that he worked in excess
of 40 hours per week and did not received an overtime pay of one
and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.  Also, the plaintiff alleges that
on his first date of his employment, Best Care Inc. failed to
provide a wage notice as required by law that, among others,
indicates the regular hourly rates and overtime rate, and that
must be acknowledged and signed by the employee.

The Plaintiff contends that the defendant is unjustly enriching
itself at the expense of the plaintiff and all others similarly
situated by withholding the overtime pays earned and should be
paid as rightfully earned by them.

Best Care, Inc. is a domestic business corporation providing home
health aide services.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
     ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
     Bohemia, NY 11716
     Tel: 631) 589-7242
     Fax: (631) 563+7475


BLS LIMOUSINE: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norayr Nazinyan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BLS Limousine Of Los Angeles, Inc. and Does
1-20, inclusive, Case No. BC669411 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 26,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide
meal and rest breaks, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages,
and failure to pay all earned wages upon separation of employment
in violation of the California Labor Code.

BLS Limousine of Los Angeles, Inc. operates a worldwide luxury
ground transportation company in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
      Caspar Jivaiagian, Esq.
      KJT LAW GROUP LLP
      230 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306
      Glendale, CA 91206
      Telephone: (818) 507-8525
      E-mail: vache@kjtlawgroup.com
              caspar@kjtlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
      ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
      4740 Calle Carga
      Camarillo, CA 93012
      Telephone: (818) 425-1437
      E-mail: ca@AdanisEmplojanentCounsel.com


BMW AG: "Lewis" Suit Sues over German Automobile Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN LEWIS and TRAVIS BURTON, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated, v. BMW AG, BMW NORTH
AMERICA, LLC, VOLKSWAGEN AG, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
AUDI AG, AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC, DR. ING.
H.C.F. PORSCHE AG, PORSCHE CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., DAIMLER
AG, MERCEDES-BENZ USA, MERCEDES-BENZ VANS, LLC, MERCEDESBENZ
U.S. INTERNATIONAL, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, and ROBERT BOSCH LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04314 (N.D. Cal., July 28, 2017),
seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief, and other relief
pursuant to the federal and state antitrust laws.

The action alleges a vast, 20-year conspiracy by the largest and
most profitable German automobile manufacturers -- Audi, BMW,
Daimler, Porsche, and Volkswagen -- which was intended to, and
did, create the perception of innovation and competition among
them, while in fact they agreed to eliminate or severely curtail
competition. These coordinated actions enabled the Manufacturer
Defendants -- the self-named "Funfer-Kreise," or Circle of Five -
- to impose a German automobile premium on consumers premised on
superior German engineering, while secretly stunting incentives
to innovate. Indeed, as one commentator noted, the Circle of Five
acted at times in greater coordination than divisions within each
Manufacturer Defendant company. Bosch, as a key supplier to the
Manufacturer Defendants, played a critical role in enabling and
concealing the cartel, also profiting enormously from it. The
conspiracy allowed Defendants to market German automobiles in the
United States and charge premium prices for supposedly "cutting
edge" technological innovations were promised but not delivered.
The scope of the cartel was immense; Defendants' efforts to keep
the facts from the public, even in the face of the related and
highly public "Dieselgate" conspiracy, were considerable.

For purposes of this Complaint, "German Automobile" refers to any
German passenger vehicle leased or sold in the United States
during the time of the Defendants' conspiracy, or from 1996 to at
least 2017.

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, usually known under its abbreviation
BMW, is a German luxury vehicle, motorcycle, and engine
manufacturing company founded in 1916. It is one of the best-
selling luxury automakers in the world.[BN]

Counsel for Steven Lewis, Travis Burton, and the Proposed
Classes:

          Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
          Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
          Emily C. Aldridgev
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 670
          Telephone: (415) 445 4003
          E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
                  mweiler@bfalaw.com
                  ealdridge@bfalaw.com


BMW AG: "Surjko" Suit Alleges German Premium Vehicle Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARTEM SURJKO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BMW AG, BMW NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
VOLKSWAGEN AG, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., AUDI AG, AUDI
OF AMERICA, INC., AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC, DR. ING. H.C. F. PORSCHE
AG, PORSCHE CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., BENTLEY MOTORS LIMITED,
DAIMLER AG, MERCEDES-BENZ USA, and MERCEDES-BENZ US
INTERNATIONAL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05786 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 31, 2017), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and
other relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws and state
antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection, and unjust
enrichment laws.

The complaint alleges "one of the most extensive and brazen
antitrust conspiracies ever."  For nearly 30 years, defendants
Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (collectively
Volkswagen), Audi AG, Audi of America Inc., Audi of America, LLC
(collectively Audi), Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars of
North America, Inc. (collectively Porsche), Bentley Motors
Limited (Bentley), Daimler Aktiengesellschaft (Daimler AG),
Mercedes-Benz US International, Mercedes-Benz USA, (collectively
Mercedes), BMW AG, and BMW North America, LLC (collectively
BMW)(collectively Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, Bentley, Mercedes
will be referred to as Defendants), companies who are supposed to
be competing with one another, engaged in an almost unfathomable
number of meetings, communications, and agreements, coordinating
virtually every aspect of their manufacture and sale of German
Premium Vehicles. As the German publication Der Spiegel recently
reported, "[t]he conclusion is that Daimler, BMW, Audi, Porsche
and Volkswagen often no longer compete with one another. Instead,
they secretly cooperate, very closely, in fact, in the same way
one would normally expect of the subsidiaries of a single company
to work together, as something like a "German Cars Inc." -- or a
cartel."

German Premium Vehicle refers to vehicles sold by the Defendants
under the following five brands: Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Audi,
BMW, and Bentley. The conspiracy at issue is both long-running
and vast; Volkswagen admitted to authorities that in the last
five years alone, Defendants met and conspired through at least
60 working groups, and 1,000 meetings, involving more than 200
employees. In a document dated July 4, 2016, Volkswagen submitted
a document to the European Commission (EC) declaring its
"participation in suspected cartel infringements." According to
this document, Volkswagen stated that Daimler, BMW, Volkswagen,
Audi and Porsche have coordinated matters relating to the
development of their vehicles, costs, suppliers and markets "for
many years -- at least since the 1990s and to this day." Further,
in its July 2016 submission, Volkswagen stated this behavior was
likely "in violation of cartel law." The EC has launched an
investigation of the Defendants concerning potential
anticompetitive activities. Volkswagen has also reported the same
information to the German Federal Cartel office Bundeskartellamt.
Volkswagen and Daimler have also reportedly admitted to
participating in the unlawful cartel and applied for leniency
from the EC in exchange for their cooperation in the probe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason A. Zweig, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 752 5455
          Facsimile: (917) 210 3980
          E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com
                  Jefff@hbsslaw.com


BMW NORTH: Barrera Sues over German Luxury Vehicles Conspiracy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Barrera, the Plaintiff, v. BMW North America, LLC, BMW AG,
Audi AG, Audi of America Inc., Audi of America, LLC, Bentley
Motors Limited, Daimler Aktiengesellschaft, Mercedes-Benz US
International, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, Dr.
Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars of North America, Inc.,
Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-05550 (D.N.J., July 28, 2017), seeks remedies
against the firms from which Plaintiff and the members of the
Damages Class purchased Vehicles containing German Luxury
Vehicles subject to Defendants' conspiracy would have been
futile.

This action arises from an unlawful conspiracy among the
Defendant manufacturers to deprive Plaintiff and the Classes of
the benefits of open, robust competition in the market for German
Luxury Vehicles. For years, Audi AG, Audi of America Inc., Audi
of America, LLC, Bentley Motors Limited, BMW AG, and BMW North
America, LLC Daimler Aktiengesellschaft ("Daimler AG"), Mercedes-
Benz US International, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC
(together, "Mercedes"), Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars
of North America, Inc. (together, "Porsche"), Volkswagen AG,
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (together, "Volkswagen"),
(together, the "Defendants"), and other unnamed conspirators,
unlawfully agreed to fix costs, increase prices, and eliminate
competition with respect to key technologies and other aspects of
the luxury cars sold or leased to U.S. consumers under the Audi,
BMW, Bentley, Mercedes-Benz, and Porsche brands ("German Luxury
Vehicles"). Defendants' unlawful conduct caused injury to
Plaintiff and the Classes. The Defendants' conspiracy is
currently under investigation by European Commission ("EC") and
other competition authorities and has been described, in part, in
a series of recent news reports. Two conspirators, Volkswagen and
Mercedes, reportedly are cooperating with the EC investigation
and have admitted their role(s) in the collusion in exchange for
leniency. In a July 4, 2016 submission to European authorities,
Volkswagen admitted Daimler, BMW, Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche
coordinated on the development of their vehicles, costs,
suppliers and markets "for many years -- at least since the 1990s
and to this day." Since at least the 1990s, Defendants have
colluded and shared competitive information through dozens of
"working groups" comprising hundreds of employees. The working
groups collectively held hundreds, if not thousands, of meetings
throughout the course of Defendants' conspiracy. The working
groups were referred to as the "groups of five" and met
"regularly several times a year" throughout Germany, as well as
at major auto shows. In its filings with European authorities,
Volkswagen indicated that "more than 1,000 relevant meetings took
place in the last five years." The meetings were, however, non-
public and referred to as "secret" meetings.

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, usually known under its abbreviation
BMW, is a German luxury vehicle, motorcycle, and engine
manufacturing company founded in 1916. It is one of the best-
selling luxury automakers in the world.[BN][BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Buchanan, Esq.
          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Jennifer Scullion, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          550 Broad Street, Ste. 920
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 639 9100
          Facsimile: (973) 639 9393
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                  dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com
                  jscullion@seegerweiss.com


CALIBER COLLISION: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Rocha, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Caliber Collision Transport Services LLC, Caliber Bodyworks,
Inc., and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. BC669786 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 24, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages, as well as rest
period premium wages, and failure to pay all wages owed to the
Plaintiff upon his separation of employment.

The Defendants operate an automotive collision repair center in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
      Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
      HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      2274 East Maple Avenue
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 292-2350
      Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
      E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
              sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
              dbrown@haineslawgroup.com


CANADA: Nov. 1 G20 Summit Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
ATTENTION TO ANYONE DETAINED OR ARRESTED DURING THE 2010 G20
SUMMIT IN TORONTO NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION OF A CLASS PROCEEDING

THE CLASS ACTIONS

On June 26 and 27, 2010, the G20 Summit ("the G20 Summit") was
held in downtown Toronto, Ontario.  Two class actions have been
commenced following the events that transpired during the G20
Summit.  The action Good v. Toronto Police Services Board (court
file number CV-10-408131 00CP), relates to those people who were
arrested or detained in one of the five locations. The action
Taylor v. Toronto Police Services Board (court file number CV-15-
524523 00CP), relates to those individuals who were arrested and
imprisoned in the temporary detention centre located on Eastern
Avenue (the "Detention Centre") beginning on June 26 or 27, 2010.

These actions were certified as class proceedings by Order of the
Divisional Court, dated August 6, 2014.  Appeals to both the
Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada have been
denied and therefore these actions will proceed as class actions.
The Defendant denies all of the allegations in this action.

THE CLASS MEMBERS: ARE YOU INCLUDED?

The class members in Taylor v. Toronto Police Services Board are
those individuals who were arrested and imprisoned in the
Detention Centre beginning on June 26 or 27, 2010.

The class members in Good v. Toronto Police Services Board are
those individuals who were:

1. Arrested or subjected to mass detention in a police cordon in
the vicinity of the intersection of Queen Street West and Spadina
Avenue on the afternoon of June 27, 2010, and eventually released
without charge;

2. Arrested or subjected to mass detention in a police cordon in
the vicinity of the Hotel Novotel Toronto Centre on the Esplanade
on the evening of June 26, 2010, and eventually released without
charge;

3. Arrested or subjected to mass detention in a police cordon in
the vicinity of the Eastern Avenue Detention Centre on the
morning of June 27, 2010, and eventually released without
charge;

4. Arrested or subjected to mass detention in a police cordon in
the vicinity of the intersection of Queen Street West and Noble
Street on June 27, 2010, and eventually released without charge;
and

5. Arrested at the University of Toronto Graduate Students' Union
Gymnasium on the morning of June 27, 2010.

It is possible to be a class member in both class actions. Class
members do not need to choose one class action over another.

RELIEF SOUGHT

The nature of the claims asserted on behalf of the class members
in the actions are claims for damages and other relief against
the Toronto Police Service Board relating to conduct by police
during the G20 summit in Toronto and the operation of the
Detention Centre.

The relief sought in the actions are general damages, aggravated
and special damages, punitive and exemplary damages,
declarations, expunging of records, prejudgment and postjudgment
interest, costs (together with postjudgment interest thereon),
and such further and other relief as the Court may deem just.

REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS

The lawsuits have been started by Sherry Good and Thomas Taylor
(the "Representative Plaintiffs") represented by the law firms of
Klippensteins, Barristers & Solicitors and Eric K. Gillespie
Professional Corporation ("Class Counsel").

RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF THE LAWSUIT

Class members who wish to participate in either class action do
not need to do anything at this time.  They are automatically
included in the class proceeding.

Class members who do not wish to participate in either class
action must opt out.

If you do not want to participate in either class action, you
must complete and sign the Opt Out Election Form and deliver it
by regular mail, facsimile transmission, e-mail or
personal delivery to:

Murray Klippenstein
Klippensteins Barristers & Solicitors
160 John Street, Suite 300
Toronto, Ontario M5V 2E5
Facsimile: 416 598-9520; Email: kent.elson@klippensteins.ca

The deadline for opting out is November 1, 2017.  No class member
will be permitted to opt out after the expiry of this deadline.

If you do not opt out you will remain a class member.

A copy of the Opt-Out Form is available at https://is.gd/8c6zgB

FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CLASS ACTIONS TO YOU

The actions seek, on your behalf, damages to compensate you for
the alleged wrongdoing by police during the G20 Summit (in
addition to other relief).

Any Judgment, whether favourable or not, will bind all Class
Members who do not opt out of this proceeding. This means that,
unless you opt out, you cannot start your own action for the same
claim.

If you opt out before November 1, 2017, you will have agreed that
you are not part of the relevant class action(s) and will receive
absolutely no compensation for any damages that may be awarded
in the relevant class action(s).  You will, however, retain any
right you may have to bring your own lawsuit (subject to
applicable time limitation periods).

The Representative Plaintiffs have agreed that class counsel will
be paid legal fees only if the lawsuit is successful.  The amount
of these legal fees and costs must be approved by the Court.
Class members will not owe any legal fees to Class Counsel if the
lawsuit is unsuccessful.

The Representative Plaintiffs have received indemnification
against adverse costs awards, as well as financial support for
legal disbursements, from the Class Proceedings Fund ("CPF"). The
CPF was established by the Law Foundation of Ontario to provide
financial support to class action plaintiffs.  Disbursements are
expenses relating to lawsuits such as photocopies and fees
charged by courts.  Disbursements do not include the legal fees
of Class Counsel.  In the event that the Representative
Plaintiffs are successful at trial, the CPF will receive a levy
in the amount of 10% of any awards or settlements in favour of
the Representative Plaintiffs and any other class member,
together with a return of any funded disbursements.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

If you want to find out more about these class actions, please
contact:

Kent Elson
Klippensteins Barristers & Solicitors
160 John Street, Suite 300
Toronto, Ontario M5V 2E5
Telephone: 416 598-0288 ext. 106
Facsimile: 416 598-0950
Email: kent.elson@klippensteins.ca
Or visit:
http://www.g20classaction.ca/


CAPITAL BANK: "Parshall" Hits Merger Deal, Seeks More Info
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital Bank Financial Corp., R. Eugene
Taylor, Martha M. Bachman, Richard M. Demartini, Peter N. Foss,
William A. Hodges, Scott B. Kauffman, Oscar A. Keller III, Marc
D. Oken, Robert L. Reid and William G. Ward Sr., Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00428, (W.D.N.C., July 19, 2017), seeks to
preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating,
or closing the sale of Capital Bank to First Horizon National
Corporation, rescissory damages in case the merger pushes
through, reasonable allowance for Plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the merger deal, each holder of Capital Bank common
stock will be entitled to receive cash or stock with a value
equivalent to 1.750 First Horizon shares and $7.90 in cash for
each Capital Bank share held. In the aggregate, Capital Bank
stockholders will receive a mix of approximately 80% stock and
20% cash. After closing, Capital Bank stockholders collectively
will own approximately 29 percent of First Horizon's common
shares and will have received approximately $411 million in cash.
The total transaction value, at First Horizon's closing stock
price on May 3, 2017, is $2.2 billion.

The merger consideration fails to disclose Capital Bank and First
Horizon's financial projections including the background process
leading up to the merger, the Complaint says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      (302) 295-5310

            - and -

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

            - and -

      Janet Ward Black, Esq.
      Nancy Meyers, Esq.
      WARD BLACK LAW
      208 W. Wendover Ave.
      Greensboro, NC 27401
      Tel: (336) 333-2244
      Fax: (336) 379-9415
      Email: jwblack@wardblacklaw.com


CAREFIRST INC: Schuman Wants to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA SCHUMAN and MIRIAM WASHINGTON, Individually and on Behalf
of All Similarly Situated Employees v. CAREFIRST, INC. and
CAREFIRST OF MARYLAND, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-01995-CCB (D. Md.,
July 17, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
Section 16(b) of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

CareFirst, Inc. and CareFirst of Maryland, Inc., are the largest
health care insurers in the region.  They serve over 3.2 million
members across Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C.  CareFirst
is the parent company of CareFirst of MD and several other
companies, all with the common goal of providing medical care
products and services to individual, group and corporate
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George E. Swegman, Esq.
          Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-7005
          Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
          E-mail: gswegman@nicholllaw.com
                  bdavis@nicholllaw.com


CATE STAR: Velasquez Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wage under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIRIAM MADRID VELASQUEZ, and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C 206(b), the Plaintiff, v. CATE STAR, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company d/b/a BUFFET CITY and MING FENG ZHUO,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22889-JEM (M.D.
Fla., July 31, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wage compensation, as well as an additional amount as
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed as a
kitchen assistant/runner. The Plaintiff worked from Tuesday
through Sunday from approximately 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. or
11:30 p.m. each day. Throughout her employment with Buffet City,
Plaintiff worked an average of 72 hours per week, 40 regular
hours and 32 overtime hours during the relevant time period. The
Plaintiff worked a total of 288 hours per month, and was paid
$2,000 a month, or an average of $6.94 per hour.

Zhuo is an officer/director of Buffet City and has economic
control of Buffet City, and of the nature and structure of
Plaintiff's employment relationship with Buffet City. Employer
willfully and intentionally failed/refused to pay to Plaintiff
the federally required minimum and overtime rates for all hours
she worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Monica Espino, Esq.
          ESPINO LAW
          2250 SW 3 Avenue, 4th Floor
          Miami, FL 33129
          Telephone: (305) 704 3172
          Facsimile: (305) 722 7378
          E-mail: me@espino-law.com
                  legal@espino-law.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Kahn Swick Commences Investigation
----------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq.,
a partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
announces that KSF has commenced an investigation into Chipotle
Mexican Grill, Inc. (NYSE:CMG).

On April 25, 2017, the Company revealed a data breach affecting
its payment processing systems potentially affecting its
customers and advised that customers "should closely monitor
their payment card statements" for unauthorized charges and
notify their bank if that occurred. The breach resulted in a
class action lawsuit being filed against the Company by more than
100 financial institutions based on lost accounts, repayments and
other expenses cause by Chipotle's negligence in the breach,
highlighting a 2015 decision by the Company to "not upgrade its
terminals to EMV [chip card] technology, claiming that it would
slow down customer lines" despite a prior breach that had cost
the company approximately $4.3 million between 2004 and 2006.

On July 19, 2017, it was announced that the Company received a
federal subpoena relating to a reported norovirus outbreak at one
of its Virginia locations that left hundreds sickened, which
follows a string of similar incidents involving the company
dating back to 2015 and has resulted in the filing of a
securities class action lawsuit against the Company.

KSF's investigation is focusing on whether Chipotle's officers
and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to its
shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws.

If you have information that would assist KSF in its
investigation, or have been a long-term holder of Chipotle shares
and would like to discuss your legal rights, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).

                   About Kahn Swick & Foti

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include the Former
Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm
focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions,
along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary
litigation against publicly traded companies on behalf of
shareholders. The firm has offices in New York, California and
Louisiana.

         Lewis Kahn
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
         [GN]


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sued in Col. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Kelley, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., M. Steven
Ells, Montgomery F. Moran and John R. Hartung, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01760 (D. Col., July 20, 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, says the complaint, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Chipotle's purported improvements in its restaurants' food safety
policies were inadequate; (ii) accordingly, Chipotle's quality
controls were still not in compliance with applicable consumer
and workplace safety regulations; (iii) in turn, Chipotle's
quality controls remained inadequate to safeguard consumer and
employee health; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing,
Chipotle's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

The Defendants own and operate quick-serve Mexican restaurants
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com

         - and -

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


CLARINS USA: Blackwell Sues Over Misleading Product Label
---------------------------------------------------------
TIFFIANY BLACKWELL on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLARINS USA Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-05287 (N.D. Ill., July 18, 2017), sues defendant for
misleading representation of its Product in violation of state
consumer protection laws.

The complaint says the plaintiff and similarly situated consumers
purchased a purported anti-cellulite cream Product named Clarins
Paris Body Fit Anti-Cellulite Contouring Expert after viewing the
representations on its label.  The product label of Clarins and
also on its website states that the product has the unique
ability to visibly smooth, firm and lift the skin, and to reduce
the look of cellulite with targeted refining and reshaping
actions.

The complaint alleges that the defendant failed to disclose that
the product cannot provide the advertised benefits and that the
Product has no ingredients that are capable of firming, lifting
and changing the shape of a person's skin.

The complaint contends the defendant's unfair representations
deceived and mislead consumers into believing about the products
effectiveness.  Consumers like the plaintiff were deceived into
purchasing the product and pay a higher price.

Clarins USA Inc. is a manufacturer and seller of various skin
care, beauty and wellness products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
     Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
     Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Tel: (412) 322-9243
     E-mail: bcalrson@carlsonlynch.com
             glynch@carlsonlynch.com
             kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Valentino" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc.  The case is captioned as Louis Valentino, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Client Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05622-PKC
(S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2017).  The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge P. Kevin Castel.

Client Services offers mortgage modifications and credit card
rate reductions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
          Joseph Karl Jones, Esq.
          JONES,WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42st, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (646) 459 7971
          Facsimile: (646) 459 7973
          E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com
                  jkj@legaljones.com


CODE REBEL: December 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and Pomerantz LLP on July 31 disclosed
that the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed
class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of
securities of Code Rebel Corporation (OTCMKTS:CDRBQ):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED CODE REBEL CORPORATION
SECURITIES FROM MAY 19, 2015 THROUGH MAY 12, 2017 INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that
a hearing will be held on December 8, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. before
the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge of
the Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom
906, New York, New York 10007, for the purpose of determining:
(1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-
captioned Action for consideration including the sum of
$1,000,000 to the Settlement Class should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed
plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (3) whether the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel
for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Class
Settlement Amount ($333,333.33), reimbursement of expenses of not
more than $30,000, and an incentive payment of no more than
$2,000 in aggregate, or $1,000 each, to Plaintiffs, should be
approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with
prejudice as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release
dated May 12, 2017 (the "Agreement").

If you purchased Code Rebel Corporation ("Code Rebel") securities
during the period from May 19, 2015 through May 12, 2017, both
dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), your rights may
be affected by this Settlement, including the release and
extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your
ownership interest in Code Rebel securities.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to or calling the
Claims Administrator at Code Rebel Corporation Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St.,
Ste. 3, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004;
(Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the
website, www.strategicclaims.net.  If you are a member of the
Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release
Form postmarked no later than September 15, 2017 to the Claims
Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound
by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a
claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so
that it is received no later than November 17, 2017, in the
manner and form explained in the Notice.  All members of the
Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the
Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the
Action pursuant to the Agreement.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or
Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and award to Plaintiffs must be in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no
later than November 17, 2017, to each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007

CLASS COUNSEL

Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY  10016

Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Joseph A. Hood, II, Esq.
Justin S. Nematzadeh, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT ARBEN KRYEZIU N/K/A ARBEN KANE
Mitchell Kulick
Justin B. Singer
FEUERSTEIN KULICK LLP
205 E. 42nd Street, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10017

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS REID DABNEY, VOLODYMYR BYKOV, JAMES
CANTON, AND DAVID DWELLE

Donald W. Hawthorne
Felix J. Gilman
AXINN VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
114 West 47th Street
New York, NY 10036

COUNSEL FOR JEOFFREY L. BURTCH, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE FOR THE ESTATE
OF CODE REBEL CORPORATION
Mark E. Felger
COZEN O'CONNOR
45 Broadway, Suite 1600
New York, NY 10006

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Class Counsel:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY  10016
Tel.: (212) 686-1060

Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Joseph A. Hood, II, Esq.
Justin S. Nematzadeh, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 661-1100

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: June 27, 2017
  BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN]


COMPTREE INC: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. COMPTREE
INC. d/b/a BULKEA, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through
25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC670492 (Cal. Super.
Ct., July 31, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff all of his overtime wages. Plaintiffs overtime hours
had been paid at his straight rate only. The Plaintiff was never
paid at double time Plaintiffs rate of pay, for his shifts of
more than 12 hours per day. The Plaintiff was never allowed to
take his second meal break prior to his tenth hour of his shift.
The Plaintiff's job duties did not permit him to take regular
rest breaks as mandated by law. He was never provided the
opportunity to take rest periods, nor was he informed of his
right to take rest periods. The Defendants did not pay a premium
of one hour's pay for any missed first and second meal or rest
periods.

Comptree was founded in 1994.  The company's line of business
includes providing computer related services and consulting.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amber Blackerby, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Concepts of Independence Inc., Case No.
156571/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 21, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the New York Labor
Law.

Concepts of Independence Inc. is primarily engaged in providing
home health aide services at the residences of its clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
      Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
              llusher@vandallp.com
              mdostanitch@vandallp.com


COPCO: Faces "Bowen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelli Bowen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. COPCO, Case No. 2:17-cv-03484-MMB (E.D. Penn., August
3, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

COPCO owns and maintains a commercial office furniture company
that performs work throughout the State of Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Cedar, Esq.
      Gerald J. Williams, Esq.
      Samuel Abloeser, Esq.
      WILLIAMS CEDAR, LLC
      1908 Marlton Pike East
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
      Telephone: (856) 874-7500
      Facsimile: (888) 311-4899
      E-mail: dcedar@williamscedar.com
              gwilliams@williamscedar.com
              sabloeser@williamscedar.com

          - and -

      Jodi Jaffe, Esq.
      Andrew Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN SAUL GROUP, PA
      301 North Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (888) 724-4470

CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS: "Peterson" Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ERIKA PETERSON, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00578, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-05643-VAP-AS to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia A. Phillips.

The lawsuit seeks to recover statutory damages, actual damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest at the
legal rate, and relief as this Court deems necessary, just, and
proper, as a result of Defendant's use of deceptive means in
connection with collection of alleged debts in violation of both
the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA).

On November 22, 2016, Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff in an
attempt to collect an alleged debt originally owed to a third
party in the amount of $1,303.65. In the letter, Defendant stated
that "your account has been referred to our Pre-Legal
Department," thereby implying that legal action has been or will
be taken in connection with collection on the alleged debt. In
the same letter, Defendant stated that Plaintiff's alleged debt
will be referred to an attorney unless Plaintiff pays the debt in
full, but then Defendant instructed Plaintiff to contact its
"Pre-Legal Department"; however, Defendant also stated that
Defendant is not an attorney. Such statements are confusing and
give debtors and consumer such as Plaintiff the impression that
Defendant is both an authority on the law and not an attorney.

Credit Corp. is debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CRESCO CAPITAL: Faces "Worrel" Suit in N.D. Ga.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cresco Capital.
The case is styled as David Patrick Worrell on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cresco Capital,
Lone Mountain and Cummings, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02880-CAP (N.D. Ga., July 31, 2017).

Cresco Capital is an independent corporate finance firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff appeared PRO SE.


CRYPTSY: CEO Ordered to Pay $8.2 MMM in Class-Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Coindesk reports that a U.S. judge has ordered that the chief
executive of the now-defunct cryptocurrency exchange Cryptsy must
pay $8.2 million in damages to its customers.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra handed down the order in the
long-running class action lawsuit against the Florida-based
cryptocurrency exchange that collapsed in January 2016 after
months of growing complaints from customers. The class-action
lawsuit was filed shortly afterwards, with the court ultimately
moving to place Cryptsy into receivership the following April.

According to Marra's July 27 court order, Cryptsy CEO Paul Vernon
-- who has denied stealing user funds -- "is liable to the
Plaintiff Class in the principal sum of $8,200,000, for which let
execution issue forthwith."

Vernon, who is believed to be currently residing somewhere in
Asia, did not respond to the allegations in court, a circumstance
which led to the default judgment.

The order notably states that the more than 11,000 bitcoins taken
from the exchange by Vernon are owed to the customers.

"The Court further declares that the 11,325.0961 [bitcoin] which
were stolen from Cryptsy customers on July 29, 2014 and which, as
of the date of this final judgment . . . . are property of the
Plaintiff Class and subject to and encompassed within this Final
Judgment," Marra wrote.

In a statement, attorney David Silver, Esq. -- dsilver@kmlaw.ca -
- of Koskie Minsky LLP, who represents one of the two law firms
involved in the class action, said that those who pushed for the
result "are thrilled to have achieved a historic success," adding
that work was underway to gain control of the 11 bitcoin wallet
addresses listed in the court order.

He told CoinDesk:

"This order is a big step in the path towards vindication and
justice for our clients in the cryptocurrency world who were
taken advantage of by an exchange operator they trusted with
their hard-earned funds." [GN]


DAP SERVICES: Violates State Labor Laws, "Huitzil" Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA HUITZIL, CAROLINA OSORIO ROMERO, CRISPINA SANCHEZ, GISELLE
DOMINGUEZ, GLADYS DOMINGUEZ MODESTO, and LEIDY CANDO PAGUAY, on
behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated v. DAP
SERVICES CORP, VRN SERVCIES CORP., and GOLDEN SEAHORSE LLC, dba
HOLIDAY INN MANHATTAN, Case No. 1:17-cv-05387 (S.D.N.Y., July 17,
2017), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to the FLSA and the NYLL,
they are entitled to recover from the Defendants: (a) unpaid
wages and minimum wages; (b) unpaid overtime compensation; (c)
liquidated damages, (d) prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
and (e) attorneys' fees and costs.  The Defendants jointly
employed the Plaintiffs as housekeeping staff at the Holiday Inn
Manhattan.

DAP Services Corp. is a business entity organized under the laws
of the state of New York, with a primary business address at 517
Grand Street, in New York City.  VRN Services Corp. is a business
entity organized under the laws of the state of New York, with a
primary business address at 75 East 4th Street, in New York City.

DAP Services and VRN Services are successor companies, which
continued the business operations of their predecessor(s), namely
providing housekeeping services to various hotels, including the
Holiday Inn Manhattan.

Golden Seahorse, LLC, doing business as Holiday Inn Manhattan --
Financial District, is a foreign limited liability company and
business entity existing under the laws of the State of New York,
with a principal business address at 99 Washington Street, in New
York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


DENTAL RESOURCE: New Concept Seeks Damages Over TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
NEW CONCEPT DENTAL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DENTAL RESOURCE SYSTEMS, INC. AKA TRUDENTA;
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 0:17-cv-61411-KAM (S.D.
Fla., July 17, 2017), alleges violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff brings the action for itself and others similarly
situated seeking damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the alleged illegal actions of
the Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting
the Plaintiff via "telephone facsimile machine" in violation of
the TCPA.

Dental Resource Systems, Inc., also known as Trudenta, is a
marketer of medical products and medical related financial
services.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
          DIEPPA MARTINEZ PLLC
          14 NE First Ave, Suite 1001
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 901-2209
          E-mail: Ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law


DIRECTV LLC: "Ellendorf" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Ellendorf, Harry Adams, Angel Avila, Michael Barrocas,
Daniel Bauder, Bayan Beal, Rodger Bennett, Everton Blake, Steven
Bocz, Javier Borja, Joshua Corona, Jaleel Daniels, Emil Dimitrov,
Delroy Donegal, Edinho Edwards, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
DirecTV, LLC and Mastec North America, Inc., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-22861-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and other applicable remedies under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked as satellite
television installation and service technicians. The Plaintiffs'
principal job duty as technicians was to install and service
DIRECTV satellite television systems. DIRECTV controls and
manages a nationwide corps of installation technicians in two
ways: (1) by directly employing the technicians; and (2) by
outsourcing technician labor through a network of service
providers (the "Provider Network") consisting of Home Service
Providers ("HSPs") like MasTec. The Plaintiffs were all
acknowledged MasTec employees. Each Plaintiff also alleges that,
as a matter of economic reality, they were also employed by
DIRECTV. The Defendants paid Plaintiffs on a piece-rate basis
that did not properly compensate them for all of the hours they
worked.

DIRECTV is one of the world's leading providers of digital
television entertainment services delivering a premium video
experience. It offers direct-to-home (DTH) services in the United
States and Latin America. It also acquires, promotes, sells, and
distributes digital entertainment programming primarily through
satellite to residential and commercial subscribers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561 447 8888
          Facsimile: 561 447 8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  cjones@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Crystal R. Cook, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MI 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714 7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714 7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  cook@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
          Todd C. Werts, Esq.
          LEAR WERTS LLP
          2003 W. Broadway, Ste. 107
          Columbia, MI 65203
          Telephone: 573 875 1991
          Facsimile: 573 875 1985
          E-mail: lear@learwerts.com
                  werts@learwerts.com


DIRECTV LLC: "Parr" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under the FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Parr, Jeffery Adams, Todd Frank, Riley Holder, Matthew
Holt, Brent Kibodeaux, Bryant Kibodeaux, Nicholas Kloet, Russell
Kuznia, Richard Leff, Brandon Marlow, James Morthole, Jacob
Negray, Robert Shoemaker et al., the Plaintiff, v. DirecTV, LLC,
Multiband Field Services, Inc., Multiband Corp., and Goodman
Networks, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-03424-PJS-DTS
(D. Minn., July 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
other applicable remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

According to complaint, the Plaintiffs worked as satellite
television installation and service technicians. Plaintiffs'
principal job duty as technicians was to install and service
DIRECTV satellite television systems. DIRECTV controls and
manages a nationwide corps of installation technicians in two
ways: (1) by directly employing the technicians; and (2) by
outsourcing technician labor through a network of service
providers (the "Provider Network") consisting of Home Service
Providers ("HSPs") like Multiband/Goodman. Plaintiffs were all
acknowledged employees of Multiband/Goodman or one of its
predecessors. Each Plaintiff also alleges that, as a matter of
economic reality, they were also employed by DIRECTV. The
Defendants paid Plaintiffs on a piece-rate basis that did not
properly compensate them for all of the hours they worked.[BN]

DIRECTV is one of the world's leading providers of digital
television entertainment services delivering a premium video
experience. It offers direct-to-home (DTH) services in the United
States and Latin America. It also acquires, promotes, sells, and
distributes digital entertainment programming primarily through
satellite to residential and commercial subscribers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256 3205
          Facsimile: (612) 215 6870
          E-mail: lukas@nka.com

               - and -

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Crystal R. Cook, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MI 64112
          Telephone: 816 714 7100
          Facsimile: 816 714 7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  cook@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
          Todd C. Werts, Esq.
          LEAR WERTS LLP
          2003 W. Broadway, Ste. 107
          Columbia, MI 65203
          Telephone: (573) 875 1991
          Facsimile: (573) 875 1985
          E-mail: lear@learwerts.com
                  werts@learwerts.com


DUNBAR ARMORED: "Chico" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------
Adelaida Chico, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Dunbar Armored, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-22701 (S.D.
Fla., July 19, 2017), requests double damages and reasonable
attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing
from Plaintiff's entire employment period along with court costs,
interest, and any other relief.

Dunbar Armored -- http://www.dunbararmored.com/-- is an armored
car service based in Maryland offering cash logistics and
valuable management services where Chico worked as a teller from
2014 through the present.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DUPONT FABROS: "Lawrence" Suit Balks at Digital Realty Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Lawrence, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dupont Fabros Technology, Inc.,
Lammott J. Dupont, Michael A. Coke, Thomas D. Eckert, Frederic V.
Malek, John T. Roberts, Jr., John H. Toole, Christopher P.
Eldredge, Mary M. Styer, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02042 (D.
Colo., July 21, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently
enjoin Defendants and their counsel, agents, employees and all
persons acting under, in concert with, or for them, from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the proposed merger
between DuPont and affiliates of Digital Realty Trust, Inc.,
rescissory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs
and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys'
and expert fees and expenses, extraordinary, equitable and/or
injunctive relief and such further relief under the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934.

Each share of common stock of DuPont will be converted into 0.545
shares of Digital Realty Trust common stock for a transaction
valued at approximately $7.6 billion in enterprise value.
Plaintiff alleges that the merger amount is inadequate in light
of the Company's recent financial performance and prospects for
future growth.

DuPont is a real estate investment trust that owns, acquires,
develops and operates wholesale data centers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New Yor006B, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, D.C. 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
      Email: denright@zlk.com


EI DU PONT: "Cook" Suit Transferred to E.D. Tex.
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on June 2, 2017 captioned
Kenneth Cook, James Botts, Shawn Hunter, Larry LaClair, Thomas
Short, George Willis, James Cahoon, Chris Paulley, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. E.I. Du Pont De
Nemours and Company, Case No. 3:17-cv-00909, was transferred on
August 3, 2017 from the District of Tennessee Middle to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Beaumont). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00333-RC to the
proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company is a science and technology
based company located at 1002 Industrial Dr., Old Hickory, TN
37138. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


ENCOMPASS HOME: "Brown" Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tomaleata Brown, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Encompass Home Health of Austin, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00694, (W.D. Tex., July 21, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid wages, interest,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked as a certified nursing assistant for the
Defendant from approximately September 2016 through the present.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles W. Branham, III, Esq.
      DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
      302 N. Market St., Suite 300
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 722-5990
      Fax: (214) 722-5991
      Email: tbranham@dobllp.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Pitale" Suit in E.D. Va.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian
Information Solutions, Inc.  The case is styled as John E.
Pitale, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Experian Information Solutions,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00864-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va., July
31, 2017).

Experian Information, an information services company, provides
information, analytical, and marketing services to organizations
and consumers to help manage the risk and reward of commercial
and financial decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7570
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com


FACEBOOK INC: Biometric Data Class Action Ongoing in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Bennett, writing for The Center for Public Integrity,
reports that when Chicago resident Carlo Licata joined Facebook
in 2009, he did what the 390 million other users of the world's
largest social network had already done: He posted photos of
himself and friends, tagging the images with names.

But what Mr. Licata, now 34, didn't know was that every time he
was tagged, Facebook stored his digitized face in its growing
database.

Angered this was done without his knowledge, Mr. Licata sued
Facebook in 2015 as part of a class action lawsuit filed in
Illinois state court accusing the company of violating a one-of-
a-kind Illinois law that prohibits collection of biometric data
without permission.  The suit is ongoing.

Facebook denied the charges, arguing the law doesn't apply to
them.  But behind the scenes, the social network giant is working
feverishly to prevent other states from enacting a law like the
one in Illinois.

Since the suit was filed, Facebook has stepped up its state
lobbying, according to records and interviews with lawmakers.
But rather than wading into policy fights itself, Facebook has
turned to lower-profile trade groups such as the Internet
Association, based in Washington, D.C., and the Illinois-based
trade association CompTIA to head off bills that would give users
more control over how their likenesses are used or whom they can
be sold to.

