CAR_Public/170919.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Tuesday, September 19, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 185



                            Headlines

AAA SUPER: Violates Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Brown Says
ABNS GROUP: "Holmes" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages
AETNA INC: Faces "Beckett" Class Suit in E.D. Penn.
ASJ CONSTRUCTION: Workers Class Conditionally Certified
BEHR PROCESS: "Cole" Suit Seeks Damages for Defective Product

BMW AG: Faces "Kotha" Anti-trust Class Action in Michigan
BON SECOURS: "Barrett" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages
BONNIER CORP: Friske Seeks Certification of Settlement Class
BRECKSVILLE, OH: Summary Dismissal of "McNair" Affirmed
BROWN & BROWN: Faces "Camacho" Suit in E.D. of New York

CALVIN KLEIN: "Arcos" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
CAPITAL ADVANCE: Redman's Bid to Certify Denied w/o Prejudice
CENERGY INT'L: Faces "Doiron" Suit in W.D. of Pennsylvania
CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Robinson Moves to Certify Class & 5 Subclasses
CHICAGO, IL: 7th Cir. Affirms Judgment Against Class

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Bid to Certify Class in "Levine" Dropped
CONTRACT SWEEPERS: "Steffen" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
DIRECT DIGITAL: Judge OKs $4.5 Million Deal to End Class Action
DIRECT ENERGY: Sevugan Sues over Deceptive Pricing
DIRECTV LLC: Flynn Seeks to Certify Class of Conn. MDU Landlords

DR. REDDY'S LAB: "Critchley" Sues Over Share Price Drop
DR REDDY'S: Oct. 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Hensley" Suit in Eastern District of Penn.
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Kalmick" Suit over Data Theft
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Scott" Suit over Data Breach

EQUIFAX INC: Safirstein Metcalf Files Class Action
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Torrey" Suit over Data Breach
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Jakob" Suit in E.D. of Wisconsin
EXTRAORDINARY DESIGN: "Naveira" Suit Alleges Sexual Harassment
FLORIDA, USA: Prunty's Bid for Class Certification Stricken

FORD MOTOR: Case Mngt Conference in "Baranco" Moved to Nov. 21
FUSION BRANDS: Faces "Gonzales" Suit in C.D. of California
G4S SECURE: "Abumohor" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
GC SERVICES: Faces "Mullins" Suit in C.D. of California
GHHS HEALTHCARE: "Bowden" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime

GUARDIAN LIVING: Williams Seeks to Certify Direct Care Class
HEALTH CARE: 7th Cir. Reverses "Priddy" Class Certification
HELIX ENERGY: "Shirey" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
HSN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Suit

HUMANA AT HOME: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Poggi" Suit
HUNTLEIGH USA: Thomas Moves to Certify Class of Service Agents
MIDLAND FUNDING: Class Certification Sought in "Wheeler" Suit
MIDWAY OILFIELD: Flores Moves to Certify Class of Tool Pushers
INTERSTATE WAREHOUSING: Bid to Certify Settlement Class Sought

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Moodie May Renew Bid to Certify by October 16
IYOGI INC: Sued by "Bell" for Harassing Telemarketing Calls
JAUREGUI & LINDSEY: Faces "Blackmon" Suit in M.D. of Alabama
KAIGLER & ASSOCIATES: Allstate Has No Duty to Indemnify
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "Shonkwiler" Suit over Unsolicited Calls

KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Chacon's Bid to Certify Cont'd; Hearing Nov. 15
PATRIOT DRILLING: Class Certification Sought in "Serrette" Suit
PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Moves for Final OK of $6MM Brown Settlement
KRAFT BISTRO: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under FLSA
KXU INC: Taiwanese Restaurant Underpays Staff, "Chen" Suit Says

MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Wyckoff"
MARRONE BIO: Court Orders 60-Day Stay of Situations Fund Suit
MDL 2284: Arborist Panel's Denial of "Gaffey" Appeal Affirmed
MDL 2284: Court Affirms Arborist Panel Denial of "Lingles" Appeal
MDL 2284: Court Denies J. Heusinkveld's Appeal

MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Votta" and "Fair" Suits over Roundup
NIKKO HIBACHI: Sushi Resto Underpays Staff, "Yang" Suit Claims
NORTH TEXAS MAINTENANCE: "Smith" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
PARAMOUNT EQUITY: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Titus" Denied
PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Settles Production Assistant Defecation CA

PAY CAR: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Lester"
PETCO ANIMAL: "Wagner" Transferred to Southern District of Calif.
PHILIPPE NORTH: Court Denies Approval of Preliminary Settlement
POWERBLOCK INC: Cohen Files Class Action Over Defective Dumbbells
PROGRESSIVE CORP: Faces "Camacho" Suit in E.D. of New York

REGENCE BLUESHIELD: "A.Z." Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage
ROCKIT RANCH: Bernal Seeks to Stop Collection of Biometric Info
RSH LIQUIDATING: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Toscano"
SHAPIRO VAN: "Brown" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
SHORETEL INC: "Herrera" Suit Seeks to Halt Merger Deal with Mitel

SHOWTIME NETWORKS: "Mallh" Sues Over Bad Pay-Per-View Live Stream
SUSHI MARU: "Chun" Alleges Retaliation for Whistle-Blowing
STEPHEN FRENZ: Lawsuit Blocks Sale of Apartment Buildings
SUBWAY: Sued for Improperly Collecting Soft Drink Tax
TACI INVESTMENTS: "Hankton" Suit Seeks to Certify Managers Class

TECHNOLOGICAL MEDICAL: "Botelho" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
TIME WARNER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Suvino"
TOP SHIPS: Oct. 23 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
TRIAD OF ALABAMA: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Partly Denied
TURN INC: Plaintiffs' Litigation Strategy Avoids Arbitration

U.S. TOBACCO: Court Preliminarily Certifies Settlement Class
VITAMIN SHOPPE: "Aguilar" Sues Over Share Price Drop
WELLS FARGO: "Conklin" Suit Hits Additional Insurance Premiums
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Blevins Sues Over Anti-trust Activities

WELK RESORT: Experian Directed to File Supplemental Explanation
WELLS FARGO: Boone Files RICO Class Action in Calif.



                            *********


AAA SUPER: Violates Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Brown Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGIL E. BROWN d.b.a VIRGIL E. BROWN INSURANCE, for himself and
on behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AAA
SUPER PAVING AND SEAL COATING, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01917-CAB (N.D. Ohio, Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to recover actual
damages against Defendant or $500.00 in statutory damages,
whichever is greater, as a result of the Defendant's violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, after reviewing the fax on that date,
the Plaintiff's employee had to spend unwanted time to not only
review the fax but also caused the Plaintiff to suffer the added
expense of printing out the fax, costing the Plaintiff the cost of
the paper and use of ink toner in preparing the print. In addition
to the monetary damages of the staff time, and the paper/ink cost,
the Plaintiff had to spend time away from his business to contact
Plaintiff's counsel to discuss receiving this unwarranted on
unnecessary fax.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Brian D Flick, Esq.
          DANNLAW
          P.O. Box 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 373 0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373 0536
          E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com


ABNS GROUP: "Holmes" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Kesha Holmes, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ABNS Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-61717
(S.D. Fla., August 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid back wages,
liquidated damages, declaratory relief and reasonable attorney's
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked as a customer service representative for the
Defendant, handling phone interviews with prospective college
students. Holmes regularly worked in excess of forty hours per
week without overtime pay, and she was only paid for her time
logged on the phone system and not their actual hours worked. [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


AETNA INC: Faces "Beckett" Class Suit in E.D. Penn.
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Beckett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aetna, Inc., Aetna Life Insurance Company,
Aetna Specialty Pharmacy, LLC, and DOE Vendor, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-03864, (E.D. Pa., August 28, 2017), seeks damages,
including statutory and/or punitive damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs and expenses and other and further relief under the
Pennsylvania Confidentiality of HIV-Related Information Act and
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law.

Aetna caters to HIV patients and mail-orders their HIV medicines.
However, HIV medication prescriptions are sent in an opaque
envelope with a large transparent glassine window clearly
indicating the name of the patient, thus failing to respect the
privacy rights of people who are taking HIV-medications, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, RC.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      Email: scarson@bm.net
             sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             cfundora@bm.net

             - and -

      Shanon J. Carsma, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 875-4656
      Email: Escarson@bm.net
             sschalman-bergen@bm.net

             - and -

      E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
      John Albanese, Esq.
      43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
      Minneapolis, MN 55414
      Tel: (612) 594-5933
      Email: emdrake@bm.net
             jalbanese@bm.net

             - and -

      Ronda B. Goldfein, Esq.
      Adrian M. Lowe, Esq.
      AIDS LAW PROJECT OF PENNSYLVANIA
      121 l Chestnut Street, Suite 600
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Email: goldfein@aidslawpa.org
             alowe@aidslawpa.org
      Tel: (215) 587-9377

             - and -

      Sally Friedman, Esq.
      Monica Welby, Esq.
      Karla Lopez, Esq.
      LEGAL ACTION CENTER
      225 Varick Street
      New York, NY 10014
      Email: sfriedman@lac.org
             mwelby@lac.org
      Tel: (212) 243-1313


ASJ CONSTRUCTION: Workers Class Conditionally Certified
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LIDIO LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ASJ CONSTRUCTION
GROUP, LLC and ALFONSO SANCHEZ, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
02241-SM-KWR (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan entered an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all individuals who worked or are working performing
      manual labor for ASJ Construction Group, LLC or indirectly
      through a labor staffing company during the previous three
      years, and who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to
      the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 207 and who did not receive
      full overtime compensation";

   2. approving Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent Form and
      its Spanish translation;

   3. directing Defendants to provide to Plaintiff's counsel the
      following information: (a) the names of the Class Members
      and the dates they performed services for Defendants; and
      (b) each Class Member's current/last known mailing address
      ("Class List") within 14 days of this Order;

   4. directing Plaintiff's counsel to mail the approved Notice
      and Consent Form to all persons on the Class List within 30
      days of this Order; and

   5. directing Class Members to file their Consent opting into
      this lawsuit as plaintiffs within 90 days from the date of
      the initial mailing of the Notice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CyR10EcC


BEHR PROCESS: "Cole" Suit Seeks Damages for Defective Product
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Cole and Wayne Honsberger, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Behr
Process Corp., Behr Paint Corp., Masco Corp., The Home Depot,
Inc., And Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
05052, (E.D. N.Y., August 25, 2017), seeks treble damages and/or
any other form of monetary relief provided by law for violations
of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, restitution, disgorgement or
other equitable relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit, including expert
witness fees and such other and further relief under New York
consumer protection laws.

Behr released a new patio and deck product exclusively through
Home Depot, branded as "DeckOver" a supposedly durable coating
that could repair decks by filling in cracks and stopping
splinters. Plaintiff alleges that within mere months of
application, DeckOver begins to flake, peel and separate from deck
and concrete surfaces. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     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
     Email: pgil-montllors@cuneolaw.com
            mprewitt@cuneolaw.com

            - and -

     Charles LaDuca, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
     4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
     Washington, DC 20016
     Telephone: (202)789-3960
     Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
     Email: charles@cuneolaw.com

            - and -

     Michael McShane, Esq.
     S. Clinton Woods, Esq.
     Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
     AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
     711 Van Ness Avenue. Suite 500
     San Francisco, CA 94102
     Telephone: (415) 568-2555
     Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
     Email: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
            cwoods@audetlaw.com
            lkuang@audetlaw.com

            - and -

     Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
     LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
     510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
     Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
     Telephone: (877) 882-1011
     Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
     Email: CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com

            - and -

     Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
     HALUNEN LAW
     80 South 8th Street
     IDS Center, Suite 1650
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: (612) 548-5286
     Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
     Email: weiner@halunenlaw.com


BMW AG: Faces "Kotha" Anti-trust Class Action in Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------
Kashivishnatha Kotha, Irving Cohen, Christopher Kurek, And Dean
Werner, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. BMW AG, BMW North America, LLC, Volkswagen
AG, Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi Of America,
Inc., Audi Of America, LLC, DR. ING. H.C.F. Porsche AG, Porsche
Cars Of North America, Inc., Bentley Motors Limited, Daimler AG,
Mercedes-Benz USA, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, Mercedes-Benz U.S.
International, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12836, (E.D. Mich.,
August 28, 2017), seeks redress for antitrust violations under the
Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

Defendants have reportedly been secretly colluding with each other
since the 1990s on matters ranging from car development, gasoline
engines, diesel engines, brakes, transmissions, gearboxes, choices
of suppliers, emissions controls and even prices for parts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
     Mark E. Rath, Esq.
     HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
     8050 West 78th Street
     Edina, MN 55439
     Tel: (952) 941-4005
     Fax: (952) 941-2337
     Emails: rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com
             mrath@hjlawfirm.com

             - and -

     Michael Cashman, Esq.
     Anne T. Regan, Esq.
     Nicholas S. Kuhlmann, Esq.
     HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
     8050 West 78th Street
     Edina, MN 55439
     Tel: (952) 941-4005
     Fax: (952) 941-2337
     Email: mcashman@hjlawfirm.com
            aregan@hjlawfirm.com
            nkuhlmann@hjlawfirm.com

            - and -

     ROXANNE CONLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     Roxanne Barton Conlin, Esq.
     3721 S.W. 61st St., Ste. C
     Des Moines, IA 50321
     Tel: (515) 283-1111
     Fax: (515) 282-0477
     Email: roxlaw@aol.com


BON SECOURS: "Barrett" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Barrett and Richard Collier, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bon Secours St.
Francis Xavier Hospital Inc. and Care Alliance Health Services
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02298, (D.N.J., August 28,
2017), seeks unpaid back wages at the applicable overtime rates,
liquidated damages, front-pay, back-pay, redress for emotional
distress, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs/disbursements of
prosecuting this case, plus post-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees and costs and all such further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate a healthcare network consisting of Roper
Hospital, Bon Secours St. Francis Hospital and Roper St. Francis
Hospital. It is comprised of 657-bed health system, more than 90
facilities including doctors' offices. Plaintiffs were Data Center
Technicians at the Defendants' Data Center located at Palmetto
Commerce Parkway in Charleston, South Carolina. They claim to have
regularly worked through their meal breaks during emergencies.
They were terminated when they took a legitimate break without
clocking out. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
     MULLANEY LAW
     1037-D Chuck Dawley Blvd, Suite 104
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Tel: (800) 385-8160 (Phone & Fax)
     Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


BONNIER CORP: Friske Seeks Certification of Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Friske moves the Court for an order certifying the action
captioned REBECCA FRISKE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BONNIER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 2:16-cv-12799-DML-EAS (E.D. Mich.), as a class action,
for settlement purposes only.

The settlement class is defined as:

    "all Michigan residents who received one or more
     subscriptions to a magazine published by Bonnier between
     July 28, 2010 and the date of Preliminary Approval of the
     Agreement, and who did not purchase such subscriptions
     through a Third-Party Subscription Agent."

Ms. Friske also asks that she be appointed class representative
and that her counsel, Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter,
LLP and the Law Offices of Daniel O. Myers, be appointed as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JxasK7nD

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILEPLA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15232
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Daniel Myers, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL O. MYERS
          818 Red Drive, Suite 210
          Traverse City, MI 49684
          Telephone: (800) 340-8050
          E-mail: dmyers@domlawoffice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel T. Stabile, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
          200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 415-9063
          Facsimile: (305) 347-7714
          E-mail: dstabile@shutts.com

               - and -

          John J. Gillooly, Esq.
          GARAN LUCOW
          1155 Brewery Park Blvd., Suite 200
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: (313) 446-5501
          E-mail: jgillooly@garanlucow.com


BRECKSVILLE, OH: Summary Dismissal of "McNair" Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
issued an Opinion affirming the Judgment of the trial court
granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned EBEN O. McNAIR, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF
BRECKSVILLE, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees, No. 104706 (Ohio App.).

Plaintiff-appellant, Eben O. McNair, IV, appeals the trial court's
grant of motions for judgment on the pleadings in favor of
defendants-appellees Virginia Price (Price), Regional Income Tax
Agency (RITA) and the city of Brecksville (Brecksville), rejecting
McNair's challenge that a city tax ordinance is unlawful.

Meeting of the Brecksville City Council, Ordinance 4890, was
introduced, amending Section 1519.02 of the Taxation Code, to
reduce the allowable Municipal Income Tax Credit for a limited
period of time and declaring an "emergency" (Ordinance). The
Ordinance reduced the tax credit for Brecksville residents who
were paying employment taxes on income earned in their city of
employment from 100 percent to 87.50 percent. The stated purpose
of the Ordinance is to effectively fund the necessary functions of
the city of Brecksville.

McNair filed a taxpayer's action for declaratory judgment and
class action relief against Brecksville, Price, and RITA. McNair
sought Civ.R. 23 class certification based on commonality of law
and fact as to whether the Ordinance was lawfully enacted, whether
the underlying tax may be lawfully collected, and as to any
affirmative defenses that may be asserted by appellees.

Brecksville and Price filed a Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on
the pleadings (motion) that was opposed by McNair. Dispositive
motions and class certification briefs.  The court granted the
motion without opinion.  McNair's motion for reconsideration was
denied.  RITA also filed a motion that was granted, on the ground
that the judgment for Brecksville and Price resolved all claims
against RITA.

McNair appeals.

McNair advances two assignments of error:

   1. The trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment on
the pleadings filed by Brecksville and Price.

   2. The trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment on
the pleadings filed by RITA.

Validity of Ordinance

Article IV, Section 11, of the Charter provides in part:

     "Each ordinance or resolution providing for an annual tax
levy and any emergency ordinance necessary for the immediate
preservation of public peace, health or safety, shall take effect,
unless a later date be specified therein, upon its approval by the
Mayor, or upon the expiration of the time within which it may be
vetoed by the Mayor, or upon its passage after veto by the Mayor.
Each emergency measure shall contain a statement of the necessity
for such emergency action, and shall require the affirmative vote
of five (5) members of Council for its enactment."

The court of appeals finds that the Brecksville Ordinance was
validly enacted as an ordinance. While, on its face, the Ordinance
states that it is an emergency measure, the Ordinance was read
three times at three meetings and was approved by a vote of four
council members in compliance with the requirements for
nonemergency legislation pursuant to Article IV, Section 10 of the
Charter.

While McNair is correct that Article IV, Section 11 of the Charter
requires a super-majority vote for emergency measures, there is no
requirement for nonemergency measures, the court of appeals
pointed out.

The stated purpose of the Ordinance is to raise funds for
municipal operations by reducing the income tax credit, thus
constituting an annual tax levy wholly within Brecksville's
municipal powers. Municipalities have within their general power
of taxation the power to tax incomes, the court held.

The court of appeals agreed with the trial court's determination
that McNair is unable to prove a set of facts supporting his claim
that would result in entitlement to relief "after construing all
material allegations in the complaint, along with all reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom in favor of the nonmoving party."

Further, as the result of the court of appeals' determination that
the Ordinance was validly enacted, the trial court's determination
as to RITA is also affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' August 31, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8hl9z8ufrom Leagle.com.

