CAR_Public/171004.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, October 4, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 196



                            Headlines

AISIN SEIKI: All European Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Brown" Class Action in E.D.N.Y.
AMAZON INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of List Price Class Action
AMERICAN BUSINESS: Cheung Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ANGIE'S LIST: "Chojar" Sues Over Securities Law Violations

ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Stender Appeals D. Colorado Ruling to 10th Cir.
ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Misonzhnik" Suit in E.D. of New York
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Must Face Securities Fraud Class Action
BISTRO MARKETPLACE: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
BMW NORTH AMERICA: "Caldwell" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations

BOTTLING GROUP: Faces "Paredes" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CAREFIRST: Wash. Judge Dismisses OPM Data Breach Class Actions
CAVALRY SPV I: Faces "O'Neil" Suit in Western District of Mich
CINTAS CORPORATION: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages & Damages
COLLECTO INC: "Hodges" Collection Dispute Transferred to D. Mass.

COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: "Fair" Suit Alleges FLSA Breach
CONSOLIDATED RESOURCE: Brotherton Sues Over Unpaid OT Under FLSA
EINSTEIN NOAH: Faces "Young" Class Action in E.D.N.Y.
EMERALD LAWNS: Refuses to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Arce" Suit Claims
EQT PRODUCTION: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Ruling in Kay Co Suit

EQUIFAX INC: Majority of Adults Likely to Join Data Breach Suit
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Delaware
EQUIFAX INC: Doss Firm Files Data Breach Class Action in Georgia
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Hawaii
EQUIFAX INC: Lacks Adequate Data Security Measures Says "Gallant"

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Faillace" Suit in Calif. Over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: "Lynch" Suit Says Personal Data Compromised
EQUIFAX INC: Belden Files Class Suit Over Hacking Incident
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Austin" Suit in Penn. Over Hacking Incident
EQUIFAX INC: Fails to Secure Private Info, "Christen" Suit Claims

EQUIFAX INC: Lacks Adequate Data Security Measures, Says "Ostoya"
EQUIFAX INC: "Martin" Claims Personal Info Compromised
EQUIFAX INC: Murphy Sues Over Hacked Personal Data
EQUIFAX INC: Duran Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages
EQUIFAX INC: Byas Sues for Victims of Data Breach in Mississippi

EQUIFAX INC: Fails to Safeguard Consumers' PII, Anderson Alleges
EQUIFAX INC: Friedman Seeks $14-Bil. in Damages Over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: "Salinas" Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Atiles" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Servers Hacked Says "Maloney," Data Breached

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: McCall Files Suit Over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Tirelli Files Suit Over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Accused by Bitton of Failing to Secure Info
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Accused by Caplan of Failing to Protect Info
FACEBOOK INC: CEO Expected to Take Stand in Shareholder Suit

FLORIDA: FEA Sues Over Age and Racial Discrimination
FLOWERS FOODS: Faces "Abugeith" Suit in S. Dist. Tex.
GEO GROUP: "Chen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
GOLDCORP INC: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Sweeney Appeals Order in "Friedman" Class Suit

HEALTH INSURANCE: Violates Securities Laws, Cioe Investments Says
JEUNESSE LLC: "Aboltin" Suit Transferred to Fla. Dist. Ct.
JG WENTWORTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Dickens" Suit Claims
KIEKERT AG: Auto Dealers Allege Price-fixing of Auto Latches
KITCHENAID: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Faulty Dishwashers

KITE PHARMA: Faces "Axelrod" Suit Over Sale to Gilead Sciences
KNAUF GIPS: Descher Files Suit Over Defective Gypsum Drywall
KONA BREWING: Faces Class Action Over Hawaiian Beer Label
LANDRY'S INC: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. of New York
LAZ PARKING: "Day" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages Under FLSA

LEIDOS HEALTH: "Oshikoya" Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Ind.
MATCH.COM LLC: Faces "Dephillips" Suit in S.D. of New York
MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Faces Second Shareholder Class Action
MEDTRONIC PLC: "Akerman" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Shareholders' Vote
MEYER LOGISTICS: Faces "Alcala" Suit in Cent. Dist. Calif.

MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: December 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NCAA: Plaintiff's Lawyers in Dispute Over Fees
NEULION INC: Daas Sues Over Defective Streaming of Boxing Matches
NEW KING'S: Faces "Chen" Suit in S.D. of New York
NORTHERN MARIANAS: Betty Johnson Class Action Settled

NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Brecher" Suit in E. Dist. of New York
NYC PASTA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and OT, Flores Suit Says
OATH INC: Faces "DeJesus" Suit in S. Dist. of New York
OS RESTAURANT: Faces "Giampietro" Suit Alleging Discrimination
OSCAR'S PLUMBING: "Ford" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium

PALERMO BUILDING: "Oliveras" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
QUALITY DINING: Faces "Cicero" Suit in Eastern District of Penn.
RELAY DELIVERY: Faces "Cruz" Suit in Southern District of NY
RGS FINANCIAL: Frank Files Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection
SAGA PETROLEUM: "Baggett" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

SKODA MINOTTI: Faces "Cooney" Suit in Middle District of Fla.
SHEETZ INC: AMs Entitled to Overtime Wages, "Cambridge" Suit Says
STAPLES INC: Kron Appeals Ruling in "Torczyner" Suit to 9th Cir.
STONEMOR PARTNERS: "Holcomb-Jones" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
SUBWAY: Sheppard Mullin Attorneys Discuss Settlement Ruling

SYNDICATED OFFICE: Faces "Angelakopoulos" Suit in Florida
TESLA: Faces Class Action Over Appstem Privacy Violation
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: NLRB Argues Against Class-Action Waivers
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 9th Cir. Hears Appeal of Arbitration Cases
UNIFIRST CORP: "Dives" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid OT Wages

VERSO CORPORATION: "Bailey" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
WELLS FARGO: Defends Efforts to Restore Trust After Class Actions
WELLS FARGO: Yellen Says Fake Account Scandal Unacceptable
WORLD MARKETING: "Carroll" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
YUM BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Collection of "Pop Tax"

ZECO EQUIPMENT: "Fenning" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Wages

* Akin Gump Discusses Five Developing Issues in Class Action
* South African Parliament Welcomes Class Action Against 4 Banks
* Supreme Court Set to Tackle Three Securities Cases in New Term
* Two SA Parliamentary Committees Seek Inquiry Into Repossessions




                            *********


AISIN SEIKI: All European Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
All European Auto Supply, Inc., and all others similarly-situated
v. Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd., Aisin Automotive Casting, LLC , Korea
Delphi Automotive Systems Corp., Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Automotive
Systems, Ltd., Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., Mikuni
Corporation, Mikuni American Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric
Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc., and Mitsubishi
Electric Automotive America, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-13158 (E.D.
Mich., September 26, 2017), seeks to obtain injunctive relief and
to recover treble damages, costs of suit and reasonable expenses
and attorneys' fees, resulting from the Defendants' violation of
the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act.

All European Auto Supply, Inc. is a Michigan corporation with its
principal place of business in Royal Oak, Michigan. AEAS purchased
Valve Timing Control Devices directly from one or more of the
Defendants.

The Defendants manufacture, market and sell Valve Timing Control
Devices throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      M. John Dominguez, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Tel: (561) 515-2604
      E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
      Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
      CERA LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
      Tel: (415) 777-2230
      E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
              tbright@cerallp.com
              pmarkert@cerallp.com

          - and -

      David H. Fink, Esq.
      Darryl Bressack, Esq.
      FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
      38500 Woodward Ave; Suite 350
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
      Tel: (248) 971-2500
      E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
              dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Brown" Class Action in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is styled as Abraham Brown, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Alltran
Financial, LP, formerly known as: United Recovery Systems, L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05710 (E.D.N.Y., September 29, 2017).

Alltran Financial is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein,Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


AMAZON INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of List Price Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Simpson and Bonnie Eslinger, writing for Law360, report that
a Ninth Circuit panel on Sept. 19 affirmed a lower court's use of
Washington law when it dismissed an Amazon shopper's putative
class action over alleged inflation of comparative discounts,
rejecting the shopper's argument that California law is
substantially different.

In an unpublished, unanimous decision, the panel shot down
California shopper Allen Wiseley's attempt to avoid arbitration,
ruling that Amazon's agreement and arbitration provision were
presented in a way that was fair to consumers under either state's
laws.

In California, the elements that determine the fairness of legal
language mandating claims be sent to arbitration are measured on a
more flexible sliding scale test, Mr. Wiseley's counsel argued in
August.

"While California's sliding-scale approach to unconscionability
might hypothetically invalidate some contracts that would be
upheld under Washington's single-prong approach the reverse is
also true," the panel found in the Sept. 19 decision.  "Moreover,
any distinction does not bear on this case, as we would reach the
same result under California law."

In the six-page decision, the panel called the laws "substantially
similar" and said that Mr. Wiseley failed to explain how
California's consumer protection statutes are more protective than
Washington's.

Mr. Wiseley filed the suit in late 2014 in San Diego Superior
Court, though it was later removed to federal court.  The suit
accused Amazon of false advertising and negligent
misrepresentation, claiming the site's comparative retail prices
were misleading and not representative of what a consumer would
actually pay another retailer for the same product.

Amazon pushed to compel arbitration in February 2015, saying the
buyers could have canceled their purchases if they disagreed with
the site's prominently placed terms of use and that the court
could not ignore the agreements simply because the buyers wished
to pursue a class action.

In October 2016, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant granted
Amazon's motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the suit,
finding that the agreements presented in hyperlinks before a
customer decides to complete their purchase clearly state the
arbitration terms for both parties.

The panel on Sept. 19 agreed with Judge Bashant's analysis,
finding the agreements to be fair under Washington and California
state law.

U.S. Circuit Judges William A. Fletcher and Sandra Segal Ikuta and
U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker sat on the panel for the
Ninth Circuit.

Mr. Wiseley is represented in the appeal by Trenton R. Kashima of
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP.

Amazon is represented by James C. Grant -- jamesgrant@dwt.com --
of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

The case is Wiseley v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No. 15-56799 (9th
Cir.).  The case was filed November 23, 2015. [GN]


AMERICAN BUSINESS: Cheung Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHI CHEUNG, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated v. AMERICAN BUSINESS INSTITUTE CORP. and WADE
BAI, Case No. 1:17-cv-05299 (E.D.N.Y., September 11, 2017),
alleges that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the
Defendants unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the
New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

American Business Institute, Inc., is a home health care provider
located in Flushing, New York.  Wade Bai is the owner, officer,
director or managing agent of ABI.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANGIE'S LIST: "Chojar" Sues Over Securities Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
ATUL CHOJAR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ANGIE'S LIST, INC., THOMAS R. EVANS, GEORGE D. BELL,
MARK BRITTO, SCOTT A. DURCHSLAG, ANGELA R. HICKS BOWMAN, MICHAEL
S. MAURER, DAVID B. MULLEN, MICHAEL D. SANDS, H. ERIC SEMLER, and
SUSAN THRONSON, Case No. 1:17-cv-03208-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind.,
September 11, 2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed
merger between Angie's List, IAC/InterActiveCorp ("Parent"), and
IAC's HomeAdvisor ("Merger Sub").

On May 1, 2017, the Board of Directors caused the Company to enter
into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the
Company's shareholders stand to receive either (i) one share of
ANGI Homeservices Inc. Class A common stock, or (ii) $8.50 in cash
for each share of Angie's List common stock they own.

Angie's List is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana.  The Company operates a
nationwide, local services consumer review service and
marketplace.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

               - and -

          William N. Riley, Esq.
          RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC
          The Hammond Block Building
          301 Massachusetts Avenue
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 633-5270
          Facsimile: (317) 426-3348
          E-mail: wriley@rwp-law.com


ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Stender Appeals D. Colorado Ruling to 10th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Steven A. Stender and Infinity Clark Street Operating,
LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled
Stender, et al. v. Archstone-Smith, et al., Case No. 1:07-CV-
02503-WJM-MJW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado - Denver.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 7,
2017, Judge William Joseph Martinez granted the Defendants' four
motions for summary judgment in the case.

The case revolves around a particular real estate investment trust
("REIT")-umbrella partnership real estate investment trust
("UPREIT") pair (both organized under Maryland law), namely:
Defendant Archstone-Smith Trust, the publicly traded parent REIT
("Archstone"); and Archstone-Smith Operating Trust, the UPREIT
that actually owned and managed the properties ("Operating
Trust").

The Plaintiffs instituted the lawsuit on Nov. 30, 2007, alleging
breach of the pre-merger Declaration of Trust, breach of fiduciary
duties (majority oppression of minority shareholders), and breach
of fiduciary duties (self-dealing).  Plaintiffs Stender and
Infinity, along with the other members of the Plaintiff Class,
owned preferred equity interests in a real estate investment trust
that underwent a complicated merger in 2007.  They claim that the
merger was structured to impermissibly eliminate their interests,
causing them about $1 billion in damages.

The appellate case is captioned as Stender, et al. v. Archstone-
Smith, et al., Case No. 17-1332, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

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

   -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of
      appearance are due on October 4, 2017, for Infinity Clark
      Street Operating, LLC and Steven A. Stender; and

   -- Notice of appearance due is on October 4, 2017, for
      Archstone Enterprise, LP, Archstone, Inc., Archstone-Smith
      Mutifamily Series I Trust, Archstone-Smith Operating Trust,
      Archstone-Smith Trust, Avalonbay Communities, Inc.,
      Caroline Brower, Stephen R. Demeritt, ERP Operating Limited
      Partnership, Equity Residential, Ernest A. Gerardi Jr.,
      Ruth Ann M. Gillis, Ned S. Holmes, Robert P. Kogod, Lehman
      Brothers Holdings, Inc., Charles Mueller Jr., Alfred G.
      Neely, James H. Polk III, River Aquisition (MD), LP, River
      Holding, LP, River Trust Aquisition (MD), LLC, Mark
      Schumacher, John C. Schweitzer, R. Scot Sellers, Harold
      Silver, Robert H. Smith and Tishman Speyer Development
      Corporation.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants STEVEN A. STENDER and INFINITY CLARK STREET
OPERATING, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Rick D. Bailey, Esq.
          BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE
          40 Inverness Drive East
          Englewood, CO 80112-0000
          Telephone: (303) 792-5595
          E-mail: rbailey@burgsimpson.com

               - and -

          Maria J. Ciccia, Esq.
          Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: maria@sfclasslaw.com
                  Lee@sfclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas Arthur Doyle, Esq.
          Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
          Mark Richard Miller, Esq.
          Christopher J. Stuart, Esq.
          Edward Anthony Wallace, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 227-1992
          E-mail: tad@wexlerwallace.com
                  kae@wexlerwallace.com
                  mrm@wexlerwallace.com
                  cjs@wtwlaw.com
                  eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  kaw@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS, LLP
          601 California Street, #1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: je@girardgibbs.com
                  dcg@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Renee B. Taylor, Esq.
          BADER & ASSOCIATES
          1873 South Bellaire Street, Suite 1110
          Denver, CO 80222
          Telephone: (303) 534-1700
          E-mail: rtaylor@bader-associates.com

Plaintiff HAROLD SILVER is represented by:

          Thomas Arthur Doyle, Esq.
          Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
          Mark Richard Miller, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 227-1992
          E-mail: tad@wexlerwallace.com
                  kae@wexlerwallace.com
                  mrm@wexlerwallace.com
                  kaw@wexlerwallace.com

Defendants-Appellees ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST, ARCHSTONE-
SMITH TRUST, ERNEST A. GERARDI, JR., RUTH ANN M. GILLIS, NED S.
HOLMES, ROBERT P. KOGOD, JAMES H. POLK, III, JOHN C. SCHWEITZER,
R. SCOT SELLERS, ROBERT H. SMITH, STEPHEN R. DEMERITT, CHARLES
MUELLER, JR., CAROLINE BROWER, MARK SCHUMACHER and ALFRED G. NEELY
are represented by:

          Adam Baker Banks, Esq.
          Justin David D'Aloia, Esq.
          Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Esq.
          Raquel Kellert, Esq.
          Jonathan Polkes, Esq.
          Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Esq.
          Caroline Hickey Zalka, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3301
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000
          E-mail: adam.banks@weil.com
                  justin.daloia@weil.com
                  ashish.gandhi@weil.com
                  raquel.kellert@weil.com
                  jonathan.polkes@weil.com
                  elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
                  caroline.hickeyzalka@weil.com

               - and -

          Melanie A. Conroy, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          101 Federal Street, 34th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 772-8820
          E-mail: melanie.conroy@weil.com

               - and -

          Ralph I. Miller, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 682-7133
          E-mail: ralph.miller@weil.com

Defendants-Appellees ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST, ARCHSTONE-
SMITH TRUST, ERNEST A. GERARDI, JR., RUTH ANN M. GILLIS, NED S.
HOLMES, ROBERT P. KOGOD, JAMES H. POLK, III, JOHN C. SCHWEITZER,
R. SCOT SELLERS, ROBERT H. SMITH, STEPHEN R. DEMERITT, CHARLES
MUELLER, JR., CAROLINE BROWER, MARK SCHUMACHER, ALFRED G. NEELY,
LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC., TISHMAN SPEYER DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, RIVER HOLDING, LP, RIVER TRUST AQUISITION (MD), LLC,
RIVER AQUISITION (MD), LP, ARCHSTONE-SMITH MUTIFAMILY SERIES I
TRUST, ARCHSTONE, INC., AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., ARCHSTONE
ENTERPRISE, LP, ERP OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and EQUITY
RESIDENTIAL are represented by:

          Frederick James Baumann, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
          1200 17th Street, Suite 3000
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 623-9000
          Facsimile: (303) 623-9222
          E-mail: fbaumann@lrrc.com

Defendants-Appellees ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST, ARCHSTONE-
SMITH TRUST, ERNEST A. GERARDI, JR., RUTH ANN M. GILLIS, NED S.
HOLMES, ROBERT P. KOGOD, JAMES H. POLK, III, JOHN C. SCHWEITZER,
R. SCOT SELLERS, ROBERT H. SMITH, STEPHEN R. DEMERITT, CHARLES
MUELLER, JR., CAROLINE BROWER, MARK SCHUMACHER ALFRED G. NEELY,
LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC., and ARCHSTONE-SMITH MUTIFAMILY
SERIES I TRUST are represented by:

          Alex C. Myers, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
          1200 17th Street, Suite 3000
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 623-9000
          E-mail: amyers@lrrc.com

Defendant-Appellee LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC., is represented
by:

          Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3301
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000
          E-mail: elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com

Defendants-Appellees LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC., ARCHSTONE,
INC., AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., ARCHSTONE ENTERPRISE, LP, ERP
OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and EQUITY RESIDENTIAL

          Jonathan Polkes, Esq.
          Caroline Hickey Zalka, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3301
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000
          E-mail: jonathan.polkes@weil.com
                  caroline.hickeyzalka@weil.com

Defendants-Appellees TISHMAN SPEYER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RIVER
HOLDING, LP, RIVER TRUST AQUISITION (MD), LLC, RIVER AQUISITION
(MD), LP, and ARCHSTONE-SMITH MUTIFAMILY SERIES I TRUST are
represented by:

          Leslie A. Eaton, Esq.
          Gregory Szewczyk, Esq.
          Roger P. Thomasch, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1225 17th Street, Suite 2300
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 292-2400
          Facsimile: (303) 296-3956
          E-mail: eaton@ballardspahr.com
                  szewczykg@ballardspahr.com
                  thomasch@ballardspahr.com

Defendant-Appellee ARCHSTONE, INC., is represented by:

          Adam Baker Banks, Esq.
          Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Esq.
          Raquel Kellert, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3301
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000
          E-mail: adam.banks@weil.com
                  ashish.gandhi@weil.com
                  raquel.kellert@weil.com


ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Misonzhnik" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc.  The case is styled as Naomi Misonzhnik, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff
v. ARS National Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05745
(E.D.N.Y., September 29, 2017).

ARS offers accounts receivable management services. It caters to
financial services organizations, banks, and credit card
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Must Face Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that on
September 6, 2017, Judge Andrew J. Guilford of the Central
District of California denied motions to dismiss a putative
securities class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
against Banc of California ("Banc") and its former CEO, Steven
Sugarman.  In re Banc of Cal. Sec. Litig., No. 17-CV-118 (C.D.
Cal. Sept. 6, 2017).  Based largely on a short seller report
published online, the complaint alleged among other things that
defendants omitted information regarding Mr. Sugarman's alleged
financial and business ties to Jason Galanis, an individual who
pled guilty to criminal securities fraud in connection with other
companies.  In denying the motions to dismiss, the Court shed
light on how courts might evaluate claims based on blog posts, an
increasingly common basis for claims in securities cases.