That effort is part of a wider agenda.  Tech companies, whose
business model is based on collecting data about its users and
using it to sell ads, frequently oppose consumer privacy
legislation. But privacy advocates say Facebook is uniquely
aggressive in opposing all forms of regulation on its technology.

And the strategy has been working.  Bills that would have created
new consumer data protections for facial recognition were
proposed in at least five states this year -- Washington,
Montana, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Alaska -- but all failed,
except the Washington bill, which passed only after its scope was
limited.

No federal law regulates how companies use biometric privacy or
facial recognition, and no lawmaker has ever introduced a bill to
do so.  That prompted the Government Accountability Office to
conclude in 2015 that the "privacy issues that have been raised
by facial recognition technology serve as yet another example of
the need to adapt federal privacy law to reflect new
technologies."  Congress did, however, roll back privacy
protections in March by allowing Internet providers to sell
browser data without the consumer's permission.

Facebook says on its website it won't ever sell users' data, but
the company is poised to cash in on facial recognition in other
ways.  The market for facial recognition is forecast to grow to
$9.6 billion by 2022, according to analysts at Allied Market
Research, as companies look for ways to authenticate and
recognize repeat customers in stores, or offer specific ads based
on a customer's gender or age.

Facebook is working on advanced recognition technology that would
put names to faces even if they are obscured and identify people
by their clothing and posture.  Facebook has filed patents for
technology allowing Facebook to tailor ads based on users' facial
expressions.

But despite the relative lack of regulation, the technology
appears to be worrying politicians on both sides of the aisle,
and privacy advocates too.  During a hearing of the House
Government Oversight Committee in March, Chairman Jason Chaffetz,
R-Utah, who left Congress in June, warned facial recognition "can
be used in a way that chills free speech and free association by
targeting people attending certain political meetings, protests,
churches or other types of places in public."

Even one of the inventors of facial recognition is worried.  "It
pains me to see a technology that I helped invent being used in a
way that is not what I had in mind in respect to privacy," said
Joseph Atick, who helped develop facial recognition in the 1990s
at Rockefeller University in New York City.

Mr. Atick, now an industry consultant, is concerned that
companies such as Facebook will use the technology to identify
individuals in public spaces without their knowledge or
permission.

"I can no longer count on being an anonymous person," he said,
"when I'm walking down the street."

Mr. Atick calls for federal regulations to protect people's
privacy, because without it Americans are left with "a myriad of
state laws," he said.  "And state laws can be more easily
manipulated by commercial interests."

Facial recognition is here

Facial recognition's use is increasing.  Retailers employ it to
identify shoplifters, and bankers want to use it to secure bank
accounts at ATMs.  The Internet of things -- connecting thousands
of everyday personal objects from light bulbs to cars -- may use
an individual's face to allow access to household devices.
Churches already use facial recognition to track attendance at
services.

Government is relying on it as well.  President Donald Trump
staffed the U.S. Homeland Security Department transition team
with at least four executives tied to facial recognition firms.
Law enforcement agencies run facial recognition programs using
mug shots and driver's license photos to identify suspects.
About half of adult Americans are included in a facial
recognition database maintained by law enforcement, estimates the
Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown University Law
School.

To tap into this booming business, companies need something only
Facebook has -- a massive database of faces.

Facebook now has 2 billion monthly users who upload about 350
million photos every day -- a "practically infinite" amount of
data that Facebook can use to train its facial recognition
software, according to a 2014 presentation by an engineer working
on DeepFace, Facebook's in-house facial-recognition project.


"When we invented face recognition, there was no database,"
Mr. Atick said.  Facebook has "a system that could recognize the
entire population of the Earth."

Facebook says it doesn't have any plans to directly sell its
database.  "We do not sell people's facial recognition template
or make them available for use by developers or advertisers, and
we have no plans to do so," Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said in
an email.

But Facebook currently uses facial recognition to organize photos
and to support its research into artificial intelligence, which
Facebook hopes will lead to new platforms to place more focused
targeted ads, according to public announcements made by the
company.  The more Facebook can recognize what is in users'
photographs using artificial intelligence, the more they can
learn about users' hobbies, preferences and interests -- valuable
information for companies looking to pinpoint sales efforts.

For example, if Facebook identifies a user's face and her friends
hiking in a photo, it can use that information to place ads for
hiking equipment on her Facebook page, said Larry Ponemon,
founder of the Ponemon Institute, a privacy and security research
and consulting group.

"The whole Facebook model is a commercial model," Mr. Ponemon
said, "gathering information about people and then basically
selling them products" based on that information.

Facebook hasn't been consistent about what it plans to do with
its facial data.  In 2012, at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary
Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, then-Chairman Al
Franken, D-Minn., asked Facebook's then-manager of privacy and
public policy, Rob Sherman, to assure users the company wouldn't
share its faceprint database with third parties. Sherman
declined.

"It's difficult to know in the future what Facebook will look
like five or 10 years down the road, and so it's hard to respond
to that hypothetical," Sherman said.

And in 2013, Facebook Chief Privacy Officer Erin Egan told
Reuters, "Can I say that we will never use facial recognition
technology for any other purposes [other than suggesting who to
tag in photos]? Absolutely not."  Ms. Egan added, though, that if
Facebook did use the technology for other purposes the firm would
give users control over it.

BIPA

Nearly a decade ago, when facial recognition was still in its
infancy, Illinois passed the Biometric Information and Privacy
Act of 2008 after a fingerprint-scanning company went bankrupt,
putting the security of the biometric data the company collected
in doubt.

The law requires companies to obtain permission from an
individual before collecting biometric data, including "a retina
or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face
geometry."  It also requires companies to list the purpose and
length of time the data will be stored and include those details
in a written biometric privacy policy.  If a business violates
the law, individuals can sue the company, a provision that no
other state privacy law permits.

"The Illinois law is a very stringent law," said Chad Marlow,
policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union.  "But it's
not inherently an unreasonable law. Illinois wanted to protect
its citizens from facial recognition technologies online."

That may include, possibly, Facebook's Tag Suggestions
application.  First introduced in 2010, Tag Suggestions allows
Facebook users to label friends and family members in photos with
their name using facial recognition. When a user tags a friend in
a photo or selects a profile picture, Tag Suggestions creates a
personal data profile that it uses to identify that person in
other photos on Facebook or in newly uploaded images.

Facebook started quietly enrolling users in Tag Suggestions in
2010 without informing them or obtaining their permission.  By
June 2011, Facebook announced it had enrolled all users, except
for a few countries.

That's what upset Mr. Licata, who works in finance in Chicago.
In the lawsuit against Facebook, which names two other
plaintiffs, Mr. Licata alleges that every time he was tagged in
an image or selected a new profile picture, Facebook "extracted
from those photographs a unique faceprint or 'template' for him
containing his biometric identifiers, including his facial
geometry, and identified who he was," according to the lawsuit.
"Facebook subsequently stored Licata's biometric identifiers in
its databases."

The other plaintiffs also claim that by using their data to build
DeepFace, Facebook deprived them of the monetary value of their
biometric data.  The statute carries penalties up to $5,000 per
violation, which potentially could include thousands of Illinois
residents.

Licata declined an interview request through the law firm
representing him, Chicago-based Edelson PC, which s pecializes in
suing technology companies over privacy violations. The firm's
founder, Jay Edelson, is a controversial figure.  Some
technologists and colleagues view him as an opportunist -- a
"leech tarted up as a freedom fighter" -- according to a New York
Times profile.

Facebook declined the Center for Public Integrity's requests to
comment on the lawsuit specifically, but said in an email that
"our work demonstrates our commitment to protecting the over 210
million Americans who use our service."  Facebook told The New
York Times in 2015 that the BIPA lawsuit "is without merit, and
we will defend ourselves vigorously."

Facebook says users can turn off Tag Suggestions, but critics say
the process is complex, making it likely the feature will remain
active.

And many Facebook users don't even know data about their
likenesses are being stored. "As a person who has been tagged,
there should be some agreement at least that this is acceptable"
before Facebook enrolls users in Tag Suggestions, said privacy
researcher Ponemon.  "But the train has left the station."

In 2016, just 21 days after the judge in the Licata case ruled
against a Facebook motion that the Illinois law only applies to
in-person scans, not images or video, an amendment to BIPA that
would have defined facial scans just that way was offered in the
state Senate.  After consumer groups such as the World Privacy
Forum and the Illinois Public Interest Research Group wrote
letters of opposition, the measure was withdrawn by its sponsor,
state Sen. and Assistant Majority Leader Terry Link, D-Vernon
Hills. Link did not respond to requests for comment.

Facebook has expressed support for the amendment, but won't
confirm or deny their involvement in the attempt.  The effort
fits a pattern, said Alvaro Bedoya, executive director of the
Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown University.

"Their approach has been, 'If you sue us, it doesn't apply to us;
if you say it does apply to us, we'll try to change the law,'"
Mr. Bedoya said.  "It is only laws like Illinois' that could put
some kind of check on this authority, so it is no coincidence
that [Facebook] would like to see this law undone.  This is the
strongest privacy law in the nation. If it goes away, that's a
big deal."

Facebook's hidden lobbying

Facebook started lobbying the federal government in earnest
around 2011, when it reported spending nearly $1.4 million.  By
2016, the amount grew more than five times, to almost $8.7
million, when Facebook lobbied on issues such as data security,
consumer privacy and tax reform, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics.

Facebook spends much less to influence state lawmakers.
According to reports compiled by the National Institute on Money
in State Politics, it spent $670,895 on lobbying in states in
2016, a 64 percent jump from $373,388 in 2014.  Facebook has an
active presence in a handful of states -- primarily California
and New York -- but it only hired its first lobbyist in Illinois
for this year's session.

Facebook prefers to work through trade associations to influence
policy.  Sources in the Illinois Legislature told the Center for
Public Integrity that the BIPA amendment attempt, which would
have redefined facial recognition, was led by CompTIA, a trade
group that bills itself as "the world's leading tech
association." CompTIA declined to comment in detail, but
confirmed that Facebook is among its members.

Facebook declined to comment about whether it was behind the
amendment.  When Edelson lawyers asked for information about
Facebook's lobbying related to BIPA, Facebook's lawyers
successfully requested the court to seal those records, keeping
the information private.

On its website, Facebook says it is a member of 56 groups and 108
third-party organizations that it works with "on issues relating
to technology and Internet policy." CompTIA, despite
acknowledging Facebook is a member, isn't on the list.

At the Facebook annual shareholders meeting in Redwood City,
California, in June, more than 90 percent of the shares voted
were opposed to a proposal that would have required the company
to provide more information about its political associations,
including grass-roots lobbying.

CompTIA, which absorbed the Washington, D.C.-based tech advocacy
group TechAmerica in 2015, employs one permanent lobbyist in
Illinois and contracts with the Roosevelt Group, one of Illinois'
"super lobbyists," which last year represented lobbying
powerhouses AT&T Illinois, payday lender PLS Financial Services
and the influential Illinois Retail Gaming & Operators
Association.

In August 2016 CompTIA published a blog post about the practical
applications of biometrics, and labeled BIPA "problematic"
because terms such as "consent" and "facial recognitions" are
vaguely defined and it "invites an avalanche of litigation."

CompTIA made political contributions to just two non-candidate
groups in 2016 -- in the two states with the strictest privacy
laws, Illinois and Texas, according to the National Institute of
Money in State Politics. CompTIA gave $21,225 last year to the
Illinois Democratic Party.

CompTIA also gave $5,000 to the Republican Party in Texas, where
Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton is charged with enforcing
the state's biometric privacy regulations, according to the
institute. Texas enacted one of the stricter biometric privacy
laws in the nation. Signed in 2009, the law requires companies to
obtain an individual's permission to capture a biometric
identifier such as a facial image. But unlike Illinois' law, it
doesn't allow state residents to sue and leaves the enforcement
authority solely with the attorney general.

The Texas attorney general's office declined to comment on
whether it has pursued lawsuits on biometric privacy violations.
There's no indication that Paxton's office has ever completed an
investigation, according to a review of records.

'They will descend on you'

Alaska, Connecticut, Montana, New Hampshire and Washington
proposed biometric privacy laws this past legislative session,
but all failed except for a weakened version that survived in
Washington.  Two other states -- Arizona and Missouri -- proposed
narrower bills that provide privacy protections just for
students, but both fizzled out in committee. Illinois tabled a
proposed amendment to BIPA that would have strengthened the law
by barring companies from making submission of biometric data a
requirement of doing business.

Facebook, along with Google Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and
trade groups like CompTIA, had a hand in blocking or weakening
the biometric privacy bills in Montana, Washington and Illinois,
according to a Center for Public Integrity review.

What happened in Montana is typical.  Katherine Sullivan, a small
business owner and intellectual privacy lawyer turned privacy
advocate, helped write a biometric privacy bill that Democrat
Rep. Nate McConnell introduced this year in the Montana
Legislature.

"Everyone I talked to as a citizen thought it was a good idea,"
Ms. Sullivan said.

Still, Ms. Sullivan said she was warned that lobbyists
representing powerful companies would come out against the law.
"'They will descend on you,'" Ms. Sullivan said she was told.

The Montana bill was introduced Feb. 17 and assigned to the House
Judiciary Committee. Only one hearing on the bill was held, on
Feb. 23.  Lobbyists from Verizon, the Internet Coalition, which
represents Internet and ecommerce companies including Facebook,
and the Montana Retail Association showed up in opposition to the
bill.

At the hearing, Jessie Luther, a lobbyist from Verizon, read a
letter signed by CompTIA; the Internet Coalition; TechNet, a
network of chief executives from technology companies; and the
State Privacy and Security Coalition, a group of major internet
communications, retail and media companies. All three count
Facebook as a member.

The letter, addressed to state Rep. Alan Doane, chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, warned that the proposed legislation "would
put Montana residents and businesses at much greater risk of
fraud, as well as open the door to wasteful class action lawsuits
against Montana businesses that receive biometric data."  It also
warned that the bill would prevent using biometrics for
"beneficial purposes" such as accessing and securing personal
accounts.

Mr. Doane said in an interview he doesn't remember the letter,
but agreed with many of its points.  On Feb. 27, the bill was
tabled in committee.

The 'NRA approach'

Tough privacy legislation that would have prohibited the
collection of biometric information without prior consent and
allow individuals to sue companies that violate the law also
fizzled out in New Hampshire and Alaska.  A weaker bill in
Connecticut would have prohibited brick-and-mortar stores from
using facial recognition for marketing purposes died in
committee.

Washington's law requires companies to obtain permission from
customers before enrolling their biometric data into a database
for commercial use and prohibits companies from selling, leasing
or otherwise handing the data over to a third party without
consent. But it does not allow individuals to sue companies
directly.

More important, some privacy advocates say, the law exempts
biometric data pulled from photographs, video or audio
recordings, similar to the amendment CompTIA had lobbied for in
Illinois as a way to weaken BIPA, which would exempt Facebook's
Tag Suggestions.

Earlier versions of the law won the approval of big tech
companies such as Google and Microsoft Corp., and the privacy
advocacy group the Electronic Frontier Foundation . But in 2016,
EFF pulled its support when the bill was amended to omit "facial
geometry," which Adam Schwartz, a senior staff attorney at EFF,
said would cover facial recognition.

Schwartz said the final statute is weaker than BIPA because the
law's language is written in such a way that it may allow
companies to capture facial recognition data without informed
notice or consent.

The statute "appears to have been tailored to protect companies
that are using facial recognition," Shwartz said.

Democratic state Rep. Jeff Morris, one of the bill's sponsors,
disagrees. Morris said the law covers any data that can be used
to identify a person by unique physical characteristics,
including applications that use "precise measurements between the
bridge of your nose and your eyes."

But Mr. Morris said while most of the big tech companies such as
Microsoft, Amazon and Google supported the bill in its final
form, Facebook remained opposed.

Facebook's hired lobbyist in Washington -- Alex Hur, a former
aide to state Speaker of the House Frank Chopp -- was "lobbying
quite ferociously on the bill," Mr. Morris said.  Facebook
objected to the bill, he said, because it included as protected
data "behavioral biometrics," which refers to data on how a
person moves, including an individual's gait as recorded in
videos.

Mr. Hur did not respond to requests for comment.

One of the trade groups working on Facebook's behalf in
Washington was the Washington Technology Industry Association.
At a hearing on the legislation in February, Jim Justin, a WTIA
representative, argued tagging services like Facebook's should be
exempt from the law.

"Given facial recognition, that data should be protected," Justin
said, "but if you are tagging someone on Facebook and simply
using their name, we don't think that falls under what should be
protected, given that that person provided consent."

A CompTIA lobbyist also spoke at the February hearing, asking
lawmakers to take a "limited approach" to biometric privacy.

Mr. Morris said CompTIA adopts what he calls the "NRA approach"
to lobbying. "They basically say, 'You'll take our innovation out
of our cold, dead hands,'" he said.

"This is a pretty common public-affairs tactic," Mr. Morris
added, "an association that does the dirty work so your company
isn't tarnished."

'Didn't know they existed until . . .'

State legislatures are beginning to recognize that many
personally identifying technologies may require additional
regulatory attention -- and technology companies such as Facebook
and their trade groups are gearing up to fight them.

Lawmakers in Illinois formed a committee this year to discuss
technology issues such as data privacy.  The CyberSecurity, Data
Analytics and IT committee in the Illinois House of
Representatives held its first hearing in March.

The formation of the committee brought national attention to
Springfield.

"It has brought in groups from D.C.," like the Internet
Association, said Rep. Jaime Andrade Jr., D-Chicago, the
committee's chairman.

CompTIA also has been "very active," he said.

"I didn't know they existed until the committee" formed,
Mr. Andrade added.  "As soon as the committee was created they
came in and introduced themselves." [GN]


FANDOMFEST: Goers Threaten to File Class Action vs. Owners
----------------------------------------------------------
Shay McAlister, writing for WHAS11, reports that frustrated and
fed up Fandomfest goers are threatening to sue the owners,
meanwhile the owners maintain they have done nothing wrong.

Fandomfest opened to the public on July 28 afternoon at 4 p.m. A
long line of people waiting to get in proved many were look
forward to the event and were excited to get in, but others made
it clear they thought the event was a scam and they are ready to
take action.

With more than half of the celebrity line up cancelling at the
last minute, and the owners not granting any refunds, some
customers claim they were scammed.

"It makes you want to pull your hair out and just scream at
somebody. It should never have gotten this bad," Jeffrey Thompson
said.

Thompson said he's out at least $600 after buying tickets to see
celebrities that will no longer be at the show.

More than half of the celebrities originally on the list
cancelled and, as stated clearly on the website, there are no
refunds.

"Im sorry. I'm really sorry," Myra Daniels said.

Daniels owns and runs Fandomfest with her husband. The pair has
been under attack since more than half of the celebrities they
sold tickets for and advertised on their site will not be at the
expo this weekend.

Daniels said, "Some of them have personal reasons- and their
personal reasons are their personal reasons. I have to respect
that."

Some customers have been critical of the pair, questioning if
they ever had contracts with the celebrities in the first place.

Daniels said, ""Everyone has a contract. No one goes on my
website ever until they have a signed contract."

She also said the rumors that she breeched her end of the
contract, and that caused celebrities to cancel, is not true.

"I am not going to say that everything I have done... that I
have no made mistakes. Absolutely I have made mistakes. Has there
been a time maybe flights weren't done on time that they had
wanted? Maybe they said they wanted them by 30, 40, 50 days out
and they weren't done at that exact time. But did they have
flights? Did they have hotels? Yes they did," Daniels said.

When asked if she felt bad about the fans who were left without
any celebrities that they wanted to see she said, ""No, I don't
feel bad about that, we've done nothing to rip anybody off. They
knew that when they signed up. They even had to click a box
saying I understand this."

But Jeffrey Thompson argues that's not good enough.

He said, "It's almost impossible to put into words the
frustration".

He said he and his partner bought tickets to the expo and to
photo ops with specific celebrities and there is no else going
that he is interested in seeing.

Thompson said, "They're trying to force you to pick a different
celebrity, who you didn't purchase, who you didn't spend all that
money for, that you could have no interest in, and they want you
to use it for that."

Now he and others are threatening to sue. They said they want to
file a class action lawsuit against the convention owners.

"I'm not going to sit around and let them do it," Daniels said.

"I really wish that people would just come out and take a moment
and see the venue and enjoy the things that are. Come out with an
open mind and then make a decision," Daniels said.

Fandomfest ran from July 28- July 30 at the former Macy's at
Jefferson Mall. [GN]


FAST ADVANCE: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Fabricant" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fast Advance Funding, LLC; and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-05753 (C.D. Cal., August
3, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of placing calls
to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for
which the Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls, without
prior express consent to receive calls using an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on
its cellular telephones.

Fast Advance Funding, LLC operates a loan agency located at 141 N
2nd St, Philadelphia, PA 19106. [BN]

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

FIRST NATIONAL: "Batts" Disputes Vague Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------
Jason Batts, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. First National Collection Bureau, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04287, (E.D.N.Y., July 19, 2017),
seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees
and expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such
further relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff owes a sum of money to LVNV Funding LLC which was then
transferred to the Defendant, a debt-collector, when Plaintiff
defaulted. Defendant then sent Plaintiff a collection letter
indicating a "Total Due of $1,289.68" but also stating an
"Interest Accrued Since Charge-off: $721.49," failing to state
whether that balance is static or dynamic.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel Cohen, Esq.
     DANIEL COHEN, PLLC
     300 Cadman Plaza W, 12th floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (646) 645-8482
     Fax: (347) 665-1545
     Email: Dan@dccohen.com


FLINT, MI: Lawsuits Can Proceed But Not Against State, Judge Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gerstein, The Detroit News, reports that a federal
appeals court is allowing two class-action lawsuits seeking
financial damages over the Flint water crisis to continue but not
against state agencies.

In a ruling released on July 28, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals overturned a lower federal court ruling that dismissed a
major class-action lawsuit filed in 2015 on behalf of tens of
thousands of Flint residents against Gov. Rick Snyder, the city
of Flint and city officials who were involved in deciding to
switch to the Flint River as its water source.

A three-judge panel reversed that decision while dismissing the
possibility of seeking penalties for Snyder in one case, the
state of Michigan, the state Department of Environmental Quality
and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.

It allows plaintiffs to try to seek relief from Snyder in another
case in the form of compensation for education, medical
monitoring and evaluation services for ongoing harm from Flint's
contaminated water crisis.

Judge Jane Stranch -- who wrote the opinion -- and Judges R. Guy
Cole and Judge Bernice Donald argued that the 11th Amendment
gives the state and Snyder immunity against damages sought by
private citizens. All three judges were appointed by Democratic
presidents -- Stranch and Donald by Barack Obama and Cole by Bill
Clinton.

The court instead allowed cases seeking financial damages against
individual state employees, the city of Flint, city employees and
state-appointed emergency managers to proceed.

Attorney General Bill Schuette and his legal team have pursued
criminal and misdemeanor charges against or accepted plea deals
with 15 people including former Flint employees and former and
current state officials, as well as two former Flint emergency
managers appointed by Snyder, a Republican.

The class-action lawsuits involve Flint residents who experienced
personal injury and property damage from the Flint River decision
after they were exposed to toxic lead that leached from the
city's pipes into the water supply.

Emergency managers made the decision to switch to the Flint
River, and state officials and local officials apply corrosion
control chemicals that would have prevented the lead leaching.

Plaintiffs alleged that their constitutional rights were violated
and that they were deprived of "the equal protection of the laws,
or of equal privileges under the laws," according to the court's
opinion.

The lower court ruled that the Safe Drinking Water Act stopped
the plaintiffs from seeking damages, but the appeals panel ruling
allows U.S. District Judge Judith Levy to continue weighing the
issue.

One plaintiff attorney, Cary McGehee, Esq., of Pitt McGehee
Palmer & Rivers, P.C., previously characterized the lower court's
ruling as a "temporary setback" and expressed optimism that they
could succeed on appeal.

Plaintiffs had asked for compensation, punitive damages and
support for education, jobs and nutrition for those who had
consumed Flint water. [GN]


FLOWERS FOODS: "Robbins" Suit Seeks Back Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY ROBBINS, Individually, and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC.,
and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF BATESVILLE, LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00138-MPM-JMV (N.D. Miss., July 31, 2017), seeks to
recover permanent injunctive relief, back wages, liquidated
damages, and other damages for himself and those similarly
situated, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants regularly permitted
and required the Plaintiff and members of the Collective Group to
work more than 40 hours per week without overtime compensation.
The Defendants knew that the Plaintiff and all similarly situated
individuals performed work that required overtime pay. The
Defendants have operated under a scheme to deprive these
employees of overtime compensation by failing to properly
compensate them for all time worked.

Flowers Foods, headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia, is a
producer and marketer of packaged bakery foods in the United
States. The company operates 46 bakeries that produce breads,
buns, rolls, snack cakes, pastries, and tortillas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George B. Ready, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE B. READY
          175 East Commerce St.
          P.O. Box 127
          Hernando, MS 38632
          Telephone: (662) 429 7088
          E-mail: GBReady@georgegreadyatty.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Weinman, Esq.
          WEINMAN THOMAS LAW FIRM
          112 S. Liberty Street, Suite 321
          P.O. Box 266
          Jackson, TN 38302
          Telephone: (731) 423 5565
          E-mail: mike@weinmanthomas.com

               - and -

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754 8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754 8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com


FORD MOTOR: A. Blair Sues Over Defective Driveshaft Couplings
-------------------------------------------------------------
A. Blair Enterprises, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ford Motor Company,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00436 (W.D. Ky., July 21, 2017),
seeks compensatory, exemplary and statutory damages, including
interest, full restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief
resulting from unjust enrichment, fraud by concealment, breach of
implied and express warranty and in violation of the Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act.

Ford Transit vans are allegedly equipped with defective
driveshaft flexible couplings that ultimately crack and fail.
Plaintiff owns 11 Ford vehicles that exhibit this defect.

A. Blair Enterprises, Inc., is a Kentucky corporation located in
Louisville, Kentucky, in the business of transporting parts and
other supplies for the automotive industry, among other
transportation services.

Ford Co. is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,
distributing, assembling, marketing, warranting, selling, leasing
and servicing automobiles [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
      Ashton Rose Smith, Esq.
      JONES WARD PLC
      1205 E Washington St., Suite 111
      Louisville, Kentucky 40206
      Telephone: (502) 882-6000
      Email: jasper@jonesward.com
             ashton@jonesward.com

             - and -

      Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      Email: jselbin@lchb.com

             - and -

      Annika K. Martin, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013-1413
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
      Email: akmartin@lchb.com

             - and -

      Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      One Nashville Place
      150 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1650
      Nashville, TN 37219-2423
      Telephone: (615) 313-9000
      Facsimile: (615) 313-9965
      Email: mchalos@lchb.com


FOREVER 21: Faces "Togut" Suit in N.Y. Over Retail Sales Tax
------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Togut, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Forever 21, Inc. and Forever 21 Retail, Inc., Case
No. 1:17-cv-05616 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2017), arises from the
Defendants' practice of charging and retaining spurious and
unlawful retail sales taxes on purchases by customers in New York
City.

The Defendants operate a fashion retail store of women's, men's,
and kids clothing and accessories nationally and internationally.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
      Bradley J. Bartolomeo, Esq.
      MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
      260 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 448-1100
E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
              bbartolomeo@mclaughlinstern.com


FOUNDATION MEDICINE: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action
has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Foundation
Medicine, Inc. ("Foundation") (NASDAQ:FMI) common stock during
the period between February 26, 2014 and November 3, 2015 (the
"Class Period"). This action was filed in the District of
Massachusetts and is captioned Mahoney v. Foundation Medicine,
Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-11394.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from July 28. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel
H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld 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/foundationmedicine/.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 Foundation and certain of its officers
and/or directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. Foundation develops, manufactures and sells genomic
analysis diagnostic tests for solid and circulating cancers that
are based on next-generation sequencing technology. The Company's
flagship products are the FoundationOne tumor profiling test and
the FoundationOne Heme diagnostic test for blood cancers. The
price for the tests can run upwards of $7,200 per test.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the Company
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding the Company's business and
prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
made false and/or misleading statements regarding: (i) the
reimbursement process and likelihood of coverage for Foundation's
tumor tests by Medicare; and (ii) the Company's financial
guidance. As a result of these false statements, Foundation
common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period.

On July 29, 2015, the Company disclosed that it was not making
the strides obtaining coverage it had claimed to have been making
during the Class Period, and that, in reality, Foundation would
receive no Medicare payments in 2015 for its tumor profiling
tests due to a delay in receiving a local coverage determination
from its regional Medicare Administrative Contractor. As a result
of the delay, the Company slashed its 2015 financial guidance,
which, unbeknownst to investors, was based on an assumption that
Medicare approval was going to be obtained in 2015. On this news,
the price of Foundation common stock fell $7 per share, or
approximately 24%.

Then, on November 3, 2015, the Company disclosed a further
revision to the already reduced number of clinical tests it
expected to report for 2015. Following this disclosure, the price
of Foundation common stock fell again, closing down $6.62 per
share to close at $17.31 per share on November 4, 2015.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Foundation common stock 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 is widely recognized as a leading 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]

         David A. Rosenfeld
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         E-mail: djr@rgrdlaw.com


FOX RENT: Faces "Harnage" Suit in Cal. Over Maximum Leave Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Harnage, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fox Rent A Car Inc. and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC670054 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 26, 2017), is
an action for damages as result of the Defendants' common course
of violations of the Labor Code, specifically by enforcing a
maximum leave policy which counts sick leave taken as an absence
that leads to or results in discipline, discharge, demotion, or
suspension of the Plaintiff and members of the Class.

Fox Rent A Car Inc. operates a car rental company in Los Angeles,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Omid Nosrati, Esq.
      Tatiana Toroyan, Esq.
      Diana Suarez, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF OMID NOSRATI
      1875 Century Park East, 6th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 553-5630
      Facsimile: (310) 553-5691
      E-mail: omid@nosratilaw.com


FUNBOX INC: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Shelton" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
James Everett Shelton, individually and on behalf of a class of
all persons and entities similarly situated v. Funbox, Inc., Case
No. 2:17-cv-03301-RBS (E.D. Penn., July 24, 2017), seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited autodialed
telemarking calls to cellular telephones without prior express
written consent of the called party.

Funbox, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides loans to
companies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
      MORROW & ARTIM, PC
      304 Ross Street, 7th Floor
      Pittsburg, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-1250
      Facsimile: csm@consumerlaw365.com

          - and -

      Anthony Paronich, Esq.
      BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
      99 High St., Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (508) 221-1510
      E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com


FUYAO GLASS: More Workers Join Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gnau, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that more
workers are joining a lawsuit against Fuyao Glass America, trying
to recover what they allege are lost wages and overtime pay.

John Greene and Stephen Newman have filed for consent to join a
lawsuit originally filed in June by Julia Staggs, a former
employee of Moraine-based Fuyao Glass America.

Ms. Staggs is suing Fuyao on behalf of herself and other
"similarly situated" Fuyao employees, saying she wanted class-
action status for what the lawsuit alleges are unpaid wages and
overtime.

The lawsuit was filed in Dayton's federal court.  Ms. Staggs
worked at Fuyao, which employs about 2,000 people in Moraine,
from September to December 2016, according to the Staggs' filing.

In an amended complaint, Greene's attorneys wrote that he worked
for Fuyao from June 11 to Dec. 28, 2016.  Mr. Newman was an
hourly production worker for Fuyao from September 2015 until May
15, 2017, the filing said.

The plaintiffs allege that they worked overtime pay without
receiving overtime pay -- a wage 1.5 times their regular rate --
because of what they say is Fuyao's "automatic meal break
deduction policy, rounding policy and 'off the clock' policy."

The suit charges that Fuyao did not allow the plaintiffs "and
similarly situated employees" to clock out for meal breaks and
clock back in after meal breaks.

Rather, starting in January 2016, Fuyao applied a policy for all
hourly production workers, automatically deducting 30 minutes for
a meal break, "almost always encompassing hours worked -- for
each and every day worked," the lawsuit alleges.

The time was deducted even though the plaintiffs and "similarly
situated employees" were not completely relieved from their work
duties for the half-hour," the suit states.

So the employees were "required" to either continue working
during what was supposed to be meal breaks or they had to cut
their breaks short and return to work before the full half-hour
was complete, the suit says.

All "putative (lawsuit) class members" have been subject to the
policy, according to the suit.

A message seeking comment was left for a plaintiffs' attorney.

"Any allegations by the plaintiffs that they were not properly
paid by FGA (Fuyao Glass America) are without merit," a
spokeswoman for Fuyao, Lei Shi, said in an email on July 31.
"Any overtime work was properly paid by FGA to its employees and
plaintiffs were not required to work without pay."

The Moraine auto glass manufacturer was founded by a global,
China-based company in 2014, now operating in a former General
Motors plant. [GN]


GELSON'S MARKETS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Missed Rest Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yelter Cruz, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Gelson's Markets, and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC670061 (Cal. Super. Ct., July
26, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees for missed rest breaks in
violation of California Labor Law.

Gelson's Markets operates a supermarket chain in Southern
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021

GENESIS HEALTH: "McGowan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie McGowan, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Genesis Health Clubs Management, Inc., Case
No. 2:17-cv-02419 (D. Kan., July 20, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and related penalties and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Genesis Health Clubs Management, Inc. operates a health club
located at 6700 W. 110th St., Overland Park, Kansas 66211. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sara T. Ballew, Esq.
      Mark A. Kistler, Esq.
      BRADY & ASSOCIATES
      10985 Cody Street, Suite 135
      Overland Park, KS 66210
      Telephone: (913) 696-0925
      Facsimile: (913) 696-0468
      E-mail: sballew@mbradylaw.com
              mkistler@mbradylaw.com


GOLDEN STATE: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Z. Harris, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and as a representative of other aggrieved employees v.
Golden State Overnight Delivery Service, Inc. and Does 1 to 10,
Case No. RG17868987 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 25, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide full thirty-minute
meal periods for work days in excess of five and ten hours and
were not compensated one hour's wages in lieu thereof.

Golden State Overnight Delivery Service, Inc. operates a multi-
state courier delivery services company that provides overnight
shipping of various goods and materials. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abraham Mathew, Esq.
      Jacob George, Esq.
      Sang J. Park, Esq.
      MATHEW & GEORGE
      500 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1490
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (310) 478-4349
      Facsimile: (310) 478-9580
      E-mail: abraham@mathewandgeorge.com
              jacob@mathewandgeorge.com
              sang@mathewandgeorge.com


GOOGLE INC: 269 People Join Hiring Discrimination Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Baron, writing for Silicon Beat, reports that a judge's
ruling has revealed the scale of the claim that Google has
discriminated against older people by not hiring them.

Plaintiff Cheryl Fillekes, a systems engineer, alleges that
Google interviewed her in person for four different jobs,
starting when she was 47, but never hired her, in spite of
"affirmatively" reaching out to her about positions because of
her "impressive qualifications."

Google called the allegations of age discrimination "without
merit" and said it would continue defending its position
vigorously.

"We have strong policies against discrimination on any unlawful
basis, including age," said Google spokesman Ty Sheppard.

The company said in a 2015 court filing that its actions with
regard to Ms. Fillekes "were motivated by reasonable factors
other than age."

A judge in the suit, filed in April 2015, conditionally certified
it as a class action last year.

Now, a ruling by Northern California U.S. District Court judge
Howard Lloyd has revealed that 269 people have signed onto the
class action, claiming Google discriminated against them in
hiring on the basis of their age.  A few more claimants will
likely add themselves to the class, Judge Lloyd said in the July
27 ruling.

Judge Lloyd's ruling also limited the information Google can
demand from the plaintiffs who opted in to the suit.

"What's to be allowed?" the judge asked himself rhetorically.
"Google wants lots.

"The court wants to be fair and give Google limited discovery
that will inform it on areas of legitimate interest, but not
impose a(n) undue burden on the opt-ins or their attorneys to
respond to discovery that may only be tangentially relevant."

Google's wish list included written information from 120 randomly
selected plaintiffs and up to 72 in-person depositions of up to
three hours.  Lawyers for the plaintiffs wished for a sample of
30 plaintiffs who would respond to requests for information, with
25 of the people deposed by video for up to three hours.

Judge Lloyd said some of what Google wanted "cast much too wide a
net."

The judge ordered that 75 of the opt-ins be selected at random to
provide written declarations about their claims and alleged
damages caused by Google.  The company will be entitled to choose
35 of the opt-ins -- which may or may not include those providing
the declarations -- for depositions not longer than three hours.
Only five of the depositions can be in person, with at least 30
done via video, Judge Lloyd ruled. [GN]


GOPRO INC: Kahn Swick Investigates Officers and Directors
---------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq.,
a partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
announces that KSF has commenced an investigation into GoPro,
Inc. (NasdaqGS: GPRO).

On September 19, 2016, after months of buildup and delay, GoPro
announced the release of its "Karma" drone unit touting its
quality and capability as well expressing high expectations for
consumer demand and revenue resulting from its consumer sales.
Despite the positive statements made by GoPro regarding the Karma
drone, on November 3, 2016, the Company released its results for
the quarter ended September 30, 2016 including revenue guidance
for 2016, which was significantly below prior-issued guidance,
yet it continued to publicly hype its Karma unit in a post-market
earnings call. On November 8, 2016, the Company revealed that
approximately 2,500 Karma drone units were being recalled due to
a discovery that the drones would often lose power during
operations.

Thereafter, GoPro and certain of its executives were sued in
several securities class action lawsuits, charging them with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws. On July 26, 2017, the Court
denied GoPro's motion to dismiss a securities class action
complaint pending in the U.S. District for the Northern District
of California.

KSF's investigation is focusing on whether GoPro's officers
and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to its
shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws.

If you have information that would assist KSF in its
investigation, or have been a long-term holder of GoPro shares
and would like to discuss your legal rights, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).

                     About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices
in New York, California and Louisiana. [GN]


GRAIN PROCESSING: Fight Continues for Residents Over Pollution
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Ritter, writing for Muscatine Journal, reports that lawyers
representing more than 100 residents filing individual lawsuits
against the Grain Processing Corporation in Muscatine estimate
property damage caused by pollution ranges from $9,000 to
$50,000.

Lawyers from firms across Iowa, including a team called Trial
Lawyers for Justice, have been taking on individual lawsuits from
residents who live near the GPC plant on Oregon Street. While
more than 120 residents have officially filed an appearance in
Muscatine County District Court, lawyers said they have now filed
lawsuits on behalf of more than 200 residents, according to court
documents.

Meanwhile, other residents have been joining a class action
lawsuit against GPC. A trial for the class action is set for July
9, 2018, in district court.

Muscatine residents who have lived within 1.5 miles of the plant
since 2007 are automatically included in the class action, which
is seeking compensation for the inconvenience, annoyance and
disturbance caused by the emissions.

Others who believe they have been affected by the pollution but
do not qualify for the class action have begun filing individual
lawsuits this summer. Some residents filing individually are
seeking compensation for personal injury and property damages,
which is not covered by the class action.

The trial lawyers have hired Black Hawk Roof Company to prepare
estimates of property damage caused by GPC's pollution. In a
sample of estimates included in court documents, the company
estimated repairs to roofs, siding  and paint could cost up to
$52,000 for some residents.

Residents who live near GPC claim the pollution has coated their
houses and vehicles with particulate matter, often appearing as a
layer of rust and black grime. Some argue the pollution has led
to asthma and other health issues.

