---

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


          Wednesday, September 20, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 186



                            Headlines

A-S MEDICATION: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in TCPA Suit
AAC HOLDINGS: Court Denies Bid to Compel Document Production
AGILE THERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Suit Dropped with Prejudice
AK STEEL: Court Denies Review Bid in Antitrust Class Action Suit
ALERE INC: Wins More Time to Respond to Securities Suit

ALERE INC: Bid for Discovery Talks in "Andren" under Submission
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Ninth Circuit Denied Request for Rehearing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Antitrust Suits and DOJ Probe Still Ongoing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Hoefert" Suit Asserts USERRA Violation
AMERICAN ARRAY: Faces "Romero" Suit Over Solar Panels & Contract

ARKAR INC: "Montalvo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BAKER HUGHES: Booth Family Trust Drops GE Merger Deal Challenge
BCB BANCORP: To Pay $1MM for "Kube" Plaintiffs' Counsel Fees
BOK FINANCIAL: Says Accord in Suit v. Bank Has Been Implemented
BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Still Faces Various Bondholders Lawsuits

CABELA'S INCORPORATED: Parties Agree to Drop Merger Suit
CABELA'S INCORPORATED: TCPA Class Suit in Kentucky Underway
CAMDEN HIGH: Demolition Digs Up New Contamination Fears
CHINA COMMERCIAL: Faces "Rojas" Sued Over Proposed Sorghum Merger
CLEAN HARBORS: Court Approves $645,000 Class Settlement

CMS ENERGY: Suits over Gas Index Price Reporting Still Ongoing
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
CONNECTICUT: Court Approves Settlement of Women Inmates' Suit
CORESITE REALTY: Hearing on Employment Class Pact Set for Nov. 28
CR BARD: Still Faces Lawsuits on Various Hernia Product Claims

CR BARD: Continues to Defend Women's Health Product Lawsuits
CR BARD: Various Filter Product Claims, Lawsuits Still Ongoing
CUBESMART: Settlement in "Kendall" Complaint Underway
DEL TACO: Court Okays Bid to Decertify Class in Employee Lawsuit
DEL TACO: Discovery Ongoing in Former Employee's Lawsuit

DISH NETWORK: Lodged $41 Million of Litigation Expense
DUKE ENERGY: Appeal in Suit vs. Duke Energy Florida Pending
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: No Oral Argument Yet in "Scranton" Appeal
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Claims in "Schwab" Action Dismissed
EAGLE MATERIALS: Class Cert. Process Ongoing in Wallboard Suit

EAST RIDGE RETIREMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Inigo" Suit Claims
ENBRIDGE ENERGY: "Brinckerhoff" Case in Early Stages of Discovery
EQUIFAX INC: Former Governor, Others File Data Breach Suit
EQUIFAX INC: Lobbies to Take Away Breach Victims' Right to Sue
EXPEDIA INC: Still Faces Various Putative Class Action Lawsuits

FIRST QUALITY: Accused by Perez of Not Paying Overtime Under FLSA
FIRST SOLAR: Parties Await Oral Argument in "Smilovits" Appeal
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Court Okays Class Status in ERISA Litigation
GALENA BIOPHARMA: Enters $1.3MM Pact to Settle Securities Suit
GLOBUS MEDICAL: Appeal in Silverstein Litigation Underway

HALLIBURTON CO: Awaits Final OK of Securities Lawsuit Settlement
HARBORTOUCH PAYMENTS: Sued in California Over Automated Calls
HARRY L. SMITH: Ct. Grants Conditional Certification in FLSA Suit
HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Court Approves Class Settlement
HUB GROUP: Still Awaits Court Decision in "Robles" Class Action

HUB GROUP: Continues to Defend "Adame" Class Suit in California
HUB GROUP: 6th Circuit Appeal Terminated in "Lubinski" Lawsuit
INFINITY PROPERTY: Defending Class Suits over Business Operations
J6 ENERGY: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JB HUNT TRANSPORT: Appeal on Dismissal of Drivers Suit Ongoing

LCC INTERNATIONAL: Transferred "Torgerson" Suit to Dist. Kansas
LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Fact Discovery to Be Completed By November 30
MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Appeal in Class Suit Still Pending
MDL 2020: ERISA Benefits and Breach of Contract Claims Pending
MDL 2284: Court Denies "Dahl" Appeal

MDL 2284: Court Denies "Williams" Appeal
MERITOR INC: Expects Plaintiffs to Seek Supreme Court Review
METHODIST HOSPITALS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Staffing Agency's Suit
MKS INSTRUMENTS: Company and Newport Dismissed from Class Action
NESTLE WATERS: Falsely Marketed Poland Spring Products, Suit Says

NEWLINK GENETICS: Motion to Dismiss "Abramson" Suit Pending
NRG ENERGY: "Do Not Call List" Litigation in California Underway
NRG ENERGY: Braun Suit Against NRG Yield Underway
NRG ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss "Ahmed" Suit Underway
NRG ENERGY: Bid for Reconsideration in "Griffoul" Suit Underway

NRG ENERGY: Incorrectly Named as Party to "Rice" Lawsuit
NRG ENERGY: 9th Circuit Greenlights Interlocutory Appeal
OUTSIDE UNLIMITED: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss SAC in H-2B Suit
PARTY CITY: Court Consolidates "Medrano," "Pasini" Suits
RAUSCH STURM: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hopfensperger" Suit Says

RELIANCE TRUST: Class Suit over 401(k) Plan Underway
RHP PROPERTIES: Settles Chelmsford Mobile Home Lawsuit
SAUDI ARABIA: Embassy in DC May Have Funded Hijack Dry Runs
SENIOR LIFESTYLE: Court Denies Dismissal Bid in "Egbers"
SOLARCITY CORP: "Guzman" Suit Seeks to Stop Illegal Contracts

STEPHEN L. BRUCE: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Beale"
STONERIDGE INC: "Verde" Suit Proceeding as Single-Plaintiff Case
STONERIDGE INC: Class Certification Hearing in "Royal" Case Nixed
TEMPUR SEALY: Potential Class in "Todd" Case Dissolved
TEMPUR SEALY: "Buehring" Case in Early Stages of Litigation

TEMPUR SEALY: "Gardner" Suit in Early Stages of Litigation
TULSA, OK: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Samuels"
TULSA, OK: "Senter" Pro Suit Dismissed
TULSA, OK: "Smith" Pro Se Suit Dismissed
U.S. AVIATION SERVICES: United Airlines Dismissed in "Haralson"

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Feds Probe Tracking of Lyft Drivers
UNITED PARCEL: Still Defends "Morgate" Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Still Defends "Wright" Suit in Canada
UNITED STATES: Kirwa Files Suit v. Dept. of Defense
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: 8th Cir. Affirms Allocation Ruling

VASCO DATA: Motion to Dismiss "Bunk" Class Action Remains Pending
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: 2 Class Suits v. Ultratech Dismissed
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Stelmachers"
WASHINGTON GAS: Suit over Silver Spring Apartment Fire Underway
WELLS FARGO: Bid to Compel Response to Discovery Partly Denied

WELLS FARGO: Faces "Fosdick" Class Suit Over CPI Policies
WEST CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Merger Suits
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Pending



                            *********


A-S MEDICATION: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying
Plaintiff's motion to strike and motion for summary judgment in
the case captioned PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., an Ohio
corporation, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs, v. A-S MEDICATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, JAMES
BARTA, WALTER HOFF and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 12-cv-
05105 (N.D. Ill.).

In this class action, the plaintiff, Physicians Healthsource,
Inc., claims that the defendants, primarily A-S Medication
Solutions, LLC, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991 (TCPA) by sending an advertisement to 11,422 fax numbers.
After nearly three years of discovery, the court certified the
case as a class action.

PHI contends that A-S violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(1) and (2) by failing to make disclosures about the disputed
evidence before discovery closed.  PHI moves under Rule 37(c)(1)
to strike the disputed evidence and the portions of A-S's summary
judgment response that refer to the disputed evidence.

In most cases, including this one, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(1) requires parties to make certain initial disclosures
without awaiting a discovery request. Under Rule 26(e), a party
must supplement its disclosures "in a timely manner if the party
learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is
incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective
information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties
during the discovery process.

Local Rule 37.2's introductory clause declares its purpose: To
curtail undue delay and expense in the administration of justice.
By requiring parties to confer, Local Rule 37.2 attempts to weed
out disputes that can be amicably resolved without judicial
intervention, thereby freeing the court's resources for disputes
that truly cannot.

In the case at bar, PHI did not comply with Local Rule 37.2's
conference requirement, and A-S makes no effort to show that doing
so would have been futile beyond recapitulating Finwall's
reasoning on Local Rule 37.2, the Court said.  The parties had an
opportunity to confer about the class members' declarations before
the summary judgment motions were filed.

PHI's Rule 37(c)(1) motion must therefore be denied for failing to
comply with Local Rule 37.2 alone.

Put another way, the only prejudice PHI claims (the expense of
preparing a motion for summary judgment) is largely a self-
inflicted wound, the Court said.  Rule 37(c)(1) should be applied
in a manner that expedites litigation's progress to a just,
speedy, and inexpensive resolution. To that end, courts, in their
discretion, decline to impose Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions to reward
improper gamesmanship that delays litigation something the
Advisory Committee warned against when it began requiring initial
disclosures in 1993.

Some have made the point by observing that the prejudice flowing
from a disclosure violation is a self-inflicted wound. In Large v
Mobile Tool Int'l, Inc., No. 1:02-CV-177, 2008 WL 4238963, Sept.
10, 2008, the court denied motion to strike expert report because
defendant waited 51 days after the disclosure to file the current
motion to strike, so defendant's difficulties were of its own
making.

In light of these authorities and the purposes Rule 37(c)(1)
sanctions serve, PHI largely complains of a problem of its own
making when it claims prejudice here; and so the nondisclosure of
the fourteen declarations was instead harmless under Rule
37(c)(1).

Indeed, were the court to hold the motion summary judgment in
abeyance pending a reply, A-S would not have the chance to be
heard on how discovery affected the arguments raised in PHI's
motion for summary judgment. Neither PHI nor A-S believes
adjudicating PHI's motion for summary judgment without further
discovery is appropriate. In these circumstances, nothing would be
gained by keeping the motion for summary judgment pending.

PHI's motion to strike is denied, and its motion for summary
judgment is denied without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/y97bcje7from Leagle.com.

Physicians Healthsource, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian J.
Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com-  Anderson & Wanca.

Physicians Healthsource, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey
Alan Berman -- jberman@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca, Ross
Michael Good -- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca, Ryan M.
Kelly- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Wallace
Cyril Solberg -- wsolberg@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca.

A-S Medication Solutions LLC, Defendant, represented by Eric L.
Samore -- esamore@salawus.com --  Smith Amundsen LLC, Michael F.
Coyle, Fraser Stryker Pc Llc, 409 S 17th St #500, Omaha, NE 68102,
USA pro hac vice, Albert M. Bower -- abower@salawus.com -- Smith
Amundsen LLC, Robert W. Futhey -- rfuthey@fraserstryker.com  --
Fraser Stryker Pc Llo, pro hac vice & Yesha Sutaria Hoeppner --
yhoeppner@salawus.com --  Smithamundsen LLC.

Walter Hoff, Defendant, represented by Eric L. Samore,
SmithAmundsen LLC, Michael F. Coyle, Fraser Stryker Pc LLC, pro
hac vice, Albert M. Bower, SmithAmundsen LLC, Robert W. Futhey,
Fraser Stryker Pc Llo, pro hac vice & Yesha Sutaria Hoeppner,
Smithamundsen LLC.

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Movant, represented by
Livia McCammon Kiser -- LKISER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP.
Allscripts Healthcare, LLC, Movant, represented by Livia McCammon
Kiser, Sidley Austin LLP.


AAC HOLDINGS: Court Denies Bid to Compel Document Production
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, issued an order denying Plaintiff's
Renewed Motion to Compel Defendants' Production of Documents Under
Rule 37 in the case captioned DR. JOSEPH F. KASPER, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AAC
HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, Consolidated Case No. 3:15-cv-
00923 (M.D. Tenn.).

In this securities class action, Plaintiff seeks to compel
production of certain documents withheld by Defendants on the
basis of attorney-client privilege and work product protection,
that Plaintiff contends are responsive to Plaintiff's First Set of
Requests for Production.

Plaintiffs cite the following document requests as the basis for
their Motion to Compel. Document Request No. 36: All documents
concerning the CA DOJ Investigation;" Document Request No. 38: All
documents concerning the declaration of California Deputy Attorney
General Hardy R. Gold filed in the Hill Litigation;" and Document
Request No. 39: All documents concerning the letter from Barry P.
King to California Chief Deputy Attorney General Nathan R.
Barankin.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) provides that parties may
obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is
relevant to the claim or defense of any party. FRCP 26(b)(5) sets
out the steps that a party must take if it withholds information
otherwise discoverable based upon a claim of privilege or a claim
that the information is protected by the work product doctrine.
The party asserting the privilege or work product protection has
the burden of showing that those protections apply.

FRCP 37(a) provides that the Court may compel the disclosure or
discovery of documents improperly withheld after a request has
been made under FRCP 34.

The Sixth Circuit has established the following elements with
regard to attorney-client privilege: (1) Where legal advice of any
kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his
capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose,
(4) made in confidence, (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance
permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or the legal
adviser, (8) except the protection be waived.

The work product doctrine states that a party may obtain discovery
of documents otherwise discoverable and prepared in anticipation
of litigation or for trial by or for another party, or by or for
that other party's representative, only upon a showing that the
party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in
the preparation of the party's case and that the party is unable,
without undue hardship, to obtain the substantial equivalent of
the materials by other means. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).

The Sixth Circuit has articulated the because of" test as the
standard for determining whether documents were prepared in
anticipation of litigation. Roxworthy, 457 F.3d There is a
subjective component to this inquiry. A document is not protected
by the work product doctrine if it would have been prepared in
substantially the same manner irrespective of the anticipated
litigation.

The Parties belabor the issue of whether Mr. Greer is more of a
lobbyist or an attorney, but the title he bears in any particular
situation is irrelevant, as are the issues of whether he was
rendering legal advice to Defendants at around the same time he
was communicating with Defendants on other matters; how often his
name appears on Defendants' privilege log; or whether he is
registered as a lobbyist, in the state of California or elsewhere,
the Court ruled.  There is no dispute that Mr. Greer is an
attorney, who has been engaged by Defendants, and that he has, at
times, rendered legal advice to Defendants. The pertinent inquiry
is whether, with regard to any particular communication between
Mr. Greer and Defendants, legal advice was sought from Mr. Greer
in his capacity as a legal adviser.

The Court found that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that
Defendants have produced documents reflecting Mr. Greer's legal
advice to Defendants or Defendants' requests for such advice.
Thus, Plaintiffs have not persuaded the Court that Defendants have
waived their privilege as to Mr. Greer's communications globally.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yasj2saefrom Leagle.com.

Dr. Joseph F. Kasper, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison
-- dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett Johnston Martin &
Garrison, LLC.

Dr. Joseph F. Kasper, Plaintiff, represented by Donald R. Hall,
Jr. -- dhall@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP, Jeffrey
C. Block -- jeff@blockesq.com --  Block & Leviton LLP, Paul Kent
Bramlett, Bramlett Law Offices & Robert P. Bramlett, Bramlett Law
Offices, PO Bos 150734, Nashvile, TN 37215.

Judith D. Tenzyk, Consol Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander
Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman
-- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Marc Gorrie --
mgorrie@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Patrick V. Dahlstrom --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Paul Kent Bramlett,
Bramlett Law Offices & Robert P. Bramlett, Bramlett Law Offices.

Jacquelin Welsh, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James A.
Holifield, Jr., Holifield Janich Rachal & Associates, PLLC. 11907
Kingston Pike, Suite 201, Knoxville, TN 37934

AAC Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Britt K. Latham,
Bass, Berry & Sims,  150 3rd Ave S # 2800, Nashville, TN 37201,
USA, David Gouzoules -- david.gouzoules@alston.com -- Alston &
Bird LLP, Jessica Perry Corley -- jessica.corley@alston.com --
Alston & Bird LLP, John Latham -- john.latham@alston.com -- Alston
& Bird LLP, Joseph B. Crace, Jr., 150 3rd Ave S, Ste 2800,
Nashville, TN 37201, Bass, Berry & Sims & Lisa R. Bugni --
lisa.bugni@alston.com -Alston & Bird LLP.

Jerrod N. Menz, Defendant, represented by Britt K. Latham, Bass,
Berry & Sims, David Gouzoules, Alston & Bird LLP, Jessica Perry
Corley, Alston & Bird LLP, John Latham, Alston & Bird LLP, Joseph
B. Crace, Jr., Bass, Berry & Sims & Lisa R. Bugni, Alston & Bird
LLP.

Michael T. Cartwright, Defendant, represented by Britt K. Latham,
Bass, Berry & Sims, David Gouzoules, Alston & Bird LLP, Jessica
Perry Corley, Alston & Bird LLP, John Latham, Alston & Bird LLP,
Joseph B. Crace, Jr., Bass, Berry & Sims & Lisa R. Bugni, Alston &
Bird LLP.

Kathryn Sevier-Phillips, Defendant, represented by Britt K.
Latham, Bass, Berry & Sims, Jessica Perry Corley, Alston & Bird
LLP, John Latham, Alston & Bird LLP, Joseph B. Crace, Jr., Bass,
Berry & Sims & Lisa R. Bugni, Alston & Bird LLP.

Andrew W. McWilliams, Defendant, represented by Britt K. Latham,
Bass, Berry & Sims, David Gouzoules, Alston & Bird LLP & Joseph B.
Crace, Jr., Bass, Berry & Sims.

Kirk Manz, Defendant, represented by Britt K. Latham, Bass, Berry
& Sims, David Gouzoules, Alston & Bird LLP & Joseph B. Crace, Jr.,
Bass, Berry & Sims.

Avondale Partners, LLC, Respondent, represented by John L.
Farringer, IV -- jfarringer@srvhlaw.com  -- Sherrard Roe Voight &
Harbison.

JAMES P GILL, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Alexander L.
Burns -- alexander.burns@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLP,
Donald R. Hall, Jr. -- dhall@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox
Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Scott St. John --
scott.stjohn@ksfcounsel.com  -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLP, Paul Kent
Bramlett, Bramlett Law Offices, Ramzi Abadou --
ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLP, Timothy L.
Miles --  tmiles@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett Johnston Martin &
Garrison, LLC & David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin &
Garrison, LLC.

Judith D. Tenzyk, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Movant, represented by Aaron
L. Schwartz - Aschwartz@kaplanfox.com -- Alexander L. Burns, Kahn
Swick & Foti, LLP, David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin &
Garrison, LLC, Donald R. Hall, Jr., Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP,
Frederic S. Fox -- ffox@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer
LLP, Jeffrey P. Campisi- jcampisi@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox
Kilsheimer LLP, Jerry E. Martin -- jmartin@barrettjohnston.com --
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick
& Foti, LLP & Timothy L. Miles, Barrett Johnston Martin &
Garrison, LLC.

Robert Salyer, Movant, represented by Joey P. Leniski, Jr.,
Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, 227 Second Avenue North
Suite 400, Nashville, TN 37201


AGILE THERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Suit Dropped with Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Agile
Therapeutics, Inc. has been dismissed with prejudice after the
appointed class representative agreed to voluntarily drop the
case, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

On January 6, 2017, and January 20, 2017, two complaints captioned
Peng v. Agile Therapeutics, Inc., Alfred Altomari, and Elizabeth
Garner, No. 17-cv-119 (D.N.J.), and Lichtenthal v. Agile
Therapeutics, Inc., Alfred Altomari, and Elizabeth Garner, No. 17-
cv-405 (D.N.J.), respectively, were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a
putative class of investors who purchased shares of the Company's
common stock from March 9, 2016, through January 3, 2017.

The complaints alleged violations of the federal securities laws
based on public statements made regarding the Company's Phase 3
SECURE clinical trial and sought an unspecified amount of damages
to be determined at trial. The Company denied all allegations in
the complaints.

On May 15, 2017, the complaints were consolidated as In re Agile
Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 17-cv-
119 (D.N.J.), and Hoyt W. Clark was appointed as class
representative for the putative class.

On June 26, 2017, Mr. Clark agreed to dismiss the case
voluntarily, without payment by the Company of any consideration
and with each side bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs.  The
presiding judge dismissed the consolidated action with prejudice
as to all defendants on July 13, 2017.

Agile Therapeutics, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware on December
22, 1997. Agile is a forward-thinking women's healthcare company
dedicated to fulfilling the unmet health needs of today's women.
The Company's activities since inception have consisted
principally of raising capital and performing research and
development. The Company is headquartered in Princeton, New
Jersey.


AK STEEL: Court Denies Review Bid in Antitrust Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for reconsideration filed by a group of "indirect
plaintiffs" in an antitrust law violations lawsuit against steel
manufacturers has been denied, according to AK Steel Holding
Corporation's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In September and October 2008 and again in July 2010, several
companies filed purported class actions in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against nine
steel manufacturers, including the Company.  The case numbers
for these actions are 08CV5214, 08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633,
08CV5700, 08CV5942, 08CV6197 and 10CV04236.

On December 28, 2010, another action, case number 32,321, was
filed in state court in the Circuit Court for Cocke County,
Tennessee.

The defendants removed the Tennessee case to federal court and in
March 2012 it was transferred to the Northern District of
Illinois.

The plaintiffs in the various pending actions are companies that
purport to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly,
from one or more of the defendants and they claim to file the
actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel
products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of
the named defendants at any time from at least as early as January
2005.  The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers
have conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict output
and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high prices
for steel products in the United States.

In March 2014, the Company reached an agreement with the direct
purchaser plaintiffs to tentatively settle the claims asserted
against the Company, subject to certain court approvals below.
According to that settlement, the Company agreed to pay US$5.8
million to the plaintiff class of direct purchasers in exchange
for the members of that class to completely release all claims.

The Company said, "We continue to believe that the claims made
against us lack any merit, but we elected to enter the settlement
to avoid the ongoing expense of defending ourselves in this
protracted and expensive antitrust litigation."

The Company provided notice of the proposed settlement to members
of the settlement class.  After several class members received the
notice, they elected to opt out of the class settlement.

Following a fairness hearing, on October 21, 2014 the Court
entered an order and judgment approving the settlement and
dismissing all of the direct plaintiffs' claims against the
Company with prejudice as to the settlement class.

In 2014, the Company recorded a charge for the amount of the
tentative settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class and
paid that amount into an escrow account, which has now been
disbursed in accordance with the order that approved the
settlement.

On March 3, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the indirect plaintiffs' amended complaint on the grounds
that the plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing.

On April 4, 2017, the indirect plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration and the defendants filed an opposition to that
motion.

On July 13, 2017, the Court denied the indirect plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration.

The Company stated, "Because we have been unable to determine that
a potential loss in this case for the indirect plaintiffs is
probable or estimable, we have not recorded an accrual for this
matter.  If our assumptions used to evaluate a probable or
estimable loss for the indirect plaintiffs prove to be incorrect
or change, we may be required to record a charge for their
claims."

AK Steel Holding Corporation, through its subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation, produces flat-rolled carbon, stainless, and
electrical steels and tubular products in the United States and
internationally.  It was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
West Chester, Ohio.


ALERE INC: Wins More Time to Respond to Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Godinez v. Alere Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10766
(D. Mass.), Chief Judge Patti B. Saris on Sept. 7 entered an Order
granting the Assented to Motion for Extension of Time to Respond
to the Complaint.

Alere Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company's motion to dismiss
securities class action lawsuits remains pending.

The Company said, "On April 21, 2016 and May 4, 2016 two class
action lawsuits captioned Godinez v. Alere Inc. and Breton v.
Alere Inc., respectively, were filed against us in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Both
actions purport to assert claims against us and certain current
and former officers for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act."

"On July 11, 2016, the court entered an order consolidating the
two actions and appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. Lead
plaintiffs filed a supplemental and amended consolidated class
action complaint on January 4, 2017, seeking to represent a
proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
our common stock during the period May 28, 2015 through December
7, 2016. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged
materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by us
and the officers regarding our and our subsidiaries' business,
prospects and operations, which allegedly operated to inflate
artificially the price paid for our common stock during the class
period. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages,
including interest thereon, attorneys' fees and costs.

"We filed our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February
6, 2017 and the court heard oral argument on that motion on June
27, 2017."

"We are unable at this time to determine the outcome of this class
action lawsuit or our potential liability, if any."

Alere delivers reliable and actionable health information through
rapid diagnostic tests, resulting in better clinical and economic
healthcare outcomes globally.


ALERE INC: Bid for Discovery Talks in "Andren" under Submission
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alere Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the INRatio class action lawsuit
by Dina Andren and Sidney Bludman remains pending.

The court held a telephonic discovery conference on Sept. 15,
2017, at 11:00 a.m. to discuss Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery
Conference.   The matter has been taken under submission,
according to an Order signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew G.
Schopler.

A motion to certify class remains pending.

The Company said, "On May 26, 2016, a class action lawsuit
captioned Dina Andren and Sidney Bludman v. Alere Inc., et al.,
was filed against us in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California. This class action purports to
assert claims against us under several legal theories, including
fraud, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment and violation of
applicable unfair competition/business practice statutes in
connection with the manufacturing, marketing and sale of our
INRatio products. The plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed
class of all persons who purchased, rented or otherwise paid for
the INRatio system during the period January 1, 2009 to May 26,
2016 in the United States, or alternatively, California, Maryland,
New York, Colorado, Florida, Georgia and Pennsylvania. The
plaintiffs seek restitution and damages allegedly resulting from
inaccurate PT/INR readings and from the purchase of devices that
claimants say they would not have purchased had they known of the
alleged propensity of these devices to yield inaccurate PT/INR
results. Among other things, the plaintiffs seek a refund of money
spent on INRatio products and unspecified compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. Several of the state
classes also seek statutory penalties. Plaintiffs state that they
do not seek recovery for personal injury."

"We are unable, at this time, to determine the outcome of these
class action lawsuits or our potential liability, if any."

Alere delivers reliable and actionable health information through
rapid diagnostic tests, resulting in better clinical and economic
healthcare outcomes globally.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Ninth Circuit Denied Request for Rehearing
------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Ninth Circuit has
denied Plaintiff's request for rehearing in a securities class
action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of
Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System filed a
lawsuit against Align, Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"),
Align's former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth
B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's former Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of our common stock (the "Securities Action")."

"On July 11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which named the
same defendants, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
our common stock between January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012.
The amended complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr.
Arola violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott
and Mr. Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that
during the purported class period defendants failed to take an
appropriate goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29,
2011 acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of
2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012,
which rendered our financial statements and projections of future
earnings materially false and misleading and in violation of U.S.
GAAP. The amended complaint sought monetary damages in an
unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees.

"On December 9, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January
8, 2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended
complaint states the same claims as the amended complaint.

"On August 22, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss
without leave to amend. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Briefing for the appeal was completed in May 2015 and the Ninth
Circuit held oral arguments in October 2016.

"On May 5, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff filed a request for
rehearing that was denied by the Ninth Circuit on June 14, 2017.

"Plaintiff has 90 days following the June 14 Order to file a
petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court.

"Align intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against
these allegations. Align is currently unable to predict whether
the Plaintiff will file for a writ of certiorari and therefore
cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of
possible loss, if any."

Align's goal is to establish Invisalign clear aligners as the
standard method for treating malocclusion and to establish the
iTero intraoral scanner as the preferred scanning device for 3D
digital scans, ultimately driving increased product adoption by
dental professionals.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Antitrust Suits and DOJ Probe Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Group Inc. (AAG) disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that wholly-owned subsidiary
American Airlines, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action suit related to an antitrust civil
investigative demand by the United States Department of Justice
(DOJ).

