CAR_Public/170913.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Wednesday, September 13, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 181



                            Headlines

ABC BAIL: Faces "Sosa" Suit over Bail Bond Premiums
ALLWORK INC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Pay
AMERICA 1: "Melendez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code
AMERICAN HONDA: Nov. 16 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Aberin" Suit
AMERICAN YACHT: Fails to Pay Service Charge, Villasin Says

ATLANTIC MARINE: Laurel Bay Families File Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Court Okays A$70MM Manus Island Detainees Settlement
BAHAMA CRUISE: "Kron" Suit Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
BORO PARK: "Williamson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
CALDWELL TRANSPORT: "Luckett" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA

CALIBER HOME: Faces "Rickert" Suit over Mortgage Contracts
CARRIZO LLC: Court Partly Grants Bids to Dismiss "Slamon" Suit
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Muransky" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
CHINA COMMERCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Sorghum Acquisition
CIGNA HEALTH: "Welp" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

CITIBANK N.A.: Saunders Sues over Telemarketing Calls
COMMUNITY EDUCATION: Certification of Settlement Class Sought
CONNECTICUT STATE: "D.J." Suit Seeks to Certify Class
CVS HEALTH: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Corcoran"
DAKOTA PLAINS: PSLRA Stay on Discovery in "Gruber" Partly Lifted

DEJA VU CONSULTING: Plaintiff's Identity Kept Under Wraps
DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Certifies Class in "Moreno" ERISA Suit
DIGITAL AGE: "Taylor" Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
DJ SOUTHHOLD: "Torres" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Premium under FLSA
DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Faces "Wallace" Suit over Soft Drink Tax

E PARTNERS: Faces Deceptive Marketing Class Action in Illinois
EDEN PLANTATION: "Upton" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
EQUIFAX INC: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of FCRA Class Action
FEDEX GROUND: "Roy" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
FOOT LOCKER: "Edwards" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law

FORD MOTOR: Faces "Wozniak" Suit over Defective Lug Nuts
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces "Somogyi" Suit over Telemarketing Calls
FU CHENG: Cotiy-Monzon Seeks Conditional Class Certification
GABRIEL JOSEPH: Ordered to Pay $32.MM Damages for Robocalls
GEICO CASUALTY: Faces "Pearson" Suit over Automobile Insurance

GEICO INDEMNITY: Starks' Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot
GOOGLE INC: Gmail Scanning Settlement Obtains Tentative Approval
GOVERNMENT PAYMENT: Court Issues Scope of Discovery in "Miner"
GRAND RAPIDS, MI: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Wiretapping
HAMNER EXPRESS: Faces "Nguyen" Suit over Identity Theft

HEALTH CARE: Appellate Court Reverses Class Action Ruling
HENKEL CORPORATION: "Macaspac" Suit Moved to S.D. California
HONOLULU, HI: Adams Gets $10K Incentive Payment in FLSA Suit
IDEAL CREDIT: Faces "Pryor" Suit over Overdraft Fees
INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS: Ducharme Sues over Rexista Drug Disclosures

JSCSI INC: "Saunders" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
KONG TECH: Claims v. Apple in "Opperman" Dismissed w/ Prejudice
HOUSTON, TX: Faces Class Action Over Dam-Relating Flooding
HUMMUS & PITA: "Villatoro" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA
L'OREAL USA: "Horton" Suit Moved to S.D. California

LEE KUM KEE: "Olmedo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
LIMO EXPRESS: "Shavers" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
LOS ANGELES, CA: Harris Sues over Public Thoroughfare Access
LOS ANGELES, CA: Olguin Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
M&T BANK: Faces "Quarashi" Suit over Forced-Placed Insurance

MACY'S CREDIT: Sealing of Declaration in "Clark" Partly OK'd
MARATHON PETROLEUM: "Widdis" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
MASTERCARD INC: Reed Smith Attorneys Discuss UK Court Ruling
MATHESON TRI-GAS: Court Enters Final Judgment "Van Kempen" Suit
MAZGANI SOCIAL: Says "Khosroadbadi" Suit Can't Proceed as Class

MAXI-MIX INC: "Ocampo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
MECHEL BLUESTONE: Bid to Certify Class Terminated as Moot
MEDICAL TRANSPORTERS: "Vessell" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
MERCHANTS LANDSCAPE: Fails to Pay Premium Wages, Hernandez Says
MERRILL LYNCH: Former Executive Averts Fine, Class Action Pending

MID AMERICA TAPING: "Vega" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
NEW DOMINION: "Griggs" Suit Moved to Western District of Oklahoma
OPTIMAL HEARING: "Shirley" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
PANASONIC CORP: Ct. Partly Grants Bids to Dismiss Antitrust Suit
PARTNERS FOR PAYMENT: Motion for Class Certification Withdrawn

PERFECT LAWN: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
PETCO ANIMAL: Settles OT Wage Class Action for $8 Million
PIMIENTO RESTAURANT: "Serrano" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Settlement Reached in "Klippel" Suit
PURE TECHNOLOGIES: "Simpson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA

QC HOLDINGS: Amended Settlement Distribution Plan OK'd
QIAGEN NORTH AMERICAN: Faces ArCare Suit over Spam Fax
RENFREW POWER: Motion to Decertify Class Action Granted
ROSWELL, GA: Fails to Provide Benefits to Firefighters, Suit Says
S&P OYSTER: Class Certification Bid in "Stebbins" Case Denied

SANCHEZ ENERGY: November 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SCICLONE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Salpeter-Levy" Securities Suit
SI WIRELESS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Campbell" TCPA Suit
SP BEACH: "Avila" Suit Has Conditional Certification
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Smith Sues over Forced-Placed Insurance

SUNCOKE ENERGY: Settles Steel Mill Emissions Class Action
SUNOCO INC: 3d Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid in "White"
SUPREME INDUSTRIES: "Tola" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Wabash Merger
SUSAN BIRCH: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Ryan" Antiviral Coverage Suit
TARGET CORPORATION: Faces "Dormani" Suit over 401(k) Plan

TDY MOVING: "Mitchell" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
TELENETWORK PARTNERS: Conditional FLSA Class Certification Sought
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Ferris Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
TRI-STATE CAREFLIGHT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Stone Says
TRICAP INTERNATIONAL: Santos Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Over Guardrails
TURN INC: Arbitration, Stay Rulings in Suit vs. Court Vacated
U.S. BANCORP: Baker & Hostetler Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Reservoir Releases
UPLIFT EDUCATION: "Rambo" Suit Seeks Back Wages under FLSA

VALEANT PHARMA: Quebec Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
VELOX EXPRESS: "York" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
VERIZON: Class Action Over Zombie Smartphone Cookies Revived
VIRGINIA: Civil Attorneys Sue on Behalf of Women Inmates
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Braces for New Round of Diesel Lawsuits in Europe

WAL-MART: Villasenor Sues over Equate CoQ10 Supplements
WEIFFENBACH MARBLE: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Lindsey Claims
WELLS FARGO: Royal Park Sues over Use of Covered Trust Funds
WELLS FARGO: Thomas Sues over Collateral Protection Insurance
WHITE GLOVE: "Arboleda" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Laws

WINNFIELD, LA: "Sanders" Suit Seek to Certify Class
WRS ENVIRONMENTAL: Fails to Pay Prevailing Wages, Dominguez Says
XCLUSIVE STAFFING: Bid to Dismiss "Valderde" Suit Partly Granted
ZUFFA LLC: Faces "Riley" Suit over Mayweather-McGregor Fight
ZAAPPAAZ: Kjessler Sues over Price Fixing of Silicone Wristbands

* Australia Urged to Set Up Sydney Tunnel Compensation Fund
* CFPB's Arbitration Rule Poses Costs for Both Banks, Consumers
* Class Actions Up 44% in 2016, Cornerstone Research Shows
* Class Actions Against Government Require Different Strategies







                            *********


ABC BAIL: Faces "Sosa" Suit over Bail Bond Premiums
---------------------------------------------------
JOSE A. SOSA, the Plaintiff(s), v. ABC BAIL BONDS, INC. a/k/a, ABC
BAIL BOND AGENCY, INC., JULISSA MINAYA, JULISSA MINAYA dba ABC
BAIL BONDS AGENCY and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendant(s), Case No.
655655/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sep. 1, 2017), seeks to recover
damages that Plaintiffs sustained as a result of the premiums
being wrongfully retained.

This action seeks the return of bail bond premiums paid to bail
bondsmen where the bond is denied at a bail-sufficiency hearing
and the criminal defendant was never released from custody. This
practice is in contravention of the Insurance Law and relevant
precedent, the complaint contends.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert I. Harwood
          Jose A. Sosa
          Harwood Feffer LLP
          488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone (212) 935 7400


ALLWORK INC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Pay
---------------------------------------------------
SUNSHINE R. MARTINEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLWORK, INC., L'OREAL USA
S/D, INC. and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC874505 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 31, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime wages and minimum pay under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants did not pay the applicable
minimum wage rate for "all hours" worked. Rather, pursuant to
their, consistent policy and practice Defendants only paid
Plaintiff and the Class for the time they spent demonstrating and
promoting products in stores. No compensation whatever was
therefore paid for the many hours of work deemed "nonproductive"
under this scheme, including time spent on business travel,
delivering client products, and scheduling and clerical functions.
The Defendants further reduced the wages paid to Plaintiff and the
class by deducting or failing to reimburse business expenses from
the employee compensation earned within each pay period.

AllWork is a Delaware Corporation whose primary business is
recruiting and hiring employees for assignments with retail
clients in the beauty industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian F. Van Vleck, Esq.
          VAN VLECK & ZALLER LLP
          6310 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 430
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Telephone: (323) 592 3505
          Facsimile: (323) 592 3506


AMERICA 1: "Melendez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR B. MELENDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AMERICA 1 LOGISTICS LLC, an Indiana
limited liability company, and DOES 1 -20, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC874098 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 29, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages,
reimbursement of employment-related business expenses,
reimbursement of unlawful deductions from wages, missed meal and
rest period premium compensation, including interest, under
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully failed and
refused to timely pay compensation and wages, including unpaid
minimum wage pay, unpaid premium pay for missed meal periods,
unpaid premium pay for missed an/or unpaid rest periods, and sums
wrongfully deducted from compensation, to Plaintiff and similarly
situated Truck Drivers ceased working for Defendants, voluntarily
or involuntarily. As a result, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff
and similarly situated Truck Drivers for waiting time penalties,
together with interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
under Labor Code.

America 1 is Savannah's trusted trucking company for intermodal
drayage, storage, security, and over the road and long haul
trucking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yoonis Han, Esq.
          Sam Kim, Esq.
          VERUM LAW GROUP, APC
          841 Apollo Street, Suite 340
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 320 2000
          Facsimile: (424) 221 5010
          E-mail: yhan@gmail.com
                  skim@veramlg.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Nov. 16 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Aberin" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Aberin et al., v. American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc., No. 3:16-cv-04384-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, granted the parties' joint stipulation
regarding scheduling submitted pursuant to the Court's Aug. 24,
2017, Order.

Pursuant to the Aug. 24, 2017, Order, the Parties, by and through
their counsel, submit their Joint Stipulation Regarding Scheduling
of (1) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Certain Counts in Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint, to Strike Certain Restitution Claims,
and for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence ("Motion to
Dismiss"); and (2) a Case Management Conference.

On July 7, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class
Action Complaint ("SACC").  On July 12, 2017, the Parties
stipulated to an extension of time allowing the Defendant until
Aug. 21, 2017 to respond to the SACC.  On Aug. 21, 2017, the
Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss.  The Plaintiff's response
to the Motion to Dismiss is currently due on Sept. 5, 2017.

The Parties agree that the Plaintiff will have up until and
including Oct. 6, 2017 to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.  They
agree that the Defendant will have up until and including Oct. 31,
2017 to submit a reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss.

The Parties propose that the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss be
rescheduled from Sept. 28, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. to Nov. 16, 2017 at
2:00 p.m., or to another date convenient to the Court.  They
proposed that a Case Management Conference be scheduled for Dec.
13, 2017 at 2:00 p.m., or to another date convenient to the Court.
The Parties will file a Joint Case Management Conference Statement
seven Court days prior to the Conference.  Their stipulation and
request is made in the interest of justice, not to delay the
proceedings, and will not prejudice any party.  The requested
extension will have no impact on the schedule for the litigation.
Accordingly, Judge Tigar approved the Parties' stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/IKP1UL from Leagle.com.

Mark Gerstle, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Gannon --
catherineg@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice.

Mark Gerstle, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher A. Seeger --
cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel
R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes
-- dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi
-- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody
& Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah,
LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor -- LTaylor@carellabyrne.com -- Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko --
mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis,
Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan George -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com --
Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss --
sweiss@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W.
Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice & Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Yun-Fei Lou, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Lindsey Aberin, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro
hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E.
Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James
C. Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip
Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C.,
Scott Alan George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A.
Weiss, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Don Awtrey, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,

Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Daniel Criner, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

John Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Jordan Moss, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Donald Tran, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Melissa Yeung, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Livia M. Kiser -- LKISER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Andrew
Jacob Chinsky -- ACHINSKY@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac
vice, Eric B. Scwartz -- ESCHWARTZ@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP
& Michael Christian Andolina -- MANDOLINA@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley
Austin LLP, pro hac vice.


AMERICAN YACHT: Fails to Pay Service Charge, Villasin Says
----------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR VILLASIN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN YACHT CLUB; DAVID A.
SCHWARTZ-LEEPER; and any other related entities, the Defendant,
Case No. 608975/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct, Aug. 31, 2017), seeks to
recover compensation including gratuities plus interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs under New York Labor Law.

The Defendants have allegedly engaged in a policy and practice of
failing to pay the Service Charge to Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees and instead retained the money for their own
benefit in violation of Labor Law Article.[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


ATLANTIC MARINE: Laurel Bay Families File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Davis, writing for WSAV, reports that Beaufort families
have filed a new class-action lawsuit against the Laurel Bay
housing complex on the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS).

According to the suit, MCAS "Intentionally and knowingly exposed
families to environmental contamination."

Eleven families are specifically named in the suit, with
"thousands more former residents included as potential."

Much of the suit stems from the storage tanks that were in the
complex.

The tanks were there in the 1950's-1970's to heat the homes, but
what was left behind instead were tanks "contaminated" with
pesticides and cancer-causing chemicals.

One of the people named in the suit is Amanda Whatley, who made a
Youtube video last year detailing the possible connection between
her daughter's cancer and living at Laurel Bay.

"Had I had it in the back of my mind that cancer was happening to
children that live where we lived," said Whatley. "I would have
taken her to the doctor so much sooner."

51,000 people have seen that video and a dozen or more families
have come forward with similar cancer issues.

This suit also details problems with asbestos and lead paint found
on playgrounds and outside buildings.

It adds that the company that ran the complex, Atlantic Marine
Corps Communities (AMCC), didn't tell families about the hazards.
It provided "no warning" to residents and showed "reckless
disregard" for the consequences.

It provided "no warning" to residents and showed "reckless
disregard" for the consequences.

The Marines heard some current and former residents complaints at
a meeting back in February.

But insisted then there was "no" evidence of major chemical
issues.

"There is nothing right now that is an actionable concern that we
need to do something with," said Col. Peter Buck, MCAS Commander
in February.  "There is no smoking gun. In fact, there is no smoke
in the gun."

The class action suit is asking for undisclosed monetary damages
against AMCC.

Marine Corps officials have done a health study and promised
families the results by last spring.  Those results have now been
delayed until some time this fall. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Court Okays A$70MM Manus Island Detainees Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reports that a compensation payout of A$70m (GBP43m;
$56m) by the Australian government to asylum seekers detained in
Papua New Guinea has been approved by a judge.

Canberra offered the settlement in June after 1,905 men alleged
they had suffered harm in detention on PNG's Manus Island.  The
government called the deal "prudent", but denied wrongdoing.
Australia sends asylum seekers arriving by boat to PNG and Nauru.
The deal is believed to be Australia's largest human rights
settlement.

The Supreme Court of Victoria upheld the payout on Sept. 6 when
Justice Cameron Macauley said he was satisfied that A$70m was an
appropriate sum.

More than 1,300 of the now 1,923 people who are part of the class
action have registered for the settlement.  The class action
represents the majority of asylum seekers and refugees detained on
Manus Island since 2012.

The lawsuit alleged that detainees had been housed in inhumane
conditions below Australian standards, given inadequate medical
treatment and exposed to systemic abuse and violence.

It also claimed their detention was illegal, pointing to a
decision by PNG's Supreme Court.

In June, the government said it "strongly denied" such claims.
However, it elected to offer the settlement -- and cover an
estimated A$20m in costs -- rather than proceed to a six-month
trial.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said it was an appropriate
outcome because a trial would have cost "tens of millions of
dollars in legal fees alone, with an unknown outcome".

The Manus Island detention centre is due to close next month.
The Australian court heard that some detainees believed the A$70m
figure was not enough.

One current detainee, Amir Taghinia, told the Australian
Broadcasting Corp that he had opted out of the settlement because
it did nothing to help his situation.

"We are still suffering from the same conditions, under the cruel
regime of the defendant, and the case is finished, the case says
'yeah, that's it, it is already settled,'" he said.

Law firm Slater and Gordon, which brought the class action, has
said the payout is largest human rights settlement in Australia's
history.

Controversial policy

Australia has insisted that no-one held on Manus or Nauru will
ever be re-settled in Australia.
It says its tough offshore detention policy deters asylum seekers
from attempting the life-threatening voyage to its shores in
trafficking boats.

However, the policy has frequently drawn controversy and deaths
have occurred on Manus Island, including one last month.

The UN's refugee agency (UNHCR) has criticised Australia's
offshore detention policy for causing "extensive" harm and
breaching international law.

Australia will close the Manus Island detention centre by the end
of October.

Although some refugees may be resettled in the US, the fate of the
800 men still on the island remains unclear. [GN]


BAHAMA CRUISE: "Kron" Suit Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SCOTT A. KRON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GRAND BAHAMA
CRUISE LINE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-23807-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "(i) all persons in the United States; (ii) to whom GB Cruise
   Line (or any agent, contractor or employee working on its
   behalf) placed a telephone call; (iii) to said person's
   cellular telephone; (iv) using an automatic telephone dialing
   system; (v) from the date of GB Cruise Line's June 2014
   formation through the date of class certification."

This class action seeks to redress Defendant's business practices
that violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).
Plaintiff brought this class action for damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of GB Cruise Line in
negligently and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff, and those
similarly situated, on their cellular telephones in violation of
the TCPA.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qT8Tku8c

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John G. Crabtree
          Charles M. Auslander
          Brian C. Tackenberg
          CRABTREE & AUSLANDER
          240 Crandon Boulevard, Suite 101
          Key Biscayne, Florida 33149
          Telephone (305) 361-3770
          Facsimile (305) 437-8118
          E-mail: jcrabtree@crabtreelaw.com
                  causlander@crabtreelaw.com
                  gbaise@crabtreelaw.com
                  btackenberg@crabtreelaw.com
                  floridaservice@crabtreelaw.com

               - and -

          Brian M. Torres, Esq.
          BRIAN M. TORRES, P.A.
          One S.E. Third Avenue, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 901 5858
          Facsimile: (305) 901 5874
          E-mail: btorres@briantorres.legal

               - and -

          Mark Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON AND ASSOCIATES
          113 Cherry Street, Suite 34835
          Seattle, Washington 98104
          Telephone: (206) 317 3315
          E-mail: mark@mpaclassaction.com


BORO PARK: "Williamson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
YVONNE WILLIAMSON individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by BORO PARK OPERATING CO.,
LLC d/b/a BORO PARK CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE,
CENTERS FOR CARE LLC, CENTERS CARE MANAGEMENT LLC, CENTERS FOR
SPECIALTY CARE GROUP LLC d/b/a CENTERS HEALTH CARE, and related or
affiliated entities, the Plaintiffs, v. BORO PARK OPERATING CO.,
LLC d/b/a BORO PARK CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE,
CENTERS FOR CARE LLC, CENTERS CARE MANAGEMENT LLC, CENTERS FOR
SPECIALTY CARE GROUP LLC d/b/a CENTERS HEALTH CARE, and related or
affiliated entities, the Defendants, Case No. 157829/2017 (N.Y.
Super. Ct., Sep. 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, minimum
wages, and overtime compensation pursuant to New York Labor Law.

According to the compliant, Defendants have engaged in a policy
and practice of failing to pay Named Plaintiff and putative class
members their earned wages, including failing to pay them for
every hour worked, and failing to pay them overtime compensation
at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LaDonna Lusher, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, N.Y. 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com


CALDWELL TRANSPORT: "Luckett" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD LUCKETT, the Plaintiff, v. CALDWELL TRANSPORT COMPANY,
LLC, TRAVIS ROBBINS, DAVID BEMIS, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-
cv-00934-W (W.D. Okla., Aug. 30, 2017), seeks to recover minimum
wage for all hours worked, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, and others similarly
situated, regularly worked well more than 40 hours per week, and
Caldwell failed to pay him/her at an overtime rate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff A. Taylor, Esq.
          THE OFFICES AT DEEP FORK CREEK
          5613 N. Classen Blvd
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118
          Telephone: (405) 286 1600
          Facsimile: (405) 842 6132

               - and -

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew Thomson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994 5801
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  mthomson@llrlaw.com


CALIBER HOME: Faces "Rickert" Suit over Mortgage Contracts
----------------------------------------------------------
BARRY RICKERT and CAROL RICKERT, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS,
INC., and AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-06677-BRM-DEA (D.N.J., Sep. 1, 2017), seeks to
recover damages sustained by Plaintiffs and the Class members as a
result of Caliber's breaches of mortgage contracts and implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, together with pre-
judgment interest.

According to the complaint, Caliber has had an arrangement with
ASIC and its affiliates for many years whereby ASIC performs many
of Caliber's mortgage-servicing functions and is the exclusive
provider of force-placed insurance coverage for homeowners with
mortgage loans owned or serviced by Caliber. In exchange for
providing ASIC with the exclusive right to monitor Caliber's
mortgage loan portfolios and force-place its own insurance
coverage, ASIC pays Caliber gratuitous kickbacks that are
mischaracterized to borrowers as legitimate compensation. These
kickbacks include, but are not limited to, one or more of the
following: (1) unearned "commissions" paid to an affiliate of
Caliber for work purportedly performed to procure individual
policies; (2) "expense reimbursements" allegedly paid to reimburse
Caliber for expenses it incurred in the placement of force-placed
insurance coverage on homeowners; (3) payments of illusory
reinsurance premiums that carry no commensurate transfer of risk;
and (4) free or below-cost mortgage-servicing functions that ASIC
performs for Caliber. These kickbacks effectively constitute a
rebate to Caliber on the cost of the force-placed insurance that
is not passed on to the borrowers. Despite representations to
borrowers that they will only be charged for the cost of insurance
coverage, and provisions in the mortgage contracts binding it to
do so, Caliber, charges borrowers the cost of coverage plus the
amount of the kickbacks; it does not, that is, pass these rebates
on to the borrower. Caliber deducts the initial, pre-rebate amount
from borrowers' escrow accounts, and attempts to disguise the
kickbacks as legitimate by mischaracterizing them as income earned
by Caliber. These exclusive and collusive relationships have
resulted in extraordinary profits totaling millions of dollars for
Caliber and ASIC. While many banks and insurance entities have
ceased these practices as a result of class action lawsuits
brought nationwide and various state and federal investigations,
this class action has been brought to: (1) adequately compensate
Caliber homeowners for their economic losses, and (2) enjoin such
practices by these Defendants in the future.

Caliber Home is a mortgage lender and servicer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher B. Healy, Esq.
          Michael M. DiCicco, Esq.
          BATHGATE, WEGENER & WOLF, P.C.
          One Airport Road
          P.O. Box 2043
          Lakewood, NJ 08701
          Phone: (732) 363 0666
          E-mail: chealy@bathweg.com
                  mdicicco@bathweg.com

               - and -

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq.
          Rachel Sullivan, Esq.
          Robert J. Neary, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372 1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372 3508
          E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com
                  tr@kttlaw.com
                  rs@kttlaw.com
                  rn@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Lance A. Harke, Esq.
          Sarah Engel, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP
          9699 NE Second Avenue
          Miami Shores, NJ 33138
          Telephone: (305) 536 8220
          Facsimile: (305) 536 8229
          E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com
                  sengel@harkeclasby.com
                  hbushman@harkeclasby.com

               - and -

          Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          City National Bank Building
          25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
          Miami, NJ 33130
          Telephone: (305) 358 2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358 2382
          E-mail: apodhurst@podhurst.com


CARRIZO LLC: Court Partly Grants Bids to Dismiss "Slamon" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert D. Mariani of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part
Carrizo's and Reliance Holdings USA, Inc.'s separate motions to
dismiss the case captioned JAMES SLAMON, Plaintiff, v. CARRIZO
(MARCELLUS) LLC, et al., Defendants, No. 3:16-CV-2187 (M.D. Pa.).

This class action concerns royalty payments made on oil and gas
leases.  Specifically, Plaintiff Slamon, claims that he and others
similarly situated were paid royalties on their oil and gas leases
that were improperly calculated by the Defendants.  On Oct. 3,
2016, the Plaintiff filed a five count Complaint in the Court of
Common Pleas of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, seeking
declaratory relief for breach of contract (Count I), damages for
breach of contract, (Count II), damages for breach of contract
through a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing (Count III), damages for breach of fiduciary duty, (Count
IV), and an accounting (Count V).

The Defendants removed the case to the Court on Oct. 31, 2016.
Thereafter, Carrizo and Reliance filed separate motions to
dismiss.

Judge Mariani finds that Carrizo and Reliance have raised a
variety of arguments, some of which overlap, as to why certain
claims in the Plaintiffs Complaint should be dismissed.  The
Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendants have breached the
contract by paying royalties that are lower than the NYMEX spot
price and/or the local market price.  As a result of this alleged
breach, the Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief in Count I and
damages in Count II.  The Judge concludes because the Plaintiff
has pleaded that his royalties were based on gas valued at less
than the local market price and the NYMEX spot price, he has
stated a plausible cause of action for breach of contract.
Accordingly, Judge Mariani denied the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss as they pertain to the Plaintiff's breach of contract
claim involving royalty payment pricing.

The Judge further concludes that because post-production costs
were built into the sale price the Defendants received from DTE,
and because the Plaintiffs royalties were calculated from this
sale price, the Plaintiff's royalties were improperly reduced by
"post-production costs."  As the lease does not clearly limit
"post-production costs" to only those production expenses incurred
directly by the Defendants -- as opposed to those incurred
directly to third parties and passed onto the Defendants -- the
Plaintiff has adequately pleaded a cause of action for breach of
contract.  Accordingly, he denied the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss as they pertain to the Plaintiff's breach of contract
claim involving post-production costs.

Judge Mariani finds that the Plaintiffs claim is predicated on the
fact that the contract does not explicitly constrain the
Defendants' discretion to set the price at which they sell gas to
third parties, but that the Defendants' are nonetheless required
by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to exercise
discretion in a reasonable way by selling gas at a commercially
reasonable price.  Because there are no explicit and unambiguous
terms in the contract to the contrary, the Plaintiff has stated a
claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Accordingly, he denied the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as they
pertain to Count III of the Plaintiff's Complaint.

The Judge granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as they
pertain to Count IV of the Plaintiff's Complaint.  He finds no
allegation that the Defendants held any of the Plaintiffs property
for the benefit of the Plaintiff, were acting in any other way as
the Plaintiffs agent, or were acting as a counselor or advisor to
the Plaintiff.  Instead, the lease granted Carrizo exclusive
rights to the oil and gas underlying the Plaintiffs' land in
exchange for an initial bonus payment and, among other things, a
production royalty on all gas production.  Such an arrangement
does not give rise to a fiduciary relationship.

Although the Plaintiff pleaded that he received his first royalty
check in March of 2012, the Complaint does not specify whether the
royalty check contained sufficient information for him to
calculate the rate at which he was being paid.  Indeed, the
Plaintiff pleaded that the Defendants maintained exclusive control
over all production data, sales data, and pricing information.
Consequently, although the NYMEX spot prices are public
information, it is unclear when the Plaintiff could have first
made a comparison between the rate at which the gas was valued
under his lease and the NYMEX spot prices.  Accordingly, Judge
Mariani denied Carrizo's Motion to the extent that it seeks to
dismiss portions of the Plaintiff's breach of contract claims as
untimely.

For these reasons, the Judge granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/9p9hvn from Leagle.com.

James Slamon, Plaintiff, represented by Gerard M. Karam --
gkaram18@msn.com -- Mazzoni and Karam.

James Slamon, Plaintiff, represented by Peter H. LeVan, Jr. --
plevan@hangley.com -- LeVan Law Group LLC, Shanon J. Carson --
scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C. & Glen L. Abramson,
Berger & Montague, P.C.

Carrizo (Marcellus) LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy L. Groff --
klgateseservice@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & David R. Fine --
david.fine@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.

Reliance Marcellus II, LLC, Defendant, represented by Justin H.
Werner -- jwerner@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Stefanie
Lepore Burt -- slepore@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.

Reliance Holdings USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Justin H.
Werner, Reed Smith LLP & Stefanie Lepore Burt, Reed Smith LLP.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Muransky" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DR. DAVID S. MURANSKY, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE
CHEESECAKE FACTORY, INC., d/b/a THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY, a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for class certification of:

   "(i) all persons in the United States (ii) who, when making
   payment at one of Cheesecake Factory, Inc.'s restaurants
   across the country (iii) made such payment using a credit or
   debit card (iv) and were provided with a point of sale receipt
   (v) which displayed more than the last 5 digits of the card
   number (vi) within the two years prior to the filing of the
   complaint through the date of the order on certification."

Cheesecake Factory systematically and willfully violated one of
the most basic federal consumer protections against identity theft
-- The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA").
CFI systematically printed the first six and last four digits --
nearly two thirds -- of its customer's credit and debit card
account numbers on its transaction receipts at of its restaurants,
exposing its customers to a Congressionally -- determined risk of
identity theft that only exists because of CFI's actions.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5TW0sra4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          Patrick C. Crotty, Esq.
          Sean M. Holas, Esq.
          SCOTT D.OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589 0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337 0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com
                  patrick@scottdowens.com
                  sean@scottdowens.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, Illinois 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726 1092
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com

               - and -

          Bret L. Lusskin, Esq.
          LUSSKIN LAW
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454 5841
          Facsimile: (954) 454 5844
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com


CHINA COMMERCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Sorghum Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on Sept. 5 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware on behalf of holders of China Commercial Credit, Inc.
("China Commercial Credit" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:CCCR) common
stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of Sorghum
Investment Holdings Limited ("Sorghum") by China Commercial Credit
announced on August 9, 2017 (the "Complaint").

If you wish to discuss this matter or have any questions
concerning your rights or interests, please contact Seth D.
Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter
Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803, by telephone at (888)
969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On August 9, 2017, China Commercial Credit entered into a Share
Exchange Agreement (the "Agreement") with Sorghum.  Pursuant to
the Agreement, the Company has agreed to acquire all of the issued
and outstanding equity interests of Sorghum in exchange for
152,586,795 shares of the Company's common stock (the
"Acquisition").  Upon completion of the Acquisition, the Company
will own 100% of Sorghum and its existing shareholders will retain
an ownership interest of approximately 12% of the Company and the
selling Sorghum equity holders will own approximately 88% of the
Company.

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Acquisition, defendants issued
materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement (the "Proxy
Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 14, 2017.  The Complaint alleges that the
Proxy Statement, which recommends that China Commercial Credit
stockholders vote in favor of the Acquisition, omits material
information necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed
decision as to how to vote on the Acquisition.  The Complaint
seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of
holders of China Commercial Credit common stock.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com--
regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and
shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in
state and federal courts throughout the United States. [GN]


CIGNA HEALTH: "Welp" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned STEPHEN WELP, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. CIGNA HEALTH AND
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-80237-DMM
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "[a]ll individuals who: (a) have been participant or
   beneficiaries under an ERISA-governed plan (b) insured and/or
   administered by Cigna (c) at any time on or after February 24,
   2011; (d) have required treatment for a mental health
   condition in an outdoor/wilderness behavioral healthcare
   program licensed by the state in which it is located: (e) and
   whose plan provides coverage for mental health services and
   for services incurred at skilled nursing facilities and/or
   rehabilitation hospitals."

Cigna insureds who (a) have a condition for which treatment at an
outdoor/wilderness behavioral healthcare program is appropriate
and (b) have demonstrated that intent, either by communicating
directly to Cigna or being admitted to such a program. This is the
second time Welp has moved for certification; his last fully-
briefed motion was rendered moot by the Court's decision on
Cigna's dismissal motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=U2xF6zCI

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Lewis, Esq.
          JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
          4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
          Telephone: (954) 616 8995
          Facsimile: (954) 206 0374
          Email: Jordan@jml-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447 7060
          Facsimile: (800) 922 4851
          E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

Attorneys for Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company:

          Waldemar J. Pflepsen Jr., Esq.
          Michael A. Valerio, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS
          1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 400 West
          Washington, DC 20007-5208
          E-mail: WPflepsen@carltonfields.com
                  mvalerio@carltonfields.com

Attorneys for NextEra Energy, Inc., NextEra Energy Inc. Employee
Health and Welfare Plan, and the Employee Benefit Plans
Administrative Committee:

          Charles L. Schlumberger, Esq.
          SENIOR LITIGATION COUNSEL
          FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
          700 Universe Boulevard
          Juno Beach, Florida 33408
          E-mail: Charles.Schlumberger@fpl.com


CITIBANK N.A.: Saunders Sues over Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------
JANICE SAUNDERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITIBANK, N.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-23305-DPG (S.D. Fla., Aug. 31, 2017),
seeks injunctive relief prohibiting Citi's violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff does not have a business
relationship with the Defendant, and has never provided the
Defendant with express consent to call the cellular telephone
number at issue. Beginning in June of 2017, Plaintiff received
telemarketing calls from Defendant placed to the cellular
telephone number at issue. The calls were placed by the Defendant
using an ATDS and/or an artificial or pre-recorded voice. After
the unwanted calls commenced, on more than one occasion, Plaintiff
expressly revoked any consent that Defendant may have had or
believed it had. However, despite Plaintiff's revocation, the
Defendant continued to call with the knowledge that the continued
calls were in violation of the TCPA.