Whether participating in the class action or filing a personal
lawsuit, most neighboring residents agree pollution from the GPC
plant leaves a heavy fog over their houses, that comes with a
distinct smell. Residents have testified the odor and haze has
limited the enjoyment of their properties.

GPC has argued the plant has been operating since the 1940s, well
before most class members or other residents moved into the area.
The company claimed it has invested more than $100 million
between 2006 and 2015 to upgrade the plant and reduce emissions.
[GN]


GRAND CELEBRATION: Faces Baxter & Keshisyan Class Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grand Celebration
Cruises LLC and Blue Star Cruises LLC.  The case is, Leshia
Baxter and Arthur Keshisyan, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Grand Celebration Cruises LLC and
Blue Star Cruises LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01718-
EAK-TGW (M.D. Fla., July 19, 2017), and seeks restrictions on use
of telephone equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Stefan Coleman
     Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, PLLC
     201 S Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
     Miami, FL 33131
     Tel: (877) 333-9427
     Fax: (888) 498-9827
     E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


GREEN DOT: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Adaimy" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Adaimy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Green Dot Corporation and Does 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. BC669410 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 26, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to provide meal and
rest breaks, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, and
failure to pay all earned wages upon separation of employment in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Green Dot Corporation is the sell-proclaimed largest provider of
prepaid debit cards and cash reload processing services in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
      Caspar Jivaiagian, Esq.
      KJT LAW GROUP LLP
      230 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306
      Glendale, CA 91206
      Telephone: (818) 507-8525
      E-mail: vache@kjtlawgroup.com
              caspar@kjtlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
      ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
      4740 Calle Carga
      Camarillo, CA 93012
      Telephone: (818) 425-1437
      E-mail: ca@AdanisEmplojanentCounsel.com


HADAR GEULAH: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO ALONSO MENDOZA, the Plaintiff, v. HADAR GEULAH INC.,
JOHN DOE CORP. d/b/a HADAR GEULAH and SHMUEL ROTH, the
Defendants, Case No. 514414/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 26, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the similarly
situated employees, have had substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected
to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices,
procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a
willful failure and refusal to pay them overtime premium at the
rate of one and one half times the regular rate for work in
excess of 40 hours per workweek. Specifically, Mr. Mendoza worked
six days a week as follows: Sunday and Monday 9am - 5pm, Tuesday
8am - 5pm, Wednesday and Thursday 7:30am - 7:00pm and Friday
6:30am - 7:00pm, for a total of 60.5 hours a week. The Plaintiff
was required to work through his entire shifts without a break.
Plaintiff received compensation on a salary basis at a fixed rate
of $600 a week from 2008 until in or about February 2015. Since
February 2015, Plaintiff has been compensated at a fixed salary
rate of $700 a week. There was never any agreement that
Plaintiff's fixed salary was intended to cover his overtime
compensation. The Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff
Mendoza's rights by paying him on a salary basis, in violation of
the New York Labor Law because Plaintiff is a non-exempt employee
who must be paid on an hourly Basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016


HARRIS AND HARRIS: "Laplume" Sues Over Auto-dialer Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Derek Laplume, Plaintiff, v. Harris and Harris, Ltd., Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01542, (N.D. Ohio, June 30, 2017), as a class
action on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals who
received autodialed or predictive dialed calls from Harris and
Harris, and seeks statutory damages, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees as appropriate and such other
and further relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Harris and Harris allegedly contacted Plaintiff on his cellular
phone using an automatic telephone dialing system and left
prerecorded messaged on the his voice mail. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith A. Mathews, Esq.
      ASSOCIATED ATTORNEYS OF NEW ENGLAND
      587 Union Street
      Manchester, NH 03104
      Tel: (603) 622-8100
      Fax: (888) 912-1497
      Email: keith@aaone.law


HELIX TCS: "Kenney" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kenney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Helix TCS, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01755 (D. Col.,
July 20, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Helix TCS, Inc. provides its clients with marijuana security
services, including providing armed and unarmed site security
services and security guards. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ICAP CAPITAL: Court Dismisses Claims in Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valentina Kirilova, writing for LeapRate.com, reports that NEX
Group plc, a financial technology company at the centre of global
markets, has welcomed the decision by the US District Court,
Southern District of New York, to dismiss all claims against ICAP
Capital Markets in an antitrust class action regarding the
interest rate swaps market.

ICAP Capital Markets had maintained from the outset that the
accusations against it were without merit, and announced that is
pleased that the opinion by U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer
found the claims by plaintiffs to be variously conclusory,
insufficient to state a plausible claim, and inadequate to
support an inference of participation in any wrongdoing.

ICAP Capital Markets was retained by NEX Group following the
transaction with Tullett Prebon.  Claims were also dismissed
against two former ICAP SEFs, which transferred to Tullett Prebon
under the terms of the transaction agreement. [GN]


IN LIVING SUPPORT: "Jenkins" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Brittanee Jenkins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. In Living Support, LLC and Sedra Taylor,
Defendants, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01542, (N.D. Ohio, June
30, 2017), seeks minimum wages and/or denied overtime, liquidated
damages, costs and disbursements and reasonable allowances for
fees of counsel and experts, reimbursement of expenses and such
other and further relief under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants are home care service providers, providing caregivers
providing meal planning and preparation, transportation,
shopping, medication administration, personal hygiene assistance,
payee & budgeting, independent goal setting and community social
activities medical services. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as
direct care staff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      The Caxton Building
      812 E. Huron Road, Suite 490
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Tel. (440) 498-9100
      Fax (216) 621-1094
      Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
             rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com


INC RESEARCH: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, on July 31 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, case No. 1:17-cv-00927, on behalf of
shareholders of INC Research Holdings, Inc. ("INC" or the
"Company") who have been harmed by INC's and its board of
directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
in connection with the proposed merger of the Company with
inVentiv Health, Inc. ("inVentiv").

On May 10, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Proposed Transaction") under which
each share of common stock of inVentiv will automatically be
cancelled and will cease to exist, and will thereafter represent
the right to receive a number of newly issued shares of INC
common stock equal to the per share merger consideration to be
paid in accordance with the merger agreement (the "Merger
Consideration").  The shareholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction occurred on July 31, 2017.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view
a copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/INCRnotice.

The complaint alleges that the Definitive Proxy Statement (the
"Proxy") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") on June 30, 2017, violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Company and the Proposed
Transaction, including information concerning the Company's
financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to
recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to INC shareholders.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and
significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains
its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware,
California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from the date of this notice. 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.  If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
        jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN]


INDIA: Top Court Puts Release of GMO Mustard Variety on Hold
------------------------------------------------------------
Upmanyu Trivedi and Pratik Parija, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that India's top court on July 31 put the commercial
release of a genetically-modified mustard variety on hold until
it decides on a case related to it.

A two-judge panel of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice
J. S. Khehar, passed an interim order on a public interest
litigation, akin to a class action suit, by activist Aruna
Rodrigues against GM crops.  Prashant Bhushan, advocate for
Rodrigues, argued that an approval could lead to irreversible
damage to the country's bio-diversity and environment.  The court
is scheduled to hear the case in the second week of September.

The journey of genetically-modified crops in India has been
bumpy.  In 2010, the government rejected a GM brinjal, or
eggplant, which could have become the nation's first genetically-
modified food crop, saying that there was no overriding food
security argument.  The move hampered the expansion of seed
makers including Monsanto Co., which introduced a genetically
modified cotton in 2002, in the world's second-most populous
nation.

A delay beyond September would defer sowing of GM mustard to next
year as farmers typically begin planting of winter-sown crops
like mustard in October, Additional Solicitor General P.S.
Narsimha said during the court proceedings.

A government study found health and environmental risks
highlighted by activists are "unfounded perceptions and false
propaganda," according to the federal government's affidavit in
the court.  Mustard production can be substantially enhanced with
the genetically modified variety and that would lead to
substantial savings in foreign exchange by reducing imports of
cooking oils, it said.

The GM mustard, developed by the University of Delhi, is facing
hurdles even after an Indian environment ministry panel in May
recommended that the government allow cultivation of the GM
mustard variety.

Mustard oil produced from crops planted in October and November
accounts for about 10 percent of India's cooking requirement of
about 21 million metric tons.  Its yellow-colored oil is the most
used cooking oil in the country after palm oil and soybean oil.
India accounts for about 9 percent to 10 percent of global
production, according to G.G. Patel, managing partner of GGN
Research.  The yield of Indian mustard is only 28 percent of the
level in the European Union, 45 percent of Canada and 53 percent
of China, he said.

India gets more than 70 percent of its vegetable oil requirement
from overseas and currently imports soybean oil and canola oil
produced from genetically-modified crops, according to the
Solvent Extractors' Association of India.  The country is the
world's biggest cotton grower and typically more than 90 percent
of the crop is genetically modified. [GN]


INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, on July 31 announced
the filing of a class action lawsuit against IntelliPharmaCeutics
International Inc. ("IntelliPharmaCeutics" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: IPCI) concerning possible violations of federal
securities laws between January 14, 2016 and July 26, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact
the firm prior to the September 29, 2017 lead plaintiff motion
deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian
Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or you can
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 also choose to do nothing and be an absent
class member.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period,
IntelliPharmaCeutics made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: that the Company failed to conduct a
human abuse liability study to support its Rexista New Drug
Application ("NDA"); that IntelliPharmaCeutics did not include
abuse-deterrent studies conducted to suppose abuse-deterrent
label claims related to abuse of the drug by various pathways;
that the Company was not submitting sufficient data to support
approval of the NDA; and that as a result of the above, the
Company's statements about its business, operations, and
prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.  Upon release of this news, shares of IntelliPharmaCeutics
fell in value materially, which caused investors harm according
to the Complaint.

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


INTERNATIONAL HOTEL: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Cardoza, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees v. International Hotel Associates No. 2 LLC d/b/a Elan
Hotel, International Hotel Associates No. 3 LLC d/b/a Elan
Hotel, International Hotel Associates No. 4 LLC d/b/a Elan Hotel,
International Hotel Associates No. 5 LLC d/b/a Elan Hotel,
International Hotel Associates No. 6 LLC d/b/a Elan Hotel,
International Hotel Associates No. 7 LLC d/b/a Elan Hotel,
International Hotel Associates No. 10 LLC d/b/a Elan Hotel,
Greystone MM No. 11 LLC d/b/a Elan Hotel, Iha Hotel Management
Company LLC d/b/a Elan Hotel, Eric D. Horodas, Joe Toczylowski,
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC669986 (Cal. Super.
Ct., July 25, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked; failure
to pay overtime hours; failure to provide with uninterrupted,
off-duty meal periods; failure to provide with rest periods;
providing inadequate wage statements; failure to pay employees by
the appropriate pay period; failure to provide paid sick days;
and failure to pay all wages by the appropriate pay period.

The Defendants operate senior care facilities in San Francisco,
Silicon Valley, La Jolla, and San Diego, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kyle Todd, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD
      611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (323) 208-9171
      Facsimile: (323) 693-0822
      E-mail: kyle@kyletodd.com


IRON SUSHI: "Walker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Walker, Ezekiel Proctor, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Iron Sushi LLC, Iron Mami, Inc.,
Masa International LLC, Iron Group LLC, Buzz LLC, You Ki, Inc.,
70 Aragon, Inc., 9030 AKT, Inc., Masamitsu Ochi and Masataka Ochi
(collectively d/b/a Iron Sushi), Case No. 0:17-cv-61472-KMW (S.D.
Fla., July 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate 8 Iron Sushi "restaurants" in South
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
      FAIRLAW FIRM
      7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 230-4884
      Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
      E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com

         - and -

      Joshua A. Millican, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA A. MILLICAN, P.C.
      The Grant Building, Suite 607
      44 Broad Street, N.W.
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 522-1152
      Facsimile: (404) 522-1133
      E-mail: joshua.millican@lawofficepc.com

         - and -

      Lisa T. Millican, Esq.
      GREENFIELD MILLICAN P.C.
      The Grant Building, Suite 607 44
      Broad Street, N.W.
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 522-1122
      Facsimile: (404) 522-1133
      E-mail: lisa.millican@lawofficepc.com

JAY-JAY CABARET: "Monuz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dislenia Munoz, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Jay-Jay Cabaret, Inc. d/b/a Flashdancers Gentlemen's
Club; Barry Lipsitz; Barry Lipsitz, Jr.; Marsha Lipsitz; Lynn
Lepofsky; and any other related entities, Case No. 156603/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 21, 2017), seeks to recover, unpaid minimum
wages, illegally retained tips, and improperly withheld wages
pursuant to New York Labor Law.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment establishment
located at 1674 Broadway, New York, New York 10019. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

JIM BERRY: Jimenez Seeks Unpaid Regular & OT Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
CORNELIO H. JIMENEZ, the Plaintiff, v. JIM BERRY CONTRACTORS,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00549 (E.D. Tex., July 22,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and litigation
expenses/costs, including expert witness fees and expenses under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive his wages or
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. Specifically, Defendant failed to account for and pay
Plaintiff, for all time spent where he was engaged in activities
that were integral and indispensable to the principal activities
being performed by Plaintiff by working through their lunch hour,
off the clock time, and failure to pay for all time worked.

Jim Berry Contractors is doing business in a utility construction
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
          5380 Old Bullard Road, Suite 600, No. 363
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903) 593 5588


JP MORGAN CHASE: Faces Bartons' Suit over Foreclosed Property
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEAN MARIE BARTON and BYRON LEE BARTON, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN
CHASE BANK N.A., QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP OF WASHINGTON AND
TRIANGLE PROPERTY OF WASHINGTON, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-01100-RAJ (W.D. Wash., July 18, 2017), filed a petition in
court for remand of foreclosed property in violation of the U.S.
Constitution and Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection rules.

Plaintiffs at first sued JP Morgan Chase Bank on an acquired
interest in a property located in Seattle, Washington sold under
a Warranty Deed.  The Defendant later on executed and delivered a
promissory note and a mortgage to Washington Mutual Bank (WAMU).
The Vice President of Chase signed a limited power of attorney
authorizing Quality Loan Service to act on its behalf in
connection with foreclosing on the property.  But, previous to
that the United States already seized WAMU and placed it into
receivership with FDIC where Chase acquired the bulk of WAMU's
assets from the FDIC and a Purchase and Assumption agreement was
executed in support of said summary judgment. The Plaintiff
alleged that the agreement is silent as to whether Chase acquired
WAMU's interest in the property and there is no evidence of an
assignment of the mortgage from WAMU to FDIC and from FDIC to
Chase.  Chase has admitted that it does not own WAMU Mortgages.
Plaintiff claimed that the foreclosure was void and they remained
the owners in free title of the property.[BN]

Plaintiffs appear pro se.


JUST SALAD: Alvarez Sues over Time Shaving and Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Primo Alvarez, individually and on behalf of others which are
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Just Salad LLC d/b/a John
Do Corporations; Nick Kenner; and any other related entities, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17:cv-05394-KBF (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 17,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages caused by time shaving and
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

According to the complaint, the Defendant Just Salad LLC and John
Doe Corporations, who owned and operated Just Salad Restaurants,
did not pay accurately the hours of work and overtime hours of
its' employees. The Plaintiff Primo Alvarez works as a dishwasher
of Just Salad.  The Complaint contends that he is entitled to
recover unpaid wages caused by time shaving, unpaid overtime,
unpaid spread of hours premium, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties and attorneys' fees and costs.  Also, he alleged that
throughout his employment the managers made unilateral decisions
to transfer him from one Just Salad location to another.

The Plaintiff together with the other collective plaintiffs were
classified as a non-exempt employees of Just Salad LLC that
entitled them to be paid on overtime hours of work. Plaintiff
alleged in the complaint that there are times that the non-exempt
employees work days exceeded 10 hours per day.  He and other non-
exempt employees similarly situated were required to work off-
the-clock 3 hours for 4 times a week and were required to work on
lunch breaks of at least 3 to 4 times each week.  The Plaintiff
and the class members were not properly paid for all their hours
worked since the hours of work as reflected in their pay stubs
were incorrect and in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Just Salad is a domestic liability company that operates food
services or restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KIA MOTORS: Faces "Campbell" Suit over Vehicle Warranty
-------------------------------------------------------
DARLA CAMPBELL, TRISTIN HIBLER, and MICHAEL LEPPERT On Behalf Of
Themselves And All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. and KIA MOTORS MANUFACTURING GEORGIA,
the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01272-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal., July
24, 2017), seeks to recover injunctive relief, damages and
restitution from the Court on whether Kia's new vehicle warranty
provides coverage for the defective soy-based parts. Plaintiffs
also seek damages and restitution for harms previously suffered.

The Plaintiffs bring this action individually, and on behalf of
the proposed classes of all current and former owners and lessees
of model year 2012-2017 Kia Soul, Sorrento, Sedona, Sportage,
Forte, Cadenza, Optima and Rio automobiles purchased or leased in
California, Texas, or New Jersey.  The Plaintiffs contend that
these Vehicles contain defective soy-based materials that are
attractive to vermin, which repeatedly chew through the soy-based
materials, causing considerable damage and necessitating very
expensive repairs. The Vehicles are essentially identical for
purposes of the class claims asserted herein as they all contain
precisely the same Defect.

The Plaintiff Campbell's 2014 Kia Optima has been damaged once
since she leased the Vehicle in early 2014 because of the Defect.
In December 2016, the Vehicle's wire harness and wiring was
chewed and destroyed by vermin. Plaintiff Campbell sought
warranty coverage from Kia for this Defect, but, after making her
wait almost a month with the Kia Optima sitting at the dealership
in North Hills, California, Defendant denied her claim for
coverage. Plaintiff Campbell paid approximately $300 to repair
the wiring because the insurance company would not pay for
replacement wiring. Plaintiff Hibler's 2017 Kia Sorrento has been
damaged twice because of the Defect since she purchased the
Vehicle in June of 2016 from a Kia dealership in Texas. Each time
rodents were attracted to and chewed the defective soy-based
materials in her Vehicle. The first incident occurred on or
around January 14, 2017, when the Vehicle's engine harness was
chewed. This repair cost $2,409.18. Plaintiff Hibler sought
warranty coverage from Kia for this Defect, but Defendant denied
her claim for coverage. Plaintiff Hibler paid $995, and her auto
insurer paid $1,414.18. The second incident occurred on or around
April 29, 2017, when the Vehicle's wire harness and washer fluid
hose were chewed, necessitating $2,660.77 in repair expenses.
Once again, Plaintiff Hibler's request for warranty coverage was
denied. Plaintiff Hibler paid $1,241.49, and her auto insurer
paid $1,419.28. Plaintiff Leppert has leased two Kia vehicles,
each of which has been damaged because of the Defect. The first
Vehicle, a 2013 Kia Soul, was chewed by a rodent in August 2014.
Kia refused to cover the expense related to the repair pursuant
to the warranty, so Plaintiff Leppert paid $294.25. In June 2017,
Plaintiff Leppert's 2016 Kia Forte was chewed again by a rodent.
Kia refused to cover the repair under the Vehicle's warranty, so
Plaintiff Leppert paid $128.25.

Kia distributed, sold, leased, serviced, and warranted the Class
Vehicles that are the subject of this action.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          11755 Wilshire Blvd, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (323) 510 4060
          Facsimile: (866) 300 7367
          E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com


KIMPTON HOTEL: Faces "Zepeda" Suit in N.D. of Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kimpton Hotel &
Restaurant Group, LLC.  The case is styled as Eric Zepeda
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-05583 (N.D. Ill., July 31, 2017).

Defendant operates hotels throughout the United States.[BN]

Plaintiff appeared PRO SE.


LEBANON FARMS: Sued in Penn. Over Failure to Pay Drivers Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Vanorden, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Lebanon Farms Disposal, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01310-
CCC (M.D. Penn., July 25, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay drivers/loaders' overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lebanon Farms Disposal, Inc. operates a waste disposal business
that services customers in Central Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
              asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


LEE COUNTY, FL: Judge Denies Race Discrimination Class Certs
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Karasik, Esq., and Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq., at Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, in an article for JD Supra, wrote that four African-
American teachers alleged that their school district employer
discriminated against them on the basis of race by failing to
hire them as assistant principals, and filed a motion for class
certification. A federal district court in Florida denied the
teachers' motion for class certification, finding the employees
failed to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23 based on
the exercise of discretion by different hiring principals at
different schools. The ruling has important lessons for employers
facing Rule 23 motions in workplace class actions.

In Gittens v. The School Board of Lee County, Florida, No. 2:16-
CV-412, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115987 (M.D. Fla. July 7, 2017),
Plaintiffs brought suit against their employer, the School Board
of Lee County, Florida ("School District"), alleging that the
School District discriminated against them on the basis of their
race, i.e., African-American.  After Plaintiffs moved for class
certification, Judge Mac R. McCoy of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida denied their motion, finding that
Plaintiffs "fail[ed] to provide the necessary glue to hold the
putative class claims together under [the] commonality analysis,"
that was set forth in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S.
338 (2011).  Id. at *34.  The Court also found that Plaintiffs
failed to demonstrate the sufficiency of the proposed class
definition, the ascertainability of the putative class, adequacy,
typicality, and the Rule 23(b) requirements.

For employers facing workplace class actions where putative class
members are subjected to employment decisions by different
supervisors at different facilities, this ruling is another post-
Wal-Mart employer victory that can be used to oppose class
certification.

                           Case Background

Plaintiffs, four African-Americans, held various teaching and
administrative positions at various schools within the School
District.  Id. at *6-12.  All four Plaintiffs had advanced
degrees, and sought administrative positions at various schools,
including the position of assistant principal.  All four had at
least one interview for the assistant principal position, and two
were interviewed by panels of all-White school administrators.
All four Plaintiffs were rejected for assistant principal
positions.

To be considered for an assistant principal position, an
applicant must first apply and be accepted into the AP Pool.  Id.
at *13.  Once accepted, an individual may then apply and be hired
for a specific assistant principal position at a certain school.
Each individual school advertises its open assistant principal
positions, screens the applicants, conducts its own interviews
and, when selected by the Principal of that specific school, the
candidate's name is submitted to the Superintendent, who then
sends it to the School Board for final approval.

Plaintiffs alleged that the School District had a pattern or
practice of refusing to hire well-qualified, African-American
employees to administrative positions.  After bringing class-wide
allegations under Title VII for race discrimination, Plaintiffs
moved to certify a class of current and former employees who had
applied for various positions with the School Board, including
assistant principal positions.

                           The Decision

The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
First, the Court rejected Plaintiffs' class definition, "[a]ny
and all black/African-American employees who applied for an AP
Pool position in the four years preceding this action but who
were denied such a position by Defendant," as being improperly
vague and ambiguous.  Id. at *18-20.  The Court noted that that
the class definition was unclear as to whether "denied"  referred
to the AP Pool or the actual assistant principal position.

After the Court found that Plaintiffs satisfied the numerosity
requirement of Rule 23, it held that Plaintiffs failed to
establish that there were common questions of law or fact
sufficient to satisfy the commonality requirement.  The Court
opined that "[s]imilar to [Wal-Mart v. Dukes], the Plaintiffs
here wish to bring suit calling into question a relatively large
number of employment decisions at once. Without some glue holding
the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be
impossible to say that examination of all the class members'
claims for relief will produce a common answer to the crucial
question why was I disfavored."  Id. at *28 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).  The Court held that the exercise of
discretion by schools and principals over time at different
schools precluded a finding of commonality.  Id. at *30.

Turning to the typicality requirement of Rule 23, the Court held
that the named Plaintiffs failed to meet this requirement because
each individual school advertised its opening for an assistant
principal position and had its own decision-maker screening
applicants and conducting interviews before the school principal
selected the top applicant.  Id. at *37.  The Court determined
that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to show that their
claims were based on the same event, pattern, or practice as the
claims of other putative class members.  Regarding the adequacy
of representation requirement, citing Plaintiffs' counsel's
motion to withdraw as counsel of one of the named Plaintiffs due
to "a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship," the Court
concluded that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden.  Id. at
*39-40.  Finally, Plaintiffs could not meet the Rule 23(b)
requirements since not all of the Rule 23(a) requirements were
met.  Id. at *40-41.  Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

Implications For Employers

One of the most crucial events in employment law class actions is
class certification briefing, which can potentially lead to
several more commas and zeros in a settlement figure or jury
verdict if an employer is not successful.  The Wal-Mart v. Dukes
decision has given employers an avenue to attack large class
actions where decisions made by different supervisors at
different facilities can make it difficult for employees to prove
common questions of law and fact.  Although the Court here
identified several reasons not to certify this particular
putative class, employers are now armed with another post-Wal-
Mart ruling that they can use as a blueprint to fight class
certification on the basis of commonality. [GN]


LOS ANGELES, CA: Judge OKs Special Education Services Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that final approval was
given on July 28 to the settlement of a class action to force the
Los Angeles Sheriff's Office to provide special education in the
jails.

U.S. District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee of the Central District of
California had given tentative approval April 7 but put off final
action until affected inmates could comment on the proposed
settlement.

The named plaintiff, Michael Garcia, has a learning disability.
He had received special education in Juvenile Hall but found it
was not available when he was transferred to county jail upon
reaching the age of 18.

The Disability Rights Legal Center and Milbank, Tweed, Hadley &
McCloy filed the class action lawsuit in 2009, asserting
noncompliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act and other federal laws.

The settlement agreement requires the Sheriff's Department
identify of eligible inmates, provide space for classes, train
deputies in connection with special education rights, and monitor
progress for two years in tandem with the lawyers for the class.
The department will display signs and provide a pamphlet advising
of special education and related services.

The department will pay $200,000 for attorneys' fees and costs
and damages of up to $10,000 if it does not live up to the
agreement and further relief is sought from the court. [GN]


MARSHALLS OF CA: Calif. Supreme Court Expands Discovery Scope
-------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Chen, Esq. -- annie.chen@orrick.com -- David Harvey, Esq.
-- dharvey@orrick.com -- Megan Lawson, Esq. --
megan.lawson@orrick.com -- Andrew Livingston, Esq. --
alivingston@orrick.com -- and Alexandra Pavlidakis, Esq. --
apavlidakis@orrick.com -- of Orrick, in an article for JDSupra,
wrote that on July 13, 2017, the California Supreme Court greatly
expanded the scope of discovery available under California's
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").  In
Williams v. Superior Court (Marshalls of CA, LLC), ___Cal. 5th
___ (Jul. 13, 2017), the court held that the breadth of discovery
in a PAGA action should be no less than what is normally
permitted in a class action.  Additionally, the Court held that
as an essential first step to prosecuting any representative
action, a PAGA plaintiff is presumptively entitled in the early
stages of litigation to obtain from the employer-defendant the
contact information of those the plaintiff purports to represent
in early stages of litigation.

Background

Marshalls of CA, LLC is a retail chain with stores throughout
California; the plaintiff was an employee at a one of its stores
in Costa Mesa.  He brought an action under PAGA, alleging meal
and rest break violations as well as other related Labor Code
violations.  (As a reminder, PAGA authorizes an employee alleging
California Labor Code violations to file a representative action
on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees.)

Early in the fact discovery phase of the case, the plaintiff
served an interrogatory seeking the names and contact information
of all non-exempt, California Marshalls employees from March 2012
through February 2014.  Marshalls objected on the grounds that
the request was overbroad because it extended beyond plaintiff's
store and job classification; unduly burdensome because it sought
private information without first demonstrating that plaintiff or
others were aggrieved; and that the request invaded the privacy
of third parties protected by the California Constitution.

The trial court ordered Marshalls to produce the names and
contact information of all employees at the plaintiff's store,
but not for employees at other stores statewide.  The trial court
explained that the plaintiff could only obtain access to contact
information for employees outside his store by first showing his
wage and hour claims had some merit.  The state appellate court
refused to review the trial court's order, but the California
Supreme Court granted review to resolve an issue of first
impression: the appropriate scope of discovery in a PAGA action.

The California Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court ultimately disagreed with the trial court,
finding that the plaintiff was presumptively entitled to the
contact information he sought in his interrogatory.  The court
held that the strength or weakness of the plaintiff's individual
claim was immaterial.  Rather, Marshalls had the burden of
establishing cause to justify its refusal to answer, and it
failed to meet that burden.  Moreover, the court seemingly
acknowledged that a plaintiff in a PAGA case was entitled to very
broad discovery, and had the Legislature wanted to prohibit
"fishing expeditions," it could have done so.

Overbreadth

As to Marshall's overbreadth objection, the Court noted that
plaintiff's complaint alleged Marshalls committed various Labor
Code violations, pursuant to systemic companywide policies, and
sought penalties and injunctive relief for himself and all non-
exempt employees statewide.  The Court further noted that
plaintiff's interrogatory sought to identify other aggrieved
employees and obtain admissible evidence as a first step, and
explained that prior to its decision, all Courts of Appeal
uniformly treated such a request as clearly within the scope of
discovery permitted under California's Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court stated that the approach of the Courts of Appeal should
be the "default position."

The Court also looked at PAGA's legislative history and found no
evidence of an intent to impose a heightened preliminary proof
requirement for discovery in PAGA actions and stated that
imposing such a requirement would undercut California's public
policy of affording employees workplaces free of Labor Code
violations.  The Court also found that the similarities between a
class action and a PAGA action mandate that contact information
is relevant and discoverable here because in both actions, fellow
class members are potential percipient witnesses.  In addition,
the Court noted that absent employees will be bound by the
outcome of a PAGA action, just like absent class members are
bound to the outcome of a class action.  Accordingly, imposing a
higher discovery standard on PAGA claims would increase the risk
that PAGA class members will be bound by a judgment of which they
were unaware and had no opportunity to support or oppose.

Undue Burden

The Court held that Marshalls did not satisfy its evidentiary
burden of showing that the interrogatory imposed an undue burden.
Although Marshalls identified the total number of employees
statewide (16,500), it did not provide the trial court with any
information regarding the cost of providing the information
necessary to respond to plaintiff's interrogatory.  Instead,
Marshalls argued that Williams should be required to submit proof
that he had good cause for seeking the contact information.  The
Court dismissed Marshall's argument for "plac[ing] the cart
before the horse".

Privacy

Finally, the Court held that the trial court did not engage in a
proper evaluation of the employees' privacy interests. The Court
ruled that any privacy objections could be assuaged by issuing a
Belaire-West notice to the employees.  The Court reasoned that if
the trial court had analyzed the privacy objection properly, it
would have concluded that employees would not expect their
information to be withheld from a plaintiff seeking to prove
labor law violations on their behalf.  Additionally, the Court
found that a "serious invasion of privacy" was absent in this
case because the contact information for plaintiff's store was
protected with a Belaire notice, and employees at the other
stores should be treated the same.  Further, the Court
disapproved of several California court cases that required a
party seeking discovery of private information to always
establish a compelling interest without regard to the
considerations mentioned.

Defending Against PAGA Claims After Williams

Despite the sweeping (and somewhat surprising) ruling, there is a
silver lining, as the court provided employers with a few
guidelines for limiting access to employee contact information
and protecting their privacy interests:

The court recognized that, in some cases, there may be a special
reason to limit or postpone a representative plaintiff's access
to contact information of those he seeks to represent. However,
the court also did not articulate any examples of such reasons,
leaving it to the employer to define.

The court suggested that privacy interests could be addressed by
conditioning discovery on the issuance of a Belaire-West notice,
or by ordering that the contact information come within the scope
of a protective order prohibiting disclosure for purposes other
than the lawsuit.

The court established that a trial court nonetheless retains the
authority to "limit the scope of discovery if it determines that
the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly
outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence."  This suggests that a
party opposing discovery can still defeat or limit the discovery
request "by evidence showing the quantum of work required."

The court also acknowledged that if a party shows "good cause,"
the trial court may establish the sequence and timing of
discovery for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the
"interests of justice."

Williams makes it clear that the scope of permissible PAGA
discovery is at least as broad as class action discovery. This,
coupled with the Supreme Court's prior holding that PAGA cases
need not comply with class certification requirements, ensures
that employers will continue to face a steady stream of PAGA
litigation for some time to come. [GN]


MASTERCARD INC: Hogan Lovells Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Cordelia Rayner, Esq. -- cordelia.rayner@hoganlovells.com -- and
Nicholas Heaton, Esq. -- nicholas.heaton@hoganlovells.com -- of
Hogan Lovells, in an article for Lexology, report that an
application to bring what would have been the first "opt-out"
class action in the UK has been rejected.  The claim against
MasterCard was brought by Mr Merricks on behalf of 46 million UK
consumers seeking damages of GBP14 billion for breaches of EU
competition law.  The judgment refusing to certify the claim as a
class action is critical for businesses because it gives
important guidance on the criteria future claims must meet to
qualify as a class action under the UK's new regime.

Background

The claim was based on a decision of the European Commission of
19 December 2007 which held that various MasterCard entities had
breached Article 101 TFEU in setting fees, known as multilateral
interchange fees.  These fees were paid to the banks that issued
MasterCards ("Issuing Banks") for each cross border MasterCard
purchase within the EEA.  They were initially paid by the banks
("Acquiring Banks") providing services to the businesses
accepting MasterCards ("Merchants"), but were then generally
passed on to the Merchants in full.  The claim, brought before
the Competition Appeal tribunal ("CAT"), was based on the
argument that breaches of competition law by MasterCard had
caused higher interchange fees for cross border transactions in
the EEA, and also for domestic UK transactions made using
MasterCard.  Mr Merricks argued that Merchants passed on some or
all of the inflated fees to consumers through higher prices for
goods and services.  Mr Merricks' claim required him to show both
that interchange fees had been inflated by the breaches of
competition law and, if so, how much of that "overcharge" had
been passed on to UK consumers by Merchants.

Class certification

Mr Merricks applied for the claim to be certified as an "opt out"
class action on behalf of UK consumers. Amongst other things,
this required him to show that the claims of class members: (i)
each raised common issues; and (ii) were suitable to be brought
as a class action.  MasterCard resisted that application on a
number of grounds, but most importantly on the basis that a
number of the key issues in the case were not common to the
members of the prospective class.  In particular, the extent to
which any higher interchange fees had in fact been passed on to
consumers would vary from Merchant to Merchant and from product
to product.  Moreover, the loss suffered by any individual would
depend on the amount she/he spent, what goods or service had been
bought and from whom.  In response Mr Merricks argued that these
concerns could be avoided by use of the CAT's power in class
actions to award aggregate damages, reflecting the total loss
suffered by the class.  The CAT held that it was not fatal to the
application that not all issues were common to the class: what
was required was that the claims were nonetheless "suitable to be
brought in collective proceedings".  The CAT also accepted Mr
Merricks' argument that its power to award aggregate damages
could provide a work-around to the fact that the issue of loss
was not common to all class members, but only if Mr Merricks
could identify a sustainable method for calculating the aggregate
damages and a reasonable and practicable means for estimating the
individuals' losses which could be used to distribute those
damages to the class members.  Mr Merricks failed on both these
requirements.  The CAT found that there was inadequate data
available in practice to calculate the level of pass-through from
Merchants to consumers and so no award of aggregate damages could
be made.  Moreover, the proposal for distributing any aggregate
damages (a per capita distribution on an annualised basis) bore
no relationship to individuals' losses and so could not be said
even to accord with the fundamental requirement that damages
should be compensatory.

Funding

Mr Merricks' claim was funded by a commercial litigation funder.
Under the CAT's rules it has discretion to allow "costs and
expenses" of the claimant to be paid from any award of damages
remaining unclaimed by class members.  An issue in this case was
whether the funder's profit was a cost or expense of the claimant
and so whether any unpaid award of damages could be used to pay
the funder.  The CAT, taking a purposive approach to interpreting
the rules, held that the funder's profit was a cost and expense,
clearing the way for payment of the funder from any unpaid
damages.  This issue was critical to the prospects of bringing
future class actions, as this is the only possible source of
recovery for a funder in cases that do not settle, and nearly all
class action are likely to depend on commercial funding.

What does this mean for future class actions?

This is the second and by far the most significant attempt to
bring a class action under the new UK regime.  In both cases the
CAT refused to approve them as class actions.  At first glance
this suggests that others are likely to be deterred from bringing
class actions in future; however, on closer analysis, many of the
arguments of principle have been determined in ways that favour
would-be claimants.  The claim against MasterCard was overly
ambitious, claiming on behalf of all UK consumers in respect of
virtually all purchases they had made over a 16 year period.
Fundamentally it failed as a result of its complexity.  Future
class actions will need to be more narrowly focused to succeed.
Businesses which might face class actions can take comfort from
the fact that the CAT has been prepared to reject the first two
claims that were made, notwithstanding a desire to see the new
regime succeed.  This suggests that the class certification
process will not merely be a rubber stamp and that claims will be
subject to proper scrutiny before clearing that initial hurdle.
[GN]


MASSACHUSETTS: Class Action Against MBTA Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Dan Glaun, writing for MassLive, reports that riding the MBTA's
limping commuter rail system following 2015's string of mammoth
snowstorms could be described in many ways.

Unreliable. Patience-testing. Unpredictable, in the worst sense
of the word. And those are just the printable adjectives.

What it was not, however, was a breach of contract, the
Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled on July 31.

"The winter storms of 2015 wreaked havoc in and around Boston.
To be sure, commuters were frustrated by the MBTA's inability to
transport them to work and back home.  Even the MBTA acknowledged
the inconvenience caused by its failure," the court ruled,
upholding the dismissal of rider Raquel Rodriguez' 2015 class
action lawsuit against the MBTA.  "However, the purchase of a
monthly pass on the MBTA is not a guarantee of performance
according to its published schedule in these extraordinary
circumstances."

Between Jan. 27 and Valentine's Day of 2015, four major storms
blanketed Eastern Mass.  with dozens of inches of snow.  The
storms threw Boston's public transit system into chaos, limiting
service along much of the T and requiring a massive work effort
to remove over a million cubic feet of snow and ice from tracks.

The snow also crippled the MBTA's Commuter Rail service, which is
operated under contract by Keolis and ordinarily serves about
130,000 riders per day though a rail network that connects Boston
to outlying communities in Central Mass. and on the North Shore
and South Shores.

The MBTA canceled all subway and commuter rail service from the
evening of Feb. 9 through Feb. 10, and later announced a "winter
recovery schedule" that cut commuter rail service to four or five
trains per day on each line, the SJC wrote in its decision.  That
schedule persisted through March.

Keolis was eventually fined $1.7 million for poor performance,
though half those penalties were later waived.  The service
problems led to the resignations of MBTA CEO Beverly Scott and
the MBTA board of directors, and the MBTA offered customers a 15
percent discount on monthly passes for May of 2015.

That did not mollify Rodriguez, a monthly pass-holder who filed a
class action suit against the MBTA and Keolis in November of that
year, alleging that "years of mismanagement" had led to a shoddy
response to the storms that violated the agency's commitment to
provide "timely, reliable commuter rail service."

The suit alleged that the MBTA had sufficient time to clear
tracks in between the storms and failed to do so because of a
lack of proper equipment caused in part by the MBTA's failure to
fulfill its capital spending plan.

But a superior court judge allowed the MBTA's motion to dismiss
the case, ruling the lawsuit failed to state a specific violated
term of a contract between the MBTA and its pass-holders.

Rodriguez appealed the decision, but this morning the appeals
court upheld the lower court's dismissal, ruling that the MBTA
was not legally bound to keep its normal schedules in the face of
emergency weather conditions.

"The obligation to provide 'timely and reliable service' is too
indefinite to create an enforceable contract," the decision said.

In a statement, the MBTA said it has prioritized winter
resiliency improvements and customer communications since 2015,
including spending over $100 million on snow-clearing equipment
and subway infrastructure improvements to safeguard service
during winter storms.

"The MBTA always appreciates its customers' patience and we will
continue to focus on the reforms and upgrades necessary to ensure
consistently reliable service for those who depend on it each
day," MBTA Director of Communications Joe Pesaturo said.