In June 2015, American received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID)
from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) as part of an
investigation into whether there have been illegal agreements or
coordination of air passenger capacity.  The CID seeks documents
and other information from American, and other airlines have
announced that they have received similar requests.  American is
cooperating fully with the DOJ investigation.

In addition, subsequent to announcement of the delivery of CIDs by
the DOJ, American, along with Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest
Airlines Co., United Airlines, Inc. and, in the case of litigation
filed in Canada, Air Canada, have been named as defendants in
approximately 100 putative class action lawsuits alleging unlawful
agreements with respect to air passenger capacity.  The U.S.
lawsuits have been consolidated in the Federal District Court for
the District of Columbia.

On October 28, 2016, the Court denied a motion by the airline
defendants to dismiss all claims in the class actions.

AAG said, "Both the DOJ investigation and these lawsuits are in
their relatively early stages and American intends to defend these
matters vigorously."

American Airlines Group Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
as a network air carrier.  It provides scheduled air
transportation services for passengers and cargo.  The company was
formerly known as AMR Corporation and changed its name to American
Airlines Group Inc. in December 2013.  American Airlines Group
Inc. was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Hoefert" Suit Asserts USERRA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
John E. Hoefert, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. American Airlines, Inc. and American
Airlines Group, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02996-ESW (D. Ariz.,
September 1, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act, specifically by failure to provide sick time accrual,
vacation accrual, and bonuses to pilots on military leave.

The Defendants own and operate an airline company in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
      Crystal L. Matter, Esq.
      STONEBARGER LAW, P.C.
      75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
      Folsom, CA 95630
      Telephone: (916) 235-7140
      Facsimile: (916) 235-714
      E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
              cmatter@stonebargerlaw.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Lawler, Esq.
      PILOT LAW, P.C.
      750 Beech St., Suite 108
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (866) 512-1465
      Facsimile: (619) 231-4984
      E-mail: blawler@pilotlawcorp.com

         - and -

      Charles M. Billy, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES M. BILLY, P.C.
      22706 Aspan Street, Suite 305
      Lake Forest, CA 92630
      Telephone: (949) 357-9636
      Facsimile: (949) 715-4311
      E-mail: cbilly@cmblawcorp.com


AMERICAN ARRAY: Faces "Romero" Suit Over Solar Panels & Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE ROMERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. AMERICAN ARRAY SOLAR, INC., Case No. 1:17-at-00666
(E.D. Cal., September 4, 2017), is brought on behalf of those who
entered into an English-language contract with the Defendant for
solar panels after negotiating in a language other than English.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's oral misrepresentations
also deceived him to believe that he would receive a benefit from
installing the Defendant's solar panels.  Despite the passage of
time, Plaintiff has received no such benefit from the installation
of the solar panels.

American Array Solar is a local solar company incorporated under
the laws of the state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          1303 East Grand Avenue, Suite 101
          Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  ml@kazlg.com

               - and -

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


ARKAR INC: "Montalvo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dorian Montalvo, Gilberto Pamias, Giovanne Pagan, and Leonard
Crisci III, on behalf of themselves, individually, and all other
similarly situated v. Arkar Inc., Seward 2025 LLC, Ari Haberberg
and Gili Haberberg, Case No. 1:17-cv-06693 (S.D.N.Y., September 1,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages and other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate as a unified and centrally-controlled real
estate enterprise that owns, operates and controls at least 16
rental apartment buildings in the New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.
      RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Penn Plaza, Suite 2430
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: (212) 382-1600
      E-mail: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com

BAKER HUGHES: Booth Family Trust Drops GE Merger Deal Challenge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes, a GE company (formerly known as Bear Newco, Inc.),
disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017,
that Booth Family Trust has filed a stipulation to dismiss as moot
the lawsuit related to the Company's merger plan with the oil and
gas business of General Electric Company ("GE O&G").

On May 10, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed on
behalf of purported Baker Hughes stockholders in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas challenging the
Transaction Agreement and Plan of Merger combining Baker Hughes
with GE O&G.  The complaint is captioned Booth Family Trust v.
Baker Hughes Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-01457 (S.D.
Tex. 2017).  The complaint asserts, among other things, claims
under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") against Baker Hughes and the
members of its board of directors and challenges the adequacy of
the disclosures made in the combined proxy statement/prospectus
dated as of May 9, 2017.

In addition to certain unspecified damages and reimbursement of
costs, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the consummation of the
Transactions, or in the event the Transactions are consummated, to
rescind the Transactions or to obtain rescissory damages.  The
Company is not named to the lawsuit.

On June 21, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the Booth Family Trust litigation in exchange for Baker
Hughes making certain additional disclosures.  Those disclosures
were contained in an 8-K filed with the SEC on June 22, 2017.

On July 5, 2017, Booth Family Trust filed a stipulation to dismiss
the lawsuit as moot, which remains pending before the Court.
Pursuant to the stipulation, the Court will retain jurisdiction to
resolve any attorneys' fees dispute between the parties.

Baker Hughes is a supplier of oilfield services, products,
technology and systems used in the worldwide oil and natural gas
industry.


BCB BANCORP: To Pay $1MM for "Kube" Plaintiffs' Counsel Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
A court order dated July 5, 2017 has required BCB Bancorp, Inc. to
pay US$1.0 million to counsel for the plaintiff class for that
counsel's fees and other costs in the shareholder class action
lawsuit, Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., et al., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on August 7, 2017, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.  The award in the Order was related to the Order
and Final Judgment, entered by the court on September 21, 2015.
The Company said the full amount of the Order has been accrued and
recorded to non-interest expense through June 30, 2017.
Furthermore, the Company is involved in an on-going lawsuit with
its insurance carrier to recover the US$1.0 million and other
additional costs incurred in the Kube action.

The Company, as the successor to Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., and in its
own corporate capacity, was a named defendant in a shareholder
class action lawsuit, Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., et al., filed
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, Chancery
Division, General Equity (the "Action").

On September 21, 2015, the court entered an Order and Final
Judgment ("Judgment"), whereby the Stipulation of Settlement
("Stipulation") agreed to by the plaintiff class, the Company and
the remaining defendants was approved.

Pursuant to the Stipulation, the plaintiff class's counsel
reserved the right to seek an award of counsel fees and litigation
expenses ("Fees Motion").  The maximum amount which may be awarded
as a result of the Fees Motion is US$1,000,000.  The plaintiff
class's counsel made a Fee Motion to the court seeking a final
award of counsel fees and litigation expenses of approximately
US$1,000,000.  The full amount of the Order has been recorded to
non-interest expense during the quarter ended June 30, 2017.

The Company and the other defendants in the Action ("Plaintiffs")
brought an action ("Carrier Suit") against Progressive Insurance
Company ("Progressive"), the Directors' and Officers' Liability
insurance carrier for Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., at the time of its
merger with the Company on July 6, 2010, and Colonial American
Insurance Company ("Colonial"), the Directors' and Officers'
Liability insurance carrier for the Company at the time of the
merger.  The Carrier Suit seeks, among other claims,
indemnification, payment of and/or contribution toward the above
settlement, payment of and/or contribution toward the above awards
of attorney's fees to the plaintiff class's counsel, and
reimbursement of the attorney's fees and defense costs incurred by
the Plaintiffs in defending the Action and pursuing the Carrier
Suit.

Progressive made a motion to dismiss the Carrier Suit in 2014.
The Plaintiffs opposed that motion.  That motion was
administratively terminated by Order of the court, dated December
3, 2014.  By Order of the court, dated December 3, 2014, the
Plaintiffs' motion to file an Amended Complaint was granted.

On or about January 6, 2015, Progressive again made a motion to
dismiss the Carrier Suit.  The Plaintiffs opposed that motion.
That motion was denied by oral decision on October 22, 2015, and
by written Order, dated January 20, 2016.

A Mediation session ("Mediation") was held on March 11, 2015,
among the parties.  Following the Mediation, the Plaintiffs and
Colonial agreed to settle the Plaintiffs' claims against Colonial
for US$1,750,000.  A Settlement Agreement and Release, dated June
30, 2015, was entered into by the Plaintiffs and Colonial.  The
Plaintiffs received the settlement amount of US$1,750,000 from
Colonial on July 9, 2015.

The Plaintiffs and Progressive did not settle their respective
claims at the Mediation.  The Carrier Suit continues with respect
to these parties.  Initial discovery has been exchanged between
the parties.

By Order of the court, dated August 10, 2016, the parties were
granted permission to serve and file motions for summary judgment
by November 9, 2016.  Prior to consideration of these motions, a
Settlement Conference was held before the court on November 16,
2016.  The Plaintiffs and Progressive did not settle their
respective claims at that Settlement Conference.

The parties have filed motions for summary judgment.  These
motions were returnable before the court on December 5, 2016.  A
decision on these motions has not been received from the court to
date.  All discovery has been stayed until disposition of these
motions.

The Company said, "The Plaintiffs are vigorously pursuing full
recovery."

BCB Bancorp, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation established in
2003, and is the holding company parent of BCB Community Bank.
The Company has not engaged in any significant business activity
other than owning all of the outstanding common stock of BCB
Community Bank.  The Company's executive office is located in
Bayonne, New Jersey.


BOK FINANCIAL: Says Accord in Suit v. Bank Has Been Implemented
---------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that settlement for the class action
against its wholly owned subsidiary bank (BOKF, NA) has been
implemented.

On March 3, 2015, the Company and BOKF were named as defendants in
a class action alleging (1) that the manner in which the Bank
posted charges to its consumer deposit accounts was improper from
September 1, 2011 through July 8, 2014, the period after which the
Bank and BOK Financial had settled a class action respecting a
similar claim, and before it made changes to its posting order and
(2) that the manner in which the Bank posted charges to its small
business deposit accounts was improper from July 9, 2009 through
July 8, 2014.

Following mediation of the case in August 2016, the Class
Representatives and the Bank reached a settlement of the action
for US$7.8 million.

The Settlement was approved by the Court in a final order, the
Company funded the settlement, and the settlement has been
implemented.

BOK Financial Corporation, a financial holding company, operates
BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services in
Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri.  It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management.  The
Company was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Tulsa,
Oklahoma.


BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Still Faces Various Bondholders Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation's wholly owned subsidiary bank (BOKF,
NA) still defends itself against various lawsuits filed by
bondholders, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017.

On June 24, 2015, the Bank received a complaint alleging that an
employee had colluded with a bond issuer and an individual in
misusing revenues pledged to municipal bonds for which the Bank
served as trustee under the bond indenture.  The Company conducted
an investigation and concluded that employees in one of its
Corporate Trust offices had, with respect to a single group of
affiliated bond issuances, violated Company policies and
procedures by waiving financial covenants, granting forbearances
and accepting without disclosure to the bondholders, debt service
payments from sources other than pledged revenues.

The relationship manager was terminated.  The Company reported the
circumstances to, and cooperated with an investigation by, the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC").

On December 28, 2015, in an action brought by the SEC, the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey entered a
judgment against the principals involved in issuing the bonds,
precluding the principals from denying the alleged violations of
the federal securities laws and requiring the principals to pay
all outstanding principal, accrued interest, and other amounts
required under the bond documents (estimated to be approximately
US$73 million, less the value of the facilities securing repayment
of the bonds), subject to oversight by a court appointed monitor.

On September 7, 2016, the Bank agreed, and the SEC entered, a
consent order finding that the Bank had violated Section 17(a) of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and requiring the Bank to disgorge US$1,067,721 of
fees and pay a civil penalty of US$600,000.  The Bank has
disgorged the fees and paid the penalty.

On August 26, 2016, the Bank was sued in the United States
District Court for New Jersey by two bondholders in a putative
class action on behalf of all holders of the bonds alleging the
Bank participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals.

On September 14, 2016, the Bank was sued in the District Court of
Tulsa County, Oklahoma by 19 bondholders alleging the Bank
participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals.

The Company said, "Management has been advised by counsel that the
Bank has valid defenses to the claims.  The Bank expects the Court
ordered payment plan will result in the payment of the bonds by
the principals.  Accordingly, no loss is probable at this time and
no provision for loss has been made.  If the payment plan does not
result in payment of the bonds, a loss could become probable.  A
reasonable estimate cannot be made at this time though the amount
could be material to the Company."

On March 14, 2017, the Bank was sued in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by bondholders in a
second putative class action.  The bondholders in this second
action allege two individuals purchased facilities from the
principals who are the subject of the SEC New Jersey proceedings
by means of the fraudulent sale of US$60 million of municipal
securities for which the Bank also served as indenture trustee.

The bondholders allege the Bank failed to disclose that the seller
of the purchased facilities had engaged in the conduct complained
of in the New Jersey action.  The Bank properly performed all
duties as indenture trustee of this second set of municipal
securities, timely commenced proceedings against the issuer of the
securities when default occurred, is cooperating with the SEC in
actions against the two principals, is not a target of the SEC
proceedings, and has been advised by counsel that the Bank has
valid defenses to the claims of these bondholders.  According to
the Company, it is the opinion of management that no loss is
probable at this time.

BOK Financial Corporation, a financial holding company, operates
BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services in
Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri.  It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management.  The
Company was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Tulsa,
Oklahoma.


CABELA'S INCORPORATED: Parties Agree to Drop Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Cabela's Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2017, that a class action lawsuit
related to a merger transaction has been dismissed by the parties'
stipulation.

On October 3, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Original Merger Agreement"), by and among Bass Pro
Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Bass Pro
Group"), Prairie Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Bass Pro Group ("Sub"), and the
Company. On April 17, 2017, the Company entered into an Amendment
to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of April 17, 2017
(the "Merger Agreement Amendment"), by and among the Company,
Parent and Sub (the Original Merger Agreement, as amended by the
Merger Agreement Amendment and as otherwise amended from time to
time, the "Merger Agreement").

From June 7, 2017, through June 14, 2017, several putative class
action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware in connection with the Merger, and were
subsequently consolidated under the caption In re Cabela's Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 1:17-cv-00698-RGA
(the "Merger Litigation").  The Merger Litigation named as
defendants the Company and the members of the Company's board of
directors, and alleged that the definitive proxy statement filed
on June 5, 2017 (the "Proxy Statement") in connection with the
Merger was false and misleading.

On June 8, 2017, one of the plaintiffs in the Merger Litigation
moved to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Merger until such time
as the defendants made certain supplemental disclosures as
identified by the plaintiff.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Merger
Litigation were without merit.  However, in order to moot the
plaintiffs' unmeritorious disclosure claims, alleviate the costs,
risks, and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and provide
additional information to its stockholders, on June 22, 2017, the
Company voluntarily supplemented the Proxy Statement through the
filing of a Form 8-K.  The same day, in light of the supplemental
disclosures, the plaintiff withdrew his motion for preliminary
injunction.  On July 27, 2017, the Court entered the parties'
stipulation of voluntary dismissal of the Merger Litigation.


CABELA'S INCORPORATED: TCPA Class Suit in Kentucky Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cabela's Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2017, that the Company is party to
a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that the
Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing
calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to cellular
telephones without first obtaining consent due to reassignment of
the number or revocation of prior consent.  At the present time,
the Company cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss
that may arise from this matter. Accordingly, the Company has not
accrued a liability related to this matter.


CAMDEN HIGH: Demolition Digs Up New Contamination Fears
-------------------------------------------------------
Linda Silmalis, writing for The Sunday Telegraph, reports that the
bulldozers have moved in on a "toxic" former Sydney high school
site, literally digging up fresh concerns about contamination.

Old Camden High School was closed in 2001 and a class action with
hundreds of ex-students -- who not only claim it made them sick
but that 30 later died from illnesses linked to the site -- is
being prepared for court.

Meanwhile it is about to become a "lifestyle estate" for retirees.
Eight years after its development application was first approved,
EH Retirement Living will raze the old school buildings and then
remove tonnes of contaminated soil left behind from an old
gasworks.

The remediation works has raised concerns among parents of two
nearby schools, including Camden Public School across the road.

AEH Retirement Living chief operating officer Michael Rabey said
initial plans to demolish and remediate the site in three stages
had been scrapped, with all the works to be done at once.

He said the first stage of construction for 54 apartments was
expected to be completed by Christmas next year.

Mr. Rabey said the material removed from the site would be
stabilised before being disposed of as required by Environment
Protection Authority (EPA) regulations.

He said an EPA officer would oversee the site work, while SafeWork
Australia was also involved.

Workmen have moved in on the old Camden High School grounds,
wearing safety gear to clear the old school. Picture: Sam Ruttyn

"We are first demolishing the 15 buildings on the site, before
moving on to the remediation later this year," he said.

"We are operating in a highly regulated environment -- we are not
blazing any trails here.

"We have been speaking with the locals schools and P&Cs about
their concerns, and will continue to answer all their questions."

The site has been derelict since it was formally closed by the
state government in 2001.

Marsdens Law Group partner Joe Bonura, who is preparing the class
action on behalf of more than 300 students and their families,
said the remediation works would not affect the case.

More than 300 ex-students and their families have come together on
a class action. Picture: Jonathan Ng
"While I have received numerous expressions of concern from
members of the Camden community, including parents of the nearby
primary school, regarding the proposed remediation works, our
investigations in respect of the class action are not impacted by
the remediation of the site," he said.

"We continue to focus on the gathering of additional evidence in
support of the claim."

The class action was initiated by former student Leonie Curry, who
later died of a brain tumour.

Her fight is being continued by her husband Rodney Curry. [GN]


CHINA COMMERCIAL: Faces "Rojas" Sued Over Proposed Sorghum Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan C. Rojas, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of China Commercial Credit, Inc. v. Weiliang
Jie, Boling Liu, Teck Chuan Yeo, Long Yi, Mingjie Zhao, and China
Commercial Credit, Inc., Case No. 2017-633 (Del. Ch. Ct.,
September 1, 2017), arises from glaring breaches of fiduciary duty
by the CCCR Board in connection with soliciting stockholder
approval of, among other things, the Company's acquisition of
Sorghum Investment Holdings Limited, a transformative transaction
that will leave CCCR's existing stockholders with a mere 12%
ownership interest in the post-closing Company.

According to the complaint, CCCR filed a preliminary proxy
statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which
recommends that CCCR stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction. However, the Proxy is so materially deficient that it
deprives CCCR stockholders of any meaningful way to assess the
reasonableness of the process leading to -- or the price that will
be paid in -- the Acquisition.  Indeed, the Proxy fails to
disclose: (a) any of the analysis, or even a summary of the
analysis, prepared by the Board's investment banker, Axiom Capital
Management, Inc. ("Axiom") regarding the Acquisition; (b) any
information regarding Axiom's compensation; (c) any of the
financial forecasts created by CCCR management; or (d) any
information regarding the process or negotiations culminating in
the Acquisition. The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will
unlawfully divest CCCR's public stockholders of the Company's
valuable assets without fully disclosing all material information
concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To
remedy defendants' Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and
until such problems are remedied.

China Commercial Credit, Inc. is a financial services firm that
offers lending, financial guarantee and financial leasing products
and services to a target market that has been significantly
underserved by the traditional Chinese financial services
community. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      David Sborz, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4967
      Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
      E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
              cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
              dsborz@andrewsspringer.com

         - and -

      Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
      Spencer Oster, Esq.
      David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
      240 East 79th Street, Suite A
      New York, NY 10075
      Telephone: (888) 529-1108
      E-mail: jfriedman@fotpllc.com
              soster@fotpllc.com
              dtejtel@fotpllc.com


CLEAN HARBORS: Court Approves $645,000 Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Western District of Washington,
Seattle, issued an Order and Judgment granting Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement in
the case captioned RODERICK C. DEMMINGS, Plaintiff, v. CLEAN
HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, No. C14-1017-TSZ
(W.D. Wash.).

The Court ordered that the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final
approval of class action settlement is granted. Defendant Clean
Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., will pay $644,500 into a
Settlement Fund.

For members of Subclass I, the check will be in the amount of $295
minus the pro rata share of attorney's fees and costs, incentive
award, and settlement administration costs (estimated to be
$112.01). For members of Subclass II, the check will be in the
amount of $40 minus the pro rata share of attorney's fees and
costs, incentive award, and settlement administration costs
(estimated to be $15.19).

Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney's fees, costs, and class
representative incentive award, is granted. Class Representative
Roderick C. Demmings is awarded $10,000 as an incentive fee, which
is a fair and reasonable amount to compensate him for the time,
effort, and risk he undertook in service to the Class and
Subclasses. Class Counsel are awarded attorney's fees and costs in
the amount of $214,833.33, which represents one-third (1/3) of the
Settlement Fund.

The Settlement Administrator is authorized to draw from the
Settlement Fund up to $19,900 in reimbursement for its actual
expenses. All these expenses must be documented in the written
accounting that the Settlement Administrator furnishes to Class
Counsel and counsel for defendant pursuant to Paragraph 4.4 of the
Stipulation of Settlement. If the Settlement Administrator's
expenses exceed $19,900, the Settlement Administrator may seek
reimbursement for any excess amounts via motion filed on its
behalf by Class Counsel or counsel for defendant or via stipulated
motion of the parties.

The claims of each member of the Class that were or could have
been asserted in this action are dismissed with prejudice, except
that Erik Alexander Box, Timothy Sherman Branch, Leonardo Arreguin
Camarillo, Andrew Farley, Michael Anthony Hawley, Darius Marquise
Haynes, Kenneth Wayne Johnson, Bryon Francis Kerker, Patricia Ann
Landry, Jason Lee, Jeffery Leyk, Jerry Lisiecki, Casey Jon
McGinnis, Mark Edward Mounts, Stacey Shay Ramsey, James Brendan
Reilly, David Streeter, and Ryan Michael Wilson, who have opted
out of the Class, are not bound by this dismissal.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017 Opinion
and Judgment is available at http://tinyurl.com/y79jfmy6from
Leagle.com.

Roderick C. Demmings, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Pecora --
apecora@omdplaw.com -- O'TOOLE MCLAUGHLIN DOOLEY & PECORA CO. LPA,
pro hac vice.

Roderick C. Demmings, Plaintiff, represented by Justin M. Baxter,
BAXTER & BAXTER, LLP,  8835 S.W. Canyon Lane, Suite 130Portland,
OR 97225 & Matthew A. Dooley -- dooley@fyiplaw.com -- O'TOOLE
MCLAUGHLIN DOOLEY & PECORA CO. LPA, pro hac vice.

Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Michael D. Ray -- Michael.ray@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS
NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC, pro hac vice & Sonja Diane Fritts --
Sonja.fritts@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK &
STEWART.


CMS ENERGY: Suits over Gas Index Price Reporting Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits
related to gas index price reporting, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

CMS Energy, along with affiliates CMS MST, CMS Field Services,
Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, have been
named as defendants in four class action lawsuits and one
individual lawsuit arising as a result of alleged inaccurate
natural gas price reporting to publications that report trade
information.  Allegations include price-fixing conspiracies,
restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail
prices in Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin.  Plaintiffs are making
claims for the following: treble damages, full consideration
damages, exemplary damages, costs, interest, and/or attorneys'
fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict
litigation process.  In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS
Energy defendants were dismissed by the district court based on
FERC preemption.  In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court decision.  The appellate court
found that FERC preemption does not apply under the facts of these
cases.  The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial
of leave to amend to add federal antitrust claims.  The matter was
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015 upheld the Ninth
Circuit's decision.  The cases were remanded back to the federal
district court.

In May 2016, the federal district court granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment in the individual lawsuit based on a
release in a prior settlement involving similar allegations and
reinstated CMS Energy as a defendant in one of the class action
lawsuits.  The order of summary judgment has been appealed.

In December 2016, CMS Energy entities reached a tentative
settlement with the plaintiffs in the three Kansas and Missouri
cases for an amount that was not material to CMS Energy.  The
tentative settlement received preliminary approval by the federal
district court and was scheduled for hearing in August 2017.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC reports.

Other CMS Energy entities remain as defendants in the two
Wisconsin class action lawsuits.

In March 2017, the federal district court denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The plaintiffs appealed that
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which
has accepted the matter for hearing.  In June 2017, an
unaffiliated company that is also a defendant in these cases filed
for bankruptcy, which could increase the risk of loss to CMS
Energy.

The Company said, "These cases involve complex facts, a large
number of similarly situated defendants with different factual
positions, and multiple jurisdictions.  Presently, any estimate of
liability would be highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's
reasonably possible loss would be based on widely varying models
previously untested in this context.  If the outcome after appeals
is unfavorable, these cases could negatively affect CMS Energy's
liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations."

CMS Energy Corporation operates as an energy company primarily in
Michigan.  It operates through three segments: Electric Utility,
Gas Utility, and Enterprises.  The Company was founded in 1987 and
is headquartered in Jackson, Michigan.


COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit remains
pending.

The Company said, "On October 5, 2016, October 27, 2016, and
November 18, 2016, three putative securities class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, naming us and certain of our current and
former officers as defendants. In an order dated February 3, 2017,
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
consolidated the three putative securities class actions into a
single action and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel."

"On April 7, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of stockholders
who purchased our common stock during the period between February
27, 2015 and September 29, 2016, naming us and certain of our
current and former officers as defendants and alleging violations
of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false or misleading
statements related to potential violations of the FCPA, our
business, prospects and operations, and the effectiveness of our
internal controls over financial reporting and our disclosure
controls and procedures. The lead plaintiffs seek an award of
compensatory damages, among other relief, and their reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

"Under a stipulation filed by the parties on February 23, 2017,
defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on June 6, 2017, plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on
July 21, 2017 responding to defendants' motions to dismiss, and
defendants had until September 5, 2017 to file reply briefs in
further support of their motions to dismiss."

Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation is one of the world's
professional services companies, transforming customers' business,
operating and technology models for the digital era.


CONNECTICUT: Court Approves Settlement of Women Inmates' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Connecticut, issued
an Ordering granting the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval
of Settlement Agreement in the case captioned VALERIE WEST, ET
AL., v. COMMISSIONER JOHN R. MANSON, ET AL., Civil No. 2:83-CV-
366(RNC) ( D. Conn.), and granting Defendants' Motion to
Immediately Terminate Prospective Injunctive Relief.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the parties, including the
plaintiff classes of women who are or who in the future will be
confined in Connecticut's correctional institution for women and
the plaintiff class of children of these women (Plaintiffs) and
the Defendant Commissioner of the Department of Correction (DOC),
jointly move for the final approval of the Stipulation
preliminarily approved by the Court.

This action was filed in 1983 as a class action pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23. A consent decree, entered on October 13, 1988, and
approved by the Court on January 9, 1989, included a provision on
page 66, Section IX, paragraph 2 stating in part:

     "Defendants shall provide for a full-time attorney to
represent CCIN inmates in family matters, such as divorces, child
custody, DCYS proceedings, and other civil matters. This attorney
shall be present at CCIN at least one day or its equivalent per
week."

Defendant Commissioner of Correction filed a Motion to Terminate
Prospective Injunctive Relief, seeking to terminate Section IX,
paragraph 2 of the 1989 consent decree, pursuant to the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).

The parties entered into a private settlement agreement whereby
plaintiffs agreed not to oppose defendant's pending motion to
terminate and defendant agreed to certain steps to make family law
information available to DOC inmates, through family law seminars
and access to CTLawhelp.org materials.  As consideration for the
plaintiffs' relinquishment of their rights to oppose the motion,
the defendant will arrange for provision on a gender neutral basis
of civil legal assistance to inmates incarcerated in correctional
institutions.

The Consent Judgment, approved and adopted, identifies the
plaintiff class as follows:

     "The provisions of this Consent Judgment resolve the existing
disputes and issues in the above-entitled case between the
plaintiffs, individually and those similarly situated as present
and future inmates confined at The Connecticut Correctional
Institution at Niantic [(CCIN)], and the defendants, all of whom
are officials and employees of the Connecticut Department of
Corrections, and Department of Children and Youth Services."

