---

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


            Monday, October 23, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 209



                            Headlines

AARON'S INC: Court Partly Grants Summary Judgment in "Peterson"
ALAMEDA HEALTH: "Soman" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
AMAZON.COM: Faces "Levine" Class Suit in South. Dist. Florida
ARCONIC INC: December 8 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ASHLEY FURNITURE: "Isaac" Suit Removed to D. Mass.

ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
ATTENDING HOMECARE: Faces "Abdullayeva" Suit in E.D. New York
AUSTRALIA: Gov't Likely Aware of Air Base Water Contamination
AUSTRALIA: May Face Third Class Action Over Air Base Pollution
AVIACODE INC: "Hazel" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums

BBX SWEET: Faces "Marett" Suit in S. Dist. New York
BDS NATURAL PRODUCTS: Unpaid Overtime Sought in "Reasoner" Suit
BEAUFORT SOUTH: Faces "Bairefoot" Suit in District of S. C.
BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPES: $4.8MM FLSA Settlement Gets Final Court OK
CANADA: Lawyers Rack Up $2.5MM Costs in Sickness Benefits Case

CANADA: Metis People Excluded from Sixties Scoop Settlement
CARPENTER CO: Feb. 6 Claims Filing Deadline in Foam Products Suit
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
CIGNA CORP: Gordon Files Suit Asserting Unjust Enrichment
CITIBANK NA: "McGill" Remanded Over Arbitration Ruling

COMMONWEALTH BANK: Anti-Money Laundering Proceedings Filed
COMMONWEALTH BANK: To Vigorously Defend Shareholder Class Action
COREPOWER YOGA: $1.7MM Settlement in "Walsh" Has Final Nod
CRESTWOOD, IL: Mayor Balks at Red-Light Camera Class Action
DAIRYAMERICA INC: Can't Compel 3rd-Parties to Reply to Discovery

DAVID-JACOBS PUBLISHING: Faces "Fielman" Suit in M.D. of Fla.
DEGROFF INDUSTRIES: "Whalen" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
DISH NETWORK: Court Denies Bid for Judgment in "Krakauer"
EQUIFAX GROUP: Klavans Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages
EI DU PONT: Bid to Transfer New York Labor Suit Denied

EIHAB TAWFIK: Amended Employees' Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
EMBLEMHEALTH: Faces "Abernethy" Suit in S. Dist. New York
ENDLESS PURSUIT: "Young" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
EQUIFAX INC: "Horne" Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages
EQUIFAX INC: "Larson" Files Suit Over Data Breach

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Miller" Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
EQUIFAX INC: Two Alaska Residents File Data Breach Class Action
EROS INT'L: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Class Action Ruling
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
FMK INC: "Betancourt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Reimbursements

GARDA CL WEST: "Lane" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
GOBRANDS INC: Faces "Shockley" Suit in E. Dist. Penn.
HCSG WEST: "Ponce" Suit Alleges California Labor Code Violations
HOME DEPOT: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $27.25 Million
INTELIFI INC: "Doe" Sues Over Withheld Consumer Report

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Executive Questioned Over Mesh Presentation
KELLY SERVICES: Faces "Lentini" Suit over FLSA Violation
KIRSAN ENGINEERING: "Riley" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
LA BOUCHERIE: "Storey" Suit Alleges UCL Violation
LSC COMMUNICATIONS: "McGee" Hits Illegally Stored Biometrics Data

LYFT INC: "Lindenbaum" Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
MCDONALD'S: Faces Litigation Threat Over Szechuan Sauce Shortage
MENARD INC: Faces Three Wage Theft Class Actions
MEYER LOGISTICS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files FCRA Class Action
MINNESOTA: Sex Offender Program Constitutional, High Court Rules

MISSOURI: Sen. Calls for Overhaul of County Jail Payment System
MODESTO, CA: Electricity Rate Hike Class Action v. MID on Hold
MONMOUTH WIRE: Unpaid Overtime Compensation Sought by "Juarez"
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
NEW YORK: Disabled Parents File Suit Over Child Removals

NEW ZEALAND: Christchurch Residents Sue EQC Over Botched Repairs
NORTHERN MARIANAS: Current in Settlement Payment
PETCO ANIMAL: Settlement in "Kellgren" Has Prelim Approval
POINTBREAK MEDIA: "Karon" Hits Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims

PROHEALTH CORP: Faces "Young" Suit in S. Dist. New York
REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Red Light Camera Ticket Class Action Can Proceed
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Blair" OK'd
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Faces "McIntosh" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
RURAL METRO: Can Partly Compel Discovery Responses in "Calleros"

RURAL METRO: Directed to Reply to Interrogatories in "Calleros"
SAN DIEGO, CA: Settles Trash Truck Drivers' Class Action
SCANA CORP: November 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
SILVERTREE MOHAVE: Oct 26 Reply Date to Attys' Fee Bid in "Lewis"
SKURT INC: Alisma Sues Over Denied Meal Breaks, Wage Statements

SLIDE FIRE: Vegas Shooting Victims Sue Over Bump Stock Maker
SMARTPAY LEASING: Can't Compel Arbitration in "Esparza" TCPA Suit
SOULCYCLE INC: $9.2MM Settlement in "Cody" Suit Has Final OK
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lewis" Suit Claims
ST. GOBAIN: Hoosick Falls Resident Oppose Dourson EPA Appointment

TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Bayne" Product Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Bentz" Product Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
TASMAN CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
TESLA INC: Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims
THE GAP INC: "Evans" Sues Over Mislabeled Sweater

TOKYO ELECTRIC: Ordered to Pay $4.44MM Damages in Fukushima Case
TRADER JOE'S: Court Partly Grants SAC in Tuna Litigation
TRANSENTERIX INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
TULSA INSPECTION: "Fithian" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Class Action Over Text Messages

UNITED STATES: Class Action Claim in "Harris" Inappropriate
UNITED STATES: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss "Gallagher"
UNLIMITED PCS: "Harvey" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
VTECH ELECTRONICS: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Claims Process Opens in Fake Account Settlement

WESTAR ENERGY: Class Action Seeks to Block $14-Bil. KCP&L Merger
W.G. HALL: $445K Settlement in "Isquierdo" Has Final Nod
WM MORRISONS: Data Leak Class Action Trial Set to Begin
WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Refuses to Decertify Class in "Pierce"

* Sen. John Kennedy Should Approve CFPB's Arbitration Rule







                            *********


AARON'S INC: Court Partly Grants Summary Judgment in "Peterson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, granted Aaron's
Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, and granted in part and
denied in part Aspen Way's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned MICHAEL PETERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AARON'S, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:14-CV-1919-TWT (N.D. Ga.).

Aaron's franchises independently-owned stores that are in the
business of, inter alia, selling and leasing consumer electronics.
Plaintiff Matthew Lyons, an Oklahoma resident, entered into a
lease agreement to rent laptop computers from Aspen Way, a
Montana-based franchisee of Aaron's.  The Plaintiffs contend that
Mr. Lyons entered into the lease agreement on behalf of his law
firm, Peterson & Lyons, LLC.  Plaintiff Peterson, a Colorado
resident, was the other named partner at the law firm, which is
now defunct.

The Plaintiffs allege that Aspen Way remotely accessed their
computers and captured private information.  They contend that
Aspen Way was able to obtain their private information through a
spyware software program named PC Rental Agent ("PCRA"), which was
installed on their computers without their consent.  Aspen Way
directly licensed PCRA from a third-party developer, and its
primary function was to locate and shut down a computer in the
event of theft or missed payment.

The software also had an optional function called "Detective
Mode."  When activated, Detective Mode could collect screen shots,
keystrokes, and webcam images from the computer.  On Oct. 21,
2010, Aspen Way installed and activated Detective Mode on Lyons'
rented computer, and continued to use Detective Mode until Feb. 7,
2011.  Aaron's, meanwhile, contends that it was unaware of Aspen
Way's use of Detective Mode whatsoever until May 2011.

The Plaintiffs originally filed their Complaint as a class action
against both Aaron's and Aspen Way, alleging common law invasion
of privacy, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment, and violations
of the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act ("GCSPA").
Eventually the Court dismissed the unjust enrichment and GCSPA
claims, and denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify.  Aaron's now
moves for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' single claim against
it for aiding and abetting Aspen Way's alleged intrusion upon
seclusion.

Aspen Way moves for summary judgment on Lyons' intrusion upon
seclusion claim.  Judge Thrash finds that shutting down the
computer or using GPS tracking would have been reasonably related
to Aspen Way's goal of repossessing the computer, and if Lyons was
in default, he should have expected Aspen Way would take such
action.  Capturing keystrokes and screenshots, however, served no
legitimate purpose in repossessing the computer.  Therefore, it
would be possible for a jury to find that Lyons still had a
reasonable expectation of privacy which Aspen Way violated.

Aspen Way then argues that even if Lyons had a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the computer, it still did not intrude
upon that privacy in a way that constituted tortious conduct.  The
offensiveness of the intrusion is often directly tied to how
reasonable the expectation of privacy is.  However, the degree of
offensiveness of the conduct is generally a question for the jury.
In this case, the Judge finds that there is sufficient evidence
such that a jury could find Aspen Way's use of Detective Mode to
be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Oklahoma courts have not directly stated what constitutes aiding
and abetting in the context of an intrusion upon seclusion tort.
However, in other aiding and abetting contexts, Oklahoma follows
the Second Restatement approach.  Section 876 of the Restatement
(Second) of Torts states that one can be liable for aiding and
abetting if he knows that the other's conduct constitutes a breach
of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the
other so to conduct himself.  Both knowledge and substantial
assistance are required elements for an aiding and abetting
action.  Because there is no evidence to suggest Aaron's knew
about Aspen Way's tortious conduct, Judge Thrash concludes Aaron's
is entitled to summary judgment.

Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that Aaron's injected the issue of
its knowledge of Detective Mode's abilities into the case, and
thus the emails should be made available.  Judge Thrash says the
problem with the Plaintiffs' argument is that they misunderstand
what the issue is.  The issue is not whether Aaron's knew
Detective Mode was invasive.  The record is clear that it did.
Rather, the question is whether Aaron's knew that Aspen Way was
using Detective Mode.  The Plaintiffs have failed to show how the
communications in question would be enlightening as to that issue.
For that reason, he declined to pierce attorney-client privilege.

For the reasons stated, Judge Thrash granted the Defendant Aaron's
Motion for Summary Judgment.  Meanwhile, he granted in part Aspen
Way's Motion for Summary Judgment as it relates to the Plaintiff
Peterson's claims, but denied in part as it relates to the
Plaintiff Lyons' claims for intrusion upon seclusion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/6kbfhV from Leagle.com.

Michael Peterson, Plaintiff, represented by Andrea Solomon Hirsch
-- ahirsch@hermangerel.com -- Herman Gerel, LLP.

Michael Peterson, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick S. Longer --
flonger@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, pro hac
vice & John H. Robinson -- robinsn@vcn.com -- Jamieson & Robinson,
LLC.

Matthew Lyons, Plaintiff, represented by Andrea Solomon Hirsch,
Herman Gerel, LLP, Frederick S. Longer, Levin Fishbein Sedran &
Berman, pro hac vice & John H. Robinson, Jamieson & Robinson, LLC.

Aaron's, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald MacKaye Houser --
donald.houser@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, LLP & Kristine
McAlister Brown -- kristy.brown@alston.com -- Alston & Bird.

Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony
Joseph Williott -- ajwilliott@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Mark Stephen VanderBroek --
mark.vanderbroek@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough & Sean Michael Kirwin -- sean.kirwin@nelsonmullins.com
-- Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough.


ALAMEDA HEALTH: "Soman" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Jasbir Soman, and all others similarly-situated v. Alameda Health
System, MGA Healthcare California, Inc., MGA Healthcare, Inc. and
Does 1 through 50, Case No. RG17877875 (Cal. Super., October 5,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of
the Labor Code and Business Professions Code.

Plaintiff Jasbir Soman is a resident of the State of California.
Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants on January 3, 2017.

Defendant Alameda Health System is a public health authority
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      Thomas Segal, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (310) 888-7771
      Fax: (310) 888-0109
      E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
              thomas@setarehlaw.com


AMAZON.COM: Faces "Levine" Class Suit in South. Dist. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Amazon.com, Inc.

The case is captioned Steven Levine and Susan Levine, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com,
Inc., Case No. 9:17-cv-81093-WPD (S.D. Fla., September 28, 2017).

Amazon.com, Inc. operates an electronic commerce and cloud
computing company based in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Steven William Teppler, Esq.
      ABBOTT LAW GROUP PA
      2929 Plummer Cover Road
      Jacksonville, FL 32223
      Telephone: (941) 487-0050
      Facsimile: (941) 870-4403
      E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com


ARCONIC INC: December 8 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Court Order, Pomerantz LLP advises investors of the
filing of class action lawsuits against Arconic Inc. ("Arconic" or
the "Company") (NYSE:ARNC) (NYSE:ARNC-PB), certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors, and
underwriters of certain of the Company's securities (collectively,
"Defendants").  On August 11, 2017, a class action was filed in
United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania,
under style of Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al., and docketed under
2:17-cv-01057, on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Arconic common or preferred stock
between November 4, 2013 and June 26, 2017, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").  On September 15, 2017, a class action
was filed in United States District Court, Western District of
Pennsylvania, under style of Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et al., and
docketed under 2:17-cv-01213, on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Arconic Depositary
Shares, each representing a 1/10 interest in a share of 5.375%
Class B Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock, Series 1, par value
$1, liquidation preference $500 per share ("Class B Preferred
Shares"), pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with Arconic's September 18,
2014 initial public stock offering ("IPO"), seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").  Both of the
foregoing actions are pending before United States District Judge
Mark R. Hornak.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Arconic common or preferred stock during the Class Period and/or
purchased or otherwise acquired Arconic Class B Preferred Shares
pursuant and/or traceable to the September 18, 2014 IPO, you have
until December 8, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  To discuss these actions, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Arconic Inc. is a global provider of lightweight multi-material
solutions, focused on the aerospace market in addition to serving
the automotive, industrial gas turbine, commercial transportation,
and building and construction markets.  The Company also provides
titanium, aluminum, nickel-based alloy, and specialty alloy
solutions.  Arconic was established as a result of a spin-off of
the mining and raw aluminum manufacturing operations of Alcoa,
Inc. on November 1, 2016.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) Arconic knowingly supplied
its highly flammable Reynobond PE (polyethylene) cladding panels
for use in construction; (ii) the foregoing conduct significantly
increased the risk of property damage, injury and/or death in
buildings constructed with Arconic's Reynobond PE panels; and
(iii) as a result of the foregoing, Arconic's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 14, 2017, a fire broke out at the 24-story Grenfell Tower
apartment block in London.  The fire burned for roughly 60 hours,
destroying the building and causing at least 80 deaths and over 70
injuries.

On June 24, 2017, The New York Times published an article entitled
"Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety",
describing the causes of the Grenfell Tower fire and attributing
the rapid spread of the fire to highly flammable Reynobond PE
cladding panels manufactured by Arconic and used in the building's
construction.

On that same day, Reuters published an article entitled "Arconic
knowingly supplied flammable panels for use in tower: emails,"
revealing that Arconic sales managers were aware that flammable
panels would be distributed for use at Grenfell Tower.

On June 26, 2017, Arconic issued a press release announcing it
would discontinue global sales of Reynobond PE for use in high-
rise buildings after the material was suspected to have
contributed to the spread of the deadly fire at the Grenfell Tower
apartment complex in London.

On these disclosures, Arconic securities have fallen sharply in
value, damaging investors.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. [GN]


ASHLEY FURNITURE: "Isaac" Suit Removed to D. Mass.
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Alex Isaac, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ashley Furniture Industries,
Inc. and Bargain Discount Markets, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-11827, filed in Suffolk County Superior Court of
Massachusetts on August 15, 2017, was removed to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on September 22,
2017.

Plaintiff purchased furniture with DuraBlend (R) upholstery.
DuraBlend furniture is allegedly prone to peeling and
disintegrating. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua W. Gardner, Esq.
      GARDNER & ROSENBERG, P.C.
      One State Street, Fourth Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Tel: (617) 390-7570
      Fax: (617) 972-7983
      Email: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com

Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. is represented by:

      Christine Kingston, Esq.
      Matthew G. Lindenbaum, Esq.
      NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
      One Post Office Square, 30th Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Tel: (617) 573-4700, (617) 217-4632
      Fax: (617) 217-4710
      Email: christine.kingston@nelsonmullins.com
             matthew.lindenbaum@nelsonmullins.com


ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maxim Maximov, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Associated Credit Services, Inc., Case No.
1:17-cv-05668 (E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2017), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Associated Credit Services, Inc. operates a collection agency
based at 115 Flanders Rd Suite 140, Westborough, MA 01581. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Igor B Litvak, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (646) 796-4905
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com

ATTENDING HOMECARE: Faces "Abdullayeva" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Attending Homecare
Services LLC. The case is styled as Tatyana Abdullayeva,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Attending Homecare Services LLC doing business as:
Attending Home Care, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05951 (E.D. N.Y.,
October 11, 2017).

Attending Home Care is a New York home health care agency, serving
elderly New Yorkers with home care needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


AUSTRALIA: Gov't Likely Aware of Air Base Water Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian reports that angry residents living near defence
force bases across the country have expressed dismay at
revelations the government may have known about water
contamination caused by fire-fighting foam used by defence as
early as 1987.

ABC TV's Four Corners reported on Oct. 2 a consultant's document
available to the Australian Defence Force in 1987 had warned
runoff from the foam should be "handled as toxic waste" and
prevented from entering stormwater systems, ponds, and groundwater
except in an emergency because of contamination risks.

The fire repellent foam is used in fire-fighting exercises and
contains chemicals which, if consumed in larger quantities, are
said to be hazardous.

Up to 18 bases around Australia are being investigated in relation
to perfluorinated chemical pollution, which is caused by the foam
which can leach into groundwater.

The federal government maintains the links between the foam and
human disease remain unproven, but have acknowledged the potential
for adverse health effects can't be excluded.

Families living near the Royal Australian Airforce Base in Tindal,
near the Northern Territory town of Katherine, told the program
they felt like "collateral damage" after they found out about the
contamination, which has only been revealed to residents in recent
years.

The Bartlett family, on the outskirts of the town, have a single
bore that irrigates their entire property.

They found out last year the nearby Royal Australian Air Force
base near their home may have contaminated their water and were
told it was unsafe to drink.

"You've been giving your children water that's contaminated with
chemicals.  No one can really tell you much about them, but you
know it's over the safe limit.  And so you're just trying to get
your head around what does that mean?" said resident Kirsty
Bartlett, who has been diagnosed with thyroid disease.

She was upset by reports the government may have known it was
unsafe for years.

"That's just disgusting, really, isn't it? It feels a bit like
we're collateral damage. I know that sounds a bit extreme, but it
just really feels like our lives here really don't matter."

Similar sentiments were expressed by residents living near Oakey
Army Aviation centre in rural west Queensland, many of whom have
joined a class action against defence claiming the foam was used
"recklessly".

The lead litigant, Oakey resident Brad Hudson, told the program
his family had been tested which revealed high levels of chemicals
in their blood.

"It's petrifying as a parent," said resident Brad Hudson.  "I
mean, I don't think any parent in Australia would want to be told
that, especially their youngest daughter who's only four, has got
those levels in their blood.  You get on Google and see what it
does to animals and then to realise that your youngest has got
those levels, half mine, at her age.  Hope to God that she doesn't
develop some type of childhood cancer down the track, courtesy of
the army and these chemicals."

Residents in the NSW town of Williamtown, near Port Stephens in
the Hunter region, have also joined a second class action against
defence, expressing concerns their homes have been devalued
because of contamination at Williamtown RAAF Base and they should
have been told sooner.

The senior official leading the Department of Defence's response
to the contamination, Steve Grzeskowiak, told the program: "In
Defence we don't claim to be experts in health.  So obviously we
take our advice from the health experts in the Department of
Health and the federal and state territories.  And they advise
that there's no consistent evidence that exposure to these
chemicals causes any adverse health effect in people"

He said the investigation will focus on outcomes for affected
residents.

"These are regrettable situations that people find themselves in.
I understand that people feel let down there's no doubt about it
but the issue from where we are now, it's about, how do we clean
this up and that's what we're focussed on that," he said.

Four Corners reports defence has spent $100 million in the clean-
up effort.

"It's a significant series of investigations when taken together
probably one of the largest if not the largest environmental
investigation that's ever happened in Australia," said
Mr Grzeskowiak. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: May Face Third Class Action Over Air Base Pollution
--------------------------------------------------------------
Isobel Roe, writing for ABC, reports that the Federal Government
could face compensation claims across New South Wales, Queensland
and the Northern Territory, after the Department of Defence
admitted it was slow to warn people about groundwater
contamination from Army air bases.

A lawyer leading the class action in the southern Queensland town
of Oakey said he would soon head to the NT town of Katherine to
speak to locals about a joint lawsuit there in the wake of
revelations on the ABC's Four Corners program.

On the program, a Defence official admitted they should have
issued warnings three years earlier about toxic firefighting foam
pollution from Army bases.

The department said the cost to taxpayers to clean up the problem
nationwide would likely amount to hundreds of millions of dollars.

About 500 people are part of a class action in Oakey, where the
toxic compounds PFOS and PFOA have spread into groundwater and
soil on surrounding properties.

In NSW, residents near the RAAF Williamtown base launched their
own class action last year.

Defence tackling pollution at 18 sites

Shine Lawyers special counsel Josh Aylward, who is leading the
Oakey action, said he would travel to the Northern Territory where
Defence is investigating the extent of groundwater contamination
from the Tindal RAAF base across the town of Katherine.

Mr Aylward said 5,000 people were living in the investigation
area.

"It is a larger area than Oakey and Williamtown," he said.

"It could be one of the largest contamination areas."

Mr Aylward said he would pursue another class action against
Defence if residents called for it.

"We've been contacted by several families who are concerned with
this contamination up in Katherine," he said.

"The Department of Defence had a report back in 1987 before they
even built the Tindal base in Katherine that this contamination
should not leave the base.

"Yet it appears from the Army's own reports that the contamination
has well and truly left the base."

Defence is now tackling chemical pollution from the widespread use
of firefighting foam at no fewer than 18 of its bases.

Oakey-based beef stud owner Dianne Priddle's property lies in the
path of a plume of PFAS contamination spreading from the Army base
at a rate of half a kilometre every 10 years.

"Thirty years down the track we're still in the environmental
investigation stage," she said.

"As far as I'm concerned we should be calling it a people and
environmental disaster because it's taken 30 years and they're
still not dealing with people.

"Deal with us now, not in another bloody three years' time."

Ms Priddle said residents had no choice but to wait while Defence
tried to investigate the extent of the contamination and develop
technology to remediate the affected areas.

"You can't suck all the water out, you can't pull all the soil
out, you can't zap it out of our blood -- we live and breathe
this."

The Department of Defence is expected to submit its response to
the Oakey class action this week. [GN]


AVIACODE INC: "Hazel" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Hazel, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Aviacode, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-01065, (D. Utah, September 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unreimbursed business
expenses, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, and other monies
owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Utah's Payment of
Wages Act.

Aviacode, Inc. provides medical coding services to hospitals and
doctors across the country where Plaintiff worked as a medical
coder tasked to review patient documentation and determine the
appropriate diagnostic and/or procedural codes that correspond to
the medical records. Despite classifying them as independent
contractors, Defendant regulates significant aspects of its
medical coders' work, thus establishing an employer-employee
relationship. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric D. Barton, Esq.
     WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
     4740 Grand Ave. Suite 300
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Tel: (816) 701-1100
     Email: ebarton@wcllp.com


BBX SWEET: Faces "Marett" Suit in S. Dist. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BBX Sweet Holdings,
LLC. The case is styled as Lucia Marett, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. BBX Sweet Holdings, LLC and It'sugar, LLC doing business as:
It'Sugar, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07789 (S.D. N.Y., October
11, 2017).

BBX Sweet Holdings, LLC, along with its subsidiaries, manufactures
and sells chocolate and confectionary products. The company offers
gourmet candy, coconut candy, chocolate gift products, and premium
candy products for Florida tourists. It also provides chocolate
confections, chocolate bars, chocolate candies, and truffles;
gourmet chocolates, confections, lollipops, candy sticks, candy
canes, bubblegum buddies, and toffees.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BDS NATURAL PRODUCTS: Unpaid Overtime Sought in "Reasoner" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Reasoner, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. BDS Natural Products, Inc. and
Does 1 through 250, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC676646,
(Cal. Super., September 21, 2017) seeks compensation resulting
from failure to accurately pay overtime wages and minimum wages,
failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, all wages earned
and owed upon separation from Defendant's employ, reimbursement
for business-related expenses, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements under California Labor Code, Unfair
Competition Law under the California Business and Professions Code
and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

BDS is a manufacturer of botanicals and spices in the United
States and a key supplier to the nutraceutical, food and tea
industries where Plaintiff worked as a shipping and receiving
receptionist for the Defendants. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
      Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
      Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
      Jean P. Buchanan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
      555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562)432-8933
      Facsimile: (562)435-1656
      Email: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
             brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
             laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
             jean@carlinbuchsbaum.com


BEAUFORT SOUTH: Faces "Bairefoot" Suit in District of S. C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the city of Beaufort
in South Carolina. The case is styled as Tina Renee Bairefoot,
Dae'Quandrea Trevell Nelson and Nathan Lee Fox, individually and
on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Beaufort South Carolina, City of and Bluffton South Carolina,
Town of, Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-02759-RMG (D. S.C., October
11, 2017).

Beaufort is a city in and the county seat of Beaufort County,
South Carolina, United States. Chartered in 1711, it is the
second-oldest city in South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Benjamin Rush Smith, III, Esq.
   Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough
   PO Box 11070
   Columbia, SC 29211
   Tel: (803) 799-2000
   Fax: (803) 256-7500
   Email: rush.smith@nelsonmullins.com

      - and -

   Stuart Murray Andrews, Jr, Esq.
   Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough
   PO Box 11070
   Columbia, SC 29211
   Tel: (803) 255-9461
   Fax: (803) 255-5506
   Email: stuart.andrews@nelsonmullins.com

      - and -

   Susan King Dunn, Esq.
   ACLU SC National Office
   PO Box 20998
   Charleston, SC 29403
   Tel: (843) 720-1425
   Fax: (843) 720-1428
   Email: sdunn@aclusouthcarolina.org


BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPES: $4.8MM FLSA Settlement Gets Final Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a group of landscapers suing their employer for overtime pay have
settled their class action lawsuit for roughly $4.8 million, with
their lawyers netting $1.5 million in fees.

U.S. District Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the Middle District of
Pennsylvania granted final approval of the settlement agreement in
Acevedo v. Brightview Landscapes.

The plaintiffs claimed that Brightview Landscapes had a policy of
failing to pay overtime to its half-time employees on a
fluctuating workweek basis, according to Judge Mannion's opinion.

The settlement covers 1,360 workers who were paid by Brightview,
formerly known as The Brickman Group, and performed work in
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia, Washington or Wisconsin between Oct. 8, 2010, and
June 8, 2014.

It covers employees who were paid a salary and were also eligible
for half-time overtime fluctuating workweek pay.

Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen -- sschalman-bergen@bm.net -- of Berger &
Montague in Philadelphia represented the class and did not return
a call seeking comment. Nor did Brightview's attorney, Daniel E.
Turner -- dturner@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson in Atlanta.

All class members are divided into two groups, according to  Judge
Mannion: Group one consists of 476 Fair Labor Standards Act
collective group members who opted in at the start of class
action, including all the named plaintiffs, and all collective
group members who worked in Pennsylvania, regardless of their
original opt-in status.

Group two, with 839 members, consists of all other collective
group members who did not opt-in at the beginning, other than
those Pennsylvania workers.

Considering all the factors, Judge Mannion said the settlement was
a fair resolution to the litigation.

"The resulting settlement compensates the FLSA collective group
for the defendant's potential wrongdoing while taking into account
the attendant risks of further litigation," Judge Mannion said.
"The amount received by class members will reflect a pro
rata share of the sum of money set aside for claims.  This share
figure is based on actual timekeeping records of hours worked on
an individualized basis."

"Moreover," he continued, "the defendant changed its method of
computing overtime compensation in June of 2014.  Thus, not only
will those in the FLSA class be fairly compensated for any
potential wrongdoing, employees hired after the defendant's change
in pay practices will likely benefit from this action. Thus, the
benefits reach beyond the settlement itself.  This result clearly
furthers the purpose of the FLSA to protect workers and ensure
they are paid appropriately.  Accordingly, the parties amended
settlement agreement will be finally approved with respect to the
collective group's FLSA claims." [GN]


CANADA: Lawyers Rack Up $2.5MM Costs in Sickness Benefits Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Press, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that federal
lawyers have racked up a legal bill of more than $2.36 million
fighting a group of women who allegedly were wrongly denied
sickness benefits while they were on maternity leave.

The costs, revealed in an access to information request filed by
The Canadian Press, show the Justice Department added about
$300,000 to its bill between early 2016 and last June to fight a
case the Liberals once vowed to drop.

That brings the total federal bill on the case to more than $2.5
million when factoring in previously released costs from a second
department involved in the litigation.

Jennifer McCrea, the woman at the centre of the case, and her
lawyer wonder why the government can't end their case when it
settled with former Guantanamo Bay detainee Omar Khadr for $10.5
million and offered up to $750 million to victims of the 60s
Scoop, where Indigenous children were taken from their homes and
placed with non-native families.

"It's the only right thing to do and I believe in the strength of
our case," said lawyer Stephen Moreau.

"I have yet to see a reason why they wouldn't come through on this
promise, other than the fact that they're taking a long time.
That's the only thing that gives me some pause."

Ms. McCrea said she hasn't given up hope the Liberals will settle,
as the party promised at the end of the 2015 election, but admits
it may finally mean getting their day in court.

"I'm upset that this is taking so long," she said.

"I'm in too deep and too long to give up on it, so absolutely we
intend to continue the fight.  It's just very slow and painful."

It was two years ago, just over a week before voting day, that the
NDP and Liberals vowed to immediately drop opposition to the case
if either became government.

Instead, Mr. Moreau said, the Liberals, like the previous
Conservative government, continue to fight every element of the
case.

Ms. McCrea has been brushed off by ministers and local MPs, with
all saying they couldn't comment because the matter was before
courts.

"That's all that they'll tell me," Ms. McCrea said.

A spokesman for Social Development Minister Jean-Yves Duclos said
it would be inappropriate to comment on the case because it is in
Federal Court.

"The minister is sympathetic to the challenges faced by women who
were diagnosed with cancer while receiving parental benefits.  EI
claimants who fall ill or are injured during their parental
benefits claim are now able to access sickness benefits,"
Mathieu Filion said.

Parliament decided in 2002 to allow those who were diagnosed with
cancer, for instance, to access 15 extra weeks of employment
insurance payments in addition to a year's worth of maternity
leave benefits.

Ms. McCrea was diagnosed with breast cancer in July 2011, while
she was on maternity leave with her youngest son, Logan, who was
eight months old at the time.

She had a double mastectomy in August 2011 and was deemed cancer-
free shortly afterwards.

But she was denied sickness benefits.  Her claim alleges thousands
of others were also denied between 2002 and 2013 -- when the
Tories further clarified the law -- although the exact number of
women affected isn't clear because it would require searching
through millions of paper EI files.