Anand N. Misra, The Misra Law Firm, L.L.C., 3659 Green Road, Suite
100, Cleveland, Ohio 44122; Robert S. Belovich, 9100 South Hills
Road, Suite 325, Broadview Heights, Ohio 44147., Attorney for
Appellant.

Shana Samson --  ssamson@mhglegal.com -- Mark B. Marong --
mmarong@mhglegal.com -- David J. Matty -- dmatty@mhglegal.com --
Matty Henrikson & Greve L.L.C., 55 Public Square, Suite 1775,
Cleveland, Ohio 44113., Attorney for Appellees.

Mark B. Marong, David J. Matty, Matty Henrikson & Greve L.L.C., 55
Public Square, Suite 1775, Cleveland, Ohio 44113., for Virginia
Price.

Amy L. Arrighi, Amber E. Greenleaf Duber, Regional Income Tax
Agency, P.O. Box 470537, Broadview Heights, Ohio 44147 for
Regional Income Tax Agency.










BROWN & BROWN: Faces "Camacho" Suit in E.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brown & Brown of New
York, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Brown & Brown
of New York, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05391-SJ-PK
(E.D.N.Y., September 14, 2017).
Brown & Brown of New York, Inc is engaged in the insurance
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Janet N. Esagoff, Esq.
   Esagoff Law Group, P.C.
   10 Bond Street
   Great Neck, NY 11021
   Tel: (516) 417-7737
   Fax: (516) 543-0123
   Email: janet@esagoff.com

      - and -

   Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
   Gottlieb& Associates
   150 East 18th Street, Suite Phr
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com

      - and -

   Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: nyjg@aol.com


CALVIN KLEIN: "Arcos" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Sascha Arcos, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Calvin Klein Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-06510 (S.D. N.Y., August 25, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant was engaged in the clothing and apparel business across
the United States and internationally. Arcos was employed by
Calvin Klein as a manual worker, cleaning and organizing closets,
lifting boxes, packing and unpacking garments, data entry and
answering phones. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPITAL ADVANCE: Redman's Bid to Certify Denied w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 29, 2017, in the case
titled Scott D.H. Redman, et al. v. Capital Advance Solutions,
LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-04380 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable John Robert Blakey.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class and Plaintiff's motion
      for sanctions are denied without prejudice;

   -- Status hearing is set for October 4, 2017, at 9:45 a.m., in
      Courtroom 1203; and

   -- Parties wishing to appear by telephone should contact the
      Courtroom Deputy on or before noon on October 3, 2017, to
      arrange for a telephonic appearance.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3DFX0MAw


CENERGY INT'L: Faces "Doiron" Suit in W.D. of Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cenergy
International Services, LLC. The case is styled as Charles Doiron,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Cenergy International Services, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01203-LPL (W.D. Penn., September 14, 2017).

Cenergy International Services, LLC provides staffing, payroll,
vendor management, inspection, aviation logistics, and safety
services to energy, engineering, construction, aerospace and
defense, shipbuilding, and power and utility sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
   Goodrich & Geist, P.C.
   3634 California Ave
   Pittsburgh, PA 15212
   Tel: (412) 766-1455
   Fax: (412) 766-0300
   Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Robinson Moves to Certify Class & 5 Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled SHAON ROBINSON, SEAN CLARK
on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the
general public v. THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE WEST COAST, LLC, a California
limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 3:15-cv-05421-RS (N.D. Cal.), move for an order certifying the
class claims, appointing them as Class representatives, and
appointing Hoffman Employment Lawyers as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs filed this class action against their employers
alleging a variety of wage and hour violations that occurred
during their employment, as well as individual discrimination and
harassment claims for Plaintiff Shaon Robinson.  They bring the
class action on behalf of all persons employed by Chefs', who
worked as delivery drivers in California on or after October 26,
2011, to the present.

The proposed class and subclasses are:

   * The Reimbursement Class: All employees of Chefs' who worked
     as delivery drivers in California from October 26, 2011,
     until judgment is entered.

   * The Meal Period Subclass: All employees of Chefs' who worked
     as delivery drivers in California from June 25, 2014, until
     judgment is entered.

   * The Rest Period Subclass: All employees of Chefs' who worked
     as delivery drivers in California from June 25, 2014, until
     judgment is entered.

   * The Off-The-Clock Subclass: All employees of Chefs' who
     worked as delivery drivers in California from June 25, 2014,
     until judgment is entered.

   * The Wage Statement Subclass: All employees of Chefs' who
     worked as delivery drivers in California from October 26,
     2014, until judgment is entered and who are members of any
     of the following: Meal Period, Rest Period, or Unpaid
     Wages/Overtime Wages Subclass.

   * The Waiting Time Penalty Subclass: All employees of Chefs'
     who worked as delivery drivers in California from June 25,
     2014, until judgment is entered, whose employment with
     Chefs' has terminated, and who are members of any of the
     following: Meal Period, Rest Period, or Unpaid
     Wages/Overtime Wages Subclass.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court order the parties to
meet and confer to develop a proposed form of Notice to be sent to
the Class Members that reflects the Court's decision, including
procedures.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Hoffman, Esq.
          Leonard Emma, Esq.
          Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
          Cody Stroman, Esq.
          HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
          580 California Street, Suite 1600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 362-1111
          Facsimile: (415) 362-1112
          E-mail: mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com
                  lemma@employment-lawyers.com
                  silg@employment-lawyers.com
                  cstroman@employment-lawyers.com


CHICAGO, IL: 7th Cir. Affirms Judgment Against Class
----------------------------------------------------
Gregory Mersol, Esq., at Baker & Hostetler, in an article for
Lexology, wrote that there certainly has been no shortage of
publicity about the potential for wage and hour claims for time
spent by hourly employees using smartphones or other electronic
devices for work while off duty. Many employers have tried to
address the need to pay for such time, and to avoid litigation, by
promulgating procedures for such employees to record and be paid
for the hours they work on mobile devices. That should be the end
of it, but litigation continues when employees, for their own
reasons, choose not to follow those procedures or to put in for
the additional time. But is the employer responsible for that?

That was the issue presented in Allen v. City of Chicago, Case No.
16-1029 (7th Cir. Aug. 3, 2017). In that case, the city of Chicago
apparently provided BlackBerry devices for officers working in its
organized crime division. Incidentally, the case was filed in
2010, when such devices were more common -- the opinion does not
reflect whether the falloff in the popularity of that product
resulted in different mobile devices being provided. Officers who
used the BlackBerrys when off duty, a frequent occurrence due to
the nature of their work, could submit "time due slips" to their
supervisors to be paid for that time. In many cases, however, the
officers simply did not submit those slips and thus were never
paid for the time they had spent on their mobile devices during
off hours. As the trial court found, while supervisors could in
theory cross-check the work done by the officers with their time
slips to find instances where work was done but not compensated,
doing so was largely impractical. Following a six-day bench trial,
the trial court entered judgment against the class.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It noted that the police department
had a reasonable system in place for the submission of time and
was not responsible if the officers chose not to use it. It
distinguished the case from instances in which employees might
have been discouraged from submitting time or where no procedure
was in place. It rejected the notion that the department's
pressure on supervisors to reduce overtime or the concern of
officers about the "culture" constituted a violation.

The court found that the city's policies were not airtight, and it
was particularly concerned about certain of the department's
policies that were not FLSA-compliant, but the case demonstrates
that having a reasonable procedure can provide a defense for an
employer in off-the-clock cases.

One very frustrating aspect of this case is that there was no
question that the officers could simply have submitted the slips
and received overtime. And yet it took seven years, no doubt
extensive class briefing, an expensive trial and an appeal to
resolve the case against a group of employees who likely had the
support of both the city and the public. While the remark
attributed to then-Mayor Richard M. Daley when the suit was filed
that the suit was "silliness" may have been too strong, the time,
energy and money expended to resolve an issue that could easily
have been avoided reflects difficulties the courts have had in
resolving wage and hour class and collective actions.

The bottom line: An employer may have to take a class action case
to trial to prove it, but a reasonable, well-written policy to
enter time for off-the-clock work may prove to be a defense even
in class or collective action litigation. [GN]


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Bid to Certify Class in "Levine" Dropped
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PETER LEVINE, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v.
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-
11099-MLW (D. Mass.), the Court entered an order withdrawing
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class with prejudice.

The Court said, "Counsel for the parties shall confer and, by
September 26, 2017, report whether they have reached an agreement
to resolve each plaintiffs' individual claims or request a brief
extension of time to do so. This case is otherwise Stayed."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JV1VjKen


CONTRACT SWEEPERS: "Steffen" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Steffen, et al. for himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Contract Sweepers &
Equipment Co., Case No. 2:17-cv-00579-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff asks the Court pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective FLSA class;

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to:

      "all current and former hourly, non-exempt equipment
      operators of Defendant working at the CSE-Columbus office
      who during the previous three years worked over forty hours
      in any workweek but were not properly compensated for all
      of their overtime hours worked under the FLSA because of
      Defendant's automatic meal deduction policy"; and

   3. requiring Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
      the full names, last-known residential address(es), last-
      known e-mail address(es), and dates of employment of all
      potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendant at any
      time from three years preceding the filing of the instant
      motion through the present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z4o6AKb9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, Ohio 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949 1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386 9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
          PO Box 215
          Amlin, Ohio 43002
          Telephone: (614) 787 4878
          Facsimile: (614) 923 7369
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


DIRECT DIGITAL: Judge OKs $4.5 Million Deal to End Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports a federal
judge in Chicago has signed off on a $4.5 million settlement in a
class action regarding the effectiveness of dietary supplement
Instaflex, with attorneys slated to receive nearly $1.5 million of
the fund.

Charles R. Norgle Sr. entered his final order on Sept. 7 in the
dispute between Vince Mullins and Direct Digital LLC. Mullins
filed his complaint in 2013, alleging false advertising of
Instaflex Joint Support, and on Sept. 30, 2014, Norgle granted
Mullins' motion for class certification.

On July 28, 2015, the Seventh Circuit Appeals Court affirmed
Norgle's class certification order, and in February 2016, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied Direct Digital's request for a review. Norgle
granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement on March
9, 2017.

Under those terms, Direct Digital would stop using some of the
allegedly misleading language and provide cash refunds of $15 for
each bottle of Instaflex purchased, up to a maximum of seven
bottles, or $105. The $7 per bottle settlement fee is subject to
proration up or down should the amount of claims warrant
adjustment.

Direct Digital will no longer market Instaflex, or any other joint
health product containing glucoasmine sulfate, by claiming it
provides joint support; that it was created by a research group or
a Cambridge research group; that it was specially formulated; that
it is the result of a revolutionary formula; or indicate it
contains an exclusive compound. It also will not say the product
is capable of supporting, fixing, mending, reconditioning,
rehabilitating, increasing, developing, building, maintaining,
strengthening, repairing, rebuilding, renewing, regrowing, adding,
regenerating or rejuvenating cartilage, nor will Direct Digital
say Instaflex supports, maintains or improves joint health.

According to the Aug. 3 settlement motion, more than 79,000
putative class members submitted claims. No class member objected
to the settlement and only three people sought exclusion. Class
members do not have to provide proof of purchase; they only need
to submit, online or through the mail, a claim form specifying the
number of Instaflex bottles they purchased.

Direct Digital will establish a $4.5 million settlement fund. Of
that, $400,000 is set aside for notice and administration costs,
with the understanding the company will be obligated to cover any
overages in those categories. Mullins will get a $5,000 incentive
award for his role as lead plaintiff, and his attorneys will
collect about $1.49 million. Mullins was represented by Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint P.C., of Phoenix; Siprut P.C., of
Chicago; Levin Sedran Berman P.C., of Philadelphia; and Boodell &
Domanskis LLC, of Chicago.

In his settlement motion, Mullins noted Direct Digital is "a
closely held LLC that started up only about eight years ago." The
parties conducted lengthy negotiations, including a mediation
hearing with retired Judge Wayne R. Andersen, who filed a document
in support of the settlement.

Mullins brought his original claims under several state consumer
protection acts. The 2014 certification created consumer classes
in California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington. Mullins
said combined number of affected customers is about 1.6 million.

Direct Digital was represented by the firms of Venable LLP, of
Washington, D.C., and Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit, of Mundelein. [GN]


DIRECT ENERGY: Sevugan Sues over Deceptive Pricing
--------------------------------------------------
CHETTY SEVUGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06569 (N.D.
Ill., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to redress deceptive pricing practices
of Direct Energy that have caused thousands of Illinois consumers
to pay considerably more for their electricity than they should
otherwise have paid.

According to the complaint, Direct Energy has taken advantage of
the deregulation of the retail natural gas and electricity market
in Illinois by luring consumers into switching energy suppliers
with false promises that it offers market based variable rates for
natural gas and electricity. Direct Energy lures consumers into
switching by offering a teaser rate that is lower than local
utilities' rates for electricity supply. When the teaser rate
expires after a couple of months, Defendant switches customers to
a variable rate, which it represents reflects "market-related
factors." Direct Energy's representations are deceptive. In fact,
Direct Energy's variable rates are substantially higher than those
otherwise available in the energy market, and are not reflective
of the market factors on which Direct Energy purports to base its
variable rates. Direct Energy's business model is simple: after
the teaser rate expires, it charges exorbitant rates that are not
based on market-related factors, namely the rates that other
retailers and energy customers' incumbent utility providers charge
for natural gas and electricity and wholesale costs. As a result,
Illinois consumers are being fleeced millions of dollars in
exorbitant charges for energy.

Direct Energy offers electricity, natural gas and home services in
TX, PA, OH, IL, MA, and many other locations in the US and
Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          Jamie E. Weiss, Esq.
          Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433 4500

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238 1700


DIRECTV LLC: Flynn Seeks to Certify Class of Conn. MDU Landlords
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JEAN M. FLYNN and JAMES E.
STEAD, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. DIRECTV, LLC and MAS TEC, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-01053-JAM (D.
Conn.), move for class certification and appointment of class
counsel.

The class consists of:

     All persons and/or entities ("Landlords") that own and lease
     residential multiple dwelling units ("MDU's") in the State
     of Connecticut, upon which Defendants, by their agents,
     servants and/or employees have, on at least one occasion
     during the applicable statutory period, without first
     receiving prior written Landlord authorization and/or
     permission, installed DIRECTV satellite dish model Ka/Ku, on
     the roof of said MDU.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce E. Newman, Esq.
          BROWN PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP
          747 Stafford Avenue
          Bristol, CT 0601
          Telephone: (860) 583-520
          Facsimile: (860) 589-5780
          E-mail: bnewman@bpslawyers.com

               - and -

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

Defendant Directv, LLC, is represented by:

          Nicholas Norton Ouellette, Esq.
          MATTHEW DALLAS GORDON, LLC
          836 Farmington Avenue, Suite 221A
          West Hartford, CT 06119
          Telephone: (860) 523-0471

               - and -

          Andrew Z. Edelstein, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Telephone: (213) 229-5156
          Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
          E-mail: aedelstein@mayerbrown.com

Defendant MasTec, Inc., is represented by:

          Scott S. Orenstein, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
          100 Pearl Street, Suite 1100
          Hartford, CT 06103-4506
          Telephone: (860) 760-3317
          Facsimile: (860) 760-3301
          E-mail: sorenstein@goldbergsegalla.com

               - and -

          Daniel B. Moar, Esq.
          Troy Bataille, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
          665 Main Street, Suite 400
          Buffalo, NY 14203-1425
          Telephone: (716) 566-5400
          Facsimile: (716) 566-5401
          E-mail: dmoar@goldbergsegalla.com
                  tbataille@goldbergsegalla.com


DR. REDDY'S LAB: "Critchley" Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------
Regina Critchley, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories
Limited, G.V. Prasad and Saumen Chakraborty, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-06436, (D. N.J., August 25, 2017), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Dr. Reddy's is an integrated pharmaceutical company which operates
in three segments: global genetics, pharmaceutical services and
active ingredients and proprietary products.

The Regulatory Authority of Germany sent notice to Dr. Reddy's
wholly-owned subsidiary in Germany, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH,
that one of the Company's plants lost its Good Manufacturing
Practices compliance certificate after its recent inspection of
the plant thus is prohibited from making any further dispatch to
the European Union until the next inspection. On this news, shares
of Dr. Reddy fell $1.97 per share or approximately 6% from its
previous closing price to close at $30.33 per share on August 10,
2017, damaging investors including the Plaintiff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DR REDDY'S: Oct. 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of investors who purchased
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. ("Dr. Reddy's") (NYSE:RDY)
securities between June 17, 2015, and August 10, 2017.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Dr. Reddy's lacked an effective
corporate quality system; and (2) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. On November 6, 2015, Dr. Reddy's announced that it had
received a warning letter issued by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration concerning inadequate quality control standards at
three of Dr. Reddy's manufacturing plants in India. Then on August
10, 2017, Dr. Reddy's disclosed that the Regierung von Oberbayern
(the district government of Upper Bavaria) did not renew the good
manufacturing practices compliance certificate of a manufacturing
unit of Dr. Reddy's German subsidiary Betapharm Arzneimittel,
located in India.

If you suffered a loss in Dr. Reddy's you have until October 24,
2017 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-sb/dr-
reddys-laboratories-ltd?wire=3.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

      Vincent Wong, Esq.
      39 East Broadway
      Suite 304
      New York, NY 10002
      Tel. 212.425.1140
      Fax. 866.699.3880
      E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Hensley" Suit in Eastern District of Penn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc.  The
case is styled as Barbara Hensley, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax, Inc. and
Equifax Information Services LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-
04105-LDD (E.D. Penn., September 14, 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:

   Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
   NASTLAW LLC
   1101 MARKET ST STE 2801
   Philadelphia, PA 19107
   Tel: (215) 923-9300
   Fax: (215) 923-9302
   Email: dnast@nastlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Kalmick" Suit over Data Theft
-------------------------------------------------
BRUCE KALMICK, TAMMIE MARRS, and PAUL MARRS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
EQUIFAX INC., the Defendant, Case No. D-1-GN-17-005025 (Tex. Dist.
Ct., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks monetary relief under $5,000,000 and
affirmatively pleads that this case does not fall under the
expedited-actions process of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169.

Equifax is a company that collects and stores personal and credit
information of people all across the United States. Specifically,
Equifax collected personal information of the Plaintiffs by
storing their social security numbers, birth dates, home
addresses, driver's license information and credit card numbers.
By storing extremely sensitive information, Equifax owed a legal
duty to consumers like Plaintiffs to use reasonable care in
protecting this information from unauthorized access by third
parties. Equifax knew that failure to provide protection will
result in serious harm to consumers. This harm is, but not limited
to, credit harm, identity theft, credit monitoring, and
replacement of credit/debit cards. In fact, Equifax has
experienced breaches of personal information in 2013, 2016, and
January 2017.