With respect to the parties' request to approve the Settlement
Agreement, the Court finds that the interests of the Plaintiff
Classes have been well represented by skilled and experienced
counsel who effectively represented the classes' interests.
Counsel for the Plaintiff Class of children represented that
"[t]he parties engaged in lengthy negotiations, involving several
in-person meetings and phone conferences, and including the
Defendant's current contract attorneys who provide legal
assistance to inmates in family matters.

The Court finds that adequate notice was provided to the Plaintiff
Classes. Pursuant to the Court's, Order, the following steps were
taken to disseminate the Notice to the plaintiff classes by
Greater Hartford Legal Aid, Department of Correction, York
Correctional Institution, and the Department of Family Services.
Accordingly, the Court finds that adequate notice was provided to
the Plaintiff Classes pursuant to the Court's Order.

Inmate James Harnage participated in the fairness hearing by
phone. The parties opposed Harnage's Motion to Intervene on the
grounds that he does not have standing as a class member. As
pointed out by counsel for the Plaintiff Class of female inmates,
Mr. Harnage is neither female or transitioning to become a female.
Moreover, Mr. Harnage is currently litigating an equal protection
challenge to Section IX, Paragraph 2 of the 1989 Consent Judgment
in at least three separate actions.

Thus, Harnage cannot claim he is not being provided with access to
court on this equal protection challenge.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff Class implicitly approved the
parties' Settlement Agreement as they filed no objections to the
settlement and this weighs in favor of settlement approval. The
Court also notes that the parties carefully considered Mr.
Harnage's proposed amendments and objections in fashioning their
agreement.

On balance, the agreement is substantially fair in light of the
attendant risks and costs of further litigating this issue. At the
fairness hearing, all counsel moved for approval of the Settlement
Agreement. The Court finds that experienced and able counsel
reached a fair, adequate and reasonable compromise to the benefit
of all incarcerated individuals of both genders, while preserving
for the plaintiff classes those kinds of legal assistance for
which the most interest and need has been demonstrated during the
operation of the consent decree.

Accordingly, the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of
Settlement Agreement is granted. Defendants' Motion to Immediately
Terminate Prospective Injunctive Relief is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycr72z85from Leagle.com.

Valerie West, Plaintiff, represented by Lynn B. Cochrane, Greater
Hartford Legal Aid, 999 Asylum Ave., 3I Fl. Hartford, CT 06105.

Valerie West, Plaintiff, represented by Toya Alek Graham, Toya
Alek Graham, 777 Summer Street -- Suite 403 Stamford, Connecticut
06901, Alexis S. Gettier -- agettier@daypitney.com -- Day Pitney
LLP, Dan Barrett, American Civil Liberties Union, Giovanna E.
Shay, Greater Hartford Legal Aid & Linda Allard, Greater Hartford
Legal Aid.

Passion Rayne West, Plaintiff, represented by Dan Barrett,
American Civil Liberties Union, Lynn B. Cochrane, Greater Hartford
Legal Aid, Toya Alek Graham, Toya Alek Graham & Alexis S. Gettier,
Day Pitney LLP-Stmfd.

Victoria Bellavita, Plaintiff, represented by Dan Barrett,
American Civil Liberties Union, Lynn B. Cochrane, Greater Hartford
Legal Aid, Toya Alek Graham, Toya Alek Graham & Alexis S. Gettier,
Day Pitney LLP.

Joann Parker, Plaintiff, represented by Dan Barrett, American
Civil Liberties Union, Lynn B. Cochrane, Greater Hartford Legal
Aid, Toya Alek Graham, Toya Alek Graham & Alexis S. Gettier, Day
Pitney LLP.

Donnielle Parker, Plaintiff, represented by Dan Barrett, American
Civil Liberties Union, Lynn B. Cochrane, Greater Hartford Legal
Aid, Toya Alek Graham, Toya Alek Graham & Alexis S. Gettier, Day
Pitney LLP.

Linda Shelton, Plaintiff, represented by Dan Barrett, American
Civil Liberties Union, Lynn B. Cochrane, Greater Hartford Legal
Aid, Toya Alek Graham, Toya Alek Graham & Alexis S. Gettier, Day
Pitney LLP.

John R. Manson, Defendant, represented by Steven R. Strom, Office
of the Attorney General.

Marie Cerino, Defendant, represented by Steven R. Strom, Office of
the Attorney General.

Comm., DCYS Mark Marcus, Defendant, represented by Steven R.
Strom, Office of the Attorney General.

James A. Harnage, Movant, Pro Se.


CORESITE REALTY: Hearing on Employment Class Pact Set for Nov. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for the Superior Court's final approval of an agreement
to settle a class action suit against CoreSite Realty Corporation
regarding alleged employment law violations has been scheduled for
November 28, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017.

On July 9, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
against the Company, alleging various employment law violations
related to overtime, meal and break periods, minimum wage, timely
payment of wages, wage statements, payroll records and business
expenses.

On March 15, 2016, the Company filed a responsive pleading
generally denying the allegations.

On July 27, 2016, the parties agreed upon class-wide settlement
terms, subject to court approval.

On June 26, 2017, the Superior Court granted preliminary approval
of the parties' settlement, which resolves the matter on a class-
wide basis, on behalf of all non-exempt employees in California.

The proposed settlement also resolves a related class action
lawsuit filed on July 22, 2016, alleging similar claims.

As part of the settlement, the Company agrees to pay US$600,000.

The Superior Court set a hearing for November 28, 2017, to
determine whether final settlement approval of the settlement will
be granted.  In the meantime, notice of the proposed settlement
will be sent to class members who will then have an opportunity to
object or opt out of the settlement.

The Company said, "There can be no assurance that the settlement
will be finally approved by the Superior Court.  We intend to
vigorously defend this legal proceeding if the settlement is not
approved."

CoreSite Realty Corporation engages in the ownership, acquisition,
construction, and management of data centers.  It was founded in
2010 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


CR BARD: Still Faces Lawsuits on Various Hernia Product Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that approximately 25 federal and 90 state lawsuits
involving individual claims by approximately 115 plaintiffs, as
well as one putative class action in the United States, are
currently pending against the company with respect to its
Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia repair implant
products as of June 30.

The Company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the
Composix(R) Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005.  In June
2007, the Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits and, subsequently, other
hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts
nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.  The MDL stopped
accepting new cases in the second quarter of 2014 and was
terminated in November 2016, at which time the remaining federal
lawsuits were remanded to their courts of original jurisdiction
for trial.

As of June 30, 2017, all but one of the United States putative
class actions pending against the company was dismissed.  The
remaining putative class action pending against the company has
not been certified and seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii)
compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial
finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees.

In April 2014, a settlement was reached with respect to three
putative Canadian class actions within amounts previously recorded
by the company.

As of June 30, 2017, five new putative Canadian class actions have
been filed against the company.  Approximately 80 of the state
lawsuits, involving individual claims by approximately 80
plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of
Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions.
The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal
injury resulting from use of the products.

The company has resolved the majority of its historical Hernia
Product Claims, including through agreements or agreements in
principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their
respective inventories of cases.  Each agreement involving the
settlement of a firm's inventory of claims was subject to certain
conditions, including requirements for participation in the
proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs.

C.R. Bard said, "The Company continues to engage in discussions
with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of
unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defend
Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through
litigation.  The company expects additional trials of Hernia
Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months.  The company
cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia
Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and
unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuit, will not
have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity."

C. R. Bard, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells medical, surgical,
diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide.  The Company sells
its products directly to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site
facilities through hospital/surgical supply and other medical
specialty distributors.  C. R. Bard, Inc. was founded in 1907 and
is headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey.


CR BARD: Continues to Defend Women's Health Product Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 4,170 plaintiffs are currently
pending against the company as of June 30 in various federal and
state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the
use of certain of the company's surgical continence products for
women.

These products include those manufactured by both the Company and
two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to
Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the company.
Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify the company
with respect to any product defect liability for products its
subsidiaries had manufactured.  In July 2015, the Company reached
an agreement with Medtronic (which was amended in June 2017)
regarding certain aspects of Medtronic's indemnification
obligation.

In addition, five putative class actions in the United States and
five putative class actions in Canada have been filed against the
company, and a limited number of other claims have been filed or
asserted in various non-U.S. jurisdictions.  The foregoing
lawsuits, unfiled or unknown claims, putative class actions and
other claims, together with claims that have settled or are the
subject of agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are
referred to collectively as the "Women's Health Product Claims".

The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for
personal injury resulting from use of the products.  The putative
class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical
monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages;
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v)
attorneys' fees.

In April 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in one Canadian
putative class action.

In March 2016, the company reached an agreement in principle to
resolve all Canadian putative class actions, with the exception of
a Quebec class action, within amounts previously recorded by the
company, which settlement was finalized in September 2016.

In January 2017, the court approved the discontinuance of the
proposed Quebec class action.

C. R. Bard, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells medical, surgical,
diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide.  The Company sells
its products directly to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site
facilities through hospital/surgical supply and other medical
specialty distributors.  C. R. Bard, Inc. was founded in 1907 and
is headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey.


CR BARD: Various Filter Product Claims, Lawsuits Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 2,245 plaintiffs are currently
pending against the Company as of June 30 in various federal and
state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the
use of the company's vena cava filter products.

In August 2015, the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation
("JPML") ordered the creation of a Multi-District Litigation for
all federal Filter Product Claims (the "IVC Filter MDL") in the
District of Arizona.  There are approximately 2,175 Filter Product
Claims that have been, or shortly will be, transferred to the IVC
Filter MDL, including one medical monitoring class action.

In March 2017, the company filed a motion for summary judgment
based upon principles of federal preemption, which is scheduled to
be fully briefed by the end of the third quarter of 2017.

The remaining approximately 65 Filter Product Claims are pending
in various state courts.

In March 2016, a putative Canadian class action was filed against
the company in Quebec.  In April 2016 and May 2016, putative
Canadian class actions were filed in Ontario and British Columbia,
respectively.  In November 2016, a putative Canadian class action
was filed in Saskatchewan.

The Company said, "The approximate number of lawsuits set forth
above does not include approximately 25 claims that have been
threatened against the company but for which complaints have not
yet been filed.  In addition, the company has limited information
regarding the nature and quantity of these and other unfiled or
unknown claims.  The company continues to receive claims and
lawsuits and may in future periods learn additional information
regarding other unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits,
which could materially impact the company's estimate of the number
of claims or lawsuits against the company.  The company expects
that trials of Filter Product Claims may take place over the next
12 months.  While the company intends to vigorously defend Filter
Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation,
it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims
will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business,
results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity."

C. R. Bard, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells medical, surgical,
diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide.  The Company sells
its products directly to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site
facilities through hospital/surgical supply and other medical
specialty distributors.  C. R. Bard, Inc. was founded in 1907 and
is headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey.


CUBESMART: Settlement in "Kendall" Complaint Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement of
the case, KENDALL v. CUBESMART L.P. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-
06098-BRM-LHG (D. N.J.), remains pending.

Plaintiffs filed the Settlement Motion on August 9.  A hearing to
approve the deal was set for Sept. 5 before Judge Brian R.
Martinotti.

The case was originally filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Middlesex County, MID-L-15-03867.  It was removed to the Federal
District Court on Aug. 10, 2015.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff leased a storage space from
Defendants in 2010 and subsequently discovered that his personal
property had been damaged by a water leak in the rental unit.
Plaintiff alleges that (1) on a putative class-wide basis, the
leasing documents for the rental unit included provisions which
violate clearly established consumer rights under decisional law
in New Jersey; the New Jersey Self Service Storage Facility Act,
N.J.S.A. 2A:44-187, et seq.; and the United States Bankruptcy
Code, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 365, in violation of the New Jersey Truth-in-
Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, N.J.S.A. 56:12-14, et
seq. and (2) individually, that Plaintiff's leasing documents
contained a limitation on liability provision which violated the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, et seq.

In April 2016, the District Court ruled that Defendants' motion to
dismiss is denied in part and granted in part.  Specifically,
Defendants' motion to dismiss Count I is denied to the extent that
this Count sufficiently alleges four violations of N.J.S.A. 56:12-
15 as to all Defendants, except Marr; all of Plaintiff's claims
against Marr in Count I are dismissed without prejudice.
Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I and II of the Complaint is
granted to the extent that those counts fail to allege violations
of N.J.S.A. 56:12-16, and those claims are dismissed without
prejudice. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count III is granted, and
Plaintiff's claim under the CFA is dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff's counsel is:

     Matthew Scott Oorbeek, Esq.
     THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC
     1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
     North Brunswick, NJ 08902
     Tel: (732) 545-7900
     E-mail: moorbeek@wolflawfirm.net

CubeSmart's counsel is:

     Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
     LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, PC
     65 Livingston Avenue
     Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
     Tel: (973) 597-2500
     E-mail: grooney@lowenstein.com

          - and -

     Joseph Aldo Fischetti, Esq.
     LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
     One Lowenstein Drive
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Tel: (973) 422-6506
     E-mail: jfischetti@lowenstein.com

CubeSmart continues to "vigorously" defend itself against a
putative class action in New Jersey, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On July 13, 2015, a putative class action was filed against the
Company in the Federal District Court of New Jersey seeking to
obtain declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
New Jersey consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company
of the New Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice
Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

CubeSmart is an equity real estate investment trust.  The firm
invests in the real estate markets of the United States.  It
engages in ownership, operation, acquisition and development of
self-storage facilities.  The firm was formerly known as U-Store-
It Trust.  CubeSmart was founded in July 2004 and is based in
Malvern, Pennsylvania.


DEL TACO: Court Okays Bid to Decertify Class in Employee Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Court has granted the motion of Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. to
decertify the sole remaining class in a lawsuit filed by a former
Del Taco employee, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 20, 2017.

In July 2013, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has failed to pay overtime
wages and has not appropriately provided meal breaks to its
California general managers.

On June 23, 2017, the Court filed a tentative ruling granting Del
Taco's motion to decertify the sole remaining class.

The Company said, "Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable,
and the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or
cost of the unresolved matter.  However, based on management's
current understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, the
Company does not believe that these proceedings give rise to a
probable or estimable loss and should not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position, operations or cash
flows.  Therefore, Del Taco has not recorded any amount for the
claim as of June 20, 2017."

Del Taco is a nationwide operator and franchisor of restaurants
featuring fresh and fast cuisine, including both Mexican inspired
and American classic dishes.


DEL TACO: Discovery Ongoing in Former Employee's Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 20, 2017, that discovery is in process in a
class action lawsuit filed by a former Del Taco employee.

In March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately
provided meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California
hourly employees.

Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to assert all of its
defenses to this threatened class action and the individual
claims.

Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes
should prevent the certification of the class, as well as the
potential assessment of any damages on a class basis.

The Company said, "Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable,
and the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or
cost of the unresolved matter.  However, based on management's
current understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, the
Company does not believe that these proceedings give rise to a
probable or estimable loss and should not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position, operations or cash
flows.  Therefore, Del Taco has not recorded any amount for the
claim as of June 20, 2017."

Del Taco is a nationwide operator and franchisor of restaurants
featuring fresh and fast cuisine, including both Mexican inspired
and American classic dishes.


DISH NETWORK: Lodged $41 Million of Litigation Expense
------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company recorded
$41 million of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer class
action lawsuit during the three months ended June 30, 2017.

A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an
independent third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are
the subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network
L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").  Following a five-day
trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that case found that the
independent third-party retailer was acting as DISH Network
L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue in that
case, and that class members are eligible to recover $400 in
damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA.

On March 7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the Court
for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new
trial, which the Court denied on May 16, 2017.  On May 22, 2017,
the Court ruled that the violations were willful and knowing, and
trebled the damages award to $1,200 for each call made in
violation of TCPA.

"During the three months ended June 30, 2017, we recorded $41
million of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action on
our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and
Comprehensive Income (Loss).  We recorded $20 million of
"Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action during the
fourth quarter 2016.  Our total accrual related to the Krakauer
Action at June 30, 2017 was $61 million and is included in "Other
accrued expenses" on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets,"
the Company said.

DISH offers pay-TV services under the DISH(R)  brand and the
Sling(R) brand (collectively "Pay-TV" services).


DUKE ENERGY: Appeal in Suit vs. Duke Energy Florida Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the appeal in the class
action lawsuit against Duke Energy Florida and Florida Power &
Light Company (FP&L) remains pending.

On February 22, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a putative
class of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L's customers in Florida. The
suit alleges the State of Florida's nuclear power plant cost
recovery statutes (NCRS) are unconstitutional and pre-empted by
federal law. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to repayment of
all money paid by customers of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L as a
result of the NCRS, as well as an injunction against any future
charges under those statutes. The constitutionality of the NCRS
has been challenged unsuccessfully in a number of prior cases on
alternative grounds.

Duke Energy Florida and FP&L filed motions to dismiss the
complaint on May 5, 2016. On September 21, 2016, the Court granted
the motions to dismiss with prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
On January 4, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs filed an
appellate brief on March 16, 2017, and Duke Energy Florida filed
responses on April 17, 2017. Oral argument was scheduled for
August 22, 2017.

Duke Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this appeal.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: No Oral Argument Yet in "Scranton" Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the oral argument
has not yet been scheduled in the class action lawsuit filed by
John Scranton.

On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John
Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly
situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE
Securities in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private
Attorney General action. The complaint alleged that the Company
misrepresented through its website that it would always
automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or
more on expiration date. The plaintiffs allege violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer
Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty and plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages.

The case has been deemed complex within the meaning of the
California Rules of Court, and a case management conference was
held on September 13, 2013. The Company's demurrer and motion to
strike the complaint were granted by order dated December 20,
2013. The Court granted leave to amend the complaint. A second
amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2014.

On March 11, 2014, the Company moved to strike and for a demurrer
to the second amended complaint. On October 20, 2014, the Court
sustained the Company's demurrer, dismissing four counts of the
second amended complaint with prejudice and two counts without
prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on November 10,
2014. The Company filed a third demurrer and motion to strike on
December 12, 2014. By order dated March 18, 2015, the Superior
Court entered a final order sustaining the Company's demurrer on
all remaining claims with prejudice. Final judgment was entered in
the Company's favor on April 8, 2015. The plaintiff filed a Notice
of Appeal on April 27, 2015. The briefing is complete but oral
argument has not yet been scheduled. The Company will continue to
defend itself vigorously in this matter.

E*TRADE is a financial services company that provides online
brokerage and related products and services primarily to
individual retail investors.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Claims in "Schwab" Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Court has
dismissed the claims in the "Schwab" class action without
prejudice.

On March 26, 2015, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by Ty
Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities as
defendants. The complaint alleges that E*TRADE breached a
fiduciary duty and unjustly enriched itself in connection with the
routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and
exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the
Company, and attorneys' fees.

On July 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Craig L.
Schwab, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, naming
E*TRADE Financial Corporation, E*TRADE Securities LLC, and former
Company executives as defendants. The complaint alleges that
E*TRADE violated federal securities laws in connection with the
routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and
exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the
Company, and attorneys' fees.

By stipulation, the Rayner case has been consolidated with the
Schwab case and both matters are now venued in the Southern
District of New York. E*TRADE has moved to dismiss the complaint
in Rayner.

On April 2, 2017, the District Court dismissed the complaint in
Rayner. On May 5, 2017, plaintiffs in Rayner appealed.

E*TRADE moved to dismiss the Schwab case on January 11, 2017; and
in response, the Schwab plaintiffs submitted an amended Complaint
on February 10, 2017. The amended Schwab complaint asserts only
two claims: violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by
E*TRADE Securities LLC and E*TRADE Financial Corporation; and
violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by E*TRADE's two
most recent chief executive officers.

On July 10, the Court dismissed the Schwab claims without
prejudice. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously
in these matters.

E*TRADE is a financial services company that provides online
brokerage and related products and services primarily to
individual retail investors.


EAGLE MATERIALS: Class Cert. Process Ongoing in Wallboard Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that hearings on class certifications in a
consolidated domestic wallboard antitrust action are still
ongoing. Previously, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the
direct purchaser plaintiff's motion for class certification in
April 2017 and held a hearing on indirect purchaser plaintiff's
motion for class certification in June 2017.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States District Courts, including the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North
Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois, against the
Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC ("American
Gypsum"), alleging that the defendant wallboard manufacturers
conspired to fix the price for drywall sold in the United States
in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some cases related
provisions of state law.

The complaints allege that the defendant wallboard manufacturers
conspired to increase prices through the announcement and
implementation of coordinated price increases, output
restrictions, and other restraints of trade, including the
elimination of individual "job quote" pricing.

In addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits
include CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation and United States
Gypsum (together "USG"), New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America
("Lafarge"), Temple Inland Inc. ("TIN") and PABCO Building
Products LLC.

On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") transferred and consolidated all related cases to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated amended class action complaints.  The direct
purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant.  The
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits bring claims
on behalf of purported classes of direct or indirect purchasers of
wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for unspecified
monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some cases
injunctive relief.

On July 29, 2013, the Company and American Gypsum answered the
complaints, denying all allegations that they conspired to
increase the price of drywall and asserting affirmative defenses
to the plaintiffs' claims.

In 2014, USG and TIN entered into agreements with counsel
representing the direct and indirect purchaser classes pursuant to
which they agreed to settle all claims against them.  Under the
terms of its settlement agreement, USG agreed to pay US$48.0
million to resolve the direct and indirect purchaser class
actions.  In its settlement agreement, TIN agreed to pay US$7.0
million to resolve the direct and indirect purchaser class
actions.

On August 20, 2015, the court entered orders finally approving USG
and TIN's settlements with the direct and indirect purchaser
plaintiffs.

Initial discovery in this litigation is complete.  Following
completion of the initial discovery, the Company and remaining co-
defendants moved for summary judgment.

On February 18, 2016, the court denied the Company's motion for
summary judgment.

On June 16, 2016, Lafarge entered into an agreement with counsel
for the direct purchaser class under which it agreed to settle all
claims against it for US$23.0 million.  The court entered an order
finally approving this settlement on December 7, 2016.

On July 28, 2016, Lafarge entered into an agreement with counsel
representing the indirect purchaser class under which it agreed to
settle all claims against it for US$5.2 million.  Indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of
this settlement in September 2016.

On July 14, 2016, the Company's motion for permission to appeal
the summary judgment decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit was denied.

Direct purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed their motions for class certification on August 3, 2016 and
October 12, 2016, respectively.  Class certification proceedings
are ongoing.  The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the direct
purchaser plaintiff's motion for class certification in April 2017
and held a hearing on indirect purchaser plaintiff's motion for
class certification in June 2017.

The Company said, "We are unable to estimate the amount of any
reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses.
We deny the allegations in these lawsuits and will vigorously
defend ourselves against these claims."

On March 17, 2015, a group of homebuilders filed a complaint
against the defendants, including American Gypsum, based upon the
same conduct alleged in the consolidated class action complaints.
On March 24, 2015, the JPML transferred this action to the
multidistrict litigation already pending in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.  Following the transfer, the homebuilder
plaintiffs filed two amended complaints, on December 14, 2015 and
March 25, 2016.  Discovery in this lawsuit is ongoing.

Eagle Materials Inc. makes, distributes, and sells gypsum
wallboard, Portland cement, recycled paperboard, and concrete and
aggregates. The Company was formerly named Centex Construction
Products Inc.  It was founded in 1963 and is based in Dallas.


EAST RIDGE RETIREMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Inigo" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER INIGO a/k/a JENNIFER INIGO PENA and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. EAST RIDGE RETIREMENT VILLAGE,
INC., JOSEPH KENNETH CORMIER, Case No. 1:17-cv-23338-KMW (S.D.
Fla., September 4, 2017), alleges that in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Defendants fail to pay the Plaintiff and
others overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours weekly.

East Ridge Retirement Village, Inc., is a corporation company that
regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade County. Joseph
Kenneth Cormier is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the
Defendant Corporation.

East Ridge Retirement Village, Inc. operates as a non-profit
organization.  The Organization offers assisted living, memory
support, rehabilitation, health care, and skilled nursing
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


ENBRIDGE ENERGY: "Brinckerhoff" Case in Early Stages of Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the
parties in the case, Brinckerhoff v. Enbridge Energy Co., Inc. et
al., are in the early stages of discovery.

On July 20, 2015, plaintiff Peter Brinckerhoff, individually and
as trustee of the Peter R. Brinckerhoff Trust, filed a Verified
Class Action and Derivative Complaint in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware against the General Partner, Enbridge, the
Partnership, Enbridge Pipelines (Alberta Clipper) L.L.C., Enbridge
Energy, Limited Partnership, us, and the following individuals:
Jeffrey A. Connelly, Rebecca B. Roberts, Dan A. Westbrook, J.
Richard Bird, J. Herbert England, C. Gregory Harper, D. Guy
Jarvis, Mark A. Maki, and John K. Whelen, (collectively, the
Director Defendants). The Complaint asserts both class action
claims on behalf of holders of the Partnership's Class A Common
Units, as well as derivative claims brought on behalf of the
Partnership. The plaintiff's claims arise out of the January 2,
2015 repurchase by the Partnership of the General Partner's 66.67%
interest in the Alberta Clipper Pipeline (the 2015 Transaction).
First, the plaintiff alleges that the 2015 Transaction improperly
amended without Public Unitholder consent the Sixth Amended and
Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership (the LPA) so as to
allocate to the Public Unitholders taxable income that should have
been allocated to the General Partner (the Special Tax
Allocation). Second, the plaintiff alleges that the Partnership
paid an unfair price for the General Partner's 66.67% interest in
the Alberta Clipper Pipeline such that the 2015 Transaction
breached the LPA because it was not fair and reasonable to the
Partnership. The Complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of residual fiduciary duties, tortious interference, aiding
and abetting, and rescission and reformation.

On April 29, 2016, the court granted Enbridge's and the Director
Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the case in its
entirety. On May 26, 2016 the Plaintiff appealed that dismissal to
the Delaware Supreme Court. On March 20, 2017, the Delaware
Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the ruling of
the Court of Chancery. Specifically, the Delaware Supreme Court
affirmed that the enactment of the Special Tax Allocation did not
breach the LPA, but reversed on the question of whether the
Plaintiff had adequately alleged that the price the Partnership
paid in the 2015 Transaction, including the Special Tax Allocation
component, was fair and reasonable to the Partnership. The parties
are currently in the early stages of discovery, with trial
scheduled in the second quarter of 2018.

Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C. is a limited partner of
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., (the Partnership), through its
ownership of i-units, a special class of the Partnership's limited
partner interests.


EQUIFAX INC: Former Governor, Others File Data Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Trubey, writing for AJC, reports that a team of lawyers,
including former Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes, has filed a class-action
lawsuit against Equifax over the massive data breach that has
compromised the personal information of more than 140 million U.S.
consumers.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta faults Equifax
for "gargantuan failures to secure and safeguard consumers'
personally identifiable information . . . and for failing to
provide timely, accurate and adequate notice" to consumers that
such sensitive material had been stolen.

The lawsuit said plaintiffs Brian F. Spector, of Florida, and
James McGonnigal, of Maryland, are each victims of the breach.
McGonnigal alleges he has "recently had four credit accounts
opened in his name without his authorization."

The case joins another filed in Oregon on behalf of a couple
there, and other lawsuits are expected. A committee of the U.S.
House of Representatives has called for hearings, and the FBI
reportedly is investigating the breach.

A message left with Equifax representatives on September 9 morning
was not immediately returned.

The Atlanta case calls Equifax reckless in its handling of
consumers' data, and also said the company failed to disclose why
there was more than a month's delay in making the breach public.
It cites the sale of stock by three executives days after Equifax
learned of the breach, but weeks before the company alerted
consumers to the cyber theft.

Three executives -- Chief Financial Officer John Gamble, Joseph
Loughran, who heads its U.S. information solutions business, and
Rodolfo Ploder, who runs the company's workforce solutions
operation -- sold nearly $1.8 million in stock in the days after
Equifax discovered the cyber-attack.