"At this point all I can say is that it is very disappointing and
we feel the correct result would've been to let all the facts be
developed as to the circumstances causing the catastrophic
failure of service before deciding whether the MBTA has liability
or not for failing to provide any useful service to thousands of
people who had paid for months passes," said Rodriguez' attorney
Thomas G. Shapiro. [GN]


MCKESSON CORPORATION: "A.T" Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled A.T., a minor by and through her
Guardian ad Litem, KARRI TANDY, and KARRI TANDY, individually,
the Plaintiffs, v. MCKESSON CORPORATION and PFIZER, INC., and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 254215,
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-
01240 to the proceeding.

Pfizer Inc. is an American pharmaceutical corporation
headquartered in New York City, with its research headquarters in
Groton, Connecticut. It is among the world's largest
pharmaceutical companies.[BN]

Attorneys for Pfizer, Inc.

          Pamela J. Yates, Esq.
          Kathryn Podsiadlo, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4400
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 243 4000
          Facsimile: (213) 243 4199
          E-mail: pamela.yates@apks.com
                  kathryn.podsiadlo@apks.com


MIDWAY OILFIELD: "Bagby" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Billy Bagby and Justin Mark, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Midway Oilfield
Constructors, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02223, (S.D.
Tex., July 19, 2017), seeks all available relief, including
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

Midway is in the oilfield construction business, offering
services and expertise to the upstream, midstream and downstream
sectors of the oil and gas industry throughout the United States.
Bagby and Mark worked for Midway as Rig Welders assigned to
Southern and Eastern Ohio and including Northern Pennsylvania in
Mark's case. Both claim to be denied overtime pay.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com
             cgordon@a2xlaw.com


MISSOURI: Inmates' Hepatitis C Class Action Certified
-----------------------------------------------------
Dan Margolies and Alex Smith, writing for KCUR89.3, report that a
lawsuit alleging the Missouri Department of Corrections
systematically denies medical treatment to prisoners with chronic
hepatitis C has taken a big leap forward after a judge certified
it as a class action.

U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey ruled that the lawsuit,
which was filed in December, meets all the requirements for class
certification, including numerous plaintiffs and common issues of
law and fact.

The ruling is significant because the class potentially includes
thousands of inmates.  At least 10 to 15 percent of the Missouri
prison population is infected with hepatitis C, and the
corrections department itself, in response to a Sunshine Act
request, estimated last year that it had 5,200 inmates with
hep C.  The hepatitis C rate among the general population is
about 1 percent.

"By not treating them, they're increasing the spread of the
disease within this population," says Gillian Wilcox, a staff
attorney with the ACLU of Missouri, which represents the
plaintiffs.  "Ninety-six percent of these people are coming back
into communities."

David Owen, a spokesman for MDOC, declined to comment, citing the
pending litigation.

Hepatitis C is a potentially deadly but curable viral infection
that attacks the liver.  It can lead to symptoms ranging from
mild illness to cirrhosis, which can cause death.

In the past, there was no effective treatment for chronic
hepatitis C (HCV) infections.  In recent years, however, the Food
and Drug Administration has approved several so-called direct-
acting antiviral drugs that have proven 90 percent effective in
curing the disease.

MDOC reported that as of January 15, it was treating .11 percent
of its HCV-positive inmates, or a total of five inmates out of
4,736 inmates with known HCV infections at the time.

The lawsuit was filed by three inmates in the Missouri Department
of Corrections (MDOC), Michael Postawko, Christopher Baker and
Michael Jamerson, who have been diagnosed with HCV.  None of them
have been treated with direct-acting antiviral drugs, they
allege.  Mr. Baker says he has received no treatment whatsoever
since 2010 and Mr. Baker says he's not even on a list for
treatment.

Besides MDOC, the lawsuit names numerous defendants, including
prison officials, doctors and nurses and Corizon, a privately
held prison contractor that provides medical care in MDOC's
prisons.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in at least seven other states,
Colorado being the latest. [GN]


MONSANTO COMPANY: King et al., Sue over Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------
Seven lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto Company. The
actions seeks for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup
(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health,
unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and
lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers
associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those
striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the
country, were avoidable.

The lawsuits are captioned as:

ROBERT KING and CARLESA KING, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY
and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants (E.D. Mo, July 28, 2017);

ALTON MCLENDON and BEVERLY MCLENDON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants (E.D. Mo, July 28,
2017);

WILLIAM MEDLIN as EXECUTOR of the Estate of BILLY MEDLIN, and
ZELLA MEDLIN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES
1-50, the Defendants (E.D. Mo, July 28, 2017);

RICHARD MILLER, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants (E.D. Mo, July 28,
2017);

PATRICIA HONAKER and CHARLES HONAKER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants (E.D. Mo, July 28,
2017);

SUZANNE SIMPSON and ROGER SIMPSON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants (E.D. Mo, July 28,
2017); and

RANDEL WHITE and PEGGY WHITE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY
and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants (E.D. Mo, July 28, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241 8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241 5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

          Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone (516) 723 4627
          Facsimile (516) 723 4727
          E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com


MOVING SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Wages Under FLSA, Rider Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
GARY MIDDLE RIDER, PLAINTIFF AND PUTATIVE PLAINTIFFS v. MOVING
SOLUTIONS, INC., a California Corporation, Case No. 5:17-cv-04015
(N.D. Cal., July 17, 2017), accuses the Defendant of:

   1) failure to pay all wages under the Fair Labor Standards
      Act;

   2) failure to pay all wages, including California overtime
      wages;

   3) failure to pay all wages at the end of employment;

   4) failure to provide accurate California itemized employee
      wage statements;

   5) failure to provide breaks; and

   6) violation of California unfair competition law for unlawful
      and/or unfair act in violation of California law.

Moving Solutions, Inc., is a California Corporation with its
headquarters in Milpitas, Santa Clara County, California.  The
Company's business is in the office moving industry.  The Company
employed the Plaintiff as a nonexempt office moving worker.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Dal Bon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES DAL BON
          606 N. 1st St.
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 466-5845
          Facsimile: (408) 286-7111
          E-mail: jdb@wagedefenders.com

               - and -

          Victoria L.H. Booke, Esq.
          BOOKE & AJLOUNY
          606 North First Street
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 286-7000
          Facsimile: (408) 286-7111
          E-mail: Vbooke@bookelaw.com


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Kachelmyer" Suit Over Sale to ADVA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Kachelmyer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MRV Communications, Inc., Mark J. Bonney,
Kenneth H. Traub, Robert M. Pons, Brian Bellinger, Jeannie H.
Diefenderfer, Jeffrey Tuder, ADVA Optical Networking SE, ADVA Na
Holdings, Inc., Golden Acquisition Corporation, and Does 125,
inclusive, Case No. BC669601 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 21, 2017), is
brought on behalf of all public stockholders of MRV
Communications, Inc., for breaches of fiduciary duty and the
aiding and abetting of such breaches of fiduciary duty arising
out of the proposed sale of MRV to ADVA for $10.00 in cash per
share of MRV.

According to the complaint, MRV filed a Recommendation Statement
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which
recommends that MRV stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction. However, the Proxy omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (i) a "no-
solicitation" clause that prevents the Company from soliciting,
and subject to minimal exceptions, from providing non-public
information to potential alternate bidders; (ii) an "information
rights" provision that requires MRV to provide ADVA with the
identity of any competing bidder and all material terms and
conditions of such a proposal; (iii) "matching rights" that allow
ADVA five (5) business days to match any superior offer, plus an
additional five (5) business day period following a material
amendment to the terms and conditions of a superior offer or the
submission of a new offer; (iv) an "anti-waiver" provision
restricting the Company and its subsidiaries from amending or
granting any waiver or release under any standstill or similar
agreement with respect to any class of equity securities of the
Company or any of its subsidiaries to which MRV or any of its
subsidiaries is a party; and (v) a provision requiring MRV to pay
a termination fee of $2.41 million if it decides to pursue a
competing bid.

The failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as stockholders need
such information in order to cast a fully-informed vote in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, asserts the Plaintiff.
The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully
divest MRV'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, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin
the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until
such problems are remedied.

MRV Communications, Inc. operates a communications and equipment
and services company located at 20520 Nordhoff Street,
Chatsworth, California 91311. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: 310/208-2800
      Facsimile: 310/209-2348
      E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Scarantino" Suit Over ADVA Merger Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Scarantino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MRV Communications, Inc., Kenneth Traub, Robert Pons,
Mark J. Bonney, Jeannie H. Diefenderfer, Brian Bellinger, Jeffrey
Tuder, ADVA Optical Networking, ADVA NA Holdings, Inc., and
Golden Acquisition Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-05501 (C.D.
Cal., July 25, 2017), is brought on behalf of all public
stockholders of MRV Communications, Inc., for breaches of
fiduciary duty and the aiding and abetting of such breaches of
fiduciary duty arising out of the proposed sale of MRV to ADVA
for $10.00 in cash per share of MRV.

According to the complaint, MRV filed a Recommendation Statement
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which
recommends that MRV stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction. However, the Proxy omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (i) a "no-
solicitation" clause that prevents the Company from soliciting,
and subject to minimal exceptions, from providing non-public
information to potential alternate bidders; (ii) an "information
rights" provision that requires MRV to provide ADVA with the
identity of any competing bidder and all material terms and
conditions of such a proposal; (iii) "matching rights" that allow
ADVA five (5) business days to match any superior offer, plus an
additional five (5) business day period following a material
amendment to the terms and conditions of a superior offer or the
submission of a new offer; (iv) an "anti-waiver" provision
restricting the Company and its subsidiaries from amending or
granting any waiver or release under any standstill or similar
agreement with respect to any class of equity securities of the
Company or any of its subsidiaries to which MRV or any of its
subsidiaries is a party; and (v) a provision requiring MRV to pay
a termination fee of $2.41 million if it decides to pursue a
competing bid. The failure to adequately disclose such material
information constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as
stockholders need such information in order to cast a fully-
informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction, says
the Plaintiff.

The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully
divest MRV'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, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin
the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until
such problems are remedied.

MRV Communications, Inc. operates a communications and equipment
and services company located at 20520 Nordhoff Street,
Chatsworth, California 91311. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 534-2590
      Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
      E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Chelvaratnam" Suit Over ADVA Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ravindran Chelvaratnam, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MRV Communications, Inc., Ken Traub, Mark
J. Bonney, Robert Pons, Jeannie H. Diefenderfer, Brian Bellinger,
and Jeffrey Tuder, Case No. BC669740 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 25,
2017), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of MRV
Communications, Inc., for breaches of fiduciary duty and the
aiding and abetting of such breaches of fiduciary duty arising
out of the proposed sale of MRV to ADVA for $10.00 in cash per
share of MRV.

According to the complaint, MRV filed a Recommendation Statement
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which
recommends that MRV stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction. However, the Proxy omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (i) a "no-
solicitation" clause that prevents the Company from soliciting,
and subject to minimal exceptions, from providing non-public
information to potential alternate bidders; (ii) an "information
rights" provision that requires MRV to provide ADVA with the
identity of any competing bidder and all material terms and
conditions of such a proposal; (iii) "matching rights" that allow
ADVA five (5) business days to match any superior offer, plus an
additional five (5) business day period following a material
amendment to the terms and conditions of a superior offer or the
submission of a new offer; (iv) an "anti-waiver" provision
restricting the Company and its subsidiaries from amending or
granting any waiver or release under any standstill or similar
agreement with respect to any class of equity securities of the
Company or any of its subsidiaries to which MRV or any of its
subsidiaries is a party; and (v) a provision requiring MRV to pay
a termination fee of $2.41 million if it decides to pursue a
competing bid. The failure to adequately disclose such material
information constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as
stockholders need such information in order to cast a fully-
informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction, says
the Plaintiff.

The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully
divest MRV'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, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin
the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until
such problems are remedied.

MRV Communications, Inc. operates a communications and equipment
and services company located at 20520 Nordhoff Street,
Chatsworth, California 91311. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Bower, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
      Culver City, CA 90230
      Telephone: (213) 446-6652
      Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
      E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com


MSA SECURITY: Dog-Sniffing Handlers Underpaid, Barrett Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BARRETT, BILL BEAURY, JOSEPH BELCASTRO, PETER BROWN, MICHAEL
GEIDEL, JOHN HANSEN, JOSEPH NACARLO, RICHARD NARCISO, PATRICK
O'CONNOR and JOSEPH TALLINI, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL STAPLETON
ASSOCIATES, INC.; Michael O'Neill and any other related entities,
the Defendants, Case. No. 1:17-cv-05468-AJN (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July
18, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Michael
Stapleton Associates or MSA Securities working as exclusive
handlers of bomb-sniffing dogs.  Alleged in the complaint is that
the defendant's common policy and plan violated the FLSA by
failing to pay all earned wages and failing to provide overtime
wages at the rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of
pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week.  The
plaintiffs allege that as dog-sniffing handlers, the dogs
assigned to them are trained daily. Their assigned dogs live at
their homes and most of the meal or training sessions must be
provided during times when plaintiffs are not on their time of
work. They train or feed their dogs seven days a week for 365
days a year.  They are not compensated for an average minimum of
3 days to a maximum of 4 days per week that includes overtime
pay.  Plaintiffs protested this concern to the MSA management but
of no avail.

The Defendant provides an explosives-detection canine service
across the globe.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Paul H. Aloe, Esq.
     Francis M. Curran, Esq.
     KUDMAN TRACHTEN ALOE LLP
     350 Fifth Avenue, 68th Floor
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 868-1010


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Lawyers Blitz Claimants in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
The Lowell Sun reports that the National Football League Players'
concussion injury litigation class-action settlement became
effective on Jan. 7. Class-action representatives were given
until Aug. 7 to sign up as many class members as possible.

There are a limited number of former NFL players, however, the
settlement amount will net high fees for lawyers involved. This
explains recently aired television ads, reaching out to affected
former players, by law firms usually advertising medical claims
settlements. These firms are just intermediaries, seeking a
referral fee.

A problem arose, however, when allegations of deceptive practices
targeting settlement class members. Normal television advertising
isn't the problem. Organized groups close to the case are alleged
to be exerting personal pressure on former players. The court is
concerned the former players are being deluged with solicitation.

Noting the victims are likely suffering from cognitive
impairment, the judge ordered further investigation to determine
the fairness of the solicitation blitz.

With such a small pool of potential litigants, class-action
lawyers have ramped up the competition. Hopefully, the court can
play the role of referee, and maintain fairness in this high-
stakes game.

Attorney James Haroutunian practices real estate, estate planning
and business law in Billerica at 630 Boston Rd and can be reached
with questions at hlawoffice.com, 978-671-0711 or via email --
James@hlawoffice.com [GN]


NATIONAL GENERAL: Faces "Jacob" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National General
Insurance Company.  The case is styled as Katherine Jacob,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National General Insurance Company and Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., d/b/a Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-05806-AT (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2017).

National General Insurance, formerly the GMAC Insurance Group is
a Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based property and casualty
insurance company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Stephen John Fearon, Jr., Esq.
   Squitieri&Fearon LLP
   32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (212) 575-2092
   Fax: (212) 575-2184
   Email: stephen@sfclasslaw.com


NATIONAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Lindo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo D. Lindo and other similarly situated individuals v.
National Management Group, Inc. f/k/a NSG management
Group, Inc.; Turnberry Hotel Group of Miami, Inc. d/b/a turnberry
Associates d/b/a Turnberry Isle Miami; and Janelle Lopez, Case
No. 1:17-cv-22709-JLK (S.D. Fla., July 20, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a resort in Aventura, Florida.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NATIONAL OILWELL: Villanueva Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE VILLANUEVA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, LP,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02325 (S.D. Tex., July 28, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other workers
like him regularly worked for Defendant in excess of 40 hours
each week at various NOV facilities, including, but not limited
to Galena Park and Bammel Road and on rigs offshore in the Gulf
of Mexico. But these workers never received overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of
paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Defendant improperly
classified Plaintiff and those similarly situated as independent
contractors and paid them straight time for overtime.

National Oilwell provides the technical expertise, equipment, and
operational support for drilling and production to the oil and
gas industry. It offers rig systems in the areas of aftermarket,
land, and offshore; and completion and production solutions,
including completion tools, fiber glass systems, floating
production systems, intervention and stimulation equipment,
process and flow technologies, subsea production systems, and XL
systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: 713 352 1100
          Facsimile: 713 352 3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  litkin@mybackwages.com
                  jbresler@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


NELLSON NUTRACEUTICAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Aguilar, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Nellson Nutraceutical, LLC and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC669544 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 21, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation at premium overtime rates for all hours worked in
excess of eight hours a day and 40 hours a week.

Nellson Nutraceutical, LLC is as a third party manufacturer and
provider of nutrition bars, nutritional powders, and healthy
snacks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Yeremian, Esq.
      Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
      DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
      535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 230-8380
      Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
      E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
              roman@yeremianlaw.com


NEW MEXICO: Bail Bond Association Sue Over New Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Todesco, writing for KOB, reports that bail bondsmen in
New Mexico have banded together to take on the state's highest
court.

The Bail Bond Association of New Mexico has filed a class action
complaint against the New Mexico Supreme Court and its individual
justices.  The plaintiffs are trying to get court rules put back
to the way they were before July 1 when the New Mexico Supreme
Court's new rules officially took effect.

Bail bond companies say it has wiped out the bail bond business.
They say that's because judges now have to release nearly
everyone on their own recognizance without the defendants ever
paying a dime in bail.

"It's been absolutely devastating to the community.  It's
absolutely affected community safety," Gerald Madrid with the
Bail Bond Association of New Mexico said.

Madrid, the association, and other bondsmen teamed up with Sen.
Richard Martinez, Sen. Bill Sharer, Sen. Craig Brandt, Rep. Bill
Rehm and Rep. Carl Trujillo to file the class action complaint.

"We're trying to reinstate people's right to bail, the Eighth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Right now, there is not right
to bail in New Mexico. That's what we're concerned with,
reinstating that right to bail and public safety first and
foremost."

Now, the right to "bail" has been changed into the right to
release, but defendants have to see a judge first.

Also mentioned in the lawsuit is a case involving a 61-year-old
grandmother who was arrested on July 1. Darlene Collins is one of
the plaintiffs on the complaint. It says that because of the new
court rules, Collins couldn't bond out before seeing a judge and
ended up sitting in jail much longer than expected because her
medical conditions caused her to miss her court hearing to be
released.

Madrid also argues the other extreme: how often defendants are
being released on their own recognizance. The new court rules
require prosecutors to file a motion to hold a suspect in jail,
and they have to prove to the judge that suspect is a danger to
our community. Otherwise, the person is released from custody
until trial.

"I see a spike in crime. I see people getting out of jail on
nothing more than a promise to appear.  Everything right now
qualifies for a release on recognizance, everything from murder
to shoplifting qualifies for release on recognizance, and it
doesn't matter the severity of the crime," Madrid said.

The New Mexico Supreme Court's Administrator released this
statement after getting word of the class action complaint:

"Courts exist to resolve these types of disputes. It would be
inappropriate to comment on the merits of the lawsuit because
this is a pending legal matter." [GN]


NEW YORK: Schools Neglect to Provide Disabilities Vital Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Chapman, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
advocates slapped the city Education Department with a class-
action lawsuit on July 27 for failing to provide hundreds of
Bronx students with disabilities critical services.

The lawsuit filed by Disability Rights Advocates seeks an
overhaul of the city's treatments for students with disabilities
in Bronx public schools, including a tracking system to make sure
kids get services such as speech therapy, occupational therapy
and counseling.

The suit filed on behalf of Bronx families cites a July 12 report
by Public Advocate Letitia James that found thousands of city
vouchers for services were going unused because parents couldn't
find providers.

Bronx District 8 had the lowest redemption rate of any district,
with 91 % vouchers there going to waste, according to James'
review of Department of Education data.

Black, Hispanic, disabled students don't get enough phys ed
Disability Rights Advocates' Director of Litigation Michelle
Caiola said the city needs to fix the problem.

"DOE must stop pretending it is meeting its legal obligations by
transferring its duties to parents, who are often over-burdened,"
Caiola said. "The law requires the services actually be provided,
but DOE's own data show that is not happening."

A spokesman for the city Legal Department said the matter is
under review.

Education Department spokeswoman Toya Holness said the city hired
700 new staff clinicians over the past three years to serve more
public school students with disabilities.

"In the small percentage of cases when we issue a related service
authorization, we work with families to connect them with an
appropriate provider," Holness said. [GN]


NEW YORK: Housing Dept. Subject to Special Master Oversight
-----------------------------------------------------------
Louis Flores, writing for Progress Queens, reports that the
New York City Housing Authority failed to annually inspect
apartments suspected of containing lead paint.  The failure to
make the annual inspections contradicted certifications made to
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development by the
Municipal housing authority.  Instead of annual inspections, the
apartments suspected of containing lead paint were said to have
been inspected every other year during a period of time,
according to allegations.  The allegations were made in a report
published by The New York Daily News.

The report was silent about concerns over the presence of toxic
lead in other media, such as in drinking water.  A report
published by Progress Queens identified apartments owned by the
Municipal housing authority that tested positive for lead in
drinking water in excess of one threshold used by Federal
regulations.

Information about the change in annual inspections was provided
to The New York Daily News by the New York City Department of
Investigation, according to the report.  The provision of the
information by the Municipal investigatory authority to The New
York Daily News comes in the face of a reported Federal
investigation into the physical condition standards of New York
City's public housing authority.  Despite the unhealthy living
conditions faced by public housing tenants, the outcome of the
reported Federal investigation has not yet been made public, even
though, in a 16 March 2016 Court filing, prosecutors reportedly
leading the Federal investigation claimed that obtaining health
records at that time then was "in the interest of justice." The
Municipal housing authority faces a multi-billion dollar capital
improvement budget deficit, one that the de Blasio administration
refuses to address.  Instead, Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-New York
City) has focused on forcing the Municipal housing authority to
transfer public housing into the Federal Section 8 program, which
allows private real estate investors to buy into public housing
in a push for privatisation for strategic public assets.

The Municipal housing authority reportedly claimed to have
altered the rate of its inspectionss of apartments suspected of
containing lead paint in order to reduce its backlog of
maintenance requests made by its tenants.  According to a review
of the Municipal housing authority's maintenance logs performed
by Progress Queens, maintenance requests made by tenants were
largely marked "CLOSED" without any indication that the issue
about which tenants were complaining were ever actually resolved.

The maintenance logs were provided to Progress Queens by the
Municipal housing authority in response to a request filed under
the State's Freedom of Information Law.  Information made public
by the Municipal housing authority was used by Progress Queens to
create a look-up table, and the look-up table made it possible to
identify the location of the apartments that were the site of
complaints noted in the maintenance logs.  The location of
apartments in public housing developments suspected of containing
lead paint were never provided to Progress Queens by the
Municipal housing authority.  However, the U.S. Attorney's Office
for New York's southern district, the Federal law enforcement
agency conducting the reported Federal investigation into the
public housing authority's physical condition standards, is
believed to be in possession of the information that identifies
the location of the apartments suspected of containing lead
paint.  It is not known if Federal investigators have been able
to cross-reference the location of apartments suspected of
containing lead paint with the maintenance logs, which would
contain information about tenants complaining of lead paint, for
example.  Advance questions submitted by Progress Queens to the
U.S. Attorney's Office were not answered.

According to information obtained by Progress Queens, Federal
investigators may lack experience to be able to conduct analysis
on large amounts of data.  A report published by The New York
Times noted that the Municipal housing authority dumped over 400
million records of information on Federal investigators in an
effort to allegedly bury investigations with large amounts of
information.  Some of the data files provided to Progress Queens
by the Municipal housing authority were so large that it was
impossible to open many of the data files using Microsoft Excel
or the Python programming language.  Some of the largest data
files provided to Progress Queens were corruptly exported, and,
were it not for expert programming assistance provided to
Progress Queens, it would have not been possible to conduct data
analysis of the data files.

At the same time when the New York City Housing Authority has
faced the reported Federal investigation into its physical
condition standards, the Municipal housing authority has also
been subject to the oversight of a special master in a class
action lawsuit over mold abatement.  The class action lawsuit was
filed, in part, by Marc Cohan, of counsel at the National Center
for Law & Economic Justice, Inc. Mr. Cohan's wife, New York State
Supreme Court Appellate Justice Doris Ling-Cohan, recently
survived being targeted in a failed political attempt to deny Her
Honour a nominations required to earn Justice Ling-Cohan a place
on the reelection ballot in the 2016 election cycle.  Operatives
with the New York County Democratic Committee denied allegations
that real estate interests were exerting influence to deny
Justice Ling-Cohan reelection, according to press reports.

Advocacy groups have thus far failed to pressure the de Blasio
administration to offer a real solution to address the toxic
physical condition standards at New York City's public housing
developments.  Some Government reform activists await the outcome
of the reported Federal investigation for indication whether
Federal prosecutors will compel material improvements in the
living standards of public housing tenants. [GN]


NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Ahmed" Suit Eastern Dist. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group.
The case is captioned as Imran Ahmed, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Northland Group,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04363-SJF-SIL (E.D.N.Y., July 24,
2017).  The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sandra J.
Feuerstein.

Northland Group provides accounts receivable management and
collection services to national credit grantors, debt buyers, and
student loan lenders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Subhan Tariq, Esq.
          THE TARIQ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          90-52 171st Street
          Jamaica, NY 11432
          Telephone: (516) 900 4529
          Facsimile: (516) 453 0490
          E-mail: subhan@tariqlaw.com


NUROFEN: Settles Specific Pain Range Class Action for $3.5MM
------------------------------------------------------------
news.com.au reports that the makers of pain-relief drug Nurofen
will pay $3.5 million to consumers who may have been "misled" by
its Specific Pain Range packaging after a class action against
the product.

The company said in a statement it had made an offer to settle
the suit subject to court approval.

"Nurofen has offered to settle the Specific Pain Range class
action in Australia to ensure that consumers who may have been
misled are appropriately and swiftly compensated," a spokeswoman
said.

"It was never our intention to mislead, but we recognise that we
could have done more to assist our consumers in navigating the
Nurofen Specific Pain Range in Australia."

"We have taken the Nurofen Specific Pain Range cases seriously,
and have taken steps to ensure that future marketing campaigns
are sensitive to the risk of misinterpretation and confusion,
while providing consumers with an informed choice."

Bannister Law, which brought the class action, said Nurofen maker
Reckitt Benckiser Australia had agreed to pay $3.5 million, which
will go into a fund to be administered by an independent third
party, for distribution to eligible group members.

"We anticipate Settlement Notices will soon be published in
newspapers in every Australian state, calling for consumers who
purchased the Nurofen Specific Pain Range products between 1
January 2011 and 31 December 2015 to come forward and register
their claim for compensation from the settlement fund," the law
firm said in a statement.

Reckitt Benckiser will also pay Bannister Law's legal costs.
In its original class action, the law firm said Reckitt Benckiser
had misled and deceived customers by claiming products were
specially formulated to treat separate ailments such as back
pain, period pain and headaches.

"However, each product contained the same active ingredient and
could not specifically treat one pain as opposed to another," the
claim said.

The law firm wants customers who bought the products to receive a
full refund, saying "we believe that the consumer would not have
purchased the product if they had known that it was not more
effective on targeting pain than any of the other Nurofen
Specific Pain products."

At the time the class action was launched, Bannister Law's
founder and Principal Charles Bannister said the advertising
"exploited" customers who were "duped" into paying more for basic
products.

"None of these costly tablets actually targeted these specific
pain symptoms. Australians have a right to feel duped by the
deceptive marketing and selling of these expensive pain tablets
which were sold at a premium price," he said.

Nurofen Australia has already accepted a Federal Court judgment
that sided with the ACCC and found that the company "engaged in
conduct that is misleading or deceptive" when marketing the
pills.

The company said it took immediate action to provide additional
information on the packs. [GN]


NUTRACEUTICAL INT'L: "Berg" Suit Challenges HGGC Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Berg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nutraceutical International Corporation,
J. Kimo Esplin, James D. Stice, Michael D. Burke, Frank W. Gay
II, Jeffrey A. Hinrichs, HGGC, LLC, Nutrition Parent LLC, and
Nutrition Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00830 (D. Utah,
July 21, 2017), seeks to enjoining defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating,
or closing the acquisition of Nutraceutical International
Corporation by affiliates of HGGC, LLC, rescinding it and setting
it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants
consummate the merger, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Shareholders of Nutraceutical will receive $41.80 in cash for
each share of Nutraceutical common stock. Defendants locked up
the merger by agreeing to a "no solicitation" provision that
prohibits the solicitation of alternative proposals. Plaintiff
also allege that the intrinsic value of Nutraceutical is
materially in excess of the amount offered.

Nutraceutical is an integrated manufacturer, marketer,
distributor and retailer of branded nutritional supplements and
other natural products sold primarily to and through domestic
health and natural food stores. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-531
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
             gms@rl-legal.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Nelson Abbott, Esq.
      ABBOTT LAW FIRM
      3651 North 100 East, Suite 350
      Provo, UT 84604
      Tel: (801) 374-3000


OBERMAN TIVOLI: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Anjaliec Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Oberman, Tivoli & Picket, Inc. d/b/a Media Services,
and Does 1-50, Case No. BC669680 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 21,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum and overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Oberman, Tivoli & Picket, Inc. operates an accounting and payroll
service company located at 500 S. Sepulveda Boulevard 4th floor,
Los Angeles, California 90049. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Heather Davis, Esq.
      Amirnayebdadash, Esq.
      PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
      136 Main St., Suite A
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 290-3095
      Facsimile: (866) 264-7880


OPTIO SOLUTIONS: "Hull" Disputes Vague Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Hull, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Optio Solutions, LLC (d/b/a Qualia
Collection Services), Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02470 (S.D.
Ind., July 21, 2017), seeks to recover damages for Defendant's
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Optio Solutions does business as Qualia Collection Services
(QCS), operates a nationwide debt collection business. Defendant
sent a collection letter to the plaintiff that does not give a
clear indication of who the actual creditor is. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, Illinois 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      Email: davephilipps@aol.com
             mephilipps@aol.com
             angiekrobertson@aol.com

             - and -

      John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
      5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
      Indianapolis, IN 46227
      Tel: (317) 780-8300
      Fax: (317) 217-1320
      Email: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


OREGON: Judge Withdraws Ruling on State Forest Trust Lands
----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Paul, writing for Gazatte Times, reports that a judge has
withdrawn an earlier opinion that appeared to jeopardize a
lawsuit filed by Linn County and other governmental units over
the management of state forest trust lands.

In an opinion issued in June, Linn County Circuit Court Daniel
Murphy ruled that Linn County and the 140 other counties and
taxing districts included in the class action lawsuit could not
sue the state for monetary damages.

Murphy cited the doctrine known as "sovereign immunity," a
centuries-old legal document that prevents government from being
sued with its consent. The judge found that since the plaintiffs
in the suit are part of the larger entity of the state as a
whole, they could not sue for damages.

That ruling potentially threw a major wrench in the lawsuit
against the Oregon Department of Forestry.

The attorney for the county, John DiLorenzo, Esq. --
johndilorenzo@dwt.com -- of Davis Wright Tremaine in Portland,
asked to meet with Murphy and the state's attorneys to ask Murphy
to reconsider his decision. A conference was held July 13.

DiLorenzo based his argument on a clause in state law, Oregon
Revised Statute 30.320, which he said has been part of Oregon law
since 1892 and has been upheld several times over the years,
including 1929 and 1959, when the Legislative Assembly amended it
to "waive sovereign immunity on contracts entered into by all
state agencies." The statute reads in part: "A suit or action may
be maintained against any county and against the State of Oregon
by and through and in the name of the appropriate state agency
upon a contract made by the county and its corporate character,
or made by such agency and within the scope of its authority."

Murphy agreed to withdraw his June 20 decision and noted that the
next step in the case would involve motions for summary judgment.
Those motions are due by Sept. 11. A pretrial conference has been
set for 9 a.m. Sept. 14.

The lawsuit involves state forest trust land, more than 700,000
acres of mainly logged-over or fire-damaged properties that were
acquired by counties through tax foreclosures in the 1930s and
1940s and then turned over to the state for management.  A 1939
law says those lands must be managed for "the greatest permanent
value to the state."

At that time, the phrase was generally interpreted to mean that
the lands should be managed to maximize timber harvests. Money
from those timber sales went back to the coffers of the counties
and other taxing entities.

But over the years, the state has broadened the definition of
"greatest permanent value" so that it includes other management
goals, such as recreation and protection of habitat. As a result,
timber harvests diminished on the state land -- and so did the
money from those harvests. The lawsuit argues that broadening the
management goals, and the resulting financial hit, amount to a
breach of contract.

Attorneys for the state did not immediately return calls from the
Democrat-Herald seeking comment.

Sick-leave case

In a related legal matter, Linn County and the state have agreed
to a settlement in a lawsuit filed by Linn County and other
counties over the state's paid sick-leave law.

The sick leave law, passed by the 2015 Legislature, requires
employers with 10 or more workers to give them at least 40 hours
of paid sick leave each year. Employers with nine or fewer
workers must provide 40 hours of unpaid sick time.

Linn County, along with other counties, argued that the law
represented an unfunded mandate from the state and as such
violated Oregon's constitution. The state constitution says that
local governments aren't required to comply with state laws or
administrative rules if the necessary funding isn't provided by
the state and if the costs of the new program amount to more than
a hundredth of 1 percent of the local government's budget.

In a ruling in the case, Murphy said that Linn, Douglas and
Yamhill counties have met the financial threshold that allows
them to not participate in the state's paid sick leave law.

The state retains the right to appeal on the issue of whether
paid sick leave is actually a new program or not; if a court
determines that the sick-leave legislation does not legally
create a "new program," the constitutional provision against an
unfunded mandate would not apply.

On July 17, Morrow, Jefferson, Polk, Malheur, Sherman and Wallowa
counties filed voluntary notices of dismissal and were dismissed
from the proceedings.

Linn County Commissioner Roger Nyquist welcomed the recent court
decisions.

"The common denominator in these separate lawsuits is that the
state over the years has made decisions that were not financially
prudent for counties and taxpayers as a whole," Nyquist said.
"The most recent developments show progress in working through
the financial situations that the state has put taxpayers and
counties in."

Nyquist added that the lawsuits also sent a message to state
legislators during their recent sessions.

"They seem to have gotten the message and when they passed the
measure to record grand jury deliberations, they included
financial compensation to the counties for the costs associated
with that," he said. "And, legislators pursued paid family leave,
but those efforts failed because they realized they had to find a
way to fund it and were not successful in those attempts." [GN]


ORGANIC CANDY: "Arabian" Suit Disputes Candy Flavors
----------------------------------------------------
Liza Arabian, as an individual, behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. The
Organic Candy Factory and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case
2:17-at-00729 (C.D. Cal., July 21, 2017) seeks actual and
statutory damages, restitution, statutory pre-judgment interest
and reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs of this action,
declaratory and/or equitable relief and such other relief
resulting from unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express
warranty, breach of contract, common law fraud, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and in violation
of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition
Law and False Advertising Law of the California Business and
Professions Code.

Candy Factory sells gummy candy containing peach, boysenberry,
blackberry or raspberry prominently featured on the front label.
Plaintiff contests that their products do not contain actual
peach, boysenberry, blackberry or raspberry but artificial
flavors. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OXNARD, CA: Faces "Kittel" Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Oxnard. The
case is captioned as April Kittel individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. City of Oxnard,
Eric Sonstegard in his individual and official capicities, and
Sylvia Paniagua in her individual and official capacities, the
Defendants, Case No. 56-2017-00499300-CU-WT-VTA (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 24, 2017).

Oxnard is a city in the United States, located along the coast of
Southern California. It is the 19th most populous city in
California and the most populous in Ventura County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William A. Salzwedel, Esq.
          Westlake Village, CA 91359-6668
          PO Box 6668
          Telephone: (805) 497 4511
          Facsimile: (805) 497 3014
          E-mail: williamsalzwedel@yahoo.com


PALTAS SERVICES: "Castillo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Walter Castillo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Milton J. Chacon, Sara J. Chacon and
Paltas Services, Corp., Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-04278 (E.D.N.Y.
July 19, 2017) seeks unpaid overtime wages, statutory damages,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standard Act and New York Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate and manage a construction company in New
York City where Plaintiff worked as a construction worker.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Harrison, Esq.
     HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
     110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
     Red Bank, NJ 07701
     Tel: (718)799-9111
     Fax: (718) 799-9171
     Email: nycotlaw@gmail.com


PCL CONSTRUCTION: Faces Class Action Over Outer Banks Blackout
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Alvarez, writing for, reports that on July 31 evening a
class-action lawsuit was filed against the construction company
behind the Outer Banks blackout that sparked the evacuation of
about 50,000 people, mostly tourists, from Hatteras and Ocracoke
islands.

On July 27, three electric transmission cables near Bonner Bridge
were damaged by a construction company building another bridge.
That company is PCL Construction, based in Denver.

"It wasn't until when several of us started getting a lot of
calls and emails about people who are suffering," said Matt Lee
-- matt@wbmllp.com -- one of the attorneys with Whitfield Bryson
& Mason, LLP, the firm handling the lawsuit.

He said they've been hearing from business owners and people who
own vacation rentals, who rely on the summer season to make most
of their year's profit.

"They're worried, I think they're scared about what they're going
to be able to do to make this up," Mr. Lee said.  "We heard that
Governor Cooper was down there today surveying the problem and
said that everybody who's lost money or suffered from this should
be compensated. Couldn't agree more."

There are three plaintiffs in the lawsuit, though that number
could grow.  Marissa Gross is one of them.  She owns Down Creek
Gallery on Ocracoke.

"Something like this is catastrophic," said Ms. Gross.  "This is
more devastating than anything that could happen, not just to
myself but any business owner or fisherman, anyone who lives
here."

Ms. Gross said Ocracoke and Hatteras are cut off to the world and
revenue is being depleted on a daily basis. She doesn't have a
dollar amount on how this has affected her business so far, but
she already knows it's a big hit.

Though the Outer Banks is an area used to dealing with emergency
events, mainly storms, Ms. Gross said this is much worse.
"Most of us, we have insurance policies and what not to cover
things like that, but with this, you don't get that, you don't
get any help," she said.

Ms. Gross said she hasn't been contacted by the construction
company and said all of her updates on the power situation has
come through the media.  She feels frustrated and said someone
should have reached out to residents days ago.

"Extending some sort of human nature would be nice," said
Ms. Gross, "and making everyone, not just myself, but all the way
up Hatteras, feel a little bit better and a lot less panic.  They
haven't done that yet.

Mr. Lee said they haven't yet spoken to anyone with the
construction company.  ABC11 reached out to PCL Construction,
based in Denver for comment.  However, the lawsuit was filed
after business hours and no one could be reached for comment.

Mr. Lee said as his office continues to receive calls and emails,
he expects the plaintiff list to grow.

As far as a timeline of the lawsuit, Mr. Lee said class-action
lawsuits generally take a while to work through the system.

Still, people who rely on the summer months for their livelihood,
hope something happens sooner rather than later.

"We're definitely losing a prime time to make our entire year,"
said Ms. Gross.  "It's terrible." [GN]


PETERSBURG, AK: Faces Class Action Over Property Seizure
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Viechnicki, writing for KFSK, reports that two men suing the
Petersburg borough, a local police officer, a regional narcotics
task force and state law enforcement are trying to broaden the
lawsuit into a class action that would allow more plaintiffs to
become involved.  The suit challenges the secrecy of search
warrants for law enforcement investigations that do not result in
criminal charges.  If it ends up going to trial, the case won't
go before a jury until next year.