Plaintiffs' complaint relied primarily on an anonymous short
seller blog post on the SeekingAlpha website purporting to reveal
ties between Messrs. Sugarman and Galanis.  Specifically, the
short seller's review of publicly available documents revealed
that Mr. Galanis controlled a company called COR (as well as
various COR affiliates).  Mr. Sugarman was the CEO of COR, and COR
was involved in the recapitalization of Banc.  Plaintiffs alleged,
among other things, that the Banc's proxy materials for a
shareholder vote on the re-election of Mr. Sugarman as director
were misleading because it disclosed that Mr. Sugarman was COR's
CEO but failed to disclose his or COR's ties to Mr. Galanis.
Plaintiffs further alleged that Banc's stock price fell by 29
percent the day after the blog post was published.

The Court rejected each of defendants' arguments for dismissal,
including several based on the import of the short seller report.
With respect to materiality, the Court found that the alleged 29
percent drop in share price following the blog post made it at
least "plausible" that the information in the post was material.
The Court also rejected defendants' argument that the post could
not have been material, i.e., altered the total mix of
information, because the post itself was based on publicly
available information.  According to the Court, that was not
necessarily the case for purposes of a motion to dismiss because
the allegedly omitted information could only be discovered "by
combing through and analyzing hundreds of legal and agency
documents."  The Court also rejected defendants' argument that the
complaint should be dismissed because it was based entirely on the
blog post and plaintiffs lacked personal knowledge, noting that
the blog author later released a list of the documents on which
the post was based.

Finally, the Court rejected defendants' argument that a blog post
based on public information cannot qualify as a corrective
disclosure for purposes of alleging loss causation for the same
reasons defendants' materiality arguments were rejected.  The
Court also distinguished the case from other decisions holding
that analyst's opinions ordinarily cannot serve as a corrective
disclosure, lest every negative analyst report be treated as a
corrective disclosure, on the ground that the blog post was based
on factual conclusions rather than the author's opinions.

As noted, the decision provides insight as to how a court might
evaluate securities fraud claims that are based on short seller
reports. [GN]


BISTRO MARKETPLACE: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Julio Cesar Hernandez and Anselmo Tehuitzil, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bistro
Marketplace 17 Inc., Peter Park and Won Sun Chun, Defendants, Case
No. 5:17-cv-00866, (S.D. N.Y., September 11, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law, "spread-of-hours" and overtime wage orders of the
New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control a restaurant located at
312 W. 34th Street, New York, New York 10018 under the name "Cafe
Bistro," where Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as assistant
sushi preparer and salad preparers. They claim to have worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


BMW NORTH AMERICA: "Caldwell" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert E. Caldwell, Tracy Childress, Saad Ehtisham, David Hofman,
Debra Lenke, April Starlight and Frederick Thomas, and all others
similarly-situated v. BMW North America, LLC, BMW AG, Audi AG,
Audi of America Inc., Audi of America, LLC, Bentley Motors
Limited, Daimler Aktiengesellschaft, Mercedes-Benz US
International, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, Dr.
Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars of North America, Inc.,
Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:17-
cv-07473 (D.N.J., September 26, 2017), seek damages, as well as
injunctive and other equitable relief for Defendants' violations
of the Sherman and Clayton Acts.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants unlawfully agreed to fix
costs, increase prices, and eliminate competition with respect to
key technologies and other aspects of the luxury cars sold or
leased to U.S. consumers under the Audi, BMW, Bentley, Mercedes-
Benz, and Porsche brands ("German Luxury Vehicles").

The Plaintiffs purchased vehicles that are manufactured by the
Defendants.

The Defendants design, develop, manufacture and sell German Luxury
Vehicles that were purchased throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Ellen Relkin, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
      220 Lake Drive East, Suite 210
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
      Tel: (856) 755-1115
      Fax: (212) 344-5461
      E-mail: ERelkin@weitzlux.com


BOTTLING GROUP: Faces "Paredes" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bottling Group,
L.L.C.  The case is styled as Gilberto Paredes, as an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Bottling Group, L.L.C. d.b.a. Pepsi Beverages Company, a limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. BCV-17-102284 (Cal. Super.
Ct., September 29, 2017).
Bottling Group, LLC, doing business as Pepsi Beverages Company,
manufactures, markets, and distributes Pepsi-Cola beverages in the
United States, Canada, Spain, Greece, Russia, Turkey, and
Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   KENNETH H YOON, Esq.
   KENNETH H YOON Law Offices
   624 South Grand Avenue # 2200
   Los Angeles, CA 90017
   Tel: (213) 612-0988
   Email: www.yoonlaw.com


CAREFIRST: Wash. Judge Dismisses OPM Data Breach Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that on Sept. 19,
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of Washington, D.C.,
dismissed two consolidated class actions by more than 21 million
federal employees whose most sensitive personal information was
exposed in four breaches of Office of Personnel Management
databases.  Judge Jackson concluded the federal employees could
not establish their threshold right to sue in federal court
because they had not shown they faced imminent risk of identity
theft, even though nearly two dozen of those named in the class
actions claimed their confidential information has already been
misused.

Constitutional standing for data breach victims has divided courts
in the past several years, as Judge Jackson acknowledged in her
thoughtful, 74-page opinion.  The U.S. Supreme Court, she
predicted, will ultimately have to decide whether the increased
risk of identity theft is enough to give data breach victims a
right to sue.  The law may be headed in that direction, Judge
Jackson said, but it's not there yet.

The judge distinguished the OPM case from a data breach class
action against the health insurer CareFirst.  In August, the
District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that
CareFirst policyholders have a right to sue based simply on the
theft of their social security and credit card numbers because the
theft alone puts them at "a substantial risk of harm." D.C.
Circuit rulings bind Judge Jackson, but she found the OPM
plaintiffs aren't facing the same risk of identity theft as those
in the CareFirst case, even though arguably more of their personal
data was exposed.

The motives of the OPM hackers, the judge said, are not as clear
as the D.C. Circuit assumed in the CareFirst case.  If, as some
investigators have concluded, the Chinese government was
responsible for the OPM breaches, identity theft may not have been
the goal of the hack.

Reasonable minds can differ about Judge Jackson's analysis of how
the D.C. Circuit's CareFirst precedent applies to the OPM cases.
(And, as Law.com was the first to report, plaintiffs in one of the
OPM class actions the judge dismissed took no more than an hour to
file a notice of appeal.) More broadly, data breach victims and
defendants can bicker endlessly about the prongs of a universal
test for standing in these class actions.  Is the most important
factor the kind of data that was stolen? The motive of the thief?
Allegations that the stolen information has already been misused?
Claims that victims have laid out their own money to avert
identity theft?

Ms. Frankel said "Appellate courts have reached a variety of
conclusions about which factor matters most.  And as Judge Jackson
said, it will almost certainly fall to the Supreme Court to
fashion a nationwide test for standing for data breach victims.
I've reported that CareFirst has already told the D.C. Circuit it
intends to file a petition for Supreme Court review of the August
decision.  I don't know, of course, if this will be the case the
justices take, but it seems clear that without Supreme Court help,
lower court judges are going to continue to struggle to figure out
when data breach victims can sue."

"With the litigation rights of scores of millions of consumers and
employees at stake, I'd ordinarily be pushing for the Supreme
Court to grant review and define those rights.  And I do believe
the justices are obliged to provide guidance, whether it's in the
CareFirst case or a subsequent class action.  They'll have no
shortage of opportunities, given the steady flow of corporate
hacks.

"But I'm beginning to think the judicial system isn't the ultimate
solution for the problem of redress for data breach victims.  The
problem is too big -- and that creates ways for defendants to
avoid liability in the courts.  Nearly 22 million federal
employees were left vulnerable in the OPM breaches. Nearly 80
million people saw confidential health and financial records
exposed in a cyberattack on the health insurer Anthem. More than
40 million credit cards were put at risk in a breach at Target,
and more than 50 million at Home Depot.  The recently announced
Equifax breach put personal data from 143 million consumers in the
hands of hackers. And cyberattacks on Yahoo gave hackers access to
identifying information from as many as 500 million accounts.

"We've already seen defendants in data breach class actions argue
that victims cannot trace alleged identity or credit card fraud to
any particular hack.  Those causation arguments, which defendants
have asserted not only to challenge standing but in subsequent
dismissal and class certification motions, are only going to
become more powerful as breaches proliferate.

"Arguing against any single defendant's liability by claiming
widespread security lapses is an exercise only a class action
defense lawyer could love.  But the arguments are legitimate. Even
in class actions, defendants are only supposed to be on the hook
for injuries resulting from their own wrongdoing.  Equifax isn't
liable for identity fraud stemming from the OPM breach.  As
personal information is exposed in overlapping hacks, it will be
more difficult for plaintiffs to attribute injuries to a single
defendant's negligence.

"What about the vast majority of victims whose information has not
yet been misused? They are often offered credit monitoring and, in
data breach class action settlements, a small amount of money for
the time and expense they've devoted to safeguarding their
accounts.  But again, overlapping breaches could benefit
defendants.  Is Equifax, for instance, obliged to compensate
consumers whose accounts are already being monitored under the
Anthem settlement? And is a class action claims process the most
efficient way to assure that people are protected from identity
theft?

"I haven't thought of an alternative that will deliver more
efficient identity theft protection with great fairness and
efficiency than data breach class actions.  In a conversation, a
plaintiffs' lawyer floated the idea of a federally-administered
claims program.  I don't know if more government is the answer for
data breach victims.  But I'm pretty sure that, in the long run,
class actions are not." [GN]


CAVALRY SPV I: Faces "O'Neil" Suit in Western District of Mich
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry SPV I, LLC.
The case is styled as Patrick E. O'Neil and Jenneil Louise Parks,
on behalf of him/herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC and Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00873-GJQ-PJG (W.D. Mich., September
29, 2017).

Defendants are debt collector agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Brian P. Parker, Esq.
   Law Offices of Brian P. Parker, P.C.
   4301 Orchard Lake Rd., Ste. 180-208
   West Bloomfield, MI 48323
   Tel: (248) 342-9583
   Email: brianparker@collectionstopper.com


CINTAS CORPORATION: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages & Damages
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO GARCIA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2, Case No. 5:17-cv-00896 (W.D.
Tex., September 13, 2017), seeks to recover compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Cintas Corporation No. 2 is a foreign for-profit corporation,
doing business in the state of Texas.  Cintas supplies corporate
identity uniform programs, providing entrance and logo mats,
restroom supplies, promotional products, first aid, safety, fire
protection products and services, and industrial carpet and tile
cleaning.  Cintas operates more than 400 facilities in North
America and employs over 30,000 individuals in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COLLECTO INC: "Hodges" Collection Dispute Transferred to D. Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jenni Hodges, Individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Collecto Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00706 (E.D. Cal., April 3, 2017), was transferred
to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on September 12, 2017, under Case 1:17-cv-11722.

Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, costs of litigation
and reasonable attorney's fees and all other relief for violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Defendant contacted Plaintiff on her cellular telephone number in
an effort to collect an alleged debt owed from Plaintiff using an
automatic telephone dialing system for which Plaintiff incurs a
charge for incoming calls. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

Collecto Inc. is represented by:

     David J. Kaminski, Esq.
     CARLSON & MESSER LLP
     5959 W. Century Blvd., Suite 1214
     Los Angeles, CA 90045
     Tel: (310) 242-2200
     Fax: (310) 242-2222
     Email: kaminskd@cmtlaw.com


COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: "Fair" Suit Alleges FLSA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Tacita Fair, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Communications Unlimited, Inc., C.U.
Employment, Inc., Communications Unlimited Contracting Services,
Inc., Communications Unlimited Alabama, Inc. and Martin C. Rocha,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-02391, (E.D. Mo., September 11,
2017), seeks compensatory damages, including for unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest as provided by law, incentive award and
such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Missouri Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants are inter-related, commonly owned and controlled
businesses that perform cable television, phone, and high-speed
data installation services for cable providers in Missouri,
Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
and Washington, D.C. Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from May
2015 to July 2017 as a technician. Defendants classify many of
their technicians as independent contractors and not as employees.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONSOLIDATED RESOURCE: Brotherton Sues Over Unpaid OT Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOE BROTHERTON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. CONSOLIDATED RESOURCE, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-02189 (D.
Colo., September 11, 2017), is brought on behalf of those who
worked for the Defendant and were paid on an hourly basis but no
overtime pay, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

Consolidated Resource LLC is a Nevada limited liability company,
having its principal place of business in Greeley, Colorado.
Consolidated has been operating in the oil and gas industry for
over one hundred years, and provides complete facilities,
pipeline, environmental and roustabout services to the oil and
natural gas industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
          242 Linden Street
          Fort Collins, CO 80524
          Telephone: (970) 214-0562
          Facsimile: (303) 539-9812
          E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com

               - and -

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


EINSTEIN NOAH: Faces "Young" Class Action in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Einstein Noah
Restaurant Group, Inc.  The case is styled as Lawrence Young,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. d/b/a
Einstein Bros Bagels, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05727 (E.D.
N.Y., September 29, 2017).
Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. operates a bagel and coffee
restaurant chain with locations in California and throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EMERALD LAWNS: Refuses to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Arce" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMONDO ARCE AND BERNARD WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and a
class of those similarly situated v. EMERALD LAWNS, LLC, Case No.
1:17-cv-00900 (W.D. Tex., September 13, 2017), alleges that the
Defendant refused to pay certain non-exempt employees overtime as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Emerald Lawns, LLC, provides lawn aerations, lawn fertilizations,
top dressing, tree and shrub care and more.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kell A. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF KELL A. SIMON
          902 East Fifth Street, Suite 207
          Austin, TX 78702
          Telephone: (512) 898-9662
          Facsimile: (512) 368-9144
          E-mail: kell@kellsimonlaw.com


EQT PRODUCTION: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Ruling in Kay Co Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants EQT Corporation, EQT Energy, LLC, EQT Gathering, LLC,
EQT Investment Holdings, LLC, EQT Midstream Partners, LP and EQT
Production Company filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled THE KAY COMPANY, LLC, et al. v. EQT PRODUCTION
COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00151-JPB-JES, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia at
Clarksburg.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 21,
2017, the Hon. John Preston Bailey conditionally certified these
class and sub-classes:

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

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

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as EQT Production Company v. The
Kay Company, LLC, Case No. 17-380, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that response
to petition by Respondents William Cather, James E. Hamric, III
and The Kay Company LLC was due on October 2, 2017.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, a Pennsylvania
corporation; EQT CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation; EQT
ENERGY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; EQT INVESTMENT
HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; EQT
GATHERING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and EQT
MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, are
represented by:

          Nicolle R. Snyder Bagnell, Esq.
          Lucas Liben, Esq.
          REED SMITH, LLP
          225 5th Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 288-3131
          Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
          E-mail: nbagnell@reedsmith.com
                  lliben@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          David K. Hendrickson, Esq.
          HENDRICKSON & LONG PLLC
          214 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 346-5500
          E-mail: daveh@handl.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents THE KAY COMPANY LLC, WILLIAM CATHER,
Trustee of Diana Goff Cather Trusts, and JAMES E. HAMRIC, III, and
All Other Persons and Entities Similarly Situated, are represented
by:

          Michael W. Carey, Esq.
          CAREY SCOTT DOUGLAS & KESSLER, PLLC
          707 Virginia Street, East
          P. O. Box 913
          Charleston, WV 25323-0000
          Telephone: (304) 345-1234
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1105
          E-mail: mwcarey@csdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Marvin Wayne Masters, Esq.
          Richard Allen Monahan, Esq.
          MASTERS LAW FIRM, LC
          181 Summers Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-2177
          Telephone: (304) 342-3106
          E-mail: mwm@themasterslawfirm.com
                  ram@themasterslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas William Pettit, Esq.
          THOMAS W. PETTIT, L.C.
          536 5th Avenue
          Huntington, WV 25708-0000
          Telephone: (304) 544-2948
          E-mail: twpettit@comcast.net


EQUIFAX INC: Majority of Adults Likely to Join Data Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Gronewold, writing for Morning Consult, reports that
after Equifax Inc. disclosed on Sept. 7 that it had suffered a
massive data breach that exposed up to 143 million U.S. consumers'
data, a majority of adults surveyed in a Morning Consult poll say
they would be likely to join a class-action lawsuit against the
credit reporting company if they find that their data had been
compromised.  Many also support additional legislation and rules
to protect against further data breaches.

Equifax has come under fire for the hack, which it discovered July
29, and for the way it has addressed the concerns of worried
customers.  The cyberattack announcement sparked investigations
from the Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission and a
group of 43 state attorneys general, as well as dozens of lawsuits
across the country.

In the Morning Consult poll of 2,203 U.S. adults, conducted Sept.
14-17, 74 percent said that they either strongly or somewhat
backed additional laws and regulations that would protect against
data breaches similar to the one Equifax experienced.  The survey
has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Sixty-nine percent said they would be either very or somewhat
likely to join a class-action lawsuit against the credit rating
agency if they learned that their data had been exposed.  However,
58 percent of those surveyed said they didn't know if their
personal information had been compromised in the cyberattack.

"This is the exact type of situation where class action is the
only type of remedy that makes sense," said Amanda Werner, a
campaign manager for both Americans for Financial Reform and
Public Citizen, in a Sept. 19 phone interview. "[Those at Equifax]
don't see themselves as responsible to us.  They see us as
products they're selling to companies, so they don't have a lot of
incentive to protect data and make things right when there's a
problem like this."

Among survey respondents, Equifax holds a 34-percent favorability
rating -- lower than that of its main rivals, TransUnion (44
percent) and Experian (42 percent), and lower than the general
favorability of credit reporting agencies (43 percent).

But Equifax's troubles could also be dragging down its
competitors.  In the days following Equifax's disclosure of the
breach, the percentage of those who said they had heard something
negative about Experian rose from 5 percent on Sept. 6 to 26
percent as of Sept. 19, according to Morning Consult Brand
Intelligence data.

"Most likely a lot of folks will be avoiding Equifax and going to
their competitors, but I don't know that TransUnion and Experian
will be much better," Ms. Werner said.  "We do need to see some
congressional action.  There's a lot of damage we don't know the
scope of yet that needs to be corrected on the front end, rather
than on the back end with a lawsuit."

Lawmakers from both parties have reacted quickly to the scandal at
Equifax.  The House Energy and Commerce Committee called for
Equifax CEO Richard Smith to testify on Oct. 3, and Senate Finance
Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and ranking member Ron
Wyden (D-Ore.) requested detailed information on the hack and
Equifax's response to it in a Sept. 11 letter.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) began an investigation into the
data breach and the credit reporting industry as a whole, as well
as introducing a bill along with 11 other senators to allow
consumers to freeze their credit for free.

"This is a test for Congress," she said on the Senate floor on
Sept. 19.  Will lawmakers "act quickly to protect American
consumers, or are we going to cave in to firms like Equifax that
have spent millions of dollars lobbying Congress for weaker
rules?" Warren asked.

The breach could pressure politicians to maintain a new rule from
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that would restrict
companies from using mandatory arbitration clauses to prohibit
class-action suits, said Lauren Saunders, an associate director at
the National Consumer Law Center in Washington.  Lawmakers using
the Congressional Review Act can block executive branch
regulations.  The House voted July 25 to block the CFPB's
arbitration rule, and the resolution is currently pending in the
Senate.

"I think a lot of senators are looking at the Equifax scandal and
understanding for the first time that they should not vote to
strip people of their day in court," Ms. Saunders noted in a Sept.
19 phone interview.

When asked to comment on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's position
on the CFPB rule in light of the Equifax cyberattack, spokeswoman
Stacy Day pointed to a previous statement from the organization
that criticized the regulator for ignoring the benefits of
arbitration.

Equifax, which had about $3.1 billion in operating revenue in the
2016 fiscal year, has seen its share price fall by a little over
one-third as of Sept. 20 since it informed the public about the
hack.

Analysts at Deutsche Bank said in a research note on Sept. 18 that
they expect the total impact of the scandal to cost Equifax
approximately $1 billion, including roughly $500 million from
potential class-action lawsuits.

Equifax cannot comment on pending litigation, but it remains
focused on helping consumers to navigate the situation,
Meredith Griffanti, a company spokeswoman, said in a statement to
Morning Consult on Sept. 19.

"We are listening to issues consumers have experienced and their
suggestions, which are helping to further inform our actions as we
continue to improve this process," Ms. Griffanti said. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for Delaware Law Weekly, reports that
Equifax Inc. is facing another proposed class action lawsuit
stemming from the massive data breach that put approximately 143
million consumers' data at risk, after a Delaware man on Sept. 18
sued on behalf of consumers whose personal information had been
compromised.