The sales were not part of a scheduled sale, and Equifax said the
three executives "had no knowledge that an intrusion had occurred
at the time."

But the company told its investors that it had "promptly" informed
its board of directors of the incident.

The complaint contends the breach "was the inevitable result of
Equifax's inadequate approach to data security and the protection"
of consumers' personal information.

The Atlanta lawsuit seeks statutory damages under the federal Fair
Credit Reporting Act and state statutes and other out-of-pocket
losses and compensatory damages, as well as "more robust credit
monitoring services with accompanying identity theft insurance.
The plaintiffs also seek an order from the court requiring the
company to improve its data security.

Equifax has taken heat from consumer groups for fine print in the
credit and identity protection package it has offered for free to
consumers hit by the breach. The fine print appears to bind
consumers who agree to use the free products to arbitration,
essentially giving up their rights to sue the company or join a
class action case.

Equifax said in a statement on September 8 the arbitration clause
doesn't apply to the breach, but only to disputes that might arise
with the free protection services.

Henry Turner, Esq. -- hank.turner@valorem.com -- of Valorem Law
Group, a Decatur lawyer with expertise in class action litigation,
said in an e-mail the choice of venue in Equifax's hometown
"should be particularly interesting."

He said that is "especially true" if the company attempts to use
"the mandatory arbitration and/or class action waiver argument for
all those that sign up [for] credit monitoring . . . to limit the
putative class size and therefore the damages."

"Remember that the language Equifax is using for these sign-ups
not only contains a Mandatory Arbitration Provision but also a
Class Action Waiver Provision," he said. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Lobbies to Take Away Breach Victims' Right to Sue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boing Boing reports that before Equifax doxed 143 million
Americans (but after it had suffered repeated smaller breaches
that should have alerted the company to deficiencies in its
security), it directed its lobbying body, the Consumer Data
Industry Association, to pressure the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau to exempt credit-reporting bureaux from a soon-
to-begin rule banning binding arbitration clauses in user
agreements.

Equifax took the position that it should be able to confiscate
your right to sue the company for injuring you just by making you
click through an "agreement." Instead, you'd have to seek
reparations through the notoriously business-friendly private
courts of America's private arbitration contractors, and would not
be able to band together with similarly injured parties (say, 143
million of them) to seek justice.

In one section of the letter, CDIA declares that federal
regulators "should exempt from its arbitration rule class action
claims against providers of credit monitoring products." The
letter asserted that allowing customers to sue companies "would
not serve the public interest or the public good" because it could
subject the companies to "extraordinary and draconian civil
liability provisions" under current law. In another section of the
letter, Equifax's lobbying group says that a rule blocking
companies from forcing their customers to waive class action
rights would expose credit agencies "to unmanageable class action
liability that could result in full disgorgement of revenues" if
companies are found to have illegally harmed their customers.

Equifax's lobbying group argued against the prohibition even as it
acknowledged that a 2015 government study found "that credit
reporting constituted one of the four largest product areas for
class action relief" for consumers. Consumer groups countered the
claims of CDIA and other rule opponents by saying the ability to
file suit is necessary to protect Americans' legal rights.

"The use of forced arbitration clauses has created a closed system
where corporations allow court access only when it's in their
interest, where it is functionally impossible for consumers to
recover small dollar amounts they are due under law, and where the
deterrent effect of class actions has been lost," wrote the
Consumer Federation of America in a 2016 letter to the CFPB. [GN]


EXPEDIA INC: Still Faces Various Putative Class Action Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. and its units still defend themselves against
various putative class action proceedings as disclosed in the
Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In the Buckeye Tree Lodge and 2020 O Street Corporation lawsuits,
the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May
5, 2017. The Expedia defendants answered on May 25, 2017.

In an Israeli putative class action lawsuit, on June 22, 2017, the
court rejected Hotels.com's application challenging service of
process.  Hotels.com has appealed that decision.

Lastly, on June 22, 2017, the court heard argument on HomeAway's
motions to dismiss the complaints in the Arnold and Brickman
cases.  On May 1, 2017, HomeAway and Expedia moved to compel
arbitration and for dismissal of the complaint in the May case.
The court heard argument on the motion on July 6, 2017 and, on
July 10, 2017, entered an order directing the parties to advise it
when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issues decisions in the
Arnold and Seim appeals.


FIRST QUALITY: Accused by Perez of Not Paying Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DUNIA PINO PEREZ a/k/a DUNIA PINO and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. FIRST QUALITY HOME CARE INC.,
DULCE M. CUETARA, Case No. 1:17-cv-23339-JEM (S.D. Fla., September
4, 2017), accuses the Defendants of willfully and intentionally
refusing to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

First Quality is a corporation that regularly transacts business
within Dade County.  First Quality is an assisted living facility.
Dulce M. Cuetara is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the
Defendant Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


FIRST SOLAR: Parties Await Oral Argument in "Smilovits" Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that merits briefing on the appeal in the
"Smilovits" class action lawsuit is completed and the parties are
awaiting oral argument.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against
the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
directors and officers.  The complaint was filed on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly
traded securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012
(the "Class Action").  The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects.  The
action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative
class.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will
vigorously defend this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively "Pension Schemes").  The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012.

On December 17, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss.  On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted
the Pension Schemes' motion for class certification, and certified
a class comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between April
30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants and certain related parties.  Merits discovery closed
on February 27, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015.
On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted defendants'
motion in part and denied it in part, and certified an issue for
immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Ninth
Circuit").

First Solar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal with the
Ninth Circuit, and that petition was granted on November 18, 2015.

On May 20, 2016, the Pension Schemes moved to vacate the order
granting the petition, dismiss the appeal, and stay the merits
briefing schedule.

On December 13, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied the Pension
Schemes' motion.

Merits briefing on the appeal is now complete and the parties are
awaiting oral argument.  The Arizona District Court has entered a
stay of the proceedings in district court until the appeal is
decided.

The Company said, "Given the pending appeal, the need for further
expert discovery, and the uncertainties of trial, we are not in a
position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on our
financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate the range
of potential loss, if any."

First Solar is a global provider of comprehensive PV solar energy
solutions.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Court Okays Class Status in ERISA Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that the court certified a class of Plan
participants on July 26, 2017 in a putative class action lawsuit
alleging Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
violations.

On July 28, 2016, a former employee filed a putative class action
lawsuit captioned Cryer v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al. in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against Franklin, the Franklin Templeton 401(k)
Retirement Plan ("Plan") Investment Committee, and unnamed
Investment Committee members.

The plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under
ERISA, alleging that the defendants selected mutual funds
sponsored and managed by the Company (the "Funds") as investment
options for the Plan when allegedly lower-cost and better
performing non-proprietary investment vehicles were available.
The plaintiff also claims that the total Plan costs, inclusive of
investment management and administrative fees, are excessive.

The plaintiff alleges that Plan losses exceed US$79.0 million and
seeks, among other things, damages, disgorgement, rescission of
the Plan's investments in the Funds, attorneys' fees and costs,
and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Franklin's motion to dismiss and motion for summary adjudication
were denied on January 17, 2017.

On July 26, 2017, the court certified a class of Plan
participants.

The Company said, "Management strongly believes that the claims
made in the lawsuit are without merit and Franklin is defending
against them vigorously.  Discovery is continuing and, at this
stage of the litigation, Franklin cannot currently predict the
eventual outcome of the lawsuit or whether it will have a material
negative impact on the Company, or reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that may arise from any negative
outcome."

Franklin Resources, Inc. is a publicly owned asset management
holding company.  Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides its
services to individuals, institutions, pension plans, trusts, and
partnerships.  It launches equity, fixed income, balanced, and
multi-asset mutual funds through its subsidiaries.  The firm
invests in the public equity, fixed income, and alternative
markets.  Franklin Resources, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is
based in San Mateo, California with an additional office in
Hyderabad, India.


GALENA BIOPHARMA: Enters $1.3MM Pact to Settle Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Galena Biopharma, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on August
14, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that it has entered into a
binding settlement term sheet on July 24, 2017, pursuant to which
the class in a consolidated shareholder action will receive a
payment of US$1.3 million, in addition to attorney fees in an
amount to be approved.

On April 27, 2017, a putative shareholder class action was filed
in the Chancery Court of Delaware entitled Patel vs. Galena
Biopharma, Inc. et al, CA No. 2017-0325 alleging breaches of
Section 225 of the Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL") and
breaches of fiduciary duties by the board of directors regarding
the voting results of authorized share and the reverse stock split
proposals in the proxy statements for the July 2016 and October
2016 stockholder meetings.

On June 2, 2017, an amended verified complaint was filed along
with a motion to expedite the proceedings.

On June 5, 2017, the Company filed a verified petition under
Section 205 of the DGCL and a motion to expedite the proceedings.

On June 8, 2017, the court denied a request by the plaintiff to
schedule a preliminary injunction motion and ordered a prompt
trial on both the plaintiff and the Company's claims.

On June 20, 2017, the court consolidated the claims into In re
Galena Biopharma, Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0423-JTL.

On July 10, 2017, the court ordered that the trial of the claims
be held on August 28, 30 and 31, 2017.

On July 24, 2017, the Company entered into a binding settlement
term sheet, which the parties will use to enter into a Stipulation
of Settlement that is intended to settle the litigation currently
pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
"Court"), captioned In re Galena Biopharma, Inc., C.A. No. 2017-
0423-JTL.

The settlement resolves the putative stockholder class action
claims against the Company and/or certain of its current and
former officers and directors (the "Defendants"), as well as the
Company's petition to validate certain corporate actions.  The
settlement will not become effective until approved by the Court.

Under the terms of the settlement, the class will receive a
settlement payment of US$1.3 million, in addition to attorney fees
in an amount to be approved.  The settlement payment of US$1.3
million consists of US$50,000 in cash to be paid by the Defendants
or their insurers and US$1,250,000 in unrestricted shares of the
Company's common stock ("Settlement Stock"), which valuation will
be based on the volume-weighted average closing price for the 20
trading days immediately preceding the day before the transfer of
the Settlement Stock to the settlement fund pursuant to the terms
and conditions of the settlement.

The Company anticipates that the Settlement Stock will be issued,
pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, in a
transaction that is exempt from the registration requirements of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"),
pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act.  Any amounts
awarded by the Court for attorneys' fees will be paid in part by
the settlement fund and in part by the Company's insurance
carriers.  Upon the effectiveness of the proposed settlement, the
Defendants will be released from the claims that were asserted or
could have been asserted in the class action by class members
participating in the settlement.

Galena Biopharma is a biopharmaceutical company developing
hematology and oncology therapeutics that address unmet medical
needs.  The company is based on San Ramon, California.


GLOBUS MEDICAL: Appeal in Silverstein Litigation Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
The appeal in the Silverstein Litigation remains pending, Globus
Medical, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company said, "On September 28, 2015, a putative securities
class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff in the lawsuit purported to represent a
class of our stockholders who purchased shares between February
26, 2014 and August 5, 2014. The complaint purported to assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and sought damages in an unspecified
amount, attorney's fees and other relief. This matter was
dismissed with prejudice on August 26, 2016."

On September 9, 2016, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was
denied, and on September 13, 2016 plaintiff filed an appeal in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Globus Medical, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a medical
device company focused on the design, development and
commercialization of musculoskeletal solutions.


HALLIBURTON CO: Awaits Final OK of Securities Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company is still awaiting the district court's final
approval of its agreement in principle to settle various
securities and related litigation, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company said, "In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was
commenced against us in federal court alleging violations of the
federal securities laws in connection with our change in
accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and
related disclosures.  In the weeks that followed, approximately
twenty similar class actions were filed against us.  Several of
those lawsuits also named as defendants several of our present or
former officers and directors.  The class action cases were later
consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint,
styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was
filed and served upon us in April 2003.  As a result of a
substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese
of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al.
AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund).
In June 2003, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
complaint that included claims arising out of our 1998 acquisition
of Dresser Industries, Inc. and our disclosures and reserves
relating to our asbestos liability exposure.

"In December 2016, we reached an agreement in principle to settle
this lawsuit, without any admission of liability and subject to
approval by the district court.  On March 31, 2017, the district
court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement.  The
settlement remains subject to final approval of the district court
following notice to class members.  During the second quarter of
2017, we paid approximately US$54 million of the US$100 million
settlement fund, and our insurer paid the balance.  Plaintiff's
counsel fees and costs will be awarded from the settlement fund.

"The settlement resolves all pending cases other than Magruder v.
Halliburton Co., et al. (the Magruder case).  The allegations
arise out of the same general events described above, but for a
later class period, December 8, 2001 to May 28, 2002.  There has
been limited activity in the Magruder case.  In March 2009, our
motion to dismiss was granted, with leave to re-plead; in March
2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in May 2012, we
filed another motion to dismiss, which remains pending.  We cannot
predict the outcome or consequences of this case, which we intend
to vigorously defend."

Halliburton Company provides a range of services and products to
the upstream oil and natural gas industry worldwide.  The Company
was founded in 1919 and is based in Houston, Texas.


HARBORTOUCH PAYMENTS: Sued in California Over Automated Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Harbortouch Payments, LLC and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-03842 (C.D. Cal., September 1,
2017), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an
automatic telephone dialing system to place its calls to the
Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services.

Harbortouch Payments, LLC operates a business financing company
headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRY L. SMITH: Ct. Grants Conditional Certification in FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division, issued an Order granting conditional
certification on count I of the collective complaint in the case
captioned JASON HEUBERGER, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HARRY L. SMITH d/b/a/ "MY-TRE
GLAMMA MANAGEMENT," DESTINY MGT, INC., and DIAMOND PROPOERTIES
MGMT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-386-JD-JEM (N.D. Ind.).

This is an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 and the Indiana Minimum Wage Law
(IMWL), Ind. Code Section 22-2-2-1, by Plaintiff Jason Heuberger
(Plaintiff) against his employer, Harry Smith d/b/a My-Tre Glamma
Management (Glamma), and two other companies, Destiny MGT, Inc.
(Destiny) and Diamond Properties MGMT, Inc. (Diamond).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the FLSA (Count I) and
the IMWL (Count II) by failing to pay him and similarly situated
employees for their attendance at and participation in a mandatory
orientation session.  Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants
violated the FLSA (Count III) and the IMWL (Count IV) by deducting
a crew uniform clothing fee of $2.00 from his and similarly
situated employees' paychecks, which reduced the employees' wages
to below the minimum wage level.

Pending before the Court are two motions, filed only two days
apart from one another: Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint and Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Collective Action Certification Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b).

Specifically, Defendants move to dismiss Counts II, III, and IV of
Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6).
Destiny and Diamond further move to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety as it relates to them, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule
12(b)(1) for lack of standing. At the same time, Plaintiff
requests that the Court certify subclasses of employees who
participated in the alleged unpaid mandatory orientation, and
whose wages were reduced by the crew uniform deductions.

At the outset, Plaintiff admits that his state law claims under
Counts II and IV are moot. Therefore, the Court will dismiss those
claims with prejudice and confine its analysis to the remaining
issues.

The Court conditionally grants Plaintiffs' Section 216(b) Motion
to conditionally certify Count I of their complaint, and the Court
provisionally deems the FLSA claims in Count I a collective
action.  However, the Court limits this conditional certification
to include only those employees who worked for one of the six
McDonald's restaurants owned and operated by Defendant Glamma in
Elkhart, Indiana.  The Court thereby excludes from this
conditional certification any employees who only worked at the
four Glamma restaurants not located in Elkhart, the one restaurant
owned and operated by Destiny, and the eight restaurants owned and
operated by Diamond.

The Court defines the conditionally approved collective class as
follows:

     "Present and former hourly-paid workers at any McDonald's
restaurant operated by Harry L. Smith d/b/a My-Tre Glamma
Management and located in Elkhart, Indiana, at any time between
[THREE YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF MAILING] and the present.
Plaintiff Jason Heuberger shall conditionally serve as the class
representative of the conditionally certified collective class,
and be represented by current counsel of record."

The Court denies Plaintiff's Section 216(b) Motion to
conditionally certify Count III of Plaintiff's complaint as a
collective action.

The Court denies as moot Plaintiff's Section 216(b) Motion to
conditionally certify Counts II and IV.

The Court held that, "Although a more lenient standard applies at
this early stage, when presented with evidence which contradicts
Plaintiff's claim" that Defendants had a practice and policy that
violated the FLSA by deducting uniform fees, the Court 'will not
stick its head in the sand and ignore that evidence."

"It would be a waste of the Court's and the litigants' time to
notify a class "only to later determine that the matter should not
proceed as a class action because the class members are not
similarly situated. Here, the authenticated paychecks clearly
demonstrate that Plaintiff is not a member of the class which he
wishes to represent; he and the potential plaintiffs are not
"similarly situated" because no crew uniform deductions were
actually taken from his paychecks. Thus, he has not made a modest
factual showing that he and the other employees to whom notice is
to be sent were victims of a common policy or plan that violated
the law, and the Court will deny his request to certify the
uniform deduction subclass," the Court added.

The Court found that the proposed orientation subclass is
overbroad.  Plaintiff argues broadly that his motion is supported
by Defendants' own form documents, which facially reflect a policy
not to pay for training of their employees. However, Plaintiff
offers no evidence to support his assertion that all three
defendants implemented this policy.

The evidence supports certification of a limited version of the
proposed orientation subclass, the Court found.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7hlfuvmfrom Leagle.com.

Jason Heuberger, Plaintiff, represented by Eli Karsh, Liberman
Goldstein & Karsh, 230 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 1200
St. Louis, MO 63105, pro hac vice.

Jason Heuberger, Plaintiff, represented by Mark A. Potashnick --
markp@wp-attorneys.com -- Weinhaus & Potashnick, pro hac vice &
Charles C. Hayes, Sweeney Hayes LLC. 141 E Washington Street Ste.
225 Indianapolis IN 46204

Harry L. Smith, Defendant, represented by Scott James Preston --
Scott.Preston@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC & Melissa K.
Taft -- Melissa.Taft@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC.

Destiny Mgt, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott James Preston,
Jackson Lewis PC & Melissa K. Taft, Jackson Lewis PC.

Diamond Properties Mgmt., Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott
James Preston, Jackson Lewis PC & Melissa K. Taft, Jackson Lewis
PC.


HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Court Approves Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval
of Class Action Settlement and Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Request for Incentive Awards in the
case captioned STEFANIE GENTLES, RICHARD MESSERLY, GREGG BROWN,
and DAVID BAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and CIOX
HEALTH, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00069-DRH-DGW (S.D.
Ill.).

Pending before the Court are the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval
of Class Action Settlement and Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Request for Incentive Awards.

The motions are granted.

For purposes of the Settlement and this Final Judgment and Order
of Dismissal with Prejudice, the Settlement Class means all
persons in the United States who paid to HealthPort Technologies,
LLC and/or CIOX Health, LLC, at any time on or after December 6,
2010, one of the following fees as a result of obtaining
electronic medical records in electronic form from a healthcare
facility or physician practice located in the State of Illinois:
(a) the full Paper Copy Price rather than the discounted
Electronic Record Price; and/or (b) an Electronic Delivery Fee.
The Court approves the payment to Class Counsel of $290,000.00 in
attorneys' fees, inclusive of any and all costs, pursuant to the
terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

The Court further approves the payment of $5,000 each to the four
Class Representatives Stefanie Gentles, Richard Messerly, Gregg
Brown, and David Bair.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y92en5m4from Leagle.com.

Stephen Schaefer, Plaintiff, represented by David C. Nelson --
dnelson@nelsonlawpc.com -- Nelson & Nelson.

Stephen Schaefer, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew H. Armstrong,
Armstrong Law Firm LLC, 8816 Manchester Rd.No. 109St. Louis, MO
63144-2602

Stefanie Gentles, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew H. Armstrong,
Armstrong Law Firm LLC & Michael J. Aschenbrener, Kamber Law LLC,
350 N. LaSalle St. Suite 1300. Chicago, IL 60654

Richard Messerly, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew H. Armstrong,
Armstrong Law Firm LLC & Michael J. Aschenbrener, Kamber Law LLC.

Gregg Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew H. Armstrong,
Armstrong Law Firm LLC & Michael J. Aschenbrener, Kamber Law LLC.

David Bair, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew H. Armstrong,
Armstrong Law Firm LLC & Michael J. Aschenbrener, Kamber Law LLC.

Healthport Technologies LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathan
Barton Potts -- jonathan.potts@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave, LLP,
Jennifer L. Berhorst -- jennifer.berhorst@bryancave.com -- Bryan
Cave, LLP & Robert M. Thompson -- rmthompson@bryancave.com --
Bryan Cave, LLP.


HUB GROUP: Still Awaits Court Decision in "Robles" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hub Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the parties in the "Robles" class action are
still awaiting a decision by the Court related to a clarification
of a July 2016 order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.

On January 25, 2013, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento Division)
by Salvador Robles against the Company's subsidiary, Comtrak
Logistics, Inc., now known as Hub Group Trucking, Inc.  Mr. Robles
drove a truck for Hub Group Trucking in California, first as an
independent contractor and then as an employee.  The action was
brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former
California-based truck drivers for Hub Group Trucking who were
classified as independent contractors, from January 2009 to August
2014.  The complaint alleges Hub Group Trucking has misclassified
such drivers as independent contractors and that such drivers were
employees.  The complaint asserts various violations of the
California Labor Code and claims that Hub Group Trucking has
engaged in unfair competition practices.  The complaint seeks,
among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief,
compensatory damages and attorney's fees.

In May 2013, the complaint was amended to add similar claims based
on Mr. Robles' status as an employed company driver.  These
additional claims are only on behalf of Mr. Robles and not a
putative class.

The Company believes that the California independent contractor
truck drivers were properly classified as independent contractors
at all times.  The Company said, "Nevertheless, because lawsuits
are expensive, time-consuming and could interrupt our business
operations, Hub Group Trucking decided to make settlement offers
to individual drivers with respect to the claims alleged in this
lawsuit, without admitting liability.  As of June 30, 2017, 93% of
the California drivers have accepted the settlement offers which
were paid in 2015 or earlier.  In late 2014, Hub Group Trucking
decided to convert its model from independent contractors to
employee drivers in California.  In early 2016, Hub Group Trucking
closed its operations in Southern California."

On April 3, 2015, the Robles case was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western
Division) in Memphis.

In May 2015, the plaintiffs in the Robles case filed a Second
Amended Complaint ("SAC") which names 334 current and former Hub
Group Trucking drivers as "interested putative class members."  In
addition to reasserting their existing claims, the SAC includes
claims post-conversion, added two new plaintiffs and seeks a
judicial declaration that the settlement agreements are
unenforceable.

In June 2015, Hub Group Trucking filed a motion to dismiss the SAC
and on July 19, 2016, Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss was
granted in part, and denied in part, by the District Court.  The
motion to dismiss was granted for the claims of all purported
class members who have signed settlement agreements and on
plaintiffs' claims based on quantum merit and it was denied with
respect to federal preemption and choice of law.

On August 11, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to clarify whether
the Court's dismissal of the claims of all purported class members
who signed settlement agreements was with or without prejudice
and, if the dismissal was with prejudice, Plaintiffs moved the
Court to revise and reconsider the order.  Plaintiffs' motion to
clarify is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a decision
by the Court.

Hub Group, Inc., an asset-light freight transportation management
company, provides intermodal, truck brokerage, and logistics
services in North America.  It operates through two segments, Mode
and Hub.  The Company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in
Oak Brook, Illinois.


HUB GROUP: Continues to Defend "Adame" Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hub Group, Inc. still defends itself in the case, Adame, et al. v
Hub Group, Inc., et al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On August 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs' law firm in the Robles case
filed a lawsuit in state court in San Bernardino County,
California on behalf of 63 named Plaintiffs against Hub Group
Trucking and five Company employees.  The lawsuit alleges claims
similar to those being made in Robles and seeks monetary penalties
under the Private Attorneys General Act.  Of the 63 named
Plaintiffs, at least 58 of them previously accepted the settlement
offers referenced.

On October 29, 2015, Defendants filed a notice of removal to
remove the case from state court in San Bernardino to federal
court in the Central District of California.  On November 19,
2015, Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to federal
court in Memphis, Tennessee and also filed a motion to dismiss the
case pursuant to a clause in the independent contractor agreement
stating that Tennessee law applies.  Also on November 19, 2015,
Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to state court,
claiming that the federal court lacks jurisdiction over the case.
The court granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand to the state court
in San Bernardino County on April 7, 2016, mooting Defendants'
motions to transfer and dismiss.

On July 11, 2016, Defendants filed several motions in state court,
asking the court to dismiss and/or stay the Plaintiffs' suit for
various reasons.  During a hearing on October 5, 2016, the judge
issued an oral tentative ruling stating that the choice of forum
provision was unenforceable.  On Defendants' motion to dismiss the
individual defendants, the court allowed for supplemental briefing
for additional arguments regarding individual liability under
PAGA.  The court did not reach a decision regarding the motion to
stay pending the outcome in Robles.  Plaintiffs filed their
supplemental brief on November 9, 2016 to which Defendants
responded on December 6, 2016.

On February 17, 2017, with the stipulation of the parties, the
Court entered an Order dismissing, without prejudice, all of the
individual Defendants and accepting the parties' agreement that
jurisdiction and venue are proper in the San Bernardino Superior
Court and that Defendants will not seek to remove the case to
federal district court.

On April 12, 2017, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss
based on insufficiency of the PAGA letter notice.

Hub Group, Inc., an asset-light freight transportation management
company, provides intermodal, truck brokerage, and logistics
services in North America.  It operates through two segments, Mode
and Hub.  The Company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in
Oak Brook, Illinois.


HUB GROUP: 6th Circuit Appeal Terminated in "Lubinski" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hub Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Sixth Circuit appeal proceedings has been
terminated as it relates to the legal case filed by Christian
Lubinski on behalf of owner-operators providing delivery services.

On September 12, 2014, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) by
Christian Lubinski against Hub Group Trucking.  The action was
brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former
owner-operators providing delivery services in Illinois for Hub
Group Trucking.  The complaint alleged Hub Group Trucking
misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that
such drivers were employees.  The complaint also alleged that Hub
Group Trucking made illegal deductions from the drivers' pay and
failed to properly compensate the drivers for all hours worked,
reimburse business expenses, pay employment taxes, and provide
workers' compensation and other employment benefits.  The
complaint asserted various violations of the Illinois Wage Payment
and Collections Act and claimed that Hub Group Trucking was
unjustly enriched.  The complaint sought, among other things,
monetary damages for the relevant statutory period and attorneys'
fees.

On October 24, 2014, the Lubinski case was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western
Division), in Memphis.  On September 22, 2015, the court granted
Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss Lubinski's Illinois law
claims with prejudice based on the contractual choice of law
provision, which provided that Tennessee law governed.  The court
denied as moot Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss based on
federal preemption.  On October 2, 2015, Lubinski appealed this
order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
in Cincinnati.

On December 17, 2015, Lubinski filed his brief in support of his
appeal of the motion to dismiss, asserting for the first time that
the federal court did not have jurisdiction over the case due to a
lack of diversity of citizenship.  Hub Group Trucking filed its
response brief on January 19, 2016, in part arguing that Lubinski
had himself alleged diversity of citizenship in his complaint.
Lubinski filed his reply brief on February 5, 2016.  On April 1,
2016, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the district court--
without ruling on the merits--for the district court "to consider
the argument and admit the evidence necessary to determine the
question of federal subject-matter jurisdiction."

On July 11, 2016, with his federal district court case still
pending, Lubinski filed an additional putative class action
Complaint, with the same claims, in Illinois state court.  On the
same day, Hub Group Trucking filed a declaratory judgment
complaint in Tennessee state court, seeking a declaration that
Lubinski's claims must be heard in Tennessee (based on the
contractual choice-of-forum provision) and that the claims must be
dismissed because Tennessee law controls and Lubinski's claims are
preempted by federal law.