Yet, on September 7, Equifax announced its largest breach for the
first time that occurred from May 2017 to July 2017. Its database
storing Plaintiffs' and other consumers' sensitive credit and
personal information had been hacked by unauthorized-third
parties, subjecting all affected to credit harm and identity theft
(last estimated to be over 100 million people). By Equifax's
purposeful delay in providing notice to consumers, Equifax
prevented consumers from taking swift action in potentially
limiting the damage done to the consumers affected. Despite
failing to inform the millions of people affected until months
after the discovery of the data breach, Equifax did not hesitate
to protect its own interest. According to Bloomberg, at least
three Equifax senior executives sold shares worth $1.8 million in
the days following the data breach.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual
consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul Colley, Jr., Esq.
          Jarrett Stone, Esq.
          COLLEY FIRM, P.C.
          12912 Hill Country Blvd., Suite F-234
          Austin, TX 78738
          Telephone: (512) 477 2001
          Facsimile: (512) 477 3335
          E-mail: paul@colleylaw.net
                  Jarrett@collylaw.net


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Scott" Suit over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others, the
Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06715
(C.D. Cal., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to recover actual damages,
economic damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs as a result of Equifax's violation
of the Unfair Competition Law for failing to take reasonable
measures in protecting Plaintiff's and the Class Members'
personally identifiable information (PII).

On July 29, 2017, Equifax discovered that cybercriminals had
exploited a "website application vulnerability" ("the
Vulnerability") in its system and stolen the PII of over 143
million individuals (the "Data Breach"). In the period between the
discovery of the Data Breach, on July 29, and the public
disclosure of the breach, Equifax managers sold shares worth
almost $1.8 million. After over a month had passed, Equifax
publicly announced the Data Breach on September 7, upon this news
the Company's stock plummeted over 6 percent. As a result of the
Data Breach, Plaintiff and other Class Members will bear an
immediate and heightened risk of all manners of identity theft.
Equifax was negligent in taking the necessary precautions required
to safeguard and protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from
cybercriminals, and also breached its duty to timely and
adequately disclose the Data Breach.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual
consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          Danielle L. Manning, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Safirstein Metcalf Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Safirstein Metcalf LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit was
filed against Equifax, Inc., relating to the recently disclosed
data breach.  According to reports, the data breach purportedly
began in May 2017 and continued until July 29, 2017. The hackers
accessed names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses,
and driver's license numbers.

The complaint alleges that Equifax was negligent in failing to
protect consumer data and choosing to save money instead of
spending on technical safeguards that could have stopped the cyber
attack.

After the market closed on September 7, 2017, Equifax announced a
"cybersecurity incident potentially impacting approximately 143
million U.S. consumers.  Following this news, shares of Equifax
fell substantially on Sept. 7 with shares trading this afternoon
at $122.68 -- down approximately 14% for the day.

It was also reported that three of Equifax's officers and managers
sold stock before the hack was revealed.

Safirstein Metcalf LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf
of investors in Equifax (NYSE:EFX).  If you are a Equifax
shareholder and would like information, please contact Safirstein
Metcalf LLP at 1-800-221-0015, or email
info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com.

About Safirstein Metcalf LLP

Safirstein Metcalf LLP focuses its practice on shareholder rights.
The law firm also practices in the areas of antitrust and consumer
protection.  All of the Firm's legal endeavors are rooted in its
core mission: provide investor and consumer protection. [GN]


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Torrey" Suit over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA TORREY, Ohio consumer, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, 17604 Eastbrook Trail Chagrin Falls, OH
44023, the Plaintiffs, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES c/o
Corporation Service Company, 50 W. Broad Street, Suite 1330
Columbus, OH 43215, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01922 (N.D. Ohio,
Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to recover actual damages as a result of
Equifax's negligent failure to comply with the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA).

Plaintiff filed this complaint as an Ohio Class Action on behalf
of the Ohio residents harmed by Equifax's failure to adequately
protect their credit and personal information. The complaint
requests that Equifax provide fair compensation in an amount that
will ensure every consumer harmed by its data breach will not be
out-of-pocket for the costs of independent third-party credit
repair and monitoring services. The complaint's allegations are
based on personal knowledge as to plaintiff's conduct and made on
information and belief as to the acts of others. Equifax collected
and stored personal and credit information from Ms. Torrey and
Ohio Class members, including their social security numbers, birth
dates, home addresses, driver's license information, and credit
card numbers. Equifax owed a legal duty to consumers like Ms.
Torrey to use reasonable care to protect their credit and personal
information from unauthorized access by third parties. Equifax
knew that its failure to protect Ms. Torrey's credit and personal
information from unauthorized access would cause serious risks of
credit harm and identity theft for years to come.

On July 29, 2017, Equifax discovered that hackers had gained
access to company data that potentially compromised sensitive
information for 143 million American consumers. On September 7,
Equifax announced for the first time that from May to July 2017,
its database storing Ms. Torrey's credit and personal information
had been hacked by unauthorized third parties, subjecting Ms.
Torrey to credit harm and identity theft.

According to the complaint, in an attempt to increase profits,
Equifax negligently failed to maintain adequate technological
safeguards to protect Ms. Torrey's information from unauthorized
access by hackers. Equifax knew and should have known that failure
to maintain adequate technological safeguards would eventually
result in a massive data breach. Equifax could have and should
have substantially increased the amount of money it spent to
protect against cyber-attacks but chose not to. As a result of
Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security
procedure, the sensitive information of approximately 143 million
American consumers is now in the hands of hackers.

Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC is a multi-billion
dollar Georgia corporation that provides credit information
services to millions of businesses, governmental units, and
consumers across the globe. Equifax operates through various
subsidiaries including Equifax Information Services, LLC and
Equifax Consumer Services, LLC aka Equifax Personal Solutions aka
PSOL. Each of these entities acted as agents of Equifax or in the
alternative, acted in concert with Equifax as alleged in this
complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Novak, Esq.
          NOVAK, LLP
          Hoyt Block Building
          700 West St. Clair Ave., Ste. 418
          Cleveland, Ohio 44113
          Telephone: (216) 781 8700
          Facsimile: (216) 781 9227
          E-mail: william@novak-law.com

               - and -

          James B. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Joshua R. Cohen, Esq.
          Ellen M. Kramer, Esq.
          Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
          The Hoyt Block Building - Suite 400
          700 West St. Clair Avenue
          Cleveland, Ohio 44113
          Telephone: (216) 781 7956
          Facsimile: (216) 781 8061
          E-mail: jbr@crklaw.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Jakob" Suit in E.D. of Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc.  The case is styled as Brigitte A. Jakob, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01246 (E.D. Wis., September 14, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John Soumilas, Esq.
   Francis & Mailmain PC
   100 S Broad St-Ste 1902
   Philadelphia, PA 19910
   Tel: (215) 735-8600
   Fax: (215) 940-8000
   Email: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com


EXTRAORDINARY DESIGN: "Naveira" Suit Alleges Sexual Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS J. NAVEIRA, an Individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXTRAORDINARY DESIGN,
LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, EXTRAORDINARY REAL
ESTATE INCORPORATED, a California Corporation, 329 NEWLAND ST
90042, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, MAXWELL VAN
NORMAN, an Individual, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC675531 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 12, 2017),
seeks injunction prohibiting Employer Defendants from continuing
with their unlawful and unfair employment practices.

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff was (1) sexually harassed;
(2) discriminated and harassed because of his sexual orientation
and race; (3) retaliated against for refusing sexual advances
and/or refusing to participate in illegal practices; and (4)
wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy.  The lawsuit
says the Employer defendants are liable for failing to take
reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment, discrimination, and
retaliation.

Additionally, Defendants (1) trespassed into plaintiff and his
fiancee's apartment; and (2) wrongfully evicted plaintiff from
defendant employer's property in violation of Los Angeles rent
control ordinances and a written lease. Defendant employers are
also liable for several wage and hour violations (both actual and
statutory damages and civil penalties) under the California Labor
Code, the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") and California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

Extraordinary is in house designer business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emma D. Enriquez, Esq.
          BITTON & ASSOCIATES
          7220 Melrose Ave.
          Los Angeles, CA 90046
          Telephone: (310) 356 1006


FLORIDA, USA: Prunty's Bid for Class Certification Stricken
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John E. Steele entered an opinion and order in the
lawsuit captioned ROBERT R. PRUNTY v. AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE
ADMINISTRATION, AHCA, ELIZABETH DUDEK, Director, THE JACK NICKLAUS
MIAMI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, JNMCH, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DESOTO
COUNTY & BOARD OF DIRECTORS, and ALEX SOTO, & Board of Directors,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00291-UA-CM (M.D. Fla.), ruling that:

   1. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Own Previously
      Filed Motion for Class Certification is granted and the
      Motion for Class Certification is deemed stricken;

   2. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is stricken and
      will not be considered;

   3. Plaintiff's Motion Seeking Class Certification is denied;

   4. Plaintiff's Motion seeking disqualification or recusal is
      denied;

   5. Plaintiff's "Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. Rule
      60(b)(4) Seeking to Vacate All Orders and Judgments of
      Federal District Court Judge John E. Steele  . . ." is
      denied;

   6. Plaintiff's "Motion filed Pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P.
      Rule 60(b)(3) and Fed. R. of Civ. P. Rule 26(g), Due to
      Intentional Fraud Upon the Court By Officers of the Court"
      is denied; and

   7. Plaintiff's Motion Seeking Judicial Notice of Adjudicative
      and Legislative Facts is denied.

The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification on July 17,
2017, seeking an appointment of class counsel and certification of
a class of African-American parents of Desoto County Public School
District children who filled out IEP contracts over the past 5
years.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EODjq0fJ


FORD MOTOR: Case Mngt Conference in "Baranco" Moved to Nov. 21
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order to continue
the case management conference and extend Defendant's time to
response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in the case captioned
DAVID BARANCO, JAMES ABBITT, HARRIET ABRUSCATO, DONALD BROWN,
DANIEL CARON, ANITA FARRELL, JOHN FURNO, JAMES JENKIN, ROGER
KINNUNEN, GARY KUBBER and MALISA NICOLAU, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; Defendants, Case No. 3:17-CV-
03580-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

Defendant Ford Motor Company's response to Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint in the action is continued from September 1, 2017 to
October 16, 2017; and the Case Management Conference set for
September 21, 2017 is adjourned and reset to November 21, 2017 at
10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yb4htxg2from Leagle.com.

David Baranco, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst --
lhurst@bholaw.com -Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP.

David Baranco, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf -
- mds@mccunewright.com -- McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood --
tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC.

Malisa Nicolau, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf,
McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC.

James Abbitt, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf,
McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC.

Daniel Caron, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf,
McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC.

Gary Kubber, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf,
McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC.

Roger Kinnunen, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf,
McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC.

Anita Farrell, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf,
McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC.

Harriet Abruscato, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David
Schelkopf, McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst &
O'Rearden, LLC.

James Jenkin, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf,
McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC.

Donald Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf,
McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC.

John Furno, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Schelkopf,
McCuneWright LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Tamara Alicia Bush -
- tbush@dykema.com  -- Dykema Gossett LLP & John Mark Thomas --
jthomas@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC.


FUSION BRANDS: Faces "Gonzales" Suit in C.D. of California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fusion Brands
America, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Gonzales, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Fusion Brands America, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01598-AG-KES
(C.D. Cal., September 14, 2017).

Fusion Brands America, Inc. manufactures and sells dermatology,
cosmetics, and biological science products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Scott J Ferrell, Esq.
   Pacific Trial Attorneys APC
   4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
   Newport Beach, CA 92660
   Tel: (949) 706-6464
   Fax: (949) 706-6469
   Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


G4S SECURE: "Abumohor" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Abumohor and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. G4S
Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-23258,
(S.D. Fla., August 28, 2017), seeks to recover money damages for
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a provider of security personnel and systems where
Abumohor worked as a site captain. Once Plaintiff reaches 40 hours
for the week, he is automatically moved to a different rate of pay
in the pay system despite performing the same job in the same way.
Furthermore, he does not clock-in any differently for these hours,
says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
      SORONDO ROSENBERG LEGAL PA
      1825 Ponce de Leon Blvd. #329
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (786) 708-7550
      Email: rer@sorondorosenberg.com


GC SERVICES: Faces "Mullins" Suit in C.D. of California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services LP. The
case is styled as Lisa Mullins, an individual, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of a Class of persons who are similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GC Services LP, a Delaware Limited
Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01601 (C.D. Cal.,
September 14, 2017).

GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of
call center management and collection agency services in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


GHHS HEALTHCARE: "Bowden" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adrianne Bowden on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GHHS Healthcare, LLC, d/b/a Georgia Home
Health Services, Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-00143, (M.D. Ga.,
August 25, 2017), seeks compensation for all unpaid and underpaid
wages, liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses, and
attorneys' fees and such other and further relief under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Medical Social Worker from
approximately October 2016 through approximately June 2017,
conducting home visits to patients receiving home care. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Moore. Esq.
      POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C.
      3391 Peachtree Road, Suite 300
      Atlanta, GA 30326
      Tel: (404) 523-7706
      Fax: (404) 524-1648
      Email: michaelmoore@pmkm.com

             - and -

      Jerry E. Martin. Esq.
      Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
      Barrett Johnston, Esq.
      MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 244-2202
      Fax: (615) 252-3798
      Email: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
             jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

             - and -

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Tel: (215) 884-2491
      Fax: (215) 884-2492
      Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


GUARDIAN LIVING: Williams Seeks to Certify Direct Care Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled TIFFERY WILLIAMS, Individually
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. GUARDIAN LIVING
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-01901 (S.D. Tex.), asks the Court
to conditionally certify a collective action and authorize notice
to the potential class members consisting of:

    "All Direct Care Staff employees employed by Guardian Living
     Services, Inc., in the past three (3) years who were not
     paid the full time-and-a-half overtime premium for overtime
     hours worked in a given workweek."

Ms. Williams filed her Original Complaint on behalf of herself and
on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals on December
29, 2016, against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, namely for the Defendant's failure to pay
overtime for all overtime hours worked.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM
          2537 S. Gessner Rd., Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 223-8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
          E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Terrence B. Robinson, Esq.
          Mina Madani Banerjee, Esq.
          TB ROBINSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1616 S. Voss Rd., Suite 870
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (832) 548-9399
          E-mail: TRobinson@TBRobinsonlaw.com
                  Mbanerjee@TBRobinsonlaw.com


HEALTH CARE: 7th Cir. Reverses "Priddy" Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, issued an
Opinion reversing the District Court's decision granting Class
Certification in the case captioned SUSAN PRIDDY, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellant, No. 16-4127 (7th Cir.).

Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC) is one of the nation's
largest health insurance providers. This appeal presents the
question whether the district court erred by certifying a class
action against HCSC.

The named representatives assert that HCSC is violating federal
and Illinois law by the way in which it is using third-party
affiliates to provide various services.

Plaintiffs moved for certification, and the district court granted
their request. It certified four classes under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):

   (1) employers who purchased HCSC plans for employees in any of
the five states served by HCSC;

   (2) beneficiaries of employer-furnished plans provided by HCSC
in any of the five states;

   (3) individuals who purchased insurance directly from HCSC in
any of the five states; and

   (4) Illinois insureds who were protected by Illinois insurance
regulations.

Altogether, the four classes included approximately ten million
people. The court named Susan Priddy and Michael Beiler as the
class representatives, and it designated counsel for the named
plaintiffs as class counsel.

The District Court concluded that the insurance policies governing
each class member's relationship to HCSC were uniform, and thus
that the common question of the legality of those terms
predominated.  HCSC disagreed vociferously with all this, pointing
out many ways in which the proposed classes were heterogeneous and
thus not suited to common treatment.

HCSC filed the appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(f), and a panel of the Seventh Circuit agreed to accept it.

The Seventh Circuit notes that it is not even clear that HCSC owed
many class members any fiduciary duty at all, and the district
court did not undertake this inquiry. Three of the four classes it
certified include people whom HCSC does not insure and who do not
pay it premiums it only administers their health benefits.

Moreover, ERISA applies only to plans established or maintained by
an employer or by an employee organization, or by both.

It is therefore unclear at best how class members who bought
insurance directly from HCSC can plausibly claim relief under the
statute. Again, the district court did not explore this angle.
The Seventh Circuit is thus unable to divine whether and how these
concerns affected its ultimate certification decision. Even
seemingly glaring problems went unaddressed we are uncertain, for
instance, why the class expressly includes members who obtained
health care coverage from  a benefit plan underwritten,
administered, or otherwise provided by Defendant, HCSC, but not
subject to ERISA.

It is possible that even if HCSC owed no fiduciary duty to the
people whose benefits it merely administered, it may have worn the
fiduciary hat for others. Providing an insured with medicine and
deciding whether to cover her claims does not usually bring to
mind a duty-free relationship. But the district court did not tell
us how it approached these and other crucial points, or why they
did or did not guide its certification decision, the Seventh
Circuit held.

Even if each individual omission does not compel a finding of
abuse of discretion, the court's certification order faces the
analytic equivalent of death by a thousand cuts cumulatively, the
failure to provide a reasoned explanation on a string of important
points compels reversal. Explanations are necessary; complex
certification decisions cannot be made by judicial fiat, the
Seventh Circuit added.

The order granting class certification is reversed and the case is
remanded for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's August 31, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yc8zcpzzfrom Leagle.com.

Helen E. Witt -- helen.witt@kirkland.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

James K. Horstman -- jkh@crayhuber.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Christopher Landau -- christopher.landau@kirkland.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Alexandra de Saint Phalle, 1227 S 7th St, Springfield, IL 62703,
USA for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Sopan Joshi -- sopan.joshi@kirkland.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Jonathan P. Novoselsky,  303 W Madison St, Chicago, IL 60606, USA
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Stephen W. Heil -- swh@crayhuber.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Stacey G. Pagonis -- stacey.pagonis@kirkland.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Laura K. Rif -- lriff@iu.edu -- for Defendant-Appellant.


HELIX ENERGY: "Shirey" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
JASON SHIREY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02741 (S.D. Tex., Sep. 12, 2017),
seeks all available relief, including compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Jason Shirey brings this action individually and on behalf of
all Tool Pushers who worked for Helix and were paid a day rate but
no overtime from three years preceding the filing of the Original
Complaint and through the final disposition of this matter.

The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely work (and
worked) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and
one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek.

Helix Energy, known as Cal Dive International prior to 2006, is an
American oil and gas services company headquartered in Houston,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com


HSN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed  in United States District
Court for the District of Delaware against HSN, Inc. ("HSN" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:  HSNI) for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
in connection with the proposed sale of the Company to Liberty
Interactive Corporation ("Liberty Interactive") (NASDAQ:  QVCA,
LVNTA).  Such investors are encouraged to learn more about this
case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/hsni.

