CAR_Public/171002.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Monday, October 2, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 194



                            Headlines

181 DUANE: Faces "Alonso" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
ADVANCED ANALYTICAL: Class Action Remanded to St. Clair County
AETNA HEALTH: Faces Class Suit in S.D. of Florida
AGRIBANK FCB: Court Dismisses Breach of Contract Class Suit
AIDS HEALTHCARE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action

AMERICAN BUSINESS: Faces "Knapp" Suit in N.D. of California
ARIRANG HIBACHI: Faces "Chen" Suit in E.D. of New York
BELL-MARK TECH: "Smith" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Another Resident Joins California Class Action
CERTAINTEED CORP: Faces "Chizniak" Suit in N.D. of New York

CLAYBURN CORP: Faces "Blanton" Suit in S. Dist. Tex.
CONTRACT CALLERS: Faces "Cole" Suit in N. Dist. Ga.
CUBICLE CONCEPTS: Faces "Bermudez" Suit in N.D. of Illinois
CVS PHARMACY: Certification of Classes Sought in "Corcoran" Suit
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Johnson" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

E.T. ZACAPA: Faces "Barahona" Suit in S. Dist. Fla.
EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Compromised "Amadick" Personal Data
EQUIFAX INC: "Grossberg" Hits Poor Data Security, Seeks Damages
EQUIFAX INC: Has Inadequate Data Security, "Alexander" Suit Says
EQUIFAX INC: Lacks Data Security Measures, Asserts "Avise" Suit

EQUIFAX INC: Bandoh-Aidoo Files Class Suit Over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: "Cherney" Sues Over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: "Collins" Personal Info Claimed Hacked
EQUIFAX INC: Has Poor Data Security Measures Says "Santomauro"
EQUIFAX INC: Gibson Sues Over Data Security Breach

EQUIFAX INC: "House" Sues Over Illegal Access to Personal Data
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Martinez" Suit in S.D. Fla.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gerstein Files Suit Over FCRA Breach
EXPERIAN DATA: "Patton" Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
FLORIDA POWER: Faces Class Action Over Irma Power Outages

FLORIDA POWER: Coral Gables to Issue Citation Amid Class Action
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Bray" Suit in Dist. of Conn.
FUSION LOGISTICS: Faces "Barnard" Suit in N.D. of Texas
GC SERVICES: Faces "Aronov" Suit in E. Dist. New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Dec. 14 Case Management Conference in "Sloan"

GLENN M. ROSS PC: Faces "Baker" Suit in E.D. Penn.
GOOGLE INC: 9th Cir. Cy Pres Settlement Ruling Sparks Criticism
HAT SERVICE: Faces "Baehrle" Suit in Middle District of Fla.
J.G. BOSWELL: California Court Dismisses "Renfro"
JT'S FRAMES: Casares Moves for Certification Under "Damasco"

KOHL'S CORPORATION: Ankcorn Seeks Class Certification Under TCPA
LIBERTY FOOD: Faces Dunkin' Donuts Franchising Suit in E.D.N.Y.
LON SMITH: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Contract Suit
LVNV FUNDING: $38MM Jury Verdict in MCDCA Suit Vacated
MARY KAY: Workers Seek to Revive FLSA Class Action

MECHANICAL INSTALLATION: Faces "Castro" Suit in S.D. of New York
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "ClendinenAzor" Suit in S.D. Fla.
MOPHIE INC: Stotz Moves to Certify Consumer Class and Subclasses
MOTOROLA: Settles Warranty Class Action, December 21 Hearing Set
NATURAL TOFU: Faces "Jin" Suit in S.D.N.Y.

NEIMAN MARCUS: Certification of Class Sought in "Rubenstein" Suit
NEW YORK, NY: Faces "Coleman" Class Action
NEW YORK TIMES: Wins Bid to Dismiss Gender Discrimination Claims
NORTHWEST CASCADE: Judge to Decide on Porta-Potties Class Action
OCWEN LOAN: Settles TCPA Class Action for $17.5 Million

PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Settles Class Action for $14.3 Million
PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC: Customers Seek Certification in Fraud Suit
RECONTRUST COMPANY: Allred's Class of Property Owners Certified
RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Faces "Marchan" Suit in E.D. of New York
RITA'S WATER: Settlement Administrator Can Disperse Payment

RKP SERVICE: Faces "Cabrera" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
SAUL CHEVROLET: Rivera Seeks Cert. of Non-Managerial Workers Class
SERVE LINK: McLain Seeks to Certify Class of Employees Under FLSA
SFBSC MANAGEMENT: Court Approves $5MM Exotic Dancers' Settlement
SLICE TECHNOLOGIES: Data Privacy Class Suit Moved to NY Court

SMITH MEDICAL: Faces "Arkin" Suit in Mid. Dist. Fla.
SOMPO AMERICA: Faces "Carrasco" Suit in S.D. of New York
SONIC CORP: Faces "Huffer" Suit in W. Dist. Okla.
TAMKO BUILDING: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Dye" Class Suit
TELECHECK SERVICES: Huff Moves to Certify Class of Consumers

THREE STAR: Faces "Cadena" Suit in S.D. of New York
TINTRI INC: November 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Beil" Suit in C. Dist. Cal.
TRANSDIGM GROUP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
TRANSUNION: Settles Class Action Over Terrorist Alerts for $8MM

TRINITY FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses "Martinez" FDCPA Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fights Class Action Over "Upfront" Rider Fares
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Faces "Gericke" Suit in S. District of NY
VOYA FINANCIAL: "Goetz" Disputes Excessive Record-keeping Fees
WAL-MART STORES: Sold Defective Chairs, "Johnson" Suit Says

WAL-MART STORES: Court Awards $13MM Attorney Fees in "Ridgeway"
WALT DISNEY: Ex-IT Workers Wants Discrimination Case Dismissed
WELLINGTON HOTEL: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E. Dist. New York
ZILLOW INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action After CFPB Probe




                            *********


181 DUANE: Faces "Alonso" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 181 Duane Ristorante
Inc.  The case is styled as Severiano Flores Alonso, individually
and Severiano Flores Alonso, on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. 181 Duane Ristorante Inc. doing business
as: Max Trattoria Enoteca and Luigi Iasilli, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-07381 (S.D. N.Y., September 27, 2017).

181 Duane Ristorante Inc. owns and operates Max Tribeca, an
Italian restaurant located at 181 Duane Street, New York, New
York, 10013.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
   Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C.
   60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
   New York, NY 10165
   Tel: (212) 317-1200
   Fax: (212) 317-1620
   Email: michael@faillacelaw.com


ADVANCED ANALYTICAL: Class Action Remanded to St. Clair County
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison Record, reports
that Senior District Judge Phil Gilbert remanded a Korein Tillery
suit alleging a research contractor failed to complete a study
intended for use in a possible wage class action involving minor
league baseball players.

Judge Gilbert's Sept. 12 order granted Korein Tillery's motion to
remand the case to St. Clair County Circuit Court.

"Because the defendants have not carried their heavy burden of
showing by clear and convincing evidence that Girnius was
fraudulently joined, the Court cannot disregard his citizenship
for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction," Judge Gilbert wrote.

The case was originally filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court in
March 2017 against Advanced Analytical Consulting Group Inc.,
Daniel Levy and Audrius Girnius.  It was removed to federal court
on May 4.

In their notice of removal, the defendants argued diversity
jurisdiction.

They claim that Mr. Girnius, which shares Illinois citizenship
with Korein Tillery, was fraudulently joined in the lawsuit for
jurisdictional purposes.  They further argue that the complaint
only makes one factual allegation specifically against Mr.
Girnius.

Judge Gilbert then ordered Korein Tillery to show cause why he
should not find Mr. Girnius was fraudulently joined and disregard
citizenship for diversity purposes.

In its June 2 response and move to remand, Korein Tillery stated
there was a reasonably possibility that Mr. Girnius is liable for
allegedly misrepresenting that the "study undertaken was possible
to perform and/or, the flip-side, he concealed that the study
undertaken was impossible to perform."

The defendant could be liable for negligently performing his duty
as an expert economist, the firm argues.

Korein Tillery further claims the defendants admitted that they
were unable to tell the difference between baseball players and
others entering the ballpark just five weeks from the deadline and
after collecting nearly $500,000 from the plaintiff.

"[T]heir entire study was worthless," wrote plaintiff attorney and
former U.S. district judge G. Patrick Murphy of Murphy & Murphy
LLC.

"By wasting months and leaving Korein Tillery little time to
replace them with other experts, Levy and Girnius not only
provided nothing of value to Korein Tillery and its clients, they
jeopardized the outcome of the case for the entire class of minor
league baseball players," he continues.

Korein Tillery argues that the claims against Mr. Girnius are the
same as those against Levy.

"He was one of two economists who designed and implemented the
study, oversaw the work, and communicated with Korein Tillery,"
Judge Murphy wrote.

The defendants filed a reply on July 5 through W. Jason Rankin of
HeplerBroom LLC.

They argue that a total of 85 individuals worked on the study,
including 11 Advanced Analytical employees and 74 contractors. Mr.
Girnius is the only one with Illinois citizenship and contributed
just over four percent of the total work.

Korein Tillery sued Mr. Girnius and no other non-management
individuals working on the project, "suggesting its motive was not
to hold the wrongdoers responsible but to spoil complete
diversity," Judge Gilbert explains in his order.

In their reply, the defendants also argue that Mr. Girnius was not
involved with the design of the study, as indicated in the
invoiced submitted to the plaintiff.

"Plaintiff's inclusion of the sole employee with ties to Illinois,
even though he performed a relatively small amount of work,
coupled with Plaintiff's failure to include multiple other
employees with more extensive roles in the study and more control
over the methodology, is prima facie evidence that Girnius was
joined only to defeat diversity," Mr. Rankin wrote.

The defendants also argue that nothing in the complaint alleges
Mr. Girnius made false statements in the pre-agreement phone calls
and fraud cannot be established based on future events.

Gilbert held that the defendants failed to provide "clear and
convincing evidence that, after resolving all legal and factual
issues in Korein Tillery's favor, it has no reasonable possibility
of establishing a cause of action against Girnius."

He agreed that the complaint does not meet the heightened fraud
pleading requirements, but stated that the plaintiff's general
pleading "does not show by clear and convincing evidence that
Korein Tillery cannot establish a fraud cause of action against
Girnius."

"Indeed, that is why a court is likely to allow Korein Tillery
leave to replead claims against Girnius," he added.

Gilbert wrote that Korein Tillery's allegation that Girnius's
alleged misrepresentations or omissions continued into the time
period where the defendants were aware that the study was
impossible. He held that the later statements could support a
fraud claim.

"As for Girnius's role in the study, the Court must resolve the
factual issue in Korein Tillery's favor and assume, for the
purposes of the instant issue, that whatever role Girnius actually
played, he was in a position to make representations to Korein
Tillery before and during the study about the study, its
feasibility, and its value to Korein Tillery.

"His ultimate role in the study is not relevant to whether Korein
Tillery can establish a fraud claim against him under the relevant
law," Gilbert wrote.

He added that Korein Tillery's motive for joining Girnius would be
a "relevant consideration" when determining whether to allow an
amended pleading, but it is not adequate to disregard the
"citizenship of a defendant already in the case where the
plaintiff can state a viable claim against him."

Judge Gilbert also held that the common defense rule does not
apply.

"It is not clear from the allegations in the complaint that the
specific conduct alleged to have been committed by all defendants
is the identical conduct such that all claims against all
defendants would be disposed of by application of the defenses
applicable to Girnius," he wrote.

He added that it is possible that each defendant owed different
duties to the plaintiff and made different, but similar,
representations regarding the study.

Judge Gilbert granted Korein Tillery's motion to remand to the St.
Clair County Circuit Court for further proceedings.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number 17-cv-468 [GN]



AETNA HEALTH: Faces Class Suit in S.D. of Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aetna Health
Management, LLC.  The case is styled as Sarah S., an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aetna
Health Management, LLC, a corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-23513-DPG (S.D. Fla., September 25, 2017).

Aetna Health Management, LLC provides managed care health
insurance plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maggie M. Walsh-Smith, Esq.
   DI Law Group
   3201 W. Commercial Blvd., Suite 227
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
   Tel: (954) 989-9000
   Fax: (954) 989-9999
   Email: maggie@dilawgroup.com

      - and -

   Alicia Paulino-Grisham
   DI Law Group
   3201 W. Commercial Blvd, Suite 227
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
   Tel: (954) 989-9000
   Fax: (954) 989-9999
   Email: alicia@dilawgroup.com


AGRIBANK FCB: Court Dismisses Breach of Contract Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued and order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
case captioned DIVERSE PARTNERS, LP, individually and on: behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AGRIBANK, FCB,
Defendant, No. 16-CV-9526 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.).

AgriBank has moved to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff lacks
standing to sue under the contract.

In this putative class action, Plaintiff Diverse Partners, LP, an
investment fund, has sued Defendant AgriBank, FCB (AgriBank) for
breach of contract for its redemption of notes (Notes) based upon
a purported regulatory event by the Farm Credit Administration.

Plaintiff alleges that the Final Rule did not constitute a
Regulatory Event and that AgriBank's redemption was a breach of
contract and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing. Defendant has moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint
arguing that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue for breach of the
Agreement.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff, as a beneficial owner of the
Notes, does not have standing to sue for breach of the Agreement.
Plaintiff argues that the Agreement does not preclude its right to
sue, and to the extent that Plaintiff lacks standing, the Cede
authorization confers on Plaintiff standing to sue.

The Court would be inclined to deny Defendant's motion to dismiss
based on the ambiguity in the contract alone, but the
authorization Plaintiff obtained from Cede provides an additional
basis to allow the case to proceed. Cede sent a letter to AgriBank
stating that Cede authorizes Plaintiff to commence and prosecute
litigation, including collecting on its claims raised therein,
against AgriBank relating to breaches of its obligations under
documents relevant to the notes, which actions Cede, as holder of
the Notes, is entitled to take. Defendant argues that the Cede
authorization does not permit Plaintiff to sue for breach of the
Agreement. The Court holds that, particularly in light of the
ambiguity in the FAA, the Cede authorization is sufficient to give
Plaintiff standing.

In addition, the Agreement is ambiguous as to whether a beneficial
owner has standing to sue to enforce the Agreement in its own
right. If the Agreement contemplates that a beneficial owner may
initiate a judicial proceeding to enforce the owner's rights under
the Notes in court, then the Agreement permits the owner to assert
its own rights under the Notes, rather than any rights assigned by
the registered holder. Put differently, the beneficial owner's
suit is for damages sustained to the owner's interests, not for
damages to the registered holder's interests.
In short, the Court denies AgriBank's motion to dismiss in light
of the Agreement's ambiguity and finds that Plaintiff has
standing, at a minimum, because it obtained authorization to sue
from Cede, the registered holder of the Notes. Under Applestein,
beneficial owners have standing to sue if they obtain permission
to sue from the registered holder.  Plaintiff has done that here.

Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y85xocczfrom Leagle.com.

Diverse Partners, LP, Plaintiff, represented by Gordon Z. Novod --
gnovod@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A..

Diverse Partners, LP, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin M. Moyna-
cmoyna@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. & Jonathan David Park
-- jpark@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A..

Agribank, FCB, Defendant, represented by Brian Lee Muldrew --
brian.muldrew@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP & Jason
Christopher Vigna -- jason.vigson@kettenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin
Rosenman, LLP.


AIDS HEALTHCARE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action complaint alleging that AIDS
Healthcare Foundation failed to pay their California hourly
employees the correct amount of overtime wages and allegedly
failed to provide their California employees with meal and rest
periods as required by California law. The AIDS Healthcare
Foundation class action lawsuit, Case No. 37-2017-00033482-CU-OE-
CTL, is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court
for the State of California.

According to the lawsuit, AIDS Healthcare Foundation allegedly
failed and continues to fail to accurately calculate and pay
employees for their overtime worked.  The class action lawsuit
further alleges, in violation of the applicable sections of the
California Labor Code and the requirements of the Industrial
Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order, AIDS Healthcare Foundation
as a matter of company policy, practice and procedure,
intentionally and knowingly failed to compensate its employees at
the correct rate of pay for all overtime worked.

Additionally, the lawsuit also seeks payment relating to alleged
missed meal and rest breaks because allegedly AIDS Healthcare
Foundation did not have a policy to provide their hourly employees
thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth
(5th) hour of work.

If you would like to know more about the AIDS Healthcare
Foundation lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw
by calling (800) 568-8020.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with
offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los
Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. [GN]


AMERICAN BUSINESS: Faces "Knapp" Suit in N.D. of California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Business
Card, LLC. The case is styled as Raymond Knapp, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American
Business Card, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-05526 (N.D. Cal.,
September 25, 2017).

The Defendant is engaged in high quality printer services printing
business cards, flyers, leaflets, letterheads, posters and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
   Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
   21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
   Woodland Hills, CA 91367
   Tel: (877) 206-4741
   Fax: (866) 633-0228
   Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


ARIRANG HIBACHI: Faces "Chen" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arirang Hibachi
Steak House, Inc.  The case is styled as Jang Fang Chen,
individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Arirang Hibachi Steak House, Inc., doing
business as Arirang Hibachi Steakhouse, 986 Restaurant Corp. doing
business as Arirang Hibachi Steakhouse, Joseph Tranchina, Brian
"Doe" and Robert "Doe", Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05601 (E.D.
N.Y., September 25, 2017).
The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BELL-MARK TECH: "Smith" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Smith, Todd Berdanier and Nick Heiner, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bell-Mark
Technologies Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01600, (M.D.
Penn., September 8, 2017), alleges violations of the overtime pay
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law as well as common law claims of
conversion and unjust enrichment together with an additional
amount as liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action.

Bell-Mark has been engaged in the textile machine manufacturing
industry at its Dover Facility and maintains its corporate
headquarters in Pine Brook, New Jersey. Plaintiffs were employed
as a Field Service Technician at Bell-Mark from in or about May
2017 to in or about August 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
      Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
      Steve T. Mahan, Esq.
      MCCARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
      2041 Herr Street
      Harrisburg, PA 17103-1624
      Tel; (717) 238-5707
      Email: dcummings@mwcfirm.com
             lweisberg@mwcfirm.com


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Another Resident Joins California Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rokos, writing for The Press-Enterprise, reports that a
wheelchair-bound Hemet man with dementia whose family says they
found him smelly and sitting on a urine-soaked pad at an assisted-
living facility has joined a federal class-action lawsuit against
Brookdale Senior Living, saying the pursuit of profits has
resulted in a diminished quality of care.

Brookdale has 89 facilities in California offering a variety of
levels of care to more than 5,000 residents, the lawsuit says.  In
the Inland Empire, there are locations in Hemet, Murrieta, Jurupa
Valley, Corona, Loma Linda and Apple Valley.

With the addition of 87-year-old Lawrence Quinlan, there are now
six named defendants in the lawsuit that was filed in July in U.S.
District Court in the Northern District of California. Damages of
at least $9,000 each are being sought on behalf of a class of more
than 5,000 members, according to the suit filed by Emeryville-
based Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP.

The lawsuit claims that Brookdale has failed to make
accommodations required by Americans With Disability Act and
hasn't provided equal access to disabled residents; understaffs
its facilities; administers medications incorrectly; overcharges
its residents; and does not regularly change its residents'
clothes or provide baths.

Brookdale spokeswoman Dana Schroering said the company is
defending itself vigorously against the lawsuit.

"We were notified that California attorneys representing residents
filed a lawsuit trying to create a class action.  We believe this
lawsuit is without merit," she said.

Lawyer Guy B. Wallace disagrees.

"There are a couple of really major changes we would like to see
made," Mr. Wallace said.  "We want to make sure that Brookdale
actually has enough staff in its facilities to provide the care
that it promises to the residents. . . . They really don't get the
care they are promised."

Secondly, Mr. Wallace said, the facilities need to change to
comply with the ADA.

The law firm brought the suit, Mr. Wallace said, only after
Brookdale refused to agree to changes.  Changing care facilities
is traumatic for elderly residents, Mr. Wallace said, so it was
not simply a matter of them finding new homes.

"Under those circumstances, what else can you do?" Mr. Wallace
said.

A lack of cleanliness

Mr. Quinlan, the Hemet man, stayed at Brookdale in that city on
several occasions between 2013 and 2015, and he became a long-term
resident from late 2015 to 2017.

His granddaughter, Loresia Vallette, complained that his clothes
were never washed and that staff continued to dress him in the
same pair of urine-stained pants, even though the family paid for
extra services, the lawsuit states.

Brookdale staff said they were not giving him the promised showers
because he was "resistant."

Brookdale then raised his personal care rate by $700.

The family eventually decided to move Mr. Quinlan out.  When he
went to a physician's office to get a tuberculosis test and was
transferred out of his wheelchair, they saw that the seating pad
was soaked with urine and that the plastic was breaking down as a
result.

"It was clear that neither the seating pad nor Mr. Quinlan had
been washed for a very long time," the lawsuit says.

History of violations

A check of inspection records of Community Care Licensing, a
division of the state Department of Social Services, shows many
complaints against Brookdale's facilities have been substantiated,
while many others have been determined to be unfounded.

In 2017, at the facility in Jurupa Valley (which Brookdale refers
to as Riverside), inspectors were "able to corroborate the
allegation that facility staff do not respond to residents' needs
in a timely manner" after it was determined that it took employees
"well over" 10 minutes to respond to residents pressing their
pendant alarms.

One resident was administered the wrong medication and developed a
full body rash, records show.  Other inspections found that
medications were sometimes administered in the wrong amounts.

At the Hemet facility, in 2015, a resident had been placed in a
dining room chair even though he had previously been classified as
a fall risk.  The resident fell and injured his head, requiring 10
stitches.  Even so, three days later, the resident fell again, re-
injuring the head wound.