On October 26, 2016, Lubinski filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of federal subject-matter jurisdiction and a motion for leave to
file an amended complaint, attempting to "clarify" the putative
class definition and arguing that the Class Action Fairness Act's
exceptions to jurisdiction apply.  In early 2017, Plaintiff's
counsel advised Hub Group Trucking that Lubinski would no longer
challenge federal jurisdiction.  On February 15, 2017, the
District Court adopted the parties' stipulation and found that
there is federal subject-matter jurisdiction.  On March 22, 2017,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted
Plaintiff's motion to recall the mandate and reinstate Lubinski's
appeal of the district court's order dismissing the case.

On June 8, 2017, the Sixth Circuit issued an Opinion affirming the
District Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claims.  On June 30,
2017, the Sixth Circuit issued the Mandate in the case, which
terminates the 6th Circuit appeal proceedings.

Hub Group, Inc., an asset-light freight transportation management
company, provides intermodal, truck brokerage, and logistics
services in North America.  It operates through two segments, Mode
and Hub.  The Company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in
Oak Brook, Illinois.


INFINITY PROPERTY: Defending Class Suits over Business Operations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Infinity Property and Casualty Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that as of
June 30, 2017, pending putative (i.e., not certified) class action
lawsuits that challenge certain of Infinity's business operations
and practices included the following:

     * allegations the Company sold a lessor liability endorsement
       affording only illusory coverage.

     * a challenge to denial of personal injury protection
       benefits to a class of injured third parties in vehicle
       accidents.

     * a challenge to the Company's payment of a percentage of
       arbitration awards to collection agencies in successful
       intercompany arbitrations.

     * allegations that the Company is obligated to reimburse
       Medicare or secondary payers for accident-related medical
       payments in which personal injury protection benefits were
       denied.

Infinity is a holding company that provides insurance through
subsidiaries for personal auto with a concentration on nonstandard
risks, commercial auto and classic collectors.


J6 ENERGY: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bryant Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. J6 Energy Services, LLC and Jury Valladarez, Case No.
4:17-cv-02658 (S.D. Tex., September 1, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is in the business of providing a number of services
to oil and gas companies. [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


JB HUNT TRANSPORT: Appeal on Dismissal of Drivers Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal to a dismissed class action lawsuit filed by California-
based drivers against J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. is still
pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

The Company is a defendant in certain class action lawsuits in
which the plaintiffs are current and former California-based
drivers who allege claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, and other items.

The Company said, "During the first half of 2014, the Court in the
lead class action granted judgment in our favor with regard to all
claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals where it is currently pending."

The overlapping claims in the remaining actions have been stayed
pending a decision in the lead class action case.

J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides surface transportation and delivery
services in the continental United States, Canada, and Mexico.  It
operates through four segments: Intermodal (JBI), Dedicated
Contract Services (DCS), Integrated Capacity Solutions (ICS), and
Truck (JBT).  The Company was founded in 1961 and is headquartered
in Lowell, Arkansas.


LCC INTERNATIONAL: Transferred "Torgerson" Suit to Dist. Kansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on July 28, 2017 captioned Richard
Torgerson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LCC International, Inc. n/k/a Tech Mahindra Network
Services International, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00860, was
transferred on September 1, 2017, from the District of Virginia
Eastern to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
(Kansas City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-
02508-DDC-TJJ to the proceeding.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

LCC International, Inc. is a telecom services company located at
1934 Old Gallows Road Suite 410, Vienna, VA 22182. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

      Ronda B. Esaw, Esq.
      GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
      1750 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1000
      McLean, VA 22102
      Telephone: (703) 749-1300
      Facsimile: (703) 749-1301
      E-mail: esawr@gtlaw.com


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Fact Discovery to Be Completed By November 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidity Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that in the case, Howard v.
Liquidity Services, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 14-1183 (D.D.C. 2014),
fact discovery be completed by November 30, 2017, and that expert
discovery be completed by May 23, 2018.

On July 14, 2014, Leonard Howard filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia (the "District Court") against the Company and its chief
executive officer, chief financial officer, and chief accounting
officer, on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's
common stock between February 1, 2012, and May 7, 2014. The
complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other
things, misrepresenting the Company's growth initiative, growth
potential, and financial and operating conditions, thereby
artificially inflating its stock price, and sought unspecified
compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys'
and experts' fees.

On October 14, 2014, the Court appointed Caisse de DÇpìt et
Placement du QuÇbec and the Newport News Employees' Retirement
Fund as co-lead plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on December 15, 2014, which alleges substantially
similar claims, but which does not name the chief accounting
officer as a defendant.

On March 2, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim or plead fraud with the
requisite particularity.

On March 31, 2016, the Court granted that motion in part and
denied it in part. Only the claims related to the alleged
misrepresentation regarding the Company's retail division were not
dismissed.

On May 16, 2016, the Company answered the amended complaint.
Plaintiffs' class certification motion was fully briefed as of May
16, 2017.

The scheduling order in this action requires that fact discovery
be completed by November 30, 2017, and that expert discovery be
completed by May 23, 2018.

The Company believes the allegations in the amended complaint are
without merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability,
if any, at this time.

Liquidity Services (the "Company") operates a network of leading
e-commerce marketplaces that enable buyers and sellers to transact
in an efficient, automated environment offering over 500 product
categories.


MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Appeal in Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 25, 2017, that the plaintiffs' Appeal
in a class action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company said, "In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee
filed a class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno Bee in the
Superior Court of the State of California in Fresno County
captioned Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case")
alleging that the carriers were misclassified as independent
contractors and seeking mileage reimbursement. In February 2009, a
substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company,
involving similar allegations was filed by carriers of The
Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior Court of the
State of California in Sacramento County. The class consists of
roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers
in the Fresno case. The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking
unspecified restitution for mileage reimbursement."

With respect to the Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage
and hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an
equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California
Civil Code.

In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour claims were
dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for
mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code.

The court in the Sacramento case trifurcated the trial into three
separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor
status, the second phase will address liability, if any, and the
third phase will address restitution, if any.

On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a
tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the
carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during
the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as
independent contractors.

"We objected to the tentative decision but the court ultimately
adopted it as final. There have been no additional decisions
issued by the court as to the second or third phase. In June 2016,
The McClatchy Company was dismissed from the lawsuit, leaving The
Sacramento Bee as the sole defendant," the Company said.

The court in the Fresno case bifurcated the trial into two
separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor
status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the second
phase was designated to address restitution, if any. The first
phase of the Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of 2014 and
concluded in late March 2015.

On April 14, 2016, the court in the Fresno case issued a statement
of final decision in favor of the Company and The Fresno Bee.
Accordingly, there will be no second phase. The plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal on November 10, 2016.

No updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

McClatchy is a news and information publisher.


MDL 2020: ERISA Benefits and Breach of Contract Claims Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs' ERISA benefits
and breach of contract claims remain pending in the Out-of-Network
Benefit Proceedings.

The Company said, "We are named as a defendant in several
purported class actions and individual lawsuits arising out of our
practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered
to our members by health care providers with whom we do not have a
contract ("out-of-network providers"). Among other things, these
lawsuits allege that we paid too little to our health plan members
and/or providers for these services, among other reasons, because
of our use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one
of our competitors ("Ingenix"). Other major health insurers are
the subject of similar litigation or have settled similar
litigation."

"Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to our members during the
period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs who are
members in our health plans seek to represent nationwide classes
of our members who received services from out-of-network providers
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Taken together, these
lawsuits allege that we violated state law, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and
federal antitrust laws, either acting alone or in concert with our
competitors.  The purported classes seek reimbursement of all
unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment of deductible and
coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages,
statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus
interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us
from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to
ERISA.  Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar
allegations and seek similar relief have been brought by health
plan members and out-of-network providers.

"The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey
District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation,
MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020").   In addition, the MDL Panel has
transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020.  On May 9, 2011,
the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs
from MDL 2020 without prejudice.  The New Jersey District Court's
action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court")
that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in
MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release.  The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the
physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's
ruling.

"On December 6, 2012, we entered into an agreement to settle MDL
2020. Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, we
would have been released from claims relating to our out-of-
network reimbursement practices from the beginning of the
applicable settlement class period through August 30, 2013. The
settlement agreement did not contain an admission of wrongdoing.
The medical associations were not parties to the settlement
agreement.

"Under the settlement agreement, we would have paid up to $120
million to fund claims submitted by health plan members and health
care providers who were members of the settlement classes. These
payments also would have funded the legal fees of plaintiffs'
counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. In
connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an
after-tax charge to net income attributable to Aetna of $78
million in the fourth quarter of 2012.

"The settlement agreement provided us the right to terminate the
agreement under certain conditions related to settlement class
members who opted out of the settlement. Based on a report
provided to the parties by the settlement administrator, the
conditions permitting us to terminate the settlement agreement
were satisfied. On March 13, 2014, we notified the New Jersey
District Court and plaintiffs' counsel that we were terminating
the settlement agreement. Various legal and factual developments
since the date of the settlement agreement led us to believe
terminating the settlement agreement was in our best interests. As
a result of this termination, we released the reserve established
in connection with the settlement agreement, net of amounts due to
the settlement administrator, which reduced first quarter 2014
other general and administrative expenses by $103 million pretax.

"On June 30, 2015, the New Jersey District Court granted in part
our motion to dismiss the proceeding. The New Jersey District
Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' RICO and federal
antitrust claims; their ERISA claims that are based on our
disclosures and our purported breach of fiduciary duties; and
certain of their state law claims. The New Jersey District Court
also dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted by several
medical association plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' remaining claims
are for ERISA benefits and breach of contract. We intend to defend
ourselves vigorously against the plaintiffs' remaining claims."

Aetna is one of the nation's diversified health care benefits
companies.


MDL 2284: Court Denies "Dahl" Appeal
------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the decision of the
Arborist Panel denying Tor Dahl's appeal in the case captioned IN
RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, No. 2:11-md-02284-GEKP (E.D. Pa.).

Tor Dahl appeals the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel,
claiming that DuPont wrongly denied his warranty claim for
Imprelis damage to four trees.

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.

DuPont 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.

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.

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.
Tor Dahl's Appeal"

A DuPont arborist inspected the property and concluded that one
tree warranted removal, five warranted tree care, and four did not
show signs of Imprelis injury. Mr. Dahl then objected to the
warranty claim resolution, claiming that the four trees marked for
"no action" were dead and that their death was caused by Imprelis.
After a review by an arborist of the photographs submitted by Mr.
Dahl with his objections, DuPont denied his objections, and Mr.
Dahl appealed to the Arborist Panel.

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.

While Mr. Dahl's arguments that the DuPont arborists erred in
their diagnosis are compelling on their surface, the fact remains
that the evidence submitted3 does not conclusively demonstrate
that Imprelis caused the damage to Mr. Dahl's trees. The mere fact
that the trees declined after the application of Imprelis is not
enough to prove that Imprelis was the cause of the damage, and the
Court cannot conclude that the Arborist Panel, which is comprised
of three experts who have now reviewed scores of Imprelis appeals,
acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying Mr. Dahl's appeal.

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

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017
Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/yacruq9tfrom
Leagle.com.


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

Judy and Jeff Williams appeal the decision of the Imprelis
Arborist Panel, claiming that DuPont wrongly denied their second
warranty claim.

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.

DuPont 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.

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

A DuPont arborist inspected the property and concluded that one
tree should be rated for tree care and the other two either did
not show Imprelis symptoms or had improved since the last site
visit. In response, the Williamses appealed the warranty
resolution as to the tree marked for tree care, claiming that it
should be rated for removal and replacement. With their appeal,
they submitted photographs, which they admit were of poor quality.

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 Williamses do not contest the Panel's finding that the
photographs they submitted in support of their appeal were of poor
quality. In fact, they now seek to submit clearer photographs,
which they claim support their contention that their tree has
worsened and should be rated for removal.

However, the role of this Court is not to consider additional
evidence not presented to the Panel, but rather to review the
record before the Panel and to determine whether the Panel's
decision, based on the record before them, was arbitrary or
capricious. After reviewing the Williamses' submissions to the
Panel and the Panel's decision, the Court concludes that the Panel
did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the Williamses'
appeal.

Therefore, this Court also will deny the Williamses' appeal.
The Court will affirm the Arborist Panel decision and deny the
Jeff and Judy Williams's appeal.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017
Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/yb58rvzbfrom
Leagle.com.


MERITOR INC: Expects Plaintiffs to Seek Supreme Court Review
------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company expects the
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit to file a petition for
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in the next few months.

In fiscal years 2002 and 2004, the company approved amendments to
certain retiree medical plans, including health benefits for
retirees (and their surviving spouses) who were formerly United
Auto Workers ("UAW") members at ten former Rockwell International
("Rockwell") plants. Certain of these plan amendments were
challenged in lawsuits that were filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ("District
Court") alleging the changes breached the terms of various
collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") entered into by Rockwell
and the UAW for facilities that have either been closed or sold
and alleging a companion claim under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The two class actions
lawsuits that were filed in 2004 (Cole v. ArvinMeritor, et al. and
Faust v. ArvinMeritor, et al.) by the UAW and retirees and
surviving spouses claimed that the health benefits were vested for
life through the negotiated CBAs. These actions were subsequently
consolidated.

On December 22, 2005, the District Court issued a preliminary
injunction enjoining the company from implementing changes to
retiree health benefits and ordered the company to reinstate and
resume paying the full cost of health benefits for the UAW
retirees at the levels existing prior to the changes made in 2002
and 2004. In 2006, the District Court granted a motion by the UAW
for summary judgment and granted the UAW's request to make the
terms of the preliminary injunction permanent (the "injunction").
The company accounted for the injunction as a rescission of the
2002 and 2004 plan amendments and began recording the impact of
the injunction in March 2006.

In addition, the injunction ordered the defendants to reimburse
the plaintiffs for out-of-pocket expenses incurred since the date
of the earlier benefit modifications. In 2007, the company
appealed the District Court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit ("Sixth Circuit"). The Sixth Circuit ruled
to affirm the District Court's ruling and the company moved for an
en banc rehearing. This motion was held in abeyance while the
parties attempted to settle the case.

In July 2016 the company moved for re-hearing based on a January
2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision on the subject matter and a
subsequent Sixth Circuit ruling in a separate case on the same
subject matter. The court granted the re-hearing and in April
2017, the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision,
finding that the retiree medical benefits were not vested for life
through the CBAs.

The plaintiffs' appeal to the Sixth Circuit for a rehearing en
banc was denied in June 2017. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a
motion to stay the Sixth Circuit's mandate pending appeal to the
U.S. Supreme Court. The Sixth Circuit denied that motion on July
10, 2017 and issued the mandate the same day. Through the Sixth
Circuit's mandate, the case has been remanded to the District
Court to carry out further proceedings as necessary to comply with
the mandate.

On July 19, 2017 the company filed a motion with the District
Court to dissolve the injunction and enter the judgment in favor
of the Defendants. A hearing date had been set for August 30,
2017.

"We also expect the plaintiffs to file a petition for certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court in the next few months. We cannot
predict when the District court may dissolve the injunction or
whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will grant the plaintiffs'
petition for certiorari," the Company said.

Meritor, Inc., headquartered in Troy, Michigan, is a premier
global supplier of a broad range of integrated systems, modules
and components to original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") and
the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and
industrial sectors. The company serves commercial truck, trailer,
military, bus and coach, construction, and other industrial OEMs
and certain aftermarkets. Meritor common stock is traded on the
New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol MTOR.


METHODIST HOSPITALS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Staffing Agency's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WHITE GLOVE STAFFING, INC., and CAROLYN
CLAY, Individually, and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated
Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. METHODIST HOSPITALS OF DALLAS, and
DALLAS METHODIST HOSPITALS FOUNDATION, Defendants, Civil Action
No. 3:17-CV-1158-K (N.D. Tex.), Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6)
Motion to Dismiss Claims in Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action
Complaint and Brief in Support.

White Glove, a staffing agency, began contract negotiations to
provide servers, prep cooks, dishwashers, and set-up crews for
Methodist. During these initial negotiations, Methodist allegedly
informed White Glove that the head chef preferred Hispanic
employees.

Before entering a contract, Methodist asked White Glove to provide
Methodist with a prep cook. White Glove sent Plaintiff Carolyn
Clay. Clay is African American. Clay worked for Methodist for only
a few days before Methodist told White Glove that Clay was not
working out and asked White Glove to send someone else. The next
day, White Glove sent Clay back to Methodist because White Glove
could not find another prep cook on short notice.

Methodist asked Clay to leave. Methodist contacted White Glove and
allegedly stated the head chef only wanted Hispanic employees.
Later that day, Methodist ended contract negotiations and informed
White Glove that it would not enter any contracts with White
Glove.

Rule 12(b)(6) allows a defendant to challenge the plaintiff's
complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To withstand a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint
must state the grounds upon which the plaintiff is entitled to
relief such that the right to relief is not merely speculative but
plausible.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, noted that, here White Glove is a
corporation, not an individual. White Glove was not an employee of
Methodist but was negotiating a staffing contract with Methodist.
Before completing negotiations, White Glove provided a prep cook
per Methodist's request. In providing the prep cook, White Glove
acted as an independent contractor.

The facts indicate White Glove and Methodist were negotiating a
contract in which White Glove would act as an independent
contractor. As an independent contractor, White Glove did not have
an employment relationship with Methodist and, thus, lacks
standing to bring Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims.

With similar wording to Title VII, TCHRA prohibits an employer
from refusing to hire an individual or from discriminating against
an individual in a manner that affects the individual's
compensation or benefits based on the individual's race.  Under
TCHRA, in both discrimination and retaliation claims, a plaintiff
must have or have sought an employment relationship with the
defendant.

White Glove and Methodist did not have an employment relationship
sufficient to give White Glove standing to bring these claims.
Because Title VII guides the Court's interpretation of TCHRA
claims, the same reasoning finding White Glove lacks Title VII
standing applies to the TCHRA claims. White Glove was negotiating
a contract to provide staffing services as an independent
contractor to Methodist. Thus, White Glove's relationship with
Methodist was not an employee-employer relationship, rather an
independent contractor relationship.

Because White Glove did not have an employment relationship with
Methodist, White Glove does not have standing to bring
discrimination and retaliation claims under TCHRA.

Section 1981 protects an individual's right to make and enforce
contracts free from discrimination.   To successfully plead claims
under Section 1981, a plaintiff must "show that (1) he or she is a
member of a racial minority; (2) the defendant had an intent to
discriminate on the basis of race; and (3) the discrimination
concerned one or more of the activities enumerated in the statute.
The Supreme Court has stated as a corporation, the plaintiff] has
no racial identity and cannot be the direct target of the
defendants alleged discrimination.

White Glove lacks standing to bring a Section 1981 discrimination
claim.

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss Claims in Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint
and Brief in Support.  The Court dismisses Plaintiff White Glove's
Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims, Texas Commission
on Human Rights Act discrimination and retaliation claims, and 42
U.S.C. Section 1981 discrimination claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9jt8q7dfrom
Leagle.com.

White Glove Staffing Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Javier Perez,
Scott Perez LLP, Founders Square, 900 Jackson Street, Suite 550,
Dallas, Texas 75202

White Glove Staffing Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Royce West --
royce.w@westllp.com -- West & Associates LLP, Veretta L. Frazier -
- veretta.f@westllp.com -- West & Associates LLP & Matthew R.
Scott, Scott Perez LLP, Founders Square, 900 Jackson Street, Suite
550, Dallas, Texas 75202

Carolyn Clay, Plaintiff, represented by Javier Perez, Scott Perez
LLP, Royce West, West & Associates LLP, Veretta L. Frazier, West &
Associates LLP & Matthew R. Scott, Scott Perez LLP.

Methodist Hospitals of Dallas, Defendant, represented by Simon D.
Whiting -- swhiting@brlaw.com -- Burford & Ryburn, L.L.P. & Nicole
L. Tong -- ntong@brlaw.com -- Burford & Ryburn LLP.

Dallas Methodist Hospitals Foundation Inc, Defendant, represented
by Simon D. Whiting, Burford & Ryburn, L.L.P. & Nicole L. Tong,
Burford & Ryburn LLP.

ADR Provider, Mediator, represented by Kathy Fragnoli, Burdin
Mediations, 4514 Cole Avenue Ste. 1450, Dallas, TX 75205


MKS INSTRUMENTS: Company and Newport Dismissed from Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
MKS Instruments, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Plaintiffs agree to
dismiss the Company and Newport from a class action lawsuit.

On March 9, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Dixon
Chung v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-16-733154-C, was filed
in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada on behalf of a
putative class of stockholders of Newport for claims related to
the Merger Agreement between the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub.
The complaint, filed on March 9, 2016, named as defendants the
Company, Newport and Merger Sub, and certain then-current and
former members of Newport's former board of directors. The
complaint alleges that the named directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to sell
Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to
inadequate and unfair consideration, and by agreeing to unfair
deal protection devices. The complaint also alleges that the
Company, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the named
directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The
complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind
the Merger Agreement, monetary damages, and an award of attorneys'
and other fees and costs, among other relief.

On March 25, 2016, the plaintiff in the Chung action filed an
amended complaint, which adds certain allegations, including that
the preliminary proxy statement filed by Newport on March 15, 2016
(the "Proxy") omitted material information. The amended complaint
also names as defendants the Company, Newport, Merger Sub, and
then-current members of Newport's board of directors.

Also on March 25, 2016, a second putative class action complaint
captioned Hubert C. Pincon v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-
16-734039-B, was filed in the District Court, Clark County,
Nevada, on behalf of a putative class of Newport's stockholders
for claims related to the Merger Agreement. The complaint names as
defendants the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub and the then-
current members of Newport's former board of directors. It alleges
that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Newport's stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an
inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair
consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices, and
by omitting material information from the Proxy. The complaint
also alleges that the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the named directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin
or rescind the Merger Agreement, and an award of attorneys' and
other fees and costs, among other relief.

On April 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate the Pincon and Chung actions and appointed counsel in
the Pincon action as lead counsel. Also on April 14, 2016, the
Court granted plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery and
scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' anticipated motion for a
preliminary injunction for April 25, 2016.

On April 20, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the hearing
on their anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction and
notified the Court that they did not presently intend to file a
motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the Merger
Agreement. On April 22, 2016, the Court vacated the hearing on
plaintiffs' anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction. In
August 2016, plaintiffs completed the expedited discovery that the
Court ordered.

On October 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
captioned In re Newport Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Case
No. A-16-733154-B, in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on
behalf of a class of Newport's stockholders for claims related to
the Merger Agreement. The complaint names as defendants the
Company, Newport, and the then-current members of Newport's former
board of directors. It alleges that the named directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to
sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led
to inadequate and unfair consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal
protection devices, and by omitting material information from the
Proxy. The complaint also alleges that the Company and Newport
aided and abetted the named directors' alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks monetary damages, including
pre- and post-judgment interest.

On December 9, 2016, both the Company and the Newport defendants
filed motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
motions to dismiss on January 13, 2017. On February 3, 2017, the
Company and the Newport defendants filed their reply briefs in
support of their motions to dismiss. A hearing on the motions to
dismiss was held on February 15, 2017.

On June 22, 2017, the court dismissed the amended complaint
against all defendants but granted plaintiffs leave to amend. On
July 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting
claims against the Newport directors. The Newport directors intend
to defend vigorously against those claims.

On July 28, 2017, the Company and Newport each entered into a
stipulation and proposed order with plaintiffs whereby plaintiffs
agreed not to assert any claims against the Company or Newport in
an amended complaint and agreed to voluntarily dismiss the Company
and Newport from the action.

On April 29, 2016, the Company completed its acquisition of
Newport Corporation ("Newport") pursuant to an Agreement and Plan
of Merger dated as of February 22, 2016 (the "Newport Merger"). At
the effective time of the Newport Merger, each share of Newport's
common stock issued and outstanding as of immediately prior to the
effective time of the Newport Merger was converted into the right
to receive $23.00 in cash, without interest and subject to
deduction for any required withholding tax.

MKS is a global provider of instruments, subsystems and process
control solutions that measure, control, power, deliver, monitor
and analyze critical parameters of advanced manufacturing
processes to improve process performance and productivity.


NESTLE WATERS: Falsely Marketed Poland Spring Products, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chana Krinsky, Joseph Epstein, Abe Gallis, and Menachem Shemtov,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Nestle Waters North America, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01474 (D.
Conn., September 1, 2017), arises out of the Defendant's systemic
misrepresentations regarding the characteristics and sources of
its Poland Spring(R) brand "100% Natural Spring Water",
specifically by labeling and marketing it as "spring water". When
in reality, none of the water marketed and sold by the Defendant
as Poland Spring Water actually meets the definition of "spring
water" under U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
regulations, says the complaint.

Nestle Waters North America, Inc. is a business-unit of Nestle
Waters that produces and distributes numerous brands of bottled
water across North America. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (203) 992-4523
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
              sbartone@zlk.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8655
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


NEWLINK GENETICS: Motion to Dismiss "Abramson" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newlink Genetics Corporation's motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit remains pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Court,
captioned Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-
cv-3545, or the Securities Action.  Subsequently, the Court
appointed Michael and Kelly Nguyen as lead plaintiffs and approved
their selection of Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC as lead counsel in the
Securities Action.

On October 31, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint which asserts claims under the federal securities laws
against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer Charles
J. Link, Jr., and the Company's Chief Medical Officer and
President Nicholas Vahanian, or collectively, the Defendants.  The
amended complaint alleges the Defendants made material false
and/or misleading statements that caused losses to the Company's
investors. In particular, the lead plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants made material misstatements or omissions related to the
Phase II and III trials and efficacy of the product candidate
algenpantucel-L.

The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in the
amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs,
they seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock
during the putative class period of September 17, 2013 through May
9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly
suffered financial harm as a result.

On April 27, 2017, the Court granted the parties' request for
leave to brief a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and
ordered the parties to file a stipulation and proposed order
setting forth a schedule for the briefing of that motion.

On May 15, 2017, the Court ordered the following briefing
schedule: motion to dismiss due July 14, 2017, opposition due
September 12, 2017, and reply due September 26, 2017.  The
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 14, 2017. The Company
disputes the claims in the Securities Action and intends to defend
against them vigorously.

On September 12, 2017, a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion
to Dismiss was filed.

NewLink is a clinical stage immuno-oncology company focused on
discovering and developing novel immunotherapeutic products for
the treatment of cancer with an expertise in infectious diseases
that drives specific opportunities.


NRG ENERGY: "Do Not Call List" Litigation in California Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the court has granted
plaintiffs' motion to substitute new plaintiffs and Defendants
have filed an answer to the second amended complaint in the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action in California.

Three purported class action lawsuits have been filed against NRG
Residential Solar Solutions, LLC -- one in California and two in
New Jersey.  The plaintiffs generally allege misrepresentation by
the call agents and violations of the TCPA, claiming that the
defendants engaged in a telemarketing campaign placing unsolicited
calls to individuals on the "Do Not Call List." The plaintiffs
seek statutory damages of up to $1,500 per plaintiff, actual
damages and equitable relief.

On July 8, 2016, NRG filed a Rule 11 Motion seeking dismissal of
NRG from the California case. The Rule 11 Motion was denied on
August 16, 2016.

On June 22, 2017, plaintiffs in the California case filed a motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint to substitute new
plaintiffs. Defendants' filed an opposition to this motion on June
26, 2017. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to substitute new
plaintiffs and on August 1, 2017, Defendants filed an answer to
the second amended complaint.