On July 6, 2017, HSN announced that it had entered a merger
agreement and would be acquired by Liberty Interactive Corporation
("Liberty Interactive") (NASDAQ:  QVCA, LVNTA) in a transaction
valued at approximately $2.6 billion. Under the terms of the
agreement, HSN shareholders will receive 1.65 shares of Series A
QVC Group common stock for each share of HSN common stock.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you are a HSN
shareholder and wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can
visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/hsni. You may also contact
Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael
Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

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


HUMANA AT HOME: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Poggi" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuits entitled DAVID POGGI,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated v. HUMANA
AT HOME 1, INC., a Florida for-profit corporation; and HUMANA,
INC., a foreign for-profit corporation, Lead Case No. 8:17-cv-
00433-SCB-MAP (M.D. Fla.), and HARRY CRUZ, individually and on
behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated v. HUMANA AT
HOME 1, INC., a Florida for-profit corporation; and HUMANA, INC.,
a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 8:17-cv-1234-T-24-JSS
(M.D. Fla.), moves for conditional certification and facilitation
of court-authorized notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The consolidated case involves a multi-billion dollar, publically-
traded health insurance corporation hiring a multi-million dollar,
publically-traded data collection and "business intelligence"
corporation to monitor, track and prod non-exempt members of the
American health insurance industry workforce into increased
productivity without payment of proper overtime wages in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs assert.  The
Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify a class of:

     all non-exempt Healthcare Coordinators, Personal Health
     Coaches, Home Visit Field Case Managers, Wellness
     Coordinators and other similarly-situated non-exempt
     employees who worked for Defendant from February 2014 to the
     present, who worked more than forty (40) hours per week, and
     who, by virtue of Defendants' unlawful "Workforce
     Optimization Policy," were not paid for: (a) all time spent
     working outside their regularly-scheduled shifts to complete
     their daily and/or weekly quota requirements; and/or (b) all
     electronically recorded rest periods of short duration (less
     than 20 minutes).

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to (i) direct the Defendants to
produce a list containing the full names, job titles, last known
addresses, personal e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, dates of
birth, and dates of employment for all putative class members;
(ii) prohibit the Defendants' contact with any individual
disclosed as a putative class member; (iii) authorize the
undersigned counsel to send initial Notice to all individuals
whose names appear on the list; (iv) direct the Defendants to post
at every location in which it hires, trains and/or employs
putative class members a copy of the initial Notice and Consent
Form; (v) authorize the undersigned counsel to send a follow-up
notice; and (vi) providing all individuals whose names appear on
the list a total of 60 days from the date the notices are
initially mailed to file a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff
form.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christina J. Thomas, Esq.
          Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan
          333 W. Vine St., Suite 1200
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 286-8369
          E-mail: Cthomas@forthepeople.com
                  Bmazaheri@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          W. John Gadd, Esq.
          Bank of America Bldg.
          2727 Ulmerton Rd., Suite 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (727) 524-6300
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com

               - and -

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


HUNTLEIGH USA: Thomas Moves to Certify Class of Service Agents
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled Mary L. Thomas, Individually
and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Huntleigh USA
Corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-03648 (S.D. Tex.), seeks conditional
certification of a collective action and authority to send notice
to potential class members consisting of:

    "All Service Agents employed by Huntleigh USA Corporation in
     the past three (3) years who were paid on an hourly rate
     without the full time-and-a-half overtime premium for all
     overtime hours worked."

Ms. Thomas filed her Original Complaint on behalf of herself and
on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals on Dec. 13,
2016, against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, namely for the Defendant's failure to pay
overtime.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM
          2537 S. Gessner Rd., Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 223-8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
          E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bryant S. Banes, Esq.
          Madeleine Wilkins, Esq.
          NEEL, HOOPER & BANES, P.C.
          1800 West Loop South, Suite 1750
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (713) 629-1800
          Facsimile: (713) 629-1812
          E-mail: bbanes@nhblaw.com
                  mwilkins@nhblaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen B. Maule, Esq.
          Rex P. Fennessey, Esq.
          MCMAHON BERGER P.C.
          2730 North Ballas Road, Suite 200
          St. Louis, MO 63131-3039
          Telephone: (314) 567-7350
          E-mail: maule@mcmahonberger.com
                  fennessey@mcmahonberger.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Class Certification Sought in "Wheeler" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled KEVIN WHEELER, on behalf of
plaintiff and the class members described herein v. MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC, MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and ENCORE CAPITAL
GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-11152 (N.D. Ill.), seeks to certify
a class defined as:

     (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) who accessed
     the MCM web site (c) and were offered a settlement or
     discount (d) on a credit card debt on which the last payment
     had been made more than five years prior to the accessing
     (e) where the date of access was on or after a date one year
     prior to the filing of this action and on or before a date
     21 days after the filing of this action.

The case arises out of the Defendants' alleged practice of
accessing individuals' credit information with the hope that those
individuals then contact the Defendants so that the Defendants can
offer settlements or discounts on time-barred debts without the
disclosure of that fact.  The lawsuit is brought under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  cmiller@edcombs.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Heather L. Kramer, Esq.
          Theodore Wilson Seitz, Esq.
          Todd A. Gale, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876-1700
          Facsimile: (312) 876-1155
          E-mail: hkramer@dykema.com
                  tseitz@dykema.com
                  tgale@dykema.com


MIDWAY OILFIELD: Flores Moves to Certify Class of Tool Pushers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JOSE A. FLORES, On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. MIDWAY OILFIELD
CONSTRUCTORS, INC. d/b/a MIDWAY ENERGY SERVICES, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00312-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.), moves for conditional certification and
notice to potential plaintiffs pursuant to the collective action
provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The class of "Potential Plaintiffs" is defined as:

     All of Defendant's current and former hourly-paid workers
     who, during any week from April 1, 2014, worked as a tool
     pusher for Midway Oilfield Constructors, Inc. or Midway
     Energy Services.

Mr. Flores sued the Defendant to recover wages that should have
been paid in accordance with the FLSA but were not.  He alleges
that the Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay him for all
hours of work at the rates required by the FLSA.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VBN5pKUT

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shane McGuire, Esq.
          THE MCGUIRE FIRM, PC
          102 N. College Ave., Suite 301
          Tyler, TX 75702
          Telephone: (903) 630-7154
          Facsimile: (903) 630-7173
          E-mail: shane@mcguirefirm.com

               - and -

          Keith Miller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH MILLER
          100 E. Ferguson, Suite 101
          Tyler, TX 75702
          Telephone: (903) 597-4090
          Facsimile: (903) 597-3692
          E-mail: keith@5974090.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gaines West, Esq.
          WEST, WEBB, ALLBRITTON & GENTRY, P.C.
          1515 Emerald Plaza
          College Station, TX 77845
          Telephone: (979) 694-7000
          Facsimile: (979) 694-8000
          E-mail: gaines.west@westwebblaw.com


INTERSTATE WAREHOUSING: Bid to Certify Settlement Class Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled KATHY WARREN, TONYA CALHOUN, CLARISSA
ROGERS, and persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTERSTATE
WAREHOUSING, INC., A TIPPMANN GROUP COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00014 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs and Defendant
jointly ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this case as a settlement class
      under Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3);

   2. appointing Kathy Warren, Tonya Calhoun and Clarissa Rogers
      as Class Representatives and Justin Gilbert, as Class
      Counsel;

   3. granting preliminary approval of a proposed settlement;

   4. approving the notification plan to determine and notify
      class members; and

   5. if the Court deems appropriate, scheduling a telephonic or
      in person fairness hearing to consider final approval of
      the settlement, the incentive award to Class
      Representatives and awards to any Class Members in the
      settlement class, and attorney fees to Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Bhivd29V

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin S. Gilbert, Esq.
          GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER
          SCOTT BOBBITT, PLC
          100 W. Martin Luther King Blvd., Suite 504
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Telephone: (423) 499 3044
          Facsimile: (731) 664 1540

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas M. Kimbrough, Esq.
          BARRETT McNAGNY LLP
          215 E. Berry Street
          P.O. Box 2263
          Fort Wayne, IN 46801
          Telephone: (260) 423 9551
          Facsimile: (260) 423 8920

               - and -

          Robert E. Boston, Esq.
          WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH DAVIS, LLP
          Nashville City Center
          511 Union Street, Suite 2700
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244 6380
          Facsimile: (615) 244 6804
          E-mail: Bob.boston@wallerlaw.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Moodie May Renew Bid to Certify by October 16
---------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons stated on the record, the Honorable Fernando M.
Olguin denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's unopposed motion
for class certification and preliminary approval of settlement
agreement in the lawsuit captioned Shonntey Moodie, et al. v.
Maxim Healthcare Services, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-03471-FMO-AS
(C.D. Cal.).

Judge Olguin directed the Plaintiff to file a renewed motion for
class certification and for preliminary approval of class action
no later than October 16, 2017.  The memorandum in support of the
renewed motion shall not exceed 40 pages.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sE5hj3QM

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500-8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
          E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph Duffy, Esq.
          Taylor C. Day, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-7378
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com
                  tday@morganlewis.com


IYOGI INC: Sued by "Bell" for Harassing Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karri Bell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Iyogi, Inc., a New York corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00669, (W.D. Wisc., August 28, 2017),
seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys'
fees and any other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

iYogi is a remote technical support firm which provides
subscription based technical support for personal computers. It
offers its services through yearly flat-fee technical support
plans. After the one-year service plan expires, iYogi makes
repeated and harassing telephone calls to consumers' cellular
telephones, even after repeated requests to stop calling, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Facsimile: (619) 564-6665


JAUREGUI & LINDSEY: Faces "Blackmon" Suit in M.D. of Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jauregui & Lindsey,
LLC. The case is styled as Gregory Blackmon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jauregui &
Lindsey, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00610-TFM (M.D. Ala.,
September 14, 2017).

Jauregui & Lindsey, LLC is a law firm in Birmingham, AL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Curtis R. Hussey, Esq.
   Hussey Law Firm LLC
   10 N. Section #122
   Fairhope, AL 36532
   Tel: (251) 928-1423
   Email: gulfcoastadr@gmail.com



KAIGLER & ASSOCIATES: Allstate Has No Duty to Indemnify
-------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, issued an Opinion
affirming the judgment of the trial court in all aspects in the
case captioned ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. KAIGLER &
ASSOCIATES, INC., No. M2016-01003-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App.).

Declaratory judgment action in which an insurance company seeks a
determination of its coverage obligations arising out of a
business insurance policy it issued relative to a class action
suit brought against the insured for sending unsolicited faxes in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Kaigler & Company, Inc. (Kaigler) is a surplus line insurance
company that makes specialty insurance products available to
independent agents; it is owned by David Kaigler. A class action
suit was filed against Kaigler in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, which alleged that Kaigler sent unsolicited fax
messages to recipients in violation the Telephone Consumer Privacy
Act (TCPA).  The complaint sought statutory damages under the TCPA
in the amount of $500 per violation; alleged that Kaigler's
practice of faxing unsolicited advertisements caused the
recipients to lose paper, toner, and the use of their fax
machines, as well as lost time by employees.  The court granted
partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, holding that all
elements of the TCPA claim had been met; the court denied, without
prejudice, the portion of the motion directed at damages.

On February 19, 2015, Allstate, which issued a Customizer Business
Insurance Policy to Kaigler, filed suit in Williamson County
Chancery Court, seeking a declaration of its responsibility to
defend Kaigler in the Class Action Suit and what coverage was
triggered under the policy.  Specifically, Allstate sought a
determination that its obligations to Kaigler arose "only under
the 'advertising injury' coverage and that a duty to defend
Kaigler does not arise under the 'accidental event' coverage" or
the personal injury coverage.  Kaigler answered, inter alia,
denying the allegations of the complaint and asserting that
Allstate failed to state a claim for relief.  In due course,
Allstate filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that it
had no duty to defend or indemnify Kaigler in the Class Action
Lawsuit under the "advertising injury," "accidental event," or
"personal injury" coverage.  The court granted Allstate's motion
in part, holding that Allstate did not have a duty to indemnify
under the "accidental event" or "personal injury" coverage; that
it had a duty to defend Kaigler under the "advertising injury"
coverage; and that "[b]ecause Allstate has a duty to defend
Kaigler under the 'advertising injury' coverage . . . Allstate has
a duty to defend Kaigler against all claims."

Kaigler filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, requesting
that the court reconsider the grant of summary judgment on the
issue of Allstate's duty to indemnify under its "accidental event"
coverage.  The court denied Kaigler's motion, holding that two
affidavits Kaigler proffered as new information would not have
changed the outcome of the case, that the information contained in
the affidavits was available at the time summary judgment was
granted, and that adjudication of the duty to indemnify question
was proper in light of the status of the underlying class action
in which liability had been determined.  On appeal, Kaigler asks
the Tenn. App. to determine whether the trial court erred in
ruling on Allstate's motion and whether the trial court erred in
ruling that Allstate has no duty to defend or indemnify under the
"accidental event" coverage.

The Tenn. App. first examined Kaigler's contention that because
the duty to defend is not actually in dispute and the duty to
indemnify is premature, the trial court improperly issued an
advisory opinion.

Kaigler's contention is without merit, the Tenn. App. pointed out
that the Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-14-103 allows for any
person interested under a written contract to have determined any
question of construction arising under the contract and obtain a
declaration of rights, status or other legal relations there-
under.

While the Class Action Suit has not come to a final resolution,
Kaigler's liability under the TCPA has been determined, and the
only matter remaining is the amount of damages to be awarded to
class members.

Thus, a determination of Allstate's obligations under Kaigler's
business policy is authorized by the statute and is not premature;
in making a determination regarding the extent of Allstate's
duties under the insurance policy, the court did not issue an
advisory opinion.

Kaigler's act of sending the faxes was intended, the injury, as
put forth in the Class Action Suit, as a loss of paper and toner,
is an expected result of the transmission of a fax. Thus,
Kaigler's action of sending the faxes does not fall within the
definition of accident, as set forth in the policy, the Tenn. App.
held.  Moreover, the plain, literal, and popular definition of the
word accident is an unforeseen and unplanned event or
circumstance.

Kaigler's intentional sending of the faxes was not an unplanned
event or circumstance. Allstate put forth evidence sufficient to
prove that the undisputed facts entitle it to summary judgment,
thus shifting the burden to Kaigler to introduce evidence
establishing a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
Kaigler argued that because it did not intend for the sent faxes
to injure the recipients, coverage was not precluded under the
accidental event coverage. Kaigler failed to put forth any
evidence, by affidavit or otherwise, establishing a material
question of fact to support this argument. Construing the
definition of accidental event in light of the undisputed facts,
Allstate was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Kaigler contends that the court erred in denying its Rule 59.04
motion, which asserted that summary judgment was improper because
(1) there is a genuine issue of material fact, (2) a determination
of the duty to indemnify should not have been made before there is
an underlying judgment against Kaigler, or, alternatively, (3)
Allstate has a duty to defend under the accidental event coverage.
In support of his motion, Kaigler submitted two affidavits of
David Kaigler.

In considering the newly proffered affidavits, the court properly
considered the relevant factors the importance of the new evidence
and Kaigler's reasoning for failing to submit the evidence in its
response to the motion for summary judgment. As respects the
importance of the new evidence, the court determined that the
affidavits would not change the outcome of the case.

With respect to Kaigler's explanation for not submitting the
affidavits in response to the motion for summary judgment, the
court determined that Kaigler offered no justifiable reason why it
did not submit the first affidavit, which existed at the time the
motion for summary judgment was filed, nor did it offer any reason
for why the information contained in the second affidavit was not
available to him prior the entry of summary judgment.

The Tenn. App. concluded that the trial court applied the correct
legal standard in its determination, based its decision on sound
reasoning, and made a clear assessment of the evidence. The court
did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to alter or
amend.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all respects.

A full-text copy of the Tenn. App.'s August 31, 2017 Opinion is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y7cbrsl5from Leagle.com.

David L. Cooper, 208 Third Ave. N. Ste. 300 Nashville, TN 37201-
1642, for the appellant, Kaigler & Associates, Inc.

Jay R. McLemore, 5200 Maryland Way; Brentwood, Tennessee 37027,
Michael Resis -- mresis@salawus.com -- and Christine V. Anto --
canto@salawus.com -- Chicago, Illinois, for the appellee, Allstate
Insurance Company.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "Shonkwiler" Suit over Unsolicited Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN F. SHONKWILER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH
PLAN, INC., a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-05278-JCS (N.D. Cal., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to recover
injunction requiring Kaiser to cease all unsolicited calling
activities, award of statutory damages to the Class under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

Kaiser provides healthcare plans to its members through its
network of Kaiser Permanente healthcare providers. Kaiser provides
these services under the Kaiser Permanente name. In an effort to
market its services, Kaiser made (or directed to be made on its
behalf) unsolicited calls to the wireless telephones of Plaintiff
and each of the members of the Class without prior express written
consent, in violation of the TCPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard L. Miller II, Esq.
          Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq.
          Ke Liu, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236 0000
          Facsimile: (312) 878 1342
          E-mail: rmiller@siprut.com
                  tmclawhorn@siprut.com
                  kliu@siprut.com

               - and -

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


KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Chacon's Bid to Certify Cont'd; Hearing Nov. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., ruled that the motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned Wendy Chacon v. Kovitz
Shifrin Nesbit, A Professional Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-02766
(N.D. Ill.), is entered and continued generally.

A further status hearing is set for November 15, 2017, at 9:00
a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LlluPs4h


PATRIOT DRILLING: Class Certification Sought in "Serrette" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JOSHUA SERRETTE, TIMOTHY
HEMPHILL, BARRY SERRETTE, AND CORY FISHER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. PATRIOT DRILLING
FLUIDS, Q'MAX SOLUTIONS, AND Q'MAX AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:17-
cv-00914-AJS (W.D. Pa.), move the Court to conditionally certify a
group of similarly situated workers of Patriot:

     ALL CURRENT AND FORMER MUD ENGINEERS/DRILLING FLUID
     CONSULTANTS AND SOLIDS CONTROL OPERATORS OF PATRIOT WHO WERE
     CLASSIFIED AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND PAID A DAY-RATE
     DURING THE LAST THREE (3) YEARS. ("PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS")

The Plaintiffs ask that the Court grant the Motion and:

   (1) conditionally certify this action for purposes of notice
       and discovery;

   (2) order that judicial notice proposed by Plaintiffs be sent
       to all Putative Class Members;

   (3) order the mailing and e-mailing of the proposed notice,
       along with a reminder notice after 30 days;

   (4) order Patriot to post the notice documents on Patriot's
       jobsites/offices for the entire opt-in period;

   (5) authorize follow up calls to ensure returned notices are
       delivered to the Putative Class Members;

   (6) order Patriot to produce to Plaintiffs' Counsel the
       contact information for each Putative Class Member within
       20 days of the Courts order; and

   (7) authorize a sixty day notice period for Putative Class
       Members to join the case.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ccc9klWU

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766-1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

               - and -

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


PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Moves for Final OK of $6MM Brown Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled DEBRA BROWN, SANDRA MORTON, and
BARBARA LABUSZEWSKI, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP,
INC., a California corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-05272-VC (N.D.
Cal.), move the Court to grant:

   (1) final approval of the Parties' Collective/Class Action
       Settlement Agreement, and to enter judgment in accordance
       with the Settlement; and

   (2) final class certification and collective action
       designation of the settlement Class certified in the
       Preliminary Approval Order.

The Settlement, in the amount of $6,255,000, resolves litigation
over the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' claims that TPMG violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act and California wage-and-hour laws by
failing to pay the Plaintiffs and the Class Members for pre- and
post-shift work performed off the clock.

The approximate range of settlement shares for participating Class
Members is between $5.29 and $9,531, and the estimated average
settlement share is $2,828.