Inspectors concluded that Brookdale failed to follow the
resident's care plan, didn't provide enough supervision and didn't
have enough staff. [GN]


CERTAINTEED CORP: Faces "Chizniak" Suit in N.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Certainteed
Corporation doing business as: Certainteed Saint-Gobain.  The case
is styled as Barbara Chizniak, Wayne Bailey, Richard Willis, Larry
Johnson, Jean Ducham, Jeffrey Broom and Robbie Sheets, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Certainteed Corporation doing business as: Certainteed Saint-
Gobain and Saint-Gobain Corporation doing business as: Saint-
Gobain North America doing business as: Saint-Gobain, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01075-FJS-ATB (N.D.N.Y., September 26, 2017).

Certainteed Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. It designs and manufactures exterior
building products.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Donald W. Boyajian, Esq.
   Dreyer, Boyajian Law Firm
   75 Columbia Street
   Albany, NY 12210
   Tel: (518) 463-7784
   Fax: (518) 463-4039
   Email: dboyajian@dreyerboyajian.com

      - and -

   James R. Peluso , Jr., Esq.
   Dreyer, Boyajian Law Firm
   75 Columbia Street
   Albany, NY 12210
   Tel: (518) 463-7784
   Fax: (518) 463-4039
   Email: jpeluso@dreyerboyajian.com

CLAYBURN CORP: Faces "Blanton" Suit in S. Dist. Tex.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clayburn
Corporation. The case is styled as Samantha Blanton and Ruth Peck,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Brent Walters and Clayburn Corporation, Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-cv-02860 (S.D. Tex., September 25, 2017).

Clayburn Corporation is in the insurance agents, brokers, &
service business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Nitin Sud, Esq.
   Sud Law P.C.
   6750 West Loop S, Suite 920
   Bellaire, TX 77401
   Tel: (832) 623-6420
   Fax: (832) 304-2552
   Email: nsud@sudemploymentlaw.com


CONTRACT CALLERS: Faces "Cole" Suit in N. Dist. Ga.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Contract Callers,
Inc.  The case is styled as Yolander Cole, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Contract
Callers, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03736-WSD-CMS (N.D.
Ga., September 25, 2017).

Contract Callers Inc. or CCI is a top tier provider of call center
services and utility field services solutions for creditors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CUBICLE CONCEPTS: Faces "Bermudez" Suit in N.D. of Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cubicle Concepts,
LLC.  The case is styled as Jose Bermudez and Alexander Palos, on
behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Cubicle Concepts, LLC and Andrew Oziemblo,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06933 (N.D. Ill.,
September 26, 2017).

Cubicle Concepts has a large selection of new, used and
refurbished office furniture.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John William Billhorn, Esq.
   Billhorn Law Firm
   53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
   Chicago, IL 60604
   Tel: (312) 853-1450
   Email: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


CVS PHARMACY: Certification of Classes Sought in "Corcoran" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Clark, Zulema Avis, Robert Garber, Onnolee Samuelson, Robert
Jenks, Debbie Barrett, and Carl Washington, some of the Plaintiffs
in the lawsuit entitled Christopher Corcoran, et al. on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-03504-YGR (N.D. Cal.), move the
Court for certification of six classes:

   (1) All CVS Pharmacy, Inc. ("CVS") customers in California
       who, between November 2008 and July 31, 2015 (the "Class
       Period"), (1) purchased one or more generic prescription
       drugs from CVS that were offered through CVS's Health
       Savings Pass ("HSP") program at the time of the purchase;
       (2) were insured for the purchase(s) through a third-party
       payor plan administered by one of the following pharmacy
       benefit managers: Caremark/PCS, Express Scripts, Medco,
       MedImpact, or Optum/Prescription Solutions (prior to
       January 29, 2015); and (3) paid CVS an out-of-pocket
       payment for the purchase greater than the HSP program
       price for the prescription;

   (2) All CVS Pharmacy, Inc. ("CVS") customers in Arizona who,
       between November 2008 and July 31, 2015 (the "Class
       Period"), (1) purchased one or more generic prescription
       drugs from CVS that were offered through CVS's Health
       Savings Pass ("HSP") program at the time of the purchase;
       (2) were insured for the purchase(s) through a third-party
       payor plan administered by one of the following pharmacy
       benefit managers: Caremark/PCS, Express Scripts, Medco,
       MedImpact, or Optum/Prescription Solutions (prior to
       January 29, 2015); and (3) paid CVS an out-of-pocket
       payment for the purchase greater than the HSP program
       price for the prescription;

   (3) All CVS Pharmacy, Inc. ("CVS") customers in Florida who,
       between November 2008 and July 31, 2015 (the "Class
       Period"), (1) purchased one or more generic prescription
       drugs from CVS that were offered through CVS's Health
       Savings Pass ("HSP") program at the time of the purchase;
       (2) were insured for the purchase(s) through a third-party
       payor plan administered by one of the following pharmacy
       benefit managers: Caremark/PCS, Express Scripts, Medco,
       MedImpact, or Optum/Prescription Solutions (prior to
       January 29, 2015); and (3) paid CVS an out-of-pocket
       payment for the purchase greater than the HSP program
       price for the prescription;

   (4) All CVS Pharmacy, Inc. ("CVS") customers in Illinois who,
       between November 2008 and July 31, 2015 (the "Class
       Period"), (1) purchased one or more generic prescription
       drugs from CVS that were offered through CVS's Health
       Savings Pass ("HSP") program at the time of the purchase;
       (2) were insured for the purchase(s) through a third-party
       payor plan administered by one of the following pharmacy
       benefit managers: Caremark/PCS, Express Scripts, Medco,
       MedImpact, or Optum/Prescription Solutions (prior to
       January 29, 2015); and (3) paid CVS an out-of-pocket
       payment for the purchase greater than the HSP program
       price for the prescription;

   (5) All CVS Pharmacy, Inc. ("CVS") customers in Massachusetts
       who, between November 2008 and July 31, 2015 (the "Class
       Period"), (1) purchased one or more generic prescription
       drugs from CVS that were offered through CVS's Health
       Savings Pass ("HSP") program at the time of the purchase;
       (2) were insured for the purchase(s) through a third-party
       payor plan administered by one of the following pharmacy
       benefit managers: Caremark/PCS, Express Scripts, Medco,
       MedImpact, or Optum/Prescription Solutions (prior to
       January 29, 2015); and (3) paid CVS an out-of-pocket
       payment for the purchase greater than the HSP program
       price for the prescription; and

   (6) All CVS Pharmacy, Inc. ("CVS") customers in New York who,
       between November 2008 and July 31, 2015 (the "Class
       Period"), (1) purchased one or more generic prescription
       drugs from CVS that were offered through CVS's Health
       Savings Pass ("HSP") program at the time of the purchase;
       (2) were insured for the purchase(s) through a third-party
       payor plan administered by one of the following pharmacy
       benefit managers: Caremark/PCS, Express Scripts, Medco,
       MedImpact, or Optum/Prescription Solutions (prior to
       January 29, 2015); and (3) paid CVS an out-of-pocket
       payment for the purchase greater than the HSP program
       price for the prescription.

The Plaintiffs also seek the appointment of Plaintiffs Tyler
Clark, Zulema Avis, Robert Garber, Onnolee Samuelson, Robert
Jenks, Debbie Barrett, and Carl Washington as representatives of
the classes and the appointment of their attorneys of record as
class counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Richard Lewis, Esq.
          Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K St. NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: rlewis@hausfeld.com
                  sgosselin@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Pat A. Cipollone, Esq.
          Rebecca R. Anzidei, Esq.
          Robert B. Gilmore, Esq.
          STEIN MITCHELL CIPOLLONE BEATO & MISSNER LLP
          1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 737-7777
          E-mail: pcipollone@steinmitchell.com
                  ranzidei@steinmitchell.com
                  rgilmore@steinmitchell.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
          Bethany L. Caracuzzo, Esq.
          PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 692-0772
          Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
          E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
                  jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
                  bc@pritzkerlevine.com


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Johnson" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified
Consultants, Inc.  The case is styled as Nicolle Johnson, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Diversified Consultants, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05654
(E.D. N.Y., September 27, 2017).

Diversified Consultants is a business specializing in accounts
receivable management functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


E.T. ZACAPA: Faces "Barahona" Suit in S. Dist. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against E.T. Zacapa Group
Corp.  The case is styled as Victor Hugo Cordon Barahona and Mynor
Rene Cordon Trujillo, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. E.T. Zacapa Group Corp., Canche Carpentry
Inc., Checha Carpentry Inc and Cesar Turcios, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-23514-JLK (S.D. Fla., September 25, 2017).

E.T Zacapa Group Corp is a Florida Corporation based in Miami.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
   300 71st Street, Suite 605
   Miami Beach, FL 33141
   Tel: (305) 865-6766
   Fax: 865-7167
   Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Compromised "Amadick" Personal Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Amadick, Jeannie Ball, Jennifer Ball, Thomas Greenwood,
Robert Roehl, Constance Zasada, and Theodore Zasada on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-04196, (D. Minn.,
September 8, 2017), seeks actual damages, economic damages,
statutory damages, nominal damages, exemplary damages, injunctive
relief, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit
resulting from negligence, invasion of privacy by public
disclosure of private facts and violation of the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the
financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied
with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as
information on everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers.

Plaintiffs claim to be victims of the data breach. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
     Thomas J. Lyons Jr., Esq.
     CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
     367 Commerce Court
     Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
     Telephone: (651) 770-9707
     Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
     Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com


EQUIFAX INC: "Grossberg" Hits Poor Data Security, Seeks Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Grossberg and Lisa Olivo,, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-05280, (E.D. N.Y., September 8, 2017), seeks all
statutory damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
liquidated and statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, statutory damages, and any other damages, attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses and such other relief resulting from
negligence, consumer fraud, breach of contract and violation of
New York General Business Laws.

Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the
financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied
with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as
information on everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers.

Plaintiffs paid $21.76 to purchase credit monitoring services to
protect himself as a result of Defendant's data breach, the
complaint notes. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
      Orin Kurtz, Esq.
      GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
      Tower 56, 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 905-0509
      Fax: (212) 905-0508
      Email: mgardy@gardylaw.com
             okurtz@gardylaw.com

             - and -

      David Hartheimer, Esq.
      MAYERSON & HARTHEIMER, PLLC
      845 Third Ave., 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (646) 778-4381
      Fax: (501) 423-8672
      Email: david@mhlaw-ny.com


EQUIFAX INC: Has Inadequate Data Security, "Alexander" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Alexander, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-
cv-05230, (N.D. Cal., September 8, 2017), seeks statutory damages
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and state consumer protection
statutes, reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses, other
compensatory damages, further and more robust credit monitoring
services with accompanying identity theft insurance, and
injunctive relief including an order requiring Equifax to
implement improved data security measures.

Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the
financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied
with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as
information on everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers.

Alexander claims to be a victim of the data breach. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq.
     David M. Given, Esq.
     PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
     39 Mesa Street, Suite 201
     The Presidio
     San Francisco, CA 94129
     Tel: (415) 398-0900
     Fax: (415) 398-0911
     Email: nac@phillaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Lacks Data Security Measures, Asserts "Avise" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Avise, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-03422, (N.D. Ga., September 7, 2017), seeks statutory damages
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, California Unfair Competition
Law, California Customer Records Act and the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, compensatory damages, further and more robust
credit monitoring services with accompanying identity theft
insurance, and injunctive relief including an order requiring
Equifax to implement improved data security measures.

Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the
financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied
with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as
information on everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
     ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
     19 Corporate Plaza Dr.
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Telephone: (949) 720-1288
     Email: drobinson@robinsonfirm.com


EQUIFAX INC: Bandoh-Aidoo Files Class Suit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bandoh-Aidoo, on behalf of himself individually and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06658, (C.D. Cal., September 9, 2017),
seeks monetary, treble, punitive and statutory damages, statutory
penalties, equitable/injunctive relief, costs of suit and such
other and further relief for violation of California's Statutory
Protection of the Security of Personal Information, Privacy Breach
Notice Statutes, common law invasion of privacy and Right to
Privacy under the California Constitution.

Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the
financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied
with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as
information on everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers.

On September 8, 2017 Equifax confirmed that Plaintiff's personal
information had been breached, accessed and/or disclosed without
his authorization. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Torin A. Dorros, Esq.
     DORROS LAW
     8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 350
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Telephone: (310) 997-2050
     Facsimile: (310) 496-1320
     Email: tdorros@dorroslaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: "Cherney" Sues Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------
Andrew Cherney and Jack Cherney, individually, and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12966, (E.D. Mich., September 8,
2017), seeks actual and statutory damages, restitution and
disgorgement, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
equitable/injunctive relief, costs of suit and such other and
further relief resulting from negligence and violation of various
state data breach statutes.

Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the
financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied
with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as
information on everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David H. Fink, Esq.
     Darryl Bressack, Esq.
     Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
     FINK ASSOCIATES LAW
     38500 Woodward Avenue, Ste. 350
     Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
     Tel: (248) 971-2500
     Email: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
            dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com
            nfink@finkandassociateslaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: "Collins" Personal Info Claimed Hacked
---------------------------------------------------
Randall Collins, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 8:17-cv-01561, (C.D. Cal., September 8, 2017), seeks
restitution of all amounts wrongfully obtained, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest thereon, recoverable compensatory,
consequential, actual and/or statutory damages, punitive and
exemplary damages, equitable, injunctive, declaratory relief or
judgment as necessary or appropriate attorneys' fees and costs of
suit and all such other and further relief resulting from
negligence and violation of the California Customer Records Act,
California Unfair Competition Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act.

Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the
financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied
with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as
information on everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers.

Collins claims to be a victim of the data breach. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
     Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
     Jennifer L. Macpherson, Esq.
     BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
     701 B Street, Suite 1700
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 338-1100
     Fax: (619) 338-1101
     Email: tblood@bholaw.com
            toreardon@bholaw.com
            jmacpherson@bholaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Has Poor Data Security Measures Says "Santomauro"
--------------------------------------------------------------Rodd
Santomauro, Brenda Birkett and Debra Lee, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01852, (D.C., September 8, 2017),
seeks compensatory, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
all injunctive relief and such other relief resulting from unjust
enrichment, negligence, common law invasion of privacy, breach of
contract and violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit &
Protection Act, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, the District
of Columbia Consumer Protection Act and Data Breach Notification
Statute.

Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the
financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied
with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as
information on everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Troy N. Giatras, Esq.
     THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC
     118 Capitol Street, Suite 400
     Charleston, WV 25301
     Tel: (304) 343-2900
     Fax: (304) 343-2942
     Email: troy@thewvlawfirm.com


EQUIFAX INC: Gibson Sues Over Data Security Breach
--------------------------------------------------
Robin Gibson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00973, (W.D. Okla., September 8, 2017), seeks statutory damages
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and various state data breach
statutes, compensatory damages, equitable relief, including
injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the
financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied
with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as
information on everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers.

Gibson claims to be a victim of the data breach. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     William B. Federman, Esq.
     Joshua D. Wells, Esq.
     FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
     10205 North Pennsylvania Ave.
     Oklahoma City, OK 73120
     Telephone: (405) 235-1560
     Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
     Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
            jdw@federmanlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: "House" Sues Over Illegal Access to Personal Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron House, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
02523, (D. Kan., September 8, 2017), seeks actual, punitive and
statutory damages, attorneys' fees and litigation costs,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and
such other and further relief resulting from negligence and
violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act and the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the
financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied
with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as
information on everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers.

House's private information was illegally accessed by hackers in
caused by the Security Breach, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Burgess, Esq.
      BURGESS LAW FIRM, P.C.
      4310 Madison Avenue, Suite 100
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Tel: (816) 471-1700
      Fax: (816) 471-1701
      Email: mitch@burgesslawkc.com

             - and -

      Ralph K. Phalen, Esq.
      RALPH K. PHALEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      4310 Madison Avenue, Suite 140
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Tel. (816) 589-0753
      Fax: (816) 471-1701
      Email: phalenlaw@yahoo.com

             - and -

      Phyllis A. Norman, Esq.
      NORMAN & GRAVES LAW FIRM
      4310 Madison Avenue, Suite 120
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Tel: (816) 895-8989
      Fax: (816) 895-8988
      Email: phyllis@pnormanlaw.com
             - and -

      Ben Barnow, Esq.
      Erich P. Schork, Esq.
      Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
      Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
      BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 621-2000
      Fax: (312) 641-5504
      Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
             e.schork@barnowlaw.com
             aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
             j.blake@barnowlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Martinez" Suit in S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc.  The
case is styled as Jacqueline Martinez and Barron Libasci, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-23510-CMA (S.D.
Fla., September 25, 2017).

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Herman Joseph Russomanno, Esq.
   Russomano & Borello PA
   150 W Flagler Street
   Museum Tower Penthouse 2800
   Miami, FL 33130
   Tel: (305) 373-2101
   Fax: 373-2103
   Email: hrussomanno@russomanno.com

      - and -

   Robert John Borrello, Esq.
   Russomanno & Borrello
   Museum Tower
   150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2800
   Miami, FL 33130
   Tel: (305) 373-2101
   Fax: (305) 373-2103
   Email: rborrello@russomanno.com

      - and -

   Herman Joseph Russomanno , III, Esq.
   Russomanno & Borrello, P.A.
   Museum Tower
   Penthouse 2800
   150 W Flagler Street
   Miami, FL 33130
   Tel: (305) 373-2101
   Fax: 373-2103
   Email: herman2@russomanno.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gerstein Files Suit Over FCRA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Gerstein and Charles Stimac, Jr., individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax
Information Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00593 (S.D.
Ohio, September 8, 2017), seeks actual, statutory and punitive
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Equifax Information Services is a consumer reporting agency
located at 1550 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, GA. On July 29,
2017, Equifax discovered that one or more of its servers had been
breached. It contained Plaintiffs' sensitive personal information
including their names, full Social Security numbers, birth dates,
addresses, driver's license numbers and possibly credit cards.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

     Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr.
     ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 440-0020
     Fax: (312) 440-4180
     Email: tom@attorneyzim.com
     Website: www.attorneyzim.com

            - and -

     Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
     Shannon M. McNulty
     CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 899-9090
     Fax: (312) 899-9090
     Email: rac@cliffordlaw.com
            smm@cliffordlaw.com

            - and -

     David H. Krieger, Esq.
     George Haines, Esq.
     HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC
     8985 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 350
     Henderson, NV 89123
     Tel: (702) 880-5554
     Fax: (702) 385-5518
     Email: dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com
            ghaines@hainesandkrieger.com

            - and -

     Matthew I. Knepper, Esq.
     Miles N. Clark, Esq.
     KNEPPER & CLARK LLC
     10040 W. Cheyenne Ave., Suite 170-109
     Las Vegas, NV 89129
     Phone: (702) 825-6060
     FAX: (702) 447-8048
     Email: matthew.knepper@knepperclark.com
            miles.clark@knepperclark.com

            - and -

     Sean N. Payne, Esq.
     PAYNE LAW FIRM LLC
     9550 S. Eastern Ave. Suite 253-A213
     Las Vegas, NV 89123
     Tel: (702) 952-2733
     Fax: (702) 462-7227
     Email: seanpayne@spaynelaw.com


EXPERIAN DATA: "Patton" Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------
Maudie Patton, Jacqueline Goodridge and Virginia Kaldmo,
individually, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Experian Data Corp., Court Ventures,
Inc., Infosearch.com, LLC and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 8:15-cv-01142 (Orange County Superior Court, September
30, 2015) is removed to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on September 8, 2017 under Case No.
8:17-cv-01559.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

Defendant is represented by:

     Richard J. Grabowski, Esq.
     John A. Vogt, Esq.
     Edward S. Chang, Esq.
     JONES DAY
     3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
     Irvine, CA 92612.4408
     Telephone: (949) 851-3939
     Facsimile: (949) 553-7539
     Email: rgrabowski@JonesDay.com
            javogt@jonesday.com
            echang@jonesday.com


FLORIDA POWER: Faces Class Action Over Irma Power Outages
---------------------------------------------------------
NBC Miami reports that it's the ultimate power struggle in South
Florida: FPL versus frustrated customers.  In Palmetto Bay,
village officials called an emergency meeting on Sept. 18 allowing
residents to vent.  Carmen Arostegui voiced her frustration at the
village meeting.

"It's not swift.  It is hot. We are feeling 100-degree-heat out
there," said Ms. Arostegui. "The lack of information to the
community and to specific residents is the most frustrating aspect
of this experience."

However, not everyone at the Sept. 18 meeting stood in line to
speak out against FPL.  Palmetto Bay resident Beatriz Herman
believes homeowners should also do their part to help with quick
power restoration.

"They can't come and look at every pole and see where is the
vegetation.  It's your responsibility as an owner of a house to
call and say listen this is kind of dangerous please come and cut
it.  They come right away," said Ms. Herman.

Earlier on Sept. 18, MSP Recovery and Dorta Law filed a class-
action lawsuit in Miami-Dade Circuit Court.  The firms argue that
FPL collects storm charge fees from customers, but they say the
company was not proactive or prepared before Hurricane Irma.
John Ruiz represents MSP Recovery.

"Instead of using that money and being prepared they waited 'til
the storm hit," argued Mr. Ruiz.  "Had they done what they were
supposed to do, this vegetation would've been out of the way and
it wouldn't have caused the delay in restoration as it did."

Sandra Speier, a class representative said she doesn't see how the
storm fee benefited customers.

"My impression of that storm fee was to upgrade the
infrastructure. I don't see anything about upgrading the
infrastructure that happened," said Ms. Speier.

The City of Coral Gables is also threatening litigation against
FPL over the restoration delay.

Florida Power & Light released a statement on Sept. 18 responding
to the lawsuits.

"We understand that it's extremely frustrating for our customers
to be without power.  That said, frivolous lawsuits and ludicrous
code violations that attempt to pressure us into providing
preferential treatment for their City will not work.  Our focus is
on restoring power to all of our customers, and we will not be
moved by self-entitled politicians who are looking for someone to
blame for the City's irresponsibly managed tree program.  The fact
is the city of Coral Gables has for many years resisted FPL's
well-documented efforts to trim trees and harden our electric
system.  Unfortunately for our customers in that area, they are
now paying the price in terms of extended outages due to hundreds
of trees that have fallen into our lines.