On July 12, 2017, the parties in the New Jersey action reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the class allegations which was
confirmed by a term sheet signed by the parties on July 28, 2017.
The parties to the New Jersey action are seeking to have the New
Jersey and California litigation stayed while a final settlement
can be executed and approved by the court.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company.


NRG ENERGY: Braun Suit Against NRG Yield Underway
-------------------------------------------------
The case, Braun v. NRG Yield, Inc., is underway, NRG Energy, Inc.
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017.

On April 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action
lawsuit against NRG Yield, Inc., the current and former members of
its board of directors individually, and other parties in
California Superior Court in Kern County, CA.  Plaintiffs allege
various violations of the Securities Act due to the defendants'
alleged failure to disclose material facts related to low wind
production prior to the NRG Yield, Inc.'s June 22, 2015 Class C
common stock offering.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
rescission, attorney's fees and costs.

The Defendants filed demurrers and a motion challenging
jurisdiction on October 18, 2016. On June 16, 2017, the court
approved the parties' stipulation which provides the plaintiffs'
opposition is due on September 15, 2017 and defendants' reply is
due on November 15, 2017.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company.


NRG ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss "Ahmed" Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that defendants' motion to
dismiss the case, Ahmed v. NRG Energy, Inc. and the NRG Yield
Board of Directors, remains pending.

On September 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action
lawsuit against NRG Energy, Inc., the directors of NRG Yield,
Inc., and other parties in the Delaware Chancery Court. The
complaint alleges that the defendants breached their respective
fiduciary duties with regard to the recapitalization of NRG Yield,
Inc. common stock in 2015. The plaintiffs generally seek economic
damages, attorney's fees and injunctive relief.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on December
21, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their objection to the motion to
dismiss on February 15, 2017. The Defendants' reply was filed on
March 24, 2017. The court heard oral argument on defendants'
motion to dismiss on June 20, 2017.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company.


NRG ENERGY: Bid for Reconsideration in "Griffoul" Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that NRG's motion for
reconsideration in the case, Griffoul v. NRG Residential Solar
Solutions, remains pending.

On February 28, 2017, plaintiffs, consisting of New Jersey
residential solar customers, filed a purported class action
lawsuit in New Jersey state court.  Plaintiffs allege violations
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Action and Truth-in-Consumer
Contracts, Warranty and Notice Act with regard to certain
provisions of their residential solar contracts.  The plaintiffs
seek damages and injunctive relief as to the proper allocation of
the solar renewable energy credits.

On June 6, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration or dismiss the lawsuit. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition on June 29, 2017. On July 14, 2017, the court denied
NRG's motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the case.

Jeannie O'Sullivan, writing for Law360, reported that Bergen
County Superior Court Judge Robert C. Wilson ruled that the
company's arbitration clause didn't clearly explain that customers
would be forfeiting their right to sue.  Judge Wilson, the report
said, likened the company's arbitration clause to the one the
state Supreme Court overturned in Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services
Group LP in 2014. The clause at the core of Atalese failed to
unambiguously state that the consumer was waiving her right to
hash out a dispute in court.

On July 25, 2017, NRG filed a motion for reconsideration of the
appeal.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company.


NRG ENERGY: Incorrectly Named as Party to "Rice" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that NRG believes that it
was incorrectly named as a party to the lawsuit, Rice v. NRG.

On April 14, 2017, plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against NRG, First Energy Corporation and Matt
Canastrale Contracting, Inc.  Plaintiffs generally claim personal
injury, trespass, nuisance and property damage related to the
disposal of coal ash from GenOn's Elrama Power Plant and First
Energy's Mitchell and Hatfield Power Plants. Plaintiffs generally
seek monetary damages, medical monitoring and remediation of their
property.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company.


NRG ENERGY: 9th Circuit Greenlights Interlocutory Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Ninth Circuit has
granted plaintiffs' petition for interlocutory review in the
Natural Gas Litigation.

GenOn is party to several lawsuits, certain of which are class
action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri,
Nevada and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath
of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the resulting
FERC investigations and relate to alleged conduct to increase
natural gas prices in violation of state antitrust law and similar
laws. The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution
and/or expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a number of
energy companies unaffiliated with NRG.

In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada,
which was handling four of the five cases, granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn
in those cases. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or the Ninth Circuit, which
reversed the decision of the District Court.

GenOn along with the other defendants in the lawsuit filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court
challenging the Ninth Circuit's decision and the U.S. Supreme
Court granted the petition.

On April 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth
Circuit's holding that plaintiffs' state antitrust law claims are
not field-preempted by the federal Natural Gas Act and the
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  The U.S. Supreme Court
left open whether the claims were preempted on the basis of
conflict preemption. The U.S. Supreme Court directed that the case
be remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
for further proceedings.

On March 7, 2016, class plaintiffs filed their motions for class
certification. Defendants filed their briefs in opposition to
class plaintiffs' motions for class certification on June 24,
2016.

On March 30, 2017, the court denied the plaintiffs' motions for
class certification. On April 13, 2017, the plaintiffs petitioned
the Ninth Circuit for interlocutory review of the court's order
denying class certification. On June 13, 2017, the Ninth Circuit
granted plaintiffs' petition for interlocutory review.

In May 2016 in one of the Kansas cases, the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment. Subsequently in December 2016, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit. The appeal has
been fully briefed by the parties. GenOn has agreed to indemnify
CenterPoint against certain losses relating to these lawsuits.
In September 2012, the State of Nevada Supreme Court, which was
handling the remaining case, affirmed dismissal by the Eighth
Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada of all
plaintiffs' claims against GenOn.

In February 2013, the plaintiffs in the Nevada case filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. In
June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ
of certiorari, thereby ending one of the five lawsuits.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company.


OUTSIDE UNLIMITED: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss SAC in H-2B Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the case captioned
AVILES-CERVANTES, et al., Plaintiffs v. OUTSIDE UNLIMITED, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. RDB-16-1214 (D.Md.).

Plaintiffs Rafael Aviles-Cervantes, Pablo Gonzalez-Aviles,
Heleodoro Pena-Gonzalez, and Jose Alberto Ramirez-Bernardino have
brought this putative class action against Defendant Outside
Unlimited, Inc. (Defendant), a landscaping company operating in
Maryland and Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves and all other
temporary guestworkers hired by Outside Unlimited as landscape
laborers pursuant to the H-2B visa program.

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) (Count I); the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (MWHL) (Count
II); the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL) (Count
III); and two Breach of Contract claims (Counts IV & V), in
connection with their employment by Outside Unlimited.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held
in Tran v. Tran, 54 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir. 1995), citing
Barrentine supra, that "all" of a former employee's claims against
his former employer "other than those stated under the FLSA should
have been the subject of a timely demand under the arbitration
clause of the applicable union contract but in so far as the wage
hour claims of plaintiff are concerned, plaintiff was not required
to seek grievance and arbitration and was and is entitled to have
those claims considered on the merits in the district court.

Under Barrentine and Tran, a plaintiff bringing an FLSA claim has
a right to have their claim heard in court before he exhausts his
arbitration remedy pursuant to a signed agreement.

For all of these reasons, the weight of authority is clear that
Plaintiffs were not required to exhaust Department of Labor
administrative enforcement mechanisms prior to bringing this
action, the Court says.

With respect to Plaintiffs' state law claims for violations of the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Wage Payment and Collection
Law, and claims for Breach of Contract, Defendants have likewise
identified no authority mandating administrative exhaustion, the
Court adds.  Accordingly, Outside Unlimited's Motion to Dismiss is
denied as to its administrative exhaustion argument.

Even if the Plaintiffs were required to plead specific facts in
support of their allegations of willfulness at this stage of the
proceedings, they have adequately done so, the Court holds.  An
employer's violation of the FLSA is willful if 'the employer
either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether
its conduct was prohibited by the statute.'

The Court has similarly held in Carrillo v. Borges Constr., LLC,
No. GJH-13-641, 2016 WL 5716186, that time spent by laborers at
the end of their work duties driving their employers equipment
back to their employers' place of business and returning the
equipment to a secure location was 'integral and indispensable to
their principal activity as laborers and construction workers' and
thus should have been compensated under the FLSA.

The Court will not dismiss Plaintiffs' allegations at this stage
of the proceedings. Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim that
their daily travel time to and from "the yard" was "integral and
indispensable" to their "primary work" and, therefore, not
categorically exempt from coverage under the FLSA.  Additionally,
as the Court has confirmed in the Depew case, "the precise nature"
of an employee's pre- and post-work duties, for purposes of FLSA
coverage, "is a question of fact.

The United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina has held in Moodie v. Kiawah Island Inn Co., LLC, 124
F.Supp.3d 711, 717-720 (D.S.C. 2015) "that costs of inbound travel
and visas for H-2B workers are 'primarily for the benefit of the
employer,' "such that "they must be reimbursed to the extent that
they cause wages to drop below the minimum wage."  The South
Carolina Court specifically observed that the Castellanos-
Contreras case, relied upon by Defendants, was the one notable
exception" to this rule, and denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' FLSA claims as to their travel expenses.
Garcia v. Frog Island Seafood, Inc., 644 F.Supp.2d 696, 705-07,
finds that transportation costs incurred by Plaintiffs operated as
de facto deductions and that Defendants are liable to the extent
these deductions drove Plaintiffs' first week's wages below the
statutory minimum.

For these reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint is denied as to Plaintiffs' travel expenses from
their homes in Mexico to the United States.

Although no Maryland court has yet considered this issue, the
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
has recently rejected Outside Unlimited's specific argument in the
case of Moodie v. Kiawah Island Inn Co., LLC, 124 F.Supp.3d 711,
727 (D.S.C. 2015). The Court reasoned as follows:

     "Here, Defendant is not under any prior obligation to pay
Plaintiffs anything and, thus, not already legally bound to pay
Plaintiffs the prevailing wage. Instead, the H-2B regulations set
the minimum consideration that Defendant must offer for this
specific type of employment contract. It is a contingent legal
obligation, dependent on Defendant entering into employment
contracts with H-2B workers. This obligation arose with the
contract, and under the authority above, became a term of the
contract."

To accept Defendant's argument is to hold that all employment
contracts to pay a worker minimum wage for a particular service,
lack consideration and are, therefore, not contracts, the Court
says.  This is clearly not true, the Court notes.  For example,
suppose a company offers to pay an individual $7.25 an hour for
janitorial services, and the individual accepts. A unilateral
employment contract is formed.   The employer has offered
consideration in return for the individual's services, namely the
payment of $7.25 an hour. This payment of $7.25 an hour does not
lose its status as consideration because the FLSA sets a minimum
wage of $7.25. That is because the employer is under no obligation
to pay the individual anything prior to entering the contract. The
same is true here with the H-2B prevailing wage.

For these reasons, Outside Unlimited's Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint  is denied as to Plaintiffs' breach of
contract claims in Counts IV and V.

Plaintiffs have not simply alleged that their base pay rate fell
below the Maryland minimum, but have adequately set out claims
that Outside Unlimited failed to pay Plaintiffs and class members
for all hours worked and took improper deductions from their
wages, which in effect brought their actual wages well below the
Maryland minimum. For this reason, they have stated claims for
violations of the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

Accordingly, Outside Unlimited's Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint  is also denied as to Plaintiffs' claims under
the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

Outside Unlimited's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/yacqdct9from Leagle.com.

Rafael Aviles-Cervantes, Plaintiff, represented by Alfred Darwin
Holder, Jr. -- darholder@holderlaw.com -- Holder Law Group LLC.

Rafael Aviles-Cervantes, Plaintiff, represented by Edward
Tuddenham, Law Office of Edward Tuddenham. 228 West 137th St
New York, NY 10030

Pablo Gonzalez-Aviles, Plaintiff, represented by Alfred Darwin
Holder, Jr., Holder Law Group LLC & Edward Tuddenham, Law Office
of Edward Tuddenham.

Heleodoro Pena-Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Alfred Darwin
Holder, Jr., Holder Law Group LLC & Edward Tuddenham, Law Office
of Edward Tuddenham.

Jose Alberto Ramirez-Bernardino, Plaintiff, represented by Alfred
Darwin Holder, Jr., Holder Law Group LLC & Edward Tuddenham, Law
Office of Edward Tuddenham.

Outside Unlimited, Inc., Defendant, represented by R. Wayne
Pierce, The Pierce Law Firm, LLC & Wendel V. Hall --
wendel@halllawoffice.net -- Hall Law Office.


PARTY CITY: Court Consolidates "Medrano," "Pasini" Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting consolidation for all purposes
the cases captioned ANTHONY MEDRANO and NICOLA GALASSI,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. PARTY CITY CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants; and JOAN PASINI, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. PARTY CITY CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case Nos. 2:16-cv-02996-WBS-EFB, 2:17-CV-962-WBS-EFB
(E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Anthony Medrano (Medrano) and Nicola Galassi (Galissi)
filed a Class Action Complaint entitled Anthony Medrano et al. v.
Party City Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UBT-2016-11712, in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Joaquin, alleging a single cause of action for violation of 15
U.S.C. Sections 1681 against Defendant Party City Corporation
(Party City).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14, Party City intends
to seek leave of the Court to file a third-party complaint against
third-parties to be joined in this lawsuit and the Parties
stipulate and request that, the Court consolidate the two pending
actions for all purposes.

Having considered the stipulation of the parties, the Court orders
that the cases Anthony Medrano v. Party City Corporation, Case No
2:16-cv-02996-WBS-EFB and Joan Pasini v. Party City Corporation,
Case No. 2:17-CV-962-WBS-EFB are hereby consolidated for all
purposes.

All pleadings, motions, and other papers must be filed in the Lead
Case, Medrano v. Party City Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-02996-
WBS-EFB, with the caption designating Case No. 2:16-cv-02996-WBS-
EFB as the Lead Case, and containing the name and number for the
remaining case Pasini v. Party City Corporation, Case No. 2:17-CV-
962-WBS-EFB thereunder, with any filing deemed to have been filed
in all cases.

All pending deadlines previously set in Medrano v. Party City
Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-02996-WBS-EFB will apply to the
consolidated case and those dates are continued by 180 days.

The new deadlines will be as follows:

   Deadline to Disclose Experts: March 7, 2018
   Deadline to Disclose Rebuttal Expert Witnesses: April 9, 2018
   Discovery Completion Date: May 8, 2018
   Deadline for Filing of All Motions: June 6, 2018
   Final Pretrial Conference: August 27, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.
   Jury Trial Start Date: October 10, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9j7l9qkfrom Leagle.com.

Anthony Medrano, Plaintiff, represented by Alex Paul Katofsky --
alex@gaineslawfirm.com  -- Gaines & Gaines, APLC.

Anthony Medrano, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Franklin Gaines
-- daniel@gaineslawfirm.com -- Gaines & Gaines, APLC, Evan Simon
Gaines -- evan@gaineslawfirm.com -- Gaines & Gaines APLC & Miriam
Leigh Schimmel -- miriam@gaineslawfirm.com -- Gaines & Gaines,
APLC.

Nicola Galassi, Plaintiff, represented by Alex Paul Katofsky,
Gaines & Gaines, APLC, Daniel Franklin Gaines, Gaines & Gaines,
APLC, Evan Simon Gaines, Gaines & Gaines APLC & Miriam Leigh
Schimmel, Gaines & Gaines, APLC.

Joan Pasini, Plaintiff, represented by Chant Yedalian --
chant@chant.mobi -- Chant & Company.

Party City Corporation, Defendant, represented by Andrew W.
Russell -- arussell@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP &
Tyreen Grissel Torner -- ttorner@foxrothschild.com -- Fox
Rothschild LLP.


RAUSCH STURM: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hopfensperger" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert G. Hopfensperger, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik,
LLP, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, and, John and Jane Does
Numbers 1 through 25, Case No. 1:17-cv-01198-WCG (E.D. Wis.
September 1, 2017), seeks to put an end to the Defendants' use of
false, deceptive, and misleading practices, and other illegal
practices, in connection with their attempts to collect an alleged
debt from the Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers.

The Defendants operate a collection law firm that regularly
collects consumer debts for clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip D. Stern, Esq.
      Heather B. Jones, Esq.
      Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
      STERN THOMASSON LLP
      150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Springfield, NJ  07081-1315
      Telephone: (973) 379-7500
      Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
      E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
              andrew@sternthomasson.com
              heather@sternthomasson.com


RELIANCE TRUST: Class Suit over 401(k) Plan Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that
Reliance Trust Company, the Company's subsidiary, is named as a
defendant in a class action arising out of its provision of
services as the discretionary trustee for a 401(k) Plan for one of
its customers. Plaintiffs in the action seek damages and
attorneys' fees, as well as equitable relief, for alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The action also makes
claims against the Plan's sponsor and recordkeeper.

Reliance Trust Company is vigorously defending the action and
believes that it has meritorious defenses.

"While we believe that the ultimate resolution of the matter will
not have a material impact on our financial condition, we are
unable at this time to make an estimate of potential losses
arising from the action because the matter is at an early stage
and involves unresolved questions of fact and law," the Company
said.

FIS is a global leader in financial services technology with a
focus on retail and institutional banking, payments, asset and
wealth management, risk and compliance and outsourcing solutions.


RHP PROPERTIES: Settles Chelmsford Mobile Home Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Mills, writing for Lowell Sun, reports that about 350
people who paid rent at the Chelmsford Commons mobile home park in
Chelmsford since 2012 will split a six-figure settlement in a
class-action lawsuit that alleged the park improperly raised rents
between 2012 and April of this year.

The park's owner, Michigan-based RHP Properties, was sued by
residents who alleged the company violated state law and 1990
master lease agreement that said rent increases should be tied to
the Boston Consumer Price Index.

The company tied rent increases instead to the national Consumer
Price Index, which rose more quickly that the Boston index,
according to the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs also said the company improperly passed costs onto
residents following a 2015 water main break.

The settlement will see RHP Properties pay $100,381 to individuals
who paid rent in the park since April 2012 to compensate for rent
overpayments, according to the final settlement approved in Lowell
Superior Court on September 6.

The company reduced rents in the park in April after an initial
settlement in the case was reached. That settlement was finalized
on September 6 and the lawsuit was dismissed.

RHP also agreed to pay $10,500 in interest to residents for rent
overpayments; $10,000 to compensate for increased water and sewer
costs as a result of the 2015 water main break; $15,000 to the
plaintiff's attorneys; and $10,000 for administration of the
settlement.

In all, RHP will pay $145,881 to settle the case.

"We're happy it's resolved," said attorney Robert Kraus, who
represented RHP properties. "My clients are dedicated to providing
first class accommodations for residents. This was inadvertent and
we resolved it quickly."

Attorney Ethan Horowitz, of Northeast Legal Aid, represented
residents of the park, said checks could be sent out to qualifying
residents by early October.

"People at Chelmsford Commons have been overcharged for years and
we're glad the park has owned up to this error," Horowitz said.
"We hope the park will continue down this path of respecting the
rights of park residents."

The park contains 254 sites for mobile homes, with residents
owning their own mobile homes but renting sites from RHP. The
lawsuit said about 350 people paid rent in the park during the
years that rents were improperly raised. [GN]


SAUDI ARABIA: Embassy in DC May Have Funded Hijack Dry Runs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Revesz, writing for Independent, reports that the Saudi
Arabian embassy in Washington, D.C., may have funded a "dry run"
of the 9/11 attacks, according to evidence submitted to an ongoing
lawsuit against the Saudi government.

As reported by the New York Post, the embassy might have used two
of its employees for the so-called dry run before a dozen
hijackers flew two planes into the Twin Towers, killing nearly
3,000 people in 2001.

The complaint, filed on behalf of 1,400 family members of the
victims, stated that the Saudi Government paid two nationals,
posing as students in the US, to take a flight from Phoenix to
Washington and test out flight deck security before 9/11.

Sean Carter, Esq. -- info@seancarter.us --  of The Carter Law
Group, lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, said, "We've long asserted
that there were longstanding and close relationships between al
Qaeda and the religious components of the Saudi government."

The Saudi government has long denied any links to the terrorists
and lawyers representing the government have filed motions to
dismiss the claims. The plaintiffs must respond to the motion by
November.

The case can then go to trial thanks to the Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrorism Act which was voted into law by Congress
last September, despite a veto from former President Barack Obama
and lobbying from the Saudi government. The law allows survivors
and relatives of victims to sue foreign governments in US federal
courts.

According to the documents and as reported by the New York Post,
the class action lawsuit argued that "a pattern of both financial
and operational support" from the Saudi government helped the
hijackers in the months before the attacks.

FBI documents, submitted as evidence, claimed that the two Saudi
nationals who came to the US, Mohammed al-Qudhaeein and Hamdan al-
Shalawi, were in fact members of "the Kingdom's network of agents"
in the country. The documents claimed the men trained in
Afghanistan with a number of other al-Qaeda operatives that
participated in the attacks.

Qudhaeein was allegedly employed at the Saudi Arabia's Ministry of
Islamic Affairs, and Shalawi was a "longtime employee of the Saudi
government" in Washington DC.

In November 1999 they boarded an America West flight to
Washington, and tried to access the cockpit several times, asking
the flight attendants "technical questions" and making the staff
"suspicious".

Qudhaeein reportedly asked staff where the bathroom was and was
pointed in the right direction; instead he tried to enter the
cockpit. The pilots made an emergency landing in Ohio and the two
men were released after an initial interrogation from the FBI.

Their plane tickets were reportedly paid for by the Saudi Embassy,
according to Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband was killed in
9/11.

The two men also reportedly attended a symposium in Washington,
organised by the Saudi embassy in association with the Institute
for Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America, which employed late
al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki as a lecturer. He later helped the
hijackers to get housing and ID when they arrived in early 2000.

Mr. Carter said the allegations in the class action lawsuit were
based on almost 5,000 pages of evidence.

A total of 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. Hundreds of
thousands of US documents regarding Saudi Arabia remain secret.
[GN]


SENIOR LIFESTYLE: Court Denies Dismissal Bid in "Egbers"
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern for District of
Ohio, Western Division issued an Opinion and Order denying
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in the
case captioned KARI EGBERS AND STEPHANIE WILLIAMS, On behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiffs, v. SENIOR
LIFESTYLE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:16cv732 (S.D. Ohio.).

In order to provide health insurance coverage to its employees,
Defendant established the Senior Lifestyle Corporation Employees
Benefit Plan (Plan). To fund the Plan, Defendant collected payroll
deductions from their employees, including Plaintiffs. Defendant
failed to remit Employee Contributions to fund the Plan.

Because Defendant failed to provide adequate funds to pay
Plaintiffs' related medical claims, KBA did not pay the claims.

As a result, Plaintiffs allege that during the relevant time
period, the Plan's coverage lapsed and thus, Plaintiffs paid for
health insurance coverage that was not provided and incurred
medical expenses that should have been covered by the Plan.
As result, Plaintiffs filed the instant action on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, alleging violations
under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA).

Defendant makes two primary arguments in favor of dismissal:

   (1) First, Defendant argues Plaintiffs' claims are nothing more
than a repackaged claim for benefits and thus, Plaintiffs cannot
obtain relief for their claims for breach of fiduciary duty under
Section 502(a)(3).

   (2) Second, Defendant argues that the Amended Complaint must be
dismissed because Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for denial
benefits under Section 502(a)(1)(B).

An award of benefits will not change the fact that Defendant is
allegedly failing to remit Employee and Employer Contributions in
violation of the terms of the Plan. If Defendant's alleged failure
to remit continues, Plaintiffs will continue to effectively be
without health insurance, as the Plan will not have sufficient
funds to pay future claims.

This is not simply a one-time claim for denial of individual
benefits as Defendant argues. Plaintiffs want to be reimbursed for
their alleged timely and valid medical claims, they seek class-
wide injunctive relief to enjoin Defendant from continuing to
violate the terms of the Plan.

Accordingly, when accepting Plaintiffs' allegations as true, and
drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiffs,
Plaintiffs have stated a claim under Section 502(a)(3). Having
reached this conclusion, the Court need not address whether
Plaintiffs have stated a claim under Section 502(a)(1)(B).

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yd24pfc8from
Leagle.com.

Kari Egbers, Plaintiff, represented by Todd B. Naylor, Goldenberg
Schneider, LPA, 1 W. Fourth St., 18th Floor, Cincinnati, OH 45202
Kari Egbers, Plaintiff, represented by James E. Miller --
jmiller@sfmslaw.com -- Sheppard Finkleman Miller & Shah, pro hac
vice, Laurie Rubinow, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP, 65
Main StreetChester, CT 06412-1311 pro hac vice & Jeffrey Scott
Goldenberg -- jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com -- Goldenberg Schneider,
LPA.

Stephanie Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Todd B. Naylor,
Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, James E. Miller, Sheppard Finkleman
Miller & Shah, pro hac vice, Laurie Rubinow, Shepherd Finkelman
Miller & Shah LLP, pro hac vice & Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg,
Goldenberg Schneider, LPA.

Senior Lifestyle Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph
Edward Conley, Jr., Buechel & Conley, PLLC, 6900 Houston Rd.,
Suite 43, Florence, KY 41042, James C. Goodfellow, Jr., Seyfarth
Shaw, 131 South Dearborn StreetSuite 2400Chicago, IL 60603-5577,
pro hac vice & Samuel M. Schwartz-Fenwick, Seyfarth Shaw LLP,  131
South Dearborn StreetSuite 2400Chicago, IL 60603-5577,  pro hac
vice.


SOLARCITY CORP: "Guzman" Suit Seeks to Stop Illegal Contracts
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARMIDA GUZMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. SOLARCITY CORPORATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-06511 (C.D.
Cal., September 4, 2017), seeks to enjoin the Defendant's alleged
practices of unlawfully forcing California consumers to enter into
contracts that are not drafted in a language known by the
consumer.

SolarCity Corporation designs, permits, finances, installs,
monitors, maintains, leases, and sells solar energy systems in the
United States.  The Company offers solar cells, installation and
mounting hardware, financial products, electrical hardware,
monitoring solutions, and related software.  The Company also
sells electricity generated by solar energy systems to customers.
The Company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Mateo,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          1303 East Grand Avenue, Suite 101
          Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  ml@kazlg.com

               - and -

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


STEPHEN L. BRUCE: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Beale"
---------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss the Amended Complaint in the case captioned LINDA D.
BEALE, an individual, o/b/o herself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN L. BRUCE, P.C., an Oklahoma
professional corporation, Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-618-JHP-FHM
(N.D. Okla.).

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint for Failure to S Plaintiff Linda D. Beale (Plaintiff)
initiated this purported class action to recover against Defendant
Stephen L. Bruce, P.C. (Defendant) for alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff opened a credit card
account with Discover Bank sometime prior to initiating this
lawsuit.  Discover Bank retained Defendant to collect amounts
purportedly owed on Plaintiff's credit card account.

In furtherance of its collection activities, Defendant sent or
caused to be sent to Plaintiff a dunning letter, which Plaintiff
attaches to her Amended Complaint as Exhibit A. Plaintiff alleges
she was a consumer and Defendant was a debt collector for FDCPA
purposes.

Here, Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated 15 U.S.C.
Section1692g(a) by including the Valid Reason Provision in the
dunning letter sent to her. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g(a), a consumer has certain notification rights,
specifically:

     "Within five days after the initial communication with a
consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt
collector shall, unless the following information is contained in
the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send
the consumer a written notice containing:

(1) the amount of the debt;

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after
receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any
portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt
collector;

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector
in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any
portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain
verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the
consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be
mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within
the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the
consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if
different from the current creditor."

Defendant argues the dunning letter it sent to Plaintiff,
including the Valid Notice Provision, fully complied with these
notification requirements. After reviewing the parties' arguments
and relevant law, the Court agrees that Defendant satisfied its
notification requirements under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a) and
that Plaintiff's claim fails as a matter of law.

Plaintiff further cites an unpublished case from the Northern
District of Illinois, Mendez v. M.R.S. Associates, 2005 WL 1564977
(N.D. Ill. June 27, 2005). The Mendez collection letter stated, if
for some reason you believe this debt is not valid, please review
your rights listed at the bottom of this letter and contact our
office to explain the nature of the dispute.