Each call the Defendant made to the Plaintiff's cell phone was
done so without the "express permission" of the Plaintiff. Each
call the Defendant made to the Plaintiff was made using an ATDS
which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be
called, without human intervention, using a random or sequential
number generator; and to dial such numbers as specified by 47
U.S.C section 227(a)(1). Furthermore, many of the calls at issue
were placed by the Defendant using a "prerecorded voice," as
specified by the TCPA. Defendant has conceded in another lawsuit
that the telephone system used to call
the Plaintiff was in fact an ATDS. Despite actual knowledge of
their wrongdoing, the Defendant continued the campaign of abusive
and unauthorized telemarketing robocalls. Defendant has been sued
many times in federal court where the allegations include calling
an individual using an ATDS after the individual asked for the
calls to stop. By effectuating these unlawful phone calls,
Defendants have caused Plaintiff the very harm that Congress
sought to prevent--namely, a "nuisance and invasion of privacy."

Citibank is a consumer division of financial services
multinational Citigroup. Citibank was founded in 1812 as the City
Bank of New York, later First National City Bank of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
          Geoffrey Parmer, Esq.
          The Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC
          210-A South MacDill Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 500 1500
          Facsimile: (813) 435 2369
          E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
                  Geoff@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com


COMMUNITY EDUCATION: Certification of Settlement Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Aaron Giles, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Community Education Centers, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-04863-DMG-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a settlement class;

   2. preliminarily approving class action settlement;

   3. approving notice of class action settlement;

   4. appointing class counsel and class representatives; and

   5. setting hearing for final approval.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JXglod4S

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Shadie L. Berenji, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHADIE L. BERENJI
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 855 3270
          Facsimile: (310) 855 3751

Attorneys for Defendants:

          David S. Maoz, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 772-7296
          E-mail: dmaoz@littler.com


CONNECTICUT STATE: "D.J." Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled D.J. through his parent O.W., on behalf of a
class of those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CONNECTICUT
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01197-
CSH (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class
of:

   "all individuals who were over 21 and under 22 within two
   years before the filing of this action or will turn 21 during
   the pendency of this action who are provided or were provided
   a FAPE under the IDEA by any LEA in the State of Connecticut
   and who, but for turning 21, would otherwise qualify or would
   have qualified for a FAPE until age 22 because they have not
   or had not yet earned a regular high school diploma."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason H. Kim, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS, LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608

               - and -

          Nancy B. Alisberg, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS CONNECTICUT
          270 Farmington Avenue, Suite 181
          Hartford, CT 06030
          Telephone: 860 990 0175
          E-mail: nancy.alisberg@disrightsct.org

               - and -

          Sonja L. Deyoe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SONJA L. DEYOE. P.C.
          395 Smith Street
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 864 5877
          E-mail: sld@the-straight-shooter.com


CVS HEALTH: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Corcoran"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
CVS HEALTH, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-03504-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S.  District Court
for the Northern District of California (i) granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
certifying a California, Florida, Illinois, and Massachusetts
class; (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a New York
and Arizona class; (iii) granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to exclude certain opinions by Dr. Hay and
struck Dr. Hay's opinion that CVS's Health Savings Pass ("HSP")
prices are the "Usual and Customary" ("U&C") prices as defined in
CVS' contracts; and (iv) granted the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against the
Defendants alleging that they knowingly overcharged millions of
insured patients by submitting falsely inflated drug prices to
pharmacy benefit managers ("PBMs") and third-party payor insurance
providers ("TPPs"), which resulted in higher copayment obligations
for them.  Specifically, they raise claims under the laws of
eleven states: (i) each state's statutory laws proscribing unfair
and deceptive acts and practices ("UDAP"); and common law claims
for (ii) fraud, (iii) negligent misrepresentation, and (iv) unjust
enrichment.

In 2008, CVS introduced its HSP program which provides discounted
pricing on hundreds of generic prescription medications, including
some of the most commonly prescribed drugs for cardiovascular,
allergy, and diabetes conditions, among others.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the price charged by CVS under the HSP program for the
HSP generics was the true U&C price for those drugs.  However, CVS
continued to submit amounts higher than the HSP price for all HSP
generics (rather than the HSP program price) as the U&C price to
TPPs and PBMs.  As a result, in some instances, the Plaintiffs
allege they paid copayments that exceeded the HSP price or the
"true UC price."  The Defendants discontinued the HSP program on
Feb. 1, 2016.

Now before the Court are the following motions: First, the
Plaintiffs have filed a renewed motion for class certification,
significantly narrowing the classes and issues which they seek to
certify.  Second, the Defendants move to exclude certain opinions
from Dr. Hay, submitted in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  And third, the Defendants' move for summary
judgment on all claims in this action arguing that plaintiffs have
failed to demonstrate either any misrepresentations or reliance,
essential elements of their claims.

The Plaintiffs now seek to certify six state classes under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) defined as all CVS customers in
California, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New
York who, between November 2008 and July 31, 2015, (i) purchased
one or more generic prescription drugs that were offered through
CVS's HSP program at the time of the purchase; (ii) were insured
for the purchase(s) through a third-party payor plan administered
by one of the following pharmacy benefit managers: Caremark/PCS,
Express Scripts, Medco, MedImpact, or Optum/Prescription Solutions
(prior to Jan. 29, 2015); and (iii) paid CVS an out-of-pocket
payment for the purchase greater than the HSP price for the
prescription.  The Plaintiffs proffer the following
representatives for each state class: California (Tyler Clark);
Arizona (Zulema Avis); Florida (Debbie Barrett and Robert Jenks);
Illinois (Robert Jenks and Carl Washington); Massachusetts (Robert
Garber); and New York (Onnolee Samuelson).

The Defendants contend that certification of these classes is
inappropriate because the classes and class representatives fail
to satisfy the requirements for a Rule 23(b)(3) class, namely: (i)
typicality; (ii) predominance and commonality; and (iii)
superiority.

Judge Rogers granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, and certified the following state
classes:

     a. California Class: All CVS customers in California who,
between November 2008 and July 31, 2015, (i) purchased one or more
generic prescription drugs that were offered through CVS's HSP
program at the time of the purchase; (ii) were insured for the
purchase(s) through a third-party payor plan administered by
Caremark/PCS; and (iii) paid CVS an out-of-pocket payment for the
purchase greater than the HSP price for the prescription.

     b. Florida Class: All CVS customers in Florida who, between
November 2008 and July 31, 2015 (i) purchased one or more generic
prescription drugs that were offered through CVS's HSP program at
the time of the purchase; (ii) were insured for the purchase(s)
through a third-party payor plan administered by Caremark/PCS or
Optum; and (3) paid CVS an out-of-pocket payment for the purchase
greater than the HSP price for the prescription.

     c. Illinois Class: All CVS customers in Illinois who, between
November 2008 and July 31, 2015, (i) purchased one or more generic
prescription drugs that were offered through CVS's Health Savings
Pass (HSP) program at the time of the purchase; (ii) were insured
for the purchase(s) through a third-party payor plan administered
by Caremark/PCS; and (iii) paid CVS an out-of-pocket payment for
the purchase greater than the HSP price for the prescription.

     d. Massachusetts Class: All CVS customers in Massachusetts
who, between November 2008 and July 31, 2015, (i) purchased one or
more generic prescription drugs that were offered through CVS's
HSP program at the time of the purchase; (ii) were insured for the
purchase(s) through a third-party payor plan administered either
by Express Scripts or MedImpact; and (iii) paid CVS an out-of-
pocket payment for the purchase greater than the HSP price for the
prescription.

She denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a
New York and Arizona class because the proposed class
representatives fail to satisfy the typicality requirement of Rule
23(a).

The Defendants argue that two opinions of Dr. Hay are unreliable,
namely his contention that defendant's true U&C price is the HSP
program price and Dr. Hay's damages calculation.  Judge Rogers
agrees with the Defendants.  Dr. Hay's opinion that the HSP price
should have been reported as the U&C price lacks sufficient
foundation to satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 702.  Moreover,
absent a U&C figure to enter into his analysis, Dr. Hay does not,
in fact, have a damages figure to present to the Court.  Thus, his
opinion on damages is effectively moot.  The Defendants do not
otherwise challenge Dr. Hay's methodology in this regard, nor do
they challenge his qualifications to perform the calculations.
Judge Rogers granted in part the Defendants' motion to strike
certain opinions by Dr. Hay and stuck Dr. Hay's opinion that HSP
prices are U&C, but denied the Defendants' motion otherwise.

Judge Rogers also granted the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment.  She finds that no genuine issue of material fact exists
as to whether the Defendants misrepresented the U&C price to the
PBMs.  She needs not address issues related to reliance or
causation here, where the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy a
necessary element of each of their claims.  Accordingly, she
granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.  The
Defendants must file a proposed judgment, approved as to form by
all parties, within five business days of the Order.  The Order
terminates Docket Numbers 271, 274, and 287.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/JoSbSs from Leagle.com.

Christopher Corcoran, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L.
Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP.

Christopher Corcoran, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Cheryl
Pritzker -- ecp@pritzkerlevine.com -- Pritzker Levine LLP,
Jonathan Krasne Levine -- jkl@pritzkerlevine.com -- Pritzker
Levine, LLP, Bonny E. Sweeney -- bsweeney@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld
LLP, Edward H. Meyers -- emeyers@steinmitchell.com -- Stein
Mitchell Cipollone Beato and Missner LLP, Gary Ivan Smith, Jr. --
gsmith@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Kristen Ward Broz --
kbroz@constantinecannon.com -- Haufeld, pro hac vice, Kristen
Marie Ward, Hausfeld LLP, Michael Paul Lehmann --
mlehmann@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Michaela Spero --
mspero@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld, Pasquale A. Cipollone --
pcipollone@steinmitchell.com -- Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone
Beato LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca Ruby Anzidei, Stein Mitchell Muse
Cipollone Beato LLP, pro hac vice, Richard S. Lewis --
rlewis@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Robert B.
Gilmore -- rgilmore@steinmitchell.com -- Stein Mitchell Muse
Cipollone Beato LLP, pro hac vice, Sathya S. Gosselin --
sgosselin@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP & Shiho Yamamoto, Pritzker
Levine LLP.

Robert Garber, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L. Lebsock,
Hausfeld LLP, Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker, Pritzker Levine LLP,
Jonathan Krasne Levine, Pritzker Levine, LLP, Bonny E. Sweeney,
Hausfeld LLP, Edward H. Meyers, Stein Mitchell Cipollone Beato and
Missner LLP, Gary Ivan Smith, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Kristen Ward
Broz, Haufeld, pro hac vice, Kristen Marie Ward, Hausfeld LLP,
Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, Pasquale A. Cipollone, Stein
Mitchell Muse Cipollone Beato LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca Ruby
Anzidei, Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone Beato LLP, pro hac vice,
Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Robert B. Gilmore,
Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone Beato LLP, pro hac vice, Sathya S.
Gosselin, Hausfeld LLP & Shiho Yamamoto, Pritzker Levine LLP.

Toni Odorisio, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L. Lebsock,
Hausfeld LLP, Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker, Pritzker Levine LLP,
Jonathan Krasne Levine, Pritzker Levine, LLP, Bonny E. Sweeney,
Hausfeld LLP, Edward H. Meyers, Stein Mitchell Cipollone Beato and
Missner LLP, Gary Ivan Smith, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Kristen Ward
Broz, Haufeld, pro hac vice, Kristen Marie Ward, Hausfeld LLP,
Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, Pasquale A. Cipollone, Stein
Mitchell Muse Cipollone Beato LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca Ruby
Anzidei, Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone Beato LLP, pro hac vice,
Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Robert B. Gilmore,
Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone Beato LLP, pro hac vice, Sathya S.
Gosselin, Hausfeld LLP & Shiho Yamamoto, Pritzker Levine LLP.

Onnolee Samuelson, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L.
Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP, Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker, Pritzker Levine
LLP, Jonathan Krasne Levine, Pritzker Levine, LLP, Bonny E.
Sweeney, Hausfeld LLP, Edward H. Meyers, Stein Mitchell Cipollone
Beato and Missner LLP, Gary Ivan Smith, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Kristen
Ward Broz, Haufeld, pro hac vice, Kristen Marie Ward, Hausfeld
LLP, Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, Pasquale A. Cipollone,
Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone Beato LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca
Ruby Anzidei, Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone Beato LLP, pro hac
vice, Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Robert B.
Gilmore, Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone Beato LLP, pro hac vice,
Sathya S. Gosselin, Hausfeld LLP & Shiho Yamamoto, Pritzker Levine
LLP.

Vincent Gargiulo, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Cheryl
Pritzker, Pritzker Levine LLP, Jonathan Krasne Levine, Pritzker
Levine, LLP, Edward H. Meyers, Stein Mitchell Cipollone Beato and
Missner LLP, Gary Ivan Smith, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Kristen Marie
Ward, Hausfeld LLP, Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice,
Sathya S. Gosselin, Hausfeld LLP, Shiho Yamamoto, Pritzker Levine
LLP & Bonny E. Sweeney, Hausfeld LLP.

Zulema Avis, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker,
Pritzker Levine LLP, Jonathan Krasne Levine, Pritzker Levine, LLP,
Edward H. Meyers, Stein Mitchell Cipollone Beato and Missner LLP,
Gary Ivan Smith, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Kristen Marie Ward, Hausfeld
LLP, Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Sathya S.
Gosselin, Hausfeld LLP, Shiho Yamamoto, Pritzker Levine LLP &
Bonny E. Sweeney, Hausfeld LLP.

Robert Jenks, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker,
Pritzker Levine LLP, Jonathan Krasne Levine, Pritzker Levine, LLP,
Edward H. Meyers, Stein Mitchell Cipollone Beato and Missner LLP,
Gary Ivan Smith, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Kristen Marie Ward, Hausfeld
LLP, Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Sathya S.
Gosselin, Hausfeld LLP, Shiho Yamamoto, Pritzker Levine LLP &
Bonny E. Sweeney, Hausfeld LLP.

Tyler Clark, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker,
Pritzker Levine LLP, Jonathan Krasne Levine, Pritzker Levine, LLP,
Edward H. Meyers, Stein Mitchell Cipollone Beato and Missner LLP,
Gary Ivan Smith, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Kristen Marie Ward, Hausfeld
LLP, Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Sathya S.
Gosselin, Hausfeld LLP, Shiho Yamamoto, Pritzker Levine LLP &
Bonny E. Sweeney, Hausfeld LLP.

Carolyn Caine, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Cheryl
Pritzker, Pritzker Levine LLP, Jonathan Krasne Levine, Pritzker
Levine, LLP, Edward H. Meyers, Stein Mitchell Cipollone Beato and
Missner LLP, Gary Ivan Smith, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Kristen Marie
Ward, Hausfeld LLP, Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice,
SathyCa S. Gosselin, Hausfeld LLP, Shiho Yamamoto, Pritzker Levine
LLP & Bonny E. Sweeney, Hausfeld LLP.

CVS Health, Defendant, represented by August P. Gugelmann --
august@smllp.law -- Swanson & McNamara LLP, David Michael Horniak
-- dhorniak@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly, LLP, Edward W. Swanson
-- ed@smllp.law -- Swanson & McNamara LLP, Enu A. Mainigi --
emainigi@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Frank
Lane Heard, III -- lheard@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP &
Grant A. Geyerman -- ggeyerman@wc.com -- Williams Connolly, LLP,
pro hac vice.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Watts --
awatts@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly, Ashley Wall Hardin --
ahardin@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, August P. Gugelmann,
Swanson & McNamara LLP, Colleen Marie McNamara, Williams and
Connolly LLP, Daniel M. Dockery, Williams and Connolly LLP, Edward
W. Swanson, Swanson & McNamara LLP, Enu A. Mainigi, Williams and
Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Frank Lane Heard, III, Williams and
Connolly LLP, Grant A. Geyerman, Williams Connolly, LLP & Sarah
Lochner O'Connor -- soconnor@wc.com -- Wiliams & Connolly LLP.


DAKOTA PLAINS: PSLRA Stay on Discovery in "Gruber" Partly Lifted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JON GRUBER, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RYAN GILBERTSON, et al.,
Defendants, No. 16cv9727 (S.D. N.Y.), Judge William H. Pauley,
III, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to
lift the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") stay
on discovery for the limited purpose of subpoenaing non-parties
Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc. and BioUrja Trading, LLC.

This putative securities fraud class action arises from the
alleged manipulation of Dakota Plains stock.  Dakota Plains,
originally a Defendant in this action, was dropped as a party
after it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the
District of Minnesota.  Nine months later, Dakota Plains is primed
to exit bankruptcy by way of liquidation.

In January 2017, Dakota Holdings agreed to transfer substantially
all of its assets to BioUrja, an energy commodities trading
company, pursuant to the terms of an asset purchase agreement.
Since then, Dakota Plains has been operating these assets on
behalf of BioUrja pursuant to a "Transition Services Agreement"
pending completion of the bankruptcy.  Following confirmation of
Dakota Plains' Chapter 11 plan of liquidation -- scheduled for
Sept. 6, 2017 -- Dakota Plains' assets will be transferred to
BioUrja.

As the end of Dakota Plains' bankruptcy proceeding draws near, the
Plaintiffs seek permission from the Court to lift the PSLRA
discovery stay for the limited purpose of issuing subpoenas for
the production of documents to Dakota Plains and BioUrja.  Their
request is rooted in their concern that Dakota Plains'
liquidation, and its transfer of assets to BioUrja, may result in
the loss of relevant documents or electronically stored
information.  Further compounding their concern is the failure of
Dakota Plains' bankruptcy counsel to respond to the Plaintiffs'
letter requesting preservation.  Against this backdrop, the
Plaintiffs contend that there is no assurance as to what will
happen to the electronically stored information and other
documents once the Plan of Liquidation has been confirmed and
finalized and the transfer of all of Dakota Plains' assets is
completed to a third party entity with no preservation obligation.

Judge Pauley finds that the Plaintiffs fail to articulate the
exceptional circumstances under which they would suffer undue
prejudice.  They cite to the exigencies associated with Dakota
Plains' "imminent" liquidation and the transfer of substantially
all of its assets to BioUrja, contending that a stay is
appropriate. But if the mere fact of bankruptcy or a sale of
assets constituted the exceptional circumstances warranting a lift
of stay, the PSLRA's strong presumption against discovery would be
rendered meaningless since many securities class actions arise on
the heels of financial distress.  There must be something about
those circumstances that would unduly prejudice the Plaintiffs if
they were unable to obtain discovery in short order.

Aside from their failure to show undue prejudice, Judge Pauley
also finds that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that lifting
the stay is necessary to preserve evidence.  Of course, Dakota
Plains bankruptcy counsel's failure to respond to their request
did nothing to alleviate concerns about preservation and perhaps
compelled them to seek relief here.  And Plaintiffs, for good
reason, are concerned about the evidence Dakota Plains and BioUrja
possess, which is highly critical and relevant to the claims in
this action.  Beyond their blithe assertion that documents and ESI
"might be" destroyed as a result of Dakota Plains' imminent
liquidation and transfer of assets to BioUrja, the Plaintiffs have
not provided any specific facts that such an outcome is probable.

Notwithstanding bankruptcy counsel's failure to respond, Dakota
Plains' duty to preserve all documents relevant to the subject
matter of this action arose as soon as it was served with the
summons and complaint in December 2016.  Although it is no longer
a named Defendant, it is not relieved from its preservation
obligation.  It therefore appears that Dakota Plains has
undertaken steps to preserve relevant information.
Notwithstanding those efforts, the Plaintiffs may serve a
preservation subpoena for the purpose of reiterating to Dakota
Plains and its liquidating trustee their duties to preserve
relevant information and make any arrangements to maintain the
server after Dec. 31, 2017.

BioUrja, on the other hand, is a third party whose only
involvement in this action is that it agreed to purchase Dakota
Plains' assets.  Those assets include relevant documents to which
the Plaintiffs will be entitled if they prevail on the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  While the parties to the action are
specifically directed to preserve all relevant documents during
the pendency of the stay, this statutory command does not apply to
nonparties.  And because of that, BioUrja's status as a nonparty
significantly increases the risk that evidence may be lost absent
an express preservation notice.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are
authorized to serve a preservation subpoena on BioUrja, directing
it to preserve any relevant evidence during the pendency of this
litigation.

For these reasons, Judge Pauley granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' motion to lift the PSLRA stay on discovery.  He
directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at ECF
No. 105.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/G9Ex6X from Leagle.com.

Jon D. Gruber, Plaintiff, represented by Louis Andrew Kessler --
lkessler@cerallp.com -- Cera LLP.

Jon D. Gruber, Plaintiff, represented by Solomon B. Cera --
scera@cerallp.com -- Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP & Jeffrey
Simon Abraham -- jabraham@aftlaw.com -- Abraham Fruchter & Twersky
LLP.

Steven Deardeuff, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A..

Jon D. & Linda W. Gruber Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Louis
Andrew Kessler, Cera LLP, Solomon B. Cera, Gold Bennett Cera &
Sidener, LLP & Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Abraham Fruchter & Twersky
LLP.

Nibahoo Malhotra, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen
Law Firm P.A..

Craig M McKenzie, Defendant, represented by Bradley Gershel --
gershelb@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard Spahr LLP, Christopher Mcbeth
Proczko -- cproczko@lindquist.com -- Lindquist & Vennum LLP, Karl
Jon Breyer -- jbreyer@lindquist.com -- Lindquist & Vennum LLP &
Marjorie Joan Peerce -- peercem@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard Spahr
LLP.

Timothy R. Brady, Defendant, represented by Carrie Baker Anderson,
Allen & Overy, LLP, Ranelle A. Leier -- rleier@foxrothschild.com -
- Fox Rothschild LLP & Oksana Gaussy Wright --
owright@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild, LLP.

Gabriel G Claypool, Defendant, represented by Victoria Peng --
victoria.peng@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Jane
E. Dudzinski -- jane.dudzinski@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Kenneth Michael Kliebard --
kenneth.kliebard@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Michael L. Reger, Defendant, represented by David Anthony Scheffel
-- scheffel.david@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, James K.
Langdon -- langdon.jim@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP &
Michael E. Rowe, III -- rowe.michael@dorsey.com -- Dorsey &
Whitney LLP.

Terry H. Rust, Defendant, represented by Bradley Gershel, Ballard
Spahr LLP, Christopher Mcbeth Proczko, Lindquist & Vennum LLP,
Karl Jon Breyer, Lindquist & Vennum LLP & Marjorie Joan Peerce,
Ballard Spahr LLP.

Paul M. Cownie, Defendant, represented by Bradley Gershel, Ballard
Spahr LLP, Christopher Mcbeth Proczko, Lindquist & Vennum LLP,
Karl Jon Breyer, Lindquist & Vennum LLP & Marjorie Joan Peerce,
Ballard Spahr LLP.

David J. Fellon, Defendant, represented by Bradley Gershel,
Ballard Spahr LLP, Christopher Mcbeth Proczko, Lindquist & Vennum
LLP, Karl Jon Breyer, Lindquist & Vennum LLP & Marjorie Joan
Peerce, Ballard Spahr LLP.

Gary L. Alvord, Defendant, represented by Bradley Gershel, Ballard
Spahr LLP, Christopher Mcbeth Proczko, Lindquist & Vennum LLP,
Karl Jon Breyer, Lindquist & Vennum LLP & Marjorie Joan Peerce,
Ballard Spahr LLP.

James L. Thornton, Defendant, represented by Bradley Gershel,
Ballard Spahr LLP, Christopher Mcbeth Proczko, Lindquist & Vennum
LLP, Karl Jon Breyer, Lindquist & Vennum LLP & Marjorie Joan
Peerce, Ballard Spahr LLP.

Ryan R. Gilbertson, Defendant, represented by Troy J. Hutchinson -
- thutchinson@hutchinson-legal.com -- Rock Hutchinson, PLLP.


DEJA VU CONSULTING: Plaintiff's Identity Kept Under Wraps
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JANE DOE No. 1, the Plaintiff, v.
DEJA VU CONSULTING INC. et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00040 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Aleta A. Trauger entered an
order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion to
      proceed pseudonymously, to permit filing of all unredacted
      consents under seal, and for entry of a permanent
      protective order;

   2. denying as moot Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of
      personal jurisdiction;

   3. denying Defendants' motion to reconsider the court's
      previous order;

   4. denying Plaintiff's motion to hold Defendants' motion to
      dismiss or to stay in favor of arbitration in abeyance;

   5. granting Defendants' motion to dismiss or to stay in favor
      of arbitration and dismissing case without prejudice, but
      the court retains jurisdiction to enter judgment on any
      arbitration award or to consider other relief sought at the
      conclusion of arbitration; and

   6. denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for expedited court-
      supervised notice to putative class members.

The Court grants Plaintiff permission, nunc pro tunc, to file this
case pseudonymously, and maintain her anonymity in past public
court filings and any future court filings. However, her request
to file future consent notices under seal is denied as moot in
light of the court's determination that this matter must be
dismissed in favor of arbitration.

Likewise, the request for a protective order has largely been
rendered moot, but the court grants the motion in part, as
follows:

   a. The Defendants and their counsel shall be permitted to
      receive the names and personally identifying information
      concerning Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2.

   b. The Defendants and defense counsel shall maintain in strict
      confidence the names and personally identifying information
      concerning Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 that they
      obtain in the future or have already obtained and shall not
      disclose this information to any other party or entity
      except as necessary to the defense of this case, in
      arbitration or otherwise.

   c. The Defendants and their counsel shall not disseminate
      publicly the information protected by this Order, and any
      pleadings or exhibits filed with the court shall reference
      the named plaintiff by her pseudonym only.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SKtvo9zo


DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Certifies Class in "Moreno" ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RAMON MORENO, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DEUTSCHE BANK AMERICAS HOLDING CORP., et al., Defendants, No. 15
Civ. 9936 (LGS)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class with respect to their claims
asserted on behalf of the Deutsche Bank Matched Savings Plan.

The Plan is a defined contribution plan, or 401(k) plan, for
eligible employees of Defendant Deutsche Bank Americas Holding
Corp. ("DBAHC") and its affiliates.  It entitles eligible
employees to contribute a certain portion of their earnings into
individual investment accounts.  The Plaintiffs are five current
or former participants in the Plan.

The Third Amended Complaint ("Complaint") alleges that the
Defendants mismanaged the Plan by favoring high-cost proprietary
funds to benefit Defendants at the expense of participants.
Citing the report prepared by their proposed expert, Dr. Steven
Pomerantz, which was filed in support of the motion, the
Plaintiffs contend that three of the 10 proprietary funds offered
by the Plan were passive "index" funds that consistently charged
higher fees than non-proprietary funds that tracked the same
index.

The Plan retained these proprietary index funds until February
2013, even though a third-party investment advisor alerted the
Investment Committee of lowerfee alternatives in 2011.
Approximately $502 million was invested in the index proprietary
funds when they were removed as investment options.  Dr. Pomerantz
avers that the average investment fee for the three proprietary
index funds was more than five times the fee charged by non-
proprietary index funds in the same investment style.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants failed to (i) minimize
investment management expenses in two other ways for proprietary
and non-proprietary mutual funds; (ii) consider the use of
alternatives to mutual funds, such as separate accounts and
collective investment trusts, which have lower fees but were in
the same investment style; and (iii)  control recordkeeping
expenses.

The Complaint alleges four counts under ERISA.  Count One asserts
that the Defendants, who allegedly are Plan fiduciaries, breached
their duties of care and loyalty in selecting, retaining and
monitoring the Plan investments.  Count Two alleges that the
inclusion of the proprietary funds caused the Plan to engage in
prohibited transactions with parties in interest, which includes
DBAHC's subsidiaries that received fees for investment services
rendered to the proprietary funds.  Count Three asserts that DBAHC
engaged in prohibited self-dealing transactions because it caused
the Plan to pay investment management fees and expenses to DBAHC's
subsidiaries.  Count Four alleges that DBAHC, O'Connell and the
Executive Committee breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
monitor the decision-making process of the Investment Committee.

The Complaint requests, among other relief, an order compelling
Defendants to personally make good to the Plan all losses that the
Plan incurred as a result of the breaches of fiduciary duties and
prohibited transactions alleged in the Complaint.  It also seeks
equitable relief, including the appointment of an independent
fiduciary or fiduciaries to run the Plan; transfer of Plan assets
out of imprudent investments into prudent alternatives; and
removal of Plan fiduciaries deemed to have breached their
fiduciary duties and/or engaged in prohibited transactions.

The Plaintiffs move for certification of the following proposed
class of all participants and beneficiaries of the Plan at any
time on or after Dec. 21, 2009, excluding the Defendants, any of
their directors, and any officers or employees of Defendants with
responsibility for the Plan's investment or administrative
function.  They seek appointment as the Class Representatives and
the Plaintiffs' counsel as the designated Class Counsel.

Judge Schofield finds that the Plan has around 22,000 participants
and 10,000 former participants.  The numerosity requirement is
satisfied.  In addition, the Plaintiffs have (i) shown
commonality, (ii) shown typicality, and (iii) demonstrated
adequacy.  She does not address the parties' arguments regarding
Rule 23(b)(1)(A) or Rule 23(b)(3).  The Judge further finds that
the Plaintiffs have class standing to pursue the claims on behalf
of the absent class members, including those who invested in
proprietary or non-proprietary funds offered by the Plan in which
none of them invested.

Judge Schofield also finds that the Plaintiffs' counsel, who have
been counsel of record from the start of the case, have committed
significant resources to the case, including drafting the
pleadings, responding to a motion to dismiss and engaging in
extensive discovery.  They also attest that they will devote the
resources necessary to prosecute this case to a conclusion and are
not aware of any conflict of interest that would impede their
ability to represent the class members.  The appointment of the
Nichols Kaster as the Class Counsel is warranted.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Schofield granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and denied as moot the Defendants'
request for oral argument.

The requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(1)(B) having been
satisfied, the Judge appointed the Plaintiffs as the Class
Representatives to sue on behalf of a class of all participants
and beneficiaries of the Plan at any time on or after Dec. 21,
2009, whose individual accounts suffered losses as a result of the
conduct alleged in Counts One through Four of the Complaint,
excluding the Defendants, any of their directors, and any officers
or employees of the Defendants with responsibility for the Plan's
investment or administrative function.  She further ordered that
Nichols Kaster, PLLP is appointed as the Class Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/S2xY5l from Leagle.com.

Ramon Moreno, Plaintiff, represented by Carl Engstrom --
cengstrom@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

Ramon Moreno, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Schutz --
jschutz@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, Pllp, Kai Heinrich Richter --
krichter@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Paul J. Lukas --
lukas@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP & Michele Renee Fisher --
fisher@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

Donald O'Halloran, Plaintiff, represented by Carl Engstrom,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Jacob Schutz, Nichols Kaster, Pllp, Kai
Heinrich Richter, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Paul J. Lukas, Nichols
Kaster, PLLP & Michele Renee Fisher, Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

Omkharan Arasarantnam, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Schutz,
Nichols Kaster, Pllp, Paul J. Lukas, Nichols Kaster, PLLP & Kai
Heinrich Richter, Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

Baiju Gajjar, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Schutz, Nichols
Kaster, Pllp, Paul J. Lukas, Nichols Kaster, PLLP & Kai Heinrich
Richter, Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

Rajath Nagaraja, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Schutz, Nichols
Kaster, Pllp, Paul J. Lukas, Nichols Kaster, PLLP & Kai Heinrich
Richter, Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp., Defendant, represented by
Alison V. Douglass -- adouglass@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter,
LLP, Jaime A. Santos -- jsantos@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter,
LLP, pro hac vice, James O. Fleckner -- jfleckner@goodwinlaw.com -
- Goodwin, Procter, L.L.P., Michael K. Murray, Holland & Knight,
LLP, pro hac vice & Richard Mark Strassberg --
rstrassberg@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter, LLP.

Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp. Executive Committee,
Defendant, represented by Alison V. Douglass, Goodwin Procter,
LLP, Jaime A. Santos -- jsantos@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter,
LLP, pro hac vice, James O. Fleckner, Goodwin, Procter, L.L.P.,
Michael K. Murray, Holland & Knight, LLP, pro hac vice & Richard
Mark Strassberg, Goodwin Procter, LLP.

Richard O'Connell, Defendant, represented by Alison V. Douglass,
Goodwin Procter, LLP, Jaime A. Santos, Goodwin Procter, LLP, pro
hac vice, James O. Fleckner, Goodwin, Procter, L.L.P., Michael K.
Murray, Holland & Knight, LLP, pro hac vice & Richard Mark
Strassberg, Goodwin Procter, LLP.

John Arvanitis, Defendant, represented by James O. Fleckner,
Goodwin, Procter, L.L.P..

Robert Dibble, Defendant, represented by James O. Fleckner,
Goodwin, Procter, L.L.P..

Tim Dowling, Defendant, represented by James O. Fleckner, Goodwin,
Procter, L.L.P..

Richard Ferguson, Defendant, represented by James O. Fleckner,
Goodwin, Procter, L.L.P..

James Gnall, Defendant, represented by James O. Fleckner, Goodwin,
Procter, L.L.P..

Louis Jaffe, Defendant, represented by James O. Fleckner, Goodwin,
Procter, L.L.P..

Patrick McKenna, Defendant, represented by James O. Fleckner,
Goodwin, Procter, L.L.P..


DIGITAL AGE: "Taylor" Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALICIA TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. DIGITAL AGE MARKETING GROUP, INC., A Florida
Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-61721-WPD
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 29, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages, and declaratory relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act .

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff should be compensated at
the rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff's regular rate for
those hours that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week
as required by FLSA.