While we do not have a precise assessment of the number of City-
owned trees that may have been improperly located, resulting in
unnecessarily extensive damage to electrical equipment and
extended outages for Coral Gables residents, there's no doubt that
the City's extreme approach to trees is the cause of the problem.
More importantly, it threatens the safety of the residents of
Coral Gables and the lives of the lineworkers who are trying to
restore power.

We have restored 97 percent of Miami-Dade, and thousands of crews
are working to restore the remaining customers without power.
After restoration is complete, FPL would be happy to work with the
City constructively and provide them recommendations on how to
avoid some of these problems from reoccurring during severe
weather in the future.  However, it is important to note, that
numerous attempts we've made in the past to address the impact of
the City's dense, overgrown vegetation and tree canopy has on the
reliability of their residents' electric service has been ignored.

We learned this evening of a separate, related lawsuit filed on
behalf of two individuals who appear to have a history of pursuing
frivolous legal action.  Frivolous lawsuits are filed every day in
America, however, what is concerning in this case is that the suit
was filed by a law firm linked to a Coral Gables City
Commissioner.  We have not yet received a copy of the lawsuit, but
we can only assume it's another attempt to distract from the
City's failure to properly locate and manage its trees, despite
having a website that shows the exact location of each of its
38,000 trees.

Our crews have been removing a shocking number of fallen and
damaged trees that were apparently planted by the City in
dangerous locations far too close to power lines.  Other trees
appear to have been planted too closely together, preventing their
root systems from being able to grow properly and hold the ground
securely in high winds. With wind gusts of more than 90 mph
recorded in nearby weather stations, it's no wonder why so many
trees came crashing down all over the City." [GN]


FLORIDA POWER: Coral Gables to Issue Citation Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
Florida Power & Light Co. is facing a statewide class action
lawsuit filed by two Miami-Dade residents who were still without
electricity more than a week after Hurricane Irma, with more
litigation potentially coming from at least two South Florida
cities.

Miami attorney John Ruiz filed a lawsuit on Sept. 18 in Miami-Dade
Circuit Court on behalf of a single mom and a South Miami doctor
who were still waiting for FPL to turn the air conditioning back
on.  The class action claims FPL breached its contract with
customers by collecting a "storm fee" but not adequately preparing
for inevitable hurricane power outages.
"It's just kind of ridiculous for a company to make $1.7 billion
in a year and in exchange put at risk the lives of people and
people's property," said Mr. Ruiz, who is with MSP Recovery Law
Firm.

Coral Gables is seeking to lead other municipalities in suing
Florida Power & Light Co. to speed up power restoration after
hurricanes.

So far, Coral Gables' city commission and Pinecrest's village
council have voted to consider a lawsuit against FPL for leaving
customers' homes hot, sticky and dark for more than a week after
Hurricane Irma.  More municipalities may follow.

"Other cities that we represent or have represented in the past
have contacted us regarding what, if anything, they can do with
respect to this situation," said Mitchell Bierman of Weiss Serota
Helfman Cole & Bierman in Miami.  Mr. Bierman is Pinecrest's
village attorney, and his firm represents other municipalities in
Miami-Dade, Broward and Collier counties.

Only 67 percent of Pinecrest homes had power by Sept. 18, or about
5,000 of 7,500 residences, according to the village.

Coral Gables was up to 92 percent by Sept. 18 -- but that's not
full restoration, which according to city attorney Craig Leen
means FPL has violated city and state building codes requiring
power.

Coral Gables plans to issue a citation against the power company
for up to $15,000 per day starting Sept. 18 for its failure to
restore electricity to all city residents by Sept. 17.  Any fines
collected will be donated to disaster relief charities, Mr. Leen
said.  The city sent FPL a cease-and-desist letter on Sept. 15
demanding speedy power restoration, as first reported by the Miami
New Times.

"We were basing it on FPL's own promise, which a lot of people
relied on in our city and across South Florida," Mr. Leen said.
The letter also demanded FPL deal with six power lines in downed
trees that were blocking Coral Gables roads.  The company swiftly
addressed the power lines, Mr. Leen said.

Any litigation against the company would be based on Coral Gables'
franchise agreement with FPL, Mr. Leen said.  The lawsuit would
seek an injunction or declaratory judgment forcing the company to
fund better infrastructure, including underground transmission
lines.

Right now, an underground option would cost the city around $17
million per mile -- "an astronomical sum," Mr. Leen said.  FPL
should pay for the infrastructure improvements with the storm
surge fees it collects, he argues, because it's clear the current
system can't withstand a monster storm like Irma.

"We're thankful it was a tropical storm in this area, but if it
had been the Category 4 or Category 5 that had been predicted, it
would have devastated the power situation in our city," Mr. Leen
said.

Coral Gables is one of South Florida's ritzier areas and might not
have had many residents who did not have the means to safely
weather the storm.  But that's part of why the city wants to lead
the charge, said Mr. Leen, who called the issue "the most
important thing I've worked on as city attorney." [GN]


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Bray" Suit in Dist. of Conn.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontier
Communications Corporation.  The case is styled as Chris Bray,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Frontier Communications Corporation, Daniel J.
McCarthy, Ralph Perley McBride, John M. Jureller and Donald W.
Daniels, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01617-VAB (D. Conn.,
September 26, 2017).

Frontier Communications Corporation is a corporation with
principal place of business in Connecticut, and state of
incorporation in Delaware. It is engaged in the sale and
distribution of internet and telephone services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brian P. Murray, Esq.
   Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP - NY
   230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
   New York, NY 10169
   Tel: (212) 682-5340
   Fax: (212) 884-0988
   Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com


FUSION LOGISTICS: Faces "Barnard" Suit in N.D. of Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fusion Logistics,
Inc.  The case is styled as Chris Barnard, Jolene Furdek and Rene
Revilla, Plaintiffs v. Fusion Logistics, Inc., Fusion Logistics,
LLC, PEI Ohio, Inc. and Premium Transportation Staffing, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02650-N (N.D. Tex., September 27,
2017).

Fusion provides end-to-end logistics solutions and dedicated
delivery services to online retailers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Joshua Jon Sanford, Esq.
   Sanford Law Firm
   One Financial Center
   650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
   Little Rock, AR 72211
   Tel: (501) 221-0088
   Fax: (888) 787-2040
   Emmail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


GC SERVICES: Faces "Aronov" Suit in E. Dist. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership. The case is styled as Mikhail Aronov, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GC
Services Limited Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05660
(E.D. N.Y., September 27, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen, PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Dec. 14 Case Management Conference in "Sloan"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order regarding of
motion to dismiss and case management conference in the case
captioned MONTEVILLE SLOAN, JR., RAUL SIQUEIROS, TODD AND JILL
CRAWLEY; JOSEPH BRANNAN, LARRY GOODWIN, MARC PERKINS, DONALD
LUDINGTON, THOMAS SHORTER, DERICK BRADFORD, GABRIEL DEL VALLE,
KEVIN HANNEKEN, EDWIN AND KATELYN DOEPEL, DAN MADSON, JAMES
FAULKNER, JOSEPH OLIVIER, SCOTT SMITH, ROSS DAHL, DREW PETERSON,
MICHAEL WARE, STEVE KITCHEN, BARBARA MOLINA, DENNIS VITA, STEVEN
EHRKE, THOMAS GULLING, RONALD JONES, MIKE WARPINSKI, WILLIAM
MARTELL, JOHN GRAZIANO, JOSHUA BYRGE, RUDY SANCHEZ, CHRISTOPHER
THACKER, RANDY CLAUSEN, KELLY HARRIS, JAMES ROBERTSON, and JONAS
BEDNAREK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-07244-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

The parties have agreed on, and the Court approves, the following:

   -- GM will have until October 10, 2017 to file its Motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint;

   -- Plaintiffs will have until November 15, 2017 to file their
response in Opposition to GM's Motion;

   -- GM will have until November 30, 2017 to file any Reply in
further support of its Motion;

   -- Case Management Conference is reset to December 14, 2017 at
1:30 p.m.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybzy2nwofrom Leagle.com.

Monteville Sloan, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus
-- lori@andrusanderson.com -- Andrus Anderson LLP.

Monteville Sloan, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,  55 W Monroe St # 1111, Chicago, IL
60603, USA, Andrew England Brashier --
andrew.brashier@beasleyallen.com -- Beasley Allen, pro hac vice,
Anthony J. Garcia -- Anthony@aglawinc.com -- AG Law, P.A.,
Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen, 218 Commerce St. PO Box
4160, Montgomery, AL 36103, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri --
dferri@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay Barnett,
III -- clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com -- Beasley, Allen, Crow,
Methvin, Portis and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine
Shannon -- jshannon@johnsonbecker.com -- Johnson Becker, pro hac
vice, John Ernst Tangren -- jtangren@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt
& Casey LLC, Mark A. DiCello -- madicello@dlcfirm.com -- The
DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Becker --
tbecker@johnsonbecker.com -- Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice,
Wilson Daniel Miles, III -- dee.miles@beasleyallen.com -- Beasley
Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson --
jennie@andrusanderson.com -- Andrus Anderson LLP.

Raul Siqueiros, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Andrew
England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia,
AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen, pro hac
vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay
Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles,
P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, pro
hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Mark A.
DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Becker,
Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III,
Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson
LLP.

Joseph Brannan, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Andrew
England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia,
AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice, Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley
Allen, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis
and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Marybeth
V. Gibson, The Finley Firm, PC, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Becker,
Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III,
Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson
LLP.

Donald Ludington, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus,
Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Andrew England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J.
Garcia, AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen,
pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H.
Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and
Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy
J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel
Miles, III, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson,
Andrus Anderson LLP.

Thomas Shorter, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Andrew
England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia,
AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen, pro hac
vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay
Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles,
P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, pro
hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Mark A.
DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Becker,
Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III,
Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson
LLP.

Gabriel Del Valle, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus,
Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Andrew England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J.
Garcia, AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen,
pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H.
Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and
Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy
J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel
Miles, III, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson,
Andrus Anderson LLP.

Gail Lannom, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Andrew
England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia,
AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice, Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley
Allen, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis
and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy
J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel
Miles, III, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson,
Andrus Anderson LLP.

Bradley K. Zierke, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus,
Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Andrew England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J.
Garcia, AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice, Archibald Irwin Grubb, II,
Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt
& Casey LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin,
Portis and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon,
Johnson Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt &
Casey LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice,
Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson
Daniel Miles, III, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee
Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP.

Ross Dahl, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Andrew
England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia,
AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice, Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley
Allen, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis
and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy
J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel
Miles, III, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson,
Andrus Anderson LLP.

General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Joseph John Ybarra -
- Joseph.Ybarra@hysmlaw.com -- Huang Ybarra Singer and May LLP &
Gregory Richard Oxford -- goxford@icclawfirm.com -- Isaacs Clouse
Crose & Oxford LLP.


GLENN M. ROSS PC: Faces "Baker" Suit in E.D. Penn.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glenn M. Ross, P.C.
The case is styled as Cassandra Baker and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Glenn M. Ross, P.C. and Glenn M. Ross,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04274-HB (E.D. Penn., September 26,
2017).

Glenn M. Ross, P.C. is a law firm in Fort Washington, PA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Urevick-Ackelsberg, Esq.
   Public Interest Law Center
   1709 Benjamin Franklin Parkway
   Second Floor
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (267) 546-1316
   Fax: (215) 627-3183
   Email: dackelsberg@pubintlaw.org


GOOGLE INC: 9th Cir. Cy Pres Settlement Ruling Sparks Criticism
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Campbell, writing for Forbes, reports that it's no secret
that Google gives money to academic and advocacy groups as a means
of promoting its ideologies while silencing its critics. The law
has always permitted this form of 'charity,' but it hasn't abetted
it -- until now.  A new ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
effectively encourages Google's use of the judicial system as
another means of rewarding its ideological allies and punishing
its enemies.

The court's ruling rubber stamped an $8.5 million settlement
agreement in a class-action lawsuit that claimed Google violated
its users' privacy by disclosing their internet search terms to
owners of third-party websites.  The settlement proceeds would
ordinarily have been paid to Google's users as compensation for
their alleged injuries, but direct payment was considered
impractical in this case because each user would have been paid a
"paltry 4 cents."  So Google and the class-action lawyers agreed
to give the money to six academic and advocacy groups who would
support public awareness and other initiatives related to online
privacy.  This form of payout is known as cy pres ("as near as
possible"), because giving settlement money to charities is, at
least in theory, the "next best" thing to actually compensating
the injured parties.

This theory might have merit if the chosen charities are
independent from the parties and lawyers involved in the
settlement negotiations.  But in this case the court approved the
cy pres beneficiaries without serious inquiry into the potential
for conflicts of interest involving preexisting relationships.
Google was already a regular donor to four of the six groups (the
Berkman Center, the Stanford Center, AARP, and Chicago-Kent) and
three of them (the Berkman Center, the Stanford Center, and
Carnegie-Mellon) had previously been picked to receive cy pres
money in a class-action lawsuit against Google.  It's possible
that the only other beneficiary, the World Privacy Forum, receives
other benefits from Google as well, but the court didn't require
the group to fully identify its corporate sponsors.

It's also possible that Google would have donated funds to these
groups even if the lawsuit had never been filed.  Google is the
biggest lobbying spender in tech, and has routinely given millions
to the Stanford Center and similar groups over the last decade.
If the Stanford Center's cy pres award were deducted from Google's
previously budgeted funds for contributions to Stanford, it would
appear that Google is merely shifting million of dollars it had
already designated for another Stanford program to Stanford's cy
pres award.  Turning a lawsuit into an accounting exercise is far
more likely to benefit Google than the company's alleged victims.

As suggested by a dissenting judge, courts should subject cy pres
awards to additional scrutiny when the designated recipients have
a prior affiliation with counsel, a party, or even a judge.
Instead, the court majority blithely concluded that millions of
dollars in prior donations didn't undermine Google's process for
selecting cy pres recipients.

It didn't take long for real world events to expose the majority's
naivete.  A week after the court issued its ruling, the New York
Times reported that New America, a think tank who received more
than $21 million in funding from Google and affiliated entities,
ousted an entire team of scholars shortly after the team's
director, Barry Lynn, congratulated the European Commission for
finding Google guilty of abusing its monopoly power.  Though the
think tank denied the firing was motivated by Google, publicly-
released emails indicate that New America fired Lynn and his team
because their criticism of Google was "imperiling funding for
others."

After facing backlash from other donors and scholars,
New America's CEO acknowledged "there are unavoidable tensions the
minute you take corporation funding."  It appears, however, that
the sheer size and scope of Google's funding efforts have
escalated this ordinary tension dramatically.  According to Marc
Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center
(via the New York Times), "Google's willingness to spread cash
around the think tanks and advocacy groups focused on internet and
telecommunications policy has effectively muted, if not silenced,
criticism of the company over the past several years."

The New America scandal shows that groups who accept substantial
donations from Google are afraid to criticize the company, and any
group who wants substantial donations from Google in the future
needs to align itself with Google's ideologies.  This
demonstration indicates it's not mere coincidence that groups who
receive millions in cy pres money from Google "reliably line up"
on the company's side in key regulatory battles.  For example,
AARP and the Stanford and Berkman Centers have been strong
supporters of Google's net neutrality efforts, and professors from
the Stanford and Berkman Centers have further extended their
support by serving as officers for Fight for the Future, a group
that focuses its advocacy efforts on supporting net neutrality.
Yet Google blackballs cy pres funding for groups that are
aggressively devoted to combatting online privacy risks.

This doesn't mean that all groups who accept donations from Google
are automatically biased or untrustworthy, irrespective of
circumstances.  But it does indicate that many are too biased
toward Google for such groups to be considered the "next best"
thing for users Google has injured.

The court could have easily avoided this problem by forbidding
Google from choosing cy pres recipients that have previously
accepted Google funding.  Or, as the dissenting judge suggested,
the court could have required the settlement proponents to show
that nothing in the acknowledged relationships was a factor in the
choice of cy pres beneficiaries.  As the New America incident
reveals, the most relevant evidence regarding these relationships
was likely in the hands of Google and its proposed beneficiaries:
If Mr. Lynn hadn't spilled to the New York Times, the emails
evidencing New America's concern about losing Google's funding
wouldn't have come to light.  Shifting the burden of proof to
class-action defendants with respect to potential conflicts of
interest would thus increase transparency in the cy pres selection
process and could even promote speedy settlement by encouraging
the selection of clearly neutral beneficiaries in the first
instance.

The 9th Circuit's decision to bless Google's affiliated
beneficiaries will instead turn the courtroom into a venue for
supporting defendants' ideological advocacy at the expense of
their victims.  That's likely to be the next best thing for class-
action defendants and the worst thing for justice. [GN]


HAT SERVICE: Faces "Baehrle" Suit in Middle District of Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H.A.T. Service
Corporation. The case is styled as Robert Baehrle, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. H.A.T. Service
Corporation, a Florida Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
6:17-cv-01686-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla., September 25, 2017).

Founded in 2002, H.A.T Service Corporation is a small organization
in the dairy product companies industry located in Miami, FL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, Tampa P.A.
   7th Floor
   One Tampa City Center
   201 N Franklin Street
   Tampa, FL 33602-5157
   Tel: (813) 223-5505
   Fax: (813) 257-0572
   Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


J.G. BOSWELL: California Court Dismisses "Renfro"
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order dismissing the Complaint for failure to
state a claim in the case captioned CHRISTOPHER RENFRO, Plaintiff,
v. J.G. BOSWELL CO. INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01069-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff brings this action against 27 defendants.  The
complaint, according to the court, fails to contain any factual
allegations as to many of these defendants.

Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that he was employed by Youngs
Commercial Transfer and was sent with other employees to collect
bins of tomatoes harvested from J.G. Boswells Farm. The employees
were directed that if they deviated from their route they would be
written up and thereafter fired. Plaintiff was exposed to
chemicals at J.G. Boswells Farm and on several occasions was sent
to retrieve tomatoes when pesticides or herbicides were being
applied via aerial application by Erick Hansen. Mr. Hansen owns H
& G Farms and Lakeland Aviation.  There were several violations of
federal law which requires prohibition from entering an area,
training, safety equipment and notice of applications and the area
had 100 percent saturated exposure.

The Court finds that the allegations in the complaint fail to
state a cognizable claim for a violation of Plaintiff's federal
rights. Plaintiff shall be provided with the legal standards that
appear to apply to his claims in this action and will be granted
an opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure the
deficiencies in his complaint.

Plaintiff represents that he is bringing this action on behalf of
himself and other employees. To the extent that Plaintiff's
complaint seeks relief on behalf of other individuals, pro se
litigants have no authority to represent anyone other than
themselves; therefore, they lack the representative capacity to
file motions and other documents on behalf of other individuals.

Plaintiff's complaint does not state a cognizable claim for relief
for a violation of his federal rights. Plaintiff is granted leave
to file an amended complaint within thirty days.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9x3ub3nfrom Leagle.com.

Christopher Renfro, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


JT'S FRAMES: Casares Moves for Certification Under "Damasco"
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JT'S FRAMES, INC., an Illinois
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. JESSE CASARES, JOE CASARES, PATRICIA
BEZABALETA a/k/a PATRICIA ZABELETA, DAVID A. OZUNA, JOHN MEDINA,
MARKETECH, a Texas corporation d/b/a INTERFAX.NET, AVIGDOR
TESSLER, JAY M. KAMENETSKY, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02504 (N.D. Ill.), files with the Court its third amended
"Damasco" motion for class certification and request for status
conference.

The Plaintiff proposes this class definition:

     All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
     messages of material advertising the commercial availability
     or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on
     behalf of Defendants, and (3) which Defendants did not have
     prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not
     display a proper opt-out notice.

JT's Frames submits the Motion pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire
Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), and Campbell-Ewald Co.
v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (Jan. 20, 2016).  JT's Frames also
asks the Court to appoint it as the class representative, and to
appoint its attorneys as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rgood@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com


KOHL'S CORPORATION: Ankcorn Seeks Class Certification Under TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ankcorn moves the Court for an order determining that the
action titled MARK ANKCORN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. KOHL'S CORPORATION, Case No. 1:15-cv-01303
(N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against Kohl's
Corporation.

Based upon the Defendant's unsolicited autodialed calls, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Plaintiff
has defined the class as:

     All persons who had or have a number assigned to a cellular
     telephone service, which number was called by Defendant
     using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an
     artificial or prerecorded voice from four years prior to the
     date of filing through the date of trial.  Excluded from the
     class are persons who Defendant called for emergency
     purposes and persons who voluntarily provided their cellular
     telephone numbers to Defendant during the transaction that
     resulted in the debt owed.

The instant motion is filed at this time in order to procedurally
preserve his rights pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662
F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011) and pursuant to the decision in Genesis
Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (U.S. 2013), although
he disagrees that either decision is applicable at this time given
the United States Supreme Court's ruling in the matter of Gomez,
Case No. 14-857, Mr. Ankcorn contends.  Because the parties have
not yet had an opportunity to conduct discovery in this case, he
asks that the Court defer ruling on his Motion for Class
Certification until after the parties have had the opportunity to
complete precertification discovery.

Mr. Ankcorn further asks that the Court appoint him as Class
Representative, and appoint Martin & Bontrager, APC, and McMorrow
Law, P.C., as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=StpEUaY0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
          6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 960
          Los Angeles, CA 90028
          Telephone: (323) 940-1700
          Facsimile: (323) 238-8095
          E-mail: Nick@mblawapc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Henry T. Kelly, Esq.
          Janine N. Fletcher, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          333 W. Wacker Drive, 26th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 857-7070
          E-mail: hkelly@kelleydrye.com
                  cjames@kelleydrye.com

               - and -

          Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          One Jefferson Road, 2nd Floor
          Parsippany, NJ 07054
          Telephone: (973) 503-5900
          E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com


LIBERTY FOOD: Faces Dunkin' Donuts Franchising Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Food of
Astoria, Inc. The case is styled as Dunkin' Donuts Franchising
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company and DD IP Holder LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs v. Liberty Food of
Astoria, Inc. a New York Corporation and Magdy Ebeed, a New York
resident, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05658-JBW-RLM (E.D. N.Y.,
September 27, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ronald D. Degen, Esq.
   O'Rourke & Degen
   225 Broadway, Suite 715
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 227-4530
   Fax: (212) 385-9813
   Email: rdegen@odlegal.com


LON SMITH: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Contract Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Casady and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, report that
a roofing company told the Texas Supreme Court on Sept. 15 that a
lower appellate court wrongly upheld class certification for a
group of property owners alleging a roofing contractor unlawfully
acted as an insurance adjuster, arguing that because there were
six different versions of the at-issue contracts, some of which
contained arbitration provisions, it is improper for the claims to
proceed in a class action.