The consumer class action, filed by Jason Melrath in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware, was yet another in a
string of suits that target Equifax over the breach.  As of
Sept. 18, Delaware Law Weekly affiliate the New York Law Journal
reported, more than 70 class actions had been filed.

But while other suits in Georgia and New York have accused the
credit reporting agency of breaking securities laws, the Delaware
complaint focuses on Equifax's alleged negligence and failure to
protect sensitive consumer information, like Social Security
numbers, birth dates and credit card numbers.

The breakdown, Mr. Melrath said, had placed affected consumers at
a greater risk of identity theft and fraud.

"Equifax's wrongful actions and inactions directly and proximately
caused the theft and dissemination into the public domain of
plaintiff's and the class members' [personally identifiable
information], causing them to suffer, and continue to suffer,
economic damages and other actual harm for which they are entitled
to compensation," Melrath's Dilworth Paxson attorneys wrote in the
20-page complaint, which seeks damages for violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act.

Equifax, which is incorporated in Georgia, publicly revealed the
breach on Sept. 7, more than a week after the company discovered
that hackers had gained access to its U.S.-based servers.  It has
since come under fire from a contingent of state attorneys
general, who have expressed concern over how the company has
treated customers who have sought to safeguard their credit
histories.  The Federal Trade Commission has also said that it
would launch a probe into the matter. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Doss Firm Files Data Breach Class Action in Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated 28 million small business operators in the U.S. face
special risk of suffering multiple damages arising from the latest
Equifax data breach, according to a class-action lawsuit complaint
filed by attorneys with The Doss Firm LLC.  Updates about the
complaint are available online at
www.smallbusinessequifaxclass.com.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the North District of
Georgia/Atlanta division, the class action complaint titled O'Dell
Properties, LLC, O'Dell & O'Neal, P.C., Jellie Donuts, LLC, et.
al. v. Equifax, Inc., alleges that Equifax unduly put small
business operators at risk in terms of the cost of Equifax
business reports, the availability of credit and exposure to
business identity theft, which often is directly linked for small
business owners to their personal credit.

As the complaint notes:  "Unlike consumers who are entitled under
federal law to obtain one free credit report annually, businesses
must pay for their credit reports ($99 from Equifax) . . . Many of
the 143 million individuals whose PII was hacked are also owners
of small businesses that heavily rely on personal and business
credit to operate and provide for families across this country."

Attorney Jason Doss said:  "This is a real double whammy situation
for small business owners whose access to credit can often live or
die in terms of their personal creditworthiness.  The breach could
either damage the business directly through identify theft or it
could cripple access to small business credit by damaging the
'linked' credit of the individual who owns the enterprise."

The complaint notes: ". . . [A]bout 60 percent of small businesses
use loans to finance their operations, and use the loan capital
for a variety of purposes, ranging from maintaining cash flow and
working capital to purchasing equipment and financing real estate
purchases.  The ability of small businesses to obtain loans and
other forms of credit is dependent on the creditworthiness of the
business owner."

For example, the United States Small Business Administration
requires all businesses applying for an SBA loan to submit a
personal financial statement for the business owner as part of the
loan application process.

The plaintiffs named in the complaint include real estate firms, a
law firm, and a consulting firm.

The class-action lawsuit seeks to recover damages (included time
spent monitoring financial accounts for signs of ID theft or other
criminal activities) and legal costs. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Hawaii
-----------------------------------------------------
HawaiiNewsNow reports that the massive breach of personal
information held by Equifax has resulted in Hawaii's first lawsuit
against the company.

Attorneys who filed the class action lawsuit say tens of thousands
of Hawaii residents may have been affected by the breach.

According to Equifax, the Social Security numbers for more than
143 million U.S. citizens were stolen from the company between
mid-May and July.

But the lawsuit says Equifax didn't inform consumers of the breach
until September, jeopardizing the finances of millions.

"With the information the thieves have, they can take out
mortgages, they can open credit accounts, they can hack into a
back account, they can apply for tax refunds," said Ed Chapin, an
attorney who filed the class-action suit.

The company is now offering free ID theft protection and credit
monitoring, but attorneys say that's not enough.

The suit is being handled by a San Diego firm and the local firm
of Bickerton and Dang. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Lacks Adequate Data Security Measures Says "Gallant"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Gallant, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., Case No. 8:17-
cv-02712, (D. Md., September 12, 2017), seeks equitable relief
compelling Equifax to use appropriate cyber security methods and
policies with respect to consumer data collection, storage and
protection, damages, attorneys' fees, costs and litigation
expenses, prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded and such
other and further relief resulting from negligence, unjust
enrichment and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the
Maryland Consumer Protection 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.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

     William H. Murphy III, Esq.
     William H. Murphy Jr., Esq.
     Richard V. Falcon, Esq.
     MURPHY, FALCON & MURPHY
     One South Street, Suite 2300
     Baltimore, MD 21202
     Tel: (410) 951-8744
     Fax: (410) 539-6599
     Email: billy.murphy@murphyfalcon.com
            hassan.murphy@murphyfalcon.com
            richard.falcon@murphyfalcon.com

            - and -

     Robert J. Weltchek, Esq.
     Kristopher A. Mallahan, Esq.
     Nolan J. Weltcheck, Esq.
     Nathan W. Hopkins, Esq.
     Megan E. Burns, Esq.
     WELTCHEK MALLAHAN &WELTCHEK, LLC
     2330 West Joppa Road, Suite 203
     Lutherville, MD 21093
     Tel: (410) 825-5287
     Fax: (410) 825-5277
     Email: rweltchek@wmwlawfirm.com
            kmallahan@wmwlawfirm.com
            nweltchek@wmwlawfirm.com
            nhopkins@wmwlawfirm.com
            mburns@wmwlawfirm.com

            - and -

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

            - and -

     Andrew B. Sacks, Esq.
     John K. Weston, Esq.
     SACKS WESTON DIAMOND LLC
     Suite 1600, 1845 Walnut Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 925-8200
     Email: asacks@sackslaw.com
            jweston@sackslaw.com

            - and -

     Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
     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

            - and -

     Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
     Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
     CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 899-9090
     Fax: (312) 345-1565
     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
     Tel: (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


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Faillace" Suit in Calif. Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
ONDREA FAILLACE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EQUIFAX, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-06721 (C.D.
Cal., September 13, 2017), arises out of the massive data breach
of Equifax which resulted in the exposure of personal information,
including social security numbers of nearly half the country,
being taken by an unauthorized third party.

Although the Defendant knew about the data breach as early as July
29, 2017, it did not disclose the breach to the public until
September 7, 2017, Ms. Faillace states.  As a result, she
contends, she and the Class remained ignorant that their sensitive
information was compromised and were unable to take any actions to
protect themselves for over a month.

Equifax is a Georgia company with headquarters in Atlanta Georgia.
Equifax is one of the three major credit reporting and monitoring
agencies in the United States.  Equifax also provides identity
theft monitoring and protection services, and sells information
about consumer "credit intelligence" to businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          Orin Kurtz, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905-5209
          Facsimile: (212) 905-0508
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
                  jsarnelli@gardylaw.com
                  okurtz@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          Sandra E. Mayerson, Esq.
          David Hartheimer, Esq.
          MAYERSON & HARTHEIMER, PLLC
          845 Third Ave., 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (646) 778-4381
          Facsimile: (501) 423-8672
          E-mail: sandy@mhlaw-ny.com
                  david@mhlaw-ny.com


EQUIFAX INC: "Lynch" Suit Says Personal Data Compromised
--------------------------------------------------------
Reagan Lynch, Alicia Lynch and Amber Hernandez, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Equifax, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-00640, (E.D. Tex., September 11,
2017), seeks equitable relief compelling Equifax to use
appropriate cyber security methods and policies with respect to
consumer data collection, storage and protection.  The lawsuit
further seeks damages, attorneys' fees costs and litigation
expenses, prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded and such
other and further relief for violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices 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:

     L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
     Dean Gresham, Esq.
     Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
     STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
     12720 Hillcrest Road - Suite 1045
     Dallas, TX 75230
     Telephone: (972) 387-4040
     Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
     Email: krogers@stecklerlaw.com
            dean@stecklerlaw.com
            bruce@stecklerlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Belden Files Class Suit Over Hacking Incident
----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW BELDEN, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated California citizens v. EQUIFAX INC., a Georgia
Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-05260-JSC (N.D. Cal., September 11,
2017), arises from one of the most pervasive data breaches in
history.

Preying on the lax online security barriers of Defendant Equifax
Inc., hackers stole personal information from 143 million Equifax
user accounts, including the Equifax records of the Plaintiff,
according to the complaint.

Equifax is a Georgia incorporated company headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax is one of the three major consumer
credit reporting agencies in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
          Alexandra P. Summer, Esq.
          Gwendolyn R. Giblin, Esq.
          Toriana S. Holmes, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          San Francisco Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                  mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
                  asummer@cpmlegal.com
                  ggiblin@cpmlegal.com
                  tholmes@cpmlegal.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Austin" Suit in Penn. Over Hacking Incident
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE E. AUSTIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EQUIFAX, INC., and EQUIFAX CREDIT
INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-04045-LDD (E.D. Pa.,
September 11, 2017), is a consumer class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of those who have had their personal information held by
Equifax unlawfully disclosed to unnamed third parties.

According to Equifax's report dated September 7, 2017, a breach
was discovered on July 29, 2017.  The perpetrators gained access
by "[exploiting] a [...] website application vulnerability" on one
of the company's U.S.-based servers.  The hackers were then able
to retrieve "certain files."

Equifax, Inc., is a Georgia corporation with its principal place
of business located in Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax conducted (and
continues to conduct) business in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., is a
Georgia corporation with its principal place of business located
in Atlanta, Georgia.

Equifax is one of three nationwide credit-reporting companies that
track and rates the financial history of U.S. consumers.  The
credit-reporting companies are supplied with data about loans,
loan payments, credit cards, and any other financial obligation of
a given consumer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jerry R. DeSiderato, Esq.
          DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
          1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 575-7000
          Facsimile: (215) 575-7200
          E-mail: jdesiderato@dilworthlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Fails to Secure Private Info, "Christen" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PEGGY CHRISTEN and JOSEPH T. COUGHLIN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. EQUIFAX INC., Case No. 2:17-
cv-06951 (D.N.J., September 11, 2017), is brought against Equifax
for its alleged failure to secure and safeguard the private
information of approximately 143 million Americans.

On July 29, 2017, Equifax discovered unauthorized access to
databases storing the confidential and private consumer
information of millions of U.S. consumers.  On September 7, 2017,
Equifax publicly announced that due to vulnerability in its
systems, its files were accessed by criminals for at least the
period of mid-May through July of 2017.  The information accessed
includes names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses,
and driver's license numbers, in addition to credit card numbers
for some consumers and other documents containing personal
identity information.

Equifax is a nationwide consumer reporting agency and purveyor of
credit monitoring and identity theft protection services.  Equifax
is a Georgia corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
          Philip A. Tortoreti, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (732) 636-8000
          Facsimile: (732) 726-6686
          E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com
                  ptortoreti@wilentz.com

               - and -

          Andrew Grous, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER
          110 William Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 267-3091
          Facsimile: (212) 267-3828
          E-mail: agrous@wilentz.com

               - and -

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          BARNOW & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Lacks Adequate Data Security Measures, Says "Ostoya"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Ostoya and Samuel Stephenson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., Case
No. 2:17-cv-01550, (N.D. Ala., September 11, 2017), seeks
equitable relief compelling Equifax to use appropriate cyber
security methods and policies with respect to consumer data
collection, storage and protection.  The lawsuit further seeks
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and litigation expenses,
prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded and such other and
further relief resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment and
violation of 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:

     Kevin Sharp, Esq.
     SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
     611 Commerce St., Suite 3100
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Telephone: (615) 434-7001
     Facsimile: (615) 434-7020
     Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com
            amelzer@sanfordheisler.com


EQUIFAX INC: "Martin" Claims Personal Info Compromised
------------------------------------------------------
Sean J. Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01246,
(M.D. Tenn., September 11, 2017), seeks to recover actual and
statutory damages, equitable relief, restitution, reimbursement of
out-of-pocket losses, other compensatory damages, credit
monitoring services with accompanying identity theft insurance,
and injunctive relief including an order requiring Equifax to
improve its data security pursuant to 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.

Plaintiff engaged Equifax in the process of securing a mortgage.
Since the breach, he has spent time monitoring and attempting to
protect his credit and accounts from the improper use of his
personal data obtained by unauthorized third parties as a result
of the Data Breach. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin Sharp, Esq.
     Andrew Melzer, Esq.
     SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
     611 Commerce St., Suite 3100
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Telephone: (615) 434-7001
     Facsimile: (615) 434-7020
     Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com
            amelzer@sanfordheisler.com


EQUIFAX INC: Murphy Sues Over Hacked Personal Data
--------------------------------------------------
Kerri Murphy, Ashley Cashon, Jade Haileselassie, Roy Bishop, Bruce
Mattock, Reesa Ali, Tom W. Hannon and Nancy Gauger, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-05262, (N.D. Cal.,
September 11, 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.  The suit also seeks 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.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
     801 Garden Street, Suite 301
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Tel: (805) 456-1496
     Fax: (805) 456-1497
     Email: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

            - and -

     Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
     Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
     Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
     Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
            dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
            gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
            claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com


EQUIFAX INC: Duran Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages
-------------------------------------------------------
Wendy and Roy Duran, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 8:17-cv-01571, (C.D. Cal., September 11, 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; 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.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian S. Kabateck (152054)
     Natalie S. Pang (305886)
     KABATECK BROWN KELLNER
     644 South Figueroa Street
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Telephone: (213) 217-5000
     Facsimile: (213) 217-5010
     Email: bsk@kbklawyers.com
            np@kbklawyers.com


EQUIFAX INC: Byas Sues for Victims of Data Breach in Mississippi
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEIDRA BYAS and K'ACIA DRUMMER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EQUIFAX, INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-
00130-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., September 12, 2017), alleges that the
Plaintiffs are victims of the data breach and have spent time and
effort monitoring their financial accounts.

On September 7, 2017, Equifax announced for the first time that
from May to July 2017, its database storing the Plaintiffs' credit
and personal identification information had been hacked by
unauthorized third parties, subjecting them to increased risk of
credit harm, misuse and identify theft.

Equifax Inc. is a multi-billion dollar Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia.
Equifax provides credit information services to millions of
businesses, governmental units, and consumers across the globe.
Equifax operates through various subsidiaries including Equifax
Information Services, LLC, and Equifax Consumer Services, LLC, aka
Equifax Personal Solutions aka PSOL.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tanisha M. Gates, Esq.
          Vallrie L. Dorsey, Esq.
          DORSEY & GATES, PLLC
          P.O. Box 158
          Belzoni, MS 39038
          Telephone: (662) 247-2449
          Facsimile: (662) 247-2437
          E-mail: tgates@dorseygates.com
                  vdorsey@dorseygates.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Morris, Esq.
          DANIEL E. MORRIS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          P.O. Box 40811
          Baton Rouge, LA 70835
          Telephone: (888) 966-7747
          Facsimile: (877) 966-7747
          E-mail: danielmorris@demlawfirm.com


EQUIFAX INC: Fails to Safeguard Consumers' PII, Anderson Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EQUIFAX, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-00156-DLB-
CJS (E.D. Ky., September 12, 2017), arises from the Defendant's
alleged failure to secure and safeguard consumers' personally
identifiable information, which Equifax collected from various
sources in connection with the operation of its business as a
consumer credit reporting agency.

Equifax has acknowledged the existence of a cybersecurity incident
potentially impacting approximately 143 million U.S. consumers.

Equifax, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located in Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax is one of three
nationwide credit-reporting companies 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.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex C. Davis, Esq.
          Jasper D. Ward, IV, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          The Pointe
          1205 E. Washington St., Suite 111
          Louisville, KY 40206
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
          E-mail: alex@jonesward.com
                  jasper@jonesward.com

               - and -

          Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
          ABBOTT LAW GROUP
          2929 Plummer Cove Road
          Jacksonville, FL 32223
          Telephone: (904) 292-1111
          Facsimile: (904) 253-5670
          E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com


EQUIFAX INC: Friedman Seeks $14-Bil. in Damages Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Friedman and Russell Acosta, individually and on behalf of
all others v. EQUIFAX, INC. and EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC,
Case No. 1:17-cv-07022 (D.N.J., September 12, 2017), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated consumers for
actual and statutory damages of not less than approximately $14
billion, as well as punitive damages and equitable relief to fully
redress the vast harm Equifax's alleged wrongful acts have
unleashed on U.S. consumers.

On September 7, 2017, Equifax publicly disclosed a massive data
security breach potentially impacting more than 140 million U.S.
consumers -- equivalent to about half of all U.S. adults --
despite having knowledge of the breach as early as July 29, 2017.

Equifax Inc. is a global consumer credit reporting agency
incorporated in Georgia and with its principal place of business
in Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax Information Services LLC operates as
a subsidiary of Equifax Inc., which collects and reports consumer
information to financial institutions.  Equifax Information is
incorporated in Georgia and with its principal place of business
in Atlanta.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          David R. Buchanan, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          550 Broad Street, Suite 920
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          Facsimile: (973) 639-9393
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                  dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
          Christopher Ayers, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: jscullion@seegerweiss.com
                  cayers@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Michael A. Innes, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, PC
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: JCecchi@CarellaByrne.com


EQUIFAX INC: "Salinas" Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Salinas and Michael Ribons, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-05284, (N.D. Cal., September 12,
2017), seeks appropriate injunctive relief designed to ensure
against the recurrence of a data breach by adopting and
implementing the best security data practices to safeguard
customers' financial and personal information and that would
include, without limitation, an order and judgment directing
Equifax to (1) encrypt and protect all data and (2) directing
Equifax to provide to Plaintiffs and Class members extended credit
monitoring services, pre judgment and post-judgment interest,
costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and such other
and further relief resulting from negligence and under the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California Customer
Records 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.

Salinas' and Ribons' personal and confidential information, was
included in the massive data breach of Defendant's systems. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
      Michael H. Pearson, Esq.
      PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
      15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (818) 788-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
      Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
             mpearson@pswlaw.com

             - and -

      Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
      Alexander L. Simon, Esq.
      PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
      San Francisco, CA 94104-4610
      Tel: (415) 433-9000
      Fax: (415 433-9008
      Email: bsimon@pswlaw.com
             bsimon@pswlaw.com

             - and -

      Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
      Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
      Emeryville, CA 94608
      Tel: (415) 421-7100
      Fax: (415) 421-7105
      Email: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
             kbates@schneiderwallace.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Atiles" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc.  The
case is styled as Jose Atiles and Lauren Solin, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax,
Inc. and Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-07493 (S.D. N.Y., September 29, 2017).

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

Equifax Information Services, LLC, is a limited liability company
incorporated under the laws of the state of Georgia with its
principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia and doing
business in the state of Nevada.  Equifax regularly assembles and
evaluates consumer credit information for the purpose of
furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and uses interstate
commerce to prepare and furnish the reports.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Wesley Martin Mullen, Esq.
   Mullen P.C.
   200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700
   New York, NY 00000
   Tel: (646) 632-3718
   Email: wmullen@mullenpc.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Servers Hacked Says "Maloney," Data Breached
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Maloney, Individually, and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals and Howard Stephan, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax
Information Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01238 (E.D.
Wis., September 12, 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.

Plaintiff suffered actual injury in the form of damages to and
diminution in the value of her personal information entrusted to
Equifax. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John D. Blythin, Esq.
      Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
      Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
      3620 East Layton Avenue
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Tel: (414) 482-8000
      Fax: (414) 482-8001
      Email: sademi@ademilaw.com
             jblythin@ademilaw.com
             meldridge@ademilaw.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: McCall Files Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard McCall, Individually, and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals and Howard Stephan, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax
Information Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02372 (D.
Nev., September 11, 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:

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

            - and -

     Matthew I. Knepper, Esq.
     Miles N. Clark, Esq.
     KNEPPER & CLARK LLC
     10040 W. Cheyenne Ave., 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


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Tirelli Files Suit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
LINDA TIRELLI, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, and BROOKE MERINO, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
7:17-cv-06868 (S.D.N.Y., September 11, 2017), challenges the
actions of the Defendant in the protection and safekeeping of the
Plaintiffs' and Class members' personal information.

On July 29, 2017, Equifax discovered that one or more of its
servers, which contained the Plaintiff's sensitive personal
information including the Plaintiff's names, full Social Security
numbers, birth dates, addresses, and, upon belief, their driver's
license numbers and possibly one or more of their credit cards,
had been breached or "hacked" by a still unknown third party.