As part of the Settlement and the Court's Preliminary Approval
Order, this Settlement Class was certified:

     All current and former hourly advice nurses who work or have
     worked for TPMG at one or more of its call centers located
     in Sacramento, San Jose or Vallejo, California, at any time
     from September 14, 2012, through the date on which the Court
     grants preliminary approval of the Settlement, excluding
     those individuals who already have resolved the claims
     asserted in the Action, whether by settlement or
     adjudication.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 5, 2017, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OzXZ3d0g

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Wang, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street, 48th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
                  caitlinmarianwang@paulhastings.com


KRAFT BISTRO: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE KRAFT BISTRO, LTD. d/b/a
KRAFT BISTRO, and KHALIL WAHAB, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
06912 (S.D.N.Y., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, 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, Defendants knowingly and willfully
failed to pay Plaintiff his lawfully earned minimum wages and
earned overtime compensation in direct contravention of the FLSA
and New York Labor Law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KXU INC: Taiwanese Restaurant Underpays Staff, "Chen" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH HEI RU CHEN, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KXU, INC., a California
corporation; YILING WU, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC675383 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep.
12, 2017), seeks to recover all unpaid wages under California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, in order to minimize labor costs,
Defendants have willfully failed to create or implement any
policies in an effort to comply with California wage and hour
laws. Defendants have no employee handbook and do not inform their
employees of their rights to take meal periods or rest breaks, to
earn overtime and double-time wages, or, among other things, to
have a break room or other designated area to take their breaks.

Defendant Wu, by and through Defendant KXU, and other corporate
entities yet to be discovered, own and operate several successful
Taiwanese restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ray Hsu, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RAY HSU
          801 S. Garfield Ave., Suite 338
          Alhambra, CA 91801
          Telephone: (626) 600 1086
          Facsimile: (877) 771 3407
          E-mail: labor@rayhsulaw.com


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Wyckoff"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued an
Order affirming District Court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's
class action suit alleging violations of Sherman Act and New
York's Donnelly Act in the case captioned JORDAN WYCKOFF,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
DARWIN COX, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF BASEBALL, an unincorporated association doing business as MAJOR
LEAGUE BASEBALL, ALLAN H. SELIG, ROBERT D. MANFRED, JR., KANSAS
CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP, MIAMI MARLINS, L.P., SAN FRANCISCO
BASEBALL ASSOCIATES LLC, BOSTON RED SOX BASEBALL CLUB L.P., ANGELS
BASEBALL LP, CHICAGO WHITE SOX LTD., ST. LOUIS CARDINALS, LLC,
COLORADO ROCKIES BASEBALL CLUB, LTD., THE BASEBALL CLUB OF
SEATTLE, LLLP, THE CINCINNATI REDS, LLC, HOUSTON BASEBALL PARTNERS
LLC, ATHLETICS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, ROGERS BLUE JAYS BASEBALL
PARTNERSHIP, CLEVELAND INDIANS BASEBALL CO., L.P, CLEVELAND
INDIANS BASEBALL CO., INC., PADRES L.P., SAN DIEGO PADRES BASEBALL
CLUB, L.P., MINNESOTA TWINS, LLC, WASHINGTON NATIONALS BASEBALL
CLUB, LLC, DETROIT TIGERS, INC., LOS ANGELES DODGERS LLC, LOS
ANGELES DODGERS HOLDING COMPANY LLC, STERLING METS L.P., ATLANTA
NATIONAL LEAGUE BASEBALL CLUB, INC., AZPB L.P., BALTIMORE ORIOLES,
INC., BALTIMORE ORIOLES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, THE PHILLIES,
PITTSBURGH ASSOCIATES, L.P., TAMPA BAY RAYS BASEBALL LTD., RANGERS
BASEBALL EXPRESS, LLC, RANGERS BASEBALL, LLC, CHICAGO CUBS
BASEBALL CLUB, LLC, MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, INC.,
MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, L.P., NEW YORK YANKEES P'SHIP,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-3795-cv (2nd Cir.).

Plaintiffs-Appellants Jordan Wyckoff, individually and on behalf
of other professional baseball scouts, and Darwin Cox
(Plaintiffs), appeal from the judgment of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

That judgment dismissed Plaintiffs' purported class action suit
alleging violations of the Sherman Act, New York's Donnelly Act,
and the Fair Labor Standards Act by the Office of the Commissioner
of Baseball, doing business as Major League Baseball, its current
and former Commissioner, and its 30 professional baseball clubs
(Franchises) (Defendants).

Plaintiffs argue primarily that Defendants conspired to decrease
competition in the labor market for professional baseball scouts
in violation of the Sherman Act and New York's Donnelly Act.
Moreover, they argue that the district court erred by ignoring
factual allegations indicating that the professional baseball
scouts' claims fall outside professional baseball's long-
recognized exemption from antitrust regulation.

The Second Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court's
decision.

"Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits every contract,
combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in
restraint of trade or commerce. 15 U.S.C. Section 1. Since 1922,
however, the Supreme Court has recognized a judicially created
exemption from antitrust regulation for the business of baseball.
Fed. Baseball Club of Balt. v. Nat'l League of Prof'l Baseball
Clubs, 259 U.S. 200, 208-09. The business of providing public
baseball games for profit between clubs of professional baseball
players was not within the scope of the federal antitrust laws.").
Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258, 282, 284 (1972). Our Court has
applied this precedent to exempt from antitrust regulation certain
claims brought by professional baseball umpires against the
American League. Salerno v. Am. League of Prof'l Baseball Clubs,
429 F.2d 1003, 1005 (2d Cir. 1970)," the Second Circuit held.

"Plaintiffs' own allegations foreclose their argument that they
are not involved in the business of baseball. The complaint states
that professional baseball scouts assess baseball players and
project the players' abilities to perform at the major league
level, and they present that information to the Franchises.
Plaintiffs acknowledge that this information is important and
valuable to the Franchises, because it guides the Franchises'
decisions on how to rank players to be acquired through free
agency, the amateur draft, and other player acquisition means.
Plaintiffs further acknowledge that because the Franchises place
importance on the acquisition and development of baseball players
a scout who is good at evaluating baseball players has great
value," the Second Circuit further held.

Based on Plaintiffs' allegations, the district court properly
concluded that professional baseball scouts are involved in the
business of baseball and, therefore, that the complained of
conduct fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted
under existing precedent, the Second Circuit added.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's August 31, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yapy2fxqfrom Leagle.com.

Garrett R. Broshuis -- gbroshuis@koreintillery.com --  Korein
Tillery, LLC (Robert L. King -- rlking@deveboise.com -- George A.
Zelcs -- gzelcs@koreintillery.com -- on the brief), St. Louis,
MO., Appearing for Appellants.

Judith S. Scolnick -- JSCOLNICK@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Peter A.
Barile, III -- PBARILE@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Christopher M. Burke --
CBURKE@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, New
York, NY, and San Diego, CA., Appearing for Appellants.

Michael Dell'Angelo -- mdellangelo@bm.net -- Patrick F. Madden --
pmadden@bm.net -Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, PA.,
Appearing for Appellants.

Elliot R. Peters -- epeters@keker.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP,
(John W. Keker -- jkeker@kvn.com -- R. Adam Lauridsen --
alauridsen@keker.com -- Thomas E. Gorman -- tgorman@keker.com --
on the brief), San Francisco, CA., Appearing for Appellees.

Elise M. Bloom -- ebloom@proskauer.com -- Adam M. Lupion --
alupion@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY.,3
Appearing for Appellees.


MARRONE BIO: Court Orders 60-Day Stay of Situations Fund Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P.,
SPECIAL SITUATIONS CAYMAN FUND, L.P., and DAVID M. FINEMAN,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated.,
Plaintiffs, v. MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE,
JAMES B. BOYD, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, HECTOR ABSI, ELIN MILLER,
RANJEET BHATIA, PAMELA CONTAG, TIM FOGARTY, LAWRENCE HOUGH, JOSEPH
HUDSON, LES LYMAN, RICHARD ROMINGER, SHAUGN STANLEY, SEAN
SCHICKEDANZ, and ERNST & YOUNG LLP, Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-
2571-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.), lead Plaintiffs Special Situations Fund
III QP, L.P. and Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P. (Lead
Plaintiffs), additional named plaintiff David M. Fineman and
Defendant Ernst & Young LLP (EY ), by and through undersigned
counsel, stipulate the following as concerns a continuation of the
stay on all discovery and other proceedings in the action pending
the outcome of continuing discussions between and among the
parties.

Lead Plaintiffs filed a purported class action complaint against
Defendants Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. (Company) and certain of
MBII's directors and officers (MBII Defendants).

The Court consolidated related actions, designating the instant
action as the Master File, administratively closed the related
actions, and appointed Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. and
Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P. as Lead Plaintiffs and
Lowenstein Sandler LLP as Lead Counsel.

Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint and Plaintiffs and the MBII Defendants reached an
agreement in principle to settle the claims against the MBII
Defendants.

The Court approved the settlement between Plaintiffs and the MBII
Defendants in an Order and Final Judgment as to Settling Parties
dismissing all claims against the MBII Defendants from the action,
which judgment is now final.

EY moved to dismiss the claims against it set forth in the TAC as
EY is the only Defendant remaining in the action.  The Court
denied EY's motion to dismiss and EY filed its Answer to the TAC.

Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Sacramento Division, approved the parties'
stipulation that the action be stayed for a further sixty days.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y7k2pwurfrom Leagle.com.

Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by
Michael John McGaughey, Lowenstein Sandler LLP, 445 S Figueroa St
Ste 3177. Los Angeles, CA 90071

Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by
Michael John McGaughey, Lowenstein Sandler LLP.

Kent Oldham, Plaintiff, represented by Robert S. Green --
gn@classcounsel.com -- Green & Noblin, P.C..

David M. Fineman, Plaintiff, represented by Michael John
McGaughey, Lowenstein Sandler LLP.

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Judson
Earle Lobdell -- jlobdell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.
Pamela G. Marrone, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell,
Morrison & Foerster LLP.

James B. Boyd, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell,
Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Donald J. Glidewell, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle
Lobdell, Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Hector Absi, Defendant, represented by John V. McDermott --
jmcdermott@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, pro
hac vice, Jonathan Charles Sandler -- jsandler@bhfs.com --
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck & Judson Earle Lobdell, Morrison &
Foerster LLP.

Elin Miller, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell,
Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Ranjeet Bhatia, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell,
Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Pamela Contag, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell,
Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Tim Fogarty, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell,
Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Lawrence Hough, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell,
Morrison & Foerster LLP.


MDL 2284: Arborist Panel's Denial of "Gaffey" Appeal Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the Arborist Panel
decision and denying Dan Gaffey's appeal in the case captioned IN
RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS. MDL
No. 11-md-02284. (E.D. Pa.).

Dan Gaffey appeals the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel,
claiming that several of his trees were damaged by Imprelis,
notwithstanding DuPont's refusal to compensate him.

DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide designed to
selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-target
vegetation. After widespread reports of damage to non-target
vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began
investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of
Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling
Imprelis.

Despite this voluntary process, various plaintiffs continued to
pursue their lawsuits, alleging consumer fraud/protection act
violations, breach of express and/or implied warranty, negligence,
strict products liability, nuisance, and trespass claims based on
the laws of numerous states. After months of settlement
discussions, including mediation, the parties came to a settlement
agreement.

Among the three settlement classes is a property owner class. That
class includes all persons or entities who owns or owned property
in the United States to which Imprelis was applied, as well as all
persons who own or owned property adjacent to property to which
Imprelis was applied and whose trees showed damage from Imprelis
on or before the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.

The Court also retained exclusive jurisdiction over any action
relating to the Settlement:

     "Without affecting the finality of this Order, the Court
shall retain jurisdiction over the implementation, enforcement,
and performance of the Settlement Agreement, and shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over any suit, action, motion, proceeding,
or dispute arising out of or relating to the Settlement Agreement
or the applicability of the Settlement Agreement that cannot be
resolved by negotiation and agreement by Plaintiffs and DuPont."

Dan Gaffey's Appeal

A DuPont arborist visited his property. Despite Mr. Gaffey's
recollection that the inspector attributed the damage to Imprelis,
the inspector noted on the claims form that none of the trees
showed signs of Imprelis injury. Mr. Gaffey objected to the denial
of his claim and submitted photographs of the trees he believed
were affected by Imprelis. DuPont scheduled another visit to his
property, and a second inspector reaffirmed the original
inspector's conclusion that the tree damage was not due to
Imprelis. Mr. Gaffey objected again, submitting largely the same
photographs, and DuPont reaffirmed its denial.

With his third objection, Mr. Gaffey enclosed a report from his
own arborist, who noted that he was suspicious of Imprelis being
the causing agent of the tree damage. DuPont denied the claim
again. Mr. Gaffey appealed to the Arborist Panel, and they denied
his appeal.

DuPont urged the Court to adopt the standard of review used for
arbitration, meaning that the Arborist Panel's fact finding should
only be displaced when there was evident partiality or corruption
in the arbitrators, where the arbitrators refused to hear evidence
pertinent and material to the controversy, or where the
arbitrators exceeded their powers.

Two arborists who visited Mr. Gaffey's property in person could
not find typical Imprelis symptoms, and the Arborist Panel, after
viewing photographs and reviewing all three arborists'
conclusions, similarly was unable to attribute the tree damage to
Imprelis. Because the Court, in view of all the evidence
presented, does not find the Panel's conclusion arbitrary or
capricious, the Court will deny Mr. Gaffey's appeal.

The Court will affirm the Arborist Panel decision and deny Mr.
Gaffey's appeal.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017
Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/yckw6sa3from
Leagle.com.


MDL 2284: Court Affirms Arborist Panel Denial of "Lingles" Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the Arborist Panel
decision and denying Debbie and Glenn Lingles' appeal in the case
captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL
ACTIONS. MDL No. 11-md-02284. (E.D. Pa.).

Debbie and Glenn Lingle appeal the decision of the Imprelis
Arborist Panel, claiming that three of their trees should be rated
for removal and replacement.

DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide designed to
selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-target
vegetation. After widespread reports of damage to non-target
vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began
investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of
Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling
Imprelis.

Pont started its own Claim Resolution Process to compensate
victims of Imprelis damage. Despite this voluntary process,
various plaintiffs continued to pursue their lawsuits, alleging
consumer fraud/protection act violations, breach of express and/or
implied warranty, negligence, strict products liability, nuisance,
and trespass claims based on the laws of numerous states. After
months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the parties
came to a settlement agreement.

The Imprelis Class Action Settlement ("Settlement") covers three
classes of Imprelis Plaintiffs. Among the three settlement classes
is a property owner class. That class includes all persons or
entities who own or owned property in the United States to which
Imprelis was applied, as well as all persons who own or owned
property adjacent to property to which Imprelis was applied and
whose trees showed damage from Imprelis on or before the date of
entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.

DuPont sent an arborist to inspect the property, and that arborist
found no additional lmprelis damage. DuPont denied the claim, and
the Lingles objected. In their objection, the Lingles added a
fourth tree, which they argue should also be removed and replaced.
The Lingles then appealed to the Arborist Panel and submitted some
photographs to support their claim. The Panel reviewed the
materials submitted and agreed that one of the four trees at issue
in the appeal should be rated for removal and replacement, but
denied the appeal as to the other three trees.

DuPont urged the Court to adopt the standard of review used for
arbitration, meaning that the Arborist Panel's fact finding should
only be displaced when there was evident partiality or corruption
in the arbitrators, where the arbitrators refused to hear evidence
pertinent and material to the controversy, or where the
arbitrators exceeded their powers.

The Lingles seek warranty coverage for three trees that they claim
were damaged by Imprelis. They argue that contrary to the Panel's
assessment that the photographs they submitted were of poor
quality, the photographs2 adequately demonstrate the poor
condition of their trees and support their appeal.3 Having
reviewed the photographs, however, the Court cannot conclude with
any certainty that Imprelis was the cause of the damage to the
Lingles' trees or that the trees' condition warrants removal and
replacement.

The Court will therefore uphold the Panel's decision.

The Court will affirm the Arborist Panel decision and deny the
Lingles' appeal.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017
Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8akh7e3from
Leagle.com.


MDL 2284: Court Denies J. Heusinkveld's Appeal
----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the Arborist Panel's
decision and denying Jake Heusinkveld's appeal in the case
captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL
ACTIONS, MDL No. 11-md-02284 (E.D. Pa.).

Jake Heusinkveld appeals the decision of the Imprelis Arborist
Panel, claiming that he should receive compensation for arborvitae
hedges that he believes were killed by Imprelis
DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide designed to
selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-target
vegetation. After widespread reports of damage to non-target
vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began
investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of
Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling
Imprelis.

After months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the
parties came to a settlement agreement.

Under the Settlement, property owner class members who filed
claims by the claims deadline would receive tree removal (or
compensation for tree removal), payments for replacement trees,
tree care and maintenance payments, and a 15% payment for
incidental damages. The Settlement included a warranty that
provided for all benefits but the 15% incidental damages award for
lmprelis damage that manifested after the claims period closed.

The Court also retained exclusive jurisdiction over any action
relating to the Settlement:

     "Without affecting the finality of this Order, the Court
shall retain jurisdiction over the implementation, enforcement,
and performance of the Settlement Agreement, and shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over any suit, action, motion, proceeding,
or dispute arising out of or relating to the Settlement Agreement
or the applicability of the Settlement Agreement that cannot be
resolved by negotiation and agreement by Plaintiffs and DuPont."

A DuPont inspector visited his property, but because the
arborvitae had already been removed, the inspector was unable to
determine what caused the damage. DuPont then denied his claim.
Mr. Heusinkveld objected and submitted photographs showing the
arborvitae before and after the application of Imprelis and a
statement from the landscaper who removed the arborvitae who noted
their quick decline.

DuPont again denied his claim. Mr. Heusinkveld then appealed to
the Arborist Panel, including the same materials submitted to
DuPont, as well as a statement from a landscape developer noting
her own observation of the decline of the arborvitae. Neither that
statement nor the previous landscaper statement directly commented
on the cause of the damage to the arborvitae.

DuPont urged the Court to adopt the standard of review used for
arbitration, meaning that the Arborist Panel's fact finding should
only be displaced when there was evident partiality or corruption
in the arbitrators, where the arbitrators refused to hear evidence
pertinent and material to the controversy, or where the
arbitrators exceeded their powers. 9 U.S.C. section 10.

No one disputes that Imprelis was applied near his arborvitae.
However, while Mr. Heusinkveld seems to rely on the argument that
exposure and the timing of the damage to his arborvitae lead to
the conclusion that Imprelis was the culprit, the Appeals Panel
found this evidence insufficient without objective evidence of
lmprelis symptomology.

In reviewing the photographs submitted by Mr. Heusinkveld, it is
certainly evident that his arborvitae were not healthy, but the
photographs do not include close up shots of the damage, such that
it is possible to examine the precise symptoms or the nature of
the damage. Based on the lack of evidence of Imprelis
symptomology, the Court does not find that the Panel's decision
was arbitrary or capricious.