Lon Smith Roofing & Construction petitioned the state's high court
for review following the Second Court of Appeals' decision last
month largely upholding a lower court's order certifying the
class, allowing the members to proceed on two legal theories.

Named plaintiffs Joe and Stacci Keys filed suit against LSRC in
September 2013, challenging language included in its roofing
repair contracts that permitted the company to negotiate
agreements with their insurers.  The couple argued that conduct is
prohibited under state law for anyone who is not a licensed public
insurance adjuster. The Keys alleged that LSRC had exploited that
language to work out a price for a new roof on their home, then
sued them to cover costs not covered by their homeowners
insurance.

LSRC told the high court in its petition for review that the
version of the company's agreement with the Keys contains an
arbitration provision, but the court's order upholding class
certification made no mention of that.  The lower court ignored
Rule 42(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure that requires
a predominance of common issues in class actions, LSRC argued.

"Plaintiffs failed to prove the 'most stringent prerequisites' of
Rule 42(b)(3)," the petition argues before listing five issues
with certification on those grounds: "individualized damages;
statute of limitations bars claims from class members who signed
agreements going back to 2003; class members may elect to void
their agreements per section 4102.207's 'Insured Option to Void
Contract'; offsets for the values of the roofs; and class members
with homeowners insurance policies that paid for their roofs."

In October 2015, Tarrant County District Court Judge Thomas Wilson
Lowe certified a class of more than 3,000 Texas residents who,
since 2003, had signed a repair contract with LSRC containing the
disputed language.  The judge ruled that three of the Keys' causes
of action were appropriate for class treatment: a claim for
declaratory judgment that the contracts are illegal, void and
unenforceable, and claims that LSRC is liable under the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act for violations of Chapter 541 of the
state's insurance code for engaging in "unconscionable" actions.

In August, a panel of Texas' Second Court of Appeals affirmed the
portions of Judge Lowe's order certifying for class treatment the
declaratory judgment claim and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act
claim premised on violations of Chapter 541, while finding that
there are too many individualized questions from one prospective
class member to another for the unconscionability claim to proceed
on a classwide basis.

The case stems from damages to the Keys' home during a May 2011
hailstorm. According to court documents, Joe Key signed a contract
with LSRC for the installation of a new roof for $33,796.50.

The contract contained an "acceptance and agreement" provision
establishing that the agreement was for the "full scope of
insurance estimate and upgrades," subject to the approval of the
homeowner's insurance company.  The contract also authorized LSRC
to pursue the homeowner's "best interest for all repairs" at a
"price reasonably agreeable to the insurance company and LSRC,"
according to court documents.

After LSRC installed the new roof, the Keys paid the company about
$19,000 in proceeds they received from their homeowner's policy,
court papers said.  LSRC then sued Joe Key for the remaining
balance and obtained a default judgment against him, although Key
later won a ruling setting aside the judgment.

The Keys filed the current suit against LSRC, claiming that the
"acceptance and agreement" provision in the contract violated the
Texas insurance code's prohibition against a company acting as, or
even representing itself as, a public insurance adjuster if it
lacks a proper license.

LSRC appealed Judge Lowe's ensuing October 2015 class
certification order, asserting that the state judge had failed to
grasp and correctly apply the relevant laws and also erred in
finding that the Keys' claims met the requirements for class
action treatment.

LSRC is represented by Donald E. Godwin, Bruce W. Bowman Jr., and
Shawn M. McCaskill of Godwin Bowman & Martinez PC, Robert C.
Wiegand -- bob.wiegand@swolegal.com -- of Stewart Wiegand & Owens
PC, and Rick K. Disney -- rdisney@csa-lawfirm.com -- of Cotten
Schmidt & Abbott LLP.

The Keys are represented by Chad Fillmore of The Fillmore Law Firm
LLP and by David Garza -- david.garza@kellyhart.com -- and Bill N.
Warren -- bill.warren@kellyhart.com -- of Kelly Hart & Hallman
LLP.

The case is Lon Smith & Associates et al. v. Joe Key et al., Case
number 17-0755 (Tex.). [GN]


LVNV FUNDING: $38MM Jury Verdict in MCDCA Suit Vacated
------------------------------------------------------
The appeals case captioned LVNV Funding, LLC, v. LARRY FINCH, et
al. No. 1075 (Md. Spec. App.), is the second time the parties have
reached the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The court's previous ruling reversed the circuit court's decision
dismissing the class action against appellant LVNV Funding, LLC,
which was brought by consumers whom LVNV sued as an assignee for
debts that it purchased in the course of its business.  The
court's emphasis there was on the licensing requirements of the
Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (MCALA).

In this appeals case, the named appellees are Ronald Jackson
(Jackson) and Larry Finch (Finch).

After a jury trial on the merits, the jury returned a verdict
finding LVNV liable for (1) violating a provision of the Maryland
Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA), a protective statute
designed to protect Maryland consumers; and (2) unjust enrichment
as a result of its violation of the MCDCA.  As restitution for
LVNV's unjust enrichment, the jury returned a verdict of
$38,630,344 for the members of the subclass (Subclass) which the
circuit court carved out of the class of consumers whom LVNV sued
in the district court without complying with Maryland's licensing
requirements (Class).

On appeal, LVNV raises numerous questions and challenges to the
proceedings:

   1. Whether the circuit court erred in granting partial summary
judgment in favor of the appellees in which the court determined
that LVNV is a "collection agency" subject to the requirements of
the MCALA.

   2. Whether the circuit court erred in declaring that all
judgments obtained by LVNV in the district court during the period
in which it was not licensed under the MCALA are void and
unenforceable.

   3. Whether there was insufficient evidence to support the
jury's verdict of liability, such that the trial court erred in
denying LVNV's motion for judgment and motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict.

   4. Whether the trial court erred by excluding evidence
proffered by LVNV on the issues of its liability for violating the
MCDCA and for unjust enrichment.

   5. Whether the trial court erred in omitting any instruction to
the jury on the proper method of determining a monetary award for
unjust enrichment.

   6. Whether the circuit court erred in certifying the Class and
Subclass pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-231.

   7. Whether the circuit court relied on the appropriate
limitations period in defining the Class and the Subclass.

   8. Whether the circuit court erred in granting a remittitur and
reducing the jury's monetary award to $25,000,000.

The court of special appeals affirms the trial court's entry of
judgment against LVNV for violating the MCDCA and for unjust
enrichment, but vacates the jury's monetary award for the
appellees.  The court of special appeals further remands the case
to the circuit court for a new trial on damages.

To succeed on a claim that LVNV violated the MCDCA, under C.L.
Section 14-202(8), the appellees must demonstrate sufficient
evidence that LVNV "claim[ed], attempt[ed], or threaten[ed] to
enforce a right with knowledge that the right does not exist."
LVNV argues that the right, however, did exist, and that LVNV
lacked the requisite "knowledge" required under the MCDCA.

The court finds there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find
that LVNV "attempted" or "claimed" to "enforce a right."  LVNV
filed judgments against the appellees in district court and
collected on those judgments.  The jury was presented with
evidence by several witnesses that LVNV had enforced a right to
file and collect on the district court judgments against the
appellees.  An LVNV representative testified that LVNV was named
as a plaintiff on the district court complaints.  LVNV's
representative admitted that LVNV had claimed that it had a right
to file lawsuits against the appellees, and the right to collect
on those judgments.  Further, the jury heard testimony that LVNV
garnished Jackson's and Finch's wages.  Based on the quantum of
evidence provided to the jury, a "rational mind could infer,"
Albright, supra, 433 Md. at 349, that LVNV "claim[ed],
attempt[ed], or threaten[ed] to enforce a right" against the
appellees.

The special appeals court held that Circuit Court erred by failing
to fairly cover the law regarding the method for determining
damages and restitution.  The special appeals court agreed with
LVNV's contention that the trial court's instructions omitted
necessary principles of law, which should have guided the jury in
its calculation of a monetary award. The circuit court's only
instruction pertaining to the jury determination of the amount of
any recovery was impermissibly silent on the method by which the
jury could have calculated that award.

The special appeals court also held that the circuit court did not
err in certifying the class, but erred in defining the scope of
the class beyond the applicable statute of limitations.

LVNV asserts that two errors were present in the circuit court's
certification of the Class and Subclass.  First, LVNV argues that
the appellees did not meet the prerequisites to class
certification under Md. Rule 2-231.  Specifically, LVNV emphasizes
that the appellees' claims lack "commonality" and "typicality."
Second, LVNV raises the circuit court's failure to adhere to the
appropriate statute of limitations period by defining the Class in
a way that extended the limitations period beyond three years
prior to the date that the appellees filed their claims.  The
special appeals court held that the circuit court did not err in
determining that the prerequisites to class certification were
satisfied. The special appeals court further held that under the
circumstances of this case, the circuit court erred in its
application of an incorrect limitations period to the scope of the
Class.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' September 14, 2017
Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7sex6qufrom
Leagle.com.


MARY KAY: Workers Seek to Revive FLSA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel and Jeannie O'Sullivan, writing for Law360, report that
the leader of a proposed class of Mary Kay Inc. workers seeking to
revive a lawsuit alleging the company forced beauty consultants to
buy company merchandise as part of their employment has told the
Third Circuit that its recent decision in a class action over
underpayment at a New Jersey adult nightclub supports their
claims.

Plaintiff Ina M. Collins, who argued her appeal before the Third
Circuit in January, told the court on Sept. 14 that in a decision
in a case against the Breathless Men's Club, the appeals court
expressly rejected one of Mary Kay's arguments.

The company says that Ms. Collins' claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law are covered by
the forum selection and choice of law provisions in her contract
with Mary Kay.  A district court judge pointed to these provisions
when she threw out the suit and said that any claims belong in
Texas court.

But Ms. Collins quoted a Third Circuit decision in exotic dancer
Alissa Moon's case against Breathless.  There, the court noted,
"Despite the contract's employment provision, Ms. Moon's claims
still arise under the FLSA and New Jersey statutes, not the
agreement itself."

Ms. Collins sued Mary Kay in September 2015, claiming the company
misclassified her and tens of thousands of other New Jersey-based
workers as independent contractors instead of employees and
established rigid rules for beauty consultants that required them
to purchase designated minimum amounts of products directly from
the company in order to maintain their designation.

The company also forced class members to pay fixed, nonnegotiable
prices for numerous types of sales and marketing materials, like
pamphlets and DVDs, while prohibiting them from formulating and
selecting their own marketing schemes, Ms. Collins said, as well
as required the workers to purchase certain ancillary items and
samples for which no commissions were paid and that did not count
toward their mandatory minimum product purchases.

But U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo threw out her suit in
June 2016, finding the consultants signed contracts stating that
their claims must be litigated in Texas.

According to Ms. Collins, though, the appeals court reached a
contrary conclusion in the Moon decision, saying that the claims
arose not out of the contract, but out of the statutes themselves.

She also said the Moon decision addressed another issue from oral
arguments, one that arose after the judges asked whether
interpreting the agreement overstepped the court's
responsibilities by addressing the underlying merits of the claims

She said the appeals court said a district court "could find that
the arbitration clause does not cover the plaintiff's wage-and-
hour claims without deciding the claims' merits."

There was no overlap between the judges on either panel.

Ms. Collins is represented by Ravi Sattiraju of the Sattiraju Law
Firm PC.

Mary Kay is represented by Christine A. Amalfe --
camalfe@gibbonslaw.com -- and Richard S. Zackin --
rzackin@gibbonslaw.com -- of Gibbons PC.

The case is Collins v. Mary Kay Inc. et al., Case No. 16-3178 (3rd
Cir.). [GN]


MECHANICAL INSTALLATION: Faces "Castro" Suit in S.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mechanical
Installation Corp. The case is styled as Jose Castro and Rayan
Thomas, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Domenick Derose, Ralph Derose, Mechanical
Installation Corp. and Mechanical Service Corp. of New York,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07290 (S.D. N.Y., September 25,
2017).

The Defendants provide expertise in the design and installation of
mechanical and plumbing, and in the design, installation, and
maintenance of HVAC and Plumbing System.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Darren Paul Brian Rumack, Esq.
   The Klein Law Group
   11 Broadway, Suite 960
   New York, NY 10117
   Tel: (212) 344-9022
   Fax: (212) 344-0301
   Email: darren@thekleinlawgroup.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "ClendinenAzor" Suit in S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. a foreign for profit corporation. The case is
styled as Cynthia ClendinenAzor formerly known as: Cynthia
Clendinen individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
a foreign for profit corporation and Midland Funding LLC a foreign
limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-23523-CMA
(S.D. Fla., September 26, 2017).

Midland Credit Management Inc. operates a collection agency that
helps consumers resolve past-due debt obligations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq.
   Leavengood, Dauval, Boyle & Meyer, PA
   3900 First Street North, Suite 100
   St. Petersburg, FL 33703
   Tel: (727) 327-3328
   Fax: (727) 327-3305
   Email: ileavengood@leavenlaw.com


MOPHIE INC: Stotz Moves to Certify Consumer Class and Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ERIC STOTZ and ALAN
CHARLES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MOPHIE INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-08898-GW-FFM (C.D.
Cal.), move the Court to certify a class and two subclasses:

   -- Consumer Class:

      All United States Citizens who, from October 28, 2012 to
      the present, purchased one or more Class Products.

   -- California subclass:

      All United States Citizens who, from October 28, 2012 to
      the present, purchased one or more Class Products in
      California.

   -- New York subclass:

      All United States Citizens who, from October 28, 2012 to
      the present, purchased one or more Class Products in
      New York.

The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and California the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Plaintiffs move the Court for their appointment as Class
Representatives, and for appointment of their attorneys as Class
Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on December 14, 2017, at 8:30
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RrI6XLVy

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MOTOROLA: Settles Warranty Class Action, December 21 Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Conway, writing for XDA, reports that Motorola has arrived to
a settlement in a class action lawsuit filed against them, but for
warranty-fulfillment reasons.  Motorola allegedly is not
fulfilling warranties correctly if at all.  If you have submitted
any devices to Motorola under warranty, you may be entitled to
benefits as a result of this Motorola settlement.

If you purchased a Motorola phone or smart watch and submitted it
for warranty service, a class action lawsuit may affect your
rights and you may be entitled to a cash payment or other
benefits.

This is the first line of information found on the "Lynch v.
Motorola Class Action Settlement" page.  Motorola has not claimed
responsibility and the courts have not made a decision regarding
either side and who is right or not.  Motorola is settling outside
of court, and the company denies any wrongdoing.  The court has
preliminarily approved the settlement, however, compensation will
not be paid out until the court has fully approved it.  Motorola
has accepted the settlement to avoid further litigation, absolve
themselves of liability and so that members of the settlement
classes can receive compensation and other benefits in exchange.

You May be Entitled to a Cash Payment or Other Benefit Due to the
Motorola Settlement

Motorola has agreed to settle out of court, so what does this
mean? Until December 6th, anybody who feels they fall under the
categories listed on the website can submit a claim.

A device must have been submitted to Motorola between November 1,
2012, until August 14, 2017, for warranty reasons to be entitled
to a claim.  Not only that, you must also fall into one of the
following four categories.

   -- An Advanced Exchange Program security deposit was charged
but was never released;
   -- Motorola did not ship a replacement device within 10 days of
receiving the Advanced Exchange Program fee;
   -- Motorola did not ship a repaired or replacement device
within 20 days of Motorola receiving the original device; or
   -- Never received a repaired or replacement device and were not
credited with a refund.

If you fit all of the above criteria, you may be entitled to make
a claim for the following.

   -- If the security deposit was charged and never released, you
will be entitled to receive the full amount that was charged.
   -- If you did not receive a repaired or replacement device and
were not given a refund, you will be entitled to a new/like new
device and $20 in cash.
  -- If Motorola did not ship a repaired/replacement device within
20 days, you will be entitled to $15 cash.
   -- If Motorola did not ship a repaired/replacement device
within 30 days, you will be entitled to $20 cash.

If you submitted a device and have met any of the problems above,
you fall into the "Damages Class" and can file a claim.  If you
submitted a device to Motorola within the time period but did not
meet any of the problems listed above, you fall into the
"Injunctive Class" category. This category is ensured that
Motorola will be improving their warranty service in future,
increasing checks and improving their warranty services for those
having to avail of it.

How do I claim from the Motorola Settlement?

You can get a copy of the claim form at https://is.gd/oklR9R

Once you do that and fill it out, you can submit it through the
post, fax or email using the following information.

          KCC Class Action Services
          P.O. Box 404000
          Louisville, KY 40233-4000
          E-Mail: info@motorolawarrantyclassaction.com
          Fax: 866-860-8924

A final hearing will then be heard in court on the 21st December
2017.  If the settlement is then approved by the court and
provided there are no appeals, then Motorola will begin to fulfill
the settlement.  If there are appeals, resolving them can take a
long time and it may be well over a year before those claiming
damages will receive benefits. [GN]


NATURAL TOFU: Faces "Jin" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Natural Tofu
Restaurant Corp. doing business as: Seoul Garden Restaurant. The
case is styled as Ji Mei Jin, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Natural Tofu
Restaurant Corp. doing business as: Seoul Garden Restaurant,
Patricia Koo, Man Suh Koo and Myong Ja Koo, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-07302-AJN (S.D. N.Y., September 25, 2017).

Natural Tofu Restaurant Corp. doing business as: Seoul Garden
Restaurant is an Korean restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Seoung Y Lim, Esq.
   Kim Cho & Lim LLC
   460 Bergen Blubard, Suite 201
   Palisades Park, NJ 07650
   Tel: (201) 585-7400
   Fax: (201) 585-7422
   Email: joshualim@kcllawfirm.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: Certification of Class Sought in "Rubenstein" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled LINDA RUBENSTEIN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. THE NEIMAN MARCUS
GROUP LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-07155-SJO-JPR (C.D. Cal.), asks the
Court to certify this "California Class":

     All persons who purchased products from Last Call stores in
     California within the four years prior to the filing of the
     initial complaint to the present, that were labeled with a
     "Compared to" price, but which products were never sold at
     Neiman Marcus flagship retail stores at or above such
     "Compared to" price and such products or products of a like
     grade and quality were not being sold for such "Compared to"
     price at the time of purchase in the area of the Last Call
     store.  Excluded from the Class are Defendant, any parent,
     subsidiary, affiliate or controlled person of Defendant, as
     well as the officers and directors of Defendant, and the
     immediate family member of any such person.  Also excluded
     is any judge who may preside over this case.

Neiman Marcus engages in a uniform, materially misleading business
practice at its Last Call factory outlet stores, which affects all
consumers shopping at those stores, causing them injury, Ms.
Rubenstein alleges.  Specifically, she contends, Neiman Marcus
labels products it purchases directly for sale at its Last Call
stores with a "Compared to" reference price higher than the for
sale price, all under the Neiman Marcus brand name logo. This
causes reasonable consumers like her to believe such products were
previously sold at flagship Neiman Marcus retail stores at the
"Compared to" reference price.  In reality, however, such products
were purchased exclusively by Neiman Marcus to be sold at the Last
Call stores and by design, had never previously sold at a flagship
Neiman Marcus store or any other stores in the area for the higher
"Compared to" price, she further asserts.

Ms. Rubenstein also asks the Court to appoint her as
representative of the Class, and to appoint Kirtland & Packard LLP
as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 13, 2017, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=o4k3u2Y7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Joshua A. Fields, Esq.
          KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
          2041 Rosecrans Avenue; Third Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
          E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
                  bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  jf@kirtlandpackard.com


NEW YORK, NY: Faces "Coleman" Class Action
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The City of New
York. The case is styled as Sara Coleman, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Theodore Coleman, Jon McCollum and
Roland Stephens, individually and on behalf of a class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The City of New York,
David Cohen, NYPD Deputy Commissioner and Thomas Galati
NYPD Assistant Chief, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07265-GHW (S.D.
N.Y., September 25, 2017).

New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Jessica Clarke, Esq.
   Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &Abady, LLP
   600 Fifth Avenue 10th Floor
   New York, NY 10020
   Tel: (212) 763-5026
   Fax: (212) 763-5001
   Email: jclarke@ecbalaw.com

      - and -

   Elizabeth S. Saylor, Esq.
   Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &Abady, LLP
   600 Fifth Avenue 10th Floor
   New York, NY 10020
   Tel: (212) 763-5000
   Fax: (212) 763-5001
   Email: esaylor@ecbalaw.com


NEW YORK TIMES: Wins Bid to Dismiss Gender Discrimination Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Order granting defendants' motion to
dismiss the case captioned ERNESTINE GRANT and MARJORIE WALKER, on
behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, MARK
THOMPSON, in his individual and professional capacities, and
MEREDITH LEVIEN, in her individual and professional capacities,
Defendants, No. 16-cv-03175 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.).  The defendants'
motion to strike certain class action allegations is denied.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the Title VII gender
discrimination claims, the Equal Pay Act claims and the
corresponding state and city law claims in the Second Amended
Complaint (SAC).  Defendants do not seek dismissal of the race,
age or disability claims nor do they seek dismissal of plaintiffs'
retaliation claims.  Defendants also move to strike plaintiffs'
class claims from the SAC under Rules 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2).

Plaintiffs Ernestine Grant and Marjorie Walker, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated persons, bring this action
for employment discrimination and equal pay violations under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e
(Title VII), the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. Section 206
(EPA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.
Section 621 et seq. (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 (ADA), the Civil Rights Act of 1871,
42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (Section 1981), the New York Equal Pay Law,
N.Y. LAB. L. Section 194 (EPL), the New York City Human Rights
Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code Section 8-101 (NYCHRL), and the New York
State Human Rights Law, N.Y. EXEC. L. Swection 290 (NYSHRL).