Equifax Information Services, LLC is a limited liability
corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of Georgia
with its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia,
and doing business in the state of New York.  Equifax is a
"Consumer Reporting Agency" as that term is defined by the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Javier L. Merino, Esq.
          DANNLAW
          1 Meadowlands Plaza, Suite 200
          East Rutherford, NJ 07073
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: jmerino@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
          Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          Facsimile: (312) 899-9090
          E-mail: 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
          Telephone: (702) 880-5554
          Facsimile: (702) 385-5518
          E-mail: 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
          Telephone: (702) 825-6060
          Facsimile: (702) 447-8048
          E-mail: 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
          Telephone: (702) 952-2733
          Facsimile: (702) 462-7227
          E-mail: seanpayne@spaynelaw.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Accused by Bitton of Failing to Secure Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
AVI JOSHUA BITTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:17-cv-06946-PGG (S.D.N.Y.,
September 12, 2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act
arising from their alleged failure to secure and safeguard the
Plaintiff's private information.

On July 29, 2017, Equifax discovered a security breach and
unauthorized access to databases storing the confidential
information of the Plaintiff and other consumers.  On September 7,
2017, Equifax publicly announced that from May to July 2017, its
databases storing the credit and personal information of the
Plaintiff and other consumers were hacked by unauthorized third
parties, subjecting the Plaintiff and other consumers to credit
harm and identify theft.

Equifax Information Services, LLC, is a "consumer reporting
agency" authorized to do business in the state of New York.  The
Company is regularly engaged in the business of assembling,
evaluating and disbursing information concerning consumers for the
purpose of furnishing "consumer reports."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
          166 Mercer St., Suite 3A
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 966-5253
          Facsimile: (866) 288-9194
          E-mail: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Accused by Caplan of Failing to Protect Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID CAPLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v.  EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-
04055-TJS (E.D. Pa., September 12, 2017), challenges the
Defendant's alleged failure in the protection and safekeeping of
the Plaintiff and Class members' personal information.

On July 29, 2017, Equifax discovered that one or more of its
servers, which contained the Plaintiff's sensitive personal
information, including Plaintiff's name, full Social Security
number, birth date, address, and, upon belief, his driver's
license number and possibly one or more of his credit cards, had
been breached or "hacked" by a still unknown third party.

Equifax Information Services, LLC, is a limited liability company
incorporated under the laws of the state of Georgia with its
principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia, doing
business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  Equifax is a
"Consumer Reporting Agency" as that term is defined by the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew B. Sacks, Esq.
          John K. Weston, Esq.
          Jeremy E. Abay, Esq.
          SACKS WESTON DIAMOND, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 925-8200
          Facsimile: (267) 639-5422
          E-mail: asacks@sackslaw.com
                  jweston@sackslaw.com
                  jabay@sackslaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          David H. Krieger, Esq.
          HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC
          8985 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 350
          Henderson, NV 89123
          Telephone: (702) 880-5554
          Facsimile: (702) 385-5518
          E-mail: dkrieger@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
          Telephone: (702) 825-6060
          Facsimile: (702) 447-8048
          E-mail: 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
          Telephone: (702) 952-2733
          Facsimile: (702) 462-7227
          E-mail: seanpayne@spaynelaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: CEO Expected to Take Stand in Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Fiegerman, writing for CNN, reports that Mark Zuckerberg
could soon make a rare appearance on the witness stand.

The CEO of Facebook (FB, Tech30) is set to testify in a Delaware
courtroom on Sept. 19 in response to a lawsuit by Facebook
shareholders over a proposal intended to maintain
Mr. Zuckerberg's iron grip on the company.

The case shines a light on a growing trend in Silicon Valley of
handing unfettered control to founders.  At stake: whether
Facebook remains firmly controlled by Mr. Zuckerberg even as he
sells off shares to fund his philanthropy.

In late 2015, Mr. Zuckerberg and his wife, Dr. Priscilla Chan,
pledged to give away 99% of their Facebook shares to the Chan
Zuckerberg Initiative.  The philanthropic effort is focused on
curing diseases and improving education.  But the arrangement
threatens to weaken Mr. Zuckerberg's control.

Last April, Facebook's board approved a solution that included
issuing a new class of non-voting stock, called Class C.  The move
is effectively a stock split, with all shareholders receiving two
new Class C shares for each A or B share they own.

Mr. Zuckerberg would then be able to sell off more of the non-
voting C shares, while holding onto enough of the A and B shares
with voting rights to keep control over the company he founded.
"I'll be able to keep founder control of Facebook so we can
continue to build for the long term, and Priscilla and I will be
able to give our money to fund important work sooner,"
Mr. Zuckerberg wrote in a post last year.

The proposal was quickly met with a class action lawsuit, which
alleged Facebook's board had breached its fiduciary duties by
"favoring Mr. Zuckerberg's interests" over the interests of
shareholders.

This case is said to mark just the second time Mr. Zuckerberg
testifies as a witness.  He previously testified earlier this year
over a lawsuit against Facebook-owned Oculus -- a case Facebook
lost.

Stuart Grant, the attorney representing the shareholders in the
dispute, didn't mince words.  He suggested Mr. Zuckerberg's
limited courtroom experience puts him at a disadvantage in this
case.

"That gives me an advantage because I've been doing this for 30
plus years," Mr. Grant told CNN Tech.  "If we were sitting down to
do coding together, I'd bet on Mark, but we're not coding."

According to the complaint, Mr. Zuckerberg told the board in
August, 2015 that he was concerned about losing control of
Facebook by donating or selling stock.  This prompted the board to
establish a special committee to review alternative voting
structures.

The committee, staffed by three board members, "appears to have
given Mr. Zuckerberg exactly what he wanted with little to no
thought about the public Class A stockholders," according to the
complaint.

Some of Facebook's high-profile board members, including investor
Marc Andreessen and former White House chief of staff Erskine
Bowles, may also be forced to take the stand in the trial this
month.

A source familiar with the matter said Facebook's legal defense
will stress Mr. Zuckerberg already had control before, but the new
share structure "ties his hands" more.  The reason, as Facebook
explained last year, is the new structure "would be based on
Mark's maintaining an active leadership role at Facebook."

"Facebook is confident that the special committee engaged in a
thorough and fair process to negotiate a proposal in the best
interests of Facebook and its shareholders," a spokesperson for
Facebook said in a statement.

Whatever the outcome of the case, it once again spotlights a
potential clash between public market investors and the tech
industry.

In 2012, Google (GOOGL, Tech30) shareholders approved a similarly
unconventional share structure, which ensured its two founders
could maintain control.  When Snapchat's parent company went
public this year, it gave shareholders no say over how the company
is run.

"It's the view in Silicon Valley that they have a unique approach
to things and that approach needs to be insulated from those of us
who are not as inspired," says Charles Elson, director of the John
L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of
Delaware.

Facebook echoed this thinking in its original announcement about
the new share structure: "This is not a traditional governance
model, but Facebook was not built to be a traditional company."
The danger, according to Elson, is a lack of accountability at the
top.

"It's basically protecting the prerogative of the founder," he
added, "which is not a good idea because everyone needs to be
accountable." [GN]


FLORIDA: FEA Sues Over Age and Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------
FLORIDA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, JENNY CISNEROS, DOROTHY THOMAS-
DUNSON, ANGELA FERREIRA, SHANNEL GORDON, JOY JACKSON, KEYSHA
PINKNEY, and DJUNA ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-00414-RH-CAS (N.D. Fla., September 13, 2017), is an action
for damages, and equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief
brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil
Rights Act of 1992, based on age and black and Hispanic race
discrimination.

Plaintiff Florida Education Association ("FEA") through its
affiliates in all 67 Florida counties represents more than 250,000
teachers and education staff professional in Florida's 67 school
districts, and has over 140,000 members in the State through its
local affiliates.  For over a century, the FEA has been the
leading advocate of raising the quality of education in Florida's
public schools, and of increasing the dignity and status of all
teachers and education staff professionals.

The Individual Plaintiffs are Hispanics and over 40 years of age.
They are classroom teachers in Dade County, Florida, and members
of the FEA, who have been rated "highly effective" as of
October 1, 2015.

Defendant Department of Education, State of Florida, is an agency
of the state of Florida with its principal offices located in
Tallahassee, Florida.  The Other Defendants are the school boards
of different counties in Florida.

The Defendants are STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
SCHOOL BOARD OF ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF BAKER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD
OF BRADFORD COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF BREVARD COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF
CALHOUN COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA
SCHOOL BOARD OF CITRUS COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF CLAY
COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL
BOARD OF COLUMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF DESOTO COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF
DIXIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SCHOOL BOARD OF ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF FLAGLER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL
BOARD OF GADSDEN COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHOOL BOARD OF GILCHRIST COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF GLADES COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF
GULF COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF HAMILTON COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SCHOOL BOARD OF HARDEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF HENDRY
COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF HERNANDO COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL
BOARD OF HIGHLANDS COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF HILLSBOROUGH
COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF HOLMES COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL
BOARD OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF JACKSON
COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL
BOARD OF LAFAYETTE COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF LAKE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF LEON
COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF LEVY COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL
BOARD OF LIBERTY COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF MADISON COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF
MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SCHOOL BOARD OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF NASSAU
COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL
BOARD OF OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF ORANGE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL
BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF PASCO COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF
POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF PUTNAM COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SCHOOL BOARD OF SANTA ROSA COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF
SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF SEMINOLE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD
OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF SUMTER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF SUWANNEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF
TAYLOR COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF UNION COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SCHOOL BOARD OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF WAKULLA
COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF WALTON COUNTY, FLORIDA, SCHOOL
BOARD OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE
FLORIDA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND BLIND, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR
THE FLORIDA VIRTUAL SCHOOL, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEE OF FLORIDA A&M
UNIVERSITY, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY,
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY and THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Davis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. DAVIS
          623 Beard Street
          Tallahassee, FL, 32303
          Telephone: (850) 222-4770
          Facsimile: (850) 222-3119
          E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net

               - and -

          Kent Spriggs, Esq.
          SPRIGGS LAW FIRM
          2007 W Randolph Circle
          Tallahassee, FL 32308
          Telephone: (850) 224-8700
          E-mail: kspriggs@spriggslawfirm.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Faces "Abugeith" Suit in S. Dist. Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flowers Foods, Inc.
The case is styled as Majdi Abugeith and Jimmy Brewer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Flowers Foods, Inc and Flowers Baking Co. of
Houston, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-02934 (S.D. Tex.,
September 29, 2017).

Defendants distribute bakery and snack food products to retail
customers using a centralized network of communication,
distribution and warehousing facilities.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Alfonso Kennard , Jr., Esq.
   KENNARD RICHARD PC
   2603 Augusta Drive
   14th Floor
   Houston, TX 77057
   Tel: (713) 742-0900
   Fax: (713) 742-0951
   Email: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com


GEO GROUP: "Chen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Chao Chen, and all others similarly-situated v. The GEO Group,
Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-05769 (W.D. Wash., September 26, 2017),
seeks to recover wages under the Washington Minimum Wage Act, as
well as other damages allowable under state law for the wages that
the Defendant denied Plaintiff and the class he represents.

Plaintiff Chao Chen resides in Renton, Washington, and was
detained at NWDC in Tacoma, Washington, from October 2014 until
February 2016.  Mr. Chen is a citizen of the People's Republic of
China, but has been a lawful permanent resident of the United
States since the 1980s.

GEO is a for-profit corporation providing correctional, detention,
and community reentry services. GEO's 2016 revenues were over $2
billion, and its stock is publicly traded on the New York Stock
Exchange. Since 2005, GEO has owned and operated NWDC, which is a
1,500 bed immigration detention facility in Tacoma, Washington.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam J. Berger, Esq.
      Lindsay L. Halm, Esq.
      Jamal N. Whitehead, Esq.
      SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
      810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Tel: (206) 622-8000
      Fax: (206) 682-2305
      E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com
              halm@sgb-law.com
              whitehead@sgb-law.com

          - and -

      Andrew Free, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE
      P.O. Box 90568
      Nashville, TN 37209
      Tel: (844) 321-3221
      Fax: (615) 829-8959
      E-mail: andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com

          - and -

      Devin T. Theriot-Orr, Esq.
      SUNBIRD LAW, PLLC
      1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98154-1003
      Tel: (206) 962-5052
      Fax: (206) 681-9663
      E-mail: devin@sunbird.law


GOLDCORP INC: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that on
September 6, 2017, Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the Central
District of California granted in part and denied in part a motion
by defendants to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action
against Goldcorp, Inc., a gold mining company, its former CEO
Charles A. Jeannes, and other current and former officers of
Goldcorp.  Cowan v. Goldcorp, No. 16-CV-6391 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6,
2017).  The complaint asserted that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
misleading investors about pollution levels at one of Goldcorp's
major mines in Mexico.  In denying in part and granting in part
the motion to dismiss, the Court ruled that--with the exception of
a statement by Goldcorp's former CEO--the complaint failed to
adequately allege a materially false or misleading statement,
noting that the complaint relied extensively on allegations raised
in a Reuters article and lacked any corroboration.

Goldcorp is a leading gold producer in North and South America.
The present action relates to allegations concerning pollution
levels at Goldcorp's largest mine--the Penasquito mine--located in
Mexico.  In October 2014, Goldcorp discovered increased
groundwater pollution levels at the mine, which it reported to
Mexican regulators.  Internal company documents showed that
contamination levels continued to increase over the following
months and identified several health, regulatory, and public
relation risks that the company might face.  On August 24, 2016,
Reuters published an article detailing the pollution issues at the
mine, which coincided with a nine percent drop in Goldcorp's share
price.  Goldcorp's share price dropped again in September 2016,
after the mine was blockaded by local residents protesting the
pollution.

In asserting claims for securities fraud under the Exchange Act,
plaintiffs -- relying heavily on the Reuters article -- alleged
that Goldcorp's 2013 through 2015 Annual Reports, as well as
several of their 2014 and 2015 Quarterly Reports, were materially
misleading in that they failed to disclose the sharp increase in
pollution levels at the Penasquito mine, as well as possible
violations of Mexico's environmental laws and regulations.  In
dismissing the complaint, the Court found -- with one exception --
that the complaint failed to identify a material misstatement with
the specificity required by Rule 9(b).  Specifically, the Court
found that the Reuters article raised "significant concerns" as to
whether defendants concealed the extent of the pollution and
possible violations of Mexico's environmental laws and
regulations, but that these concerns were insufficient to plead a
material misstatement or omission absent (1) corroboration by a
confidential witness or expert or (2) reference to specific
Mexican laws and regulations that Goldcorp allegedly violated.
The Court drew a distinction, however, with respect to statements
made by Goldcorp's former CEO at a public forum on September 16,
2014, in which he indicated that "everything [was] going well
operationally" at the mine.  The Court found that the former CEO's
statement was inconsistent both with the Reuters article and
Goldcorp's Form 6K, which indicated that the company knew
groundwater pollution levels at the mine were potentially outside
Mexican environmental standards as of October 2013.  The Court
therefore found that the complaint adequately pled a material
misstatement by the former CEO.

The Court also ruled that plaintiffs' general allegation that
defendants failed to inquire whether the mine was in compliance
with Mexican environmental law after being advised of the risk
through internal company reports was insufficient to plead
scienter.  The Court noted that plaintiffs' allegations were
impermissible group pleading and "[a]lthough the Ninth Circuit has
not definitively addressed whether group pleading may be adequate
in certain instances, courts within the Ninth Circuit have largely
concluded that group pleading is not compatible with the [Reform
Act's] requirements."  Finally, the court found the complaint
failed to plead loss causation, remarking that the complaint
failed to demonstrate a causal connection between any false
statement by defendants and plaintiffs' injury.

This case highlights that plaintiffs must plead a material false
and misleading statement or omission with specificity in order to
satisfy the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) and that
claims based on a news report may not be sufficient if the news
report lacks specificity or the complaint lacks "corroborating
details." [GN]


GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Sweeney Appeals Order in "Friedman" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Pamela Sweeney filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Amy Friedman, et al. v. Guthy-Renker LLC, et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-06009-ODW-AGR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Amy Friedman and Judi Miller brought the class action lawsuit
against the Defendants alleging that the Defendants' line of "WEN"
haircare products caused their hair to fall out.  The parties have
reached a class-wide settlement of all claims.

The appellate case is captioned as Amy Friedman, et al. v. Guthy-
Renker LLC, et al., Case No. 17-56428, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 18, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 16, 2017;

   -- Appellant Pamela Sweeney's opening brief is due on
      December 28, 2017;

   -- Appellees Amy Friedman, Guthy-Renker LLC, Krystal
      Henry-McArthur, Judi Miller, Lisa Rogers and Wen By Chaz
      Dean, Inc.'s answering brief is due on January 29, 2018;
      and

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

Objector-Appellant PAMELA SWEENEY, of Madison, Wisconsin, appears
pro se.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees AMY FRIEDMAN, JUDI MILLER, KRYSTAL HENRY-
MCARTHUR and LISA ROGERS, on behalf of themselves, and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Douglas L. Johnson, Esq.
          Neville Johnson, Esq.
          Jordanna G. Thigpen, Esq.
          JOHNSON AND JOHNSON LLP
          439 N. Canon Drive, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 975-1080
          Facsimile: (310) 975-1095
          E-mail: djohnson@jrllp.com
                  njohnson@jjllplaw.com
                  jthigpen@jjllplaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jaime E. Moss, Esq.
          THE SIZEMORE LAW FIRM PLC
          2101 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite # 3290
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 322-8800
          Facsimile: (310) 322-8811
          E-mail: moss@lenzelawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee GUTHY-RENKER LLC is represented by:

          Jonathan Michael Jackson, Esq.
          David J. Schindler, Esq.
          LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 485-1234
          E-mail: jonathan.jackson@lw.com
                  Edavid.schindler@lw.com

Defendant-Appellee WEN BY CHAZ DEAN, INC., is represented by:

          Michael B. Giaquinto, Esq.
          Barry R. Schirm, Esq.
          HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON AND YOUNG LLP
          445 S Figueroa St., Suite 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 486-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 486-8080
          E-mail: mgiaquinto@hptylaw.com
                  bschirm@hptylaw.com


HEALTH INSURANCE: Violates Securities Laws, Cioe Investments Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CIOE INVESTMENTS INC., Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC., GAVIN D.
SOUTHWELL, and MICHAEL D. HERSHBERGER, Case No. 1:17-cv-05316
(E.D.N.Y., September 11, 2017), is a federal securities class
action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities
other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded securities of Health Insurance Innovations from
August 2, 2017, through September 11, 2017, both dates inclusive.

Health Insurance Innovations operates as a developer, distributor,
and administrator of cloud-based individual health and family
insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States.
The Company is incorporated in Delaware and its principal
executive offices located in Tampa, Florida.

Gavin D. Southwell has been the Company's Chief Executive Officer
throughout the Class Period.  Michael D. Hershberger has been the
Company's Chief Financial Officer throughout the Class Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JEUNESSE LLC: "Aboltin" Suit Transferred to Fla. Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned James J. Aboltin, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Jeunesse, LLC aka Jeunesse
Global, Inc., a Florida limited liability company, Wendy R. Lewis,
an individual, Ogale "Randy" Ray, an individual, Scott A. Lewis,
an individual, Kim Hui, an individual, Jason Caramanis, an
individual, Alex Morton, an individual, John and Jane Does 1-100,
individual natural persons, and ABC Corporations, Companies,
and/or Partnerships 1-20, Case No. CV-16-02574-PHX-SPL, was
transferred on September 13, 2017, from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona to the to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida (Orlando).

The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:17-cv-01624-
GKS-KRS to the proceeding.

