---

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


          Thursday, September 21, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 187



                            Headlines

AAC HOLDINGS: Motion for Class Certification Granted
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Plaintiff's Class Action Appeal Underway
ADVANCED MICRO: Briefing on Bids for Summary Judgment Completed
ADVANCED MICRO: "Dickey" Lawsuit Underway in California
ALLEGHENY, PA: "Donohue" Class Suit Removed to W. Dist. Penn.

ARIZONA: Judge Hears Class Action Over Inmate Retaliation
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: "Brown" Suit Asserts Privacy Rights Violation
AT&T MOBILITY: "Day" Anti-trust Suit Removed to N.D. Ga.
AUSTRALIA: Murray-Darling Basin Authority Sued Over Flooding
BANK MUTUAL: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Associated Merger Plans

BANK OF NEW YORK: Depositary Receipt Litigation Pending
BEST BUY: Must Respond to Interrogatory Nos. 1-6 in "Harris"
BILL WHATCOTT: $103MM Class Action Over Anti-Gay Flyers Pending
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Louisiana Lawmaker Joins Mirapex Litigation
CABOKI LLC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Telephone Calls

CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in "Beard" Suit Has Final OK
CARE CAPITAL: Says Class Suits in Preliminary Stage
CHEMOURS CO: Accrued $320MM at June 30 in Drinking Water Case
CHICAGO, IL: Bid to Include Custodians in "Mann" Partly Denied
CHOP'T CREATIVE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Suit Says

CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Dail" Suit in Eastern District of NY
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Oct. 26 Hearing on "Medina" Case Settlement
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Report Due Today in Electrical Workers' Suit
COLE INTERNATIONAL: "Spurlock" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces APRA Investigation Amid Class Action

CONNBRO TAVERN: Faces "Zenteno" Suit in E.D. of New York
CPI CARD: Securities Litigation Remains Pending
CREDIT CONTROL: "Isaac" Class Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
DAVID F PRATT: Faces "Dieterich" Suit in E.D. Kentucky
DZ RESTAURANTS: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. of New York

ELI LILLY: Still Defends 3 Actos Class Suits in Canada
ELI LILLY: Seeks to Dismiss Appeal on "Strafford" Cymbalta Suit
ELI LILLY: Still Faces Product Liability Litigation over Cymbalta
ELI LILLY: Defendant in 495 Byetta(R) Product Liability Suits
ELI LILLY: Still Defends 540 Axiron(R) Product Liability Suits

ELI LILLY: Still Defends 110 Cialis Product Liability Lawsuits
ELI LILLY: Still Faces Potential Class Suit on Glucagon Pricing
EQT PRODUCTION: Court Certifies Class, Sub-Classes in Kay Co Suit
EQUIFAX: Zuckerman Law Attorney Discusses Data Breach Case
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Benson" Suit in W. Dist. of Kentucky

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Amuial" Suit in S. D. Fla.
EUGENE & ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
EWORLDTRADE LLC: Bardales Files Suit Over Illegal SMS Ads
FAIRPAY: Settlement Won't Halt Litigation Against Client
FCA US: Faces "Malizia" Suit in S.D. of New York

FEDEX CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Adjusted Shipping Price
FIRST FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in "Do" Suit
GENCOR NUTRIENTS: Bitton Appeals Ruling in RICO Suit to 9th Cir.
GENERAL NUTRITION: Amended "Hubert" Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
GNC HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Amended "Martin" Suit w/o Prejudice

HUNTER WARFIELD: Settlement in "McCullen" Has Prelim. Approval
IXYS CORP: Monteverde Investigates Potential Securities Claims
J. RECKNER ASSOCIATES: "Lyngaas" Sues Over Illegally-Faxed Ads
JAYPPEE INFRATECH: Homebuyers File Public Interest Litigation
JOHN C WILLIAMS: Faces "Hofstatter" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

KABUKI RESTAURANTS: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Underwood Moves to Certify Class of Consumers
LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Stockholders Class Certified in "Howard" Suit
M-QUBE INC: Court Denies Banks' Bids to Intervene in "Cullan"
MADISON COUNTY, IL: Class Action Over Tax Scheme Pending

MDL 2179: Oil Spill Claims vs. Nalco Remain Pending
MDL 2284: Court Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Gaffey Appeal
MDL 2284: Ct. Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Gallant's Appeal
MDL 2284: Court Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Stones' Appeal
MDL 2284: Court Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Teffts' Appeal

MDL 2284: Court Affirms Arborists' Denial of Borowski's Appeal
METROPOLITAN TRANSPO: Faces "Dejesus" Suit in S.D. of New York
MONSANTO: Arkansas Lawyers, Regulators Ponder Dicamba
MONTANA: Faces Class Action Over Unfair License Suspension Policy
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Appeals Order in "Brinkley" Suit to 9th Cir.

NATIONAL COLLECTION: Faces "Willis" Suit in N.D. of Indiana
NCC BUSINESS: Faces "Sharon" Suit in E.D. of New York
NIKE RETAIL: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in 9th Circuit Court
OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Awaits Court OK of $2.85MM NSLP Class Pact
PACIFIC COAST OIL: Feb. 2018 Hearing Set for Accord Compliance

PATINA RESTAURANT: Faces "Li" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
PEPPERIDGE FARM: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Alfred" Suit
PETCO ANIMAL: "Wagner" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Calif.
PGE COMPANY: Appeal on Dismissal of Trojan Actions Still Pending
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Wins Final Nod of "Klippel" Suit Settlement

R & L CARRIERS: Court Approves Settlement in "Herrera" Class Suit
RASH CURTIS: Court Certifies Four Classes in "McMillion" Suit
RENT-A-CENTER: Still Defends "Hall" and "DePalma" Suits in Texas
RICHMOND ORGANIZATION: Summary Judgment Granted in Copyright Suit
SELECT COMFORT: "Spade" Class Action Appeal Pending in 3rd Cir.

SOUTHERN OPERATIONS: "Branco" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Pay
SOVRAN SELF STORAGE: Deadlines in "Castro" Class Suit Stayed
SPRINT/UNITED: Settlement in "Salamanca" Has Prelim. Approval
SSA COOPER: Stevedores File Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: "Campbell" and "Neal" TCPA Lawsuits Ongoing

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Faces "Kincaid" TCPA Class Litigation
TEVA PHARMA: Faces "Baker" Securities Class Action in Penn.
TOWN RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. of New York
USA: Faces "Micu" Suit in United States Court of Federal Claims
VALBIN CORP: Saleh Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Class

WELLS FARGO: Faces "Meeks" Suit in S. Dist. Miss.
WELLS FARGO: Iowa AG Probes Fake Accounts Scandal Amid Suits
WOW BAO: Illegally Uses Class Members Biometric Data, Suit Says
ZONI LANGUAGE: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

* CFPB Statistics Reveal Arbitration Rule's Fatal Flaws










                            *********


AAC HOLDINGS: Motion for Class Certification Granted
----------------------------------------------------
AAC Holdings, 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
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a shareholder
litigation.

On August 24, 2015, a shareholder filed a purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers (Kasper v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.). The
plaintiff generally alleges that the Company and certain of its
current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
and failing to disclose certain information.

On September 14, 2015, a second class action against the same
defendants asserting essentially the same allegations was filed in
the same court (Tenzyk v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.).

On October 26, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating
these two described actions into one action.  On April 14, 2016,
the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.  On July 1,
2016, the court denied the motion to dismiss.  On July, 14, 2017,
the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

In a related matter, on November 28, 2015, a shareholder filed a
derivative action on behalf of AAC Holdings, Inc. in the Eighth
Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada (Bushansky v.
Jerrod N. Menz et al.) against AAC Holding's board of directors
and certain of its officers alleging that these directors and
officers breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in
mismanagement and illegal conduct.  On January 19, 2016, the Court
entered an Order staying this litigation pending the earlier of
the close of discovery in the related securities class action
pending in Tennessee or the deadline for appealing any dismissal
of the securities class action.

The Company is vigorously defending these actions.

AAC Holdings, Inc. is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee and
provides substance abuse treatment services for individuals with
drug and alcohol addiction.


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Plaintiff's Class Action Appeal Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Drainage Systems, 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 plaintiff's
appeal in a class action lawsuit remains pending.

On July 29, 2015, a putative stockholder class action, Christopher
Wyche, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-
05955-KPF), was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "District Court"), naming the
Company, along with Joseph A. Chlapaty, the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, and Mark B. Sturgeon, the Company's former
Chief Financial Officer, as defendants and alleging violations of
the federal securities laws. An amended complaint was filed on
April 28, 2016. The amended complaint alleges that the Company
made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact
in its public disclosures during the period from July 25, 2014
through March 29, 2016, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On March 10, 2017, the District Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims
against all defendants in their entirety and with prejudice.
Plaintiff has appealed the District Court's order to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the appeal is
pending.

The Company is a manufacturer of high performance thermoplastic
corrugated pipe, providing a comprehensive suite of water
management products and superior drainage solutions for use in the
underground construction and infrastructure marketplace.


ADVANCED MICRO: Briefing on Bids for Summary Judgment Completed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 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 briefing on
Plaintiffs' and defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment has
been completed.

On January 15, 2014, a class action lawsuit captioned Hatamian v.
AMD, et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226 (the Hatamian Lawsuit) was
filed against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. The complaint purports to
assert claims against the Company and certain individual officers
for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act. The plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed class of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock during the period April 4, 2011 through October 18,
2012. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged
materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by the
Company and the individual officers regarding the Company's 32nm
technology and "Llano" product, which statements and omissions,
the plaintiffs claim, allegedly operated to artificially inflate
the price paid for the Company's common stock during the period.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.

On July 7, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims. On March 31, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.
On May 14, 2015, the Company filed its answer to plaintiffs'
corrected amended complaint. On September 4, 2015, plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification, and on March 16, 2016,
the Court granted plaintiffs' motion.

A court-ordered mediation held in January 2016 did not result in a
settlement of the lawsuit. The discovery process has concluded.
Plaintiffs and defendants have filed cross-motions for summary
judgment, and briefing on those motions was completed in July
2017.

AMD is a global semiconductor company with facilities around the
world.


ADVANCED MICRO: "Dickey" Lawsuit Underway in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 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
continues to defend Dickey class action lawsuit.

On October 26, 2015, a putative class action complaint captioned
Dickey et al. v. AMD, No. 15-cv-04922 was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. Plaintiffs allege that the Company misled
consumers by using the term "eight cores" in connection with the
marketing of certain AMD FX CPUs that are based on the Company's
"Bulldozer" core architecture. The plaintiffs allege these
products cannot perform eight calculations simultaneously, without
restriction. The plaintiffs seek to obtain damages under several
causes of action for a nationwide class of consumers who allegedly
were deceived into purchasing certain Bulldozer-based CPUs that
were marketed as containing eight cores. The plaintiffs also seek
attorneys' fees.

On December 21, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was granted on April 7, 2016. The plaintiffs then
filed an amended complaint with a narrowed putative class
definition, which the Court dismissed upon the Company's motion on
October 31, 2016.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint, and
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On June 14, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss, and
allowing the plaintiffs to move forward with a portion of their
complaint. The putative class definition does not encompass the
Company's Ryzen or EYPC processors.

Based upon information presently known to management, the Company
believes that the potential liability, if any, will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or
results of operations.

AMD is a global semiconductor company with facilities around the
world.


ALLEGHENY, PA: "Donohue" Class Suit Removed to W. Dist. Penn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Susan Donohue, individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. The Retirement System
of Allegheny County and Retirement Board of Allegheny County, Case
No. GD-17-010276 was removed on September 6, 2017, from the
Allegheny County to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01167-CRE to the proceeding.

The Defendants provide retirement benefits for the County's active
and retired workers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tybe A. Brett, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      429 Fourth Avenue
      Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-8400
      Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
      E-mail: tbrett@fdpklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Brian P. Gabriel, Esq.
      CAMPBELL DURRANT BEATTY PALOMBO & MILLER, P.C.
      535 Smithfield Street, Suite 700
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 395-1267
      Facsimile: (412) 395-1291
      E-mail: bgabriel@cdblaw.com


ARIZONA: Judge Hears Class Action Over Inmate Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------
Clarice Silber, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
judge overseeing a class-action lawsuit over the quality of health
care in Arizona's prisons said on Sept. 11 that correction
officers cannot take disciplinary action against inmates close to
the time they testify or meet with their lawyers because it could
be conceived as retaliation.

U.S. Magistrate David Duncan repeatedly told Arizona corrections
staff testifying that though their disciplinary action might not
have been intended as retaliatory it could still be construed that
way from inmates and disrupt truthful communication in the
courtroom.

"I need to make sure even the perception doesn't exist because the
perception is in this case as dangerous for my purposes as the
reality," Duncan said.  He told corrections staff they would have
to find another time enforce that discipline.

The concern over retaliatory action arose because of incidents
like one inmate's reassignment into another cell after their
bunkmate testified, prisoners being put in jumpsuits, and an
inmate's property being moved when the inmate went to testify for
the case.

Perryville Warden Kim Currier testified the cell change was not
retaliatory and occurred because another set of inmates were
having issues and couldn't live together anymore.

Judge Duncan told Currier officers had 166 other inmates they
could have switched instead and advised the unit should not
interfere because other inmates would think that's retaliation.

The judge also asked at least six witnesses to explain why certain
email chains submitted to the court had different formatting for
dates and times, and sometimes showed the incorrect day of the
week beside the date.

"One of them is true, one of them is not.  But we don't know why,"
Duncan said to one witness when asking if corrections staff can
control the day or time while sending an email.

Daniel Struck, a lawyer representing the state, told Judge Duncan
that the attorneys will be checking with the technology teams for
the department to find an answer for the varying email sequences.

The 2014 settlement was won on behalf of 33,000 Arizona inmates
after some complained that their cancer went undetected or they
were told to pray to be cured after begging for treatment.  It
also alleged that the failure of medical staff at one prison to
diagnose the metastasized cancer of one inmate resulted in his
liver enlarging so his stomach swelled the size of a pregnant
woman at full term.

The state did not acknowledge any wrongdoing in settling the
lawsuit.

Attorneys challenging health services in the prisons have
repeatedly said the state is dragging its feet in making
improvements promised when settling the case.

Judge Duncan was critical of the state's methods of communication
in relaying the court's directives and said it's not working.
"Again it's not just in this retaliation context, it's in other
contexts as well where we've heard there are mixed messages and
contrary messages," Judge Duncan said. [GN]


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: "Brown" Suit Asserts Privacy Rights Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Brown, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00795 (W.D. Mich., August 30, 2017), seeks statutory
damages, actual damages and attorney's fees and costs of suit as
allowed by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Michigan
Regulation of Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff has a charged-off consumer debt that was acquired by
Asset Acceptance. Brown alleges privacy and seclusion rights
violations when Defendant's collection letter manifested the
nature of the debt that was made visible through the glassine
window of the envelope which contained the said letter. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
     WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
     350 S. Northwest HWY., Ste. 300
     Park Ridge, IL 60068
     Tel: (847) 701-5290
     Email: cwarner@warner.legal

            - and

     B. Thomas Golden, Esq.
     GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     2186 West Main Street, P.O. Box 9
     Lowell, MI 49331
     Tel: (616) 897-2900
     Email: btg@bthomasgolden.com


AT&T MOBILITY: "Day" Anti-trust Suit Removed to N.D. Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Roy A. Day, on behalf of himself and as a class
action on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AT&T
Mobility, LLC; AT&T Inc., Randall L. Stephenson, Defendants, Case
No. 16EV005512, filed in the State Court of Fulton County,
Georgia, on December 1, 2016, was removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on August 30,
2017 under Case No. 1:17-cv-03294.

The complaint alleges violation of federal and state antitrust
laws by coercing the Plaintiff to purchase a new mobile device to
obtain an "authentic" Microsoft Windows Phone operating system
software update, thus preventing Day from having his mobile phone
"unlocked." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented pro se.

Defendant is represented by:

      John P. Jett, Esq.
      Joshua Cole Hess, Esq.
      Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP - ATL
      Suite 2800, 1100 Peachtree Street, N.E.
      Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
      Tel: (404) 815-6020
      Email: jjett@kilpatricktownsend.com
             jchess@kilpatricktownsend.com


AUSTRALIA: Murray-Darling Basin Authority Sued Over Flooding
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Bunn, writing for Border Mail, reports that legal action
against Lake Hume's operators over flooding last year is on hold
after it failed to attract as much support as anticipated.

The action against the dam's managers, including the Murray-
Darling Basin Authority, was flagged after spring flooding last
year.

However, a year on and a writ has yet to be lodged by Melbourne
lawyer David Burstyner who has marshalled claimants.

"We think that roughly around half the persons in one of the
affected regions has registered with us," Mr Burstyner said.

"Not having the other half creates practical challenges for the
case, although it doesn't change the legal entitlements of the
half who have registered.

"We're considering whether there's a way to run a claim for the
benefit of those who have registered, because I believe they
remain disaffected by the 2016 floods and keen to recover loss."

However, there are no immediate plans to lodge a writ with
Mr Burstyner saying related legal action, including a case against
the operators of Brisbane's Wivehoe dam, was a factor.

"We continue to consider the authority's conduct was questionable,
and in particular we are concerned about the potential
unlawfulness of the level of disregard for forecasts from the
Bureau of Meteorology," he said.

"The law in this area looks like it will be tested in forthcoming
months, and we are monitoring those developments to see how that
could help a case for persons affected by the 2016 flooding."

Asked what percentage chance there was of the case proceeding
Mr Burstyner said it was "not something I can share".

He said the lack of claimants had affected freedom of information
activity related to the case.

"We made an FOI application, and in view of the above 'critical
mass' issues plus the fact that it was claimed that our request
had the potential to attract a vast volume of documents, and could
therefore be too burdensome, at this stage we are pursuing the
above matters before further progressing the FOI process,"
Mr Burstyner said.

He told The Border Mail in April the FOI request would relate to
how water releases from Lake Hume were handled and the detail
around the policy of holding its level at 99 per cent.

Asked if his number of claimants was still up to 70, Mr Burstyner
said "it's in that zone" before adding "I can't say more". [GN]


BANK MUTUAL: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Associated Merger Plans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bank Mutual Corporation, Michael T. Crowley, Jr.,
David C. Boerke, Richard A. Brown, Thomas H. Buestrin, Mark C.
Herr, Lisa A. Mauer, William J. Mielke, Robert B. Olson, Michael
I. Shafir, David A. Baumgarten, and Associated Banc-Corp, Case No.
2:17-cv-01209-DEJ (E.D. Wis., September 6, 2017), is brought on
behalf of all public stockholders of Bank Mutual to enjoin the
agreement and plan of merger with Associated Banc-Corp, pursuant
to which the Bank Mutual's stockholders will receive 0.422 shares
of Associated common stock for each share of Bank Mutual common
stock.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a Form S-4
Registration Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. However,
the Registration Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading, including, inter alia, the
following sections of the Registration Statement: (i)
"Background of the Merger"; (ii) "Bank Mutual's Reasons for the
Merger; Recommendation of the Bank Mutual Board of Directors";
(iii) "Opinion of Bank Mutual's Financial Advisor"; and (iv)
"Certain Associated and Bank Mutual Unaudited Prospective
Financial Information."

The failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as stockholders need
such information in order to cast a fully-informed vote in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, says the Plaintiff.  The
Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest
Bank Mutual'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.

Bank Mutual Corporation is the third largest financial institution
holding company headquartered in Wisconsin based on total assets.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Cabaniss, Esq.
      CABANISS LAW
      839 N Jefferson St., Suite 400
      Milwaukee, WI 53202
      Telephone: (414) 220-9211
      Facsimile: (414) 220-9214

         - and -

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


BANK OF NEW YORK: Depositary Receipt Litigation Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon 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 continues to defend the so-called Depositary Receipt
Litigation.

Between late December 2015 and February 2016, four putative class
action lawsuits were filed against BNY Mellon asserting claims
relating to BNY Mellon's foreign exchange pricing when converting
dividends and other distributions from non-U.S. companies in its
role as depositary bank to Depositary Receipt issuers. The claims
are for breach of contract and violations of ERISA. The lawsuits
have been consolidated into two suits that are pending in federal
court in the Southern District of New York.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation was the first company
listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BK).  It manages and
services assets for financial institutions, corporations and
individual investors in 35 countries and more than 100 markets. As
of June 30, 2017, BNY Mellon had $31.1 trillion in assets under
custody and/or administration ("AUC/A"), and $1.8 trillion in
assets under management ("AUM").


BEST BUY: Must Respond to Interrogatory Nos. 1-6 in "Harris"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned STARVONA HARRIS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. BEST
BUY STORES, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00446-HSG (KAW)(N.D.
Cal.), Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California ordered the Defendant to furnish
(i) the contact information for a random sample of 500 potential
class members in response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-3 within
14 days of the Order; and (i) the supplemental responses to
Special Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 6 and Requests for Production
Nos. 4 and 6 -- if available in a searchable, electronic format --
that include responsive information to the present date, also
within 14 days of the Order.

On Feb. 11, 2015, Plaintiff Harris filed a Fair Labor Standards
Act collective action and California class action lawsuit against
her former employer, Best Buy, for violations of wage and hour
laws.  The Plaintiff was employed by Best Buy from October 2013 to
September 2014.  The district court granted summary judgment as to
Ms. Harris's unpaid overtime claim under FLSA and California law,
because, during the fiscal months she earned Monthly STI Bonuses,
she did not work overtime hours in the same workweek she earned a
Path to Excellence bonus.  As a result, Ms. Harris' federal and
state overtime claims were dismissed, and, ultimately, the
district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the remaining state law claims, and dismissed the case without
prejudice.

On Dec. 29, 2016, Plaintiffs Harris and Jonathan Strickland filed
the instant lawsuit in state court alleging violations of
California unpaid wage and overtime law.  The case was removed to
federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act.

On July 24, 2017, the parties filed separate joint letters
concerning the sufficiency of the Defendant's responses to
Plaintiff Harris' first set of interrogatories and her first set
of requests for production of documents.  Since the letters
address similar issues, Judge Westmore resolves both in a single
order.

As an initial matter, the parties disagree on the relevant time
period.  The Plaintiff argues that the word "commenced" in section
203 refers to the date of certification rather than the date the
putative class action was filed.  The Defendant, on the other
hand, argues that "commenced" refers to the date the prior lawsuit
was filed, which was on Feb. 11, 2015, such that the Plaintiff is
not entitled to discovery after that date.  Judge Westmore finds
that the district court has not made a dispositive ruling
regarding the class period.  As relevancy is a broad standard, she
declines to limit the discovery at this juncture.  Accordingly,
for the purposes of discovery, and until the district court makes
a dispositive ruling regarding the commencement issue in the
section 203 context, Best Buy will provide responsive information
until such a date as the class is certified.

The special interrogatory Nos. 1-3 seek the identities and contact
information for putative class members and PAGA-aggrieved
employees.  The contact information sought includes names,
addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses.  Judge Westmore
finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently established that she
requires the information sought to substantiate the class
allegations.  But, she agrees with the Defendant that the
Plaintiff is not entitled to the contact information for all
putative class members and PAGA-aggrieved employees.  Rather, a
random sample is more appropriate at this juncture.  Given the
large size of the putative class, the Judge finds that the 500
employees previously offered by the Defendant is appropriate.
That said, Best Buy will produce the names, last known address,
phone number, and email address of each member of the sample,
which will be obtained randomly.  Furthermore, the Plaintiff's
counsel is instructed to inform each potential class member that
(i) he or she has a right not to talk to counsel; and (ii) that,
if he or she elects not to talk to counsel, the Plaintiff's
counsel will terminate the contact and not contact them again.

Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 6 seek the last dates of employment for
putative class members who either resigned or were terminated.
The dispute is whether Best Buy must produce information from Feb.
11, 2015 to present.  Pursuant to the foregoing, Judge Westmore
ordered Best Buy is to produce that information.  The Requests for
Production Nos. 4 and 6 similarly seek all documents relating to
the dates their employment was terminated including, but not
limited to, time entry records, discharge notices and searchable,
electronic documents.  The Judge denied the Plaintiff's request to
compel those records.  To the extent, however, that Best Buy has
access to any such responsive information to either these requests
or the corresponding interrogatories in a searchable, electronic
format -- database or otherwise -- that information will be
produced.

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

Starvonna Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Francis Woodall
-- kevin@kwoodalllaw.com - Woodall Law Offices.

Starvonna Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Page R. Barnes, Barnes
Law Offices.

Jonathan Strickland, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Francis
Woodall, Woodall Law Offices & Page R. Barnes, Barnes Law Offices.

Best Buy Stores, L.P., Defendant, represented by Barbara Jean
Miller -- barbara.miller@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, Bryan Jarrett -- bryan.jarrett@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Sarah Jane Allen --
sarah.allen@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP.


BILL WHATCOTT: $103MM Class Action Over Anti-Gay Flyers Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Lindsay, writing for CBC News, reports that a notorious
white nationalist has been granted the right to intervene in a
human rights case involving flyers that targeted a transgender
candidate in the B.C. election.

Morgane Oger, the defeated NDP candidate for Vancouver-False
Creek, filed a complaint against Bill Whatcott after he
distributed handouts accusing her and her party of "promoting a
false narrative" -- specifically, that she is a woman.

