CAR_Public/170914.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


          Thursday, September 14, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 182



                            Headlines

24 HOUR FITNESS: Faces "Dickinson" Suit Over Deceptive Pricing
1040 GERARD: Siguencia Sues Over Violations of FLSA and NYLL
ABBOTT LABS: Court to Set Leadership Counsel in Depakote Suits
ALLIED RISK: "Paul" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Frankel" Suit in E.D. of New York

AMAZON.COM: Faces "Payne" Suit Over Defective Eclipse Glasses
AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Williams Claims
ASPEN NATIONAL: Faces "Nedd" Suit in E.D. of New York
BASS FISHING: Bid to Certify Class om in "Shay" Suit Denied
BATON ROUGE, LA: Residents Join Class Action Over 2016 Flooding

BIOSCRIP INC: Isaacson/Weaver Trust Appeals Order in "Faig" Suit
BLICK ART: Court Issues Memorandum for Science Day Hearing
BLUE CROSS: Faces Suit in Utah Over Denied Insurance Claims
BLUE STAR: Faces "Kubik" Suit in S.D. of Calif.
BLUEAGLE MEDICAL: Makes False Time Sheets for Drivers, Smith Says

BUMBO INTERNATIONAL: Averts Class Action Over Baby Seats
CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Inmates' Bid to Proceed as Class Suit
CAPITAL ONE: "Winters" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
CENTURYLINK INC: Scott Sues over Securities Exchange Act
CIGNA HEALTH: Court Approves $2.75MM "Weil" Class Settlement

CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
COLORADO SEMINARY: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Johnson" Suit Says
COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: "Fair" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Swain Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CONSOL ENERGY: "Casey" Hits Discrimination Over Benefits Plan

CONSUMER CREDIT: "Collins" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: "Richards" Suit Moved to E.D. California
CURRY SHACK: Faces "Ghale" Suit in S.D. of New York
CVS: Judge Tosses Drug Overcharging Class Action
CYPRESS COMMUNICATIONS: "Bruton" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime

DELTA AIR: Lopez Appeals Ruling by C.D. Calif. to Ninth Circuit
DES MOINES, IA: 1,100 Motorists Set to Get Traffic Camera Refunds
DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces "Siruno" Suit in Hawaii Dist. Ct.
DOMINO'S PIZZA: "Simeon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Dremak" Suit in S.D. of Calif.

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Gersten" Suit in S.D. of Calif.
EVANSTON, IL: Arrestee Property Seizure Class Action Can Proceed
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Sued Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports
EXPRESS MESSENGER: Ward Sues Over Misclassification of Drivers
FENTON & MCGARVEY: Faces "Evans" Suit in Dist. of Colorado

FIRST ADVANTAGE: Faces "Price" Suit in N.D. Georgia
FLORIDA BC: Faces "Reese" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
FORT WAYNE, IN: Class Certification Bid in "See" Suit Denied
HEARTSHARE HUMAN: "Murphy" Suit Seeks to Certify Workers Class
HOMESTREET BANK: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims

IMPERIAL PARKING: Rivas Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA
INTERCOAST COLLEGES: Faces "Kourembanas" Suit Over LPN Program
JAMAL A QADDURA: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Ct. Declines to Entertain Bid to Remand Suit
K.B.R. INC: Barbitta Sues Over Deficient Collection Latter

KINGATE GLOBAL: Investors Want 2nd Cir. to Revive Class Action
KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Faces "Ehrnfeld" Suit in E.D. of NY
L.A. DODGERS: Faces "Friedman" Suit Over False Advertisement
LIFEWAY FOODS: Judge Narrows Claims in Milk Smoothie Class Action
LOGITECH INC: Anderson Sues Over Defective Security Cameras

LOS ANGELES, CA: Settles Class Action Over Officer's Snooping
LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Witt" Suit in E.D. of New York
LUXOTICA RETAIL: Faces Class Action Over Prescription Eyeglasses
MARC/SHARIFF RESTAURANT: Ramirez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MARIETTA MEMORIAL: Court Certifies Nurses & Technicians Class

MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Faces FCRA Class Action in California
MDC TAVERN: Blue Seeks to Recover Wages, Tips and Deductions
MEDIX STAFFING: Faces "Heil" Suit in N. Dist. Ill.
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Madar" Suit in E.D. of New York
MGM HOLDINGS: Dec. 20 Plan Discovery Filing Deadline in "Johnson"

MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Flips FDCPA and RFDCPA Claims
MISSISSIPPI HOME HEALTH: "Arnold" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
MYLAN INC: Local 282 Fund Suit Transferred to Dist. of Kansas
NESTLE WATERS: Faces "Patane" Suit over Poland Spring Water
MORGAN & POTTINGER: Hager Hits Unauthorized Credit Report Access

NBTY INC: "De Bernardis" Disputes Oral Glutamine Health Claims
NESTLE WATERS: Faces "Ray" Suit in Maine
NEW ILLUZION: Faces "Zhang" Suit in New Jersey
NEW YORK: Ct. Approves Settlement in Juvenile Incarceration Suit
NIPPON AIRWAYS: Faces Antitrust Class Action in U.S.

NORTHWOOD ASSET: "Abdullah-Ezzani" Hits Illegal Collection Calls
ORACLE AMERICA: Faces "Johnson" Suit in N.D. of California
ORACLE AMERICA: Sanford Heisler Seeks Arbitration in Wage Suit
PARMA, OH: Faces "Aponte" Class Suit Over Invasion of Property
PIERCEY WEST: Accused by "Sosa" Suit of Not Paying Minimum Wage

PREFERRED PAYMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Suit Claims
PRET A MANGER: Accused by "Pasini" Class Suit of Violating FACTA
PSC INDUSTRIAL: Faces "Taveras" Suit in District Court of NJ
PULASKI COUNTY, IN: Court Certifies Mobility Impaired Class
PURDUE PHARMA: Darien May Join Opioid Epidemic Class Action

QUINTIS: Bannister Law to Pursue Shareholder Class Action
RELIANT REAL ESTATE: "Soccorso" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages
RELIN GOLDSTEIN: Faces "Nedd" Suit in East. Dist. of New York
RICE ENERGY: Faces "Traurig" Suit over Exchange Act Violations
REMINGTON: Group of State AGs Seeks Approval of Rifle Settlement

RICHMOND, VA: "Battle" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Class Action Over Unwanted Faxes Settled
ROCKET FUEL: Shahinian Trust Sues over Securities Laws
S. C. JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Babyganics Sunscreen
SEVCON INC: Scarantino Sues Over Proposed Sale to BorgWarner

SHORETEL INC: Frydman Files Suit Over Sale to Mitel Networks
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Faces "Brotz" Suit in M. Dist. Fla.
SKYLINE HIGHLAND: "Green" Suit Removed to E.D. Ark.
SOUTHWEST HARVESTING: Class of Seasonal Farm Workers Certified
SPUTNIK RESTAURANT: Faces "Abreu" Suit in East. Dist. of New York

SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY: Ogletree Deakins Attorney Discusses Ruling
SUNPOWER CORP: Ct. OK's Scheduling Stipulation in Securities Suit
SUPREME INDUSTRIES: Faces JS Suit Over Proposed Wabash Merger
TOP SHIPS INC: "Brady" Suit Hits Stock Manipulation
TRUE ME: Faces "Khallili" Suit in E.D. of New York

TTC AMERIDIAL: "Oliver" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Maisonet" Suit in E.D. of New York
UNITED STATES: Fulkerson Lotz Sues Army Corp of Engineers
VOLKSWAGEN: Faces "Mucha" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces "Sharma" Antitrust Suit in S.D. California

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Judge Orders Publication of Notices on Facebook
WALGREENS CO: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Taylor"
WHITESTONE RENOVATION: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Largo" Suit Claims
WM WRIGLEY: Falsely Marketed Starburst Products, Action Claims

WORLDVENTURES HOLDINGS: "Yiru" Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
XCERRA CORP: Faces "Stallings" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Sino IC
XCERRA CORP: Merger Docs Lack Projections, "Berg" Suit Says
YUJILE INC: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
ZILLOW GROUP: Violates Securities Act, "Vargosko" Suit Alleges

ZTO EXPRESS: Faces "McGrath" Securities Suit Arising from IPO

* Australian Appeals Court Endorses Class Action Closure Process







                            *********


24 HOUR FITNESS: Faces "Dickinson" Suit Over Deceptive Pricing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Dickinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., a California
Corporation, 24 Hour Fitness Holdings, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, and 24 Hour Fitness United States, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04877, (N.D.
Cal., August 23, 2017), seeks monetary damages, restitution, and
injunctive and declaratory relief under the Unfair Competition Law
and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Business and
Professional Code and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

24 Hour Fitness is a privately owned and operated chain of fitness
centers, with more than 400 clubs located in 13 states and Asia.
At its gym locations, 24 Hour Fitness offers certain health and
nutrition products for sale, specifically, Dymatize ISO100
Hydrolyzed Protein Powder, regularly priced at $74.99 but placed
on sale at $49.99. Plaintiffs allege that these prices were jacked
up then "discounted" to appear that it was on sale. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Vanessa Shakib, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Tel: (310) 474-9111
      Fax: (310) 474-8585
      Email: vshakib@ahdootwolfson.com
             rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
             twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

             - and -

      Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
      NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
      600 W. Broadway, Suite 700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619)272-7014
      Fax: (619) 330-1819
      Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com


1040 GERARD: Siguencia Sues Over Violations of FLSA and NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
NAYLA SIGUENCIA v. 1040 GERARD OWNERS' CORP.; DAVID SPIRA;
FRIEDMAN MANAGEMENT CORP.; SAUL FRIEDMAN; and/or any other related
entities, Case No. 1:17-cv-06329 (S.D.N.Y., August 21, 2017), is
lawsuit brought by the plaintiff on behalf of herself and a class
consisting of similarly situated employees, who worked for the
Defendants as superintendents and building maintenance workers,
alleging violations of the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant Owners' Corp. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of New York, with its principal place
of business in Bronx, New York.  David Spira is the president, an
officer, director or shareholder of Owners' Corp.  Friedman
Management Corp. is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of New York with its principal place of business
in New York City.  Saul Friedman is an officer, director or
shareholder of Friedman Management Corp.

The Defendants own and operate residential buildings in the state
of New York.  The Defendants and related entities jointly operated
as a comprehensive business unit, and as such are joint employers
of the Plaintiff and and collective members under the FLSA and
NYLL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura R. Reznick, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: lreznick@leedsbrownlaw.com


ABBOTT LABS: Court to Set Leadership Counsel in Depakote Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois currently has 129 cases, involving approximately 698
plaintiffs, pending on its docket directly related to IN RE
DEPAKOTE. RHEALYN ALEXANDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT
LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 12-CV-52-NJR-SCW (S.D.
Ill.).

To facilitate the resolution of the vast number of outstanding
cases, the Court employed the "bellwether" approach, selecting
representative cases for fast-track trials thereby allowing the
parties to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of the
evidence and the value of the remaining claims.

The Depakote litigation cases originated as a "mass action"
removed under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).  Pretrial
management efforts have been frustrated by three distinctive
features of this litigation: (1) as a "mass action" the cases
present the complexity of a class action without the beneficial
tools of Rule 23 typically utilized to conserve judicial economy;
(2) the vast majority of cases were originally filed in this
district presenting independent diversity jurisdiction and thereby
avoiding the multidistrict litigation (MDL) appointment process;
and (3) the scope of the litigation was not immediately known as
the cases have slowly, but continually, trickled in since 2012.
The result, according to the Court, is a docket that has
significantly taxed the resources of the Court.

The Manual for Complex Litigation proscribes a number of tools a
district court can utilize to bring order to large complex cases
involving multiple plaintiffs represented by different attorneys.
Consequently, the Court will be establishing a Plaintiffs'
Leadership Counsel and soliciting names for Lead and/or Liaison
counsel by separate order. Plaintiffs need not submit any names or
filings related to the Leadership Counsel until directed by the
Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 28, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y78gv5ft
from Leagle.com.

Samantha Cooper-Clark, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Janet G. Abaray, Esq.
     BURG, SIMPSON et al.
     312 Walnut Street, Suite 2090
     Cincinnati, OH 45202


ALLIED RISK: "Paul" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Paul, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Allied Risk Management Inc., Case No. 516263/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., August 21, 2017), alleges that the
Plaintiff and other employees are entitled to recover:

    (i) unpaid overtime wages from the Defendant for working more
        than 40 hours in a week and not being paid an overtime
        rate of at least 1.5 times the regular rate for each and
        all such hours over forty in a week; and

   (ii) costs and attorney's fees, pursuant to the New York
        Minimum Wage Act.

Allied Risk Management Inc. is a New York for-profit corporation
engaged in the business of providing security and related
services.  The Defendant operated at several locations and
employed over 60 employees at any given time and over 200 during
the class period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740-1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Frankel" Suit in E.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is styled as Julian Frankel, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Alltran
Financial, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05194 (E.D. N.Y.,
September 4, 2017).

Alltran Financial is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


AMAZON.COM: Faces "Payne" Suit Over Defective Eclipse Glasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Corey Payne and Kayla Harris, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:17-
cv-02313-PMD (D.S.C., August 29, 2017), is an action for damages
as a result of the Defendant's failure to disclose the dangerous
design and manufacturing defect of the product advertising,
promotion and sale of Eclipse Glasses to consumers.

Amazon.com, Inc. operates an electronic commerce and cloud
computing company based in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James L. Ward Jr., Esq.
      MCGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER, LLC
      321 Wingo Way, Suite 103
      Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 388-7202
      E-mail: jward@mcgowanhood.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
      ABBOTT LAW GROUP, P.A.
      2929 Plummer Cove Road
      Jacksonville, FL 32223
      Telephone: (904) 292-1111
      Facsimile: (904) 292-1220
      E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com

         - and -

      Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
      THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
      1641 Downing Street
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (303) 861-8800
      Facsimile: (303) 861-8855
      E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com

         - and -

      Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON MARTIN PLLC
      2018 Eastwood Road Suite 225
      Wilmington, NC 28403
      Telephone: (910) 292-6676
      E-mail: jean@jsmlawoffice.com


AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Williams Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SYRRIA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION, Case No.
1:17-cv-06071 (N.D. Ill., August 21, 2017), arises under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, for the Defendant's
alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and others all earned regular
and overtime pay for all time worked.

AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation is a Delaware corporation
qualified to do business in Illinois.  AmerisourceBergen is one of
the largest global pharmaceutical sourcing and distribution
services companies.  The Company operates and has operated "call
centers" in Illinois and elsewhere where telephone-dedicated
employees similar to the Plaintiff handle phone calls regarding
healthcare programs offered by the Defendant to its customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is 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
          Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 726-3400
          E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com


ASPEN NATIONAL: Faces "Nedd" Suit in E.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aspen National
Financial, Inc. The case is styled as Ivan Nedd, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aspen
National Financial, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05229 (E.D.
N.Y., September 6, 2017).

Aspen National Collections is a debt collection agency with
specialized expertise in consumer debt collections for companies
involved in timeshare or vacation ownership resorts, educational
loans, utility cooperatives and other niches.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C.
   337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
   Brooklyn, NY 11223
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


BASS FISHING: Bid to Certify Class om in "Shay" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SHAY, the Plaintiff, v. BASS FISHING &
RENTALS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-01472-JRG (E.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Rodney Gilstrap entered an order denying as
moot the following motions:

   1. Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment;

   2. Plaintiff's Motion to certify class;

   3. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on
      Liability and Good Faith;

   4. Plaintiff's Motion to Prioritize Motions;

   5. Defendant's Motion in Limine;

   6. Joint Motion to Utilize Supplemental Jury Questionnaire;

   7. Plaintiff's original Motion in Limine;

   8. Motion for Preliminary Jury Instructions; and

   9. Plaintiff's amended motion in Limine.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=X1NtojL3


BATON ROUGE, LA: Residents Join Class Action Over 2016 Flooding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Ulkins, writing for WAFB, reports that some residents in
north Baton Rouge want to take their claims about the August 2016
historic flood to court.

It was a packed house on Sept. 6 at the Eden Park Library. This
meeting was organized to give people information on a class action
lawsuit that will target the City of Baton Rouge and the state.
The lead plaintiff says flooding in the 70805 zipcode was caused
in part by closed drainage valves under Winbourne Ave.  So far,
over 100 people have joined the suit, and more are expected to
sign on.

"There's standing room only all the way around three sides of the
room and every chair is taken, and that's wonderful.  These are
people that were hurt, and we want them fixed," said
Bob Applegate, lead plaintiff in the class action suit.

Neither the city nor the state have responded to the lawsuit.
Organizers say they're planning another community meeting soon and
also plan to launch a website in the near future that will have
more information about joining the suit. [GN]


BIOSCRIP INC: Isaacson/Weaver Trust Appeals Order in "Faig" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Class member and objector Isaacson/Weaver Family Trust filed an
appeal from a court order entered on July 26, 2017, granting Lead
Counsel's requested attorneys' fees in the consolidated lawsuit
styled Faig v. Bioscrip, Inc., Case No. 13-CV-6922 (AJN), in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on February 19, 2014
against the Company, certain of its directors and officers,
certain underwriters in the Company's April 2013 underwritten
public offering of its common stock, and a certain stockholder of
the Company.  The consolidated complaint is brought on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities between
November 9, 2012 and November 6, 2013, inclusive, and persons and
entities who purchased the Company's securities pursuant or
traceable to two underwritten public offerings of the Company's
common stock conducted in April 2013, and August 2013.

The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the defendants
made material misstatements and/or failed to disclose matters
related to the Legacy Division's distribution of Novartis
Pharmaceutical Corporation's product Exjade(R) (the "Medication")
as well as the Company's PBM Services segment.  The consolidated
complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The appellate case is captioned as Fresno County Employees'
Retirement Association, et al. v. BioScrip, Inc., et al., Case No.
17-2662, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Objector Isaacson/Weaver Family Trust is represented by:

          Eric Alan Isaacson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ERIC ALAN ISAACSON
          6580 Avenida Mirola
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 263-9581
          E-mail: ericalanisaacson@icloud.com

Lead Plaintiff Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association is
represented by:

          Evan M. Berkow, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1474
          E-mail: evan.berkow@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          Hannah Elizabeth Ross, Esq.
          Jai Kamal Chandrasekhar, Esq.
          Kristin Ann Meister, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1282
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
                  hannah@blbglaw.com
                  jai@blbglaw.com
                  kristin@blbglaw.com

Plaintiff Timothy Faig, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Lesley Frank Portnoy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: LPortnoy@glancylaw.com

Consolidated Plaintiff West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund is
represented by:

          Hannah Elizabeth Ross, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1282
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Curtis Victor Trinko, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
          16 West 46th Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490-9550
          Facsimile: (212) 986-0158
          E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com

Defendants Bioscrip, Inc., Richard M. Smith, Hai V. Tran, Patricia
Bogusz and Kohlberg & Co., LLC; and Consolidated Defendants Myron
Z. Holubiak, Charlotte W. Collins, Samuel P. Frieder, David R.
Hubers, Richard L. Robbins, Stuart A. Samuels, Gordon H. Woodward
and Kimberlee Seah are represented by:

          Jay Philip Lefkowitz, Esq.
          Joseph Serino, Jr., Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4970
          Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
          E-mail: lefkowitz@kirkland.com
                  jserino@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Shireen Anneke Barday, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          500 Pearl Street
          New York, NY 10007
          E-mail: shireen.barday@kirkland.com

Consolidated Defendants Jeffries LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC,
SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Dougherty & Company and Noble
International Investments, Inc., are represented by:

          Bradley Jay Butwin, Esq.
          Jonathan Rosenberg, Esq.
          Ross Bradley Galin, Esq.
          William Joseph Sushon, Esq.
          Nathaniel Owen Asher, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 408-2424
          Facsimile: (212) 000-0000
          E-mail: bbutwin@omm.com
                  jrosenberg@omm.com
                  rgalin@omm.com
                  wsushon@omm.com
                  nasher@omm.com


BLICK ART: Court Issues Memorandum for Science Day Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued an Amended Memorandum on the Court's Preparation in
Anticipation of the Science Day Hearing in the case captioned
ICTOR ANDREWS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BLICK ART MATERIALS, LLC, Defendant, No.
17-CV-767 (E.D.N.Y.).

The court has scheduled a "Science Day" hearing. Its purpose is to
assist the court in learning about technology and other factors
relevant to the case.

In anticipation of this hearing, the court has begun its own
research on some of the technical issues which may be raised with
respect to blind people using the Internet to "see" for purchases
and related matters.

Pursuant to good practice, when a court engages in an independent
research, it should keep the parties fully informed.

The knowledge gained through this independent investigation is
expected to aid in the efficient resolution of the case. It will
help enable the court to more fully engage with the experts and
materials the parties present.

Substantial issues are raised in the materials respecting
communication problems, changing technology, costs, etc.

At the Science Day hearings, a party may dispute any of the
information in these publications it believes to be unreliable.
The court may take judicial notice of the "facts" contained in
these publications for purposes of case administration. The
parties may demonstrate in court the auxiliary aids and technology
which blind individuals and businesses may need to use to enable
website access. Because this is a putative class action which may
have far-reaching effects, the parties may present briefing from
amici curiae and testimony from putative class members before and
during the Science Day hearings.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 28, 2017
Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8flsokrfrom
Leagle.com.

Victor Andrews, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Seelig, Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC, 30 East 39 th. Street, Second Floor. New
York, NY 10016.

Victor Andrews, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation
Group, PLLC, 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor, New York, NY
10016.

Blick Art Materials, LLC, Defendant, represented by David Seth
Korzenik, Miller Korzenik Sommers LLP, 488 Madison Ave, New York,
NY 10022 Steve Baron -- smandell@mandellmenkes.com -- Mandell
Menkes LLC, Steven Mandell -- smandell@mandellmenkes.com --
Mandell Menkes LLC, pro hac vice & Terence Patrick Keegan, Miller
Korzenik Sommers Rayman LLC, 488 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10022


BLUE CROSS: Faces Suit in Utah Over Denied Insurance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brent S. and Angie S., individually and as representatives of the
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
11569, (D. Utah, August 22, 2017), seeks an award of benefits
representing payment for services that should have been covered by
the Defendants, disgorgement of all profits of Defendants that
should have been used to pay plaintiff's legitimate coverage
claims, coverage of all medically necessary services and any and
all other relief related to this action, including payment of
reasonable fees, costs and interest under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

Brent and Angie are beneficiaries of an employer-sponsored health
insurance administered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Brent and
Angie's son, Jake, received treatment for his mental health
conditions at Ashcreek Ranch Academy, a licensed residential
treatment program in Washington County, Utah from March 13, 2014
through January 24, 2015. Blue Cross denied coverage for mental
health treatment based on the application of contradictory or
ambiguous mental health and substance abuse treatment provisions
in its policies. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. King, Esq.
      BRIAN S. KING, PC
      336 South 300 East, Suite 200
      Salt Lake City, UT 84111
      Telephone: (801) 532-1739
      Facsimile: (801) 532-1936
      Email: brian@briansking.com


BLUE STAR: Faces "Kubik" Suit in S.D. of Calif.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Star Cruises
LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Kubik, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blue Star
Cruises LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01785-L-AGS (S.D. Cal.,
September 4, 2017).