Federal lawyers are now looking to limit the potential number of
additional women who may be part of the $450-million class-action
lawsuit in the latest procedural wrangling.  A hearing about
whether to expand the definition of who is part of the class
action is scheduled for early January. [GN]


CANADA: Metis People Excluded from Sixties Scoop Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kendall Latimer, Elisha Dacey and Lenard Monkman, writing for CBC
News, report that Gary Tinker remembers the tears that streamed
down his face as he sat on the plane taking him away from his
family.  It was the second time he had to say goodbye.

That was more than 40 years ago, but the Sixties Scoop survivor
recalled the details of the event well.  He remembers it was a
yellow plane, and he remembers the man that put him on it.

Mr. Tinker, who was born with Cerebral Palsy in 1967, was only
about three years old when he was taken from his home in Pinehouse
Lake, Sask for the first time.

Located northwest of La Ronge, there were no services in the
community for people with Tinker's condition then.  As a result,
he ended up with a foster family in Saskatoon.

"It really affected me when I was growing up," he said.  "Mostly
loneliness.  I had nobody to relate to."

"I didn't meet my father until I was five to six years old," he
said, noting that he was allowed to move back home for a period of
two years to learn Cree.

It was after those two years when he was placed on the yellow
plane to be shipped back to the south.

Family tragedy and isolation

In 1981, Mr. Tinker recalled, his father committed suicide.

"It was very devastating for me," he said.  "I never got any
mental health help."

Mr. Tinker recalls suffering through surgeries alone in Saskatoon.

"I never had a visitor," he said.  "My family couldn't come visit
me because there were no roads back then, and they couldn't afford
it."

Mr. Tinker shared his story in the wake of the Oct. 6 announcement
from the federal government that Sixties Scoop survivors will be
entitled to compensation from a $750-million fund.  Ottawa says it
has earmarked another $50 million for a foundation dedicated to
reconciliation initiatives.

The announcement was met with mixed emotions from survivors, with
some sharing the sentiment that no amount of money will replace
their lost identities.

Sixties Scoop survivors say $800M proposed settlement won't heal
their wounds

"It's like we're nobody."

Mr. Tinker, who is MÇtis, had mixed emotions as well.

"I'm glad for the First Nations, don't get me wrong," he said.
"But they never even mentioned about our MÇtis citizens who were
in foster care."

"It's like we're nobody."

Indeed, the claim doesn't include MÇtis people, according to
Jeffrey Wilson, a lawyer who represented Ontario survivors in the
class action lawsuit that led to the agreement.

Premier Brad Wall has said the province is ready to make a formal
apology on the Sixties Scoop, but is still trying to coordinate
with First Nations and MÇtis groups.

Isolated once again

"The government took away our transportation," he said, referring
to the closure of the Saskatchewan Ttransportation Company,
Saskatchewan's former government-owned bus company.

Mr. Tinker, who now lives back in Pinehouse Lake, said getting to
Regina to attend an announcement would be difficult.

"If the premier says something for an apology, how the hell am I
going to get there?"

Still, Mr. Tinker prefers to keep a positive attitude with the
hope of making the world a better place for children who follow in
his footsteps.

"Should I stay bitter about it, or try to fix the problem?" he
asked.

It's not a new outlook, he said.  In fact, in 1989 he walked 650
kilometres from La Ronge to Regina on crutches. He made the trek
to raise awareness about the challenges of those with disabilities
in the north.

"At least they're in their homelands." [GN]


CARPENTER CO: Feb. 6 Claims Filing Deadline in Foam Products Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you bought sofas, mattresses or carpet underlay, made in Canada
containing flexible polyurethane foam between 1999 and 2012, odds
are you paid too much for them.

Anyone who purchased flexible polyurethane foam, eligible foam
products or carpet underlay made in Canada for personal,
commercial, or manufacturing use, may be entitled to compensation.
Simply take a photo of your product label or receipt, or provide
another proof of purchase, and fill out a form at
www.foamforcash.com.

Consumers, businesses and other entities are finally getting a
fair deal following a multimillion-dollar settlement of class
action lawsuits against manufacturers of flexible polyurethane
foam who allegedly formed a cartel to fix their prices, between
1999 and 2012, resulting in inflated costs for Canadian consumers
and entities.

The class action lawsuits were settled out of court for $38
million, which represents one of the largest price fixing
settlements in Canada.

To make sure Canadians know about the money they may be owed and
how easy it is to collect, the four law firms leading these class
actions, along with consumer advocacy group Option consommateurs,
are launching the Foam for Cash campaign.  Its objective is to
ensure as many Canadians as possible claim what they are owed.

"This settlement sends out a strong message that this type of
behaviour has serious consequences and provides an opportunity for
all Canadians to show they want healthy competition between
manufacturers," said Heather Rumble Peterson --
hpeterson@strosbergco.com -- Partner at Strosberg Sasso Sutts.

An end consumer who bought a sofa or mattress for their own use
may claim compensation of $20, or more, depending on the number
and type of eligible Canadian foam products purchased.  Claimants
who bought flexible polyurethane foam for manufacturing or resale
may be entitled to claim significantly more money.  The
compensation amount received will also depend on the volume of
claimants.

Who is eligible for compensation?

You are automatically a Class Member and can complete a claim form
if you:

   -- Live in Canada now or you lived in Canada between
January 1, 1999 and January 10, 2012; and
   -- Bought in Canada flexible polyurethane foam, eligible foam
products or carpet underlay made in Canada for personal,
commercial, or manufacturing use during the same time period.

Which products qualify?

Flexible polyurethane foam refers to a type of foam used in
furniture, mattresses, carpet underlay, and in many other
contexts.

A claim can be made for the purchase of flexible polyurethane foam
made in Canada and for the purchase of the following eligible foam
products, if made in Canada:

   -- Bed mattresses
   -- Upholstered office chairs
   -- Upholstered Armchairs
   -- Two-seat sofas
   -- Three-seat sofas and sectional sofas
   -- Carpet underlay
   -- Carpet pad
   -- Carpet cushion

How do I request money?

   -- To submit a claim -- which is completely free of charge --
simply fill out the online form and send in the required
documentation (for example a picture of the product label or
receipt).

   -- For consumer claims, members of the same family living
together must pool together their purchases in a single claim.

   -- The claims period starts October 9th 2017 and will remain
open until February 6th 2018.  Once all claims have been received,
they will be reviewed for accuracy.  Claimants will receive their
cheques as soon as possible after the Claims Administrator has
completed its review.

How much can I claim?

   -- The minimum amount you may claim is $20, or more, depending
on the number and type of eligible Canadian foam products you
purchased.  The amounts received will depend on the volume of
eligible Canadian foam products you purchased as well as the
volume of claimants.

   -- Manufacturers and resellers who purchased flexible
polyurethane foam made in Canada during this period to make their
products or for resale may also be entitled to compensation.  The
amounts received will depend on the volume and type of Canadian
flexible polyurethane foam or eligible foam products purchased as
well as the volume of claimants.

   -- See the Distribution Protocol for complete details.

For more information

Visit www.foamforcash.com

                 About Foam for Cash campaign

The Foam for Cash campaign is a national awareness campaign tied
to a Canadian class action settlement in the area of competition
law.  It stems from class action lawsuits brought against several
manufacturers who, between 1999 and 2012, were allegedly fixing
the price of flexible polyurethane foam made in Canada, a
component commonly used in furniture, mattresses and carpet
underlay. Out-of-court settlements were negotiated to recover $38
million for the benefit of Canadian consumers and businesses.
These class actions were prosecuted by four law firms: Belleau
Lapointe, Camp Fiorante Mathews Mogerman, Branch MacMaster and
Strosberg Sasso Sutts.

                  About Option consommateurs

Option consommateurs is a not-for-profit organization whose
mission is to promote and defend the rights and interests of
consumers.  In order to do so, it notably institutes class action
lawsuits.  Option consommateurs is active in a number of consumer
interest sectors, including fair business practices, financial
services, energy, agro-food and health.

                           *     *     *

Strosberg Sasso Sutts is one of four law firms that prosecuted the
class actions, as well as Quebec nonprofit group Option
consommateurs. The defendants include Carpenter, DomFoam/Valle
Foam, Vitofoam, Foamex Innovations and Woodbridge Foam, according
to The Sun.


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valentina Kapchits, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No.
1:17-cv-05682 (E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2017), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC operates a credit collection firm
in in Valhalla, New York. [BN]

Valentina Kapchits is a pro se plaintiff.


CIGNA CORP: Gordon Files Suit Asserting Unjust Enrichment
---------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly P. Gordon, Individually and on behalf of the Estate of
Steven H. Gordon, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Cigna Corporation and Life Insurance Company of
North America, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02835 (D. Md.,
September 22, 2017), seeks redress for breach of fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Plaintiff is the surviving spouse of Steven H. Gordon who has a
life insurance offered by his employers and administered by Cigna.
When Mr. Gordon passed away, rather than providing immediate
payment of the death benefits to Ms. Gordon, Cigna deposited her
$152,327.75 in life insurance benefits and the interest Cigna
claimed it owed to her in a Cignassurance Account, a retained
asset account. She alleges that this earns substantial interest
for the Defendants which they did not pass on to Ms. Gordon.

Cigna Corporation is a global health services organization whose
products include medical, dental, disability, life and accident
insurance and related products and services offered through its
various subsidiaries and affiliates. Life Insurance Company of
North America, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CIGNA
Corporation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
      Anna C. Haac, Esq.
      Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      1828 L St. NW, Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      Email: jtycko@tzlegal.com
             ahaac@tzlegal.com
             kaizpuru@tzlegal.com

             - and -

      Daniel S. Kozma, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL S. KOZMA
      2120 L Street, N.W., Suite 700
      Washington, DC 20037
      Telephone: (202) 969-2223
      Facsimile: (202) 822-399
      Email: dkozlaw@aol.com

             - and -

      James E. Miller, Esq.
      Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
      SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      65 Main Street
      Chester, CT 06412
      Telephone: (860) 526-1100
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      Email: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
             lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

             - and -

      Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
      SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      401 West A Street, Suite 2550
      San Diego, CA 942101
      Telephone: (619) 235-2416
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      Email: ktang@sfmslaw.com


CITIBANK NA: "McGill" Remanded Over Arbitration Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SHARON McGILL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
CITIBANK, N.A., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. G04983 (Cal.
App.), Judge Richard M. Aronson of the Court of Appeals of
California for the Fourth District, Division Three, affirmed the
trial court's order denying in part and granting in part
Citibank's petition to compel arbitration, and remanded for
further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.

In 2011, McGill filed the class action based on Citibank's
marketing of the Credit Protector plan and the manner in which
Citibank administered McGill's claim under the plan when she lost
her job in 2008.  The operative complaint alleged claims against
Citibank for (i) violation of California's unfair competition law
("UCL"); (ii) violation of the false advertising law ("FAL");
(iii) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); and
(iv) improper sale of insurance.  The relief McGill sought
included restitution, monetary and punitive damages, attorney fees
and costs, and injunctive relief enjoining Citibank from
continuing to engage in its allegedly illegal and deceptive
practices.

Citibank filed a petition to compel McGill to arbitrate her claims
on an individual basis as required by the Agreement's arbitration
provision.  The trial court granted the petition in part and
denied it in part.  Specifically, the court severed and stayed the
claims for injunctive relief under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, and
ordered McGill to arbitrate all her other claims, including claims
for restitution and damages under the UCL, FAL, CLRA, and
Insurance Code.

The trial court refused to order arbitration of the injunctive
relief claims based on the "Broughton-Cruz rule" that the
California Supreme Court established in Broughton v. Cigna
Healthplans (1999), and Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc.
(2003).  Under that rule, arbitration provisions are unenforceable
as against public policy if they require arbitration of UCL, FAL,
or CLRA injunctive relief claims brought for the public's benefit.

Defendant and Appellant Citibank appealed from the trial court's
order on its petition to compel Plaintiff and Respondent McGill to
arbitrate her class action claims on an individual basis.  The
trial court granted the petition as to McGill's monetary damages
and restitution claims, but denied it as to her injunctive relief
claims.  McGill did not challenge the order on the monetary
damages and restitution claims.  In an earlier opinion, the
Appellate Court reversed the order on the injunctive relief claims
and remanded for the trial court to order all claims to
arbitration.

The Supreme Court, however, granted McGill's petition for review
and reversed the Appellate Court's judgment because the Court
concluded the arbitration provision was unenforceable to the
extent it waived McGill's right to seek public injunctive relief
in any forum.  In doing so, the Supreme Court identified a
potential issue regarding the severability of the waiver
provision, and remanded the matter to the Appellate Court for
further proceedings.

Judge Aronson invited supplemental briefing from the parties on
what appellate issues, if any, remain before remanding the matter
to the trial court.  Both sides agree there are no issues for the
to decide at this time, and therefore he should remand the case to
the trial court so it may resolve the severability claim and any
other issues in the first instance.

Accordingly, although the trial court refused to order McGill's
injunctive relief claims to arbitration based on the Broughton-
Cruz rule, Judge Aronson affirmed the court's order based on the
result it reached and remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.

As the Supreme Court noted, its decision gives rise to additional
issues relating to the enforceability of Citibank's arbitration
provision to the extent the parties seek to raise them.  Those
issues include whether the arbitration provision's waiver of
McGill's statutory right to seek public injunctive relief is
severable, and also whether McGill waived the right to challenge
the trial court's order sending all of her other claims to
arbitration by failing to appeal from the court's original order.
The Judge expressed no opinion on any of these issues, but rather
reserve them for the trial court to decide in the first instance
should the parties pursue them.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/Ts7pVw from Leagle.com.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, Julia B. Strickland --
jstrickland@stroock.com -- and Marcos D. Sasso --
msasso@stroock.com -- for Defendant and Appellant.

Capstone Law, Raul Perez -- Raul.Perez@CapstoneLawyers.com ,
Melissa Grant -- Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com , Glenn A.
Danas -- Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com and Katherine W. Kehr --
Katherine.Kehr@Capstonelawyers.com -- for Plaintiff and
Respondent.


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Anti-Money Laundering Proceedings Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Burke, writing for Financial Standard, reports that funding
for the shareholder class action against the Commonwealth Bank is
now unconditional and proceedings have been filed in the Federal
Court, marking the beginning of one of the largest shareholder
class actions in Australian history.

IMF Bentham said the proceedings were filed on an open class
basis, with Maurice Blackburn conducting the class action in
Melbourne.  IMF also said the claim period has been extended back
to 1 July 2015; shareholders who purchased shares between then and
1pm on 3 August 2017 are eligible to participate in the case.

As previously reported in Financial Standard, the class action
concerns CBA's alleged breaches of anti-money laundering and
counter terrorism financing laws, which corresponded with a
significant share price drop.

In a statement, Maurice Blackburn said the fact proceedings have
been filed represents a "clear signal that [shareholders] won't
tolerate the corporate misconduct that has mired the bank in bad
news in recent times, with thousands registering their interest in
the class action, including hundreds of institutional investors."

Maurice Blackburn national head of class actions Andrew Watson
added: "Our investigations and analysis show that this drop was in
the top one per cent of price movements that CBA experienced in
the past five years, so clearly the news was of material
significance to shareholders."

"Investors would expect the CBA to take a leadership role in
setting high standards of corporate conduct.  Given the opposite
appears to have happened here, shareholders have every right to
seek accountability by exercising their legal rights in the most
efficient and effective way possible -- through the class actions
regime," Mr. Watson said.

Maurice Blackburn's statement said the class action will be led by
long-term investor William Phillips, who commented: "I'm an
accumulator of stock and I don't sell unless something is really
on the nose, but I recently sold more than $250,000 of CBA shares
and reinvested with a different bank.  I don't want to invest in a
company that puts profit before compliance -- profits should
follow compliance." [GN]


COMMONWEALTH BANK: To Vigorously Defend Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Tribune reports that Commonwealth Bank of Australia is
facing a class-action shareholder lawsuit over the decline in its
stock price following allegations of compliance breaches that
allowed its ATMs to be used to launder money.

The bank said it planned to vigorously defend the suit, which was
filed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers on Oct. 9 in the federal court
in Melbourne, Dow Jones reported.

The legal action follows a civil suit launched on Aug. 3 by the
government's financial-intelligence agency, which has spurred
independent reviews of the bank by regulators.  The Australian
Transaction Reports and Analysis Center, or Austrac, alleged more
than 53,000 breaches of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-
Terrorism Financing Act, most relating to a failure to provide
timely transaction reports on deposits into accounts at the bank
over several years until 2015.

Shares of Commonwealth Bank, Australia's largest bank by market
value and the biggest residential mortgage lender, dropped more
than 8% immediately after Austrac filed its suit, and have
underperformed the wider financial industry since.

Maurice Blackburn said Commonwealth Bank failed shareholders by
not revealing the alleged breaches until August, despite later
acknowledging that its board was aware of them in the second half
of 2015.

The case was filed on behalf of investors who bought the bank's
shares between July 2015 and August 2017 and who held some or all
of those shares until after the afternoon of Aug. 3.  The suit
names outgoing Chief Executive Ian Narev, Chairman Catherine
Livingstone, Chief Risk Officers Alden Toevs and David Cohen, and
other senior figures at the bank.

"Shareholders have every right to seek accountability," said
Andrew Watson, head of class actions at Maurice Blackburn.

Austrac's case centers on Commonwealth Bank's "intelligence
deposit machines", which allow anonymous deposits of up to 20,000
Australian dollars ($15,536) in cash at a time and automatically
credit accounts.  The agency alleged the bank failed to provide
necessary reports on transactions above a A$10,000 threshold over
three years from 2012, failed to report some suspicious
transactions on time or at all, and neglected to monitor customers
even after it became aware of suspected money laundering.

The bank has yet to file a response in court but has said a coding
error introduced with a software upgrade accounted for the vast
majority of reporting failures alleged by the agency.

Livingstone has said the bank acted quickly to fix the coding
error after it was discovered in 2015, but acknowledged the damage
the suit meant for the bank's reputation. [GN]


COREPOWER YOGA: $1.7MM Settlement in "Walsh" Has Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WILLIAM WALSH, Plaintiff, v. COREPOWER YOGA
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-05610-MEJ (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maria-
Elena James of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted the Plaintiff's unopposed (i) Motion for
Certification of the Settlement Class, Final Approval of the Class
Action Settlement, and Approval of the FLSA Settlement; and
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's (ii) Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

CorePower owns and operates dozens of yoga studios nationwide.  To
maintain its facilities and until approximately 2015, CorePower
created and operated a "Yoga for Trade" ("YFT") program at dozens
of studios in California and around the country.  Through the YFT
program, CorePower Yoga customers worked approximately two- to
three-hour scheduled weekly shifts during which they cleaned and
performed other project-based work at their local studio.  In
exchange, they received free yoga classes.  CorePower did not pay
these students ("YFT Cleaners") any wages for their work.

Beginning in late 2013, CorePower phased out the YFT program and
replaced it with the Studio Experience Team ("SET").  Under the
SET program, CorePower students continued to work regular weekly
shifts of approximately one-and-a-half hours, but CorePower paid
them an hourly wage for their work.  Instead of receiving free
yoga classes, however, the Plaintiff alleges that SET Cleaners
were required to apply a large portion of their wages towards the
purchase of a discounted yoga membership at CorePower, which
reduced their pay below the applicable minimum wage.  The
Plaintiff worked for CorePower as both YFT and SET Cleaner at one
of CorePower's studios in Berkeley, California.

Plaintiff Walsh filed the putative class and collective action
against the Defendant on Oct. 3, 2016.  He contends that CorePower
violated wage and hour laws by: (i) failing to pay YFT Cleaners
any wages for the hours they worked, in violation of California
and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") minimum wage provisions;
and (ii) paying California SET Cleaners subminimum wages by
requiring them to purchase yoga memberships as a condition of
work.

CorePower denies any wrongdoing, but agreed to settle these claims
before the Plaintiff filed suit.  The Plaintiff filed this action
on behalf of the California Class and as a representative of the
FLSA Collective.  The Court preliminarily approved the settlement,
provisionally certified the proposed class and approved the FLSA
Collective, and directed notice to Class and Collective members.

The Court held a final fairness hearing on July 13, 2017.  As of
the date of the hearing, four potential Class members objected to
the settlement in writing, each on the ground that they had
enjoyed the YFT and SET Programs and did not feel the lawsuit was
warranted.  As of the date of the hearing, 34 potential class
members requested they be excluded from the Class.  No Class or
Collective members appeared at the hearing.

The Defendant agreed to pay a Total Settlement Amount of
$1,650,000.  This was expected to represent a recovery of
approximately 41% of the estimated unpaid minimum wages for
California Class members' YFT workweeks, 8.6% for California Class
members' SET workweeks, and 25% for the FLSA Collective members'
workweeks.

At the conclusion of the opt-in period, only 16% of the FLSA
Collective members had returned Consent to Join and Release Forms;
under the distribution method contemplated by the Settlement
Agreement.  By stipulation, the parties agreed to amend the
Settlement Agreement to redistribute to FLSA Collective and Class
members the portion of the FLSA Collective Share of Net Settlement
Fund that exceeds the sum total of the Estimated Settlement Shares
of all Participating FLSA Collective members, consistent with
their proportionate shares of the Net Settlement Fund.

The Settlement Agreement authorizes Class Counsel to apply for an
award of attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed one-third of
the Total Settlement Amount, plus the costs incurred in litigating
this case.  In the separately filed Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Class Counsel requests $550,000 in fees and $11,917.39 in costs.
The Class Counsel also requests an incentive payment of $10,000 to
the Plaintiff.  The Settlement Administrator requests costs in the
amount of $69,875.  Finally, $7,500 will be paid to the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency, representing 75% of the
total penalties allocated to the claims brought under the
California Private Attorneys General Act.

After deducting the proposed fees and costs, the Net Settlement
Fund is estimated to be approximately $993,183.  The Settlement
Agreement originally contemplated allocating 65% of the Net
Settlement Fund to California Class members and 35% to FLSA
Collective members; the allocation has been changed to ensure FLSA
Collective members will not receive an unfair proportion of the
Net Settlement Fund.  In addition, California Class members had
the option of electing to receive a gift card with a face value of
twice their settlement amount; as of the date of the hearing, 542
California Class members elected to receive a gift card.

Unclaimed funds for the California Class are non-reversionary.
Uncashed checks mailed to FLSA Collective members who opted in to
the Settlement will revert to CorePower if they have not been
cashed within 90 days.

In summary, Judge James (i) granted the Certification Motion and
certified the California Class; (ii) granted final approval of the
Settlement Agreement as amended on Feb. 6, 2017 and Sept. 18,
2017; and (iii) certified the FLSA Collective.

She also granted in part the Fees Motion and approved payment of
$412,500 in attorneys' fees to Class Counsel; payment of $10,000
as a service award to William Walsh; and payment of $69,875 to SSI
for the costs of administering the Settlement.

The Judge denied without prejudice the requests for costs.  No
later than Oct. 10, 2017, the Class Counsel may submit a detailed
explanation supporting its cost request.

Judge James scheduled a status conference for Feb. 22, 2018 at
10:00 a.m.  The parties will file a joint status report a week
before the status conference describing any issues they believe
should be addressed at the status conference, outlining a proposed
course of conduct for remedying such issues, and indicating the
percentage of Class and Collective members who have cashed
settlement checks up to that point.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/v7f8jD from Leagle.com.

William Walsh, Plaintiff, represented by Juno E. Turner --
jturner@outtengolden.com -- Outten and Golden LLP, pro hac vice.

William Walsh, Plaintiff, represented by Jahan C. Sagafi --
jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP.

CorePower Yoga LLC, Defendant, represented by Cheryl D. Orr --
cheryl.orr@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & Ramon Andres
Miyar -- ramon.miyar@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.


CRESTWOOD, IL: Mayor Balks at Red-Light Camera Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Swanson, writing for Patch, reports that Mayor Lou Presta
is firing back at a class action lawsuit alleging that the Village
of Crestwood has laid a red-light camera trap for unsuspecting
motorists at the Cal Sag-Cicero intersection.

Presta claims the class action lawsuit filed in Cook County
Circuit Court is politically motivated.  The lawsuit is asking
that more than $3 million in red-light camera fines be returned to
snared motorists.

Chicago attorney Tom Zimmerman maintains that thousands of
motorists have been hit with fines for allegedly failing to come
to a complete stop in the southbound right turn lane of Cicero
Avenue on to Cal-Sag Road.  The class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of plaintiffs Rosie Jones, Debra Dembry, Janet Wittenmyer
and "all others similarly situated."  A traffic island diverts
southbound traffic from Cicero into a hard-right turn lane onto
Cal Sag. Motorists have complained the intersection is "confusing"
and the traffic light "difficult to see," according to an ABC 7
Chicago and Sun-Times investigation.

The traffic signals currently in operation at the intersection
direct "through traffic" from the north and southbound lanes of
Cicero Avenue.  Red-light cameras placed on the traffic lights are
designed to catch vehicles from Cicero Avenue proceeding into the
intersection after the light changes from green to red. The red-
light cameras also automatically issue tickets to motorists making
a right turn onto Cal-Sag.

"The traffic lights at that intersection control the through
traffic on Cicero Avenue and not the designated right hand turn
lane," Mr. Zimmerman said.  "The Illinois Vehicle Code simply
requires drivers to yield to moving traffic."

A sign instructing those making a right turn also warns drivers
that the intersection is "photo enforced" and to come to a
complete stop.  Mr. Presta said people who are fined for making
right turns without stopping frequently knock down and photograph
the sign before they go to court.

A letter from the village attorney Christine Walczak, of the law
firm Socin, Arnold and Schoenbeck in response to Mr. Zimmerman's
freedom of information request states that since the red-light
cameras were installed a year ago, the Village of Crestwood has
issued 56,707 red-light camera tickets through Sept. 20, 2017. Ms.
Walczak also notes that the total amount of revenue collected from
red-light camera tickets since the program's inception is
$3,170,648. The months of August and September are still being
tallied. The figures do not indicate how many of the tickets were
issued for people making right turns.

Also representing the plaintiffs is Roth Fioretti, LLC, of which
former 2nd Ward Chicago Alderman Bob Fioretti is a named partner.
Mr. Fioretti challenged Mayor Rahm Emanuel in the 2015 Chicago
Primary.

"This is a big publicity stunt," Mr. Presta said.  "It's
political. [Fioretti] wants to run for mayor again.  Why aren't
they suing IDOT? Because the state doesn't have any money."

The mayor said the village requested red-light cameras because of
the high frequency of accidents at the intersection.  While the
village requested the cameras, Mr. Presta said the cameras
required sign-offs by IDOT, Christopher Burke Engineering and
Meade Electric, the camera installer.

"The village can't do nothing," Mr. Presta added.  "Our police
chief said since the cameras were installed, accidents have
decreased. I guess we'll have to fight them in court."

The lawsuit is asking for fines to be returned to the thousands of
right-turning motorists who Mr. Zimmerman maintains were wrongly
ticketed, as well as a public declaration from the Village of
Crestwood stating that violations issued from the right turn lanes
from Cicero Avenue onto Cal Sag violated the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices and the Illinois Vehicle Code.

"The lawsuit says 56,000 tickets have been issued at $100 a piece;
that'd be over $5 million," Mr. Presta said.  "They're asking for
$3 million. Where are they getting these numbers from. I'm no CPA,
but someone needs to learn how to add."

Meanwhile, Mr. Zimmerman says he's received several calls from
plaintiffs asking to be added to the complaint.  With Cal Sag
Bridge closures scheduled to start Oct. 16, red-light camera
tickets may not be an issue for the next several months. [GN]


DAIRYAMERICA INC: Can't Compel 3rd-Parties to Reply to Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL ROZWADOWSKI
and DIANA WOLFE, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAIRYAMERICA, INC., and
CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:09-cv-00430-AWI-
EPG (E.D. Cal.), Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California denied DairyAmerica's
motion to compel the "Third-Party" Plaintiffs Ronald Hayek,
Timothy L. Rawlings, James Rehberg, and Michael K. Schugg to
respond to discovery requests.

The case was initiated on March 6, 2009, filed on behalf of
Plaintiff Class Representatives Carlin, Rahm, Rozwadowski, and
Wolfe against the Defendants.  On April 3, 2009, the same
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint naming the same Defendants.

Third-Party Plaintiffs Hayek, Rehberg, and Rawlings and Schugg
filed a class action complaint against the Defendants on March 25,
2009, March 26, 2009, and April 3, 2009, respectively.

On May 29, 2009, U.S. Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck entered an
order consolidating this case with 1:09cv0556-AWI-DLB, 1:09cv0558-
AWI-DLB and 1:09cv0607-AWI-DLB for all purposes, including trial.
This case was designated as the lead case, and the parties were
instructed to file all documents in the lead case.

On Jan. 20, 2016, the Court granted leave for the Plaintiffs to
file a Third Amended Complaint which they filed on Feb. 24, 2016
by individual and representative Plaintiffs Carlin, Rahm,
Rozwadowski and Wolfe, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, against the Defendants.

Most recently, the Plaintiffs were granted their request for leave
to file a "fourth amended consolidated class action complaint" on
Aug. 25, 2017.  The deadline to file the Fourth Amended Complaint
is Oct. 4, 2017.

In response to DairyAmerica's first set of discovery requests
served in April 2014, the Third-Party Plaintiffs timely responded
with substantive responses, produced documents and were deposed by
Defendant DairyAmerica in June 2015.

In July 2015, DairyAmerica propounded its second set of discovery
requests upon all the Plaintiffs, including the Third-Party
Plaintiffs: three requests for production, nine interrogatories,
and six requests for admission.  The Third-Party Plaintiffs
formally responded to the Requests by objecting to them inter alia
on confidentiality and relevance grounds.  The parties met and
conferred regarding the discovery dispute.

On June 13, 2017, the parties initiated discovery dispute
proceedings before Magistrate Judge Grosjean.  After a hearing on
June 23, 2017, the parties were granted leave to file motions to
compel.  On July 5, 2017, the parties filed motions for discovery.
In compliance with this District's local rules, the parties filed
a joint statement regarding discovery disputes on July 19, 2017.
A discovery dispute conference was held on July 26, 2017. The
Court took under advisement the issue of whether the Third-Party
Plaintiffs are required to provide responses to the Requests.

Magistrate Judge Grosjean finds that DairyAmerica had notice that
the Plaintiffs were requesting leave to file a consolidated class
action complaint.  Therefore, the appropriate time to impose
conditions upon the dismissal or withdrawal of the former Third-
Party Plaintiffs would have been at the time the Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a consolidated class action complaint was
pending.

DairyAmerica did not attempt to litigate this issue at that time.
As a result, no conditions were placed upon the dismissal of the
former Third-Party Plaintiffs.  Thus, the Court no longer has
jurisdiction over the former Third-Party Plaintiffs, cannot order
them to respond to the Requests under Rule 37, and must deny
DairyAmerica's motion to compel.

The mere possibility that the former Third-Party Plaintiffs could
eventually be included in a class certified at a future date does
not change the result.  At this time, no class has been certified
under Rule 23, and therefore, the former Third-Party Plaintiffs
are not presently in the case.

The Magistrate Judge declines to adopt a rule permitting discovery
upon "absent" class members.  The only means by which DairyAmerica
can now obtain discovery from these individuals is by serving a
Rule 45 subpoena.  Accordingly, she denied DairyAmerica's motion
to compel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Fky4ej from Leagle.com.