The Court will affirm the Arborist Panel decision and deny Mr.
Heusinkveld's appeal.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's August 31, 2017
Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/y988jfc8 from
Leagle.com.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Votta" and "Fair" Suits over Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits against Monsanto Company seek damages suffered by
Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the
herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.  Each of the Plaintiffs maintains that Roundup (TM)
and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit
and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked
proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with
its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands
of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

According to each of the lawsuits, the Plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages as a result of Plaintiff's use of, and
exposure to, Roundup which caused or was a substantial
contributing factor in causing Plaintiff to suffer from cancer,
specifically NHL, and Plaintiff suffered severe and personal
injuries which are permanent and lasting in nature, physical pain
and mental anguish, including diminished enjoyment of life.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The 2 lawsuits are captioned as:

"RENO VOTTA, the Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-02402-DDN (E.D. Mo., Sep. 12, 2017)"; and

"MICHAEL R. FAIR, the Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02399 (E.D. Mo., Sep. 12, 2017)".

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacob A Flint
          FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC
          222 E. Park St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 205 2017
          Facsimile: (618) 288 2864
          E-mail: jflint@flintfirm.com

               - and -

          David J. Wool, Esq.
          Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq.
          ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, P.C.
          7171 W. Alaska Drive
          Lakewood, CO 80226
          Telephone: (303) 376 6360
          Facsimile: (303) 376 6361
          E-mail: aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com
                  david.wool@andruswagstaff.com


NIKKO HIBACHI: Sushi Resto Underpays Staff, "Yang" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Qi Yang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nikko Hibachi Steakhouse &
Bar Inc. d/b/a Nikko Sushi Steakhouse Restaurant & Lounge, Ming
Jiang, and Steven "Doe" (last name unknown), the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-05352 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, "spread of
hours" premium for each day they worked 10 or more hours,
compensation for failure to provide wage notice at the time of
hiring and failure to provide wage statements (paystubs) in
violation of the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a
pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiff, minimum wages and overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 177-21
Union Turnpike, Fresh Meadows, New York 11366.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          E-mail: rqu@hanglaw.com


NORTH TEXAS MAINTENANCE: "Smith" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH SMITH, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the PLAINTIFF, v. NORTH TEXAS MAINTENANCE, INC., A.L.
HELMCAMP, INC. AND CLINT HEMBY, INDIVIDUALLY, the DEFENDANTS, Case
No. 4:17-cv-00641 (E.D. Tex., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants jointly employ rest area
attendants throughout Texas. The primary duty of these individuals
is to clean and maintain rest areas located alongside Texas
highways. However, in order to avoid responsibility for payment of
overtime under the FLSA, Defendants have improperly classified
their employees as independent contractors. Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated are hourly, nonexempt employees.
Throughout their employment, Defendants repeatedly refused to pay
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime pay for hours
worked over 40 per week.[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


PARAMOUNT EQUITY: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Titus" Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued a Memorandum and Opinion denying Defendant's
Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned DENISE TITUS,
Plaintiff, v. PARAMOUNT EQUITY MORTGAGE, LLC; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendant, No. 2:17-cv-00349-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Denise Titus brings this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
class action against Defendant Paramount Equity Mortgage, LLC,
alleging violations of the FLSA and of the California Labor Code.
Now before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Plaintiff was hired as an hourly, non-exempt employee for
Defendant. While Plaintiff's FAC does not allege exactly when her
employment began or terminated,  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
violated a number of employment laws, including various provisions
regulating overtime wages and wage statements.  Plaintiff also
brings suit under California's Private Attorney General Act
(PAGA).

As a prerequisite to Plaintiff's employment, she signed an
arbitration agreement which provides:

     "To resolve employment disputes in an efficient and cost-
effective manner, you and Paramount Equity Mortgage (the Company)
agree that any and all claims arising out of or related to your
employment that could be filed in a court of law shall be
submitted to final and binding arbitration, and not to any other
forum."

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides that a written
provision in a contract evidencing a transaction involving
commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising
out of such contract shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,
save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the
revocation of any contract.

Generally, in deciding whether a dispute is subject to the
arbitration agreement, a court must answer two questions: (1)
whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, and, if so, (2)
whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.
Class Action Waiver

In Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016),
cert. granted, 137 S.Ct. 809(2017),2 the Ninth Circuit held that
an employment contract that required employees to pursue claims in
separate proceedings as a condition of employment violated the
NLRA. It did so because the NLRA's protection of concerted
activity grants employees "the right to pursue work-related legal
claims together.

Plaintiff argues that Morris renders the class action waiver at
issue here similarly unenforceable as violative of the NLRA.
Defendant, however, argues that Morris is distinguishable since,
unlike in Morris, the arbitration agreement here allows employees
to still bring litigation claims jointly, so long as the action is
not a class or collective action.

Plaintiff has the better argument, the Court said.  Morris is
dispositive class action waivers signed as a condition of
employment are unenforceable.

Because class actions are a form of concerted activity, the class
action waiver at issue here does exactly what Section 8 prohibits,
the Court added.  Defendant provides no authority to support its
apparent contention that restrictions on concerted activity are
permissible simply because an alternative exists.
Accordingly, the class action waiver at issue here is
unenforceable.

PAGA Waiver

Defendant also relies on the PAGA waiver's restriction that
Plaintiff brings any dispute on an individual basis only in
support of its motion to compel. However, binding precedent also
squarely renders the arbitration agreement's PAGA waiver
unenforceable. The California Supreme Court has held that
California Civil Code Sections 1668 and 3513 prohibit the
enforcement of PAGA waivers.

Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yazp27zv
from Leagle.com.

Denise Titus, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Joshua Wasserman --
rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley P.C.

Denise Titus, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas John Scardigli-
nscardigli@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, P.C., Vladimir Joseph
Kozina -- vjkozinaj@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley P.C. & William
J. Gorham, III -- wgorham@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, P.C.

Paramount Equity Mortgage, LLC, Defendant, represented by John L.
Barber -- John.Barber@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith, LLP, Karen Weiling Luh -- Karen.Luh@lewisbrisbois.com --
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith & Tracy Wei Costantino --
costantino@lbbslaw.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.


PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Settles Production Assistant Defecation CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that over a year and
a half after a quartet of production assistants launched a class
action lawsuit against Paramount Pictures, Leonardo DiCaprio's
Appain Way, Red Granite Pictures and others over not being paid
minimum way and overtime, everyone is asking a federal judge to
sign off on the six-figure settlement they've reached.

In case, you've not heard this was the lawsuit where the P.A.'s
claimed in their initial January 21, 2016 filing that "many of the
plaintiffs are forced to urinate and defecate into bottles and
buckets in their vehicles." Working on flicks like The Wolf Of
Wall Street, the NYC-based P.A.'s primary duty was, as the January
2016 jury demanding complaint said, "secure sets, lots and
streets" for the movies they were working on.

Needless to say, this risked becoming a messy business for the
studio and the production companies if it went to trial and
revealed some of the dirty side of the industry.

On September 8, after months of negotiations and preliminary
proposals, the plaintiffs submitted Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of the Class and Collective Action Settlement that would
see $700,000 put into a fund by Paramount and Red Granite.

That's $700,00 that lawyers at Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP will get
$233,333.33 of if there are no 11th hour objections and U.S.
Magistrate Judge James Francis gives the settlement the green
light after a September 19 "fairness hearing."

In an accompanying memorandum of law, the attorneys make a point
of say that "Class Counsel contends that this request for one-
third (1/3) of the Settlement Amount for attorneys' fees, costs
and expenses is reasonable and is within the accepted range
typically awarded in contingency fee common fund and FLSA cases."
Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP also notes "not a single objection was
received to Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses."

Additionally, settlement administrators Kurtzman, Carson
Consultants, LLC will be paid just under $22,000 to handle the
day-to-day stuff once the deal is given formal approval.

With what's left, the settlement is to cover the approximately 393
class members "who provided parking production assistant services"
on any production from Paramount and the other defendants.

If given final approval by the NYC based judge, the settlement
ensures that no one of the claimants will receive anything less
than $50 from the agreement. Initial plaintiffs Christian Pellot,
Joselyn Wint, Ali Muhammed and Johnathan Tucker will get $2,500
each and mediation participants Corey Leach, Priamo Fermin and Ray
Delgadillo will get $1,000 each.

"The Settlement confers substantial benefits on the Settlement
Class Members without the risk and uncertainty of litigation,"
states the proposed judgment and final approval order that was
submitted to Judge Francis. "Settlement Class Members are
recovering the equivalent of 100% of their alleged overtime
damages and substantial relief on their other claims, after
attorney fees, service awards, claims administration," it goes on
to say.

Paramount and Red Granite, who have other on-going legal issues
with the Department of Justice over alleged the ill-gotten
finances via Malaysia, are represented by Seth Pierce of L.A's
Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp LLP. [GN]


PAY CAR: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Lester"
---------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, Beckley Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
denying the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint, or, in the
Alternative for a More Definite Statement, in the case captioned
DOUGIE LESTER, Plaintiff, v. PAY CAR MINING, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-00740 (S.D.W.Va.).

The Court has reviewed the Complaint, the Motion of Defendants to
Dismiss Complaint, or, in the Alternative for a More Definite
Statement, and the Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Motion to
Dismiss or in the Alternative for a More Definite Statement.

The Plaintiff, Dougie Lester, initiated this putative class action
and the Plaintiff named Pay Car Mining, Inc., Bluestone
Industries, Inc., Bluestone Coal Corp., Keystone Service
Industries, Inc., and Mechel Bluestone, Inc. as Defendants. The
Plaintiff was an employee of Mechel Bluestone and Pay Car Mining
at the Pay Car Mine in McDowell County, West Virginia.

Mr. Lester alleges that he was laid off without prior written
notice within a 90-day period encompassing other layoffs at the
Pay Car Mine.  The management carried out a mass layoff at the Pay
Car Mine, and neither the miners nor their union representatives
received written notice of the layoffs in advance. Mr. Lester was
not called back to work for a period lasting well in excess of six
months. Mr. Lester alleges that the layoffs violate the WARN Act.
He brings his claim on his own behalf and on behalf of all
employees subject to layoff from the Pay Car Mine during the
relevant time period.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff should be required to
amend his complaint to provide a more definite statement under
Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They argue
that the Plaintiff's allegations regarding the Defendants'
corporate structure and status as employers are vague, ambiguous,
and unclear, and that the Plaintiff failed to allege which
Defendant was responsible for each allegation. The Plaintiff
argues that the complaint complies with the applicable pleading
standard.

The Court finds that allegations in the complaint are sufficiently
clear to permit a response. The Defendants primarily complain of a
lack of clarity regarding which Defendant is allegedly liable. The
Plaintiff, the Court finds, clearly pled that the Defendants
jointly employed workers at the Pay Car Mine and that
representatives of each Defendant were involved in management.

To the extent it is unclear which Defendant allegedly took an
action, there is no impediment to each Defendant answering the
allegation with a denial, affirmation, or explanation, as
appropriate.  Finally, the Court does not find the allegations
regarding the relationship between the Defendants to be at all
unclear. Therefore, the motion for a more definite statement
should be denied.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint,
asserting that the alleged Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act of 1988 violations were not timely filed. The
Defendants argue that the appropriate statute of limitations on
WARN Act violations in West Virginia is two years.

The Plaintiff argues that the proper statute of limitations for
WARN Act claims in West Virginia is five years, and therefore, the
complaint was timely filed and should not be dismissed.

The Court finds, as it has on at least two prior occasions, that
West Virginia's Wage Payment and Collection Act is the state law
most closely analogous to the WARN Act. Thus, the five-year
statute of limitations applicable to the WVWPCA also applies to
WARN Act claims in West Virginia.  Because the Plaintiff filed his
complaint within five years of the Defendants' alleged WARN Act
violations, his complaint is timely, and the motion to dismiss
should be denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/yc2klf27from Leagle.com.

Dougie Lester, Plaintiff, represented by Bren J. Pomponio,
MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC., at 1031 Quarrier Street, Suite 200,
Charleston, WV 25301.

Dougie Lester, Plaintiff, represented by Samuel Brown Petsonk,
MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC.

Pay Car Mining, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew L. Ellis,
WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS, John F. Hussell, IV, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS
& John D. Wooton, Jr., THE WOOTON LAW FIRM, 105 Capitol St., Suite
300, Charleston, WV 25301.

Bluestone Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew L.
Ellis, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS, John D. Wooton, Jr., THE WOOTON LAW
FIRM & John F. Hussell, IV, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS.

Bluestone Coal Corp., Defendant, represented by Andrew L. Ellis,
WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS, John D. Wooton, Jr., THE WOOTON LAW FIRM &
John F. Hussell, IV, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS.

Keystone Service Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Andrew L. Ellis, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS & John D. Wooton, Jr., THE
WOOTON LAW FIRM.

Keystone Service Industries, Inc., and, Defendant, represented by
John F. Hussell, IV, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS.

Mechel Bluestone, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew L. Ellis,
WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS, John F. Hussell, IV, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS
& John D. Wooton, Jr., THE WOOTON LAW FIRM.


PETCO ANIMAL: "Wagner" Transferred to Southern District of Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
issued an Order granting parties' Memorandum in Support of the
Parties' Joint Motion to Transfer for Settlement Purposes Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) in the case captioned ROBERT WAGNER,
Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
Persons, Plaintiff, v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC., PETCO ANIMAL
SUPPLIES STORES, INC., and PETCO HOLDINGS, INC. LLC, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 17-cv-00133-PAB-MJW (D. Colo.).

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay or
Transfer the Action is denied as moot.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
or, in the Alternative, to Stay or Transfer the Action and the
parties' Memorandum in Support of the Parties' Joint Motion to
Transfer for Settlement Purposes Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a), which the Court construes as a motion to transfer.

Section 1404(a) of Title 28 provides, in pertinent part, that, for
the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any
other district or division where it might have been brought.
Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district
court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an
'individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and
fairness.

To warrant a transfer, the moving party must establish that: (1)
the action could have been brought in the alternate forum; (2) the
existing forum is inconvenient; and (3) the interests of justice
are better served in the alternate forum.

The Colorado Court is satisfied that the Southern District of
California is a proper venue for this action because, according to
plaintiff's allegations, defendants' principal place of business
is located in that district.

Thus, in light of the parties' settlement, the Colorado Court
finds that considerations of convenience and interests of justice
strongly favor the transfer of the case to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

A full-text copy of the Colorado Court's August 31, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y7o48wmefrom Leagle.com.

Robert Wagner, Plaintiff, represented by Fran Lisa Rudich --
fran@klafterolsen.com.  Klafter Olsen & Lesser, LLP.

Robert Wagner, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Hayden Reed --
mhreed@gmail.com -- Klafter Olsen & Lesser, LLP, Seth R. Lesser --
slesser@klafterolsen.com -- Klafter Olsen & Lesser, LLP & Brian
David Gonzales, The Law Offices of Brian D. Gonzales, 242 Linden
St., Fort Collins, CO 80524-2424

Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rachelle
Elizabeth Hill -- rehill@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC &
Joshua B. Kirkpatrick --  jkirkpatrick@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, PC.

Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Rachelle Elizabeth Hill, Littler Mendelson, PC & Joshua B.
Kirkpatrick, Littler Mendelson, PC.

Petco Holdings, Inc. LLC, Defendant, represented by Rachelle
Elizabeth Hill, Littler Mendelson, PC & Joshua B. Kirkpatrick,
Littler Mendelson, PC.



PHILIPPE NORTH: Court Denies Approval of Preliminary Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Opinion denying Plaintiff's Motion
for Preliminary Settlement Approval in the case captioned OSCAR
SANDOVAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PHILIPPE NORTH AMERICAN
RESTAURANTS, LLC, et al., Defendants, No. 16-CV-0615
(VSB)(N.Y.S.D.).

Plaintiffs and members of the proposed collective action are
persons who were employed by Defendants as "Servers," "Bussers,"
"Runners," "Bartenders," "Barbacks," or similar service "tipped"
positions who were not paid the prevailing minimum wage for all
hours worked during the full statutory limitations period set by
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that Defendants failed to pay
minimum wage in violation of the FLSA and NYLL and illegally
retained tips, and distributed tips to ineligible employees of
gratuities and "charges purported to be gratuities" in violation
of the New York Labor Law, Section 190 et seq.

District courts have discretion to approve proposed class action
settlements.  The parties and their counsel are in a unique
position to assess the potential risks of litigation, and thus
district courts in exercising their discretion often give weight
to the fact that the parties have chosen to settle.

In FLSA cases, courts in the Southern District of New York
routinely reject release provisions that 'waive practically any
possible claim against the defendants, including unknown claims
and claims that have no relationship whatsoever to wage-and-hour
issues.

The Court held that this general release provision is overbroad,
as it places almost no limitations on Plaintiffs' waiver of claims
and requires Plaintiffs to waive virtually any claim, of any type,
without regard to whether the claim is related to the wage and
hour violations alleged here.  The parties offer no basis for
finding that this release provision provides Plaintiffs with any
legitimate benefit, the Court said.  Thus, the provision is not
reasonable, and Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary settlement
approval must be denied without prejudice, the Court concluded.

Because the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
settlement approval, it held that it must also deny without
prejudice Plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of the
proposed class, appointment of class counsel, and approval of the
proposed class notice.

For these reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion is denied without prejudice.
The parties may proceed by either:

   1. Filing a revised settlement agreement on or before October
6, 2017 that cures the deficiencies in the provisions; or

   2. Filing a joint letter on or before October 6, 2017, that
indicates the parties' intention to abandon settlement, at which
point the Court will set a date for a status conference.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017
Memorandum and Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/yctulxg3
from Leagle.com.

Oscar Sandoval, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth David Sommer --
ksommer@wigdorlaw.com -- Wigdor LLP.

Oscar Sandoval, Plaintiff, represented by David Evan Gottlieb,
Wigdor LLP.

Juan Aca, Plaintiff, represented by David Evan Gottlieb --
dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com -- Wigdor LLP.

Elmer Bonilla, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth David Sommer,
Wigdor LLP & David Evan Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP.

Felix Maldonado Diaz, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth David
Sommer, Wigdor LLP & David Evan Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP.

Enrique Flores, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth David Sommer,
Wigdor LLP & David Evan Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP.

Kerry Nohoth Hernandez-Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by
Kenneth David Sommer, Wigdor LLP & David Evan Gottlieb, Wigdor
LLP.

Pablo Lainez, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth David Sommer,
Wigdor LLP & David Evan Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP.

Jose Luis Maldonado Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth David
Sommer, Wigdor LLP & David Evan Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP.

Kihel Noureddine, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth David Sommer,
Wigdor LLP & David Evan Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP.

Ignacio Quijano-Aviles, Plaintiff, represented by David Evan
Gottlieb, Wigdor LLP.

Dave 60 NYC, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie Scott Felsen,
Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC. 3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3W8, Lake
Success, New York 11042.

Philippe NYC I LLC, Defendant, represented by Jamie Scott Felsen,
Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC.

Philippe Chow East Hampton LLC, Defendant, represented by Jamie
Scott Felsen, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC.

Merchants Hospitality, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie Scott
Felsen, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC.

Philippe Chow Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Jamie Scott
Felsen, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC.

Philippe Chow Mgmt LLC, Defendant, represented by Jamie Scott
Felsen, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC.

Philippe Equities LLC, Defendant, represented by Jamie Scott
Felsen, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC.

Philippe Chow, Defendant, represented by Jamie Scott Felsen,
Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC.