In a decision on Sept. 8, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal granted
intervener status to Paul Fromm, arguing on behalf of the Canadian
Association for Free Expression (CAFE).  Mr. Fromm is a self-
described white nationalist and the director of CAFE, a non-profit
that has intervened in several human rights cases across Canada
involving, for example, Holocaust deniers and homophobic websites.

Ms. Oger told CBC News that she was disappointed by the decision.

"I feel that it's regrettable," she said.  "I am tired a little
bit of people thinking that just because they hate someone . . .
they can just negate their existence.  It's time that this ends,
and CAFE is going to try to keep this going instead of putting an
end to what to me is an open-and-shut case."

Mr. Fromm had argued that CAFE's presence was necessary during
proceedings because Mr. Whatcott could not afford a lawyer.

And tribunal member Walter Rilkoff agreed, but only to an extent.

"Given CAFE's extensive participation in other fora in Canada, I
have decided that its submissions may be of assistance but only
for the purpose of making written and oral submissions," Mr.
Rilkoff wrote in his decision.

Mr. Fromm will not be allowed to cross-examine any witnesses, and
will have to file applications to call witnesses of his own.

A history of extremism

Like Mr. Fromm, the man at the centre of the complaint also has a
long history of promoting extremist views.

Mr. Whatcott was the subject of a landmark 2013 ruling from the
Supreme Court of Canada upholding the country's hate speech laws,
and is currently facing a $103-million class action lawsuit over
graphic anti-gay flyers distributed during last year's Toronto
Pride parade.

The flyers he distributed in Yaletown this spring used graphic and
derogatory language, and expressed "concern about the promotion
and growth of homosexuality and transvestitism in British Columbia
and how it is obscuring the immutable truth about our God-given
gender."

Ms. Oger remembers learning about the flyers during a debate with
her Liberal opponent, Sam Sullivan.

"My initial reaction was devastation.  It was like, oh God, how
horrible.  My fear was, what are people going to think? Is this
going to actually affect people?" she said.

Friends, family and members of the community rallied around her,
Ms. Oger said, but she was still worried about her safety.

"I was concerned that his language could actually cause others to
act in a more violent way," she said.

The complaint alleges discrimination on the basis of gender
identity, language that was only added to the B.C. Human Rights
Code last year, thanks in part to Ms. Oger's advocacy.

Another would-be intervener

Meanwhile, the Sept. 8 tribunal decision reveals that Fromm wasn't
the only person applying to intervene in the case.

A Vancouver Island man named Gordon Watson, who described himself
as "Justice Critic for the Party of Citizens Who Have Decided to
Think for Ourselves and Be Our Own Politicians," also asked for
intervener status.

In all, Mr. Watson submitted 13 single-spaced pages to the
tribunal, covering topics ranging from homosexuality to raw milk
to the Harmonized Sales Tax.  He wanted to argue, among other
things, "that some of the judges on the Supreme Court of Canada
were illegally appointed," according to Mr. Rilkoff.

The tribunal did not accept his application. [GN]


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Louisiana Lawmaker Joins Mirapex Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Barlowe, writing for Casino.org, reports that Louisiana
lawmaker Jerome "Dee" Richard (I-District 55) has promised to pay
back $37,000 he spent from his campaign account on gambling,
actions which he has blamed on his Parkinson's medication.  On
Sept. 6, Mr. Richard promised to pay restitution, and indicated
he'd reached an agreement with the Board of Ethics that stipulates
both repayment and admitting improper use of donations.

The 62-year-old legislator, one of three independents in the State
House, said he raided the account that is supposed to be used for
reelection-related expenses after draining his personal funds.  He
did not disclose what type of gambling he was participating in,
though New Orleans is less than an hour away from his home of
Thibodaux and has more than 10 casinos.
While Mr. Richard quickly acknowledged his misdeed, the political
fallout is still undetermined.  He did send a letter of apology to
his fellow legislative members and has said he wants to continue
serving his constituents.

"My intentions are to serve out the remainder of this term," Mr.
Richard said.  "I know people will call for my head and that's to
be expected . . . The hard part is facing the public.  I'm just
asking forgiveness, is all I can do."

Medication and Gambling Don't Mix

The politician has been in office since 2008 and began taking a
prescription for Parkinson's Disease in 2011.  That is when he
said he developed an interest in gambling.

"The drugs involved, I'm sure they had something to do with it,"
he said.  "But I've taken responsibility, and I'm moving forward."

He claimed the activity continued until mid-2015 when he stopped
taking Pramipexole, which is marketed under the name Mirapex, to
treat the hand tremors he was experiencing.

Class action suits in both the US and Canada have been in
courtrooms since 2010, and Mr. Richard said he waited too long to
be a part of that litigation.

Study Backs Up Richard's Claims

Pramixpexole is part of a group of drugs called dopamine agonists
that not only treat Parkinson's Disease, but have also been used
for restless leg syndrome.

As early as 2005, research indicated a link between that class of
drugs and impulse control behaviors such as excessive gambling,
shopping, and sexual activity.  A more recent investigation,
published in December 2014 by the Journal of American Medicine
Association, supported the connection as well.

"As a paper, it really isn't telling us anything we didn't know,
it's just reinforcing it," said Dr. Howard Weiss, an associate
professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, who published
a commentary that accompanied the study.  "But it needs
reinforcing because most physicians aren't aware of the problem or
underestimate the severity."

With that research and the subsequent lawsuits, researchers are
trying to find alternative medications to treat the disease.  They
have created a new type of generic drug called levodopa, which
enters the brain and converts to dopamine, but does not have the
adverse side effects related to Pramixpexole. [GN]


CABOKI LLC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Tuan Nguyen, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Caboki LLC, and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. RG 17874064 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 5,
2017), arises out of the Defendant's policy and practice of
recording and monitoring consumer-initiated telephone calls routed
to its' toll-free customer service telephone numbers without the
consent of all parties.

Caboki LLC is in the business of selling hair-loss treatment
products for men and women. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric A. Grover, Esq.
      Rachel G. Jung, Esq.
      KELLER GROVER LLP
      1965 Market Street
      San Francisco, CA 94103
      Telephone: (415) 543-1305
      Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
      E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
              rjung@kellergrover.com

         - and -

      Scot Bernstein, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN
      A Professional Corporation
      101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
      Folsom, CA 95630
      Telephone: (916) 447-0100
      Facsimile: (916) 933-5533
       E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com


CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in "Beard" Suit Has Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada granted final approval of the class settlement
in the captioned JASON BEARD, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT CORP.,
CAESARS ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00833-JAD-NJK (D. Nev.).

On Sept. 8, 2017, Judge Dorsey considered the Joint Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.  Having fully
considered the motion, comments of counsel, and all supporting
legal authorities, the Judge granted final approval to the
Settlement Agreement and adopted its defined terms.

Judge Dorsey confirmed the appointment of Jason Beard as the class
representative.  She approved the enhancement payment of $10,000
to Mr. Beard, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.  She also
confirmed the appointment of Thierman Buck LLP as the class
counsel for the settlement class and approved their requests for
attorneys' fees and litigation costs of $59,000 and $2,000,
respectively.  The Judge finds that the settlement administrator
Simpluris is entitled to $6,199 for administrative fees.  Judge
Dorsey directed the parties to effectuate the settlement terms as
set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the settlement
administrator to calculate and pay the claims of the class members
in accordance with the terms set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.

The Complaint is dismissed on the merits and with prejudice, and
the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the
settlement, including the payment of the settlement fund.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 8, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/fPFpz0 from Leagle.com.

Jason Beard, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D. Buck, Thierman
Buck, LLP.

Jason Beard, Plaintiff, represented by Leah Lin Jones, Thierman
Buck, LLP & Mark R. Thierman, Thierman Buck, LLP.

Caesars Entertainment Corp., Defendant, represented by James A.
McKenna -- McKennaJ@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., pro
hac vice, Jason A. Selvey -- SelveyJ@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis P.C., pro hac vice & Elayna J. Youchah --
YouchahE@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.

Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by James
A. McKenna, Jackson Lewis P.C., pro hac vice, Jason A. Selvey,
Jackson Lewis P.C., pro hac vice & Elayna J. Youchah, Jackson
Lewis P.C.


CARE CAPITAL: Says Class Suits in Preliminary Stage
---------------------------------------------------
Care Capital Properties, 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 class action
lawsuits against the Company are in a preliminary stage.

The Company said, "Between June 29 and July 10, 2017, five
putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, and were subsequently
consolidated under the caption In re Care Capital Properties, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 1:17-cv-00859-LPS
(the "Consolidated Delaware Litigation").  The Consolidated
Delaware Litigation names us and our directors as defendants, and
certain of the lawsuits also name as defendants Sabra, PR Sub,
LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sabra ("Merger Sub"), Care
Capital LP, and Sabra Health Care Limited Partnership ("Sabra
LP")."

"On June 30, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit (Douglas v.
Care Capital Props., Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-04942) (the
"Illinois Litigation") was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us and our
directors, and on July 28, 2017, the Court entered the parties'
voluntary stipulation staying the Illinois Litigation. All six
lawsuits allege that the joint proxy statement/prospectus related
to the proposed merger violated federal securities laws in
purportedly omitting to disclose information necessary to make the
statements therein not materially false or misleading. The
lawsuits seek, among other things, an injunction of the proposed
merger; dissemination of a revised registration statement;
declarations that the registration statement violated federal
securities laws; damages, including rescissory damages; and an
award of costs and attorneys' fees. The lawsuits are in a
preliminary stage.

"We, our directors, Sabra, Merger Sub, Care Capital LP, and Sabra
LP believe that each of these actions is without merit. Additional
lawsuits arising out of or relating to the merger agreement or the
merger may be filed in the future."

Care Capital is a self-administered, self-managed REIT with a
diversified portfolio of skilled nursing facilities ("SNFs") and
other healthcare assets operated by private regional and local
care providers.


CHEMOURS CO: Accrued $320MM at June 30 in Drinking Water Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours 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, that the Company has accrued
$320 million and $335 million associated with the MDL Settlement
at June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.

Prior to the fourth quarter of 2014, the performance chemicals
segment of DuPont made PFOA at its Fayetteville, North Carolina
plant and used PFOA as a processing aid in the manufacture of
fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers at certain sites including:
Washington Works, Parkersburg, West Virginia; Chambers Works,
Deepwater, New Jersey; Dordrecht Works, Netherlands; Changshu
Works, China; and Shimizu, Japan.  These sites are now owned
and/or operated by Chemours.

Chemours recorded accruals of $335 million and $349 million
related to the PFOA matters at June 30, 2017 and December 31,
2016, respectively. Specific to the PFOA MDL Settlement, the
Company recorded accruals of approximately $320 million and $335
million at June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.

The Company said, "During the second quarter of 2017, we paid $15
million of the PFOA MDL Settlement and we expect to pay the
remaining amount accrued for the PFOA MDL Settlement in August
2017.

"The accruals also include charges related to DuPont's obligations
under agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and voluntary commitments to the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection. These obligations and voluntary
commitments include surveying, sampling and testing drinking water
in and around certain company sites offering treatment or an
alternative supply of drinking water if tests indicate the
presence of PFOA in drinking water at or greater than the national
health advisory. A provisional health advisory level was set in
2009 at 0.4 parts per billion (ppb) that includes PFOA in drinking
water.

"In May 2016, the EPA announced a health advisory level of 0.07
ppb that includes PFOA in drinking water.  As a result, we
recorded an additional $4 million in the second quarter of 2016
based on management's best estimate of the impact of the new
health advisory level on the Company's obligations to the EPA,
which have expanded the testing and water supply commitments
previously established.  Based on prior testing, the Company has
initiated additional testing and treatment in certain additional
locations in and around the Chambers Works and Washington Works
plants.  The Company will continue to work with the EPA regarding
the extent of work that may be required with respect to these
matters.

                      Drinking Water Actions

"In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking
water.

"DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project. Chemours, through DuPont, funded a
series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by
an independent science panel of experts (C8 Science Panel). The
studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate
available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists,
as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA
and human disease.  The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as
defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and
pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia, kidney
cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis and
diagnosed high cholesterol.

"In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors
released its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic
testing of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical
panel recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three
years after initial testing, based on individual results. The
medical panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for
completion of its protocol. Through DuPont, Chemours is obligated
to fund up to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for
eligible class members and, in addition, administrative cost
associated with the program, including class counsel fees. In
January 2012, Chemours, through DuPont, put $1 million in an
escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the
settlement agreement. The court-appointed Director of Medical
Monitoring has established the program to implement the medical
panel's recommendations and the registration process, as well as
eligibility screening, is ongoing. Diagnostic screening and
testing is ongoing and associated payments to service providers
are being disbursed from the escrow account.  As of June 30, 2017,
less than $1 million has been disbursed from the escrow account
related to medical monitoring.  While it is probable that the
Company will incur costs related to the medical monitoring program
discussed, such costs cannot be reasonably estimated due to
uncertainties surrounding the level of participation by eligible
class members and the scope of testing.

"In addition, under the Leach settlement agreement, DuPont must
continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level
of PFOA in water to six area water districts and private well
users.  At separation, this obligation was assigned to Chemours,
which is included in the accrual amounts recorded as of June 30,
2017.

"Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists. At June 30, 2017 and December
31, 2016, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits filed in various
federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia, an increase of
approximately 600 over year-end 2014.  These lawsuits are
consolidated in an MDL in Ohio federal court.  In the third
quarter of 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for
individual bellwether trials.

                 Litigation and Procedural Posture
                  Prior to Stay of MDL Litigation

"The six bellwether cases in the MDL were tried, resolved,
appealed or otherwise addressed.  Two bellwether cases were tried
to adverse verdicts, and three were settled for confidential
amounts well below the incremental cost of preparing for trial and
that were individually and in the aggregate immaterial to the
Company. The final bellwether matter was removed from the
bellwether group when it was determined that the plaintiff did not
suffer from the alleged disease. Following the bellwethers, an
additional case was tried to an adverse verdict and a fourth trial
had commenced but was suspended when a settlement of the MDL was
reached.

"No other claims in the MDL have been settled or resolved during
the period presented.  Chemours, through DuPont, denies the
allegations in these lawsuits and will resume defending the
matters vigorously should the settlement not proceed.

        Settlement of MDL between DuPont and MDL Plaintiffs

"On February 11, 2017, DuPont entered into an agreement in
principle with plaintiffs' counsel representing the MDL plaintiffs
providing for a global settlement of all cases and claims in the
MDL, including all filed and unfiled personal injury cases and
claims that are part of the plaintiffs' counsel's claim inventory,
as well as cases that have been tried to a jury verdict (MDL
Settlement).  A final agreement was executed on March 31, 2017.
The total settlement amount is $670.7 million in cash, half of
which will be paid by Chemours and half paid by DuPont.  DuPont's
payment would not be subject to indemnification or reimbursement
by Chemours, and Chemours accrued approximately $335 million
associated with this matter at December 31, 2016.  In exchange for
payment of the total settlement amount, DuPont and Chemours will
receive a complete release of all claims by the settling
plaintiffs.  The MDL Settlement was entered into solely by way of
compromise and settlement and is not in any way an admission of
liability or fault by DuPont or Chemours.  At June 30, 2017, $15
million of the MDL Settlement balance has been paid.  Chemours
expects that the MDL Settlement will proceed to closure during the
third quarter of 2017.  Judicial proceedings related to this
action have been stayed pending finalization of the settlement.
If the MDL Settlement is terminated or otherwise does not proceed,
additional lawsuits may go to trial.

       Settlement between DuPont and Chemours Related to MDL

"DuPont and Chemours have also agreed, subject to and following
the completion of the MDL Settlement, to a limited sharing of
potential future PFOA liabilities (indemnifiable losses, as
defined in the separation agreement between DuPont and Chemours)
for a period of five years. During that five-year period, Chemours
would annually pay future PFOA liabilities up to $25 million and,
if such amount is exceeded, DuPont would pay any excess amount up
to the next $25 million (which payment will not be subject to
indemnification by Chemours), with Chemours annually bearing any
further excess liabilities under the terms of the separation
agreement. After the five-year period, this limited sharing
agreement would expire, and Chemours' indemnification obligations
under the separation agreement would continue unchanged.  Chemours
has also agreed that, upon the MDL Settlement becoming effective,
it will not contest its liability to DuPont under the separation
agreement for PFOA liabilities on the basis of ostensible defenses
generally applicable to the indemnification provisions under the
separation agreement, including defenses relating to punitive
damages, fines or penalties or attorneys' fees, and waives any
such defenses with respect to PFOA liabilities. Chemours has,
however, retained defenses as to whether any particular PFOA claim
is within the scope of the indemnification provisions of the
separation agreement.

                Recent Developments - Centre Water

In May 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of
Centre, Alabama filed suit against numerous carpet manufacturers
located in Dalton, Georgia and suppliers and former suppliers,
including DuPont, in Alabama state court.  The complaint alleges
negligence, nuisance and trespass in the release of perfluorinated
compounds, including PFOA, into a river leading to the town's
water source, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
Management believes that the probability of loss is remote.

                          PFOA Summary

"Chemours has accrued $320 million and $335 million associated
with the MDL Settlement at June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016,
respectively.  Chemours expects that the MDL Settlement will
proceed to closure during the third quarter of 2017; however, if
the MDL Settlement does not proceed, any cases stayed or
additional lawsuits may go to trial. An adverse ruling at trial
could result in our incurring additional costs and liabilities,
which are difficult to estimate beyond accrued amounts and involve
significant uncertainty due to the uniqueness of the individual
MDL plaintiffs' claims and the defenses to those claims, both as
to potential liability and damages on an individual claim basis,
and numerous unsettled legal issues, among other factors, such as
general versus specific causation, lack of specific fact discovery
allowed to date on vast majority of the cases, lack of validation
of basic facts associated with plaintiffs and related claims and
the three cases tried to verdict did not inform of the many
salient facts and legal issues needed for assessment of the other
cases.  The trials and appeals of the MDL matters can occur over
the course of many years.  Significant unfavorable outcomes in a
number of cases in the MDL could have a material adverse effect on
Chemours' consolidated financial position, results of operations
or cash flows.

"There could also be new lawsuits filed related to DuPont's use of
PFOA, its manufacture of PFOA or its customers' use of DuPont
products that may not be within the scope of the MDL Settlement.
Any such new litigation could also result in Chemours incurring
additional costs and liabilities.  Management believes it is
reasonably possible that the Company could incur losses related to
other PFOA matters in excess of amounts accrued, but any such
losses are not estimable at this time."

Chemours is a global provider of performance chemicals that are
key inputs in end-products and processes in a variety of
industries.


CHICAGO, IL: Bid to Include Custodians in "Mann" Partly Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned ATHERIS MANN, ET AL., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF
CHICAGO, ET AL., Defendants; ANGEL PEREZ, ET AL., Plaintiff, v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, ET AL., Defendants, Nos. 15 CV 9197, 13 CV 4531
(N.D. Ill.), Judge Mary M. Rownland of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in
part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant
City of Chicago to Include Certain Custodians from the Mayor's
Office.

The Plaintiffs sued Chicago police officers and the City of
Chicago alleging that the Defendants wrongfully arrested,
detained, and prosecuted them and that they were abused at the
Chicago Police Department's ("CPD") "off the books" detention
center located at the intersection of South Homan Street and West
Filmore Avenue in Chicago ("Homan Square").  In Perez v. City of
Chicago et al, the plaintiffs bring a class action lawsuit against
the Chicago police officers and the City alleging that they and
the members of the proposed class were subject to unconstitutional
police practices at "off the grid" facilities such as Homan
Square, where they were arrested, abused and detained without a
record of their arrest or access to counsel.

The Mann and Perez cases were consolidated for pretrial
proceedings.  The Court denied the City's motion to bifurcate
Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., discovery, stating that this is
not a run-of-the-mill Monell claim based on excessive force or
wrongful arrest.  The allegation is that the City sanctioned the
use of a facility, not a police station, to detain suspects
without charges and without access to counsel or families, used
coercive tactics during interrogations, and sanctioned a code of
silence.  The fact that the facility was not a police station, and
was unknown to the public, potential counsel and families of those
detained, raises a number of discovery questions as to the
policies that governed that facility, what level of command
authorized and knew about the facility, and the command structure
of the facility.  While these are currently contained in the
Monell count, questions about the authority of the individual
officers to detain the individual plaintiffs at Homan Square would
be fair discovery even absent the Monell claim.

To streamline discovery, the parties in both cases are working
jointly to conduct Monell discovery and have agreed on search
terms and the majority of custodians.  They also agree that
electronic discovery will include the Mayor's Office, but reached
an impasse on which custodians in the Mayor's Office should be
searched.  The Plaintiffs argue Mayor Rahm Emanuel and 10 members
of his senior staff, including current and former chiefs of staff
and communications directors are relevant to the Plaintiffs'
Monell claim.  The City responds that the Plaintiffs' request is
burdensome, and that the Plaintiffs have failed to provide any
grounds to believe that the proposed custodians were involved with
CPD's policies and practices at Homan Square.  The City proposes
instead that it search the two members of the Mayor's staff, Janey
Rountree and Felicia Davis, responsible for liasoning with the
CPD, and leave "the door open for additional custodians" depending
on the results of that search.

While Judge Rowland appreciates the City's agreement to search
these two custodians, this position undercuts the City's
contention that other custodians should not be searched because
the Plaintiffs have not shown a link between the Mayor's Office
and Homan Square.  The Judge understands that the City identified
Ms. Rountree and Ms. Davis as the most likely holders of
responsive emails.  But in light of the allegations in the
complaint, the Mayor and his upper level staff also might have
responsive emails.  Of course, it is possible that the search,
which is already limited by the agreed upon terms, will turn up
few responsive emails regardless of which custodian in the Mayor's
Office is searched.  But, Judge Rownland says, limiting the search
to Rountree and Davis (as the City proposes) may not capture many
responsive documents since it is possible that the Mayor or his
upper level staff communicated about Homan Square internally and
did not include Rountree, Davis, or the CPD in these
communications.

Judge Rowland is also mindful that every additional custodian
increases the risk of duplication of emails and the time and
resources necessary to review emails.  Therefore, she will not
require the City to search the following emails because of the
short tenure of the staff person or the time during which the
person held the position: Forest Claypool, Adam Collins, Joan
Coogan and Eileen Mitchell.

The City has agreed to search Ms. Rountree's and Ms. Davis'
emails.  Judge Rowland ordered the City to also include Mayor
Emanuel, Joe Deal (limited to the time period that he served as
either Deputy Chief of Staff or Chief of Staff), Kelly Quinn, Lisa
Schrader, and Shannon Breymaier, as custodians in the City's
search.  The Judge denied the Plaintiffs' request for sanctions.
She granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel.  Judge Rowland does not view the City's conduct as
sanctionable and both parties' diligent efforts to work together
shows that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

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

Atheris Mann, Plaintiff, represented by G. Flint Taylor, Jr. --
plo@peopleslawoffice.com -- People's Law Offices.

Atheris Mann, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Elson,
People's Law Office, Sarah Jeanette Gelsomino, People's Law Office
& Shubra Ohri, People's Law Office.

Jessie Patrick, Plaintiff, represented by G. Flint Taylor, Jr.,
People's Law Offices, Benjamin H. Elson, People's Law Office,
Sarah Jeanette Gelsomino, People's Law Office & Shubra Ohri,
People's Law Office.

Deanda Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by G. Flint Taylor, Jr.,
People's Law Offices, Benjamin H. Elson, People's Law Office,
Sarah Jeanette Gelsomino, People's Law Office & Shubra Ohri,
People's Law Office.

Angel Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Jason R. Epstein --
jason.epstein@nelsonmullins.com -- Law Offices of Jason Epstein.

Angel Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Scott T. Kamin --
scotttkamin@aol.com -- Law Offices of Scott T. Kamin & Phillip
Aaron Brigham, Law Office Of Phillip Brigham, Llc.

Jose Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Scott T. Kamin, Law
Offices of Scott T. Kamin & Michelle A. Alyea --
malyea@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, Llc.

Juanita Berry, Plaintiff, represented by Scott T. Kamin, Law
Offices of Scott T. Kamin, Michelle A. Alyea, Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, Llc & Cassandra P. Miller, Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

Calvin Coffey, Plaintiff, represented by Scott T. Kamin, Law
Offices of Scott T. Kamin, Michelle A. Alyea, Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, Llc & Cassandra P. Miller, Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

Estephanie Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Scott T. Kamin, Law
Offices of Scott T. Kamin & Michelle A. Alyea, Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, Llc.

City of Chicago, Defendant, represented by Jorge V. Cazares --
jcazares@pjjlaw.com -- Pugh, Jones & Johnson, P.C., Walter Jones,
Jr. -- wjones@pjjlaw.com -- Pugh, Jones & Johnson, P.C., Jonathan
Booker Cifonelli -- jcifonelli@pjjlaw.com -- Pugh, Jones &
Johnson, P.C. & Khara Coleman -- kcoleman@pjjlaw.com -- Pugh Jones
& Johnson PC.

Edmund Zablocki, Defendant, represented by Jorge V. Cazares, Pugh,
Jones & Johnson, P.C., Walter Jones, Jr., Pugh, Jones & Johnson,
P.C., Jonathan Booker Cifonelli, Pugh, Jones & Johnson, P.C. &
Khara Coleman, Pugh Jones & Johnson PC.