The plaintiffs in the case are former Petersburg resident Danny
Thompson, who has moved to Washington state and a current
resident Greg Richeson.  The two men say in separate
investigations in 2013 Petersburg police officers obtained search
warrants and seized property from their homes.

The plaintiffs say the police seized coins, guns, computers,
electronics, cameras, cell phones, personal papers, jewelry and
other private property and did not return the items for years.
Thompson says his belongings have been returned; about four years
later, Mr. Richeson still waiting for the return of his
possessions.  Attorney Fred Triem argued in late July that the
suit should be a class action.

"There's hundreds of people throughout the state of Alaska who
are in the same position as the two plaintiffs here," Mr. Triem
said.  "They've been served with warrants.  Their stuff has been
taken away and they cannot get the warrant file or access to it
because the only way they can get access is if the police filed a
criminal case as a result of the warrant based on information
they obtained when they served the warrant, then but only then
the defendant can go in and see his warrant file.  Otherwise it
remains sealed."

Attorneys for the state and Petersburg borough say Mr. Richeson's
items have not been returned because he is the target of an
ongoing investigation by the Petersburg Police Department. Triem
disputes that he is.  As for Mr. Thompson, charges were forwarded
to the Juneau district attorney's office in 2015 but dismissed by
the office and his property was returned.

Alaska law requires police to obtain a search warrant from a
judge or magistrate judge and spells out the reasons for issuing
a warrant.  Police are required to give the owner of property
seized a copy of the warrant, a copy of the supporting affidavit
for obtaining the warrant and a receipt for the property taken.
Police are also required to make an inventory of property seized.
Search warrants become part of the public record once a criminal
case is filed in court.  However, according to the state's court
rules, search warrants, affidavits, receipts and inventories are
kept sealed, and not part of the public record for four years if
no criminal case is filed.  Someone who has had property seized
can request an inventory of those items but that unsealing
request needs approval by a judge.

The plaintiffs are seeking disclosure of court files in all
search warrants and argue that Alaska's court rules are a
violation of the state's constitution.

The defendants in the suit are the Petersburg borough, local
police officer Kalin Rosse and the Southeast Alaska Cities
Against Drugs or SEACAD.  That's a cooperative drug enforcement
effort involving the Alaska State Troopers and police departments
around Southeast.  Also named in the suit are former Sitka police
chief Sheldon Schmitt and Chris Russell of the Alaska State
Troopers for their administrative role with SEACAD.

Superior court judge William Carey earlier this year denied a
motion by Mr. Triem to add new plaintiffs to suit as well as
adding other regional narcotics task forces from around Alaska as
defendants.  Judge Carey did agree to add the Statewide Drug
Enforcement Unit and Alaska Department of Public Safety as
defendants.

Assistant attorney general Marianna Carpeneti, representing those
state agencies and trooper Russell, argued that the case should
not be a class action.  "As for Mr. Thompson he has admitted that
all of his property has been returned to him," Ms. Carpeneti
said.  "So it's totally unclear and the plaintiffs have not
explained how a person who had all their property returned to
them is an adequate representative of a group of people whose
main complaint is their property hasn't been returned to them."

The plaintiffs have also entered in the court record numbers of
search warrants known to be filed at the Petersburg court between
2012 and 2015, with the number of those not referenced in a
criminal case.  The data was compiled by former deputy magistrate
Cris Morrison who's now working as a paralegal for Mr. Triem.
She found that the court authorized between 42-64 warrants a year
and in those years around half to three quarters or more of the
warrants were not referenced in a criminal charge.  Ms. Carpeneti
argued those numbers weren't proof of the need for a class
action.

"What has been brought forward by the plaintiffs is an affidavit
which relates to search warrants and whether the search warrants
were later referenced in criminal cases," Ms. Carpeneti said.
"But that evidence doesn't show a pattern of law enforcement
whether at the municipal or state level engaging in a practice of
taking people's property and not returning it."

Timothy Bowman, representing the Petersburg borough and police
officer Rosse, argued that Mr. Triem has not shown a common group
of people with the same complaint.

"We don't know whether or not this is the kind of stuff that the
subject of warrants would even want to have returned," Bowman
said.

"Isn't it fair to assume people want their stuff back?" judge
Carey asked.

"Well I think Ms Carpeneti made a great point," Mr. Bowman
responded.  "I mean why does somebody wanna have a DNA sample
returned? The information that's provided by the plaintiffs,
there's no indication.  We don't know if those are hundreds of
such cases.  I mean probably not.  The burden is on the plaintiff
to demonstrate a class. They just simply haven't done that."

Cases have to meet certain legal standards to earn class action
status.  Such a finding would allow plaintiffs beyond
Mr. Thompson and Mr. Richeson to become part of the case, with
the case argued on behalf of a larger group of people who have a
common complaint.

The defendants argue the practice of seizing evidence is a
critical to law enforcement investigations everywhere. Those
attorneys are asking the judge to rule in the defendants' favor
before the case goes to trial.  Judge Carey said he expected to
rule on that motion relative soon.

A jury trial had been scheduled for this August but has been
rescheduled for February 20th of 2018.  Attorneys expected a
trial would take about a week. [GN]


PHOENIX FINANCIAL: "Ayers" Disputes Vague Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lora Ayers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Phoenix Financial Services, LLC and
Cascade Capital, LLC Series C, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02441
(S.D. Ind., July 19, 2017), seeks actual and statutory damages,
costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and such further relief under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Defendants are debt collection agencies assigned to collect a
delinquent consumer debt from the Plaintiff. Ayers took out a
loan for her medical expenses after receiving emergency
treatment.

Defendants sent Ms. Ayers a pro forma collection letter demanding
payment of two medical debts allegedly incurred at two separate
dates despite FDCPA prohibition on false, deceptive and/or
misleading representation to collect time-barred debts.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      Email: davephilipps@aol.com
             mephilipps@aol.com
             angiekrobertson@aol.com


PIZZAIOLO'S GOURMET: Kitchen Staff Underpaid, Zavaleta Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ORVELIN ZAVALETA, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Persons, the Plaintiff, v. PIZZAIOLO'S GOURMET PIZZA,
INC., and RENE BENITEZ, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-02321
(S.D. Tex., July 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants
as a kitchen manager and cook from 2015 until July 1, 2017.
Zavaleta's duties included, but were not limited to, stocking and
ordering merchandise, assisting other cooks with food orders,
preparing food, and cleaning the kitchen. During his tenure with
the Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours
per week. Plaintiff was paid an hourly rate and was not paid an
overtime premium for hours worked over 40 hours per workweek.
Instead, he was paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek, and was paid in cash for hours worked over
40 in a workweek. The Defendants knew of, approved of, and
benefited from Plaintiff's regular and overtime work. Plaintiff
was not an "exempt" employee. Defendants did not make a good
faith effort to comply with the minimum wage or overtime
provisions contained within the FLSA. The Defendants' actions
were willful and in blatant disregard for Plaintiff's federally
protected rights.[BN]

Pizzaiolo's offers gourmet pizza, pasta with homemade sauce,
wings, subs, beer & wine, salad and cannolis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay 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: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                  vijay@buenkerlaw.com


PROCEL TEMPORARY: Nesbit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE NESBIT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. PROCEL
TEMPORARY SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC670585 (Cal. Super.
Ct., July 31, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant employed Plaintiff and
similarly situated persons and due to Defendant's uniform payroll
practices, deprived Plaintiff and the Class of wages for time
worked, proper premium overtime, failed to schedule Plaintiff and
Class in such a manner that allowed Plaintiff and the Class to
receive and/or take their meal and/or rest breaks, Plaintiff and
the Class were not provided and/or denied work free meal and rest
breaks. Defendant also failed to pay due and owed wages upon
ending of employment for employees within California.[BN]

Procel Temporary provides recruiting services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Antonelli, Esq.
          Janeile Carney, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
          14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E, 2nd Floor
          Chino Hills, CA 91709
          Telephone: (909) 393 0223
          Facsimile: (909) 393 0471
          E-mail: JAntonelli@antonellilaw.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging Race Bias
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID M. RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No.
1:17-cv-22652-KMW (S.D. Fla., July 17, 2017), alleges that P&G
intentionally discriminates against non-citizen applicants for
employment in the United States on the basis of alienage by
utilizing a facially discriminatory policy and practice that
categorically denies employment to non-citizens, who are
authorized to work in the U.S., but who are not U.S. permanent
residents, refugees, or individuals granted asylum.

P&G is an American multinational consumer goods company
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.  In 2016, P&G recorded $65.3
billion in sales.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Mazer, Esq.
          Cary D. Steklof, Esq.
          VER PLOEG & LUMPKIN, P.A.
          100 S.E. 2nd Street, 30th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577-3996
          Facsimile: (305) 577-3558
          E-mail: jmazer@vpl-law.com
                  csteklof@vpl-law.com

               - and -

          Patrick David Lopez, Esq.
          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          601 Massachusetts Avenue
          Second Floor, West Suite
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 847-4400
          Facsimile (202) 847-4410
          E-mail: pdl@outtengolden.com
                  sabrahamson@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Ossai Miazad, Esq.
          Olivia J. Quinto, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
          E-mail: om@outtengolden.com
                  ojq@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Saenz, Esq.
          THE MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
          634 S. Spring Street, 11th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 629-2512
          Facsimile: (210) 224-5382
          E-mail: tsaenz@MALDEF.org

               - and -

          Nina Perales, Esq.
          THE MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
          110 Broadway, Suite 300
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 224-5476
          Facsimile: (210) 224-5382
          E-mail: nperales@MALDEF.org


PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Guzman" Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MICHAEL GUZMAN as Administrator
of the Estate of Monika Feezko Gusman, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-05249-CCC-MF (D.N.J., July 29, 2017), alleges violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Act and is assigned to Judge Clair C.
Ceechi.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
     JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
     375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
     Fairfield, NJ 07004
     Tel: (973) 227-5900
     Fax: (973) 244-0019
     E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Provinces Can't Recoup OxyContin Full Costs
----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Howlett, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that a
proposed legal settlement involving the drug company whose pill
triggered Canada's deadly opioid epidemic shuts the door on the
provinces taking action to recoup the costs of treating people
dependent on painkillers.

Purdue Pharma, maker of the prescription painkiller OxyContin,
has agreed to pay $20-million, including $2-million to provincial
health insurers, to settle the long-standing class-action suit.
An Ontario court judge approved the proposed national settlement
two weeks ago.  Courts in three other provinces, including Nova
Scotia on Aug. 1, must also approve the settlement before it
becomes final.

All 10 provinces consented to their share of the proceeds,
precluding them from taking action against the company to recover
additional costs, legal experts say.  The settlement says class
members and provincial health insurers are barred from
"initiating, asserting or prosecuting any claim, action,
litigation, investigation or other proceeding in any court of law
. . . or any other forum."

The amount earmarked for the provinces reimburses only a fraction
of their health-care costs.  The provinces' public drug plans
spent $423.3-million over a five-year period on medications used
for addiction to prescription painkillers and illicit opioids,
according to figures obtained from the Canadian Institute for
Health Information and the Quebec government . Between 2011 and
2015, spending more than doubled, the figures show.

"If I was a provincial leader, there's no way I would sign a
document like that," said Kieran Michael Moore, medical officer
of health for Kingston and neighbouring communities and program
director of public health and preventive medicine at Queen's
University.  "The $20-million doesn't touch the cost, both at a
health-care system level and at a social level, that our society
has had to endure as a result of the prescribing of this drug."

Even if the provinces had walked away from the table, they would
have had to introduce legislation to give them the power to sue
Purdue, similar to what they did with Big Tobacco several years
ago.  But unlike the United States, which has responded to its
own addiction crisis with a wave of litigation against
pharmaceutical companies, Canada has no tradition of suing the
industry.

"We need to perhaps modernize the legislative framework to allow
provincial governments to take direct action against drug
companies to recover sizeable losses that may occur from time to
time," said Joel Rochon, one of the class-action lawyers.

Provincial health insurers participated in the settlement through
legislation that allows them to recover health-care costs for
personal-injury accidents such as slips and falls, medical
malpractice or manufacturing defects.  The class-action lawyers
were required by law to include a claim on their behalf, but the
provinces were not obligated to agree with the settlement, legal
experts said.

The proposed settlement caps a legal battle that began a decade
ago between Stamford, Conn.-based Purdue and lawyers representing
as many as 1,500 Canadians who got hooked on OxyContin after
their doctors prescribed the drug.  The class action accuses
Purdue of knowing that anyone who took the painkiller would be at
risk of becoming addicted to it and suffer withdrawal symptoms if
they stopped. At no time were these risks disclosed.

A Purdue spokeswoman said the settlement is not an admission of
liability by the company but declined to comment on the
provinces, saying the matter remains before the courts. With the
exception of Ontario, provincial officials also declined to
comment, but legal experts said their only recourse for
recovering costs is the federal government.

Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins has asked Ottawa to
prosecute the company under the federal Food and Drugs Act.  In a
statement provided to The Globe, Dr. Hoskins said Ontario relied
on class counsel, who recommended accepting the settlement as the
"best possible outcome" for losses endured by families.
"However," he said, "our government believes strongly that still
more needs to be done."

Dr. Hoskins has the support of at least one of his provincial
colleagues. Newfoundland and Labrador Health Minister John Haggie
said in an e-mail to The Globe that he would support a
provincial-territorial call for the federal government to
investigate Purdue.  "Such legislation protects the health and
well-being of Canadians," Dr. Haggie said.  "If there is a
suggestion that these rules have not been followed and respected,
there should be an investigation."

A spokesman for federal Health Minister Jane Philpott said she
will continue to explore options with her provincial and
territorial counterparts to address the opioid crisis.

Unlike the United States, where pharmaceutical companies have
paid $35.7-billion (U.S.) in settlements with federal and state
governments over a 25-year period, according to national non-
profit organization Public Citizen, Health Canada has regarded
pharmaceutical companies as partners.  Bureaucrats have adopted a
more co-operative, informal approach to enforcing the rules
rather than resorting to the courts, medical experts say.

A Health Canada spokeswoman confirmed that the department has not
referred any matter involving alleged illegal pharmaceutical
advertising to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which
prosecutes criminal offences under various federal statutes,
since at least fiscal 2003-04.  The Globe would have to file an
access-to-information request to find out about any cases prior
to 2003-04, the spokeswoman said.

Matthew Herder, director of Dalhousie University's Health Law
Institute and an associate professor in the faculties of law and
medicine, said OxyContin is a clear example that warranted a
formal response by Canadian authorities.  Canada's opioid
epidemic traces its roots to the introduction of the painkiller
21 years ago.  The fact that Purdue has never faced any
consequences in this country, he said, "raises to me deep
questions about who Health Canada is really acting in the best
interests of."

The absence of government action in Canada stands in stark
contrast to the United States, where Purdue and three of its
executives paid $634.5-million in 2007 to settle criminal and
civil charges against them for misbranding OxyContin as less
addictive than other pain medications.  Since then, several
states and American municipalities have sued Purdue for deceptive
marketing. Purdue paid $24-million in December 2015, to settle a
lawsuit with Kentucky.

Joel Lexchin, a Toronto emergency-room doctor and professor
emeritus at York University's faculty of health, said he cannot
recall any instance over the past four decades where a
pharmaceutical company has been prosecuted in Canada for
misleading marketing.  Despite evidence to the contrary, he said,
the federal government does not seem to believe that the illegal
marketing that takes place in the United States also goes on in
Canada.  "We just seem to think that things stop at the border."

Nav Persaud, a family doctor and assistant professor in the
department of medicine at the University of Toronto, is calling
on the federal government to create a compensation program that
would award $15,000 (Canadian) each to victims of the opioid
crisis.  In a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Dr.
Philpott, Dr. Persaud said the federal government is partly to
blame for the "outrageously small" class-action settlement
because it failed to take action.

Purdue amassed revenue of $31-billion (U.S.) from OxyContin.
Dr. Persaud said Ottawa should recover the cost of the
compensation program by treating opioid companies like Big
Tobacco.  In 1999, the Ontario government launched a $50-billion
(Canadian) lawsuit against tobacco companies, joining British
Columbia and New Brunswick in what became a national battle to
recover health costs linked to smoking.

Camille Cameron, dean of law at Dalhousie University, noted that
the lawsuits against Big Tobacco have dragged on for 16 years in
Canada without a settlement.  But both the tobacco and
pharmaceutical industries have deep pockets, she said.  "The
parallels are stunning." [GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Class Action in Arkansas Over Opioids
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that a
Sebastian County man who became addicted to opioids sued the drug
manufacturers in June in one of the latest lawsuits filed by
consumers, state attorneys general and local governments against
opioid makers.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Arkansas and the
other cases against the larger opioid manufacturers, which sell
the drugs under brand names such as OxyContin and Percocet,
alleged that the makers misled the public about the addictive
nature of opioids.  The plaintiffs suing the opioid makers are
using the same legal strategy the states used in the 1990s
against the tobacco industry, which settled those cases for
nearly $250 billion.

"I think it's fair to say that the plaintiffs' lawyers have that
in mind," said Richard Ausness, who has studied opioid litigation
and is the associate dean for faculty research and the Stites &
Harbison professor of law at the University of Kentucky College
of Law.  "Of course, it was very successful for them and for the
states."

He said that so far about 35 lawsuits have been brought by
different government entities against the opioid makers.

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge had not filed a lawsuit
against the opioid manufacturers.

"Attorney General Rutledge is committed to tackling the
prescription drug abuse epidemic that is spreading across
Arkansas with an all-of-the-above approach that includes
education, prevention and treatment and could certainly include
litigation," her spokesman, Judd Deere, said in an email to
Arkansas Business.

Michael Ray Lewis of Sebastian County is seeking class-action
status in his lawsuit over allegations that include the
drugmakers misrepresented the risks of addiction and benefits of
opioids.  He alleged in the lawsuit that the drug manufacturers'
action "constitutes unlawful deceptive and unconscionable trade
practices."

"As time has shown us, it's one of the most addictive substances
on the planet," said attorney Marcus Bozeman of the Thrash Law
Firm of Little Rock, who is representing Mr. Lewis along with
attorneys Thomas Thrash and Kenneth Shemin of Rogers.

Mr. Bozeman told Arkansas Business that Lewis' lawsuit is on
behalf of Arkansas consumers and named only the pharmaceutical
companies as defendants, leaving out others in the supply chain.
He said that doctors who prescribed the medication and the local
pharmacies who filled the prescriptions "were duped just like we
were."

Opioids are the most commonly prescribed medications in Arkansas,
the lawsuit said.  And in 2012, Arkansas was eighth in the nation
for prescriptions of opioid medications, the complaint said.

One of the named defendants is Purdue Pharma of New York, which
vigorously denied the allegations in a statement to Arkansas
Business.

"We share the concern about the opioid crisis and are committed
to working collaboratively to find solutions," the statement
said.

"We are an industry leader in the development of abuse-deterrent
technology, advocating for the use of prescription drug
monitoring programs and supporting access to Naloxone -- all
important components for combating the opioid crisis."

'Dubious Marketing'

Professor Ausness said the opioid and tobacco lawsuits are
similar in that "in both cases, you're dealing with a . . . group
of defendants who aren't very sympathetic and who engaged in
pretty dubious marketing behavior or policies."

But opioids, unlike tobacco products, were and are highly
regulated by the Food & Drug Administration, he said.

Professor Ausness said the drug manufacturers could argue that
their products were "highly useful" to patients.

Mr. Bozeman said he expects the drug companies to argue that the
medicine was approved by the FDA.  "Still, that doesn't allow you
under state law to make misleading statements about your
product," he said.

Professor Ausness said that if one of the lawsuits were to make
it to a jury he's not sure that the plaintiffs would win.  "For
them winning would be getting a quick settlement before they have
to invest too much in the litigation," he said.

Mr. Bozeman said that he thinks his lawsuit has a good change to
prevail.  "You can never predict exactly what's going to happen,
but we feel good about our chances," Mr. Bozeman said.  "We know
it's a long road." [GN]


RAYONIER INVESTMENT: Zamansky Begins Probe for ERISA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zamansky LLC commenced an investigation of Rayonier Inc.
(NYSE:RYN) on behalf of its current and former employees over the
Rayonier Investment and Savings Plan for Salaried Employees (the
"Plan") for potential violations of the federal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). ERISA imposes fiduciary
duties to prudently manage and invest plan assets. We are
investigating whether these duties were violated by the offering
of the Rayonier Common Stock Fund before November 7, 2014, as an
investment option for employees under the Plan.

On November 13, 2014, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against Rayonier, the large forest and timberland company,
alleging that for many years the Company had misrepresented its
financial results by concealing that it had engaged in
unsustainable harvesting practices. Rayonier itself announced
days earlier that it was restating its financial results for
earlier that year. As a result, the Company's stock price fell by
15% because of artificial inflation, the lawsuit claims.

On March 13, 2017, Rayonier reported that it had agreed to a
proposed settlement of the securities class action for $73
million. According to employee stock fraud attorney, Jake
Zamansky, Rayonier's settlement raises serious issues whether the
Plan's fiduciaries properly executed their duties under ERISA, he
states. ERISA is designed to protect employees' retirement
savings from imprudent and inappropriate investments, Zamansky
states.

What Current and Former Rayonier Employees Can Do

If you are an existing or former Rayonier employee who purchased
the Rayonier Common Stock Fund within the Plan before November
13, 2014, please contact our firm for an evaluation of your
rights. You can contact Jake Zamansky by telephone at (212) 742-
1414 or by email at -- jake@zamansky.com

                        About Zamansky LLC

Zamansky LLC is a leading stock law firm whose primary expertise
is securities fraud, ERISA and employment class actions. We are
investment fraud attorneys who represent both individual and
institutional investors. Our practice is recognized nationally
for our ability to aggressively prosecute cases and recover
investment losses. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.

         Jake Zamansky
         Zamansky LLC
         Tel. No: 212-742-1414
         E-mail: jake@zamansky.com [GN]


RECKITT BENCKISER: Late Amendment to Pleadings Refused in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Pascarl, Esq., and Fiona Galbraith, Esq., at Davies Collison
Cave, in an article for Lexology, wrote in much-publicised
proceedings, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
successfully prosecuted proceedings against Reckitt Benckiser's
more expensive "specific pain" range of Nurofen products. These
Nurofen products were marketed differently for different types of
pains ("migraine pain", "tension headache", "period pain" or
"back pain") but they contained the same active ingredients,
worked in the same way, and did not work differently for
different pain types. We reported here that, in December 2015,
the Federal Court found that the "specific pain" Nurofen
packaging, and associated advertising, was:

-- misleading or deceptive, in contravention of section 18 of
the
    Australian Consumer Law; and

-- liable to mislead the public as to its nature, character or
    suitability for purpose, in contravention of section 33 of
the
    Australian Consumer Law.

The Federal Court ordered Reckitt Benckiser to pay a $1.7 million
penalty for these breaches of the Australian Consumer Law, which
was later amended on appeal by the Full Federal Court to $6
million.

Consumer class action -- class action group denied extra damages
claim shortly before the trial

The saga continues with a class action brought by consumers
seeking damages as a result of purchasing the more expensive (but
no more effective) "specific pain" Nurofen products, due to their
misleading packaging and/or associated advertising. The class
action trial is due to begin on 1 August 2017.

In the recent decision Hardy v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty
Limited (No 2) [2017] FCA 785, Justice Nicholas refused an
application by the consumer class action group to amend its case
to add a new claim for damages arising from the "specific pain"
Nurofen products failing to comply with statutory guarantees as
to acceptable quality imposed by sections 54, 56 and 59 of the
Australian Consumer Law. The amendment application was made on 29
June 2017, only a month before the start of the trial.

Arguments resisting the late amendment

Reckitt Benckiser resisted the amendment, on the basis that it
introduced, for the first time, the issue of the value of the
"specific pain" Nurofen products compared to three cheaper,
alternative, forms of Nurofen. Reckitt Benckiser pointed out
that:

-- The four different types of Nurofen that would be in issue,
    the "specific pain" Nurofen products, the cheaper fast-acting
    Nurofen Zavance, Nurofen Zavance liquid capsules, and
standard
    Nurofen, each contained different forms of the active
    ingredient, ibuprofen.

-- There was no evidence about the different value of these four
    different formulations of Nurofen, either in terms of their
    different pharmacological effects, their different
    manufacturing costs, or other differences such as different
    shelf-life.

-- Further evidence about the differences between the different
    Nurofen products might be required if the consumer class
    action group's late amendment was allowed. For example:

    -- evidence from a pharmacologist might be required to prove
       that there is a therapeutic benefit to consumers from
fast-
       acting versions of Nurofen; and

    -- evidence from an economist about the value of the products
       might also be required, and this evidence would take 6-8
       weeks to complete.

Lessons concerning late amendments -- reasons why the late
amendment was refused

The consumer class action group failed to explain why its
amendment, to seek damages for breaches of statutory guarantees,
was not made sooner, nor when it decided to pursue this amendment
to its case. The consumer class action group also agreed that, if
pursuing the new claim would require the 1 August 2017 trial date
to be vacated (to allow sufficient time for further evidence),
the new claim would be abandoned.

Given the new issues and possible extent of further evidence,
Justice Nicholas considered that it would be unjust to require
Reckitt Benckiser to meet the new claim at a trial beginning in a
matter of weeks. Accordingly, Justice Nicholas refused to allow
the consumer class action group to add, so close to the hearing,
a new claim for damages for breaches of statutory guarantees.

The decision is a useful example of when a party will not be
allowed to amend its case shortly before trial, following the
High Court seminal case Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v
Australian National University [2009] HCA 27, which concluded
that there is a limit to a litigant's ability to make late
changes to its case. [GN]


RICE ENERGY: Faces "Assad" Suit in Penn. Over Proposed EQT Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Assad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rice Energy Inc., Robert F. Vagt, Daniel J. Rice, IV,
Toby Z. Rice, Daniel J. Rice, III, Kate Jackson, James W.
Christmas, John McCartney, EQT Corporation, and Eagle Merger Sub
I, Inc., Case No., 2:17-cv-01019-NBF (W.D. Penn., August 3,
2017), stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 19,
2017, pursuant to which Rice Energy Inc. will be acquired by EQT
Corporation and Eagle Merger Sub I, Inc. for $5.30 in cash and
0.37 shares of EQT common stock for each share of Rice common
stock.

According to the complaint, Rice filed a Registration Statement
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which
recommends that Rice 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: With respect to Rice's financial projections, the
Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) interest expense;
(ii) taxes; (iii) earnings; (iv)interest; (v) depreciation; (vi)
amortization; and (vii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP
metrics. 47. With respect to EQT's financial projections, the
Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) taxes; (ii) capital
expenditures; and (iii) distributions received versus earned.

The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully
divest Rice's public stockholders of the Company's valuable
assets without fully disclosing all material information
concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To
remedy the Defendants' Exchange Act violations, the Plaintiff
seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction
unless and until such problems are remedied.

Rice Energy Inc. is engaged in the gathering and compression of
natural gas production in Washington and Greene Counties,
Pennsylvania, and in the provision of water services to support
the well completion services of Rice and third parties in
Washington and Greene Counties, Pennsylvania and in Belmont
County, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esq.
      Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
      300 Mt. Lebanon Boulevard, Suite 206-B
      Pittsburgh, PA 15234-1507
      Telephone: (412) 391-5164
      Facsimile: (412) 471-1033
      E-mail: info@yatesclassactionlaw.com

         - and -

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (484) 324-6800
      Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
      E-mail: rojan@rmlawpc.com


RIVERHEIGHTS CLEANERS: Lockett Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
YOLANDA LOCKETT, And all others similarly situated v.
RIVERHEIGHTS, CLEANERS, INC., PROGRESSIVE EMPLOYER MANAGEMENT
LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-01707-CEH-TBM (M.D. Fla., July 17, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, as amended.

The Defendants are for profit corporations that operate and
conduct business in, among others, Hillsborough County, Florida.
John Hernandez and Betty Hernandez are the sole owners of
Riverheights.

The Plaintiff performed duties and responsibilities that involved
commerce or the production of goods for commerce in the real
estate industry as the Defendants operate as "Riverheights,
Cleaners, Inc" and as "Progressive Employer Insurance Management
LLC" dealing with interstate customers and using computers and
credit cards and data transmission lines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. John Gadd, Esq.
          MAZAHERI GADD PA
          Bank of America Building
          2727 Ulmerton Rd., Suite 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (727) 524-6300
          Facsimile: (727) 524-6330
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com

               - and -

          Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 4476
          Brandon, FL 33509-4476
          Telephone: (813) 343-2813
          E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com


ROBERT M.A. NADEAU: Probate Judge Accused of Slowing Docket
-----------------------------------------------------------
Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reported that
Maine's highest court has ruled against a woman seeking
guardianship of her grandchild who filed a would-be class action
against a part-time probate judge accused of slowing his docket
after he was denied additional court time and pay.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a trial judge's finding
that Judge Robert M.A. Nadeau of York County did not violate
litigants' right to meaningful access to the courts. Delays that
increased from three months to six months in uncontested cases
were not of sufficient magnitude to create a constitutional
violation, the court said.

The state high court also said the trial judge did not err by
refusing to rule on whether the slowed docket violated litigants'
substantive due process rights because the most significant
delays had dissipated.

Nadeau had lost his bid for re-election and left office in
January, according to the Supreme Judicial Court. The same court
delayed a two-year suspension of Nadeau's law license for
judicial code violations that was set to begin Aug. 1 after
Nadeau filed a motion for reconsideration, the Portland Press
Herald reported in June.

Nadeau, who worked on Wednesdays and Thursdays, had asked county
commissioners in April 2015 for an expanded schedule and a pay
hike. Commissioners refused to expand Nadeau's work hours, but
did boost his pay from $48,498 to $54,206.

A few minutes after leaving the meeting, Nadeau made changes to
his schedule that decreased court time for trials, creating a
"self-inflicted backlog" of cases, the trial judge had found.

The plaintiff who filed the class action had obtained temporary
guardianship of her granddaughter, but the guardianship expired
because of scheduling conflicts attributable to the court and the
lawyers. After the expiration, the granddaughter moved back in
with her mother, who was arrested with her partner in front of
the child. The plaintiff later reached a co-guardianship
arrangement in which the granddaughter would live with the
plaintiff most of the time.

The case is LeGrand v. York County Judge of Probate. [GN]


ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: "Doporcyk" Suit Goes to N.D. Ill. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roundy's Supermarkets; The Kroger Company; and Kronos are
defending against a class action lawsuit in Illinois federal
district court.  The case is, Thomas Doporcyk, individually, and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Roundy's Supermarkets; The Kroger Company; and Kronos, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05250 (N.D. Ill., July 17, 2017).
The case was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, case number (2017CH08092) by defendants Roundy's
Illinois, LLC, Roundy's Supermarkets, Inc., The Kroger
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Haley Renee Jenkins, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Ryan F Stephan, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 233-1550
     E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com

The Defendants Roundy Supermarkets, Inc. and Kroger Company are
represented by:

     Diane E. Webster, Esq.
     Daniel Keenan Ryan, Esq.
     Peter E. Pederson, Jr., Esq.
     Steven M. Puiszis, Esq.
     HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
     222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 300
     Chicago, IL 60601-1081
     Tel: (312) 704-3000
     E-mail: dwebster@hinshawlaw.com
             dryan@hinshawlaw.com
             ppederson@hinshawlaw.com
             spuiszis@hinshawlaw.com

Defendant Kronos, Inc. is represented by:

     Joseph A. Strubbe, Esq.
     Frederic T. Knape, Esq.
     VEDDER PRICE P.C.
     222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 609-7500
     E-mail: jstrubbe@vedderprice.com
             fknape@vedderprice.com


RUBY TUESDAY: "Thompson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Thompson, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., Case No. (E.D.
Tenn., July 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, as required by law,
and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ruby Tuesday, Inc. operates a chain of 735 restaurants worldwide
as of 2016. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Morton, Esq.
      JENNIFER MORTON LAW, PLLC
      8217 Pickens Gap Road
      Knoxville, TN 37920
      Telephone: (865) 579-0708
      Facsimile: (865) 579-0787
      E-mail: jen@jmortonlaw.com

         - and -

      Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      Alexis H. Castillo, Esq.
      KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      Facsimile: (914) 934-9220


RWI TRANSPORTATION: "Craft" Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RWI Transportation,
LLC.  The case is styled as Larry Craft, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RWI
Transportation, LLC et al, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05289-
SVW-E (C.D. Cal., July 18, 2017).

The case was removed by Defendant from the Los Angeles County
Superior Court (original case number BC665578).

The case is now pending before Judge Stephen V. Wilson.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian S Kabateck, Esq.
     Cheryl Ann Kenner, Esq.
     KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
     644 South Figueroa Street
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Tel: (213) 217-5000
     Fax: (213) 217-5010
     E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
             ck@kbklawyers.com

Defendant is represented by:

     Angela J. Rafoth, Esq.
     Julie A Stockton, Esq.
     Richard H Rahm, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON PC
     333 Bush Street 34th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415) 433-1940
     Fax: (415) 399-8490
     E-mail: arafoth@littler.com
             jstockton@littler.com
             rrahm@littler.com


SAINT-GOBAIN: Sen. Sears to Join PFOA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Jim Therrien, writing for Bennington Banner, reports that State
Sen. Sears, D-Bennngton, announced on July 31 that, as a resident
of the state-designation PFOA contamination zone around a former
ChemFab Corp. factory, he intends to join a class-action suit
being pressed in U.S. District Court.

The North Bennington resident said in a release that he was
"pleased to announce that I am joining the class-action lawsuit
brought by residents of North Bennington and Bennington against
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, as a result of the company's
widespread PFOA contamination."

The state considers the company the responsible party for
primarily airborne contamination from the exhaust stacks of the
factory on Route 67A, which coated fiberglass and other fabrics
with Teflon, containing PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid).

"It is important for me to point out that I am joining this
lawsuit not as a state senator, but as a resident of North
Bennington," Sen. Sears stated.  "I fully support the state's
efforts to hold Saint-Gobain accountable for its PFOA
contamination, and I applaud its recent success in achieving a
partial settlement, which will require Saint-Gobain to pay to
extend public water lines to residents in the zone of
contamination who live west of the railroad tracks along Route
7A."

He added, "As a state senator, I will continue to do everything I
can to ensure that all impacted properties have access to clean
safe drinking water."

Sears and the county's other senator, Brian Campion, sponsored
legislation this year that would hold any entity that released
PFOA into the atmosphere responsible for extending municipal
water lines to affected properties or otherwise supplying a
permanent solution to groundwater contamination.  Gov. Phil Scott
signed the bill in Bennington this spring.

Despite the agreement with the company, "there are limits to what
the state's partial settlement and any future settlements may
accomplish," Sen. Sears said.  "The partial settlement does not
provide compensation to the hundreds of local residents who have
been damaged because their properties, wells, and bodies have
been contaminated with PFOA.  Even for those who eventually will
get town water, the settlement does not compensate them for the
fact that now, for the first time, they will have to pay for that
water."

The lawsuit, which is expected to include more than 140
households if approved as a class action, would address those
further concerns, Sen. Sears said.

"The class-action lawsuit will continue until Saint-Gobain
provides all affected residents with a permanent source of safe
water and fully compensates all affected residents for the damage
it has caused, including contamination of the groundwater," he
said.  "The lawsuit also seeks to hold Saint-Gobain responsible
to pay for a medical-monitoring fund, so that residents who have
been exposed to the PFOA can get the medical attention they
need," he said.

"My joining the class-action lawsuit does not, in any way,
diminish my commitment to or support for the state's efforts to
hold Saint-Gobain accountable for its PFOA contamination,"
Sen. Sears added.  "On the contrary, I view the class-action
lawsuit as a helpful companion to the state's own efforts.  I now
look forward to working in both capacities -- as a representative
of the state and as a private litigant -- to do what is right for
our state and for my constituents."

After months of negotiations, the state and the company agreed to
a partial settlement that calls for the firm to cover $20 million
in water line extensions and other costs related to the discovery
in early 2016 of widespread PFOA contamination in wells and
soils.

The agreement covers about 200 properties, while the parties are
continuing talks toward a resolution for another approximately
200 households, located to the east of Route 7A.  Saint-Gobain is
contesting whether there were other sources of PFOA in that area,
such as a former town landfill.

The international company purchased ChemFab in 2000 and closed
the North Bennington plant in 2002, moving the operation to New
Hampshire. [GN]


SAINT-GOBAIN: Vermont Settlement Positive for New Hampshire
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Houghton, writing for Union Leader, reports that with
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics agreeing to pay for $20 million
in water line extensions in Vermont, officials here say the
company will spend more than that to clean up contamination in
New Hampshire likely caused by its operations at the Merrimack
plant.

"While we don't have an exact number, it is reasonable to
estimate that when all is said and done, the work completed in
southern New Hampshire will exceed $20 million," said Jim Martin,
public information officer with the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services.

Saint-Gobain will foot the bill, he said.

Recently, a settlement was reached between Saint-Gobain and the
state of Vermont that will eventually connect 200 homes in
Bennington and North Bennington with public water line
extensions.

"My opinion of the settlement in Vermont is that it is an
optimistic, positive sign for New Hampshire," said Peter Albert,
town councilor in Merrimack.  "I know there has been productive
work here between Saint-Gobain and DES. To me, it is important
that we take this on a step-by-step basis."

Saint-Gobain has already connected 260 homes with contaminated
wells in southern New Hampshire to public water supplies, most of
them in Litchfield.  The company has agreed to pay for public
water line extensions to a total of nearly 500 homes in the
region, according to officials; more than half of that work has
already been completed.

Groundwater standards

Other news surfaced that Saint-Gobain dismissed its lawsuit
against the state of Vermont challenging its groundwater
standards of 20 parts per trillion for perfluorooctanoic acid and
perfluorooctane sulfonate.

In New Hampshire, a 70 ppt limit has been set.

"They held their ground when sued by Saint-Gobain for the 20 ppt
PFOA standard to protect Vermonters from polluted water," state
Rep. Mindi Messmer, D-Rye, an active member of the New Hampshire
Safe Water Coalition, said in a statement.  "Vermont should be a
model for other states like New Hampshire that face drinking
water crises."

Andrea Amico of the group Testing for Pease said the dismissal of
the lawsuit marks a significant precedent for stronger PFOA
regulations across the nation.

"Having Saint-Gobain dismiss this lawsuit in Vermont has huge
ramifications for not just Vermont's drinking water, but for
community groups in New Hampshire, the rest of the United States
and the world," said Ms. Amico.

On July 28, Mr. Martin responded to the dismissal of the lawsuit
by Saint-Gobain, which focused on Vermont's lower groundwater
standard of 20 ppt compared to New Hampshire's 70 ppt.

"We are comfortable with the 70 ppt standard that we have. It is
based on the (Environmental Protection Agency's) health advisory
issued in March of 2016 that we adopted as our ambient
groundwater standard and used that in this process working with
Saint-Gobain."

Having that number in place was a key element in moving forward
and being able to connect residents to public water, said Martin.

Connecting residents with contaminated wells is the ideal
solution, according to Martin, who said his agency has been
working with Saint-Gobain on that effort since the contamination
was discovered last year -- without litigation efforts.

Water connections

To date, 26 homes with private, contaminated wells in Manchester
have been connected to Manchester Water Works, 15 homes in
Merrimack have been connected to Merrimack Village District Water
and 240 homes in Litchfield have been connected to Pennichuck
Water.  The work was paid for by Saint-Gobain, said Martin.

"We offered to fund moving and renewing the granulated activated
carbon filtration system first used in Hoosick Falls (NY) to the
Merrimack Village District for wells 4 and 5.  We are currently
working with NHDES and MVD's engineers to confirm the details and
next steps for treatment of wells 4 and 5," Dina Pokedoff,
spokesman for Saint-Gobain, said in a statement.