The Defendants are accused of operating an inherently fraudulent,
illegal pyramid scheme.  The Plaintiff seeks claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Geoffrey Bray, Esq.
          David Nunzio Ferrucci, Esq.
          Jonathan Scott Batchelor, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          1850 N Central Ave., Suite 1400
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 285-5000
          Facsimile: (602) 285-5100
          E-mail: dbray@dickinsonwright.com
                  dferrucci@dickinsonwright.com
                  jbatchelor@dickinsonwright.com

Defendants Jeunesse LLC, also known as: Jeunesse Global
Incorporated, a Florida limited liability company; Wendy R. Lewis,
an individual; Ogale Ray,named as Ogale "Randy" Ray; an
individual; and Scott A Lewis, an individual, are represented by:

          Alina Cristina Mejer, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          101 Park Ave.
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 808-7800
          Facsimile: (212) 808-7897
          E-mail: jjacobson@kelleydrye.com

               - and -

          Kent S. Brockelman, Esq.
          Shelley Tolman, Esq.
          COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC
          2800 N Central Ave., Suite 1200
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 224-0999
          Facsimile: (602) 224-6020
          E-mail: kbrockelman@cblawyers.com
                  stolman@cblawyers.com

Defendants Kim Hui, an individual, and Jason Caramanis, an
individual, are represented by:

          Daniel D. Maynard, Esq.
          MAYNARD CRONIN ERICKSON CURRAN & REITER PLC
          3200 N Central Ave., Suite 1800
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-2443
          Telephone: (602) 279-8500
          Facsimile: (602) 263-8185
          E-mail: dmaynard@mmcec.com

Defendant Jason Caramanis, an individual, is represented by:

          Chris Wellman, Esq.
          Scott W. Wellman, Esq.
          WELLMAN & WARREN LLP
          24411 Ridge Rte., Suite 200
          Laguna Hills, CA 92653
          Telephone: (949) 580-3737
          Facsimile: (949) 580-3737
          E-mail: cwellman@w-wlaw.com
                  swellman@w-wlaw.com

Defendant Alex Morton, an individual, is represented by:

          David Griffith Eisenstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID G EISENSTEIN PC
          P.O. Box 1202
          Carlsbad, CA 92018
          Telephone: (858) 243-1425
          Facsimile: (760) 730-7903
          E-mail: eisenlegal@gmail.com


JG WENTWORTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Dickens" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Dickens, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. J. G. Wentworth Home Lending LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00642 (E.D. Tex., September 12, 2017), alleges that the Defendant
did not pay the Plaintiff, and similarly situated employees, time-
and-one-half their regular rate of pay for the hours that they
worked over 40 hours a week.

J. G. Wentworth Home Lending LLC is a home mortgage company that
operates throughout the United States.  The Defendant is a
nationally-licensed direct lender that originates Conventional,
FHA, VA, FNMA/FHMLC, and USDA loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
          Southlake, TX 76092-4322
          Telephone: (817) 416-5060
          Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 790-4454
          E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz


KIEKERT AG: Auto Dealers Allege Price-fixing of Auto Latches
------------------------------------------------------------
Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc. d/b/a Landers Toyota, Empire Nissan
of Santa Rosa, LLC, V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd., Lee Pontiac-
Oldsmobile-Gmc Truck, Inc., Panama City Automotive Group, Inc.
d/b/a John Lee Nissan, McGrath Automotive Group, Inc., Green Team
of Clay Center Inc., Lee Auto Malls-Topsham, Inc. d/b/a Lee Toyota
of Topsham, Lee Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc. d/b/a Lee Honda,
Commonwealth Volkswagen, Inc. d/b/a Commonwealth Volkswagen,
Hodges Imported Cars, Inc. d/b/a Hodges Subaru, Patsy Lou
Chevrolet, Inc., Superstore Automotive, Inc., Cannon Nissan of
Jackson, LLC, Hammett Motor Company, Inc., John O'Neil Johnson
Toyota, LLC, Ancona Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Frank Ancona Honda,
Landers McLarty Lee's Summit Mo, LLC d/b/a Lee's Summit Chrysler
Dodge Jeep Ram And d/b/a Lee's Summit Nissan, Archer-Perdue, Inc.
d/b/a/ Archer-Perdue Suzuki, Table Rock Automotive, Inc. d/b/a
Todd Archer Hyundai, Bill Pearce Honda, Reno Dodge Sales, Inc.
d/b/a Don Weir's Reno Dodge, Pitre, Inc. d/b/a/ Pitre Buick Gmc,
Hartley Buick Gmc Truck, Inc., Westfield Dodge City, Inc., John
Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC, Herb Hallman Chevrolet, Inc.,
d/b/a/ Champion Chevrolet, Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc.,
Capitol Dealerships, Inc. d/b/a Capitol Toyota, Landers McLarty
Fayetteville TN, LLC, Central Salt Lake Valley Gmc Enterprises,
LLC d/b/a Salt Lake Valley Buick GMC, Stranger Investments d/b/a
Stephen Wade Toyota, Apex Motor Corporation, Shearer Automotive
Enterprises III, Inc., Ramey Motors, Inc., Thornhill Superstore,
Inc. d/b/a Thornhill Gm Superstore, And Dave Heather Corporation
d/b/a Lakeland Toyota Honda Mazda Subaru, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Kiekert AG and
Kiekert U.S.A., Inc. Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-13005, (E.D.
Mich., September 12, 2017), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and
other relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws and state
antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection, and unjust
enrichment laws.

Kiekert AG and Kiekert U.S.A., Inc. manufacturer and/or supply
side-door latches and latch mini-modules globally and in the
United States. Plaintiffs are automotive dealers/manufacturers who
allege that Defendants engage in a conspiracy to unlawfully fix,
artificially raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig bids
for, and allocate the market and customers in the United States.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
     MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
     1361 E. Big Beaver Road
     Troy, MI 48083
     Telephone: (248) 457-9200
     Email: gmantese@manteselaw.com

            - and -

     Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
     Joel Davidow, Esq.
     Daniel Cohen, Esq.
     Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
     Yifei Li, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     507 C Street, N.E.
     Washington, DC 20002
     Telephone: (202) 789-3960
     Email: jonc@cuneolaw.com
            joel@cuneolaw.com
            danielc@cuneolaw.com
            vicky@cuneolaw.com
            evelyn@cuneolaw.com

            - and -

     Don Barrett, Esq.
     BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
     P.O. Box 927
     404 Court Square
     Lexington, MS 39095
     Telephone: (662) 834-2488
     Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

            - and -

     Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
     LARSON KING, LLP
     2800 Wells Fargo Place
     30 East Seventh Street
     St. Paul, MN 55101
     Telephone: (651) 312-6500
     Email: sraiter@larsonking.com


KITCHENAID: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Faulty Dishwashers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon, writing for Reuters, reports that two California
plaintiffs on Sept. 20 filed a proposed class action lawsuit
against appliance maker KitchenAid, alleging the company's
dishwashers were defectively designed, causing an internal rack to
suddenly and unexpectedly collapse.

In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, James Bodley and Kylie Matson said
dishwashers they purchased in 2012 and 2013 contained a defect in
the upper rack assembly.  They are alleging breach of express and
implied warranties under California consumer protection and unfair
business practice statutes. [GN]


KITE PHARMA: Faces "Axelrod" Suit Over Sale to Gilead Sciences
--------------------------------------------------------------
MERRY AXELROD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KITE PHARMA, INC., ARIE BELLDEGRUN, DAVID BONDERMAN,
FARAH CHAMPSI, IAN CLARK, ROY DOUMANI, FRANZ HUMER, JOSHUA A.
KAZAM, RAN NUSSBAUM, JON PEACOCK, STEVEN B. RUCHEFSKY, OWEN N.
WITTE, GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., and DODGE MERGER SUB, INC., Case No.
2:17-cv-06684 (C.D. Cal., September 11, 2017), alleges that the
Defendants solicit the tendering of stockholder shares in
connection with the sale of the Company to Gilead Sciences, Inc.
("Gilead" or "Parent"), through a recommendation statement that
omits material facts necessary to make the statements therein not
false or misleading.

On August 28, 2017, Kite issued a press release announcing that
they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated August
27, 2017, by which Gilead's wholly-owned subsidiary, Dodgers
Merger Sub, Inc. ("Purchaser"), would commence a tender offer to
acquire all of the outstanding shares of Kite common stock for
$180 per share in cash.

The proposed merger transaction between Kite and Gilead has a
total value of approximately $11.9 billion.

Kite is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
state of Delaware with its principal executive offices located in
Santa Monica, California.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of Kite.

Kite is a developer of engineered cell therapies, which aim to
fight cancer using a patient's own immune cells.  The Company's
most advanced therapy candidate, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-
cel), is currently under priority review by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and the therapy candidate is expected to be the
first to market as a treatment for refractory aggressive non-
Hodgkin lymphoma.

Gilead, a necessary party named for relief purposes, is a company
organized and existing under the laws of Delaware.  Defendant
Purchaser, a necessary party named for relief purposes, is a
Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Gilead.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 291-2420
          Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com


KNAUF GIPS: Descher Files Suit Over Defective Gypsum Drywall
------------------------------------------------------------
GREG & MEREDITH DESCHER, individually, on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. KNAUF GIPS KG; KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN
CO., LTD.; and FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS A-Z, Case No. 1:17-cv-00249-
HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss., September 11, 2017), alleges that the
Defendants negligently manufactured, processed, distributed,
delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed and sold defective gypsum
drywall, which was unreasonably dangerous in its normal use in
that the drywall caused corrosion to HVAC coils and refrigerator
units, certain electrical wiring and plumbing components, and
caused allergic reactions, coughing, sinus and throat infection,
eye irritation, respiratory problems and other health concerns.

Knauf Gips is a German corporation doing business in the state of
Mississippi.  Knauf Gips is a manufacturer of building materials
and systems.  Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd., is a Chinese
corporation with its principal place of business located in
Tianjin, China, and at all times material, conducted business in
the state of Alabama.  The Fictitious Defendants A through Z are
various unidentified individuals and/or entities, presently
unknown to the Plaintiffs.

The Defendants provide building materials and systems to customers
in over 50 countries, including the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen W. Mullins, Esq.
          LUCKEY & MULLINS, PLLC
          Post Office Box 990
          Ocean Springs, MS 39566
          Telephone: (228) 875-3175
          Facsimile: (228) 872-4719
          E-mail: smullins@luckeyandmullins.com

               - and -

          Nicholas Rockforte, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P.
          P.O. Drawer 71
          Plaquemine, LA 70765-0071
          Telephone: (225) 687-6396
          Facsimile: (225) 687-6398
          E-mail: nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com


KONA BREWING: Faces Class Action Over Hawaiian Beer Label
---------------------------------------------------------
Baker & Hostetler LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that
with brand names like Longboard Island Lager, Big Wave Golden Ale,
Fire Rock Pale Ale, Wailua Wheat Ale, Hanalei Island IPA, and
Castaway IPA, it's fairly obvious that Kona Brewing Co., a
subsidiary of Craft Brew Alliance (CBA), is happy to move product
based on a cheery, Hawaiian-island vibe.  But plaintiffs Sara
Cilloni and Simone Zimmer, filing in the Northern District of
California, objected to the labeling and advertising by bringing a
class action against Kona back in March.

Kona beer, they claim -- the Kona beer sold on the U.S. mainland,
specifically -- is not brewed in the Hawaiian Islands; it's
produced in mainland breweries. And this discrepancy inspired them
to pursue a number of charges, including violations of the
California False Advertising Law, the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and the California Unfair Competition Law.

Island Allure

How much influence can implied Hawaiian origin have on the
popularity of a product? Quite a bit, the plaintiffs claim.
Alongside the labeling and advertising that is alleged to appeal
to consumer sentiments inspired by a Hawaiian origin, they cite
Kona's own brewmaster, who once stated that the Hawaiian water
used in the original brews contributed positively to the taste and
the quality of the beer. So much so, in fact, that the company
installed a water treatment system on the mainland to mimic the
original Hawaiian water.

Moreover, the plaintiffs claim, Hawaiian products carry a certain
cache on the mainland; they cite massive purchases of island
products by Whole Foods as proof.  Together these factors lead
them to claim that the net impression of Kona's labeling and
marketing is deceptive and that they were injured by paying a
premium for an attribute that does not exist.

Is Product Origin a State of Mind?

Leading off with the memorable line "Hawaii is a state as well as
a state of mind," the court blocked a motion to dismiss by the
defendant in September 2017.  The motion argued that the
references to Hawaii were nothing more than non-actionable puffery
or were qualified by a clear disclaimer == at best suggestive
marketing on which a reasonable consumer would not rely. CBA also
noted that five brewery locations were referenced on the product
label.

The court responded by noting that for a claim to be actionable, a
statement must be "specific and measurable" and capable of being
proven true or false.  "If the . . . complaint solely alleged
pictures of surfboards and the vague phrase 'Liquid Aloha' on the
beer packaging, the case would end there," the court wrote.

However, it went on to find that the Hawaiian address, the Hawaii
map pinpointing Kona's brewery, and the marketing tag "visit our
brewery and pubs whenever you are in Hawaii" were specific and
measurable claims that could deceive a reasonable consumer.
Additionally, the court noted that the list of brewery locations
on the label was not "an explicit statement that the beer is
brewed and packaged at a particular location."  Moreover, the list
was obscured by packaging -- and a reasonable consumer should not
be expected to open or remove a product from packaging to learn
the truth about the purchase.

The Takeaway

In short, companies should ensure their marketing claims are
substantiated.  If the net impression suggests an implied claim
that cannot be supported, it can only be qualified by language
that is clear, conspicuous and proximate to the potentially
deceptive elements such that a reasonable consumer's net
impression would not be mistaken. [GN]


LANDRY'S INC: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Landry's, Inc. DBA
Landry's Restaurants, Inc. doing business as: Rainforest Cafe. The
case is styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Landry's, Inc. DBA
Landry's Restaurants, Inc. doing business as: Rainforest Cafe,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05691 (E.D. N.Y., September 28, 2017).

Landry's, Inc., is an American, privately owned, multi-brand
dining/hospitality/entertainment/gaming corporation. Headquartered
in Houston, Texas, Landry's, Inc. owns and operates more than 600
restaurant/hotel/casino/entertainment destinations in 37 states
and the District of Columbia. The company also owns and operates
numerous international locations.[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


LAZ PARKING: "Day" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRELL DAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LAZ PARKING LTD, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-01545 (D.
Conn., September 13, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the
Plaintiff arising out of hours worked in his salary-paid assistant
manager position, and for other current and former employees
working in similar positions, who worked more than 40 hours in any
workweek.

LAZ Parking Ltd, LLC, is a domestic Connecticut corporation with
its principal place of business located in Hartford, Connecticut.
LAZ Parking owns, manages, and leases parking facilities in the
United States.  The Company provides facility management services
that include patient and staff parking operating plan, billing,
collections, maintenance, equipment recommendations, way-finding,
and others.  LAZ Parking operates 2,600 locations in 28 states and
338 cities, and has 10,700 employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: Fran@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          C. Andrew Head, Esq.
          Donna L. Johnson, Esq.
          HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
          White Provision, Suite 305
          1170 Howell Mill Road NW
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Telephone: (404) 924-4151
          Facsimile: (404) 796-7338
          E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com
                  djohnson@headlawfirm.com


LEIDOS HEALTH: "Oshikoya" Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Ind.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Ayodeji Oshikoya, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Leidos Health, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00896, (E.D. Va., August 8, 2017), was
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division on September 11, 2017,
under Case No. 1:17-cv-03237.

Plaintiff seeks payment of back wages, including unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Pennsylvania state law. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
     Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
     KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
     3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Tel: (703) 424-7570
     Fax: (703) 591-0167

Leidos Health is represented by:

     Christopher E. Humber, Esq.
     HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
     1900 K Street, NW
     Washington, DC 20006
     Tel: (202) 955-1500
     Fax: (202) 778-2201
     Email: chumber@hunton.com

            - and -

     Zachary Stevens Stinson, Esq.
     OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC (DC)
     1909 K Street, NW, Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20006
     Tel: (202) 887-0855
     Fax: (202) 887-0866


MATCH.COM LLC: Faces "Dephillips" Suit in S.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Match.com, L.L.C.
The case is styled as Joseph Dephillips, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Match.com, L.L.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07428 (S.D. N.Y., September 28, 2017).
Match.com, LLC operates an online dating website.[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


MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Faces Second Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lauren K. Ohnesorge, writing for Triangle Business Journal,
reports that a second shareholder lawsuit has been filed in
federal court over MaxPoint Interactive's pending buyout by
Valassis Communications.

The class action suit, filed by shareholder Anthony Freeborn,
alleges that the Morrisville marketing technology firm violated
Securities and Exchange Commission rules by filing incomplete
statements on its financial projections and valuation.  It also
claims the offer price of $13.86 per MaxPoint (Nasdaq: MXPT) share
is "unfair and inadequate" given the firm's growth trajectory.

Similar allegations were made in another class action suit filed
Sept. 14 by shareholder Robert Berg.

The Sept. 20 suit notes that, as the deal is scheduled to expire
early next month, "it is imperative" that all the information is
disclosed to shareholders "so they can properly determine whether
to tender their shares."

Read: What happens with execs' 'underwater stock options' in
MaxPoint deal

The complaint repeatedly references statements made by MaxPoint
CEO Joe Epperson in recent earnings calls.  Specifically, it
points to Epperson's predictions that the firm will obtain
profitability in 2017 as evidence that the offer price doesn't
fairly value the company.

"The intrinsic value of the Company's common stock is materially
in excess of the amount offered . . . given the Company's
prospects for future growth and earnings," the complaint reads,
adding that the deal "will deny Class members their right to fully
share equitably in the true value of the Company."

The complaint also claims that the company's board "did little to
seek out better proposals from other entities to maximize
stockholder value."

In the suit, Freeborn asks that MaxPoint not close the deal or
take "any steps to consummate the proposed merger" before all the
information is disclosed to stockholders.

In the event the deal does close, the suit asks for damages.

Defendants listed by name in addition to MaxPoint in the Sept. 20
suit are Epperson and directors Kevin Dulsky, Lynnette Frank, Len
Jordan and Augustus Tal.  The suit was filed by attorney Janet
Ward Black of Ward Black Law in Greensboro on behalf of Freeborn.

Black is also listed as lead attorney in Berg's class action suit
against MaxPoint.

MaxPoint went public in 2015 at an IPO price of $11.50.  But its
stock tanked, leading Renaissance Capital to label MaxPoint as the
worst IPO of 2015.

In April 2016, MaxPoint underwent a reverse stock split, described
in a proxy statement as a way to allow MaxPoint to move to the
Nasdaq, where it would have to trade above $4.  Shares would be
split on a one to four ratio, meaning four shares became one share
of MaxPoint stock.

MaxPoint shares were trading on Sept. 20 at $13.85.  Company
executives couldn't be reached to comment on the class action
suits. [GN]


MEDTRONIC PLC: "Akerman" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Shareholders' Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------
MORRIS AKERMAN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. MEDTRONIC PLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-05372 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 13, 2017), seeks to enjoin a vote by shareholders on
Proposal 4 in the Solicitation for the annual meeting of Medtronic
shareholders scheduled for December 8, 2017.

On August 28, 2017, Medtronic furnished its shareholders with the
Solicitation to solicit their proxies for, inter alia, Proposal 4.
Proposal 4 requests that the shareholders "approve the amendment
and restatement of the Medtronic plc 2013 Stock Award and
Incentive Plan (formerly known as the Medtronic, Inc. Stock Award
and Incentive Plan) ("2013 Plan") to increase the authorized
number of shares by 50 million, bringing the total number of
shares available for future grants under the 2013 Plan as of April
28, 2017 to 71,033,122 and the total number of shares reserved for
grant since the adoption of the 2013 Plan to 122,121,596.

Mr. Akerman alleges that Proposal 4 does not comply with the
Securities and Exchange Commission's disclosure requirements for
proxy statements, codified at Item 10(a)(1) of 17 C.F.R. Section
240.14a-101.

Medtronic is a corporation organized under the laws of the
Republic of Ireland.  Medtronic manufactures and sells device-
based medical therapies to hospitals, physicians, clinicians, and
patients worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron L. Brody, Esq.
          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: abrody@ssbny.com
                  mklein@ssbny.com


MEYER LOGISTICS: Faces "Alcala" Suit in Cent. Dist. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meyer Logistics,
Inc.  The case is styled as Tomas Alcala, an individual, on behalf
of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Meyer Logistics, Inc., a Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-07211 (C.D. Cal., September 29, 2017).