The Mendez court concluded this language violated the FDCPA,
because it suggests that a debtor must have a valid reason for
disputing the debt. However, Mendez is distinguishable from the
language at issue here, because the Mendez letter included the
statement, contact our office to explain the nature of the
dispute. The Valid Reason Provision does not contain this language
or any suggestion that the debtor must explain the nature of her
dispute.

Therefore, the Court agrees with other persuasive authority that
distinguishes Mendez on this basis.

Plaintiff's argument that the Valid Notice Provision violates
Section 1692g(a) is more typical of the technical convolutions of
a highly educated attorney searching for some deficiency in a
letter, rather than fairly reflective of confusion or deception of
an unsophisticated consumer to whom the correspondence was
directed.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Section 1692g(a) claim is subject to
dismissal as a matter of law.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(b), a debt collector must
cease collection of a debt if the consumer notifies the debt
collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in
subsection (a) of this section that the debt, or any portion
thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and
address of the original creditor.

Plaintiff does not allege she provided timely notice of a dispute
of the debt, which would trigger the verification duty. Nor does
Plaintiff allege any communication or other collection activity
occurred during the thirty-day period after Plaintiff received the
dunning letter. Further, Plaintiff does not respond to Defendant's
arguments in the Motion to Dismiss with respect to Section
1692g(b), suggesting she has abandoned any claim pursuant to
Section 1692g(b).

Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff raises a claim under Section
1692g(b), such claim is subject to dismissal.

Finally, Plaintiff argues in her Response brief that the dunning
letter threatened legal action within thirty days in the absence
of a payment or dispute. (Doc. No. 20, at 8). Plaintiff's argument
is not well-taken. First, Plaintiff makes no reference to such a
claim in the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint focuses
solely on the Valid Reason Provision, which includes no such
threatening language. Second, Plaintiff does not even identify the
sentence that she alleges threatens legal action.

Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff argues this language violates
the FDCPA, the argument fails as a matter of law.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8mda53z
from Leagle.com.

Linda D Beale, Plaintiff, represented by Robert William Murphy,
1212 SE 2nd Ave, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316, USA

Linda D Beale, Plaintiff, represented by Victor R. Wandres,
Paramount Law, 4835 S Peoria Ave, Tulsa, OK 74105

Stephen L. Bruce, P.C., Defendant, represented by David Alan Cheek
-- dcheek@cheekfalcone.com -- Cheek & Falcone PLLC & Ronald E.
Stakem -- rcheek@cheekfalcone.com -- Cheek & Falcone PLLC.


STONERIDGE INC: "Verde" Suit Proceeding as Single-Plaintiff Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stoneridge, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the case, Verde v.
Stoneridge, Inc. et al., is now proceeding as a single-plaintiff
case.

The Company has a legal proceeding, Verde v. Stoneridge, Inc. et
al., currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Cause No. 6:14-cv-00225- KNM.  The
plaintiff filed this putative class action against the Company and
others on March 26, 2014.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company
was involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution,
and sale of a control device ("CD") that was incorporated into a
Dodge Ram truck purchased by Plaintiff in 2006.  Plaintiff alleges
that the Company breached express warranties and indemnification
provisions by supplying a defective CD that was not capable of
performing its intended function.  The putative class consists of
all Texas residents who own manual transmission Chrysler vehicles
model years 1997-2007 equipped with the subject CD.  Plaintiff
seeks recovery of economic loss damages incurred by him and the
putative class members associated with inspecting and replacing
the allegedly defective CD, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification seeking to
certify a class of Texas residents who own or lease certain
automobiles sold by Chrysler from 1997-2007.  Plaintiff alleges
this putative class would include approximately 120,000 people.

In the motion for class certification, the Plaintiff states that
damages are no more than $1 per person.  A hearing on the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification was held with the
United States District Court (the "Court") on November 16, 2015.

On April 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted the Company's
motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's
indemnification claim; that ruling was later adopted by the Court.
On November 7, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation Concerning Class Certification, in which she
recommended denying the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification. The Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report and
Recommendation concerning a motion for reconsideration concerning
class certification.

On May 23, 2017, the District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation Concerning Class Certification, and on
May 30, 2017, the Magistrate Judge denied as moot the plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration. The Plaintiff did not seek
interlocutory review of the District Judge's decision, and the
case is now proceeding as a single-plaintiff case.

The Company believes the likelihood of loss is not probable or
reasonably estimable, and therefore no liability has been recorded
for these claims at June 30, 2017.

Stoneridge is a global designer and manufacturer of highly
engineered electrical and electronic components, modules and
systems for the automotive, commercial, motorcycle, off-highway
and agricultural vehicle markets.


STONERIDGE INC: Class Certification Hearing in "Royal" Case Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Royal v. Stoneridge Inc et al., Case No.
5:14-cv-01410 (W.D. Okla.), Judge Stephen P. Friot held in an
August 4 order that, based upon representations made by lead
counsel for all parties, the class certification hearing set for
Aug. 7 is sticken.

"The court expects reasonably prompt submission of papers leading
to resolution of this case," Judge Friot said.

Stoneridge, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that Royal v. Stoneridge,
Inc. et al. is a legal proceeding currently pending in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Case
No. 5:14-cv-01410-F.  Plaintiffs filed this putative class action
against the Company, Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc., and others
on December 19, 2014.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company was
involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution, and
sale of a CD that was incorporated into Dodge Ram trucks purchased
by Plaintiffs between 1999 and 2006.  Plaintiffs allege that the
Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. breached various
express and implied warranties, including the implied warranty of
merchantability.  Plaintiffs also seek indemnity from the Company
and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc.  The putative class consists
of all owners of vehicles equipped with the subject CD, which
includes various Dodge Ram trucks and other manual transmission
vehicles manufactured from 1997-2007, which Plaintiffs allege is
more than one million vehicles.  Plaintiffs seek recovery of
economic loss damages associated with inspecting and replacing the
allegedly defective CD, diminished value of the subject CDs and
the trucks in which they were installed, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  The amount of compensatory or other damages sought by
Plaintiffs and the putative class members is unknown.

On January 12, 2016, the United States District Court granted in
part, the Company's and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc.'s motions
to dismiss, and dismissed four of the Plaintiffs' five claims
against the Company and Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the United States
District Court's ruling, which was denied. The Company is
vigorously defending itself against the Plaintiffs' allegations,
and has and will continue to challenge the claims as well as class
action certification.

The class certification hearing was scheduled for August 7, 2017.
The Company believes the likelihood of loss is not probable or
reasonably estimable, and therefore no liability has been recorded
for these claims at June 30, 2017.

Stoneridge is a global designer and manufacturer of highly
engineered electrical and electronic components, modules and
systems for the automotive, commercial, motorcycle, off-highway
and agricultural vehicle markets.


TEMPUR SEALY: Potential Class in "Todd" Case Dissolved
------------------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that in the
case, Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur
Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic
International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC,
Defendants; filed October 25, 2013, the Court has dissolved the
potential class and required the Plaintiffs to file individual
cases in their home states if they wish to proceed.

On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy
International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as
defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec 1761(d) who purchased, not for
resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of
California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the
first time in the case but with an amended petition adding
additional class representatives for additional states. The
purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable
state laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business
practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions
related to the sale of certain products. The Plaintiffs seek
restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under
applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The
purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The
Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend
against the claims vigorously. The Court was scheduled to consider
class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2015;
however, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, at
which time the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint.

A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held January 28, 2016 and
the Court denied in part and granted in part the Company's Motion
to Dismiss, allowing certain claims to proceed. The Court
considered class certification motions on August 18, 2016, and on
September 30, 2016, denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for class
certification.

In December 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
lower court's decision. The Company filed a Motion to Sever the
Claims made by each of the Plaintiffs on March 22, 2017 following
the denial of class certification by the District Court which was
affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Reconsideration at the
District Court with respect to the denial of class certification
on April 12, 2017 based on a change in the law. That Motion was
denied on June 30, 2017. The Court also granted the Company's
Motion to Sever the claims on June 30, 2017, dissolving the
potential class and requiring the Plaintiffs to file individual
cases in their home states if they wish to proceed.

The Company is unable to determine whether the Company's
applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for
these claims and the costs of defense of these claims.

Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position or results of operations.

Tempur Sealy develops, manufactures, markets and sells bedding
products, which include mattresses, foundations and adjustable
bases, and other products, which include pillows and other
accessories.


TEMPUR SEALY: "Buehring" Case in Early Stages of Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the case,
David Buehring, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., Scott L. Thompson,
and Barry A. Hytinen, filed March 24, 2017, is in the early stages
of litigation.

On March 24, 2017, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy
International, Inc., and two of its officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf
of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased Tempur Sealy
common stock between July 28, 2016 and January 27, 2017. The
complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its then existing and future
financial prospects, including those with one of its retailers,
Mattress Firm, allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company does not
believe the claims have merit and intends to vigorously defend
against these claims.

The case is in the early stages of litigation. As a result, the
outcome of the case is unclear and the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any.
Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position or results of operations.

Tempur Sealy develops, manufactures, markets and sells bedding
products, which include mattresses, foundations and adjustable
bases, and other products, which include pillows and other
accessories.


TEMPUR SEALY: "Gardner" Suit in Early Stages of Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the case,
Myla Gardner v. Scott L. Thompson, Barry A. Hytinen, Evelyn S.
Dilsaver, John A. Heil, Jon L. Luther, Usman Nabi, Richard W. Neu,
Robert B. Trussell, Jr. and Tempur Sealy International, Inc.,
filed July 10, 2017; Paul Onesti v. Scott L. Thompson, Barry A.
Hytinen, Evelyn S. Dilsaver, John A. Heil, Jon L. Luther, Usman
Nabi, Richard W. Neu, Robert B. Trussell, Jr. and Tempur Sealy
International, Inc., filed July 21, 2017; and Joseph L. Doherty v.
Scott L. Thompson, Barry A. Hytinen, Evelyn S. Dilsaver, John A.
Heil, Jon L. Luther, Usman Nabi, Richard W. Neu, Robert B.
Trussell, Jr. and Tempur Sealy International, Inc., filed July 20,
2017, is in the early stages of litigation.

During July, three putative shareholder derivative suits were
filed against the Company, each member of its Board of Directors
and two of its officers. Each complaint alleges that the Board of
Directors and officers caused the Company to make materially false
and misleading statements regarding its business and financial
prospects, including those with one of its retailers, Mattress
Firm, which was a violation of the fiduciary duties they owed to
the Company.

The Company does not believe any of the suits have merit and
intends to vigorously defend against the claims in each case.
These cases are in the early stages of litigation. As a result,
the outcome of each case is unclear and the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any.
The Plaintiffs in two of the cases have agreed to Orders staying
their respective actions until forty-five days after a decision is
rendered on the Motion to Dismiss in the Buehring action.

Tempur Sealy develops, manufactures, markets and sells bedding
products, which include mattresses, foundations and adjustable
bases, and other products, which include pillows and other
accessories.


TULSA, OK: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Samuels"
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Northern District of Oklahoma
issued an Opinion and Order dismissing Plaintiff's Pro Se
Complaint for failure to state a claim in the case captioned
BRANDE LEE SAMUELS, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT NIGH; RYAN McDONALD;
STEVE KUNZWEILER; ISAAC SHIELDS; STUART SOUTHERLAND, Defendants,
Case No. 17-CV-0397-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla.).

Plaintiff, a prisoner in custody at the Tulsa County Jail and
appearing pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 civil rights
complaint. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and directed him to pay an initial partial filing
fee of $8.10.

The Court also denied Plaintiff's motions for class action
certification and for appointment of counsel and directed
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer
or employee of a governmental entity. The court must identify any
cognizable claim and dismiss any claim which is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.

The Court finds that the amended complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff describes the nature
of the case as follows: "Tulsa County Public Defender's Office
court appointed counsel fails to provide effective assistance of
counsel to the indigent appointed and State fails to provide
adequate remedy to address issue. Tulsa County District Attorneys
Office fails to comply with ABA Standards violating the
constitutional rights of indigent defendants through prosecutorial
misconduct and other unethical methods."

Plaintiff identifies Defendant McDonald as the public defender
appointed to represent him and Defendant Southerland as the Tulsa
County Public Defender over the Public Defender's Office. In the
caption of the amended complaint, Plaintiff also identifies Robert
Nigh, of the Tulsa County Public Defenders Office, as a defendant.
42 U.S. C. Section 1983 provides as follows: "Every person who,
under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United
States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by
the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in
an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
redress."

Therefore, any action taken by Defendants McDonald, Southerland,
and Nigh is not state action for purposes of 42 U.S.C. Section
1983. As a result, Plaintiff's claims against those Defendants are
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A prosecutor's decisions made during the course of a prosecution
relate to the judicial phase of the criminal process. Plaintiff's
claims against Defendants Kunzweiler and Shields are based on
actions taken during Plaintiff's prosecution and are, therefore,
barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Plaintiff's request for monetary damages from Defendants
Kunzweiler and Shields shall be dismissed from this action with
prejudice.

For these reasons, a civil rights action does not provide a remedy
for Plaintiff's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and
prosecutorial misconduct. If Plaintiff is convicted in his state
criminal action, he must present any allegations of constitutional
violations, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
and prosecutorial misconduct, to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals on direct appeal.

Should Plaintiff fail to obtain relief in state court, he may then
file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal district
court raising constitutional claims exhausted in state court.

The amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8o2eaf6from
Leagle.com.

Brande Lee Samuels, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


TULSA, OK: "Senter" Pro Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the Plaintiff's
Pro Se Complaint for failure to state a claim in the case
captioned MONTELL SENTER, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN RAYL; STUART
SOUTHERLAND; STEVE KUNZWEILER; SHAWN WATERS, Defendants, Case No.
17-CV-481-JED-mjx (N.D. Okla).

Plaintiff's motion for class action certification is denied and
Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

Plaintiff, a prisoner in custody at the Tulsa County Jail and
appearing pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 civil rights
complaint. Plaintiff also filed motions to proceed in forma
pauperis, for appointment of counsel, and for class action
certification.

Upon review of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court
finds that Plaintiff is without funds in his institutional
account(s) sufficient to prepay the full filing fee required to
commence this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis shall be granted.

Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee in monthly payments of 20
percent of the preceding month's income credited to his prison
accounts until he has paid the total filing fee of $350.
Motions for class action certification and for appointment of
counsel.

Plaintiff's motion for class action certification shall be denied.

A court may not certify a class unless it determines the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. The Tenth Circuit has ruled that a
litigant may bring his own claims to federal court without
counsel, but not the claims of others because the competence of a
layman is clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of
others.

While Plaintiff may proceed in this action pro se, he may not risk
the rights of others in a class action. For that reason, the Court
denies Plaintiff's request certification of a class action.
The Court shall also deny Plaintiff's motion for appointment of
counsel. The Court has discretion to appoint an attorney to
represent an indigent plaintiff where, under the totality of the
circumstances, the denial of counsel would result in a
fundamentally unfair proceeding. The Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals has stated that if the plaintiff has a colorable claim
then the district court should consider the nature of the factual
issues raised in the claim and the ability of the plaintiff to
investigate the crucial facts.

After reviewing the merits of Plaintiff's case, the nature of the
factual issues involved, Plaintiff's ability to investigate the
crucial facts, the probable type of evidence, Plaintiff's
capability to present his case, and the complexity of the legal
issues, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for appointment of
counsel.

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer
or employee of a governmental entity. To avoid dismissal for
failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a
complaint must present factual allegations, assumed to be true,
that raise a right to relief above the speculative level. The
complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.

The Court finds that the complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. Plaintiff describes the nature of
the case as follows: Tulsa County Public Defenders Office and
court appointed counsel(s) fail to provide effective assistance of
counsel to indigent defendants and the State court fails to
provide remedy to address the issue. Tulsa County District
Attorneys deny equal protection in violation of the 14th
Amendment.

Plaintiff identifies Defendant Rayl as the public defender
appointed to represent him in his criminal case and Defendant
Southerland as the Tulsa County Public Defender over the Public
Defender's Office.

A public defender does not act under color of state law when
performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a
defendant in a criminal proceeding. Even though the defective
performance of defense counsel may cause the trial process to
deprive an accused person of his liberty in an unconstitutional
manner, the lawyer who may be responsible for the unconstitutional
state action does not himself act under color of state law within
the meaning of Section 1983.Therefore, any action taken by
Defendants Rayl and Southerland is not state action for purposes
of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

As a result, Plaintiff's claims against those Defendants are
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.

The complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8coeh4wfrom
Leagle.com.

Montell Senter, et al, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


TULSA, OK: "Smith" Pro Se Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the Plaintiff's
Pro Se Complaint for failure to state a claim in the case
captioned KYLE LOGAN SMITH, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN RAYL; STUART
SOUTHERLAND; STEVE KUNZWEILER; SHAWN WATERS; TARA PIN, Defendants,
Case No. 17-CV-0483-CVE-mjx (N.D. Okla.).

Plaintiff's motion for class action certification is denied and
Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

Plaintiff, a prisoner in custody at the Tulsa County Jail and
appearing pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 civil rights
complaint. Plaintiff also filed motions to proceed in forma
pauperis, for appointment of counsel, and for class action
certification.

Upon review of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court
finds that Plaintiff is without funds in his institutional
account(s) sufficient to prepay the full filing fee required to
commence this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis is granted.  Plaintiff is directed to
pay the filing fee in monthly payments of 20 percent of the
preceding month's income credited to his prison accounts until he
has paid the total filing fee of $350.

Plaintiff's motion for class action certification shall be denied.
A court may not certify a class unless it determines the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.  The Tenth Circuit has ruled that a
litigant may bring his own claims to federal court without
counsel, but not the claims of others because the competence of a
layman is clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of
others.

While Plaintiff may proceed in this action pro se, he may not risk
the rights of others in a class action. For that reason, the Court
denies Plaintiff's request certification of a class action.
The Court shall also deny Plaintiff's motion for appointment of
counsel. The Court has discretion to appoint an attorney to
represent an indigent plaintiff where, under the totality of the
circumstances, the denial of counsel would result in a
fundamentally unfair proceeding. The Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals has stated that if the plaintiff has a colorable claim
then the district court should consider the nature of the factual
issues raised in the claim and the ability of the plaintiff to
investigate the crucial facts.

After reviewing the merits of Plaintiff's case, the nature of the
factual issues involved, Plaintiff's ability to investigate the
crucial facts, the probable type of evidence, Plaintiff's
capability to present his case, and the complexity of the legal
issues, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for appointment of
counsel.

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer
or employee of a governmental entity. To avoid dismissal for
failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a
complaint must present factual allegations, assumed to be true,
that raise a right to relief above the speculative level. The
complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.

The Court finds that the complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. Plaintiff describes the nature of
the case as follows: Tulsa County Public Defenders Office and
court appointed counsel(s) fail to provide effective assistance of
counsel to indigent defendants and the State court fails to
provide remedy to address the issue. Tulsa County District
Attorneys deny equal protection in violation of the 14th
Amendment.

Public defenders do not act under color of state law
Plaintiff identifies Defendant Rayl as the public defender
appointed to represent him in his criminal case and Defendant
Southerland as the Tulsa County Public Defender over the Public
Defender's Office.

A public defender does not act under color of state law when
performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a
defendant in a criminal proceeding. Even though the defective
performance of defense counsel may cause the trial process to
deprive an accused person of his liberty in an unconstitutional
manner, the lawyer who may be responsible for the unconstitutional
state action does not himself act under color of state law within
the meaning of Section 1983.Therefore, any action taken by
Defendants Rayl and Southerland is not state action for purposes
of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

As a result, Plaintiff's claims against those Defendants are
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.

The complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycrq4nb8from
Leagle.com.

Kyle Logan Smith, et al, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


U.S. AVIATION SERVICES: United Airlines Dismissed in "Haralson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order approving dismissal by parties'
stipulation and request in the case captioned JAMES HARALSON, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
U.S. AVIATION SERVICES CORP., a Nevada corporation; UNITED
AIRLINES, INC., a Third Amended Complaint Filed: Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant. Case No. 3:16-
cv-05207-JST. (N.D. Cal.)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), Plaintiff
James Haralson (Plaintiff) and Defendant United Airlines, Inc.
(United), by and through their respective counsel, stipulate and
request the dismissal of United as follows:

   -- Plaintiff's individual claims and class action claims
against United are dismissed without prejudice;

   -- Plaintiff waives any claims against United for his
attorneys' fees and costs as it relates to his claims against
United;

   -- United waives any claims against Plaintiff for its
attorneys' fees and costs as it relates to Plaintiff's claims
against United;

   -- Should Plaintiff and Defendant U.S. Aviation resolve this
matter, through settlement or otherwise, this dismissal will be
amended to a dismissal with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybrvdujcfrom Leagle.com.

James Haralson, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

James Haralson, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Scott Leviant --
scott@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & Thomas Alistair Segal-
thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

U.S. Aviation Services Corp., Defendant, represented by Brendan
Dolan -- bdolan@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price (CA) LLP, Brittany
A. Sachs, Vedder Price (CA), LLP, & Christopher Anthony Braham,
Vedder Price (CA), LLP, 275 Battery Street Suite 2464 San
Francisco, California 94111


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Feds Probe Tracking of Lyft Drivers
------------------------------------------------------
Amarillo reports that the Justice Department in Manhattan is
investigating whether Uber illegally used software to track
drivers for Lyft, its main ride-hailing competitor, to gain an
advantage in attracting and recruiting drivers, according to two
people familiar with the probe.

The FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York's Southern
District want to know if use of the software, which created fake
customer accounts, broke any federal laws, said the people, who
didn't want to be identified because they were not authorized to
discuss the case publicly.

An Uber spokeswoman said on September 8 it is cooperating in the
probe and that use of the software has been discontinued. The U.S.
Attorney's Office would not comment on the case.

The investigation adds to mounting legal problems for Uber,
including allegations of corporate espionage involving autonomous
vehicle technology and at least one other federal investigation
into use of software to thwart local government efforts to monitor
its operations. Earlier this year, Uber's board ousted co-founder
and CEO Travis Kalanick in a move to fix cultural problems within
the company. Last month it replaced him with former Expedia CEO
Dara Khosrowshahi, who has inherited the legal troubles.

Uber CEO Kalanick resigns under investor pressure
Judge refuses to block Seattle Uber, Lyft driver union law
The latest probe apparently centers on software known inside Uber
as "Hell." A federal class-action lawsuit filed by a Lyft driver
in San Francisco alleges that Uber developed the "spyware" that
allowed it to pose as Lyft customers and gain access to its
computer systems. The software let Uber access the location of up
to eight Lyft drivers at one time and get their unique Lyft
identification number. Uber then used that number to track the
drivers' locations, the lawsuit alleged.

Uber then matched the Lyft drivers' identities with Uber internal
records to find drivers working for both services, and gave those
drivers incentives to work mainly for Uber "thereby reducing the
supply of Lyft drivers, which resulted in increased wait times for
Lyft customers and diminished earnings for Lyft drivers," the
lawsuit stated.

The lawsuit, which Uber said was recently dismissed, alleged that
the practice violated the federal Wiretap Act. No dismissal
paperwork is listed in federal court records, and attorneys for
the plaintiff, Michael Gonzales, could not be reached on September
8.

Uber attorneys, in a legal response to the lawsuit, said that
Gonzales is alleging only that Uber used "commonly available
software" to collect data that would be accessible to anyone using
the Lyft app. "The communications were therefore 'readily
available to the general public' and the Wiretap Act does not
apply," the Uber lawyers wrote.

News of the investigation was reported earlier on September 8 by
The Wall Street Journal.

Uber's other legal problems include a lawsuit filed by Waymo, the
autonomous car unit spun off from Google, alleging that Anthony
Levandowski, a former Google engineer, stole trade secrets before
departing in January 2016 to found a robotic vehicle startup that
Uber acquired seven months later.

The lawsuit maintains that Uber then transplanted the property
into its own fleet of self-driving vehicles -- a charge that Uber
has adamantly denied. A federal judge overseeing the case has
referred it to the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco for possible
criminal investigation.

Uber also is under federal investigation over allegations that it
used phony software to prevent city officials from looking into
whether the company was following local regulations. Local
officials in Portland, Oregon, and Philadelphia confirmed that
they were told by federal authorities of the investigation. [GN]


UNITED PARCEL: Still Defends "Morgate" Suit
-------------------------------------------
The case, Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al., remains pending,
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company said, "UPS and our subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc. are
defendants in Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al., an action in
the Los Angeles Superior Court brought on behalf of a certified
class of all franchisees who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes
Etc. franchises to The UPS Store in March 2003. Plaintiff alleges
that UPS and The UPS Store, Inc. misrepresented and omitted facts
to the class about the market tests that were conducted before
offering the class the choice of whether to rebrand to The UPS
Store. We have filed a motion to decertify the class, which was
heard in May 2017."

A trial setting conference was scheduled for August 2017.


UNITED PARCEL: Still Defends "Wright" Suit in Canada
----------------------------------------------------
The case, Ryan Wright and Julia Zislin v. United Parcel Service
Canada Ltd., remains pending, United Parcel Service, Inc. said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2017.

The Company said, "We are a defendant in Ryan Wright and Julia
Zislin v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd., an action brought on
behalf of a certified class of customers in the Superior Court of
Justice in Ontario, Canada. Plaintiffs filed suit in February
2007, alleging inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and
cost of brokerage services provided by us under applicable
provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of
interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada.
Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the plaintiffs by
the Ontario motions court in August 2011, when it dismissed
plaintiffs' complaint under the Criminal Code and granted
plaintiffs' complaint of inadequate disclosure."

"We appealed the Court's decision pertaining to inadequate
disclosure in September 2011 and continue to vigorously defend all
other allegations. There are multiple factors that prevent us from
being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result
from this matter, including: (1) we are vigorously defending
ourselves and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal
defenses; and (2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact
that could be important to the ultimate resolution of this matter.
Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible
loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to
determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition, results of operations or
liquidity."


UNITED STATES: Kirwa Files Suit v. Dept. of Defense
---------------------------------------------------
Mahlon Kirwa, Santhosh Meenhallimath, and Ashok Viswanathan, on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. United States
Department of Defense and James Mattis, Case No. 1:17-cv-01793 (D.
Col. September 1, 2017), is brought on behalf of all similarly-
situated United States soldiers who are the victims of a misguided
and unlawful attempt to deprive them of their right to seek United
States citizenship.

United States Department of Defense is responsible for the overall
administration of military policy.

James Mattis is the Secretary of Defense of the United States
Department of Defense. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. LoBue, Esq.
      Douglas W. Baruch, Esq.
      Jennifer M. Wollenberg, Esq.
      Neaha P. Raol, Esq.
      Webster R. M. Beary, Esq.
      Shaun A. Gates, Esq.
      Katherine L. St. Romain, Esq.
      FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP
      801 17th Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 639-7000
      Facsimile: (202) 639-7003
      E-mail: joseph.lobue@friedfrank.com
              douglas.baruch@friedfrank.com
              jennifer.wollenberg@friedfrank.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: 8th Cir. Affirms Allocation Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the judgment of the District Court granting
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Executive Risk Specialty Insurance
Company; First Specialty Insurance Corporation; Starr Excess
Liability Insurance International Limited; National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Defendants-Appellees, No. 15-
1076 (8th Cir).

UnitedHealth Group sued several insurers in the District of
Minnesota, seeking indemnity and defense costs for litigation
settlements under its professional liability excess insurance
policies.