Digital Age Marketing Group is a full service online marketing
firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DJ SOUTHHOLD: "Torres" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Premium under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER SIGUENZA TORRES, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DJ SOUTHHOLD, INC.
d/b/a DUNKIN' DONUTS, SANJAY JAIN, NEERJA JAIN, and SHASHANK
JARETH, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
05123 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
premium pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as an associate,
assistant manager and store manager for Dunkin' Donuts restaurant
located in Southold, New York. While working for Defendants,
Plaintiff was required to work well in excess of 40 hours each
week and was paid at straight-time rates for all hours worked,
including overtime hours, pursuant to Defendants' unlawful
corporate pay scheme. As such, Plaintiff was not paid overtime
premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, in
violation of federal and state law.

Dunkin' Donuts is an American global donut company and coffeehouse
based in Canton, Massachusetts, in Greater Boston. It was founded
in 1950 by William Rosenberg in Quincy, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          Alison Mangiatordi, 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
                  mangiatordi@peltongraham.com


DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Faces "Wallace" Suit over Soft Drink Tax
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARK J. WALLACE, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES, INC., a
Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2017CH11997 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Sep. 1, 2017), seeks injunctive relief to ensure that
Defendant updates its Subway stores' POS systems to properly
assess soft drink tax.

This is a class action brought on behalf of the class of persons,
who were improperly charged soft drink tax pursuant to the Chicago
Soft Drink Tax Ordinance by Subway retail locations on their
retail purchases of unsweetened beverages in Chicago, Illinois.
The Ordinance imposes a 3% tax on the retail sale of all sweetened
soft drinks in Chicago.  Notwithstanding the requirements in the
Ordinance, Defendant charged Plaintiff the soft drink tax on his
purchases of unsweetened, 1 00% fruit juice, resulting in an
unlawful tax charge.  On information and belief, under the
direction of Defendant, Subway retail locations are automatically
and uniformly charging the soft drink tax on purchases regardless
of whether the consumer is purchasing a soft drink (as defined in
the Ordinance).  The Defendant's acts and omissions alleged
violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices
Act.

Doctor's Associates, doing business as Subway, owns and operates a
chain of sandwich restaurants in the United States and
internationally. The company offers various food and catering
menus.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Esq.
          Sharon Harris, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          Matthewq De Re, Esq.
          Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          www.attomeyzim.com
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440 0020
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  harris@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com
                  nick@attorneyzim.com
                  maebetty@attorneyzim.com


E PARTNERS: Faces Deceptive Marketing Class Action in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo, writing for Madison Record, reports that a
St. Clair County consumer alleges a coconut water-based drink's
all natural claims are false and misleading.

Timothy Blankenship, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint on Aug. 21 in
the St. Clair County Circuit Court against E Partners CW5 Inc.
alleging it violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

According to the complaint, the defendant manufactures the COCO5
drinks.  The drinks' labels state that the product is "all
natural."  The plaintiff alleges that in August 2016, he purchased
the defendant's pineapple-flavored drink at Fresh Thyme Farmers
Market and that the label deceived him.

The plaintiff alleges the defendant lists "natural rebiana" as an
ingredient, which he alleges is not natural because it is made
from stevia and ertythritol.

The plaintiff seeks an order certifying this case as a class
action, appointing plaintiff and his counsel as representatives of
the class. He also seeks an award for compensatory damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs and all other relief that are
just and proper.

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

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-463
[GN]


EDEN PLANTATION: "Upton" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARL UPTON, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTH EDEN PLANTATION, L.L.C. and
DERLYN SPARROW, the Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-00148-HL (M.D.
Ga., Sep. 1, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants
have not paid overtime for work performed in excess of 40 hours
weekly from the filing of this complaint back three years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Loren, Esq.
          GOLDBERG & LOREN, P.A.
          100 S. Pine Island Road, Ste 132
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (800) 719 1617
          Facsimile: (954) 585 4886
          E-mail: Jloren@goldbergloren.com


EQUIFAX INC: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of FCRA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Raffetto, Esq., of Goodwin, in an article for JDSupra, wrote
that the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Northern District of
Georgia's dismissal of a putative Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
case against Equifax and Transunion.  In Pedro v. Equifax, Inc.,
plaintiff sought to represent a putative class of authorized users
of delinquent credit cards who did not have payment obligations on
those credit cards but whose credit reports included information
about the delinquency.  The court held that dismissal was
appropriate because defendants' interpretation of the FCRA was
objectively reasonable.  Pedro provides important guidance for
defendants facing FCRA cases as well as those examining their FCRA
compliance procedures.

In Pedro, the plaintiff alleged that credit bureaus Equifax and
Transunion included inaccurate information on her credit report,
causing her credit score to drop by 100 points.  The plaintiff was
an authorized user on her parents' credit card, which the
plaintiff used to make purchases on their behalf.  Since it was
her parents' card, however, the plaintiff did not have any
obligation to make payments on it.  When the plaintiff's parents
died, the card became delinquent, and the defendants reported that
delinquency on the plaintiff's credit report with a notation that
she was an authorized user.  The plaintiff sued under the FCRA,
Section 1681e(b), which prohibits the willful publication of a
consumer report without following "reasonable procedures to assure
maximum possible accuracy of the information."  The district court
dismissed the case, and the plaintiff appealed.

In reviewing the case, the Eleventh Circuit first determined that
the plaintiff had Article III standing to sue because she alleged
that her credit score dropped as a result of the defendants'
inclusion of allegedly inaccurate information on her credit
report.  Turning to the substantive FCRA issue, the court held
that it was objectively reasonable for the defendants to interpret
the "maximum possible accuracy" requirement of Section 1681e(b) to
permit them to include technically accurate information--that the
plaintiff was an authorized user of the account even though she
had no payment obligations--on the plaintiff's credit report.
Because that interpretation was reasonable, the Eleventh Circuit
held dismissal was appropriate because the defendant could not
willfully have violated the statute.

The Eleventh Circuit also addressed the procedural question of
whether willfulness determinations may be made at the motion-to-
dismiss stage.  Citing several cases in the FCRA context, the
Eleventh Circuit rejected the plaintiff's argument that such
determinations cannot be made on the pleadings and held that,
where a consumer reporting agency's interpretation is not
objectively unreasonable, dismissal is appropriate.  Thus, for
defendants facing similar claims, Pedro provides significant
assistance in evaluating whether to seek dismissal.

Although the Eleventh Circuit concluded that reading Section
1681e(b) to require only technical accuracy was objectively
reasonable, it noted that a "better reading" is that credit
reports be both accurate and not misleading. Because courts look
to existing caselaw in evaluating whether a defendant's
interpretation was reasonable, entities providing credit reporting
services should consider the Eleventh Circuit's commentary in
Pedro along with other reported decisions as they examine their
own reporting practices. [GN]


FEDEX GROUND: "Roy" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROY, ANGEL SULLIVANBLAKE, and JUSTIN TRUMBULL, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-
cv-30116 (D. Mass., Aug. 29, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Mr. Roy is eligible to receive
overtime pay under the FLSA since he drove a vehicle weighing less
than 10,000 pounds, but he has not received overtime pay for his
hours worked beyond 40 per week.

FedEx Ground provides business-to-business package shipping and
ground delivery services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Peter Delano, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  pdelano@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC.
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522 8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218 9555
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com


FOOT LOCKER: "Edwards" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
DeVaughn Edwards, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc.,
the Defendants, Case No. 516938/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 31,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages including unpaid spread of
hours and overtime wages, maximum liquidated damages, maximum
recovery for violations of New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff complains under Civil Practice Law and Rules section
901 et Seq. on behalf of himself and a class of other similarly
situated current and former hourly employees who worked for
Defendant and who: 1) were paid an hourly rate equal to or lower
than the applicable New York State minimum wage rate; and 2)
worked a spread of hours of more than 10 hours in a day; that he
and they are entitled to an extra hour of pay for each such day
pursuant to New York Minimum Wage Act.

Foot Locker, Inc. is the world's leading retailer of athletic
footwear, apparel and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740 1000
          Facsimile: (718) 355 9668
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


FORD MOTOR: Faces "Wozniak" Suit over Defective Lug Nuts
--------------------------------------------------------
JOSH WOZNIAK, ANGEL CASTANEDA, RAJ CHAUHAN, ROBERT DESOTELLE,
SAMANTHA ELLIS, DONALD LYCAN, and DAVID MATHIAS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12794-SJM-DRG
(E.D. Mich., Aug. 24, 2017), seeks to recover damages and other
equitable relief and to enjoin Ford's unfair and/or deceptive acts
or practices.

The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all
other current and former owners and lessees of Ford's Fusion,
Escape, Flex, Focus, F-150, and F-350 that are equipped with
Ford's defective two-piece lug nuts.

According to the complaint, Mr. Chauhan first learned of the
defective lug nuts on his Fusion approximately two years ago when
he took his 2014 Ford Fusion to a local tire shop for a flat and
they told him they had difficulty removing the lug nuts.
Recently, Mr. Chauhan took his Fusion to Fair Oaks Ford Lincoln
for an oil change and tire rotation.  The Ford technician told Mr.
Chauhan that he needed to replace all of the lug nuts because they
were swollen and delaminated.  Mr. Chauhan replaced all the lug
nuts used for all four wheels on his vehicle and paid out-of-
pocket for them.  Due to Ford's failure to disclose the defective
nature of the lug nuts installed on Mr. Chauhan's Ford Fusion, Mr.
Chauhan was denied the benefit of the bargain at the time of sale.
Mr. Chauhan has also suffered additional damage relating to the
cost of repair needed to make the vehicle operate as a reasonable
consumer would have expected.

Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automaker
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was
founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623 0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  toml@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
          950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841 2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652 2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces "Somogyi" Suit over Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA SOMOGYI and KELLY WHYLE SOMOGYI, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06546-JBS-
JS (D.N.J., Aug. 30, 2017), seeks to recover damages, injunctive
relief, equitable relief, and any other relief deemed just and
proper arising from Defendant's violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Federal Communications Commission
rules.

The Plaintiffs bring this Class Action Complaint against Defendant
to seek redress for Defendant's willful violations of the TCPA,
and the Rules, by placing telemarketing phone calls to Plaintiffs'
telephones using automatic telephone dialing systems ("ATDS")
and/or prerecorded voices without their express written consent,
and by placing telemarketing phone calls to Plaintiffs' and other
class members' telephones after they had withdrawn any consent for
such calls.

Freedom Mortgage is a mortgage providers doing government-insured
lending.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq.
          Arthur Stock, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: elechtzin@bm.net
                  llederer@bm.net
                  astock@bm.net

               - and -

          Brian Mahany, Esq.
          Anthony E. Dietz, Esq.
          MAHANY LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 511328
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 258 2375
          Facsimile: (414) 777 0776
          E-mail: brian@mahanylaw.com
                  adietz@mahanylaw.com


FU CHENG: Cotiy-Monzon Seeks Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ANTONIO COTIY-MONZON and CATARINA CRISTINA
ECOQUIJ-XOCOM, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FU CHENG, INC., D/B/A BUFFET KING,
INC., CHANG CHENG YE, AND FAN FU YE, the Defendants, Case No.
4:17-cv-00842 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to:

   1. grant their motion for conditional class certification;

   2. approve the notice and require Defendants to post the
      notice at Buffet King in areas plainly visible to
      employees;

   3. require Defendants to provide the last known names and
      addresses for all current and former cooks, dish washers,
      and food preparers within the potential class;

   4. order Defendants to produce information within seven days
      of granting this motion; and

   5. authorize Plaintiffs' counsel to mail the notice along with
      a self-addressed stamped return envelope to Kennard
      Richard, P.C., to potential opt-in class members.

On March 16, 2017, the Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of
all other similarly situated employees, filed this action against
Defendant Buffet King pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
alleging that Defendant Buffet King failed to compensate
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees their overtime
rate of one and one-half their regular rate for every hour worked
over 40 per week for the preceding three years prior to March 16,
2017 -- the filing of this lawsuit.

On June 2, 2017, Defendant Buffet King filed an Original Answer
denying Plaintiffs' allegations. On August 14, Plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Complaint adding Cheng and Ye, the owners of Buffet
King, as individual Defendants. Defendants Cheng and Ye were
served with Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint through a request
of waiver of service, which they have accepted, and their deadline
to file an Answer is on October 20.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
          KENNARD LAW
          2603 Augusta Dr., Suite 1450
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742 0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742 0951
          E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com

               - and -

          Jose E. Galvan, Esq.
          KENNARD LAW
          2603 Augusta Dr., Suite 1450
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742 0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742 0951
          E-mail: jose.galvan@kennardlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mr. Peter Costea
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER COSTEA
          4544 Post Oak Place, Suite 350
          Houston, TX 77027


GABRIEL JOSEPH: Ordered to Pay $32.MM Damages for Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Salter, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge in St. Louis on Sept. 7 ordered a Virginia man and
his companies to pay $32.4 million in damages for improper
robocalls narrated by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee that
promoted a religious-themed movie.

U.S. District Judge E. Richard Webber said in the ruling that
Gabriel Joseph III and his companies violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by making commercial calls to more than
3.2 million recipients without their consent.

The calls made in 2012 promoted the movie "Last Ounce of Courage,"
a drama about the "war on Christmas."  The calls in question begin
with Huckabee -- a Southern Baptist minister turned Republican
politician who ran for president in 2008 and 2016 -- saying he has
a "45-second survey," according to court documents.  Huckabee was
dismissed from the suit.

"Do you believe in American freedom and liberty? . . . Would you,
like me, Mike Huckabee, like to see Hollywood respect and promote
traditional American values?" Huckabee said in the calls,
according to court documents.  "I am an enthusiastic supporter of
a new movie called 'Last Ounce of Courage.'  It is a film about
faith, freedom, and taking a stand for American values."

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act allows for a fine of $500
per violation; Webber's ruling amounted to a fine of $10 per call.

Kevin Carnie Jr., an attorney for Ron and Dorit Golan of St. Louis
County, the couple who filed the suit that eventually represented
the class of call recipients, said the damage amount is far too
low.

"We do believe there isn't any discretion for the judge to reduce
it from $500 per call, which would amount to $1.6 billion," Carnie
said. An appeal is planned.

Email messages seeking comment from Joseph's attorneys were not
returned.

The Golans didn't answer calls they received about the movie,
according to court documents, so they instead heard the automated
message, "Liberty.  This is a public survey call.  We may call
back later."

Judge Webber wrote that $1.6 billion in damages would be
"obviously unreasonable and wholly disproportionate to the
offense."  He said the $10 per call penalty "reflects the severity
of the offense," and will help deter "invasions of privacy,
unwanted interruptions and disruptions at home, and the wasted
time spent answering unwanted solicitation calls or unwanted voice
messages."

Judge Webber ruled on the case last month, but didn't award
damages until Sept. 7.

The ruling marked the second time in three months that a federal
judge has awarded millions of dollars in a robocall case.  In
June, U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough of Illinois ordered Dish
Network Corp. to pay $280 million to the U.S. and four states for
using robocalls to consumers on do-not-call lists.

Also in June, the Federal Communications Commission proposed a
$120 million fine, its largest ever, for a Florida-based robocall
network accused of making more than 1 million calls per day to
promote timeshare services and other products.

In March, the FCC announced a crackdown on robocalls.  The
commission said Americans received 2.4 billion robocalls per month
in 2016 and called them "consistently the top source of consumer
complaints received by the FCC."


GEICO CASUALTY: Faces "Pearson" Suit over Automobile Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER PEARSON and LONNIE MCRAE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GEICO CASUALTY
COMPANY, a Maryland Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02116 (D. Colo., Sept. 1, 2017),
seeks an order enjoining GEICO from continuing to engage in
alleged deceptive practices.

The Plaintiffs allege that GEICO violated the Colorado's Consumer
Protection Act by, inter alia, failing to disclose material
information about the automobile insurance policies it provided to
Plaintiffs and the Class Members under, i.e. by failing to
disclose GEICO did not, as a uniform business practice, pay title
and registration fees associated with a total vehicle loss.  As a
result of GEICO's deceptive business practices, Plaintiffs and the
Class Members have suffered damage and lost money in that they
paid for insurance services they otherwise would not have had the
truth been disclosed, in an amount to be proven at trial.

GEICO Casualty Company provides property and casualty
insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brett N. Huff, Esq.
          HUFF & LESLIE, LLP
          2480 Gray Street
          Edgewater, CO 80214
          Telephone: (303) 232 3622
          Facsimile: (303) 274 0638
          E-mail: bhuff@huffandleslie.com


GEICO INDEMNITY: Starks' Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Geoffrey Starks, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. Geico Indemnity Co., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-05771-MWF-
PJW (C.D. Cal), the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald entered an
order:

   1. granting summary judgment motion; and

   2. denying as moot a motion for class Certification and a
      motion to amend.

The Court said, "Plaintiffs' claim under the [Electronic Funds
Transfer Act] fails because Plaintiffs have not established any
genuine issue of material fact as to whether Geico violated that
statute. The undisputed facts show that Geico did not. Because
Plaintiffs' [California's Unfair Competition Law] claim is
predicated on their EFTA claim, it must be dismissed as well".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4wcNzOy0


GOOGLE INC: Gmail Scanning Settlement Obtains Tentative Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that a federal judge
has tentatively approved a class-action settlement of a privacy
lawsuit against Google stemming from its prior practice of
scanning email messages in order to surround them with ads.

The proposed settlement, which was submitted to U.S. District
Court Judge Lucy Koh in July, calls for a three-year injunction
that could affect Google's ability to send ads to people based on
the content of their emails.

"The agreement appears to be the result of serious, informed, non-
collusive negotiations conducted at arms' length by the parties'
experienced counsel," Judge Koh wrote.  She added that the
resolution resulted from two mediation sessions, and that the deal
doesn't "improperly grant preferential treatment to any individual
or segment of the class."

Google said earlier this year that it will stop scanning emails
for ad purposes.  The resolution requires the company to "cease
all processing of email content that it applies prior to the point
when the Gmail user can retrieve the email in his or her mailbox .
. . and that is used for advertising purposes," but only for three
years.

The deal doesn't call for individual users to receive monetary
damages, but allows them to pursue their own lawsuits against
Google.  The class-action attorneys who brought the case could
receive up to $2.2 million.
The settlement stems from a complaint filed in September 2015 by
San Francisco resident Daniel Matera, who alleged that Google
violates a California privacy law and the federal wiretap law by
intercepting messages without people's consent.

Google's terms of service disclosed that it analyzed the contents
of email messages for features including "tailored advertising."
But Matera alleged that he didn't have a Gmail account, and
therefore never agreed to those terms.

Judge Koh rejected a previous settlement that would have required
Google to make some technical changes to its scanning system.
Judge Koh said at the time that it wasn't clear how those prior
terms would remedy the alleged violations of the federal wiretap
law or California's privacy statute.

Although Google will no longer scan emails for ad purposes, the
company still plans to send targeted ads to Gmail users based on
data such as their search queries and YouTube viewing histories.
[GN]


GOVERNMENT PAYMENT: Court Issues Scope of Discovery in "Miner"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion regarding the scope of
class discovery in the case captioned MICHAEL MINER, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
GOVERNMENT PAYMENT SERVICE, INC., d/b/a GOV PAY NET, Defendant,
Case No. 14-cv-7474 ( N.D. Ill.).

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff complains about fees
charged by the Defendant, to Illinois residents who used their
credit or debit cards to make cash bail payments in the state.
The Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of himself and a class
of similarly situated Illinois residents.  He claims that
Defendant's charges for bail and bond services violate the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
(Count I), and that the Defendant is also liable for unjust
enrichment (Count III) and conversion (Count V).  He specifically
seeks to represent a class of individuals defined as all residents
of the State of Illinois who paid a bail deposit with a credit or
debit card and who were charged a fee by the Defendant for
purported bail bond services during the period Sept. 25, 2009,
through the date of final judgment.

However, the specific allegations of wrongdoing involving
Plaintiff -- the single named class representative -- alleged in
the amended complaint pertain solely to his transaction in Cook
County.  The amended complaint does not contain any allegations
that relate to other Illinois counties.

The Plaintiff propounded interrogatories and document requests on
the Defendant in October 2015.  The Defendant provided initial
written responses in June 2015 and amended responses in May 2016.
The Defendant also has produced some 1,300 documents and a
spreadsheet identifying potential Cook County class members.  The
parties have conducted three meet-and-confer conferences regarding
issues with these requests and responses.  Unable to resolve the
disputes through those efforts, the Plaintiff has requested Court
intervention.

Specifically, the parties have reached an impasse regarding the
geographic scope of discovery requested.  The Plaintiff propounded
discovery requests seeking discoverable information and documents
for a putative class of all Illinois residents who paid a bail
deposit with a credit or debit card and were charged a fee by the
Defendant for purported bail bond services.

The Defendant characterizes these requests as "oceanic" and has
limited its responses to payments utilizing the card processing
services promulgated and authorized by the County of Cook and the
State of Illinois and processed by the Defendant.  Accordingly,
the Plaintiff has submitted a Federal Rule of Procedure 12(c)
motion for a judicial determination of the appropriate scope of
his class discovery.  He also takes issue with other of the
Defendant's discovery responses that he believes to be
insufficient because the Defendant's responses direct him to seek
the information from third parties without first demonstrating
that the Defendant lacks possession, custody, or control of such
information.  The Plaintiff appears to seek an order compelling
the production of such information.

Although the Court previously indicated that a Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(c) motion appeared to be an appropriate vehicle
for presenting the issues concerning the proper scope of this
litigation, after consideration of the briefs and the pertinent
case law, Judge Dow concludes that this is actually a discovery
dispute between the parties over the proper scope of class
discovery -- not a motion for a judgment of any kind.  He further
concludes that the Plaintiff is entitled to more discovery than he
has received to date, but not as much as he has requested.

He granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion.  First,
the Judge directed the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff with
copies of all contracts entered into between the Defendant and any
Illinois county that are valid or would have been valid within the
time frame defined in the proposed class definition as set out in
the amended complaint.  Second, he directed the parties to meet
and confer regarding the remainder of the discovery disputes set
forth in the briefing.  This case is set for further status on
Sept. 27, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.  The Plaintiff is given leave to re-
file a motion for class certification by Sept. 26, 2017 if he
believes such a motion is necessary at this time despite the
overruling of the Damasco decision in Chapman v. First Index, Inc.
The now-pending motion for class certification, which is not yet
ready for briefing as class discovery remains ongoing, will be
stricken on Sept. 27, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/ecfcdv from Leagle.com.

Michael J Miner, Plaintiff, represented by Larry D. Drury --
ldd@larrydrury.com -- Larry D. Drury, Ltd..

Michael J Miner, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Sweetnam --
wms@sweetnamllc.com -- Sweetnam LLC & Joseph L. Planera --
jplanera@sbcglobal.net -- Joseph L. Planera & Associates.

Government Payment Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Denean
K. Sturino -- Denean.Sturino@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith, LLP & Rashad Anthony Simmons --
rsimmons@ohaganmeyer.com -- O'Hagan Meyer, LLC.


GRAND RAPIDS, MI: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Wiretapping
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Agar, writing for MLive, reports that the state Court of
Appeals will hear arguments in MLive's lawsuit against Grand
Rapids for its refusal to release recorded phone calls of police
investigating the wrong-way crash of a former Kent County
prosecutor.

The hearing was set for Wednesday, Sept. 6.

MLive and The Grand Rapids Press filed a lawsuit in Kent County
Circuit Court seeking recordings of five calls on a phone line
designated non-recorded that documented conversations between Lt.
Matthew Janiskee, in the watch commander's office, and officers at
the scene of the crash.

Mr. Janiskee, who has filed his own legal action against the city,
alleging illegal wiretapping, has been fired.  Officers Adam Ickes
and Thomas Warwick, then a sergeant, were suspended but kept their
jobs.

Kent County judge says release of recordings will await ruling in
related federal case.

Officer Ickes described the former prosecutor, Josh Kuiper, as
"hammered" when he called Mr. Janiskee on a recorded phone line
after the Nov. 19 crash.  Mr. Janiskee told him to call back on
the line thought to be non-recorded.  Only later did police learn
that line had been recorded for years.

MLive filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for copies
of the five calls on the line designated non-recorded, but the
city balked because it is waiting to see if a federal judge will
issue a declaratory ruling that release of the calls does not
violate state or federal wiretapping laws.

Josh Kuiper is charged with reckless driving causing serious
injury

The city has said it wants to comply with FOIA requests and
considers the recordings public records.

MLive is challenging a ruling by Kent County Circuit Judge Joseph
Rossi who refused to order the release of the recordings until
U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney in Kalamazoo decides if such
release would violate the law.

Judge Rossi wanted to "avoid conflicting rulings from the two
courts."

Attorney Mark Magyar, representing MLive, said in appellate court
filings the city already has concluded the recordings on the line
designated non-recorded "do not constitute illegal interceptions
of wiretapped phone communications because such interception must
be intentional to violate (federal law), whereas the City
'inadvertently' and 'accidentally' recorded the subject
recordings, which does not fall within the federal wiretapping
statute."

Recordings on police line 3407 were discovered Dec. 7, 2016.

In its denial of the information request, the city did not cite a
legal exemption from disclosure under FOIA laws, rather it cited
the pending lawsuit in federal court, Magyar said.

"Among other things, MLive argued: (state FOIA law) does not
exempt from mandatory disclosure public records that are subject
of a pending federal lawsuit, especially not where it is the
public body itself that commenced the lawsuit.  In other words, a
public body cannot create its own exemption simply by filing a
declaratory judgment action every time it wants to withhold
information that is subject to disclosure under FOIA," Mr. Magyar
wrote.

The city is concerned it could be subject to potential liability
by releasing the calls with the federal lawsuit pending.

Mr. Magyar said: "The City is wrong, and the Court should compel
it to disclose the recordings, over which it exerts no exemption
and agrees that no exemption applies based on its own
investigation."

He said the city put itself in the predicament by inadvertently
recording the line designated non-recorded, and seeking a federal
judge's approval of its own stated position that the recordings
are public records.

While Mr. Magyar contended Rossi erred in his ruling, the city
says the judge did not issue a final ruling, but dismissed MLive's
claim without prejudice and did not determine the merits of its
claim.

"It expressly allows for the possibility of further proceedings as
to MLive's FOIA claim, following a decision in the declaratory
action pending in Federal District Court for the Western District
of Michigan," attorney John Gretzinger wrote in his response.

He said the city filed its declaratory judgment action expecting a
relatively quick ruling but the case was slowed when Mr. Janiskee
filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against the city alleging
illegal wiretapping.

The city said no one but city officials and police would have
known the disputed calls existed if it had not filed for a
declaratory ruling.

"It is important to note that the City's Federal Court lawsuit
seeks a declaration that (the) City may release and use the
requested recordings and transcripts, and so the City is actually
taking a position in the federal lawsuit that is 100% aligned with
MLive's position in this FOIA action," Mr. Gretzinger wrote.

He noted the federal judge rejected a request by Daniel Empson,
who was injured in Kuiper's crash, to intervene in the lawsuit to
protect the records from being destroyed. Maloney said the city
adequately represented his interests.

"Thus, it is undisputed that the City is taking all reasonable
actions to facilitate MLive's ability to timely obtain the
requested recordings and transcripts under FOIA, while not
inadvertently or inadvisably exposing itself to potential civil
and criminal penalties . . .," Mr. Gretzinger wrote.

He said federal courts have held that records subject to wiretap
laws are exempt from disclosure.

"In summary, MLive could not be more wrong in its position that
recordings subject to (federal wiretapping laws) are not exempt
from disclosure . . .," Mr. Gretzinger wrote.

He called MLive's lawsuit "unnecessary" with the case pending in
federal court. [GN]


HAMNER EXPRESS: Faces "Nguyen" Suit over Identity Theft
-------------------------------------------------------
TUAN ANH NGUYEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. HAMNER EXPRESS WASH, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-01760-FMO-PLA (C.D. Cal., Aug. 30,
2017), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendant with regard to Defendant's failure to protect
Plaintiff and others similarly situated against identity theft and
fraud by printing a receipt containing both the first four and
last four digits of Plaintiff's debit card numbers on two separate
occasions with two separate cards.

According to the complaint, on July 15, 2017, Plaintiff used
Plaintiff's American Express Credit Card at Hamner's car wash
located at 2126 Hamner Avenue, Norco, CA 92860. At the point of
sale, Defendant provided a receipt that contained both the first
four and last four digits of Plaintiff's card number. Similarly on
July 22, 2017, Plaintiff used Plaintiff's Visa Mastercard Card at
Hamner's car wash located at 2126 Hamner Avenue, Norco, CA 92860.
At the point of sale, Defendant again provided a receipt that
contained both the first four and last four digits of Plaintiff's
card number.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mike Kazerouni, Esq.
          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: mike@kazlg.com
                  ml@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Ste. 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


HEALTH CARE: Appellate Court Reverses Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago federal appellate court has stripped class-action status
from a suit, which alleges Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates
overcharged beneficiaries, then passed the profits back to Blue
Cross, saying a Springfield federal judge overlooked "glaring
problems" when allowing the suit to proceed as a class action.

The ruling was delivered Aug. 31 by Chief Judge Diane Wood, of the
U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, with concurrence from
Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Sykes and Judge Sharon Coleman, of the
U.S. District for Northern Illinois, who sat in with the court of
appeals.

The ruling upended the decision by 88-year-old Judge Richard
Mills, of U.S. District Court for Central Illinois in Springfield,
that gave class-action status to a 2014 suit brought by a group of
plaintiffs against Chicago-based Health Care Service Corporation
(HCSC).  The company sells and administers Blue Cross Blue Shield
insurance plans in Illinois, Texas, Montana, Oklahoma and New
Mexico.  HCSC is one of the largest health insurance carriers in
the country.

Plaintiffs consisted of Blue Cross plan owners and plan
participants and their beneficiaries, who alleged HCSC violated
the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and
Illinois law.

According to plaintiffs, HCSC contracts with affiliates to take
care of prescription drug services, claim payments and other
administrative work.  These affiliates overcharge beneficiaries
then return the proceeds to HCSC via rebates, plaintiffs alleged.
As a consequence, HCSC allegedly breached its fiduciary duty to
plan owners and participants through these excessive charges.

Plaintiffs asked Judge Mills to allow the suit to proceed as a
class action, potentially including about 10 million people. HCSC
objected, but Mills granted the request.  HCSC then appealed.

Judge Mills' decision left Judge Wood scratching her head,
observing Judge Mills overlooked "glaring problems" in plaintiffs'
request, and did not explain his ruling.

"The failure to provide a reasoned explanation on a string of
important points compels reversal.  Explanations are necessary;
complex certification decisions cannot be made by judicial fiat,"
Wood said.

Plaintiffs' push for class-action status rested in part on the
contention HCSC was uniformly obliged to safeguard class members'
financial interests, concerning the insurance, as required by
ERISA.  Judge Wood pointed out ERISA only protects plans run by
employers or employee organizations. In this light, HCSC would not
have a fiduciary duty for class members who secured their
insurance directly from HCSC.

As another example, Judge Wood noted HCSC has no duty to those
class members for whom it merely administers health benefits, but
does not insure.

Judge Wood was particularly puzzled by Judge Mills' inclusion of
members who, as Mills wrote, "obtained health care coverage from a
benefit plan underwritten, administered, or otherwise provided by
Defendant, HCSC, but not subject to ERISA."

According to Judge Wood, ERISA recognizes a party might be acting
in a fiduciary capacity at some points and in an ordinary capacity
at other points, allowing a fiduciary to have "financial interests
adverse to beneficiaries" provided the fiduciary "wears the
fiduciary hat when making fiduciary decisions."

Judge Wood determined the question was not whether HCSC acted to
its beneficiaries' detriment, but whether it did so while "wearing
a fiduciary hat."  A decision may be fiduciary in nature for
HCSC's directly insured customers, while not so if the company's
only connection to a class member is that it administered their
benefits, Wood said.

Plaintiffs have been represented by: DeBofsky & Associates, and
Cray, Huber, Horstman, Heil & Vanausdal, both Chicago; Novoselsky
Law Office, of Waukegan; and Londrigan, Potter & Randle, of
Springfield.

Health Care Service Corporation has been defended by Kirkland &
Ellis, of Chicago. [GN]


HENKEL CORPORATION: "Macaspac" Suit Moved to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Claudine Macaspac, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
the Plaintiff, v. Henkel Corporation, a Delaware corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 37-02017-00027801-CU-FR-CTL, was removed on
Aug. 31, 2017 from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:17-cv-01755-H-BLM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Marilyn L. Huff.

Henkel is a German chemical and consumer goods company
headquartered in Dusseldorf, Germany. It is a multinational
company active both in the consumer and industrial sector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696 9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564 6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William F Tarantino, Esq.
          MORRISON AND FOERSTER
          425 Market Street, Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 268 7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268 7522
          E-mail: wtarantino@mofo.com


HONOLULU, HI: Adams Gets $10K Incentive Payment in FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barry M. Kurren of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Hawaii granted Sonya Adams' Motion for Award of Incentive
Payment to Collective Representative in the case captioned SONYA
ADAMS, et al, Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,
Defendant, CIV. No. 12-00667 BMK (D. Haw.).

Plaintiff Adams, an emergency management technician for the
Defendant City and County of Honolulu, filed this collective class
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to collect overtime
payments.  Adams is the Lead Plaintiff in this case and has been
joined by 317 other Plaintiffs out of 436 people who potentially
had similar FLSA claims.  Because neither party objected to the
Special Master's Report and Recommendations, the parties are bound
by them.

On July 17, 2017, Adams filed the present Motion for Award of
Incentive Payment to Collective Representative, seeking an
incentive payment of $17,310.  Although there is no dispute that
the Court has the discretion to award an incentive payment to
Adams, the City and County of Honolulu objects to such an award in
this case.

Judge Kurren held that Adams's role in this collective class
action was significantly greater than the average class
representative.  Without Adams' tireless efforts, the settlement
of the claims in this case would not have happened to the same
extent.  Although the record does not establish that Adams feared
workplace retaliation, it was clear from their interactions before
the Judge that Adams had an acrimonious relationship with her
employer and that there was and is the possibility of retaliation.
The incentive award is not a "personal financial interest" in the
outcome of this case that amounts to payment for work done outside
Adams' official duties.