Ms. Grant and Ms. Walker allege that defendants The New York Times
Company (The Times), Mark Thompson and Meredith Levien, both
executives at The Times, discriminated against them because of
their race, age, gender, and for Ms. Walker, her disability.  Ms.
Grant and Ms. Walker are currently employed by The Times.

Title VII and Equal Pay Act.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from
discriminating against an individual on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin, but it does not encompass
claims based on general animus or hostility. At the pleading
stage, a complaint must allege the essential elements of an
employment discrimination claim that plaintiff suffered
discrimination on the basis of protected status that resulted in
an adverse employment action. To qualify as adverse, an action
must cause a 'materially adverse change' in the terms and
conditions of employment, and not just 'mere inconvenience.'

Ms. Grant.

Throughout the section of the complaint exploring Ms. Grant's
claims of disparate treatment and failure to promote, plaintiffs
allege only that younger and white employees were
disproportionately promoted to Advertising Directors. Only after
explaining that both male and female AMs were allocated higher
revenue accounts, and substantiating Ms. Grant's failure to
promote claim by providing a single example of a female employee
who was promoted over her, does the complaint allege in a
conclusory manner that Ms. Grant was denied opportunities because
of her age, race and/or gender.

Plaintiffs' complaint does not allege sufficient factual
circumstances from which a gender based discrimination can be
inferred.  Similarly, there is an insufficient factual allegation
of the skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions of
those males to whom Ms. Grant's pay is compared (whether
comparators are identified by name or in a survey or study) to
nudge the equal pay claim over the line of plausibility.

Ms. Walker.

The negative performance review by Ms. Flaig even when followed by
a buyout offer made, according to the complaint, to a number of
divisions, including to the Advertising Division, does not support
an inference of discriminatory animus. As used in the complaint,
the Court construes the term buyout to mean a program whereby pay
and/or benefits to which the employee would not otherwise be
entitled are exchanged for the employee's voluntary separation
from the company. The Court comfortably concludes that the
offering of a buyout to all employees of the Advertising Division
does not support an inference of discrimination based upon gender.

The Court does not consider the allegations of the complaint in
isolation but considers the totality of the incidents, comments
and circumstances alleged throughout the complaint and concludes
that Ms. Grant and Ms. Walker have not adequately alleged a gender
discrimination or pay discrimination claim against The New York
Times. Ms. Grant and Ms. Walker's race and age claims and Ms.
Walker's disability claim, as to which no motion has been made,
all survive.

This is not a Gender-Plus case.

Plaintiffs cite cases involving allegations of gender-plus
discrimination where the discriminatory animus may be aimed at,
for example, women over 40 or women who have children or are
single. But the SAC does not allege gender-plus-age
discrimination. The SAC makes no specific references to any age-
plus-gender claims, and plaintiffs seek to certify an Age Class of
older employees, male and female, a separate Gender Class,
consisting of female employees of all ages, and a Race Class of
black employees, male and female, older and not.

Because these plaintiffs have alleged separate putative Age,
Gender and Race Classes which is inconsistent with a gender-plus
claim, their complaint does not give fair notice of the basis for
gender-plus discrimination claims.

New York Human Rights and Equal Pay Laws.

Plaintiffs have asserted claims under the New York State Human
Rights Law, N.Y. EXEC. L. Section 290 et seq., against all
defendants for gender discrimination and against Mr. Thompson and
Ms. Levien for aiding and abetting that gender discrimination.
Plaintiffs also bring claims under the New York Equal Pay Law,
N.Y. LAB. L. Section 194. Claims brought under the EPL are
analyzed using the same standards used to consider a federal EPA
claim. Similarly, employment discrimination claims brought under
the NYSHRL are analyzed identically to claims under Title VII.
Thus the outcome of plaintiffs' NYSHRL and EPL discrimination
claims follows that of their Title VII and EPA claims. Therefore,
plaintiffs' NYSHRL gender discrimination and New York EPL claims
are also dismissed.

New York City Human Rights Law.

The plaintiff still bears the burden of showing that the conduct
is caused by a discriminatory motive. In the present case, no
facts, arguments or theories are advanced with respect to
plaintiffs' NYCHRL claim different from those advanced in support
of the other gender and equal pay claims. Nor have plaintiffs
provided any argument as to how this NYCHRL claim should be
analyzed differently.

Nevertheless, even under the more liberal standards of the NYCHRL,
plaintiffs' claims fail. As the Court has already discussed,
nothing in the complaint plausibly demonstrates that plaintiffs
were discriminated against because of their gender, or that any of
the conduct alleged in the complaint was motivated by gender-based
animus.

Therefore, plaintiffs' claims under the NYCHRL are dismissed
insofar as they allege discrimination or a denial of equal pay
based on gender.

Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations.

Motions to strike class allegations are disfavored because [they]
require a reviewing court to pre-emptively terminate the class
aspects of litigation, solely on the basis of what is alleged in
the complaint, and before plaintiffs are permitted to complete the
discovery to which they would otherwise be entitled on questions
relevant to class certification.

In this case, defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' class
allegations is premature, and should be addressed at the class
certification stage. The defendants' motion to strike will be
denied without prejudice to the defendants' ability to oppose
certification on these same grounds.

Of course, plaintiffs may not pursue class claims based on any
individual claim that has been dismissed.

The following claims for relief against the defendants are
dismissed:

   -- plaintiffs' individual gender-based Equal Pay Act claims
from the first cause of action;

   -- plaintiffs' individual gender-based Equal Pay Law claims
from the second cause of action;

   -- plaintiffs' individual gender discrimination claims under
the New York State Human Rights Law from the fifth cause of
action;

   -- plaintiffs' individual gender discrimination claims under
the New York City Human Rights Law from the seventh cause of
action;

   -- plaintiffs' individual claims of aiding and abetting gender
discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law from the
eleventh cause of action;

   -- plaintiffs' individual claims of aiding and abetting gender
discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law from the
twelfth cause of action; and

   -- plaintiff's individual gender discrimination claims under
Title VII from the thirteenth cause of action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybbr9awb
from Leagle.com.

Ernestine Grant, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth J. Chen --
echen@wigdorlaw.com -- Wigdor LLP.

Ernestine Grant, Plaintiff, represented by Hilary Joy Orzick --
worzick@wigdorlaw.com -- Wigdor LLP, Lawrence Michael Pearson --
lpearson@wigdorlaw.com -- Wigdor LLP & Douglas Holden Wigdor --
dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com -- Wigdor LLP.

Marjorie Walker, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth J. Chen,
Wigdor LLP, Hilary Joy Orzick, Wigdor LLP, Lawrence Michael
Pearson, Wigdor LLP & Douglas Holden Wigdor, Wigdor LLP.

The New York Times Company, Defendant, represented by Gregory I.
Rasin, Proskauer Rose LLP, Larissa Rae Boz, Proskauer & Mark W.
Batten, Proskauer Rose LLP.

Mark Thompson, Defendant, represented by Gregory I. Rasin,
Proskauer Rose LLP, Larissa Rae Boz, Proskauer & Mark W. Batten,
Proskauer Rose LLP.

Meredith Levien, Defendant, represented by Gregory I. Rasin,
Proskauer Rose LLP, Larissa Rae Boz, Proskauer & Mark W. Batten,
Proskauer Rose LLP.


NORTHWEST CASCADE: Judge to Decide on Porta-Potties Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deedee Sun, writing for KIRO7, reports that neighbors in one South
Sound city are fed up with the smell of porta-potties -- right
outside their homes.  After complaining about it for years,
they've decided to take the matter to court.

"The smell, it's the same as a porta-potty standing right next to
your door.  It's hard to be outside," said Ganna Shtogryn, a mom
of three kids in the affected Pacific neighborhood.

People who live near Chinook Avenue, deal with an odor that KIRO 7
could also smell.  They say it's coming from Northwest Cascade, a
company that drains and cleans out Honey Bucket porta-potties. On
Sept. 18, the scent in the neighborhood was there, though it
wasn't so strong.  However, neighbors say on other days, the scent
is unbearable.

"Sometimes the smell is so heavy it engulfs your home, whether
your windows are open or not.  And it's just really difficult to
live in this environment now," said Samantha Niemi, another mother
in the neighborhood.

Neighbors say the closest homes are just 300 feet away from the
plant.  They say when they bought their homes, Northwest Cascade
wasn't cleaning porta-potties there.  Now, there's a water
treatment plant to handle the waste from the portable toilets.

It's something that has the people who live in the area worried,
especially for the health of their kids.

"When they're playing outside, they have their shirts over their
faces.  We're really scared about the future of the kids in the
area," Ms. Niemi said.

They hope their lawsuit against Northwest Cascade will force the
company to move.

An attorney representing neighbors says the company is violating
both a Washington State statute for nuisance and Puget Sound clean
air agency regulations.

Northwest Cascade responded to KIRO7 with this statement:

"Northwest Cascade has been in business in the Pacific Northwest
for 50 years, and believes the evidence and law are on its side
with respect to this lawsuit.  However,  because the litigation is
ongoing, we will not provide any further comment at this time."

Ganna Shtogryn, wants Northwest Cascade to put itself in her
shoes.

"I think nobody wants to experience what we experience, even the
company or anybody," she said.

A Pierce County judge takes up the matter on Sept. 29 and will
decide if there's enough evidence for dozens of neighbors in the
area to pursue a class action lawsuit. [GN]


OCWEN LOAN: Settles TCPA Class Action for $17.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, Steven Trader and Shayna Posses, writing for
Law360, report that Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC has reached a $17.5
million deal to resolve putative class action claims on behalf of
more than 1.6 million consumers who allege the mortgage loan
servicer autodialed their cellphones without their consent, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to
court documents filed in Illinois federal court on Sept. 15.

Under the deal, eligible consumers are each expected to receive
between $55 and $90, according to a motion for preliminary
settlement approval.  The class attorneys plan to ask the court to
reimburse them for up to $100,000 of their actual expenses, award
attorneys' fees that are no greater than one-third of the fund --
or $5.8 million -- and give a $25,000 incentive award to each of
the three lead plaintiffs.  The consumers argued on
Sept. 15 that the settlement is an "excellent" result for the
class.

"The settlement provides substantial monetary and injunctive
relief to settlement class members without delay, and it is an
excellent result for the settlement class," the motion says.

The West Palm Beach, Florida-based mortgage firm has also agreed
to alter its consent-gathering practices, and it has agreed to pay
enhanced damages to consumers who may receive automated calls in
the future due to gaps in Ocwen's consent record keeping
practices.  For those future violations, Ocwen has agreed to pay a
minimum of $1,000 for the first 10 illegal calls, $1,250 for the
next 11-50 calls and $1,500 for any calls over 50, according to
the motion.

"Persons who seek higher amounts -- for example $1,500 per call
for all calls -- are free to do so; these amounts represent
guaranteed minimums," the motion says.

Once divided, any funds remaining would be distributed evenly to
the National Consumer Law Center and Public Justice Foundation,
and no amount of the settlement would revert to Ocwen.

If approved, the deal would mark an end to a suit that named
plaintiff Keith Snyder initially filed against Ocwen in October
2014. A year later, in January 2015, consumers Tracee Beecroft and
Susan Mansanarez filed a separate proposed class action. The two
lawsuits were consolidated in late 2016.

The consumers claim that between October 2010 and December 2014,
Ocwen didn't have a policy in place for obtaining consent before
calling borrowers' cellphones using its "Aspect" automated
telephone dialing system.  As a result, Ocwen placed 105,831,658
unauthorized calls to nearly 1.2 million unique cellphone numbers
belonging to borrowers during that time period, according to court
documents.

In May, the pair asked the court to certify two nationwide classes
that received unwanted calls, arguing that phone records obtained
from Ocwen during discovery supported their allegations.

Beecroft also sought to represent a subclass of more than 60,000
borrowers. For that group, Ocwen allegedly obtained their numbers
through third-party sources, using a method known as "skip-
tracing," and then called to determine whether they were in fact
their numbers.  The TCPA prohibits companies from obtaining
numbers in such an indirect way.

In June, the court held that the consumers had established the
basis for certification of a limited class and those members were
likely entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.  But the judge
deferred ruling on the issue, asking the parties to submit
additional documents. Before the judge issued a final order on the
matter, the parties reached the settlement.

The consumers said in their motion on Sept. 15 that there are
substantial risks associated with continuing litigation.  For one,
they said, Ocwen has maintained that many class members consented
to receive calls to their cellphones.  But determining who
consented is an individualized issue that requires a loan-by-loan
analysis, which the court could have found was enough to override
class certification.

Also, some courts view such large, aggregate statutory damages
that could be awarded in this case with skepticism and either
would refuse to certify a class or would reduce such awards on due
process grounds.

Additionally, the D.C. Circuit's ruling on an appeal in ACA Int'l
v. FCC could impact this case. The appeal challenges the Federal
Communications Commission's rules regulating calls initiated from
a telephone dialing system that were initiated manually.  Many of
the calls made by Ocwen in this case were initiated manually, and
therefore could impact the case, the consumers said.

"The outcome of this appeal could alter the legal landscape to the
settlement class members' detriment," they said.

A representative for Ocwen said in a statement on Sept. 18 that
Ocwen believes that it had "sound legal and factual defenses," but
it agreed to the settlement to avoid the uncertain outcome of
litigation and to avoid additional expenses.  The representative
added that Ocwen reached a settlement in principle in July, and
referenced it in its Aug. 3 quarterly financial report filed with
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

A hearing date for the preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement has not yet been scheduled.

Counsel for the consumers didn't immediately respond to requests
for comment on Sept. 18.

The consumers are represented by Beth E. Terrell and Adrienne D.
McEntee of Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Mark Ankcorn of
Ankcorn Law Firm PLLC, Guillermo Cabrera and Jared Quient of the
Cabrera Firm APC, Alexander H. Burke and Daniel J. Marovitch of
Burke Law Offices LLC, and Mark L. Heaney of Heaney Law Firm LLC.

Ocwen is represented by Chethan G. Shetty -- cshetty@lockelord.com
-- Simon A. Fleischmann --
sfleischmann@lockelord.com -- Thomas J. Cunningham --
tcunningham@lockelord.com -- and David F. Standa --
dstanda@lockelord.com -- of Locke Lord LLP, and Brian V. Otero --
botero@hunton.com -- Stephen R. Blacklocks --
sblacklocks@hunton.com -- and Ryan A. Becker -- rbecker@hunton.com
-- of Hunton & Williams LLP.

The consolidated case is Snyder et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing
LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-08461 (N.D. Ill.).  The case is assigned to
Judge Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly.  The case was filed
October 27, 2014. [GN]


PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Settles Class Action for $14.3 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Stockard, writing for The Murfreesboro Post, reports that
Rutherford County and Providence Community Corrections have
settled a class action lawsuit over private probation practices
for $14.3 million, a move compensating nearly 30,000 Tennesseans
for fees the company allegedly extorted from probationers.

The private company is paying $14 million and Rutherford County is
contributing $300,000 to class action members, according to court
documents.

"This case is a tragic illustration of what happens when for-
profit companies are allowed to turn the criminal legal system
into a mechanism for making money," said Civil Rights Corps
attorney Elizabeth Rossi.

When PCC took over Rutherford County's probation system several
years ago, rather than receiving a fee from the county, it earned
millions in profits annually by requiring payments from low-income
people under its supervision.  Often this meant having
probationers sent to jail because they couldn't afford to pay its
private fees and trapping them in a cycle of debt, endless
probation extensions and more jail time, the plaintiffs' attorneys
contend.

"The pursuit of money over justice has corrupted our legal
system," said Civil Rights Corps Executive Director and founder
Alec Karakatsanis.  "No human being should be put in a cage
because she cannot make a payment, and no local government should
make important decisions about liberty based on profit.  We're
pleased that there is agreement to end these exploitative
practices forever in Rutherford County."

Under the terms of the agreement, which must be approved in
federal court, PCC and Rutherford County will put the money into a
fund to be used for compensating thousands of people who fell
victim to the system.  Potential class members will be notified by
mail and receive compensation based on the amount of money they
paid PCC. Some will be paid based on how long they were kept on
probation.

PCC and Rutherford County admit no wrongdoing as part of the
settlement in the lawsuit, which Mayor Ernest Burgess describes as
a "complex" matter "with a lot of twists and turns."

"There are some things we're going to have to change going forward
and how we manage misdemeanors coming through the court system,
etc.," Mayor Burgess said.

Yet he pointed out the county made substantial progress in serving
probationers differently through its government-run department
than PCC did.  Rutherford County set up its own probation service
in April 2016 after PCC was acquired by a California-based company
and dropped probation services.

"It's something we think is very positive and favorable with what
we are doing and have done. In fact, we have already changed any
number of practices, you might say," Mayor Burgess said.  "We made
it more towards a recovery assistance process as opposed to just
enforcing rules and collecting money."

Washington, D.C.-based Equal Justice Under Law filed the lawsuit
Oct. 1, 2015, and the law firm Baker Donelson filed a landmark
RICO and constitutional class action lawsuit, Rodriguez v.
Providence, in federal court in Nashville.  Mr. Karakatsanis set
up Civil Rights Corps and continued handling the case after a
split with Equal Justice.

A U.S. District Court judge granted the plaintiffs' request for a
preliminary injunction in December 2015 prohibiting the use of
money bonds on violation of probation warrants, a decision
affecting nearly 10,000 outstanding cases, according to the
release from Civil Rights Corps.  As a result, Rutherford County
is not allowed to enforce money bail amounts on those misdemeanor
probation warrants or any future violation-of-probation warrants,
according to the statement.

The settlement precludes Rutherford County from contracting with a
private probation company again and requires the county to waive
misdemeanor fines and fees for people below 125 percent of the
federal poverty line who seek waivers.  In addition, the
settlement includes an agreement to stop the practice of placing
people on probation when they can't afford court costs.

Phil Telfeyan, executive director of Equal Justice Under Law, one
of the original attorneys to file the case, called the settlement
"an important victory for the nearly 30,000 class members who PCC
subjected to predatory and abusive practices."

Besides compensating probationers, the outcome sends the message
to private probation companies nationwide they will "pay for
violating probationers' constitutional rights," Mr. Telfeyan said.

Mr. Telfeyan signed the settlement documents, but the case was in
the hands of Civil Rights Corps at the end.

The settlement document shows attorneys' fees of $336,200 for
Civil Rights Corps, $830,800 for Equal Justice Under Law, $190,000
for Baker Donelson law firm in Nashville and $24,115 for Kyle
Mothershead, a Nashville attorney. [GN]


PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC: Customers Seek Certification in Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen, Vince Sullivan and Cara Salvatore, writing for
Law360, report that customers of PREPA, Puerto Rico's electric
utility, have moved for certification in a proposed class action
over an allegedly yearslong fraud in which the utility bilked
customers by cheating on environmental standards testing and
charging top dollar for what was actually dirty, noncompliant
fuel.

The suit has already survived a motion to dismiss, and the fraud
in question has been the subject of lengthy investigations
elsewhere, most notably by the Commonwealth's Senate.  Given that,
the customers say, the time has come to certify the class and move
on to discussion of the merits of their claims.

"In addition to the publicly available information, plaintiffs'
independent investigation confirmed that proof of liability will
rise or fall on evidence common to the class," the customers wrote
in their motion for certification, filed on Sept. 15.  "Given the
ability to identify each class member and their specific damages,
a single class action remains superior to tens of thousands of
individual actions against a well-financed fuel oil cartel."

The plaintiffs are asking U.S. District Judge Jay A. Garcia-
Gregory to certify a class of all PREPA customers who paid a fuel
oil surcharge on their electricity bill between 2002 and 2016, to
join in the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
claims they've leveled against the utility.

The customers say that for years they've been routinely
overcharged for electricity for PREPA due to the utility's payment
of inflated prices for inferior fuel.

PREPA entered into a consent decree in 1999 for violations of the
Clean Air Act, requiring it to purchase and burn fuel at its power
plants that meets certain environmental specifications.

For over a decade, PREPA has allegedly conspired with a "cartel"
of oil suppliers to purchase dirty fuel that doesn't meet those
standards, but has continued to charge customers as if it does.
This is all made possible, the customers say, by PREPA's cozy
relationship with several testing labs that the utility pays off
in order to secure a clean bill of health for fuel that actually
falls far below the specifications required by the consent decree.

"PREPA approves payments to the fuel oil suppliers at the higher-
grade, more-expensive prices" and then passes that premium on to
customers through a mandatory, adjustable fuel oil surcharge on
their power bills.

Puerto Rico's Senate, Comptroller and other public agencies have
been investigating the fraud for years, and one Senator has
publicly called the alleged scheme "a monumental fraud."

In pushing for certification, the plaintiffs say that calculating
damages will be easy, since their damages expert can simply
calculate the rate customers should have paid for the dirty fuel
and then subtract that figure from the inflated premiums they were
actually charged.

The plaintiffs say they also easily meet the other standards
required for certification in a class action: At roughly 1.4
million, they're numerous enough to make other types of suits
cumbersome and inefficient, PREPA's actions have affected them all
in the same way and the plaintiffs, which include ratepayers and
owners of rental buildings, adequately represent the class as a
whole.

On top of that, their counsel has already poured considerable
resources into pursuing the suit and would be able to competently
represent the whole class, they say.  They're asking the court to
approve Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, which has represented
them thus far, as class counsel.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jane Becker Whitaker of the Law
Offices of Jane Becker Whitaker, Steve Berman, Elizabeth Fegan and
Thomas Ahlering of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, J. Barton
Goplerud and Andrew Howie of Hudson Mallaney Shindler & Anderson
PC and Daniel Karon of Karon LLC.

PREPA is represented by Rafael E. Barreto-Sola, Arturo Diaz-
Angueira, Doris M. Gongon-Colon, Victoria D. Pierce-King and
Maraliz Vazquez-Marrero of Cancio Nadal Rivera & Diaz PSC; Daniel
Perez-Refojos -- daniel.perez@oneillborges.com -- of O'Neill &
Borges; and Andres W. Lopez of The Law Offices of Andres W. Lopez
PSC.