POWERBLOCK INC: Cohen Files Class Action Over Defective Dumbbells
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Cohen, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Powerblock, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-23230 (S.D. Fla., August 25, 2016), seeks damages, restitution
for monies wrongfully obtained and/or disgorgement of ill-gotten
revenues and/or profits, reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs
of this suit and such other relief under the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and a
class of persons who purchased PowerBlock Urethane Series
Dumbbells that uses a urethane coating on the weight plates that
cracks and breaks in warm environments. Said weights often break
apart when removed from the rack or column stands, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jon Herskowitz, Esq.
     BARON & HERSKOWITZ, LLP
     9100 South Dadeland Boulevard
     One Datran Center, Suite 1704
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 670-0101
     Facsimile: (305) 670-2393
     Email: jon@bhfloridalaw.com

            - and -

     Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
     William H. Anderson, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
     Washington, DC 20016
     Telephone: (202) 789-3960
     Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
     Email: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
            wanderson@cuneolaw.com


PROGRESSIVE CORP: Faces "Camacho" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Progressive
Corporation. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Progressive
Corporation and Progressive Specialty Insurance Agency Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:01-cv-00007 (E.D. N.Y., September 14,
2017).

The Progressive Corporation is one of the largest providers of car
insurance in the United States. The company also insures
motorcycles, boats, RVs and commercial vehicles, and provides home
insurance through select companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
   Gottlieb& Associates
   150 East 18th Street, Suite Phr
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com

      - and -

   Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: nyjg@aol.com

      - and -

   Janet N. Esagoff, Esq.
   Esagoff Law Group, P.C.
   10 Bond Street
   Great Neck, NY 11021
   Tel: (516) 417-7737
   Fax: (516) 543-0123
   Email: janet@esagoff.com


REGENCE BLUESHIELD: "A.Z." Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------------
A.Z. by and through her parents and guardians, E.Z. and D.Z.,
individually, and on behalf of the Juno Therapeutics, Inc. Health
Benefit Plan, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals and
plans, Plaintiff, v. Regence Blueshield and Cambia Health
Solutions, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01292, (W.D. Wash.,
August 25, 2017), seeks recovery of benefits, clarification of
rights under terms of the plans, damages for failure to provide
benefits due under the Plan as modified by the Federal Parity Act
and certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act, attorney fees
and costs resulting from breach of fiduciary duties and for
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

A.Z. is the 16-year-old daughter and dependent of E.Z. and D.Z. as
employees of Juno Therapeutics, Inc. Health Benefit Plan. Said
plan is a group health plan that provides both medical/surgical
benefits and mental health/substance use disorder benefits.

Plaintiff seeks outdoor/wilderness behavioral healthcare programs
deemed medically necessary to treat a mental health condition.
This coverage was denied by the Defendants. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
      Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
      SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
      701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2560
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Tel. (206) 223-0303
      Fax. (206) 223-0246
      Email: rspoonemore@sylaw.com
             ehamburger@sylaw.com


ROCKIT RANCH: Bernal Seeks to Stop Collection of Biometric Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE BERNAL, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. ROCKIT RANCH PRODUCTIONS, INC., an
Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2017CH12364 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Sep. 12, 2017), seeks to stop Defendant's capture,
collection, use, and storage of employee's biometric information
in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act,
and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct.

A "biometric identifier" is any personal feature that is unique to
an individual and includes fingerprints, iris scans, palm scans,
and DNA, among others. "Biometric information" is any information
captured, converted, stored, or shared based on a person's
biometric identifier which is used to identify an individual.

Rockit Ranch is a restaurant and nightclub development and
management company specializing in entertainment marketing,
promotions, and branding.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          William P .N. Kingston, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  wkingston@mcgpc.com


RSH LIQUIDATING: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Toscano"
------------------------------------------------------
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
adversary proceeding captioned In re: RS LEGACY CORPORATION, et.
al., Chapter 11, Reorganized Debtors. FABIOLA TOSCANO, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE
RSH LIQUIDATING TRUST, PETER KRAVITZ, Liquidating Trustee, et.
al., Defendants, Case No. 15-10197 (BLS), (Jointly Administered),
Adv. Pro. No. 16-51033 (BLS)(Bankr. D.Del.).

Before the Court are Motions to Dismiss filed by Peter Kravitz,
the Liquidating Trustee of the RSH Liquidating Trust (Liquidating
Trustee), and by General Wireless Operations, Inc. and General
Wireless Inc. (General Wireless), both of which seek to dismiss
the First Amended Complaint of Fabiola Toscano (Plaintiff).

Ms. Toscano worked for RadioShack in Southern California and then
for General Wireless. Ms. Toscano filed this adversary proceeding
on behalf of herself, as a former employee of the Debtors seeking
money for unpaid accrued time off, and on behalf of a putative
class of those situated similarly to her. Ms. Toscano's Complaint
alleges that she and putative class members were deprived of
payment of wages after General Wireless acquired RadioShack in
March 2015 and refused to honor the previously earned vacation
pay.

The Bankruptcy Court finds that Ms. Toscano has failed to
articulate claims against General Wireless where the undisputed
record reflects that General Wireless acquired the Debtors' assets
"free and clear" of claims under Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy
Code.  The clear language of the Asset Purchase Agreement and the
Bankruptcy Court's sale order serves to limit liability for the
buyer, who explicitly did not assume the obligations asserted by
Ms. Toscano.

The First Amended Complaint does not advance any allegations as to
the asset purchase being fraudulent Ms. Toscano first makes this
claim, without factual support, in her Opposition. Without any
further theory or facts explaining why the sale order under the
APA should not control in this case, the First Amended Complaint
as against General Wireless must be dismissed.

For these reasons, the Motions are granted.

A full-text copy of the Bankruptcy Court's August 31, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y92r39q3from Leagle.com.

RS Legacy Corporation, et al., Debtor, represented by Edward
Kerney Black, Delaware Department of Justice, Michael Joseph
Custer, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Michael Joseph Custer, Pepper
Hamilton LLP, David M. Fournier, Pepper Hamilton LLP, David M.
Fournier, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Christopher Fuhrman, Pelzer Law
Firm, Robert W. Gaffey, Jones Day, Basheer Ghorayeb, Jones Day,
Gregory M. Gordon, Jones Day, Paul M. Green, Jones Day, David G.
Heiman, Jones Day, Thomas A. Howley, Jones Day, Evelyn J. Meltzer,
Pepper Hamilton LLP & Dan B. Prieto, Jones Day.

U.S. Trustee, U.S. Trustee, represented by Richard L.
Schepacarter, Office of the United States Trustee.

Prime Clerk, Claims Agent, represented by Benjamin Joseph Steele,
Prime Clerk LLC.

Peter Kravitz, as Liquidating Trustee, Liquidating Trustee,
represented by Sarah Ann Carnes -- scarnes@cooley.com -- Cooley
LLP, Stephen Brett Gerald -- sgerald@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford
Taylor Preston LLC, Jason A. Gibson, The Rosner Law Group LLC, 440
Louisiana St Ste 2400, Houston, TX 77002-4205, L. Katherine Good
kgood@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor & Preston LLC, Evan M.
Lazerowitz -- elazerowitz@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Chantelle
D'nae McClamb -- MCCLAMBC BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP,
Frederick Brian Rosner, The Rosner Law Group LLC, Christopher M.
Samis -- csamis@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLC,
Aaron H. Stulman -- astulman@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford, Taylor &
Preston LLC & Scott J. Leonhardt, The Rosner Law Group LLC, 1000
North West StreetSuite 1200Wilmington, DE 19801.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Creditor Committee,
represented by Kendra K. Bader --  kbader@askllp.com -- Ask LLP,
Kara E. Casteel-  kcasteel@askllp.com -- ASK Financial LLP,
Jeffrey Lawrence Cohen -- jcohen@ccealaw.com -- Lowenstein Sandler
LLP, Benjamin Finestone- benjaminfinestone@quinnemanuel.com --
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Alex Govze, ASK LLP, Cathy
Hershcopf, Cooley LLP, Daniel S. Holzma --
danielholzman@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, Jay R. Indyke -- jindyke@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP,
Richard S. Kanowitz -- rkanowitz@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Susheel
Kirpalani -- susheelkirpalani@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Oliver Hedges LLP, Michael Klein -- mklein@cooley.com --
Cooley LLP, Robert S. Loigman -- robertloigman@quinnemanuel.com --
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Brigette G. McGrath --
bmcgrath@askllp.com -- ASK LLP, Edward E. Neiger --
eneiger@askllp.com -- ASK LLP, William Pugh, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Kate Scherling, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP, Joseph L. Steinfeld --  jsteinfeld@askllp.com --
Jr., ASK LLP, James C. Tecce -- jamestecce@quinnemanuel.com --
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Marianna Udem --
mudem@askllp.com --  ASK LLP, Gary D. Underdahl --
gunderdahl@askllp.com -- ASK LLP & Seth Van Aalten --
svanaalten@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.


SHAPIRO VAN: "Brown" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------
Traci Brown, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Shapiro, Van Ess & Sherman, LLP,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02886, (D. Ariz., August 25, 2017),
seeks actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
incurred, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other
and further relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Brown's alleged obligation arises from a mortgage loan for her
residence which the Defendant attempted to collect. Defendant's
November 9, 2016 letter states the amount of the debt as
$66,927.27 but also states "because of interest, late charges and
other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the
day you pay may be greater," therefore failing to state the exact
amount of the debt to the debtor. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russell S. Thompson IV, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
      5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (602) 388-8898
      Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
      Email: rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com

             - and -

      Joseph Panvini, Esq.
      Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC
      5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (602) 388-8875
      Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
      Email: jpanvini@consumerlawinfo.com


SHORETEL INC: "Herrera" Suit Seeks to Halt Merger Deal with Mitel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Armando Herrera, 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, Shelby Acquisition
Corporation, Mitel US Holdings, Inc., and Mitel Networks
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04988, (N.D. Cal.,
August 28, 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
further 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, shareholders of ShoreTel will receive
$7.50 in cash for each share. 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:

      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-4599
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
      Email: rickert@whafh.com

             - and -

      Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
      Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
      Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Email: gmn@whafh.com
             kaufmann@whafh.com
             kcooper@whafh.com


SHOWTIME NETWORKS: "Mallh" Sues Over Bad Pay-Per-View Live Stream
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Mallh, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Showtime Networks Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-06549, (S.D. N.Y., August 28, 2017), seeks all actual,
consequential, statutory and/or treble damages, including
restitution interest and disgorgement of all amounts paid by
Plaintiff for breach of contract, consumer fraud, and unjust
enrichment.

Mallh paid $99.95 to view live stream of the Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
and Conor McGregor boxing match on www.showtimeppv.com. Plaintiff
was not able to view a substantial portion of the event as the
Defendant's service continually logged. Plaintiff has not yet
received a refund, the complaint asserts.

Showtime Networks Inc. is a subsidiary of media conglomerate CBS
Corporation and owns CBS's premium cable television channels. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Orin Kurtz, Esq.
     Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
     Tower 56
     126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 905-0509
     Fax: (212) 905-0508


SUSHI MARU: "Chun" Alleges Retaliation for Whistle-Blowing
----------------------------------------------------------
Lois Chun, Plaintiff, v. Sushi Maru Express Corp.,
Sushi Nara, Komolo, Inc. and Kevin Kim, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-06411 (D. N.J., August 25, 2017), demands for himself and all
others who are similarly situated on whose behalf this action is
brought, compensatory, punitive and liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, legal fees, other
professional fees, costs and any other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New Jersey State Labor Law.

Sushi Maru operates a sushi counter inside a supermarket or
specialty market under a profit-sharing agreement where Chun was
hired as a "Marketing Employee," in charge of new business
development. Plaintiff reported unsanitary practices in the stores
and reported this to upper management. Defendants eventually cut
her off from the chain of communication and disregarded her verbal
reports about unsanitary food preparation, handling and food
storage including transportation practices. Retaliatory actions
against her worsened to a point where she was forced to stop going
to work and eventually terminated. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael S. Kimm, Esq.
      KIMM LAW FIRM
      333 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 106
      Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
      Tel: (201) 569-2880


STEPHEN FRENZ: Lawsuit Blocks Sale of Apartment Buildings
---------------------------------------------------------
Randy Furst, writing for Star Tribune, reports that facing legal
pressure by a coalition of tenants and the city of Minneapolis,
embattled landlord Stephen Frenz said in court that he has sold
all of his apartment buildings.

The sale, which could include more than 40 apartment buildings,
has touched off another major legal confrontation.

Tenant lawyers with Faegre Baker Daniels asked the Hennepin County
District Court in a new lawsuit filed to either void the sale of
17 of the properties, place them in receivership or put them under
control of the court.

The lawyers indicated they will try to block the sale of other
properties as they get more information about the transactions.
The lawsuit alleges Frenz is committing fraud by transferring his
properties to avoid paying tens of million dollars from an earlier
class-action suit.

"We're concerned that the sales [of the properties] are designed
to deprive tenants of the damages they are due," said Michael
Cockson, a Faegre lawyer.

Frenz has more than 60 apartment buildings, but 17 have been
recently wrested from him by lenders who have begun foreclosure
proceedings against him. That left him with approximately 45
properties, all of which may have been sold, based on Frenz's
testimony.

Frenz refused to respond to questions about the sale On September
7. His attorney, Douglass Turner, Esq. of Hanbery & Turner, P.A.
declined to comment.

In the hearing, Frenz tried to reverse a recommendation by the
city's regulatory services decision to revoke his rental licenses
on all his properties.

City officials have accused Frenz of secretly sharing ownership of
his rental properties with landlord Spiros Zorbalas, who was
banned by the council in 2011 from holding rental licenses for
five years. The ban was initiated after the city revoked licenses
on three of his apartment buildings.

Frenz told the city that he bought the buildings from Zorbalas and
that Zorbalas no longer had a financial interest. But records,
first revealed in a housing court case last year, disclosed that
Zorbalas and Frenz created new corporate entities that have
ownership of the buildings. In some of them, Zorbalas had 80
percent ownership.

"This represents an unprecedented and elaborate fraud against the
city," said Lindsey Middlecamp, an assistant city attorney, in
opening remarks.

Turner called the allegations "repeated misrepresentations by the
city," and accusing it "of a continuation of a smear campaign"
against Frenz.

Turner argued that Frenz had complete power over operation of the
buildings, free of control by Zorbalas, and Zorbalas' ownership
interest in the properties was irrelevant. Frenz said the lines of
control are spelled out in an operating agreement between Frenz
and Zorbalas that Turner has declined to make public.

However, in a court memorandum, Judge Mary Vasaly indicated
Zorbalas retained significant financial controls.

Seventeen of Frenz's current buildings recently went into
receivership after financial lenders concluded Frenz failed to
disclose to them that Zorbalas remained an owner.

The first class-action lawsuit alleges that his tenants, who
number more than 1,000, faced a history of neglect under Frenz,
including vermin, pest infested apartments and a lack of repairs.

In the latest class-action suit, the same lawyers allege that
Frenz's corporate entities and the companies that bought his
buildings have violated state law by transferring the ownership of
the properties to defraud tenants who sued him. The suit argues it
is a way for Frenz to avoid paying damages if he loses the first-
class action suit. Earlier, Cockson indicated the payout to the
tenants, much of it in the form of rent reimbursement, could total
$20 million.

The hearing adjourned on September 7 without testimony from
Zorbalas, who flew to Florida -- where he now lives and owns
rental properties -- because of Hurricane Irma. The hearing
resumes on September 12. Zorbalas is expected to testify by Skype
or via telephone.

After testimony concludes, hearing officer Danielle Mercurio has
30 days to issue a decision on whether to uphold the revocation
orders, which will be forwarded to the City Council for final
action. [GN]


SUBWAY: Sued for Improperly Collecting Soft Drink Tax
-----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
while class actions continue to stack up against retailers accused
of improperly collecting Cook County's new so-called "pop tax,"
one of the law firms bringing those suits has also popped two new
class action suits under Chicago's "soft drink tax," as well.

In the lawsuits filed Sept. 1, attorneys with the Zimmerman Law
Offices in Chicago have accused Subway restaurants in the city and
the company that operates concessions and restaurants at O'Hare
International Airport of wrongly charging the city's 3 percent tax
on purchases of fruit juice.

Both of the lawsuits were filed by the Zimmerman firm on behalf of
the same plaintiff, identified as Mark Wallace, against Doctor's
Associates, the company which serves as the franchisor for Subway
restaurants, and against concessionaire HMS Host.

The Maryland-based HMS operates concessions and restaurants under
a variety of brands at O'Hare and at several Illinois Tollway
oasis rest stops in the Chicago area.

According to the lawsuits, Wallace purchased 100 percent juice
drinks at Subway restaurants in Chicago and at a concession or
restaurant operated by HMS Host in August. On those occasions, the
lawsuits allege, the retailers charged him the city's 3 percent
tax on non-alcoholic beverages, which, they claim, is only
intended to apply to beverages with added "natural or artificial
sweeteners."

The lawsuits don't specify the locations at which Wallace bought
the juice drinks and was charged the tax.

According to the lawsuits, Wallace purchased an orange juice and a
"100 percent juice smoothie beverage" at the HMS Host location,
paying an additional 24 cents on the $7.88 price for the drinks.

Wallace claims he paid an addition 5 cents in tax on his purchase
of an orange juice at Subway.

The lawsuits ask the court to expand the cases to include anyone
who was improperly charged the taxes on similar juice beverage
purchases at either a Chicago Subway or at a Chicago property
operated by HMS Host.

The lawsuits ask the court to order the defendants to pay actual
damages, plus attorney fees.

The lawsuits come in the wake of the filing of seven class action
lawsuits against Subway and other retailers by lawyers asserting
they had erred in charging Cook County's controversial penny-per-
ounce sweetened beverage tax since that tax took effect at the
beginning of August.

The Zimmerman firm, a regular filer of class action lawsuits in
Cook County courts and elsewhere, had brought two of those
lawsuits related to the Cook County tax, hitting 7-Eleven and
Subway's corporate entity. [GN]


TACI INVESTMENTS: "Hankton" Suit Seeks to Certify Managers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DOMINIQUE HANKTON, and WILLIE RAY DAVIS,
Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current
and former employees, the Plaintiffs, v. TACI INVESTMENTS, INC., a
Texas Corporation, KAMAL P. SINGH, SANJAY MEHRA, MOHAMMAD H. TILY,
and REFEICK ALI, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
06441-NJB-JCW (E.D. La.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify a class of:

   "all salaried assistant managers employed by all or any of the
   Defendants at any time from September 13, 2014, through the
   present who may have worked over 40 hours in at least one
   workweek and who are and/or were paid the same rate or amount
   for all hours worked, including hours over 40".