Judge Kurren granted Adams's motion for payment of an incentive
award in the amount of $10,000.  Because the Order adjudicates the
last remaining issue in the case, the parties are ordered to
submit a stipulation to dismiss the case no later than Sept. 12,
2017.  The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of
the settlement and the incentive fee award.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/gDbZBq from Leagle.com.

Sonya Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Carl M. Varady, Pauahi
Tower.

Sonya Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Jac A. Cotiguala, Jac A.
Cotiguala & Associates, pro hac vice.

Tiana Ahue, Plaintiff, represented by Carl M. Varady, Pauahi Tower
& Jac A. Cotiguala, Jac A. Cotiguala & Associates, pro hac vice.

Lance Aimoto, Plaintiff, represented by Carl M. Varady, Pauahi
Tower & Jac A. Cotiguala, Jac A. Cotiguala & Associates, pro hac
vice.

Jean-Thierry Aleman, Plaintiff, represented by Carl M. Varady,
Pauahi Tower & Jac A. Cotiguala, Jac A. Cotiguala & Associates,
pro hac vice.

Anthony Altomare, Plaintiff, represented by Carl M. Varady, Pauahi
Tower & Jac A. Cotiguala, Jac A. Cotiguala & Associates, pro hac
vice.

Jennifer Altomare, Plaintiff, represented by Carl M. Varady,
Pauahi Tower & Jac A. Cotiguala, Jac A. Cotiguala & Associates,
pro hac vice.

Kurry Araki, Plaintiff, represented by Carl M. Varady, Pauahi
Tower & Jac A. Cotiguala, Jac A. Cotiguala & Associates, pro hac
vice.

Joseph Au, Plaintiff, represented by Carl M. Varady, Pauahi Tower
& Jac A. Cotiguala, Jac A. Cotiguala & Associates, pro hac vice.

Edwin V. Barayuga, Plaintiff, represented by Carl M. Varady,
Pauahi Tower & Jac A. Cotiguala, Jac A. Cotiguala & Associates,
pro hac vice.

City and County of Honolulu, Defendant, represented by Ernest H.
Nomura, County of Hawaii, Office of Corporation Counsel.


IDEAL CREDIT: Faces "Pryor" Suit over Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------
BILL PRYOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. IDEAL CREDIT UNION, the Defendant,
Case No. 0:17-cv-04022-MJD-FLN (D. Minn., Aug. 29, 2017), seeks an
award of restitution of all overdraft fees at issue paid to
Defendant by Plaintiff and the Class.

Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's assessment and
collection of improper and excessive overdraft fees and fall into
the following categories, among others: (1) assessing overdraft
fees on ATM and one-time debit transactions in violation of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"); (2) making untrue,
deceptive, and/or misleading statements in connection with the
advertisement of the Overdraft program; (3) engaging in fraud,
false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, misleading
statements, and/or deceptive practice, with the intent that others
rely thereon in connection with the sale of the Program; (3)
engaging in deceptive trade practices by representing that the
Program has benefits that it does not have; (5) advertising
services with intent not to sell them as advertised; (6) engaging
in conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of
misunderstanding; and (7) making negligent representations in
connection with the sale of the Overdraft program.

Ideal Credit Union is a not-for-profit, member-owned financial
cooperative dedicated to providing financial services and
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Genevieve Zimmerman, Esq.
          MESHBESHER & SPENCE LTD.
          1616 Park Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55404
          Telephone: (612) 339 9121
          Facsimile: (612) 339 9188
          E-mail: gzimmerman@meshbesher.com

               - and -

          Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          The Pointe
          1205 E. Washington St., Suite 111
          Louisville, KE 40206
          Telephone: (502) 882 6000
          Facsimile: (502) 587 2007
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com

               - and -

          Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
          6220 West Third Street, No. 115
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (323) 424 4194
          E-mail: francisflynn@gmail.com


INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS: Ducharme Sues over Rexista Drug Disclosures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID DUCHARME, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS
INTERNATIONAL INC., ISA ODIDI, and DOMENIC DELLA PENNA, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06621 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2017),
seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, products,
financial condition and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading positive statements about its New Drug
Application ("NDA") for Rexista and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Intellipharmaceutics failed to conduct a human abuse liability
study to support its Rexista NDA; (ii) the Company did not include
abuse-deterrent studies conducted to support abuse-deterrent label
claims related to abuse of the drug by various pathways, including
oral, intra-nasal and intravenous routes of abuse; (iii)
Intellipharmaceutics was not submitting sufficient data to support
approval of the Rexista NDA; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, Intellipharmaceutics' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 27, 2017, before the market opened, Intellipharmaceutics
issued a press release, announcing an update on the U.S. Food FDA
Advisory Committee Meeting for Rexista. On this news,
IntelliPharma's share price fell $1.13, or 45.38%, to close at
$1.36 on July 27. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities after the truth was revealed, Plaintiff and
other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.

Intellipharmaceutics is a pharmaceutical company specializing in
research, development, and manufacture of novel and generic
controlled-release and targeted-release oral solid dosage drugs.
Founded in 1998, the Company is headquartered in Toronto, Canada.
IntelliPharmaceutic's stock trades on the NASDAQ Stock Exchange
under the ticker symbol "IPCI." The Company's main product
candidate is Rexista, an abuse-deterrent oxycodone hydrochloride
extended release tablet. Rexista is indicated for the management
of pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long-
term opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options
are inadequate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kim E. Miller, Esq.
          Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
          Michael Robinson, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          250 Park Ave., Suite 2040
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: (212) 696 3730
          Facsimile: (504) 455 1498


JSCSI INC: "Saunders" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM SAUNDERS, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. JSCSI, INC., a
Florida Profit Corporation, and JAMES SCULLY, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02066-SDM-TBM (M.D. Fla., Aug. 29,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and
liquidated damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings this case to address and correct the illegal
pay practices conducted by Defendant, and its owner, James Scully.
The Defendants, the Plaintiff alleges, violated the FLSA by
failing to pay Plaintiff overtime wages based on his regular
hourly rate for those hours worked in excess of 40 within a work
week.[BN]

JSCSI is a construction company, offering construction services to
its clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 North Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257 0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


KONG TECH: Claims v. Apple in "Opperman" Dismissed w/ Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARC OPPERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KONG
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 13-CV-00453-JST (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, granted
the parties' stipulation to dismiss specified claims against
Apple, Inc., with prejudice.

The Dismissing Plaintiffs (Allen Beuershausen, Giuliana Biondi,
Lauren Carter, Stephanie Cooley, Jason Green, Claire Hodgins,
Gentry Hoffman, Rachelle King, Nirali Mandalaywala, Claire Moses,
Judy Paul, Maria Pirozzi, and Gregory Varner) and Apple Inc.,
through their respective counsel, stipulated that the Dismissing
Plaintiffs' claims against Apple, excepting only those claims for
aiding and abetting invasion of privacy that are the subject of
the Class Action Settlement Agreement, will be released by
operation of that Class Action Settlement Agreement upon its final
approval by the Court, each side to bear its own costs and
attorneys' fees, pursuant to FRCP 41.  Without limitation of the
foregoing and for the avoidance of doubt, the dismissal includes
Counts Three, Four, Five and Six of the Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint.  Judge Tigar granted the stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/3yAka7 from Leagle.com.

Marc Opperman, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given --
dmg@phillaw.com -- Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP.

Marc Opperman, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Scott Edwards,
Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin -- nac@phillaw.com -
- Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton
Conlon -- bsc@phillaw.com -- Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin
LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac
vice, Dirk M. Jordan -- dirk@dirkjordan.com -- Frank H. Busch --
busch@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar
-- labar@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe -- wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP &
Michael John von Loewenfeldt -- mvl@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP.

Judy Long, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Claire Moses, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Gentry Hoffman, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Steve Dean, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin

LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac
vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M. Jordan,
Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP &
Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Alicia Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Alan Beueshasen, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards,
Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of
Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Scott Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Greg Varner, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Kong Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory J.
Casas -- casasg@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Jedediah
Wakefield, Fenwick & West LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi --
cvetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon --
harmeet@dhillonlaw.com -- Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell,
Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry
Page -- mpage@durietangri.com -- Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler Griffin
Newby -- tnewby@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP.

Twitter, Inc., Defendant, represented by James G. Snell, Perkins
Coie LLP, Lauren Beth Cohen, Perkins Coie LLP, Timothy L. Alger,
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., John Randall
Tyler, Perkins Coie LLP, Julie Erin Schwartz, Perkins Coie LLP,
Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri
LLP, Ryan T. Mrazik, Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice & Tyler
Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Apple Inc, Defendant, represented by Alan D. Albright --
alan.albright@bracewell.com -- Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich LLP,
Clayton Cole James -- clay.james@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells
US LLP, Jessica Adler Black Livingston --
jessica.livingston@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro
hac vice, Jessica S. Ou, Gibson Dunn, Robert B. Hawk --
robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP & Stacy R.
Hovan -- stacy.hovan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Yelp! Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Henry Page, Durie
Tangri LLP, Peter D. Kennedy, George & Donaldson, L.L.P., Claudia
Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon
Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey
Antia, Cooley LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Instagram, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason, Cooley
LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Michael G. Rhodes, Cooley
LLP.

Foursquare Labs, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Frank
McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Claudia
Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon
Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey
Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP, Molly A.
Smolen, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick &
West LLP.

Gowalla Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Harmeet K.
Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison &
Foerster LLP, James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Krista Lee
Baughman, Dhillon Law Group Inc., Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP,
Micah R. Jacobs, Dhillon Law Group, Inc., Michael Henry Page,
Durie Tangri LLP, Rachel Kung-Lan Loh, Dhillon Law Group, Inc. &
Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Foodspotting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Henry Page,
Durie Tangri LLP, Peter D. Kennedy, George & Donaldson, L.L.P.,
Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon,
Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda
Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West
LLP.

Kik Interactive, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason,
Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael G. Rhodes,
Cooley LLP, Christopher Brian Durbin, Cooley LLP, Claudia Maria
Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Erin Elisa Goodsell, Cooley LLP,
Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell,
Perkins Coie LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler
Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Instagram, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Dean Brown,
Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Erin Elisa Goodsell, Cooley LLP, Harmeet
K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie
LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby,
Fenwick & West LLP.


HOUSTON, TX: Faces Class Action Over Dam-Relating Flooding
----------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford and James Palmer, writing for Courthouse News
Service, report that a week after Hurricane Harvey saturated
Houston with historic rainfall and as neighborhoods in the western
part of the city are still underwater, residents claim in a class
action that governmental mismanagement of two dams is to blame for
the flooding that's forced them to evacuate their homes.

Buffalo Bayou is Houston's main watershed.  It is fed by water
released from the Addicks and Barker reservoirs.

The earthen dams straddle Interstate 10, 20 miles upstream from
downtown Houston.  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built them in
the 1940s to hold back Buffalo Bayou after it flooded the city in
1935.

The Corps of Engineers usually releases water from the dams at the
rate of 2,000 cubic feet per second, but the record-shattering 51
inches of rain Harvey dumped on Houston, starting Aug. 25 and
continuing for four days, forced the Corps to increase the rate to
13,000 CFS.

Officials said they had to drain the dams quickly to reduce the
risk of a breach that would cripple downtown Houston, and to make
room to absorb rainfall from more storms during hurricane season,
which usually runs from June until November in Texas.

The output had raised the roiling, chocolate-colored Buffalo Bayou
to its all-time record of 62.7 feet by Sept. 1, and the swollen
bayou has flooded 4,000 homes and apartments and numerous
businesses.

Lead plaintiff Val Anthony Aldred filed a class-action lawsuit
against the Harris County Flood Control District and Houston on
Sept. 3 in Harris County District Court on behalf of all
homeowners and commercial property affected by the rising waters
of the Buffalo Bayou caused by the decision to release water from
the Addicks and Barker reservoirs after Monday, Aug. 28.

Mr. Aldred is represented by the Houston-based Potts Law Firm.

"Each plaintiff named in the petition owned property that was not
flooding after Hurricane Harvey sat over Harris County on
Saturday, Aug. 26 and Sunday, Aug. 27, but only began flooding
when the Harris County Flood Control District and the City of
Houston aided in the release of water from the Addicks and Barker
Reservoirs. After the release, each property took on several feet
of flood water," the firm said in a statement.

Mr. Aldred says in the complaint that Houston and the flood
control district "failed to adequately prepare each reservoir for
the possibility of flooding and have permitted unmitigated
development around the reservoir such that they knew homes and
businesses would flood in a heavy water event."

Class members seek damages for their repair costs, diminished
property values and lost income, claiming the release of water
from the dams amounted to the government taking their property
without paying them for it as required by Texas law, a legal claim
known as inverse condemnation.

There's been at least one other complaint filed in Dallas County
by a business owner seeking insurance coverage for damage caused
by Hurricane Harvey.

Asked for an exact number of homes that flooded in the area and
when residents will be able to return, a Harris County Flood
Control spokeswoman told Courthouse News on Sept. 5, "We have no
idea right now.  They're still out there collecting information."

An Army Corps of Engineers spokesperson said on Sept. 5 that
Buffalo Bayou had receded to 58.61 feet at a section where it
widens before flowing into downtown, but both the Harris County
Flood Control District and Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner say it
could be at least a week before the bayou goes down enough for
residents to return to the area to survey their flood damage.

The Corps said in 2016 that if the dams failed, they could cause
$60 billion in damage to downtown Houston, the refinery-lined
Houston Ship Channel and the 21 hospitals and 54 research
institutions in the Texas Medical Center.

Harvey has forced the Corps of Engineers to suspend a $75 million
retrofit of the dams that was expected to be done by 2020 or 2021.

On Saturday, Aug. 26, Mayor Turner issued a mandatory evacuation
order for 300 people in flooded parts of west Houston, where 4,000
homes and apartments have remained mired in floodwaters from
continuing releases from the Addicks and Barker reservoirs.

Turner issued a mandatory evacuation order late Saturday, Aug. 26,
for 300 people who had hunkered down in their homes downstream of
the dams, and power was shut off to the homes at 7 a.m. Sunday,
Aug. 27, for the safety of residents and first responders.

"The situation of the release of water from the reservoir is not
going to change in the next 10 days. Think of the first
responders," Turner said on Saturday, Aug. 26.

The Corps of Engineers said in a statement Sept. 3 that it started
a gradual reduction in the water release from the dams on the
night of Aug. 27.

"Downstream homeowners will see a gradual decrease in water
elevations as releases are reduced.  However, if the area
experiences more rain before the reservoirs are empty, higher
releases could become necessary again.  Therefore, your local
emergency management agencies may encourage you to stay out of
flooded areas until Buffalo Bayou is within its banks," the Corps
said.

A Freedom of Information Act request by the Sierra Club brought to
light a memo the Corps of Engineers circulated internally in July
2010 that stated the dams "currently face significant risks
of 'catastrophic failure.'"

The Corps of Engineers categorized them as "extremely high risk"
to move them to the front of the line for federal funding for
repairs.

Corps officers backtracked from the doomsday warnings in spring
2016, and said the dams are not in imminent danger of failing, but
they were retrofitting the dams out of abundance of caution due to
the potential impact of a failure on one of the nation's biggest
cities.

"The fact that the Houston metropolitan area is the nation's
fourth-largest population center is a primary concern," the agency
said at the time.  "Any dam safety issues at Addicks and Barker
could have a far greater impact due to the magnitude of people and
property downstream, as opposed to other dams around the country
in rural or low-population density areas."

The earthen dam embankments are massive -- Barker spans more than
13 miles and Addicks a little over 11 miles.  The two reservoirs
can store up to 410,000 acre feet of water, enough to cover
410,000 acres a foot deep. [GN]


HUMMUS & PITA: "Villatoro" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
BILELIO VILLATORO and DANIEL SILVA GARCIA A.K.A. APOLINAR SILVA,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. THE HUMMUS & PITA CO. INC. (d/b/a THE HUMMUS & PITA
CO.), THE HUMMUS & PITA FRANCHISING, LLC. (d/b/a THE HUMMUS & PITA
CO.), HUPICO LLC. (d/b/a HUMMUS & PITA CO. RESTAURT INC.), JOHN
DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JANICE AXELROD, DAVE PESSO, STEVEN PESSO and
CHRISTINA DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06701 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sep. 1, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime pay
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Franchisee
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving the
applicable minimum wage or appropriate compensation for the hours
over 40 per week that they worked.  Rather, Franchisee Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked,
failed to pay Plaintiffs the applicable minimum wage, and failed
to pay them appropriately for any hours worked over 40, either at
the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
The Franchisee Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over
10 hours a day.

Franchisee Defendants own, operate or control a Mediterranean
restaurant located at 79 Chambers St., New York, NY 10007,
operating under the trade name "The Hummus & Pita Co.". Franchisee
Defendants are franchised to operate The Hummus & Pita Co. under
contract with the Franchisor Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcopliance.com


L'OREAL USA: "Horton" Suit Moved to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Candle Horton, individually, and
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. L'Oreal USA Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Pacific
Bioscience Laboratories, Inc., a Washington corporation; Socket
Payment Services, a New Jersey limited liability company; Allwork,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; Matt Wenzler; Sharyn Rinaldi, an
individual; Scott Gurfein, an individual; and Does 3 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 37-02016-00004529-CU-OE-CTL, was removed on
Aug. 29, 2017 from the Superior Court of CA, County of San Diego,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
01739-JLS-BGS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Janis L. Sammartino.

L'Oreal USA manufactures and markets cosmetics for consumer and
professional markets. It provides skincare, haircare, makeup, and
perfume products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas D Rutledge, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D RUTLEDGE
          500 West Harbor Drive, Suite 1113
          San Diego, CA 92102
          Telephone: (619) 886 7224
          Facsimile: (619) 259 5455
          E-mail: thomasrutledgelaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel P Hoffer, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229 9900
          Facsimile: (310) 229 9901
          E-mail: dhoffer@venable.com

               - and -

          Michelle M. Scannell, Esq.
          SEYFARTH & SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397 2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397 8549
          E-mail: mscannell@seyfarth.com


LEE KUM KEE: "Olmedo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
FREDDY OLMEDO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. LEE KUM KEE (USA) FOODS INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC673934 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Aug. 29, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages for all
hours worked at minimum wage or overtime, and unpaid overtime,
meal, and rest break premiums under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay employees
for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; to
compensate employees for workdays; failed to provide adequate meal
periods; failed to compensate employees for workdays; and failed
to provide adequate rest periods.

Lee Kum Kee provides packages food. The Company offers foods and
miscellaneous food specialties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Cranberry, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001


LIMO EXPRESS: "Shavers" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP SHAVERS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LIMO EXPRESS INC. (d/b/a LIMO
EXPRESS), THOMAS JOHNSON, and ALICE BELTHOFF, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-06704 (D.N.J., Sep. 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, Shavers worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage or
overtime compensation for the hours that he worked each week.
Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
his hours worked, and failed to pay Plaintiff Shavers
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay, or for any additional overtime premium. At all times relevant
to this complaint, Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
requiring Plaintiff Shavers to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without paying him the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sara J. Isaacson, Esq.
          Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcopliance.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Harris Sues over Public Thoroughfare Access
------------------------------------------------------------
The case is, BERNADINE HARRIS; OUDY WALL; and MARIA REYES, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; ERIC
GARCETT1, in his official capacity as Mayor of Los Angeles; CITY
OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; CITY OF INGLEWOOD, a public
entity; CITY OF CARSON, a public entity: CITY OF HAWTHORNE, a
public entity; CITY OF GARDENA, a public entity; CITY OF TORRANCE,
a public entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC673942 (Cal Super. Ct., Aug. 29, 2017), alleges that
the Defendants have failed to make public thoroughfare accessible
to Plaintiffs.  While these places are easily accessible to able-
bodied persons, Defendants do not architecturally design and
maintain these places so as to make it accessible to Plaintiffs
equally.

The Complaint explains the Plaintiffs and all unnamed class
members, suffer from a common mobility disability: they are
handicapped in performing their daily activities -- including, but
not limited to traveling; visiting public, commercial places, or
friends; and all movement inside and outside their homes. They are
all dependent on wheelchairs and/or other equipment for mobility,
and without which their mobility is not only difficult, but
virtually impossible.

According to the complaint, Defendants have failed in their duties
and they discriminated against Plaintiffs, and all other unnamed
persons similarly situated.  Defendants have failed to remove the
barriers that obstruct the smooth mobility of Plaintiffs on their
wheelchairs. Due to this reason, Plaintiffs are not only deprived
of their movement in the Public Thoroughfare, which other able-
bodied persons have no problem in their movement, perhaps
Plaintiff are subjected to great risk of injury in the Public
Thoroughfare. No steps have been taken by Defendants to caution
the drivers of fast moving vehicles to slow down or adhere to the
Plaintiffs' right to way equally as much as to other able-bodied
persons.

The Complaint also alleges that in neighborhoods where homes and
medical facilities for disabled persons are located, no traffic
signs are posted to warn the vehicle drivers of people on
wheelchairs, as a result, Plaintiffs, and other similar situated
persons, have been frequently hit by cars.  There are no traffic
signs posted on blind street corners, where anyone like Plaintiffs
can go unnoticed due low height of a person sitting on a
wheelchair than at a height of a walking person.

Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center
of the nation's film and television industry. Near its iconic
Hollywood sign, studios such as Paramount Pictures, Universal and
Warner Brothers offer behind-the-scenes tours.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Winters, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN D. WINTERS
          2750 Bellflower Blvd., Suite 101
          Long Beach, CA 90815
          Telephone: (562) 497 0472
          Facsimile: (562) 497 0474


LOS ANGELES, CA: Olguin Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD OLGUIN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, by and
through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC674047 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Aug. 29, 2017), seeks all wages earned and due,
interest, penalties, expenses, and costs of suit under California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Water and Power Department has
attempted to maximize profits by cutting labor costs, which
includes cheating its employees out of wages and premiums and
denying them mandated breaks, placing the general public at risk
based upon its non-compliance. For instance, in order to minimize
labor costs, the Water and Power Department has implemented
unlawful policies with respect to meal, rest, and recovery breaks.
The Water and Power Department has no written policies to
authorize and permit its employees to take meal, rest, and
recovery breaks.  The Department also requires its non-exempt
employees, who are informed that their work is always the top
priority, to work through meal and rest breaks, and/or take their
meal periods at times beyond the start of the fifth hour from the
time non-exempt employees start their shifts.

Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center
of the nation's film and television industry. Near its iconic
Hollywood sign, studios such as Paramount Pictures, Universal and
Warner Brothers offer behind-the-scenes tours.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Ernest Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT ERNEST WHEELER
          250 West First Street, Suite 216
          Claremont, CA 91711
          Telephone: (909) 621 4988
          Facsimile: (909) 621 4622
          E-mail: sew@scottwheelerlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM
          400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 590 4503
          Facsimile: (310) 590 4596
          E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com


M&T BANK: Faces "Quarashi" Suit over Forced-Placed Insurance
------------------------------------------------------------
MUFTI QUARASHI on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. M&T BANK CORP. and AMERICAN SECURITY
INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-06675-BRM-DEA
(D.N.J., Sep. 1, 2017), seeks to redress a harm on behalf of
Plaintiff and the proposed Class members and to recover all
improper charges Defendants have incurred related to the forced
placement of insurance by M&T and ASIC Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Lenders and servicers, like M&T,
force-place insurance coverage when a borrower fails to obtain or
maintain proper hazard, flood, or wind insurance coverage on the
property that secures his or her loan. Under the typical mortgage
agreement, if the insurance policy lapses or provides insufficient
coverage, the lender has the right to "force place" new coverage
on the property to protect its interest and then charge the
borrower the cost of coverage. The Defendants' force-placed
insurance scheme takes advantage of the broad discretion afforded
the lenders and servicers in standard form mortgage agreements.
The money to finance force-placed insurance schemes comes from
unsuspecting borrowers who are charged more than the cost of
coverage for force-placed insurance by lenders or servicers.
Borrowers are required to pay the full amount that the lender or
servicer initially pays to the insurer -- ASIC and affiliates --
despite the fact that a considerable portion of that amount is
kicked back to the lender or servicer in the manner described.
Thus, M&T gets the benefit of an effective rebate from ASIC which
it does not pass on to the borrower. Instead, it charges the
borrower the full amount, purportedly for the cost of insurance
coverage. M&T and ASIC reap these unconscionable profits entirely
at the expense of the unsuspecting borrowers.

Defendants' self-dealing and collusion in the force-placed
insurance market has caused substantial harm to Plaintiff and the
proposed classes he seeks to represent.

M&T Bank is a mortgage lender and servicer headquartered in
Buffalo, New York, and doing business in numerous states,
including New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware,
Virginia, West Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher B. Healy, Esq.
          BATHGATE, WEGENER & WOLF, P.C.
          One Airport Road
          P.O. Box 2043
          Lakewood, NJ 08701
          Telephone: (732) 363 0666
          E-mail: chealy@bathweg.com


MACY'S CREDIT: Sealing of Declaration in "Clark" Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DEBORAH CLARK, Plaintiff, v. MACY'S CREDIT
AND CUSTOMER SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-692-Orl-
41TBS (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion to Seal Portions of Defendant's Declaration and Exhibits to
be Filed in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

This is a putative class action for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  The Plaintiff alleges that she
and other similarly situated persons were the recipients of so-
called "robocalls" made using an automatic telephone dialing
system in an attempt by the Defendant to collect consumer debts.
The Defendant contends that it does not belong in this case and
that the proper Defendant is FDS Bank.  FDS Bank does not have a
Macy's account for the Plaintiff.  But, it does have an account
for the Plaintiff's mother, Ronda Mercer and collection calls were
made to her.  In addition to its claim that it is not a proper
party to this action, the Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss
in which it argues that the Plaintiff lacks standing because she
has failed to allege any injury-in-fact that is traceable to the
Defendant's alleged conduct.  The Court has the motion under
advisement.

The Plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification, and the
Defendant has submitted a response which includes the redacted
Declaration of Daniel Delgado.  The Defendant seeks leave of Court
to file the unredacted Delgado declaration under seal.  As
grounds, it represents that the portions of the Declaration relate
to highly sensitive business and proprietary data policies and
procedures, including internal policies and procedures relating to
debt collection.  The declaration also contains the account
records and financial information of a third party, Ronda Mercer.
Due to the nature of this information, the Defendant argues that
there is undoubtedly good cause to seal this competitively
sensitive information that, if publicly disclosed, would threaten
to undermine its competitive advantages in the debt collection and
account management and strategy arenas, as well as disclose the
financial information of a third party.

The motion to seal does not sufficiently identify and describe the
information the Defendant is asking be sealed.  Therefore, the
Court directed Defendant to file all of the materials it wants
sealed for in camera review (Id.).  The Defendant has complied and
the Court has examined all of the papers submitted by Defendant.
The motion for class certification is a substantive pretrial
motion.

The first page of Exhibit A to the Delgado declaration contains
identifying customer information, and account and payment
information for Ronda Mercer. She has a legitimate privacy
interest in this information which, if made public, could subject
her to annoyance or embarrassment.  Accordingly, Magistrate Judge
Smith granted the motion to seal the first page of Exhibit A.  The
remainder of Exhibit A consists of account notes.  The only
information in the notes that is appropriately sealed consists of
notes of Ms. Mercer's name, statements made to or by Ms. Mercer,
and notes of charges that were added to the amount owed.  These
entries can be redacted and all of the remaining notes will be
made part of the public record.  The Defendant has 14 days from
the rendition of the Order within to make these redactions.

Exhibit B to the Delgado declaration are additional pages of
account notes for a Macy's account in the name of Ronda D. Mercer.
Ms. Mercer has a legitimate privacy interest in that portion of
this information which consists of her name, account number, notes
of statements made to or by her, and notes of charges that were
added to the account.  These entries can be redacted and all of
the remaining notes will be made part of the public record.  The
Defendant has 14 days from the rendition of the Order within to
make these redactions.

The Exhibits C-M to the Delgado declaration concern FDS Bank
collection policies.  The Defendant asserts that this information
is confidential and proprietary.  Magistrate Judge Smith held that
the Defendant has not presented any evidence to support its
conclusory allegations that the information in question is
confidential.  Consequently, the Defendant has not shown good
cause to seal any of this information and its request is denied.

Additionally, some of the information the Defendant wishes to seal
consists of scripts debt collectors read from when they speak to
customers.  The Defendant has failed to explain how statements it
instructs its employees to make to the public could qualify for
sealing.

Based upon the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Smith does not approve
any redactions to paragraphs 1-48 of the Delgado declaration.
Accordingly, except for the limited information concerning Ronda
Mercer discussed, he denied the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/qGekxU from Leagle.com.

Deborah Clark, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda J. Allen --
Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com -- The Consumer Protection
Firm, PLLC.

Deborah Clark, Plaintiff, represented by Amy L. Wells, Keogh Law,
LTD, pro hac vice, Keith J. Keogh, Keogh Law, LTD & William Peerce
Howard -- Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com -- The Consumer
Protection Firm, PLLC.

Macy's Credit and Customer Services, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Christopher W. Prusaski -- CPrusaski@shutts.com -- Shutts &
Bowen, LLP & Ryan C. Reinert -- RReinert@shutts.com -- Shutts &
Bowen, LLP.


MARATHON PETROLEUM: "Widdis" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ANNA WIDDIS, JASON BASTIEN, Individually
and on behalf Of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation and its
subsidiary, MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY LP, a foreign limited
partnership, the Defendants, Case No. 5:13-cv-12925-JEL-PJK (E.D.
Mich.), Plaintiffs ask the Court for class certification of two
subclasses:

Subclass 1:

   "all persons who own homes or property who have suffered
   damage to property, loss of enjoyment of their property at any
   time from April 27, 2013 up to the date of trial, as a result
   of the Marathon Fire and Explosion"; and

Subclass 2:

   "all non-owner occupants of properties who have suffered loss
   of enjoyment of their property or loss of the use of their
   property at any time during the Class Period, as a result of
   the Marathon Fire Explosion."

The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant negligently caused a massive
fire resulting in the evacuation of several hundred Putative Class
members, thereby causing the following damages: (1) loss of use
and enjoyment of home and property (evacuation, forced indoors or
forced to avoid returning home); (2) out of pocket expenses of up
to $100.00 incurred as a result of the evacuation and/or clean up
of fire debris; and (3) injunctive relief. No individual personal
injury or real property contamination claims were asserted.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kqbzI5bd

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN PC
          975 E. Jefferson Ave.
          Detroit, MI 48207
          (313) 392-0015
          E-mail: lsheets@mldclassaction.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth C. Thomson, Esq.
          Patricia A. Stamler, Esq.
          HERTZ SCHRAM PC
          1760 South Telegraph, Ste. 300
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          248-335-5000
          E-mail: lthomson@hertzschram.com
                  pstamler@hertzschram.com


MASTERCARD INC: Reed Smith Attorneys Discuss UK Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew J. Siembieda, Esq. -- msiembieda@reedsmith.com -- and
Edward D. Duffy, Esq. -- eduffy@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith
LLP, in an article for Inside Counsel, wrote that last month, the
UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") announced its long-
awaited class certification judgment in Merricks v. MasterCard --
the largest damages claim in UK history and the second case
brought under the new collective proceedings system. Under the UK
Consumer Rights Act 2015, private plaintiffs may bring collective
proceedings similar to class actions available in the U.S., Canada
and other countries.  The CAT's analysis and observations may
deter some actions and encourage others as a major step in
developing case law to guide courts and litigants in the future.

Procedural Background

The Merricks case arose from an EU Commission action against
MasterCard, which determined that MasterCard had imposed supra-
competitive multilateral interchange fees on retailers for cross-
border transactions.  A number of private damages lawsuits brought
by retailers followed, and MasterCard has paid these retailers
hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and settlements. (For
example, the decision in Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd. v.
MasterCard, Inc. [2016] CAT 11, which awarded Sainsbury ú68.6
million, plus interest.)

In this case, Walter Merricks filed a collective proceeding order
(CPO) application as the proposed class representative.  The CPO
application sought damages of ú14 billion on behalf of all UK
residents who used a MasterCard credit or debit care between
May 22, 1992 and June 21, 2008 -- a class composed of 46.2 million
people.

Mr. Merricks proposed to quantify damages by calculating the
volume of commerce affected, the overcharge percentage imposed by
MasterCard, and the rate at which merchants passed through the
overcharge to consumers.  At the CPO application hearing, the CAT
expressed concerns with the proposed methodology, particularly the
extent to which the pass-through rate would vary across different
sectors of the economy and different class members. Determining
pass-through rates is a difficult problem in U.S. indirect
purchaser antitrust class actions and an issue that did not impede
Sainsbury's and other merchants from recovering damages from
MasterCard.

The CAT's Decision

In a July 21, 2017 opinion, the CAT denied Mr. Merrick's CPO
application.  The CAT enumerated the three requirements for a CPO:
(1) whether claims are brought on behalf of an identifiable class;
(2) whether the claims raise common issues; and (3) whether the
claims are suitable to be brought as a collective proceeding.  The
opinion focused heavily on the second requirement, which bears
some similarity to the commonality requirement for U.S. class
actions.

In addressing the "common issues" requirement, the CAT focused on
the expert methodology that Mr. Merricks proposed be used to
determine the damages.  Ninety-five percent of the damages alleged
in Merricks concerned transactions that occurred wholly within the
UK.  The intra-UK interchange fee was not directly at issue in the
EC proceedings against MasterCard, but the plaintiffs alleged that
the cross-border interchange fees had a significant influence on
intra-UK interchange fees. (This allegation was necessary for the
case to proceed as a follow-on action, but cases based on conduct
post-dating the Act's effective date will not be constrained by
this requirement.) The CAT expressed some concerns with the
availability of data needed to determine the amount of commerce at
issue, but suggested that adjustments could be made to determine
the volume of intra-UK and cross-border purchases and that the
overcharge could be calculated separately for both intra-UK and
cross-border interchange fees. [2017] CAT 16, at 29-30, 34-48.

Mr. Merricks' claim broke down at the third step of the analysis,
the calculation of pass-through rate.  The CAT recognized that
"pass-through cannot be described as a common issue in any
meaningful sense." Id. at 66. However, the CAT noted that, unlike
U.S. class action practice, there is no requirement that common
issues predominate over individual issues. Id. at 66.