The suit is Ismael Marrero Rolon v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica
aka Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority,
Case No.  3:15-cv-01167 (D.P.R.).  The case is assigned to
Judge Jay A. Garcia-Gregory.  The case was filed February 24,
2015. [GN]


RECONTRUST COMPANY: Allred's Class of Property Owners Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Bruce S. Jenkins entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
ERIC ALLRED, ET AL., on their own behalf and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated persons v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., Case
No. 2:13-cv-01124-BSJ (D. Utah), preliminarily certifying a class
of persons for settlement purposes only:

     All owners of real property in the State of Utah that have
     had their property foreclosed on by the Defendant ReconTrust
     acting as trustee in a foreclosure sale after May 10, 2011,
     who have not already settled claims or litigated claims to a
     final judgment against any Released Person relating to
     ReconTrust having exercised the power of sale.

Judge Jenkins granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of a settlement class, appointing Plaintiff Eric Allred
as class representative, appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as
class counsel, approving notice to the class and setting a final
approval hearing and other dates.

The Court further preliminarily finds that the proposed Settlement
of the action as reflected in the Class Action Settlement
Agreement and Release is a fair, reasonable, and adequate
compromise of the disputed claims herein given there remain legal
issues and the relief obtained is substantial.

The Court also approves the manner of notice and proposed notices
to class of the Settlement, specifically, the Notice of Class
Action Settlement provided to the Court by the parties.  The Class
Notice shall be printed and mailed to the last known addresses of
the class members for which addresses are known no later than 30
days after entry of this order and it shall contain these dates
and information:

   * Deadline for election to be excluded: November 15, 2017;
   * Deadline for objections to be filed: November 20, 2017; and
   * Date and Time of Final Fairness Hearing: December 5, 2017.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wWvX5xIU

Plaintiffs Eric Allred and Scott Jensen are represented by:

          Tyler Ayres, Esq.
          AYRES LAW FIRM
          12339 S. 800 East, Suite 101
          Draper, UT 84020
          Telephone: (801) 255-5555
          Facsimile: (801) 255-5588
          E-mail: tyler@ayreslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          LEGG LAW FIRM LLP
          5235 Westview Dr., Suite 100
          Frederick, MD 21703
          Telephone: (301) 620-1016
          Facsimile: (301) 620-1018
          E-mail: Borison@legglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian E. Pumphrey, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          Gateway Plaza
          800 E. Canal St.
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-7745
          Facsimile: (804) 698-2018
          E-mail: bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com


RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Faces "Marchan" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retrieval Masters
Creditor's Bureau, Inc.  The case is styled as William Marchan, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Retrieval Masters Creditor's Bureau, Inc. a/k/a American Medical
Collection Agency, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05650 (E.D. N.Y.,
September 27, 2017).

Retrieval Masters is a consumer recovery agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


RITA'S WATER: Settlement Administrator Can Disperse Payment
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiff's
Motion to Approval Authorizing the Settlement Administrator to
disperse payment to eligible class members in the case captioned
SHERRY BROWN and ERICKA NEWBY, CIVIL ACTION on their own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RITA'S WATER
ICE FRANCHISE COMPANY LLC, No. 15-3509 (E.D. Cal.).

Class representatives Sherry Brown and Ericka Newby move for
approval authorizing the Settlement Administrator to disperse
payments to eligible class members.

In this Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action, the
complaint alleged that Rita's knowingly or willfully sent class
members unauthorized, automated text messages known as Cool
Alerts, which announced when certain flavors of products such as
water ice, custard, and ice cream became available in the
recipient's local store. The plaintiffs claimed that Rita's
generated the messages using a list or database of telephone
numbers of persons who had not provided them to the defendant,
continued to send Cool Alerts to customers even after they had
texted STOP in response to the texts' instructions, and used
outdated and insufficient consent language on its Cool Alerts
webpage.

The plaintiffs note that Class Counsels' fee was reduced, in part,
because each claimant was going to receive less than counsel
anticipated due to the number of claimants exceeding counsel's
estimates.  Class Counsel had initially projected a five-to-six
percent (5-6%) claims rate, and estimated a payout of
approximately $150.00 for the one award unit group members and
$1100.00 for the 11 award unit group members.  With these new
figures, the claims rate is 7.3%, and the awards to the different
group members are $144.00 and $1,584.00, respectively. Plaintiffs
point out that these rates and award amounts are much closer to
those originally predicted by counsel.

Plaintiffs are correct that if the Court applies the new number of
valid claim forms, counsel's initial projections of claims rate
and payout amounts to eligible claimants will be closer to the new
award amounts. Class Counsel boasted that the claims rate of 20.6%
was the highest in any TCPA case, an outstanding settlement and
the gold standard of TCPA settlements, and how having gotten
28,000 people to submit a claim was akin to moving a glacier.

The Court said that it now knows, as Class Counsel should have
known then, that the settlement was not as remarkable as Class
Counsel had bragged.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017
Memorandum Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/ydefetxq
from Leagle.com.

SHERRY BROWN AND ERICKA NEWBY, Plaintiff, represented by BARRY L.
COHEN -- bcohen@rccblaw.com -- ROYER COOPER COHEN BRAUNFELD LLC.
SHERRY BROWN AND ERICKA NEWBY, Plaintiff, represented by JODY B.
BURTON, LEMBERG LAW, LLC,  STEPHEN F. TAYLOR, LEMBERG LAW LLC,
STEVEN L. WOODROW, WOODROW & PELUSO LLC & SERGEI LEMBERG, LEMBERG
LAW LLC, 43 Danbury Road, Wilton, Connecticut

RITA'S WATER ICE FRANCHISE COMPANY LLC, Defendant, represented by
JOHN M. DOROGHAZI -- jdoroghaz-@wiggin.com -- WIGGIN & DANA LLP,
KIM E. RINEHART -- krinehart@wiggin.com -- WIGGIN & DANA LLP,
CONSTANTINE THOMAS FOURNARIS - cfournaris@wiggin.com -- WIGGIN AND
DANA LLP & RICHARD D. GALLUCCI, JR. --
rgallucci@wiggin.com -- Wiggin and Dana LLP.


RKP SERVICE: Faces "Cabrera" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RKP Service, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Reyes Cabrera, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RKP Service, Inc.
doing business as: Rainbow Car Wash, Rita Degirmenci and Kevin
Degirmenci, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05627 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 26, 2017).

RKP Service, Inc. doing business as: Rainbow Car Wash is engaged
in car wash business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

SAUL CHEVROLET: Rivera Seeks Cert. of Non-Managerial Workers Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MARCOS RIVERA, an individual,
individually, on behalf of the general public, and all other
similarly situated v. SAUL CHEVROLET, INC., a California
corporation; CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP OF TAHOE, INC., a
California corporation; CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, a California
business entity; VOLKSWAGEN HYUNDAI, a California business entity;
CARDINALE OLDSMOBILE GMC TRUCK, INC., a California corporation;
CARDINALE AG MOTORBIKE, INC., a California corporation; CARDINALE
NISSAN, INC., a California corporation; CARDINALE PROTECTIVE
SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; CARDINALEWAY NEVADA AG
INC., a Nevada corporation; CARDINALEWAY ACURA, a Nevada business
entity; CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUPARIZONA, INC., an Arizona
corporation, CARDINALEWAY MAZDA AT PEORIA, an Arizona business
entity; CARDINALEWAY MAZDA AT SUPERSTITION SPRINGS, an Arizona
business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:16-
cv-05966-LHK (N.D. Cal.), moves for conditional certification of a
Fair Labor Standards Act collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b).

Mr. Rivera also asks the Court to order notice sent to members of
a class consisting of all non-managerial Employees at any of
Defendants' dealerships from October 11, 2013, to present who
worked as parts salespeople, counterpeople, or associates, auto
salespeople or associates, or maintenance employees or associates
and who were paid a base amount, whether by salary or by draw,
with the possibility of a commission payment.

The Court will commence a hearing on December 14, 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=kME7qCn1

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle Todd, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD
          611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (323) 208-9171
          Facsimile: (323) 693-0822
          E-mail: kyle@kyletodd.com


SERVE LINK: McLain Seeks to Certify Class of Employees Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned ROSEMARY A. MCLAIN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SERVE LINK HOME CARE, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-06092-RK (W.D. Mo.),
seeks to conditionally certify a Class defined as:

     All persons currently and formerly employed by Defendant in
     hourly, non-exempt positions who traveled between job sites
     during the workday at any time during the last three (3)
     years, and who worked within the United States.

Ms. McLain filed suit against the Defendant alleging that it had a
policy and practice of failing to pay her, and similarly situated
employees, overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Missouri law.  Specifically, she alleges, the Defendant
failed to pay its employees for time spent traveling from job site
to job site during the workday.

Ms. McLain also seeks an order:

   a. appointing her as class representative;

   b. appointing McClelland Law Firm, P.C. as class counsel;

   c. directing the Defendant to produce the following
      information for all proposed Class members in an electronic
      and importable format within 10 days of the Court's Order
      granting the Motion:

      (1) full name;
      (2) last known address;
      (3) last known phone number(s);
      (4) last known e-mail address;
      (5) dates of employment;
      (6) location(s) of employment; and
      (7) last four digits of their social security number;

   d. requiring that notice be mailed via first-class mail and
      electronic mail to such persons within 45 days of the
      Court's Order granting the Motion;

   e. requiring the posting of notice of the pending suit in
      conspicuous locations at Defendant's offices where putative
      class members are employed (including lunch room bulletin
      boards or bulletin boards where job notices are posted)
      during the opt-in period;

   f. allowing a reminder postcard or electronic mail notice to
      putative class members 30 days before the opt-in deadline;

   g. tolling the FLSA's limitations period during the pendency
      of the briefing period of the Motion, for individuals that
      untimely opt-in to this action to ensure that claims are
      not lost; and

   h. approving the Notice to Class Members and Consent Form, and
      setting forth a final date in which the Consent Form must
      be submitted for those Class members opting in, which
      should be at least 120 days from the date of the Court's
      Order conditionally certifying a class and from the date
      that Defendant produces the required contact information.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jz1y0LYP

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Telephone: (816) 781-0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
          E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com


SFBSC MANAGEMENT: Court Approves $5MM Exotic Dancers' Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Class Settlement in the case
captioned JANE ROE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SFBSC MANAGEMENT, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-03616-LB (N.D. Cal.).

This is a dispute under federal and California labor law. It is a
putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and a putative class action under Rule 23.  The plaintiffs
are or were exotic dancers suing the company defendant SFBSC, LLC
that (broadly speaking) managed the nightclubs where they worked.
The court previously granted their motion to proceed anonymously.

The parties agreed to the following definitions for settlement
purposes only:

   Settlement Class Member means any Class Member who has not
timely and properly excluded herself from the Settlement as
provided in Section XIII of this Agreement.

   Class means the group of Entertainers who, during the class
period, performed at one or more of the Nightclubs, but does not
include those individuals who provide or have provided services as
headliner or feature performers unless such individual was
otherwise party to a Dancer Contract with a Nightclub during the
Class Period.

   Class Period means the period from August 8, 2010, through the
Preliminary Approval Date.

The settlement consideration includes Cash Payments, Dance Fee
Payments, Residual Dance Fee Payments, and changes to the
defendants' business practices that will confer a direct financial
benefit on class members.  The Gross Settlement Value is $5
million, broken into tiers: (1) First Tier Cash Pool: $2 million;
(2) Second Tier Cash Pool: up to $1 million; (3) Dance Fee
Payments and Residual Dance Fee Payments: $1 million; and (4)
changes to the defendants' business practices (estimated to confer
benefits to class members in excess of $1 million).

To receive a Cash Payment, a Settlement Class Member must submit
an FLSA claim form with her Performance Months (identified to the
best of her knowledge). Cash Payments are calculated as follows,
reduced pro rata if the First Tier Cash Pool and the Second Tier
Cash Pool are depleted:

   a. $800 for Cash Payment Claimants who accrued 24 or more
Performance Months during the Class Period;

   b. $700 for Cash Payment Claimants who accrued between 12 and
23 Performance Months during the Class Period;

   c. $500 for Cash Payment Claimants who accrued between 6 and 11
Performance Months during the Class Period; and

   d. $350 for Cash Payment Claimants who accrued fewer than 6
Performance Months during the Class Period.

This results in the following distribution: (1) a fees award of
$950,000, (2) expenses of $4,884.21, (3) service awards to eight
individuals totaling $71,000, (4) PAGA payments of $100,000, (5)
administrative fees to Rust Consulting of $35,000, and (6)
distribution of First Tier funds as follows:

   a. $1,500.77 for Cash Payment Claimants who accrued 24 or more
Performance Months during the Class Period;

   b. $1,313.17 for Cash Payment Claimants who accrued between 12
and 23 Performance Months during the Class Period;

   c. $937.98 for Cash Payment Claimants who accrued between 6 and
11 Performance Months during the Class Period; and

   d. $650.59 for Cash Payment Claimants who accrued fewer than 6
Performance Months during the Class Period.

The court finds (for settlement purposes only) that the proposed
settlement class meets the Rule 23(a) prerequisites of numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy: (1) the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there
are common questions of law and fact common to the class; (3) the
claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of
the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative
party will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

The court also finds (for settlement purposes only) that questions
of law or fact common to class members predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy.   The court certifies the class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for settlement
purposes only.

The FLSA authorizes "opt-in" representative actions where the
complaining parties are similarly situated" to other employees.

Here, all class members have worked as dancers for one or more
defendants during the class period, and their wage-and-hours
claims -- and related issues such as independent-contractor status
present common fact and law questions under federal and California
law.

The court certifies the FLSA class for settlement purposes only.

The court confirms its previous appointment of the plaintiffs Jane
Roe 1 and Jane Roe 3 as the settlement class representatives.
They have claims that are typical of members of the class
generally and that they are adequate representatives of the other
members of the proposed classes.

The court confirms its previous appointment of Steven G. Tidrick
and Joel Young of The Tidrick Law Firm as Settlement Class
Counsel.  The court finds that they have sufficient
qualifications, experience, and expertise in prosecuting class
actions.

The court confirms its previous appointment of Rust Consulting as
the claims administrator.

The claims administrator provided notice to the members of the
class in the form that the court had approved. The notice met all
legal requisites: it was the best notice practicable, satisfied
the notice requirements of Rule 23, adequately advised class
members of their rights under the settlement agreement, met the
requirements of due process, and complied with the court's order
regarding notice.

Any remaining amount of the net settlement fund will be split
equally between the two cy pres beneficiaries identified in the
settlement agreement: The St. James Infirmary and the Impact Fund.

Class counsel asks for $950,000 in attorney's fees and $4,884.21
in costs.

The court concludes that a fee award at the requested amount is
justified.  It is appropriate based on counsel's efforts and the
substantial benefits to the class. It is similar to awards in
other cases. It is supported by the lodestar cross-check, the
efficiency of the litigation, the quality of the representation,
and the contingent risk.

The court previously calculated the gross settlement amount as $5
million. $950,000 is 19%. Subtracting the Second Tier Cash Pool
results in a settlement value of $4 million, which is 23.75%
allocated to fees.

The court awards costs of $4,884.81 and $35,000 for the claims
administration.

The court approves the awards to Jane Roe 1 and Jane Roe 2 of
$25,000 each ($5,000 each for their service and $20,000 each for
their broader general releases) and $3,500 each to Jane Role 3,
Jane Roes 10 through 13 and Jane Roe 22.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9ra25xqfrom Leagle.com.

Jane Roe, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Gregory Tidrick --
sgt@tidricklaw.com  -- The Tidrick Law Firm.

Jane Roe, Plaintiff, represented by Frank Paul Bland, Jr., Public
Justice, P.C., 1825 K. Street N.W., Suite 200Washington, DC 20006,
Joel Benjamin Young -- jby@tidricklaw.com -- The Tidrick Law Firm
& Karla A. Gilbride, Public Justice, P.C..

Jane Roe No. 2, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Gregory Tidrick,
The Tidrick Law Firm.

Jane Roe No. 3, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Gregory Tidrick,
The Tidrick Law Firm.

Jane Roe No. 4, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Gregory Tidrick,
The Tidrick Law Firm.

Jane Roe No. 5, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Gregory Tidrick,
The Tidrick Law Firm.

Jane Roe No. 6, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Gregory Tidrick,
The Tidrick Law Firm.

Jane Roe No. 7, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Gregory Tidrick,
The Tidrick Law Firm.

Jane Roe No. 8, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Gregory Tidrick,
The Tidrick Law Firm.

Jane Roe No. 9, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Gregory Tidrick,
The Tidrick Law Firm.

Jane Roe No. 10, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Gregory Tidrick,
The Tidrick Law Firm.

SFBSC Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas J. Melton
-- mjm@mjmelton.com -- Long & Levit LLP, Noah Samuel Rosenthal --
nrosenthal@fenwick.com  -- LONG & LEVIT LLP & Shane Michael Cahill
-- scahill@longlevit.com -- Long & Levit, LLP.

SAW Entertainment, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Shane Michael
Cahill, Long & Levit, LLP.

Nichole Hughes, Movant, represented by Michael Louis Freedman --
mfreedman@llrlaw.com  -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon
Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..
Elana Pera, Movant, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Sarah Murphy, Movant, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten
& Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Penny Nunez, Objector, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Angelynn Hermes, Objector, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Poohrawn Mehraban, Objector, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Gypsy Vidal, Objector, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Tiffany Zoumer, Objector, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Devon Locke, Objector, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.


SLICE TECHNOLOGIES: Data Privacy Class Suit Moved to NY Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order granting
Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer the class-action data-privacy
lawsuit captioned JASON COOPER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SLICE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02340-LB,
(N.D. Cal.) to the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C.
Section1404(a) based on a forum-selection clause.

UnrollMe is a free service for consumers to purportedly rid their
email inboxes of junk by using UnrollMe's 'email management'
service to mass unsubscribe from spam messages and to group
categories of emails into a single email digest that would be sent
to the user daily. In exchange, UnrollMe could display daily
advertisements to the users via the digest and offer them new
productivity products or services over time.

The plaintiffs acknowledge the disclosure about data collection in
UnrollMe's Privacy Policy, but they contend that the disclosure is
inconsistent with UnrollMe's representations that access to users'
emails is to manage spam and advertisements to achieve a cleaner
inbox.  For this reason, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants'
access to their emails for data scraping exceeded the scope of
then permissions.

The Terms of Use have the following forum-selection clause:

     "The laws of New York, U.S.A., excluding New York's conflict
of laws rules, will apply to any disputes arising out of or
relating to these terms or the Website. All claims arising out of
or relating to these terms or the Website will be litigated
exclusively in the federal or state courts of New York, New York,
USA, and you and we consent to personal jurisdiction in those
courts."

The two named plaintiffs are Jason Cooper (from Michigan) and
Meghna Parikh (from California). They assert federal claims on
behalf of themselves and national classes for violations of (1)
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 28 U.S.C.
Section 2510,for the defendants' alleged interception of their
communications and (2) the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18
U.S.C. Section 2701, for the defendants' alleged accessing of
their stored communications. Ms. Parikh asserts a California claim
on behalf of herself and a California subclass for a violation of
California's Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal. Code Section
630. Both plaintiffs allege state-law claims on behalf of
themselves and national classes for unjust enrichment and
violations of privacy based on intrusion.

A defendant may file a motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) to
enforce a forum-selection clause and transfer the case to the
contractually agreed-upon forum. Section 1404(a) is merely a
codification of the doctrine of forum non conveniens for the
subset of cases in which the transferee forum is within the
federal court system.

First, the forum-selection clause determines where the case is
heard and is separate and distinct from choice-of-law provisions
that are not before the court.  The transferee court decides the
choice-of-law issues.

Second, the plaintiffs' unequal bargaining power does not render
the forum-selection clause unenforceable. Unequal bargaining power
is routine in form contracts. issue is whether a consumer has
adequate notice. The Ninth Circuit has enforced forum-selection
clauses in online consumer contracts like the one here. Consumers
could but did not have to  click on a link to read the Terms of
Service and had to click on a box agreeing to the Terms of
Service. The plaintiffs do not charge fraud or overreaching.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9jc36r3from Leagle.com.

Jason Cooper, Plaintiff, represented by Rafey Sarkis Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC.

Jason Cooper, Plaintiff, represented by Nina Eisenberg, Edelson
PC. -- neisenberg@edelson.com.

Meghna Parikh, Plaintiff, represented by Rafey Sarkis Balabanian,
Edelson PC, Kathryn Yvette Schubert --
kschubert@shubertlawfirm.com -- Schubert Jonckheer and Kolbe LLP,
Noah M. Schubert, Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP Three Embarcadero
CenterSuite 1650San Francisco, CA 94111  & Nina Eisenberg, Edelson
PC.

Slice Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ian Ballon --
Ballon@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, Lori Chang --
changl@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP & Rebekah Susanne Strawn
Guyon -- guyon@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP.

UnrollMe Inc., Defendant, represented by Ian Ballon, Greenberg
Traurig LLP, Lori Chang, Greenberg Traurig LLP & Rebekah Susanne
Strawn Guyon, Greenberg Traurig LLP.


SMITH MEDICAL: Faces "Arkin" Suit in Mid. Dist. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smith Medical
Partners, LLC. The case is styled as Steven Arkin Dr., a Florida
resident, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff v. Smith Medical Partners,
LLC, H.D. Smith, LLC Delaware Limited Liability Companies and John
Does 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02233-CEH-AEP (M.D. Fla.,
September 26, 2017).

Smith Medical Partners LLC distributes pharmaceutical products and
services.

H.D. Smith, LLC distributes and supplies healthcare products and
business solutions to manufacturers and healthcare providers in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
   Anderson & Wanca
   3701 Algonquin Rd Ste 760
   Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
   Tel: (847) 368-1500
   Fax: (847) 368-1501
   Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


SOMPO AMERICA: Faces "Carrasco" Suit in S.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sompo America
Insurance Services LLC.  The case is styled as Mario Carrasco
on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class,
Plaintiff v. Sompo America Insurance Services LLC, Endurance
American Specialty Insurance Company and John Doe Corps 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-07319-CS (S.D.N.Y., September 26,
2017).