"Saint-Gobain has also agreed to fund additional design efforts
to explore other options for municipal water line extensions into
Bedford. We recognize that, in this case, it's important to the
residents of Bedford," she said.

In addition, the company has agreed to pay for the design work to
have 60 homes in Bedford connected to public water.  It is also
addressing separate homes on South River Road in Bedford and an
additional 37 homes in Litchfield.

"When all is said and done in southern New Hampshire, Saint-
Gobain is going to be providing connections to close to 500 homes
with public water.  We are already halfway to that goal," said
Martin, explaining most of those homes, about 400, are located in
Litchfield.

He acknowledged that there are still negotiations in place with
the company, and there has not been a resolution for two public
wells serviced by Merrimack Village District that are now off-
line because of contamination.

"DES is frustrated with how long that is taking," said
Mr. Martin, who hopes to see expedited action on having filters
installed on the two public wells.

Mr. Albert also expressed concerns about the two public wells in
Merrimack, saying a long-term, permanent solution must be
determined.

"Some people feel this is not fast enough. While we would love to
have a filtration system in place overnight, we need it to
protect us into the future, have it maintained and we need to do
it right and not place it on the taxpayers.  That definitely
takes time," said Mr. Albert.

According to Mr. Martin, there are still properties in western
Merrimack that DES is requesting that Saint-Gobain connect to
Merrimack Village District water, however the company is
disputing their responsibility for contamination there, he said.

Studies and lawsuits

On a national level, efforts are also underway to clean up water
contamination and conduct health studies to determine the impact
of PFOA contamination.

The U.S. House of Representatives adopted an amendment written by
Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire appropriating $7
million to launch a national health impact study for sites like
Pease affected by the U.S. military's use of perfluorinated
chemicals.

"Our servicemen and women, veterans and other constituents who
have been exposed to perfluorinated chemicals deserve answers on
both the short- and long-term health impacts of these
contaminants," Ms. Shea-Porter said in a statement.

Meanwhile, two class-action lawsuits filed in New Hampshire are
still pending against Saint-Gobain. Several Merrimack residents
who say they have been exposed to high levels of perfluorinated
chemicals argue that they have a legitimate fear of developing
cancer or other diseases as a result of the PFC contamination
allegedly caused when Saint-Gobain released PFOA into the
environment and it was ultimately detected in local water sources
last year.

Kevin Brown of Litchfield also filed a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of residents with contaminated wells near the Merrimack
facility; he is seeking damages for the trespass, nuisance, loss
of enjoyment and property damages in connection with water
contamination allegedly caused by the Saint-Gobain facility. [GN]


SAL-MARK RESTAURANT: Cooks Don't Receive OT Pay, Cruz Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
VICENTE CRUZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAL-MARK RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a
MARINER'S HARBOR RESTAURANT, MATTEO-BELLA, LLC d/b/a FRANK
GUIDO'S LITTLE ITALY, FRANK GUIDO, SALVATORE GUIDO III, and MARK
GUIDO, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00815-GTS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., July 24, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime premium pay owed to him pursuant to both the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former line cook
at Defendants' seafood and Italian restaurants located in
Kingston, New York. While working for Defendants, Plaintiff was
paid on an hourly basis that did not provide overtime premiums
for the hours Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff also did not receive spread-of-hours premiums,
annual wage notices or accurate wage statements, as required by
the NYLL.

Sal-Mark is a riverfront seafood restaurant with classics like
lobster and fish 'n' chips plus a raw bar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          www.PeltonGraham.com
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          E-mail: Pelton@PeltonGraham.com
          Graham@PeltonGraham.com


SAS SERVICES: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Meal & Rest Break Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
and Bhowmik filed a proposed class action lawsuit against SAS
Services Group, Inc., for allegedly violating California's meal
and rest break laws. The SAS Services Group class action, Case
No. 37-2017-00026726-CU-OE-CTL is currently pending in San Diego
County Superior Court.

The class action complaint filed against SAS Services Group
alleges that the employees working at the San Diego and Los
Angeles airports employed by SAS Services Group were not always
afforded the opportunity to take their thirty minute
uninterrupted meal breaks before their fifth hour of work.
Additionally, the Complaint also alleges that the airport
employees working for the company were also required to work
while not being provided an opportunity to take their off-duty
rest periods.

California law requires employers to provide their non-exempt
employees paid on an hourly basis with thirty-minute meal periods
and ten minute rest periods in certain time frames.

For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against
SAS Services Group, please call Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw --
nick@bamlawca.com -- at (866) 771-7099.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is an employment law firm that
dedicates its practice to helping employees fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. The firm has offices
located in San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, San
Diego and Chicago. [GN]


SCO FAMILY: Counselors Are Underpaid, "Prichett" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY PRICHETT, on behalf of himself and ail others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SCO FAMILY OF SERVICES, the
Defendant, Case No. 710137/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 24, 2017),
seeks to recover amount of underpayments based on the Defendant's
failure to pay straight or agreed upon wages for all hours worked
as provided by the New York Labor Law, as well as reasonable
attorney's fees and costs of the action, and such other legal and
equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has engaged and
continue to engage in illegal and improper wage practices. These
practices include: requiring Counselors to perform work without
compensation before the start of their shift; failing to pay
Counselors at their straight or agreed upon rate for all hours
worked under 40 hours in a week; failing to pay all Counselors
overtime of time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 in a week; and failing to provide accurate
wages statements.

SCO is a voluntary not-for-profit human service agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF
          LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, N.Y. 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625 0105


SCOTT FARMS: Underpays Seasonal Workers, Mondragon Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Mondragon, Eustorgio Espinobarros Feliciano, Juan
Contreras, Cutberto Ortiz Hernandez, Ramon Ortiz Hernandez,
Alejandro Jimenez Gonzalez, Renato Romero Acuna, and Jose Tapia,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons
v. SCOTT FARMS, INC., ALICE H. SCOTT, LINWOOD H. SCOTT, JR.,
LINWOOD H. SCOTT III, DEWEY R. SCOTT, JFT HARVESTING, INC., JUAN
F. TORRES, OASIS HARVESTING, INC., and RAMIRO B. TORRES, Case No.
5:17-cv-00356-BO (E.D.N.C., July 17, 2017), alleges that Scott
Farms paid and continue to pay the Plaintiffs and their co-
workers less than the wage rate that H-2A workers and their
domestic counterparts must be paid under the H-2A regulations,
which during the time period covered by the lawsuit was the
Adverse Effect Wage Rate.

The Plaintiffs are farmworkers, who worked and performed various
agricultural duties related to Scott Farms' sweet potato and
tobacco operation in Lucama, North Carolina.  The Plaintiffs
contend that the Defendants' failure to pay the AEWR and to
follow the H-2A regulations was in violation of the Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

For many years, the Scott Defendants employed domestic workers to
perform field and packinghouse work, using Juan F. Torres, Ramiro
B. Torres, and other persons as farm labor contractors to recruit
and supervise these workers.  Around the end of 2012, the Scott
Defendants asked and funded Juan F. Torres and Ramiro B. Torres
to recruit workers from Mexico through the H-2A temporary
agricultural visa program to work at Scott Farms, which the
Torres Defendants did.

Scott Farms, Inc., is a corporation that is organized under the
laws of the state of North Carolina, for the purpose of, among
others, producing and marketing tobacco, sweet potatoes and other
agricultural products within and without North Carolina.  The
Individual Scott Defendants are officers, part-owners, and co-
operators of Scott Farms.  The Individual Scott Defendants owned
or operated a farm and processing establishment that recruits,
solicits, hires, employs, furnishes, or transports migrant or
seasonal agricultural workers.

JFT Harvesting, Inc., is a Florida corporation.  Oasis
Harvesting, Inc. is a Florida corporation.  The Torres Defendants
were employers of the Plaintiffs.  The Individual Torres
Defendants all directed, controlled, and supervised the work of
the H-2A workers, who performed work exclusively for Scott Farms
in the fields and packing house of Scott Farms.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carol L. Brooke, Esq.
          NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
          P.O. Box 28068
          Raleigh, NC 27611
          Telephone: (919) 856-2144
          Facsimile: (919) 856-2175
          E-mail: carol@ncjustice.org

               - and -

          Robert J. Willis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1828
          Pittsboro, NC 27312
          Telephone: (919) 821-9031
          Facsimile: (919) 821-1764
          E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com


SELL IT: Faces "Tiffany" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Tiffany, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Eric Lukas, and Sell It Fast CA, Case No. 3:17-cv-
01491-JLS-BGS (S.D. Cal., July 24, 2017), seeks to put an end to
the Defendants' practice of making calls other than a call made
for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of
the called party, to the Class members using an artificial or
prerecorded voice to any telephone number assigned to a cellular
telephone service.

Sell It Fast CA operates a real estate company in California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      Kevin Lemieux, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
              kevin@westcoastlitigation.com


SENIORCARE HHA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum and OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alla Nesterenko, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Seniorcare HHA Inc., Case No. 156602/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 21, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Seniorcare HHA Inc. is primarily engaged in providing nursing and
home health aide services at the residences of its clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
      Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
              llusher@vandallp.com
              mdostanitch@vandallp.com


SHAMROCK SALOON: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hermelindo Escobar Montiel, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Shamrock Saloon II, LLC (d/b/a Calico
Jack's Cantina) and John Sullivan, Case No. 1:17-cv-05550
(S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 per week.

The Defendants own and operate a bar/restaurant located at 800
2nd Ave, New York, New York 10017. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


SIGNODE INDUSTRIAL: "Stone" Seeks to Enforce Lifetime Healthcare
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Stone and John Woestman, for themselves and others
similarly-situated v. Signode Industrial Group LLC and Illinois
Tool Works Inc., jointly and severally, Case No. 1:17-cv-05360
(N.D. Ill., July 21, 2017), seeks to enforce collectively-
bargained promises of lifetime family healthcare for more than
140 retirees from the now-closed Acme Packaging plant in
Riverdale, Illinois.

Signode Industrial Group LLC is a manufacturer of industrial
packaging machinery, tools, and packaging products.

Illinois Tool Works Inc. produces engineered fasteners and
components, equipment and consumable systems, and specialty
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart M. Israel, Esq.
      John G. Adam, Esq.
      LEGGHIO & ISRAEL, P.C.
      306 South Washington, Suite 600
      Royal Oak, MI 48067
      Telephone: (248) 398-5900
      E-mail: israel@legghioisrael.com
              jga@legghioisrael.com

         - and -

      Stephen A. Yokich, Esq.
      DOWD, BLOCH, BENNETT, CERVONE, AUERBACH & YOKICH
      8 S. Michigan Ave., 19th Floor
      Chicago, IL   60603
      Telephone: (312) 372-1361
      E-mail: syokich@laboradvocates.com

         - and -

      Antonia Domingo, Esq.
      Assistant General Counsel United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
      Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
      Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC
      60 Blvd. of the Allies, 8th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 562-2284
      E-mail: adomingo@usw.org


SINGING RIVER: 5th Cir. Voids Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit has issued a ruling requesting additional
information in the review of the settlement agreement reached
between Singing River Health System and their pension plan
members.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has voided the class action
settlement, now sending the case back down to U.S. District Court
Judge Louis Guirola for a second review. The three judge panel
said in a ruling handed down on July 27: "It was improper for the
court to limit its consideration to the hospital's ability to pay
while ignoring a transparent explanation of the settlement's
consequences for the class members." [GN]


SIRTEX MEDICAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action After CEO Exit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mathew Dunckley, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that biotech company Sirtex Medical faces a shareholder class
action over the events surrounding the controversial departure of
its chief executive.

Maurice Blackburn and litigation funder IMF Bentham announced the
class action on July 31 and called for shareholders to
participate.

Just before Christmas, Sirtex announced a trading update where it
revealed slower than anticipated sales triggering a 37 per cent
drop in the company's share price.

A week later the company announced it was investigating trades
earlier in the year by chief executive Gilman Wong.  That
triggered a 9 per cent price drop as Mr Wong stood aside pending
the outcome of the probe.

"Mr Wong sold 74,968 Sirtex shares in October 2016, and following
the investigation, Sirtex terminated his employment," an IMF
statement to the ASX said.

The Maurice Blackburn class action will allege that Sirtex
engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and potentially
breached its continuous disclosure obligations.

It is the second action against Sirtex after another action was
announced in January.

By submitting your email you are agreeing to Fairfax Media's
terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Maurice Blackburn's national head of class actions, Andrew
Watson, said the events were "deeply troubling".

"We've investigated this potential matter for some time now, and
it appears the company has serious questions to answer about its
conduct and that of the then chief executive," Mr Watson said.

"When a chief executive dumps more than $2 million worth of stock
shortly before the company releases a surprise announcement of a
severe decline in earnings and sales growth, and investors then
suffer a 37 per cent share price dive off the back of that, it
immediately rings alarm bells about compliance with continuous
disclosure laws."

Wayne Attrill, senior investment manager at litigation funder IMF
Bentham, said the case warranted "serious scrutiny".

Shareholders who purchased Sirtex shares between August 24 and
December 19, 2016 may be eligible to participate in the action.
[GN]


SMALL COMMUNITY SPECIALISTS: Yergovich Sues over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT YERGOVICH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SMALL COMMUNITY
SPECIALISTS, L.L.C., d/b/a SELECT COMMUNITY SERVICES and/or
ASSOCIA, Serve: CT Corporation System, Registered Agent 4701 Cox
Road, Suite 285 Glen Allen, VA 23060; COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, d/b/a ASSOCIA, Serve: CT Corporation System,
Registered Agent 4701 Cox Road, Suite 285 Glen Allen, VA 23060;
and ASSOCIATIONS, INC., d/b/a ASSOCIA, Serve: CT Corporation
System, Registered Agent 4701 Cox Road, Suite 285
Glen Allen, VA 23060, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00865-TSE-
JFA (E.D. Va., July 31, 2017), seeks to recover actual and
statutory damages, in the amount of $10,000,000.00, pursuant to
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act. The Defendants are debt collectors that
regularly and routinely use collection mechanisms such as dunning
notices and notices of intent to record liens to extract money
from consumers that exceed the amounts permitted by law.
Specifically, on behalf of Homeowner and Condominium Associations
("HOAs" or "community associations"), Defendants make written
demands and extract collection costs, late fees, and attorneys'
fees that exceed the amounts authorized by Virginia law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Surovell, Esq.
          Nathan D. Rozsa, Esq.
          SUROVELL ISAACS & LEVY PLC
          4010 University Drive, Suite 200
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 277 9750
          Facsimile: (703) 591 9285
          E-mail: ssurovell@surovellfirm.com
                  nrozsa@surovellfirm.com


SNAP INC: Faces "Hsieh" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chenghsin D. Hsieh and Wei C. Hsieh, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Snap Inc., Evan Spiegel,
Andrew Vollero, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.,
Barclays Capital Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, and
Allen & Company LLC, Case No. BC669394 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 25,
2017), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that
(i) Snap's reported user growth was materially false and
misleading; and (ii) as a result, Snap's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Snap Inc. operates a camera company that provides technology and
social media services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esq.
      Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
      Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
      BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
      7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 914-2001
      Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
      E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
              achang@bottinilaw.com
              ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com


SOUTHEASTERN PENN: Sued for Denying Medical Expense Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------
Sybil Gantz and Ashley Chambers, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority, Case No. 170702408 (Phil. Comm. Pleas,
July 24, 2017), is an action for damages as a result of the
Defendant's continuous, systematic and wrongful denial and
failure to acknowledge the availability first party medical
expense benefits coverage to passengers who sustained injury
while occupants of a SEPTA bus which is in service and stopped,
discharging passengers on a designated route and who were not
named insured or resident relatives of a named insured on a motor
vehicle insurance policy in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority is a
transportation authority that is an agency of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James C. Haggerty, Esq.
      HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH, P.C.
      1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (267)350-6600
      Facsimile: (215) 665-8197

         - and -

      Kevin P. Kelly, Esq.
      KELLY & HERRON, P.C.
      1500 Market Street Centre Square
      West Tower Suite W-3110
      Philadelphia, PA 19102


SPARTAN GROUP: Faces "Singletary" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Singletary, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Spartan Group, L.L.C., James P. O'Flynn, Jr., and
Lee A. Stackhouse, Case No. 3:17-cv-00478-JJB-EWD (M.D. Lo., July
24, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing construction
services throughout New Orleans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Bullman, Esq.
      Daniel B. Davis, Esq.
      Randall E. Estes, Esq.
      ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
      850 North Boulevard
      Baton Rouge, LA 70802
      Telephone: (225) 336-3394
      Facsimile: (225) 384-5419
      E-mail: james@estesdavislaw.com
              dan@estesdavislaw.com
              randy@estesdavislaw.com


SPECTRANETICS CORP: "Aviles" to Halt Shareholder Vote on Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Aviles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Spectranetics Corporation, R. John
Fletcher, Scott Drake, B. Kristine Johnson, William C. Jennings,
Daniel Pelak, Joseph M. Ruggio, Maria Sainz and Todd
Schermerhorn, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01767, (D. Colo., July
21, 2017), seeks to enjoin, preliminarily and permanently, the
sale of Spectranetics Corporation to Philips Holding USA, Inc.
through HealthTech Merger Sub, Inc., rescinding it or awarding
Plaintiff and the Class rescissory damages in the event that the
transaction is consummated, costs of this action including a
reasonable allowance for attorneys and experts and such further
relief under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

Philips made a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of Spectranetics common stock for $38.50 per share in
cash. The proposed transaction has a value of approximately $1.7
billion. Defendants have failed to provide stockholders with
material information necessary for an informed vote on the sale
specifically the forecasts of unlevered free cash flows in
performing its discounted cash flow analysis sans the values of
unlevered free cash flows utilized in valuing the company and
potential conflict of interests.

Spectranetics develops and markets tools to manage cardiovascular
surgeries. It maintains principal executive offices at 9965
Federal Drive, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 80921. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Villanueva, Esq.
      JEFFREY M. VILLANUEVA, P.C.
      1755 Blake Street, Suite 225
      Denver, CO 80202
      Tel: (303) 295-7511
      Email: jeff@jmvpclaw.com

             - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
      Email: denright@zlk.com
             etripodi@zlk.com


SPOTIFY USA: Judge Presses Pause on Auto-Charge Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that the lead
plaintiff in a proposed class action against Spotify USA Inc. has
caused some static for the case. But the lawsuit could still rock
and roll.

Spotify faces allegations that it charged thousands of users in
California for premium accounts -- which cost $9.99 a month --
that they didn't actually use or want, after being enticed to
sign up for a trial. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue the company
failed to get users' consent for a paid subscription, in
violation of a California statute called the Automatic Renewal
Law.

The problem, a federal judge wrote on July 27, is that their lead
plaintiff in fact did use the premium service he obtained. And
not just for one or two days.

Rather, plaintiff Gregory Ingalls "used Spotify Premium on 52
separate days and streamed over 1,000 songs during the three
months he paid for it," wrote U.S. District Judge William Alsup
of the Northern District of California in an order denying class
certification.

"This was contrary to Ingalls' prior representations to the court
that he did not use Spotify Premium after his free trial ended
but was charged for it nonetheless," Alsup added.

Ingalls' lawyers at the Los Angeles firm Milstein Jackson
Fairchild & Wade tried to explain away the discrepancy by saying
Ingalls mistakenly thought he was using Spotify's free service.
But the judge rebuffed that excuse as "implausible given the
differences between Spotify Premium and Spotify's free service,
which would be evident to a regular user like Ingalls."

That doesn't mean the lawsuit is going away for Spotify, though.
Alsup said Spotify has admitted that approximately 116,650
California users were charged at least one time for Spotify's
paid service even though they had not used it.

Based on that, the judge said that if the plaintiffs' attorneys
could identify a "problem-free plaintiff," he would be "inclined
to certify a class of California residents who subscribed to a
free trial, thereafter did not use the service, but were
nevertheless charged for it."

"This is the clearest-cut group that was likely misled to their
detriment due to alleged violations of the Automatic Renewal
Law," he added.

It's not yet clear whether Ingalls' attorneys have yet identified
a substitute lead plaintiff who would fit the bill. Milstein
Jackson partner Gillian Wade, Esq. -- gwade@mjfwlaw.com -- one of
the attorneys leading the case, could not be immediately reached
for comment on July 27. Also representing the plaintiffs are
LeonardMeyer and The Casey Law Firm.

Spotify is represented by Davis Wright Tremaine attorney Joseph
Addiego III, Esq. -- joeaddiego@dwt.com --. Neither Addiego nor
the company immediately responded to messages seeking comment.
[GN]


SPOTIFY USA: Dec. 1 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by GCG regarding Ferrick
et al., v. Spotify USA Inc.

LEGAL NOTICE

If you own a copyright that has been registered with the U.S.
Copyright Office (or for which an application of registration has
been filed) for a musical composition that was made available on
Spotify's service for interactive streaming and/or limited
downloading between December 28, 2012 and June 29, 2017, and you
contend that Spotify did so without a license, your rights may be
affected by a proposed class action settlement, and you may be
eligible to receive benefits from a class action settlement.  If
the court approves the settlement, Spotify will:

   -- pay $43.45 million into a Settlement Fund;
   -- pay all Settlement Administration Costs and Notice Costs,
which the Settlement Administrator has estimated will exceed $1
million;
   -- pay mechanical license royalties calculated in accordance
with 37 C.F.R. Secs. 385.10-17 for future use of musical
compositions;
   -- establish a Mechanical Licensing Committee that would aim
to increase the percentage of tracks available on Spotify's
service that can be matched to a registered copyright owner; and
   -- coordinate industry efforts to share publisher catalog data
to facilitate the mechanical licensing of content on streaming
services and digitize pre-1978 Copyright Records and make them
available online for free use by the public.
This notice summarizes your rights and options. More details and
information can be found at www.SpotifyPublishingSettlement.com.

What's this about?  A settlement has been reached in the class
action Ferrick v. Spotify USA Inc., No. 1:16-cv-8412 (AJN).  The
plaintiffs contend that Spotify made certain musical compositions
available on its service without a license.  Spotify denies any
wrongdoing.  The parties have agreed to a settlement to avoid the
uncertainties and expenses associated with further litigation of
the case.  The Court has not decided whether the plaintiffs or
Spotify is right.

Am I a class member?  It depends.  The Settlement Class consists
of all persons or entities who own copyrights in one or more
musical compositions (a) for which a certificate of registration
has been issued or applied for; and (b) that were made available
by Spotify for interactive streaming and/or limited downloading
during the class period (December 28, 2012 through June 29, 2017)
without a license.  Excluded are (i) Spotify and its affiliates,
employees, and counsel; (ii) governmental entities; (iii) the
Court; (iv) persons and entities who in 2016 executed a
Participating Publisher Pending and Unmatched Usage Agreement in
connection with the Pending and Unmatched Usage Agreement, dated
as of March 17, 2016, between Spotify and the National Music
Publishers' Association, or any other person or entity who has
agreed not to bring a claim against Spotify in this lawsuit; and
(v) any person or entity who has already provided Spotify with a
release with respect to claims concerning musical compositions
for which a certificate of registration has been issued or
applied for, but the exclusion applies solely with respect to
such released claims.

What can I get?  If the settlement is approved by the Court and
you submit a timely, valid claim form, you will be an authorized
claimant and entitled to receive a payment from the settlement
fund ($43,450,000, less deduction for attorneys' fees and certain
expenses).  Authorized claimants will receive a minimum pro rata
payment from a fixed portion of the net settlement fund.
Depending upon the number of streams of your qualifying musical
compositions (through the preliminary approval date), you will
also receive a pro rata share of the net settlement fund
determined by dividing the total number of streams of your
qualifying musical compositions by the total number of streams of
all qualifying musical compositions.  You will also receive
payment of future mechanical royalties calculated using the
statutory rate.  Spotify will also provide nonmonetary benefits
to class members, such as by taking steps to facilitate payment
of royalties for unmatched works.

How do I get a payment?  You must submit a timely and properly
completed claim form no later than 210 days after the Settlement
Claims Start Date.  You may complete a claim form online at
www.SpotifyPublishingSettlement.com.  You may obtain payments for
future royalties, but not a share of the settlement fund, by
submitting a claim form after the Claim Deadline.

What are my other options?  You may either remain part of the
settlement class and potentially receive benefits, or you can
exclude yourself and get no benefit from the Settlement.  If you
exclude yourself, you cannot get a settlement payment, but you
keep any rights you may have to bring claims against Spotify over
the allegations in the lawsuit.  You may exclude yourself from
the settlement class by sending a Request for Exclusion to the
Settlement Administrator no later than September 12, 2017,
addressed to: Ferrick v. Spotify USA Inc. c/o Garden City Group
LLC, PO Box 10371, Dublin, OH 43017-5571.  If you remain in the
Settlement Class you (or your lawyer) have the right at your own
expense to appear before the Court and/or object to the
Settlement.  If you object, you are not required to attend.
Instructions for submitting a written objection by the deadline
of September 12, 2017, are available at
www.SpotifyPublishingSettlement.com.

Who represents me?  The Court has appointed Class
Representatives.  The Court also has appointed lawyers from
Gradstein & Marzano, P.C. and Susman Godfrey L.L.P. as Class
Counsel for the Settlement Class.  The Court will determine how
much Class Counsel will be paid for fees and expenses.  Class
Counsel can seek an award for attorneys' fees of $5,000,000 for,
among other things, the future monetary and non-monetary benefits
conferred, to be paid by Spotify and not from the Settlement
Fund, and up to one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus
reimbursement of expenses and incentive fees of up to $25,000 per
Class Plaintiff, to be paid out of the Settlement Fund.  You will
not be responsible for payment of Class Counsel's fees and
expenses.

When will the Court consider the proposed settlement?  The Court
will hold a final approval hearing on December 1, 2017 at 10:00
a.m. at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Courtroom 906,
40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007.  At that hearing, the Court
will determine the fairness of the settlement.  If you file a
timely objection and comply with the Court's instructions for
objections, you may appear at the hearing to explain your
objection.  If the hearing is relocated or rescheduled, the new
location or date will be posted at
www.SpotifyPublishingSettlement.com.

How do I get more information?  You can visit
www.SpotifyPublishingSettlement.com or contact the Settlement
Administrator toll free at 1-855-474-3853. [GN]


SST ENERGY: Underpays Oilfield Workers, "Wilson" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW WILSON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. SST ENERGY CORPORATION, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01856 (D. Colo., July 31, 2017), seeks to
recover all available relief, including compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), the Colorado Wage Claim Act (CWCA), the
Colorado Minimum Wage Act (CMWA), and the Colorado Minimum Wage
Order (Colorado Acts).

According to the complaint, Andrew Wilson brings this action
individually and on behalf of all oilfield workers who worked for
Defendant SST Energy Corporation, and were paid hourly plus
overtime but whose non-discretionary bonuses were not included in
the calculation of their overtime rate thereby depriving
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members the correct amount of
overtime pay.

SST Energy provides contract drilling services for the
development of oil and natural gas in the western Colorado and
eastern Utah areas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Gonzales
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
          242 Linden Street
          Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
          Telephone: (970) 214-0562
          E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com

               - and -

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com


STERICYCLE INC: Robbins Arroyo Probes Officers and Directors
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP is investigating
whether certain officers and directors of Stericycle, Inc.
(NasdaqGS: SRCL) violated federal securities laws by issuing
materially misleading business information to the investing
public. Stericycle, together with its subsidiaries, provides
regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and
commercial businesses in the United States and internationally.

View this press release on the law firm's Shareholder Rights
Blog: www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/stericycle-
inc

Stericycle May Have Engaged in Illegal Billing Practices

Stericycle is currently the subject of a federal securities fraud
class action lawsuit and several consumer class action lawsuits
alleging that the company used buried language in its service
agreements to unlawfully impose automatic price increases on its
customers in violation of the contracts' terms. On February 16,
2017, Judge Milton I. Shadur of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted class certification in a
$608 million multidistrict litigation against Stericycle, saying
that the class members had common ground in their complaints of
fraudulent overcharges.

Stericycle Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about
their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid
Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via
the shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in
which they have invested.

         Leonid Kandinov
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Tel No: (619) 525-3990
         E-maiL: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


STERNS 58: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Botuel Gomez, Nelson Gomez, Baldomero Osorio Pacheco and Anibal
Perez Victor Putum, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sterns 58 Corp. and Yisroel Reich, Case No.
514315/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 25, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a bakery and factory known as
"Stem"s Bakery", located in the County of Kings, State of New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew P. Madzelan, Esq.
      SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
      445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 334
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 420-9300
      E-mail: Mmadzelan@sssfirm.com


STOKES & SPEIHLER: "Williams" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WILLIAMS, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STOKES & SPEILHLER, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00948 (W.D. La., July 24, 2017),
seeks all available relief including compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, Mr. Williams brings this action
individually and on behalf of all individuals who worked for
Stokes & Speilhler and were paid a day rate but no overtime from
three years preceding the filing of the original complaint and
through the final disposition of this matter.

Stokes & Spiehler provides comprehensive engineering,
consultation and operational services to petroleum professionals
around the globe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
          417 W. University Avenue (70506)
          P.O. Box 4325705z
          Lafayette, Louisiana 70502
          Telephone: (337) 235 5294
          Facsimile: (337) 235 1095
          E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com

               - and -

          Clif Alecander, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Brpadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: clif@2xlaw.com


SUMMIT DIAGNOSTICS: Arkin Sues over Unsolicited Faxes
-----------------------------------------------------
DR. STEVEN ARKIN, a Florida resident, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. SUMMIT
DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and JOHN
DOES 1-5, Case No. 8:17-cv-01702-SDM-MAP (M.D. Fla., July 17,
2017), challenges the Defendants' alleged practice of sending
unsolicited facsimiles, in violation of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005.

Summit Diagnostics, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Salem, New Hampshire.
The Doe Defendants will be identified through discovery, but are
not presently known.  The Company's line of business includes
providing various business services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUPER CENTER: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Alcantar, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Super Center Concepts, Inc., d/b/a Superior
Grocers and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC669807 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 24, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit
rest periods, failure to pay minimum and straight time wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to maintain accurate
records of hours worked, failure to reimburse business expenses,
failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, and
failure to furnish accurate wage statements.

Super Center Concepts, Inc. own and operate a chain of grocery
stores in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kane Moon, Esq.
      Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
      MOON & YANG, APC
      3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1820
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 232-3128
      Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
      E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
              justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com

TABLEAU SOFTWARE: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Tableau
Software, Inc. ("Tableau" or the "Company") (NYSE: DATA) for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between June 3, 2015
and February 4, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 26, 2017, the
lead plaintiff motion deadline.

We also encourage you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian
Schall, of Goldberg Law PC, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights
free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website
at http://www.goldberglawpc.com/,or by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Tableau made
false and/or misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose,
that product launches and upgrades by major software competitors
were negatively impacting the Company's competitive position and
profitability. Thus, Tableau's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August
7, 2015, Tableau filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q
reaffirming financial results issued in a July 29, 2015 press
release. On February 4, 2016, the Company disclosed slowing
revenue. In a related earnings call, the CEO stated that "the
competitive dynamic has become more crowded and difficult."
Following this news, Tableau's stock price dropped materially,
which caused investors harm.

Goldberg Law PC represents investors around the world, and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation. [GN]


TABLEAU SOFTWARE: Sept. 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, on July 31 announced
the filing of a class action lawsuit against Tableau Software,
Inc. ("Tableau" or the "Company") concerning possible violations
of federal securities laws between June 3, 2015 and February 4,
2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact
the firm prior to the September 26, 2017 lead plaintiff motion
deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian
Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or you can
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 also choose to do nothing and be an absent
class member.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Tableau
made false and/or misleading statements, and/or failed to
disclose, that product launches and upgrades by major software
competitors were negatively impacting the Company's competitive
position and profitability.  Thus, Tableau's financial statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.  On
August 7, 2015, the Company filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q
reaffirming financial results issued in a July 29, 2015 press
release.  On February 4, 2016, the Company disclosed slowing
revenue.  In a related earnings call, the CEO stated that "the
competitive dynamic has become more crowded and difficult." When
this news was announced, shares of Tableau fell in value
materially, which caused investors harm according to the
Complaint.

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


TACO MIX: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Medina" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donato Rosales Medina, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Taco Mix LLC. (d/b/a Taco Mix), Jorge
Sanchez (a.k.a. Lidoine Sanchez), Alejo Sanchez and Javier
Flores, Case No. 1:17-cv-05637 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation for any of the hours
worked over 40 each week.

The Defendants own and operate a Taco Mix restaurant located at
234 E 116th Street # 1, New York, New York 10029. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


TEXTURA CORP: November 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on July 31 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of Textura
Corporation:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED TEXTURA CORPORATION COMMON
STOCK FROM JUNE 7, 2013 THROUGH JANUARY 7, 2014, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, that
a hearing will be held on November 15, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. before
the Honorable Mary M. Rowland, United States Magistrate Judge of
the Northern District of Illinois, 219 South Dearborn Street,
Courtroom 1342, Chicago, Illinois 60604, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in
the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of
$3,300,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3)
whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees of up to one third of the Settlement Amount,
reimbursement of expenses of not more than $225,000, and an
incentive payment of no more than $15,000 to Lead Plaintiff,
should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be
dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated July 12, 2017 (the "Stipulation").

If you purchased Textura Corporation ("Textura") common stock
during the period from June 7, 2013 and January 7, 2014, both
dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), your rights may
be affected by this Settlement, including the release and
extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your
ownership interest in Textura common stock.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to or calling the
Claims Administrator: Textura Corporation Securities Litigation,
c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, P.O.
Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-
7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net.  If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release
Form postmarked no later than October 23, 2017 to the Claims
Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound
by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a
claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so
that it is received no later than October 25, 2017, in the manner
and form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement
Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class
will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to
the Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiff must be in
the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received
no later than October 25, 2017, to each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois
Everett McKinley Dirksen
United States Courthouse
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604

LEAD COUNSEL:

Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY  10016
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:

Hille R. Sheppard, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:

Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY  10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
info@rosenlegal.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: July 17, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS [GN]


TORRANCE MEMORIAL: Faces "L.D." Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Torrance Memorial
Medical Center.  The case is styled as L.D., a minor by and
through Terence D., Parent and Guardian Ad Litem, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Torrance Memorial Medical Center and Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. BC670591 (Cal. Super., July 31, 2017).

Torrance Memorial Medical Center is a non-profit corporation
which owns and operates a hospital emergency facility in Los
Angeles County, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
   Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC
   1016 Palm Avenue
   West Hollywood, CA 90069
   Fax: (310) 474-8585
   Tel: (310) 474-9111
   Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com


TRANS UNION: "Peters" Suit Sues over Fair Credit Reporting Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Anne Peters, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Trans Union, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01273-SGC (N.D. Ala., July 28, 2017),
seeks to recover

The case is a consumer class action under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, against Trans Union, a national consumer reporting
agency. In violation of the FCRA, Trans Union prepares and
furnishes consumer reports that include judgments that: (a) the
FCRA prohibits from reporting; and (b) that have been paid in
full, satisfied or released, but are not reported by Defendant as
paid, satisfied or released.

Defendant sells consumer reports (commonly called "credit
reports") about millions of consumers annually, including
consumers in Alabama. Trans Union has not retrieved actual public
records from courthouses or actual government offices for many
years. Nevertheless, on its credit reports that it provides to
consumers, Trans Union falsely still lists the names of
courthouses or other government offices as the true "source" of
its public records information.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Micah S. Adkins, Esq.
          THE ADKINS FIRM, P.C.
          2 Perimeter Park South, Suite 405 E
          Birmingham, AL 35243
          Telephone: (205) 206 6718
          Facsimile: (205) 208 9632
          E-mail: MicahAdkins@ItsYourCreditReport.com

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building
          100 South Broad Street, 19th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735 8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940 8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com


TRI-STATE CAREFLIGHT: "Bell" Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristy Bell, Deborah Berest, Daniel Bergman, William Dallas
Bundrant, Jr., Rocky H. Burrows, II, Chase Carter, Brenda
Casarez, Kara Cervantes, Thomas Cislo, David Daniels, Adam Doyle,
Darren Een, Toby Eicher, Lon Enos, Walter Fabian, Harold Joseph
Fisher, Christina Fleeman, Luke Forslund, Salustiano Fragoso,
Rehannon Gonzales, Kristen Grado, Courtney Guerra, Darrin
Hamilton, Alexander Howell, Danielle Irvin, Allen Jacobs, Alex
Jones, Donald Luke Keenan, Daniel Kuhler, Simon Lucero, Raphael
Mahaim, Nathan Maplesden, Orlando Marquez, Cindy D. Maxwell,
Jennifer Mazzanti, Bethany McCandless, William J. McConnell, Dan
Meehan, Kevin Napp, James O'Connor, Kathy Onsurez-Wilson, Eric
Parker, Jason Perry, Amanda Petersen, Brent Place, Jimmy Ronald
Primm, Jr., Philip Qubain, Paul Ratigan, Joseph Root, Daron
Ruckman, Frederic Ruebush, Jennifer Salaverry, Lauren Salazar,
Paul Serino, Christian Speakman, Ian Stephens, Daniel St. Peters,
Usvaldo R. Trujillo, Paul Vacula, Graciela Villalobos, Eric Vogt,
Greg Walsh, Tyler Wilkins, Virginia Williams, Sara Yurkovich,
Terry Zacharias and Michael Zulaski, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Tri-State CareFlight, LLC, and
Blake A. Stamper, Case No. 2:17-cv-00796-KRS-CG (D.N.M., August
3, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
compensate Flight Paramedics, Flight Nurses, and Pilots for
overtime hours work in violation of New Mexico law.

The Defendants owned and operated a medical transport service
providing services in New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher M. Moody, Esq.
      Repps D. Stanford, Esq.
      MOODY &WARNER, P.C.
      4169 Montgomery Blvd. NE
      Albuquerque, NM 87109
      Telephone: (505) 944-0033
      E-mail: moody@nmlaborlaw.com
              stanford@nmlaborlaw.com


TRIBUNE MEDIA: Pill Wants to Enjoin Acquisition by Sinclair
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PILL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY, PETER M. KERN, BRUCE A. KARSH,
CRAIG A. JACOBSON, ROSS LEVINSOHN, PETER E. MURPHY, LAURA R.
WALKER, SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., and SAMSON MERGER SUB
INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00961-UNA (D. Del., July 17, 2017), seeks
to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the
proposed merger transaction or, in the event the Proposed
Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the
Defendants' wrongdoing.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on May 8,
2017, pursuant to which Tribune will be acquired by Sinclair
Broadcast Group, Inc. ("Parent") through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Samson Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub").  On May 8,
Tribune's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with Sinclair.  Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, Sinclair will purchase each issued
and outstanding share of Tribune Class A and Class B common stock
for $35 in cash and 0.2300 shares of Sinclair Class A common
stock.

Tribune is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Chicago, Illinois.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of Tribune.  Tribune is a
diversified media and entertainment business and one of the
largest independent television station owner groups in the United
States.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., is a Maryland corporation with
its principal executive office located in Hunt Valley, Maryland.
Sinclair is a diversified television broadcast company.  Samson
Merger Sub Inc. is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent, which was formed solely for the purpose of
consummating the merger of Merger Sub with and into Tribune.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Carl L. Stine, Esq.
          Robert S. Plosky, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com
                  rplosky@wolfpopper.com


TYLER II: "Colbert" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
VONCIEL COLBERT and MALISSA MARTIN, the Plaintiffs, v. TYLER II
ENTERPRISES, LLC D/B/A GREENBRIER NURSING AND REHABILITATION
CENTER, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00548 (E.D. Tex., July
22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiffs allege that they did not receive their wages or
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.  Specifically, Defendant failed to account for and pay
Plaintiffs, for all time spent where they were engaged in
activities that were integral and indispensable to the principal
activities being performed by Plaintiffs by working through their
lunch hour, off the clock time, and failure to pay for all time
worked.