Meyer Logistics, Inc. provides logistics services. The Company
offers transportation, warehousing, and inventory management
services. Meyer Logistics serves customers in the State of
Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: December 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., on Sept. 20 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California has
approved the following announcement of a summary notice of
pendency and proposed partial settlement class action that would
benefit purchasers of common stock of Montage Technology Group
Limited (NASDAQ:MONT):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF
CLASS ACTION

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF MONTAGE
TECHNOLOGY GROUP LIMITED ("MONTAGE") BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 TO
FEBRUARY 6, 2014, INCLUSIVE, AND DID NOT SELL SUCH SECURITIES
PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 6, 2014

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, that a
hearing will be held on December 15, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. before the
Honorable Susan Illston, United States District Judge of the
Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom
1 - 17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102 (the "Settlement
Hearing"): (1) to determine whether the Settlement, consisting of
the sum of $7,250,000 (Seven Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand
Dollars) in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) to finally determine whether the
Order and Final Judgment as provided under the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") should be entered,
dismissing the Complaint on the merits and with prejudice, and to
determine whether the release by the Settlement Class of the
Released Persons as set forth in the Stipulation, should be
ordered, along with a permanent injunction barring efforts to
bring any Released Claims extinguished by the Settlement against
any Released Persons; (3) to finally determine whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation for the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable and should be approved by
the Court; (4) to consider the application of Class Counsel on
behalf of themselves for an award of Attorneys' Fees in an amount
not to exceed one-third (33 1/3%) of the Gross Settlement Fund and
an award of expenses of not more than $700,000 (for a total of no
more than $3,116,666.66), and for an Award to Class
Representatives Martin Graham and Plaintiff Shaun Shen ("Class
Representatives") of no more than $20,000 in total; (5) to
consider Settlement Class Members' objections, if any, to the
Settlement, whether submitted previously in writing or presented
orally at the Settlement Hearing by Settlement Class Members (or
by counsel on their behalf); and (6) to rule upon such other
matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

If you purchased Montage common stock between September 25, 2013
and Feburary 6, 2014, inclusive, and did not sell such securities
prior to February 6, 2014, your rights may be affected by the
Settlement of this Action.  If you have not received a copy of the
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by
writing to Montage Technology Group Limited Securities Litigation,
c/o Strategic Claims Services, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 230,
600 North Jackson Street - Suite 3, Media, PA 19063; by calling
the Claims Administrator at 1-866-274-4004; or by visiting the
Claims Administrator's website at www.strategicclaims.net.  If you
are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release no later than November 20, 2017, establishing
that you are entitled to recovery to the Claims Administrator.
Unless you submit a written Request for Exclusion, you will be
bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you
submit a Proof of Claim and Release.  If you desire to be excluded
from the Class, you must submit a Request for Exclusion to the
Claims Administrator, received no later than November 27, 2017, in
the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Settlement of Class Action.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, Class
Counsel's request for an award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, or
request for an Award to Class Representatives must be in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action and received no later than
November 27, 2017, to each of the following:

The Court

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

Class Counsel
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
355 South Grand Avenue,
Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Defense Counsel

O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Seth Aronson, Esq.
400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Class Counsel:

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
Email: info@rosenlegal.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: AUGUST 25, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
[GN]


NCAA: Plaintiff's Lawyers in Dispute Over Fees
----------------------------------------------
Roy Strom, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that first they
disagreed over the merits of the settlement.  Now they're fighting
over who should be paid for it.

A group of prominent plaintiff's lawyers are battling for their
cut of potentially $21 million in legal fees related to a pending
concussion settlement with the National Collegiate Athletic
Association, one of many litigation battles that the governing
body for collegiate sports now faces.

The dispute between Chicago-based Jay Edelson and Steve Berman, a
co-founder of Seattle-based plaintiffs powerhouse Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro, began as a strategy disagreement as late as 2014.
That's when an Edelson client objected to a class action
settlement led by Berman's firm and others that would have the
NCAA create a $70 million medical monitoring program for current
and former college athletes, as well as put $5 million toward
concussion research.  Edelson's objection sought to preserve
personal injury claims on behalf of former student athletes in a
variety of sports, including football.

As part of the settlement, the lead counsel at Hagens Berman and
Joseph Siprut, the founder and managing partner of Chicago's
Siprut P.C., requested $15 million in fees for themselves and
about 10 other firms.  The fee request was made in January with
the firms stating that they had worked 18,000 hours on the case
and reached 4.2 million people to alert them to a preliminary
approval of a settlement in July 2016.

Edelson's firm objected to that amount in a court filing that
takes aim at various aspects of the lead counsels' work and argues
for no more than $8 million in fees to be awarded to Hagens Berman
and Siprut.

The Edelson objection states that the requested fees, which
represent 21 percent of the amount of the settlement, are too
high. It also argues the lead counsels' request takes credit for
$50 million in settlement value that Edelson claims his objector
added when a judge agreed to knock out a "reversion" provision
that would have returned to the NCAA unused money in the
concussion monitoring program.

Berman's firm, which is disputing Edelson's request for $6 million
in fees, argues the reversion provision would not have added
anything close to $50 million in value to the settlement and that
U.S. District Judge John Zee decided to knock it out of the deal
for reasons that had little to do with Edelson's objections.

Edelson's firm had originally sparred with the lead counsels'
tactics in the case by saying they were not providing monetary
benefits for potentially injured college athletes.  Unlike the
National Football League's $1 billion class action settlement with
retired players, which continues to have its own unique issues
ahead of resolution, the NCAA's accord does not provide a fund to
compensate injured athletes.

Fearing the settlement would bar athletes from pursuing personal
injury claims, Edelson objected to create a "carve-out" for those
claims.  His firm, working with Sol Weiss of Philadelphia's Anapol
Weiss, is now leading a series of nearly 50 class action suits on
behalf of athletes who played the same sport at the same school.
For instance, the widow of a former University of Texas football
player is the named plaintiff in a class action on behalf of all
Longhorns football players who played between 1952 to 2010.

In a recent filing, Berman's firm argues that Edelson's firm
should receive fees in the NCAA settlement case that represent a
"pro rata portion" of his fees tied to the issue of arguing for a
personal-injury carve out in the case.  That amount would be
something less than $1.4 million.

Mark Mester -- mark.mester@lw.com -- global chair of the consumer
class action practice at Latham & Watkins in Chicago, is
representing the NCAA in the litigation.  The Indianapolis-based
organization paid nearly $8.2 million to Latham--and another $5.8
million to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom--during 2014-15,
according to the NCAA's most recent federal tax filing.

Former Latham partner Donald Remy, who earned $825,292 from the
nonprofit during fiscal 2014-15, has served as the NCAA's general
counsel since 2011.

A status hearing was scheduled for Sept. 22 in a Chicago federal
court. [GN]


NEULION INC: Daas Sues Over Defective Streaming of Boxing Matches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HASAN DAAS, BRAD GRIER, WESLEY INMAN, MATT LEBOEUF, DAMIAN LUNA,
LLOYD TRUSHEL, MARK WHITE, and DONGSHENG LIU, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. NEULION, INC., and
ZUFFA, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-06944 (S.D.N.Y., September 12, 2017),
is a consumer protection class action lawsuit against the
Defendants arising from their alleged defective live streaming
services rendered in connection with the August 26, 2017 boxing
matches at T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas, Nevada, including the
matches between Floyd Mayweather, Jr., and Conor McGregor.

As a result of the Defendants' server and/or other technical
failures in streaming the Boxing Matches, the Plaintiffs and other
consumers were unable to view the Boxing Matches, or a substantial
portion thereof, the Plaintiffs contend.

NeuLion, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in Plainview, New York.  NeuLion specializes in
digital video broadcasting and live and on demand streaming for
some of the country's biggest brands.  NeuLion provided the
alleged defective live streaming services for the Boxing Matches
for UFC(R) and other global rights holders including Sky Sports
Box Office, ELEVEN SPORTS, and Sky Fan Pass.  NeuLion also managed
the authentication and purchasing of the pay-per-view streaming of
the Boxing Matches.

Defendant Zuffa, LLC, is a limited liability company based in Las
Vegas, Nevada.  Zuffa, which owns UFC.tv, offers sports
promotional services and engages in the promotion of mixed martial
arts.  Zuffa contracted with NeuLion to provide the defective live
streaming services to Plaintiffs and the proposed Classes.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Ave., 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com


NEW KING'S: Faces "Chen" Suit in S.D. of New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New King's Wok
Kitchen, Inc.  The case is styled as Jian Chen, individually and
on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
New King's Wok Kitchen, Inc. doing business as King's Wok and Fang
Lin, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07440 (S.D. N.Y., September 28,
2017).
New King's Wok Kitchen, Inc. is a Chinese restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ge Qu, Esq.
   Hang & Associates, PLLC
   136-18 39th Avenue, #1003
   Flushing, NY 11354
   Tel: (718) 353-8588
   Fax: (718) 353-6288
   Email: gqu1@law.fordham.edu


NORTHERN MARIANAS: Betty Johnson Class Action Settled
-----------------------------------------------------
Bryan Manabat, writing for Variety, reports that the Office of the
Attorney General, the Commonwealth Ports Authority and the
Settlement Fund trustee on Sept. 19 told the federal court that a
settlement agreement has resolved all issues in the Betty Johnson
class action.

In a report filed with the court, Settlement Fund trustee
Joyce C.H. Tang and AG Edward Manibusan recommended that the case
be closed.

Ms. Tang asked the court to issue an order that includes the terms
of the agreement and a final judgment approving the class action
settlement

She said the order should also state that the autonomous agencies
(as defined in the settlement agreement to include CPA) have
withdrawn their motions and requests for any relief in the Johnson
action and any other actions against the fund.

CPA legal counsel Robert T. Torres said the ports authority agreed
that all issues in the case and its motion for writ of mandamus
have been resolved, rendering the motion moot.

For the status hearing scheduled for Sept. 27, 2017, the District
Court for the NMI has ordered the appearance of Gov. Ralph Deleon
Guerrero Torres or, in his absence, Lt. Gov. Victor Borja Hocog,
and Secretary of Finance Larrisa Larson.

A CNMI government retiree, Betty Johnson sued the commonwealth for
failing to pay the amounts it was mandated to pay to the
Retirement Fund since 2005.

In Sept. 2013, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit and the
U.S. court approved a $779 million consent judgment in case the
government does not meet its obligations to the Settlement Fund.

Under the settlement agreement, retirees are entitled to 75
percent of their pension benefits.  With the opening of the Saipan
casino, however, the CNMI government has been appropriating funds
to restore the retirees' 25 percent pension cut. [GN]


NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Brecher" Suit in E. Dist. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group Inc.
The case is styled as Sara Brecher, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Northland Group
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05678 (E.D. N.Y., September 28,
2017).

Northland Group provides accounts receivable management and
collection services to national credit grantors, debt buyers, and
student loan lenders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NYC PASTA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and OT, Flores Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
VICENTE CARRASCO FLORES and VALERIYA MUKHINA, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. NYC PASTA AND RISOTTO CO.
LLC (d/b/a RADICCHIO PASTA AND RISOTTO CO.), SATINDER SHARMA, AJIT
BAINF and DANIEL MONTOYA, Case No. 1:17-cv-06915 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 12, 2017), alleges that at all times relevant to the
complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants without
appropriate minimum wage or overtime compensation.

NYC Pasta and Risotto Co. LLC was a domestic corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the state of New York.  The
Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers,
principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled an Italian
restaurant located at 235 E. 53rd Street, in New York City under
the name Radicchio Pasta and Risotto Co. (now operating at 45
Franklin Street, in Ridgeway, New Jersey).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


OATH INC: Faces "DeJesus" Suit in S. Dist. of New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oath, Inc.  The case
is styled as Ana Jessica DeJesus, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Oath, Inc., a Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07458 (S.D. N.Y., September 29, 2017).

Oath Inc. is an American company that is a fully owned subsidiary
of Verizon Communications' Media and Telematics division, that
will serve as the parent company of its content sub-divisions AOL
and Yahoo!.[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


OS RESTAURANT: Faces "Giampietro" Suit Alleging Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
JANIELLE J. GIAMPIETRO v. OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC, both
Individually and D/B/A OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE, JEFF SCOTT, Case No.
2:17-cv-07069 (D.N.J., September 13, 2017), seeks damages to
redress the alleged injuries the Plaintiff has suffered as a
result of being discriminated against, denied promotion, and
retaliated against by her employer solely due to her sex and
gender.

Ms. Giampietro, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, filed this complaint pursuant to the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the New
Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

OS Restaurant Services, LLC, is a foreign business corporation
duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Florida
and authorized to conduct business in the state of New Jersey.
Jeff Scott is an employee of the Corporate Defendant.

The Defendants own and operate an Outback Steakhouse restaurant in
Wayne, in Passaic County, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caroline H. Miller, Esq.
          DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1601
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 391-4790
          E-mail: caroline@dereksmithlaw.com


OSCAR'S PLUMBING: "Ford" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Ford, Individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Oscar's Plumbing, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00177 (N.D. Tex., September 11, 2017), seeks overtime
compensation for all unpaid hours worked in excess of forty hours
at the rate of one and one half times their regular rates,
including non-discretionary per diem bonuses, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of this action,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant employed Plaintiff as a plumber. He regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek without overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
     Collin Wynne, Esq.
     YOUNG & NEWSOM, P.C.
     1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
     Amarillo, TX 79101
     Tel: (806) 331-1800
     Fax: (806) 398-9095
     Email: jyoung@youngfirm.com
            collin@youngfirm.com


PALERMO BUILDING: "Oliveras" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Oliveras and John Doe, on behalf of himself and Class
Members, Plaintiff, v. Palermo Building Supplies & Equipment
Rentals LLC, Anthony Scalise and Danny [LNU], Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-05351 (E.D.N.Y., September 12, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum
wages due to invalid tip credit, liquidated damages and statutory
penalties and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor
Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Oliveras was hired by Defendants as a driver for Defendants'
construction equipment and materials company located at 100-02
Atlantic Avenue, Ozone Park, NY 11416 until on or about May 2017.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 465-1188


QUALITY DINING: Faces "Cicero" Suit in Eastern District of Penn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quality Dining, Inc.
The case is styled as Cynthia Cicero, on behalf of herself and
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. Quality Dining, Inc.,
Southwest Dining, Inc. and Grayling Corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-04317-JLS (E.D. Penn., September 28, 2017).

Defendants are the nation's largest franchisee restaurant
companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
   WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
   715 Twining Road, Suite 211
   DRESHER, PA 19025
   Tel: (215) 884-2491
   Email: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

      - and -

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

     - and -

   R. Andrew santillo
   WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
   TWINING OFFICE CENTER, SUITE 211
   715 TWINING ROAD
   DRESHER, PA 19025
   Tel: (215) 884-2491
   Fax: (215) 884-2492
   Email: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Holly Rich, Esq.
   LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
   1601 CHERRY STREET
   THREE PARKWAY, SUITE 1400
   PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
   Tel: (267) 402-3068
   Email: hrich@littler.com

      - and -

   Rachel Fendell Satinsky, Esq.
   LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
   1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400
   PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
   Tel: (267) 402-3071
   Fax: (267) 402-3131
   Email: rsatinsky@littler.com


RELAY DELIVERY: Faces "Cruz" Suit in Southern District of NY
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Relay Delivery, Inc.
The case is styled as Eduardo Cruz and Rigoberto Sebastian
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Relay
Delivery, Inc. doing business as: Relay, Alex Blum and Michael
Chevett, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07475 (S.D. N.Y., September
29, 2017).
Relay Delivery provides delivery solutions for restaurants. It
offers software and delivery team. The company was incorporated in
2014 and is based in New York.[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


RGS FINANCIAL: Frank Files Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Frank, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RGS Financial Inc., a Texas Corporation;
and, John and Jane Does Numbers 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-01239, (E.D. Wis., September 12, 2017), seeks statutory
damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees, costs and all other
relief, equitable or legal in nature pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and Texas Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff is alleged to have incurred and defaulted on a credit
card account from BMO Harris Bank, N.A that RGS attempted to
collect. RGS has a collection agency license from the State of
Wisconsin.

RGS allegedly made false threats to take action that cannot
legally be taken and/or that is not intended to be taken as means
to collect or attempt to collect any debt including issuing
misleading statements that his consumer debt may be increased by
the addition of attorney's fees, investigation fees, service fees
or other charges that are not authorized by their agreement. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

     Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
     Francis R. Greene, Esq.
     EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
     20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 739-4200
     Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
     E-Mail: fgreene@edcombs.com
             courtecl@edcombs.com


SAGA PETROLEUM: "Baggett" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cody Baggett, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Saga Petroleum LLC of Colorado, Case No. 7:17-cv-00178
(W.D. Tex., September 12, 2017), is a collective action seeking to
recover the allegedly unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages
owed to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Oilfield
Workers.

Saga Petroleum LLC of Colorado has an office in Midland, Texas.
The Defendant provides oil and gas drilling services throughout
North America, including the state of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
          Southlake, TX 76092-4322
          Telephone: (817) 416-5060
          Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 790-4454
          E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz


SKODA MINOTTI: Faces "Cooney" Suit in Middle District of Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skoda, Minotti Co.,
CPA, a Foreign Profit Corporation. The case is styled as Shelly
Cooney, on her own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Skoda, Minotti Co., CPA, a Foreign
Profit Corporation and Gregory Skoda, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 8:17-cv-02258-VMC-MAP (M.D. Fla., September 28, 2017).

Skoda Minotti is a financial advisory firm with offices in
Cleveland, Westlake and Akron, Ohio and Tampa, Florida.

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


SHEETZ INC: AMs Entitled to Overtime Wages, "Cambridge" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM CAMBRIDGE and MARY PENATZER, Individually and on Behalf of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. SHEETZ, INC., Case No.
1:17-cv-01649-JEJ (M.D. Pa., September 13, 2017), alleges that the
Plaintiffs and other assistant managers are entitled to, inter
alia: (i) all unpaid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of
40 in a workweek, and (ii) all other available compensatory and
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sheetz, Inc., is a corporation, organized and existing under the
laws of Pennsylvania, with its corporate headquarters located in
Altoona, Pennsylvania.

The Company does business under the name Sheetz and operates over
500 retail locations in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Maryland,
Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia.  In 2015, Sheetz was ranked
56th on the Forbes Magazine list of the largest private companies,
with annual sales in excess of $6 billion dollars.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David S. Senoff, Esq.
          Clayton P. Flaherty, Esq.
          ANAPOLWEISS
          One Logan Square
          130 N. 18th Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-1130
          E-mail: dsenoff@anapolweiss.com
                  cflaherty@anapolweiss.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Rebeeca S. Predovan, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
          E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
                  cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
                  droth@hgrlawyers.com
                  rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com


STAPLES INC: Kron Appeals Ruling in "Torczyner" Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Scott Kron filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Neil Torczyner, et al. v. Staples, Inc., Case No.
3:16-cv-02965-JM-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Staples has
agreed to pay $2 million to end the class action alleging that the
Company engaged in deceptive rewards program practices.

The class action alleged that Staples misled consumers with
respect to how (and how many) rewards points will be accrued when
consumers apply coupons to their transactions.  The high value
settlement for the retailer illustrates the importance of having
clear and transparent terms and conditions in place for rewards
programs, and the need to align actual rewards redemption
practices with both the terms as well as general advertising for
the program.

The appellate case is captioned as Neil Torczyner, et al. v.
Staples, Inc., Case No. 17-56427, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 20, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on November 20, 2017;

   -- Appellant Scott Kron's opening brief is due on December 29,
      2017;

   -- Appellees Staples, Inc. and Neil Torczyner's answering
      brief is due on January 29, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee NEIL TORCZYNER, on behalf of himself, and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David Stickney, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793 0070
          Facsimile: (858) 793 0323
          E-mail: davids@blbglaw.com

Objector-Appellant SCOTT KRON is represented by:

          Caroline V. Tucker, Esq.
          TUCKER POLLARD
          2102 Business Center Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 253-5710
          E-mail: ctucker@tuckerpollard.com

Defendant-Appellee STAPLES, INC., is represented by:

          Michelle Doolin, Esq.
          Darcie Tilly, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-1909
          Telephone: (858) 550-6000
          Facsimile: (858) 550-6420
          E-mail: mdoolin@cooley.com
                  dtilly@cooley.com


STONEMOR PARTNERS: "Holcomb-Jones" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marla Holcomb-Jones, Reba Lackey, Steven Joel Partain, Sharon Ann
Rawls, and Pamela Roberts, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. Stonemor Partners L.P.,
Stonemor Operating, LLC and Stonemor GP LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:17-cv-01555, (N.D. Ala., September 12, 2017), seeks regular and
overtime wages earned by them and owed to them for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

StoneMor is in the deathcare industry in the world. It sells
products, real property and services through its 316 cemeteries,
and its more than 100 funeral homes, located in 27 states.
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as a "family counselor"
and/or a "family advisor." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Teri Ryder Mastando, Esq.
      Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
      MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
      301 Washington St., Suite 302
      Huntsville, AL 35801
      Phone: (256) 532-2222
      Fax: (256) 513-7489
      Email: teri@mastandoartrip.com
             artrip@mastandoartrip.com

             - and -

      John A. Wilmer, Esq.
      John A. Wilmer, Esq.
      Walter A. Kelley, Esq.
      WILMER & LEE, P.A.
      100 Washington St., Suite 100
      Huntsville, AL 35801
      Phone: (256) 533-0202
      Fax: (256) 533-0302
      Email: jwilmer@wilmerlee.com
             wkelley@wilmerlee.com


SUBWAY: Sheppard Mullin Attorneys Discuss Settlement Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Guite, Esq. -- rguite@sheppardmullin.com -- and
Abby Meyer, Esq. -- ameyer@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote
that the Seventh Circuit's rejection of a class action settlement
in a case alleging consumer fraud against Subway for allegedly
"shorting" customers of its Footlong sandwiches illustrates the
pitfalls of settlements that provide only injunctive relief and
the perils to plaintiffs who pursue claims for "worthless
benefits."  In Re Subway Footlong Sandwich Mktg. & Sales Practices
Litig., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16260, at *14 (7th Cir. Aug. 25,
2017). The Seventh Circuit recognized: "[a] class action that
'seeks only worthless benefits for the class' and 'yields [only]
fees for class counsel' is 'no better than a racket' and 'should
be dismissed out of hand.' That's an apt description of this
case." Id. (citation omitted).  The court further warned that,
"[n]o class action settlement that yields zero benefits for the
class should be approved[.]" Id. at *11.