Joseph Wagner, Defendant, represented by Jorge V. Cazares, Pugh,
Jones & Johnson, P.C., Walter Jones, Jr., Pugh, Jones & Johnson,
P.C., Jonathan Booker Cifonelli, Pugh, Jones & Johnson, P.C. &
Khara Coleman, Pugh Jones & Johnson PC.

Herbert Betancourt, Defendant, represented by Jorge V. Cazares,
Pugh, Jones & Johnson, P.C., Walter Jones, Jr., Pugh, Jones &
Johnson, P.C., Jonathan Booker Cifonelli, Pugh, Jones & Johnson,
P.C. & Khara Coleman, Pugh Jones & Johnson PC.

Matthew Cline, Defendant, represented by Jorge V. Cazares, Pugh,
Jones & Johnson, P.C., Walter Jones, Jr., Pugh, Jones & Johnson,

P.C., Jonathan Booker Cifonelli, Pugh, Jones & Johnson, P.C. &
Khara Coleman, Pugh Jones & Johnson PC.

John Dolan, Defendant, represented by Jorge V. Cazares, Pugh,
Jones & Johnson, P.C., Walter Jones, Jr., Pugh, Jones & Johnson,
P.C., Jonathan Booker Cifonelli, Pugh, Jones & Johnson, P.C. &
Khara Coleman, Pugh Jones & Johnson PC.

Scott Kravitz, Defendant, represented by Jonathan Booker
Cifonelli, Pugh, Jones & Johnson, P.C..

Carlos Iglesias, III, Defendant, represented by Jonathan Booker
Cifonelli, Pugh, Jones & Johnson, P.C..

Jorge L Lopez, Defendant, represented by Jorge V. Cazares, Pugh,
Jones & Johnson, P.C., Walter Jones, Jr., Pugh, Jones & Johnson,
P.C., Jonathan Booker Cifonelli, Pugh, Jones & Johnson, P.C.,
Khara Coleman, Pugh Jones & Johnson PC & Matthew P. Dixon --
mdixon@querrey.com -- Querrey & Harrow, Ltd..

Mr. Atheris Mann, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by G. Flint
Taylor, Jr. -- plo@peopleslawoffice.com -- People's Law Offices.


CHOP'T CREATIVE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Wu and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Chop't Creative Salad Company LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-05130, (E.D. N.Y., August 30, 2017), seeks preliminary
and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to make its website
readily accessible to and usable by blind individuals as required
by Americans with Disabilities Act; compensatory damages;
applicable statutory and punitive damages and fines under New York
State Human Rights Law and City Law; pre- and post-judgment
interest; reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Defendant operates numerous "Chop't Creative Salad" restaurants
across the United States and operates a website that provides
consumers with access to an array of goods and services including
restaurant locations and hours, information about the food on its
menu in its retail restaurants for purchase, nutrition and
allergen information and the prices including the ability to order
in advance on the internet.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. She alleges that the Defendant's website is inaccessible
to blind users. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      227 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      Email: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
             jazeller@zellerlegal.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Dail" Suit in Eastern District of NY
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc. The case is styled as Jerilyn Dail, on behalf of herself
individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Client Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05439 (E.D.
N.Y., September 15, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Oct. 26 Hearing on "Medina" Case Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Clovis Oncology, 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 a final hearing is
scheduled for October 26, 2017, to determine whether the
settlement in the Sonny P. Medina class action lawsuit should be
approved.

On June 18, 2017, the Clovis Defendants entered into a stipulation
and agreement of settlement with the Arkin Plaintiffs, the lead
plaintiffs in the class action.  Pursuant to the deal, Clovis will
issue to the plaintiffs and participating class members  a total
consideration comprised of $25.0 million in cash and the issuance
of a to be determined number of shares of Clovis common stock (the
"Settlement Shares") equal to $117.0 million divided by the volume
weighted average price of Clovis common stock over the 10 trading
days immediately preceding the date of the hearing set by the
Medina Court to consider the final approval of the settlement.

On November 19, 2015, Sonny P. Medina, a purported Clovis
shareholder, filed a purported shareholder class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
(the "Medina Complaint"). The Medina Complaint purported to be
asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased Clovis
stock between May 20, 2014 and November 13, 2015, and it generally
alleged that Clovis and certain of its officers violated federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding the progress toward FDA approval and the
potential for market success of rociletinib.

Throughout November and December 2015, three other purported
shareholders filed similar purported class actions concerning
alleged misstatements about rociletinib. On January 19, 2016, a
number of motions were filed seeking to consolidate the
shareholder class actions into one matter and for appointment of a
lead plaintiff.

On February 18, 2016, the Medina Court consolidated the various
actions into a single proceeding and appointed M. Arkin (1999) LTD
and Arkin Communications LTD (the "Arkin Plaintiffs") as the lead
plaintiffs and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as lead
counsel for the putative class.

The Arkin Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 6, 2016
(the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint named
as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former
officers (the "Clovis Defendants"), certain underwriters (the
"Underwriter Defendants") for a Company follow-on offering
conducted in July 2015 (the "July 2015 Offering"), and certain
Company venture capital investors (the "Venture Capital
Defendants"). The Consolidated Complaint alleged that defendants
violated particular sections of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act"). The purported misrepresentations and omissions
concerned allegedly misleading statements about rociletinib. The
consolidated action was purportedly brought on behalf of investors
who purchased the Company's securities between May 31, 2014 and
April 7, 2016 (with respect to the Exchange Act claims) and
investors who purchased the Company's securities pursuant or
traceable to the July 2015 Offering (with respect to the
Securities Act claims). The Consolidated Complaint sought
unspecified compensatory and recessionary damages.

The Clovis Defendants, the Underwriter Defendants and the Venture
Capital Defendants filed motions to dismiss on July 27, 2016. On
February 9, 2017, the Medina Court issued an opinion and order
granting in part and denying in part the Clovis Defendants' motion
to dismiss, granting in part and denying in part the Underwriter
Defendants' motion to dismiss, and granting the Venture Capital
Defendants' motion to dismiss. On February 22, 2017, the Arkin
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint,
directed solely at repleading its Section 12(a) claims against the
Underwriter Defendants.

On March 14, 2017, the Clovis Defendants and the Arkin Plaintiffs
participated in a mediation, which did not result in a settlement.

The Company said the cash portion of the consideration is expected
to be funded by Clovis' insurance carriers. At June 30, 2017, the
liability for the issuance of the shares and cash, including the
amount to be reimbursed through insurance proceeds, was recorded
to accrued liability for legal settlement on the Consolidated
Balance Sheets in the amount of approximately $142.0 million and a
receivable of approximately $25.0 million from the insurance
carriers on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Clovis will issue the
Settlement Shares no later than 5 business days after the date the
judgment is entered by the Medina Court approving the settlement
whereby the issuance of the shares will be recorded in common
stock and additional paid-in capital and the accrued liability for
legal settlement will be cleared.

"As the settlement agreement is in response to the alleged
violation of securities laws by certain of our officers, we have
determined that the resulting loss does not relate to activities
that are in the normal course of our operations and therefore,
should not be recognized in operating losses for the period.
Accordingly, we have recognized the entire expense associated to
the settlement agreement in legal settlement loss within the other
income (expense), net of insurance receivable on the Consolidated
Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss," the Company
said.

On July 14, 2017, the Medina Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. A final hearing to determine whether the
settlement should be approved is scheduled for October 26, 2017.

Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring,
developing and commercializing innovative anti-cancer agents in
the United States, Europe and additional international markets.


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Report Due Today in Electrical Workers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clovis Oncology, 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 parties' second
status report is due on September 21, 2017, in the class action
lawsuit by the Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and Health &
Welfare Trusts.

On January 22, 2016, the Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and
Health & Welfare Trusts, a purported shareholder of Clovis, filed
a purported class action complaint (the "Electrical Workers
Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers, directors,
investors and underwriters in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo. The Electrical Workers Complaint
purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased stock in the July 2015 Offering. The Electrical Workers
Complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Act because the offering documents for the July 2015
Offering contained allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding the progress toward FDA approval and the potential for
market success of rociletinib. The Electrical Workers Complaint
seeks unspecified damages. On June 30, 2016, the Electrical
Workers Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting
substantially similar claims (the "Electrical Workers Amended
Complaint").

On September 23, 2016, following briefing and after hearing oral
argument, the Electrical Workers Court granted defendants' motion
to stay proceedings pending resolution of the Medina action. Per
the order to stay proceedings, the parties' first status report as
to the progress of the Medina action was filed on March 23, 2017.
The parties' second status report is due on September 21, 2017.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations
in the Electrical Workers Amended Complaint, but there can be no
assurance that the defense will be successful.

Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring,
developing and commercializing innovative anti-cancer agents in
the United States, Europe and additional international markets.


COLE INTERNATIONAL: "Spurlock" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah Spurlock, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cole International Tubular Service, LLC
d/b/a Cole Enterprises International Tubular Service, Case No.
4:17-cv-02674 (S.D. Tex., September 5, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs, pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cole International Tubular Service, LLC is an oilfield service
company with its headquarters located in Conroe, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces APRA Investigation Amid Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rod Myer, writing for TheNewDaily, reports that lawyers will be
closely watching the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's
investigation into the Commonwealth Bank to improve their chances
in what could turn into the biggest shareholder class action
Australia has seen.

APRA on Sept. 8 announced that three senior business and
regulatory figures would head the inquiry: former ACCC chief
Graeme Samuel, businesswoman and former Reserve Bank board member
Jillian Broadbent and former APRA chair John Laker.

The inquiry is a groundbreaking move, being the first time the
regulator has brought in outsiders to head its investigations and
the first time it has announced an investigation into a financial
institution and committed to publicly release the results.

"We will watch the Austrac proceedings, the APRA inquiry and the
ASIC investigation with interest," Maurice Blackburn's class
action chief Andrew Watson said.

The firm is currently signing up CBA shareholders for a class
action it claims could be the country's largest, eclipsing the
$200 million settlement achieved by shareholder in Centro
Properties after its GFC bust.

The firm expects to lodge its action within weeks and while the
reports of the APRA inquiry could help with the case "based on
what we already know, including CBAs own statements, we think
there is a compelling case which we intend to pursue in any
event", Mr Watson said.

CBA is the target of investigations by regulators ASIC and AUSTRAC
over its latest scandal, over 54,000 breaches of regulations on
money laundering and terrorism funding reporting.

APRA has cast the net much wider.  The regulator said on Sept. 8
its move involves "a number of issues which have raised concerns
regarding the frameworks and practices in relation to the
governance, culture and accountability within the CBA group, and
have damaged the bank's reputation and public standing".

It expects to take seven months to investigate the bank but will
issue two public reports, the first will be on January 31 and
another on April 30.  The latter report will include
recommendations of action.

The APRA inquiry has been likened to a Royal Commission into one
bank, with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull saying it would achieve
the same end in a shorter time.

"Now if you had a royal commission into the banks, as Mr [Bill]
Shorten proposes, it would take years, you would be flat out
getting an outcome within three years," Mr Turnbull said.

However the powers of the inquiry are very different to a
Commission.  APRA does not have power to compel witnesses to
appear, especially those from outside the bank and it will not be
conducted in an inquisitorial way with lawyers acting for parties
involved.  However CBA has said it will fully co-operate with the
inquiry.

That means the inquiry will effectively be able to speak to
whomever it chooses from within the bank.

While the inquiry is a first in being public and announced, there
are some precedents.  In 2004 NAB chose to release the results of
an APRA inquiry into a foreign exchange scandal that saw the bank
lose $360 million in unauthorised transactions.

The fallout saw CEO Frank Cicutto and chairman Charles Allen
resign, eight bank staff lose their jobs and one trader being
jailed. [GN]


CONNBRO TAVERN: Faces "Zenteno" Suit in E.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Connbro Tavern Corp.
doing business as: Connolly's Corner. The case is styled as Javier
Zenteno, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Connbro Tavern Corp. doing business as: Connolly's
Corner, Matthew Joseph Connolly and Patrick M. Connolly,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05423 (E.D. N.Y., September 15,
2017).

Connolly's Corner is a laid-back eatery & bar with tavern
surroundings, TV sports, brunch & live music on weekends.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CPI CARD: Securities Litigation Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------
CPI Card Group 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 CPI Card Group Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:16-CV-04531 (S.D.N.Y.) remains
pending.

On June 15, 2016, two purported CPI stockholders filed putative
class action lawsuits captioned Vance, et al. v. CPI Card Group
Inc., et al. and Chipman, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against CPI and certain of its officers and directors, along with
the sponsors of and the financial institutions who served as
underwriters for CPI's October 2015 initial public offering
("IPO"). The complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of all
purchasers of CPI common stock pursuant to the October 8, 2015
Registration Statement filed in connection with the IPO, assert
claims under Sections11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act") and seek, among other things,
damages and costs.

In particular, the complaints allege that the Registration
Statement contained false or misleading statements or omissions
regarding CPI's customers' (i) purchases of Europay, MasterCard,
and VISA chip cards (collectively, "EMV cards") during the first
half of fiscal year 2015 and resulting EMV card inventory levels,
and (ii) capacity to purchase additional EMV cards in the fourth
quarter of fiscal year 2015, and the remainder of the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015. The complaints allege that these actions
artificially inflated the price of CPI common stock issued
pursuant to the IPO.

On August 30, 2016, the Court consolidated the Vance and Chipman
actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (the "PSLRA").

On October 17, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, asserting the same claims for violations of Sections11
and 15 of the Securities Act. The amended complaint is based
principally on the same theories as the original complaints, but
adds allegations that the Registration Statement contained
inadequate risk disclosures and failed to disclose (i) small and
mid-size issuers' slower-than-anticipated conversion to EMV
technology and (ii) increased pricing pressure and competition CPI
faced in the EMV market.

On November 16, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. All discovery and other proceedings in the
action are stayed under the PSLRA pending the resolution of that
motion.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend the actions vigorously.  Given the current stage of these
matters, the range of potential loss is not probable or estimable
and no accrual has been recognized as of June 30, 2017 or December
31, 2016.

CPI Card Group Inc. is a provider of comprehensive Financial
Payment Card solutions in the United States.


CREDIT CONTROL: "Isaac" Class Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Aldean Isaac, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Credit Control
Services, Inc. doing business as: Credit Collection Services, Case
No. 607048/2017, was removed on September 5, 2017, from the
Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Suffolk to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central
Islip). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-05197
to the proceeding.

Credit Control Services, Inc. provides business process
outsourcing solutions for customers in the United States. [BN]

Aldean Isaac is a pro se plaintiff.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Matthew Brady Johnson, Esq.
      MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
      Wall Street Plaza
      88 Pine Street, 21st Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 376-6433
      Facsimile: (212) 376-6490
      E-mail: mbjohnson@mdwcg.com


DAVID F PRATT: Faces "Dieterich" Suit in E.D. Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against David F. Pratt,
Attorney at Law. The case is styled as Sherlton Dieterich, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
David F. Pratt, Attorney at Law, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00374-JMH (E.D. Ky., September 15, 2017).

The Defendant is engaged in the practice of law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Pamela Sue Petas, Esq.
   7439 Montgomery Road, Suite 3
   Cincinnati, OH 45236
   Tel: (513) 328-0995
   Fax: (513) 813-2992
   Email: ppetas@petaslaw.com


DZ RESTAURANTS: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DZ Restaurants, Inc.
The case is styled as Marion Kiler, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DZ Restaurants, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05432 (E.D. N.Y., September 15, 2017).

DZ Restaurants Inc. operates restaurants in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ELI LILLY: Still Defends 3 Actos Class Suits in Canada
------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company disclosed in its 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2017, that it continues to face three purported product liability
class actions in Canada related to the Actos diabetes medication.

The Company is named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd.
and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a defendant in the
three actions: one in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al. and Carrier et al. v.
Eli Lilly et al.); one in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et
al.); and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.).

The Company promoted Actos in Canada until 2009.

Eli Lilly further disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that there may be additional
product liability cases pending in the U.S. against the Company
related to the Actos diabetes medication.

The Company was named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd.
and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a defendant in
approximately 6,700 product liability cases in the U.S. related to
the diabetes medication Actos, which the Company co-promoted with
Takeda in the U.S. from 1999 until 2006.  In general, plaintiffs
in these actions alleged that Actos caused or contributed to their
bladder cancer.  Almost all of these cases were included as part
of a resolution program announced by Takeda in April 2015 in which
Takeda agreed to pay approximately US$2.4 billion to resolve the
vast majority of the U.S. product liability lawsuits involving
Actos.

The Company said, "Although the vast majority of U.S. product
liability lawsuits involving Actos are included in the resolution
program, there may be additional cases pending against Takeda and
us following completion of the resolution program."

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through two
segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products.  The Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana.


ELI LILLY: Seeks to Dismiss Appeal on "Strafford" Cymbalta Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company has moved to dismiss the appeal from a
district court's dismissal of the "Strafford" case, which involves
Cymbalta(R), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2017.  Specifically, the Company contends that the appeal
lacks jurisdiction based on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent
decision in Microsoft v. Baker.

In October 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a
purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (now called Strafford et al. v. Eli
Lilly and Company) involving Cymbalta.

The plaintiffs, purporting to represent a class of all persons
within the U.S. who purchased and/or paid for Cymbalta, asserted
claims under the consumer protection statutes of four states,
California, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York, and sought
declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for various alleged
economic injuries arising from discontinuing treatment with
Cymbalta.

In December 2014, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  Plaintiffs filed a petition with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting permission
to file an interlocutory appeal of the denial of class
certification, which was denied.

Plaintiffs filed a second motion for certification under the
consumer protection acts of New York and Massachusetts.  The
district court denied that motion for class certification in July
2015.

The district court dismissed the suit and plaintiffs are appealing
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Oral argument
is expected in late 2017.

In June 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction based on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in
Microsoft v. Baker.

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through two
segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products.  The Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana.


ELI LILLY: Still Faces Product Liability Litigation over Cymbalta
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2017, that it is named in approximately 140 lawsuits involving
approximately 1,470 plaintiffs filed in various federal and state
courts alleging injuries arising from discontinuation of treatment
with Cymbalta.

These include approximately 40 individual and multi-plaintiff
cases filed in California state court, centralized in a California
Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding pending in Los Angeles.

The first individual product liability cases were tried in August
2015 and resulted in defense verdicts against four plaintiffs.

The Company said, "We believe all these Cymbalta lawsuits and
claims are without merit."

The Company also disclosed, "We have reached a settlement
framework which provides for a comprehensive resolution of nearly
all of these personal injury claims, filed or unfiled, alleging
injuries from discontinuing treatment with Cymbalta.  There can be
no assurances, however, that a final settlement will be reached."

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through two
segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products.  The Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana.


ELI LILLY: Defendant in 495 Byetta(R) Product Liability Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2017, that it is named as a defendant in approximately 495
Byetta(R) product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving
approximately 760 plaintiffs.

Approximately 60 of these lawsuits, covering about 320 plaintiffs,
are filed in California state court and coordinated in a Los
Angeles Superior Court.

Approximately 435 lawsuits, covering about 440 plaintiffs, are
filed in federal court, the majority of which are coordinated in a
multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

The remaining three lawsuits, representing four plaintiffs, are in
various other state courts.

Approximately 485 of the lawsuits, involving approximately 720
plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed
to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid
cancer); most others allege Byetta caused or contributed to
pancreatitis.  The federal and state trial courts granted summary
judgment in favor of the Company and co-defendants on the claims
alleging pancreatic cancer; those rulings are being appealed by
the plaintiffs.

The Company is aware of approximately 20 additional claimants who
have not yet filed suit.  These additional claims allege damages
for pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer.

The Company said, "We believe these lawsuits and claims are
without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously."

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through two
segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products.  The Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana.


ELI LILLY: Still Defends 540 Axiron(R) Product Liability Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company is named as a defendant in approximately 540
Axiron(R) product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving
approximately 540 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2017.

In about one-third of the cases, other manufacturers of
testosterone are named as co-defendants.  Nearly all of these
lawsuits have been consolidated in a federal MDL in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A small
number of lawsuits have been filed in state courts.  The cases
generally allege cardiovascular and related injuries.  Medical
Mutual of Ohio has filed a class action complaint against multiple
manufacturers of testosterone products in the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of third party payers who paid for those
products.  The complainant is seeking damages under various state
consumer protection laws and the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (the federal RICO Act).

The Company said, "We believe these lawsuits and claims are
without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously."

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through two
segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products.  The Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana.


ELI LILLY: Still Defends 110 Cialis Product Liability Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company is named as a defendant in approximately 110
Cialis product liability lawsuits in the U.S., according to its
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2017

These cases, originally filed in various federal courts, contain
allegations that Cialis caused or contributed to the plaintiffs'
cancer (melanoma).  In December 2016, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) granted the plaintiffs' petition
to have the filed cases and an unspecified number of future cases
coordinated into a federal MDL in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, alongside an existing coordinated
proceeding involving Viagra(R).  The JPML ordered the transfer of
the existing cases to the now-renamed MDL In re: Viagra
(Sildenafil Citrate) and Cialis (Tadalafil) Products Liability
Litigation.

The Company said, "We believe these lawsuits and claims are
without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously."

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through two
segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products.  The Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana.


ELI LILLY: Still Faces Potential Class Suit on Glucagon Pricing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company defends itself against a purported class
action relating to Glucagon pricing, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2017.

Novo Nordisk and various pharmacy benefit managers are also named
as defendants in the lawsuit, which seeks class action status in
the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Washington.
The complainants are seeking damages under various state consumer
protection laws, the federal RICO Act, the Sherman Act, and other
state and federal laws.

The Company said, "We believe this lawsuit and these claims are
without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously."

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through two
segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products.  The Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana.


EQT PRODUCTION: Court Certifies Class, Sub-Classes in Kay Co Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John Preston Bailey entered an order in the lawsuit
styled THE KAY COMPANY, LLC; H. DOTSON CATHER, Trustee of Diana
Goff Cather Trusts; and JAMES E. HAMRIC III, and all other persons
and entities similarly situated v. EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, a
Pennsylvania Corporation; and EQT CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania
Corporation, Case No. 1:13-cv-00151-JPB-JES (N.D.W.Va.),
conditionally certifies these class and sub-classes:

     Class - All EQT natural gas lessors that received or were
     due to be paid royalties from defendants and EQT's
     production or sale of natural gas which was produced within
     the boundaries of the State of West Virginia from their
     natural gas or mineral estates during the period beginning
     after December 8, 2008, and extending to the present (during
     any time within their leasehold period.)

     Subclass A - All EQT natural gas lessors with flat rate
     leases converted by operation of W. Va. Code, Section 22-6-8
     and that received or were due to be paid royalties from
     defendants and EQT's production or sale of natural gas which
     was produced within the boundaries of the State of West
     Virginia from their estates during the period beginning
     after December 8, 2008, and extending to the present (during
     any time within their leasehold period.).

     Subclass B - All EQT natural gas lessors that received or
     were due to be paid royalties from defendants and EQT's
     production or sale of natural gas which was produced within
     the boundaries of the State of West Virginia from their
     estates during the period beginning after December 8, 2008,
     and extending to the present (during any time within their
     leasehold period,) and whose leases do not permit the
     deduction of postproduction expenses under Tawney, except
     for those lessors holding flat rate leases converted
     according to W. Va. Code, Section 22-6-8.

     Subclass C - All EQT natural gas lessors that received or
     were due to be paid royalties from defendants and EQT's
     production or sale of natural gas which was produced within
     the boundaries of the State of West Virginia from their
     estates during the period beginning after December 8, 2008,
     and extending to the present (during any time within their
     leasehold period,) and whose leases do permit the deduction
     of postproduction expenses under Tawney, except for those
     lessors holding flat rate leases converted according to W.
     Va. Code, Section 22-6-8.

The Court denied the Defendants' joint motion for summary
judgment.  The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment (re: alter ego), and the Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment on gas sales to affiliates and/or alter egos and related
issues.

A hearing will be held beginning October 10, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.,
and continuing from day to day, in the Wheeling North Courtroom to
determine which leases meet the Tawney standards.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cGL7IoQH


EQUIFAX: Zuckerman Law Attorney Discusses Data Breach Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Dallas Hammer, Esq. -- dhammer@zuckermanlaw.com -- of Zuckerman
Law, in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that the
latest mega breach is a big one.  Equifax announced that it had
suffered a breach of data belonging to as many as 143 million
Americans.  That's about half the country.  Worse, the breached
data was sensitive: names, social security numbers, birth dates,
addresses, and some driver's license numbers.  Even in a world
where mega breaches are commonplace, this one is staggering in
both scope and severity.  The total impact is impossible to
foresee, but it so far it has been swift and harsh for the
company.

Equifax stock tumbled 13% on Sept. 9, though there has been a
modest rebound in afterhours trading, as of writing.  Multiple
state and federal agencies are initiating investigations. News
broke that three Equifax executives sold stock after the company
discovered the breach in June, but before Equifax announced the
stock.  The company responded that the executives had no knowledge
of the breach at the time of the transactions, but the timing
could not be much worse.  (And right after the SEC put
consideration of an insider trading rule on the backburner despite
some uncertainty arising in the courts.)  To add to the problem of
perception - there's no indication that the sales were
prescheduled under a 10b5-1 plan.