Greenbriar offers quality short and long term health and
rehabilitation care in Bradenton, Florida, as part of the
Greystone Health Network.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
          BOB WHITEHURST
          5380 Old Bullard Road
          Suite 600, No. 363
          Tyler, Texas 75703
          Telephone: (903) 593 5588


UNITED STATES: Suits Could Force Payments to Obamacare Insurers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Demko, writing for The Global Politico, reports that a
pending court decision could force the Trump administration to
pump billions of dollars into Obamacare insurers, even as the
president threatens to let the health care law "implode."

Health insurers have filed nearly two dozen lawsuits claiming the
government owes them payments from a program meant to blunt their
losses in the Obamacare marketplaces. That raises the prospect
that the Trump administration will have to bankroll a program the
GOP has pilloried as an insurer bailout.

Insurers are owed more than $8 billion in payments, and the tab
is likely to grow. Insurers say spending restrictions Republicans
forced on the "risk corridors" program during the Obama
administration, aside from being illegal, are partly to blame for
severe turbulence in some Obamacare marketplaces.

"[The Obama administration] repeatedly assured us it was there
and it would be a clear obligation of the government," said Tom
Policelli, CEO of Minuteman Health, which is among the insurers
suing the government over the shortfall. "Even the federal
government is subject to the rules."

The fiscal hit to the feds could be huge if the insurers win. And
it would be one more embarrassing setback for Republicans, who
likely saw their best shot at dismantling Obamacare slip away in
the Senate's failed repeal vote early  July 28 morning. President
Donald Trump, meanwhile, has threatened to pull billions in
funding from a separate Obamacare subsidy program he's labeled a
"bailout" for insurers.

The courts have so far split on whether the government must pay
risk corridor funding since the first lawsuits were filed last
year. In November, Land of Lincoln Health, a now-defunct
nonprofit startup in Illinois, lost its case in the Court of
Federal Claims seeking more than $70 million. But in April,
Oregon-based Moda Health was awarded more than $200 million.

Both cases have been appealed and will be considered together by
the same three-judge panel in Washington. Legal briefs in the
combined cases are expected to be finished in September, but it's
not clear when a decision will come.

The decision could set a precedent that other judges will rely on
when deciding similar lawsuits still winding through the system.

"The legal issue that all of them would be raising would be
identical," said Nicholas Bagley, a professor at the University
of Michigan Law School who has written extensively about the
lawsuits. "Has a promise been made, and has the federal
government reneged on that promise?"

If insurers do prevail, more are expected to seek federal
payments through the courts. They would likely file similar
lawsuits or join a class action brought by Health Republic
Insurance of Oregon, a now-shuttered nonprofit that said federal
underpayments contributed to its collapse in 2015. The issue
could ultimately wind up before the Supreme Court, which has
already twice saved Obamacare from potentially fatal legal
challenges.

"The one thing I know you don't do is leave money on the table,"
Bagley said. "It's a question of how, not whether."

The risk corridor program was one of three established by
Obamacare to protect insurers entering the fledgling marketplaces
under new rules requiring them to accept patients regardless of
medical condition. Insurers making more money than expected in
the markets were required to pay into the program, while those
with big losses would receive payments.

Many companies badly underestimated the cost of these new
customers, who turned out to be sicker than expected. They racked
up at least $10 billion in losses in the first two years,
according to McKinsey. That meant far fewer insurers paid into
the risk corridors program than qualified for payments. In 2014,
the first year of the Obamacare marketplaces, insurers received
just 12.9 percent of the nearly $3 billion they sought from the
program.

The insurers say the federal government has an obligation to use
taxpayer dollars to provide payments they're owed. But Republican
lawmakers, who contend such payments would amount to a bailout,
have blocked the federal government from filling the shortfall.

"We're going to follow the law, and the law says you're not
supposed to spend taxpayer money to bail out these companies,"
Sen. Marco Rubio, who led GOP opposition to risk corridors
funding, said during a Facebook Live event in June.

The Obama administration fought the lawsuits but also discussed
potential settlements with insurers, a prospect that made
Republican lawmakers irate. Any talk of settlements ceased when
Trump took office, meaning the courts will almost certainly
settle the dispute.

The program's funding restraints forced many insurers to raise
premiums higher than expected in the Obamacare marketplaces. The
shortfall has been especially tough on small insurers and
Obamacare co-ops, nonprofit health insurers seeded with federal
loans to compete with legacy providers. Many were counting on the
risk corridor funding and didn't have the resources to absorb the
financial blow when the money didn't come through. About two-
thirds of the 23 Obamacare co-ops have shut down.

"The whole system was to attract insurers like my client, Land of
Lincoln, to participate in the first place," said Daniel Albers,
an attorney representing the failed co-op. "The Republicans want
to say it's a bailout. It's not a bailout."

Legal experts who support Obamacare say the health care law
doesn't explicitly prevent the government from making payments to
insurers. Instead, they say the statute only provides the formula
for determining which insurers pay into the program and which
ones get paid.


"Nowhere does it say they have to balance out," said Tim Jost,
emeritus professor at the Washington and Lee University School of
Law.

At least one observer is betting that insurers will ultimately
receive risk corridor payments they're owed. Juris Capital in
July agreed to pay $10.5 million to the estate of HealthyCT, a
defunct nonprofit insurer. In return, it will receive up to $31
million if HealthyCT wins its lawsuit. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS: Judge Allows Sexual Assault Suit to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Margolies, writing for KCUR, reports that a former University
of Kansas student who alleges she was raped in a college dorm can
proceed with her lawsuit against the university, a federal judge
has decided.

U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten on July 27 ruled that the
dismissal of a separate class action lawsuit against KU over
sexual assaults on campus did not preclude Daisy Tackett's
individual lawsuit against the university.

KU had moved to dismiss Tackett's lawsuit, arguing she was trying
to re-litigate issues that had been raised in the class action
case. Marten disagreed and denied KU's motion.

A KU spokeswoman did not immediately return a call seeking
comment.

Tackett, a varsity rower at KU before she withdrew from the
school last year, filed her lawsuit in March 2016, 10 days after
her parents filed the class action case under the Kansas consumer
fraud statute.

The class action alleged that KU falsely advertised to students
and their families that the school's dormitories were safe. A
state court judge dismissed it after finding that the parents
were not consumers under the Kansas statute because the students,
not the parents, had signed the housing contracts with KU. And
the judge ruled that the students had since left KU and were
therefore not subject to injury.

Tackett's individual lawsuit seeks damages for violations of
Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in
education. Tackett originally filed the case in state court, but
KU transferred it to federal court.

Tackett's suit originally alleged that KU was deliberately
indifferent to her reports of harassment and retaliated against
her after she reported that she was raped by a football player in
Jayhawker Towers in the fall of 2014. It also alleged that KU
created a hostile environment by housing KU football players in
Jayhawker Towers, which it had reason to know was unsafe.

In February, Marten dismissed Tackett's hostile environment claim
but allowed her to proceed with her other claims.

KU then sought the suit's dismissal under a legal doctrine known
as res judicata, which bars re-litigation of claims that have
been the subject of a final decision on the merits.

Marten on July 27 essentially found that the state court's
dismissal of the class action was not a decision on the merits
because it was based on the parents' lack of standing to sue.

"We expected to win this motion and we look forward to a robust
investigation of how KU handled the conduct of its rowing coach,"
Tackett's attorney, Dan Curry, Esq. -- info@brownandcurry.com --
of Brown & Curry, LLC said in an email.

After she reported being raped, Tackett says the rowing coach
retaliated against her by informing her she couldn't attend a
training trip in Florida.

Another former KU rower has also sued KU, alleging she was
sexually assaulted in August 2015 by the same football player.
The football player has since been identified as Jordan
Goldenberg Jr., a former KU long snapper.

The plaintiff in that lawsuit, referred to as Jane Doe 7, has
since identified herself as Sarah McClure. Like Tackett, McClure
is represented by Dan Curry.

As happened with Tackett's lawsuit, Marten dismissed her hostile
environment claim but allowed her indifference and retaliation
claims to proceed. [GN]


WEIBO CORPORATION: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Company Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Feng Chen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Weibo Corporation, Gaofei Wang, and Herman Yu, Case
No. 2:17-cv-05694 (D.N.J., August 3, 2017), arises out of the
Defendants' fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Weibo securities
by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and
concealing material adverse facts. Specifically, the scheme: (i)
deceived the investing public regarding Weibos' business,
operations, management and the intrinsic value of its securities
and (ii) caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase
Weibo securities at artificially inflated prices.

Weibo Corporation operates as a social media platform for people
to create, distribute, and discover Chinese-language content.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: ek@zlk.com


WELLS FARGO: Accused by "Solano" Suit of Stealing Real Property
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose R. Solano, Louis C. Nemeth, Al McZeal, Carmelita Rupnow,
Arlene Hudson, Ivory Chopin, Frederic Gladle, Dondi C. Stevens,
Soledad Solano v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, WELLS FARGO BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ADJUSTABLE RATE
MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES
2007-3, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, NA.,
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, U.S. Bank, NA. BANK OF AMERICA, NA.,
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann,
P.C., Midsouth National Bank, NA, Jay L. Angelle, NBS Default
Services, LLC, Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Treder, & Weiss, LLP,
TFLG A Law Corporation, Noah M. Bean, Ishak Bishara, Anne Marie
Bishara, Timothy A. Burnett, Buckley Madole PC, Mark D. Estle,
Anthony Caridi, HREAL Company, LLC, NVI Homes, LLC, Jose
Rodriguez, Case No. 2:17-cv-05253-DSF-E (C.D. Cal., July 17,
2017), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and all other
similarly situated persons living within the jurisdiction of the
United States of America, to recover money and real property
allegedly stolen by way of fraud, deceit, and dishonesty of these
"dirty and low down" Defendants, their employees, agents, and
legal representatives.

The Defendants, and their agents, employees, and legal
representatives, have a bad habit and criminal active history of
deploying ROBO SIGNERS, false grant deeds, fictitious persons,
and fraudulent and other deceitful practices to steal Real Estate
and Financial Assets, which ultimately results in heinous crimes
against the subject properties, properties held in Plaintiffs'
trust, and a violation of the Plaintiffs' Civil and Constitution
Rights protected by state and federal laws, according to the
complaint.

The Defendants are corporations, trusts, national banks, or
mortgage companies, or other financial institutions, which
transact business in the state, within the jurisdiction of the
Court and maintain offices or satellite business terminals in
California.  The Defendants are further "debt collectors," who
collect debts as a part of their ongoing operations.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]




WELLS FARGO: Illegally Placed Automobile Insurance, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a
Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc., and National General Insurance
Company, individually and as successor-in-interest to GMAC
Insurance, Dawn Martin Harp, Bill Katafias, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 8:17-cv-01345 (C.D. Cal., August 3, 2017), is
an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' fraudulent
scheme of charging customers who had an automobile loan originated
by the Defendant Wells Fargo Bank for unnecessary and unwanted
lender-placed or "force-placed" automobile insurance policies,
called "collateral protection insurance"

The Defendants operate a national association bank chartered in
South Dakota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel L. Germain, Esq.
      ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP
      16311 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436-2152
      Telephone: (818) 788-0877
      Facsimile: (818) 788-0885
      E-mail: Germain@Lalawyer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Erin J. Illman, Esq.
      BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
      214 N. Tyron Street, Suite 3700
      Charlotte, NC 28202
      Telephone: (704) 338-6123
      Facsimile: (704) 332-8858
      E-mail: eillman@bradley.com

         - and -

      Robert R. Maddox, Esq.
      Keith S. Anderson, Esq.
      Alison C. Smith, Esq.
      BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
      One Federal Place
      1819 Fifth Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 521-8000
      Facsimile: (205) 521-8800
      E-mail: rmaddox@bradley.com
              kanderson@bradley.com
              acsmith@bradley.com


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Preston" Suit over Forced-Insurance Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH PRESTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY AND WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A., D/B/A WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04346 (N.D. Cal., July 31, 2017),
seeks all recoverable compensatory, statutory, and other damages
sustained by Plaintiff and the Class, restitution and/or
disgorgement of Wells Fargo's profits from its unfair and unlawful
practices, and all other relief allowed under applicable law.

According to the complaint, Wells Fargo, while vowing to "make
things right" in the wake of its recent scandal over unauthorized
bank accounts, was apparently hoping this unlawful practice could
slip by unnoticed.  Wells Fargo admits it knew, at least in 2016
if not far earlier, that the Bank had forced unwanted and unneeded
insurance on customers for years. Despite knowing of this shocking
practice in 2016, it did not bother to alert its customers or
"make things right" then.  Several months later, at congressional
hearings over its fraudulent account practices, Wells Fargo
continued to hide its unlawful auto loan practices.

Even at its Investor Day in May 2017, when its executives spoke at
length about the ways Wells Fargo was working to "make things
right," Wells Fargo said not a word about the problem of forced-
placed auto insurance. Only when the New York Times broke the
story, on July 27, 2017, and Wells Fargo could no longer hide its
unlawful forced-insurance program, did it belatedly acknowledge
its illegal practices--hurriedly issuing its own announcement and
its plan for unilateral, insufficient "remediation" a few hours
after the story was published.

Wells Fargo even took out banner ads, including in the newspaper
that broke the story, trying to spin the scandal into positive
press Wells Fargo's efforts amount to too little, too late. The
extent of Wells Fargo's scheme is staggering.

According to an independent consultant's report prepared for Wells
Fargo executives, more than 800,000 people who took out car loans
from Wells Fargo between January 2012 and July 2016 were charged
for auto insurance they did not need or want. Wells Fargo
unilaterally added expensive insurance policies to its customers'
auto loans even when those customers had already obtained their
own insurance and provided proof to Wells Fargo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          801 Garden Street, Suite 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456 1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456 1497
          E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Alison S. Gaffney, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623 1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623 3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  agaffney@kellerrohrback.com


WELLS FARGO: Keller Rohrback Files Auto Insurance Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
On July 31, 2017, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., the firm that filed the
first class action on behalf of consumers in the Wells Fargo fake
account scandal which resulted in a $142 million settlement, filed
a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging the bank victimized its customers by charging them for
auto insurance that they did not need.

Wells Fargo has admitted that it placed unnecessary auto insurance
on auto loan borrowers' accounts, which reportedly resulted in
hundreds of thousands of customers going into delinquency on their
loans, and over 20,000 customers losing their vehicles to
repossession.

The complaint, filed on behalf of Wells Fargo auto loan consumers
nationwide, includes detailed allegations about Wells Fargo's
illegal practices and the significant stress, hardship, and
financial losses that it caused its customers.

"Wells Fargo has once again cheated its customers, charging them
millions of dollars of improper fees and damaging their credit.
Wells Fargo must be held accountable so that it stops putting
profits ahead of principles," said Derek Loeser --
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- a partner at Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
and attorney for the Plaintiff.  Partner Gretchen Freeman Cappio
added: "Vehicle insurance is expensive and we agree with fed-up
Wells Fargo consumers who are telling us that no one should have
to pay for two, duplicative policies."

"Wells Fargo, while vowing to 'make things right' in the wake of
its recent scandal over unauthorized bank accounts, was apparently
hoping this unlawful practice could slip by unnoticed," the
complaint says.

If you are concerned that you had unneeded auto insurance placed
on your auto loan account, please contact attorney Gretchen
Freeman Cappio at (800) 776-6044 or via email at
consumer@kellerrohrback.com.

The case is Preston v. Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., d/b/a Wells Fargo Dealer Services, in the Northern District
of California.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Lynn Lincoln Sarko
Derek W. Loeser
Gretchen Freeman Cappio
Alison S. Gaffney
Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101

Matthew J. Preusch
Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101

                      About Keller Rohrback

Keller Rohrback L.L.P. is a consumer-rights class-action law firm
with offices in 6 locations. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: To Compensate Loan Customers Forced to Buy Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Shaffer, writing for CNBC, reports that Wells Fargo said on
July 27 that it would compensate around 570,000 customers with car
loans who were harmed by being forced to buy auto insurance.

The bank estimated the total cost at around $80 million.

Auto-loan contracts require customers to have comprehensive
insurance for potential damage, and the bank was permitted under
the contracts to buy that coverage and pass on the cost if there
was no evidence it had been purchased elsewhere, Wells Fargo noted
in the statement on July 27.

But it added that its "internal controls were inadequate," with
customers charged insurance premiums even if they were paying for
their own vehicle insurance.

"We take full responsibility for our failure to appropriately
manage the collateral protection insurance program and are
extremely sorry for any harm this caused our customers, who expect
and deserve better from us," Franklin Codel, head of Wells Fargo
Consumer Lending, said in the statement.

"Upon our discovery, we acted swiftly to discontinue the program
and immediately develop a plan to make impacted customers whole,"
he said.

The overcharging of customers for auto insurance was first
reported by the New York Times on July 27.

That article, citing a 60-page internal report prepared by
consulting firm Oliver Wyman, said that Wells Fargo required a
much larger number of customers -- more than 800,000 -- who took
out car loans to buy auto insurance they did not need.

The cost of the unnecessary insurance pushed around 274,000
customers into delinquency and resulted in nearly 25,000 wrongful
vehicle repossessions, the article said, citing the internal
report.

The internal report examined insurance policies sold to Wells
Fargo customers from the beginning of 2012 through mid-2016, the
article said, noting the practice began as early as 2006 and
continued through September of 2016.

Wells Fargo's mea culpa over the improper auto insurance sales
marked another black eye for the bank.

In September, Wells Fargo reached a $185 million settlement with
regulators over creating what the bank then said could be as many
as 2.1 million accounts in customer names without their
permission.

Workers created the accounts to meet the bank's aggressive sales
quotas to enroll customers in multiple programs.

Since then, former CEO John Stumpf has left the bank and a handful
of other executives have departed as well. Wells Fargo recently
announced another settlement -- this time $142 million to take
care of a class-action lawsuit.

The Wells Fargo board recently decided to claw back more money
from Stumpf and Carrie Tolstedt, the former head of the community
bank unit head, where the scandal unfolded. [GN]


WYOMING: Youth Offender Files Class Action Over Bootcamp Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Star-Tribune reports that a Wyoming judge recently recommended
that a young woman who violated her parole be sentenced to boot
camp -- a program designed to rehabilitate criminals under 25.

Boot camp, known as the Youthful Offender Program, focuses on hard
work and physical activity.  Participants fight fires and maintain
trails and have access to services such as anger management
counseling and job training.

When they complete the program, they're allowed to ask for early
release.  Often, this means they can avoid serving years of prison
time.  Instead, they can re-enter society much more quickly and
focus on rehabilitating their lives with the tools they've gained
in boot camp.  It's also a win for the state, which would have to
pay the cost of incarcerating these people.

"We believe if we catch (offenders) young and work intensely with
them, we can give them the tools they need to keep them from going
down the path of career criminals," boot camp spokeswoman Wanda
Kerns told the Wyoming Tribune Eagle a few years ago.

But instead of a six-month boot camp that carried the possibility
of early release, the woman, Taylor Blanchard, was ordered to
serve her full six- to 10-year sentence at the Wyoming Women's
Center in Lusk.  The reason: Wyoming doesn't offer boot camp --
and all the opportunities it affords -- to women.

Now, she's suing the state, saying the Department of Corrections
wouldn't allow her to participate in the boot camp in Newcastle
and also rejected her request to attend a boot camp that accepted
women in a different state.  The class action suit, which was
filed in federal court, seeks an order that requires the DOC to
let women attend boot camps in Wyoming or in another state that
has a program that accepts women.

This is a massive failure of the state's criminal justice system.
The Wyoming Department of Corrections' mission statement says it
"contributes to public safety by exercising reasonable, safe,
secure and humane management, while actively providing offenders
opportunities to become law-abiding citizens."

What is reasonable about sentencing a young woman who violated her
parole to up to a decade in prison, when a man guilty of the same
crime might serve less than a year? What is boot camp if not an
opportunity to become a law-abiding citizen? What is humane about
this shocking double standard?

Blanchard and others like her -- both young men and women -- have
made mistakes, and they should be held accountable for their
actions. But those consequences must not be based on whether they
are male or female.

The law that authorizes the Youthful Offender Program doesn't have
a gender-based requirement -- and that makes this not only deeply
unfair and troubling but also unconstitutional.  Women like
Blanchard are being denied the opportunity to reform and live the
full and productive life they could have had, and the only reason
they will miss out on that opportunity is that they're not men.

The state should waste no time correcting this egregious mistake -
- either by allowing women to participate in its boot camp or
allowing them to attend one that accepts women in a nearby state.

It's difficult to believe that the state has allowed itself to
fall into in this position, but now that the situation is upon us,
one thing must be made clear: Wyoming's young women deserve as
many opportunities as the state's young men do to rebuild their
lives.  The state has a responsibility to fix this -- and soon.
[GN]


XPO LAST MILE: "Ibanez" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
XPO Last Mile, Inc., continues to defend a class action lawsuit in
California.  The case is, Hector Ibanez, individually and on
behalf of others similary situated, the Plaintiffs, v. XPO Last
Mile, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04009-JSC (N.D. Cal.,
July 17, 2017).

The case was originally filed in San Bernardino Superior Court,
case number CIVDS1709725.  The defendant removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case
No. 5:17-cv-01270, on June 23.  The case was transferred to the
Northern District of California on July 17.

The case alleges employment discrimination.

XPO Last Mile, Inc. is a Georgia corporation.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew Roland Bainer, Esq.
     THE BAINER LAW FIRM
     1901 Harrison St., Suite 1100
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Tel: (510) 922-1802
     Fax: (510) 844-7701
     E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com

Defendant is represented by:

     Allyson Suzanne Ascher, Esq.
     JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
     200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Tel: (949) 885-1360
     Fax: (949) 885-1380
     E-mail: Allyson.Ascher@jacksonlewis.com


* CFPB's Class Action Rule Last Straw for Banks, Regulator Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Lawler, writing for Washington Examiner, reports that the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's new rule allowing class-
action lawsuits in finance could be the last straw for banks, a
top banking regulator warned on July 31.

Keith Noreika, the acting comptroller of the currency, said the
consumer bureau's newly finalized rule opening up banks to class-
action lawsuits "may turn out to be the proverbial straw on the
camel's back."

Nevertheless, he announced, his agency will not lobby within the
government to stop the rule from going into effect.  Instead, he
encouraged Congress to strike down the regulation through the
Congressional Review Act.

The Republican-led House voted to undo the rule. Passage in the
Senate, where Republicans have a two-vote margin, is not assured.

The rule would prevent financial companies from writing contracts
for their products that require customers with disputes to go into
private arbitration.  The effect of the rule would be to encourage
more class-action lawsuits, a prospect that Republicans have
criticized as a giveaway to trial lawyers but that Democrats say
is necessary to give consumers leverage over Wall Street.  The
rule was finalized by CFPB Director Richard Cordray, an Obama
appointee.

Mr. Noreika, a Trump appointee reponsible for ensuring the safety
and soundness of banks, had raised concerns about the impact of
the rule on banks' viability.

On July 31, he said that he is concerned that the rule could have
unintended consequences and hurt banks.  But he didn't have enough
time to petition to stop the rule within the Financial Stability
Oversight Council, a super-group of regulators, he said. [GN]


* German Carmakers Face Political Reckoning Over Diesel
-------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Martin and Edward Taylor, writing for Reuters, report
that German lawmakers must balance conflicting demands at a
national summit to discuss pollution from diesel vehicles, wanting
to appear tough ahead of federal elections this month while trying
to avoid damaging the car industry.

Political leaders and car industry executives were set to meet in
Berlin on Aug. 2 to discuss inner-city pollution in a last-ditch
effort to restore the battered reputation of the automotive
industry and preserve hundreds of thousands of jobs.

"What's clear is that the car industry caused the damage and has
the damn responsibility to own up to it," Transport Minister
Alexander Dobrindt told ARD TV on July 31.  "They need to ensure
that cars are quickly optimized and have lower emissions."

Germany is open in principle to class action lawsuits against
carmakers engulfed in the emissions cheating scandal, the
Transport Ministry said on July 31, taking a hard line ahead of
the talks.

Germany is home to some of the world's largest carmakers but the
industry has been under a cloud since Volkswagen admitted to
cheating emissions tests in 2015.

The sense of crisis deepened when German magazine Der Spiegel
accused VW, Daimler, BMW, Audi and Porsche of colluding for
decades on prices, technologies and the choice of suppliers to the
detriment of foreign rivals.

Off Guard

Carmakers and politicians were caught off guard by a regional
court ruling that backed bans of diesel cars in Stuttgart,
undermining their previous lobbying efforts to influence emissions
rules being crafted in Berlin and Brussels.

Pressure to support a switch to cleaner electric vehicles is also
growing, with both Britain and France setting out plans to ban the
sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2040.

DUH, the environmental lobby group that brought the Stuttgart
case, said it felt validated by the court decision and expected
action to mitigate noxious diesel emissions to go beyond voluntary
software updates at the Berlin summit.

"We will not be fobbed off with a half-baked proposal," DUH head
Juergen Resch said on July 31 in Berlin.  "We will make use of all
available legal possibilities."

Some politicians are calling for hardware upgrades, which would be
far costlier for the industry.

"We'll press for quick changes," said Mr. Dobrindt, adding that
software changes would be faster.  "Further measures will be
needed."

The Environment Ministry has already made clear that software
improvements can only be a first step as they reduce nitrogen
oxide emissions by about 25 percent on average.

A Finance Ministry spokesman also said it was too early to discuss
incentives to promote the sale of low-emission modern diesel and
electric cars. [GN]


* Germany Policymakers Divided Over Emissions Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------
DeutscheWelle reports that German Justice Minister Heiko Maas
sharply criticized Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats
and their junior partner from Bavaria, the Christian Social Union
(CSU), for failing to pursue a consistent policy with a view to
making cheating automakers in the country act in a more
responsible manner.

Germany's top carmakers stand accused of widespread collusion in a
cartel aimed among other things at manipulating harmful nitrogen
oxide emissions in diesel cars.

Mr. Maas reacted to a statement by Bavaria's State Premier Horst
Seehofer, who told public broadcaster ZDF that the introduction of
class action lawsuits should be considered to make it easier for
individual consumers to sue big car companies.

Maas called the suggestion hypocritical, saying draft legislation
to this end had long been prepared by the Social Democrats but had
so far been blocked by the conservatives.  The minister said it
was hilarious that Seehofer had brought up the issue just days
before a so-called "diesel summit" between policymakers and car
industry executives in Berlin and weeks before the September 24
general election in the country.

Who knew what when?
Mr. Maas claimed that Transport Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU)
had so far been one of the staunchest opponents of class action
suits.

Germany's daily Bild reported that the Federal Motor Transport
Authority (KBA), being directly accountable to the Transport
Ministry, had watered down the results of investigations on car
manufacturers' efforts to cheat on diesel emissions, bowing to
pressure from the auto industry. Bild said the KBA found out as
early as a year ago that Porsche used defeat devices to manipulate
emissions, meaning the transport minister also knew about them.
But the authority's final report didn't address the issue
properly.

The Aug. 2 diesel summit will see carmakers confirming their
consent to update their software to make diesel cars cleaner.  But
bits of the hardware may also have to be changed to achieve that
result.

Katrin Goering-Eckardt from the environmentalist Green party
demanded on July 31 that carmakers should be confronted with a
date when no new registrations of cars with combustion engines
would be allowed, following the example of the UK and France.

"You need a binding deadline; otherwise nothing will happen," she
told the Die Welt newspaper.  But Economics Minister Brigitte
Zypries insisted that setting such a deadline would inflict too
much harm on what was a flagship industry in Germany.

The nation is also divided over looming bans in city centers on
older diesel cars below the Euro 6 emissions standard, after a
regional court in Stuttgart paved the way for such a drastic
measure, taking into consideration the health concerns of local
residents. [GN]


* Germany Prepares to Drop Opposition to Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Stefan Wagstyl and Patrick McGee, writing for The Financial Times,
report that Chancellor Angela Merkel's ruling conservative bloc is
preparing to drop its opposition to class action lawsuits as
public anger grows about the actions of German car companies in
the diesel scandal.

The move highlights concerns among Ms Merkel's supporters that
they risk annoying voters just weeks before the September
parliamentary elections if they are seen to be overly protective
of the beleaguered German carmakers.

The backlash against diesel is threatening to intensify as
industry bosses face a dressing down from politicians at a summit
in Berlin.

Top executives of Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, BMW, Daimler, Ford
Germany and Opel are bracing themselves for what could be a stormy
gathering on July 26 to discuss the future of diesel technology.

German law does not permit class actions of the kind that allows
hundreds or thousands of complainants to band together, notably in
the US, to press legal claims -- often against a big company.

But, after VW faced such actions in the US after the diesel
scandal erupted in 2015, the Social Democrats, Ms Merkel's junior
coalition partners, proposed reforming German law. Heiko Maas, the
SPD justice minister, ordered draft legislation to be prepared.

Ms Merkel's alliance of the Christian Democratic Union and the
Bavaria-based Christian Social Union blocked the plans.

But with voters annoyed at the spread of the scandal to other
manufacturers and the election campaign gathering pace, CSU chief
Horst Seehofer said on July 30 "We must also consider this
possibility [of class actions].

"I am not against it, if the auto industry continues in such a way
that it inevitably creates the impression that it is not clear
about its responsibilities and that it has no understanding and no
humility."

The transport ministry, run by CSU minister Alexander Dobrindt,
said it was open in principle to class action suits.

However, legal changes are most unlikely to come until well after
the election and the formation of a new government.  SPD
politicians accused Ms Merkel's conservatives of playing political
games.  Mr Maas said that the protection for car buyers could
already have been in place were it not for the CDU/CSU's blocking
actions.

Mr Dobrindt gave a hint of the likely tone of the Berlin meeting
when he fumed that the big car groups had a responsibility to
"restore confidence and fix their mistakes". Existing emission
treatment systems had to be upgraded "as quickly as possible", he
said.

"We want less nitrogen oxides to be emitted from the source and
the vehicles to be optimised at the expense of manufacturers," he
told the newspaper Bild am Sonntag.  "At the summit I expect an
acceptable offer from the automotive industry."

But he also said bans on diesel cars, which are being mulled by
some pollution-prone German cities, were the "wrong . . . way to
go".

His call for action comes just days after new allegations emerged
that Germany's big car groups had held secret meetings to collude
on technology since the 1990s.

In response, Brussels launched a cartel investigation into
Germany's car industry.  It comes with the European car sector
already trying to digest more than EUR5bn in EU antitrust fines
imposed in the past decade.

MPs in the Green party have also called for Mr Dobrindt's
resignation following the allegations.

Barbara Hendricks, Germany's environmental minister, blamed the
recent scandals on what she called the "too close relationship"
between the German government and carmakers.

There was further bad news when the German environment ministry
rejected a proposal from Mr Dobrindt and Stephan Weil, leader of
the state of Lower Saxony, that buyers of new diesel cars be given
tax incentives.

"We are not particularly interested in supporting a technology
that in the foreseeable future no longer belongs on the roads
anyway," a spokesperson from the ministry said.

Diesel engines accounted for 47.2 per cent of cars sold in the big
five European countries last quarter, down from 51.6 per cent a
year before.

Such declines could accelerate as cities across Europe contemplate
bans that would prevent older diesel engines from entering their
centres. [GN]


* Scott Co-Sponsors Measure to Overturn CFPB Anti-Arbit. Rule
-------------------------------------------------------------
Palmetto Business Daily reports that following a U.S. House vote,
the U.S. Senate is in a position to pass a measure overturning the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) rule to prohibit
class-action waivers in virtually all financial consumer-service
agreements.

The CFPB announced the rule in early July and the House voted to
overturn it.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), a co-sponsor of the U.S. Senate measure to
scrap the rule, said the CFPB has time and time again overreached
and hurt consumers.

"Time and time again, the CFPB has overreached with misguided
efforts and has actually hurt the folks it claims to want to
protect," Scott told Palmetto Business Daily. "The arbitration
rule is just one more example, which will end up raising consumer
costs and blocking our already overloaded judicial system."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has not publicly indicated where he
stands on the rule. His office did not respond to a request for
comment from Palmetto Business Daily.

The vote in the House to overturn the rule was passed almost
entirely along party lines, with only one Republican breaking
ranks. All of South Carolina's Republican representatives voted
for its scrapping, with Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn (SC-6)
against.

Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-PA), the lead House sponsor of the measure
to overturn the CFPB rule, described the rule as "pro-trial
lawyer, anti-consumer, anti-arbitration". He also cited a CFPB
study that stated the average recovery for members of a class
action is $32, while the average from arbitration is $5,389.

The U.S. Senate measure to overturn the rule will likely be
considered in September.

Senator Scott expressed optimism that the measure will pass,
telling Palmetto Business Daily that, "This rule must be struck
down as soon as possible." [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Refuses to Order Ex-Workers to Return Docs
---------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Hawaii state court has
denied an asbestos plaintiff firm's request for an order requiring
the return of records taken by former employees who started their
own firm, instead ordering the parties to jointly inform the
clients of the split so the clients can choose who will represent
them.

The Hawaii First Circuit Court issued its decision after a hearing
on Aug. 4, sources told HarrisMartin. While the court denied the
Galiher Law Corp.'s motion for a temporary restraining order, it
did order the former employees -- now members of DeRobertis &
Waxman LLP -- to return records.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rivera-Soto Named Special Master in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reported that
after plaintiffs said a special master's hourly rate is at the top
of the scale for New Jersey, the judge in a fraudulent-concealment
case against BASF and law firm Cahill, Gordon & Reindel has
replaced the first candidate with someone -- a former justice of
the New Jersey Supreme Court -- who charges less.

Chief U.S. Judge Jose Linares appointed Garrett Brown Jr. as
discovery special master June 8 in Williams v. BASF Catalysts.
Plaintiffs in the suit have alleged that Cahill Gordon and BASF
conspired to destroy evidence in a series of asbestos injury
suits. But Brown "declined to serve as special master" after
plaintiffs said his $900 hourly rate was "at the highest end of
New Jersey legal billing rates" and said the cost could be
"prohibitive" in light of the contentious nature of the case. On
Aug. 3, a new special master was appointed -- former New Jersey
Supreme Court Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto, whose hourly rate is
$695.

The master will oversee discovery in a suit on behalf of thousands
of people who say they were short-changed on their asbestos injury
claims because Cahill Gordon and a BASF subsidiary destroyed
evidence. Linares also ruled on Aug. 3 that the defendants could
not conduct discovery into the merits of the underlying asbestos
claims, and said discovery should focus on whether BASF and Cahill
Gordon engaged in fraud and spoliation.

The case, which dates to 2011, is brought by representatives of
people who allegedly died as a result of asbestos-contaminated
talc produced by Engelhard Corp., of Iselin, a BASF subsidiary
since 2006. They claim the original tort claims by the afflicted
parties were dismissed or withdrawn because Engelhard in-house
counsel and the company's lawyers at Cahill Gordon in New York
kept evidence from litigants, their attorneys and the courts. The
suit, raising claims of fraudulent concealment, fraud on the
court, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy and violation of the
New Jersey racketeering law, is filed in behalf of a potential
class of thousands of people similarly defrauded.

Besides BASF and Cahill Gordon, the suit names as defendants two
in-house attorneys from Engelhard and three Cahill Gordon
attorneys.

U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler dismissed the case in 2012 and
in 2014 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit partially
reversed that dismissal. In 2016, Linares denied motions by Cahill
Gordon and BASF Catalysts to dismiss the case, finding the
plaintiff sufficiently stated facts to support their claims of
fraudulent concealment, spoliation, fraud and civil conspiracy.
The plaintiffs claim Engelhard received a report in 1979
indicating that its talc contained asbestos. According to the
suit, the company circulated a memo directing employees to gather
up documents relating to the contaminated talc so they could be
destroyed. Cahill then helped the company manufacture favorable
evidence, including false affidavits, false and incorrect expert
reports, the suit claims.

Brown, who was a U.S. District Court judge in the District of New
Jersey from 1985 to 2012, and became chief judge in 2005, is with
JAMS in New York. He was an assistant U.S. attorney and was in
private practice before becoming a judge.

Rivera-Soto, of Ballard Spahr and based in its Cherry Hill, New
Jersey, office was the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme
Court. Rivera-Soto served on the court from 2004 to 2011 but opted
to return to private practice after completing a tumultuous seven-
year term. In 2007, the court censured Rivera-Soto after the
Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct accused him of seeking to
use his influence as a justice when his teenage son was involved
in a fight with a classmate. And in 2010 he announced that he
would be abstaining from voting on decisions of the court to
protest the temporary appointment of an Appellate Division judge
to fill a long-term vacancy on the court. He argued the temporary
appointment was unconstitutional.

In the suit against BASF and Cahill Gordon, plaintiffs attorney
Christopher Placitella of Cohen, Placitella & Roth in Red Bank
said Brown's $900 hourly rate was not out of line for alternate
dispute resolution services by someone with the former judge's
stature. But Placitella said it is "entirely foreseeable, in light
of the zealous advocacy positions taken by defendants thus far,"
that "the expense involved in compensating a special master in
this matter will become prohibitive."

Linares' June 8 order said parties should bear costs of the
special master on a pro rata basis. Placitella proposed to Linares
that costs of the special master be split four ways, between the
plaintiffs, BASF, Cahill Gordon and the remaining defendants, but
the judge declined to grant that request.

Placitella said he did not know why Brown declined to serve.
"We're happy to have Justice Rivera-Soto serve and to get this
case moving. The court clearly said the defendants are not
permitted to inquire into the merits of all the underlying cases
in this class, and that the focus of discussion has to be on the
misrepresentation, the destruction of evidence, and how that
effected the decision to proceed in the case," Placitella said.

A JAMS spokeswoman said Brown would not comment, but confirmed
that his hourly rate is $900. Rivera-Soto did not return a call
about the case. Justin Quinn of Robinson Miller in Newark,
representing BASF, declined to comment. Robert Ryan of Connell
Foley in Roseland, who represents Cahill Gordon, did not return a
call.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviro Recycling Slapped with $66K Fines
---------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Buckley, writing for Canterbury-Bankstown Express,
reported that proposal for a recycling facility in Revesby has
been slapped with $66,000 worth of fines for illegally processing
asbestos and operating without a licence.

The NSW Environment Protection Authority issued Enviro Recycling
with six penalty notices, after an inspection in December revealed
asbestos in stockpiles of waste at the site.

Recycling facilities are not permitted to process the dangerous
material in any form for re-use or recycling.

EPA officers also discovered that the Bells Hire Pty Ltd business
was operating on an adjacent property without an Environment
Protection Licence.

Both Enviro Recycling and Bells Hire Pty Ltd have the same sole
director

Enviro Recycling has been fined on three other occasions since it
opened in 2015, worth a total $36,000, for breaking the terms of
its licence.

Enviro recycling in Revesby is currently seeking to process five
times more rubbish than it is currently licensed to.

Meanwhile the facility on Violet St is currently seeking to expand
from 30,000 tonnes to 250,000 tonnes of waste per year.

The centre is currently only approved for a small-scale recycling
operation.

The NSW Department of Planning is currently reviewing submissions
on the expansion after a month-long public exhibition period that
finished in November.

EPA director of waste compliance Greg Sheehy said the hefty fines
should remind waste facility operators that the conditions of
their environment protection licences must be met.

"Asbestos waste is a potentially dangerous substance, and so there
are strict procedures in place to ensure it is handled properly,"
Mr. Sheehy said.  "When operators work outside these procedures
the environment and community are put at risk."