Subway was faced with nine putative class actions that were
consolidated into an MDL proceeding in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin. Id. at *4-5. Limited discovery revealed that the claims
had little merit as: (i) Subway had taken steps to ensure that its
Footlongs were in fact 12 inches long; (ii) any discrepancy in
bread length was due to natural and unpreventable variability in
the baking process; and (iii) regardless of bread length,
customers received the same amount of meat, cheese and other
toppings. Id. These facts eliminated any potential for a damages
class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), and, as a result, class
counsel pursued an injunctive relief class under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(2). Id. at *5-6. The parties reached a settlement that was
preliminarily approved by the district court, that certified a
class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and awarded $520,000 in
attorneys' fees to class counsel over an objection. Id. at *8. The
objector appealed. Id.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit rejected the settlement, finding it
was "worthless".  To justify approval of the settlement, the
agreement called for Subway to implement redundant and futile
measures in an attempt to ensure the Footlong sandwiches lived up
to their name. Id. at *7.  The Seventh Circuit explained that
despite these measures, "there's still the same small chance that
Subway will sell a class member a sandwich that is slightly
shorter than advertised." Id. at *13 (emphasis in original). Such
a settlement provides no benefit to the class and, accordingly, no
basis to approve the settlement.

As shown by the Seventh Circuit's decision, providing injunctive
relief that may be deemed illusory is insufficient to support the
settlement of class action litigation.  Pushing forward to a
decision on the merits may be the most cost-efficient strategy.
Alternatively, if a defendant wishes to realize the cost-savings
of early settlement, it must ensure that the settlement provides
actual value to the class and only awards fees to class counsel
commensurate with that value.  Settlements that do not comply may
be disapproved by the district court or, as in this case, reversed
on appeal.  Either result will delay resolution of the suit,
result in increased fees and costs, and return the litigation to
point where settlement talks began.

Apparently undeterred by the Seventh Circuit's admonition, the
plaintiffs in In Re Footlong filed a notice with the district
court advising that they will continue the litigation and present
evidence showing that the injunctive relief obtained provided
value to the class. [GN]


SYNDICATED OFFICE: Faces "Angelakopoulos" Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Syndicated Office
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Evagelia Angelakopoulos,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Syndicated Office Systems, LLC, doing business as:
Central Financial Control, Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-81101-WPD
(S.D. Fla., September 29, 2017).

Syndicated Office Systems, LLC, doing business as Central
Financial Control provides debt collection services to medical and
healthcare sector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John Joseph Robert Skrandel, Esq.
   Jerome F. Skrandel, PL
   300 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite D
   North Palm Beach, FL 33403-5212
   Tel: (561) 863-1605
   Fax: (561) 863-1606
   Email: jfspa@msn.com


TESLA: Faces Class Action Over Appstem Privacy Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Cogan Schneier, writing for The Recorder, reports that customers
hoping to test drive a Tesla may want to think twice before
handing over their license, according to a new class action
lawsuit filed against Elon Musk's car company.

The lawsuit, filed on Sept. 19 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleges the car company coaxes
consumers into handing over personal information without their
consent by scanning that information from their driver's licenses
before test drives.  The suit claims Tesla, along with Experian,
Salesforce and app development firm Appstem, violate various
consumer privacy protection laws by doing so.

The lawsuit was brought by Wayne Skiles, a California man, on
behalf of consumers across the country.

"I think if even a fraction of what we're alleging is deemed true,
it's a breach of the consumers trust in Tesla and [shows] how
their information is being used nefariously," said the plaintiffs
attorney, Abbas Kazerounian, a founding partner at Kazerouni Law
Group.

Requests for comment from Tesla, Experian and Appstem were not
immediately returned.  A Salesforce spokeswoman said in an email
the company does not comment on pending litigation.

In the complaint, Mr. Skiles claimed he visited a Tesla showroom
in Newport Beach, California, in 2015.  After talking with a Tesla
employee, he decided to test drive one of the cars.  The Tesla
employee asked to see his driver's license, which he assumed was
to verify he was legally permitted to drive.  The employee used an
iPad to scan his license, and Mr. Skiles then entered his email
address and phone number upon request, and agreed to the "Test
Drive Agreement" put forth on the device.

The lawsuit alleges the Tesla employee was doing much more than
verifying Mr. Skiles' license with the iPad.  It claims Tesla
uploads information from the magnetic strip of customers' licenses
onto the iPads using an Appstem mobile app, and that information
is then added to Tesla's Salesforce marketing database.  Then, the
complaint alleges, the information is transmitted via the database
to Experian, who then provides a type of credit score based on
that information back to Tesla.  That data is then uses it for
marketing purposes.
The lawsuit claims this scheme violations the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, and estimates the class members could
"number in the several thousands, if not substantially more."

Mr. Skiles is seeking statutory and punitive damages to be
determined at trial under all three laws, meaning damages could
number in the millions. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: NLRB Argues Against Class-Action Waivers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
appearing before a Ninth Circuit panel on Sept. 20, a lawyer for
the federal government's labor watchdog said Uber can't make
drivers give up their rights to participate in class actions
against their employer.

"The opt-out provision in Uber's arbitration agreement does not
rehabilitate what would otherwise under this court's decision in
Morris be an unlawful waiver of an employee's Section 7 rights,"
said National Labor Relations Board attorney Jeffrey Burritt,
referring to the Ninth Circuit's 2016 ruling on the
unenforceability of class action waivers in Ernst & Young v.
Morris.

Mr. Burritt was speaking at a hearing on Uber's consolidated
appeals in four related labor class actions.  Uber wants the
appeals court to dismantle a class of drivers and rule the workers
must resolve their labor disputes through individual arbitration.

Finding that the National Labor Relations Act has historically
deemed arbitration a valid means of resolving disputes, Ninth
Circuit Judge Richard Tallman said he found it "very curious" that
the board now takes a position that is "contrary to decades of
practice."

Mr. Burritt replied that arbitration is not the issue, but rather
agreements that require employees waive their rights to resolve
disputes collectively.

"The board's concern is the ability of employees to retain their
rights to either engage in or refrain from concerted activity at
the time a dispute arises," Mr. Burritt said.

In September 2016, Tallman and two other Ninth Circuit judges
upheld Uber's 2013 and 2014 arbitration agreements as valid,
reversing a federal judge's ruling to the contrary.  But the
ruling only applied to one of four class actions against the ride
hail giant -- Mohamed v. Uber.

"This court already held that Uber's arbitration agreements are
enforceable," Uber attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. told the panel
on Sept. 20.

The latest set of appeals seeks to decertify a class of drivers in
O'Connor v. Uber and reverse denials of motions to compel
arbitration in two other cases -- Yucesoy v. Uber and Del Rio v.
Uber.

Arguing before the same Ninth Circuit panel that validated the
arbitration clauses, Mr. Boutrous reminded the panel that it
already rejected the notion that Uber's arbitration agreements
were "unconscionable."

"For that reason alone, we respectfully submit the class in the
O'Connor case must be decertified," Mr. Boutrous said.

Arguing for the plaintiffs, attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan parroted
the position of the National Labor Relations Board, stressing that
Uber can't make workers give up their rights to pursue collective
legal action against an employer.

"The National Labor Relations Act precludes employers from
preventing employees from engaging in concerted activity, and an
opt-out provision cannot save it from illegality," Ms. Liss-
Riordan said.

Circuit Judge Richard Clifton asked if it would make sense to hold
off issuing a ruling on this appeal until the U.S. Supreme Court
decides three similar cases on the validity of class action
waivers.  The high court is set to hear oral arguments in those
cases -- National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Epic
Systems Corp. v. Lewis, and Ernst & Young v. Morris -- on Oct. 2.

One of those cases -- Ernst & Young v. Morris -- was decided by
the Ninth Circuit in August 2016.  The appeals court held that the
accounting firm could not force its employees to arbitrate their
disputes individually, rather than collectively.

Mr. Burritt said it would be prudent for the Ninth Circuit panel
to wait for the Supreme Court's ruling in those cases before it
decides on Uber's appeal. A decision is expected early next year.

Moving beyond the issue of class waivers, Boutrous also urged the
panel to decertify the class of Uber drivers on separate grounds.
He argued that U.S. District Judge Edward Chen erred in holding
that the drivers' individualized beliefs and intent "were not a
significant factor" in whether they were misclassified as
independent contractors.

Mr. Boutrous argued that directly contradicts the California
Supreme Court's reasoning in the 1989 ruling S.G. Borello & Sons
Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations. Because those individual
factors require separate inquires for each driver, that makes
class certification unfeasible, Mr.  Boutrous argued.

Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta joined Tallman and Clifton on the
panel, which took the arguments under advisement after 70 minutes
of debate. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 9th Cir. Hears Appeal of Arbitration Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cyrus Farivar, writing for Ars Technica, reports that a three-
judge panel at the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to
lean in favor of Uber in a case that could have a profound impact
on the future of employment and gig economy startups.

On Sept. 20, the court heard a consolidated appeal of 11 pending
cases that essentially boil down to the same issue: should drivers
be considered employees? If so, can they sue as part of a class-
action lawsuit? If Uber prevails, drivers will be considered
contractors -- and they won't, as is currently the case, receive
numerous benefits.

When prospective drivers sign up with Uber, they agree to waive
their right to sue in favor of arbitration, a private, quasi-legal
process that generally favors corporations over individuals.

More than a year ago, in a related case, the same panel of judges
ruled in favor of Uber.  In that case, Mohamed v. Uber, the 9th
Circuit concluded that because the labor agreement pushing workers
toward arbitration included an opt-out provision, the deal was OK.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, a Boston-based attorney who has brought
several similar cases against Uber and other startups over this
key labor question, argued on Sept. 20 that the provision that the
drivers signed forcing them into arbitration is unenforceable.
Most of the members of the class in the class-action suit signed
such provisions.  Uber, on the other hand, argued that arbitration
is the proper vehicle to settle disputes, that the plaintiffs
shouldn't be considered a "class," and that its drivers aren't
employees.

"What we have is thousands [in a] wildly disparate group of
people," Theodore Boutrous, the attorney representing Uber, said
during the Sept. 20 hearing.

He urged the 9th Circuit to decertify the 240,000 member class of
drivers in O'Connor v. Uber, the lead case among this grouping of
11 related cases. O'Connor, which was almost settled in 2016, has
been underway since 2013.  If the 9th Circuit rules in Uber's
favor, it would significantly hinder the efforts of drivers suing
the company, as they would lack the heft that a class-action
brings.

Ms. Liss-Riordan and Mr. Boutrous are also facing off in Lawson v.
Grubhub, a separate civil trial underway in San Francisco that
deals with similar employment issues.  That single-plaintiff
trial, currently on a break, is scheduled to resume on October 30.

Of all of the labor-related cases in the industry, O'Connor is
furthest along. Others have either settled or have not yet
progressed far enough.  If Ms. Liss-Riordan is successful, it
could have a massive ripple effect on many Silicon Valley startups
that rely on relatively inexpensive labor.

Since this case began, Uber has countered with Mr. Boutrous (who
represented Apple in its 2016 battle against the Department of
Justice over an iPhone unlocking issue) and his colleagues at
Gibson Dunn, one of the largest corporate law firms in America.
His presence shows just how seriously Uber is taking this issue.

Mr. Boutrous is also the same attorney who successfully argued an
important labor case before the Supreme Court in 2011 (Wal-Mart v.
Dukes), which also revolved around class-action certification. In
that case, the country's highest court found in a 5-4 decision
that a class-action lawsuit brought by a California Wal-Mart
employee who claimed that she had been mistreated had not been
properly certified.

During the Sept. 20 9th Circuit hearing, Mr. Boutrous argued that
existing differences in the precise circumstances of Uber drivers
-- who are free to seek other income through competing apps --
make it such that they can't possibly be considered a unified
class.

"The District Court went through herculean efforts to say those
differences didn't matter," he told the appellate judges.

For her part, Ms. Liss-Riordan argued that her cases presented
"significant issues" that had never been previously considered.
In court filings, she pointed to a 2016 decision made by the
Georgia Supreme Court (Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank) in which a
lead plaintiff who rejected arbitration and then ended up
representing a class was considered to have done so on behalf of
all class members.  But the Georgia Supreme Court is not binding
on a federal appellate court, and the 9th Circuit panel seemed
skeptical during the hearing in San Francisco.

"The argument is more than a little novel," Circuit Judge Richard
Clifton told Ms. Liss-Riordan.

Complicating matters further is the fact that the Supreme Court is
set this month to hear oral arguments in Ernst & Young v. Morris,
yet another case involving arbitration in labor contracts.  The
9th Circuit, when it heard the case in 2016, found that Ernst &
Young's employment contract, which required arbitration instead of
allowing employees to sue in case of a dispute, violated the
National Labor Relations Act.

Uber, for its part, argues that this federal law is immaterial, as
it only applies to employees, and the company doesn't consider
drivers to be employees anyway. [GN]


UNIFIRST CORP: "Dives" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
MARC A. DIVES, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNIFIRST CORPORATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-00294 (S.D.
Tex., September 13, 2017), is brought on behalf of all current and
former employees of UniFirst, who were paid a salary plus
commissions, but no overtime during the past three years, to
recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs, pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

UniFirst Corporation is a Massachusetts corporation.  UniFirst is
a multi-national corporation that operates over 240 facilities in
the United States, Canada and Europe, and annually earns over one
billion dollars in revenues.  UniFirst is one of the largest
providers of "image enhancing" uniforms and work apparel for
businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VERSO CORPORATION: "Bailey" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Clifford Bailey, James Spencer, and all others similarly-situated,
and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,
Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO-CLC v. Verso Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-00332 (S.D.
Ohio, September 26, 2017), is brought against the Defendant to
enforce collectively-bargained retiree life insurance coverage and
death benefits promises under the Labor-Management Relations Act
and Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiffs represent the Wickliffe mill employees who retire
under the collectively-bargained pension plan under which,
beginning at retirement, they will receive lifetime company-paid
life insurance coverage.

Verso Corporation is a producer of printing papers, specialty
papers, and pulp. Verso's principal place of business and
headquarters is in Miamisburg, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Stuart M. Israel, Esq.
      John G. Adam, Esq.
      LEGGHIO & ISRAEL, P.C.
      306 South Washington, Suite 600
      Royal Oak, MI 48067
      Tel: (248) 398-5900
      E-mail: israel@legghioisrael.com
              jga@legghioisrael.com

          - and -

      David M. Cook, Esq.
      COOK & LOGOTHETIS, LLC
      30 Garfield Place, Suite 540
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Tel: (513) 287-6980
      E-mail: dcook@econjustice.com

          - and -

      Maneesh Sharma, Esq.
      United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
      Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
      Allied Industrial and Service Workers
      International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC
      60 Boulevard of the Allies, Suite 807
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 562-2531
      E-mail: msharma@usw.org


WELLS FARGO: Defends Efforts to Restore Trust After Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Gurdus, writing for CNBC.com, reports that a Wells Fargo
spokesperson defended the bank's efforts to restore trust on Sept.
19, emphasizing an internal checklist meant to address former
malpractices.

The response came after Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) reiterated
her criticism of the bank's improper sales procedures and called
on the Federal Reserve to remove Wells Fargo's board of directors.

"Wells Fargo's Board and management team have taken many actions
in response to retail sales practices issues, including changes in
senior leadership, eliminating product sales goals for retail
bankers as well as numerous steps to make things right with any
customer affected by unacceptable sales practices," the
spokesperson wrote in an email to CNBC.  "That work -- including a
$142 million class action settlement -- continues and remains a
core part of our efforts to build a better Wells Fargo for the
future."

The checklist, referred to as a "Progress Report," cites the
various reforms Wells Fargo has made or plans to make to restore
trust with customers, shareholders and employees.

Already-completed items include electing Tim Sloan as the bank's
CEO, terminating managers connected to the improper sales
practices, refunding afflicted customers, getting rid of lofty
sales goals, raising the minimum wage for U.S.-based employees and
boosting ethics standards, according to Wells Fargo.

Initiatives still in progress include increasing oversight at
community branches, reforming hiring processes and notifying
customers of the class-action settlement and the bank's commitment
to preventing further malpractices.

The bank also vows to remediate over $80 million to customers
affected by problems with the bank's auto Collateral Protection
Insurance.

The final item on the checklist reads, "[Begin] the roll out of
transformational changes to processes, coaching and customer
interaction within the Community Bank to take customer and team
member experience to a new level."

On Sept. 20, credit rating agency DBRS downgraded Wells Fargo from
AA to AA (low) because of its fake-account scandal. In August, an
independent investigation found that Wells Fargo employees had
opened nearly double the number of unauthorized accounts as the
bank had originally stated. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Yellen Says Fake Account Scandal Unacceptable
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Cox, writing for CNBC.com, reports that Federal Reserve Chair
Janet Yellen blasted Wells Fargo for the bank's fake-account
scandal, though she stopped short of what actions the central bank
may take.

Responding to a question at her quarterly news conference,
Ms. Yellen called Wells Fargo's actions "egregious and
unacceptable."

The bank has been under fire for the past year after it admitted
that thousands of employees enrolled customers in programs without
their knowledge or consent.  The workers were attempting to meet
aggressive sales goals that have since been abandoned. Wells Fargo
has admitted that about 3.5 million accounts were affected.

The Fed chair herself has come under some fire, with Sen.
Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., calling for Ms. Yellen to dismiss all
the Wells Fargo board members in place when the scandal took
place.

"We take our supervision responsibilities very seriously,"
Ms. Yellen said.  "We are attempting to understand what the root
causes of some of those problems are and to address them."

However, she stopped short of saying what regulatory actions the
Fed might take.

"I'm not able to discuss confidential supervisory information, and
not yet able to tell you what actions we may take," she said,
promising only "to make sure that the right set of controls are in
place" at Wells Fargo.

The bank paid a $185 million settlement last year with multiple
authorities, then added another $142 million earlier this year to
settle a class-action suit.  In addition, Wells Fargo has admitted
that customers were enrolled in auto insurance programs that they
didn't need.

Wells Fargo said in response to Ms. Yellen's comments that its
"Board and management team have taken many actions in response to
retail sales practices issues, including changes in senior
leadership, eliminating product sales goals for retail bankers as
well as numerous steps to make things right with any customer
affected by unacceptable sales practices.  That work -- including
a $142 million class action settlement -- continues and remains a
core part of our efforts to build a better Wells Fargo for the
future." [GN]


WORLD MARKETING: "Carroll" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Carroll, Ralph Ford and Roy S. Addis IV, and all others
similarly-situated v. World Marketing Holdings, LLC and Blue
Streak Holdings, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01309 (E.D. Wis., September
26, 2017), seeks to recover 60 days' worth of unpaid wages and
benefits pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

The Plaintiffs worked at the Defendants' facilities in Illinois,
Texas and Georgia.

World Marketing Holdings, LLC operates as a holding company.  The
Defendant, through its subsidiaries, specializes in developing
integrated direct marketing programs. Its principal place of
business is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Blue Streak Holdings, LLC was the sole managing member of WM
Holdings. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Frederick Perillo, Esq.
      THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
      310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100 MW
      Milwaukee, WI 53203
      Tel: (414) 271-4500
      Fax: (414) 271-6308

          - and -

      Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
      M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
      THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.
      210 S. Washington Avenue
      Mobile, AL 36602
      Tel: (251) 433-8100
      Fax: (251) 433-8181


YUM BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Collection of "Pop Tax"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the
parent company of fast food chain KFC and other international fast
food brands has become the latest to catch legal heat for
allegedly improperly collecting Cook County's so-called "pop tax."

On Sept. 15, attorneys with the Zimmerman Law Offices, of Chicago,
filed in Cook County Circuit Court yet another class action
lawsuit over the collection of the county tax, this time on behalf
of named plaintiffs Guadalupe Zavala Jr. and Christopher Christian
against Yum Brands.

The lawsuit alleges a KFC restaurant in Franklin Park improperly
included Cook County's sweetened beverage tax in the subtotal of
the plaintiffs overall food purchases, meaning the restaurant made
the plaintiffs pay sales tax on the beverage tax, which is not
allowed under the law.