The individuals comprising this class have been subject to
Defendants' common policy of misclassification and under
compensation because Defendants, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and failed to pay for overtime hours at one-and-
one-half times their regular hourly rates.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rvaf8qVQ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth C. Bordes, Esq.
          ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
          2725 Lapeyrouse St.
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 588 2700
          Facsimile: (504) 708 1717
          E-mail: KCB@KENNETHBORDES.COM

               - and -

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754 8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759 1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com


TECHNOLOGICAL MEDICAL: "Botelho" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JENNIFER BOTELHO d/b/a CHIROPRACTIC
CENTER OF LOS ANGELES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TECHNOLOGICAL MEDICAL
ADVANCEMENTS L.L.C., a Florida limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-08085-SVW-MRW (C.D. Cal.), Ms.
Jennifer Botelho will ask the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson on
October 30, 2017, for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons in the United States who, (1) from October 31,
      2012 through the present, (2) were sent an unsolicited
      telephone facsimile message from Defendant substantially
      similar to the faxes sent to Plaintiff, (3) where Defendant
      acquired the recipient's fax number from the Stack
      Creations "Contact List", (4) and where the faxes were sent
      using the same equipment that was used to transmit the
      faxes to Plaintiff";

   2. appointing Plaintiff Botelho as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing the law firms of Woodrow & Peluso, LLC and The
      Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, P.A. as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=10VjrlhF

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter J. Gimino III, Esq.
          THE GIMINO LAW OFFICE, APC
          18101 Von Karman Ave., Suite 300
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 225 4446
          Facsimile: (949) 225 4447
          E-mail: pgimino@giminolaw.com


TIME WARNER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Suvino"
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DAWN SUVINO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TIME WARNER CABLE,
INC., Defendant, No. 16 CV 7046-LTS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), plaintiff Dawn
Suvino brings this putative class action against Defendant Time
Warner Cable, Inc., asserting violations of Title III of the
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101
et seq. (ADA).

Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiff is a legally blind individual who the parties agree is
disabled within the meaning of the ADA.  Plaintiff alleges that
the Website and the Cable Service are places of public
accommodation within the meaning of the ADA, and that she and
other legally blind individuals who are customers of TWC are
unable to access either the Website or the Cable Service in the
same manner as non-disabled individuals.

Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that TWC has violated the ADA by
failing to ensure that the Website is accessible to individuals
who use text-to-speech screen reader software to access the
Internet.

Count I of the Complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief
pertaining to the website. Count II seeks the same types of relief
with respect to the Cable Service, and Count III seeks declaratory
relief with respect to the ADA violations alleged in Counts I and
II.

Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of
disability by public accommodations" and provides, inter alia,
that no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of
disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place
of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases
to), or operates a place of public accommodation.

TWC argues that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has
standing to pursue her causes of action because its telephonic
access provides a level of service that precludes a claim of
irreparable harm insofar as Plaintiff complains of Website
deficiencies, and that she lacks standing to complain of the
particular Cable Service deficiencies cited in the Complaint
because the features she cites are covered by a separate statute,
the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility
Act of 2010 (CVAA), which vests enforcement action as to such
features in the FCC. See 47 U.S.C. Section 613(j).

Neither argument is availing, the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York concluded.  Title III requires
full and equal enjoyment and provides for injunctive relief to
compel compliance; the Rule 65 irreparable harm standard is not
incorporated into the statute. The sufficiency of the auxiliary
aids and services provided by TWC is a matter for litigation at a
later stage of this proceeding. Nor does the CVAA contain on its
face any indication of Congressional intent to supersede the ADA's
general prohibitions of discrimination and requirements of
accommodations and auxiliary aids.

Defendant's motion to dismiss is therefore denied to the extent it
seeks dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). It
is also denied to the extent it seeks dismissal of Counts I and II
of the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.

Count III, which requests declaratory relief is, however,
dismissed as redundant of the claims asserted in Counts I and II,
and Counts I and II are dismissed insofar as they seek damages,
which are not available for violations of Title III of the ADA.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yccqbxjvfrom Leagle.com.

Dawn Suvino, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Levine --
nlevine@ssbny.com -- Stull Stull & Brody.

Time Warner Cable, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Schoolman
-- jschoolman@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Jonathan
David Their -jthier@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP &
Peter James Linken -- plinken@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP.


TOP SHIPS: Oct. 23 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Top Ships Inc.
(NASDAQ:TOPS) who purchased securities between January 17, 2017
and August 22, 2017. The action, which was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that Top Ships' CEO,
Evangelos J. Pistiolis caused Top Ships to engage in a series of
manipulative shares issuance/sales transactions with Kalani
Investments Limited and certain of its entities. These
transactions allowed Top Ships to finance related-party
transactions and acquisitions that primarily benefited Pistiolis,
his related companies, and other Company insiders.

Shareholders have until October 23, 2017 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does
not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to be
an absent class member.

If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain
additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by
telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-sbm/top-ships-inc?wire=3.

Joseph Klein, Esq. is an experienced attorney and has also
practiced as a Certified Public Accountant. Mr. Klein represents
investors and participates in securities litigations involving
financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


TRIAD OF ALABAMA: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Partly Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama, Southern Division, issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration on class
Certification Order in the case captioned BRADLEY S. SMITH, JULIE
S. McGEE, ADAM PARKER, MICHAEL HALL, and JACK WHITTLE, Plaintiffs,
v. TRIAD OF ALABAMA, LLC, d/b/a FLOWERS HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case
No. 1:14-CV-324-WKW (M.D. Al.).

The motion is denied insofar as it seeks decertification of the
class and the motion is granted insofar as it seeks redefinition
of the class.  The motion is granted insofar as it seeks
redefinition of the class.

Defendant Triad of Alabama (Flowers or the Hospital) makes three
arguments in support of denying certification to the nascent
class:

   1. First, that a typo in the court's certification order
compels reconsideration

   2. Second, that the breach-of-contract subclasses will create
administrative and evidentiary headaches; and

   3. Third, that the implied-contract theory is just strict
liability by another name.

First, on page eighteen of the certification order, the court
referred to Kamarian Millender's first month of employment with
the Hospital as June 2012 rather than June 2013.  Flowers jumps on
this error and claims that (to paraphrase the old proverb) for
want of a keystroke, the opinion was lost.1But this is not so. The
misstated date is clearly a typo, as evidenced by the earlier
reference to Millender's actual start date of June 2013.
The typo, while unfortunate, is no basis to reconsider
certification.

Second, Flowers points to the administrative and evidentiary
issues that supposedly inhere in the breach-of-contract
subclasses.  This argument works along two tracks: that
administrative issues would make the class unmanageable and that
individualized evidentiary issues defeat predominance.

Addressing the evidentiary argument first, the court stands by its
conclusion that Plaintiffs have satisfied the predominance prong
of subsection (b)(3). Flowers pushes on the varied relationships
between the Hospital and the class members, arguing that a finding
of liability hinges on individualized aspects of those
relationships. The certification opinion addressed the minor
nature of these individual issues, which orbit around" the common
questions of contractual formation and breach.

The Court finds that Flowers fails to identify any individualized
factual issues that cannot be resolved along with causation and
damages in the second phase of this case. Its arguments therefore
do not affect the conclusion that Plaintiffs have established
23(b)(3) predominance.

Failure to certify an action under Rule 23(b)(3) on the sole
ground that it would be unmanageable is disfavored and 'should be
the exception rather than the rule. And because predominance of
common issues makes class resolution more desirable, a court would
be hard pressed to conclude that a class action is less manageable
than individual actions" after finding predominance. Williams, 568
F.3d at 1358 (Klay, 382 F.3d at 1273).

Third, Flowers argues that a finding of liability under
Plaintiffs' implied-contract theory would effectively and
unjustifiably impose strict liability on the Hospital. This goes
to the merits of Plaintiffs' claims and will not impact the common
or individualized character of the evidence presented;
accordingly, it is not properly before the court at the
certification stage.

The class is redefined as follows:

     "All non-hospital patients of Flowers Hospital, as defined on
page four of the certification order, whose personal identifying
information or protected health information was stolen or may have
been stolen from Flowers Hospital by Kamarian Millender and/or his
accomplices. Excluded from the class are the  owners, officers,
directors, employees, agents and/or representatives of Defendant
and its parent entities, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors,
and/or assigns, and the court, court personnel, and members of
their immediate families."

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ydym8wt6from Leagle.com.

Bradley S. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Sims Davis, M.
Adam Jones & Associates, 206 Lena St., Dothan, Alabama 36303

Bradley S. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Adam Jones, M.
Adam Jones & Associates, LLC, 206 Lena St., Dothan, Alabama 36303,
& James Michael Terrell -- jterrell@mmlaw.net -- McCallum Methvin
& Terrell PC.

Julie S. McGee, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Sims Davis, M.
Adam Jones & Associates, Mark Adam Jones, M. Adam Jones &
Associates, LLC & James Michael Terrell, McCallum Methvin &
Terrell PC.

Adam Parker, Plaintiff, represented by James Michael Terrell,
McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Jordan Sims Davis, M. Adam Jones &
Associates & Mark Adam Jones, M. Adam Jones & Associates, LLC.

Jack Whittle, Plaintiff, represented by James Michael Terrell,
McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Jordan Sims Davis, M. Adam Jones &
Associates & Mark Adam Jones, M. Adam Jones & Associates, LLC.

Michael Hall, Plaintiff, represented by James Michael Terrell,
McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Jordan Sims Davis, M. Adam Jones &
Associates & Mark Adam Jones, M. Adam Jones & Associates, LLC.
Triad of Alabama, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathan William
Macklem -- jwmacklem@csattorneys.com -- Christian & Small LLP,
Joseph Paul Zimmerman & Richard Earl Smith --
resmith@csattorneys.com -- Christian & Small, LLP.


TURN INC: Plaintiffs' Litigation Strategy Avoids Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Zuzana Ikels, writing for National Law Review, reports that on
September 5, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a
district court's decision granting Turn Inc.'s motion to compel
arbitration of a putative, privacy class action related to
targeted adverting efforts on mobile devices.

In Re Anthony Henson and William Cintron v. Turn, Inc. was filed
in the Northern District of California by two Verizon cellular and
data subscribers against Turn. The case reflects a notable pivot
in strategy in data privacy litigation. Data privacy cases have,
previously, been directed at the webpage/content-providers or
telecommunication providers that shared or processed users' online
activities. The plaintiffs in Henson did not sue Verizon or the
webpages; instead, they sued the technology companies that enable
the targeting.

The Circuit describes Turn as a "middle-man" for internet-based
advertisements. Turn is alleged to contract with Verizon to
deliver targeted advertisements to subscribers based on usage data
collected from users' mobile devices. Plaintiffs' charging
allegations focus on Turn's creation of "zombie" cookies that
track and collect users' data without their permission or
knowledge, which can bypass users' attempts to shield their
identity and online activity from companies' tracking, scraping
and collecting their data and privacy.

Plaintiffs alleged that Turn created unique identifiers and
developed profiles for each user, based on their online activity.
Turn would then auction off the users' collected data so that
advertisers could place targeted advertisements on users' mobile
phones. Verizon received a portion of the advertisement proceeds.

Turn moved to stay the action and compel arbitration based on the
user agreements with Verizon under the theory of equitable
estoppel. The district court granted Turn's motion. The Ninth
Circuit granted a writ and vacated the order.

The choice-of-law question and posture of the case brings back
memories of a law school examine. Although the case was pending in
the Northern District of California, the two plaintiffs were New
York residents asserting violations of New York law. The presiding
district court judge was sitting by designation from Arizona.
(Warning, students, this is a red herring!) The district court
applied New York procedural law in compelling arbitration. The
Ninth Circuit held this was clear error, holding the forum state,
California, governed. The Circuit found that Turn could not compel
arbitration as to the plaintiffs, given it did not have a direct
arbitration agreement with them.

The Circuit found Turn's attempt to piggyback off Verizon's
arbitration agreement with its subscribers was unpersuasive in
light of Turn's contract with Verizon, which expressly stated that
"neither party shall have the authority to bind the other in any
way." Turn filed its agreement with Verizon under seal, which the
Circuit went out of its way to deny, implying that the motion to
seal was an attempt to hide the contract terms because they
contradicted the representations that Turn made to the Court about
its relationship with Verizon. Regardless, the Circuit held that
the complained-of-conduct by Turn had little to do with the
customer agreement with Verizon, undermining a key element of the
equitable estoppel doctrine.  [GN]


U.S. TOBACCO: Court Preliminarily Certifies Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TERESA M. SPEAKS, TOBY SPEAKS, STANLEY
SMITH, EDDIE BROWN, ROBERT POINDEXTER, MIKE MITCHELL, ROY L. COOK,
ALEX SHUGART, H. RANDLE WOOD, ROBIN ROGERS and DANIEL LEE NELSON,
the Plaintiffs, v. U.S. TOBACCO COOPERATIVE, INC. f/k/a
FLUE-CURED TOBACCO COOPERATIVE STABILIZATION CORPORATION, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:12-CV-00729-D (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. James C.
Dever entered an order:

   1. preliminarily certifying, for settlement purposes only, the
      following Settlement Class:

      "all individuals, proprietorships, partnerships,
      corporations and other entities that are or were
      shareholders and/or members of U.S. Tobacco at any time
      during the Class Period, without any exclusion, including
      any heirs, representatives, executors, powers-of-attorney,
      successors, assigns or others purporting to act for or on
      their behalf with respect to U.S. Tobacco and/or the
      Settled Claims";

   2. appointing Named Plaintiffs as class representatives for
      the Settlement Class;

   3. appointing Class Counsel as Settlement Class Counsel:

          Gary K. Shipman, Esq.
          SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP
          575 Military CutoffRoad, Suite 106
          Wilmington, NC 28405

               - and -

          N. Leo Daughtry, Esq.
          DAUGHTRY, WOODARD, LAWRENCE & STARLING, LLP
          403 E. Market Street
          Smithfield, NC 27577

A final settlement approval is set for Jan. 19, 2018.

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


VITAMIN SHOPPE: "Aguilar" Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
Ivan I. Aguilar, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., Richard L.
Markee, Colin F. Watts and Brenda M. Galgano, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-06510 (D.N.J., August 28, 2017), seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Vitamin Shoppe operates as a specialty retailer and direct
marketer of nutritional products in the United States.

According to the complaint, Defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding profitability trends and financial
results. It had allegedly delayed recognizing a $168 million
impairment charge to the carrying value of its retail sector,
related to goodwill. As a consequence, Vitamin Shoppe's income and
assets were materially overstated during the first and second
fiscal quarters of 2017 artificially-inflating the price of
Vitamin Shoppe common stock on these misstatements. However, on
August 9, 2017, Vitamin Shoppe announced that it was taking a $168
million impairment charge on the goodwill being carried on its
books for its retail segment resulting in a $6.73 loss per share.
The price of Vitamin Shoppe common stock plunged further on this
news, falling $3.50 per share to close at $6.10 per share, on
unusually high trading volume of more than 5.1 million shares
trading. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

     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


WELLS FARGO: "Conklin" Suit Hits Additional Insurance Premiums
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Conklin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., d/b/a Wells Fargo Dealer Services, and National
General Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04975
(N.D. Cal., August 25, 2017), seeks injunctive relief, prohibiting
Defendants from enforcing expensive mandatory insurance policies,
treble and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys'
fees, statutory costs, and such other and further relief under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Wells Fargo had illegally forced borrowers who already had their
own car insurance to borrow money to pay additional premiums on
expensive insurance policies, in coordination with National
General Insurance, says the complaint.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association doing
business as Wells Fargo Dealer Services that provides auto lending
services.

National General Insurance Company is a national insurance agency
incorporated in Missouri, with its primary place of business in
Winston-Salem, North Carolina. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
      Aaron Blumenthal, Esq.
      GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
      505 14th Street, Suite 1110
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 350-9700
      Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
      Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com
             mls@classlawgroup.com
             ab@classlawgroup.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Blevins Sues Over Anti-trust Activities
------------------------------------------------------
Staci Blevins, Sergey Bogomolov, Richard Haugan, Dale Talbot,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v. Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Audi AG, Audi of America, LLC, Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Porsche
Cars North America, Inc., Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
Mercedes-Benz US International, Inc., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG,
BMW North America, LLC, also referred to as the "German Five,"
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06417, (D.N.J., August 25, 2017),
seeks redress for antitrust violations under the Sherman Act and
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Defendants have reportedly been secretly colluding with each other
since the 1990s on matters ranging from car development, gasoline
engines, diesel engines, brakes, transmissions, gearboxes, choices
of suppliers, emissions controls and even prices for parts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELK RESORT: Experian Directed to File Supplemental Explanation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order directing Experian Information Solutions, Inc., to file
supplemental explanation whether compelling reasons standard
applies to the motion to seal in the case captioned JOHN E.
ASHCRAFT, Plaintiff(s), v. WELK RESORT GROUP, CORP, et al.,
Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-02978-JAD-NJK (D. Nev.).

Pending before the Court is a sealing motion related to briefing
on the motion to strike Experian's errata to its Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition testimony.

Experian seeks to keep the information secret based on the good
cause standard applicable to non-dispositive motions.

The Ninth Circuit has clarified that the terms dispositive and
non-dispositive are not intended to be mechanical classifications.
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 109.
In this case, the dispute to be resolved in the motion to strike
relates to Experian's Rule 30(b)(6) testimony on an issue that
undergirds, inter alia, Plaintiff's proposed class action
allegations. The parties have failed to address whether the motion
to strike is more than tangentially related to the underlying
cause of action, such that the more demanding compelling reasons"
standard applies to the motion to seal.

Experian is accordingly directed to file a supplement explaining
(1) whether the compelling reasons standard applies to the instant
motion to seal and, if the Court determines that it does apply,
(2) whether compelling reasons exist sufficient to justify sealing
the material.  Plaintiff is not required to file anything further
regarding the motion to seal, but he may also file a supplement on
these issues if he would like to do so.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 31, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yb6k6xv5from Leagle.com.

John E. Ashcraft, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew I. Knepper --
matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com -- Knepper & Clark, LLC.

John E. Ashcraft, Plaintiff, represented by Miles N. Clark --
miles.clark@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark LLC, Sean N.
Payne, PAYNE LAW FIRM LLC, 9550 South Eastern Avenue, Las Vegas,
NV 89123 & David H. Krieger -- info@hainesandkrieger.com -- Haines
& Krieger, LLC.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Andrew Michael Cummings -- acummings@jonesday.com -- Jones Day,
pro hac vice & Jennifer L. Braster --
jbraster@naylorandbrasterlaw.com -- Naylor & Braster.


WELLS FARGO: Boone Files RICO Class Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------
Blaine Boone, Dianne Neal and Robert Neal, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo &
Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a Wells Fargo Dealer
Services, and National General Insurance Company, Dawn Martin
Harp, Bill Katafias and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 8:17-cv-01473 (C.D. Cal., August 28, 2017), seeks
injunctive relief, prohibiting Defendants from enforcing expensive
mandatory insurance policies, treble and punitive damages,
restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, statutory costs, and
such other and further relief under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The complaint says Wells Fargo had illegally forced borrowers who
already had their own car insurance to borrow money to pay
additional premiums on expensive insurance policies, in
coordination with National General Insurance.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association doing
business as Wells Fargo Dealer Services that provides auto lending
services.

National General Insurance Company is a national insurance agency
incorporated in Missouri, with its primary place of business in
Winston-Salem, North Carolina. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel L. Germain, Esq.
      ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP
      16311 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436-2152
      Telephone: (818) 788-0877
      Facsimile: (818) 788-0885
      Email: Germain@Lalawyer.com






                             *********


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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. 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  * * *