Gerald Carlin, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler --
cpoppler@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman Tabacco.

Gerald Carlin, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony David Phillips --
aphillips@archernorris.com -- Berman DeValerio, Benjamin Doyle
Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, Brent W. Johnson -- bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C. Laufenberg
-- claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro
hac vice, Christopher Heffelfinger --
cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman Tabacco, George F.
Farah, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli
E. Farris -- jfarris@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP,
Justin N. Saif -- jsaif@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio --
gfarah@cohenmilstein.com -- pro hac vice, Leslie M. Kroeger --
lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice & Ryan McDevitt -- rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com --
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice.

John Rahm, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler, Berman
Tabacco, Anthony David Phillips, Berman DeValerio, Benjamin Doyle
Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson, Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C. Laufenberg,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Christopher Heffelfinger,
Berman Tabacco, George F. Farah, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller Rohrback LLP, Justin N.
Saif, Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice, Leslie M. Kroeger, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Ryan McDevitt, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Paul Rozwadowski, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler,
Berman Tabacco, Anthony David Phillips, Berman DeValerio, Benjamin
Doyle Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson,
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C.
Laufenberg, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Christopher
Heffelfinger, Berman Tabacco, George F. Farah, Cohen Milstein
Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller
Rohrback LLP, Justin N. Saif, Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice,
Leslie M. Kroeger, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ryan McDevitt, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Diana Wolfe, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler, Berman
Tabacco, Anthony David Phillips, Berman DeValerio, Benjamin Doyle
Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson, Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C. Laufenberg,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Christopher Heffelfinger,
Berman Tabacco, George F. Farah, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller Rohrback LLP, Justin N.
Saif, Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice & Ryan McDevitt, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice.

DairyAmerica, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M. English,
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice, E. John Steren --
esteren@ebglaw.com -- Ober Kaler, pro hac vice, Joseph Michael
Marchini -- jmm@bmj-law.com -- Baker, Manock & Jensen, Wendy M.
Yoviene -- wyoviene@bakerdonelson -- Ober Kaler, pro hac vice,
Allison Ann Davis -- allisondavis@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine
LLP, Joy G. Kim -- joykim@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP &
Sanjay Mohan Nangia -- sanjaynangia@dwt.com -- Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP.

California Dairies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lawrence
Michael Cirelli -- lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett,
Shannon Marie Nessier, Hanson Bridgett LLP & Megan Oliver
Thompson, Hanson Bridgett LLP.

Bimemiller Candice, Unknown, represented by Edward Zusman, Markun
Zusman Freniere & Compton LLP.

James Rehberg, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J. Barton
Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice & Jon A. Tostrud, Tostrud
Law Group, P.C..

Ronald Hayek, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J. Barton
Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice & Jon A. Tostrud, Tostrud
Law Group, P.C..

Michael K. Schugg, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J. Barton
Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice & Juli E. Farris, Keller
Rohrback LLP.

Timothy L. Rawlings, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J.
Barton Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris,
Keller Rohrback LLP, Mark A. Griffin, Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac
vice & Raymond J. Farrow, Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice.

Land O' Lakes, Inc., Amicus, represented by Gregory M. Schweizer -
- gschweizer@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, pro hac vice,
Scott C. Solberg --ssolberg@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, pro
hac vice & Seth D. Hilton -- sethhilton@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives
LLP.

California Farmers Union, Amicus, represented by Daniel Bennett
Harris.

California Dairy Campaign, Amicus, represented by Daniel Bennett
Harris.

Lani Ellingsworth, Movant, represented by Darin M. Dalmat --
dmdalmat@jamhoff.com -- James & Hoffman, P.C. & Glenn Rothner,
Rothner, Segall & Greenstone, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice & Jon
A. Tostrud, Tostrud Law Group, P.C..


DAVID-JACOBS PUBLISHING: Faces "Fielman" Suit in M.D. of Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against David-Jacobs
Publishing Group, LLC. The case is styled as Joshua Fielman,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated who
consent to their inclusion in a collective action, Plaintiff v.
David-Jacobs Publishing Group, LLC and Josh Wattam, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02386-CEH-MAP (M.D. Fla.,
October 11, 2017).

David-Jacobs Publishing Group focuses on publishing specifically
for the travel minded consumer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradley Robert Hall, Esq.
   Creed Law Group
   13043 W Linebaugh Ave
   Tampa, FL 33626-4485
   Tel: (813) 444-4332
   Fax: (813) 441-6121
   Email: bhall@creedlawgroup.com

      - and -

   Dennis A. Creed, III, Esq.
   Creed Law Group
   13043 W Linebaugh Ave
   Tampa, FL 33626-4485
   Tel: (813) 444-4332
   Fax: (813) 441-6121
   Email: dcreed@creedlawgroup.com


DEGROFF INDUSTRIES: "Whalen" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Whalen, and all others similarly-situated v. Degroff
Industries, Inc., Lavender Farms, LLC, Ronald Larson and Kim
Larson, Case No. 1:17-cv-02092 (N.D. Ohio, October 5, 2017), seeks
monetary, declaratory and equitable relief based on Defendants'
failure to compensate minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio's Prompt Pay Act.

Plaintiff Michelle Whalen resides in the Northern District of
Ohio. Plaintiff worked as server to the Defendants.

Defendants own and operate Strip Steakhouse, which is a restaurant
and bar located at the Shoppes of Olde Avon Village in Avon, Ohio.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Kimble, Esq.
      Andrew Biller, Esq.
      Eric Kmetz, Esq.
      MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
      3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
      Cincinnati, OH 45209
      Tel: (513) 651-3700
      Fax: (513) 665-0219
      E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
              akimble@msdlegal.com
              ekmetz@msdlegal.com


DISH NETWORK: Court Denies Bid for Judgment in "Krakauer"
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned THOMAS H. KRAKAUER, Plaintiff, v DISH
NETWORK L.L.C., Defendant, No. 1:14-CV-333 (M.D. N.C.), Judge
Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina denied Dish Network's motion for
judgment as a matter of law and remittitur.

In this nationwide class action brought pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), a jury found that the Defendant
was liable to the Named Plaintiff, and several thousand class
members for more than 50,000 telemarketing calls made on behalf of
Dish to phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.  The
Court determined that Dish willfully and knowingly violated the
TCPA and trebled the damages.

Dish now seeks to set aside the verdict and dismiss the action
because, Dish contends, the judgment of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of Illinois in United States v. DISH
Network, LLC ("Illinois Action"), constitutes res judicata.  It
also renews its request for remittitur, asserting that the treble
damages awarded are excessive and duplicative under the Due
Process Clause in light of the Illinois Action.

Judge Eagles finds that this case was filed many months after the
Illinois Action, and both were pending at the same time for
several years.  Dish knew very early in this lawsuit that some of
the same phone calls were involved in both lawsuits. Dish waived
any res judicata arguments and acquiesced in the filing of two
separate lawsuits through its prolonged silence, its
representations to the Court and the Plaintiffs, and its failure
to object to the dual prosecution of the case and the Illinois
Action.  To hold otherwise would work an injustice on Dr.
Krakauer, the class, and the judicial system without serving the
main purposes of res judicata: to promote judicial economy and to
protect the defendant from defending the same lawsuit twice.

In the alternative, the Judge concludes that Dish has not shown
that it is entitled to the benefit of the res judicata doctrine.
The application of res judicata requires a showing of three
elements: (i) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier suit,
(ii) an identity of the cause of action in both the earlier and
the later suit, and (iii) an identity of parties or their privies
in the two suits.  Res judicata does not apply in this case
because Dish has not shown an identity of parties or identity of
the cause of action.

Because Dish has not satisfied all three elements of res judicata
and in any event waived any res judicata defense, Dr. Krakauer's
claims are not precluded.  Dr. Krakauer remains an appropriate
class representative and there is no reason to dismiss the case or
decertify the class.  Even if the Court had decided that res
judicata was applicable to Dr. Krakauer's claims, dismissal or
decertification is not necessarily proper.  A stay pending appeal
of the final judgment in the Illinois Action or substitution of
another class representative might be more appropriate in these
circumstances.

Judge Eagles also concludes that the treble damages award is
neither excessive nor duplicative.  She says it is not "grossly
excessive" to require Dish to pay treble damages for the more than
50,000 willful violations it committed, given the nature of the
privacy interests repeatedly invaded and Dish's continuing
disregard for those interests, the extent of the violations, and
the need to advance reasonable governmental interests in deterring
future violations.

Dish's argument that the treble damages imposed in this case
impermissibly duplicate the Illinois Judgment, piling a
potentially massive penalty on top of the $280 million the
district court in Illinois imposed on the same generalized basis
and for the same overarching reasons, has little merit according
to the Judge.  The treble damages awarded in this case are not
duplicative of the judgment in the Illinois Action in any
meaningful way.

The Illinois Court imposed what it considered to be liquidated
damages.  It is also apparent that the Illinois Court reduced the
TCPA damages award because of the amount of damages it awarded for
Dish's violations of other statutes not at issue in this case.  It
would be a bit much to twice reduce Dish's obligation to pay TCPA
damages because it has been found to have violated many other laws
millions of times.

For these reasons, Judge Eagles denied the Defendant's motion for
judgment as a matter of law and remittitur.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/JkXnXn from Leagle.com.

Thomas H. Krakauer, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony I. Paronich
-- anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick & Paronich, P.C..

Thomas H. Krakauer, Plaintiff, represented by Brian A. Glasser --
bglasser@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser, LLP, Edward A.
Broderick, Broderick Law, P.C., John W. Barrett --
jbarrett@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser, LLP, John J. Roddy
-- jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser, LLP, Mathew P.
McCue -- mmccue.massattorneys.net -- Law Office of Mathew P.
McCue, Patrick Muench -- pmuench@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey &
Glasser, LLP & Jacob Matthew Norris, The Norris Law Firm.

Dish Network L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Allegra A. Noona --
noonan@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Benjamen
E. Kern --  bkern@beneschlaw.com -- Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan &
Aronofff, LLP, David M. Krueger -- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com --
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronofff, LLP, David Litterine-
Kaufman -- dlitterinekaufman@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, Elyse D. Echtman -- eechtman@orrick.com -- Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Eric L. Zalud, Benesch, Friedlander,
Coplan & Aronofff, LLP, Jeremy Gilman, Benesch, Friedlander,
Coplan & Aronofff, LLP, John L. Ewald -- jewald@orrick.com --
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Julie Gorchkova --
jgorchkova@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Laura
E. Kogan --  lkogan@beneschlaw.com -- Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan
& Aronofff, LLP, Louisa S. Irving -- lirving@orrick.com -- Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Peter A. Bicks -- pbicks@orrick.com --
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Richard J. Keshian, Kilpatrick
Townsend & Stockton LLP & Shasha Y. Zou -- szou@orrick.com --
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.


EQUIFAX GROUP: Klavans Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Klavans, in behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Credit Information
Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01346, (D. Del.,
September 22, 2017), seeks compensatory, statutory, treble and
punitive damages, costs of suit including the costs of notice of
class action certification and judgment, and reasonable attorneys'
fees resulting from invasion of privacy and violation of the
federal 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.

Klavans claims to be a victim of the data breach.

Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Credit Information Services LLC are
engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and dispersing
information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing
consumer reports to third parties upon request. [BN]

      Gilbert F. Shelsby, Jr., Esq.
      Robert J. Leoni, Esq.
      SHELSBY & LEONI, P.A.
      221 Main Street
      Wilmington, DE 19804
      Telephone: (302) 995-6210
      Facsimile: (302) 995-6121
      Email: gshelsby@mslde.com
             rleoni@mslde.com

             - and -

      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


EI DU PONT: Bid to Transfer New York Labor Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Gerard Dunne et al., Plaintiffs, v. E.I. Du
Pont De Nemours and Co., Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-659S (W.D.
N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York denied without prejudice both
of DuPont's non-dispositive motions to transfer the case and to
stay proceedings.

Plaintiff Dunne and nearly three dozen of his coworkers at DuPont
believe that DuPont has shortchanged them on overtime wages and
has taken way too long to pay overtime wages owed to them.  They
accordingly filed suit on July 17, 2017, alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as violations of
New York Minimum Wage Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs -- 33 total -- are current or former DuPont
employees who worked at the Yerkes Plant in Buffalo, New York.
Their allegations center around how DuPont scheduled shifts at the
Buffalo plant.  To ensure 24-hour coverage at the plant, DuPont
scheduled swing shifts and rotating shifts.

The complaint contains a succinct description of the two types of
shifts: (i) when the Plaintiffs and other overtime eligible
employees work swing shifts, they rotate between two 12-hour long
shifts to ensure continuous 24-hour coverage; and (ii) when the
Plaintiffs and other overtime eligible employees work rotating
shifts they work Monday through Friday, on assigned 8-hour shifts.
Apart from swing and rotating shifts, the Plaintiffs worked
additional overtime shifts as well.

On Sept. 2, 2016, a DuPont employee named Gene Chance filed suit
against DuPont in the Eastern District of Texas.  The current
operative pleading in the Texas Case is the third amended
complaint filed on May 8, 2017, accusing DuPont of violating the
FLSA by failing to include all remuneration in its calculation of
overtime wages and by failing to use the correct overtime formula.

Chance announced explicitly in the third amended complaint that he
intended to create a collective action whose class would be all
current and former hourly or salaried non-exempt employees who
worked for the Defendant between Sept. 2, 2013 and the present who
received a scheduled overtime allowance, including both day shift
and night shift.  On May 8, 2017, Chance filed an amended motion
to certify his proposed class which DuPont opposes.  The parties
informed the Court at oral argument that the motion for
certification is scheduled for a hearing on Oct. 11, 2017.

The second case that appears to have overlapped the New York case
originated in the Middle District of Tennessee.  On June 2, 2017,
DuPont workers Kenneth Cook, James Botts, Shawn Hunter, Larry
LaClair, Thomas Short, George Willis, James Cahoon, and Chris
Paulley filed suit against DuPont in the Middle District of
Tennessee accusing DuPont of violating the FLSA by failing to
include all remuneration in its calculations of overtime wages,
leading the company to shortchange the Tennessee plaintiffs for
overtime owed to them.  As with the Texas Case, the Tennessee
Plaintiffs put DuPont on notice that they were suing individually
but also wanted to define a national class for a collective
action.  The Tennessee Plaintiffs' attorneys also represent the
Plaintiffs in New York case.

On June 9, 2017, the Tennessee Plaintiffs moved to certify a class
for a collective action.  On June 15, 2017, DuPont filed motions
to stay the Tennessee Case and to transfer it to the Eastern
District of Texas.  On Aug. 3, 2017, the court in the Tennessee
Case granted the motion to transfer, denied the motion to stay as
moot, and deferred ruling on the motion for certification.

Because one of those cases began before the New York one did, and
because both of the other cases are seeking certification of a
national FLSA class for similar claims, DuPont has filed non-
dispositive motions to transfer the New York case and to stay
proceedings until the receiving court can assess where to go next.
The Plaintiffs oppose a transfer and stay, generally on the basis
that they are proceeding individually for their FLSA claim and
that the case is the only one of the three that contains state-
level claims.

As the parties reported at oral argument, the Eastern District of
Texas will hold a hearing on class certification and probably will
decide on class certification within a month or two thereafter.
Knowing first what will happen with class certification will bring
a lot of clarity to the Plaintiffs' situation here; without
committing to any future positions, denial of certification
possibly would strengthen the Plaintiffs' argument to keep this
case here, while a grant of certification possibly would
strengthen DuPont's argument to transfer the case quickly and to
let the Eastern District of Texas arrange for whatever limited
discovery would have to be done for this case in New York.  DuPont
has not shown such an urgent need to transfer that the issue
cannot wait a couple of months for guidance from the Eastern
District of Texas.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Scott has decided that denial
without prejudice is the best approach for now.  While the issue
of class certification runs its course in the Eastern District of
Texas, he endorsed the Plaintiffs' proposal from oral argument and
directed the parties to proceed with New York-related discovery
that will have to occur regardless of transfer.  The Magistrate
Judge will hold a status conference on Jan. 24, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.
to obtain an update from the parties on discovery and on the class
certification proceedings in the Eastern District of Texas.

For all of these reasons, Magistrate Judge Scott denied DuPont's
motions to transfer and to stay proceedings, but without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Magistrate's Oct. 3, 2017 Decision and
Order is available at https://is.gd/iAd0Fv from Leagle.com.

Gerard Dunne, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Creighton --
ccreighton@cpjglaborlaw.com -- Creighton Johnsen & Giroux.

Gerard Dunne, Plaintiff, represented by Charles P. Yezbak --
djn@wmlaborlaw.com -- Yezbak Law Offices, Diana J. Nobile --
djn@wmlaborlaw.com -- Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Gregory K.
McGillivary -- gkm@wmlaborlaw.com -- Woodley & McGillivary LLP,
Sarah Michelle Block -- info@wmlaborlaw.com -- Woodley &
McGillivary LLP & William Wei Ming Li, Woodley & McGillivary LLP,
pro hac vice.

Margaret Manning, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Creighton,
Creighton Johnsen & Giroux, Charles P. Yezbak, Yezbak Law Offices,
Diana J. Nobile, Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Gregory K.
McGillivary, Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Sarah Michelle Block,
Woodley & McGillivary LLP & William Wei Ming Li, Woodley &
McGillivary LLP, pro hac vice.

Ronald Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Creighton,
Creighton Johnsen & Giroux, Charles P. Yezbak, Yezbak Law Offices,
Diana J. Nobile, Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Gregory K.
McGillivary, Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Sarah Michelle Block,
Woodley & McGillivary LLP & William Wei Ming Li, Woodley &
McGillivary LLP, pro hac vice.

Dion Walker, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Creighton,
Creighton Johnsen & Giroux, Charles P. Yezbak, Yezbak Law Offices,
Diana J. Nobile, Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Gregory K.
McGillivary, Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Sarah Michelle Block,
Woodley & McGillivary LLP & William Wei Ming Li, Woodley &
McGillivary LLP, pro hac vice.

Lisa Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Creighton,
Creighton Johnsen & Giroux, Charles P. Yezbak, Yezbak Law Offices,
Diana J. Nobile, Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Gregory K.
McGillivary, Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Sarah Michelle Block,
Woodley & McGillivary LLP & William Wei Ming Li, Woodley &
McGillivary LLP, pro hac vice.

Ronald Carbonneau, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Creighton,
Creighton Johnsen & Giroux, Charles P. Yezbak, Yezbak Law Offices,
Diana J. Nobile, Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Gregory K.
McGillivary, Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Sarah Michelle Block,
Woodley & McGillivary LLP & William Wei Ming Li, Woodley &
McGillivary LLP, pro hac vice.

Tommy Carmichael, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Creighton,
Creighton Johnsen & Giroux, Charles P. Yezbak, Yezbak Law Offices,
Diana J. Nobile, Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Gregory K.
McGillivary, Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Sarah Michelle Block,
Woodley & McGillivary LLP & William Wei Ming Li, Woodley &
McGillivary LLP, pro hac vice.

Adonis Coble, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Creighton,
Creighton Johnsen & Giroux, Charles P. Yezbak, Yezbak Law Offices,
Diana J. Nobile, Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Gregory K.
McGillivary, Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Sarah Michelle Block,
Woodley & McGillivary LLP & William Wei Ming Li, Woodley &
McGillivary LLP, pro hac vice.

Christopher Danzi, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Creighton,
Creighton Johnsen & Giroux, Charles P. Yezbak, Yezbak Law Offices,
Diana J. Nobile, Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Gregory K.
McGillivary, Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Sarah Michelle Block,
Woodley & McGillivary LLP & William Wei Ming Li, Woodley &
McGillivary LLP, pro hac vice.

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co, Defendant, represented by
Stephanie L. Goutos -- Stephanie.Goutos@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis LLP, Vincent E. Polsinelli --
Vincent.Polsinelli@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP & Eric R.
Magnus -- MagnusE@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., pro hac
vice.


EIHAB TAWFIK: Amended Employees' Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PAMELA RIZZO-ALDERSON; DEENA BENENHALEY;
EVELYN SARNO; NICOLE RICHARDSON; and TAMI YOUNG, Plaintiffs, v.
EIHAB H. TAWFIK, M.D., P.A.; and EIHAB H. TAWFIK, Defendants, Case
No. 5:17-cv-312-Oc-37PRL (M.D. Fla.), Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala
Division, granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs
Amended Complaint with Incorporated Memorandum of Law.

The Plaintiffs bring the proposed class action on behalf of a
class of employees who allegedly were unlawfully laid off and
deprived of wages by the Defendants.  On Sept. 11, 2015, the
Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint as a shotgun
pleading, and the Plaintiffs filed a timely response.

The Plaintiffs' five-count Amended Complaint includes the
following state and federal claims: (i) violation of the minimum
wage requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as to
the Plaintiffs against all the Defendants (Count I); (ii)
violation of the minimum wage requirements of the FLSA as to those
similarly situated against all the Defendants (Count II); (iii)
violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act of 1988 against Christ Medical Center (Count III); (iv)
minimum wage pursuant to the Florida Constitution against all the
Defendants (Count IV); and (v) unpaid wages against Christ Medical
Center (Count V).

Judge Dalton finds that each of the five counts incorporate by
reference all of the first 53 paragraphs of the Amended Complaint.
For this reason, and because the Plaintiff's allegations are
largely conclusory or simply parrot statutory language, he finds
that the Amended Complaint is a quintessential shotgun pleading.
Thus, repleader is required.

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint with Incorporated Memorandum of Law.
He dismissed without prejudice the Amended Complaint as a shotgun
pleading.

On or before Oct. 13, 2017, the Plaintiffs may file an Amended
Complaint in accordance with the Order.  Absent timely compliance
with the requirements of the Order, the action will be closed
without further notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/bfbqit from Leagle.com.

Pamela Rizzo-Alderson, Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Melton,
Whittel & Melton.

Pamela Rizzo-Alderson, Plaintiff, represented by Jay P. Lechner,
Whittel & Melton.

Deena Benehaley, Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Melton,
Whittel & Melton & Jay P. Lechner, Whittel & Melton.

Evelyn Sarno, Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Melton, Whittel &
Melton & Jay P. Lechner, Whittel & Melton.

Nicole Richardson, Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Melton,
Whittel & Melton & Jay P. Lechner, Whittel & Melton.

Tami Young, Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Melton, Whittel &
Melton & Jay P. Lechner, Whittel & Melton.

Eihab H. Tawfik, Defendant, represented by Michael A. Nardella --
mnardella@nardellalaw.com -- Nardella & Nardella, PLLC & Michael
A. Nardella, Nardella & Nardella, PLLC.


EMBLEMHEALTH: Faces "Abernethy" Suit in S. Dist. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EmblemHealth, Inc.
The case is styled as David Abernethy, Fred Blickman, Paul
Bluestein, Robert Branchini, Dominic D'Adamo, Marilyn DeQuatro,
Thomas Dwyer, Michael Fullwood, Philip Gandolfo, James Greenidge,
Michael Herbert, Steven Kessler, Dennis Liotta, Daniel McGowan,
Ronald Platt, Aran Ron, Joan Ruby, Araksi Sarafian, Vincent
Scicchitano, John Steber, Leslie Strassberg, Pedro Villalba,
Anthony Watson and Marc Wolfert, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. EmblemHealth,
Inc., EmblemHealth Services Company, LLC and ConnectiCare, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07814 (S.D. N.Y., October 11, 2017).

EmblemHealth is one of the United States' largest nonprofit health
plans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Renan F Varghese, Esq.
   Wigdor LLP
   85 Fifth Avenue
   5th fl.
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 257-6824
   Fax: (212) 257-6845
   Email: rvarghese@wigdorlaw.com

      - and -

   Douglas Holden Wigdor, Esq.
   Wigdor LLP
   85 Fifth Avenue
   5th fl.
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 239-9292
   Fax: (212) 239-9001
   Email: dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com


ENDLESS PURSUIT: "Young" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Young on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Endless Pursuit Corporation and Does 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC676645 (Cal. Super., September
21, 2017), seeks compensation resulting from Defendant's failure
to accurately pay overtime wages and minimum wages, failure to
provide meal periods and rest breaks, all wages earned and owed
upon separation from Defendant's employ, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements under California Labor Code,
Unfair Competition Law under the California Business and
Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders.  The lawsuit also seeks reimbursement for business-related
expenses,

Endless Pursuit hauls away junk from residences and commercial
businesses where Plaintiff worked as a driver. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
      Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
      Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
      Jean P. Buchanan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
      555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818
      Long Beach, CA90802
      Telephone: (562)432-8933
      Facsimile: (562)435-1656
      Email: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
             brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
             laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
             jean@carlinbuchsbaum.com


EQUIFAX INC: "Horne" Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
David Horne, Diane Brown, Kelly Flood, Thurman Bryan Clark,
Deborah Person, Amanda Chap, Timothy Hutz, Lea Santello, Lisa
Melegari, Dawn Evans, Jennifer Griffin, William Knudsen, Scott
Sroka, Douglas Laktonen, Patricia Tuel, Christopher Hutchison,
Randi Freeman, Cassey-Jo Wood, Donna Mosley, Scott Youngstrom,
Robert Harris, William Hill, Chris Tinen, Kenneth Peterson, Walter
Kivlan, David Jungali, Patricia Buhler, Emily Bosak, Sean Bosak,
Justin Peltier, Peter Maizitis, Jerry Nutt, Marie Chinander,
Raymond Mccartney, Patricia Maggiacomo, Michael Moore, David
Steufen, Jeannie Baggett, Cheryl Lawson, Ivy Madsen, Scott
Kingsland, Georgeann Roberts, Peter De Jesus, Zandra Mendoza and
Tanya Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-03713, (N.D. Ga., September 22, 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 Fair Credit Reporting Act and various
consumer protections statutes and data protection laws.

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

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John C. Herman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      Monarch Centre, Suite 1650
      3424 Peachtree Road, N.E.
      Atlanta, GA 30326
      Telephone: (404) 504-6500
      Facsimile: (404) 504-6501
      Email: jherman@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
      Robert F. Lopez, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      Email: toml@hbsslaw.com
             robl@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

      Paul J. Geller, Esq.
      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364


EQUIFAX INC: "Larson" Files Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Dianna Larson, Matthew Gates, Christy Adams, and Gary Mares, and
all others similarly-situated v. Equifax, Inc., Case No.  1:17-cv-
03905 (N.D. Ga., October 5, 2017), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.

From March through July of 2017, Equifax experienced one of the
largest data security breaches in history.  Cyber attackers stole
the personally identifiable information of approximately 145
million Americans from Equifax's files.

Plaintiff Dianna Larson is a citizen and resident of the state of
Michigan.  Equifax collected her Personal Information, which
Equifax maintained in its database.

Plaintiff Matthew Gates is a citizen and resident of the state of
Florida.  Equifax collected his Personal Information, which
Equifax maintained in its database.

Plaintiff, Christy Adams, is a citizen and resident of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  Equifax collected Ms. Adams's
Personal Information, which Equifax maintained in its database.

Plaintiff, Gary Mares, is a citizen and resident of the State of
California.  Equifax collected Mr. Mares's Personal Information,
which Equifax maintained in its database.

Defendant 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:

      David A. Bain Georgia, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC
      1230 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 1050
      Atlanta, GA  30309
      Tel: (404) 724-9990
      Fax: (404) 724-9986
      E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com

          - and -

      Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
      Douglas J. Bench, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, PC
      Eight Tower Bridge, Ste. 1025
      161 Washington Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Tel: (484) 342-0700
      E-mail: goldman@lawgsp.com
              bench@lawgsp.com

          - and -

      Joshua H. Grabar
      GRABAR LAW OFFICE
      BNY Mellon Center
      1735 Market Street Suite 3750
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (267) 507-6085
      E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Miller" Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc.  The
case is styled as Michael Miller and Daniel Kittrell, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Equifax
Inc. and Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:17-cv-00569-GKF-JFJ (N.D. Okla., October 11, 2017).

Equifax Inc. operates a consumer credit reporting agency in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   A Laurie Koller, Esq.
   Carr & Carr (Tulsa)
   4416 S HARVARD AVE
   TULSA, OK 74135
   Tel: (918) 747-1000
   Fax: (918) 747-7284
   Email: lkoller@carrcarr.com

      - and -

   Kevin Sharp, Esq.
   Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP
   611 COMMERCE ST STE 3100
   NASHVILLE, TN 37203
   Tel: (615) 434-7001
   Fax: (615) 434-7020

      - and -

   Patrick Eugene Carr, Esq.
   Carr & Carr (Tulsa)
   4416 S HARVARD AVE
   TULSA, OK 74135
   Tel: (918) 747-1000
   Fax: (918) 747-7284
   Email: pcarr@carrcarr.com


EQUIFAX INC: Two Alaska Residents File Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Mackintosh, writing for KTUU, reports that two Alaska
residents have joined a class action lawsuit against Equifax after
learning they were among the more than 143 million Americans
affected by the company's recent colossal data breach.

Terry Mead and Sean Adcock were named as plaintiffs in a near 40-
page complaint against the major credit bureau dated Sept. 28.
They are being represented by Anchorage attorney Lee Holen, one of
four law firms across the country currently involved in the
litigation.

When asked by Channel 2 for an interview, Mr. Holen referred
questions to Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP, one of the other firms
working on the lawsuit.

"I just became involved in the case and really don't have much
information," Mr. Holen said in an email.

The complaint accuses Equifax of inadequate data security
practices, resulting in "a long history of breaches.  It also
faults the company for taking more than a month to notify the
public after the breach was first discovered.

"The data breach was the inevitable result of [Equifax's]
inadequate approach to data security and the protection of the
Personal Identifying Information that they collected during the
course of their business," the complaint reads.

Ms. Mead, a longtime resident of Sitka, said she first learned
about the Equifax data breach on the news.  After checking online,
she discovered she was among the millions of consumers whose
personal information had been impacted.  She did everything she
could to secure her finances, but the experience still left her
feeling vulnerable, so she decided to pursue legal help.

"I noticed a lot of state attorney generals were filing things but
nothing was happening in Alaska so I thought people in Alaska need
to have some way to protect themselves against future loss from
this company," Ms. Mead told Channel 2 in a phone interview.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, a permanent injunction
against Equifax, a full review of its data security procedures and
restitution to the many people affected by the data breach.

Assistant Attorney General Cindy Franklin with Alaska Consumer
Protection declined to discuss the case further, saying they are
strictly confidential.  She added that her office is taking calls
and comments from Alaskans who may have been affected by the
Equifax breach. That number is (907) 269-5200. [GN]


EROS INT'L: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on September 22, 2017, United States District Judge Alison J.
Nathan of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed with prejudice an amended
consolidated putative class action complaint asserting violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 against Eros International Plc ("Eros") and certain
of its current and former executives. In re Eros Int'l Sec.
Litig., No. 15-cv-8956-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2017).  The
complaint alleged that defendants deceived investors by touting
growth in the number of "registered users" of Eros's video
streaming service, many of whom could not actually use the
service, and also by overstating the number of annual releases in
its video library.  In dismissing the action, the Court found that
plaintiffs' own definition of an otherwise undefined term could
not make a statement actionable when other definitions of those
terms were equally plausible.