Furthermore, the CAT acknowledged that, in some cases, it may be
appropriate to determine an average pass-through rate for the
entire class and calculate aggregate damages, even though the
average pass-through rate for individual class members would vary
considerably. Id. at 67. However, such an approach would require
the Applicant to show a sustainable methodology to calculate
aggregate damages and distribute damages to individual class
members with reasonable accuracy. Id. The CAT concluded that there
was neither sufficient data to accurately calculate the average
overcharge, nor was there a method to distribute an award to
individual class members to reflect the damages they actually
incurred. Id. at 78, 84, 87-88.

Implications for the Future

The proposed class in Merricks was massive, as the Applicant
attempted to thread multiple needles to overcome significant
hurdles that may not vex future plaintiffs.  The Consumer Rights
Act treats claims based on conduct arising before the Act's
effective date (like Merricks) differently than claims arising
later.  For conduct pre-dating the effective date, plaintiffs may
only seek a CPO order for claims that follow a finding of a
competition violation by the EC or UK authorities. This rule
prompted Mr. Merricks to allege that the cross-border interchange
rate affected the intra-UK rate, adding a layer of complexity to
the case that many future plaintiffs will not face.

Additionally, the size of the class and significant differences in
purchasing habits among class members made it extremely difficult
to determine a viable way to distribute damages to class members,
a problem magnified by the variation in pass-through rates.  The
CAT emphasized the importance of compensating individuals for harm
actually suffered, rather than deterring competition law
violations. By considering these problems of distribution at the
CPO application stage, the CAT articulated a framework that will
make some types of claims difficult to bring as a collective
proceeding, especially indirect purchaser claims. By contrast, for
consumers of homogenous products and products where data about
purchases are easier to obtain, the standards suggested by the CAT
will be more workable for plaintiffs. Claims will also be easier
for consumers, if they can bring suit as direct purchasers.

Moreover, the Merricks decision is the first such class action
judgment in the UK.  The CAT's approach was rigorous, careful and
focused on allowing restitution for overcharged consumers, but
allows collective proceedings only if the proposed methodology is
adequate.  This opinion marks the beginning of the UK's
development of collective proceeding standards.  The availability
of such procedures may expand to other types of claims,
particularly if the CAT succeeds in developing a workable
framework where plaintiffs can efficiently bring claims, but where
the incentive structure does not prompt the filing of
unmeritorious claims.

                         About the Authors

Matthew Siembieda is a Pittsburgh-based attorney at Reed Smith
with more than 30 years of experience handling complex commercial
litigation matters, including class actions, as well as advising
global companies on international compliance issues.

Ed Duffy is a Houston-based attorney in Reed Smith's Global
Regulatory Enforcement Group, who focuses on antitrust counseling
and litigation and a wide range of complex commercial disputes.
[GN]


MATHESON TRI-GAS: Court Enters Final Judgment "Van Kempen" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood Stirling Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California entered his final judgment
in the case captioned ROY VAN KEMPEN, Plaintiff, v. MATHESON TRI-
GAS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-00660-HSG (N.D. Cal.), in
conformity with the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Class
Settlement and the Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs
on Aug. 25, 2017.

The Plaintiff filed his Motion for Final Approval of Joint
Stipulation of Class Settlement.  A hearing was held on Aug. 3,
2017 at which no objectors appeared.  Judge Gilliam entered the
Final Approval Order and accordingly, dismissed with prejudice the
case.  Without affecting the finality of the Final Judgment in any
way, the Court retains continuing jurisdiction over the
implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of the Joint
Stipulation of Class Action Settlement with respect to all Parties
to the action, and their counsel of record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/32bhGz from Leagle.com.

Roy Van Kempen, Plaintiff, represented by S. Brett Sutton --
brett@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation.

Roy Van Kempen, Plaintiff, represented by Jared Hague --
jared@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation.

Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Clinton Davis
Robison -- clint.robison@leclairryan.com -- LeClairRyan & Vickie
V. Grasu -- vickie.grasu@leclairryan.com -- LeClair Ryan LLP.


MAZGANI SOCIAL: Says "Khosroadbadi" Suit Can't Proceed as Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants will move the Court on October 2, 2017, to deny
class certification of the lawsuit styled IRAJ KHOSROADBADI, and
Individual, the Plaintiff, v. MAZGANI SOCIAL SERVICES, INC., a
California Corporation, MAHVASH MAZGANI, NAZANIN MAZGANI, NEYAZ
MAZGANI, MAHNAZ MOGHADDAM, SHOHREH SHARIFZADEH and DOES 1 through
25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00644-CJC-KES
(C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff purports to bring this action for, inter alia, fraud and
violation of the federal RICO statute on behalf of a class.
However, Defendants Mazgani Social Services, Inc., Mahvash
Mazgani, Nazanin Mazgani, Neyaz Mazgani, Mahnaz Moghaddam and
Shohreh Sharifzadeh move to deny class certification because Mr.
Khosroabadi fails to satisfy the requirements for a class action
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff's purported class is not so numerous that joinder is
impracticable.  Also, Mr. Khosroabadi cannot establish typicality
as he lost no money in his interaction with Mahvash Mazgani.
Also, there is no heightened risk of inconsistent adjudications.
Accordingly, the Court should deny certification of Plaintiff's
class action.

The Defendants said, "the Court has twice denied the injunctive
relief Plaintiff seeks. Accordingly, his claim is one for damages.
As such, there is no heightened risk of inconsistent adjudications
here, and the class action should not be certified."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FrP5I8Sr

The Defendants are represented by:

          Felton T. Newell, Esq.
          THE NEWELL LAW FIRM
          12777 W. Jefferson Blvd., Bldg. D, Ste. 300
          Playa Vista, CA 90066
          Telephone: (213) 394 2617
          Facsimile: (213) 402 7187
          E-mail: felton@thenewelllawfirm.com


MAXI-MIX INC: "Ocampo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
RANGEL OCAMPO, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. MAXI-MIX,
INC., an Illinois corporation, PUIG HOLDING COMPANY, an Illinois
corporation, ELSTON MATERIALS, LLC, an Illinois limited liability
company, LUIS PUIG, individually, ERICA PUIG, individually, NIDIA
PUIG, individually, ALEX PUIG, and LEONARD PUIG, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06325 (N.D. Ill., Sep. 1, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff typically worked about
56 hours per week with occasional fluctuations. For at least the
last year of the Plaintiff's employment by the Defendants, the
Defendants paid the Plaintiff by the hour. For at least the last
year of the Plaintiff's employment by the Defendants, the
Defendants paid the Plaintiff at the rate of $22.50 per hour.
However, the Defendants failed and refused to pay the Plaintiff
overtime premiums for the hours he worked in excess of 40 each
week -- in other words, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff at his
"straight" or regular rate for all the hours he worked.

Maxi-Mix manufactures mortar refractories, foamed concrete,
conductive concrete, insulating concrete, mortars, concrete and
cement, and plaster.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Luka, Esq.
          MENDOZA LAW, P.C.
          120 S. State Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 508 6010s
          E-mail: paul@alexmendozalaw.com


MECHEL BLUESTONE: Bid to Certify Class Terminated as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DAVID JORDAN, the Plaintiff, v. MECHEL
BLUESTONE, INC. and DYNAMIC ENERGY, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
5:16-cv-04413 (S.D. W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Irene C. Berger entered
an order terminating as moot a motion to enforce a Mediation
agreement, enjoin ex parte settlements, certify class, and approve
limited class discovery.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5ISoERsx


MEDICAL TRANSPORTERS: "Vessell" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRED J. VESSELL on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MEDICAL TRANSPORTERS OF GEORGIA,
INC., MEDICAL TRANSPORT OF ALABAMA, LLC and JANICE WARHUST, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00179-CDL (M.D. Ga., Aug. 31, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for work performed,
equal amount of liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is not being, and has
not been, compensated for time spent waiting for customers to
complete the business for which he provides transport. For
example, if Plaintiff drives a customer to a doctor's appointment,
Plaintiff is often required to wait for that customer to complete
their doctor's appointment in order to return that customer to
their point of origin, but Plaintiff is not compensated for the
time spent waiting for the customer to complete their doctor's
appointment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tyler B. Gaspers, Esq.
          THE KASPERS FIRM, LLC
          152 New Street, Suite 1098
          Macon, GA 31201
          Telephone: (404) 994 3128
          E-mail: tyler@kaspersfirm.com


MERCHANTS LANDSCAPE: Fails to Pay Premium Wages, Hernandez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL HERNANDEZ, as an individual and on behalf of others
similarly situated and on behalf of the California Labor
Commissioner as the California Private Attorney General, the
Plaintiff, v. MERCHANTS LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC., a California
corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC674181 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 29 , 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid premium wages for missed meal breaks, rest breaks, wages,
and wages upon termination, statutory penalties, restitution,
declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs,
prejudgment interest and other relief under the California
Industrial Welfare Commission and California Labor Code.

Merchants Landscape is doing business in landscape
construction.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Armond M. Jackson, Esq.
          Andrea M. Fernandez, Esq.
          Jackson Law, APC
          16330 Bake Parkway
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 281 6857
          Facsimile: (949) 777 6218


MERRILL LYNCH: Former Executive Averts Fine, Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jed Horowitz, writing for Advisorhub, reports that the single
person that the Securities and Exchange Commission charged in a
publicized case that cost Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith
$415 million for allegedly violating customer protection rules was
rapped on the knuckles with a cease-and-desist order on
Sept. 1.

William Tirrell, who was head of regulatory reporting and a one-
time chief financial officer of the Bank of America brokerage
unit, allegedly helped design trades that allowed Merrill to
reduce its segregated customer funds account by billions of
dollars in order to finance proprietary trading, the SEC had
charged in June 2016.

It said it was bringing a case against him before an
administrative law judge seeking remedies that could include, but
not be limited to, civil fines that would likely mean monetary
penalties.

Although the SEC publicized its settlement with Merrill in a press
release and warned that it would examine other firms for similar
customer-protection violations, the decision against
Mr. Tirrell that included no penalties was issued on a quiet on
Sept. 1 before Labor Day weekend without a press release.

Judith Burns, a spokeswoman at the SEC, declined to comment.

Mr. Tirrell, 64, who officially left Merrill in July 2017 and is
not now registered with Finra, did not respond to questions when
reached at his home in New Jersey on Sept. 5.

"The terms of the settlement--no fine, no suspension, no penalty--
speak for itself," Steven M. Witzel, a partner at Fried Frank,
which represented Mr. Tirrell, said in an e-mailed message. "After
four years of investigation by the SEC, Mr. Tirrell is more than
ready to put this matter behind him and move on with his life," he
told the news service.

Papers filed during the SEC adjudication by the SEC show that
enforcement officials modified their allegation that Mr. Tirrell
"knowingly reduced" reserves to alleging that he caused Merrill to
do so.

The SEC's settlement with Merrill has spawned a class-action
lawsuit filing from a former retail brokerage official on behalf
of all customers whose securities or cash Merrill held and used to
trade for itself during the alleged infraction period of  January
1, 2009 through December 31, 2012.

Several whistleblowers also have filed for a reward relating to
the Merrill settlement.

A Merrill spokesman confirmed that Tirrell has left the firm but
declined further comment.  He had previously noted that no
customer lost funds over the firm's alleged violation of the SEC's
Customer Protection Rule 15c3-3. [GN]


MID AMERICA TAPING: "Vega" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JAVIER VEGA and RIGOBERTO BARRETO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. MID AMERICA TAPING & REELING, INC, BARBARA PAULS,
individually, RICKSAR ASSOCIATES, LLC., and RASHID ABDALLAH,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08158 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of:

   "all persons who worked for Mid America and Pauls as factory
   employees, however titled, who were compensated, in part or in
   full, on an hourly basis in Illinois at any time between
   August 16, 2013 and the present who did not receive the full
   amount of minimum or overtime wages and other compensation
   earned and owed to them (Illinois Minimum Wage Law Class)."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xeD9yOUw

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com

                - and -

          Khalil J. Khalil, Esq.
          ZKT LAW, LLC
          70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 356 3200
          E-mail: khalil@zktlaw.com

               - and -

          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          70 East Lake Street, 12th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 356 3200
          E-mail: kasif@khowajalaw.com


NEW DOMINION: "Griggs" Suit Moved to Western District of Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lisa Griggs and April Marler, on
behalf of themselves and all other Oklahoma citizens similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. New Dominion LLC, TNT Operating
Company, White Operating Company, Rainbo Service Company, Gastar
Exploration Inc., Dryes Corner LLC, Chesapeake Operating LLC,
Devon Energy Production Company LP, Special EnergyProduction Co.,
LP, Orca Operating Company LLC, White Star Petroleum LLC, Equal
Energy US Inc., Elder Craig Oil and Gas LLC, D&B Operating LLC
MM Energy Inc., Dakota Exploration LLC, Wicklund Petroleum,
Corporation, Kirkpatrick Oil Company Inc., Toomey Oil Company Inc
Chaparral Energy LLC, Eastok Pipeline LLC, Mid-Con Energy
Operating LLC, Midstates Petroleum Company, Territory Resources
LLC, and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. CJ-17-00174, was
removed on Sep. 1, 2017 from the District Court Logan County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
(Oklahoma City). The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:17-cv-00942-R to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. David L. Russell.

New Dominion operates as an oil and gas exploration and
development company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William B Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N Pennsylvania Ave
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235 1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239 2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

Attorneys for Chesapeake Operating LLC:

          Matthew C Kane, Esq.
          RYAN WHALEY COLDIRON SHANDY PC
          119 N Robinson St., Suite 900
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 239 6040
          Facsimile: (405) 239 6766
          E-mail: mkane@ryanwhaley.com


OPTIMAL HEARING: "Shirley" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER SHIRLEY, the Plaintiff, v. OPTIMAL HEARING
SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a OPTIMAL HEARING, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-03278-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Aug. 29, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, reasonable expenses
of litigation, and other authorized relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Christopher Shirley files this Complaint against Defendant on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated.  The lawsuit
alleges that the Defendant violated the FLSA by requiring
Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective to work over 40 hours a
week without overtime compensation calculated at one and one half
times their hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
during each work week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Travis Foust, Esq.
          Sheila L. Bilimoria, Esq.
          PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
          75 14th Street, 26th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 340309
          Telephone: 404 873 8000
          Facsimile: 404 873 8050
          E-mail: tfoust@pcwlawfirm.com
                  sbilimoria@pcwlawfirm.com


PANASONIC CORP: Ct. Partly Grants Bids to Dismiss Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' four separate motions to dismiss case captioned IN RE
RESISTORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No. 15-cv-03820-JD (N.D. Cal.).

There are two classes of Plaintiffs in this consolidated action:
the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs") and the Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IPPs").  Each set of the Plaintiffs has
filed their own operative complaint.  Both complaints name the
same five corporate families as the Defendants.  And both
complaints allege a price-fixing conspiracy in the linear resistor
industry that began in 2003.  The DPPs assert a single legal claim
against the Defendants for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.  The IPPs assert three claims: violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act (but seeking only injunctive relief); violations of
the antitrust and restraint of trade laws of California, Iowa,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska and New York; and violations of the
consumer protection and unfair competition laws of California,
Florida, Nebraska and New York.

The Defendants have jointly moved to dismiss the DPP complaint and
IPP complaint.  The U.S. subsidiary Defendants (HDK America, Inc.,
Kamaya, Inc., ROHM Semiconductor U.S.A., KOA Speer Electronics,
Inc., and Panasonic Corp. of North America) have filed
consolidated motions to be dismissed from both complaints.

The main argument in the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss the
DPPs' complaint is that it fails to state a claim within the
limitations period.  Judge Donato finds that while it does appear
that there are fewer direct allegations of price fixing here than
there were in In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, the DPPs have
met the Rule 8/Twombly bar.  In addition, the DPPs are not barred
as a matter of law from seeking damages for the pre-limitations
period conduct because they have sufficiently alleged fraudulent
concealment, which tolls the statute of limitations.

Despite not having to plead at this stage every step of their due
diligence, the Plaintiffs have plead affirmative concealment by
the Defendants, with more than just conclusory statements.  The
DPPs' allegations in that regard are similar to those the Court
already found sufficient in Capacitors I.  Here, too, the
Defendants are alleged to have frequently warned each other not to
forward records of collusive exchanges outside of the conspiracy;
used code words to refer to fellow conspirators and customers who
were affected by the conspiracy; and ensured the minutes of their
meetings were not distributed publicly.  As was the case in
Capacitors I, these allegations are sufficiently particularized to
support the allegation of fraudulent concealment at this stage.

In addition to the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss the DPP
complaint, the U.S. subsidiaries of all five Defendant families
have separately filed a consolidated motion collecting the
arguments each of them is making on an individual basis.  These
U.S. subsidiary Defendants all make the same argument: not enough
is alleged about the involvement of any of them in the alleged
conspiracy.

Judge Donato finds as an initial matter that Defendants HDK, KOA
and Kamaya should be dismissed with leave to amend for a more
basic reason.  These Defendants are not included in DPPs'
definitions of "HDK," "KOA," and "Kamaya," respectively, in the
complaint.  The "HDK" is expressly defined to mean only Defendant
"Hokuriku Electric Industry Co."  Similarly, the terms "KOA" and
"Kamaya" are expressly defined to point only to the parent
companies of their respective corporate families, i.e., Defendants
KOA Corp. and Kamaya Electric Co., Ltd.  The dismissal is also
warranted for PNA and ROHM USA.  For those subsidiary Defendants,
the complaint does allege that Defendants Panasonic Corp., PCNA,
PIDS, Sanyo Co., and Sanyo NA are together referred to as
"Panasonic," and Defendants ROHM Co. and ROHM USA are together
referred to herein as "ROHM."

As in the joint motion to dismiss the DPP complaint, the
Defendants' primary joint dismissal argument for the IPP complaint
is based on the statute of limitations.  The IPPs accept that a
four-year limitations period applies to these claims.

For the IPPs' complaint, the Judge will grant with leave to amend
the Defendants' joint motion.  Many of the IPPs' allegations are
in fact more directly on point, and point more strongly toward
price fixing among the Defendants, than those in the DPPs'
complaint.  He will also grant the Defendants' joint motion and
dismiss the IPPs' complaint because there is a gap in the
allegations between 2009 and 2013.  Judge Donato does not have a
plausible basis to infer that the conspiracy that was alleged for
years 2003 to 2009 continued into the limitations period.
However, he will give the IPPs an opportunity to amend.  He
declines to address at this time those arguments attacking the
sufficiency of IPPs' state consumer protection and unfair
competition claims under the laws of California, New York and
Florida given that the failure to meet the Twombly plausibility
bar calls for the dismissal of the entire complaint.  The
Defendants may renew those arguments in response to the IPPs'
amended complaint as appropriate.

The same U.S. subsidiary Defendants have brought a consolidated
motion to be dismissed from the IPPs' complaint for the same
reason -- that it does not say enough about each of the U.S.
subsidiary Defendants to tie them to a conspiracy.  Because he is
dismissing the IPP complaint in its entirety for the reasons set
out, he declines to go through the U.S. subsidiary Defendants'
arguments in detail at this time.

The IPPs would be well-advised to review the Judge's ruling on the
U.S. subsidiary Defendants' motion to dismiss the DPP complaint in
the Order, as the reasoning behind those rulings apply with equal
force on the IPP side.  For their further guidance, he notes his
preliminary view that it most likely would have granted the U.S.
subsidiary Defendants' motion to be dismissed from the IPPs'
complaint as well.  The IPPs should keep that in mind in crafting
a further amended complaint.

For these reasons, Judge Donato denied the Defendants' joint
motion to dismiss the DPP complaint.  The U.S. subsidiary
Defendants' motion to dismiss the DPP complaint is granted.  The
DPPs may file an amended complaint by Oct. 3, 2017.  Any
amendments may relate only to fixing the deficiencies identified
by the Court for the DPPs' allegations against the U.S. subsidiary
Defendants.

The Judge also granted the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss the
IPP complaint.  The U.S. subsidiary Defendants' motion to dismiss
the IPP complaint is terminated as moot.  The IPPs may file an
amended complaint by Oct. 3, 2017, that seeks to address the
deficiencies identified by him in the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/8IlhjP from Leagle.com.

Microsystems Development Technologies, Inc., Plaintiff,
represented by Adam John Zapala -- azapala@cpmlegal.com --
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

Microsystems Development Technologies, Inc., Plaintiff,
represented by Demetrius Xavier Lambrinos --
dlambrinos@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Joyce
Chang -- jchang@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre McCarthy LLP, Mark
Francis Ram -- mram@cpmlegal.com  -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy
LLP, Steven Noel Williams -- swilliams@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett
Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Elizabeth Tran -- etran@cpmlegal.com --
Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy & Joseph W. Cotchett --
jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

Chip-Tech Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Solomon B. Cera --
scera@cerallp.com -- Cera LLP, C. Andrew Dirksen --
cdirksen@cerallp.com -- Cera LLP, James Gerard Beebe Dallal,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Joseph R. Saveri --
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Matthew
Sinclair Weiler -- MWeiler@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld
LLP. & Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc..

Top Floor Home Improvements, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
L. Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP & Michael Paul
Lehmann -- mlehmann@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP.

Nebraska Dynamics, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Adam John
Zapala, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Elizabeth Tran, Cotchett,
Pitre and McCarthy, Mark Francis Ram, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy
LLP, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice,
Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Demetrius
Xavier Lambrinos, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Joseph W.
Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP & Steven Noel Williams,
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

Schuten Electronics, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A.
Small, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Kit A.
Pierson, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Shana
E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Emmy L. Levens,
Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeff D.
Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Laura M. Alexander,
Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Robert Abraham
Braun, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Steve
W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

MakersLED LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Adam John Zapala,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Brian D. Clark, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P., Elizabeth R. Odette, Lockridge Grindal Nauen
P.L.L.P., Elizabeth Tran, Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy, Heidi M.
Silton, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Mark Francis Ram,
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Demetrius Xavier Lambrinos,
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Joseph W. Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre
& McCarthy LLP, Joyce Chang, Cotchett Pitre McCarthy LLP, Steven
N. Williams, Attorney at Law & W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.

Linkitz Systems, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Allan Steyer,
Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Donald Scott
Macrae, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP & Jill
Michelle Manning, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP.

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Adam John
Zapala, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Steven Noel Williams,
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Devon Paul Allard, The Miller Law
Firm, PC, pro hac vice, Lee Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc. & Sharon S.
Almonrode, pro hac vice.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D.
Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Kit A. Pierson, Cohen
Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, Benjamin Jacob Siegel, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Emmy L. Levens, Cohen Milstein Sellers
and Toll PLLC, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. &
Robert Abraham Braun, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC.

Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ian L. Papendick
-- ipapendick@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey L. Kessler -- jkessler@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn
LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren E. Duxstad -- lduxstad@winston.com --
Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Brandon W. Duke --
bduke@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Erica
Carolyn Smilevski -- esmilevski@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn
LLP, pro hac vice & Eva W. Cole -- ewcole@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn LLP, pro hac vice.

Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren E.
Duxstad, Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Brandon W. Duke,
Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Erica Carolyn Smilevski,
Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Eva W. Cole, Winston &
Strawn LLP, pro hac vice & Ian L. Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP.

KOA Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jason C. Murray --
jmurray@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP & Robert Brian McNary
-- rmcnary@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP.

KOA Speer Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel L.
Zelenko -- dzelenko@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac
vice, Emily Tomoko Kuwahara -- ekuwahara@crowell.com -- Crowell
and Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jordan Lee
Ludwig -- jludwig@crowell.com -- Crowell and Moring LLP, Katie
Michelle Yablonka -- kyablonka@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP
& Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.

ROHM Co. Ltd., Defendant, represented by Michael Frederick Tubach
-- mtubach@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Kenneth Ryan O'Rourke
-- korourke@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Megan Louise
Havstad -- mhavstad@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP.

Rohm Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael
Frederick Tubach, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Kenneth Ryan O'Rourke,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Megan Louise Havstad, O'Melveny and Myers
LLP.

Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., Defendant, represented by Barbara T.
Sicalides -- sicalidesb@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro
hac vice, Daniel Joseph Boland -- bolandd@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper
Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F. Fitzpatrick --
fitzpatt@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Yageo America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jason
Sheffield Angell -- jangell@fawlaw.com -- Freitas Angell &
Weinberg LLP, Jessica Nicole Leal -- jleal@fawlaw.com -- Freitas
Angell & Weinberg LLP & Robert E. Freitas -- rfreitas@fawlaw.com -
- Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP.

AVX Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bruce Douglas Sokler --
BDSokler@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo,
pro hac vice.

TDK-EPC Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Clayton
Everett, Jr. -- clay.everett@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle Park Chiu --
michelle.chiu@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP &
Scott A. Stempel -- scott.stempel@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, pro hac vice.


PARTNERS FOR PAYMENT: Motion for Class Certification Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Kirby Ashley, et al., the Plaintiff, v.
Partners for Payment Relief, DE II, LLC, et al., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00149 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
entered an order withdrawing Plaintiff's motion for class
certification according to a docket entry made by the Clerk on
September 5, 2017.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DQ8AMQFk


PERFECT LAWN: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO HERNANDEZ, OMAR MORENO and BENITO PINTOR, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PERFECT
LAW CARE INC.; MICHAEL DECICCO; and/or any related entities, the
Defendants, Case No. 606342/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sep. 1, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, spread of
hours compensation, and other wages and penalties owed for
violations of the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff
Hernandez as a landscaper from approximately June 2012 until
December 2013.  During his employment tenure, Defendants paid
Plaintiff Hernandez a flat daily rate, ranging from $120.00 to
$125.00 per day.  Plaintiff typically worked for Defendants for
approximately 9 hours per day, for 6 to 7 days per week. In total,
Plaintiff typically worked between 54 and 63 hours over the course
of a typical workweek. Despite regularly working in excess of 40
hours per week, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff
Hernandez at a rate of one and one-half times his regular hourly
rate for all hours he worked above 40 in a given workweek.
Further, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff Hernandez with
paystubs that accurately reflected the total amount of hours
worked or provide any breakdown regarding the hours worked and pay
received. Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff Hernandez
with annual wage theft notices. Defendants instituted a policy and
practice of failing to pay for Plaintiff Hernandez's uniform
laundering.

Perfect Lawn specializes in lawn maintenance, weed control and
snow removal services for residential and commercial building.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


PETCO ANIMAL: Settles OT Wage Class Action for $8 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Kat Sieniuc and Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, report that Petco
Animal Supplies Inc. has reached an $8 million preliminary
settlement that puts to bed a wage-and-hour proposed class action
alleging it failed to pay assistant store managers for overtime, a
California federal judge heard.

In a motion on Sept. 1 seeking preliminary approval of the $7.995
million deal that will give some 900 proposed class members nearly
$9,000 each, plaintiffs called the agreement "a fair, reasonable
and adequate result that was the product of arms-length
negotiation."

"Having vigorously litigated for four years, from motions to
dismiss to conditional certification and well into second stage
discovery, the parties were in a strong position to evaluate their
respective positions and resolve the case," the motion said,
adding that "counsel for both sides were able to draw on their
experience and their detailed knowledge of this case when they
advised their clients about settlement."

The motion also seeks certification of a settlement class, which
includes people who worked as assistant managers at Petcos in
Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon
and Pennsylvania at various times between 2010 and 2016.

Making a case for preliminary approval, plaintiffs said the nearly
$8 million settlement figure adds up to about 93 percent of the
proposed class' liquidated damages.

Seth Lesser, counsel for the plaintiffs, told Law360 on Sept. 5
"we are very pleased to reach this settlement on behalf of our
hard-working clients."

Lead plaintiff Erik Kellgren, a former assistant store manager at
Petco stores in Illinois from 2007 to October 2010, launched the
suit in March 2013, alleging Petco violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay workers' overtime.

In 2014, U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz denied a motion to
dismiss from Petco, which argued that the March 2013 suit was
time-barred by the FLSA's two-year statute of limitations or that
the complaint was insufficiently pled.

The judge ruled that Mr. Kellgren sufficiently alleged that Petco
knew, or recklessly disregarded, that assistant store managers
were improperly classified as exempt from overtime in violation of
the FLSA.

San Diego-based Petco sought to have the suit dismissed a previous
time, arguing that Mr. Kellgren's complaint was "entirely
conclusory and devoid of facts," according to court documents.
The judge partially granted dismissal but allowed
Mr. Kellgren leave to amend the complaint to include allegations
that Petco willfully violated the FLSA, an assertion that Petco
has rejected.

The amended complaint alleged that Petco failed to provide labor
budget funds and take into account the impact of the underfunded
labor budgets on the job duties of Mr. Kellgren and the collective
action members, failed to allow Mr. Kellgren and the collective
action members to record all hours worked and failed to post or
keep posted a notice regarding the minimum and overtime wages,
according to court documents.

Petco could not be immediately reached for comment on Sept. 5.

Mr. Kellgren and the opt-in plaintiffs are represented by Kevin T.
Barnes and Gregg Lander of the Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes,
Seth R. Lesser, Fran L. Rudich, Michael H. Reed and Christopher
Timmel of Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, Marc S. Hepworth, David A.
Roth, Charles Gershbaum and Rebecca S. Predovan of Hepworth
Gershbaum & Roth PLLC, and Michael D. Singer of Cohelan Khoury &
Singer.

Petco is represented by Claudette G. Wilson --
cwilson@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Meryl C. Maneker --
mmaneker@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Carolina Bravo-Karimi --
cbravo-karimi@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Lois M. Kosch, Katherine
Marie McCray -- kmccray@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Krystal Norris
Weaver -- kweaver@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- and Kirsten F.
Gallacher -- KGallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- of Wilson Turner
Kosmo LLP.

The case is Erik Kellgren v. Petco Animal Supplies Inc. et al.,
case number 3:13-cv-00644 (S.D. Cal.).  The case is assigned to
Judge M. James Lorenz.  The case was filed March 19, 2013. [GN]


PIMIENTO RESTAURANT: "Serrano" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Claudia Serrano and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pimiento Restaurant, a
Florida profit corporation and Ciro Antonio Mazzeo, individually,
Case No. 17-11660 CC 05, was removed on Aug. 29, 2017 from the
11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-23275-JEM to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 804
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448 9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448 9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Diane Patricia Perez, Esq.
          DIANE PEREZ, P.A.
          201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1200
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 985 5676
          Facsimile: (305) 985 5677
          E-mail: diane@dianeperezlaw.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Settlement Reached in "Klippel" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RUSSELL KLIPPEL, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC and CATHERINE M. HEDGEMAN, ESQ., the
Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-01061-MAD-TWD. (N.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court for an order:

   1. granting final approval of a proposed settlement agreement;

   2. entering judgment in accordance with Rule 54(b) of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   3. awarding attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel, in
      the amounts set forth in the Settlement Agreement;

   4. awarding a service payment to the Settlement Class
      Representative, in the amounts set forth in the Settlement
      Agreement; and

   5. discharging the Released Parties, as defined in the
      Settlement Agreement, from further liability pursuant to
      the terms of the releases.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
          KAKALEC & SCHLANGER, LLP
          85 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 500 6114
          Facsimile: (646) 612 7996
          E-mail: daniel@schlangerlegal.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Pietrafesa, Esq.
          721 University Building
          120 East Washington Street
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: (518) 218 0851
          Facsimile: (518) 514 1241
          E-mail: ajp@ajp1law.com


PURE TECHNOLOGIES: "Simpson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
CODY SIMPSON, 2900 Timber Ridge Drive Mt. Airy, Maryland 21771
Resident of Carroll County; NICHOLAS REDDING 636 South Lakewood
Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21224 Resident of Baltimore City; and
BRIAN MILES 3414 Dillon Street Baltimore, Maryland 21224
Resident of Baltimore City, Individually and on Behalf of All
Similarly Situated Employees, the Plaintiffs v. PURE TECHNOLOGIES
U.S., INC. 300, 705 - 11th Avenue, S.W. Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2R 0E3, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02532-JFM (D.
Md., Aug. 31, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Maryland Wage and
Hour Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to properly
compensate Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for their
work. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were misclassified
as salaried employees. They received the same bi-monthly payments
regardless of the number of hours they worked each week. However,
the work performed by Plaintiffs and other field personnel did not
exempt them from the overtime requirements. They should have
received overtime ("time and a half") pay for every hour worked
over 40 each week.

Pure Technologies is a world leader in the development and
application of innovative technologies for inspection and
management of physical infrastructure.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph E. Spicer, 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: jspicer@nicholllaw.com
                  bdavis@nicholllaw.com


QC HOLDINGS: Amended Settlement Distribution Plan OK'd
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the Plaintiff's unopposed Ex Parte
Motion for Approval of Settlement Distribution Plan in the case
captioned PAUL STEMPLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QC HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 12-cv-01997-BAS(WVG)(S.D. Cal).

The Plaintiff commenced this class action against the Defendant
seeking relief for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA").  After several years of litigation, the Court
granted the Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action
Settlement on Nov. 7, 2016.  This approval included, among other
things, that a claims administrator would pay each Settlement
Class Members their pro rata share of the Settlement Fund, or
approximately $1,208.

The Plaintiff now requests that the Court modify the distribution
plan for the settlement proceeds to the Settlement Class Members
in the following ways.  First, the Defendant will send one
settlement check in the amount of $1,163.24 to the validly
claiming Settlement Class Members who provided the claim
administrator Kurtzman Carson Consultants ("KCC") with their valid
tax identification information.  Currently, this includes 457 out
of 664 Settlement Class Members.  Second, the Defendant will also
mail two settlement checks, one in an amount slightly under $600
(approximately $577) in 2017 and the other in the amount of the
remaining portion in January 2018, to the validly claiming
Settlement Class Members who did not provide KCC with their valid
tax identification information by Nov. 27, 2017.  These two checks
will total approximately $1,155 and account for the additional
costs associated with sending two checks instead of one.
Currently, this includes 207 out of 664 Settlement Class Members.