The Defendants are engaged in the insurance business.[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


SONIC CORP: Faces "Huffer" Suit in W. Dist. Okla.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sonic Corp. The case
is styled as Brian Huffer, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sonic Corp, Defendant,
Case No. 5:17-cv-01032-M (W.D. Okla., September 27, 2017).

Sonic Drive-In, more commonly known as Sonic, is an American
drive-in fast-food restaurant chain based in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Carin L Marcussen, Esq.
   Federman & Sherwood
   10205 N Pennsylvania Ave
   Oklahoma City, OK 73120
   Tel: (405) 235-1560
   Fax: (405) 239-2112
   Email: clm@federmanlaw.com

      - and -

   Joshua D Wells, Esq.
   Federman & Sherwood
   10205 N Pennsylvania Ave
   Oklahoma City, OK 73120
   Tel: (405) 235-1560
   Fax: (405) 239-2112
   Email: jdw@federmanlaw.com

      - and -

   William B Federman, Esq.
   Federman & Sherwood
   10205 N Pennsylvania Ave
   Oklahoma City, OK 73120
   Tel: (405) 235-1560
   Fax: (405) 239-2112
   Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com


TAMKO BUILDING: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Dye" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Stephen Dye and Douglas Bohn filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Stephen Dye, et al. v.
Tamko Building Products, Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-00590-MSS-AEP, in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks damages and declaratory relief in connection with alleged
defective shingles designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised,
and sold by Tamko in the state of Florida.

Contrary to Tamko's representations regarding the Shingles, the
Shingles were and are defective and problematic, at the time of
sale and thereafter, the Plaintiffs allege.  The Plaintiffs add
that the Shingles blister and crack, leading to early granule loss
and increased moisture absorption, and they otherwise do not
perform as promised and reasonably expected.

The appellate case is captioned as Stephen Dye, et al. v. Tamko
Building Products, Inc., Case No. 17-14052, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule of the Appellate Case states that the
Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before
October 5, 2017, as to Appellee Tamko Building Products, Inc.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants STEPHEN DYE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and DOUGLAS BOHN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5003
          Facsimile: (919) 600 5035
          E-mail: scott@wbmllp.com

Defendant-Appellee TAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., is represented
by:

          Jessica Davidson Miller, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP
          1440 New York Avenue NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20005-6000
          Telephone: (202) 371-7000
          Facsimile: (202) 661-0525
          E-mail: jessica.miller@skadden.com


TELECHECK SERVICES: Huff Moves to Certify Class of Consumers
------------------------------------------------------------
James Huff moves the Court for entry of an order certifying the
case captioned JAMES HUFF, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TELECHECK SERVICES, INC., TELECHECK
INTERNATIONAL, INC. and FIRST DATA CORPORATION, Case No. 3:14-cv-
01832 (M.D. Tenn.), as a class action and naming him and his
counsel as representatives of:

     all putative Class Members, consisting of all consumers who
     received a TeleCheck File Report ("TFR") from TeleCheck
     Services, Inc. ("TeleCheck") since September 12, 2012,
     which excluded information related to identifiers linked in
     the first degree to the identifier(s) provided by the
     consumer to TeleCheck when requesting a file disclosure.

TeleCheck has and continues to violate the file disclosure
provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act on a class-wide basis
by failing to provide certain information to consumers regarding
identifiers that are linked in the first degree to the
identifier(s) provided by the consumer when requesting a file
disclosure, Mr. Huff alleges.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7W56tSGN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          Fifth Third Center, Suite 800
          424 Church Street
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-6538
          E-mail: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Petz, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          2600 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 300
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (313) 223-3868
          Facsimile: (313) 223-3598
          E-mail: spetz@dickinsonwright.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David R. Esquivel, Esq.
          Jeffery P. Yarbro, Esq.
          BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC
          150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 742-6285
          Facsimile: (615) 742-0405
          E-mail: desquivel@bassberry.com
                  jyarbro@bassberry.com


THREE STAR: Faces "Cadena" Suit in S.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Three Star on First
Inc. doing business as: Three Star Diner.  The case is styled as
Jesus Cadena, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Three Star on First Inc. doing business as:
Three Star Diner, Ioannis Kiriakakis, Georgia I Kiriakakis and
John N. Kiriakakis, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07321 (S.D. N.Y.,
September 26, 2017).

Three Star on First Inc. doing business as: Three Star Diner is
engaged in the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


TINTRI INC: November 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Tintri, Inc. ("Tintri" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: TNTR) securities  pursuant and/or
traceable to Tintri's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued
in connection with Tintri's initial public offering completed on
or about June 30, 2017 (the "IPO") Such investors are encouraged
to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/tntr.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants in connection with Tintri's
IPO made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Tintri experienced distraction, disruption, and
sales attrition during its IPO; and (2) as a result, defendants'
statements about Tintri's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/tntror you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Tintri you have until November 17, 2017 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Beil" Suit in C. Dist. Cal.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor Sales,
USA, Inc.  The case is styled as Norman Beil, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Toyota Motor
Sales, USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-07079 (C.D. Cal.,
September 25, 2017).
Headquartered in Torrance, California, the Defendants operate the
North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution
subsidiary devoted to the U.S. market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jordan L Lurie, Esq.
   Capstone Law APC
   1875 Century Park East Suite 1000
   Los Angeles, CA 90067
   Tel: (310) 556-4811
   Fax: (310) 943-0396
   Email: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com


TRANSDIGM GROUP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on Sept. 18
disclosed that a class action has been commenced by an
institutional investor on behalf of purchasers of TransDigm Group
Incorporated ("TransDigm") (NYSE:TDG) securities during the period
between May 10, 2016 and March 21, 2017 (the "Class Period"). This
action was filed in the Northern District of Ohio and is captioned
City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. TransDigm
Group Incorporated, et al., No. 17-1958.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 10, 2017.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of this class, you
can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/transdigm/. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges TransDigm and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
TransDigm is a global designer, producer and supplier of highly
engineered components for use on commercial and military aircraft.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company's
operations, business and prospects.  Specifically, the Company
failed to disclose that during the Class Period, TransDigm had
used shell distributors it controlled to make noncompetitive
government bids seem competitive, monopolistic tactics to
unreasonably hike the prices of its proprietary products, and a
variety of tactics to evade government oversight of its cost
structure and avoid government scrutiny.  As a consequence,
TransDigm's growth and profitability during the Class Period were
artificially inflated as a result of its illicit business
practices and were therefore unsustainable.  As a result of these
false statements and/or omissions, TransDigm shares traded at
artificially inflated prices, reaching close to $290 per share
during the Class Period.

On January 20, 2017, short seller Citron Research ("Citron")
issued a report accusing TransDigm of being the "Valeant of the
Aerospace Industry."  The report accused the Company of employing
an unsustainable business strategy whereby it utilized massive
leverage to buy up airplane parts companies, fire workers and then
"egregiously" jack up the prices of the proprietary products it
acquired.  The report disclosed that the Company used multiple
shell distributors, which have no pricing power, to make
government bids seem competitive when in truth these distributors
were simply "shills" for TransDigm.  In addition, the report
alleged that the Company had thwarted a prior government audit
into its cost structure by employing a variety of stonewalling
tactics. As a result of this news, the price of TransDigm shares
dropped 10%, or $24.86 per share, to close at $226.90 per share on
January 20, 2017.

Then on March 21, 2017, the office of U.S. Congressman Ro Khanna
announced it had sent a letter to the Inspector General for the
Department of Defense requesting that it conduct an investigation
into TransDigm's business practices.  Specifically, the letter
raised concerns that the Company was acting as a "hidden
monopolist" by engaging in a series of unreasonable price
increases for products for which the Company was the only supplier
and disguising its cost structure to evade Pentagon oversight.  As
a result of this news, the price of TransDigm shares dropped
$23.09 per share over two trading days to close at $214.85 per
share on March 22, 2017, a decline of nearly 10%.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
TransDigm securities during the Class Period (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a law firm advising
and representing U.S. and international investors in securities
litigation and portfolio monitoring.  With 200 lawyers in 10
offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history.  For the third
consecutive year, the Firm ranked first in both the total amount
recovered for investors and the number of shareholder class action
recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report.  Robbins Geller attorneys
have shaped the law in the areas of securities litigation and
shareholder rights and have recovered tens of billions of dollars
on behalf of the Firm's clients.  Robbins Geller not only secures
recoveries for defrauded investors, it also implements significant
corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial
markets for investors worldwide. [GN]


TRANSUNION: Settles Class Action Over Terrorist Alerts for $8MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that consumer report
provider TransUnion has agreed to pay $8 million to resolve a
class action accusing it of mistakenly identifying more than
10,000 consumers as being on a government terrorist watchlist when
they applied to rent apartments.

Disclosed in a filing on Sept. 15 in San Francisco federal court,
the proposed settlement resolves claims that TransUnion LLC and
its Rental Screening Solutions unit violated the U.S. Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) by not assuring the accuracy of background
checks done for landlords on potential tenants. [GN]


TRINITY FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses "Martinez" FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismisses the complaint without
prejudice and with leave to amend OCTAVIO MARTINEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. TRINITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants. Case No. 17-cv-03612-LB. (N.D. Cal.) The court denies
the defendants' motion to expunge and for attorney's fees.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6)
and also filed a motion to expunge lis pendens and to obtain
attorney's fees.

In this class-action lawsuit, the plaintiffs challenge the
defendants' attempts to collect on their defaulted mortgage loan
as an unfair debt-collection practice under federal and state law.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief to give the
defendant fair notice of what the claims are and the grounds upon
which they rest.

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

The plaintiffs allege two Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
claims against Special Default Services.  In claim one, the
plaintiffs allege that Special Default Services violated Section
1692e by sending them inflated monetary demands. In claim two,
they allege that Special Default Services violated Section 1692f
by sending them a demand for a debt which was unauthorized by law.
Both claims fail because the plaintiffs do not plausibly allege
that Special Default Services qualifies as a debt collector under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

To prevail on a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Claim the
plaintiff must allege the following: (1) the plaintiff is a
'consumer' under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(3); (2) the debt arises
out of a transaction entered into for personal purposes; (3) the
defendant is a 'debt collector' under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(6);
and (4) the defendant violated one of the provisions contained in
15 U.S.C. Sections 1692a-1692o.

The plaintiffs argue that Special Default Services' status as a
trustee does not shield it from all Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act claims.  They are correct that an entity is not shielded from
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act simply because it is an
entity whose principal purpose is to enforce security interests.
But here, Special Default Services' specific acts as the trustee
foreclosing on the plaintiffs' property not its status generally
as a company that acts as a trustee confirm that it was not acting
as a debt collector.

No facts in the plaintiffs' complaint show that Special Default
Services' actions were unrelated to the foreclosure on their
property. Special Default Services enforced a security interest as
the trustee under the deed of trust that plaintiffs used to secure
a loan.

The plaintiffs failed to allege sufficiently that Special Default
Services acted as a debt collector. The plaintiffs' claims one and
two under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Section 1692e and
Section1692f fail.

California Rosenthal Act (California Civil Code Section 1788.1)
Claims

In claims three and four, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated the California Rosenthal Act. In claim three,
the plaintiffs allege that both defendants violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act Section 1692e, which in turn violates the
Rosenthal Act. In claim four, they allege that Trinity violated
the Rosenthal Act through the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Section 1692f(1) by charging interest in fees on their loan while
it was underwater.

The plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that Special Default
Services or Trinity violated the Rosenthal Act. Claim three
against both defendants and claim four against Trinity fail
because the plaintiffs rely on the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act as a remedy for the defendants' alleged Bankruptcy Code
violations. Additionally, claim three against Special Default
Services fails because the Rosenthal Act does not apply to actions
taken by a trustee foreclosing on a property.

Special Default Services (Claim Three)

The plaintiffs' Rosenthal Act claim against Special Default
Services fails for two reasons. First, as a trustee sending
foreclosure notices, Special Default Services is not subject to
the Rosenthal Act. Second, the plaintiffs claim relies on the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act as a remedy for an alleged
Bankruptcy Code violation.

The plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege that Special Default
Services correspondence was beyond the scope of the ordinary
foreclosure process.

Trinity Financial Services (Claims Three and Four)

In claims three and four, the plaintiffs allege that Trinity
violated the Rosenthal Act because it violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act Sections 1692e and 1692f. They allege
that Trinity violated Section 1692e on the grounds that it send
them false and misleading letters charging fees and interest on
their loan while it was underwater, in violation of Bankruptcy
Code Section 506(b).

The plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that Special Default
Services or Trinity violated the Rosenthal Act. The court
dismisses claim three against Special Default Services and claims
three and four against Trinity without prejudice and with leave to
amend.

The defendants filed a motion to expunge lis pendens and to award
attorney's fees. The court denies the motion to expunge an moot
and denies the motion to award attorney's fees.

The plaintiffs withdrew the lis pendens. Therefore, the motion to
expunge is moot.

A court may award attorney's fees and costs to prevailing party on
a motion to expunge lis pendens.  When a party withdraws lis
pendens while a motion to expunge is pending, the court has
discretion to award attorney's fees. The court exercises its
discretion and declines to award fees and costs, generally for the
reasons advanced by the plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the court grants the defendants motion to dismiss and
dismisses the complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend.
The court denies the defendants' motion to expunge and for
attorney's fees.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycrn8k9cfrom Leagle.com.

Octavio Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Mellen -
- email@mellenlawfirm.com  -- Mellen Law Firm.

Octavio Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Sarah Elizabeth
Shapero, Mellen Law Firm, 1 Embarcadero Center Fl 5
San Francisco, CA 94111-3610

Mari Cruz Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David
Mellen, Mellen Law Firm & Sarah Elizabeth Shapero, Mellen Law
Firm.

Trinity Financial Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joseph
Paul Buchman -- jbuchman@bwslaw.com -Burke, Williams & Sorensen
LLP & Richard Joseph Reynolds -- rreynolds@bwslaw.com -- Burke,
Williams & Sorensen LLP.

Special Default Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph
Paul Buchman, Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP & Richard Joseph
Reynolds, Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fights Class Action Over "Upfront" Rider Fares
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Kravets, writing for Ars Technica, reports that Uber is
fighting a proposed class-action lawsuit that says it secretly
over charges riders and under pays drivers. In its defense, the
ride-hailing service claims that nobody is being defrauded in its
"upfront" rider fare pricing model.

The fares charged to riders don't have to match up with the fares
paid to drivers, Uber said, because that's what a driver's
"agreement" allows.

"Plaintiff's allegations are premised on the notion that, once
Uber implemented Upfront Pricing for riders, it was required under
the terms of the Agreement to change how the Fare was calculated
for Drivers," Uber said (PDF) in a recent court filing seeking to
have the class-action tossed. "This conclusion rests on a
misinterpretation of the Agreement."

The suit claims that, when a rider uses Uber's app to hail a ride,
the fare the app immediately shows the passenger is based on a
slower and longer route compared to the one displayed to the
driver.  The rider pays the higher fee, and the driver's
commission is paid from the cheaper, faster route, according to
the lawsuit.

Uber claims the disparity between rider and driver fares "was
hardly a secret."

"Drivers," Uber told a federal judge, "could have simply asked a
User how much he or she paid for the trip to learn of any
discrepancy."

A contract is a contract

Uber doesn't consider its drivers employees, and it doesn't call
their pay "commissions." Instead, it allows drivers to keep the
fare presented to them in the Uber driver app, even if the fare is
different from what the rider was charged. The driver then pays
Uber a "service fee" -- a percentage of the fare earned by the
driver.

The San Francisco-based ride-hailing service also claims that it
took "significant risk" under this "upfront" fare pricing model,
which began last year.

Plaintiff further alleges that, after Upfront Pricing began,
Drivers continued to earn based on the trip's distance and the
amount of time it actually took to complete the trip.  Plaintiff
claims the Upfront Price is often higher than the Fare, which is
the basis of what is remitted to him. He neglects to mention,
however, the significant risk placed on Uber, not Drivers, by
Upfront Pricing: the User's Upfront Price may just as easily
disadvantage Uber, for example, where an actual trip takes longer
than expected, yet the Driver's earnings calculation remains
constant.

What's more, a rider might also pay Uber more than what the
driver's fare is based on because a driver's contract allows Uber
to "adjust" the fare known and paid to the driver, according to
Uber's legal filing.

"The Agreement allows Uber to adjust the Fare under various
circumstances.  For example, Uber is permitted to make changes to
the Fare Calculation based on local market factors," Uber said in
its federal court response.  "Likewise, Uber may adjust the Fare
based on other factors such as inefficient routes, technical
errors, or customer complaints."

And here's the kicker:

Drivers disclaim any right to receive amounts over and above the
Fare produced by the Fare Calculation.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, demands back pay and
legal fees. It wants a Los Angeles federal judge to halt the
alleged "unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair business
practices."

A hearing is set for December 1. [GN]


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Faces "Gericke" Suit in S. District of NY
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ubiquiti Networks
Inc.  The case is styled as Richard Gericke, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ubiquiti
Networks Inc., Robert J Pera, Kevin Radigan, John Ritchie and Mark
Spragg, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07279-KPF (S.D. N.Y.,
September 25, 2017).

Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. was incorporated in the State of
California in 2003 as Pera Networks, Inc. In 2005, Pera Networks,
Inc. changed its name to Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. and commenced
its current operations. In June 2010, Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. was
re-incorporated in Delaware.  Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. and its
wholly owned subsidiaries develop high performance networking
technology for service providers and enterprises.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
   Gardy & Notis, LLP
   501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1408
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (201) 567-7233
   Fax: (201) 567-7337
   Email: jsarnelli@gardylaw.com


VOYA FINANCIAL: "Goetz" Disputes Excessive Record-keeping Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Goetz, on behalf of the Cornerstone Pediatric Profit
Sharing Plan and as representative of a class of all other
similarly situated individual account retirement plans, Plaintiff,
v. Voya Financial, Inc. and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity
Company, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01289, (D. Del., September
8, 2017), seeks to disgorge all losses to the Plans resulting from
the excessive fees charged, excessive and unreasonable fees for
record-keeping services, reasonable attorney's, expert witness
fees and costs under the common fund doctrine, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and other equitable or remedial relief for
breach of fiduciary duties and for violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Cornerstone Plan contracted with VOYA to provide recordkeeping
and other services. VOYA's fees are 36 times more than the
reasonable amount of compensation that should have been charged to
the Cornerstone Plan, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Pamela S. Tikellis, Esq.
      Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
      A. Zachary Naylor, Esq.
      CHlMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1100
      Wilmington, DE 19899
      Tel: (302) 656-2500

             - and -

      Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
      H. Zachary Balkin, Esq.
      Paul R. Wood, Esq.
      Keith Scranton, Esq.
      Jonathan S. Parrott, Esq.
      FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES P.C.
      14426 E. Evans Ave.
      Aurora, CO 80014
      Tel: (303) 900-5595

             - and -

      Gordon W. Netzorg, Esq.
      SHERMAN & HOWARD L.L.C.
      633 17th St. Suite 3000
      Denver, CO 80202
      Tel: (303) 297-2900


WAL-MART STORES: Sold Defective Chairs, "Johnson" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shelley Johnson, on behalf of her minor son, B.C., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Wal-
Mart Stores East, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01894, (N.D.
Ohio, September 8, 2017), seeks damages and injunctive relief
arising from Defendant's violations of Ohio law, including Ohio's
Product Liability Act, Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, as well
as analogous common and products liability protection laws in each
state in which they operate.

Shelley Johnson purchased a Mainstays patio set from the
Defendant. B.C. was seated in one of the chairs from the Mainstays
patio set when a section of the back support broke in half,
causing the chair to collapse, trapping his left middle finger
causing a torn tendon. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michelle L. Kranz, Esq.
      ZOLL & KRANZ, LLC
      6620 West Central Avenue, Suite 100
      Toledo, OH 43617
      Telephone (419) 841-9623
      Facsimile (419) 841-9719
      Email: michelle@toledolaw.com

             - and -

      Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
      Alex C. Davis, Esq.
      Ashton Rose Smith, Esq.
      JONES WARD PLC
      The Pointe
      1205 E. Washington St., Suite 111
      Louisville, KY 40206
      Tel. (502) 882-6000
      Fax (502) 587-2007
      Email: jasper@jonesward.com
             alex@jonesward.com
             ashton@jonesward.com


WAL-MART STORES: Court Awards $13MM Attorney Fees in "Ridgeway"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's fees, Incentive Award and Costs
in the case captioned CHARLES RIDGEWAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
WAL-MART STORES INC., Defendant, Case No. 08-cv-05221-SI (N.D.
Cal.).

This minimum wage class action proceeded to trial and resulted in
a $60.8 million common fund.  Plaintiffs now move for an award of
attorneys' fees and costs and incentive awards for the named
plaintiffs.

They seek $20,266,670.50 in attorneys' fees to be paid from the
common fund, offset by an award of fees from Wal-Mart in the same
amount through statutory fee-shifting.

Plaintiffs further seek $220,149.89 in statutory costs to be paid
by Wal-Mart and an additional $1,593,781.44 in expenses from the
common fund.

Finally, they ask that the Court approve incentive awards of
$50,000.00 to each of the nine class representatives.

Plaintiffs are truck drivers in California previously employed by
defendant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (Wal-Mart) for some period of time
between 1993 and the present. Fourth Amended Complaint (FAC).
Plaintiffs initially filed this case in Alameda County Superior
Court . Wal-Mart removed the case to this Court under the Class
Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2).

Before reaching the relevant substantive issues, the Court notes
that Wal-Mart objects to plaintiffs' revised fee calculations
submitted with their reply brief.  These revised fees reflect: (1)
additional work performed between the filing of the instant motion
and the date of reply, including work related to post-trial
motions; (2) the removal of time entries related to the
preparation of the instant fee motion; and (3) itemized entries of
the time of plaintiffs' counsel Lawrence Artenian.