Blue Star used an automatic telephone dialing systems to initiate
calls to Plaintiff's wireless cellular telephone using an
artificial and/or prerecorded voice soliciting vacation packages
without prior express consent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
   Kazerouni Law Group, APC
   245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
   Costa Mesa, CA 92626
   Tel: (800) 400-6808
   Fax: (800) 520-5523
   Email: ml@kazlg.com


BLUEAGLE MEDICAL: Makes False Time Sheets for Drivers, Smith Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEMING SMITH, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated
v. BLUEAGLE MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC & BATH MEDICAL
TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 0:17-cv-00091-HRW (E.D. Ky., August
22, 2017), alleges that Defendants willfully violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by creating false time sheets for the
Plaintiff and other drivers, where all compensable time was not
recorded or acted in reckless disregard of the FLSA.

Based in Morehead, Kentucky, Blueagle and Bath Medical transport
medical patients from their residences to appointments -- many of
which are medical appointments or related to health and wellness
activities.  The Defendants collect payments from private
insurance companies, Medicaid and Medicare.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          333 W Vine St Ste 1200
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859)286-8368
          E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


BUMBO INTERNATIONAL: Averts Class Action Over Baby Seats
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge has, for now, denied an attempt to bring a class
action lawsuit by people claiming Bumbo deceptively marketed its
baby seats.

In an opinion issued Aug. 28 in Chicago, Judge Jorge L. Alonso
rejected the consumer fraud and unjust enrichment complaints
Elizabeth Clark, of Illinois, brought against Bumbo International
Trust, maker of the eponymous floor seats for babies too young to
support their own weight.

Ms. Clark cited part of Bumbo's website that said the seat
"stabilizes the child into slight hip flexion, placing the pelvis
in a slight anterior pelvic tilt which facilitates lumbar
extension.  This action, combined with the gentle curve of the
seat back that matches the natural curve of the rib cage,
facilitates the baby around the lower ribs and trunk for
stabilization.  The seat allows for active practice of the head
and postural trunk control.  It also allows a child the pelvic
stability needed to get the hands into the mid line for play.
Upright positioning facilitates an improved visual field of the
environment, improved respirations and breath control, assists a
baby who needs to be upright after feeding due to reflux and many
other benefits."

She said the quote is false and misleading because the Bumbo keeps
babies from engaging in natural movements, doesn't allow "active
control" or room to build trunk control or pelvic stability
because of its "locked-in nature," hinders muscle activation or
joint movement, wedges babies with legs positioned at a higher
angle than the pelvis and inhibits natural weight-bearing and
important and natural development.

The class would have included anyone who bought a Bumbo from March
30, 2012, through March 30, 2015, after which point Bumbo removed
the quote from its website.  But Judge Alonso agreed with the
company's arguments that Ms. Clark's class definitions were too
broad because they would have covered any shopper who visited the
website, not only those who read the quote.

Judge Alonso said Ms. Clark's complaint didn't argue the quote
appeared on the homepage of Bumbo.com, and neither did it
stipulate where on the website the quote was posted, and therefore
does not effectively argue that every person who visited the site
before buying a seat was misled by the quote.  He further said the
company produced website visitor data, including specifically for
the products' page, which included the quote.

"The court is unable to quantify with precision what percentage of
website visitors from the United States navigated to the products
page (let alone navigated to the portion of the page that
contained the quote)," Judge Alonso wrote.  "But the court can
determine that there were hundreds of thousands fewer visits to
the products page than to the website generally, and a common-
sense presumption is that only a subset of that subset of visitors
actually viewed the quote.  Plaintiff offers no evidence to the
contrary."

Ms. Clark asked for the chance to amend class definitions to stave
off dismissal, but Judge Alonso said the overbreadth problem is
not "minor," nor did Ms. Clark meet the burden of establishing the
Rule 23 complaints underlying her complaint. Though she asked the
court to force Bumbo to stop using the quote, it already removed
the language from its website and submitted evidence to suggest it
has no plans to resume using such language.

Further, Judge Alonso said Ms. Clark sought the type of
certification proper when the predominant remedy requested is
injunctive or declaratory relief, but her complaint also sought
compensatory, treble and punitive damages of at least $5 million.

Judge Alonso denied class certification, granted Bumbo's motion
for leave to file a reply and set a status hearing for Sept. 14.

Plaintiffs are represented in the action by attorneys with the
Agruss Law Firm LLC, of Chicago, and the Duncan Law Group LLC, of
Chicago.

Bumbo is defended by the firms of Brown Sims, of Houston, and
Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella P.C., of Chicago. [GN]


CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Inmates' Bid to Proceed as Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In ANTHONY SHARP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CLARK KELSO, et al.,
Defendants, No. 2:17-cv-1528 KJN P. (E.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs, four
state prisoners proceeding pro se, seek relief pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983, and request that their action proceed as a
class action.  Plaintiff Sharp requested leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A(a). The
court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner
has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that
fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that
seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.

A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Plaintiffs allege that defendant Kelso refuses to disclose the
name of the state employee who left his state laptop in his car,
where the laptop was stolen, and allegedly placed plaintiffs'
private information at risk. Plaintiffs allege that the laptop was
password protected but object that the laptop should have been
encrypted.

Further, plaintiffs' contend that John Doe defendants, the
California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS), and other
unidentified state employees waited two months before notifying
the victims of the breach of information, in which they identified
a potential breach of data. Plaintiffs also allege a violation of
HIPAA. Plaintiffs contend that the laptop contained confidential
information which may have included medical, mental health and
custodial information. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages.

Plaintiff's allegations are based upon a notification which states
that there was a potential breach of data, and which may have
included medical, mental health and custodial information. It
appears it is even uncertain whether any of these four plaintiffs'
information was contained in the stolen laptop. In other words,
whether plaintiffs' sensitive information has even been
compromised is unknown.

Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for relief based upon the
speculative breach of sensitive information. Plaintiffs' claim for
violation of their constitutional right to informational privacy
should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing.

The Court finds that plaintiffs lack standing and amendment would
be futile because the allegations establish only speculative
injury that is not real or immediate. Because plaintiffs lack
standing to pursue their federal claims, the court should dismiss
the complaint in its entirety.

In light of this, the Court declines to recommend that the action
proceed as a class action.

Plaintiffs have filed two requests for the appointment of counsel.
When determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the
court must consider plaintiff's likelihood of success on the
merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his
claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
involved.  The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances
is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners,
such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do
not establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for
voluntary assistance of counsel.

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that
plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating
exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at
this time.

Plaintiff Sharp's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

Plaintiffs' motions for the appointment of counsel are denied
without prejudice; and the Clerk of the Court will randomly assign
a United States District Judge to the action.

It is further recommended that plaintiffs' request that the action
proceed as a class action be denied, and the action be dismissed
without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 28, 2017 Order and
Findings and Recommendation is available at
http://tinyurl.com/ybaaxnurfrom Leagle.com.

Anthony A. Sharp, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Talin Hartley Piccione, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Rene Lavell Coleman, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Carlton Cordell Barra, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CAPITAL ONE: "Winters" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JACKIE WINTERS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL
ONE BANK (USA) N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01178-GW-AJW
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on November 6,
2017, for an order granting Plaintiff's Motion for certification
of class and subclasses pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, on behalf of:

National DNC Class:

   "all persons within the United States who received two or more
   calls on a residential line1 within any twelve month period,
   from Defendant, in connection with Defendant's Retail Home
   Equity Sales Program, whose phone number was registered on the
   National Do Not Call List for at least 31 days prior to
   receiving at least two of the calls, who was not the intended
   recipient of the call from Defendant, and who had not granted
   Defendant prior express consent nor had a prior established
   business relationship, between February 14, 2013 and present";

National DNC Lead Generator Subclass:

   "all persons within the United States who received two or more
   calls on a residential line within any twelve month period,
   from Defendant, in connection with Defendant's Retail Home
   Equity Sales Program, where a lead generator provided
   Defendant with the phone number of the consumer who was
   called, whose phone number was registered on the National Do
   Not Call List for at least 31 days prior to receiving at least
   two of the calls, who was not the intended recipient of the
   call from Defendant, and who had not granted Defendant prior
   express consent nor had a prior established business
   relationship, between February 14, 2013 and present"; and

National DNC Lending Tree Lead Subclass:

   "all persons within the United States who received two or more
   calls on a residential line within any twelve month period,
   from Defendant, in connection with Defendant's Retail Home
   Equity Sales Program, where Lending Tree provided Defendant
   with the phone number of the consumer who was called, whose
   phone number was registered on the National Do Not Call List
   for at least 31 days prior to receiving at least two of the
   calls, who was not the intended recipient of the call from
   Defendant, and who had not granted Defendant prior express
   consent nor had a prior established business relationship,
   between February 14, 2013 and present".

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

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5EQFeJz4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


CENTURYLINK INC: Scott Sues over Securities Exchange Act
--------------------------------------------------------
DON J. SCOTT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CENTURYLINK, INC., GLEN F. POST, III,
R. STEWART EWING, JR. and DAVID D. COLE, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-01033 (W.D. La., Aug. 15, 2017), seeks to recover damages
and interest under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and
compliance policies.  Specifically, defendants failed to disclose
that: (a) CenturyLink's policies allowed its employees to add
services or lines to accounts without customer permission,
resulting in millions of dollars in unauthorized charges to
CenturyLink customers; (b) CenturyLink's illicit practices were
designed to allow CenturyLink to gain an advantage over its
competitors and to increase profits; (c) CenturyLink's illicit
conduct was likely to subject it to heightened regulatory
scrutiny; and (d) the Company's revenues were the product of
illicit conduct and were unsustainable. As a result of the
foregoing, defendants' statements during the Class Period were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On June 16, 2017, Bloomberg published an article entitled
"CenturyLink Is Accused of Running a Wells Fargo-Like Scheme." The
article reported on a lawsuit, recently filed in Arizona state
superior court by former CenturyLink employee Heidi Heiser,
alleging that Heiser "was fired for blowing the whistle on the
telecommunications company's high-pressure sales culture that left
customers paying millions of dollars for accounts they didn't
request." The Bloomberg article stated that Heiser "was fired days
after notifying Chief Executive Officer Glen Post of the alleged
scheme during a companywide question-and-answer session held on an
internal message board." As a result of this news, the price of
CenturyLink shares dropped $1.23 per share
to close at $25.72 per share on June 16, 2017, a decline of nearly
5% on volume of 43 million shares. Then, on June 19, 2017,
Bloomberg reported that a consumer complaint had been filed
against CenturyLink based on the whistleblower complaint alleging
fraud, unfair competition and unjust enrichment. As a result of
this news, CenturyLink share price declined another $0.36 per
share to close at $25.36 per share on June 19. As a result of
defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, plaintiff and the Class
purchased CenturyLink securities at artificially inflated prices
and suffered significant losses and were damaged.

CenturyLink provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale and governmental customers in the
United States. It operates through two segments: Business and
Consumer. The Company offers broadband, Ethernet, colocation,
video entertainment and satellite digital television services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew E. Lundy, Esq.
          LUNDY, LUNDY, SOILEAU & SOUTH, LLP
          501 Broad Street, P.O. Box 3010
          Lake Charles, LA 70601
          Telephone: (337) 439 0707
          Facsimile: (337) 439 1029
          E-mail: mlundy@lundylawllp.com

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392 0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392 0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


CIGNA HEALTH: Court Approves $2.75MM "Weil" Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued a Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement and
Dismissing the Action with Prejudice in the case captioned ANNETTE
WEIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, CIGNA
HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., CIGNA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., AND MCMC,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. CV 15-07074 MWF (JPR) (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Annette Weil (Plaintiff), on behalf of herself and the
Settlement Class Members, Defendants Cigna Health and Life
Insurance Co., Cigna Health Management, Inc., and Cigna Behavioral
Health, Inc. (Cigna) and Defendant MCMC, LLC  (Defendants) have
agreed to settle the class action suit on the terms and conditions
set forth in a Stipulation of Settlement.

The Court having entered the Preliminary Approval Order, having
heard argument in support of the Settlement and Plan of
Allocation, and the Fee Application and request for the Incentive
Amount for the class representative, having reviewed all of the
evidence, objections, and other submissions presented with respect
to the Settlement and Plan of Allocation, and the record of all
proceedings in this case, ordered the following:

The Settlement Class is defined as the individuals identified on
the Class List filed by Cigna under seal with the Court. The Class
List reflects Cigna's reasonable efforts to identify all
individuals who meet the criteria below:

     "Any individual: (1) who is or was enrolled in an ERISA-
governed plan administered by a Cigna Defendant, or insured under
ERISA-governed health insurance coverage offered by a Cigna
Defendant in connection with a plan, (2) whose TMS claims were
administered by a Cigna Defendant, and (3) who made a claim
(including a request for pre-service authorization or a request
for payment or reimbursement) for TMS based on a diagnosis of
depressive disorder (a) that was denied and not paid, (b) that has
a date of service or letter denying pre-service authorization and
(c) that was adjudicated as reflected in the class list data
provided by Cigna."

The Court also confirms the appointment of Annette Weil as the
class representative of the Settlement Class.

Based on the number of members of the Settlement Class on the
Class List and the number of timely and valid Opt-Out Forms
submitted, the Settlement Amount is $2.75 million, in accordance
with the formula set forth in the Stipulation.

Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and an
Incentive Award  is granted; the Court awards Class Counsel
attorneys' fees in the amount of $907,500 and payment of expenses
in the amount of $9,370.47. Consistent with the Settlement
Agreement, the Court approves payment of the awarded attorneys'
fees and expenses immediately upon payment of the Settlement
Amount.

An incentive award in the amount of $10,000 is approved for the
class representative.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 28, 2017 Judgment
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9f33683from Leagle.com
Annette Weil, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew N. Goldfarb --
agoldfarb@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice.
Annette Weil, Plaintiff, represented by D. Brian Hufford --
bhufford@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice,
Jason S. Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP,
pro hac vice & Meiram Bendat, Psych Appeal Inc.

Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Jeremy P. Blumenfeld -- jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Rose Veasman --
lveasman@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & Molly
Moriarty Lane -- molly.lane@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and
Bockius.

Cigna Health Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeremy P.
Blumenfeld, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Rose
Veasman, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & Molly Moriarty Lane,
Morgan Lewis and Bockius.

Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeremy P.
Blumenfeld, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Rose
Veasman, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & Molly Moriarty Lane,
Morgan Lewis and Bockius.

MCMC, LLC, Defendant, represented by Melvin N.A. Avanzado, The
Avanzado Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067.


CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Salazar, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Citrus Valley Health Partners, Inc. and Does 1 through
250, inclusive, Case No. BC674279 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 30,
2017) is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide
full thirty-minute meal periods for work days in excess of five
and/or ten hours and were not compensated one hour's wages in lieu
thereof.

Citrus Valley Health Partners, Inc. operates a family of hospitals
and hospices that serves nearly one million residents in the East
San Gabriel Valley. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
      Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
      Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
      Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
      555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 432-8933
      Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
      E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
              brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
              laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
              ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com


COLORADO SEMINARY: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Johnson" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Johnson, Jocelyn Klein, and Laura Sciarcon, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Colorado Seminary,
a/k/a University of Denver, d/b/a "Fisher Early Learning Center,"
Case No. 1:17-cv-02074 (D. Col., August 29, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for unpaid employees' overtime compensation
for the hours they worked in excess of 40 per week.

Colorado Seminary operates a daycare facility for infants,
toddlers and small children in Denver, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Miller, Esq.
      Adam M. Harrison, Esq.
      SAWAYA & MILLER
      1600 Ogden Street
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (303) 839-1650
      E-mail: dmiller@sawayalaw.com
              aharrison@sawayalaw.com

         - and -

      Alexander Hood, Esq.
      LITIGATION TOWARDS JUSTICE
      1535 High Street, Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (720) 239-2606
      E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org


COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: "Fair" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled TACITA FAIR, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMMUNICATIONS
UNLIMITED, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-02391
(E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to
      the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   2. approving notice and consent forms to be sent to potential
     opt-in plaintiffs; and

   3. directing Defendants to produce to Plaintiff in a readable
      electronic data file format the names, dates of service,
      last known mailing addresses, email addresses and telephone
      numbers of those similarly situated within 14 days of the
      date of the Court's Order, and for such other and further
      relief the Court deems just and proper under the
      circumstances.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
          Michael G. Mueth, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC
          2726 S. Brentwood Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 645 4100
          Facsimile: (314) 736 6216
          E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com
                  michael.mueth@dolleylaw.com


COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Swain Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
LATASHA L. SWAIN, And all others similarly situated v.
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-01989-JSM-
AEP (M.D. Fla., August 22, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiff was
not paid overtime for all of the hours she worked beyond 40 in a
single workweek.

Comprehensive Health is a for profit corporation that operates and
conducts business in, among others, Hillsborough County, Florida.
Comprehensive Health operates as a licensed third-party
administrator that provides administrative services for health
maintenance organizations including claims, billing, customer
service, quality assurance, utilization management, appeals and
grievances and regulatory reporting.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. John Gadd, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF W. JOHN GADD
          Bank of America Building
          2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (727) 524-6300
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com

               - and -

          Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 4476
          Brandon, FL 33509-4476
          Telephone: (813) 343-2813
          E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com


CONSOL ENERGY: "Casey" Hits Discrimination Over Benefits Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emmett Casey, Jr. and Connie Z. Gilbert, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Consol Energy, Inc.,
Consolidation Coal Co., Consol Buchanan Mining Co. LLC, and Kurt
Salvatori, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03861, (N.D. W.V., August
23, 2017), seeks declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief,
reinstatement of benefits and remedying the breach of fiduciary
duty, as well as restitution under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiffs Emmet Casey Jr. and Connie Z. Gilbert are plan
participants that provide lifetime medical and prescription drug
benefits and related dental, vision, and life insurance benefits.
Defendants allegedly discriminated against retired miners based on
their health status or claims experience. Consol terminated the
said plan in December 31, 2015 rather than by December 31, 2019 as
agreed. Retirees of the 2014 curtailment of the Lifetime Plan were
offered a cash transition to the active workers whose benefits had
already vested under the Lifetime Plan in order to compensate them
for the loss of lifetime benefits caused by the curtailment.
However, it did not offer any sort of cash transition payment to
the workers who had already retired prior to October 1, 2014,
whose claims experiences were thus generally longer and costlier
than those of the active workers, and who were generally more
advanced in age relative to the active workers, asserts the
complaint.

Defendants operated the Buchanan Mine in Buchanan County, Virginia
where the Plaintiffs were employed. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel B. Petsonk, Esq.
      Bren J. Pomponio, Esq.
      MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC.
      1031 Quarrier Street, Suite 200
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Tel: (304) 344-3144
      Fax: (304) 344-3145
      Email: sam@msjlaw.org


CONSUMER CREDIT: "Collins" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Collins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Consumer Credit Card Relief, LLC, Jenssen
Varela, Luis Vecchi and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-06251, (C.D. Cal., August 23, 2017), seeks
statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
incurred in this action, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and such other and further relief under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Defendant, a marketer and seller of debt consolidation, relief,
and settlement services, placed multiple solicitation calls to
Collins on his cellular phone within a 12-month period, all
without his prior consent and using an automatic telephone dialing
system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: "Richards" Suit Moved to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Thomas Richards, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, formerly known as: CCA OF TENNESSEE,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01484, was transferred on
Aug. 15, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for Southern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California (Fresno). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:17-cv-01094-LJO-JLT to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill.

CoreCivic, formerly the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA),
is a company that owns and manages private prisons and detention
centers and operates others on a concession basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 619 8966
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul M. Gleason, Esq.
          GLEASON AND FAVAROTE LLP
          835 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 452 0510
          Facsimile: (213) 452 0514
          E-mail: pgleason@gleasonfavarote.com


CURRY SHACK: Faces "Ghale" Suit in S.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Curry Shack Corp.
The case is styled as Shivraj Ghale, Sumarna Shrestha, Victor
Dias, Rajendra Thapa Chhetri, Ajaya Nagarkoti, Modou Thiam, Jalal
Khan, Lokendra Bahadur, Rajiv Maharjan, Rakesh Gurung, Puja
Shrestha, Baskaran Nagarajah, Aldrine Britto, Ravi Budha Magar,
Sonam Tashi, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Curry Shack Corp. doing business as: Kurry Pavilion and Salih
Pekic, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06772 (S.D. N.Y., September 6,
2017).

Curry Shack Corp. doing business as Kurry Pavilion is engaged in
the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE.


CVS: Judge Tosses Drug Overcharging Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. District
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, on Sept. 5
rejected the lawsuit's claims that CVS misrepresented drug prices
to pharmacy benefit managers who administered prescription
benefits for health plans. [GN]


CYPRESS COMMUNICATIONS: "Bruton" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leroy Bruton, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cypress Communications, Inc., a Florida
Profit Corporation, Cypress Communications Of S. Florida, Inc., a
Florida Profit Corporation and Dean R. Pezza, individually
Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-61682 (S.D. Fla., August 22, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount
as liquidated damages, declaratory relief and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Cypress is in the cable installation and repair service in Florida
where Bruton worked as piece-rate cable technician. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard Celler, Esq.
     Noah E. Storch, Esq.
     RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
     7450 Griffin Rd. #230
     Davie, FL 33314, USA
     Tel: (866) 344-9243
     Fax: (954) 337-2771
     Email: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com
            noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


DELTA AIR: Lopez Appeals Ruling by C.D. Calif. to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Reynaldo Lopez filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Reynaldo Lopez, et al. v. Delta Air Lines,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-04497-DSF-AJW, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The lawsuit arose from job-related disputes.

The appellate case is captioned as Reynaldo Lopez, et al. v. Delta
Air Lines, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-56325, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 29, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on October 30, 2017;

   -- Appellant Reynaldo Lopez's opening brief is due on
      December 8, 2017;

   -- Appellees Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Does' answering brief
      is due on January 8, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant REYNALDO LOPEZ appears pro se.[BN]

Defendant-Appellee DELTA AIR LINES, INC., a Georgia corporation,
is represented by:

          Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market Street
          Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: afrederick@morganlewis.com


DES MOINES, IA: 1,100 Motorists Set to Get Traffic Camera Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy A. Bolten, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that in
2015, the speed cameras located on interstates through the three
cities generated more than 200,000 citations.  The cameras have
generated more than $40 million for the cities and the private
vendors that own the devices.

A Polk County judge's ruling that Des Moines must repay thousands
of dollars in fines from speed cameras could mean cash back for as
many as 1,100 motorists.

District Court Judge Lawrence McLellan decided that Des Moines
violated the due-process rights of some Interstate 235 motorists
who were cited by the city's controversial automated speed-
enforcement cameras and unsuccessfully appealed their fines.

A class-action lawsuit challenged the city ordinance authorizing
the traffic cameras.  Roughly 1,100 motorists were notified they
could be eligible to join the lawsuit, attorneys familiar with the
lawsuit told The Des Moines Register.

Motorists who filed appeals after Dec. 11, 2013, and lost are
eligible to have their fines refunded because the city's ordinance
failed to include procedures detailed in the city's municipal
code, the judge ruled.

Moreover, the city can't go after motorists who lost their appeal
in an administrative hearing but didn't pay the fine, Judge
McLellan wrote in his ruling.

Carol Moser, Des Moines' deputy city attorney, in an email to the
Des Moines Register, wrote that 1,089 people fit the lawsuit's
class action: Someone who received a citation on I-235 after Dec.
11, 2013, went through the administrative hearing process and was
found liable but did not appeal the decision in district court.

James Larew, the attorney representing the lawsuit's plaintiffs,
had previously said about 1,500 people were part of the class-
action lawsuit.  On Sept. 6, he said that number was an estimate
and that notices had been sent to nearly 1,100 people.

A review of the court file showed that 22 people had filed notices
to opt out of the legal action.