However, I want to focus on a particular drop in the bucket: the
fact that at least one class action lawsuit has already been filed
alleging that Equifax was negligent in its information security.
A similar case arising from the Yahoo mega breach recently passed
a big hurdle.

This development is significant to me because it relates to a much
smaller potential class of victims: innocent Equifax employees,
who did the right thing.  As the Enron scandal roiled in 2001,
many rank-and-file employees who had nothing to do with the fraud
lost not only their jobs, but also their life savings as Enron's
stock value evaporated.  Enron whistleblower Sherron Watkins
suffered retaliation for trying to bring the misconduct to light.

Thankfully, corporate whistleblowers have much more robust
protections today than they did in 2001.  I have written and
talked previously about how cybersecurity whistleblowers can often
enjoy those same protections.  The developing Equifax story
provides an opportunity to present a hypothetical opportunity to
demonstrate that legal theory.

Suppose a large, publicly-traded corporation was arguably
negligent with its cybersecurity controls.  Perhaps the budget was
anemic, or the company did not have adequate safeguards and
procedures to protect customer data, or company executives
violated information security protocols.  Perhaps the company
delayed in reporting a breach that significantly affected its
business, or did not report the breach at all.

Would an employee who reported the deficient cybersecurity have
any protections under the law?  Though the answer must depend on
the specific facts of any given matter, the answer would often be
yes, even though there is no specific federal law protecting
cybersecurity whistleblowers.  For example, I often analyze
cybersecurity whistleblower claims under the anti-retaliation
provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  Though it's a gross
overgeneralization, suffice to say that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
protects corporate whistleblowers.  However, as I have explained
in a blog post, cybersecurity issues often involve securities law
issues.  This type of hypothetical provides ample opportunity to
draw those connections.  Failing to disclose material deficiencies
in a firm's information security could violate a public
corporation's duty to disclose known risks, especially if
cybersecurity is the public corporation's business.  The company
may have had a duty to file an 8K, or the company may have
misrepresented its information security efforts in its public
filings.

But what about an employee who has information about the
misconduct but did not come forward before the cybersecurity issue
was disclosed?  Even then, the whistleblower laws can be of
assistance.  Disclosing information to the SEC that significantly
contributes to an existing investigation can entitle the
whistleblower to an award if certain criteria are met.

In summary, the Equifax breach reminds me that when a corporate
scandal erupts, innocent employees sometimes suffer the same or
worse as other victims, while also frequently being lumped in with
the alleged wrongdoers.  Thankfully, whistleblower laws exist to
help make that tough road a little less bumpy. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Benson" Suit in W. Dist. of Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc.  The
case is styled as Robert Todd Benson, on behalf of himself, and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00564-GNS (W.D. Ky., September 15, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brett H. Oppenheimer, Esq.
   Brett H. Oppenheimer, PLLC
   401 Waterfront Park Place
   222 East Witherspoon Street
   Louisville, KY 40202
   Tel: (502) 749-5700
   Fax: (502) 895-4336
   Email: brett@bluegrassinjury.com

      - and -

   Jason T. Ams, Esq.
   Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP - Lexington
   300 W. Vine Street, Suite 1100
   Lexington, KY 40507-1665
   Tel: (859) 231-8500
   Fax: (859) 255-2742
   Email: jams@bgdlegal.com

      - and -

   V. Brandon McGrath, Esq.
   Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP- Cincinnati
   255 E. Fifth Street, Suite 2350
   Cincinnati, OH 45202
   Tel: (513) 455-7641
   Fax: (513) 762-7941
   Email: bmcgrath@bgdlegal.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Amuial" Suit in S. D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is styled as Adi Amuial, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-23405-DPG (S.D. Fla., September 15, 2017).

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

   Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
   KopelowitzOstrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert
   2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 625
   Coral Gables, FL 33134
   Tel: (305) 529-8858
   Email: akaufman@kolawyers.com

      - and -

   Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq.
   KopelowitzOstrow PA
   1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4216
   Tel: (954) 525-4100
   Fax: (954) 525-4300
   Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com

      - and -

   Jonathan Marc Streisfeld, Esq.
   KopelowitzOstrow
   One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 525-4100
   Fax: (954) 525-4300
   Email: streisfeld@kolawyers.com

      - and -

   Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
   KopelowitzOstrow
   One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
   Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 525-4100
   Email: edelsberg@kolawyers.com

      - and -

   Robert Cecil Gilbert, Esq.
   KopelowitzOstrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert
   2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1100
   Miami, FL 33134
   Tel: (305) 384-7270
   Email: robert@gilbertpa.com


EUGENE & ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Noe Martinez-Hemandez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Eugene & Associates, Inc. d/b/a Chaya
Restaurants, and Does 1 through 20, Case No. BC674860 (Cal. Super.
Ct., September 5, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages and to provide meal and rest breaks
to its restaurant workers.

Eugene & Associates, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located
at 525 S. Flower Street, Los Angeles, California 90071. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ophir J. Bitton, Esq.
      Emma D. Enriquez, Esq.
      BITTON & ASSOCIATES
      7220 Melrose Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90046
      Telephone: (310) 356-1006


EWORLDTRADE LLC: Bardales Files Suit Over Illegal SMS Ads
-----------------------------------------------------
Brent Bardales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. eWorldtrade LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-23287 (S.D. Fla., August 30, 2017), seeks an injunction
prohibiting Defendant from using an automatic telephone dialing
for telemarketing purposes.  The suit also seeks actual and
statutory damages, and such further and other relief under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant advertises business-to-business marketplace services.
Bardales claims to have received SMS ads from eWorldtrade causing
invasion of his privacy, inconvenience and nuisance. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
      HIRALDO P.A.
      401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 400-4713
      Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

            - and -

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (305) 479-2299
      Fax: (786) 623-0915
      Email: efilings@sflinjuryattorneys.com


FAIRPAY: Settlement Won't Halt Litigation Against Client
--------------------------------------------------------
Emily Brill, writing for workcompcentral, reports that a Louisiana
appellate court has allowed a hospital to proceed with fee-dispute
litigation against a client of the bill reviewer FairPay, holding
that the terms of a class-action settlement that FairPay entered
into do not bar all litigation. The court also held that the
litigation can proceed without FairPay's involvement, because even
though FairPay recommended the payment at the heart of the fee
dispute, the company "is not responsible for paying the bill."
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal made the decision on Sept. 6. [GN]


FCA US: Faces "Malizia" Suit in S.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case
is styled as John Malizia and Mark Pustulka, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07039 (S.D. N.Y., September 15, 2017).
FCA US is the American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
N.V., an Italian controlled automobile manufacturer registered in
the Netherlands with headquarters in London, U.K., for tax
purposes.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE.


FEDEX CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Adjusted Shipping Price
------------------------------------------------------------
Yas Frontline Development Inc., individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. FEDEX Corporation, FED EX Corporate
Services, Inc., and FEDEX Ground Package System, Inc., Case No.
2:17-cv-06525 (C.D. Cal., September 5, 2017), arises out of the
Defendants' practice of charging its customers a fee which is an
incorrectly, unfairly, and fraudulently "adjusted" price of
packages after its customers ship the items so that the Defendants
may improperly charge a higher price for the shipping which such
customers did not agree to pay and which is in violation of the
Defendants' own pricing guidelines.

The Defendants operate a courier delivery services company with
its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Niv V. Davidovich, Esq.
      DAVIDOVICH KAUFMAN LEGAL GROUP, APA
      6442 Coldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209
      North Hollywood, CA 91606
      Telephone: (818) 661-2420
      Facsimile: (818) 305-5131
      E-mail: niv@davkauf.com


FIRST FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in "Do" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled KEVIN DO, LUE LEE, TATA
INSIXIENGMAY-TRAN, AND POLLY LUANGAPHAY, on behalf of themselves
and all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FIRST FINANCIAL
SECURITY, INC., Case No. 2:14-cv-07608-SVW-AJW (C.D. Cal.), moves
for class certification.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 16, 2017, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EVj9BRLI

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon E. Drucker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JON E. DRUCKER
          8306 Wilshire Boulevard # 638
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (323) 931-6363
          Facsimile: (310) 861-5480
          E-mail: jdrucker@lawyers.com


GENCOR NUTRIENTS: Bitton Appeals Ruling in RICO Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Michael Bitton, Brian O'Toole and Robert Sokolove filed
an appeal from a court ruling relating to their lawsuit titled
Michael Bitton, et al. v. Gencor Nutrients, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:14-cv-03754-R-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Bitton, et al. v.
Gencor Nutrients, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-56329, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
was filed by the Plaintiffs against Gencor Nutrients, Inc., and GE
Nutrients, Inc. ("Gencor"); Direct Digital, LLC, Truderma, LLC,
and Force Factor, LLC, ("Wholesalers"); General Nutrition
Corporation and related entities ("GNC"); and several executives
of the named corporate entities.

Gencor manufactures Testofen -- an extract of the herb fenugreek.
The Wholesalers and GNC manufacture nutritional supplements
containing Testofen, which GNC sells to the public.  Gencor
claimed that a "double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled human
clinical study" established "statistically significant results"
showing increases in "free testosterone" in study participants who
took Testofen.

The Plaintiffs alleged that they purchased Testofen products in
reliance on this representation, which they alleged is false.
Although the plaintiffs conceded that Gencor conducted a clinical
trial, the complaint alleged that the trial's results -- when
subjected to "universally-accepted principles of statistical
analysis," which require adjustment for the likelihood of a "false
positive" when multiple variables are analyzed -- do not establish
a "statistically significant" increase in free testosterone levels
in study participants.

The complaint alleged that application of the "simplest and most
commonly used method of making such adjustments" -- the
"Bonferroni correction" -- establishes that the trial's results as
to free testosterone are not statistically significant.  These
allegations were supported by an expert report (the "Jewell
report"), attached to the complaint, which critiqued Gencor's
Testofen study and concluded that Gencor's claims as to the
study's results were false.

The complaint asserted claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), claims under California and
New York false advertising and deceptive business practices
statutes; breach of express and implied warranties; negligent
misrepresentation; and common law fraud and restitution.  The
district court dismissed all claims with prejudice.

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

   -- Appellants Michael Bitton, Brian O'Toole and Robert
      Sokolove's opening brief is due on November 3, 2017;

   -- Appellees Direct Digital LLC, Force Factor LLC, GE
      Nutrients, Inc., GNC Corporation, Gencor Nutrients, Inc.,
      General Nutrition Centers, Inc., General Nutrition
      Corporation, S&G Properties, LLC and Trudema, LLC's
      answering brief is due on December 4, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHAEL BITTON, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; BRIAN O'TOOLE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; and ROBERT SOKOLOVE,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Barry Himmelstein, Esq.
          HIMMELSTEIN LAW NETWORK
          2000 Powell Street, Suite # 1605
          Emeryville, CA 94608-1861
          Telephone: (510) 450-0782
          Facsimile: (510) 924-0403
          E-mail: barry@himmellaw.com

Defendants-Appellees GENCOR NUTRIENTS, INC., a California
corporation; and GE NUTRIENTS, INC., a California corporation, are
represented by:

          Joshua G. Simon, Esq.
          Matthew R. Orr, Esq.
          CALL & JENSEN, APC
          610 Newport Center Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 717-3000
          Facsimile: (949) 717-3100
          E-mail: jsimon@calljensen.com
                  morr@calljensen.com

Defendants-Appellees GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania
corporation; GNC CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; GENERAL
NUTRITION CENTERS, INC., a Delaware corporation; S&G PROPERTIES,
LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability company; DIRECT DIGITAL LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company; and FORCE FACTOR LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, are represented by:

          Angel Antonio Garganta, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 653-3735
          Facsimile: (415) 653-3755
          E-mail: AGarganta@Venable.com

               - and -

          Daniel Scott Silverman, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-9900
          E-mail: dsilverman@venable.com

Defendant-Appellee TRUDEMA, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company, is represented by:

          Steven Bradley Scow, Esq.
          David Richard Koch, Esq.
          KOCH & SCOW, LLC
          11500 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 210
          Henderson, NV 89052
          Telephone: (702) 318-5040
          Facsimile: (702) 318-5039
          E-mail: sscow@kochscow.com
                  dkoch@kochscow.com


GENERAL NUTRITION: Amended "Hubert" Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DANIEL HUBERT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL NUTRITION
CORPORATION, Defendant, No. 2:15-cv-01391 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Mark
R. Hornak of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint and dismissed without
prejudice the Amended Complaint.

In this prospective class action litigation, Plaintiff Hubert
alleges that he and other consumers, purchased supplements sold by
GNC with false and misleading labeling in violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the consumer fraud protection laws
of numerous states.  They further assert that GNC breached implied
warranties, engaged in negligent misrepresentation and unjustly
enriched itself to the detriment of consumers.

The Plaintiffs allege that GNC marketed and sold supplements
manufactured by third party vendors, which allegedly contained
picamilon, BMPEA or acacia rigidula, despite having known that
these substances are not dietary ingredients.  The supplements at
issue are primarily weight-loss and sports nutrition supplements
available as powders and liquids.  According to the Plaintiffs,
GNC sold products with false and misleading labeling, and it
failed to disclose material facts about the dangers of ingesting
picamilon, BMPEA and acacia rigidula.

In sum, the Plaintiffs allege that picamilon, BMPEA and acacia
rigidula were listed on the labels of a variety of supplements
available for sale at GNC, including products that they purchased.
They claim that through this labeling, GNC misrepresented that
those substances were safe and could be legally sold in the United
States.  As a result, the Plaintiffs assert that they purchased
supplements they otherwise would not have purchased, paid more for
supplements than they otherwise would have paid and have been
subjected to unreasonable safety risks.

The Defendant moved to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint filed by Plaintiff Hubert, individually and
on behalf of similarly situated individuals pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  GNC argues that
the Amended Complaint must be dismissed for lack of standing
because the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled the essential
element of injury-in-fact.  According to GNC, the Plaintiffs
simply allege that they purchased the supplements, but do not
allege that they actually consumed them or suffered any adverse
health consequences from them.  GNC points out that any
apprehension the Plaintiffs may have about possible future injury
is insufficient to establish injury-in-fact.

Judge Hornak agrees with the Plaintiffs that economic injury can
suffice to establish injury-in-fact for standing purposes.
However, the question is whether the Plaintiffs have suffered an
economic injury.  He finds that the Plaintiffs do not sufficiently
allege that they suffered an economic injury to satisfy the
injury-in-fact element of standing.  They fail to allege that they
were induced into purchasing the supplements based on specific
misrepresentations made by GNC.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs have
failed to establish that they have standing to bring the present
action.  Because the Plaintiffs do not have standing, Judge Hornal
dismisses without prejudice the Amended Complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.  Absent subject matter jurisdiction,
the Judge is without authority to
rule on the remaining merit-based argument.  To the extent that
the Plaintiffs wish to file a second amended complaint to cure the
deficiencies discussed, they're granted leave do so within 30 days
from the date of the decision.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 8, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/W2fLpd from Leagle.com.

DANIEL HUBERT, Plaintiff, represented by D. Aaron Rihn, Robert
Peirce & Associates, P.C..

DANIEL HUBERT, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman --
greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice,
Arthur Stock -- astock@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, pro hac vice,
Jennifer S. Goldstein -- jgoldstein@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson
& Mason, pro hac vice, Lisa A. White -- lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com --
Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice, Mark E. Silvey, Greg Coleman
Law PC, pro hac vice & Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net --
Berger & Montague, P.C..

ROBERT BROOKS, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by Carl V.
Malmstrom -- malmstrom@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLC, pro hac vice, Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com --
Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, pro hac vice, Gerald L. Rutledge,
Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates, Jr. --
info@yatesclassactionlaw.com -- Janine L. Pollack --
pollack@whafh.com -- Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Shanon J. Carson,
Berger & Montague, P.C. & Michael Liskow -- liskow@whafh.com --
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, pro hac vice.

CHRIS LYNCH, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by Charles E.
Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Sedran & Berman, Shanon
J. Carson, Berger & Montague, P.C. & Robert K. Shelquist --
rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., pro
hac vice.

JEFF JOHNSTON, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by Jonathan
Shub -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., pro hac
vice, Nick Suciu, III, -- nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com -- Barbat,
Mansour & Suciu PLLC & Shanon J. Carson, Berger & Montague, P.C..

KYLE EAGER, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by Shanon J.
Carson, Berger & Montague, P.C., Andre M. Mura --
amm@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, pro hac vice & Eric
H. Gibbs -- ehg@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, pro hac
vice.

JOSEPH LAMBERT, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by Andre M.
Mura, Gibbs Law Group LLP, pro hac vice & Eric H. Gibbs, Gibbs Law
Group LLP, pro hac vice.

GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by Amy B.
Alderfer -- aalderfer@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor, Brett Nicole
Taylor -- btaylor@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor, pro hac vice, Paul
K. Leary, Jr. -- pleary@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor, pro hac vice
& Mark E. Utke -- mutke@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor.


GNC HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Amended "Martin" Suit w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark R. Hornak of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania dismissed without prejudice the case
captioned JAMES MARTIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GNC HOLDINGS, INC., JOSEPH M.
FORTUNATO, MICHAEL M. NUZZO, ANDREW S. DREXLER, MICHAEL G.
ARCHBOLD, TRICIA K. TOLIVER, and PATRICK K. FORTUNE, Defendants,
No. 2:15-cv-01522 (W.D. Pa.).

In this class action securities litigation, Lead Plaintiff KBC
Asset Management NV alleges that it and other similarly situated
investors purchased GNC's stock between Nov. 16, 2011, and Oct.
28, 2015, and that GNC and the Individual Defendants have violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as a
result of various claimed misrepresentations and omissions by the
Defendants during the Class Period.  The Plaintiff also claims
that the Individual Defendants have violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

On January 20, 2016, the Court appointed KBC to serve as the Lead
Plaintiff in this case.  According to the Plaintiff, GNC's success
was threatened by a scandal that emerged in the supplement
industry late in 2011 involving a potentially dangerous ingredient
called dimethylamylamine ("DMAA").

On April 27, 2012, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") sent a
letter to 10 companies, including GNC, advising that certain
dietary and sports nutrition products contained DMAA and warning
to stop selling those products.  After that, GNC began selling
reformulated DMAA products and assured investors that the FDA's
action would not affect its sales.  However, the Plaintiff alleges
that the reformulated products contained two potentially dangerous
ingredients: picamilon or Beta-Methylphenethylamine ("BMPEA").

The Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, GNC sold
sports nutrition and weight-loss products that contained BMPEA or
acacia rigidula spiked with BMPEA, despite knowing by the fall of
2013 that BMPEA was not a lawful dietary ingredient.  However, on
April 23, 2015, when the FDA formally announced that BMPEA did not
meet the definition of a dietary ingredient, GNC stopped selling
products with BMPEA and acacia rigidula.

Several months later on Oct. 22, 2015, the Oregon Attorney General
announced the filing of a civil action against GNC for selling
products containing picamilon, BMPEA and acacia rigidula spiked
with BMPEA ("Oregon AG Complaint").

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made false and misleading
statements during the Class Period regarding the following: GNC's
quality controls and the purity of its products, GNC's ability to
manage regulatory risk, and GNC's ability to offset any losses
related to the removal of DMAA from its products.  The Plaintiff
further alleges that the Individual Defendants made the
misstatements knowingly or with reckless disregard of the fact
that they were false or misleading.  According to them, several
factors demonstrate Defendants' knowledge and/or deliberate
recklessness.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged material false and
misleading statements and omissions during the Class Period, the
Plaintiff maintains that GNC common stock traded at artificially
inflated levels, but the stock price declined when the falsity of
the misstatements and the concealed information were revealed.
This supposedly occurred when the Oregon AG Complaint was filed on
Oct. 22, 2015, and on Oct. 29, 2015, when GNC reported lower
earnings expectations for 2015, which analysts purportedly
attributed, in part, to the Oregon AG Complaint.  The Plaintiff
alleges that members of the Class suffered economic loss and
damages as a result of their purchases of GNC common stock at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

Presently before the Court is a motion by the Individual
Defendants to dismiss KBC Amended Class Action Complaint for
Violations of the Federal Securities Laws pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") and Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6).

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim must
be dismissed because: (i) the Plaintiff fails to plead falsity
with the requisite particularity; (ii) it fails to plead facts
that raise a strong inference of scienter; and (iii) it fails to
plead loss causation because there has been no corrective
disclosure.  The Individual Defendants also argue that the
Plaintiff's failure to allege a primary Section 10(b) violation is
fatal to its control person claim under Section 20(a), thus the
Section 20(a) claim must be dismissed as well.

Judge Hornak held that the Defendants are correct, in part.
Although the Plaintiff has pleaded several actionable misleading
statements, the Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead scienter
and loss causation.  In view of the Amended Complaint's
deficiencies identified, the Judge says giving the Plaintiff leave
to amend may well be futile.  However, in the interests of
justice, if the Plaintiff believes that amendment would not be
futile, the Plaintiff will file a motion for leave to amend within
30 days.  The motion will precisely specify what new allegations
the Plaintiff would include in a second amended complaint to cure
the deficiencies discussed in the Opinion, and will also include a
copy of a proposed second amended complaint which clearly
identifies the new allegations against the current Amended
Complaint.  Accordingly, Judge Hornak granted the Motion to
Dismiss filed by GNC and the Individual Defendants; and dismissed
without prejudice the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint at this time.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 8, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/Bl4lKR from Leagle.com.

JAMES MARTIN, Plaintiff, represented by Gerald L. Rutledge --
info@yatesclassactionlaw.com -- Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates,
Jr..

JAMES MARTIN, Plaintiff, represented by William H. Narwold --
bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice, pro hac vice & Benjamin J.
Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela,
LLP.

GNC HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, represented by James L. Rockney --
jrockney@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Koji F. Fukumura --
kfukumura@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

JOSEPH M. FORTUNATO, Defendant, represented by James L. Rockney,
Reed Smith LLP & Koji F. Fukumura, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

MICHAEL M. NUZZO, Defendant, represented by James L. Rockney, Reed
Smith LLP & Koji F. Fukumura, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

ANDREW S. DREXLER, Defendant, represented by James L. Rockney,
Reed Smith LLP & Koji F. Fukumura, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

MICHAEL G. ARCHBOLD, Defendant, represented by James L. Rockney,
Reed Smith LLP & Koji F. Fukumura, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

TRICIA K. TOLIVAR, Defendant, represented by James L. Rockney,
Reed Smith LLP & Koji F. Fukumura, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

PATRICK A. FORTUNE, Defendant, represented by James L. Rockney,
Reed Smith LLP & Koji F. Fukumura, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS, Movant, represented by Ian
D. Berg, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, pro hac vice & Richard
K. Witchko -- rwitchko@earthlink.net -- Barrante & Barrante.

CHICAGO TEACHERS' PENSION FUND, Movant, represented by Gary F.
Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela,
LLP.

KBC ASSET MANAGEMENT NV, Movant, represented by Jacob Nachmani,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Jason T.
Shipp, Goldberg, Persky, Jennings & White, John C. Browne --
johnb@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Katherine M. Sinderson -- katherinem@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice,
Christopher F. Moriarty -- cmoriarty@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice
LLC, pro hac vice, Gary F. Lynch, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela,
LLP, Gregg S. Levin -- glevin@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC,
pro hac vice, William H. Narwold -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com --
Motley Rice & William S. Norton -- bnorton@motleyrice.com --
Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice.


HUNTER WARFIELD: Settlement in "McCullen" Has Prelim. Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada granted the parties' Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned JUSTINE McMULLEN, an individual, on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. HUNTER WARFIELD OF
NEW ENGLAND, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-01646 (D. Nev.).

On June 4, 2015, the Court preliminarily finds that the Lawsuit
satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), of the
class members of all Nevada residents who (i) on or after July 13,
2015 through May 10, 2017 (ii) were sent a collection letter in
the form of Exhibit 1, attached to the First Amended Complaint,
from Defendant Hunter Warfield (iii) which was not returned as
undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office (iv) in an attempt to
recover an alleged obligation incurred for personal, family, or
household purposes.  Based on Defendant's records as of May 10,
2017, there are 557 persons in the Class.

Judge Dorsey preliminarily appointed Plaintiff McMullen as the
Class Representative; O. Randolph Bragg of Horwitz, Horwitz, &
Associates Ltd. and Keren E. Gesund of Gesund and Pailet, LLC as
the Class Counsel; and First Class, Inc. ("FCI") to act as the
Settlement Administrator.

The Judge approved the form and method of notice set forth in the
Agreement.  The Defendant will provide a class list, containing
each settlement class members' last known address as reflected in
Defendant's records, to FCI and to Class Counsel.  Before sending
the notice, FCI will run the address of each person in the class
list through the National Change of Address database/registry.
Within 45 days following entry of the Order, FCI will send via
first class U.S. mail the Notice of Settlement to each person in
the class list, at their most recent known address, and will
forward any notice that is returned with a forwarding address
within 14 days of receiving the returned mail and will update the
Class member address list with all forwarding addresses.  At least
10 days before the Final Approval Hearing, the FCI will file a
declaration of compliance with the notice procedures set forth in
the Agreement.