Eros is an Indian film entertainment company that produces,
acquires, and distributes Indian-language films in theatrical,
television, and digital formats around the world.  In August 2012,
Eros launched Eros Now, a streaming service akin to Netflix
through which users and subscribers could access films and other
content on demand.  To build a large user base for Eros Now that
could later be converted into a fee-paying pool of subscribers,
Eros acquired Techzone, an Indian company that mainly sold
ringtones for earlier-generation mobile phones, thereby obtaining
the right to market Eros Now to Techzone customers.  Following the
acquisition, Eros announced continuing and significant increases
in the number of "registered users," which plaintiffs claim
increased Eros's stock price to "all-time highs." Plaintiffs
claimed that those announcements were deceiving because many of
the new "registered users" were Techzone customers in India who
could not actually stream content on Eros Now due to the limited
mobile phone technology and available data networks.

The Court found that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a
misrepresentation or omission.  Although plaintiffs argued that
the term "registered user" as used by Eros referred to those who
interact with a website to extract a "functional benefit" and that
none of the registered users made "meaningful use" of the
streaming service, the Court held that plaintiffs "cannot import
the word 'meaningful' before 'use'" without any representation
from defendants about the quality of the registrant's use.
Further, the Court found that defendants had cautioned investors
about the risks associated with India's internet technology and
that defendants had no duty to warn customers that registered
users could not make "meaningful use" of Eros Now.  Although
"defendants could have defined and reported 'users' in an
alternate way that took into account the specifics of their use .
. . that does not amount to misrepresentation." (Emphasis in
original).

Plaintiffs also alleged defendants made several false or
misleading statements regarding Eros's video library.  First,
plaintiffs alleged that defendants misrepresented the number of
films added to its video library and made available for Eros Now
users.  Noting that the determination of materiality is typically
reserved for the jury, the Court held that the alleged false
statements (e.g., plaintiffs alleged that Eros Now released 64
rather than 65 films in fiscal year 2015) were "so obviously
unimportant to a reasonable investor that reasonable minds could
not differ on the question of their importance."  Second, the
Court rejected plaintiffs' allegation that defendants
misrepresented the years in which films in its library were
actually released. The Court found that "it is no more plausible
that these statements (about the films' release date) were
interpreted to mean new films than that they were interpreted to
mean newly released on the Eros Now platform."  And third, the
Court also rejected plaintiffs' allegation that Eros
misrepresented the number of films it had in production because
the statements were either forward looking ("What you will see
starting this year is a systematic strategy which will continue
for the next five years to firstly scale our film slate from 65 to
70 films currently to over 100 to 120 films across the next three
to five years") or because plaintiffs failed to cite with
particularity any misrepresentations about the films Eros was
presently producing. [GN]


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Misonzhnik, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Case No. 1:17-
cv-05687 (E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2017), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Firstsource Advantage, LLC provides innovative debt collections
services to the credit card issuers, financial institutions, and
healthcare providers. [BN]

Naomi Misonzhnik is a pro se plaintiff.


FMK INC: "Betancourt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johan Manuel Nino Betancourt, on behalf of himself and a class of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FMK, Inc. and Does 1
through 25, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC676649 (Cal. Super.,
September 21, 2017), seeks compensation resulting from failure to
accurately pay overtime wages and minimum wages, failure to
provide meal periods and rest breaks, all wages earned and owed
upon separation from Defendant's employ, reimbursement for
business-related expenses, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition
Law under the California Business and Professions Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

FMK, Inc. operates as Angelus Medical & Optical Angelus Medical &
Optical Equipment where Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an
hourly paid biomedical technician. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael Alder, Esq.
     Mami B. Folinsky, Esq.
     ALDERLAW, PC
     1875 Century Park East, Suite 1500
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 275-9131
     Facsimile: (310) 275-9132

            - and -

     Morris Nazarian, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MORRIS NAZARIAN
     1875 Century Park East, Suite 1790
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Telephone: (310) 284-7333
     Facsimile: (310) 284-7332

            - and -

     Brian J. Soo-Hoo, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN J. SOO-HOO, APC
     601 Parkcenter Drive. Ste. 105
     Santa Ana, CA, 92705
     Telephone: (714) 589-2252


GARDA CL WEST: "Lane" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Ali Lane, and all others similarly-situated v. Garda CL West,
Inc., Garda CL Technical Services, Inc., Garda Supplies, Rental &
Services Ltd., and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC678484 (Cal.
Super., October 5, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California
Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and the California
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants routinely acquire consumer,
investigative consumer and consumer credit reports to conduct
background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current and
former employees and use information from credit and background
reports in connection with their hiring process without providing
proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in
compliance with the law.

Plaintiff is a resident in the State of California and was
employed by Defendant in November 2016.

The Defendants' line of business includes providing detective,
guard, and armored car services.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 907
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (310) 888-7771
      Fax: (310) 888-0109
      E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
              scott@setarehlaw.com


GOBRANDS INC: Faces "Shockley" Suit in E. Dist. Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gobrands, Inc.  The
case is styled as Austin Shockley, on behalf of himself, those
similarly situated, and the proposed rule 23 class, Plaintiff v.
Gobrands, Inc. doing business as: Gopuff, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-04519-MSG (E.D. Pa., October 11, 2017).

GoBrands, Inc. engages in the on-demand retail and delivery of a
range of products from college essentials, party supplies, and
smoking accessories to snacks, frozen foods, and household
essentials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   PATRICIA A. BARASCH, Esq.
   SCHALL & BARASCH
   110 MARTER AVE #302
   MOORESTOWN, NJ 08057
   Tel: (856) 914-9200
   Email: pbarasch@schallandbarasch.com


HCSG WEST: "Ponce" Suit Alleges California Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Ponce, and Ricardo Cruz, and all others similarly-situated
v. HCSG West LLC, Quality Business Solutions, Inc., and Does 1
through 100, Case No. RG17877879 (Cal. Super., October 5, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay wages
including overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Plaintiffs are residents of California and were employed by the
Defendants as housekeeper and manager.

Defendant HCSG West LLC is a New Jersey limited liability company
that provides housekeeping, laundry and dining, nutrition services
to the healthcare industry.

Defendant Quality Business Solutions, Inc. is a South Carolina
corporation that provides payroll and human resources services.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michael Nourmand, Esq.
      James A. De Sario, Esq.
      THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
      8822 West Olympic Blvd.
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Tel: (310) 553-3600
      Fax: (310) 553-3603


HOME DEPOT: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $27.25 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linn Freedman, Esq. -- lfreedman@rc.com -- of Robinson+Cole, in an
article for JDSupra, reports that following its data breach in
2014, Home Depot was sued by thousands of financial institutions
requesting recovery of costs associated with the issuance of new
credit and debit cards to 50 million individuals affected by the
breach.

An Alabama federal judge approved a proposed settlement with the
financial institutions for $27.25 million.

The judge also approved a request for $15.3 million in attorneys'
fees for the attorneys representing the financial institutions in
the class action case. [GN]



INTELIFI INC: "Doe" Sues Over Withheld Consumer Report
------------------------------------------------------
John Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Intelifi, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC676931, (Cal. Super., September 21, 2017),
seeks to recover damages, and to obtain declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Intelifi is a consumer reporting agency. Plaintiff applied for
employment with Marshall Electronics and signed an authorization
allowing Marshall to obtain a consumer report about him from
Intelifi. Marshall withdrew its employment offer because of
information provided by Intelifi. He was never provided a copy of
the said report. [BN]

      Joshua E. Kim, Esq.
      A NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT
      9512 S. Central Ave.
      Los Angeles, CA 90002
      Tel: (323) 563-3575
      Fax: (323) 563-3445
      Email: joshua@anewwayoflife.org

             - and -

      Christian Schreiber, Esq.
      CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
      42 Miller Ave.
      Mill Valley, CA 94941
      Tel: (415) 381-5599
      Fax: (415) 381-5572
      Email: christian@chavezgertler.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Executive Questioned Over Mesh Presentation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Knaus, writing for The Guardian, reports that a senior
Johnson & Johnson executive included inappropriate jokes about
pictures of scantily clad women in a presentation on the company's
controversial transvaginal mesh implants, a court has heard.

Piet Hinoul, a vice-president of J&J's product development arm,
Ethicon, was speaking at a transvaginal mesh meeting in France in
March 2009, discussing the devices and the response they produced
in women's bodies.

The two companies are facing a class action in Australia, launched
by Shine Lawyers, which alleges the implants' flaws caused lasting
and debilitating pain for thousands of women worldwide.

Mr. Hinoul's presentation concluded with two slides showing
revealing pictures of women in underwear, who were not mesh
patients.

One pictured the crotch area of a woman, and included the caption:
"But, less is more! We recommend dry cleaning, this bikini can
shrink with wash [sic]."

Another slide featured a model in lingerie, with the caption: "The
[transvaginal mesh] group already knew: a mesh gives better
support."

Mr. Hinoul was asked about the slides in the federal court of
Australia, where Ethicon and J&J are facing a class action
involving more than 700 women, who say the implants have ruined
their lives.

"It was an inappropriate comment.  It was a play on words on a
'better mesh for a better support'," he said, referring to the
picture of the model in lingerie.

"It was an inappropriate joke."

Asked to explain the dry cleaning caption, Mr. Hinoul replied: "We
recommend dry cleaning, could lead -- I can't . . . I don't know,"
he said.

The judge, justice Anna Katzmann, interjected, asking Mr. Hinoul:
"Just a moment, you presented these slides?"

The barrister Tony Bannon SC, who is representing Australian mesh
patients, asked Mr. Hinoul: "But is this the way Ethicon or you
treated these issues, by putting in images like slides 35 and 36?
Is there an explanation of it?"

Mr. Hinoul replied: "I agree, it was an inappropriate comment."

Mr. Bannon pressed on: "But not a reflection on any attitude you
have to women who suffer problems from these [devices]?"

Mr. Hinoul: "No, not at all."

Mr. Bannon then asked whether the court could expect to see any
similar remarks during the rest of the hearing.

Mr. Hinoul replied: "At times, I have had moments where I have
made bad jokes, but they are very few and they certainly don't
represent how I feel about these patients and how we treat them."

The case, and similar actions in the United States and the UK,
have cast light on the way some within the medical profession
treat women.

Patients have spoken of presenting to doctors in severe pain, only
to have their concerns about the implants dismissed or
disbelieved.

Earlier in the class action, a series of emails revealed French
gyneacologists joked about telling their patients to try anal
intercourse as a solution to the painful sex associated with mesh
complications.

"It is no less true that sodomy could be a good alternative!" one
doctor wrote.

Another doctor made bizarre jokes about the challenge he faced in
raising the matter with patients.

"I said to myself, there you go, for your next prolapse [patient],
you talk to her about orgasms.  OK! But also about fellatio,
sodomy, the clitoris with or without G-spot etc," he wrote.

"I am sure of one thing: that I would very quickly be treated like
some kind of sex maniac (which, perhaps, I am) or a pervert, or an
unhealthily curious person."

J&J's pelvic mesh and tape implants were used to treat stress
urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, common
complications of childbirth.

In many cases, the operations have been successful. But for
hundreds in Australia, and many more across the world, the mesh
implants have caused life-altering pain.

The class action alleges J&J failed to conduct rigorous testing of
the devices.  The risks were downplayed to surgeons and patients,
it alleges.

The company is also accused of aggressively marketing to doctors,
pitching the devices as a fast and cheap option that would boost
their profits. [GN]


KELLY SERVICES: Faces "Lentini" Suit over FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lentini, and all others similarly-situated v. Kelly
Services, Inc. and Cutco Stores, Inc., Case No.  2:17-cv-13261
(N.D. Cal., October 5, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Michael Lentini worked as Demonstrator for Kelly
Services from November 14, 2014 to June 11, 2016.  He worked as
Demonstrator for Cutco from March 2016 to June 2016.  Defendants
were joint employers of Mr. Lentini.

Defendant Kelly Services is a staffing agency and payroll company
doing business in California.

Defendant Cutco was a New York corporation doing business in
California. The Defendant manufactures and sells kitchen cutlery.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stacy Y. North, Esq.
      PIERCE & SHEARER LLP
      2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110
      Redwood City, CA 94061
      Tel: (650) 843-1900
      Fax: (650) 843-1999
      E-mail: snorth@pierceshearer.com


KIRSAN ENGINEERING: "Riley" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Riley, and all others similarly-situated v. Kirsan
Engineering, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01361 (E.D. Wis., October 5,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin law.

Plaintiff Brooke Riley is a former employee of the Defendant who
worked as an accounting clerk from around December 2015 to August
2017.

Defendant Kirsan specializes in contract manufacturing and
precision CNC machining services out of its principal office
located in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
      Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
      Hawks Quindel, S.C.
      222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
      P.O. Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Tel: (414) 271-8650
      Fax: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
              smurshid@hq-law.com
              tmaynard@hq-law.com


LA BOUCHERIE: "Storey" Suit Alleges UCL Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Bryant Storey, and all others similarly-situated v. La Boucherie
on 71 and Does 1-100, Case No. BC678045 (Cal. Super., October 5,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of Unfair
Competition Law.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misrepresented and falsely
advertised to Plaintiff and others similarly situated that its
items were the price represented on the menu and then without
drawing attention to their actual prices attempted to sneak them
into the bill at a higher price.

Plaintiff is a resident in the State of California.

Defendant La Boucherie on 71 is a restaurant located in Los
Angeles, California.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LSC COMMUNICATIONS: "McGee" Hits Illegally Stored Biometrics Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ray McGee, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. LSC Communications, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and Fairrington, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendants, Case No. 2017CH12818 (Ill. Cir.,
September 21, 2017), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to
cease all unlawful activity related to their collection, storage
and use of biometrics.  The suit further seeks statutory damages,
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Defendant is a mailing logistics enterprise accused of capturing,
storing and using its workers' biometrics in violation of Illinois
law and without their informed written consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Myles McGuire, Esq.
      William P. Kingston, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 893-7002
      Fax: (312) 275-7895
      Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
             wkingston@mcgpc.com


LYFT INC: "Lindenbaum" Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
------------------------------------------------
Shari Lindenbaum, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lyft Inc., Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-01991, (N.D. Ohio, September 22, 2017), seeks actual and
statutory damages, disgorgement of any ill-gotten funds acquired,
injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited
prerecorded calling activities, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs and such further and other relief under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Lyft is a San Francisco, car service and rideshare service that
promotes itself as a transportation networking company. It
allegedly sent Lindenbaum autodialed text messages without
consent. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam T. Savett, Esq.
      SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC
      2764 Carole Lane
      Allentown PA 18104
      Telephone: (610) 621-4550
      Facsimile: (610) 978-2970
      Email: adam@savettlaw.com


MCDONALD'S: Faces Litigation Threat Over Szechuan Sauce Shortage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Fickenscher, writing for New York Post, reports that
McDonald's customers are seething over a severe shortage of
Szechuan sauce.

The burger giant is facing threats of boycotts and class-action
suits by angry customers on Twitter after a one-day revival of its
long-discontinued Szechuan dipping sauce fell sorely short of
demand.

Customers at a Los Angeles McDonald's chanted "We want sauce!"
after getting shortchanged during the Oct. 7 promo, while fights
reportedly broke out at numerous other locations as customers
tussled over the few packets that were made available.

"There were some stores that just had 20 packets," said Richard
Adams, a former McDonald's franchisee who runs Franchise Equity
Group, a consultancy.  "Obviously the plan was executed by people
who have no idea what goes on inside a McDonald's restaurant."

McDonald's first introduced its Szechuan sauce in 1998 as part of
a promotion with the Disney movie "Mulan."

It went away and most people forgot about it until earlier this
year, when Cartoon Network's "Rick and Morty" show ignited a cult-
like clamor for the sauce, including a petition with 40,000
signatures pleading with McDonald's to bring it back.

McDonald's said it would bring back Szechuan sauce -- but for one
day only.

"The savory and slightly sweet sauce with hints of soy, ginger,
garlic, and slight vinegar notes will be available, along with
limited-edition posters, at participating restaurants on Saturday"
the company announced on Oct. 5.

Those locations attracted long lines of customers, who tweeted out
pictures of Szechuan-obsessed patrons sitting in lawn chairs, as
if awaiting the launch of a new iPhone.  But many finally got to
the front of the line only to learn that there was no more sauce
left.

Some of the lucky few who managed to score packets, meanwhile,
immediately listed them for auction on eBay.

There were 37 bids for one packet as of Oct. 9 with the highest
bid at $218.50. Another listing being watched by 19 people were
watching another listing for a single packet that was going for
$274.99.

McDonald's on Oct. 8 issued a written mea culpa for the fiasco,
saying it was "not cool."

"Szechuan Sauce is coming back once again this winter," the burger
joint said.  "And instead of being one-day-only and limited to
select restaurants, we're bringing more -- a lot more -- so that
any fan who's willing to do whatever it takes for Szechuan Sauce
will only have to ask for it at a nearby McDonald's." [GN]


MENARD INC: Faces Three Wage Theft Class Actions
------------------------------------------------
Susan Du, writing for CityPages, reports that three federal class
action suits accuse Menards, the Wisconsin home improvement chain,
of withholding overtime pay, forcing workers to toil through their
breaks, and failing to compensate employees for attending
mandatory company meetings.

The first was filed in Indiana by Maurice Bradley, formerly an
hourly worker in Menards' manufacturing division.  He alleges that
Menards used a "compensation scheme" of requiring workers to clock
out for any amount of time spent in breaks, including the mere
minutes it takes to use the bathroom, get a drink of water, or
smoke a cigarette.  Menards would then subtract wages accordingly,
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Mr. Bradley's suit argues.

Ohio retail worker Carrie Santti alleged she would lose about $50
every work week due to the same company-wide policy.

And another Ohio suit, filed by distribution center worker Lyndsey
Neal, complains that Menards failed to pay full overtime for
workers who routinely averaged 45- or 50-hour work weeks, and did
not compensate employees for the time they spent attending
mandatory warehouse safety meetings.

In its answers to the lawsuits, Menards denied that it broke any
federal labor laws.  The company also tried to dismiss the cases
and compel mandatory arbitration -- taking the lawsuits out of
open court and settling them privately, without the right of
appeal.

Menards showed that each plaintiff had signed a mandatory
arbitration agreement prior to their employment, reading
"Arbitration shall be the sole and exclusive forum and remedy for
all covered disputes of either Menard, Inc., or me."

The workers pushed back, pointing out that Menards had agreed in
2016, as part of an unfair labor practice settlement before the
National Labor Relations Board, that it wouldn't force employees
to waive their rights to sue.

Holding out hope that the U.S. Supreme Court would absolve the
company of that promise, Menards asked for all three lawsuits to
be put on hold until Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis is decided.  This
case, which asks whether mandatory arbitration agreements violate
the National Labor Relations Act, was heard by the Supreme Court
on October 2. [GN]


MEYER LOGISTICS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files FCRA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and
Bhowmik on Oct. 9 disclosed that they have filed a proposed class
action Complaint against Meyer Logistics, Inc., that allegedly
asserts claims on behalf of a nationwide class alleging Meyer
Logistics, Inc., violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act in the
conducting of background checks on their employees.  The Meyer
Logistics, Inc., lawsuit Case No. 2:17-cv-07211 is currently
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

The lawsuit filed against Meyer Logistics, Inc. claims that the
company failed to accurately "record and pay Plaintiff and other
California Class Members for missed meal and rest breaks, and also
overtime."  Under the California Labor Code, an employee who is
classified as non-exempt and is paid on an hourly basis must be
paid overtime wages for time worked in excess of eight hours in a
workday and time worked over forty hours in a workweek. The
Complaint also alleges Meyer Logistics, Inc., as a matter of
corporate policy, practice and procedure, intentionally, knowingly
and systematically failed to reimburse and indemnify employees for
required business expenses incurred by the employees in direct
consequence of discharging their duties on behalf of Meyer
Logistics, Inc.

Additionally, the class action lawsuit also alleges claims on
behalf of a nationwide class under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
stating that the company failed to adequately disclose and obtain
authorization to conduct background checks on their employees.  As
alleged in the complaint, "The inclusion of the liability release
clause in DEFENDANT's authorization forms invalidates the
purported consent and also triggers statutory damages under the
FCRA in the amount of up to $1,000 for each applicant that
DEFENDANT obtained a consumer report without a facially valid
authorization, as well as punitive damages, equitable relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs."

For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against
Meyer Logistics, Inc., please call Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw
at (866) 771-7099.
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm with offices located in San Diego, Sacramento,
San Francisco, Riverside and Los Angeles Counties that dedicates
its practice to helping employees, fight back against unfair
business practices, including violations of the California Labor
Code and The Fair Credit Reporting Act. [GN]


MINNESOTA: Sex Offender Program Constitutional, High Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Karnowski, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the
constitutionality of Minnesota's sex offender program, it relieved
the pressure for major near-term change in a program that confines
over 700 people who've finished their prison sentences.  Only
rarely is anyone released.

Here's a look at a program that is often opaque to the public, and
at the handful of people who -- at least on paper -- may have a
shot at release sometime soon:

THE PROGRAM

It now houses 720 people who've been civilly committed to prison-
like facilities in Moose Lake and St. Peter.  Only one man has
ever been fully discharged from the treatment program, and that
didn't happen until last year.

Eight others are on provisional discharges, at halfway houses,
group homes and other heavily supervised community settings that
could be their last stop before full release.  Nothing is
guaranteed.  Most didn't get to take that tentative step toward
freedom until recently.

Of the 301 at the St. Peter campus, 89 have earned their way into
a potential pathway to release called Community Preparation
Services.  It's a supervised but unlocked facility outside the
razor wire.  They're generally in the later stages of treatment.
Their programming focuses on reintegration.  They get to
participate in vocational and volunteer opportunities and
supervised outings.

U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank declared the program
unconstitutional in 2015, calling it a "punitive scheme." He said
it gave nobody "any realistic hope of ever getting out."  But the
8th Circuit Court of Appeals overruled him in January, and the
Supreme Court let that decision stand.

WHO'S CLOSE TO FREEDOM?

The state Department of Human Services, which runs the MSOP, won't
say anything about how close the eight on provisional discharges
might be to earning full discharges.  Citing privacy laws, it
won't even name them, even though their names appear in court
records.

The department also points out that it doesn't decide who gets
out.  Under state law, it's up to the courts alone to decide which
sex offenders to send to the program -- and which to give a
measure of freedom.

Court records show the state is appealing a three-judge panel's
order to grant one man a full discharge, while one provisionally
discharged man has a pending petition for full release that the
state is also opposing.

TWO CASES TO WATCH

Kirk Fugelseth, who admits to abusing 31 victims, mostly boys ages
3-14, was put on track for a provisional discharge in 2013. But he
was never sent to a community facility, primarily because Human
Services couldn't find a place for him.  The three-judge panel
backed his full freedom in July, writing:

"Petitioner's continued confinement no longer bears a reasonable
relationship to his original commitment," the judges wrote.

"Petitioner does not require inpatient treatment and supervision
for any ongoing treatment needs, nor is he a danger to the public.
Petitioner's continued confinement is unconstitutional, and as
such, full discharge is granted."

The Minnesota Court of Appeals holds oral arguments on the state's
appeal Nov. 1.

Clarence Opheim, who's been on provisional discharge since 2012,
longer than anyone else, has a hearing Dec. 1 before the three-
judge panel that hears discharge cases.  The reasons why the
program's internal review board opposes his full discharge are
sealed.  Mr. Opheim has admitted to molesting 29 boys.  He's been
in the MSOP since 1994, the year it began.

Mr. Fugelseth's attorney declined to comment, and Mr. Opheim
declined an interview request made through an attorney for the
more than 700 offenders in the class-action lawsuit that
unsuccessfully challenged MSOP's constitutionality, David Goodwin.
He said those on provisional release don't want to draw attention.

"The way they see it, they have one foot out the door and are
trying not to rock the boat too much," Mr. Goodwin said.  "They
think the system is rigged against them as it is, so if they give
anybody a reason to come down on them it's going to be worse."

AND ONE SETBACK

MSOP officials revoked the provisional discharge of one man this
summer.

Oliver Dority, who raped two women in 1994, had been living at a
community facility since early last year.  Now he's back behind
the razor wire at St. Peter pending a hearing on his appeal on
Oct. 4, said his attorney, Mary Huot, who called the decision
"punitive."

Ms. Huot declined to specify why the program reeled him back in,
and public records don't give an explanation.  But she said he
committed no crime, just a technical violation of the conditions
of his release.

"He was a rock star in treatment," she said. On the outside he had
been working two jobs and was close to earning a college degree,
she said.  "He is, of course, very distraught over his current
situation."

WHAT THE STATE SAYS

State officials have pledged improvements, but there are
bottlenecks.  Twenty-one offenders are still waiting for beds to
open up in Community Preparation Services.

Seven clients granted provisional discharges still haven't moved
from St. Peter into community settings, partly because Human
Services doesn't have places to put them.  Three men were supposed
to move into an adult foster home in Dayton last fall. The city
council then voted to keep them out, shortly after local
opposition also scuttled efforts to move offenders into a home in
Kasota Township.

Following the Supreme Court decision, Gov. Mark Dayton pledged to
continue pushing for reforms. He proposed $18.4 million in new
funding in this year's legislative session to improve facilities
and staffing but didn't get it.  Human Services Commissioner Emily
Piper said they plan to ask again for more money for less-
restrictive housing and other changes.

But now that the courts have taken off the pressure, spending
money to benefit sex offenders could be a hard sell to lawmakers.
[GN]


MISSOURI: Sen. Calls for Overhaul of County Jail Payment System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alisa Nelson, writing for Missouri.net, reports that in 1976, the
Missouri Legislature enacted a state statute that repays counties
a portion of an inmate's entire lockup time if the offender goes
to state prison.  Springfield Republican State Senator Bob Dixon,
the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, says it's unacceptable
for the Missouri Department of Corrections to be six months behind
and have a $19 million shortfall in county jail bills.  He tells
Missourinet there must be a multi-faceted approach to what he
considers a multi-faceted problem.

"Unless we take a holistic approach and we address the whole
problem, all we are doing is moving the bottleneck from one part
of the system to another," said Sen. Dixon.  "I don't believe in
just throwing money at problems, but I do believe when there is a
financial problem, we have to deal with it in the short term,
which is we need to appropriate more money so that we don't fall
behind on these payments.  But, we have to look at the structural
issues and have some sort of a long term plan."

Sen. Dixon also thinks Missouri should use a different system to
pay counties what they are owed in jail reimbursements.

"When the state is not keeping its commitment, that's what it is,
then the counties cannot operate the way they plan to operate,"
said Sen. Dixon.  "The counties should not be having to fill out
paperwork on each prisoner so they can get their reimbursement. We
ought to be sending them a lump sum on a quarterly basis, or
something along that line, that they can have some sort of
expectation and plan their budget accordingly."

He says how much each county gets could be based on their crime
rate and other factors.

"I would like to see us give more discretion and tighten up the
law in places that we can so that the taxpayers are not footing
this bill that they don't want across this state," said
Sen. Dixon.  "There is no support for raising taxes and we've got
to reform the system.  We cannot live in the 1960s and expect the
old systems that were typewriter systems at best, to work in this
age of high technology."

Sen. Dixon thinks another element in the overall scope must be to
budget more funding to the Missouri Public Defender system.  The
office has about 370 attorneys who handle more than 80,000 cases
annually.

Earlier this year, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a
class action lawsuit against the state claiming the caseloads that
Missouri's public defenders are dealing with are unconstitutional
-- pushing many Missourians through the justice system and
unnecessarily behind bars for months and sometimes years.

The Missouri Department of Corrections says funding levels,
reimbursement schedules and an abundance of invoices have led to
jail payment setbacks. Additionally, errors and missing
documentation from counties delay the auditing process and could
result in slowdowns.

Spokesperson Karen Pojmann tells Missourinet prior to last
November, the state lacked appropriate review of its jail
reimbursement process, leading to uncertainty in how a $19 million
shortage accumulated.  The department has hired additional workers
focused on carefully auditing such paperwork with the hopes of
catching up with the overall deficit.

Republican Governor Eric Greitens, was sworn into office in
January. He replaced the term-limited Jay Nixon, a Democrat.

The department received its new $10 million quarterly allowance a
week ago and is sending out its latest round of payments.  They
will be made in the order in which the requests were received,
until the money runs out. [GN]


MODESTO, CA: Electricity Rate Hike Class Action v. MID on Hold
--------------------------------------------------------------
Garth Stapley, writing for The Modesto Bee, reports that no group
is holding a public debate allowing people to see in action the
two candidates running in the Modesto Irrigation District's only
contested race on the Nov. 7 ballot.

Editors invited Division 4 incumbent farmer Jake Wenger and
businessman challenger Stu Gilman to The Modesto Bee to hear their
views on issues touching nearly everyone in these parts, ranging
from MID's recent billing changes to the alleged subsidy enjoyed
by farmers at the expense of electricity customers.

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Wenger defended the board and its actions over
his four years in office, while Mr. Gilman characterized MID as
distant and uninterested in struggles of ordinary people.

"There is probably a lot you and I would agree on" in different
circumstances, Mr. Gilman told Mr. Wenger.  "The problem is, a lot
of people don't think MID cares."

Mr. Wenger agreed that under prior leadership, "everyone agreed
that the culture at MID was broken and it was bad."  But "the
cruise ship is turning," he said, and, "I'm proud of the work
we've accomplished."

It's true that MID seemed dysfunctional four years ago, when eight
candidates ran for three open seats, and Mr. Wenger bested three
opponents in the most crowded race.  The board had wrestled with
hugely unpopular proposals, including doomed plans to sell water
to San Francisco and build a biomass plant and high-power
transmission line, as well as a questionable investment in a solar
farm.

It's also true that things have smoothed considerably since.
Wenger, 33, is pleased that the board has reduced debt and boosted
reserves without raising electricity rates, while increasing farm
water prices 70 percent.

But even so, farmers still pay only a fraction of what MID spends
to deliver water.  While campaigning door to door recently,
Gilman, 60, said he ran across an older couple forced to tap a
retirement account to pay their electric bill.  MID's electricity
profit has been about $93 million a year since 2010, and the
excess pays down debt, builds reserves and covers the farm water
subsidy.

"Everyone is tired of paying for the farmers," said Mr. Gilman,
60. "People love and support the agriculture community . . . But
there is a difference between supporting ag and subsidizing ag."

The balance of power on the five-member MID board always has
tipped toward farmers.  If Mr. Gilman were elected, nonfarmers for
the first time would have a 3-2 majority.  One of the nonfarmers,
however -- Paul Campbell -- has sided with farm interests since
his election four years ago.

It's unfortunate that electricity "ratepayers felt they had no
other choice but to sue to get honest answers," Mr. Gilman said,
referring to an ongoing class-action lawsuit challenging the
inequity.

The case in on hold while another from Redding with similar
elements awaits a decision from the California Supreme Court.

Mr. Wenger said the district's true cost for providing water and
electricity never has been verified.  The board -- historically
loathe to separate the two -- recently commissioned two consulting
firms to produce separate calculations, he noted.

But if the Supreme Court finds that Redding's approach violates
state law -- suggesting that MID also is in the wrong --
Mr. Wenger would be the first to propose change favoring power
customers, he said.

"If it's deemed to be unfair or illegal, the next board meeting
there will be a change," Mr. Wenger said.  "It will be immediate
and instantaneous."

Mr. Gilman also noted that MID pays more salary and benefits than
other agencies in the region.  While the MID board last month
featured "a lot of self congratulations and happy talk" about the
then-pending change in billing system, "the reality is it did not
go well," he said, "and a lot of people are very angry about it."