Moser estimated that the city's liability "would be substantially
less than $80,000" because some people never paid the fine after
they were found liable.  City officials had not decided whether to
appeal, he said.

Des Moines issued 60,826 citations in 2016 from enforcement
cameras located on I-235.  The number is nearly 10 percent more
than the 55,384 issued in 2015, city information shows.

City officials could not say how much money was generated from the
I-235 cameras.  However, according to previous Register coverage,
most citations issued go to those traveling 11 to 15 miles an hour
over the speed limit and in 2016 would have generated at least
$3.9 million.

A Register review in 2015 found that less than 3 percent of
motorists who received citations from automatic traffic
enforcement cameras filed an appeal.

Jake Dagel, one of the three original plaintiffs in the lawsuit,
said people shouldn't be hesitant to stand up for ideals in which
they believe.

"Due process is supposed to be a staple of how the American
justice system works," said Mr. Dagel, 25 of Urbandale.  "The way
Des Moines had this set up is not how the process should go."

Mr. Dagel said his written appeal of the citation he received was
denied.

He said that people who didn't understand the process "could have
felt threatened by it. . . . I'm glad our action was successful."

Who can be part of the class-action lawsuit?

Q. What is the case about?

A. Three people who received citations for speeding from automatic
speed-enforcement cameras located on the eastbound lanes of
Interstate Highway 235 in Des Moines, contested the citations and
lost.  They filed a lawsuit that claimed motorists were denied
their due-process rights because Des Moines' administrative
hearing process failed to follow procedures detailed in the city's
municipal code.

Q. Who is in the class?

A. Any vehicle owner who received a speed citation generated from
the I-235 automatic speed cameras on Dec. 11, 2013, or later and
who contested the violation and lost but who did not file an
appeal in district court.  People who paid the fine after losing
in an administrative hearing are included in the lawsuit.  Also,
those who lost a contested hearing but have not yet paid the fine
are included.

Q. Who is not included in the lawsuit?

A. Anyone who paid a fine but did not contest the violation, and
anyone who received a citation before Dec. 11, 2013.

Q. Is the judge's ruling the final action in the lawsuit?

A. The city of Des Moines can appeal the ruling. City officials
have not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling.

Q. If I think I should be part of the lawsuit, what should I do?

A. Contact attorney James C. Larew at 319-337-7079. [GN]


DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces "Siruno" Suit in Hawaii Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company. The case is styled as Frelyn Cesar
Santella Siruno and Agnes Sonido Siruno, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., America's
Servicing Company and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00447-HG-KSC (D. Haw., September 6, 2017).

The Defendants are engaged in the banking industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


DOMINO'S PIZZA: "Simeon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Simeon, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Domino's Pizza LLC, Case No. 516841/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., August 30, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Domino's Pizza LLC operates the national Domino's Pizza
chain/franchise and was engaged in the fast food business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Dremak" Suit in S.D. of Calif.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc.  The
case is styled as Andrew Dremak, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01829-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal., September 8, 2017).

Equifax Inc. is a global provider of information solutions and
human resources business process outsourcing services for
businesses, governments and consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Timothy Gordon Blood, Esq.
   Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP
   701 B Street, Suite 1700
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 338-1100
   Fax: (619) 338-1101
   Email: tblood@bholaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Gersten" Suit in S.D. of Calif.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc.  The
case is styled as Ehud Gersten and Hannah Obradovich, individual,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Equifax Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01828-H-
JMA (S.D. Cal., September 8, 2017).

Equifax Inc. is a global provider of information solutions and
human resources business process outsourcing services for
businesses, governments and consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Edward D. Chapin, Esq.
   Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP
   501 West Broadway, Suite 515
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 316-2099
   Email: echapin2@sanfordheisler.com


EVANSTON, IL: Arrestee Property Seizure Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Jones, writing for Evanston RoundTable, reports that a
lawsuit brought by two individuals arrested by the Evanston Police
Department will be allowed to proceed as a class action under an
opinion and order issued Aug. 30.  The lawsuit alleges that the
EPD improperly destroyed the personal property of arrestees; class
action status permits plaintiffs to bring the action on behalf of
at least 39 other individuals, and perhaps significantly more,
according to the judge's decision.

The lawsuit arose out of a change to the EPD's policy regarding
personal property collected from persons arrested by the
department and then transferred to the Cook County jail to await
trial or other disposition.  The policy, changed in 2012,
permitted an arrestee to authorize a third party to retrieve
personal property.  But the policy shortened the time for
retrieval from 90 days to 30 days.

The two current plaintiffs were both arrested in 2013, and then
transferred to Cook County jail.  Both remained in custody for
more than 30 days, and the EPD destroyed their personal property
when it was not retrieved under the revised policy.

The lawsuit alleges the EPD violated the federal civil right law
commonly known as "Section 1983."  The court noted at least 39
plaintiffs could be added because "the City has admitted that it
disposed of property retained on behalf of thirty-nine arrestees,
all of whom were held in Cook County custody for over thirty days.
Moreover, this class is also likely larger than thirty-nine,
because the City admits EPD disposed of property retained on
behalf of additional persons who were arrested and held in
custody, but were transferred to other institutions, such as a
State facility."

According to the lawsuit and the court's order, the EPD policy
contradicted an Evanston ordinance.  Under the ordinance, "If
property seized . . . shall not be claimed by the rightful owners
thereof. . . within 60 days from the final disposition of the
court proceedings in connection with which such property was
seized . . . the custodian of lost and stolen property may sell
such property at a public auction."

The City argued the ordinance did not apply, and therefore the 30-
and 60- day timeframes were not contradictory.  In response, the
judge's order ruled, "This argument plainly misunderstands the
nature of the Rule 23 [class action] inquiry" because at the class
action certification stage "it is not the Court's task . . . to
determine whether their claims are plausible or will succeed.
Rather, the court at this point only looks to see whether there is
a class of individuals with similar claims, and whether those
claims would be more efficiently addressed in a class setting."

The City also took issue with the plaintiff's complaint
referencing the "conclusion" of court proceedings rather than the
"final disposition" phrasing used in the Evanston ordinance.  The
court dismissed the City's argument, though, ruling, "even if
'conclusion of court proceedings' is vague, it is somewhat
disingenuous for the City to raise such an argument, given the
class definition draws the phrase from the City's own ordinance."

The court's order goes on to expand the class definition to
include individuals who had their cases dismissed as well as those
for whom a court issued a "final disposition" after trial or
appeal.

After the court's ruling, the case will now proceed as a class
action.  It remains to be seen how many people will be represented
as members of the class.  The case was filed in 2014 and only now,
after amendments to the complaint, City motions to dismiss, and
the class certification argument and decision, will it proceed to
the merits of the case.

More motions are in the offing, as the judge's order makes clear
the City may now pursue a motion to dismiss or a summary judgment
motion arguing the "lost and stolen" property ordinance does not
apply to possessions retained by the EPD after individuals are
arrested and transferred out of Evanston to the Cook County jail.

On the surface, the City's exposure may appear to be minimal. As
the court notes in its order, "the value of the personal property
of some class members will undoubtedly be very low . . . "
However, under Section 1983, a successful plaintiff is also
entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees.  This case has already
generated three years' worth of legal fees, and it is just now
entering the class phase. As with many other class action cases,
the true exposure may be the plaintiffs' attorney fees incurred in
bringing the action.

The RoundTable spoke with several aldermen, none of whom was aware
of the case at the time this paper went to press and therefore
none was willing to comment on the record. [GN]


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Sued Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jane Hudson, Charissa Lewis, William Perez, Jr., Russell Smith,
and Christina Wiseman, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case
No. 3:17-cv-01741-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal., August 29, 2017), seeks to
stop the Defendant practice of misrepresenting the true source and
location of the information published in the Public Record
Information in its consumer credit report disclosures.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. operates a consumer reporting
agency in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, 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: ak@kazlg.com
              ml@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      Yana A. Hart, 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
              yana@westcoastlitigation.com

         - and -

      Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
      409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 222-7249
      Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
      E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


EXPRESS MESSENGER: Ward Sues Over Misclassification of Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WARD and LISA STUMMEIER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a
ONTRAC and J&B TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-02005 (D.
Colo., August 21, 2017), alleges that the Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying as independent
contractors their drivers, who provided package delivery services.

Express Messenger Systems, Inc., doing business as OnTrac, is a
corporation domiciled in Delaware and registered and conducting
business in Colorado under the trade name "OnTrac," which has its
principal place of business in Chandler, Arizona.  J&B is a
Colorado corporation with its principal place of business in
Frederick, Colorado.

Ontrac and J&B, which operate as joint employers of the Plaintiffs
and other drivers, provide package and parcel delivery services to
businesses and individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES
          242 Linden Street
          Fort Collins, CO 80202
          Telephone: (970) 214-0562
          E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Camille Fundora, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  cfundora@bm.net

               - and -

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


FENTON & MCGARVEY: Faces "Evans" Suit in Dist. of Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fenton & McGarvey
Law Firm, P.S.C. The case is styled as Jessica Evans (Shrewsbury),
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Fenton & McGarvey Law Firm, P.S.C. and Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02144 (D. Colo.,
September 6, 2017).

Fenton & McGarvey, PSC (F&M) is a full service collections law
firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
   Marcus & Zelman, LLC
   1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
   Ocean, NJ 07712
   Tel: (732) 695-3282
   Email: ari@marcuszelman.com


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Faces "Price" Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Advantage
Background Services Corp. The case is styled as Sheila V. Price,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. First Advantage Background Services Corp., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-03393-CC-WEJ (N.D. Ga., September 6, 2017).
First Advantage Background Services Corp. provides employment
background checks, company research, and drug and medical
screening services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
   Berger & Montague, P.C. -MN
   43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
   Minneapolis, MN 55414
   Tel: (612) 594-5999
   Fax: (612) 584-4470
   Email: emdrake@bm.net

      - and -

   Gary B. Andrews, Jr., Esq.
   Blake Andrews Law Firm, LLC
   1831 Timothy Dr.
   Atlanta, GA 30329
   Tel: (770) 828-6225
   Email: blake@blakeandrewslaw.com

      - and -

   Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
   Berger & Montague, P.C. -MN
   43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
   Minneapolis, MN 55414
   Tel: (612) 594-5999
   Fax: (612) 584-4470
   Email: jhashmall@bm.net


FLORIDA BC: Faces "Reese" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jay E. Reese, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Florida BC Holdings, LLC b/d/a Synergy Equipment, Case
No. 6:17-cv-01574-CEM-GJK (Fla. Cir. Ct., August 30, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Florida BC Holdings, LLC is in the business of renting, selling,
and servicing construction equipment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott C. Adams, Esq.
      N. Ryan Labar, Esq.
      LABAR & ADAMS, P.A.
      2300 East Concord Street
      Orlando, FL 32803
      Telephone: (407) 835-8968
      Facsimile: (407) 835-8969
      E-mail: sadams@labaradams.com
              rlabar@labaradams.com


FORT WAYNE, IN: Class Certification Bid in "See" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled KEITH SEE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FORT
WAYNE, in its official capacity, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00105-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Susan Collins entered an
order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion to for leave to amend his
      motion for class certification;

   2. denying as moot Plaintiff's previous motion for class
      certification; and

   3. directing Clerk to show the first amended motion for class
      certification.

The Court said, "On June 16, 2016, Plaintiff Keith See filed a
motion for class certification on behalf of himself individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Now, before the
Court, is Plaintiff's motion seeking leave to amend his motion for
class certification, filed on August 22, 2017. Defendant has not
responded to Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his motion for
class certification, and the time to do so has now passed."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fvYXu42U


HEARTSHARE HUMAN: "Murphy" Suit Seeks to Certify Workers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KAISHA MURPHY and SHANA-KAY MCDOUGALI, on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. HEARTSHARE HUMAN SERVICES OF NEW YORK, and HEARTSHARE EDUCATION
CENTER, the Defendants, Case No.1:17-cv-01033-SMG (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Steven M. Gold entered an order preliminarily approving
conditional certification of settlement class of:

   "all current and former non-exempt workers who worked as
   Direct Support Professionals for HeartShare Human Services and
   as Assistant Teachers for HeartShare Education Center at any
   time from February 23, 2011 through the date the Court enters
   an order granting preliminary approval of the class action
   settlement."

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


HOMESTREET BANK: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Kuzich, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. HomeStreet Bank and HomeStreet Home Loan Center Co.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02902-DKD (D. Ariz., August 29, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage and
overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate one of the largest community banks in the
United States located at 601 Union St. #2000, Seattle, WA 98101.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
      ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
      8201 Mission Road, Suite 250
      Prairie Village, KA 66208
      Telephone: (913) 766-5585
      Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
      E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com


IMPERIAL PARKING: Rivas Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE G. RIVAS, on behalf of himself, and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMPERIAL PARKING (US) LLC, doing
business as IMP ARK, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06159
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff's primary work function was
to park and retrieve automobiles for customers of Defendant. The
Defendant paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis. The work performed by
Plaintiff was directly essential to the business operated by
Impark. Defendant knowingly failed to pay Plaintiff overtime
compensation in contravention of the FLSA and New York Labor Law

Imperial Parking (U.S.), Inc. offers parking services. The company
was incorporated in 1989 and is based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Imperial Parking (U.S.), Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Imperial Parking Corp.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTERCOAST COLLEGES: Faces "Kourembanas" Suit Over LPN Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Kourembanas, Caridad Jean Baptiste, Cathy Mande, and
Catharine Valley, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. InterCoast Colleges, d/b/a InterCoast Career
Institute, Case No. 2:17-cv-00331-JAW (D. Me., August 29, 2017),
arises out of the Defendant's unlawful practice of using the
incentive of federal financial aid to lure the Plaintiffs and
other class members into its practical nursing ("LPN") Program,
only to saddle them with student loan debt they cannot repay due
to InterCoast's failure to provide them with accredited, quality
educational services required to obtain necessary licenses and
jobs.

InterCoast Colleges operates for-profit post-secondary educational
programs in a variety of fields, including medical assistant,
paralegal, massage therapist, and substance abuse counselor
studies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Clifford, Esq.
      Andrew P. Cotter, Esq.
      CLIFFORD & CLIFFORD
      Post Road Center
      62 Portland Rd. Suite 37
      Kennebunk, ME 04043
      Telephone: (207) 985-3200
      E-mail: james@cliffordclifford.com
              andrew@cliffordclifford.com

         - and -

      Richard L. O'Meara
      MURRAY, PLUMB & MURRAY
      75 Pearl Street, P.O. Box 9785
      Portland, ME 04104-5085
      Telephone: (207) 773-5651
      E-mail: romeara@mpmlaw.com

JAMAL A QADDURA: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Kelly, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Jamal A. Qaddura d/b/a AAA Professional Bail
Bonds, Case No. 3:17-cv-02299-N (N.D. Tex., August 29, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jamal A. Qaddura operates a bail bond business in both Dallas and
Fort Worth. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Ct. Declines to Entertain Bid to Remand Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division, issued an Opinion and Order
declining to entertain Plaintiff's motion to remand in the case
captioned AMOS HOSTETLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON CONTROLS,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-226 JD (N.D. Ind.).

Plaintiffs' counsel filed two separate cases over environmental
contamination at a former Johnson Controls plant.  One they filed
in federal court, asserting claims under the federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. The other they filed in state
court, asserting claims under state law on behalf of a putative
class.

In this case, which began as the state action, Johnson Controls
eventually filed a notice of removal, asserting federal
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

The Plaintiffs preferred the action to remain in state court,
though, so they first filed a motion to remand for procedural
defects in removal, arguing that Johnson Controls' notice of
removal was untimely and that Johnson Controls waived its right to
remove by litigating in state court for nearly a year.

As to the first motion to remand, the Court held that Johnson
Controls' notice of removal was timely and that it had not waived
its right to remove, so remand was not justified on those
procedural grounds.

The Plaintiffs sought leave to appeal as to their procedural
grounds for remand, but the Seventh Circuit denied their petition.
The Court declines to entertain the motion, as it amounts to a
motion for reconsideration of an issue that the parties and the
Court already addressed extensively in a previous motion. Though
the Plaintiffs insist that they have now cured the flaws that
doomed the previous motion, they rely on no evidence that they
could not have included before, and they offer no satisfactory
reason why they should be entitled to re-litigate and the Court
should be required to reconsider a matter so extensively addressed
once already.

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to remand.

The Court grants Johnson Controls' motion to strike and the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand Johnson Controls' motion to strike
the expert report is thus denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 28, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya29yr6ofrom
Leagle.com.

Gene Duffin, Senior Judge, Special Master, Pro Se.

Amos Hostetler, Plaintiff, represented by John D. Ulmer, Yoder
Ainlay Ulmer & Buckingham LLP, 130 North Main Street, P.O. Box
575, Goshen, IN 46527-0575, Michael P. O'Nei -- moneil@taftlaw.com
-- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Thomas A. Barnard --
tbarnard@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Benjamin
A. Wolowski -- bwolowski@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius &
Hollister LLP & Rodney L. Michael, Jr. -- rmichael@taftlaw.com --
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

Debbie Hostetler, Plaintiff, represented by John D. Ulmer, Yoder
Ainlay Ulmer & Buckingham LLP, Michael P. O'Neil, Taft Stettinius
& Hollister LLP, Thomas A. Barnard, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, Benjamin A. Wolowski, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP &
Rodney L. Michael, Jr., Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

Rita Chairez, Plaintiff, represented by John D. Ulmer, Yoder
Ainlay Ulmer & Buckingham LLP, Michael P. O'Neil, Taft Stettinius
& Hollister LLP, Thomas A. Barnard, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, Benjamin A. Wolowski, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP &
Rodney L. Michael, Jr., Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

Becky Null, Plaintiff, represented by John D. Ulmer, Yoder Ainlay
Ulmer & Buckingham LLP, Michael P. O'Neil, Taft Stettinius &
Hollister LLP, Thomas A. Barnard, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP,
Benjamin A. Wolowski, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP & Rodney L.
Michael, Jr., Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

Maria Tovar, Plaintiff, represented by John D. Ulmer, Yoder Ainlay
Ulmer & Buckingham LLP, Michael P. O'Neil, Taft Stettinius &
Hollister LLP, Thomas A. Barnard, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP,
Benjamin A. Wolowski, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP & Rodney L.
Michael, Jr., Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

Johnson Controls Inc, Defendant, represented by Andrew E. Skroback
-- andrew.skroback@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren T. Lee --
lauren.lee@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
pro hac vice, Stacey L. Trimmer --
stacey.trimmer@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas Joseph Hall --
thomas.hall@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, pro hac vice & Kelly J. Hartzler -- kelly.hartzler@btlaw.com
-- Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

Tocon Holdings LLC, Defendant, Pro Se.

Yoder Ainlay Ulmer & Buckingham, Defendant, represented by Daniel
W. Glavin -- dglavin@omwlegal.com -- O'Neill McFadden & Willett
LLP & Michael E. O'Neill -- moneill@omwlegal.com -- O'Neill
McFadden & Willett LLP.

Johnson Controls Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Andrew E.
Skroback, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren T.
Lee, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice, Stacey L.
Trimmer, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas Joseph
Hall, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice & Kelly J.
Hartzler, Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

Johnson Controls Inc, Counter Claimant, represented by Andrew E.
Skroback, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren T.
Lee, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice, Stacey L.
Trimmer, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas Joseph
Hall, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice & Kelly J.
Hartzler, Barnes & Thornburg LLP.


K.B.R. INC: Barbitta Sues Over Deficient Collection Latter
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicolette and Andrew Barbitta, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. K.B.R., Inc., Case No.
2:17-at-00871, (E.D. Cal., August 22, 2017), seeks statutory and
actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
this action, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other
and further relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiffs incurred a debt for personal medical services where KBR
was assigned to collect the said debt. It sent a collection letter
that did not convey the identity of the creditor to whom Ms.
Barbitta's debt is currently owed to, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Elliot Rosenberger, Esq.
     Joshua Biletsky, Esq.
     BILETSKY ROSENBERGER
     7080 Hollywood Blvd., Ste. 1100
     Los Angeles, CA 90028
     Telephone: (424) 256-5075
     Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
     Email: er@biletskyrosenberger.com
            jb@biletskyrosenberger.com


KINGATE GLOBAL: Investors Want 2nd Cir. to Revive Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Gorta, writing for Law360, reports that a group of
investors on Sept. 6 asked the Second Circuit to resuscitate their
claims against two funds that sank billions of dollars into Bernie
Madoff's fraudulent securities scheme, saying that since their
claims are based on British Virgin Islands and Bermuda law, a
prohibition against state-law securities class actions doesn't
apply.

David A. Barrett of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP told a three-judge
panel that because the lower court found the investors' claims
were based on the laws of Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands,
the preemption of state-law class actions in connection with the
sale of securities under the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act doesn't apply.

Mr. Barrett also looked to the statute itself, saying the use of
"state" in SLUSA "on its face means one of the 50 United States"
because Congress had the ability to -- but did not -- add foreign
jurisdictions to the act.

"In this whole SLUSA area, as you know, we are focused very much
on the literal words in the statue like 'in connection with,' and
I think when Congress says 'state' they mean 'state' and they
certainly know how to define state or jurisdiction to mean a
foreign country," Barrett said.  "They had an ability to include a
foreign country if they wanted to.  They didn't do that."

Mr. Barrett said it was a pure issue of law and that the Second
Circuit should decide the "uncertain issue" since two judges in
the Southern District of New York have come to "diametrically
opposed views" on it.

Carmine D. Boccuzzi -- cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- of Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP, arguing on behalf of defendant Citi Hedge
Fund Services Ltd., said many of the claims are based on reports
to investors that represented covered securities that Madoff was
supposedly buying for the funds.

"Clearly this falls under the category of SLUSA-covered activity
and was properly precluded by the lower court," Mr. Boccuzzi said.

He said that SLUSA applied because of contextual language in the
act itself and the what Congress' "clear intention" was in
enacting the statute.

"I think their intention would have been to cover these types of
claims," Mr. Boccuzzi said.  "Otherwise it doesn't make any sense
that Congress would say these kind of claims can go forward under
their own rubric and under various laws, whereas other cases would
be channeled into the [Private Securities Litigation Reform Act]
and SLUSA."

Jodi Kleinick -- jodikleinick@paulhastings.com -- of Paul Hastings
LLP, arguing for defendant FIM (USA) Inc., said that separate from
SLUSA, the lower court properly ruled that none of the claims are
viable under BVI or Bermuda law, and the investors should not be
allowed to replead.

"This case was filed over eight years ago, and this is plaintiffs'
third attempt to plead viable claims against these defendants,"
Ms. Kleinick said.  "This started out as a federal securities case
with tag-along state law claims, and it has now turned into a case
with foreign plaintiffs suing foreign defendants asserting foreign
law where all of the conduct complained about happened abroad."

Circuit Judge Robert A. Katzmann thanked the attorneys for their
arguments -- lasting more than an hour -- in "this challenging
case."

"The court will reserve decision, not surprisingly," he said.

Counsel for the parties declined to comment outside court.

In September 2016, U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts granted
Tremont Group Holdings Inc. and Kingate Management's joint motion
to dismiss with prejudice more than two dozen legal claims
asserted against them by investors over their management of two
major feeder funds to Madoff's business.

The litigation is related to the firms' oversight of Kingate
Global Fund Ltd. and Kingate Euro Fund Ltd., which sent billions
of dollars to Bernard L. Madoff Investor Securities LLC.
Investments in those funds became worthless when Madoff's fraud at
BLMIS was exposed in December 2008, the ruling said.