The Plaintiff makes this request largely due to the Internal
Revenue Service's requirement that any individual recovery
exceeding $600 must be accompanied by a tax identification number.
The IRS penalizes $250 for each check without the required tax
identification information.  KCC sent out requests for the tax
identification numbers to every Settlement Class Member, and only
received 457 valid tax identification numbers to date.  Hence, for
the remaining 207 Settlement Class Members, the Plaintiff seeks to
send these individuals two checks, neither of which will exceed
the $600 threshold, to avoid the IRS's penalty and maximize these
individuals' recovery.

The Plaintiff has also made the final calculation of the
settlement proceeds, which amounts to $1,173.19 per claim for 664
valid claims.  After dividing the costs of distributing the
settlement checks among the Settlement Class Member, each member
will receive $1,163.24.  Those Settlement Class Members who did
not provide a valid tax identification number will bear the
additional cost of distributing two checks instead of one, and
their individual recovery will be further reduced to approximately
$1,155.  The Final Approval Order approximated $1,208 per claim
for the individual recovery amount for 645 valid claims.  The
Court made previous fairness determinations in its Final Approval
Order.

Likewise, Judge Bashant finds that the amendment to the Final
Approval Order is fair and approval is warranted.  For the reasons
stated both in the Order as well as its Final Approval Order, she
granted the Plaintiff's ex parte motion for approval of the
settlement distribution plan.  Accordingly, she amended its
previous Final Approval Order in the following ways:

     a. The Judge inserts the following item to its Order as item
six: (6) The Claim Administrator will mail -- in 2017 -- one
settlement check in the amount of $1,163.24 to the validly
claiming Settlement Class Members who provided the Claim
Administrator with their valid tax identification information.
Currently, this includes 457 Settlement Class Members.  The Claim
Administrator will also mail -- in 2017 and in January 2018 -- two
settlement checks, one in an amount slightly under $600
(approximately $577) and the other in the amount of the remaining
portion owed, to the validly claiming Settlement Class Members who
did not provide the Claim Administrator with their valid tax
identification information by Nov. 27, 2017.  Both checks will be
accompanied by an explanatory letter.  These two settlement checks
should amount to approximately $1,155.00 to account for the
additional costs associated with sending two checks instead of
one.  Currently, this includes 207 Settlement Class Members.

     b. Each of the following item numbers will be renumbered
accordingly to account for this additional item (e.g. item six
becomes item seven and so on).

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/euxKLX from Leagle.com.

Paul Stemple, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerounian Law Group, APC.

Paul Stemple, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Swigart --
josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart, Todd M. Friedman,
Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., Jason A. Ibey, Kazerouni
Law Group, APC & Mohammad Kazerouni, Kazerouni Law Group, APC.

QC Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rebecca J. Schwartz -
- rschwartz@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy and Bacon, pro hac vice,
Rosemary H. Do -- rdo@lynberg.com -- Lynberg & Watkins, APC, Ruth
Segal, Lynberg & Watkins & Scott H. Aripoli, Shook, Hardy & Bacon,
pro hac vice.


QIAGEN NORTH AMERICAN: Faces ArCare Suit over Spam Fax
------------------------------------------------------
ARCARE, INC., the Plaintiff, v. QIAGEN NORTH AMERICAN HOLDINGS,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00558-SWW (Ark. Cir. Ct.,
Sep. 1, 2017), seeks to recover declaratory relief and damages as
a result of Defendant's policy and practice of faxing unsolicited
advertisements without providing an opt-out notice as required by
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Qiagen specialized biotechnoloical research supplies, drugs and
pharmaceutical products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, Esq.
          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 West 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312 8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312 8505
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
                  rpulliam@cbplaw.com

               - and -

          Jerry Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY LAW FIRM
          118 North Center Street
          Lonoke, AR 72086-2806
          Telephone: (501) 676 5770
          E-mail: jkelly@kellylawfirm.net


RENFREW POWER: Motion to Decertify Class Action Granted
-------------------------------------------------------
Law Times reports that in Plaunt v. Renfrew Power Generation Inc.
(2017), 2017 CarswellOnt 4237, 2017 ONSC 1868, Robert Smith J.
(Ont. S.C.J.), a motion to decertify a class action against the
company was granted.

Between 1911 and 1917, predecessor to power company built dam at
outlet of lake and acquired licences of occupation to raise level
of lake for parts of shoreline. New shoreline was referred to as
contour line.  Cottage owners who owned property surrounding lake
commenced class proceeding against power company alleging
shoreline was eroded because company or predecessors raised level
of water in lake.  Owners alleged company was trespassing on land
by storing water on owners' property.  Common issue was certified
on whether encroachment of water past contour line constituted
trespass.  After certification decision, parties retained
surveyors to obtain evidence of legal descriptions and boundaries
of owners' lands surrounding lake, and to prepare expert reports.
Company claimed new evidence showed properties around lake were
acquired by hydro company and there was unopened road allowance
around lake which was not included in owners' boundary line.
Company brought motion to decertify class action.  Motion granted.
Issue raised by owners was whether company was responsible in
trespass for raising water level of lake, causing erosion to occur
such that water was now stored on some owners' lands. To decide
that issue required evidence from each individual owner to
determine legal boundaries of property purchased, and to determine
whether water covered part of owner's property.  Common issue as
certified and presently defined did not meet criteria of s. 5(1)
of Class Proceedings Act. [GN]


ROSWELL, GA: Fails to Provide Benefits to Firefighters, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BIBLE, RONNIE HARPER, WILLIE MCCLUSKEY, and BRIAN ROGERS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ROSWELL, the Defendant, Case No. 2017-CV-
294723 (Ga. Super. Ct., Aug. 29, 2017), seeks monetary damages and
declaratory relief.

The case is class action brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and all
persons currently and/or formerly employed as firefighters by the
Roswell Fire Department between August 29, 2011 through and
including the date of the filing of the Complaint, who worked
40 hours or more per standard workweek, but did not receive the
benefits conferred upon regular full-time employees, in violation
of the City of Roswell Human Resources Policies and Procedures
Manual.

Roswell is a city in north Fulton County, Georgia, United States.
At the 2010 census it had a population of 88,346, and in 2014 the
estimated population was 94,089, making it Georgia's seventh
largest city.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael I. Fistel. Jr., Esq.
          William W. Stone, Esq.
          David A. Weiszv, Esq.
          JOHNSON &WEAVER, LLP
          40 Powder Springs Street
          Marietta, GA 30064
          Telephone: (770) 200 3108
          Facsimile: (700) 200 3101
          E-mail: michaelf@johnsonandweaver.com
                  williams@johnsonandweaver.com
                  davidw@johnsonandweaver.com


S&P OYSTER: Class Certification Bid in "Stebbins" Case Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JAMES STEBBINS, DANIEL CLARK, and BRIAN
POTHIER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. S&P OYSTER CO. d/b/a S&P OYSTER
COMPANY, PETER NIKOLAISEN, and CATHLEEN HOLLAND, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00992-AWT (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge
Alvin W. Thompson denied Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification.

The Plaintiffs allege that S&P failed to pay servers and other
similarly situated non-exempt employees the statutorily required
overtime rate for weekly hours worked over 40. Under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, employers are generally required to
pay employees a wage that is at least the statutory minimum wage.
However, employers may pay tipped employees a reduced amount and
claim a tip credit in accordance with 29 U.S.C. section 203(m).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=evzz6RMA


SANCHEZ ENERGY: November 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

In re Sanchez Energy Derivative Litigation
Consolidated
C.A. No. 9132-VCG

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER
DERIVATIVE ACTION

TO:   ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF COMMON STOCK OF SANCHEZ
ENERGY CORPORATION ("SANCHEZ ENERGY" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF THE
CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON AUGUST 11, 2017 ("CURRENT SANCHEZ ENERGY
STOCKHOLDERS").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE ACTION.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above-captioned stockholder
derivative action (the "Action") is pending in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that plaintiffs City of Roseville Employees'
Retirement System, Delaware County Employees Retirement Fund, and
Robert Friedman (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") have reached a
proposed Settlement of the claims asserted in the Action against
defendants A.R. Sanchez, Jr., Antonio R. Sanchez, III, Gilbert A.
Garcia, Greg Colvin, Alan G. Jackson (collectively, the
"Individual Defendants" or the "Board"), defendant Sanchez
Resources, LLC ("Sanchez Resources"), and defendant Eduardo
Sanchez (together with the Individual Defendants and Sanchez
Resources, the "Sanchez Defendants"); and defendants Altpoint
Capital Partners LLC and Altpoint Sanchez Holdings (together, the
"Altpoint Defendants", and collectively with the Sanchez
Defendants, the "Defendants").  The terms and conditions of the
proposed Settlement are set forth in a Stipulation of Settlement
entered into on August 11, 2017 (the "Stipulation").

As consideration for the Settlement, Defendants shall cause full,
complete and unencumbered ownership of Sanchez Resources to be
transferred to Sanchez Energy, with Sanchez Resources to be held
as a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanchez Energy.  In addition,
Defendants shall pay or cause to be paid $11,750,000 into an
escrow account ($9,250,000 to be paid by the Sanchez Defendants
and their insurance companies and $2,500,000 to be paid by or on
behalf of the Altpoint Defendants), which, after deduction of any
taxes and any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court,
will be paid to Sanchez Energy.  Defendants will also cause
certain royalty interests on assets within the Tuscaloosa Marine
Shale to be transferred to Sanchez Energy.

Current Sanchez Energy Stockholders are directed to obtain a copy
of the full printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Stockholder Derivative Action (the "Notice"), which contains a
more detailed description of the Settlement terms, as well as a
description of the history of the litigation and an explanation of
stockholders' legal rights with respect to the Settlement.  The
Notice and the Stipulation are publicly available for review at
www.sanchezenergycorp.com, www.gelaw.com, www.blbglaw.com, and
www.chimicles.com.

A hearing will be held on November 6, 2017 at 1:00 p.m., before
The Honorable Sam Glasscock III, at the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, Court of Chancery Sussex County Courthouse, 34
The Circle, Georgetown, DE 19947 (the "Settlement Hearing").  At
the Settlement Hearing, the Court will, among other things:  (a)
determine whether the Settlement should be approved by the Court
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (b) determine whether the Court
should enter an Order and Judgment, substantially in the form
attached as Exhibit E to the Stipulation, dismissing with
prejudice the claims asserted against Defendants in the Action,
and releasing and enjoining prosecution of any and all Plaintiffs'
Released Claims (as defined in the Stipulation) as against the
Defendants' Released Persons (as defined in the Stipulation); (c)
consider Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel and an
incentive award to Plaintiffs (the "Fee and Expense Application");
(d) hear and determine any objections to the Settlement or the Fee
and Expense Application; and (e) rule on such other matters as the
Court may deem appropriate.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement or Plaintiffs' Counsel's
Fee and Expense Application must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Plaintiffs' Counsel and counsel for Defendants such
that they are received no later than October 27, 2017, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE NOTE:  Because this Action was brought as a derivative
action on behalf of and for the benefit of Sanchez Energy, the
benefits from the Settlement will go to the Company.  Individual
Sanchez Energy stockholders will not receive any direct payment
from the Settlement.  Also, please note that there is no proof of
claim form for stockholders to submit in connection with this
Settlement, and stockholders are not required to take any action
in response to this notice.

DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER IN
CHANCERY REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

All questions regarding this notice and the Settlement should be
made to the following counsel for Plaintiffs:

Michael J. Barry, Esquire
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
123 S. Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 622-7000

By Order of the Court


SCICLONE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Salpeter-Levy" Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL SALPETER-LEVY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SCICLONE PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., JON S. SAXE, FRIEDHELM BLOBEL, NANCY T. CHANG, RICHARD J.
HAWKINS, GREGG ANTHONY LAPOINTE, and SIMON LI, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-05013 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2017), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a
Proposed Merger, unless and until Defendants disclose the material
information which has been omitted from their Proxy statement.

This action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of
herself and the other public holders of SciClone common stock
against SciClone and the members of the Company's board of
directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed
merger between SciClone and a consortium consisting of entities
affiliated with GL Capital Management GP Limited, Bank of China
Group Investment Limited, CDH Investments, Ascendent Capital
Partners, and Boying.

On June 7, 2017, SciClone entered into a definitive agreement and
plan of merger with the Buyer Consortium, pursuant to which each
SciClone stock holder stands to receive $11.18 for each share of
SciClone common stock they own. On August 18, 2017, in order to
convince SciClone stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed
Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete
and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC. While
Defendants are touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to
the Company's stockholders in the Proxy, they have failed to
disclose material information that is necessary for stockholders
to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Merger, thereby
rendering certain statements in the Proxy incomplete and
misleading.

SciClone Pharmaceuticals is a US-based, China-focused specialty
pharmaceutical company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SI WIRELESS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Campbell" TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANDREA CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SI WIRELESS, LLC,
and DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-1320-NJR-SCW (S.D.
Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois denied the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss for Improper Venue or, in the Alternative, to Compel
Arbitration.

In November 2014, Campbell entered into a service agreement with
the Defendant to obtain a telephone line.  The original agreement
did not contain an arbitration clause or class action waiver.  SI
Wireless amended its Terms and Services to add a paragraph
entitled "Arbitration/Waiver of Class Action" on Aug. 24, 2015.
To notify customers of this modification to the contract, SI
Wireless purportedly sent the text message on either Aug. 24 or
Aug. 25, 2015 urging them to review it by visiting
http://mymobilenation.com/terms/Thanksfor being a MobileNation
member.

In her Memorandum in Opposition, Campbell asserts the link
provided in the text message did not actually connect to the
arbitration clause language.  Rather, it linked to a page titled
"Policies & Terms" that contained two paragraphs relating to
"Network Management" and "Surcharges."  Further, she states she
does not recall ever seeing this text message or the arbitration
clause language.

About nine months later, Campbell entered into a second contract
with SI Wireless for a different phone line.  Nothing in the
second contract appears to refer to the prior contract or
incorporate the prior phone line into the new contract.  The
second contract contains an arbitration clause.

At some point in 2016, Campbell apparently fell behind on her
payments.  SI Wireless began sending automated text messages to
the phone associated with the first contract, telling her to make
a payment or risk having her service suspended.  Campbell alleges
the text messages were disruptive and that she replied to one of
the texts with the single word "stop," but the texts continued.
She then called SI Wireless and spoke with a representative who
told her there was no way to stop the texts.  Thus, on Dec. 8,
2016, Campbell filed a putative class action complaint against SI
Wireless under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  In
response, SI Wireless filed the pending Motion to Dismiss for
Improper Venue or, in the Alternative, to Compel Arbitration.

Judge Rosenstengel held that the text sent by SI Wireless was
inadequate to communicate its intent to add a mandatory
arbitration clause to the original contract or to support a
finding that Campbell received reasonable notice of such terms.
Thus, SI Wireless' attempt to modify the first contract by adding
the arbitration clause fails.  Further, the second contract does
not mandate arbitration because the plain language of the clause
carves out a specific exception for actions related to the failure
to pay bills in a timely manner.  Because SI Wireless has failed
to prove an arbitration agreement binds the parties in these
circumstances, and no other claims of improper venue are raised,
she denied Wireless' Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/XWhmE4 from Leagle.com.

Andrea Campbell, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Glapion --
jmg@glapionlaw.com -- Glapion Law Firm, pro hac vice.

SI Wireless, LLC, Defendant, represented by Lorna K. Geiler --
lgeiler@meyercapel.com -- Meyer Capel.


SP BEACH: "Avila" Suit Has Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PATRICIA AVILA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
SP BEACH HOTEL CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01430-JSM-AAS
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody, Jr. enter an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' agreed motion for order conditionally
      certifying class, approving class notice, and requiring
      Defendant's disclosure of contact information for class
      members;

   2. conditionally certifying collective class of:

      "all individuals who were employed by or who worked for SP
      BEACH HOTEL CORP. at The Don Cesar as banquet servers and
      performed banquet server services, including setting up and
      breaking down the banquet halls, assisting in preparation
      of banquet dishes for service, serving food and drink to
      banquet guests, attending to banquet guest requests, and
      performing other related duties from June 16, 2014, to
      February 28, 2017";

   3. directing Defendant to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel the
      names and last known mailing addresses of "banquet servers"
      who were formerly employed by Defendant SP Beach Hotel
      Corp. at The Don Cesar Hotel who worked more than forty
      hours in any work week, between June 16, 2014, and February
      28, 2017; and

   4. authorizing Plaintiffs' counsel to send Notice to "banquet
      servers" who worked for SP Beach Hotel Corp. at the Don
      Cesar between June 16, 2014, and February 28, 2017.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5jSoWvrK


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Smith Sues over Forced-Placed Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------
MARK SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, And
AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-06668-BRM-DEA (D.N.J., Sep. 1, 2017), seeks to redress the
harm on behalf of Plaintiff and the proposed class members and to
recover all improper charges they have incurred related to the
forced placement of insurance by SLS and ASIC.

According to the complaint, Defendants' self-dealing and collusion
in the force-placed insurance market has caused substantial harm
to Plaintiff and the proposed classes he seeks to represent.

Lenders and servicers, like SLS, force-place insurance coverage
when a borrower fails to obtain or maintain proper hazard, flood,
or wind insurance coverage on the property that secures his or her
loan. Under the typical mortgage agreement, if the insurance
policy lapses or provides insufficient coverage, the lender has
the right to "force place" new coverage on the property to protect
its interest and then charge the borrower the cost of coverage.
SLS's force-placed insurance scheme takes advantage of the broad
discretion afforded the lenders and servicers in standard form
mortgage agreements. The money to finance force-placed insurance
schemes comes from unsuspecting borrowers who are charged more
than the cost of coverage for force-placed insurance by lenders or
servicers. Borrowers are required to pay the full amount that the
lender or servicer initially pays to the insurer -- ASIC and
affiliates -- despite the fact that a considerable portion of that
amount is kicked back to the lender or servicer in the manner
described. SLS gets the benefit of an effective rebate from ASIC
which it does not pass on to the borrower. Instead, it charges the
borrower the full amount, purportedly for the cost of insurance
coverage. Lenders and servicers, including SLS, and their
exclusive force-placed insurers reap these unconscionable profits
entirely at the expense of the unsuspecting borrowers.

Specialized Loan is a mortgage servicer and collections entity.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher B. Healy, Esq.
          BATHGATE, WEGENER & WOLF, P.C.
          One Airport Road
          P.O. Box 2043
          Lakewood, NJ 08701
          Telephone: (732) 363 0666
          E-mail: chealy@bathweg.com


SUNCOKE ENERGY: Settles Steel Mill Emissions Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Simmons Hanly Conroy (SHC) on Sept. 5 announced the $4.26
million preliminary settlement of a class action lawsuit on behalf
of plaintiffs whose homes were polluted by harmful emissions
coming from a Granite City, Ill., steel mill. Residents living
near the mill claimed airborne particles were released into the
atmosphere and onto their properties during the steel mill's
operation.

Judge William A. Mudge of the Third Judicial Circuit in Madison
County, Ill., granted preliminary approval of the settlement in
the putative class action Aug. 28, 2017.  The plaintiffs filed
their lawsuit on Nov. 10, 2014, against the coke plant owned and
operated by defendants SunCoke Energy, Inc. and Gateway Energy &
Coke Company, LLC (SunCoke), and the steel mill owned and operated
by United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel).  The hearing for
final approval of the settlement is scheduled for Feb. 16, 2018.

"This is a fair and welcome victory for our clients who, for
years, had their homes and fresh air needlessly polluted when
proper management by the steel mill and the coke plant could have
prevented the issue," said SHC Shareholder Ted N. Gianaris, who
served as co-lead attorney along with SHC attorney Jo Anna Pollock
to represent the plaintiffs in the class action.

SunCoke produces a raw material called coke, which U.S. Steel then
uses to manufacture steel. During their operations, SunCoke and
U.S. Steel regularly released into the atmosphere substantial
amounts of particles that leave a silty deposit on neighbors'
properties and cars -- sometimes even getting inside their homes.
The plaintiffs claimed the defendants negligently failed to
capture emissions and failed to store and properly transport coke.

From November 2009 until the lawsuit was filed, surrounding
residents experienced annoyance and discomfort, including an
inability to fully utilize and enjoy their homes.

The case is Peggy Keltner, Jerome and Beverly Johnson and Melinda
Duniphan, Plaintiffs, vs. SunCoke Energy, Inc. and Gateway Energy
& Coke Company, LLC and United States Steel Corporation,
Defendants (No. 2014-L-1540).

The settlement class includes anyone who occupied property in a
pre-determined geographical area from Nov. 10, 2009, to present.
Potential class members are encouraged to review the website or
call 1-844-798-3651 toll-free to determine the settlement class
area.

In 2013, SunCoke agreed to settle a separate claim filed by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and paid a penalty of
$1.995 million, plus contributed $225,000 to the St. Louis Lead
Prevention Coalition.  The alleged violation concerned excessive
bypass venting of hot coking gases directly to the atmosphere,
resulting in excess SO2 and particulate matter emissions from the
facilities' waste heat and main stacks, in violation of applicable
EPA permit limits.

                About Simmons Hanly Conroy, LLC

Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC -- http://www.simmonsfirm.com-- is one
of the nation's largest mass tort law firms and has recovered more
than $5 billion in verdicts and settlements for plaintiffs.
Primary areas of litigation include asbestos and mesothelioma,
pharmaceutical, consumer protection, environmental and personal
injury.  The firm's attorneys have been appointed to leadership in
numerous national multidistrict litigations, including Vioxx, Yaz
and Toyota Unintended Acceleration. Offices are located in New
York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and
Alton, Illinois. [GN]


SUNOCO INC: 3d Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid in "White"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DONALD WHITE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. SUNOCO, INC., Appellant, No. 16-2808
(3d Cir.), Judge Michael Chagares of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.

Appellant Sunoco is a Pennsylvania corporation that markets and
sells gasoline through approximately 4,900 retail operations in 26
states.  This lawsuit involves the "Sunoco Rewards Program," which
Sunoco advertised through various promotional materials.  The
Sunoco Rewards Program offered customers who buy gas at Sunoco
locations using a Citibank-issued credit card ("Sunoco Rewards
Card") a 5-cent per gallon discount either at the pump or on their
monthly billing statements.

White is a Florida resident who applied for and obtained a Sunoco
Rewards Card from Citibank in 2013.  He made fuel purchases with
the card at various Sunoco-branded gas station locations.  White
alleges that contrary to its clear and express representations,
Sunoco does not apply a 5õ/gallon discount on all fuel purchases
made by cardholders at every Sunoco location.  Sunoco omits this
material information to induce customers to sign-up for the Sunoco
Rewards Credit Card so they frequent Sunoco locations.  It is
undisputed that Sunoco is not a signatory to the Card Agreement,
to which White and Citibank are the only parties.

Sunoco filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the
arbitration clause contained in the Card Agreement.  The District
Court denied Sunoco's motion to compel arbitration.  Sunoco timely
appealed, arguing that White must arbitrate his claims pursuant to
a credit card agreement that White signed with a third party who
is not named in the lawsuit.  At issue in the appeal is whether
Sunoco, a non-signatory to the credit card agreement and who is
not mentioned in the agreement, can compel White to arbitrate.

Judge Chagares held that both South Dakota and Florida courts
would apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel to prevent a
signatory from avoiding arbitration against a non-signatory in two
circumstances.  First, if a plaintiff-signatory alleges concerted
conduct on the part of both the non-signatory and another
signatory, that plaintiff may be equitably estopped from avoiding
arbitration with the non-signatory.  Second, if a plaintiff-
signatory asserts a claim against a defendant based on an
agreement, that plaintiff may be equitably estopped from avoiding
arbitration on the basis that the defendant was not a signatory to
that same agreement.  Neither circumstance is applicable in this
case.  Hence, White cannot be forced to arbitrate under principles
of equitable estoppel under either South Dakota or Florida law.

The Judge finds no evidence of some broader contract between all
three entities consisting of both the promotional materials and
the Card Agreement.  The Card Agreement is an unambiguous and
complete contract between White and Citibank; the Judge is aware
of no basis for looking outside it to search for a broader
"contract" with Sunoco.  Because Sunoco has advanced no colorable
argument on this front, it cannot compel arbitration.  Moreover,
the FAA simply requires courts to enforce privately negotiated
agreements to arbitrate, like other contracts, in accordance with
their terms.  Its "primary purpose" is to ensure that private
agreements to arbitrate between parties "are enforced according to
their terms."  The Cardholder Agreement is a contract between
White and Citibank, and not Sunoco.  Without a contractual basis
or equitable principles directing us to enforce the agreement in
this dispute between White and Sunoco, a third party, Judge
Chagares cannot compel arbitration.

For the reasons stated, Judge Chagares affirmed the District
Court's order denying Sunoco's motion to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/qa5zZO from Leagle.com.

Seamus C. Duffy -- seamus.duffy@dbr.com -- (ARGUED), Kathryn E.
Deal -- kathryn.deal@dbr.com -- Meredith C. Slawe --
meredith.slawe@dbr.com -- Katherine L. Villanueva --
katherine.villanueva@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath, 18th &
Cherry Streets, One Logan Square, Suite 2000, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Counsel for Appellant.

David J. Stanoch (ARGUED), Richard M. Golomb, Ruben Honik, Kenneth
J. Grunfeld, Golomb & Honik, 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100,
Philadelphia, PA 19102, Counsel for Appellee.


SUPREME INDUSTRIES: "Tola" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Wabash Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH TOLA, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUPREME INDUSTRIES, INC., HERBERT M.
GARDNER, WILLIAM J. BARRETT, PETER D. BARRETT, EDWARD L. FLYNN,
ARTHUR J. GAJARSA, THOMAS B. HOGAN, JR., MICHAEL L. KLOFAS, MARK
C. NEILSON, MARK D. WEBER, WAYNE A. WHITENER, WABASH NATIONAL
CORPORATION, and REDHAWK ACQUISITION CORPORATION, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01227-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 29, 2017), seeks to
enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed merger
transaction.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on August
8, 2017, pursuant to which Supreme Industries, Inc. will be
acquired by Wabash National Corporation and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Redhawk Acquisition Corporation.  On August 8,
Supreme's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with Wabash.  Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub launched a tender offer to
acquire all of the Company's Class A and Class B common stock for
$21.00 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is scheduled to expire
on September 27.  Following the consummation of the Tender Offer
and the satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions, Merger Sub
will be merged with and into the Company, and the Company will be
the surviving corporation.

On August 22, 2017, defendants filed a solicitation/
Recommendation Statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
The Solicitation Statement, according to the complaint, omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading.
Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections
14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Solicitation Statement.

Supreme Industries is a manufacturer of specialized vehicles,
including truck bodies and specialty vehicles.[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 -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324 6800


SUSAN BIRCH: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Ryan" Antiviral Coverage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHAEL RYAN, SHARON MOLINA, EARBY MOXON,
and HEATHER MEYERS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUSAN E. BIRCH, in her official
capacity only, as Executive Director of the Colorado State
Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 17-cv-00904-KLM (D. Colo.), Magistrate Judge Kristen L.
Mix of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied
the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First and Second
Claims for Relief.

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit against
the Defendant, the Executive Director of Colorado State Department
of Health Care Policy and Financing ("HCPF"), for denying them
coverage for direct-acting antiviral ("DAA") treatment in
violation of the Medicaid Act.  The Plaintiffs are Medicaid
enrollees who suffer from the Hepatitis C Virus ("HCV") and have
been denied coverage by HCPF for DAA treatment.  Their Amended
Complaint contains three claims for relief: (i) a 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 claim for HCPF's failure to provide necessary medical
assistance in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(10)(A); (ii)
a Section 1983 claim for denial of access to treatment comparable
to similarly situated Medicaid enrollees in violation of 42 U.S.C.
Section 1396a(a)(10)(B); and (iii) a Section 1983 claim for
failure to provide necessary medical assistance with reasonable
promptness in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(8).

Colorado participates in the federal Medicaid program and has
chosen to provide prescribed drugs in its state Medicaid plan, a
non-mandatory service under the Medicaid Act.  HCPF is the state
agency that administers the Medicaid program in Colorado.  Under
HCPF policy, enrollees diagnosed with HCV must satisfy certain
criteria in order to be approved for DAA treatment, a breakthrough
therapy for HCV, which results in a de facto cure for more that
90% of patients.

The criterion at issue in the present case is that in order for
enrollees with HCV to receive coverage for DAA treatment, they
must have a Metavir Fibrosis Score ("MFS") of F2 or higher.  The
Plaintiffs challenge HCPF's MFS policy; they argue that by denying
them DAA treatment on account of their MFSs of F0 or F1, HCPF
fails to provide medically-necessary prescription drugs in
violation of Section 1396a(a)(10)(A), and denies access to
treatment, which similarly situated enrollees have access to, in
violation of the Medicaid Act's "comparability" requirement under
Section 1396a(a)(10)(B).

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Defendant moves to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' first and second claims, which arise under
Sections 1396a(a)(10)(A) and (a)(10)(B).  She argues that because
the Plaintiffs' claims challenge HCPF's methodology for providing
medical assistance under the medical-necessity standard, they can
only be asserted under the medical necessity provision of the
Medicaid Act found at 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(17).  She further
argues that because Section 1396a(a)(17) does not allow the
Plaintiffs to assert claims for violations of federal rights,
their first and second claims here should be dismissed for failure
to state claims upon which relief can be granted under Section
1983.  The Plaintiffs counter that they are the "masters" of their
own Complaint and that Sections 1396a(a)(10)(A) and (a)(10)(B) are
the "proper statutory vehicles" for their claims; as such, they
argue that the Motion should be rejected as the Defendant's effort
to rewrite the Complaint.

Magistrate Judge Mix held that the Plaintiffs sufficiently allege
facts that support a claim asserting that HCPF has violated
Section 1396a(a)(10)(A).  The Plaintiffs allege that HCPF has
elected to furnish prescription drugs in its state Medicaid plan,
that they are Medicaid enrollees infected with HCV who have MSFs
of F0 or F1, that DAA treatment is medically necessary for them,
and that HCPF denies them medically necessary DAA treatment
pursuant to HCPF policy.  That the Plaintiffs possibly could have
alleged a claim for a violation under Section 1396a(a)(17) does
not negate her conclusion that the Plaintiffs' allegations
plausibly allege that HCPF violated Section 1396a(a)(10)(A).
Accordingly, she denied Defendant's Motion with respect to the
Plaintiffs' first claim.

The Magistrate Judge further denied the Defendant's Motion with
respect to the Plaintiffs' second claim.  The Plaintiffs
sufficiently allege facts that support a claim asserting that HCPF
has violated Section 1396a(a)(10)(B) and Section 440.240.  They
allege that DAA treatment is medically necessary for every
Medicaid enrollee infected with HCV, even those with MFSs of F0 or
F1; that they are eligible Medicaid enrollees infected with HCV;
that HCPF has denied them coverage of DAA treatment; and that HCPF
has provided coverage of DAA treatment for similarly situated
enrollees, i.e. enrollees with MSFs of F2 or above.  These
allegations are sufficient to allege their second claim that HCPF
violated Section 1396a(a)(10)(B) and Section 440.240.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Mix denied the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ZsyfAQ from Leagle.com.

Heather Myers, Plaintiff, represented by Arash Jahanian, ACLU of
Colorado.

Heather Myers, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin M. Costello, Center
for Health Law & Policy Innovation, Mark Silverstein, American
Civil Liberties Union, Sammantha Jeannine Tillotson --
stillotson@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Sara R. Neel,
American Civil Liberties Union & Paul Gregory Karlsgodt --
pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP.

Michael Ryan, Plaintiff, represented by Arash Jahanian, ACLU of
Colorado, Kevin M. Costello, Center for Health Law & Policy
Innovation, Mark Silverstein, American Civil Liberties Union,
Sammantha Jeannine Tillotson, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Sara R.
Neel, American Civil Liberties Union & Paul Gregory Karlsgodt,
Baker & Hostetler, LLP.

Sharon Molina, Plaintiff, represented by Arash Jahanian, ACLU of
Colorado, Kevin M. Costello, Center for Health Law & Policy
Innovation, Mark Silverstein, American Civil Liberties Union,
Sammantha Jeannine Tillotson, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Sara R.
Neel, American Civil Liberties Union & Paul Gregory Karlsgodt,
Baker & Hostetler, LLP.

Earby Moxon, Plaintiff, represented by Arash Jahanian, ACLU of
Colorado & Kevin M. Costello, Center for Health Law & Policy
Innovation.

Earby Moxon, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Silverstein, American
Civil Liberties Union-Denver.

Earby Moxon, Plaintiff, represented by Sammantha Jeannine
Tillotson, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Sara R. Neel, American Civil
Liberties Union & Paul Gregory Karlsgodt, Baker & Hostetler, LLP.

Susan E. Birch, Defendant, represented by Claire Elizabeth Wells
Hanson -- cehanson@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart, LLP,
Constance Lucas Akridge -- clakridge@hollandhart.com -- Holland &
Hart, LLP, Corelle M. Spettigue, Colorado Attorney General's
Office, Craig E. Stewart -- cstewart@hollandhart.com -- Holland &
Hart, LLP, Jennifer Lee Weaver, Colorado Attorney General's
Office, Michael D. McMaster, Colorado Attorney General's Office,
Rachel Ollar Entrican, Colorado Attorney General's Office-Dept. of
Law & W. Eric Kuhn, Colorado Attorney General's Office.


TARGET CORPORATION: Faces "Dormani" Suit over 401(k) Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
ANN DORMANI, MITCHELL W. KNOLL, DAVID RIGOL, and DOROTHEA SIMMONS,
on behalf of the Target Corporation 401(k) Plan, themselves, and a
class consisting of similarly situated participants of the Plan,
the Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION, SCOTT KENNEDY, MICHAEL
FIDDELKE, PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE,
JOHN MULLIGAN, COREY HAALAND, JODEE KOZLAK, BETH JACOB, JOHN
DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, and GREGG STEINHAFEL, the Defendants, Case
No. 0:17-cv-04049 (D. Minn., Aug. 30, 2017), seeks to recover
actual damages in the amount of losses the Plan suffered, to be
allocated to the Plan Participants' individual accounts in
proportion to the accounts' losses.