Mr. Wenger said MID's compensation is not outlandish when compared
to other utilities.  Regarding the billing change, "Looking back,
obviously things were missed," he said, adding that "you hear from
people who had a problem," and not from thousands who didn't.  MID
has not threatened customers with late fees or shut-off penalties
during the transition, he noted.

Mr. Gilman said he's "astonished" to find that people almost
universally "have no sense that they are the owner of MID," a
public entity as opposed to a private utility.  MID needs to shed
its ivory-tower image, he said -- short on compassion while quick
to disconnect power.

Mr. Wenger said he has spent more time with community groups than
the four other board members combined.  He answers telephone calls
and makes house visits when needed, he said.

"I'm there to answer questions," Mr. Wenger said.  "That's my job,
to represent ratepayers in the district.  If you have an issue,
you have a resource."

MID Division 4 covers northwest Modesto, Salida and Wood Colony.
Board members John Mensinger and Paul Campbell, representing other
divisions, are unopposed this year. [GN]


MONMOUTH WIRE: Unpaid Overtime Compensation Sought by "Juarez"
--------------------------------------------------------------
German Reyes Juarez, Plaintiff, v. Monmouth Wire Recycling Co.,
Inc. and Salvatore Massaro III, individually, Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-07387 (D. N.J., September 22, 2017), is a collective
action seeking to recover overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour
Law.

Monmouth own and/or maintains an electronics recycling business
where Juarez worked as a machine operator and customer care
employee. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
             AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Misonzhnik, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-
05689 (E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2017), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Nationwide Credit, Inc. operates a debt collection agency in New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 395-3459
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


NEW YORK: Disabled Parents File Suit Over Child Removals
--------------------------------------------------------
Nikita Stewart, writing for New York Times, reports that Shantell
lifted her 11-month-old daughter onto her right hip and looked
into her eyes until she smiled.  Then, she locked her long arms as
if to make a swing and swayed the toddler back and forth.

It was the kind of daily interaction that her lawyers say was
unfairly stripped away from Shantell, who is intellectually
disabled and a mother to two other daughters, ages 2 and 3, and
parents like her.

Child welfare workers have removed Shantell's three children from
her care at various times, beginning in July 2016, following
reports from hospital staff and social workers that her
"developmental delays" and "mental delays" could hinder her
ability to parent. With the help of lawyers, Shantell's children
were returned to her by November 2016, but the ordeal spurred her
to join a class-action lawsuit filed against New York City for
violating the rights of parents who have intellectual
disabilities.

Shantell, 28, and four other mothers say the city has
discriminated against them and other parents, violating federal
laws aimed at protecting the rights of people with disabilities
and shielding parents from bias from child welfare agencies.

Lauren Shapiro, director of the Family Defense Practice at
Brooklyn Defender Services, said the city's Administration for
Children's Services has failed to provide adequate programs and
services that could assist intellectually disabled parents in
caring for their children. "Parents with intellectual disability
can be just as good of parents as anyone else, but they need
help," she said.

The lawsuit comes as advocates for parents with intellectual
disabilities across the country have been increasing pressure on
child welfare agencies to do more to help parents care for their
children.  The legal efforts have been bolstered by federal
recommendations issued in 2015 and by the threat of a federal
lawsuit against the state of Massachusetts for violating the
rights of a mother who was intellectually disabled.

In a statement, David Hansell, commissioner of the Administration
for Children's Services, did not directly address the lawsuit. But
he said, "Treating all parents equitably is vital in our work,"
adding that the agency was "committed to ensuring that a
developmental or intellectual disability is not the basis for
discriminatory treatment in any of our programs."

Last year, the agency established new policies, using
Massachusetts as a guide, and began training staff on how to best
assist developmentally disabled parents.  In April, the agency
hired a coordinator to ensure that it was compliant with the
Americans with Disabilities Act.  About 80 families with
caregivers who are intellectually or developmentally disabled are
currently being served in specialized programs, according to the
agency.

In 2015, the federal departments of Justice and Health and Human
Services jointly issued guidelines to ensure that local child
welfare agencies were not discriminating against parents with
disabilities.  Two federal laws -- the Americans with Disabilities
Act and the Rehabilitation Act -- prohibit such discrimination.

The federal guidelines followed a 2012 report by the National
Council on Disability, an independent federal agency, which found
that parents with various disabilities, from physical to
developmental, were having their children removed at higher rates
than parents without disabilities.

"That report was a catalyst," said Megan Kirshbaum, a primary
author of the report and founder and executive director of Through
the Looking Glass, a research center and advocacy group.

The federal government also threatened to sue the Massachusetts
child welfare agency if it did not return a child to a mother
described as having mild intellectual disability; child welfare
workers had removed her 2-day-old baby from her care instead of
providing services to her.

The new recommendations and the admonishment gave advocates strong
footing.  But parents have still been fighting and losing.

In Oregon, a couple has drawn national attention for their four-
year fight against the state child welfare agency, which removed
their two children from their care within days of their births.
Despite support from advocates, the couple lost custody and are
now continuing a legal fight against impending termination of
their parental rights.

The lawsuit filed against New York City described hasty removals
with little or no regard for explanations from the mothers about
alleged neglect, dismissals of pledges that the parents would get
help from relatives in raising their children, and a failure to
refer mothers to programs.  In the cases of two of the mothers,
the fathers of their children were also investigated and were
named in removals of their children. But only the mothers have
sued.

Ms. Kirshbaum said that in general, child welfare agencies often
fail to properly evaluate the parents, falling on stereotypes in
making their decisions to remove children.  "The biggest problem
is that people don't even look at parenting at all," she said,
referring to social workers.  "They don't observe their parenting
or do so in an office setting for very short periods of time."

For three of the mothers, including Shantell, removals occurred
within days of a child's birth with little observation of their
capabilities.

Shantell, whose last name is not disclosed in the lawsuit,
declined to publicly comment for this article because the court
case with the child welfare agency is still open.  In an earlier
statement published by an advocacy group for parents, Shantell
said, "I want the workers to know that I really can tend to what I
have to do, at my pace.  Workers tend to rush things and assume
things."

Homeless at one point last year, Shantell sought the help of a
child welfare worker she had met during an earlier investigation
involving her now 2-year-old daughter (That inquiry was closed
without any action against Shantell, her lawyer said).  But after
she went to the child welfare worker for help with her housing
needs, Shantell was investigated again. In July 2016, the 2-year-
old child was removed from her care, and in October 2016, her
newborn, now 11 months old, was removed from her care, along with
Shantell's oldest child, who is now 3 and who is hospitalized with
a neurological condition.

In November 2016, the child welfare agency was ordered by a Family
Court judge to return Shantell's children to her and to help her
find shelter.

Ms. Shapiro said the team of lawyers working on the case believed
that the city child welfare agency should create a special unit to
specifically work with parents who have intellectual disabilities.
"Hopefully, the lawsuit will provide some motivation," Ms. Shapiro
said.

The agency currently has six employees in its Developmental
Disabilities Unit, but the specialized unit's focus has been on
children who are disabled. Mr. Hansell "expects to expand this
unit to build a larger capacity to handle these cases and cases
involving parents with (intellectual disability) issues,"
according a statement from the agency. [GN]


NEW ZEALAND: Christchurch Residents Sue EQC Over Botched Repairs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Bayer, writing for NZ Herald, reports that Christchurch
residents who bought houses after the earthquakes and since
uncovered, and inherited, "botched" repair jobs have filed High
Court proceedings against the Earthquake Commission.

Shine Lawyers filed 13 separate claims against EQC on Oct. 9 on
behalf of what lawyer Andrew Hooker described as "a new category
of claimants".  More claims are expected to follow.

Mr. Hooker says that after the devastating 2010-2011 earthquake
sequence, a substantial number of people bought houses which they
thought had been properly repaired by EQC.

"However, after doing all the right things, undertaking their due
diligence, purchasing the houses then finding their house repairs
were botched by EQC, they also discover that they have no
insurance company from which to claim," he said.

It's understood that Shine Lawyers is not proposing to launch a
group or class action, but rather is aiming to gather a group with
the same issue -- EQC repairs that have failed -- and take a test
case to get a ruling on a point of law related to culpability for
fixing the failed repairs while meeting the requirement of the
claimants' house policy and building code.

Homeowners are concerned that if defective repairs need fixing,
and EQC deems that they exceed the $100,000 cap under the EQC Act
and it's passed on to private insurers, that the insurance
companies could rely on the Limitation Act.  There are different
interpretations of how the Act applies, and individual insurers
and EQC have taken a range of positions.

Mr. Hooker says that a ruling court is required to find out
whether EQC has to pay the lot.

Mr. Hooker fears those who have come forward are just "the tip of
the iceberg" with thousands of people, if not tens of thousands,
living in houses with botched repairs.

"People are seeing damage starting to occur to their houses as
time passes," he said.

"When they bought the house, they were assured that the
assessments and resulting repairs were completed correctly and it
is only after they have bought the property, they find that is not
the case."

He added that in many cases the cost of the unrepaired damage
means that a house is worth less than the money owed on it.

"This is a tragic and distressing situation for people in this
situation.  Having botched the repairs, EQC must compensate the
victims.  I believe the cases we have filed so far are the tip of
the iceberg."

Lawyers, insurance advocates and homeowners spoken to by the
Herald last month expressed concern that they'll face massive
repair bills if they don't act before the untested statute of
limitations defence could be applied.

Shine Lawyers filed "about 50" proceedings in the days leading up
to September 4 -- the seventh anniversary of the September 4, 2010
magnitude-7.1 tremor that triggered the region's earthquake
sequence.

Law firm Anthony Harper had last month also filed two proceedings
where insurance companies had refused to defer reliance on a
Limitation Act defence.  Both of the claims are with the insurer,
not EQC.

EQC say its approach to limitation periods takes into account the
circumstances of each individual claim and allows customers six
years from the date that a decision was made on the claim being
accepted or declined.

"Therefore the limitation period starts from the most recent date
that EQC makes payment in settlement of a customer's claim under
the EQC Act, or a customer's repairs have been completed,
including re-repairs," said an EQC spokesman who added that people
should talk to their private insurer regarding their policy or
claim. [GN]


NORTHERN MARIANAS: Current in Settlement Payment
------------------------------------------------
Ferdie De La Torre, writing for Saipan Tribune, reports that the
CNMI government made payments totaling $942,772 for the judicial
building loan in fiscal year 2017, leaving an outstanding balance
of $3,667,219 as of Sept. 15, 2017, according to Settlement Fund
trustee Joyce C. H. Tang.

At the same time, the Public School System is now current with its
employer contributions, said Tang and Settlement Fund in-house
counsel Nicole Torres.

Ms. Tang earlier reported that PSS owes $212,239 in employer
contributions from fiscal years 2014 through 2016.

Ms. Tang and Ms. Torres, however, disclosed that the Commonwealth
Healthcare Corp. has an outstanding balance of $89,044 from fiscal
years 2014 through 2016 and is making monthly installment payments
as of Sept. 25, 2017.

At a recent status conference in Betty Johnson's class action, the
two informed the U.S. District Court for the NMI that the
government and other autonomous agencies are current in their
payment obligation to the Settlement Fund.

The judicial building loan matured in 2015.

In her report in federal court, Ms. Tang said the government, with
the help of the NMI Judiciary, has applied for a U.S. Department
of Agriculture loan for $12 million to pay off the judicial
building loan and to expand the building in Susupe and other
facilities.

The USDA loan application is being reviewed by the Guam and Hawaii
USDA offices.

The loan was reportedly set to be forwarded to the USDA
headquarters in Washington, D.C. last Oct. 1, 2017, for final
review.

The low-interest loan will pay off the judiciary building loan,
which is in arrears and is owed by the CNMI government to the NMI
Settlement Fund.

Additional proceeds from the loan will be used for the
construction, renovation, and repair of court facilities on
Saipan, Tinian, and Rota.

The USDA judiciary loan has been approved by the Commonwealth
Development Authority and that the Senate unanimously passed a
House's measure for the loan.

In August 2016, the Senate passed House Bill 19-126 that allows
the CNMI government to enter a loan agreement with USDA in the
amount not to exceed $15 million.

Of the $12-million loan, $4.8 million goes to the Settlement Fund
as lump sum payment for the judicial building loan.

The remaining amount will go into construction and renovation of
judicial facilities in the CNMI, the Office of the Attorney
General, and the Public Defender's Office.

For Saipan, the plan is to build an additional building with a
budget cost of $1.7 million on 9,000 square feet at the Judicial
Complex for expansion of offices-Drug Court and the Family Court.

The loan has a low interest rate of 2.75 percent. Payment for the
loan will be coming from the fines and fees collected by the
Judiciary.

For Tinian, the courtroom will be expanded, while for the Rota
courthouse, its air-conditioner will be replaced.

The CNMI government was allowed to secure a loan from the NMI
Retirement Fund through a Judicial Building Financing Act of 1994
in order to build the Judicial Complex in Susupe.  Construction
began in 1995 and was completed in May 1998.  The sources of
repayment of the loan came from revenues generated by the
Judiciary. [GN]


PETCO ANIMAL: Settlement in "Kellgren" Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary
Approval of Settlement, Preliminary Certification of a Settlement
Class, Appointment of Class Representatives and Claims
Administrator, Approval of Notice and Final Fairness Hearing in
the case captioned ERIK KELLGREN, THERESE KOPCHINSKI, and
CHRISTINE LEE, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC.;
PETCO HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants.
MARIA COTE, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC.;
PETCO HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants. DESERIE MICHEL, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PETCO
ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC. and PETCO HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants.
HEATHER VARGAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC.;
PETCO HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants. JAMES HECKER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PETCO
ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC., PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES STORES, INC., PETCO
HOLDINGS, INC. LLC, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants.
ROBERT WAGNER, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated Persons, Plaintiff, v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC.; PETCO
ANIMAL SUPPLIES STORES, INC.; PETCO HOLDINGS, INC. LLC,
Defendants, Case Nos. 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC, 3:17-cv-00898-L-KSC,
3:17-cv-01092-L-KSC, 3:17-cv-01561-L-KSC, 3:17-cv-01169-L-KSC,
3:17-cv-01793-L-KSC (S.D. Cal.).

Judge Lorenz preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement.
Solely for the purpose of Settlement, he preliminarily certified
the Settlement Class composed of the following individuals:

     a. Individuals who filed with the Court consents to join the
Kellgren action and who, as of the date of entry of the
Preliminary Approval Order, had not withdrawn their consent or had
their claims dismissed;

     b. Individuals who worked in Colorado as an Assistant Manager
("AM") for Petco at any time between Jan. 15, 2014 and June 18,
2016;

     c. Individuals who worked in Illinois as an AM for Petco at
any time between Nov. 23, 2013 and June 18, 2016;

     d. Individuals who worked in Massachusetts as an AM for Petco
at any time between Jan. 31, 2014 and June 18, 2016;

     e. Individuals who worked in New Jersey as an AM for Petco at
any time between April 6, 2015 and June 18, 2016;

     f. Individuals who worked in New York as an AM for Petco at
any time between April 14, 2010 and June 18, 2016;

     g. Individuals who worked in Oregon as an AM for Petco at any
time between Oct. 21, 2014 and June 18, 2016; and

     h. Individuals who worked in Pennsylvania as an AM for Petco
at any time between July 14, 2014 and June 18, 2016.

The Judge preliminarily appointed Plaintiffs Kellgren, Maria Cote,
James Hecker, Therese Kopchinski, Christine Lee, Deserie Michel,
Heather Vargas, Robert Wagner as the Representatives of the
Settlement Class.  He approved Seth Lesser, Fran Rudich, Michael
Reed, Christopher Timmel, Marc Hepworth, Charles Gershbaum, David
Roth, and Rebecca Predovan as the Settlement Class Counsel for all
of the Settlement Class.

Judge Lorenz approved and adopted the plan for providing notice to
the Settlement Class set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval.  He further conditionally approved and
adopted the Notice of Proposed Settlement and the Claim Form and
Consent to Join FLSA Action.

Section 8 of the Notice of Proposed Settlement (titled "How Can
You Object?") suggests that one who submits a claim form cannot
object.  It appears inconsistent with the terms of the Settlement,
which provide only that one who opts out cannot object and appears
silent as to what effect, if any, the submission of a claim form
has upon the right to object.  Approval is therefore conditional
on altering Section 8 of the Notice of Proposed Settlement such
that it is plain and clear that a class member (i) only loses his
or her rights to timely object by submitting an opt-out request
and (ii) does not lose his or her right to timely object by
submitting a claim.

The Plaintiffs will submit an agreed upon, revised Notice of
Proposed Settlement for Court approval by Oct. 9, 2017.  The Court
will provide expedited review of the revised notice.  Failure to
comply with this paragraph will result in denial of preliminary
approval.

Judge Lorenz appointed JND Legal Administration as the Claims
Administrator for this settlement.  The fees and expenses of the
Claims Administrator will be paid from the Settlement Sum as
provided for in the Settlement Agreement.

To effectuate the Settlement, the Judge established these
deadlines and dates for the acts and events as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, and directed the parties to incorporate the
deadlines and dates in the Class Notice:

     a. Deadline for Defendants to provide to Claims Administrator
an electronic file of all Settlement Class Members, including each
person's name, last known address and telephone number, social
security number, and number of Weeks Worked during the applicable
class period (s) - Within 25 business days after entry of the
Preliminary Approval Order

     b. Deadline for mailing of Class Notice by Claims
Administrator to Settlement Class Members from Defendants - Within
10 business days after receipt of the electronic file of the
Settlement Class Members

     c. Deadline for Settlement Class - Within 80 calendar days
after the Members to submit Claim Form date of initial mailing of
the Class Notice

     d. Deadline for Settlement Class - Within 45 calendar days
after the Members to submit written date of initial mailing of the
Class objections to the Settlement Notice.

     e. Deadline for Settlement Class the Members to opt-out -
Within 45 calendar days after date of initial mailing of the Class
Notice

     f. Deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for an award of
attorneys' fees, costs and Incentive Awards - Within 20 calendar
days after the date of initial mailing of the Class notice

     g. Deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for Final
Approval - Feb. 5, 2018

     h. Final Approval and Fairness Hearing - Feb. 12, 2018 at
11:00 a.m.

The Final Approval and Fairness hearing is scheduled for Feb. 12,
2018 at 11 a.m. at the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, 221 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101,
Courtroom 5B.  This date will be included in the Class Notice.

The Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement must
include the required and customary filings.  In addition, the
motion papers will include (i) an affidavit evidencing the
Defendant's compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act notice
requirement under 28 U.S.C. Section 1715; and (ii) the claims
administrator's affidavit regarding compliance with its duties
under the settlement and the Order, a copy of the actual Notice
sent to the class, a report on the number of class members to whom
Notice was sent, the number of undelivered notices, efforts to
locate correct addresses for undelivered notices after the first
mailing, number of notices sent to the updated addresses in a
second mailing, the number of such notices returned undelivered,
the number of class members to whom payment will be made, and the
average class member payment.

As of the date the Order is signed, all dates and deadlines
associated with the Action will be stayed, other than those
related to the administration of the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Amended Order is
available at https://is.gd/0gtUvR from Leagle.com.

Erik Kellgren, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Michael
Timmel, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice.

Erik Kellgren, Plaintiff, represented by Fran Lisa Rudich, Klafter
Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice, Gregg Lander, Law Offices of
Kevin T Barnes, Jason J. Conway, Klafter Olsen & Lesser, LLP,
Jeffrey A. Klafter, Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossman, pro
hac vice, Kevin T. Barnes, Law Offices of Kevin Barnes, Michael H.
Reed, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca Solomon
Predovan, Hepworth Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC, pro hac vice, Seth R.
Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice, Charles
Gersbhaum, Hepworth, Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC, pro hac vice, David
A. Roth, Hepworth, Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC, pro hac vice, Marc
Hepworth, Hepworth, Gershbaum & Roth PLLC, pro hac vice, Mathew A.
Parker, Hepworth, Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC, pro hac vice & Michael
D. Singer, Cohelan, Khoury & Singer.

Ashleigh Dion, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter
Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice.

Eva Reed, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter Olsen
& Lesser LLP, pro hac vice.

Matt Gumbs, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter
Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice.

Kevin Kinsella, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter
Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice.

Ciarra Kozak, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter
Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice.

Denise Acker, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter
Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice.

Eli Alford, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter
Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice.

Doris Burgos, Plaintiff, represented by Seth R. Lesser, Klafter
Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice.

Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Claudette
G. Wilson -- cwilson@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo
LLP, Katherine Marie McCray -- kmccray@wilsonturnerkosmo.com --
Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Kirsten F. Gallacher --
KGallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Lois
M. Kosch -- lkosch@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo
LLP, Meryl C. Maneker -- mmaneker@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson
Turner Kosmo LLP, Carolina Bravo-Karimi -- cbravo-
karimi@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Krystal
Norris Weaver -- kweaver@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner
Kosmo LLP.

Petco Holdings, Inc., LLC, Defendant, represented by Claudette G.
Wilson, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Katherine Marie McCray, Wilson
Turner Kosmo LLP, Kirsten F. Gallacher, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP,
Lois M. Kosch, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Meryl C. Maneker, Wilson
Turner Kosmo LLP, Carolina Bravo-Karimi, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP &
Krystal Norris Weaver, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP.

Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Claudette G. Wilson, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Katherine Marie
McCray, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Kirsten F. Gallacher, Wilson
Turner Kosmo LLP, Lois M. Kosch, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Meryl C.
Maneker, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Carolina Bravo-Karimi, Wilson
Turner Kosmo LLP & Krystal Norris Weaver, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP.


POINTBREAK MEDIA: "Karon" Hits Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Karon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pointbreak Media LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01989, (N.D. Ohio,
September 22, 2017), seeks actual and statutory damages,
disgorgement of any ill-gotten funds acquired, injunction
requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited prerecorded calling
activities, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such further
and other relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Pointbreak provides Search Engine Optimization, Search Engine
Marketing and "GoogleMyBusiness Activation." Defendant uses an
automatic telephone dialing system and/or using an artificial or
prerecorded voice to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff
without prior express consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam T. Savett, Esq.
      SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC
      2764 Carole Lane
      Allentown PA 18104
      Telephone: (610) 621-4550
      Facsimile: (610) 978-2970
      Email: adam@savettlaw.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Josef Kalmenson, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C., Case
No. 1:17-cv-05677 (E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2017), seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C. operates a debt collection
debt agency in New York. [BN]


The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 395-3459
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


PROHEALTH CORP: Faces "Young" Suit in S. Dist. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prohealth Corp.  The
case is styled as Lawrence Young, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Prohealth Corp
and Prohealth Care Associates, L.L.P., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-07825 (S.D.N.Y., October 11, 2017).

Prohealth Corp. operates as a physician practice management
company. It offers internal medicine, sports medicine, women's
health, cardiology, pediatrics, orthopedics, podiatry, oncology,
neurology, pain management, chemotherapy infusion, and diagnostic
and surgical radiology services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Red Light Camera Ticket Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TheNewspaper.com reports that a Louisiana motorist who received a
$75 red light camera ticket in the mail from a Texas town while he
was 200 miles away will now be allowed to proceed with a $130
million class action lawsuit.  James H. Watson is charging Redflex
Traffic Systems, Southlake's red light camera vendor, with fraud.
The Texas Court of Appeals on Oct. 5 smacked down the attempt of
the Australian firm to dismiss the suit on free speech grounds.

Redflex lawyers cited a law designed to prevent powerful companies
from using the threat of a lawsuit to chill public debate in
asking a judge to throw out the case.  The anti-SLAPP law seeks to
prevent "strategic lawsuits against public participation" by
giving citizens a chance to have such lawsuits dismissed at an
early stage, avoiding extremely expensive legal bills.

The Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals already rejected the
argument, as did a Tarrant County district court judge.  On appeal
in state court, a three-judge state panel was not impressed with
Redflex repeating the arguments that the federal panel had already
rejected.  The legal argument came down to whether the Redflex
"speech" that was suppressed was commercial in nature or not.  The
judges unanimously held it was.

"But for the sale of Redflex's services to the city of Southlake,
services that included sending notices of violation to the owners
of vehicles Redflex's cameras captured running a red light,
Redflex would not have sent the notice of violation to Watson,"
Justice Lee Gabriel wrote for the Texas appellate panel.  "And, of
course, in exchange for the services it provided to the city,
Redflex was entitled to receive compensation, namely, a percentage
of the fines people paid after receiving a notice of violation
from Redflex."

Because the anti-SLAPP law was meant to protect private citizens,
the statute excludes any attempts to protect commercial speech.
The court gave no credit to any of the arguments presented by
Redflex, but the judges expressed no opinion on the underlying
merits of the lawsuit.

"Redflex's attempt to keep from having to answer for its ongoing
criminal enterprise in the state of Texas was soundly rejected by
the Fort Worth Court of Appeals," Watson's attorney, Russell J.
Bowman told TheNewspaper.

Mr. Bowman's lawsuit essentially charges Redflex and the city of
Southlake with fraud.  The ticket that Watson received in the mail
claimed that failure to pay the $75 ticket would be reported to a
collection agency -- something that is expressly prohibited under
Texas law.  The suit also charges Redflex with violating the Texas
private investigator's statute, an opinion shared by Arizona's
attorney general (read opinion).

Mr. Bowman will now have a chance to present his arguments in full
as the case returns to the trial court. [GN]


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Blair" OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PAULA BLAIR, ANDREA ROBINSON, and FALECHIA
HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC., a Delaware
corporation, RENT-A-CENTER WEST, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 17-02335 WHA (N.D.
Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (i) granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant Corporations' motion to compel arbitration;
(ii) granted their motions to strike one Plaintiff's class action
claims; (iii) and denied their motion to stay.

The action arises from rent-to-own agreements, which the Named
contend set prices in excess of the maximum installment payment
rates allowable under California law.

The Defendants own and manage rent-to-own stores throughout
California, which rent household merchandise (e.g., appliances,
electronics, furniture) to consumers for a weekly, bi-weekly, or
monthly fee.  After a specified time period, if all payments have
been made the consumer will own the merchandise.  These agreements
also set forth a cash price at which consumers can purchase the
item outright before the rent-to-own period has ended.

The terms of these rent-to-own agreements are set forth in written
contracts between the consumer and RAC, which are signed by the
consumer at the point of sale.  The consumer is also given a
separate arbitration agreement when she makes a purchase, which
she is likewise asked to sign.

Plaintiff Blair signed an arbitration agreement in connection with
her 2015 purchase of a window-unit air conditioner, which is the
document from which RAC's motion to compel arbitration arises.
RAC has not been able to locate signed arbitration agreements for
either of the other two Named Plaintiffs, and they are therefore
not subject to the motion to compel.  Moreover, Plaintiff Blair
entered into a second agreement with RAC in 2016, but in
connection with that purchase opted out of arbitration, so that
agreement is likewise not subject to RAC's motion to compel.

Plaintiff Blair filed this action in the Superior Court for the
County of Alameda in April 2017 seeking relief for violations of
(i) the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act, (ii) the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), (iii) Usury, (iv) Section
17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, and (v)
Unjust Enrichment.  RAC then removed the action to federal court
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

In May, Blair filed an amended complaint dropping her unjust
enrichment claim.  RAC then brought the instant motion to compel
Blair's suit to arbitration, to strike the class action claims
arising from her 2015 agreement, and to stay Blair's claims
arising from her 2016 purchase (from which she opted out of
arbitration).  While this motion has been pending, Blair amended
her complaint a second time to add Plaintiffs Robinson and Harris,
though as stated, RAC has not moved to compel their claims to
arbitration.

Judge Alsup concludes that Blair's public injunctive claims under
Section 17200, the CLRA, and the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act fall
within the scope of McGill v. Citibank, N.A.  Blair's usury claim,
however, is not amenable to public injunctive relief, and RAC did
not run afoul of McGill by requiring that Blair arbitrate this
claims in her individual capacity only.  Accordingly, RAC's motion
to compel arbitration is granted as to Blair's usury claim.

He finds that three of Blair's claims seek relief not permitted
under the arbitration agreement.  That prohibition runs afoul of
California law.  Accordingly, her claims for violations of Section
17200, the CLRA, and the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act must be
severed from the arbitration and may be brought in court.  The
Judge denied RAC's motion to compel arbitration as to Blair's
Section 17200, CLRA and Karnette Rental-Purchase Act claims.

Judge Alsup finds RAC's motion to strike class action claims of
any other individuals who signed the arbitration agreement is not
yet ripe because no other individuals who signed the agreement
have moved for relief, and therefore there are no other claims to
strike.  Accordingly, RAC's motion is denied insofar as it seeks
to strike the class action claims of individuals not parties to
this litigation.

Judge Alsup further concludes a stay is unnecessary.  RAC has
succeeded in compelling only a single claim to arbitration for
violation of California's usury law.  The usury claim concerns
only Blair's 2015 purchase of her air conditioning unit, and
whether the installment payments related to that purchase
constitute a loan, which exceeds the interest rate limit
established by Article XV of the California Constitution.

The Karnette Rental-Purchase Act claim, on the other hand,
concerns whether RAC exceeded benchmark maximum prices for the
various items purchased by Blair, Robinson, and Harris, as well as
RAC's compliance with labeling and record-keeping requirements set
forth in the Act.  The CLRA claim also carries a distinct legal
concern -- whether RAC's contracts contain misleading or
unconscionable terms.

Finally, the Section 17200 claim is predicated on violations of
all of the above claims.  While there will no doubt be some minor
overlap in the facts in arbitration and in court, California's
usury law is sufficiently distinct from the other consumer
protection laws Blair sues under that parallel proceedings will
not be unduly duplicative or burdensome.  Accordingly, he denied
RAC's motion to stay court proceedings.

For the reasons stated, Judge Alsup granted RAC's motion to compel
arbitration as to Blair's usury claim, and denied as to Blair's
claims under Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code, the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act, and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  He granted RAC's motions to strike
Blair's class claims and denied RAC's motion to stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/peoN1K from Leagle.com.

Paula L. Blair, Plaintiff, represented by James T. Hannink --
Jim.Hannink@sdlaw.com -- Dostart Hannink and Coveney.

Paula L. Blair, Plaintiff, represented by Zachariah Paul Dostart -
- Paul.Dostart@sdlaw.com -- Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP, Eric
Prince Brown -- ebrown@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP
& Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon
LLP.

Andrea Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Prince Brown,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, James T. Hannink, Dostart Hannink and
Coveney, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP & Zachariah Paul
Dostart, Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP.

Harris A. Falechia, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Prince Brown,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, James T. Hannink, Dostart Hannink and
Coveney, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP & Zachariah Paul
Dostart, Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP.

Rent-A-Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kirsten F.
Gallacher -- KGallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner
Kosmo LLP, Robert Kenneth Dixon -- rdixon@wilsonturnerkosmo.com --
Wilson Turner Kosmo, Robert Francois Friedman --
rfriedman@littler.com --  Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice,
Vickie E. Turner -- vturner@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner
Kosmo LLP & Gregory G. Iskander -- giskander@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Rent-A-Center West, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kirsten F.
Gallacher, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Robert Kenneth Dixon, Wilson
Turner Kosmo, Robert Francois Friedman, Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
pro hac vice, Vickie E. Turner, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Gregory
G. Iskander, Littler Mendelson, P.C.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Faces "McIntosh" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Royal Caribbean
Cruises LTD.