At that time, the funds had invested an estimated $3 billion with
BLMIS, though any investor recovery through litigation would
likely have been less than that amount. The lawsuit was filed in
2009 on behalf of both institutional and individual investors.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Citi Hedge Fund Services and FIM were
also sued by investors.

The fund managers were accused of missing red flags that should
have tipped them off to Madoff's fraud.  Kingate Global invested
$963.45 million with BLMIS between March 1994 and Dec. 10, 2008;
Kingate Euro invested $767.44 million from April 2000 to Dec. 10,
2008, the ruling said.

In a 145-page decision, Judge Batts explored each of the 28 claims
asserted in the lawsuit and also examined the intersection of
securities law in the U.S., Bermuda -- where Kingate and Tremont
are based -- and the British Virgin Islands, where the feeder
funds were organized.

Judge Batts ruled that several claims asserted in the lawsuit were
precluded by SLUSA . The court dismissed other claims either
because there was insufficient evidence to support them, or
because they couldn't be asserted under BVI law.

Judge Batts had dismissed the lawsuit in 2011, but her decision
was reversed by the Second Circuit in 2015 because, the appellate
court said, she hadn't properly ruled on all of the investors'
claims.

Judges Robert A. Katzmann, Pierre N. Leval and Peter W. Hall sat
on the panel for the Second Circuit.

The investors are represented by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

The defendants are represented by Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
LLP, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Chaffetz Lindsey LLP,
Kobre & Kim LLP, Cooley LLP and Hogan Lovells.

The case is In re: Kingate Management, case number 16-3450 (2nd
Cir.). [GN]


KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Faces "Ehrnfeld" Suit in E.D. of NY
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kirschenbaum &
Phillips, P.C.  The case is styled as Aaron Ehrnfeld, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05195
(E.D. N.Y., September 4, 2017).

Kirschenbaum and Phillips is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


L.A. DODGERS: Faces "Friedman" Suit Over False Advertisement
------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Friedman, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC and The Los Angeles
Dodgers Foundation, Case No. BC674266 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 30,
2017), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of falsely
advertising to consumers that if they purchase a raffle ticket,
fifty percent of the gross proceeds would go to the winner of the
raffle, while the other fifty percent would go to the Los Angeles
Dodgers Foundation. When in actual fact, the Defendants use the
funds to cover costs and pay third parties a share, giving the
winner much less than the promised amount.

The Defendants through its subsidiaries, operates a professional
baseball team. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIFEWAY FOODS: Judge Narrows Claims in Milk Smoothie Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Meisel, writing for Law360, reports that Lifeway Foods Inc.
saw its motion for dismissal of an Illinois consumer class action
largely denied on Sept. 6 when a federal judge tossed only two
counts from a complaint alleging it falsely marketed a probiotic
dairy product known as kefir.

Illinois resident Andrew Block filed the suit in March on behalf
of a putative class he alleges was similarly duped by Lifeway's
marketing that claimed its 32 ounce kefir drink is 99 percent
lactose-free.  Kefir is "a tart and tangy cultured milk smoothie
that is high in protein, calcium, and vitamin D," according to
Lifeway, and is the company's "flagship" product. Only the 32
ounce kefir drink is at issue in the case.

After purchasing a 32 ounce Lifeway plain low-fat kefir drink in
February, Mr. Block says he learned that the kefir purportedly
contains close to 4 percent lactose, which is similar to the
percentage of lactose in regular milk, he alleges.  Mr. Block
filed the class action the next month, alleging that Lifeway knew
that its plain, low-fat kefir is not 99 percent lactose-free and
that the company deliberately made false or misleading statements
while advertising the product in order to charge a premium for a
lactose-free product.

In May, Lifeway moved to dismiss Mr. Block's seven-count
complaint, but U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly on Sept. 6
only granted Lifeway's request to dismiss Mr. Block's claims of a
breach of warranty. Judge Kennelly left in place the majority of
Mr. Block's suit, which includes claims that Lifeway violated the
consumer fraud laws of multiple states, including the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and claims
that Lifeway engaged in negligent misrepresentation and unjust
enrichment. Judge Kennelly deferred consideration on two claims
until the class certification stage of the case.

Judge Kennelly cited last summer's blockbuster U.S. Supreme Court
ruling on injuries in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, which held that an
injury must be both concrete and particularized.  While Lifeway
argued that Block failed to state a claim, Judge Kennelly
disagreed, quoting from Spokeo.

"Block, the only named plaintiff, has adequately alleged the
elements of standing. He alleges that he purchased Lifeway's kefir
based on the company's statements that it is 99% lactose-free and
that he would not have done so had he known that the statements
were false," Judge Kennelly wrote.  "Thus he has adequately that
he '(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable
to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely
to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.'"

Judge Kennelly also recognized that other cases involving food
manufacturers are based on claims that are later found to be so
minor that they don't hold up in court, such as claims based on
discrepancies between the quality of the food and the
manufacturer's representations.  Judge Kennelly wrote, however,
this case is more concrete than cases like those.

"Block's allegation that Lifeway's plain, low-fat kefir contains
4% -- instead of less than 1% -- lactose may seem on its face to
constitute a similarly immaterial discrepancy," Judge Kennelly
wrote.  "But Block alleges that he purchased Lifeway's kefir
because it is nearly lactose-free and he wanted the health
benefits that come from not consuming lactose.  Products with 4%
lactose -- such as regular milk -- are anything but lactose-free.
Thus this alleged difference in percentage of lactose is not
marginal or immaterial."

But Judge Kennelly did throw out Mr. Block's two claims that
Lifeway breached express warranty with its customers, writing that
Block did not adequately allege that Lifeway had "actual knowledge
of the defect" -- the defect being the true amount of lactose its
kefir drinks contained.  Though Mr. Block had pointed to a study
performed by the Ohio State University that determined the actual
lactose content of kefir, Judge Kennelly said that the study did
not inform Lifeway of Block's claim that the increased amount of
lactose in the kefir he purchased constitutes a breach of
warranty.

"A company that is generally aware of problems with a particular
product line will still be unable to resolve breach of warranty
claims without a lawsuit if it is unaware which consumers claim to
have suffered a breach," Judge Kennelly wrote.  "Because Block
does not allege that he suffered a personal injury from purchasing
and consuming Lifeway's kefir, his failure to notify Lifeway of
his concern with his particular purchase defeats his claims for
breach of warranties."

Representatives for neither side could be reached for comment on
Sept. 6.

Mr. Block is represented by Daniel Johnson of Waskowski Johnson
Yohalem LLP and Gary Michael Klinger and Ryan Sullivan --
rsullivan@kozonislaw.com -- of Kozonis & Associates Ltd.

Lifeway is represented by Francis Citera, Todd Edward Pentecost
-- pentecostt@gtlaw.com -- and Brian Straw -- strawb@gtlaw.com --
of Greenberg Traurig LLP and in-house counsel Douglas Arthur Hass.

The case is Block v. Lifeway Foods Inc., case number 1:17-cv-01717
(N.D. Ill.).  The case is assigned to Judge Honorable Matthew F.
Kennelly.  The case was filed March 3, 2017. [GN]


LOGITECH INC: Anderson Sues Over Defective Security Cameras
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Anderson, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Logitech Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-06104, (N.D. Il., August 22, 2017), seeks compensatory, actual,
treble and punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement of
profits, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and
declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of suit,
including expert witness fees and such other relief for violation
of California and Illinois consumer protection laws, breach of
implied and express warranties, and unjust enrichment.

Logitech Inc. markets and sells high-definition digital video home
security systems. Plaintiff alleges that their cameras experienced
a high-rate of failure and that its software was rife with bugs
and glitches that made the systems unreliable and inoperable.
Logitech refused to honor its warranties to remedy the defects
while customers' warranty periods lapsed, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary L. Specks, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      423 Sumac Road
      Highland Park, IL 60035
      Telephone: (847) 831-1585
      Facsimile: (847) 831-1580
      Email: gspecks@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      Laurence D. King, Esq.
      Linda M. Fong, Esq.
      Matthew B. George, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 772-4700
      Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
      Email: lking@kaplanfox.com
             lfong@kaplanfox.com
             mgeorge@kaplanfox.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Settles Class Action Over Officer's Snooping
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Winton, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that it
started with a cryptic threat: a dead fish and a rose left inside
a Los Angeles Times reporter's car, and a note that simply read
"Stop" on the fractured windshield.

An FBI investigation into the threat would uncover a criminal
scheme in which celebrity private eye Anthony Pellicano was
illegally gathering information for his star-studded list of
clients.

The scandal ensnared Hollywood powerhouses, executives and
celebrities as well as a Los Angeles Police Department detective,
Sgt. Mark Arneson, whom Pellicano paid to provide him with
confidential law enforcement records on hundreds of people.

Fifteen years later, the city of Los Angeles is about to
compensate victims of the scheme as part of a class action lawsuit
settlement.

The City Council on Sept. 6 approved a deal that will pay a total
of $285,600 to be divided among the 345 people identified by the
FBI investigation as victims of Sgt. Arneson's record checks,
according to court records.

The victims will divide the funds according to how many times Sgt.
Arneson accessed their records on Mr. Pellicano's behalf.
An additional amount of up to $575,000 will be paid to the lawyers
representing the class.

A spokesman for the Los Angeles city attorney's office said he
could not discuss the settlement until it is finalized by the
court.

The class action suit was one of several delayed for years as Mr.
Pellicano, Sgt. Arneson, a prominent entertainment attorney and a
phone company engineer were tried and convicted of federal crimes
connected to the work of the private investigator.

Lawyers for the class action suit argued that the city was liable
for the invasion of privacy against the victims and negligent
supervision of the detective.

Among the named plaintiffs was Monika Zsibrita, who had demanded
money from comedian Chris Rock, saying he was the father of her
child. (He wasn't.) Rock hired Mr. Pellicano to investigate.

The city attorney argued that the lawsuit should be thrown out,
saying Sgt. Arneson's actions in accessing confidential law
enforcement information did not further police business. But a
judge rejected the argument.

The plaintiffs' attorneys did not return messages for comment.

The investigation into Mr. Pellicano began in 2002, when reporter
Anita Busch's car was vandalized and the threat left on her
windshield.  FBI agents followed the trail to Mr. Pellicano's
offices, where they found explosives and evidence leading them to
discover numerous illegally wiretapped phone conversations and
tapes of Mr. Pellicano talking with his clients about wiretaps.

Mr. Pellicano was accused of bribing police officers to search law
enforcement databases and bribing phone company workers to wiretap
his clients' opponents, allowing him to listen to their most
intimate conversations.

Mr. Pellicano was sentenced to 15 years in prison for illegal
wiretaps and running a criminal enterprise.  Sgt. Arneson, who
also was convicted of running a criminal enterprise, was sentenced
to about 10 years. [GN]


LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Witt" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LTD Financial
Services Limited Partnership. The case is styled as Christopher
Witt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. LTD Financial Services Limited Partnership,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05227-LDW-AKT (E.D. N.Y., September 6,
2017).

LTD Financial is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


LUXOTICA RETAIL: Faces Class Action Over Prescription Eyeglasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Graf, writing for Law360, reports that a proposed class
action filed on Sept. 5 in California federal court alleges that
LensCrafters falsely claims that its prescription eyeglasses are
made with pupillary distance measurements that are five times more
precise than traditional measurements, duping consumers into
overpaying for the company's glasses.

Kathleen Infante said Luxottica Retail North America Inc., doing
business as LensCrafters, advertises that its Accufit Digital
Measurement System measures the distance between pupils to the
tenth of a millimeter.  She said the company claims that the
system allows it to produce prescription glasses with more
accurate lenses that put "the prescription exactly where you need
it to see your best." But the company's technology doesn't truly
result in more accurate products, she contended.

"Because LensCrafters' manufacturing process uses the same
decades-old traditional methods, the end-product sold to customers
cannot and does not have PD measurements that are 'five times'
more accurate than traditional methods," Ms. Infante argued in the
complaint.

The manufacturing equipment used by LensCrafters doesn't measure
more precisely than 1 millimeter, which is the same precision as a
standard ruler, according to the complaint.  Even if the Accufit
system measures within a tenth of a millimeter, the manufacturing
technology is incapable of actually producing glasses with that
much accuracy, the suit said.

"Even assuming the Accufit technology is, as advertised, five
times more accurate than manual measurements, LensCrafters cannot
and does not translate the measurements taken from the Accufit
system into its manufacturing process," Ms. Infante argued.

LensCrafters employees, who allegedly knew of the equipment's
shortcomings, were discouraged from discussing the manufacturing
process with customers, the suit said.

Ms. Infante seeks to represent a class of California residents who
purchased prescription glasses from LensCrafters since
Sept. 5, 2011.  LensCrafters introduced the Accufit system around
2011, according to the suit.

"We are glad we could bring this conduct by LensCrafters to light,
and look forward to providing justice for our class members," Ms.
Infante's counsel Theodore J. Leopold --
tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC said in an email to Law360.

Representatives for Luxottica didn't respond on Sept. 6 to a
request for comment.

Ms. Infante is represented by Charles P. Reichmann of the Law
Offices of Charles Reichmann, Theodore J. Leopold, Andrew N.
Friedman, Geoffrey A. Graber and Sally M. Handmaker of Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and Robert Gordon --
rgordon@fortheinjured.com -- and Steve Calamusa --
scalamusa@fortheinjured.com -- of Gordon & Doner.

Counsel information for LensCrafters wasn't available on Sept. 6.

The case is Kathleen Infante v. Luxottica Retail North America,
case number 3:17-cv-05145 (N.D. Cal.).  The case is assigned to
Judge Sallie Kim.  The case was filed September 5, 2017. [GN]


MARC/SHARIFF RESTAURANT: Ramirez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ISMAEL RAMIREZ, and JOHN DOE, on behalf of themselves and FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs v. MARC/SHARIFF RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a FABIO
CUCINA ITALIANA, and ELFOULY SHARIF, Case No. 1:17-cv-06362
(S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2017), seeks to recover pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, unpaid overtime,
unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

Marc/Shariff Restaurant Inc. is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of New York, with a principal place of
business in New York City.  Elfouly Sharif is a principal of the
Company.  The Defendants operate the "Fabio Cucina Italiana" in
New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
                  anne@leelitigation.com


MARIETTA MEMORIAL: Court Certifies Nurses & Technicians Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LYNNETT MYERS, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
MARIETTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-
cv-02956-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley
entered an order granting certification of a class of:

   "all of Defendant[s'] current and former Nurses and Patient
   Care Technicians who were hourly employees and subject to
   Defendant[s'] automatic meal deduction policy during the three
   years before this Complaint was filed up to the present".

The Court said, "Plaintiffs claim that they worked for various
managers and in different departments, and also stated that they
spoke with many coworkers who were subject to the same policies
and practices -- of not receiving lunch breaks, of being told not
to clock out no lunch, and of not being paid for all hours worked.
For this reason, Plaintiffs meet the typicality requirement, just
as they meet the commonality requirement".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0Rvfa6r3


MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Faces FCRA Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR News, reports that a class action
complaint filed against Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc. claims
the vacation ownership company allegedly violated the federal Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to adequately disclose and
obtain authorization to conduct background checks on job
applicants.

The complaint claims the inclusion of a liability release clause
in Marriot's authorization forms invalidated the supposed consent
and triggers statutory damages under the FCRA of up to $1,000 for
each applicant that obtained a background check without a valid
authorization.

The plaintiff, a former employer of Marriot, claims she completed
a background check disclosure and consent form that unlawfully
included a liability release clause. Under FCRA section
1681b(b)(2)(A), employers procuring a background check report must
make sure that:

  (i) a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing
to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or
caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the
disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment
purposes; and

(ii) the consumer has authorized in writing (which authorization
may be made on the document referred to in clause (i)) the
procurement of the report by that person.

In addition, the complaint claims Marriott allegedly failed to
provide their California employees with the legally required
thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal periods and allegedly failed
to pay all overtime due to their California employees in violation
of the California Labor Code.

The class action complaint was filed by labor and employment law
firm Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on behalf of a California
and Nationwide class.

The FCRA and California Labor Code lawsuit McComack vs. Marriott
Ownership Resorts, Inc., Case No. 17CV1663BEN WVG filed on August
18, 2017, is currently pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California.

Enacted in 1970, the FCRA promotes the accuracy, fairness, and
privacy of consumer information contained in the files of consumer
reporting agencies (CRAs) and protects consumers from the willful
and/or negligent inclusion of inaccurate information in their
reports. [GN]


MDC TAVERN: Blue Seeks to Recover Wages, Tips and Deductions
------------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE BLUE and BRIA BROOKS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. MDC TAVERN CORP.; 53 VETERANS HIGHWAY INC.;
MARK E. CARNEY; DENNIS CHARETTE; GREGORY ROBERT WALSH; SEAN
MCCARTHY; and any other related entities, Case No. 600162/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty., August 21, 2017), seeks to recover
from the Defendants (1) minimum wage compensation, (2) all earned
gratuities and tips, and (3) improper deductions from wages, that
they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants operate adult entertainment establishments under
the names "THE CAROUSEL NIGHT CLUB," located in Huntington
Station, New York, and "BLUSH - A GENTLEMAN'S CLUB," located in
Commack, New York.  Carousel and Blush provide food and drinks to
their customers at a price and are engaged in the "restaurant
industry" and "hospitality industry."  The Individual Defendants
are owners, principals, managers, or operators of Carousel and
Blush.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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
          Facsimile: (516) 747-5024
          E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com


MEDIX STAFFING: Faces "Heil" Suit in N. Dist. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medix Staffing
Solutions, Inc.  The case is styled as Cindy Heil, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Medix
Staffing Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06442 (N.D.
Ill., September 6, 2017).

Medix Staffing Solutions, Inc. is a provider of workforce
solutions for clients and candidates across the healthcare,
scientific and IT industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Madar" Suit in E.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile
Adjustment Bureau, LLC. The case is styled as Itschak Madar, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-05193 (E.D. N.Y., September 4, 2017).

Mercantile Adjustment is a full service, nationally licensed
collections and accounts receivable management firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


MGM HOLDINGS: Dec. 20 Plan Discovery Filing Deadline in "Johnson"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order Approving Parties'
Stipulation to Continue Current Deadlines Pending Mediation in the
case captioned MARY L. JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MGM HOLDINGS INC.; METRO-
GOLDWYN-MAYER INC.; METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC.; METRO-
GOLDWYN-MAYER HOME ENTERTAINMENT LLC; METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER HOME
ENTERTAINMENT DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION; TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX HOME
ENTERTAINMENT LLC and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00541-RSM (W.D. Wash.).

The Court ordered that Defendants' deadline to respond to
Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint is continued to
November 15, 2017.  The deadline for the FRCP 26(a)(1) Conference
is continued to December 1, 2017; the deadline for service of
Initial Disclosures is continued to December 14, 2017; and the
deadline for filing of the Combined Joint Status Report and
Discovery Plan is continued to December 20, 2017.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 28, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y9o7jy4ffrom Leagle.com.

Mary L. Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Alan J. Statman --
ajstatman@statmanharris.com -- STATMAN, HARRIS & EYRICH, LLC, pro
hac vice.

Mary L. Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Sether
Kleinberg -- akleinberg@eisenhowerlaw.com -- EISENHOWER & CARLSON
& Sylvie Derrien --  sderrien@statmanharris.com -- STATMAN, HARRIS
& EYRICH, LLC, pro hac vice.

MGM Holdings, Inc, Defendant, represented by John S. Devlin, III -
- devlinj@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC, Samuel T. Boyd --
Samuel.Boyd@info.com -- MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, pro hac vice &
Tamerlin J. Godley -- Tamerlin.Godley@info.com -- MUNGER TOLLES &
OLSON, pro hac vice.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc, Defendant, represented by John
S. Devlin, III, LANE POWELL PC, Samuel T. Boyd, MUNGER TOLLES &
OLSON, pro hac vice & Tamerlin J. Godley, MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON,
pro hac vice.

Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, LLC, Defendant,
represented by John S. Devlin, III, LANE POWELL PC, Samuel T.
Boyd, MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, pro hac vice & Tamerlin J. Godley,
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, pro hac vice.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Flips FDCPA and RFDCPA Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
First Amended Complaint in the case captioned RICHARD HAMILTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
16cv2273-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal.), and denying Defendant's Request for
Judicial Notice as moot.

Plaintiff Richard Hamilton commenced this action by filing a
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego.  In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged the causes of action
against Encore Capital Group, Inc., Midland Credit Management,
Inc., and Midland Funding, LLC:

   (1) violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1788, et seq.

   (2) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq.; and

   (3) violations of the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Cal. Civ.
Code. Section 1788.50.

Plaintiff is currently in a Chapter Seven Bankruptcy in San Diego.
Plaintiff is alleged to have incurred financial obligations to the
original creditor, Washington Mutual Plaintiff's alleged financial
obligations were allegedly incurred for personal, family and
household purposes. Sometime thereafter, Plaintiff allegedly fell
behind in the payments allegedly owed on the alleged debt.

In this regard, Defendant sent Plaintiff a debt collection letter
Plaintiff alleges the letter stated:

     "The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because
of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it. If you do not
pay the debt, we may continue to report it to the credit reporting
agencies as unpaid."

Plaintiff asserts two causes of action in the FAC against
Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc.: (1) violation of the
FDCPA and (2) violation of the RFDCPA.

Defendant contends that the FAC fails to state a cognizable claim
under the FDCPA and the RFDCPA. Defendant contends that its letter
did not include a material misrepresentation. Defendant contends
that the FDCPA does not require creditors to disclose in a
collection letter the credit reporting statute of limitations when
the letter references the collection statute of limitations.
Defendant contends that it was legally entitled to report
Plaintiff's debt and lawfully could do so until up to seven years
after the date of charge off at the time it sent Plaintiff.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant's letter misleads the least
sophisticated consumer to believe that Defendant may report
Plaintiff's debt to the Credit Bureaus indefinitely. Plaintiff
contends that the placement of the collections statute of
limitations in the letter juxtaposed with the omission of a
clearly stated Statute of Limitations for reporting to the Credit
Bureaus makes it appear the no such period exists. Plaintiff
contends that  this omission constitutes the violation at issue
since it is misleading.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A
district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is proper if there is a
'lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient
facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.

Defendant informed Plaintiff that it would not sue to collect on
his debt because the law limits how long you can be sued on a
debt. The letter informed Plaintiff that If you do not pay the
debt, we may continue to report it to the credit reporting
agencies as unpaid. In this case, employing the least
sophisticated debtor standard, the letter is not subject to an
interpretation that would suggest two possibilities.

Defendant was legally permitted to report the debt at the time it
sent the letter. Plaintiff has not identified any authority
requiring Defendant to include the reporting statute of
limitations in the letter.

In this case, the Court determines that the relevant language in
the letter cannot reasonably be interpreted to imply that the debt
collector will take action it has no intention or ability to
undertake. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to allege
sufficient facts to plausibly suggest that Defendant's March 2015
letter was misleading under either the FDCPA or the RFDCPA.
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
FAC.

Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 28, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y9udof2zfrom Leagle.com.

Richard Hamilton, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com --  Kazerounian Law Group, APC.

Richard Hamilton, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel G. Shay --
DanielShay@SanDiegoBankruptcyNow.com  --  Law Offices of Daniel G.
Shay, Joshua Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde &
Swigart & Matthew M. Loker -- ml@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group,
APC.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas
F. Landers  -- Tlanders@swsslaw.com -- Solomon Ward Seidenwurm &
Smith, LLP & Mei-Ying M. Imanaka -- mimanaka@swsslaw.com --
Solomon Ward Seidenwurm & Smith, LLP.