The Plan is a defined contribution plan sponsored by Target. The
purpose of the Plan is to encourage employees to save for their
retirement, and the Plan's purpose is a paramount consideration in
administering and managing the Plan. The Plan provides for an
individual account for each participant, and plan benefits are
based solely on the amount contributed to the participant's
account, and any income, expenses, gains and losses. Funds in each
Participant's account are allocated among available investment
options that were selected by Defendants in Defendants' fiduciary
capacities. One of the investment options offered by Defendants to
Participants during the Class Period (February 27, 2013, to August
6, 2014, inclusive) was the Company Stock Fund, a unitized common
stock of Target. The Fund was valued using unit-based accounting
and invested virtually all of its assets in Target Corporation
common stock, with a small cash reserve held to accommodate
withdrawal requests, despite disclosures that only required the
Fund to primarily hold Target Stock. Participants owned units of
the Fund which consisted of cash and Target Stock in the same
proportion as the Fund's holding of cash and Target Stock. When
Participants contributed to the Fund, they purchased units of the
Fund, not shares of Target Stock. Similarly, the Plan did not
purchase or sell shares of Target Stock, the Fund bought and sold
shares of Target Stock, and the Plan bought and sold units of the
Fund.

In February 2013, at the beginning of the Class Period, the Fund
comprised more than $2 billion of the approximate $4.19 billion in
total assets held by the Plan, or almost half of the Plan's net
assets, and to compound the problems alleged, the Plan acquired
hundreds of millions of dollars of Target Stock while those shares
were artificially inflated. Therefore, Participants' retirement
benefits were dependent largely on the performance of Target
Stock, which was artificially inflated and the price of which was
bound to fall to its fair value upon the inevitable disclosure of
the same. The public revelation of the Company's problems in
Canada and elimination of Target Stock's artificial inflation was
inevitable. Thus, Defendants did not have a choice between the
harm of disclosure and the possibility of avoiding that harm;
instead they had the choice between a swifter and milder
disclosure without wasting Plan assets in the interim, or wasting
Plan assets by investing tens of millions of dollars in
artificially inflated Target Stock to moderately delay an
inevitable drop in price of the Plan's holdings. Wasting
significant assets to temporarily delay an inevitable drop in
large holdings is more harmful than helpful to the Plan.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David E. Krause, Esq.
          DAVID E. KRAUSE LAW OFFICE, CHTD.
          2716 Colfax Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55408
          Telephone: (612) 872 8446
          E-mail: dkrause@davidkrauselaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Nancy Kulesa, Esq.
          Michael B. Ershowsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363 7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363 7171
          E-mail: nkulesa@zlk.com


TDY MOVING: "Mitchell" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH MITCHELL, the Plaintiff, v. TDY MOVING & STORAGE INC.,
MEIR HAGBI and EDWARD MCKEON, the Defendants, Case No. 516941/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 31, 2017), seeks redress against Defendants
for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff his full wages for all of
his hours worked and a failure to provide proper statements with
each payment of wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a mover and driver for
Defendants' company known as "TDY Moving & Storage" providing
services for the Defendants' clients located within and outside of
the City of New York from in or around June 2015 through January
2017.

Throughout his employment, Plaintiff worked for Defendants an
average of 72 hours per week and was paid at a flat rate of $
15.00 per hour. While Plaintiff was paid his flat hourly rate for
the hours he worked at worksites, Plaintiff did not receive any
wages for the hours he was required to work at Defendants'
warehouse preparing and loading/unloading Defendants' box truck,
nor did he receive any wages for his time spent traveling between
the Defendants' warehouse and worksites. As a result, Plaintiff
was deprived of the payment of wages for an average of 18 hours or
more each and every workweek.[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


TELENETWORK PARTNERS: Conditional FLSA Class Certification Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned HUGO MADRID, LEIGHA SALYERS, and JENIFER
MARCHON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. TELENETWORK PARTNERS,
LTD., d/b/a TELENETWORK, and TELENETWORK CALIFORNIA, INC.,
jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-04519-SVK
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on October 10,
2017, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, for entry of an
order:

   1. granting conditional certification and approving a 60 day
      opt-in period for the following collective:

      "all similarly situated current and former hourly brick-
      and-mortar Customer Service Representatives who work or
      have worked for Defendants at any time from August 8, 2014
      through judgment";

   2. requiring Defendants to identify all potential opt-ins
      within 14 days of the grant of conditional certification by
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
      the names, job titles, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail
      addresses, dates of employment, location of employment, and
      date of birth, of each potential opt-in; and

   3. approving the attached proposed form of notice and
      authorizing it to be sent by U.S. Mail and e-mail to all
      potential opt-in plaintiffs, along with a shortened text
      message notifying each individual that the notice form was
      mailed and emailed; and

   4. requiring that a reminder notice via email to be sent 40
      days after the initial mailing of notice; and

   5. allowing potential opt-in plaintiffs to join the collective
      by submitting their consent to join forms via mail, email,
      fax, or submission via website.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Xda1fHks

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638 8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638 8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355 0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436 8453
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  jyoung@sommerspc.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Ferris Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RICHARD FERRIS, on behalf of himself and a
class, the Plaintiff, v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC., and CONVERGENT
OUTSOURCING INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03703 (N.D.
Ill.), Mr. Ferris asks the Court to enter an order determining
that this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case may proceed as a
class action against Defendants on behalf of a class and a
subclass.

The class includes (a) all individuals (b) who were sent a letter
by Convergent (c) seeking to collect a student loan allegedly held
by a "National Collegiate Trust" (d) which disclosed that the
"current creditor" was "Chase" (e) and whose letter were sent at
any time between the period beginning March 28, 2015 and ending
April 18, 2016.

The subclass includes all class members who received such a
disclosure in the first communication they received from
Convergent. Defendant Convergent represents that the class
consists of 5,192 accounts. Convergent's representative, Jeff
Hunter, testified that sub-class consists of over 3,200 accounts.

The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class and subclass.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N8TcfdYH

The Defendants have been seeking to collect from plaintiff alleged
student loan debts, which plaintiff allegedly cosigned for a
family member and were incurred for personal, family or household
purposes (education).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturnerv, Esq.
          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


TRI-STATE CAREFLIGHT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Stone Says
------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN STONE, DAYLE MORNINGSTAR, and LOREE CUTTS, on their own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. TRI-STATE CAREFLIGHT, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02105 (S.D. Fla., Sep. 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid balance
of the full amount of the wages owed to Plaintiff for mandatory
travel time, as well as any statutory penalties due, and any
reasonable costs or attorneys' fees due under Colorado Minimum
Wages of Workers Act.

According to the lawsuit, Plaintiff Cutts' mandatory travel time
constituted earned minimum wages or other compensation owed to
her. As a result of Tri-State's violations of labor laws, Cutts
has suffered lost wages and lost use of those wages in an amount
to be determined at trial.

Tri-State employed emergency medical technician (EMT) paramedics
("flight paramedics"), registered nurses ("flight nurses"), and
pilots at each of their Colorado flight "base" locations,
including in Durango, Montrose, and Eagle. This wage-and-hour
litigation arises from Tri-State's former employment of Plaintiffs
Benjamin Stone, Dayle Morningstar, and Loree Cutts ("Plaintiffs"),
as well as other similarly-situated flight paramedics and flight
nurses.

Tri-State owned and operated an aerial medical transportation
service operating in Colorado, as well in the states of New Mexico
and Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ashley K. Boothby, Esq.
          Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
          THE KELMAN BUESCHER FIRM
          600 Grant St., Ste. 450
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 333 7751
          Facsimile: (303) 333 7758
          E-mail: aboothby@laborlawdenver.com
                  aturner@laborlawdenver.com

               - and -

          Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
          LUBIN & ENOCH, PC
          999 18th Street, Suite 3000
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 595 0008
          Facsimile: (602) 626 3586
          E-mail: nick@lubinandenoch.com


TRICAP INTERNATIONAL: Santos Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO CABEZAS SANTOS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRICAP INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a
California limited liability company; NET LOGIS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; THE TRIANGLE GROUP, a business entity
of unknown formation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC674097 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 29, 2017), seeks
reimbursement of business expenses and losses, reimbursement of
deductions unlawfully taken from wages, premium pay for
missed/unpaid meal periods and missed/unpaid rest periods, unpaid
minimum wage and liquidated damages, waiting time penalties,
restitution, disgorgement, statutory penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees and costs under California Labor Code.

Defendants have employed numerous Class Members who have performed
services in Los Angeles County, including Plaintiff, who has
incurred unreimbursed business expenses, worked though meal and
rest periods without compensation, and have performed work without
being paid minimum wage while performing services for Defendants
and their customers in Los Angeles County during the relevant
liability period, the Complaint says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yoonis Han, Esq.
          Sam Kim, Esq.
          VERUM LAW GROUP, APC
          841 Apollo Street, Suite 340
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 320 2000
          Facsimile: (424) 221 5010
          E-mail: yhan@gmail.com
                  skim@verunilg.com


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Over Guardrails
------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Record reports that St. Clair County State's
Attorney Brendan Kelly and special assistant David Cates have
abandoned a mammoth suit seeking replacement of highway guardrails
statewide.

Fifteen lawyers stipulated dismissal in U.S. district court on
Sept. 1, six for St. Clair County and nine for Texas guardrail
maker Trinity Industries.

The stipulation provided that all claims were dismissed "without
payment by defendants of any money in connection therewith."

The shutdown occurred three weeks after Mr. Cates moved to certify
a class action for all counties and almost 3,000 local
governments.

Mr. Cates filed the suit in November 2014, on behalf of St. Clair
County.

A month earlier, jurors in a similar case in Texas had assessed
$175 million in damages against Trinity on behalf of the United
States.

Mr. Cates alleged that Trinity sacrificed safety by narrowing a
channel in terminals and concealing the change from regulators.

Last year, District Judge David Herndon denied a motion to dismiss
the suit.

Last September, Trinity moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Mr. Cates moved to amend the complaint in October, writing that he
and Trinity agreed that changes were necessary.

He wrote that he would remove a claim of breach of warranty, and
that he would remove any deficiency in a claim of deceptive trade
practices.

He wrote that he might bring further causes of action against
Trinity.

Magistrate Judge Stephen Williams denied the motion in November,
finding it untimely and unduly prejudicial.

He wrote that plaintiffs proposed to raise claims of racketeering,
civil conspiracy and common law fraud.

"Such claims would change the nature of the action which
defendants have been defending," Judge Williams wrote.

Mr. Cates appealed to Judge Herndon, who affirmed Judge Williams
in January.

He ruled that St. Clair and Macon counties could only claim unjust
enrichment.

On June 6, Trinity moved to bar liability expert Kevin Schrum from
testifying.

Trinity claimed he failed to produce data underlying a study he
incorporated into the report he submitted to the court.

Trinity claimed he misrepresented the study and underlying data.

Mr. Cates withdrew Mr. Schrum on that date.

Cates moved to certify a class on Aug. 11, writing that local
crews could distinguish good guardrails from bad ones.

He wrote that about 141 rails required replacement in St. Clair
and Macon counties.

"It will merely require class members that cannot already
distinguish between five inch and four inch feeder channels to
simply count the number of four inch ET-Plus units in their
jurisdiction," Mr. Cates wrote.

He declared it no more burdensome than average for class members
in other cases.

The Texas verdict remains under review at the Fifth Circuit in New
Orleans. [GN]


TURN INC: Arbitration, Stay Rulings in Suit vs. Court Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE ANTHONY HENSON and WILLIAM CINTRON.
ANTHONY HENSON; WILLIAM CINTRON, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND,
Respondent, TURN, INC., Real Party in Interest, No. 16-71818(9th
Cir.), Judge William A. Fletcher of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order granting
Turn's motion to stay the action and compel arbitration.

Plaintiffs Henson and William Cintron ("Henson") are Verizon
cellular and data subscribers.  Henson and Verizon's contractual
relationship is governed by the "My Verizon Wireless Customer
Agreement," which includes an agreement to arbitrate disputes
between them.  Defendant Turn is a "middle man" for Internet-based
advertisements that separately contracts with Verizon to deliver
advertisements to Verizon subscribers based on usage data
collected from users' mobile devices.  The "Turn Audience Platform
Agreement" ("TAP Agreement") governs Verizon and Turn's
contractual relationship, under which Verizon granted a license to
Turn to use its service for targeted advertising in exchange for a
percentage of the revenue that Turn received from selling targeted
advertising space to its client advertisers.

As a Verizon subscriber, each of Henson's wireless transmissions
contained a Verizon Unique Identifier Header ("UIDH").  Turn
attached tracking cookies to Verizon subscribers' UIDHs to collect
and send their web-browsing and usage data to Turn's servers.

Henson alleged that Turn exploited users' UIDHs to install its
"zombie" cookies, recreated those cookies after users deleted
them, collected data about Verizon users without their knowledge,
used that data to create profiles that it marked with its own
identifier ("Turn ID"), stored those Turn IDs on users' mobile web
browsers, and auctioned off users' collected data so that
advertisers could place targeted advertisements on their mobile
phones.  Because Turn works with Google, Facebook, and hundreds of
other well-recognized brands, Henson argued Turn's practices had a
harmful and wide impact.

Turn moved to dismiss Henson's claims and sought to compel
arbitration by invoking the arbitration provision in the Customer
Agreement between Henson and Verizon.  The Customer Agreement
requires the parties to arbitrate any disputes arising out of
their contract.  However, Turn is not a signatory to the Customer
Agreement and does not otherwise have an arbitration agreement
with Henson.  The separate TAP Agreement, between Turn and
Verizon, provides that the parties are independent of each other;
that nothing in the Agreement creates any partnership, joint
venture, or other similar relationship; and that neither party
will have the authority to bind the other in any way.
Nonetheless, Turn asked the district court to compel arbitration
under the doctrine of equitable estoppel because it provided a
service to Henson that was closely connected to Henson's Verizon
wireless service.

Without conducting a choice-of-law analysis, the district court
granted Turn's motion to compel arbitration under New York's
equitable estoppel doctrine and stayed the action.  Henson timely
filed the writ of mandamus to vacate the district court's order
compelling arbitration.

To determine whether a writ of mandamus is warranted, Judge
Fletcher weighs the Bauman factors: (i) whether the petitioner has
other adequate means, such as a direct appeal, to attain the
relief he or she desires; (ii) whether the petitioner will be
damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal; (iii)
whether the district court's order is clearly erroneous as a
matter of law; (iv) whether the district court's order makes an
oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the
federal rules; and (v) whether the district court's order raises
new and important problems, or legal issues of first impression.

The Judge finds that because "contemporaneous ordinary appeal" is
unavailable, the first Bauman factor supports issuance of the
writ.  The second Bauman factor also weighs in favor of granting
mandamus relief.  The Customer Agreement does not allow Henson to
arbitrate his dispute in a representative capacity or on behalf of
a class.  If Henson is forced to arbitrate, he has no other
adequate means of ensuring that he can continue as the class
representative, and this would prejudice him in a way not
correctable on appeal.  If Henson wins the arbitration, then his
individual claims in this action would be rendered moot because
they would fully be satisfied, and Henson would lose his status as
the class representative because he would no longer have a
concrete stake in the controversy.  If Henson loses the
arbitration, it is also doubtful that he would successfully bring
an appeal to the Court.  If he brings suit in the district court
to vacate the arbitration award and to seek a damage award from
the district court, Turn could make an offer of settlement that
would be very hard to refuse.  Until the arbitration award is
actually vacated by order of the district court, Henson could
represent only himself and would thus have no legal or ethical
obligation to refuse the offer.

Judge Fletcher also finds that the district court committed clear
error by applying New York's equitable estoppel doctrine, rather
than California's, and by failing to apply California law
correctly.  Because he is left with a definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed, the third Bauman factor
strongly favors granting the writ.  And finally, the fourth and
the fifth Bauman factors weigh against granting mandamus relief,
he says.  There is nothing before him that suggests the district
court's error has been made more than once.  Nor is there anything
new about the application of equitable estoppel.  Because the
first three Bauman factors strongly favor mandamus relief, he
concludes that the balance of factors favors issuing the writ.
Accordingly, Judge Fletcher vacated the district court's order
granting Turn's motion to stay the action and compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/YV0SYt from Leagle.com.

Nimish R. Desai (argued) and Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, San Francisco, California; Nicholas
Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, New York, New
York; Hank Bates -- hbates@cbplaw.com -- Carney Bates & Pulliam
PLLC, Little Rock, Arkansas; Bradley S. Clanton, --
Brad@clantonlawms.com -- Clanton Legal Group PLLC, Jackson,
Mississippi; for Petitioners.

Michael H. Rubin (argued), Anthony J. Weibell, and Lauren Gallo
White -- lwhite@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, San
Francisco, California, for Real Party in Interest.

Scott H. Angstreich -- sangstreich@kellogghansen.com -- and Amelia
I.P. Frenkel -- afrenkel@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg Huber Hansen
Todd & Evans PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Cellco
Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless.


U.S. BANCORP: Baker & Hostetler Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory V. Mersol, Esq. -- gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker &
Hostetler LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that we're used
to seeing off-the-clock cases for minimum wage and overtime, but
at times such claims aren't available, such as when the employees
are paid well above the minimum wage and either do not work
overtime or are paid for it.  In most states, and under the FLSA,
such claims are really ones for breach of contract rather than for
wage and hour violations.  The question then arises whether such
contract claims, ones that employees worked off the clock but
received minimum wage and overtime, can be asserted on a class-
wide basis.

This was the issue in Hopkins v. U.S. Bancorp., Case No. 1:16-cv-
552 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2017).  In that case, the employee sought
to bring class-wide claims on the basis that he and others were
not paid for all hours worked.  He premised his claim upon the
breach of an oral contract in which he claimed he was told orally
in a job interview that he would make about $15 per hour plus
benefits.  What made the case dangerous was not the amount of
wages, which was relatively small (and, frankly, somewhat weak),
but the plaintiff's effort to bolster that claim by wrapping a
class action claim around it on behalf of thousands of other
workers.

The district court found countless problems with these
allegations.  First, the promise was too vague to enforce,
particularly the notion of unspecified benefits.  It also noted,
based on materials submitted, that the employee had actually been
paid above that amount during his employment and that, in any
case, his offer describing his compensation explicitly stated that
it did not "create a contract of employment."

The court noted problems from a class perspective as well. As the
alleged conversation during his job interview involved a single
manager and was oral, the claims were highly individualized and
could not be extrapolated across the putative class.  As the court
noted, the "finder of fact would have to determine for each
individual class member whether a similar conversation was had
with an authority figure . . . and what promises were or were not
made with regards to each person."

Accordingly, the court dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

While the result in Hopkins is positive, it reflects attempts by
plaintiffs' counsel to broaden the reach of already lucrative wage
and hour cases with new or expanded theories. Fortunately, in this
instance, the court was willing to dispose of the claims at an
early stage.

The Bottom Line: Casting an off-the-clock case as one for breach
of a contract to pay wages may have problems on an individual
basis, and such a case makes poor fodder for class or collective
action litigation. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Reservoir Releases
---------------------------------------------------------
KTRK reports that property owners are taking the United States
government to court over flooding they say occurred as a direct
result of controlled releases from the Addicks and Barker
reservoirs.

The class-action suit was filed on behalf of residential and
commercial property owners who did not experience flooding until
Monday, Aug. 28.  By that point, the worst of Harvey's rains had
passed and engineers had begun controlled releases of water from
the two reservoirs.

The suit alleges the government's "intentional and deliberate
decision" to release an "unprecedented amount of water" that
deprived them "of the use, occupancy, and enjoyment of their real
property" in violation of the Fifth Amendment. [GN]


UPLIFT EDUCATION: "Rambo" Suit Seeks Back Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
DORIS RAMBO, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UPLIFT EDUCATION, the Defendant, Case
No. DC-17-11236 (Dallas Cty. Dist. Ct., Aug. 31, 2017), seeks to
recover consequential damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees
and expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and unpaid
back wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

As a result of Defendant's intentional, willful, and unlawful acts
in refusing to pay Plaintiff, and those similarly situated to her,
time and one half their regular rate of pay for each hour worked
in excess of 40 per workweek in one or more workweeks, Plaintiff,
and those similarly situated to her, have suffered damages plus
incurring reasonably attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent J. Bhatti, Esq.
          Ditty S. Bhatti, Esq.
          THE BHATTI LAW FIRM, PLLC
          14785 Preston Road, Suite 550
          Dallas, TX 75254
          Telephone: (214) 253 2533
          Facsimile: (214) 279 0033
          E-mail: Vincent.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com
                  Ditty.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com


VALEANT PHARMA: Quebec Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quebec's Superior Court has granted authorization (or leave) to
pursue a shareholder class action on behalf of secondary market
purchasers of securities issued by Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International Inc. ("Valeant") (TSX and NYSE: "VRX") who acquired
those securities between February 2013 through October 2015 (the
"Class Period") under Title VIII, Chapter II, Division II of the
Quebec Securities Act ("QSA").

Leave under the QSA has been granted against Valeant, certain of
its current or former directors and officers namely J. Michael
Pearson, Howard B. Schiller, Robert L. Rosiello, Robert A. Ingram,
Ronald H. Farmer, Theo Melas-Kyriazi, G. Mason Morfit, Laurence
Paul, Robert N. Power, Norma A. Provencio, Lloyd M. Segal,
Katharine B. Stevenson, Fred Hassan, Colleen Goggins, Anders O.
Lonner and Jeffrey W. Ubben, and Valeant's auditors,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.  The action is based on allegations
that Valeant's filings with securities regulators in Canada and
the United States during the Class Period contained materially
false or misleading statements.  A copy of the Court's judgment is
available at https://is.gd/G2GEnI

The Court's decision grants the plaintiffs leave to pursue claims
under the QSA and authorizes them to advance the action as a class
proceeding.  Leave and authorization are procedural matters that
define the form of the litigation.  The action will now proceed
toward trial.  The Defendants dispute the claims asserted.

A notice detailing the impact of the authorization of the action
as a class proceeding on the rights of individual investors will
be delivered at a later date in accordance with a further order of
the Court.

The Class Action Plaintiffs are represented by a consortium of
Canadian law firms which includes Siskinds LLP, Faguy & Co,
Siskinds Desmeules, Koskie Minsky LLP, Rochon Genova LLP,
Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP, Morganti Legal and Investigation
Counsel PC. [GN]

VELOX EXPRESS: "York" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA YORK, MARSHAL EMMERLING, and MATTHEW MOSS, Each
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. VELOX EXPRESS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-
cv-00562-KGB (E.D. Ark., Sep. 1, 2017), seeks to recover
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, minimum and overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required Plaintiffs and
similarly situated employees to drive their own vehicles in the
performance of their job duties as courier/delivery drivers. The
Plaintiffs' job duties for Defendant required them to work more
than forty hours per week. In performing their job duties for
Defendant, Plaintiffs incurred vehicle-related expenses for the
benefit of Defendant, including but not limited to gas/mileage,
maintenance costs, and depreciation to their vehicles. The
Defendant paid Plaintiffs a piece rate for their services,
regardless of the number of hours worked by Plaintiffs. The piece
rate Defendant paid to Plaintiffs did not include any amount
intended to cover any of Plaintiffs' expenses in operating their
vehicles in the performance of their job duties for Defendant. The
Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs any amount in addition to the
piece rate to cover any of Plaintiffs' expenses in operating their
vehicles in the performance of their job duties for Defendant.

Velox Express is a nationwide same day delivery provider.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve Rauls, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


VERIZON: Class Action Over Zombie Smartphone Cookies Revived
------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News, reports that
Verizon customers who accused an online ad company of using
"zombie cookies" to collect personal data through their
smartphones will have a second chance to sue the company as a
class, the Ninth Circuit ruled on Sept. 5.

A three-judge appeals panel granted the subscribers' petition to
overturn a federal judge's order staying their proposed class
action and compelling arbitration between the lead plaintiff and
Verizon over Turn Inc.'s alleged conduct, ruling that the lower
court had "committed clear error."

"We are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed," the per curiam opinion said.

A class of Verizon customers from New York sued Turn in the
Northern District of California in 2015, claiming the company used
"zombie cookies" to monitor their online behavior through their
mobile devices.

Advertisers use bits of data called cookies to gather web
information about users that can be used in targeted advertising.
A user can delete a cookie, but lead plaintiff Anthony Henson said
Turn's "zombie cookies" evaded detection and could not be deleted.
When a person deleted Turn's cookies, the company recreated them,
he claimed.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Jeffery White granted Turn's motion
to stay the class action and compel arbitration, finding the
claims against Turn were "inextricably intertwined" with a Verizon
customer agreement that includes an arbitration clause.

The plaintiffs had argued Turn's motion to compel arbitration
should be denied because Turn was not a party to the agreement.
But Judge White found arbitration must be compelled when claims
"arise directly" from a provision of a contract that requires
arbitration to settle disputes.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed with Judge White on Sept. 5, finding
the plaintiffs' claims aren't based on the customer agreement.
Instead, their complaint was "replete with allegations of
wrongdoing against Turn that have nothing to do with the customer
agreement," the court wrote, including that Turn collected data
about Verizon users without their knowledge and bypassed their
phones' privacy controls in order to transmit their information to
Turn.

"None of these allegations rely on the customer agreement or
attempt to seek any benefit from its terms," the panel wrote in
its 16-page opinion.

Nimish Desai, a partner with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in
San Francisco who represents the plaintiffs, said on Sept. 5 that
he and his clients were pleased with the decision.

"We are looking forward to litigating these claims on behalf of
the plaintiffs and the proposed class," he said in an email.

To arrive at its conclusion, the panel relied on the third factor
in Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, decided by the Ninth Circuit in
1977.  The factor considers whether a trial court's order is wrong
as a matter of law.

The panel found that Judge White had erred by granting Turn's
motion to compel arbitration under New York's equitable estoppel
doctrine. Instead, White should have applied the equitable
estoppel doctrine of California -- where Turn was sued -- to
determine whether Turn, as a nonsignatory to the customer
agreement, can compel arbitration.

Under California law, Mr. Henson would have to arbitrate if his
claims relied on the customer agreement, or if the claims were
founded in or intertwined with the agreement, according to the
Ninth Circuit's opinion.

"The district court committed clear error by applying New York's
equitable estoppel doctrine, rather than California's, and by
failing to apply California law correctly," the panel wrote.

The panel found that three of the five Bauman factors weighed in
favor of granting the petition.

Michael Rubin of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in San Francisco
represents Turn. He could not be reached for comment on Sept. 5.

Digital marketing tech company Amobee acquired Turn this past
April, according to an announcement on Amobee's website.
Representatives for Amobee and Verizon did not return requests for
comment.

Circuit Judges William Fletcher and Richard Tallman and U.S.
District Judge Roslyn Silver, sitting by designation from the
District of Arizona, made up the Ninth Circuit panel. [GN]


VIRGINIA: Civil Attorneys Sue on Behalf of Women Inmates
--------------------------------------------------------
Dean Seal, writing for The Daily Progress, reports that a team of
civil rights attorneys is calling for officials with the Virginia
Department of Corrections to be held in civil contempt over their
alleged failures to provide adequate medical care to inmates at
the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women.

Attorneys with the Legal Aid Justice Center filed a motion in
federal court early on Sept. 6, alleging that prison officials
have failed to meet their obligations to improve the medical care
available to inmates at the women's prison, as dictated by the
settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed against them in 2012.

The filing comes just over a month after the Department of
Corrections announced that two inmates of the prison had died
during the month of July.  While the causes of death were not made
immediately available, the filing strongly implies that each death
was due to medical complications that were ignored by the Fluvanna
prison's staff.

"The plaintiffs and other women incarcerated at the Fluvanna
Correctional Center for Women [or FCCW] continue to suffer from
woefully inadequate health care in clear breach of the obligations
the defendants assumed under the consent judgment entered by this
court," the filing reads.  "As a direct result of [the Department
of Corrections'] failure to implement the settlement agreement and
consent judgment, women at FCCW continue to experience severe
medical consequences . . . such as severe untreated pain,
preventable amputations, and the realized risk of premature
deaths."

Prison officials named in the filing, including DOC Director
Harold W. Clarke, first came under scrutiny when the Legal Aid
Justice Center filed a lawsuit in July 2012, which sought class-
action status and that featured allegations from multiple inmates
that the standards for medical care available at FCCW were so low
that they violated Eighth Amendment protections.

A federal judge granted the class-action classification for the
suit in November 2014; four days later and just before a trial in
the matter was set to begin, both sides agreed to settle the case.
Extensive negotiations eventually resulted in a settlement
agreement that called for hefty revisions of guidelines to medical
care procedures at FCCW, as well as the appointment of a
compliance monitor to evaluate the Department of Corrections'
progress in reforming its medical care services.

Both parties agreed on the designation of Dr. Nicholas Scharff, a
Pennsylvania-based doctor, to serve as compliance monitor, a
decision finalized when the court granted approval of the
settlement agreement in February 2016.

Over the next year and a half, Dr. Scharff made five multi-day
visits to the prison and, per Wednesday's filing, continuously
found that the Department of Corrections had "failed to comply, or
even make significant progress towards, compliance, with respect
to many of the central requirements for constitutionally adequate
medical care" as stipulated by the settlement agreement.

In Dr. Scharff's latest report, based on a visit from April 24 to
April 27 of this year, he notes that of the 23 "compliance
indicators" that he used in his assessment, FCCW was non-compliant
in six of them, up from just three during his prior visit.

In the report, Dr. Scharff specifically calls out certain policies
that he finds to be of concern in light of the settlement
agreement, including the prison's co-pay policy, which allows co-
payment charges for any visit "except those on a specific, limited
list of chronic conditions."

"We discussed the senselessness of such a designation,"
Dr. Scharff wrote.  "The copayment policy as currently enforced is
both patently absurd and in violation of the terms of the
settlement agreement."

He goes on to criticize the prison's sick call process, concluding
that only 44 percent of medical issues are adequately addressed
and that the process of nurse sick call "serves little purpose."

"In most instances, it serves only to delay evaluation by a
provider," he wrote.

The filing asserts that Dr. Scharff has encouraged the Department
of Corrections and Armor Correctional Health Services, the for-
profit company contracted to provide medical services at the
prison, to change the prison's culture and address the "'unhappy
atmosphere' where patients feel that staff lack compassion for
them and unhappy staff leave FCCW."

In light of Dr. Scharff's findings and after being "seriously
disappointed by the [department's] lack of meaningful progress,"
the Legal Aid Justice Center served the Department of Corrections
a notice on April 20, suggesting courses of action the department
could take to address the problems described by Dr. Scharff and
the prison's own inmates.

When the department replied the following month, it flatly denied
some of the issues raised by the plaintiffs; other issues were
acknowledged, but the department denied the adverse consequences
attributed to them.

"As to other concerns, the [department] asserted that any problem
that may have existed had already been effectively addressed as a
result of remedial measures it claimed to have adopted and
implemented," the filing reads.  "In a few instances, the
[department] appeared to try to shift the blame for deficiencies
back upon the plaintiffs themselves."

The plaintiffs are now attempting to prove the prison officials
are in breach of the obligations laid out in the original
settlement agreement, resulting in serious harm for the inmates
reliant upon the prison's medical services.

They further call for enhanced sanctions against the department,
including the possibility of daily fines for repeated non-
compliance, stating that, based on the past 18 months, the
department's compliance "will not happen without compulsion."

"It's outrageous that we continue to hear about [the department's]
neglect and mismanagement from the women at FCCW," Brenda
Castaneda, of the Legal Aid Justice Center, said in an email.
"It's well past time for Virginia to consider whether it should
continue to imprison so many of its residents if in doing so, the
state cannot comply with the constitutional mandate to provide
them with adequate medical care." [GN]



VOLKSWAGEN AG: Braces for New Round of Diesel Lawsuits in Europe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Miller, writing for The Car Connection, reports that courts
in Europe have so far spared Volkswagen from steep compensation
payments to owners of vehicles implicated in the automaker's
diesel emissions scandal, unlike in the United States.  The
carmaker is far from out of the proverbial woods, however, as a
new wave of lawsuits will soon be filed, according to German
consumer advocate myRight.

With myRight's first case, which is intended to force Volkswagen
to buy back the impacted vehicles, likely to be decided in favor
of VW, the advocacy group's legal team is preparing an aggressive
response that includes not just an appeal, but a fresh round of
suits.  In its appeal, the group argues that this is not merely a
matter of German law, but of European Union law.  The assertion--
which Volkswagen denies--is that VW violated EU law by selling
vehicles that utilized software in violation of EU regulations. If
the appeal is successful, the case will proceed to the European
Court of Justice, which has the authority to override the German
courts in these matters.

The ten new cases set to be brought by myRight are what is known
as "test" cases.  In Europe, a test case is one that, in very
general terms, sets a precedent in a specific circumstance. Unlike
a class-action lawsuit, a test case isn't likely to immediately
result in massive fines for the manufacturer.

Such test cases could, however, open the door to much larger
lawsuits.  In the specific circumstances here, the test cases are
akin to an opening salvo, defining the legal basis over which a
much larger class-action lawsuit will be fought.

The cases are in response to another group's lawsuit against
several major German cities, and even Germany's motoring
authority.  Those lawsuits aim to ban the cars in question from
the road.  Such a ban would clearly change the scope of the impact
on individual owners, hence the new claims.

On the heels of the various test cases, myRight is also preparing
a class action on behalf of up to 25,000 Volkswagen owners, to be
filed this fall. Unlike the test cases, that would bring a
potentially heavy financial penalty to VW.

As the situation continues to unfold, the scope of Volkswagen's
potential financial liability is still increasing. [GN]


WAL-MART: Villasenor Sues over Equate CoQ10 Supplements
-------------------------------------------------------
FRANK MANUEL VILLASENOR, III, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. WAL-
MART STORES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06439 (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 30, 2017), seeks to recover damage caused to Plaintiff
and other consumers by Wal-Mart's false advertising and defective
Equate CoQ10 product.