The lawsuit alleges this resulted in Zavala being charged 4 cents
too much, and Mr. Christian being made to pay 2 cents too much.
The lawsuit alleges a store manager told Christian the store could
not give him a cash refund for the overcharge.

The complaint alleges the overcharge is the result of improper
programming in Yum Brands' "point of sale" software in registers
in all of its Cook County KFC restaurants.  The complaint asked
the court to expand the action to include a class of additional
plaintiffs potentially including everyone who bought a beverage at
a KFC restaurant in Cook County since the sweetened beverage
ordinance took effect on Aug. 1.

The complaint estimates there are more than 30 KFC restaurants in
Cook County.

The lawsuit asks the court to order Yum Brands to change its point
of sale software to correctly assess the tax, and asks the court
to award actual damages and attorney fees.

The lawsuit is the fifth such class action brought by the
Zimmerman firm in Cook County court over the collection of the
sweetened beverage tax.

A regular filer of a variety of class action complaints in Cook
County and other jurisdictions, the Zimmerman attorneys have
already filed similar lawsuits against 7-Eleven, Subway,
Jewel-Osco and PepsiCo.

The Cook County sweetened beverage tax forces anyone buying soda
and a wide variety of other beverages at supermarkets, convenience
stores and restaurants to pay a penny per ounce of beverage.  The
tax has been controversial since Cook County Board President Toni
Preckwinkle, a Democrat, broke a tie vote to approve the ordinance
creating the tax.

A survey conducted Sept. 19 by polling group We Ask America
indicated the tax is widely unpopular, with 86 percent of survey
respondents believing the county should repeal the tax.  Further,
78 percent of respondents said they were less likely to support a
Cook County Board commissioner who voted to approve the tax.

The poll of 1,056 registered voters has a margin of error of 3
percent.

Retailers have also reported sales decreases of 20-40 percent or
more since the tax was enacted.

Supporters of the tax say it would bring in about $200 million per
year to help the financially-struggling county government maintain
services, and would help reduce obesity and other public health
concerns in the county by reducing consumption of soda pop and
other sweetened beverages.

Opponents of the tax, however, have said the levy would add a
large burden to the grocery expenses of ordinary families, and
would hit retailers in the county hard, as county residents would
simply go outside Cook County to buy the beverages they had
purchased at Cook County supermarkets and convenience stores.
Further, they said the manner in which the tax ordinance was
crafted would lead to legal headaches for retailers, who would
need to invest large amounts in reconfiguring their register
systems to account for the tax, while opening retailers to
lawsuits.

In rejecting a legal challenge to the tax earlier in late July,
Cook County Circuit Judge Daniel Kubasiak had brushed aside those
lawsuit concerns, agreeing with the county's position that such
worries were "merely speculation."

Since the tax took effect, however, the Zimmerman firm and other
plaintiffs lawyers have brought a number of class action lawsuits
against retailers, restaurants and vendors. Other lawsuits were
brought against Walgreens, McDonald's and Circle K. [GN]


ZECO EQUIPMENT: "Fenning" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fenning, Jr., on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Zeco Equipment, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00187, (D.N.D., September 12, 2017),
seeks overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
North Dakota state law.

Zeco Equipment, LLC is an oilfield services company that provides
solids and pressure control services to its clients in the
drilling and pipeline industries. Fenning worked for Defendant as
a solids control technician from June 2014 to October 2015 in
multiple states, including North Dakota and Wyoming. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Neuman, Esq.
      SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      5612 Chaucer Drive
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (281) 885-8630
      Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
      Email: jneuman@smnlawfirm.com


* Akin Gump Discusses Five Developing Issues in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
wrote that class action litigation is a rapidly developing area of
the law.  Here are the top five trends to keep an eye on as we
approach the new year:

1. Standing to Pursue Statutory Claims
In June 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), that "Article III standing
requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory
violation," clarifying that Congress' enactment of a statutory
right, by itself, is not necessarily enough to confer standing.
Under Spokeo, the allegation of "a bare procedural violation,
divorced from any concrete harm" is insufficient to establish
standing.

Seizing on the Spokeo decision, defendants -- particularly in
class actions -- have attacked the standing of plaintiffs pursuing
claims under federal statutes, such as the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA), Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA),
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).  These challenges have resulted in hundreds
of judicial decisions by federal courts around the country.

While the decisions have varied widely, some trends have emerged.
For example, while a growing majority of courts have found
standing in TCPA and FDCPA cases, courts are about evenly split in
FCRA cases, and a majority of courts have found no standing in
FACTA cases.  Many courts have reached opposite conclusions
despite being confronted with indistinguishable facts. We expect
that it may take years for the law to crystallize on these issues
as the judicial decisions work their way up through circuit courts
and perhaps back to the Supreme Court.

For additional information on standing to pursue statutory claims,
please see:

9th Circuit Clarifies Standard For Article III Standing Based On
Statutory Violations

Defeating Class Actions: When to Target Plaintiffs' Standing
Claims and Damages Models

2. Ascertainability Requirement
For a class to be certified, the class definition must provide
objective criteria for determining whether a particular individual
is a member of the proposed class.  This requirement is referred
to as "ascertainability."  While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 does not expressly refer to ascertainability, most courts have
held that the ascertainability requirement is implicit in Rule 23.

Courts differ, however, as to what a plaintiff must show at the
class certification stage to satisfy the ascertainability
requirement.  The 3rd Circuit and some lower courts have held
class action plaintiffs to a "heightened ascertainability"
standard by requiring that, in addition to defining the outer
boundaries of a class using objective criteria, there must also be
an "administratively feasible" method to identify class members.
See, e.g., Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300, 305-07 (3d Cir.
2013). By contrast, the 2nd, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Circuits, and
the majority of lower courts have held that there is no
"heightened ascertainability" requirement in those jurisdictions.
See, e.g., Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC, v. Medtox Sci., Inc., 821
F.3d 992, 995-96 (8th Cir. 2016); Rikos v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
799 F.3d 497, 525 (6th Cir. 2015); Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC,
795 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2015). The Supreme Court has not
addressed this issue, but many court watchers expect that to
change in the near future.

3. Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017
Currently gaining traction in the Senate is the Fairness in Class
Action Litigation Act of 2017, which passed the U.S. House of
Representatives on March 9 by a vote of 220-201.  The bill would
make a number of changes to class action requirements and
procedures, many of which would serve to benefit defendants and
impose additional requirements and risks for class counsel.  For
example:

The bill would require, for class certification, that each member
of the proposed class must have suffered the same "type and scope"
of injury (which would effectively eliminate classes containing
uninjured members), and would impose an "administrative
feasibility" requirement (which, as discussed above, many courts
have found is not required for certification under Rule 23).

The bill would impose an automatic stay of discovery pending a
motion to transfer or motion to strike class allegations, reducing
costs and burdens on defendants in the early stages of litigation,
and would also create a right to immediately appeal from class
certification orders (which currently lies in the discretion of
appellate courts and is often denied).

On top of these changes, the bill would put additional pressure on
plaintiffs' attorneys by requiring that attorney's fees be
calculated based on the actual class recovery, requiring class
action complaints to disclose any relationships and potential
conflicts of interest between proposed class representatives and
their class counsel, and creating new disclosure requirements
relating to class settlements and third-party funding.

It remains to be seen what will happen to the bill in the Senate.
Many commentators believe that changes to the bill are likely.

4. CFPB's Prohibition of Consumer Arbitration Agreements
On July 10, 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
issued a new rule prohibiting banks and credit card companies from
including class action waivers in their arbitration agreements
with consumers.  Without such waivers, consumers are able to
consolidate their cases into class actions, provided that they are
able to meet other legal requirements for filing class actions.

In addition to prohibiting class action waivers in arbitration
agreements, the rule imposes significant reporting requirements on
banks and credit card companies that choose to continue using
arbitration agreements.  Companies are required to provide records
to the CFPB regarding their arbitrations, including claims sought,
counterclaims raised, other filings and final awards that are
issued.  The CFPB intends to post these materials (after redacting
consumers' personal information) on its website beginning in July
2019.

The new rule has received widespread criticism, with opponents
arguing that the rule is anti-consumer and anti-business, and
promotes frivolous litigation.  Congress can, and likely will,
take action to nullify the new rule before it goes into effect
next year, which would also prohibit the CFPB from attempting to
enact any similar type of rule in the future.  Even if Congress
does not act, substantial political and legal challenges threaten
to undercut the power of the CFPB, and of its Director, Richard
Cordray, in particular.  Cordray has vigorously defended the rule,
since speculation has grown that he plans to run for governor of
Ohio in 2018.

5. Mooting Class Actions Through Unaccepted Offers of Judgment
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), the Supreme
Court held that, prior to certification of a class, an unaccepted
offer of judgment in full satisfaction of the named plaintiff's
claims does not moot the case. Quoting Justice Kagan's dissenting
opinion in an earlier case, the Court reasoned that "[a]n
unaccepted settlement offer -- like any unaccepted contract offer
-- is a legal nullity, with no operative effect." However, the
Court expressly left open the possibility that the result may be
different where a defendant deposits the full amount of the
plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the
plaintiff and the district court then enters judgment for the
plaintiff in that amount.

Since the Gomez decision, several defendants have attempted to
defeat putative class action cases by following the Supreme
Court's suggestion.  These efforts have been unsuccessful.  In
Chen v. Allstate Inc. Co., 819 F. 3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2016), the 9th
Circuit held that depositing funds into an escrow account payable
to the plaintiff, followed by entry of judgment for the plaintiff,
was ineffective to moot the case.  The court reasoned that placing
the funds in an escrow account is not the same as actual receipt
of funds by the plaintiff and that it would be inappropriate to
enter judgment before the plaintiff had a fair opportunity to move
for class certification.  The 7th Circuit reached a similar
holding in Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F. 3d 541 (7th
Cir. 2017).

However, courts have recognized that an unaccepted settlement
offer can defeat an individual plaintiff's claims after a motion
for class certification has been considered and denied.  In Leyse
v. Lifetime Entm't Servs., LLC, 679 F. App'x 44 (2d Cir. 2017),
the 2nd Circuit held that, while such an offer "does not moot a
case -- that is, it does not strip the district court of
jurisdiction over the case -- such an offer, if rejected, may
nonetheless permit a court to enter a judgment in the plaintiff's
favor."  Stay tuned for further developments in this area. [GN]


* South African Parliament Welcomes Class Action Against 4 Banks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ilze-Marie Le Roux, writing for Eyewitness News, reports that
two parliamentary committees have welcomed a class action suit in
connection with the sale of mortgage defaulters' properties.

Advocate Douglas Shaw is representing more than 200 applicants
against South Africa's four major banks.

Most of the institutions have indicated they would oppose the
action should the Constitutional Court decide to hear the matter.

In an interim report, Parliament's Standing Committee on Finance
and its Trade and Industry Committee welcome the class action
suit.

The document highlights a case in Soweto where a house was sold
for R100.

Members of Parliament (MPs) have also heard allegations of
malpractice, including the alleged involvement of banks and court
officials in misleading the courts in cases of repossessions as
well as the alleged manufacturing of fake court orders by lawyers.

The committees believe an inquiry is necessary and the report
states the abuses should lead to policy and regulatory changes.

It also discusses the financial advantage of these institutions to
fight consumers in court. [GN]


* Supreme Court Set to Tackle Three Securities Cases in New Term
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jared L. Kopel, writing for The Recorder, reports that three
significant securities law decisions highlight the new Supreme
Court session, which will be the first complete term for Justice
Neil Gorsuch.  These cases, two of which involve Bay Area
companies, concern the liability of public companies in private
lawsuits for failing to comply with the disclosure requirements of
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); whether plaintiffs
may bring class action lawsuits in state courts alleging false and
misleading statements in registration statements for public
offerings, or whether such actions may be filed only in federal
court; and whether corporate whistleblowers must have reported to
the SEC, rather than just internally, in order to file lawsuits in
federal court alleging that they were victims of retaliation.

Leidos v. Indiana Public Retirement System
This case, scheduled for oral argument on Nov. 6, concerns the
SEC's requirement that the annual and other reports of public
companies provide information as instructed by the SEC's
Regulation S-K. Item 303 of Regulation S-K requires annual reports
to include Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operation (MD&A).  The MD&A, among other
things, directs companies to describe "any known trends or
uncertainties" that have had or that the company reasonably
expects to have a materially favorable or unfavorable impact on
sales, revenue or income from continuing operations.  A disclosure
duty arises when "a trend, demand, commitment, event or
uncertainty" is both reasonably known to management and reasonably
likely to significantly affect the company's financial condition
or results of operations.

The plaintiff's securities class action lawsuit alleged that
Leidos, formerly known as SAIC, failed to disclose as required by
Item 303 a known uncertainty -- that the company was implicated in
a fraudulent overbilling scheme in a project designed to create a
customized cloud-based timekeeping system for New York City.  The
plaintiff alleged that the failure to provide the disclosure
required by Item 303 violated the basic antifraud provisions of
the federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 issued by the SEC. The Second
Circuit Court of Appeals, following circuit precedent, reversed
the trial court's dismissal of the action, holding that Item 303
imposes an affirmative duty to disclose that can serve as a basis
for a securities fraud claim under Section 10(b). By contrast, the
U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Ninth Circuits have held
that alleged omissions in Item 303 disclosure are not actionable
by aftermarket investors because Regulation
S-K does not create a private right of action enforceable by
private plaintiffs, as in Oran v. Stafford, 226 F.3d 275 (3d Cir.
2000) and In re NVIDIA Securities Litigation, 768 F. 3d 1046 (9th
Cir. 2014). The Supreme Court agreed to resolve the Circuit
conflict.

Petitioner Leidos argues that the Supreme Court has held that
"Silence, absent a duty to disclose, is not actionable under
Section 10(b), citing Basic v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 239 n.17 (1988),
and that Section 10(b) does not impliedly impose private liability
for "pure omissions" that did not render an affirmative statement
materially misleading or where there was no fiduciary-style
relationship that mandated disclosure.  Nor is there a private
right of action under Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act, which
requires companies to file periodic reports.  Leidos argues that
permitting private enforcement of Item 303 would result in
extensive "hindsight-driven litigation" that would eviscerate the
protections afforded securities defendants under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).

Respondent Indiana Public Retirement System attacks the
characterization of the issue as whether a "pure omission"
violates Section 10(b).  Rather, the omission in question was
deceptive for purposes of Section 10(b) because, in the context of
the overall disclosure, it created a false impression to a
reasonable investor, citing Omnicarev.  Laborers District Council
Construction Industrial Pension Fund, 135 S. Ct. 1318 (2015)
(holding that statement of opinion in registration statement may
be deceptive if overall disclosure misleads a reasonable
investor).  Further, silence is not an option where SEC rules
create a duty of disclosure.

A bevy of business organizations have filed amicus briefs
supporting Leidos.  Perhaps surprisingly for an administration
that opposes business regulation, the U.S. government filed an
amicus brief supporting respondents, arguing that the case
involves a "half-truth" rather than a "pure omission."  Leidos'
MD&A implicitly conveyed to a reasonable investor that it
disclosed all required information and therefore was misleading if
it omitted such information.  The government also notes that not
every misstatement violates Section 10(b) -- the plaintiffs still
have to prove materiality, scienter, reliance and loss causation.
Further, the government asserts, accepting Leidos' argument would
create "a significant loophole" by transforming disclosure
obligations into a "shelter or sanctuary for those who defraud
investors."

This case presents the Supreme Court with another opportunity to
clarify the disclosure obligations of public companies under
Section 10(b), including when a duty to disclose is created and
the distinction between an omission and a misstatement.  A
decision is likely early next year.

Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund
This case concerns whether the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) prevents class action plaintiffs
from filing actions in state court alleging violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, which provides an express private right of
action for materially false statements or omissions in
registration statements or prospectuses for public securities
offerings.  This issue is particularly important in California,
where a ruling by the state Court of Appeal that SLUSA does not
preclude such actions.

The background is as follows: Congress enacted the PSLRA in 1995
in response to what was perceived as a flood of meritless class
action lawsuits, especially against high technology companies, in
the federal courts.  The PSLRA, among other things, created a
heightened pleading standard for scienter; allows an automatic
stay of discovery pending a motion to dismiss; provided a safe
harbor for forward-looking statements; overhauled the process and
requirements for determining who could be a class representative;
and exempted outside directors from joint and several liability
for certain 1933 Act violations.

After the plaintiffs began filing securities class action lawsuits
in state court in order to evade the PSLRA, Congress enacted
SLUSA, which amended the 1933 Act in certain ways.
New Section 16(b) precludes any "covered class action" based on
state statutory or common law to be filed in state or federal
court alleging materially false or misleading statements or
omissions, or any manipulative or deceptive conduct.  Further,
Section 16(c) provides that covered class actions filed in state
court shall be removed to federal court. Section 16(p) defines a
"covered class action" as a lawsuit or group of lawsuits with more
than 50 class members except for derivative actions brought by
shareholders on behalf of a corporation.

There is concurrent jurisdiction in federal and state court for
claims under the 1933 act (unlike the 1934 Exchange Act, which
provides for exclusive jurisdiction in federal court).  SLUSA
amended the 1933 act by providing an exception to concurrent
jurisdiction in state court for "covered class actions" as defined
in Section 16.  Similarly, the provision that actions filed in
state court may not be removed to federal court was amended to
create an exception "as provided in Section 16."  Some courts have
held that SLUSA bars 1933 Act class actions from being litigated
in state court, while other courts have held that SLUSA only
prohibited class actions alleging state law claims, but not 1933
Act claims. In particular, the California Court of Appeal in
Luther v. Countrywide Financial, 125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 716 (2011)
ruled that SLUSA did not eliminate concurrent jurisdiction for
1933 Act claims in state court.

Cyan, a Petaluma-based company that supplies hardware and software
for communications networks, conducted an initial public offering
in May 2013.  Following a stock price drop in 2014, the plaintiffs
filed a class action lawsuit in California Superior Court against
Cyan (which subsequently was acquired by Ciena Corp.), and its
officers and directors, alleging violations of the 1933 Act based
on purported misstatements and omissions in Cyan's registration
and prospectus issued in connection with the IPO.  The Superior
Court, stating that its "hands [were] tied" by Luther, refused
Cyan's contention that SLUSA barred jurisdiction, and the
California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court refused to
review that decision.

Cyan argues before the U.S. Supreme Court that the "plain text" of
SLUSA -- particularly the "exception" clauses added to the
jurisdictional provision of the 1933 Act -- divests state courts
of concurrent jurisdiction over 1933 Act claims in covered class
actions.  Further, Cyan contends, that construction conforms to
the structure, history and purpose of SLUSA. Congress enacted
SLUSA to prevent abusive securities litigation from seeking refuge
in state courts from the requirements of the PSLRA. Congress would
not have sought to create "uniform" standards for securities
litigation by precluding state law claims from being heard in
state court while leaving a giant loophole permitting federal
claims to be considered in state court. (As an amicus brief by
several law professors points out, California state courts do not
necessarily interpret the federal securities laws in conformity
with federal court decisions). Cyan asserts that the Luther
decision has loosed a flood of 1933 Act class actions in the
California courts.

As of the writing of this article, Respondents have not yet filed
their opposition brief and no hearing date has been scheduled. But
in their brief opposing a grant of certiorari, Respondents argued
that SLUSA only prevents covered class action lawsuits alleging
state law claims from state courts.  Respondents further asserted
that Congress intended that SLUSA prevent securities plaintiffs
from evading the PSLRA by filing state law securities actions, but
not to prohibit the filing of 1933 act claims in state court,
which had been permitted since the enactment of that statute. [GN]


* Two SA Parliamentary Committees Seek Inquiry Into Repossessions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ilze-Marie Le Roux, writing for Eyewitness News, reports that two
parliamentary committees want an inquiry into the repossession of
homes and vehicles.

The issue is already the subject of a class action brought by more
than 200 applicants targeting South Africa's four major banks.

Some defaulters claim their repossessed properties were sold for a
fraction of their worth.

Most of the institutions have indicated they will oppose the
action should the Constitutional Court decide to hear the matter.

In an interim report, Parliament's Standing Committee on Finance
and its Trade and Industry Committee welcome the class action
suit.

Those who've joined the class action tell stories of loss and
confusion with properties seized and auctioned for way below
market value.

In one case, a Soweto home was sold for just R100.

MPs have also heard allegations that banks and court officials
colluded to mislead the courts in cases of repossessions.

The committees acknowledge the banks themselves may not be in the
wrong and the fault may be with outsourced companies.

That's one of the reasons why they feel an inquiry may be needed
to investigate the allegations of malpractice.

They're hoping that inquiry would lead to policy and regulatory
changes.

In the meantime, they want decisive action to ensure no one else
falls victim. [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. Agravante, 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  * * *