The case is captioned Nikki McIntosh, on her own behalf and on
behalf of all other similarly situated passengers scheduled to
have been aboard the M/V Liberty of the Seas v. Royal Caribbean
Cruises LTD., Case No. 1:17-cv-23575-JLK (S.D. Fla., September 28,
2017).

Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD. operates a global cruise company
incorporated in Liberia and based in Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc E Weiner, Esq.
      Michael A. Winkleman, Esq.
      LIPCON, MARGULIES, ALSINA, WINKLEMAN, P.A.
      One Biscayne Tower
      2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1776
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 373-3016
      Facsimile: (305) 373-6204
      E-mail: mweiner@lipcon.com
              mwinkleman@lipcon.com


RURAL METRO: Can Partly Compel Discovery Responses in "Calleros"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in
part Defendants' motion to compel further responses to discovery
in the case captioned REUBEN CALLEROS AND RALPH RUBIO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the
State of California, Plaintiffs, v. RURAL METRO OF SAN DIEGO,
INC., RURAL METRO CORPORATION, AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC.,
ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, AND DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 17cv686-CAB(BLM) (S.D. Cal.).

The instant class action matter was removed to this Court on April
5, 2017 from the San Diego Superior Court.  The Plaintiffs,
ambulance crew employees, allege that the Defendants failed to
authorize and permit rest periods and violated California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs
and those similarly situated allege that they were not provided
with rest periods during which they were relieved of all duties
because they were required to remain on call at all times and were
required to carry pagers, cell phones, radios, or other electronic
devices to keep those devices on, and to remain vigilant and
responsive to calls when the need arose.

The Defendants, on Aug. 21, 2017, moved to compel further
responses to discovery regarding the personal activities the
Plaintiffs engaged in during their shifts and the Plaintiffs'
knowledge of locations where violations allegedly have occurred.

The Requests for Production ("RFPs") at issue are:

     a. RFP No. 24: All of the cellular telephone bills since Feb.
22, 2013, or any other records that would show whether, when and
for how long one participated in personal telephone calls or
engaged in personal activities during the work day.

     b. RFP No. 25: All documents that would identify any websites
one visited while on duty for RMSD or any other Defendant since
Feb. 22, 2013.

     c. RFP No. 26: All postings one has made on Facebook,
Linkedln or any other social media site while on-duty for RMSD or
any other Defendant since Feb. 22, 2013.

     d. RFP No. 27: All communications with Ralph Rubio,
including, but not limited to, text messages and emails.

The Defendants also move to compel a further response to RFP No.
27 on the ground that the Plaintiffs' responses are evasive and
they have refused to supplement their responses.

The Plaintiffs, on Sept. 1, 2017, filed their Opposition to the
Defendants' motion to compel.  They contend that the Defendants'
discovery requests regarding Plaintiffs' personal activities are
not proportional to the needs of the case.  Specifically, they
note that some of the requests are impossible to answer and that
evidence that the Plaintiffs engaged in personal activities while
on-call does not prove that they were, therefore, relieved of all
duties.

Magistrate Judge Major denied the Defendants' motion to compel
further response to RFP No. 27.  First, the Plaintiffs have agreed
to provide a supplemental response correcting their error with the
Plaintiff's name.  Second, the request is extremely overbroad as
it is not limited in time or scope and simply requests any and all
communications that have ever taken place between the Plaintiffs.

The Defendants move to compel further responses to Interrogatory
Nos. 13-14 and 16 and argue that the Plaintiffs' objections are
inapplicable and incorrect and the responses are evasive and
merely legal argument.

The Interrogatories are:

     a. Interrogatory No. 12: Identify which of RMSD's or Rural
Metro Corporation's locations, facilities or operating units in
California have provided non-emergency services since Feb. 22,
2013 and describe in detail all facts that they believe
demonstrate that persons providing non-emergency services at those
locations, facilities or operating units were not provided rest
periods in compliance with the law.

     b. Interrogatory No. 13: Identify each work day since Feb.
22, 2013 on which one did not engage in any personal activities of
any kind while on-duty, including but not limited to engaging in
personal telephone calls, reading books or magazines, playing
computer games, browsing websites, watching videos or movies,
sleeping, resting, texting, emailing, going for a walk or
shopping.

     c. Interrogatory No. 14: Identify each person who has been
assigned to work on an ambulance crew with one since Feb. 22, 2013
and describe in detail the personal activities in which one
observed each such person engages while on-duty, including but not
limited to engaging in personal telephone calls, reading books or
magazines, playing computer games, browsing websites, watching
videos or movies, sleeping, resting, texting, emailing, going for
a walk or shopping.

     d. Interrogatory No. 15: Identify each person that has
provided one with cellular telephone service since Feb. 22, 2013,
including the name of the provider, the period of time for which
it provided services to him/her, and the telephone number that was
assigned to that person.

     e. Interrogatory No. 16: Identify each website that one
visited while on-duty for RMSD or any other Defendant since Feb.
22, 2013 using one's smartphone, laptop, tablet or other
communications device.

     f. Interrogatory No. 21: Describe in detail the substance,
nature and date of each communication one had with any person
other than with one's attorneys concerning the facts, issues or
other matters involved in the case.

The Plaintiffs contend that the information requested in the
interrogatories is irrelevant to demonstrating whether or not the
Plaintiffs were permitted to take rest breaks during which they
were relieved of all duties and not proportional to the needs of
the case.

Magistrate Judge Major granted in part the Defendants' motion to
compel further response to Interrogatories 13 and 14 and denied
the Defendants' motion to compel further response to Interrogatory
16.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs must provide a substantive
response to Interrogatory No. 13 by identifying the specific days
or otherwise quantifying the number of days that they did not
engage in "any personal activities of any kind while on-duty."

As to Interrogatory No. 14, the Defendants' definition of
"describe in detail" is unduly burdensome and not proportional to
the case.  Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge ordered the
Plaintiffs to provide a substantive response to Interrogatory No.
14 by identifying each person with whom the Plaintiff has worked
and all personal activities the Plaintiffs observed the person
engage in while on duty and, the estimated length of time the
employee engaged in each activity, and the estimated number of
days (or whether daily, weekly, or monthly) they saw the employee
engaged in the activity.  They do not have to identify the
specific websites that were visited as requested in Interrogatory
No. 16.

Magistrate Judge Major granted the Defendants' motion to compel
further response to Interrogatory No. 15 and to Interrogatory No.
12.  The Plaintiffs are ordered to respond and must provide a
detailed answer based upon information known to them at this time
and must supplement, if necessary, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(e).

He granted in part the Defendants' motion to compel further
response to Interrogatory No. 21.  While the request, including
the definition of "describe in detail" is overbroad and
disproportional, it does seek relevant information.  Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs are Ordered to provide a supplemental response
identifying the person(s) with whom they had such communication,
the approximate date of the communication, the general substance
of the communication, and the identity of any witness(es) to the
communication.

Finally, Magistrate Judge Major denied as moot the Defendants'
motion to compel further response to Interrogatory No. 6.  The
Plaintiffs have agreed to supplement their response to
Interrogatory No. 6.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Major granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motion.  The Plaintiffs must
provide supplemental discovery responses by Oct. 23, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/xFzzf6 from Leagle.com.

Reuben Calleros, Plaintiff, represented by A. Mark Pope, Pope,
Berger, Williams & Reynolds, LLP.

Reuben Calleros, Plaintiff, represented by Harvey C. Berger, Pope,
Berger, Williams & Reynolds, LLP & Sara Jayne Waller, Pope,
Berger, Williams & Reynolds, LLP.

Ralph Rubio, Plaintiff, represented by A. Mark Pope, Pope, Berger,
Williams & Reynolds, LLP, Harvey C. Berger, Pope, Berger, Williams
& Reynolds, LLP & Sara Jayne Waller, Pope, Berger, Williams &
Reynolds, LLP.

Rural Metro of San Diego, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
S. Kun -- mkun@ebglaw.com -- Epstein, Becker & Green, PC.

Rural Metro Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael S. Kun,
Epstein, Becker & Green, PC.

American Medical Response, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
S. Kun, Epstein, Becker & Green, PC.

Envision Healthcare Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael
S. Kun, Epstein, Becker & Green, PC.


RURAL METRO: Directed to Reply to Interrogatories in "Calleros"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' motion to compel further responses to
interrogatories in the case captioned REUBEN CALLEROS AND RALPH
RUBIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
in the State of California, Plaintiffs, v. RURAL METRO OF SAN
DIEGO, INC., RURAL METRO CORPORATION, AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE,
INC., ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, AND DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 17cv686-CAB(BLM) (S.D. Cal.).

The instant class action matter was removed to this Court on April
5, 2017 from the San Diego Superior Court.  The Plaintiffs,
ambulance crew employees, allege that the Defendants failed to
authorize and permit rest periods and violated California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200.

On Aug. 21, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel
further responses to interrogatories.  They seek an order from the
Court requiring two things. First, the Plaintiffs want RMSD to
provide answers to interrogatories No. 7 and 8; and RM Corp. to
provide answers to Interrogatories No. 8 and 9. The four
interrogatories at issue relate to the names and addresses of all
putative class members.  Second, they want a Belaire notice sent
"to all 1,993+ putative class members."

On Sept. 1, 2017, the Defendants filed their Opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel.  The Defendants have agreed to a
Belaire opt-out notice being sent to putative class members who
worked in the San Diego unit in which the two Plaintiffs work.
However, they contend that since the Plaintiffs are unable to
identify a single other employee who was subjected to the
allegedly unlawful conduct and are unable to identify a uniform
unlawful policy or practice that applied to all class members
statewide, the class contact information should not be provided
for employees outside of San Diego.

Accordingly, the only remaining issue before the Court is whether
the Plaintiffs are entitled to receive contact information for
putative class members who did not work in the San Diego
territories with the Plaintiffs.

Magistrate Judge Major finds that the Plaintiffs have not provided
evidence making a prima facie showing that the Rule 23 class
requirements are satisfied for employees outside of the San Diego
region or that the requested discovery -- the identities of
employees who work outside the San Diego region -- is relevant,
proportional, and likely to establish the class allegations.

The only evidence provided by them to establish that the
Defendants' allegedly unlawful behavior and policies extend to the
Northern California territories is (i) the EMS Operations Manual
for Rural/Metro of San Diego which states that each unit is
assigned a pager to be worn by one crew member at all times during
their shift and that personnel must monitor portable radio traffic
consistently throughout their duty period; (ii) a letter from
Rural/Metro Ambulance regarding out-of-chute times (wheels-
turned); and (iii) a portion of the Rural/Metro of California
Policy and Procedure Manual for Santa Clara County EMS Operations
discussing out-of-chute times.

The Magistrate Judge acknowledges that the Defendants have not
provided contrary evidence, however, the burden is not on them to
do so.  If the Plaintiffs discover evidence of violations in the
Northern California territories or company-wide violations in the
future, they may seek to expand the scope of discovery at that
time.  But, at this time, the Plaintiffs' motion to compel contact
information for putative class members who worked outside the San
Diego region is denied.

With regard to the Defendants' privacy objections, the Magistrate
Judge overrules those objections as to employees in the San Diego
region who do not opt out of the class or who contact the
Plaintiffs' counsel after receiving the Belaire notice.  The
contact information for such employees is subject to the
protective order in this case and is to be produced to the
Plaintiffs' counsel, not disseminated to any third party, and used
only for the purposes of the instant litigation.  She finds that
these circumstances adequately balance the privacy interests of
the putative class members with the Plaintiffs' need for
discovery.

For the reasons set forth, Magistrate Judge Major granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion.  On or before Oct. 23,
2017, the parties will meet and confer to prepare a Belaire notice
to be sent by a neutral third party administrator to putative
class members who work or worked in the San Diego territories with
the Plaintiffs.

Once the Belaire notice procedure is complete in the eyes of the
neutral third party administrator, Defendant RMSD will provide
responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 8 and Defendant
RM Corp. will provide responses to the Plaintiffs' Interrogatory
Nos. 8 and 9.

The Defendant will disclose the names, addresses, telephone
numbers, employers and job titles of all ambulance crew members
formerly or presently employed by the Defendants between Feb. 22,
2013 and the present time in areas located within the San Diego
territories and who did not request to be excluded after receiving
the Belaire notice.  The Defendants are not required to identify
the names or contact information of employees outside of the San
Diego territories.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/5AKcC6 from Leagle.com.

Reuben Calleros, Plaintiff, represented by A. Mark Pope, Pope,
Berger, Williams & Reynolds, LLP.

Reuben Calleros, Plaintiff, represented by Harvey C. Berger, Pope,
Berger, Williams & Reynolds, LLP & Sara Jayne Waller, Pope,
Berger, Williams & Reynolds, LLP.

Ralph Rubio, Plaintiff, represented by A. Mark Pope, Pope, Berger,
Williams & Reynolds, LLP, Harvey C. Berger, Pope, Berger, Williams
& Reynolds, LLP & Sara Jayne Waller, Pope, Berger, Williams &
Reynolds, LLP.

Rural Metro of San Diego, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
S. Kun -- mkun@ebglaw.com -- Epstein, Becker & Green, PC.

Rural Metro Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael S. Kun,
Epstein, Becker & Green, PC.

American Medical Response, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
S. Kun, Epstein, Becker & Green, PC.

Envision Healthcare Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael
S. Kun, Epstein, Becker & Green, PC.


SAN DIEGO, CA: Settles Trash Truck Drivers' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
David Garrick, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports
that San Diego has agreed to pay $500,000 to drivers of city trash
trucks to settle a dispute over wages deducted from their
paychecks for taking lunch breaks.

A class action lawsuit filed in 2014 claims the city failed to
properly pay hundreds of drivers by deducting half an hour for a
lunch break each shift, even though drivers are required to stay
on their collection routes while eating lunch.

The city, which declined to admit any wrongdoing despite agreeing
to a settlement, contends it doesn't owe the wages because its
status as a "charter city" exempts it from applicable state laws.

"Charter cities are supreme and beyond the reach of legislative
enactments," lawyers for the city said in court documents.

Those lawyers also argued that a labor contract with the drivers
covers rest periods, overtime and other issues related to the
allegedly unpaid wages.  And they said drivers have opportunities
to address such concerns by filing grievances.

The City Council approved the settlement on Oct. 3, but it must
get a final OK from the judge in the case because it is a class
action suit affecting potentially hundreds of drivers.

San Diego typically has just over 100 drivers on staff to pick up
trash from residential properties across the city, which it does
without charging fees because of a controversial law known as the
People's Ordinance.

The number of drivers affected by the settlement has been
estimated at 220, because the alleged unpaid wages go back to May
2011 and the city has a relatively high turnover of trash truck
drivers.

The suit was filed on behalf of Thomas Perez, a former city trash
truck driver.

The $500,000 settlement covers payments to driver and attorney's
fees. If the city had lost the case in a civil trial, the payout
would have covered more than six years of back wages, plus
interest, for many of the drivers.

A spokesman for City Attorney Mara Elliott said the motive for
agreeing to a settlement was avoiding any further risk for San
Diego and its taxpayers.  The spokesman, Gerry Braun, the city
disputes liability and admits no wrongdoing in the case.

Drivers of city trash trucks typically receive annual salaries of
about $50,000, but many make more than $80,000 when overtime,
benefits and other compensation is included.

The city began requiring drivers to document their lunch breaks in
June 2016. [GN]


SCANA CORP: November 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of SCANA Corporation ("SCANA") (NYSE:SCG) between
January 19, 2016 and September 22, 2017.  You are hereby notified
that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.
To get more information go to:

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-
free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company's construction project at V.C.
Summer Nuclear Station was facing serious design, construction,
and cost headwinds; and (2) the Company had concerns regarding
whether its lead contractor for the project, Westinghouse Electric
Company, was financially viable and able to continue the project.

On July 31, 2017, SCANA's subsidiary South Carolina Electric & Gas
Co. ("SCE&G") and Santee Cooper, South Carolina's state-owned
electric and water utility announced that they would abandon
construction of two nuclear power plants in South Carolina.
Multiple class actions have been filed against SCE&G alleging that
the subsidiary overcharged its customers by raising their rates to
pay in advance for the construction of the company's subsequently
abandoned nuclear plants.

If you suffered a loss in SCANA you have until November 28, 2017
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.
The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience
representing investors in securities litigation, and have
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders. [GN]


SILVERTREE MOHAVE: Oct 26 Reply Date to Attys' Fee Bid in "Lewis"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DOMENICA LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
SILVERTREE MOHAVE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. C 16-03581 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William
Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted the Defendants' motion to enlarge time to
respond to Plaintiffs Lewis' and Project Sentinel's motion for
attorneys' fee.

The Defendants seek an additional 90 days in order to review the
Plaintiffs' billing records, and take discovery in connection with
the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees motion, including seeking
documents related to the employment experience of their time
keepers, and their fee agreements.

Judge Alsup granted as modified the Defendants' motion to enlarge
time.  The Defendants will file their opposition to the
Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees motion by Oct. 26, 2017.  The
Plaintiffs will reply by Nov. 2, 2017.  The hearing on the
Plaintiffs' motions for attorneys' fees and for final approval of
class action settlement is continued to Nov. 16, 2017 at 8:00 a.m.

To the extent that the Defendants seek discovery into the
Plaintiffs' attorneys fees, Judge Alsup directed that they will
provide their own detailed time records covering the same relevant
periods and tasks for the Plaintiffs to inspect.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/UMdq3s from Leagle.com.

Domenica Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham --
annettek@lawfoundation.org -- Law Foundation of Silicon Valley.

Domenica Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Corey David Attaway --
cattaway@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn, Kyra Ann Kazantzis --
kyrak@lawfoundation.org -- Law Foundation of Silicon Valley,
Matthew Frederick Warren -- matthew.warren@lawfoundation.org --
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Nadia Aziz --
nadia.aziz@lawfoundation.org -- Law Foundation of Silicon Valley &
Robert Alan Julian, Esq. -- rjulian@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn LLP.

Jerrold Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham, Law
Foundation of Silicon Valley, Corey David Attaway, Winston and
Strawn, Kyra Ann Kazantzis, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley,
Matthew Frederick Warren, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Nadia
Aziz, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley & Robert Alan Julian, Esq.,
Winston & Strawn LLP.

S. L., Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham, Law
Foundation of Silicon Valley, Kyra Ann Kazantzis, Law Foundation
of Silicon Valley, Matthew Frederick Warren, Law Foundation of
Silicon Valley, Nadia Aziz, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley &
Robert Alan Julian, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP.

E. L., Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham, Law
Foundation of Silicon Valley, Kyra Ann Kazantzis, Law Foundation
of Silicon Valley, Matthew Frederick Warren, Law Foundation of
Silicon Valley, Nadia Aziz, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley &
Robert Alan Julian, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP.

Project Sentinel, Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham,
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Corey David Attaway, Winston and
Strawn, Kyra Ann Kazantzis, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley,
Matthew Frederick Warren, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Nadia
Aziz, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley & Robert Alan Julian, Esq.,
Winston & Strawn LLP.

Silvertree Mohave Homeowners' Association, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Lisa Renee Roberts, McNamara Ney Beatty Slattery
Borges & Ambacher LLP.

Carol Lee Adams, Defendant, represented by Lisa Renee Roberts,
McNamara Ney Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP.

Marilyn Black, Defendant, represented by Lisa Renee Roberts,
McNamara Ney Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP.

Anand Bhaskaran, Defendant, represented by Lisa Renee Roberts,
McNamara Ney Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP.

Tamela Durant, Defendant, represented by Lisa Renee Roberts,
McNamara Ney Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP.

Donald W Murphy, Defendant, represented by Lisa Renee Roberts,
McNamara Ney Beatty Slattery Borges & Ambacher LLP.


SKURT INC: Alisma Sues Over Denied Meal Breaks, Wage Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Alisma, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Skurt, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
BC676899, (Cal. Super., September 21, 2017), seeks compensation
resulting from failure to accurately pay overtime wages and
minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks,
all wages earned and owed upon separation from Defendant's employ,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements under
California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law under the California
Business and Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders.

Skurt Inc. develops a car rental on-demand mobile application and
is based in Los Angeles, California -- https://www.skurt.com/ --
where Plaintiff worked as a Skurt agent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310)201-9150
      Facsimile: (310)201-9150
      Email: kevinruf@gmail.com
             info@glancylaw.com


SLIDE FIRE: Vegas Shooting Victims Sue Over Bump Stock Maker
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News, reports that three
people who attended the country music festival where a gunman
massacred 58 people Oct. 1 have filed a class action against the
maker of bump stock, an attachment used by the gunman to modify
his semi-automatic rifles to fire at almost the same rate as
automatics.

Devon Prescott filed the class action in Clark County, Nevada,
court on behalf of all people who attended the Route 91 Harvest
Music Festival near the Mandalay Bay Hotel, where Stephen Paddock
rained gunfire onto the crowd attending the three-day event.

The putative class is represented by Robert Eglet and three others
at Eglet Prince in Las Vegas, and by Jonathan Lowy of the Brady
Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington.  The gun control
group was expected to announce the filing with the law firm at an
Oct. 10 morning press conference in Las Vegas.

"The people who attended the concert have suffered so much
already," the firm and Brady Center said in joint statement.  "The
physical injuries are staggering, and we know the emotional
injuries can be equally severe and long term.  Brady has decades
of experience supporting the victims of gun violence and has been
the only organization in the nation focused on seeking justice for
them in the courts."

Mr. Prescott and two others name the maker of the bump stock
device, Slide Fire Solutions of Moran, Texas, and other
unidentified manufacturers.  They claim Slide Fire markets the
product under the guise that it helps gun owners who suffer from a
lack of mobility in their hands. But bump fire stock inventor
Jeremiah Cottle has stated the attachment was for "'people like
me, [who] love full auto,'" a statement that betrays the actual
purpose of the product -- to convert rifles into fully automatic
firearms, according to the complaint.

Paddock fired at concertgoers from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay
Bay Hotel on the night of Sunday, Oct. 1.  The massacre is the
worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history, killing 58 and
injuring nearly 500.

Authorities say the 64-year-old gunman stashed more than dozen
rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in his hotel room. He
rained gunfire on thousands of panicked concertgoers over 11
minutes.

Investigators found Paddock dead in his hotel room from a self-
inflicted gunshot wound.

The Oct. 6 lawsuit says the class does not "challenge the right of
law-abiding citizens to bear arms" but says that Slide Fire
negligently sells bump stock to gun owners to avoid state and
federal laws banning the use of military-style automatic weapons.

"Paddock could not have injured so many people without a bump
stock. Paddock may not have launched his military-style assault
without a bump stock.  There are people who were killed, injured,
and suffered emotional distress who would not have been if Paddock
had not possessed a bump stock," the 30-page filing states.

The National Firearms Act regulates the sale of fully automatic
weapons so that members of the public cannot obtain them,
according to the Brady Center.

Slide Fire grossed more than $10 million from the sales of bump
stocks in 2010 and sold bump stock models for between $100 and
$400, according to the lawsuit.  The company has suspended the
sale of the devices through its website, according to the Brady
Center, and disabled a feature that allowed buyers to locate
dealers through the site.

In a rare display of bipartisanship on the issue of gun violence,
both Democrats and Republicans voiced support for a ban on a
device.  The powerful gun lobby National Rifle Association has
said the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives should take a closer look at the products but has also
said it would challenge a complete ban.

The lawsuit seeks the creation of a court-supervised medical and
psychological monitoring program for the class of plaintiffs, as
well as punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs.

Slide Fire Solutions and Cottle did not respond to requests for
comment.  On Oct. 9, Courthouse News was unable to leave a
voicemail because the company's inbox was full. [GN]


SMARTPAY LEASING: Can't Compel Arbitration in "Esparza" TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration in the case captioned SHAWN ESPARZA, on behalf of
herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SMARTPAY
LEASING, INC., Defendant, Case No. C 17-03421 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff leased a cell phone from the Defendant in December
2015.  To lease the phone, Esparza first had to open an account on
SmartPay's website, which required her to consent to SmartPay's
general Terms of Use Agreement.  After entering into the Terms of
Use Agreement, Esparza then consented to a separate set of terms
and conditions when she completed the paperwork required to lease
a cell phone -- the Agreement Terms and Conditions.

Several months after leasing her phone, Esparza returned it,
allegedly because it was defective.  Nevertheless, after returning
her phone and otherwise ending her relationship with SmartPay,
Esparza began receiving promotional text messages from SmartPay on
a completely different phone (not leased from SmartPay).  These
continued despite her requests that SmartPay stop sending them.

In June, Esparza filed the putative class action, alleging that
SmartPay violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA")
by continuing to send her unsolicited texts.  In response,
SmartPay filed its motion to compel arbitration.

Judge Alsup finds that SmartPay's Terms of Use Agreement did not
contain an arbitration clause.  Rather, it provided that the Terms
of Use will be governed by and construed in accordance with the
laws of the United States, and to the extent applicable, the laws
of the State of California.

Judge Alsup further finds that SmartPay's contention that the
Terms of Use Agreement was subject to the arbitration clause
contained in the separate lease agreement, pointing to a section
of the Terms of Use Agreement, which provided that the Terms of
Use will be subject to any other agreements customers have entered
into with SmartPay is unpersuasive for two reasons.

First, the arbitration clause in the lease agreement expressly
applied to claims arising from or in any way related to the lease
agreement.  Since Esparza's TCPA claims do not arise from or
relate to her agreement to lease a cell phone, the arbitration
provision has no applicability even if the agreements are read
together.

Second, to the extent that SmartPay contends the promotional text
provision in the Terms of Use was incorporated into the lease
agreement, its interpretation reverses the direction in which the
"subject to any other agreements" clause applies.  The Terms of
Use Agreement provided that the Terms of Use Agreement would be
subject to other agreements SmartPay enters into with its
customers.

Judge Alsup also finds that SmartPay's final argument that the
promotional text messaging agreement falls within the scope of the
arbitration clause because the arbitration clause says the
arbitration agreement will survive termination of the lease
Agreement and will continue to be in effect to resolve any
disputes that arise between the parties is unavailing for two
reasons.

First, this clause is part of, and modifies, the section providing
that customers agreed to arbitrate disputes arising from the lease
agreement.  The natural reading of the clause, therefore, is that
it too applies to disputes arising from the lease agreement.

Second, reading the clause as applying to any and every claim
arising between SmartPay and its customers, even including
employment and tort claims, with no limiting principle would
render the clause impermissibly overbroad, and therefore
inoperable.  This order rejects SmartPay's excessively broad and
unnatural reading.

Because the arbitration agreement does not encompass Esparza's
claim, Judge Alsup denied SmartPay's motion to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/CeRbB6 from Leagle.com.

Shawn Esparza, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald A. Marron --
on@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
APLC.

Shawn Esparza, Plaintiff, represented by Alexis Marie Wood --
alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
APLC & Kas Larene Gallucci -- kas@consumersadvocates.com -- Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

Smartpay Leasing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Topor
-- jtopor@snllp.com -- Simmonds & Narita LLP & Liana Mayilyan --
Liana@snllp.com -- Simmonds and Narita LLP.


SOULCYCLE INC: $9.2MM Settlement in "Cody" Suit Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RACHEL CODY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOULCYCLE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. CV 15-06457 MWF (JEM) (C.D. Cal.), Judge
Michael W. Fitzgerald of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted (i) the Parties' Motion for Final
Approval of the Settlement pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure; and (ii) the Class Counsel's Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and for the incentive award for the
class representative.

On June 22, 2017, the Court entered the Preliminary Approval Order
certifying the proposed Settlement Class under Rule 23(a) and Rule
23(b)(3); appointing Class Counsel, the class representatives, and
a Settlement Administrator; and directing that notice be given to
the members of the Settlement Class of the proposed Settlement and
of a Fairness Hearing.

In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court approved the form and
content of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and
Fairness Hearing ("Notice") directed to members of the Settlement
Class.

During the Notice period, June 26, 2017 through Sept. 11, 2017,
the Settlement Administrator caused the Notice to be emailed or
mailed to all members of the Settlement Class, and created a
Settlement Website and a toll-free number for class members.  The
Notices, Website, and toll-free number informed members of the
Settlement Class of the Settlement terms and the Fairness Hearing.

Pursuant to the Notice, six members of the Settlement Class chose
to exclude themselves from the Settlement by submitting timely and
valid Opt-Out Forms, two objections to the Settlement were filed
with the Court, and one objection to the amount of attorneys' fees
was sent to class counsel.  The two objections to the Settlement
were subsequently withdrawn prior to the Fairness Hearing, though
the Court still considered the arguments raised in the objections.

On Aug. 28, 2017, the Settlement Administrator filed with the
Court a declaration attesting to the mailing of the Notice to all
members of the Settlement Class and the results of the Notice.  On
Sept. 25, 2017 the Settlement Administrator filed with the Court
an updated declaration attesting to the results of the Notice.

In accordance with the Notice, a Fairness Hearing was held on Oct.
2, 2017.

Judge Fitzgerald preliminarily approved certification of the
Settlement Class in this action on June 22, 2017.  The Settlement
Class is defined as SoulCycle customers nationwide who purchased,
during the period commencing on Aug. 25, 2014 and ending on Feb.
10, 2017, a SoulCycle Class that expired unused; and SoulCycle
customers with a California billing address who purchased, during
the period commencing on Feb. 1, 2012 and ending on Feb. 10, 2017,
a SoulCycle Class that expired unused.

Based on the number of members of the Settlement Class on the
Class List and the number of timely and valid Opt-Out Forms
submitted, the Settlement Amount is $6.9 million to $9.2 million.

Judge Fitzgerald finally approved the Settlement.  The parties and
the Settlement Administrator will carry out all the terms of the
Settlement, including the disbursement of reinstated classes to
each of the Settlement Class Members, or the disbursement of money
to those Settlement Class Members who elect the Cash Option; the
changes to the Defendant's business practices as provided for in
the Settlement Agreement; and the release provisions in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and an
Incentive Award is granted and the Judge awarded the Class Counsel
attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $1,790,000, which is to
be paid separate and apart from the Settlement Amount.  An
incentive award in the amount of $5,000 each is approved for the
two class representatives, Plaintiffs Cody and Knowles.

Judge Fitzgerald dismissed the Action with prejudice and without
costs except as otherwise provided in the Judgment.  The Judgment
is a final and appealable judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Judgment is available
at https://is.gd/CS0bEw from Leagle.com.

Rachel Cody, Plaintiff, represented by Dorian S. Berger --
dberger@olavidunne.com -- Berger and Hipskind LLP.

Rachel Cody, Plaintiff, represented by Eric B. Hanson --
kbenson@lchb.com -- Berger and Hipskind LLP, Katherine C. Lubin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Nicholas R. Diamand --
ddiamand@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Berstein LLP, pro
hac vice & Daniel Paul Hipskind -- dph@bergerhipskind.com --
Berger and Hipskind LLP.

SoulCycle, Inc., Defendant, represented by Colleen M. Gulliver --
colleen.gulliver@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice,
Grant P. Alexander -- grant.alexander@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper
LLP, Keara M. Gordon -- keara.gordon@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper
LLP, pro hac vice, Shirli Fabbri Weiss --
shirli.weiss@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Steven R. Marino --
steven.marino@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice.

Marko Cavka, Objector, represented by Stephen M. Hauptman --
stephen.hauptman@ndlf.com -- Newmeyer and Dillion LLP.

Lori Kilgannon, Objector, represented by Stephen M. Hauptman,
Newmeyer and Dillion LLP.