MISSISSIPPI HOME HEALTH: "Arnold" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
ALTRECE ARNOLD, the Plaintiff, v. WEST MISSISSIPPI HOME HEALTH
SERVICES, INC. D/B/A CAMELLIA HEALTHCARE, the Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00673-WHB-LRA (S.D. Miss., Aug. 15, 2017), seeks to
recover damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals are paid a flat fee for the services they
provide at a patient's home, but are paid on an hourly basis for
mandatory in-service training and weekly case conference meetings.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals regularly
work more than 40 hours a week; however, they are never paid time
and half overtime wages when they work more than 40 hours in a
week.

Founded in 1974, Camellia Healthcare is one of the largest
privately held home health and hospice companies in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nick Norris, Esq.
          Louis H. Watson, Jr., Esq.
          WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC
          1880 Lakeland Drive Suite G
          Jackson, MS 39216
          Telephone: (601) 968 0000
          Facsimile: (601) 968 0010
          E-mail: nick@watsonnorris.com


MYLAN INC: Local 282 Fund Suit Transferred to Dist. of Kansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 14, 2017 styled Local 282
Welfare Trust Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Mylan Inc., Mylan Specialty L.P., Pfizer,
Inc., King Pharmaceuticals LLC and Meridian Medical Technologies,
Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-06110, was transferred on August 29, 2017
from the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas (Kansas City). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02498-DDC-TJJ to the proceeding.

The case asserts product-liability claims.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company in United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, PC
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744


NESTLE WATERS: Faces "Patane" Suit over Poland Spring Water
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARK J. PATANE, JULIE HARDING, HEATHER HARRIGAN, STEPHEN S.
SHAPIRO, CATHERINE PORTER, ERICA RUSSELL, TINA MORETTI, BRIDGET
KOPET, JENNIFER S. COLE, BENJAMIN A. FLETCHER and DIANE BOGDAN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01381 (D. Conn., Aug. 15, 2017), seeks to recover
monetary and injunctive relief based on Defendant's violations of
those states' false advertising and consumer protection laws and
based on Defendant's nationwide breaches of contract and fraud
arising from Defendant's false and deceptive labeling and sale of
Poland Spring Water as "100% Natural Spring Water".

According to the complaint, for more than 20 years, Nestle Waters'
marketing and sales of Poland Spring Water has been a colossal
fraud perpetrated against American consumers. To consumers,
"spring water" from a naturally occurring spring signifies purity
and high quality and commands a premium price compared to
Defendant's non-spring drinking water products or filtered tap
water. To illicitly capture that premium, Defendant, since it
began selling the Poland Spring brand in 1993, has bottled common
groundwater and illegally mislabeled it as "100% Natural Spring
Water." Not one drop of Poland Spring Water emanates from a water
source that complies with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
definition of "spring water." Each year Defendant misidentifies
hundreds of millions of gallons of Poland Spring Water as "spring
water," and for many years it has misrepresented on every Poland
Spring Water label that the water in the bottle came from one or
more of eight purported "natural springs" in Maine. Rather than
being 100% Natural Spring Water" as Defendant's labels advertise,
and rather than being collected from pristine mountain or forest
springs as the images on those labels depict, Poland Spring Water
products all contain ordinary groundwater that Defendant collects
from wells it drilled in saturated plains or valleys where the
water table is within a few feet of the earth's surface. The vast
bulk of that groundwater is collected from Maine's most populous
counties in southwestern Maine, only a short distance from the New
Hampshire border.

Nestle Waters North America, Inc. is a business-unit of Nestle
Waters that produces and/or distributes numerous brands of bottled
water across North America. Continent-wide brands include Perrier
and San Pellegrino. Bill Pearson, and David Colville.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
          ALEXANDER SCHMIDT LAW
          Fairways Professional Plaza
          5 Professional Circle, Suite 204
          Colts Neck, NJ 07722
          Telephone: (732) 226 0004
          Facsimile: (732) 845 9087
          E-mail: alex@alexschmidt.law

               - and -

          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE &MCCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697 6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697 0577
          E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE &MCCARTHY, LLP
          40 Worth St., 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 201 6820
          Facsimile: (646) 219 6678
          E-mail: abarnett@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 S. Main St., Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493 6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493 6290
          E-mail: craabe@ikrlaw.com
                  rizard@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          Amanda Bonn, Esq.
          Oleg Elkhunovich, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789 3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789 3150
          E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                  abonn@susmangodfrey.com
                  oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com


MORGAN & POTTINGER: Hager Hits Unauthorized Credit Report Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Hager, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Morgan & Pottinger, P.S.C., a Kentucky
professional services corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02888 (S.D. Ind., August 22, 2017), seeks statutory damages
together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Hager filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on April 25, 2016 and
received a discharge from all of his debts from the bankruptcy
court on August 18, 2016. In conjunction with a debt collection
attempt, Defendant pulled Mr. Hager's credit report at TransUnion,
constituting an unauthorized, impermissible viewing of a consumer
credit report, depriving Hager a fresh start envisioned by the
bankruptcy code, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      Email: davephilipps@aol.com
             mephilipps@aol.com
             angiekrobertson@aol.com

             - and -

      John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
      5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
      Indianapolis, IN 46227
      Tel: (317) 780-8300
      Fax: (317) 217-1320
      Email: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


NBTY INC: "De Bernardis" Disputes Oral Glutamine Health Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua De Bernardis, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. NBTY, Inc. and United States Nutrition,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06125 (N.D. Il., August 23,
2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from unlawful, unfair and
fraudulent business practices resulting from misleading labeling
and marketing; restitution to restore to all affected persons all
funds acquired; disgorgement of all monies wrongfully obtained;
damages and such other and further relief resulting from unjust
enrichment and violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy
Act, California Unfair Competition Law, New York's General
Business Law and New York's Express Warranty Law.

NBTY sells vitamins, minerals, herbs, specialty supplements, and
sports/active nutrition products including their Body Fortress
100% Pure Glutamine Powder. Glutamine is naturally found within
the body and plays a role in certain mechanisms supporting muscle
growth and recovery and immunity support. However, numerous
scientific citations state that glutamine supplementation has been
found to be completely ineffective at mimicking these
physiological responses and ingestion of said product does nothing
for the recovery from exercise or recovery of muscle tissue. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard L. Miller II, Esq.
      Richard S. Wilson, Esq.
      Natasha Singh, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 236-0000
      Fax: (312) 948-9212
      Email: rmiller@siprut.com
             rwilson@siprut.com
             nsingh@siprut.com

             - and -

      Nick Suciu III, Esq.
      BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
      1644 Bracken Road
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
      Tel: (313) 303-3472
      Email: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com


NESTLE WATERS: Faces "Ray" Suit in Maine
----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nestle Waters North
America Inc.  The case is styled as Bernadette A Ray, Fun Cheung,
Joanna Reslink, Jessica Marie Bartling, Anne Clegg, Noah Wells,
Joel B Nice, Rajesh Karnani and Ben Knox Miller, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Nestle
Waters North America Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00351-JAW
(D. Me., September 8, 2017).

Nestle Waters has 15 leading bottled water brands & offers bottled
water delivery service to homes & businesses across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Gregory Paul Hansel, Esq.
   PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU, & PACHIOS, LLP
   ONE CITY CENTER
   P.O. Box 9546
   Portland, ME 04112-9546
   Tel: 791-3000
   Fax: 791-3111
   Email: ghansel@preti.com


NEW ILLUZION: Faces "Zhang" Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Illuzion Sushi
Inc.  The case is styled as Zhi Giang Zhang, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New Illuzion Sushi
Inc. a/k/a Illuzion, a/k/a Illuzion Japanese Cuisine and Liqin
Xie, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06846 (D.N.J., September 6,
2017).

Illuzion is a contemporary Japanese restaurant in Hoboken, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NEW YORK: Ct. Approves Settlement in Juvenile Incarceration Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York issued an Order Approving Parties Settlement Agreement in the
case captioned V.W., a minor, by and through his parent and
natural guardian DERECK WILLIAMS, RC., a minor, by and through his
parent and natural guardian SANDRA CHAMBERS, C.I., a minor, by and
through his parent and natural guardian VERTELL PENDARVIS, M.R., a
minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian KAREN
RAYMOND, F.K., a minor, by and through his parent and natural
guardian KASHINDE KABAGWIRA, and J.P., a minor, by and through his
parent and natural guardian ALISSA QUIONES, Plaintiffs, v. EUGENE
CONWAY, Onondaga County Sheriff in his official capacity, ESTEBAN
GONZALEZ, Chief Custody Deputy of the Onondaga County Justice
Center, in his official capacity, KEVIN M. BRISSON, Assistant
Chief Custody Deputy, in his official capacity, and SYRACUSE CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants, No. 9:16-CV-1150 (N.D.N.Y.).

The named plaintiffs commenced the action seeking relief on behalf
of themselves and a putative class of fellow 16- and 17-year-olds
being detained at the Onondaga County Justice Center (Justice
Center) by defendants Onondaga County Sheriff Eugene Conway, Chief
Custody Deputy Esteban Gonzalez, and Assistant Chief Custody
Deputy Kevin Brisson (Onondaga County defendants").

According to plaintiffs, declaratory and injunctive relief was
necessary to end the Onondaga County defendants' routine practice
of imposing solitary confinement on juveniles being held at the
Justice Center.

Plaintiffs further alleged that the Syracuse City School District
(School District), which had contracted with the Justice Center to
provide educational services to incarcerated juveniles, denied
juveniles in solitary confinement the minimum educational
instruction required by law.

Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and for a preliminary
injunction were granted while the School District's motion for
summary judgment was denied.  Thereafter, the parties entered into
an interim settlement agreement and worked toward negotiating
final terms that would provide significant relief to members of
the now certified class and subclass.

The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement filed by the parties
is approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the class of "All
16- and 17-year-olds who are now or will be incarcerated at the
Onondaga County Justice Center" and to the subclass of "All 16-
and 17-year-olds with disabilities, as defined by the Individuals
With Disabilities Education Act, who are now or will be
incarcerated at the Onondaga County Justice Center, and who are in
need of special education and related services."

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 28, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y9ovb6hdfrom Leagle.com

V. W., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Dunn, New York
Civil Liberties Union, 125 Broad StreetNew York, NY 10004

V. W., Plaintiff, represented by Joshua T. Cotter, Legal Services
of Central New York, Philip L. Desgranges, New York Civil
Liberties Union, Samuel C. Young, Legal Services of Central New
York, Susan M. Young, Legal Services of Central New York, Aadhithi
Padmanabhan, New York Civil Liberties Union, Aimee Krause Stewart
-- astewrt@sanfordheisler.com -- Sanford Heisler, LLP & Mariana L.
Kovel, New York Civil Liberties Union.

R. C., Plaintiff, represented by Aimee Krause Stewart, Sanford
Heisler, LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher T. Dunn, New York Civil
Liberties Union, Joshua T. Cotter, Legal Services of Central New
York, Philip L. Desgranges, New York Civil Liberties Union, Samuel
C. Young, Legal Services of Central New York, Susan M. Young,
Legal Services of Central New York, Aadhithi Padmanabhan, New York
Civil Liberties Union & Mariana L. Kovel, New York Civil Liberties
Union.

C. I., Plaintiff, represented by Aimee Krause Stewart, Sanford
Heisler, LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher T. Dunn, New York Civil
Liberties Union, Joshua T. Cotter, Legal Services of Central New
York, Philip L. Desgranges, New York Civil Liberties Union, Samuel
C. Young, Legal Services of Central New York, Susan M. Young,
Legal Services of Central New York, Aadhithi Padmanabhan, New York
Civil Liberties Union & Mariana L. Kovel, New York Civil Liberties
Union.

M. R., Plaintiff, represented by Aimee Krause Stewart, Sanford
Heisler, LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher T. Dunn, New York Civil
Liberties Union, Joshua T. Cotter, Legal Services of Central New
York, Philip L. Desgranges, New York Civil Liberties Union, Samuel
C. Young, Legal Services of Central New York, Susan M. Young,
Legal Services of Central New York, Aadhithi Padmanabhan, New York
Civil Liberties Union & Mariana L. Kovel, New York Civil Liberties
Union.

F. K., Plaintiff, represented by Aimee Krause Stewart, Sanford
Heisler, LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher T. Dunn, New York Civil
Liberties Union, Joshua T. Cotter, Legal Services of Central New
York, Philip L. Desgranges, New York Civil Liberties Union, Samuel
C. Young, Legal Services of Central New York, Susan M. Young,
Legal Services of Central New York, Aadhithi Padmanabhan, New York
Civil Liberties Union & Mariana L. Kovel, New York Civil Liberties
Union.

J. P., Plaintiff, represented by Aimee Krause Stewart, Sanford
Heisler, LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher T. Dunn, New York Civil
Liberties Union, Joshua T. Cotter, Legal Services of Central New
York, Philip L. Desgranges, New York Civil Liberties Union, Samuel
C. Young, Legal Services of Central New York, Susan M. Young,
Legal Services of Central New York, Aadhithi Padmanabhan, New York
Civil Liberties Union & Mariana L. Kovel, New York Civil Liberties
Union.

Eugene Conway, Defendant, represented by Carol L. Rhinehart,
Onondaga County Department of Law.

Esteban Gonzalez, Defendant, represented by Carol L. Rhinehart,
Onondaga County Department of Law.

Kevin M. Brisson, Defendant, represented by Carol L. Rhinehart,
Onondaga County Department of Law.

Syracuse City School District, Defendant, represented by Jonathan
B. Fellows, Bond, Schoeneck Law Firm & Kate I. Reid, Ithaca City
School District.


NIPPON AIRWAYS: Faces Antitrust Class Action in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------
Hon. Thomas A. Dickerson of eTurboNews discusses the case of
Wortman v. All Nippon Airways, 854 F. 3d 606 (9th Cir. 2017)
wherein a class of airline passengers alleged that defendant
airlines violated the provisions of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act by colluding to fix the prices of tickets, fuel
surcharges and special discount fares.  Specifically, the Court
sought to determine the extent to which the filed rate doctrine
applies to airline fares and fees and, if so, whether the Wortman
antitrust class action is precluded from being litigated.  "The
filed rate doctrine is a judicially created rule that prohibits
individuals from asserting civil antitrust challenges to an
entity's agency-approved rates", in this case, filed rates
approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). [GN]


NORTHWOOD ASSET: "Abdullah-Ezzani" Hits Illegal Collection Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ali Abdullah-Ezzani, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Northwood Asset Management
Group LLC and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01760, (E.D. Cal., August 23, 2017),
seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs incurred in this action, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and such other and further relief under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant placed multiple collection calls to Plaintiff on his
cellular within a 12-month period, all without Ezzani's prior
consent, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ORACLE AMERICA: Faces "Johnson" Suit in N.D. of California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oracle America, Inc.
The case is styled as Marcella Johnson, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Oracle America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-05157-EDL (N.D. Cal., September 6,
2017).

Oracle America, Inc. designs, manufactures, markets, and services
network computing infrastructure solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Danielle Anne Fuschetti, Esq.
   Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP
   111 Sutter St., Ste 975
   San Francisco, CA 94104
   Tel: (415) 795-2020
   Fax: (415) 795-2021
   Email: dfuschetti@sanfordheisler.com

      - and -

   Xinying Valerian, Esq.
   Valerian Law
   1300 Clay St., Suite 600
   Oakland, CA 94612
   Tel: (888) 686-1918
   Fax: (510) 982-4513
   Email: xinying@valerian.law


ORACLE AMERICA: Sanford Heisler Seeks Arbitration in Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys at Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, on Sept. 6 filed a
petition in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to compel Oracle America, Inc., ("Oracle") to proceed
with arbitration on all wage claims against the company.

Attorneys for lead plaintiff, Marcella Johnson, and the proposed
class of other sales representatives who were shorted on
commission wages are David Sanford, Chairman and co-founder of
Sanford Heisler Sharp, Michael Palmer --
mpalmer@sanfordheisler.com -- and Andrew Melzer --
amelzer@sanfordheisler.com -- co-chairs of the firm's wage and
hour practice, associate Danielle Fuschetti and Xinying Valerian,
founder of Valerian Law in Oakland, CA.

"Oracle has violated California wage and hour laws by
retroactively changing commission plans," said Mr. Sanford.
"Although Oracle forced a mandatory arbitration agreement on
Ms. Johnson -- giving her zero say in the matter -- it has flatly
refused to participate in arbitration and has actively obstructed
the arbitration process."

The Petition asserts Oracle has refused to pay its share of the
arbitration fee or participate in the selection of an arbitrator.

Ms. Johnson filed her original lawsuit as a class action in mid-
February in the same federal court, after which Oracle produced
her signed mandatory arbitration agreement.  Although she
subsequently dismissed the federal suit and filed an arbitration
demand with JAMS-San Francisco, as required by the arbitration
agreement, the company contends its relationship with Johnson is
governed by a second arbitration agreement that prohibits class
arbitration.

"Oracle has no legal basis for stonewalling the arbitration
process," said Mr. Palmer.  "Pursuant to the mandatory arbitration
agreement, Ms. Johnson filed this employment dispute with JAMS.
There is no question that this dispute should now be arbitrated,
including the issue of whether class-based arbitration procedures
are available."

The Sanford Heisler Sharp team argues class action arbitration
procedures are available under both versions of Oracle's
arbitration agreement, because the Ninth Circuit's 2016 ruling in
Morris v. Ernst & Young makes the class action ban in the
company's second arbitration agreement void and unenforceable.

"Oracle is unnecessarily delaying arbitration and bogging down the
court system and arbitral forum with its inaction, hoping Morris
will be overturned," said Mr. Melzer.  "This behavior is unfair to
our courageous lead plaintiff, Ms. Johnson, and to other members
of the class, who have been suffering from Oracle's compensation
policies."

               About Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP

Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP -- http://www.sanfordheisler.com/-- is
a public interest class-action litigation law firm with offices in
New York, Washington, D.C, Nashville, San Francisco and San Diego.
The Firm specializes in civil rights and general public interest
cases, representing plaintiffs with employment discrimination,
labor and wage violations, predatory lending, whistleblower,
consumer fraud, and other claims.  Along with a focus on class
actions, the firm also represents individuals and has achieved
particular success in the representation of executives and
attorneys in employment disputes. [GN]


PARMA, OH: Faces "Aponte" Class Suit Over Invasion of Property
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ida Aponte, Deborah Audie, Christine Barton, Charles and Marilyn
Basich, Adam and Angela Beach, Roger G and Mary E Belfi, David and
Margaret Bevington, Nandor Bodnar, Jr., Rick and Nandor Bodnar,
Sr, Jean M Bolling, Laura L Brower, Brian A and Barbara Buskirk,
Gheorghe and Zoita Cartuna, Frank and JeanetteCimperman, Bernard
and Donna Cosner, Denise and Jerry Counts, Nicole Cramer, Lisa
Crayton, Helen and Henry Czapor, Julie Day, Jeffrey Ehlert,
Jennifer and Jonathan Erickson, Bernie Ferrini for Mary Ferrini,
Joseph and Diane Fradette, Joann E Frey, Barbara Friedl, Florin
and Viorica Fuciu, Lillian J and Ronald J Gathers, Eva and Jeffrey
Gebura, Susan and Rudolph Germ, Gary and Kim Geyer,
James and Pauline Gibbons, Junious and Milagros Hawkins, Angel and
Mike Hohlakis, Thomas Holmes, Janet Hurwitz, Salvatore E and
Therese Ann Iacano, Deborah and Gregory Jensen, Benjamin Joy,
Georgene and Paul Joynt, Alexa and Elijah Kazimir, Jerome A and
Susan M Kessler, Chester and Irene S Kilian, Irene A and John J
Kish, Georgia and Larry Knight, Barbara A Koza, Hilda Krug, Sophia
Kucek, Margaret and William Kundtz, Preston LaFrance, Nathan and
Veronica Lehmann, Bryan and Holly Lewis, Kathleen Long, Gerald P
and JoAnn Malak, August J and Josephine C Mancuso, James and
Catherine Mancuso, Carla A Martin, Diane R and Scott M Martin,
Laura Martz, Nancy McCaffery, Jean McDonald, William McNally,
Diane Meter, Colleen and Joseph Muhvic, Virginia Murach, Elise and
Emilio Muryn, Linda J Nemeth, Joseph Olsavsky and Monica Ols, Kim
Leon-O'Neill and John O'Neill, Cheryl Poole, William Pritt and
Christine Gates, Margaret Puskas, Rhonda and Thomas Reid, Joan and
John H Richards, Jacquelyn Roberts, Linda Schuenaman, Christine
and Joseph Sebok, Angela and Wayne Sherman, Patricia Silverman,
Charlotte and Matthew Skvasik, William and Penny Snider, Lucica
and Vasile Solomon, Harry Sovel, Robert Spak, Richard and Sheila
Stanowicki, Christine Stimac, Edna Stone, Richard Strekal, Cynthia
and Oliver Swoboda, Zachariah Laabs and Brianne Taylor-Laabs,
Patricia Thompson, Elaine C and Ronald R Tiffe, Barbara and
Benjamin Titlow, Andrez and Anne Truszkowski, Natalia Tys and Thor
Kushmeliuk, John and Margaret Vales, Peter Vardakas, Sr, Chancal
and Puran Vig, John Wagner, James and Meta Walter, Kathryn and
Robert Wolters, Martha and Michael Zagursky, Edward and Kelly
Zamiska and Dino A and Wendy L Zullo, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. City of Parma, Case No. CV-17-
885291 (Ohio Cmm. Pleas, August 30, 2017), arises out of the
flooding and invasion of Plaintiffs' property by sewage,
pollutants, water, feces, dirt, debris and noxious odors which
caused, and continue to cause, material injury to the Plaintiffs'
person and property through trespass, gross negligence,
unconstitutional taking and nuisance.

City of Parma exercised jurisdiction over the geographical area
and all homes and land within the geographical area consisting of
the City of Parma, with its offices located at 6611 Ridge Road,
City of Parma, County of Cuyahoga, State of Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Paris, Esq.
      NURENBERG, PARIS, HELLER & MCCARTHY CO., L.P.A.
      600 Superior Avenue E, Suite 1200
      Cleveland OH 44114
      Telephone: (216) 621-2300
      Facsimile: (216) 771-2242
      E-mail: Dparis@nphm.com

         - and -

      Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
      Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
      MACUGA, LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
      975 E. Jefferson Avenue
      Detroit, MI 48207-3101
      Telephone: (313) 392-0015
      E-mail: info@LDclassaction.com


PIERCEY WEST: Accused by "Sosa" Suit of Not Paying Minimum Wage
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS SOSA, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PIERCEY WEST, INC. dba HONDA WORLD DOWNEY;
PIERCEY NORTH, INC. dba PIERCY TOYOTA or PIERCEY SCION; PIERCEY
FONTANA, LLC dba ROCK HONDA; and WESTMINSTER AUTOMOTIVE GROUP,
INC. dba HONDA WORLD; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. BC673111
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 21, 2017), accuses the
Defendants of failing to pay to the Plaintiff and similarly
aggrieved employees the statutory minimum wage for all hours
worked, in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate various automobile dealerships throughout
the county of Los Angeles and the state of California.  The
Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PREFERRED PAYMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shamika Caraballo, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Preferred Payment Systems Corp., and Parking
Systems Group Inc., Case No. 712029/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August
30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay an
hourly rate equal to or lower than the applicable New York State
minimum wage rate and spread of hours for work more than 10 hours
in a day pursuant to New York Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing vehicle
parking and other services to numerous businesses such as car
dealerships, housing complexes, malls, special events, etc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRET A MANGER: Accused by "Pasini" Class Suit of Violating FACTA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOAN PASINI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PRET A MANGER (USA) LIMITED (d/b/a Pret A Manger),
Case No. 1:17-cv-06395 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2017), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act.