Judge Dorsey preliminarily approved the consideration of $21,000,
which is at least the net worth of the Defendant, approximately
$37.70 to each member of the Class (provided there are no opt-
outs; if there are opt-outs, this amount will be recalculated for
a pro rata distribution).  She also preliminarily approved the
payment of additional amounts for the costs of notice and
administration, statutory damages of $1,000, an incentive award of
$3,000 to the Class Representative, and any attorney's fees, costs
or expenses that the Court may award to the Class Counsel.

Any Class member who desires to be excluded from the Settlement
Class must send a written request for exclusion to FCI, with a
postmark date no later than 105 days after the entry of the Order.
FCI's address will be provided in the Notice of Settlement mailed
to the Class Members.  The Claims Administrator will provide a
list of those persons requesting exclusion to the Class Counsel
and to the Defendant's counsel after the deadline for exclusions
passes, but no later than 10 days before the Final Approval
Hearing.  A copy of that list will be filed with the Motion for
Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

Any Class member who intends to object to the fairness of the
Settlement must file a written objection with the Clerk of the
U.S. States District Court, for the District of Nevada, 333 Las
Vegas Blvd. South, Las Vegas, Nevada, no later than 105 days after
the entry of the Order.  Further, any such Class Member must,
within the same time period, provide a copy of the written
objection to the Class Counsel and the Defense Counsel, whose
addresses will be set forth in the Notice of Settlement advising
the Settlement Class members about objections.

The costs of notice and settlement administration will be paid by
the Defendant.

Judge Dorsey will conduct the Final Approval Hearing on Feb. 23,
2018 at a.m.  The Final Approval Hearing may be rescheduled or
continued by the Court without further notice to the Class
members.  No later than 30 calendar days after entry of the Order,
the Class Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the
action to consider all further matters arising out of or connected
with the settlement, including the administration and enforcement
of the Agreement.  All other proceedings in the Litigation are
stayed except as may be necessary to implement this order or
comply with the terms of the Agreement. The parties must file
their motion for final approval of the settlement by Feb. 2, 2018.

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

Justine McMullen, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg,
Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, pro hac vice.

Justine McMullen, Plaintiff, represented by Keren E. Gesund --
keren@gp-nola.com -- Gesund & Pailet, LLC.

Hunter Warfield of New England, Inc., Defendant, represented by
David J. Kaminski -- kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer, pro
hac vice, Kurt R. Bonds -- kbonds@alversontaylor.com -- Alverson
Taylor Mortensen, et al, Tamar Gabriel -- cmt@cmtlaw.com --
Carlson & Messer, pro hac vice & Trevor Waite --
twaite@alversontaylor.com -- Alverson Taylor Mortensen & Sander.


IXYS CORP: Monteverde Investigates Potential Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner at Monteverde &
Associates PC, a boutique securities firm headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating IXYS
Corporation ("IXYS" or the "Company") (NasdaqGS: IXYS) relating to
the sale of the Company to affiliates of Littelfuse, Inc. As a
result of the merger, IXYS shareholders are only anticipated to
receive $23.00 in cash or 0.1265 of a share of Littelfuse common
stock in exchange for each share of IXYS.

Click here for more information:
http://monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

The investigation focuses on whether IXYS and its Board of
Directors violated securities laws and/or breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's by 1) failing to conduct a fair process
and 2) whether and by how much this proposed transaction
undervalues the Company.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of
dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers
from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.

If you own common stock in IXYS and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via
e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212)
971-1341. [GN]


J. RECKNER ASSOCIATES: "Lyngaas" Sues Over Illegally-Faxed Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Lyngaas, D.D.S., individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. J. Reckner
Associates, Inc. d/b/a Reckner Healthcare, Defendant, Case 2:17-
cv-12867 (E.D. Mich., August 30, 2017) seeks punitive damages,
attorney's fees and costs of suit and such further relief under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

J. Reckner is a pharmaceutical marketing research firm that
provides, among other services, healthcare data collection support
for pharmaceutical marketing research projects. It sent
advertisements by facsimile to Plaintiff, a dental practice in
Livonia, Michigan, without prior approval.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
      BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
      134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 658-5500
      Fax: (312) 658-5555
      Email: service@classlawyers.com

             - and -

      Richard Shenkan, Esq.
      SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
      6550 Lakeshore St.
      West Bloomfield, MI 48323
      Tel: (248) 562-1320
      Fax: (888) 769-1774
      Email: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com


JAYPPEE INFRATECH: Homebuyers File Public Interest Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Upmanyu Trivedi and Dhwani Pandya, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that insolvency case against Jaypee Infra stalled by
Supreme Court Homebuyers approach top court to safeguard their
savings Fifteen miles east of India's capital lies Jaypee Wish
Town, a sprawling 1,162-acre site spotted with unfinished
residential towers that embody the human cost of the nation's bad-
loan mess and point to the difficulty of resolving it.

Jaypee Infratech Ltd., Wish Town's developer, is among the first
12 corporates that the central bank pushed into insolvency court
after it was armed this May with new powers to expedite resolution
of the nation's more than $180 billion in soured debt. Hundreds of
homebuyers have filed suit saying the loan-recovery proceedings
threaten to leave them without homes or compensation, prompting
the Supreme Court to halt the case on Sept. 4.

"We are completely at the mercy of the insolvency resolution
process," said Avanish Rastogi, a Lucknow resident, who runs a
small hardware business and is a co-petitioner in the Supreme
Court homebuyers case.  "Whatever is left at the end of giving
priority to banks is the only money we can get. I am 53 years old
and I have nothing -- neither house, nor savings."

The Jaypee situation is shaping up to be a test case for the
central bank's push to force the nation's biggest defaulters to be
brought to task under a new bankruptcy code.  The challenge of
that undertaking has been especially pronounced in the property
sector, where recent consumer-protection laws have put thousands
of homeowners on a collision course with a national mandate that
seeks to clean up a mountain of troubled debts.

Real-estate accounts for about 1.25 trillion rupees ($19.5
billion) of stressed loans with only 17.5 percent recognized as
non-performing, according to India Ratings & Research, a Fitch
group company.  Still, that's just a part of the problem India
Inc. faces.  Activity in industries from commodities to textiles
and engineering has been hobbled by loans taken in 2007-08, which
became hard to service as demand cooled and economic growth slowed
to its weakest since Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in
May 2014.

Numerous efforts to fix the problem haven't worked and the banking
system's bad-loan ratio has swelled every year since 2009 to rank
as the worst among the world's seven biggest economies. The
central bank asked lenders last year to cut their exposures to
corporate borrowers by setting provisions for lending beyond a
stipulated limit, and last month the capital market regulator
directed companies to notify stock exchanges, if they default on a
bank loan.

Mr. Rastogi is among thousands of buyers who bought homes from
developers such as Jaypee, Amrapali Group and AMR Infrastructure,
projects that were threatened when a slump in sales forced the
indebted companies to slow or halt construction.  Some homeowners
have turned to the Supreme Court to safeguard their savings as
banks invoke a 2016 bankruptcy law to reclaim dues.

This law allows 270 days for a restructuring to be agreed on,
failing which it mandates liquidation. Company employees, secured
creditors and debts to unsecured creditors get priority over
homeowners.

IDBI Bank Ltd. -- a Jaypee creditor that has India's worst bad-
loan ratio -- has asked the top court to lift its stay, saying the
order "has the unintended effect of derailing the whole time-bound
process envisaged under the insolvency code.   Its plea was due to
be heard on Sept. 11.

"The code is still in the nascent stage and one cannot predict
everything," said Manoj K. Singh, founding partner of Singh &
Associates, a law firm based in Delhi. Each case has its own set
of facts that can give rise to new and unique legal hurdles, he
said.

Jaypee declined to comment on the Supreme Court case saying the
matter is subjudice.  It said in an emailed response to questions
that it's taken "all possible steps" to ensure delivery as per a
schedule available on the company's website.

Mr. Rastogi sold his home in Lucknow in 2010 to buy into Wish
Town. With his dream home still a 17-floor empty concrete
skeleton, he is living on rent.  Of 32,000 apartments that were to
be delivered by the end of 2013, Jaypee has handed over 6,500,
according to court documents.

Conflicting Rules

With his legal options closing, Mr. Rastogi and a group of buyers
filed a public interest litigation, akin to a class action suit,
in the top court.  The Supreme Court allowed buyers to approach
consumer court and invoke a real estate law, complicating the
Reserve Bank of India's job of cleaning up the banking system.

Jaypee has handed over only 6,500 apartments, according to court
documents.

The new real estate law has a provision that it would override all
other laws and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code also has an
identical provision, said Gopal Shankarnarayanan, a lawyer
representing several homebuyers before the top court.  "You now
have a conflict between," the two.

The Supreme Court has asked India's Attorney General K.K.
Venugopal to help resolve the case and has also sought views from
the government and RBI.

A homebuyers association has separately written to the prime
minister asking him to change the provisions of the bankruptcy
code to give "millions of homebuyers in the lurch" first priority
when settling dues "since their stake are very high as their life
savings are stuck."

If the insolvency process for developer Jaypee continues, lawyers
expect the bankruptcy code's 270-day timeline to be met, but are
unsure of what lies beyond that.

"The real trouble may begin once the 270 days are over," said
Shally Bhasin, a partner at Agarwal Law Associates.  "In a couple
of years, people will know how to react and what will happen.
Right now everyone is going at it mechanically." [GN]


JOHN C WILLIAMS: Faces "Hofstatter" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Law Offices of
John C. Williams & Associates. The case is styled as Mordechai
Hofstatter, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers, Plaintiff v. Law Offices of John C. Williams &
Associates, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05414 (E.D. N.Y.,
September 15, 2017).

Law Offices of John C. Williams & Associates is a law firm serving
Atlanta.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


KABUKI RESTAURANTS: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noe Martinez-Hemandez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Kabuki Restaurants, Inc. and Does 1 through
20, Case No. BC674861 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 5, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
and failure to provide meal and rest breaks to its restaurant
workers.

Kabuki Restaurants, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located at
1545 N. Vine Street, Hollywood, California 90028. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ophir J. Bitton, Esq.
      Emma D. Enriquez, Esq.
      BITTON & ASSOCIATES
      7220 Melrose Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90046
      Telephone: (310) 356-1006


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Underwood Moves to Certify Class of Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JENNIFER UNDERWOOD, on
Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. KOHL'S
DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. and CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00730-WB (E.D. Pa.), moves for certification of this class:

     All persons with a Kohl's Private Label Credit Card who paid
     $14.99 a month for PrivacyGuard between February 13, 2012 -
     October 31, 2013 who did not complete the second step of
     PrivacyGuard enrollment (The "Class").  Excluded from the
     Class is anyone who received a complete refund of their
     PrivacyGuard fees levied between February 13, 2012-
     October 31, 2013, as well as any employees of either
     Defendant or Trilegiant.

Ms. Underwood also asks that she be appointed as the class
representative and that Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky,
P.C. and McLaughlin & Stern LLP be appointed as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2DpPZKa7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218
          Horsham, PA 19044
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          Facsimile: (215) 754-4443
          E-mail: phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com

               - and -

          Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
          Wade C. Wilkinson, Esq.
          McLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP
          260 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (646) 278-4298
          Facsimile: (212) 448-0066
          E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
                  wwilkinson@mclaughlinstern.com

               - and -

          Angela M. Edwards, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANGELA EDWARDS
          72 Canterbury Circle
          East Longmeadow, MA 01028
          Telephone: (413) 525-3820
          Facsimile: (413) 525-3820


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Stockholders Class Certified in "Howard" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Beryl A. Howell granted the Co-Lead Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and appointment of class representatives
and class counsel in the lawsuit entitled LEONARD HOWARD,
individually and on behalf of all others situated v. LIQUIDITY
SERVICES INC., WILLIAM P. ANGRICK III, and JAMES M. RALLO, Case
No. 1:14-cv-01183-BAH (D.D.C.).

Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the certified class shall consist of:

     All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
     the publicly traded common stock of Liquidity Services, Inc.
     from February 1, 2012, through May 7, 2014, and who were
     damaged thereby. The class shall exclude the defendants
     Liquidity Services, Inc. ("LSI"), William P. Angrick III,
     and James M. Rallo; members of the immediate family of each
     of the individual defendants; any subsidiary or affiliate of
     LSI, including any employee retirement and/or benefit
     plan(s) of LSI or its subsidiaries; the directors and
     officers of LSI or its subsidiaries or affiliates; any
     entity in which any excluded person has a controlling
     interest; and the legal representatives, heirs, successors,
     and assigns of any excluded person.

Co-Lead Plaintiffs Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec and the
Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund are appointed as class
representatives.  Lead counsel Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis,
P.C. and Labaton Sucharow LLP are appointed as class counsel.

Judge Howell denied the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on
the Issue of Reliance by Co-Lead Plaintiffs.

The parties were directed to file a joint status report, which
shall include a proposed schedule to govern further proceedings in
this matter, and a proposed method for providing appropriate
notice to class members by September 18, 2017.

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


M-QUBE INC: Court Denies Banks' Bids to Intervene in "Cullan"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned CULLAN AND CULLAN LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. M-QUBE,
Inc. a Delaware corporation; MOBILE MESSENGER AMERICAS, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation; CF ENTERPRISES PTY., Ltd., an Australian
Company; and JOHN DOES 1-200, Defendants; DURWIN SHARP, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated; JOSEPH PONZO, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; KATHRYN
MEYERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated;
and JOSHUA WHIPP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; Plaintiffs, v. WATTS REGULATOR CO., Defendant, Nos.
8:13CV172, 8:16CV200 (D. Neb.), Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska denied Intervenor
Frederick Banks' motions to intervene.

A purported motion to intervene titled "Notice To Intervene as of
Right (Fed. R. Civ. P. 24) and Claim" was filed by Banks in each
of the captioned cases.  The documents appear to be claims under
the class action settlements in these cases.  The Court has
entered Orders of Final Approval of Class Settlements and
Judgments for attorney fees in both cases.  The actions have been
dismissed.  Judge Bataillon cannot afford the claimant the relief
Banks requests.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 8, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/UoQJL6 from Leagle.com.

Cullan and Cullan LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow --
b.barnow@barnowlaw.com -- BARNOW & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, pro hac
vice.

Cullan and Cullan LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Erich P. Schork,
BARNOW & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Mitchell L. Burgess --
mitch@burgessandlamb.com -- BURGESS, LAMB LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Ralph K. Phalen -- phalenlaw@yahoo.com -- PHALEN LAW OFFICE, pro
hac vice & Richard J. Schicker -- rich@teamschick.com -- SCHICKER
LAW FIRM.

M-Qube, Defendant, represented by Alan D. Sege --
info@alansege.com -- ALAN SEGE LAW FIRM, Ari N. Rothman --
anrothman@Venable.com --VENABLE LAW FIRM, John P. Passarelli --
John.Passarelli@KutakRock.com -- KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM & Paul R.
Gwilt, KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM.

Mobile Messenger Americas, Defendant, represented by Alan D. Sege,
ALAN SEGE LAW FIRM, Ari N. Rothman, VENABLE LAW FIRM, John P.
Passarelli, KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM & Paul R. Gwilt, KUTAK, ROCK LAW
FIRM.

CF Enterprises Pty., Defendant, represented by Carrie S. Dolton --
cdolton@HilgersGraben.com -- GOBER, HILGERS LAW FIRM & Michael T.
Hilgers -- mhilgers@hilgersgraben.com -- HILGERS, GRABEN LAW FIRM.

David Hanson, Intervenor, represented by Elizabeth A. Ryan --
eryan@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY, GLASSER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld -- jeff@KRInternetLaw.com -- KRONENBERGER,
BURGOYNE LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, John J. Roddy --
jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY, GLASSER LAW FIRM, pro hac
vice, Karl S. Kronenberger -- karl@KRInternetLaw.com --
KRONENBERGER, BURGOYNE LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & William L.
Reinbrecht -- billr205@gmail.com -- CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.

Kristian Kunder, Intervenor, represented by Elizabeth A. Ryan,
BAILEY, GLASSER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld,
KRONENBERGER, BURGOYNE LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, John J. Roddy,
BAILEY, GLASSER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Karl S. Kronenberger,
KRONENBERGER, BURGOYNE LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & William L.
Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.

Mobile Messenger Americas, Counter Claimant, represented by Alan
D. Sege, ALAN SEGE LAW FIRM, Ari N. Rothman, VENABLE LAW FIRM,
John P. Passarelli, KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM & Paul R. Gwilt, KUTAK,
ROCK LAW FIRM.

Cullan and Cullan LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Ben
Barnow, BARNOW & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, Erich P. Schork, BARNOW &
ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Mitchell L. Burgess, BURGESS,
LAMB LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Ralph K. Phalen, PHALEN LAW OFFICE &
Richard J. Schicker, SCHICKER LAW FIRM.

M-Qube, Counter Claimant, represented by Alan D. Sege, ALAN SEGE
LAW FIRM, Ari N. Rothman, VENABLE LAW FIRM, John P. Passarelli,
KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM & Paul R. Gwilt, KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM.

Cullan and Cullan LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Ben
Barnow, BARNOW & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, Erich P. Schork, BARNOW &
ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Mitchell L. Burgess, BURGESS,
LAMB LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Ralph K. Phalen, PHALEN LAW OFFICE &
Richard J. Schicker, SCHICKER LAW FIRM.

CF Enterprises Pty., Counter Claimant, represented by Carrie S.
Dolton, GOBER, HILGERS LAW FIRM & Michael T. Hilgers, HILGERS,
GRABEN LAW FIRM.

Cullan and Cullan LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Ben
Barnow, BARNOW & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, Erich P. Schork, BARNOW &
ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Mitchell L. Burgess, BURGESS,
LAMB LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Ralph K. Phalen, PHALEN LAW OFFICE &
Richard J. Schicker, SCHICKER LAW FIRM.


MADISON COUNTY, IL: Class Action Over Tax Scheme Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cousins, writing for The Telegraph, reports that former
Madison County Treasurer Fred Bathon blamed others, especially two
former employees and one tax buyer, for the price-fixing scheme
that sent him and several others to federal prison.

He made the statements in a deposition taken as part of ongoing
civil litigation over the scheme.

The 167-page deposition was taken May 15 at the law office of
Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen in Edwardsville as part of a class-
action lawsuit filed by several property owners against
Mr. Bathon and other county officials, Madison County, and
numerous other defendants.  Later, the county and some others were
dismissed as defendants.

In 2013, Mr. Bathon pleaded guilty to federal charges of violating
the Sherman Antitrust Act in orchestrating a price fixing scheme
at county tax sales.  Mr. Bathon spent more than a year in federal
prison.  Also pleading guilty were tax buyers Barrett R. Rochman,
John Vassen and Scott McLean.

Mr. Bathon was deposed as part of the ongoing civil suit.

At various points in the deposition, Mr. Bathon claimed he did not
know what was going on with the tax sales, and pointed out
repeatedly that it was not improper to take political
contributions from tax sale participants.

He blamed former Treasurer's Office employees Patty Ward Stanley
and Jim Foley, who ran the tax sales, and Mr. Rochman, who was a
major investor.  He claimed the three "had a side deal" and
conspired to rig the sales.

He said of Ms. Stanley, "I think she was -- she was another one of
those that I think had her own deal with Barrett."

Mr. Bathon also claimed that Mr. Foley had close ties with
Barrett, and had taken several trips "on Barrett" that Mr. Bathon
was unaware of and would have fired him for.

At several points Mr. Bathon said he "would have stopped the sale"
if he had realized something was going on, but on the advice of
then-Madison County State's Attorney Bill Mudge, now a circuit
judge, he stayed away from the sales.

According to the deposition, Mr. Bathon also claimed other Madison
County officials probably knew something was going on.

The most recent filing in the class-action case was a motion filed
Aug. 28 by several defendants.  Earlier this year, the Fifth
District Circuit Court in Mt. Vernon ruled on an appeal on the
case and sent it back to the Madison County courts.  The case had
been set for trial Jan. 8, but that had been canceled. [GN]


MDL 2179: Oil Spill Claims vs. Nalco Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Ecolab 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 continues to defend
lawsuits against Nalco Company related to the Deepwater Horizon
Incident Response.

On April 22, 2010, the deepwater drilling platform, the Deepwater
Horizon, operated by a subsidiary of BP plc, sank in the Gulf of
Mexico after a catastrophic explosion and fire that began on April
20, 2010. A massive oil spill resulted. Approximately one week
following the incident, subsidiaries of BP plc, under the
authorization of the responding federal agencies, formally
requested Nalco Company, now an indirect subsidiary of Ecolab, to
supply large quantities of COREXIT(R) 9500, a Nalco oil dispersant
product listed on the U.S. EPA National Contingency Plan Product
Schedule.

Nalco Company responded immediately by providing available COREXIT
and increasing production to supply the product to BP's
subsidiaries for use, as authorized and directed by agencies of
the federal government throughout the incident. Prior to the
incident, Nalco and its subsidiaries had not provided products or
services or otherwise had any involvement with the Deepwater
Horizon platform.

On July 15, 2010, BP announced that it had capped the leaking
well, and the application of dispersants by the responding parties
ceased shortly thereafter.

On May 1, 2010, the President appointed retired U.S. Coast Guard
Commandant Admiral Thad Allen to serve as the National Incident
Commander in charge of the coordination of the response to the
incident at the national level. The EPA directed numerous tests of
all the dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product
Schedule, including those provided by Nalco Company, "to ensure
decisions about ongoing dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico are
grounded in the best available science." Nalco Company cooperated
with this testing process and continued to supply COREXIT, as
requested by BP and government authorities. The use of dispersants
by the responding parties was one tool used by the government and
BP to avoid and reduce damage to the Gulf area from the spill.

In connection with its provision of COREXIT, Nalco Company has
been named in several lawsuits.

Cases arising out of the Deepwater Horizon accident were
administratively transferred for pre-trial purposes to a judge in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana with other related cases under In Re: Oil Spill by the
Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20,
2010, Case No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.) ("MDL 2179"). Nalco Company
was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in six
putative class action complaints related to the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill and 21 complaints filed by individuals.  Those
complaints were consolidated in MDL 2179.  The complaints
generally allege, among other things, strict liability and
negligence relating to the use of our Corexit dispersant in
connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Pursuant to orders issued by the Court in MDL 2179, the claims
were consolidated in several master complaints, including one
naming Nalco Company and others who responded to the Gulf Oil
Spill (known as the "B3 Master Complaint"). On May 18, 2012, Nalco
filed a motion for summary judgment against the claims in the B3
Master Complaint, on the grounds that: (i) Plaintiffs' claims are
preempted by the comprehensive oil spill response scheme set forth
in the Clean Water Act and National Contingency Plan; and (ii)
Nalco is entitled to derivative immunity from suit. On November
28, 2012, the Court granted Nalco's motion and dismissed with
prejudice the claims in the "B3" Master Complaint asserted against
Nalco. The Court held that such claims were preempted by the Clean
Water Act and National Contingency Plan. Because claims in the
"B3" Master Complaint remained pending against other defendants,
the Court's decision was not a "final judgment" for purposes of
appeal. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), plaintiffs
will have 30 days after entry of final judgment to appeal the
Court's decision.

In December 2012 and January 2013, the MDL 2179 court issued final
orders approving two settlements between BP and Plaintiffs' Class
Counsel: (1) a proposed Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement;
and (2) a proposed Economic and Property Damages Class Action
Settlement. Pursuant to the proposed settlements, class members
agree to release claims against BP and other released parties,
including Nalco Company and its related entities.

Nalco Company, the incident defendants and the other responder
defendants have been named as first party defendants by Transocean
Deepwater Drilling, Inc. and its affiliates (the "Transocean
Entities") (In re the Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset
Leasing GmbH, et al, MDL No. 2179, Civil Action 10-2771). In April
and May 2011, the Transocean Entities, Cameron International
Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., M-I L.L.C.,
Weatherford U.S., L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc.
(collectively, the "Cross Claimants") filed cross claims in MDL
2179 against Nalco Company and other unaffiliated cross
defendants. The Cross Claimants generally allege, among other
things, that if they are found liable for damages resulting from
the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response,
they are entitled to indemnity or contribution from the cross
defendants.

In April and June 2011, in support of its defense of the claims
against it, Nalco Company filed counterclaims against the Cross
Claimants. In its counterclaims, Nalco Company generally alleges
that if it is found liable for damages resulting from the
Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response, it
is entitled to contribution or indemnity from the Cross Claimants.

In May 2016, Nalco was named in nine additional complaints filed
by individuals alleging, among other things, business and economic
loss resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  In April
2017, Nalco was named in two additional complaints filed by
individuals seeking, among other things, business and economic
loss resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits are generally seeking awards of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs. These actions have been consolidated in the MDL and the
Company expects they will be dismissed pursuant to the Court's
November 28, 2012 order granting Nalco's motion for summary
judgment.

On February 22, 2017, the Court dismissed the "B3" Master
Complaint and ordered that Plaintiffs who had previously filed a
claim that fell within the scope of the "B3" Master Complaint and
who had "opted out" of and not released their claims under the
Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement either: (1) complete a
sworn statement indicating, among other things, that they opted
out of the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement (to be
completed by Plaintiffs who previously filed an individual
complaint); or (2) file an individual lawsuit attaching the sworn
statement as an exhibit, by a deadline date set by the Court. The
Court will then determine which "B3" Plaintiffs are entitled to
pursue their claims and the procedures for addressing those
claims.