The Court finds it appropriate to consider the evidence provided
by plaintiffs with their reply. The Court has allowed the parties
to file supplemental briefs, thus ensuring that Wal-Mart had an
opportunity to respond to all evidence submitted with plaintiffs'
fee request.

ATTORNEYS' FEES

Plaintiffs move for fees under a California fee-shifting statute
and the common fund doctrine. Plaintiffs seek to recover
attorneys' fees of $20,266,670.50,1 which is equal to
approximately one-third of the $60.8 million common fund.

Because the amount of statutory fees to be paid by Wal-Mart, as
opposed to plaintiffs' entitlement to fees out of the common fund,
is the contested issue in the present motion, the Court will begin
its analysis there.

Fee-Shifting Analysis -- California Labor Code Section 1194

Fee shifting' refers to an award under which a party that did not
prevail in the litigation is ordered to pay fees incurred by the
prevailing party.

Wal-Mart does not contest that, based on the outcome at trial,
plaintiffs are entitled to statutory fees under California Labor
Code section 1194. Further, both sides acknowledge that use of the
lodestar method is the appropriate method for determining the
amount of statutory fees here. The Court will determine the
lodestar, multiplying the number of hours reasonably spent on the
litigation by a reasonable hourly rate, and will then examine
whether a multiplier is warranted.

Plaintiffs' counsel submitted declarations and time records
showing that they spent over 10,000 hours on this case. This chart
reflects plaintiffs' revised hours submitted with their reply
brief, with the exception of Mr. Artenian's hours, which the Court
caps at 1200.

Hourly Rates

To determine whether counsel's hourly rates are reasonable, the
Court looks to the hourly amount to which attorneys of like skill
in the area would typically be entitled.  The fee applicant has
the burden of producing satisfactory evidence, in addition to the
affidavits of its counsel, that the requested rates are in line
with those prevailing in the community for similar services of
lawyers of reasonably comparable skill and reputation.

Wal-Mart does not argue that these hourly rates, standing alone,
are unreasonable. Rather, it asks the Court to reduce the hourly
rates based on what it terms as unreasonable billing practices. In
light of the evidence submitted, the Court finds that the hourly
rates plaintiffs seek are reasonable. The Court addresses the
question of plaintiffs' billing practices below.

Reasonableness of the Hours Spent

Under California law, absent circumstances rendering the award
unjust, an attorney fee award should ordinarily include
compensation for all the hours reasonably spent, including those
relating solely to the fee. A fee request that appears
unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the
trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether.

Discovery

Plaintiffs contend that discovery was voluminous: "the class
collectively served more than 200 Requests for Admission (ten
sets), 139 Requests for Production (seventeen sets), and 26
Special Interrogatories (six sets), as well as responding to Wal-
Mart's initial sets of pre-certification discovery.

Wal-Mart has not persuasively shown that the time spent pursuing
electronic discovery was needless. The sampling project would have
been necessary if the complete electronic records had not
ultimately been produced. The Court finds that the time spent by
plaintiffs in reviewing paper copies of records and creating a
sampling project is compensable, particularly in light of the
parties' ongoing dispute over ESI, and will not discount
plaintiffs' hours in this area.

Vague Entries

Wal-Mart contends that over 1,000 of plaintiffs' time entries
(equal to $587,527.50) are too vague and imprecise to be credited.
Although the Court agrees with Wal-Mart that certain portions of
plaintiffs' billing records are problematic, the Court addresses
those issues in turn in this Order. However, because it is within
the Court's discretion to award fees under California law on
methods other than a line-by-line scrutiny of detailed billing
logs, the Court will not reduce the lodestar on the general ground
of vagueness.

Billing in 0.1- and 0.2-Hour Increments

Wal-Mart claims that plaintiffs' counsel seek fees for 1,196 0.1-
hour and 813 0.2-hour time entries, totaling 282.2 hours (equal to
$189,451.50).

Upon review of plaintiffs' time entries, it appears that many of
the complained of entries could reasonably have taken the full
amount of time billed, and thus need not be consolidated. The
Court will discount Mr. Kopfman's time by $219.00 for the
duplicative entries in reviewing the notices of appearance for Mr.
Edelman, Mr. Wong, and Ms. Brass.

Block Billing

Wal-Mart next argues plaintiffs' time entries include 336
instances of block billing equal to over 900 hours.  Block
billing" refers to "the time-keeping method by which each lawyer
and legal assistant enters the total daily time spent working on a
case, rather than itemizing the time expended on specific tasks.
The Court has reviewed the time entries at issue, in which counsel
include multiple tasks within a single time entry. For instance,
Mr. Artenian's November 4, 2016 time entry states: "Review
depositions; extensive notes preparing direct examinations" for
7.5 hours.  The Court finds such time to be reasonably billed to
this case and therefore compensable. The Court will not reduce
plaintiffs' fees due to block billing.

Travel Time

Overlapping with its block billing contentions, Wal-Mart argues
that several entries include unspecified travel time, totaling
1,466.2 hours ($1,054,704.00). Wal-Mart contends that plaintiffs'
choice not to engage local Bay Area counsel unreasonably resulted
in hundreds of hours in transit between Fresno, CA and San
Francisco, CA at 3 to 3.5 hours each way for every hearing or
status conference often multiplied across multiple attorneys.

Many of their entries block bill travel and substantive activities
together. Additionally, certain time entries reflect compensable
travel time to various locations to meet with clients.  In light
of these competing facts, the Court finds it appropriate to
exercise its discretion and apply a 30% reduction in travel time.
The Court, therefore, deducts $316,411.20 from plaintiffs'
lodestar claim.

Redundant, Excessive, or Duplicative Work

A court may "exclude excessive, redundant and unnecessary hours
when calculating a lodestar. Wal-Mart asserts that plaintiffs
assigned multiple law firms and attorneys to do the same work,
such that $502,422.50 of the fees sought are redundant.
The Court finds plaintiffs' explanation, that these attorneys
performed the same tasks more than once, implausible. Several of
Mr. Lee's entries repeat the same described task, for the same
amount of time, on the same day. Mr. Myrick's entries are even
more concerning. Mr. Myrick's December 2015 time entries are clear
duplicates of his June 2015 entries.  The Court will subtract the
duplicative entries that Wal-Mart has identified, for a deduction
of $6,900.00 from Mr. Lee's time and $66,000.00 from Mr. Myrick's
time.

Incorrect Time Entries

Wal-Mart points out several incorrect time entries. For instance,
Mr. Kopfman submitted a June 2, 2010 time entry for 0.3 hours to
review responses to Requests for Admission, and a June 10, 2010
time entry for 1 hour to review discovery responses.  However, no
written discovery was served in this case. Mr. Kopfman also
submitted a December 4, 2010 time entry for 1.3 hours for a case
management conference appearance, but no such conference was held
in 2010.

Accordingly, the Court deducts $1,898.00 for this time.

Appropriate Level of Timekeeper

Wal-Mart claims that plaintiffs' counsel failed to assign the
appropriate level of timekeeper to various projects because
partners make up 64% of billable time and 77% of the requested
fees. Wal-Mart asserts that partners spent too much time on
deposition summaries, reviewing standing orders and local rules,
and the initial drafting of motions, rather than assigning such
tasks to paralegals or associates.

Wal-Mart identifies two cases where district courts have reduced
fees when associates could have performed tasks completed by
partners,4 the Ninth Circuit has noted that the cost effectiveness
of various law firm models is an open question. The difficulty and
skill level of the work performed, and the result achieved not
whether it would have been cheaper to delegate the work to other
attorneys must drive the district court's decision.

Moreover, Wal-Mart has also failed to identify any cases awarding
fees under California law that reduced a lodestar on this basis.
In light of the various partners' in-depth knowledge of the case
and the small size of the firms involved, the Court cannot say
that the complained of tasks should have been assigned to a less
experienced timekeeper. The Court therefore declines to reduce
plaintiffs' fees on these grounds.

Clerical Tasks

Wal-Mart also claims that plaintiffs' counsel's time includes
"over 70 hours ($40,828.00) of secretarial or clerical tasks not
compensable as attorneys' fees -- including work to prepare their
time entries.

It is reasonable to award attorneys' fees for time spent updating
a spreadsheet of class members' information, including contact
information, duties, and damages. Indeed, in making its argument
for appropriate level of timekeepers, Wal-Mart contends that
"junior lawyers" should handle this work.

Plaintiffs may also seek fees for time spent cite checking their
briefs, preparing client accounts of damages, instructing staff on
assignments, discussing staffing on briefs, researching the local
rules, teleconferencing with other attorneys to provide updates on
the case, and reviewing motions to dismiss, Court orders, and
other filings. Accordingly, the Court deducts $14,804.00 for
clerical time, rather than the $40,828.00 Wal-Mart identifies.

Multiplier

Taking into account the above deductions brings plaintiffs'
lodestar to $6,833,328.55. Including the five percent across-the-
board reduction that plaintiffs have offered to make on their
lodestar, the lodestar is now $6,491,662.12. The Court now
considers whether it is appropriate to apply a multiplier.

Risk

Plaintiffs' counsel argue that they took a huge financial risk,
with over 11,000 hours of attorney and paralegal time, plus $1.7
million in out of pocket expenses, that would go unpaid unless
counsel won the case.

Plaintiffs took this case through to trial, risking an unfavorable
jury verdict. The Court finds that the contingent risk in this
case weighs in favor of a multiplier.

Results Obtained

The Court finds this factor to be neutral. Although plaintiffs
obtained a significant win at trial, they did not succeed on all
of the claims that they brought in this case, nor did they obtain
a jury award on all of the tasks for which they alleged minimum
wage violations. While the average recovery of $70,000.00 per
class member is sizeable, the Court finds that other factors, such
as the contingent risk and the complexity of the case, weigh more
strongly in favor of a multiplier.

Novelty, Difficulty, and Complexity

The Court finds this factor weighs in favor of a multiplier. The
sheer number of issues raised in Wal-Mart's post-trial motions
speaks to the case's complexity: FAAAA pre-emption, the
methodology for establishing compliance with minimum wage laws,
class certification, and the ability of class members in
bankruptcy to recover, among others.

The Court acknowledges that this factor runs the risk of double
counting, as the complexity of this case is part of the reason for
plaintiffs' nearly 11,000 hours of billing, which is already
accounted for in the lodestar. However, having overseen this case
since its filing in 2008 through a jury trial and post-trial
motions, the Court finds that this case raised numerous novel,
difficult, and complex issues that weigh in favor a multiplier.

Preclusion from Other Employment

Wal-Mart does not address this point, and the Court finds this
factor weighs in favor of applying a multiplier.

Public Interest

The Court will not consider this factor in setting a multiplier.
The long-term effects of this case remain to be seen and, as Wal-
Mart points out, many of the Court's rulings are specific to Wal-
Mart's pay policies and therefore may not apply to other
employers.

The Court finds that the factors -- in particular the contingent
risk, the novelty, difficulty and complexity of the litigation,
and the preclusion of other employment -- support a multiplier of
2.0.

The Court thus grants in part plaintiffs' request for statutory
attorneys' fees and awards $12,983,324.25. This amount is to be
paid by Wal-Mart.

Common Fund Doctrine

Plaintiffs argue that counsel should receive one-third of the
common fund for many of the same reasons that they urge they are
entitled to a multiplier on their lodestar. They state that the
results achieved, the risks involved, and the novelty, difficulty,
and complexity of the case warrant an award of one-third of the
common fund.

The Court finds that a reasonable percentage of the common fund is
25 percent. Although the California courts have not adopted a 25
percent as a benchmark figure, as the Ninth Circuit has, 25
percent is within the range of what courts will award as a
percentage of the common fund in California.

The Court grants in part plaintiffs' request for an award of fees
from the common fund.  The Court will award 25 percent of the
common fund ($60,800,011.58): $15,200,002.90. At plaintiffs'
request, the amount that Wal-Mart pays in statutory fees will be
credited against this amount, for a total net payment of
$2,216,678.65 in fees from the common fund.

COSTS

Plaintiffs move for taxable costs against Wal-Mart in the amount
of $220,149.89. They further seek reimbursement of their
reasonable non-taxable costs, as would be billed to a fee-paying
client, from the common fund; when offset by what they seek from
Wal-Mart, they request payment of $1,593,781.44 from the common
fund.

Non-Taxable Costs from Common Fund

As to non-taxable costs, Wal-Mart challenges the majority of
plaintiffs' request as improper, for vagueness, duplicative
entries, and unreasonable or unnecessary expenditures. Plaintiffs
do not reply to the substance of Wal-Mart's critiques but state
that Wal-Mart lacks standing to raise these concerns because the
non-taxable costs will come from the common fund.

The Court has reviewed the request for non-taxable costs that
plaintiffs submitted, including a summary of expenses by category
with accompanying receipts.  The Court will award most of what
plaintiffs seek, as reasonable litigation expenses, with the
following exceptions:

   Mileage: A review of the records shows that plaintiffs
reimbursed themselves at a mileage rate of $0.70-$1.00 per mile.

   Meals: Plaintiffs' counsel claim meal expenses totaling
$12,260.28, but have itemized or documented only $6,348.28.

INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR NAMED PLAINTIFFS

From the common fund, plaintiffs seek incentive awards of
$50,000.00 for each of the nine named plaintiffs. Wal-Mart argues
that there is no California statutory authority for an enhancement
award where a case proceeds to verdict" rather than ending in a
settlement. In reply, plaintiffs argue that Wal-Mart lacks
standing to challenge the incentive award, and state that the
requests are reasonable.

Based on the work performed in this case, and accounting for the
risk undertaken in suing a former employer, the Court finds it
appropriate to grant in part the request for incentive awards, in
the amount of $15,000.00 to each named plaintiff.

Plaintiffs' motion for fees, costs, and incentive awards is
granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs are entitled to
$12,983,324.25 in attorneys' fees and $160,417.32 in costs from
Wal-Mart. In addition, the Court awards from the common fund
$15,200,002.90 in fees (offset by the attorneys' fees from Wal-
Mart, for a net of $2,216,678.65); $1,574,189.79 in non-taxable
costs; and $15,000.00 incentive awards for each of the named
plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7q32n99from Leagle.com.

Charles Ridgway, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Butler Jones --
ajones@wagnerjones.com -- Esq., Wagner & Jones.

Charles Ridgway, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Mitchell Weisberg
-- jmw@jweisberglaw.com -- Law Offices of Jacob M. Weisberg,
Daniel Myers Kopfman -- dkopfman@wagnerjones.com  -- Law Offices
of Wagner Jones, Lawrence Mark Artenian --
laternian@wagnerjones.com -- Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP,
Nicholas John Paul Wagner --
kschemen@wagnerjones.com -- Law Offices of Wagner & Jones, Paul
Carter Mullen -- pmullen@centralcallegal.org -- Law Offices of
Wagner & Jones LLP, Russel David Myrick -- russel@rdmlg.com -- RDM
Legal Group, Stanley Donald Saltzman --
ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com -- Marlin & Saltzman & Stephen
Patrick O'Dell, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Jaime Famoso, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Butler Jones, Esq.,
Wagner & Jones, Jacob Mitchell Weisberg, Law Offices of Jacob M.
Weisberg, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner Jones,
Lawrence Mark Artenian, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP,
Nicholas John Paul Wagner, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones, Paul
Carter Mullen, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Russel David
Myrick, RDM Legal Group, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman & Stephen Patrick O'Dell, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Joshua Harold, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Butler Jones,
Esq., Wagner & Jones, Jacob Mitchell Weisberg, Law Offices of
Jacob M. Weisberg, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner
Jones, Lawrence Mark Artenian, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP,
Nicholas John Paul Wagner, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones, Paul
Carter Mullen, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Russel David
Myrick, RDM Legal Group, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman & Stephen Patrick O'Dell, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Richard Byers, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Butler Jones,
Esq., Wagner & Jones, Jacob Mitchell Weisberg, Law Offices of
Jacob M. Weisberg, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner
Jones, Lawrence Mark Artenian, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP,
Nicholas John Paul Wagner, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones, Paul
Carter Mullen, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Russel David
Myrick, RDM Legal Group, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman & Stephen Patrick O'Dell, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Dan Thatcher, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Butler Jones, Esq.,
Wagner & Jones, Jacob Mitchell Weisberg, Law Offices of Jacob M.
Weisberg, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner Jones,
Lawrence Mark Artenian, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP,
Nicholas John Paul Wagner, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones, Paul
Carter Mullen, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Russel David
Myrick, RDM Legal Group, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman & Stephen Patrick O'Dell, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Nino Pagtama, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Butler Jones, Esq.,
Wagner & Jones, Jacob Mitchell Weisberg, Law Offices of Jacob M.
Weisberg, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner Jones,
Lawrence Mark Artenian, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP,
Nicholas John Paul Wagner, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones, Paul
Carter Mullen, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Russel David
Myrick, RDM Legal Group, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman & Stephen Patrick O'Dell, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Willie Franklin, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Butler Jones,
Esq., Wagner & Jones, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner
Jones, Lawrence Mark Artenian, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP,
Nicholas John Paul Wagner, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones, Paul
Carter Mullen, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Russel David
Myrick, RDM Legal Group, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman & Stephen Patrick O'Dell, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Time Opitz, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Butler Jones, Esq.,
Wagner & Jones, Jacob Mitchell Weisberg, Law Offices of Jacob M.
Weisberg, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner Jones,
Lawrence Mark Artenian, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Paul
Carter Mullen, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Russel David
Myrick, RDM Legal Group, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman & Stephen Patrick O'Dell, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Farris Day, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Butler Jones, Esq.,
Wagner & Jones, Jacob Mitchell Weisberg, Law Offices of Jacob M.
Weisberg, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner Jones,
Lawrence Mark Artenian, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP,
Nicholas John Paul Wagner, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones, Paul
Carter Mullen, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Russel David
Myrick, RDM Legal Group, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman & Stephen Patrick O'Dell, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Karl Merhoff, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Butler Jones, Esq.,
Wagner & Jones, Jacob Mitchell Weisberg, Law Offices of Jacob M.
Weisberg, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner Jones,
Lawrence Mark Artenian, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP,
Nicholas John Paul Wagner, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones, Paul
Carter Mullen, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Russel David
Myrick, RDM Legal Group, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman & Stephen Patrick O'Dell, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Defendant, represented by Catherine A.
Conway -- cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
George Charles Nierlich, III -- cnierlich@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Julian Wing-Kai Poon --
jpoon@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Adam Carl
Smedstad -- ASMEDSTAD@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light
Hanson & Feary, P.C., pro hac vice, Angela Yue-Man Poon --
apoon@gibsondunn.com  -- Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Blaine H.
Evanson -- bevanson@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
LLP, Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr. -- cmcnatt@scopelitis.com --
Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, LLP, James H. Hanson --
JHANSON@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson,
Jenna Musselman Yott -- jyott@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and
Crutcher, Jesse A. Cripps, Jr. -- jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Michael Li-Ming Wong -- mwong@gibsondunn.com
-Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Rachel S. Brass --
rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Scott Alan
Edelman -- sedelman@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP &
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Attorney
at Law.


WALT DISNEY: Ex-IT Workers Wants Discrimination Case Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Russon, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that the
attorneys representing former Disney IT employees who were
instructed to train their replacements filed a motion Sept. 18 in
federal court to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit against the
resort.

The legal team handling the case plans to refile it "sooner rather
than later" in state court, attorney Sara Blackwell said.

"It's always going to be a different claim to win," she said on
Sept. 18.  "We're going to fight, and we're going to do everything
we can to bring justice."

Ms. Blackwell said they were still planning their legal strategy
and whether they will seek class-action status when they refile
the case.

Disney was not immediately available for comment Monday, but a
spokeswoman said in June, "As we have said all along, this lawsuit
is baseless and we will continue to defend it vigorously."

About 25 workers who named in the lawsuit -- as well as about 250
other employees -- were told in October 2014 they would lose their
jobs, according to the amended lawsuit.  They all lost their jobs
on the same day.

The American citizens were responsible for training their
replacements, who were Indian nationals, according to documents
from the lawsuit that was originally filed in December.

Some of the Americans were rehired for other jobs within the
company, while others became unemployed.

Mary Poorman said in court documents she started her job in 1976
at Disney, working there until her job ended in January 2015.

"The termination was devastating and absolutely broke my heart,"
said Ms. Poorman, a former technical support specialist of
Orlando, in the amended lawsuit.

But Disney argued the lawsuit's allegations of discrimination "has
no plausible foundation," according to a motion filed this month
seeking to dismiss the federal lawsuit.

The plaintiffs, who were American-born or naturalized citizens,
could not legally claim racial discrimination based on their
national origin, Disney said.

Disney also said it outsourced the IT maintenance work to an
outside commercial vendor who hired its own employees and made its
own staffing decisions, according to court documents.

"These are allegations about the employees of the outside
commercial vendors, not Disney Parks's employees," Disney's motion
said.

A judge already dismissed two earlier lawsuits brought by former
Disney IT workers.

The workers' lawsuit brought up the debate on H-1B visas, which
are considered a way for companies to save money by hiring foreign
workers who work for cheaper.

Congress created the H-1B visa program in 1990 to allow a limited
number of high-tech workers to enter the United States to fill
jobs with a shortage of American workers. [GN]


WELLINGTON HOTEL: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E. Dist. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wellington Hotel
Co., Inc.  The case is styled as Victor Andrews, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Wellington Hotel Co., Inc. doing business as:
Wellington Hotel, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05644-BMC (E.D.
N.Y., September 27, 2017).

Wellington Hotel Co., Inc. is operating public hotels and
motels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


ZILLOW INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action After CFPB Probe
-----------------------------------------------------------
RESPA News reports that a shareholder class action lawsuit has
been filed against Zillow and its CEO and chief financial officer,
alleging that misleading statements regarding its co-marketing
platform harmed its shareholders.

Zillow share prices dropped after a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission detailed the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau's investigation into the real estate company's co-marketing
practices.

Zillow said that the company and the bureau also recently entered
into settlement talks. [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  * * *