By printing the first 6 and last 4 digits of the card number on
the receipts provided to Plaintiff and other credit card and debit
card cardholders transacting business with the Defendant, together
with the name of the cardholder, the Defendant has harmed her and
the Class by exposing them to at least an increased and material
risk of identity theft and credit and debit card fraud, the
complaint contends.

Pret A Manger (USA) Limited, doing business as Pret A Manger, is a
foreign business corporation.  The Company owns, manages,
maintains and operates one or more physical retail store locations
within this district, offering various goods and services for sale
to the public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Peter Gil-Montllor, Esq.
          Matthew Prewitt, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          16 Court Street, Suite 1012
          Brooklyn, NY 11241
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
                  pgil-montllor@cuneolaw.com
                  mprewitt@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY
          A Professional Law Corporation
          1010 N. Central Ave.
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (877) 574-7100
          Facsimile: (877) 574-9411
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi


PSC INDUSTRIAL: Faces "Taveras" Suit in District Court of NJ
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PSC Industrial
Outsourcing LP. The case is styled as Ruben Taveras, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were
employed by PSC Industrial Outsourcing LP d/b/a PSC Industrial
Services, and/or any other entities affiliated with, controlling,
or controlled by PSC Industrial Outsourcing LP d/b, Plaintiff v.
PSC Industrial Outsourcing LP doing business as: psc industrial
services and any other entities affiliated with, controlling, or
controlled by PSC Industrial Outsourcing LP d/b/a PSC Industrial
Services and John doe bonding company, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-06833 (D. N.J., September 6, 2017).

PSC Industrial Outsourcing, LP provides industrial maintenance
services and technology solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
   VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
   40 Broad Street
   7th Floor
   New York, NY 10004
   Tel: (212) 943-9080
   Email: lambinder@vandallp.com


PULASKI COUNTY, IN: Court Certifies Mobility Impaired Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned EMILY HIZER, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of a class of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
PULASKI COUNTY, INDIANA, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00885-JD-
MGG (N.D, Ind.), the Hon. Judge Jon E. Deguilio entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion to submit evidentiary material
      as unopposed;

   2. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

      "all persons with mobility impairments or other physical
      disabilities who access or attempt to access, or who will
      access or will attempt to access, the Pulaski County
      Courthouse. The class may pursue claims for relief under
      the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12131, et seq., and the
      Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. section 794;

   3. appointing Kenneth Falk of the American Civil Liberties
      Union of Indiana as class counsel; and

   4. directing parties to meet and confer in order to draft a
      proposed notice of certification and to submit said
      proposed notice to the Court for its review and approval
      within 30 days of this Order.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fFnklW0f


PURDUE PHARMA: Darien May Join Opioid Epidemic Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rob Ryser and Justin Papp, writing for Darien News Online, report
that Darien town leaders remain undecided as to whether they will
join a lawsuit aimed at makers of pain killers "aggressively and
misleadingly marketed" said to have contributed to the opioid
epidemic.

"I would like to know how our residents feel about the possibility
of joining this suit," First Selectman Jayme Ms. Stevenson said
the day after an Aug. 31 meeting between town officials throughout
the state and the lawyers bringing forth the litigation.  The
meeting was held in Waterbury where the class action suit got its
start.

According to Ms. Stevenson, the claim -- being carried out by
Drubner, Hartley & Hellman, LLC and Simmons, Hanly, Conroy LLC --
is being crafted after a 2016 suit already pending in Suffolk
County, N.Y.

"The hopeful outcome of the suit is not only a financial
settlement to help reimburse municipalities for the extraordinary
costs incurred fighting the opioid addiction epidemic," Stevenson
explained, "but also to have the defendants accountable to help
with opioid education, treatment programs, prescriber education
and any other outcomes the municipalities collectively deem
necessary and appropriate."

Connecticut saw 917 overdose deaths in 2016, and more than 1,000
are anticipated in 2017.  According to Darien Director of Health
David Knauf, the state medical examiner reported two overdose
deaths in Darien in 2016.

Ms. Stevenson said she needed more time to consider the suit and
planned to present the details to the Board of Selectmen at its
Sept. 11 meeting.

New Milford, Bridgeport, Oxford, Bristol, Naugatuck, Wolcott and
Rockbury have verbally committed to join Waterbury's lawsuit
against Stamford-based Purdue Pharma and other drug makers over
the opioid overdose crisis.  As many as 20 other cities and towns
-- including Danbury and Ridgefield -- are considering taking
similar action.

"Waterbury is the first Connecticut city to join the growing list
of municipalities around the country that have concluded that the
defendant drug companies must be held responsible for their
conspiratory and fraudulent actions and the injuries and costs
that have resulted from the opioid epidemic," said Paul Hanly, a
lead attorney who filed the lawsuit.  "The defendants have
manufactured, promoted and marketed opioids by omitting critical
information that has long been known about the drugs' addictive
qualities and other risks associated with their prolonged use."

Leaders from two dozen cities and towns assembled in Waterbury on
Aug. 31 in a show of solidarity.  The leaders said drug companies
should be held responsible for a crisis that is expected to result
in 1,000 overdose deaths in Connecticut this year.

"Communities throughout Connecticut have been suffering the
devastating effects of this opioid epidemic for years and we in
Waterbury believe it is time to take a stand," Waterbury Mayor
Neil O'Leary said in a prepared statement.  "The effects stretch
throughout the state and have destroyed families, flooded
emergency rooms and overwhelmed emergency services.  We are
pleased that so many of the leaders of our neighboring cities and
towns came to hear about our course of action and we expect many
will be joining us in this litigation."

A spokesman for Purdue, which manufactures the popular opioid
painkiller OxyContin, said the company has been working to
minimize the drug's addictive effects.

"While we vigorously deny the allegations, we share local
officials' concerns about the opioid crisis and we are committed
to working collaboratively to find solutions," said spokesman
Robert Josephson on Aug. 31. [GN]


QUINTIS: Bannister Law to Pursue Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Vesna Poljak, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that Quintis has been named as the target of a shareholder class
action brought by Bannister Law and funded by JustKapital,
alleging that the company failed to meet its continuous disclosure
obligations.

Bannister Law confirmed on Sept. 7 that it would pursue legal
action.  The case centres on Quintis' statements linked to its
Galderma sandalwood oil supply contract, which was lost in 2016
but not disclosed until May.

"The claim alleges that on or about 16 December 2016, Galderma, a
subsidiary of multinational corporation Nestle, terminated a large
long-term sandalwood oil supply contract with Santalis, a
subsidiary of Quintis," Bannister Law said.

Shares in Quintis have not traded since May as the company's
recapitalisation attempt drags on.  On August 31, Quintis said it
hoped to be able to update the market by October 1 on the "status"
of its rescue plan, and its financial results. If the
recapitalisation is successful, returning to trading could still
be months away.

By June, three potential shareholder class actions targeting
Quintis had been floated: by Bannister Law, Slater and Gordon, and
Piper Alderman. The first was flagged by Bannister Law on May 12
after the company admitted its board and management had no idea
Quintis lost the contract last year.

Personal investor Andrew Wyma, whose stake in Quintis was up to
$20,000 and is now about  $7000, said he had done his research on
Quintis and believed it to be undervalued.  When hedge fund
Glaucus targeted the stock, he took the company's response at
"face value" and believed Glaucus was motivated by self-interest.

"However, the revelations that Quintis failed to disclose the loss
of the Galderma contract was a turning point for me. Without
integrity what do you have? Perhaps Glaucus were right.  How do
you trust Quintis reporting from that point on?" Mr Wyma said in a
statement.

Quintis maintains it is in discussions with "more than one party"
linked to its debt and equity.

After failing to make its interest payment to bondholders on
August 1, Quintis convinced enough noteholders to agree not to
exercise their rights to force an accelerated payment of the
principal, being $US250 million ($313 million).  That remains
intact but can be dissolved under several conditions.

The drama at Quintis began in March when Glaucus alleged in a
contested research report that Quintis equity was worth zero, and
likened the business to a Ponzi scheme. That was followed by the
resignation of its founder, Frank Wilson, who quit to pursue a
privatisation with a mystery investment partner.

The company admitted it had lost its biggest customer in China, a
market that has been fractured by a customs duty scandal linked to
sandalwood importation whereby traders tried to pass off prized
timber as inferior logs.

As Quintis struggled to contract a new China partner, it emerged
the company had lost Nestle's Galderma as an oil customer in 2016.
This happened, by all accounts, without the knowledge of the board
and management who claim to have been unaware of this until May.
This is also apparently true, despite Galderma not having placed
an order with the company since June 2015.

Previously, Quintis has said: "Quintis has provided significant
detail to the ASX with respect to the Galderma contract.  As
stated, if the current board and current senior management had
been aware of the termination at the time it was signed, it is
likely that the company would have made an ASX announcement to
that effect." [GN]


RELIANT REAL ESTATE: "Soccorso" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
TIM SOCCORSO, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. RELIANT REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, LLC, a
Florida company, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01939-EAK-MAP
(M.D. Fla., Aug. 15, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages and
liquidated damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as Facility
Manager for Defendant from January 2012 to September 2016. The
Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per work week for
approximately 3 years, for which he was not compensated by
Defendant at a rate of time and one half his regular hourly rate.
Specifically, prior to the beginning of his shift, Plaintiff was
required to do pre-shift work off the clock, work during his lunch
break, and respond to customer and other issues at the facility
all times. The Plaintiff was not compensated for any of this work
at the rate of one and half times his regular rate of pay.

Reliant Real Estate acquires, constructs/develops, and manages
self-storage properties in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
and North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
          Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
          FLORIN, GRAY, BOUZAS, OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Telephone (727) 254 5255
          Facsimile (727) 486 7942
          E-mail: Miguel@fgbolaw.com
                  debbie@fgbolaw.com
                  Gregg@fgbolaw.com


RELIN GOLDSTEIN: Faces "Nedd" Suit in East. Dist. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Relin, Goldstein &
Crane, LLP. The case is styled as Wynette Nedd, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Relin,
Goldstein & Crane, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05239 (E.D.
N.Y., September 6, 2017).

Relin, Goldstein & Crane, LLP seeks debt solutions for clients
looking to avoid bankruptcy. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


RICE ENERGY: Faces "Traurig" Suit over Exchange Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN TRAURIG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. RICE ENERGY INC., DANIEL J. RICE
III, DANIEL J. RICE IV, TOBY Z. RICE, JAMES W. CHRISTMAS, ROBERT
F. VAGT, JOHN F. MCCARTNEY, and KATHRYN J. JACKSON, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01072-NBF (W.D. Pa., Aug. 15, 2017),
seeks to enjoin stockholder vote on a proposed transaction unless
and until such Exchange Act violations are cured.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the
public stockholders of Rice Energy, Inc., against the Company and
Rice's Board of Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On June 19, 2017, EQT Corporation and the Company announced that
they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to
which Eagle Merger Sub I, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of EQT, will merge with and into Rice, with Rice
surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of EQT in an all-stock
transaction (the Proposed Transaction). Pursuant to the terms of
the Merger Agreement, each share of Rice common stock will be
exchanged for 0.37 shares of EQT common stock and (ii) $5.30 in
cash, representing an implied value of $27.04 per share and $6.7
billion in the aggregate.  Accordingly, upon consummation of the
transaction, existing EQT shareholders will hold approximately 65%
of the outstanding common stock of EQT and former Rice
stockholders will hold approximately 35% of the outstanding common
stock of EQT.

On July 27, 2017, defendants issued materially incomplete and
misleading disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration Statement
(Registration Statement) filed with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Registration Statement is deficient and
misleading in that it fails to provide adequate disclosures of all
material information related to the Proposed Transaction.

Rice Energy, an independent natural gas and oil company, engages
in the acquisition, exploration, and development of natural gas,
oil, and natural gas liquid (NGL) properties in the Appalachian
Basin. It operates through three segments: Exploration and
Production, Rice Midstream Holdings, and Rice Midstream
Partners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524 4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333 2121
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com

               - and -

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G.
          YATES, JR., P.C.
          300 Mt. Lebanon Boulevard, Suite 206-B
          Pittsburgh, PA 15234-1507
          Telephone: (412) 391 5164
          Facsimile: (412) 471 1033
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


REMINGTON: Group of State AGs Seeks Approval of Rifle Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC, reports that a federal appeals court
that is considering the landmark class action settlement covering
millions of allegedly defective Remington rifles has now heard
from a second group of state attorneys general -- this one urging
the court to approve the settlement.

Previously, a coalition of attorneys general from 13 states and
the District of Columbia, led by Massachusetts Attorney General
Maura Healey, argued that the court should reject the settlement
because they said it does not do enough to protect public safety.

But the new group, consisting of attorneys general from 11
predominantly southern and Midwestern states led by Alabama
Attorney General Steve Marshall, accuses the other states of a
hidden agenda "to achieve other goals about firearms regulation in
general."

The case involves some 7.5 million Remington firearms including
the iconic Model 700 rifle, and a dozen other models with similar
designs. In 2010, CNBC investigated allegations that for decades,
Remington covered up a design flaw that allows the guns to fire
without the trigger being pulled. Lawsuits have linked the alleged
defect to dozens of deaths and hundreds of serious injuries.

Remington has steadfastly denied the allegations.  The company
maintains that the guns are safe, and blames all the incidents on
user errors. But in 2014, the company agreed in a class action
settlement to replace the triggers in millions of guns, in hopes
of putting the matter to rest once and for all.

Putting the settlement into effect has been elusive, however.
After a federal judge gave final approval to the trigger
replacement program earlier this year, two Remington rifle owners
appealed the ruling, accusing the company of deliberately
downplaying the risks in order to reduce the number of claims. The
Massachusetts coalition agreed in a friend-of-the-court brief in
July, and now the Alabama group has filed its own brief taking the
other side, and essentially pitting Red states against Blue
states.

"Politics has made its way into our judicial system in what
appears are states that perceive themselves to be pro-gun taking
on states that they perceive to be anti-gun," said Richard Barber,
a Montana gun owner who blames a Remington Model 700 for the death
of his nine-year-old son in 2000. He calls the Alabama filing
"shameful."

"Where does one state get off telling another state that its sole
responsibility is not to protect the safety and welfare of its
citizenry," Mr. Barber said.

Mr. Barber, who says he is "as pro-gun as anyone," settled a
wrongful death suit against Remington for an undisclosed amount
and has devoted the past 1 7 years to learning the truth about the
company and his products. He said the class action settlement is
"built on a lie" because it allows Remington to continue claiming
that the guns are safe.

But the Alabama coalition argues that the class action case is not
about safety.  Rather, they say, the settlement is designed to
compensate gun owners for the economic losses resulting from the
purchase of an allegedly defective rifle. Under the settlement,
they can still sue Remington for injuries and wrongful death.

"The settlement fairly resolves the only claims at issue -- claims
for economic damages -- and leaves issues about firearms
regulation, personal injury, and property damage for another day,"
the filing said.

Mr. Barber has been contacting the offices of the attorneys
general behind the latest filing, and is recruiting families who
have had similar incidents to do the same.

Regardless, the battle virtually assures that the issues
surrounding Remington's bolt-action rifles will remain unresolved
through this fall's hunting season.  The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Kansas City has agreed to hear oral arguments in the
case, but the first available date is in mid-November.  And it
could be months after that before the court rules. [GN]


RICHMOND, VA: "Battle" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Charles Battle, Errol Fernandez, Anthony Franklin, and Eric
Godfrey, Plaintiffs, v. City of Richmond, Virginia, Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00582 (E.D. Va., August 22, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and Sec. 9.1-700 of the Virginia
Code.

Plaintiffs are current employees of the City of Richmond,
Virginia's Police Department whose primary duties consisted of
providing security and transportation to the City Mayor and other
designated dignitaries. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
      Zev H. Antell, Esq.
      BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
      140 Virginia Street, Ste. 302
      Richmond, VA 23219
      Telephone: (804) 648-4848
      Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
      Email: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
             zev.antell@butlerroyals.com

             - and -

      Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
      Philip Justus Dean, Esq.
      CURWOOD LAW FIRM, PLC
      530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
      Richmond, VA 23219
      Telephone: (804) 788-0808
      Fax: (804) 767-6777
      Email: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com
             pdean@curwoodlaw.com


ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Class Action Over Unwanted Faxes Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alan L. Friel, Esq. -- afriel@bakerlaw.com -- Holly A. Melton,
Esq. -- hmelton@bakerlaw.com -- Linda A. Goldstein, Esq. --
lgoldstein@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker & Hostetler LLP, in an article
for Lexology, report that few would deny that unwanted faxes waste
money and cause aggravation.  Unlike the single call or text that
sets off a multimillion-dollar TCPA class action, junk faxes cause
tangible wear and damage to the underlying technology, using up
expensive ink, paper and toner.

David v. Goliath

Econo-Med Pharmacy, a small, family-owned pharmacy in Cherokee
Village, Arkansas, claims that it had received multiple junk faxes
from Indiana-based Roche Diagnostics Corporation, a medical
equipment company.  One exemplary fax from Roche touted the "Accu-
Chek Test Strip" product and its attachment to a major insurer.

The faxes, however, had not been solicited by Econo-Med; they also
failed to include a TCPA-compliant opt-out notice that would give
the receiver some measure of control over the number of faxes it
received. Based on these allegations, Econo-Med launched a class
action on behalf of recipients of similar ads from Roche. The
action was filed in the Southern District of Indiana in April
2016, claiming violations of the TCPA and the Indiana Deceptive
Consumer's Sales Act, which incorporates the TCPA, and
specifically referencing the disruption the faxes caused Econo-
Med's business.

In August, Roche and Econo-Med finalized a settlement, the terms
of which were first worked out in mediation back in February.
Pharmacies and other recipients of at least one unsolicited fax ad
from Roche would receive around $1,100.  The deal covered faxes
received between April 2012 and March 2017; altogether, the
settlement cost Roche $17 million, $5.6 million of which was set
aside for attorneys' fees.

The Takeaway

It is important to note that the Roche faxes received by Econo-Med
and its fellow class members did have an opt-out notice; the issue
in the action was not the lack of a notice, but that the notice
did not comply with the TCPA's guidelines.  Companies that are
faxing advertisements or other business-related missives must
carefully comply with the TCPA rules on the matter or risk
expensive blowback from similar class actions. To comply with the
law, an opt-out notice must (1) inform the recipient that the
recipient may opt out of receiving future faxes by contacting the
sender; (2) provide both a domestic telephone number and a
facsimile machine number -- one of which must be cost-free -- that
the recipient may contact to opt out of future faxes; and (3)
inform the recipient that the sender's failure to comply with an
opt-out request within 30 days is a violation of law. [GN]


ROCKET FUEL: Shahinian Trust Sues over Securities Laws
------------------------------------------------------
THE GEORGE SHAHINIAN TRUST, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROCKET FUEL INC.,
MONTE ZWEBEN, RANDOLPH WOOTTON III, RICHARD A. FRANKEL, JOHN
J.LEWIS, WILLIAM W. ERICSON, CLARK M. KOKICH, SUSAN L.BOSTROM, and
RONALD E. F.CODD, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04707-JST (N.D.
Cal., Aug. 15, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any
steps to consummate a proposed transaction or, in the event the
Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting
from the Defendants' wrongdoing.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on July
18, 2017, pursuant to which Rocket Fuel Inc. will be acquired by
Sizmek Inc. through Sizmek's wholly owned subsidiary; Fuel
Acquisition Co. Sizmek is an affiliate of Vector Capital IV, L.P.
and Vector Capital V, L.P.  On July 17, Rocket Fuel's Board of
Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan
of merger with Sizmek. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Sizmek commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the
outstanding shares of Rocket Fuel common stock for $2.60 per share
in cash. The Tender Offer commenced on August 2 and is set to
expire at 12:00 a.m., New York City time, at the end of August 29.
On August 2, Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Form 14D-9 with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
The Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders it false and
misleading, in violation of Sections 14(d), 14(e), and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Rocket Fuel is an ad technology company based in Redwood City,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


S. C. JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Babyganics Sunscreen
-----------------------------------------------------------
Russell Boniface, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in Chicago federal court by
parents against the makers of Babyganics sunscreen for allegedly
falsely advertising its products as providing a sun protection
factor (SPF) of over 50.

Babyganics is a mineral-based sunscreen marketed for parents of
babies.  Babyganics sprays and lotions are manufacturered by S. C.
Johnson & Son Inc. and VMG Partners LLC, who are named as
defendants in the complaint.  The sprays and lotions are marked
with an SPF of 50 on its packaging.

Lead plaintiffs Laura Carroll, Katherine Exo, Armand Ryden and
Katharine Shaffer, who are parents, allegedly purchased Babyganics
sunscreen sprays and lotions.  They claim that the manufacturers
misrepresented the SPF of its Babyganics products because the
level of sunscreen protection allegedly is significantly lower
that SPF 50.

There are more than 100 class members in the suit representing
consumers from Illinois, California and Washington. The plaintiffs
also seek to represent a nationwide class of consumers who
purchased Babyganics.

The class action highlights a May 2017 article by Consumer Reports
that claims that Babyganics has an SPF of 25 based on test
results.

In addition, the plaintiffs claim they independently tested
Babyganics lotions and sprays utilizing the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) method for SPF testing and found the
results consistent with the Consumer Reports conclusion.

"Specifically, the results of the independent testing conducted
showed that both products had an SPF of no higher than 30, and
possibly much lower," the suit claims.  "An SPF of 30 offers
significantly less sunscreen protection than an SPF of 50 plus."

The plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers of Babyganics should
have known the true SBF of their products and called them
"reckless" for misleading consumers.

The plaintiffs also allege that the "suggestion that the products
are higher than a 50 SPF -- which is itself improper -- is
especially egregious and material because the products are
specifically marketed by [the] defendants for use on babies as is
evidenced by the use of the word 'baby' in the name of the product
line."

According to the complaint, the manufacturers were notified of the
defects of Babyganics, but haven't taken steps to address the
issue.

The plaintiffs allege breach of implied contract and violation of
good faith and fair dealing.  They are seeking restitution and
damages, class certification, pre-judgment interest, attorney's
fees, costs and any further relief the court considers
appropriate.

The plaintiffs are being represented by Theodore B. Bell --
tbell@whafh.com -- Carl V. Malmstrom -- malmstrom@whafh.com -- and
Janine Lee Pollack, of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freemen & Herz, and
Stephen P. DeNittis, Joseph Osefchen and Shane Prince, of DeNittis
Osefchen Prince. [GN]


SEVCON INC: Scarantino Sues Over Proposed Sale to BorgWarner
------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. SEVCON, INC., MATTHEW GOLDFARB, MATTHEW
BOYLE, PAUL O. STUMP, DAVID R. A. STEADMAN, RYAN J. MORRIS, WALTER
M. SCHENKER, WILLIAM KETELHUT, GLENN J. ANGIOLILLO, MARTIN G.
SCHORR, BORGWARNER INC., and SLADE MERGER SUB INC., Case No. 1:17-
cv-11580 (D. Mass., August 22, 2017), stems from a proposed
transaction pursuant to which Sevcon will be acquired by
BorgWarner Inc. and Slade Merger Sub Inc.

On July 14, 2017, Sevcon's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with BorgWarner.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
Sevcon will receive $220 in cash for each share of Sevcon common
stock.

Sevcon is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Southborough, Massachusetts.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  Sevcon is a
global supplier of control and power solutions for zero-emission,
electric, and hybrid vehicles.