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lewis" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jodiann Lewis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Southwest Credit Systems L.P., Case No. 1:17-cv-05700
(E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Southwest Credit Systems L.P. is a provider of accounts receivable
management and consumer service solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Mizrahi
      JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW, P.C.
      337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
      Brooklyn, NY 11223
      Telephone: (917) 299-6612
      Facsimile: (347) 665-1545
      E-mail: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com

ST. GOBAIN: Hoosick Falls Resident Oppose Dourson EPA Appointment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Stanforth, writing for Times Union, reports that Hoosick
Falls residents who have advocated for the village in the wake of
its PFOA water contamination crisis traveled to Washington, D.C.,
to protest the appointment of a former chemical company consultant
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Michael Hickey, the village resident who tested the water and
sounded the first alarm about the contamination three years ago,
as well as Loreen Hackett, Emily Marpe and her 12-year-old
daughter, Gwen Young, traveled there on behalf of the
Environmental Working Group and Environmental Defense Fund.

The four appeared at an Oct. 3 press conference held by Democratic
U.S. Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico and Richard Blumenthal of
Connecticut to protest the appointment of
Michael Dourson to lead the EPA's chemical safety program.

The senators said Mr. Dourson, who previously produced research on
behalf of chemical companies, has worked to downplay the health
affects of dangerous substances.  Mr. Dourson was on the defense
team for DuPont when it faced a class action lawsuit related to
PFOA contamination from a West Virginia plant.  In February,
DuPont and another company, Chemours, settled more than 3,500
suits for $671 million.

An EPA spokeswoman has said Mr. Dourson, a professor at the
University of Cincinnati, is a highly qualified scientist who
previously worked for the EPA.

At the Oct. 3 press conference in Washington, NBC News interviewed
Young, who Udall noted drank PFOA-contaminated well water when her
family lived in the Rensselaer County town of Petersburgh.  Her
family now lives in Hoosick Falls, where the municipal water has
since had filters installed to block PFOA contamination that was
likely coming from the nearby Saint-Gobain plant in the village.

Officials in Hoosick Falls, as well as at the state and federal
level, first responded to the contamination in 2015.  The
contaminated zone has now been declared a federal Superfund site.
"I don't really feel safe anywhere I go," Young told NBC News. She
is one of only a handful of Rensselaer County children whose blood
tested at a PFOA level above 100 micrograms per liter,
Ms. Hackett said.  "I don't want this to have to happen to other
kids."

The Hoosick Falls residents also were present at a Senate hearing
on Mr. Dourson's confirmation on Oct. 4, where Democratic
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand highlighted their situation during
testimony.

"In the audience are New Yorkers whose lives have been personally
impacted by the chemical PFOA," Sen. Gillibrand told Mr. Dourson
at the hearing.  "The water that they drink, the water they give
their children, the water they cook in, the water they bathe in,
is contaminated by PFOA. These families are so frightened."

"You have such a responsibility," Sen. Gillibrand told
Mr. Dourson.  "You are no longer being paid for your opinions."

Ms. Hackett said that Sen. Gillibrand also said each of them by
name to Mr. Dourson during the hearing.

"When she said our names, it was touching," Ms. Hackett said.
"Every one of us had a tear." [GN]


TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Bayne" Product Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Randy Bayne, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd.,
formerly known as Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., Tai'an Taishan
Plasterboard Co., Ltd., Beijing New Building Materials Public
Limited Co., Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co., Ltd.,
China National Building Material Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No.
4:17-cv-01286 (N.D. Ala., August 1, 2017), was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New
Orleans) on September 22, 2017, under Case No. 2:17-cv-08284.

Plaintiffs alleges that the Chinese manufactured drywall designed,
manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered,
supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the
Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it unfit for
residential purposes.

Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing
business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed and
marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it reacts,
breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other noxious gases
including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Reeves, Jr.
      REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC
      160 Main Street
      P. O. Drawer 1388 (19533)
      Biloxi, MS 39530
      Tel: (228) 374-5151
      Email: jrr@rmlawcall.com


TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Bentz" Product Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Bentz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., formerly known as
Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., Tai'an Taishan Plasterboard Co.,
Ltd., Beijing New Building Materials Public Limited Co., Beijing
New Building Materials (Group) Co., Ltd., China National Building
Material Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02892 (N.D. Ga.,
August 1, 2017), is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) on September 22, 2017
under Case No. 2:17-cv-08284.

Plaintiffs allege that the Chinese manufactured drywall designed,
manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered,
supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the
Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it unfit for
residential purposes.

Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing
business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed and
marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it reacts,
breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other noxious gases
including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrea S. Hirsch, Esq.
      HERMAN GEREL, LLP
      230 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2260
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Tel: (404) 880-9500
      Email: ahirsch@hermangerel.com


TASMAN CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Misonzhnik, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Tasman Credit Corp a/k/a Credit Corp
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-05684 (E.D.N.Y., September 28,
2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Tasman Credit Corp operates a receivables management company that
purchases and collects consumer debt including unpaid retail
finance and sales finance credit. [BN]

Naomi Misonzhnik is a pro se plaintiff.


TESLA INC: Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Tesla, Inc. ("Tesla" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TSLA).  Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

The investigation concerns whether Tesla and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or
other unlawful business practices.

On October 2, 2017, in a press release detailing the Company's
vehicle production and deliveries for the third quarter of 2017,
Tesla cited "production bottlenecks" as the reason for its failure
to meet its production goals for its Model 3 sedan.  On October 6,
2017, post-market, the Wall Street Journal published an article
reporting, in part, that "[u]nknown to analysts, investors and the
hundreds of thousands of customers who signed up to buy it, as
recently as early September major portions of the Model 3 were
still being banged out by hand, away from the automated production
line, according to people familiar with the matter."

Following this news, Tesla's share price has fallen as much as
$10.75, or 3.01%, during intraday trading on October 9, 2017, the
following trading day.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. [GN]


THE GAP INC: "Evans" Sues Over Mislabeled Sweater
-------------------------------------------------
Zena L. Evans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Gap, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
RG17876207, (Cal. Super., September 21, 2017), seeks damages,
injunctive relief and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from false and misleading advertising, unfair
competition and deceptive conduct toward consumers by advertising
Defendant's products in violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, Unfair Competition Law False Advertising Law of the
California Business and Professions Code.

Defendants manufacture including the Banana Republic Honeycomb
Merino Shawl Cardigan that was labeled "100% Extra Fine Merino
Wool" but is actually made of only 68% extra-fine merino wool, 20%
cotton, 6% rayon, 6% nylon as indicated by the fabric tag attached
to the Sweater. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com


TOKYO ELECTRIC: Ordered to Pay $4.44MM Damages in Fukushima Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Osamu Tsukimori and Aaron Sheldrick, writing for Reuters, report
that a district court in Fukushima prefecture on Oct. 3 ruled that
Tokyo Electric Power and the Japanese government were liable for
damages totaling about 500 million yen ($4.44 million) in the
largest class action lawsuit brought over the 2011 nuclear
disaster, Kyodo news agency said.

A group of about 3,800 people, mostly in Fukushima prefecture,
filed the class action suit, marking the biggest number of
plaintiffs out of about 30 similar class action lawsuits filed
across the nation.

This is the second court ruling that fixed the government's
responsibility after a Maebashi district court decision in March.

All the three district court decisions so far have ordered Tepco
to pay damages.  Only the Chiba court decision last month did not
find the government liable for compensation.

The plaintiffs in Fukushima case have called on defendants for
reinstating the levels of radioactivity at their homes before the
disaster, but the court rejected the request, Kyodo said.

Tepco has long been criticized for ignoring the threat posed by
natural disasters to the Fukushima plant and the company and the
government were lambasted for their handling of the crisis. [GN]


TRADER JOE'S: Court Partly Grants SAC in Tuna Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re Trader Joe's Tuna Litigation, Case No.
2:16-cv-01371-ODW(AJWx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright, II, of
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("SAC").

The Plaintiffs allege a consumer class action relating to Trader
Joe's allegedly illegal and deceptive practices of under filling
cans of tuna, despite consumers' expectations that the cans would
contain an "adequate amount."  Plaintiff Atzimba Reyes wishes to
represent a subclass of all Californians who purchased Trader
Joe's tuna.

The Plaintiffs determined that the Trader Joe's tuna cans were
underfilled and underweight by commissioning testing with the U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") on Dec.
1, 2015.  Trader Joe's canned tuna labels do not contain any
statements regarding the "pressed weight," but do contain
representations as to the "net weight" (5 oz.), and the "drained
weight."

Trader Joe's criticizes the Pressed Weight Standard, which is
currently under reconsideration by the FDA, as being outdated and
inaccurate.  Trader Joe's also claims that its alleged failure to
follow the Pressed Weight Standard did not deceive consumers
because the temporary marketing permit ("TMP") the FDA granted to
Chicken of the Sea International, Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, and
StarKist Co. ("Major Tuna Producers") allows them to market tuna
without having to comply with the labeling requirements associated
with the Pressed Weight Standard.

Federal Regulations require producers of tuna to state, "Below
Standard in Fill," on cans of tuna that do not comply with the
Pressed Weight Standard, unless the FDA granted the manufacturer a
TMP.  The FDA extended TMP for the Major Tuna Producers
indefinitely on March 7, 2016.  Trader Joe's does not allege that
they are currently included in the TMP, but maintain that they
applied in February 2017.

On June 2, 2017, the Court granted Trader Joe's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), with leave to amend.
Since the Court's prior Order dismissing the FAC on preemption
grounds, the Plaintiffs' SAC alleges three new categories of fact.

First, instead of only violating the federally mandated minimum
standard of fill set forth in title 21, sections 130.14(b) and
161.190 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Trader Joe's also
violates California's Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law
("Sherman Law").  The Plaintiffs also allege that Trader Joe's
conduct runs contrary to the standard practices and procedures of
other tuna manufacturers.  Finally, the Plaintiffs allege they
relied on the statements on the label in making their purchases,
and would not have purchased the tuna if the labels had properly
contained the statement "Below Standard in Fill," as required by
title 21, section 130.14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Plaintiffs' SAC alleges claims for: breach of express warranty
(Count I), breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count
II), unjust enrichment (Count III), negligent misrepresentation
(Count VI), and fraud (Count VII).  Plaintiff Sarah Magier also
brings claims on behalf of herself and the New York subclass for
violation of New York General Business Law sections 349, 350.
Plaintiff Reyes also brings claims on behalf of herself and the
California subclass for violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and False
Advertising Law ("FAL").

Trader Joe's moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' SAC on several
different grounds: (i) implied preemption; (ii) the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction; (iii) equitable abstention; and (iv) a
failure to state a viable claim.

Judge Wright concludes that because the Plaintiffs' claims here
based on New York common and statutory law all depend on the
Pressed Weight Standard, they are impliedly preempted.  The
Plaintiffs did not amend their New York claims in the SAC, and the
Judge finds that providing another opportunity for leave would be
futile, and thus granted Trader Joe's Motion as to the Plaintiffs'
claims for violations of New York General Business Law sections
349 (Count IV) and 350 (Count IV), and Magier's common law claims
based on New York law on behalf of herself, and the New York
Subclass.

The Judge declines to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine in
the case.  While Congress has placed food regulation in the hands
of the FDA, the core issue is whether a reasonable consumer would
be misled by Trader Joe's marketing, which the district courts
have reasonably concluded they are competent to address in similar
cases.  The Major Tuna Producers filed their Citizen Petition in
September 2015, and Trader Joe's submitted its application to
participate in the TMP in February 2017.  At this rate, it is
difficult to tell when the FDA will make a determination as to the
validity of the Pressed Weight Standard, let alone whether it will
change.

Accordingly, he chooses not to invoke the primary jurisdiction
doctrine.

Judge Wright finds that the Plaintiffs' claims do not involve
consideration of complex economic policy.  Instead, they depend on
whether a reasonable consumer would be misled by Trader Joe's
labeling.  For the same reasons, he declines to exercise his
discretion under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, he declines to
exercise its discretion under equitable abstention principles.

Reyes alleges she lost money or property as a result of the
Defendants' UCL violations.  This is sufficient to state a claim.
Accordingly, the Judge denied Trader Joe's Motion as to Reyes'
claim pursuant to the "unlawful prong" of the UCL.  As to false
advertising claims under California's FAL, the CLRA, and the
fraudulent and unfair prongs of the UCL which governed by the
reasonable consumer standard, the Judge says he must take the
allegations of the complaint as true, and based on the Plaintiffs'
allegations in the SAC, he finds that this is not one of the rare
situations in which granting a motion to dismiss is appropriate.

Trader Joe's urges the Court to consider the FDA's findings
regarding the Pressed Weight Standard in evaluating the
Plaintiffs' claims against the reasonable consumer standard.
While Judge Wright considers the FDA action in its evaluation of
the reasonable consumer standard, the TMP does not apply to Trader
Joe's, and even if it were eventually to apply to Trader Joe's, it
would not have been in effect during the time periods alleged in
the SAC.  On its face, the TMP also only authorizes "market
testing" of the current label.  There is no evidence of the
results of the testing other than the fact that the FDA extended
the TMP indefinitely.  This is not enough to tip the scales.

Judge Wright also finds the Plaintiffs' claim for negligent
misrepresentation barred by the economic loss rule.  Because he
does not see how this claim could be remedied if the Plaintiffs
had leave to amend, he granted Trader Joe's Motion as to this
claim without leave to amend.

To the extent the Plaintiffs claim they needed the results from
NOAA prior to providing notice, at the very least, their claims
based on the "standard practices and procedures" of other tuna
manufacturers should have been apparent to them when they opened
the cans of tuna.  Yet, they waited more than a year before
notifying Trader Joe's of the alleged breach of warranty.
Accordingly, Judge Wright granted Trader Joe's Motion as to
Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claims against Trader Joe's
as a seller.  He denied leave to amend because the Plaintiffs
could not remedy this defect under any plausible set of facts.

Because the allegations did not focus on the adequacy of the
packaging of the product, but only on whether a consumer could eat
the product, the Judge concludes the Plaintiffs alleged sufficient
facts to state a claim for breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, and denied Trader Joe's Motion as to this claim.

Finally, with respect to unjust enrichment, the Plaintiffs allege
that Trader Joe's acted unjustly when it misled consumers as to
the adequacy of the amount of tuna in its cans.  Accordingly, the
Judge denied Trader Joe's Motion on this ground.

For these reasons, Judge Wright granted in part and denied in part
Trader Joe's Motion to Dismiss.  The Plaintiffs are granted leave
to amend, to the extent allowed by the Order.  Should the
Plaintiffs wish to amend their complaint, they must file an
amended complaint within 14 days of the Order, and in compliance
with Central District Local Rule 15.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3WaYp4 from Leagle.com.

Amy Joseph, Plaintiff, represented by Charles T. Spagnola --
info@sktlawyers.com -- Sullivan Krieger Truong Spagnola and
Klausner LLP.

Amy Joseph, Plaintiff, represented by Eliot F. Krieger --
EKrieger@sktlawyers.com -- Sullivan Krieger Truong Spagnola and
Kalusner LLP, Lawrence Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com --
Bursor and Fisher PA & Michael McShane, Audet and Partners LLP.

Christine Shaw, Consol Plaintiff, represented by John H. Donboli,
Del Mar Law Group LLP, Michael McShane, Audet and Partners LLP,
Charles J. LaDuca -- charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert and
LaDuca LLP, pro hac vice, Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Bursor and
Fisher PA & Matthew Prewitt -- mprewitt@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo
Gilbert and LaDuca LLP.

Kathy Aliano, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Maebetty Kirby --
maebetty@attorneyzim.com -- Zimmerman Law Offices P.C., pro hac
vice, Matthew C. De Re -- matt@attorneyzim.com -- Zimmerman Law
Offices PC, pro hac vice, Nickolas J. Hagman --
nick@attorneyzim.com -- Zimmerman Law Offices PC, pro hac vice,
Sharon Harris, Zimmerman Law Offices PC, pro hac vice, Thomas A.
Zimmerman, Jr. -- tom@attorneyzim.com -- Zimmerman Law Offices PC,
pro hac vice, Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Bursor and Fisher PA &
Michael McShane, Audet and Partners LLP.

Sarah Magier, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy
Fisher, Bursor and Fisher PA, Scott A. Bursor, Bursor and Fisher
PA & Joel D. Smith, Bursor and Fisher PA.

Atzimba Reyes, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy
Fisher, Bursor and Fisher PA, Scott A. Bursor, Bursor and Fisher
PA & Joel D. Smith, Bursor and Fisher PA.

Trader Joes Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher J.
Dalton -- christopher.dalton@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll and
Rooney PC, pro hac vice, Jacqueline M. Weyand --
jacqueline.weyand@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll and Rooney PC,
pro hac vice, Keith Randall Solar, Parks and Solar LLP, Stuart P.
Slotnick -- stuart.slotnick@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll and
Rooney PC, Douglas W. Gillie, Parks and Solar LLP & Robert J.
Parks, Parks and Solar LLP.

Trader Joe's East Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert J. Parks,
Parks and Solar LLP, Douglas W. Gillie, Parks and Solar LLP &
Keith Randall Solar, Parks and Solar LLP.


TRANSENTERIX INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
TransEnterix, Inc., a medical device company that is pioneering
the use of robotics to improve minimally invasive surgery, on Oct.
9 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina dismissed the securities class action
suit filed in June 2016.

On October 6, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina entered final judgment in favor of
TransEnterix, Inc. and all other defendants dismissing the
putative securities class action complaint against them.  The
dismissal followed the Court's ruling that the plaintiffs'
allegations lacked merit and failed to state a viable claim.

"We are pleased that the securities class action suit was
dismissed," said Todd M. Pope, President and CEO at TransEnterix.
"We remain confident in achieving FDA 510(k) clearance of the
Senhance Surgical Robotic System and continue to focus on
transitioning toward U.S. commercialization."
About TransEnterix

TransEnterix (NYSE American: TRXC) -- http://www.transenterix.com
-- is a medical device company that is pioneering the use of
robotics to improve minimally invasive surgery by addressing the
clinical and economic challenges associated with current
laparoscopic and robotic options.  The company is focused on the
commercialization of the Senhance Surgical Robotic System, a
multi-port robotic system that brings the advantages of robotic
surgery to patients while enabling surgeons with innovative
technology such as haptic feedback and eye sensing camera control.
The company is also developing the SurgiBot(TM) System, a single-
port, robotically enhanced laparoscopic surgical platform.  The
Senhance Surgical Robotic System has been granted a CE Mark, and
is currently under FDA review for clearance in the United States.
[GN]


TULSA INSPECTION: "Fithian" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Fithian, and all others similarly-situated v. Tulsa
Inspection Resources, LLC, Cypress Energy Partners-Texas, LLC, and
Cypress Energy Management TIR, LLC, Case No. 7:17-cv-00196 (W.D.
Tex., October 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and wages
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff James Fithian is a resident of Mobile County, Alabama.
Plaintiff worked as an inspector for the Defendants from 2014 to
2017.

Defendant Tulsa Inspection Resources, LLC, and Cypress Energy
Management TIR, LLC have offices in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Defendants
provide independent pipeline inspection and integrity services to
pipeline, public utilities and oil & gas companies.  Defendants
provide a variety of inspection services including construction
inspection, welding inspection, utility inspection, and safety
inspections. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
      SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      5612 Chaucer Drive
      Houston, TX 77005
      Tel: (281) 885-8844
      Fax: (281) 885-8813
      E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Class Action Over Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois has authorized this notice.  This is not an advertisement
and not a solicitation from a lawyer.

A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
against Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber") regarding text messages
allegedly sent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec 227 et seq. ("TCPA"), from December 31, 2010 to
August 17, 2017 ("Class Period").  The case is Vergara, et al. v.
Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No. 1:15-CV-06942 (N.D. Ill.).  This
case was brought as a class action alleging that Uber violated the
TCPA by sending automated text messages without consent to
individuals' cellphones.  Uber denies the allegations.  The Court
has not decided who is right, and the Parties have chosen to
settle their dispute.  This notice provides only a summary of the
allegations.

Class Members may be entitled to compensation from this Settlement
if they fall within at least one of the following Settlement
Classes: A) All persons or entities within the U.S. who, during
the Class Period, used or subscribed to a wireless or cellular
service and were sent one or more non-emergency text messages,
utilizing Twilio Inc.'s system, in connection with Uber's Refer-a-
Friend Program; B) All persons or entities within the U.S. who,
during the Class Period, started Uber's driver application process
but did not become an "active" driver in Uber's system, who used
or subscribed to a wireless or cellular service, and to whom Uber
sent one or more non-emergency text messages after the user or
subscriber requested Uber to discontinue sending text messages;
and C)  All persons or entities within the U.S. who, during the
Class Period, were not party to a contract with Uber and/or who
did not provide his or her cellular phone number to Uber, and who
used or subscribed to a wireless or cellular service to which Uber
sent one or more non-emergency text messages.

Uber has agreed to create a fund totaling $20,000,000 to pay valid
claims, settlement administration expenses, attorneys' fees of up
to $6,660,000, costs and expenses, and class representative
service awards to the six Class Representatives of $10,000 each.
To receive a payment, Class Members must submit a claim form by
December 15, 2017.  The amount individual Class Members may be
eligible to receive will be dependent on the total number of Class
Members who submit valid claims, which is currently unknown.
Class Members can file a claim online at the website or submit a
claim by mail.  Visit www.UberTCPASettlement.com or call 1-800-
330-1683 for more information on filing a claim.  Uber has also
agreed to alter its texting practices as explained in the detailed
notice and Settlement Agreement located at
www.UberTCPASettlement.com.

Class Members who do not want to be legally bound by the
Settlement must exclude themselves by December 15, 2017.  Class
Members who do not exclude themselves will release their claims
against Uber, as more fully described in the Settlement Agreement.
Class Members who stay in the Settlement may object to it by
December 22, 2017.  The Detailed Notice available at
www.UberTCPASettlement.com explains how to exclude or object.  The
Court is scheduled to hold a hearing on January 23, 2018 to
consider whether to approve the Settlement, Class Counsel's
request for attorneys' fees of up to $6,660,000 plus costs and
expenses, and service awards for the Class Representatives of
$10,000 each.  Class Members can appear at the hearing, but do not
have to.  Class Members can hire their own attorney, at their own
expense, to appear or speak at the hearing.

Please do not contact the Court, Uber, or Uber's counsel with
questions regarding this lawsuit. Class Members who have questions
or want a detailed notice or other documents about this lawsuit
and their rights can visit www.UberTCPASettlement.com.  Class
Members may also contact the Settlement Administrator by calling
1-800-330-1683. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Class Action Claim in "Harris" Inappropriate
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MORRIS M. HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED
STATES, Defendant, Case No. 16-1133C (Fed. Cl.), Judge Thomas C.
Wheeler of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted the
Government's motion to dismiss as to certain claims, and granted
the Government's motion for judgment on the administrative record
as to the remainder.

Morris M. Harris is a pro se Plaintiff and former serviceman in
the United States Army Reserves Active Guard Reserve ("USAR AGR")
program.  He brings this action alleging wrongful discharge from
the Army on Sept. 13, 2016 requesting reinstatement in the USAR
AGR program, a promotion to the Sergeant First Class rank, back
pay from the time of discharge until potential reinstatement,
correction of his military records, and punitive damages.

In separate proceedings, the Army Board for Correction of Military
Records ("ABCMR") denied Mr. Harris' claims and sustained his
separation from the Army, finding he was properly discharged.  As
Mr. Harris had an open ABCMR case with common claims, the Court
granted a stay in proceedings pending resolution of the ABCMR
consideration.

After reviewing the evidence, on Nov. 15, 2016, the ABCMR again
denied relief to Mr. Harris. The board explained that the 2014
decision regarding reinstatement, back pay, and promotion was
final.

Following the ABCMR decision, Mr. Harris filed an amended
complaint with the Court, again seeking reinstatement, back pay,
promotion, processing through the DPES, correction of military
records, and punitive damages for pain, suffering, and the death
of his mother, whom Mr. Harris alleges could not receive proper
medical care after his discharge.  He also seeks to bring class
action claims on behalf of his family.  Lastly, he claims that he
was wrongfully discharged due to medical conditions.

The Government filed the Administrative Record concurrently with
its motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the
administrative record.  Mr. Harris filed a response and cross-
motion for judgment on the administrative record on July 5, 2017.
The parties completed briefing on Aug. 30, 2017, and the Court
heard oral argument on Sept. 15, 2017.

Mr. Harris alleges that he is entitled to monetary damages as a
result of pain and suffering and the loss of his mother.  Judge
Wheeler says these constitute tort claims, which are outside of
the Court's purview.  Similarly, Mr. Harris' contentions regarding
whistleblower reprisal are not within the Court's jurisdiction;
Mr. Harris' amended complaint does not ground these allegations in
a separate source of substantive law, so he does not have a right
to money damages in the Court.  Finally, due to the Court's
limited jurisdiction, punitive damages are unrecoverable.  Thus,
the Judge granted the Government's motion to dismiss these claims.

Mr. Harris mentions that his alleged wrongful separation was
inconsistent with Army values.  He does not, however, cite these
values or traditions, or explain how the Army's decision
contradicts these customs.  He has not met his burden of proof to
show that the board's decision was improper.

Mr. Harris contends that the board's decision was arbitrary,
capricious, and an abuse of discretion because the board failed to
consider his many career accomplishments.  The ABCMR was obligated
to consider Mr. Harris' extensive military file and review the
prior decisions for accuracy.  Based on the evidence provided,
Judge Wheeler concludes that the ABCMR decisions were fully
supported by the record.

For the reasons stated, Judge Wheeler (i) granted the Government's
motion to dismiss as to Mr. Harris' tort, whistleblower, and
punitive damages claims; and (ii) granted the Government's motion
for judgment on the administrative record as to the remainder.  He
denied Mr. Harris' motion for judgment on the administrative
record.  Mr. Harris' attempt to bring a class action claim in this
matter is not appropriate under Rule 23 of the Court.  The Judge
directed the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment accordingly.  No
costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/yLhqvy from Leagle.com.

MORRIS M. HARRIS, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

USA, Defendant, represented by Joshua Ethan Kurland, United States
Department of Justice.


UNITED STATES: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss "Gallagher"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KEVIN GALLAGHER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00586-MEJ (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (i) granted
Individual Defendants ("ID") Candina Heath and Robert Smith's
motion to dismiss the claims asserted against them in their
individual capacity; and (ii) granted in part and denied in part
United States' motion to dismiss the claims asserted against it
directly and against Heath and Smith in their official capacity.

Plaintiffs Gallagher and Donor No. 1 filed the putative class
action asserting claims for violations of the First Amendment of
the United States Constitution; the federal Stored Communications
Act ("SCA"); and the right to privacy afforded by the California
Constitution.

Donor No. 1 donated to a crowd-funding campaign to support the
legal defense of Barrett Brown, a jailed journalist, because he
believed the journalist was imprisoned because of the views the
journalist espoused, rather than the conduct the journalist
engaged in.  The donation page also informed the donors that the
information they provided would be "kept strictly confidential."
Hundreds of individuals from across the country also contributed
to Mr. Brown's legal defense fund.

The crowd-funding campaign attracted the Defendants' attention.
During the relevant period, Heath was an Assistant United States
Attorney in the Northern District of Texas and Smith was a special
agent in the Dallas office of the Federal Bureau of
Investigations.  Smith enlisted Heath's help and they began
efforts to identify and surveil Mr. Brown's supporters.

On information and belief, the Defendants conspired to draft and
serve the WePay Subpoena directing WePay to produce "any and all
records and information" associated with the crowd-funding
campaign.  WePay produced a transaction history reflecting the
donations the Brown campaign had received.

Based on these facts, the Plaintiffs assert an SCA claim against
the United States; Donor No. 1 asserts a First Amendment claim
against Heath and Smith in both their individual and official
capacities; and Donor No. 1 asserts a claim for violation of the
right to privacy provided in Article I Section 1 of the California
Constitution against Heath, Smith, and/or the United States.
Gallagher and Donor No. 1 each filed administrative claims
asserting violations of the SCA on or about March 30, 2016.

ID moves to dismiss the claims asserted against them in their
individual capacity pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
("Rule") 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6).  The United States moves to
dismiss the claims asserted against it directly and against Heath
and Smith in their official capacity pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and
Rule 12(b)(6).  The Plaintiffs filed Oppositions and the
Defendants filed Replies.  The Court heard oral argument on Sept.
28, 2017.

The Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of the
subpoena they issued to WePay; WePay's response thereto; court
filings in United States v. Brown, the underlying criminal
proceeding against non-party Barrett Brown; and the transcript
from a September 2014 hearing held in connection with those
proceedings.

Judge James will take judicial notice of the documents the
Defendants attach to their RJN, but it will not take judicial
notice of the disputed facts recited therein, i.e., the Court
takes notice that WePay responded to the subpoena, but not as to
whether the WePay response attached to the RJN is complete.

Because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity,
including as it extends to Heath and Smith acting in their
official capacities, Judge James granted the Motion to Dismiss the
Privacy Right claim.  As Donor No. 1 cannot cure this
jurisdictional defect, the dismissal is without leave to amend.

Judge James granted Heath and Smith's Motion to Dismiss claims
stated against them in their individual capacities based on lack
of personal jurisdiction.  During oral argument, counsel for the
Plaintiffs did not suggest the pleadings could be amended to state
facts sufficient to show personal jurisdiction existed over the ID
in their individual capacities.  Nor do the Plaintiffs request an
opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery.  The Motion is
accordingly granted without leave to amend.

The United States asks the Judge to engage in fact-finding at this
stage to find that the type of processing services WePay offers do
not qualify it as an RCS.  The argument may be raised again at
summary judgment, but Judge James will not consider it now.  The
Defendants may be able to establish, through discovery, that WePay
did not mean to allow users to retrieve information, but this
evidence is not presently before the Court.  She finds that the
FAC sufficiently alleges the information subpoenaed was in
electronic storage.

Whatever the scope of the Subpoena is alleged to have been, the
United States argues WePay did not disclose the "content" of any
communications.  But this argument, according to Judge James would
require the Court to evaluate the scope of WePay's response and
conclude whether the extra-pleading materials the Defendants have
inserted into these proceedings represent WePay's final
production.  She will not take such steps when ruling on a motion
to dismiss.

The FAC plausibly alleges that the Defendants issued the subpoena
willfully in order to obtain information for unlawful purposes,
the Judge finds.  The Defendants may be able to defeat these
allegations at the summary judgment stage, but the FAC
sufficiently pleads this element of the claim.

Further, Judge James finds that the FAC alleges the unlawful
surveillance scheme has had its intended effect to chill First
Amendment activity, and caused the donors actual damages in the
form of a cognizable First Amendment injury - the veil of their
anonymity was unlawfully pierced.  If the Plaintiffs must plead
actual damages to state a claim for violating Section 2712 of the
SCA, she finds these allegations are sufficient to do so.  Whether
the Plaintiffs can offer evidence of these actual damages on
summary judgment or at trial is not an issue to be resolved on a
motion to dismiss.

The Judge finds that Donor No. 1's FTCA claim, attached as Exhibit
B to the Complaint, contains a written statement sufficiently
describing the injury to enable the agency to begin its own
investigation and a sum certain damages claim.  The FAC
sufficiently alleges the United States violated the SCA, and that
the Plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring this claim.
Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss this claim is denied.