Asbestos, which can cause cancers such as mesothelioma can only be
disposed of at landfill facility.

The Express contacted Enviro Recycling for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposure Contributed to Laborer's Death
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hereford Times reported that a coroner has ruled that asbestos
exposure contributed to the death of a retired builder's labourer.

Geoffrey Mark Bishop, 83, of Stanberrow Road, Hereford, died at
Hereford County Hospital on March 15.

County Coroner Mark Bricknell recorded a verdict of death by
industrial disease at Hereford Town Hall.

He concluded that the cause of death was heart failure caused by
fibrosis and pneumonia, which was contributed to asbestos
exposure.

"He was unwell generally but asbestos exposure did have some
relevance to his ultimate death," said Mr Bricknell.

Mr. Bishop was admitted to hospital on February 26, after
complaining of shortness of breath which was unexplained.

By March 13 his prognosis was very poor due to ongoing
deterioration and he died at 12:30 p.m. on March 15.

Dr. James Glacy, consultant at Hereford County Hospital said: "In
conclusion a number of major illnesses came together to bring
about end of life."

Mr. Bishop had been a former trainer at Lads Club Boxing Club.

His partner Maureen Ashton said that he had likely been exposed to
asbestos in his workplace during the 1960s to 1990s as it was used
in the building trade.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Asbestos Docket Rules Favor Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for The New York Law Journal, reported that
as a Manhattan appeals court prepares to hear a challenge against
a new case management order for New York City's asbestos docket,
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's tort reform arm has waded into the
fight, arguing in a new report that the changes will tip the
scales in plaintiffs' favor.

The new case management order was set to take effect on July 20,
but prior that day Appellate Division, First Department, Justice
Ellen Gesmer signed an order to stay implementation of all
provisions of the new order except for the controversial
reinstatement of the punitive damages option for plaintiffs.

But the authors of a report prepared for the chamber's Institute
for Legal Reform -- a separately incorporated affiliate of the
chamber -- argue that allowing plaintiffs to seek punitive damages
leads to "vastly inflated verdicts."

The report, prepared by James Stengel, a partner at Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe, and C. Anne Malik, a senior associate with
the firm, also takes aim at consolidation of cases in the asbestos
docket, which is limited to two in the new order; and the effect
of attorney advertising on asbestos cases, which they argue drives
up the dollar amounts of jury awards.

But Jerry Kristal, a managing attorney for Weitz & Luxenberg's
office in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and one of the representatives
from the asbestos plaintiffs' bar who took part in negotiations
for the new case management order, blasted the report as a "crock
of B.S." that relies on defense bar-friendly publications as
reference materials to back up its points and comes off as a
circular argument.

"I think it shows the desperation of the their position," Kristal
said of the report.

Specifically, he said the authors of the report "liberally" cite a
report by a former Delaware judge who is now a defense attorney in
mass tort cases called "The Consolidation Effect," in which she
argues that consolidating cases has led to large verdicts for
plaintiffs.

Stengel did not respond to messages seeking comment. Peggy
Ableman, the author of "The Consolidation Effect" and special
counsel to McCarter & English, did not respond to a request for
comment.

Seth Dymond, a partner at Belluck & Fox and a member of the
asbestos plaintiffs' bar, said that he expects a ruling from a
full First Department panel on the defense bar's motion to enjoin
the new case management order sometime in September. Manhattan
Supreme Court Justice Peter Moulton, who served as coordinating
judge of the asbestos docket from 2014 until June, handed down the
new order as one of his final acts as coordinating judge before
taking a new job as a First Department justice.

On Aug. 1, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lucy Billings took over
as coordinating judge for the docket.

New York City's asbestos docket has long been the target of pro-
business groups like the U.S. Chamber.

For the last several years the American Tort Reform Foundation has
included the New York City Asbestos Litigation on its annual
report listing of what it calls the country's "judicial
hellholes." In the latest version of that report the group claims
that Weitz & Luxenberg wields significant influence over the
judicial selection process and that trial judges seeking to ascend
to appeals courts are careful not to cross the plaintiffs' bar.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Sides with Plaintiffs in Emerson Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for Courtroom View Network, reported that a
South Carolina state court jury delivered a verdict against valve
manufacturers and Emerson Electric Co. subsidiaries Fisher
Controls International LLC and Crosby Valve LLC, in what plaintiff
attorneys claim is the first time the two companies have gone to
trial in an asbestos lawsuit.

The jury awarded $300,000 to Dale Jolly, a 73-year-old former Duke
Energy employee, and his wife following a two-week trial. Jolly
suffers from mesothelioma, an aggressive form of cancer affecting
the tissue lining around the lungs that is specifically linked to
the inhalation of asbestos fibers. His lawyers argued that he
inhaled asbestos while working at various nuclear power plants and
inspecting valves that used asbestos-containing gaskets.

While the Jollys' attorney Simona Farrise asked the jury to award
the couple at least $1 million, she told Courtroom View Network
that she is "very satisfied" with the verdict, and that the trial
could provide a "roadmap" for other potential asbestos-related
claims against Fisher and Crosby.

"The verdict is quite significant as both of these companies claim
to have never been held accountable for their asbestos products -
valves and replacement parts - for the asbestos injuries and
deaths those products have surely caused," Farrise told CVN.

CVN webcast and recorded the full trial gavel-to-gavel.

New Call-to-action

The verdict includes $200,000 in compensatory damages for Dale
Jolly and $100,00 for his wife. The jury found Fisher and Crosby
did not engage in reckless conduct and declined to award any
punitive damages.

Crosby and Fisher did not make any pretrial settlement offers
according to Farrise.

Tim Bouch, an attorney for Fisher and Crosby, did not respond to
requests for comment beyond confirming the verdict amount and
stating the total damages had all been "eliminated by prior set
offs."

During the trial Bouch argued that Jolly worked in numerous power
plants and couldn't definitively prove his mesothelioma was caused
specifically by the gaskets used in Crosby and Fisher's valves. He
also maintained that the type of asbestos used in the gaskets
didn't create exposure levels sufficient to cause cancer, a claim
that one of Jolly's attorneys blasted as "absurd."

"That opinion flies in the face of every governmental agency and
peer reviewed scientific opinion out there," Trey Branham told
CVN. "I think the jury just decided that this evidence was not
only not believable but frivolous."

Despite the jury awarding far less than Jolly's team requested,
Branham's co-counsel Jonathan Holder told CVN that the jury's
foreperson stated after the trial that the verdict was intended to
"smack [the defendants] in the face."

"She said the jury's decision was based on the failure of Fisher
and Crosby to warn of the dangers of their products," Holder said.

Jolly began working at Duke in 1979, long after his attorneys
argued the risks of asbestos exposure were well established. While
his lawsuit originally included dozens of defendants, including
companies like Georgia-Pacific and Union Carbide, Jolly did not
sue Duke. His lawyers repeatedly emphasized how Duke's efforts to
mitigate asbestos exposure showed how Crosby and Fisher should
have done the same.

"Both companies entirely failed to concern themselves with the
health or safety of the asbestos valves and replacement parts
products that they have incorporated into their products and sold
for nearly 100 years without warning to the workers like the
plaintiff who would be exposed to this deadly carcinogen," Farrise
told CVN.

She added that the defendants failed to sustain their claim that
Duke's workers should bear the responsibility because they were
"sophisticated users."

"The jury rejected defendants claims that sought to blame the
plaintiff and his coworkers for the exposure when those workers
followed defendants' manufacturer's maintenance instructions to
the smallest detail," Farrise said.

The trial took place before Justice Jean Toal, a former chief
justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court who came out of
retirement to preside over asbestos trials throughout the state.

Video of the full trial and dozens of other asbestos, toxic tort
and product liability trials, are available by becoming a CVN
subscriber.

The Jollys are represented by Simona Farrise, Jonathan Holder and
Trey Branham of Dean Omar & Branham LLP, and by Theile McVey of
Kassel McVey.

Fisher and Crosby are represented by Timothy Bouch and Yancey
McLeod of Leath Bouch & Seekings LLP and by Philip Reid of Von
Briesen & Roper SC.

The case is Beverly Dale Jolly et al. v. General Electric Company
et al., case number 2016-CP-42-01592 in the Court of Common Pleas
for the Seventh Judicial Circuit of South Carolina. E-mail David
Siegel at dsiegel@cvn.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miami Attorneys Win $5.1MM Asbestos Verdict
------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reported that the
Ferraro Law Firm won a $5.1 million asbestos verdict for a woman
who lost her husband just shy of their 50th wedding anniversary.

David Moore died of mesothelioma in 2012 months after falling ill.
Attorneys for his widow, Joyce, said she had to watch her husband
waste away rather than enjoy retirement after his decades-long
career at a chemical plant in Port St. Joe.

The plant is where plaintiff's attorneys alleged Moore was exposed
to asbestos from hands-on work with material made by Chicago-based
John Crane Inc.

"One of the main products that they manufacture and sell are
mechanical seals that are used in different industrial
applications, and Mr. Moore, a large part of his job involved
using John Crane packing on different industrial equipment at the
chemical plant," said Marc Kunen of the Ferraro Law Firm in Miami.
Kunen won the July 6 verdict with colleague Jose Becerra.

Moore worked in maintenance at the Glidden Chemical Plant from
1973 to 2006. But before Moore ever set foot in the door, John
Crane knew its materials posed a health hazard, plaintiffs lawyers
argued at the trial before Broward Circuit Judge Martin Bidwill.

The company admitted it knew in 1970 raw asbestos was dangerous
because the supply it received started carrying warnings. But,
Kunen argued, John Crane was negligent because it didn't put
warnings on its own products or test them for health risks for
more than a decade. The company stopped selling asbestos-
containing products in 1985.

But defense counsel argued John Crane's products did not contain
enough asbestos to be dangerous.

"The tests were ultimately done, and they confirmed our belief . .
. that packing does not create a health hazard," Chicago defense
attorney Benjamin Pucci of O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns said
during closing arguments. "The levels are just too low."

The defense argued Moore's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to
insulation made by another company, Johns Manville. Defense
counsel asked the jury to assign liability to Johns Manville and
the chemical plant, who were not defendants at trial.

Kunen and Becerra did not ask the jury for a specific amount of
money but emphasized how much Moore meant to his wife, six
children, 25 grandchildren and six great-grandchildren.

Joyce Moore "was able to shed some light on his personality, which
is sometimes hard during a trial," Kunen said. "She was able to
give the jury an idea of his sense of humor. . . They used to
perform skits, sometimes with the family, sometimes through their
church. But that was something that he liked to do."

The jury found John Crane put defective products on the market
that caused harm to Moore. Jurors awarded nearly $7.7 million,
assigning 75 percent of the liability to John Crane, 15 percent to
the chemical plant and 10 percent to Johns Manville. The
apportionment amounts to a $5.1 million verdict against John
Crane.

Defense counsel is challenging the verdict, arguing the judge made
errors that created an unfair trial.

For instance, Bidwill did not allow the jury to hear testimony
from John Crane's corporate representative that no records of
sales to the Port St. Joe chemical plant could be found, defense
counsel argued in a motion to set aside the verdict or hold a new
trial.

The jury heard testimony from Moore's former co-worker about
working with John Crane products, but the man did not know whether
the products contained asbestos, defense counsel wrote. Kunen told
the jury "no normal person" would know the exact composition of
the products he was working with.

"There are no facts or reasonable inferences to support the jury's
verdict," argues the motion filed by Pucci and Miami attorneys
Michael Holt, Stephen Smith and Stella Chu of Rumberger Kirk &
Caldwell.

Representatives for John Crane did not respond to a request for
comment by deadline.

Case: Joyce Moore v. John Crane Inc.

Case No.: 13-011729

Description: Asbestos

Filing date: May 9, 2013

Verdict date: July 6, 2017

Judge: Broward Circuit Judge Martin Bidwill

Plaintiffs attorneys: Marc Kunen and Jose Becerra, The Ferraro Law
Firm, Miami

Defense attorneys: Michael Holt, Stephen Smith and Stella Chu,
Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, Miami; Benjamin Pucci, O'Connell,
Tivin, Miller & Burns, Chicago

Verdict amount: $5.1 million


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Developers Face Hearing on Asbestos Removal
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Sheehan, writing for CBS Pittsburgh, reported that the
developers of the old Westinghouse research property in Churchill
were called before a county health department hearing officer,
accused of illegally removing tons of asbestos materials from the
building.

His attorney would have no comment, but inside the closed hearing,
Ramesh Jain faces $1.4 million in fines. He's accused of directing
unprotected workers to remove tons of asbestos-laden floor tiles
from the old Westinghouse research property in Churchill.

"The action taken that we have taken is we have evaluated the
strongest fine that we can, to make sure that we have as big an
impact as possible to make sure that something like this doesn't
happen again," Jim Kelly of the ACHD said.

KDKA-TV was first to tell of the allegations -- that developers
Ramesh Jain and his son VJ stand accused of having the asbestos
removed, bagged and hauled away by unsuspecting workers without
regard for any safety protocols. No protective suits or breathing
equipment for the workers. No sealing of the building, negative
air pressure or encapsulation of the asbestos waste.

Attorney Ken Hardin represents a Jain employee named Raymond Sida,
who was directed to remove the tiles after the Jains told him
there was little or no asbestos present.

"He was also told by the Jains that this was legal, and that they
had permission to do this," Hardin said.

But Sida himself now stands accused of heading a company called
Pintura Construction, charged with illegally removing asbestos.
But Hardin says his client was set up by the Jains, who formed the
company without Sida's knowledge and made him the head so he would
take the fall.

KDKA's Andy Sheehan: "So they're trying to make your client the
fall guy here?"

Hardin: "Yes, that's absolutely correct."

It's a drawn out process. After the hearing, both sides will
submit briefs, and a ruling will be weeks away. Then it will be
determined whether the Jains must pay one of the largest fines in
county history.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Detroit Demo Program Poses Asbestos Dangers
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Dixon and Joe Guillen of the Detroit Free Press report
that contractors in Detroit were under so much pressure to knock
down thousands of abandoned properties that they cut corners,
mishandled deadly asbestos at dozens of sites, and, in two cases,
appeared to falsify inspection reports, according to documents the
Free Press obtained under the state Freedom of Information Act.

One employee of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
blamed city officials, saying that at a meeting they acknowledged
putting "production over compliance" with asbestos regulations.
City officials dispute the DEQ employee's account of the meeting,
but admit mistakes and are cooperating with a previously
undisclosed criminal investigation of the inspection reports.
Detroit personnel now oversee more stringent asbestos inspections,
they add.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Finishes Cleaning Up Ambler Superfund Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irina Zhorov, writing for News Works, reported that a federal
effort to clean up a Superfund site in a Montgomery County borough
is finished, and regulators are looking ahead to the final stages
of the more than 30-year project.

Starting in the 1930s, an asbestos manufacturing plant in Ambler
dumped materials containing the hazardous mineral on the BoRit
site for decades.

The Environmental Protection Agency began cleaning up the mess in
the 1980s, but after sampling in the early 2000s showed high
levels of asbestos remained on the site, efforts intensified.
Since 2008, workers have removed materials containing asbestos,
re-engineered creeks, capped the entire site with liners and clean
soil, and treated millions of gallons of water in a pond on the
site.

The EPA released its final plan outlining the completed work, as
well as how the site will be managed in the future.

In the coming years, scientists will sample water, soil and air
for asbestos to make sure the cleanup is working as intended. The
EPA will use federal asbestos standards for water, but the agency
has developed site-specific limits for how much asbestos is
acceptable in soil and air.

"It's not necessarily zero asbestos, but it's a low amount that
would be expected to be protective of human health," said John
Epps, chief of the EPA's Eastern Pennsylvania Superfund Branch,
who is overseeing the cleanup.

Much of the testing will be "activity-based sampling." Workers
will simulate activities that are expected to take place on the
land, such as walking or raking leaves, while wearing air
monitors. The idea is to see what level of exposure, if any,
people using the land might experience.

The EPA will conduct testing and maintenance for two years before
turning the site over to the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection. To avoid stirring up toxins, the agency
will also codify restrictions on future use or redevelopment of
the site before handing it over to the state to manage.

While most of the site currently sits unused and empty, one
section has become a waterfowl preserve. Another parcel could
become a public park.

"We're very confident in the capping work that we did out there,
that it will be a safe place for kids to play and that the park
reuse will be appropriate," said Epps. "We'll continue to monitor
and make sure that there aren't any exposures and that the remedy
is functioning as it was designed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Abatement Needed at County-Owned Bldg
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Mallory, writing for The Herald-News, reported that the
former First Midwest Bank Building at 50 W. Jefferson St. sin
downtown Joliet has asbestos in it.

Will County owns the building, which will be demolished in early
2018 to make way for the new Will County Courthouse. But first, a
company will have to do asbestos abatement.

The County Board's Capital Improvements Committee was in favor of
a contract in the amount of $260,000 for Midway Contracting Group
of Tinley Park. The full board will vote on it. The county had
five bids for the project ranging from $260,000 to $507,920.

In May 2014, county officials signed a contract to buy the bank
building and the 4.3-acre site it sits on for $4 million. The lot
is next to the existing courthouse. The former bank building is
home to offices of the Will County Sheriff's Office, which will be
relocated to the new Will County Public Safety Complex in
December.

That move, and the following demolition of the bank building, will
allow the county to get started on construction of the new
courthouse.

First Midwest Bank moved its downtown operations to 212 N. Chicago
St., near the downtown Joliet Junior College building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dunfermline Business Dumps Asbestos Near School
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gemma Ryder, writing for Dunfermline Press, reported that a
Dunfermline businessman illegally dumped asbestos waste at an
industrial estate close to a primary school, a nursing home and
residential properties.

Glen Burt, who runs a garage renovation and building services
business, was sentenced to 250 hours of unpaid work for his
actions that were captured on CCTV at Aberhill Industrial Estate
in Methil.

He previous pled guilty to illegally disposing of asbestos on July
4.

The fly-tipping came to light when a routine patrol by an estate
employee found what appeared to be old asbestos sheeting at the
rear of an industrial unit.

CCTV footage showed Burt deposing sheets on June 13, 2016, from
the rear of his white Ford transit van.

The cost of removing the waste fell to the landowner.

The waste contained asbestos types Crocidolite and Chrysotile and
in the event that the asbestos fibres became airborne, it posed a
risk to human health by inhalation.

SEPA officers investigated the case and interviewed Burt about the
incident. They identified him as the man in the CCTV footage.

Sara Shaw, Procurator Fiscal, Wildlife and Environment said: "Fly-
tipping can cause serious pollution of our environment and can be
harmful to human health and wildlife.

"It is unsightly and costly to clear up.

"Graeme Burt showed a lack of consideration for the environment
and the potential health of others by his deliberate and criminal
action.

"There is no excuse for illegal dumping, especially of hazardous
wastes such as asbestos, and those who choose to engage in it will
be brought to account for their actions."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Lowestoft Welder Exposed to Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Noble, writing for East Anglian Daily Times, reported that a
retired welder who died of natural causes had been exposed to
asbestos during his lifetime, an inquest has concluded.

Malcolm Johnson, 76, of Dell Road East in Lowestoft died at home
on January 24 as a result of bronchopneumonia and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

His inquest at Beacon House in Ipswich heard he had first been
diagnosed with COPD in 2002 after a history of heavy smoking.

But assistant coroner Nigel Parsley said Mr. Johnson had been
exposed to asbestos as a result of pipe work and welding at power
stations during the 1960s and 1970s, predominantly in the
Midlands.

A CV presented as evidence at the inquest confirmed he had worked
at power stations.

His GP records made no reference to any exposure to asbestos.

A postmortem report said the mild asbestosis "may also have
contributed to his death but was unlikely to have been a
significant factor", and added that he also had hypertensive heart
disease -- a disorder linked with high blood pressure.

"He has worked at two power stations and it is known that at that
time asbestos was previously used in the construction and
maintenance of power stations," Mr. Parsley said.

"The asbestosis is described as mild in the postmortem and is
counted as not being significant.

"However whether it is significant or not it is still a factor in
his death, therefore I will conclude that he died as a result of
natural causes contributed to by asbestosis which is a known
industrial disease."

The inquest heard that the 76-year-old was found in his bedroom at
the time of his death and his wife had been with him.  Evidence
heard during the inquest revealed that he couldn't walk very well
and had to spend most of his time in bed.

The inquest heard that Mr. Johnson needed the toilet at around
10am on the day of his death, and afterwards laid back on the bed
explaining to his wife that he did not feel well.

Documentary evidence was read out from paramedics from the East of
England Ambulance Service who attended to Jr Johnson, and
administered CPR, but were unable to revive him.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: R&Q Can Compel Discovery Process v. St. Paul
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Berle M. Schiller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania has granted R&Q Reinsurance Company's
motion to compel St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company
production of documents and answers to interrogatories.

The Court denies St. Paul's motion to compel, motion for a
protective order, and supplemental motion for a protective order.

R&Q Reinsurance Company reinsured St. Paul Fire and Marine
Insurance Company for St. Paul's asbestos insurance policies with
the Walter E. Campbell Company. St. Paul and R&Q Reinsurance
entered into two facultative reinsurance contracts, FRC Nos. 29550
and 33366, insuring two Campbell policies, Nos. 581XD4769 and
581XD7801, respectively.

Discovery is ongoing. In order to facilitate the discovery
process, the Court entered a protective order covering proprietary
information between the parties.

On June 1, 2017, R&Q Reinsurance filed a motion to compel
production of documents and answers to interrogatories, alleging
that St. Paul had improperly withheld proprietary information,
historical loss reserves, and information related to St. Paul's
relationships with other reinsurance companies.

On June 15, 2017, St. Paul filed its own motion to compel
responses to interrogatories and a certification of adequate
document production, and a motion for a protective order
precluding deposed witnesses from testifying about reserve
information and other reinsurers.

Further muddying the waters, St. Paul filed a supplemental motion
for a protective order, reiterating why it should not be required
to disclose historical loss reserves and information related to
other reinsurance companies. Because St. Paul's motions for
protective orders concern identical issues contained in R&Q
Reinsurance's motion to compel, the Court will address them all
concurrently.

The Court points out that companies cannot use discovery to
unearth their competitors' proprietary information. The Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure guard against this very scenario through
protective orders, which can shield proprietary, but otherwise
discoverable, information from public disclosure.

The Court finds that at the outset of this case, St. Paul has
requested, and R&Q Reinsurance did not oppose, the entering of a
protective order to safeguard proprietary information exchanged
between the parties over the course of discovery. The Court says
that St. Paul cannot now, in the absence of any further
justification, withhold or redact as "proprietary" documents
already covered by the protective order.

The Court also finds that St. Paul's historical loss reserves with
Campbell are relevant to R&Q Reinsurance's claim that St. Paul did
not provide prompt notice of loss to R&Q Reinsurance and do not
fall under the work-product doctrine or the attorney-client
privilege.

Historical loss reserves are the amount of money insurers set
aside once they are notified of potential losses from their
underlying policies. Given that reserves are required after notice
of loss from the underlying policies, the Court rules that this
information may demonstrate when St. Paul had notice of potential
losses from the Campbell policies -- that reserve information
reflects St. Paul's estimate of potential liability from the
Campbell policies, not from this lawsuit with R&Q Reinsurance.

The Court also finds that St. Paul redacted a significant amount
of information related to other reinsurance policies it took out
for the underlying Campbell claims, which is relevant and
discoverable. St. Paul began defending the Campbell claims in the
late 1980s. But R&Q Reinsurance did not receive a notice of loss
regarding those claims until April 2013. The decades-long dearth
of information regarding notice impairs R&Q Reinsurance's
preparation of a late notice argument. The Court concludes that
other reinsurance information related to St. Paul's insurance
policies with Campbell is relevant to R&Q Reinsurance's late
notice claim, and as such, the Court will allow discovery to
proceed on that issue.

St. Paul filed a motion to compel arguing R&Q Reinsurance did not
adequately answer two interrogatories and did not produce
sufficient responsive documents. St. Paul claimed that R&Q
Reinsurance's evasive responses to interrogatories 13 and 14
dodged a potentially central issue in this case: whether R&Q
Reinsurance suffered any prejudice from St. Paul's notice of loss.
The Court finds that this issue is now moot after R&Q Reinsurance
sufficiently addressed potential prejudice in its memorandum of
law in response to St. Paul's motion for a protective order.

St. Paul also contends that R&Q Reinsurance's discovery production
was insufficient because R&Q Reinsurance only disclosed 135
documents (over 1388 pages of documents) to St. Paul. While this
is significantly fewer than St. Paul's 197,000 disclosed pages,
the Court determines that R&Q Reinsurance would naturally have
fewer documents since it was only informed of the notice of loss
in 2013. Accordingly, the Court denies St. Paul's motion to
compel.

The case is R&Q REINSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant, v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 16-1473, (E.D.
Pa.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated August 1, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/hVBvOq from Leagle.com.

R&Q REINSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented by LLOYD A. GURA,
MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS.

R&Q REINSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL H.
GOLDSTEIN, MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS LLP, NICHOLAS H.
HORSMON, MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS LLP, ALEXANDER L.
HARRIS, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP & MICHAEL S. HINO, PEPPER HAMILTON
LLP.

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented
by DAVID A. ATTISANI, CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP, JEAN-PAUL
JAILLET, CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP, PAOLA TRIPODI KACZYNSKI, LAW
OFFICES WILLIAM J FERREN & ASSOC & SAMANTHA A. KRASNER, CHOATE
HALL & STEWART LLP.

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Counter Claimant,
represented by DAVID A. ATTISANI, CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP, JEAN-
PAUL JAILLET, CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP, PAOLA TRIPODI KACZYNSKI,
LAW OFFICES WILLIAM J FERREN & ASSOC & SAMANTHA A. KRASNER, CHOATE
HALL & STEWART LLP.

R&Q REINSURANCE COMPANY, Counter Defendant, represented by LLOYD
A. GURA, MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS, MICHAEL H. GOLDSTEIN,
MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS LLP, NICHOLAS H. HORSMON, MOUND
COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS LLP & MICHAEL S. HINO, PEPPER HAMILTON
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Affirms Denial of Workers' Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third
Department, affirms the decision of the Workers' Compensation
Board, filed on October 22, 2015, which ruled that the Claimant
and appellant Richard D. Tucker did not sustain a causally related
injury and denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits.

The Claimant worked as a firefighter and medical technician for
the City of Plattsburgh, Clinton County for 24 years. After being
diagnosed with prostate cancer at the age of 51, claimant filed a
claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging that he was
exposed to toxic fumes and asbestos as a firefighter and that he
contracted prostate cancer as a result. The claim was
controverted, and, after a hearing, a Workers' Compensation Law
Judge ("WCLJ") established the claim for occupational prostate
cancer.

In a March 2009 report, Michael Lax, a board-certified
occupational disease specialist, opined that the Claimant was
likely exposed to a wide range of materials in the course of
fighting fires, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and
diesel fumes from the fire trucks, each of which are likely to
have been of major importance with regard to the cause of his
prostate cancer. Lax testified that, notwithstanding other
plausible risk factors such as claimant's age, claimant's prostate
cancer was likely caused by cumulative exposure to carcinogenic
materials during his work as a firefighter.

In contrast to the views expressed by Lax, the employer's
consultant, Warren Silverman, a board-certified specialist in
internal, occupational and forensic medicine who reviewed the
Claimant's medical records, reported that it was not possible to
definitively ascertain whether the Claimant's prostate cancer -- a
"very common disease" among men -- was caused by his employment as
a firefighter given the lack of information regarding what
claimant was specifically exposed to while fighting fires. He
therefore could not conclude that there was a causal relationship
and opined that any attempt to do so would be based upon
speculation.

Following a majority decision, the full Board rescinded the WCLJ's
decision and appointed an impartial specialist in the field of
oncology to offer an opinion on causal relationship based upon the
divergent medical opinions in the record and the nature of
claimant's illness.

Based upon his review of the relevant record evidence, Lawrence
Garbo, an oncologist appointed as the impartial specialist by the
full Board, reported that the Claimant did not present with any
elevated risk factors typically associated with prostate cancer
and that the incidence of new cases of prostate cancer in the
Claimant's "age group is well under 0.5%." Nevertheless, Garbo
concluded that it was "reasonable to assume that the Claimant's
employment as a firefighter for 24 years may have had a causal
relationship to the development of prostate cancer." In his
testimony, however, Garbo conceded that he was unaware of
claimant's other previous employment consisting of cleaning
furnaces and delivering kerosene or of the minimal number of
exposure reports submitted by claimant during his 24-year career
as a firefighter and that, upon being apprised of this
information, he could not assign a causal relationship.

Following that evaluation, the same Board reinstated and affirmed
the WCLJ's decision establishing the claim. Upon its mandatory
review, the full Board determined in a majority decision that the
medical opinions in the record supporting a finding of causal
relationship were unconvincing and speculative and, therefore,
insufficient to support a finding of causal relationship between
claimant's prostate cancer and employment as a firefighter. The
full Board therefore rescinded the WCLJ's decision, which ensued
this appeal by the Claimant.

In view of the conflicting evidence, including the prevalence of
prostate cancer and the other possible explanations for the
Claimant contracting the condition, the Supreme Court finds that
the full Board acted within its discretion in characterizing as
speculative and ultimately rejecting the reports of Lax and Garbo
with regard to the existence of a causal relationship. Absent
sufficient medical evidence to establish a causal relationship
between the Claimant's employment and his condition, the Supreme
Court is unable to conclude that the full Board's determination
lacked a rational basis and was not supported by substantial
evidence.

The appealed case is In the Matter of the Claim of RICHARD D.
TUCKER, Appellant, v. CITY OF PLATTSBURGH FIRE DEPARTMENT et al.,
Respondents. WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent, No. 523561,
(N.Y. App. Div.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated August 3, 2017,
is available at https://is.gd/60luuU from Leagle.com.

Law Firm of Alex Dell, PLLC, Albany (Courtney E. Holbrook of
counsel), for appellant.

Walsh & Hacker, Albany (Sean F. Nicolette of counsel), for City of
Plattsburgh Fire Department and another, respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. App. Affirms Judgment vs. Ingersoll-Rand
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana for the Third Circuit affirmed
the Trial Court's decision in the appealed case JIMMY WILLIAMS,
SR., ET AL., v. PLACID OIL COMPANY, ET AL., No. 16-839, (3rd
Cir.).

Ingersoll-Rand has appealed the judgment of the Trial Court,
asserting the following assignments of error:

     (1) The Trial Court erred in concluding that the Plaintiffs
had proven a causal connection between the decedent's disease and
Ingersoll-Rand Company products.

     (2) The Trial Court erred in declaring in a summary judgment
that no fault could be allocated to J. Graves Insulation and that
the judgment was a final judgment, alleging that J. Graves was an
insulation company that worked at the Placid Oil facility at
certain times during the period in question.

     (3) The Trial Court erred in assigning 50% responsibility to
Ingersoll-Rand Company in the survival action.

     (4) The Trial Court erred in assigning 100% responsibility to
Ingersoll-Rand Company in the wrongful death action.

     (5) The Trial Judge awarded excessive damages in the wrongful
death action, asserting the $750,000 award to each of Myra's
children for their individual wrongful death action was excessive.
Ingersoll-Rand, however, does not challenge the Trial Court's
award of $1,000,000 to Jimmy Williams, Sr.

On August 9, 2003, Myra Williams died at the age of 59. Several
months prior to her death, Myra was diagnosed as having incurable,
malignant mesothelioma. Myra was married to Jimmy Williams, Sr.
and was the mother of four children.

Jimmy was exposed to asbestos fibers while working at the Placid
Oil Facility in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Jimmy unknowingly brought
the cancer causing fibers and dust home on his clothing after each
day of work. Myra would handle and wash Jimmy's clothing, and
sustained what is commonly referred to as bystander asbestos
exposure. It is undisputed that Myra's constant exposure to
Jimmy's work clothing caused her mesothelioma.

Jimmy and the four children filed suit on March 16, 2004, against
several defendants, namely Placid Oil Company, Ingersoll-Rand
Company, Petro-Hunt, L.L.C., LLECO Petroleum Products, Inc.,
CanadianOxy Offshore Production Co., J. Graves Insulation Company,
Inc., Shreveport rubber & Gasket company, Anco Insulations, Inc.,
Garlock, Inc., General Electric Company, DHEC Corporation. The
Plaintiffs' suit included both a survival action filed on behalf
of Myra and wrongful death actions on behalf of Jimmy and the four
children against the defendants.

Soon after filing suit, the Plaintiffs dismissed Petro-Hunt,
CanadianOxy, DHEC, Anco and LLECO without prejudice. J. Graves
Insulation filed a motion for summary judgment. That motion was
unopposed by any party, and was granted by the trial court,
dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against it with prejudice. Prior to
trial, Plaintiffs settled with Placid Oil, Shreveport Rubber &
Gasket and General Electric. That left Ingersoll-Rand as the only
named defendant that proceeded to trial.

Ingersoll-Rand was the manufacturer of ten compressors that were
installed in the "compressor room" of the Placid Oil facility. The
turbo chargers and exhaust pipes for each compressor were
insulated with asbestos. Plaintiffs also elicited testimony that
the Ingersoll-Rand compressors had asbestos gaskets on them, which
came directly from Ingersoll-Rand.

Ingersoll-Rand argued the compressor insulation was covered with
aluminum sleeves which prevented release of the asbestos fibers.
This was disputed by several witnesses who maintained many of the
exhaust pipes were not covered with aluminum sleeves. There also
was testimony that the aluminum sleeves that were attached did not
prevent release of asbestos dust in the compressor room.

The sole exposure expert to testify at trial, Frank Parker, stated
the compressors emitted "very significant [asbestos] dust," which
was visible to the naked eye in the compressor room. Thus, he
concluded Jimmy was exposed to huge concentrations of asbestos
dust. Mr. Parker also opined there was no way Myra could have
handled Jimmy's clothing without suffering asbestos exposure.

After a three-day bench trial, the Trial Court issued a judgment,
accompanied by written reasons for judgment. As to the survival
action, the Trial Court found Placid Oil and Ingersoll-Rand were
at fault in causing Myra's mesothelioma and were each liable for
their virile share.

In regard to the wrongful death action, the Trial Court concluded
that under the law Ingersoll-Rand was solely at fault in causing
Myra's mesothelioma. Myra was awarded $3,000,000 in damages for
her survival action. As to the wrongful death actions, Jimmy was
awarded $1,000,000, and each of the four children were awarded
$750,000 each.

The Third Circuit finds no error on the Trial Court's part in
finding Myra's exposure to asbestos as a result of Jimmy's work
with the Ingersoll-Rand compressors, was significant, and the
exposure was a substantial factor in the development of her
mesothelioma. The Third Circuit points out that the record was
replete with evidence that Myra's mesothelioma arose from her
exposure to asbestos while handling Jimmy's work clothes and
riding in the family vehicle, which was Jimmy's transportation to
and from work. The record reflects Ingersoll-Rand was fully aware
asbestos was a component part of its compressors. Ingersoll-Rand
also was aware of the potential health hazards from exposure to
asbestos. Despite this knowledge, there was no testimony that
Ingersoll-Rand warned any Placid Oil employees, including Jimmy
Williams Sr., about these potential health hazards.

The Third Circuit finds that J. Graves' motion for summary
judgment was supported with sworn answers to interrogatories that
it never "provide[d] asbestos-containing material to the Placid
Oil facility." The Third Circuit also finds that J. Graves
provided discovery responses that the only products sold or used
by it at the Placid Oil facility were used only for insulation of
cold processes and maintained that it was not responsible for Myra
being exposed to any asbestos-containing materials used or
supplied by J. Graves. Further, the Third Circuit, however,
determines that Ingersoll-Rand failed to introduce any evidence
reflecting any work done by J. Graves at the Placid Oil facility,
least of all any evidence that asbestos-containing material was
actually installed or worked on by J. Graves.

After a review of the record and evidence adduced at trial, the
Third Circuit finds no error in the Trial Court's allocation of an
equal virile share to both Ingersoll-Rand and Placid Oil. The
Third Circuit maintains that Ingersoll-Rand incorrectly argues
that Placid Oil could have been assigned a greater percentage of
fault. Pursuant to the law, pre-comparative fault law controls
liability for the survival claims, and each liable defendant has
an equal, virile share of the award provided to the plaintiffs.

The Third Circuit points out that Placid Oil was strictly liable
solely because it was the premises owner. Under strict liability
concepts, the mere fact of the premise owner's relationship with
and responsibility for the damage-causing thing gives rise to an
absolute duty to discover the risks presented by the thing in
custody. Thus, the Trial Court appropriately cast Placid Oil as
liable for a single virile share for the survival damages awarded,
and the Trial Court did not err in finding that Ingersoll-Rand's
products were a substantial factor in bringing about Myra's
mesothelioma. As such, the Third Circuit concludes that Ingersoll-
Rand is automatically responsible for an equal virile share under
the law at the time of exposure.

The Trial Court found Placid Oil was not at fault in the wrongful
death claim as Ingersoll-Rand produced no evidence of any actual
or constructive knowledge of Placid concerning any asbestos
related dangers at its facility. There was also no evidence that
Ingersoll-Rand ever placed Placid Oil on notice of any potential
hazards from working around its compressors.

Ingersoll-Rand asserts that this case supports its position that
"there is nothing in the record to support a different allocation
of responsibility in the wrongful death action from that found in
the survival action." But the Third Circuit disagrees and finds
that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in assessing
100% fault in the wrongful death action to Ingersoll-Rand because
Ingersoll-Rand failed to produce evidence at trial to establish
fault on the part of any other entities.

Ingersoll-Rand's main objection to the amounts awarded to each of
the Williams' children is that they were adults at the time of
Myra's death and not minor children. While the Third Circuit
agrees that awards given to minor children for the wrongful death
of a parent are typically higher than those given to adult
children, that factor alone does not necessarily render the awards
in this case excessive. Specifically, wrongful death claims are
meant to compensate the survivors for their own injuries arising
from the loss of the decedent. Therefore, the Third Circuit will
not disturb the Trial Court's awards.

A full-text copy of the Decree dated August 2, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/m5u0Oy from Leagle.com.

Wells T. Watson, Jeffrey T. Gaughan, Baggett, McCall, Burgess,
Watson & Gaughan, 3006 Country Club Road, Lake Charles, LA 70605,
(337) 478-8888, Attorney for Plaintiffs/Appellees Jimmy Williams,
Sr., Dalton Williams, Gwendolyn Hernandez, Jimmy Williams, Jr. and
Jeannette Shows.

Lewis O. Unglesby, Lance Unglesby, Unglesby Law Firm, 246 Napoleon
Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802, (225) 387-0210, Attorney for
Plaintiffs/Appellees Jimmy Williams, Sr., Dalton Williams,
Gwendolyn Hernandez, Jimmy Williams, Jr. and Jeannette Shows.

Donald Kelly, William Townsend, Kelly and Townsend, P.O. Box 756,
Natchitoches, LA 71457, (318) 352-2353, Attorney for
Plaintiffs/Appellees Jimmy Williams, Sr., Dalton Williams,
Gwendolyn Hernandez, Jimmy Williams, Jr. and Jeannette Shows.

Joseph B. Morton, Richard M. Crump, Ebony S. Morris, Maron Marvel
Bradley Anderson & Tardy LLC, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 2411,
New Orleans, LA 70139-6001, (504) 684-5100, Attorney for
Defendant/Appellant Ingersoll-Rand Company.

H. Alston Johnson, III, Phelps Dunbar LLP, 400 Convention Street,
Suite 1100, P.O. Box 4412, Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4412, (225) 346-
0285, Attorney for Defendant/Appellant Ingersoll-Rand Company.



                             *********


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  * * *