Coenzyme Q10 is a nutrient with proven health benefits, but also a
well-known drawback: it is not soluble in water, and poorly
soluble in fat. This is problematic for consumers who use CoQ10
supplements because the body and digestive tract are aqueous, and
the absorption of a substance depends on its first dissolving. To
address this problem, some dietary supplement manufacturers have
invented technologies for modifying orally-administered CoQ10 to
increase its solubility, and thereby its bioavailability.

Wal-Mart markets and sells a store-brand dietary CoQ10 supplement
called "Equate High Absorption Co-Q10." Wal-Mart represents on
Equate's packaging that it "Helps support Heart Health," "Supports
heart and vascular health," "Promotes healthy blood pressure
levels," is "Essential for energy production," is "Beneficial to
Statin Drug Users," and provides "Powerful natural antioxidants."
Equate's packaging also says it offers "clinical strength," "high
absorption," and "3x better absorption." Wal-Mart also represents
that Equate is comparable to a competing brand-name CoQ10
supplement, by stating expressly on Equate's label that consumers
can "Compare to Qunol (TM) Ultra CoQ-10," by placing Equate
immediately next to Qunol on Wal-Mart's retail shelves, and by
modeling Equate's numerical claim, "3x better absorption," on
Qunol's identical claim.

According to the Complaint, Wal-Mart's statements are false and
misleading. Laboratory tests demonstrate the Equate CoQ10 softgels
frequently fail to even rupture within 15 minutes, the time
designated for effectiveness by the U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention
(USP), the organization that sets testing standards in the dietary
supplement industry. Instead, the softgels sometimes do not
rupture after more than 30, 45, or even 60 minutes. Thus, Equate
frequently will pass through a consumer's digestive tract without
any dissolution or absorption; or, if rupture occurs late,
dissolution and hence absorption will be substantially diminished.
Laboratory tests also show that Equate exhibits substantially less
than the 75% dissolution minimally necessary for effectiveness, as
designated by the USP.  Moreover, a significant disparity in
testing results suggests Equate is manufactured without adequate
quality control, meaning consumers cannot obtain, much less
expect, consistent and predictable results from one bottle of
Equate to the next.

Wal-Mart, doing business as Walmart, is an American multinational
retailing corporation that operates as a chain of hypermarkets,
discount department stores, and grocery stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. Mansfield, Esq.
          MITCHELL BARLOW & MANSFIELD, P.C.
          Megan Garrett, Esq.
          9 E. Exchange Place, Suite 600
          Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
          Telephone: (801) 998 8888
          Facsimile: (801) 998 8077
          E-mail: rmansfield@mbmlawyers.com
                  mgarrett@mbmlawyers.com

               - and -

          Brendan M. Ford, Esq.
          Tyler E. Sanchez, Esq.
          FORD & DIULIO PC
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 760
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 450 6830
          E-mail: bford@forddiulio.com
                  tsanchez@forddiulio.com


WEIFFENBACH MARBLE: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Lindsey Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Lindsey, P.O Box 178, Russellville, Ohio 45168, the
Plaintiff, v. Weiffenbach Marble & Tile Company, 150 Lau Pkwy
Clayton, Ohio 45315, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00302-WHR
(S.D. Ohio, Aug. 30, 2017), seeks to recover liquidated damages,
interest and attorney's fees, and all other remedies available, as
result of Defendant's willful failure and refusal to pay overtime
wages in violations of Sections of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

According to the complaint, as a warehouse associate, Plaintiff's
primary job duties consisted of general labor in the warehouse,
including, but not limited to tracking incoming and outgoing
shipments, review of inventory, preparation of materials for
customer orders, and other miscellaneous tasks consisting of
sweeping or cleaning the warehouse, and lawn work. At all times
relevant, Plaintiff was paid on an hourly basis of approximately
$15 to $19 per hour.

The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, but
was not paid time-and-a-half (overtime rate) for all hours worked
in excess of 40 resulting in unpaid overtime wages and other wages
owed to Plaintiff due to a variety of reasons. As a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered
and continues to suffer damages in an amount not presently
ascertainable.

The Weiffenbach Marble & Tile Company was founded in 2010. The
company's line of business includes providing asphalt tile,
carpeting, linoleum, and resilient.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman (0085586)
          Coffman Legal, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, Ohio 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949 1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386 9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, Ohio 43207
          Telephone: (614) 704 0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573 9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


WELLS FARGO: Royal Park Sues over Use of Covered Trust Funds
------------------------------------------------------------
ROYAL PARK INVESTMENTS SA/NV, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., as Trustee, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06687 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sep. 1, 2017), asks the Court to compel Wells Fargo to provide an
accounting of the legal fees and costs it has sought and/or
received from covered trusts in defending itself in a pending
litigation as well as this class action lawsuit.

The Plaintiff brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf
of a class of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS)
investors in two substantially similar RMBS trusts -- Covered
Trusts -- for which Wells Fargo serves as trustee.

This dispute arises from another litigation in this District
between RPI and Wells Fargo, Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 1:14-cv-09764-KPF-SN (S.D.N.Y.) (the
"Litigation"), pending before the Honorable Katherine P. Failla.
In that Litigation, Wells Fargo has been reimbursing its legal
fees and costs incurred in its defense directly from the Covered
Trusts. As a result, Wells Fargo's legal expenses related to
defending itself in the Litigation against allegations that it
breached its contractual and common law duties owed to investors
are currently being paid by funds out of the Covered Trusts'
assets that belong to the investors in those trusts.

The class action complaint contends that, under both the Governing
Agreements and the common law of trusts, Wells Fargo is not
permitted to receive advancement, reimbursement, or
indemnification for the legal fees and costs it incurs in relation
to the Litigation.  Rather, Wells Fargo is improperly and
illegally financing its defense of the Litigation with funds from
the very investors that have accused Wells Fargo of wrongdoing.
Thus, the investors are being harmed by Wells Fargo twice -- first
through Wells Fargo's misconduct as alleged in the Litigation, and
second through Wells Fargo's improper and illegal use of those
same damaged investors' funds to defend itself for its misconduct.

Wells Fargo is an American international banking and financial
services holding company headquartered in San Francisco,
California, with "hubquarters" throughout the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Arthur C. Leahy, Esq.
          Steven W. Pepich, Esq.
          Lucas F. Olts, Esq.
          Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq.
          Hillary B. Stakem, Esq.
          J. Marco Janoski Gray, Esq.
          Juan Carlos Sanchez, Esq.
          Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367 7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367 1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  artl@rgrdlaw.com
                  stevep@rgrdlaw.com
                  lolts@rgrdlaw.com
                  dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com
                  hstakem@rgrdlaw.com
                  mjanoski@rgrdlaw.com
                  jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com
                  cwood@rgrdlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Thomas Sues over Collateral Protection Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN A. THOMAS, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., D/B/A WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES, NATIONAL GENERAL
HOLDINGS CORP. and NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06582 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2017),
alleges that since at least 2012, Wells Fargo, together with auto
insurance giant National General, engaged in a scheme to bill
millions of dollars from unsuspecting customers who were forced to
pay for auto insurance they did not need or want. Defendants
recently revealed that more than 800,000 auto loan customers paid
for unnecessary auto insurance policies, pushing nearly 250,000 of
them into delinquency and resulting in nearly 25,000 unlawful
vehicle repossessions. The auto insurance policies at issue in
this case are commonly referred to as Collateral Protection
Insurance ("CPI") which are similar to auto insurance policies
commonly taken out by vehicle owners to cover the cost of damage
to the vehicle. Ordinarily, if proof of auto insurance was not
received by Defendants' CPI provider, in this case National
General, notices were required to be sent to borrowers in order to
prompt them to obtain the required coverage. However, neither
Defendants nor National General, which underwrote the CPI
policies, checked their internal database to determine whether
their customers had insurance coverage or, if they did, they
simply ignored that information. Instead, Defendants imposed on
customers redundant auto insurance coverage and then frequently
without any notice, automatically deducted the cost of the CPI
insurance from the customers' bank account along with the
regularly scheduled principal and interest payment for the auto
loan.

Wells Fargo is an American international banking and financial
services holding company headquartered in San Francisco,
California, with "hubquarters" throughout the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curt D. Marshall, Esq.
          Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
          Paul F. Novak, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558 5677
          Facsimile: (212) 344 5461


WHITE GLOVE: "Arboleda" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE ARBOLEDA, LUIS TORRES, JOSE RESTREPO, MARVIN LEMUS, WILLIAM
A. HERNANDEZ, and ELMER REYES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WHITE GLOVE
ENTERPRISE CORP., ENALET ENTERPRISE CORP., ALE ENTERPRISE CORP,
SLEEPY'S LLC, MATTRESS FIRM, INC. and AXEL S. RIVAS and AUDY PENA,
as individuals, the Defendants, Case No. 711980/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Aug. 29, 2017), seeks compensatory damages and liquidated
damages in an amount exceeding $100,000 as a result of Defendants'
violations of New York State labor laws.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to pay employees
proper overtime wages, minimum wages, and spread of hours
compensation.

White Glove is a trucking company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 113 7 5
          Telephone: (718) 263 9591


WINNFIELD, LA: "Sanders" Suit Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RODERICK SANDERS, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF
WINNFIELD, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00898-DDD-JPM (W.D.
La.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a class.

The Plaintiff's property was damaged due to flooding that was
caused by the negligence of the City of Winnfield and its failure
to properly design, construct, and maintain the drainage system in
his neighborhood. The allegations also show that Winnfield
provided substandard services to this neighborhood due to
decisions made based on the racial makeup of the neighborhood.

The Plaintiff further moves the Court to appoint himself as
representative of the class to appoint Plaintiff's counsel as
class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Lynn Strickland, Esq.
          Myrt T. Hales, Jr., Esq.
          HALES & STRICKLAND
          802 Julia Street
          PO Drawer 149
          Rayville, LA 71269
          Telephone: (318) 728 4413
          Facsimile: (318) 728 6773


WRS ENVIRONMENTAL: Fails to Pay Prevailing Wages, Dominguez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by WRS ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC., and/or any other entities affiliated with,
controlling, or controlled by WRS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.,
the Plaintiffs, v. WRS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. and JOHN
DOE BONDING COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 157820/2017 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Sep. 1, 2017), seeks to recover prevailing wages and
supplemental benefits for type of trade work they performed on
Utility Projects in an aggregate sum to be determined at trial,
plus interest, fees and costs.

This action is brought on behalf of Named Plaintiff and a putative
class of individuals who performed utility work, such as clean-up,
waste removal, restoration, and remediation, and similar tasks,
for WRS Environmental Services, Inc., and/or any other entities
affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by WRS Environmental
Services, Inc. to recover wages and benefits which Named Plaintiff
and the members of the putative class were statutorily and/or
contractually entitled to receive for work they performed on
Utility Projects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack Newhouse, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street - 7th Floor
          New York, N.Y. 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          E-mail: Lambinder@vandallp.com
                  Jnewhouse@vandallp.com


XCLUSIVE STAFFING: Bid to Dismiss "Valderde" Suit Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ISABEL VALVERDE; MARIA SONIA MICOL SIMON;
and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. XCLUSIVE STAFFING,
INC., XCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC, dba Xclusive Staffing, XCLUSIVE
STAFFING OF COLORADO, LLC, DIANE ASTLEY, OMNI INTERLOCKEN COMPANY,
L.L.C., OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, JMIR DTC OPERATOR
L.L.C., MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and HCA-HEALTHONE LLC D.B.A.
SKY RIDGE MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-cv-
00671-RM-MJW (D. Colo.), Judge Raymond P. Moore of the District
Court for the District of Colorado granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

The Named Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant Xclusive, a
staffing agency owned by Defendant Astley.  All of these Xclusive
Entities are 100% owned and operated by Defendant Astley.  The
Xclusive Entities provide low-wage workers for their clients,
mostly hotels like Defendants Omni Interlocken, Omni Hotels, JMIR
DTC Operator, and Marriott ("Hotel Defendants").  The Plaintiffs
in this case, Mr. Valverde and Ms. Simon, worked only for
Xclusive's clients in Colorado.

The Plaintiffs allege that Xclusive advertises that it complies
with federal, state, and local laws, including overtime laws, but,
in reality, maintains policies that violate state and federal wage
and hour laws.  According to them, the Astley Enterprise allegedly
engaged in the following four interrelated wire fraud schemes: (i)
"the USDOL scheme" which implicated the automatic 30-minute lunch
break deductions and resulting underpayment of workers; (ii) "the
website scheme"; (iii) "the electronic timekeeping scheme" in
underreporting employee work hours, in particular the untaken 30-
minute breaks; and (iv) "the faxed timesheet scheme" which
underreported employee work hours and, in particular, the untaken
30-minute breaks.

The Plaintiffs' Rule 23 class allegations state there are common
questions of law and fact among the preliminarily defined classes,
including:  the Defendants' pay practices; the Defendants' failure
to pay employees all they are legally owed; the nature and extent
of Defendant Astley's fraud; and the nature and extent of the
antitrust agreements.  As for the Plaintiffs' collective action
allegations under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), they
assert that members suffered from the same policies of the
Defendants.

Based on such allegations, the following claims have been asserted
by the Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of various
preliminarily defined subclasses: (i) Count I: Civil RICO; (ii)
Count II: FLSA; (iii) Count III: Failure to Pay Statutory Required
Wages, including Overtime, Under the Laws of the Several States;
(iv) Count IV: Failure to Provide 10 Minute Breaks under Colorado
Law; (v) Count V: Illegal Deduction under Colorado Law; and (vi)
Count VI: Equity under the Laws of the Several States.

All Defendants, except Defendant HCA-HealthONE, LLC, doing
business as Sky Ridge Medical Center, filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.  After Defendants filed the Motion
to Dismiss, they filed a motion to stay all discovery.  The
Magistrate Judge granted the stay pending resolution of, among
other things, the Motion to Dismiss.  That discovery stay remains
in place today.

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe has recommended the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be denied in part and granted in
part.  Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended the
following dismissals: (i) Count I: preemption - dismissal with
prejudice of the RICO claim as it is preempted by the FLSA; (ii)
Count II, III, and IV: failure to state a claim - dismissal of
Plaintiff Simon only, with prejudice; (iii) Count III, IV, and V:
standing - dismissal without prejudice of these claims to the
extent they are based on conduct occurring outside the state of
Colorado; (iv) Count V: failure to state a claim - dismissal of
Hotel Defendants, with prejudice; and (v) Count VI: preemption and
failure to state a claim - dismissal with prejudice.  The
Recommendation otherwise denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
It is the recommendation of dismissals to which the Plaintiffs'
object.

Judge Moore has reviewed these recommendations and, after finding
no clear error, accepted such recommendations.  Accordingly, he
sustained in part and overruled in part the Plaintiffs' Objection
to Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.  He accepted in part and rejected
in part the Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

The Judge granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint as follows:

         a. Count I: granted and the claim is dismissed with
prejudice;

         b. Count II: denied as to Plaintiff Valverde; granted as
to Plaintiff Simon to the extent it is based on the 30-minute
deduction policy and the count is dismissed with prejudice as to
this basis only; and denied as to Plaintiff Simon to the extent it
is based on the $3 deduction;

         c. Count III: granted to the extent the class action
claims are based on conduct occurring outside of Colorado, and the
count is dismissed without prejudice on this basis; denied as to
Plaintiff Valverde as to the remaining allegations; granted as to
Plaintiff Simon to the extent it is based on unpaid overtime and
such count is dismissed with prejudice on this basis; and denied
as to Plaintiff Simon to the extent it is based on unpaid straight
time;

         d. Count IV: granted to the extent the class action
claims are based on conduct occurring outside of Colorado, and
this count is dismissed without prejudice on this basis; and
denied as to Plaintiffs Valverde and Simon as to the remaining
allegations;

         e. Count V: granted to the extent the class action claims
are based on conduct occurring outside of Colorado, and this claim
is dismissed without prejudice on this basis; and denied on the
remaining claim as it relates to all the Defendants, including the
Hotel Defendants;

         f. Count VI: granted as to the Plaintiffs' breach of
implied contract and unjust enrichment claims to the extent they
are based on unpaid overtime, and such claims are dismissed with
prejudice; denied as to the Plaintiffs' breach of implied contract
and unjust enrichment claims to the extent they are based are
unpaid straight time; and (iii) granted as to the Plaintiffs'
claim based on promissory estoppel and this claim is dismissed
with prejudice; and

         g. Supplemental Jurisdiction: denied without prejudice to
the extent the Defendants request the Court to decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' Rule 23 class claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/sZkK5D from Leagle.com.

Isabel Valverde, Plaintiff, represented by David Hollis Seligman,
Towards Justice.

Isabel Valverde, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Neville Hood
-- alex@towardsjustice.org -- Towards Justice.

Maria Sonia Micol Simon, Plaintiff, represented by David Hollis
Seligman, Towards Justice & Alexander Neville Hood, Towards
Justice.

Xclusive Staffing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathon
Michael Watson -- jwatson@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard,
L.L.C. & Walter Vernon Siebert -- bsiebert@shermanhoward.com --
Sherman & Howard, L.L.C..

Xclusive Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathon
Michael Watson, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. & Walter Vernon Siebert,
Sherman & Howard, L.L.C..

Xclusive Staffing of Colorado, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Jonathon Michael Watson, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. & Walter Vernon
Siebert, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C..

Diane Astley, Defendant, represented by Jonathon Michael Watson,
Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. & Walter Vernon Siebert, Sherman &
Howard, L.L.C..

Omni Interlocken Company, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by
Jonathon Michael Watson, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. & Walter Vernon
Siebert, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C..

Omni Hotels Management Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Jonathon Michael Watson, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. & Walter Vernon
Siebert, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C..

Marriott International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathon
Michael Watson, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. & Walter Vernon Siebert,
Sherman & Howard, L.L.C..

JMIR DTC Operator LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathon Michael
Watson, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. & Walter Vernon Siebert, Sherman
& Howard, L.L.C..

HCA-HealthOne LLC, Defendant, represented by Martine Tariot Wells
-- mwells@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP & Lisa
A. Hogan -- lhogan@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,
LLP.


ZUFFA LLC: Faces "Riley" Suit over Mayweather-McGregor Fight
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA RILEY, MICHAEL ADAMI, MEGAN DUNCAN, and BENITO ALICIEA JR.,
as individuals, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. ZUFFA, LLC, NEULION, INC., and, DOES 1-100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02308 (D. Nev., Sep.
1, 2017), seeks to recover seeks damages, restitution, and other
relief for persons who paid money for pay-per-view of the
Mayweather-McGregor boxing fight through UFC's app and/or through
UFC.tv.

According to the complaint, while the August 26, 2016 Mayweather-
McGregor fight was an exciting sporting event that millions of
sports fans wanted to see, with significant hype and pent-up
demand, a major problem arose prior to the Fight. Consumers,
like Plaintiff, who purchased the PPV Fight from Defendants via
UFC, UFC.com, UFC.tv, the UFC app, and/or other platforms operated
by Defendants at the required price ($99.99), were unable to
actually watch the complete Fight under the license purchased due
to technical difficulties and insufficient bandwidth and
downloading problems, frustrating their PPV transactions and
ability to receive what they paid for.  Ultimately the system
overloaded and crashed from excessive sales and downloads.
Plaintiffs and Class members obtained only sporadic, interrupted
clips, or were unable to view the Fight at all.  As a result,
Plaintiffs' contracts for the PPV broadcast were breached.

The Complaint contends Defendants engaged in deceptive and
misleading acts, in violation of applicable consumer protection
laws, by marketing and selling the PPV on UFC.tv as, inter alia,
they knew or should have known that the PPV systems' capacity was
exceeded and could not adequately handle the volume of PPV sales
ultimately reached without suffering outages, compromising the PPV
purchases of consumers, yet continued to sell new packages to
Class members in order to maximize their revenues.

Despite this, Defendants have not fully rectified the problem and
made Plaintiffs and Class members whole by refunding their PPV
purchase as well as providing other necessary relief such as
reimbursement of other amounts spent by Class members in relation
to the Fight and PPV purchase, such as food, drink, and other
entertainment expenses. Those consumers, like Plaintiffs, were
denied the benefit of their bargain and as a result, damages,
restitution, and other relief are appropriate and necessary.
Because of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs and members of the
Class were injured and incurred financial loss while Defendants
profited and were unjustly enriched.

Zuffa, LLC is an American sports promotion company specializing in
mixed martial arts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Markman, Esq.
          LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER & GARIN, P.C.
          9900 Covington Cross Dr., Suite 120
          Las Vegas, NE 89144
          Telephone: (702) 382 1500
          Facsimile: (702) 382 1512
          E-mail: dmarkman@lipsonneilson.com

               - and -

          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500 8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500 8781
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
                  hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com


ZAAPPAAZ: Kjessler Sues over Price Fixing of Silicone Wristbands
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY KJESSLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. ZAAPPAAZ, INC. d/b/a WB
Promotions, Inc., d/b/a Wrist-Band.com, d/b/a Customlanyard.net;
AZIM MAKANOJIYA; CUSTOM WRISTBANDS INC. d/b/a Kulayful Silicone
Bracelets, d/b/a Kulayful.com, d/b/a Speedywristbands.com, d/b/a
Promotionalbands.com, d/b/a Wristbandcreation.com, d/b/a
1inchbracelets.com; CHRISTOPHER ANGELES; NETBRANDS MEDIA CORP.
d/b/a 24hourwristbands.com; CASAD COMPANY d/b/a Totally
Promotional, the Defendant(s), Case No. 3:17-cv-01361 (D. Oreg.,
Aug. 30, 2017), seeks to enjoin and restrain Defendants and their
co-conspirators from continuing and/or maintaining a price fixing
conspiracy of customized silicone wristbands and lanyards.

The case is a nationwide direct-purchaser antitrust action arising
out of a conspiracy to fix prices for customized silicone
wristbands and lanyards. The conspiracy came to light as a result
of recent guilty pleas by Defendants Zaappaaz, Inc. founder and
president Azim Makanojiya, Custom Wristbands Inc., and Custom
Wristbands owner and CEO Christopher Angeles. All recently pled
guilty to price-fixing in violation of Section 1 of The Sherman
Act. Customized promotional products are small, inexpensive items
most often used by businesses or other organizations for
promotional purposes, such as to advertise and market a given
brand or piece of information. These products are generally
imprinted with a brand name, slogan, person's name, or some other
bit of text or imagery at the customer's request.

From at least June 2014 to at least June 2016, with
anticompetitive effects continuing to the present, Makanojiya and
Angeles used text messages and online messaging platforms, as well
as attending meetings with co-conspirators, to fix and maintain
prices for customized promotional products, specifically
customized silicone wristbands and lanyards.

Zaappaaz, Inc. provides commercial services. The Company
manufactures lanyards and wristbands to promote and wear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith S. Dubanevich, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING
          & SHLACHTER P.C.
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227 1600
          Facsimile: (503) 227 6840
          Email: kdubanevich@stollberne.com


* Australia Urged to Set Up Sydney Tunnel Compensation Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jake McCallum, writing for Hornsby Advocate, reports that
residents that will live near unfiltered ventilation stacks being
installed in Wahroonga and West Pennant Hills for the NorthConnex
tunnel are calling on the State Government to establish a Sydney
Tunnel Compensation Fund.

North Turramurra Action Group representatives said the government
needed to install ventilation to filter emissions from the tunnel
or establish the fund, to "prepare for future class actions when
residents begin to fall ill from falling gas plumes".

NTAG member Nick Bakker said residents and action groups across
the region had been pushing for the State Government to take a
proactive stance on their growing concerns around the project.

"The stacks will see plumes of gas dropping on homes and schools
across the region and nothing is being done to protect our
residents," Mr Bakker said.  "There could be serious ramifications
for the NSW Government if they don't install filters on to
ventilation sites.

"The government could be liable for millions of dollars of
compensation -- so they need to set up this fund now and be
prepared of what is to come.''

Mr Bakker said increasing community awareness of the dangers of
unfiltered stacks was the next step.

"If they do have a class action launched against them, then they
only have themselves to blame," he said.

However, an RMS spokeswoman said the "tunnel would have no
material impact on ambient air quality".

"Independent reviewers unmistakably stated that the ventilation
system was designed with sufficient flexibility to meet in-tunnel
standards which are among the most stringent in the world," the
spokeswoman said.

"The project would lead to a net health benefit in the community
due to the significant reduction in trucks on Pennant Hills Rd.

"The ventilation system for NorthConnex has been designed to meet
strict air quality guidelines from the Environment Protection
Authority (EPA) and NSW Department of Health and approved by the
Department of Planning."

The spokeswoman said once NorthConnex was open, air monitoring
would be carried out near outlets, with results published on the
NorthConnex website. [GN]


* CFPB's Arbitration Rule Poses Costs for Both Banks, Consumers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Cioffi, writing for American Banker, reports that the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule banning mandatory
arbitration clauses is bad news for banks.  For consumers, it
might be both good news and bad news.

It is tough for anyone to mount strong opposition to the CFPB's
arbitration rule, particularly as reports continue about the
misdeeds at Wells Fargo, including the bank's admission that it
forced borrowers to pay for auto insurance they did not need.
Although Senate approval of the rule remains uncertain, banks and
other lenders should still prepare for it to take effect.
Meanwhile, although the new limits on arbitration may seem like a
win for consumers in terms of expanding the legal options
available to pursue financial institutions for misconduct,
consumers should prepare for higher costs as a result of the rule.
This is especially true in the current deregulatory environment.

In many respects, complying with the rule will be relatively
straightforward.  Providers of consumer financial products and
services will need to amend their form consumer contracts, so that
they do not prohibit class action litigation, and ensure
compliance with new associated reporting requirements regarding
transparency in arbitration.  Going forward, banks will also have
to consider whether any modifications to their products or
services trigger the need to amend agreements that existed before
the effective date of the rule (the CFPB is seeking to prevent
banks from circumventing the rule through reliance on existing
agreements).

But there is another layer of complexity, for which preparation is
much more difficult.  The CFPB's rule would likely lead to the
filing of more class actions in any economic or political
environment.  But in this era of deregulation, it could have a
combustible effect.  The Trump administration and GOP-controlled
Congress aim to weaken the CFPB's enforcement powers as part of a
larger deregulatory effort. If that occurs, plaintiffs may have a
better chance of convincing courts that their class action, versus
government action, is the superior method of prosecuting claims.
Further, as banks self-regulate according to their own standards
in a deregulated environment, market inconsistencies and consumer
uncertainty may result in yet more litigation.

If this multiplier effect on litigation occurs, it would not be
without costs to consumers.

Banks determine the appropriate range of products and services to
offer, as well as their prices, in part on their own assessment of
regulatory and legal risk.  Any significant shock to the legal and
regulatory landscape that increases uncertainty and exposure is
likely to be passed on to consumers and reflected in higher prices
and potentially reduced offerings.

To be sure, the rule would serve a worthy goal of protecting
consumers by expanding the weapons available to them and allowing
them, in theory, to choose the option best suited to their
particular claim.  The die may have been cast as early as 2015
when the CFPB released its study of arbitration agreements for
consumer financial products and services, which found that the
most commonly asserted claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Truth in Lending Act
rarely resulted in relief to consumers.

As the phone replaces the wallet, banks must reassess their mobile
strategies -- and quickly.

Since then and in the wake of the Wells Fargo fake-accounts
scandal, the CFPB has warned covered providers to avoid certain
activities that could lead to consumer abuses, including
misrepresentations of the benefits of products, steering customers
to products that are inappropriate for their needs, improper
collection practices, and reporting and compensation structures
that create an environment where these activities are more likely
to occur.  The CFPB now appears convinced that the prospect of
arbitration alone is just not enough to deter these types of
activities; the potential for consumers to band together in a
class action and litigate is a bigger stick.

However, it's unclear whether the prospect of litigation would
have prevented the conduct that led to the Wells Fargo auto
insurance fiasco, had the ban on mandatory arbitration been in
place.  According to Wells Fargo, that situation was a case of one
hand not knowing what the other was doing, and it has announced
plans to refund affected consumers.  Going forward, a weaponized
consumer is more likely to deter purposeful misconduct than
incompetence.

In a world of less regulation and more litigation, banks'
attention will need to shift to whether their actions can be
defended, rather than merely whether they are lawful -- hardly an
environment conducive to creating new, competitively priced
products and services that serve consumers.  Further, in the void
left by deregulation, enforcement may be left to the creativity of
plaintiffs' counsel; debates regarding what may constitute
appropriate behavior by financial institutions will increasingly
play out in the courtroom.  And yet, even the CFPB's own studies
show that individuals on average receive less in class actions
after legal fees than they do in arbitration.  All of this makes
the CFPB's arbitration rule an expensive proposition for banks and
consumers alike. [GN]


* Class Actions Up 44% in 2016, Cornerstone Research Shows
----------------------------------------------------------
According to Illinois News Network, recent reports say that large
class-action lawsuits are on the decline, but data from 2016 tell
a different story.  An advocate for reform says Illinois'
litigious climate has far-reaching effects.

The National Center for State Courts' recent report indicates tort
lawsuits, cases where individuals or groups seek damages based on
loss or harm, had been dropping up to 2015.  They blame the high
cost of winning a lawsuit and other factors, such as an increase
in settlements.  But it may be because people are instead being
roped into multi-plaintiff suits, or class-action suits.

A more recent report by consulting company Cornerstone Research
says class-action suits are up 44 percent in 2016, a significant
jump from previous years.

Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch Director Travis Akin said these
class-action lawsuits are less beneficial for victims than they
are for lawyers but they're highly publicized in Illinois due to
lack of restrictions.  He says this causes people to, for example,
stop taking a certain drug that might be part of a lawsuit out of
fear of the publicized symptoms.

"People will see these ads and just stop taking a drug because
they're afraid of what could happen," Mr. Akin said.

Fear of these often costly legal battles often changes the
behavior of publicly funded institutions as well.

"Look at the number of schools that cancelled class in Illinois
solely due to the eclipse," Mr. Akin said.  "They made the
decision to cancel school because they were afraid of potential
lawsuits."

In news releases and public announcements, schools largely cited
safety concerns as reasoning for closing schools for the day.

Both Madison County and Cook County are known for attracting large
class-action lawsuits, but states like California still lead in
the number of class-action suits by district, the Cornerstone
report said. [GN]


* Class Actions Against Government Require Different Strategies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judy van Rhijn, writing for Law Times, reports that launching
class actions against the government and its institutions requires
a different set of strategies from class actions against private
entities.

Lawyers are educating themselves on how to tackle a defendant with
unlimited resources but a vulnerability to public pressure.

"If you are going up against the provincial, federal or municipal
government, pause and take stock before you start," advises
Joel Rochon, managing partner of Rochon Law LLP, a Toronto firm
involved in the class action over the rail accident in
Lac-Megantic in 2014 that killed 47 people.

"The cost of moving forward can be extraordinary.  You must ensure
a strong likelihood of success.  It's not the type of defendant
you try on for size."

Eric Gillespie of Eric Gillespie PC, a litigation boutique in
Toronto, compares the situation to David and Goliath. Gillespie
focuses on public interest litigation such as the G20 class
action.

"With a large multinational corporation, you can face a similar
imbalance," he says.  "Your opponent is never going to run out of
money or go out of business."

David Rosenfeld, partner at Koskie Minsky LLP, who has worked on
the plaintiff side of public class actions, also says plaintiff-
side law firms don't have the resources that governments do.

"The risk is that the government doesn't make the same
cost/benefit analysis that private defendants do.  They may take a
position because of the policy reasons behind it.  It may appear
to the plaintiff as an intransigent position, but it may be part
of an overall policy decision that's been made," he says.

Mr. Gillespie says public law cases deal with different types of
issues.

"Most obviously, the Charter comes up in most of these cases. You
must turn your mind to the statutory legislation that is required
to apply to government action," he says.

Mr. Rosenfeld points out that the government is facing multiple
responsibilities.

"There are often other factors in play.  In a class proceeding
against one institution, there may be 19 other institutions run on
the same policy and procedures," says Rosenfeld, whose firm has
acted for clients who formerly lived in residential schools in
Newfoundland or attended schools for developmental disabilities in
Ontario.

"They would be concerned about the floodgates, but they also have
to consider how particular litigation would affect them in terms
of governing and operating institutions."

Mr. Rosenfeld also says that, in regulatory negligence cases
against the government, the court often takes into consideration
that the federal and provincial governments have other policy
issues in play.

"There is a broader weighing of facts that the government took to
engage in a particular decision," he says.

"For example, if they decide to fund a safe injection site, there
are a number of policies that affect that. A lawsuit over whether
or not they should have put a safe injection site into play
recognizes that."

Mr. Rochon says class actions serve as an important way of
modifying behaviour and that policy considerations may also impact
settlement discussions.

"There are pros and cons for the plaintiff.  There might be a
policy restraint on the ability to settle or they might want to be
forced to pay damages," he says.

"If there's a hot button issue, they might want to address [it]
for their political interests."

It is in these situations that the role of the media becomes
crucial for generating public pressure as well as for
communicating with the public.

"Private class actions can have a large number of litigants, but
government action impacts a broad group of people," says
Gillespie.

"The class is likely to be a very large group.  That brings with
it considerations of how to communicate and the media becomes a
very important element.  If there's public interest, the media is
interested in what's going on and why you are suing the
government, more so than with private class actions."

Mr. Gillespie says that, often when there's a large group of class
members, the media becomes a vehicle to communicate to proposed
class members or after certification -- sometimes through paid
announcements but more commonly through press conferences and
media releases.

Mr. Gillespie says almost every case is responsive to what happens
in the public arena.

"When politicians are forming governments and hoping to be
re-elected, they are very aware of public relations," he says.

Remedies are another area where public law class actions differ
from private ones.

"When it comes to settlement, most private litigators simply want
financial compensation," says Mr. Gillespie.

"In public interest cases, public law remedies become very
important to the client, such as declarations and government
policy changes."

Mr. Rochon says the implications of successfully litigating
against a government actor are much greater.

"They have an exponential effect on a broader segment of the
population.  Action against the government reverberates across the
entire government.  Action against one province can affect all the
provinces or the federal government," he says.

"There is also an element of longevity. Judgments can be historic
in nature.  Once a practice has been modified, that behaviour
could be changed.  There is a deterrence effect when you bring a
public law class action." [GN]




                             *********


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  * * *