The Company believes the claims asserted against Nalco Company are
without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. The
Company also believes that it has rights to contribution and/or
indemnification (including legal expenses) from third parties.
However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits,
the involvement it might have in these matters in the future, or
the potential for future litigation.


MDL 2284: Court Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Gaffey Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the
Imprelis Arborist Panel's decision and denying Dan Gaffey's appeal
in the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES
TO: ALL ACTIONS, MDL No. 2284, No. 2:11-md-02284 (E.D. Pa.).

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

In the fall of 2010, 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.

In September 2011, 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 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 from Aug. 31, 2010
through Aug. 21, 2011, 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, or Feb. 11, 2013.

Under the Settlement, property owner class members who filed
claims by the claims deadline would receive tree removal (or
compensation for tree removal), payments for replacement trees,
tree care and maintenance payments, and a 15% payment for
incidental damages.  The Settlement included a warranty that
provided for all benefits but the 15% incidental damages award for
Imprelis damage that manifested after the claims period closed but
before May 31, 2015.  On Feb. 12, 2013, the Court preliminarily
approved the Settlement, and on Sept. 27, 2013, the Court held a
Final Fairness Hearing.  On Oct. 17, 2013, it granted the Class
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement.

Mr. Gaffey submitted an inspection request for on June 18, 2013,
prior to the expiration of the claim deadline.  A DuPont arborist
visited his property in August 2013.  Despite Mr Gaffey's
recollection that the inspector attributed the damage to Imprelis,
the inspector noted on the claims form that none of the trees
showed signs of Imprelis injury.  Mr. Gaffey objected to the
denial of his claim and submitted photographs of the trees he
believed were affected by Imprelis.  DuPont scheduled another
visit to his property, and a second inspector reaffirmed the
original inspector's conclusion that the tree damage was not due
to Imprelis.  Mr. Gaffey objected again, submitting largely the
same photographs, and DuPont reaffirmed its denial.  With his
third objection, Mr. Gaffey enclosed a report from his own
arborist, who noted that he was suspicious of Imprelis being the
causing agent of the tree damage.  DuPont denied the claim again.

Mr. Gaffey appealed to the Arborist Panel, and they denied his
appeal.  Gaffey appeals the decision of the Imprelis Arborist
Panel, asking the Court to overturn the Panel's decision and order
DuPont to compensate him for damage to 14 trees on his property.

Judge Pratter finds that beyond the timing of the tree damage and
his own arborist's suspicions, Mr. Gaffey does not provide any
conclusive evidence of Imprelis damage to his property.  Two
arborists who visited Mr. Gaffey's property in person could not
find typical Imprelis symptoms, and the Arborist Panel, after
viewing photographs and reviewing all three arborists'
conclusions, similarly was unable to attribute the tree damage to
Imprelis.  Because she, in view of all the evidence presented,
does not find the Panel's conclusion arbitrary or capricious,
Judge Pratter affirmed the Arborist Panel decision and denied Mr.
Gaffey's appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 8, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/mDz5Ra from Leagle.com.


MDL 2284: Ct. Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Gallant's Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the
Imprelis Arborist Panel's decision and denying Keith Gallan's
appeal in the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT
APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS, MDL No. 2284, No. 2:11-md-02284-GEKP
(E.D. Pa.).

Mr. Gallant appeals the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel,1
claiming that DuPont wrongly denied his warranty claim for
Imprelis damage to several trees.

In the fall of 2010, 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.

In September 2011, 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 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 from Aug. 31, 2010
through Aug. 21, 2011, 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, or Feb. 11, 2013.

Under the Settlement, property owner class members who filed
claims by the claims deadline would receive tree removal (or
compensation for tree removal), payments for replacement trees,
tree care and maintenance payments, and a 15% payment for
incidental damages.  The Settlement included a warranty that
provided for all benefits but the 15% incidental damages award for
Imprelis damage that manifested after the claims period closed but
before May 31, 2015.  On Feb. 12, 2013, the Court preliminarily
approved the Settlement, and on Sept. 27, 2013, the Court held a
Final Fairness Hearing.  On Oct. 17, 2013, it granted the Class
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement.

After the resolution of his original Imprelis claim, Mr. Gallant
filed a warranty claim seeking compensation for several trees that
he contends worsened after the application of Imprelis.  A DuPont
arborist inspected the property and concluded that two additional
trees should be removed and one other should receive tree care.
Mr. Gallant then objected to the warranty claim resolution,
claiming that DuPont had failed to evaluate all of the trees at
issue and requesting re-evaluation of additional trees.  After a
review by an arborist of the photographs submitted by Mr. Gallant
with his objections, DuPont denied his objections, and Mr. Gallant
appealed to the Arborist Panel.  The Panel reviewed the
photographs and information submitted and denied the claim, noting
that the trees did not exhibit typical Imprelis symptomology.  Mr.
Gallant appeals the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel.

Judge Pratter held that because Mr. Gallant failed to submit any
specific objections to the Appeals Panel's decision, she is left
to assume that he merely reasserts the claims raised in his appeal
(i.e., that several trees on his property were so damaged by
Imprelis that they should be removed and replaced and that others
are sufficiently damaged by Imprelis so as to require tree care),
which were unanimously denied by the Panel.  After reviewing the
record submitted to the Court and the Panel's decision, the Judge
does not determine that the Arborist Panel's decision was
arbitrary or capricious.  Therefore, Judge Pratter affirmed the
Arborist Panel decision and denied Mr. Gallant's appeal.

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


MDL 2284: Court Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Stones' Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the
Imprelis Arborist Panel's decision and denying Samuel Spencer
Stone and Jerilyn Stone's appeal in the case captioned IN RE:
IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS, MDL
No. 2284, No. 2:11-md-02284 (E.D. Pa.).

The Stones appeal the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel,
claiming that they were left without a remedy because their damage
was not apparent until after the claims deadline passed and that
the Appeals Panel decision was erroneous and contrary to the
evidence.

In the fall of 2010, 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.

In September 2011, 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 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 from Aug. 31, 2010
through Aug. 21, 2011, 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, or Feb. 11, 2013.

Under the Settlement, property owner class members who filed
claims by the claims deadline would receive tree removal (or
compensation for tree removal), payments for replacement trees,
tree care and maintenance payments, and a 15% payment for
incidental damages.  The Settlement included a warranty that
provided for all benefits but the 15% incidental damages award for
Imprelis damage that manifested after the claims period closed but
before May 31, 2015.  On Feb. 12, 2013, the Court preliminarily
approved the Settlement, and on Sept. 27, 2013, the Court held a
Final Fairness Hearing.  On Oct. 17, 2013, it granted the Class
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement.

In November 2013, the Stones first noticed damage to trees on
their property and also first learned that Imprelis had been
applied to their lawn.  They then contacted DuPont in December,
2013 to seek compensation for their injuries.  DuPont eventually
arranged for an inspection of the Stones' property, but by the
time the inspector visited the property in May, 2015, the Stones
had already removed all of the trees that they contend were
affected by Imprelis.  Without evidence from which to determine
the cause or extent of damage to the Stones' trees, DuPont denied
the claim.  The Stones then filed an appeal, this time submitting
some photographs and two arborist reports.  The Panel denied their
appeal, noting that the photographs were not labeled with dates or
descriptions and that they had insufficient information to assess
the claim properly.

Before filing their appeal to the Arborist Panel, the Stones filed
a law suit in state court in West Virginia alleging claims for
products liability and fraud against DuPont, and they threatened
to bring a suit against their lawn care company.  DuPont moved to
enjoin the suit against them and to enforce the Class Action
Settlement, arguing that the Stones were class members and
therefore were barred from bringing Imprelis claims against
DuPont.  This Court granted the motion and enjoined the Stones
from continuing their state court Imprelis lawsuit.

Judge Pratter finds that a great deal of the Stones' argument
centers on the issues that the Court has already addressed in its
prior opinion enjoining the Stones' from pursuing their state
court claims against DuPont.  Indeed, the Stones seem to conflate
inclusion in the class with a guarantee of compensation, which
ignores the necessity of providing sufficient evidence of damage
in order to make a successful settlement claim.  Moreover, even if
DuPont had misled them, the Stones have not explained how a
misleading statement about the claims process prejudiced them.  If
they are attempting to argue that they would have opted out of the
Settlement absent DuPont's misleading statements, that argument
would be unavailing because the Stones did not communicate with
DuPont until after the opt out deadline had passed, so a
misleading statement could not have prevented them from timely
opting out of the Settlement.

With respect to the warranty claim itself, the Stones submitted a
few undated photographs, affidavits of two arborists, and spray
records, Judge Pratter finds that the six photographs submitted by
the Stones do not sufficiently show whether and to what extent
Imprelis damaged the Stones' trees.  And none of the evidence
submitted by the Stones demonstrates that the damage did not
manifest until after the claims deadline, which is a necessary
element to support a warranty claim.  At most, the Stones say that
they did not observe any damage until after the claims deadline,
but their failure to observe symptoms of Imprelis damage does not
prove that the symptoms did not exist prior to the claims
deadline.  For all of these reasons, the Judge finds that the
Arborist Panel's decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
Accordingly, Judge Pratter affirmed the Arborist Panel decision
and denied the Stones' appeal.

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


MDL 2284: Court Affirms Arborist Panel's Denial of Teffts' Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the
Imprelis Arborist Panel's decision and denying Julie and Tom
Tefft's appeal in the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS
DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS, MDL No. 2284, 2:11-md-02284-GEKP
(E.D. Pa.).

The Teffts appeal the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel,
claiming that DuPont wrongly denied their warranty claim.

In the fall of 2010, 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.

In September 2011, 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 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 from Aug. 31, 2010
through Aug. 21, 2011, 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, or Feb. 11, 2013.

Under the Settlement, property owner class members who filed
claims by the claims deadline would receive tree removal (or
compensation for tree removal), payments for replacement trees,
tree care and maintenance payments, and a 15% payment for
incidental damages.  The Settlement included a warranty that
provided for all benefits but the 15% incidental damages award for
Imprelis damage that manifested after the claims period closed but
before May 31, 2015.  On Feb. 12, 2013, the Court preliminarily
approved the Settlement, and on Sept. 27, 2013, the Court held a
Final Fairness Hearing.  On Oct. 17, 2013, it granted the Class
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement.

After the resolution of their original Imprelis claim, the Teffts
filed a warranty claim seeking additional Settlement compensation
for damage to seven juniper shrubs that were not included in their
original claim.  A DuPont arborist inspected the property on Aug.
13, 2015 and determined that the plants at issue were shrubs and
therefore not compensable under the Settlement.  The Teffts
objected, and DuPont maintained its denial.  The Teffts then filed
an appeal and submitted various photographs to the Arborist Panel
for consideration with their appeal.  The Arborist Panel denied
the appeal, noting that the pictures submitted by the Teffts were
not sufficient and that no Imprelis symptomology was observed.
The Teffts appeal the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel.

The Teffts argue that their seven juniper shrubs were killed by
lmprelis and that they should therefore be compensated for them by
DuPont.  After reviewing the photographs that were part of the
Teffts' original appeal, Judge Pratter finds that it is clear that
the shrubs are dead.  What is not clear from the photographs is
the cause of the damage to the shrubs.  Therefore, the Judge will
not disturb the Arborist Panel's decision.  Absent clear evidence
of Imprelis symptomology beyond the mere fact that the damage
occurred sometime after lmprelis was applied, she cannot conclude
that the Arborist Panel acted arbitrarily or capriciously in
denying the appeal.  For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pratter
affirmed Arborist Panel decision and denied Teffts' appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 8, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/hD1BGP from Leagle.com.


MDL 2284: Court Affirms Arborists' Denial of Borowski's Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum affirming the
Imprelis Arborist Panel's decision and denying Susan Borowski's
appeal in the case captioned IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT
APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS, MDL No. 2284, No. 2:11-md-02284-GEKP
(E.D. Pa.).

Ms. Borowski appeals the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel,
claiming that DuPont should have rated two trees for removal and
replacement after she made a warranty claim.

In the fall of 2010, 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.

In September 2011, 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 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 from Aug. 31, 2010
through Aug. 21, 2011, 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, or Feb. 11, 2013.

Under the Settlement, property owner class members who filed
claims by the claims deadline would receive tree removal (or
compensation for tree removal), payments for replacement trees,
tree care and maintenance payments, and a 15% payment for
incidental damages.  The Settlement included a warranty that
provided for all benefits but the 15% incidental damages award for
Imprelis damage that manifested after the claims period closed but
before May 31, 2015.  On Feb. 12, 2013, the Court preliminarily
approved the Settlement, and on Sept. 27, 2013, the Court held a
Final Fairness Hearing.  On Oct. 17, 2013, it granted the Class
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement.

Ms. Borowski settled her original Imprelis claim with DuPont in
2013.  After the settlement, she made two warranty claims, the
second of which is the subject of this appeal.  In that warranty
claim, Ms. Borowski challenged the ratings of eight trees.  DuPont
sent an arborist to re-inspect the property, and that arborist
determined that the trees had not worsened enough to justify a
higher rating.  Based on the arborist's findings, DuPont denied
the claim.  She then appealed, seeking reconsideration of the
rating of six of the eight trees and submitting photographs in
support of her arguments.  The Arborist Panel denied the appeal.
Ms. Borowski appeals the decision of the Imprelis Arborist Panel.

Judge Pratter finds that Ms. Borowski's appeal to the Court is
limited to two of the eight trees for which she originally sought
warranty compensation.  She argues that both of these trees have
significantly worsened, despite receiving tree care, and therefore
should be rated for removal and replacement.  She submits
photographs in support of her claim.  However, the Judge Court
agrees with the Appeals Panel that the photographs do not
conclusively show damage to such a degree that the tree ratings
determined by DuPont's arborists should be disturbed.  Thus, Judge
Pratter affirmed the Arborist Panel decision and denied Ms.
Borowski's appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 8, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/7tmAo9 from Leagle.com.


METROPOLITAN TRANSPO: Faces "Dejesus" Suit in S.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan
Transportation Authority. The case is styled as Ana Jessica
Dejesus, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-07054 (S.D. N.Y., September 15, 2017).

The Defendants own and/or operates the New York City subway
system.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


MONSANTO: Arkansas Lawyers, Regulators Ponder Dicamba
-----------------------------------------------------
Mikkel Pates, writing for Agweek, reports that Dicamba damage on
2017 soybeans has shifted into a new phase of high-stakes public
relations, regulatory and legal battles.

The Arkansas State Plant Board on Aug. 25 recommended limiting the
chemical's use to before April 15 in that state for 2018. Low-
volatility dicamba herbicides include Monsanto's XtendiMax,
DuPont's FeXapen and BASF's Engenia.  The Environmental Protection
Agency is reviewing label instructions for the chemicals for 2018.

On Sept. 7, Monsanto filed a petition with the board to "halt a
unwarranted and misinformed ban." Robb Fraley, Monsanto's chief
technology officer wrote to Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson that 90
percent of the problems were reported in only eight of the state's
75 counties.  Mr. Fraley indicated the reported problems would
cause "little or no yield loss from mild or moderate leaf-cupping"
and said problems could have been caused by other herbicides, on
older formulations, local weather conditions and applicator
errors.

Northern sweep

Reverberations are sweeping northward.

Bob Hartzler, a professor of agronomy at Iowa State University, in
an Aug. 29 issue of the Washington Post, raised eyebrows when he
concluded dicamba "is not manageable."

As far north as North Dakota, the situation remains a concern for
tech-savvy farmers and other ag professionals who historically
support new technologies.  Andrew Thostenson, a pesticide
specialist for North Dakota State University Extension Service,
has said other states will look at Arkansas' solution.

Meanwhile, Fraley went to the airwaves in North Dakota, asking
"our farmer customers" to report problems and that the company
would "responding to each report from our farmer-customers." He
invited farmers to call 1-844-RRXTEND to file a report and "talk
to an agronomic specialist."

Scott Partridge, Monsanto vice president of global strategy,
contacted Agweek to underline the thinking behind the petition.

"Ninety-nine percent of our customers have expressed a good
experience this year," Mr. Partridge said.  Of the 1 percent that
made "inquiries" about problems, 77 percent reported they'd used
inadequate buffers, wrong nozzles or improper boom height.

Mr. Partridge said Arkansas' board has 30 days to make a decision.
If they make another "arbitrary" decision, the "next step of
review will be filing suit," he said.

On the ground

Matt Olson, an agronomist in Valley City, N.D., for Centrol Ag
Consulting, thinks some kind of solution is needed.  Centrol is a
network of 36 to 38 full-time agronomy consultants with a home
office at Twin Valley, Minn. The group covers over 2 million acres
for client farmers in the eastern two-thirds of North Dakota,
western Minnesota and northern South Dakota.

Mr. Olson, 42, works with about 30 to 35 growers in North Dakota
from Valley City to Buffalo, and from Enderlin west to Marion.
More than half of his acres are soybeans.  He estimates 30 to 40
percent of his client beans that are not dicamba resistant have
been "affected somewhat" and some from multiple neighbors.  That's
going to make it difficult to sort out who caused what damage,
although yield mapping technology will offer some help.

"I would say that of the farms that I work for, the majority have
been affected in some way -- whether there is off-target movement
from them spraying or whether they received off-target movement
from another grower or an application of the chemical," Mr. Olson
says.

"It's been very stressful," Mr. Olson acknowledges.  "Growers have
good neighbors and good friends who have had inversions --
vaporization that has occurred in their fields."

There aren't many answers from insurance companies about who is
going to be taken care of it if there is a yield loss, he says.

"You hear that guys' insurance will take care of them this year
and next year, supposedly sending out letters that they aren't
going to cover vaporizations and inversions next year," he says.
"We'll have to wait and see how it turns out."

Mr. Olson and others think it could become very difficult to get
liability insurance to be an applicator for applying dicamba next
year if there aren't better answers.

And there are already lawsuits and perhaps more in the making.

Texas to Minn.

Rene F. Rocha III, is a lawyer with the "complex litigation group"
of Morgan & Morgan in New Orleans.

Mr. Rocha contacted Agweek to say that he is working with dozens
of farmers from Texas to Minnesota about potential legal action.
He says he's talked to potential clients in South Dakota, but
declined to name them or identify their location.

Mr. Rocha says he initially studied the dicamba case in 2016 but
dropped it.  He believed the seed and chemical companies had
"rushed to market" products for which the herbicide wasn't
approved.  But he dropped it because "at the end of the day the
damage was caused by off-label and illegal application."

Mr. Rocha says he was surprised when problems were "much worse" in
2017, with potentially millions of acres and thousands of farmers
involved.  He thinks dicamba products aren't really less volatile
than earlier formulations, with damage from volatilization that
occurs with temperature inversions, sometimes days after spraying.
Mr. Rocha says he takes the cases as individuals and on
contingency and will seek compensation for yield losses as well as
punitive damages.

Most lawyers active in the case so far are local attorneys, but
Rocha argues that only firms like his have the experience to take
on "huge, multi-billion-dollar companies" as "large mass torts."
He also thinks farmers are likelier to get a favorable result in
this case if they operate as individual lawsuits, not as a class
action.  He says some lawyers have filed class-action lawsuits but
he wasn't familiar with specifics.

Mr. Rocha says the bigger issue in the situation is that a few
large power players in the agricultural business are working to
"corner the market" on seed technology by giving farmers no choice
but to use their products.

Civil words

Mr. Olson hopes regulators and farmers find a way to "work with
the chemistry" moving forward. That could involve fall
applications of dicamba, and then come back early in the
springtime.

"It seems like anybody that did early applications this year had
not nearly the off-target movements we did later in the summer,"
he says.

He says manufacturers seem to be telling growers that they did all
they could with testing the products, but growers he's talked to
think it should have been tested by third-parties, including
universities.

"We need these companies to combat resistant weeds," Mr. Olson
says.  "We have lots of resistant weeds in the territory --
kochia, ragweed, waterhemp, mare's tail.  If we don't get some of
these chemistries it's going to be very tough to raise soybeans in
the future."

"The chemical manufacturers and seed technology companies are the
guys that are providing the chemistries to kill our weeds out in
these fields, providing us the genetics for excellent-yielding
crops. So we need these guys.  Badly," he says.

Mr. Olson doesn't feel that the situation is an indictment of the
complicated nature of agricultural chemistries and stacked traits,
or an indictment of genetically-modified organisms.

"I feel we need GMO traits to produce enough food to feed the
world.  If we don't have GMO traits we are going to be in big
trouble, and there's going to be a lot of hungry people." [GN]


MONTANA: Faces Class Action Over Unfair License Suspension Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aja Goare, writing for KTVQ.com, reports that a Bozeman man is
leading a class action lawsuit against the State of Montana and
the Montana Department of Motor Vehicles, alleging an unfair
system where poor people are fined and caught in a never-ending
cycle of debt that prevents them from ever having a valid drivers
license.

According to the complaint recently filed by Michael DiFrancesco,
the state is guilty of operating a wealth-based drivers license
suspension scheme that "traps some of the state's poorest
residents in a cycle of poverty."

The complaint is filed in U.S. District Court in Butte.  The
defendants, which include Gov. Steve Bullock (D-Montana) and
Attorney General Tim Fox (R-Montana), have yet to respond to the
complaint.

Mr. DiFrancesco, 22, alleges that people who cannot afford to pay
court-ordered fines and/or restitution automatically have their
licenses suspended or revoked.

"Without driver's licenses, people already facing the harsh
realities of owing court debt while living in poverty face
additional hurdles of being unable to drive to and from work, get
their children to daycare, keep medical appointments, and care for
their family members," states the complaint.

The complaint alleges that, although the system is designed to
coerce drivers to pay the fines, those who are too poor to pay are
unfairly penalized as a result.

"No incentive or punishment will increase the likelihood of a
person paying a debt if he or she does not have the money," states
the complaint.

Mr. DiFrancesco claims that he himself is the victim of this
alleged scheme, stating in his complaint that he is unable to
obtain a job due to his inability to pay fines and have his
license restored.

The complaint alleges that there are no real alternative methods
of transportation in many parts of Montana that could allow a
person with a suspended license to reach his or her place of
employment.

According to the complaint, Mr. DiFrancesco has recently
experienced homelessness as a result of a fine he was assessed at
the age of 14.

Mr. DiFrancesco claims that he was fined $185 for "minor in
possession."  Since he first received the fine, Mr. DiFrancesco
claims his court costs have ballooned to over $4,000, which is
beyond his ability to pay.

The complaint describes a catch-22, where Mr. DiFrancesco is
unable to pay the court fines because he is unemployed, but he
cannot become employed without a drivers license.

Mr. DiFrancesco has been cited multiple times for driving without
a license because, he claims, he has attempted to drive to his
place of employment and earn money.

Mr. DiFrancesco has never been charged with a moving traffic
violation or any violation related to road safety, according to
the complaint.

"Because they cannot pay fines, poor drivers are over-represented
in the pool of suspended drivers when compared to the general
population of licensed drivers," alleges Mr. DiFrancesco.  "In
many cases, Montana's wealth-based suspens10n scheme forces
suspended drivers to choose between driving illegally and losing
their jobs."

Mr. DiFrancesco noted that he could pay for a taxi but that cost
would be significant over time.

The class action suit represents the interests of 10,000 Montanans
who have had their license suspended for an inability to pay court
fines, according to the complaint.

Mr. DiFrancesco is asking for the DMV to change its methods,
allowing him to have his license reinstated without paying off his
court debts or a reinstatement fee. [GN]


MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Appeals Order in "Brinkley" Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Monterey Financial Services, Inc. and Monterey
Financial Services, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling
relating to the lawsuit styled Tiffany Brinkley v. Monterey
Financial Services, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01103-WQH-WVG, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San
Diego.

The appellate case is captioned as Tiffany Brinkley v. Monterey
Financial Services, et al., Case No. 17-56335, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants
previously filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is titled as Tiffany Brinkley v. Monterey
Financial Services, et al., Case No. 17-80053, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In her complaint, the Plaintiff asserts that she "was, at all time
relevant herein, a natural person and a resident of Tukwila,
Washington."  She seeks, among other things, to certify a putative
class that purports to include "all persons who, while physically
located or residing in California and Washington who made or
received one or more telephone calls with Defendant MONTEREY
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. during the four-year period preceding the
filing of this lawsuit (the Class Period) and did not receive
notice at the beginning of the telephone call that their telephone
conversation may be recorded or monitored."

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

   -- Appellants Monterey Financial Services, Inc. and Monterey
      Financial Services, LLC's opening brief was due
      September 15, 2017;

   -- Appellee Tiffany Brinkley's answering brief was due
      September 15, 2017;

   -- Oral Argument on Tuesday, October 3, 2017 -- 09:00 A.M. --
      Courtroom 2 -- Pasadena, California.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee TIFFANY BRINKLEY, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
          KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP
          6156 Innovation Way
          Carlsbad, CA 92009
          Telephone: (760) 929-9303
          E-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com

               - and -

          Christina Elizabeth Wickman, Esq.
          Steven Allen Wickman, Esq.
          WICKMAN & WICKMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          500 La Terraza Boulevard, Suite 150
          Escondido, CA 92025
          Telephone: (760) 732-3300
          Facsimile: (619) 271-8656
          E-mail: Christina@wickmanlaw.com
                  Steve@wickmanlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. and
MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, are represented by:

          William P. Cole, Esq.
          Matthew R. Orr, Esq.
          CALL & JENSEN, APC
          610 Newport Center Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 717-3000
          E-mail: wcole@calljensen.com
                  morr@calljensen.com


NATIONAL COLLECTION: Faces "Willis" Suit in N.D. of Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collection
Systems, Inc. d/b/a National Credit Management. The case is styled
as Crystal Willis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collection Systems, Inc.
d/b/a National Credit Management, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00401 (N.D. Ind., September 15, 2017).
National Collection Systems, Inc. d/b/a National Credit Management
is engaged in recovery of educational loans and receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
   Marcus & Zelman LLC
   1500 Allaire Ave Ste 101
   Ocean, NJ 07712
   Tel: (845) 367-7146
   Fax: (732) 298-6256
   Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


NCC BUSINESS: Faces "Sharon" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCC Business
Services of Ohio, Inc.  The case is styled as Ella Sharon, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. NCC Business Services of Ohio, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-05417 (E.D.N.Y., September 15, 2017).