BorgWarner is a Delaware corporation and a party to the Merger
Agreement.  Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
          MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
          18 Grove Street, Suite 5
          Wellesley, MA 02482
          Telephone: (781) 453-0100
          E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: bdl@rigrodskylong.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
          E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


SHORETEL INC: Frydman Files Suit Over Sale to Mitel Networks
------------------------------------------------------------
Noradura Frydman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Shoretel, Inc., Shane Robison,
Don Joos, Marjorie Bowen, Mark Bregman, Kenneth Denman, Charles
Kissner, Constance Skidmors and Josef Vejvoda, Defendants, Case
No. 5:17-cv-04865, (N.D. Cal., August 22, 2017), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of
ShoreTel by Mitel Networks Corporation, rescinding it and setting
it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants
consummate the merger.  The lawsuit also seeks costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts'
fees and such other and further relief under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the merger documents omitted the
company's financial projections and the analyses critical in
evaluating the company's offer price. Defendants also agreed to
certain deal protection provisions in the merger agreement that
operate conjunctively to deter other prospects from submitting a
superior offer for ShoreTel.

ShoreTel is engaged in the design, development, marketing, and
sale of business communication solutions. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Bower, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
      Culver City, CA 90230
      Tel: (213) 446-6652
      Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com

             - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 971-1341
      Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


SIMM ASSOCIATES: Faces "Brotz" Suit in M. Dist. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simm Associates,
Inc.  The case is styled as Joyce Lorraine Brotz, individually and
on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Simm Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
6:17-cv-01603-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla., September 6, 2017).

Simm Associates, Inc. is engaged in the business of collecting
consumer debts, which operates from offices located at 800
Pencader Drive, Newark, Delaware, 19702. Defendant is licensed in
Florida as a consumer collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
   Varnell& Warwick, PA
   P.O. Box 1870
   Lady Lake, FL 32158
   Tel: (352) 753-8600
   Fax: (352) 753-8606
   Email: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com

      - and -

   Donald Edward Petersen, Esq.
   Law Office of Donald E. Petersen
   801 N Magnolia Ave-Ste 221
   PO Box 1948
   Orlando, FL 32802-1948
   Tel: (407) 648-9050
   Email: depecf@gmail.com

      - and -

   Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
   Varnell& Warwick, PA
   P.O. Box 1870
   Lady Lake, FL 32158
   Tel: (352) 753-8600
   Fax: (352) 753-8606
   Email: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com


SKYLINE HIGHLAND: "Green" Suit Removed to E.D. Ark.
---------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned James Green, as Special Administrator of the
Estate of Felix Williams, deceased, Mercedes Anderson, as
attorney-in-fact of Kesha McBrayer, Brenda Woodard, as attorney-
in-fact of Abraham Woodard, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Skyline Highland Holdings, LLC,
JS Highland Holdings, LLC, Joseph Schwartz, Highlands Of Little
Rock Riley Holdings, LLC d/b/a Hillview Post-Acute and
Rehabilitation Center, Highlands Of Little Rock West Markham
Holdings, LLC d/b/a Little Rock Post-Acute and Rehabilitation,
Highlands Of North Little Rock John Ashley Holdings, LLC d/b/a
North Little Rock Health and Rehabilitation Center, Highlands Of
Little Rock South Cumberland Holdings, LLC d/b/a Capital Health
and Rehabilitation Center, Mishana Jackson, in her capacity as
Administrator of Hillview Post-Acute and Rehabilitation Center,
Tracy Holder, in her capacity as Director of Nursing of Hillview
Post-Acute and Rehabilitation Center, Ashley Taylor, in her
capacity as Director of Nursing of Hillview Post-Acute and
Rehabilitation Center, Lindsey Clyburn, in her capacity as
Administrator of Little Rock Post-Acute and Rehabilitation, Marty
Tolbert, in his capacity Administrator of Little Rock Post-Acute
and Rehabilitation Brittney Devazier, in her capacity as
Administrator of Little Rock Post-Acute and Rehabilitation,
Christina Lea Light, in her capacity as Director of Nursing of
Little Rock Post-Acute and Rehabilitation, Cara Harris, in her
capacity as Director of Nursing of Little Rock Post-Acute and
Rehabilitation, Jill Lapaglia, in her capacity as Director of
Nursing of Little Rock Post-Acute and Rehabilitation, PATRICIA
CAHOONE, in her capacity as Director of Nursing of Little Rock
Post-Acute and Rehabilitation, Cynthia Dughetti, in her capacity
as Administrator of North Little Rock Health and Rehabilitation
Center, Shantel Mitchell, in her capacity as Director of Nursing
of North Little Rock Health and Rehabilitation Center, Amanda
Wallace, in her capacity as Administrator of Capital Health and
Rehabilitation Center, and Catherine Atlas, in her capacity as
Director of Nursing of Capital Health and Rehabilitation Center,
Defendant, Case No. 60CV-17-3863 (E.D. Ark., July 25, 2017), was
removed from the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
on August 23, 2017, under Case No. 4:17-cv-00534.

Plaintiffs seek an accounting and disgorgement of all funds
received and to enjoin Defendants from accepting payments from any
source, including Medicare and Medicaid, at any time in which the
facilities are not in full compliance with all state and federal
laws and regulations.

Plaintiffs allege illegal exaction pursuant to Article 16, Sec. 13
of the Arkansas Constitution, for illegally charging Medicaid for
services when the Defendants were in breach of a provider
agreement by understaffing the Facilities in violation of state
and federal staffing laws and regulations, including but not
limited to, the Arkansas Residents' Rights Act, and for not using
tax dollars received from government sources to adequately staff
the Facilities.

Tracy Holder, Ashley Taylor, Christina Lea Light, Cara Harris,
Jill Lapaglia, Shantel Mitchell, and Catherine Atlas are Arkansas
citizens sued based on the present or former positions as
directors of nursing at the Defendants' facilities. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Reddick, Esq.
      Brent L. Moss, Esq.
      Robert W. Francis, Esq.
      Daniel K. Yim, Esq.
      Reddick Moss, PLLC
      One Information Way, Suite 105
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 907-7790
      Facsimile: (501) 907-7793

Defendants are represented by:

      Andrew King, Esq.
      KUTAK ROCK LLP
      124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
      Little Rock, AR 72201-3706
      Tel: (501) 975-3000
      Fax: (501) 975-3001
      Email: andrew.king@kutakrock.com

             - and -

      Mark W. Dossett, Esq.
      Jeff Fletcher, Esq.
      Dale W. Brown, Esq.
      KUTAK ROCK LLP
      234 East Millsap Road, Suite 200
      Fayetteville, AR 72703-4099
      Telephone: (479) 973-4200
      Facsimile: (479) 973-0007
      Email: Mark.Dossett@KutakRock.com
             Jeffrey.Fletcher@KutakRock.com
             Dale.Brown@KutakRock.com

Jill Lapaglia is represented by:

      Clinton W. Lancaster, Esq.
      THE LANCASTER LAW FIRM, PLLC
      P.O. Box 1295
      Benton, AR 72018
      Tel: (501) 776-2224
      Fax: (501) 778-6186


SOUTHWEST HARVESTING: Class of Seasonal Farm Workers Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JAVIER CAMACHO, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST
HARVESTING, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-05744-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order:

   1. grating preliminary approval of a settlement agreement and
      all of the terms and conditions contained;

   2. preliminarily certifying for settlement purposes a
      Settlement Class of:

      "all persons who worked for Defendant as seasonal
      agricultural workers who performed field work harvesting
      produce and worked more than six hours but less than eight
      hours in a workday, at any time during the period of
      October 6, 2012 to June 25, 2017".

   3. appointing Javier Camacho as representative for the
      Settlement Class;

   4. appointing Gregory N. Karasik of Karasik Law Firm and
      Santos Gomez of Law Offices of Santos Gomez as counsel for
      the Settlement Class; and

   5. appointing Atticus Administration as the Settlement
      Administrator.

The Court set these deadlines:

              Event                                Deadline
              -----                                --------
Submission by Defendant of Class Members'     September 26, 2017
Information

Notice Mailed to Class Members                October 6, 2017

Class Counsel Motion for Attorneys'           October 20, 2017
Fees and Costs

Exclusion Request and Objection Deadline      November 20, 2017

Motion for Final Approval                     December 14, 2017

Reply in Support of Motion for Final          January 11, 2018
Approval and Attorneys' Fees and Costs

Final Approval Hearing                        January 18, 2018,
                                              at 1:30 pm

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uR4A8hTt


SPUTNIK RESTAURANT: Faces "Abreu" Suit in East. Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sputnik Restaurant
Corp.  The case is styled as Freelyn Marine Abreu and Juan Marine
Canela, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Sputnik Restaurant Corp. doing business as: Esquire
Diner, Ftelia Associates Inc. doing business as: Esquire Diner,
Alpha Diner Corp. doing business as: Esquire Diner, Peter
Athanasopoulos and Dimitrio Doe also known as: Jimmy, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-05287 (E.D.N.Y., September 8, 2017).

The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE.


SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY: Ogletree Deakins Attorney Discusses Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy V. Miller, Esq. -- wendy.miller@ogletree.com -- of Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., in an article for The
National Law Review, reports that on August 24, 2017, the Supreme
Court of Kentucky issued its long-awaited decision in McCann, et
al. v. The Sullivan University System, Inc., No. 2015-SC-000144-DG
(2017), surprising many by overruling the Court of Appeals
decision below and opening the door to class actions in Kentucky
state courts for alleged violations of Kentucky's wage and hour
statute.

The decision analyzed KRS 337.385, a statutory provision that
authorizes private causes of action for certain statutory wage and
hour violations.  Although the Kentucky statute was modeled after
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Kentucky
legislature specifically excluded the words "and other employees
similarly situated" found in 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) -- the section
of the FLSA that authorizes causes of action on a collective
(i.e., "opt-in") basis. KRS 337.385 instead provides that actions
to recover wages and overtime compensation "may be maintained in
any court of competent jurisdiction by any one (1) or more
employees for and in behalf of himself, herself, or themselves"
(emphasis added).  In McCann's case, the Jefferson County Circuit
Court, relying on language in a Kentucky Court of Appeals decision
from 2013, held that this language should be read to prohibit
class actions.  The Kentucky Court of Appeals agreed.  Several
federal judges had likewise predicted that the Kentucky Supreme
Court would follow what appeared to them to be the plain language
of the statute and find that it does not allow for lawsuits
brought in a representative capacity.

In the opinion of the Supreme Court of Kentucky, however, "the
actual words in the statute do not expressly permit the use of a
class action, nor do those words explicitly prohibit its use."
Because, according to the court, the statute also did not create a
"special statutory proceeding" -- i.e., a "comprehensive, wholly
self-contained procedural process" -- that operates outside of
Kentucky's rules of civil procedure, the state's version of Rule
23 remained a procedural mechanism applicable to causes of action
brought under KRS 337.385.  According to the court, the state
rules of civil procedure "do exactly what . . . the statute does
not: they authorize class actions."

Exactly how wide the door has been opened by the court's decision,
and to what extent employees and their attorneys will jump through
the door to bring putative class actions based on KRS 337.385,
remains to be seen.  Although Kentucky's statute has a longer
limitations period (five years) than the FLSA's limitations period
(two years, or three years for willful violations), there are some
important differences between the statutes that may make a state
statutory class action less inviting and complicate putative
hybrid class and collective actions.

For example, in addition to having to meet the difficult
requirements set forth in Rule 23 in order to obtain class
certification, employees pursuing overtime compensation based on a
misclassification theory have the burden of proof under the state
statute with respect to overtime exemptions -- a burden that
instead falls on employers under the FLSA.  In order to fall
within the protection of the state statute, employees must
establish that they meet the definition of an "employee" under the
act.  This includes the burden of establishing that they were not
employed in "a bona fide executive, administrative, supervisory or
professional capacity, or in the capacity of an outside salesman
or an outside collector."

Nevertheless, in light of the Supreme Court of Kentucky's
decision, now might be an opportune time for Kentucky employers to
consider reviewing their existing policies, procedures, and
practices in order to ensure compliance with state wage and hour
statutory and regulatory provisions before any undiscovered
problems escalate into litigation. [GN]


SUNPOWER CORP: Ct. OK's Scheduling Stipulation in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order approving Parties Scheduling
Stipulation in the case captioned IN RE SUNPOWER CORPORATION
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 3:16-cv-4710-RS (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff Kenneth Bristow filed a complaint alleging claims under
the federal securities laws against Defendants SunPower
Corporation, Thomas H. Werner, and Charles D. Boynton
(Defendants).

The Court consolidated the related actions, Mundeog Seol was
appointed as lead plaintiff, and his selection of Brower Piven,
P.C., as lead counsel and Finkelstein Thompson, LLP, as liaison
counsel for the class was approved pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).

The counsel for the parties stipulated that Lead Plaintiffs shall
file a consolidated complaint by October 17, 2017, Defendants
shall answer, move or otherwise respond to the consolidated
complaint by December 18, 2017; and if Defendants file a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, Lead Plaintiffs shall file an
opposition to the motion to dismiss by January 26, 2018, and
Defendants shall file a reply to Lead Plaintiffs' opposition by
February 27, 2018.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 28, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y8wtwf5mfrom Leagle.com.

Kenneth Bristow, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay
-- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Kenneth Bristow, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Henry Linehan -
- clinehan@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Howard
G. Smith, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite
112. Bensalem, PA 19020, Lesley F. Portnoy --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com --  Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Lionel
Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
& Quentin Alexandre Roberts, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, 44 Montgomery
Street, Suite 650, San Francisco, CA, 94104.

Mundeog Seol, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas, Levi &
Korsinsky LLP, 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650, San Francisco, CA,
94104 & Quentin Alexandre Roberts, Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Jay Patel, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz
LLP, Brian Schall, Goldberg Law PC, J. Alexander Hood, II,
Pomerantz, LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP,
pro hac vice & Michael Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC.

Ricardo Manes, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.,
Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Lionel Z.
Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Padraig McGowan, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Phillip C. Kim
-- pkim@rosenlaw.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Robert Vincent
Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP.

James Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.,
Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Lionel Z.
Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Kevin Korbaylo, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.,
Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Lionel Z.
Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Jason Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.,
Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Lionel Z.
Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

SunPower Corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven Mark Schatz
-- sschatz@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Diane
Marie Walters -- dwalters@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati.

Thomas H. Werner, Defendant, represented by Steven Mark Schatz,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Diane Marie Walters, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Charles D. Boynton, Defendant, represented by Steven Mark Schatz,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Diane Marie Walters, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Gregory Binkiewicz, Movant, represented by Adam Christopher
McCall, Levi Korsinsky, LLP & Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP.

SunPower Investor Group, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen,
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A., Reed R. Kathrein, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Robert
Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

JianFei Huang, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Peter Makhlouf, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz
LLP.

Melvin Brenner, Interested Party, represented by George Carlos
Aguilar -- gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP.


SUPREME INDUSTRIES: Faces JS Suit Over Proposed Wabash Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
JS Halberstam Irrevocable Grantor Trust, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. Supreme Industries, Inc., Mark D.
Weber, Herbert M. Gardner, Peter D. Barrett, William J. Barrett,
Edward L. Flynn, Arthur J. Gajarsa, Thomas B. Hogan, Jr., Michael
L. Klofas, Mark C. Neilson, and Wayne A. Whitener, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01226-UNA (D. Del., August 29, 2017), is brought on behalf of
all public stockholders of Supreme Industries, Inc. to enjoin the
expiration of a tender offer on a proposed transaction, pursuant
to which Supreme will be acquired by Wabash National Corporation
through its wholly-owned subsidiary Redhawk Acquisition
Corporation for $21.00 in cash per share of Supreme's common
stock.

According to the complaint, Supreme filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 S. with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that
Supreme stockholders tender their shares in favor of the Proposed
Transaction. However, the Recommendation Statement omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) Supreme management's projections, including the
projections utilized by the Company's financial advisor, Robert W.
Baird & Co. Incorporated ("Baird"), in its financial analyses;
(ii) the valuation analyses prepared by Baird in connection with
the rendering of its fairness opinion; and (iii) the background
process leading up to the Proposed Transaction.  The failure to
adequately disclose such material information constitutes a
violation of Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
as Supreme stockholders need such information in order to make a
fully informed decision whether to tender their shares in support
of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal.

Supreme Industries, Inc. is engaged in the business of
manufacturing, selling, and repairing specialized truck bodies and
related equipment. [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
      E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
              mrogovin@weisslawllp.com


TOP SHIPS INC: "Brady" Suit Hits Stock Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brady, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. Top Ships Inc., Evangelos J.
Pistiolis, Alexandros Tsirikos, Kalani Investments Limited,
Murchinson Ltd. and Marc Bistricer, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
04987, (E.D. N.Y., August 23, 2017), seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Top Ships is an international owner and operator of tanker vessels
focusing on the transportation of crude oil, petroleum products
and bulk liquid chemicals.

Defendants allegedly manipulated the price of Top Ships common
stock through a series of securities offerings and reverse stock
splits and was not disclosed under SEC Regulations. Pistiolis,
Chief Executive Officer, sold Top Ships common shares and
securities convertible into common shares to Kalani Investments
Limited at a significant discount to market price and filed
registration statements in order that Kalani could resell these
shares into the market. When Kalani's sales of Top Ships stock
caused the price of Top Ships stock to decline, the Company would
reverse split the stock, causing a certain number of outstanding
shares to be merged into a single share and thereby raise the
price of Top Ships stock, says the complaint.

Christopher Brady purchased Top Ships common stock and lost
significantly because of this scheme. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone: (631) 367-7100
     Fax: (631) 367-1173

            - and -

     Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 231-1058
     Fax: (619) 231-7423


TRUE ME: Faces "Khallili" Suit in E.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against True Me Brands, LLC.
The case is styled as Houman Khallili, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. True Me Brands,
LLC, Big Prickly, LLC, Big Prickly Real Estate Holdings, LLC, True
Nopal Ventures, LLC and True Nopal Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-05192 (E.D. N.Y., September 4, 2017).

True Me Brands LLC is the parent company for True Nopal Cactus
Water and Organic Me.  True Nopal Cactus Water is a RTD
refreshing, tasty beverage that helps reduce inflammation
associated with exercise and is an extension of a healthy, active
lifestyle. Organic Me is USDA Organic certified, all natural
functional beverages. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


TTC AMERIDIAL: "Oliver" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled KRISTINA OLIVER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TTC
AMERIDIAL, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, and
AMERIDIAL, INC., an Ohio corporation, the Defendant, Case No 1:16-
cv-05177 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order:

   1. granting certification of a class consisting of:

      "all persons in the United States who TTC-Ameridial caused
      to be called on their cellphones from January 1, 2016 to
      June 27, 2016 where TTC-Ameridial obtained the phone number
      from Marketing Webb via the collegeprograms.co website";

   2. appointing her as Class Representative and her counsel as
      Class Counsel;

   3. directing that a Notice Plan be submitted within 30 days of
      certification; and

   4. granting all other and further relief that the Court deems
      reasonable and just.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0HJ4U4H3

This lawsuit challenges Defendant TTC-Ameridial's serial
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") 47
U.S.C. section 227, et seq., and presents a classic case for class
certification, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, Colorado 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213 0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927 0809

               - and -

          Marc McCallister, Esq.
          GARY D. MCCALLISTER & ASSOCIATES
          120 North LaSalle St., no. 2800
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 345 0611
          E-mail: mmccallister@gmail.com

               - and -

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


UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Maisonet" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc.  The case is styled as Karen Maisonet, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
United Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05196
(E.D. N.Y., September 4, 2017).

United Collection provides debt collection services for companies
(government, healthcare, utility, financial service,
communication, and student.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


UNITED STATES: Fulkerson Lotz Sues Army Corp of Engineers
---------------------------------------------------------
The Fulkerson Lotz Law Firm on Sept. 6 disclosed that it has filed
class action suit against United States Army Corps of Engineers.

Fulkerson Lotz charges that an "intentional flooding of thousands
of residences" is a taking under the 5th amendment.  The law firm
does not dispute the Corps' desire to prevent the Addicks and
Barker reservoirs from overtopping and potentially collapsing but
notes the Corps' own explanation and spokesman's admission that it
knew a release of water would "inundate" homes.

The suit was filed in Washington, D.C., in the U.S. Court of
Claims on behalf of between 4,000 and 10,000 affected property
owners.

"If the government takes your property to build a highway or
building a school, it has to compensate you.  It should do the
same thing if it uses your property as a water holding pen.  This
principle has been upheld in numerous legal decisions," said Tom
Fulkerson, managing partner.

Case Number: 2017-1194C
Additional details will be posted to the firm newsletter.

Neighborhoods affected include:

Arcadia, Arcadia Court, Barker Addition, Barkers Branch, Barkers
Crossing, Bear Creek Central, Bear Creek Estates, Bear Creek
Farms, Bear Creek Trails, Bear Creek Village, Bear Creek West,
Bradford Colony, Charlestown Colony, Cinco Ranch Equestrian
Village, Clay Hill Park, Clay Hills Plaza, Clay Meadows, Concord
Bridge, Concord Bridge North, Concord Colony, Cypress Parke,
Eldridge Park, Estates at Cullen Park, Estates of Baker Lane,
Feste Park at Bear Creek Village, Flagstone Estates, Forest
Village, Georgetown Colony, Glencairn, Glencairn Park, Glencairn
South, Green Trails, Green Trails Crossing, Green Trails Forest,
Green Trails Oaks, Green Trails Park, Green Trails Village,
Hearthstone Place, Heatherwood Park, Highland Trails, Jamestown
Colony, Kelliwood, Kelliwood Enclave, Kelliwood Gardens, Kelliwood
Lakes, Kelliwood Nottingham Country, Kelliwood Place, Kelliwood
Trails, Kingsland Acres, Kingsland Estates, Krystal Lake Estates,
Lake Harbor, Lakeforest of Kelliwood, Lakes of Buckingham
Kelliwood, Lakes of Pine Forest, Lakes on Eldridge, Lakes on
Eldridge North, Landing at Park Harbor, Langham Creek Colony,
Mayde Creek Farms, Memorial Bend, Memorial Parkway, Memorial
Parkway Village, Nottingham Country, Oak Park Trails, Park Harbor,
Park Harbor Estates, Park Harbor Oaks, Park Place Center, Parklake
Village, Parkview at Barker Cypress, Pine Forest Green, Pine
Forest Landing, Pine Forest Village, Ranch at Barker Cypress,
Ricefield Village, Savannah Estates, Stonelodge, Timber Creek
Place, Twin Lakes, University Park West, Villages at Lakepoint,
West Side Forest, Westgreen Park, Westlake, Westlake Forest,
Westlake Place, Willow Park Greens, Windsor Park Estates, Windsor
Park Lakes, Yorktown Crossing and many other neighborhoods. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN: Faces "Mucha" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Mucha and Linda Mucha, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft,
Matthias Muller, Martin Winterkorn, Frank Witter, and Hans Dieter
Potsch, Case No. 1:17-cv-05092 (E.D.N.Y., August 29, 2017),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

The Defendants manufacture and sell automobiles primarily in
Europe, North America, South America, and the Asia-Pacific. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces "Sharma" Antitrust Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gaurav Sharma and Baily Brownell, individually, and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen AG;
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.; Audi AG; Audi of America, LLC;
Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG; Porsche Cars of North America, Inc.;
Daimler AG; Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC; Mercedes-Benz U.S.
International, Inc.; Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC; Bayerische Motoren
Werke AG; and BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-01678-
MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal., August 21, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiffs
and proposed class members paid unfairly inflated prices for their
vehicles as a result of the Defendants' anticompetitive and
unlawful conduct.