Finally, as to Donor No. 1's First Amendment claim against Heath
and Smith in their individual and official capacities and his move
for only equitable remedies against them, Judge James finds the
FAC does not allege facts showing any threat of real and immediate
future harm, or facts showing Donor No. 1 is likely to be harmed
again.  As such, it does not allege facts sufficient to establish
Donor No. 1 has standing to seek prospective relief on the First
Amendment claim.

If Donor No. 1 can amend the FAC to allege facts sufficient to
show he has standing to seek prospective relief against the
Individual Defendants, Judge James will grant him leave to amend
the First Amendment claim against Heath and Smith in their
official capacities.

For the reasons stated, Judge James (i) dismissed the California
Constitution claim in its entirety without leave to amend, because
the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this
claim; (ii) dismissed all claims against Heath and Smith in their
individual capacities without leave to amend, because the Court
does not have personal jurisdiction over these defendants and
because Plaintiffs cannot allege any additional facts to establish
jurisdiction exists; (iii) denied the Motion to Dismiss the SCA
claim against the United States; (iv) dismissed the First
Amendment claim against Heath and Smith in their official capacity
with leave to amend; and(v) dismissed the First Amendment claim
for equitable relief against them in their individual capacity
without leave to amend.

The Plaintiffs may file an amended pleading within 21 days of the
Order.  If the Defendants move to dismiss any amended pleading,
Judge James encourages them to combine their arguments into a
single motion; they may apply for an extension of the standard
page limit if necessary.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/JGDMS5 from Leagle.com.

Kevin Gallagher, Plaintiff, represented by Charles S. Donovan --
cdonovan@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.

Kevin Gallagher, Plaintiff, represented by Guylyn R. Cummins --
gcummins@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and
Hampton, LLP & Eric James DiIulio -- ediiulio@sheppardmullin.com -
- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Donor No. 1, Plaintiff, represented by Charles S. Donovan,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Guylyn R. Cummins,
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton, LLP & Eric James DiIulio,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

United States, Defendant, represented by Samuel M. Singer,
Department of Justice, Philip Davis MacWilliams, Department of
Justice & Stephen Elliot Handler, U.S. Department of Justice.

Candina Heath, Defendant, represented by Siegmund F. Fuchs, U.S.
Department of Justice.

Robert Smith, Defendant, represented by Siegmund F. Fuchs, U.S.
Department of Justice.


UNLIMITED PCS: "Harvey" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jewel Harvey, and all others similarly-situated v. Unlimited PCS,
Inc. and Unlimited PCS MO, Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-03319 (W.D. Mo.,
October 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum
wage compensation and related penalties and damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff resides in Springfield, Missouri and worked as sales
representative and store manager for the Defendants.

Defendants Unlimited PCS, Inc. and Unlimited PCS MO, Inc. are
retail dealers for cellular phone service provider, MetroPCS, and
maintain multiple retail store locations throughout Missouri,
Oklahoma, and Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sara T. Ballew, Esq.
      Mark A. Kistler, Esq.
      BRADY & ASSOCIATES
      10985 Cody Street, Suite 135
      Overland Park, KS  66210
      Tel: (913) 696-0925
      Fax: (913) 696-0468
      E-mail: sballew@mbradylaw.com
             mkistler@mbradylaw.com


VTECH ELECTRONICS: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Chirgwin, writing for The Register, reports that VTech,
the toy company pierced by attackers in late 2015, is hoping an
Illinois court will toss out the resulting class action against
it.

The company's woes began on 27 November 2015, when it belatedly
owned up to a breach.

At the time, Troy Hunt believed the breach contained details of
4.8 million customers, and journalist Lorenzo Franceschi-
Bicchierai said 227,000 children were in the breach.  A few days
later, VTech went public with a higher number: the total breach
was nearly 11 million accounts including 6.37 million children.

Unsurprisingly, that attracted a class action under the name of
The Honourable Manish S Shah, in the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.

Last July, the judge dismissed the suit because the plaintiffs had
failed to prove their fears of identity theft, so the case was
reframed.

VTech hopes the court will repeat its dismissal on the new case.
With "typical data breach injury claims" -- that is, future
identity theft -- excised from the case, the plaintiffs wanted the
court to assess damages on the basis that the breach reduced the
value of their purchases.

The problem, VTech argues, is that the online services that were
breached -- Learning Lodge and Kid Connect -- were launched after
the products hit the shelves.

"Plaintiffs' arguments still rest on the fundamentally flawed
premise that VTech's alleged promises regarding its 'Online
Services' (Learning Lodge and Kid Connect) were somehow relevant
to the hardware devices that Plaintiffs purchased before they
registered for the Online Services", the filing states.

Since the court had in July already ruled that registration for
services is separate from the purchase of the toys, a ruling in
VTech's favour looks likely. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Claims Process Opens in Fake Account Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Muschick, writing for The Morning Call, reports that the
claims process opened on Oct. 6 in the $142 million settlement
that Wells Fargo reached to resolve a federal class-action lawsuit
about the fake account scandal, where bank employees opened as
many as 3.5 million checking, savings, credit card and line of
credit accounts without customers' permission in attempts to meet
sales goals and qualify for bonuses.

You may be eligible for a share of the settlement if unauthorized
accounts were opened in your name, if applications for accounts
were submitted without your consent, or if you obtained identity
theft protection services from Wells Fargo between May 2002 and
April 20, 2017.

Customers -- including individuals and small businesses -- who
incurred fees as a result of unauthorized accounts can seek
reimbursement in the settlement, if they have not already been
repaid.  Customers also can file claims to be compensated for
damage to credit scores that resulted in a higher interest rate on
loans or credit cards.

How do I file a claim? Online at wfsettlement.com. Or you can
request a form to be mailed to you by calling 866-431-8549 or
writing to Wells Fargo Unauthorized Accounts Settlement, P.O. Box
2594, Faribault, MN 55021-9594.

When is the deadline to file a claim? Feb. 3, 2018.

How will I be paid? By check.

When can I expect my payment? Spring 2018 at the earliest,
assuming the judge grants final approval to the settlement in
January.

How much are the class-action attorneys being paid? The settlement
allows them to request up to 25 percent of the $142 million.  They
have decided to request no more than 15 percent, and the judge can
award them less.

Can I opt out of this settlement and pursue legal action on my
own? Yes.  You must opt out by Dec. 5 by writing to Opt Out Wells
Fargo Settlement, P.O. Box 2594, Faribault, MN 55021-9594. [GN]


WESTAR ENERGY: Class Action Seeks to Block $14-Bil. KCP&L Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Davis, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that a
shareholder of Topeka-based Westar Energy Inc. has sued, hoping to
stop its $14 billion merger with the parent of Kansas City Power &
Light Co.

The complaint by Robert L. Reese claimed "deal protection devices"
in the merger agreement limit other potential bidders from
challenging the deal with Kansas City-based Great Plains Energy
Inc.  It specifically cited "restrictive 'fiduciary out'
provisions," a "no solicitation provision," and Great Plains'
right to match any "superior proposal," among others.

"By agreeing to all of the deal protection devices, the individual
defendants have locked up the proposed transaction and have
precluded other bidders from making successful competing offers
for the company," the suit in U.S. District Court in Kansas City,
Kan., said.

Spokeswomen with each power company said they could not comment on
the lawsuit.

Disclosures to Westar shareholders also lacked what the lawsuit
said is material information about financial projections under a
merger of the two large utility companies.  It also cited
potential conflicts of interest with financial advisers and
investment bankers in the transaction, without citing specific
conflicts.

Westar and Great Plains each has scheduled shareholder votes Nov.
21 in their bid to join together as Monarch Energy Holding Inc.,
which would be based in Kansas City.  Great Plains shareholders
would receive 0.5981 of a share of Monarch for each of their
shares. Westar shareholders would receive one Monarch share for
each of their shares.

Shares of Westar were up 30 cents at $50.74 in morning trading on
Oct. 9.  Great Plains shares were up 21 cents at $30.98.

Westar and Great Plains announced their current merger plans in
July after Kansas regulators had rejected their original plans.
The new proposal treats the transaction as a merger of equals, in
contrast to the original deal in which Great Plains planned to buy
Westar in a $12.2 billion deal.

Combined, the companies would have about 1.5 million customers and
more than 5,000 employees.

Mr. Reese's lawsuit said Westar shareholders should be told more
about the financial projections of the merged businesses,
including expectations about cost savings, earnings per share and
cash flow.

Mr. Reese seeks class-action status for the lawsuit.

The lawsuit names as defendants Westar, Great Plains Energy,
directors of Westar, including CEO Mark A. Ruelle, and related
businesses.

Westar shareholders are scheduled to vote Oct. 25 to elect
directors.  This month's vote comes after the traditional meeting
in May had been put off pending the expected acquisition by Great
Plains. [GN]


W.G. HALL: $445K Settlement in "Isquierdo" Has Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DANNY ISQUIERDO, Plaintiff, v. W.G. HALL,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-00335-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth
Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, granted Isquierdo's
Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement and his
Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

Isquierdo was employed by W.G. Hall from approximately April 2014
through May 2014, working as a forklift driver for a number of
W.G. Hall's clients in Monterey County.  Isquierdo claims that
W.G. Hall had a policy and practice of failing to compensate its
employees for mandatory work that the employees performed, which
violated several labor laws in California.  Isquierdo further
contends that the wage statements contained other administrative
defects that were not corrected until after litigation commenced.
In addition, Isquierdo alleges that W.G. Hall regularly and
consistently failed to reimburse him and the class members for
work related expenses.

Isquierdo sued the Defendant on a class wide basis for violations
of various wage and hour laws in California.  The Second Amended
Complaint asserts eight causes of action including several
violations of wage and hour laws under the California Labor Code,
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, and a cause of
action under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004 ("PAGA").

After nearly two years of litigation, the parties settled the case
with the aid of an experienced mediator in the wage and hour class
action field, Michael J. Loeb, Esq.  The written Settlement
Agreement contemplates the certification of an opt-out settlement
class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, defined as
all persons employed by W.G. Hall, LLC doing business as @Work
Personnel Services, Inc. at a place of business in California and
classified by W.G. Hall, LLC doing business as @Work Personnel
Services, Inc. as an hourly or non-exempt employee at any time
from July 3, 2010 through Dec. 31, 2015.  Notice was successfully
delivered to 9,161 Settlement Class Members, and only eight chose
to opt-out.

The Settlement Agreement provides that W.G. Hall will pay the
total amount of $445,000 to settle all claims asserted against
them in this action.  The Net Settlement Amount is estimated to be
$264,226 after consideration of attorneys' fees and costs,
settlement administrator's fees, incentive awards to Isquierdo as
the class representative, and the civil penalties under PAGA.  The
net settlement funds will then be divided proportionately among
the class members who do not opt-out, with each class member
receiving a pro-rata payment based on the number of hours that
class member worked during the Class Period.

On Feb. 28, 2017, the Court issued an order which: granted
preliminary approval of the class action settlement; preliminarily
certified the class; appointed Isquierdo as the class
representative; appointed Isquierdo's counsel as the Class
Counsel; approved forms and methods of notice to the class; set a
deadline for objections 45 calendar days after the date on which
the Settlement Administrator mailed the class notice; and set a
hearing date for Isquierdo's motion for final approval of the
class action settlement and for the motion for attorneys' fees.
No objections were received in response to the class notice, and
no objectors appeared at the final fairness hearing.

Isquierdo moves for an order granting final approval of the
settlement agreement and he moves for an award of attorneys' fees,
costs and an incentive award.  Judge Freeman held a final fairness
hearing on Aug. 24, 2017.

For the reasons set forth on the record at the final approval
hearing, Judge Freeman (i) certified the class for settlement
purposes only; (ii) granted final approval of the Class Action
Settlement; (iii) granted the Class Counsel's request for an award
of attorneys' fees in the amount of $111,250 to be paid from the
Settlement Fund; (iv) granted the Class Counsel's request for a
reimbursement of litigation costs in the amount of $6,846.27 to be
paid from the Settlement Fund; and (v) granted the Class Counsel's
request for an enhancement payment of $5,000 for Plaintiff
Isquierdo.  Judge Freeman advised the parties that an order
setting forth the Court's reasoning would be forthcoming.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/o0KgE8 from Leagle.com.

Danny Isquierdo, Plaintiff, represented by Bernard James
Fitzpatrick, Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston.

Danny Isquierdo, Plaintiff, represented by Samuel Forbes-Roberts,
Fitzpatrick, Spini, and Swanston.

W.G. Hall, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas G.A. Johnston --
Douglas.Johnston@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Fraser
Angus McAlpine -- Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis P.C.


WM MORRISONS: Data Leak Class Action Trial Set to Begin
-------------------------------------------------------
Jane Croft, writing for The Financial Times, reports that a
landmark High Court trial of a case by Wm Morrison workers over a
huge leak of personal data by a former employee set to begin.

The lawsuit was brought by 5,500 current and former Morrisons
workers.  They are seeking compensation over the 2014 data
security breach in which payroll information of almost 100,000
staff was posted on the internet.

The legal case, which is believed to be the first data leak class
action in the UK, will be keenly watched by companies who worry it
could spark a new wave of court cases from workers and customers
in the event of a data breach.

The two-week High Court case is due to determine whether Morrisons
is liable for the data leak.  If the claimants are successful, a
second trial will go ahead to determine the level of compensation
for victims.

The details posted on the internet included bank and salary
details as well as addresses and National Insurance numbers.

The workers claim that Morrisons failed to prevent the leak, which
exposed staff to the risk of identity theft and potential
financial loss.  They argue that the supermarket was ultimately
legally responsible for breaches of privacy, confidence and data
protection laws.

Morrisons denies all legal liability and is vigorously defending
itself.  The company declined to comment ahead of trial.

The lawsuit stems from the conviction of Andrew Skelton, a former
senior internal auditor at Morrisons who posted the personal
information on the internet.  He was jailed for eight years in
2015 for fraud, securing unauthorised access to computer material
and disclosing personal data.

His 2015 trial at Bradford Crown Court heard that Skelton bore a
grudge against his employer after he was subjected to disciplinary
action for using the company's post room to conduct eBay deals.

A package suspected to contain illegal drugs was found in the mail
room at Morrisons' Bradford headquarters and Skelton was only
allowed to return to work after the substance was tested and found
to be a legal dietary aid.  He was, however, given a warning for
running an eBay business using the supermarket's mail room.

The jury heard he wrote a draft resignation letter at the time of
the warning in 2013 speaking of his "anger and frustration".  He
then leaked the data and alerted newspapers and websites. He
attempted to cover his tracks by implicating a fellow employee,
using the colleague's details to set up a fake email account, the
trial heard.

When the supermarket was alerted to the data breach, Morrisons
acted quickly to take down the material.  It also offered identity
theft protection and to compensate anyone who suffered fraud as a
result of the leak.  Morrisons incurred costs of almost ú2m,
including professional and legal fees, for dealing with the fall
out.

Paul Glass, partner at law firm Taylor Wessing, said the outcome
of the High Court lawsuit will be scrutinised by other companies
because there have been few cases to test the law in this area.

"The facts are quite specific in this case. However I think
companies will be watching this case closely to see what the court
decides on some of the data protection claims being run such as
the argument that Morrisons failed to take appropriate steps to
protect data," he said.

"I would expect to see more of a shift to the US model where after
a data breach companies could in future expect to receive class
action type lawsuits," he said, adding that it may force companies
to check their liability insurance to be sure it covers such
incidents.

Suzanne Horne, partner at law firm Paul Hastings, called it a
"watershed case" for companies.  "There is only so much companies
can do to protect data -- you can train staff and put policies and
technology in place but how do you prevent a rogue employee with
their own agenda?" she said.

The lawsuit is being brought by law firm JMW Solicitors.
Nick McAleenan -- nick.mcaleenan@jmw.co.uk -- a partner and data
privacy law specialist at JMW, said: "At the trial in October, the
court will decide whether Morrisons bears any legal responsibility
for the misuse and disclosure of the payroll information of the
many thousands of people bringing claims in this case."

Data breaches are becoming more common. Equifax, the US credit-
reporting company, recently admitted that as many as 400,000 UK
consumers might have had their personal information stolen.

Payday lender Wonga in April warned 250,000 current and former
customers that there might have been "illegal and unauthorised
access" to personal data, and last October UK telecoms group
TalkTalk was hit with a record ú400,000 fine after the personal
data of more than 150,000 customers were stolen in a cyber attack
in 2015. [GN]


WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Refuses to Decertify Class in "Pierce"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ESSE PIERCE and MICHAEL PIERCE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., and WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:13-CV-641-CCS (E.D. Tenn.), Judge C.
Clifford Shirley, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, Knoxville, denied Defendants' Motion to
Decertify the Conditionally Certified Collective Action.

The Defendants provide family destination vacations.  Wyndham
employs three groups of Sales Representatives: (i) Front-Line
Representatives, (ii) In-House Sales Representatives, and (ii)
Discovery Sales Representatives.

The Complaint in the matter was filed on Oct. 23, 2013, alleging
that certain Sales Representatives who worked at the Defendants'
offices worked off the clock and were not paid for working in
excess of 40 hours in a work week.  The Complaint alleges that the
Defendants willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

The action was conditionally certified on Aug. 21, 2014.
Specifically, the collective action was defined as the current and
former non-exempt, commission-paid: (i) Front-Line Sales
Representatives, (ii) In-House Sales Representatives, (iii)
Discovery Sales Representatives, who were employed in the
Defendants' Tennessee Resorts between Oct. 21, 2010 to Oct. 31,
2013.

The District Judge entered an Order with respect to the
appropriate notice and opt-in form on June 1, 2015.  Subsequently,
on May 31, 2016, the parties consented to Judge Shirley for all
further proceedings.  The Court conducted a scheduling conference
with the parties on Sept. 15, 2016 during which the parties stated
that they had agreed to allow the Defendants an additional 24
depositions.

The Court also set a hearing to address sample representation and
allowed the parties to file briefs regarding the appropriate
sample representation.

At the hearing, the Plaintiffs proposed a sample representation of
two groups: (i) the opt-in Plaintiffs who worked as Sales
Representatives at one of the Defendants' four Tennessee resorts
for more than six months (Group 1); and (ii) the opt-ins
Plaintiffs who worked as Sales Representatives at one of the
Defendants' four Tennessee resorts for less than six months (Group
2).  Through random sampling, Group 1 consisted of 35 Plaintiffs
(out of 139 opt-in Plaintiffs), and Group 2 constituted of 13
Plaintiffs (out of 25 opt-in Plaintiffs).  Thus, both groups
represent 25% and 50%, respectively.

At the hearing, the Defendants argued that there should not be any
sample representation in this case.  After hearing from both
parties, the Court limited discovery to the Plaintiffs'
representative sampling.  Later, and because the Defendants had
earlier agreed with the Plaintiffs to take only 24 additional
depositions, the Defendants moved the Court to allow them to
depose the remaining members in the Plaintiffs' sample
representation.  The Court granted the Defendants' request.

The Defendants have now moved for decertification.  The Plaintiffs
filed a Response, and the Defendants filed a Reply.  During a
status conference with the parties on Aug. 7, 2017, the parties
stated that a hearing on the Motion was not necessary.

The Defendants assert that the Supreme Court's ruling in Tyson
Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo compels decertification and that the
Plaintiffs cannot proceed with their representative sample.  In
addition, they argue that the Plaintiffs are not similarly
situated.

Judge Shirley finds that the Defendants' arguments are
inconsistent with the Sixth Circuit's recent decision in Monroe v.
FTS USA, LLC, which explained in Monroe that in FLSA cases, the
use of representative testimony to establish class-wide liability
has long been accepted.  With respect to damages in a collective
action, the courts have consistently allowed the use of
representative testimony in establishing liability and damages in
FSLA collective actions.

Determining whether the Plaintiffs have actually presented
representative testimony of liability and damages of the
collective action is reserved for trial.  Accordingly, while the
Judge presumes that the similarly situated employees are
representative of each other and have the ability to proceed to
trial collectively, the question of whether the testifying
Plaintiffs have presented fairly representative evidence is a
question reserved for trial, after he has reviewed such evidence.

With respect to the Defendants' argument that the Plaintiffs are
not similarly situated, Judge Shirley finds the Defendants'
argument not well-taken.  There are approximately 156 Plaintiffs
alleging a common, FLSA violating policy (i.e., working off the
clock and time sheets being altered so as to not accrue overtime),
and the judicial system benefits by efficient resolution in one
proceeding of common issues of law and fact.  Each Plaintiff was a
Sales Representative, but the clientele was different.

Accordingly, the Judge finds the different titles within the Sales
Representatives are not grounds to decertify the action, nor the
difference in the amount of compensation earned by the Plaintiffs.
Further, Judge Shirley finds that the different locations in the
case do not prohibit the Plaintiffs from proceeding as a
collective action.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs' factual and
employment settings support certification.

For the reasons stated, Judge Shirley denied the Defendants'
Motion to Decertify the Conditionally Certified Collective Action.
The action will proceed on Oct. 10, 2017, as a collective action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/2yIZrb from Leagle.com.

Jesse Pierce, Plaintiff, represented by Autumn L. Gentry --
agentry@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright, PLLC.

Jesse Pierce, Plaintiff, represented by Darrell L. West --
dwest@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright, PLLC, M. Reid
Estes, Jr. -- restes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright,
PLLC, Martin D. Holmes -- mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com --
Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Peter F. Klett -- --
pklett@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright, PLLC & Sherry D.
O'Neal -- soneal@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright, PLLC,
pro hac vice.

Michael Pierce, Plaintiff, represented by Autumn L. Gentry,
Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Darrell L. West, Dickinson Wright, PLLC,
M. Reid Estes, Jr., Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Martin D. Holmes,
Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Peter F. Klett, Dickinson Wright, PLLC &
Sherry D. O'Neal, Dickinson Wright, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Benjamin Blount, Plaintiff, represented by Autumn L. Gentry,
Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Darrell L. West, Dickinson Wright, PLLC,
M. Reid Estes, Jr., Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Martin D. Holmes,
Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Peter F. Klett, Dickinson Wright, PLLC &
Sherry D. O'Neal, Dickinson Wright, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Nicholas Chappell, Plaintiff, represented by Autumn L. Gentry,
Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Darrell L. West, Dickinson Wright, PLLC,
M. Reid Estes, Jr., Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Martin D. Holmes,
Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Peter F. Klett, Dickinson Wright, PLLC &
Sherry D. O'Neal, Dickinson Wright, PLLC, pro hac vice.

David Hart, Plaintiff, represented by Autumn L. Gentry, Dickinson
Wright, PLLC, Darrell L. West, Dickinson Wright, PLLC, M. Reid
Estes, Jr., Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Martin D. Holmes, Dickinson
Wright, PLLC, Peter F. Klett, Dickinson Wright, PLLC & Sherry D.
O'Neal, Dickinson Wright, PLLC, pro hac vice.

James H. Hicks, Plaintiff, represented by Autumn L. Gentry,
Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Darrell L. West, Dickinson Wright, PLLC,
M. Reid Estes, Jr., Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Martin D. Holmes,
Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Peter F. Klett, Dickinson Wright, PLLC &
Sherry D. O'Neal, Dickinson Wright, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Nick Lucas, Plaintiff, represented by Autumn L. Gentry, Dickinson
Wright, PLLC, Darrell L. West, Dickinson Wright, PLLC, M. Reid
Estes, Jr., Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Martin D. Holmes, Dickinson
Wright, PLLC, Peter F. Klett, Dickinson Wright, PLLC & Sherry D.
O'Neal, Dickinson Wright, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Robert Bryant West, Plaintiff, represented by Autumn L. Gentry,
Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Darrell L. West, Dickinson Wright, PLLC,
M. Reid Estes, Jr., Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Martin D. Holmes,
Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Peter F. Klett, Dickinson Wright, PLLC &
Sherry D. O'Neal, Dickinson Wright, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Kisa Abbott, Plaintiff, represented by Autumn L. Gentry, Dickinson
Wright, PLLC, Darrell L. West, Dickinson Wright, PLLC, M. Reid

Estes, Jr., Dickinson Wright, PLLC, Martin D. Holmes, Dickinson
Wright, PLLC, Peter F. Klett, Dickinson Wright, PLLC & Sherry D.
O'Neal, Dickinson Wright, PLLC, pro hac vice.

WyndhaM. Vacation Resorts, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig
A. Cowart -- Craig.Cowart@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP,
Colby S. Morgan -- Colby.Morgan@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
LLP, Oscar John Norris, III -- NorrisJ@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis LLP & William J. Anthony -- William.Anthony@jacksonlewis.com
-- Jackson Lewis PC, pro hac vice.

WyndhaM. Vacation Ownership, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig
A. Cowart, Jackson Lewis LLP, Colby S. Morgan, Jackson Lewis LLP,
Oscar John Norris, III, Jackson Lewis LLP & William J. Anthony,
Jackson Lewis PC, pro hac vice.


* Sen. John Kennedy Should Approve CFPB's Arbitration Rule
----------------------------------------------------------
Edward d'Espalungue, writing for The Daily Reveille, reports that
a new era in the U.S. financial world is coming, and Sen. John
Kennedy can change the lives of millions of people.  Back in July
2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released the last
version of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency regulation.
This rule would prevent financial institutions from including
legal language in the fine print of contracts to limit the ability
of customers to join class-action lawsuits.  This legal provision
would have tremendous effects on the future of banking in the U.S.
since numerous class-actions could be proceeded by attorneys to
help injured consumers such as in the Equifax and Wells Fargo
cases.

Arbitration can be defined as a form of alternative dispute
resolution that forces two parties to resolve a dispute through
the use of private, paid arbitrators and that bars them from
access to courts.  This rule prohibits financial service companies
from inserting mandatory-arbitration clauses in the contracts they
offer to their customers. Such clauses have been widely used in
recent years by financial institutions.

Many consumer advocates and legal experts recommend allowing
consumers to have the right to join class actions because most of
the disputes between consumers and banks deal with small-dollar
amounts.  However, the U.S. Senate is now poised to vote to undo
the CFPB arbitration rule, using the same legislative tool the
House exploited in July when they voted (231-190) in favor of the
pro-arbitration resolution sponsored by Rep. Keith Rothfus, R-Pa.
The Congressional Review Act is a 1996 law that allows Congress to
vote on resolutions to repeal new regulations within a limited
time period with a simple majority.

Why is Sen. Kennedy a key vote? With a slim 52-48 majority,
Republicans can only afford to lose two votes in the Senate. While
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. has stated he would vote against the
CRA measure, other senators, including John Kennedy, have not made
a stand.  He is now under scrutiny, and both consumer and bank
advocates are looking for votes that will likely affect the lives
of millions of people.

In April 2017, Sen. Kennedy introduced the Reforming Finance for
Local Economies Act aiming to help local community banks and
credit unions by removing them from the scope of the Dodd-Frank
regulations.

"They were not responsible for the 2008 financial crisis,"
Sen. Kennedy said.  "However, they are wrongly bearing the brunt
of the regulatory burden imposed by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.  Our community
financial institutions need to get back to doing what they do
best, which is helping our local economies grow."

Huge compliance costs led "more than 1,700 U.S. banks to close
since 2010." The main effects of these foreclosures are obviously
a more limited access to capital for entrepreneurs and job losses.

The recent scandal that affected Equifax could have changed his
mind.  The company had, in the wake of the data breach, required
affected consumers to forfeit their right to join a class action
lawsuit against the company in order to receive credit protection.
The firm eventually backpedaled when the CFPB revealed the legal
trick, and Sen. Kennedy declared "Equifax needs to be transparent
with the public, and that includes ensuring that consumers
understand what legal recourses they may be giving up simply by
trying to protect themselves from the repercussions of the
breach."

There are three points that need to be addressed to understand why
class action should be preferred over arbitration and therefore
why Sen. Kennedy should approve the CFPB's arbitration rule.

The first advantage of the class action is the pooling.  Unlike
arbitration, which is an individual process, a class action allows
consumers to gather their complaints under the same flag. This
changes everything when it comes to deciding whether or not it is
worth complaining for a few dollars.  It is the basics of
negotiating power: you will have more credibility and more weight
if you are associated to thousands of other consumers than if you
are alone.

"Many scholars who study complex litigation worry that class
action waivers in arbitration agreements potentially allow banks
and other large corporations to avoid being held accountable by
consumers," LSU Law Professor Margaret S. Thomas said.  "Small-
dollar harms may tend to go unremedied unless they are aggregated
in class actions.  The availability of class actions thus leads to
increased enforcement of consumer rights."

The second advantage of the class action is that a class action
needs to be certified by a federal judge to go forward, and any
settlement must be approved as fair to the class.  On the other
side, arbitration requires private arbitrators and can be
overturned by courts in very limited cases; it is a non-regulated,
private process.

"Class action rules currently require courts to oversee settlement
terms to ensure fairness to the class," Ms. Thomas said. "Congress
could address the tendency of some courts to approve class actions
settlements through a precise reforms capping attorney's fees at
some fixed percentage of the recovery, while preserving the
ability of consumers to join together in suits."

Thirdly, the arbitration process tends to be a secret process
while a class action is a public procedure that provides
transparency to stakeholders: consumers, associations, media and
the general public.  Ms. Thomas underlines that "we have a
venerable First Amendment constitutional tradition presuming a
public right of access to court proceedings and civil records.  No
such access exists in arbitration -- this can keep matters of
public concern from being reported by the press."

It is crucial that consumers could have a free choice when it
comes to decide whether class action or arbitration is the best
process to assert their rights.  Here, binding arbitration clauses
included in contracts are no longer sustainable as they contradict
one of the basic principles this country has been built on:
freedom of choice.

Nevertheless, Stephe Waguespack, the president and CEO of the
Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, pointed out that
he is "hearing from a lot of banks -- community banks especially -
- here in Louisiana that, if the arbitration language isn't
allowed to go forward, you'll see a rash of class-action lawsuits
coming in."

Such a statement echoes what the executive vice president of the
American Financial Services Association recently declared about
the Equifax case.  "Nobody knows any of the facts yet, but the
plaintiff bar didn't waste any time.  From our perspective,
arbitration is most beneficial . . . both in terms of the consumer
and the business being able to address the individual complaint,"
Bill Himpler said.

There is a legitimate fear the implementation of the CFPB's
arbitration rule would bring about a surge in the number of class
actions filled out by attorneys and as a result an increase in
terms of legal costs supported by financial institutions.
Therefore, financial industry needs now to turn this threat in a
new opportunity and a few things can be recommended.

Compliance within financial institutions is a recent function that
has been created in the 2000s and there is no doubt that this the
CFPB's rule will create new jobs in compliance departments to
avoid what happened with Wells Fargo.  Over the last few years,
people working in such units have gained significant exposure,
working hands in hands with the front and middle offices.  They
acquired new skills that put them at the forefront of the day to
day operations.  These are the people financial institutions need
to invest in right now to prevent in the future any wrongdoings
that could trigger class actions.

Hence, this is also an opportunity for a broad range of financial
advisors such as Deloitte, KPMG, Ernst & Young and
PricewaterhouseCoopers to offer compliance packages and dedicated
trainings to senior compliance officers.  They would provide
tailored and efficient internal procedures that will improve the
compliance-awareness of financial institutions and likely prevent
any breach of data such as in the Equifax case.  Thanks to this
new arbitration rule, there is no doubt the financial industry
will be well equipped, more resilient and their customers well
served. [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  * * *