NCC Business Services is a third party collection agency with
offices across the country assisting creditors with recovering
past due accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NIKE RETAIL: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in 9th Circuit Court
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nike Retail
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Isaac Rodriguez, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-
16866 (9th Cir., September 15, 2017).

Nike Retail Services Inc. distributes athletic products. The
company is based in Beaverton, Oregon. Nike Retail Services Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Nike Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Larry W. Lee, Esq.
   Diversity Law Group
   515 South Figueroa, Suite 1250
   Los Angeles, CA 90071
   Tel: 213-488-6555

      - and -

   Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
   Hyun Legal APC
   550 S. Hope St.
   Los Angeles, CA 90071

      - and -

   William Lucas Marder, Esq.
   Polaris Law Group, LLP
   501 San Benito Street
   Hollister, CA 95023

The Defendant is represented by:

   Jon D. Meer, Esq.
   Seyfarth Shaw, LLP
   2029 Century Park East
   Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
   Tel: 310-277-7200

       - and -

   Sheryl L. Skibbe, Esq.
   Seyfarth Shaw, LLP
   2029 Century Park East
   Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
   Tel: 310-277-7200


OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Awaits Court OK of $2.85MM NSLP Class Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. is still awaiting the courts'
preliminary approval of an NSLP class action settlement for
US$2.85 million, according to the Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

Specifically, on March 19, 2017, a Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Class Action Settlement was filed with the Court for a
Stipulation of Settlement for US$2.85 million.  The Company said,
"If the settlement is approved by the Court, Oppenheimer
anticipates its contribution toward such settlement will be
approximately US$56,000."

On October 21, 2015, plaintiff Enrico Vaccaro, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York, on behalf of purchasers of New Source Energy Partners,
L.P. ("NSLP") 11% Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Units
("NSLP Complaint") for US$48.3 million.

Plaintiff named as defendants NSLP, as well as certain officers
and directors of NSLP, and underwriters Oppenheimer, Stifel,
Nicolaus & Company, Inc., Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., Janney
Montgomery Scott LLC, and Wunderlich Securities, Inc.

Plaintiff alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act pursuant to and/or traceable to NSLP's
prospectus supplement and accompanying prospectus filed with the
SEC on May 7, 2015 and the base prospectus and shelf registration
statement filed with the SEC and declared effective on April 21,
2014 ("NSLP Offering Documents").

The NSLP Complaint alleged that the NSLP Offering Documents failed
to disclose certain cash flow problems facing NSLP and sought
damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On or around November 13, 2015, the defendants removed the state
court action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("SDNY").

On or around March 30, 2016, NSLP filed with the SDNY notice of
its March 15, 2016 voluntary petition for relief under chapter 7,
title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which operates as
an automatic stay of the claims as to NSLP.

On June 20, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint against the same defendants ("NSLP Amended Complaint"),
which seeks unspecified damages, including interest, punitive and
exemplary damages, as well as rescission.

On December 19, 2016, the SDNY dismissed the NSLP Amended
Complaint without prejudice.

On January 19, 2017, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
and, on March 9, 2017, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint.

Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. provides middle-market investment
banking and full service broker-dealer products and services.  The
Company was founded in 1881 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


PACIFIC COAST OIL: Feb. 2018 Hearing Set for Accord Compliance
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has set a hearing for February 28, 2018 regarding
compliance with the approved US$7.6 million settlement of a class
action lawsuit against Pacific Coast Oil Trust, according to the
Form 10-Q filed by Pacific Coast Oil with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy
Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and
others.

The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the
Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the
prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement that
became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the
prospectuses issued thereto.  The complaint states that the
plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under
the Securities Act and alleges that both such registration
statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts
and omitted material facts.  The plaintiff seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on
certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court
may deem just and proper.

On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class
action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast
Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC
and others.  The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and
makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are
made in the Welch complaint.  In November 2014, the Welch and
Berliner actions were consolidated into a single action.

On December 8, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
consolidated action.  On June 12, 2017, the Court entered a final
judgment in the action approving the settlement in the amount of
US$7.6 million.  The Court set a hearing for February 28, 2018
regarding compliance with the approved settlement.

Pacific Coast Oil said, "The Trust believes that it is fully
indemnified by PCEC against any liability or expense it might
incur in connection with the consolidated action.  The approved
settlement does not require any payment from the Trust."

Pacific Coast Oil Trust (the "Trust") is a statutory trust formed
in January 2012 under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to
a Trust Agreement among Pacific Coast Energy Company LP ("PCEC"),
as trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as
Trustee (the "Trustee"), and Wilmington Trust, National
Association, as Delaware Trustee (the "Delaware Trustee"). The
Trust was created to acquire and hold net profits and royalty
interests in certain oil and natural gas properties located in
California (the "Conveyed Interests") for the benefit of the Trust
unitholders pursuant to the Trust Agreement. The Conveyed
Interests represent undivided interests in underlying properties
consisting of PCEC's interests in its oil and natural gas
properties located onshore in California (the "Underlying
Properties"). The Conveyed Interests were conveyed by PCEC to the
Trust concurrently with the initial public offering of the Trust's
units of beneficial interest ("Trust Units") in May 2012.


PATINA RESTAURANT: Faces "Li" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Patina Restaurant
Group, LLC, d/b/a The Sea Grill. The case is styled as Hai Long
Li, on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Patina Restaurant Group, LLC, d/b/a The Sea Grill, Delaware
North Companies, Inc. and Raroc, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-07058 (S.D.N.Y., September 15, 2017).

The Defendants operates a restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


PEPPERIDGE FARM: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Alfred" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Pepperidge Farm Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling
relating to the lawsuit entitled Raymond Alfred, et al. v.
Pepperidge Farm Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-07086-JAK-SK, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Raymond Alfred, et al. v.
Pepperidge Farm Inc., Case No. 17-56336, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendant
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That
appellate case is captioned as Raymond Alfred, et al. v.
Pepperidge Farm Inc., Case No. 17-80074, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 5, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 6, 2017;

   -- Appellant Pepperidge Farm Inc.'s opening brief is due on
      December 14, 2017;

   -- Appellees Raymond Alfred and Marvin Barrish's answering
      brief is due on January 16, 2018; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees RAYMOND ALFRED and MARVIN BARRISH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Valerie Brender, Esq.
          Peter Rukin, Esq.
          RUKIN HYLAND DORIA & TINDALL LLP
          100 Pine Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 421-1800
          Facsimile: (415) 421-1700
          E-mail: vbrender@rhdtlaw.com
                  peterrukin@rhdtlaw.com

Defendant-Appellant PEPPERIDGE FARM INC. is represented by:

          Galen Bascom, Esq.
          Paul D. Clement, Esq.
          George W. Hicks, Jr., Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: galen.bascom@kirkland.com
                  paul.clement@kirkland.com
                  george.hicks@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Paul C. Evans, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Telephone: (215) 963-5431
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
          E-mail: pevans@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 830-0600
          Facsimile: (212) 752-5378
          E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          John David Hayashi, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          5 Park Plaza
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 399-7124
          E-mail: john.hayashi@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Allyson Newton Ho, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1717 Main Street
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 466-4180
          Facsimile: (214) 466-4001
          E-mail: allyson.ho@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Judd E. Stone, II, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 739-5531
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: judd.stone@morganlewis.com


PETCO ANIMAL: "Wagner" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on January 15, 2017, captioned
Robert Wagner, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons v. PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc., PETCO Animal
Supplies Stores, Inc., and PETCO Holdings, Inc. LLC, Case No.
1:17-cv-00133, was transferred from the District of Colorado to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
01793-H-BGS to the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

The Defendants operate more than 1,150 specialty retail stores
nationwide, selling pet food, live animals, pet supplies and
related goods and services, including numerous stores within the
State of Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fran Lisa Rudich, Esq.
      Michael Hayden Reed, Esq.
      Seth R. Lesser
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
      E-mail: frudich@klafterolsen.com
              seth@klafterolsen.com

         - and -

      Brian David Gonzales, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES
      242 Linden Street
      Fort Collins, CO 80524
      Telephone: (970) 214-0562
      Facsimile: (303) 539-9812

The Defendant is represented by:

      Rachelle Elizabeth Hill, Esq.
      Joshua B. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
      1900 16th Street, Suite 800
      Denver, CO 80202
      Telephone: (303) 629-6200
      Facsimile: (303) 629-0200
      E-mail: rhill@littler.com
              jkirkpatrick@littler.com


PGE COMPANY: Appeal on Dismissal of Trojan Actions Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Investment recovery class actions against Portland General
Electric Company (PGE) regarding its Trojan nuclear power plant
still remain subject to a decision in the plaintiffs' appeal
pending in the Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon, 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.

In 1993, PGE closed the Trojan nuclear power plant (Trojan) and
sought full recovery of, and a rate of return on, its Trojan costs
in a general rate case filing with the OPUC.  In 1995, the OPUC
issued a general rate order that granted the Company recovery of,
and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining investment in
Trojan.

Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various
state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law
to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment.  In
2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon
Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the
OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed in
Marion County Circuit Court (Circuit Court) against PGE on behalf
of two classes of electric service customers.  The class action
lawsuits seek damages totaling US$260 million, plus interest, as a
result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers,
of a return on its investment in Trojan.

In August 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling
ordering the abatement of the class action proceedings.  The OSC
concluded that the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine
what, if any, remedy could be offered to PGE customers, through
price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the
Trojan investment that the Company collected in prices.

The OSC further stated that if the OPUC determined that it could
provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then the class action
proceedings may become moot in whole or in part.  The OSC added
that, if the OPUC determined that it could not provide a remedy,
the court system may have a role to play.  The OSC also ruled that
the plaintiffs retained the right to return to the Circuit Court
for disposition of whatever issues remained unresolved from the
remanded OPUC proceedings.  In October 2006, the Circuit Court
abated the class actions in response to the ruling of the OSC.

In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE
to provide refunds of US$33 million, including interest, which
refunds were completed in 2010.  Following appeals, the 2008 Order
was upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals in February 2013 and by
the OSC in October 2014.

In June 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Circuit Court
lifted the abatement and in July 2015, the Circuit Court heard
oral argument on the Company's motion for Summary Judgment.
Following oral argument on PGE's motion for summary judgment, the
plaintiffs moved to amend the complaints.  On February 22, 2016,
the Circuit Court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the
complaint and on March 16, 2016, the Circuit Court entered a
general judgment that granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed all claims by the plaintiffs.  On April 14,
2016, the plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to the
Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon.

The Company said, "PGE believes that the October 2, 2014 OSC
decision and the recent Circuit Court decisions have reduced the
risk of a loss to the Company in excess of the amounts previously
recorded and discussed above.  However, because the class actions
remain subject to a decision in the appeal, management believes
that it is reasonably possible that such a loss in excess of
amounts previously recorded could result.  As these matters
involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of
potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently not
available to determine the amount of any such loss."

Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility
company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon.  The Company operates seven thermal plants; seven
hydroelectric plants; and two wind farms.  It was founded in 1930
and is headquartered in Portland, Oregon.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Wins Final Nod of "Klippel" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mae A. D'agostino granted the Plaintiff's unopposed
motion for final approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement
dated September 20, 2016, in the lawsuit captioned RUSSELL
KLIPPEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC and CATHERINE M. HEDGEMAN,
ESQ., Case No. 6:15-cv-01061-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y.).

The Settlement Class was defined as: All those individuals who do
not timely opt out who meet the following definition:

     Natural persons who were sued by PRA in a state court
     consumer collection action brought within the Northern
     District of New York in a city court in this District in an
     action in which a summons misrepresented the state court's
     jurisdiction over the defendant by stating in the summons,
     in relevant part: "BASIS FOR VENUE: Defendant resides in
     jurisdiction of CITY OF__________ " [or any substantially
     similar statement], in which the address of the state court
     defendant's residence is listed in the summons and/or
     complaint, and is outside the jurisdiction of the relevant
     city court, and, in which the summons was filed within one
     year of the initiation of the instant class action. The
     Settlement Class will only include individuals who received
     a summons and/or complaint signed by Catherine Hedgeman,
     Esq. The Settlement Class will not include anyone who filed
     for bankruptcy after the alleged violation took place or
     anyone who is deceased.  For purposes of determining whether
     an address listed in a summons is "outside the jurisdiction
     of the relevant city court," the parties agree that this
     shall mean that the residence of a consumer to whom a
     summons was addressed was not in the city for whose city
     court the collection action was filed in or in a town that
     is (i) within the same county and (ii) contiguous to the
     city by land.

The Court has considered the objections to approval of the
Settlement Agreement and finds it to be without merit.  The
objections are, therefore, overruled.

For his efforts on behalf of the Class and to settle his
individual claims, Russel Klippel is awarded $1,000 in statutory
damages and $2,500 as a service fee in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant is to pay each
member of the Settlement Class, who did not opt out of the
Settlement the amount of $250 in the manner and time set forth in
the Settlement Agreement.  The funds in the Settlement Fund
remaining after the expiration date of the last mailed settlement
check shall be distributed in the manner set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.  The Court approves attorneys' fees and
costs in the amount of $36,000.

A copy of the Final Order and Judgment is available at no charge
at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sDXlVWI9


R & L CARRIERS: Court Approves Settlement in "Herrera" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John E. Steele adopted the report and recommendation made
by Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy in the lawsuit styled LYNN
HERRERA, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated and
MARGARET RABER, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated v. R & L CARRIERS, INC., an Ohio corporation, PARAMOUNT
TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC, a Florida corporation, and
AFC WORLDWIDE EXPRESS, INC., a Georgia corporation, Case No. 2:16-
cv-00795-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla.).

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, filed August 31,
2017, recommending that the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of
Settlement be granted, that the settlements be approved, and the
case dismissed without the Court retaining jurisdiction.  On
September 5, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Notice of Non-
Objection to Report and Recommendation indicating that no
objections would be filed.

In an opinion and order, Judge Steele granted the parties' Joint
Motion for Approval of Settlement, and approved the Receipts and
Releases as a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide
dispute.  However, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over
enforcement.

The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing the case with prejudice,
and the Court will not retain jurisdiction over the case.  The
Clerk is further directed to terminate all deadlines and motions,
and close the file.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=e6eXfMfr


RASH CURTIS: Court Certifies Four Classes in "McMillion" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order in the lawsuit
titled SANDRA MCMILLION, ET AL. v. RASH CURTIS & ASSOCIATES, Case
No. 4:16-cv-03396-YGR (N.D. Cal.), granted in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The Court certifies these classes with Plaintiff Ignacio Perez as
the class representative, both for injunctive relief only pursuant
to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
damages pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3):

   (a) Skip-Trace Class 1: All persons who received a call on
       their cellular telephones within four years of the filing
       of the complaint until the date that class notice is
       disseminated from Rash Curtis' DAKCS VIC dialer and/or
       Global Connect dialer whose cellular telephone was
       obtained by Rash Curtis through skip tracing;

   (b) Skip-Trace Class 2: All persons who received a prerecorded
       message or robocall on their cellular telephones [or]
       landline phones within four years of the filing of the
       complaint until the date that class notice is disseminated
       from Rash Curtis whose telephone number was obtained by
       Rash Curtis through skip tracing;

   (c) Non-Debtor Class 1: All persons who received a call on
       their cellular telephones within four years of the filing
       of the complaint until the date that class notice is
       disseminated from Rash Curtis' DAKCS VIC dialer and/or
       Global Connect dialer whose telephone number was obtained
       by Rash Curtis through skip tracing and for whom Rash
       Curtis never had a debt-collection account in their name;
       and

   (d) Non-Debtor Class 2: All persons who received a prerecorded
       message or robocall on their cellular telephones [or]
       landline phones within four years of the filing of the
       complaint until the date that class notice is disseminated
       from Rash Curtis whose telephone number was obtained by
       Rash Curtis through skip tracing and for whom Rash Curtis
       has never had a debt-collection account in their name.

The Court further appoints the Plaintiffs' counsel, Bursor &
Fisher, P.A., as class counsel.

The Court sets a case management conference for October 2, 2017.
No later than September 25, 2017, the parties must file updated
joint case management statements, in accordance with the Civil
Local Rules and this Court's Standing Order, including any
remaining requests for extensions to the discovery and dispositive
motion schedule.

The Court denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' administrative
motion at Docket Number 70.

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


RENT-A-CENTER: Still Defends "Hall" and "DePalma" Suits in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, 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 Company still defends itself against the
cases, Alan Hall, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al.; and James
DePalma, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al.

The Company said, "On December 23, 2016, a putative class action
was filed against us and certain of our former officers by Alan
Hall in federal court in Sherman, Texas.  The complaint alleges
that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and/or Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing false and misleading statements and omitting
material facts regarding our business, including implementation of
our point-of-sale system, operations and prospects during the
period covered by the complaint.  The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock from July
27, 2015 through October 10, 2016, and seeks damages in
unspecified amounts and costs, fees, and expenses.

"A complaint filed by James DePalma also in Sherman, Texas
alleging similar claims was consolidated by the court into the
Hall matter.

"We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves.  However, we cannot assure you that
we will be found to have no liability in this matter."

Rent-A-Center, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, leases
household durable goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis.  The
company operates through four segments: Core U.S., Acceptance Now,
Mexico, and Franchising.  It was founded in 1986 and is
headquartered in Plano, Texas.


RICHMOND ORGANIZATION: Summary Judgment Granted in Copyright Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WE WILL OVERCOME FOUNDATION and BUTLER
FILMS, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE RICHMOND ORGANIZATION, INC. (TRO
INC.) and LUDLOW MUSIC, INC., Defendants, No. 16cv2725(DLC)(S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' Aug. 18, 2017 Daubert motion; and granted the
Plaintiffs' June 20, 2017 motion for partial summary judgment.

The Defendants possess two copyrights in the musical composition
"We Will Overcome" registered as a derivative work with the
Copyright Office in 1960 and 1963.  In this litigation, the
Plaintiffs challenge through a putative class action the validity
of the Defendants' copyrights in the Song.

Defendant Butler produced "The Butler," an awardwinning American
historical drama, for which it sought to use "We Will Overcome" in
several scenes.  Butler ultimately paid $15,000 for a license to
use the Song for no more than ten seconds.

In February 2015, WSOF requested a quote from the Defendants for a
synchronization license to use "We Will Overcome" in a documentary
movie.  WSOF sent an a cappella version of the first verse to the
Defendants in March.  The Defendants refused to grant WSOF a
synchronization license to use the Song.  WSOF paid the Defendants
$45.50 for a mechanical license to produce and distribute 500
copies of the Song as a digital phonorecord.

The Plaintiffs filed this complaint against TRO and Ludlow on
April 14, 2016, seeking a declaratory judgment that, inter alia,
the Defendants' copyright registrations do not cover the melody or
"familiar lyrics" to the Song.  The Defendants' motion to dismiss
was granted in part as to various state law claims on Nov. 1,
2016.

On June 20, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the motion for partial
summary judgment in which they principally argue that the lyrics
and melody in the first verse and its identical fifth verse
("Verse 1/5") of the Song are not sufficiently original to qualify
for copyright registration as a derivative work.  With their Aug.
18, 2017 reply brief, the Plaintiffs filed a motion pursuant to
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., seeking exclusion of the
Defendants' two expert reports.  The Daubert motion became fully
submitted on Aug. 30, 2017.

The Plaintiffs principally rest their assertion that Verse 1/5 of
the Song is in the public domain on a comparison between that
verse in the Song and in one of its antecedents, the People's
Songs, Inc. ("PSI") Version.  The parties agree that the PSI
Version of the Song, which was published in a magazine in 1948,
predated the Song.  The magazine in which the PSI Version appeared
identified it as a song learned by Horton from striking CIO
workers in Charleston.  The PSI Version is now in the public
domain.

The Defendants contend that Verse 1/5 of the Copyrighted Song is
sufficiently transformative and original that it was and is
eligible for copyright protection as a derivative work.  The
question presented by the parties is whether the changes to the
most well-known verse of the Song, Verse 1/5, embody the
originality required for protection by the Copyright Act.

Judge Cote finds that applying the principles of law, the
Plaintiffs have shown that the melody and lyrics of Verse 1/5 of
the Song are not sufficiently original to qualify as a derivative
work entitled to a copyright.  As a matter of law, the alterations
from the PSI Version are too trivial.  A person listening to Verse
1/5 of the Song would be hearing the same old song reflected in
the published PSI Version with only minor, trivial changes of the
kind that any skilled musician would feel free to make.  As
Section 101 of the Copyright Act teaches, a judgment about
modification to an original work must be based on a consideration
of the derivative work "as a whole."  More specifically, the
changes of "will" to "will" and "down" to "deep" and the melodic
differences in the opening measures and the seventh measure, do
not create a distinguishable variation.  These differences
represent variations of the piece that are standard fare in the
music trade by any competent musician.

The 1963 Tape was produced by the Defendants during discovery from
Ludlow's files.  The Tape purportedly records Seeger's voice, of
which there are many recordings for comparison.  It is therefore
likely that the Defendants will be able to authenticate the 1963
Tape at a trial, the Judge finds.  For this reason, Judge Cote
denied the motion for summary judgment on the issue of the
authorship of the changes to Verse 1/5.

As to the publication of the Sing Out Version, the Defendants
argue that there is no evidence of Ludlow's consent.  The
Plaintiffs do not pursue the divestment argument in their reply
brief.  Accordingly, Judge Cote denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment on the ground of divestment.

As for the Plaintiffs' move to invalidate both copyrights in their
entirety based on fraud on the Copyright Office, Judge Cote
concludes that the existence of fraud cannot be resolved on
summary judgment.  The Defendants have offered a number of
arguments in opposition to this prong of the motion which it will
require a trial to resolve.

With respect to the Plaintiffs' challenge over the Defendants' two
expert reports pursuant to Daubert, the Judge finds that the core
of Kramer's musicological analysis is focused on the significance
of the word "will."  But that single word change does not, as a
matter of law, represent a sufficiently original contribution to
the Song to create a distinguishable variation entitling the Song
to copyright protection as a derivative work.  This remains so
whether the variation is considered in the context of a single
word, with the three other differences between the PSI Version and
the Copyrighted Song, or from the perspective of the impact of all
four of those differences on the Song's Verse 1/5 taken as a
whole.  An while Garrow's report gives an opinion relevant to the
issue of originality, that opinion is not admissible without a
description of the methodology and evidence that might support the
opinion, and a showing that that opinion and methodology fall
within the expert witness's field of expertise.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs' motion to strike Garrow's report is granted.

For these reasons, Judge Cote granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' Aug. 18, 2017 Daubert motion; and granted the
Plaintiffs' June 20, 2017 motion for partial summary judgment to
the following extent: they have shown, as a matter of law, that
the Defendants have no valid copyright in the words and melody of
the first verse of "We Will Overcome" because it lacks
originality.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 8, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/GB33rb from Leagle.com.

We Will Overcome Foundation, Plaintiff, represented by Mark C.
Rifkin -- rifkin@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP.

We Will Overcome Foundation, Plaintiff, represented by Gloria Kui
Melwani -- melwani@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP & Randall Scott Newman -- Newman@whafh.com -- Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz.

Butler Films, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Mark C. Rifkin, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Randall Scott Newman, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz.

The Richmond Organization, Inc. (TRO Inc.), Defendant, represented
by Paul V. LiCalsi -- PLiCalsi@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan,
LLP & Ofer Reger -- OReger@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP.

Ludlow Music, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul V. LiCalsi,
Robins Kaplan, LLP & Ofer Reger, Robins Kaplan LLP.


SELECT COMFORT: "Spade" Class Action Appeal Pending in 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal in a class action lawsuit against Select Comfort
Corporation 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 July 1, 2017.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiffs David and Katina Spade commenced a
purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey state court against
Select Comfort alleging that Select Comfort violated New Jersey
consumer statutes by failing to provide to purchasing consumers
certain disclosures required by the New Jersey Furniture
Regulations.  It is undisputed that plaintiffs suffered no actual
damages or in any way relied upon or were impacted by the alleged
omissions.  Nonetheless, on behalf of a purported class of New
Jersey purchasers of Select Comfort beds and bases, plaintiffs
seek to recover a US$100 statutory fine for each alleged omission,
along with attorneys' fees and costs.