According to the complaint, German automakers -- Daimler,
Volkswagen, BMW, and their subsidiaries, including Audi and
Porsche -- have been colluding for decades in a variety of anti-
competitive ways, including by agreeing to limit the maximum speed
at which soft-top convertibles can be opened and by agreeing to
limit the size of urea tanks in diesel-engine cars.  These
agreements freed up time and capital for the German Auto Cartel
while allowing them to charge consumers a premium for their
products without the burden and expense of competitive innovation.

Volkswagen AG is a German corporation with its principal place of
business in Wolfsburg, Germany.  VW AG is one of the largest
automobile manufacturers in the world, and is in the business of
designing, developing, manufacturing, and selling automobiles.  VW
AG is the parent corporation of VW America, Audi AG, and Porsche
AG.  VW America is a New Jersey corporation with its principal
place of business located in Herndon, Virginia.

Audi AG is a German corporation with its principal place of
business in Ingolstadt, Germany.  Audi America is a Delaware
limited liability company with its principal place of business
located in Herndon.

Porsche AG is a German corporation with its principal place of
business located in Stuttgart, Germany.  Porsche America is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located
in Atlanta, Georgia.

BMW AG is a German holding company and vehicle manufacturer
headquartered in Germany.  BMW North America is a Delaware limited
liability corporation with its principal place of business in
Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  BMW of North America is the United
States importer of BMW vehicles.

Daimler AG is a German corporation with its principal place of
business in Stuttgart, Germany, and is the parent company of
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC.

Mercedes-Benz USA is a Delaware limited liability corporation with
its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.  Mercedes-
Benz U.S. International is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Alabama, with its principal place of business in
Vance, Alabama.  Mercedes-Benz Vans is a Delaware limited
liability corporation with its principal place of business in
Ladson, South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
          Wendy M. Behan, Esq.
          Ethan T. Litney, Esq.
          Alyssa Williams, Esq.
          Casey Gerry Schenk, Esq.
          FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
          E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
                  gmb@cglaw.com
                  jrobinson@cglaw.com
                  wbehan@cglaw.com
                  elitney@cglaw.com
                  awilliams@cglaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Judge Orders Publication of Notices on Facebook
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David McCowen, writing for Drive, reports that Volkswagen has lost
a fight to keep details of Australian diesel emissions class
actions off its Australian Facebook page.

In what could be a first for consumer law, the Federal Court judge
presiding over class actions brought against VW, Audi and Skoda
has ordered the car makers to publish prominent notices
surrounding the legal action in major newspapers, on their
websites and on Facebook.

Justice Lindsay Foster is presiding over legal action from the
ACCC as well as class actions representing owners of vehicles
affected by the diesel emissions scandal that shot to global
prominence in 2015.

Maurice Blackburn and Bannister Law are representing owners of
more than 90,000 cars with turbo diesel engines alleged to have
used an electronic "defeat device" to skirt emissions regulations.

Lawyers representing Australian owners say customers were misled
by the manufacturers, and that their cars may have decreased in
value and performance as a result of the diesel emissions problem
and subsequent recalls put forward by car makers.

Australian law uses an "opt-out" system for class actions that
will automatically include every owner of vehicles affected by the
emissions problem - unless they specifically choose not to take
part in the action.

Public notices informing owners -- as well as a broad section of
the public -- of the class actions and their right to opt-out will
be published online and in print.

Court documents show that Volkswagen's legal representatives
attempted to prevent the posts from being published on Facebook,
as VW's Facebook page has the potential to reach 30 million people
-- most of whom are not subject to the class actions.

But Justice Foster said "using Facebook in this way is a low cost,
efficient and effective means" of reaching people that may be
affected by the issue.

Volkswagen, Audi and Skoda maintain that nationwide recalls to
update engine software in diesel cars do not have an adverse
effect on performance, efficiency or reliability, a claim refuted
by class action lawyers who say the new software may have a
negative impact on cars.

Justice Foster said "it is necessary to put the record straight on
this point" when the case continues.

The German brand's local arm believes that the class action
lawsuit is unnecessary as it is already offering a free update to
fix the issue.

"Volkswagen Group Australia has from the beginning consistently
said that the class actions are unnecessary, given the
availability of a free software update pursuant to its voluntary
recall.  Almost 36,000 vehicles -- nearly half of the total
recalled -- have been completed.  Dealers are performing hundreds
of updates each week. More than 4 million customers worldwide have
received the update.

"Volkswagen Group Australia is concerned that competing class
actions remain on foot, meaning that two sets of lawyers are
seeking to represent the interests of group members.  We have
urged those lawyers to resolve this overlap since 2015, but
unfortunately they have not.  It will be regrettable if their
failure to do so leads to a delay in the progress of the
litigation," said a Volkswagen Australia spokesperson. [GN]


WALGREENS CO: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dee Thompson, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Walgreens
continues to fight a class action lawsuit over alleged price-
fixing in a lawsuit being heard before in an Illinois federal
court.

In March, plaintiffs Dorothy Forth, Troy Termine, Cynthia Russo
and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 38
Health and Welfare Fund alleged that Walgreens artificially
inflated the prices of generic drugs.

As Legal Newsline previously reported, "The plaintiffs hold
Walgreen Co. and Walgreens Boot Alliance Inc. responsible because
the defendants allegedly reported artificially inflated customary
prices for generics on claims submitted to third-party payers."

On July 20, Walgreen's filed a memorandum of law in support of its
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.  It noted that,
"Specifically, plaintiffs . . . complain that Walgreens submitted
charges to their insurers that were based on Walgreens' usual and
customary ('U&C') prices rather than the discount prices charged
to other Walgreens customers who paid a membership fee to join
Walgreens' Prescription Saving Club ('PSC') and who paid cash for
their prescriptions in accordance with the program."

Walgreens contends that the plaintiffs failed to plead claims for
fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and their state law claims
for relief are without merit and should be dismissed.

On July 21, Walgreen's also filed a motion to stay the case. There
is a similar class action case pending in California, and
Walgreens asked that the Illinois case be stayed until the
California case is concluded, pointing out that, "A stay in this
case would serve the interests of justice and judicial economy
because the two cases are essentially the same: the plaintiffs in
both actions allege that the Walgreens Prescription Savings Club
('PSC') program violates California law (along with various other
statutory and common laws) concerning prescription drug prices.
The parties to the two actions are also similar, as the named
plaintiffs seek to represent almost identical classes and the
defendant in both actions is Walgreens."

The plaintiffs responded that the action belonged only in
Illinois.

"Plaintiffs' argument is simple.  They contend that, because
Walgreens has argued that other cases -- under the particular
facts of those cases -- belong in the Northern District of
Illinois, then all cases involving Walgreens must belong only in
the Northern District of Illinois.  This is absurd and lacks any
support," according to Walgreen's reply in support of motion to
stay the action, filed Aug. 31.

A status hearing is set for Sept. 20. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Taylor"
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Jacksonville Division, issued an Order adopting the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dismissing the
Amended Class Action Complaint in the case captioned JAMES R.
TAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
CHARLENE TAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, JARMAUR STALLINGS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, STARLA STALLINGS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, ROBIN DERISEIS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, SEAN
EVANS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
GARY KAPALA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, BERNARD MCNAIR, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, CRESTIN GREENWOOD, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, WILLIE HOUSTON, JR., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, APRIL BOWEN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, JO ANN
LANGSTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and ROGER CLEVELAND, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-159-J-
32JRK (M.D. Fla.).

This case is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint and Defendants' Motion
to Sever and Dismiss Out-of-State Plaintiffs' Amended Claims.

The assigned United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation and no party has filed an objection to the Report
and Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has passed.

Upon de novo review and for the reasons stated in the Report and
Recommendation, the District Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the opinion of the
Court.

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action
Complaint is granted to the extent that the Amended Class Action
Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

Defendants' Motion to Sever and Dismiss Out-of-State Plaintiffs'
Amended Claims is moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 28, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yc2hznepfrom Leagle.com.

James R. Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica McClean, Volks
Anwalt. 200 Laguna Villa Blvd Unit C23, Jacksonville Beach, FL,
32250-8025

James R. Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas Martino --
nfo@thebostonmanagementgroup.com -- Martino Legal, LLC.

Charlene Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica McClean, Volks
Anwalt & Nicholas Martino, Martino Legal, LLC.

Jarmaur Stallings, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica McClean,
Volks Anwalt & Nicholas Martino, Martino Legal, LLC.

Starla Stallings, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica McClean, Volks
Anwalt & Nicholas Martino, Martino Legal, LLC.

Robin Deriseis, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica McClean, Volks
Anwalt & Nicholas Martino, Martino Legal, LLC.

Sean Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica McClean, Volks
Anwalt & Nicholas Martino, Martino Legal, LLC.

Gary Kapala, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica McClean, Volks
Anwalt & Nicholas Martino, Martino Legal, LLC.

Bernard McNair, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica McClean, Volks
Anwalt & Nicholas Martino, Martino Legal, LLC.

Crestin Greenwood, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica McClean,
Volks Anwalt & Nicholas Martino, Martino Legal, LLC.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Jennifer L. Gray
-- grayjen@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice,
Karusha Y. Sharpe -- sharpek@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP,
Linda M. Reck -- reckl@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP &
Michele L. Stocker -- stockerm@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig,
LLP.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Jennifer L.
Gray, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice, Karusha Y. Sharpe,
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Linda M. Reck, Greenberg Traurig, LLP &
Michele L. Stocker, Greenberg Traurig, LLP.


WHITESTONE RENOVATION: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Largo" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS LARGO, Individually and on BEHALF OF ALL OTHER COLLECTIVE
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. WHITESTONE RENOVATION CORP and
ARSLAN RAJA, Case No. 710226/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Queens Cty.,
August 21, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiff worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week without receiving the
appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that he
worked.

Whitestone is a domestic corporation, duly organized and existing
under and by virtue of the laws of the state of New York, doing
business in Brooklyn, New York.  Arslan Raja serves as owner,
manager, principal or agent of the Defendant Corporation.  The
Defendants currently own and operate construction companies that
provide comprehensive residential and commercial construction
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Sim, Esq.
          PARK & SIM GLOBAL LAW GROUP LLP
          39-01 Main Street, Suite 608
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 445-1300


WM WRIGLEY: Falsely Marketed Starburst Products, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Artur Tyksjnski, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. The WM. Wrigley Jr. Company and
Mars Inc., Case No. 2017CH11877 (Ill. Cir. Ct., August 30, 2017),
seeks redress for the Defendants' unfair and deceptive business
practices of marketing Starburst to consumers nationwide as
containing "130 Calories" per serving even though the packaged
product contains materially more calories per serving.

The Defendants are among the largest confectionary manufacturers
in the world and are responsible for manufacturing, marketing and
selling some of America's most familiar confectionary brands
including Milky-Way, Skittles and Starburst. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Myles McGuire, Esq.
      Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
      David L. Gerbie, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 893-7002
      E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
              eturin@mcgpc.com
              dgerbie@mcgpc.com


WORLDVENTURES HOLDINGS: "Yiru" Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Melody Yiru, also known as: Shi
Yiru an individual, and all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. WORLDVENTURES FOUNDATION, a Texas corporation;
WorldVentures Holdings LLC, Nevada Limited Liability Company;
World Ventures, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; WorldVentures
Marketing LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; Wayne Nugent,
an individual; MICHAEL AZCUE, an individual; DANIEL STAMMEN, an
individual; and Does 1-100, Case No. 2:17-cv-04357, was
transferred on Aug. 15, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The Northern District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-02155-N-BH to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David C Godbey.

WorldVentures Foundation creates positive change for children
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake J. Lindemann, Esq.
          LINDEMANN LAW FIRM
          433 North Camden Drive 4th Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 279 5269
          Facsimile: (310) 300 0267
          E-mail: blake@lawbl.com

               - and -

          Daren M. Schlecter, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAREN SCHLECTER
          1925 Century Park East Suite 830
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553 5747
          Facsimile: (310) 553 5487
          E-mail: daren@schlecterlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Scott W Wellman, Esq.
          WELLMAN & WARREN LLP
          24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200
          Laguna Hills, CA 92653
          Telephone: (949) 580 3737

               - and -

          Christopher Ralston, Esq.
          Lindsay Calhoun, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
          365 Canal Street Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 584 9315
          Facsimile: (504) 568 9130
          E-mail: chris.ralston@phelps.com
                  lindsay.calhoun@phelps.com

               - and -

          John Shaeffer, Esq.
          Joshua Aryeh-Lev Bornstein, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          1800 Century Park East Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1506
          Telephone: (310) 598 4150
          Facsimile: (310) 556 9828
          E-mail: jshaeffer@foxrothschild.com
                  jbornstein@foxrothschild.com


XCERRA CORP: Faces "Stallings" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Sino IC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS STALLINGS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. XCERRA CORP., ROGER W. BLETHEN, DAVID G.
TACELLI, MARK S. AIN, ROGER J. MAGGS, JORGE TITINGER, BRUCE R.
WRIGHT, Case No. 1:17-cv-11579 (D. Mass., August 22, 2017),
alleges that the Defendants solicit shareholder votes in
connection with an attempt to sell the Company to an affiliate of
Sino IC Capital, through a proxy statement that omits material
facts necessary to make the statements therein not false or
misleading.

On April 10, 2017, Xcerra and Sino IC Capital issued a joint press
release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated April 7, 2017, under which an affiliate of
Sino IC Capital, Unic Capital Management Co., Ltd., would acquire
all of Xcerra's outstanding stock.  On August 4, 2017, Unic
Capital assigned their rights under the Merger Agreement to Hubei
Xinyan Equity Investment Partnership (Limited Partnership)
("Parent").  Unic Capital is the controlling shareholder of the
general partner of Parent.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, as amended, Parent,
through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Unic Acquisition Corporation,
would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Xcerra for $10.25
per share in cash.  The transaction between Xcerra and Sino has a
total value of approximately $580 million.

Xcerra is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Massachusetts and headquartered in Norwood,
Massachusetts.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

Xcerra provides semiconductor and electronics testing equipment to
manufacturers and is the parent company of atg-Luther & Maelzer,
Everett Charles Technologies, LTX-Credence, and Multitest.

Relevant non-party Sino IC Capital is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the People's Republic of
China.  Relevant non-party Unic Capital, a related party of Sino
IC Capital, is a capital and asset management firm organized and
existing under the laws of PRC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
          MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
          18 Grove Street, Suite 5
          Wellesley, MA 02482
          Telephone: (781) 453-0100
          E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP.
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 337-1567
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com


XCERRA CORP: Merger Docs Lack Projections, "Berg" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Berg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Xcerra Corporation, Roger W. Blethen,
David G. Tacelli, Mark S. Ain, Roger J. Maggs, Jorge Titinger,
Bruce R. Wright, Hubei Xinyan Equity Investment Partnership
(Limited Partnership), Unic Capital Management Co., Ltd., China
Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund Co., Ltd., And Unic
Acquisition Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-11583 (D.
Mass., August 23, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the acquisition of Xcerra Corporation by
affiliates of Sino IC Capital Co. Ltd., rescinding it and setting
it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants
consummate the merger.  The plaintiff also seeks costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts'
fees and such other and further relief under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Defendants locked up the merger by
agreeing to a "no solicitation" provision that prohibits the
solicitation of alternative proposals. The merger documents
omitted the Company's financial projections and the analyses
performed by Cowen and Company, LLC that provides stockholders
with a basis to project the future financial performance of a
company, and allows stockholders to better understand the
financial analyses performed by the company's financial advisor in
support of its fairness opinion.

Xcerra is a global provider of test and handling capital
equipment, interface products, test fixtures and related services
to the semiconductor and electronics manufacturing industries.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
      MATORIN LAWOFFICE, LLC
      18 Grove Street, Suite 5
      Wellesley, MA 02482
      Tel: (781) 453-0100
      Email: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com


YUJILE INC: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Moss, on her own behalf and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Yujile, Inc., d/b/a Subway and Dong Lee,
individually, Case No. 8:17-cv-02065-VMC-MAP (M.D. Fla., August
29, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
complete minimum wages and overtime wages for every hour worked
over 40 in a work week.

The Defendants operate a fast food restaurant located in Tampa,
Hillsborough County, Florida. [BN]

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


ZILLOW GROUP: Violates Securities Act, "Vargosko" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN VARGOSKO, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC., SPENCER M. RASCOFF, and
KATHLEEN PHILIPS, Case No. 2:17-cv-06207 (C.D. Cal., August 22,
2017), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The 2015 and 2016 annual financial statements and the 2017 first
quarter financial statements were materially false or misleading
because they misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, the Plaintiff alleges.

Zillow operates real estate and home-related information
marketplaces on mobile and the Web in the United States.  The
Company is incorporated in Washington and headquartered in
Seattle, Washington.  The Company maintains an office in Irvine,
California.

Spencer M. Rascoff has been the Company's Chief Executive Officer.
Kathleen Philips has been the Company's Chief Financial Officer
throughout the Class Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


ZTO EXPRESS: Faces "McGrath" Securities Suit Arising from IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL McGRATH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ZTO EXPRESS (CAYMAN) INC., MEISONG LAI,
JIANMIN (JAMES) GUO, JIANFA LAI, JILEI WANG, XIANGLIANG HU, BAIXI
LAN, XING LIU, FRANK ZHEN WEI, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INTERNATIONAL
PLC, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES
(HONG KONG) LIMITED, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC and DOES 1-25,
inclusive, Case No. 17CIV03805 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty.,
August 21, 2017), is a securities class action on behalf of all
persons, who purchased or acquired ZTO American Depositary Shares
pursuant or traceable to the F-1 registration statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with ZTO's October 2016 initial
public stock offering.

The action asserts strict liability claims under the Securities
Act of 1933 against ZTO, certain of ZTO's officers and directors,
and the underwriters of the IPO.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Registration Statement contained untrue statements of material
fact and omitted to state material facts, including failure to
disclose that two quarters before the IPO, ZTO had lowered its
network transit fees to subsidize its network partners in response
to increased operating costs, pricing pressure, competition and
other negative market conditions.

ZTO is a Chinese logistics company that provides shipping and
delivery services to merchants on e-commerce platforms like
Alibaba.  ZTO is headquartered in Shanghai, China, and
incorporated in the Cayman Islands.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of ZTO.

Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc, Goldman Sachs (Asia)
L.L.C., China Renaissance Securities (Hong Kong) Limited,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC are financial services companies
that acted as underwriters for ZTO'S IPO.  The Underwriter
Defendants arranged a multi-city roadshow prior to the IPO during
which they, and representatives from ZTO, met with potential
investors and presented highly favorable information about the
Company, its operations and its financial prospects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Conrad B. Stephens, Esq.
          STEPHENS & STEPHENS LLP
          505 S. McClelland St.
          Santa Maria, CA 93454
          Telephone: (805) 922-1951
          Facsimile: (805) 922-8013
          E-mail: conrad@stephensfirm.com


* Australian Appeals Court Endorses Class Action Closure Process
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Emmerig, Esq. -- jemmerig@jonesday.com -- and Michael Legg,
Esq. -- mlegg@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day, in an article for
Lexology, wrote that Australian courts have made "class closure"
orders which require group members to come forward and register
their interest.  The orders may also provide that failure to
register means that the group member cannot participate in any
recovery, whether by settlement or judgment, but the group
member's claim is extinguished or barred.

The Issue: Do Australian courts have power to make "class closure"
orders and what factors should they consider in exercising their
discretion?

The Outcome: A class closure order that facilitates the desirable
goal of settlement may be permitted under s33ZF of the Federal
Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).  However, if settlement is not
achieved, an order extinguishing the claims of group members who
did not respond is not permitted.  More generally, consideration
should be given to the point the case has reached, the attitude of
the parties, and the complexity and likely duration of the case.

Recently, in Jones v Treasury Wine Estates Limited (No 2) [2017]
FCA 296, the Federal Court deviated from past class action
practice.  Registration was required to facilitate a mediation and
group members could only participate in any settlement if they had
registered.  If a settlement was achieved and approved by the
court then unregistered group members obtained no recovery and
lost their right to a claim.  However, unlike past orders, if no
settlement was reached then unregistered group members could still
participate in any judgment.

The judgment was appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court
of Australia.  While the Full Court did not need to expressly
address the novel class closure order, it chose to provide
guidance as it considered class closure to be an important part of
class action procedure (Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v
Treasury Wine Estates Limited [2017] FCAFC 98).

The primary judge expressed doubt that the court had power to make
an order, before the initial trial of a class action, to
extinguish a group member's right to share in the fruits of a
subsequent judgment unless the group member took steps to register
in the proceeding.  However, the judge did not rule on that
question and instead addressed the issue as an exercise of
discretion, ruling that it was not necessary or appropriate to
make orders extinguishing the unregistered group members claims at
that time.

The Full Court considered the power to make class closure orders.
It accepted that requiring group members to take active steps to
"register" in order to share in a settlement of a class action
undercut, to some extent, the opt out rationale underpinning the
class action regime.  However, the Full Court found that there was
power to make a class closure order relying on s33ZF of the
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), which provides: "the
Court may, of its own motion or on application by a party or a
group member, make any order the Court thinks appropriate or
necessary to ensure that justice is done in the proceeding."  If a
class closure order facilitates the desirable end of settlement,
then it may be reasonably adapted to the purpose of seeking or
obtaining justice in the proceeding and, therefore, appropriate
under s33ZF.  Settlement is facilitated because it allows a better
understanding of the total quantum at stake in the proceedings.
Moreover, the Full Court stated that an important aspect of the
utility of the class action was its ability to achieve finality
not only for group members but also for the respondent.

The Full Court endorsed the primary judge's remarks in relation to
discretion and used them to express a number of cautions.  The
Full Court warned of the need to be vigilant before making a class
closure order that, in the event settlement is not achieved,
operates to lock class members out of their entitlement to make a
claim and share in a judgment -- "the facilitation of settlement
is a good reason for a class closure order but, if settlement is
not achieved, an order to shut out class members who do not
respond to an arbitrary deadline is not."  Further caution needed
to be exercised in relation to the stage at which a class closure
order is made.  The earlier the order the greater the opt out
rationale was likely to be harmed.  The Full Court expressly
stated that "the Court should usually not exercise the discretion
to make a class closure order based merely on a respondent's
assertion that it is unwilling to discuss settlement unless such
an order is made."  This was based on a view that it is the nature
of opt out class actions that the respondent will be faced with
uncertainty regarding the quantum of class members' claims because
the number of claimants may be unknown.

After providing the above guidance the Full Court recognized that:

Whether it is appropriate to order class closure is a question of
balance and judicial intuition.  The Court must take into account
the interests of the class as a whole in requiring class members
to take steps to facilitate settlement, and consider the
surrounding circumstances including the point the case has
reached, the attitude of the parties, and the complexity and
likely duration of the case.
Three Key Takeaways

The Full Court found that the class action legislation provided
Australian courts with the power to make class closure orders. The
power may be exercised to facilitate the goal of settlement.
The Full Court also endorsed the approach of the primary judge
which changed prior practice and provided that if no settlement
was reached then unregistered group members could still
participate in any judgment.

The operation of the orders creates some uncertainty where a
settlement is not immediately achieved.  Would a settlement at a
later time, before or after trial, require a further class closure
order or could the earlier order still be relied upon? Would the
way in which an unsuccessful mediation concluded become
relevant -- would terminating the mediation mean new orders were
required, but adjourning the mediation and reaching a settlement
at a later session, that the existing orders could still be relied
on? [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  * * *