UnitedHealth appeals the district court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of four insurance companies.  UnitedHealth
contends that the court erred in three ways:

   (1) by granting National Union Fire Insurance Company's summary
judgment motion based on UnitedHealth's failure to provide
adequate notice of its claim;

   (2) by determining that UnitedHealth presented insufficient
evidence on how a settlement was allocated between covered and
non-covered claims; and

   (3) by granting summary judgment sua sponte on UnitedHealth's
claim for certain defense costs.

The appeal involves a dispute over insurance coverage for
settlement amounts arising from two different lawsuits.
UnitedHealth reached a single lump-sum settlement for the two
actions together. There was potential insurance coverage for
claims in one lawsuit but not for claims brought in the other. A
dispute then arose over how to allocate the settlement amount
between the covered and non-covered claims.

In October 2010, U.S. District Judge Lawrence M. McKenna certified
the settlement class, approved the $350 million settlement, and
dismissed the lawsuit filed by, among other plaintiffs, the
American Medical Association.  Following the court's approval, and
in accordance with the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs in the
Malchow lawsuit stipulated to the dismissal of the Malchow suit in
New Jersey.

After signing the settlement agreement, UnitedHealth filed an
amended complaint in the indemnity lawsuit in the District of
Minnesota against its professional liability excess insurers.
UnitedHealth sought damages for the insurers' failure to indemnify
it for: (1) the AMA portion of the $350 million settlement under
the Antitrust Endorsement of its professional liability insurance
policy and $35 million in AMA defense costs; (2) the NYAG
settlement; and (3) certain denied claims arising out of lawsuits
alleging that UnitedHealth failed to reimburse certain medical
expenses.

UnitedHealth argues that it had no duty to allocate between the
covered and non-covered claims under the plain language of its
insurance policies.

The claim also lacks merit, the Eighth Circuit held.  The AMA suit
qualifies for coverage under the Antitrust Endorsement. The
Endorsement provides that notwithstanding any other provisions of
the policy, the Insurers must pay for UnitedHealth's claims that
directly or indirectly result from or are related to, a Wrongful
Act consisting or allegedly consisting in whole or in part of
anti-trust, price fixing or restraint of trade activities.

But the Malchow claim was separate from the AMA claim, so the
Endorsement generates coverage only for the AMA claim, the Eighth
Circuit said.  In any event, as the district court observed, the
excess insurance policies provide coverage described in the
Endorsement only insofar as the coverage would not conflict with a
provision of the excess policies.

And it is undisputed that the excess policies did not cover the
Malchow claims, because the defendant in Malchow, a predecessor-
in-interest of UnitedHealth, was never an insured under those
policies.

UnitedHealth is therefore not entitled to the portion of the
settlement that is allocated to the Malchow lawsuit.

UnitedHealth argues that under Minnesota law, it had no burden to
allocate between the covered and non-covered claims and it was
required to show only that it suffered a loss that would trigger
coverage.

In Bor-Son Building Corp. v. Employers Commercial Union Insurance
Co. of America, 323 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 1982), a local housing
authority brought several claims against Bor-Son and others for
faulty workmanship on two building projects.  Bor-Son, the
plaintiff-insured, eventually settled the lawsuit, but the
settlement did not allocate the amount paid among the various
claims.  Bor-Son then sought a declaratory judgment that its
insurers were liable to indemnify it for the settlement.  Under
Bor-Son's insurance policy, the insurers were liable for claims
based on loss of rent, but not for claims based on damage to
buildings as the result of a breach of contract.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that because there was no
allocation of damage monies  that would establish the amount Bor-
Son paid toward the settlement of that loss of rental claim, and
since Bor-Son, in this case, furnished no evidence to establish
that fact, Bor-Son failed to meet its burden of proving its claim
for reimbursement.

More recently, in Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mut.
Ins. Co., 819 N.W.2d 602, 617 (Minn. 2012), the Minnesota court
concluded that an insurer who assumes the duty to defend an
insured has a duty to disclose to its insured the availability of
obtaining a written explanation of an arbitration award.  The
court stated that `the insured's ordinary burden to allocate a
verdict between covered and non-covered claims' does not shift to
the insurer unless the insurer had an affirmative duty to defend
the underlying claims.

The court later concluded that the burden to prove allocation of
an arbitration award remains with the insured unless" the insurer
took on the duty to defend the insured and failed to disclose the
availability of a written explanation of the award. Only when the
insurer fails to disclose, and this failure results in prejudice
to the insured, is the insurer estopped from claiming that the
insured has the burden of proving allocation of the award.

The Eighth Circuit concluded it is not enough under Minnesota law
for UnitedHealth to show simply that its $350 million settlement
included a covered claim of an unspecified amount. UnitedHealth
bears the burden to allocate the settlement between the
potentially covered AMA suit and the non-covered Malchow suit with
enough specificity to permit a reasoned judgment about liability.

UnitedHealth maintains that even if it did bear the burden to
allocate, then it presented sufficient evidence to survive summary
judgment.

The evidence presented by UnitedHealth fails to give a jury more
than a speculative basis on which to allocate the $350 million
settlement between the AMA and Malchow suits, the Eighth Circuit
found.  These were complex lawsuits involving different claims and
legal theories. Allocation required either contemporaneous
evidence of valuation or expert testimony on relative value to
provide a reasonable foundation for a jury's decision.

Without more evidence about the relative value of the claims, a
reasonable jury could only speculate as to how the settlement
should be allocated. UnitedHealth made strategic decisions to
invoke attorney-client privilege and work-product protection to
avoid presenting evidence from its own representatives about
contemporaneous valuations of the settlement.

The company declined to present additional expert testimony about
the value of the Malchow suit to complement Halverson's testimony
about the AMA suit, or to identify an expert who was qualified to
address both. On the record that was presented, the district court
properly concluded that UnitedHealth failed to present sufficient
evidence to submit the issue to a jury.

The Eighth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court's grant
of summary judgment for the Insurers on UnitedHealth's indemnity
claim for a portion of the $350 million settlement attributable to
the AMA suit.

UnitedHealth also contends that the district court erred when it
granted summary judgment for the Insurers on UnitedHealth's claim
for $35 million in defense costs in the AMA suit.

UnitedHealth had an opportunity to raise its objection to the
district court's summary-judgment procedure before it stipulated
to the entry of final judgment. Nothing in the district court's
letters to counsel precluded the company from alerting the court
to this alleged mistake. When UnitedHealth failed to raise the
point, it waived the notice requirement under our precedents in
Shur-Value and Figg. We therefore decline to disturb the district
court's grant of summary judgment for the Insurers on the matter
of defense costs in the AMA litigation.

The district court dismissed UnitedHealth's claims against
National Union for failure to give adequate notice of the AMA
claim under the policy. The district court's later rulings,
however, make it unnecessary to address the notice issue, because
there is not a sufficient amount of alleged damages remaining in
the case to trigger coverage under the National Union policy even
if notice had been adequate.

The Eighth Circuit therefore affirmed the dismissal of the claims
against National Union on this alternative ground.

The Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court did not err
on the allocation issue, and that UnitedHealth waived its
objection to the asserted sua sponte order on defense costs.
Because the district court's rulings on those issues mean that
National Union's coverage would not be implicated, it is
unnecessary to address the court's separate order on the adequacy
of notice to National Union.  The Eighth Circuit therefore
affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's September 7, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y75swpmofrom Leagle.com.

Thomas Henry Boyd --  tboyd@winthrop.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

David P. Pearson -- dpearson@winthrop.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Jeffrey J. Bouslog -- jbouslog@foxrothschild.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Alan L. Kildow, 6225 Smith Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21209-3600,
for Defendant-Appellee.

William Zane Pentelovitch -- bill.pentelovitch@maslon.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael C. McCarthy, 162 Terry RoadSmithtown, NY 11787 for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Matthew MacKinnon Shors -- matthew@georgeadissetley.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Brent A. Lorentz --  blorentz@winthrop.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

David B. Goodwin -- dgoodwin@cov.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Margaret S. Brownell -- margo.brownell@maslon.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Sonya Braunschweig -- sbraunschweig@briggs.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Christine Nicole Lindblad -- clindblad@foxrothschild.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Erica Holzer -- erica.holzer@maslon.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Jacqueline R. Dungee, One Logan Square18th & Cherry Streets 27th
Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103-6933 for Defendant-Appellee.

Robert L. Ebby -- rebby@hangley.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.
Ronald Paltin Schiller -- rschiller@hangley.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Bonnie M. Hoffman -- bhoffman@hangley.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Michael S. Greenberg -- mgreenberg@cov.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Daniel J. Layden -- dlayden@hangley.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.
Dylan J. Steinberg -- dsteinberg@hangley.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Phillip E. Wilson, Jr. -- pewilson@hangley.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Estrellado Sofia Lykke, for Defendant-Appellee.
Robert A. Wiygul -- rwiygul@hangley.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.


VASCO DATA: Motion to Dismiss "Bunk" Class Action Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VASCO Data Security International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that
defendants' motion to dismiss the "Bunk" class action lawsuit
remains pending.

On July 28, 2015 a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security
International, Inc., et al., case number 1:15-cv-06605, naming
VASCO and certain of its current and former executive officers as
defendants and alleging violations under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. The suit was purportedly filed on behalf
of a putative class of investors who purchased VASCO securities
between April 28, 2015 and July 28, 2015, and seeks to recover
damages allegedly caused by the defendants' alleged violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as
a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest
and attorneys' fees.

Pursuant to a September 1, 2015 scheduling order entered by the
court, the lead plaintiff, once appointed, will have sixty days to
file an amended complaint or notify the defendants that the lead
plaintiff intends to rely on the current complaint.

On January 30, 2017, the appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in which the allegations regarding OFAC related matters
were dropped and replaced with allegations regarding public
disclosures made by the defendants in April 2015 as compared to
public statements made in July 2015, generally regarding the
strength of the Company's business and its future prospects. This
case is now referred to by the name of the new lead plaintiff,
Bunk.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Bunk complaint on
March 31, 2017. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot
be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this
lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against the action
vigorously.

VASCO is indemnifying Messrs. Hunt, Valcke, and Bown for this
matter.

VASCO Data Security International, Inc. designs, develops and
markets digital solutions for identity, security, and business
productivity that protect and facilitate transactions online, via
mobile devices, and in-person.


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: 2 Class Suits v. Ultratech Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Veeco Instruments Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that two class action
lawsuits against Ultratech have been dismissed.

On March 17, 2017, an Ultratech shareholder filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (the "District Court"), captioned The
Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust v. Ultratech, Inc., et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-01468-PJH, on behalf of itself and all other Ultratech
shareholders against Ultratech, its directors at the time the
acquisition was announced, Veeco, and Merger Sub.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that in connection with Veeco's
proposed acquisition of Ultratech, the defendants purportedly
agreed to a supposedly inadequate price for the Ultratech shares,
agreed to unreasonable deal-protection measures, and potentially
engaged in supposed self-dealing.

On March 22, 2017, two other Ultratech shareholders filed a
purported class action complaint in the District Court, captioned
De Letter et al. v. Ultratech, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-
01542-WHA, on behalf of themselves and all other Ultratech
shareholders against Ultratech and its directors at the time the
acquisition was announced.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that in connection with Veeco's proposed acquisition of
Ultratech, the defendants purportedly agreed to a supposedly
inadequate price for the Ultratech shares and potentially engaged
in supposed self-dealing.

On May 28, 2017, the District Court dismissed both cases.

On May 26, 2017, Veeco completed the acquisition of Ultratech.
Ultratech designs, manufactures, and markets lithography, laser
annealing, and inspection equipment for manufacturers of
semiconductor devices, including advanced packaging, MEMS, and
atomic layer deposition ("ALD") applications. Ultratech's
customers are primarily located throughout the United States,
EMEA, China, Japan, Taiwan, and Korea.

Together with Ultratech, Veeco designs, manufactures, and markets
semiconductor process equipment aligned to meet the demands of key
global trends such as energy conservation, mobility, and
connectivity.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Stelmachers"
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an order granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the
case captioned PAUL M. STELMACHERS, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. VERIFONE
SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:14-cv-04912-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

Presently before the court is Verifone's third motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff alleges that Verifone produces machines that accept
credit cards or debit cards in the course of transacting business.
These machines electronically print receipts documenting the
transactions. Verifone also manages the machines after they have
been sold and programs its machines to produce receipts only to
the specifications of Verifone.

Plaintiff took a taxi cab ride in Las Vegas and used his credit
card to pay. One of Verifone's machines was used to receive
Plaintiff's payment. Once the payment was processed, Plaintiff
received a computer-generated receipt displaying more than the
last five Plaintiff alleges the receipt violated Section 1681c(g)
of FACTA, and seeks to represent a class of individuals who
received electronically printed receipts from Verifone which
displayed more than the last five digits of the purchaser's credit
or debit card number. e (5) digits of Plaintiff's credit card
number.

Standing is properly challenged through a Rule 12(b)(1) motion.
White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). Such a motion
challenges subject matter jurisdiction, and may be either facial
or factual. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004).

The constitutional standing doctrine functions to ensure, among
other things, that the scarce resources of the federal courts are
devoted to those disputes in which the parties have a concrete
stake.

Three basic elements must be satisfied: (1) an injury in fact,
which is neither conjectural or hypothetical, (2) causation, such
that a causal connection between the alleged injury and offensive
conduct is established, and (3) redressability, or a likelihood
that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan
v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).

In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the Court emphasized that, to establish
injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered 'an
invasion of a legally protected interest' that is 'concrete and
particularized' and 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical. The Court also explained that an injury is concrete
for Article III standing if it is de facto such that it must
actually exist; it must be 'real,' and not 'abstract." According
to the Court, the Ninth Circuit addressed only whether the
plaintiff's alleged injury was particularized, but had neglected
to analyze whether the plaintiff's alleged injury was also
concrete.

The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded for
reconsideration.

The court previously determined Plaintiff's sparse factual
allegations failed to establish an injury in fact, and that
Plaintiff, in turn, did not have standing because the FAC neither
established an injury that is concrete under the teachings of
Spokeo, nor one that [was] certainly impending under Clapper v.
Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013).  Clapper, like
Spokeo, helps to define the boundaries of Article III standing by
specifying that a claim based on the risk of future injury must
describe something more than just a possibility.

Though given an opportunity to remedy his pleading, Plaintiff has
only succeeded in rehashing a bare procedural violation of FACTA,
divorced from any concrete or certainly impending harm. That is
not enough to plead an injury in fact.

The court therefore concludes Plaintiff lacks Article III
standing, and will dismiss the SAC without leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8bn2flvfrom Leagle.com.

Paul M Stelmachers, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Phillip
Taylor Tourek, Bock and Hatch LLC, 134 NORTH LASALLE CHICAGO, IL
60602, pro hac vice

Paul M Stelmachers, Plaintiff, represented by James Michael Smith
-- jim@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch,
Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, Phillip Andrew Bock --
phil@classlawyers.com -- Bock law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis
& Oppenheim, LLC, pro hac vice, Richard Joseph Doherty, Bock &
Hatch, LLC, 134 N LaSalle St # 1000 Chicago, IL 60602, pro hac
vice & Charles David Marshall, Marshall Law Firm. 2121 N.
California Blvd., Suite 290, Walnut Creek, CA, 94596.

VeriFone Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by John George
Papianou -- jpapianou@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken, pro hac
vice & Scott D. Gattey -- scott@gatteylaw.com -- Gattey Law
Office.

Brett Noble, Miscellaneous, represented by Chant Yedalian -- 1010
N. Central Ave., Glendale, CA 91202 -- CHANT & COMPANY A
Professional Law Corporation.


WASHINGTON GAS: Suit over Silver Spring Apartment Fire Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
WGL Holdings, Inc. and Washington Gas Light Company said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017,
that the Company is defending a class action suit related to the
Silver Spring, Maryland Incident.

Washington Gas continues to support the investigation by the NTSB
into the August 10, 2016 explosion and fire at an apartment
complex on Arliss Street in Silver Spring, Maryland, the cause of
which has not been determined.  Additional information will be
made available by the NTSB at the appropriate time.

On November 2, 2016, two civil actions were filed in the District
of Columbia Superior Court against WGL and Washington Gas (as well
as a property management company that is not affiliated with WGL
or Washington Gas), by residents of the apartment complex.  In one
lawsuit, twenty-nine plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for,
among others, wrongful death and personal injury. The other action
is a class action suit seeking total damages stated to be less
than $5 million for, among others, property damage and various
counts relating to the loss of the use of the premises. Both
actions allege causes of action for negligence, product liability,
and declaratory relief.

Thirty-two civil actions have been filed in the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County, Maryland seeking unspecified damages for
personal injury and property damage.

"We maintain excess liability insurance coverage from highly-rated
insurers, subject to a nominal self-insured retention. We believe
that this coverage will be sufficient to cover any significant
liability to it that may result from this incident. Management is
unable to determine a range of potential losses that are
reasonably possible of occurring and therefore we have not
recorded a reserve associated with this incident," the Company
said.

Washington Gas was invited by the NTSB to be a party to the
investigation and in that capacity continues to work closely with
the NTSB to help determine the cause of this incident.

WGL, through its subsidiaries, sells and delivers natural gas and
provides a variety of energy-related products and services to
customers primarily in the District of Columbia and the
surrounding metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia.


WELLS FARGO: Bid to Compel Response to Discovery Partly Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Discovery Requests and to
Extend the Non-Expert Discovery Deadline in the case captioned
Rachel Lieber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 1:16 CV 2868 (N.D. Ohio.).

Plaintiff, Rachel Lieber, brought this putative class action
against Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., pursuant to the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Defendant is the current
servicer of Plaintiff's and the putative class members' notes and
mortgages on real property that secure those notes.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated RESPA and the regulation
promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regarding
the interpretation of RESPA, known as Regulation X, when Defendant
failed to respond to Plaintiff's and the class members' qualified
written requests (QWRs), as defined by 12 U.S.C. Section
2605(e)(1)(B).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) sets forth the
permissible scope of discovery: "Parties may obtain discovery
regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any
party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the
action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to
relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of
the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible
in evidence to be discoverable."

Plaintiff sought:

   12. All Information Requests sent to Defendant by any Borrower
to which Defendant provided a Pending Litigation Response.

   13. All Pending Litigation Responses sent by Defendant in
response to any Borrower's Information Request.

   14. All Error Notifications sent to Defendant by any Borrower
to which Defendant provided, a Pending Litigation Response.

   15. All Pending Litigation Responses sent by Defendant in
response to any Borrower's Error Notification.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant's reliance on 15 U.S.C. Section
6801, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is misplaced because the Act does
not prohibit the disclosure of non-public personal information
regarding its customers when such disclosure is in response to a
discovery request in civil litigation. She argues that Defendant's
response is deficient because the redactions make it impossible to
determine whether Defendant provided the information requested or
corrected the error being asserted by a given customer.

The GLBA's restrictions against disclosure do not apply when a
financial institution releases information regarding its customers
in order to respond to judicial process. 15 U.S.C. Section
6802(e)(8). Courts have construed the judicial process exception
to mean that the Act does not prevent disclosure to a third party
in response to a discovery request in civil litigation.

Moreover, the Court notes that a protective order has already been
entered in this case that will protect the privacy of the
disclosed nonpublic personal information. Thus, the disclosure of
Defendant's customers' nonpublic personal information-which
Defendant states is the only information that it has redacted-is
discoverable and must be produced.  This portion of Plaintiff's
first motion to compel is, therefore, granted.

Defendant responded to Request for Admission No. 13 by stating
that, after a reasonable investigation into readily available
sources of information, it was unable to confirm the truth of this
Request and, therefore, it is denied. Plaintiff argues that
Defendant should be deemed to have admitted Request for Admission
No. 13 because the FDIC's website contains information stating
that it insures Ohio Savings Bank.

Defendant states that it was unable to confirm the truth of the
requested admission by investigating materials and information
within its control. It did not have a duty to go on the FDIC
website to verify the status of Ohio Savings Bank. Moreover, as
Defendant notes, Plaintiff can prove the bank's FDIC-insured
status with a printout from a government website. She does not
need an admission to establish this fact. This portion of
Plaintiff's first motion to compel is, therefore, denied.

Next, Plaintiff complains that Defendant's response to
Interrogatory 19 was inadequate. In this discovery request,
Plaintiff asked Defendant to identify the dates that it first
provided Plaintiff with a variety of information in response to
her RFI. She then listed 11 categories of information. Defendant
responded to the first five categories but objected to the
remaining on the basis that Plaintiff had exceeded her allotted 25
written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. It also
objected to several categories as being irrelevant or vague.

To demonstrate, Defendant's own prior actions would support a
finding that a particular borrower's inquiry related to servicing
-- and Defendant may be estopped from arguing otherwise. Given the
broad scope of discovery, the Court finds that these requests are
sufficiently relevant to Plaintiff's claim that Defendant failed
to provide an adequate response to her RFI's. Thus, this portion
of Plaintiff's first motion to compel is granted.

Defendant has already provided the information sought in
Interrogatories 19(j) and (k). Thus, this portion of Plaintiff's
first motion to compel is denied.

Plaintiff asks for a 90-day extension of the non-expert deadline.
She asserts that such an extension is warranted because she has
been diligent in reviewing the provided discovery and has
attempted to resolve several disputes without Court intervention.
According to Plaintiff, if she had known that Defendant's database
was searchable using field codes, she could have modified her
document requests to request only correspondence between Defendant
and customers who met the Class definition. As a result, she
argues that the delays in the production of documents relevant to
class certification could have been avoided, justifying her
request for a 90-day extension.

The Court does not agree. Defendant states that codes cannot be
used to identify who received an active litigation letter,
potential class members-and that, in fact, it had to manually
review files to produce the sample that it disclosed. Moreover,
while Short testified that he believed Defendant's computer system
runs on an SQL database, Plaintiff's counsel never asked Short
during the deposition if litigation codes and response codes could
be used to identify loans in which an "active litigation" letter
was sent.

Thus, Plaintiff's request for a 90-day extension of the non-expert
discovery is denied.

In Requests for Production Nos. 4 and 11, not only did Plaintiff
file her second motion to compel more than ten days beyond the
discovery cut-off of July 15, 2017, she filed it more than ten
days after Short's deposition, the date she claims she clearly
became aware that the Guidelines existed. Although the Court's
August 23, 2017 order allowed Plaintiff to file a second motion to
compel, in no way did the order indicate that Plaintiff would be
exempt from the timing requirements of the Local Rules. Thus, this
portion of Plaintiff's second motion to compel is denied.

Plaintiff's request to redepose Defendant's corporate
representative

The inability of a designee to answer every question on a
particular topic does not necessarily mean that the corporation
has failed to comply with its obligations under the Rule.  Short
provided extensive testimony on Defendant's operations, policies,
and procedures regarding the receipt, review, evaluation, and
investigation of correspondence from its customers.

He explained how CCRG processes correspondence with customers,
including how CCRG personnel input information into the computer
system. He described the menus in the system, and how codes and
information were entered. Although he may not have testified with
absolute perfection, the few times he was unable to answer a
question do not warrant allowing Plaintiff to take another
30(b)(6) deposition.

Thus, this portion of Plaintiff's second motion to compel is
denied.

Plaintiff states that Defendant's counsel provided the meaning of
some of the missing field codes in an email to Plaintiff's
counsel, but she states that she has concerns as to the
sufficiency of the response because it was not provided under
oath. Defendant must produce a verified list of these codes.

Accordingly, the Court ordered that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Discovery Requests and to
Extend the Non-Expert Discovery Deadline is granted in part and
denied in part, and Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel
Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Discovery Requests and to
Redepose Defendant's Corporate Representative is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 7, 2017
Memorandum of Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/y9z74kspfrom Leagle.com.

Rachel Lieber, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Flick, Dann Law
Firm,  810 Sycamore St., 3rd Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202

Rachel Lieber, Plaintiff, represented by Marc E. Dann, Dann Law
Firm, . 810 Sycamore St., 3rd Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 & Thomas
A. Zimmerman, Jr. -- tom@attorneyzim.com -- Zimmerman Law Office.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Scott A. King --
Scott.King@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson Hine, Jessica E.
Salisbury-Copper -- Jessica.Salisbury-Copper@ThompsonHine.com --
Thompson Hine & Richard A. Freshwater --
Richard.Freshwater@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson Hine.


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Fosdick" Class Suit Over CPI Policies
---------------------------------------------------------
Duane Fosdick, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a
Wells Fargo Dealer Services, and National General Insurance
Company, Case No. 3:17-cv-05111 (N.D. Cal., September 1, 2017), is
an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' unlawful
scheme of charging premiums for wrongfully force-placed collateral
protection insurance policies ("CPI policies") as well as
interest, fees, and other costs associated with the CPI policies.

Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. operate a
national association bank chartered in South Dakota with its
principal place of business in San Francisco, California.

National General Insurance operates an insurance company
headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Finberg, Esq.
      Eve H. Cervantez, Esq.
      ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
      177 Post Street Suite 200
      San Francisco, CA  94108
      Telephone: (415) 421-7151
      Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
      E-mail: jfinberg@altber.com
              ecervantez@altber.com

         - and -

      Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
      Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      600 West Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0800
      Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
      E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
             sward@barrack.com


WEST CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Merger Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
West Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the parties in five
class action lawsuits have entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the defendants that provides for, among other
things, the voluntary dismissal of the actions on mootness grounds
with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs.

On May 9, 2017, West entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement") by and among Mount Olympus Holdings,
Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), Olympus Merger Sub, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent
("Sub"), and the Company, providing for, subject to the
satisfaction or waiver of specified conditions, the acquisition of
West by Parent at a price of $23.50 per share in cash (the "Merger
Consideration"). Parent and Sub are affiliates of certain funds
managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC. Subject to
the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, Sub will be
merged into West (the "Merger"), with West surviving the Merger as
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent. The Merger Agreement and the
consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement have been unanimously approved by the Company's board of
directors.

In connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement between the Company and affiliates of certain funds
managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC, five
putative class action lawsuits were filed between June 26, 2017
and June 29, 2017 in the United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska: Scarantino v. West Corp., et al., 4:17-cv-
03080-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb.); Wyant v. West Corp., et al., 4:17-cv-
03081-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb.); Wilson v. West Corp., et al., 8:17-cv-
00228-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb.); Bushansky v. West Corp., et al., 4:17-cv-
03083-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb.); and Katz v. West Corp. et al., 4:17-cv-
03084-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb.).  The lawsuits were each filed against
West and the members of the Board, and two of the lawsuits were
additionally filed against Apollo Global Management and certain
affiliates of funds managed by Apollo Global Management, Mount
Olympus Holdings, Inc. and Olympus Merger Sub, Inc. Each alleges
that the proxy statement filed in connection with the Merger
violated federal securities laws in purportedly omitting to
disclose information necessary to make the statements therein not
materially false or misleading, including, among other things,
certain financial information. One of the lawsuits additionally
alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duties in,
among other things, purportedly conducting an inadequate sales
process that resulted in an offer that purportedly undervalues the
Company, and in filing the purportedly misleading proxy statement.

On July 19, 2017, West supplemented its disclosures with respect
to the transaction. On July 19, 2017, the plaintiffs in these five
actions entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
defendants that provides for, among other things, the voluntary
dismissal of the actions on mootness grounds with prejudice as to
the named plaintiffs.

West Corporation is a global provider of communication and network
infrastructure services.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Pending
------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that an appeal in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is now
pending.

The Company said, "Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas
in various states filed an individual and class actions against
us, our former affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX) and its
subsidiaries, and others alleging the manipulation of published
gas price indices and seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such
actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court for
consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues. We have agreed to
indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to this matter."

"In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc.
(Farmland), the court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting
one of our co-defendant's motion for summary judgment as to
Farmland's claims. On January 5, 2017, the court extended such
ruling to us, entering final judgment in our favor. Farmland has
appealed.

"In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court
issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motions for class
certification. On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for
permission to appeal the order, and the appeal is now pending."

Williams Companies owns gas pipeline and midstream businesses.






                             *********


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  * * *