Select Comfort removed the case to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, which subsequently granted
Select Comfort's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, which has certified two questions of law to the New
Jersey Supreme Court relating to whether plaintiffs who have
suffered no actual injury may bring claims.  The New Jersey
Supreme Court has accepted the certified questions and the parties
are in the process of preparing and submitting briefs.

The Company said, "As the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey determined, we believe that the case is
without merit and the order of dismissal should be affirmed."


SOUTHERN OPERATIONS: "Branco" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Branco, Stephanie Hacker, Vivian Hernandez and other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Southern Operations
LLC, and Joe Kunkel, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
23289, (S.D. Fla., August 30, 2017), seeks to recover money
damages for unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate Yardbird Southern Table & Bar located
at 1600 Lenox Ave. in Miami Beach where Plaintiffs were employed
as waitresses. They claim to be paid at tip-credited rates for all
hours worked and worked off the clock. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOVRAN SELF STORAGE: Deadlines in "Castro" Class Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert B. Kugler grants the parties' request to stay all
deadlines in the lawsuit titled Juan CASTRO, Jr., on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. SOVRAN SELF STORAGE,
INC., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-06446-RBK-JS (D.N.J.).

The Court notes that the parties are engaged in mediation before
the Honorable John Keefe and are currently finalizing a settlement
agreement, which they expect can be finalized and a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement can be filed by September
20, 2017.

Judge Kugler stayed until September 20, 2017, deadlines in the
Amended Class Certification Scheduling Order. Judge Kugler
dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to file
corporate documents and information under seal, the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class, the Defendants' motion to seal, the
Defendants' motion to strike the report and exclude the testimony
of Plaintiffs' expert Gregory Serio, and the Defendants' second
motion to seal.

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


SPRINT/UNITED: Settlement in "Salamanca" Has Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (i) granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement and the Settlement; (ii) conditionally
certified class; and (iii) appointed the class representative, the
class counsel and the settlement administrator in the case
captioned NORA SALAMANCA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v.
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a Kansas corporation; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-05084-JSW(N.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of all persons
employed by Sprint in California who earned paid vacation days
including, but not limited to, floating holidays between Aug. 14,
2011 and Sept. 8, 2017 who were terminated on or before Sept. 8,
2017, solely for the purpose of entering a settlement in the
matter.

The Parties have agreed, subject to Court approval, to settle the
captioned litigation upon the terms set forth in the Joint
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement.  The Plaintiff has moved,
unopposed, for an order granting preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement.

Having reviewed and considered the Parties' Settlement Agreement,
the record in the case, the briefs and arguments of counsel, and
supporting exhibits, Judge White granted preliminary approval of
the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement Class based upon the
terms set forth in the Parties' Settlement Agreement.

The Parties' Notices of Class Action Settlement are approved.  The
Judge directed the mailing of the Notices of Class Action
Settlement by first class mail to the Settlement Class in
accordance with the schedule set.

Judge White certified solely for the purpose of entering a
settlement the class of all persons employed by Sprint in
California who earned paid vacation days including, but not
limited to, floating holidays between Aug. 14, 2011 and Sept. 8,
2017 who were terminated on or before Sept. 8, 2017.

He confirmed (i) Nora Salamanca as the Class Representative for
settlement purposes; and (ii) The Setareh Law Group as the Class
Counsel for settlement purposes.  He also confirmed CPT Group,
Inc. as the Settlement Administrator.

The Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees will be filed in
accordance with the schedule set and will be filed in compliance
with the Northern District of California Local Rules regarding
noticed motions, and will be filed at least 21 calendar days prior
to the deadline for Settlement Class Members to object to the
Settlement.

Any person who desires to file an objection to the Settlement
Agreement or request exclusion from the Settlement Class will do
so by Jan. 17, 2018, in conformance with the provisions of the
Notices of Class Action Settlement.  In particular, all written
objections and supporting papers, if any, must (a) clearly
identify the case name and number (Salamanca v. Sprint/United
Management Company, Case No. 4:15-cv-05084-JSW); (b) be submitted
to the Court either by mailing them to the Class Action Clerk,
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 1301
Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612, or by filing them in
person at any location of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California; and (c) be postmarked on or before Jan.
17, 2018.

The Class Counsel will file their motion for final approval of
settlement, and all supporting documentation and papers, no later
than Dec. 27, 2017.  13. Either Party's counsel may file a written
response to any objections to the Settlement Agreement or to the
application for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and
Class Representative Enhancement Payment, no later than Feb. 7,
2018, 21 days after the deadline for filing objections.

At the Final Approval Hearing, the Class Counsel will provide the
Court with any updated information available as of that date
concerning any requests for exclusion received from the Settlement
Class, any objections received from the Settlement Class, or any
other communications received in response to the Notices of Class
Action Settlement.  At or after the Final Approval Hearing, the
Court will determine whether the Settlement Agreement, the motion
for attorneys' fees and expenses, and any service awards will be
approved.

All reasonable expenses incurred in notifying the Settlement Class
and administering the Settlement will be paid as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.

Judge White ordered orders the following schedule for further
proceedings:

     a. Deadline for Sprint to submit Class Group [20 calendar
days after Order granting Member contact information to CPT
Preliminary Approval]: Sept. 28, 2017

     b. Deadline for CPT Group to mail Class [21 calendar days
after receipt of Class Member Notice contact information]: Oct.
19, 2017

     c. First mailing of reminder postcards [20 calendar days
after mailing of Class Notice]: Nov. 8, 2017      d. Deadline for
Class Members to dispute [45 calendar days after mailing of Class
Notice] earnings information: Dec. 4, 2017

     e. Second mailing of reminder postcards [50 calendar days
after mailing of Class Notice]:  Dec. 8, 2017

     f. Final mailing of reminder postcards [70 calendar days
after mailing of Class Notice]: Dec. 28, 2017

     g. Deadline for filing motion for final approval and motion
for attorneys' fees [21 calendar days before objection deadline]:
Dec. 27, 2017

     h. Deadline for objections and requests for exclusion [90
calendar days after mailing of Class Notice]: Jan. 17, 2018

     i. Deadline to respond to objections [21 calendar days after
objection deadline]: Feb. 7, 2018

     j. Final Approval Hearing: March 2, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.

The Court reserves the right to adjourn, continue or otherwise
change the date of the Final Approval Hearing without further
notice to the members of the Settlement Class, and retains
jurisdiction to consider all further applications arising out of
or connected with the proposed Settlement Agreement.  Judge White
may approve the Settlement Agreement, with such modifications as
may be agreed to by the settling Parties, if appropriate, without
further notice to the final Settlement Class.

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

Nora Salamanca, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Sprint/United Management Company, Defendant, represented by
Anthony J. DiBenedetto -- adibenedetto@proskauer.com -- Proskauer
Rose LLP, Harold M. Brody -- hbrody@proskauer.com -- Proskauer
Rose LLP, Pietro A. Deserio -- pdeserio@proskauer.com -- Proskauer
Rose LLP & Tracey Lynne Silver -- tsilver@proskauer.com --
Proskauer Rose LLP.


SSA COOPER: Stevedores File Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Wren, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that a jury
could decide whether a company that hires stevedores to work at
the Port of Charleston failed to pay its employees for overtime
while they were supervising International Longshoremen's
Association dock workers.

Justin Chaplin, a former stevedore for SSA Cooper LLC, filed a
class-action lawsuit against his former employer in 2015, alleging
the company violated federal wage laws by failing to pay overtime
when he and other stevedores worked more than 40 hours in one
week.

SSA Cooper has denied any wrongdoing and asked for the case to be
dismissed, saying Chaplin and other stevedores are exempt from
overtime laws because they are "executive employees" who make
salaries of more than $40,000 per year.

U.S. District Court Judge David Norton denied SSA Cooper's request
for dismissal, setting up a jury trial that's scheduled to start
Sept. 19 in Charleston.

SSA Cooper is one of three companies hired by shipping lines to
provide stevedores at the Port of Charleston.  The stevedores
supervise "gangs" of ILA Local 1422 workers who load and unload
ships, secure cargo containers and drive vehicles at the
terminals.

Judge Norton said in a ruling that the stevedores meet most of the
requirements to qualify as exempt workers under federal wage laws.
They make more than the minimum $455 per week required for the
exemption.  They regularly direct the work of two or more
employees. And management is their primary duty.

However, Judge Norton said SSA Cooper did not offer "clear and
convincing" evidence that stevedores have the authority to hire or
fire the workers they supervise.  Without that authority, they
aren't exempt from overtime laws.

SSA Cooper claimed in court documents that its stevedores have the
right to "knock off" an ILA worker -- in other words, send the
worker home for the day without pay -- but Norton said that isn't
the same as hiring and firing and, besides, the "knock off"
practice rarely occurs.

Marybeth Mullaney, a Mount Pleasant lawyer representing the
stevedores, said SSA Cooper is the only stevedore company at the
port that isn't paying its workers overtime. Those stevedores, she
said, typically work between 20 and 30 hours of overtime each
week. The port's other stevedore companies are Ports America and
Ceres Marine Terminals.

Twenty stevedores have joined Chaplin in his lawsuit, and
Ms. Mullaney recently filed a second lawsuit against the company
on behalf of other stevedores with similar claims.

The stevedores are seeking unpaid overtime wages, unspecified
damages and attorney's fees. [GN]



SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: "Campbell" and "Neal" TCPA Lawsuits Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial remains a defendant in the Campbell and Neal
lawsuits related to violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 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 Bank or the Company is, or has been, defending a number of
putative class actions alleging claims under the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as a result of phone calls made
by the Bank.  The complaints generally have alleged that the Bank
or the Company placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone
dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice
without their consent and seek up to US$1,500 for each violation,
without specifying an aggregate amount.

Campbell et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on January 25, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
The original complaint named only J.C. Penney Company, Inc. and
J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. as the defendants but was amended on
April 7, 2017 to replace those defendants with the Bank.

Neal et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Bank, for which
the Bank is indemnifying Wal-Mart, was filed on January 17, 2017
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina.  The original complaint named only Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
as a defendant but was amended on March 30, 2017 to add Synchrony
Bank as an additional defendant.

Synchrony Financial operates as a consumer financial services
company in the United States.  The Company was incorporated in
2003 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Faces "Kincaid" TCPA Class Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial continues to face the "Kincaid" putative class
action lawsuit related to Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
violations with the use of facsimiles, 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 a putative class action lawsuit
alleging claims under the TCPA relating to facsimiles.  In Michael
W. Kincaid, DDS et al. v. Synchrony Financial, plaintiff alleges
that the Company violated the TCPA by sending fax advertisements
without consent and without required notices, and seeks up to
US$1,500 for each violation.  The amount of damages sought in the
aggregate is unspecified.

The original complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on January 20, 2016.  On August 11,
2016, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss based on
the lack of personal jurisdiction.  On August 15, 2016, the
plaintiff re-filed the case in the Southern District of Ohio.

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

Synchrony Financial operates as a consumer financial services
company in the United States.  The Company was incorporated in
2003 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


TEVA PHARMA: Faces "Baker" Securities Class Action in Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barry Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Erez
Vigodman, Eyal Desheh and Yitzhak Peterburg, Defendants., Case No.
2:17-cv-03902, (E.D. Pa., August 30, 2017), seeks damages, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest as well as reasonable
attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and such other and
further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint says Defendants failed to disclose the negative
impact resulting from the acquisition and integration of Actavis
Generics on Teva's financial results and business prospects. Teva
announced lower than anticipated second quarter results due to the
performance of its US generics business. It recorded a goodwill
impairment charge of $6.1 billion in the second quarter of 2017
related to the Company's acquisition of Actavis. Teva's US
generics business suffered accelerated price erosion and delays in
product launches. Teva shares dropped from closing prices of
111.30 per common share and $31.25 per American Depository Share
(ADS) on August 2, 2017 to a new 52-week low closing price of
71.28 per common share on August 6, 2017 and $20.60 per ADS on
August 4, 2017, on heavy two-day trading volume.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 1090 Horsham Road, North Wales,
Pennsylvania 19454. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company with its principal place of business at 200
Elmora Ave., Elizabeth, NJ 07207. Actavis was acquired by Teva in
2016.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith R. Lorenze, Esq.
      Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Tel: (215) 600-2817
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: klorenze@rosenlegal.com
             jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 697-6484


TOWN RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Town Residential
LLC. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Town
Residential LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07029 (S.D. N.Y.,
September 15, 2017).

Town Residential LLC provides real estate services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Bronson Lipsky LLP
   630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com


USA: Faces "Micu" Suit in United States Court of Federal Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the USA. The case is
styled as Christina Micu and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01277-PEC (COFC,
September 15, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Charles W. Irvine, Esq.
   Irvine & Conner, LLC
   4709 Austin Street
   Houston, TX 77004
   Tel: (713) 533-1704
   Fax: (713) 524-5165
   Email: charles@irvineconner.com


VALBIN CORP: Saleh Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Reshad Saleh and opt-in Plaintiffs Andrew Ayad and Nabil
Jany ask the Court to (1) conditionally certify the proposed Class
under Fair Labor Standards Act, (2) order the Defendant to produce
a class list to Plaintiffs' counsel, and (3) direct the
dissemination of notice of the pendency of the lawsuit captioned
Reshad Saleh; individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Valbin Corporation, a Virginia corporation, Case No.
5:17-cv-00593-LHK (N.D. Cal.), by mail using the proposed Notice.

The Plaintiffs ask that within five days of the Court issuing an
order, the Defendant provide them a list, in electronic and
importable format, of:

     All current and former Role-Players who worked for Defendant
     at any time between February 3, 2014 and the present.

The list will give them the necessary information to send the
proper notice to each of the putative class members and to take
appropriate follow-up action for any invalid mailing addresses,
the Plaintiffs contend.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 26, 2017 at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=D5d7H3j5

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dennis Evans, Esq.
          Trey Dayes, Esq.
          PHILLIPS DAYES LAW FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 288-1610
          E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Veronica M. Gray, Esq.
          Andrew C. Crane, Esq.
          NOSSAMAN LPP
          18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 833-7800
          Facsimile: (949) 833-7878
          E-mail: vgray@nossaman.com
                  acrane@nossaman.com

               - and -

          Edward J. Tolchin, Esq.
          OFFIT KURMAN, P.A.
          4800 Montgomery Lane
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (240) 507-1769
          Facsimile: (240) 507-1735
          E-mail: etolchin@offitkurman.com


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Meeks" Suit in S. Dist. Miss.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo, N.A.
doing business as: Wells Fargo Financial National Bank. The case
is styled as John Edward Meeks, on behalf of himself and all of
those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wells Fargo, N. A. doing
business as: Wells Fargo Financial National Bank, Mississippi Iron
Works, Inc. and Cary W. Crawley, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00749-TSL-RHW (S.D. Miss., September 15, 2017).

Wells Fargo & Company is an American international banking and
financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Macy D. Hanson, Esq.
   THE LAW OFFICE OF MACY D. HANSON, PLLC
   102 First Choice Drive
   Madison, MS 39210
   Tel: (601) 853-9521
   Fax: (601) 853-9327
   Email: macy@macyhanson.com


WELLS FARGO: Iowa AG Probes Fake Accounts Scandal Amid Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Hardy, writing for The Des Moines Register, reports that
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller's office is investigating whether
Wells Fargo harmed Iowa consumers through the fraudulent accounts
scandal that has rocked the banking giant.

Assistant Attorney General Patrick Madigan said the Iowa office
has been a part of a multistate investigation since late last
year, but he could not comment on any potential findings.

"We've been involved from the beginning," Mr. Madigan told The Des
Moines Register.  "And we are one of the leadership states in that
effort.  That's all I can tell you."

The office has made no official announcement of its role in the
inquiry, Mr. Madigan said, but it hasn't kept it under wraps
either.

"It's not a secret," he said.  "But these things tend to come out
more when we get a resolution."

The bank acknowledged last fall that employees opened banking and
credit card accounts without customer approval for the purpose of
meeting unrealistic sales goals.  That included some 12,000
accounts in Iowa.

Wells Fargo spokesman Steve Carlson pointed to a series of actions
the bank has undertaken to respond to the issue.  The company
launched a comprehensive, independent investigation and eliminated
product sales goals for retail banks, and its former CEO agreed to
forfeit millions in compensation.

"Wells Fargo continues to work hard to make things right, build a
better bank and earn back the trust of our customers, team
members, investors, government leaders and the American public,"
Mr. Carlson said.  "Although we've made significant progress in
transforming our operations, there is still work to do as we
address the issues and remediate the impacts to customers
resulting from past unacceptable retail bank sales practices."

In addition to paying millions in fines and settlements, the bank
said it fired more than 5,000 employees and managers over a five-
year period for their involvement with the unauthorized accounts.

With more than 14,000 employees, Wells Fargo is the single largest
employer in the Des Moines metro.  Its home mortgage division is
based in West Des Moines.

Iowa's attorney general is joined by a litany of other public
agencies looking into the bank's practice of opening fraudulent
accounts.

In a March 31 SEC disclosure, Wells Fargo notified investors of
"formal or informal inquiries, investigations or examinations"
from federal, state and local government agencies, including the
U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Labor and state
attorneys general and prosecutors' offices.

"The Company has responded, and continues to respond, to requests
from a number of the foregoing seeking information regarding these
sales practices and the circumstances of the settlements and
related matters," the disclosure read.  "In addition, a number of
lawsuits have also been filed by non-governmental parties seeking
damages or other remedies related to these sales practices."

The fallout has caused billions in cost-cutting across the
company.  In May, executives announced they would cut another $2
billion in expenses, doubling down on an earlier round of $2
billion worth of cuts.

Wells Fargo announced Aug. 31 that as many as 3.5 million accounts
may have been opened without authorization by consumers and small
business customers, far surpassing previous estimates. The bank
said its third-party analysis "errs on the side of customers" and
likely includes some customers who did provide authorization.

In late August, the bank said it would pay $2.8 million in
additional refunds and credits -- on top of $3.3 million in
previous refunds -- in compensation for the scandal.

But those reparations have not stopped the investigations.

Mr. Madigan said the Iowa Attorney General's Office will take such
announcements into account, but he said "we don't ever just take
things at face value."  He noted that the bank's earlier estimates
of how many customers were affected with fraudulent accounts
continue to be revised upward.

"If somebody is remediated -- and I'm just talking in general now
-- then there's not a need to remediate them a second time. But we
don't know that everybody's been remediated or that they've been
fully remediated," he said.  "And there's also an issue of
deterrence and law enforcement.  We're a law enforcement agency at
the end of the day."

A new consumer lawsuit filed Aug. 28 against Wells Fargo alleges
that the bank gouged mortgage customers with improper fees to
complete the home loan process.

Nevada plaintiff Victor Muniz is seeking class action status in
his claim that the bank locked him into an interest rate, delayed
the closing process and then required more money to secure that
interest rate.

"The same profit-over-people culture that fostered Wells Fargo's
fake account scandal appears to have led the bank to stick
borrowers with unwarranted fees," Derek Loeser, a law partner at
the firm representing Muniz, told USA TODAY.

Carlson, the Wells Fargo spokesman, said he could not comment
specifically on the legislation, but said it is under review.

"Our current processes are designed to ensure that our rate lock
extension fee policy is interpreted and applied consistently," Mr.
Carlson said.  "We continue to work through a comprehensive review
of our past practices regarding rate-lock extensions, and we will
address additional steps for our customers as appropriate." [GN]


WOW BAO: Illegally Uses Class Members Biometric Data, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regina Morris, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wow Bao LLC, Wow Bao Franchising LLC and Lettuce
Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2017-CH-12029 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., September 5, 2017), seeks to put a stop to the Defendants'
unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of
Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's sensitive biometric data when
using self-order kiosks.

The Defendants operate a restaurant chain that serves traditional
Asian flavors in a fast-paced casual setting throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
      Haley R. Jenkins, Esq
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Avenue Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 6060
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
      E-mail: lawyers@stephanzouras.com


ZONI LANGUAGE: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zhara Fernandez, Tanya Chambers, Kenya Brown, Amy Chu, John Volpe
and Andrew Bullington v. Zoni Language Centers, Inc. (d/b/a Zoni
Language Centers), ZONI Language Centers-Flushing, LLC, (d/b/a
Zoni Language Centers) and Zoilo C. Nieto, Case No. 157878/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., September 5, 2017), seeks to recover minimum
wages, overtime wages, and liquidated damages, interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees for violations of the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own, operate, and control a chain of English
learning centers located at 22 W. 34th St., New York, New York
10001 and 37-14 Main Street, Flushing, New York 11354. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com

* CFPB Statistics Reveal Arbitration Rule's Fatal Flaws
-------------------------------------------------------
Alan S. Kaplinsky and Mark J. Levin, writing for The Regulatory
Review, report that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB) issued a final rule this summer that will prohibit
financial services companies from including pre-dispute
arbitration agreements with class action waivers in their consumer
account contracts.

In the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
Congress authorized the CFPB to study the use of arbitration
agreements in consumer contracts and then, if necessary, to issue
regulations restricting or prohibiting their use.  However, Dodd-
Frank imposed three express limits on the CFPB's rule-making
authority. Any arbitration rule must be "in the public interest,"
"for the protection of consumers," and "consistent" with the
agency's study of their use.

Unfortunately, the recently issued final arbitration rule vaults
over those statutory requirements and promotes an untethered
public policy favoring class action litigation that benefits only
class action lawyers.  Moreover, this is to the detriment of
businesses and the very consumers that the CFPB was created to
protect.  The rule also effectively overrules the U.S. Supreme
Court's landmark 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion
that held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws
that bar the use of class action waivers in consumer arbitration
agreements.

The CFPB's own statistics reveal the arbitration rule's fatal
flaws.  The CFPB's study found that only 12.3 percent of the 562
class actions studied produced any settlement benefits to the
putative class members.  Most class actions settle individually,
leaving the putative class members to fend for themselves. Only
the plaintiffs' class-action lawyers benefitted in those cases,
receiving more than $400 million in attorneys' fees.

The 12.3 percent of class actions that settled on a class-wide
basis produced only minuscule benefits--an average of $32--for the
settlement class members who had to wait for two or more years to
receive even that paltry sum.  In the class settlements that
required the putative class members to submit a claim form, the
weighted average claims rate was only 4 percent, meaning that 96
percent of the potentially eligible putative class members failed
to obtain any benefits because they did not submit claims.

By contrast, the average award to a prevailing consumer in
arbitration was $5,389 -- 166 times what putative class members
recover on average in class settlements.  Those consumers received
their award within five months, instead of in more than two years.
And the costs to the consumer were minimal, typically $200, at
most, compared to the $400 fee for filing a complaint in federal
court.  Furthermore, none of the 562 class actions the CFPB
studied went to trial.  Yet the study found that of the 341 cases
resolved by an arbitrator, in-person hearings were held in 34
percent of the cases, and an arbitrator issued an award on the
merits in about one-third of the cases.  Prior studies showed that
consumers prefer arbitration to court litigation, but the CFPB --
perhaps to avoid a similar outcome -- refused to survey consumers
who actually participated in an arbitration about their
experiences with and attitudes towards arbitration.

Moreover, the arbitration rule will inflict extreme financial harm
on financial services providers, federal and state court systems,
and consumers themselves.  At the time the CFPB issued its rule,
it estimated that it would cause 53,000 providers who currently
use arbitration agreements to incur between $2.62 billion and
$5.23 billion in costs over a five-year period to deal with the
over 6,000 additional federal and state court class actions that
would be filed due to the rule's elimination of class waivers.
Consumers will be substantially harmed by these additional class
actions because the costs associated with them will be passed
through.  The public will also incur the additional costs to state
and federal courts, or any costs resulting from litigation delays,
as the judiciary is already chronically underfunded and seriously
overwhelmed.

In addition, the arbitration rule will likely cause consumers with
small claims that are not amenable to class-action treatment to
abandon their claims altogether, because few consumers will be
able to find a lawyer to handle a small claim that cannot be
aggregated into a class action.  Furthermore, many, if not most,
companies, based on a cost-benefit analysis, will likely cease
offering even individual arbitration programs if class-action
waivers are prohibited.  Although the consumer's arbitration costs
may be capped by the arbitration administrator at $200, the
company is responsible for the remaining fees and costs, which can
run into the thousands.  Many companies, in their arbitration
agreements, also agree to pay the consumer's share of the costs.

None of these dire outcomes is necessary.  The CFPB itself is far
more effective and efficient than class action litigation in
addressing alleged consumer harm.  Through July of this year, the
CFPB had ordered companies to pay more than $11.9 billion to more
than 29 million consumers in enforcement actions.  That is an
average payment of $410 to each consumer, about 13 times the $32
cash payment received by the average putative class member. None
of that consumer relief was siphoned off to pay attorneys' fees.

Earlier this year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a
resolution disapproving the final arbitration rule under the
Congressional Review Act.  A vote by the U.S. Senate on a similar
resolution is anticipated in the fall.  Unquestionably, Congress
should disapprove the final arbitration rule as it is now certain
that the strictures on CFPB regulatory action imposed by the Dodd-
Frank Act have been sacrificed on the altar of class action
litigation.

Alan S. Kaplinsky is a Partner with Ballard Spahr LLP in the
firm's Philadelphia, PA office. Mr. Kaplinsky is a former Chair of
the ABA Section of Business Law's Committee on Consumer Financial
Services Law and its Subcommittee on Alternative Dispute
Resolution. [GN]



                             *********


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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *